The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWaterfront Development - Draft Supplement to Environmental I ram. W 1W SCH 1 87091612 L DRAFT SUPPLEMQtT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-2 FOR i. THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT L PREPARED BY: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 L PREPARED FOR: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 CONTACT PERSON: CATHERINE W HARA PHONE: (714) 536-5271 JANUARY I2, 1988 i I +rr L GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY CONT'D MITIGATION_MEASURES testing of soils engineer. Cer- tification of such reports, for each phase, shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to is- suance of occupancy permits. 6. Design provisions such as pile foundation systems, shall be required to permit structures to withstand liquefaction without serious consequences. If sig- nificant liquefaction hazard +� zones are identified in the sup- plemental geotechnical investi- gation, the development plan should be revised to avoid these areas or the hazard should be mitigated by densification of the liquefiable soil or other recognized techniques. Pile foundations are recommended for all structures. LEVEL OF SIGNIFTCANCE AFTER MITIGATION k" Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the sig- nificant impacts of the Geology and Soils for the proposed project to a level of non-significance. L L Ld ii it aW BIOTIC RESQ RCFS POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATJOH_HEASURES On-site wetlands of .8 acres, and 7. To mitigate for the loss of on- restorable degraded wetlands that site wetlands, the applicant have previously been filled amounting shall prepare a detailed wetland - =to l.4 ' acres would be -permanently - restoration plan that complies 60 filled. -The filling of wetlands is with the Coastal Act requirements ~- considered significant if not miti- discussed above (see text, Miti- gated. gation Measures pgs. 21 through 36) and takes into consideration Off-site wetlands could be affected the additional criteria provided by a change in urban runoff that by DFG. Further discussions with presently flows, via a culvert, under the Coastal Commission, DFG. and L Beach Boulevard, east of the site. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service This effect could be significant if will be necessary to determine not mitigated. the most appropriate restoration site, the type of wetland to be restored, the necessary acreage, the timing of the restoration, the monitoring plan, and other considerations. These issues will be clarified prior to Coastal Commission review of a Coastal 161 Development Permit for the af- fected phase of the project. Due to the various constraints detailed in the discussion of potential off-site restoration at different locations in the Huntington Beach area, it may be necessary to fulfill the mitigation requirement through the payment of an in-lieu fee, consistent with the Coastal Commission's adopted wetlands guidelines and the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program. V N V BIOTIC RESOURCES (CONT'D.) POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES B. The developer shall submit a complete mitigation program for all on-site and off-site wetlands effects described in the above 40 analysis, approved by the Coastal Commission and DFG, prior to issuance of building or grading permits by the City for any devel- opment which will cause the wetland to be filled. The restoration building plan should generally state when restoration work will commence and terminate, should include detailed diagrams drawn to scale showing any alterations to natural landforms, and should include a .list of plant species to be used, as well as the method u of plant introduction (i .e., seeding, natural succession, vegetative transplantation, etc). LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts can be mitigated tc . a level of non-significance with appropriate mitigation measures in place prior to development of the wetland and degraded wetland portion of the site. The City of Huntington Beach is requiring full mitigation of loss of on-site wetlands and potential effects +�• on the wetlands across Beach Boulevard prior to issuance of permits which may impact the wetland. Therefore, there is sufficient mitigation to reduce the project effects to a level of non-significance after these measures are taken. iv LAND USE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES The project is a marked change in 9. The developer shall either maintain land use from what exists on the the wetland or enhance the property site now. . The proposal entails clear- fronting Beach Boulevard with a ti ing -the . property of all existing -graduated/meandered : landscaped _ 4. improvements, in phases, and con- setback of not less than 25 feet structing a major visitor serving for residential and 50 feet for resort complex and up to 894 dwelling commercial , from curbline, along units. The proposed development is the distance of the entire front- substantially more intense than the age. The intent of this landscaped two story motel and 13.3 units per setback is to provide a visual acre mobile home park (please see and aesthetic buffer for the project description in SEIR) for property to the east. Appropriate proposed development. The proposed landscaping amenities shall be project is in accordance with the included, to the approval of the L„ City's General Plan, Downtown Specific Planning Director. Plan, Redevelopment Project Program and the Local Coastal Program. 10. The developer shall screen the mobile homes at the western portion On-site effects are as follows: of the site by means of a six • Potential effects on resi foot high block wall on top of a dential portion of project one and one-half foot high berm Id and remaining mobile home and substantial mature landscaping, park (Pacific Mobile Home to the approval of the Planning Park) . Director. Inherent potential impacts from the high intensity 11. The developer shall complete the commercial/hotel uses on site plan review process es- adjacent residential com- tablished within the Conditional ponent are substantially Use Permit regulations to ensure reduced by project design compatibility with all elements features. of the City's General Plan and the Local Coastal Program es- tablished by the Coastal Commis- sion. v i� i i LAND USE (_CONT'D) POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Off-site effects result from f visual ,ua aesthetic and development intensity incompatibilities to the east. Additional effects on the wetlands land use is noted to occur unless mitigated. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The mitigation measures required above significantly reduce impacts on surrounding development, and also act as project betterment. Increased setbacks, project design details and buffers provided will reduce the effects to a level of non-significance. The effects on surrounding land uses will be limited to those described in the view/aesthetic section, and will not affect property values, future land use or property maintenance. There is no causal relationship which affects surrounding property which will lead to disinvest- ment or change in land use of the surrounding properties. The impacts de- scribed in this section affect a limited number of mobile homes (up to six) and limited properties to the east, across Beach Boulevard. With mitigation, these effects are reduced to a non-significant level . vi w i� L IMPACTS L Short-term Construction Related Im acts I Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air �.. pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be gener- ated during grading and site preparation. . Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors") to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 402, the emissions can be reduced by 50%. Applying the above factors to the 40 approximately 44 acres of the project, a one month grading cycle and a seven year project buildout, results in an estimate of 4.4 tons per year (24 pounds per day) of particulate emissions released. This is a small amount compared to the 81 tons per day of particulates currently released in Orange County. A diesel powered scraper is the most common equipment used for grading operations. For this type of project, three pieces of heavy equipment are normally expected to operate at one time. Based on this assumption, if all of the equipment operated for eight hours per day the following emissions would result; 35 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 149 pounds per day of L nitrogen oxides, 15 pounds per day of hydrocarbons, 11 pounds per day of sulfur oxides, and approximately 10 pounds per day of particulates. These emissions generated by construction equipment are considered very minor. In some cases grading may be near existing development. Care should be taken to minimize the generation of dust. Common practice for minimizing L dust generation is watering prior to, and during, grading. Local Effects. Carbon Monoxide and particulate levels at the site and ► for the immediate adjacent area are not considered to cause any significant w health concern or impacts due to rapid dispersion into the atmosphere almost immediately because of constant on-shore wind conditions. In addition, the f project conforms to Orange County's "Subregionai Element for the 1982 Re- gional Air Quality Management Plan", which calls for new development to incorporate commercial uses near residential communities to reduce vehicle trips and trip lengths. Because of these factors, on-site and nearby off- site effects are nonsignificant. Regional Effects. In order to determine the regional impacts of the proposed project, an air quality analysis was performed using the Urbemis v 69 L 3 AW 6. Computer Model distributed by the California Air Resources Board (CARE). The results of the analysis for the year 2000 are shown in Table 5 and in Appen- dix J. The emissions generated by the project were then compared to threshold L emissions criteria developed by the SCAQMD, in their April , 1987, version of the Air Quality Handbook. This comparison is illustrated on Table 6. L The comparative analysis shows that the project will significantly exceed SCAQMD threshold criteria for carbon monoxide emissions and, to a lesser degree, total organic gas and nitrogen oxide levels. SCAQMD has established these criteria for determining thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. These threshold levels are shown in Table 6. According to SCAQMD guidelines, if the proposed project exceeds the threshold criteria, mitigation measures should be proposed. The impacts associated with project ikhl related traffic will be counter-balanced by future improvements in auto emis- sions rates. +III IGATION MEASURES Air quality impacts are projected to occur with the project. The hotel complex proposed as a component of this project is designed as a destination resort complex with most amenities within walking distance of the site. The air quality impacts associated with visitor trips would be reduced with this type of land use if a Transportation System Management (TSM) program is in- stituted, especially during summer months. Also, many of the staff employed by the hotels will utilize public transportation or bicycles, due to their lack of private transportation. �.. In accordance with SCAQMD guidelines, the following measures are in- cluded to mitigate both short-term and long-term air quality impacts. 12. Dust suppression measures, such as regular watering and early paving of the road shall be implemented by the project proponent to reduce emissions during construction and grading. 13. Parking structures will be ventilated, in conformance with the Uniform Building Code standards, to reduce vehicle emission levels within the facility. 14. A Transportation System Management (TSM) plan will be initiated and will include the following components: Provide bus services to regional activity centers within the County for hotel visitors. +� 70 W 4 W - TABLE 5 PROJECT EMISSIONS SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD jw RESIDENTIAL HOTEL COMMERCIAL HEALTH CLUB Unit 895 DU 1,600 rccros 99,000 sq. ft. 40,000 sq. ft. Daily Trip 7160 9,600 2,624 468 Generation :•• Carbon Monoxide E50 1,093 227 43 (lbs/day) Total Organic 83 107 23 4 Gases (lbs/day) NITROGEN OXIDE 103 151 35 7 (lbs/clay) 61 60 71 4 TABLE 6 SUKMARY OF AIR PUALITY IMPACTS a. a.. AQMD THRESHOLD HEALTH CRITERIA TOTAL _RESIDMIAL _ HOTEL COMMERCIAL CLUB i6d Carbon 550 22I3 850 1093 227 43 Monoxide (lbs/day) L+ Total Organic 75 217 83 107 23 4 Gases (lbs/day) Nitrogen Oxide 100 296 103 151 35 7 (lbs/day) M. 72 . Ir. Provide shuttle services to local activity centers including Main Street and the City and State beaches during the summer peak period. • Facilitate pedestrian access to beach amenities, via at-grade crosswalks and elevated crossings. Promote employee use of public transportation. k" • Provide bus shelters, benches and bus pockets near the proposed project. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The project will generate emissions which exceed SCAQMD threshold cri- teria. These emissions will provide an incremental increase to degradation of future regional air quality and will not be individually noticeable in the region. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of the proposed project are not considered significant. 73 L 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCESJARCHAEOLOGY A cultural/scientific assessment was conducted by the LSA's Cultural Resource Management Division (October, 1987) and is included in Appendix E. The findings are discussed in the following paragraphs. li,.► ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The study area lies one and one-half miles north of the Santa Ana River channel in Huntington Beach, and within the Santa Ana River floodplain. Currently, the property is developed with a two story motel/golf course/ restaurant facility, a mobile home park and City beach maintenance yard which encompass 44.4 acres. A small wetland area adjacent to Beach Boulevard remains undisturbed. +•� The archival records were checked tc review previously recorded material to determine whether any archaeological or historical significant sites are located in the area of the project. The record search also provided informa- tion concerning any previous archaeological surveys within the project areas. The following archaeological and historical records for the project area were reviewed: �+ National Register of Historic Places (1986 and subsequent updates) California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976) _ California Historic Landmarks (1979) �., Orange County Historic Landmarks Orange County Place Names (1966) . An archival review and a walk-over survey were conducted to determine the potential for paleontological resources on-site. A records check and . literature review of published and unpublished geological and paleontological literature was conducted; this review included the files of the vertebrate 1r� and Invertebrate Paleontology Sections at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. C„ IMPACTS Archaeology A records review at the University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeo- logical Survey, the information center for the California Archaeological Inventory for Orange County, was conducted. A limited walk-over of the �., project area was performed by LSA's Archaeologist. 74 jrr The records check yielded negative results; the closest recorded site, CA-Ora-I49, lies northwest of the project site. On August 29, 1987, a limited field review of the project location was conducted. Since a mobile home park, hotel , and golf course cover most of + the project area, the field review was limited to the exposed ground along Beach Boulevard. The field review was conducted by walking back and forth over this portion of the development area while carefully inspecting the W ground surface. These transects included careful inspection of any visible cuts in drainage areas and rodent holes for any indication of buried remains. Any available rodent burrow backdirt was inspected for buried cultural mater- ial . No evidence of prehistoric remains were discovered during the field reconnaissance. The proposed development will not impact any known archaeo- logical or historical resources. However buried remains, .which generally go undetected during a surface survey, could be' encountered during the devel- opment. Paleontolopv The literature review determined that no fossil localities have been recorded on-site. However, sites have been found along the bluffs of the Huntington Mesa area, north and west of the project. - Review of archival data revealed that the study area is underlain ,by Quaternary age alluvium. Due to the geologically young age of the alluvium, there is a low potential for significant fossils in these sediments. How- ever, the fossil bearing sediments of the San Pedro Formation lie only one mile north of the project area. A walk-over survey of the project was not conducted since little open space and few exposed areas exist within the project boundaries. However, the site is unlikely to yield any scientifically significant fossils. MITIGATION MEASURES 14. If any archaeological or historical materials are found during con- struction, a qualified archaeologist will be contacted in order that the appropriate mitigation measures can be taken. 15. A qualified paleontologist will be retained to'monitor grading and salvage any fossils exposed by construction activity. 75 r. 16. A qualified paleontologist, listed with the County of Orange, will attend the pre-grade meeting with the contractor, developer and City representative to ensure cooperation for the paleontological monitoring. +�+ 17. Fossils collected during grading of the Project, if any, will be curated with an appropriate museum facility. k„ LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the sig- nificant impacts of the proposed project to a level of nonsignificance. r.+ �r 76 w 4.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY -FNYIRONMENTAL SETTING Flooding The Federal Emergency Management Agency administers the National Flood Insurance Program. The purpose of the program is to identify potentially hazardous flood plain areas, promote comprehensive planning and building regulations in those areas, and provide flood insurance to residents in the affected areas. The City of Huntington Beach is a participant in the pro- gram, and portions of the City, including all of the subject site, is within potential flood • zones. A 100-year flood is defined as the flooding which - would occur from the Overflow of the Santa Ana River due to a series of storms, accumulated runoff and high water tables. The project area lies w. within the 100-year flood hazard zone. The project area is located in flood zone Al2, Elevation 11, with a projected 100-year flood level of 11 feet above sea level . The project area has an elevation of approximately two to eight feet above sea level , meaning that in the event of a 100-year flood, water can be expected to rise three to nine feet above the existing ground, depending on the location within the proposed development. It should be -- - noted .that the-existing development on the site is -not flood proofed,- and is within the projected flood zone. Floatation of-existing mobile homes-during a flood could cause serious property damage and injury. Noise The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a Noise Ordinance which out- lines criteria and standards for determining compatibility of land uses. Table 2 illustrates the exterior noise standards required by the Ordinance for noise zones within the City. These zones are defined as follows: Noise Zone I - all residential properties, Noise Zone 2 - all professional office r.. and public institutional properties, Noise Zone 3 - all coirmercial properties with the exception of professional office properties and Noise Zone 4 - all industrial properties. A figure depicting existing noise contours has been included in EIR 82-2. It should be noted that the Noise Ordinance standards are stricter than those outlined in the Noise Element of the General Plan, and therefore have been used for assessing noise impacts. As shown in Table 6, the exterior noise level of residences shall not exceed 55 dBA during daytime hours and 55 dBA during nighttime hours. 11 w r. i.o TABLE 7 XTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS KOISE ZONE NOISE LEVEL TIME PERIOD 1 55 db(A) 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 50 db(A) 10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 2 55 db(A) Anytime Y.« 3 60 db(A) Anytime 4 70 db(A) Anytime Source: City of Huntington Beach Noise Crdinance. IMPACTS y,. Flooding As presented in the previous section, the project area is located in a 100-year flood zone. In this area, flecding up to a depth of 11 feet could occur during a 100-year storm. Therefcre, any development will be required to comply with requirements issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency pertaining to the design of structures in flood hazard zones. Since the proposed project will occur on previously developed land, it is not anticipated that there will be significant quantities of additional run-off in the area. wise The Initial Study (Appendix A) prepared for the proposed project and Negative Declaration 84-14 for Circulation Element Amendment 84-1 (Appendix G) did not identify traffic related noise as a significant impact on the adjacent properties or roadways. However, certain project related activities 78 v 1.� W and facilities, such as building construction and parking structures, would generate additional on-site noise and are addressed below. These two activities, construction and parking structures, generate impulsive noises which are penalized 5 dBA by the Noise Ordinance, Intermit- tent activities such as engine startup, door slamming and tire squeal are considered impulsive noises. An adjustment of 5 dBA to the residential noise standards yields a criterion level of 50 dBA for daytime events and 45 dBA w, for nighttime events. However, the Noise Ordinance allows a 15 dBA increase if the duration of the event would be less than I minute per hour. When added to the standard adjusted for impulsive noise above, the maximum noise level allowed is 65 dBA for daytime events and 60 dBA for nighttime events. (The above is a simplification of 'the Noise Ordinance standards:') To -assess the impact of impulsive noise generated by the'two activities a maximum noise level of 65 dBA should not be exceeded for daytime events and 60 dBA for �. nighttime events. Construction Activities. Noise associated with construction will occur during each phase of development, however this noise is considered short-term and is not anticipated to significantly impact adjacent residences. During the early stage of construction, piles will be driven into the ground as part of the foundation structure. Impulsive noise -associated with this activity 'will be annoying to adjacent land uses,. however this extraneous noise is not considered significant due to the short duration of 'the operations, approxi- mately three to four weeks. All construction activities, including the pile driving operations, will be limited to the hours of 7, a.m. to 8 p.m. as mandated by the Noise Ordinance, thus minimizing construction related noise impacts on adjacent land uses. i" Parking_Structure Noise. Parking structures will be constructed during each phase of the project. At least ore side wall of each structure will face residential areas along Walnut Avenue. Traffic associated with parking Aa structures is not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, however the maximum sound levels generated by instantaneous car door slam- ming, engine start-up, car pass-bys, and sweeping operations can be annoying to nearby residents. Tire squeal may also be a problem depending on the type of parking surface. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with some parking lot activities are presented below in Table S. The noise levels presented are for a distance of 50 feet from the source, and are the maximum 'w noise level generated. A range is given to reflect the variability of noise generated by various automobile types and driving styles. 79 66 TABLE- MAXIMUM-NOISE LEVEES GENERATED BY PARKING ACTIVITIES (DBA AT 50 FEET) EVENT MXIMUMNOISE LEVEL (dBA) Door Slam 60 to 70 Engine Start-up 60 to 70 LA Car pass-by 55 to 70 Sweeper 75 Sweeper Noise bevels. Two types of sweepers may be empl oyed; a truck sweeper and a vacuum sweeper. The truck sweeper has a sweeper and vacuum mechanism mounted on a pick-up truck chassis. A vacuum sweeper is a small unit that is pushed by the operator. Generally, the noise levels associated with both sweepers are higher than noise due to parking activities. Both types of sweepers have previously been monitored at approximately 75 dBA (Mestre Greve, 1986) . It is usually the case that parking structures are swept at night, thus noise barriers may be required to mitigate sweeper noise to acceptable levels during nighttime hours. However, these measures would be more severe due to the timing of the sweeping activities, i .e. during nighttime hours. Therefore, the sweeping operations should be limited to daytime hours when they would be less distracting to adjacent land uses. 60 Without some type of noise barrier, the residential noise limit ident- ified in the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance would occasionally be exceeded. In order to design effective barriers, it is essential to understand the 6 following principles of acoustics. When there is no barrier between the noise source and the receiver, 6 noise travels directly from one to the other, this is called the "line of sight". When a barrier is placed in between the noise source and the re- ceiver, it interrupts the "line of sight" and redistributes the sound energy into one of three paths; a "transmitted path" through the barrier, a "reflec- he ted path" directed away from the receiver and a "diffracted path" over the top of the barrier. w £0 6W a. rr i rr Noise travelling along the "transmitted path" and the "reflected path" yr is negligible. However, if the barriers have gaps or holes in the walls, are made of a lighter material , such as wood, or parallel surfaces provide for rebounding, attenuation of noise along this pathway will be reduced. Of primary concern is the "diffracted path" in which noise reaches the receiver by bending over the top of the barrier. The area behind the barrier in which diffraction occurs is known as the "shadow zone", the limits of L, which are defined by the straight path of the noise from the top of the barrier to the ground behind the barrier. Receivers located in the "shadow zone" will experience some sound attenuation; the amount of attenuation is directly related to how much the sound must bend. The reduction in sound level provided by a barrier may be expressed as a function of a variable, the Fresnel number (N) . Fresnel number (N) is de- fined as twice the path length difference divided by the wavelength (1) (or 14=2(d/1)) . Path length difference is the difference in distance that sound rust travel in diffracting over a wall rather than passing through it. As the Fresnel number increases, the amount of attenuation also increases, thus the two have a direct relationship. This principle should be taken into consideration when designing sound attenuation barriers. Also to be con- sidered in the design of the barrier is the 130 -foot separation between the side wall of the parking structure and the residential property lines. This distance will decrease the amount of noise reaching these residences due to the increase in path length difference. MITIGATION MEASURES Flooding 18. Conformance to mitigation measures specified in EIR 82-2. �+ 19. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires that devel- opments within the Special Floed Hazard Zone elevate any habitable areas of a dwelling unit to or above the expected level of flooding y„ for a 100-year event. Non-residential habitable structures shall also be elevated or flood proofed to FEMA standards. 20. Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to all structures so as to direct surface water run-off and roof drainage away from foundations and slabs, toward suitable discharge facili- ties. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed on pavements b. or adjacent to buildings. 81 w km bag r.i Ir. 21. A grading plan for the site is required to ensure compliance with y� FEMA regulations, City gradirc regulations and proper site drain- age. Rise Without some type of barrier, the 60 dSA noise limit identified in the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance would occasionally be exceeded at adjacent residences along Walnut Avenue. Attenuation of any noise in excess of City criteria shall be achieved through the following measures. These measures shall be followed unless noise analyses, performed for future phases, deter- mine - that the construction of all of the following measures is not war- ranted. - 22. A six foot masonry wall shall be constructed adjacent to existing �. and proposed residential properties along Walnut Avenue which will act as a noise barrier or other sound attenuating design features subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 23. A landscaped berm shall be constructed between the masonry wall and the curb edge for noise attenuation. wa 24. Restrict sweeping operations within the parking structure to day- time hours, between 7 a.m, and 8 p.m. 25. A textured parking surface, such as asphalt or textured concrete, shall be used in the parking structure to reduce tire squeal . 26. Design of the parking structure shall incorporate one of the fol- lowing noise attenuation options: a. Enclose the parking structure's sidewall parallel to the resi- dential area. b. Allow openings in the structure's sidewalls and place a mason- ry wall on the top level of the structure parallel to the residential areas. C. Or other sound attenuating design features to the approval of �- the Planning Director. L 82 �.i A. ,rr Ir. 27. Maintain a 130 foot separation between the residential and parking jw structure uses or other sound attenuating design feature to the approval of the Planning Director. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION w Flooding The mitigation measures included in the project will aid in reducing the potential impacts of flooding in the project area. Compliance with FEMA and City drainage regulations will reduce the effects to a level of non-signifi- cance. wise iw There will be no significant impacts after all sound attenuating mitiga- tion measures are implemented. W S3 Ir. lw. 4.8 AESTHETICS Ll ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project site lies immediately inland of the beach owned and operated by the City of Huntington Beach, with Pacific Coast Highway dividing the two land uses. Huntington City Beach, extending from Beach Boulevard to the Municipal Pier, is a wide strand with attractively landscaped parking L areas. Current uses on the project site include a motel , City of Huntington Beach maintenance yard, a mobile home complex and a golf course. Scenic Highways Element According to the Scenic Highway Element of-the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is under consideration by the State •r as a scenic highway and the City of Huntington Beach has developed an im- plementing plan to qualify PCH for official State Scenic Highway status. This plan includes: developing a zoning ordinance to govern development within the corridor along PCH designed to "protect and enhance scenic val- ues", constructing new utilities and relocating existing utilities under- ground, enforcing maintenance codes, and utilizing conservation and planning _--legislation, -wherever applicable, to enhance -and protect- aesthetic and scenic values. Also designated in the Element are "landscape corridors" which are local roadways which provide regional access to the beach. The. City has recognized the view potential of these roadways, but it was not felt that these roads should be proposed as scenic routes since they do not possess the unique scenic characteristics associated with this designation. Beach Boulevard from Adams Street to PCH has been designated a "Landscape Corridor". The Scenic Highways Element outlines land use -and development controls in Section 3.2.3.3 which include requiring landscape plans of all private developments. Coastal Element The Element, which was approved by the California Coastal Commission, designates PCH from Goldenwest to Beach Boulevard as a scenic resource within the coastal zone. Four types of strategies to improve and protect scenic resources are outlined: 1) restrictions on the kind and intensity of devel- opment permitted near visually important resources; 2) controls on siting, design and orientation of allowable uses; 3) sign controls; and 4) screening, landscaping and other improvement of existing visual blight. E4 r.+ IYa w. r. 6& The Coastal Element has designated the project site for the following land uses: Residential/Conservation in the northern half and Commercial/Sup- port Recreation in the southern half which is closest to PCH and to the beach. Development of the southern half is intended to complement the City's beach amenity. No height limitations were applied to future development +M within this area. Existing development on-site consists of low rise buildings which do not W significantly hinder the scenic quality of the area, however they do not enhance the area's scenic quality either due to their age and condition. To illustrate the existing viewshed, five vantage points were selected to photo- graphically illustrate representative views (see Figure 14). Figures 15 to 14 show the visual impacts from these vantage points. IMPACTS Visual The proposed development consists -of four hotels which range from nine to fifteen stories, a three story tennis/health center and a three story retail center. These illustrate the maximum allowable development, however the proposed plans are intended to be of a smaller scale (see Section 3.0 Project Description). Even with the scaled down development, the proposed development is of a higher density than is presently on-site. Figures 20 to 22 are renderings of the proposed projects elevations as seen from the City beach and PCH (Vantage Points 1 to 3) . These renderings have been super- imposed over the existing development. The renderings show the proposed building configuration, architectural style and height included in the devel- oper's submittal . The dotted building outline shown extending above the buildings, demonstrates the maximum permitted development (plus or minus 10% of proposal) as outlined in the proposed DOA. Figures 23 to 24 illustrate the project's visual impact on areas north of the site (Vantage Points 4 and r.+ 5) . As Figures 20 to 22 illustrate, the proposed complex will result in significant alterations of the viewshed from the beach and along PCH. The project is at a much higher density than the surrounding area, and thus will be an obvious addition to the area's viewscape. Visitors to the City beach will experience a less of visibility of continual open space along the coast and the northern bluff areas. Due to its greater height than the surrounding development, the proposed project will significantly impact existing visual experiences from the City Beach area (viewing from the sand) . 85 W 14 Vantage Point Locations JI q�J I��. i iL 0 o Rio °t��°1►1�. - �� _.._ �.:_ .�A""= �q'lw.y f-��er�,c�. �I o P, �C.�Z\� 7 (�A c ■r� r!Eld °o ' w o� �I L�''�—_�J�l, l_r �� l—p. 8f of•�1 '-Ir X I sr% b ° � I E;• S Y �•n ��rlJ �MA uQV OR �� C� vOR --� 10 r-- ° r �T •1V lS t'V11V•i 1J � ';'•LL BKt:28 0 J-.11a.ler— ■ rti, 2h — ell �z� .� -I—HA MlLTrait r— •�. . \ '� 39 \A � llll`ll�ji,�g�r� 4 Project Site: 1��' ., ............ ° ter IA- hog :,; ... O'yS 1 tiFf e o� q£ BM" Scale in Feet h' 0 1000 2000 11125/87:GD Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 1987 N - t 3 1 im 15 Vantage Point #1 IS m :: .. ... : ....: . s 6;gog s- s � a � f z Y : NOM f f s o c � Fifx 4 � 4 9 ..................... ,............ .................... i Point16 Vantage 2 z L h r G r < t � Ix i v Iv s �a +1 2 t �Sl Z+ . Y 17 Vantage Point #3 d: >t c _ _ ' `T "r � — s 1 4 C 3 i� yx 9 L n' 18 Vantage Point #4 ' . �� - �r � f Y r"ah" e zr t w« ��+sue„.� ..��„�'•� "�"`�,��:,".�.�;„':. -, � „�'"'"� ..'�:� r' i... �.� �� 1 e� � �. .� .��' �. .��..�,.,,;�w' ".I > :.:� `� �' w •''" "'_ "�* r .::.sue e .s :-,"s. `a• •:�r n;.�s ss,:. 'mow'. ",.. 20 Viewshed Alteration Point q^ =i i MeXIMUM AROWSbISi i i .xr'"m.•'.4:«v.::,. �.':�w'9.w::*."M.....,per„"�. v..�p..„.x � �' "1' .::xr .:.�. _ #. ... M .. - { F ..y .i .f a t Source: LSA Assoc. Inc. Note: Development is on inured side of Pacific Coast Highway. 21 Viewshed Alteration .. . - 1. ..� . :.. s.: .. _^ j ...; .:w.... ..::;w :w .. ..:: ........: ". ..... '�:: . .... :: ......... .. '� : a ,� : ., , - . ,: .ara d ` �' - 1111 , ' :;. 4 a, • �:. - .: 1. p I�'' ��1 I°�I'... u��_ € „ !1 'i II� I��III E ....... i OEM- II hi 1 i l I .:. :f, _ I s i �: � ., � � 1. .11" - Mq- �> ', y . - M L { _ E� h" ,',� s * �." w ,,a^, 11 �, - ill 11 ali 1. tau:'^. 'M ;�tF= _ .ti :„w :.�:,, ,! . 11 . _ _ :._ _ _ a - _ ..� Source. LSA Assoc. Inc. Note. Development is on inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. AlterationViewshed L' 9 d th 'a � e Allowable W @ W 05 W @ W ` S .; � .�,.a,ra � •s "�. °„ fi a:, a � tE-"T .. ,«: �. � ^;. x � s,y . z -s T^a �, c 'C a � ^i.'�a to + n ;,:.,, w s f. --' 3£"� sa 4 h -� a r� •.ti : {� Tx 1-d A'. Y x s ,, � � T"�, s,d �"i ,� :�,„: •, x r is y t:E, •k «, x a s 4 x r x e t w i Source. LSA Assoc. Inc. Nate. Development i s ®n inland side :of Pacific Coast Highway. 23 Viewshed Alteration -- Vantage Point Maximum uo air Height m: ry ::.: ....... n ( 9 k: a f � i� Source: LSA Assoc. Inc. a Maximum24 it IHeight r # js E E ..:: rn i F � 37.. r� :•5 a & S. Source: LSAT Assoc. Inc. it L 4 This impact is reduced by incorporation of architectural features into building and site design which allows for greater visibility of coastal i.. amenities (see Figures 20 to 22). The hotel complex on the southern half of the site has been designed with tower structures separated by lower rising buildings, which create staggered view envelopes. These envelopes allow greater visual access to the City beach by northern land uses and the area north of PCH by beach visitors. On-site residential shown in Figure 3 has been configured into a clustered design which also allows for greater visual access of the beach-related amenities. Also, the design chosen for the development complements -the City beach facilities and the Downtown Specific Plan area by providing a soft Mediterranean architectural style which blends with surrounding architecture. The project architecture is consistent with the Downtown Architectural Design Guidelines on file in the City's Planning Department. rr Pacific Coast iiighway ' (PCH) is currently under consideration for des- ignation as a State Scenic Highway and thus is considered a significant scenic resource. Travellers along PCH will notice significant modification to the continuity of the landscape experienced on the inland side of PCH. hIJ Proposed restrictive covenants will preserve views of the beach and ocean from PCH. - The proposed development will significantly impact the existing scenic PCH corridor, due to ' its overall height and bulk. However, the project's design and architecture attempt to incorporate the development into the existing viewshed, thus minimizing its impact. Some existing northern residences, approximately one-half mile away, will lose some visibility of coastal related amenities (Figures 20 and 21), w. however, this loss is not considered a significant modification of the view- shed quality. The property directly to the north of the subject site is in a low-lying depression. They do not currently enjoy any view of the coast and will not be effected by the project. Light and Glare An increase in the amounts of light and glare will be experienced by adjacent land uses and roadways resulting from the project. This is due to the addition of on-site street and safety lighting, parking structure light- ing, tennis court lighting and reflecting building windows. Proposed and existing residential units would be affected by the addi- tion of these on-site light sources especially those associated with the 97 r.r f tennis courts. Lighting fixtures are to be used to focus light directly on the associated activity and shield adjacent land uses from extraneous light. Due to the height and building design of the proposed hotel/commercial project, glare will be generated due to the addition of reflective surfaces, such as windows, which may be distracting to adjacent land uses and roadways. However, the project's orientation on-site and its architectural design minimize the amount of glare. Glare due to afternoon sunshine will be re- flected away from adjacent land uses across Huntington Street, i.e. to the west, due to the on-site orientation of the project's buildings. Also, the project's architecture 'is such that less than 50% of the building surface is covered by glass, which reduces the amount of reflective surfaces which pro- duce glare. The addition of amenities such as overhangs and balconies will further decrease the amount of reflected light. Therefore, the project"s orientation and architectural design help to mitigate the amount of addi- tional glare produced by the project and no additional measures are neces- sary. There are no reflective/glare issues related to the residential portion �., of the project. Street lighting may effect adjacent properties to the north, if not mitigated. Shade/Shadow Effects A shade/shadow analysis has been performed to ascertain the amount of shadow created by the project. A computer simulation of the shadows created by the hotel towers (tallest potential building height permitted) are shown in Figures 25, 26 and 27. The simulated shadows shown are for the worst case when the sun is at the lowest azimuth on the horizon for the year (December 22). The shadows simulated across the site plan for analysis are for 10:00 a.m. , 12:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. The shadows created by the setting sun at 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm progress to fill approximately 20% of the site's residential area approaching the 4:00 pm hour. Because the breaks between the buildings allow intermittent sha- dows, there will be a fanning effect of shadow alternating with sunshine k. across the new residences being built as part of this project. Off-site effects are minimal , as can be seen in Figure 27. The shadow extends into a portion of the adjacent mobile home park and a few townhomes at the northerly property line. This shadow will be temporary while it sweeps across the affected area. The impacts on adjacent properties are considered temporary (only during the shorter days of the winter months, and 98 25 Shade/ Shadow Study Dec. 22 Worst Case Scenario 10:00 AM rq PHASE YII (".� .......,—.,,.o.. ss LLI Fl rr Z ' s z, t ! . €f mac* •a � .�"�° � �� '° �II�+� `\ --— —— -- -- ST IC --._..-- PHASE 1 PHASE 11'v................1.,, PNASE III PHASE IV PHASE V L,,,,,,.,.,,....... PHASE YI FIRST CLASS HOTEL TENMIS AND HEALTH CONFERENCE HOTEL ALL-SUITE HOTEL SHOPPING PLAZA LU EURY HOTEL --- CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE 26 Shade/ Shadow Study Dec. 22 Worst Case Scenario 12:00 PM . PHASE VII PncENruL .,0 �0 o F` T 1 r d J '-C J. \ 91 2 A T ------- ,...,, PHASE ill PHASE IV PHASE VL.o..+............ PHASE VI PHASE I PHASE 11'7-............ FIRST CLASS MOTEL TENNIS AND HEALTH CONFERENCE HOTEL ALL-SUITE HOTEL SHOPPING PLAZA LUEURT HOTEL CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE 27 Shade/Shadow Study Dec.22 Worst Case Scenario 3:00/4:00 PM Gu PHASE I '(!'y �1 . t\`� o w _ •I NOa*' fa. N � i •: y �R i � S: ,ate 7'�* �A♦ Im'Fi � "` ��::. gt \ac - -- ID-AtTLUtGHWAY I -- - ("f PHASE 1 L PHASE 11v .............. L PHASE III L PHASE IV L PHASE V L-.....,.., PHASE VI --\ FIRST CLASS HOTEL TENNIS AND HEALTH CONFERENCE HOTEL ALL-SUITE MOTEL SHOPPING PLAZA s•,••••, UXURY HOTEL CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE 3:00 PM 1� _...�. .� 4:0 0 PM I.w 1r.r 1.. only for a short period of time during these days between 3:30 p.m. and L sunset), and are minimal . Approximately fifteen residences, at a maximum, would be temporarily affected. At times other than a few winter months and before 3:00 p.m. during these winter months, there are no effects to off- site locations. b On-site effects have been noted to cause a portion of the site to be subject to shadows. The residences adjacent to proposed Walnut Avenue are the most affected by these shadows (see Figures 25, 26 and 27) . Up to six of these units would be in shade from noon until sunset, with intermittent breaks due to the separation of the hotel structures, allowing light to pass v through as the shadows sweep the site. As indicated above, the shadows cast by these buildings are worse on December 22. For the two months leading to this date and the two months following this data, the shade falling upon the site will progressively increase, and will then begin decreasing as December 22 passes. This is recurring, but is a temporary impact which is not con- sidered significant. MITIGATION MEASURES The following measures shall be included into the project design to - minfmize the aesthetic impacts of the project., It should be noted that the chosen project design and architectural style currently incorporates measures to reduce impacts on viewshed quality. J4 28A. Lighting fixtures shall shield extraneous light from adjacent land uses by directing light upon the activity they are associated with. As a project betterment, consideration should be made to modifying the site plan to move or reorient the six ± units affected by sha- dows for periods of more than four hours. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The continuity of the coastal landscape will be significantly affected ;r by the proposed project due to its density and height. However, the design and architecture chosen for the project will complement the existing beach structures and allow view envelopes for visibility of coastal amenities. kw There remains, however, a significant adverse view and aesthetic effect on adjoining vacant properties, some residences to the northeast of the pro- ject, and from the City Beach. 6" 102 L L L 4.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The following discussion describes the services and facilities of those agencies which may be affected by the project. Correspondence with the agencies contacted is located in Appendix F. This section is patterned after the Public Services and Utilities Section of EIR 82-2 for easy reference. The Downtown Specific Plan has been in effect since 1982. All service to providers have been given buildout estimates for the various sectors of the area. In all cases below, provision of these services has been planned for ultimate buildout at Specific Plan levels. Since the project is consistent with the Specific Plan and General Plan designations, public services and utility planning is consistent with demands of the proposed project. A. WATER ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Water service in the project area is provided by the Water Division of the City's public Works Department. The City's water supply is derived from two primary sources: imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, -and groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The Water Division has" standard existing demand coefficients for residential, commercial, manufacturing, open space and schools. The existing water system in the project area and vicinity consists of an eight inch diameter water main located along Beach Boulevard to the east and Pacific Coast Highway to the south. In addition, a twelve inch main is located along Atlanta Street and Delaware Street to the north, and a six inch diameter main along lake Street to the west. The Driftwood Mobile home Park owns and operates private water lines within the park. Any demands greater than current levels will overtax the existing facilities. PROJECT IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed project will require the extension/im- provement of existing water service activities, and will increase consumption of water resources. The existing water pipelines serving the area are inade- quate to serve the proposed project. Additionally, according to the City's 1987 Water Master Plan, the water supply system of the City is inadequate to meet peak hour demands on a citywide basis. In order to improve these condi- tions, two alternative plans for the improvement of the City's water system it are currently being reviewed. These plans were developed by Kennedy/Jenks/ 103 W L V Chilton Consulting Engineers for the Downtown Water Transmission Pipeline in order to assess the water needs for the Specific Plan Redevelopment Area (EIR 82-2) (see Appendix F, City of Huntington Beach letter dated October 20, 1987, for two alternative water maps ["A" and "C"]) . Off-site water loops on either of these alternatives would have to be installed prior to occupancy of the proposed development, consistent with City plans for provision of ser- vices to the area. Both alternatives are considered feasible by City en- gineers. A decision and funding commitment for a preferred alternative are 6 to be made in 1988. Pursuant to the proposed DDA, the City will cause to be constructed to the project's perimeter, those pipelines necessary to serve the water needs, including adequate fire flows for the proposed development. MITIGATION MEASURES 29. Conformance to City of Huntington Beach Water System - Design Criteria for the proposed development. In addition, separate water lines shall be installed for each phase providing a domestic/pot- able water supply system and a landscape watering supply system. 30. Water conservation measures for the internal use of water include: low flow shower heads and faucets; low flush toilets; insulation of hot water lines -in water recirculating systems; compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code; reduced water pressure. 31. !Water conservation measures fof' the external use of water include: conservation designs utilizing low water demand landscaping (Xeri- scape); berming to retain runoff for irrigation; utilization of drip irrigation where feasible; and irrigating only during off peak hours (late evening). Additionally, any water oriented amenity within the project shall be so designed as to be a self contained natural or artificially filtered system which reuses water internal to the system. 32. Adequate water supply shall be provided to the site consistent with alternatives described in a letter dated October 20, 1987, City of Huntington Beach (Appendix F), pursuant to the DDA. W 104 W E V 6s •r ' B. GAS AND ELECTRICAL UTILITIES GAS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the project area. Gas mains which would provide service to the project area are located to the south, along Pacific Coast Highway. The availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. :r PROJECT IMPACTS The Southern California Gas Company could provide service to the project area, by an existing main near the site, without any significant impacts to �+ services and facilities. Mitigation Measures 33. Building construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 34. The developer will consult with Southern California Gas Company during the design phase to ensure efficient development and instal- lation of natural gas facilities and it is recommended that the developer consult the Southern California Gas Company for methods of conservation during building design phases. Methods of energy conservation techniques that should be considered include: Energy efficient concepts in building layout, design and orientation, such as the use of solar water and space heating technologies, should be considered. • Comprehensive planning for landscaping to complement new L. structures and parking lots, thereby minimizing heating and cooling energy use. • Walls, ceiling, floors, windows and hot water lines should be insulated to prevent heat loss or gain per Title 24 regula- tions. 105 6d v 4w • It is recommended that the developer consult the Southern i, California Gas Company for methods of conservation during building design phases. ELECTRICITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING �.. The Southern California Edison company provides the Specific Plan area with electrical (EIR A 66 KV electrical line runs between Main Street and Lake Street and provides the downtown area with electrical power (EIR 82-2) . PROJECT IMPACTS The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that electrical +- load requirements can be met, provided that electrical demand does not exceed estimates and there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply (EIR 82-2) . w MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are proposed. C. SOLID WASTE �.. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection for commer- cial and residential uses in the City of Huntington Beach. The Rainbow Disposal Company has a transfer station located on Nichols Street in Hun- tington Beach. The Company's permitted capacity is 1,500 tons per day. Currently, the Rainbow Disposal Company handles 1,200 tons of rubbish per day. The estimated generation rate is 8.5 pounds per person per day. These amounts, however, will increase with this project and other proposed develop- ments. Coyote Canyon Landfill currently handles the solid waste generated in i" the project area. This landfill has a projected expectancy of less than a year. Rainbow Disposal Company will be utilizing Bee Canyon Landfill when Coyote Canyon Landfill is closed next year. PROJECT IMPACT Rainbow Disposal Company will be able to service the project area, pro- viding the Rainbow transfer station capacity quota's are increased. The IO5 6. r 6W L i permitted levels at Rainbow transfer station will have to be raised in order L to accommodate the future increased volume of trash generated by the planned development. These transfer quota's will need to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange. Increasing the quotas will re- L quire more manpower and additional equipment to be provided by Rainbow Dis- posal Company, in order to dispose of the trash. MIJIGATION MEASURES 4 No mitigation measures are proposed. D. WASTEWATER ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4 The City of Huntington Beach maintains the sewers and storm drains in the project area. Storm drains located in the project area consist of a 30 inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) along Beach Boulevard, and 54 inch, 48 inch and a proposed 36 inch RCP along the northern boundary of the project area. A reinforced concrete box is also located along Beach Boulevard. The City does not foresee any problems in servicing the project area in -terms of its sewer and storm drain facilities. The County of Orange Sanitation District (Number 11) operates separate sewer collection facilities in the project area. They currently operate a 54 &W inch trunk sewer along Pacific Coast Highway. Sewer service to the proposed development would initially be provided by L the City's system. After this initial tie-in to the City's system, a tie-in to the County's system would take place. PROJECT IMPACTS L Implementation of the proposed project will increase the service demands on storm drains and sewer facilities in the project area. The impact on these facilities can be minimized with proper planning of the proposed devel- opment. A preliminary hydrology study is currently being prepared in order to size storm drain facilities in the project. Estimated amounts of expected sewage to be generated from the proposed development have been calculated. Generation rates were provided by the County Sanitation District. General flow coefficients of 5,820 gpd/acre were �. used for High Density Residential , 150 gallons/day/1,000 square feet was used 107 rr.e v for commercial developments and I00 gallons/day/hotel room for the proposed hotels. Expected total sewage flow generated by the proposed project at build-out (Phase I-VI) for each land use type are presented below, The Downtown Specific Plan EIR (82-2) does not address this level of analysis for project impacts. Information provided herein, is considered supplemental to EIR 82-2 and is project specific to the proposed project. ' TOTALS Hotels 145,000 to 160,002* gallons per day Commercial 15,000 to 23,850 gallons per day Residential 160,632 gallons per day A detailed breakdown for the projects' wastewater generation charac- teristics is presented in Table 9. V Wastewater generated within the District's service area is -processed at treatment plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The Dis- tricts operate under a HPOES permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency. This permit has a set discharge limit for biochemical oxygen demand (BOO) and suspended solids (SS). At the present time, the BOD in the District's discharge is close to the limit. Staff projects that each million gallons per day of additional flow will add one part per million to the BOD after treatment. ' Project impacts are considered incremental and nonsignificant given regional L growth. The project's wastewater generation figures .provided above are within projections anticipated by the Sanitation District based on the City's General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. MITIGATION MEASURES 35. Water conservation measures as those previously recommended in the Water Section will be implemented in order to reduce wastewater flows from the site. L w `Designates worst case levels 108 i a 4 TABLE 9 ESTIMATED WASTEWATER GENERATION EXPECTED SEWAGE LAND USE FLOWS IN GALLONS PER DAY Phase I - Hotel 30,000 gallons per day Phase II - Commercial 3,750 - (Tennis/Health Center) 9,000* gallons per day Phase III - Hotel 50,000 - 60,000* gallons per day Phase IV - Hotel 25,000 gallons per day Phase V - Commercial/Retail 11,250 - - 14,850* gallons per day Phase VI - Hotel 40,000 - 45,000* gallons per day Residential 160,632 gallons per day *Designates worst case levels 109 w 35. One-time impact fees required for sewers in the project are as follows: • Sewer Connection Fee S 307,000 • Sanitation District Connection Fee $3,515,000 L • Drainage Assessment $ 329,000 E. FIRE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Fire protection service is provided by the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. It is a full service municipal fire department. The two fire stations serving the area are: the Magnolia Fire Station and the Lake Street Fire Station. The Magnolia Fire Station is located on Magnolia and Hamilton. This station is a one engine company. The Lake Street Fire Station is lo- cated on Lake Street and 5th Street. This station is equipped with one engine company, one truck company and one paramedic unit. The average re- sponse time from the Lake Street Fire Station to the project area is approxi- mately five minutes, according to EIR 82-2. PROJECT IMPACTS --The Fire Department does not anticipate any problems in servicing the project area. The project will , however, generate more emergency calls re- quiring Department response. In general, the project will generate .7 calls per year per residential unit. There are no established rates for commercial uses. The project will not create a need for additional staff or expansion of facilities. MITIGATION MEASURES 1 37. The project developer will work closely with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department to ensure that adequate fire safety precau- tions are implemented in the project. W 38. The project developer will provide the full range of fire and life safety systems in all buildings as recommended by the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. This provision will aid in re- ducing the potential manpower required in. a major emergency. w 110 V F. POLICE L ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Huntington Beach Police Department operates a single police facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The present authorized level of police manning is approximately 1.15 officers per 1,000 persons, .0075 of- fivers per acre of parks and 1.0 officers per 225,000 square feet of office or corurercial . The desired number of service calls per year per officer is 535 calls. Based on this figure and the type of development proposed for the project area, it is estimated that 1.5 additional officers will be needed to service the project site. With the additional need for officers, there will also be additional costs for the required equipment to service the project area. PROJECT IMPACTS The project will create the need for 1.5 additional police officers in order to service the proposed hotel and commercial complexes. The police department does not have any plans to expand its current facilities. MITIGATION MEASURES 39. Additional police personnel and equipment will be required to serve the project area as a result of the proposed project. 40. The developer will work closely with the police department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project. The provision of adequate security precautions includes construction phases of the project. Such security could include construction fences and private security patrol . Police services to the development will be enhanced through the provision of ade- lr. quate street lighting, clearly marked street names and building numbers and security hardware. G. TELEPHONE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project area is within the service jurisdiction of General Telephone Company (GTE) . GTE is currently providing service to the existing Driftwood Beach Club Mobile Home Park. Existing telephone aerial lines and buried cable lines service the area. They are currently operating at an appropriate 111 f r.. L residential consumption level . Currently, there are no plans for the expan- �, sion of GTE facilities. However, the project may require the improvement and/or extension of their facilities in the project area, and for the Speci- fic Plan area as a whole. Standard Public Utilities Commission Rule 34 Agreements would have to be entered into with the project developer for L proportionate share costs for facilities to the site. In addition, the telephone facilities at the existing Huntington Beach Inn are in a privately owned conduit within the existing mobile home park. Relocating or maintain- ing the system in place would be at the expense of the developer. Service requirements for the proposed development will be determined by GTE's Fore- casting Department upon receiving plans for the project. i' PROJECT IMPACTS General Telephone Company does not foresee any adverse impacts to the �• services they provide as a result of the proposed development. MITIGATION MEASURES lull 41. The developer will work with General Telephone Company to ensure adequate lead time for the improvement and/or extension of facili- ties prior to construction. H. SCHOOLS r ENVIRONMENTAL SMIN The Huntington Beach Union High School District {HBUHSD} is responsible for educating the high school age students living in the project area. HBUHSD enrollment was 101 students over projections for the 1987-88 school year. The school district currently cannot accommodate all of their students in their existing permanent facilities, and have utilized temporary (port- LA able) classrooms since the early I970's. The school district has 65 portable classrooms and rents community facilities from one of the local elementary districts. Due to financial limitations, the school district has not been able to add additional permanent facilities in order to house the current level of students and staff. boa 112 w L PROJECT IMPACTS The proposed 894 residential units planned in the project area will increase student enrollment in the HBUHSD and subsequently impact school staffing and facility utilization. The increased enrollment at Huntington Beach High School will place a greater strain on existing facilities and require the renovation and reconstruction schedules for the school district to be accelerated. Also, additional teachers would have to be employed to L accommodate the increased enrollment as a result of the proposed project. School impact fees to assist the school district on a fair share basis L for the project are estimated at $1,490,000. These fees will aid in provid- ing additional teachers and facilities for the school district. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation is required. The developer will pay applicable school fees associated with the proposed project, (see Fiscal Impacts, Section 4.10, L for estimated fees and effects) . I. RECREATION-FACILITIES L ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Huntington Beach Community Services Department supervises Land manages the municipal beach parking lot and recreational beach facility located south of the project area on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway. LA The beach facility and parking lot occasionally operates at full capa- city during the summer months of June, July, August and September. During the off-season, attendance ranges from 25% to 100% (on holidays) for the camping, parking and beach facilities. 1W The proposed development will not result in the need to expand the existing beach facilities. The Community Services Department indicated however that improvements are planned for the redesign of the Huntington Street entrance to the municipal beach parking lot and camping facility. PROJECT IMPACTS No adverse impacts on the recreational beach facility and municipal parking lot are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Also, see �., aesthetics section for analysis of impacts on City beach across PCH. 113 i�. �r V MITIGATION MEASURES L 42. To reduce parking impacts on the City beach parking lot, grade separated pedestrian link(s) to the beach parking lot will be i. required. J. TRANSIT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Orange County Transit District (OCTD) currently offers service on Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the project site, as shown on the attached route maps and schedules. Existing stops are located at: Northbound Pacific Coast Highway/Beach Boulevard, Northbound Pacific Coast Highway/Opposite Driftwood Drive, Northbound Pacific Coast Highway/Huntington Street. PROJECT IMPACTS L The proposed project may require the installation of additional bus stops, pedestrian accessways and other passenger amenities in order to serve the needs of the 'community. MITIGATION MEASURES 43. Site plans of the proposed project shall be forwarded to the OCTD as they become available for each phase. The plans will be rev- iewed in terms of their conformance to the OCTD Design Guidelines W for Bus Fzcilities. 44. In order to ensure accessibility and available transit service for employees and patrons of this development, the following transit amenities shall be incorporated in this project as "project better- ments" and shall be the responsibility of the developer. These Treasures will also provide incentives for bus ridership and lessen �. impacts on air quality (please see Section 4.5) . • The existing bus stops should be preserved or upgraded, and bus turnouts provided, if determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on traffic volumes, speeds, and roadway cross sections. 6. 114 Irr . Ir. • Paved, handicapped accessible passenger waiting areas, includ- ing a bus shelter, should be provided at each stop. The area adjacent to the turnouts should be able to accom- modate a passenger waiting area complete with a bus shelter and bench. i A paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian ac- #�+ cessway should be provided between each stop and the project buildings. K. _OIL PRODUCT PIPELINE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Chevron U.S.A. Inc, has indicated in a letter dated May 21, 1987 (see Appendix F) that they have facilities located in the proximity of the project area. PROJECT IMPACTS Chevron USA, Inca will determine if-'a conflict exists between their facilities and the' proposed development when they review the preliminary construction plans. At that time, a determination of how to proceed if a conflict does exist will be made. MITIGATION MEASURES 45. In order to determine whether a problem exists with a potential conflict between the project and Chevron facilities, preliminary construction drawings will be sent to Chevron U.S.A. , Inc. as they become available. The City shall consult with Chevron USA, Inc. to determine appropriate disposition of the pipeline, including pos- sible relocation. The developer and City shall review plans for any potential conflicts prior to approval of the CUP for the resi- dential phase (the affected phase) . L. OIL WELLS Seven wells are located on the project site. Petroleum Industry Consul- tants, Inc, reviewed the records for these wells. The records are on file with the California Division of Oil and Gas (D.O.G.) (See Appendix F letter +r 'dated March 6, 1987) . The records indicate that the wells were abandoned 115 46* ibli r. between the years of 1925 and 1967. None of the abandonments, however, meet +�* current Q.O.G. requirements for a housing development and, therefore, will need to be reabandoned. PROJECT IMPACTS Each of the wells located on-site will have to be reabandoned by the project proponent because they do not meet current D.O.G. requirements. The +� D.O.G. requires cement plugs be placed over the well stub when the well casing is cut and recovered. This procedure was not conducted when the wells were initially abandoned. Supplementary Notices to Reabandon the wells have been prepared, but have not been submitted to the D.O.G. (March 6, 1987). The total cost for reabandoning the wells is estimated to be $125,375. MITIGATION MEASURES 46. The project proponent will comply with current D.O.G. standards and requirements for the reabandonment of the seven on-site wells. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE-AFTER-MITIGATION Mitigation measures attached to each sub-section reduces the potential environmental effects to a level of non-significance. Project Betterments, although not required to reduce significant impacts, are added to the project to avoid potential problems and to better the project's design and reduce 6+ cumulative effects. No significant effect will remain after mitigation. 4h. 6W w 116 II+ +4.10 FISCAL IMPACT Environmental Setting In this section, the project is analyzed for potential effects on the environment or on the health, safety and welfare of community residents emanating from potential negative fiscal impacts on the community. Although not a required analysis by CEQA, this fiscal impact analysis is being pro- SW vided to show the effect on City services and revenues resulting from the project which could possibly result in lower service levels. 1W The City of Huntington Beach provides general city services, including the following, which could be negatively affected should revenue resources be depleted by providing services to new development: police and fire protec- tion, recreation, planning and development services, financial services, and iu public works. This, in turn, could potentially reduce needed services to other community sectors, causing environmental or safety impacts. The SEIR utilizes a Fiscal Impact Report prepared by the accounting management firm of Laventhal and Horwath. The report indicates a City sur- plus of funds, after accounting for costs associated with serving the pro- ject. Methodology. The fiscal impact calculations -are based on the proposed development program anticipating a nine year building schedule, providing development fees for each of the first seven years. Ongoing revenues and ongoing expenditures are provided through the first 25 years of the project. City expenses are based on a detailed analysis of the marginal and fixed costs of the fire, police and public works departments of the City. The analysis was conducted by Laventhal and Horwath using the City's annual and projected budgets, and included interviews with City department heads. Total City expenses are estimated at $17,177,000 for the 25 year period. All fees and assessments, revenues and expenditures are provided togeth- er to indicate net revenues. The revenues shown are minus reimbursements to the developer of portions of the tax increment and transient occupancy tax revenues that are part of the proposed DDA. The net fiscal impacts are then 6# figured together with project land payments from the developer to the City over the course of 25 years. 117 All projected revenues continue past the first 25 years. However, for purposes of this analysis, the net fiscal impacts of the project are only shown for the 25 year period. A copy of Laventhal and Horwath's full fiscal impact analysis is on file with the City and Redevelopment Agency. Summary of Net Revenue. The following sunxnary of net revenue "true bottom line figures," provides the reader with a listing of all impact fees, developer fees and ongoing revenues and City expenses: .r IMPACTS The proposed project is anticipated to yield the City approximately $138,821,000 in net revenues over a 25 year period. Fees accruing to other jurisdictions as impact fees or fair share par- ticipation in fee programs are $5,801,000. There is no expected negative fiscal impact from this project which would cause depletion of City revenues, thereby causing some effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures There are no mitigation measures recommended. Level of Significance After Mitigation There are no residual negative significant effects on the environment from the fiscal impacts of the project. The project, indeed, provides the City with a balance of revenues after costs associated with serving the project are accounted for. w+ 118 V i l � V TABLE OF COVERTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. ... . . . . .. ... .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . 1 .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. i 1.1 EIR Focus and Effects Found Not to Be Significant . . . .. . . . . 1 2.0 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 3 �. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 Project Characteristics .. . . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . 5 3.2 Location . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . 6 3.3 Objectives of the Project .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 6 3.4 Intended Use of the EIR .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4.1 Responsible Agencies Use of EIR and Discretionary Actions . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4.2 Agencies Consulted . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 11 3.4.3 Incorporation by Reference . .. .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 12 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES . .. . . . . . . 13 4.1 Geology, Soils and Seismicity . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . 13 4.2 Biotic Resources . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. . ... .... . . . . . . . . 24 4.3 Land Use .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 36 4.4 Circulation . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . 56 4.5 Climate and Air Quality . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . 66 4.6 Cultural Resources and Archaeology .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 L 4.7 Public Health and Safety . .. .. . . . .. .. . ... .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 77 4.8 Aesthetics/Views . . . . . 84 4.9 Public Services and Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 103 4.10 Fiscal Impact .. .. .. . .. . .. . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 117 4.11 Socioeconomic/Relocation/Housing .. .......... .............. 120 5.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS . .. .. . . .. . . . .. ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 128 6.0 ALTERNATIVES .. . .. ..... . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .129 to 7.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 134 8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 136 9.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES .. . . . . . . . 139 i 4 L W W 64 W TABLE OF CONTENTS [CONTINUED] PAGE 10.0 RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .. ... . . .. .. .... .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . 140 W" 11.0 REFERENCES .. ... . . . .. .. . ... .. . . .. .. .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . 141 12.0 APPENDICES (Bound Separately) rr APPENDIX A - Initial Study, Notice of Preparation APPENDIX B - Geotechnical Report APPENDIX C - Circulation Analysis APPENDIX D - Biology Wetlands Assessment APPENDIX E - Cultural Scientific Assessment APPENDIX F - Correspondence APPENDIX G - Previous Environmental Documentation APPENDIX H - City Ordinances - Mobile Home Overlay Zones/Removal/ Rezoning/Change of Use APPENDIX I - Demographic Profile - Driftwood Mobile Home Park APPENDIX J - Air Quality Analysis LW i.. ii L L L L LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE Figure 1 Vicinity Map . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . ... .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . 7 L Figure 2 Regional Map . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. ... .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 3 Site Plan .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 4 Fault Map . � ., .. .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 5 Wetlands and OtherHabitats . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 26 L Figure 6 Existing Land Use Map .. . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 7 Existing Mobile Nome Park . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 8 Aerial of Project Area .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 9 Adjacent Land Use and Zoning Map .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 10 Preliminary Proposed Alignments for Huntington Street and Walnut Avenue . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 11 Cumulative Condition Peak Hour Turn Volumes . . :. . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 12 Master Plan Project Trip Assignment . . . . . . . .. . . . . 61 Figure 13 Cumulative Plus Master Plan Peak Hour Turn Movements . . . . 62 Figure 13a Cumulative Plus Master Plan ... . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 63 Figure 14 Vantage Point Locations .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Figure 15 Vantage Point 11 . .. .. .... .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Figure 16 Vantage Point 12 . .. .. ... .. . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 88 Figure 17 Vantage Point #3 . .. ..... .. . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 89 Figure 18 Vantage Point #4 . . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Figure 19 Vantage Point #5 . .. . ' . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 91 Figure 20 Viewshed Alteration - VantagePoint #1 . .. . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . 92 Figure 21 Viewshed Alteration - Vantage Point 12 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 93 Figure 22 Viewshed Alteration - Vantage Point #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Figure 23 Viewshed Alteration - Vantage Point #4 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 95 W Figure 24 Viewshed Alteration - Vantage Point #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Figure 25 Shade/Shadow 10:00 -am, December 22 .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 99 Figure 26 Shade/Shadow 12:00 pm, December 22 .. . . . ... . . . . . . . 100 Figure 27 Shade/Shadow 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm, December 22 . .. . . . .. . . . 101 68 w W I� L L i L I - La LIST OF TABLES L A� BLES PAGE Table 1 Maximum Probable and Credible Earthquakes . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 2 Cumulative Condition - ICU .. . . ..... ... ..... .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 59 L Table 3 Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Comparison Study . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . ... .. ... .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 64 Table 4 Air Quality Levels yy (Costal Mesa Air Monitoring Station) . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 68 Table 5 Project Emissions in tons per day - Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Table 6 Comparison of Year 2000 Emissions .. ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Table 7 Exterior Noise Standards .. .. . . ... .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . 78 Table 8 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Activities (OBA at 50 feet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Table 9 Estimated Wastewater Generation 109 Table 10 Past Housing Starts and Projections to the Year 2000 . .. ...... . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . 122 Table 11 Estimated Phasing of Mobile Home Conversion .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 124 L fiW i� iv 1 L L y.r 1.0 INTRODUCTION &W This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) addresses the environmental effects found to be associated with the development of the Waterfront project located at the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. The City of Huntington Beach is requiring certifica- tion of the SEIR prior to considering the request of the developer, RLM Properties, for approval of the project. ' The project description, precise location, intended use of the SEIR and environmental effects resulting from the proposed project are described in this document. To assist the reader, a summary of the potential effects on the environment, proposed mitigation and residual effects after mitigation are described in the Summary, Section 2.0. 6 l .I EIR_Focus and-Effects-Not_Found to_be,Significant The City prepared an Initial Study for the project. An Initial Study �6* prepared by the City (Appendix A) outlines areas of possible environmental impact resulting from completion of the project. This Initial Study was used to focus the SEIR. In addition, an earlier EIR prepared for the "Downtown" area, inclusive of this project site, was reviewed for completeness in ad- dressing all potential environmental effects of the project. Where necessary to comply with the City's and State of California's environmental guidelines, the analysis of the previous EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan (EIR 82-2) Ll was updated and supplemented. As a result of this review, the focus of the - SEIR .is on the following areas of potential environmental effect: Earth compaction Air quality Water drainage/flood hazard Biological and Natural resources Noise i� Aesthetics/light and glare Population/housing Traffic/parking Public services Utilities Recreation resources The SEIR studies these areas of concern as well as updates each section of EIR 82-2 with currently available information. The SEIR updates the previous study with a level of detail required by City and State Guidelines to address construction related effects and the post construction condition. W Issues not considered to be of significant concern are as follows: Risk of upset Energy The Initial Study and previous environmental review (EIR 82-2) indicate no evidence of potential effect from these two areas of possible concern. r r 2 r r 2.0 SUMMARY Note: This section is designed as a pull out section. Pages are numbered in Roman numerals. r- r 3 r ' a. a GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY POTENTIAL,ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Geotechnical concerns include: I. Conformance to mitigation measures • Seismic hazards from the included in Downtown Specific Newport-Inglewood ' fault, Plan EIR 83-2 -City Policy. groundshaking in particular. • Moderate to high potential 2. The developer shall incorporate for liquefaction. recommendations provided by the • Subsurface soil strength. Irvine Soils, Engineering, Inc. Shallow groundwater. into project designs, plans and Certain environmental consequences specifications. and health and safety effects could occur if these effects are not miti- 3. Prior to the completion of the gated. final design for each project phase, a supplemental geotechnical investigation shall be performed W to confirm subsurface conditions (liquefaction hazards zones and groundwater levels), and provide supplemental recommendations, as appropriate, for design of each structure and for the proposed residential development. 4. All structures shall be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building Codes to promote safety in the event of an earthquake- City Policy. L. 5. Existing fill materials and dis- turbed, loose soils should be removed and replaced with competent material as required by qualified soils engineers. Site preparation, excavation, and earthwork com paction operations shall be per- formed under the observation and i u 4 r M CIRCULATION W POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION_MEASURFS The cumulative base traffic plus No mitigation measures are required project traffic have been forecast of the project, however the following - for project completion . (a maximum programs will be implemented to improve buildout of the dawntown area as traffic circulation within the project described in Downtown Specific Plan, vicinity as a project betterment. �+ plus project). The traffic projections were prepared for two levels of project Bus services to regional intensity, one assuming conventional activity centers within the traffic rates for hotels and a resort County will be provided to oriented traffic base. hotel visitors. • Shuttle services to 'local The Intersection Capacity Utilization activity centers, including Analysis, assuming peak hour traffic Main Street and the City volumes and daily traffic volumes and State beaches, will be distributed on the surrounding street provided to hotel visitors, network, indicate maintenance of Provide at-grade and elevated traffic levels below acceptable thresh- crosswalks to facilitate olds for both traffic analysis scen- pedestrian access to beach arios. amenities. Promote bus shelters, benches and bus pockets near the proposed project. Promote employee use of public transportation. • Install gated security fac- ilities at all parking fac- ilities to eliminate use by beach users not residing in the hotel . • Provide a southbound left turn lane at the intersection of Huntington Street/PCH to improve the flow of left turning traffic. 6, 1EVEL,OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER YTTYCI-TION L There will be no significant impacts on traffic. vii Ld 1.+ CLIFLATE AND AIR QUALITY POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Temporary impacts of air quality In accordance with SCAQMD guidelines, will occur as a result of project the following measures are included construction activities. _ Air. pol-_. _ .to mitigate both short-term and long lutants will be emitted by construction term air quality impacts. - equipment and dust will be generated. The proposed project will significantly 12. Dust suppression measures, such exceed SCAQMD threshold criteria for as regular watering and early carbon monoxide emissions and to a paving of the road shall be im- lesser degree, total organic gas and - plemented by the project proponent nitrogen oxide levels. to reduce emissions during con- struction and grading. 13. Parking structures will be vent- ilated, in. conformance with the Uniform Building Code standards, to reduce vehicle emission levels within the facility. 14. A Transportation System Management (TSM) plan will be initialed and will include the following com- ponents: . Provide bus services to regional activity centers within the County for hotel visitors. • Provide shuttle services to local activity centers in- cluding Main Street and the City and State beaches during the sum-ner peak period. . Facilitate pedestrian access to beach amenities, via at- grade crosswalks and elevated crossings. • Promote employee use of public transportation. viii CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY (CONT'D) MITIGATION MEASURES Provide bus shelters, benches and bus pockets near the proposed project. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The project will generate emissions which exceed SCAQMD threshold cri - teria. These emissions will provide an incremental increase to degradation of future regional air quality and will not be individually noticeable in the region. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the im- pacts of the proposed project are not considered significant. ix CULTURAL RESOURCES AND ARCHAEOLOGY POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Archaeolouy 14. If any archaeological or historical materials are found during con- No adverse impacts identified. struction, a qualified archaeol - ogist will be contacted in order Paleontology - that the appropriate mitigation measures can be taken. No adverse impacts identified. 15. A qualified paleontologist will be retained to monitor grading and salvage any fossils exposed by construction activity. 16. A qualified paleontologist, listed with the County of Orange, will attend the pre-grade meeting with the contractor, developer and City representative to ensure cooperation for the paleontological monitoring. 17. Fossils collected during grading of the Project, if any, will be curated with an appropriate museum facility. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the sig- nificant impacts of the proposed project to a level of non-significance. x ld i` W PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY P07E 'TIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS KITIGATION_MEASURES Flooding Flooding i" The project area is located in a 18. Conformance to mitigation measures 'W 100-year flood zone. Flooding up to specified in EIR 82.2. a depth of 11 feet cculd occur, during a I00-year storm. All 4evelopments 19. The Federal Emergency Management are therefore required to comply Agency (FEMA) requires that dev- with requirements issued by the Federal elopments within the Special Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard Zone elevate any for structures located in flood hazard habitable areas of a dwelling zones. unit to or above the expected level of flooding for a 100-year event. Non-residential habitable structures shall also be elevated or flood proofed to FEMA standards. 20. positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to all struc- tures so as to direct surface L water run-off and roof drainage away from foundations and slabs, toward suitable discharge facil- ities. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed on pavements or adjacent to buildings. low 2I. A grading plan for the site is required to ensure compliance with FEMA regulations, City grad- ing regulations an property site .. drainage. Noise Hoise .a Traffic related noise will not pose Without some type of barrier, a significant impact adjacent prop- The 60 dBA noise limit identified in erties or roadways. the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance mould occasionally be exceed;d at adjacent to existing and proposed residential properties along Walnut xi L PUBLIC-HEALTH AND SAFETY (CONT'DI POTENTIAL ADVERSE IN?ACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Certain project related activities Avenue which will act as a noise and facilities, such as building barrier or other sound attenuating r' construction, parking structures and design features subject to the sweepers, will generate on-site noise approval of the Planning Director. levels that would occasionally exceed L the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance 23. A landscaped berm shall be con- (60 dBA noise limit) adjacent to structed between the masonry residences along Walnut Avenue. wall and the curb edge for noise attenuation. 24. Restrict sweeping operations within the parking structure to L daytime hours, between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. L, 25. A textured parking surface, such as asphalt or textured concrete, shall be used in the parking structure to reduce tire squeal . 26. Design of the parking structure shall incorporate one of the �r following noise attenuation op- tions: a. Enclose the parking struc- ture's sidewall parallel to the residential area. b. Allow openings in the struc- ture's sidewalls and place a masonry wall on the top level of the structure par- ;,, allel to the residential areas. l Lr 1iw Xii W I 0 a PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY (CONT'D) POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES C. Or other sound attenuating design features to the ap- proval of the planning dir- ector. 27. Maintain a I30 foot separation between the residential and parking structure uses or other sound attenuating design feature to the approval of the Planning Director. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Flooding The mitigation measures included in the project will aid in reducing the potential impacts of flooding in the project area. Compliance with FEMA and City drainage regulations will reduce the effects to a level of non-sig- nificance. Noise There will be no significant impacts after sound attenuating mitigation measures are implemented. Xiii Ir. 1 W w G £SA TFIETIC� �.► POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Visual The following measure shall be included into the project design to Due to its greater height than ninimize the aesthetic impacts of - surrounding development, the propo- the project. It should be noted ' sed project will significantly that the chosen project design and impact existing visual experiences architectural style currently incor- from the City Beach, the project porates measures to reduce impacts will result in significant altera- on viewshed quality. tions of viewshed from the beach and along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). 26 Lighting fixtures shall shield extraneous light from adjacent The proposed development will sig- land uses by directing light nificantly impact the - existing upon the activity with which scenic corridor along PCH, due to they are associated. its overall height and bulk. Iw. As a project betterment, con- Light and Glare - sideration should be made to modifying the site plan to move The proposed project will increase or reorient the six± units the amount of light and glare on affected by shadows for periods adjacent land uses and roadways. of more than four hours. 4 w Shade/Shadow Effects The effects of shade/shadow on the adjacent properties will be tem- porary and therefore the associated impacts are not considered to be W significant. L MEEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION u The continuity of the coastal landscape will be significantly affected by the proposed project due to its density and height. However, the design and architecture chosen for the project will complement the existing beach structures and allow view envelopes for visibility of coastal amenities. There remains, however, a significant adverse view and aesthetic effect on adjoining vacant properties, some residences to the northeast of the +�» project, and from the City Beach. xiv PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTI�IES �« POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Water Water Implementation - of the _proposed 29. Conformance to City of Hun- project will require the extension tington Beach Water System- improvement of existing 'water ser- Design Criteria for the proposed vices, and will increase the con- development. In addition, sumption of water resources. separate water lines shall be installed for each phase provid- r, Gas ing a domestic/potable water supply system and a landscape No adverse impacts identified. watering supply system. Electricity 30. Water conservation measures for the internal use of water in- No adverse impacts identified. ciude: low flow showerheads and �+ faucets; low flush toilets; Solid Waste insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems; The Rainbow Disposal Company's compliance with water conserva- transfer station quotas will have to tion provisions of the appro- be increased, in order to accom- priate plumbing code; reduced modate 'the increased volume of trash water pressure. generated by the planned develop- ment. 31. water conservation measures for the external use of water in- bow Wastewater clude: conservation design utilizing low water demand Implementation of the proposed landscaping (Xeriscape) ; berming project will result in increased to retain runoff for irrigation; service demands on storm drains and utilization of drip irrigation sewer facilities in the project where feasible; and irrigating area. only during off peak hours (late «� evening) . Additionally, any water oriented amenity within the project shall be so designed A, as to be a self-contained nat- ural or artificially filtered system which reuses water inter- nal to the system. xv A W W LUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (COW D) POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Fire i�. 32. Adequate water supply shall be No adverse impacts . identified. provided -to the site .consistent with alternatives described in a Police letter dated October 20, 1987, City of Huntington Beach (Appen- No adverse impacts identified. dix F), pursuant to the DDA. +� Telephone Gas No adverse impacts identified. 33. Building construction shall comply with the Energy Conserva- Schools tion Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California The proposed development will neces- Administrative Code. sitate the need for additional staff and facilities. 34. The developer will consult with Southern California Gas Company Recreation Facilities during the design phase to ensure efficient development and No adverse impacts identified. installation of natural gas facilities; and - it is recom- Transit mended that the developer con- sult the Southern California Gas No adverse impacts identified. Company for methods of conserva- tion during building design Oil Product Pipeline phases. Methods of energy conservation techniques that Chevron Oil, Inc. will determine should be considered include: whether a conflict exists between - Energy efficient concepts their facilities and the proposed in building layout, design development when they have reviewed and orientation, such as `r the preliminary construction plans. the use of solar water and space heating technologies, Oil Wells should be considered. L Comprehensive planning for Seven on-site wells located on-site landscaping to complement will need to be reabandoned to meet new structures and parking L current California Division of Oil lots, thereby minimizing and Gas (DOG) requirements. heating and cooling energy use. �+ xvi 1.� L i.r a.� PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (CONT'D1 POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES • Wall , ceiling, floors, should be insulated to prevent' heat loss or gain per Title 24 regulations. ,W • It is recommended that the developer consult the Southern California Gas Company for methods of conservation during build- ing design phases. �•+ __ Electricity N.) mitigation measures are proposed. Solid Waste N.) mitigation measures are proposed. Wastewater 35. Water conservation measures as those previously recommended in the Water Section will be imple- mented in order to reduce wastewater flows from the site. 35. One-time impact fees required for sewers in the project are as follows: Sewer Connection Fee - S 307,000 w Sanitation Dist. Fee - $3,515,000 Drainage Assessment - $ 329,000 W xvii t w PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS F1iTICATION MEASURES ri re 37. The project developer will work closely with the City of Hun- tington Beach Fire Department to W ensure that adequate fire safety precautions are implemented in the project. 38. The project developer will provide the full range of fire and life safety systems in all buildings as recommended by the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. This provision will `, aid in reducing the potential manpower required in a najor emergency. ''. Police 39. Additional police personnel and L equipment will be required to serve the project area as a result of the proposed project. 40. The developer will work closely with the police department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project. The provision of adequate security precautions includes construction phases of the project. Such security could include construction fences and private security patrol . Police services to the development will be enhanced through the provision of ade- quate street lighting, clearly +� xviii Ir. Ir. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (CONT'Ai 16. POT NT AL ADVERSE MPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES marked street names and building numbers and security hardware. Telephone �., 41. The developer will work with General Telephone Company to ensure adequate lead time for the improvement and/or extension of facilities prior to construc- tion. 60 Schools No mitigation is required. The developer will pay applicable school fees associated with the proposed project (see Fiscal Impacts, Section 4.10, for estimated fees and ef- fects). Eecreation Facilities 42. To reduce parking impacts on the City beach parking lot, grade separated pedestrian link(s) to the beach parking lot will be required. L 4 u iW • xix 6 s a E POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Transit 43. Site plans of the proposed project shall be forwarded to the OCTD as they become avail - able for each phase. The plans will be reviewed in terms of their conformance to the OCTD Design Guidelines for Bus Facil - ities. 44. In order to ensure accessibility and available transit service for employees and patrons of this development, the following transit amenities shall be incorporated in this project as "project betterments" and shall be the responsibility of the developer. These measures will also provide incentives for bus ridership and lessen impacts on air quality (see Section 4.5) • The existing bus stops should be preserved or upgraded, and bus turnouts provide,d if determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on traffic volumes, speeds, and roadway cross sections. • Paved, handicapped acces- sible passenger waiting areas, including a bus shelter, should be provided at each stop. • The area adjacent to the turnouts should be able to accommodate a passenger waiting area complete with a bus shelter and bench. xx A paved, lighted and hand- icapped accessible pedes- trian accessway should be provided between each stop and the project buildings. Oil Product Pipeline 45. In order to determine whether a problem exists with a potential conflict between the project and Chevron facilities, preliminary construction drawings will be sent to Chevron U.S.A. , Inc. as they become available. The City shall consult with Chevron U.S.A. , Inc. to determine ap- propriate disposition of the pipeline, including possible relocation. The developer and City shall review plans for any potential conflicts prior to ap- proval of the CUP for the res- idential phase (the affected phase) . Oil Wells 46. The project proponent will comply with current D.O.G. stan- dards and requirements for the reabandonment of the seven on- site wells. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Mitigation measures attached to each subsection reduces the potential environmental effects to a level of non-significance. Project Betterments, although not required to reduce significant impacts, are added to the project to avoid potential problems and to better the project's design and reduce cumulative effects. No significant effect will remain after mitigation. xxi Ir. bw ka FISCAL IMPACT POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES i�. No adverse impacts identified. There are no mitigation measures recommended. LEVEL OF__SIGHIFICANCE AFTER HITIGATI There are no residual negative significant effects on the environment from the fiscal impacts of the project. The project provides the City with a • balance of revenues after costs associated with serving the project are accounted for. �1 IkJ Yr W XXii ir. w he SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS w. POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Residents of the Driftwood Mobile 47. A minimum of six months prior to Home Park would have to relocate as the date that a specific phase a result of the proposed develop- of the park will be closed, all ment. affected tenants will receive a written notice advising them of �+ Many of these residents are charac- the definite date of closure. terized as having special needs (low If relocation assistance per the income, disabilities) and will be approved Relocation Assistance directly affected by the conversion Plan has not been previously of the mobile home park. arranged with affected tenants, the program will be put into effect during this six month period. 48. Consistent with program 8.5.2.5 of the City's Housing Element of the General Plan, the applicant and/or City staff shall meet 6 with the mobile home park ten- ants and coach owners to explain conversion process and reloca- Ltion assistance. 49. Consistent with program 8.5.2.6 of the Housing Element, the City or - redevelopment Agency shall assist in relocation of persons affected by this redevelopment project. 50. The developer shall comply with all aspects of Article 927 of ►.. the Municipal Code - the Mobile Home Overlay Zone, an ordinance enacted to require rezoning on change of use of a mobile home park to comply with certain requirements/standards prior to initiating such a change in use L xviii L (see Appendix for provisions of Article 927) . 51. The developer shall provide a relocation coordinator who will provide general relocation assistance to all tenants with special emphasis on assisting special needs groups identified +,. in the previous analysis. Availability of such a relo- cation assistance shall be to 6d the approval of the City Coun- cil , and shall be incorporated into the Relocation Assistance Program required by Article 927 �+ of the Municipal Code. 52. The develop shall pay the cost of relocating a mobil home coach, when the age and condi- tion of the coach allows feas- ible relocation, to any mobile home park accepting such coaches within fifty miles. The in- cremental cost for relocation LM beyond fifty miles will be the responsibility of the owner, as stipulated by the Relocation L, Assistance Plan, approved by the City of Huntington Beach. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER NITIGATIOH The project's effects on the City's and region's housing supply is in- cremental and non-significant. The addition of 656 units over a five year buildout offsets demand created by on-site employment, and is fully anticipa- ted by local and regional agencies. The addition for the above mitigation, especially in direct relocation assistance to the existing tenants of the mobile home park, will substantially reduce the effects of the conversion of the site to other uses. Continuation of the City's policies and programs included in the City's Housing Element also serves to mitigate effects on affordable housing. xxiv a. After mitigation, there are no significant adverse effects on the en- vironment that can be connected to the relocation of mobile home park �. tenants. LW L► a.. i i xxv L r.. iW 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Waterfront development is proposed for an area of 44.4 acres on the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. The Water- front proposal is a mixed use project including resort hotels, conference- hotel facilities, tennis and health center, retail , restaurants and multi- family residential . The project is proposed to be built in six phases over an eight to ten year period, with the hotel/resort area beginning phase one in 1988 and the residential phase beginning in 1990. Approximately 220 units of the residential phases will be constructed per year, beginning in 1990 and concluding in 1994. The maximum potential buildout of the project that will be assessed in this FIR is based on maximums allowed pursuant to a proposed Development Agreement with the City and a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. The maximum allowable buildout is as follows: • 1,600 Hotel Rooms • 894 Residential Units • 99,000 square feet Specialty Retail/Restaurants • 40,000 square feet Tennis/Health Center • 9.9 acres Public Open Space. Note: Developer is currently proposing: • 1,450 Hotel Rooms 1�r • 875 Residential Units • 25,000 square feet Tennis/Health Center • Public Open Space. However, the analysis in the EIR shall be based on a maximum allowable buildout, as detailed above, based on the project applicant's proposal plus provisions in the Development Agreement and Disposition and Development Agreement, allowing a ten percent plus-or-minus variation in project build- out. The property is currently developed with a small scale two story hotel/ golf/restaurant facility, parking lots and a mobile home park. A small (under two acres) City owned and operated maintenance yard is located along the northerly boundary, in the central part of the project. All existing uses currently on the site are proposed to be removed, in phases, as the project develops. A residential relocation program is being proposed to 4 w assist relocation of current mobile home residents, pursuant to the City's Mobile Home Relocation Ordinance, Article 927 of the Municipal Code. In addition to the other current land uses described above, a small wetland and adjacent degraded wetland occur on the eastern edge (Beach Boulevard) of the property. This wetland and degraded wetland are proposed to be removed. Off-site mitigation or replacement is being proposed by the developer, (see Section 4.2) . 3.1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The project is proposed for the following phasing: Phase 1 300 room resort hotel - 13 stories (currently proposed) Phase 2 25,000 square foot Tennis/Health Center (40,000 square feet maximum), tennis courts and parking structure Phase 3 500 room conference hotel (600 rooms maximum) Phase 4 250 room hotel - all suites/kitchenettes Phase 5 75,000 sq. ft. commercial/retail (99,000 sq. ft. maximum) Phase 6 400 room luxury hotel (450 rooms maximum) 1990-1994 875 attached residential units (894 units maximum) The developer's proposed buildout program is given followed by the maximum potential for each phase allowed by the proposed DDA and DA. The hotel/resort complex is characterized by five mid-rise structures with adjoining one to three story support retail services, restaurants, V parking structures and tennis club. The site plan is shown on Figure 3. Representative elevations are included in Section 4.9 Aesthetics. The construction of the proposed project will necessitate the removal of all existing structures currently at the site. The relocation of mobile home park residents is discussed in Secticn 4.I3, Socioeconomic/Relocation. Existing land use and surrounding land uses are described in great detail in awd Section 4.3, Land Use. The project also involves constructing walnut Avenue through the site, connecting Beach Boulevard and Huntington Street. Nine or ten mobile homes will be removed, as required, for construction of Walnut Avenue. The City has designated walnut Avenue as a primary arterial link between Lake Street and Beach Boulevard. 5 w+ +r. The project also includes two pedestrian bridges which cross PCH and provide public access to the project site from the public beach to the south. The developer proposes to construct bridge #1, the westerly bridge, in Phase II. The second bridge would be constructed in Phase V. 3.2 LOCATION The project is located between Beach Boulevard and Huntington Street at the northerly side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), in the City of Huntington Beach. The precise location and boundaries of the proposed project are shown in Figure 1. The regional location of the proposed project is shown in Figure 2. 3.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT The .proposed development is being ccntemplated as a private development in conjunction with support of the City's Redevelopment Agency. A Disposi- tion and Development Agreement (DDA) is being considered by the Agency to carry out its objectives within the scope of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Specific plan. The entire project is within both planning areas. Primary goals of these plans are to redevelop the area around Down- town Huntington Beach from Beach Boulevard to the eastern edge of Downtown. The eastern boundary of the Specific Plan area is Goldenwest Avenue. Jr+ Additionally, a Development Agreement is being proposed between the City and the developer to ensure timely development of the project, implementation of phased infrastructure requirements ar.d adherence to mitigation measures y� included in this SEIR. The developer will receive assurances from the City that he will be able to construct the project according to the plans attached to the agreement. The project is in accordance with the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the site. As a coastal amenity based resort complex, the project will enhance visitor serving opportunities and local coastal objectives included �. in the Coastal Commission approved LCP. The development is proposed to consist of mid-rise hotels, conference facilities, recreational facilities and support retail in a resort atmo- sphere. The project is being designed and marketed as a resort-destination type project with commensurate amenities. The overall design, amenity pack- age and architectural style of the hotel/resort complex is consistent with a 6 w 1 Vicinity Map 10 �� giti. ■� ��_ if_ �. � � �� _� (�_-� I!� ! ID h r °� t7F B G oo° o _...�' � ° _�lf Q �a �•� C_ .. __-_ I�1. / �. q ' 11, n�_ 6; 1N��Np P� l � I �r� 1�L� �.:.`__.�_ll_ � �`�a �—�J � ��• � 1 i s • U ° ' L / m REIIY LQR !1 UUL P uJ BEAMI Trailerte (� ' . .�:. �.. -IHaMI TO It It E I Project Site ju1a �{ m I ( 1 Valet Tanks .Js — ti . :,. � . y N QC SqR� BM,. Scale in Feet \. 0 1000 2000 11/25/87-GD Source: USGS 7.5' Quads Newport Beach and Seal Beach, Ca., 1981 2 _4 -- Regional Location Los Angeles Co. San Bernardino Co. 90 57 S �r e 91 91 Riverside Co. 5 55 i San 22 �o� �� Cleveland o � UstiIC '°a National +� Tustin ay `, 05 usMC ; Forest • 39 El Toro ,--_---� - . x 73 a Freeway 18 i Project 133 Site •' Q • w � i L "' - • ' 5 v - 74 i . . 0.0 0 1 2 3 t 5 6 7 mites ~; Orange County ' - - . Sari Diego Co. •ti. 3 Site Plan 1 PHASE VI1 RESXrtNn.� � jq � O � Scale in Feet `i \:;rrj cao0 �i )L{h y7 ,� R o F IF 0. wILI z 50 F 1 Z z0 f 20 PACIFIC.C9_AST ------ PHASE 1 PHASE 11'`. ..... PHASE 111 PHASE IV PHASE V L.. ....... PHASE VI _---- FIRST CLASS HOTEL TENNIS ANO HEALTH ��•^.., CONFERENCE HOTEL ALL-SUITE HOTEL SHOPPING PLAZA .u. LUXURY HOTEL m CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE Note: Phase V11 Residential Site Plan is Conceptual and is Provided for Information Purposes Only. 11/25/87:CP Source: RLM. 1987 resort attraction. See Figure 3 for site plan/design scheme. �+ The rear portion of the property (north side of walnut) is planned for Multi-family attached housing at 35 units per acre, clustered around a water amenity. Total maximum potential buildout of the residential portion of the project is 894 units. Current plans indicate the developer is proposing 875 units. This EIR will analyze impact of th-e maximum potential buildout of 894 units. 3.4 INTENDED USE OF THE EIR The City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment w. Agency are requiring a Certified EIR prior to approval of Conditional Use Permits and Coastal Zone Development Permits for each phase of the project, the Disposition and Development Agreement (Agency) and the Development Agree- ment (City). This EIR is intended to be used for the entire project, con- templated to be built out over an eight to ten year period. This EIR is a Supplemental EIR intended to provide information necessary Lai to update the previous EIR prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan, EIR 82-2. Because the proposed uses and scope of development for the subject property have changed from those which were contemplated in the Downtown Specific LA Plan, and additional information should be included which was not previously available, this EIR will supplement the information and analysis to make the previous EIR adequate according to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15163, Supplement to an EIR), 3.4.1 Responsible Agencies Use of EIR and Discretionary Actions 1�. Responsible Agencies, according to CEQA Guidelines, are agencies that will give discretionary approval to the project at any time during the life of the project. The waterfront development will require review or approvals from the following Responsible Agencies; City of Huntington Beach Community Redevelopment Agency California Department of Fish and Gam? California Coastal Commission Army Corps of Engineers This EIR will be used by each Responsible Agency in its review or ap- proval of the project, and to adopt corresponding mitigation as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines Section 125096. 6w 10 6 6 1.. Mw The SEIR will be used by each Agercy for the following discretionary actions: w. • Conditional Use Permits for each phase by City . Development Agreement by City • Disposition and Development Agreement (DOA) by Redevelopment Agency (CRA) • Master Plan - by City �., • Coastal Development Permits for each phase by City, and by Coastal Commission for final phase only due to the wetlands permit re- quired. 3.4.2 Agencies Consulted The following Agencies were consulted through the Notice of Preparation L procedure, by questionnaire or by direct contact: Air Resources Board U California Coastal Commission California Highway Patrol City of Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce La Department of Huntington Beach Public Works Department Department of Boating and Waterways Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game 44 Department of Health Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Transportation Department of Water Resources Huntington Beach - Fountain Valley Board of Realtors Huntington Beach Historical Society Orange County Sanitation District +�• Orange County Transit District Rainbow Disposal Company Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Southern California Association of Governments Southern California Edison Southern California Gas Company State Lands Commission 60 11 hW L L ka State of California Office of Historic Preservation L A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated by the City (Appendix A) . Responses to the NOP are included in Appendix E. Issues brought up in the NOP process are addressed in this document. i. 3.4.3 Incorporation By Reference EIR 82-2 prepared by the City of Huntington Beach for the Downtown Specific Plan is incorporated, in whole, by reference, into this EIR. This previous EIR covers the Downtown Redevelopment Area contemplated by the Downtown Specific Plan and covers the subject property in the project des- cription, setting, impact and mitigation sections. Also incorporated by reference are the City's Local Coastal Program, General Plan, Housing Element, Coastal Element and Zoning Code. In addition, a Circulation Element Amendment (CEA 84-1) is referenced in this EIR, and is incorporated in whole into this EIR. CEA 84-1 and Negative Declaration 84-14 for the extension of Walnut Avenue are included in Appendix G. The other documents cited above are public record and are on file with the City of Hun- tington Beach Planning Department and/or City Clerk's Office and are hereby incorporated by reference according to provisions of Section 15150, CEQA 4, Guidelines. 12 Iva W 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES �. 4.I GEOLOGY SOILS AND SEISMICITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 6" A limited geotechnical investigation was prepared for the study area by Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc. in June, 1984. This study focused primarily on the proposed hotel and commercial development area of the project site. w+ Field explorations were not conducted for the proposed residential area due to restrictions caused by • development on the site and present site condi- tions. Mr. Robert Perry of Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc. has indicated that the geologic conditions for the proposed residential area will be consistent with conditions intended for the remainder of the project area (telecon, November 24, 1987) . The geotechnical report is located in the Appendix B. Information for this section of the SEIR was also compiled from the following sources: Downtown Specific Plan EIR 82-2, 1983; City of Huntington Beach Seismic - Safety Element 1984; and Geotechnical Inputs Report prepared for the City of Huntington Beach by Leighton-Yen Associates, 1974. andform and Topography The project area is approximately 300 feet from the Pacific Ocean, on approximately 44.4 acres of land. The site has an elevation of approximately two to eight feet above sea level . The topography of the project area is generally flat due to previous grading cf the existing development. Along the northeast corner of the project area, a depressed, low lying wetland area is located. The wetland comprises the only undeveloped portion of the pro- ject area. (For a full discussion of Biotic Resources, see Section 4.2.) 4.1 Local_Geol oU The project area is located along the coastal plain in the southeastern portion of the Los Angeles Basin. The project area occurs in the Santa Ana Gap, an alluvial valley formed by the Santa Ana River in geologically recent tines. Underlying the site is several hundred feet of marine sediments, L+ which overlay sedimentary bedrock. The surficial materials are comprised of beach and estuarian deposits. V 13 W 600 Jr. Seismicity +.. The project area, like the remainder of the City, is located within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. This active fault zone consists of two groups of parallel faults. The dominant northwesterly trending fault is truncated by a north to northeasterly trending set of faults. This zone is classified as an area of "wrench faulting" or "wrench tectonics". This system is char- acterized by a relatively wide fault zone (commonly greater than one mile in width) with a highly complex pattern of relatively short, discontinuous and "intertwined" faults (See Figure 4). Surface rupture may occur as a result of an earthquake on one or pos- sibly several of the surface faults within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. Surface rupture, however, has not occurred within the past 9,000 years on any faults within the Specific Plan area as delineated in EIR-82-2. In addition, no ground surface rupture was associated with the moderate sized bong Beach Earthquake of 1933 (magnitude 6.3) . An active branch of the Newport-Inglewood fault (South Branch Fault) has been mapped just northeast of the site, and several other branches pass within a few miles. Seismic risk is considered high as compared to some areas of Southern California because of the immediate proximity of the New- port-Inglewood Fault Zone and the alluvial soils which underlie the site. The primary potential seismic hazard of the project area is ground shaking from a major earthquake that could occur along any of several active �+ faults and/or fault systems in the Southern California region. Other faults of regional significance to the City are. the Palos Verdes Hills Fault, the Norwalk Fault, the Whittier Fault, the Santa Monica-Raymond Hill Faults, the Sierra Madre Fault, the San Andreas Fault, and, to a lesser extent, the San Jacinto Fault. The Newport-Inglewood fault, based on its proximity, has the greatest potential for groundshaking within the project area. The intensity of ground shaking depends primarily upon the earthquake magnitude, the dis- tance from its source (epicenter), and the site response (shaking) charac- teristics. The site response will be most severe in areas underlain by alluvium and/or thick slope wash deposits, and least severe where underlain L by in-place bedrock. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone has the potential for generating the 60 highest ground accelerations for the project area and, therefore, the highest potential for seismic hazards. An earthquake occurring on the Newport-Ingle- wood Fault 0.3 miles from the site could produce a peak bedrock acceleration of .65g with strong motion exceeding 30 seconds, and a repeatable high ground JAW 14 4 Fault Map - Faults Within the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone C ~rk- `♦ oiOrh ff p•♦' •• \ °F'Ci l'� tdeg a`` �y�+��M�ry�•.��y�� r ♦ • T H1G4fS JCNMC RIND `3p fOt�°g \ \• f / �,` ♦rE' o (GREATEST SURFACE RUPTURE POTENTIAL WITHIN CITY) ,� dt/• / '� MR AREA OF INTENSIVE SHEAR BURIED TRACE OF FAULT /•• (WITHIN 400'ZONE) i• f `'\ ° ©UNCERTAINTY AS TO EXISTENCE Sy \ OR EXTENSION OF FAULT °4r,�r � � _ ,` �♦� � � afro M _ �, __.. �-� y �..,,,.•.- ; H FAQ .✓.""'� - - ,,..-�" :�� "." �. `. ` � :.: -✓✓ .-.. t r4�"*'s �... -`"— ..'"" wsr•._ -_.a.. '3��"`�t=y6r�7t�`'y'z-'�` � .,,,a.,a•. _ -�'.`_,•»...» _..-..—.:..., � s."►'"' t FAULT *. 1 _ "•i.. �+ JOUTH ANCH w e�.R w .w+ ✓ r✓j0"M 'ry .♦� --- 10 ....- .gib.. ww... w..... r _PAC* co•:�`- r---� �• _ gLFAULI — ?F,gGIT OLIVE- St 1ULT +" ? ...�r = -- ---- Project Area Scale in Feet 7Note:Faults shown on map are within the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone 2 ora000 Source:Leighton-Yen d Assoc:, 1974 11/25/87:CPY �r. r.. acceleration of .24g. Ground accelerations for the project area are based upon the distance to the fault and the maximum probable earthquake. The ., maximum probable earthquake is one that is likely to occur with a fairly high probability. The maximum credible earthquake is one that is likely to occur with a finite probability. The maximum probable earthquake magnitude for the Newport-Inglewood Fault is 6.6 and the maximum credible earthquake magnitude is 7.6 (Table 1) . The structural design of private residences, commercial buildings, �. schools, and nearly all other types of high occupancy structures are designed for the maximum probable earthquake. These buildings have a slightly greater acceptable risk than critical structures (such as dams, nuclear reactor sites, or hospitals) which require greater safety and are designed for the maximum credible earthquake. Liquefaction r.� Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a solid state into a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore water pressure. Ground shaking resulting from an earthquake is capable of providing the mechanism for liquefaction, usually in saturated, loose, medium to fine-grained sands, silty sands and certain types of clayey soils. The potential for liquefaction is greatest in areas of shallow groundwater. A liquefaction analysis was conducted by Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc. for the project area in order to determine the liquefaction potential of the �J site. This analysis was based on the following parameters: intensity of the maximum probable earthquake, acceleration of the ground surface, repeatable ground acceleration and depth to groundwater. u Based on this analysis, and other studies (EIR 82-2,), the project area is located in a zone of moderate to high liquefaction. potential . Liquefac- tion and sand boils were observed in the area as a result of the Long Beach +�► Earthquake of 1933. Tsunamis «W Tsunamis are seismically induced sea waves. For a detailed discussion of tsunamis, refer to EIR 82-2, Section 4.1. The potential for tsunamis in the project area appears to be low-to-moderate for the Specific Plan area as delineated in EIR 82-2. The potential of an ocean tsunamis in excess of four feet occurring along the section of coastline that would impact the project area is remote. 16 1-- r - r _ 1r.. _ _ _ f TABLE 1 MAXIMUM PROBABLE RANT) CRFDIBI.F EART1?QUAKES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BrAC11 APPROXIMATE PROBABLE MAXIMUM DISTANCE TO MAXIMUM RUPTURE LENGTH CORRESPONDING CITY OF ESTIMATED MAGNITUDE FOR RANGE OF MAXIMUM MAXIMUM HUNTINGTON TOTAL FAULT OF MAXIMUM MAXIMUM PROBABLE CREDIBLE BEACH LENGTH HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE EARTHQUAKE EARTHQUAKE EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE (MILES) (KM) EARTHQUAKES (KM) MAGNITUDES MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE Newport - 0-3 90+ 6.3 45 or less 6.6 - 7.6 6.6 7.6 Inglewood (1933) Whittier 21± 103± 5.9 51 or less 6.8 - 7.7 6.8 7.7 (1987) Elsinore 25± 180+ 5.5 90 or less 7.2 - 8.0 7.2 8.0 (1938) San Jacinto 50± 310± 7.1 155 or less 7.5 - 8.2 7.5 8.2 (1940) (Seven quakes of M greater than 6.0 since 1918) San Andreas 53+ 450+ 6.5 225 or less 7.7 - 8.4 7.7 8.4 (from Garlock Fault S/E) Source: Geotechnical Inputs Report, Leighton-Yen, Associates, 1974. �r. 46* �6* Soils Soil types for the project area have been classified by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (1978) . The predorr.inant soils underlying the site are tidal flats and beach soils. �+ Tidal flat soils occur on nearly level areas along the coast (slopes ranging from 0 to 210). These soils formed in nixed alluvium and organic deposits. They are stratified with clayey to sandy deposits. r.� Beach soils consist of sandy or cobbly coastal soils that are washed and rewashed by tidal and wave action. Runoff is very slow and the erosion hazard is high for beach soils. Based on borings conducted during the geotechnical investigation by Irvine Soils Engineering Inc. (1984), fill soils were encountered to depths of one to ten feet below existing grades. Fill material consisted of primar- ily firm to stiff silty clays and loose to medium dense silty to clayey sand and sand. The fill soils in general exhibit low strengths and moderate to high compressibilities. The natural scil profile consists of beach and estuary deposits of clays, silts and sands. The natural soils within 35 to 50 feet of the exist- ing grade consist predominantly of alternating soft to firm and occasionally very stiff to hard silty clays, and loose to medium dense, occasionally dense, silty sands, clayey sand and sands. These upper layers appear poorly stratified and of low to moderate strengths and have moderate to high com- pressibility. Underlying these layers, at depths below 35 to 50 feet, are dense to very dense silty sands, sands and gravels. These soils exhibit high strengths and low compressibility characteristics. Peat and Dragnic Soil Deposits Jam, Areas of peat and organic soil deposits are not located within the project area (Leighton-Yen, I974) . Probable areas of peat deposits (area and depth unknown), however, occur along the east side of Beach Boulevard im- mediately adjacent to the project area. In addition, at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway, peat deposits ranging from one- half foot to five feet thick occur. The effect of the proximity of these deposits to the project area is discussed in the Impact section. IB 4 Irr ors Soil Settlement Densification of the underlying soils due to liquefaction and subsequent surface settlement is considered a definite possibility in the project area in the event of a major seismic occurrence. ir. Groundwater Groundwater of usable quantity and quality is confined to several aqui- fers in the City. These aquifers are separated from one another and the ground surface by layers of impermeable sediments which confine the ground- water to the aquifer until it is tapped by a well . freshwater aquifers are confined to within several hundred feet of the ground surface in the City. Depth to groundwater, whether saline or fresh, is of geotechnical sig- nificance because of its implications relating to foundation design and seismic ground response (i .e., groundshaking, liquefaction and soil settle- ment) . Generally, the groundwater table lies within ten feet of the surface for the first mile from the coast in the Santa Ana Gap. Depth to ground- water gradually increases inland with increasing surface elevation. Ground- water levels were measured at the project site in May, 1984, at a depth of eight feet. Because of the relatively close proximity of the Pacific Ocean, } the groundwater level is influenced by tidal fluctuations. The various faults of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone act as permeability barriers with respect to groundwater flow. These barriers aid in limiting the intrusion of seawater into the freshwater aquifers, and assist in maintaining a high groundwater table on the north side of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. Degradation of groundwater as a result of salt water intrusion has occurred, however, in the Santa Ana Gap as a result of overdrafting of wells and oil field operations. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) monitors groundwater levels and water quality through- out the State. The DWR in conjunction with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board enforces water quality standards and corrects adverse conditions. w IMPACTS Based on the geotechnical studies for the project area, the site has been determined to have several potential geotechnical constraints. Although there are several geotechnical constraints in the project area, Irvine Soil Engineering, Inc. (1984) indicates that the site is suitable for development provided special consideration is given to these constraints in the design u 1G Ir. w. and construction of the proposed project. Detailed analysis of specific on- site development areas will be required as part of geotechnical investiga- tions conducted at irore detailed levels of planning, prior to construction of each phase. The primary geotechnical concerns related to the proposed project in- clude the following: I. Seismic hazards associated with the proximity of the Newport Ingle- wood fault zone, 2. The moderate to high potential for liquefaction of the subsurface soils, 3. The relatively low strengths and high compressibility characteris- tics of the subsurface soils. 4. The relative shallow groundwater levels. The following discussion provides a description of general geotechnical impacts associated with the proposed project. Seismicity u The proposed project lies in a seismically active area. The proximity of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone to the project area will affect the proposed development in the event of an earthquake. Groundshaking, liquefac- tion and soil settlement are potential geologic hazards associated with seis- mic occurrences that could potentially affect the project area. Any intensi- fication of development in the project area will therefore ultimately subject additional people to these potential -hazards. Groundshaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earth- quake. The duration and frequency of groundshaking will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of the shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake. Liouefaction Due to the moderate to high liquefaction potential in the project area, +� liquefaction occurring as a result of a seismic event would result in local- ized areas of subsidence, due to the discontinuous stratification of the loose liquefiable sand layers. Liquefaction of the on-site soil could cause 20 6m f severe damage to structures supported on shallow foundations, and could result in moderate to severe distress to concrete slabs-on-grade floors and pavements. However, it is the intent of the developer to construct on pilings, thus reducing the potential risks associated with liquefaction. Soils The on-site subsurface soils possess relatively low strengths and high compressibility characteristics in the top 25 to 30 feet of the existing grade. Because of these soil conditions, conventional shallow foundations or mat-type foundations are not suitable for the support of the proposed struc- tures. In addition, slab-on-grade and paved areas may be adversely affected due to the consolidation of the subsurface soils. Also, the potential for large magnitudes of settlement on the order of several inches may occur if significant levels of fill are placed at the site. Preliminary earthwork estimates for the project area are 200,000 cubic yards of fill and 70,000 cubic yards of cut (Source: FWLS, November 20, 1987 telecomnunication). Peat and Organic-Soil Deposits Although no peat and organic soil deposits are mapped within the project area, there are areas in close proximity to the site. Because of the close proximity of peat and organic soil deposits to the site, and the potential soil settlement and liquefaction associated with these areas, a thorough geotechnical investigation should be performed for any development to be located near these areas. Groundwater Groundwater levels are relatively shallow at the project area. As a 1 result, dewatering will be necessary for excavations that extend below the �.► groundwater table. This includes excavations for site grading and trenches, as well as basements and other structural elements. Structures extending below the groundwater table, which may occur to within 10 feet of the exist- ing site grades, would have to be designed for potential hydrostatic pres- sures and uplift, or adequately drained to relieve the anticipated hydro- static pressure on the structure. w 21 V 4 r., rr Construction Recommendations Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc. has provided several recommendations concerning the design and construction of the proposed project relative to the geotechnical constraints present at the site. These recommendations were based on the project scope presented to the geotechnical consultant at the �. time their report was prepared (June, 1984) . Their recommendations may require revisions to reflect current project description. Prior to comple- tion of design for each phase, a supplemental investigation should be con- ducted to confirm the recommendations stated in Irvine Soils Engineering report. For a complete discussion of these recommendations see the Irvine Soils Engineering report located in Appendix B. +�+ In general , these recommendations pertain to site preparation, excava- tion and earthwork compaction. In addition, foundation type recommendations pertaining to pile design, pile capacity and pile driving were included. Based on the site conditions, the proposed buildings should be supported on driven piles which derive their support from end-bearing in the dense sand layers underlying the upper weak and compressible soils at the site. Because of the high groundwater and loose, non-cohesive .soil conditions at the site, drilled cast-in-place concrete piles and/or piers are not feasible as an alternative for driven piles. Conventional spread footings may be considered for minor, non-critical structures, such as landscape retaining walls. However, any structure sup- ported on footings May be subject to severe distresses in event of soil liquefaction at the site. MITIGATION MEASURES Li The following mitigation measures are provided in order to mitigate the geotechnical constraints in the project area. The measures include: 1. Conformance to mitigation measures included in Downtown Specific Plan EIR 82-2 - City policy. 2. The developer shall incorporate recommendations provided by the 6" Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc. into project designs, plans and specifications. �.+ 3. Prior to the completion of the final design for each project phase, a supplemental geotechnical investigation shall be performed to confirm subsurface conditions (liquefaction hazard zones and 22 Ir. groundwater levels), and provide supplemental recommendations, as appropriate, for design of each structure and for the proposed residential development. a. All structures shall be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building Codes to promote safety a.. in the event of an earthquake - City policy. 5. Existing fill materials and disturbed, loose soils should be re- moved and replaced with competent material as required by qualified soils engineers. Site preparation, excavation, and earthwork com- paction operations shall be performed under the observation and testing of soils engineer. Certification of such reports, for each �+ phase, shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 6. Design provisions such as pile foundation systems shall be required to permit structures to withstand liquefaction without serious consequences. If significant liquefaction hazard zones are identi- fied in the supplemental geotechnical investigation, the develop- ment plan should be revised to avoid these areas or the hazard should be mitigated by densification of the liquefiable soil or other recognized techniques. Pile foundation systems for all structures. LEVEL of SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the signifi- cant impacts of the Geology and Soils for the proposed project to a level of non-significance. w.. 23 r.r w.. 4.2 BIOTIC RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Existing information on the project area was obtained from letters and reports by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the Huntington +6. Beach Downtown Specific Plan EIR, and high quality color aerial photos (1" . 60') . Data was requested on sensitive biological resources of the site from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) . This information was ba supplemented by field work on August 20 and 21, 1987, to determine the size and location of the wetlands in the project area, their existing condition, and the feasibility of wetland restoration. Most of the project area is occupied by a golf course and a mobile home park, and there is very little native or ruderal vegetation, except for a small wetland area just west of Beach Boulevard and an adjacent low lying area. No sensitive plant or animal species are known or likely to occur regularly in the project area. None of the sensitive species listed by CNDDB as occurring in the vicinity are expected to occur or were observed in the project area, due to lack of appropriate habitat. The predominantly ur- banized and landscaped habitat of the project area supports common animal species that are typical of such environments. Using the 1987 Corps of Engineers (COE) wetland delineation method, LSA determined that the existing wetland along Beach Boulevard is about 0.6 acres in extent (see detailed report in Appendix 0) . The wetland is a freshwater or brackish marsh dominated by dense, lush cattails and toles, with very little open water. DFG (1983) estimated the' existing wetland at 0.8 acres, probably due to differences in methodology (see Appendix D), and determined that it has been degraded (pursuant to the Coastal Act) "because of its reduced size, configuration, location, and overgrown condition." Use of other..wetland definitions, such as those of the Coastal Act or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would result in different acreage estimates. The DFG report noted low use of this wetland by wetland associated birds, and attributed this low wildlife use primarily to the wetland's small size and overgrown condition. LSA observations support this finding. Ac- cording to the Specific Plan EIR, birds observed in the wetland area include the American kestrel , American coot, ring-billed gull , song sparrow, white- crowned sparrow, red-winged blackbird, western meadowlark, and house finch. In addition, ash-throated flycatcher and mourning dove were observed near the wetland during the present study. 6 24 W According to DFG (1983), a 1.4 acre area surrounding the wetland has been severely degraded and no longer functions as wetland, but is feasibly restorable as wetland. Observations support this finding. LSA identified and mapped six distinct habitat types in this area (see Figure 5 and Appendix D). Five of these were dominated by hydrophytic (wetland adapted) plants, but were lacking in wetland soils andfor wetland hydrology. Field data indicates that these habitats are not inundated or saturated by water at a great enough frequency or duration to be considered a wetland by the COE. It appears that the DFG may have classified one of these habitats, the Tall Forbs type, as a wetland. This habitat looks more like a typical wetland than do the other habitats and, if classified as wetland, would result in a wetland acreage of 0.8 acres (equal to the DFG estimate) . Total restorable wetlands and degraded wetlands do not exceed 2.2 acres. IMPACTS 6J Implementation of the project would require filling and developing both the existing wetland and the adjacent low lying area, and would result. in a loss of both the existing wetland values and the potential for restoration. If not mitigated, the impacts on the 0.6 to 0.8 acres of existing wetland are considered significant. The size of this wetland was estimated as 0.8 acre by DFG and 0.6 acre by LSA, using the COE method. +�+ Depending on final project design, there could also be a reduction in the amount of urban runoff that presently flows from this small wetland via culverts under Beach Boulevard into the wetlands to the east (see Figure 5) . DFG (1983, p. 20) expressed concern that developments in this area should "continue to allow freshwater urban runoff from the trailer park to flow to the wetlands southeast of Beach Boulevard." Loss of this water supply would probably increase salinity and decrease the seasonal duration of'ponding and soil saturation in these nontidal wetlands, with possible impacts on the nature and extent of wetland vegetation. To assess the impacts on these wetlands and their associated wildlife, pore hydrological data are needed to «� determine the relative importance of this versus other water sources supply- ing the wetlands. This impact would be significant if not properly miti- gated. Mitigation would have to include maintenance of existing amounts of runoff to the wetland on the other side of Beach Boulevard. No other signi- ficant impacts on biological resources are anticipated. 25 5 Wetlands and Other Habitats Lpn Q n r *4 7 2.7 e 3.0 Mobile Homes *3.7 * PPTS _ n CfC ? \ 1 *s *4.7 *2 6 2 Fence OPe * 2 U�' O Pe O� --� --- 4 4 P DF *2.9 CfR *2.9 OPePF *3.7 4.6 rainage Culvert,"' (Road Drainage Ramp roject Boundary.. Road Drainage Ramp BEACH BLVD. LEGEW O - Sample points for wetland determination ®- Wetland,as defined by Corps of Engineers(COE) 1 *4.7 -Spot Elevations l f ` 1 1111 HABITAT TYPES PePTS -Palustrine,emergent, persistent, TYpha, Scirpus (Cattail -Bulrush Marsh). Pe PA--Palustrine, emergent,persistent, rundo -. (Giant Reed) PePDF -Palustrine,emergent,persistent, istichlis Frankenia (Saltgrass - Alkali Heath) ` Wetlands PePF -Palustrine, emergent, persistent, Frankenia' r Area (Alkali Heath) N� P@PP.-Palustrine,emergent,.perslstent. Pcrla ..._ IV ' .(Tall Forbs) Scale in Feet VC-Coastal terrace,forbe.Carpobrotus (Iceplant) r—L--r---1 CIR -Coastal-terrace..forbs, ruderals 0 30 60 120 (Ruderal) 1112 516 7•CP Source:I.SA Associates, Inc.. 1987 V W it L MITIGATION MEASURES Adjacent Wetlands The potential reduction in water supply to the wetlands east of Beach Boulevard can be avoided by designing the project's runoff management system to continue supplying urban runoff via the culverts under Beach Boulevard. The system should to designed to supply approximately the same amount of water to these wetlands, or a greater quantity if approved by DFG and the 6, property owner. An increased level of runoff might improve the wetlands by increasing the seasonal duration of ponding and soil saturation, however further study would be necessary to confirm this possibility. Runoff from the proposed project could be routed through the existing culverts under Beach Boulevard, if found to be hydrologically adequate. The following mitigation measures would be appropriate to avoid significant impacts on the wetlands east of Beach Boulevard: 1. The developer shall provide evidence that the project's runoff management system will deliver approximately the same amount of freshwater urban runoff to these wetlands as under existing condi- tions, and in approximately the same seasonal pattern. This evi- dence shall include (a) a hydrological analysis comparing the existing and post-project water supply, and (b) drawings and a +r description of the runoff conveyance system in sufficient detail for a qualified engineer to judge its adequacy. 1 2. Alternatively, if the developer proposes to increase the water supply to these wetlands, or to change the seasonal pattern, the developer shall provide, in addition to the evidence required in mitigation measure #1, a biological analysis demonstrating that there would be no significant adverse impacts on the wetlands or associated wildlife. On-Site Wetlands The major biological mitigation required will be to replace the entire acreage of existing wetland to be lost. In addition, DFG (R. Hein and E. Burkett, personal communication) has requested replacement of the 1.4 acres of restorable former wetlands that will be lost. The sections below discuss the pertinent Corps of Engineers -and Coastal Act requirements, their ap- plicability to the Waterfront project, the relevant policies of the Hun- tington Beach Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the DFG, and the relative merits of on-site and off-site mitigation alternatives. c7 1rw it i.. Corps of Engineers Requirements. Because the project would involve filling of wetlands that are, following Corps usage, "adjacent" to tidal waters, it will require a Corps permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Project criteria do not qualify for any of the Corps nationwide permits, and thus will require an individual permit application. W The Corps will not issue a permit unless the applicant has obtained the necessary approvals (or waivers) from the Coastal Commission and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In evaluating the permit application, the Corps will conduct a public interest review to determine whether the benefits of the proposed fill will outweigh the damage to the wetlands resource, includ- ing cumulative impacts. If so, and, if the applicant has complied with the Environmental Protection Act's 404(b)(1) guidelines, the Corps will grant a permit. The 404(b)(1) guidelines prohibit filling of wetlands under the Corps' jurisdiction if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed fill that would have a less •adverse impact, taking into account the mitiga- tion plan and other factors. An alternative is practicable if it is avail- able and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of. overall project purposes. In evaluating the impacts on wetlands and the proposed mitigation, the Corps consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). In general , the policy of the FWS is that a project should result in no net loss of in- L kind wetland acreage of wildlife habitat value; that is, to compensate for a loss of wetland, the mitigation plan should create a new wetland of at least equivalent acreage and habitat value, and the new wetland should be of a similar type to the wetland lost. coastal Act Requirements. The California Coastal Act of 1976 contains strict requirements for protection, maintenance, or restoration of wetlands. These policies dictate which Uses are allowable in wetlands and under which circumstances uses not specifically listed may nevertheless be permitted. To implement these statutory mandates, the Coastal Commission (1981) adopted I�. interpretive guidelines for wetlands that clarify these circumstances. The guidelines give examples of the situations where such uses may occur and what mitigation measures would be required. The discussion below is derived i primarily from these guidelines and from the Coastal Act itself. Allowable Uses in Wetlands. Section 30233 of the Coastal Act states that diking, filling, or dredging of wetlands and other water areas shall +� only be permitted for certain specifically defined uses, none of which are applicable to the Raterfront project. This restriction applies even in cases 28 w rr where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigations can be provided to minimize adverse impacts. An alternative to restoration, allowed under Section 30233, applies to small , extremely isolated wetland parcels that are incapable of being re- stored to biologically productive systems. rr This is applicable only to wetlands formally determined by the Depart- ment. of Fish and Game to be degraded and in need of major restoration activi- ties and is allowed according to the procedures and requirements of Section 3041I. Restoration projects under this approach may include uses that are not permitted in Section 30233 if the project meets all of the other require- ments of Section 30233 and 30411. The priorities for projects used to re- store degraded wetlands under the Coastal Act are as follows (listed from highest to lowest priority): �.. I. "Restoration purposes" under 30233(a)(7) . 2. Boating facilities, if they meet several specific criteria. 3. Visitor serving commercial recreational facilities and other priority uses designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation. 4. Private residential , general industrial , or general commercial development. In order for this alternate approach to be used, the Department of Fish and Game must identify degraded wetlands. Generally, coastal wetlands are considered degraded if they were formerly tidal but their present resource value has been greatly impaired because they are presently diked or otherwise modified and, as a result, tidal influence has ceased or is greatly dimin- ished. Projects permitted under Section 30411 other than boating facilities should, at a minimum, result in no net loss in acreage of wetland habitat. However, projects which result in a net increase in wetland habitat are greatly preferred. Small and extremely isolated wetland parcels may be filled and developed for uses not ordinarily allowed, but only if such actions establish stable and logical boundaries between urban and wetland areas, and if the applicant provides funds sufficient to. accomplish an approved restoration program in 29 4W JW r. +rr the same general region. All of the following criteria must be satisfied before this exception is granted: w 1. The wetland to be filled is so small (e.g., less than one acre) and so isolated (i .e., not contiguous or adjacent to a larger wetland) that it is not capable of recovering and maintaining a high level �+ of biological productivity without major restoration activities. 2. The wetland must not provide significant habitat value to wetland fish and wildlife species and must not be used by any rare or endangered species. (For example, such a parcel would usually be completely surrounded by commercial , residential , or industrial developments that are incompatible with the existence of the wet- land as a significant habitat area) . 3. The most feasible way to achieve a wetland restoration project in �., connection with the small wetland is to fill the wetland and miti- gate by restoring another wetland off-site. 4. Restoration of a parcel to mitigate for the fill must occur at a site that is next to a larger, contiguous wetland area providing a significant habitat value to fish and wildlife which would benefit from the addition of more area. in addition, such restoration must occur in the same general region. 5. The Department -of Fish and Game and the U.S. .Fish . and Wildlife �,. Service have determined that the proposed restoration project can be carried out successfully. Analysis of Alternatives. Any proposed project that would require filling a wetland will be permitted only if there is no feasible, less en- vironmentally damaging alternative (Coastal Act, Section 30233(a)) . iW "Feasible" is defined in Section 30108 of the Act to mean ". . .capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental , social , and technological factors." Feasible under the Coastal Act is not confined to economic con- siderations. Environmental , social and technological factors also shall be considered in any determination of feasibility. ww b" 30 t 1.+ Alternative feasible mitigation measures are the following: +, if an appropriate restoration site is available, the applicant shall submit a detailed restoration plan that includes provisions for purchase and restoration of an equivalent area of equal or greater biological productivity and dedication of the land to a public agency or otherwise permanently restricts its use for open space purposes. The site shall be purchased before the dike or fill development may proceed. W For an area to be of "equal or greater biological productivity," it must provide equivalent or greater habitat values to the same type and variety of plant and animal species which use the area affected by the proposal . 1 - The applicant may, in some cases, be permitted to open equivalent areas to tidal action or provide other sources of surface water. This method of mitigation would be appropriate if the applicant already owned filled, diked areas that themselves were not environ- mentally sensitive habitat areas but would become so if such areas were opened to tidal action or provided with other sources of surface water. "Opening up equivalent areas to tidal action" means to permanently open to tidal action former intertidal wetlands capable of provid- ing equal or greater biological productivity. . Mitigation measures 1�. should restore areas which are no longer functioning in a nanner beneficial to wetland species. For example, returning a diked-off, formerly saltwater, but presently freshwater, marsh to tidal action would not constitute mitigation. However, improving tidal flushing by removing tide gates, digging tidal channels, and clearing cul- verts might qualify if the Commission determines that such actions would restore an area to equal or greater habitat value than the 1wt area lost. • However, if no appropriate restoration sites under options 1 and 2 are available, the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee of sufficient value to an appropriate public agency for the purchase and restora- tion of an area of equivalent productive value or equivalent sur- face' area. a] 1.. This third option would be allowed only if the applicant is unable to find a willing seller of a potential restoration site. The w, public agency may also face difficulties in acquiring appropriate sites even though it has the ability to condemn property. Thus, the in-lieu fee shall reflect the additional costs of acquisition, including litigation, as well as the cost of restoration. If the public agency's restoration project is not already approved by the Commission, the public agency may need to be a co-applicant for a j coastal development permit to provide adequate assurance that conditions can be imposed to assure that the purchase of the miti- gation site shall occur prior to issuance of the permit. In addi- tion, such restoration must occur in the same general region. A preferred wetland restoration prccram would remove fill from a former- ly productive wetland or estuary which is now biologically unproductive dry land and would establish a tidal prism necessary to assure adequate flushing. +� Few, if any, such restoration projects have been implemented for a sufficient length of time to provide much guidance as to the long-term restorability of i such areas. Since such projects necessarily involve many uncertainties, restoration might be required to precede the diking or filling project. At a minimum, the permit will be conditioned to assure that restoration will occur � . simultaneously with project construction. Restoration and management plans crust be submitted with the permit application. The restoration plan should generally state when restoration work will commence and terminate, should include detailed diagrams drawn to scale showing any alterations to natural landforms, and should include a list of plant species to be used, as well as the method of plant introduction (i .e., seeding, natural succession, vegetative transplanting, etc.) . The plan would constitute an agreement between the applicant and the Coastal Commission to guarantee the -wetland is restored in accordance with stated management objectives and within a specified time frame. The plan should describe the applicant's responsibilities for maintaining the restored area, monitoring its success, and making any necessary repairs or modifica- tions. As part of the monitoring program, the applicant should periodically submit reports on the project that include the following information: • Distribution and type of vegetation established . Benthic invertebrate abundance • Bird usage and establishment of endangered species • Fish and other vertebrate abundance. 3.) M 4R w Anplieability_of Coastal Act and DFG Policies_to the Wetland On-Site. The DFG (1983) determined that the project area contains a degraded wetland of 0.8 acres, surrounded by an additional 1.4 acres of former wetland that could be restored. While such a restoration effort could be undertaken, there are two major problems that could render it infeasible. First, the primary water supply is urban runoff from the adjacent mobile home park, and this along with slag or weathered petroleum deposits less than one foot below the surface may result in unacceptable water quality for restoration pur- poses. Secondly, even if such a restoration effort were to be successful and r•• feasible, the restored wetland would be completely surrounded completely by • urban development, including residences, visitor-serving commercial uses, and Beach Boulevard. The degraded wetland east of Beach Boulevard is ' itself isolated and in need of restoration. While the existing wetland could be improved, other alternatives would likely result in a greater net increase in functional wetland acreage and habitat value. ' Pursuant to Sections 30233 and 30411 of the Coastal Act, if this de- graded wetland area is filled, a wetland of equivalent or greater acreage must be created elsewhere in the project area or off-site, preferably by �., restoring a former wetland in the vicinity; or if both on-site and off-site replacement prove infeasible, an in-lieu fee sufficient to restore a com- parable area could be paid to an appropriate public agency. A key policy of the Huntington Beach LCP requires that impacts on wet- lands be mitigated pursuant to the Coastal Commission wetlands guidelines. The DFG (R. Hein, personal communication) recommended the following criteria for appropriate mitigation for the wetland impacts on-site: • For such a small site, surrounded by urban development, off-site mitigation may be preferable to on-site mitigation in this case, even though DFG generally prefers on-site mitigation. • Off-site mitigation should ideally take place as close as possible to the project area. • The mitigation should preferably .be in kind, that is the restored ,.. wetland should be of the same type as the wetland to be filled. • Mitigation should ideally include both the acquisition or dedica- tion of private land and its restoration to wetland. The land should currently not be functioning as a wetland. The DFG believes the wetland restoration should be at least 2.2 acres, to compensate for both the existing wetland and the restorable former wetland. 33 a« 60 r. If the restoration is done on public land, a greater acreage should be required, as there would be no need to pay for land acquisition. A" • The restored wetland should ideally be in place and functioning before the existing wetland is filled. At a minimum, the wetland u restoration should be concurrent with project construction. There should be a monitoring program to determine the success of the wetland restoration and correct any deficiencies. i.. The following sections evaluate several alternatives for on-site and off-site replacement of the wetland, based on the Coastal Act requirements, DFG criteria, and other considerations. On-Site Replacement. The on-site replacement alternative would be to create a new wetland elsewhere on the property and incorporate such a wetland as a positive element of the proposed development. While the development would stand to gain in aesthetic value, the even greater isolation of the new wetland and increase in surrounding urban uses would greatly limit the poten- tial value of this approach. And while some wildlife value could be gained, other alternatives would result in far greater habitat value. Off-Site Replacement. A more viable alternative would be to restore a wetland off-site as mitigation for filling the existing degraded wetland. Discussions with DFG personnel (R. Hein and E. Burkett personal communica- tions) indicate that participation in several alternative restoration pro- jects could result in a greater habitat value than could be achieved through on-site restoration of the existing degraded wetland. In terms of maximizing habitat value to wildlife, it is better to enlarge existing areas of high quality wetland habitat than to attempt to restore high quality habitat in scattered areas. Several areas in the vicinity are candidates for such an effort: the Santa Ana River mouth; the Seminiuk Slough area along the Santa Ana River; the Huntington Beach wetlands between Magnolia and Brookhurst; the degraded wetlands east of Beach Boulevard; and the Anaheim Bay National Wildlife Refuge. i- Santa Ana River Mouth. Wetland restoration will be required as part of several public works projects planned for the Santa Ana River mouth: the Pacific Coast Highway widening and bridge construction, the rebuilding of the Santa Ana River flood control channel , and the realignment of the Albert Channel . Because those projects are functionally interrelated, have varying requirements for wetland restoration, and have uncertain completion items, participation in wetlands restoration at this site could be infeasible due to 34 w potential for significant delays and the complexity of determining which agency is responsible for how much wetland restoration and where. w Seminiuk Slough. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is planning a 92 acre wetland restoration effort just north of the Santa Ana River mouth. It may be possible to Mitigate the loss of degraded wetlands on the project site by participating in the wetlands restoration effort at Seminiuk Slough either by contributing an in-lieu fee sufficient to cover the restoration costs of additional acreage included or by acquiring adjacent lands to the restoration area for inclusion in the restoration. As above, this alternative may pose problems due to delays and the need to coordinate with the Corps. Discussion with the Corps would be advisable to determine the feasibility of this ap- proach. Magnol1alBrookhurst Wetlands. Although the wetlands extending from Magnolia Avenue to Brookhurst Street are in need of enhancement and restora- tion, and restoration is feasible, the property is in private hands, and the owner of the property is not willing to participate in a wetland restoration project. Beach Boulevard Wetlands. A parcel of degraded wetlands across Beach Boulevard from the project site is owned by the Department of Transportation 60 (Caltrans) and could be restored with minimal effort. However, DFG (R. Hein, personal communication) has expressed a preference that wetlands be restored on sites that are not presently functioning as wetlands and are in private 6 ownership. An additional drawback is that this parcel is isolated from the remaining degraded wetlands complex in Hsntington Beach, being surrounded by residential development, a trailer park and flood control channel , Pacific Coast highway, and Beach Boulevard. Nevertheless, given DFG approval , this 60 site has considerable potential for wetland restoration. Anaheim_EM National_Wildlife_Refugg. A minor restoration project is he planned at the Anaheim Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Seal Beach. Although the lands being created from non-wetland areas are in public ownership, a possible means of mitigating the lass of 0.8 acres of degraded wetland at the project site could be to contribute to the creation of wetlands from non- wetlands in conjunction with the planned restoration activity at the Wildlife Refuge. Use of this site would also require complex coordination with multi- ple agencies, resulting in considerable delays and uncertain success. L 35 rw w Upper Newport_Bay Ecological Reserve. A possible area for off-site restoration is the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, operated by the �. California Department of Fish and Game. Any participation in restoration efforts there has several drawbacks, however, including: 1) Upper Newport Bay might not be considered to be in "the general area" for purposes of allowing off-site restoration activities to occur; 2) the reserve has been used in the past as an area for off-site restoration, and there may be a reluctance on the part of public agencies to have additional off-site mitiga- tion occur there; 3) those restoration activities may have completed restora- tion efforts needed at the reserve; and 4) the habitat to be replaced at a potential restoration activity at the reserve may be of a different habitat type, and might not be acceptable to the involved wildlife and regulatory „ agencies. CONCLUSION - MITIGATION REQUIRED r 7. To mitigate for the loss of on-site wetlands, the applicant shall prepare a detailed wetland restoration plan that complies with the Coastal Act requirements discussed above (see text above - Mitiga- tion pages 27 through 36) and takes into consideration the addi- tional criteria provided by DFG. Further discussions with the Coastal Commission, DFG, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be necessary to determine the most appropriate restoration site, the type of wetland to be restored, the necessary acreage, the timing of the restoration, the monitoring plan, and other considerations. These issues will be clarified prior to Coastal Commission review of a Coastal Development Permit for the affected phase of the project. Due to the various constraints detailed in the discussion of potential off-site restoration at different locations in the �., Huntington Beach area, it may be necessary to fulfill the mitiga- tion requirement through the payment of an in-lieu fee, consistent with the Coastal Commission's adopted wetlands guidelines and the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program. 8. The developer shall submit a complete mitigation program for all on-site and off-site wetlands effects described in the above analy- sis, approved by the Coastal Com.-nission and DFG, prior to issuance of building or grading permits by the City for any development which will cause the wetland to be filled. The restoration plan should generally state when restoration work will commence and terminate, should include detailed diagrams drawn to scale showing any alterations to natural landforms, and should include a list of plant species to be used, as well as the method of plant introduc- 36 w Itr tion (i.e., seeding, natural succession, vegetative transplanting, etc.) . LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 6w Project impacts can be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance with appropriate mitigation measures in place prior to development of the wetland and degraded wetland portion of the site. The City of Huntington Beach is requiring full mitigation of loss of on-site wetlands and potential effects on the wetlands across Beach Boulevard prior to issuance of permits which may impact the wetland. Therefore, there is sufficient mitigation to reduce the project effects to a level of nonsignificance after these measures are taken. W W W W 37 6# bs W 4.3 LAND USE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Land use on this site is governed by two levels of government. The State of California governs the land use of the property through regulation by the California Coastal Commission and Department of Fish and Game (see discretionary actions, Section 3.4. . In addition to these State regulatory agencies, State Planning Law governs the process by which the property is zoned and subdivided. Beyond the two regulatory agencies that have jurisdic- tion over this project, the State vests all other land use planning and zoning control on this property to the City of Huntington Beach. The City of Huntington Beach has duly adopted General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site. These designations are the guidelines by which the property may be developed. In addition, the City has applied W specific guidelines onto this property and other adjacent properties within the designated downtown area through adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan. This Specific Plan is designed to provide additional City control over land use type and intensity, and development standards. The Downtown Specific Plan directs the scope and nature of future projects within the Plan area. A summary of the operational land use controls is provided below: Local Coastal Program - Califcrnia Coastal Commission/City 1603 Review - Califcrnia Fish and Game General Plan and Zoning designation - City Specific Plan - City Zoning Code - City Army Corps 404 Permit - Army Corps of Engineers Existing Uses. The existing land uses on the site are comprised of the following (see Figure 6 and 7): Two story motel • Restaurant . Non-regulation recreational golf course Parking lot for motel/restaurant • 239 mobile homes . Vacant property and a City owned controlled access/overflow parking `' lot along the Beach Boulevard frontage City raintenance yard (less than 2 acres) . 38 w 6 " Existing Land Use Map \\Ae \ .�.�. ,,,.h.,., r/ .� -tom •. V \ o CO Uj t ` N Scale in Feet 018 \0 90 180 360 ` 11/25/87:GD Source: RLM, 1987 7 Existing Mobilehome Park Lu W 0 W Q' f W WM. y� D W _ Q w _ _ k Z LL S ATLA TA AVENUE Y.� i. DRIFTWOOD BEACH CLIMB MOBILEHOh7E PARK �S PACIFIC OCEAN N k. 6W am i. The aerial photo Figure 8 and site photos are located in Section 4.8, Aesthetics/Views show these uses. Adjacent land uses are as follows: Townhomes and mobile homes - north Apartments (three story walkups) - northeast (across Beach Blvd) Vacant and boat brokerage yard near PCH - east (across Beach Blvd) State Beach - southeast City Beach - south Vacant - in disrepair - west Figure 9 shows adjacent land uses and zoning. The site is bounded on two sides by major arterial streets, Beach Boulevard to the east and Pacific Coast Highway to the south. Huntington Street is the western boundary of the �.► site. These surrounding streets act as buffers separating surrounding pro- perties from the site. Relevant Planning. Planned uses for the property and surrounding properties are governed by Coastal Commission and City policies and land use plans. In addition, the Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over the small wetland described in Section 4.2. The following land use programs affect the site and adjacent uses: City of Huntin ton Beach General Plan - long-range land use, use of coastal re- sources and circulation. Zoning Code - development standards, e.g. setbacks, height, bulk, density. Zoning Designation - type of land use allowed (see Figure 7). Downtown Specific Plan - areawide and site specific development strategy affecting density, mix of uses and circulation. Mobile home Relocation - describes relocation requirements if use Ordinance (Overlay Zone) is changed from mobile home park to anoth- er use. (Discussed in Section 4.I1 Socio- economic Effects). w 41 4 1r ` { 1t• t � � i � t lrle � tit F�� r��P'� �.y��f�� 1 �(� �lr5 If i �*� a t j l ., '! ( '��. � { fL�i .1s�J ,T.��+`l�� r'.�r } '�f� • pf1t,T F1 /f ' '► t' �,P(. t"J�I a^ ,j v � v'tg**�'� ¢,. � i`�i�.�� '.err � .. '3 �+f :�. `y4; •��' ?��` +� •.:�.,t t�' ��,+if� � • tom. I Al ajk%AL .A 1 h s~ 16 • t c.y S R 4 � fax i �, i. t;~' �+ �il• :� � ,t; >< r- r- r r E - E e f f c t ! 9 Adjacent Land Use and Zoning Map Mobitehome 5� �y Park (M H) AAN ATLANTA S7 > Vacant g� (Downtown Specific Plan z s Shopping Center No o (DSP)#8A) Townhomes (n2) (C4) Ui (DSP#7)\ ArartmPnls IFt4-28) Waterfront7Pro]ect Area cy c`Aa�d • as cy Vacant (FiA-0) PACIFIC OCEAN riot to Scale ' A �Boat Brokerage Yard 1 sf'9 e eea�°� y�yY 11125ie7;Cr Source: City of Iiuntington Ouch, 1987 w ur r�. Coastal Commission Local Coastal Program(LCP)- jointly enacted by the City and Coastal Commission, sets parameters of development and future activities. Local zoning, circulation, and the Specific Plan are consistent with the LCP. Planning for the site is overlayed with a number of policies, plans, zoning standards and land use designations related to the adopted plans listed above. The proposed Development Agreement, DDA and project Master Plan attached to these agreements must, by law, be consistent with the City's General Plan, the Downtown Huntington Beach Specific Plan and the Main Pier Redevelopment Project Plan. She project has been compared to each plan for general consistency and conformance. W Development standards and the Master Plan for the project are consistent with the zoning designations for the site. No exemptions to the zoning code are being requested. The proposed project is generally consistent with the City's General Plan and implementing Downtown Specific Plan designations of District 8 High Density Residential (northerly half), District 9 Commercial Recreation (southerly half) and the extension of walnut Avenue according to General Plan Element Amendment 84-1. wr Additionally, the developer and City are considering an agreement which permanently restricts use of the beach and beach parking l.ot in the form of a restrictive covenant on the City beach adjacent and across PCH from the subject site. This proposal covenant will preserve the parking and beach area in its current condition and prohibit development of the beach area with structures that would effect enjoyment of the beach amenities. The following discussion analyses each General Plan Element and other relevant planning document as it relates to the project: Land Use Element. The Land Use Element provides a generalized plan for anticipated physical development as well as criteria for making land use decisions. The General Plan Land Use Map designates the sites as Commercial- Mixed Development. This designation allows hotels, retail , recreation facil- ities and high density residential use, where residential uses are adjacent to commercial highways. The project conforms to the Land Use Map designation and Land Use Element policies and programs for logical and systematic devel- opment of the community. 44 a.. 6W �w+ ir. Irr Open Space and_Conservation —Element. This element focuses on the preservation and enhancement of open space and conservation resources within the City. The element contains goals, objectives and policies for these areas. Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is designated a "Scenic Corridor" by the w Open Space and Conservation Element (as amended December, 1981). The City owned beach across PCH is designated a "Recreation Area". The Open Space and Conservation Element also identifies seven priority open space planning areas. The project site does not fall within any of the priority areas. The plan, as proposed, will affect visual changes to the inland of a I section of PCH directly in front of the proposed project. The site is also visible from the City beach across PCH. Please see Aesthetics, Section 4.8, for analysis of the visual effects. The Element describes a Scenic Corridor as a "linear area protected from disharir.cnious development or preserved in a natural state; includes scenic roadways and greenbelts". Because of the broad interpretations which can be made about scenic corridors, the direction of view to be preserved (towards the ocean in this case), and previous findings of the Specific Plan's consistency with the General Plan, the proposed project is compatible with all provisions in the Open Space and Conservation Element. Noise Element. The project will be constructed in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements reducing internal noise levels to Ldn 45 or lower. Outdoor noise sources have been identified in Section 4.7 and mitigated to a level of non-significance. The project conforms to City poli- cies to reduce community noise exposure through mitigation measures in Sec- tion 4.7, and by compliance with the City Noise Ordinance and/or applicable policies regarding source noise and construction related noise. As mitigat- ed, the project complies with the City's Noise Element. Recreation Element. The developer will be participating in Park Devel- opment Fees as each phase is constructed. In doing so, the developer is providing for his fair share of park acquisition, development and mainte- nance. In addition, the recreation elements of the project open to the public in conformance with Downtown Specific Plan guidelines, provide the entire community additional tennis and other formal and informal recreation activities. On-site residents of the residential portion of the project will }. share in the on-site recreational activities. It should also be noted that the project is directly adjacent to the City owned beach which serves as additional recreational opportunities for project residents. Park develop- �" 4 5 be meet fees of $1,159,000 will be paid to the City consistent with City fee schedules, at time of building permit issuance, to offset project impacts on the City's park system. The project is consistent with the goals and programs of the Recreation Element by providing both visitor oriented users and community users public w recreation facilities on-site. The proximity to the beach also will serve to satisfy most recreational needs resulting from the project. Seismic - Safety Element. The specific issues related to geotechnical hazard abatement for new development, geologic evaluation, fire hazard abate- ment and emergency responses are discussed in the Geology, Soils and Seismi- city Section 4.1, Public Health and Safety Section 4.7 and Public Services Section 4.9 of this report. The project and detailed studies included in the above sections were reviewed for conformance with the Seismic-Safety Element. The project complies with the recommendations regarding the Seismic-Safety Plan and the levels of risk determined to be acceptable in the Seismic-Safety Element. Because the buildings are being designed to compensate for anticipated w' hazards and prevent the hazards, the project is consistent with all aspects of the Seismic-Safety Plan. Circulation Element. The project implements Circulation Element Amend- ment 84-1. All other aspects of the project are consistent with the goal of ensuring the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. The project is consistent with the arterial streets and highways plan of the City, and protects or improves operational levels of service of the existing facilities serving Huntington Beach. See Section 4.4 for a detailed analysis. The project, in general , implements and is consistent with the Circulation Ele- ment and its goals, policies and implementation program. Scenic_Highway-Element. PCH is "Eligible" as a State Scenic Highway. The City has been engaged in a protracted effort to remove billboards from PCH between the Santa Ana River and Anaheim Bay. This effort, combined with other City programs, is the approach the City is taking to qualify PCH as a State Scenic Highway. Other City regulations are used to protect and enhance scenic values wherever possible. Beach Boulevard is included in the City's General Plan as a "Landscape i- Corridor". This corridor "provides regicr.al access to the beach and a poten- tial view corridor". As a Landscape Corridor, Beach Boulevard shall have w 46 r. landscaped medians, on-site landscape review, underground utilities, sign control and height and setback control . To qualify PCH as a State Scenic Highway and to promote Beach Boulevard as a Landscape Corridor, the Element suggests site plan reviews and planning regulations for new development. All of these regulations are included in r.. the City's CUP approval process which will be followed by the developer. In this manner, the project conforms to the regulations suggested in the Scenic Highways Element. Additionally, the proposed restrictive covenant on the City beach pro- perty to the south of the project, across PCH, will permanently restrict development from occurring that will affect ocean views from PCH. This aspect of the project will safeguard PCH as a scenic highway. Housing Element. Please see Section 4.11, Socioeconomic/Relocation/ Housing. Community Facilities Element. The sewerage, water and drainage systems and impacts on those systems are discussed and analyzed in Sections 4.7 and 4.9, Public Health and Safety and Public Services/Utilities, respectively. The project is to be served through connections to existing facilities. All services are adequate, with the exception of regional solid waste services. As a "fair share" of its responsibility to help provide for adequate regional facilities, the developer will be paying the following fees: Downtown Specific Plan Fee S 43,000 Water Connection Fees S 142,000 Sewer Connection Fees S 307,000 Sanitation District Fees $3,515,000 Drainage Assessment Fees S 329,000 These fees will be used to provide service extensions and overall future system capacity on a pro-rata basis. As indicated in the respective sections, through site planning, payment of connection fees, and coordination with County of Orange service providers, the project is consistent with the City's goals policies and programs in the Community Facilities Element. `r 47 I�r Coastal Element. The project site is within the "coastal zone" as delineated by the State. The City's 'Coastal Element indicates the kinds, location and intensity of development and applicable resource conservation. The Coastal Element contains the following applicable policies: 1. Provide for maximum recreational opportunities along the City and State beaches. 2. Provide a variety of recreational facilities which provide oppor- tunities for all income groups. 3. Provide public access to coastal resources. 4. Provide visitor serving facilities which are varied in type and price. . �•► 5. Preserve and enhance visual resources within the coastal zone. 6. Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas. With the exception of item 5, the proposed project provides the oppor- tunities for access and maximum enjoyment of the coastal area. By providing visitor serving facilities, beach access through grade separated pedestrian �+ ways and increased on-site recreational facilities, the project supports and implements the provisions of the Coastal Element. ., Plumber 5, above, is addressed separately in Section 4.8, Aesthetics and Views. Significant and nonsignificant impacts are discussed. Effects on the Coastal Element are described therein. The Coastal Element, as amended, identifies the wetland on the site. The project developer proposes to fully nitigate impacts on the wetland or the effects of loss of this important resource, as described in the Biotic Section. See also LCP/Coastal Zone Analysis in this Section. LCPZCoastal Zone r. The California Coastal Commission certified a Local Coastal Program for most of the City of Huntington Beach coastal zone in 1985, with the exception of wetland areas. Land use designations and policies for these areas of deferred certification, called "white holes" by the Commission, were subse- quently certified by the Commission in 1986. The City is empowered to issue permits for development in those areas of the coastal zone where full im- k 4€ w a.. w plementation of the LCP has occurred; full implementation of the wetlands areas has not yet occurred, due to the lengthy and controversial nature of the planning effort to develop implementing actions programs for the wet- lands. Thus, permits from the Coastal Commission are still necessary for developments proposed or undertaken on the wetland area in the last phase of development. Regardless of the LCP status of the wetland areas, Section 30519 (b) of the Costal Act mandates that the Coastal Commission shall retain permit �., jurisdiction over development proposed or undertaken on any tidelands, sub- merged lands, or on public trust lands, whether filled or unfilled, lying within the coastal zone. This area of jurisdiction retained by the Coastal Commission applies to all wetland areas, former wetland areas now filled, beach areas, and lands below the mean high tide line. Because a portion of The Waterfront project property contains wetlands, permit approvals for coastal development permits will be required from both the City of Huntington +-+ Beach and the Coastal Commission for the final phase of the proposed develop- ment and for related aspects such as Wetlands mitigation or restoration. This holds true even with full certification of the white hole areas and for both on-site or off-site mitigation of wetlands impacts, whether on-site or off-site. IMPACTS The proposal entails clearing the property of all existing improvements and constructing a major visitor serving resort and up to.894 dwelling units. �., The proposed development is substantially more intense than the two story motel and 13.3 units per acre mobile home park currently on the site. How- ever, impacts on adjacent properties and impacts within the development are mitigated, to a great extent, by project design and situation of potentially conflicting land uses. The nature -of the project is consistent with the City's General Plan designation of the Downtown Specific Plan policies, and with designation of the land uses as Mixed Use Commercial/Recreation on the PCH frontage and High Density designation on the northerly portion of the property (see Figure 3 Site Plan). The proposed land uses are consistent with the Specific Plan, and have been addressed by EIR 82-2. Additionally, the Downtown Specific Plan and Circulation Element (General Plan) Amendment 84-1 call for the extension of Walnut Avenue through the site, traversing the site parallel to PCH. The proposed development of the Waterfront project includes this circulation improvement, consistent with the Specific Plan and City's General Plan Circulation Element. The environmental effects of the extension of Walnut Avenue were found to be not significant (Negative Declar- ation 84-14 - see Appendix A) . 49 irw Ir+ Adjacent Residential Uses. The overall design of the proposed project is generally consistent with all City adopted plans and zoning. The design w of the project places the high density residential Uses adjacent to other residential uses to the north (mobile homes estimated to be 14 units to the acre and townhomes estimated to be 14 units to the acre) . The cluster design bw and large setbacks (20 feet minimum) of the proposed residential portion of the project (at 35 units per acre) will not have noticeable effects on sur- rounding uses. Although at a higher density than the immediate residential uses to the north, these residential uses adjacent to each other are con- sidered compatible. It should be noted that there is a height restriction for any structure on the project site within 100 feet of the adjacent proper- ty to the north. Height is restricted to 35 feet within 100 feet of the northerly property line (Section 4.10.9 - Downtown Specific Plan) . In most cases, the commercial/recreation uses on the southern portion of the property are far enough removed (approximately 500 feet) from the ad- jacent properties so as to not cause any negative effects on land uses. The existing residential uses to the north of the proposed project are expected to remain unaffected by the visitor serving uses. No significant adverse 4W effects are anticipated to result from noise, traffic or other activity at this location. Property values and property maintenance are not expected to be affected by the project, due to the distance from the commercial/recrea- tion portion of the project and lack of any identifiable physical effects resulting from the project. The exception to these conditions occurs at the far western portion of the site, north of proposed Walnut Avenue, where the Pacific Mobile Home Park will be directly across Walnut from the Phase I hotel . Walnut is proposed at a 90 foot width. The hotel is proposed to be thirteen stories in height and will be the initial development on the site. The use of this site as a high intensity commercial hotel will negatively impact the mobile home park across Walnut Avenue. The around the clock activity of a hotel and related recreation/restaurant use of the property will have a noticeable impact on the two to six mobile homes closest to proposed Walnut. Even though the mobile homes are partially buffered by the distance from the hotel , related traffic, occasional noise, light glare and general activity will cause a significant impact on these two to six mobile homes. 60 Phase 1 of the project will require secondary access via Walnut Avenue from Huntington Street. Approximately nine to ten mobile homes would be re- moved when this right-of-way is cleared for Walnut Avenue, east of Huntington Street. There will be effects on the mobile home park that result in the possible removal of nine units. A secondary access point providing internal w circulation to the mobile home park and access to Huntington Street will also 50 40 I�r be affected. The ultimate alignment of Walnut Avenue has been sketched over an aerial photo to indicate these potential effects. This sketch (Figure 10) shows the remaining two to six mobile homes, the ones effected by adjacent activities on Walnut Avenue and Huntington Street. On-site Effects. This land use analysis reviews possible effects resulting from potential on-site land use incompatibility. It is highly unlikely that there would be any effects from the residen- tial use of the northern portion of the project on the commercial/recreation uses. However, there are inherent potential impacts from high intensity uses such as hotels, parking structures, retail and recreation uses on the ad- L jacent residential component of the project. There are mitigating circumstances included in the design of the project which lessen these potential conflicts. These design features include: • Walnut Avenue - a major arterial serving as the main entry collector for the residential component 6" also serves to separate the residences from the commercial/recreation uses. • Commercial Setbacks - the hotels, support commercial uses and recreation uses are set back an average of 20 feet minimum from Walnut, creating a major landscape buffer. between uses. • Residential Design - design of the residential component is focused toward the center of the project 6 and includes large setbacks from Walnut (20 feet minimum), fronts of units face internal to the residential project, while 6 some backyards face the commercial/recrea- tion uses. • Commercial/Recreation - design of the hotels and their support 6 Design services is oriented toward PCH and the beach, taking advantage of ocean views and -the amenities associated with the beach be area. These design components mitigate potential effects resulting from pos- sible land use incompatibilities between the commercial/recreation project 51 10 Preliminary Proposed Alignments for Huntington Street and Walnut Avenue I I . �• '` ` P CIFIC MOBILEHOM _PARK •� J `'%if•,• A 9 O�o0 CO GT o��o LEGEND OA Existing Roadway ♦�♦ Proposed Roadway �♦ • Mobile Homes to be Removed ' Note: Preliminary proposed alignment, has not been officially ♦`. approved by the City of Huntington Beach. r A� r CO�`S'T �r N No Scale 11l25187:CP Source: FWLS, Oct. 1987 L L L i 4 and the residential project north of Walnut Avenue and the remaining mobile V homes at the Pacific Mobile Home Park. Overall project design is enhanced by the separation of uses and design components associated with each phase of development. �+ Adjacent Beach Uses/Recreational Uses. The City operated public beach with 2,000 parking spaces is immediately adjacent to the site across PCH. To the east of Beach Boulevard, and south of the project, is the State Beach, &W operated by the State Parks Department. Both beaches are region serving recreational amenities which host visitors from a four County area and vaca- L tioners from out of the area. The visitor serving functions of the commercial/recreation portion of the project are compatible with adjoining beach uses, consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, the General Plan, and more importantly the Local w, Coastal Program (jointly adopted by the City and Coastal Commission). With the added feature of the two pedestrian bridges crossing PCH connecting the commercial/ recreation uses with beach access, the project enhances visitor serving functions of both the site and the beach. It also provides a direct link to the beach for pedestrians originating in the residential portion of the project. LResidential and Vacant Land - East of Site. The vacant property to the east of the site, across Beach Boulevard, is characterized by bare ground, wetlands and spotty vegetation (see also Section 4.2 Biology) . The proposed project is a high intensity use of property. The conflicts of vacant proper- ty adjacent to a high intensity development include: L .. Increased pressure to develop vacant property Effects on enjoyment of open space by individuals (driving by) Effects on wetland habitats of adjacent land. LThere are no adverse effects associated with the proposed project which would impact the adjacent sites. The residential apartment project adjacent to the site to the east, - across Beach Boulevard, directly faces the project site. The proposed project's residential component is directly across Beach Boulevard from these residences, while the hotel complex is directly across from the vacant property and the boat brokerage lot. The hotel/recreation uses, however, will be visible, and in some cases will reduce views of the L ocean, from the three story residences across Beach Boulevard. 0. The increased intensity of development, as proposed by this project, L could be considered to have significant effects on the adjacent residences 53 L L L and vacant land, especially the wetland habitat. (For further analysis of Iw these biological effects, please see Section 4.2.) Although the effects cannot be quantified because they cannot be mea- sured, the potential effects on these properties are lessened by distance L from activity centers of the proposed hotels and by the presence of Beach Boulevard which, in effect, is a physical and spatial barrier which separates these land uses. It is highly unlikely, due to the design and focus of the L project, that there will be any spillover of activity to adjacent sites across Beach Boulevard. The spatial relationship to the project and the barrier effect of Beach Boulevard serves to mitigate many of the effects of the project on these uses. There remains, however, certain visual , aesthetic and development inten- sity incompatibilities that will affect these properties to the east of the L project. (For a full discussion of view and aesthetic impacts, please see Section 4.4). Surrounding Land Uses. The project is compatible with the City's L. General Plan, Local Coastal Program and the Downtown Specific Plan. In addition, the project implements Redevelopment Plan objectives aimed at refurbishing the downtown/beach core area. As such, the project implements long-term goals and objectives for land and redevelopment in this areas. The project is compatible with areawide development and proposed new development surrounding the downtown and pier area, as outlined in the Downtown Specific j Plan and EIR 82-2. Relevant Planning-Elements. The proposed development is generally consistent with all elements of the City's General Plan as described in the �- previous "Environmental Settings". For key areas of the wetlands and aes- thetics views, please refer to Sections 4.2 and 4.8. Significant impacts on biotic resources and views are described which affect individual policies of ., the Coastal Element and Scenic Highways Element. Further discussion of the Housing Element is included in Section 4.11 Socioeconomic/Relocation/Housing. There were no significant effects on the Housing Element discovered. On balance, the project is consistent with the goals, policies progra^:s and implementation regulations of each element of the General Plan, the zoning code, zoning regulations and use conversion regulations. 54 L j.. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation is required to lessen the effects on surround- ing land uses: I..� 9. The developer shall either maintain the wetland or enhance the property fronting Beach Boulevard with a graduated/meandering landscaped setback of not less than 25 feet for residential and 50 feet for commercial , from curbline, along the distance of the entire frontage. The intent of this landscaped setback is to provide a visual and aesthetic buffer for the property to the east. Appropriate landscaping amenities shall be included, to the ap- proval of the Planning Director. + 10. The developer shall screen the mobile homes at the western portion of the site by means of a six foot high block wall on top of a one and one-half foot high berm and substantial Mature landscaping, to the approval of the Planning Director. 11. The developer shall complete the site plan review process estab- lished within the Conditional Use Permit regulations to ensure compatibility with all elements of the City's General Plan and the Local Coastal Program established by the Coastal Commission. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The mitigation measures required above significantly reduce impacts on surrounding development, and also act as project betterments. Increased setbacks, project design details and buffers provided will reduce the effects to a level of non-significance. The effects on surrounding land uses will be limited to those described in the view/aesthetic section, and will not affect property values, future land use or property maintenance. There is no causal relationship which affects surrounding property which will lead to disinvest- ment or change in land use of the surrounding properties. The impacts des- cribed in this section affect a limited number of mobile homes (up to six) and limited properties to the east, across Beach Boulevard. With mitigation, these effects are reduced to a nonsignificant level . 55 L L L V 4.4 CIRCULATION 6. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTIKG The following has been summarized from a detailed traffic analysis and 6d parking study performed by LSA Associates, Inc., 1988, located in Appendix C. The proposed project will be developed in seven phases, with construc- tion beginning in 1988. The first phase of project development, which is planned for completion by 1991, will consist of a 300 room hotel , ancillary restaurant and retail uses, conference rooms, ballroom, health/exercise facilities, administrative and housekeeping services. Figure 3 illustrates the proposed site plan for The Waterfront development. Currently the Huntington Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway intersection is operating with an AM peak hour Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) of 0.51 and a PM peak hour ICU of 0.56. By 1991, this intersection is expected to operate with AM and PM peak hour ICUs of 0.43 and 0.47, respectively. The improvement in intersection operations between 1987 and 1991 is due to added roadway capacity resulting from completion of the previously discussed PCH widening project. Addition of Phase 1 traffic is expected to result in ICUs L of 0.43 during the AM peak hour and 0.49 during the PM peak hour. The Beach Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway intersection is currently operating at LOS B during both peak hours, with an AM peak hour ICU of 0.64 and a PM peak hour ICU of 0.65. By 1991, the AM peak hour ICU is expected to decrease to 0.56, with the PM peak hour ICU also decreasing to 0.56. This decrease during the PM peak hour is primarily due to increased capacity resulting from the proposed widening of P:H. Addition of Phase 1 development L traffic to the 1991 background conditions at this intersection results in no change to the ICU values in either peak hour. Both AM and PM peak hour ICUs remain at 0.56. IMPACTS L To determine the potential impacts associated with The Waterfront Paster Plan bui1dout, a cumulative base was developed which represents the ambient traffic levels at the time of the Faster Plan's completion. This cumulative base includes traffic volumes generated by the Downtown Specific Plan area L and the Pierside Village project area. The modification of -traffic volumes to reflect the elimination of existing uses on the site has been accomplished in the cumulative base (i .e., The Huntington Beach Inn and ancillary facili- L ties, Driftwood Mobile Home Park, and Beach maintenance yard). The cumula- E E L NW ftw low l tive base is the anticipated maximum tuildout of the Downtown area as des- cribed in the Downtown Specific Plan E1R. AM and PM peak hour cumulative 6, turn volumes are derived based on the relationship of existing peak hour and average daily traffic volumes to cumulative condition average daily traffic volumes. L. Cumulative Conditions t L Figure 11 illustrates peak hour turn movements at selected intersections under the cumulative condition. It should be noted that the closure of Main Street and the diversion of Main Street traffic to Sixth Street has been assumed in the cumulative condition analysis. As. can be seen in Table 2, the intersection of PCH/Huntington is not anticipated to exceed the acceptable threshold of 0.90 ICU, with ICU values of 0.57 and O.62 in the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. This corresponds to Level of Service LOS A in the AM and LOS B in the PM peak hour. The term Level of Service (LOS) refers to the level of congestion of the traffic along a given facility. As facilities move from LOS A to LOS F the density of ka traffic increases and the rate of flow of traffic decreases and congestion occurs. An LOS of D or lower represents traffic that is less than 90% of capacity, while LOS E refers to 90-100% capacity and LOS F refers to over 1W 100%, which results in substantial deterioration of service. Utilization of a facility over its theoretical capacity of (1000), is designated LOS F and represents heavily congested traffic flows. The remaining intersections will operate with acceptable levels of service during both peak hours. Cumulative Condition with The waterfront LTwo generation rate scenarios were analyzed to determine the peak hour trips generated by The Waterfront development. Trips were generated for the proposed project based on trip generation rates for hotel land uses, as described in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual , Third Edition. L The alternate scenario assumed the hotels were" destination resort hotels". A destination resort hotel was defined as a hotel which serves as a "primary attraction in itself because of the attractiveness of the accommoda- tion facility and the on-site amenities that-are available". Such amenities k. L 57 L L I 11 Cumulative Condition Peak Hour Turn Volumes Lsa Ltu W ZW wW w ow t^ Fcc w cc a v0 . U1 N N F N _ fA H w OG N �L u1 9p M p w WALNUT AVENUE 6 O � , 1. enr N1 tJ of+NI L 10 512113 O —19119 3 551390� 117 6 1116 4— No- 147/54� v" ^eer r°o^ N moo• �10/52 °1 �129133 a�"� L NN A s a 2271726 L +-135311395 I 12181.1546 \ , f—oro j L� o/tat PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY +� ~71�148 000 J 32/41 t� 453,0001 231/196— 1 �522 o00 1242113;2 fro' 1471/1257—+ xx/yy - AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes 7/5 o/r 000 N (zzz) - Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes s �-1►- Project Access Locations t TABLE 2 CUMULATIVE CONDITION - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS PCH/Huntington Avenue 0.57 A 0.62 B PCH/Beach Boulevard 0.61 B 0.64 B PCH/Lake Street 0.76 C 0.81 D PCH/Main Street/Sixth Street 0.47 A 0.61 B 59 i W 1.+ L ' include recreational activities (health facilities, tennis courts, golf L, courses, beaches, etc.), restaurants, commercial facilities, etc. In addi- tion to these amenities, all of the hotels surveyed contained restaurants and conference facilities and/or ballrooms and meeting rooms. Figures 12 and 12a reflect the peals hour trips assigned to the project based on these rates. Figure 12 indicates trips based on ITE rates and 12a k indicates trips based on the study referenced in the traffic impact report. W These project peak hour volumes were added to the cumulative traffic base as illustrated in Figures 13 and 13a, and potential intersection impacts were evaluated. Figure 13 represents the volumes for the conventional trip generation ' rates, and Figure 13a represents volumes for the destination f ° resort hotels. L - Table 3 presents a comparison of the resulting ICUs, with the addition of peak hour traffic volumes associated with the proposed Waterfront Master j Plan when added to the cumulative traffic base for both scenarios. kW As can be seen in Sable 3, all six intersections will operate below the acceptable level of service in both peak hours in the cumulative plus project scenario for both trip generation alternatives. It should be pointed out again that a southbound left turn lane has been included as a committed intersection improvement at the intersection of Huntington/PCH. This was in- cluded as a means cf improving the flow of left turning traffic volumes, and 4w not because of unacceptable operating conditions. This improvement will not only improve the potential circulation problems at this intersection, but will also improve public access to the beach areas in the vicinity by reduc- ing conflicts between beach visitor traffic and traffic generated by other uses. Daily traffic volumes along the proposed Walnut extension are also L evaluated as part of this analysis. Currently, Walnut Avenue west of Lake Street carries 1,400 ADT. With the ultimate redevelopment of downtown, based on the Downtown Specific Plan, the Department of Public Works estimated that LW the Walnut extension, from Lake Street to Beach Boulevard, will carry 15,000 ADT between Lake Street and Beach Boulevard. Due to the increase in trip generation of the proposed project, the estimate of traffic on Walnut Avenue L will increase slightly. Upgraded to a primary status, as indicated in the Negative Declaration 84-14 for the Circulation Element Amendment 84-1, Walnut can adequately accommodate the projected traffic generation, operating at I level of service B. Public Works has recommended that Walnut Avenue between &+ Beach Boulevard and Sixth Street be developed as four undivided lanes. EO W 12 Master Plan Project Trip Assignment lsa ty h W Old W W �' �. W 7 M 0- - p F y �-`` Z Y w ;� �: a No Scale u w �sO 7 I �jJS7 sl� us117=—. /=rat � f/1/ f sons 11err SN! 7 WALNUT AVENUE. �a • •� nr I I �� !6 7/ � oa.�. Lai c e114r� •�- ' w`e .rr n w n r •w 4 �17l11 1..�fTDr104 �` �3/173 146114 L 146/141/ ! fall PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY tae � to', ISt1176—� ISer176' 431/6 t01lt/3 3$r31—� i7.7001 114,1"=! 12.700) xs/TT — AI#7PM Peak Hour Turn Vohlmee 14.O00) I:t:1- Faeesst Average 0611Y Tfalfkl Volumes ►- Project Access Loestlons 1/13188:CP _ - r - r- - �- -- r---- r - - r- - r - - - - C- 12 . a Master Plan Project Trip Assignment lsa W 1., ar 0 W 1A� Y x >< o6 w �n ; :, y w «� «� + =+_ 9 No Scale cc `1140141 Ni O I IOf 12a � es167 2a727 27r12 ISMS \\ • fOr12e 36l41 �l su,sa—. r� w1`'rt` 1-1 olio--, lorea WALNUT AVENUE I a71 r~ 11 7 17 ratI? F r M A dw� till e~~ �aSf 233 N7wti —r311a2 �1 . e s11209 � �} e •e/1r3—► I r r n an,--- ..,; o i 1021127 �A110 �� `--�We J L �06/!• \� 22100 . • �_.o .—..ras PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ��33 14, rs+r7 raoi3T, 2611 ratio* [1,p061 lass—+ iL9001 [2,9001 rorloo~ LEGEND aAlyy — A1641PM peak Hour Turn Volumes [tttl-Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes Prolwet Access Locations 1/13188:CP 13 Cumulative Plus Master Plan Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes Lsa x ._ se 1 N w `s •- y No Scale W 8 �• (y � j�M •• 1 `t5t113! i J` wL lftrI.JIL F—,oanoo i �lfrts tare +olw esrsf�1 Nam./Morn_! t71s7 + • t3/e toltS ttu/ ` WALNUT AVENUE 112 11Sr1f!—. I ( w F. r +wSSl7�Ijl9-� s lot •♦ •« v r � �ti« �a317a7 F-1ae11f 1 +� lM �fslss rn � ` « at/lpt� • } O f I �tltsrup T «? t�l7/177e—+ ^in •e r � �w n ♦tea •� .--i:iiittaa $ f � I� �lii�r« J ios o/p —pl,StJ! L PACMIC COAST H GMWAY a�+ 1r�50.7001 lo/taa,�} I tolls► 11` 7o.rsa uafn talu,att—+ r31r1te alo e: ralyy —AN/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes (55 1506�17O e+b .7001 eee rrs • ;. olo e e e I51.6001 '"' I:r:1—Forecast Average pally Traffic Volumes a a I4 Soo) �l�-Pro]ect Access Locations f/1318 8:cr r-- r - r-- 13 . a Cumulative Pius Master Plan Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes Lsa ~ I--W 1 �t11 W W U W W U~I � x N Q9 r Y 7 0� r a = A6 y p s N 9Q No Scale WALNUT AVENUC YMn.IMd,,_, 111 r - , ,I 17 10r10 ,O/eS • r 441a ,a1325*a-�\ asr,sa—• .IJI u!i 1� Iref I I I/irat ,.a ��• s- EESA O M �N- ' 00 w NFM I I R=� al 4 gauss • d M:� t—nl/I» se►»ems o�� 4SI11701 14lfla� :F= N A M Y. r J • N Ael :M tin ';A 1}—13S/3e rir o �llfl7fa ^ -11 SsIlsts ��7ti71,670 �- 11 -Ilif/1Sa7 31 �J}tom � sJ t Lr � •�L� +--ua PACIFIC CQJ45T H}CNWAY �1 i�« i 1r1 IS0.4401 la6 rOp1 I5 D,a00! • 7a110e 155.00u) r tar}7a, ,tl 11110 f LEGEND 071r„e� t1lr , eee 171e/Ilia--+ t1i1l1I,a---. Oio ti1�e �e� I><Jyy — AM/PM Peak Ffour Turn Vdumif 71a •$� f o—{ eee alf—1 sZ:M (Ill)—Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes t ---}�— Pro)ect Access Locations 1/13/88:CP r" r r__ T� C C ' C C r r r TABLE 3 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS COMPARISON SUMMARY Destination Resort llotel Trip-Generation ITE Hotel Trip Generation AM Peak 11our PM Peak Flour AM Peak [lour PN Peak hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS PCN/Huntington Avenue 0.63 B 0.67 B 0.67 B 0.69 B PCH/Beach Boulevard 0.63 B 0.66 B 0.64 B 0.67 B PCII/Lake Street 0.78 C 0.86 D 0.80 C 0.87 D PCII/Plain Street/Sixth Street 0.49 A 0.64. B 0.50 A 0.64 B Huntington Avenue/Wainut Avenue 0.36 A 0.33 A 0.40 A 0.38 A Beach Blvd./Walnut Avenue 0.43 A 0.47 A 0.52 A 0.51 A arkin The results of the parking demand analysis (included in 6. Appendix C of the Traffic Impact Analysis) indicate that the opportunity for shared parking exists for the proposed project based on the variety of land uses and their respective periods of activity. The number of parking spaces provided is adequate to accommodate the demand for parking throughout the day for the Phase I and for ultimate buildout of the Master Plan. Due to the proximity of the beach areas to the proposed project, the potential for beach users to attempt to park in The Waterfront parking areas exist. To eliminate this potential , the developer has agreed to install gated security facilities at all parking area entrances. Therefore, the parking supply proposed for The Waterfront project will serve only the park- 6A ing demand created by the proposed project. LMitigation Measures No mitigation Treasures are required of the project, however the follow- ing programs will be implemented to improve traffic circulation within the Lproject vicinity as a project betterment. • Bus services to regional activity centers within the County will be provided to hotel visitors. • Shuttle services to local activity centers, including Main Street and the City and State beaches, will be provided to hotel visitors. Promote employee use of public transportation. • Provide bus shelters, benches and bus pockets near the proposed project. Install gated security facilities at all parking facilities to eliminate use by beach users not residing in the hotel . Level of Significance After Mitigation There will be no significant impacts on traffic. L 65 i�. 1.� Ld L L& 4.5 CLIMATEYAND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The general air quality of the South Coast Air Basin; in which the rr project site is located, is determined both by the primary pollutants added daily to the air mass and by the secondary pollutants already present. Secondary pollutants, specifically oxidants (ozone), represent the major air quality problems basinwide. The air quality of the project site is deter- mined by the primary pollutants emitted locally, the existing regional am- bient air quality, and the specific meteorological factors which influence the site. k. Climate and Meteorology w, Air quality in the vicinity of the study area benefits from the site's topographic orientation and localized meteorological conditions arising from the area's proximity to the coastline. Winds with five to ten miles per hour velocity flow offshore during the nighttime hours and are replaced by onshore breezes of the same magnitude by 10 a.rr.. Summer months usually include a northwesterly and southeasterly flow pattern superimposed upon the daily sea breeze. The climate in the vicinity of the project site is of the Mediterranean type (mild summers and winters) with mean winter temperatures ranging from 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Freezing temperature occur infrequently along the coast. Ocean influence dominates ambient wind and temperature conditions at the site (City of Huntington Beach, 1981) . Exposure to Major Point Sources The ambient air quality of an area is partially determined by its ex- L posure to major sources of air pollutants such as freeways, power plants, or industrial sources. Stationary sources and mobile sources within a site, as well as in the general vicinity, can also contribute to local pollutant con- L centrations. Major point sources are defined as those sources from which a minimum of 100 tons per day of primary and secondary air pollutants are generated. LThe nearest air quality monitoring station is in Costa Mesa. The moni- toring is considered to be representative of the subregional air quality L found in Huntington Beach and the project environs. However, the project site is located at the seashore adjacent to the Pacific Ocean where air 1 66 L L I.+ i i. V patterns disperse air pollutants immediately. The project site and local area benefit by almost constant on-shore air flow. Air quality data moni- tored at the Costa Mesa monitoring station is shown in Table 4. LAir Quality Management The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin and, juris- t dictionally, is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management L District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. Southern California frequently has temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Ground based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inver- sions, are most severe during clear cold early winter mornings. Under condi- tions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major road- ways. Elevated inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict verti- cal mixing. Below the elevated inversions, dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the South Coast Air Basin and is partly responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. LThe SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed and updated the Air Quality Management Plan � . (AQMP) for the air basin. The AQMP has the goal of achieving healthful L levels of a i r quality by 1987, and is mandated by State and federal laws. Included in the plan are new stationary and mobile source controls; carpool- ing, . vanpooling, and other ride-sharing programs; and energy conservation ' measures. The AQMP is designed to accommodate a moderate amount of new iW development and growth throughout the basin. Development consistent with local General Plans, such as the proposed project, are factored into the AQMP. The AQMP projections and mitigations are based on the SCAG-82 Modified Growth forecasts. Orange County has developed a "SubrEgional Element for the 1982 Regional Air Quality Management Plan." The Orange County supplement encourages new +�+ development to incorporate commercial/industrial uses near residential com- munities to reduce trips and trip lengths. The element also encourages several parking management strategies, carpool and bus alternatives, and the 6W promotion of bicycle racks. L67 L L E L L F W TABLE 4 AIR OUALITY LEVELS MEASURED (COSTA MESA AIR MONITORING STATION California National Maximum Days State Pollutant Standard Standard Year Level Std. Exceeded LOzone 0.1 ppm 0.12 ppm 1979 0.21 26 for I hr. for 1 hr. 1980 0.16 20 1981 0.20 28 1982 0.18 25 1983 0.25 41 1984 0.25 29 1985 0.21 33 - 1986 0.17 24 Particulate 100 ug/m3 260 ug/m3 1979 252 26 Matter for 24 hr. for 24 hr. 1980 125 6 1981 Monitoring Discontinued CO 9 ppm 9 ppm 1979 21 i8 for 8 hr. for 8 hr. 1980 17 7 1981 15 5 1982 21 2 1983 14 1 1984 13 1 1985 19 5 L1986 10 3 1402 .25 ppm 0.05 ppm 1979 .29 4 for 1 hr. annual average 1980 .31 2 1981 .29 2 1982 .23 0 1983 .27 1 1984 .22 0 L 1985 .24 0 1986 .20 0 Lead 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 1979 1.90 3 W 30 day average quarterly avg. 1980 .82 0 1981 Monitoring Discontinued L 68 L L L SUMMARY OF HET REVENUE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATERFRONT: One-Time Impact Fees: School District Fees $ 1,508,000 Downtown Specific Plan Fee 43,000 Park Development Fee 1,159,000 Community Enrichment Fee 172,000 Water Connection Fees 142,000 Sewer Connection Fees 307,000 Sanitation District Connection Fees 3,515,000 Drainage Assessment 329,000 Plan Check Fees 508,000 Building Permit Fees 782,000 Miscellaneous 4,000 Total $ 8,469,000 25,Year Total Impact: One Time Impact Fees: $ 8,469,000 Ongoing Net Revenue: (Property Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, Sales �r• Tax and other miscellaneous revenue, net of developer reimbursements) 130,531,000 y, Ongoing General Fund Expenditures: (Added Police, Fire, Public Works, Administration and other miscellaneous) (17.177400 Total Net Fiscal Impact Over 25 Years: S 121,823,000 Land Payments (to City of Huntington Beach) 22,799,000 w Total 'N'et Revenue to the City S 138,821,000 6w TOTAL NET REVENUE TO ALL JURISDICTIONS S 144,622.000 (Source: Laventhal & Horwath, December 3, 1987) 119 r. w+ 4.11 - SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Huntington Beach adopted in 1982 a mobile home park conver- sion ordinance, Article 927 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, to govern the change of use of mobile home parks within the City. As stated in the introduction to the Article: "The purpose of the mobile home park zone is to +.+ establish a means of providing a reasonable and proper transition from the present mobile home park use to the uses permitted in the underlying zoning district." The applicant has prepared a probable phasing program and conceptual assistance program which is included in Appendix F. A comprehensive demo- graphic survey of the tenants and a summary of the demographics of the park, by LSA, are included in Appendix I. A Relocation Assistance Plan has not been submitted to the City as of this writing. However, it is the intention of the developer and a requirement of the City to provide assistance to park tenants, consistent with Article 927. The following description of the socioeconomic characteristics and housing availability options are taken from the following sources: Applicant's Supplemental Information (CUP 87-7 - Letter in Appendix F) • City's Housing Element �+ City's Mobile Home Census - 1982 • 1980 census County of Orange - OCP-85. w Driftwood Mobile Home Park Description Figure 7 (see Land Use, Section 4.5) shows the location and extent of the existing mobile home park, the Driftwood Beach Club Mobile Home Park. The Mobile Home Park occupies a total of approximately 18 acres on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and Huntington Street w. in Huntington Beach, California. The property provides a total of 239 mobile home spaces and a common recreation facility. The common facility consists of a swimming pool with a sun deck and other amenities. There are also three miscellaneous utility/ laundry structures on the site and two areas for recreational vehicle storage with a total capacity for approximately twenty vehicles. W 120 iw 460 w. The construction of the mobile home park began in early 1963 and the 4W first occupancies occurred in late 1963. By April , 1964, there were approxi- mately 14 occupied spaces of the total of 166 spaces constructed at that time (spaces 1-246). By July, 1965, approximately one-half of these spaces were 44 occupied. The park is currently occupied by 237 tenants, one park manager, and one space is vacant (for a total of 239 spaces) . Socioeconomic Characteristics of Driftwood Mobile Home Park In 1982, the City of Huntington Beach conducted a detailed demographic survey of all mobile home parks in the City. The purpose of the survey was to develop a database that would assist the City in evaluating the potential impacts of conversions on park tenants and the mitigation measures that might be prescribed in an ordinance.' The Driftwood Beach Club Mobile Home Park tenants were represented in the survey with 48% of the tenants responding. Subsequent to the City's survey, a demographic profile of the Driftwood residents was completed by LSA in 1987 and is attached as Appendix I. The following is a summary of the results: • Age - 55% of the residents are over 60 years of age. kw • Household Size - Over half of the residences contain two person households. 6& . Reported Household Income - Approximately 5001. of the residences have a reported household income below $20,000. 60 • Low to Moderate Income Households - Approximately 900 of the resi- dences were characterized as having low to moderate income with 52% having very low incomes, 26% having low incomes and 11% having moderate incomes. w Length of Residence - 50" of the residents have liven in the park for five years or less. • Visability - 82% of the residents do not have any serious dis- abilities. Tenancy - Most of the residents 960%, reside permanently on-site. • Ownership - A majority of the mobile home on the site, 880%. are :. owner occupied. 121 W W I.r • Monthly Rent - Currently, fit: of residents pay from $320 to $350 per month for rent (monthly space rent). . Debt - Over 50% of the coaches currently are held in lien. • Debt-Owed - Approximately 50% of the residents owe from $25,000 on their coaches with 50% owing $0 to $25,000. �.. Housing Availability The City's Housing Element and Countywide statistics analyzed for avail- able market-rate housing alternatives or relocating mobile home park tenants. A discussion is provided below. According to the City's Housing Element, there are approximately 26,000 rental units within the City that have two units (duplex) or more. From 1980 to 1586, the number of total housing units in Huntington Beach increased from 63,365 to 68,686. This is an increase of 5,321 units, or +8.4%. It is expected that this rate of growth will continue in the short to mid-term. The following surrounding cities had similar growth during the 1980 to 1985 period: Costa Mesa + 2,214 units or 6.6%, Fountain Valley + 516 units or 3.16", Newport Beach +2,043 units or 6.61/vo. Table 10 shows past housing starts and projections to the year 2000: .► TABLE 10 Past Housing Starts And Projections To The Year 2000 City Housing Units _1970. 1980 1986 2000 _ Costa Mesa 24,823 33,647 35,861 41,400 Fountain Valley 8,961 16,597 17,113 17,575 Huntington Beach 35,971 63,365 68,686 80,896 Irvine 2,401 22,224 32,746 55,320 Newport Beach 22,478 31,016 33,059 36,777 Santa Ana 50,059 67,181 70,487 82,419 Tustin 8.725 13,709 17,383 21�,717_ 7 City Total 153,418 247,639 275,335 336,104 60 Source: County of Orange-OCP 85 and Development Monitoring Update Report, February, 1987 .4 122 rr. k. be For this seven City area, the number of dwellings has increased by 27,696 units, or 13% in the 1980 to 1986 period. It is projected that an increase of 60,769 units, a 19% increase, will occur from 1986 to 2000. The proposed project offers incremental housing opportunities within the context of this regional market. The proposed residences, 894 units, are within growth projections of the City's General Plan and regionally antici- pated growth. Also, the total number of units is below the 963 units allowed by the Downtown Specific Plan. The City's Housing Element documents various targeted housing needs and provides an estimate of the number of units provided on a yearly basis. The Element, completed in 1984, documents a substantial number of new homes in the coastal area within three miles of the ocean. In a two year period, 197 affordable units (per County income categories) and 164 units of affordable +W Senior Citizen housing were constructed, for a total of 361 affordable units. Since the Housing Element was completed, a number of multi-family housing projects have been constructed or are under construction within this three mile coastal zone, providing additional housing opportunities within the area. IMPACTS In order to minimize the impact on park tenants, RLM Properties has planned a phased closure of the park rather than an immediate bulk conver- sion. This will allow many tenants of the park to remain for a few more years past the expiration of their leases. More importantly, as a result of this phasing the actual number of relocation actions underway in any given month will typically be a small fraction of the total number of coaches at the park. Phasing plans based on the following criteria are proposed: a) Accommodation of the future development phasing contemplated by RLM Properties. b) Minimum disruption of existing utility systems and the ability to maintain basic services to remaining coaches. c) Maintaining proper access, traffic circulation and functional groupings of coaches in remaining phases. 123 w rr The detailed phasing program is included in Correspondence in Appendix F 60 and presented in Table 11 (Robert Mayer letter CUP 87-7 Supplemental Infor- mation) . Many mobile home parks exist in areas outside the 50 mile radius, and RLM Properties has proposed to pay the cost of relocating any coach to any point within the State of California if so desired by the tenant. Many of these parks accept older coaches and in fact offer significant incentives a.. such as free introductory rent, payment of relocation costs, and attractive common recreational amenities to attract tenants. Also, park rent structure in these outlying areas is' typically dramatically lower than rents in Orange County. TABLE 11 Estimated Phasing ,of Conversion Park Space Flumbers Total Count Estimated Date of Closure 306-315 321-329 . 19 11/1988 11-19 200-204 316, 320, 401 65-120 301-305 i� 317-319 272-290 89 5/1990 1-10 431-441 21 5/1991 20-64 206-270 78 5/1992 402-430 �.. 442-444 32 5/1993 The developer plans to construct on-site multi-family attached housing units. Pursuant to the Relocation Assistance Plan, a written guarantee of the right of first refusal to reside in the new housing units plus additional economic incentives will be offered to all park tenants. 124 i.. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach has established a program to assist residents in redevelopment areas who are displaced to find replacement housing. This is not intended to substitute for the re- quired Relocation Assistance Program. Housing Availability Housing availability for relocating tenants is quite extensive on both a a.. community and a regional basis. Additionally, the relocation assistance being required of the developer and the benefits to which the developer is voluntarily com^ritting, opens up many avenues for relocating tenants.' Hous- ing availability, with the assistance package that will expand tenant -options will not pose a significant constraint on relocating tenants. Additionally, because of the incremental nature of project development within the regional and local context and the phased year. to year effect on the regional housing supply, relocation cf park tenants is not anticipated to cause any effect on housing availability. Population, Housing and Ffrl2loyment Population and housing changes resulting from removal of 238 occupied mobile home park spaces and construction of 894 multi-family residences are incremental and insignificant within the City of Huntington Beach and the seven city region. The net change in units is an addition of 656 residences on the site. Within the context of the City on the whole, an addition of 656 i.► units over a five year buildout is in accordance with the. City's General Plan and Housing Element projections of up to 19,000 housing starts by the year 2000. This is within the City's anticipated buildout according to the Gen- eral Plan, and is anticipated in the County of Orange OCP-85 projections and the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG's) regional projec- tions. Employment projections for the City of Huntington Beach and the seven city area are as follows for the year 2,000: 62,400 and 602,500, respective- ly. For the County of Orange in the year 2000, employment is projected to ,., reach 1,436,600. (Projections from the County of Orange OCP-85 updated February, 1987). Anticipated employment of the project include one employee per hotel room, equalling 1,600 employees (based on developer/industry esti- mates), and one employee per 450 square feet of commercial use, equaling 275 employees (based on parameters established by the State of California Office of Planning and Research) . The combined hotel and commercial uses will produce approximately 1,850 employees at maximum potential buildout. As can be seen corparing this figure to City regional and Orange County employment 125 W w 66 LU projections, this project produces a very small increment of the total . This project will have minimal and insignificant effects on this segment of the +r community. This level of increase in employment is anticipated and in accor- dance with all local and regional projections. Special Needs There are approximately 379 residents of the Driftwood Mobile Home Park Approximately 215 residents, or 556/0', are over 60 years of age. Not sur- prisingly, E0% of the residents are earning under $20,000, probably on fixed incomes or pensions. Approximately 90. of the households are characterized as having low-to-moderate incomes (based -on County median) and 52%, or 122 tenants, have very low income compared to the County median. There are approximately 54 persons estimated to have disabilities. The City's Housing Element emphasizes programs to assist these special need groups. These groups will be effected by the conversion of the mobile home park. Mitigation should be targeted to these groups consistent with City General Plan policies. MITIGATION F!EASORES 47. A minimum of six months prior to the -date that a specific phase of the park will be closed, all affected tenants will receive a writ- ten notice advising them of the definite date of closure. If relocation assistance per the approved Relocation Assistance Plan has not been previously arranged with the affected tenants, the program will be put into effect during this six month period. ,�. 48. Consistent with program 8.5.2.5 of the City's Housing Element of the General Plan, the applicant and/or City staff shall meet with the mobile home park tenants and coach owners to explain conversion process and relocation assistance. 49. Consistent with program 8.5.2.6 of the Housing Element the City or Redevelopment Agency shall assist in relocation of persons affected �» by this redevelopment project. 50. The developer shall comply with all aspects of Article 927 of the r„ Municipal Code - the Mobile Home Overlay Zone, an ordinance enacted to require rezoning on change of use of a mobile home park to comply with certain requirements/standards prior to initiating such a change in use (see Appendix for a provisions of Article 927). 126 60 6w 60 W 51. The developer shall provide a relocation coordinator who will provide general relocation assistance to all tenants with special +�+ emphasis on assisting special needs groups identified in the previ- ous analysis. Availability of such a relocation assistant shall be to the approval of the City Council and shall be incorporated into the Relocation Assistance Program required by Article 927 of the Municipal Code. 52. The developer shall pay the cost of relocating a mobile home coach, �' when the age and condition of the coach allows feasible relocation, to any mobile home park accepting such coaches within fifty miles. The incremental cost for relocation beyond fifty miles will be the 6 responsibility of the owner, as stipulated by the Relocation Assist Plan, approved by the City of Huntington Beach. LEVEE. OF STGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The project's effects on the City's and region's housing supply is in- cremental and non-significant. The addition of 656 units over a five year buildout offsets denand created by on-site employment and is fully anticip- ated by local and regional agencies. The addition of the above mitigation, especially in direct relocation assistance to the existing tenants of the mobile home park, will substantially reduce the effects of the conversion of the site to other uses. Continuation of the City's policies and programs included in the City's dousing Element also serves to mitigate effects on affordable housing. After mitigation, there are no significant adverse effects on the en- vironment that can be connected to the relocation of mobile home park ten- ants. 127 W 6d ti 5.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ,rr There are some environmental impacts which cannot be totally eliminated through mitigation measures. The following list identifies significant environmental effects that could occur as a result of the proposed develop- ment. The project would result in additional people and structures being subjected to potential geologic hazards, mainly as a result of seismic occurrences. These hazards include groundshaking, liquefaction and soil settlement. • Energy consumption in the area will increase as a result of higher intensity development. • The demand for public services and utilities will increase. .r L L L W. 128 W 6d 6.0 ALTERNATIVES �. CEQA requires that each EIR include an analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives: a "No Project" alternative, a reduced scale project and other viable options. The EIR shall identify an "Environmental Superior" alterna- tive among the alternatives. The alternatives addressed in this report include: 1. No Project 2. All residential at 35 units per acre 3. Commercial/Residential 4. Reduced Scale/Reduced Density. According to CEQA (Section 15126), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environ- mental effects or reducing them to a level of non-significance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objec- tives, or would be more costly. However, they still have to meet project 64 objectives to be "feasible% The following discussion provides a comparative analysis for each of the topical areas discussed earlier on the proposed project. Alternative No. I - No Project This alternative would entail leaving the site in an "as is" condition with no new development. This alternative would maintain the mobile home park, motel , City maintenance yard, temporary parking lots and the wetland in their existing condition. The topical settings are discussed for this alter- native as follows: Geology, Soils and Seismicity - The existing development is subject to the same seismic/geologic forces described in Section 4.1. The site is subject to liquefaction which may pose a significant hazard. �. • Biotic Resources - There would be no effect on the existing wet- lands and the wetlands would remain in their degraded condition. . Land Use - There would continue to be the negative effect of blight on surrounding Uses which may, in the long-term, provide disincen- tives for property maintenance and upkeep. 129 Ud L • Circulation - No Project may mean that Walnut Avenue is not con- nected to Beach Boulevard according to the City's General Plan. 66 This will increase projected traffic along PCH and promote conges- tion at PCH and Main Street, and also along Atlanta Boulevard, resulting in increased adverse impacts on public access to the L ccast. f • Climate and Air Quality - This alternative would reduce overall air L emissions, however in an insignificant amount within the region. • Cultural Resources and Archaeology - No betterment. w • Public Health and Safety - Currently, the mobile homes and motel are built under the 100-year flood plain level . People utilizing the site would be subject to life threatening flooding. There L currently are no governmental regulations requiring building new foundations for these existing mobile home residences and the motel , placing them above currently anticipated flood levels (see Section 4.7 for further discussion of expected flood levels) . • Aesthetics/Views - Views of the site from the seaside and from adjacent uses are not negatively impacted by the project. The low level of the buildings and the property in general do not block or otherwise effect views. • Public Services/Utilities - No betterment. w • Fiscal impact. - The City would fail to capture the sales tax, property tax increment, business license fee and hotel occupancy tax. Ongoing tax revenues to the City estimated to exceed S130,OOO,00 over a 25 year period would be foregone. • Socioeconamic/Relocation/Housing - No tenant displacement would occur with the project. There are no identified environmental effects that would be lessened from preserving the use of the site as a housing resource, since the project proposal details approxi- mately 894 new residence replacing the existing mobile homes. Additionally, the Redevelopment Agency would forego approximately $10,000,000 in affordable housing funds generated from the 20% set aside fron the tax increment for the site, if it were redeveloped. 130 i.► Alternative No. 2 - All Residential at 35 Units -Per Acre u . Geology/Soils/Seismicity - No betterment. Biotic Resources - The wetlands would be removed for extension of w Walnut Avenue. Land Use - No betterment. • Circulation - No betterment for overall circulation. Higher peak hours would result. �., • Climate and Air quality - No betterment. • Cultural Resources - No betterment. i" • Public Health and Safety - No betterment. Aesthetics/Views - Would substantially reduce scale of development and lessen visual impacts along PCH and from the beach. No sig- nificant impacts would occur with this alternative. • Public Services and Utilities - No betterment. • Fiscal Impact - A proportionally less revenue stream from tax increment would occur. No sales tax, hotel. occupancy tax, or business license tax would result, foregoing at least S72,000,000 in net revenue to the City over a 25 year period (does not include tax increnent lost due to lower intensity development with this �. alternative) . In addition, certain ongoing costs to the City will remain. Socioeconomic/Relocation/Housing - No betterment. The project would result in relocation of the same number of mobile homes. Alternative No. 3 - Commercial/Residential 6. This alternative, allowed by the Downtown Specific Plan, would alloy, visitor oriented commercial development along PCH frontage and residential r„ uses on the remainder of the site (northerly of Walnut) at 35 units per acre. The commercial uses that could be expected in this area consist of fast food restaurants, a full service restaurant, a gas station, and a strip commercial iw type shopping center. No significant anchor would be anticipated. Possibly 131 6W a.» bob a market or chain drug store would be included in such a shopping center. However, the clientele would primarily consist of drive-by shoppers. Commu- 4. pity based shoppers would not be expected to be the primary support for such commercial uses, As with Alternative 4, this alternative is being assessed as a reason- able land use alternative, although it may not be economically feasible or viable. The assessment of this alternative is as follows: �► . Geology, Soils Seismicity/Land Use/Circulation/Climate and Air Quality/Cultural and Archaeological 'Resources/Public Health and Safety/Relocation and !lousing - there is no betterment with this alternative. All impacts described in the SEIR remain the same. Aesthetics/Views - these impacts would be substantially reduced with lower scale buildings and the generally less intensive use of the land with this alternative. Surface parking lots and one and two story buildings would essentially be the same as what currently exists on PCH west of the project site (e.g. Jack-in-the-box, +�. motel , restaurant, clothing stores, surf board shops, etc.) . Public Services and Utilities - incremental reduction in demand. However, this is an insignificant amount. • Fiscal Impacts - this alternative would substantially lessen sales tax, occupancy tax and tax increment. Alternative No. 4 - Reduced Scale/Reduced Density This alternative supposes a. development of three moderate motels and residences with the following characteristics: • A. four story, all suites motel with surface parking. • A two story motel with surface parking. • A two story motel with a restaurant and surface parking. • Single family residences and two story apartments at the same 1�. location as the residences on the proposed site plan. • Walnut Avenue per City's General Plan. This alternative does not satisfy the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan nor does it promote the type of redevelopment activity proposed by the Redevelopment Agency. The developer, Robert Mayer, has rejected this alter- native as being economically infeasible due to the underutilizztion of the 132 r.i land, the high costs of infrastructure and of site preparation and the high cost of mobile home relocation. This alternative is being assessed as a reasonable alternative, although it may not be economically viable. The assessment is as follows: `r • Biotic Resources - The wetlands would be removed to construct Walnut Avenue, identical impacts would occur. • Geology, Soils, Seismicity/Land Ilse/Circulation/Climate and Air Quality/Cultural and Archaeological Resources/Public Health and Safety Relocation and Housing - no betterment - identical impacts �,. would occur. Minor incremental changes would marginally lessen the expected impacts, however these changes would be insignificant. • Aesthetics/Views - these impacts would be substantially lessened with this scaled down building scenario. • Public Services/Utilities - incremental lessening of demand would ,.+ occur. However, this is an insignificant reduction. Fiscal Impacts - the project would substantially lessen fiscal ,W revenues to the City, proportionately with the reduction of scope of the project. Conclusion As the comparative analysis of each alternative indicates, each alterna- tive to the proposed project includes adverse effects. The "No Project" alternative keeps the wetlands in their existing degraded and partially filled condition and causes no disruption to existing residents. However, it is shown that due to geologic conditions and flooding potential , even this ka alternative has some adverse environmental consequences. The conclusion of this study is that there is no alternative that is clearly environmentally superior to another alternative. Offsetting impacts �+ for each alternative have been identified which indicates that there are environmental tradeoFfs for each alternative. Iw 133 6o r 7.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 6* The City of Huntington Beach is providing development incentives for the economic growth of the Community. Through the activities of the City's Redevelopment Agency, and with the normal market factors at play in the L, community and Orange County as a whole, the coastal/downtown sectors of Huntington Beach are expected to attract new development. The Redevelopment Agency's Five Year Plan, circulated September 25, 1987, identifies its rede- velopment goals, objectives and activities for the next five years. As the .6* report indicates, the City/Agency is responsible for providing 344 new units of affordable housing, and over 1,200,000 square feet of new commercial/ retail space accounting for an estimated 3,800 new jobs over the past five U0 years citywide (Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, 1987) . For the Main- Pier Redevelopment areas 336 acres, the Agency proposes the following: Main Pier Phase I - Pierside Village - 75,500 square feet of retail and restaurants, and a 200 room hotel with 15,000 square feet of retail/commercial . • Villas del Mar - 64 unit residential . y+ Town Square - 171 unit residential 20,000 square feet of retail/ commercial. • Main Pier - Phase II - mixed use residential with retail commer- 4r cial . • Retail Parking Structure - 200 block of Main Street. • take/Atlanta Residential - 159 units residential . The City's other redevelopment areas are not within the Waterfront's effective area of influence. Completion of the proposed Waterfront project will accomplish the objec- tives that the Redevelopment Agency has for the property. The project will also accomplish the partial extension of Walnut Avenue to Beach Boulevard from Downtown. However, completion of this important circulation link will " not be complete until Walnut is completed to the west from Huntington Street to Lake Street. �+ The project will provide inducements to growth in three areas. First, the project will promote further development of the Main Pier Redevelopment Project area. However, this area will continue to grow due to the existence of the Downtown Specific Plan and other land use planning approvals which provide the blue print for development in the area. As can be seen from the discussion of the Five Year Plan above, the City will be accommodating a growth pattern aimed at substantially increasing development opportunities to 134 W w w rr r the west of the waterfront Proposal (please also see the discussion in Sec- tion 4.3, Land Use). Second, the project will be accomplishing the objectives of the City's General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan by completion of the section of Walnut Avenue. This will induce the City and/or the adjacent property to the west to develop and to join Walnut Avenue to Lake Street. Up to 10,000 cars a day must be expected on Huntington Avenue, upon completion to Lake Street (see Circulation Section 4.4) . The effect of the project is to induce devel - opment of the properties to the west, including extension of Walnut and potential further economic expansion of the Downtown area due to better access and more intense surrounding development, as recommeded in the Down- town Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan for the area. The properties to the east, across Beach Boulevard, are described in the Land Use Section (4.3) as vacant, a boat sales yard, apartment and a commer- cial center at Atlanta/Beach. Intense development of the Main-Pier Redevel- opment area, and the subject property, will cause pressure on these adjacent properties to redevelop to higher and better uses or upgrade the existing uses. The same is true for the existing mobile home park adjacent to the site to the north. With the extension of Walnut Avenue and buildout of the project, there will be pressure on this older park to upgrade the economic use of the property. The overall effect of these changes is well documented in EIR 82-2 and subsequent planning and redevelopment documents for the downtown area. The +� Downtown Specific Plan and subsequent redevelopment plans adopted by the City and Redevelopment Agency best characterize this development trend, and are herwith incorporated in this discussion. The cumulative effects of this development trend will be to increse traffic, increase demands for services and demands for water, electrical, sewerage and phone provision. All of these increases, expected incrementally over the next decade and beyond, are anticipated in the City's General Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, the Circulation plans for the City and service provider's plans. This cumulative level of development is anticipated by the City and other responsible agen- cies, and is reflected in the Southern California Association of Governments +.+ (SCAG) forecasts and projections. 135 r. 4 8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS �. The Waterfront project is a part of a larger effort to rehabilitate and revitalize Downtown Huntington Beach. The City Council and Redevelopment Agency are in the process of reevaluating the Downtown redevelopment effort almost five years after adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan. It has become clear that redevelopment activities have proceeded slower than anti- cipated due to a variety of factors. The Waterfront appears to be among the first of the projects anticipated in the project area to be constructed. In November, 1987, the City Council 'recommended a Master Plan for devel- oping the beach area north of the City pier. Subsequent to this action, the State Department of Recreation adopted a general plan for the area which includes a tiered parking structure, a passive park and beach related conces- sions. In 1986, the City approved a tourist oriented shopping plaza at the south side of the City pier. Buildings are being demolished and the site is being cleared for the development. In late 1986, the City adopted the Main Pier Redevelopment Master Plan. r. The plan is a schematic land use plan which plots new projects in a redev- elopment scenario. The plan specifies development for individual lots, implementing most of the Downtown Specific Plan, and making some shifts of development intensity from one subarea to another. The total square footage and density of the proposed scenario are as follows: Commercial 603,000 SF Office 507,000 SF Hotel 2,154 Rooms Residential 2,850 Dwellings bw Museum 180,000 SF Convention Center . 280,000 SF These figures include all districts within the Downtown Specific Plan hw area, including the proposed project site, and are considered maximum allow- able densities. These figures are consistent with the provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan and the environmental analysis done in EIR-82-2. As bw mentioned earlier, however, there have been some shifts between categories since adoption of the Specific Plan which do not effect overall intensity or environmental effects. `" The Downtown Specific Plan land uses and related circulation improve- ments are discussed extensively in SEIR Sections 4.3 and 4.4 respectively. The proposed project is part of a redevelopment effort which is removing I36 w - u rN older low intensity uses and replacing them with higher intensity uses. The analysis in the Land Use Section and Circulation Section of this SEIR takes +•• into consideration: the cumulative effects of this program by addressing current effects and effects at a point in the future when all projects are completed (build-out) . The cumulative effect on land use is tied to overall growth of the subject project and success of the redevelopment effort. EIR 82-2 addresses the overall impacts of the Downtown Specific Plan, and deter- mined that increased intensity of development and the number of increased residences would not overburden the infrastructure or land carrying capacity. It is clear that land development of the intensity and scope of the proposed project are intended for this area, and that City plans fully anticipate this level of development (please see Land Use Section 4.7 for a detailed dis- cussion of the project's consistency with adopted plans and growth projec- tions) . Areawide development in line with these redevelopment trends are contemplated, and are in accordance with the City's General Plan and regional growth projections of SCAG (based on City and County projections General Plan). Traffic capacity of surrounding arterial and collector streets has been W+ shown to accommodate the proposed project, the Pierside Development and other nearby projects in the Downtown Specific Plan (see Traffic Analysis, Section 4). With mitigation measures recommended for the project, there are no sig- nificant cumulative effects on the local circulation system, projected to ultimate buildout in the year 2010. The cumulative loss of wetlands is of great concern throughout the State, region and within Huntington Beach itself. The project will fill the small wetland described in Section 4.2. However, this impact will be fully mitigated by a replacement program that is acceptable to the City, the Coast- al Commission and the DFG. No significant cumulative effects on the biologi- cal environment are expected after mitigation. Air Quality is another environmental concern which must be addressed on a cumulative basis. Because of local climate conditions, the constant on- shore wind disperses air pollutants along the shoreline and the immediate vicinity. The cumulative effect on the region is covered in Section 4. The pollutants will add Gn incremental amount to the Los Angeles air basin, which does not currently comply with Federal Environmental Protection Agency re- quirements. However, the cumulative effect of the additional pollutants is considered a non-significant incremental addition to the pollutant levels in the basin. Although it exceeds NSR thresholds, mitigation will offset many of the effects. M 137 M Y L Lr Public services and facilities in serving the site have been programmed for expansion as the cumulative base of demand grows. Water, wastewater, �., electricity and City services will expand to accommodate cumulative needs without causing disruption or over taxation of existing and planned systems. The only exception, as noted in this SEIR, is with respect to solid waste disposal , which will soon reach capacity. The project will result in additional people and structures being sub- ject to possible seismic hazards and flooding hazards. Project mitigation 4" substantially reduces these hazards to acceptable levels, therefore not significantly adding to the cumulative base of impacts. The project will increase the number of people subjected to noise. However, mitigation will lower effects to levels within adopted standards. The cumulative effects of increased noise levels produced by on-site uses are mitigated and will not add to the cumulative base. Any development within +r the Beach Boulevard/PCH corridors will be subjected to unacceptable noise levels. However, cumulative traffic and project related noise will be miti- gated to meet internal residential noise level requirements (Uniform Building Code requirements) . Visual and aesthetic impacts are project specific and tied to the sub- LA ject property and im-nediate environments. Other development along PCH and in the balance of the Downtown Specific Plan area are along a linear area and will not cumulatively affect properties to the north or the beach area. With the addition of the restrictive covenant in place on the City Beach and 6 property on the ocean side of PCH, the beach atmosphere and open space quali- ties of the beach will not be effected by encroachment of development or cumulative loss of visual/aesthetic resources beyond project effects already described. The fiscal effects of the project have been shown to be positive. The City, the Redevelopment Agency and other affected agencies will benefit by +�+ provision of up to $8,440,000 in one time fees. On going revenues to the City will be up to $163,000,000 accumulated over the next 25 years with expenses calculated to be $17,177,000 over this same period, (Summary of Fiscal Impacts, Appendix F). r. 138 L. L 2.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES �. The environmental changes produced by the implementation of the project will occur mainly as a result of the intensification of the project area for the proposed mixed use development. Implementation of the project will result in the commitment of building materials, energy resources and public services and utilities. Beneficial aspects of the proposed project include: net increase in �+ acreage and quality of functioning wetland habitat through the replacement mitigation program, short and long-term opportunities for employment; long- term addition of residential units and commercial space needed for growth of w, the local economy; increased tourism; and increased revenues to the City in the form of sales, property taxes and the transient occupancy tax. r V r 139 r w 6. w 10.0RELATIO4 BETWEEM LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY CEQA requires that an EIR describe the cumulative and long-term effects of the proposed project which adversely affect the environment. Special attention should be given to impacts which narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long-term risks (Section 15125 CEQA Guide- lines). 6+ The project has cumulative effects as described in the Cumulative Im- pacts Section (8.0) of this report. Other long-term effects are discussed in the Growth Inducing Impacts and Unavoidable Impacts Sections (5.0 and 7.0). The project will cause the following impacts (as described in the previously mentioned sections): • Loss of on-site wetlands - �" Risk associated with geologic -hazards • Energy consumption • Demand for public services and utilities W Air quality impacts Exposure of people to flooding hazards Visual and aesthetic effects Noise. There are two areas of impact which may pose long-term effects on the environment which could possibly narrow the range of uses of the environment. These two impacts are related to the cumulative loss of wetlands and the aes- thetic/visual impacts of the project. There are no other long-term effects which pose risks to human health that are not fully mitigated. The cumula- tive loss of wetlands could pose a long-term negative effect on the areas ecology and maintenance of coastal wildlife. The mitigation program included in this SEIR will reclaim former wetland, offsetting the loss of on-site wetlands. The aesthetic and visual impacts of the project may continue to effect enjoyment of the beach area by some, but will also enhance use of the area by .o adding new opportunities to visit and by providing additional visitor and community services. Long-term enhancement of opportunities to use the beach/ ocean and general coastal amenities will result due to increased access to the beach area and by increased opportunities for visitors to use visitor oriented facilities of the project. W 140 r _ W ! rr 11 .0 REFERENCES +� City of Huntington Beach. 1981. Final EIR 81-1 - Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue Office Commercial complex. City of Huntington Beach. 1982. Final EIR 82-2 - Downtown Specific Plan. City of Huntington Beach General Plan. 1984. +� City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Five Year Plan. 1987. Leighton-Yen and Associates. February 1974. Geotechnical Inputs. Prepared y� for the City of Huntington Beach. Mestre Greve Associates. 1986. . Noise Assessment for Parkin Structure for Crystal Court Se erstrom Commercial Development, prepared for City of Costa Mesa. The Planning Center. 1987. Draft EIR - MacArthur Place, prepared for the w City of Santa Ana. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Parts of Riverside County, California. Iri W W W 141 r i it Ir.. W 12.0 APPENDICES +W Appendices A through J are bound separately. w r� w V i APPENDIX SCH 1 87091612 DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-2 FOR THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. . 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 W - �+ PREPARED FOR: CITY OF HUNTINGTON REACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 CONTACT PERSON: CATHERINE O'HARA PHONE: (714) 536-5271 JANUARY 12, 1998 w i L TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A - Initial Study, Notice of Preparation APPENDIX B - Geotechnical Report APPENDIX C - Circulation Analysis APPENDIX D - Biology Wetlands Assessment APPENDIX E - Cultural Scientific Assessment APPENDIX F - Correspondence APPENDIX G - Previous Environmental Documentation APPENDIX H - City Ordinances - Mobile Home Overlay Zones/Removal Rezoning/Change of Use APPENDIX I - Demographic Profile - Driftwood Mobile Home Park APPENDIX J - Air Quality Analysis w W w L L L APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY, NOTICE OF PREPARATION i L r L L L i kA V 4 L City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 �'' �•—�••f DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-5241 L Housing/Redevelopment Division 536.5542 Planning Division 536-5271 1 L September 9, 1987 L State Clearinghouse 1400 10th Street Room 121 L Sacramento, CA 95814 Atnn: Glen Stober i L Dear Mr. Stober: The City of Huntington Beach is preparing a supplement to Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 82-2. In accordance with Section 15082(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, I am forwarding the enclosed Notice of Preparation (.NOP) copies for that supplemental EIR to you. Since the project area is within the coastal zone and may contain a restorable wetland area, notices of preparation were sent to both the California Coastal Commission and the ? California State Department of Fish and Game. You may forward copies of the NOP to L other state agencies as appropriate. As soon as the draft supplement is complete, I will forward ten (10) copies to you to distribute for agency review and comment. Sincerely, L ead,� Catherine M. O'Hara L Assistant Planner CMO:gbm Attachments _ 1. Copy of NOP to California Coastal Commission dated September 9, 1987 2. Copy of NOP to State Department of Fish and Game dated September 9. 1987 3. Project description L 4. Initial study 5. Area map L (9050d) L AWDUIX I L ENVIRONMENTAL C?-ECRUST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) W I. Background I 1. Name of Proponent RLM Prop. c/o Robert Mayer Corporation 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent P.O. BoX 6680, _ Newport Beach, CA 92653-8680 3. Date of Checklist S,bmitted EA submitted 8/14/87 Checklist Conducted 8/26/87 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach S. Narne of Preposal, if applicable watPrfrnnt Develop, Proier.1/EA No. 67-33 L.� 11. Errvironrnental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes L4 in geologic substructures? X b. Disrupticns, displacements, compaction or overcoverirg of the soil? X c. ChaVe in topography or ground surface relief features? X L d. The destruction, covering or modification of any un;que geologic or physical features? X Le. Any increase in wind or water erosion of X soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, 'or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of o river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any boy, inlet or lake? X � lIS L L Yes fie No g. Exnosure of people or property to geolo- gic tv=ards such as eorlhgv*es, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X Z. Air. Will the proposal result in: n. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of orrbient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface { runoff:' X LA c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X L d. Change in the amount of surface water in X any water body': e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, In- eluding but not limited to temperature, r dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X �+ f. Alteration of the direction or rote of flow of ground waters? X q. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct odditions or with- drawals, or through interception of on aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X 1. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X W r Ilb 4 4 Yes No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ` a. Change in the diversity of species, or 60 number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, gross, crops,- and aquatic plants)? X 6+ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X e. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: W c. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of oimals (birds, land onimels including reptiles, fish and it shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the rrimbtrs of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X rw c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of an ima Is? X d.. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife III habitat? X L 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X L b. (exposure of people to severe noise levels? X X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce L+ new tight or glare? X 8. Lard Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stontial alteration of the present or planned land use of a-i area? X • 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X V L 117 v 1.. tw Yes ', e N b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natura' rescurce? X tw 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal irrvolves a. A risk of on explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or rodiation) in the event of an o=ident or LW upset condi t ions? X b. Possible interference with an emergency regxxvie plan or an emergency evacuation W plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the 6+ human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional hosing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: c. Generction of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- 1W Cation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of eircvlo- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X fr e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X bod f. Increase in traffic hoards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have on effect upon, or result in a need for new or . oltered governmental services in arty of the following areas: I� a. Fire protection? X b. Polite protection? X LA c. Schools? X 4 M � its to I Yes No bw d. Pcrks or other recreational facilities? X e, Maintena-ce of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other gcreemmentat services? X_. iw 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: c. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Svbstontial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the ' X development of new sources of energy. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need s for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X C. Water? _ d. Sewer or septic tonics? X e. Storm water. drainage? X i.� f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Fiealth. Will the proposal result in: . a. Creotion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X 1641 b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public"view? X L. 19. Recreatim. Will the proposal result in on irrpoct upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultvral Resources. lU a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic arehoeotogicol site? X f L 119 L L Yes No b. Will the proposal result in adverse yhysicnl or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or w historic building, structure, or abject? X c. Daes the proposal have the potential to cause a physical charge which would affect x L. unique ethnic cultural valves? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious i or sacred uses within the potential irrpact rw area? x - z 21. 1+SxxWory Findirx3 of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrod! the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life pops lat ion to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant cr animal community, reduce the �.. number or restrict the range of a rare or endongtred plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the maior periods x of California history or prehistory? k.. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-te-.m, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future) X e. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- ., sideraVe? (A project may irrpoct on two or more separate resources where the impost on eoch resource is relatively smoll, but where the effect of the total of those U.. irrpocts on the environment is s;gnificont.) X d. Does ttv-- project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects i" on human beings, either directly or Indirectly? X Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination Led (To be completed by the lead Agency) 6. a 120 i L w On the bas;s of this initial evaluations �•+.. 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a sgnificant effect on the envirorrnent, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect rr on the environment, there will not be a significont effect in this case becvsse the mitigation meawres described cn an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. 6. 1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.r: xx August 31 , 1967 to ►gnatvre 6W For City of Huntington Beach r (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studiesa A supplemental EIR per section 15163 of CEQA Guidelines shall be prepared for EIR 82-2/Downtown Specific Plan L 6& L k k V 121 Y td Discussion of "YES" and "MAYBE" responses for Environmental Checklist/Environmental Assessment No. 87-33. Waterfront Development lb. The site is presently graded and developed. Some fill will be brought on—site for b" the proposed project. There is wetland area on the northeast portion of the site which has been designated by State Fish and Game as restorable. 2a. Auto emissions from the proposed project will have a negative impact on air quality. 3b. The proposed development will cause a change in present drainage patterns. '�' Stormwater runoff will be accommodated by City stormdrain system. 3c. The property lies within the I00 year floodplain. Present development has altered 6+ the course or flow of potential floodwaters and proposed development may do so also. Federal, State and local building and design standards shall be complied with. 3i. Tsunami risk for the area is low to moderate. Flooding is potential hazard. Project site lies within 100 year floodplain. 4a. The site is presently developed. Existing plantlife consists of ornamental +� landscaping. 4c. New plant species may be introduced to the site as a result of landscaping. L 6b. The proposed development will contain lighting features. L. 8. The planned use for the area per the Downtown Specific Plan is for 400 hotel rooms, 250,000 square feet of commercial use and 900 dwelling units. The new proposal is for 1600 hotel rooms, 90,000 square feet of commercial use and 975 dwelling units. The proposed uses are the same as those previously planned, but the 6+ mix of the uses is different. Given the tradeoff of uses, the overall change may not be substantial, but is significant enough to warrant the preparation of a supplemental EIR to amend EIR 82-2 previously certified for the Downtown j� Specific Plan. 11. The proposal will replace 237 mobilehomes with 975 high density dwelling units. A relocation plan for the displaced residents will be prepared by the developer. 12. The proposal will increase existing housing stock by 638 dwelling units. .. 13a. A preliminary traffic impact study conducted by LSA traffic consultants indicates that the proposed project will have an increase of 6% — 7% over Downtown Specific Plan estimates. The study indicated that the proposed changes would not cause significant traffic/circulation impacts. 13b. The project will create new parking demands. Parking will be accommodated on—site. L I4a, Additional Fire and Police services may be necessary due to the project. No new b &c school facilities would be necessary. r 16d. The number of proposed dwelling units is slightly less than that planned for. However, the new construction may impact present sewer service capabilities. 18. The project may obstruct some views. However, view corridors and scenic vistas will be integrated into the design of the project. �+ 19. The project will provide a 60,050 square foot public recreation center. 21c. The combination of the project's proposed density and height, potential traffic 6d generation and potential impact on present mobilehome park residents may have significant impacts if not adequately mitigated. W w i� F L L (8993d) F L Alt ANIA v (�A IL!JN,T! -Al R2-PD-CZ FP2 R3 III P3 Rjr. R2404iin Rs • TOW4 Sol$FIC PeIK. d"I WE 0.. R3 4 MY T'e-ti R2-P0-C'b4P2 C4 R3 t1c 0 it fts R3 14 1 Ft2-,,:f 41 rp? ld j'. R21M-a FPJ 4 RI R2.PD-c R2'PD'CZfP2 z4p? 0 R3 RI 7:0 -ER!3-3 LC4 ' 141 < F?2- a R3 R3, c A. DOWNTOWN SKCj Its R3 L ST T 80- p R4- • jF1 3 RI i rl R3 j!=.=Mi Rl] 1�F- R A MI-A-O u U Liz "771 MI-A-0 RA-0 C3 MH-CZ UATeft ONT nWECT SUE AMEA PLY SUPMEMENT HUt47*4070N REACH PLANNING DIVISION r r r--- r, r r F r r r- r Y-- r r� r f NOTICE OF PREPARATION MAILING LLST-,;,-.. j SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR EIR 82-2 ='•! n F n. Orange County Transit District Huntington Beach Chamber of 11222 Acacia Parkway Commerce P.O. Box 3005 2213 Main Street, #22 Garden Grove, CA 92642 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Christine Huard-Spencer, Attn: Kim Barone Environmental Coordinator Rainbow Disposal Company Southern California Gas Co. P.O. Box 1026 Orange County Division Huntington Beach, CA 92647 P.O. Box 3334 Attn: Stan Tkaczyk Anaheim, CA 92708 Huntington Beach - Fountain Valley Southern California Edison Board of Realtors 7333 Bolsa Avenue 8101 Slater Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Attn: Michael D. Martin Attn: Judith Severy Orange County Sanitation District SCAG P.O. Box 8127 600 S. Commonwealth Ave., Ste. 100 w Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Attn: Thomas Dawes Attn: Richard Spicer Stan Farber Huntington Beac mpan Public Works 2110 Main et 2000 Main Street Huntlrigt6n Beach, CA 92648-2499 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 A R.J. Work L ' Driftwood Mobile Home Park Residents Huntington Beach Historical Society c/o Richard J. HilI c/o Newland House Museum L Newport Financial Plaza 19820 Beach Boulevard 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 920 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Teresa Reynolds California Coastal Commission California State Department of 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Fish and Game P.O. Box 1450 245 W. Broadway, Suite 350 h. Long Beach, CA 90802 Long Beach, CA 90802 Attn: Wayne Woodroof Attn: Dick Nitsos Environmental Board L �. (0626D) JE OF GUFORMA--OFHCE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN, W-v"w C OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH ,AW TENfli STREET >ACRAMENTO, CA 9581 A DATE: September 15, 1987 TO: Reviewing Agencies P RE: The City of Huntington Beach' NOP for Waterfront Project SCH# 87091612 Attached for your comment is the City of Huntingtonbeach' Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Waterfront Project. Responsible agencies must transmit their concerns and ccaments on the scope and content of the EIR, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 daps of receipt of this notice. We encourage commenting agencies to respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your cammeats to: Catherine O'Hara City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 with a: copy, to the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH mnber noted above- in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any` questions about the review process, call Glenn S t o be r at 916/445-0613. Sincerely, David C. nmeakarmp Cbj of Office of Permit Assistance Attachments cc: _Catherine O'Hara C— r O f C e" f 1� C'"- " F [ C-__ C C_. C nlq"twm-me LIST R� trTl i�,� V ) .etZw P. �`"� n-t e � bf Not by Cioerigro+ae.seattow AIM" -%t. . apatbawat et woneonrtatlas ob"rrfa:.t off n�le�owes Ceeerle.e 11hi ms Il,t. rlka Aalarn ��++l1atrlet ` got toeaat I ./(� Atr Maoutees Itwrd dtlforata Not" Patrol . 0 Wrwle1.street O elm Ino.Cq 111Gr)t �JX"J lloi Q atn.t tar frroo►I.e■�t� a.otloe Masan. CaO&WI ele/rn-tx,o saenasele d 1►Sst1 7�`•��' nM"l+'e and 6wt7rta Olrlatat 71+f/IkS-R»0 site/7rJ-ei�f P.O. sry lM� 9"raaento,C7l vw*4 Idebrlls Ostlather Jte rnwrwitt. Itntonal 1lSr. 91e/447-1941 t►prrteret of Transportation Nprrti.wt of ryrR'"on" ssrbara Rlerlar e1111ee A. ad+mao. pie !IOU O ter 1701 plebes tbad. susto A � Cevt. of paatta, a Tatarmars 1�t1.e Amatleas rawfugs Oo . IM;f �■srelda Iwte• n a Oxdora.a Seem + � low a street f!e Ca mw Pt tot Alai, iwna 7es I..telnf. a +Hoot ele/tsd-0ort 4 vaorrrwte, d "M O s-errerato,a swif rte!?7S.•i76i ` ftele4e-slat *ist"2-7711 IRIea a. awtb s. Winter li �la+t tlewseK Nerve sreotakerf �+tows of Trasepertattan CaP.rt..i of nett aw a.. j W►T iw lbllosep Office of ttlatorle O �elrtet � O 1374 sll.ereAe lr+tl altforslo Goaatal tbeetestor rreow"tios f37 li"3Fi'eet MY11FNP4 CA Tess/ �1 $it wows street. ft% nonr P.O. I1os 847etM nwtlt.. u irstlpt tmrla�7olt �pJ ssa lraeeteee.CA 94i05 1.araneeW,a DANK74001 sle(tll.etTt ft� Tr7�t71 �t7/RL1-�'374 / }i tbfls O. lliae, t4tlei rr.n.t+r ,!crew Ti/tor Jaws M. Coll• Onarleee sa t of Treportatles O Apartneat of nr!aMr O vewas allfor*Is a"SO ns—lnleo Drpt. of Puts aced lteersatted O dstriot 1 s?+ae t f O 1510 tenth street. go. 200 P.O. flea Bout S:a: owlla cro"ws,, a "Itoo ' eseressnte. CA na14 Saeramvato,a VIV"4 WI sea Fraaeloa. CA H170 ices/iii�tet j 01e1"4-Mt 91e/7244411 elSlts6?-0enb t i Tyr df Ilea,rr� lelos tkr►s )am toupee Prd A. taortf101 Jr.. PAC. tbssfer i Oltraes.lx*irtos of Aarweutle• PmDlte 0tt11ttee a mal.elea O or9arlet 1 et Tr*separtatlak 143bVr tat of Ter►suiandts liana 4 O r.a soh 94W4 O t10o Ter Novas A..nw iF V1 ! Res Test sroCA or seta 7no Sacrroente. CA 94r4-coot s<+1 Fraaetace. a }ettrR �Y tatte:rani•1��Ss■a en�17 Lts� it t<t ong 11ta �7r]7 Its/iie�ret etflss7_itoo Ikrs Nelfeeo• nlllaa T. TSoshe, Jr. Iltlrn Sault �lol! t. +ll1 • O T.ri. one stied altraee. rtamlrrt "Its halo laps O Drpar taeet Of Trassportettea wriee pos"cee qtoa 1 1 JIM F street etb floor tdatriee�� Rs7 seat or"Wear. eadte a" >laarraees. a HYff-0aCl 0 faarrarnte. eSf1e ; lra. 1 wois Oans Wa la t *, a Pro fte//seaisl ►tswo. Cis SITE, t fle/fes-seem etat• lets fr ta,etroi I..a { tsranle WOrrast got subowte ' for* %lifetime `�— Taos hr+aeld e� slept.of Cmesrvatton Omeloeattoo fuard Crpart ent of Tra•eportatien /fats voter Ibw.we.e Chatrel Karl f 1410 111011 Street, A-n%1iilr-f O Leis Ntstb Street Ilona tae-s Nrlet t eeeronnaLe. CS bfl/ S�craeeslo,Q iltSSl4 � (flrtdea of Clow t.tK Orarta Ir Iltelt46-7ese AIM ne"t O ►.O. Rw Ice 1 11e177111en Los Arfelee, a 00MI seer•seate Ci f1MOt 1 # O txa. of 12"1 ww owing finis 111111ten !!I/e70-S]SS fie,ii7a4t7 s.r. emir oxwerratien I rler11, Sae•. on Tlabat Car. of/111 Led Gan O >s?as Ilaso 1"nue. 1►*ad$011 oprertweet of Tmoportatlw See Francisco. CA 1141M O datriet / it Aetna tad Mse�oeee Trol.at. Vat e15/b3T-111" W ff rd itteet stet• sour llaaniseeo tbetroi thee+ Ts dtrinka % M• velar T 1/sUroutino, CA92va z O d.I.loa of Tatar" ItT Ift Copt.of Pood "Afriaatt.ra alit. vasta woefasaat !wd e.O. >�krw Z IM It street, 11on. Toe IM That+street, rom Tao Too Cap% ' t/„Y-#�jru +soot r ol Sacramento. CaTsele O sacrament+.CA W414 Dprerh.et of Tranepertatlas /ls/2"-fall etriet f sad/Ts7-877f 6�3 3,u{r1Y1* er street State wise?r Irerraeea amtrot Mari tka{ �w O laa viemler %4 rhtaa sloop. CS 94514 O Celts sat! A tlofw pe.of etrl Vote iAais namdeeton stf/t71�111 P.O. sr,a wm O !elf N1asb street. Axe late-! lv� I"? - Ilts moot Sacramento. C71 M19 Saeraeento. CA Hole !iJ`[�J lWaves etb,CA 40FAI4 1 ele/JT7-secs Steli7i-0lis elf/i77-r$17 I" L. sarrle onsrh"At at Trasawtalton At rant J_e tlr%Tw* trdalI ar" Dtattiet 10 ow. of osaeral service. �i( Dept. of voter poem-me f.a. 1,� p O slat. Lrt f Iftte o Rl %to liar,) ego►Street, stdto 3at0 11�J'CY} Ills Mato street. ricers!IS-4 StectLao, CA 06701 001iF eR�tw�r tntfta O set Swam/. C11 Vh"4 Amer to,a /Sete in•/He-7113 Sacrosmate CA flelf ple/Ges-74toJia C16 r-Nlrr Sts/374-41fs Clot let to O I w lad field "r tawol ei Reran t.u. Dept. DI 11meltl State tleastal Coaaerv61141 t>lattttt it IMftoml valor Qetltr Cbetrol Sant 116►Itraat, Raw iTQ I'meraedwr, suite MO O F:a. 5_1d I34cle . seerawle. fit matt 0 oatlatd, a e40111 7m79 Joan street TIf/74e�731 417144e-1011 SaltMen. CA f213/-04M Rios f!!1 citr�-�_"x�. T!e!I[eT.f73s id APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL. REPORT w L. i�. W W L INS w.. LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 6o PROPOSED HOTEL, CON'�liiERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY & BEACH BOULEVARD HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA i� PREPARED FOR: THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE { SUITE 1050 �,. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658 PREPARED BY: IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 15 MASON IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 L JOB NO: 2651-00 LOG NO: 4-6086 L JUNE 291 1984 L L r L. L IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL ENGINEERING 8 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY I �r June 28, 1984 I 1' The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Log No : 4-6086 Newport Beach, California 92658 Attention: Mr. Mike Mohler rr SUBJECT: LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4 Proposed Hotel, Commercial and Residential Development LW Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard `L Huntington Beach, California .w. r Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed a Limited : I Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed hotel, commercial and .w+ residential development. The purposes of our investigation were to determine and evaluate the subsurface soil conditions at the site, and to provide preliminary recommendations for site grading, foundation design and construction, and for general site improve- ments. The results of our investigation are presented in the I- enclosed report. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service on this project. i If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. .1.+ ary Stoney Pres de nt GFS:kpt Distribution: (6) Addressee _ SUBSIDIARY OF IRVINE CONSULTING GROUP.INC. I 15 MASON • IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92714 • (714)951-8686 0 (213)630-8032 1 L r LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION JOB NO: 2651-00 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I�. I. INTRODUCTION 1 II . SCOPE OF SERVICES 2 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3 IV. SITE DESCRI?TION 3 V. FIELD EXPLORATION 4 ,w VI . LABORATORY TESTING 4 VII. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 A. Fill 5 B. Natural Soil Profile 5 C. Groundwater 6 VIII.GEOLOGY 6 A. Geolo is Setting 6 B. Seismicity 6 1. Regional Seismicity 6 2. Earthquake Effects 7 al Earthquake Accelerations 7 b) Liauefaction 7 c) Soil Settlement 9 d) Landsl idi_ng 9 e) Tsunamis 9 w f) Shallow Ground Rupture 9 IX. CONCLUSIONS 10 General 10 1.weak and Compressible Soils 10 t 2. Liquefaction 11 3. Groundwater 11 4 . Foundation Type 12 r. 4. it Table of Contents, Continued 1�. X. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 13 A. Site Grading and Earthwork 13 r 1. Clearina and Stripping 13 ,L 2 . Earthwork 13 3. Subarade Preparation and Stabilization 14 4. Compaction 14 E 5. Material for Fill 14 'L 6. Drainage 15 7. S__uma r y 15 B. Pile Foundations 16 �., 1. Pile Tyne 16 2. Pile Capacities 17 3. Laterally Loaded Pile Design 17 4. Pile Driving 19 C. Building Floor Slabs 20 D. Pavement Areas 21 ' E. Type Cement for Construction 22 F. Corrasivity of Site Soils 22 XI. SUMMARY 23 XII. LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION 24 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A, References Appendix B, Field Exploration Appendix C, Laboratory Testing Figure 1 , Location Map -� Figure 2, Regional Fault Map Figure 31 Plot Plan 1•� �•v 1� . LW LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED HOTEL, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND BEACH BOULEVARD HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Limited Geotechnical Investigation performed for the proposed hotel, commercial and residential development to be located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard in Huntington beach, California. Our investigation was per- formed in May and June 1984, and was limited to the proposed hotel and commercial areas adjacent to Pacific Coast bo Highway, since acess to the site with field exploration equipment, particularly in the areas of the proposed resi- dential development, was restricted by the present site developments. The purposes of our investigation were to• explore and eva- luate the soil conditions at the site of the proposed deve- lopment, and to provide recommendations for site grading, foundation design and construction, lateral earth pressures L.: and asphalt paving. In addition, our conclusions and recom- mendations relating to soil corrosivity, design and con- struction review were developed during this study. Prior to 6"` finalizing the project's design it is understood that a supplemental geotechnical investigation would be performed to confirm subsurface conditions and provide supplemental recommendations, as appropriate, for final design and for law the proposed residential development. i The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1964 Log No : 4-6086 Page 2 ' II. SCOPE OF SERVICES . lw t The general scope of services performed during this investi- gation included a review of our files and other information pertaining to the area, subsurface exploration , laboratory testing, engineering analyses of the field and laboratory data, and the preparation of this report. References used in our study are listed in Appendix A. Specifically, the scope of our limited investigation included the following: t A. Drilling a total of seven (7) exploratory test borings i � in the area of the proposed development and retrieving bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples; B. Logging of the borings in the field; C. Performing laboratory tests on representative soil ,. samples; D. Reviewing published and unpublished information, including existing subsurface data in our files relating to the subject area; E. Engineering analyses of the field and laboratory data; and f F. Preparation of this report presenting our tentative fin- dings , conclusions and recommendations . i i y„ The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: 2561--00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 3 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on a review of the schematic site plan supplied for our investigation, it is our understanding that a 5 to possibly 8-story hotel, 2 to possibly 4-story condominiums and townhomes, and 1 to possibly 2-story commercial struc- tures are planned for the site. It is anticipated that the f balance of the site will be landscaped and paved for vehicu- lar traffic and parking. It is our understanding that the Lproposed development, as presently planned, is tentative, and najor changes are possible. Concrete floor slabs and slab-on-grade floors are anticipated for the proposed deve- lopment. At the time of this limited investigation, no basements were planned. we anticipate minimal site' grading to provide adequate drainage in the development. Information regarding the proposed type of building construction and the maximum structural loads were not available at the time of this investigation. we anticipate, . however, that structural column loads for. the 5 to possibly 8 story hotel may range from 500 to 800 kips , respectively. Structural loads for the proposed condominiums, townhouses, and commercial structures are anticipated to range from less than 25 kips to about 200 kips for 4-story building units. Structural loading information should be provided to the geotechnical engineer when it becomes available. IV. SITE DESCRIPTION .W { The site is located in Huntington Beach, California as shown L on tine Location Map, Figure 1 . The project is bounded on the east by Beach Boulevard, on the southwest by Pacific . a i 4+ O ° •tt /o; I�Ii �I�C - ITIIL II - ;i �. �' LLLJJ7IJJ -_ -�' r _ 0 0 !-' -•-� ..r �pff}%rrs '� HUN'['INO ON /2 S c i .,c• � I•t.i. I o if 0a ° r n � ] r li�fraile ' //y'/• o - �i �'I �� arki,�'� )L. a„- c , •.. �rfTrY ~I i �:______ _ - ____ ___._ �__iiK _ ___•�7 S. -� -oc .;c o � f.�_�t ••' tit-=,i— r ram,\° � ,•":.i :Fl!�I2 `I� �7 �'�- S Iilt - � L� � � 'I ' $�• \° o i�' .I•ia r ~•�r� �'.+. +++J"'•••»... I _`lam.—_�� L__._ __ —— .� WN -- :ol�n o fir.l' = I�•. •��{��, SS•' »• A A VE Newland c o o' io I•� 1.. ti:' Sch$:.f odic o I G It - W"rdlow F �� b o cJ c °` • I DOLv Seh.• V t' n fcN I oJI�Efo.. I... JI I u 0 0. r °I,oa ".00° w. c•r. J I � I l g .--kNW�LJ IOr � I akv :.. Lo°° .o•�o °• c Jar_, j I�•'. �� --mac I ■ I i �� i�• , • ••MEMTBaz T o I I I o "o I - I qL: . �_ • °-tS.rkAIA � � : _ �� Y 112 �•'r�� II NGTON. B �+ . I+s do , (� l ME Il'�U; raer ITEIL �. "k. ,fit 1 •..... - 1 ,'--- = 16 Uivri t . h� y ° — IUVlIII ,al I f o_ ;�"\` s iion IC-) I' ader Ili I 1. Seb r `~ . wil *a ter L •Tanks 0 2000 4000 ADAPTED FROM U.S.G.S. 7.5' NEWPORT FEET BEACH OUAORANGLE ( 98T2) LOCATION MAP JOB NO: _O O GATE: FIQURE: 1 `-- 256 'i JUKE 'I984� IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No: 4-6086 Page 4 Coast Highway and on the north by an existing residential �.. development. The site is within about 300 feet of the = Pacific Ocean. The site consists of an area of approxi- mately 50 acres .- At the time of our field investigation, existing improvements on the site included a 2-story hotel, mobilhome park, golf course, paved parking areas and landscaping. In addition, a rr portion of the site adjacent to Beach Boulevard consisted of a wetlands area. i L V. FIELD EXPLORATION - W Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling 5 test borings utilizing a truck-mounted rotary wash drill rig equipped with a 5-inch diameter drag and roller bit. In addition , 2 borings were drilled using a 24-inch bucket auger . Borings were drilled to depths of 7 to 771 feet below grade . Locations of the test borings are shown on the +�+ attached Plot 'Plan, Figure 3 . Details regarding the field { exploration and Logs of Borings are presented in Appendix B. VI. LABORATORY TESTING i Laboratory tests on both bulk and relatively undisturbed f 44 samples of the on-site soils were performed during our investigation. A description of the test procedures and the results of tests performed are presented in Appendix C. 6.6 R The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 h+ June 28, 1984 Log No: 4-6086 Page 5 VII. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS _. A. Fill �.+ Fill soils were encountered in all borings ranging in depth from 1 to 10 feet below existing grades. Fill material consisted primarily of firm to stiff silty clays and loose to medium dense silty to clayey sand and L sand. The fill soils in general exhibit low strengths and moderate to high compressibilities. B. Natural Soil Profile The natural soil profile generally consists of beach and estuary deposits of clays , silts and sands• extending to f at least the maximum depths explored of 771 feet below �-' grade. The natural soils within 35 to 50 feet of the existing grade and depending on boring location , consisted pre- dominantly of alternating soft to firm and occasionally very stiff to hard silty clays, and loose to medium dense, occasionally dense, silty sands, clayey sand and `+r sands. These upper layers appear poorly stratified and of low to moderate strengths and moderate to high compressibility characteristic. Underlying these layers at depths below 35 to 50 feet, relative to existing grade and extending to the depths explored, dense to very dense silty sands, sands and gravels were encoun- tered. These soils exhibit high strengths and low compressibility characteristics. �L L L The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No: 4-6086 Page 6 W C. Groundwater Groundwater was measured at the time of our field exploration in May 1984 in borings 6 and 7 at depths of 8 and 5 feet below grade, respectively. Because of the S ' relatively close proximity of the Pacific Ocean, the W groundwater level is influenced by tidal fluctuations. °r VII I.GEOLOGY .r.. A. Geologic Settina The property is located within the coastal zone in the • southeastern portion of the Los Angeles Basin. - Under- lying the site is several hundred feet of marine sedi meets , which overlay sedimentary bedrock. The surficial materials are comprised of beach and estuarian deposits. B. Seismicity 1. Regional Seismicity i +r The site is located within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. An active branch of the fault (South Branch Fault) has been mapped just northeast of the { site and several other branches pass within a few miles. Seismic risk is considered high as compared to some areas of southern California because of the immediate proximity of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and the alluvial soils which underlie the site. E Seismic hazards within the site can be attributed to ground shaking resulting from events on nearby W f 4 The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 7 active faults. Figure 2 shows the geographic rela- tionship of these faults to the site . 1 � 2. Earthquake Effects a) Earthquake Accelerations We have analyzed the possible earthquake acce- lerations at the site and determined that, for the intended use, the most significant events are a 6 .6 Magnitude earthquake on the �+ Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. The accelerations s produced at the site by such events would exceed those of events on any other known fault. An earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault w' Zone occurring 0 .3 miles northwest of the site could produce a peak bedrock acceleration of �u 0.65g at the site, with the duration of strong motion exceeding 30 seconds. Repeatable high law ground accelerations, for this, site# are esti- mated to be 0 .29g for the design earthquake. f { Design of the structures should comply with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions and ' standard practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California. f b) Liquefaction Soils most susceptible to liquefaction during earthquakes are saturated, loose, fine-grained • sands . The sands underlying the site are fine grained and saturated; however , they are not loose but rather are predominantly medium dense . W ....:_. m•2.Y••c,w whew+w ..,.w.. .••r I»I , �•,'..Y.`rri0 N O x i E x[Y ,1 1 N I N a s I 1 O L A a + Adapted from:Geology, Seismicity and 1 \I E "'�'•,�' ,•..^'" I s. EnAronmental Impact, SPOCiRI Publication of the Association of Engineering sAN Luls OSCD e. en l� �' r �'• Geologist, 1973_ ar � n I_ x YrJJrE n e0x i I it M" • •. S A It ! E :a N I a x 0 1 N 0 . )_, I ( I , j ,��""1,� 1�� %�'\ � ( .,� � �:,<,� �, .•, �� i � A� I,rj•�. i I, I _ter» I � (�1l � •i:� Eos AxGc�. LE fxf o)) _�N �+J>�^� L �•_y -r» �S • _e - V+r ii s aD— .. j r ( �. �6,n ✓�4. D A A•N G[r ,'" MF i•4. ,A 1 Y \\.F.—x S 1 D E asw[•A+ uul.�l7eulee DewD(n,s I SITE' A L I wn yv r I N a L 1 . j i" MAJOR EARTHQUAKES AND RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS 1' I o w CA=}EgpNIA_ �J IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION -ems,n EALIfOa'l11�F { i EXPLANATION* ACTI'•'E FAULTS EARTHQUAKE LOCATIONS ep]69 m70 1 191 3 o•rn NeaNpud)s IIm1 � luMl lr•.1'^rl Ir.•;•..e rn D'D•r.es Ir n,<re pxGnrrs i•�� M�a9aluptl - d nn'xn n).K sm< q en s Pra ro 1906 ren e)IrrnYl•p - 11 t n1e repan D m Mlmsp)N.7,. <o •• •, 1413 ��r I` 1 bd 1 d Mtr<Dlr tcD eta gmr.r,IMs N—ve scull selnenl r•n su•1 P' d ry•�rr�Storl[ \ ) he I ID arthrer M60 31 rnY/eah•' C `�, \ ] It 1� p•rnl.a4,a e•h au s •,roan Cr<eD s � IhD+nen,f rmp and a=rtat p,lheunl! \ 2 ,. ____ 1 695 1 rre eDPap m n,e 160 r[or pdrrpe _ _ \ I` 11fi9-1937 1 \ - rr it 1 rH� /-� EDIlheutll•epcen,at snce 19!3,pbrrM hpn I [v)LvntY[ \ J` Ppep rr,trurmm� 2(pde•ok••anp IM[t \,I I}4i 1emeD,,A.ynn�t+�.w ab;dn a,INsl r•., m'_ � Y•xnrmaws ee ,Maonn(o-Gee • C.' REGIONAL FAULT MAP ) .. [.Y M....«r..,•>,..)^.Mn[„_.nt....e•...a trrrr,. h.,•t..»n,.,..,...., .. ••..)n••,yr.M M+k r Ie,rr,. •e•wYws.,1 N r y. •roMNr rrnwrN f w. rY 11 -ry Y ion _ �'•" ;�s, -Y:: IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING,INC. Ce-`'N pr,,.<nre,r.«rnr. wau.frn..r.p,ay.ee Mra N of fN•+bar D.nra•rr M.nr[o+/tree,':tN.Nmr Wprnver • enrvtx er Ye.rYanEr Yna W o,tti, l wr•a•D fi•.a•%N11,9:e1•��M•IMtrrwru/irat,G�4nn[fl rH Gr/:y-[NM Y•t.w+enN GYvrv,al Me.ee•Ir»Lr AVMs• .jw tale —��--- �JOB NO.� DAI E.'t I EraUxF MO 2561_00 DUNE 1984 2 j � The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 w' June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 8 Under more favorable seismic conditions, this �+ would be enough to reduce the liquefaction potential. However , the immediate proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is sufficient to raise the potential for liquefac- tion at the site. Liquefaction analysis was performed based on the following data: Intensity of maximum probable 6.60 earthquake Acceleration at ground surface = 0.40g. k. Acceleration (repeatable) - = 0 . 29g. Depth of groundwater . 5 ft. The results of our analysis , summarized in the following table, indicate portions of the sub- surface- soil profile contain zones of soils with the factor of safety against liquefaction of IL less than one: Depth SPT N-Value Safety Factor Against Borina (ft) (blows/foot ) Liquefaction f B-2 35 21 0.59 �L B-4 20 13 0.63 B-5 38 23 0.85 The potential for liquefaction in this area is also given' in the references (CDMG, 1980) . According to this reference, the site is located ~ in a zone of high liquefaction potential, as sand boils and liquefaction were observed in the site vicinity during the 1933 Long Beach earth- quake. The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 9 , c) Soil Settlement �6d Densification of the underlying soils due to liquefaction and consequent surface settlement is considered a definite possibility if the • major seismic event occurs . d) Landsliding The potential for landsliding is considered low because of the flat terrain. e) Tsunamis The likelihood of ocean tsunamis in excess of 1 four feet high occurring along this section of �+ coastline that would impact the site is remote. (Seismic Safety Element, Huntington Beach) 'i . f ) Shallow Ground Ruoture �1. Surface rupture has apparently.-not occurred on faults in Huntington Beach areas, within the last 9,000 years (DWR, 1966 , 1968) . s Additionally, no ground surface rupture was �r associated with a moderate-sized -historic earth- quake (Magnitude 6 .3, 1933 ) with subsurface rup- ture observed beneath Huntington Beach. Accordingly, while the potential for fault displacement exists at the ground surface, we do }L not believe that a zone of probable rupture can be defined, nor do we feel that the Lcorresponding potential for rupture is any greater on this site than on adjacent or nearby properties . y ,L The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28 , 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 10 6 IX. CONCLUSIONS General From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opi- nion that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project design , plans and specifications . There are geotechnical constraints , however , that should be considered in design and construc- tion . These are: 1. The relatively low strengths and high compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils , 2 . The moderate to high potential for liquefaction of the subsurface soils , and 3 . The relatively shallow groundwater levels . Methods for reducing the effects of these constraints on the f proposed development are presented below. Detailed recom- mendations for site grading and design of- building foun- dations , slab and pavements are presented in later sections of this report. 1. Weak and Compressible Soils f , Because of the relatively low strengths and high compressibility characteristics of the on-site soils, generally in the top 25 to 30 feet of the existing gra- des, it is our opinion that conventional shallow founda- tions or mat-type foundations are not suitable with the on-site soils in their present state for the support of the proposed structures . f t The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 11 In addition , slabs-on-grade and paved areas may be adversely affected due to consolidation of the subsur- face soils . Significant fills placed at the site may be subject to large magnitudes of settlement in the order of several inches, depending on the amount of fill placed . 2 . Liquefaction a As discussed in the previous liquefaction section of this report, it is our opinion that a portion of the soils underlying the site have a moderate to high poten- tial for liquefaction. Liquefaction , occurring during a significant seismic event, would probably result in T localized areas of subsidence at the site, due to the discontinuous stratification of the loose liquefiable sand layers . Liquefaction of the on-site soils could cause severe damage to structures supported on shallow foundation , and could result in moderate to severe t distress to concrete slabs-on-grade floors and pave- ments . 3. Groundwater i , Dewatering will be necessary for excavations that extend below the groundwater table. This includes excavations for site grading and trenches, as well as basements and other structural elements . Structures extending below the groundwater table, which may occur to within 2 to 4 feet of the existing site grades, would have to be designed for potential hydrostatic pressures and uplift, t or adequately drained to relieve the anticipated hydrostatic pressure on the structure . t i a The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28 , 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 12 4 . Foundation Type Based on our investigation , it is our opinion that the proposed structures could be best supported 'on driven piles deriving their support from end-bearing in the dense sand layers underlying the upper weak and compressible soils at the site. Because of the high groundwater and loose, non-cohesive soil conditions at the site, drilled cast-in-place concrete piles and/or piers are not feasible as an alternative for driven piles . Conventional spread footings may be considered for minor, non-critical structures, such as landscape retaining walls, It should be realized, however, that any structure supported on footings may be subject to severe distresses in event of soil liquefaction at the site . s r t r r i The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 13 X. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Prior to initiation of final project design, a supplemental investigation should be performed on portions of the site not investigated to confirm the recommendations contained herein . A. Site Grading and Earthwork 1. Clearing and Stripping The areas to be developed should be stripped of i vegetation and cleared of all pavement, abandoned structures, and buried obstructions, such as utility lines and footings . Debris and rubble from the 3 clearing operations should be removed from the site . Existing fill materials and disturbed, loose soils should be removed to competent material and replaced with properly compacted material, as appropriate. � . Depressions resulting from the removal of unsuitable material, which extend below finished grade, should be backfilled with properly compacted fill . 2. Earthwork Based on observation of the test borings , it is our opinion that the on-site soils , in general, may be excavated using conventional grading equipment. r Should any excavation performed near or below the groundwater level, special equipment may be required in soft and saturated soils . Site preparation will proceed more efficiently if grading operations are performed during the dry seasons of the year . The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 14 3 . Subgrade Preparation and Stabilization A layer of gravel or other suitable granular material of approximately 1 foot or more in thickness may be required in excavated or low-lying areas , prior to placing fill, to stabilize soft, wet exposed subgrade soils . This will act as a drainage layer and provide a firm base for compac- tion of fill . The need for stabilization of subgrade soils should be anticipated in pavement areas as well as building areas . � . Where exposed subgrade soils are not saturated, com- petent and readily workable using ordinary grading procedures, stabilization may be accomplished by scarifying exposed subgrade soils to a depth of 6- to 8-inches, moistening to near optimum conditions ■ and compacting to at least 90 percent relative com- paction. 4. Compaction Fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM: D ` 1557-78 . Fill soils should be properly moistened or dried to near optimum moisture conditions and com- pacted in 6 to 8-inch thick lifts . 5 . Material for Fill r The on-site soils are suitable for use as compacted fill . On-site material obtained near or below the groundwater level will be saturated, and will require drying prior for use as a compacted fill r- f R The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 15 material . Any imported fill material should be a predominantly granular soil, have an Expansion Index less than 30 , and be approved by the Soils Engineer . Both imported and existing on-site soils to be used as fill should be free of debris , organic matter and particles over 6-inches in dimension. Plans and specifications should indicate that the grading contractor shall notify the project soils engineer not less than 72 hours in advance of the location of any soils proposed for import. Each proposed import source shall be sampled, tested and x approved prior to delivery of soils for use on the site . 6 . Drainage Positive surface gradients should be provided adja- cent to all structures so as to direct surface water run-off and roof drainage away from foundations and slabs toward suitable discharge facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed on pavements or adjacent to buildings . 7 . Summary The anticipated site preparation , over-excavation, and earthwork compaction operations should be per- formed under the observation and testing of the Soils Engineer . All fill should be observed and tested at the time of placement to ascertain that fill is properly placed and compacted. e a The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 16 B. Pile Foundations 1 . Pile Type It is recommended that the proposed structures be supported on driven piles, which would derive their support from end-bearing in the dense sand layer underlying the site. The type of pile ordinarily utilized in the local area for support of similar structures is a pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete pile . We recommend that this type of pile be used for the proposed development . The recommendations that follow assume that 12 or 14-inch square piles will be utilized. Recommendations for other types of piles may be provided upon request . Dense sand layers underlie the site at depths of 1R approximately 41 to 46 feet and 50 feet, below existing grade on the northwest and southeast por- tions of the site, respectively. Based on our borings , the depth of the sand layers varies approximately linearly across the site ( i.e. , approximately 45-feet deep midway along Pacific Coast Highway at the site) . The depth to the dense sand layers should be confirmed during a supplemental investigation. The piles should be driven at least 3 feet into the dense sand layer , or in general to a tip elevations of approximately -33 .0 to -48 .0 feet '. depending on location within the site . Based on these tip elevations , piles ranging in length from r about 40 to 55 feet may be anticipated, and will be influenced by the final designed grades. r The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 17 2. Pile Capacities For a 12-inch and a 14-inch square pre-cast, pre- stressed concrete pile, an allowable pile capacity of 200 kips and 250 kips, respectively, may be used in design. These values may be increased one-third for short term, transient loads . A friction value of 300 pounds per square foot acting on the embedded surface area of the pile may be used for uplift resistance design. This value may be used for static and short-term transient loading. Piles in groups should be spaced a minimum of 3 pile J 1 diameters , center-to-center . No group efficiency reduction of pile capacity is required for pile group design. Because of the effects of "dragdown" forces on the piles due to ground subsidence during soil liquefac- tion , as a result of strong earthquake ground motion , a dragdown force of 40 kips per pile should be included in the total pile design load. 3 . Laterally Loaded Pile Design Laterally loaded pile design criteria is presented in Table II for piles that are free to rotate at the top ( free-head condition ) and for piles that are restrained from rotating at the top ( fixed-head Ir condition ) . The calculated maximum allowable lateral pile capacities given in Table II are based on a i-inch lateral deflection at the top of the ,5 The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 18 pile and a minimum pile length of 30 feet . In addi- tion , maximum negative and positive moments ( in terms of applied lateral load P) , and depth to maximum nega- tive and positive moments are provided for fixed-head piles . Partial liquefaction of the subsurface soils surrounding the pile is considered in the given design criteria. R TABLE II a LATERAL PILE DESIGN CRITERIA PRESTRESSED—PRECAST CONCRETE PILES s 12-Inch 14-Inch FREE HEAD Square Square $ Lateral Capacity, P, Kips 2. 0 2. 5 Maximum Moment 1 4.2 P 4 . 8 P Depth to Maximum Moment, ft . 7.5 8 .0 FIXED HEAD Lateral Capacity, P, Kips 5 .0 6 .5 Maximum Negative Moment 1 4 . 8 P 5 .5 P Maximum Positive Moment 1 1. 4 P 1 .6 P ► Depth to Mxm Negative Moment, ft. 0 0 Depth to Mxm Positive Moment, ft. 11 .5 13 . 0 1) Moment is for the horizontal load, P, applied at the pile cap, if the horizontal load is in kips, the moment will be in foot-kips . � w I s The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 19 • Tie-beams and/or structural slabs, as appropriate, between pile caps are recommended for horizontal G. load distribution at the building foundation level. An additional passive resistance of 200 pounds per cubic foot may be assumed to act against pile caps and tie-beams provided they are poured tight against undisturbed natural soil or compacted fill . 4 . Pile Driving Prior to production driving it is recommended that 4 twelve or more " indicator" test piles be driven in planned pile locations , to allow this office to establish driving criteria and to verify the under- lying soil profile . The "indicator" pile location should be determined by the Soils Engineer . ,Y Since the piles have been designed to derive support from end-bearing each pile should be driven to prac- tical refusal as determined by the Soils Engineer . Piles should extend through any intermediate sand layers , provided they can be driven without damage to the pile . In no case, however, should driving be terminated without the approval of this office. Pre-drilling may be permitted provided the size of auger and depth of pre-drilling is first approved by the Soils Engineer . To minimize driving resistance and reduce ground heaving, piles in groups should be driven starting from the center of the group and proceeding outward. The size of hammer should be selected for the type r and size of pile driven. For pre-stressed concrete r x The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 20 F piles, we recommend a driving hammer of a minimum rated energy of 30 ,000 foot - pounds per blow. This office should review the type of hammer selected by the pile driving Contractor prior to pile driving. It is recommended that this office review the final foundation plans and specifications to ascertain that the recommendations presented herein have been properly incorporated into the contract documents. We can provide guide specifications for pile driving if desired. To ascertain that piles are properly driven to sufficient depth to develop the required supporting capacities, it is imperative that the Soils Engineer observe the driving of all piles installed at the site. C. Building Floor Slabs The on-site soils are unsuitable for the support of slabs-on-grade floors in their present condition. In our opinion, structural floor slabs supported by pile supported grade beams should be used to mitigate possible adverse effects of settlement due to con- solidation of the subsurface soils and from earthquake induced subsidence caused by soil liquefaction. If t slabs-on-grade floors are elected, the slab subgrade should be prepared properly to reduce the aforementioned adverse effect of subgrade settlements . Possible severe settlement and/or slab movements and distress may still occur . All slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a r minimum of 3 feet of properly compacted fill . If grades are to be raised more than 3 feet above existing eleva- tions, pre-consolidation of the subgrade by surcharging r ., 7 The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28 , 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 21 may be necessary to reduce long-term consolidation settlement of the underlying soils . For structural floor slabs, minimal subgrade preparation may be con- sidered. Slab thickness and reinforcement should be designed by the Structural Engineer to conform to anticipated use > . and loading. For slabs underlain by 3 feet of non- expansive fill, a subgrade modulus (K) of 200 pounds per x cubic inch may be used. In moisture-sensitive areas , slabs should be underlain by a minimum 6-mil polyethylene moisture barrier covered with at least 2 inches of sand. D. Pavement Areas r Based on a design R-Value of 30 for the surface sandy soils and a Traffic Index of 4.0 for automobile and light truck traffic and 5 .5 for driveways and occasional heavy truck access areas , we recommend' the following pavement sections: Thickness Thickness Untreated Total a Traffic A/C Class II Base Thickness Index ( Inches ) ( Inches ) ( Inches ) * (Automobile/Light 3 . 0 4 .0 7. 0 Truck Traffic) (T . I. = 4 .0 ) r (Heavy Truck Access Areas and drive- 3 .0 6 .0 9 .0 ways ) (T .I. = 5 .5 ) The pavement subgrade should consist of a blanket of compacted fill 2- and 3-feet thick underlying parking x The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 22 areas and streets, respectively. The subgrade should be properly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557-78 . The subgrade should be prepared as recommended under "Site Grading and Earthwork" . The pavement base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Aggregate base should conform to the requirements of the California Department { of Transportation Standard Specifications for Class II aggregate base. The preliminary pavement section should be confirmed by additional R-Value testing during a sub- sequent investigation and at the conclusion of grading. E. Type Cement for Construction 94 Based on sulfate test results of representative samples of the on-site soils, ordinary Type I or Type II Portland cement may be used for concrete structures, r including piles, in contact with the on-site soils . -a F. Corrosivity of Site Soils �- Laboratory chemical tests performed on a sample of the on-site soils indicated a chloride concentration of 420 t= ppm and a pH of 6 . 78 . Laboratory resistivity tests indicated a minimum resistivity of 730 ohm-cm for the r on-site soils . In general, based on the indicated chloride concen- tration , the on-site soils are considered to have a moderate corrosion potential on mild grade steel . Soils r with an electrical resistivity of the magnitude measured 87 r The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 23 for the on-site soils are conductive to potentially severe elect-olytic-type corrosion . As a result, con- sideration should be given to protecting underground ` metallic facilities from the on-site soils or to the use of non-metallic materials that are not subject to electrolytic-type corrosion . A corrosion consultant should be considered to provide expert advice on the corrosive potential of the site soils on any critical underground facilities planned. XI. SUMMARY Prior to completion of project design, an additional supple- mental investigation should be performed to confirm: the recommendations contained in this report. As preliminary foundation and grading plans are completed, they should be forwarded to the Soils Engineer for review for conformance with the intentions of our recommendations . a R w K The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28 , 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 24 m . XII . LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION r Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Soils Engineers and Geologists practicing in this R or similar localities . No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional ' advice included in this report . The samples taken and used for testing and the observations r_ made are believed representative of the entire project; however , soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between borings. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the Project Soils Engineer and Geologist and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call . Very truly yours , IRVINE SOILS NGINEERING, INC. James E. Harris Franklin Fong, R 24179 ?ary f ngineer Assistant Manager of Engineering 77 S/oney, C.E.G. 38 William T. Altneyer, R.C. E 291 Prin ipal Geologist Principal Engineer JEH:FF:GFS :kpt Distribution: ( 6 ) Addressee � / �� u � G R �♦�� y� V o .v' .vim p O e° -i♦ p -"9 e �*g•,o�a��rr ��'w��Y, I A, o v�c IQ � .c� ; ��,�.t>g�� ..� - �� ; .I'� J��\ '�,Ir .t +• l' � ♦ �V"A�� (i � �.�ifs: 1 � .. � _■� ' � {i�ti: ; 7i � -_�,, , �� W 6' ,SIP •i7� tv x. t7 C ii �\� f�:J � ♦ � �l. }, ' 7$ �jl�' llnll ��j(O +��t��,,, �., '°b'<'�-•'� • ii. �!�r �tl°-i' n � w'�• d 4'p tl`�� FA !!} O O fi N 104 ��' .r .� a`y.,�' 7 �:, ;;e, \\ ° �♦��a : ggi �p �� i ° /►(, - pit imam",��II�e�aT] it =► ° S� WR.�• •.,. e, �� !Y Off\ ♦eo°!;• \\\♦ 1°O ope=_•� O 0 p • 4MINEW +ti ,:;• ;-1r� �•1�. mot. V l�p O\ - � � �e� �-�=�� ai' „q,��^ ..a a\;✓'�,a ,,;:�°11 i��ii'.�,..a� u £ I Up •4b� ,!� . " tO �,+�J` G;�e'��O F�Ot°ii� rL'dsl-�! _ "��_ ! f'1 �el "♦► /9♦� PLOT PLAN-PROPOSED COM MERCIAL DEVELOPMENT-HUNT INGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 00 JUNE 1984 1 APPENDIX A k LREFERENCES i . s M_ e e IL e t_ L_ L a REFERENCES 1 . Barrows, Allan G. , "A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California" , California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 11A, 1974 , 2 . California Division of Mines and Geology, "Environmental Geology of Orange County, California" , Open Fil Report f 79-8LA, 1976 , 3 . California Division of Mines and Geology, "Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin , Orange County, California" , Open fil Report 80-19LA, 1980 , 4 . California Division of Mines and Geology, "Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County, California" , Preliminary Report 15 , 1973 , t ' 5. Seed, H. Bolton , State-of-the-Art Paper , "Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Effects on Level Ground during Earthquake" , American Society of Civil Engineers , 1976, 6 . Seed, H. Bolton , I.M. Idriss and Ignacio Arango, "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance Data" , ( American Society of Civil Engineers , Journal of Geotechnical L Engineering, vol. 109 , No . 3 , March 1983, PP-458-482 . L APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION l FIELD EXPLORATION A. Test Borings The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling a total of seven (7) test borings at the approxi- mate locations shown on the Plot Plan, Figure 3 . The borings ranged in depth from 7 to 771 feet below grade. The borings were drilled between May 18 and 21, 1984. The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted rotary-drill rig and a drill rig equipped with a 24-inch diameter bucket auger . All drilling was performed under the supervision of 'r our Engineer who maintained a continuous log of the subsur- face soil conditions encountered and obtained bulk and undisturbed samples for laboratory testing. L Subsurface conditions are summarized on the Logs of Borings . ',' The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified L Soils Classification System, (see Figure B-1) . The soil samplers utilized in our investigation consisted of a 2.4-inch I .D. drive barrel with 1 inch brass rings . The sampler was driven with either a 325 pound submersible hammer or a 2400 pound drill Kelley falling through a height of approximately 12 inches. The. sampler was driven a depth of 12 inches and the number of blows recorded. - Standard penatration tests in accordance with ASTM D 1586-67 were also performed in selected borings. All soil samples obtained from the borings were transported -� to our laboratory for further examination and testing. B. Groundwater Measurements Groundwater levels were visually monitored by our Engineer by measuring down boring excavations. Depths to groundwater are. shown on the enclosed Logs of Borings. Lr • w+ L w+ DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS GROUP SECONDARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no J W fines. o MORE THAN (LESS THAN w N HALF OF COARSE 5% FINES) GP no finesPoorly raded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or O FRACTION IS GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures. non-plastic GRAVEL WITH fines. LLU O z N LARGER THAN FINES GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic Z LL < Fo NO. 4 SIEVE 4 a W _ w SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no tines. cc z W MORE THAN (LESS THAN N = ¢ HALF OF 5% FINES) SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. Q f- COARSE a0 WW W FRACTION IS SANDS WITH SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. U 0 SMALLER THAN FINES 2 NO. 4 SIEVE SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. J �, rr W ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or O W CO SILTS AND CLAYS clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity. co LL J W LIQUID LIMIT IS CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity. gravelly p < < W LESS THAN 50% clays, sandy clays, lean clays. W = to 0 OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. Zz to o Q = _ a MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy ¢ ~ 0 SILTS AND CLAYS or silty soils, elastic silts. 0Waz W z M W LIQUID LIMIT IS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. 0 GREATER THAN 50% Z 2 = OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic U- }- silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC .SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. GRAIN SIZES SILTS AND CLAYS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE 200 40 10 4 3/4' 3' 12" U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY SANDS, GRAVELS AND BLOWS/FOOT* CLAYS AND STRENGTH** BLOWS/FOOT* NON-PLASTIC SILTS PLASTIC SILTS VERY SOFT 0 - 1/4 0 - 2 VERY LOOSE 0 - 4 SOFT 1/4 - 1/2 2 - 4 LOOSE 4 - 10 FIRM 1/2 - 1 4 - 8 MEDIUM DENSE 10 - 30 STIFF 1 - 2 8 - 16 DENSE 30 - 50 VERY STIFF 2 - 4 16 - 32 VERY DENSE OVER 50 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 *NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 POUND HAMMER FALLING 30-INCHES TO DRIVE A 2-INCH O.D. (1-3/8-INCH I.D.) SPLIT SPOON (ASTM D-1586). **UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN TONS/SO. FT. AS DETERMINED BY LABORATORY TESTING OR APPROXIMATED BY THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D-1586), POCKET PENETROMETER, TORVANE, OR VISUAL OBSERVATION 1 KEY TO BORING LOGS JOB NO.: DATE: FIGURE NO.: 1 2561-00 JUNE 1984 B- 1 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. DATE OBSERVED: 5/18/84 METHOD OF DRILLING: Rotary Wash 325� at 12" LOGGED BY: IN GROUND ELEVATION: 8.7-1 LOCATION: See Plot Pla*? ^ O F G W .. >'U. w < 00 mW a ` oa BORING NO. tL V LL cc-I cc ccM Wv U. CO �� y 0w U� SOIL TEST a N O am -A 0 d z DESCRIPTION C U m D m V —0 0 FILL: 2" AC over 4" Base CL Dark grey-black silty SAND very -31 rapist, media dense, trace clay, trace black concretions 5 13 @8.5' [Mood fragrients 10 2 X 26.4 74 NATURAL GROUND: CONSOLIDATION CL Blue-grey silty CLAY, rpist to very DIRECT SHEAR moist, soft to firm, trace organics, (1 Pt. ) interbedded SP 15 Blue-grey medium SAND, very rapist 36 25.2 105 mediu^� dense to dense trace mica DIRECT SHEAR. ' (1 pt. ) @18' Shell fragients 20 Greys silty CLAY, mist, stiff, inter- 10 37.0 83 bedded grey fine silty SAND CONSOLIDATION DIRECT SHEAR (1 nt. ) 25 P @25' Sandy CLAY, very soft 18' 30 @30' Silty CLAY, some shell frac3nents 10 28.2 94 DIRECT SHEAR (1 Pt- ) SC Cu ey clayey SAND, mist, reed izmi *: 35 dense 20 15.6 117 DIP.ECT StEEAl2 67 grey silty Cly,Y, sli gh'-11T rapist, hard, (1 pt. ) sorm f one sand @39' Trace gravel, slag drilling 40 JOB NO- 2561-00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B-2 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. DATE Ot,. ERYED:_ _ 511fi;Rd METHOD OF DRILLING: Polt!!ry Wash n at RM 8.7± LOCATION LOGGER BY.- GROUND ELEVATION: : See Plot Ptah o r- o w .. r C �,. w o mw a as BORING NO. 1 (CONTINUED) r rZ Co 1-2 In cow -c� SOIL TEST w O oe» D �O a W DESCRIPTION = t✓ V m m p V 40 SP 53 Grey rodium SAND, moist, dense, inter- w bedded cp7avelly CLAY, fine SAND 50- Grey coarse S-VID, very ;:joist, very 6" devise, trace gravel 50 Total Depth 51' 55 STANDARD PEN TION TEST T 60 85 'r. TO Tb L , 1 i s 80 rOB NO-- 2561-00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B-3 i IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING,INC. 'ar . DATE OBSERVED:- mET>•IOD OF DRILLING:- Q4'c= JLA-h i 17s!!,hp-m-- a* 120 LOGGED BY: EM GROUND ELEVATION: 4.7± LOCATION: Sz"A Pint PInn L U °o ©w i a� pa BORING NO. t .0 � � m Ha 0 �W OF SOIL TEST le p a� a m C oy -A �O ILZ DESCRIPTION O Mcm © V Z a FILL: Light bror m SAND, dry, trace gravel r" NATUF AL GROUND: Blue grey silty CLAY, mist, firm to stiff, trace bloc)-. rmttling, same 4 organ,cs. CONSOLIDATION law Grey r editn silty SAND, moist, maditn dense to derme, trace clay, inte;- 10 bedded clays and shell frag:x<nts low 35 08' Gravel tense SIEVE L I 15 51 I _ 2Q { 80 . @23' Clay layer L. 25 @25' Fine silty SAND 33 I r...I 30 @30' Very devise, mdim. coarse, 80 ablLmdant shell fragnents i 'bra - ` I 33 035' Abdim. to coarse sand lenses to 21 6", abundant shhell fra7m. nts SIEVE + I - =L� 40 JOB NO: 2561-00 LOG OF BORING IFIGURE. 13-4 onvivic CHIP C Cu rawcCottin iulf,. 5/18/t4 fb Wash ' DATE OBSERVED: METHOD OF DRILLING: �� i" 325ft ban-cr at " LOGGED BY: R:9 GROUND ELEVATION: 4.7± LOCATION: See Plot Plan 0 G mW w� as"r w v ° m J cc W„ BORING NO. 2 U. dK (CONTINUED) _ U. o" �M V) mw f}. SOIL TEST ii be 1— J(Jf IL Uj OC j aar� J �C ?,z DESCRIPTION D w Z © V �.p 40 CL 17 Glue-green silty CLAY, mist, stiff to "ery stiff @43.5 Gravel layer (6" thick) @45' Interbedded grey fine to md=um silty S;\%T 45 43 L 50 Cld 7- Grey sandy GRAVEL, wet, dense to very dense, interbedded sand and 'r gravels, gravel to r @60' Coarse SA%.TD r;ith layers of grave E 60 4- gavels 5fl: • a5 Q68' Coarse sandy GRAVEL .-� 70 Total Dep-th 69' . Z S LANMARD PENEL=ZZ+TIoy TEST 7s � L0 Jog No.: 2561-00 LOG OF BORING IFIGURE. B_5 - IRVINE SOILS ENQINEERING.INC. it r, DATE OBSERVED: /1 b METHOD OF DRILLING: `�`a� "� n I 325" at 12" LOGGED BY: GROUND ELEVATION: 6'6} LOCATION.- e t �'� p H O W r� r W 1- C nW a aWc`�' as BORING NO. 3 .. V Z oa -K� h� 0} - $OIL TEST C. x ox 'j w i JO iN j 20 a= DESCRIPTION o -j n z m a ?o FII. SP 2" AC over 4" base Bram r is itn SNND, moist, loose b 3 24.8 91 @4' Wet Grey silty CLAY, wet soft to firm 10 7 40.6 77 SM Grey silty SAND, wet median dense, abundant organics, Organic odor 42 @15' Dannse @20' Very dense ;w 20 67 CLBlue-grey silty CLAY, mist to very 2s waist, fim. to stiff 9 32.3 89 028' Sand lense to 6" 1 W I 30 Grey blase s=)dy SILK/silt'r SAND, 10 24.2 99 mist, fi••m to stiff, trace r:uca, iw shell fragm. nts, interbedded clayey and silty sand layers t i 33 R35' Clayey sand lense 29 14.9 118 � 4r 40 - JOB NO--2S8=_GG LOG OF BORING FIGURE: g_B IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. L F DATE OBSERVED: 5 18/84 METHOD OF DRILLING:..,lbte-M' ;7zs, 325° at 12" LOGGED BY: RVA GROUND ELEVATION: 6.6- LOCATION: See Plat Plan U.pH Am ae W u{ BORING NO. 3 4,6 o �a �Z �} (CONTINUED) SOIL TEST S w a) I—7 co co)eu r ve Y, 0= -Jco� W t -i z`n a 2C az DESCRIPTION C -1 a W V Z p 40 28 5.2 02 rw f Blue-grey mediin Silty SING, very ' mist, very dense 45 92 Q47' Gro-e-green silty CLAY, rrmist, CL hard 71 t Q50' Bluegrean mottlina Tatal Depth 51.5' �.+ W STANM4RD PEl=iTION TEST Ell 4 QD- �r+ iI • e w e t 1 TO { 7a li «r 80 - JOB No_* 2561-00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B-7 f IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. W 1 DATE OBSERVED: �11�t;5 METHOD OF DRILLING: Rotary 'as'1 -1 a al: 120 ' LOGGED BY: 101 GROUND ELEVATION: t LOCATION•...,-Sr4- Plnt Plan W o C w 0- ��1 Ca W c ¢W 0- Cr ,. BORING NO. 4 `L6' v ` m f-� m y?w 5a W go` vIt SOIL TEST ��.. _. v_s Y Oz �� a to a �O zw DESCRIPTION u, .� x U Red bram silty SAND, mist, dense �., 24 7.9 109 Grey brown silty SAND, dense, wise, sorm clay, clay pockets, red brown 6 34.4 82 mttled 01P,ECT SHEAR Q3' Interbedded silty CLAY/clayey SILT {1 pt.) NATURAL GROLr.M: �o Dark blue grey silty CLAY, mist, firs -9. 25.3 78 to stiff, trace sand, abundant shells, COON, IDATION -3 ,.race brain rrottling DIRECT SHEAR I Q8' Abundant sand (1 pt.) sr. @4' Abundant peat, porosity, organic ; y5 odor, soft to fim 8 .rt -6 , -6 1rr 20 Sp 13 i��t Grey clean SAND, rlediu:,l dense, Bret, abundant seashell organics w bw 11 28.0 92 25 ar 9 9-3 Dark grey silty CLAY/clayey SILT, very moist, soft to fi-:1 w 90 @31' Stiff 12 32.8 88 DIRECT SH:FAR 1 1( p") SULFATE 140 CORROSIVITY - 1 95 Q36' Green grey �.. 14 36.2 89 t M-xk- grey clayey SAM, mist, veil L 40 dense JOB N0:.2561--00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE: 8-8 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING,INC. 6w DATE OBSERVED: /21/84 METHOD OF DRILLING: Rotary Wash at LOGGED BY: JEH ORCUND ELEVATION: +9 LOCATION: See Plot Plan t 00 C w MW a� aS wi _ BORING NO. 4 V �a Nz V� (CONTINUED) $OIL TEST = L6 09 F- 09 {»W t` CL 0) O a� .Ya �z az DESCRIPTION 0 m a CDI IU �p 40 wr 72- 0- 11.4 I2B DIRECT SHEAR @44' Broum grey SILT {1 pt.) 45 SW 75- Green grey silty SAND, very dense, very DIRECT SHEAR 10, 21.2 10 moist, trace mica (1 pt. ) w ' w� ao @50' Gravel layer, gravel to 3/4- ... 0- @55' Median coarse, trace gravel to :- �• as of SULPHATE so @ 611 Abundant gravel -� @65' Sandy gravel 85 -� 70 Iw _ @75' Coarse, clean SAND Tb Ti�x �. 0- ' Total Depth 77.5' • f STANDARD PEIv.�z'MTION TEST ea JOB NO_: 258 x-00 LOG OF BORING FIfluRE: B-9 a IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. ...I DATE OBSERVED: blillbl` METHOD OF DRILLING-' RotaryVMS Jim a. LOGGED BY: im GROUND ELEVATION: 9+ LOCATION: See Pot P .. o _ w p0 nw a at as BORING NO. 5 0>- SOIL TEST le a O Cy 20 z DESCRIPTION 0 U W a W 0 �+ 0 ERedbromm er 4' Aggregate base SM silty SAND, mist dense '� 23 23.3 95 6 Grey silty fine SAND/sandy SILT, moist, dense, sore clay. n ottled, clay pockets J`' pieces of asphalt Ir �r 5 39.1 80 NATURAL GROUND: DIRECT SHr Dark cTroy silty CLd,Y, moist, firm. to (1 pt. ) ! 10 stiff, abmdant shells " I Dark grey silty SAND/Sandy SILT di de-we, m. ist to very moist 010' Silty sand 15 @14' Peat lense to 2' ` 6 @15, SAND, wet,- loose SIEVE - Ai"TER3EM LDIITS CL -6 34.0 89 DIPZ= SMEAR -6 Dark green clayey SILT/sitly CLAY, (1 pt.) 20 stiff, m. ist, trace fine sand, trace shells Dark grey silty SAND, wet, very-dense, trace shells, pica t 70 25 Jr.+ Dark 1 grey Hyey :.I si ty , L. CL 11 35.5 84 moist, stiff to very stiff, trace 30 ruca DIRECT SHEAR (1 pt. ) } SM Cxark grey fine silty &VID, r tedium DIRECT SF-EAR 27 26.7 97 dense, voist, trace mca, abundait (1 pt.) shells L. t .- SILVE 23 FJOB t HO- 2561 00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE; g-I0 IRVINE SOILS ENOINEERIN(X INC. DATE OBSERVED: METHOD OF DRILLING: Rotary wash 7 at 12- LOGGED BY: JEH GROUND ELEVATION: 9+ LOCATION: See Plat Plan 0 WUJ i o mw a '� Qa BORING NO. 5 f .", v as i hZ V} (CONTINUED) $OIL TEST W W 1-2 @ @W L y=. ffl 3: WQ be OZ ,J0 IL a' O a� '' �O zw DESCRIPTION W t -j z n O -3 40 Q40' Grey clay seam to 6" ' SP i' 65 Grey coarse SAND, wet, very dense, ' 45 sale gravel to �", trace ruca 045' Grey silty CLAY/clayey SILT layer to 2' i i a0 W - ! Total Depth 51.5' IE STANDARD PENETfTION TEST BO_ Vt i. �t i a5 w.r 'r. 70 7a ed JOB NO- 2561-00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE: 13-11 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING,INC. 1 t r DATE OBSERVED: METHOD OF DRIfrLINQ ucxeL �;ugur # at LOGGED BY: ZIF GROUND ELEVATION: 8 LOCATION: of Ir Z p I- a ui ?•C W o 03W 0. cc" as BORING NO. 6 U. ¢ J ar- `" " aCL IK ~Z o>- SOIL TEST Ir. u a) r-2 N CO w t Y pz rV) w 40 0 00 20 a= DESCRIPTION 0 V w ° FILL: P 11.1 106 Dark bT nn. clpyev SA..'D, mist, loose MAXIMW DEMITY Hit concrete pine @ 2' , offset 3' OPTIMUM MOISTURE a P 4.$ 11DTANSION 7 SULFAILM 3 Brotm SAND, moist, loose, sa clay 1 1.6 99 } -CL Black clayey SAND, moist, loose to I r. diun dense, abundant organics (peat) L SM 10 NATURAL GPOU!1D Lek blue grey silty CLAY, moist, fi_m trace sand, abundant organics (peat) '• t t Lark blue greys ty 7ow, vret, Irr abundant Qganics (peat) ; Total Depth 10' Ground;rater @ 8' Caving 101 Ir. 20 3 Irr ' 25 W 3 Lr .^� 30 r i .. 3s r � . 40 •- - JOB-No- 2561--0o LOG OF BORING FIGURE: 8-12 tw IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING,INC. I Ir DATE 08SERVE0 ,5121/P4 , METHOD OF DRILLING:._I R", Dne-I'�t A"- M } b, LOGGED BY: ME GROUND ELEVATION: 6*- LOCATION: Sew Plot Pan Z H O W 0% }1^L w o ©W c— oa BORING NO. 7 U. U M j +� Z)f" Wv it T U. y0 �2 �y Ow VFW' -SOIL TEST N ro y N< x O� r� r w t j zN : =�O Ui DESCRIPTION p V m 0 ca V � -6" 5.0 111 FILL: YM MUM DEtiSITY/ ! -6" Brom silty SAND, mist, loose to OPTIMLN MOISTURE medY;a.^t dense DIRECT' SHEAR P NR (RII`MDED) • SIEVE ' 8 EXPANSION SULFATE NATURAL—ROUND: R-VALUE DL=k blue silty CLAY, wet, firm, abundant organics (peat) Total Depth 7' . I Caving @ 6' Groun&,rater @ 5' w+ . 20 � r t j 25 4 . 1�7 �-1 30 tr I 1M. r � I t 40 1-'013 No' FIGURE: 25s�--oo - LOG OF BORING g-13 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERTNG•INC. APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING k i r - ' 4 2' W LABORATORY TESTING A. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classification was supplemented by index tests , such as, Particle Size Analysis and Atterberg Limits. Moisture: content and dry density determinations were made for representative undisturbed samples. Results of moisture-density determinations, together with • classifications, are shown on the Logs of Borings, contained in Appendix B. B. Particle Size Analysis Particle size analyses, consisting of sieve tests were per- formed on representative samples of the site subgrade soils in accordance with ASTM: D 422-63. Test results are shown on Figures C-1 through C-3. i ' C. Atterbera -Limits Atterberg limits tests consisting of liquid limit in accord- s r ante with ASTM: D 423-66 and plastic limit in accordance Li - - - with ASTM: • D 424-59 were performed on a representative sample of the on-site soils. The test results are presented f on Figure C-4. f D. Expansion - Expansion tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site soils remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard -No. 29-2. The test results are sum- marized on Figure C-5 , Table 1 . E. Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content • � The maximum dry density/optimum moisture content relation- ship was determined for a typical sample of the on-site soils . The laboratory standard used was ASTM: D 1557-78. The test results are summarized on Figure C-5, Table 2. f • S irr ibd Laboratory Testing, continued w. F. Sulfate and Corrosivit 6P Sulfate tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site soils. The laboratory standard used was California 417 A. The test results are presented on Figure C-5 , Table 3 . +� Corrosivity series were performed on representative on-site soil samples. The test series included pH, soluble chlori- des and minimum resistivity (in accordance with CA 643c) . The test results are presented in the text of this report. G. R-Value A R-Value test was performed on a representative sample of the on-site surface soils . The laboratory standard used +A. was ASTM: D 2844-75. The test results are summarized on Figure C-5 , Table 4 . r . 'Ir H. Direct Shear r • Single-point direct shear strength tests were performed on representative undisturbed samples of the on-site soils . The tests were run at field moisture conditions with a nor- mal load equal to the effective overburden pressure. The test results are presented on Figure C-6, Table 1. Three-point direct shear strengths were performed on repre- sentative undisturbed samples, which were saturated and sheared at specific normal loads. The test results are pre- sented in Figure C-7. .1*„ I. Consolidation Consolidation tests were performed on representative undis- turbed samples of the underlying soils to help determine compressibility characteristics. The samples were saturated mid-way through the tests to simulate possible adverse field conditions. The test results are presented on Figures C-8 through C-11. ti 11111■11■ rVii::�1 ■■■■11l 1■■■■�llll■■■■� It 1► Il [i■��1111�� ■�■■I111■■■�� 111■■■�� , , Moll 1 ik -01111 01 01011 REND= llloo■om 1111111MEN 1 ■■Il 1n■■mm1111■■■mm 110111111111101 : 111� ■■I111■■■mmilllm■■m� ■ 1111 ■11■��fill■■ ■■III IN■■■MIIIII■■M� 1111llli ■N■ I III ■ ■■ll 1■■■mm 1 ■■om t Illr■1r■�I lllio ■ ■■1111■■■■M 1 loam ■ 1111■11■■111M1111■■ ■ ■ 1l l■■■■m1111■■ m . 111 ■N■N1�l 11■ ■ 1 1o■■m 111111111 = _ ■1111 ■11■�I�IS11■■ ■ ■ lil■■■■m111■■■mm , �■1111I11■■�1111■■ ■ i1■1111■■■■�1111■■■■1� , rll IN■��l III ■m Ell 1■■■mmilll■■■mom! IM■1111 ■11■ Imi111■■ ■■ ■1111■■■■m1111■■■■� C011■1111 Iil■m mll III■I■ IIIIII■■mm1111■■■mm mill I11■mmIIIII ■� 1 II■■��1111■■■■� . I11111■1111 ■11■■111101111I■ ■■ ill■■■■�IIIII■■�� Mil IN■OmI III ■m \,�u1I■■mm1111■■■mom • It■1111I11■�1�111I■I■�■ ��:III■■��II11I■■�� It■1111 ■11■■ICI 11■■I■■■■IIIII■■■■�1111■■■■� , . . . , " I■■11111■111r�''��,��■1 ■■■■1111■■■■�Iill■�■■� . It■111I ■11■�I h �1 ■�■■1111■�■��1111■■■�� , , It 111 ■11 �I !I �►1 ■�■■1111■■■��1111■■■�� 11 ■11 ��i i� ■ It■111I ■I!■�1�1111■ �■■1111■■■��1111■■■�� ■■1111 ■11■�I�1111■1 ■■■1111■■■■�1111■■■■� , • Fill ■u■��INII■ nmii 1■■■mm1111■■■■■� m■IIII ■11■mIm11111■■ ■■III I■■■m=I111■■■m� ■1I1 ■ ■1111■■■■m1111l■■■� III ■q■ ICI 11■ ■ ,11 1■■■mm1111■■■■� . I■ fill■11■ 1=11 MEN ■ 1 1■■■mmI111■■■em Io■1I11 ■11■ �11HIM ■ 1 tl■■■■m1111■■■■� M111 ■u■mm 11■ ■ II 1■■■NM1111■■■NM Im■1111 ■1111■■■mmilll■■■m� Im■1111 ■f!■mIm l■■■mm1111■■■mm IN11 II 1■■■■mI111■■■■� . Im■II11 ■11■■lmllll■■ ■■ ■1111■■■mm1111■■■mm M11 I111i 11 1■■■mm1111■■■■1� • I�■II11 ■II■�1�1111■ I ■11111■■■mm1111■■■om I■■1111 ■11■■1�11111■■I■■■Ii�1��i1■■■■�I111■■■■� , • h 9 L 0 . . , I�\111��■11■■!�illl■1 ■�■■1111�■■��I111■■■■� . . I� I�r.��1��;�1111■1 ■�■■�1� 1�■■�� III■■■�� . , I�■1111�lt►�1�1111�1 ■M■■1111111■■1011111 IIIN■■m� In nN�r�"'''�1�IIi 0■■11 1■om■ml111g■■■� � 1111 Nli■�;�t��:�1 � Ilil■!1■��IIIIi►■■■■1111lm■■milllv■■m� , • Fill IN■11111: 1 111 ��■■11 1oo■m 11 ■■mm I�■1111 ■11■oI 111111 \■ 111I■■N 11 ■■m= IN■I111 ■11■ ■ Ill■r■■mi111l■ ■� . , 111 ■u■ �I 11■ ■ 1 I�r■■�1111�■ I� I111 ■II■■�I 11■I ■ Il l�■■��1111�■■�� , 1111011Illl lil■mf=1111111■■ 11111111ir■■milll■s■■m I�I11 �N■�4�1 11■ ■� �■11 1��■��II11■■■1■� , 11101■1111 111, ■o ■il11mr■mm1111■N■mm �■1111�11■�I�illll■11■�■ \�lil■i■��1111�■■�� . Hill�11■��I111■11■� �1 1�11■■�1111■■■s� I�■1i11 111■■I=II 11o11■ ■■ h llr■mm1111■o■m� Mill ■11■m=I 1 ■omil 1lm■m=1111■■■m� • It■1111 �11■�f�1111�1 ■�■■1111�■■r�llll■■■�� ■■Ills■1!■■f III 11■� ■■■�l111■■■■�l111■■■■� , • 111 Ile . . . • • CLASSIFICATION w F PLASTICITY CHART 80 4 50 �+ CH ` _ a� 0 CL Z 1 } 30 i.r F- . U f„ M H 0 20 or Q OH a Ir 10 t - 4 CL-ML ML or OL ,ML 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 so 100 E LIQUID LIMIT N) I" UNIFIED NATURAL PLAS�- PASSING SAMPLE LIQUID LIQUIDITY SOIL BORING WATER TICITY NO. 200 SYMBOL . DEPTH LIMIT INDEX CLASSf- N0 CONTENT {FEET) (�? (96) INDEX SIEVE(�) (�) (!6) FICATION SYMBOL Yu - • ' 5 28.0 35.5 47.6 13.6 0.85 ML I � i Ir+ . I r3 ' ATTERBERG LIMITS JOB NO.: ]DATE: FIGURE: 2561-00 JUNE 1984 A . - C-4 IRVINE SOBS ENGINEERING. INC. TABLE 1 RESULTS OF EXPANSION TEST (U.B.C. No. 29-2) Test Expansion Expansion Location Index Potential B6 @ 2' 2 Very Low B7 @ 1-3' 0 Very Low f s TABLE 2 RESULTS OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE/MAXIMUM DENSITY DETERMINATIONS (ASTM: D 1557-78) •+�: Test Maximum Optimum Moisture Location Dry Density Content M B6 @ 2' 125.5 9 .2 B7 @ 1-3 ' 126.0 9.5 Table 3 SULFATE TEST RESULTS (Per California 417A) Test Test $ Soluble • � No. Location Sulfate 1 B4 @ 46' 0.0136 z 2 B6 @ 2' 0.0230 i 3 B7 @ 1-3 ' 0.0173 s� I TABLE 4 RESULTS OF R-VALUE TEST (ASTM: D 2844-75 ) TEST LOCATION R—VALUE +r B7 @ 1-3' 66 1 t - JOB NUMBER 2561-00 JUNE 1983 FIGURE C-5 ^1 TABLE I SINGLE POINT DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS APPARENT " Y TEST NORMAL STRESS SHEAR STRENGTH LOCATION ( sf) ( sf) B-1 @ 10' 900 450 B-1 @ 15' 1200 1000 B-1 @ 20 ' 1500 600 t B-1 @ 30 2100 1350'— W B-1 @ 35 ' 2500 1750 B-4 @ 6' 600 675 i B-4 @ 11' 1000 Soo B-4 @ •31 ' - 2200 600 f" B-4 @ 411 - .2800 4100 B-4 @ 46' 3100 2500 t B-5 @ 8' S00 700 + B-5 @ 18' 1400 -550 B-5 @ 28' 2000 600 B-5 @ 35 ' 2300 1750 �r . f z . ri ; r r � �� JOB NUMBER: 2561-00 JUNE 1984 FIGURE C-6 Ir. BORING (DEPTH COHESION, ANGLE OF SAMPLE DESCRIPTION NO. (FEET) (PSF) FRICTION, 4000 T 1 1.0-3.0 0 31 SILTY SAND Y. 7 3000 �y N v a w 200Q y O C w N b t000 Ir +err 40 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 6000 NORMAL LOAD (PSF) ` BORING DEPTH I COHESION, ANGLE OF SAMPLE DESCRIPTION NO. (FEET) (PSF) FRICTION bkd 4000__ w 3000 w r� m d � z v ' . ., z w N 2000 ' I z +rr w z 1000 .00 loco 2000 3000 4000 6000 6000 NORMAL LOAD (PSF) JOB NO: FIGURE: -! 2561-00 SHEARING STRENGTH TEST c-y IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. irr _-4 BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL EXPLANATION t 10.0 0 FIELD MOISTURE ------ SAMPLE SATURATED REBOUND W" .. 12.0 z 0 w,. N 8.0 x t x w 4.0 I 0 Ir+ 4.0 �.i 8.0 R 12,0 Z 920.0 I o \ � � N 0 24.0 .►` 28.0 I 32.0 I 36.0 40.0 0 o a a o a a o o a n o o a o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 CAI car to o 0 0 0 o a a co r to 0 r NORMAL LOAD (PSF) J08 NO-' � FIGURE: z' s -00 LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST - %_8 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. 1 BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL EXPLANATION 1 20.0 0 FIELD MOISTURE Ir ' ------------ SAMPLE SATURATED REBOUND 4+ 3.0 ' O ' vs 2.0 x - a x w 1.0 0 1.0 4 2.0 I Jv 3.0 r� 4.0 0 ..J �? O 0 6.0 T t 7.0 r � e.0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o p o 0 0 p 0 0 0 O p O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O 0 O O O 04 l7 q' U) O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 p r N l7 f W O O 0 0 O O n! C> t W O t NORMAL LOAD (PSF) JOB NO.: FIGURE: 25s - LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST C-s IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. +r.+ BORING NO. DEFTH (FEET) SYMBOL EXPLANATION 2 5.0 e FIELD MOISTURE �"' ----,---- SAMPLE SATURATED REBOUNO 0 m 2.0 •� t 0. X w 1.0 0 I 1.0 2.0 3.0 L4.Q z - �� P .-Y G I 0 8.0 ` U ,j 7.0 Yr. 8.0 .. • 9.0 ,.� 10.00 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 N n .a a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 M to 0 N 0 0 10 a r r NORMAL LOAD (PSF) J08 NO.: FIGURE: 2 s 6 1-0 o LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST C-10 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Iw BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL EXPLANATION A 11.0 FIELD MOISTURE --- — SAMPLE SATURATED REBOUND i.. 12.0 z 0 in 8.0 z a x it L&I 4.0 I 0 r it 4.0 8.0 r 4 � 12.0 y ff z p 20.0 o G 24.0 28.0 32.0 r + 38.0 ti.. 40.o o 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o a a o a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a n O r a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a a N l7 r W o N r0i r w a NORMAL LOAD (PSF) I,,., POI! NO.: FIGURE: 2561-0o LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST C-11 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. r.+ 4. i. L 1L. APPENDIX C. CIRCULATION ANALYSIS 6w L L L L L 4w L L L W +r. Lsa THE WATERFRONT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIP€ SUITE 1050 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 6w PREPARED BY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. I PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 L January 13, 1988 L Lsd v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SECTION I: PHASE I IMPACT ANALYSIS .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ProjectDescription . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Existing Arterial Highway Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Existing Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Future Arterial highway Network . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Future Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TripGeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Trip Distribution . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Traffic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Phase 1 Impact Analysis Conclusions . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 SECTION II: THE WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Cumulative Condition . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 The Waterfront Master Plan . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Trip Generation . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Trip Distribution and Assignment . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 ProjectImpacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Mitigation Measures .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 SECTION III: MASTER PLAN PARKING ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 ForecastParking Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 W s i W L Lsa LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A - PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED TENNIS AND HEALTH CENTER APPENDIX B - PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED RESORT HOTEL USES APPENDIX C - TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS FROM SPECIFIC PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY APPENDIX D - FORECAST TURN MOVEMENT WORKSHEETS APPENDIX E - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT (DESTINATION RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION a• ALTERNATIVE) APPENDIX F - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT (ITE HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE) W APPENDIX G - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT (DESTINATION RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE) APPENDIX H - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT (ITE RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE) sod S.. it Lsa LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES w.. P_aQe LIST OF FIGURES Figure I - Vicinity Map .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 " Figure 2 - Phase I Site Plan . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 3 - Existing Feak Hour Turn Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 4 - 1991 Background Peak Hour Turn Volumes 9 +� Figure 5 - Phase I Project Trip Distribution . � . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 6 - Adjusted 1991 Background Peak Hour Turn Volumes . , . . . 15 Figure 6a - Adjusted 1991 Background Peak Hour Turn Volumes . . . . . 16 ,r Figure 7 - Cumulative Condition Peak Hour Turn Volumes . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 8 - 1991 Plus Phase 1 Peak Hour Turn Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 8a - 1991 Plus Phase 1 Peak Hour Turn Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 9 - Cumulative Condition Peak hour Turn Volumes . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 10 - Site Plan . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . 28 Figure 11 - Master Plan Project Trip Distribution . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 12 - Master Plan Project Trip Assignment . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 34 r.. Figure 12a- Master Plan Project Trip Assignment . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 13 - Cumulative Plus Master Plan Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes . .. . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 13a- Cumulative Plus Master Plan Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 37 LIST OF TABLES Table A - Phase I Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table A.a- Phase 1 Trip Generation . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table B - Phase 1 Intersection Capacity Analysis . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table C - Master Plan Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table C.a- Master Plan Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table D - Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Summary . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 Table E - Master Plan Shared Parking Demand . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 iii [XECUTIVE SUMMARY This traffic circulation and parking analysis has been prepared for submittal to the City of Huntington Beach as a technical appendix to a Sup- plemental Environmental Impact Report. This report presents the results of analysis of the Waterfront, a hotel , cormanercial and residential development 4' proposed on the northerly side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boule- vard and Huntington Street. Phase I impacts and the impacts of buildout of the Master Plan for the entire site were both analyzed. L Trips generated by the Waterfront (Phase I and Master Plan) are distri- buted to the local roadway network. Project related traffic is added to a cumulative base which includes traffic generated by the proposed Downtown Specific Plan and the Pierside Village Project. Several committed roadway projects in the vicinity of the project are assumed in this analysis. One improvement occurs at the PCH and Huntington Street intersection, and in- Ski cludes the addition of a southbound left turn Zane. For comparative analy- sis, the City regjested that two traffic generation rates be used for the hotels. One alternative assumes the .1TE Trip Generation Manual trip u generation rates for hotel land uses. The other alternative analyzed assumes a destination/resort oriented rate. Using City established thresholds for intersection capacity, the analy- sis indicates that there are no effects from Phase I that would increase traffic beyond acceptable thresholds. Master Plan traffic, likewise, does not increase traffic levels beyond acceptable thresholds.. Phase I and Master Plan parking analyses indicate that the number of parking spaces provided in Phase I, and the project as a whole, is adequate to accommodate the demand for parking throughout the day. No mitigation is required to reduce impacts. However, at the City's request, and to reduce Air Quality Impacts, the following mitigation is included to reduce automobile usage: • Implement a Transportation Systems Management Program (TSM) . �.. • Implemen;. a bus/shuttle program in the summer months to regional activity centers within the County. Promote employee use of public transportation. • Provide bus shelters, benches and bus pockets near the proposed project. • Install gated/secured parking facilities to discourage beach user parking. iv Jr. Ju �.r Lsd THE_WATERFRONT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a traffic impact analysis and park- ing study performed for the proposed project, The Waterfront, a hotel , com- mercial , and residential development, to be located on the northerly side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and Huntington Street, in the �. City of Huntington Beach (Figure 1) . The report has been prepared for sub- mittal to the City of Huntington Beach as a Technical Appendix to the Environmental Impact Report. The traffic analysis examines the impacts of this y p project, both the initial Phase I and the buildout of The Waterfront Master Plan, on the arter- ial highway system in the vicinity of the project site. For the Phase 1 analysis, traffic generated by the project is added to background traffic conditions for 1991. In addition to the traffic impacts associated with the initial phase of development, traffic impacts resulting from development of r.. the Master Plan for The Waterfront are evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures are recommended. It should be pointed out that the analysis of traffic impacts for the Master Plan assumes the buildout of the proposed project to the maximum potential for each phase allowed by the proposed Development Agreement (DA) and Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA) between the developer and the City/Redevelopment Agency. Trips generated by The Waterfront Master Plan are distributed and as- signed to the local roadway network. This project trip assignment is added to a cumulative base which includes traffic generated by the proposed Down- town Specific Plan and the proposed Pierside Village project in the City of Huntington Beach. The report also presents the results of a parking demand and accumulation analysis for the Master Plan buildout scenario. As the Phase 1 development has a parking supply consistent with the City of Hun- tington Beach Parking Code, no further parking analysis is necessary for this development phase. IDowntown_Specific Plan Environmental Irpact Report Environmental Impact Report 82-2, City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, July 1983. 1 Vicinity Map tsa °\ `' TL to .°o oolC: bf t7.° ` '1 0 0 �o o •o °• o r. o _ mpn -l 1 7. wh r4o .I _JL ® x r srf i ---- D �� —_ � 5, ❑Q�U �� ) I� Il..': 5 �( U ° R _ t CO 1 M NOT B !- 14. [TrailerP. �] T Trz Pro ect Site F = OE 3 r aft a r\, '! - x A Tanks IA �o �R BM O C sT Fq Scale in Feet 0 1000 2000 11/25187:GD Source: USGS 7.5' Quads — Newport Beach and Seal Beacr:. C_., 1961 i V A LsQ SECTION I: PHASE I IMPACT ANALYSIS L PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Waterfront project site consists of 47 net acres, which is currently developed with a 239 unit mobile home park, a 144 room motel (with supporting restaurants, bar, and conference style meeting facilities) , a coffee shop, � . and a 9 hole golf course. A portion of the site is vacant, and a portion of the site is utilized as a City owned and operated maintenance yard. The proposed project will be developed in seven phases, with construc- tion beginning in 1988. The first phase of project development, which is 1.. planned for completion by 1991, will consist of a 300 room hotel, ancillary restaurant and retail uses, conference rooms, ballroom, health/exercise facilities, administrative and housekeeping services. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan for Phase 1 of The Waterfront development. Development of Phase I will result in the removal of the 48 room western wing of the existing Huntington Beach Inn. The remainder of the Huntington �+ Beach Inn will be removed prior to construction of Phase 2. The existing golf course and mobile homes will be removed consistent with construction of each phase of project development. Vehicular access to the Phase I development will be provided by two driveways off of Walnut Avenue. The first driveway is -approximately 150 feet east of the eastern curb of Huntington Street. This location is planned as a right in/out access. The second driveway is located approximately 400 feet east of the eastern curb of Huntington Street, and will provide full access to the Phase 1 project. In addition, a driveway is planned along Huntington +� Street approximately 150 feet from the northern curb of Pacific Coast High- way. This driveway will accommodate service vehicles only. No hotel patron traffic is allowed at this location. Parking for the Phase 1 development will be provided in a parking struc- ture under the hotel . The City of Huntington Beach Parking Code indicates that 1.1 parking spaces per hotel room is required, and the Phase 1 hotel will provide the required number of parking spaces. Therefore, the parking provided on-site is adequate to meet the City code requirement for the Phase 1 development. w 3 A oil . A N —mLOH aoZ ooL oS I Joe d ul eleos '� A A o ' _ :.:: _ - '•'• '"`� =r;llX. uL,in saU :sivao� Isan j ! s� :•:r: 4q '1 o� e z Luo II 8 /su,c08 aauaiasuco cn .� r m ZOO**" esi u'81d al!S L asl2yd z w r w. Lsa EXISTING ARTERIAL HIGHWAY NETWORK w Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1). Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is a State Highway and is classified as a major arterial on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). In the vicinity of the project site, PCH has two travel lanes in each direction, divided by a raised median, and has left and right turn lanes at intersections and major driveways. In the vic- inity of the project site, PCH is signal controlled at its intersections with Huntington Street and Beach Boulevard. Beach Boulevard SR-39 . Beach Boulevard is a State Highway and is classified as a major arterial on the MPAH. In the vicinity of the project ,r site, Beach Boulevard is a six lane divided arterial with left and right turn lanes at intersections and major driveways. The southern leg of its inter- section with PCH provides access to a public beach parking lot. Huntington Street. Huntington Street is a three lane arterial in the vicinity of the project site, with two northbound lanes and one southbound lane. Huntington narrows to two lanes as it approaches Atlanta Drive. North of Atlanta, Huntington is designated as a residential collector. The south- ern leg of its intersection with PCH provides access to a public beach park- ing lot. fake Street. Lake Street is a two lane roadway north of the project site. Lake Street provides north/south circulation from the City beach to the Civic Center area. North of Orange, Lake Street is- considered a primary 'w arterial . The southern leg of its intersection with PCH provides access to the Huntington Beach Lifeguard station parking lot. ,., Main Street. Main Street is a one lane, one-way local street from Orange Street to PCH. This roadway provides southbound circulation through the commercial downtown area. North of Orange Street, Main Street is a two lane two way arterial providing north/south circulation -to the Civic Center area. The southern leg of its intersection with PCH provides access to the Huntington Beach Pier and Maxwell restaurant's parking lot. +r EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 3 illustrates the existing AM and PM peak hour turn volumes for the intersections in the vicinity of the project site. The turn volumes for the intersection of Beach Boulevard/PCH were taken in April , 1985, as part of the Beach Boulevard Super Street study performed by the Orange County Trans- portation Commission. Turn volumes for the intersection of Huntington 5 60 [ [ E i C f [ C [ [ [ [ 3 Existing Peak Hour Turn Volumes L.�-a rrrALMUT "N schematic-idol to Scale 0 0 o � z Phase 1 o s v 7 Project Site OR p z M L10/2 t-236/431 Lr0152/1343 08/1338 (36.000) (40,000) PACIFIC COAST IIIGMAY (41,000) 10/8� I 721135� _ 1254/1074 - o_� _ M M l076/116/0 nor 2/2� NC!� cq w (zzz) — ADT Volume xxx/yyy-Am. Peak [lour/P.M. Peak [lour w rr 4W Lsa Street/PCH were taken in February, 1987. In addition to these turning volumes, this Figure also illustrates ADT volumes. The ADT volumes for Beach Boulevard akd Pacific Coast Highway were taken from Caltrans traffic count information . The ADT volumes for Huntington Street and Lake Street were derived from the P!i peak hour volumes, assuming a peak hour to ADT relation- ship of IC'/O. The Main Street ADT volume is based on the 1986 County Master Plan of Arterial Highways Traffic Flow Map. FUTURE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY NETWORK W Several roadway improvement projects are planned for the arterial high- way network in the vicinity of the project site in approximately 1990. The primary improvement to the circulation system will be the widening of Pacific Coast Highway betw=en Goldenwest Street in the City of Huntington Beach and Newport Boulevard (SR-55) in the City of Newport Beach. Under the plans for this improvement project, PCH will be widened to six travel lanes. This will +� be accomplished through the elimination of on-street parking on both sides of PCH and, between Goldenwest and Beach Boulevard, coupled with the narrowing of the median from I6 feet to 12 feet. 6d Walnut Avenue is planned for construction through the central portion of the project site. As indicated previously, during Phase I of project devel- 60 opment walnut will be constructed to a point approximately 250 feet east of its intersection with Huntington Street. Upon buildout of Master Plan devel- opment, Walnut will be constructed to Beach Boulevard. The extension of Walnut Avenue is planned as a four lane divided arterial in the vicinity of �w the project site. Another arterial improvement under consideration in the immediate vic- inity of the project site is the proposed realignment of Delaware Street, along with the accompanying closure of Huntington Street north of the project site. Delaware Avenue, which is a parallel roadway to Huntington Street, currently terminates immediately north of the residential portion of the project site. Under City plans for the realignment of Delaware, this facil- ity would curve southwesterly to connect with Huntington Street at the inter- section of Huntington Street with Walnut Avenue. Upon completion of the rr realignment, Huntington Street north of walnut Avenue would be closed. It should be noted that this project is proposed but not committed. At this point in time, plans for the realignment have not been completed. It is probable that this realignment will not occur until the property at the 21988 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, Caltrans, 1986. 7 60 w 60 Lsa rw northeast corner of Huntington Street and Walnut Avenue is converted to other uses. It should also be noted that realignment of Delaware Street is not so necessary to facilitate access to The Waterfront, as adequate access to the north is currently provided by Huntington Street. As part of the redevelopment of the downtown area, Main Street is pro- aw posed to be closed to vehicular traffic, and will become a pedestrian mall area. Traffic anticipated to use Frain Street will instead be diverted to Sixth Street west of Main Street. As indicated in the Proposed Circulation 4W System Concept Plan prepared by Greer & Co., August, 1983, Main Street is proposed to be closed between PCH and Walnut Avenue and from Orange Avenue to Acacia Avenue. up Sixth Street will form the northern boundary of the redeveloped downtown area, and will accommodate the traffic volumes anticipated for lain Street. In the Circulation _Concept Plan, Sixth Street was recommended to be a four bf lane facility with left turn lanes to facilitate movements into and out of the downtown area. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Phase 1 project development assumes a 1991 completion date. Examination of Caltrans traffic count information for 1982 through 1985 for Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard indicate that traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project site have historically experienced increases of around three percent per year. Estimated 1991 background traffic volumes for the facil- ities in the vicinity of the project site, therefore, were derived from this historic traffic count information by applying the three percent per annum growth rate. This methodology was used, instead of utilizing the Downtown 6, Specific Plan EIR buildout volumes, as the Phase I development will be fin- ished prior to the completion of the downtown redevelopment. It should be pointed out, however, that the Specific Plan EIR volumes are used in the 61 cumulative analysis for the Waterfront Master Plan analysis. Figure 4 illustrates the forecast 1991 background volumes. These vol- umes assure that the existing land uses on the project site (including the &W west wing of the Huntington Beach Inn) will continue to exist in 1991 back- ground conditions. 8 4 1991 Background Peak Hour Turn Volumes Lsa WALNUT Schematic-1101 to SC319 0 0 O ri z Phase 1 10 �� 0 o s z Project Site � z D Ln �N �O 810a L10/25 0 �i L 265/485 ��-124511510' � - � 1t35/15D5 +J L r"0160 �015 (41000) Ff' (44,000) PACIFIC COAST tIIGHWAY (45,000) 101'10� � 80/150 �, 1410/1210 o� o 1210112 01 0----1 co 515 o t0/0� (zzz) - ADT Volume xxx/yyy-A.IA. Poak Ilow/P.M. Peak flour Lsa ba TRIP GENERATION Trips have teen generated for the proposed project based on trip generation rates for hotel land uses as described in the ITE Trip Generation Manual , Third Edition. This trip generation is presented in Table A. This Table also includes the reduction in traffic due to the removal of the west wing of the Huntington Beach Inn. As seen in Table A, the proposed project, assuming the ITE rates, will generate approximately 3,100 ADT and 260 AM and 220 PM peak hour trips. Additionally, trip generation assumptions for the proposed hotel were also taken from a research study prepared in December, 1986. This research surveyed three destination resort hotels in Southern California, as well as literature research for another destination resort hotel . For purposes of the study, a destination resort hotel was defined as a hotel which serves as a "primary attraction in itself because of the attractiveness of the accom- modation facility and the on-site amenities that are available." It should be noted that the report also states that such amenities may not necessarily be on-site, but could be within close proximity. Such amenities include recreational activities (health facilities, tennis courts, golf courses, beaches, etc.), restaurants, commercial facilities, etc. In addition to these amenities, all of the hotels surveyed contained restaurants and con- ference facilities and/or ballrooms and meeting rooms. Information supplied by the consulting firm of Laventhol-Horwath ind- icates that the proposed Waterfront hotel developments will be similar to resort hotels surveyed by Austin-Foust, Inc. (see Appendix B) . These simi- larities include not only the availability of various resort hotel amenities, but also the anticipated occupancy rates. As indicated in the letter in Appendix B, the occupancy rates for the proposed Waterfront hotel are ex- pected to be less than the 85% rate observed at the surveyed resort hotels. Hence, the hotel being proposed for the Phase I project of The Waterfront development will have trip generation characteristics similar to those sur- veyed in this report. To account for the removal of the 48 room west wing of the existing �. Huntington Beach Inn, which will occur prior to completion of the proposed project, it was necessary to account for the trips generated by that part- icular use. This property does not exhibit the same resort hotel charac 3Austin-Faust Associates, Inc. , Resort Hotel Traffic Study, December 29,1986. - 10 f I t r r C r r r f` r f r r_ Table A. a Phase 1 Trip Generation lsa ANALYSIS UNITS 117RIP GENERATION RATES JITRIP GENERATION ILA!!D USE I TYPE 1 110. JJDAILY JAM IN IAM OUT JPM IN `PM OUT JJDAILY JAM IN JAM CUT JPM IN JPM OUT PPOf OSED PROJECT ............................................................................................................ POW JRooms 1 300 11 6.00 1 0.20 1 0.10 1 0.19 1 0.26 11 1,800 1 60 1 30 1 57 1 78 j ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXISTING WEST WING OF THE HUNTING70H BEACH INN .................................................................... 1110te1 IRoanS 1 48 11 6.00 1 0.20 = 0.10 1 0.19 ( 0.26 11 268 ( 10 1 5 ( 9 1 12 1 ..................................................................... I Net Increase 11 1,512 1 50 1 25 1 48 1 66 1 ........................................................... ...... im Lsa teristics as those considered in the Austin-Foust study, and so is likely to exhibit higher trip generation than the new Phase 1 development. However, to j� be both consistent and conservative in this analysis, trip generation for the 48 rooms removed was estimated using hotel trip generation rates presented in the Austin-Foust study. It should also be noted that 28 mobile homes are expected to be removed for the Phase 1 development, primarily to accommodate the 250 feet extension of Walnut Avenue. However, to be conservative, no deduction was made for this reduction in residential vehicle trips. �. Table A.a sum-narizes these trip rates, as well as the resulting trip generation when these rates are applied to the proposed land uses for Phase 1 development. Also presented in Table A.a is the estimated reduction in 6. traffic due to removal of the west wing of the Huntington Beach Inn, along with the resulting increase in project site trip generation when traffic generated by the proposed project is combined with the estimated reduction. As this Table indicates, Phase 1 of the proposed project is expected to generate 1,800 daily trips, 90 of which will occur during the AM peals hour (60 inbound and 30 outbound), and 135 of which will occur during the PM peak hour (57 inbound and 78 outbound). It should be noted that each of the resort hotels contained in the Austin-Foust study had significant numbers of restaurants, meeting spaces and ballroom facilities. The restaurant, meeting space and ballroom facilities planned for the Phase I hotel, and in total for the Master Plan, are commen- surate with the facilities at the other destination resort hotels. There- fore, the inclusion of restaurant, meeting space and ballroom in the Phase 1 v hotel is typical for this type of facility, and is already considered in the trip generation rates contained in this analysis. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The trip distribution patterns for the proposed project were assumed to be the sane as the general distribution patterns assumed for the Downtown Specific Flan area in the City's report. The Downtown Specific Plan trip distribution percentages are included in Appendix C. These distribution patterns were derived based on existing travel patterns for the downtown �r section of the City of Huntington Beach. Figure 5 illustrates these trip distribution patterns. Applying these trip distribution patterns to the directional AM and PM peak hour trip generation for Phase 1 development results in the traffic volumes illustrated in Figure 6 and 6.a. Figure 6 reflects resulting project trip assignment assuming the City requested ITE trip generation rates, 12 r r r r r r f f r r f r r Table A Phase 1 Trip Generation Lsa ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I ANALYSIS UNITS =TRIP GENERATION RATES (TRIP GENERATION (LAND USE j TYPE = NO. JIDAILY JAM 1N IAM OUT JPM 1N JPM OUT JIDAILY JAM IN JAM OUT EPK IN IFM OJT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPOSED PROJECT IIlotel IRooms 1 300 E1 10.50 1 0.58 1 0.29 1 0.36 1 0.37 11 3,150 1 174 1 87 1 108 j 111 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXISTING VEST WING OF THE NUNTINGION BEACH INN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1110te1 JRDemS ; 48 11 10.50 1 0.58 1 0.29 1 0.36 j 0.37 11 504 1 28 ( 14 1 17 1 18 I I Net increase 11 2,646 1 146 1 73 1 91 1 93 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1113188:Cr 5 Phase 1 Project Trip Distribution Patterns Lsa ZVPNS�511 P Schematic - Not to Scale 10 itI 7 nO Q � Z f0 a o OLIVE AVE - �i Ni Phase 1 1 zj o , Project Site � Q PACIFIC COAST_HWY 11) 10 1t] — Percent Project Trip Distribution Phase 1 Project Access Locations r r r- _ r r - r r 6 Phase 1 Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes Lca 23138 �~--5 917 3 FiR13F.�� 1 WALNUT 116►72 5a/36 r •�ti w Co oSchematic - ✓`Jot to Scale c� Phase I aw�7 z .= Project Site 0 c� z z ( a �" 0 715 5 � 0 0Q� ---o/o ¢o� 0/0 r0-t 010 � o r 17/11 010 -�\\, -- i (:5001 � (2600) PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY � (300) 26./17� I 35►44� N 0/0—$ o 0 o 9/12 0—~ pO o O/0^--� 0 0 0 _� O p p LEGEND (zzz) - ADT Volume xx/yy - A.M. Peak Hour!P.M. Peak Hour 1!135sxF f r C r r r rE C C f i r 6. a Phase 1 Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes Ls-a WALNUT N 4.0/38 } 20/19---1 CO Schematic-Not to Scalo a o V) I to o phase, 1 0 9y z Project site � p z o� 1 =� L30/29 op �--- I�I L �--0/0 w ` ---0/6/0 (300) (1200} PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY t3001 9/9� 1 � 12/31� 0 0 18 0� o 0/0 3 � o0 010� n 0/0— 0 CD (zzz) - ADT Volume xxx/yyy.A.?,I. Peak flour/P.t.1. Peak [lour Iw b Lsa Irr while Figure 6.a illustrates the destination resort hotel trip generation as described in the Austin-Foust study. ir. Due to differences in access locations for the existing Huntington Beach Inn and for the proposed hotel, as well as the planned demolition of the west wing of the existing Huntington Beach Inn to accommodate the Phase 1 hotel , the forecast 1991 background volumes previously presented have been modified. These modified background volumes are illustrated in Figure 7. Figures 8 and 8.a illustrate the modified 1991 background volumes plus Phase 1 project traffic for the ITE hotel trip generation alternatives and the destination resort hotel , respectively. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS To assess the relative impacts of project generated traffic on the arterial system in the vicinity of the project site, AM and PM peak hour volumes at key intersections for the Phase 1 development were examined. These intersections include PCH/Huntington and PCH/Beach. The turn volumes for each intersection are examined to determine the volume/capacity (VC) 4" ratio for each turn movement. Through the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, conflicting turn movement volumes and their V/C ratios are examined to determine the overall capacity utilization for each intersection in the form of a VC ratio, termed the ICU. In effect, ICU is the percentage of capacity utilization needed to adequately accommodate all vehicles travel- ing through an intersection. Hence, the higher the ICU, the higher the percentage of capacity utilization, where an ICU of 1.00 would equal the utilization of 100% of the intersection's capacity. With lower capacity utilization, residual capacity will prevail . For planning purposes, an ICU of 0.90 (90: utilization} or lower is desirable for peak hour evaluation. 60 This corresponds to level of service (LOS) D or better, as defined in the 1965 Highway_Canacity Manual . Table B summarizes the existing, 1991 background, and 1991 background plus Phase 1 development AM and PM peak hour intersection capacity utili- zation ratios for the intersections in the vicinity of the project site for both trip generation alternatives. As can be seen in the Table, both inter- sections currently operate acceptably below the 0.90 ICU threshold. The two intersections are anticipated to continue to operate acceptably with the addition of 1991 background traffic and the project traffic. i. 11 w 7 Adjusted 1991 Background Peak Hour Turn Volumes LCM WALNUT N o Schematic-Not to Scale 0 0 T- I z Phase I 7y z Project Site z S. o�n�� L5119 �V'r t--2651485 I L = 0/603115Q7• T—Of '11 2/1503 of (4t,000) (44.00Q1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (45,000) 10/10 771143 C ,A 1�409/1208 - 0_10 120G112�3---� �o� 515 pi (zzz) - ADT Volume xxx/yyy-A.FA. P©ak )Four/P.M. Peak Flour f f 8 1991 Plus Phase 1 Project Peak Hour . Turn Volumes Esa 28/30 j-5J/73 64/36---� WALNUT 116172 5E315TI co C 0 Schematic Not to Scale Phase I �m Z r Project Site pp�y 0 V Z h Z N N O a0 92174 �►' �� rn nm -�--1243/1507 Nas s 265/485 JIL �0/G0 �� 0/5/1514 (41.500) (46.000) PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY , "'1 (45,000) 36/27� � I F 112/187 141f311220 120G11253--� tnvtn 5/$ op � 10/0-1 ..YAA�� i �0 v �0 LEGEND (zzz) — ADT Volume xxlyy — A.M. Peak tiour!P.M. Peak Hour 1113/88:CP 8. a 1991 Plus Phase 1 Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes Esc WALNUT 4 0138 20119 Schematic-flot to Scale CO o C ! z Phase 1 Np 7- z Project Site p z ID U-) � L 35148 \-- 265/ 5 m C.)II� �-12 4 3115 Q 7.. 507 � �--•- �1 1�... �Q/GO 0/5 8/ � � 1 (41,000) 1 (45,000) PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (45,000) _j 891154- 19/19 1412/1216 0 0 r 10/Q LO (zzz) .- ADT Volume xxx/yyy-A.M. Peak Hour/P.M. Peak Hour r c r € € r r r c r r c r Table Q Phase 1 Intersection Capacity Analysis Lsa ------------------------------------- I AM Pk. 11r. I PM Pk. 11r. I ---------------------------------i---ICU I cos---- i--`ICU 1 -toS _.- Ilnterscction I -:-------------------------------------------1----------------- 1----------------- 1 1 Huntington Street/1'C11 --------------------------------------------- Existing I 0.51 1 A I 0.56 I A 1 i ---------------------------------------------I-------- 1-------- I --------I ------- 1 I 1991 Background 1 0.43 € A 1 0.47 I A 1 I ---------------------------------------------I -------1------- 1------- 1 --------1 1 1991 + Project (Destination Resort hotel J 0.43 J A J 0.49 j A J I Trip Generation) I I I I I I ---------------------------------------------I-------- 1-------- 1------- 1 ------- 1 1 1991 + Project (ITE hotel Trip Generation) I 0.48 1 A 1 0.52 1 A I I ---------------------------------------------I ------ I ------- I--------I -------- 1 12. Beach Boulevard/PCII I J 1 1 1 I ---------------------------------------------I 1 I I I I Existing I 0.64 ( B I 0.65 I B 1 I ---------------------------------------------;--------I--------1--------1 ------- 1 1 1991 Background 1 0.56 I A 1 0.56 I A I ----------------------------l-------------- J-------- 1--------I --------J -------- J 1 1991 + Project (Destination Resort Motel 1 0.56 I A 1 0.56 I A 1 I Trip Generation) I I I I I I ---------------------------------------------I ------ I ------- I ------- 1 ------- I 1 1991 + Project (ITE hotel Trip Generation) 1 0.57 1 A 1 0.57 1 A I -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - 11gJ -- Lsa 60 As the impact analysis indicates, both the intersections of Huntington Street/PCH and Beach Boulevard/PCH will experience decreases in AM and PM peak hour capacity utilization, and therefore an improved level of service, as a result of the PCH widening project. Addition of project generated traf- fic to these intersections is not expected to result in any significant �., increases in capacity utilization or levels of service. Even with addition of project generated traffic, the resulting AM and PM peak hour ICUs will be improved over existing conditions. Hence, no intersection improvements are necessary beyond those planned as part of the PCH widening project. PHASE 1 IMPACT ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS +� The proposed Phase 1 project will generate 3,150 ADT and 260 AM and 220 PM peak hour trips assuming the ITE trip generation rates. The proposed project will generate 1,800 daily trips, of which 90 trips will occur during the AM peak hour and 135 trips will occur during the PM peak hour assuming the destination resort hotel trip generation rates. With the removal of the 48 room west wing of the existing Huntington Beach Inn, the project would result in a net increase in trip generation of approximately 1,500 daily trips, 75 AM peak hour trips and 115 PM peak hour trips for the resort hotel assumption. Using the ITE rates, the proposed hotel would result in a net increase in approximately 2,600 ADT and 220 AM and 180 PM peak hour trips. The addition of project generated traffic to 1991 background volumes for the intersections eider study will not create unacceptable operating condi- tions assuming either trip generation alternatives. The intersections of Huntington Avenue/PCH and Beach Boulevard/PCH are anticipated to operate with acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours in both trip generation alternatives. Due to the planned widening of PCH in the vicinity +� of the project site, which will result in increased intersection capacity, 1991 background plus project traffic would have AM and PM peak hour ICUs lower than existing conditions. Hence, no intersection improvements are 60 necessary as part of project development. 6d 22 Jr Lsa r. SECTION II: THE WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN IMPACT ANALYSIS The traffic impacts resulting from development of the Master Plan for The Waterfront are evaluated in this section. Peak hour trips generated by the buildout of The Waterfront Master Plan are distributed and assigned to the local roadway system. This project trip assignment is added to a cumula- 6. tive traffic base which includes traffic volumes associated with the Downtown Specific Plan, as reported in the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report 82-2 and the proposed Pierside Village project. The Phase I analysis evaluated the potential project impacts at the intersections of PCH/Huntington and PCH/Beach. For purposes of this cumula- tive analysis, four additional intersections are included. These are Huntington/Walnut, Beach/Walnut, PCH/Lake Street and PCH/Main Street. As Main Street is planned to be closed to vehicles, and traffic volumes to be diverted to Sixth Street, this cumulative analysis assumes the closure and diversion in the cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. Addi- tionally, the widening of PCH from four lanes to six lanes is also assumed. CUMULATIVE CONDITION To determine the potential impacts associated with The Waterfront Master Plan buildout, a cumulative base is developed which represents the ambient traffic levels at the time of the project's completion. This cumulative base includes traffic volumes generated by the Downtown Specific Plan area and the Pierside Village project area. In the Phase I analysis, trips associated with a portion of the existing Huntington Beach Inn were subtracted from the traffic volume base, as the structure is planned for demolition prior to construction of the Phase I hotel . In the Paster Plan analysis, however, trips associated with the existing hotel land uses need not be subtracted from the cumulative base. The modification of traffic volumes to reflect the elimination of .'existing uses has been accomplished in the cumulative base, as described in the Down- town Specific Plan EIR. Peak hour trip generation for the Downtown Specific Plan and Pierside Village projects were not calculated as part of their respective traffic studies. Therefore, AM and PM peak hour cumulative turn volumes are derived based on the relationship of existing peak hour and average daily traffic volumes to cumulative condition average daily traffic volumes. The method- ology used to derive these forecast peak hour turn movements is defined in the National Cooperative Highway Research Board, Circular 255, as an inter- 23 Lsa section balancing program. The base inputs to this methodology are the existing peak hour turn movements, existing ADT and forecast ADT. Through an iterative process which compares the turn movements into and out of the intersection to the ratio of existing and forecast ADT, the forecast peak hour turn movements, assuming the contribution of the Downtown Specific Plan and Pierside Village projects, are determined. The results of the six intersection turn movement derivations under study are included in Appendix D. A discussion of the daily traffic con- tribution of the Downtown Specific Plan and Pierside Village projects is presented below. Downtown Specific Plan +� In 1933, the City of Huntington Beach completed an analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the redevelopment of the downtown area of the City. This area, known as the Downtown Specific Plan area, lies within the coastal zone of the City of Huntington Beach between Goidenwest Street and Beach Boulevard, and includes the proposed site of The Waterfront development. The Specific Plan and accompanying Environmental Impact Report were adopted by thB City Council of the City of Huntington Beach in July, 1983, thereby establishing the zoning for the Downtown Specific Plan Area. The total of nine project districts, presented in the Specific Plan �•+ traffic study, are anticipated to generate approximately 119,000 average daily trip ends. The Downtown Specific Plan assumes that the proposed pro- ject site would be developed with a 400 room hotel , 250,000 square feet of commercial uses, and 900 dwelling units, with daily trip generation of 15,900 vehicles per day (VPD) . To arrive at a cumulative traffic base that includes the Downtown Specific Plan traffic volumes without the proposed Waterfront project, these 15,900 daily trips were removed from the local roadway network based on the trip distribution patterns identified in the Specific Plan EIR. The resulting daily trip assignment, therefore, includes the traffic con- tribution from the Specific Plan area without the proposed Waterfront Master �. Plan land uses. The daily traffic contribution from the Pierside Village project is added to this daily trip assignment to arrive at the daily traffic volume cumulative base. 24 k. `sa Pierside Village Traffic impacts associated with the proposed Pierside Village project are described in a Technical Memorandum by Greer & Co., "Traffic Impact Analysis - Pierside Development Project", dated July, 1987. As part of this analysis, daily and peak hour trips were generated for the proposed 100,000 square foot Village development. The proposed project consists of approxi- mately 30,000 square feet of quality restaurants, 30,000 square feet of fast food services and 40,000 square feet of specialty retail stores. The result- r.i ing net external daily trip generation for the Pierside Village project, as reported in the traffic analysis, is approximately 5,500 ADT. Trip distributions or assignments are not included with the Technical Memorandum. Therefore, the resulting trip generation has been assigned to the local roadway system based on the trip distribution patterns identified in the Downtown Specific Plan traffic analysis. These distributions have been modified to reflect the Pierside Village project location and access opportunities. The resulting daily trip assignment is then added to the existing plus Downtown Specific Plan trip assignment to arrive at the fore- W cast daily traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed 'Waterfront pro- ject. LCumulative Condition Intersection Levels of Service The resulting forecast daily traffic volumes are used as input to the Circular 255 intersection evaluation methodology described above. The re- sulting peak hour turn movements are included in the Technical Appendix. Figure 9 illustrates these turn movements at the intersection locations under investigation. It should be noted that the closure of Main Street and the diversion of gain Street traffic to Sixth Street has been assumed in the cumulative condition analysis. Additionally, a committed intersection im- provement at PCH/Huntington has also been included. Currently, the north leg of this intersection provides one lane to accommodate all southbound turn movements. A southbound left turn lane has been assumed at this location to provide unimpeded flow to the southbound turn movements during the peak hours. It should be pointed out that the Walnut extension will be completed along with the buildout of The Waterfront Master Plan. Therefore, a cumula- tive condition ICU analysis of the intersections along 'Walnut has not been included as part of this analysis. The intersections of Huntington/'Walnut and Beach/Walnut are evaluated in the cumulative plus project condition as part of the project impacts presented later in this report. 25 r r [ 9 Cumulative Condition Peak Hour Turn Volumes lsa z r rc w ¢ O w 4 ]c >< Z G JI L r w No Scale WALNUT AVENUE a O _ w -:O �t rulrYs asrsee—i yl I 1~ P�n -O� ^e' L-�1D1S7 �nn^ �17 D17] •�V�r �17f 171E �,IF D/IS60 y,j —o,o� �� p„at PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ��i�� "1AP nao sslyy — AM/PM Flak Hour Turn Volumes 10s Izzz)— Forecast Average Daily TFAMC V01UM" • ��—Projecl Access LOcations 1113/88:Cr `sa The resulting peak hour turn movement volumes are used as input for the cumulative condition Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis, the results ,bd of which are presented in the Table below. Cumulative Condition w Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection _ _ ICU _ LOS ICU LOS +�+ PCH/Huntington Avenge 0.57 A -0.62 B PCH/Beach Boulevard 0.61 B 0.64 B PCH/Lake Street 0.76 C 0.81 0 PCH/Main Street/Sixth Street 0.47 A 0.61 B As can be seen in the Table, all intersections under study are anticip- ated to operate below the acceptable threshold of 0.90 ICU during both AM and PM peak hours. THE WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN As discussed previously, the proposed 300 room hotel project will be the first phase of the Master Plan development for The Waterfront. The succeed- ing phases, to be completed by 1995, will consist of three hotels (for a total of four hotels), a commercial development, a racquet club and multi- family residential units. The resulting Master Plan development will consist of the following uses: Land Use Units Hotels 1600 Rooms Tennis and Health Center 40 TSF Commercial 99 TSF Multi-family Residential 895 DU • Figure 10 illustrates the proposed site plan for the Piaster Plan devel- opment. It should to noted that the only phase for which detailed plans have currently been prepared is Phase 1. The specific details of the remaining phases will be determined at a future date, though these details will be within the guidelines established for Master Plan development. 27 10 Site Plan Lsa 'po, o RF^,..'ENIIAI lllrr�� o \ Scale in F�Feeet_.A V j % 200 400 �j '�^> 73 21 y I ✓ 9� VN Uj -_ — —._ - AVEU / 6 JIL F E.:3 sw T' z A .► �. '0 0 A x r ACIELC��OAST HIGHWA_ - --��_ -- --- — — — PHASE i PHASE II �.................. PHASE III PHASE IV PHASE V ...... PHASE FIRST CLASS HOTEL TENNIS AND HEALTH CONFERENCE HOTEL ALL-SUITE HOTEL SHOPPING PLAZA LUXURY HOTEL -' CENICR PARKIHC STPUCTVRE Note: Phase Vii nesidentlal Site Plan is Conceptual and is Provided for Information Purposes Only. 11/25/87:CP Source: FILM, 1987 60 60 Lsa wr TRIP GENERATION �.. Trip generation for a given land use is the product of the appropriate trip generation rates per unit multiplied by the number of units of that land use. Trip generation rates used in this study are primarily based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Third Edition, I983. Modifications were necessary, however, as the ITE rates do not adequately reflect the operations of some land uses of the proposed project or, in some cases, are expressed in terms of daily, not peak hour, trips. The trip dw generations rates, and the resulting project trip generation, are presented in Table C. A discussion of the basis for these rates is as follows. i, Hotel. Similar to the Phase I analysis, hotel trip generation is pre- sented for two trip generation rate alternatives. The hotel daily and peak hour trip generation rates for The Waterfront Master Plan land uses are based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual , Third Edition for hotel land uses, as well as the previously referenced trip generation study for resort hotel uses. Commercial . The commercial daily trip generation rates are based on the �., ADT rates used by the City for commercial uses in its traffic analysis for the Specific Plan. The peak hour rates are derived from the ratio of City and ITE daily rates compared to the ITE peak hour rates for commercial land uses. Tennis and Health Center. Trip generation rates for the proposed health facilities for The Waterfront development are based on surveys of a similar racquet club in Newport Beach. Discussions with the applicant indicate that the proposed tennis and health center will be similar to the John Wayne Racquet Club located on Jamboree Road in Newport Beach. A description of the proposed tennis and health center is provided in the Appendix. The survey of the 20,000 square foot, sixteen court, John Wayne Racquet Club was conducted during the midweek period fromi 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The results of this survey were utilized in developing the trip generation rates per 1,000 square feet utilized in this analysis. It should be noted that the rates used in this analysis are reflective of the peak hour of the + racquet club (which occurred at 10:00 a.m.), and not the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic (which occurred at 9:00 a.m.) . The former rates were used as they indicated a higher trip making period and, therefore, reflect a worst case analysis for this land use type. L 29 r F C r r . . r f [ r f r t C r f Table C Master Plan Trip Generation lsa I I ANALYSIS WITS 1IIRIP GENERATION RATES IITRIP GENERATION I ILAND USE I TYPE I NO. IIOAILY JAM IN JAM OUT IPM IN IPM OUT IIDAILY JAM IN IAM OUT 1rM IN IrM OUT I I-----------------I--------I..------II---------I---------I.........I---------I---------II---------I.........i---------I.........I----------1 1110tel IRoans 1 1,600 11 10.50 1 0.58 1 0.27 1 0.36 1 0.37 II 16,800 1 928 1 464 1 576 I 592 I I 1 1 It I I I I II I I I I 1 1Tennis/Henith ITSF 1 40 11 11.70 1 1.35 1 0.70 1 0.60 1 1.30 11 468 1 54 1 28 1 24 1 52 I Center I I f l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I f I II I I I I I 1{onmereial 11SF 1 99 11 26.50 1 0.21 1 0.10 1 1.25 1 1.26 11 2,624 1 21 1 10 1 124 1 125 1 I I I SI I J I I 11 I I I I I 1Resicl,-ntInt IDU I 895 11 8.00 1 0.10 1 0.52 1 0.52 1 0.26 11 7.160 1 90 1 465 1 L65 I 233 1 ------------------------------•---....---...--------.......------------......------.............------................I......-----.........I 1110TAL GROSS IRIP GENERATION 11 27,052 1 1,072 1 967 1 1,189 1 1.001 1 13-Jan-88 40 Yw 6# Lsa 60 Furthermore, as previously stated, trip generation rates were developed based on the square footage of the clubhouse which doubles the total trip 6a generation from the John Wayne Racquet Club to The Waterfront facility. However, The Waterfront proposed facility contains nine tennis courts, com- pared to sixteen at the John Wayne Racquet Club. Since tennis courts are a primary facility and traffic generator, this analysis represents a conserva- tive estimate of the trip generating characteristics of this use. Residential . For the proposed residential land uses for The Waterfront development, the ADT rates are based on the approved Huntington Beach trip generation rates. The peak hour rates are based on the relationship of daily trip rates for the City and those from ITF's rates for residential condomin- w. iums applied to the peak hour rates from the ITE manual . Table C illustrates the resulting trip generation assuming the ITE trip generation rates for conventional hotel land uses. In this alternative, the proposed project will generate approximately 27,000 ADT and 2,000 AM and 2,200 PM peak hour trips. Table C.a illustrates the resulting daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed Waterfront Master Plan project assuming the destination resort hotel trip generation rates from the Austin-Foust study. As can be seen .in Table C.a, the project is anticipated to generate approximately 19,800 ADT, 1,100 AM and 1,700 PM peak hour trips. The resulting AM and PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed project, assuming both trip generation alternatives, are then assigned to the local roadway systeri based on trip distribution patterns identified below. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Similar to the Phase I analysis, the trip distribution patterns for the +w proposed Master Plal project are assumed to be the same as the general dis- tribution patterns assumed for the Downtown Specific Plan area in the City's report. The Downtown Specific Plan distribution patterns and the local arterials that are expected to accommodate this traffic are presented in Appendix C. Figure 11 illustrates these trip distribution patterns. Applying these trip distribution patterns to the directional AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the Master Plan development results in the project trip assignment illustrated in Figure 12 and 12.a for the conventional hotel trip generation rates and destination resort hotel , �., respectively. These project peak hour volumes are added to the cumulative traffic base as illustrated in Figures 13 and 13.a, and potential intersection impacts are evaluated. 6W 31 r r E f r Table C. a Master Plan Trip Generation Lsa I I ANALYSIS UNITS IITRIP CENERATION RATES JITRIP GENERATION I ILAND USE: I TYPE I NO. JIDAILY JAM IN JAM OUT IPM IN IPM OUT JIDAILY JAM IN JAM our IPM IN JFM our I I-----------------I--------I--------II---------I.........I---------I---------I---------fl-----.-..I.....--.-I..--..--.I.. .-----I---------I 1110tet IRooms 1 1,600 II 6.00 I 0.20 1 0.10 1 0.19 1 0.26 11 9.600 1 320 1 160 I 304 I 416 1 1 1 If 1 .I I I II I 1 I I I ITemispeatth ITSF 1 40 11 11.70 I 1.35 1 0.70 1 0.60 I 1.30 JJ 468 1 54 1 28 I 24 I 52 I I center I I I 11 I I I I II I 1 I I I Icofmmrcfnt JISF 1 99 II 26.50 I 0.21 1 0.10 I 1.25 I 1.26 II 2,624 I 21 I 10 I 124 I 125 I I I 11 I 1 I I II I 1 I I I IResidentfnt IDU i 095 II 8.00 I 0.10 1 0.52 I 0.52 I 0.26 II 7,160 i 90 I 465 I 465 I 233 I ......................................................................................................................I--................... IITOTAL GROSS TRIP GENERATION 11 19,852 1 484 1 663 I 917 1 825 I ------------------------------- ..118188 I r r- r _ r. r. r. _ r - r r r. - r _ £ r,,- r r _. r. _ r r. r Master Plan Project Trip Distribution lsa � t Aw ANS P S P� . chmmat{N Not to V La18 �Q p 40 C� m 10 0 OLIVE AVE Ik NA � f r r , 15 x L Master Plan Project Site Boundary PACIFIC COAST HWY (1) 1►e►sa:c� in — Percent Project Trip Distribution Master Plan Project Access Locations 12 Master flan Project Trip Assignment lsa W I. 41 W TA ly W 4' N W ► _y N cr 7 No Scale O � � 0--iiii ie i �� L—'.:7r1aS +« 1n7r 100 �^'7ers7[—�l7/17 �Isrr �lorea �S> �1 W * T llyrlrr—« r � S�r7r t � n i!rr• lsrs rt r•llarr] � � � WALNUT AVENUE •1 r s7l3 r 2?112 Irr �'rores� 1 Je'r�J I„r •r hw rr �h SS J9 NM an :ri eN r J O^ ran O laafrle�• I I r en? + � i N A� � • O 6 ^r V J •. ! 17111 ` A 17or104 N ! , 7efTS erl4e 14af54�, l �J�« .--Vrn PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY — � ss/si—• I�,ruu1 Issalr;"" Issrlis' r nras� so.nes Ill.r 151T 42.7005 x f/yy — AM/PM Peak Hour Turn Volumm (4.0001 Irrre— Forecast Ararage Daily Trento Volumell --�— I4o*I Access Locations 1/13/88:CI' r r - r r r r r r r r _ 12 . a Master Plan Project Trip Assignment lsa ►- r• x ►- CO, z W Z w x T w x OG to t � Y r• n p No Scale � a• " ' 71.11.1 Ny �' •�ti0r17e Isms L II� Se/57 —t�177 97lIt ,� w � �� f.._ttn/v9r � {� 1{ je � aeras ► w►1LNUf AVENUE eFrys^'� r�7ei7S+ r� "1I�r 17 r11.19 I7 f`� ioo10—•1 lorss—^S y ` �1 • w 51 i� �N • ok� ��.e1773 t—lalt.i .Ir;09 �11 a fslrlJ�+ i :* N o•ry n i "laaltt7 �� C�et�t� l �e/e +! �! eor4e PACIFIC COAST HtGNWAY _.o .a • •—'.9r9e 11.9001 r� ur-. �ivts7' sarse— 7enoe 41,900) LEGEND 7erwe-- 12.900; sa/yy - AMIPM Peek Hour Turn Volumes Mal- Forecast Average Daily Trallte Volumes — - Project Access Locations 1/13188.CP 13 Cumulative Pius Master Plan Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes LSZ3 w W O US m Y S W G V I[ n In 1 z : � of No Scale ul =r+ iv �17ef t6? �a �. `I L �I>:rN3 �L � 1►}l IR3 103l,00 1 IS11) e31sT ~ �WAIHVT AYENUE 9M% YtNt1,INOT � r }f r7 r e=13} �ll 7T11} 11 r1f li T~ ISlY� • 101iS� IteJT �7[.381r2 1 Y 'IMt./I7DA1.� FFwwN y Nn NN �� Plw ey �• N '�f f ► 1 o e/ (� T- C! n ^! � r�Ue11T, ^ryp all}Oe� A L—sOSlf13 e3laT� :„10663 .—rnsao +33rJu3e—. � s • ti �(''�}a3f 1a03 II w�NNll7aa f—.113159a �1 lloa +, \4 \ IJIti0.70M �r —♦♦clot w...�t�ptl PACIFIC COAST HICHWIIY ,sarnptlr �1 r lu.Jraar-r + , 310 .,e_ 155.700f xslyy — A+dlPM Peak Hour Turn Yofum ,Soe1uoa--.ee 1J7—� n r p olo� en �} (}33f— Forecast Average DORY Traffic Vofumfs (47,fi00) ooe (SS.SQ4t --p—Projeel Access locations I193188.Cr r ._ r r- �--- � - � - r 13 . a Cumulative Plus Master Plan Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes Lsa W W 41 W p cc Uj a U x rA Y G t 4 A O � N � NO Scale 'r^'110112• �• h1011210 r-59155 24127 21112 r +SfeS ,l aa143+ • , WALNUT AVEIeuC vwn.rlian� I� �� ` •1l+lr It ~lf�.r;� rr lu/,o rr lor{s� +irf,.1.7� •1 ea►Ist—� u! i ] ` I I au�x:�, 1 40m.1 NOA. v.0 e nn rN .M �R� E2tin a Xi. �' � � �� M_e � •s 5 l2�hZ p�n eQ.hw i�iSf7!! p �wf. I •�rr711it o CNN yl L.r �I,IS13 IS1394' ,t5111.101-r lol tiwN lirr54 .n+ 'N AYa. •1 ry '� _N 4A . -o� w-115571525 ~� y�17{IR{r{ �" �si0 '�2tV raa ' I I r -01132 l PAcirIC CoAsr"jrHWAv � . i v{1s�.Qn01 10111]4--1 11+ s11I1o0 I )ar 10a ISS.0001 LEGEND t311go 14216Se ► nnn 171{11U{-r• ae� Li{i117•e.-r G�O loco 000 7+o wslyy — AMIPM Peak Hour Turn Volumes rrs—,. o b �} .ry Intl— forecesl Mons Doily Tullis Volumes �... — Prolvel Access Locations 1/13188:Cr W Lsa IWO PROJECT IMPACTS Table D presents the resulting 1CU's with the addition of peak hour traffic volumes associated with the proposed Waterfront Master Plan when added to the cumulative traffic base. As can be seen in the Table, all six intersections will operate below the acceptable level of service in both peak hours in the cumulative plus 6w project scenario for both trip generation alternatives. It should be pointed out again that a southbound left turn lane has been included as a committed intersection improvement at the intersection of Huntington/PCH. This was included as a means of improving the flow of left turning traffic volumes, and not because of unacceptable operating conditions. This improvement will not only improve the potential circulation problems at this intersection, but will also improve public access to the beach areas in the vicinity by reduc- ing conflicts between beach visitor_ traffic and traffic generated by other uses. Daily traffic volumes along the proposed Walnut extension are also evaluated as part of this analysis. Currently, Walnut Avenue west of Lake Street carries I,400 ADT. With the ultimate redevelopment of downtown, based on the Downtown Specific Plan, the Department of Public Works estimated that the Walnut extension, from take Street to Beach Boulevard, will carry 15,000 ADT between Lake Street and Beach Boulevard. Due to the increase in trip generation from the proposed project, the estimate of traffic on Walnut will 6+ increase slightly. Upgraded to a primary status, as indicated in the Nega- tive Declaration 84-14 for the Circulation Element Amendment 84-1, Walnut can adequately accommodate the projected traffic generation. The Department of bw Public Works has recommended that Walnut between Beach and Sixth be developed as four undivided lanes. MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the ICU analysis, all six intersections will operate at accep- table levels of service in both trip generation alternatives. Therefore, no ,.. intersection mitigations are required to accommodate the proposed Vaterfront Master Plan traffic volumes. However, at the City's request, a transporta- tion systems management (TSM) program is recon.mended as part of the proposed W i. 38 ii.r �— r--- r r - t r r r- - F r--- r r -- r r - Table D Cumulative + Project Condition Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Summary ts-a DESTINATION RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ITE HOTEL 1RIP GENERATICV I AM Peak Hour rH Peak Hour I AFt Peak Hour FM Peak Hour 1 INIERSECT10H I ICU LOS ICU LOS I ICU LOS ICU LCS 1 ................................1----------------------------------------1--.........---------------------... I IPCH/Runtington Avenue I 0.63 B 0.67 8 I 0.67 B 0.69 B 1 I I I i IPCH/Beach Boutevard I 0.63 B 0.66 B I 0.64 B 0.67 B 1 I I I I IPCH/take Street 1 0.78 C 0.86 D I 0.80 C 0.E7 0 I I I I I IPCH/Hain Street/Sixth Street I 0.49 A 0.64 B. I 0.50 A 0.64 8 I I I I I 111taitington Avenue/uatnut Averuel 0.36 A 0.33 A I 0.40 A 0.35 A I I I I I IBcach Bout eye rd/Wn t mit Avetwe 1 0.43 A 0.47 A I 0.52 A 0.51 A I ..................................................................................................... ......1 F I Lsa i.r development. This program should offer transportation services to hotel W guests from the proposed project to the downtown Huntington Beach area and possibly other popular local attractions, such as Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm. It has been suggested that the applicant may wish contract with some existing bus operation during the summer months to accomplish this �" mitigation. r� W i W V L► Irr L.� 40 L fw. W Csa SECTION III:_MASTER PLAN PARKING ANALYSIS A parking demand analysis has been conducted which forecasts the hourly parking demand for each land use' component in the proposed Waterfront Master Plan project. The parking rates used to determine the peak demand for each land use are primarily based on the City of Huntington Beach Parking Code. It should be pointed out that using the City parking rate for peak demand presents a worst case analysis of parking accumulation. That is, City park- . ing rates are based on a maximum parking accumulation plus some buffer to insure that adequate parking is available for the specific land use. The i actual peak parking demand for the land uses is less than the City rates. L Therefore, the use of the City parking rates as peak parking demand rates represents a worst case analysis. Where parking rates are not included for a particular land use, archival research was conducted to determine an applicable rate. These rates are sourced in the detailed description of this methodology. The hourly per- centage accumulations for each land use type are based on the Urban Land �. Institute document Shared Parking. The results of this analysis indicate that the opportunity for shared parking exists for the proposed project based on the variety of land uses and their respective periods of activity. The number of parking spaces provided is adequate to accommodate the demand for parking throughout the day. �• FORECAST PARKING DCMAND Two parameters are necessary to determine the forecast parking demand: L the peak parking demand by land use, and the percent parking accumulation by time of day for e?ch land use. To arrive at the parking demand by tine of day, the peak parking demand is multiplied by the percent accumulation by time of day. The results of this exercise indicate the parking character- istics of each land use during their operating hours. The maximum parking utilization is determined by finding that hour of the day when the most vehicles are anticipated to use the proposed Waterfront project and to park L+ on-site. This number of parked vehicles is the maximum expected to utilize the parking facilities, and is equivalent to the number of parking spaces needed to accommodate the proposed project. As mentioned previously, the peak parking demand figures for each land use are primarily based on the City of Huntington Beach Parking Code. Park- ing percentage accumulations by time of day are based on the ULI Shared Parking document. For land uses that do not have parking rates defined in 41 L 4 G L Ls the code, or have a parking rate but are discretionary, archival research has been conducted to determine the appropriate rate to be used in this analysis. Forecast parking demand for this site, therefore, is calculated based on these sources and is surnarized as follows. Retail. The retail parking demand is based on the City of Huntington Beach's Parking Code rate of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This rate, multiplied by the total 99,000 square feet of proposed retail use, indicates a peak demand of 495 spaces. The intent of the parking ordinance is to provide a conservative parking supply for a worst case condition. Therefore, this peak demand is representative of a worst czse scenario. The percent accumulation for the proposed retail land use is based on the Shared Parking document. Tennis Club. Parking surveys were conducted to determine appropriate L parking characteristics for the proposed Tennis and Health Center. One survey was conducted at the Holiday Health Spa at the Charter Center in Huntington Beach. Another survey was conducted at the John Wayne Rac- L quet Club in Newport Beach. The latter location was selected as it best represents the type of facility planned for the Waterfront project. A detailed project description of the Waterfront Tennis and Health Center is presented in the Appendix. The results of these surveys were compared to each other, and to the proposed facility, as a means of determining the appropriate parking L statistics to be used in this analysis. The peak parking demand at the Holiday Health Spa was approximately five times greater than that sur- veyed at the John Wayne Racquet Club. As the proposed Tennis and Health Center is planned to provide facilities similar to the John Wayne Rac- quet Club, and is not intended for use as a high turnover exercise spa like the Holiday Health Club, the peak parking demand and percent park- ing accumulations surveyed at the John Wayne Racquet Club were used in �"' this analysis. The City's parking rate for health clubs is 5 spaces per 1,000 square Lr feet. Therefore, 200 spaces are necessary for a 40,000 square foot, stand alone health center. However, the survey results indicate a peak demand for a 40,000 square foot tennis club of 100 spaces. This peak W demand occurs at 9:00 a.m, and 3:00 p.m. For purposes of this analysis, however, the City parking rate and peak demand have been used to present a worst case condition. " 42 L L W L Lsa iotel . The hotel peak parking demand is based on the City rate for hotel of one parking space per room for hotel patrons and one parking space per ten rooms for employees. It should be noted that manager's units will not be provided and, therefore, are not applicable for this development. These rates are multiplied by the total 1,600 hotel rooms to arrive at a peak demand, per City code, of 1,760 parking spaces. This peak parking demand is multiplied by the percent hourly parking ac- cumulations, as described in the ULI, Shared Parking document, to arrive k. at the forecast hourly hotel parking accumulation. It should also be noted that the Resort Hotel Traffic Study by Austin- Foust, Associates analyzes the parking needs experienced by destination resort hotels. As stated previously, the hotels surveyed in that study contained significant numbers of restaurant, meeting room and ballroom facilities. the Master Plan is commensurate with, and on the average less than, the facilities at the other destination resort hotels. As stated in' the Austin-Foust study, "The overall conclusion is that a rate of approximately, or just over, 1.0 parking spaces per room would appear I�. to be reasonably representative for the resort hotel defined here." The results of this analysis are presented in Table E, and indicate a required parking supply of 2,455 spaces per the City code for individual land uses, if shared parking were not possible. However, the results of the forecast parking demand analysis indicate that, due to the nature of the proposed land uses and their individual hours of operation, the opportunity L+ to share parking exists. Table E also illustrates the anticipated hourly accumulation for the proposed Waterfront Master Plan buildout. The maximum accumulation is ex- pected to occur at 8:00 p.m. and to include 2,015 spaces. The primary con- tributors to this peak accumulation are the retail and hotel land uses. The proposed plan indicates- that the total parking supply on site is 2,190 spaces. Therefore, the proposed plan's parking supply is 175 spaces in excess of the peal; accumulation. This represents a nine percent residual parking supply as a. parking buffer. As noted earlier, this analysis' is based ir. on the City rates as peak demand figures. Therefore, this worst case analy- sis underestimates the actual parking buffer. 6 L 43 1W W Table E F Master Plan Shared Parking Demand tsa + Retail Tennis Hotel L USE Club Rooms (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (units) { 1 5q. Ft./ I I Supply L 1 Room 99,000 40,000 1,600 { Parking of 2,190 I 1 1 Demand Minus } I I by Hour Demand L IHB Code 1 5/1000 5/1000 1/Room* I I I I JParking perl I L I HB Code 1 495 200 1,760 I 2,455 Neekdays I 16:00 AM 1 0 32 -1,760 1 1 1,792 1 398 1 �. 17:00 AM 1 40 64 1,496 I I 1,600 I 590 1 18:00 AM 1 89 148 1,144 1 1 1,381 1 809 I 19:00 AM 1 208 -200 968 1 1 1,376 1 814 i 110:00 AM I 337 116. 792 1 1 1,245 1 945 1 111:00 AM 1 431 128 616 1 I 1,175 1 1,015 1 Jf{0011 . 1 480 136 528 ( 1,144 1 1,046 1 11:00 PH 1 --495 156 528 1 1 1,179 1 11011 1 12:00 P11 1 480 156 616 1 1 1,252 ( 938 { 13:00 PM 1 470 --200 616 1 1 1,286 1 904 1 R 14:00 PM 1 431 144 792 1 { 1,367 { 823 { 15:00 PM 1 391 120 1,056 1 1 1,567 1 623 J 16:00 Pm 1 406 36 1,232 1 I 1,674 I 516 J 17:00 PM 1 441 16 1,320 1 I 1,777 1 413 I 8:00 Phi 1 431 0 115S4 f 2,015 1 175 ) L 19:00 PM 1 302 0 1,672 1 1 T 1,974 j 216 1 110:00 P'4 1 158 0 -1,760 1 1 1,918 I 272 1 111:00 Pm 1 64 0 -1,760 1 1 1,824 1 366 1 M,ID1►. i7 1 0 0 �1,760 i 1,760 1 430 2,015 175 * Hotel parking demand is comprised of guest room de„iand (1 space per �.► room) , and eimpl oyee demand (1 space per 10 rooms) . -- Peak Par{frig of Indivi,4ua1 land Uses. L t L f L W Lsa Therefore, the opportunity for shared parking exists. The peak parking demand occurs at 8:00 p.m. and is comprised of primarily hotel parking with some retail parking. The tennis club does not contribute to the peak parking demand. The proposed Waterfront Master Plan buildout parking supply exceeds the forecast parking demand by 175 spaces. As each phase of the project is designed 'in detail, a phase specific parking analysis will be undertaken to ensure that the parking supply is sufficient to meet the parking demand. • It should be noted that, due to the proximity of the beach areas to the proposed project, the potential for beach users to attempt to park in The Waterfront parking areas exist. To eliminate this potential , the developer has agreed to install gated security facilities at all parking area entrances. Therefore, the parking supply proposed for The Waterfront project will serve only the parking demand created by the proposed project. 1�. Ir+ �r. lr. 45 V L Lsa 6w 6d APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION-FOR-PROPOSED 60 TENNIS AND IIEALTFI CENTS ibw i� f L L L L F L L t L Jrr The Waterfront - Phasc 11 Tennis& licalth Centcr Surnina ,r� of Facilitis: 9 Tennis courts (night-lighted) 25,000 to 40,000 sq. ft. Clubhouse and 1 icalth Center 25 Meter Lap Pool &Jacuzzi Ball Machine Practice Alley (Tennis) 60 Am nities & Services: w The Clubhouse!Hcalth Center is projected to include the following amenities and services: Locker Room (Men's, Women's, Children's) W Tennis Pro Shop!Sports Clothing Store F Snack Shop!Juicc Bar LEvent Club Room with Cocktail Bar (overlooking Tennis Court) Private Massage Rooms with Staff Masseuse l Facials �•+ Salon Sauna (dry heat Steam Room Special Hydrotherapy Facilities such as Mineral Baths, Herbal Wraps, Thai assothcrapy (seawater!scawecd treatments), and Swiss Showers (imigorating high-pressure showers that rapidly alternate between hot and ;r cold). Facilities for Physician-Monitored Nutritional, Wcight-Reduction and Cardiac-Monitored Exercise Procrams. It is expected that one or more of W the hotels at The Waterfront will provide a specialized dietary regimen in coordination with this program. Necessary'Back of House" such as Offices, Laundry, Kitchen, Maintenance. 1 HVAC and Employee Services. iw hid The Waterfront - Phase I I Tennis& I lealth Ccnter Ntarketinc Concert: The facilities described above break into two basic categories: 1. T nnic Courte, & Basic Cltillhous5z Facilities (lockers, pro s lop, Snac . shop, club room & bar) 'Typical membership tennis clubs maintain an average of about 60 ducs paying members per tennis court. However, due to the subject facility's large reliance on hotel and other transient visitors, the Primary fee structure for individuals will be based on per-usc fees, rather than on continuing membership ducs. Individual membership (on a non-discrimination basis will be available but would be expected to total only 200 to 300 Persons, mostly from the on-site residential. Hours of operation arc projected to be 7.00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.on weekdays, to 9:00 p.m. on weekends. Projected uses from the following market segments arb based on resort hotel L experiroence which typically runs 60-70% peak usage of two tennis courts for a 400 om hotel,therefore a peak demand of 4 to 5 tennis courts from on-site Lhotels. Projected Tennis Facility Usage: LOn-site Hotel Visitors 55% On-site Residential Users 10 i'o R On-site Beach Visitors 15% Off-site Users (Vehicular trip generators) 20% 2. Resort Health Centcr (massage, facials, salon, sauna, steam room, hydrotherapy and nutrition alAveight reduction programs) Thesc amenities and services can be expected to appeal almost cxclusivcly to transient hotel visitors. Such programs are often run in conjunction 'with destination resort hotel complexes, or as primary destination facilities themselves. It can be conservatively Projected that 80% of the users %-%ill L come from hotel visitors, and 501/"c of those visitors will have hotel stays in excess of four days with an average daily visit to the resort health center of three to four hours per day. L Further, the typical peak usage of such facilities occurs in the mid-morning and early afternoon, and therefore it is expected that the resort health I center's effect on local peak a.m. and peal: p.m. traffic is insignificant. L a iw L The Waterfront- Phase I1 Tennis & Health Center Analysis of Contrast to Urban Fitness Centcrs: (Holiday Spa health Club) i.. Typical urban fitness centers differ from the proposcd Tennis h Ilcalth Center in several ways which all affect vehicular traffic generation: 1. Occupancy Load An urban fitness center normally emphasizes circuit weight training and aerobic exercise on stationary bicycle equipment or in organized aerobic classes. As a result, the average occupancy load (user per sq. ft.) at peal: periods is typically very high. In contrast, the subject Tennis & Health Center provides amenities and services in which the limiting factors arc the court availability and the personalized nature of the services in the resort health center such as facials, massage, physician-monitored programs, etc.; therefore, the facility will experience a significantly lower occupancy load. 2. Period of Visit Users of urban fitness centers,by virtue of the circuit training regimen, have r,. average visit3 of approximately 30 minutes to one and one-quarter hour. Users of the tcnnislclubhouse facilities typically have average visits of two and one half hours, and resort health center clientele would typically have stays of three to four hours. 3. User Profile The typical member of a urban fitness center is 18 - 35 years of age, and is a workin; individual who will visit the facility at least two to three times per i week either before or after work and therefore during the peak a.m. or peak j., p.m. traffic periods. This is greatly facilitated by the high occupancy load and short period of visit possible in urban fitness centers as discussed previously. however, in a tcnnislclubhouse facility the use is moderated by court availability tending to spread traffic generation over more hours per day. Also, t.-nnis is often a family activity, lending itself to off-peak and weekend use, in this case in conjunction with beach visits. Further, the typical tennis player will span an older age profile than an urban fitness �+ center member, which often translates into a more flexible work schedule and thus greater off-peak usage. Additionally, the typical resort health center client is o%rcr 35 years of age and is primarily using.the facility as a part of, or as the main reason of, his or her hotel stay. Some users mill come from the local area, but in such cases, duc to the relatively lengthy typical visit making it difficult to utilize immediately before or after normal working hours, off-premise users are not likely to generate traffic in the peak a.m.or peal; p.m.period. L 3 The Waterfront - Phase I1 Tennis R Hcalth Center 4. Membership Turnover Typical urban fitness centers maintain a large and active sales staff who Promote the sale of annual or longer lump-sum memberships. As a result the operation profits from a high turnover of members who arc initially ycr} active Peak period users, but who then lose interest and are replaced %vitt new active members. The result of the enthusiastic use by a stead),stream of new- members is the very, high occuancy loads in peak�eriods as described earlier. In contrast, the subject Tennis & Health enter will not rcIy w �rimarily on a high turn-over of annual membership fees. Revenue will be ased on fees for usage, and as stated elsewhere, the availability of courts and the typical three to four hour resort health treatment will minimize the vehicular trip generations at peak a.m. and peak p.m. traffic periods. 5. Demand Generators As described earlier, the subject facility will be designed primarily for the market created by The Waterfront's resort hotels, on-site residential and the beach visitors. Therefore, the great majority of users arc already on-site and arc not generators of vehicle trips. It is projected that only approximately �. 10-25 r"o of the users of the tcnnislclubhousc facility will be located sufficiently off-site to create new vehicular traffic trips. Further, an even lesser percentage of the users of the resort health center can be expected to be located off-site, and even then the eak usage is not expected to coincide with the Peak a.m. and Peak p.m. traffic periods. 6. Maximum Size of Facility The maximum size of the Tennis & Health Center is not anticipated to exceed 40,000 square feet and is currently Planned at 25,000 square feet. i� Typical urban fitness centers such as the Holiday Spa Health Club are approximately 60,000 square feet, and some arc even larger. Therefore, the subject facility cannot be expected to .gencratc as great an amount of vehicular traffic as typical urban fitness centers. Summary of Exf+oct_;d Vehicular Trip Generation: The John Wayne Tennis Club in Newport Beach was surveyed. Results are tabulated elsewhere in this report. The John Wayne Tennis Club provides 16 courts (lighted), a pro shop with tennis apparel sales,a sauna,Jacuzzi, mcn's,women's and children's locker rooms, a snack shop/restaurant, a club event room with bar, a ball machine practice alley, and the club provides child care, a masseuse, facials and a salon. - L 4 Irr e The Watcrfront - Phase 11 Tennis& Health Center Ls For the reasons stated previously in this summary of the planned facilities, it can be reasonably concluded that the subject facility will experience trip generation rates of less than the above tennis club surveyed. However, to be conservative, the L figures used in the traffic analysis arc based on the survey results and arc adjusted only on the basis.of the square footage of the clubhouse (an upward adjustment) rather than the number of tennis courts, the user profile or nature of the amenities W (a downward adjustment). i L I 6.+ 1 E L M n V �+ 5 f err f i., E Lsa lr. APPENDIX 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSER RESORT MOTEL USES �r. W L . L i Laventhol &Hommffi FiH ----- sa,tc li:: CCrtified Public Accountant, i..�ti�i.� -N(rs.i. CA 92020 t�. November 13, 1987 LO Mr. Steve Bone The Robert Mayer Corporation 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite• 1050 ` neitiport Beach, California 926SB Dear Mr. Done: W At your request, we have gathered information an four hotels in order td respond to the following question regarding your proposed development program in Huntington Beach, California: Ik. Would the proposed hotels, in general, nave characteristics similar to the "resort" hotels - identified in the Resort Hotel Traffic Study, dated December 29, 1986, prepared by Austin-Foust Associates? Following are the four hotels identified in the Austin-Foust W study: - Hotel del Coronado - La Costa - Marriott Hotel (Newport Beach) - Hyatt at Hilton Head lr.► In providing a response to your question, we evaluated your proposed hotel development program in Huntington Beach in comparison to the four identified hotels, utilizing the fo/ylloc:ing factors. The attached exhibit reflects the specifics o that comparison. market segmentation; Facilities and meeting/conference space; - Recreational a=enities; and Proximity 4o demand generators. Based on this evaluation, we conclude that the proposed hotels, in general , have characteristics similar no the "Y =t" hoteis identified in ;,he Resor:, Hotel Traffic Study, dated December 22, 1986, prepared by Austin-Foust Associates. I In particular, it should be not that like he hotels identified L he kustin-:o::s t study, the subj ec .. = cs d ;vc icy" nt ii! L �.1 Mr. Steve Bone The Robert Payer Corporation November 13, 1S£7 Page 2 E L provide significant facilities for meetings and conferences in conjunction with important recreational amenities. As a result, w0 it is our opinion that the subject proposed development will likely experience a similar averz:ge length of stay and relativc�ly low propensity of the hotel guest to travel off-premise (to business meetings or other recreational amenities) as experienced LN by the other "• esort" hotels referenced in the Austin-Foust study. Further, it is reasonable to expect that in comparison to the singular hotels studied by Austin-Foust, the combination of im the four hotels on one site in the proposed development will give the average hotel guest even more opportunities to remain on-site for a longer period of time because of the multitude of dining, shopping, recreational and meeting facilities provided at one �+ location. This letter is intended for the information of the Robert Mayer Corporation in your discussions with the City of Huntington Beac::. Otherwise neither this letter nor any reference to Laventhol & Horwath may be included or quoted in any offering 'circular, registration statement, prospectus, sales brochure, appraisal, loan or other agreement or document without our prior written consent. Very truly yours, LAVENTHOL & HORWATH r� + David R. F�inkade Manager F. ,. .� 1�ilr. cc: Ric:a d N. Kipper W L f RESORT 110'(EI. cnARACTEIII TICS (A SUMMARY] 1lyatt at r'toposed Rot'el t c't it -I is hotel Del Coton,�rin r.a Costa ^mrwti itt Ilarriott IlI1Lon Ilead 113}.-er notelr( 1f kr!L 5i!gwr�ntaLitin r:rnnp ncr,tin,1 7W! 35L 35 1:1)1 4t) r'11 ri::t rl 65 7.0 20 35 1a i I it, in^ anal fleet irrr 014 RUom,: 482 Rooms 597 Rooms 505 Rooms 1 ,450 Rooms a:�a1a � +5,000 stl.fl:. tt( 50,000 sq.ft. of 20,000 sq.ft. Of 260411 sq.ft. of 52,000 sq.ft . Cif Pi-eting space, 4 meeting space, 8 meeting space, 2 meeting bpa'.E, 4 meeting :pace, 12 routaurartts, restaurants, restaurants, restaurants, restaurants, F lotttv.1on 3 lounges 2 1 ntrnrles 3 lounges lounges rioximil.v it, r)omand nn an i;:1a1141 wish Near ocean, Near business, and On an Island with bloat to ocean, r:r•nr`r:ltnr:: a beach arld ocr'Irt and freeway shopping. Ocean a beach and ocenii scenic highway. dear 110t;nLaun 71eus viPwc ocean views • eta•ar i,unrtl Arirniti(•:-, Y t.•nni:: runtt.rr, ?3 tennis courts, n tcnnis courts, 25 tennis courts, 9 tennis courts, r:wimmin+l pool:), 5 swimming pools, swimming pool, health club, 3-18 clubhouse ant) health club. Sauna, mens/womens spas, health club, hole golf courses, resort health Beach with water ritness rooms, 36 adjacent golf beach arlth water center with lap :=1/ort:; hole r?olf course, sportC, SWiM:trinit pool , 3 swimminy movie theatre pool {pools (1 at each of 3 of 4 Hotels) fitness roomr at each hotel, 75,000 sq.ft. retail shopping plaza. beach with water C-ltortS. ( I) based on prellminary development pro-pan. Yh� &NIAVEW W Ago �- Ir January 8. 19SS Mr. Rob Dalen LSA Associates, Inc. I Park Plaza,Suite 500 �" Irvine, California 92714 L Re: Maximum Hotel Occupancy Levels at The Waterfront Dear Mr. Balen: L In response to your question regarding the maximum anticipated occupancy level for the hotels planned at the Waterfront, let me begin by reciting the fact that currently no first-class hotel property in Orange County is operating at an average occupancy level above 80%. In fact, industry experts inform us that the Newpurt Beach Marriott Hotel, a destination resort project widely regarded as one of the County's most successful and well-managed properties, last year achieved a 78% average annual occupancy in the face of average occupancy levels in the Newport L Beach-Irvine hospitality market of approximately 60-65%. The consulting firm of Laventhol & Horwath has prepared market studies and financial estimates that have guided us in the planning of The Waterfront as a first- class destination resort development, and these reports have been made available to the City of Huntington Beach planning staff to assist them in analyzing the fiscal impacts of this proposed project. Those studies projected occupancy levels • beginnin in the high 60_ range and stabilizing after several ears of operation at 70-73% depending on the hotel) and we concur with those estimates. This appears reasonable as well when you contrast the lower 60-65% occupancy levels in the 6. Newport Beach-Irvine market with industry trade figures that show that destination resorts averaged approximately 75% occupancy on a nationwide basis in 1956. It should also be noted that Southern California enjoys a more temperate and less seasonal climate than most areas of the country. Therefore, destination resort properties in this area do not rely upon exec}�tionalIy high occupancy rates in a fc-,N- summer months to reach annual averages like many other parts of the country, instead the local industry enjoys a comparativclj' stable occupancy pattern i+ throughout the year. Further, it must be understood that The Waterfront will consist of four distinctly different hotels (first-class, conference, all-suite and luxun') that each cater to different market scoments. The demand of each of these market segments varies differently over different periods of the •ear, and therefore it is clearly unreasonable to c%er expect that all of the hotels would operate at or near peak capacity at the same point in time. Further, as 1*'ou know, 6tels contain not only guest rooms, but recreation, restaurant and mcetina facilities as well. Each of these LW Mr. Rob Balen January 8, 1988 ]'age 2 are components to overall average traffic generation rates, and it is likewise �• unrealistic and simply not hospitality industry experience to expect all facilities within a hotel to operate at peak capacities at the same time of the day or week. For all these reasons I must conclude that the aggregate figure of 85% average occu ancy that you have assumed for the purpose of assessing traffic impacts is i cicarY;a worst-case scenario from the standpoint of traffic generation (on either an L annualized or short-term peak basis), because 85% is dramatically higher than a best-case occupancy figure from the Standpoint of industry standards, our market consultant's projections or our own expectations. 16- Sincerely, Sha%Nm K.Millbern Project Manager for The Waterfront F I Lsa �- APPINDIX _C RIP DISTRIBUIlON PATTERNS FROM SPECIFIC PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY God ■.r { L APPENDIX C TRIP DISTRIBUTIDN Figure 11 illustrates the percentake of trips assigned to streets in the downtown area. These percentages are the basis for the traffic volumes illustrated in Figure 12 and Figure 13. Sixty percent of aii trips generated as a result of the Specific Plan will move out of the plan area to the north. The remaining trips will be divided as follows: twenty percent of the trips will go west, fifteen percent east and five percent southeast. The following table illustrates the streets that will accommodate this traffic: 60% 20% 15% 5% Goldenwest Pacific Coast Hwy Adams Atlanta r Seventeenth Goldenwest Atlanta Hamilton Lake Sixth Hamilton Pacific Coast Hwy Main Seventeenth Pacific Coast Hwy Florida Maln Delaware Clay Palm Sixth Beach ' r r W 6e 1. Lsa Irr AW APED I X_D FORECAST *URN MOVEMENT 6w WORXSIIEETS L L L i � r y Ir. Lsa INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET HUNINGTON AVENUE (N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (E/W) AM PEAK I NORTH I lowI LEG I WEST EAST �, LEG LEG I SOUTH I I LEG I i EXISTING I FORECAST I �.. -------------------------------------------------------- ITURN I (AVERAGE ITURN I (AVERAGE I (MOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY I IVOLUMES ( (TRAFFIC IVOLUMES I (TRAFFIC I ---------------------------------------------------------------- I NBL I 2 [ 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 I NBT I 3 I NORTH [ 1,000 [ 11 I NORTH I 7,000 I +� I NBR I 1 I I I 2 1 I I I SBL I 20 1 I 1 313 I I SBT I 3 I SOUTH I 1,000 [ 21 I SOUTH I 2,500 I I SBR [ 73 I I I 298 1 I I I EBL ( 10 I ( ( 32 I I l I EBT I 1,076 I EAST I 40,000 I 1,242 I EAST I 53,000 I I EBR 6 -----I---------I------- -------- ---------I-------i---------I W IWBL I 01 I I 01 I I [ WBT [ 1,106 [ WEST [ 40,000 I 1,218 ( WEST I 48,000 I I WBR I 10 I I I 129 I I I � --------_-TOTAL - --- - ------------821000 I TOTAL 110,500 I --------------------------------------------------------- (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.105. Le V E - - .- Lsa - INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET HUNINGTON AVENUE (N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (E/W) PM PEAK I NORTH I r. I LEG I WEST EAST �,. LEG LEG -.__--- ---------- SOUTH I I LEG--------------------------------------------------------- I I EXISTING I FORECAST I --------------------------------------------------------- ITURN I (AVERAGE ITURN I (AVERAGE I IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY I IVOLUM ES I (TRAFFIC (VOLUMES I ITRAFFIC I 1 NEL 1 3 NBT 0 1 NORTH 1 1,000 I 0 I NORTH 7,000 1 I NBR I 3 1 f I 11 I 1 I I SBL I 20 I I I 262 I I I L I SST I 1 I SOUTH I 1000 I 7 1 SOUTH I 2,500 I I SBR I 49 1 1 1 204 I 1 1 I EBL I 8 f I I 41 I 1 I I EBT I 1,117 I EAST I 40,000 1 1,312 I EAST I 53,000 I IEBR I 0l I I 01 I I L I WBL I 52 I I I 132 I I I I WBT I 1,343 I WEST ( 40,000 I 1,548 I WEST I 48,000 1 I WBR I 2 I I I 33 I I 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- I 701AL - 1 82,000 I TOTAL 1 110,500 1 --------------------------------------------------------- (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.105. F r V v - - fir+ Iw Lsa INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET BEACH BOULEVARD(N/S)/PAC I FIC COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) AM PEAK NH LEG I WEST EAST 60 LEG LEG I SOUTH I I LEG--------------------------------------------------------- ] I EXISTING I FORECAST 1 --------------------------------------------------------- ITURN I [AVERAGE (TURN I [AVERAGE I IMOVEMENT I LEG ]DAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY I L, IVOLUMES I (TRAFFIC IVOLUMES I (TRAFFIC I INBL 1 0 1 1 1 01 1 1 ( NBT ] 6 1 NORTH 1 19,000 1 18 I NORTH - 1 31,200 I -NBR 0 0 I I -----I---------I-------I---------I---------I------- --------- I 1 SBL I . 482 I - I 1 - 602 ] I I I� 1 SBT ] 2 1 SOUTH I 600 I 7 1 SOUTH I 1,800 ! I SBR [ 97 I ] I 324 I 1 1 1 EBL ] 72 I I I 231 I ] ] I EBT I 1,254 I EAST 1 41,000 I 1,471 I EAST I 48,000 I I EBR I 2 1 I I 7 1 I I k.. IWBL I 11 I I 11 I I I WBT ] 1,008 I WEST I 40,000 1 I,170 I NEST 1 53,000 [ I WBR 1 236 ] 1 ] 277 I I I ------------------------- -------------------------------------- I TOTAL 1 100,600 1 TOTAL 1 134,000 1 (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.105. L r- Ld i.+ bw L INTERSECTIO14 MOVEMENT W'ORKSHEET BEACH BOULEVARD(N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) PM PEAK r. I hLEGH I WEST EAST r. LEG LEG I SOUTH I I LEG I I EXISTING I FORECAST I 6w - --------------------------------------------------------- ITURN . I (AVERAGE ITURN I (AVERAGE I IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY I IVOLUMES I ITRAFFIC IVOLUMES I . ITRAFFIC I ------------------------------------------------------------ INBL 1 2 1 1 1 51 1 1 L I NBT I 3 I NORTH ( 19,000 1 10 I NORTH 1 31,200 I I NBR I 9 1 I I 27 1 I I 1 I SBL I 282 I 1 I 476 I 1 L I SBT 1 12 I SOUTH I 600 I 38 I SOUTH I 1,800 1 I SBR 1 155 I I 1 225 I I 1 fL 1 EBL 1 135 ( I I 196 I I [ I EBT I 1,074 1 EAST ( 41,000 1 1,257 1 EAST ( 53,000 I EBR 2 1 1 5 I WBL 1 3 1 i 1 8 I WBT 1 1,338 1 WEST 1 40,000 1 1,560 1 WEST I 48,000 1 I WBR 1 431 1 1 1 726 I I I - --------------------------------------------------------------- I TOTAL ( 100,600 I TOTAL 1 134,000 1 L (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.105. r. L. Ir+ L Lsa _ INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET '~ LAKE STREET(N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) AM PEAK NORTH I LEG I WEST EAST LEG LEG SOUTH I LEG--------------------------------------------------------- I I EXISTING I FORECAST I ---------- ------------------------------------------ ITURN I (AVERAGE (TURN I (AVERAGE I (MOVEMENT I LEG JDAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY I IVOLUMES I (TRAFFIC IVOLUMES I ITRAFFIC I ---------------------------------------------------------------- I NBL I 46 1 1 193 1 1 1 1 NBT ( 28 1 NORTH I 3,400 1 208 1 NORTH 1 11,000 1 1 NBR I 23 J 1 I 131 1 1 1 I SBL I 63 I I I 206 I SBT I' 16 I SOUTH I 700 I 149 I SOUTH I 4,000 I I SBR I 149 I I I 353 I I I - I EBL I 33 I I I 55 I I I I EBT I 1,126 I EAST I 40,000 1 1,178 I EAST- I 48,000 I I EBR I 33 1 J I 147 I I I I WBL I 31 I I I . 181 I I I I WBT J 19081 I WEST I 409000 ( 1,049 I WEST I 48,000 I 1 WBR I - 48 I I J 105 I I I ------_ -- ---------•� 84,100 I TOTAL-- --------�-E TOTAL 111,000 I --------------------------------------------------------- k+ `1) ATIA COOPERATIVEOHIGHWAYNRESEARCHNPROGORAM REPORTN2550NPL105. it - L �.. Lsd k. INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET LAKE STREET(N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) PM PEAK Jhd NORTH LEG WEST EAST LEG LEG SOUTH I I LEG I --------------------------------------------------------- I EXISTING I FORECAST I ---------- -------------------------------------------- ITURN I [AVERAGE ITURN I (AVERAGE I IMOVE14ENT I LEG (DAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY I IVOLUI4ES , I ITRAFFIC IVOLUMES I ITRAFFIC I ---------------------------------------------------------------- a I NeL I 11 I I I 42 I I I I NET. I 16 [ NORTH I 3,400 I 130 I NORTH I 11,000 [ I NER I 9 1 I 1 41 I I I - I SEL I 52 I I I 177 I I SET I 3 I SOUTH I 700 I 29 I SOUTH I 4,000 I SER I 46 I I [ 131 I I I EEL I 151 I I 1 390 I I I I EBT I 1 ,129 EAST I 40,000 I 1,164 I EAST I 48,000 I I EER I 12 I I I 54 I I 1 [ WBL I 15 I I I 83 I I I I WET I 1,178 I WEST [ 40,000 I 1,262 I WEST ( 48,000 I I WBR I 67 I I I 213 I I I !�+ ---------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL I 84,100 I TOTAL 1111,000 I --------------------------------------------------------- �, (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.105. Lsa INTERSECTI014 MOVEMENT WORKSHEET *" MAIN STREET(N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) AM PEAK [ NORTH I �.. [ LEG ] WEST EAST LEG LEG J SOUTH [ I LEG--------------------------------------------------------- [ I EXISTING I FORECAST I ., -------------------------------------------------------- I TURN I (AVERAGE ITURN I [AVERAGE I (MOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY ]MOVEMENT I LEG JDAILY I (VOLUMES I (TRAFFIC (VOLUMES I (TRAFFIC I J NBL I I I 1 1 6 1 1 1 J NST 1 0 1 NORTH I 3,000 1 0 1 NORTH 1 15,000 1 �+ J NBR 1 4 1 I i 17 1 1 1 I SBL I 27 I [ I 105 I I I J SBT J 4 1 SOUTH J 600 1 35 1 SOUTH I 2,900 [ I SBR I 21 1 I 1 113 1 J I I EBL I 0 1 1 I 0 1 I I J EBT J 1,158 ] EAST ] 40,000 J I1348 [ EAST I 48,000 I I EBR 1 3 1 I I 10 I ! I IW3L I 41 I I 101 1 1 W3T J 1,142 J WEST ] 36,000 I 1,347 I WEST I 44,000 1 IWBR [ 0l I I 01 I 1 � ----------TOTAL-------------19,500 I' TOTAL------------109,900 J --------------------------------------------------------- (I) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL Lw COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.105. how i L. Iv Lsa INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET MAIN STREET(N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) PM PEAK I NORTH I LEG 1 WEST EAST LEG LEG ---------- ---------- I SOUTH ] I LEG ] --------------------------------------------------------- ] EXISTING I FORECAST . I � -----� AYERAGE ]TURN-------� ---••�-------� ITURf� AVERAGE ] IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY I IVOLUMES I ]TRAFFIC IVOLUMES I ITRAFFIC I ------ --------------------------------------------------------- I NBL 1 6 1 1 1 28 1 I 1 I NBT 1 0 1 NORTH 1 3,000 1 0 1 NORTH 1 15,000 I I NBR 1 12 I ! I 55 1 1 I SBL 1 38 1 ( - ) 172 I I ] SBT 1 3 1 SOUTH 1 600 1 34 1 SOUTH 1 2,900 ] 1 SBR ] 72 I I I 333 I ! l IEBL I 01 I I 01 I I W+ I EBT 1 19339 ] EAST 1 40,000 1 1,522 I EAST I 48,000 ] EBR I 11 1 1 I 52 I I I WSL 1 27 I I I 121 1 1 I 1 WBT 1 1,272 1 WEST ] 36,000 I 1,370 1 WEST 1 449000 I IWBR I 0 1 I I 01 1 l ---------------------------------------------------------------- �" I TOTAL 1 79,600 1 TOTAL 1 109,900 1 --------------------------------------------------------- (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL i. COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.105. i L V Lsa `r APPENDIX E INTERSECTION_CAPACITY UTIL17ATION WORKSHEETS RASE I DEVELOPMENT ESTINATION_RESORT HOTEL -IRIP GENERATION_ALTERNATIVE L L . r L V r- C C C`"_ [-` r F _ f C f f r INTERSECTION 1 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: "TINGTON AVENUE EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PHASE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I I I I 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT I I EXISTING CONDITIONS I 1991 BACKGROUND ( 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS I I I V/C I V/C I V/C I V/C 1 I MDVF- I VOIIPF RATIO* I L":L'!!4 RATIO' 1 VOLUME RATIO* i VOLUME RAT1(1* I MENT ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I. AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I I-------I------------------------------------------I-------------------------------------- ---I---------------------------------1- --------------------------------------I I NBL 10 0 2 3 0.00 * 0.00 * I 0 0 5 5 0.00 * 0.00 *1 5 5 0.00 * 0.00 *I 0 5 5 0.00 * 0.00 *I I NOT 12 3200 3 0 0.00 0.00 1 2 3200 5 0 0.00 0.00 I 5 0 0.00 0.00 I 3200 5 01 0.00 0.00 I I NOR 10 0 1 3 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 0 5 0.00 0.00 1 0 5 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 5 0.00 0.00 1 1 SBL 1 0 0 20 20 0.01 0.01 1 0 0 25 25 0.02 0.00 1 15 39 0.01 0.00 I 0 15 39 0.01 0.00 1 1 SOT 1 1 1600 3 1 0.06 * 0.04 * I 1 1600 5 0 0.07 * 0.05 *1 ' 5 0 0.07 * 0.07 *1 1600 5 0 0.07 * 0.07 •I I SBR I 0 0 73 49 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 80 55 0.00 0.00 I 85 67 0.00 0.00 I 0 85 67 0.00 0.00 . I I EBL 1 1 1600 10 8 0.01 * OAT * 1 1 1600 10 10 0.01 * 0.01 *I 19 19 0.01 * 0.01 *) 1600 19 19 0.01 * 0.01 *1 I EBT I 2 3200 1,076 1,117 0.34 0.35 ( 3 4800 1,210 1.255 0.25 0.26 ( 1206 1253 0.25 0.26 I 4800 1206 1253 0.25 0.26 1 I FOR 1 1 1600 6 0 0.00 0.00 1 0 1600 10 0 0.00 0.00 I 10 0 0.00 0.00 1600 10 0 0.00 0.00 I I Wet I 1 1600 0 52 0.00 0.03 I 1 1600 0 60 0.00 0.04 1 0 60 0.00 0.04 I 16M 0 60 0.00 0.04 I WBT I 2 3200 1,1D6 1,343 0.35 • 0.42 * I 3 4800 1,245 1,510 0.26 * 0.31 *1 1243 1507 0.26 * 0.31 *I 4800 1243 1507 0.26 * 0.31 *1 I WBR I 1 1600 10 2 0.00 0.00 1 0 1600 10 25 0.00 0.00 1 35 46 0.00 0.00 I 1600 35 45 0.00 0.00 I. 1--------------------------------------------------1-----------------------------------------I.................................I-----------------------------------------1 I N/S Critical Movements 0.06 0.04 I 0.07 0.05 I 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 I I E/W Crltitai Movements 0.35 0.42 I 0.27 0.32 I 0.27 0.33 I 0.27 0.33 I I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 .0.00 = 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 1 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I I I ! I I I I 11991 BACKGROUND 1 I I EXISTING ICU 0.51 0.56 11991 BACKGROUND ICU 0.43 0.47 1 + PROJECT ICU 0.43 0.49 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.43 0.49 1 I LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL Of SERVICE A A l LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL OF SERVICE A A l I I I I I AM PM I X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT 1RAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREAIER TMAIi 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * CRITICAL MOVEMENT I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 1991 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH r-- - r- r r r -= e INTERSECTION 2 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD EAST/VEST ROAD; PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PHASE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1991 BACKGROUND ; PROJECT ( EXISTING CONDITIONS 1991 BACKGROUND 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT WITH MITIGATIONS V/C ( V/C V/C ( V/C WNE. VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO- VOLUME RATIO• VOLUME RATI,M ( MENT (LANE CAP AM PM AM PM ILAN£ CAP AM PM AM PM ( AM PM An PM ILA%E CAP AM PM AM PM (--.....I------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------(---------------------------------I----------------------------------------- N8L 1 1 1600 0 2 0.00 O.DO 1 1 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 1 0 5 0.00 0.00 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 NOT 1 1 1600 6 3 0.00 • 0.00 • 1 1 1600 10 5 .0.01 - 0.00 •( 10 5 0.01 - 0.00 1600 10 5 0.01 - 0.00 •( NRR 1 1 1600 0 9 0.00 0.00 - I 1 1600 0 10 0.00 0.00 0 10 0.00 0.00 1600 0 10 0.00 O.DO SOL ( 2 3200 482 282 0.15 • 0.D9 - 2 3200 540 315 0.17 - 0.10 •j 540 315 0.17 - 0.10 3200 540 315 0.17 - 0.10 •� SOT 2 3200 2 12 0.00 0.00 2 3200 5 15 0.00 0.00 ( 5 15 0.00 0.00 3200 5 15 0.00 0.00 SBR ( 1 1600 97 155 0.00 0.00 1 1600 110 175 .0.00 0.00 ( 123 191 0.00 0.00 ( 1600 123 191 0.00 0.00 E8l ( 2 32DO 72 135 0.02 0.D4 - 2 3200 80 150 0.03 0.05 89 154 0.03 0.05 32DO 89 154 0.03 0.05 -� EDT 2 3200 1,254 1,014 0.39 - 0.34 3 4800 1,410 1,210 0.29 - 0.25 ( 1412 1216 0.29 - 0.25 4800 1412 1216 0.29 - 0.25 Eat ! 1 1600 2 2 0.00 0.00 1 1600 5 5 0.00 0.00 ( 5 5 0.00 0.00 ( 1600 5 5 0.00 0.00 WQL ( 1 1600 1 3 0.00 • 0.00 1 16M 0 5 0.00 - 0.00 0 5 0.00 - 0.00 ( 1600 0 5 0.00 - O.DO VBT ( 2 3200 1,008 1,338 0.32 0.42 - 3 4800 1.135 1.505 0.24 0.31 1138 1509 0.24 0.31 4800 1138 1509 0.24 0.31 *� WSR ( 1 1600 236 431 0.00 0.00 l 1600 265 485 0.00 0.00 265 485 0.00 0.00 1600 265 485 0.00 0.00 --------------------------------------------------I.........................................I----------.----------------------I----------------------------------------- ( N/S Critical Movements 0.15 0.09 0.18 0.10 1 • 0.18 0.10 1 0.18 0.10 ( E/W Critical Movements 0.39 0.46 ( 0.29 0.36 0.29 0.36 ( 0.29 0.36 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 ( 1991 BACKGROUND EXISTING ICU 0.64 0.65 11991 BACXGROUND ICU 0.56 0.56 + PROJECT ICU 0.56 0.56 11417IGATED PROJECT ICU 0.56 0.56 ( LEVEL OF SERVICE B a ILEVEL OF SERVICE A A LEVEL OF SERVICE A A (LEVEL OF SERVICE A A AM PM ( X y ( X FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC T.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL ( FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: - s CRITICAL MOVEMENT ( ( FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL 9E LESS TRAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 1991 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH Lsa APPENDIX F INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS PHASE I DEVELOPMENT (ITE HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE f' f r-- r f - r- E F f f T f f - INTERSECTION 2 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD EAST/NEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PHASE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I I I I 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT I I EXISTING CONDITIONS I 1991 BACKGROUND I ' 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS I V/C I WC I V/C . I V/C I MOPE- I VOLUME RATIO* ! VC+ll4!E R.".TI'r• I :0 "11 RATIO* I VOLUKE RATIO' I I PENT ILANE CAP AM PM AM PH ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I I-------I------------------------------------------I--------------------------------------- I---------------------------------I----------------------------------------- I I NBL 11 1600 0 2 0.00 0.00 11 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 I 0 5 0.00 0.00 I 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 I I NBT I 1 1600 6 3 0.00 * 0.00 * I 1 160D 10 5 0.01 * 0.00 *I 10 5 0.01 " 0.00 'I 1600 10 5 0.01 " 0.00 *) I NSR I 1 1600 0 9 0.00 0.00 ' I 1 1600 0 10 0.00 0.00 I 0 10 0.00 0.00 I 1600 0 10 0.00 0.00 i I SBL I 2 3200 482 282 0.15 * 0.09 " I 2 3200 540 315 0.17 * 0.10 *I 540 315 0.17 • 0.10 •I 3200 540 315 0.17 * 0.10 •I I SBI I 2 3200 2 12 0.00 0.00 I 2 3200 5 15 0.00 0.00 I 5 15 0.00 0.00 I 3200 5 15 0.00 0.00 I I SBR I 1 1600 97 155 0.00 0.00 I 1 1600 99 168 0.00 0.00 I 169 212 0.00 0.00 11600 169 212 0.00 0.00 I I EBI, I 2 3200 72 135 0.02 0.04 * I 2 3200 77 143 0.02 0.04 "I 112 187 0.04 0.06 'I 3200 112 187 0.04 0.06 *I I EBT I 2 3200 1.254 1,074 0.39 • 0.34 I 3 4800 1,409 1,208 0.29 * 0.25 I 1418 1220 0.30 • 0.25 I 4800 1418 1220 0.30 • 0.25 I I. EBR 11 1600 2 2 0.00 0.00 I S 1600 5 5 0.00 0.00 I 5 5 0.00 0.00 I 1600 5 5 0.00 0.00 I I WSL I 1 1600 1 3 0.00 * 0.00 ( 1 1600 0 5 0.00 " 0.00 I 0 5 0.00 * 0.00 I 1600 0 5 0.00 * 0.00 I I NBT I 2 3200 1,008 1.335 0.32 0.42 * I 3 4300 1,132 1,503 0.24 0.31 'I 1149 1514 0.24 0.32 •I 4800 1149 1514 0.24 0.32 "I I WSR I 1 1600 236 431 0.00 0.00 I 1 1600 265 485 0.00 0.00 I 265 485 0.00 0.00 I 16DO 265 485 0.00 0.00 I I--------------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I--......-........---------------...------ I N/S Critical Movements 0.15 0.09 I 0.18 0.10 I 0.18 0.10 I 0.18 0.10 I I E/W Critical Movements 0.39 0.46 I 0.29 0.36 I 0.30 0.37 10.30 0.37 I I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I O.DO 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I I Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 ( 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I I I I I I I I 11991 BACKGROUND I I EXISTING ICU 0.64 0.6S 11991 BACKGROUND ICU 6.56 0.55 I + PROJECT ICU 0.57 0.57 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.57 0.57 I I LEVEL OF SERVICE B B ILEVEL OF SERVICE A A I LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL Of SERVICE A A I I I I I I AM PM I X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS TITAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL 10 0.90 1991 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH i r �. r r-- r . .r - r f r V Ir - INTERSECTION l - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: HUNTINGTON AVENUE EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PHASE 1 PROJECI DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I ( I I I 1991 8ACKGROUNO + PROJECT I I EXISTING CONDITIONS I 1991 BACKGROUND I 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS I I V/C I V/C I V/C I VIC [ I MOVE- I VOLUME RATIO" I VOLUME RATIO* Vn1IIMF Pi.T[e* I V^LUME FLAT IC- I MENT [LANE CAP AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM ( AM PM AM PM (LANE CAP AM PM AM PM [ -•-•----------------- ---- -----------------------------------------I.................................I-----------------------------------------I I NBL [ 0 0 2 3 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 5 5 0.00 * 0.00 •I 5 5 0.00 * 0.00 "I 0 5 5 0.00 * O.DO "I NST 12 3200 3 0 0.00 0.00 [ 2 3200 5 0 0.00 •0.00 I 5 0 0.00 0.00 I 3200 5 0 0.00 0.00 I I NOR 10 0 1 �3 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 0 5 0.00 0.00 I 0 5 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 5 0.00 0.00 I [ SBL I 0 0 20 -20 0.01 0.01 [ 0 0 16 16 0.01 0.00 I 60 72 0.04 0.00 I 0 60 72 0.04 0.00 I [ SST I 1 1600 3 1 0.06 • 0.04 • [ 1- 1600 5 0 0.06 - 0.04 •I 5 0 0.10 * 0.09 *I 1600 5 0 0.10 * 0.09 "I [ SBR [ 0 0 73 49 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 80 55 0.00 0.00 I 95 72 0.00 0.00 [ 0 95 72 0.00 0.00 I EBL [ 1 1600 10 8 0.01 • 0.01 * I 1 1600 10 10 0.01 * 0.01 'I 36 27 0.02 * 0.02 'I 1600 36 27 0.02 * 0.02 *� [ EST I 2 3200 1,076 1,111 0.34 0.35 I 3 4800 1.206 1,253 0.25 0.26 1206 1253 0.25 0.26 [ 4900 1206 1253 0.25 0.26 I ERR [ 1 1600 6 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 1600 10 0 0.00 0.00 I 10 0 0.00 0.00 I 1600 10 0 0.00 0.00 I I VOL [ 1 1600 0 52 0.00 0.03 1 1600 0 60 0.00 0.04 I 0 60 0.00 0.04 1600 0 60 0.00 0.04 I I WBT [ 2 3200 1.106 1,343 0.35 * 0.42 " [ 3 4800 1,243 1,507 0.26 • 0.31 "I 1243 1507 0.26 • 0.31 4800 1243 1507 0.26 " 0.31 •I WSR [ 1 1600 10 2 0.00 0.00 = 0 1600 5 19 0.00 0.00 [ 92 74 0.00 0.00 1600 92 74 0.00 0.00 ..................................................I----------------------------------------- ..................................[----------------------=------------------I I N/S Critical Movements 0.06 0.04 [ 0.07 0.04 [ 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.09 I E/W Critical Movements 0.35 0.42 I 0.27 0.32 .I 0.28 0.33 I 0.28 0.33 I I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I I Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.1D 0.10 0.10 [ 0.10 0.10 I I I [ 1991 BACKGROUND I I I EXISTING ICU 0.51 0.56 11991 BACKGROUND ICU 0.43 0.46 14 PROJECT ICU 0.48 0.52 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.48 0.52 I [ LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL OF SERVICE A A [ LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL OF SERVICE A A I I # I I 1 AM PM X I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL I I 1 FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREAIER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: • ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT I I I [ FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 i 1991 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH Lsa APPENDIX G INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT (DESTINATION RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE) r r r- r INTERSECTION 1 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: HUNTINGTON AVENUE EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT C ONO ITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALTSIS I I MASTER PLAT! BACKGROUND + PROJECT I I I EXISTING CONDITIONS I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND IAASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS I I I We [ V/C I , V/C I V/C I I • I VR-LU"E RATIO* = L"CLL RATIO` I ZVL1 HE RAT10* I VOLUME RAi14" I MINT ]LANE CAP AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP Alt PM AM PM I ] NBL--I--0----0------Z-------3---0.00 *- O.OQ.!-.i..p-----0-----•;-------3...Q.00 * 0.00 -i•--------------3---O.DO * -0.00 .i........0------;-------3---D.00 ' 0.00 I I NST I 2 3200 3 0 0.00 0.00 I 2 3200 11 O 0.00 0.00 'I 11 0 0.00 0.00 #) 3200 11 0 0.00 0.00 ') ] NOR 10 0 1 3 0.00 0.00 ] 0 0 2 11 0.00. 0.00 I 2 11 0.00 0.00 I 0 2 11 0.00 0.00 ] SBL I 0 O 20 20 0.01 0.01 ] 1 1600 313 262 0.20 0.16 •I 315 264 0.20 0.17 *I' 1600 315 264 0.20 0.17 *I I SST [ 1 1600 3 1 0.06 * 0.04 * ] 1 1600 21 7 0.20 ' 0.13 I 21 7 0.24 * 0.17 I 1600 21 7 0.24 * 0.17 I I SBR I 0 0 73 49 0.00 0.00 ] 0 0 298 204 0.00 .0.00 I 357 259 0.00 0.00 I 0 357 259 0.00 0.00 I ] EBL I 1 1600 10 8 0.01 * 0.01 * ] 1 1600 32 41 0.02 ' 0.03 58 100 0.04 * 0.06 •I 1600 58 100 0.04 • 0.06 •I ] EST I 2 3200 1.076 1,117 0.34 0.35 ] 3 4800 1,242 1,312 0.26 0.27 *) 1318 1418 0.27 0.30 ] 48M 1318 1418 0.27 0.30 I ] EBR I 1 1600 6 0 0.00 0.00 I 1 16DO 3 0 0.00 0.00 ] 3 0 0.00 0.00 ] 1600 3 0 0.00 0.00 I ] WSL I 1 1600 O 52 0.00 0.03 I 1 1600 0 132 0.00 0.08 *] 0 132 0.00 0.08; I 1600 0 132 0.00 0.08 I WBT I 2 3200 1.106 1.343 0.35 * 0.42 ' I 3 48M 1,218 1,548 0.25 ' 0.32 I 1267 1636 0.26 ' 0.34 •I 4800 1267 1636 0.26 * 0.34 *I I WSR ] 1 1600 10 2 0.00 0.00 I 1 16DO 129 33 0.00 0.00 ] 135 39 0.00 0.00 I 1600 135 39 0.00 0.00 I I--------------------------------------------------I•----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I-----------------------------------------f N/S Critical Movements 0.06 0.04 I 0.20 0.17 I 0.24 0.17 ( 0.24 0.17 I I E/11 Critical Movements 0.35 0.42 I 0.27 0.36 I 0.30 0.40 I 0.30 0.40 I I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 = Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I I ! I f I I [MASTER PLAN ] I EXISTING ICU 0.51 0.56 IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.57 0.62 f+ PROJECT ICU 0.63 0.67 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.63 0.67 I ] LEVEL OF SERVICE A A [ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A 8 ILEVEL OF SERVICE 8 8 (LEVEL OF SERVICE B. B I I I f I I AM PM I X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF'THE CRITICAL ] I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0." MOVEMENTS: * ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT I ] I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 1 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH r - r r^ r- r - r- t e ' ' r r r r r r r INTERSECTION 2 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD EASTREST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND `MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS V/C V/C I V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO; VOLUME RATIO- Vrw1MF RATIO* vixt1mr RATIO* I MENT ILANE CAP AM PH AM PM ILANE CAP AM PH , AM - PM ' AM PH AN PM `LANE CAP AM PH AM PM ------- ------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------:---------------------------------I-----------------------------------...... NBL 1 1600 0 2 0.00 0.00 1 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 0 5 0.00 0.00 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 NBT 1 1600 6 3 0.00 * 0.00 * 1 1600 1a 10 0.01 * 0.01 18 10 0.01 * 0.01 1600 18 10 0.01 * 0.01 •� NBR 1 1600 0 9 0.00 0.00 * 1 1600 0 27 0.00 0.01 0 27 0.00 0.01 1600 0 27 0.00 0.01 *j SSL 2 3200 482 282 0.15 * 0.09 * 2 3200 602 476 0.19 * 0.15 656 520 0.21 * 0.16 3200 656 520 0.21 + 0.16 •! Sol 2 3200 2 12 0.00 0.00 2 3200 7 38 0.00 0.01 7 38 0.00 0.01 3200 7 38 O.DO 0.01 SBR 1 1 1600 97 155 0.00 0.00 1 1600 324 225 0.00 0.00 364 264 0.00 0.00 1600 3" 264 0.00 0.00 EBL 2 3200 72 135 0.02 0.04 * 2 3200 231 196 0.07 * 0.06 231 196 0.07 + 0.06 "! 3200 231 196 0.07 • 0.06 •_ EST 2 3200 1,254 1,074 0.39 * 0.34 3 4800 1,471 1,257 0.31 0.26 1484 1296 0.31 0.27 4300 1484 1296 0.31 0.27 EBR 1 1600 2 2 0.00 0.00 1 1600 7 5 0.00 0.00 7 5 0.00 0.00 1600 7 5 o.Do 0.00 WBL f 1 1600 1 3 0.00 * 0.00 1 1600 1 a 0.00 0.01 1 a 0.00 0.01 1600 1 a 0.00 0.01 WBT 2 3200 1.003 1,33E 0.32 0.42 * 3 4800 1,170 1,560 0.24 * 0.33 +f 1196 1533 0.25 - 0.33 4800 1196 1553 0.25 * 0.33 *1 WSR i 1' 1600 236 431 0.00 0.00 1 1600 277 726 0.00 0.00 299 794 0.00 0.00 1600 299 794 0.00 O.00 •� -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------j--------------------------------.--------1 N/S Critical Movements 0.15 0.09 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.17 0.22 0.17 E/W Critical Movements 0.39 0.46 0.32 0.39 ( 0.32 0.39 0.32 0.39 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 IMASTER PLAN EXISTING ICU 0.64 0.65 (MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.61 0.64 1+ PROJECT ICU 0.63 0.66 JMITTGATED PROJECT ICU 0,63 0.66 LEVEL OF SERVICE 8 B 1ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE 8 8 (LEVEL OF SERVICE B B ILEVEL OF SERVICE 8 B I AM PH I X I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 " INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL f FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: - * ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH INTERSECTIDN 3 - WORTH/SOUTH ROAD: LAKE STREET EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I I I ( MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND • PROJECT ( ( EXISTING CONDITIONS I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT ( WITH MITIGATIONS I r r V/C I V/C I V/C ( V/C I ..�. '�� =LNE PATIO I �._. ._ TI_ I yM�+Mc RATIR• I i I'�V�- .��w�r fiATIv' I .+r +.e M M4�ve P� M I MENT ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM '. PM I AM PH AN PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I I-------I------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I----------------------------------------- ( w8L ( 1 1600 46 if 0.03 ' 0.01 r 1 1600 193 42 0.12 * 0.03 I 193 42 0.12 * 0.03 ( 1600 193 42 0.12 * 0.03 I I NBT I 2 3200 28 16 0.02 0.01 * I 2 32DO 208 130 0.11 0.05 *I 203 130 0.11 0.05 'I 3200 208 130 0.11 0.05 '( I NBR I 0 0 23 9 0.00 0.00 ( 0 0 131 41 0.00 0.00 I 131 41 0.00 0.00 I 0 131 41 0.DO 0.00 I SSL I 1 1600 63 52 0.04 -0.03 * I 1 16DD 206 177 0.13 0.11 "I 235 205 0.15 D.13 'I 1600 235 205 0.15 0.13 *I I SBT I 2 3200 16 3 0.05 * 0.02 I 2 3200 149 29 0.16 ' 0.05 ( 149 29 0.16 * 0.05 13200 149 29 0.16 • 0.05 I SBR I 0 0 149 46 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 353 131 0.00 0.00 ( 353 131 0.00 0.00 I 0 353 131 0.00 0.00 I I Est I 1 1600 33 151 0.02 0.09 • I 1 1600 55 390 0.03 0.24 55 390 0.03 0.24 •I 1600 55 390 0.03 0.24 •I ( EBT I 2 3200 1,126 1,129 0.36 • 0.36 I 3 4800 1,175 1,164 0.28 * 0.25 I 1251 1301 0.29 - 0.28 ( 48M 1251 1301 0.29 • 0.25 I I EBR I 0 0 33 12 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 147 54 0.00 0.00 ( 147 54 0.00 0.00 I 0 147 54 0.00 0.00 I I WBL I 1 1600 31 15 0.02 * 0.01 I 1 1600 181 83 0.11 * 0.05 I 181 83 0.11 * 0.05 I 1600 -181 83 0.11 • 0.05 ( HBT I 2 3200 1,081 1,173 0.35 0.39 ' I 3 4800 1,049 1.262 0.24 0.31 'I 1151 1389 0.26 0.34 *I 4800 1151 1389 0.26 0.34 •I ( wort I 0 0 48 67 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 105 213 0.00 ' 0.00 I Ili 229 0.00 0.00 I 0 111 229 0.00 0.00 I --------------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I.......................... -------I--------.. ------( ( H/S Critical Movements 0.08 0.04 I 0.28 0.16 I 0.28 0.15 I 0.28 0.18 I I E/W Critical. Movements 0.38 0.48 I 0.39 0.55 I 0.40 0.58 I 0.40 0.55 I I Rfght Tura C. M. 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 ( ' 0.00 O.DO I' 0.00 0.00 I Clearance interval 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 ( 0.10 0.10 ( 0.10 0.10 I I I I 1 I ( I IMASTER PLAN ( I I EXISTING ICU 0.56 0.62 IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.76 0.81 I+ PROJECT ICU 0.78 0.86 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICI 0.73 0.96 I I LEVEL OF SERVICE A B. IICU LEVEL OF SERVICE C D ILEVEL OF SERVICE C D (LEVEL OF SERVICE C D I I I 1 1 I AM PM ( X ( ( X ( FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL I I I ( FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: • ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL 10 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACXGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH r r r r- r r >r r Ir . r r r r r r r r INTERSECTION 4 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: MAIN STREET/SIXTH STREET . EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN SUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ( ( I I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I I ( EXISTING CONDITIONS I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND IKASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS I 1 Vic 1 VC V/C J V/C i hare- I %r=tfl RATIO* = VOLUME !t Tln* PAT 10- I V01IOtt RATIO* I ( MENT ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM (LANE CAP AM PM AM PK ( AH PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PH I �-------I-------------------•----------------------i----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I ( NSL 1 1 1600 1 6 0.00 .0.00 * 1 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 J I NBT ( 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *I 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *I 0 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 *I I NOR 1 1 1600 4 12 0.00 0.00 10 16M 0 0 0.00 0.00 ( 0 0 O.Do 0.00 I 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 SOL I 1 1600 27 38 0.02 * 0.02 ( 1 1600 140 206 0.09 * 0.13 *I 140 206 O.D9 • 0.13 "I 1600 140 206 0.09 * 0.13 "I I SBT I 1. 1600 4 3 0.02 0.05 * 1 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 I I SBR I 0 0 21 72 0.00 0.00 I 1 1600 113 333 0.00 0.00 I 113 333 0.00 0.00 I 1600 113 333 0.00 0.00 I EBL I 0.• 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 1 1600 10 134 0.01 * 0.08 *) 10 134 0.01 * 0.08 •I 1600 10 134 0.01 • 0.08 •I J EST I 2 3200 1,158 1,339 0.36 * 0.42 • I 3 48M 1,348 1.522 0.25 0.32 1421 1659 0.30 0.35 I 4800 1421 1659 0.30 0.35 I I FOR 1 0 0 3 11 0.00 0.00 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I = WBL I 1 1600 4 27 0.00 * 0.02 * I 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 ( 0 0 0.00 0.00 ' I 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 1 WBT I 2 3200 1,142 1,Z72 0.36 0.40 I 3 4800 1,353 1.398 0.25 * 0.30 •) 1455 1525 0.31 * 0.33 "I 4800 1455 1525 0.31 * 0.33 •I I WBR 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 10 52 0.00 0.00 ( . 10 52 0.00 0.00 I 0 10 52 0.00 0.00 I I..................-...............-----------------I-----------------------------------------I•................................I......................................... I I N/S CrILlcal Movements 0.02 0.05 1 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.13 I 0.09 0.13 I I E/W Cr[ticat Movements 0.37 0.44 I 0.29. 0.39 ( 0.31 0.41 I 0.31 0.41 1 I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 I Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 J 0.10 ' 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 1 0.10 0.10 I I I I ! I I I IAASTER PLAN 1 EXISTING ICU 0.48 0.58 IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.47 0.61 1* PROJECT ICU 0.49 0.64 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.49 0.64 1 I LEVEL OF SERVICE A A JICU LEVEL Of SERVICE A B. ILEVEL OF SERVICE A B ILEVEL OF SERVICE A B I I I I I I AM PM I X ( I X 1 FORECASTED PLUS PROJECt TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE OF TILE CRITICAL* I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: • ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH INTERSECTION 5 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: HUNTINGTON STREET EAST/WEST ROAD: WALNUT AVENUE MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND TMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS V/C V/C V/C V/C j MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* I MENT ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM ( AM PM AM PM (LANE CAP AM PM AM PM I------- ------------------------------------------I.........................................I..................................I......................-------------------f Not 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 1 1 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 0.00 * O.DO 1600 Q 0 0.00 * 0.00 MST 1 . 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 3200 0 0 0.00 0.00 E 172 74 0.06 0.04 ( 3200 172 74 0.06 0.04 NOR 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 • 0 0.00 0.00 32 66 0.00 0.00 0 32 66 0.00 0.00 SBt 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1600 0 0 .0.00 0.00 72 143 0.05 0.09 1600 72 143 0.05 0.09 SOT 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 2 3200 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 632 473 0.20 * 0.15 3200 632 473 0.20 * 0.15 *� SBR 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 O 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 O.Do 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 ' 0.00 • 1 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 0.00 * O.DO 1600 0 0 0.00 ' 0.00 •� EDT 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 32DO 0 0 0.00 0.00 66' 153 0.02 0.05 3200 66 153 0.02 0.05 EBR 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 ,0 0.00 0.00 I VOL 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 16M 0 0 0.00 0.00 59 55 0.04 0.03 1600 59 55 0.04 0.03 WBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 2 3200 0 0 O.DO * 0.00 110 129 0.07 * 0.03 3200 110 129 0.07 ' 0.08 •� WBR t 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 114 141 0.00 0.00 0 114 141 0.00 0.00 -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ---------------------•----------- ...................................... N/S Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.15 E/W Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 '0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 (MASTER PLAN EXISTING ICU 0.10 0.10 MMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.10 0.10 1+ PROJECT ICU 0.36 0.33 (MITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.36 0.33 LEVEL OF SERVICE A A 1ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A A REVEL OF SERVICE A A ]LEVEL OF SERVICE A A AM PM X X FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL E FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * : CRITICAL MOVEMENT FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH [" [ C- Ir r C f C C f- , f INTERSECTION 6 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD EAST/WEST ROAD: WALNUT AVENUE MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I I I I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I I EXISTING CONDITIONS I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS I I I V/c ( V/C I V/C I V/C I I MOPE- I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO- I Vrx11MF RATIO* I VOLLWE PATIO* I I MENT ILANE CAP AN PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I AM, PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I I-------I------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I----------------------------------------- I NBL I 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * I 1 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *I 22 68 0.01 * 0.04 *I 1600 22 68 0.01 * 0.04 +) I NBT ( 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 3 4800 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 526 922 0.11 0.19 I 4800 526 922 0.11 0.19 I I NBR 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I I SBL 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 j 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I SST I 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 • 3 4800 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 •I 982 787 0.23 * 0.23 4800 982 787 0.23 * 0.23 •I I SBR 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 145 321 0.00 0.00 I 0 145 321 0.00 0.DO I I ESL I 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * I 2 3200 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *I 264 329 0.08 * 0.10 *) 3200 264 329 0.08 * 0.10 •I I EST 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I I CDR I 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 49 32 0.00 0.00 I 1600 49 32 0.00 0.00 I I WSL 10 0 0 a 0.00 0.00 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0 . 0.00 0.00 I I WBT 10 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * I 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *) 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *I 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 •I I WBR 10 0 0 0 ' 0.00 0.00 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 O.DO I I--------------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I......................................... I I N/S Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.25 0.27 I 0.25 0.27 I I EN Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.10 I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I I Clearance Interval, 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I I I I I I I IAASTER PLAN I EXISTING ICU 0.10 0.10 IRASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.10 0.10 14- PROJECT ICU 0.43 0.47 IMITTGATED PROJECT ICU 0.43 0.47 I I LEVEL OF SERVICE A A IICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL OF SERVICE A A I I I I I 1 AM PM . I X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SLIM OF THE CRITICAL I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0." MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH Lsa APPENDIX H INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT (ITE HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE) INTERSECTION 1 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: HUNTINGTON AVENUE EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I I I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I I I EXISTING CONDITIONS I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS I V/C I V/C I V/C I V/C I MOVE- I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO* I MENT ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I I-------I------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I NBL ( 0 0 2 3 0.00 * 0.00 * 1 0 0 1 3 0.00 * 0.00 I 1 3 0.00 * 0.00 *I 0 1 3 0.00 * 0.00 *I NBT I 2 3200 3 0 0.00 0.00 I 2 3200 11 0 0.00 0.00 *I 11 0 0.00 0.00 I 3200 11 0 0.00 0.00 I NBR 10 0 1 3 0.00 0.00 10 0 2 11 0.00 0.00 2 11 0.00 0.00 I 0 2 11 0.00 0.00 I SBL I 0 0 20 20 0.01 0.01 I 1 1600 313 262 0.20 0.16 *I 323 268 0.20 0.17 I 1600 323 268 0.20 0.17 i SBT I 1 1600 3 1 0.06 * 0.04 * I 1 1600 21 7 0.20 * 0.13 I 21 7 0.26 * 0.19 *) 1600 21 7 0.26 * 0.19 *I SBR I 0 0 73 49 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 298 204 0.00 0.00 I 401 304 0.00 0.00 I 0 401 304 0.00 0.00 I EBL I 1 1600 10 8 0.01 * 0.01 * 1 1 1600 32 41 0.02 * 0.03 I 75 107 0.05 * 0.07 *I 1600 75 107 0.05 * 0.07 *I EBT I 2 3200 1,076 1,117 0.34 0.35 I 3 4800 1,242 1,312 0.26 0.27 *I 1436 1469 0.30 0.31 I 4800 1436 1469 0.30 0.31 I EBR 11 1600 6 0 0.00 0.00 i 1 1600 3 0 0.00 0.00 3 0 0.00 0.00 ( 1600 3 0 0.00 0.00 i WBL I 1 1600 0 52 0.00 0.03 I 1 1600 0 132 0.00 0.08 *I 0 132 0.00 0.08 I 1600 0 132 0.00 0.08 I WBT I 2 3200 1,106 1,343 0.35 * 0.42 * I 3 4800 1,218 1,548 0.25 * 0.32 I 1261 1594 0.26 * 0.33 *I 4800 1261 1594 0.26 * 0.33 *� WBR I 1 1600 10 2 0.00 0.00 1 1600 129 33 0.00 0.00 I 146 44 0.00 0.00 I 1600 146 44 0.00 0.00 I I--------------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------i---------------------------------I-----------------------------------------i I N/S Critical Movements 0.06 0.04 i 0.20 0.17 0.26 0.19 I 0.26 0.19 I E/W Critical Movements 0.35 0.42 I 0.27 0.36 I 0.31 0.40 I 0.31 0.40 I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 I Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 i IMASTER PLAN EXISTING ICU 0.51 0.56 IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.57 0.62 I+ PROJECT ICU 0.67 0.69 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.67 0.69 LEVEL OF SERVICE A A IICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A B ILEVEL OF SERVICE B B ILEVEL OF SERVICE B B I i I I I I AM PM X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH INTERSECTION 2 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS V/C ( : V/C I V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM -------I------------------------------------------I----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------I----------------------------------------- NBL 1 1 1600 0 2 0.00 0.00 1 1 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 0 5 0.00 0.00 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 NBT 1 1 1600 6 3 0.00 * 0.00 * 1 1 1600 18 10 0.01 * 0.01 18 15 0.01 * 0.01 1600 18 15 0.01 * 0.01 *� NBR 1 1 1600 0 9 0.00 0.00 * ( 1 1600 0 27 0.00 0.01 0 27 0.00 0.00 1600 0 27 0.00 0.00 *� I SBL 2 3200 482 282 0.15 * 0.09 * 2 3200 602 476 0.19 * 0.15 663 523 0.21 * 0.16 3200 663 523 0.21 * 0.16 *� SBT 2 3200 2 12 0.00 0.00 2 3200 7 38 0.00 0.01 7 38 0.00 0.01 3200 7 38 0.00 0.01 SBR 1 1600 97 155 0.00 0.00 1 1600 324 225 0.00 0.00 ( 441 297 0.00 0.00 1600 441 297 0.00 0.00 EBL 2 3200 72 135 0.02 0.04 * 2 3200 231 196 0.07 * 0.06 231 196 0.07 * 0.06•*1 3200 231 196 0.07 * 0.06 *� EBT 2 3200 1,254 1,074 0.39 * 0.34 3 4800 1,471 1,257 0.31 0.26 1506 1308 0.31 0.27 4800 1506 1308 0.31 0.27 � EBR f 1 1600 2 2 0.00 0.00 1 1600 7 5 0.00 0.00 7 5 0.00 0.00 1600 7 5 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 1 3 0.00 * 0.00 1 1600 1 8 0.00 0.01 1 8 0.00 0.01 1600 1 8 0.00 0.01 WST 2 3200 1,008 1,338 0.32 0.42 * 3 4800 1,170 1,560 0.24 * 0.33 1242 1603 0.26 * 0.33 4800 1242 1603 0.26 * 0.33 *) WBR ( 1 1600 236 431 0.00 0.00 1 1600 277 726 0.00 0.00 263 799 0.00 0.00 1600 263 799 0.00 0.00 *� ------------=-------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I----------------------------------------- I N/S Critical Movements 0.15 0.09 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.17 0.22 0.17 E/W Critical Movements 0.39 0.46 0.32 0.39 0.33 0.40 0.33 0.40 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 ) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 MASTER PLAN EXISTING ICU 0.64 0.65 IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.61 0.64 I+ PROJECT ICU 0.64 0.67 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.64 0.67 LEVEL OF SERVICE B B JICU LEVEL OF SERVICE 8 B ILEVEL OF SERVICE B B (LEVEL OF SERVICE B 8 AM PM X X FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC.I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH INTERSECTION 3 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: LAKE STREET EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND (MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND +PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM, I--- --- ------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I-----------------------------------------� NBL 1 1 1600 46 11 0.03 * 0.01 1 1 1600 193 42 0.12 * 0.03 193 42 0.12 0.03 1600 193 42 0.12 0.03 NBT 2 3200 28 16 0.02 0.01 * 2 3200 208 130 0.11 0.05 208 130 0.11 * 0.05 3200 208 130 0.11 * 0.05 *� NBR 0 0 23 9 0.00 0.00 0 0 131 41 0.00 0.00 131 41 0.00 0.00 0 131 41 0.00 0.00 SSL 1 1600 63 52 0.04 0.03 * ) 1 1600 206 177 0.13 0.11 284 225 0.18 * 0.14 1600 284 225 0.18 * 0.14 *� SBT 2 3200 16 3 0.05 * 0.02 2 3200 149 29 0.16 * 0.05 149 29 0.16 0.05 3200 149 29 0.16 0.05 SBR 0 0 149 46 0.00 0.00 0 0 353 131 0.00 0.00 353 131 0.00 0.00 0 353 131 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1600 33 151 0.02 0.09 * 1 1600 55 390 0.03 0.24 55 390 0.03 0.24 1600 55 390 0.03 0.24 *� EBT 2 3200 1,126 1,129 0.36 * 0.36 3 4800 1,178 1,164 0.28 * 0.25 1337 1339 0.31 * 0.29 4800 1337 1339 0.31 * 0.29 EBR 1 0 0 33 12 0.00 0.00 0 0 147 54 0.00 0.00 147 54 0.00 0.00 0 147 54 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1 1600 31 15 0.02 * 0.01 1 1600 181 83 0.11 * 0.05 181 83 0.11 * 0.05 1600 181 83 0.11 * 0.05 WBT 2 3200 1,081 1,178 0.35 0.39 * 3 4800 1,049 1,262 0.24 6.31 1195 1408 0.27 0.34 4800 1195 1408 0.27 0.34 *� WBR 0 0 48 67 0.00 0.00 0 0 105 213 0.00 0.00 1 , 105 213 0.00 0.00 1 0 105 213 0.00 0.00 -------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I----------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.08 0.04 0.28 0.16 0.28 0.19 0.28 0.19 E/W Critical Movements 0.38 0.48 0.39 0.55 0.42 0.58 0.42 0.58 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 MASTER PLAN EXISTING ICU 0.56 0.62 (MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.76 0.81 1+ PROJECT ICU 0.80 0.87 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.80 0.87 LEVEL OF SERVICE A B 1ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE C D (LEVEL OF SERVICE C D ILEVEL OF SERVICE C D AM PM X X FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH INTERSECTION 4 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: MAIN STREET/SIXTH STREET EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN. BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND (MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS V/C V/C I V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* 4 MENT ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM . PM AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I-------I------------------------------------------I----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------I----------------------------------------- NBL 1 1 1600 1 6 0.00 0.00 * 1 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 ( 0 0 0.00 0.00 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *� NBR 1 1 1600 4 12 0.00 0.00 1 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 I SBL 1 1 1600 27 38 0.02 * 0.02 1 1600 140 206 0.09 * 0.13 140 206 0.09 * 0.13 1600 140 206 0.09 * 0.13 *� f SBT 1 1 1600 4 3 0.02 0.05 * 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBR 1 0 0 21 72 0.00 0.00 1 1600 113 333 0.00 0.00 ( 113 333 0.00 0.00 1600 113 333 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1600 10 134 0.01 * 0.08 10 134 0.01 * 0.08 1600 10 134 0.01 * 0.08 *� EBT 2 3200 1,158 1,339 0.36 * 0.42 * 3 4800 1,348 1,522 0.28 0.32 1507 1697 0.31 0.35 4800 1507 1697 0.31 0.35 EBR 0 0 3 11 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 4 27 0.00 * 0.02 * 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBT 2 3200 1,142 1,272 0.36 0.40 3 4800 1,353 1,398 0.28 * 0.30 1499 1544 0.31 * 0.33 4800 1499 1544 0.31 * 0.33 *� WBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 10 52 0.00 0.00 10 52 0.00 0.00 1 0 10 52 0.00 0.00 ------------- -----------------------------I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I-----------------------------------------� N/S Critical Movements 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.13 E/W Critical Movements 0.37 0.44 0.29 0.39 0.32 0.42 0.32 0.42 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 ( 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 (MASTER PLAN EXISTING ICU 0.48 0.58 IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.47 0.61 1+ PROJECT ICU 0.50 0.64 (MITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.50 0.64 LEVEL OF SERVICE A A (ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A B [LEVEL OF SERVICE A B (LEVEL OF SERVICE A B AM PM X X FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH INTERSECTION 5 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: HUNTINGTON STREET EAST/WEST ROAD: WALNUT AVENUE MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS ( MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT i WITH MITIGATIONS { { V/C V/C I V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO- { MENT {LANE CAP AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM { AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM {-------{------------------------------------------{-----------------------------------------{--------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- NBL ( 0 0 A 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 1 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 � NBT { 0 O. 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 3200 0 0 0.00 0.00 172 74 0.07 0.05 3200 172 74 0.07 0.05 *� NBR 0 0 O 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 60 77 0.00 0.00 0 60 77 0.00 0.00 { SBL { 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 169 187 0.11 0.12 1600 169 187 0.11 0.12 *� SBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 2 3200 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 640 477 0.20 * 0.15 { 3200 640 477 0.20 * 0.15 SBR { 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 0.00 0.00 {. 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 1 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 { 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 EBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 2 3200 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 115 172 0.04 0.05 3200 115 172 0.04 0.05 *� { EBR ( 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 { O 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 { WBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 103 100 0.06 0.06 *{ 1600 103 100 0.06 0.06 *� WBT ( 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 2 3200 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 172 183 0.10 * 0.11 {. 3200 172 183 0.10 * 0.11 WBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 159 162 0.00 0.00 0 159 162 0.00 0.00 { {-------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------I---------------------------------{----------------------------------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 { 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.16 { E/W Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 { 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.12 { Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 { Clearance interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 {MASTER PLAN { EXISTING ICU 0.10 0.10 {MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.10 0.10 {+ PROJECT ICU 0.40 0.38 {MITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.40 0.38 { LEVEL OF SERVICE A A {ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A A {LEVEL OF SERVICE A A {LEVEL OF SERVICE A A AM PM X { X FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL { { FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT { FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL HE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH INTERSECTION 6 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD EAST/WEST ROAD: WALNUT AVENUE MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* MENT ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM -------I------------------------------------- I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I-----------------------------------------� NBL 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.60 * 1 1 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 36 73 0.02 * 0.05 1600 36 73 0.02 * 0.05 *� NBT 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 3 4800 0 0 0.00 0.00 526 922 0.11 0.19 4800 526 922 0.11 0.19 NBR 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBT 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 3 4800 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 1073 825 0.28 * 0.25 4800 1073 825 0.28 * 0.25 *� SBR 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.60 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 288 381 0.00 0.00 0 288 381 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 2 3200 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 381 392 0.12 * 0.12 *1 3200 381 392 0.12 * 0.12 *� EBT 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 ( 0 0 0.00 0.00 f 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBR 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 ( 55 39 0.00 0.00 ( 1600 55 39 0.00 0.00 WBL �, 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBT ( 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *1 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *� WBR ( 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 ----------------------- ---- ------------- ----- ---------------- N/S Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.31 0.30 0.31 0.30 E/W Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 114ASTER PLAN EXISTING ICU 0.10 0.10 (MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.10 0.10 1+ PROJECT ICU 0.52 0.51 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.52 0.51 LEVEL OF SERVICE A A JICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A A (LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL OF SERVICE A A AM PM X ( X FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC ,I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * = CRITICAL MOVEMENT FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH Ir+ lr. �. APPENDIX D BIOLOGY WETLANDS ASSESSMENT w W Sri W l� Ir+ Iw.. ho 60 THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMEKT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT BIOLOGVWETLANOS ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION PREPARED BY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 157 PARK PLACE PT. RICHMOND, CA 94801 (415) 236-68I0 lr� SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 f. 4. INTRODUCTION bw The purpose of this report is to describe and evaluate the biological resources of The Waterfront Development site in the City of Huntington Beach, focusing on wetlands. Existing information on the site was obtained from the Downtown Specific Plan EIR and from letters and reports by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). We also requested data on sensitive F biological resources of the site from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) . This information was supplemented by field work on August 20 and 21, 1987 to determine the size and location of the wetlands on site, their existing condition, and the feasibility of wetland restoration. Existing information on the project area indicates that there is very little native vegetation, aside from a small wetland area just west of Beach Boulevard. No sensitive species are known or likely to rake regular use of the area. None cf the sensitive plants and animals listed by CNDDB as oc- curring in the vicinity are expected to occur in the project area, due to lack of appropriate habitat. The predominantly urbanized habitat of the - project area probably supports common animal species that are typical of such iW environments. According to the DFG, the small wetland area is a fresh/brackish marsh L 0.8 acres in extent, bordered by a 1.4-acre former wetland area that is restorable as wetland (DFG 1983, S. Ellis, pers. comm., F. A. Worthley, Jr., pens, comet.) . DFG (1983) determined that the 0.8-acre wetland has been L degraded because of its reduced size, configuration, location and overgrown condition." The report noted low use of this area by wetland-associated birds and attributed this low wildlife use primarily to the wetland's small size and overgrown condition. DFG concluded that the wetland could easily and feasibly be enhanced by increasing the amount of open water (by excava- ting a pond 4 feet deep); expanding its size by restoring the adjacent 1.4- acre area as wetland; and fencing the entire 2.2-acre area. The report also listed four conditions that should be met if off-site mitigation is deemed necessary. L. L i L 1 W . Iw. i.r LW YETEAND DETERMIKATLIOti METHOpS To determine the size and location of wetlands on site, we employed a standard method for wetland determination as set forth in the Corps of En- gineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987). We first mapped the seven dis- tinct habitat types on the site (see Figure 1 and Table 1). We then col- lected data at a sample point in each type to determine whether the habitat �. was characterized by wetland vegetation, soils, ' and hydrology, as defined by the Corps. L According to the definition used by the Corps, "the term 'wetlands' means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal cir- L cumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." The Corps has interpreted this definition to mean that, to be considered a wetland, a site must have each of three charac- Aeristics: . wetland vegetation, wetland soils, and wetland hydrology. The Wetlands Delineation Manual provides specific guidelines for assessing each of the characteristics. HABITAT TYPES Cattail-Bulrush Marsh {PePTS - Palustrine emergent, persistent, Tvpha- Scirous). This small marsh is dominated by dense, lush cattails and tules eight feet tall or more, in clayey soil . On August 20, there was standing water about six inches deep in a small ditch that flows from this habitat into a culvert under Beach Boulevard. The cattails have recently been cut down along the portion of the ditch near the culvert. A small patch of higher ground in the center of the marsh (too small to map: about 15 by 25 feet) is vegetated much like the Tall Forbs habitat type. i Iceplant (CfC - Coastal terrace. fortis, Carpobrotus). This habitat is covered primarily with Hottentot-fig ("iceplant"), an upland species. The loamy sand soil and numerous low mounds of earth are indicative of past w filling activity. Several hydrophytic (wetland-adapted) plant species are also present. Ruderal- (CfR - Coastal terrace, forbs, Ruderal). This type is dominated by upland, ruderal grasses and forbs on a fairly level site, with some planted Brazilian pepper trees. The sandy soil is indicative of fill mater- ial . 2 Wetlands and Other Habitats lsa E Q n E Fence I E E *4.7 *3.0 Mobile Homes. -"-3.7 2.7 PePTS CiC ? 3.8 *4.7 *2 6 2 5 Pe * 2 O �a 4 G Pe .Q DF *2.9 CfR *2.9 O �PePF�--�2_`f8 t 1 *3.7 4.6 _ Drainage Culvert""., Road Drainage Ramp __2�roject Boundary Road Drainage Ramp BEACH BLVD. LEGEND O - Sample points for wetland determination. =I- Wetland,as defined by Corps of Engineers (COE) {4 1 F +4.7 - Spot Elevations ! i HABITAT TYPES. PePTS -Palustrine, emergent, persistent, Typha, Sci►pus (Cattail Bulrush Marsh). Pe PA -Palustrine; emergent,persistent, Arundo. (Giant Reed) PePDF -Palustrine, emergent, persistent,Distichlis,Frankenia (Saitgrass -Alkali Heath) \ Af n s PaPF -Palustrine, emergent, persistent, Frankenla ea (Alkali Heath) �_ N� PBPP.. Palustrine, emergent,persistent,Picric _ .(Tall Forbs), Scale in Feet CtC.--Coastal terrace, forbs,.Carpobrotus.. r�.f1 (iceplant) CIS -Coastal terrace.,forbs, ruderals 0 30 60 120 (Ruderal) Source:LSA,19 8 7 YI W 60 LN Giant Reed (PePA - Palustrine emergent, persistent, Arundo). This area, characterized by deeply cracked clay soil , was formerly dominated by giant 60 reed, which was cut down recently, probably during the past year. (Giant reed is a non-native weed and a serious pest species in freshwater wetlands.) Very little live vegetation now remains in this habitat patch. There are recently deposited piles of dirt fill and a small , dry ditch leading to a Ib+ drain. Saltgrass - Alkali Heath (PePDF - Palustrine emergent, persistent. ` Distichlis-F ankenia. This habitat is dominated by saltgrass, with patches of alkali heath and pickieweed on fairly level ground. The loamy sand soil indicates fill material . 6W Alkali Heath(PePF - Palustrine emergent, persistent, Frankenial. This type is mostly covered by alkali heath, also on fairly level ground. The northern half of this habitat patch is similar, but has been heavily over- ima grown by honeysuckle from the adjacent mobile homes. Soil is loamy clay underlain by a hard, black layer, probably slag or weathered petroleum, about ten inches below the surface. Tall Forbs (PePP- - ,Palustrine emergent -persistent - Picris_ , Nel ilo_tus.- Rumex . This type is characterized by a diverse mixture of tall forbs, including ox tongue, white sweetclover, and curly dock. This habitat occurs �+ in two patches: one bordering the upper- edge of the Cattail-Bulrush type and one in a depression within the Ruderal type. The sandy soil indicates fill material . L RESULTS The results of the wetland determination are presented in Table 2 and Figure 1. only the Cattail-Bulrush Marsh habitat has all three wetland characteristics and thus is considered a wetland, based on the Corps defini- tion. This habitat type is the small wetland identified by DFG. Based on �. planimetering from our map (Figure 1), this wetland is 0.6 acres in extent. Four (and possibly five) of the other six habitats were characterized by 6s a prevalence of hydrophytic (wetland-adapted) vegetation, but were lacking in wetland soils and/or wetland hydrology. Thus, the field data on soils and hydrology indicates that these habitats are not inundated or saturated by water at a great enough frequency or duration to be considered a wetland by W the Corps. to 3 4W Le It should be noted that the DFG often uses a different wetland defini- tion, that of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (Cowardin et al . 4 1979). This definition also relies on vegetation, soils, and hydrology as wetland indicators. A key difference between the two definitions is that only one of the three characteristics must be present for the FWS to define an area as a wetland. By the FWS definition, four additional habitats (in L- addition to the Cattail-Bulrush Marsh) may qualify as wetlands: Giant Reed, Saltgrass-Alkali Feath, Alkali Heath, and Tall Forbs. The total wetland acreage, using this definition, is 1.7 acres. It seems likely that DFG may have classified the Tall Forbs habitat as wetland, as it borders the Cattail-Bulrush Marsh and looks more like a typi- cal wetland than do the other habitats. The combined acreage of these two 'r types is 0.8 acres, equal to the DFG estimate of wetland acreage. The other three habitat types on the site (Giant Reed, Saltgrass-Alkali Heath, and Alkali Heath) are drier and of little or no value as wetland wildlife habi- tat; this may explain why DFG did not define them as wetlands, even though they may technically fall within the FWS wetland definition. 6W 4 WETLAND CONDITION AND RESTORABILITY EXISTING CONDITION OF WETLAND The seven habitat types mapped in Figure 1 occupy a low-lying area of about 2.8 acres that is surrounded by Beach Boulevard, a large mobile home park, and a parking lot to the south. Table 3 lists the wetland and upland plant species that were observed on the site during the present study and previous studies. The small size of the existing wetland (0.6 acres) , its proximity to urban development, and its lack of open water result in a low value for wetland-adapted wildlife. If the wetland area were to' be restored and expanded in size, as recommended by DFG, its wildlife value would clearly be enhanced. Its value would still be limited, however, due to its small W size and disturbance from adjacent development. Considerably more wildlife habitat value could be provided by a restored wetland of equal size that is part of a larger, contiguous wetland complex. DFG (1983, p. 17) made a specific finding (pursuant to the Coastal Act) that the existing wetland on the project site (0.8 acres, by their calcula- tions) is a "degraded wetland." Based on the criteria for degraded wetlands listed by the California Coastal Commission (1981, Section VIII-A), our observations support this finding. In particular, there is clear evidence of filling throughout much of the site; this filling has clearly altered the �., topography and substrate; tidal action has been cut off by activities well- removed from the site; there is extensive encroachment from urban land uses; and wildlife habitat value has been reduced significantly, compared to his- toric conditions. In addition, water quality may be quite low, as the pri- mary water supply is urban runoff from the adjacent mobile home park and from Beach Boulevard. Finally, we found a layer of what appears to be slag or weathered petroleum about 10 inches below the surface of the Alkali Heath 6w habitat; this layer and other fill materials could adversely influence water quality. FEASIBILITY-OF -WEILAND RESTORATION DFG (1983, pp. 22ff.) also made a finding that an additional 1.4 acres on the site is a former wetland that is "feasibly restorable." DFG recom- mended creating open-water areas by excavating ponds roughly four feet deep, expanding the size of the wetland to the entire 2.2 acres, and fencing the entire area. Presumably the wetland would be enlarged by installing rater &at control structures to reduce drainage of water from the site and possibly by some excavation and removal of fill . err � DFG (1983, p. 20) also raised the possibility of off-site mitigation for the wetland in question. They requested that the following conditions be imposed, if off-site mitigation is implemented: (a) allow urban runoff from the trailer park to continue to flow to the wetlands east of Beach Boulevard, (b) create at least 2.2 acres of wetlands on a site that is currently non- wetland, (c) get DFG approval of the wetland design, location, and type. As pointed out by DFG (1983, p. 23), the feasibility of restoration, under the Coastal Act, must take into account economic, environmental , social and technological factors. We believe that in the case of this particular wetland, more study is necessary to address the question of feasibility. One way to address the feasibility issue is to examine the nine factors +�+ considered by the Coastal Commission in determining whether a particular wetland is degraded (Coastal Commission 1981, pp. 53-54) . Below we discuss the. feasibility of restoration in relation to each of these factors. Fill and Topographic- Alterations Factors 1-and 21. Although costly, fill removal is otherwise feasible. Substantial excavation would be neces- sary to create ponds four feet deep and remove the fill material present on much of the non-wetland portion of the site. Impediments to Tidal Action Factor 21. Restoration of tidal action +�. appears infeasible due to the barrier formed by Beach Boulevard, as well as impediments further removed from the project site. Water Quality and_Substrate Quality_fFactors 4 and 51. Water quality and substrate quality could pose serious problems to wildlife and May be difficult to restore. Water quality problems could result from, fill materials on site (espe- cially the slag or weathered petroleum) or from urban runoff, which appears to be the primary water supply. Urban Encroachment (Factor 61. Urban land uses completely surround the 2.8-acre site. Human disturbance could be reduced by fencing, vegetative screening, and interpretive signs. It would not be possible, however, to mitigate for two other constraints imposed by urban encroachment: the small size of the site and the lack of adjacent natural habitats. Changes from the Historic Wetland Condition (Factor 7). According to DFG (1983, p. 17), the site was historically tidal wetland, connected to Newport Bay by the Santa Ana River. Whether it was salt marsh or fresh/brac- 6 v v kish marsh is not specified. Both tidal action and freshwater inflows have been cut off, and fill has altered the topography, resulting in a much smal- ler and highly modified wetland. Although it is not feasible to restore &` tidal action, it may be possible to augment freshwater inflows and restore a freshwater/brackish marsh resembling those that occurred historically in the vicinity. Such measures would be costly, however, and benefits to wildlife L. would be limited, as discussed below. Current Wildlife Habitat Value Versus_Restored_ Value (Factors) . Cur- rent wildlife habitat -value of the wetland and adjacent habitats on site is clearly low. V etland restoration would have definite benefits for wildlife but less so than an off-site wetland restoration contiguous with a larger wetland or other natural habitats. Chemical Cycling Capabilities of the Wetland (Factor 9). Water from the existing wetland apparently drains under Beach Boulevard and into the large i wetland to the east. A restored and expanded wetland on the project site could potentially improve water quality and increase nutrient transport to . the wetlands east of Beach Boulevard. Other Factors Discussed by DFG (1983). Other factors addressed by DFG include the effects of wetland restoration on flood problems and mosquito control . It is possible that selective water control structures, as en- 6& visioned by DFG, would be adequate to minimize flood-control problems, but this issue should be investigated further by a qualified engineer. Mosquito control could be a more serious problem, •which should be dis- cussed with the Mosquito Abatement District. If the primary water supply to the wetland is p-ecipitation runoff, then water levels would drop during summer. Falling water levels during surnmer, the mosquito-breeding season, are highly conducive to mosquito problems. Potential solutions include a supplemental water supply or an ongoing spray program; both are costly. Tidal flushing is not feasible at this site. 7 W W Ird CONCLUSIONS "W I. Based or the Corps of Engineers wetland determination method, the existing wetland on the project site is estimated as 0.6 acres. An adjacent low-lying area of about 2.2 acres could potentially be +.. restored as wetland. 2. Based on the existing information available, the only sensitive biological resources on the project site are the small wetland discussed above and the adjacent low-lying area. The biological value of the non-wetland low-lying area lies primarily in its potential for restoration as a wetland. 3. The existing wetland has been identified by DFG as a degraded wetland pursuant to the Coastal Act, and our observations support yr this finding. 4. The non-wetland low-lying area has been identified by DFG as sevcr- w.. ely degraded. Our observations support this finding. 5. DFG also found that this severely degraded area is feasibly res- torable as wetland. Although wetland restoration may be feasible, r.. given a large enough budget, site constraints would still preclude full wildlife habitat function. Specifically, the small size of the wetland, disturbance from adjacent development, and lack of adjacent natural habitats would limit the wildlife habitat value even if the entire site were restored as wetland. In addition, mosquito control could pose serious problems. An off-site mitiga- tion plan, involving wetland restoration of an equal size, but contiguous with existing wetland, would -provide considerably Brea- ter benefits to wildlife. bw 4 i.r TABLE I . WETLAND AND UPLAND HABITATS IN THE PROJECT AREA, WITH KAP SYMBOLS &. I4AB ITAT MAP TYPE TECHNICAL NAME SYMBOL WETLAND TYPE (PER COE CRITERIA) +- Cattail- Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Tvnha, Scirnus PePTS Bulrush Marsh UPLAND TYPES (PER COE CRITERIA) w. Iceplant Coastal Terrace, Forbs, Caroobrotus CfC Ruderal Coastal Terrace, Forbs, Ruderals CfR +�. Giant Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Arundo PePA Reed - 1bd Saltgrass- Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Qistichlis, PePDF Alkali Frankenia Heath 6' Alkali Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Frankenia PePF Heath 60 Tall Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Picris, PePP Forbs t.elilotus, Rumex 60 5 aw bw TABLE_2. RESULTS OF WETLAND DETERMINATION. BASED ON CORPS OF ENGINEERS (COE) METHOD WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS_PRESENT r.. (Y - Yes, N - No) HABITAT PLOT 0 VEGETATION SOIL HYDROLOGY WETLAND* Cattail-Bulrush 2 Y Y Y Y Iceplant 6 Y N Y N Ruderal 1 N N N N Giant Reed 7 ? Y N N Sal tgrass- 4 Y N Y N Alkali Heath r.► Alkali Heath 3 Y Y N N Tall Forbs 5 Y N Y N r.r `" *All three wetland characteristics rust be present for the area to be considered a wetland by the COE definition. 10 W TABLE_3. ,__PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE WETLAND AND ADJACENT LOW-LYING AREAS IN THE PROJECT AREA All sgcies were identified during the present study, unless indicated other- wise. HYDROPIIYSIC (WETLA?4D-4DAPTED) SPECIES Common Name Scientific Name Giant reed Arundo donax Fathen saltbush Atriolex ap tula var. hastata Australian saltbusha Atriolex semibaccata Bermuda grass C nodon dactvlon Cyperus Cyperus sp. Saltgrass pistichlis spicata grass Barnyard y g Echinocloa crusgalii - Alkali heath Erankenia grandifolia 46.. California sunflowers Uelianthus californicus Seaside heliotrope Heliotropium currasavicum Prickly lettuces Lactuca serriola White sweetclover elilotus alba Ox tongue Picris echioides Rabbitfoot grass Pol, poaon monsaeliensis Curly dock Rumex cris us i' Glasswort (pickleweed) Salifornia sp. Woody giasswort (pickleweed)ab Salicornia virginica �. California bulrush Sc_ _iU us californicus Olney's bulrush Scirous olnevi Cattaila TTvpha latifolia Cattail Tvpha sp- Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium 6. TABLE CONT UPLAND SPECIES: HERBACEOUS Cornon Name Scientific Name Oat Lena sp. Wild mustard Erassica sp. Brome grass Eromu sp. Hottentot-fig (iceplant) Carpobrotus edulis b" Pampas grass Cortaderia selloana Ryegrassab Lolium sp. ;Aw Sea-figa Hesembryanthemum chilense Iceplant Mesembryanthemurn crvstallinum Indian ricegrass Oryzoosis hvmenoides Bambooa Phvllostachys bambusoides Wild radish Raphanus Sativus bw UPLAND SPECIES: TREES AND SHRUBS +� Common Name Scientific Name Tree of heaven Ailanthus sp. Castor bean Ricinus communis Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius two 12 0 aw 6. TABLE 3 (CONT. HYDROPHYTIC UPLAND SPECIES: STATUS UNKNOUNc 60 Common Haire Scientific Name 6W +6+ Baccharisa 8accharis sp. Telegraph weeds Heterotheca Qrandiflora 1W Sur„mer-cypressa Kochia scoparia Honeysuckle Lonicera sp. Common groundsela Senecio vuloaris W Common sow thistle Sonchus oleraceus a Source - Downtown Specific Plan EIR (1983). 6d b Source - DFG (1983) . c Status uncertain because not categorized as hydrophytic or upland by COE (1987) or FWS (1987); or because species identification was -not certain. w. 13 W 6, 16, LITERATURE CITE 6+ California Coastal Commission. 1983. Statewide interpretive guideline for wetlands and other wet environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Adopted February 4, 1981 . 6" City of Huntington Beach. 1983. Downtown Specific Plan EIR. Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual . "k' Dept. of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. January 1987. 100 pp. + appendices. M.. Cowardin," L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Bial . Services, Washing- ton, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp. Department of Fish and Game. 1983. Department of Fish and Game determina- tion of the status of the Huntington Beach wetlands. Transmitted to the California Coastal Commission on February 4, 1983. 35 pp. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. List of plant species that occur in wet- lands-Region 0. U.S: Dept. of Interior, Fish and -Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. 39 pp. L L w "' 14 L PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS CITED S. Ellis, Fisheries Biologist, Region 5, California Department of Fish and Game, Long Beach. Memo dated February 19, 1981 to David N. Smith, South Coast Regional Coastal Commission, Long Beach. v F. A. Worthley, Jr., Regional Manager, Region 5, California Dept. of Fish and Game, Long Beach. Letters dated February 3, 1982 and February 24, 1983 to Claudette Dupuy, Assistant Planner, City of Huntington Beach. Iw+ im iw Iw 15 60 ti 6d A„ APPENDIX E CULTURAL SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT W W Jr. Lsa A CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT THE WATERFRONT PROJECT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE PREPARED FOR THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION V PREPARED BY BETH PADON CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 E October, 1987 L Lsa L ABSTRACT Specific archaeological location information contained in this report is not for publication or general public view; archaeological site locations must remain confidential . An archaeological archival search and a limited in-field reconnaissance of the proposed Waterfront project yielded negative results. Present devel- opment of the property includes a trailer park, paved roads, hotel , and a 4, golf course. These uses of the property limited the field reconnaissance to the far east side of the property along Beach Boulevard. No evidence for prehistoric use of the area was noted, yet a surface reconnaissance does not detect buried remains. With the qualifier that if such remains are uncovered during grading a qualified archaeologist would be retained to evaluate them and develop a mitigation plan, it is recommended that the development be per- mitted to proceed. A paleontological archival search of the proposed Waterfront project yielded negative results. However, significant fossil-bearing formations are located within one mile of the project. Several vertebrate and invertebrate localities have been recorded along the Huntington Mesa area. Due to the paleontological* sensitivity of the region, a qualified paleontologist should be retained to monitor the grading and deep excavations for the project. With this qualifier, it is recommended that the development be permitted to proceed. _ Lsa INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an archaeological and paleontologi- cal investigation of the proposed Waterfront Project in the City of Hun- tington Beach, Orange County. It assesses the potential impact on archaeo- logical , historical , and paleontological resources present within the project area. The project location is situated on the Newport Beach 7.5' USGS (1965, photo revised 1972) topographic sheet. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the study area, while Figure 2 shows the exact location of the proposed development. Planned development includes removal of the existing trailer parks and the construction of several hotels and a convention center. The cultural resource assessment involves three tasks; research of archival sources, in-field reconnaissance, and a statement of impacts and recommendations. The purpose of the archival search and in-field reconnais- sance is to identify potential cultural/scientific resources on or near the subject property and to relate their locations to that of the proposed devel - opment. The statement of impacts and recommendations identifies impacts and outlines options to preserve any cultural resources. The purpose of this study is to inventory all known historic and cul- tural/scientific resources which are considered significant or determined potentially significant according to the guidelines of the California En- vironmental Quality Act (CEQA) . This report follows the guidelines estab- lished by the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Society for California Archaeology (King,. Moratto, Leonard, 1973) and the Society for American Archaeology (McGimsey and Davis, 1977) . Personnel Beth Padon, of LSA's Cultural Resource Division, served as project archaeologist for the project. Ms. Padon is accredited by the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) , and holds an M.S. degree in Anthropology. Dr. John Cooper served as project paleontologist. Dr. Cooper holds a Ph.D. in Geology and teaches at California State University, Fullerton. Resumes are available upon request. - Description of the Project Area The study area lies 11 miles north of the Santa Ana River channel in Huntington Beach and within the Santa Ana River flood plain. Beach Boulevard forms the eastern boundary, Huntington Avenue the western border, Pacific Coast Highway the southern border and Ocean Grove Circle the northern border. Regional Location Lsa Los Angeles Co. San Bernardino Co. L f 90 E 57 r e' 91 91 ; Riverside Co. , , W ` 5 55 i , San L dim 22 o %; Cleveland o i USMC .eA� National 60 Tustin ey � USMC �` Forest • 39 to Toro `------ �. 73 F�eewe 18 Pro e ct=�r.• 0 133 . Ar ea • �� • 60 �.. _ 74 N . . • . ''f ,6r 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 miles •; Orange County ' . - .• San Diego Co. w _ Vicinity Map ls-a °°Ft 91 6 ��V. .- � 7 .� T _ ._ter..• :ate_. -- 2�- n'f i� ° � _�.— — ■ ark ° ° ° ' ° L i �_� _.:..: �l 1�a C-- ��• i ar 6 ° a r AVE � LRE/LLY R J is k. ♦ � I 1 _.air I BM 28 Trailer J L •: ti.. ,� . Surveyed r It Area3- 309 f fliK:t•� r�rG '' o � o "The Waterfront" e C w ®_ �A'ater Tanks q � �4 is � �.. ��A/ P�•':.`�c.. 1 s,. ;.. BM Scale in Feet 0 1000 2000 k Irr Lsa w. The Late Prehistoric horizon or Shoshonean Tradition begins approximate- ly in A.D. 500 (Rice 1976; Bean and Smith 1978) . Archaeological evidence *, suggests that several groups entered the Southern California region from the Southern Great Basin. These groups are believed to have been Shoshonean- speakers who, in moving to the coast, separated the indigenous Hokan-speaking groups. The appearance of cremation, small triangular projectile points, steatite containers, bone tools and the use of asphalt marks this cultural period. By A.O. 1000, this period is also identified by smoking pipes and aboriginal pottery. This latest prehistoric period ended rather abruptly with the Spanish expedition and the establishment of missions and outposts during the IBth century. The Spanish mission system divided the native population into groups, based upon the similarity of their spoken languages and their prox- imity to lands controlled by individual Spanish missions. Mission San Gab- riel Archangel , founded in 1771, and Mission San Juan Capistrano, founded in 1776, are the closest missions to the project area. The project area falls within the southern portion of Gabrielino territory during this ethnohistoric period (Kroeber 1925) . The Shoshonean-speaking Gabrielino tribe occupied the Newport Bay area where the study parcel lies. Bean and Smith (1978), Johnston (1962) and Kroeber (1925) provide detailed summaries of the Gabrielino. Most of these studies indicate that the Gabrielino occupied a number of permanent and semi- permanent villages along the coastal and inland valley regions of what is now Los Angeles, Crance and parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. �+ Although the Gabrielino had a complex socio-political 'organization, their subsistence is characterized by wild plant food foraging and limited hunting in the interior, and intensive shellfish near-shore fishing and sea mammal hunting in certain coastal areas. Archival and Field procedures In order to determine whether any cultural resources existed within the proposed site for the Waterfront Project, Ms. Padon conducted a records review at University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey, the �.. Information Center for the California Archaeological Inventory for Orange County, and conducted a limited walk-over of the project area. The archival search checks for any previously recorded material of an archaeological or historical significance concerning the project area. This archival search included the following sources: the files, site records, and maps housed at UCLA Archaeological Survey (the state-recognized clearinghouse 5 +w ir. Irr for archaeological sites for the County of Orange); and local , State, and national directories of historical monuments and landmarks. The record �.. search also provided information concerning any previous archaeological surveys within the project areas. Ms. Padon reviewed the following archaeo- logical and historical records for the project area: National Register of Historic Places (1986 and subsequent updates) California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976) California Historic Landmarks (1979) +- Orange County Historic Landmarks Orange County Place Names (1966). On August 29, 1987, Beth Padon conducted a limited field review of the project location (Figure 2). Scatters of stone tools, waste flakes (results of stone tool manufacture), bedrock mortars, soil discoloration (results of decaying organic matter), worked bone, and structural remains such as hearths and house pits are all indicators of prehistoric occupation. These were sought in the project area, as well as glass and metal artifacts which would be indicative of sigiificant historical features. W Since a trailer park/hotel , and a golf course cover most of the project area, the field review was limited to the exposed ground along Beach Boule- vard (Figure 2). The field review was conducted by walking back and forth over this, portion of the development area while carefully inspecting the ground surface. The transects included careful inspection of any visible cuts in drainage areas and rodent holes for any indication of buried remains. Any available rodent barrow backdirt was inspected for buried cultural mater- ial . The wet condition of this portion of the development area limited ground visibility. Archival and Field Results A check of the site records at UCLA Archaeological Survey yielded nega- tive results. The closest known archaeological site, CA-Ora-149, lies 0.3 kilometers north and west of the project area. Pat McKinney of Pacific Coast Archaeological Society first recorded this site in 1964. She noted chipped stone material from stone tool manufacturing, projectile points and finished chipped stone knives at the site. She also observed that the existing oil operations had partly destroyed the site. In 1980, Ron Douglas of Archaeo- logical Planning Collaborative (APC) revisited the site and prepared a site update. fir. Douglas also found few artifacts for the site area yet abundant shell fish remains. Within a two kilometer radius of the project area, the records list two other prehistoric sites. 6 W too sd w w The records also indicate that the property had been previously surveyed by ARI (1973). This survey had been conducted for the City of Huntington Beach to inventory cultural resources within the City. In 1980, Theo Mabry of APC prepared the report for the Huntington Beach Transportation Center that was proposed along Huntington Avenue, and immediately west of the pre- sent study area. These surveys found site CA-Ora-149 as previously recorded, and no additional archaeological sites for the project area or the adjacent areas. low Review of the national , State, and local directories for historic land- marks also yielded negative results. Old editions of USGS topographic maps were examined to identify other possible pre-twentieth century structures. 'These included Corona 30' (1902 edition) and 5antaAna 15' (1896 and 1901 editions). The map reviewed indicated no potential historic structures for the study parcel . The Corona 30' map (1902 edition) located the parcel within a marsh. On August 29, 1987, Beth Padon conducted a limited field review of the project area. The field reconnaissance yielded no evidence of prehistoric remains. Evidence of modern use of the area was noticed along the Beach Boulevard border. The modern use included a graded parking lot, modern trash along the road, and dirt bike trail along the fence of the trailer park boundary. Conclusions and Reccmmendations w„ The proposed Waterfront development will not impact- any known archaeo- logical or historical resources. However buried remains, which generally go undetected during a surface survey, could be encountered during the develop- ment. If any archaeological or historical materials are found during the development, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted in order that the appropriate mitigation measures can be taken. With this qualifier, it is recommended that development be permitted to proceed. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ii,; Dr. John Cooper prepared the paleontological part for the Waterfront project. His report is included in its entirety in Appendix A. The follow- ing discussion is a summary of that letter report. W 7 46, Lsa Stratiaraphy and Paleontology Dr. Cooper conducted a records check and literature review of published and unpublished geological and paleontological literature. He also reviewed the files of the Vertebrate and Invertebrate Paleontology Sections at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The literature review showed that fossil localities have been recorded along the bluffs of the Huntington Mesa area, three and four miles north and west of the project. These locali- ties are found in the Late Pleistocene San Pedro Formation. Both inver- &W tebrate and vertebrate fossils have been found and have included Ice Age fossils. Review of the geological map (Morton and Miller, 1981) revealed that the study area is underlain by Quaternary age alluvium. Due to the geologically young age of the alluvium, there is a low potential for significant fossils in these sediments. However, the fossil bearing sediments of the San Pedro Formation lie only one mile north of the project area. Dr. Cooper did not conduct a walk-over survey of the project since 6 little open space and exposed areas exist within the project boundaries. Recommendations 6W The majority of the project area is underlain by alluvium which contains a low potential for significant fossils. However, significant fossil-bearing formations are located within one mile of the project area. Adverse impacts L+ to potential paleontological resources could be adequately mitigated by undertaking the following recommendations: 1. During deep excavation operations into the alluvium, a qualified paleontologist should be retained to monitor grading and salvage any fossils exposed by this grading. ik' 2. A qualified paleontologist, - listed with the County of Orange, should attend the pre-grade meeting with the contractor, developer and City representative to ensure cooperation for the paleontologi- aw cal monitcring. 3. Fossils collected during grading at the Waterfront Project should be curated with an appropriate museum facility. w 8 Lsa bd rrr REFERENCES Archaeological Research, Inc. (ARI) 1973 Report of a Scientific Resource Survey and Inventory conducted for the City of Huntington Beach, California. On file at UCLA Arch- aeological Survey. EIR #0-1. 1976 Defining the Southern Perimeter of Ora-575. On file at the Anthro- pology Museum, California State University, Fullerton. 1977 Newport North Archaeology. Draft Report on Limited Testing. Ms. W. on file at Anthropology Museum, California State University, Fullerton. Bean, Lowell and Charles R. Smith w 1978 Gabrielino in Handbook of North American Indians, California, Vol . 8:538-550, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, Q.C. 60 Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation. 6W 1979 California Historic Landmarks. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation (revised 1982) . 4" Hudson, Dee T. 1971 Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization in South Coastal California in Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quar- terly 7(2):49-76. Johnston, Bernice Eastman 1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 8, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. King, Thomas F. , Michael J. Moratto, and N. Nelson Leonard III 60 1973 Recommended Procedures for Archaeological Impact Evaluation. Joint Publication of the Society for California Archaeology and the University of California, Los Angeles. On file at UCLA Archaeo- logical Survey. 9 6a Irr Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of AmericanEthno- logy Bu].l.glin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (re- printed by Dover Publications, New York, 1976) . Mabry, Theo +� 1980 Historic Property Survey Report, Huntington Beach Transportation Center, Orange County Transit District. On file at UCLA Archaeo- logical Survey, EIR #0-485. km McGimsey, Charles R. III and Hester A. Davis (editors) 1977 The Manacement of Archaeological Resources in the Airlie House Report, special publication of the Society for American Arch- aeology. Meadows, Don 1966 Historic Place Names in Orange County. Paisano Press, Inc., Balboa Island, CA. Morton, P.K. 'and Miller, R.V. 1981 Geologic flap of Orange County (Scale 1:48,000) ; California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 204, Plate 1. U.S. Office of Federal Register 1979- National Register of Historic Places in Federal Register, February 1986 6, 1979; March 18, I980; February 3, 1987; February 2, 1982; March 1, 1983; February 7, 1984; March 5, 1985; February 25, 1986 and subsequent updates. Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology in Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 11(3):214-230. Warren, Claude N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern Cali- 64 fornia Coast in Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology, Vol . 1, No. 3:1-4 (Portales). 10 u W Lsa Appendix A Paleontological Report Ire w. ' Beth Padon October 15, 1987 Staff Archaeologist LSA, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California Dear Beth: This letter presents the results of an assessment of paleontologicalresources for the Waterfront II project area, City of Huntington Beach, at Beach Blvd. and Pacific Coast Highway. The project area lies along the western edge of the Santa Ana River flood plain and is situated entirely on unconsolidated sediments mapped as Qac (younger Quaternary Alluvium; Morton and Miller,19B1) . According to archival information from, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (vertebrate and invertebrate sections) , there are no recorded paleontologic localities on the subject property, and because of the geologically young age of these sediments, no fossils would be expected. The nearest fossil-bearing deposits lie within a mile to the west and northwest in Late Pleistocene shallow marine sands of the San Pedro Formation (Cooper, 1980) exposed in various parts of the Huntington Mesa area. Several UCLA invertebrate localities (3655, 3656, 3657, 1491, now on file at the natural History Museum of Los Angeles County) are recorded for this area in bluff faces a few miles to the northwest of the project area. The nearest vertebrate locality is LACM 65113, which produced tooth and tusk specimens -of Maimaathus sp. and Bison sp. jaw fragments from a now buried site along W n� terburg Roa=in Huntington Beach, several miles north of the project area. Although it is highly unlikely that any scientifically sig- nificant fossils will be discovered during the development phase of the project, it is recommended that a qualified paleontologist be retained to monitor surface excavations on a spot-check basis (perhaps once a week or so) . This recommendation is made because Mrs of the fairly close proximity of the project site to known fossil- bearing deposits of Late Pleistocene age (Morton and Miller, 1981; Cooper, 1980) . Any fossils collected should be donated to the Natural History Foundation of Orange County. References Cited Morton, P. K. , and Miller, R. V. , 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County (Scale 1:48,000) : California Division of Mines and Geology, Bull. 204, P1. 1. Cooper, J. D. , 1980, Assessment of paleontological Resources of the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana (Beeco Ltd) property, Newport Beach, California: Consultant report prepared for ARM Corp. w Respectfully submitted, John D. Cooper, Ph Paleontological Consultant W w 60 W Jr. �. APPENDIX F CORRESPONDENCE iw iu i L � Y.. 60 w '' 0 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA 't P.O. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 °0.'.0 , e+ 10844 ELLIS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92108-7018 (714) 962-2411 September 28, 1987 City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development Planning Division 2000 Maim; Street Huntington Beach, CA 92262�O'Hara 48 1 ' Attention: Catherine •'Subject: Notice of Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Certified EIR No. 82-2, "Waterfront Project" Zhis is in response to your September 9, 1987 notice that the city will prepare a Supplemental EIR for the development of a 44-acre commercial/hotel/residential project to be located at the northwest corner of Beach Bouldevard and Pacific w, jI Coast Highway in, the City of Huntington Beach. The plan/project includes approximately 1,600 hotel rooms, 90,000 square feet of commercial use and 875 high density residential dwelling units. This area is within County Sanitation District No. 11 and previous planning has 44 acres of commercial use for this parcel . You are requested to calculate the - -expected sewage to be generated from the proposed development. It is suggested that you may wish to use the general flow coefficients of 5,820 gpd/acre for High Density Residential and 3,230 gpd/acre for Commercial . For more definite calculations, use 150 gallons/day per 1,000 sq. ft. of office or commercial development space and 100 gallons/day per hotel room. It is reco=ended that the Environmental Impact Report calculate the expected sewage flows generated by the proposed use and compare them to the Districts ' previous plans. Wastewater generated within the District's service area is processed at treatment plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The Districts operate 11+ under a NPOES permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency. This permit has a set discharge limit for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) . At the present time, the BOO in the Districts' discharge is close to the limit. Staff projects that each million gallons per day of additional flow will add one part per million to the BOD after treatment; therefore, significant land use changes will impact the Districts' facilities and, particularly, industrial and commercial users should take on site measures to reduce the load strength of the sewage. Thank you for the opportunity to con.men2cne pr pos d "Waterfront Project".. M. Dares Director of Engineering TMD:CW:tc �'` ENG/ENVT;znN:1.1F �OCID GRANGE COUP:TY TRANSJ DISTa,CT Board Merr*ers :r,a,a-rr 4 Fa•rrs Geravo Vuiien . .1 " �c-arch Ec,a• Iw - Dan Q. ac:h September 22, 1997 Ms. Catherine M. O'Hara Department of Community Development h ' City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Dear Ms. O'Hara: i SU&TECT: U&TERFRONr PROTECT-HOP FOR SUPPLEMEFUL EIR F0. 82-2 �+ We have reviewed this project as described in the FOP and have the following comments: L • CCTD currently offers service on Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the project site, as shown on the attached route maps and schedules. Existing stops are located at: L northbound Pacific Coast Highway/Farside Beach Boulevard, Northbound Pacific Coast Highway/Opposite Driftwood Drive, 1r Northbound Pacific Coast Highway/Nearside Huntington Street. �W • In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit service for employees and patrons of this development, the following transit amenities should be incorporated in this project: iw -- The existing bus stops should be preserved, and bus turnouts provided , if determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be s+ necessary based on traffic volumes, speeds, and roadway cross sections. - Paved, handicapped accessible passenger waiting areas, includ- ing a bus shelter should be provided at each stop. - The area adjacent to the turnouts should be able to accom- modate a passenger waiting area complete with a bus shelter and bench. 4 -- A paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway should be provided between each stop and the project., buildings. I -2122 Acacra pa:k..av/PO oCx 3CC5.•"Garcer 92r2-30C r"»)9 t-UCO Ir. Ms. Catherine O'Hara September 22, 1987 Page Two lrr Due to the scope of this development, additional stops may be necessary. The NOP does not indicate the proposed site design for the development, so we are unable at this time to indicate appropriate locations for pedestrian accessways, bus stops and other passenger amenities. When the site plans become available, +�+ we would like to review them with respect to transit facilities and accessibility in the site design, as described in the OCTD Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities. Ilr. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this project and would like to receive copies of the DEIR and the project site plans when they are available. If you have any further questions, please call me or Noel Ibalio at 971-4351. Sincerely, rr Cjj�� - f��—r, M�l Y�zntLA_,�" L Christine Huard—Spencer Environmental Coordinator CHS:DM:PLN-193 BJM Attachments: Route Maps and Schedules for OCTD Routes 1 and 29/29A Iw 1rr STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Gawnw DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 245 W. Broadway, Suite 350 Long Beach, CA 90802-4467 -.213) 590-5113 September 28, 1987 lr. Catherine M. O'Hara assistant Planner two City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Eeach, CA 92648 Dear Ms . O'Hara: �.+ We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental EIR for certified Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2, the "Waterfront Project" . We reiterate our concern over the potential loss of approximately2. 2 acres of restorable wetlands within the arywestof Beach project boundary west of Aeach Boulevard as expressed in our letters dated February 19, 19B1 and February 3, 1982. We maintain that our preferred alternative is to restore and maintain r., these wetlands for wildlife use. However , depending upon design, it is difficult to determine the potential value of the site within the immediate proximity of Beach Boulevard and the intensive use which the proposed project will create on the adjacent land. In this regard, the Department may consider off-site, acre-for-acre (or more) mitigation if an appropriate site can be identified and developed. We would like to see these issues/alternatives discussed in the Supplemental EIR. Additionally, we are very interested in the potential restoration of the wetlands easterly of Beach Boulevard, and we commend the City of Huntington Beach for designating these wetlands as "conservation areas" . However, intense development west of Beach Boulevard could diminish wildlife usaae of the wetlands easterly of Beach Boulevard. In this respect , the current use of the land (mobile hone park/golf course) along with the current wetland acreage provides a more desirable buffer zone to the wetlands east of Beach Boulevard. We recommend that this issue be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions , please contact Esther Burkett, Wildlife do Biologist, at (714) 537-0696 or Jack L. Spruill of our Environmental Services staff at ( 213 ) 590-5137. Sincerely, Fred Worthley Regional Manager Region 5 cc: Coastal Commission .Tarl, STCrI-M Admhk �.. IOUIMER11 CALIFORMA WOCIATIOn OF GOVERnMEnTf 600 Louth Commonweolth Avenue •fuite 1000• lof Angelef- California - 90005 .2131,385-1000 September 14, 1987 Ms. Catherine M. O'Hara City of Huntington Beach *+ Department of Community Develcpment 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Waterfront Project-Notice of Preparation of Supplemental EIR (SCAG File No. OR-50765-NPR) `" Dear Ms. O'Hara: Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation for a Supplemental *+ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Waterfront Project. Staff has reviewed the Notice and offers the following comments in accordance with our procedures for voluntarily submitted projects. The DEIR should address SCAG plans and policies. For population, housing, and employment forecasts, the document entitled SCAG-82 Modified, adopted in February 1985, is the basis for review for consistency with regional plans and policies. The project should also be reviewed against the Baseline Projection which was approved, for planning purposes, June 1987. In order to evaluate the relationship of this project to the forecasts, the w. EIR should address the following issues: o What is the growth permitted in the project as a percent of the growth W forecast in SCAG-82 Modified for RSA 38 at the anticipated dates of project completion or phasing? o What is the anticipated employment level associated with the project and how does it relate to the most recent SCAG growth forecasts for RSA 38? o What is the availability of housing to accornodate the employees in the w area? How does the project help to achieve affordable housing as set forth in the adopted Regional Housing Allocation Model? o What are the cumulative impacts of this project and other projects in RSA 38, as related to SCAG-82 Modified for the anticipated dates of ' completion or phasing? o Are the provisions of the Regional Air Quality Management Plan, adopted ` in 1982, being implemented? what are the air quality impacts of the project? Ms. Catherine M. O'Hara Page 2 September 14, 1987 ,. o In evaluating both the transportation and air quality impacts, the DEIR should also provide a detailed description and documentation of the assumptions used in estimating total trips generated and their related vehicular emissions. This information is essential in estimating the project's impact on traffic in the area. To relieve significant air quality and traffic impacts, the DEIR should include transportation system and demand management programs to encourage the use of mass transit, ridesharing, trip-reduction strategies, etc. , in order to reduce these impacts. o What are the irpacts and school facilities? Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. SCAG would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact report when it is available. If you have any questions, please contact Tom Brady at (213) 739-6742 or me at (213) 739-6649. 4P* S 1 l y, k" RICHARD SPICER Principal Planner RS:TB kW w.. a • f� � ir. Ir+ lOfq fOtA fAffOCIATI ME 600 fouth Commonwealth Avenue •luite 1000• Lof Angelef. California .90005 •213/385-1000 September 14, 1987 Ms. Catherine M. O'Hara City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street �- Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Waterfront Project-Notice of Preparation of Supplemental EIR �,. (SCAG File No. OR-50765-NPR) Dear Ms. O'Hara: Ld Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Waterfront Project. Staff has reviewed the Notice and offers the following comments in accordance with +� our procedures for voluntarily submitted projects. The DEIR should address SCAG plans and policies. For population, housing, and employment forecasts, the document entitled SCAG-82 Modified, adopted in February 1985, is the basis for review for consistency with regional plans and policies. The project should also be reviewed against the Baseline Projection which was approved, for planning purposes, June 1987. In order to evaluate the relationship of this project to the forecasts, the EIR should address the following issues: o What is the growth permitted in the project as a percent of the growth forecast in SCAG-82 Modified for RSA 38 at the anticipated dates of project completion or phasing? o What is the anticipated employment level associated with the project and how does it relate to the most recent SCAG growth forecasts for RSA 38? o What is the availability of housing to accommodate the employees in the area? How does the project help to achieve affordable housing as set forth in the adopted Regional Housing Allocation Model? o What are the cumulative impacts of this project and other projects in RSA 38, as related to SCAG-82 Modified for the anticipated dates of completion or phasing? o Are the provisions of the Regional Air Quality Management Plan, adopted in 1982, being implemented? What are the air quality impacts of the *" project? ry 4V Ms. Catherine M. O'Hara L Page 2 September 14, 1987 L o In evaluating both the transportation and air quality impacts, the DEIR L should also provide a detailed description and documentation of the assumptions used in estimating total trips generated and their related vehicular emissions. This information is essential in estimating the project's impact on traffic in the area. To relieve significant air L quality and traffic impacts, the DEIR should include transportation system and demand management programs to encourage the use of mass transit, ridesharing, trip-reduction strategies, etc., in order to &, reduce these impacts. o what are the impacts and school facilities? Thank you again for the opportunity to cc-,=ent. SCAG would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact report when it is • available. If you have any questions, please contact Tom Brady at (213) 739-6742 or me at (213) 739-6649. Si ly, RICHARD SPICER fir. Principal Planner RS:TB L L W 600 Louth Commonwealth Avenue•tuite 1000•Lai Angeles*Colifornia.90005.2131355-1000 i�. lfl CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 Paul E. Cook Public Works Department Director (714) 536.5431 ++ October 20, 1987 r. O Deborah Baer L S A 1 Park Plaza f500 Irvine CA 92714 Subject: The Waterfront E I R Dear Ms. Baer: The following responses from the City of Huntington Beach are in reply to your letter of October 1, 1987: Response 1: Maintenance of sewer, water and storm drains are handled by the City, with the exoeptiors of the County of Orange who may operate separate sewer collection facili- ties and storm drain facilities; also the Driftwood Mobil Home Park owns and opera- tes private water Lines within the park. This includes hydrants, valves, etc. This system is metered by the City. Response 2: After evaluation of the water distribution system and seer cavity syste.•rs and lift stations based oz projected land uses and zoning changes, service de:^ands possibly will increase. Mie irpact on these facilities can be milnindzed with proper planning by this developrmnt in oonjunction uri.th tentative future develo cents. A hydrology study will have to be done to properly evaluate the impact on storm drain +� facilities. Response 3• Water - see the attached Huntington Beach Standard Plan 600 (Le-sign Criteria) . Sewer - see the attached Table III-9 from the Seer ;faster Plan. Storm Drains - Orange County Hydology Manual - 1986 Edition and the O.C.F.C.D. r.. Design Manual. RESPONSE 4: +�+ Yes, the full impact on extisting facilities and the need for expansion will depend on the out=-,e of Response 2. u Lr Debra BaerMaterfront E I R -2- October 21, 1987 RESMI E 5: w Only for water, Kennedy/Jenk-s/Chilt,on Consulting EM-J*rk--wrs for the Da.*nta%►n Eater Transmission Pipeline assessed the needs for this red3velopment area. Attached are alternatives"A" and "C" for your review. As of this writing a final determina- tion on %Ihich alternative to use has mt been finalized. Contact Jeff Fianna, Eater �+ Superintendent, at (714) 536-5922 if further clarification is needed. PMPMSE 6: See the attached facilities nkips for water, seiner and storm drains. RESPti7tSE 7 I he Citycannot forsee any problems for store drains and sewer facilities. Off-site water loops on either alternative "A" or "C" will have to be installed prior to any construction for this development. RESPONSE 8• I suggest you contact Bruce Gilmer, Traffic Engineer, and John Huller, Principal Engineer for street designs, both men are with the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Engineering Staff. Very truly yours, Eric R. C harlonne Utility Design EC:ik cc: Catherine O'Hara, Planning Division W.r w u.w Environmental Assessment Transportation Engineering Resource Management Lsa Community Planning Environmental Restoration October 1, 1987 de F:y Milk; Corporation Yard City of Huntington Beach 17371 Gothard Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92647 SUBJECT: THE WATERFRONT EIR, HUNTINGTON BEACH Dear Mr._-Dilks_- LSA is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Report for The Water- front, a residential , hotel and commercial complex to be located in the City of Huntington Beach. The location of the project is designated on the at- tached reap. We are interested in identifying potential impacts, due to this project, which may be of concern to your agency. It would be appreciated if you would L, complete the enclosed questionnaire so that we can incorporate your comments into the EA. Also, please include any issues which are not directly ad- dressed in the questionnaire. Due to time constraints, it would be apprecia- 6d ted if your responses were received by October 12, 1987. If you have any questions or desire more information, please contact me at (714) 553-0666. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. Ir Sincerely, d�49J__ am Deborah Baer Assistant Planner L DB/kc(RMC701) Attachments: Location Map Questionnaire ❑ 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 • Irvine. California 92714 • (714) 553-0666 M I r 7 ¢1, r)f r . . D. A OA Of)I w 1A I C1 774.401r1 WATER SYSTEM - DESIGN CRITERIA I . GENERAL A. Design shall conform to requirements of Insurance Service ' Office , AWWA Standards , DPW Standards , and HBMWD General Specifications . II . DEMANDS A. Domestic Demands 1 . I-n residential areas, assume 157. gallons per capita per day, and 3.5 persons per dwelling; unit for average day. 2. Maximum Day - Average Annual Day X 1 .5. 3. Peak Hour - Max. Day X 1.6. B. Industrial and commercial, demands require special design. C. Fire Demands 1 . 1 ,000 GPM in single family residential �+ 2. 3,000 GPM in multiple family residential not exceeding three stories 3. Up to 6 ,000 GPM in high rise residential and commercial areas ( 3 story and higher) • 4. 3,000 GPM in commercial , residential r 5. 1 ,500 GPM in school areas �# III . MAINS i + A. Sizes shall conform to Master Plan 1t B. Minimum size shall be 6" in residential , and 8" in commercial , �t industrial or network size supported by calculations . C. All mains shall be interconnected at intersections . D. If future extension is anticipated , see Standard Plan No. 608, 4" Blowoff Assembly. E. Dead ends are to be eliminated whenever possible. Dead ends over 300 feet requiring fire hydrants are to be looped, or an 8" main run to fire hydrants . DESIGN CRITER ht . 1 of 4 t01TY OF HUTI� s a Ism71 CALIFO A OV80"D 600 W F. Head loss shall not exceed five feet per 1 ,000 feet on Maximum Day flows or ten feet per 1 ,000 feet on Peak Hour or Maximum Day plus Fire Flow, whichever is greater. G. Thrust blocks shall be installed in accordance with Standard Plan No. 614. If not applicable , special design is required. H. All mains , 14" and larger, shall have profile shown on improvement plans . I . Pipe deflections shall normally be accomplished by means of standard fittings , the locations of which shall be detailed on the plans . No pipe bending. J. Mains shall be located only in vehicular travelways , not in parking or landscaped areas . W IV VALVES A. Valve spacing desired: 1 . 800 feet in residential areas 2. 500 feet in high value areas 3. 1/4 mile on supply lines 4. 1 mile on supply lines i 5. 1/2 mile for combination artery and supply lines 6 . 2 valves/tee, 3 valves/cross B. Valve locations desired : 1 . On the prolongation of the B.C. radial or property dine (Fire hydrant shall take precedence for ,w location) C. All high points shall be equipped with air release valves or located at fire hydrants . Air release or vacuum valves shall be in accordance with Standard Plan No. 611 . a f D. All low points shall be equipped with blow-offs or located at fire hydrants . E. Thrust blocks shall be installed in accordance with Standard No. 614. If not applicable, special de- sign is required. f . Located only in travelways , not in parking or land- scaped areas . V FIRE HYDRANTS ' (Cont'd next page) { man DES " C TERI Sht. 2 of 4 ' ITYOF H&WINOTM BEACH APMOVM: a 4. CAL. pp bat: October, 1486 �"�� 600 ,,., PLAN no. 60 V. FIR£ HYDRANTS CONT'D A. Hydrant spacing required: I . Fire Flow Average Area per .Required GPM Hydrant in Sq . Ft . 12000 1609000 _ 2 ,000 140,000 . 3 ,000 120,000 42000 100,000 5 ,000 90,000 i 69000 803000 2. 500 feet spacing standard with 600 feet maximum for residential areas . �-' 3. 300 feet spacing standard with 500 feet maximum for commercial and industrial areas ; all parts of all buildings . B. Hydrant locations required : I Ld 1 . On the prolongation of the B.C. radial orprop- erty1 line. g 2. Tactical location by Fire Department w. 3. Off largest main at intersection of mains . C. Hydrants shall be installed in accordance with f Standard Plan. If not applicable , special design L1 is required. , j D. -If cul-de-sac or travelway is over 350 feet long, a fire hydrant is required on the cul-de-sac street or travelway. VI . DOMESTIC SERVICES A. One separate service shall be installed to each dwelling 4 unit or commercial unit . B. Minimum size shall be 1" . C. Services shall be installed per Huntington Beach Standard Plans and Huntington Beach Water Division General Specifications . D. Fire and domestic services shall utilize separate i� service lines unless the use of a single domestic/ fire combined service (all water metered) is approved by Water Superintendent. (Cont 'd next vaee) _ MAE B&LIL- 1999L DES_ ' C TERI Sht. 3 of 4 L� Ap . it TY OF WAffI 11+Gl� CALFORW 0M CWC: October, 1986 ST"C"D 60O L E. Meters to be located behind curbs , present and future within public right of way or dedicated easement . F. Fire Services , city responsibility shall be up to property line, right-of-way, or easement line. VII . PRESSURES A. Minimum residual pressure shall be 20 p. s .i . at design fire flow plus maximum domestic demand, or peak hour, whichever is greater. B. When static pressures exceed 80 p.s . i . pressure , reducing valves may be required . Pressure reducing valves shall be installed and maintained by owner. M { • 4 i 11r4 t , L 1 1 1 I n t L DES C TERi Sht . 4 of G ITYOI` MWING70H BEAM A a CALWOMW an Dag: October, 1986 ITM"*080n c- �► 1 1>1 L r t _• �• a �' CIP U E'.A t T 15 Ci f r-- 'u-- z s , .` r _ v; �t�Uls .G DID cf)�,� ,ju . 1 F, tX 12 I 12 12 a i WOOD N' _is E k too (i) J—j E5sofl E A ]IR ' � O�[U�lp , f `" '`� �r' . .�;t,;.4 e• F S� `CIA � ' E L) L wT. ry0 W HUNTING T014 C!T Lu co LEGEND +- .,'I j, t:,5,.. � 8� �''T.. •1'..1! 1.� 8� Existing Waterline '4; 1+•� 1 Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton City oi•Huntington Beach N Existing Water System At Future Redevelopment Area o goo aoo 1200 September 1986 Scale In Feet K/J/C 6440 Figure I '94 Connect TO Proposed `.•I a=• :r'i 20-Inch Downtown Fire c, �•, r. , .,• _ Loop - r l.1 '' ] < st; . CY �!', f9• �•*� Q ~ • ,� .-. rf��' "+j ��'. �` � r -j 1. `J. G') f'r'�I Connect To Exist � I '� V�'"? ; �.l;f 3tv ,I. ' l : 1r ,12-Inch Pipe In G/ < Z_.I --' Connect Exist. t' 3 i_J r f _1 ��. O f Atlanta Ave.s`Y 1 (: - i 12-Inch Pipes �O 12' UP C �1�� : k.)12. Jr: 12' ' •fit t '� �� r Install B00 Ft. Of New.. r r�'� f 1`•`=l tl . el)• b 12-Inch Pipe In Realigned 10ranps Avs.4 k I �.., Extend Exist. 12-Inch Pipe 1200 Ft. To New 18-Inch '.� '�'• C/� r ! "`_ '•. "+ ,f Pipe In Pacilic Coast Hwy. so f °a V CA F ifi fe f ' O'"'E.A (W I 14 T [ `�:"rim:i • �� '`r � r' _ _� --�-'.�} d m ' �. `install 5400 Feel Of Ne K,M��w .;; .E`• O♦o'F< �,. � .�'�6 E C)YA I l c 16-Inch Pipe In P.C.H.. '.,:�'.;'+,; O `'l ! ,''�`� C �f t •. Lake St. & Olive Ave. r w 1� i � / Ti��Ok T 44 . T••A•1 f� t�r �� f�1C V LU � �LEGEND "w smmn;wn Existing Waterline I/'i// New 20—Inch Downtown Water Transmission Pipeline w Proposed 12—Inch Waterline ON ■ Proposed 18—kith Waterline Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton � ! City of Huntington Beach Alternative A 0 400 800 1200 September 1986 K/J/C 6440 *AW Scale In Feet Figure 3 w t• E Also Connect To Proposed• L E- 4� tr' 20-Inch Downtown Fire t f l "• ' Loop,? r �.I •.. 2 .4. •, f i•ti 1 •�. V. _ Connect To Exist ��I �., . , �,tJ('VkVF''t, �1 12—Inch Pipe Ili V i E"( ''•. it�' ►�� —� Connect •Exist. / Atlants Ave 1 ` . 12-Inch Pipes �+f '•4y� '� d 1 12• C)� C f)l1,E F-� 1.�12. ) ; s;,'.12• . y 19�'` V. i L 6t .. I .� .� ♦ ~'1 Extend Exist. 12-Inch PI 4e N .._.... -� ' �� i I Epl 1200 Ft. To Now 12-Inch y �•� �•� ~(f „ I��r� �~l � '' `�♦ Pipe in Pacific Coast Hwy. --� �� ? Hof 0 '�• i - Replacamen{' K +� �� ♦� _ Of 1100 Ft. '"".e�.:;c:. Of d-inch Pipe WI .•':�`:":" ' ♦ (install.3200 Ft. Of e 12-Inch Pipe In PCH --.New 12-Inch Pipe 1nX] c0 (Planned 0y Cl 'c'r ♦ �,•a� Beach Blvd. From i '`'�.;`r;.;;'''�• ''n �� 4 L �AAtlanta Ave. To P.C.H.I� I �}};f{ r ` rr 1W I ti UN T I G T Q1�I CI 1 �� f `'�F ♦ •'� ONA "'`e ` l kA Install 4900 Ft. Of New 1e-Inch Waterlln ' 'rj: S Extension in Proposed Walnut Ave. ReallQne+ent ;.•1 !,�-. (Or Other Proposed E-W Street Alignment '• U. L+ Through The Redevelopment Area.) :�w;,:',:;. �+ Install 3600 Ft. Of 12-inch Pipe To Replace Exist. &-Inch Pine In PCH " �;�;►��,,;. + LEGEND � ;°' �.�.,�•;., i �.•.• �. `�- Existing Waterline A d .4 New 20—inch Downtown Water Transmission Pipeline .}•e-.';1J r! r M aw ON Proposed 12—inch Waterline �• ■■it Proposed 18—Inch Waterline Extension Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton City of Huntington Beach am 8 0M Future 12—Inch Waterline Atternative C 0 4o0 Soo 1200 September 1986 Scale In Feet K/J/C 6440 Figure 4 fir+ �i TABLE I1I-9 RECOWENDED UNIT FLOW GENERATORS y FOR AVERAGE DRIP WEATHER FLOWS «,'. �.. Land Use Description Unit Flow Factorl ) i. Rl Low Density Residential 230 gpd/Dwelling Unit R2 Medium Density Residential 160 gpd/Dwelling Unit R3 High Density Residential 130 gpd/Dwelling Unit R4 Very High Density Residential 130 gpd/Dwelling Unit R5 Office-Professional 2000 gpd/Acre Jt_ RS Mixed Density Residential 160 gpd/Dwelling Unit RS4 Pacifica Community 3000 gpd/Acre C Commercial 2500 gpd/Acre CFE Schools 1500 gpd/Acre US community Centers (Parks) 800 gpd/Acre L. CFR Parks 100 gpd/Acre 111 Light Industrial 3000 gpd/Acre W M2 Industrial 3000 gpd/Acre MH Mobile Homes 120 gpd/Dwelling Unit 1 ) All Residential Flows are based on 70 gpcd a i vll 1II-21 ;: i two �� 4 c gast ORANGE COVNTY OIViS-ON • P O. BOX 3334 ANAHEIM.CALIF.92803 Oct. 8, 19V •�LC14'C� RY LS.; L-SA OCT T U 1 Park Plaza, Suites 500 9 19$7 Irvine, CA 92714 Attn: Deborah Baer. Assistant Planner Subject: The Waterfront EIR, Huntington Beach W This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be served by an existing main as shown on the attached atlas shut without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial-Industrial Market Services Staff by calling (714) 634-3173. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, D. C. Moore Technical Supervisor IA:du attachment W [flCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 4, Paul E. Cook Public Works Department Director (714) 536-5431 October 28 , 2987 LSA OCT 3 U 1981 1 Park Plaza , Suite 500 Irvine, California 92714 Attention: Ms. Deborah Baer SUBJECT: WATERFRONT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-2 rr Dear Deborah: The following is the City of Huntington Beach Water Division's response to your questionnaire, dated October 1, 1987, concerning the above mentioned project. ITEM #1 : Minimum level required to serve existing fire and domestic needs. ITEM #2: YES. The existing water pipelines serving this area are inadequate to serve the proposed project. Additionally, according to the City's 1987 Water Master Plan, the water supply capacity of the City is inadequate to rieet peak hour demands on a City-wide basis. Vw ITEM r 3. w, See attached table. ITEM 4: but Major water pipelines will need to be constructed to carry adequate fire flows to the project. The project's possible participation in mitigating future peak hour flow demands will need to be addressed 60 prior to issuance of permits. ITEM 5 : bw We are currently reviewing draft reports for the 1987 Water Master Plan. Page one Ms. Deborah Baer Waterfront Project w Environmental Impact Report 82-2 Page two 60 October 29, 1987 ITEM *6 : 4" Existing facilities are adequate for existing demands. Any demands greater than the existing will overtax these facilities. 4+ ITEM *7: Assuming implementation of the projects identified in the 1987 Water y„ Master Plan, City-wide peak hour deficiencies will be mitigated. The developer will need to construct those pipelines necessary to serve the development. ITEM #8: A. Internal water: Conservation designs utilizing low flow shower 6 heads; low flush toilets; reduced water pressure; serving water only on demand in restaurants; etc. 6.0 B. External water: Conservation designs utilizing low water demand landscaping (Xeriscape) ; berming to retain runoff for irrigation; utilization of drip irrigation where feasible; low angle sprinkler heads to minimize loss due to wind scattering; and irrigating only during off peak hours ( late evening) . Should you have any concerns or questions pertaining to this information, please feel free to contact me at (714) 536-5921. Very truly yours, - 1�rJ ' � y Ae 4ater. uperintendent JRR:EB:bb Ind i.. 60 *r are based on the consumption records, the total is expected to fall below the aniount produced duc to th&bccounted-for watcr. Demand coefficients were then confirmed and revised upwards slightly to reflect total water production, rather than consumption. Demand coefficients used for the water +� system analysis are summarized in Table 3-8. TABLE 3-8 E)UMNG DEMAND COEFFICIENTS ANNUAL PRODUCIIO:`: COEFFICIENT TYPE QE_L_aIVD_USE Q'PMI CRE? +a Low Density Residential 1.2 Medium Density Residential 2.2 - High Density Residential 2.7 Commercial 1.3 Manufacturing 3.7 Irrigated Open Space 1.1 Schools .02 GPM/Student i 6. W 3-11 60 W RESPONSE SHEET BUY 1 4 Mr. Stanley Tkaczyk LO Rainbow Disposal Co. For your convenience, we have provided space on this questionnaire for your LO answers, to be used as an attachment to your response. If you choose to answer these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to correspond to the questions. iw 1. What level of service do you presently provide to the project area? Cormercial and residential rubbish removal. W 2. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the types of services you provide? If yes, hcw? NO 3. What standard consumption or generation rates do you use in assessing �+ service demands? Whatever trash is generated must be removed at whatever frequency is needed to protect the health and safety of the project. W 4. Will the project create a need for expanding existing facilities or staff or constructing a new facility? Please explain. Yes. Eigher transfer station quota's must be approved through the city and county. 5. Are there any current plans for expansion of your facilities? If yes, L, please briefly describe. Permitted levels at Rainbow Transfer Station will have to be raised in order to handle the future increased volume of trash from new developments. b. What are the locations and capacity of your facilities serving the area and how near capacity are they now operating? 17121 Nichols Street in Huntington Beach. 1500 tons per day. Now approxi- mately 1200 to-i's a day and getting higher, and will increase over permitted tonage when Coyote Canyon Landfill closes in less than a year. 7. Do you foresee any problems in servicing this project? If yes, please explain. No. As long as transfer station quota's are increased. 8. Can you recommend any measures for mitigating project impacts that might be incorporated into the project? None at this time. V W BY LSA " RESPONSE SHEET OCT O 9 19$7 Mr. Steve Parker �+ Deputy Fire Marshall For your convenience, we have provided space on this questionnaire for your 1� answers, to be used as an attachment to your response. If you choose to answer these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to correspond to the questions. �- I. What level of service do you presently provide to the project area? fn�l/Jti«f Iw 2. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the types of services you provide? If yes, how? pt?a3�FcC Lvi4c. 'ac.� ;r_ 06f !r� 3?M510NS . FOCIM DC—U.c7W(MC`)V i , ti Conn P-1C TiU/V *t SLl CU-C &L''�AKr CAtlS , �Mr0'1 'Lt: TZI E5"trli��l511 ZL' .✓ tt�� i E�/:k.i:F / 3. What standard consumption or -generation rates do you use in assessing service demands? N& CAT-4 G rJ;r 'r Inri atA .? !//V/! 4. Will the project create a need for expanding existing facilities or staff or constructing a new facility? Please explain. 4L, . cF C:"(1Z.'`. STAY,cNS 15 N6,..: IN i?cam^tc 5. Are there any current plans for expansion of your facilities? If yes, please briefly describe. F. . 64 6. What are the locations and capacity of your facilities serving the area and how near capacity are they now operating? ►..A,c;: F -,rA- cN &IK(r+ve-4 r, Y c&_E ".V_C-S'tl 5, VYIA( 4v L4 A - sAArmA.T IJ IJ►.+� 4—VC-Ihai. U, . 7. DO you foresee an s c c y y problems in servicing this project.? If yes, please explain. *� 8. Can you recommend any measures for mitigating project impacts that might be incorporated into the project? ,,z.cv , -,Z ;�� Y,," 20 C-% LI rL Sit=t-t Y/ Si cl.a It ' rtl f'►:rLt�r!`C 71w� Ir. 6, Vicinity Map Lsa f• I li II' oll oI e o I ° !i Zi1= I }doI F+I �Ly pl°Gm ,�•�" •'\ ,� 'I,\� �� Io o �oo ol�o. oIo ° 'fir.d. � _ ! ._ of __ _-.�'4�:'Z.j�J i-� Y;I. ��_ _ JL I�ur- I •o I • IL— � : .�- --,..r�-.... ..�—r.r-�' Mill _ mr i:)6 �� `�11/0_ I�_" -1 _o c A [I ! - wSch. Palk I °lo r . pOF- /) a I'i.rJt-s �I I�b / �I i, I� ,, Q ,A!I Er�iY�Cpa S F �' �!y �Q-0 tl=l l I�.m If' •'�isdkee+lo r I gllh .� o° >. �. o\% <<, .I, 'LJLJ� — Irc - N i i _ NGTONI B �j--- "' ' '' �M tlJ III �I---1L� JL .Trailer J park, I— ` � HAMI 'rot 32) __ ' 01 \ -HUNTING TON i "The Waterfront" `�` I �J�'r�,l, i ® ;�, m' o. IRaIKi l J! �� •-A� r / \ *� "v-, ater f 1, •Tanks \ i� TAiNlfdB� C S' AarA ^•�•� PM. _ 5,;ale in Feet 0 1000 2000 W .�vC! VCR RESPONSE SHEET BY LS4 OCT 0 b Fir. Melvin 14. Bowman +� Director, Community Services Department For your convenience, we have provided space on this questionnaire for your answers, to be used as an attachment to your response. If you choose to answer these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to correspond to the questions. 1. What level of service do you presently provide to the project area? The adjacent property is the city's municipal beach parking lot and recreational beach facility. It is supervised and managed by the Community Services Dept. Police, Fire and other services are provided by those 2. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the types of services you depts. provide? If y3s, how? No 3. What standard consumption or generation rates do you use in assessing W service demands? Beach use only, No impact. 46.1 4. Will the project create a need for expanding existing facilities or staff or constructing a new facility? Please explain. No 5. Are there any current plans for expansion of your facilities? If yes, please briefly describe. We are planning to redesign the Huntington Street entrance to the muni- cipal beach parking and camping facility. 6. What are the locations and capacity of your facilities serving the area and how near capacity are they now operating? We are at full capacity during the summer (June, July, August, September) . During the off-season, attendance ran-es from 25 to 100 percent. This includes the parking, camping and beach facilities. 1. Do you foresee any problems in servicing this project? If yes, please explain. No `~ 8. Can you recommend any measures for mitigating project impacts that might be incorporated into the project? Difficult to answer not knowing the overall intent of the project. iuore detailed information is needed. L L LE3W ..vls OCT 21 . 4.4 T. Octooer 12. 1987 3680C L M5. DEBORAH BAER LSA I Park Plaza. Suite 500 Irvine. California 92714 SUBJECT: The Waterfront EiR. Huntington Beach Dear Ms. Baer: You have asked for information from General Telephone Companv of California to prepare an environmental impact report for a proposed residential hotel and commercial complex in Huntina_ton Beach. To answer vour specific auestions : 1 . We are presently providina residential customer telephone service to the existina trailer park (THE DRIFTWOOD BEACH CLUB MOBILE HOME PARK) . 2. There will be no adverse impact on the tvoes of services we Droviae. 3 . Upon receivina plans for tree proposed aevelooment. our Iw Forecastino Deoartmen. aetermines the service reauirement for the area. aW 4. Improvements and/or Extension of our facilities may be reauired. Standard Public Utilities Commission Rule 34 Aareements will be entered into with the actual developer for proportionate shared costs for facilities to the site. At the present time. there would be no need for expansina our existing staff or constructina a new facility. .� 5. Currentiv there are no plans for the expansion of our facilities. 6. Existing telephone aerial lines (on Doles ) and ouried cable. service the area. The approximate location is designated on the attached man. We are operating at an appropriate residential consumption level . L MS. DEBORAH BAER October 12. 1987 Page 2 INN 7 . Tne te 1 eonone fae I 1 i t i es to the Hunt i nat'on Beaen Inn at 21112 Pacific Coat. Hianway. are in orivately owned conduit within the moul its home nark. to relocates or maintain the wstem in place would be at the developer's. expense. 8. Tne earliest possible verification of final protect olans* and precise periods will insure satisfactory installation. If tnere are anv further questions concerning the EIR. please contact Jan Orme-Driscoll or Jerry Ferlita at ( 714) 891-5321 . �+ Any inouiries as to construction of the oroject should be referred to Joe Packi at ( 7141 691--5321 . The plans should be sent to our Building lndustry Consultant (36806-W04) i 6774 Westminster Avenue. Westminster. California. 92683-3788. Very truly vo'urs. RICHARD C. HERZOG iw NETWORK ENGINEERING ADMINISTRATOR - FACILITIES 1� him L Vicinity Map Lsa fhn r - Lb - ..�\ [viol("f'. a ,...I �f--,/' lS +Yk� I--1fa—ego (— RJI IE `\� 'J� 1� '.1 O IN •N P ! (� 'I �1. S � i "" � ° °o • I@_k LJ1 liTI • t `sue. _.V. �t /1VlT 1'41 ! U iLl _- __ �\ ;_ 1 Bra 28 a ° FT,ailer. -- - -- _p r , 0 U. '�. •� fir.�� l# I � .. { �.W1 •1'�� EFE.N E T PL-TELEP�i3 NE — H4MIC 70 �� Flll��n�� n � `I o- 5EPNICE TD MDEILE r The Waterfront' ...... ...... \ ��r zvy VVT. Pater \\� c, l �/ Tank$ BM N o R A,.-� . f. 2 Scale in Feet 'Q4r 0 1000 2000 lu+ G10N f "" °1�s Huntington Beach Union High School District 10251 Yorktown Avenue, Huntington Beach, California 92646 (714)964-3339 Lawrence Kemper, Ed.D. i , .-<. oy Superintendent of Schools c" ac"°° V. Board of Trustees -V d St Bonnie Castrey President NOV U J 1987 David Warfield Vice President Jerry Sullivan 4W Clerk October 28, 1987 Brian Lake Linda Moulton Ms. Angie Egli LSA 1 Park Plaza W Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92714 SUBJECT: Waterfront EIR, Huntington Beach Dear Ms. Egli : Enclosed are responses to questions posed in correspondence to the Superintendent. of Huntington -Beach Union High School District dated October 1, 1987. ,r. Cordially, David J. Hagen Assistant Superintendent 0. Business Services cc: Allan Burns, Attorney V I 0875J/ Y 1rr a" iW Mun". jm Senn C wernnsvn L;Mama C Fourgln ValtJ G EOIN4 plan V*% Evmq H.gk sc%W ANN SCOW 0 Gwra^Ce Cee.+ee EeuCrw Celle• RESPONSE SHEET 1. WHAT LEVEL OF SERVICE DO YOU PRESENTLY PROVIDE TO THE PROJECT AREA? W The Huntington Beach Union High School District is responsible for educating the high school age students living in the project area. 2. WILL THE PROPOSED LAND USE ADVERSELY IO PACT THE TYPES OF SERVICES YOU PRROVIDE? IF YES, H04? The 891 residential units planned in the project area will increase student enrollment in the HBUHSO and subsequently impact school staffing and facility utilization. 3. WHAT STANDARD C0,14SUMPTION OR GENERATION RATES DO YOU USE IN ASSESSING SERVICE DECiANDS? NIA. 4. WILL THE PROJECT CREATE A NEED FOR EXPANDING EXISTINS FACILITIES OR STAFF OR CONSTRUCTING A NEW FACILITY? PLEASE EXPLAIN. The increased enrollment could result in the need for additional 60 classrooms and facilities at our schools. We currently cannot house all of our students in the existing permanent facilities and have utilized temporary (portable) classrooms since the early 1970's. The additional students also place a greater strain on facilities and require renovation and reconstruction schedules to be accelerated. 5. ARE THERE ANY CURRENT PLANS FOR EXPANSION OF YOUR FACILITIES? IF YES, PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE. Currently, the HBUHSD has 65 portable classrooms and rents co,-,nunity facilities from one of the local elementary districts. We have not been in a financial position to add additional permanent facilities in order to house the current level of students and staff. If finances become available, we would like to construct permanent facilities in lieu of the portable and rented facilities. 6. WHAT ARE THE LOCATIONS AND CAPACITY OF YOUR FACILITIES SERVING THE AREA AND HOW �. 14EAR CAPACITY ARE THEY NOW OPERATING? Huntington Beach High School currently serves the project area. Their school enrollment was 101 students over projection for the 1987-88 school year. We are currently studying district demographics in order to monitor and project future treads for the high school. 7. DJ YOU FORESEE ANY PROBLEMS IN SERVICING THIS PROJECT? IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN. Yes. We will experience increased enrollment at HBHS which will place a strain on old and temporary facilities. Also, we will have to employ additional teachers to handle the increase in enrollment. 8. CAN YOU RECOMMEND ANY MEASURES FOR MITIG.ATINu PROJECT IWPACTS THAT MIGHT BE " INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT? Assistance with expansion and renovation of facilities as well as increased staffing to handle new student enrollments and needs. 0875J/ Lsti Nov 13 1987 RESPONSE SHEET Mr. G. L. Payne, Research & Planning Huntington Beach Police Department For your convenience, we have provided space on this questionnaire for your answers, to be used as an attachment to your response. If you choose to answer these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to correspond to the questions. 1. What level of service do you presently provide to the project area? Esc of pe iderr a `2. Will the proposed land .use adversely impact the types of services you <- provide? If.-,yes' :how?-'t/es,. e �o�-ooased `OYe 'GJ"// Me,�c� e Need ' ,Q a7aQe �?7��/,Oocve� due -4 -t1e �dd.�9� o� -7�-e op leV l�oa�s 3. What standard consumption or generation rates do you use in assessing' service demands? ; 2 z e %s 3"3 5' Ca l/s 4, Will the project create a need for expanding existing faculties or staff ' r, or: constructing a new facility? Please explain. Ai&O,,oOo c�ect )0/ ohle r�dd� Da ' /, GPI hofe/ r2ao/%rt. dia.r bPe.� /cola d �1i�f ' ra"Is -� sP,e v,ce- ake gi�e.eu ed Pee l�&/ l4?aI77 IJ4e VY e. -7-bat :Goo X .�'_ jOo a Al''s d SOO (a�A/rS6/Phere5 _ Z s - add.�5'o//z/ o{�i gees rvl�d��. 5. , any current plans for expansion of your aci1ities? If yes, } -please briefly describe: /)o ,0 aILU �—a•e e Y��c�/S�©�, 6. What are the locations and capacity of your facilities serving the area aannd how near capacity are they now operating? �t,�iyflii�rtl- 6— GI C'� �d .c C 7. Do you foresee any problems in servicing this project? If yes, please explain. NtIC� .� 4 �i /� so 1 e. �e. �1ze.= ,2��.rieL,� JD 8. Can you recommend any measures for mitigating project impacts that might be incorporated into the project? Ile GLC'C'2fs�bJ%icy "Fe ��/cP C�/ �. J ;�� h� �2o��c� a2ea J1�o�/Gl be �o7.sldz �,lJo -A 62 C.v,7 fldz2ed s � 11or v RECEIVED MAR 121997 PICU 4 SVL TA41 01 5455 GARDEN GROVE BOULEVAP0. WESTMINSTER. March 6, 1587 CAL FORMA 92S93 The Robert Mayer Corporation .. Mr. Shawn K. M i 1 1 bern 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Newport Beach, California 53658-6680 Dear Mr. Millbern: I have completed the review of the seven well records r`+ on file at the California Division of Oil and Gas, Lore Beach office. The wells were variously abandoned in the years from 1925 to IS67 and unfortunately none of the + abandonments meet the D. D. S. requirements for a housing developoent. 1� I have prepared Supplementary Notices to Reabandon each well, but have not mailed them to the D. D. S. Copies are enclosed for your information and consideration. W Tne estimated costs based upon the procedures outlined by the Notices are as follows: Signal-Huntington Beach City 61. . . . . . . . . . . . s 16, 050 Signal-Huntington Beach City 42. . . . . . . . . .. . . . 18, 00 Signal-McCallen 01. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, Eso r.. 'Mills Land & Water Co. 01. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 000 Mills Land & Water Co. 42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sz, aw Mills Land & Water Co. #3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 100 Mills Land & Water Co. 44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..14SQ02 v125, 375 These estimates are based upon the "most likely" case r.. but as you know reentering wells after some 50 years is hacardous and actual casts could be mach more. In cases where the m.achanioml conditions of the well proves to be r.. such that the }groper plugging is not practical the D. O. G. will modify their requiram nts but may also give a conditional abana enment. Ilr i Page R. Player Comp/S. Mi l l bern �r All wells will have to be re,-entered by drilling out top plugs. •Three of the "Mills" wells had three (3) strings of casing which were tut and recovered at the time of abandonment. Cement plugs were not placed over the stubs when the rasing was cut but now plugs are currently required i by the California Division of Dig and Gas (D. 0. 0. ? . To reabandon these wells, it will require placing 3 or 4 cement ' •. plugs. The "Mills" 4 well was not completed and has 3880' i of opera-hole which may pose considerable problems. The estimate is based upon: a "no problem" reabandonment--but an abandonment with this well condition could cast as much as a Enclosed is a copy of your site 'map - with - the wells platted using locations as reported to the D. D. G. on the original notice to drill the well. It is not unusual to find the actual well location to be a few feet from the L+ reported location see these plotted locations may not be exact. Please advise if you wish we to mail these notices to � the D. D. S. Very truly yours, Thomas H. Denton F California Registered Petroleum Engineer p308 ! THB/Ir i r f ' M Pree..unl P.earrrir.,/nr. I L Chrrrorl ALTI MORE 1�.4,22.3380 /\ 1 I V) 2.A 2 12 tl 23•4740 or. Ce Ae to' /\ ATLANTA, AvE ll Mc-rr.�rr e r. le,r of C. 1T 14':vr acne- 7,/rerr ,CAA f�e,e o r� 2 30-6724 23-4621 13AT 22348: i Ste"C✓./[^rre./:J 1Ti �4 > ♦-2 �l } 21-2766 -1 IA ♦I �\ I Tt co I �7i•'6er/ 1 \ 52-2310 Jor!1,,,♦ N.d" 44 `A.r./one-B:rNo•//,1 � � S U Q W � m Chc►ron C.. 1 2 /mjam Nr/7.n !i•r/rf/d `fr Or/L-ri/Mrl" 7� �\ 51-4493 Ser✓K[1.q.rK l �� Arr;—'l USA,/nr,OPr. 1 \ y. 41`.3-4500 "svrl teem N. 2 +1 �t ♦j 1 n .� QD Din//P a/ Co• _ � � Sur{ / �36-+630 �,arlgo n n <2•<SR� rr�n//t�-h""Jrrr�nAn,/iK /s \ B—A,A.rb—v, I � IJn/r L,A. H•nel 6 B r.Bin..B.r,•i, Jo L/) •\� �146-�el.A•ry- Porebnlar'A 1 . chevron Chevron h0 vE 0 606 La Habra, CA 93a31 Phone (213} 694-9385 Iti�;�' P. 1� 7 May 21, 1987 Facilities Location Request +0 Proposed Hotel Site Pacific Coast Highway and Huntington Street Tentative Tract Map 0 1304S Project W. 134-1201 City of Huntington Beach Our File: - , 60 Fuscol, Williams & Short 601 North Parkcenter Drive Suite 104 Santa Ana, California 92705 Attention: Mr. Mark K. Wingard 6-+ Gent lemen: In response to your letter dated April 1, 1987, regarding your proposed hotel site on 6a Pacific Coast Highway and Huntington Street, Tentative Tract No. 13045 in the City of Huntington Beach, Chevron cannot determine if our facilities (marked in red on attached map) will conflict with your proposed project. Therefore, we request that 6.o preliminary construction drawings be sent to our office when they become available. We request that the contractor notify Steve Conley of Chevron U.S.A. Inc., at (213) 694-7065 and Underground Service Alert at 1-800-422-4133, forty-eight (48) hours 6.+ prior to any on site work. Very truly yours,` Sharon D. High SDHIee r• Attachment w Iri ho Summary of Fiscal Impacts to the City of Huntington Beach from the Development of The Waterfront: (Source. Laventhol cC Hont al& Alot•tniber 23, 1957) Qne-Time Trnpact Fees: School District Fees $1,490,000 60 DoAmto%m Specific Plan Fee 43,000 Park Development Fee 1,159,000 Community Enrichment Fee 158,000 Water Connection Fees 142,000 Sewer Connection Fees 307,000 Sanitation District Connection Fees 3,515,000 Drainage Assessment 329,000 L Plan Check Fees 510,000 Building Permit Fees 785,000 1`4iscellaneous 4,000 Total $8,441,000 t� 25 Yenr Total Impact: One Time Impact Fees: $8,441,000 Land Lease&Acquisition Payments: 22,799,000 On-Going Net Revenue: (Transient Occupancy Tax,Property k• Tax Increment,Sales Tax and other miscellaneous revenue,net of developer reimbursements) 140,652,000 On-Going General Fund Expenditures: (Added Police,Fire,Public Works, Administration and other miscellaneous) (17,177,000) Total Nct.Fiscal Impact over 25 Years: 1154,726.(M Le Summary of Fiscal Impacts to the City of Huntington Beach +� from the Development of The Waterfront: (Source: Laventhol&11orriath, November 23, 19S7) One-13me ImpactFees: School District Fees $1,490,000 Downtown Specific Plan Fee 43,000 Park Development Fee 1,159,000 Community Ent'chment Fee 158,000 Water Connection Fees 142,000 Sewer Connection Fees 307,000 Sanitation District Connection Fees 3,515,000 Drainage Assessment 329,000 Plan Check Fees 510,000 Building Permit Fees 785,000 Miscellaneous 4.000 Total $8,4411000 25 Year Thal Impact: +. One Time Impact Fees: $8,441,000 Land Lease&Acquisition Payments:' 22,799,000 On-Going Net Revenue: (Transient Occupancy Tax,Property Tax Increment,Sales Tax and other �,. miscellaneous rc.vnue,net of developer reimbursements) 140,652,000 On-Goin General Fund Expenditures: (Added Po ice,Fire,Public NVorks, Administration and other miscellaneous) ,� 7.177.(M Total Net Fiscal Impact over 25 Years: 1,1 54.726.(M ik. THE ROBEPT CORr'ORATI ON � 5• �• nr v� UOV +�+ November 24, 1987 lyo� Department of Development Services � City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Attention: Mr.Scott Hess Re: Zone Change #87-7 +�+ Supplemental Information Dear Sirs: We wish to provide you with the following supplemental information regarding our proposed conversion of the Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park. In order to minimize the impact on park tenants, RLM Properties shall plan a phased closure of the park rather than an immediate bull; conversion. This will allow man}, tenants of the park to remain for a few more years past the expiration +.•� of their leases. More importantly, as a result of this phasing the actual number of relocation actions undenvay in an),given month A ill typically be a small fraction of the total number of coaches at the park. Therefore, the feasibility and manageability of the conversion of the park is tremendously enhanced by phasing. Utilizing the assistance of a professional civil engineer, a phasing plan for the part: has been devised based on the following criteria: a) Accommodation of the future development phasing contemplated by Rul Properties. V b) Minimum disruption of existing utility systcros and the ability to maintain basic services to remaining coaches. c) Maintaining proper access, traffic circulation and functional groupings of coaches in remaining phases. On the folloN;zng page is a table which summarizes the estimated phased conversion of the park based on the engineer's plans and the projected redevelopment schedule for the property. 60 E:x c_Sa�V p y 6.1 pl'e 'L !!E CC if On ram.•YLvv,7'C�•.r.J �r Estimated Phasin:f conversion w Park Space Numbers Total Count F-stim-ited Date of Closure 306-315 321-329 19 11/1985 11-19 200-204 316,320,401 65-120 301-305 317-319 +� 272-290 89 5/1990 1-10 v,. 431-441 21 5/1991 20-64 206-270 78 5/1992 402-430 442-444 32 5/1993 A minimum of six months prior to the date that the specific phase of the park«ill be closed, it wiIl be our plan to provide all affected tenants wrath a written notice advising them of the definite date of closure. If relocation assistance per a future approved Relocation Assistance Plan has not been previously arranged with the LJ affected tenants, the program would then be put into effect during that six month period. The estimated dates of phased closure as shown in the above table are the most 6w accurate estimates available at this time but may be subject to change. Changes in future development plans may alter the phasing plan pre%iously outlined. RUI Properties reserves the right to modify the planned phasing of the conversion of the park with regard to the actual dates of phase closure, the phasing order and partial phasing(sub-phasing). A specific Relocation Assistance Plan has not yet been prepared and submitted to `' the City for approval. However, when such a plan is prepared, it will comply with the standards set by the City's mobile home part: conversion ordinance, Article 927 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. In summary, that ordinance requires 4.0 that w-here it is feasible to relocate a mobile home, the applicant shall pay the cost of relocating the mobile home for a distance of up to 50 miles from the City. It is the intention of RLM Properties to devise a Relocation Assistance Plan that will 60 pay for the cost of relocation to any point within the State of California if so requested by the tenant. V V Additionally, there are a significant number of spaces in parks outside the 50 mile zone that N01 accept coaches of the age and condition of those at the Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park. These other parks often provide substantial incentives including comparatively low rents, free rents for an introductory period, movingg costs, etc. and attractive recreational facilities Such as golf courses, lakes, etc. On the basis of other park owners' past experience in conversions, some tenants of Driftwood will choose these alternatives, thereby lessening the demand for spaces in parks v ithin the 50 mile radius. It should also be noted that RUM Properties plans to construct on-site multi-family attached housing units. Pursuant to the requirements of Article 927, the applicant r, must provide to the park tenants a wTitten right of first refusal for those units constructed. It is the intent of RLM Properties to incor,'orate that requirement into a Relocation Assistance Plan and to further provide additional economic incentives in this regard. In August of this year,RLM Properties retained LSA Associates, Inc. to prepare a demograpphic profile of the park residents to help us plan for the conversion of the +. park. LSA reviewed data from three sources--a survey of mobile home parks performed by the City in 19S2, a questionnaire distributed by RLM Properties to the park tenants in May of this year, and also the tenant applications,leases, etc. on file at RLM Properties. From this it was estimated that there are approximately 379 residents at the Driftwood Beach Club h1obilehome Park. Approximately 215 residents, or 55%, are over 60 years of age. It is not surprising that approximately 50 i'a of the residents are earning under $20,000, probably on fixed incomes or pensions. Approximately 90% of the households arc characterized as having lo,,v- to-moderate incomes (based on County median) and 52%, or 122 tenants, have very low income compared to the County median. ' There are approximately 54 �r•• persons estimated to have disabilities. Seeing this demographic profile of the park tenants, it is the intention of RLM Properties to propose in a Relocation Assistance Plan to provide a "Relocation Coordinator" with an office near or at the park to assist in the implementation of the relocation program: thereby providing an additional level of individualized assistance and coordination. We trust this information is helpful and we hope to submit to you a Relocation Assistance Plan for the City's consideration and approval in the near future. Sincerely, Shawn K MiIlbern Project Manager cc: LSA Associates, Inc. 6. W imi TELECOMMUNICATION kw CONTACT: Mr. Chuck Winsor Orange County Sanitation District DATE: October 29, 1987 60 SUBJECT: wastewater service for the Waterfront Project 60 Mr. Chuck Winsor of the Orange County Sanitation District was contacted on October 29, concerning the District's response to the service question- naire mailed to their office on October 1. Mr. Winsor stated that the District provided sufficient information for the Waterfront EIR in their Notice of Preparation (HOP) response dated Sep- tember 28 (See Appendix A). He indicated that there is an existing 54 inch diameter trunk sewer line located on pacific Coast Highway. In addition, the proposed development would be required to initially tie-in to the City of Huntington Beach sewer system prior to connecting with the Counties system. a� L a r: iW [11emn Chevron U.SA. Inc. P. 0. Box 606, La Habra,CA 90631 . Phone (213) 694-9385 December 4, 1987 �+ Facilities Location Request Proposed Hotel Site Pacific Coast Highway and Huntington Street Tentative Tract Map No. 13045 Project No. 134-1201 City of Huntington Beach Our File: 87-1-79 &uscol, Williams & 5hor? I Park Plaza, Suite 500 L, Irvine, California 92714 Attention: Mrs. Angie Egli Gentlemen: In reference to our telephone conversation of November 24, 1987 regarding your proposed hotel site at subject location in the City of Huntington Beach, attached per your request is a map depicting the approximate location of Chevron's facilities. We request that preliminary construction drawings be sent to our office when they become available, If you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned at (213) 694-9385. Very truly yours, • Sharon D. High SDH/ee Attachment 6. 6d had 6d Ir. lr� w JW APPENDIX G PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION L 6w CIR.CULATION 'ELEMENT A.MENDMENT 84- 1 . JUNE 1984 Negative Peclarat.ion 84- 14 huntington beach planning division MU �'Circizon, nendzne3?t w+ a ' RESOLUTION N0. 5385 A RESOLUTION Or THE CITY COUNCIL Or THE CITY OF HUPdTINGTON BEACH ADOPTI14G CIRCULATION ELEI,7_NT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 TO THE GENERAL PLAN , CHANGING DESIGNATIONS OF PORTIONS OF ORANGE AVENUE, LAKE STREET, ATLANTA AVENUE, WALNUT AVENUE, FIFTH STREET AND SIXTH STREET WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach 6 desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives ; and A public hearing on adoption of Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1 to the General Plan was duly held by the Planning Commission on May 15, 1984 , and approved for recommen- dation to the City Council; and After giving notice as prescribed by Government Code sec- tion 653559 thb City Council held at least one public hearing to �.I consider said Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1; and At said hearing before the City Council, all persons de- siring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of the California Government Code, commencing with section 65350, that Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1 to the General Plan, consisting of the following changes, is hereby adopted : 1. Redesignation of .Orange Avenue from a secondary to a primary arterial between Sixth Street and the tie-in with Atlanta �+ Avenue at Lake Street; realignment of Lake Street (above Orange Avenue) to "T" into Orange Avenue via Third Street ; realignment 6W of Atlanta Avenue northwesterly into Orange Avenue; realignment of Lake Street (south of -Atlanta Avenue) to "T" into the Atlanta- 63 ,ICS:ahb 5/24/84 1 . r Orange connection; and deletion of the existing alignment of LEI Lake Street between Chicago Avenue and Olive Avenue . 2 . Redesignation of Walnut Avenue from a local street to a secondary arterial between Sixth Street and Lake Street ; and extension and designation of Walnut Avenue as a primary L. arterial from Lake Street to Beach Boulevard. 3. Realignment of Fifth Street to tie-in with Sixth Street between Hain Street and Orange Avenue and designation of Sixth Street as a secondary arterial; redesignation of Sixth Street from a local street to a primary arterial between Orange Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway; and deletion of Fifth Street W between Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of rune - 1984 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORN': GG�d✓ • 10 City Clerk City AxVzrne. REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED- AND APPROVED: . s ity Adm nistrat irector of Development Services . 2. W+ SrA•CF. OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANCE CITY OF "UNTINGTON BEACH ) 1, ALICIA H. VEN-NORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the 6* City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; &No that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of ,1unp 19$4_, by-the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: iW ncAlll.isterp ]Iy, Finlpy, E fl ey- _ NOES: Councilmen: �r c NOT VOTING: Thomas L ABSEW: Councilmen: Mandic a.. •ABSTAIN: Pattinson City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 4 i.r t;,.Z;.:rg ins—Jument is a correct copy r i 15e -60i�31 U file in this office. CA km Counei i tl�L Gtty�t •ii�±.,;iR�'::, B;�ih, Cal. w. Dy... .._.. x�. p Deputy 6a �•+ TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Methodology 1 1.2 History 4 1.3 Environmental Status 4 2.0 MAJOR AMENDMENT REQUESTS 5 2.1 Orange/Atlanta/Lake 5 2.2 Walnut Avenue Extension 9 2.3 Fifth/Sixth Streets 12 APPENDIX A Environmental Assessment 17 L. err F V • ar L ' it W i.r 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document constitutes an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan and is the first amendment to this element for 1984. The Circulation Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December, 1976; this is the fourth amendment to the Circulation Element since its original adoption. The adopted Circulation Plan of Arterial Street and Highways is presented in Figure I.I. 1.1 Methodology This report addresses a number of proposed changes to the Circulation Plan of Arterial Street and Highways (Figure 1-1) as requested by the Departments of Public Works and Development Services. The amendment requests (see Figure 1-2) consist of deletions and realignments of arterials and changes in arterial " designations. The proposed changes are analyzed in Section 2 in terms of existing and proposed circulation patterns and traffic volumes, impact on existing and planned land uses and consistency with adopted City goals, policies 6.m and plans. In order to evaluate arterial classifications needed to serve the current and future traffic conditions, certain criteria and assumptions are made regarding roadway capacities. The concept of capacity and the relationship between capacity and traffic volumes is expressed by means of levels of service, which is a method developed by the County of Orange for its Transportation Element to the General Plan. The concept of levels of service recognizes that while there is an absolute limit to the amount of traffic than can travel through a given corridor, conditions repidly deteriorate as traffic reaches that level. As traffic approaches capacity, congested conditions are experienced. There is general instability in the traffic flow whereby small disruptions can cause considerable fluctuations in speeds and delays. �„ 1 AMENDMENTS CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL n w+wc n+• STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 4368-DEC.12.1976 LEGEND: FREEWAY STREET CAPACFFY MAJOR __45,000 PRIMARY_. _30,000 1 ' - SECONDARY _ 20.000 1 f f \\ NOTE SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY \ NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT# WAY �. 045HE0 LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO 1 RIGHT OF.WAY EXISTS ,,\ .. \ i. r. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 �/ ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA t EXISTING CIRCULATION PLjkN 2 Figure 1-1 6d rr Levels of service are defined as A through F. Beyond level of service E, capacity is exceeded and arriving traffic will exceed the ability of a given street to accommodate it. The six levels of service are defined as follows: Level of Service A indicates no physical restriction on operating speeds. Level of Service B indicates stable flow with few restrictions on �6d operating speed. Level of Service C indicates stable flow, higher volume, and more 6.• restrictions on speed and lane changing. Level of Service D indicates approaching unstable flow, little freedom to maneuver, and condition tolerable for short periods. Level of Service E indicates unstable flow, lower operating speeds than level of service D, some momentary stoppages. Level of Service F indicates forced flow operation at low speeds where the highway acts as a storage area and there are many stoppages. The practice of the County and City when planning the arterial system is to use level of service C for link capacities (a link is the portion of the roadway between two arterial intersections), with the intent of maintaining level of service D through intersections. The following table shows the roadway capacity values the County and City use for circulation analysis of each type of facility. ROADWAY CAPACITY VALUES* &A Freeways/Transportation Corridors 6a Freeway Sixes At Level of Service D* 4 lanes 65,000 6 lanes 115,000 8 lanes 145,000 10 lanes 175,000 Arterial Highways Level of Service* Type of Arterial A B C D E F 6 lanes divided 361000 40,400 45,000 49,500 54,000 - two 4 lanes divided 24,000 27,000 30,000 33,000 36,000 - 4 lanes(undivided) 16,000 18,000 20,000 220000 24,000 - 2 lanes(undivided) 51000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 - L' *Maximum average daily traffic.(ADT) u �+ 3 W In analyzing the requests contained in this amendment, the City planning staff utilized information contained in the Downtown Specific Plan EIR, approved by the City Council in July, 1983, and a special traffic impact analysis report for the Downtown prepared by Greer and Company, a private engineering and planning firm, in August, 1983. The Public Works traffic section also provided the planning staff with updated traffic generation volumes and recommended ir. roadway sections for the areas of concern considered in the amendment. 1.2 History The three areas of concern included in this amendment are all centered in the City's downtown area. The proposed changes to the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways have been the focus of lengthy study and analysis �`` by City staff and are viewed as an integral part to the success of the City's downtown revitilization as envisioned under the Downtown Specific PIan and Redevelopment Plan. Planning efforts for this part of the City have a long history. Over the years, the land was subjected to intensive oil drilling, and has been the site of petroleum related storage, treatment and transport operations. During the 1960's and 1970's, when the City was expanding rapidly both in terms of area and population, growth was concentrated away from the downtown. The old downtown began an economic and physical decline. Businesses departed for the newer neighborhood shopping centers which were conveniently located near burgeoning residential subdivisions. Downtown became a place of surf shops and other commercial establishments primarily supported by seasonal beach W users and consequently experiencing severe seasonal fluctuations in their business. W Before the high demand for coastal development sites could bring a revitalizing influence to the downtown, the 1976 Coastal Act imposed new planning and development constraints. Under the Coastal Act, the City was required to produce a land use plan for its coastal zone, an area which included all of the downtown. After several years of concentrated effort, the City Council adopted a Coastal Land Use Plan in January, 1981, and later appropriated money to fund the development of a Specific Plan which would provide zoning for the Plan's implementation. During the . process of developing the Coastal Land Use Plan, extensive �.. background studies were undertaken which assessed many of the environmental issues affecting downtown including transportation and circulation. W The Downtown Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council in October, 1983, was drafted in the context of these detailed background investigations. It was designed to implement the Coastal Land_ Use Plan and the policies of the Coastal Act within the framework of local, environmental; political and bw economic constraints. The Plan promotes a mix of commercial, residential, and recreational uses which will be able to take advantage of the area's proximity to the ocean. integral to the Specific Plan's implementation is a circulation system which will augment the area's existing circulation plan and increase its safety and efficiency. W 1.3 Environmental Status Upon review of the proposed amendment, Negative Declaration No. 84-14 was prepared and posted for a ten day period beginning May 3, 1984. W W 4 66 Ir.+ W lw 2.0 MAJOR AMENDMENT REQUESTS The various amendment requests analyzed in this seection are shown in Figure 1-2 21 Ora ng a/At lent a/Lake 2.1.1 Background The Orange Avenue/Atlanta Avenue/Lake Street area of concern (see Figure 2-1) has been the focus of extensive analysis by City staff in planning for the downtown circulation system. Proposed to function as an east-west arterial connecting Beach Boulevard and Sixth Street, the Atlanta-Orange-Lake connection can serve as an alternative to Pacific Coast Highway in providing 4•' access to both the Downtown area and the beach. 2.1.2 Analysis The amendment request for area of concern 2.1 includes one arterial redesignation and three realignments: I. Redesignation of Orange Avenue from a secondary to a primary arterial between Sixth Street and the tie in with Atlanta Avenue at Lake Street. 2. Realignment of Lake Street (above Orange Avenue) to "T" into Orange Avenue via Third Street. L 3. Realignment of Atlanta Avenue northwesterly into Orange Avenue, and 5 rr ADAMS 4 w J , x o INDIA, d I � O 2.3 CD zI 2.1 a PRIN7ARY*„—mnm- � 2.2 a� � m SECONDARY DELETION 1 REALIGNMENT^R^�•��--, i AMENDMENT REQUESTS S 4: HUNTiNGTON SUCH CALIFORNIA Figure I-2 W PLANNING DIVISION 4. Realignment of Lake Street (south of Atlanta Avenue) to "T" into the Atlanta/Orange connection. S. Deletion of the existing Lake Street alignment between Chicago and Olive Avenues. Several revisions in the operation of the street system are contemplated as part of -the Downtown planning effort. These changes include signal system W revisions, an increased number of travel lanes on Pacific Coast Highway, the closure of certain streets, the construction of some street extensions, and the realignment of key arterials into the downtown area. L Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is the major traffic carrier in the Downtown Specific Plan area. Running parallel to the shoreline, it provides the principle access route connecting Huntington Beach with adjacent coastal cities. It also presents one of the most significant circulation problems in the downtown area. Even with the planned widening of PCH to six lanes by CalTrans (scheduled for completion in summer, 1986), alternative routes to the downtown and the beach are necessary to provide adequate circulation to serve the mix of uses planned for the area. The downtown planning studies identify the pier-bead and the area immediately across PCH as the focus for the greatest intensity of future development. An important emphasis of the design concept is to extend Main Street inland from the ocean and encourage pedestrian movement along the street. A second major activity node is proposed for the area bounded by 6th Street, Palm Avenue, Lake Street and Orange Avenue. A variety of activities is w.� envisioned for this "super-block" including office, residential, a retail center and a major open space as a terminus to Main Street. As the downtown redevelops, Atlanta Avenue is seen as a key route from Beach Boulevard to the downtown core and the City beach. By realigning Atlanta Avenue north-westerly irto Orange Avenue, an inland arterial route would be 16o formed which can be used as an alternative to Pacific Coast Highway (see Figure 2-1). Redesignating Orange Avenue from a secondary to a-primary between 6th Street and the tie in with Atlanta Avenue would create a direct primary arterial route from Beach Boulevard to the downtown core. Beyond Sixth Street, however, the continuation of Orange would remain a secondary with one travel lane in each direction. This, together with special traffic controls, will serve to discourage traffic from entering the predominantly residential Townlot area. Specific traffic signalization devices will be designed at the project implementation stage. The proposed realignment of Lake Street (south of Atlanta) to "T" into the Atlarte/Orange connection offers a primary arterial route to the beach. While the design of the Atlanta/Orange/Lake intersection will facilitate through traffic into and out of the downtown core via Beach Boulevard, the Lake Street +�+ connection additionally offers direct access to the City beach area without the use of PCH. North of Orange Avenue, Lake Street is proposed to be realigned into the Atlanta-Orange primary via the existing Third Street right-of-way. This will provide for the eventual abandonment of Lake between Orange and Chicago a.. 7 �y f+' J 4, slllwlwlllq REALIGNMENT ELETION �N,ON — •r + 'O�'••• ' . � •e. tip' �. �, fill`! . .+ '1►., d a f''• - O m M M'M--Nu Ad Ni ef m m PN m AN • 0MAW.r — — — llill111lll fill/0ilifl� \� ,• ' TL =e o 0o 01771C=3 �lil JillE --- i II II 1!•.FCI-TI 1�. 11If�T.•t1 � �•I-{^.t1 1fr�nIIf��'.II1fTI. i-�;^II �r ' I AVEµ� WLWJ) {.).ai1a[J l.�al.li.! LL :II 4LyL.tJnEli OCEAN CIJ C �� rc►,�1i Ott 6% TIT:, 06EAN — PACIiIC 2. 1- Orange Avenue/Atlanta Avenue] � NUNTINGiQN AF11CN 04LIF4RNIA - •- Lake ��"e e �' PLANNING DIVISION Avenues to allow for a large consolidated development project on this parcel. Additionally, by vacating this portion of Lake, northbound traffic on Lake will be fed into the Atlanta/Orange arterial and be discouraged from traveling through established residential neighborhoods north of Orange. w Current traffic volumes on Atlanta Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Lake Street average 4,900 daily trips. Orange Avenue, between Lake and Sixth, is presently estimated to accommodate 3,000 ADT. Both of these arterials ore operating at the A level of service for either a primary or secondary arterial at the present time. Assuming the ultimate development of the downtown as envisioned under the Downtown Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan, Public Works has projected the proposed Atlanta/Lake/Orange realignment would provide adequate handling of anticipated traffic volumes. As shown in Figure 2-2, the Atlanta-Orange arterial would accommodate significantly higher traffic volumes then what presently exists in the area. With an estimated 21,000 ADT on Orange between Lake and the tie in with Atlanta, and 13,500 ADT on Orange between Lake and Sixth (excluding beach-going trips), Public Works has estimated that these two arterial sections would operate at Levels of Service B and A, respectively. Public Works has recommended that Orange Avenue, between Sixth and Lake, be built as a four-lane divided primary arterial. Orange Avenue, from Lake to Atlanta, is to be built as's four-lane undivided primary arterial. The realigned Lace Street between PCH and the Atlanta/Orange tie in would herdic a projected 24,000 ADT and operate at i" Level of Service B. 2.1.3 Recommendation u . Staff recommends approval of all requests considered in Area of Concern 2.1. The proposed Atlanta/Orange/Lake realignment will provide a primary alternative route to PCH to both the beach and the downtown core. With the anticipated redevelopment of the downtown into a mix of residential, commercial, office and retail uses, it is essential to provide a primary arterial link into the downtown core to service these uses. 2.2 Walnut Avenue Extension 40 2.2.1 B ac kground Like the Atlanta/Orange/Lake realignment; the proposed Walnut Avenue extension has undergone thorough analysis by City staff •and is seen as a key east-west alternative route to PCH to the downtown and beach areas. 2.2.2 Analysis The amendment request for Area of Concern 2.2 is to designate Walnut Avenue as a primary arterial between Lake.Street and Beach Boulevard and from a w local street to a secondary between Lake Street and Sixth Street (see Figure 2-3). Two routes, Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street, connect the downtown area with the 405 Freeway and inland communities. Access to the freeway may be an important constraint on future development along the coast. The 9 NOTE: Projections are based on ultimate development of the Downtown Specific Plan and 'edevelonment Plan anticipated in 1995. �9 13500 13500 a'oo te N 15oOD oyoo wyoo WA0 V-r- RVENVLE S1g00 53000 13,100 504100 PACIFIC- IaOA45TI H1C;iiWAY PROJEC t ED TRAFFIC VOLUMES r HUNTINGTON BFAC14 CALIFORNIN PLANNING DIVISION Figure 2-2 L J 10 i5 t• '� • s \ - _ — - " -_ ) �� .row^ ,+• N. EIR Nr" NN NO U_ 77 EM m rm r sa tt's .at 1r13t9ntu sttitt 71 � woe � '�.. OCE�M CF t,r�iY�rMaiPi ocl AN f ACl/1C HUNiINGTON I3FACH CAIIFORNII� 2.2 Walnut Extension PLANNING DIVISION Figure 2-3 w ' downtown area is located in a less-then-ideal situation in terms of freeway accessibility, being approximately four miles from the freeway itself and +" connected by a limited number of arterials, segmerts of which are congested at times. In addition to the proposed Atlanta/Orange/Lake realignment, the Walnut Avenue extension can serve as another inland route to connect Beach Boulevard and Lake Street. Future plans are to tie this route into the planned extension of Hamilton Avenue at Beach Boulevard. This would not only provide convenient access to the future commercial areas east of Lake Street, but would also provide an improved means of travel between downtown Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, both the Newport and San Diego Freeways, and points beyond. Vehicular movement could be via either Hamilton Avenue/Victoria Street or, eventually, Banning Avenue/19th Street. ,6+ Currently, Walnut Avenue, west of Lake Street, carries an estimated 1,400 ADT. Assuming ultimate downtown development based on the Downtown Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan, the Department of Public Works has 1.. estimated that if Walnut is extended through to Beach Boulevard (eventually to tie in with Hamilton Avenue), Walnut will carry 15,000 ADT east of Lake Street and 10,400 ADT west of Lake, excluding beach-going trips. Upgraded to a primary status between Lake and Beach, and a secondary between 6th end Beach, Walnut can adequately accommodate the projected traffic generation operating at Level of Service B, according to the Department of Public Works estimates. Public Works has recommended that Walnut from Beach to Sixth be developed as four undivided lanes. 2.2.3 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes considered in Area of Concern 2.2. The Walnut extension, as proposed will serve as an important east-west connector to the downtown core and beaches, and alleviate traffic congestion on PCH.. Additionally, the eventual connection of Walnut into the proposed Hamilton extension will allow for a direct route from Costa Mesa and adjacent areas into the downtown. 2..3 Fif th/Sixth Street k.. 2.3.1 Background On October 10, 1983, the City Council approved the Downtown Specific Plan. In addition to setting land uses-and development standards for the area, the Specific Plan also contained a preliminary analysis of traffic circulation. The study recommended several arterial changes in the Downtown and points of concern for further evaluation. Among the traffic recommendations contained in the Specific Plan was that Sixth Street be redesignated from a local street to a secondary arterial from Main Street to Pacific Coast Highway, thereby replacing Fifth Street which is presently designated as a secondary. The issue W of how Sixth Street should tie into Main Street and Lake-Street .was set aside for additional study. City staff has since analyzed circulation in the downtown area, and developed several proposed changes to the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highweys to address the issues identified in the Specific Plan. This amendment item includes three components: �`•+ 12 I Xx C J f � REALIGNMENT �P 'I M27,177 DELETION W - - AC'._ C 3 �',, ':" _,o�, `'• `,gyp. .gyp'tirti/;> Pfi' '��r"sr'-�. � �•�•f � � ,/ +e�-�. ,, - _- - - - hd a� 1 \\ S S CN�E ow AVE OLILE ^ A E ri __ OC _. -- W ___ _.. W �- _Z - U _ w _�H � ~ —. 13 DER AVENUE OCEAN' GEAN OCEAN i PAGIPIG - - - 2.3 Fifth/Sixth Streets HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIN �' g q PLANNING DIVISION Fi cure 2-4 1.r a) Realignment of Fifth Street to tie in with Sixth Street between Main Street end Orange Avenue, and the redesignation of this link as a secondary arterial. b) Redesignation of Sixth Street from a local street to a primary arterial between Orange Avenue and Pacif is Coast Highway. c) Deletion of Fifth Street as a secondary arterial between Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. These proposed changes are shown in Figure 2-4. 2.3.2 Analysis This section analyzes the proposed changes to Fifth Street and Sixth Street in terms of the effects on (1) circulation patterns within the downtown and in the surrounding area including existing and projected traffic volumes, and (2) existing and future land uses in the area. In 1976, Main Street was downgraded to a local collector south of Seventeenth Street on the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. It was intended that Senventeenth Street and Lake Street provide primary arterial access to-the downtown area. Fifth Street replaced Main Street on the plan as a secondary carrier of traffic to the downtown core and beach via Lake Street, Subsequent street improvements continued to de-emphasize Main Street and augment Fifth Street in the downtown. In 1981, Main Street from Orange Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway was modified to a one-way street to serve primarily the retail stores and offices within the core area. The intersection of Fifth Street and Pacific Coast Highway was signalized, and was intended to divert beach-connecting trips via Fifth Street. Existing traffic volumes on Main Street and Fifth Street south of Orange Avenue average 2,600 and 3,300 trips per day respectively. Sixth Street currently intersects Main Street at Acacia Avenue and functions essentially as a residential collector at 800 trips per day. The land use intensities under the Local Coastal Element and Downtown Specific Plan will dramatically increase traffic entering and leaving the downtown area in the future. The proposed redeveloped area will be comprised of a mixture of commercial uses of various types: office buildings, residential units, hotels, and recreational facilities. It is projected that approximately 93,863 daily trips will be generated from redevelopment above existing traffic volumes, and excluding beach-going trips. The proposed changes to Fifth Street and Sixth Street In conjunction with the recommended Orange Avenue-Lake Street-Atlanta Avenue connections (Area 2.1) and the Walnut extension (Area �.. 2.2) are designed to accommodate this projected traff ic. The deletion of Fifth Street from the Circulation Element would divert most traffic to Sixth Street. The Department of Public Works estimates that the realigned section of Fifth Street with Sixth Street between Lake Street and Orange Avenue would carry 10,000 vehicles daily while Sixth Street south of Orange Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway would carry an estimated 15,800 vehicles (Figure 2-2). Considering the design constraints in realigning Fifth Street with Sixth Street above Orange Avenue, this segment would be built as a two-lane divided secondary arterial, and accommodate the projected traffic at 14 Level of Service D. Sixth Street south of Orange Avenue would be designed as a four-lane undivided primary arterial to accommodate the projected traffic at Level of Service B. The Fifth-Sixth Street connection is designed to provide northerly access from "W Lake Street and Main Street into the proposed commercial town square. This concept calls for the development of a 24 acre commercial superblock bounded by the proposed Fifth-Sixth Street connection, Lake Street, and Orange �.• Avenue. In addition to consolidating property, the superblock concept will require that Main Street, Fifth Street, Pecan Avenue, and alleyways within the project area be vacated This would eliminate what is essentially a six-way i, intersection that now exists at Main, Fifth, and Pecan. The proposed Fifth-Sixth Street connection would also provide a secondary connection between Lake Street and Orange Avenue. However, it is intended that most of the traffic using Sixth Street be directed to and from that arterial via the Orange Avenue-Atlanta Avenue connection end the Walnut Avenue extension. To encourage this flow, Sixth Street would be designated as a primary arterial below Orange Avenue with an offset alignment to the northerly Sixth Street segment at the Orange Avenue intersection. This would help limit traffic on Sixth Street above Orange Avenue to local residential users and ■I.. commercially-oriented users of the town square area. 2.3.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of all requests considered in Area of Concern 2.3. The configuration of the proposed commercial town square necessitates deleting Fifth Street and designating Sixth Street as the arterial carrier from Lake Street to Pacific Coast Highway. The redesignation of Sixth Street from a local street to a primary arterial below Orange Avenue would provide a northerly anchor to the downtown circulation system to accommodate the high 4r traffic volumes generated by redevelopment of the core area. w V {I I I No di 1 15 APPENDIX A 17 CITY OF HUNTlNGTO;; HACH INITIAL STUDY OF E1;VIRONMENTAL IMPACTS e� 1 . BACKGROUND 1 . Applicant -.City of Huntington 2. address 2000 ?lain Street n_each 3. Telephone 536-5271 7 . Pr'O,je l t L6e_dtl0n "1lovnt own" Hunt i nf,,tan Ilcach t . I'Iojoct Title/Description Circulation Amendmetnt 84-1 H . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (Explanations of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers are required on ,attached sheet). 1 . Physical Environment: Will the project have a significant impact on the physical environment with respect to: a) hydrology, b) air quality, c) geology, d) flora and fauna, e) noise, f) archaeological/historical . Yes Maybe No X Other 2. Impact of Environment on Project: Will the project be subject to impacts from the surrounding environment? i.e. , natural environment; manmade environment. Yes Maybe 110 x 3. Impacts on Public Services: Will the project have a significant impact upon, or re- sult in a need for a new or altered government service in any of the following , areas: fire, police, schools, parks or other governmental agencies. Yes Ma•yhe X 140 q. Innoacts on Praffic/Circulation: Will project result in substantial vehicular 'lovc- mpnt, or impact surrounding circulation system, or increase traffic hazard? Yes X_ Maybe No 5. Will the project result in a substantial alteration or have a negative affect ^^ the existing: land use, population/housing, energy/utilities, natural resourctz , Human health? Yes _ -_ 1laybe No x r , Other potential environmental impacts not discussed above (see attached sheet). 111 . OTHrR RI"SPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND/OR PERSONS CONTACTED ( ) See Attached. ( x ) Not Applicable �., IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1. Will project degrade quality of environment? Yes Maybe No x 60* Z. Will project achieve short-tern goals to the disadvantage or long-term, enviror,,,,rnta? goals? Yes Maybe No x 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? Yes Maybe No x 4. Will the project adversely affect human beings either directly or indirectly? Yes i Saybe No x r� V. DETCRMINATION X ) Negative Declaration ( ) Negative Declaration With Mitigation tti ( ) Environmental Impact Report U,1.E SIGNi;TURE � �d41L<" J i - r. II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of "Yes" and "Maybe" answers) 3. If the Circulation Element Amendment is adopted, it will facilitate the response time of public safety personnel to the "downtown" community. 4 . The project will not directly increase the potential for traffic hazard. It will alleviate the congestion on the surrounding State highway and facilitate traffic flow within the im�ediate area. a. V Y.I Ib �Iw 6W �r. APPENDIX 11 CITY ORDINANCES w L 60 Ir+ Mari PLANNING MOBILEHOME OVERLAY ZO'DESIRENOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE�OF USE S.9270 ARTICLE 927 MOB ILEHOME OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE (Ord 250 - 1 , 2699-7/84) S. 9270 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE. (a) The mobilehome park residential zone is hereby established as an overlay zone to i.. permit the application of mobilehome zone to parcels of land developed with mobilehome parks and zoned with a primary underlying zoning designation. The purpose of the mobilehome park zone is to establish a means of providing a reasonable and proper transition from the present mobilehome park use to the uses permitted in the underlying zoning districts. Wherever reference is made in this section or on any districting maps to MHP, it shall mean mobilehore park overlay zone. (b) All findings required for removal of the MHP overlay zone shall also be applied to requests for rezoning existir.3 MH districts to different zoning districts, and for any change of use as hereinafter defined. (c) All findings required for removal of the MHP overlay, rezoning from MH or change in use shall be required for all property upon which a mobilehome park' then exists. LA or upon which a mobilehome park existed at any time within the preceding five (5) years. S. 9270. 1 DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases whenever used in this article shall be construed as defined herein unless from the context a different rieaning is intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and )hrases: (a) Affordable Unit. "Affordable unit" shall mean a "for sale" unit that is sold to and occupied by a low moderate income household. "Affordable unit" shall also mean a rental unit for which the monthly payment does not exceed 25 percent of V the household's income for low income households or 30 percent of the household's income for moderate income households. (b) Applicant. "Applicant" shall mean the person, firm, corporation, partnership , or other entity having leasehold interest or fee ownership in the operation of a mobilehome park. (c) Change of Use. "Change of use" shall mean use of the park for a purpose other than the rental or the holding out for rent of two or more mobilehome sites to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation, and shall not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation. "Change of use" may affect an entire park or any portion thereof, and such "change of use" shall include, but is not limited to, a change of a park or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock 6, cooperative, planned unit development, commercial use, industrial use, or vacant land. (d) Eligible Owner. "Eligible owner" shall mean any mobilehome owner owning a mobilehome in -a park at the time of issuance of the notice of intent to change use, but shall not include any mobilehome owner who is renting his unit to another party at such time. (e) Market Rate Unit. "Market rate unit" shall mean a residential unit that is �. . sold on the open market .without constraints imposed on the sales price, rental rate, or buyer qualifications. 161 ( f ) Mobilehome. "Mobileho-me" is a structure transportable on a street or highway by authorization or a permit in one or more sections, designed and equip,ed for W - ;�� Yuu;ttircMt UvtKLAY cU,\EslnEr�0V:+�l:LLuti1NGlCFaGE 4F USE PLAtiti'?.►. 60human habitation, to be used with or without a foundation system. Therefore, "mobilehome" cioes not include recreation vehicles, commercial coaches, or factory-built housing rest- ing upon permanent foundations. 6W Nft.& (g)' Mobilehome Park. "Mobilehome park" is any area of land used primarily for the placing, parking or storing of two or more mobilehomes for housekeeping, sleeping ,tor living quarters. (h) Mobilehome Space. "Mobilehome space" is any area, tract of land, site, lot, pad home.or portion of a mobilehome park designated or used for the occupancy of one mobile- ( i ) Notice of Intent to Change Use. "Notice of Intent to Change Use" shall mean notification as required byCalifornia Civil Code section 798.55(f)(2) . (j) Original Purchase Price. "Original purchase price" shall rrean the price which �- the mobilehome owner, occupying the mobilehome space, originally paid for the mobilehome and any attached optional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms. 1n determining the price, the regulation:, for establishing the cost basis, as found 6,in the United States Code Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, shall be used. Such purchase price shall be verified by the mobiiehome owner through the existence of sales receipts indicating date of purchase, monetary amount of purchase, identification or model numbers of all items purchased and the party from whom the items were purchased. �'`"Original purchase price" shall not include cost of financing. ,(k) Senior Citizen Unit. "Senior citizen unit" shall mean a residential unit which meets the standards for an affordable unit which is situated in a project that ''pis designed to accommodate senior citizens through special financing programs and/or modified development standards. 9270.2 CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION! OF ZONc. The City Council , in making its determination whether to apply the MHP zone to any particular property, shall consider the following factors as to whether such zone is appropriate: 6 (a) Existing zoning and general plan designations. LO(b) The age and condition fo the mobilehome park. (c) The relationship of the mobilehome park to surrounding land uses. &-;d) Vahicle access to the area under consideration. �e) Site area. ( f) Site configuration. 9270.3 USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted in an MHP � '--- district: �— 6,a) Mobilehome parks as regulated by the State of California. (h) Accessory uses and structures incidental to the operation of mobilehome parks such as recreation facilities and/or co rnunity centers of a noncommercial nature, "ither public or private .storare facilities for the use of the cobilehome park resi- dents and any other uses or structures that are incidental to the operation of a oh i 1 chomp park. �c:) Whenever property is zoned Mlif, any use permitted by the underlying zoning of such property shall not be permitted. 12182 PLANNING NQBILEHO�c O%TRLAY 7.0''ESIREKOVAL/REZONING/CHkNGE OF USE S. 9270.4 'w S. 9270.4 REMOVAL OF THE EDB1LEKOXE PAtX OVERLAY ZONE, M ZONE OR CEANGE OF USE. The City Council shall not approve a zone change for any parcel When such change would have the effect of removing the YIP or Ki designation from that w property, or approve a change of use unless the following findings have been evade: (a) Those findings required by California Government Code section 66427.4. (b) That the proposed zoning is consistent With the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach and all elements thereof. (c) That the proposed change of land use will not have an adverse effect upon the goals and policies for provision of adequate housing for all economic segments of the com.runity, as set forth in the Housing Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. (d) That the property which is the subject of the zone change would be more appropriately developed in accordance with uses permitted by the underlying 6.0 zoning, or proposed zoning. (e) That a notice of intent to change the use of a mobilehome park and relocate i.r mobilehome owners was delivered to such owners and to the Department of Development Services at least eighteen (18) months prior to the date the mobilehome owner is required to vacate the premises. (f) That an "impact of conversion report" has been submitted by the applicant and found to be adequate by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Failure to submit such item within twelve (12) months from the date of the notice shall result in the nullification of the Notice of Intent to Change Use. The Planning Commission shall take the following items into consideration when addressing the adequacy of the report: (i) The date of the manufacture and size of each mobilehome in the park. (ii) Makeup of existing households, including family size, household income, length of residence, age of tenants, owner or renter, and primary or seasonal resident. ( iii) Replacement space availability, monthly rents and coach acceptance criteria in mobilehome parks within fifty (50) miles of the city. The applicant shall make copies of the report available to each resident of the w nobilehome park at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the impact report. !W (g) That a relocation assistance plan has been submitted by the applicant and found to be adequate by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. S. 9270.5 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAIN. STA?:D.P.DS. The following shall constitute 4"' minimsm standards for an acceptable relocation assistance plan: (a) All eligible mobilehome owners shall be entitled to receive the cost of 6 relocation. Those costs shall be limited to disconnection and breakdown of the mobilehone, transportation of the mobilehome, all readily movable appurtenances and contents to another mobilehome park and the cost of all hookups at the new site. All such experses shall be identified and paid by the applicant at the tame of the move. he park to which the unit is relocated shall be within fifty (50) miles of the city. if the mobilehome ou-ner desires relocation beyond fifty (50) miles, the mobilehome owner 7184 61 S, 92704 5(A) FOBILEBOYE M7PLAY ZONTS/REKOVAL/REZONING/CHANCE OF USE PLANNING w shall be responsible for the coats associated with relocation beyond the fifty (50) mils limit established by this article. (b) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated to another park in accordance with 6,e procedures herein, the applicant shall purchase the mobilehome and any optional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms from the mobilehomne owner at an amount to be determined after establishing the mobilehome owner's original purchase price, and the date of original purchase. Where proof of purchase is not available or verifiable, and the manufacturer' s original W list price cannot be ascertained, the value of the mobilehome shall be determined by averaging the sales price of the three (3) most comparable units of similar age, size, and quality found in the applicant's mobilehome park at the time the mobilehome owner purchased the site. When the original price is ascertained, the amount of compensation to be paid by an applicant to a mobilehome owner shall be determined by using the following method: Mobilehomes shall be depreciated at a rate of 4.7 percent per year, beginning with the date the mobilehome owner originally purchased the mobilehome and/or optional equipment and continuing until the date of issuance by the applicant of the Notice of Intent to Change Use. (2699-7/84) ad The applicant may grant one (1) six-month extension to the length of time given to the mobilehome owners in the Notice of Intent to Change Use by notifying the mobilehome owners of such extension at least four (4) months prior to the date specified in such notice. The extension shall be granted for no more and no less than six (6) months. (2699-7/84) An applicant may, with the consent of the mobilehome owner, transfer a mobilehome unit to another space in the park. Such transfer shall not constitute permanent relocation, and the cost of all such moves shall be borne by the applicant. w The mobilehome owner's compensation for any mobilehome that cannot be relocated to any other park shall be no less than four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500) plus moving expenses up to five hundred dollars ($500), an aggregate not to exceed five thousand dollars 05,000). In order to reduce the impact of relocation to alternative housing further, the applicant shall pay a cost of housing differential of 50 percent of the increase in the cost of housing for the first year, not to exceed seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) for each nobilehome owner. Aw+ (c) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated in accordance with the procedures contained herein, the applicant has the option of making available suitable alternative housing, together with compensation, to such mobilehome owner. w Where alternative housing is proposed, it shall be available in the following categories: W (aa) Senior citizen housing; (bb) • Affordable housing; and (cc) A,arket rate housing. 6' (d) Any applicant and mobilehome owner r..ay mutually agree to modify the standards anv methods contained in this section, and in no case shall an applicant be required 6# 7/by Pl.kl%'tiING MOBILEHOKE OVERLAY ZO'-r.SIRE?!O�PEZOSING CHANCE OF USE S. 9270.5{d _ to relocate or purchase a mobilehome prior to the date of the Notice of Intent to Change Use. (e) Appeals from the amount of compensation to be given a mobilehome owner shall be filed with the applicant within thirty (30) days after the nobilehome owner has notice of the amount he is to receive. The applicant shall acknowledge any appeal within thirty (30) days, and if an agreement cannot be reached, the matter shall be referred to a professional arbitrator. (f) to determine whether compensation accurately reflects the original cost of the mobilehome, the applicant and/or professional arbitrator shall rely on records 1 furnished by the mobilehome owner, or if such records are not available, the mobilehome �+ shall be subjected to the comparison test set out elsewhere in this section. All optional equipment and appurtenances shall be valued in the same scanner. W (g) that the nobilehone owners have received written guarantee of first-right-of-refusal to purchase units if the development which replaces the mobilehome park is to be residential in whole or in part. xa (h) That the applicant has complied With all applicable city ordinances and state regulations in effect at the time the relocation assistance plan was approved. M That the applicant has conplied with the conditions of approval, including the following items; V M Mobilehome owners will not be forced to relocate prior to the end of their leases. bw" (ii) Mobilehome owners have been given the right to terminate their leases upon approval of the relocation assistance plan. (iii), Demolition or construction will not occur until the relocation assistance plan is approved and the eighteen (18) nonth notification period has expired. 6W S. 9270.6 ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS. The final forms of the impact of conversion report and relocation assistance plan will be as approved by the Planning Com:aission. The reports, if acceptable, shall remain on file with the Department of Development Services for review by any interested persons. Each of the mobilehome owners shall be given written notification within ten (10) days of approval of the relocation assistance plan. S. 9270.7 ACTION BY PUNNINC COMMISSION. At the conclusion of its hearing, noticed as provided in this code, the Planning Commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny said impact of conversion report and relocation + assistance plan pursuant to the provisions of this article, and such decision shall be supported by a resolution of the Planning Corunission, setting forth its findings. 6 S. 9270.8 FEES REQUIRED. Each impact report and relocation assistance plan submitted shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City Council. w 7/84 w W W Mw APPENDIX I DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE FOR DRIFTWOOD MOBILE SOME PARK HUNTINGTON BENCH L r.r Lsa wr DEMOGRAP14IC PROFILE FOR DRIFTWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK HUNTINGTON BEACH w ... PREPARED FOR THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE 11050 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PREPARED BY w. ' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. I PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 W August 10, 1987 tir M boo Lsa TABLE OF CONTENTS bid PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 1 `. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 POPULATION DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 MOBILE HOME DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 8 �., REFERENCES .. . ... . . . ... ..... ... ... . . ... . . .. ..... .... ................. 9 8PPENDICES Appendix A - 1982 Mobile Home Park Survey Appendix B - I987 Survey by The Robert Mayer Corporation Appendix C - Statistic Tabulations t. Appendix D - Mobile Home Physical Characteristics Appendix E - Statement of Qualifications kw W 1 r r i. it 4 Lsa L INTRODUCTION +W The following analysis provides a demographic profile of the residents within the Driftwood Mobile Home Park, located in the City of Huntington Beach. This examination was performed to aid The Robert Mayer Corporation in their preparation of an Impact Conversion Report for the survey area required by the City of Huntington Beach Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance. An Impact Conversion Report is necessary due to the proposed conversion of- the mobile home park. The developer is required, by ordinance, to determine the demographic background of the mobile home park to assist in creating a relocation assis- tance plan. By determining current population trends within the park, a comprehensive relocation plan is more easily and accurately developed. 6m r w r.r w Lsa METHODOLOGY +w In preparation of this analysis, a search of a variety of resources was pursued which would uncover pertinent demographic statistics for the mobile hone park population. This search was conducted at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services; University of California Irvine library; California State University, Fullerton library, and The Robert Mayer Corporation files. Five potentially helpful resources were found: 1980 Census data, a 1979 Special Census completed by the State Department of +� Finance, a 1982 mobile home park performed by the City of Huntington Beach, a 1987 survey conducted by The Robert Mayer Corporation, and The Robert Mayer Corporation tenant records. Each resource was evaluated for its appropriate- ness in representing the Driftwood Mobile Home Park population. Two of these resources, the Census Data and 1979 Special Survey, were determined to lack sufficient detail for our analysis. The 198D Census data could not be utilized due to its lack of specifi- city regarding the subject population. Block data for the project area had been suppressed and was unavailable for examination. The subsequent level of detail was block group data, however, the population statistics did not characterize the mobile home park residents. Due to the size of the block group survey area, single family homes as well as mobile homes were included within the survey boundaries. Mobile homes represented a small portion of the housing units within the area. Therefore, block group data does not adequately provide a profile of the mobile home residents, and cannot be w utilized for this analysis. The Special Census conducted by the State Department of Finance was also deemed inadequate due to its age, limited amount of information and inclusion w. of the adjacent Pacific Park Mobile Hone Park in the survey population. After this examination, three resources were determined to provide adequate information regarding the study population. These include: the City's 1982 Mobile Home Park Survey, a 1987 survey conducted by Ue Robert Mayer Corporation and tenant files collected by The Robert Mayer Corporation. Each of these are discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs. The City's 1982 Mobile Home Survey (appendix A) was conducted by the Community Development Department of the City of Huntington Beach. The City surveyed and compiled statistics for all mobile home parks within Huntington Beach. Response rates for the survey were excellent, 67 percent, for all parks and 48 percent for the Driftwood Mobile Home Park. This response rate is considered excellent. This survey is a very reliable source for determin- W 2 V r 606 `sa ing the project area's demographics. Since, the Driftwood survey was done in 1982 figures have been projected and extrapolated, as necessary, to determine statistics for 1987. It was assured that the 1982 ratios remained constant to 1987. These statistics were applied to the existing 237 coaches. The original responses, computer coded on a master tape, were used to establish the statistics presented in this report. Additionally, cross tabulations were performed for specific indicators, such as disabled by age and disabled by unit, to pinpoint special needs. Please note that income statistics were inflated by 30.2%, consistent with the increase in Orange County Median Income from 1981-1986. This survey represents an excellent population sample that can be used in conjunction with information compiled from other re- sources. i.o The Robert Mayer Corporation distributed a questionnaire to Driftwood residents in May of 1987 (Appendix B). The response rate is 36 of 237 coa- ches or fifteen 'percent. The information gathered is compared with trends established through other sources. Tenant files, compiled by The Robert Mayer Corporation were also uti- lized as data sources. Included within these files were lease agreements,. tenant disclosures, and title searches which created an up-to-date profile of the population on many variables. However, the estimates generated by these �.+ files is a compilation of various sources. They also have low response rates due to the lack of disclosure by tenants. This information supplements other resources and is helpful in illustrating the current status within the park. 6.r A set of variables was chosen that would create a comprehensive profile of both the population and the mobile homes themselves. Data for each of these variables was collected from the above resources and tabulated. These sum„arizations are located in Appendix C. The trends shown in these sum- maries are addressed in the following sections. r ■ r 3 ti 4W r.. Lsa POPULATION DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS The actual number of residents is not available. It is estimated that the population is 379. The population has been estimated by multiplying the number of units 237 by 1.6 persons per household, resulting in a total popu- lation of 379. (The ratio of 1.6 persons per household is derived from the most complete population data available, the 1982 survey.) The 1982 survey indicated that the population in the park tends to be elderly, 66," being over 60 years of age. The 1987 survey and tenant files L. indicate a possible shift toward a younger population. When compared with other factors such as length of residency - and household size, this trend appears true, but cannot be accurately confirmed. It is reasonable to assume that with the large population turnover in the park, that the actual ratios may be in between the 1982 and 1987 ratios. Because an estimate is required, the average between the 1982 and 1987 rates is picked. The following age distribution has been determined through this estimation: 24 persons are under the age of 18, 27 are between 18-40, 26 are between 41-50, 99 are between 51-60, 125 are between 61-70 and 90 are older than 70 years of age. These figures equate to approximately 215 residents, or 55%, being over 60 years of age and 176 residents, or 450%, being younger than 60 years of age. Household Size In all sources, one and two person households predominate, however, 1937 data indicates an increase in the percentage of households with three or r^ore ' persons. It is estimated through these sources, that 83 coaches are composed �• of single person households, while 121 coaches are two-person households and 14 coaches contain three or more persons. Reported household Gross Income A majority, 52% of those surveyed, in 1982 reported a household gross income of less than $15,000 (1981 dollars) . Inflation factors, based on the �'' change of Orange County median income between 1981-1986, were used to extra- polate income in terms of 1986 dollars, from the 1982 income statistics. The revised income schedule indicates that approximately 50°e have a reported 6w gross income of more than $20,000, (1986 dollars) . V 4 V YI 60 Ifti Lsa The following is the estimated distribution of reported gross household i income in terms of 1986 dollars: V GROSS INCOME HOUSEHOLDS PERCENTAGES i, <S6,510 16 6.9 6,510-10,415 26 10.8 10,416-15,623 54 23.4 15,624-19,529 26 10.8 19,530-26,039 37 15.7 26,040-32,549 26 10.8 32,550-45,569 28 11.8 45,570-65,100 12 4.9 >65,100 12 4.9 237 100.0 It should be noted that the rate of increase for income growth used for 1981-86 was 30.201.. In comparison, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the same period increased by 15.1% and Social Security payments were increased by � 18.79a. Reported gross income data collected in 1987, concurs with the $20,000 �., median split point noted above, (i .e. , 30: above and below $20,000). Low to Moderate Income Households In order to determine the percentage of households that fit into the low to moderate income category, the reported gross income was compared to the f Orange County Median Income for the years 1986 and 1987. For the 1986 infla- tion-adjusted incomes and the 1987 RMC survey reported incomes, 900/: of the households are characterized as having low to moderate incomes. It is esti- mated that 122 or 520/41, of the households are considered very low income households, as defined by the County of Orange. Low income households com- prise 63 coaches, or 26.4%; and 28 or 11.800, are moderate income households. The tenant files indicate that 780/0 of the households, or 185 households, fit into this category. 5 W IMF 16. 64 W Lsa W length of Residence Results of the 1982 survey show that 430 of the residents were located in the park for more than ten years. However, 500/9' of the respondents to the 1987 survey have lived in the park less than five years. A review of tenant files substantiates this recent trend. It appears that the park has under- gone a 50% turnover of occupants within the past five years, since the 1982 survey. All data reviewed indicates that of the 237 coaches, 500 or 119, have been occupied by the current residents less than five years. Residents of 45 coaches, or 190/18, have occupied their coach between five and nine years. Both the ten to fourteen and fifteen to nineteen year categories contain 33 coaches, or 140/0. Also, 7 coaches, 3%, have been occupied by the resident for 6. more than nineteen years. Disability According to the - 1982 survey, 82% of the residents have no serious disability. A review of tenant files shows, no indication to the contrary. It is estimated that 54 persons with disabilities live within the mobile home park. Tenancy u All sources indicate that 96% or more of the coaches are occupied for more than 180 days per year, except for the 1987 survey which shows a 89% permanent residency rate. Because of the reliabiIity -of the 1982 survey results and substantiation by other sources consulted, it is estimated that 960/0, or 228 coaches, are occupied by permanent residents. +� Ownership According to current tenant files, 209 (880) of the 237 coaches, within �. the park, are owner-occupied, while 28 (12%) are renter-occupied. Other sources show a higher percentage of owner occupied units, however, the tenant files give a more accurately depiction of the current resident population. Debt The number of coaches held in lien has increased from. 21.20' in 1982, to �+ approximately 511,040 in 1987, according to all sources. This trend is consis- tent with the high turnover rate experienced in the park in the last five years as discussed earlier. This figure substantiates the finding that 118 500/0 of the coaches have been sold or tenants have moved within the last five years. 6 lrr Lsa Debt Owed In the 1987 survey, 58% of the coaches not owned outright disclosed the debt remaining on their loan. Of those that responded, 480 owed 525,000 or more. Although this is a small sample, 15 coaches out of 237, the sample is L the best data available. For purposes of this study, this sample indicates that approximately half owe between $25,000 and $50,000. Projected park- wide, it is estimated that there are 118 units with an outstanding dept of SO to $25,000 and 118 units with an outstanding debt of $25,000 to $50,000. IW ' 6 6 W 7 r r W Lsa v MOBILE HOME DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS �+ Size of Unit A compilation of tenant files, Appendix D, shows that the coach popula- tion is predominately double-wide units. The data indicates 200 coaches, or 800', are double-wide units. This percentage is consistent with other sources. Age of Unit The distribution of the age of the coaches is extremely accurate and is compiled in Appendix D. A majority of the units, 8I%, are over fifteen years old, and - 41% are over 20 years old. These percentages correlate to 190 coaches over 15 years of age and 96 coaches over 20 years of age. Unit Purchased In Park According to the 1982 survey, 188, or 79.5%, of the coaches were bought +�+ from within the park, rather than moved on-site from another location. From reviewing tenant files, it appears that this trend has continued and is actually higher than the above rate. Monthly Rent A detailed current rent schedule was made available-by She Robert Mayer Corporation. The 1987 statistics for rent distribution are 100% accurate as of July, 1987. Space rental in the park ranges from $320 to $475 per month. Currently, 143 of the residents, (61:0), pay between $320 to $350 per month. �+ Space rentals for most residents have not increased significantly over the last five years. 8 r i6d L-ca Le REFERENCES aw City of Huntington Beach 1982 Mobile Home Park Survey, Department of Development Services, Hunt- ington Beach, CA. 4W 1984 Housing Element. Department of Development Services, Huntington Beach, CA. County of Orange 1987 Orange County Median�Income t 1982-19 . forecast and Analysis Department, Santa Ana, CA. The Robert Mayer Corporation 1987 Tenant Files. Newport Beach, CA. 1987 Tenant Questionnaires. Newport Beach, CA. State Department of finance #+ I979 Special Census - Huntington Beach. Sacramento, CA. U.S. Bureau of Census 1980 1980 Census. Washington D.C. 60 6a 9 r. V Lsa irr W APP€NDIX A 1982 MOBILE ROME PARK SURVEY 168 r.a w w. L 9 L 6w ALL PARKS CO1.431NErJ 6-] 470 2�fPonsG i REQUEyCY SUMMARY SHEET HUNTl11CTOtI 13EACH M0131LE HOME PARK SURVEY 6" 1. The size of the unit in which you now reside is: • a• 20.2 `iingIc-wicit- a... h. 7 3 * ')o if)Ie-wide C. U ple-wide 2. The age of the unit in v:Erich you nc)w reside is: n. 5.9 0-4 years old ears old c. �]. ^* 10-14 years old d. 17.2 . 15-19 years old e. 4.4 - 20 years or older 3. Haw Iong has your household lived in the park in which you now reside: C. 26.6 0-4 years b. 34.6 5-9 years C. 29.8 10-14 ,.,eofs d. 7.4 15-19 years e. 1.;F 20 years or longer a. T! unit in which you now reside we-.: • a. 65. 1 * f'urchosed in the park b. �~ Moved to tl,e lycrt< S. Do you own in Full the unit in which you now reside? �- a. 80.2 " Yes. b. 10.8 NO E. 1f you do not own t!;b unit in full, are you: YJ 0. 9 IAal;ing p^y.ments on the unit? b• 5. 1 Henting the kmil Irw 7. if you do awn the :.-)it in full or are ricking poy,rents on the L.-it, do you reside in it at 1ea5t13J1 days a year a. 98.7 * Yes b. 1.2 i :a S. The number of occupnnts in your household total: n. _2 ? 0;.(! _ �. b. ![; .2 * r o C. 5. Three or more 783 YE/1 153/1 u2 t~. 9. The age of the occupants in your household ore: Occupant I Occupant 2 Ocevpant 3 Aqe Total L a. 6.8 7.6 54.6 44 years or less 8.9 b. _ 2.�- 3,4 _ 2.5 45-49 years 2.5 C. 5.1 6.8 3.4 50-54 years 5.7 d. 9.3 11".1 7.6 55-59 years 9.9 C. 13.4 - 17,8 3.4 60-64 years 14.7 f, ,-21.7-„ 0� ^5.0 o5-b9 years 20.8 g. 41-6_* 32,4 3. 70 years or more 37.5 10. Do any members of your household have a disability? If so, which is the most serious? Occupant I Occupant 2 Occupant 3 Disability a• 3.2 - 1 .2- a BIind ar visually impaired b. T o .7 Confined to a wheelchair C. -2 - _ _1 Mentally disabled +" d. 13.1 7� .5 Other e. 82-6 98.7 No serious disability 11. Which category best describes your household's gross income for 1981? a. 0 - $ 4,999 b. 1] 2 $ 5,000 - $ 7,999 C. 21.2 $ 81000 - $11,999 Y d. rT. $12,000 - $14,999 . e. 12.- $15,000 - $19,999 +� f. 9.6 $20,000 - $247999 g. 8.8 $25,000 - $34,000 h. `5.2 $35,000 - $49,000 .,. i. $50,000 or above 12. Which category best describes your household's current monthly rent? C. $ 0 - $124 b. 10.2- $125 - $145 C.d. 117.9* $200 - $249 e. 14.0 $250 - $299 f. - 5_ $300 or more 7833E11155IM2 -b r ',4 J 4� Jo �CQS�o�L3'e, HUNTINGTON ©EACH MOBILE HOME PARK SURVEY 1. The size of the unit in which you now reside is: ,.. 0. 1.08 Single-`Hide b. oq.�5 Double-wide C. 3.C-4 Triple-wide 2. T he age of V-e unit in which you now reside is: c. S1+1 0-4 years old +' h. ta.St 5-9 yecrs old C. r6,M 10-14 yecrs oid d. zs.t'i IS-19 years old e. mac+- 20 years or older 3. How long has yolir household lived in the pork in which you now reside? a. 23.01 0-4 years b. .313 5-9 years C. *1.11 10-14 yer,.s d. 6.19 15-l Q. years e. `OY 20 yecrs or Icnger T he .n;t :n which yo:, r.ry,v reside wcs: C. -7a.-46 Purchr_sed in the pars Lr b. zo.t-4 iv o:ed to the ,,c:X {. !)a you oxn in full the un;: in wh:ch yo-., now reside? a. Yes b. zyvy NO ibe �. f; you do no` Own the v:11t in fuli, are yc1: C. 4?..Js' Mc:cir g payments on the Unit? b. 7.55 Renting the unit? 7. If you do own the unit :n full or cr a mct;ing ;ayrnents on the unit, do you reside in it a: least.°0 days a year? C. 91.1.0 Yes b. z,,0 a do 8. The number of occupants in your household iota!: c. One b. Two C. Three or more r^ 7833=11 153/lc;2 C.::.:3::�:. C:i a�.C�Z -.�.� i • °.IL The age of the occuponts in your household cre: Occupant I Occupant 2 Occupant 3 :,Ce a. p g.ys 100.*3,3 44 yecrs or less b• 45-49 years c. r.r6 50-54 years d. 55-59 yeors , e. 14.81 1G.90 -a- 60-64 yecrs 65-e9 yecrs w 9. 33.37 70 years or rno.e 10. Do any members of your household have a disobiliiy? If so, which is the most r.+ serious? Occupant I Occupant 2 Occupant 3 Disability o. 4•39 -o- Blind or visually impaired b. -0- -c- Confined to a wheelchair C. -v- .r0- -o- Mentally disabled d. t2.1,S SZ? ..o- Other e. 23 eS.LL tocoo No serious disability rr. If. Which category best describes your household's gross income for 1481? C. 4.36 $ 0 - $ 41999 b. sn-7B $ 5,000 - $ 7,999 C. 27.0 $ 8,000 _ $I I,°99 $12,000 - $14,0 oo e. Ir.6 $15,000 - $19,939 f. io.7.9 $20,000 _ $24,999 g- IMG $25,000 - $34,000 h. 11f.40 $35,000 - $49,000 �+ i. 4.9J $50,000 or above 12. .1hich category best describes your household's current monthly rent? $ 0 - S 124 b. -n- $125 - $149 C. .9 f $150 - $199 d. ta•c19 S200 - $249 e. $250 - $299 f. -z-)3 $300 or more Ir. 1`'` 7833=—/115BE 1&2 lsa APPENDIX B 1987 SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE ROBERT MAY€R CORPORATION v v 10 61 6. k+ HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD NAME ADDRESS AT DRIFTWOOD DO YOU LIVE AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS FULL TIME yes no IF 110, WHERE ELSE DO YOU LIVE ADDRESS DO YOU OWN A SECOND HOME yes n_o IF YES, ADDRESS DO YOU OWN THE COACH YOU ARE LIVING IN AT DRIFTWOOD yes__.no IF NO, PROCEED TO THE NEXT QUESTION IF YES, WHAT ARE YOUR MONTHLY LOAN PAYMENTS I�. AMOUNT STILL OWED WHO ARE YOU MAKING PAYMENTS TO NAME ADDRESS DO YOU RENT THE COACH YOU ARE LIVING IN AT DRIFTWOOD yes..._,now IF YES, WHAT ARE YOU MONTHLY RENT PAYMENTS WHO ARE YOU MAKING PAYMENTS TO NAME ADDRESS WHAT IS THE SIZE OF YOUR COACH (Excluding porches) WIDTH LENGTH HOW MANY BEDROOMS ARE THERE LICENSE OR DECAL NUMBER WHAT YEAR WAS THE COACH MANUFACTURED WHAT YEAR DID YOU PURCHASE THE COACH WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE CAN YOU PROVIDE PROOF OF PURCHASE yes no WHEN DID YOU FIRST MOVE TO DRIFTWOOD HAVE YOU LIVED IN ANOTHER SPACE AT DRIFTWOOD yes no IF YES, WHAT SPACE DO YOU HAVE ANY PETS yes no IF YES, TYPE WEIGHT w. W L L r. WHERE DID YOU LIVE BEFORE MOVING TO DRIFTWOOD ADDRESS �` HOW LONG DID YOU LIVE THERE WHO LIVES WITH YOU AT DRIFTWOOD I" Name Relationship to you Age Name Relationship to you Age Nan, e Relationship to you Age 1w Name Relationship to you Age DO YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY yes----no IF YES, NAME ADDRESS 64 4 4.1 Mr 6o 6d w INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION TO BE FILLED OUT BY ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS WHO ARE OVER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN. EACH PERSON FILLS OUT A SEPARATE QUESTIONNAIRE NAME SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CALIFORNIA DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER ADDRESS -- AGE DATE OF BIRTH DO YOU LIVE AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS FULLTIME yes no IF NO, WHERE ELSE DO YOU LIVE ADDRESS HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS DO YOU PAY RENT yes no IF YES, WHAT ARE YOUR MONTHLY PAYMENTS HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU MOVED IN THE PAST TEN YEARS OF THESE RESIDENCES, HOW MANY WERE OUTSIDE ORANGE COUNTY ARE YOU EMPLOYED yes no IF YES, NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS WHEN DID YOU FIRST BEGIN WORKING THERE month year WHAT IS YOUR SALARY OR WAGE per month per year DO YOU WORK THERE FULL TIME yes no WHAT IS THE ROUNDTRIP DISTANCE FROM HOME TO WORK HOW MANY JOBS HAVE YOU HELD IN THE LAST TEN YEARS HOW MANY OF THESE WERE OUTSIDE ORANGE COUNTY DO YOU HAVE A SECOND JOB yes no IF YES, NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS WHAT IS YOUR SALARY OR WAGE per month per year ARE YOU SELF EMPLOYED yes no IF YES, NAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS WHAT IS YOUR INCOME per month per year ARE YOU RETIRED yes no IF YES, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN RETIRED NAME OF EMPLOYER AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT ADDRESS HOW LONG DID YOU WORK THERE- 4 Ir, Ih ADDITION TO YOUR SALARY OR WAGES, WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER SOURCES yd OF INCOME (If necessary, please use 1986 for the annual figures) SOCIAL SECURITY per month Der year RETIREMENT PLAN per month per year PENSION PLAN per month er year INTEREST per month _ _ tier year DIVIDENDS per month _ Der year l� SPOUSAL/CHILD SUPPORT per month .. . Per year RENTS per month Y _ per year GIFTS/TRUSTS per month_ _ per year Lo OTHER _ ner month_ .,_ Der year DO YOU ATTEND SCHOOL yes----no L IF YES, NAME OF SCHOOL ADDRESS YEAR AND PROGRAM CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN La DO YOU DRIVE yes_no IF NO, WHAT MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IS AVAILABLE TO YOU NAME ADDRESS DO YOU OWN A CAR yes no IF YES, YEAR ' MARE/MODEL W ARE YOU UNDER A DOCTORS CARE yes_ _ no (Under a doctors care means seeing a doctor on a regular basis for reasons other than a regular check up or examination) IF YES, NAME OF DOCTOR # 1 ADDRESS LENGTH OF TIME YOU HAVE BEEN UNDER CARE NUMBER OF TIMES PER YEAR YOU MUST SEE. THAT DOCTOR WHAT IS THE ROUNDTRIP DISTANCE FROM HOME TO DOCTORS OFFICE NAME OF DOCTOR #2 ADDRESS 6, LENGTH OF TIME YOU HAVE BEEN UNDER CARE NUMBER OF TIMES PER YEAR YOU MUST SEE THAT DOCTOR WHAT IS THE ROU14DTRIP DISTANCE FROM HOME TO DOCTORS OFFICE PLEASE LIST ANY OTHER DOCTORS ON A SEPARATE PAGE. ;r WERE YOU ADMITTED TO A HOSPITAL DURING 1986 OR 1987 yes___no IF YES, NAME OF HOSPITAL ADDRESS LENGTH OF STAY FOR WHAT PROCEDURE L DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN THAT ARE L LIVING WITH YOU yes no IF YES, NAME AGE DATE OF BIRTH NAME OF SCHOOL GRADE ADDRESS t ,. NAME AGE DATE OF BIRTH NAME OF SCHOOL GRADE Ll ADDRESS NAME AGE DATE OF BIRTH 60 NAME OF SCHOOL GRADE ADDRESS DO YOU HAVE ANY RELATIVES NOT LIVING WITH YOU BUT ARE ALSO LIVING AT DRIFTWOOD yes---no IF YES, NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR FILLING OUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE km w. Lsa APPENDIX C STATISTIC TABULATIONS -- 1 I a Lsa LGI 1982 CITY SURVEY # e <45 11 10.0 45-49 6 5.0 50-54 7 6.0 55-59 15 13.0 60-64 18 16.0 65-70 25 22.0 >70 32 28.0 114 100.0 Y ESTIFATED 1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) <45 39 I0.0 45-49 20 5.0 50-54 23 6.0 55-59 51 13.0 60-64 63 16.0 63-70 86 22.0 >70 1 ...29-0 391* 100.0 1987 RMC SURVEY l <18 1 2.0 18-40 13 28.0 41-50 2 4.0 51-60 10 22.0 6I-70 15 33.0 >70 5 _ L] .0 46 100.0 1987 RMC EKES <18 18 22.0 1840 20 24.0 41-50 6 8.0 51-60 20 24.0 61-70 10 12.0 >70 8 10.0 82 100.0 * Assumes [ Units) (1 .6 persons per unit) 1w s 6o Lsa 4 HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1982 CITY SURVEY One 38 33.6 Two 66 57.5 Three or more 10 8.9 114 100.0 W ESTIMATED I987 (Projected from 3982 City Survey) One 132 33.6 Two 225 57.5 Three or more 34 8.9 391* 100.0 1987 RMC SURVEY ry One 17 47.0 Two 35 42.0 Three 3 8.0 Four or more ] 3.0 36 100.0 987 RMC FILES r One 80 35.0 Two 116 51.0 Three 26 11.0 Four or more 3 3.0 229 100.0 * Assumes (# Units) (1.6 persons per unit) Ir.r I Lsa REPORTED HOUSEHOLD GROSS INCOME 1982 CITY SURVEY (1981 dollars) ro <$5,000 8 6.9 5,000-7,999 12 10.8 8,000-11,999 27 23.4 12,000-14,999 12 10.8 15,000-19,999 18 15.7 20,000-24,999 12 10.8 25,000-34,999 13 1I.8 35,000-50,000 6 4.9 >50,000 6 4-. 114 100.0 �+ ESTIMATED 1986* (Projected from 1982 City Survey) <$6,510 16 6.9 '6,510-10,415 26 10.8 10,416-15,623 54 23.4 15,624-19,529 26 10.8 I9,530-26,039 37 15.7 26,040-32,549 26 10.8 32,550-45,569 28 11.8 45,570-65,I00 12 4.9 >65,100 —L2 4.9 237 100.0 1987 RMC SURVEY <$5,000 1 3.0 5,000-7,999 4 I2.0 81000-11,999 3 9.0 12,000-14,999 6 18.0 15,000-19,999 3 9.0 20,000-24,999 6 18.0 25,000-34,999 5 16.0 35,000-50,000 2 6.0 >509000 3 9.0 33 100.0 r L Lsa V - 1987 RMC FILES <$5,000 1 1.0 5,000-7,999 3 4.0 8,000-11,999 4 5.0 �+ 12,000-14,999 8 10.0 15,000-19,999 7 9.0 20,000-24,999 11 14.0 25,000-34,999 12 15.0 35,000-49,999 16 20.0 50,000-69,999 10 13.0 70,000-100,000 7 9.0 79 100.0 * An inflation factor of 30.2% was derived from the difference in O.C. median �.. income from 1981-1986. IF - (1986-1981) 41 537- 31 900 -1981 $31,900 In comparison, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by 15.1H and Social Security payments increased by 18.7,e. w L v rw Csa LOW-MODERATE INCOME Very Low Income - less than 50% of O.C. Median Income Low - 50 to 80% of O.C. Median Income Moderate - 80 to 120% of O.C. Median Income �► Upper - greater than 120% of O.C. Median Income 1986 - O.C. MEDIAN INCOME - $41,537 (Sources: County Of Orange Forecast and Analysis Dept) Very Low Income <$20,768 Low Income $20,768-33,229 Moderate Income $33,229-49,844 Upper Income $49,844 Ir. 3987 - O.C. MEDIAN INCOME - 43,264 (Source: County of Orange Forecast and Analysis Dept) j Very Low Income <$21,632 Low Income $21,632-34,611 Moderate Income $34,611-51,916 Upper Income $51,916 1986 INFLATION-ADJUSTED INCOME b Very low 122 52.0 Low 63 26.4 Moderate 28 11.8 Upper 24 9.8 237 100.0 (Source: See Methodology Section) +� 1987 RMC_SURVEY Very low 17 51.0 6j Low 11 34.0 Moderate 2 6.0 Upper 3 9.0 33 100.0 1987 RMC FILES w Very low 23 29.0 Low 23 29.0 Moderate 16 20.0 7 22.0 Upper 7g 100.0 V " Sa LENGTH OF RESIDENCE 1982 CITY SURVEY # % 0- 4 years 26 23.0 5- 9 years 38 33.6 10-14 years 42 37.2 15-19 years 8 6.2 114 100.0 ESTIMATED 1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) 0- 4 years 54 23.0 5- 9 years 80 33.6 10-14 years 88 37.2 v 15-19 years J-5 --U. 237 I00.0 1987 RMC SURVEY 0- 4 years 18 50.0 5- 9 years 7 19.0 10-14 years 5 14.0 15-19 years 5 14.0 >19 years - 3.0 36 100.0 1987 RMC FILES 0- 4 years 88 40.0 5- 9 years 46 21.0 I0-14 years 38 17.0 15-19 years 41 18.0 >19 years 9 4.0 222 100.0 *r Lr. V `sa DISABILITY 1982 CITY SURVEY # % Blind - Visually Impaired 3 3.0 +M Confined to a Wheelchair 1 1.0 Other Disability 12 10.0 No Serious Disability 98 85.0 114 100.0 ESTIMATED 1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) Blind - Visually Impaired 11 3.0 Confined to a Wheelchair 2 1.0 Other Disability 41 10.0 �+ No Serious Disability 337 86.0 391* 100.0 Assumes { Units) (1.6 persons per unit) �r I►► rLsa TENANCY " 1982 CITY SURVEY # Permanent 111 97.2 w Seasonal 3 2.8 114 100.0 ESTIMATED 1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) Permanent 230 97.2 Seasonal 7 2.8 237 100.0 98,E 87 RMC SURVEY Permanent 32 89.0 Seasonal 4 11 .0 36 100.0 r 987 RMC FILES Permanent 222 96.0 Seasonal RO 4.0 232 100.0 W L Lsa L OWNERSHIP 1982 CITY SURVEY # % Own Unit 113 99.0 Rent Unit �. _,_,] .0 114 100.0 ESTIMATED 1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) Own Unit 235 99.0 Rent Unit 2 1 .0 237 100.0 1987 RMC SURVEY Own Unit 35 97.0 Rent Unit 1 3.0 36 100.0 1987 RMC FILES Own Unit 209 88.0 Rent Unit 2s 12.0 237 100.0 W w 61 6 60 Lsa w+ DEBT 60 1982 CITY SURVEY p % Held in Lien 24 21.2 6. No Lien 90 78.8 114 100.0 L ESTIMATED I987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) Held in Lien 50 21.2 No Lien 187 78.8 237 100.0 I987 RMC SURVEY Held in Lien 22 59.0 No Lien 14 �•a 36 100.0 987 RMC FILES Iw Held in Lien 121 51.0 No Lien 116 49.0 237 100.0 L W I L L .L 4 lsa E87 OWE 1987_RMC_SURVEY 0 <$15,000 3 20.0 15,000-24,999 2 13.4 25,000-34,999 4 26.6 35,000-44,999 4 26.6 L 45,000-54,999 I 6.7 55,000-65,000 0 0.0 > 65,000 ,1 6.7 15 100.0 Note: There were 7 questionnaires which failed to disclose the debt owed on their lien. L L 6w- iJ LLsa W SIZE OF UNIT i` 1982 CITY SURVEY #_ Single Wide 8 7.1 Double Wide 102 89.4 Triple Aide 4 3.5 114 100.0 ESTIMATED 1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) Single Wide 17 7.1 Double Wide 212 89.4 Triple Wide 8 3.5 237 100.0 1987 RMC. FILES IL Single Wide 33 ' 14.0 Double Wide 200 84.0 Triple Wide 4 2.0 237 100.0 Iw • 6 wr 6. L 6 Lsa AGE OF UNIT 1987 RMC FILES 0- 4 years 0 0.0 0- 5 years 24 10.0 10-14 years 23 9.0 15-19 years 94 40.0 20-24 years 92 39.0 25-27 years 4 2.0 237 100.0 f f Lsa I UNIT PURCHASED IN PARK 1982 CITY SURVEY # ye I Purchased in Park 91 79.5 Moved Trailer to Park _2_3 20.5 114 100.0 ESTIKATED 1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) Purchased in Park 188 79.5 Moved to Park 49 20.5 237 100.0 f I 61 %FO Lsa MONTHLY RENT 1982 CITY SURVEY # � $150-199 1 .9 r,. 200-249 22 19.1 250-300 88 77.3 >300 3 2.7 114 100.0 1987 RMC FILES §+ $320-350 143 61.0 351-375 37 16.0 375-400 29 12.0 ik, 401-425 22 9.0 426-475 5 2.0 236 100.0 Lsa L APPENDIX D MOBILE HOME PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS w. bps W k. L 12 Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park Listing of Coach Sizes and Date of Manufacture Est. Living Date of Width Length Description Area (s. f. ) Mfg. i ----- ------ ---------------------- ------ ------- 10 x 40 Single Wide 400 1966 10 x 50 Single Wide 500 1964 10 x 50 Single Wide 500 1960 10 X 50 Single Wide 500 1965 10 x 54 Single Wide 540 1972 10 x 54 Single Wide 540 1964 60 10 x 54 Single Wide 540 1966 10 x 54 Single Wide 540 1965 10 x 54 Single Wide 540 1965 10 r_ 55 single Wide 550 1966 10 , x 60 Single Wide 600 1962 10 x 60 Single Wide 600 1967 • 10 x 60 Single Wide 600 1965 10 x 60 Single Wide 600 1960 12 x 53 Single Wide 636 1966 12 x 55 Single Wide 660 1974 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1969 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1962 12 x 60 Single wide 720 1964 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1968 22 x 60 Single Wide + Expansion 920 1965 12 x 60 Single Wide + Expansion 920 1964 12 x 60 Single Wide + Expansion 920 1964 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1969 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1970 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1970 �.+ 12 x 61 Single Wide 732 1970 12 x 66 Single Wide 792 1966 24 x 52 Single Wide 728 1969 14 x 54 Single Wide 756 1969 14 x 58 Single Wide + Expansion 1, 012 1970 14 x 67 Single Wide 938 1969 15 x 54 Single Wide 810 1964 16 x 50 Double Wide 800 1964 18 x 48 Double Wide 864 1963 20 x 40 Double Wide 800 1972 r.. 20 x 40 Double Wide 800 2975 20 x 40 Double Wide 800 1966 20 x 40 Double Wide 800 1968 20 x 40 Double Wide 800 1973 20 x 43 Double Wide 860 1968 20 x 43 Double hide 860 1969 20 x. 44 Double Pride 880 1966 20 x 45 Double Wide 900 1963 20 x 43 Double hide 960 1965 20 X 48 Double Pride. 960 1975 60 Page 1 Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehor,:e Park Listing of Coach Sizes and Date of Manufacture l� Est. Living Date of Width Length Description Area (s.f. ) Mfg. fink 20 x 50 Double Wide 1, 000 1965 20 x 50 Double Wide 1,000 1966 20 x 50 Double Wide 1,000 1965 �' 20 x 50 Double Wide 1, 000 1964 20 x 50 Double Wide 1,000 1965 20 x 50 Double Wide 1, 000 1964 20 x 50 Double Wide 1, 000 1967 • 20 x 50 - Double Wide 1, 000 1966 est. 20 x 50 Double Wide 1,000 1968 20 x 50 Double Wide 1,000 1970 20 x 52 Double Wide 1, 040 1965 20 x 52 Double Wide 1, 040 1966 20 x 52 Double Wide 1, 040 1976 20 x 52 Double Wide 1, 040 1971 20 x 52 Double Wide 1,040 1974 20 x 52 Double Wide 1, 040 1976 20 x 52 Double Wide 1, 040 1969 20 x 52 Double Wide 11040 1970 20 x 53 Double Wide 1,060 1963 20 x 54 Double Wide + Expansion 1,280 1966 20 x 54 Double Wide 1, 080 1966 , 20 x 54 Double Wide 1, 080 1965 20 x 54 Double Wide 1, 080 1967 20 x 54 Double Wide 1, 060 1965 20 .x 54 Double Wide 1, 080 1964 20 x 54 Double Wide 11080 1969 est. 20 x 54 Double Wide 11060 1970 20 x 55 Double Wide 1,100 1965 20 x 55 Double Wide 1, 100 1964 20 x 55 Double Wide 1, 100 1965 . 20 x 55 Double Wide 1, 100 1965 20 x 55 Double Wide 1, 100 1967 20 x 55 Double Wide 1, 100 1967 +� 20 x 55 Double Wide 1, 100 1966 20 x 55 Double Wide 1,100 1967 20 x 55 Double Wide 1, 100 1965 20 x 55 Double Wide 1, 100 1966 20 x 56 Double Side 1,120 1972 20 x 56 Double Wide 1, 120 1978 20 x 56 Double Wide 1,120 1966 est. 20 x 56 Double Wide 1, 120 1973 20 x 56 Double Wide 1, 120 1971 20 x 57 Double Wide 1, 140 1964 20 x 57 Double Wide 1, 140 1982 20 x 56 Double Wide 1, 160 1964 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1:77 Page 2 Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park Listing of Coach Sizes and Date of Manufacture r-. Est. Living Date of Width Length Description Area (s. f. ) Mfg. 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1964 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1974 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1967 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1967 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1966 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1968 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1967 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1971 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1967 est. 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1966 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1964 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1964 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1969 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1972 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1964 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1964 ,-- 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1973 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1969 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1972 20 x 60 Double Wide 1, 200 1970 20 x 64 Double Wide 1, 280 1971 20 x 64 Double Wide 1, 280 1965 20 x 65 Double Wide 1, 300 1966 21 x 50 Double Wide 1, 050 1964 22 x 58 Double Wide 1, 276 1969 24 x 40 Double Wide 960 1968 24 x 44 Double Wide 1, 056 1969 24 x 45 Double Wide 1, 080 1968 24 x 45 Double Wide 1, 080 1968 24 x 48 Double Wide 1, 152 1963 24 x 48 Double Wide 1, 152 1978 24 x 48 Double Wide 1, 152 1967 24 x 50 Double Wide 1, 200 1965 24 x 50 Double Wide 1, 200 1964 24 x 50 Double Wide 1, 200 1978 24 x 50 Double Wide 1, 200 1968 24 x 52 Double Wide 1, 248 1981 r- 24 x 52 Double Wide 1,248 1981 Page 3 Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park Listing of Coach Sizes and Date of Manufacture --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Est. Living Date of Width Length Description Area (s. f. ) Mfg. ----- ------ ---------------------- --------- ------- 24 x 52 Double Wide 1, 248 1966 24 x 52 Double Wide 1, 248 1982 24 x 52 Double Wide 1, 248 1969 24 x 52 Double Wide 1, 248 1970 24 x 52 Double Wide 1, 248 1970 24 x 53 Double Wide 1, 272 1965 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1978 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1981 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1967 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1967 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1967 est. 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1966 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1964 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1967 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1975 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1969 est. 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1982 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1969 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1969 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1969 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1970 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1970 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1971 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1970 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1970 24 x 54 Double Wide 1, 296 1970 24 x 55 Double Wide 11320 1968 24 x 56 Double Wide 1, 344 1977 24 x 56 Double Wide 11344 1968 24 x 56 Double Wide 1, 344 1965 24 x 56 Double Wide 1, 344 1979 24 x 56 Double Wide 1, 344 1981 24 x 56 Double Wide 1, 344 1981 24 x 56 Double Wide- 1, 344 1981 24 x 56 Double Wide 1, 344 1969 '- 24 x 56 Double Wide 1, 344 1970 24 x 57 Double Wide 1, 368 1969 24 x 58 Double Wide 1, 392 1973 r- 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1964 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1976 r-- 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1974 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1981 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1973 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1978 Page 4 Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park Listing of Coach Sizes and Date of Manufacture Est. Living Date of Width Length Description Area (s. f. ) Mfg. ----- ------ ---------------------- --------- ------- 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1978 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1979 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1980 24 x 60 Double Wide 11440 1967 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1967 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1965 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1968 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1968 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1980 24 x 60 Double Wide 11440 1976 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 . Double Wide 1,440 1968 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1964 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1968 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1970 24 x 60 Double. Wide 1, 440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1971 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1974 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 r 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1971 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1979 24 x 60 Double Wide 11440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1, 440 1970 est. 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 62 Double Wide 1, 488 1976 24 x 62 Double Wide 1,488 1970 24 x 62 Double + Exp. (Trifle) 1, 888 1980 Page 5 Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park Listing of Coach Sizes and Date of Manufacture Est. Living Date of Width Length Description Area (s. f. ) Mfg. .- ----- ------ ---------------------- --------- ------- 24 x 64 Double Wide 1, 536 1977 24 x 64 Double + Exp. (Triple) 1, 936 1979 24 x 64 Double + Exp. (Triple) 1,936 1977 24 x 64 Double Wide 1, 536 1970 24 x 64 Double Wide 1, 536 1977 24 x 66 Double + Exp. (Triple) 1, 984 1978 24 x 69 Double Wide 1, 656 1968 r. Notes: Expansion units are assummed to add 200 s. f. living area for units of width less than 24 ft. and 400 s:f. for units of width equal to 24 ft. 7 24 ft. wide units with expansion are considered "triple wides" . Data excludes space 103 (manager' s unit owned by RLM) . Data excludes space 307 (empty) . 7 V W APPENDIX J AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS u bd L Iw W 6d Project Name : WAT I1 Date : 11-23-1987 Analysis Year - 2000 Temperature - 70 EMFAC7 VERSION : EMFAC7C . . . 1/4/87 61 Unit Type Trip Rate Size Tot Trips Days Op. :ondominiums (Adult) 8.0/Unit 894 7152 community Shopping Center 26.5/1000 Sqf 99 2624 1 Hotel 6.0/room 1600 9600 1 'lealth Club 11-7/1000 Sqf 40 468 1 W Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Work lion-Work 6mrip Length 8.8 3.2 5.2 8.1 5.5 % Started Cold 88.3 40.2 58.3 77.4 27.2 -rip Speed 35 35 35 35 35 6'ercent Trip 27.3 21.2 51.5 6' Vehicle Fleetmix Vehicle Type Percent Type Leaded Unleaded Diesel . .Light Duty Autos 90.0 1.5 95.9 2.6 Light Duty Trucks 4.3 2.4 94.9 2.8 Medium Duty Trucks 1.8 5.9 94.2 0.0 Heavy Duty Trucks 1.8 33.3 66.7 N/A Heavy Duty Trucks 1.8 N/A N/A 100.0 ,Motorcycles 0.5 100.0 N/A N/A Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day ..,► Unit Type TOG CO NOX Condominiums (Adult) 82.6 850.1 103.0 Community Shopping Center 23.4 227.3 35.3 Hotel 107.0 1092.5 151.3 Health Club 4.4 42.8 6.5 V r