Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWaterfront Development - Volume I Final Supplement to Enviro -_--. C� ���. ����-L ��2 8a :L wa GEOLOGY. SOILS AND SEISMICITY (COKTID) w. HIJI AID MEASURES testing of soils engineer. Cer- tification of such reports, for each phase, shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to is- 6W 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 the deveechnical lopment 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 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 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. ii W u i., BIOTIC.RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURES POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS r• _ 7. To mitigate for the loss of on- On-site wetlands of .8 acres, and site wetlands, the applicant restorable degraded wetlands that shall prepare a detailed wetland have previously been filled amounting restoration plan that complies to 1.4 acres would be permanently with the Coastal Act requirements filled. The filling of wetlands is discussed above (see text, Miti- considered significant if not miti- gation Measures pgs. 27 through gated. 36) and takes into consideration the additional criteria provided Off-site wetlands could be affected by DFG. Further discussions with by a change in urban runoff that the Coastal Commission, DFG. and presently flows, via a culvert, under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Beach Boulevard, east of the site. will be necessary to determine This effect could be significant if the most appropriate restoration not mitigated. site, the type of wetland to be restored, the necessary acreage, the timing of the restoration, 64 the monitoring plan, and other considerations. ' If off-site mitigation is deemed appropriate, preference shall be given to enhancing/restoring wetland sites located within the City of Huntington Beach. These issues 4 will be clarified prior to Coastal Commission review of a Coastal 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 law 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. t,� u 614 a.. BIOTIC RESOURCES_(CONT'0.) POTENTIAL ADVERSE MP CTS MITIGATION MEASURES 8. The developer shall submit a complete mitigation program for all on-site and off-site wetlands effects described in the above analysis, approved by the Coastal Commission and DFG, prior to w 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 w include detailed diagrams drawn to scale showing any alterations to natural landforms, and should yd include a list of plant species to be used, as well as the method of plant introduction (i.e. , seeding, natural succession, vegetative transplantation, etc). LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts can be mitigated to a level of non-significance with appropriate mitigation measures in place prior to development of the wetland w 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 W project effects to a level of non-significance after these measures are taken. W iv �w 64 r.+ ihm ib- �tD USA OT IA DV RS MP CTS 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 ing the property of all existing graduated/meandered landscaped improvements, in phases, and con- setback of not less than 25 feet structing a major visitor serving for residential and 50 feet for 66 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 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 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 4 W LAND USE (CONxT'D) two POTENTIAL. ADVERSE-IMPACTS MITIGAIIO"EASURES Off-site effects result from visual, aesthetic and development intensity incompatibilities to the east. *" Additional effects on the wetlands land use is noted to occur unless mitigated. a.. 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 u 9IRCULATION POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITI TON MEASURES �6o 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 downtown 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 L 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 arias. amenities. Promote bus shelters, benches and bus pockets near the `r proposed project. • Promote employee use of public transportation. w. • 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. _LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION W There will be no significant impacts on traffic. vii W r.. 4.5 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The general air quality of the South Coast Air Basin, in which the 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 i� 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. �r Climate and Meteoroloay +.. 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.m. Summer months usually include a northwesterly and southeasterly flow pattern superimposed upon the daily sea breeze. w. 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 Maior Point Sources The ambient air quality of an area is partially determined by its ex- 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- i0, 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. The nearest air quality monitoring station is in Costa Mesa. The moni- toring is considered to be representative of the subregional air quality found in Huntington Beach and the project environs. However, the project w, site is located at the seashore adjacent to the Pacific Ocean where air fib 61 V knd 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. Air Quality Management The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin and, juris- dictionally, is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) . The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The CARE 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 a. Basin and is partly responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. w, The SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) has developed and updated the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The AQMP has the goal of achieving healthful levels of air 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 �. 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 Rai 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 61 promotion of bicycle racks. 67 6. 61 W TABLE 4 AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED a" (COSTA MESA AIR MONITORING STATION( thm California National Maximum Days State Pollutant Standard Standard Year Level Std. Exceeded u. Ozone 0.1 ppm 0.12 ppm 1979 0.21 26 for 1 hr. for i hr. 1980 0.16 20 1981 0.20 28 1982 0.18 25 l" 1983 0.25 41 1984 0.25 29 1985 0.21 33 1.. 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 18 bad for 8 hr. for 8 hr. 1980 17 7 1981 15 5 1982 21 2 he 1983 14 1 1984 13 1 1985 19 5 1986 10 3 br NO2 .25 ppm 0.05 ppm 1979 .29 4 for 1 hr. annual average 1980 .31 2 ib. 1981 .29 2 1982 .23 0 1983 .27 1 1984 .22 0 1985 .24 0 1986 .20 0 Lead 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 1979 1.90 3 �l 30 day average quarterly avg. 1980 .82 0 1981 Monitoring Discontinued 61 68 Id 61 i." too it IMPACTS " Short-term Construction Related Impacts 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 W 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 SCAQKD Rule 402, the emissions can be reduced by 50:. Applying the above factors to the �� 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 L01 to the 87 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 6• 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 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 health concern or impacts due to rapid dispersion into the atmosphere almost immediately because of constant on-shore wind conditions. In addition, the project conforms to Orange County's "Subregional Element for the 1982 Re- 6W 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. Wo Regional Effects. In order to determine the regional impacts of the proposed project, an air quality analysis was performed using the Urbemis w 69 Yd r uw. I.. s Computer Model distributed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) . 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 LW emissions criteria developed by the SCAQMD, in their April, 1987, version of the Air Quality Handbook. This comparison is illustrated on Table 6. to 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 fid related traffic will be counter-balanced by future improvements in auto emis- sions rates. MITIGATION 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 6i 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. V 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 W within the facility. 14. A Transportation System Management (TSM) plan will be initiated and will include the following components: I� • Provide bus services to regional activity centers within the County for hotel visitors. '"' 70 1.. 1.. TA8L 5 PRWECT EMISSIONS SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL HOTEL COWERCIAL HEALTH CLUB Unit 895 DU 19600 roams 99,000 sq. ft. 40,000 sq. ft. Daily Trip 7160 9,600 2,624 468 Generation �.� Carbon Monoxide 850 1,093 227 43 (lbs/day) Total Organic 83 107 23 4 Gases (lbs/day) NITROGEN OXIDE 103 151 35 7 � (lbs/day) w 71 W v iw low TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF AIR DUALITY IMPACTS ld LmI AQMO THRESHOLD HEALTH CRITERIA TOTAL RESIDENTIAL HOTEL COMMERCIAL CLUB_ �+ Carbon 550 22I3 850 1093 227 43 Monoxide (Zbs/day) ohs Total Organic 75 217 83 107 23 4 Gases O bs/day) 64 Nitrogen Oxide 100 296 103 151 35 7 (1bs/day) had W 72 u �r LW • Provide shuttle services to local activity centers including Main r. Street and the City and State beaches during the summer peak period. • Facilitate pedestrian access to beach amenities, via at-grade 6• crosswalks and elevated crossings. • Promote employee use of public transportation. .. • Provide bus shelters, benches and bus pockets near the proposed project. 6' LEVEL OE 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. 6 k. W 73 i r 4. is i. i/ 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCEVARCHAEOLOGY '`a 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. boi ENVIRONMENTAL SFHING 61 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 to 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 �+ and Invertebrate Paleontology Sections at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. IMPACTS rchaeolo 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 i. project area was performed by LSA's Archaeologist. 74 60 6. 1r it it rd The records check yielded negative results; the closest recorded site, hd CA-Ora-149, 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 ■i 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 i, 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- 6. 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. Paleontology W 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, *,W 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. W hITIGATICH MEASURES 6, 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. 6s 15. A qualified paleontologist will be retained to monitor grading and salvage any fossils exposed by construction activity. 75 W 1« 6.A �1 wig 16. A qualified paleontologist, listed with the County of Orange, will &AN attend the pre-grade meeting with the contractor, developer and City representative to ensure cooperation for the paleontological monitoring. ih• 17. Fossils collected during grading of the Project, if any, will be curated with an appropriate museum facility. 16, 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. W 76 to 6y *f dhf 4.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY l" fNYIRONMENjL SETTING Floodin4 ,b. The Federal Emergency Management Agency administers the National Flood Insurance Program. The purpose of the program is to identify potentially 64 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 6. 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 IN, 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. w oise 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 1 - all residential properties, Noise Zone 2 - all professional office �+ and public institutional properties, Noise Zone 3 - all commercial 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 FIR 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. 77 I it �M his TABLE ism EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS a, NOISE ZONE NOISE LEVEL TIME PERIOD 1 55 db(A) 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. LI 50 db(A) 10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 2 55 db(A) Anytime L• 3 60 db(A) Anytime 4 70 db(A) Anytime Im Source: City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. IMPACTS �,. flooding As presented in the previous section, the project area is located in a I00-year flood zone. In this area, flooding up to a depth of 11 feet Could occur during a 100-year storm. Therefore, 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 L. run-off in the area. oise L' 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 yr it i■ i• 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.j 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 `a 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 L. nighttime events. Construction Activities. Noise associated with construction will occur 6, 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 M. 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. 64 Parking Structure Noise. Parking structures will be constructed during each phase of the project. At least one side wall of each structure will iw face residential areas along Walnut Avenue. Traffic associated with parking 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 6d 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 8. The noise levels presented are for a distance of 50 feet from the source, and are the maximum noise level generated. A range is given to reflect the variability of noise generated by various automobile types and driving styles. 79 wM �a r� TABLE 8 MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS,GENERATED BY PARKING ACTIVITIES_LDBA—AT 50_FEET] has EVENT MXIMUM NOISE LEVEL (dBA) I"J Door Slam 60 to 70 Engine Start-up 60 to 70 61 Car pass-by 55 to 70 Sweeper 75 Sweeper_Noise_Levels. Two types of sweepers may be employed; 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. 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 W following principles of acoustics. When there is no barrier between the noise source and the receiver, &A4 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- ted path" directed away from the receiver and a "diffracted path" over the top of the barrier. 80 it Noise travelling along the "transmitted path" and the "reflected path" 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. w. 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 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 N-2(d/1)). Path length difference is the difference in distance that sound must 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 ioodin w 18. Conformance to mitigation measures specified in EIR 82-2. 14. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires that devel- opments within the Special Flood Hazard Zone elevate any habitable areas of a dwelling unit to or above the expected level of flooding 6d 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 or adjacent to buildings. 81 had 641 kr ikr 21. A grading plan for the site is required to ensure compliance with FEMA regulations, City grading regulations and proper site drain- age. wise Without some type of barrier, the 60 dBA 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. L 23. A landscaped berm shall be constructed between the masonry wall and the curb edge for noise attenuation. 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. 82 u 1 1r Lr L. �r 27. Maintain a 130 foot separation between the residential and parking it structure uses or other sound attenuating design feature to the approval of the Planning Director. LEVEL-OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MIJIGATIDN to din 41 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. Oise �.. There will be no significant impacts after all sound attenuating mitiga- tion measures are implemented. L& W 83 W Lai I. r. be 4.8 AESTHETICS ba 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 areas. Current uses on the project site include a motel, City of Huntington Beach maintenance yard, a mobile home complex and a golf course. 61 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 6. 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 6, 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. Coasts cement u 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. 84 66 Lr W V u y.. 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 within this area. Existing development on-site consists of low rise buildings which do not 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 19 show the visual impacts from these vantage points. IMPACTS �r 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 2D to 22 are renderings of the proposed projects elevations as seen from the City Is 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- ai 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 DDA. Figures 23 to 24 illustrate the project's visual impact on areas north of the site (Vantage Points 4 and •• 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 loss 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 14 Vantage Point Locations _ -o II v, � �� �•!' ., 00 F / °lb -n0- 'SO•`i0 O�� .S', Q° I - ey ii.• Y JUL L `�` ' � �A° ark ¢ ° J if C� _ :Yh �° p rt (� J` �m _R..JLJL—��f ,7. I °°❑[7 - �- b —7 P 477 Y11V it it ' h le r— 14' b'"a o ° 'oo BM;28 �lllJ)JiS,a;ler f' 2 it 6 ° J l.. It r \� ✓ » fa• — t = - tor_:_ HAMI .TO Project Site ' • ; • r o Tanks c 41 .. Y F r Scale in Feet qH 8 0 1000 2000 11/25/87:GD Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 1987 { ;, 5;. 1 ,y:..� ', er'+:j a ..}a, 3 < 'ate f{{•y�n.r'++J 't�'i ..:^:a '� .,4�, 4'" x• a.. < i ° x +, o < '' ,:�:, < �::: e-� ui ; �;t L...• t.L.`�..',�s,�..,F.! +>,�3.y`fgX J�:i� < x• d? k � y.:,t. k �' , S-�... :av + re q`'< 't''+::.•�hr f ;, r <4 R, � �; .:i �s a, a'� � ^��.fJ.>. R`.. w^ Y>�- t 1 'a .Y: .i �'�t "�: s"iv.i ..� a.-: ,a„ .u. 1 �t i,• 7„<.:�-2c ty, .��.".t. v{° .-!e° � ',`. 2 �`: Y'; �a',xM'�.b,da,�Y. '°cy�.s.•• > .::2% >� >. .�. 1t,'. `'�� �`^.. ,h: .� s .r�- :sya �� 't „ ,.. .,t.; �'4. �`, . '�•",?. 1+s.<r4'lSTh xa.F..a t :.c�� °,Xa>:°: <, '?,c'M' ! ,`,�:k. "' • .n''�., .. , ,. 1 :?*." a.. ° s. 1` a , �..: {W G Y �<`. .� r: � L: a: 't..�+s o.'S� v :<'£d y :t b A ,•°4 :f+ r ; �,it `• w Y<`y -� 3.�,.S <:^,>?t � R:n a,rq , �...: F! 'C?� � tt sry a l + < iY < k<s.r:. S '•,ti:.36., lizC ky"�•.;�xC r �t.:- { �, ^� t `}r r .'S < <r� ,r ,.�.`•e: n y``, r ,r ;i s � �-i '�•�.:..,-,-.•,,,...aa,.<,Y.!:,::.,.,�i�va.,a±,.x,.,',.�,,�:<,,+,YY`,t«�44.i�,,t'�.,.,x.,rv..i•n,..X�:�,.,.cJz�.f h:_x.t? .2>�..„:•.�0,...�..gr�,.. f 2°'..:..;... ✓, ��"c.b°h..,�♦ .\i)Z.r!.sar«.a.,�3,a.-,..;.:a,xr.-ti.<.�.a;'..<�.!':u.S°?:..)::;<t,,.?rt,vI•.,+�vyY,..n-i...LhZ�'tt?..(7;>:,<�,`s,;�..';`....'.>y,'<1'•++'v..,..J>.y:t t.�•a:,:1.,+•r3',..+;tx..�,:.t'axr+.�S�*9tY.1`±'•e•r�,a�4.?�.��,.<'`:.;'$.'r..,.t�'�'afg'4 r�''�aL``}:',t»n44'r£t.?,r.'>-v,ea<.'>;a+C�fi\<k >'4's 3r.A fi.•�b>%>K�.,y._.nt{.w ,7�:'ik`\ :`.E E:•rx,'s:.ti<:'... �•,7�.o: +t�s"2`••.:tK:�,,ti a>�';:a".>:.. -.:.". l�, ,,,. ,�+.k rd..n•. �, .....,� :,r;ars,n'^ .'fir o- r .N. •.� .,w:. 1.:. 'Y' ..a, ^->:y. > ,:Fti•:i:: ..w„u:�'�".,x•Sr.+F. `>. ..., &„}•..nv <:i dr.. `"',:{ .w.,; :.yi. ,xv C,at.;.. .>.: fle ,".,.s�,, ....:+.f� ..y'L..pa.. •,1•M C2,�.,:..o{L,& .x 2.e...,..� C)�� s .:>., >, ��.. >x ,.,,:. +...t a.:. •..; i.,'�<t`, .,.•,..,,.>,.isw�>'n''' .r., �.:. >... .y� :k� .. .r. ��t: .^4,..,�..+,. 'N. ro .�'^:� r r•` .i �c .:a :rv: vY_'S'�.�;. ,e �.,bc � .,;�. ..s•:>z .��..,,-;ti,..,ur d'i+ �> >,•a,�.; r�,^xa t: .F. t±G. �, wb<:, �. ,:.+,:lt ^c ...:�, w oj< �;5:. ' r �:t .�.::r. v¢, t'$: '..fit. 2 ,.. �.>, T '^ ,,�Q,�., .....?d. ;?•.}::5+. ,a L, �taGe � m .� ,'�„c'• ..2 .,y+F,1... pg+'. 't:.;c', c <.x.. �.. ,.. < ,G.� , •?!�+<. y Cy 7,,CAS. t`hL:a a. t-s � <..� far x +'L�F yi$•, �<. ,•R: {fit r''. "}� ,.< s� •� a ♦ +.w : .;t ��;: , �rs +',> +:..�` �'�. E'�`'a"i• �x.t"4'��g g;.:"�;� L "' � G+f!La ' .$� '{3• ;.>r&' .���;+a.,�.,;.�.;;,0 s� 1 s,,>s<<.. r�.' ''fta.;@Y.s�,''L'a�, fi t. ti• ". •:,�:�. 4.w."'.`+.���s. F, y,5 p ��,,{j�a:i�^,try.xz.s;x;l'or. &y���; i.' �7 a4... :•. � i � ys ,.�y�t�.�,is 'ayI r°:�.� ,�.fir.?@' :G<�..,�.,v;,4�• 4k ';� �s.<r,�'``k'a: .,�`,p, $.yy,,,'s,F;.�"'r,�4 �#v�• L.q ""Y}�.����'<tx�:?;E: 1!< t -�,`)� � ye � aF M< a'7 a+2} ::�,f. y"E ^':.5� rti�i:;?tat' ` J" :.4 ,� $�,w• 1 f;: •x) "•C r.d•C 3f�,;`F.. i F .%:iGa},3 3 s s r<x:+F, �g x?, - .f T«':7��,•,..•-$'* a"Yr>titi%Cp a �.�'..?a"i<t3.;;�£Yfr•, ,�5,•w; "r' sc,!,E.. � w�.:.:x< :,�•,.°;9 ; ... -yj..... ♦ �Q. �:M. i�' D;i• 'i. '"9�. .,,R. .A,. �`, ;:,•e 5.4� 'a? t- �a:�'f,;�•...: -.{5.:� . > 'i � - <s. � ,�{ f ". yam.. @ y,�<_ Yra•,r w�''' '+ r.. {�... - { "'a ;9b 3^.'£ i'M�, k� .,..9. .. -. ag a{9;'%r.. �;a.,::v.. .'..,:,�,f S.',Y}�' �,•`i.�+<,,£';-Yg :•>3s••>?i+''4:.!;^.'�,lT�� ;3', .i,dC-• '.:�"' 1.�, a:2;a ��{{ ,r:wc �c YY 'ti: <. '.. £ ,c �. C'.., { .i .� S .�, l,.t..'i+ f'� !. @f... i � .x-�• .�<', v� sY'�. �y<. 2v t,'{�,,,�'aYc�ti�.,4r,.,; .Y. ;�{;: '4•f >ry :r a` <. l, t.ia Y .F,`�;: ?x 3a .f °h,�, �` `� �.� .} a ? 3: + <+� <..s :^s.,?k;> kf .s. { t -? < f<.:.�`'::.t:b .x�,,..'^'.x,.. .+X.:va.y VS,•. :,Y � .°� ^K.{�; \>:.r�'„„uv,_..yr: f -'•�. s i. �'�'�' s, '�<., Y:n + `^t�"` ,`,4�,Y�`� :r:' ?ay:, k; ac � Sh.4?ii�' .,,�.- 6ay. •} ,.,�<s .. ,.�»..•<'. 'r ''`�+!,..x+ "` <•e�@ �'+ :.7^ a = •. -:-''{ '�•• ¢` �,.,t�G.��.;.,+.,, ;:; .,.<. ;... r., � ♦ c .'tom, s<>•�;,'y`�''•a.. �a,a sa,"s� l-a'�}'iC'<Y ^ �G.X Tv.�.$+�..? p+t.�3,e °;'G.S,r I ,�i'�v a�': q"�.�4'..e � S ✓r��'�, of l r)� r'�j ��his< !'�Na ���,,ttp,� �ce hX .+. 4. -t � C Y'+�S a^.0 t.'�h.fr�"'�t �'�S"�'x. a x`v�x' :�F :,F:.y nsa ;fi:; x '�a3 C .k..:. ¢ q f• x{�, a.. •a, t � {y� �a'. �F•+a�k" s> � K**.t ,S;'�c ;'.� e�+"'���,,,. , r4 , ,ak IAY -',: ..., .,z<c ,,5,; d.•,,? ,: ...?••.:+} .+,�.. ;>, i k, �il;?f..'�'^..,.r �. <@ eN.:r- �t;.k.:` r1w <,.,a.' ♦ ,,' > sz., :.c.r t, };-s..s ,..>i<:,, t...... ,.. ..., .. �.F.e re. t ...>r`�: '�:•-.,+.,... Y>t`sf •f ;! '>,.:S;y., ..w:. r: ,.z 's:'t'� ..:: " >;:< c, t. .�a y!F',3ca,-h,�< � y.. `r n::<+d_.>. >a, .�'^, t ?kir.. �:f;.'�]xf,^,k.;?�, ...yj• �a,;,r ^.k� 4 k.< .,,.f..v:swv.4.. ''F�'f.�y'y,�4'- ./-;h. .`f. �` 1„�, ,,\t lH�•i; I 3^ .l � :L.'�.•}.f 1�,' S Y �':"i'� �.. A:, 'V Y;;" (Y�@ Y.w 't ;E..e,)�' fft.N�: �fe", rt,'t?:;'Yy Q, k-rrN +4 v .'f'�',"•,'1<."x.� .`h. i � '"My x ` 3t +'��' 'K: L�G,� ,�.,?.:..,5 Kz,; .Y i...`i ..n ^p , ,.. o,. <t>. < ..��+ �<<�`K}5 u� �K ff5•�#.+ -`� i`.i4:��a�+.'a�'�tYY/+,h,. ' �:.{.,,... L:r.�: �Yl,. .>.... ,�..,+, .v ..... `� �;... .,@�, o .,,y`Gi,..v.c, «. "v,,4. ".• .'+" r i� :as,.'d'3>t.+{•s,-: '� ��'�.rr e, �. ,..Z.: z"y,� r,�'+.+�-..�;,�' ::.},C„>. :Y i � .o.. .'a Xr'G'.• .t`.'p�`•'ati ,t, '„A.+ ri'. +y�� :,�"'.,r,. ?i F". �F�z '�}.'F va•! n...�4,. s.< +.ao ,'�.,;Y^ ¢i. ,.r.:;.,.y :., ., >:.;;. • ,+ .-;, ,Y;�?sca� ,E.+..z. '{• {� �j MS4+�$. c+Fa.4 1a: �..�' d: .�2>,4. _s .:.<,> .i" ,�a^r,... ..}.,,,r.- t. h.; w a ir:.F ....t •,sG,, ..s s r.F, +r� +:y� A t .,, a k.+Yut}a,, ! .> .,., r,., +,@.c�•'t.;:}. .s t..; �,.. .� .:v ,..::<t^ o�.• � a. ,ra>:,;< r a:; ,$ rs. � .^ry y.. +z4; .� � cY; "u }�:+Yaa' l',�'S �' t�,, w. fa. ,� +,ri �. ,w .� t< Jt •, 's v, ,S; } <;v @, apt, .:r.;; `4� +•.+<a'a' . :$' n F..``� :�, .<..:':' '•,< ". ':. ....,: ..,..: ,' : ., :.A:, } `:?' r ;.•�. x;,�;^,>^..�,:.'�',a,',r'�•?.$'+- <.,.r;;AYp'�. v-a"""'�*5"'� d?..w'•��l.,T y,4r k. e ,� -s r:a`i �,<�!:.. Y.< .,.aE;. .iyuFr -'>..?;,,•>:'y�<. y� •,.ik�.'«,. .c-,.,r,..:r• :sr.,'F,4 f'.Y:. 4-�«?�:�e�Z:.#.,{a.a>.:.Y,.:.;�a< } .':�'�:c :c ! ,i:�•,a,<si:.:, � :.>a+>,s kt>YF'��:k.•.t•d•f cr,:...�'}+�'LA+.'^k.r..[,,�w.:Qr.,+}�y7'. ,.Y"'!'�;�.�F',r.5:�.,;.s�.4.�'.��+:'.'�.,1��'�i%:�f�K,r''y..,/,�.fk<,'�Y�t:,�rJ�t;-'i�>S.�•Xs>+?..ar,..�r}.t fi,Q,,F.!;c y.�.<�,'�{'s�'.��t a_„,s A�,kZWy':x��'p�^.ta,:...�^a�•yw,Yt,,'z g t, R grit+>y..y eya�...+�.C-;F<.'�"^:y�..-f•L,Ik;'f2*R At�L!•YK:}.:�.r.;,s�,i"ri.`�:'.ti'6tr,°.a.+�)'a a{'S.`<:;,�z}...=a;.:„'��x�'Yatk.,,�',•3_�.-@%3�,.:.�<t m�7�iom,t<'+x,.xd'��.5`"s....t..ri,v.'r,.v:„.,�:-.s K,.,"r s w>v?�y,.:�`,£:.'i.i�,�:r.I��4S„.k<'p�"b"�.`}�+^F>.Y.sf ps s;v''a A ,r'I'ys.s..o r!:5;ya ex :wa,a �yti4;Yi : Y.. tS{X.�t., Y"�< -�k, 42 y •#NO :,:� !'t : y, '•7,•� S��b4: ".v> ila. .� 1� c �.�ra#, ,.t r+i:^tr ,,epb"�;.1-.:";$ � -r£ a r. �' +�D. r ` •_,': � � •, ���,� y+ �s�:.f ♦`rS > 5ya'S•L,tS i'y: ic�:�,.�i Y _rp yt '.f ,�` <{a7)?.?- t,'K' .�'.,. �M1�,y�, 00 . .,, ?* ;,•.'�1' :.• .;.> ,_ p.i1^ : � '; ;v s �-.:. .s �"^ 3 ,..,..,.,..,,.:fir '9> .izt>�:,na.'3.w o,.w,.x.:;..:sc.M.'� •,.�,,,�,5 �� b ,�;.�.e � .,� M„r a j+p a , ' ,� '�,,.,y � ...w«.,.�r«�!S �.x..s._....... � �.?�,a,�<...� �;y,.,•�,�«..�1.�IR Si 3• f ,:.►.� .+<r.�� :�: Sj .�;?S .SF; r• �-•w..r�.. -i�Yy"r,��/�.�... + ♦ia �� ..' + @ � @, �} ', .. ,r`�NI f� '�� i a.,'1 � s:�.. -�..".a..--.�"i...�...._:. .w»••... -ar �.+:.+.e+.+.,+..ew' .n.� .a. .*@t��rr++ w++...«wx.., �:.....+:- ..r+». .k:.-:"C:ir_C~"r"'" """-+...:^.�r.'""""f-....i•r.e. ..+w+@e �L�Sa..,u,�.,ras.,7� s�.`",�+ tr��..,• r3`.v`.t,*.+rr+�y�waaak'c t�M '"�.'" ..:«..' r� :. j <u ',.j;.`" :.fi.. > z ,,3. .n ':J�.<.t:tti le,d -;aw �:.. � �- +nr.t <�; ,C�'rx •r 'yMi►YFt�!'�r'�' ''K;%w. v}'x��?J.�>� t~ 'K� X".. +� 6.>`'S",�4 <�°iis>�$q�"' k :s? r>�`'', tCa, +r:'a, �E+..�+ `'1i>'. � a.h r:: ` ".vw., -r>> '�"„eti 'ft" ak•,,;;, <.'�:.: l r$ _K k�� ^a`{6 o`X �"`'�'2"°fi. >..3 < �''r,,x'hx.s',aaeaa x ci••S,y y.:.,�s2n r.. s. , �' � �Y���a 5s �a •+•"�."�3 '<xt s �.n, `'tM`ai" � R&^ ���� �> >:r"�"z„t�nl..�":~y�,'��z.�:��� arf�e •v���.�y $fig` ,, .�,' "e," � � '�'�1��.' ` .<; .s,.'S�3'K• i' `3.`}'.y��'et'lk;t>`� �i X s`+v'.:>:r Z'�3",Srf ` < ;. .FqS`.<:!', •a. :.. w:�.�.tiy.^�, '�Fy.4e,ti a< < s.+,+.,r +§ #: b�t y ^<..�<` a'J• a+�+a � ;' a�`s�.!';Y:,., r w '?4r % >i !'u' `\. •, K 16 Vantage Feint # 2 + Y t• A r ..� i.�� PT 33a'S<ik��� 'r'Yv.(•�"f���'��1�J�,'�tiae,•+r f�i.�r't��+�+'t<�t? ,�,x�tt ,v ti ��s.��•i' *yh�4�}�hl',�x,�i,,'SC ��+,r2{*� i��x1�iy R t3� v,'.`� +"asa f�'..�'t `J`'��1Nc„�.. �Yr '� a3�,,.' � NA at�j,-�r * , :x �2, ..7�? rsy i?�`4''c 43`S•�3..,��+.�u�4y�; 4A �rY }`,'1^ v� �fi vl,yyra; i".-.""*�yrp�A -.kt'g'•+, z" �x.. k M1�.wy�l,�'"3•ay.,�me t wr� �:� ��#. �;+.ac�'ia' 2�✓.k r^ 1'v�s a3, #.: f t r a �i a�S .� -� � xt- _ ft a 21�. 0 s�>1 ,.� kv -Yjell ��a .�R�?°'� rs�w.4}�•5�di'�r'{'t;;�&,��c�"•Mtx.�' �lok,tc;� YS.b''�t.�i.E < ": „�s o .. + K F„ t `-�y.y + >,st `• .'K ,,'�^'h+ra ��?�3^y £"°f���,�k `,s..54 r > �`r 2 �' ok .�ti3 �J$ !•' .'.y �r. L' f."$r`at'�.c}ys�"�''•�5'a s'' a. 3` '��``'�°..�,'�F,3 � �� "'^�`6.,�,�` '4,` :'1? v Y ,,,. ��,'K�,^ 'y.��.ar'txa�.'�'•'.•s .+ a+'„ r�tf ''' �. �4�x .�,�'„�d j A ..a'Y7 ✓X#'� ,�j-"tr a s.F R 9+� )a. „+L ,L't.+r$+l+� s �`. <`+';.cny�i�c A`�`. � �+ +p+•-' � ��,,<�' ,�a ` �z� 1..z`t,.F �.! w v "<r. nit r a �,ra as�;•�,+,�t'�� k.. ��a�,'+l= Y+' .+� >° r < $8fk*�}' Sy�.", ++e%�� y-`� +41 ;v ti i � Y x� ...�a$£d 'pry 7�;�•rtl`� 4 , ,��jYi � "'•'';,x.... '.a::" f .�4.. 1� t �lr ``c� ,spa�w�si f: ��go.�w .,'i.-a� t fair ~ ,���5, t � �x c At r." 't y1.�� • r"2 r''k ��y3v':,a� •'; ,+ 'wFijw,.P`•5a},3 Teti;} �. !k" srt ;4 ...w-' +. 2 i T• < 3 'vt'xa` �$ ix•' ``Atr {fit af. <,`<4�'Wri�.S�r��•»+a5�',3� r� � Y 3t.�J��`� t t <r s�•, 't � } h < .`''•'k aF3,� A ?i<'.+�rir�a"'wsx,;,✓',�y.�7ja ;,tt"""R3`sk '3�a� ,y ; { ,-o., 44 .. Al k '1'�3t r K * z w � !a` .Ads'a,'� �,f?.�`� t{qa .a,�� a',ytAa a h�.r s a..,e +r L .N � �•r{ .y, 7a .a`y.'yg '"'y�yi o. ri �y'��"'7;, �.,,ryaCF ..,.iy�y ch i3 k y t t a"'� •ar .`h 3''.;a`if"X µ"3'M}�S',•+FR f�}er+ .,'` �a(�o-,�as y��,�' } > ,..�s � �;`p'^ ,• �. � �r•.°. .�`y��♦., ��r"'� )''"•;:n� Kbv.=✓'�.>, � ,w �;:r a s,, },..• ,�. c,�:a... .:+. j w �^• a, ,.� �:t� '.. � r J t..c' .}�' e��Lv"'r �J:•. t�,, y a -.h ,s. ,f .c fi ..vc '�.>:<S`k a tW� � ,�•R, x r+ 'te'K'a` ? * �..� r"" ,*' 1�,,.' a .'+..`aAY'• !`� a i+J�:''�• 1`s� n}�A�.:r +'� � .1 ,� y y. r� �F t L �on �a .�4�„ 't �, L:;r �ti��> y�}7 r r $��y,✓S r �.a' � r k, < 'r J f`�'y7. '.,� "' r,-. t.�wy.;X .5.. } .:�.a$ r a�:� � �.:�.5-aA,.'y' �5� -,r t.,'�,o-��f ♦74w Ate, �r..}` ar,'rq'.v�' rZr�F:'<s > . y di ,. T::� ry. t��r i?..:.�d, .,,J �: �t^ro'i:.,r rv^-. � ::.3" K.i'f+. LK ,.� 17 Vantage Point # 3 x^>�' �.y Y q<•*+ :�.'$ ?°'k �"r� f,",+ rr✓ ta,.,�'•, •t .v Y'+�S'', "i "6,+rr 3 's.Yr%,.'3..�;s.'; i it'.�:iltit�t+.'�'P � �� �...+ekr )fc+x{k+1'�°}�.'�. �riZ„3+�s+�yy�•';;rt ..�. `�S p.�.. YS�� 'k.: )-�'ho �':.'r.. x. 7"� .ti.�,,"'.Y+�.:`ea L. ;'�{:4 r& hb. „`e:y}„'1+, sr• a.:•+th. n,5'' ,.:•x k. '�4j - 'a�F y ,d. ,,,,,}},, .t. ..^'S 3 --•� ,.�. :a sJs k r $ �' ��� ?< �•a:•+;1,,��"i 5.,r,�r�'b,,�.;5, a'f .k} 1„�rfd, &"4 ` • �. y,'t'�: •. ',., 'ffi'�J��C�'�'F'f,y+� S vX.�;,F ttf�t4 :.n•:�5�' 'l. h4 } 1: 'x ��!�'�;` ,°, �.-tir;•�" a'+%3'�vD y£��.3i:'ro?aa>�. +�' �, xy!9 Y �.� r�kz ^ti ,.ty y ,.,.:t. .s?,� ,q,." ..�.. y r >•:,I�a'y. .,1 x,£',•�,��;�y.t�- ,y y� f���.:t. �l�- � ,v, ti'-..• .ri'•.. ., .3. -.b, 4 , :�,: ..,.Ji4a �'� Y' �' :'9 .<..:.;;4....,.: :i .,,:�, r .; :y �F,�. r:t.:� �'.'''�"}'�,, y..7a. r$y'f�i. � :•.8.�"9.. ..U`.,�� •i" pp �.D. i., .t... .4 ..� �i"-�`` ,� r .Z � t• x. � 2! � �`:���s�;+�y$�i:..:���•� ..n.. �i MOW wave i5• a Y.:+,.r :X`!i -.r.fir.• '�,� o ;� ,F �:.,. " 'Yie e..r. `r �.�.t'L S .S, t :Y 3.' 9 C ..k • C h . 4 ;'yf:li:. !.\ .:<.�'•i •.�9 ..f^r Y•. V ,,,t. .w •,r,•f'3. o- st , f N.: ,!i•�• .4,: j, �'}•s t r: >..: v3> ", •°'' ';;,: .. ":;� ,w• ,.t. ,� '�•.i",, "lF.; ,..� `.itit 'v.�,' ,< �,� .:y,�, a r•... of ,fl�� i{ rTt,`"' 32s`. a...;,.� '` •e' ..<i .,.�4 1,-.:r„y�'Y� ` c�fif,...-.*" .. ., ``: c.. ,'t' ''+ ;`#}•*,. :�:, 3 y`,':}£3v� '.��" A4 wr' w� - a+rY- .,Lsa' 3�rwr.SKr�r;,� slim , Y z wt c IRA vshwo _ _ � ��L"y�i � a 3>•T,`; �` s E r most a s a y + `r r ., L s.�R��,4,,��t•x k"''�'+1y'r''st '?•'�e o- y�a`�';<'f•��6 ra�'r� s dyc''.d vy�i;,.i ';�. .w. v k r.>,�;,� t.:•,+a`r'�aC-��.' t'' �`;i� �'5�.. S¢,4i✓'� fir};! e-r�a'.,;>�;r k,f.-,:�.)•� :' e -;} .'` y +� '� r�a 1��,y r 'y� a<`ii'ra��`�y, ,`+'�..5':�K �„tdy�.u�� "�!` apt�. ! �"_'. . ./ d�' �f� '�`.' { `. Yt 3 ':.�\ ,'4V .. \ 6 3i Y`. ,3' i`� ilk. yc�'•`i+•�:y,. a+�.. S, 9�f„-9t' ^���,�• i�_ t��. ,, -+ ca ''-f rt i A a' t �.F $ a f "�e+, �y..6' F��t�l",� h �:< yrk t • .w .. n� ,..,. � .V - t i r s""`♦,�9. 7.`a'vir\t �di+k?- 9 '^e,,,.r' �'' *�y�.t„ �'•si "�•E.. __ r✓'" >d'±:R.3i Jx� t`b`^ 'Y' . '- ; Jx.. r r:. �y..,�,.. � lw:+x"s�t"�t,.'4 .�+.'��r ...`r �� � �'t � �cjr� �• x,+ .:�' �.` '�ozx'>� v, :,'''y,y �i zz r+:¢�� { �"S �; ;rya n 4 {�; � <«.+,.»<�y.SJ.X d�' a'�'.t+ +§�� 3` •'� ''�e.�f,,����•.. 'rc� s.�.. 'r't h�,iy±v s �i x'Y'�t�� ,"�..,+�,2 t` a � .,•yr< 1. r 5.... <'�'^"` ^+,�+i.�' .F•.4 t� .�^'i #�ioE. . ;fi syt a n9, "4�ad.�� `'M<x' Sle �r`b`Y.."Q 2 :-7.� ,a'�'4 •i"b•?'��y. .S;.Yy, �, b�J�}:4. fi�, i .,'kF •a Yd: .. ,: ;. � .� �:. ...; �fi -.i r• !<.,7 b� ; .._ .� + t� ,� ;:�, av 9 ��� ,. r�rSy.,,gam. a "�,...:,�•• r ye��;s �j,;n � .E: s,4.4, � .r•.�' .�. Y s r•.c•.f s� s. .t•t12 i "°�,,,+s„�,1 .t+• x' ;.y. t'^ai.w 1. .k "`b �.,ya ,s,;:.yr,"K ,i] x x ti�ja"; a' f f y. .� 4 ,x� yC ,� :r a , r 4 sn < wty Ott fgr'":a •�: ,yl ,�{,, .�4''�s24, � '�9 .,re }9.• ;4t 5.,,•r �: T•' t K. �;:hf �.� 4• , �'}< ,•. c �:b ?, r�. .,t,?u. �!'.'i.� a wi n ..,.+..r �.•, 'f: '� w,.�,�; �� � 4 r � r �.r,1._' d`"re mr�y tjd3rT`' �9t.a �.,rt au-.,k4" .t�� N.i•��•e.•,. _S ���i�r� � <<�y"r,-0e`F%ht�C'7'�`'7.�,.;v y t4 ':��,'' �:,;t ,.•.a L` �x h a7;:'�` ,�,a,J,.M •,r %''�`"'Nr � r'`L 4va:!.:� ��'.. o° �,tsrry<1+gcw„ayo7�, Y y.rs."k ,,,,7�c .•� ',`' L y.;,# $r'`" pd` r a.,i••`t_9g,,'�91^t�•''c?f;} ya al - i, ,�,9 sLrT SC`.,•,'+''�.+19•uj.'*.' $, 4`'q,;,."f ryi^ S. .f„4p An— SAW; � ro4:,i}Y r�w '«�.�?JA„'� '��"(,a �v'�*', k�� rl".a• ':�f'"' ',?,. '� i,. ,� ... } >a X i j" � �..� 9 } i ,,. �; �� < r'-✓a tb��l"r w i 'R � �t� t "'�, ..ti,�. 'Yy� �' �.:tfi .P,iv� ,,;, �,c•..0 .� t .r.,•�.a� -.t -,�Y 's. $ ,�y„ •iy��';:.� �r �� .,p u:Y'� .'°,.t. AN �'�� ,.,� �r. -.�' .ee t � ; •c ti :�s W r!,� , �r t�4 ;"`9tf�tt' �: �R.,rt 3� ,,. � _ g ; .;. v,u:, t 3.7'^• g c i.. �y•-{ S 9'. e. ;;.Jk� �r'?i -�' 7T^2� a(.: �i„o ../ � ,, � �.+.. ±i ,+`saw a irt.n+.�ax�• >•„�"9y pko r .� +. ..y.;5 �'>nS� K..��U��J•,♦x'`2s •b* � < ::''„ar7•'�`n,;a'. ..,.;� ,. ��.,ttie,..fi? .t , " F r t x r: r n;Kd L.-3 r A��t ?3 rq? v�3�a r +�s a •a x o < a S..7,�t�• „k;yF �1 ;t� Y^p r4:3'•'"`Y ��"? t a.�; r -+� P 9t�A a• '�'�?__X»i.-+D �e,..,w..'A•••xi`a"��<.p•�y< ,}*,;C'za�5�^�?a. ti i k. � a• v.,tr. .�, .�",+t< a..LL?,. �`L ir. •%.�' ♦ ..%,� 'xr S, 1 w,� .�titl.� r.,,y,.c.r A' ,1•:r..`•tk k ,t, `r•},� ah,-) �••„` .y, +:<.!''.� ,,.•, � `�8r��4>''f° ,ra�.4�*T '�" xw 1 ..?'y'�s. ',`r_.$ .�.'e.1�' 'b�Vs'r.{, -;; r'4sr—.�_.�! v, ''¢+�;k. 2,,,� � y!" '�$ �,y,s. �.prrssr,+t}+,.f?t�e £ §":i $ < <4, xr ,>'ti�9 *.c. 9tas1,l"+t •:Y "'k i•�:•: �•.�Y ,.. 'RF^''4 �L.e'�.lfC�'.� ;l^4 r. 'yi..... .>. �{�. .�:* ..::w�"W„! r. 1k' f'tik.7�i�',Ss,' :; � � >r;,yyx..11,,,, •a.: .f"Cvl S.. 4 i .2,-�'�. 3.;y „2 ,.3,.e �°'i "�y'" aCl+?. 'i:J�;l '°.f tr �� ��&�;�?'`t�.r�.ryc A.K ;rY f"y..y,Y#i1. t ,r.'4r ?a,..?s''a,>9 ✓ n•r'`x Y°.e.4°' y3i>M 4' ,9i`+u ,� '3• �" • , �,�., +3�►.St'"s"�x..yap,�,,,, yr, �r y BEY` r }�.tsf Y- .,k�'s.�, '�,wo.�'i'Y�i t��„ �9 .. � ~� Sk' ~.,"E ���,. t aqr++ ��'','.,�s^�`.,�'�'riti'KNZ �.�f'w'�'� `'7 ,s•.�fits`+� 'd ,�� „j;i',':?„Y,. ,s;��',��� �:• .•�-�� �•y-M ^>..r x < r`�.%`xr' �'}�i` L, 'r ,>r� �".e r , �r�•r•; '4y`'`'y '7 ea � fi r S' o • ' i�' `•r, .5F{•* ..�. aA � - �a� � ))P,�4�t^*��'j�'.a.,^,,1t��`r or•<.+t'i� g ti:y�J>'�'"'. �194 y�'ya�`s..x ti 2nl9ff9S i��'`�•( >G T;Y', ykrq{;,rf. �+wqh' -gyp,' + �.�) �Y �'L '�` M.ry +t >,��+►^�,� 9 i�f�.+SK=,i,f;`� �t.+x'��M�� t'� � �U.'_ ,i• a s ' w. t� z,+.e< ����5 y�•!�a`..x*A±^if►!• ,�v• - .,,u�.- r ;.,c. �� xt:+p'ak..�c- '+6,.i� 'Z3'. �.r y .:.. :<' y.�„ - ...l. �� .rML�w r .�..rr".."""n' • _"5Ta'�,..�aryi.M�1�r�r • Il�rrs �: 'err• at � ;: r !- _ � 'Wr :. ,'�'.. J '. .:� :�rr.a• �I�Ir„ ��tNwwrwrsr z��gy,,r�>'�tx''�; � } a' stay ` ',�X$+,�e�,�.`°r'.'. .` / �^.•:�':^M•eer�M+ .:t,w �..,'`..Xa �> w� �"� :� �:%^ :rt � 'h �t�w•'i•'� ,� I 'a"'�ec «-.'..k, �..1�`� "�Ir'y','w' if77 OMM r> .y \ ? .� �� iv 3-1 > d'go .A'' t': rr..`s •t .aw+•, '::..s w.. �•+? a 7�yc •,, \o i 2 e* ,� `S:' �.,x.�r ''� .* � S�� .vrrac.,X+:..e E ,•��� SEE '1 .y ..` b'�' [ k. �fr a t -,+� �d ='\,� :� +Yt� �•�, ram. i s . rr • ti,"'� �rt Ry .,hI& • 4y j: �. � �O iy �"��"+ *►#,n.ty � gyp k� `+ ti .r.ca ��. .a„ r, �++: ..S 1ts�r+> N�+•+4'ls. '+ s`i> °r � b a' ,A. '� �.,.� *s.: �. f T}'+"3:" ►{Y+1A s��ritj� s f fy .; SG� i�a.t'r �25;��,t#tvKi•tv�;`yYt ' ,~� J t.,f` y y �r��5�.. is#!#tr.'�yYA•1r�Y!+�i At ML3j>. �°o..tom° <} i r �, y�F�✓: 3 17 v c < aye`► �„. a. r: r � was+� �t A � t V� �. 20 Viewshed Alteration _ Vantage Point . 1 a 4 R.10 Y'( Q^S��]�n� �'•,Y`�' r 4 „(�;p<�y� �{"YJ�� A��^}� � p L�',^ s 4.. F" z 3 Y�,a{t�y�{:4> ��r'3`r�,Ay.9r`'>,�3s '� *'' �T`'s• ,a•. a9 +'i-��i F�a - s ) �5., p ) .•�.' + .e t ^y �t^F,4rgS'4 �4v Z"� ) i..t �+tip •{. ,�; Lv,.haC� s� s •,�t-'T 8' �s�r'K�t3ye.i3 a:f* ;r',r�4�"'.,t��:n,� c`,� kF.:. '�,' p � j` (w`�a+�+„'�' .� . .*t� �..0 ,. "2..r , J •�. •f,°�`,�:• y,p, `C::,� ac;?'� >i'�.= °.� '•R?'•K TZw Pf �. : � � �X'* #S `.4�. r. ♦ i � .�. �'•2N.�yi. .{ -}":?i�.;ai,�:vfin�.. >.w.n.r`•o- :�' fi ..k'„` ,:G&�.ba'N� y '` >..�..tr'- f :, y''�,'�' ✓+•.'^[`t e t 'Y '3'4�k`." :::,.,µ S,y+,.. s�`a :. W':.,` Zc,.ti:- �t 1,µY�.� �''��. , ,• „"� � •+'•'• � � Y�'`xr F k.rn x?Y <st :3 "W� v 4 �.��Y' �� "'�' a,3n' -� � L.'` ,�.r�'�i, �,.�;••£.. '����'s•gT'�3 t ��:5�f?f' ?���- 'f,,r�'�� s'���.,�f .'s✓}6 �r.��"�+t»nw.;"Xh�����'It,�,�;it �?iS.: 7s`f�l¢� r, :.s,�. �'"+"'�yv �.. �4 s. {t c...Y xl yr�(' �'."�i s•<-Y `�a ,?:v3�`' .>:CyS�'� �fF1 :.,x' ,;.',Y'ro.s." ''�'3ys`,� � •�`•' '^. ax�(,�'TM'"'�i?*i::: 8y -,�' _v j :a T •f r.. F '` "`S a'✓ t���.. y f x. �;<sts•t. i� Yi 'L ?+i y K��: ;ty�+xy�i'��. .xy... � �S''S`"�..�d`�t..ti... 4� '��a'#r+ ' `•�.•, �'�,s,°F°{ ',moo j'"'`:..r {'.,r i ,,,`" �t,?�.Mf� ";: v 1 t- :,v t t ,;,�� Ce��'�° ?.`�^4 �,. '��.. �f .h ` a�` -s�.. .�, ,y e'3 ai��af�. 'si.,;,�,�a,3s�.:��.:{`R.'F;fi:� v7y� ;.d.72;.,�'i'.,. ``�..r�,�f+Tiy} .�`,lF,•� rZ;L�" �":� <Fr,,,`.Y:G.^.'. �. , ,1..r, �� t a. �b �,� ?,+� r�ttyy'R '�7 ,t .�• �' a+,x�,:q•.€a�d r,s'"4t IN .,.� •�"Fa •"k,. >a''»'`� �, ':i4i Y f.Hr� A:' .i ,{��h ".f N Y: a ;� � � � iR:._c' .,r•a '"'�,f� ��'. off, !,a`' RG 4 L. }`�. sS ;.�t�' sy• < t,.J`�'� °''�K�% 1K•-�s.� �:�aJ0.. •�4. .. �- 1.y .ro .>� °� p. (• 4i t .e•�k�AO ,aJiY�k�l '?i �( -� fi.5� zi L � � "� x.� S )M Sa3 Xt �� _ \ h Cf� S � �h4'� , .: �°i�'* .r 'i yt#" �,"�3' �' f1 y '15'��"5� ,Xs if•' r.3'/ri-"c�'{.��n,r /q, a" s •. ,}ir..; '" ,� �<�9 r+x'�r`x�• .,U'•. }�,rr.: t'�t+., ?Axo�P'4 Fi3 }$ }�� v,y� R(� :..w;�.*�', :.ry`+rr'n•6?d .f °y.:. F•F,r, ••t.:;x ^^+a++iM�l.'&.3`1+?'�,,.,. v - a;. "� ,?i°a."`3y u KR, a'a > "' :..{{ '.�,'���, �,:C.'`:A ;y�,�S'#.,, x'rp '4k-'•`°!...t� t.;:>'� �. 2:..C< a'H wA;?�� � .::� ,} 4- .Otg�C4, ;..... ,le�'LS. •�i't n�#y,i1 ' •�° ;, �±``-, � , kt:�� •.�.,.,may ,w:. ' ' .�c c.-K r, ? ^:, 4c ... <r "�A'rr`r'tr.r,.�' �,. •✓• .�u, "sY ,{� ' �•S8',. .,. .:., .. T,, vyn> 5:+ a Y'r`+r ,,:rwC > n �, t .,► .:,r-1kv't ,�;;''i f } :.ta.'F s J r•.. } rd'' '-•; v.�.?,,,:ac,�.>.,' 7 a. ��3' h t ,�: .c•;,,.y^i'.'3's4 1,>. r� •. z } ! �'It,�''*..'h.arm v�e!'r>�f„e#`a..r.:�•,�. >:....•i• }"tiv:>3s*� �.r$ra�'S ''s ,'u,: ,.'d'$;` nf�, A n , '��yry<'k t�Fb ,�vt�y\'Ft�'�� y.,- k T ::i r +i�,.. E " Y,.:, ''�r'K f^,�}�,fY�•,� t �� •t „t.,'�,t> �; `�s yk s` +.'y`T`•.� ""'S % +a a+M..i }.Ct%ry{. t7t'"::,. +. J ."�•. k�`TD'�:' i•yt�...g,.,,jyt e.3- n$'y r t ,:.x t A •.f ', `, cam, u a ,•h.• ._4' + ;_� ,•�?4.}+G,�n,��Tu.�b�' 7;a.�rX �:.,,,. 'a. r y ,<.. :.y f:�F e t'+/, n`tw'.t r ..t Y's'�. �x -,:t .'4*•'?!:J 'u 'r ':} r '2`a!. .,x.��a �:;,,a 3 'S.t 4,r: .a Y,,m; � a .+��,+rk ° �.t4,�.v••�,a::,y� ss<z?•. s,�t...r.. �'},� ,,.4wv. }k.:��� �4` ;�.}•r;s -,'•: � .1Y , �..:. ,. :c <;...:r, ae .tv a.d,i, K _ ?,, u r 'yl°i 2-!c.,�-4a �. ..+ a•'>4. ys,y f.Xr. ,3:: ', x .-�z,may++'�� R•. :: - : 4i S r:. ,�q �� `:', � d....:.;A`' f.,."..,..T '_.•f • *? ..' r:w'`"�Ti« +sry..Y✓,•,p a'r�s!', »yyh;� .?i2Y'" +y.,, � fit`:':.. .,g'ii*.t�+y,'r.. 'fYr:..rl� "`- > ,°a:ka iti e� ai.kit aG'V... \.;,5itev 4 ✓at'�,,f'k. 5>�' ..i ti4' rG`eY'6: yr S y"',Y' ' t, r ayt ( e.y, ,�•��++a'\ y:� } qt t.x T :^ �•;y 2#: 4'�k• Tk"Y °`1 V 'P� '��' .. .�,'N .k, `�itNF�,�.' f.•:S` f. .fir•, a �. ���� `4 "!�:. A.�'•.5,�_2 't' .�a.+,: i S;;�yf,,Pk,r,. ..Sa s..a � �.,., `t ry„�^s ',+:r ;:.,t+a:'•y -F;w vS 's•,G '+.c L"sk y„ .k ,{A,r''..•X•i`i'. ;'�.w'�' f'" :",r'.y4��A�;.1t ;c ....3•.,'�(�. .w � .,t,••,y�'9"'•<r6 .,"r�" +C '};C .K}+a+:��..�..E „L�?�nr`'sX`?•`k�4 `w2sw.k;, ,.t?.:�ra^Y ,,,r,✓ ..'�,,t,�:'r,. � y �. :.�c ,u„h:'�•,r 3 ,.� ). 5 :.,,.kr v.. v t2t•., at �% v, :. �`t,a�•:�'„ ;"';c..:!" £ '�•i1+'•3Y4i �?•aa:'ir .:;kq1;s5 .+�is'^�'t,..,.�`" !��?',. 3. '�'�':i s+. .Jt:Y'ts <'rZ.,,,: t t .;5;r«,�.� )°{f ��; s . +��"tgc'•C,;,p, w;,. �v,;.z Yt .>E:`.,rR' {,�•'� '�' s.; e �•r ::ti: ,rb„ w ?,*' f.,.;.-f r X','"2'�v:nti.. C '� ,r. xK X..,. �-�k; } , rl� '" },+,w" t '� a'�� �4. 'Q; ,s+ I` r' --K ,r-.�,A•3-• '^.�+� _.l�.e�tiy,;,'t '�fr�. '"x�. y;, 7�'+ :b?-� tx ,5,• };�c s,¢ t. °•k, x ^'t�i�t..,^��- W � T 'rr� '£��F-,y"�"*.Fa'�f•T sc, ��z. •�� k«"�:y 'Sa G.' *r ; .:f'" ^a. •� yJ•iT''4EY -.k�q'3 �'~ �'�t�':>}, �'X t. dK--5;6�'a L't�SpY'• ,yam '?• :•: :'.,• gty '' fi+ .:.; vfA' t,. . �3 �.•*A b. .:se i•a'p t ;t«GP#,£R ld� s�•.c :+c�k�''•',' F;' i„ � „�ai. i R �1.. a s n �•.., 1'{Yet 'r .i,S a eriR. 'a^ r. {.:�s..°�. 5,y ,,�{ �.•.��,.'4,: e -•;•;! •aC.. v- :5�T s�oNaz;"i)a•'v,r,'{,z;..Y 2 `,ti. 1`- a � t �'... rtt',•� ti ;�. 'k.k�Sx'a'a` "�F.*�"v'+� :"rr Hu,.3,• :w..�':'i' � ,�.%,�• $' S. Rfi���t j•z#i` +�J ..,r• t • _ fw.e � x:.:+'`�•, t-,. .i°'.,..tii4 f ��..R•� �.��',3,+.%�s3C, '}� x.�r 4.: �i', � }e... jRY •Q•..,rT'•� a si"'Sk' �'"# v"t. ,{+v r d t :1t_ 'i `•+ YA a',. Y K .. T ,' r r• ; � �.9.�C,:. r,.'a xi i tt S e � J� s- s .a •K:. ,p, •y.. s i.- t !a D>w+..S' ..r,AIC c, +F :l:J t �"Y ,.` r :'r �`•r .1, „w,; �,. s•>�; •n }�y.r_�y,�.'k{ �. ra( ;>'.[";Ci'. ;xS ,f,;y:; y, :?.. yf' r, » ;k .1 ,^c •.� >' v.:.. °,•::k. ..� r'h. ,y".<,�'Y,•� C;�� �`'i �y,�, �w. f v '°� .l�. ,t �. �i .�.�;° f•} � 'F;,>.0 r.<k�3„ �. ^� * •t-.. ,t'tiGt,•�d:.:t.�, <<S{< t r • > t. N �.�y.. t ,%r.�N,p f -.iy nr l•Y. �4<• {fro.;,A, t r , f fi:�k c Lt..,.�,;it� aY-: r +' '�n' ,r�`�y �'k i�i'"�»`•,'n�$�.`.'h�,v� �"` �ti. ':t n �"'n •'t •< g �,,�. r ,y'> k ny,rev} +.. :'�a y �.; .:e� � .c�w>iifut��t:�.�.w�'�Sr,%�+�a..z,,.,^z'fs�r��ii;�'+.ir,Xb3::...,.,_......_x. ,t'.,,,._rn.. ,...,•.,._..,.._ sJ.Y.«..T�-._a....�, ....,�.,,,T..+r.>-...a....o....u..,_..._...w<. ,. ......M..�.. 1.....ti.."N.�.._. ,.....S.a4s:w'«�,.aw«.. b.�,.r..vx�.swr..:,,�.:� � :4 { ,.� f t � i ,`�^ \ } -,.' tR Y -) Y<J ♦,\ 0 h F L }( G { �A". P Y 2 i r ,�4:� � y� SxL�;�,♦ � t T:.. to P ? � fr �i k b> x 4:: , --;r 'S\ �., �,nkY> z �•r <fi-.?,Ztnt�{i 'tv� �..r 2 '..: o \,�s ,r x ?, ;r ::-�♦+�'�?.,x$,;,�r f{gh.�Y 4�z ,v 2a f y, o ��,,. t > aXt < Y^ { �,:.� .�} a..�a .k r,��}}A s�f tti_-"" �5'S -•Lr>,�Y,�>•.'Q So..,� Zti'ry �,i tf `''� '" Y c . �, .;:Y.z � m �a.-0.t. ix.'y .,'Y•''Y'�c..�.1t '!i.-i'�. �: r'.K :� a S,:%z'w;,. ..:.� :' ,R._'rt',-}'•v .,;`.9t ,r-:.....,, ., R �'>x:• ?..}a. ?.< t•... +z. :�.e�:f,,.,:. ,•. „23 �.:<.... '�:'a:r. � ``;.v'} s.,'?v:: `Y a..>� \4.,;t'^ � `` L:. :;>€. o- f r?1 > t. .,^ y .:y�?zJ(i s,}.K rt ..`F'3.- {{.,,.. ..��: ::•r : ?T� <,., c:�s X ,.,<a. n\y.. ..n.t?.1, t .1 <� ). .�'t:'�{::. ''... �'� .-{ x.'.�;� Z ... � � /yy P h. 41�+. � � �• } � C.q..$ YVv .+5���'�-�� �n `�t �..< 5,.( `.._. i } -i. .. \:Y .', .:..r,. ,. � L 4 x+ Y? �k �;5 k > O�.Iv� A yy'"{; -' '.I • �\ Y T." vx.'f p ''t i`�-.,+ ,$F. ,�.'rA �kk si•"`y"•` � y �.c':: °.?:o � . :., s < a.::+2 ..�,..',. .x .SC '�•:.. ,`:• .:2?'�5., .. .'.'). Y <> ti.0 /' '2 .<`�.' to .x% t .:�h S +.?';t) \.�. •? ° :a:,�.:' ���#�: a ��.sS�'�4�, _.�•''�Z ..1.@3�5!.Y'd'�.�+e' .a ;'.�.-+ a� f < i<. ,:. �;t\ fiK :�:;::; c.��: r <.,`';. { ^�, �x�. .w,n, co,..r'.'F"`.d 4$' :fix-t •�,�� .•�...T .L g� :�. ::i ..<:.,...♦ �x,.,, .t:b c?� C .'<:.. '.:ti�a,:.hr: \ a �,v. -'r., q•„ .E�. 3�^ .4�.wv. ,y.., war.' .1', �,b¢� { '' .t.`�wil Ya .A A ,{, �._ T. :� }^�, :. s t } ��,'r?x Y ,. ��; :x.,,o.`:. �..: .,} , ...°. r�. � ;� .��,• 'l.�t Ly .it,�^ •..r.r♦rr awrrrrw. R.rw �.Y {' : : ��i',{'S t �.�'< � x ;�:.o. �'��,.,�'' {:;r .e L r v,< <k r :' :gax^`*t�• • • :. • �R,�v4! b`�;.K^��:�•' .r..w1l-..ri. �w JJ i k.�l ,x#,ac"."'+�. } x '^ < rS<a w K � •<:+rr, a�X. s„ � �•?�, z, ���. �Y-�9"�ei__ f., w c) r r+'• 1'��t�c `c'��w��tY^�,R\ {tr,;i<t�Y•. opS`ti v2y �y�, w: T s'k 2..`.�'2. .;; )4 e,r '� .} k 5' .4 a• w'_•.wt- ,1; �1 ~f: ayz .J:�ra v �. Ki tYJ`r.atit`y, �:�'� ,�Y�&� 1° 'W`�'k�;<.. t:%,^ .•. .�7r `> :5�.,iy s'>* Y�, { ;4,� - - '' �w yyx `�'.,,p,,Ad t!f4y ,L`., 4. g a......•R•r.... ~..��.M•...... x�'SS�is'��`'�t`•)r�>� .►1 S. : ;n� �` t..' �'�:�:�' §7�',�,�;3 ,&L'e , •y F V za��4.�;t i i l• � .>1 I t� �v � � �<`�`�''� � �w._._! .iw'% .l J `"' � ���'}t}'!� o: 1• 1 t 1` +rrrA rr�rwrillr •r ram. ' {! .♦ ''� �A : ..�- � x''�^3�4�1�>�`v�f' � '� yam' `i6Y 4`t ,�dq":- }, . 4m uAn11•f�.rrrRr•rrMwwlsN�Mr�E at<f'xr�n t5 �J'` 'M ^ f • i•:: 4 1► j a�W ,� :,;n �'l> X a„ <x z;' 7 1:.- ► i l!-A ii Lrl .+rri,r.�.r�Irl •rw ,�`i^tyS Y3^; ."�' .• • .+rr.rr.rYYw w } t < � '. � �T�� � t Y Is Y'. .-,s,. .•. :. M � ./_w1 �JF�II f.,- , x 'f �F'ti.`r � t! '�.+x.;, tY � !�'s r ..�•�r.r�`�' ��,�1*` ..y '�i' 't �- � w;Ac �t•.t �.r�',�""g� :�,��ri Y..=:• ' pp '.� M$x 1'�? - .�.....lrwr.•1+.rr•.M.•n...''•.r p��� ww,, yy�� a � wr_ � t 4 'i ? `� Ix �x Nr X` Y'K�' �r7( .>•?•Y • .i. �1t 1"-Jl.i 1. �:_Ii KL "+irK}'�'•� �,v�.{. �+\ ;;�.•"a•'•R r>w..a: +.rrllrr•rr ?:;` ;:J'. YY`Y.y ''' Y... k Ft 'ate R ✓' +y `�x<t\,$ 5�`rx .7•layK,,?,, 1 t X j A it 1 ! •[a � �<r>�"�{�� `'� '�K���� {y.."� ��< ! �..1•a. �. �..- .�,,;E� v «.. �.��w x _.'kiwi: ';.C� � � f >, �. � 4 ,•.� `i .r. r r. yM.� Y�•x••.I"'t c��<`��M �yF � :xt i � #. �± ..{�.A,. :Iww• r.+h:.-' 'i��wa t�r a,.v�� r :{�•.k,,�.�' ��` t�'�� 0�< y''� '7�O j. '.� i. {. .�.....P..:r'sl.:'►.e*~I �C . "'rt� ;��' Y.r twY :c`'+as•�.;c. vie3r'�� �i. Yiil•: J':-� i, ;ia 'E` ,� ` #f,��y ��� �rt..'�'^Q, 'x`.x.'��-r �•�:�t•,, �.� t. �C'.`.»:.L•«y. t ::.11'x' ¢e5y r�:,� r.� �a ,y�IC'f!'. •+A7YiioN�:`� r.`vc•-.. ., w' °A,a l'{z•.lAri�... ✓�'irc+'s'€ > ;,{�,x'�y<"tr5.; a ;.I;� `. 111r'♦ al... ..:..;.+<.. < .. .;3 --i' °}OD°f�S`( ,� RAP•.: r.tA . st g K, ne�,oaib�iuut►'.xrv ..,., 'ti. t :li rs� e'iifl.i: ,/M ;K: �:- :f t�"',iii 1, 1�.. 2 G,'....,-1- i++..+,f Y tA .•,; ., fir,,, ..:j^ ..��,�y.,y4,,<: `` ►. ,...+.d+�+.:.,,� s�. <. � 1. }{Y \{ 'hC'�t 1 �"�`. e!"',iw<,`'. l '.-,1, a ) a>.y�r ",': .lI/.A•"Ft �+y':,i r"''1t' t :. � �• '�,..-.:i:' .u!+�'� a :"1•a �- 1 � -,# � �' �t�' � �'' ff��"11"l�� ��•, a+w"•"°"""J;ar J.<Ar.i.�y .� ,+trw+it '. �r• w �,:""• :;.:5$ ��'°�2 ?{- a N i'. >� 8 .^yrr '� � .:'1.,,,r`r : y' � 7r �`qti J•.�'r4T4 wa :;s S w"•Vyr�'W� ♦ �y •t.y i+. ii t1( a < 2 L..31''4, a {:a,•yyt _— J'►'MJ `� .4 �a►rAi*.r,•Jv+a s:' !,f ,, 1' k F. �ra,,,<f �e..,:tl�.a�yrr� :• +•r z�,.,, spa'• !" i ." ,1!w' 1 *,�Y„hyh„ ...1<,`e 'r>. `•t •s,r>' f,1,,,, y_: `( � 1... '-� ..�. '�} lri<T• ...�:�r •�:. .i W �yyy� yl1►� l R.�r+�•y „''� t r . l' M.:t� KY .rMh'w.NG. -M.'w..,., 9 a� ".""_-•Alt r•�VIR.1'�••♦ N.w. nA =?'n roaxp•,gllR.an r^.c,. r "3�,3�-*S•�.w .Mks-7t :. wM'.. a„'aMV«:..xll«�..\ .Mit..wS+..» �o - ` . ...A';: ...-rwt .i..'trAl�' 'a* :.ia`MR.4,i.,.a 4ii.;? , rh :.FF,7A C i•?,Y�<ja4,i("}.. ��,"1Y��y!�p.`Taw S+ �¢� • 4y :'•'i J. ,.:.;�t. � a...: v.w,'.., .�:::.,..,,, :...:y ..+t '..'k ...,:. ,: ;t. <ttY+s: #s++'.,., •..{� ..,✓.filet ,y w-rt', '�G.v 4�,•�e, '�re'4 .�.'.." .a... rnn�xx Ya, ,� .-.`iRG,'L l:.a�.,.,<.. F >'�.:s<;t; •�?, ,r .4�: s x f+F Y` �c^"�.a S<, h'i` v,� S"'.'c:•;'k �' 3- 3?i' ��yy,� .I,Y.. �v t .#x7,;^::1 .:.... .J '-.;' >.,:x. .x .T"*v. ',�..M ti-..�g:r`w••�.'•:•• .. ..., .�v.l�`. ;. u , '� :'^-3+ ,. `: "�`: o' r�e£,n;n...a.' '^`><E '>�a+l:. .ca�. +'�' �� '+3L, .s^.L�"., ���, .x♦. :... .: ,2,,. ',_.. Sr..,Z - r ..a. < ...;,♦;,.oa i+�;n, .. ., o,,.�., u n - .. ..a-, it aka�:.. . ,.J. .4q'�F'kSS.,. ,e�??,, '3av, ..• ..i, `:��: \.. ;4:e ,:{.} ti. � .+^.' �,:; ±��s,,,<+:. in b '-w.,..,,. r A o< +'?.•?K, 4`t -.>.: s"b.kv'r.,. ,."'� }yy f••V„'�`. ,.Yx��;h 4: '@. v t k s, \.: :r•'�,�,��,,,t"k.'.:. f.,. . r <-,. a-. tX. :,..5..��.?L. . .� .t::.5�' ;.0 ,y, :.i .<2.,., ..a.k.."t*n.. y.:t�r•�`'.a K ''yy `Fb+':F.J. \. t :n+<. > + <♦, �3 3 .5 rr�.:,tr•. -ea♦„:.:• « .�r r:-: ...•fin'.. ,.w�, nk' t xn. �,�. ;<... !a.♦ ,r ��f�'♦ 'c"'.!> {<'.t. 5 <,-�, "4 t, :+t; "� +, a < i, ';, •F`4 ♦ >;t}r. <"S2pi..u>tj,.'� w...:.`? '� } "' v,�.:: sM � � > s.. : ♦ i:i �J ...�dr'<a 2s.2;..y. s4 l t. a < ti r{t uc,s,� ?�.} r\; \n..,. ::< a �:waM.", v� s �?i ♦ 'wcr.p{J,KtY .;yno{x n. y. �.. 8 s a a \ ,4: •FJ4 "1`ti�'`. ,.:s ?y� < ; ' a^,{.•,�2"'Y--J ah } L <,. .h4F^ *'` �Y�. u. y.�. 'i:.S 't Yy T l f V .1 Y ^[ . j ..\4'v S 'i Yak! �:', ,�<,:,.r ..t4 <ti;,x t'� 1 ':t, k:W P • �'i:G s_ .r t ,♦ \ x' s 1 < „� `4> r�a ,d<K .a�.^� � ti ti♦,,.. .tg; 'a R-», �>., 4 'Sy .'�A� +'�r t�,.:fi..:', :?a. ors. �{.t. •rJ ,�?., x a �' � J s, '4 . i, `,,� h@�`CSt .:» .< �Y• ,.h .>.-.,. �,... t. aJt <.t.. :.<�`: >�:.e?} d�. � !,c!a. >: g'. u:«t, .t. 1L. +K fix.., . .: ev. .�''C.. a .,.a F ,,L--. x.,.,.;�`,`6-`it.y�':'`�r xi :.:�*.•w i•i.,, t s'f':' yt,_,.xt.f 1 .>y< : .<t::.p 'S`'. ,Kt>r. '^t. x a.. v .'�<:�.,..'ti,.,+:.^{�,::`'.,. ,., ,. ♦.::<, rl.. :,':' >F: .F,,,v..� Y&ri ,.`.y..> >. _ ::'Lr 't.,...� .}, > .i,v..+...,a� '+� :m`tisha k:S�sr,, 5. ��t jt+\^. :. t.'9'-'Y'bo�i+� a,, sh;h:.. •.,�.'.`G W...,:,,. ati.., t,. � e rs., �1, .c ,<�,. +i�:.t s� � ,zM. }a�'4.. <,7, s. �w^,+>tcSn.�. �„ �, :e�< �•, ti ♦,.:s- nz.hcc ••: h :..0 a ,! Ya, .#'C�'` •r°'t., . 'a''•>F<, os �ti`4.: -�'� -�+w•- .n-:-.x f;.n�. ;i,ti �,. a„y,J; 'tcY'r' o„ � �;, wa+,.✓:.,h a-.:•, :,•v n ...-;;`* ,4..,>'ru >3�.v',�; ,,,Y:r.,..>:�` . ^. ••-"&,.. d .Rs,;: , L,. .',,..may. ... ,,y,a �,pyy.ds '.,� �, x�. M1"�. 9. a'. <r�. �'ye"� f r.:�,:{:, ?rid r.. .v.< ..r .. .,..a ^�tr's{+. .:..,.. 4. atU,^a">• ..�.:. Lt�'"+oy.e,+"+$Y >z:; C.�a $a � .!t; ^{ :X {"*.,n,.... 2 - .. °Y� ,� � � � '� .��,. <,,� ,.�t�^ . ,. .,,�,, ,•ro` :2 . �� �� ' ^,ail. w !. �;as'�r,. ,;. .�:r,., T c,�•, R J<s ` v�"'�" .> ,}. t •, M y�.�..y :x.y., .. 4 ,.''�,:tyz,�":-,,�cti�s.. e. �•.�.e..{� .x'e �� y`.. *�. ?<;.3., 2.,.'��+.' ,a y:��� ? `x;•�� ����. '<��' ;,� �,zy>~�.r�,3si�. �� : ,<xrti���� � �`�;a.,. � C:r,K���"� ,.�'��,,:b_ �?i _.� 5 t k s Y:�a,�fi��T2^'.-ri,� sxt+'�.+..'an. Y'$ '�'• �� a W .S S`Q ra'F fit.;€�,,ax � .i1 .i���`',,,Zt SSQ?., :2y,v r'€3,..+ ),: �'` .s• +'mt R.•� �, S ,� � �as.: � �.k' � ` �� ,�� a^r'�+`' x *Yet t r a^��t },� �� � � ''t;<4�3 a$-,,, Jew R�./th��`"'k.`d''�'a•c'� `9�7cy,p �Y�" v Y ..3 r 1 Lj_ 1 �tf�hFititi�►_ _��s�iittsi�-,litf.. ':�,, '�s� �`W2'"?� ..'�`. 4, «�' :r� �w_r r���•!i[i�:iY.��tY.aliriifYM"146 { Y.r.+vs�iF t�y.i r. r': .rnwl,wlM' V\<1 trl YWirii�irl�r4�.<.,'WWr1irYZ�Y•i1W IMMM M4M"r� y�. : .... .:w. f., fk 'm i.r : � 1 o•i t G.: .a+ 111� M• . <±+.�,.� §a$ .�"ri' W ....rir+ f✓..w.4Mt.:Wa r.r+)r Rx i.-'"r-"' yl.' w..haw. + +b., p* .+• f,i`' : f.Gfl 'ww�►r�°i>iW `fiT «....ii...911r�YM1ii/► �►Mwwn�r `iM.ww .K ',9 •Y,' 'k Jr •y rr+« w+> . '+► „•y..-w..+W a»t -WM1K-.' `,.+�1 >s- t Mu`r•a.a+.+..r+ar� a '�� � fa;,-,�.rwrr. � rr. 4 i.^ `. M�'rra..+r .. vs i!.:. f 1: tt •�yr1,: L.wrurrr+�� rririr w•rww ..rrry..,.?�"'► t��Y t►`r+n.R.�'. :Mw+wtar,Iwlla�w.r+.r.e. M :�w•,RswMn:� •^�• �:: A,;� <^ 3'L —'•••'•+.err"'"a"" .:«wai l.�/1�,�a� � Ui��Ti ► r1;ri�►oir��i�'�11♦Li/�� ♦lli a+w����—'�►M+rr.i��►rr�Irwwr�R arrw�aeMW MwiM�i rr�YAwwM�r,:, ]f•Z '�`•'a'� i`r+ .'.iti.'•r*�:'"'Y 1 ^`. 'a. w«i"* ... r. i,»i. «+ 1, .a».. .w: „ !:, Zr`+ `l �i ',� +�. Pwxe. + a �` s .:.w '�. ' e 4$♦ .,,►3\'xr A..'i tiJti:1..:y.�f .. «. . . . . * s a. J v .r.i•, r'^.a""""�.'.'" it t, ' , f. .w L r' "'� ,t J F �>� L a .,,, € {1' �: � � ! �� � "'�►+�! a A11hM�.�. {.J try.iirri aW.2A.r,,,,.OywY e�y�.a•<w....� 'ern.�...wwr<� Y w.a2 - .yp.. w. 'yM�i ,w4„ `���,' v i �-.w. �.a`w+, .:�< .M:. w3A+a�r �...,.r�`a...J., M � CCCCC a •� 'av: '"h' `44' �`t...{a.t w,•Y ':a,;sta { ..:''�#Lr�t:�'r.6 '�r,Na ..; 4�-� fi �,a�,a''1.. 4' •t:;+.t` ` �Xy`s. ��xi1� a,., r�� 'fi 'x".` ,°a,+w'�^1c t � ♦rt� ri.4 xs",fk�i�Y ` ."S�-vt>%s,�Y2`'2�k.. :�.:c �Y w.'�+P":�.�, ° z.... "-0i. �: - a. . � ,d ,t-'. .�,.,s. p.i .-s�x±{ <{.".'t.� x 3,�.�.$o*v 3t;�*ry'>w y, y� x.•'v '� •>'^.`>•A ts. yCX ,.X,;,kAs� xvn,;,r.. '<t+ -<.{:?�c 4`:..�".TS a.�f'��r.4 y �°`'+�• < ?r;G.n't�'�� 'a y�`"WN. -�'. i r �< ._,;.,b a. Y 't`:<. ,�,t .E., w' �c�v,•.', � ^T«' '.`�'. '�' yL�r N.�.,,y ,�`+,. >.k?`:fiet:r.. v �°< -" 2 ti.;�"a 1,j.?"gg��4 ...: �•? ,_s,.,Z.,t� -da..1""6c.r,'v :"f;;'+ .�' .. e, - il,�y - .•b �r*.,,'� '.�! � \.f,a,�s�`+�.. '.,s^js.,..� .,;� .y;' .. ;. i ::YF'as snw,. f' �.,'..?�."'3-�♦< <t..3,.''ty,� J.Y�2<<.5:?l;�- +�:. - i��'h'> t. ,.�_ Q :a�4,-•� 4. ,.:�a. _ i :<> :,rt ".u:,wS...Ji .i:vti•y f�-.• .F'. „��,.,K y .R.a ,....;�,.,r fi��.. a ,� :ti '�'( •;E S ✓�` tY^F ', z'`t ,il ,,k. s,.r �dpk ,.,« .t ..a^fa q }.i. ,,. --111 NVAWI ■'r,-1 ,0 1.b3�'�C3 i yak s ,' bb�•a Aa j Yi'dS a i,+}♦+ %3k'a a ,ra';A?'� F`�"�; ��°i� .: . •�� ' .:<X i _+ � £,� r, v.�k Y .i'f., �•�`lY$ � �� .y, / <:ya"'•'';M?: i.^':"-... 2'. •.;� t� tiJ:,L R,<k v'�S. �? .1.'il-0� ,J, ,�`. "� :. . .k '�,�"� � .: ,:, , .... .... 1,.-::fi «}e, �'M.':�'L.`*.'�:{,v` i.'��: � ,�'0^krcF �.`i.. �"s.t. :S"` 'nF ,�... �.ti• � ��$��,'., ��.,��''n ;::, � ::-:..:, �` '.`.•:.d � r.:�,..,� .t_., s.?,2, ,.�'f',."�.,..,s,",s.� S '.�'•��^��i` 'F t' is ,�`'�4 r(., �`�._„? `A{ .ty,, .s s..y.,,.. ._ ....:... :.>ack,.: ,..,xrx.. .r"$ :':w 4 '',,��'.,. x ,:' .. y,�.� '".+. ''. ,�_.<i�a�a d2^o4* ,,�•.` :�..'4 4� C.3Y' ..vav,<e.r,x. "..: >.ai�•�ka°Y.` ,tJ ,#,�:J .ya}.'^.Ya:`s'�'?;..x.,' ;%�"5"' 1 .r.; �.: :.G<?a"S,r '�i ...�'�a2 ` •+;ic �`ti ,,',+..� WIN, .bM:{� • n�� ��Fr ''max Y e•�, ,<J�a,�r3�A�sf +�cNr`+.�a+� 'L h >., t �'`}} � s� ,�,,,. -< a��� Y Y� : +1� "w.r.c�,R'a 2Bt�♦i <^.�"q; Cx�`+L •`,,�'� _<. ♦v,.• ,a.. ,.. .s+:.tn'.s.,.�,..o.. ,..a,:GY...�F���.<. .::. ::, «+ �+..-� ., :.. ♦ .ar.: tg '3� t. ���'.*'• �'' � x: :E t .K a + ,,QQQ,,� R l i``6y �� r � �:� ��� '�- .� � �, s f� � r ��; r i�. ,; � � .•. � �� � ��; } 1� �', :� � 1 f j;,g f S S i f�� ,, '_l , �p r y /.�,� � �` � x � c ,�' x't "� ��� � F y� Y S� Y Z s� 1 ::dig city' �� � ���:>.. `�•;;, t�e�.f�,�' �i�6 `' sue,. w , -�,y, �j,, � 3, 't QtTijj[3z�� tom`' �`.� «�;.. , • ff 4 x �t �. T '�t � C�, ��r ;. � �� � ,, ,,: r s � � �; r t �� , � * r. a yf:.fit '1 3 F � £� �. <� `�� M ` y�y�t��ii "'� � S= F s. k i, � R � F: ., � z, ��.� � � , ± �k M ,� � �� � � x . � � � a Y, � $;: �; <. r..' tt �: r j 4 i .w�wwdrwwwwr�cw� �»' ! L }r >. a1 1 � r , t ` 4 1 � H V+ i.+ Li This impact is reduced by incorporation of architectural features into building and site design which allows for greater visibility of coastal 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 60 the Downtown Architectural Design Guidelines on file in the City's Planning Department. Pacific Coast Highway (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. Proposed restrictive covenants will preserve views of the beach and ocean from PCH. r~ 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), 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 i W 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 30% 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 +4 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, 25 and 21. 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 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 �r. 6M 25 Shade/ Shadow Study Dec. 22 Worst Case Scenario 10:00 AM VRE PHASE C:J PHASE V ' HI S.W.G < � AO - L AVI O x�`°��Y�e>. : � ���� ' � "'fir.... �� ••• � O "n s k wti Z k�t,�,.Y; � � �;, � �� I '$ ;c.�'• a� '� � a ,.fat:. z •A' > > o o -- PHASE I PHASE 11 ..... ...... L PHASE 111 PHASE IV PHASE V `.............«... ►HASE VI FIRST CUSS HOTEL TENNIS AND HEALTH CONFERENCE HOTEL ALL-SURE HOTEL SHOPPWO PLAZA LUXURY HOTEL PARKING STRUCTURE CENTER �J CIO 26 Shade/Shadow Study Dec. 22 Worst Case Scenario 12:00 PM PHASE VP G `I-r •...,tee...a. .esccytiewysr��,,.� 9 W -- O ?,��'ems!'"+ yet t�wY •x>' T. �. -, 7O s - PHASE 1 L PHASE 11 .................. PHASE III PHASE IV PHASE V -.•............... LPHASE YI FIRST CUSS HOTEL TENNIS AND HEALTH CONFERENCE HOTEL ALL-SUITE HOTEL SHOPPING PLAZA -t LUXURY HOTEL CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE J 27 Shade/Shadow Study Dec.22 Worst Case Scenario 3:00/4:00 PM PHASE , •. ��� wLAI _ EN i�.. r7; -•�,.:-- Z 7 a O O __ PHASE 1 PHASE II L—.................. PHASE III PHASE IV PHASE Y L.................. PHASE VI FIRST CLASS HOTEL TENNIS AND HEALTH CONFERENCE HOTEL ALL-111ME HOTEL SHOPPING PLAZA LUiURT HOTEL CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE 0 3:00 PM .- -- 4:00 PM r. r.. only for a short period of time during these days between 3:30 p.m. and 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. �r 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 �y 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 through as the shadows sweep the site. As indicated above, the shadows cast i•+ 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 �r The following measures shall be included into the project design to minimize 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. 64 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. i, LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The continuity of the coastal landscape will be significantly affected 6+ 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. 6A 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. i 102 L. I►. 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 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 SMIN'G 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 fron 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 are currently being reviewed. These plans were developed by Kennedy/Jenks/ 103 L� I+r. �r Chilton Consulting Engineers for the Downtown water Transmission Pipeline in order to assess the water needs for the Specific Plan Redevelopment Area (EIR 'i 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 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 for 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 i.� to the system. 32. Adequate water supply shall be provided to the site consistent with alternatives described in a letter dated October 20, 1967, City of Huntington Beach (Appendix F), pursuant to the DDA. ilea 104 6. Ohm low B. , GAS AND ELECTRICAL UTILITIES GAS ENVIRONMENTAL. SETTING Lr 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. PROJECT IMPACTS it 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. ri 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 structures and parking lots, thereby minimizing heating and cooling energy use, • Walls, ceiling, floors, windows and hot water lines should be 61 insulated to prevent heat loss or gain per Title 24 regula- tions. 61 105 �a 6A Iw `r f f • It is recommended that the developer consult the Southern California Gas Company for methods of conservation during building design phases. -ELECTRICITY NVIRONMENTAL 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). KtITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are proposed. C. SOLID WASTE 6J ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection for commer- cial and residential uses in the City of Huntington Beach. The Rainbow 6. 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 w 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 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 106 LA W permitted levels at Rainbow transfer station will have to be raised in order to accommodate the future increased volume of trash generated by the planned A" to 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- quire more manpower and additional equipment to be provided by Rainbow Dis- +W posal Company, in order to dispose of the trash. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are proposed. D. WASTEWATER W NVIRONMENTAL SETTING �,. 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 am 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. �r The County of Orange Sanitation District (Number 11) operates separate sewer collection facilities in the project area. They currently operate a 54 6, inch trunk sewer along Pacific Coast Highway. Sewer service to the proposed development would initially be provided by 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 Implementation of the proposed project will increase the service demands on storm drains and sewer facilities in the project area. The impact on V 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 L L, W V for commercial developments and 100 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 w 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. 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 NPDES 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 80D 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 1� 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. i� MITIGATION MEASURES 35. Water conservation measures as those previously recommended in the Ir Water Section will be implemented in order to reduce wastewater flows from the site. *Designates worst case levels 108 i� �r AT BLC 9 ESTIMATED WASTE4ATER GENERATION EXPECTED SEWAGE LAND USE FLOWS IN GALLONS PER DAY Phase I - Hotel 30,000 gallons per day Phase 11 - 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 - im 14:850* gallons per day Phase VI - Hotel 40 000 - O, 45:000* gallons per day Residential 160,632 gallons per day 60 fib. Jb, *Designates worst case levels 109 L, bi 641 1r. Iba 36. One-time impact fees required for sewers in the project are as 64 follows: • Sewer Connection Fee $ 307,000 • Sanitation District Connection Fee S3,515,O00 im+ • Drainage Assessment $ 329,000 E. FIRE bO 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. 64 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- wl sponse time from the Lake Street Fire Station to the project area is approxi- mately five minutes, according to EIR 82-2. ROJECT 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 E uses. The project will not create a need for additional staff or expansion of facilities. MITIGATION MEASURES �•� 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. � 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. 110 I � w r.. IMr F. POLICE ENVIRONMENTAL_SM NG The Huntington Beach Police Department operates a single police facility 64 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- L ficers per acre of parks and 1.0 officers per 225,000 square feet of office or commercial . 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 L 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- quate street lighting, clearly marked street names and building numbers and security hardware. 6. G. TELEPHONE NVIRONMENTAL SMING 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 W cable lines service the area. They are currently operating at an appropriate III Yd &r a. r. �r. 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 �., 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 L' requirements for the proposed development will be determined by GTE's Fore- casting Department upon receiving plans for the project. �. 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 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. 11. SCHOOLS fNYIRONMENTAL_SMING 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 1981-88 school year. The school district currently cannot accommodate all of their students in their existing permanent facilities, and have utilized temporary (port- able) classrooms since the early 1910'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. 60 WA 112 u r. ie br ROJ CT IMPACTS b4i 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 16. 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 accommodate the increased enrollment as a result of the proposed project. School impact fees to assist the school district on a fair share basis 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, for estimated fees and effects). I. RECREATION FACILITIES 6. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Huntington Beach Community Services Department supervises 6. and manages the municipal beach parking lot and recreational beach facility located south of the project area on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway. 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. w. The proposed development will not result in the need to expand the existing beach facilities. The Community Services Department indicated W however that improvements are planned for the redesign of the Huntington Street entrance to the municipal beach parking lot and camping facility. PROJECT IMPACT 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 W r� MW i6ft lad MITIGATION MEASURES L.d 42. To reduce parking impacts on the City beach parking lot, grade separated pedestrian link(s) to the beach parking lot will be required. J. TRANS�T . *y ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Orange County Transit District (QCTD) 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 6" 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_ HEASURES 43. Site plans of the proposed project shall be forwarded to the QCTD as they become available for each phase. The plans will be rev- iewed in terms of their conformance to the OCTD Design Guidelines for Bus_ Facilities. 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 measures 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. 114 1m V a.• 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 r- and bench. • A paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian ac- cessway should be provided between each stop and the project buildings. K. OIL PRODUCT PIP€LNE 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, Inc. will determine if a conflict exists between their rr 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 ,r 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- 6. dential phase (the affected phase). L. WELLS 60 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 dated larch 6, 1987). The records indicate that the wells were abandoned 115 1W A VOLUME I FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-2 FOR THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 CONTACT PERSON: CATHERINE O'HARA PHONE: (714) 536-5271 JULY 18, 1988 CERTIFIED BY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/8/88 Resolution # 1397 CERTIFIED BY CITY COUNCIL DATE: 8/15/88 Resolution # 5913 VOLUME I TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I Graft Supplement to Environmental Impact Report 82-2 for The 'Waterfront Development (January 12, 1988) Volume II Appendices (January 12, 1988) ume I:I A. Planning Commission Resolutions B. Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Final SEIR Mitigation Measures D. Comment Letters and Response to Comments (May 12, 1988) E. Comment Letters and Response to Comments Received at Planning Commission Hearing (June 22, 1988) F. Addendum to Final SEIR 82-2 i SCH # 87091612 DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-2 FOR THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. I PARK PLAZA, SMITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 CONTACT PERSON: CATHERINE O'HARA PHONE: (714) 536-5271 JANUARY 1Z, 1988 4.+ I�. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . ... .. .. . .. .... . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 1 1.1 EIR Focus and Effects Found Not to Be Significant . . .. . . . . . 1 2.0 SUMMARY . . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . ... . . .. . .. .. .. . ... . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . .. . .. .. . . . ... . .. . . .0 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 4 3.1 Project Characteristics .. ... .. ... .... . . . . . .. . ... . . . . .. . . . . 5 J6W 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 yr 4.2 Biotic Resources . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . 24 4.3 Land Use . . .. . . . . .. . .. .. . ..... ... .. . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.4 Circulation . ... ... .. .. . . .... .. . .. .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. . 56 4.5 Climate and Air Quality . . .. .. . .. .. .. . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 66 60 4.6 Cultural Resources and Archaeology . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 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 7.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS . .. . .. . ...... .. ... . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . 134 V 8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS . ... . . . ... . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 136 9.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . 139 i V rr 61 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) PAGE 10.0 RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY . . .. . . . .. .. . .. ... ... . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . ... . 140 11.0 REFERENCES .. . .. ... . .. ... ..... .. .. . ... .. . .. . ... . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . 141 �+ 12.0 APPENDICES (Bound Separately) 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 INS 6" V L ii w w LIST OF FIGURES 60 FIGURE AG Figure 1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 �' figure 2 Regional Map .......................................... .. 8 Figure 3 Site Plan ... .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 4 Fault Map .. ... . ... . . ... . . .. .. ..... . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 5 Wetlands and Other Habitats . . .. . . . .. . .. . . ... . .. . . .. . . . .. 26 Figure 6 Existing Land Use Map . .. .. . . .. . .. ... .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . 39 Figure 7 Existing Mobile Home Park ... . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . 40 Figure 8 Aerial of Project Area . . . .. .. ... .. . .. ... . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 9 Adjacent land Use and Zoning Map . .. . .. . ... . . .. . . . . . . . .. 43 Figure 10 Preliminary Proposed Alignments for Huntington Street and Walnut Avenue . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . 52 k-W Figure 11 Cumulative Condition Peak Hour Turn Volumes . ... . . . . . . . .. 58 Figure 12 Master Plan Project-Trip Assignment . ... .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 61 Figure 12a Master Plan Project Trip Assignment . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . 62 Figure 13 Cumulative Plus Master Plan Peak Hour Turn Movements .. . . 63 Figure 13a Cumulative Plus Master Plan . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 64 Figure 14 Vantage Point Locations . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 86 Figure 15 Vantage Point #1 87 Figure 16 Vantage Point #2 . . . . ... . . ... . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 88 Figure 17 Vantage Point #3 . .. ... . . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 89 Figure 18 Vantage Point #4 . . . .. ..... . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 90 Figure 19 Vantage Point #5 . . .. ... . . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . . ... . . 91 Figure 20 Viewshed Alteration - Vantage Point #1 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 92 Figure 21 Viewshed Alteration - Vantage Point 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93 Figure 22 Viewshed Alteration - Vantage Point #3 . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . 94 Figure 23 Viewshed Alteration - Vantage Point #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 95 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 L kw L LIST OF TABLES TABLE S AG Table I Maximum Probable and Credible Earthquakes . . . .. ... . . .. . . .. 17 Table 2 Cumulative Condition - ICU .. .. ... .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . 59 Table 3 Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Comparison Study .. . ... .. . . ..... ... ... .. ... .. .. ... . . . .. ... . . . . . . ... 64 6W Table 4 Air quality Levels (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 .... .. . ... . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. I09 Table 10 Past Housing Starts and Projections + to the Year 2000 .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 122 Table 11 Estimated Phasing of Mobile Home Conversion .. . . . ... . . . .. . 124 W iv u 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. i6a 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 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 u 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. 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 hid CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY a.. POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES w 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 poi- 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- wr ilated, in conformance with the Uniform Building Code standards, to reduce vehicle emission levels y., within the facility. 14. A Transportation System Management (ISM) plan will be initialed and will include the following com- ponents: • Provide bus services to �. regional activity centers within the County for hotel visitors. k. • Provide shuttle services to local activity centers in- cluding 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 64 public transportation. viii L CLIMATE ANDr AIR DUAL T1! {COK 'Dl MITIGATION MEASURES L Provide bus shelters, benches and bus pockets near the proposed project. LEVEE OF SIGNIFICANCE,AFTER_MITI TION 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. k" ix 16 CULTURAL RESOURCES MD ARCHAEOLOGY POTENTTAL-ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Archaeology 14. If any archaeological or historical materials are found during con- L 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 L$ 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 Protect, if any, will be curated with an appropriate museum facility. DEL 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. 1. I�r x 9" W w PUBLU HEALTH AND SAFETY W � PQTENTIAL-.ADVERSE IMIPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES loodin Flooding The project area is located in a 18. Conformance to mitigation measures 100-year flood zone. Flooding up to specified in EIR 82.2. a depth of 11 feet could occur, during a 100-year storm. All developments 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 LA 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 L 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 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. 21. A grading plan for the site is required to ensure compliance with FEMA regulations, City grad- ing regulations an property site drainage. w� Loise o'se 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 would occasionally be exceeded at adjacent to existing and proposed residential properties along walnut xi 6r 161 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY (CONT'D) irr POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Certain project related activities Avenue which will act as a noise and facilities, such as building barrier or other sound attenuating 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 the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance 23. A landscaped berm shall be con- (60 dBA noise limit) adjacent to structed between the masonry 6A residences along Walnut Avenue. wall and the curb edge for noise attenuation. 24. Restrict sweeping operations within the parking structure to daytime hours, between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. ir, 25. A textured parking surface, such as asphalt or textured concrete, LA shall be used in the parking structure to reduce tire squeal . 26. Design of the parking structure shall incorporate one of the following noise attenuation op- tions: l�r 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. !rr I�r xii w.� PUB LTC HEALMAND SAF ONT' wr POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION HEASURES C. Or other sound attenuating design features to the ap- proval of the planning dir- ector. w' 27. Maintain a 130 foot separation between the residential and parking structure uses or other sound rw attenuating design feature to the approval of the Planning Director. LEYEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Flo.. o_dina 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. 4 V u xiii 64 4PI 5�UIC S h POTENTIAL-ADVERSEIMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Visual The following measure shall be included into the project design to Due to its greater height than minimize 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). 28 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, doe to they are associated. its overall height and bulk. 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. Shade ShadowEffects ,W The effects of shade/shadow on the adjacent properties will be tem- porary and therefore the associated impacts are not considered to be significant. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION k. 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,- 6w PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITTES a., 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- 6- 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- 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- 60 No adverse impacts identified. clude: low flow showerheads and faucets; low flush toilets; Solid Waste insulation of hot water lines in ,r 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 +r 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- 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 60 area. only during off peak hours (late evening). Additionally, any water oriented amenity within 60 the project shall be so designed as to be a self-contained nat- ural or artificially filtered system which reuses water inter- 6 nal to the system. .xv PUBLIC SERVICES AKD UTILITIES MONT'p1 POTENTIAL._AIDVERSE_IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES � ire " 32. Adequate water supply shall be No adverse impacts identified. provided to the site consistent with alternatives described in a olice letter dated October 20, 19819 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 V 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- Trans t 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 Piaeling 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 k. development when they have reviewed and orientation, such as the preliminary construction plans. the use of solar water and space heating technologies, Oil Wells should be considered. Comprehensive planning for Seven on-site wells located on-site landscaping to complement will need to be reabandoned to meet new structures and parking current California Division of Oil lots, thereby minimizing and Gas (DOG) requirements. heating and cooling energy use. xvi PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTI!ITIES (COHT'D1 POTENTIAL-ADVERSE IMPACTS MIJIGATTQN MEASURES Wall , ceiling, floors, should be insulated to prevent heat loss or gain per Title 24 regulations. �• • It is recommended that the developer consult the Southern California Gas Company for methods of. conservation during build- ing design phases. Electricity No mitigation measures are proposed. f Solid Waste No 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. 36. One-time impact fees required for sewers in the project are as follows: Sewer Connection Fee - $ 307,000 �. Sanitation Dist. Fee - $3,515,000 Drainage Assessment - $ 329,000 xvii Iw+ PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES �,. Fire 37. The project developer will work closely with the City of Hun- W tington Beach Fire Department to ensure that adequate fire safety precautions are implemented in W 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 major r. emergency. Police W 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. She 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 L Jr. r. PUBLI9 SERVICES BIND UTILITLES-CORM) POTENTIAL AMERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES marked street names and building numbers and security hardware. e e hone 41. The developer will work with General Telephone Company to w., ensure adequate lead time for the improvement and/or extension of facilities prior to construc- tion. 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). Recreation -Facilities 42. To reduce parking impacts on the City beach parking lot, grade separated pedestrian link(s) to w the beach parking lot will be required. W L i, xix AW ]r. EOTFNIJAL ARVERSEIMPACTS 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 k.* 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 L 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 W a bus shelter and bench. xx r.+ L. • A paved, lighted and hand- k• 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, j� although not required to reduce �ig_nificant 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 w FUCAL IMPACT POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS 141TIGATIEH-bLASURES No adverse impacts identified. There are no mitigation measures recommended. LEVEL OF,SIGNIFICANCE AFTER !LITIGATION 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. w w W V 41 I W !IM xxii W Ire bw l SOC 0 ONOHIMPACTS POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES y,r 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. W 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 ten- ants and coach owners to explain conversion process and reloca- k' tion 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 Nome Overlay Zone, an ordinance enacted to require rezoning on change of use of a mobile home park to comply with certain LA requirements/standards prior to initiating such a change in use xviii hr w 1 �.a i ha (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 the approval of the City Coun- cil , and shall be incorporated into the Relocation Assistance Program required by Article 927 of the Municipal Code. +r 52. The develop shall pay the cost of relocating a mobil home coach, when the age and condi- k. tion of the coach allows feas- ible relocation, to any mobile home park accepting such coaches within fifty riles. The in- cremental cost for relocation beyond fifty miles will be the responsibility of the owner, as stipulated by the Relocation Assistance Plan, approved by the City of Huntington Beach. Lr LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER HITIGATIOH 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 6A included in the City's Housing Element also serves to mitigate effects on affordable housing. low xxiv w s 6• Ir• After mitigation, there are no significant adverse effects on the en- vironment that can be connected to the relocation of mobile home park tenants. w Ld 6d 4w xxv W tr. 6 r., 1.0 INTRODUCTION 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. 1.1 EIR Focus and Effects Not Found to be Significant im The City prepared an. Initial Study for the project. An Initial Study 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) 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 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. Issues not considered to be of significant concern are as follows: b. 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. I�. lr. bad r.� rr �i W W A" 6d W 2 w u .r u 2.0 SlfM44ARY Note; This section is designed as a pull out section. Pages are numbered in Roman numerals. 6w w. 3 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6b 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 'r in 1988 and the residential phase beginning in I990. 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 EIR 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 6d . 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 • 875 Residential Units • 25,000 square feet Tennis/Health Center • Public Open Space. However, the analysis in the €IR 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 motel/ 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 i� 6W 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) i., 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 i2d with adjoining one to three story support retail services, restaurants, 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 Section 4.13, Socioeconomic/Relocation. Existing land use and surrounding land uses are described in great detail in Section 4.3, Land Use. The project also involves constructing Walnut Avenue through the site, connecting Beach Boulevard and Huntington Street. Hine or ten mobile homes will be removed, as required, for construction of Walnut Avenue. The City k" has designated Walnut Avenue as a primary arterial link between Lake Street and Beach Boulevard. 5 L Ir! Wi 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 contemplated 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 L6 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. 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 and adherence to mitigation measures 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 _ 1 r- Vicinity Map ...... ,. °°° .° .� o,.oj•°� 1. - °o -I=�� c�^� V 1 + �—� • �� ` h a-4 ark o op r° o o — t11 ° a a > o �.�K X I O sr'•• _n JUL�� —) �� W _ REIL Y R 6 m a, — Tip9 y 0 ° '1•, � 91 r �LWJ,-TrailerX. ®®• i i ,l °- �:::.:. O �7rj9 (� IFfAM! TO Project Site QU ■ � � e l A m ,'� �� = F%✓O Cam/?a t rater r A !'TonkS A �`f' gC7�7C c ooIA- ' 8 .;. Scale in Feet 0 1000 2000 11/25/87:GD Source: USGS 7.5' Quads - Newport Beach and Seal Beach, Ca., 1981 w lr. 2 Regional Location Los Angeles Co. San Bernardino Co. so 57 91 91 Riverside Co. 5 55 i i Son � t' & 22 ��� �� Cleveland o � USMc e+� ,`% National �+ Tuslin Usme Forest El Toro % w. 73 fee i •.i weY 18 1 Project ma �... 0 133 Site r. •. 5 i Irr 74 1234 56 T miles ; Orange County - k, - ' . San Diego Co. ��. hd a. 3 Site Plan ET PHASE VR s / RE610E—T ? Scale In Feet OG � o OI F HF O COAST HIG WA PHASE L PHASE II ............ PHASE III PHASE IV PHASE Y .......>.......,.. PH�SV.FIRST CLASS HOTEL TENNIS AND HEALTHe'• CONFERENCE HOTEL ALL—SUITE HOTEL SHOPPING PLAZA LUf(CENTER PATURE Note: Phase VII Residential Site Plan is Conceptual and is Provided for Information Purposes Only. 11/25/87:CP Source: RLM, 1987 boo 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 FIR will analyze impact of the maximum potential buildout of 894 units. 3.4 INTENDED USE OF THE EIR The City of Huntington Beath and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment 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 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 " 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 W to an EIR). 3.4.1 Responsible Agencies Use of EIR and Discretionary Actions 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 Game 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. 10 b" f., r.. a.. w The SEIR will be used by each Agency for the following discretionary actions: • Conditional Use Permits for each phase by City . Development Agreement by City • Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) 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 procedure, by questionnaire or by direct contact: Air Resources Board " California Coastal Commission California Highway Patrol City of Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce �. City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department Department of Boating and Waterways Department of Conservation b, Department of Fish and Game 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 Ibmi 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 11 6. bka ibb State of California Office of Historic Preservation A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated by the City (Appendix A) . Responses to the NOP are included in Appendix F. Issues brought up in the NOP process are addressed in this document. 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 FIR, and is incorporated in whole into this EIR. CEA 84-1 and Negative Declaration 84-14 b, 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 ih. incorporated by reference according to provisions of Section 15150, CEQA Guidelines. bo L 6. 12 i w. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SANG, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY ENVIRONMENTAL_SETTING A limited geotechnical investigation was prepared for the study area by Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc. in June, 1984. This study focused primarily w. on the proposed hotel and commercial development area of the project site. 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 reRainder 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. Landform and Tovog_ranhy 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 of 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- Jett area. (For a full discussion of Biotic Resources, see Section 4.2.) Local Geology +r 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 �. times. Underlying the site is several hundred feet of marine sediments, which overlay sedimentary bedrock. The surficial materials are comprised of beach and estuarian deposits. 13 68 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 Long 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 by in-place bedrock. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone has the potential for generating the 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 14 I 2 4 Fault Map - Faults Within the Newport--Inglewood Structural Zone r r P � - t SyyO td� �ti•� f, ,' `• C�HC41EST SEISMIC RISK (GREATEST SURFACE RUPTURE °f \• �.'` / �'� 4��° POTENTIAL wam CRIB /,•,�'�, 'o°.� /. �` ®AREA OF INTENSIVE SHEAR BURIED TRACE OF FAULT / . (WITHIN 40V ZONE) ©UNCERTAINTY AS TO EXISTENCE �• ti�f� ` OR EXTENSION OF FAULT �t..i • ti� • rr-- rr ,, f • \ / rrr rr r" r'01 Avg r L rr•w I I� iIr �- ��"! _ /r •�---~=wrr _+ -r- ''C EA��r-~� , -r-r- -_+-w-~-r+rwrr / , ti f rr r_ rwa w- ��� wrr--_--_ I�--�r� .,�r, ♦ \ .?-_rw_r rrrr -� rr rr wwr rrr rr 7P•. -+c w+r"'.+r /. rr-- .♦, rr� r wrr �-rrr'+-wrr • r wr-----rrr.�r--rrr== "a~'-w..+"-wrr rrrrr�r - -ww" rrr..+` r` �r� rr'-• ti ~�`r--rr`+ _-r_wf�L•�'T,'R.''i.. �`^�' w-� '� . wr rr�� - --~~-- r` - -~ l --- ANCH FART r--- r, --- ~wrr ~r - ~-• ----- `----------------- �- rr -�.-rwrr r+rrr~w ��� • (L.�♦�+ �1 ___ --__-_- SOUTH -----_------- - Z. ....-.._._.....'..�--_---__r_rr�.._fr ._rrr_..«-__---_-- rr_ ,,,' ��- •r f� wrr -r-w- -rr_-_--r---r „r_ rrr-rrr Hwy �. ♦rU '•u��c .<o.ti, _. - _ . �': _ a� OLIVE T!LU! r)? WALNUT St I ULT 1`2 j --- - -- r. Project Area _. ... --- -- ... _ . . -_-._ .. ___ ._... .._._ .._T __.�.__.�.____.. - • - Scale In Feet Note: Faults shown on map are within the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone zuoo 4000 t Source: Leighton—Yen & Assoc., 1974 f1/25187;CP i I�. �r. acceleration of .29g. Ground accelerations for the project area are based upon the distance to the fault and the maximum probable earthquake. The had upon 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). i, 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. w. Liauefaction 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. L. for the project area in order to determine the liquefaction potential of the site. This analysis was based on the following parameters: intensity of the i maximum probable earthquake, acceleration of the ground surface, repeatable V ground acceleration and depth to groundwater. 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- L tion and sand boils were observed in the area as a result of the Long Beach Earthquake of 1933. i Tsunamis i 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 W area is remote. 16 E L i r [ f E r t r r V r_- r r r s TABLE- 1 XIMUM PROBABLE AND CREDIBLE-EARTHQUAKES CITY OF lHUNTINGTON I3FJtC!! APPROXIMATE PROBABLE MAXIMUM DISTANCE TO MAXIMUM RUPTURE LENGTH CORRESPONDING CITY OF ESTIMATED MAGNITUDE FOR RANGE OF MAXIMUM MAXIMUM HUNTINGTON TOTAL FAULT OF MAXIMUM 14AXIMUM 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. W 16A Sails `+ Soil types for the yp project area have been classified by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (1978). The predominant 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 2%) . These soils formed in mixed alluvium and organic deposits. They are stratified with clayey to sandy deposits. 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 soil 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 L, 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 L dense to very dense silty sands, sands and gravels. These soils exhibit high strengths and low compressibility characteristics. Peat and Organic Soil Deposits Areas of peat and organic soil deposits are not located within the project area (Leighton-Yen, 1974) . Probable areas of peat deposits (area and V 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. 18 V, L &A i■ `■ �r■ 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. 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- ih out the State. The DWR in conjunction with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board enforces water quality standards and corrects adverse conditions. 1b; 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 bA provided special consideration is given to these constraints in the design 19 b■ `i �a •r rr ra 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 more detailed levels of planning, prior to construction of each phase. �• The primary geotechnical concerns related to the proposed project in- clude the following: L. 1. 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- La tics of the subsurface soils. 4. The relative shallow groundwater levels. 104 The following discussion provides a description of general geotechnical impacts associated with the proposed project. Seismicity 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. lei 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. Liquefaction " 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 64 loose liquefiable sand layers. Liquefaction of the on-site soil could cause 20 �1 M. &a is i• Na 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 iWA 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 *a 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 &41 cubic yards of cut (Source: FWLS, November 20, 1987 telecommunication) . 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 64 soil settlement and liquefaction associated with these areas, a thorough geotechnical investigation should be performed for any development to be located near these areas. `d Groundwater Groundwater levels are relatively shallow at the project area. As a hij 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 ilea 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. i. �a 21 is i4 Irr •a Ira Construction Recommendations rr� 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- ha 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 �a 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 IRA 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 r., 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 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 Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc. into project designs, plans and 66 specifications. 3. Prior to the completion of the final design for each project phase, a supplemental geotechnical investigation shall be performed to 61 confirm subsurface conditions (liquefaction hazard zones and 22 6A 61 him 6d L. .d groundwater levels), and provide supplemental recommendations, as ,ad appropriate, for design of each structure and for the proposed residential development. 4b.1 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. 6• 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. 40A 6. Design provisions such as pile foundation systems shall be required to permit structures to withstand liquefaction without serious IN, 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. 64 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. L, 23 i1 1�1 ihr be be *as 4 2 BIOTIC RESOURCES �r 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 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 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 bial 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. mod Using the 1987 Corps of Engineers (COE) wetland delineation method, LSA determined that the existing wetland along Beach Boulevard is about 0.6 acres 64 in extent (see detailed report in Appendix D) . The wetland is a freshwater or brackish marsh dominated by dense, lush cattails and tules, with very little open water. DFG (1983) estimated the existing wetland at 0.8 acres, L. 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 L+ and Wildlife Service, would result in different acreage estimates. The DFG report noted low use of this wetland by wetland associated 4„ 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. L.. 24 boa iA *r lrw rr rs 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, w� but were lacking in wetland soils and/or 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 4+ Implementation of the project would require filling and developing both the existing wetland and the adjacent low lying area, and would result in a i, 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 or, 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, more 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 t 5 Wetlands and Other Habitats ; Fence­ t C . *4,7 2.7 Pe P7S *3 0 .._ Mobile Homes *3.7 � CtC 3.B *4.7 .6 2 * Fence r 5 Pe P * z oPe 4 *� P DF *2.9 CiR *z.s r a PePF z—�-�*t.e i 3.7 k4.6 * PAP t Dratrtage`Clxtvert �Aoad Drainage Ramp roJect Boundary Road Drainage Rarnp i BEACH BLVD. CLEGEND fV - Sample points lot wetland determination I M1- Wetland.as defined by Corps of Engineers (POE) _*4.7 - Spot Elevations J HABITAT TYPES PePTS - Palustrine, emergent. persistent, T.ypha. Sclr us ~ �-- _ ICattall - Bulrush Marsh) PaPA - Palustrine, emergent, persistent, Arundo " (Giant Reed) PePDF - Palustrine, emergent, persistent. Distichlls, Frankenfli, (Saltgrass - Alkali Heath) �` Wetlands PePF - Palustrine. emergent, persistent. Frankenla Area IAtkali Heath) I PePP -- Palustrine, emergent. persistent. Plcr(s --�-- k ! No (Tall Forbs) A Scale In Feet CIC - Coastal terrace, (orbs, C_arpobrotus (iceplant) CIR - Coastal terrace, forbs, ruderals 0 30 60 120 (Ruderal) 11125187:CP Source: t_SA Associates. Inc.. 1987 Ib. 664 u ' MITIGATION! MEASURES `r Ad-latent 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 be designed to supply approximately the same amount of water to these wetlands, or a greater quantity if approved by DFG and the 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 ccnfirm 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: I. The developer shall provide evidence that the project's runoff u 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 W existing and post-project water supply, and (b) drawings and a description of the runoff conveyance system in sufficient detail for a qualified engineer to judge its adequacy. 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 fI, 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. 27 i.i Corns 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. 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 46 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- 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. She 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 law implement these statutory mandates, the Coastal Commission (1981) adopted 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 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 Waterfront project. This restriction applies even in cases l.� 28 i� iY W W 64 where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative and AW 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. 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 30411. 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) : 1. "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 L, provides funds sufficient to accomplish an approved restoration program in 29 V, the same general region. All of the following criteria must be satisfied before this exception is granted: I. 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). &.W 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. r. 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 6.0 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)). 61 "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. 30 W rti W 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 J. fill development may proceed. For an area to be of "equal or greater biological productivity," it 1 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 . i� 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 i„ 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 r. 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 should restore areas which are no longer functioning in a manner 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 area lost. However, if no appropriate restoration sites under options I 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. 31 w r.. This third option would be allowed only if the applicant is unable to find a willing seller of a potential restoration site. The 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, w- 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 ,.. 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 program 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 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 must 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., a.. 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 $enthic invertebrate abundance Bird usage and establishment of endangered species • Fish and other vertebrate abundance. 32 r. 66 6M w. - A licab lity 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 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 Lai 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. We A key polity 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 �j w 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. • The restored wetland should ideally be in place and functioning before the existing wetland is filled. At a minimum, the wetland 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. 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. 4r ff-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 �a Ana River; the Huntington Beach wetlands between Magnolia and Brookhurst; the degraded wetlands east of Beach Boulevard; and the Anaheim Bay National Wildlife Refuge. L. 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, 6. participation in wetlands restoration at this site could be infeasible due to 34 b. iba 66 potential for significant delays and the complexity of determining which agency is responsible for how much wetland restoration and where. 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. Magnolia/Srookhurst Wetlands. Although the wetlands extending from w 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 �■ (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 ownership. An additional drawback is that this parcel is isolated from the remaining degraded wetlands complex in Huntington Beach, being surrounded by residential development, a trailer park and flood control channel , Pacific Coast Highway, and Beach Boulevard. Nevertheless, given DFG approval , this site has considerable potential for wetland restoration. Anaheim—Bay National wildlife Refuge. A minor restoration project is 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 loss of O.B 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 W 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 1� type, and might not be acceptable to the involved wildlife and regulatory agencies. CONCLUSION - MITIGATION REQUIRED 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. w.j If off-site mitigation is deemed appropriate, preference shall be given to enhancing/restoring wetland sites located within the City of Huntington Beach. 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 neces- sary 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. L S. 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 Commission 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 36 tion (i.e. , seeding, natural succession, vegetative transplanting, etc.). LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 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. y� �r �r Ana L! 37 r. 4.3 LAND USE *r 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. j.. 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 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 - California Coastal Commission/City I603 Review - California 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 T): • 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 maintenance yard (less than 2 acres). 38 �y L� r+� vs rn0) • x cn Mto m ! tiG CD A as Q ' C a CD 1 N \� % OOi' 3z*o ' m• i � ,t • r ,i � � r 1 f j . JI jS l ! 1 i r • ' . 1 1 1 I I rl • • n a y ii • a {F 2 � BEACH BLVD MIS of V fl 7 Existing Mobilehome Park ■Y 0 W z Z Itr N u m W � m q�F ATLANTA AVENUE DRIFTWOOD BEACH CLUB MOBILEHOME PARK 1-4 jai 61 PACIFIC OCEAN 71f 9/87 Y.r A.J Mr The aerial photo Figure 8 and site photos are located in Section 4.8, Aesthetics/Views show these uses. lad Adjacent land uses are as follows: �.. Townhomes and mobile homes - north Apartments (three story walkups) - northeast (across Beach Blvd) Vacant and boat brokerage yard ka 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 as 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. 6' 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 r., the small wetland described in Section 4.2. The following land use programs affect the site and adjacent uses: City of Huntington-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). v 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 4.11 Socio- economic Effects). l�. 41 9 Adjacent Land Use and Zoning Map Mobtlehome 5� Park p�`' gCtiG (MH) .� ATLANTA ST Vacant o (Downtown m Specltic Plan z z Shopping Center �P A9p�Q (DSP)#8A) Townhomes (112) m (C4) z (DSP#7t\ Lj 41, Apartments '19r01 o Waterfront PraSect Area (R4-28) e0 cy si AAA S B8 C,y Vacant (RA-0) PACIFIC OCEAf3 �11 Not t!o Scale r y c Boat Brokerage Yard a eea 0 - 11/25187'CP Source: City of Huntington Beach. 1967 ((( ` rr P�7 "�• 'y Jr IV gg �o, �il6�� r`x'f !j�,ir. Urm 'Idyl 1. ` 1�f .� � �5 � s !! +.A F �' ji ,{\�� � ,�' is R a i r,} /F+ 4� y,.� •. ti� V.Z4 .t}1 1,� [• 7G`.t. 4 s ! �,�`'kill 7 ! f" tkJ V a��Ly�:�ar`�� i /j v"a,a' -'�•�1, �i 1��� %!f 1��.t LY AL ji Ni to P t{ \ . I � ` • �• 4 Amb a. Coastal Commission 6- 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, Ion Planning standards and land use designations related to the adopted plans listed above. She proposed Development Agreement, DDA and project Master Plan attached to these agreements most, by law, be consistent with the City's �., General Plan, the Downtown Huntington Beach Specific Plan and the Main Pier Redevelopment Project Plan. The project has been compared to each plan for general consistency and conformance. 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 a, General Plan Element Amendment 84-1. Additionally, the developer and City are considering an agreement which permanently restricts use of the beach and beach parking lot 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 And 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 �i 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 6A 64 160 Ire I.r Open Space and Conservation Element. This element focuses on the preservation and enhancement of open space and conservation resources within 1.. the City. The element contains goals, objectives and policies for these areas. Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is designated a "Scenic Corridor" by the 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 *k 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 *0 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 disharmonious development or preserved in a �'` natural state; includes scenic roadways and greenbelts". Because of the broad interpretations which can be made about scenic Iti, 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 `l Open Space and Conservation Element. Noise Element. The project will be constructed in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements reducing internal noise levels to tdn 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- 66 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. L' 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- k+ 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- 45 L ment 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 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- i.. 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. aM 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 hazards and prevent the hazards, the project is consistent with all aspects of the Seismic-Safety Plan. l� 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. M„ Beach Boulevard is included in the City's General Plan as a "Landscape Corridor". This corridor "provides regional access to the beach and a poten- tial view corridor". As a Landscape Corridor, Beach Boulevard shall have ka 46 6. fi. Aw AM ue 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 L regulations for new development. All of these regulations are included in 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 M� 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. dousing_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: �i 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 $ 329,000 6. These fees will be used to provide service extensions and overall future system capacity on a pro-rats basis. W 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 w, Community Facilities Element. 47 a.+ w a.. 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: +r 1. Provide for maximum recreational opportunities along the City and State beaches. W 2. Provide a variety of recreational facilities which provide oppor- tunities for all income groups. lr 3. Provide public access to coastal resources. 4. Provide visitor serving facilities which are varied in type and price. La 5. Preserve and enhance visual resources within the coastal zone. ib" 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 64 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. Humber 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 I.. the effects of loss of this important resource, as described in the Biotic Section. See also LCP/Coastal Zone Analysis in this Section. V LCP/Coastal_Tone 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- 48 w rr Y.. i« 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 1� 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. it 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 w.� 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 W Adjacent Residential Uses. The overall design of the proposed project is generally consistent with all City adopted plans and zoning. The design 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 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 L.. 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 M� to remain unaffected by the visitor serving uses. No significant adverse 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 p 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. 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 circulation to the mobile home park and access to Huntington Street will also 50 W r. be affected. The ultimate alignment of Walnut Avenue has been sketched over w, 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. r" 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 iM such as hotels, parking structures, retail and recreation uses on the ad- 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 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 and includes large setbacks from Walnut (20 feet minimum), fronts of units face internal to the residential project, while some backyards face the commercial/recrea- tion uses. �., • Commercial/Recreation - design of the hotels and their support Design services is oriented toward PCH and the beach, taking advantage of ocean views and the amenities associated with the beach 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 T—Lr=-L-1 f ♦, ♦ ` p ,jr!C Mn E4! EL-In ♦,♦ � • J ,♦ mom f ♦ O A • o � _ !yam � '`'♦ SF�{�, '`♦ .LEGEND QO Y .`/ �•� .Existing Roadway •` Proposed Roadway { Mobile Homes to be Removed / Note: Preliminary proposed alignment, has not been officially `. approved by the City of Huntington Beach. A ;1CIA,C QD 'QS+ N Y No Scale 11/25/87:CP Source: FWLS, Oct. 1987 w w w. and the residential project north of Walnut Avenue and the remaining mobile 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, l� operated by the State Parks Department. Both beaches are region serving recreational amenities which host visitors from a four County area and vaca- 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 �- 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 it 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. '" Residential 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: �. Increased pressure to develop vacant property • Effects on enjoyment of open space by individuals (driving by) • Effects on wetland habitats of adjacent land. L. There 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 ocean, from the three story residences across Beach Boulevard. The increased intensity of development, as proposed by this project, �•+ could be considered to have significant effects on the adjacent residences 53 IPA — a.p and vacant land, especially the wetland habitat. (For further analysis of u. 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 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 I 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 4i project. (For a full discussion of view and aesthetic impacts, please see Section 4.9) . Surrounding land Uses. The project is compatible with the City's 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 �• Plan and EIR 82-2. Belevant 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 wi 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 programs and implementation regulations of each element of the General Plan, the zoning code, zoning regulations and use conversion regulations. 54 IM u. 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 1.. 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. I0. The developer shall screen the mobile homes at the western portion Lai 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 Punning Director. 4,0 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 056 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 10+ 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) A,h and limited properties to the east, across Beach Boulevard. With mitigation, these effects are reduced to a nonsignificant level . 55 4.4 CIRCULATION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following has been summarized from a detailed traffic analysis and ��- 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 r� 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 I traffic is expected to result in ICUs of 0.43 during the APi peak hour and 0.49 during the PM peak hour. /r 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 i. 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 PCH. Addition of Phase 1 development 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. �r IMPACT S To determine the potential impacts associated with The Waterfront Master Plan buildout, a cumulative base was developed which represents the ambient traffic levels at the time of the Master Plan's completion. This cumulative base includes traffic volumes generated by the Downtown Specific Plan area 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- ties, Driftwood Mobile Home Park, and Beach maintenance yard) . The cumula- 56 +r. tive base is the anticipated maximum buildout of the Downtown area as des- cribed in the Downtown Specific Plan EIR. 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. Cumulative Conditions 1,. 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 LW 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 r■ of 0.57 and 0.62 in the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. This corresponds to Level of Service LOS A in the AM and LOS 8 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 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 90-1000% capacity and LOS F refers to over 100%, which results in substantial deterioration of service. Utilization of a facility over its theoretical capacity of (I00%), 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 Two 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 57 W [ F f r 11 Cumulative Condition Peak Hour Turn Volumes Asa W W W W irk Y 0 uJ fiC up p j O u. WALNUT AVE NUR 6 - d A �Z wtiZ • a•o �631l1! .a • J � �fo� { O —} 1:41 1 1 x31!!a� topsoil$air hem w � w c • V� a �iI 1•� }e/S! wryer L1lx17! sow 1 —2270ltaax �1 T �aioari�ar '--oJiir a �3�� Vlae.o0o PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ;erl�a stlaf �I�� 453,0001 lSvsf• �� i�!!�' � fzalrlsl!`` I urultsr—• Q1" !ro'—} +�� xxlyy - AM Al Peak Hour Turn Volumes its fzrzl—Forecast Average Oarly TrafM Volumes ��—Project Access Locations {.r ABLE 2 led CUMULATIVE CONDITION - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION lad AM Peak Hour PH Peak Hour ntersection ICU LOS ICU LOS PCH/Huntington Avenue 0.57 A 0.62 B i.. 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 1.. it /rr /w it i� 1w lr �Y 59 Lr �w include recreational activities (health facilities, tennis courts, golf 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. �y 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 indicates trips based on the study referenced in the traffic impact report. Ina These project peak hour volumes were added to the cumulative traffic base as illustrated in Figures 13 and 13a, and potential intersection impacts �w were evaluated. Figure 13 represents the volumes for the conventional trip generation rates, and Figure 13a represents volumes for the destination resort hotels. *- Table 3 presents a comparison of the resulting ICUs, with the addition of peak hour traffic volumes associated with the proposed Waterfront Faster Plan when added to the cumulative traffic base for both scenarios. bA As can be seen in Table 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 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 1,400 ADT. With the ultimate redevelopment of downtown, based on the Downtown Specific Plan, the Department of Public Works estimated that the Walnut extension, from 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 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 level of service B. Public Works has recommended that Walnut Avenue between 1W Beach Boulevard and Sixth Street be developed as four undivided lanes. 60 W 12 Master Plan Project Trip Assignment Lsa ut W W W y IZ a u w L3Y ►. x x = tw w � M 'Ya y�o No Scale 4 ntlu, L ��oirioo —rel., —rrr,t �,srs —�o,.s �� a, WALNUT AVENUE I rw .• +♦ w1• �� •w i4 7� i 1.00 Y • a ..w IL-451233 r ._.,,.,,r,as a t �w� +ems � w P p^I 17111 +w 4 ��131.. .��.. EMI$ PACIFIC A T�MMWAY . _r:►., ss.rrrT—~ ,e.rirS} 401116 touq! ,sn,--+ 12,7001 l,a/,er-41 (2.700) xkrrr-AMIPM Peek Hour Tkrrn Volumes (4,0001 f:u!^Fo,ecost Avorego Daly Toffic Vowmem i►^Rohe! Access Localens 1113168:CP 12 . a Master Plan Project Trip Assignment Lsa y N = N = Y = O A. us n L w _ � � �� ..' =%•4 No Scat& +--=,,I+« so+af ra. «t.rrf ter+! +� Islas auas WALNUT AVENUE solot� N � r �� ^ • �O Fy . ,� 'f a w al% O M� ��A �Nw L.�.fr�ff � avrea� • N a11� �� i1' 1 •N! O �+M ti • i ` a �aerea PA IFFC COAST H!(3kwA1/ rar+oa�. ranoa 11,9001 LEOEhD 11.900! 12,94p) aafyy — AMIPM Peak Hour Turn Vnlumss Irtt1—Faracaat Average Daily Traffic Volumaa ►—Pro)att Aeeri Loeall"s 1113Iea:CP r f 13 Cumulative Plus Master Plan Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes Lsa t~il W W = W ptA I 0.44 AK ~ K Y No SCale 7or•r r7nr ,ono I IstJlfo �loir/ae f^ Isr* WALNUT AYENUC KOn1.IKent et7ir 16,e lom row 7ow "IOe1.JKy,t.� •w n ^ ,•i,n r•+a �� ewi� �r � y � ^� ;AMO •I. AA ,Y pN I M 1 • � � aow �Srlf1 I r.�l•en7f L �t3 lif+ru—. 1e tJfi �w= l r .$safe 1311113se--t. weti s � A M A •r �ii wpo � �w `N ram• �1a0144 JIB ..^uffrlru .—unr1604 J1� r 11�SD,7DD1 �o,e ��� PACIFIC COASrHICkwAY 01134 1fJ,07 f0411e7 rsvno- ,corn flrfllaseir Isofr,iof-1 ilf ISS,7001 x■►rr —AMJPM Peek Hour Turn Volumes a rrs v 01 s s �'' (Woo1 -"' tr:rl—Forecast Average DailyTrftllc Volumes 1e7,eDD1 ��—Project AeCes° Loeetlonf "' 1/1316$:CP f r r r r r i [` E 13. a Cumulative Plus Master Plan Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes lsa wH xpp� a cc W ¢ ~S x = k = o K f. • ~ �• � L—t,an., a� No Scale �t t� aa+ss :era RTI1R tsri/ WALNUT AVENUE ��.,�.�, -���� r �, ,: -,�•� r ,.,tom � ,.,.,� -��—..,.,�rim It �reia./llpn� Ewe _ •�^, •M1 +^ �i i 1�n o M Z , w till� $w� e^� F—a its a `1 NV17 a//117�I ♦!11^+ a 64 moo^ w • . + ^o 4—iils 1!R/J tu11u/7 I t I I I� r+—ells! I ` �J 4 1 4J . T 4 �ipes/ PACIFIC COAST NIaHwAr + ��•16o.ODD1 w+17. 1sV.40u1 laB 70� it/to �� t`r Tilto/ ISS.OV01 1 f LEGENG u}y� ; se• 171.I1.1.-4. Ao' 1.a{J1}•. -r a�a opo 000 slo a�� :xlyy — Afr1JPA1 Peak Hour Turn Vdrn u /a T►a� 8: :« (ml—Forecast Average VaRy Traffic Volumes Project Access Locsilons 1/13/88:Cp r r r r r r r r r i E F F t r TABLE 3 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS COMPARISON SUMMARY Destination Resort Hotel Trip Generation ITE Hotel Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak !four AM Peak Hour PM Peak !tour Intersection _ ICU_ LOS _ICU_ LOS _ ICU LOS _ ICU LOS PCff/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 PCH/Lake Street 0.78 C 0.86 D 0.80 C 0.87 D PCH/Main Street/Sixth Street 0.49 A 0.64 B 0.50 A 0.64 B Huntington Avenue/walnut 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 rW Parkins. The results of the parking demand analysis (included in 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 1.r 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- ing demand created by the proposed project. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required of the project, however the follow- ing programs will be implemented to improve traffic circulation within the project vicinity as a project betterment. r. • Bus services to regional activity centers within the County will be provided to hotel visitors. Yr • 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 61 eliminate use by beach users not residing in the hotel . Level—of Si nificance After Miti ation 6' There will be no significant impacts on traffic. i L, 65 1.. k. W 66 between the years of 1925 and I967. None of the abandonments, however, meet current D.O.G. requirements for a housing development and, therefore, will +i need to be reabandoned. ROJECT IMPACTS Jrr 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) . J 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 reabandontrent of the seven on-site wells. LA LEUEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Mitigation measures attached to each sub-section reduces the potential ri 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 projects design and reduce 6d cumulative effects. No significant effect will remain after mitigation. w 116 r �r 4.10 FISCAL IMPACT M" Environmental SettiM In this section, the project is analyzed for potential effects on the ik. 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- vided to show the effect on City services and revenues resulting from the project which could possibly result in lower service levels. 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 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. Methadoloay. 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 ODA. The net fiscal impacts are then figured together with project land payments from the developer to the City over the course of 25 years. w 1I7 y l.. 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. r. Summary of Net Revenue. The following summary 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 Jb. $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. 6W 118 6d WA 1r l.i kr SUMMARY OF WE! REYE1 E FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATERFRONT: i• One_Zme_Impat_Fees: School District Fees S 1,508,000 �. Downtown Specific Plan Fee , 43,000 Park Development Fee I,159,000 Community Enrichment Fee 172,000 Water Connection Fees 142,000 Sewer Connection Fees 307,000 Sanitation District Connection Fees 39515,000 Drainage Assessment 329,000 boa Plan Check Fees 508,000 Building Permit Fees 782,000 Miscellaneous _ 4,000 Total S 8,469,000 25 Year Total Impact: One Time Impact Fees: $ 8,469,000 W Ongoing Net Revenue: (Property Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, Sales Tax and other miscellaneous revenue, net of developer reimbursements) 130,531,000 Ongoing General Fund Expenditures: (Added Police, Fire, Public Works, Administration and other miscellaneous) (17,I77,000) �. Total Net Fiscal Impact Over 25 Years: S 121,823,000 Land Payments (to City of Huntington Beach) 22,799,000 Total Net Revenue to the City $ 138,821,000 TOTAL NET REVENUE TO ALL JURISDICTIONS $ 144,622.000 (Source: Laventhal & Horwath, December 3, 1987) 6N 119 iM Lr id 1kr 4.11 SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS bai ENVIRONMENTAL_SEHING The City of Huntington Beach adopted in 1982 a mobile home park conver- b4 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 ih` 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 W • City's Mobile Home Census - 1982 • 1980 census • County of Orange - OCP-85. Driftwood-Mobile Home Park Description Figure 7 (see Land Use, Section 4.S) 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 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 W recreational vehicle storage with a total capacity for approximately twenty vehicles. 120 lr ' �r The construction of the mobile home park began in early 1963 and the 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 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 Nome 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. V. 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. �. ousehold Si e - Over half of the residences contain two person households. • Reported Household Income - Approximately 50% of the residences have a reported household income below $20,O00. • Low _ta_Hoderate Income_�fouseholds - Approximately 90% of the resi- deuces were characterized as having low to moderate income with 52% having very low incomes, 26% having low incomes and 11% having moderate incomes. • Length of_Residence - 50% of the residents have liven in the park for five years or less. • Disability - 82% of the residents do not have any serious dis- abilities. +" . Tenanc - Most of the residents 96%, reside permanently on-site. • Ownership - A majority of the mobile home on the site, 88% are w, owner occupied. 121 6d Ir �r �Y `i • Monthly Rent - Currently, 61% of residents pay from $320 to $350 per month for rent (monthly space rent) . • Debt - Over 5V. 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. Noosing Availability The City's Housing Clement 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 yam, rental units within the City that have two units (duplex) or more. From 1980 to 1986, 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 1986 period: Costa Mesa + 2,214 units or 6.6%, Fountain Valley + 516 units or 3.1%, Newport Beach +2,043 units or 6.6%. Table 10 shows past housing starts and projections to the year 2000: TABLE IO Past Nousing_Starts_And Projections To The Year 2000 City Housing Units �• 970 1980 1986 2000 Costa Mesa 24,823 33,647 35,861 41,400 Fountain Valley 8,961 I6,597 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 I3.709 17.383 21 ,717 7 City Total 153,418 247,639 275,335 336,104 �., Source: County of Orange-OCP 85 and Development Monitoring Update Report, February, 1987 L 122 6, �i I Lr �r For this seven City area, the number of dwellings has Increased by 27,696 units, or I3% 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 1rt 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 6. 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 r� 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. w. 123 6w fr �.1 it The detailed phasing program is included in Correspondence in Appendix F 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 �., RtM 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 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 I1 [stimated Phasing of Conversion Park Space Numbers Total Count Estimated Date of Closure 306-315 L, 321-329 19 11/1988 11-19 200-204 316, 320, 401 65-120 301-305 317-319 272-290 89 5/1990 1-10 431-441 21 5/1991 20-64 La 206-270 78 5/1992 402-430 v 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 u the right of first refusal to reside in the new housing units plus additional economic incentives will be offered to all park tenants. 124 W l.. `r �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. w. Housing Availability Housing availability for relocating tenants is quite extensive on both a �j community and a regional basis. Additionally, the relocation assistance being required of the developer and the benefits to which the developer is voluntarily committing, 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 6d supply, relocation of park tenants is not anticipated to cause any effect on housing availability. Population, housing and Employment 4 Population and housing changes resulting from removal of 238 occupied mobile home park spaces and construction of 894 multi-family residences are rW 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 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 I,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 r.• 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 comparing this figure to City regional and Orange County employment 125 b 6. 1W 1.+ {�1 projections, this project produces a very small increment of the total . This project will have minimal and insignificant effects on this segment of the '- community. This level of increase in employment is anticipated and in accor- dance with all local and regional projections. rba eci al deeds There are approximately 379 residents of the Driftwood Mobile Home Park Approximately 2I5 residents, or 55%, are over 60 years of age. Not sur- prisingly, 50% 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 LCity General Plan policies. MITIGATION MEASURES i. 47. A minimurr 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 W 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. a6d 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 64 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 �. 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 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 L.. the Relocation Assistance Program required by Article 927 of the Municipal Code. i� 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 r0 responsibility of the owner, as stipulated by the Relocation Assist Plan, approved by the City of Huntington Beach. Ib+ LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE,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 demand 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 4 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 5.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 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- let ment. The project would result in additional people and structures being W 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. • Aesthetic/View Impacts. a� INA L 128 i� 6.0 ALIERNATIVES '•' 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- 6d tive among the alternatives. The alternatives addressed in this report include: 1. 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 objectives to be "feasible". The following discussion provides a comparative analysis for each of the topical areas discussed earlier on the proposed project. i� Alternative No. 1 - 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 �6, 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. V, 129 L V ikw AIN u. • Circulation - No Project may mean that Walnut Avenue is not con- nected to Beach Boulevard according to the City's General Plan. 'w 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 led coast. • Climate and Air quality - This alternative would reduce overall air had emissions, however in an insignificant amount within the region. • Cultural Resources and Archaeology - No betterment. 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 w. 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. 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 $130,000,000 over a 25 year period would be foregone. w, . Socioeconomic/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 from the tax increment for the site, if it were redeveloped. w. 130 a� urn Alternative Na 1 Residenlia]-al 25 Units Per Acre . Geology/Soils/Seismicity - No betterment. • Biotic Resources - The wetlands would be removed for extension of ... Walnut Avenue. • Land Use - No betterment. too • Circulation - No betterment for overall circulation. Higher peak hours would result. And Climate and Air Quality - No betterment. • Cultural Resources - No betterment. k1w • 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. 66 • Public Services and Utilities - No betterment. • Fiscal Impact - A proportionally less revenue stream from tax 6MI increment would occur. No sales tax, hotel occupancy tax, or business license tax would result, foregoing at least $72,000,000 in net revenue to the City over a 25 year period (does not include tax increment lost due to lower intensity development with this lbdd alternative) . In addition, certain ongoing costs to the City will remain. Ike Socioeconomic/Relocation/Housing - No betterment. The project would result in relocation of the same number of mobile homes. r. Alternative No. 3 - Commercial Residential This alternative, allowed by the Downtown Specific Plan, would allow visitor oriented commercial development along PCH frontage and residential 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 type shopping center. No significant anchor would be anticipated. Possibly 131 r. it w 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- nity 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: Ind Geology, Soils Seismicity/Land Use/Circulation/Climate and Air Quality/Cultural and Archaeological Resources/Public Health and 1 Safety/Relocation and Housing - there is no betterment with this alternative. All impacts described in the SEIR remain the same. • Aesthetics/Views - these impacts would be substantially reduced lei 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 Ho 4 - Reduced Scale Reduced Densit 4041 This alternative supposes a development of three moderate motels and residences with the following characteristics: ,.1 • A four story, all suites hotel with surface parking. • A two story motel with surface parking. • A two story motel with a restaurant and surface parking. 64 • Single family residences and two story apartments at the same 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 underutilization of the 132 IV iw. W W 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: • Biotic Resources - The wetlands would be removed to construct Walnut Avenue, identical impacts would occur. `` • Geology, Soils, Seismicity/Land Use/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 Ir. 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" 60 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 la 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. ii 133 im l.� �r w w 7.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 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 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- L" velopment goals, objectives and activities for the next five years. As the 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 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 . • Town Square - 171 unit residential 20,000 square feet of retail/ commercial . • Main Pier - Phase Il - mixed use residential with retail commer- cial . • Retail Parking Structure - 200 block of Main Street. • Lake/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 1.+ irl i.r W 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 64 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 64 (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 L„ 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 W Iw Ir.r 8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 6' 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 a.. 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. L' 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 Museum 180,000 SF Convention Center 280,000 SF �., These figures include all districts within the Downtown Specific Plan 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 '� 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. ow 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 336 u older low intensity uses and replacing them with higher intensity uses. The 64 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 64 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 SLAG (based on City and County projections General Plan). Traffic capacity of surrounding arterial and collector streets has been 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- km nificant cumulative effects on the local circulation system, projected to ultimate buildout in the year 2010. 6N 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 an 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. 137 w. 1W ha 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 6" disposal , which will soon reach capacity. The project will result in additional people and structures being sub- W ject to possible seismic hazards and flooding hazards. Project mitigation 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 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- aw ject property and immediate 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 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. She Jim 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) . 138 F+ ■Y Lid 6e L. 9.0 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 w result in the commitment of building materials, energy resources and public services and utilities. 6d 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 Ir the local economy; increased tourism; and increased revenues to the City in the form of sales, property taxes and the transient occupancy tax. low IY 139 �r IY 6A Y.. i.r 0.0 RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ONG-T RM PRODUCTIVITY CEQA requires that an EIR describe the cumulative and long-term effects of the proposed project which adversely affect the environment. Special ,w attention should be given to impacts which narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long-term risks (Section 15126 CEQA Guide- lines). 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 • 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- 1.1 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 61 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 �• 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 I. the beach area and by increased opportunities for visitors to use visitor oriented facilities of the project. it 140 i. br rrr 64 a.. 11.0 REFERENCES City of Huntington Beach. 1981. Final EIR 81-1 - Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue Office Commercial complex, City of Huntington Beach. 1982. Einal EIR 8 - - owntown ecific 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 for the City of Huntington Beach. Mestre Greve Associates. 1986. Noise Assessment for Parking Structure for Crystal. Court_Se4erstrom Commercial Development, prepared for City of Costa Mesa. The Planning Center. 1987. Draft EIR - MacArthur Place, prepared for the City of Santa Ana. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Parts of Riverside County, California. �r �r Lr it ri 141 it 6 bd 12.0 APPENDICES �+ Appendices A through J are bound separately. W W !Y it iw &. be �M `1