The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWaterfront Development - Volume II Final Supplement to Envir I.. VOLUME II ,,. APPENDICES L SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-2 FOR THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ►» I PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 L I L PREPARED FOR: L CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 k, CONTACT PERSON: CATHERINE O'HARA PHONE: (714) 536-5271 JANUARY 12, 1988 u. - F ' Yes No t b. Mill the proposal result in odrersa physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or �+ historic building, structure, or object? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect X unique ethnic cultural values? F d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential Impact area? X - 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. LO a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the envirannwt, ' substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a L plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods X of California history or prehistory? F b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the diiscdvontoge of �+ long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one a which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but t,w where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X L d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial odverse effects on humor beings, either directly or Indirectly? X LO 111. Discussion of Environnxntal Evaluation 1 IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) V + 120 V r .I fr On the basis of this initial evaluation: 60 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect ~ on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. —1 I find that although the proposed project eovld.have a significant effect tt 11 on the environment, there will not be o jignificont effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been odded to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect an P envirer- ment, and on ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required XX Mr , J Au use 31 , 1987 to 5Tgnature y For City of Huntington Beach Mote: This is only a suggested form. Public ogencies are free to devise their own format for initial studiesJ Ira A supplemental EIR per section 15163 of CEQA Guidelines shall be prepared for EIR 82-2/Downtown Specific Plan 4r L 1�+ 121 , Wr �Ir Discussion of"YES" and "MAYBE"responses for Environmental ' ChecUist/Environmental Assessment No. 87-33. Waterfront Development 1. lb. The site is presently graded and developed. Some fill will be brought on-site for the proposed project. There is wetland area on the northeast portion of the site which has been designated by State Fish and Game as restorable.. 2a. Auto emissions from the proposed project will have a negative impact on air quality. 3b. The proposed development will cause a change in present drainage patterns. Stormwater runoff will be accommodated by City stormdrain system. W 3c. The property lies within the 100 year floodplain. Present development has altered the course or flow of potential floodwaters and proposed development may do so also. Federal, State and local building and design standards shall be complied with. 3i. Tsunami risk for the area is low to moderate. Flooding is potential hazard. Project site lies within 100 year floodplain. �+ 4a. The site is presently developed. Existing plantlife consists of ornamental landscaping. 6" 4c. New plant species may be introduced to the site as a result of landscaping. 6b. The proposed development will contain lighting features. S. The planned use for the area per the Downtown Specific Plan is for 400 hotel rooms, 250,000 square feet of commercial use and 900 dwelling units. The new proposal is for 1600 hotel rooms, 90,000 square feet of commercial use and 875 dwelling units. The proposed uses are the same as those previously planned, but the mix of the uses is different. Given the tradeoff of uses, the overall change may not be substantial, but is significant enough to warrant the preparation of a supplemental E1R to amend E1R 82-2 previously certified for the Downtown Specific Plan. 11. The proposal will replace 237 mobilehomes with 975 high density dwelling units. A relocation plan for the displaced residents will be prepared by the developer. 12. The proposal will increase existing housing stock by 638 dwelling units. 6 13a. A preliminary traffic impact study conducted by LSA traffic consultants indicates that the proposed project will have an increase of 6% -7% over Downtown Specific i Plan estimates. The study indicated that the proposed changes would not cause significant traffic/circulation impacts. 13b. The project will create new parking demands. Parking will be accommodated on-site. 14a, Additional Fire and Police services may be necessary due to the project. No new b &c school facilities would be necessary. 1.� ti Ir . 16d. The number of proposed dwelling units is slightly less than that planned for. However, the new construction may impact present sewer service capabilities. IS. The project may obstruct some views. However, view corridors and scenic vistas will be integrated into the design of the project. 19. The project will provide a 60,050 square foot public recreation center. 2Ic. The combination of the project's proposed density and height. potential traffic generation and potential impact on present mobilehome park residents may have i significant impacts if not adequately mitigated. W w j.. e W L (8993d) L / w• .r \!, MARTA StREFTr aTi_artTa/ �os 1 -PO-CI-FP2 - R3 i3 R3 p!J hl 1 C :. .av: :b' * r 1e �1V!J !1.!.w;'w P R2'PD-CZ•FP2 P3 �ir R3 is R3 R R! Mly IC PLEA l ✓.i ::::::. .e J .. K ,Y • i 3 r t'T�b DISTgICT 604 k� �y `i+I.•m ac' R2•PD•C2•FP2 C4 i� Its Y ,R 2 • 0 R3 FP?R2fDTZFP?� ,�.. �fun�+r�:: s'1'77 A �7c cop!t;. (f.S s9,. •� � u. ::,'w .:yaw!::•• 4 ; R3 ,i., ' F ....+.. �i�. ':? rPi�.rC i ..��°� ;•Y R24DC D tfP4 q R2 PT? RI R-� �) a D '•t \ mm-CZ FPZ t�}w w l'ii':�rx R! R! : R I �y, f j ra="•' _p : ary..w. r.nrt, x} ' �•� I�iaa: 03 R3 DW bNTOMM SPED IC N a R3 ::::M ...... \ t ` R1 S `a ob!FP R4- R3 R3 RI .....•. RA `y . 9 to 4 c c o M I-A-O Q � iT-�s-- At oc hf MI-A-O e' `Y C t • .a- ti c p4 3 —aft o S MH-CZ jfjiFnMT MWECTSUEA(WA 51WMEMENT TO IF I ft NUMTM,GIUM MACH HUMINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION 5 Phase 1 Project Trip Distribution Patterns Lsa AK. Schematic -- Not to Scale 40 1 D 7 9C,� m rL 10 c J OLIVE: AVE r I N Phase 1 N Project Site Co 99 z � u "...1 PACIFIC COAST.HWY M • tieiee•cp 1D - Percent Project Trip Distribution — - Phase 1 Project Access Locations 6 Phase 1 Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes Lsa 23/38 1 59/73 64137, WALNUT 116172 58/36 00 oSchematic - Not to Scale co � Phase 1 N �m o T Project Site z h z • z � �87155 Ga � '1 �0/0 ov /0 .. �i7/1 1 IL F'0/0 0►0 (500) (2600) PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (300) 26/17� IF 35144� �r 0/0- o-00'a-o 0 0� poo LEGEND (zzz) - ADT Volume xx/yy - A.M. Peak Hour!P.M. Peak Hour ' 1If3/88:C�' 6. a Phase 1 Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes Lsa WALNUT N 40/38 20/19M Schematic-Not to Scale CO a � o � I to z Phase 1 a y�'i z Project S1te p z �ch L N +nay~ * 30t09 woo t �0/fi/6 L �--0/0 1 �0/0 I300� � F (1200) PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY +� tom+ (300) 9/9 3/8--� `O110 00/0 0 oQ 0/0� o 0 a (zzz) - ADT Volume xxxfyyy-A.M. Poak Hour/P.M. Peak }dour W Lsa while Figure 6.a illustrates the destination resort hotel trip generation as 4" described in the Austin-Foust study. ! Due to differences in access locations for the existing Huntington Beach Inn and for the proposed hotel , as well as the planned demolition of the west wing of the existing Huntington Beach Irn to accommodate the Phase I hotel , the forecast 1991 background volumes previously presented have been modified. These modified background volumes are illustrated in Figure 7. Figures 8 and +r B.a illustrate the modified 1991 background volumes plus Phase I project traffic for the ITE hotel trip generation alternatives and the destination resort hotel , respectively. W TRAFFIC IME Cj AHALYSI To assess the relative impacts of project generated traffic on the arterial system in the vicinity of the project site, AM and PM peak hour volumes at key intersections for the Phase I development were examined. These intersections include PCH/Huntington and PCH/Beach. The turn volumes for each intersection are examined to determine the volume/capacity (VC) ratio for each turn movement. Through the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, conflicting turn movement volumes and their VC ratios are examined to determine the overall capacity utilization for each intersection in the form of a VC ratio, termed the ICU. In effect, ICU is the percentage of capacity utilization needed to adequately accommodate all vehicles travel- ing through an intersection. Hence, the higher the ICU, the higher the percentage of capacity utilization, where an ICU of 1.00 would equal the a utilization of 100% of the intersection's capacity. With lower capacity utilization, residual capacity will prevail . For planning purposes, an ICU of 0.90 (90% utilization) or lower is desirable for peak hour evaluation. This Corresponds to level of service (LOS) D or better, as defined in the 1965 Highway-Capacity- Manual . Table B summarizes the existing, 1991 background, and 1991 background plus Phase 1 development AM and PM peak hour intersection capacity utili- zation ratios for the intersections in the vicinity of the project site for both trip generation alternatives. As can be seen in the Table, both inter- sections currently operate acceptably below the 0.90 ICU threshold. The two intersections are anticipated to continue to operate acceptably with the 'M addition of 1991 background traffic and the project traffic. �w 4 17 i �Y r ■ R Z 7 Adjusted 1991 Background Peak Hour Turn Volumes � WALNUT N o Schematic-Not to Scale v 0 r V I Phas 'o �- o e 1 o y z Project Site z D �r took � 0% om 0 L 5119 a,�`� �---2851485 .J L -1243/1507. �` `�` �---1132/1503 F-0160 �--015 10/10 Q) 144,0001 PACIFIC C SST HIGHWAY (45,040) { r 77/143� 10/f0--+ i 1409/1208 120ti/1253�� o0 515� 1t)f0� to Izzzl - ADT Volume xxxlyyy-A.M. Peak Flour/P.M. Peak Hour 1991 Plus Phase 1 Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes is 28/38 F-59/73 , --- WALNUT 64/36 116/72 58136 co r ti v � Schematic — Not to Scala v Phase 1 r� �0 z Project Site o��y o 0 z z z N N ti N p 1� v� 92/74 e'`r �— o t Qop �-1243/1507 ja.�r�r 265/485 0160 . �0/5 11514 I L 141,5001 36127� � f F (46,000) PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 145.000f 1f2/187—. 1206/1253-r +nv in 1418/122�—r pap 10/0^� in;n o LEGEND (zzz) — ADT Volume xx/yy — A.M. Peak HourIP.M. Peak Hour V13/88:CP 8. a 1991 Plus Phase 1 Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes lsa WALNUT 40138 120119---1 Schematic-Not to Scale CO p � p b f to TZ Y �rA z phase 1 No 9C'y z Project Site f- z 35148 ��' t--2651485 CO c� �--12 1 43/1507 . � � 0- 58/1507 I f— (41,000) (45.000) PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (45,000) 1911 89/154 12/1216� O a�1206/1253 0� 5/5 -T o 0 tp to (zzz) - ADT Volume xxx/yyy-A.M. Peak Hour/P.M. Peak Hour Table B Phase 1 Intersection Capacity Analysis Lsa ------------------------------------- I AM Pk. lir. I PM Pk. Hr. ----------------------------------------------I-----------------( Intersection J ICU I LOS I ICU I LOS I I-------------------------------------------- I-----------------1-----------------1 11. Huntington Street/PCH I I I 1 I I---------------------------------------------I I I I I I Existing I 0.51 I A 1 0.56 I A J I---------------------------------------------I--------1--------1--------1--------J 1 1991 Background I 0.43 I A 1 0.47 I A J I ---------------------------------------------I--------I--------1-------- 1--------1 1 1991 + Project (Destination Resort Hotel J 0.43 I A I 0.49 1 A I Trip Generation) I I I I I I---------------------------------------------I--------1--------I--------I--------I 1 1991 + Project (ITE llotel Trip Generation) ( 0.46 1 A 1 0.52 1 A I ' I---------------------------------------------i--------I--------I -------- 1--------i 12. Beach Boulevard/PCH I I I I I -------------------------------------------- I I I I I Existing 1 0.64 B I 0.65 B. I • I--------------------------------------------- I--------1-------- 1-------- I------- 1 I 1991 Background J 0.56 I A I 0.56 I A 1 I ---------------------------------------------I-------- I-------- I-------- I-------- I 1 1991 + Project (Destination Resort Hotel I 0.56 J A 1 0.56 J A I 1 Trip Generation) J I I I I 1---------------------------------------------I--------1 --------I --------I--------I 1 1991 + Project (ITE Hotel Trip Generation) ( 0.57 1 A 1 0.57 1 A I ' -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- - 118 -- �.r w 1rr Lsa w As the impact analysis indicates, both the intersections of Huntington Street/PCH and Beach Boulevard/PCH will experience decreases in AM and PM peak hour capacity utilization, and therefore an improved level of service, as a result of the PCH widening project. Addition of project generated traf- fic to these intersections is not expected to result in any significant Leo increases in capacity utilization or levels of service. Even with addition of project generated traffic, the resulting AM and PM peak hour ICUs will be improved over existing conditions. Hence, no intersection improvements are necessary beyond those planned as part of the PCH widening project. PHASE 1 IMPACT ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS The Phase 1 project will proposed generate 3,150 ADT and 260 AM and 220 PM peak hour trips assuming the ITE trip generation rates. The proposed project will generate I,800 daily trips, of which 90 trips will occur during the AM peak hour and 135 trips will occur during the PM peak hour assuming the destination resort hotel trip generation rates. With the removal of the 48 room west wing of the existing Huntington Beach Inn, the project would �., result in a net increase in trip generation of approximately 1,500 daily trips, 75 AM peak hour trips and 115 PAS peak hour trips for the resort hotel assumption. Using the ITE rates, the proposed hotel would result in a net increase in approximately 2,600 ADT and 220 AM and 180 PM peak hour trips. The addition of project generated traffic to 1991 background volumes for ` the intersections under study will not create unacceptable operating condi- tions assuming either trip generation alternatives. The intersections of Huntington Avenue/PCH and Beach Boulevard/PCH are anticipated to operate with acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours in both trip generation alternatives. Due to the planned widening of PCH in the vicinity of the project site, which will result in increased intersection capacity, 1991 background plus project traffic would have AM and PM peak hour ICUs ,W lower than existing conditions. Hence, no intersection improvements are necessary as part of project development. it I �r lr 22 �r Lsa t SECLON 11; TNE_WATERFR%g i�157ER_ IAN IMPACT_AMLYSIS W The traffic impacts resulting from development of the Master Plan for The Waterfront are evaluated in this section. Peak hour trips generated by the buildout of 'The Waterfront Master Plan are distributed and assigned to the local roadway system. This project trip assignment is added to a cumula- tive traffic base which includes traffic volumes associated with 'the Downtown Specific Plan, as reported in the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report 82-21 and the proposed Pierside Village project. The Phase 1 analysis evaluated the potential project impacts at the intersections of PCH/Huntington and PCH/Beach. For purposes of this cumula- tive analysis, four additional intersections are included. These are Huntington/Walnut, Beach/Walnut, PCH/Lake Street and PCH/Main Street. As Main Street is planned to be closed to vehicles, and traffic volumes to be diverted to Sixth Street, this cumulative analysis assumes the closure and diversion in the cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. Addi- tionally, the widening of PCH from four lanes to six lanes is also assured. L CUMULATIVE CONDITION To determine the potential impacts associated with The waterfront Master Plan buildout, a cumulative base is developed which represents the ambient traffic levels at the time of the project's completion. This cumulative base includes traffic volumes generated by the Downtown Specific Plan area and the Pierside Village project area. E In the Phase I analysis, trips associated with a portion of the existing +.. Huntington Beach Inn were subtracted from the traffic volume base, as the structure is planned for demolition prior to construction of the Phase 1 hotel . In the Master Plan analysis, however, trips associated with the �w existing hotel land uses need not be subtracted from the cumulative base. The modification of traffic volumes to reflect the elimination of existing uses has been accomplished in the cumulative base, as described in the Down- town Specific Plan EIR. �J Peak hour trip generation for the Downtown Specific Plan and Pierside Village projects were not calculated as part of their respective traffic r. studies. Therefore, AM and PM peak hour cumulative turn volumes are derived based on the relationship of existing peak hour and average daily traffic volumes to cumulative condition average daily traffic volumes. The method- ology used to derive these forecast peak hour turn movements is defined in the National Cooperative Highway Research Board, Circular 255, as an inter- 23 `I 1r. w+ Lsa section balancing program. The base inputs to this methodology are the existing peak hour turn movements, existing ADT and forecast ADT. Through an iterative process which compares the turn movements into and out of the intersection to the ratio of existing and forecast ADT, the forecast peak hour turn movements, assuming the contribution of the Downtown Specific Plan and Pierside Village projects, are determined. The results of the six intersection turn movement derivations under study are included in Appendix D. A discussion of the daily traffic con- tribution of the Downtown Specific Plan and Pierside Village projects is presented below. Downtown Spec jf i.c Pl an In 1983, the City of Huntington Beach completed an analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the redevelopment of the downtown area of the City. This area, known as the Downtown Specific Plan area, lies within the coastal zone of the City of Huntington Beach between Goldenwest j Street and Beach Boulevard, and includes the proposed site of The Waterfront development. The Specific Plan and accompanying Environmental Impact Report were adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach in July, 1983, thereby establishing the zoning for the Downtown Specific Plan Area. The total of nine project districts, presented in the Specific Plan traffic study, are anticipated to generate approximately 119,000 average daily trip ends. The Downtown Specific Plan assumes that the proposed pro- ject site would be developed with a 400 roam hotel, 250,000 square feet of commercial uses, and 900 dwelling units, with daily trip generation of 15,900 vehicles per day (VPD) . To arrive at a cumulative traffic base that includes +W the Downtown Specific Plan traffic volumes without the proposed Waterfront project, these 15,900 daily trips were removed from the local roadway network based on the trip distribution patterns identified in the Specific Plan EIR. The resulting daily trip assignment, therefore, includes the traffic con- tribution from the Specific Plan area without the proposed Waterfront Master Plan land uses. The daily traffic contribution from the Pierside Village project is added to this daily trip assignment to arrive at the daily traffic law volume cumulative base. low low 24 1l1 7M 1r. Lsa Pigrside Y a e Traffic impacts associated with the proposed Pierside Village project are described in a Technical Memorandum by Greer & Co., "Traffic Impact Analysis - Pierside Development Project", dated July, 1987. As part of this analysis, daily and peak hour trips were generated for the proposed 100,000 square foot Village development. The proposed project consists of approxi- mately 30,000 square feet of quality restaurants, 30,000 square feet of fast W food services and 40,000 square feet of specialty retail stores. The result- ing net external daily trip generation for the Pierside Village project, as reported in the traffic analysis, is approximately 5,500 ADT. i Trip distributions or assignments are not included with the Technical Memorandum. Therefore, the resulting trip generation has been assigned to the local roadway system based on the trip distribution patterns identified in the Downtown Specific Plan traffic analysis. These distributions have been modified to reflect the Pierside Village project location and access opportunities. The resulting daily trip assignment is then added to the _xisting plus Downtown Specific Plan trip assignment to arrive at the fore- cast daily traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed Waterfront pro- ject. W Cumulative Condition Intersection .Levels of Service The resulting forecast daily traffic volumes are used as input to the Circular 255 intersection evaluation methodology described above. The re- sulting peak hour turn movements are included in the Technical Appendix. Figure 9 illustrates these turn movements at the intersection locations under +� investigation. It should be noted that the closure of Main Street and the diversion of Main Street traffic to Sixth Street has been assumed in the cumulative condition analysis. Additionally, a committed intersection im- provement at PCH/Huntington has also been included. Currently, the north leg of this intersection provides one lane to accommodate all southbound turn movements. A southbound left turn lane has been assumed at this location to provide unimpeded flow to the southbound turn movements during the peak hours. It should be pointed out that the Walnut extension will be completed '-� along with the buildout of The Waterfront Master Plan. Therefore, a cumula- tive condition ICU analysis of the intersections along Walnut has not been included as part of this analysis. The intersections of Huntington/Walnut .. and Beach/Walnut are evaluated in the cumulative plus project condition as part of the project impacts presented later in this report. ' 25 �Y i` ik 9 Cumulative Condition Peak Hour Turn Volumes Lsa W W Wcc W ' N H Y N C= z r �+ x O Y N 4 W it 3 o rsa State WALNUT AVENUE a 0 O w Ape �l• • •�f0�, �Z � ssrxle—� ~1 I 1} i A ~ j � 121011 :+--ussrssn I .—,rur,ssar—e+o } �r o+,a: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY `� "tae aoo x1o� ^e: xxfyy- AMIPM Peak Hour Turn Volunas feral- Forecall Areraye Daily Traffic Volumes i-� w+ Pro*t Access Locations 1113188:CR w it Lsa The resulting peak hour turn movement volumes are used as input for the cumulative condition Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis, the results of which are presented in the Table below. Cumulative Condition Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection - IN LOS ICU PCH/Huntington Avenue 0.57 A 0.62 B b4 PCH/Beach Boulevard 0.61 B 0.64 B PCH/Lake Street 0.76 C 0.81 D 6' PCH/Main Street/Sixth Street 0.47 A 0.61 B As can be seen in the Table, all intersections under study are anticip- ated to operate below the acceptable threshold of 0.90 ICU during both AM and PM peak hours. �,. T"K_VATERFRm MASTER PLAN As discussed previously, the proposed 300 room hotel project will be the first phase of the Master Plan development for The waterfront. The succeed- ing phases, to be completed by 1995, will consist of three hotels (for a total of four hotels), a commercial development, a racquet club and multi- family residential units. The resulting Master Plan development will consist of the following uses: Land Use _ Units �M Hotels 1600 Rooms Tennis and Health Center 40 TSF Commercial 99 TSF Multi-family Residential 895 DU Figure 10 illustrates the proposed site plan for the Master Plan devel- opment. It should be noted that the only phase for which detailed plans have currently been prepared is Phase 1. The specific details of the remaining phases will be determined at a future date, though these details will be within the guidelines established for Master Plan development. keg r� 27 10 Site Plan Um o PHASE VII CNN, n^ %C"` O� !� Scale In Feet 0 200 400 W -- AY - H iA k O OPfi&I - -- Q FIC CQA T 1 HW ----- PHASE 1 PHASE 11 ......�.......... PHASE 111 PHASE IV PHASE V `.......�.......... PHASE VI FNAlT CLASS HOTEL TENNIS AND HEALTH COWENENCE HOTEL All-ANTE HOTEL INOOFlNO PLAZA LUKURT NOT0. CEPMR ►ANKINO SiNUCTUNE ® d o Note: Phase VII Residential Site Plan is Conceptual and Is Provided for Information Purposes Only. 11/25/87:CP Source: RLM. 1987 f Y • Lsa 1Y. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation for a given land use is the product of the appropriate trip generation rates per unit multiplied by the number of units of that land use. Trip generation rates used in this study are primarily based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trio Generation Third Edition, 1983. Modifications were necessary, however, as the ITE rates do not adequately L reflect the operations of some land uses of the proposed project or, in some cases, are expressed in terms of daily, not peak hour, trips. The trip generations rates, and the resulting project trip generation, are presented in Table C. A discussion of the basis for these rates is as follows. o e . Similar to the Phase I analysis, hotel trip generation is pre- sented for two trip generation rate alternatives. The hotel daily and peak hour trip generation rates for The waterfront Master Plan land uses are based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Third Edition for hotel land uses, as well as the previously referenced trip generation study for resort hotel uses. ommergial . The commercial daily trip generation rates are based on the AOT rates used by the City for commercial uses in its traffic analysis for the Specific Plan. The peak hour rates are derived from the ratio of City 6& and ITE daily rates compared to the ITE peak hour rates for commercial land uses. km Tennis and Health Cgntgr. Trip generation rates for the proposed health facilities for The Waterfront development are based on surveys of a similar racquet club in Newport Beach. Discussions with the applicant indicate that the proposed tennis and health center will be similar to the John Wayne Racquet Club located on Jamboree Road in Newport Beach. A description of the proposed tennis and health center is provided in the Appendix. 1r. The survey of the 20,000 square foot, sixteen court, John Wayne Racquet Club was conducted during the midweek period from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The results of this survey were utilized in developing the trip generation rates per 1,000 square feet utilized in this analysis. It should be noted that the rates used in this analysis are reflective of the peak hour of the racquet club (which occurred at 10:00 a.m.), and not the peak hour of the ` adjacent street traffic (which occurred at 9:00 a.m.). The former rates were M used as they indicated a higher trip making period and, therefore, reflect a worst case analysis for this land use type. �� 29 Table C Master Plan Trip Generation LSa I I ANALYSIS UNITS IITRIP GENERATION RATES JITRIP GENERATION I ILAND USE I TYPE I NO. IJDAILT JAM 1N JAM OUT 1PM IN JPM OUT 11DAILY JAM IN JAM OUT IPM IN IPM OUT I I-----------------I........I........11.........I---------I---------I----.----I---------11---------1---------i---------I---------I----------1 JHotet JRooms 1 1,600 11 10.50 1 0.55 1 0.29 1 0.36 1 0.37 11 16,800 1 928 1 464 1 576 1 592 J 1 i I lI I I I r II I I I I I JTennfs/Health ITSF 1 40 11 11.70 1 1.35 1 0.70 1 0.60 1 1.30 11 468 I 54 1 28 1 24 1 52 1 I Center I I I r r I r I I I I I I I 1 ! 1 I II I r I I II I I I I I Itoffmrcial ITSF 1 99 II 26.50 1 0.21 1 0.10 1 1.23 1 1.26 11 2,624 1 21 1 10 1 124 1 125 1 f I r If r I I I rl I I I I I IResldential IDU I 895 11 8.00 1 0.10 1 0.52 1 0.52 1 0.26 11 7,160 1 90 1 465 1 465 1 233 1 • .......................................................... ------------------. ...----I---------....------.I JITOTAL GROSS TRIP GENERATION 11 27,052 1 1,Q42 1 967 1 1.189 I 1,001 I I 13-.Ian-88 Ww 6w Lsa Furthermore, as previously stated, trip generation rates were developed based on the square footage of the clubhouse which doubles the total trip generation from the John Mayne Racquet Club to The waterfront facility. However, The waterfront proposed facility contains nine tennis courts, com- pared to sixteen at the John Wayne Racquet Club. Since tennis courts are a primary facility and traffic generator, this analysis represents a conserva- tive estimate of the trip generating characteristics of this use. Residential . For the proposed residential land uses for The waterfront development, the ADT rates are based on the approved Huntington Beach trip generation rates. The peak hour rates are based on the relationship of daily trip rates for the City and those from ITE's rates for residential condomin- iums applied to the peak hour rates from the ITE manual . Table C illustrates the resulting trip generation assuming the ITE trip generation rates for conventional hotel land uses. In this alternative, the proposed project will generate approximately 27,000 ADT and 2,000 AM and 2,200 PM peak hour trips. Table C.a illustrates the resulting daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed waterfront Master Plan project assuming the destination resort hotel trip generation rates from the Austin-Foust 4 study. As can be seen in Table C.a, the project is anticipated to generate 66 approximately 19,800 ADT, 1,100 AM and 1,700 PM peak hour trips. The resulting AM and PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed project, assuming both trip generation alternatives, are then assigned to the local roadway system based on trip distribution patterns identified below. LRLLQLSTRIBUTION AND-ASSIGNMENI Similar to the Phase 1 analysis, the trip distribution patterns for the proposed Master Plan project are assumed to be the same as the general dis- tribution patterns assumed for the Downtown Specific Plan area in the City's report. The Downtown Specific Plan distribution patterns and the local arterials that are expected to accommodate this traffic are presented in Appendix C. Figure 11 illustrates these trip distribution patterns. Applying these trip distribution patterns to the directional AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the Master Plan development results in the project trip assignment illustrated in Figure 12 and 12.a for the LW conventional hotel trip generation rates and destination resort hotel, respectively. These project peak hour volumes are added to the cumulative traffic base as illustrated in Figures 13 and 13.a, and potential �., intersection impacts are evaluated. �W 31 �r r F f C Table C. a , Master Plan Trip Generation L I I ANALYSIS L14ITS IITRIP GENERATION RATES IITRIP GENERATION I ILAND USE I TYPE I NO. IIDAILY [AM IN IAM OUT IPM IN IPM OUT 1IDAILY IAM IN JAM OUT IPM IN IPM OUT I I-----------------I........I........11.........I.....----I---------I---------I.........11.........I---------I---------I---------I---------I 1Hetel 11tooms 1 1,600 11 6.00 1 0.20 1 0.10 1 0.19 1 0.26 11 9,600 1 320 1 160 1 304 1 416 1 1 1 1 11 1 .I I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 ITemis/Health 1TSf 1 40 11 11.70 1 1.35 1 0.70 1 0.60 1 1.30 11 468 1 54 1 28 1 24 1 52 1 1 Center I I II I I I 1 II I I 1 I 1 I I 1 11 � 1 1 I 11 I 1 I 1 I (Commercial 1TSF 1 99 11 26.50 1 0.21 1 0.10 1 1.25 1 1.26 11 2,624 1 21 1 10 1 124 1 125 1 1 1 1 11 I I I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11tesidential IDU 1 895 11 8.00 1 0.10 1 0.52 1 0.52 1 0.26 11 7.160 1 90 1 465 1 465 1 233 1 ......................................................................................................................I-------------------1 1ITOTAL CROSS TRIP CEVEDRTI04 11 17,BS2 1 484 1 663 1 917 1 825 1 Master Plan Project Trip Distribution lsa AR t�p,N�P St A Schematic - Not to Scale 16 40 n �0 p OLIVE AVC r � r 1 r r zI 1 can z x z = i to J z 15 z AeMaster Plan Project Site Boundary L rr ---- - r. ,s PACIFIC COAST HWY (1) 10 11 /80-CPj 10 - Percent Project Trip Distribution 4— - Master Plan Project Access locations I . 12 Master Plan Project Trip Assignment Lsa W 1, W Z W � a � v ►¢- any N y to 2 N B F >< x S N �' • < a W No Scale O L 1 �ut,lsi 17tru>t ,ouwo f--7oras�tTest —+sls { --leleo tt a1 '~ WALNUT AVENUE I1 Sl NZ—r 6t/ZZ t If/e rl3,� -�rr el 3.11 ,� rn •M •+ �• r• w~ 63 re � .f an Mr. a a n^ !.•� rtw L .--1anr1 —7eres fN� r r O � faN1a 4 taerra �17111 I E �170r,tla •— `♦ .�- A-1 +-_aar.e sJ L .6,I7111 PACIFIC COAS1r Hf(3HWAV +—rrr•s sss,n6" tss,irs` .s►ee mules 73061— t2,rou1 1�artsl—► f 2,7001 f�,00o1 it=lYY ` AAbptvl Poo* Hour Turn Vdumes frill- Fattest Awwage Dolly Trofflc Vdumes -IJY-Project Access tocellons 1113188:CP IL r 12 . a Master Plan Project Trip Assignment Lsa Cr � a �n . to N = y ?• APE c No Scale w L L„elt2/l /f+f7 ruts !>rl! +�7 ISMsu-/ a� WALNUT AVENUE /ef1,f —► rr7/l � r ,7 /� MOW � IV,i/� Ir.als7� � VIM •• 0 �A q� • NN �v • �� :� - i0 Nz; r r M N^ A � _1 frI � Ji�• t+�y 77f S to oI N sl7r r •N� o Orry M _ A JL PALMIC c0asy HIGHWAY .lia is �11177 11,9001 LEGEND ,s#30- IL9000 ts+,os�-► r/+7o/ f2,9001 aaryy - AM/PM Peek Hour Turn Vofumas faaal- Forec/f) Average pally Tr/fife Votumef �T~- Project Accost Localions 1/13/8B:CP 13 Cumulative Plus Master Plan Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes Lsa W W W Y w m W W � ,y fi • y Ncr N T- d~r i1s W K J 9 w x pGGr N •F 29 �pl�y No Scale � �n Z i S LUlrfa= i v O �y� +ilrarU0 TDlaa lrrtt 11l1Is- �1a3r10 �'"" laic loved /L r lsJlr WALNUT AVENUE mom./mom. • rii~ e1132-�3 qr� +� 1!!e 101e7 •1 Iler1 r3! .2, "51177�rr * i,aTrla �rTf„ Ir lr 1 1J 13 11 1 113e� w O i 1 r e4 Q bow L-451733 s--1491111 �:« 1eS1i1! a3Ja>� «e �uues 1371-1133 e--r 1 to►Jea^� N': • T ^in +a- 'N rf • r `lei 7DJSa iL lf!1!=,lJ `—eru7 y l ;i9"D' PACrF�c collsT 41raT+wAr �+ "`s0,7001 ,erlla `� 1eff01 ~� r~ lDl/tia 73a11e� ,60Tl1 1 141e9 14l►�� I /foal,saF�t 0/0� ebe 7re� `o� (55,70p! lra/yy -AFA/PlA Peek Hour Turn Ydumee Hs (17,eD0i ooe (SL5001 -"' (m)-Forecast Average Daily Trarlic Volumes •p+', ��-Project Access Loeelions 1►f3/88:CF r� 13 . a Cumulative Plus Master Plan Project Peak Hour Turn Volumes Lsa W W W W T 1 z x i N t a fw No Scale w f HOoff i,lSi !arl7 till! �,S►iS iarai�� 1Ir,11 ,t Al /RIF wALNUf AYEHVC w " i Sa' M� � •vJ 1[6�n e • _ • r 6nj� eN- 4 y Buie ,irgi—. lall,a� �'• �O- N A P ^ w w+ n n i poi l..�l0ri! nan 17S/7i �� Iio �^l,Hl�• I ero I ar,ls ! '�Iria ns,7 L� ;'— J I L �"� 4 �;,�i, PACIFIC COAST HIQHWAY � 1� fS0.0001 {A8100� �1 ISO,A001 • A1 i55U07 ~ +urti7. 4�� sin+s i�r 1„+oi LEGEND +a] ao6 lain/+7ri—� o i o list ne- a>,/yy - AAi/PA1 Paw Haar Turn Vdumes ties!— Foreciot AVWIQi Daily Trafflom Volume --��— Pro)pd Actess Looitfoni 4/f3/88:CP 1 1.r Lsa PROJECT- IMPACTS i� Sable D presents the resulting ICU's with the addition of peak hour traffic volumes associated with the proposed Waterfront Master Plan when added to the cumulative traffic base. As can be seen in the Table, all six intersections will operate below the acceptable level of service in both peak hours in the cumulative plus 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 i intersection improvement at the intersection of Huntington/PCH. This was included as a means of improving the flow of left turning traffic volumes, and not because of unacceptable operating conditions. This improvement will not only improve the potential circulation problems at this intersection, but will also improve public access to the beach areas in the vicinity by reduc-ing conflicts between beach visitor traffic and traffic generated by other uses. Daily traffic volumes along the proposed Walnut extension are also evaluated as part of this analysis. Currently, Walnut Avenue west of Lake Street carries 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 13,000 � ADT between Lake Street and Beach Boulevard. Due to the increase in trip generation from the proposed project, the estimate of traffic on Walnut will increase slightly. Upgraded to a primary status, as indicated in the Nega- tive Declaration 84-14 for the Circulation Element Amendment 84-I, Walnut can adequately accommodate the projected traffic generation. The Department of Public Works has recommended that Walnut between Beach and Sixth be developed as four undivided lanes. y.. MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the ICU analysis, all six intersections will operate at accep- table levels of service in both trip generation alternatives. Therefore, no intersection mitigations are required to accommodate the proposed Waterfront f Master Plan traffic volumes. However, at the City's request, a transporta- tion systems management (7SM) program is recommended as part of the proposed RY 1 1r a� 38 �w f r . f r r f _ r f f Table D Cumulative + Project Condition Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Summary lsa DESTINATION RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ITE HOTEL TRIP GENERATION Aft Peak Hour PH Peak Hour } AN Peek Hour PM Ptak Mour INTERSECTION } ICU LOS ICU LOS } ICU LOS ICU LOS ................................ ----------------------------------------I..,---------------------------------� }PCH/Huntington Avenue } 0.63 11 0.67 B } 0.67 B 0.69 S I 1 rPCHIBeach Boulevard 0.63 8 0.66 B } 0.64 B 0.67 B ' rPCH/lake Street 0.75 C 0.86 D 0.80 C 0.8T 0 i r r i rPCH/Hein Street/Sixth Street 0.49 A 0.64 B 0.50 A 0.64 B (Huntington Avenue/Vatnat Avenue( 0.36 A 0.33 A 0.40 A 0.38 A } Beach Bout everdNalnut Avenue } 0.43 A 0.47 A 0.52 A 0.51 A ..................................................................................-----------------------....-- . 1l13l88:CP Irr I Lsa development. This program should offer transportation services to hotel �.. guests from the proposed project to the downtown Huntington Beach area and possibly other popular local attractions, such as Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm. It has been suggested that the applicant may wish contract with some existing bus operation during the summer months to accomplish this mitigation. i Ld e iMr k+ } W r F ' LO ,W .w iw 5 �, 40 w., Lsa 1w , PPMIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED TENNIS AND NEALT &ENTEit i ukv I ' , lid �40 f t •M 1 The Waterfront-Phase II Tennis& Health Cuter Summary of Facilities: 9 Tennis courts (night-lighted) 25,000 to 40,000 sq.ft. Clubhouse and Health Center 25 Meter Lap Pool &Jacuzzi Ball Machine Practice Alley(Tennis) Amenities R Services: j �• The Clubhouse/Health Center is projected to include the following amenities and services: f Locker Room (Men's,Women's, Children's) Tennis Pro ShopYSports Clothing Store Snack Shop./Juice Bar Event Club Room with Cocktail Bar(overlooking Tennis Court) Private Massage Rooms%ith Staff Masseuse 1 Facials Salon 6d Sauna (dry heat) ' Steam Room W Special Hydrotherapy Facilities such as Mineral Baths, Herbal Wraps, 'Trhalassotherapy (seawater/sea-weed treatments), and Swiss Showers (invigorating high-pressure showers that rapidly alternate between hot and cold). y Facilities for Physician-Monitored Nutritional, Weight-Reduction and Cardiac-Monitored Exercise Programs. It is expected that one or more of the hotels at The Waterfront will provide a specialized dietary regimen in lkw coordination with this program. Necessary"Back of House" such as Offices,Laundry, Kitchen, Maintenance, HVAC and Employee Services. W 1 i The Waterfront-Phase 11 Tennis & Health Center "W Marketing Concept: The facilities described above break into two basic categories: 1. Ispois Courts & BasicQ]4bhouse Eacilities (lockers,pros op,—snack shop, club room&bar) Typical membership tennis clubs maintain an average of about 60 dues paying members per tennis court. However, due to the subject facility's large reliance on hotel and other transient visitors, the primary fee structure for individuals will be based on per-use fees, rather than on continuity membership dues. Individual membership (on a non-discrimination basis r will be available but would be expected to total only 200 to 300 persons, �., mostly from the on-site residential. Hours of operation are projected to be 7:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on weekdays, to 9:00 p.m. on weekends. Projected uses from the following market segments are based on resort hotel experience which typically runs 60-707o peak usage of two tennis courts for a 400 room hotel,therefore a peak demand of 4 to 5 tennis courts from on-site hotels. o' ct d_TejInis Fac'1' sa r r On-site Hotel Visitors 55% On-site Residential Users 10% On-site Beach Visitors 15% 4 Off-site Users (Vehicular trip generators) 20% 2. Resort Health Center �.. (massage, facials, salon, sauna, steam room, hydrotherapy and nutritionaVweight reduction programs) These amenities and services can be expected to appeal almost exclusively to transient hotel visitors. Such programs are often run in conjunction with f , destination resort hotel complexes, or as primary destination facilities themselves. It can be conservatively projected that 80%e of the users will come from hotel visitors, and 50% of those visitors A ill have hotel stays in excess of four days vAth an average daily visit to the resort health renter of three to four hours per day. Further, the typical peak usage'of such facilities occurs in the mid-morning and early afternoon, and therefore it is expected that the resort health centers effect on local peak a.m.and peak p.m. traffic is insignificant. 2 1 Y 1 The Waterfront-Phase II Tennis& Health Center Analysis afQontrast to Urban Fitness nters: (Holiday Spa Health Club) Typical urban fitness centers differ from the proposed Tennis & Health Center in several ways which all affect vehicular traffic generation: 1. Occupancy Load An urban fitness center normally emphasizes circuit weight training and aerobic exercise on stationary bicycle equipment or in organized aerobic classes. As a result, the average occupancy load (user per sq. ft at peak periods is typically very high. In contrast, the subject Tennis Health I Center provides amenities and services in which the limiting factors are the i- court availability and the personalized nature of the services in the resort health center such as facials, massage, physician-monitored programs, etc.; j therefore, the facility will experience a significantly lower occupancy load. L 2. Period of Visit Users of urban fitness centers, by virtue of the circuit training regimen, have average visits of approximately 34 minutes to one and one-quarter hour. Users of the tennis/clubhouse facilities typically have average visits of two I and one half hours, and resort health center clientele would typically have +0, stays of three to four hours. 1 3. User Profile The typical member of a urban fitness center is 1S -35 years of age, and is a workin; individual who will visit the facility at least two to three times per week either before or after work and therefore during the peak a.m.or peak p.m. traffic periods. This is greatly facilitated by the high occupancy load d and short period of visit possible in urban fitness centers as discussed previously. However, in a tennislclubhouse facility the use is moderated by court availability tending to spread traffic generation over more hours per day. Also, tennis is often a family activity, lending itself to off-peak and i weekend use, in this case in conjunction with beach visits. Further, the �.. typical tennis player veill span an older age profile than an urban fitness center member, which often translates into a more flexible work schedule and thus greater off-peak usage. AdditionaDy, the typical resort health center client is over 35 years of age and is primarily using the facility as a part of,or as the main reason of, his or her hotel stay. Some users will come from the local area, but in such cases, due to the relatively lengthy. typical visit making it difficult to utilize immediately before or after normal working hours, off-premise users are not likely to generate traffic in the peak a.m.or peak p.m.period. Igo t 1,r 3 i The Waterfront-Phase II Tennis &Health Center "W 4. Membership Turnover Typical urban fitness centers maintain a large and active sales staff who +r promote the sale of annual or longer lump-sum memberships. As a result i the operation profits from a high turnover of members who are nitially,very active peak period users, but who then lose interest and are replace d with �., new active members. The result of the enthusiastic use by a.steady stream of -new members is the very high occupancy loads in peak periods as described earlier. In contrast, the Subject Tennis & Health Center will not rely primarily on a high turn-over of annual membership fees. Revenue will be based on fees for usage, and as stated elsewhere, the availability of courts and the typical three to four hour resort health treatment will minimize the vehicular trip generations at peak a.m.and peak p.m.traffic periods. a� 5. Demand Generators As described earlier, the subject facility will be designed primarily for the market created by The Waterfront's resort hotels,on-site residential and the beach visitors. Therefore, the great majority of users are already on-site and are not generators of vehicle trips. It is projected that only approximately 10-25% of the users of the tenni*lubhouse facility will be located sufficiently off-site to create new vehicular traffic trips. Further, an even lesser percentage of the users of the resort health center can be expected to be located off-site, and even then the peak usage is not expected to coincide with the peak a.m. and peak p.m.traffic periods. 6. Maximum Size of Facility The maximum size of the Tennis & Health Center is not anticipated to exceed 40,000 square feet and is currently planned at 25,000 square feet. Typical urban fitness centers such as the Holiday Spa Health Club are ap roximately 60,000 square feet, and some are even larger. Therefore, the subject facility cannot be expected to generate as great an amount of 4w vehicular traffic as typical urban fitness centers. �., Summary o�ected Vehicular Trip Generation: The John Wayne Tennis flub in Newport Beach was surveyed. Results are tabulated elsewhere in this report. The John Wayne Tennis pub provides 16 courts (lighted), a pro shop wiith tennis apparel sales,a sauna,jacuzzi,men's,women's and children's locker rooms, a snack. shop/restaurant, a club event room with bar, a ball machine practice alley, and the club provides child care,a masseuse,facials and a salon_ r r.+ *r 1►t 4 The Waterfront-Phase II Tennis & Health Center For the reasons stated previously in this summary of the planned facilities, it can be reasonably, concluded that the subject facility will experience trip generation rates of less than the above tennis club surveyed. However, to be conservative, the 4W figures used in the traffic analysis are based on the-survey results and are adjusted only on the basis of the square footage of the clubhouse (an upAmrd adjustment) rather than the number of tennis courts, the user profile or nature of the amenities (a downward adjustment). 4 1 i W r Illy I�r f �w tot i i bpi IMF W �.. Lsa APPEWILD PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED RESORT HOTEL USES w 1 3 I� tied . 1 LY , ki Yrr Laventhol &Hom ath b50 Tn�tn Cenrer Drive Suite 110.1 Certified Public Accountants Costa Mesa, CA 92626 +� (714) 556.4244 November 13, 1987 1 Mr. Steve Bone The Robert Mayer Corporation r 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Newport Beach, California 92658 Dear Mr. Bone: V At our request, we have y gathered information on four hotels in order to respond to the following question regarding your. proposed development program in Huntington Beach, California: Would the proposed hotels, in general, have characteristics similar to the "resort" hotels „w identified in the Resort Hotel Traffic Study, dated December 29, 1986, prepared by Austin-Foust Associates? Following are the four hotels identified in the Austin-Foust study: Hotel del Coronado - La Costa - Marriott Hotel (Newport Beach) - Hyatt at Hilton Head In providing a response to your question, we evaluated your proposed hotel development program in Huntington Beach in comparison to the four identified hotels, utilizing the following factors. The attached exhibit reflects the specifies of that comparison. �++ - Market segmentation; Facilities and meeting/conference space; - Recreational amenities; and Proximity to demand generators. Based on this evaluation, we conclude that the proposed hotels, in general, have characteristics similar to the "resort" hotels I identified in the Resort Hotel Traffic Study, dated December 29, 1986, prepared by Austin-Foust Associates. i jM In particular, it should be noted that like the hotels identified In the Austin-Foust study, the subject proposed development will �� A member of Horwath L Horvath lntcrrational%kith affiliated offices worldwide. Mr. Steve Bone The Robert Mayer Corporation November 13, 1987 'r Page 2. provide significant facilities for meetings and conferences in conjunction with important recreational amenities. As a result, it is our opinion that the subject proposed development will likely experience a similar average length of stay and relatively + low propensity of the hotel guest to travel off-premise (to business meetings or other recreational amenities) as experienced by the other "resort" hotels referenced in the Austin-Foust study. Further, it is reasonable to expect that in comparison to the singular hotels studied by Austin-Foust, the combination of the four hotels on one site in the proposed development will give the average hotel guest even more opportunities to remain on-site for a longer period of time because of the multitude of dining, shopping, recreational and meeting facilities provided at one location. This letter is intended for the information of the Robert Mayer +W Corporation in your discussions with the City of Huntington Beach. Otherwise neither this letter nor any reference to Laventhol & Horwath may be included or quoted in any offering circular, registration statement, prospectus, sales brochure, appraisal, loan or other agreement or document without our prior written consent. Very truly yours, LAVENTHOL & HORWATH r David R. Kinkade Manager w.r t RNK/imk _. cc: '- Richard N. Kipper Mw iM �M R tr it RESORT 11OTrIs CIIARAC'MM 1 ST1 CS (A SUMMARY Y llyatt at Proposed Robert Criteria hotel Del Coronado La Costa Newport Marriott Milton Ilead Mayer Ilotel"ill market Segmentation Commercial - - 451 - 25• Group Meeting 70% 35% 35 not 40 Tourist 30 65 20 20 35 rat.-iiities and Meeting 684 Rooms 482 Rooms 597 Rooms 505 Rooms 1,450 Rooms Sisace 55,000 sq.ft. of 50,000 sq.ft. of 20,000 sq.ft. of 26,411 sq.ft. of 52,000 sq.ft. of meeting space, 4 meeting space, 0 meeting space, 2 meeting space, 4 meeting space, 12 restaurants, restaurants, restaurants, restaurants, restaurants, 8 3 lounges 3 lounges 2 lounges 3 lounges lounges Proximity to Demand On an island with Near ocean, Near business, and On an island with Next to ocean, Generators a beach and ocean and freeway shopping. Ocean a beach and ocean scenic highway. views. Near Downtown views views Ocean views r Recreational Amenities 7 tennis courts, 23 tennis courts, 6 tennis courts, 25 tennis courts, 9 tennis courts, 7. swimming pools, 5 swimming pools, swimming pool, health club, 3-18 clubhouse and health club, sauna, mens/womens spas, health club, hole golf courses, resort health beach with water fitness rooms. 36 adjarent golf beach with water center with lap sports hole golf course, sports, swimming pool, 3 swimming movie theatre pool pools 11 at each of 3 of 4 Hotels) fitness rooms at each hotel, 75,000 sq.ft. tetail shopping plaza, beach with water sports. (11 Based on preliminary development program. THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION January 8, 1988 Mr.Rob Balen LSA Associates, Inc. I Park Plaza,Suite 500 Irvine, California 92714 Re: Maximum Hotel Occupancy Levels at The Waterfront Dear Mr.Balen: I L In response to your question regarding the maximum anticipated occupancy level for the hotels planned at the Waterfront, let me begin by reciting the fact that currently no first-class hotel property in Orange County is operating at an average occupancy level above 80%. In fact, industry experts inform us that the New ort Beach Marriott Hotel, a destination resort project widely regarded as one of the County s most successful and well-managed properties, last year achieved a 78% average annual occupancy in the face of average occupancy levels in the Newport 6" Beach-Irvine hospitality market of approximately 60-65%. The consulting firm of Laventhol & Horwath has prepared market studies and 60 financial estimates that have guided us in the planning of The Waterfront as a first- class destination resort development, and these reports have been made available to the City of Huntington Beach planning staff to assist them in analyzing the fiscal impacts of this proposed project. Those studies projected occupancy levels beginnin in the high 60% range and stabilizing after several years of operation at 70-73% depending on the hotel) and we concur with those estimates. This appears reasonable as well when you contrast the lower 60-65% occupancy levels in the "� Newport Beach-Irvine market with industry trade figures that show that destination resorts averaged approximately 75% occupancy on a nationwide basis in 1996. It should also be noted that Southern California enjoys a more temperate and less seasonal climate than most areas of the country. Therefore, destination resort properties in this area do not rely upon exceptionally high occupancy rates in a few summer months to reach annual averages like many other parts of the country, instead the Iocal industry enjoys a comparatively stable occupancy pattern throughout the year. Further, it must be understood that The Waterfront will consist of four distinctly different hotels (first-class, conference, all-suite and luxury) that each cater to different market segments. The demand of each of these market segments varies differently over - different periods of the year, and therefore it is clearlyy IY unreasonable to ever expect that all of the hotels would operate at or near peak capacity at the same point in time. Further, as you know, hotels contain not only guest rooms,but recreation, restaurant and meeting facilities as well. Each of these �Y iY 660 Newpor,Center Drive.Suite 10°0 Box 86W Newport Beach CoVornio 92658.8680 16A (714)759-8091 • Mr.Rob Balen January 8, 1988 Page 2 are components to overall average traffic generation rates, and it is likewise unrealistic and simply not hospitality.industry experience to expect all facilities within a hotel to operate at peak capacities at the same time of the day or week. For all these reasons I must conclude that the aggregate fi&ure of 85 r'o average occupancy that you have assumed for the purpose of assessing traffic impacts is clearly a worst-case scenario from the standpoint of traffic generation (on either an annualized or short-term peak basis), because 85% is dramatically higher than a best-case occupancy figure from the standpoint of industry standards, our market consultant's projections or our oum expectations. Sincerely, 7 Shawn K Millbern ` Project Manager for The Waterfront 1I 1� �1 r. w r t `Mt i� a. Lsa i.a APPENDIX C IRIP DISTRIWrION BTrMS F" SPECIFIC PIM TRAFFIC$TDDY i.. l� yr is APPENDIX C TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 11 illustrates the percenta4V of trips assigned to streets in the downtown area. These percentages are the basis for the traffic"volumes illustrated In Figure 12 and Figure 13. Sixty percent of aii trips generated as a result of the Specific Plan will move out of the plan area to the north. The remaining trips will be divided as follows: twenty percent of the trips will go west, fifteen percent east and five percent southeast. .The following table illustrates the streets that will accommodate this traffic: 60% 20% 15% 5% Goldenwest Pacific Coast Hwy Adams Atlanta Seventeenth Goldenwest Atlanta Hamilton Lake Sixth Hamilton Pacific Coast Hwy Main Seventeenth Pacific Coast Hwy Fl on da Main Delaware Clay Palm _ Sixth Beach I L Lsa Ir. APPEP- D EQRECl�_TURK HOVEKE ORKSHE I i �r. Lsa dew INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET HUNINGTON AVENUE (N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (E/W) AM PEAK NORTH LEG { ........ ---------- WEST EAST LEG LEG ---------- ---------- SOUTH { I LEG I --------------------------------------------------------- I EXISTING J FORECAST I --------------------------------------------------------- ITURH I (AVERAGE !TURN I (AVERAGE I IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG !DAILY I +� (VOLUMES { ITRAFFIC IVOLUMES I {TRAFFIC I ---------------------------------------------------------------- INBL 1 2 1 1 1 11 1 1 I NBT J 3 I NORTH I 1,000 J 11 I NORTH 1 7,000 I INBR 1 11 I 1 21 1 I I SBL I 20 I 1 J 313 1 1 I I SBT 1 3 1 SOUTH I 1,000 I 21 I SOUTH I 2,500 I { SBR I 73 { 1 J 298 I { { J -----J---------I-------I--------- 1---------1-------J-- -----I I EBL 1 10 1 1 1 32 1 1 I I EBT I 11076 { EAST { 40,000 I 1,242 I EAST ( 53,000 I IEBR I 61 I I 3l I ! 1WBL 1 01 I I 01 1 I 1 WBT J 1,106 I WEST I 40,000 I I,218 I WEST I 48,000 J �r. I WBR { 10 I I I 129 1 1 1 { TOTAL 1 82,000 I TOTAL 1 110,500 1 ---------------------------------........----............ �"' (I) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.105, too A.+ �r .. INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET HUNINGTON AVENUE (N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (E/W) PM PEAK - "' NORTH LEG 1 r -! -WEST EAST LEG LEG I SOUTH I i.. I LEG I I EXISTING I FORECAST I --!---------!-------------------------------------------- ITURN I ]AVERAGE (TURN I (AVERAGE I IMOVEM€NT I LEG ]DAILY ]MOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY I IVOLUMES I ITRAFFIC IVOLUMES I (TRAFFIC I ---------------------------------------------------------------- INBL 1 31 1 1 31 1 1 �.. I NBT 1 0 1 NORTH 1 1,000 1 0 1 NORTH 1 7,000 1 I NBR I 3 I I I 11 I I I I SBL + 20 ] I I 262 1 1 I 1 SBT 1 l I SOUTH i 1,000 I 1 I SOUTH 1 2,500 1 I SBR I 49 1 I 1 204 1 1 I 1 -----Irl-------I---r-rrlr-r--r--r]-r--r----]--r--r•I-r--r--r-] EBL ] 8 1 I I 41 I 1 I 1 EBT 1 l,ll7 1 EAST 1 40,000 1 1,312 1 EAST 1 53,000 I I ESP, ! o f I I O I ! I I WBL ] 52 ] I I 132 I I l 1 WBT 1 1043 1 WEST 1 40,000 1 1,548 1 WEST 1 48,000 1 ;., I WBR I 2 I I I 33 I ! I r-rr------r-------------lr---------------------r----rr----rr---- I TOTAL 1 829000 1 TOTAL 1110,500 I ---------------------------------------------------- ----- (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.105. lam �r L L iLsa INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET BEACH BOULEVARD(N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) AM PEAK I NORTH I LEG I ---------- ---------- L WEST EAST LEG LEG ---------- ---------- SOUTH L LEG ! --------------------------------------------------------- I EXISTING I FORECAST I --------------------------------------------------------- ITURN I (AVERAGE ITURN I (AVERAGE I u IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY I IVOLUMES I ITRAFFIC IVOLUMES I ITRAFFIC I ---------------------------------------------------------------- INBL 1 01 1 1 OI 1 1 L I NBT I 6 I NORTH I 199000 I 18 I NORTH I 319200 ! INBR I 0I I 1 01 I 1 1 I -----I---------1------- --------- ---------I-------I---------I �.. I SBL I 482 I I I 602 I I I I SBT I 2 I SOUTH I 600 I 7 I SOUTH I 11800 I I SBR I 97 I ! ! 324 I I I I EBL I 72 I I I 231 I I ! F , I EBT I 1,254 I EAST I 419000 1 1,471 I EAST I 48,000 I I EBR I 2 1 I I 7 1 I I ! WBL ! I I I I I ! I I I WBT I 1,008 I WEST I 40,000 I 1,170 I WEST I 53,000 I WBR I 236 I I I 277 I ! ! ---------------------------------------------------------------- I TOTAL 1 100,600 I TOTAL 1 134,000 1 �., --------------------------------------------------------- (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.103. L {w t 4 Lsa ,4 INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET BEACH BOULEVARD(N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) PM PEAK NH LEG I ---------- ---------- WEST EAST LEG LEG L 1 SOUTH ! --------------------------------------------------------- I EXISTING � ( FORECAST ! ITURN I JAVERAGE (TURN I (AVERAGE I IMOVEMENT I LEG JDAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG JDAILY I JVOLUMES I (TRAFFIC [VOLUMES I ITRAFFIC I - I NBL ! 2 1 1 l 51 ! i I NBT I 3 1 NORTH 1 19,000 1 10 J NORTH [ 319200 J ( NBR 1 9 ( ( l 27 1 ( l �a I SBL � _ � 282-�`------`---------�-----476-1-- �--------- �` SBT 12 1 SOUTH 60D 38 SOUTH 1,800 � . SBR 155 ( I ( 225 +� ( EBL J 135 J ( ( 196 1 I 1 I EBT I 19074 ( EAST I 41,000 I 19257 [ EAST ( 539000 1 IEBR I 21 IWBL 1 r� 31 I I $ I 1 ! I WBT I 11338 ( WEST 1 40,000 ( 1,560 [ WEST I 48,000 1 I WBR J 431 [ ( I 726 I I I ---------------------------------------------------------------- I TOTAL 1 100,600 1 TOTAL 1134,OOD I --------------------------------------------------------- {'� (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 2551 P.105. lad r law L wLsa INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSKEET LAKE STREET(N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) AM PEAK I NORTH { ' 'h LEG { ---------- .......... WEST EAST r.. LEG LEG I SOUTH I I LEG I --------------------------------------------------------- I EXISTING I FORECAST I w -------------------------------------...----------------- ITURN I JAVERAGE (TURN I {AVERAGE I IMOVEMENT I LEG 1DAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG JDAILY I IVOLUMES I ITRAFFIC {VOLUMES I {TRAFFIC I } 1 NBL J 46 1 1 { 193 1 1 1 NBT I 28 I NORTH 1 3,400 I 208 1 NORTH I 11,000 I { HBR { 23 { I { 131 1 1 1 SBL 1 63 I 1 1 206 1 1 1 SBT 1 16 1 SOUTH 1 700 J 149 J SOUTH 1 41000 1 { SBR J 149 1 1 1 353 1 1 1 EBL 33 1 55 I EBT I 1,126 1 EAST ( 40,000 1 19178 1 EAST J 48,000 1 EBR 33 1 II I 147 I II I WBL J 31 I I I I81 I J 1 I WBT I 1,081 I WEST I 40,000 I 1,049 I WEST I 48,000 I I WBR 1 48 1 I 1 105 1 I 1 r.' ---------------------------------------------------------------- I TOTAL 1 84,100 1 TOTAL 1 111,000 1 --------------------------------------------------------- (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.10S. a. W lob Lsa INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET LAKE STREET(N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) PM PEAK �• [ NORTH J 1 LEG I ---------- -- ....... WEST EAST LEG LEG ---------- .......... SOUTH LEG I 4 [ EXISTING FORECAST --------------------------------------------------------- [TURN I JAVERAGE ITURN I {AVERAGE I IMOVEMENT I LEG JDAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG JDAILY I IVOLUMES I ITRAFFIC IVOLUMES I ITRAFFIC I ---------------------------------------------------------------- I NBL 1 11 I 1 1 42 1 1 1 [ NBT 1 16 I NORTH 3,400 J 130 [ NORTH J 11,000 1 I NBR 1 9 1 1 1 41 1 1 1 w I SBL I 52 [ I 177 I I 1 J SBT 1 3 1 SOUTH 1 700 I 29 J SOUTH 1 4,000 1 [ SBR [ 46 1 [ 1 131 I I I [ EBL [ 151 [ [ I 390 I [ I J EBT I 1,129 I EAST J 40,000 ( 1,164 J EAST J 48,000 1 I EBR J 12 I I I 54 I I 1 I WBL I 15 1 [ I 83 I I I 1 WBT 1 1078 1 WEST 1 40,000 1 1,262 1 WEST 1 48,000 1 �.. I WBR 1 67 1 1 1 213 1 1 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- I TOTAL J 849100 I TOTAL 1111,000 J +Y --------------------------------------------- (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.105. lir IYr Y� fi i Lsa INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET MAIN STREET(N/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) AM PEAK NH LEG I ---------- ---------- WEST EAST LEG LEG { SOUTH { �.. ( LEG I --------------------------------------------------------- I EXISTING ( FORECAST { ------------------- ------------------------------------ + ITURN I (AVERAGE ITURN I (AVERAGE I IMOVEMENT I LEG (DAILY IMOVEMENT I LEG {DAILY I IVOLUKcS I ITRAFFIC [VOLUMES I [TRAFFIC I ---------------------------------------------------------------- i NBL 1 1 1 1 I 6 NOT I 0 1 NORTH I 3,000 1 0 NORTH { 15,000 { J NSR 1 4 1 1 1 17 { 1 L I SBL I 27 I I { 105 I 1 1 I SST [ 4 I SOUTH I 600 1 35 I SOUTH [ 29400 [ I SBR I 21 I I I 113 I I L I EBL { 0 1 ! 1 0 I I 1 I EBT I 1,158 I EAST 1 40,000 I 1,348 I EAST I 48,000 I i I EBR I 3 1 I ! 10 I 1 1 I W8L [ 4 1 I I 10 I I l { WST I 1,142 I WEST J 36,000 J 1,347 J WEST I 44,000 I WBR 1 0 1 I 1 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------- I TOTAL 1 79,600 1 TOTAL 1109,900 I --------------------------------------------------------- (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.105. 1r 4 it �r JA! 1L r f Lsa INTERSECTION MOVEMENT WORKSHEET MAIN STREET(H/S)/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) PM PEAK J NORTH J ".� LEG I WEST EAST �.. LEG LEG ---------- ---------- J SOUTH I LEG I --------------------------------------------------------- I EXISTING FORECAST J �+ --------------------------------------------------------- ITURN I JAVERAGE JTURN J (AVERAGE J .. IT I LEG IDAILY RAFFIC iNT 1 LEG DAILY(TRAFFIC I VOLUMES VOLUME -------r-----------------------------------------------r--r-_--- I NBL 1 6 1 i 1 28 1 1 1 1 NBT J 0 1 NORTH 1 3,000 J 0 J NORTH 1 15,000 1 1 NBR 1 12 1 1 1 55 1 I 1 1 I SBL J 38 J i i 172 1 I 1 I SBT 1 3 1 SOUTH J 600 J 34 J SOUTH I 2190D J J SBR J 72 J 1 1 333 1 1 1 r I EBL 1 0 J i ( 0 1 ( l I EBT I 1,339 I EAST J 409000 J 1,522 J EAST I 48,000 I 1 EBR J 11 I I I 52 I ! I WBBTR 1,2722 1 WEST i 36,000 i 1,370 WEST ! 44,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- I TOTAL J 79,600 J TOTAL 1 109,900 1 + --------------------------------------------------------- �.. (1) ITERATIVE FORECASTING MOVEMENT PROCEDURES, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 255, P.105. 1.. f A i 1-f, M i� it 1 ' L VOLUME 11 i TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A - Initial Study, Notice of Preparation APPENDIX B - Geotechnical Report APPENDIX C - Circulation Analysis i 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 a i 1 1 �M jM �a i■ '�I w. ti APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY, NOTICE OF PREPARATION The 5 �1 11.E 1 Ir 1 1.. 1r 1 • lr 1 �r 1 ' Cit Y of Huntington Beach ' 4 M 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Division 536-5241 HousinglRedevelopsnent Division► 536-5542 Planning Division 536-5271 September 9, 1997 State Clearinghouse 1400 10th Street Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 Atnn: Glen Stober Dear Mr. Stober: The City of Huntington Beach is preparing a supplement to Certified Environmental �►+ Impact Report (EIR) 82-2. In accordance with Section 15082(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, I am forwarding the enclosed Notice of Preparation (NOP) copies for that supplemental EIR to you. Since the project area is within the coastal zone and may contain a restorable wetland area, notices of preparation were sent to both the California Coastal Commission and the California State Department of Fish and Game. You may forward copies of the NOP to other state agencies as appropriate. As soon as the draft supplement is complete, I will forward ten (10) copies to you to distribute for agency review and comment. ' Sincerely, Catherine M. O'Hara Assistant Planner l� CMO:gbm Attachments 1. Copy of NOP to California Coastal Commission dated September 9, 1987 2. Copy of NOP to State Department of Fish and Game dated September 9, 1987 w 3. Project description 4. Initial study S. Area map 4 (9050d) I{ , L r APP'EWIX 1 4 `" ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLM FORM t ' (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) L i. Bvciccg and r.. 1. Name of Proptnent RL&I Prop. c/o Robert Mayer' Corporation - 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent P.O. BoX 668U, - - -- L New ort Beach CA 92653-8680 3. Date of Checklist Submitted EA submitted 8/14/87 Checklist Conducted 8/28/67 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Huntington Beach i,. S. Nome of Proposal, if applicable MRtCrfrnnt Qe:�Clon. -Pro-iect/EA -No._ 87-33 11. Environmental Impacts Ago (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes No 1. EartfL Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disraptioris, displacements, compaction Am or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface lab relief fectvres? X �- d. The destruction, covering or modification t of any unique geologic or physical features? X .� e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach surds, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the charnel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or its any bay, inlet. or lake? X w� wa U 5 �t ins r.+ Yes f`�O g. Exposure of people-or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, londslides, j" mudslides, ground failure, or similar h=crds? X + 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: W a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X , �,. b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or lernperature, or any change in climate, M.+ either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Wilt the proposal result in; a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either nx7ine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X t.. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood + waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in ony water body? X j e. Mscharge into surface waters, cc in any alteration of surface water quality, In- cluding but not limited to ternperatvre, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X Ar f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow X of ground waters? .• g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct odditions or with- drawals, or through interception of an Ike aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water r. supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 116 it imb L I Yes NO 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: 1 a. Charge in the diversity of species, or L nun-ber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic t piontsr X t b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, • i rare or endangered species of plants? x e. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a Farrier to the normal t replenishment of existing species? X i d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: o. Change in the diversity of species, or j rwrnbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or kisecU)* X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, V+ rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the " migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X b. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X X �- 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub. stontial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of ony natural resources? X 117 L Yes No b. Substornl ial dep le t ion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Wwt. Will the proposal involves +� a A risk of an wcplosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, of ernieals or rodiation) in the event of an abcident or upset conditions? X + b. Possible interference with on emefpency V response plan or an emergency evacuation pla? X It. Populatioru Will the proposal alter the location, w distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X i 12. Horsing. Will the proposal affect existing horn- ing, or create a demor4 for additional housing? X 13. Tran3por-tation/Circvlation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X a.+ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X �. c. Substontial in-pact upon existing transpor- tation systems? X R d. Alterations to present patterns of circvW- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, mil or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result In a need for new or oltered governmental services in arr/ of the 1w following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools? X r w Yes Na d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X P. Maintenance of public facilities, including ronds? X f. Other governmental services? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: I a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the LX development of new sources of energy.' 16. Lhili6w. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: La. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X LC. Water? _ d. Sewer or septic forks? X ! e. Storm water drainage? X jW f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. lix�rxz� Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential t health hazard (excluding mental health?? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X l 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open: �+ to public view? - X 19. Recrearkru Will the proposal result in an impoct upon the quality or quantity of existing recreot':onal opportunities? X 20. Cultvral Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alterartian of or the destruction of a prehistarie or historic orchoeolo,gical site? X `, 119 L . f L S� NOTICE OF PREPARATION MAILING LIST, . '.) 19C I SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR EIR 82 2 •` '-- ".: L Orange County Transit District Huntington Beach Chamber of 11222 Acacia Parkway Commerce P.O. Box 3005 2213 Main Street, #22 " Garden Grove, CA 92642 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Christine Huard-Spencer, Attn: Kim Barone Environmental Coordinator Rainbow Disposal Company Southern California Gas Co. P.O. Box 1026 Orange County Division Huntington Beach, CA 92647 P.O. Box 3334 Attn: Stan Tkaczyk Anaheim, CA 92708 Huntington Beach- Fountain Valley Southern California Edison Board of Realtors 7333 Bolsa Avenue 8101 Slater Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 1�. Attn: Michael D. Martin Attn: Judith Severy Orange County Sanitation District SCAG L P.O. Box 8127 600 S. Commonwealth Ave., Ste. 100 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Attn: Thomas Dawes Attn: Richard Spicer L Stan Farber Huntington Beac mpan Public Works 2110 Main et 2000 Main Street Hunti n Beach, CA 92648-2499 L Huntington Beach, CA 92648 A : R.J. Work Driftwood Mobile Home Park Residents Huntington Beach Historical Society c/o Richard J. Hill c/o Newland House Museum Newport Financial Plaza 19820 Beach Boulevard 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 920 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Teresa Reynolds California Coastal Commission California State Department of 24S W. Broadway, Suite 380 Fish and Game P.O. Box 1450 24S W. Broadway, Suite 350 Long Beach, CA 90802 Long Beach, CA 90802 Attn: Wayne Woodroof Attn: Dick Nitsos Environmental Board (0626D) r• L Tr OF G N OF THE GOV19 M GEOitGe DM ALA.A , C"7vwrw OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH ; ; �RMAEt�rO, G 9"14 DATE: September 15, 1987 Ld TO: Reviewing Agencies RZ: The City of Huntington Beach' HOP for. Waterfront Protect SCHI 87091612 Attached for your comment is the City of Huntingtonbeach' Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Waterfront Project. L Responsible agencies must transmit their concerns and cc®ents on the scope L end content of the EZR, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibilitT, within 30 days of receipt of this notice. We encourage commenting agencies to respond to this notice and express their L concerns early in the environmental reviear process. Please direct your comments to: _ L Catherine O'Hara City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street f Huntington Beach, CA 92648 with a. copy, to the Of ice of Planning and Research. Please refer to the Ski mmixr noted above in all en c;orreraj ng this project. If you have any questions about the reQiew process, call Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613. i.. Sincerely, , DEtvid C. Naneakamp Chief Office of Permit Assistance j'` Attachments �: :Catherine O'Hara 1141M elM1191 UNT Ittt SM i ! / J �G. Il r['te�- e:e �'� � � Mob a3 am t�NIM arrt.w ar :. Bt M teed k—t• .�-ant ti aearts Move JertT ftywro 0j�p1►4tttcw a.etar►! leryae Oarwle+s tllrarat Ste. tRh tvabars at�tr4et°t et Ttsn.piralloe e�1 L=of nrL ant Or.r ! ' [*Ilro•w1a Rftu+y rt♦trel pom r�. QI NMI . 110 9 street bard font IMrnes rtaaelnt seatloe • O � �• etrset o Stt►t9S-2" IIO?Q eeeeee � br.ka.a eatiot eaer....te tY Ieel/ lieael•re red OrlTele D1•,eia1 1o1/t4!-f7Y! t1e/see-tl�T P.O. er,m on lagrareeto. 0 erl�0t Sletolle Oalsetber Jim r•saersdtaAN ft lama: rtt►4e-tsrll lwp.rbumt d Tram"etetles Lwpar6eeat ar r�a said arm r� Seaters tterbaa 11[1!w e. Jdno O �t.�fella l 0 1T0! Rlawd n. eiIB t � alert. a< Oatlne f Set" rs lbttre /eertees owl lase Q•ra. T�7 lI•.rolde Drtre IMeoke mreo.,. tK 4eQT0 (�Q'S is"S 1t$ 1: o ale 004101 Intl. MM X$ �ie1. a n+oal e18/3e4004 XXYY eaarumpte, at Soot/ sweavato. to teelt natt7s-rJee tfe/4ee-Isel plt/»-rnl 9rlae J. Sdtb S. RAter Setlarrl ttewrter flee 11r.gera.re ,wpartawt of Traosportaltee O w"-b—[at nab ww oe.e Oarr 1. Milan? oftlee of wOetarlr O R t T]ap e11.."" trsll 011fa•sta chaatal tbweMfol rrwnetlor elle t IM 10 4- 11 f11 wnert Street. M now P.O. Sex M7M! IkarTe.ltte. d teavl To7/eN-7ott San ft*n1eae. fi 04100 Swomwts. d /tese-+MI r!e/T41-4sT7 411fecl-slop sIa/m ernl ad surf• O. 14k.a. 14�1et w"M enarrea Taylor Jeees wt. Oeris 1'rparbmt of Traeopwtst,oi Deparbawt of nob asd Owe O Cflifersta !mr Oanleelor Dope.at larks oae arel•atted O an Ittle �10 1234 Peat One 1•+wae r SAPS etat%Street. to. In P.O. b e4seb! trseno. p *"I*10 e Meeleoe. CA alp/tttd7et esera+rwrte. >x tet14 eaerseentq. a ►ttse•-0eM lwe►SeT_,31[fe ne►r�4-mot nN>:e-sat Jerry tauwe Met 1. Owtaley�Jr.. tta*. dwft r l O1ra Dlrtetwe of �reewrttoe "IAbl11tIM tb�teeter (lepattwst ofTrssrrortatiab Dapar`est of ►lea sae Owe 1 Y.O. eua 00014 Sae tree Pars e..rw O Clete a 1t4 145 sal Sreesrar. Salto 300 o Surwaentr. rA S47TT44=t o See Maataoo.Q p4toe Ow Irde al tone beach tX feels etelfl4�Ir1 4te/ee:-sole ep,.d IU4n��li� -013/epo-e13 Sod pel fe.ae Orr" t et 7 tliltera P. ~ r�h. Ibtaae ttaf eb (b!r t: Rb11 f O alstw. nMwlrr lr.Wle tbels ba O r sager t tstarl wvlMr erwarve s.elaa I.+f. soy 14fff4 O two P Street 4tr Rorx etrtet e4e root 4lsatwT. elleE0 ttwreee.tb. Ck W4�art saar>.rwa. tteet4 CVO aSel1 le.tf Swear.a eaeo7 + nNas-seal nel++e a� Stet•war a_rtrel Orw+tt O'Srraat rl subeent a Dart.of Qreanatlw Swetwatlas� r f1"a petteetlee rat Steer e� f 141e Math Street boos In-9 I 1 1410 Ninth/that tam tabs DrS+rbwrt of lrsagertatlee n.t. sr tar Ibresps o�ahe! tbW r 0V �1 ettf�vt it prielae K float ester Greets eaar...ete. a reef eaereerats a SEe14 air 1o.fa grime Ilttset P.O. eaa lop e1813n-1erl e141446-14,;11 for Angeles ela a we w"t O weraate CA WAR s O air. of la<naa me Oaolner *rt•ls WHOMHOM . ttt►e7o 916fM-3411 p.►. ear Owgrr•etlert p 11re'tr.6AN6 Our flatal w. of rltl ed a" lG hs ttser bnow. react lot D•parta at aR Trearrertetiee O one rrawelow,a r4101 O rw�l•.trtat Astor lid 0,eieroua.r Protege. Belt 41610T�llee ea rr Street Ste>b t, was ib.orrer lbrtrot Soe94 Faatsrre ar,laeoe 014 ID1wr �►4061 � s O aDivision of>ktw Qur11RY tort. et food ow Aerladtene at1t. eater Mraaewwt ebea4 P.O.r.0. Ira !ao reset l2w a time, Mm 104 SON etwtb Street. Sofas 300 Tao Dap h oSaarenoto. a ee/14 1 1 bcrownw. fY 0414 Orprrtrat et hw.porteties etalm_ar�t "// ete/3"-wT4 tittlet r eortrre.r Da.ler rtektew Sod ttAr►Iw o Sao Safe Urea! tletar Ib+mroeo tbntrot bard 11e1ror,a 94814 O tot"Sett Dart. of ►aroM Stete taade 03'16e106 eft/eT7a411 P.O. roe loop O 1410 pletb ptrwl. ego IHe_! t[� ii7T- t]tM Street Saerwab. C1 t�lSRt4 e.ar.a.nb. al rne14 saareseete. a OUS4 t 910/3334WTe elN7es-0ItS rlelm-Tee! Tor"L farms Drparbwat at Trsaspartettes a Tug Jan" er.ero.. ladell oar" O F.O. t 0 O State es ea ter ft"ftee G'wt•ot tloerrt Dort of Owarsl rantca ,t•�( Dw.of eater ftwowe.esvividor of wtor Tifebte 4w P Street. eda 54"o f7JV(rl 1114 Inoth Street. atlas fl!-1 8twttoo, CA WWI 901 P Street Sacreseate, a ee014 ownwato a 1ee14 wele4a-1112 raenarwte CS 0ee14 nNa4�nor ne/w-T4tp p1417"4?1s i!M t]rerrr!ro 17reflette akoe tk.t IbUef"a Delartaraat of Traft"Metstles Dart. et Iaettb O state nmetat Omeer•arei O District %howl water Quilt,Cbotrol bard 194 v streat, a-*tits I'm Sraes•ar, Soho IIm F /r+wese° c1t tleel4 a('t 23445" tar SNP! 904 f4o".w Am eCA olm-84ap tsar • 71412J74m f V APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL REPORT u�. E 4! Ir 1 L L LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED HOTEL, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 8 BEACH BOULEVARD HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA W . Iv PREPARED FOR: L THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 1050 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658 PREPARED BY: W IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 15 MASON IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 JOB NO: 2651-00 ib" LOG NO: 4-6086 �, JUNE 291 1984 e L I IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. r S0lL ENGINEERING 8 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY L June 28, 1984 The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Log No: 4-6086 L Newport Beach, California 92658 Attention: Mr . Mike Mohler ' SUBJECT: LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION F Proposed Hotel, Commercial and L Residential Development Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, California L Gentlemen: , . In accordance with your request, we have performed a Limited L Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed hotel, commercial and r residential development. The purposes of our investigation were L to determine and evaluate the subsurface soil conditions at the site, and to provide preliminary recommendations for site grading, Lfoundation design and construction, and for general site improve- ments. The results of our investigation are presented in the r enclosed report. 6,P I Thank you for the opportunity to be of service on this y pp y project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, I • IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. -Z rdary . Stoney W nt ' GFS:kpt Iv ' Distribution: (6 ) Addressee f ' SUBSIDIARY OF IRVINE CONSULTING GROUP. INC. 15 MASON • IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 • (714)951.8686• (213)630-8032 f , LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION JOB NO: 2651-00 TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ PAGE +� I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. SCOPE OF SERVICES 2 r. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3 L IV. SITE DESCRIPTION 3 V. FIELD EXPLORATION 4 VI. LABORATORY TESTING 4 VII. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 �. A. Fill 5 B. Natural Soil Profile 5 4 C. Groundwater 6 VIII.GEOLOGY 6 A. Geologic Setting 6 B. Seismicity 6 1. Regional Seismicity 6 2. Earthquake Effects 7 a) Earthquake Accelerations_ 7 L b) Liquefaction 7 c) Soil Settlement 9 c , + d) Landsliding 9 i e) Tsunamis 9 f) Shallow Ground Rupture 9 IX. CONCLUSIONS 10 W General 10 1. Weak and Compressible _Soils 10 2 . Liquefaction 11 3, Groundwater 11 - 4. Foundation_Type 12 w t L L L L Table of Contents, Continued X. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 13 A. Site Grading and Earthwork 13 1. Clearing and _Stripping_ 13 L 2. Earthwork 13 3. Subgrade Preparation and Stabilization 14 4 . Compaction .. .. 14 5. Material for Fill 14 6. Drainage 15 7. Sum— a r_y 15 B. Pile Foundations 16 1. Pile Type 16 2. Pile Capacities 17 i 3. Laterally Loaded_Pile Design 17 L 4. Pile Driving 14 C. Buildina Floor Slabs 20 D. Pavement Areas 21 E. Type Cement for Construction 22 F. Corrosivity of Site Soils 22 XI. SUMMARY 23 XII. LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION 24 ,,.. ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A, References E Appendix B, Field Exploration j .`` Appendix C, Laboratory Testing Figure 1 , Location Map +� Figure 2 , Regional Fault Map Figure 3 , Plot Plan f LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED HOTEL, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND BEACH BOULEVARD HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA i M +M I. INTRODUCTION i" This report presents the results of our Limited Geotechnical 4 Investigation performed for the proposed hotel, commercial and residential development to be located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach, California. Our investigation was per- formed in May and June 1984, and was limited to the proposed hotel and commercial areas adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway, since acess to the site with field exploration equipment, particularly in the areas of the proposed resi- dential development, was restricted by the present site developments. The purposes of our investigation were to explore and eva- luate the soil conditions at the site of the proposed deve-lopment, and to provide recommendations for site grading, foundation design and construction, lateral earth pressures L• and asphalt paving. In addition , our conclusions and recom- mendations relating to soil corrosivity, design and con- struction review were developed during this study. Prior to finalizing the project's design it is understood that a M supplemental geotechnical investigation would be performed to confirm subsurface conditions and provide supplemental recommendations, as appropriate, for final design and for to the proposed residential development. ` 11 Ir 1 i tab L L The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 2 II. SCOPE OF SERVICES r The general scope of services performed during this investi- I +� gation included a review of our files and other information pertaining to the area, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing , engineering analyses of , the field and laboratory data, and the preparation of this report. References used in our study are listed in Appendix A. s Specifically, the scope of our limited investigation L included the following; y + A. Drilling a total of seven Ill exploratory test borings in the area of the proposed development and retrieving i bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples; f B. Logging of the borings in the field; r � W C. Performing laboratory tests on representative soil {� samples; W D. Reviewing published and unpublished information: including existing subsurface data in our files relating to the subject area; E. Engineering analyses of the field and laboratory data; and � 6 F. Preparation of this report presenting our tentative fin- dings, conclusions and recommendations. W F ff 6d I The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: . 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 3 w ' III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on a review of the schematic site plan supplied for our investigation, it is our understanding that a 5 to possibly 8-story hotel, 2 to possibly 4-story condominiums i.+ and townhomes , and 1 to possibly 2-story commercial struc- tures are planned for the site. It is anticipated that the balance of the site will be landscaped and paved for vehicu- lar traffic and parking. It is our understanding that the L proposed development, as presently planned, is tentative, and major changes are possible. Concrete floor slabs and slab-on-grade floors are anticipated for the proposed deve- lopment. At the time of this limited investigation, no basements were planned. We anticipate minimal site' grading LA to provide adequate drainage in the development. ' Information regarding the proposed type of building w construction and the maximum structural loads were not available at the time of this investigation. we anticipate, however, that structural colunn loads for the 5 to possibly 8 story hotel may range from 500 to 800 kips , respectively. Structural loads for the proposed condominiums, townhouses, and commercial structures are anticipated to range from less than 25 kips to about 200 kips for 4-story building units . Structural loading information should be provided to the geotechnical engineer when it becomes available. ,.,., IV. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located in Huntington Beach, California as shown on the Location Map, Figure 1 . The project is bounded on the east by Beach Boulevard, on the southwest by Pacific ,� � '' • • � � it • i ..�-..ter.. i °.- �1- +� • ,t+• - � ` , + ;3i re HuNiwa"N I1 BEJIGi A rs; DUIfDART= .r r �It •� p . �►•' Fes, ` �fiL�lEr~ .'�� s ��hti�.. w� ° 1 .w..� e-,• _� r a 'al .'� � io,e / r _ - _.� 1�'.r• spa � Apo•• °•f .. thl['. ---- `y -_:__:::_: --`----._ ...- ---- .-•-__:�_�::�:5_... ffHl» ,I,�r0:ri .•S _.-++�`'T7 .:«��2 � S L 1 ttN ;�• n � I:S•�.• �N:Z-�• •rf'� WJ..Iw.�t _ ��C�--___ _ '�; °•e�p •' j • a' 'r uj wN—w r[ k Of o •�� ° to ._ •aSC � M� Newl.rd.M♦ � I .I�� a..r� • S/ kk.+i^ '°RYES�R��• ' �I� Seh� a ae•. .°ea� 1 _y �� V Kn c kmIV �r •' r �r + 5 a Y - •P,�k •� a..�g} •III ram' e ° � p •+y,,,.� `, � � ° + ' frr �� Ira r � � ��•I � �, q� � h � �4 •M• rS 13 - - • °J � ; �I — wryer . f IM 'OD F 1•Pefkri , +.� 1 •MKt� IS tea II. • Ltv , ° O � ° � ;+�k.•n�` i � - S • � � l O=.�Ste_— __ ,• �ra�ler ,� \ _ , !I•I pis SITE J • t, rk tic • :3D, WIP St uivrimdr �•: 1 " a ice: ° 1. son .n0 0— WTC.rl.. y ranks ° 0 2000 4000 ADAPTED FROM U.B.O.S. T•t'i• NEWPORT ' FEET BEACH OUADRANGLE CIS72) i.. LOCATION MAP � JOB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 1 � 25fi � -00 JUNE 1984 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 1L The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4--6086 Page 4 Coast Highway and on the north by an existing residential development. The site is within about 300 feet of the Pacific Ocean. The site consists of an area of approxi- mately 50 acres. At the time of our field investigation, existing improvements on the site included a 2-story hotel, mobilhome park, golf course, paved parking areas and landscaping. In addition, a +� portion of the site adjacent to Beach Boulevard consisted of a wetlands area. w F V. FIELD EXPLORATION F f 6A Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling 5 test `, borings utilizing a truck-mounted rotary wash drill rig equipped with a 5-inch diameter drag and roller bit. In W addition, 2 borings were drilled using . a 24-inch bucket auger . Borings were drilled to depths of 7 to 771 feet below grade. Locations of the test borings are shown on the attached Plot Plan, Figure 3. Details regarding the field i _ exploration and Logs of Borings are presented in Appendix B. VI. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests on both bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the on-site soils were performed during our investigation. A description of the test procedures and the ,., results of tests performed are presented in Appendix C. r r The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 �-' June 28, 1984 Log No: 4-6086 Page 5 ► VII. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS A. Fill t Fill soils were encountered in all borings ranging in depth from 1 to 10 feet below existing grades. Fill i.. material consisted primarily of 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. B. Natural Soil Profile r - The natural soil profile generally consists of beach and estuary deposits of clays, silts and sands extending to at least the maximum depths explored of 77} ,feet below grade. The natural soils within 35 to 50 feet of the existing grade and depending on boring location , consisted pre- dominantly of alternating soft to firm and occasionally very stiff to hard silty clays, and loose to medium dense, occasionally dense, silty sands, clayey sand and sands. These upper layers appear poorly stratified and of low to moderate strengths and moderate to high compressibility characteristic. Underlying these layers at depths below 35 to 50 feet, relative to existing grade and extending to the depths explored, dense to very dense silty sands, sands and gravels were encoun- tered. These soils exhibit high strengths and low compressibility characteristics. t ' i 61 The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 6 C. Groundwater Groundwater was measured at the time of our field L exploration in May 1984 in borings 6 and 7 at depths of 8 and 5 feet below grade, respectively. Because of the relatively close proximity of the Pacific Ocean, the groundwater level is influenced by tidal fluctuations . VIII .GEOIAGY f ' A. Geologic Settina The property is located within the coastal zone in the southeastern portion of the Los Angeles Basin. . Under- lying the site is several hundred feet of marine sedi- ments, which overlay sedimentary bedrock. The surficial materials are comprised of beach and estuarian deposits. IB. Seismicity L 1. Regional Seismicity The site is located within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. An active branch of the fault (South Branch Fault) has been mapped just northeast of the r site and several other branches pass within a few i L, miles. Seismic risk is considered high as compared to some areas of 'southern California because of the immediate proximity of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and the alluvial soils which underlie the site. Seismic hazards within the site can be attributed to * ground shaking resulting from events on nearby W r The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 7 W active faults. Figure 2 shows the geographic rela- tionship of these faults to the site. 2. Earthquake Effects a) Earthquake Accelerations W We have analyzed the possible earthquake acce- lerations at the site and determined that, for the intended use, the most significant events are a 6 .6 Magnitude earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. The accelerations produced at the site by such events would exceed '~ those of events on any other known fault. L An earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone occurring 0 .3 miles northwest of the site could produce a peak bedrock acceleration of x� 0.65g at the site, with the duration of strong motion exceeding 30 seconds. Repeatable high ground accelerations, for this site, are esti- mated to be 0.29g for the design earthquake. i.. Design of the structures should comply with the. requirements of the governing jurisdictions and standard practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California. I _ b) Liquefaction Soils most susceptible to liquefaction during earthquakes are saturated, loose',' fine-grained sands. The sands underlying the site are fine grained and saturated; however, they are not loose but rather are predominantly medium dense. a. ' tr -• w f ---� —w , —� —w �� - w�r+r ....r-r �..•rw r�r �� i / \� :;Z r■al�etl�•5 �'; ...■. i I •! I s ■ r hfl •ri.� ■ rTi\�. ♦, rr :':1` �� J �Ir, S •.` Adopted bowl:Ge•leoo. SebricRr and ' `�•.• fi�`r Ea•ko/ oM■1 I"Oscl• special/reNCallofl y e/IM seeeel•Iloa a1 Englnee/Inq Igo toll esLs►s •' er 1 i J\. •� V. + oenbokl.on »n loot on r` i l 1�, �,..r ►■ a`� " w•t � 1 � ^`5i♦ \.ti, ,,`t a I Vi a• �� —� `V�� 00 f�a L�•••'1! ,�.'♦ -er�'1.--lia arw..wi : � .� �ti i) �. 1r i�1, � _ -- r ... 7 ' ,.wae...I s«r.l[e«a YeYalr Sf�E � v •'+ .�. ..l •+ -.._ -• .-r•"�� n/.+ ` ��... � i Y .'�'' �+`lI �\ mow/ MAJOR EARTHQUAKES AND RECENTLY ACTIVE rAULTS ss ��11yy■a1,. IN THE SOUTHERN CALWORNIA RECKON M:IryE IWLrS [YIIIOI1Mt i0[IllOrt d 1'� \\ f- 4 r0 ' fJ W ry..1 ke Iwr w snr,1.*•r Doom •ar►w wl.w..r...�/ r 1 ti+Iw+M+�wy RM..,,.1.� ",'.,a 1 \\ •r.+� .�v ,M mil' { Irrr+er.,rwM.wrl•e..yy •� ��V.// C Non M7,•r N Mti,•Fr+•w v w Mtir \ ti+w..aer r r o �rwM•' � Y \ 1' --�..- a' .rti+r..«a w,.•;Ildl ow w.e«M f•,-d- so o-o w• 7�• r«w.0—•rr•lost p/♦aalw arrrr♦ ` �� • / l«rw omw4 rr/ 1J w..ao r.w•».w�l row 1+•�.r+.+•...r woo, ■r../ •.e//1+w,1 :I' ( 1 REGIONAL FAULT MAP • r Iw5■.+«.M.Fw.r r Mw r/rr•..�I�y�. � � Mrr••wwrr Frw��I.w 1.ri,iM"��Y aw•/ •� • M• ,1.,� �` •••- ti rli IR � � VINE SOItS ENGINE ERING•INC +.r ay.war...�rwFrfM.MW Mr�4•ryr l4w�/��.wf r..•EwW • f .•l..ai•ws•r Mwr. r w�Z.i..../...•rf fl•...i .r r��4to"N.o,r 6--,.�r L.w+.►t..r.r 4,—. lwrw/M.�.ry•IR.a1,M�V.+.r.a.,Ir ro "" /NJ a •s ao .•• �l• •• w � s!dgI-oo Juwr 0994 The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 8 Under more favorable seismic conditions, this would be enough to reduce the liquefaction potential. However, the immediate proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is sufficient to raise the potential for liquefac- tion at the site. i Liquefaction analysis was performed based on the following data: i Intensity of maximum probable = 6.60 earthquake Acceleration at ground surface = 0.40g. Acceleration (repeatable) r = 0. 29g. Depth- of groundwater = • 5 ft. The results of our analysis , summarized in the 1 following table, indicate portions of the sub- surface soil profile contain zones of soils with f the factor of safety against liquefaction of w less than one: lad Depth SPT N-Value Safety Factor Against Bo_ r inq (ft) (blows foot ) Liquefaction �' B-2 35 21 0.59 r B-4 20 13 0.63 B-5 38 23 0.85 The potential for liquefaction in this area is 'also given in the references (CDMG, 1980) . i According to this reference, the site is located in a zone of high liquefaction potential, as sand boils and liquefaction were observed in the i►. site vicinity during the 1933 Long Beach earth- quake. Ld ,.� The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 9 c) Soil Settlement L Densification of the underlying soils due to i.. liquefaction and consequent surface settlement is considered a definite possibility if the major seismic event occurs. d) Landsliding The potential for landsliding is considered low Lbecause of the flat terrain, e) Tsunamis The likelihood of ocean tsunamis in excess of Lfour feet high occurring along this section of coastline that would impact the site is remote. i L (Seismic Safety Element, Huntington Beach) f) Shallow Ground Rupture W { Surface rupture has apparently not occurred on E faults in Huntington Beach areas, within the last 9 ,OOD years MR, 1966 , 1968) . Additionally, no ground surface rupture was W associated with a moderate-sized historic earth- quake (Magnitude 6 .3, 1933 ) with subsurface rup- ture observed beneath Huntington Beach. i 1 . Accordingly, while the potential for fault iW displacement exists at the ground surface, we do not believe that a zone of probable rupture can be defined, nor do we feel that the 66 corresponding potential for rupture is any t greater on this site than on adjacent or nearby W properties. ! - R L L The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 10 IX. CONCLUSIONS General From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opi- nion that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project design, plans and specifications. There are geotechnical constraints, I however , that should be considered in design and construc- L tion. These are: +: 1. The relatively low strengths and high compressibility L characteristics of the subsurface soils, 2. The moderate to high potential for liquefaction of the subsurface soils , and 3. The relatively shallow groundwater levels. r Methods for reducing the effects of these constraints on the proposed development are presented below. Detailed recom- mendations for site grading and design of building foun- dations, slab and pavements are presented in later sections of this report. r 1. Weak and Compressible Soils f Because of the relatively low strengths and high 1a' compressibility characteristics of the on-site soils, r generally in the top 25 to 30 feet of the existing gra- des, it is our opinion that conventional shallow founda- tions or mat-type foundations are not suitable with the on-site soils in their present state for the support of the proposed structures . i.. r � I �J M The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 11 In addition, slabs-on-grade and paved areas may be +� adversely affected due to consolidation of the subsur- face soils. Significant fills placed at the site may be �.. subject to large magnitudes of settlement in the order i of several inches, depending on the amount of fill placed. 2. Liquefaction r � As discussed in the previous liquefaction section of this report, it is our opinion that a portion of the soils underlying the site have a moderate to high poten- tial for liquefaction. Liquefaction , occurring during a significant seismic event, would probably result in r localized areas of subsidence at the site, due to the discontinuous stratification of the loose liquefiable F sand layers. Liquefaction of the on-site soils could cause severe damage to structures supported on shallow r foundation, and could result in moderate to severe iW distress to concrete slabs-on-grade floors and pave- ments . r 3. Groundwater III Dewatering will be necessary for excavations that extend below the groundwater table. This includes excavations for site grading and trenches, as well as basements and other structural elements. Structures extending below r the groundwater table, which may occur to within 2 to 4 feet of the existing site grades, would have to be f designed for potential hydrostatic pressures and uplift, {.w or adequately drained to relieve the anticipated hydrostatic pressure on the structure. r r 3 L The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: 2561-00 LW June 28, 1984 Log No: 4-6086 Page 12 4 . Foundation Type w • Based on our investigation, it is our opinion that the i ! proposed structures could be best supported 'on driven piles deriving their support from end-bearing in the dense sand layers underlying the upper weak and compressible soils at the site. Because of the high ' groundwater and loose, non-cohesive soil conditions at the site, drilled cast-in-place concrete piles and/or f piers are not feasible as an alternative for driven w, piles. Conventional spread footings may be considered for minor, non-critical structures, such as landscape retaining walls, It should be realized, however, that �• any structure supported on footings may be subject to severe distresses in event of soil liquefaction at the ,i site. rr r + x W r ' 6d r ' 1 L The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 13 X. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Prior to initiation of final project design, a supplemental investigation should be performed on portions of the• site not investigated to confirm the recotrmendations contained herein. A. Site Gradino and Earthwork 1. Clearing and Stri22ing The areas to be developed should be stripped of r 1 vegetation and cleared of all pavement, abandoned structures, and buried obstructions, such as utility lines and footings. Debris and rubble from the clearing operations should be removed from the site. Existing fill materials and disturbed, loose soils should be removed to competent material and replaced with properly compacted material, as appropriate. Depressions resulting from the removal of unsuitable material# which extend below finished grade, should i be backfilled with properly compacted fill. LW 2. Earthwork Based on observation of the test borings, it is our r opinion that the on-site soils, in general, may be r., excavated using conventional grading equipment. Should any excavation performed near or below the r groundwater level, special equipment may be required in soft and saturated soils. Site preparation will r proceed more efficiently if grading operations are u� performed during the dry seasons of the year. r ' U r The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 14 4 - 3. Subgrade _Preparation and Stabilization A layer of gravel or other suitable granular material of approximately 1 foot or more in thickness may be required in excavated or low-lying areas, prior to placing fill, to stabilize soft, wet exposed subgrade soils . This will act as a • drainage layer and provide a firm base for compac- tion of fill . The need for stabilization of subgrade soils should be anticipated in pavement 1 areas as well as building areas. Where exposed subgrade soils are not saturated, com- petent and readily workable using ordinary grading procedures, stabilization may be accomplished by �+ scarifying exposed subgrade soils to a depth of 6- to 8-inches, moistening to near optimum conditions and compacting to at least 90 percent relative com- paction. 4. Compaction F Fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM: D 1557-78 . Fill soils should be properly moistened or dried to near optimum moisture conditions and com- pacted in 6 to 8-inch thick lifts . dw 5. Material for Fill The on-site soils are suitable for use as compacted fill . on--site material obtained near or below the groundwater level will be saturated, and will require drying prior for use as a compacted fill r Y« r The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 15 material. Any imported fill material should be a predominantly granular soil, have an Expansion Index less than 30, and be approved by the Soils Engineer . Both imported and existing on-site soils to be used as fill should be free of debris, organic matter and } particles over 6-inches in dimension. Plans and specifications should indicate that the grading contractor shall notify the project soils engineer not less than 72 hours in advance of the '. location of any soils proposed for import. Each proposed import source shall be sampled, tested and R approved prior to delivery of soils for use on the i site. 1 1 6. Drainage ! Positive surface gradients should be provided adja- cent to all structures so as to direct surface water run-off and roof drainage away from foundations and slabs toward suitable discharge facilities. Ponding s � of surface water should not be allowed on pavements or adjacent to buildings. 7 . Summary 4, The anticipated site preparation, over-excavation, and earthwork compaction operations should be per- 6, formed under the observation and testing of the Soils Engineer. All fill should be observed and i 4" tested at the time of placement to ascertain that i fill is properly placed and compacted. i W iW L a The Robert Mayer Corporation Job Ho: 2561-00 ►� June 28, 1984 Log No: 4-6086 Page 16 � B. Pile Foundations 1. Pile Type It is recommended that the proposed structures be supported on driven piles, which would derive their 6„ support from end-bearing in the dense sand layer underlying the site. The type of pile ordinarily L utilized in the local area for support of similar structures is a pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete pile . We recommend that this type of pile be used for the proposed development. The recommendations that follow assume that 12 or 14-inch square piles will be utilized. Recommendations for other types of piles may be provided upon request. L Dense sand layers underlie the site at depths of rl approximately 41 to 46 feet and 50 feet, below existing grade on the northwest and southeast por- tions of the site, respectively. Based on our borings, the depth of the sand layers varies approximately linearly across the site ( i.e. , approximately 45-feet deep midway along Pacific Coast Highway at the site) . The depth to the dense ISO sand layers should be confirmed during a supplemental investigation. The piles should be driven at least s 3 feet into the dense sand layer, or in general to a tip elevations of approximately -33.0 to -48 .0 feet r depending on location within the site. Based on these tip elevations, piles ranging in length from about 40 to 55 feet may be anticipated, and will be •� influenced by the final designed grades. r r The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-60 86 Page 17 - � 2. Pile Capacities i v For a 12-inch and a 14-inch square pre-cast, pre- stressed concrete pile, an allowable pile capacity of 200 kips and 250 kips, respectively, may be used � in design. These values may be increased one-third r' for short term, transient loads. . A friction value of 300 pounds per square foot acting on the embedded surface area of the pile may be used for uplift resistance design. This value L may be used for static and short-terry transient ` loading. Piles in groups should be spaced a minimum of 3 pile diameters, center-to-center. No group efficiency reduction of pile capacity is required for pile group design. r+ Because of the effects of "dragdown% forces on the piles due to ground subsidence during soil liquefac- tion, as a result of strong earthquake ground motion, a dragdown force of 40 kips per pile should be included in the total pile design load. . 3 3. Laterally, Loaded Pile Design Laterally loaded pile design criteria is presented in Table II for piles that are free to rotate at the top ( free-head condition) and for piles that are restrained from rotating at the top ( fixed-head or condition) . The calculated maximum allowable lateral pile capacities given in Table II are based on a I-inch lateral deflection at the top of the r , 1 . ' The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561--00 ire June 28, 1984 Log No: 4-6086 Page 18 i pile and a minimum pile length of 30 feet. In addi- tion, maximum negative and positive moments ( in terms of applied lateral lead P) , and depth to maximum nega- tive and positive =ments are provided for fixed-head r piles. Partial liquefaction of the subsurface soils ' surrounding the pile is considered in the given design criteria. M TABLE II T LATERAL PILE DESIGN CRITERIA PRESTRESSED-PRECAST CONCRETE PILES r 12-Inch 14-Inch +� FREE READ Square Square t , Lateral Capacity, P, Kips 2.0 2.5 Maximum Moment 1 4.2 P 4 .8 P lk Depth to Maximum Moment, ft. 7.5 8.0 FIXED HEAD ` Lateral Capacity, P, Kips 5 .0 6.5 Maximum Negative Moment 1 4.8 P 5 .5 P 4` Maximum Positive Moment 1 1.4 P 1.6 P Depth to Mxm Negative Moment, ft. 0 0 +� Depth to Mxm Positive Moment, ft. 11.5 13.0 t . 1) Moment is for the horizontal load, P, applied at the pile cap, if the horizontal load is in kips, the moment will be in foot-kips . 1 V r - r r ►r The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 Page 19 Tie-beams and/or structural slabs, as appropriate, between pile caps are recommended for horizontal load distribution at the building foundation level. 6' hn additional passive resistance of 200 pounds per I - cubic foot -may be assumed to act against pile caps +-+ and tie-beams provided they are poured tight against • undisturbed natural soil or compacted fill. 4. Pile Driving i.. Prior to production driving it is recommended that twelve or more "indicator" test piles be driven in i planned pile locations, to allow this office to establish driving criteria and to verify the under- w lying soil profile. The "indicator" pile location should be determined by the Soils Engineer. r. Since the piles have been designed to derive support from end-bearing each pile should be driven to prac- 16 tical refusal as determined by the Soils Engineer. Piles should extend through any intermediate sand layers, provided they can be driven without damage to the pile. In no case, however, should driving be terminated without the approval of this office. w" Pre-drilling may be permitted provided the size of auger and depth of pre-drilling is first approved by the Soils Engineer. r To minimize driving resistance and reduce ground heaving, piles in groups should be driven starting from the center of the group and proceeding outward. The size of hammer should be selected for the type r and size of pile driven. For pre-stressed concrete I f I I • The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 ►. June 28, 1484 Log No : 4-6086 t Page 20 I ' ' piles, we recommend a driving hammer of a minimum 1 rated energy of 30 ,000 foot - pounds per blow. This office should review the type of hammer selected by the pile driving Contractor prior to pile driving. It is recommended that this office review the final foundation plans and specifications to ascertain • that the recommendations presented herein have been properly incorporated into the contract documents. We can provide guide specifications for pile driving if desired. To ascertain that piles are properly driven to sufficient depth to develop the required supporting capacities, it is imperative that the Soils Engineer observe the driving of all piles t1 ' installed at the site. W r " C. Buildina Floor Slabs The on-site soils are unsuitable for the support of slabs-or.-grade floors in their present condition. In our opinion, structural floor slabs supported by pile F supported grade beams should be used to mitigate W possible adverse effects of settlement due to con- solidation of the subsurface soils and from earthquake k" induced subsidence caused by soil liquefaction. If slabs-on-grade floors are elected, the slab subgrade should be prepared properly to reduce the aforementioned adverse effect of subgrade settlements . Possible severe �., settlement and/or slab movements and distress may still occur. All slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a s !kw minimum of 3 feet of properly compacted fill. If grades are to be raised more than 3 feet above existing eleva- si tions , pre-consolidation of the subgrade by surcharging jr i L ■ � The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 6-d June 28, 1984 Log No: 4-6086 Page 21 I ' may be necessary to reduce long-term consolidation .. settlement of the underlying soils. For structural floor slabs, minimal subgrade preparation may be con- sidered. Slab thickness and reinforcement should be designed by the Structural Engineer to conform to anticipated use • , and loading. For slabs underlain by 3 feet of non- expansive fill, a subgrade modulus (K) of 200 pounds per IR cubic inch may be used. In moisture-sensitive areas, slabs should be underlain by a minimum 6-mil polyethylene moisture barrier covered with at least 2 inches of sand. T } • v D. Pavement Areas Based on a design R-Value of 30 for the surface sandy soils and a Traffic Index of 4 .0 for automobile and r light truck traffic and 5 .5 for driveways and occasional �r heavy truck access areas, we recommend the following pavement sections: V Thickness Thickness Untreated Total Traffic A/C Class II Base Thickness Index (Inches) (Inches) (Inches ) T ' (Automobile/Light 3.0 4 .0 7.0 W Truck Traffic) (T.I. = 4 .0) t ' (Heavy Truck Access Lob Areas and drive— 3.0 6.0 9 .0 ways) � ? (T.I. = 5 .5) The pavement subgrade should consist of a blanket of compacted fill 2- and 3-feet thick underlying parking r, V t The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No: 2561-00 i. June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 T Page 22 LO ' , areas and streets, respectively. The subgrade should be properly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557-78. The subgrade should be prepared as recommended under "Site Grading and Earthwork" . The pavement base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Aggregate base should conform to the requirements of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Class II aggregate base. The preliminary pavement section should be confirmed by additional R-Value testing during a sub- sequent investigation and at the conclusion of grading. w s . . E. Type Cement for Construction gr . Based on sulfate test results of representative samples F i. of the on-site soils, ordinary Type I or Type II t Portland cement may be used for concrete structures, including piles, in contact with the on-site soils . t . . �., F. Corrosivity of Site _Soils Laboratory chemical tests performed on a sample of the L on-site soils indicated a chloride concentration of 420 t � ppm and a pH of 6 .78. Laboratory resistivity tests w. indicated a minimum resistivity of 730 ohm-cm for the � . on-site soils. In general, based on the indicated chloride concen- tration , the on-site soils are .considered to have a moderate corrosion potential on mild grade steel. Soils with an electrical resistivity of the magnitude measured Ld The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28, 1984 Log No : 4-6086 L' Page 23 _ for the on-site soils are conductive to potentially severe electrolytic-type corrosion. As a result, con- sideration should be given to protecting underground metallic facilities from the on-site soils or to the use of non-metallic materials that are not subject to electrolytic--type corrosion. A corrosion consultant i.� should be considered to provide expert advice on the corrosive potential of the site soils on any critical bd underground facilities planned. XI . SUMMARY Prior to conpletion of project design, an additional supple- mental investigation should be performed to confirm the recommendations contained in this report. As preliminary foundation and grading plans are completed, they should be - i forwarded to the Soils Engineer for review for conformance with the intentions of our recommendations. L R 6 r ' r rr The Robert Mayer Corporation Job No : 2561-00 June 28 , 1984 Log No: 4-6086 Page 24 XII. LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION • Our investigation was perforned using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Soils Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly ` between borings. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by excavation • may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the r w Project Soils Engineer and Geologist and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended. i� The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. i� very truly yours , Ire IRVINE SOILS NGINEERING, INC. James E. Harris Franklin Fong, R 24179 Staff ngineer Assistant Manager of Engineering 4 ary S oney, C.E.G. 38 William T. Altneyer, R.C.E 291 Principal 1 Prin ipal Geologist incipa Engineer JEH:FF:GFS:kpt Distribution: (6) Addressee AK All 'i ;r ta' • "` ' t O a^ _ s �\ 1�L1``h � F ' o li ` , , ,d ■ t a ti �� `` {�. \� a•� � . a \ n '' }:t (�+ !✓� • ,ems`' o 'ram�. :�• x�'�r �'�� ► �.`�o ", t-0�:+�d • fir, ' ��c•. ��"�S Yr�` �1_t_1 fti. e'% p• tip• 7 t �`a.��'•'.tf � �,yl��' �_ � � •�•4 r.� S t1_ •Mt,f �•'yam ` t/, ��+, '�1 ��} • sa to ZrM fit Y 1) \ 46 - U� ,y'• r 'IIIIIIIGc� PLOT PLAN-PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT-HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA i 1 11984 • • t t APPENDIX A r REFERENCES 1. L L L L_ L t ' L.. L L L � ire w f REFERENCES ` 1. Barrows, Allan G. , "A Review of the Geology and Earthquake I W History of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California" , California Division of Mines and Geology Special ` Report 11A, 1974, 2. California Division of Mines and Geolog y, "Environmental Geology of Orange County, California" , Open Fil Report { 79-8LA, 1976s l �- 3. California Division of Mines and Geology, "Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin, Orange County, California" , Open fil Report 80-19LA, 1980, 4. California Division of Mines and Geology, "Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County, California" , Preliminary Report 15 , 1973, `r 5. Seed, H. Bolton , State-of-the-Art Paper, "Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Effects on Level Ground during Earthquake" , American Society of Civil Engineers, 1976, 6. Seed, H. Bolton, I.M. Idriss and Ignacio Arango, "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance Data" , j American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical • Engineering, vol. 109 , No. 3, March 1983, PP-458-482. iM L. L L APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION i f L a 'a L L FIELD EXPLORATION ►. A. Test Borings The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling a total of seven (7) test borings at the approxi- mate locations shown on the Plot Plan, Figure 3 . The borings ranged in depth from 7 to 771 feet below grade. 6W The borings were drilled between May 18 and 21, 1984. The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted rotary-drill rig and a drill rig equipped with a 24-inch diameter bucket L auger . All drilling was performed under the supervision of our Engineer who maintained a continuous log of the subsur- face soil conditions encountered and obtained bulk and undisturbed samples for laboratory testing. Subsurface conditions are summarized on the Logs of Borings. The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified "r Soils Classification System, (see Figure B-1) . The soil samplers utilized in our investigation consisted of a 2.4-inch I.D. drive barrel with 1 inch brass rings. The sampler was driven with either a 325 pound submersible hammer or a 2400 pound drill Kelley falling through a height of approximately 12 inches. The sampler was driven a depth of 12 inches and the number of blows recorded. Standard penatration tests in accordance with ASTM D 1586-67 were - also performed in selected borings. All soil samples obtained from the borings were transported to our laboratory for further examination and testing. B. Groundwater Measurements Groundwater levels were visually monitored by our Engineer by measuring down boring excavations. Depths to groundwater W are. shown on the enclosed Logs of Borings . W w 1 - DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS GROUP SECONDARY DIVISIONS SYMB GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels. gravel-sand mixtures, little or no to tu MORE THAN (5% FINES) Poorly graded gravels or ravel-sand mixtures. little or �; J w o HALF OF 6% FINES) GP y g g COi CIO. COARSE no tines. 20 FRACTION IS GRAVEL WITH GM fines gravels. gravel-sand-silt mixtures. non-plastic W U. Z N LARGER THAN FINES 4, m NO. 4 SIEVE GC Clayey in say grave ta. gravel-sand-clay mixtures. plastic d a W 1 tl" z a w SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or too tines. z d w MORE THAN (LESS THAN 6" z a HALF OF 5% FINES) SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands. little or no tines. COARSE I O L FRACTION IS SANDS WITH SM Silty sands. sand-silt mixtures,nor-plastic fines. 1" 00 SMALLER THAN FINES 3: NO. 4 SIEVE SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures. plastic tines. co au H Inorganic silts and very tine sands, rock !lour. silty or w4� C O Cr a) SILTS AND CLAYS ML clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity. co) W K ? LIQUID LIMIT IS CL clays, sandy anic cf clays. leas of low n medium ysum plasticity, gravelly p T s. 2 LESS THAN 50% W " °�' an OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. 16+ z 2 a) a W. : a MH inorganic silts. micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy ~ O SILTS AND CLAYS or silty sails, elastic sites. O ear a z 4bd W a W = LIQUID LIMIT IS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. 7- M -C 4 GREATER THAN 60% Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. organic 1•• OH silts. LHIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. w GRAIN SIZES SILTS AND CLAYS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE 64 200 40 10 4 3140 3' 12' U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS E low RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY SANDS. GRAVELS AND BLOWSIFOOT* CLAYS AND STRENGTH** BLOWS/FOOT* NON-PLASTIC SILTS PLASTIC SILTS VERY SOFT 0 - 114 0 - 2 VERY LOOSE 0 - 4 SOFT 114 - 112 2 - 4 FIRM 1/2 1 4 - 8 MEDIUM DENSE 10 - 30 ' DENSE 30 - 80 STIFF 7 - 2 8 - 76 ' VERY DENSE OVER 50 VERY STIFF 2 - 4 78 - 32 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 6W r *NUMBER OF SLOWS OF 140 POUND HAMMER FALLING 30-INCHES TO DRIVE A 2-INCH O.D. (1-3/8-INCH I.D.) SPLIT SPOON (ASTM D-1586). **UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN TONSISQ. FT.AS DETERMINED BY LA130RATORY TESTING OR APPROXIMATED BY THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D-1586), POCKET PENETROMETER, TORVANE. OR VISUAL OBSERVATION KEY TO BORING LOGS JOB NO.: TE: FIGURE NO.:DA 2561-00 JUNE 1984 B-1 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. i DATE OFSERVED: 5118184 METHOD OF DRILLING..., Rotes^;j 9as11 i 325# at 120 LOGGED BY: RM GROUND ELEVATION: 8.7t LOCATION:, See Plot PInn o r o w .. ,w„ � mw a �� ca BORING NO. � 0Qj�a t f...Z v� 801E TEST co V-c x oz tea: d < C aO =� DESCRIPTION a _j w., m 0 FILL: CL 2" AC over 4" Base Dark grey-black: silty SmD very -3 r:loist, rediim dense, trace clay, trace black con=etions Irr 6 . 13 08.5' t-k*d fragints �+ tQ CL 2 26.4 74 NATURAL GROUND: COMSOUDATION Blue-grey silty CLAY, mist to very DIRECT SHEAR moist, soft to fim, trace organics, (1 Pt.) interbedded S i t5 36 25.2 105 Blue-grey rledim SAND, very rroist, DIRECT SHEARI►� redim dense to dense, trace mica (l pt.} @18' Shell fracments 24 Gre1y silty CLAY, r:nist, stiff, inter- s 10 37.0 83 bedded grey fine silty SAND MNSCLIDATION 7 DIRECT SH~AR 1 23 P @25' Sandy CLAY, very soft 18, Jf Sp 030' Silty CLAY, som shell fraT.ents 10 2$.2 94 DIIL GT SHEAR (l pt. ) SC Q:ey clayey Sr%%D, r oist, mdium � 3S 20 15.6 117 dense DIET,. 1 SHEAR C6 67 Grey silty MAY, slig'i_l;r mist, had, same fine sand @39' Trace gravel, slcur drilling ffj'*ou No 2561-00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B-2 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING,INC. DATE Ot,vI:RVED:_ 5/1R 84 METHOD OF DRILLING: Rot= Wash at LOGGED BY: RM GROUND ELEVATION: 8•7± LOCATION: See P301 Pian c F- o w ., �c W °O mw a M' 0a. BORING NO. t� ` na 4C �z m� (CONTINUED) L6 m �z m ow v SOIL TEST }- as 3 m< w Oz j�m ' A. OC o zai a o a'z DESCRIPTION C v m 7 m V ZQ 6j SP 53 Grey medi= SAND, moist, dense, inter- _u bedded gravelly CLAY, fine Sm7 r 60 F 45 50- Gr- y c:oa se SAND, very mist, very " � 6 dense, trace gravel 1 w bD r ' rI� Total Depth 51' mSTANDARD PENr'MTION TEST QO � ea Ir 1 TD 1 ' r `M r ' ow 7a ' r� �� eo JOB NO' 2561-00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B-3 l IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. i. L ' DATE OBSERVED: 5 lE METHOD OF DRILLING. -`Atrr y Wash L 17C;A.hA-•mrnr At 17" LOGGED BY.E_GROUND ELEVATION:_ 4 2+ LOCATION: -czeP Pln} Urn z rr„ w i o ow a �� od BORING NO. 2 U U. WJ 2 =F. Wv 6-2 0 M $OIL TEST f a 00 a� � 20 �� DESCRIPTION m .. r FILL: Light 1k*^tnm WU), cry, trace gravel NATURrS GROUND C Blue grey silty MAY, hoist, firm to 6 stiff, trace bl.ac . mottling, some } 4 organics 00NSOLILI ON SM Grey t:iedium. silty SXPM, moist. raediu^I dense to dense, trace clay, i-.ite=- I.. 10 bedded clays and shell fragmats �• 08' Gravel lease a 35 SIEVE - 51 L' 20 Le 80 ' @ 23' Clay layer L 25 025' Fine silty SAND r� 33 6. So @30' Very dense, rediun ooa_rse, . 80 abundant shell fragaents �w Ir. 3s 035' Medium to coarse sand lenses to �• 21 6", abundant shell fragmnts SIEVE Ito Ia 40- 7777-1 sD° NO-' 2561-00 LOG OF BORING FIQURE B-4 DATE OBSERVED: 5/18/84 METHOD OF DRILLING: Rotary Wash 5~ hmm er at 1 " fi LOGGED BY: GROUND ELEVATION: 4.7± LOCATION: See Plot Plan � � C u i o aw a =1 oa BORING NO. 2 ,'. v U. �a i �� w" (CONTINUED) W a) �= w a�iw �v! SOIL TEST ►- m 3 `n� Y p� ..t as a as 0 a 2 O a Z DESCRIPTION r a m m u xa 40 CL 17 Blue-green silty CLAY, moist, stiff �. . to •Mry stiff @43.5 Gravel layer (6" thick) @45' Interbedded grey fine to riecLu:t silty Sk\'D 45 43 7- ' Grey sandy GRAVEL, Bret, dense to very dense, interbedded sand amd gravels, gravel to i►.r 6S ' F @60' Coarse SAIZ with layers of grave 80 4- " gravels f " � 85 68' Coarse sandy GRAVEL so- IT 70 ribtal Depth 69' Ell .71"14IDARD PEIrfE ZATION TEST 7a 1310S Noy 2561-00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE 8_S IRVINE SOILS ENOINEERING.INC. DATE OBSERVED: ib METHOD OF DRILLING io`r a=y ►tiasn 325'-` at 12" LOGGED BY: PIM GROUND ELEVATION: 6.6} LOCATION: a Plot Pim 60 p r- O w ., ? w °o mw °• Q� oa BORING NO. 3 = u. :3� ca w �!Z — SOIL TEST Uj t z 2O 0.x DESCRIPTION C U coV ZD h.4 0 FIM: SF 2" AC over 4" base f B ra r.-s re "um &i ND, m�o•.s.s t., loose 1 @4' Wet I.r a 3 24.8 91 CL I`F:4UPOL GROUND: �+ Grey silty CLAY, wet soft to firm t0 7 40.6 77 S•! Grey silty SAND, vet r -di= dense, sbum ant oraar•.ics, organic odor 15 42 @15' Dense ., Q20' Ve=T dense 20 67 CL Blue-grey silty CLAY, .-mist to veL-y 25 mist, fir to stiff 9 32.3 $9 028' Sand tense to 6" Grey blue sandy SLR/sil`. + 30 10 24.2 99 moist, firm to stiff, trace Mca, shell fragmnts, interbedded clayey and silty sard lays--s 36 29 14.9 118 @35' Clayey saw lease 40 ,los No.: 2561»oo LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B,.6 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERINQINC. 0NTE OBSERVED:, 5118/84 _ METHOD Of DRILLING: 3258at 12" . LOGGED BY: lyi; GROUND ELEVATION: 6•5i LOCATION: See Plat Plan z _ w i 0 mw a one BORING NO. 3 v Ma Oz w" (CONTINUED) Ow SOIL TEST a O z DESCRIPTION 4 0 v m can n -LU o 40 28 X 25.2 1D2 r ° Blue-g_ey mecUlm slty S7M, very �.. Vl ai st, very dense 45- T92 r CL @47' Gray-green silty�Y ro t, hard ao � 70 @50' Blue-cr--ey, c='eea :mttZi*�c Total Depth 51.5' bb mST1.'MARD aEI=MON TEST ir. BO 1 ISO 65 111 7M ' 70 • boo 1r 76 it fi 4« ao 1 JOB NO. F'6R 256 -00 LOG OF BORING E: B-7 iy IRVIHE SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. DATE OBSERVED: /1 4 METHOD OF DRILLING: Rotary Wasq J2.5p at. W LOGGED BY: T'?I GROUND ELEVATION:- +9 LOCATION: Sc--- Plat Plr^ w °o CoW a c oa BORING NO. 4 L6 v k tr- 7 r w�- co 3 1-` i� $OtL TEST X `per -1co V _� �v xw DESCRIPTION � —a w r It w �o � SM 24 7.9 109 L t:fled brain silty SAND, �ist� dense tw -Grey b_• mm silty SAND, dense, mist, CL sock clay, clay pockets, red brain 6 34.4 82 r=� -tled DIP.ECT SHEAR W Interbedded silty CLAY/clayey SILT (1 Pt. ) NATURAL GROUND: to Dark blue grey silty CLAY, moist, firm 25.3 78 to stiff, trace sand, abundant shells, CONSQLIDATI(1N t-31trace b-mm mottling DIRECT SHEAR . @8' Abundant sand (l p`.) @11' Abundant peat, porosity, organic ; 15 odor, soft to fir -6 �+. -6 2D Sp 13 irR Grey clean SAND, median dense, wet, Ld abundant seashell organics t 11 28.0 92 2 5 too9-3 ' Dart: grey silty �y SILT, very moist, soft to firs 30 @31' Stiff 12 32.8 88 DIRECT SHEAR Pt.) SULFATE i CORROSIVITY tia 33 @36' Green grey 14 36.2 89 E ' i. LkLrk grey clayey SAND, moist, very 4o dense *„ JOB NO.: 2 6 6 1—0 0 LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B,.B IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERINQINC. LDATE OBSERVED: /21/84 METHOD OF DRILLING: Rotary Wash at " 1 LOGGED BY: JES GROUND ELEVATION: +9 LOCATION: See plot Plan i.. c W o mu, Lu* Ix oa BORING NO. 4 .L`. U �� at ��Z iW" (CONTINUED) 801E TEST w w t a � 0 09) J o x c IC j DESCRIPTION ! 0 m ..a � 4a 2- 0" 11.4 128 DIRECT SHEAR @44' Drown grey SILT ! ' 45 SW 75 Green grey silty SANM, very dense, very DIRECT SHEAR 1 10, 21.2 10 moist, trace mica (1 pt. ) w ao @50' Gravel layer, gravel to 3/4" W 0- �+ @55' 1-1--diva coarse, trace gravel to 6S . i ,�► so SULPHATE @fit' Abundant gravel -3 ' i @65' Sandy gravel ir+ ' TO low -6 IM @75' Coarse, clean SAND 1.. 0- ' f Total Depth 77.5' +'" STANDARD PE7Z=TION TEST PJOBVO-. 2561-00 LOG OF BORING IFIGURE. B_e I"r IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. i L HATE OBSERVED: ` METHOD OF DRILLING Lary Wash at 6, LOGGED BY: 3EH GROUND ELEVATION: 9+ LOCATION: See Plat P c 0 w >- w 0 w 0. w� �" BORING NO. &L 0 L6 5P O� n 0 'a 3 i.- 0>- SOIL TEST _ � 0 • ~� � mw tN w Oz -Jai a O AN -+ 20 =� DESCRIPTION R U m V �p • 0 SILL T 2" AC over 4" Aggregate base �+ Red brasm silty SAND, mist dense 23 23.3 95 S Grey silty fine SAND/sandy SILmist, dense, Sam clay! Mottled, clay pockets CL _nieces of asphalt a W 5 39.1 80 NATURAL GROUND: DIRECT SHEAR Dark g=ey silty CLAY, moist, firm to (1 pt.) so stiff, abundant shells Dark grey silty SAND/sandy SILT, red- de.-ise, m. ist to very moist 010' Silty sand ys @14' Peat tense to 2" ' 6 @ 15' SAND, wet, loose SIEVE, AiRMERG LIFTS CL -6 34.0 89 DIRECT SHEAR - Dark. green clayey SILT/sitly CLAY, (1 pt.) 20 stiff, mist, trace fine sand, trace shells Dark grey silty SAND, wet, very dense, trace shells, rLica 70 2S t 1.. Lerit grey clayey'511"AYS11tv ada, CL 11 35.5 84 mist, stiff to tie,-y stiff, trace f ruca s0 DIRECT SHEAR (1 Pt. ) 1� SM tkrk grey fine silty S.-VID, r.--&*un DIRECT SHEAR 27 26.7 97 dense, mist, trace ruica, abundant ` shells 95 k ' ;•• 23 SIEVE PJOIJ40NO� 2561-00 LOG OF BORING =URE- ad 8-10 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. 1 = DATE OBSERVED: � � METHOD OF DRILLING: Rota_y Wash I at iz- LOGGED BY: JEH GROUND ELEVATION: 9+ LOCATION: See Plot Plan L °o mw a C� as BORING NO. U. O Ma �z w (CONTINUED) W o6 3 �` 0) CO SOIL TEST + w -K m y m U DESCRIPTION �+ 40 a Q40' Grey clay seam to 6" SP w 65 Grey coarse SMa), wet, very dense, 45 sorm gravel to h", trace Erica @45' Grey silty CLAY/clayey SILT layer to 2' r ' rr ' 5D Total Depth 51.5' qw 55 IDSTANDARD Pr.iEMTION TEST i ir. eo I i.r � e5 �r TO �r r . �M �r BD Joe NO_ 2661-00: LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B- t tir IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. W DATE OBSERVED: D METHOD OF DRrLLINCi: BUME tita at rr LOGGED BY: ` IF GROUND ELEVATION: 8± LOCATION. SEe not PM w < °o Ww a Cr od BORING NO._�_ " �° ` 1-_ 0� sort TEST 3 M-C x arm tt x p z ..m ' to ID CIO)Z "J 20 0.2 ZUJ DESCRIPTION ism V m = m V —0 d FILL: P 11.1 106 Dark b=rn clr+yay SAND, mist, loose MAXIMUM DEISSITY Ina Hit concrete pipe Q 2' , offset 3' OPTIMUM MOISTURE d P 4.8 117 EYSANSION SULFATE ism B—sc Brain SAND, mist, loose, sa m clay 1 .6 99 Black clayey SAND, moist, loose to 1� rlediu:l dense, abundant organics (peat) SM • ' D NATURAL GROUND Dark blue grey silty CLAY, moist, firm trace sand, abundant organics (peat) t ' �.+ Dark b ue greys ty , wet, abm&wnt organics (peat) ; is 1 r� Total Depth 10' Gioun&rater @ 8- Caving @ 101 a. 2D t � L� 2S V L. Sd i 3 B5 s r 4d JOB NO.: 2s6�-00 LOG OF BORING �1O��E B-12 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. Itr DATE OBSERVED: METHOD OF DRILLIN(k ISN .Eno;cet An= 240W! P* 120_ bw LOGGED BY:_sIEE GROUND ELEVATION: -6± __ - LOCATION: See Plot Plan _ fi p F- a to 2 !• w o MLu a Q� �� BORING NO. 7 Imo. p X-1 -2 :)«- �.. co rn2 COW �~ SOIL TEST Y p .10 IL CO Q0S `) �D ILDESCRIPTION 0 -b' 5.0 1]1 FILL: FAXIMikS DENSITY/ -6" Ermm silty=M, mist, loose to OPTimrl MOISTURE median dense DIEZECT SHEAR P hR (REMOLDED) SIEVE ,1. S EXPANSION SMFATE 33.3 ti NATURE, .T): R VALUE Durk blue silty CLAY, wet, firm, abundant organics {peat) t t To`al Depth 7' Caving @ 6' W G:o=dwater @ 5' Iw �a low k 23 g Yr g6 ' 4a JOs NOr 2561-oc) I LOG OF BORING F10URE: IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING,INC. i V 1 W Lot - 4 . W APPENDIX C i L. LABORATORY TESTING 1+ �r L� 4 l .IM 'INN a �M ,L. i 3 s LABORATORY TESTXNG i • LW A. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classification was supplemented by index tests, such as, Particle Size Analysis and Atterberg Limits. Moisture content and dry density determinations were made for representative undisturbed samples. Results of moisture-density determinations, together with classifications, are shown on the Logs of Borings, contained in Appendix B. i B. Particle Size Analysis i +� Particle size analyses, consisting of sieve tests were per- formed on representative samples of the site subgrade soils in accordance with ASTM: D 422-63. Test results are shown on Figures C-1 through C-3. C. Atterbera Limits Atterberg limits tests consisting of liquid limit in accord- ance with ASTM: D 423-66 and plastic limit in accordance W with ASTM: D 424-59 were performed on a representative sample of the on-site soils. The test results are presented on Figure C-4. i D. Expansion `~ Expansion tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site soils remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-2. The test results are sum- marized on Figure C-51 Table 1. E. Maximum Densityjo2timum Moisture Content The maximum dry density/optimum moisture content relation- ship was determined for a typical sample of the on-site soils . The laboratory standard used was ASTM: D 1557-78. The test results are summarized on Figure C-5, Table 2. I.Ad L I Laboratory Testing, continued F. Sulfate and_Corrosivity �.. Sulfate tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site soils. The laboratory standard used was California 417 A. The test results are presented on Figure C-5, Table 3. L Corrosivity series were performed on representative on-site i soil samples. The test series included pH, soluble chlori- L des and minimum resistivity (in accordance with CA 643c) . The test results are presented in the text of this report. I w+ G. R-Value A R-Value test was performed on a representative sample of the on-site surface soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM: D 2844-75 . The test results are summarized on Figure C-51 Table 4 . A. Direct Shear ►+ Single-point direct shear strength tests were performed on representative undisturbed samples of the on-site soils. _ The tests were run at field moisture conditions with a nor- ,, mal load equal to the effective overburden pressure. The test results are presented on Figure C-6 , Table 1. i Three-point direct shear strengths were performed on repre- sentative undisturbed samples, which were saturated and sheared at specific normal loads. The test results are pre- sented in Figure C-7. I. Consolidation , W Consolidation tests were performed on representative undis- turbed samples of the underlying soils to help determine compressibility characteristics . The samples were saturated mid-way through the tests to simulate possible adverse field conditions. The test results are presented on Figures C-8 through C-11. W W .W " l� �1111■11■�'��iiii:t■ ■■■■IIII■■■■�I111■■■■� „ IN R 1!■I�■��rl 11�� ■�■■Ilr 1■■■��I111■■■�� I�■Il 101 MII11■�'�MENU 1■■■MMMI111■■■MMillin 11■1 ■■■11 1■■■■�1111■■■■� : , 1 It■Illll■II■� 111�■ MENU I■■■MM1M1111■■■MMM It■Illll■11■�III it■■ ■■IIII■■■��1111■■■�� • I�■111 ■H■��1 11■ ■ ■■Il 1■■■��1111■■■�� : , �■IIII ■11■�;'�II11■1 ■ ■ Irl■■■��I111■■■�� . , ■11111■II■■III 11■■ ■ ■ 111■■■■=1111■■■■m . , I�■111 ■11■�;�1 11■ ■ 1 1■■■��I111■■■�� . , ■IIII ■11■ �I 11■ ■III ■ mill 1I ■■■ 1 ONE M =111 ■11■1111111110I UNION ■11 1■■■��1111■■■�� I�■IIII ■11■�ME11 ■■I■■ �1111■■■��1111■■■�� It■IIII ■11■�;�Ir1111■■I■� 11111■■■��II11■■■�� I�■IIII1■n■��I 11■ ■o 11 1■■■��I111■■■■� It■IIII ■11■�:�1111■■ ■■ 1�11■■■■�1111■■■�� M111 ■UMMAMEl 11■ ■M fitINMEMM1111110M� • It■IIII ■11■ �I 11■■ ■�■ :11■■■� Il 1■�■�� ■ �111 ■� I11■■■■� It■IIII ■Il■ �1 11�■ ■■ ■■ , : . . . . . m " I�r�lll�rl��""'��f��l■■ ■�■■illll�■■■�illl�■■�� . i�■rl�rrri■ all .r■ ■■■lr■■rlllismo■■llllm■■lomMill �■■■rl�rrrr■■r■■r1i �►� ■�■I■llir111■■l■■r■■�ill■■■l�■■ ��■ ilr III MI■E= -M EM■■rll I■■■N i111■■■mm �■■■rl�r�■iil■■■■■l � I ■■■■ili l■■■■■■■■illigi■■■1■■ 10■111 ■H■MMI ��■ Mill 1r■■mrllllr■■mr . �■■■rl�� rri■■r■till■■ t■tll l■■■mmrlllg■o!� I�■rllrl■Ir■��lIIII■r ■r1m.10%1 ill l■■■mm1111■■■■m Millu■u■om ill ■ MEMO 1111■■■mm ir■■rllll■!r■ mi ll■■l■ Ill■■■� Ill■■■or 10■1111 ■um 'M111111r1■ Ir ■■rl� Ir■■m' lii■r■mr , . � Mill ■N■N� Il■ ■ rl 1■■■rmrlli■■■mm i�rrlilrll■m1mi iil■ ■ rli �rrlih■it■��11111■■i■� 1■11 1■�■��lli■■■■� , �■1111■u■�1�11#11■/�■� 1 1■■■■r■trlll■■■r�■�■ . ��■111��■tr■t�11111■�1■� '\tll�l■■r��lIII■■■�� , I�■illll�ll■�I��1�11■�I■■■�ir�i1■■■■�1111■■■■� , 11111■lr■M.�1111■I ■�■■rll 1■■■��I111■■■■r !� fil"I 1lmmmil11■I ■�■■rll1■■■��illl■■■�� : , 10■11111 lim �1111�1 ■ ■■III i■�■��illl��■�� 1111111111r1111■ � - IN 111■111■11 1■■■■mil ■■�� lm■iilr!■ir■m ■M■■IIII■■■MMIIII■■■�� , 111111■1111 ■r1■m=i1111► \w■■rrl l■■■mmilllr■■mm Mill inommi 1111 mmii 1■■■mmilll■■■m� • . , l��1111 �11■��1 ii■1 \■■rll1��■��illl■�■�� : , i�■i111 �11■��i1111■■ ■ �■■1111■■■■�1111■■■�� . , 10■111 ■Il■MINE1 III ■ �■rl 11■■mMN1111■■■M� I�■1IIr �r1■��il ll■�I■� ■■rltl■■■� IIl■■■�� 1�■Illi ■1i■��11111■�I■� 10r111■■■� 111■■■�� i�lllf��u■��1 II��■� �■rl 1■■■��illl■�■!� , 1M1■11111■11■MMNI11 IROO �1111■■■r�llll�■■�� , I�■illll■lt■��illll■■1■�� \rlll■�■��I111�■■�� , 1�i1111■rr■��If1I1■�■� `�1 1■■■M11MN11111■■M� , 1�■illll■lr■■I�ilHIS ME liiiiinmmmiiiilmmmm �r111r1�u■1■1�■■r II��I■�sa1r1111■■■II11�1111■�■1■■■■ , 1�■1111 �11■��III11��I■�■■r1111■■■��1111�■■�� 1�■111i ■i1■��II111■■I■■■�11111■■■■�1111�■■■� , . . . �mCLASSIFfCATION r PLASTICITY CHART 80 so ;0000el CH AX 40, •� w ooe 0 CL i Z I.e >. 30 N MH �* CO 20 00 or r OIi a � 10 7 CL-Mt ML or OL y 4 �7r 1+ ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (%) NATURAL PLAS- PASSING UNIFIED BORING WATER TICITY N0. 200 SAMPLE LIQUID LIQUIDITY SOIL SYMBOL NO. DEPTH CONTENT LIMIT INDEX SIEVE INDEX CLASSI- (FEET) (!6) (,�) (!6) FICATION SYMBOL r.r • 5 28.0 36.5 47.6 13.8 - 0.85 ML 6d im I►r id ATTERBERG LIMITS JOB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 2561 -00 JUNE 1984 C-4 IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. TABLE 1 RESULTS OF EXPANSION TEST (U.B.C. No. 29-2) 4 Test Expansion Expansion �• Location Index Potential B6 @ 2' 2 Very Low B7 @ 1-3' 0 Very Low i TABLE 2 W RESULTS OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE/MAXxMUM DENSITY DETERMINATIONS (ASTM: D 1557-78) 6a Test Maximum Optimum Moisture i Location Dry Density Content ( $) i B6 @ 2' 125.5 9 .2 1 ' L +a B7 @ 1-3' 126.0 9 .5 �. Table 3 SULFATE TEST RESULTS ' (Per California 417A) L • Test Test % Soluble No. Location Sulfate 1 B4 @ 461 0.0136 2 B6 @ 2' 0.0230 W 3 B7 @ .1-3' 0 .0173 L W TABLE 4 RESULTS OF R-VALUE TEST (ASTM: D 2844-75 ) L ' TEST LOCATION R-VALUE M. B7 @ 1-3' 66 z JOB NUMBER 2561-00 JUNE 1983 FIGURE C-5 W W +•+ TABLE I SINGLE POINT DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS APPARENT TEST NORMAL STRESS SHEAR STRENGTH LOCATION ( sf) ( sf) B-1 @ 10 ' 900 450 B-1 @ 15' 1200 1000 B-1 @ 20' 1500 600 B-1 @ 30 2100 1350 B-1 @ 35 ' 2500 1750 B-4 @ 6' 600 675 W B-4 @ 11 ' 1000 Soo W B-4 @ -31' 2200 600 B-4 @ 41' 2800 4100 B-4 @ 46 ' 3100 2500 B-5 @ 8' 800 700 4.. B-5 @ 18' 1400 550 B-5 @ 28' 2000 600 B-5 @ 35 ' 2300 1750 kal JOB NUMBER: 2561-00 JUNE 1984 FIGURE C-6 V BORING I DEPTH COHESION, ANGLE OF SAMPLE DESCRIPTION NO. (FEET) (PSF) FRICTIOK0 � 4000 T 1.0-3.0 0 31 SILTY SAND 1 3000 L6 asr v z 7 lu = 2000 co z w z • m 1000 I °0 1000 ,2000 3000 4000 6000 6000 NORMAL LOAD (PSF) BORING DEPTH COHESION. ANGLnOF SAMPLE DESCRIPTION NO. (FEET) (PSF) FRICT 4000 4 F W 3000 a ICE y s r d , z 2000 o� INK d x w 1000 L 1 00 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 0000 4+ NORMAL LOAD (PSF) i E: JOB NO.: FfOUR 2 s -o o SHEARING STRENGTH TEST C_7 i IRVINE SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. EXPLANATION agoFIELD MOISTURESAMPLE SATURATED REBOUND 2561-00 LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST num��mm■��nm i��mm■��nm ■mn�en�■��mii ■�■iiiiii n�miiiiiiiii� iiri°m��■riiimiiuiiu ono FIELD MOISTURE SAMPLE SATURATED REBOUND ■■umi��nmii■��nm 11111mom 110111nm E11111111mm 1111mmilnm E11111111 oil �mnn�u�■��imi 1JOBNO.: LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST ago FIELD MOISTURE SAMPLE SATURATED v� REBOUND oil I MIMI HIM1111 111m 111 1 ■n�m��nnm■■��ne E1111111iiu� ono �■nmu��miEXPLANATION FIELD MOISTURE REi nm ■■en��um�■nnm LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST 1� C-11 iu�n�nm■��nm ■mmi�n�nm■�um� �r i rII ' F the 1 APPENDIX C CIRCULATION ANALYSIS 4h! I 4 �j F Wr 1 ink 1.+ •.a +br F Lsa Irr Va �t THE NATERFRDHT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 16► 1 ' t W PREPARED FOR 4w ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE f SUITE 1050 W NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 a� PREPARED BY LSA ASSOCIAT€S, INC. 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 January 13, 1988 I ibis i■ Lsa I rr Ur TABLE OF CONTENTS %d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv �r INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 1 be SECTION I: PHASE I IMPACT ANALYSIS . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ProjectDescription . . . . . . . .... . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . 3 Existing Arterial Highway Network . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . 5 be Existing Traffic Volumes . . . ... . . . . .... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . 5 Future Arterial Highway Network . .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 7 Future Traffic Volumes . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 8 TripGeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . ... . . . . ... . . 10 �. Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Traffic Impact Analysis . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . 17 Phase 1 Impact Analysis Conclusions ... . . . . . ... ... . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . 22 SECTION II: THE WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN IMPACT ANALYSIS . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Cumulative Condition . .. . . . . . ... . . . .... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 The Waterfront Master Plan . . ... . . . . ... . . . . . ... ... ...... .. . . . . . . . . . . 27 TripGeneration . . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . .... . . . . . . ..... .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Trip Distribution and Assignment . . .... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6r Project Impacts . . . . ... . . . . . . .... . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Mitigation Measures ... . . . . . . .... . . . ... . . . . . . .. ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 SECTION III: MASTER PLAN PARKING ANALYSIS . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 tir Forecast Parking Demand . . . . ..... . . . . . ....... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 r �6j , 6. , 4ba i it �r �r �Yr } Lsa br JIST DE APPMICES APPENDIX A — PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED TENNIS AND HEALTH CENTER be APPENDIX B - PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED RESORT HOTEL USES APPENDIX C - TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS FROM SPECIFIC PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY APPENDIX D - FORECAST TURN MOVEMENT WORKSHEETS APPENDIX E - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS �• PHASE I DEVELOPMENT (DESTINATION RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE) APPENDIX F - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS r. PHASE I DEVELOPMENT (ITE HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE) APPENDIX G - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT (DESTINATION RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE) APPENDIX H - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT (ITE RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE) r Ur ►e like �r ilk lot Mr it S �r 1 6r LIST OF FIGURES AHD TABLES ka ae LIST OF FIGURES �r. Figure 1 - Vicinity Map . .... . . ...... . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2 - Phase I Site Plan . . ...... . . . .... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 3 - Existing Peak Hour Turn Volumes . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 6 ILA Figure Q 1991 Background Peak Hour Turn Volumes 9 Figure 5 - Phase 1 Project Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. 14 Figure 6 - Adjusted 1991 Background Peak Hour Turn Volumes ... .. 15 i. Figure 6a - Adjusted 1991 Background Peak Hour Turn Volumes ., . , . 16 Figure 7 - Cumulative Condition Peak Hour Turn Volumes . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 8 - 1991 Pius Phase 1 Peak Hour Turn Volumes . .. . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 8a - 1991 Plus Phase 1 Peak Hour Turn Volumes . .. . . . . . .. .. 20 Figure 9 - Cumulative Condition Peak hour Turn Volumes . . . .. .. . . 26 Figure 10 - Site Plan . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .... .. .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . . 28 Figure 11 - Master Plan Project Trip Distribution .. .. ... . . . . . . . . 33 M. Figure 12 - Master Plan Project Trip Assignment 34 . . . .. . .. ... .. . . . . Figure 12a- Master Plan Project Trip Assignment ... ..... . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 13 - Cumulative Plus Master Plan Project Peak Hour �. Turn Volumes . . .... . . . .. . . . . . .... . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . 36 Figure 13a- Cumulative Plus Master Plan Project Peak Hour TurnVolumes . . .... . . . .. . .. . . .. ..... .... .... . .. . . . . 37 SST OF TABLES Table A - Phase I Trip Generation . . ... . ....... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 • Table A.a- Phase 1 Trip Generation .. . .. . .. ....... .......... . .. .. . . 13 Table B - Prase 1 Intersection Capacity Analysis . .. . . .. ...... .. . . 21 Table C - Master Plan Trip Generation . . . ............. ............ 30 +�. Table C.a- Master Plan Trip Generation . . . . ..... .... . . ... . .. . . .. . . . 32 Table D - Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Summary . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... .. 39 Table E - Master Plan Shared Parking Demand .... . . . . . . . ..... . ... .. 44 �f ha Ms *r - Nr L Q Nr EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11r This traffic circulation and parking analysis has been prepared for submittal to the City 'of Huntington Beach as a technical appendix to a Sup- elemental Environmental Impact Report. This report presents the results of r analysis of the Waterfront, a hotel, commirercial and residential development proposed on the northerly side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boule- vard and Huntington Street. Phase I impacts and the impacts of buiidout of t� the Master Plan for the entire site were bath analyzed. Trips generated by the Waterfront (Phase I and Master Plan) are distri- buted to the local roadway network. Project related traffic is added to a cumulative base which includes traffic generated by the proposed Downtown Specific Plan and the Pierside Village Project. Several committed roadway ;" projects in the vicinity of the project are assumed in this analysis. One improvement occurs at the PCH and Huntington Street intersection, and in- cludes the addition of a southbound left turn lane. For comparative analy- sis, the City requested that two traffic generation rates be used for the •+ hotels. One alternative assumes the ITE Trip Generation Manual trip generation rates for hotel land uses. The other alternative analyzed assumes a destination/resort oriented rate. J Using City established thresholds for intersection capacity, the analy- sis indicates that there are no effects from Phase I that would increase traffic beyond acceptable thresholds. Master Plan traffic, likewise, does not increase traffic levels beyond acceptable thresholds. Phase I and Master Plan parking analyses indicate that the number of +M parking spaces provided in Phase I, and the project as a whole, is adequate to accommodate the demand for parking throughout the day. �w No mitigation is required to reduce impacts. However, at the City's request, and to reduce Air Quality Impacts, the following mitigation is t included to reduce automobile usage: • Implement a Transportation Systems Management Program (TSM). 4 • Implement a bus/shuttle program in the summer months to regional activity centers within the County. i� • Promote employee use of public transportation. • Provide bus shelters, benches and bus pockets near the proposed project. �.. • Install gated/secured parking facilities to discourage beach user parking. IV 1 4 �r I ' Lsa �r THE WATCRFOONI• TRAFFIC IMP-ACTSS INTRODUCTION �r This report presents the results of a traffic impact analysis and park- ing study performed for the proposed project, The Waterfront, a hotel , com- mercial , and residential development, to be located on the northerly side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and Huntington Street, in the City of Huntington Beach (Figure 1). The report has been prepared for sub- mittal to the City of Huntington Beach as a Technical Appendix to the Environmental Impact Report. The traffic analysis examines the impacts of this project, both the d initial phase 1 and the buildout of The Waterfront Master Plan, on the arter- ial highway system in the vicinity of the project site. For the Phase 1 analysis, traffic generated by the project is added to background traffic conditions for 1991. In addition to the traffic impacts associated with the ., initial phase of development, traffic impacts resulting from development of the Master Plan for The Waterfront are evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures are recommended. It should be pointed out that the analysis of traffic impacts for the Master Plan assumes the buildout of the proposed project to the maximum potential for each phase allowed by the proposed Development Agreement (DA) and Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA) between the developer and the City/Redevelopment Agency. �r Trips generated by The Waterfront Faster Plan are distributed and as- signed to the local roadway network. This project trip assignment is added +�r to a cumulative base which includes traffic generated by the proposed Down- town Specific Plan and the proposed Pierside Village project in the City of Huntington Beach. The report also presents the results of a parking demand and accumulation analysis for the Master Plan buildout scenario. As the Phase I development has a parking supply consistent with the City of Hun- tington Beach Parking Code, no further parking analysis is necessary for this development phase. �r IDowntgwn Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Repay Environmgntallma4t Report P L- , City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, il July 1983. ■M 111 iM 1 Vicinity Map Ua ^— ��_J •�' °,; s Qz o 0 0 0 °��.�• `'o� - lot �o.,;;� �_t /�\ � / to:_o.. so lC p C ` `• ''%�' �� .� 0 ]LLj r. 14 Yer� ark ��I'•`.1, of (ZB - ' Jl. 1 fr=- J�r- 31 o ° LU CO 4.1 sc o i ur JL •M , 0 a"" •0 6 � BM;28. .a ° '� Ol1LJ�.Trailer _ s— \ F ap r __ 309 r-- y71 l• - •^ lo N. o Project Site ul • � ; r of I 4\ • i �,J c *ater ' • A ••Tanks NIX O ti No 'c xR BM, r— Scale in Feet N p,p 0 1000 2000 11/25/87.GD Source: USGS 7.5' Quads - Newport Beach and Seal Beach, Cz 1981 r-- kr rr �rLsa SECTION I: PHASE I IMPACT ANALYSIS �r PRW ECT DESCRIPTION! it The Waterfront project site consists of 41 net acres, which is currently developed with a 239 unit mobile home park, a 144 room motel (with supporting restaurants, bar, and conference style meeting facilities), a coffee shop, } and a 9 hole golf course. A portion of the site is vacant, and a portion of �M the site is utilized as a City owned and operated maintenance yard. The proposed project will be developed in seven phases, with construc- tion beginning in 1988. The first phase of project development, which is planned for completion by 1991, will consist of a 300 room hotel , ancillary restaurant and retail uses, conference rooms, ballroom, health/exercise facilities, administrative and housekeeping services. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan for Phase 1 of The Waterfront development. } Development of Phase 1 will result in the removal of the 48 room western w wing of the existing Huntington Beach Inn. The remainder of the Huntington Beach Inn will be removed prior to construction of Phase 2. The existing golf course and mobile homes will be removed consistent with construction of each phase of project development. Vehicular access to the Phase I development will be provided by two driveways off of Walnut Avenue. The first driveway is approximately 150 feet east of the eastern curb of Huntington Street. This location is planned as a right in/out access. The second driveway is located approximately 400 feet east of the eastern curb of Huntington Street, and will provide full access to the Phase 1 project. In addition, a driveway is planned along Huntington Street approximately 150 feet from the northern curb of Pacific Coast High- way. This driveway will accommodate service vehicles only. No hotel patron �., traffic is allowed at this location. Parking for the Phase 1 development will be provided in a parking struc- ture under the hotel . The City of Huntington Beach Parking Code indicates that 1.1 parking spaces per hotel room is required, and the Phase 1 hotel will provide the required number of parking spaces. Therefore, the parking provided on-site is adequate to meet the City code requirement for the Phase 1 development. a.. i.. 3 I ' 2 Phase 1 Site Plan lsa r 1� LU fY i �r Conference•Roorrn l Ballroom ............ L Lo>;b Y .•... lawFEW Gu eS t.•Rooms FEestaiirantl4( lot r IV PHASE E i Scale in Feet so ,00 zoo HOTEL l.. 6. I f EXISTING ARTERIAL HIGHWAY NETWORK Pacific Coast Highway (SR-D. Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is a State Highway and is classified as a major arterial on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) . In the vicinity of the project site, PCH has two travel lanes in each direction, divided by a raised median, and has left and right turn lanes at intersections and major driveways. In the vic- inity of the project site, PCH is signal controlled at its intersections with k. Huntington Street and Beach Boulevard. Beach Bou evard SR-3 . Beach Boulevard is a State Highway and is classified as a major arterial on the MPAH. In the vicinity of the project site, Beach Boulevard is a six lane divided arterial with left and right turn lanes at intersections and major driveways. The southern leg of its inter- section with PCH provides access to a public beach parking lot. Huntington Street. Huntington Street is a three lane arterial in the vicinity of the project site, with two northbound lanes and one southbound 6. lane. Huntington narrows to two lanes as it approaches Atlanta Drive. North of Atlanta, Huntington is designated as a residential collector. The south- ern leg of its intersection with PCH provides access to a public beach park- ing lot. Lake Street. Lake Street is a two lane roadway north of the project site. Lake Street provides north/south circulation from the City beach to the Civic Center area. North of Orange, Lake Street is considered a primary arterial . The southern leg of its intersection with PCH provides access to the Huntington Beach Lifeguard station parking lot. Main Street. Main Street is a one lane, one-way local street from Orange Street to PCH. This roadway provides southbound circulation through the commercial downtown area. North of Orange Street, Main Street is a two lane two way arterial providing north/south circulation to the Civic Center area, The southern leg of its intersection with PCH provides access to the Huntington Beach Pier and Maxwell restaurant's parking lot. EXISTING TRAFFIC VQLVNES Figure 3 illustrates the existing AM and PM peak hour turn volumes for the intersections in the vicinity of the project site. The turn volumes for the intersection of Beach Boulevard/PCH were taken in April , I985, as part of ., the Beach Boulevard Super Street study performed by the Orange County Trans- portation Commission. Turn volumes for the intersection of Huntington � 5 L C r " !* r r 1! r1� ii ii a 1i e i 3 Existing Peak Hour Turn Volumes WALNUT Scliomatic-Not to Scale 0 O o = z Phase 1 o y o z Project Site z z OMN 1 L10/2 �N `-2361431 1106/1343 �' �`-' 3 08/1338 L �ors2 t1 { f0/000-----a (40,000) PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY �`-� � (41,000) 8 721135� 1 10761f 01 " �' 1254/1074 0 0 6/0 NO.- 212� p?�cD � W th Izzzl - ADT Volume xxx lyyy-A.M. Peak f lour/P.M. Poak lfour Lai l sa �.1 Street/PCH were taken in February, 1987. In addition to these turning L volumes, this Figure also illustrates ADT volumes. The ADT volumes for Beach Boulevard a2d Pacific Coast Highway were taken from Caltrans traffic count information . The ADT volumes for Huntington Street and Lake Street were derived from the PM peak hour volumes, assuming a peak hour to ADT relation- ship of IOm. The Main Street ADT volume is based on the 1986 County Master Plan of Arterial Highways Traffic Flow Map. FUTURE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY_NETWORK Several roadway improvement projects are planned for the arterial high- way network in the vicinity of the project site in approximately 1990. The primary improvement to the circulation system will be the widening of Pacific Coast Highway between Goldenwest Street in the City of Huntington Beach and Newport Boulevard (SR-55) in the City of Newport Beach. Under the plans for l� this improvement project, PCH will be widened to six travel lanes. This will be accomplished through the elimination of on-street parking on both sides of PCH and, between Goldenwest and Beach Boulevard, coupled with the narrowing of the median from 16 feet to 12 feet. E Walnut Avenue is planned for construction through the central portion of the project site. As indicated previously, during Phase 1 of project devel- opment Walnut will be constructed to a point approximately 250 feet east of its intersection with Huntington Street. Upon buildout of Master Plan devel- opment, Walnut will be constructed to Beach Boulevard. The extension of �+ walnut Avenue is planned as a four lane divided arterial in the vicinity of t the project site. �.: Another arterial improvement under consideration in the immediate vic- inity of the project site is the proposed realignment of Delaware Street, along with the accompanying closure of Huntington Street north of the project l� site. Delaware Avenue, which is a parallel roadway to Huntington Street, currently terminates immediately north of the residential portion of the project site. Under City plans for the realignment of Delaware, this facil- ity would curve southwesterly to connect with Huntington Street at the inter- section of Huntington Street with Walnut Avenue. Upon completion of the realignment, Huntington Street north of walnut Avenue would be closed. It should be noted that this project is proposed but not committed. At this �. point in time, plans for the realignment have not been completed. It is probable that this realignment will not occur until the property at the 1r 21986 Traffic Volumes on&alifornia_�tate highways, Caltrans, 1986. �r , �r Lsa northeast corner of Huntington Street and walnut Avenue is converted to other uses. It should also be noted that realignment of Delaware Street is not necessary to facilitate access to The Waterfront, as adequate access to the north is currently provided by Huntington Street. V As part of the redevelopment of the downtown area, Main Street is pro- posed to be closed to vehicular traffic, and will become a pedestrian mall area. Traffic anticipated to use Main Street will instead be diverted to kw Sixth Street nest of Main Street. As indicated in the impose _Circulation System Concept Plan prepared by Greer & Co. , August, 1983, Main Street is proposed to be closed between PCH and Walnut Avenue and from Orange Avenue to Acacia Avenue. Sixth Street will form the northern boundary of the redeveloped downtown area, and will accommodate the traffic volumes anticipated for Main Street. In the Circulation_Concept Plan, Sixth Street was recommended to be a four lane facility with left turn lanes to facilitate movements into and out of the downtown area. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Phase 1 project development assumes a 1991 completion date. Examination of Caltrans traffic count information for 1982 through 1985 for Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard indicate that traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project site have historically experienced increases of around three percent per year. Estimated 1991 background traffic volumes for the facil- ities in the vicinity of the project site, therefore, were derived from this historic traffic count information by applying the three percent per annum 6J growth rate. This methodology was used, instead of utilizing the Downtown Specific Plan EIR buildout volumes, as the Phase 1 development will be fin- Ished prior to the completion of the downtown redevelopment. It should be pointed out, however, that the Specific Plan EIR volumes are used in the cumulative analysis for the Waterfront Master Plan analysis. Figure 4 illustrates the forecast 1991 background volumes. These vol- umes assume that the existing land uses on the project site (including the west wing of the Huntington Beach Inn) will continue to exist in 1991 back- ground conditions. i i.. E 4 Background Peak Hour Turn Volumes Csa WALNUT N Schematic-Not to Scale v 4 o =V • NJ �� z Phase 1 0 �y z Project Site z �� L10125 �� — 265/485 =124511510• u` ` ---1135/1505 r—arsa �-0/5 (4f.000). t44,0001 PACIFIC COAST FtIGN011 (45,OOO) • 10/10� � r 8Q/i50� 0 1410/1210—� o� o 121011255--�---� 515 — t 1010-1 Qzz) - ADT Volume xxx/yyy.A.M. reak Flour/P.M. Polk [tour L 11r Lsa Iw TRIP GENERAT,IH Trips have been generated for the proposed project based on trip generation rates for hotel land uses as described in the ITE Irip Generation Manual , Third Edition. This trip generation is presented in Table A. This Table also includes the reduction in traffic due to the removal of the west wing of the Huntington Beach Inn. As seen in Table A, the proposed: project, assuming the ITE rates, will generate approximately 3,100 ADT and 260 AM and 1. 220 PM peals hour trips. Additionally, trip generatifn assumptions for the proposed hotel were also taken from a research study prepared in December, 1986. This research surveyed three destination resort hotels in Southern California, as well as r , literature research for another destination resort hotel . For purposes of the study, a destination resort hotel was defined as a hotel which serves as a "primary attraction in itself because of the attractiveness of the accom- modation facility and the on-site amenities that are available." It should be noted that the report also states that such amenities may not necessarily +►� be on-site, but could be within close proximity. Such amenities include recreational activities (health facilities, tennis courts, golf courses, beaches, etc.), restaurants, commercial facilities, etc. In addition to these amenities, all of the hotels surveyed contained restaurants and con- ference facilities and/or ballrooms and meeting rooms. Information supplied by the consulting firm of Laventhol-Horwath ind- icates that the proposed Waterfront hotel developments will be similar to resort hotels surveyed by Austin-Foust, Inc. (see Appendix B). These simi- larities include not only the availability of various resort hotel amenities, but also the anticipated occupancy rates. As indicated in the letter in Appendix B, the occupancy rates for the proposed Waterfront hotel are ex- pected to be less than the 85% rate observed at the surveyed resort hotels. Hence, the hotel being proposed for the Phase I project of The Waterfront development will have trip generation characteristics similar to those sur- veyed in this report. To account for the removal of the 48 room west wing of the existing Huntington Beach Inn, which will occur prior to completion of the proposed project, it was necessary to account for the trips generated by that part- 6* icular use. This property does not exhibit the same resort hotel charac +y 3Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. , Resort Hotel Traffic_ Study, December 29,1986. �r 10 �r Table A. a Phase 1 TO Generation w _ _- Asa I I ANALYSIS UNITS 11TRIP GENERATION RATES 117RIP 1GENERA1104 I ILAND USE I TYPE I NO. IIDAILY [Am IN IAM OUT IPFI 1N IPM OUT JIDAILY JAM IN (Alq nJT (P,41 IN Irm CUT I PROPOSED PROJECT 1Hotel IRooms 1 300 11 6.00 1 0.20 1 0.10 1 0.19 1 0.26 11 1.800 1 60 1 30 1 ST I m ..............................................................................................................................4............ EXISTING NEST VIRG OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH 199 [Hotel IROOM 1 48 11 6.00 1 0.20 1 0.10 1 0.19 1 0.26 11 288 1 10 1 5 1 9 1 12 1 ....................................................... --•--^........ ....................................•. I Het Increase 11 1.512 1 50 1 25 1 48 1 66 1 ........................................................................ Lsa teristics as those considered in the Austin-Foust study, and so is likely to �,. exhibit higher trip generation than the new Phase 1 development. However, to be both consistent and conservative in this analysis, trip generation for the 48 rooms removed was estimated using hotel trip generation rates presented in the Austin-Foust study. It should also be noted that 28 mobile homes are expected to be removed for the Phase I development, primarily to accommodate the 250 feet extension of Walnut Avenue. However, to be conservative, no deduction was made for this reduction in residential vehicle trips. Table A.a summarizes these trip rates, as well as the resulting trip generation when these rates are applied to the proposed land uses for Phase 1 w development. Also presented in Table A.a is the estimated reduction in traffic due to removal of the west wing of the Huntington Beach Inn, along with the resulting increase in project site trip generation when traffic generated by the proposed project is combined with the estimated reduction. As this Table indicates, Phase 1 of the proposed project is expected to generate 1,800 daily trips, 90 of which will occur during the AM peak hour (60 inbound and 30 outbound), and 135 of which will occur during the PM peak �+ hour (57 inbound and 78 outbound). It should be noted that each of the resort hotels contained in the Austin-Foust study had significant numbers of restaurants, meeting spaces and ballroom facilities. The restaurant, meeting space and ballroom facilities r planned for the Phase 1 hotel , and in total for the Master plan, are commen- surate with the facilities at the other destination resort hotels. There- fore, the inclusion of restaurant, meeting space and ballroom in the Phase 1 hotel is typical for this type of facility, and is already considered in the trip generation rates contained in this analysis. TRIP DISTRIBUTION + The trip distribution patterns for the proposed project were assumed to be the same as the general distribution patterns assumed for the Downtown Specific Plan area in the City's report. The Downtown Specific Plan trip distribution percentages are included in Appendix C. These distribution patterns were derived based on existing travel patterns for the downtown section of the City of Huntington Beach. Figure 5 illustrates these trip distribution patterns. �r Applying these trip distribution patterns to the directional AM and PM peak hour trip generation for Phase I development results in the traffic ' �M volumes illustrated in Figure 6 and 6.a. Figure 6 reflects resulting project trip assignment assuming the City requested ITE trip generation rates, w 12 wr Table A Phase 1 Trip Generation Lsa ' I I ANALYSIS UNITS JITRIP GENERATION RATES JITRIP GENERATION I (LAND USE I TYPE ( 40. 1JDAILY JAM IN IAM OUT IPM IN IPM OUT 11PAILY JAM IN JAM OUT IPM IN IPM OUT ........................................................................................................................................... PROPOSED PROJECT IHOtet IRodms I 300 10.50 I 0.55 I 0.29 I 0.36 I 0.37 11 3,150 I 174 I 87 1 108 1 111 I ................................•............................................................................................••............ , EXISTING WEST WING OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH INN ............................................................................... .......................................................•... IHotet IRo«ne I 48 11 10.50 I 0.58 1 0.29 I 0.36 I 0.37 11 504 I 25 I 14 1 17 I 18 I I Net Increase 11 2,646 1 146 I 73 I 91 I 93 I .................................................. ...... ... .... h 1 f Lsa { 7 APPENDIX E JNTERSECTION .CAPACITY UTILIZATION WO_ RKS LUS PHASE 1 DEVELOPME�tT ES NUT ON RESORI HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ALTERMINE W r t al. INTERSECTION 1 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: HUNTINGTON AVENUE EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PRASE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMEUT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS - [ r r 1 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT r r r EXISTING CONDITIONS r 1991 BACKGROUND ( 1991 BACKGROUND • PROJECT [ WITH MITIGATIONS r r V/C r V/C r V/C V/C r r MOVE- r VOLUME RATIO• r VOLLRIE RATIO* r VOLUME RATIO- VOLUME PATIO* r MENT [LANE CAP AN PM AN PH (LANE CAP AN PM AN PM AN PM AM PM ILARE CAP AM PM AM P" r-------r------------------------------------------r-----------------------------------------r---------------------------------r----------------------------------------- r [ NSL r 0 0 2 3 0.00 * 0.00 • 1 0 0 5 5 0.00 * 0.00 •� 5 5 0.00 * 0.00 •r 0 5 5 0.00 * 0.00 •[ [ Met r 2 3200 3 O 0.00 0.00 2 3200 5 0 0.00 0.00 ( 5 0 0.00 0.00 r 3200 5 0 0.00 0.00 r r NSR r 0 0 1 3 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0 5 0.00 0.00 0 5 0.00 0.00 r 0 0 5 0.Do 0.00 [ [ SOL r 0 0 20 20 0.01 0.01 r 0 0 25 25 0.02 0.00 15 39 0.01 0.00 r 0 15 39 0.01 0.00 r r SOT r 1 1600 3 1 0.06 • 0.04 * [ 1 1600 5 0 0.07 • 0.05 5 0 0.07 * 0.07 •[ 1600 5 0 0.07 * 0.07 •r r SBR r 0 0 73 49 0.00 0.00 0 0 80 55 0.00 0.00 r 85 67 0.00 0.00 ( 0 85 67 0.00 0.00 [ EBL 1 1600 10 a 0.01 * 0.01 • r 1 16M 10 10 0.01 * 0.01 19 19 0.01 * 0.01 *r 1600 19 19 0.01 * 0.01 *r r EST [ 2 3200 1,076 1,117 0.34 0.35 3 4800 1,210 1,255 0.25 0.26 r 1206 1253 0.25 0.26 r 4800 1206 1253 0.25 0.26 EBR r 1 1600 6 0 0.00 O,M [ 0 1"- 10 0 0.00 0.00 [ 10 0 0.00 0.00 1600 10 0 0.00 0.00 r WBL r 1 1600 0 52 0.00 0.03 1 1600 0 60 0.00 0.04 [ 0 60 0.00 0.04 r 1600 0 60 0.00 0.04 [ WRY r 2 3200 1,106 1,343 0.35 * 0.42 • 3 4800 1,245 1,510 0.26 * 0.31 *1 1243 1507 0.26 * 0.31 4800 1243 1507 0.26 * 0.31 •r [ WBR 1 16M TO 2 0.00 0.00 0 16W 10 25 0.00 0.00 [ 35 48 0.00 0.00 r 1600 35 48 0.00 0.00 r r-------------------------......................... .........................................[---------------------------------[.....................-................... r [ N/S Critical Movements 0.06 0.04 [ 0.07 0.05 [ 0.07 0.07 [ 0.07 0.07 r r EN Critical Movements 0.35 0.42 [ 0.27 0.32 [ 0.27 0.33 [ 0.27 0.33 r r Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 O.m 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 [ Clearance interval 0.10 - 0.10 0.10 0.10 r 0.10 0.10 [ 0.10 0.10 r [ [ r [ r [ r 1991 BACKGROUND [ [ [ EXISTING ICU 0.51 0.56 11"1 BACKGROUND ICU 0.43 0.47 r + PROJECT ICU 0.43 0.49 [MITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.43 0.49 r LEVEL Of SERVICE' A A [LEVEL OF SERVICE A A r LEVEL Of SERVICE A A [LEVEL OF SERVICE A A r [ r r r AM PM [ X [ [ X ! FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL r [ r FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT [ , FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH 14111GATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 1991 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH dp INTERSECTION 2 - NORTH/SONlTN ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD EASTNEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST NINSINNAY PHASE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ] ] ] ) ( 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT ] ] ] EXISTING CONDITIONS 1991 BACKGROUND ] 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT ] WITH MITIGATIONS ] ' ] WC ] V/C ' V/C ] V/C ] MOVE- ( VOLUME RATIO' ] VOLUME RATIO* ] VOLUME RATIO- ] VOLUME RATIO* ] MENT (LAVE CAP AM PR AM PM (LANE CAP AN PM AM PM ] AN PM AN PH ILARE CAP AN P11 AM PM ] ]-------]--------------------•---------------------]---------.....--•---......---.......-----]-•-------------------------------]-----------•------------------------.---- ] ROL 1 1 1600 0 2 0.00 0.00 ] 1 1600 0 S 0.00 0.00 ] 0 5 0.00 0.00 ] 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 � I NBT 1 1 1600 6 3 0.00 * 0.00 • 1 1 1600 10 5 0.01 * 0.00 *] TO 5 0.01 * 0.00 *] 1600 TO 5 0.01 * 0.00 *] t NOR ] 1 1600 0 9 0.00 0.00 • ] 1 1600 0 10 0.00 0.00 ] 0 10 0.00 0.00 ] 1600 0 10 0.00 0.00 SOL 2 3200 482 282 0.15 * 0.09 * 1 2 3200 540 315 0.17 * 0.10 *] 540 315 O X * 0.10 "] 3200 540 315 0.17 ► 0.10 •] SBT ] 2 3200 2 12 0.00 0.00 1 2 3200 5 15 0.00 0.00 ] 5 15 0.00 0.00 ] 3200 5 15 0.00 0.00 sat ( 1 1600 97 155 0.00 0.00 1 1 1600 110 175 0.00 0.00 123 191 0.00 0.00 1600 123 191 0.00 0.00 EBL 2 3200 72 135 0.02 0.04 * 2 3200 80 150 0.03 0.05 89 154 0.03 0.05 3200 89 154 •0.03 0.05 *] EBT ( 2 3200 1,254 1.074 0.39 • 0.34 ] 3 4WD 1,410 1,210 0.29 * 0.25 ] 1412 1216 0.29 * 0.25 ] 4800 1412 1216 0.29 * 0.25 ] FOR ] 1 1&10 2 2 0.00 0.00 ] 1 1600 5 s o.on O.NYO 5 5 0.00 0.00 1600 5 5 0.00 0.00 ] W9L ] 1 1600 1 3 0.00 • 0.00 ( 1 1600 0 5 0.00 - 0.00 , 0 5 0.00 • 0.00 ] 1600 0 5 0.00 * 0.00 ] ] WOT ] 2 3200 1,008 1,338 0.32 0.42 * ] 3 4800 1,135 1,505 0.24 0.31 *] 113a 1509 0.24 0.31 *! 4800 1138 1509 0.24 0.31 •] ] LIR ] 1 1600 236 431 0.00 0.00 ] 1 1600 265 485 0.00 0.00. ] 265 485 0.00 0.00 ] 1600 265 485 0.00 0.00 ] ]---------------------•---..................I...... .........................................]---------------------------------]------------- ...--- -----] ] N/S Critical Movements 0.15 0.09 ] 0.18 0.10 ] 0.18 0.10 ] 0.18 0.10 ] ] E/V Crlticat Movements 0.39 0.46 ] 0.29 0.36 ] 0.29 0.36 ( 0.29 0.36 ] Rfght Turn C. R. 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00 0.170 ] 0.00 0.00 ] 0.00 0.00 ] ] Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 ] 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 ] 0.10 0.10 ] ] ] 1991 BACKGROUND ] ] EXISTING ICU 0.64 0.65 11991 BACKGROUND ICU 0.56 0.56 + PROJECT ICU 0.56 0.56 ]MITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.56 0.56 ] LEVEL OF SERVICE B B (LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ] LEVEL Of SERVICE A A ]LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ] AM PNS X X FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * 11TERS£CTIOI CAPACITY U71LIZA71CH IS THE SUN Of THE CRITICAL ] ' FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * R CRITICAL MOVEMENT ] ( ] ] FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 1991 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANIIED WIDENING Of PCN 69 Lsa W iur LPFERIX L INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT (ITE HOTEL TRIP GENERATION 8LTERHATJ VE) r W i Ibd �M W IY �4 lam it k ,1- C- . C-_-. C. _ f f f- £ C- C C _ C- - . C C r INTERSECT104 2 - N^!RTH/',,'"H ROAD: PEACH $OULEVARD EAST/WCST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIG4RWAY PHASE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I 1 I 1 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 1991 BACKGROUND I 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS J I I V/C 1 V/C ] V/C I V/C I I MOPE- 1 VOLUME RATIO* ] VOLUME RATIO I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO* I I MENT ILANE CAP fN P" AM F11 ]LANE CAP AM PM AM PH I AM PM AM PM ILAKE CAP AM PM AM PH I .......I------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I...--------------------------------------I I NBL 1 1 1600 0 2 0.00 0.00 1 1 t600 0 5 0.00 0.00 I 0 5 0.00 0.00 I 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 1 I NST 1 1 1600 6 3 0.00 * 0.00 * , t 16M 10 5 0.01 * 0.00 *) t0 5 0.01 * 0.00 *I 1600 10 5 0.01 * 0.00 "I I NBR J 1 1600 0 19 0.00 0.00 * I 1 16M 0 10 0.00 0.00 J 0 10 0.00 0.00 1 1600 0 10 0.00 0.00 1 SOL I 2 3200 482 282 0.15 • 0.09 * ] 2 3200 540 315 0.17 * 0.10 *1 540 315 0.17 * 0.10 •I 3200 540 315 0.17 " 0.10 *I I SOT I 2 3200 2 12 0.00 0.00 1 2 3200 5 15 0.00 0.00 ] 5 15 0.00 0.00 I 3200 5 15 0.00 0.00 J I Sat I 1 16M 97 155 0.00 0.00 I 1 1600 99 168 0.00 0.00 J 169 212 0.00 0.00 J 1600 169 2t2 0.00 0.00 • I I E81. 1 2 32M 72 135 0.02 O.W. * ] 2 3200 77 143 0.02 0.04 *I 112 187 0.04 0.06 *J 3200 112 187 0.04 0.06 "I I EST I 2 3200 1,254 1,074 0.39 * 0.34 1 3 4800 1,409 1,208 0.29 • 0.25 I 1418 1220 0.30 * 0.25 1 4800 1418 17?0 0.30 • 0.25 I 1 FAR ] 1 16M 2 2 0.00 0.00 J 1 1600 5 5 0.00 O.MJ I 5 5 0.00 0.00 J 1600 5 5 0.00 0.00 I I WBL 11 16M 1 3 0.00 * C.00 I t 1600 0 5 0.00 * 0.00 1 0 3 0.00 * 0.00 1 1600 0 5 0.00 * 0.00 I I WBT ( 2 32M 1,003 1,338 0.32 0.42 * 1 3 4800 1,132 1,503 0.24 0.31 *I 1149 1514 0.24 0.32 •I 4800 1149 1514 0.24 0.32 *1 WBR ( 1 1600 236 431 0.00 0.00 ] 1 1600 265 485 0.00 0.00 I 265 485 0.00 0.00 I 1600 265 485 0.00 0.00 I I--------------------------•--..-_.--------........ .........................................I---------------------------------I...........------------------------------I I N/S Critical Movements 0.15 0.09 ' 0.18 0.10 1 0.18 0.10 I 0.18 0.10 I I EN Critical Movements 0.39 0." ] 0.29 0.36 I 0.30 0.37 ( 0.30 0.37 I I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 ] ] Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 J 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I I I 11991 BACKCRaND ] ] EXISTING ICU 0.64 0.65 11991 BACKGROUND ICU 0.56 0.55 I + PROJECT ICU 0.57 0.57 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.57 0.57 I I LEVEL OF SERVICE B B IEEVEL OF SERVICE A A l LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL of SERVI E A A I 1 I I I I AM PM I X ] I X 1 FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL 19 LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SW OF THE CRITICAL 1 ] ] FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: • • CRITICAL MOVEMENT I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH KITICATIONS VILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 1991 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING Of PCH INTERSECTION 1 - HORMSOUTH ROAD: It NTINGTON AVENl1E EAS71%MST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PHASE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I I I 1 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT I I EXISTING CONDITIONS I 1991 BACKGROUND I 1991 BACKGROUND + PROJECT WITH MITIGATIONS • I r r V/C I V/C I V/C I V/C I I MOVE- I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO- I VOLUME RATIO' I VOLUME RATIO' I MENT (LANE CAP AM PM A.M PM ILANE CAP AN PM AM PM I AM PM AM PM ItANE CAP AM PM AN PM I 1-------I-------------- ----•-----------------------I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I----------------------------------------- I I NBL 1 0 0 2 3 0.00 * 0.00 i t 0 0 5 5 0.00 • 0.00 •1 5 5 0.00 • 0.00 •I 0 5 5 0.00 * 0.00 •I I Ner 1 2 3200 3 0 0.00 0.00 1 2 3200 5 0 0.00 0.00 5 0 0.00 0.00 I 3200 5 0 0.00 0.00 I NOR 10 0 1 3 0.00 0.00 ( 0 0 0 5 0.00 0.00 I 0 5 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 5 0.00 0.00 I I SOL I 0 0 20 20 0.01 0.01 I 0 0 16 16 0.01 0.00 I 60 72 0.04 0.00 I 0 60 72 0.04 0.00 Ser I 1 1600 3 1 0.06 * 0.04 * ( 1 1600 5 0 0.06 * 0.04 •1 5 0 0.10 * 0.D9 1600 5 0 0.10 * 0.09 *I I son I 0 0 73 49 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 s0 55 0.00 0.00 I 95 72 0.00 0.00 I 0 95 72 0.00 ' 0.00 1 I EBL I 1 1600 10 a 0.01 * 0.01 * 1 1 1600 10 10 0.01 * 0.01 *I 36 27 0.02 * 0.02 •I 1600 36 27 0.02 * 0.02 *I I EBT I 2 3200 1,076 1,117 0.34 0.35 I 3 48M 1.206 1.253 0.25 0.26 I 1206 1253 0.25 0.26 4800 1206 1253 0.25 0.26 ! I EBR I 11600 6 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 1600 10 0 0.00 0.n0 I 10 0 0.00 0.00 I 1600 10 0 0.00 0.00 I I WRL I 116M a 52 0.00 0.03 1 1 1600 0 60 0.00 0.04 I 0 60 0.00 0.04 I 1600 0 60 0.00 0.04 1 I WBT I 2 3200 1,106 1,343 0.35 * 0.42 * 1 3 48M 1.243 1,507 0.26 • 0.31 •) 1243 1507 0.26 * 0.31 'I 4800 1243 1507 0.26 • 0.31 *I I WOR I 1 1600 10 2 0.00 0.00 I 0 1600 5 19 0.00 0.00 I 92 74 0.00 0.00 I 1600 92 74 0.00 0.00 I I--------------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I I N/S Critical Movements 0.06 0.04 I 0.07 0.04 { 0.10 0.09 I 0.10 0.09 1 E/W Critical Movements 0.35 0.42 I 0.27 0.32 I 0.28 0.33 1 0.26 0.33 I I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I Clearance Intervat 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 1 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I r I r I I I I 1 1991 BACKGROUND EXISTING ICU 0.51 0.56 11991 OACKGROUNO ICU 0.43 0.46 1 * PROJECT ICU 0.48 0.52 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.43 0.52 I I LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL OF SERVICE A A l LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILE►ffL OF SERVICE A A I I I I r AM PM X r I x I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL Of LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY u7ILTZATtO1 IS TKE 'SUM Of THE CRITICAL I I I I TORECASM PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT r I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. UITH M111CA7IONS VILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 1991 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCN Li . f - 4 Lsa APPENDIX G INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHE TES MASTER PLAN QEVELOPMEE (DESTINATION RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION AL ERNAT YE W f F w. t--. INTERSECTION 1 - N0RTH/S"R POAD: K NTINGTO'N AV RT FAST/NEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST NIGM AY MASTER PLAN BUILDCUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPAC17Y UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 4 PROJECT ] } ] EXISTING CONDITIONS ] MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND {MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT ] WITH MITIGATIONS } V/C ] V/C ] V/C { ] MOVE- { VOLUME RATIO* { VOLUME RATIO* } VOLUME RATIO* ( VOLUME RATIO- { ] PERT ILANE CAP AM PM AN PM :LANE CAP AM PH AM PER { AM PH AM PM }LANE CAP AM PM AN PM ] }.......{------------------........................ -----------------------------------------]---------------------------------I-----------------------------------------] } ROL { 0 0 2 3 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 1 3 0.00 - 0.00 { 1 3 0.00 * 0.00 1 0 1 3 0.00 - 0.00 { NBT ( 2 3200 3 0 0.00 0.00 { 2 3200 11 0 0.00 0.00 •{ 11 0 0.00 0.00 *{ 3200 11 0 0.00 0.00 "{ NOR ] 0 0 1 3 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 2 11 0.00 0.00 ] 2 11 0.00 0.00 { 0 2 11 C.00 0.00 } SBL { 0 0 2fl 20 0.01 0.01 ] 1 1600 313 262 0.20 0.16 -] 315 2" 0.20 0.17 •] 1600 315 264 0.20 0.17 *, SOT { 1 1600 3 1 0.06 - 0.04 - } 1 1600 21 7 0.20 • 0.13 ] 21 7 0.24 * 0.17 ] 1600 21 7 0.24 * 0.17 { SBR { 0 0 73 49 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 298 2% 0.00 0.00 { 357 259 0.00 0.00 0 357 259 0.00 0.00 { { EBL { 1 1600 10 8 0.01 * 0.01 - { 1 1600 32 41 0.02 • 0.03 { 58 100 0.04 * 0.06 •{ 16M 58 100 0.04 * 0.06 "} { EBT { 2 3200 1,076 1,117 0.34 0.35 } 3 4800 1,242 1,312 0.26 0.27 -] 131E 1418 0.27 0.30 { 48M 1318 1418 0.27 0.30 R EBR { 1 1600 6 0 O.M 0.00 { 1 16" 3 0 0.00 O.DO ] 3 D 0.00 0.00 { 1600 3 0 0.00 0.00 { { M L { 1 1600 0 52 0.00 0.03 { 1 16M 0 132 0.00 0.08 •{ 0 132 0.00 0.08 { 1600 0 132 0.00 0.08 { NBT } 2 3200 1.106 1,343 0.35 * 0.42 6 { 3 48M 1,218 1,548 0.25 • 0.32 { 1267 1636 0.26 * 0.34 "] 4800 1267 1636 0.26 * 0.34 *{ { MR { 1 1600 10 2 0.00 0.00 ; 1 1600 129 33 0.00 0.00 { 135 39 0.00 0.00 ] 1600 135 .39 0.00 0.00 { {---------------------•---••----------•............]......................................... ---------------------------------]-----------------------------------------} } N/S Critical Movements 0.06 0.04 ] 0.20 0.17 0.24 0.17 { 0.24 0.17 } { E/W Critical Movements 0.35 0.42 { 0.27 0.36 { 0.30 0.40 { 0.30 0.40 { Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 } 0.00 0.00 { 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 ] 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 } 0.10 0.10 ] ] (MASTER PLAN { } EXISTING ICU 0.51 0.56 (MASTER PLAN BACKGROIJNO 0.57 0.62 }• PROJECT ICU 0.63 0.67 (MITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.63 0.67 { LEVEL OF SERVICE A A {ICU LEVEL Of SERVICE A B {LEVEL OF SERVICE B B {LEVEL OF SERVICE B B } AM PM ] X ( { X { FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0." • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1S THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL } } { ] FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT ( { { FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WI7N MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASIER PLAN SACKCRO MD CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCN INTERSECTION 2 - NORTN/VM N ROAD! BEACH S0AEVARO EASTJWEST ROAD; PACIFIC COAST RIGHIJAY MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONOITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I I I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS ( RASTER PLAN BACKGROUND (VASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT WITH MITIGATIONS V/C ' V/C ( V/C V/C 1 MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO• I MENT (LANE CAP AN PH AM PM jul.51E CAP AM PM AM PM ( AM PM A14 PH (LANE CAP AN PM Ali PM ----•--I------------------------------------------I----------------- ---------------------•- ----------------------•----•----- -----------------------------------------� MBL 1 1 1600 0 2 0.00 0.00 ( 1 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 ` 0 5 0.00 0.00 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 ' NOT 1 1 16M 6 3 0.00 • 0.00 • 1 16M 1a 10 0.01 * 0.01 18 10 0.01 * 0.01 1600 to 10 0.01 * 0.01 "t { NOR 1 1600 0 9 0.00 0.00 * 1 76DO 0 27 0.00 0.01 0 27 0.00 0.01 1600 0 27 0.00 0.01 "I SOL 2 3200 482 282 0.15 * 0.09 • ! 2 3200 602 476 0.19 • 0.15 656 520 0.21 * 0.16 3200 656 520 0.21 * 0.16 SOT ( 2 3200 2 12 0.00 0.00 2 3200 7 38 0.00 0.01 7 38 0.00 0.01 3200 7 38 0.00 0.01 SBR 1 1600 97 155 0.00 0.00 1 16M 324 225 0.00 0.00 364 264 0.00 0.00 1600 3" 264 0.00 0.00 EBL ( 2 3200 72 135 0.02 0.04 * 2 32M 231 196 0.07 * 0.06 231 196 0.07 * 0.06 3200 231 196 '0.07 * 0.06 *! EBT ( 2 32M 1,254 1,074 0.39 ' 0.34 3 AM 1,471 1.257 0.31 0.26 1484 1296 0.31 0.27 ARM 1484 1296 0.31 0.27 EBR 1 1600 2 2 0.00 0.00 1 1600 7 5 0.00 0.00 ( 7 5 0.00 0.00 IM 7 5 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 1 3 0.00 * 0.00 1 1600 1 a 0.00 0.01 1 a 0.00 0.01 1600 1 0 0.00 0.01 VBT 2 3200 1.ON 1,338 0.32 6.42 • 3 4800 1,170 1.560 0.24 * 0.33 1196 1583 0.25 * 0.33 4800 1196 1583 0.25 * 0.33 *� WBR 1 16M 236 431 0.00 0.00 1 IWO . 277 726 0.00 0.00 2" 794 0.00 0.00 •' 16W 299 794 0.00 0.00 -------------------------------•------------------ ----------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- N/S Crltitel Movements 0.15 0.09 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.17 0.22 0.17 EN Critieal Movements 0.39 0.46 0.32 0.39 0.32 0.39 0.32 0.39 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 , 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 MASTER PLAN I EXISTING ICU 0." 0.65 [MASTER PLAN BACKGROM 0.61 0.64 1+ PROJECT ICU 0.63 0.66 (MITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.63 0.66 LEVEL OF SERVICE B. B JICU LEVEL OF SERVICE V B (LEVEL OF SERVICE B B ILEVEL OF SERVICE B 8 i r r 4 t AN rM X X FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 " INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 15 TWE StIM 0f THE CRITICAL FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.G.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: • ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.Z.U. WIT% 14I11GA110NS Vltt BE LESS THAN OR EOIML TO 0." MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCM INTERSECTION 3 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: LAKE STREET EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST N[GHi7AY MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION tNTERSECT[ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I I { MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT { ' I ) EXISTING CONDITIONS ( MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND MMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS I I I V/C I V/C I V/C I V/C { MOVE- { VOLUME RATIO' I VOLUME RATIO" I VOLUME RATIO" I VOLUME RATIO* I MENT ILANE CAP AN PM AH PH ILANE CAP AN PH AM PH I AM PM AM PH (LANE CAP AM PH AN PH I --- --I------------------------------------------)----------..-----------------------------I---------------------------------)------•----------------------------------) NBL I 1 1600 46 1t 0.03 * 0.01 I 1 1600 193 42 0.12 * 0.03 ( 193 42 0.12 * 0.03 { 1600 193 42 0.12 * 0.03 I I NOT { 2 3200 28 16 0.02 0.01 * ) 2 3200 2" 130 0.11 0.05 "I 208 130 0.11 0.05 "{ 32DO 208 130 0.11 0.05 '{ I NOR ) 0 0 23 9 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 131 Al 0.00 0.00 ( 131 41 0.00 0.00 { 0 131 41 0.00 0.00 { I SOL I 1 1600 63 52 0.04 0.03 * I 1 1600 206 1" 0.13 0.11 •I 235 205 0.15 0.13 *I %00 235 205 0.15 0.13 •I { SBT { 2 3200 16 3 0.05 • 0.02 ) t 3200 149 29 0.16 * 0.05 ) 149 29 0.16 * 0.05 { 3200 149 29 0.16 * 0.05 ) SOR I 0 0 149 46 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 - 353 131 0.00 0.00 I 353 131 0.00 0.00 I 0 353 131 0.00 0.00 ) I ESL I 1 1600 33 151 0.02 0.09 * ) 1 1600 55 390 0.03 0.24 55 390 0.03 0.24 *{ 1600 55 3" 0.03 0.24 •) EBT I 2 3200 1,126 1,129 0.36 * 0.36 I 3 4aOO 1,178 1,164 0.28 * 0.25 I 1251 1301 0.29 * 0.28 I 48M 125i 1301 0.29 * 0.28 ) FOR I 0 0 33 12 0.00 0.00 ) 0 0 147 54 0.00 0.00 I 147 54 0.00 0.00 ( 0 147 54- 0.00 0.00 I VOL { 1 1600 31 1S 0.02 * 0.01 ) 1 1600 ISI 13 0.11 " 0.05 ( 181 83 0.11 * O.OS ) 1600 181 83 0.11 * 0.05 I WBT I 2 3200 1,081 1,178 0.35 0.39 * ) 3 48M 1,049 1.262 0.24 0.31 *I 1151 1389 0.26 0.34 *I 4800 1151 1389 0.26 0.34 ") NOR ) 0 0 48 67 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 105 213 0.00 0.00 111 229 0.00 D.D0 { 0 111 229 0.00 0.00 I {-------•----------•-----------------------------I-----------------------------------------I•--------------------------------I----------------•------------------------I { N/S Critical Movements 0.08 0.04 I 0.28 0.16 ) 0.26 0.15 { 0.25 0.16 I E/V Critical Movements 0.38 0.48 I 0.39 0.55 I 0.40 0.58 I 0.40 0.58 I I R1ght Tun, C. M. 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00 0.00 ) Clearance Intervat 0.10 0.10 ) 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I I 1 I f I IMASTER PLAN I I I EXISTING ICU 0.56 0.62 )MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.76 0.81 I• PROJECT ICU 0.78 0.86 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU • 0.78 0.86 I I LEVEL Of SERVICE A a IICU LEVEL OF SERVICE C D ILEVEL OF SERVICE C D (LEVEL OF SERVICE C 0 I I I I I I AM PM X { { X ( FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EOUAL TO 0.90 • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE 5Uf OF THE CRITICAL I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE CREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: * • CRITICAL MOVEMENT I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR MAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH F E e - F - INTERSECTION 4 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: MAIN STREET/SIXTH STREET EAST/NEST R W: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY RASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I I { I MASTER PLAN BACICGROM 4 PROJECT I I I EXISTING CONDITIONS I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS I I I Y/C I V/C I V/C I V/C I I MOVE- I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO- I I MENT [LANE CAP AM PM AM PM [LANE CAP AM PM AM PM I AM PM AM PM ILARE CAP AM PM AM PM I I.......I------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------1------------------------ -----1 I NBL 1 1 1600 1 6 0.00 0.00 - 1 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 1600 0 0 .0.00 0.00 I NBT I 0 0 0 ,0 0.00 - 0.00 { 0 0 0 0 0.00 - 0.00 '{ O 0 0.00 * 0.00 *I 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *[ [ NOR 1 1 1600 4 12 0.00 0.00 1 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 I SOL I 1 16M 27 38 0.02 - 0.02 I 1 16M 140 206 0.09 - 0.13 +{ 140 206 0.09 - 0.13 +{ 1600 140 206 0.09 * 0.13 •{ I SOT 11 1600 4 3 0.02 0.05 - 1 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 I I SBR 1 0 0 21 72 0.00 0.00 I 1 1600 113 333 0.00 0.00 [ 113 333 0.00 0.00 [ 1600 113 333 0.00 0.00 { In { 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 1 1600 10 134 0.01 - 0.08 +1 10 134 0.01 * 0.08 *1 16M 10 134 0.01 * 0.08 -I 1 EST [ 2 3200 1,158 1,339 0.36 - 0.42 - I 3 48M 1,343 1,522 0.28 0.32 [ 1421 1659 0.30 0.35 I 4800 1421 1659 0.30 0.35 I I EBR { 0 0 3 11 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ { VOL { 1 1600 4 27 0.00 * 0.02 - I 0 1AM 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ I WBT [ 2 3200 1,142 1,272 0.36 0.40 [ 3 48DO 1,353 1,398 0.28 - 0.30 *I 1455 1525 0.31 * 0.33 +I 4800 1455 1525 0.31 * 0.33 *) [ WOR [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 10 52 0.00 0.00 I 10 52 0.00 0.00 I 0 10 52 0.00 0.00 I I--------------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I.................................I-----------------------------------------{ I N/S Critical Movements 0.02 0.05 I 0.09 0.13 [ 0.09 0.13 I 0.09 0.13 I E/W Critical Movements 0.37 0.44 I 0.29 0.39 I 0.31 0.41 ( 0.31 0.41 1 I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 { 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I I Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I I I { { 1 I r IMASTER PLAN I 1 I EXISTING ICU 0.48, 0.58 IMASTER PLAN SACKGROUND 0.47 0.61 1F PROJECT ICU 0.49 0." IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.49 0.64 I { LEVEL Of SERVICE A A ITCU LEVEL OF SERVICE A B ILEVEL OF SERVICE A 9 [LEVEL OF SERVICE A B I [ I I r [ AN PM I X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0." - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL HE GREATER TRRK 0.90 110YEMENTS: ' ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0." MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDCVIV0 OF PCH r r L r - r r _ R e_ ._ i • _ R = r _ _ F INTERSECTION 5 ' NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: K NTINGTON STREET EAST/WEST ROAD: WALNUT AVENUE MASTER PLAN SUILDOUT CMITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS { { { { MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT { { EXISTING CONDITIONS { MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND MMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT { WITH MITIGATIONS { V/C 1 V/C I V/C { V/C ' MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* { VOLUME RATIO* { VOLUME RATIO* { VOLUME RATIO* { { KENT 1LANE CAP AM PM AM PM 1LANE CAP AM PM AM PM { AM PM AM PM (LANE CAP AM PM A14 PM { �, 1-------I------------------------------------------I......................................... ---------------------------------{----------------------------------------- 1 NIL 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 - 0.00 • { 1 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *{ 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *{ 16M 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 •i 1 MIT 1 0 0 O 0, 0.00 0.00 { 2 3200 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 172 74 0.06 0.04 ( 3200 172 74 0.06 0.04 { MBR 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 32 66 o.DO 0.00 { 0 32 66 0.00 0.00 { SBL { 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 72 143 o.o5 0.09 { wo n 143 0.05 0.09 { 1 SIT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * { 2 3200 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *{ 632 473 0.20 • 0.15 *{ 3200 632 473 0.20 ! 0.15 •� SIR { 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL { 0 0 0 0 0.00 - 0.00 - 1 1 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 •{ 0 0 0.00 - 0.00 •! 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 '{ { EBT { 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 2 3200 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 66 153 0.02 0.05 { 3200 66 153 0.02 0.05 { EBR 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 0 0.00 0.m { 0 0 Q 0 0.00 0.00 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 59 55 0.04 0.03 1600 59 55 0.04 0.03 { WBT { 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 - { 2 3200 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *{ 110 129 0.07 - 0.08 '{ 32M 110 129 0.07 * 0.08 *� { WBR { 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 { 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 114 141 0.00 0.00 0 114 141 0.00 0.00 ----------------- -------------------------------- .........................................1.................................{------• ---------------------------------1 { N/S Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 { 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.15 { E/W Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 { 0.07 0.08 { 0.07 0.08 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1" 0.00 0.00 { 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 { 0.10 0.10 { , 1RAS7ER PLAN EXISTING ICU 0.10 0.10 (MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.10 0.10 1+ PROJECT ICU 0.36 0.33 INSTIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.36 0.33 LEVEL OF SERVICE A A (ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A A 1LEVEL OF SERVICE A A (LEVEL Of SERVICE A A 1 AN PM { X { { X { FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 * INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0." MOVEMENTS: * ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT r r I { FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDE111MC OF PC% INTERSECTION 6 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: BEACH BOULEVARD EAST/WEST ROAD.- WALNUT AVENUE MASTER PLAN OUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I { { I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT { { EXISTING CONDITIONS I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND (MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS I { VIC I VIC I VIC I VIC { I MOVE- I VOLUME RATIO" I VOLUME RATIO- I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO* I ME147 ILANE CAP A14 PM AN PM (LANE CAP AM PM AM PM I AM PM AM PM ILANE CAP AM PM AM PM I I-.-----I------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I.................................I-----------------------------------------I I NBL I 0 0 0 0 0.00 ' 0.00 ' I 1 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 •I 22 66 0.01 * 0.04 'I 1600 22 68 0.01 • 0.04 *I NBT I 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 3 48M 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 526 922 0.11 0.19 I 000 526 922 0.11 0.19 I I NOR 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 O 0 0.00 0.00 I SBL 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I SBT I 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * ( 3 48M 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 'I 982 737 0.23 * 0.23 *I 4800 982 787 0.23 ' 0.23 •I ' I SOR 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 145 321 0.00 0.00 I a 145 321 0.00 0.00 I I EBL I 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * I 2 3200 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 •I 264 329 0.08 ' 0.10 •I 32M 264 329 0.08 * 0.10 •I I EBT I O 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I I FOR I 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 1 1600 0 a 0.00 0.00 I 49 32 0.00 0.00 I 1600 49 32 0.00 0.00 I I wn 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I O 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 ( 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I I WBT 10 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * I 0 a 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 •I 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 •I 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 •I I WBR I a 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 10 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 I I--------------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I---........----------------------I-----------------------------------------I I N/S Critfeal Movements 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.25 0.27 I 0.25 0.2T I I E/W Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.08 0.10 I 0.08 0.10 I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I . I Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 ] 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I I (MASTER PLAN ( I EXISTING ICU 0.10 0.10 INASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.10 0.10 I+ PROJECT ICU 0.43 0.47 IMITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.43 0.47 I I LEVEL OF SERVICE A A I1CU LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL OF SERVICE A A { > > r I AM PM X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: ' ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EOUAL TO 0.90 MOISTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH Lsa 4 1..► 1 �M 1 tam APPENDIX H INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS MASTER PLAN UEVE OPMENT 3 SITE HOTEL TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE) �y �M r 1 L.+ r I ' Sr r. Ile r 4. Mr f ' 11r - r - r - E - Lr _ r-- r - e' - i- - R__._ r INTERSECTION 1 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD: HUNTINGTON AVENUE EAST/WEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I I ! I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I ! ! EXISTING CONDITIONS I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND IAASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT I WITH MITIGATIONS ! ! ! V/C [ V/C [ V/C I V/C [ I "m- I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO" I VOLUME RATIO- I VOLUME RATIO• I I MENT ILANE CAP AN PH AN PH [LANE CAP AM PM AM PH I AM PM AN PM ILAVE CAP 'M PM A.4 Pm I [-------I------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------[---------------------------------I----------------.------------------------ [ VOL 10 0 2 3 0.00 * 0.00 * I O 0 1 3 0.00 • 0.00 I 1 3 0.00 • 0.00 •[ 0 1 3 0.00 • 0.00 "I 191 2 3200 3 0 0.00 0.00 I 2 3200 11 0 0.00 0.00 *I 11 0 0.00 0.00 [ 32DO 11 0 0.00 0.D0 [ Net 10 0 1 3 0.00 0.00 I D 0 2 11 0.00 0.00 I 2 11 O.DO 0.00 [ 0 2 11 0.00 0.00 I I SOL I 0 0 20 20 0.01 0.01 I 1 1600 313 262 0.20 0.16 •I 323 268 0.20 0.17 I 1600 323 268 0.20 0.17 I I $87 I 1 1600 3 1 0.06 * 0.04 * I 1 1600 21 7 0.20 * 0.13 [ 21 7 0.26 * 0.19 •I 16" 21 7 0.26 * 0.19 •[ I SBR I 0 0 73 49 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 295 204 0.00 0.00 I 401 304 0.00 0.00 I o 401 304 -0.00 0.00 I EBL [ 1 1600 10 8 0.01 • 0.01 • I 1 16M 32 41 0.02 • 0.03 I 75 107 0.05 * 0.07 •[ 1600 75 107 0.05 " 0.07 •I I EST I 2 32M 1,076 1,117 0.34 0.35 I 3 4900 1,242 1,312 0.26 0.27 •I 1436 1469 0.30 0.31 I I.WO 1436 1469 0.30 0.31 I EBR 11 1600 6 0 0.00 0.00 ( 1 1600 3 0 0.00 0.00 I 3 0 o.m O.00 I 1600 3 0 0.00 0.00 I waL I 1 it" 0 52 0.00 0.03 [ 1 1600 0 132 0.00 0.08 "I 0 132 0.00 0.08 I 1600 0 132 0.00 0.05 [ I WRT 2 3200 1.106 1,343 0.35 * 0.42 * 3 4800 %215 1,543 0.25 1 0.32 I 1261 1594 0.26 * 0.33 "I 4800 1261 1594 0.26 * 0.33 •I I VOR I 1 1600 10 2 0.00 0.00 I 1 1600 129 33 0.00 0.00 I 146 44 0.00 0.00 I 1600 146 44 0.00 0.00 I I-------------------------------------•-----.......I-•-------•---•--------------------------- ---------------------------------I--------------------------.-------.._..__[ I Nis Critical Movements 0.06 0.04 [ 0.20 0.17 I 0.26 0.19 I 0.26 0.19 [ [ E/11 Critical Movements 0.35 0.42 I 0.27 0.36 I 0.31 0.40 I 0.31 0.40 I I Rigbt Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I [ clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I 0.10 0.10 I I I ! I [ [ I WASTER PLAN I EXISTING ICU 0.51 0.56 IMASTER PLAN IfACKCAOM 0.57 0.62 1+ PROJECT lcu 0.67 0.69 IM111GATED PROJECT ICU 0.67 0.69 I I LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ITN LEVEL OF SERVICE A B [LEVEL Of SERVICE B 8 ILEVEL OF SERVICE B 8 I [ [ r I I AM PR X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS TRAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 13 THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL I ( FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER TRAM 0.90 MOVEMENTS: " = CRITICAL MOVEMENT I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH INTERSECTION 2 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD* BFACN KtItEVARD EAST/WEST ROAD- PACIFIC COAST NIGPWAY MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS [ { { MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT ! [ EXISTING CONDITIONS [ MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT WITH MITIGATIONS [ ! { V/c ! Vfc { V/C { V/C { VOLUME RATIO* [ VOLUME RATIO- ! VOLUME RATIO- VOLUME RATIO* [ [ NEXT ILAME CAP AM PM AM PM [LANE CAP AN PM AM P" ( RK PM AN PM !LANE CAP AM N AM PM { [-------I------------------------------------------[-----------------------------------------[----------•------------------...-{-----------------------------------------t [ NBt [ 1 1600 • 0 2 0.00 0.00 1 1 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 1 0 5 0.00 0.00 [ 1600 0 5 0.00 0.00 t •[ MGT { 1 1600 6 3 0.00 * 0.00 - t 1 1600 1a 10 0.01 - 0.01 *{ 18 15 0.01 - 0.01 *[ 1600 18 15 0.01 * 0.01 "[ MBR { 1 1600 .0 9 0.00 0.00 - 1 1 1600 0 27 0.00 0.01 '[ 0 27 0.00 0.00 •[ 1600 0 27 0.00 0.00 •� SBL { 2 3200 482 282 0.15 - 0.09 " ( 2 3200 602 476 0.19 - 0.15 '{ 663 523 0.21 - 0.16 •{ 3200 663 523 0.21 ' 0.16 •{ [ SBT 2 3200 2 12 0.00 0.00 ! 2 3200 . 7 38 O.00 0.01 { 7 38 0.00 0.01 [ 3200 7 38 0.00 0.01 [ SSR { 1 1600 97 155 0.00 0.00 1 1600 324 225 0.00 0.00 ( 441 297 0.00 0.00 1600 441 297 0.00 0.00 t ESL ! 2 32M 72 135 0.02 0.04 * [ 2 3200 231 196 0.07 * 0.06 231 196 0.07 - 0.06 *[ 3200 231 196 0.07 ' 0.06 *{ EST ( 2 3200 1,254 1.074 0.39 - 0.34 [ 3 4800 1,471 1,257 0.31 0.26 1506 1308 0.31 0.27 [ 4800 15D6 1309. 0.31 0.27 { ! FOR [ 1 1600 2 2 0.00 0.00 [ 1 16Mf 7 5 0.00 0.00 { 7 5 0.00 0.00 [ 1600 7 5 0.00 0.00 [ [ VOL [ 1 1600 1 3 0.00 * 0.00 [ 1 1600 1 a 0.00 0.01 [ 1 a 0.00 0.01 [ 1600 1 a 0.00 0.01 [ { WBT t 2 3200 1,008 1,338 0.32 0.42 - ( 3 4800 1.170 1.560 0.24 * 0.33 *{ 1242 1603 0.26 " 0.33 -{ 4800 1242 1603 0.26 * 0.33 *� WSR [ 1 1600 236 431 0.00 0.00 [ 1 1600 277 728 0.00 0.00 t 263 799 0.00 0.00 •[ 1600 263. 799 0.00 0.00 *{ ----------------------------------................[----------------------------------------- [---------------------------------t---------------..------------------------[ NIS Critieal Movements 0.15 0.09 [ 0.20 0.16 [ 0.22 0.17 ! 0.22 0.17 { E/W Criticet Movements 0.39 0.46 0.32 0.39 [ 0.33 0.40 ( 0.33 0.40 { [ Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 ! 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t { cltarance interval 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 [ 0.10 0.10 t [ [MASTER PLAN ! [ EXISTING ICU 0." 0.65 [MASTER PLAN SACKGROUNO 0.61 0.64 t+ PROJECT ICU 0.64 0.67 [MITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0." 0.67 [ LEVEL OF SERVICE B B [ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE B B [LEVEL OF SERVICE B B [LEVEL OF SERVICE B B [ t t r t AM PM ! X { X { FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 " INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL [ ! { FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC T.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: " ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT { [ { [ FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCN INTERSECTION 3 - WORTH/SOUTH ROAOt LAKE STRFET EAST/WEST ROADS PACIFIC COAST 1110fAY MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I I I I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT 1 I EXISTING CONDITIONS I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND IKASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT 1 W17H MITIGATIONS 1 I r VIC ( VIC I VIC I H/C I MOVE- ( VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO* 1 I NEWT ILAN£ CAP AM PM AM PM (LANE CAP AM PM AM PM ( km P4 AN rM 1LANE CAP AM PM AK P14 1 1-------I------------------------------------------I----------------------------•------------I---------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I NBL 1 1 1600 46 11 0.03 * 0.01 1 1 16M 193 42 0.12 * 0.03 1 193 42 0.12 0.03 1 1600 193 42 0.12 0.03 1 NIT 1 2 3200 28 16 0.02 0.01 * 1 2 3200 nS 130 0.11 0.05 *1 208 130 0.11 * 0.05 '1 3200 208 130 0.11 * 0.05 *1 1 NBR 1 0 0 23 9 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 131 41 0.00 0.00 1 131 41 0.00 0.00 1 0 131 41 0.00 0.00 1 SBL 1 1 1600 63 52 0.04 0.03 * 1 1600 2% 177 0.13 0.11 *1 284 225 0.18 ' 0.14 *1 1600 284 225 0.18 * 0.14 *I I SIT 1 2 3200 16 3 0.05 * 0.02 1 2 32M 149 29 0.16 " 0.05 1 149 29 0.16 0.05 1 3200 149 29 0.16 0.05 1 SIR 1 0 0 149 46 0.00 0.00 0 0 353 131 0.00 0.00 1 353 131 0.00 0.00 1 0 353 131 0.00 0.00 1 1 EBL 1 1 1600 33 151 0.02 0.09 * 1 1 1600 55 390 0.03 0.24 .1 55 390 0.03 0.24 *1 1600 55 390 0.03 0.24 *1 1 EBT I 2 3200 1,126 1,129 0.36 * 0.36 1 3 4800 1,178 1,164 0.28 • 0.25 1 1337 1339 0.31 * 0.29 1 4800 1337 1339 0.31 * 0.29 1 1 EBR I 0 0 33 12 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 147 54 0.00 0.00 1 147 54 0.00 0.00 1 0 147 54 0.00 0.00 1 1 WOL 1 1 1600 31 15 0.02 * 0.01 ( 1 16M tat 83 0.11 * 0.05 1 181 83 0.11 * 0.05 1 1600 181 83 0.11 * 0.05 1 W8T 1 2 3200 1.081 1,178 0.35 0.39 * 1 3 AM 1,049 1.262 0.24 0.31 *1 It95 1408 0.21 0.34 *I 4800 1195 1408 0.27 0.34 *1 1 WIR 1 0 0 48 67 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 105 213 0.00 0.00 1 105 213 0.00 0.00 1 0 105 213 0.00 0.00 1 I--------------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------I---------------------------------I-------...------------------------ I N/S Critical Movements 0.08 0.04 ( 0.28 0.16 1 0.28 0.19 1 0.28 0.19 1 1 E/V Critical Movements 0.38 0.48 1 0.39 0.55 1 0.42 0.58 1 0.42 0.58 1 1 Right Turn C. N. 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 I Ctearence Interval 0.10 0.10 ( 0.10 0.10 ( 0.10 0.10 1 0.10 0.10 1 r 1 IMASTER PLAN I I 1 EXISTING ICU 0.56 0.62 IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.76 0.81 1+ PROJECT ICU 0.80 0.87 1MITIGATED PROJECT iCU 0.80 0.87 I 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE A B IICU LEVEL OF SERVICE C D ILEVEL OF SERVICE C 0 ILEVEL OF SERVICE C D I I 1 1 1 1 AM PM I X I I X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL OE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0." INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL I I I I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL OE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: CRITICAL MOVEMENT I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO C." MASTER PLAN BACKCROLIMD CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCN INTERSECTION 4 - WORTH/SOUTN ROAD: MAtN STREET/SIXTH STREET EAST/VEST ROAD: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY VASTER PLAN BUTLDOIIT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS r r r r MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 4 PROJECT r r r EXISTING CONDITIONS MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND (WASTER PLAN SACKGROUH9 4 PROJECT WITH MITIGATIONS r r V/C r Y/C r V/C V/C MOVE- r VOLUME RATIO• r VOLUME RATIO- r VOLUME RATIO- VOLUME RATIO' r RENT rLANE CAP AM PM AN PM ILAJNE CAP AM PM AM PM ( AM PM AM PM rLAVE CAP AM PM P-M PM r i-----..I------------------------------------------r-----------------------------------------r---------------------------------r-----------------------------------------r I NBL r 1 1600 1 6 0.00 0.00 * r 0 16DO 0 0 0.00 0.00 r 0 0 0.00 0.00 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 I NST r 0 0 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 r 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *r 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 •� r NBR i 1 1600 4 tz 0.00 0.00 r 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 r 0 0 0.00 0.00 r 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 r r SBL r 1 1600 27 38 0.02 * 0.02 r 1 1600 140 206 0.09 - 0.13 *r 140 206 0.09 * 0.13 1600 140 206 0.09 • 0.13 *r r SBT 11 16DO 4 3 0.02 0.05 * r 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 r 0 0 0.00 0.00 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 r I SSR r O O 21 T2 0.00 0.00 r 1 1600 113 333 O.00 0.00 113 333 0.00 0.00 r 1600 113 333 0.00 0.00 r r EBL r 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1600 10 134 0.01 - 0.08 -r 10 134 0.01 * 0.08 *r 1600 10 134 0.01 ' 0.08 •r r EBT r 2 32M 1,155 1,339 0.36 * 0.42 * r 3 48DO 1,348 1,522 0.28 0.32 r 1507 1697 0.31 0.35 4800 1507 1697 0.31 0.35 r r EBR r 0 0 3 11 0.00 0.00 r 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 ( O 0 O.M 0.C%3 r 0 0 O 0.00 0.00 61;L r 1 1600 4 27 0.00 • 0.02 • 0 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 r 0 0 0.00 0.00 r 16" 0 0 0.00 0.00 WET r 2 3200 1,142 1,272 0.36 0.40 3 4800 1,353 1,398 0.28 - 0.30 •r 1499 1544 0.31 • 0.33 48M 1499 1544 0.31 * 0.33 W9R r 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 r 0 0 10 52 0.00 0.00 r 10 52 0.00 0.00 0 10 52 0.00 0.00 r i--------------------------------------------------r.........................................i---------------------------------r------------------....................... i N/S Criticat Movements 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.13 r 0.09 0.13 E/W Critical Movements 0.37 0.44 r 0.29 0.39 r 0.32 0.42 0.32 0.42 r MOt Turn C. N. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 r 0.00 0.00 r r Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 r 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 r 0.10 0.10 r r i r r r • r } MASTER PLAN r r EXISTING ICU 0.4a 0.58 (MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.47 0.61 14 PROJECT ICU 0.50 0.64 rM1TICATED PROJECT ICU 0.50 0.64 r r LEVEL OF SERVICE A A JICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A B [LEVEL OF SERVICE A B [LEVEL OF SERVICE A B AM PM I X I r X I FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0." • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL r r FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS: ' • CRITICAL MOVEMENT r r r FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN SACKGROUIID CONDITIONS ASSUME PLAWNTO WIDEMIMG OF PCM INTERSECTION 5 - NORTH/SOUTH ROAD, HUNTINGTON STREET EAST/WEST ROADS WALNUT AVENUE MASTER PLAN BUI1.00UT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS f I } I MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS f MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT f WITH MITIGATIONS } f f V/C } V/C I V/C V/C MOVE- f VOLUME RATIO* f VOLUME RATIO* f VOLUME RATIO- VOLUME RATIO* f WENT (LANE CAP AM PM AM PM (LANE CAP AM PM AM PM f AM PM AM PM (LANE CAP AM PM AM PM f-------f------------------------------------------}----------------------------------------- ---------------.-----------------f-------------------------------. --------f } ROL } 0 0 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 • 1 1 16M 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 *} 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 } 16M 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 } NOT 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 3200 0 0 0.00 0.00 } 172 74 0.07 0.05 +f 3200 172 74 0.07 0.05 •I NBR f 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 f 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 f 60 77 0.00 0.00 f 0 60 77 0.00 0.00 } SOL f 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 } 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 f 169 tar 0.11 0.12 1600 169 187 0.11 0.12 *} SOT 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 ■ f 2 3200 0 0 0.00 - 0.00 *f 640 477 0.20 + 0.15 ' 32M 640 477 0.20 * 0.15 f SBR 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 f 0 O 0 0 0.00 0.00 f 0 0 0.00 0.00 f 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 f EBL 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 • 1 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *} 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 f 1600 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 } fey } 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 } 2 32M 0 0 0.00 0.00 } 115 172 0.04 0.05 •} 3200 115 172 0.04 0.05 •f f [BR f 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 f 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 f 0 0 0.00 0.00 f 0 0 o O.M O.M } } V8L 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 f 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 f 103 100 0.06 0.06 +f 16" 103 100 0.06 0.06 •f f UST } 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 • } 2 3200 0 0 0.00 - 0.00 172 183 0.10 + 0.11 , 3200 172 183 0.10 * 0.11 f IIBR f 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 } 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 } 159 162 0.00 0.00 } 0 159 162 0.00 0.00 } f--------------------------------------------------I-----------------------------------------f---------------------------------f-----------------------------------------} N/S Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 f 0.00 0.00 f 0.20 0.16 f 0.20 0.16 } E/V Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 } 0.10 0.12 } 0.10 0.12 } Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 } 0.00 0.00 } 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 1 0.10 0.10 f 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 MASTER PLAN I EXISTING ICU 0.10 0.10 IMASTER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.10 0.10 j+ PROJECT ICU 0.40 0.38 (MITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.40 0.33 f LEVEL OF SERVICE A A 1ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A A ILEVEL OF SERVICE A A }LEVEL OF SERVICE A A f f } AM PM f X } f X f FORECASIED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0." • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL f } f FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTSS • + CRITICAL MOVEMENT } f f } FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. W1TN MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.90 MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCH. , INTERSECTION 6 - NORTH/SOUTN ROAD: BEACH 80A EVARD EAST/WEST ROAD: WALNUT AVENUE MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITION INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS [ [ [ [ [ MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT [ [ EXISTING CONDITIONS [ MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND [MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND + PROJECT [ WITR MITIGATIONS [ [ V/C [ V/C [ V/C V/C [ MOVE- [ VOLUME RATIO* [ VOLUME RATIO* [ VOLUME RATIO* [ VOLUME RATIO- [ MENT [LANE CAP AM PM AM PM [LANE CAP AM PM AM PM AN PM f*1 PMi [LAKE CAP AM PM AN PM [-------[------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------[---------------------------------[-----------------------------------------[ [ NBL [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 • [ 1 16DO 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *[ 36 73 0.02 • 0.05 *[ 1600 36 73 0.02 * 0.05 •[ [ NBT 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 3 4800 0 0 0.00 0.00 ( 526 922 0.11 0.19 [ 4800 526 922 0.11 0.19 � [ NBR [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ [ SBL [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ [ SET [ O 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * [ 3 AM 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 -t 1073 a25 0.28 * 0.25 •[ ABDO 1073 $25 0.28 • 0.25 •[ [ SBR [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 288 381 0.00 0.00 [ 0 283 3s1 0.00 0.00 [ [ ESL [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * ( 2 3200 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 *[ 381 392 0.12 * 0.12 •[ 3200 381 392 0.12 * 0.12 •[ [ EST [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ [ EBR [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 1 1600 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 55 39 O.M 0.00 [ 1600 55 39 0.00 0.00 [ [ 1--L [ 0 0 O 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ [ WBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 * [ O O 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *[ 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 •[ 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *[ [ HSR [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 [ [------------•------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------[------------------------•---------------- ---------------------------------[-----------•-----------------------------1 [ N/S Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 [ 0.31 0.30 ( 0.31 0.30 [ E/W Critical Movements 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 ( 0.12 0.12 [ [ Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 [ [ Clearance Intervel 0.10 0.10 [ 0.10 0.10 [ 0.10 0.10 [ 0.10 0.10 [ ` [ [MASTER PLAN [ [ [ EXISTING ICU 0.10 0.10 (MASIER PLAN BACKGROUND 0.10 0.10 [+ PROJECT ICU 0.52 0.51 [MITIGATED PROJECT ICU 0.52 0.51 [ [ LEVEL OF SERVICE A A [ICU LEVEL OF SERVICE A A [LEVEL OF SERVICE A A [LEVEL OF SERVICE A A [ AM PM [ X [ [ X [ FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0." • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION IS THE SUN OF THE CRITICAL [ [ [ [ FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WILL BE GREATER THAN 0.90 MOVEMENTS* * ■ CRITICAL MOVEMENT [ [ [ [ FORECASTED PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC I.C.U. WITH MITIGATIONS WILL BE LESS THAN OR EaUkt. TO 0." MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ASSUME PLANNED WIDENING OF PCN i I i.. ,Mr 6w i� I iar APPENDIX D BIOLOGY WETLANDS ASSESSMENT M tr t.+ � f hip Mar i.� a Mal 1a. • �Y THE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT ' FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT �.• BIOLOGY/WETLANDS ASSESSMENT f t,. w a PREPARED FOR �. THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION �r , f �111 `, PREPARED BY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. �} 157 PARK PUKE PT. RICHMOND, CA 94801 (415) 236-6810 ir. SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 , W. fi +w 1•r WETLAND DEIEPKI lATION METHODS To determine the size and location of wetlands on site, we employed a standard method for wetland determination as set forth in the Corps of En- gineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987) , We first mapped the seven dis- tinct habitat types on the site (see Figure 1 and Table 1). We then col- lected data at a sample point in each type to determine whether the habitat was characterized by wetland vegetation, soils, 'and hydrology, as defined by the Corps. Accordingto the definition used b the Corps, "the term 'wetlands' Y P � means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal cir- im cumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." The Corps has interpreted this definition to irean that, to be considered a wetland, a site must have each of three charac- teristics: wetland vegetation, wetland soils, and wetland hydrology. The Wetlands Delineation Manual provides specific guidelines for assessing each of the characteristics. UABITAT TYPES Cattail-Bulrush Marsh (PePTS _ Palu trine emergent, persistent, Tvpha- �• Scirnus). This small marsh is dominated by dense, lush cattails and tules eight feet tall or more, in clayey soil . On August 20, there was standing water about six inches deep in a small ditch that flows from this habitat into a culvert under Beach Boulevard. The cattails have recently been cut down along the portion of the ditch near the culvert. A small patch of higher ground in the center of the marsh (too small to map: about 15 by 25 `! feet) is vegetated much like the Tall Forbs habitat type. Icenlant (CfC - Coastal terrace, forks, Carpobrotus). This habitat is covered primarily with Hottentot-fig ("iceplant"), an upland species. The �+ loamy sand soil and numerous low mounds of earth are indicative of past filling activity. Several hydrophytic (wetland-adapted) plant species are also present. Buderal (CfR -_Coastal terrace, (orbs, Ruderal). This type is dominated by upland, ruderal grasses and forbs on a fairly - level site, with some ` planted Brazilian pepper trees. The sandy soil is indicative of fill mater- ial . 2 Iw IHTRODU IOH a. The purpose of this report is to describe and evaluate the biological resources of The Waterfront Development site in the City of Huntington Beach, focusing on wetlands. Existing information on the site was obtained from the Downtown Specific Flan EIR and from letters and reports by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). We also requested data 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 on site, their existing condition, and the feasibility of wetland restoration. Existing information on the project area indicates that there is very little native vegetation, aside from a small wetland area just west of Beach #.. Boulevard. No sensitive species are known or likely to make regular use of the area. None of the sensitive plants and animals listed by CNDDB as oc- curring in the vicinity are expected to occur in the project area, due to lack of appropriate habitat. The predominantly urbanized habitat of the project area probably supports common animal species that are typical of such environments. t� According to the DFG, the small wetland area is a fresh/brackish marsh 0.8 acres in extent, bordered by a 1.4-acre former wetland area that is restorable as wetland (DFG 1983, S. Ellis, pers. comm. , F. A. Worthley, Jr. , pers. co=.) . DFG (1983) determined that the 0.8-acre wetland "has been degraded because of its reduced size, configuration, location and overgrown condition." The report noted low use of this area by wetland-associated birds and attributed this low wildlife use primarily to the wetland's small size and overgrown condition. DFG concluded that the wetland could easily and feasibly be enhanced by increasing the amount of open water (by excava- ting a pond Q feet deep); expanding its size by restoring the adjacent I.4- rr acre area as wetland; and fencing the entire 2.2-acre area. The report also listed four conditions that should be met if off-site mitigation is deemed necessary. M. �r �r 6l L a r Wetlands and Other Habitats Fence r ! *4.7 * *3.0 Mobile Homes q.3,7 2.7 PeP7S Ci f ri 3.8 *4.7 * .S 2 * ? Fence O Pe * 2 0 Pe4 * P DP *2.9 CfR *2.9 OpePF i 3.7 q.6 O P .�. 4 Drainage Culvert tRoad Drainage Ramp NProject Boundary ! Road Drainage Ramp i BEACH BLVD. } LEGEND O — Sample points for wetland determination F ®— Wetland. as deflned by Corps of Engineers (COE) i #4.7 — Spot Elevations HABITAT TYPES PePTS — Palustrine, emergent. persistent, Typha; Scl^ rpus ---= (Cattail — Bulrush Marsh) Pe PA — Palustrine, emergent. persistent. Arundo (Giant Reed) t P*FDF — Palustrine, emergent. persistent, Distichys. FrankenjA , (Saltgrass — Alkali Heath) ~� Wetlands PePF — Palustrine, emergent. persistent. Frankenia X Area (Alkali Heath) N� P&PP — Palustrine, emergent, persistent, Pterts ti Mill Forbs) Scale In Feet C!C — Coastal terrace, forts, Cnrpobretus f 1ceptant) CIA — Coastal terrace, forbs, ruderals 0 30 8o 120 (Ruderal 11125187•CP Source:t.SA Associates. Inc., 1957 L L I . Giant Reed (PePA - Palustrine emergent, persistent, Arundo). This area, characterized by deeply cracked clay soil , was formerly dominated by giant reed, which was cut down recently, probably during the past year. (Giant reed is a non-native weed and a serious pest species in freshwater wetlands.) Very little live vegetation now remains in this habitat patch. There are +� recently deposited piles of dirt fill and a small , dry ditch leading to a drain. Saltgrass - Alkali_ Heath_ (PePIlF_ - Palustrine emergent_._ persistent, Distichlis-Frankenia. This habitat is dominated by saltgrass, with patches of alkali heath and pickieweed on fairly level ground. The loamy sand soil indicates fill material . Alkali Heath _(PePF - Palustrine emergent, persistent, Frankenia]. This type is mostly covered by alkali heath, also on fairly level ground. The northern half of this habitat patch is similar, but has been heavily over- grown by honeysuckle from the adjacent mobile homes. Soil is loamy clay underlain by a hard, black layer, probably slag or weathered petroleum, about L ten inches below the surface. Tall Forbs (PePP - Palustrine emergent, persistent - Picris, Helilotus, � umex). This type is characterized by a diverse mixture of tali forbs, including ox tongue, white sweetclover, and curly dock. This habitat occurs in two patches: one bordering the upper- edge of the Cattail-Bulrush type and one in a depression within the Ruderal type. The sandy soil indicates fill 6a material . RESULTS INS The results of the wetland determination are presented in Table 2 and Figure 1. Only the Cattail-Bulrush Marsh habitat has all three wetland L characteristics and thus is considered a wetland, based on the Corps defini- tion. This habitat type is the small wetland identified by DFG. Based on planimetering from our map (Figure 1) , this wetland is 0.6 acres in extent. �- Four (and possibly five) of the other six habitats were characterized by a prevalence of hydrophytic (wetland-adapted) vegetation, but were lacking in wetland soils and/or wetland hydrology. Thus, the field data on soils and hydrology indicates that these habitats are not inundated or saturated by water at a great enough frequency or duration to be considered a wetland by the Corps. L 3 . L �r i L. 3!! It should be noted that the DFG often uses a different wetland defini- tion, that of the U. S. Fish and wildlife Service (FWS) (Cowardin et al . 1979). This definition also relies on vegetation, soils, and hydrology as wetland indicators. A key difference between the two definitions is that only one of the three characteristics must be present for the FWS to define �. an area as a wetland. By the FWS definition, four additional habitats (in addition to the Cattail-Bulrush Marsh) may qualify as wetlands: Giant Reed, Saltgrass-Alkali Heath, Alkali Heath, and Tall Forbs. The total wetland acreage, using this definition, is 1.7 acres. It seems likely that DFG may have classified the Tall Forbs habitat as wetland, as it borders the Cattail-Bulrush Marsh and looks more like a typi- cal wetland than do the other habitats. The combined acreage of these two types is 4.B acres, equal to the DFG estimate of wetland acreage. The other three habitat types on the site (Giant Reed, Saltgrass-Alkali Heath, and �• Alkali Heath) are drier and of little or no value as wetland wildlife habi- tat; this may explain why DFG did not define them as wetlands, even though they may technically fail within the FWS wetland definition. W W V 4 L f L 1 4.- V LAND CONDITION AND RESTORABILITY km EXISTING CONDITION OF WETLAND The seven habitat types mapped in Figure I occupy a low-lying area of about 2.8 acres that is surrounded by Beach Boulevard, a large mobile home park, and a parking lot to the south. Table 3 lists the wetland and upland plant species that were observed on the site during the present study and previous studies. The small size of the existing wetland (0.6 acres), its proximity to urban development, and its lack of open water result in a low value for wetland-adapted wildlife. If the wetland area were to be restored and expanded in size, as recommended by DFG, its wildlife value would clearly k" be enhanced. Its value would still be limited, however, due to its small size and disturbance from adjacent development. Considerably more wildlife habitat value could be provided by a restored wetland of equal size that is 06" part of a larger, contiguous wetland complex. DFG (1983, p. 17) made a specific finding (pursuant to the Coastal Act) that the existing wetland on the . project site (0.8 acres, by their calcula- '� tions) is a "degraded wetland." Based on the criteria for degraded wetlands listed by the California Coastal Commission (1981, Section YIII-A), our observations support this finding. In particular, there is clear evidence of +"• filling throughout much of the site; this filling has clearly altered the topography and substrate; tidal action has been cut off by activities well- removed from the site; there is extensive encroachment from urban land uses; and wildlife habitat value has been reduced significantly, compared to his- toric conditions. In addition, water quality may be quite low, as the pri- mary water supply is urban runoff'from the adjacent mobile home park and from Beach Boulevard. Finally, we found a layer of what appears to be slag or weathered petroleum about 10 inches below the surface of the Alkali Heath habitat; this layer and other fill materials could adversely influence water quality. FEASIBILITY OF WETLAND RESTORATIOl� DFG (1983, pp. 22ff.) also made a finding that an additional 1.4 acres on the site is a former wetland that is "feasibly restorable." DFG recom- mended creating open-water areas by excavating ponds roughly four feet deep, expanding the size of the wetland to the entire 2.2 acres, and fencing the �'` entire area. Presumably the wetland would be enlarged by installing water control structures to reduce drainage of water from the site and possibly by some excavation and removal of fill . 5 Ld Li 6., W L DFG (1983, p. 20) also raised the possibility of off-site mitigation for the wetland in question. They requested that the following conditions be imposed, if off-site mitigation is implemented: (a) allow urban runoff from. the trailer park to continue to flow to the wetlands east of Beach Boulevard, (b) create at least 2.2 acres of wetlands 'on a site that is currently non- wetland, (c) get DFG approval of the wetland design, location, and type. As pointed out by DFG (1983, p. 23), the feasibility of restoration, under the Coastal Act, must take into account economic, environmental , social and technological factors. We believe that in the case of this particular wetland, more study is necessary to address the question of feasibility, One way to address the feasibility issue is to examine the nine factors considered by the Coastal Commission in determining whether a particular wetland is degraded (Coastal Commission 1981, pp. 53-54) . Below we discuss the. feasibility of restoration in relation to each of these factors. Fill and To o ra hic Alterations -(Factors -] and 3.). Although costly, fill removal is otherwise feasible. Substantial excavation would be neces- sary to create ponds four feet deep and remove the fill material present on much of the non-wetland portion of the site. Impediments to Tidal Action (Factor 2). Restoration of tidal action appears infeasible due to the barrier formed by Beach Boulevard, as well as impediments further removed from the project site. Water Quality and Substrate Quality (Factors 4 and 5). Water quality and substrate quality could pose serious problems to wildlife and may be difficult to restore. Water quality problems could result from fill materials on site (espe- cially the slag or weathered petroleum) or from urban runoff, which appears to be the primary water supply. Urban ncroachMgnt_(Factor 61. Urban land uses completely surround the 2,8-acre site. Human disturbance could be reduced by fencing, vegetative screening, and interpretive signs. It would not be possible, however, to mitigate for two other constraints imposed by urban encroachment: the small W size of the site and the lack of adjacent natural habitats. Changes from the Historic Wetland Condition AFactor 7). According to DFG (1983, p. 17), the site was historically tidal wetland, connected to Newport Bay by the Santa Ana River. Whether it was salt marsh or fresh/brac- ` 6 1.r W f _ Ll `, kish marsh is not specified. Both tidal action and freshwater inflows have been cut off, and fill has altered the topography, resulting in a much smal- ler and highly modified wetland. Although it is not feasible to restore tidal action, it may be possible to augment freshwater inflows and restore a freshwater/brackish marsh resembling those that occurred historically in the vicinity. Such measures would be costly, however, and benefits to wildlife would be limited, as discussed below. Current Wildlife Habitat Value Versus Restored Value- (Factor 8). Cur- rent wildlife habitat value of the wetland and adjacent habitats on site is clearly low. Wetland restoration would have definite benefits for wildlife but less so than an off-site wetland restoration contiguous with a larger wetland or other natural habitats. Chemical Cycling Capabilities of the Wetland (Factor 91. Water from the existing wetland apparently drains under Beach Boulevard and into the large wetland to the east. A restored and expanded wetland on the project site could potentially improve water quality and increase nutrient transport to the wetlands east of Beach Boulevard. Other Factors ,Discussed_by DEU1983). Other factors addressed by DFG include the effects of wetland restoration on flood problems and mosgJito control . It is possible that selective water control structures, as en- visioned by DFG, would be adequate to minimize flood-control problems, but this issue should be investigated further by a qualified engineer. Mosquito control could be a more serious problem, which should be dis- cussed with the Mosquito Abatement District. If the primary water supply to the wetland is precipitation runoff, then water levels would drop during summer. Falling water levels during summer, the mosquito-breeding season, are highly conducive to mosquito problems. Potential solutions include a supplemental water supply or an ongoing spray program; both are costly. Ld 7idal flushing is not feasible at this site. i� 7 F 1 ' M 1 r L CONCLUSIONS L 1. Based on the Corps of Engineers wetland determination method, the existing wetland on the project site is estimated as 0.6 acres. An ,. adjacent low-lying area of about 2.2 acres could potentially be restored as wetland. 2. Based on the existing information available, the only sensitive biological resources on the project site are the small wetland discussed above and the adjacent low-lying area. The biological ' value of the non-wetland low-lying area lies primarily in its �+ potential for restoration as a wetland. 3. The existing wetland has been identified by DFG as a degraded wetland pursuant to the Coastal Act, and our observations support this finding. 4. The non-wetland low-lying area has been identified by .DFG as sever- ely degraded. Our observations support this finding. 5. DFG also found that this severely degraded area is feasibly res- torable as wetland. Although wetland restoration may be feasible, given a large enough budget, site constraints would still preclude full wildlife habitat function. Specifically, the small size of the wetland, disturbance from adjacent development, and lack of adjacent natural habitats would limit the wildlife habitat value even if the entire site were restored as wetland. In addition, 6W mosquito control could pose serious problems. An off-site mitiga- tion plan, involving wetland restoration of an equal size, but contiguous with existing wetland, would provide considerably grea- ter benefits to wildlife. W t 8 kw L a t TABLE WETI,AND AND UPLAND HABITATS H TH PROJECT AREA WITH MAP SYKIM S HAB I TAT Kilp TYPE TECHNICAL NAME SYMBOL WETLAND TYPE (PER COE CRITERIA) Cattail- Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Typha, 5cirnus PePTS Bulrush Marsh UPLAND TYPES (PER COE CRITERIA) Iceplant Coastal Terrace, Forbs, C.arpabrotus CfC Ruderal Coastal Terrace, Forbs, Ruderais CfR Giant Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Arundo PePA + Reed Saltgrass• Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, pistichlis, PePDF Alkali Frankgnia Heath Alkali Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Frankenia PePF Heath Tall Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Picris, PePP ' Forbs be_Dlotus. Rumex W �+ 9 . i W' TABLE 2. RESULTS OF WETLAND DETERMINATION, MSED ON CORPS OF MIKEERS (COE) METHOD j WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS TICS PRESENT (Y - Yes, N P No) HABITAT PLOT I VEGETATION SOIL HYDROLOGY WETLAND* Cattail-Bulrush 2 Y Y Y Y Iceplant 6 Y N Y N Ruderal 1 N N N N , Giant Reed 7 ? Y N 14 Saltgrass- 4 Y N Y 11 W Alkali Heath Alkali Heath 3 Y Y N N W. Tall Forbs 5 Y N Y N w *All three wetland characteristics must be present for the area to be considered a wetland by the COE definition. 10 II� !Ii ' 60 TABLE 3. PLANT SPECIES.OBSERYED IN THE WETLAND AND ADJACENT_ LOW-LYING AREAS IN THE—PROJECT AREA All sp g the present study, unless indicated other- wise.acies were identified durin �• HYDROPHYTIC (WETLAND-ADAPTED} SPECIES Common Name Scientific Name 1 Giant reed Arundo donax Fathen saltbush r lex ap tula var, hasta a Australian saltbusha Rtriolex semibaccata Bermuda grass Cvnodon dactYlon Cyperus CYperus sp. ti. Saltgrass Distichlis ;picata Barnyard grass Echinocloa crusyalli Alkali heath Fnankenia qrandifolia California sunflowera Belianthvs californicus Seaside heliotrope Heliotropium currasavicum Prickly lettuces Lactuca serriola White sweetclover Melilotus alba 'w Ox tongue Picri echioides Rabbitfoot grass PglypoQon Inonsneliensis i„ Curly dock Ru_mex rc i spur &lasswort (pickleweed) �alicornia sp. Woody glasswort (pickleweed)ab Salicornia virginica California bulrush Sciroul californicus Olney's bulrush Scirpu5 Qlneyi Cattaila Tvoha 3alifolia Cattail Tvoha sp. Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium i� I1 i i L1 I JABLE 3 (CONT) ' UPLAND SPECIES: HERBAC.FOUS w+ Common Name Scientific Name Oat Avena sp. Wild mustard Brassica sp. Brome grass Bromus sp. Hottentot-fig (iceplant) Carpobrotus edulis Pampas grass Cortaderia selloana Ryegrassab Lolium sp. Sea-figs Mesemb"anthemum chilense Iceplant Mesembryanthenum, gr allinum Indian ricegrass 0"zopsiE hymenoides i Bambooa Ph llosta h s bambusoides 4. Mild radish Raphanus Sativus UPLAND SPECI S: TREES AND SHRUBS i Common Name Scientific Name w Tree of heaven Ailanthus sp. Castor bean Bicinul communij Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius 12 W �i f 1 . �f AB 3 ONT HYDROPHYTIMPLAND SPECIES- STATUS UNKNOWN-' Common Name Scientific dame Iw Baccharisa Raccharis sp. Telegraph weeds Heterotheca grandiFlora Sumner-cypressa Koqhja scoaaria Honeysuckle Lonicera sp. Common groundsela ene io vuloaris Common sow thistle onchus oleraceus �i a Source - Downtown Specific Plan EIR (1983). b Source DFG (1983). c Status uncertain because not categorized as hydrophytic or upland by COE (1987) or FWS (1987) ; or because species identification was not certain. 13 a. k LITERATURE CITE California Coastal Commission. 1983. Statewide interpretive guideline for wetlands and other wet environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Adopted February 4, 1981 . City of Huntington Beach. 1983. Downtown Specific Plan EIR. 'w Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual . Dept. of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. January 1987. 100 pp. + +�. appendices. Cowardin, L.M. , V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biol . Services, Washing- ton, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp. Department of Fish and Game. 1983. Department of Fish and Game determina- tion of the status of the Huntington Beach wetlands. Transmitted to the California Coastal Commission on February 4, 1983. 35 pp. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. List of plant species that occur in wet- lands-Region 0. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Rational Wetlands Inventory. 39 pp. r 14 a r 1 PERSONAL COt�i'�JNICATION5 CITED S. Ellis, Fisheries Biologist, Region 5, California Department of Fish and Game, Long Beach. Memo dated February 19, 1981 to David N. Smith, South Coast Regional Coastal Commission, Long Beach. F. A. Worthley, Jr. , Regional Manager, Region 5, California Dept. of Fish and Game, Long Beach. Letters dated February 3, 1982 and February 24, 1933 to Claudette Dupuy, Assistar}t Planner, City of Huntington Beach. a. i W 1 � 15 i too t ' �Y r is f APPENDIX E CULTURAL SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT I ' R 1 M►� 4� Iw 1.. lei I 1r hot �i S Lsa t - dal 4 A CULTURAWSCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT THE WATERFRONT PROJECT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE r PREPARED FOR THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION l - OWN PREPARES} BY BETH PADON CULTURAL RESOURCE K46NAGEMEHT LSA ASSOCIATES,. INC. 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 s �� October, 1987 I !r - wr Lt Va �.f ABSTRACT Specific archaeological location information contained in this report is not for publication or general public view; archaeological site locations must remain confidential . An archaeological archival search and a limited in-field reconnaissance of the proposed Waterfront project yielded negative results. Present devel- opment of the property includes a trailer park, paved roads, hotel , and a golf course. These uses of the property limited the field reconnaissance to the far east side of the property along Beach Boulevard. No evidence for prehistoric use of the area was noted, yet a surface reconnaissance does not detect buried remains. With the qualifier that if such remains are uncovered during grading a qualified archaeologist would be retained to evaluate them and develop a mitigation plan, it is recommended that the development be per- mitted to proceed. A paleontological archival search of the proposed Waterfront project yielded negative results. however, significant fossil-bearing formations are located within one mile of the project. Several vertebrate and invertebrate localities have been recorded along the Huntington Mesa area. Due to the paleontological sensitivity of the region, a qualified paleontologist should be retained to monitor the grading and deep excavations for the project. With this qualifier, it is recommended that the development be permitted to proceed. 1 w a �r IAr ti too . LS8 k t ODU OM This report presents the results of an archaeological and paleontologi- cal investigation of the proposed Waterfront Project in the City of Hun- tington Beach, Orange County. It assesses the potential impact on archaeo- I.r logical, historical , and paleontological resources present within the project area. The project location is situated on the Yew2ort Beach 7.5' USGS (1965, photo revised 1972) topographic sheet. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the study area, while Figure 2 shows the exact location of the proposed development. Planned development includes removal of the existing trailer parks and the construction of several hotels and a convention center. The cultural resource assessment involves three tasks; research of archival sources, in-field reconnaissance, and a statement of impacts and 1 recommendations. The purpose . of the archival search and in-field reconnais- sance is to identify potential cultural/scientific resources on or near the subject property and to relate their locations to that of the proposed devel- opment. The statement of impacts and recommendations identifies impacts and outlines options to preserve any cultural resources. The purpose of this study is to inventory all known historic and cul- tural/scientific resources which are considered significant or determined potentially significant according to the guidelines of the California En- vironmental Quality Act (CEQA). This report follows the guidelines estab- lished by the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Society for California Archaeology (King, Moratto, Leonard, 1973) and the Society for American Archaeology (McGimsey and Davis, 1977) . LPerignnel Beth Padon, of LSA's Cultural Resource Division, served as project archaeologist for the project. Ms. Padon is accredited by the Society of Professional -Archaeologists (SOFA), and holds an M.S. degree in Anthropology. Dr. John Cooper served as project paleontologist. Dr. Cooper holds a �+ Ph.D. in Geology and teaches at California State University, Fullerton. Resumes are available upon request. a Description of the Project Area The study area lies 11 miles north of the Santa Ana River channel in w Huntington Beach and within the Santa Ana River flood plain. Beach Boulevard forms the. eastern boundary, Huntington Avenue the western border, Pacific .Coast Highway the southern border and Ocean Grove Circle the northern border. w L� i ' i., 1 . E Regional Location Lsa Iw i Los Angeles Co. San Bernardino Co. i 1.+ fi 90 57 se'r 91 91 Riverside Co. Lo i 5 55 1 1 1 tar S e n °gym 22 �'e �, Cleveland j o , ho �^* UsMc �mw ��, National Tustin •y �� •''�: USMC • Forest 1.. - • • . 39 El Toro % _ww-__1 1 •• �.i Free73 way 18 i 1 Prole' °•• _ . Area _ 74 { b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 mites ,• _ ..�. Orange County . ' San Diego Co. �Y 1 60 r r Vicinity Map lsa io ..o /IY< - l�o o`BoFIL° L-a ,°�o m o\.o...`•i __ _- a..+ t 5-7 �Mti 1 ark ° P o ♦ S IFj . k _. I N'CfT�71�, B I I ,;-- �� ?� °e o •M 14 •° ° r ..0 6 �) L .- a ° 10 BM?8 a ° ° �LUJUTrailer • P9rk W .... ! , 4,• �,/ Surveyed t Area -- �• � 309 �g 4 'The Waterfront' B ;; 0� ..: Water •Tanks BM, Scale in Feet N 0 1000 2000 r r— 1 !.r I �r T Lsa The property covers an area of 44.4 acres. Currently, the property is developed with a small-scale two story hotel/golf/restaurant facility, park- ing lots and a mobile home park. The only remaining undisturbed and open portion of the project is located along Beach Boulevard. Here, a small 5 wetland occurs on the eastern edge of the project. Development plans include a phased construction of resort hotels, con- ference hotel facilities, retail , restaurant and multi-family residents. The phased construction is planned for an eight to ten year period, starting with the hotel/resort in 1988. ` CULTURAL RESOURCE Regiona ujtural Pislary The following cultural history describes known pre-European cultural development in the Southern California region. No specific chronology exists for the Huntington Beach area, however most archaeologists divide the general prehistory of the Southern California coastal region into a four stage chron- ology, based upon changes in artifact assemblages and ecological adaptation. The first cultural tradition, called Early Man by Wallace (1955) and the San Dieguito Tradition by Warren (1968), remains best documented in San Diego County. The earliest potential evidence of human occupation in the region of r the study area comes from an tipper Newport Bay site, CA-Ora-64. Radiocarbon �., dates from this site suggest that native populations were exploiting shell- fish beds surrounding the bay as early as 6000 B.C. (ARI, 1977) . By 5500 B.C. , numerous prehistoric groups occupied both the coastal plains and foothills, as well as interior valleys of the Southern California region. These early inhabitants represented the Millingstone Horizon (Wal- lace, 1955) or Encinitas Tradition (Warren, 1968), and they relied upon the nano and metate as primary subsistence artifacts. This assemblage suggests a reliance on wild seed gathering and acorn collecting. W By 3000 B.C. , some populations within the region exhibited a greater reliance on maritime resources. Wallace defines these populations as the Intermediate Horizon, and Warren defines them as the Campbell Tradition. Wallace notes the introduction of the mortar and pestle and an increase in the number of small projectile points as indications of the Intermediate Horizon. In the Orange County area of the region, this cultural development apparently does not appear until 2000 B.C. , and then only certain traits are w present. Rice (1976) refers to this period as the Encinitas II tradition. 4 �r i �W a ' Lsa ie The Late Prehistoric Horizon or Shoshonean Tradition begins approximate- ly in A.D. 500 (Rice 1976; Bean and Smith 1978) . Archaeological evidence suggests that several groups entered the Southern California region from the Southern Great Basin. These groups are believed to have been Shoshonean- speakers who, in moving to the coast, separated the indigenous Hokan-speaking w groups. The appearance of cremation, small triangular projectile points, steatite containers, bone tools and the use of asphalt marks this cultural period. By A.D. 1000, this period is also identified by smoking pipes and aboriginal pottery. This latest prehistoric period ended rather abruptly with the Spanish expedition and the establishment of missions and outposts during the 18th century. The Spanish mission system divided the native population into groups, based upon the similarity of their spoken languages and their prox- I imity to lands controlled by individual Spanish missions. Mission San Gab- riel Archangel, founded in 1771, and Mission San Juan Capistrano, founded in 1776, are the closest missions to the project area. The project area falls within the southern portion of Gabrielinc territory during this ethnohistoric period (Kroeber 1925). The Shoshonean-speaking Gabrielino tribe occupied the Newport Bay area where the study parcel lies. Bean and Smith (1978), Johnston (1962) and Kroeber (1925) provide detailed summaries of the Gabrielino. Most of these studies indicate that the Gabrielino occupied a number of permanent and semi- permanent villages along the coastal and inland valley regions of what is now W Los Angeles, Orange and parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Although the Gabrielino had a complex socio-political organization, their subsistence is characterized by wild plant food foraging and limited hunting in the interior, and intensive shellfish near-shore fishing and sea mammal hunting in certain coastal areas. brchival ind Field Procedures In order to determine whether any cultural resources existed within the proposed site for the waterfront Project, Ms. Padon conducted a records L+ review at University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey, the Information Center for the California Archaeological Inventory for Orange County, and conducted a limited walk-over of the project area. The archival search checks for any previously recorded material of an archaeological or historical significance concerning the project area. This archival search included the following sources: the files, site records, and 'i" maps housed at UCLA Archaeological Survey (the state-recognized clearinghouse 5 ' r �r is Lsa i �r for archaeological sites for the County of Orange); and local , State, and national directories of historical monuments and landmarks. The record search also provided information concerning any previous archaeological surveys within the project areas. Ms. Padon reviewed the following archaeo- 1 logical and historical records for the project area: r National Register of Historic Places (1986 and subsequent updates) + California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976) � California Historic Landmarks (1979) Orange County Historic Landmarks � . Orange County Place Names (1966). On August 29, 1987, Beth Padon conducted a limited field review of the project location (Figure 2). Scatters of stone tools, waste flakes (results of stone tool manufacture), bedrock mortars, soil discoloration (results of �. decaying organic matter), worked bone, and structural remains such as hearths and house pits are all indicators of prehistoric occupation. These were sought in the project area, as well as glass and metal artifacts which would be indicative of significant historical features. Since a trailer park/hotel, and a golf course cover most of the project area, the field review was limited to the exposed ground along Beach Boule- vard (Figure 2) . The field review was conducted by walking back and forth over this portion of the development area while carefully inspecting the ground surface. The transects included careful inspection of any visible cuts in drainage areas and rodent holes for any indication of buried remains. Any available rodent burrow backdirt was inspected for buried cultural mater- ial . The wet condition of this portion of the development area limited V ground visibility. , . Archival and field Results A check of the site records at UCLA Archaeological Survey yielded nega- tive results. The closest known archaeological site, CA-Ora-149, lies 0.3 kilometers north and west of the project area. Pat McKinney of Pacific Coast +.d Archaeological Society first recorded this site in 1964. She noted chipped stone material from stone tool manufacturing, projectile points and finished chipped stone knives at the site. She also observed that the existing oil operations had partly destroyed the site. In 1980, Ron Douglas of Archaeo- logical Planning Collaborative (APC) revisited the site and prepared a site t update. Mr. Douglas also found few artifacts for the site area yet abundant shell fish remains. Within a two kilometer radius of the project area, the records list two other prehistoric sites. 6 i {.r Lsa The records also indicate that the property had been previously surveyed by ARI (1913). This survey had been conducted for the City of Huntington '" Beach to inventory cultural resources within the City. In 1980, Theo Mabry of APC prepared the report for the Huntington Beach Transportation Center that was proposed along Huntington Avenue, and immediately west of the pre- sent study area. These surveys found site CA-Ora-149 as previously recorded, and no additional archaeological sites for the project area or the adjacent areas. Review of the national , State, and local directories for historic land- marks also yielded negative results. Old editions of USGS topographic maps were examined to identify other possible pre-twentieth century structures. These included gor2na 30' (1902 edition) and Sant� Ana 15' (1896 and 1901 editions). The map reviewed indicated no potential historic structures for the study parcel . The rona 30' map (1902 edition) located the parcel �.� within a marsh. On August 29, 1987, Beth Padon conducted a limited field review of the L project area. The field reconnaissance yielded no evidence of prehistoric remains. Evidence of modern use of the area was noticed along the Beach Boulevard border. The modern use included a graded parking lot, modern trash along the road, and dirt bike trail along the fence of the trailer park boundary. onclu ons and R commends ion The proposed Waterfront development will not impact any known archaeo- logical or historical .resources. However buried remains, which generally go undetected during a surface survey, could be encountered during the develop- ment. If any archaeological or historical materials are found during the development, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted in order that the appropriate mitigation measures can be taken. With this qualifier, it is recommended that development be permitted to proceed. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Dr. John Cooper .prepared the paleontological part for the Waterfront project. His report is included in its entirety in Appendix A. The follow- ing discussion is a summary of that letter report. 7 M+ ,w Lsa I«r Stratiaraphv and Paleontology Dr. Cooper conducted a records check and literature review of published and unpublished geological and paleontological literature. He also reviewed the files of the Vertebrate and Invertebrate Paleontology Sections at the r.. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The literature review showed that fossil localities have been recorded along the bluffs of the Huntington Mesa area, three and four miles north and west of the project. These locali- ties are found in the Late Pleistocene San Pedro Formation. Both inver- tebrate and vertebrate fossils have been found and have included Ice Age fossils. Review of the geological map (Morton and Miller, 1981) revealed that the study area is underlain by Quaternary age alluvium. Due to the geologically young age of the alluvium, there is a low potential for significant fossils �. in these sediments. However, the fossil bearing sediments of the San Pedro Formation lie only one mile north of the project area. bet Dr. Cooper did not conduct a walk-over survey of the project since little open space and exposed areas exist within the project boundaries. w Recommendations The majority of the project area is underlain by alluvium which contains a low potential for significant fossils. However, significant fossil-bearing formations are located within one mile of the project area. Adverse impacts to potential paleontological resources could be adequately mitigated by undertaking the following recommendations: I. During deep excavation operations into the alluvium, a qualified paleontologist should be retained to monitor grading and salvage any fossils exposed by this grading. 2. A qualified paleontologist, listed with the County of Orange, should attend the pre-grade meeting with the contractor, developer L and City representative to ensure cooperation for the paleontologi- cal monitoring. 3. Fossils collected during grading at the Waterfront Project should be curated with an appropriate museum facility. 8 6w Ir i.r �d Lsa REFERENCES .+ Archaeological Research, Inc. (ARI) 1973 Report of a Scientific Resource Survey and Inventory conducted for the City of Huntington Beach, California. On file at UCLA Arch- aeological Survey. EIR #0-1. 1976 Defining the Southern Perimeter of Ora-575. On file at the Anthro- pology Museum, California State University, Fullerton. I977 Newport North Archaeology. Draft Report on Limited Testing. Ms. �. on file at Anthropology Museum, California State University, Fullerton. Bean, Lowell and Charles R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino ,in Handbook of North American Indians, California, Vol . 8:538-550, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation. ,rd I979 California Historic Landmarks. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation (revised 1982) . Hudson, Dee T. I971 Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization in South Coastal California in Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quar- terly 7(2):49-76. Johnston, Bernice Eastman +►+ 1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 8, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. King, Thomas F., Michael J. Moratto, and N. Belson Leonard III 1973 Recommended Procedures for Archaeological Impact Evaluation. Joint Publication of the Society for California Archaeology and the University of California, Los Angeles. On file at UCLA Archaeo- logical Survey. 9 w �W i Lsa Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ejhno- logy Bulletin Z8, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (re- printed by Dover Publications, New York, 1976). Mabry, Theo 1980 Historic Property Survey Report, Huntington Beach Transportation Center, Orange County Transit District. On file at UCLA Archaeo- logical Survey, EIR #0-485. McGimsey, Charles R. III and Hester A. Davis (editors) 1977 The Management of Archaeological Resources ,in the Airlie House L Report, special publication of the Society for American Arch- aeology. Meadows, Don 1966 Historic Place Names in Orange County. Paisano Press, Inc., Balboa Island, CA. Morton, P.K. and Miller, R.Y. 1981 Geologic Map of Orange County (Scale 1:48,000); California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 204, Plate 1. U.S. Office of Federal Register 1979- National Register of Historic Places in Federal Register, February 1986 6, 1979; March 18, 1980; February 3, I987; February 2, 1982; March 1, 1983; February 7, 1984; March 5, 1985; February 25, 1986 and subsequent updates. Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology jn Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 11(3):214-230, Warren, Claude N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern Cali- fornia Coast Ln Eastern New Mexico university Contributions in Anthropology, Vol . 1, No. 3:1-4 (Portales). 10 6 w �W L 1M it Appendix A Pal eontol ogi cal Report i �i L F Ir. +I W `o Iw W L L kr wrl Beth Padon October 15, 1987 Staff Archaeologist LSA, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California Dear Beth: This letter presents the results of an assessment of paleontologicalresources for the Waterfront 1I project area, City of Huntington Beach, at Beach Blvd. and Pacific Coast Highway. The project area lies along the western edge of the Santa Ana River flood plain and is situated entirely on unconsolidated sediments mapped as Qac (younger Quaternary Alluvium; Morton and Miller,1981) . ` According to archival information from, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (vertebrate and invertebrate sections) , there are no recorded paleontologic localities on the subject property, and because of the geologically young age of these sediments, no fossils would be expected. The nearest fossil-bearing deposits lie within a mile to the west and northwest in Late Pleistocene shallow marine sands of the San Pedro Formation (Cooper, 1980) exposed in various parts of the Huntington Mesa area. Several UCLA invertebrate localities (3655, 3656 , 3657, 1491, now on file at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County) are recorded for this area in bluff faces a few miles to the northwest of the project area. The nearest vertebrate locality is LACM 65113, which produced tooth and tusk specimens of Mammathus sp. and Bison sp. jaw fragments from a now buried site along winterburg POET in Huntington Beach, several miles north of the project area. Although it is highly unlikely that any scientifically sig- nificant fossils will be discovered during the development phase of the project, it is recommended that a qualified paleontologist be retained to monitor surface excavations on a spot-check basis (perhaps once a week or so) . This recommendation is made because of the fairly close proximity of the project site to known fossil- bearing deposits of Late Pleistocene age (Morton and Miller, 1961; Cooper, 1980) . Any fossils collected should be donated to the Natural History Foundation of Orange County. References Cited Morton, P. K. , and Miller, R. V. , 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County (Scale 1:48, 000) : California Division of Mines and +� Geology, Bull. 204, Pl. I. Cooper, J. D. , 1980, Assessment of paleontological Resources of the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana (Beeco Ltd) property, Newport Beach, California: Consultant report prepared for ARM Corp. Respectfully submitted. John D. Cooper, Ph. . `r Paleontological Consultant I.+ 16d 1 it r ►r The 4 led 1 i �1r 1 APPENDIX F Lb CORRESPONDENCE I 6d 14W ;M �•'f40, •: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ' r OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9dRG;Wi P.O. BOX 8127.FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLIS.FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (714) 962-2411 September 28, 1987 i, City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development Planning Division 2000 Main Street ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' Attention: Catherine el. O'Hara Subject: Notice of Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Certified EIR No. 82-2, "Waterfront Project" This is in response to your September 9, 1987 notice that the city will prepare a Supplemental EIR for the development of a 44-acre commercial/hotel/residential project to be Ic ated aft the northwest corner of Beach Bouldevard and pacific Coast Highway in -:hte -City of Huntington Beach. The 'pl'ah/project includes approximately 1,600 hotel rooms, 90,000 square feet of commercial use and 875 high density residential dwelling units. This area is within County Sanitation District No. 11 and previous planning has 44 acres of commercial use for this parcel . You are requested to calculate the expected sewage to be generated from the proposed development. It is suggested that you may wish to use the general flow coefficients of 5,820 gpd/acre for High Density Residential and 3,230 gpd/acre for Commercial . For more definite calculations, use 150 gallons/day per 1,000 sq. ft. of office or commercial development space and 100 gallons/day per hotel room. It is recommended that the Environmental Impact Report calculate the expected sewage flows generated by the proposed use and compare them to the Districts' previous plans. Wastewater generated within the District's service area is processed at treatment plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The Districts operate 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 (900) and suspended solids (SS). At the present time, the BOD in the Districts' discharge is close to the limit. Staff projects that each million gallons per day of additional flow will add one part per million to the BOD after treatment; therefore, significant land use changes will impact the Districts' facilities and, particularly, industrial and f commercial users should take on site measures to reduce the load strength of the sewage. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on pr pss d "Waterfront Project".. somas M. Dawes Director of Engineering TMD:CW:tc rNr_/CILIA/tv!1+I-119 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT C[STRICr Board Members it William E.Fams Gerald Muuen I R0 e•R.Sranron Fr:ChdrC s char September 22, 1987 L� Irl Ms. Catherine M. O'Hara Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Dear Ms. O'Hara: SUBJECT: WATERFRONT PROJECT—NOP FOR SLTPPLXMNIAL. EIR NO. 82-2 a.. We have reviewed this project as described in the NOP and have the following comments: • OCTD currently offers service on Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the project site, as shown on the attached route maps and schedules. Existing stops are located at: Northbound Pacific Coast Highway/Farside Beach Boulevard, Northbound Pacific Coast Highway/Opposite Driftwood Drive, Ud Northbound Pacific Coast Highway/Nearside Huntington Street. • In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit service for employees and patrons of this development, the following L.. transit amenities should be incorporated in this project: — The existing bus stops should be preserved, and bus turnouts 4, provided, if determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on traffic volumes, speeds, and roadway cross sections. -- Paved, handicapped accessible passenger waiting areas, includ— ing a bus shelter should be provided at each stop. — The area adjacent to the turnouts should be able to accom— modate a passenger Waiting area complete With a bus shelter and bench. w A paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian i accessway should be provided between each stop and the project,.. w buildings. 11222 Acacia ParkwavlP0 Boy XC54arden Grcve,Cal-;drma 92642-300w%(7414)971.6200 �r i tir Ms. Catherine O'Hara September 22, 1987 Page Two �r. Due to the scope of this development, additional stops may be necessary. The NOP does not indicate the proposed site design for the development, so we are unable at this time to indicate appropriate locations for pedestrian accessways, bus stops and + other passenger amenities. When the site plans become available, we would like to review them with respect to transit facilities and accessibility in the site design, as described in the OCTD Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this project and would like to receive copies of the DEIR and the project site plans when they are available. If you have any further questions, please call me or Noel Ibalio at 971-4351. Sincerely, Christine Huard-Spencer Environmental Coordinator CHS:DM:PLN-193 BJM Attachments: Route Maps and Schedules for OCTD Routes 1 and 29129A L L I iti Ud lid 1 STAIE Of CAUFORNIA—TNE RESOVKfS AGENCY — GEORGE DEtAu,. IAW. G*-wro► im DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 145 W. Broadway, Suite 350 ''.�" Long Beach. CA 90802-4467 :213 ) 590-5113 September 28, 1987 �r Catherine M. O'Hara tot f As3istant Flanner C;ty of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development ' Z000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. O'Hara: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental EIR for certifwed Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2, the "Waterfront W► Project" . We reiterate our concern over the potential loss of approximately 2.2 acres of restorable wetlands within the project boundary west of Beach ;u, Boulevard as expressed in our letters dated February 19, 1981 and February 3, 1982. i We maintain that our preferred alternative is to restore and maintain i"' these wetlands for wildlife use. However, depending upon design, it is difficult to determine the potential value of the site within the immediate proximity of Beach Boulevard and the intensive use which the proposed project will create on the adjacent land. In this regard, the Department may consider off-site, acre-far-acre (or more) mitigation if an appropriate site can be identified and developed. We would like to see these issues/alternatives discussed in the Supplemental EIR. Additionally, we are very interested in the potential restoration of the wetlands easterly of Beach Boulevard, and we commend the City of rr Huntington Beach for designating these wetlands as "conservation areas" . However, intense development west of Beach Boulevard could diminish wildlife usage of the wetlands easterly of Beach Boulevard. In this respect, the current use of the land (mobile home park/golf course) along with the current wetland acreage provides a more desirable buffer zone to the wetlands east of Beach Boulevard. We recommend that this issue be addressed in the Supplemental EIR. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Esther Burkett, Wildlife Biologist, at (714) 537-0696 or Jack L. Spruill of our Environmental Services staff at (213) 590-5137: Sincerely, Fred Worthley Regional Manager Region 5 cc: Coastal Commission &d Jack Fancher, USFWS t 1.a low AS Ank Mr fOepp Rn1A AfIOCIA?IEnif 600 Louth Commonwealth Avenue •fulte 1000•Lof Angeles*California.90005 •2131385-1000 September 14, 1987 : Ms. Catherine M. O'Hara � City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street w, Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Waterfront Project-Notice of Preparation of Supplemental EIR (SCAG File No. OR-50765-NPR) Dear Ms. O'Hara: ,w Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Waterfront Prcject. Staff has reviewed the Notice and offers the following comments in accordance with our procedures for voluntarily submitted projects. The DEIR should address SCAG plans and policies. For population. housing, and employment forecasts, the document entitled SCAG-82 Modified, adopted in February 1985, is the basis for review for consistency with regional plans and policies. The project should also be reviewed against the Baseline Projection which was approved, for planning purposes, June 1987. In order to evaluate the relationship of this project to the forecasts, the EIR should address the following issues: o What is the growth permitted in the project as a percent of the growth �.+ forecast in SCAG-82 Modified for RSA 38 at the anticipated dates of project completion or phasing? o What is the anticipated employment level associated with the project and how does it relate to the most recent SCAG growth forecasts for RSA 38? o What is the availability of housing to accommodate the employees in the area? How does the project help to achieve affordable housing as set forth in the adopted Regional Housing Allocation Model? o What are the cumulative impacts of this project and other projects in RSA 38, as related to SCAG-82 Modified for the anticipated dates of completion or phasing? r" o Are the provisions of the Regional Air Quality Management Plan, adopted in 1982, being implemented? What are the air quality impacts of the -- project? I it Ms. Catherine M. O'Hara #� Page 2 September 14, 1987 �M - o In evaluating both the transportation and air quality impacts, the DEIR should also provide a detailed description and documentation of the I , assumptions used in estimating total trips generated and their related vehicular emissions. This information is essential in estimating the project's impact on traffic in the area. To relieve significant air quality and traffic impacts, the HEIR should include transportation system and demand management programs to encourage the use of mass transit, ridesharing, trip-reduction strategies, etc., in order to reduce these impacts. o What are the impacts and school facilities? two Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. SCAG would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact report when it is available. L If you have any questions, please contact Tom Brady at (213) 739-6742 or me at (213) 739-6649. Si ly, RICHARD SPICER Principal Planner RS:T8 w I Irca �` 600 Louth Comnww*oith Rv"us•hito Io00•Lor Rngdor•California.90005.2t31385-1000 Admkk i� IOepp Rhin AIOCIATIinu 600 fouth Commonwealth Avenue •fulte 1000•tot Angeler•California.90005.2131385-1000 .� September 14, 1987 E Ms. Catherine M. O'Hara City of Huntington Beach r department of Community Development �• 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 a � RE: Waterfront Project-Notice of Preparation of Supplemental EIR (SCAG File No. OR-50765-NPR) Dear Ms. O'Hara: Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Waterfront Project. Staff has 6" reviewed the Notice and offers the following comments in accordance with our procedures for voluntarily submitted projects. The DEIR should address SLAG plans and policies. For population, housing, w' and employment forecasts, the document entitled SCAG-82 Modified, adopted in February 1985, is the basis for review for consistency with regional plans and policies. The project should also be reviewed against the Baseline Projection which was approved, for planning purposes, June 1987. In order to evaluate the relationship of this project to the forecasts, the EIR should address the following issues: o What is the growth permitted in the project as a percent of the growth forecast in SCAG-82 Modified for RSA 38 at the anticipated dates of project completion or phasing? .. o What is the anticipated employment level associated with the project and how does it relate to the most recent SCAG growth forecasts for RSA 38? o What is the availability of housing to accommodate the employees in the area? How does the project help to achieve affordable housing as set forth in the adopted Regional Housing Allocation Model? w o What are the cumulative impacts of this project and other projects in RSA 38, as related to SCAG-82 Modified for the anticipated dates of completion or phasing? o Are the provisions of the Regional Air Quality Management Plan, adopted in 1982, being implemented? What are the air quality impacts of the •• project? E g 1 49 I Ms. Catherine M. O'Hara Page 2 September 14, 1987 Ir .d o In evaluating both the transportation and air quality impacts. the DEIR should also provide a detailed description and documentation of the assumptions used in estimating total trips generated and their related I vehicular emissions. This information is essential in estimating the project's impact on traffic in the area. To relieve significant air quality and traffic impacts, the DEIR should include transportation f system and demand management programs to encourage the use of mass transit, ridesharing, trip-reduction strategies, etc., in order to reduce these impacts. o What are the impacts and school facilities? Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. SCAG would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact report when it is available. If you have any questions, please contact Tom Brady at (213) 739-6742 or me at (213) 739-6649. Si ly, RICHARD SPICER Principal Planner RS:TB W 1 La W W - I� Aw"" Ma�.�r.w�ry WO Louth Commonwoolth Avwnu*.Julto K=•for An"I r.Cnlllornio.9oo05.213/385-K= Ir Ir f CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 had Paul E. Cook Public Works Department Director A+ (714) 536-5431 rr � October 20, 1987 i Lr •l.�y . c/O i Deborah Baer L S A 1 Paris Plaza #500 Irvine CA 92714 wF Subject: The Waterfront E I R Dear Ms. Baer: The following responses from the City of Huntington Beach are in reply to your letter of October 1, 1987: ' Response 1: Maintenance of sewer, water and stoan drains are handled by the City, with the exceptions of the County of Orange who may operate separate sewer collection farili- �+ ties and storm drain facilities; also the Driftwood Mobil Horne Paris owns and opera- tes private water lines within the park. This includes hydrants, valves, etc. This i system is metered by the City. Response 2. After evaluation of the water distribution system and sewer cavity system and lift stations based cn projected land uses and zoning changes, service demands possibly will increase. Vie i.Tpact on these facilities can be minimized with proper planing by this developmnt in conjunction with tentative future develor-ments. A hydrology study will have to be done to properly evaluate the impact on storm drain facilities. Reseonse 3: Water - see the attached Huntington Beads Standard Plan 603 (Design Criteria) . Sewer - see the attached Table III-9 from the Sir Faster Plan. Storm Drains - Orange County Hydrology Manuul - 1986 Edition and the O.C.F.C.D. Design Manual. r RESMSE 4: Yes, the full irpact on existing facilities and the need for expansion will depend an the outcorrfe of Response 2. r a« A 1 w.. Debra Baer/Waterfront E I R .-2- October 21, 1987 +rw RESPONSE 5: Only for water, Kemedy/Jenks/Chilton Consulting Engineers for the Downtcx%m Water Tran&-ni.ssion Pipeline assessed the needs for this redavelog;ont area. Attached �. are alternatives"A" and "C" for your review. As of this writing a final determina- tion on which alternative to use has not been finalized. Contact Jeff Renna, Water Superintendent, at (714) 536-5922 if further clarification is needed. RESPONSE 6• r See the attached facilities maps for water, sewer and storm drains. e L+ RESPONSE 7: The City cannot forsee any problens for storm drains and sewer facilities. Off-site water loops on either alternative "A" or "C" will have to be installed prior to any construction for this development. R�POIv"SE 8: � I suggest you contact Bruce Gilmer, Traffic Engineer, and John Miller, Principal. Engineer for street designs, both men are with the City of Huntingtion Beach Public i Works Engineering Staff. Very truly yours, "��___,- � :ice.-;r,��•�.,�..�� Eric R. Charlonne Utility Design M ik �+ cc: Catherine O'Hara. Planning Division r.+ wr l eerr i i 1.. 1 1.r i4 • ud Environmental Assessment too Transportation Engineering Resource Management Community Planning it Lsa Environmental Restoration October 1, 1987 iZip o of Corporation Yard �+ City of Huntington Beach 17371 Gothard Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92647 SUBJECT: THE WATERFRONT EIR, HUNTINGTON BEACH Dear Hr, Dilks� ;W7�r,Ff r � LSA is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Report for The Water- front, a residential , hotel and commercial complex to be located in the City of Huntington Beach. The location of the project is designated on the at- tached map. We are interested in identifying potential impacts, due to this project, which may be of concern to your agency. It would be appreciated if you Would complete the enclosed questionnaire so that we can incorporate your comments into the EA. Also, please include any issues which are not directly ad- dressed in the questionnaire. Due to time constraints, it would be apprecia- ted if your responses were received by October 12, 1987. If you have any questions or desire more information, please contact me at (7I4) 553-0666. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. Sincerely, W Deborah Baer Assistant Planner DS/kc(RMC701) Attachments: Location Map Questionnaire w w ❑ 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 • Irvine, Califomia 92714 • (714) 553-0666 ❑ 157 Park Place • Pt. Richmond, California 94801 • 1415) 236-6810 WATER SYSTEM - DESIGN CRITERIA I. GENERAL 1 A. Design shall conform to requirements of Insurance Service I Office , AWWA Standards , DPW Standards , and HBMWD General $ Specifications . II . DEMANDS A. Domestic Demands * 1 . In residential areas, assume 157. gallons per capita per day, and 3.5 persons per dwellirC unit for average day. 2. Maximum Day - Average Armual Day X 1.5. 3. Peak Hour s Max. Day h 1.6. B. Industrial and commercial demands require special design. C. Fire Demands 4 1. 1 ,000 GPM in single family residential 2. 3,000 GPM in multiple family residential not exceeding three stories 3. Up to 6,000 GPM in high rise residential and commercial yl areas (3 story and higher) �• 4. 3,000 GPM in commercial , residential r 5. 1 ,500 GPM in school areas III . MAINS A. Sizes shall conform to Master Plan B. Minimum size shall be 6" in residential , and 8" in commercial , industrial or network size supported by calculations. C. All mains shall be interconnected at intersections. D. If future extension is anticipated , see Standard Plan No. 608, 4" Blowoff Assembly. E. Dead ends are to be eliminated whenever possible. Dead ends over 300 feet requiring fire hydrants are to be looped, or an 8" main run to fire hydrants . a � DESIGN CRITER h-. 1 of 4 L �'YOF H� t'1`1T1 ■EA�O� a e �'� CALIFORNA 600 F. Head loss shall not exceed five feet per 1 ,000 feet on Maximum Day flows or ten feet per 1,000 feet on Peak Hour or Maximum Day plus Fire Flow, whichever is greater. C. Thrust blocks shall be installed in accordance with Standard Plan No. 614. If not applicable , special design is required. H. All mains , 14" and larger, shall have profile shown on improvement plans. I . Pipe deflections shall normally be accomplished by means of standard fittings , the locations of which shall be detailed on the plans . No pipe bending J. Mains shall be located only in vehicular travelways , not in parking or landscaped areas . IV VALVES A. Valve spacing desired: 1 . BOO feet in residential areas 2 . 500 feet in high value areas 3. 1/4 mile on supply lines 4. 1 mile on supply lines t 5. 1/2 mile for combination artery and supply lines 6. 2 valves/tee, 3 valves/cross B. Valve locations desired: 1 . On the prolongation of the B.C. radial or property i line (Fire hydrant shall take precedence for location) C. All high points shall be equipped with air release c valves or located at fire hydrants . Air release or vacuum valves shall be in accordance with Standard i Plan No. 611 . D. All low points shall be equipped with blow-offs or located at fire hydrants. E. Thrust blocks shall be installed in accordance with Standard No. 614. If not applicable, special de- sign is required. f. Located only in travelways, not in parking or land- scaped areas. V FIRE HYDRANTS (Cont 'd next a e) DES G TERI Sht . 2 of '4 CAL pN off<: October, 1986 � � 600 V. FIRE HYDRANTS CONT'D A. Hydrant spacing required: 1 . Fire Flow Average Area per Required GPM Hydrant in Sq. Ft . 1 ,000 160,000 2 ,000 140,000 3,000 120,000 4,000 1005000 5,000 90,000 6,000 80,000 2. 500 feet spacing standard with 600 feet maximum for residential areas. 3. 300 feet spacing standard with 500 feet maximum for commercial and industrial areas ; all parts of all buildings. B. Hydrant locations required: 1 . On the prolongation of the B.C. radial or prop- erty line. 2. Tactical location by Fire Department 3. Off largest main at intersection of mains . C. Hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Standard Plan. If not applicable , special design is required. D. If cul-de-sac or travelway is over 350 feet long, a fire hydrant is required on the cul-de-sac street or travelway. LlVI . DOMESTIC SERVICES A. One separate service shall be installed to each dwelling unit or commercial unit . B. Minimum size shall be 1" . C. Services shall be installed per Huntington Beach Standard Plans and Huntington Beach Water Division General Specifications . D. Fire and domestic services shall utilize separate Service lines unless the use of a single domestic/ L11 fire combined service (all water metered) is approved by Water Superintendent. - �� (Cont'd next Da Re) _ DES C TERI Sht. 3 of 4' Ohl �! L CAL oN Dag: October, 198s SUN 0"a 600 i �a E. Meters to be located behind curbs, present and future within public right of way or dedicated easement . F. Fire Services , city responsibility shall be up to 1 property line, right-of-way, or easement line . VII . PRESSURES lot A. Minimum residual pressure shall be 20 p.s .i . at design fire flow plus maximum domestic demand, or peak hour, whichever is greater. B. When static pressures exceed 80 p.s. i . pressure , reducing valves may be required. Pressure reducing valves shall be installed and maintained by owner. Yr M 1 ; L. an Ir L11 W U.+ �r �ra ir. V DES C TERI Sht . 4 of L - ITYOF HtWINGIDN AP room: a L. pN CW i: October, 1986 ��omo 500 'u l •� DI T P. I T Al E �� _ 1 � @64 n, _.... C U 1 Q �; L. t i s `—� h= S I P U ZD 6n S N 6D lot Ity c� AV F E.�.Y U t�(6f �H Q DR C[, �t .�5�. 3a0v r OF, 12 IUj2 12. 0. ffsor M Alt ! � C E. r.F CIR DR f OXNALL a .tart`•`. R HUNTING TOM C!T .� rF •� �Arl� .', e• U i.l w LEGEND Existing Waterline ''! Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton City of-Huntington Beach isting Water L At Future xRedev System Redevelopment Area 0 400 a 12o0 September 1986 Deals In Feel K/J/C 6440 Figure 1 Connect To Proposed' `' • ` -! i}, �f i 20-Inch Downtown Fire c �� i•, ti' w ' Loop• L) �• Lev+ Connect To Exist �I ✓� v�L" '.j,( 11;` j .� l •�(� s� / Q _ �� 12-Inch Pipe In Vf�;E�. 1�<. ,R Ca�nect Ex let. r Atlanta Ave.r L ► �; . , ,12-Inch Pipes " ' '._�fi.� •O � 120 P. �11�,�� ri V12•Gr, ,Ltuv12• . ��• `ti �? ► Install 800 Ft. Of New' l / b ��•� 12-Inch Pipe In itet= Q 1pned :}�i� Orange Avs.ui 1 1 1 z N. extend Exist. 12-Inch Pipe '"j" l 1200 Ft. To New 16-Inch `I �• '�'• Cj . '` Pipe In Pacific Coast Hwy. ' ' Est h— _ • N I�11� ! �j►/ � .e� up V 461 C J"' F y' HILLS dio { V L�Install 5400 Feet Of No �•� '►' oil 10-Inch Pipe In P.C.H.. :� ;. +. �. ? i�K•• > C�,, f , 'R 4 i Lako St. l Olive Ave. I ( �\ t i t �.• � G► !� HUrt ? 1NGTO CIT1� .�► M. �'41 LU LEGEND ��• Existing Waterline ' t>/// New 20-Itch Downtown Water Transmission Pipeline a� Proposed 12-Inch Waterline � ■i0■ Proposed 16-Inch Waterline i Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton 1 City of Huntington Beach Alternative A 0 400 a 1200 September 1986 scale In feel K/J/C 644D Figure 3 • a 4r q Connect To Proposed E 4-. IYA 20-Inch Downtown Fire �. 7 , �•,t . Irk,/ ^ ! Loop' r) U 14CN rr. •j a i �i�' [ l� U u' V,t �t f V Ut vV .i a r• r� t!i tj . P )SC or , M F;�� Connect To Exist 1 �'; ,a1 ; f' ' `Vj t�.• Ct o�� 12-Inch Pipe In V E E •,• ti`�✓a - Connect Exist. Atlanta Ave.T 11 12•Inch Pipes DR 12" 12 12' ttr'' Of Extend Exist. 12-Inch Plpe L. •�. 1200 Ft. To New 12-Inch tf op 4 Pips In Pacific Coast Hwy. y l � �.+ Reniaeernen .,a ' , Ilk, +. .._ --7 `� l ['�f: of 1 100 Ft. E 01 6-inch Pipe W1tR �'•-�,..; + �� , Install 3200 Ft. Of r k 12-Inch Pipe In PC H �. + Of —Now12-inch Pipe in ao Lei (Planned By City) ��+` Beach Blvd. From E( a ��>_AtlaT to Ave. To P.C.H. l '°r�i•'�ft� Cad j f 1q9 WIN f r jar r) D[t�,C1 l� ir f N z Install 4900 Ft. Of New to-Inch WeterliR � -X�,•.t. .��;. �i �� Exlenslon In Proposed Walnut Ave. Realignment xt•:,:: (Or Other Proposed E-W Street Alignment y' ' W ■ Through The Redevelopment Area.) CD yam, Install 3e00 Ft. O1 12-Inch Pipe To Replace Exist. &-Inch Pipe In PCH *..4 0 w LEGEND -1 ■� Existing Waterline //` New 20-Inch Downtown Water Transmission Pipeline " `;r�UU 5 , em m* Proposed 12-inch Waterline . * . ' ■0■ Proposed IS-inch Waterline Extension Kennedy /Chilton City of Huntington Beach ..■UMM Future 12-inch Waterline N &W Atternalive C Ld o 400 coo 1200 September 1986 scale In Feet K/J/C 644D Figure 4 i Y {W � TABLE 1II-9 �.. RECOMMENDED UNIT FLOW GENERATORS FOR AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOWS- `X Y. Yr w Land Use Description Chit Flow Factorl ) �= w� R1 Low Density Residential 230 gpd/Dwelling Unit L� R2 Medium Density Residential 160 gpd/Dwelling Unit R3 High Density Residential 130 gpd/Dwelling Unit lot R4 Very High Density Residential 130 gpd/Dwelling Unit R5 Office-Professional 2000 gpd/Acre RS Mixed Density Residential 160 gpd/Dwelling Unit N RS4 Pacifica Community 3000 gpd/Acre C Commercial 2500 gpd/Acre CFE Schools 1500 gpd/Acre CFS 'Community Centers (Parks) 800 gpd/Acre w CFR Parks 100 gpd/Acre fil Light Industrial 3000 gpd/Acre K2 Industrial 3000 gpd/Acre 11H Mobile homes 120 gpd/Dwelling Unit 1) All Residential Flows are based on 70 gpcd Y , M w III-21 i ORANri6 COVNTY 0IV1510N • F.O. BOX 3334.ANAMEIM.CAI-IF.02803 Oct. B, 11387 •r-�t11rCt„ aY USA LSA I 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 OCT 0 91987 IYr Irvine, CA 92714 } Attn: Deborah Baer, Assistant Planner Subject: The Waterfront EIR. Huntington Beach This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment ike to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas i.• service to the project could be served by an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public 4WI Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, .i is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the ,jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of gas supply or the condition ir+ under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on im an individual basis and are obtained from the Cormlercial-Industrial T4arket Services Staff by calling (714) 634-3173. �.• We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further Information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely. D. C. Moore _ Technical Supervisor W LA-du atta=hment y i. IT ! 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNiA 92648 Paul E. Cook Public Works Department Director (714) 536-5431 October 28, 2987 I •� LSA OCT 3 I Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92714 iaa Attention: Ms. Deborah Baer 1 ' SUBJECT: WATERFRONT PROJECT 16` ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-2 i Dear Deborah: LL M/ The following is the City of Huntington Beach water Division's response to your questionnaire, dated October 1, 1987, concerning the above mentioned project. ITEM #1: Minimum level required to serve existing fire and domestic needs. ITEM #2: YES. The existing water pipelines serving this area are inadequate to serve the proposed project. Additionally, according to the City's 1987 Water Master Plan, the water supply capacity of the City is Iw inadequate to meet peak hour demands on a City-wide basis. ITEM #3: I See attached table. ITEM 4: Major water pipelines will need to be constructed to carry adequate fire flows to the project. The project's possible participation in �i mitigating future peak hour flow demands will need to be addressed prior to issuance of permits. ITEM 5: two We are currently reviewing draft reports for the 1987 Water Master Plan. ' Page one Iw 4 I a 4W ,�. Ms. Deborah Baer Waterfront Project Environmental Impact Report 82-2 Page two October 29, 1987 1 • 1.r ITEM #6: Existing facilities are adequate for existing demands. Any demands r.. greater than the existing will overtax these facilities. ITEM #7: Assuming implementation of the projects identified in the 1987 Water Master Plan, City-wide peak hour deficiencies will be mitigated. The developer will need to construct those pipelines necessary to serve the development. ITEM #8: ►r A. Internal water: Conservation designs utilizing low flow shower heads; low flush toilets; reduced water pressure; serving water only j on demand in restaurants; etc. B. External water: Conservation designs utilizing low water demand landscaping (Xeriscape) ; berming to retain runoff for irrigation; utilization of drip irrigation where feasible; low angle sprinkler 16+ heads to minimize loss due to wind scattering; and irrigating only during off peak hours ( late evening) . Should you have any concerns or questions pertaining to this information, please feel free to contact me at (714) 536-5921. 461 Very truly yours, Aa r uperintendent JRR:EB:bb Mir irr are based on the consumption records, the total is expected to fall below the amount produced due to thehccounted-for water. yam, Demand coefficients were then confirmed and revised upwards-slightly to reflect total +" water production, rather than consumption. Demand coefficients used for the water r system analysis are summarized in Table 3-8. TABLE 3-8 EXISTING DEMAND COEFFICIENTS ANNUAL PRODUC'I710*: COEFFICIENT ME 12E IAND USE Low Density Residential 1.2 1 Medium Density Residential 2.2 High Density Residential 2.7 Commercial 1.3 Ll Manufacturing 3.7 Irrigated Open Space 1.1 Schools .02 GPM/Student L 6W 3-11 i 6.' �+• RESPONSE SHEET As � On 1`J f j" Mr. Stanley Tkaczyk Rainbow Disposal Co. i �•+ For your convenience, we have provided space on this questionnaire for your answers, to be used as an attachment to your response. If you choose to answer these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to r� correspond to the questions. 1. What level of service do you presently provide to the project area? t - �,� Commercial and residential rubbish removal. f 2. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the types of services you provide? If yes, hog:? No 1 �. 3. What standard consumption or generation rates do you use in assessing service demands? y Whatever trash is generated must be removed at whatever frequency is needed to protect the health and safety of the project. 4. Will the project create a need for expanding existing facilities or staff or constructing a new facility? Please explain. �k Yes. Higher transfer station quota's must be approved through the city and county. 5. Are there any current plans for expansion of your facilities? If yes, please briefly describe. k Permitted levels at Rainbow Transfer Station will have to be raised in order to handle the future increased volune of trash from new developments. 8. What are the locations and capacity of your facilities serving the area and how near capacity are they now operating? 17121 Nichols Street in Huntington Beach. 1500 tons per day. Now approxi- mately 1200 ton's a day and getting higher, and will increase over permitted tonage when Coyote Canyon Landfill closes in less than a year. - 7. Do you foresee any problems in servicing this project? If yes, please +� explain. • No. As long as transfer station quota's are increased. W 8. Can you recommend any measures for mitigating project impacts that might r be incorporated into the project? None at this time. Leo it A f� J BY LSA RESPONSE -SH[EJ OCT 0 91987 '" Mr. Steve Parker Deputy Fire Marshall I lad For your convenience, we have provided space on this questionnaire for your answers, to be used as an attachment to your response. If you choose to answer these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to correspond to the questions. �Y I. What level of service do you presently provide to the project area? �M 2. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the types of services you provide? If yes, how? peosecr wio- I t-krAL Tr►-z: pEr—i IAJ AL-,.. ?i��rC.14 , T'F_Cr.1 i7C1t1ciOCA.'C141 Y��C Tit��G�►Z H Coy^Fc rivti: -r SUP sr"�;tc�-�t•� titJVL C-Ai }t C.l:(-cS , IFJN55IPLC14 E5-JA6L(StA Yo .+vrta" ]7Ecl�'cc`- `� 3, What standard consumption or generation rates do you use in assessing service demands? No CAT--C � c-p,t AA C-'-c a 4" ,A,Du s 1444 - h r✓� { `a G-�TVi��.[S%� /Yfi'iE��C •f (f�(,LS !�C`J'��7rr.- t't4-� 1!1UJ r ! 4. Will the project create a need for expanding existing facilities or staff or constructing a new facility? Please explain. xic 6 C.F ,=1 ize- S'[ '�T i c ti 1 t !�r'f'!� '�7L�! !5 N G.j //j i;oLke C. 1 5. Are there any current plans for expansion of your facilities? If yes, please briefly describe. No 6. What are the locations and capacity of your facilities serving the area and how near capacity are they now operating? Fr.zc: gT.ar'GN Alk,pir"A rc._C tXA . 4-4rV.yw&Sim 5M. y" 'MA6•r44uA w NAAIR-T N or+4 i'r+Jrr+t4 CO . CNN- C&L(.1t4c Ct 01VC—T-"W'k- U. 7. Do you foresee any problems in servicing this proJecY? "If yes, please explain. k" 8. Can you recommend any measures for mitigating project impacts that might be incorporated into the project? i nC «ZE &IVY LtFC— Sptet!;r SISMAAS !N A-LL r3&iiLr>,N&5 w;-cctt-lp5UPS iv a E c LA c.0 �u<< r A`M n►v wi+�-rJ�. c�tu�t-fl r r� nn 1�3a �M rL.G-tom G .r . a t �- Vicinity Map is r i 491 Q °.fo 0 o I� LL:19 ic �oI I � •I_ _ J / II Y I 7 U 0 77II i 36 ° t o oa o t -� L V { j ° u•yP r� ��o :� IMaMpRIS�o o-Sch, u•UEa z..,t�aa Bhtkr� F l OIL .� ,tx t_ 1 � I . IIl � I �RR;J ^�`� �7 � [—A,V +--� {��—f R ° , R ILLY R1 _lJl-1��UI i�2 II i `� ,{ •�! ZI --- 'taY^7S� ✓ ��sa �\ e/ e t ---lNG } ..— �. t� A ! Trailer eT. •�t fad- II 1 I fIII I 8M 28 \� ihr,B;rk I f T. Fj A39 MI ITO HUNTING F "The Waterfront" t*' !•• ��ItII I WT Y WT Water 'Tanks , C C B M N y O S� RCA�"�.� . Scale in Feet qN '';;" 0 1000 2000 r— taw I .�t�CI Vr—L, ;.. 13Y LSA RESPONSE-SHEET I OCT 0 91987 too Mr. Melvin M. Bowman Director, Community Services Department ti �.. For your convenience, we have provided space on this questionnaire for your answers, to be used as an attachment to your response. If you choose to answer these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to correspond to the questions. �M 1. What level of service do you presently provide to the project area? The adjacent property is the city's municipal beach parking lot and recreational beach facility. It is supervised and managed by the Community Services Dept. Police, Fire and other services are provided by those j 2. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the types of services you d epts. provide? If yes, how? No i 3. What standard consumption or generation rates do you use in assessing service demands? Beach use only, No impact. i� 4. Will the project create a need for expanding existing facilities or staff or constructing a new facility? Please explain. No yi 5. Are there any current plans for expansion of your facilities? If yes, ~' please briefly describe. We are planning to redesign the Huntington Street entrance to the muni- cipal beach parking and camping facility. iw - 6. What are the locations and capacity of your facilities serving the area and how near capacity are they now operating? We are at full capacity during the summer (June, July, August, September). During the off-season, attendance ranbes from 25 to 100 percent. This includes the parking, camping and beach facilities. 7. Do you foresee any problems in servicing this project? If yes, please y.r explain. No 8. Can you recommend any measures for Mitigating project impacts that might be incorporated into the project? Difficult to answer not knowing the overall intent of the project. Iiore +� detailed information is needed. low t 1.r i t �M 5 iw OCT r 1�BT General Telephone Company of California 6774%Vestmirsler Blvd �y Westminster.Ca'ilofma 92683.3788 213 594.4526 714 891-5321 k Oct oUer 12. 1967 67 3680C I Lr MS. DEbC)RAH 6AER t.,A 1 Nark rlaca. Suite 500 + lrvine. Cal ifornia 92714 ! SUBAC:T: i he Waterfront E 1 R. Hunt i ngton Beach 4. Dear Ms. Baer: You have asked for information from General 'leleohone Comoanv of 64 California to oreoare an environmental impact report for a or000sea residential hotel and commercial complex in Huntinoton Beach. Li To answer vour specific auestions: 1 1 . We are oresently provic)ina residential customer telephone L service to the existina trailer nark (IHE DRIFTWOOD BEACH CLUES MOBILE mOME PARK) . r, 2. Tnere will be no adverse impact on the tvpes of services we provide. 3 . Upon rec:e-ivina plans for the proposed development. our Forecastina Department determines the service requirement for the area. LA 4. 1moroverpents and/or Extension of our facilities may be required. Standard Public Utilities Commission Rule 34 r Agreements will be entered into with the actual developer for or000rtionate shared costs for facilities to the site. At the present time. there would be no need for expandina our exist.ina staff or constructina a new facility. 5. Currently there are no plans for the expansion of our facilities. 6. Existina telepnone aerial lines (on voles) and buried cable. service the area. Zhe approximate location is desianatea on the at.tachea man. We are aoeratinq at an appropriate residential consumption level . i A part o!GTE Corporation fir+ • 'N& Mb. DEBORAH BAER Octoner 12. 1987 Nacre 2 { 7 . The teieonone facilities to the Huntington Beach Inn at 21112 Parrific CoaSr. Hlanway. are in privately owned conduit l" within tree mobile home park. To relocate or maintain the system in Glace would oe at the developer's expense. 6. Tr)e earliest possible verification of final proiect plans ana orecise periods will insure satisfactory installation. If tnere are anv further auestions concernina the EIR. please Ike contact Jan Orme-Driscoll or Jerry Ferlita at (714 ) 891-5321 . Anv inauiries as to construction of the oroiect should be referred to Jae PacKi at ( 7141 891-5321 . The plans should oe rr sent to our bu 1 1 ci i no 1 nclustry Consultant (3680B-WO4) : 6774 Westminster Avenue. Westminster. California. 92683-3788. I Very truly yours. r �1 161 -RICHARD C. HERZOG NI;7 WORK ENGINEERING ADMINISTRATOR - FACILITIES 161 ,_ 1 41 w w v M w•• r Vicinity Map lsa !t LEI 0 o I I o o q o 1: • ° fir_ -�. - ._ -._- - ,�•- �. �.. fl,J[ ' D od�• _ i •ylr�- ° n .o \ P.:. o •\o �\ � -�- I �� :Jj .. _. II _ ._ _:� r'-- , /.�'t`ti• °��!"'•'/� ��^\ I 6 o r, •� � _�;J±.�_i� �'•x:_.N C r�t�u t� rmll �..'�a1!b° � — O(. lip gib• �rr�z�sc �1-�1' � ,III / ��V fpal{• 54 � „ � 1 /.. MA R � ,II!OOIII' V� �,'•.r,_�. l ".a Il_ I �� o � NGTb1 ' B40 A a ze a ...e 8 •°e ,'r�[JlTreiler .t .. • • Y . ��t GCE N E ZRL TELEPM ti -MAM, ry SERVICE TD MOBILE TON- -- h o by HOME PAU, �� `G) • • �� o: "The Waterfront' �� •'ewr�' t�� :: m,l�' `''.:.::::' 1 14 Q�/\1�3f �;•dater \\ �� :`� I l Tanks •��_ c� s? Scale in Feet N 0 1000 2000 �rati Huntington Beach Union High School District = 10251 Yorktown Avenue,Huntington Beach,California 92646(714)964-3339 I z 5 4y 4 Lawrence Kemper,Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools G" scM°° Board of Trustees i.r 3Y LSA Bonnie Castrey President NOV 0 31987 David Wartield Vice President Jerry Sullivan Clerk +� October 28, 1987 Brian Lake Linda Moulton �r Ms. Angie Egli t-SA L. 1 Park Plaza Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92714 SUBJECT: Waterfront EIR, Huntington Beach Dear Ms. Egli: Enclosed are responses to questions posed in correspondence to the Superintendent of Huntington Beach Union High School District dated October 1, 1987. Cordially, tr David J. Hagen Assistant Superintendent low Business Services ,w cc: Allan Burns, Attorney 08753/ I' i Humnw i,ue 0 Wearmaer 0 Y.rm C F.urewn Whey G Ednm 0 Ocw Vier 0 E.twq Mope Sows C7 A661 S~0 004m CeaW 0 W"ff rp EO""re"m C~ r� RESPONSE SHEET 16W . 1. WHAT LEVEL OF SERVICE DO YOU PRESENTLY PROVIDE TO THE PROJECT AREA? The Huntington Beach Union High School District is responsible for educating the high school age students living in the project area. 2. WILL THE PROPOSED LAND USE ADVERSELY IMPACT THE TYPES OF SERVICES YOU PROVIDE? IF YES, HOW? The 891 residential units planned in the project area will increase student enrollment in the HBUHSD and subsequently impact school staffing and facility utilization. 3. WHAT STANDARD CONSUMPTION OR GENERATION RATES DO YOU USE IN ASSESSING SERVICE DEMANDS? N/A. 4. WILL THE PROJECT CREATE A NEED FOR EXPANDING EXISTING FACILITIES OR STAFF OR CONSTRUCTING A NEW FACILITY? PLEASE EXPLAIN. The increased enrollment could result in the need for additional classrooms and facilities at our schools. We currently cannot house all of our students in the existing permanent facilities and have utilized temporary (portable) classrooms since the early 1970's. The additional Ld students also place a greater strain on facilities and require renovation and reconstruction schedules to be accelerated. �., 5. ARE THERE ANY CURRENT PLANS FOR EXPANSION OF YOUR FACILITIES? IF YES, PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE. Currently, the H8UHS0 has 65 portable classrooms and rents community h"' facilities from one of the local elementary districts. We have not been in a financial position to add additional permanent facilities in order to house the current level of students and staff. If finances become available, we would like to construct permanent facilities in lieu of the portable and rented facilities. 6. WHAT ARE THE LOCATIONS AND CAPACITY OF YOUR FACILITIES SERVING THE AREA AND HOW NEAR CAPACITY ARE THEY NOW OPERATING? Huntington Beach High School currently serves the project area. Their ., school enrollment was 101 students over projection for the 1987-88 school year. We are currently studying district demographics in order to monitor and project future trends for the high school. 7. 00 YOU FORESEE ANY PROBLEMS IN SERVICING THIS PROJECT? IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN. Yes. We will experience increased enrollment at HBHS which will place a �. strain on old and temporary facilities. Also, we will have to employ additional teachers to handle the increase in enrollment. 8. CAN YOU RECOMMEND ANY MEASURES FOR MITIGATING PROJECT IMPACTS THAT MIGHT BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT? Assistance with expansion and renovation of facilities as well as increased staffing to handle new student enrollments and needs. 0875J/ W NOV 13 1987 RESPONSE SHEET Mr. G. L. Payne, Research & Planning Huntington Beach Police Department For your convenience, we have provided space on this questionnaire for your answers, to be used as an attachment to your response. If you choose to answer these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to correspond to the questions. 1. What level of service do you presently provide to the project area? �EVesen V We peovde the /evel s ee�-fe,eillre ✓Q!e/��- a6 '2. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the types of services you provide? If yes, how?- —7Xe �D/'Q�ased NeeGC . iG? VaCe 1.)'A1/ dU)eR clue �o �fiP a�d,�i9,iJ o� � e /&00 /lole/ feo'qz�s and -the eam1,))eec a/ 6o1nAlex, 3. What standard consumption or generation rates do you use in assessing service demands? deSi,2 ed �vurr/�ee Jke ca-1/,s ale - t ma,e lee z7 telex e 4. Will the project create a need for expanding existing facil-Jties or staff or constructing a new facility? Please explain. -�Je Nea- ' er�eC� pto SY�S -f add�'aa 01r / Gad how/ QaaIX&. Tf haj Gem. 61t1cu/aid j-Q,e&-;ce a,ec 4e�e�e��d ice I�or�/ 2vo� / 2 r�,ea,e. Tlia3 6F00 gad 800 e'a//s �.�5- = /5- adds-i bA/a/ 0{�iCeXS lUeede, 5. Ar 'here any current plans for expansion of your acilities? If yes, please briefly describe. Ao Wee/hA ,0/aA f ?4�,e e4,941VS-4e/, 6. What are the locations and capacity of your facilities serving the area and how near capacity are they now operating? d©0 D IVa,'A) J!/;e en 7. Do you foresee any problems in servicing this project? If yes, please explain. WIA -At addlhol Al Uil/ 4/,so i e -IA,e &,54J ,�•e alze ,ee�oriel� e�r��i 7D Jpev16e 'f i Q.2ea , 8. Can you recommend any measures for mitigating project impacts that might be incorporated into the project? 10 fie oaeoJrn4 a2ea. s�o�/d !e eo�.r��leeed �/Jo -� 6e, Co�s��Ce2ed is �f� RECEIVE) MAR 121997 P C v ��/L 7A.NK� • 1r 5455 GARDEN GROVE rr BOULEVARD. March 6 1907 WESTMINSTER. + CALIFORNIA 1 92683 MI The Robert Mayer Corporation Mr. Shawn K. Mi l l Bern 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 • Newport beach, California SSE58-6680 ? Dear Mr. Millbern: I have completed the review of the seven well records P on file at the California Division of Oil and Gas, Long Beach office. The wells were variously abandoned in the years from 15Z5 to 1967 and unfortunately none of the ab&nownments meet the D. D. S. requirements for a housing Bevel opoent. I have prepared Supplementary Notices to Reabandon ea=r well, but have not mailed them to the D. O. G. Copies are enclosed for your information and consideration. Tne estimated casts based upon the procedures outlined by the Notices are as follows: Signal-Huntington Beach City #I. . . . . . . . . . . . . S 16, 050 Signal-Huntington beach City 02. . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 18, 500 rr Signal-McCallen *I. . * . . . . . . 0 0 . . . . O . P . . O . . 0 11, 650 Mills Land 6 Water Co. 01. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 800 Mills Land & Water Co. OS. . . =i Mills Land & Water Co. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 100 Mills Land d Water Co. 04. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1ki050 s 1 c5, 375 These estimates are based upon the "most likely" case but as you know reentering wells after some 50 years is ha=ar0ouw and actual costs could be much more. In cases where the mechanical conditions of the well proves to be such that the proper plugging is not practical the D. O. G. will modify thoir requirements but may also mire a conditional abandonment. 1r 4 kr . Mc:'r=rnl C=I Inn 1NIrnl 1='r=v 1"rINKZI It TAN ITS [Mr. f7141 898-6399 Page C R. Mayer Corp/S. M i l l berry All wells will have to be re-entered by drilling out j top plugs. Three of the "Mills" wells had three (3) strings of casing which were cut and recovered at the time of azandonment. Cement plugs were not placed over the stubs when the casing was cut but now plugs are currently required 9 iM by the California Division of Oil and Gas (D.0. S. ). To reabandon these wells, it will require placing 3 or 4 cement ' plugs. The "Mills" 4 well was not completed and has :3880' }} of open-hole which may pose considerable problems. The f tie estimate is based upon a "no problem" reabandcnment--but an `E abandonment with this well condition, could cast as much as 1 S50, 000. hr Enclosed is a copy of your site map with the wells I platted using locations as reported to the D. O. G. or, the f Le original notice to drill the well. It it not unusual to ' find the actual well location to be a few feet from the f reported loca=ion so these plotted locations may not be exact. Please advise if you wish me to mail these notices to the D. O. G. Very truly yours, � Ek Thomas H. Benton � California Registered Ll Petroleum Engineer PBOB THB/Ir }� l } L i LA + � t 601 � t a, Prsrrin/Prearrlire,brr. 23�41- Ch BALTIMOR 'nrw.w.,' Chevron ' `�2i-31e0 I I Z. t.A 12 `.1 25.4740 r1 �As e.• ATLANTA AVE Nr.0 rr.:Cr a r 1{ 14' i Few O•/C. Nr./ewe- i 2 •�•,724 23-s621 I AarAe,. Q 13 '\ 90•t2. z:s,e• i 21-2766IA t DL1 m /ef./•[ SuI/y Cie /f\� �7A'Ierl 1 s2-271e fr'Or Leese N•2• Y Oew /i/Co ♦ lsrsz/ _ { W co Che a r017 ♦` `.e•2174 +S-t lrmr Alva" Few of Ce. yr1 y 2 ri/Ae'I' wye//y ¢sl-4493 JerrKe fry.lY. 1 ��\ ' Awri—'l USA,/ne,Ojr• ♦s I /� •Af D.C,. . I Y TT /t - Surf BOOrw/I/ at Co. •'i//rr` /� \`\ •Mi1/1' e♦ • r A:ar �\ 4 + l -•• 42•451( rrAnA/ty•A'/rro/n/n•/nt • •t;wv/-eKp//cw• 1 - • Baee A.7AeTee I1h/•r IrMr H•ne/ ti aL.B/ebBe/e./w I Sc A 4 k : l"�SOD ` ¢ 5Vw«/eA•n• 'Pace""."T)Lt•east T 4W I (tt�Yta R too G�ev�o�l!_SA. lnc. ., 694-9385 1�;Y 2 E 1u87 P.0.Box 606.!_a Mabra,CA 90631 • Phone(213) May 21, 1987 ' �r Facilities Location Request Proposed Hotel Site Pacific Coast H'sghway and Huntington Street Tentative Tract Map#13045 ' Project No. 134-1201 Cily of Huntington Beach yr i e: L Fuscol, Williams & Short ' 601 North Parkcenter Drive 6+ Suite 104 Santa Ana, Californta 92705 Attention: Mr. Mark K. Wingard Gentlemen: 6. In response to your letter dated April 1, 19$7, regarding your proposed hotel site on Pacific Coast Highway and Huntington Street, Tentative Tract No. 13045 in the City of Huntington Beach, Chevron cannot determine if our facilities (marked in red on attached map) will conflict with your proposed project. Therefore, we request that preliminary construction drawings be sent to our office when they become available. We request that the contractor notify Steve Conley of Chevron U.S.A. Inc., at (213) 694-7065 and Underground Service Alert at 1-900-422-4133, forty-eight (48) hours prior to any on site work. Very truly yours, 166 Sharon D. High 6d SDHJee Attachment f 1. 5V 1 Summary of Fiscal Impacts to the City of Huntington Beach from the Development of The Waterfront: (Source. La►enthol&Horwarh, November 23, 1987) Nr Qne-Time Ympact Fees: +� School District Fees $11,490,000 Do%mto%%m Specific Plan Fee 43,000 Park Development Fee 1,159,000 Community Enrichment Fee 158,000 Water Connection Fees 142,000 Sewer Connection Fees 307,000 Sanitation District Connection Fees 3,515,000 Drainage Assessment 329,000 Plan Check Fees 510,000 Building Permit Fees 785,000 16# Miscellaneous 4.000 Total $8,441,000 Y 161 25 Year Total Impagg: One Time Impact Fees: $8,441,000 Land Lease&Acquisition Payments: 22,799,000 t On-Going Net Revenue: �+ (Transient Occupancy Tax,Property Tax Increment,Sales Tax and other miscellaneous revenue,net of cknvloper reimbumcmcnts) 140,652,000 On-Going General Fund Expenditures: (Added Police,Fim Public Works. Administration and other miscellaneous) ,(17.177,M Total Net Fiscal Impact over 25 Years: 1154,726,000 6. A W 4.+ Summary of Fiscal Impacts to the City of Huntington Beach r from the Development of The Waterfront: (Source: Laventhol&Horwath,November 23, 1987) to One-Tme Impacct Fees: School District Fees $1,490,000 Downtown Specific Plan Fee 43,000 Park Development Fee 1,159,000 Community Eni:chment Fee 158,000 L. Water Connection Fees 142,000 Sewer Connection Fees 307,000 F Sanitation District Connection Fees 3,515,000 Drainage Assessment 329,000 Plan Check Fees 510,000 Building Permit Fees 785,000 Miscellaneous 4. Total $8,441,000 r ' Lr One Time Impact Fees: $8,441,000 l Land Lease&Acquisition Payments:ents: 22,799,000 � - On-Going Net Revenue: (Transient Occupancy Tax,Property Tax Increment,Sales Tax and other miscellaneous revenue,net of developer reimbursements) 140,652,000 On-Going General Fund Ex enditures: (Added Police,Fire,Public Worg, Administration and ether riscellaneous) _07.177.= L Total Net Fiscal Impact over 25 Years: $154,726,p00 `ad THE E ROBERT too CORPORATION November 24, 1987 �r Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street kid Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Attention: Mr.Scott Hess Re: Zone Change #87.7 Supplemental Information Dear Sirs: We wish to provide you with the following supplemental information regarding our �i proposed conversion of the Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park. In order to minimize the impact on park tenants, RLM Properties shall plan a �1 phased closure of the park rather than an immediate bulk conversion. This mill 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,01 typically be a small fraction of +w. the total number of coaches at the park. Therefore, the feasibility and manageability of the conversion of the park is tremendously enhanced by phasing. Utilizing the assistance of a professional ci,,il engineer, a phasing plan for the park has been devised based on the following criteria: 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. e) Maintaining proper access, traffic circulation and functional groupings of i coaches in remaining phases. On the following page is a table which summarizes the estimated phased conversion of the park based on the engineer's plans and the projected redevelopment schedule for the property. +rr t_O%eJ%Cc~Ce^se'Dive 5_J to T50 =ox G_vV L I� stimatcd Ebasine.,pf Qgnv rsion too Park Space Number Total CoUnt Estimated Date of Qosurg 306-315 321-329 19 IV1998 11-19 �y 200-204 316,320,401 65-120 301-305 317-319 272-290 89 511990 f ' - �� 1-10 431-441 21 511991 20-64 206-270 78 5/1992 402-430 442-444 32 511993 A minimum of six months prior to the date that the specific phase of the park will be closed, it will be our plan to provide all affected tenants with a written notice advising them of the definite date of closure. If relocation assistance per a future a roved Relocation Assistance Plan has not been previously arranged with the affected tenants, the program would then be put into effect during that six month period. The estimated dates of phased closure as shown in the above table are the most accurate estimates available at this time but may be subject to change. Changes in future development plans may alter the phasing plan previously outlined. RLM Properties reserves the right to modify the planned phasing of the conversion of the park with regard to the actual dates of phase closure, the phasing order and partial phasing (sub-phasing). A specific Relocation Assistance Plan has not yet been prepared and submitted to the City for approval. However, when such a plan is prepared, it will comply with the standards set by the City's mobile home park conversion ordinance, Article 927 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. In summary, that ordinance requires that where it is feasible to relocate a mobile home, the applicant shall pay the cost of relocating the mobile home for a distance of up to 50 miles from the City. It is the intention of RUM Properties to devise a Relocation Assistance PIan that will AAW pay for the cost of relocation to any point within the State of California if so requested by the tenant. rM l�. 4 4� Additionally, there are a significant number of spaces in parks outside the 50 mile zone that will accept coaches of the age and condition of those at the Driftwood 4 Beach Club Mobilchome Park. These other parks often provide substantial a� incentives including comparatively,low rents, free rents for an introductory period, moving costs, etc. and attractive recreational facilities such as golf courses, takes, etc. On the basis of other park o%mers' past experience in conversions, some too tenants of Driftwood will choose these alternatives, thereby lessening the demand for spaces in parks within the 50 mile radius. F It should also be noted that RLM Properties plans to construct on-site multi-family �M attached housing units. Pursuant to the requirements of Article 927, the applicant must provide to the park tenants a written right of first refusal for those units constructed. It is the intent of RLN1 Properties to incorporate that requirement into a Relocation. Assistance PIan and to further provide additional economic incentives in this regard. In August of this year, RLM Properties retained LSA Associates, Inc.to prepare a demograpphic profile of the park residents to help us plan for the conversion of the park. LSA reviewed data from three sources--a survey of mobile home parks performed by the City in 1952, a questionnaire distributed by RLM Properties to 166 the park tenants in May of this year,and also the tenant applications, Ieases, etc. on file at RLM Properties. From this it was estimated that there are approximately 379 residents at the Driftwood Beach Club Mobilchome Park. Approximately 215 residents, or 55%, are over 60 years of age. It is not surprising that approximately 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 tr.r very low income compared to the County median. There are approximately 54 persons estimated to have disabilities. Seeing this demographic profile of the park tenants, it is the intention of RLM Properties to propose in a Relocation Assistance Plan to provide a "Relocation Coordinator"with an office near or at the park to assist in the implementation of the relocation program, thereby providing an additional level of individualized assistance and coordination. We trust this information is helpful and we hope to submit to you a Relocation Assistance PIan for the City's consideration and approval in the near future. t Sincerely, i �.. Shawzi K Millbern Project Manager cc: LSA Associates, Inc. 1 ' r. IMr Chevron r Chevron U.SA. Inc. �'�- j%., P.0.Box 606,La Habra,BA 90631 . Phone 03) 694-9385 (AEG, S4 Ito December 4, 1987 Facilities Location Request ' Proposed Hotel Site sM Pacific Coast Highway and Huntington Street Tentative Tract Project No. 134-120 No. f 3045 1 City of t4untington Beach Our File: 87-1-79 i.r Fuscol, Williams & Short tid 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92714 f Attention: Mrs, Angie Egli �r Gentlemen: In reference to our telephone conversation of November 24, 1987 regarding your proposed hotel site at subject location in the City of Huntington Beach, attached per your request is a map depicting the approximate location of Chevron's facilities. We request that preliminary construction drawings be sent to our office when they become available. If you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned at (213) 694-9385. �a • Very truly yours, Sharon D. High ti SDH/ee Attachment ba lu 1 4to t . {„ I �r 5 TECECOWUNI CATION �M CONTACT: Mr. Chuck Winsor i Orange County Sanitation District ir. DATE: October 29, 1987 SUBJECT: Wastewater service for the Waterfront Project Mr. Chuck Winsor of the Orange County Sanitation District was contacted on October 29, concerning the District's response to the service question- naire mailed to their office on October 1. Mr. Winsor stated that the District provided sufficient information for the Waterfront EIR in their Notice of Preparation (NOP) response dated Sep- tember 28 (See Appendix A). � He indicated that there is an existing 54 inch diameter trunk sewer line w, located on Pacific Coast Highway. In addition, the proposed development would be required to initially tie-in to the City of Huntington Beach sewer system prior to connecting with the Counties system. i 4+ w w 6d led 4w 1 rr 1�r APPENDIX G PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION �r i�r • M I �1 1� 1 � w CIR.CULATION AMENDMENT '84- 1 . JUNE 1984 Negative Declaration 84- 14 huntington beach planning division The Waterfront 3. Circulation Amendment 84 - 1 l� I RESOLUTION NO. 5385 14W A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF H'UNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING CIRCULATION ELEMENT 1r AVEND14ENT NO. 84-1 TO THE GENERAL PLAN, CHANGING DESIGNATIONS OF PORTIONS OF ORANGE AVENUE, LAKE STREET, ATLANTA AVENUE, WALNUT AVENUE, FIFTH aid STREET AND SIXTH STREET WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach t desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with fay changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Circulation Element 1 r Amendment No. 84-1 to the General Plan was duly held by the Planning Commission on May 15, 1984, and approved for recommen- dation to the City Council; and After giving notice as prescribed by Government Code sec- tion 65355, the City Council held at least one public hearing to i° consider said Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1; and At said hearing before the City Council, all persons de- siring to be heard on said amendment were heard, Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of the California Government Code, commencing { with section 65350, that Circulation Element Amendment No. 84-1 W to the General Plan, consisting of the following changes, is hereby adopted: 1. Redesignation of .Orange Avenue from a secondary to a primary arterial between Sixth Street and the tie-in with Atlanta Avenue at Lake Street; realignment of Lake Street (above Orange Avenue) to "T" into Orange Avenue via Third Street; realignment of Atlanta Avenue northwesterly Into Orange Avenue; realignment of Lake Street (south of -Atlanta Avenue) to "T" into the Atlanta- I ' .RCS:ahb 5/24/84 1. , I Orange connection; and deletion of the existing alignment of Lake Street between Chicago Avenue and Olive Avenue. w 2 . Redesignation of Walnut. Avenue from a local street to a secondary arterial between Sixth Street and Lake Street; and extension and designation of Walnut Avenue as a primary �4 arterial from Lake Street to Beach Boulevard. 3. Realignment of Fifth Street to tie-in with Sixth bar Street between Alain Street and Orange Avenue and designation of I ' Sixth Street as a secondary arterial; redesignation of Sixth Street from a local street to a primary arterial between Orange Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway; and deletion of Fifth Street �• between Alain Street and Pacific Coast Highway. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular neeting thereof held on the 4th day of un . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORN': w ` City Clerk City A� ney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED-AND APPROVED: �+ —City Adm nistrat irector of Development Services . 1 s� 2. w tiTM OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ae ,�. CITY OF HUNUNGTON BEACH ) 1 law I, ALICIA M. 7ti'EMWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington teach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of ` members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; it that the foregoing resolution was$ B passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council L. at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of _ June 19B4-,+, by-the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: . 1 NOES: Councilmen: None t�. NOT VOTING: Thomas ABSENT: Councilmen: Vandi c +� ABSTAIN: Pattinson City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City 4• of Huntington Beach, California r , U b: fcr:o:.:rg insaumMM is a Coiteci Copy rf De :riginal c1 file in this office. Lir:r :::J 1 :::.•:: S'. . :: '►f �c:� City Counci i the Cgy of Nu:::ir;,:�„ 863th,Cal. � 0 4e�uty r W Vr j aw TABLE OF CONTENTS wr SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION l ' 1.1 Methodology 1 1.2 History 4 1.3 Environmental Status 4 f �.� 2.0 MAJOR AMENDMENT REQUESTS 5 2.1 O rang e/Atlanta{Lake 5 2.2 Walnut Avenue Extension 9 Z.3 Fifth/Sixth Streets 12 APPENDIX A Environmental Assessment 17 A A �M1 I ` M r P Lj 1yy ' �Y I 1w i �r ! 161 k' W Irr i 16w 1 4W 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document constitutes an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan and is the first amendment to this element for 1984. The Circulation Element was adopted as a mandated element of the General Plan in December, 1976; this is the fourth amendment to the Circulation Element since its original adoption. The adopted Circulation Plan of Arterial Street and Highways is presented in Figure I.I. 1.1 Methodology 4 - 6 This report addresses a number of proposed changes to the Circulation Plan of Arterial Street and Highways (Figure 1-1) as requested by the Departments of Public Works and Development Services. The amendment requests (see Figure 1-2) consist of deletions and realignments of arterials and changes in arterial designations. The proposed changes ere analyzed in Section 2 in terms of existing and proposed circulation patterns and traffic volumes, impact on existing and planned land uses and consistency with adopted City goals, policies L and plans. In order to evaluate arterial classifications needed to serve the current and w future traffic conditions, certain criteria and assumptions are made regarding roadway capacities. The concept of capacity and the relationship between - capacity and traffic volumes Is expressed by means of levels of service, which Is a method developed by the County cf Orange for its Transportation Element to the General Plan. The concept of levels of service recognizes that while there is on.absolute limit to the amount of traffic than Can travel through a given corrldor, conditions rapidly deteriorate as traffic reaches that level. As 161 traffic approaches capacity, congested conditions are experienced. There is general instability in the traffic flow whereby small disruptions can cause considerable fluctuations in speeds and delays. Z a.. s �Ir 1 • Itra `1 aVEw?uEwTS w Ma e". ..� CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL -• "� ' STREETS AND HIGHWAYS =� M _ NCL RESOLUTION W4368-DE�G T6 LEGEND- FREEWAY STREET CAPtOrY �. MAJOR —45,000 PRIMARY_ _3= SECONCARY ..2Q000 NOTE: •� I IWO LOOS OC"?C tm'STu6 NOWT OF MV J \ MOl lga$ Ytar Yliw7( ft0a Vt "M N9 ♦' OMSKG LM4s.ours ARttl 014Egs NO . A- WT Op r+*taws 177 �T '\ Jk rf t .i � 1r� w ig. cc CITY OF `"may • HUNTINGTON BEACH �'• ` �- ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA EXISTING CIRCULATION PLAN Figure Z-I Levels of service are defined as A through F. Beyond level of service E, 1 capacity is exceeded and arriving traffic will exceed the ability of a given 1, street to accommodate it. The six levels of service are defined as follows: Level of Service A indicates no physical restriction on operating speeds. Level of Service B Indicates stable flow with few restrictions on operating speed. �.. Level of Service C indicates stable flow, higher volume, and more restrictions an speed and lane changing. Level of Service D indicates approaching unstable flow, little freedom to maneuver, and condition tolerable for short periods. Level of Service E indicates unstable flow, lower operating speeds than level of service D, some momentary stoppages. Level of Service F indicates forced flow operation at low speeds where the highway acts as a storage area and there are many stoppages. The practice of the County and City when planning the arterial system Is to use level of service C for link capacities (a link is the portion of the roadway between two arterial intersections), with the intent of maintaining level of service D through intersections. The following table shows the roadway • capacity values the County and City use for circulation analysis of each type of facility. ROADWAY CAPACITY VALUES* Freeways/Transportation Corridors Freeway Sizes At Level of Service D* 4 lanes 65,000 6 lanes 115,000 8 lanes 145,000 10 lanes 175,000 Arterial Highways Level of Service* r. Type of Arterial A B C D E F 6 lanes divided 36,000 40,400 45,D00 49,500 549DOO - 4 lanes divided 240000 27,000 30,000 33,000 36,000 - 4 lanes(undivided) 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 - 2 lanes(undivided) 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 150000 - "Maximum average daily traf f ic.(ADT) 3 i In analyzing the requests contained in this amendment, the City planning staff utilized information contained in the Downtown Specific Plan EIR, approved by the City Council in July, 1983, and a special traffic impact analysis report for the Downtown prepared by Greer and Company, a private engineering and planning firm, in August, 1983. The Public Works traffic section also provided �•� the planning staff with updated traffic generation volumes and recommended roadway sections for the areas of concern considered in the amendment. 1.2 History The three areas of concern included in this amendment are all centered in the City's downtown area. The proposed changes to the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways have been the focus of lengthy study and analysis by City staff and are viewed as an integral part to the success of the City's downtown revitalization as envisioned under the Downtown Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan. Planning efforts for this part of the City have a long history. Over the years, the land was subjected to intensive oil drilling, and has been the site of petroleum related storage, treatment and transport operations. During the 1960's and 1970's, when the City was expanding rapidly both in terms of area and population, growth was concentrated away from the downtown. The old �.+ downtown began an economic and physical decline. Businesses departed for the newer neighborhood shopping centers which were conveniently located near burgeoning residential subdivisions. Downtown became a place of surf shops and other commercial establishments primarily supported by seasonal beach users and consequently experiencing severe seasonal fluctuations in their i business. W Before the high demand for coastal development sites could bring a revitalizing influence to the downtown, the 1976 Coastal Act imposed new planning and development constraints. Under the Coastal Act, the City was required to produce a land use plan for its coastal zone, an area which included all of the downtown. After several years of concentrated effort, the City Council adopted a Coastal Land Use Plan in January, 1981, and later appropriated money to fund the development of a Specific Plan which would provide zoning for the Plan's implementation. During the process of developing the Coastal Land Use Plan, extensive �k+ background studies were undertaken which assessed many of the environmental issues affecting downtown Including transportation and circulation. The Downtown Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council in October, 1983, was drafted in the context of these detailed background investigations. It was designed to implement the Coastal Land Use Plan and the policies of the i Coastal Act within the framework of local, environmental, political and W economic constraints. The Plan promotes a mix of commercial, residential, and recreational uses which will be able to take advantage of the area's proximity to the ocean. Integral to the Specific Plan's implementation is a circulation system which will augment the area's existing circulation plan and Increase its safety and efficiency. 1.3 Environmental Status Upon review of the proposed amendment, Negative Declaration No. 84-14 was prepared and posted for a ten day period beginning May 3, 1984. 4 Ir • bw �.1 46W 20 MAJOR AMENDMENT REQUESTS The various amendment requests analyzed In this seection are shown in Figure 1-2 2.1 Orange/Atlent a/Lake 2.1.1 Background - E The Orange Avenue/Atlanta Avenue/Lake Street area of concern (see Figure 2-1) has been the focus of extensive analysis by City staff in planning for the downtown circulation system. Proposed to function as an east-west arterial connecting Beach Boulevard and Sixth Street, the Atlanta-Orange-Lake connection can serve as an alternative to Pacific Coast Highway in providing access to both the Downtown area and the beach. 2.1.2 Analysis The amendment request for area of concern 2.1 Includes one arterial redesignation and three realignments: 1. Redesignation of Orange Avenue from a secondary to a primary arterial between Sixth Street and the tie in with Atlanta Avenue at Lake Street. 2. Realignment of Lake Street (above Orange Avenue) to "T" into Orange Avenue viaThird Street. w„ 3. Realignment of Atlanta Avenue northwesterly into Orange Avenue, and v 5 ADAMS O cr- J , w o INDIA, Y - Q J i Z O .i, Fiii.l..Rf ORT 2.3 z2. 1 j ATLANTA S � / U i Q i PRIMARY Uj .pp ^ L^ m SECONDARY � �f DELETION REALIGNMENT^^�_•�*� AMENDmENT REQUESTS _ HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA Figure 1-2 PLANNING DIVISION 6 Lr L A. Realignment of Lake Street (south of Atlanta Avenue) to "T" into the Atlanta/Orange connection. L 5. Deletion of the existing Lake Street alignment between Chicago and Olive A venues. Several revisions in the operation of the street system are contemplated as part b• of -the Downtown planning effort. These charges Include signal system revisions, an increased number of trevel lanes an Pacific Coast Highway, the closure of certain streets, the construction of some street extensions, and the realignment of key arterials into the downtown area. Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is the major traffic carrier in the Downtown Specific Plan area. Running parallel to the shoreline, It provides the principle ind access route connecting Huntington Beach with adjacent coastal cities. It also presents one of the most significant circulation problems in the downtown area. Even with the planned widening of PCH to six lanes by CalTrans (scheduled for completion in summer, 1986), alternative routes to the downtown and the beach are necessary to provide adequate circulation to serve the mix of uses planned for the area. The downtown lanni studies Identify the planning y pier-heed and the area immediately across PCH as the focus for the greatest intensity of future development. An Important emphasis of the design concept is to extend Main Street inland from the ocean and encourage pedestrian movement along the street. A second major activity node Is proposed for the area bounded by 6th Street, Palm Avenue, Lake Street and Orange Avenue. A variety of activities is envisioned for this "super-block" ircluding office, residential, a retail center and a major open space as a terminus to Main Street. Ir 1 As the downtown redevelops, Atlanta Avenue is seen as a key route from Beach Boulevard to the downtown core and the City beach. By realigning Atlanta Avenue north-westerly into Orange Avenue, an inland arterial route would be formed which can be used as an alternative to Pacific Coast Highway (see Figure 2-1). Redesignatirg Orange Avenue from a secondary to a.primary between 6th Street and the tie in with Atlanta Avenue would create a direct primary arterial route from Beach Boulevard to the downtown care. Beyond Sixth Street, however, the continuation of Orange would remain a secondary with one travel lane in each direction. This, together with special traffic controls, will serve to discourage traffic from entering the predominantly L. residential Townlot area. Specific traffic signalization devices will be designed at the project implementation stage. W The proposed realignment of Lake Street (south of Atlanta) to 'IT" Into the Atlanta/Orange connection offers a primary arterial route to the beach. While the design of the Atlanta/Orange/Lake intersection will facilitate through traffic into and out of the downtown core via Beach Boulevard, the Lake Street connection additionally offers direct access to the City beach area without the use of PCH. North of Orange Avenue, Lake Street is proposed to be realigned into the Atlanta-Orange primary via the existing Third Street right-of-way. This will provide for the eventual abandonment of Lake between Orange and Chicago lift L pill H Nunn 11 m =pulimmmmouuii NOUN 11111111 limilluuuiio ORION! min UP I I NUNN I IRWIN!! IIwIV 10 IF pop pllllllq0 anliilimliupm lid Hilims soup villooll "Ummmullim MINE 'Ullm"Noll MEMO! 111111111 MEN w IHl1 lininumiii Milmlklulll OR-n.lowumi Illllw nownil Ilwlw wAo mmilmiwllll millllw 111111110 milmoRN 0 Iww www liollium I a limm wwll llllw miss mmillim I in IN 11111111 1111HOW pro 911111 =How, m Avenues to a110w for a larige consolidated development project on this parcel. Additionally, by vacating this portion of Lake, northbound traffic on Lake will be fed irto the Atlante/Orange arterial and be discouraged from traveling . a through established residential neighborhoods north of Orange. Current traffic volumes on Atlanta Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Lake Street average 4,900 daily trips. Orange Avenue, between Lake and Sixth, is M presently estimated to accommodate 3,000 ADT. Both of these arterials are operating at the A level of service for either a primary or secondary arterial at the present time. Assuming the ultimate development V. the downtown as envisioned under the Oowntown Specific Plan and Redevelopment PIan, Public Works has projected the proposed At lent a/Lake/Orange realignment would provide adequate handling of anticipated traffic volumes. As shown in Figure 2-2, the Atlanta-Orange arterial would accommodate significantly higher traffic volumes than what presently exists in the area. With an estimated 21,000 ADT on Orange between Labe and the tie in with Atlanta, and 13,500 ADT on Orange between Lake and Sixth (excluding beach-going trips), Public Works has estimated that these two arterial sections would operate at Levels of Service 8 and A, respectively. Public Works has recommended that Orange Avenue, between Sixth and Lake, be built as a four-lane divided primary arterial. Orange Avenue, from Lake to Atlanta, is to be built as a four-lane undivided primary arterial. The realigned Lake Street between PCH and the Atlanta/Orange tie in would handle a projected 24,000 ADT and cperate at Level of Service S. 2.1.3 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of all requests considered In Area of Concern 2.1. The proposed Atlanta/Orange/Lake realignment will provide a primary alternative route to PCH to both the beach and the downtown core. With the anticipated redevelopment of the downtown into a mix of residential, commercial, office and retail uses, It Is essential to provide a primary arterial link into the downtown core to service these uses. 2.2 Walnut Avenue Extension 2.2.1 Background Like the Atlanta/Orange/Lake realignment, the proposed Walnut Avenue extension has undergone thorough analysis by City staff'anal Is seen as a key east-west alternative route to PCH to the downtown and beach areas. 2.2.2 Analysis The amendment request for Area of Concern 2,2 is to designate Walnut Avenue as a primary arterial between Lake.Street and Beach Boulevard and from a local street to a secondary between Lake Street and Sixth Street (see Figure 2-3). Two routes, Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street, connect the downtown area with the 405Freeway and Inland communities. Access to the freeway may be an Important constraint on future development along the coast. The 9 NOTE: Projections are based on ultimate development of the Downtown Specific Plan and Redevelonnent Plan anticipated in 1995. 09 1 r3Soo i35o0 a,,o OR-►N(1t II ICI D 00 /DyDp wAt-w v. AVeM LkE S1 y00 53000 y3y00 504100 PACIFIC ICoA-STI RiGtiAWAY PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION Figure 2-2 10 'JL• yN�' \ f.' Nll VS1, PO r K ��LJ[L-J 1:rl..lau.lal�l 1' '� pP �'rP � ,•� .�j�, ' "- QJ ^'yam ,; P ��'4• 'ti' .•,` -'� ._-_fjl. W AIE RM HN M OLI -- - -- -- _ - U W x z -- °tit' ��V 0 b� =WALNUT mmmum # lAll Ionia a 1j111J ms®© .� OCEAN E1F.r1f.H) ---- OCE AN PACIFIC 7 2.2 Walnut Extension HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION Figure 2-3 w� downtown area Is located in a less-then-ideal situation in terms of freeway accessibility, being approximately four miles from the freeway itself and connected by a limited number of arterials, segmerts of which are congested at times. In addition to the proposed Atlanta/Orange/Lake realignment, the Walnut Avenue extension can serve as another Inland route to connect Beach Boulevard and Lake Street. Future plans are to tie this route into the planned extension of Hamilton Avenue at Beach Boulevard. This would not only provide convenient access to the future commercial areas east of Lake Street, but would also provide an improved means of travel between downtown Huntington Beach and Costs Mesa, troth the Newport and San Diego Freeways, and points beyond. Vehicular movement could be via either Hamilton Avenue/Victoria Street or, eventually, Banning Avenue/19th Street. Currently, Walnut Avenue, west of Lake Street, carries an estimated 1,400 ADT. Assuming ultimate downtown development based on the Downtown Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan, the Department of Public Works has estimated that if Walnut is extended through to Beach Boulevard (eventually to tie in with Hamilton Avenue), Walnut will carry 15,f]OD ADT east of Lake Street and 10,400 ADT west of Lake, excluding beach-going trips. Upgraded to a primary status between Lake and Beach, and a secondary between 6th and Beach Walnut can adequately accommodate the projected traffic generation ' operating at Level of Service B, according to the Department of Public Works �.. estimates. Public Works has recommended that Walnut from Beach to Sixth be developed as four undivided lanes. 4 2.2.3 Recommendation Staff recommends epproval of the proposed changes considered In Area of ' Concern 2.2. The Walnut extension, as proposed will serve as an important ism east-west connector to the downtown core and beaches, and alleviate traffic congestion on PCH.. Additionally, the eventual connection of Walnut Into the f proposed Hamilton extension will allow for a direct route from Costa Mesa and w� adjacent areas into the downtown. 2.3 Fif ttVSixth Street 2.3.1 Background r On October 10, 1983, the City Council approved the Downtown Specific Plan. �+ In addition to setting land uses-and development standards for the area, the Specific Plan also contained a preliminary analysis of traffic circulation. The study recommended several arterial changes in the Downtown and points of concern for further evaluation. Amorig the traffic recommendations contained ' in the Specific Plan was that Sixth Street be redesignated from a local street to a secondary arterial from Main Street to Pacific Coast Highway, 'thereby replacing Fifth Street which Is presently designated as a secondary. The issue iv of how Sixth Street should tie Into Main Street and Lake Street .was set aside for additional study. City staff has since analyzed circulation in the downtown area, and developed several proposed changes to the Circulation Plan of LArterial Streets and Highways to address the issues identified In the Specific Plan. This amendment item Includes three components: 12 vx" REALIGNMENT 0 0 ✓ '%� a ® DELETION J01> e —1 tl / CRESS G AVE '� tP � .ir. � i•' �.i A CAIIA AVE 125" FIM > ORANGE --_ AVE �N w \ - i = OLIIE : AVE 7.7 lz W __ - - L . =_ =_ _ _ = =_ - - I �. - - _ *^LNUi AVE wa_YLt 8R PE] 88 PP ® ®� (��T` 00 Di o�� AVENUE -- j�f AVENUE OCEAN C •trt PACIFIC - - - - -- ---- - --_ - 4 2.3 Fifth/Sixth Streets HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA �'' ' PLANNING DIVISION Fi cure 2-4 r Ik A f �" a} Realignment of Fifth Street to tie In with Sixth Street between Main Street and Orange Avenue, and the redesignation of this link as a secondary arterial. b) Redesignation of Sixth Street from a local street to a primary arterial between Orange A venue and PecIfic Coast Highway. c) Deletion of Fifth Street as a secondary arterial between Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. W► These proposed changes are shown in figure 2-4. 2.3.2 Analysis This section analyzes the proposed changes to Fifth Street and Sixth Street in f terms of the effects on (1) circulation patterns within the downtown and in the surrounding area including existing and projected traffic volumes, and (2) existing and future land uses In the area. . In 1976, Main Street was downgraded to a local collector south of Seventeenth 16. Street on the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. It was intended that Senventeenth Street and Lake Street provide primary arterial access to-the downtown area. Fifth Street replaced Main Street on the plan as a secondary carrier of traffic to the downtown core and beach via Lake Street. Subsequent street improvements continued to de-emphasize Main Street and augment Fifth Street in the downtowns. In 1981, Main Street from Orange Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway was modified to a one-way street to serve primarily the retail stores and offices within the core area. The intersection of Fifth Street and Pacific Coast Highway was signalized, and was intended to divert beach-connecting trips via Fifth Street. Existing traffic volumes on Main Street and Fifth Street south of Orange Avenue average 2,600 and 3,300 trips per day respectively. Sixth Street currently intersects Main Street at Acacia Avenue and functions essentially as a residerMal collector at 800 trips per day. The lard use intensities under the Local Coastal Element and Downtown Specific Plan will dramatically increase traffic entering and leaving the s~ downtown area in the future. The proposed redeveloped area will be comprised of a mixture of commercial uses of various types: office buildings, residential units, hotels, and recreational facilities. It is projected that approximately 93,863 daily trips will be generated from redevelopment above existing traffic volumes, and excluding beach-going trips. The proposed changes to Fifth Street and Sixth Street in conjunction with the recommended Orange Avenue-Lake Street-Atlanta Avenue connections (Area 2.1) and the Walnut extension (Area ZZ are designed to accommodate this projected traffic. The deletion of Fifth Street from the Circulation Element would divert most traffic to Sixth Street. The Department of Public Works estimates that the realigned section of Fifth Street with Sixth Street between Lake Street and Orange Avenue would carry 10,000 Nehicles daily while Sixth Street south of Orange Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway would carry an estimated 15,800 6d vehicles (Figure 2-2). Considering the design constraints in realigning Fifth Street with Sixth Street above Orange Avenue, this segment would be built as a two-lane divided secondary arterial, and accommodate the projected traffic at 14 t Ila Level of Service D. Sixth Street south of Orange Avenue would be designed as a four-lane undivided prim,ary arterial to accommodate the projected traffic at Level of Service B. �+ The Fifth-Sixth Street connection is designed to provide northerly access from Lake Street and Main Street into the proposed commercial town square. THs concept calls for the development of a 20 acre commercial superblock bounded +�+ by the proposed Fifth-Sixth Street connection, Lake Street, and Orange Avenue. In addition to consolidating property, the superblock concept will require that Main Street, Fifth Street, Pecan Avenue, and alleyways within the w, project area be vacated This would eliminate what is essentially a six-way Intersection that now exists at Main,Fifth, and Pecan. The proposed Fifth-Sixth Street connection would also provide a secondary +" connection between Lake Street and Orange Avenue. However, it is intended that most of the traffic using Sixth Street be directed to and from that arterial via the Orange Avenue-Atlanta Avenue connection and the Walnut Avenue 1.. extension. To encourage this flow, Sixth Street would be designated as a primary arterial below Orange Avenue with an offset alignment to the northerly Sixth Street segment at the Orange Avenue intersection. This would help limit traffic on Sixth Street above Orange Avenue to local residential users and commercially-oriented users of the town square area. 2.3.3 Staff Recommendation r.r Staff recommends approval of all requests considered in Area of Concern 2.3. The configuration of the proposed commercial town square necessitates deleting Fifth Street and designating Sixth Street as the arterial carrier from Lake Street to Pacific Coast Highway. The redesignation of Sixth Street from a local street to a primary arterial below Orange Avenue would provide a northerly anchor to the downtown circulation system to accommodate the high traffic volumes generated by redevelopment of the core area. w w r. 15 i Ir+ I IVr Mrr APPENDIX A Ir �.r A ' i 1 �1 M1 IYr - i 17 A , L ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1 . BACKGROUND 1. Applicant City of Huntington 2. Address 2000 Main Street Reach _ � � � 3. Telephone 536-5271 4. �Pro,jt's'i Location iiownt own" Huntington Beach Project Title/Description Circulation Amendment 84-1 1). Dity 4-26-84 11 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (Explanations of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers are required on attached sheet). 1. Physical Environment: Will the project have a significant impact on the physical environment with respect to: a) hydrology, b) air quality, c) geology, d) flora and fauna, e) noise, f) archaeological/historical . Yes Maybe No X Other 2. Impact of Environment on Project: Will the project be subject to impacts from the surrounding environment? i.e. , natural environment; manmade environment. Yes Maybe No X 3, Impacts on Public Services: Will the project have a significant impact upon, or re- sult in a need for a new or altered government service in any of the following areas: fire, police, schools, parks or other governmental agencies. Yes Maybe x No 4. Impacts on traffic/Circulation: Will project result in substantial vehicular •IovE- ment, or impact surrounding circulation system, or increase traffic hazard? . Yes X Maybe No 5. Will the project result in a substantial alteration or. have a negative affect ^^ the existing: land use, population/housing, energy/utilities, natural resourvt ;, j himian health? Yes Maybe No x !.� ii. 01hor potential environmental impacts not discussed above (see attached sheet). III. A711TR RFSAONSISLE AGENCIES AND/OR PERSONS CONTACTED ( ) See Attached ( x ) Not Applicable IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: 40 I. Will project degrade quality of environment? Yes Maybe No X 2. Will project achieve short-term goals tc the disadvantage of long-term environmental i goals? Yes Maybe No x 6 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? Yes Maybe No X fi 4. Will the project adversely affect human beings either directly or indirectly? 1.+ Yes Maybe No X_. t V. DETERMINATION ( X ) Negative Declaration ( ) Negative Declaration With Mitigation it ( ) Environmental Impact Report i rM SIGNATUREX, i r II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of "Yes" and "Maybe" answers) `~ 3. If the Circulation Element Amendment is adopted, it will facilitate the response time of public safety personnel to the "downtown" community. 4. The project will not directly increase the potential for traffic hazard. It will alleviate the congestion on the surrounding State highway and facilitate traffic flow within the immediate area. 1 1 Y r I 16W 1 �rl . iw 44 �.1 Lei owl l ' i �Y t t APPENDIX H CITY ORDINANCES 1 t ' L ' 1 s W f ° Ll PLANNING MOBILEHOME OVERLAY ZONESIREMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE S.9270 `et ARTICLE 927 fi - MOBILEHOME OVERLAY ZONES REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE (Ord 2563 - 1 , 2699-7/84) S. 9270 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE. (a) The mobilehome park residential zone is hereby established as an overlay zone to r permit the application of mobilehome zone to parcels of land developed with mobilehome parks and zoned with a primary underlying zoning designation. The purpose of the mobilehome park zone is to establish a means of providing a reasonable and proper transition from the present mobilehome park use to the uses permitted in the underlying zoning districts. Wherever reference is made in this section or on any districting maps to MHP, it shall mean mobilehome park overlay zone. (b) All findings required for removal of the MHP overlay zone shall also be applied to requests for rezoning existir.O MH districts to different zoning districts, and for any change of use as hereinafter defined. (c) All findings required for removal of the MHP overlay, rezoning from MH or change in use shall be required for all property upon which a mobilehome park then exists. or upon which a mobilehome park existed at any time within the preceding five (5) years. +�. S. 9270.1 DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases whenever used in this article shall be construed as defined herein unless from the context a different meaning is intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and ihrases: (a) Affordable Unit. "Affordable unit" shall mean a "for sale" unit that is sold to and occupied by a low moderate income household. "Affordable unit" shall also mean a rental unit for which the monthly payment does not exceed 25 percent of the household's income for low income households or 30 percent of the household's income for moderate incorre households. (b) Applicant. "Applicant" shall mean the person, firm, corporation, partnership, r or other entity having leasehold interest or fee ownership in the operation of a mobilehome park. (c) Chance of Use. "Change of use" shall mean use of the park for a purpose other than the rental or the holding out for rent of two or more mobilehome sites to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation, and shall not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation. "Change of use" may affect an entire park or any portion thereof, and such "change of use" shall include, but is not limited to, a change of a park or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock cooperative, planned unit development, commercial use, industrial use, or vacant land. (d) -Eligible Owner. "Eligible owner" shall rrean any mobilehome owner owning a 'r mobilehome in a park at the time of issuance of the "notice of intent to change use, but shall not include any mobilehome owner who is renting his unit to another party at such time. (e) Market Rate Unit. "Market rate unit" shall mean a residential unit that is sold—on t e open market without constraints imposed on the sales price, rental r ~ rate, or buyer qualifications. M Mobilehome. "Mobilehome" is a structure transportable on a street or highway by authorization or a permit in one or more sections, designed and equipped for V 7/84 W► a. yc V.I I T I ,MllulLUVvit UVERLAY LUtiES/REPOVAL/REZOti1tvG/CHANGE OF USE PLANNIM. i human habitation, to be used with or without a foundation syster.. Therefore, "mobilehome" 6, does not include recreation vehicles, commercial coaches, or factory-built housing rest- my upon permanent foundations. (g)- Mobilehome Park. "Mobilehome park" is any area of land used primarily for the placing, parking or storing of two or more mobilehomes for housekeeping, sleeping or living quarters. *� (h) Mobilehome Space. "Mobilehome space" is any area, tract of land, site, lot, pad or portion of a mobilehome pork designated or used for the occupancy of one mobile- home, M Notice of Intent to Change Use. "Notice of Intent to Change Use" shall mean notification as required by California Civil Code section 798.55(f)(2). (j) Original Purchase Price. "Original purchase price" shall mean the price which ,the mobilehome owner, occupying the mobilehome space, originally paid for the mobilehome and any attached optional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms. In determining the price, the regulation:, for establishing the cost .basis, as found in the United States Code Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, shall be used. Such purchase price shall be verified by the mobilehome owner through the existence of i . sales receipts indicating date of purchase, monetary amount of purchase, identification or model numbers of all items purchased and the party from whom the items were purchased. "Original purchase price" shall not include cost of financing. (k) Senior Citizen Unit. "Senior citizen Unit" shall mean a residential unit which meets the standards for an affordable unit which is situated in a project that is designed to accommodate senior citizens through special financing programs and/or modified development standards. LW ..�_ . S._ 9270.2 CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF ZONE. The City Council , in making its i determination whether to apply the MHP zone to any particular property, �. Shall consider the following factors as to whether such zone is appropriate: (a) Existing zoning and general plan designations. .. (b) The age and condition fo the mobilehome park. (c) The relationship of the mobilehome park to surrounding land uses. V (d) Vahicle access to the area under consideration. F (e) Site area. ( f) Site configuration. '. �.._ 9270.3 USES PERMITTED, The following uses shall be permitted in an MHP district: ,,.,(a) Mobilehome parks as regulated by the State of California. (h) Accessory uses and structures incidental to the operation of mobilehome parks such as recreation facilities and/or community centers of a noncommercial nature, either public or private .storage facilities for the use of the mobilehome park resi- d,-,nts and any other uses or structures that are incidental to the operation of a v. ' wohiiehomP park. (c) Whenever 1 roperty is zoned MHP, any use permitted by the underlying zoning of such property shall not be permitted. w 12/82 i PLAN-KING ONTRLAY 20--FSIREYOVALIREZONINGICKANCE OF USE S. 9270.4 S. 9270.4 Rr—YOVAL OF THE_MOBILER0%,M PARR OVERLAY ZONE, MR ZONE OR CH"CE OF USE. �.+ The City Council shall not approve azone change for any parcel when such change would have the effect of removing the .MP or lei designation from that property, or approve a change of use unless the following findings have been made: (a) Whose findings required by California Government Code section 66427.4. (b) That the proposed toning is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach and all elements thereof. (c) That the proposed change of land use will not have an adverse effect upon the goals and policies for provision of adequate housing for all economic segments of the co--unity, as set forth in the Housing Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. (d) That the property which is the subject of the zone change would be more appropriately developed in accordance with uses permitted by the underlying zoning, or proposed zoning. sr (e) That a notice of intent to change the use of a mobilehome park and relocate j mobilehone owners was delivered to such owners and to the Department of Development Services at least eighteen (18) nonths prior to the date the mobilehome bWP owner is required to vacate the premises. (f) That an "impact of conversion report" has been submitted by the applicant and found to be adequate by the Planning Cc=ission at a public hearing. Failure to submit such item within twelve (12) months from the date of the notice shall result in the nullification of the Notice of Intent to Change Use. The Planning Co=ission shall ti take the following items into consideration when addressing the adequacy of the report: (i) The date of the manufacture and size of each mobilehome in the park. (ii) Makeup of existing households, including family size, household income, length of residence, age of tenants, owner or renter, and primary or seasonal resident. (iii) Replacement space availability, monthly rents and coach acceptance criteria in mobilehome parks within fifty (50) miles of the city. r The applicant shall make copies of the report available: to each resident of the mobilehome park at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the impact report. (g) That a relocation assistance plan has been submitted by the applicant and found to be adequate by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Ir S. 9270.5 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN. STA2mARDS. The following shall constitute minimum standards for an acceptable relocation assistance plan: (a) All eligible mobilehome owners shall be entitled to receive the cost of relocation. Those costs shall be limited to disconnection and breakdown of the mobilehome, transportation of the mobilehome, all readily movable appurtenances and contents to another mobilehome park and the cost of all hookups at the new site. All such expenses shall be identified and paid by the applicant at the time of the move. "he park to which the unit is relocated shall be within fifty (50) miles of the city. if the mobilehome owner desires relocation beyond fifty (50) miles, the mobilehome owner 7184 W f �+ S. 9270�5(a) M08ILEHOT�OVERLAY ZO:.TS/REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE PLANNING .. ` shall be responsible for the costs associated with relocation beyond the fifty (50) wile limit established by this article. (b) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated to another park in accordance with t'rre procedures herein, the applicant shall purchase the mobilehome and any optional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms from the mobilehome owner at an amount tc be determined after establishing the mobilehome owner's original purchase price, and the date of original purchase. Where proof of purchase is not available or verifiable, and the manufacturer' s original • list price cannot be ascertained, the value of the mobilehome shall be determined by averaging the sales price of the three (3) most comparable units of similar age, size, and quality found in the applicant's mobilehome park at the time the mobilehome owner purchased the site. When the original price is ascertained, the amount of compensation to be paid by an applicant to a mobilehome owner shall be determined by using the following method: Mobilehomes shall be depreciated at a rate of 4.7 percent per year, beginning with the date the mobilehome owner originally purchased the mobilehome and/or optional equipment and continuing until the date of issuance by the applicant of the Notice of Intent to Change Use. (2699-7/84) The applicant may grant one (1) six-month extension to the length of time given to the mobilehome owners in the Notice of Intent to Change Use by notifying the mobilehome �+ owners of such extension at least four (4) months prior to the date specified in such notice. The extension shall be granted for no more and no less than six (6) months. (2699-7/84) An applicant may, With the consent of the mobilehome owner, transfer a mobilehome unit to another space in the park. Such transfer shall not constitute permanent relocation. and the cost of all such moves shall be borne by the applicant. w The mobilehome owner's compensation for any mobilehome that cannot be relocated to any other park shall be no less than four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500) plus moving expenses up to five hundred dollars ($500), an aggregate not to exceed five thousand dollarz ($5,000). 4 In order to reduce the impact of relocation to alternative housing further, the applicant shall pay a cost of housing differential of 50 percent of the increase in the cost of housing for the first year, not to exceed seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) for each mobilehome owner. W • (c) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated in accordance with the procedures contained herein, the applicant has the option of making available suitable alternative housing, together with compensation, to such mobilehome owner. .'here alternative housing is proposed, it shall be available in the following categories: (as) Senior citizen housing; (bb) ' Affordable housing; and (cc) Market rate housing. (d) Any applicant and mobilehome owner may mutually agree to modify the standards and i methods contained in this section, and in no case shall an applicant be required W+ i 7164 �l PLA!"M4ING MOBILENOME OVERLAY ZO LS REt!DO'AL REZO*7ING CHANCE OF USE S. 9270.5 d to relocate or purchase a mobilehome prior to the date of the Notice of Intent to Change Use. (e) Appeals from the amount of-compensation to be given a mobilehome owner shall be w++ filed with the applicant within thirty (30) days after the mobilehome owner has notice of the amount he is to receive. t The applicant shall acknowledge any appeal within thirty (30) days, and if an agreement cannot be reached, the matter shall be referred to a professional arbitrator. (f) to determine whether compensation accurately reflects the original cost of the mobilehome, the applicant and/or professional arbitrator shall rely on records furnished by the mobilehome owner, or if such records are not available, the mobilehome shall be subjected to the comparison test set out elsewhere in this section. All 6" optional equipment and appurtenances shall be valued in the same manner. (g) that the mobilehome owners have received written guarantee of first-right-of-refusal to purchase units if the development Which replaces the mobilehome park is to be residential in whole or in part. (h) That the applicant has complied with all applicable city ordinances and state regulations in effect at the time the relocation assistance plan was approved. (i) That the applicant has complied with the conditions of approval, including the bw following items: (i) Mobilehome owners will not be -forced to relocate prior to the end of their leases. (ii) Mobilehome owners have been given the right to terminate their leases upon approval of the relocation assistance plan. V (iii), Demolition or construction will not occur until the relocation assistance plan is approved and the eighteen (18) month notification period has expired. S. 9270.6 ACCT PTANCE OF REPORTS. The final form of the impact of conversion ` report and relocation, assistance plan will be as approved by the Planning L Commission. The reports, if acceptable, shall remain on file with the Department of Development Services for review by any interested persons. Each of the mobilehome owners shall be given written notification within ten (10) days of approval of the W relocation assistance plan. S. 9270.7 ACTION BY PLANNING COMKISSION. At the conclusion of its hearing, noticed as provided in this 'code, the Planning Commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny said impact of conversion report and relocation assistance plan pursuant to the provisions of this article, and such decision shall be supported by a resolution of the Planning Commission, setting forth its findings. S. 9270.8 FEES REQUIRED. Each impact report and relocation assistance plan submitted shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City Council. rr �. 7184 it Yw APPENDIX I DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE FOR DRIFTWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK HDNTINGTOH BEACH 4 V im W i tir Mr IM. W.r a.. L+ LS3 i.+ �. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE FOR DRIFTWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK HUNTINGTON BEACH w PREPARED FOR w THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE 11050 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 w.► PREPARED BY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. I PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 r•+ IRVINE, CA 92714 Mir August 10, 1987 L. W Lsa ir. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE i INTRODUCTION .... . ... .... ........ .............. ' METHODOLOGY . w. POPULATION DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS .......... . ........................ ... . 4 � MOBILE HOME DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS .. . ...... . ........ .... ......... ...... . 8 REFERENCES .. . . ... ... ....... ..... . ...................... .......... ... 9 APPENDICES Appendix A - 1992 Mobile Home Park Survey Appendix B - 1987 Survey by The Robert Mayer Corporation Appendix C - Statistic Tabulations Appendix D - Mobile Home Physical Characteristics Appendix E - Statement of Qualifications L L L �V I LaI �r i �r i. Ll Lsa Wi L I N RODUCTI ON The following analysis provides a demographic profile of the residents within the Driftwood Mobile Home Park, located in the City of Huntington Beach. This examination was performed to aid The Robert Mayer Corporation in their preparation of an Impact Conversion Report for the survey area required ! by the City of Huntington Beach Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance. An L Impact Conversion Report is necessary due to the proposed conversion of the mobile home park. The developer is required, by ordinance, to determine the demographic background of the mobile home park to assist in creating a relocation assis- tance plan. By determining current population trends within the park, a L comprehensive relocation plan is more easily and accurately developed. L 16, L L 4 it Irr 1� �r iLsa `, '6ETHODOLOGY In preparation of this analysis, a search of a variety of resources was pursued which would uncover pertinent demographic statistics for the mobile home park population. This search was conducted at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services; University of California Irvine library; California State University, Fullerton library, and The Robert Mayer 16& Corporation files. Five potentially helpful resources were found: 1980 Census data, a 1979 Special Census completed by the State Department of Finance, a 1982 mobile home park performed by the City of Huntington Beach, a 1987 survey conducted by The Robert Mayer Corporation, and The Robert Mayer Corporation tenant records. Each resource was evaluated for its appropriate- ness in representing the Driftwood Mobile Home Park population. Two of these resources, the Census Data and 1979 Special Survey, were determined to lack sufficient detail for our analysis. The 1980 Census data could not be utilized due to its lack of specifi- city regarding the subject population. Block data for the project area had been suppressed and was unavailable for examination. The subsequent level of detail was block group data, however, the population statistics did not characterize the mobile home park residents. Due to the size of the block �., group survey area, single family homes as well as mobile homes were included within the survey boundaries. Mobile homes represented a small portion of the housing units within the area. Therefore, block group data does not adequately provide a profile of the mobile home residents, and cannot be L utilized for this analysis. The Special Census conducted by the State Department of Finance was also 6a deemed inadequate due to its age, limited amount of information and inclusion of the adjacent Pacific Park Mobile Home Park in the survey population. After this examination, three resources were determined to provide adequate information regarding the study population. These include: the City's 1982 Mobile Home Park Survey, a 1987 survey conducted by The Robert Mayer Corporation and tenant files collected by The Robert Mayer Corporation. L Each of these are discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs. The City's 1982 Mobile Home Survey (Appendix A) was conducted by the Community Development Department of the City of Huntington Beach. The City surveyed and compiled statistics for all mobile home parks within Huntington Beach. Response rates for the survey were excellent, 67 percent, for all parks and 48 percent for the Driftwood Mobile Home Park. This response rate k.► is considered excellent. This survey is a very reliable source for determin- 2 . Yr L Lsa `a Ling the project area's demographics. Since, the Driftwood survey was done in 1982 figures have been projected and extrapolated, as necessary, to determine statistics for 1987. It was assumed that the 1982 ratios remained constant to 1987. These statistics were applied to the existing 237 coaches. The original responses, computer coded on a master tape, were used to establish the statistics presented in this report. Additionally, cross tabulations were performed for specific indicators, such as disabled by age and disabled by unit, to pinpoint special needs. Please note that income statistics were inflated by 30.20%, consistent with the increase in Orange County Median Income from 1981-1986. This survey represents an excellent population sample that can be used in conjunction with information compiled from other re- sources. The Robert Mayer Corporation distributed a questionnaire to Driftwood im residents in May of I987 (Appendix B). The response rate is 36 of 237 coa- ches or fifteen percent. The information gathered is compared with trends established through other sources. Tenant files, compiled by The Robert Mayer Corporation were also uti- lized as data sources. Included within these files were lease agreements, tenant disclosures, and title searches which created an up-to-date profile of W the population on many variables. However, the estimates generated by these files is a compilation of various sources. They also have low response rates due to the lack of disclosure by tenants. This information supplements other resources and is helpful in illustratirg the current status within the park. A set of variables was chosen that would create a comprehensive profile of both the population and the mobile homes themselves. Data for each of these variables was collected from the above resources and tabulated. These sumnarizations are located in Appendix C. The trends shown in these sum- maries are addressed in the following sections. L L 3 E �r Ali Aid Lsa EOPULAI ON_DEMOGRAP JC_TRENDS The ac-tua_l number of residents is not available. It is estimated that the population is 379. The population has been estimated by multiplying the number of units 237 by 1.6 persons per household, resulting in a total popu- lation of 379. (The ratio of 1.6 persons per household is derived from the most complete population data available, the 1982 survey.) r� The 1982 survey indicated that the population in the park tends to be elderly, 66% being over 60 years of age. The 1987 survey and tenant files indicate a possible shift toward a younger population. when compared with other factors such as length of residency and household size, this trend appears true, but cannot be accurately confirmed. It is reasonable to assume that with the large population turnover in the park, that the actual ratios may be in between the 1982 and 1987 ratios. Because an estimate is required, the average between the 1982 and 1987 rates is picked. The following age y distribution has been determined through this estimation: 24 persons are under the age of 18, 27 are between 18-40, 26 are between 41-50, 99 are between 51-60, 125 are between 61-70 and 90 are older than 70 years of age. L These figures equate to approximately 215 residents, or 55%, being over 60 years of age and 176 residents, or 45%, being younger than 60 years of age. Household-Size In all sources, one and two person households predominate, however, 1987 data indicates an increase in the percentage of households with three or more .. persons. It is estimated through these sources, that 83 coaches are composed of single person households, while 121 coaches are two-person households and 14 coaches contain three or more persons. Reported_Household,Gross Income A majority, 52% of those surveyed, in 1982 reported a household gross �., income of less than $15,00O (1981 dollars). Inflation factors, based on the change of Orange County median income between 1981-1986, were used to extra- polate income in terms of 1986 dollars, from the 1982 income statistics. The revised income scFedule indicates that approximately 50% have a reported gross income of more than $20,000, (1986 dollars). a. 4 L �.r Lsa +�+ The following is the estimated distribution of reported gross household income in terms of 1986 dollars: GROSS INCOME HOUHHOLQS PERCENTAGES <S6,510 16 6.9 6,510-10,415 26 10.8 10,416-15,623 54 23.4 I5,624-19,529 26 10.8 19,530-26,039 37 15.7 26,040-32,549 26 10.8 32,550-45,569 28 11.8 45,570-65,100 12 4.9 >65,100 _U 4.9 �- 237 100.0 It should be noted that the rate of increase for income growth used for 1981-86 was 30.2%. In comparison, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the same period increased by 15.1% and Social Security payments were increased by 18.7%. Reported gross income data collected in 1987, concurs with the $20,000 median split point noted above, (i.e., 50;: above and below $20,000). Low to ModerateJncome Households In order to determine the percentage of households that fit into the low to moderate income category, the reported gross income was compared to the Orange County Median Income for the years 1986 and 1987. For the 1986 infla- tion-adjusted incomes and the 1987 RMC survey reported incomes, 901'W of the households are characterized as having low to moderate incomes. It is esti- mated that 122 or 52%, of the households are considered very low income households, as defined by the County of Orange. Low income households com- prise 63 coaches, or 26.4%; and 28 or 11.8%, are moderate income households. The tenant files indicate that 78% of the households, or 185 households, fit into this category. 5 L 4r �M Lsa ao n h es d n Results of the 1982 survey show that 43% of the residents were located i` in the park for more than ten years. However, 50% of the respondents to the 1987 survey have lived in the park less than five years. A review of tenant files substantiates this recent trend. It appears that the park has under- gone a 50% turnover of occupants within the past five years, since the 1982 161 survey. All data reviewed indicates that of the 237 coaches, 50% or 119, have been occupied by the current residents less than five years. Residents of 45 coaches, or 19%, have occupied their coach between five and nine years. Both the ten to fourteen and fifteen to nineteen year categories contain 33 coaches, or 14%. Also, 7 coaches, 30/10, have been occupied by the resident for more than nineteen years. � QiSabil,itY 7 According to the 1982 survey, 82% of the residents have no serious disability. A review of tenant files shows, no indication to the contrary. It is estimated that 54 persons with disabilities live within the mobile home park. �.+ IRnanc All sources indicate that 96% or more of the coaches are occupied for more than 180 days per year, except for the 1987 survey which shows a 89% permanent residency rate. Because of the reliability of the 1982 survey results and substantiation by other sources consulted, it is estimated that 96%, or 228 coaches, are occupied by permanent residents. OwneriUp According to current tenant files, 209 (M.) of the 237 coaches, within the park, are owner-occupied, while 28 (12%) are renter-occupied. Other sources show a higher percentage of owner occupied units, however, the tenant files give a more accurately depiction of the current resident population. Pebt i� The number of coaches held in lien has increased from 21.2% in 1982, to approximately 51% in 1987, according to all sources. This trend is consis- tent with the high turnover rate experienced in the park in the last five years as discussed earlier. This figure substantiates the finding that 118 50% of the coaches have been sold or tenants have moved within the last five years. 6 Aso Lsa' �r t �. Debt Owe In the 1987 survey, 68% of the coaches not owned outright disclosed the debt remaining on their loan. Of those that responded, 48% owed $25,000 or more. Although this is a small sample, 15 coaches out of 237, the sample is the best data available. For purposes of this study, this sample indicates that approximately half owe between $25,000 and $50,000. Projected park- Mt wide, it is estimated that there are 118 units with an outstanding dept of $0 to $25,000 and 118 units with an outstanding debt of $25,000 to $50,000. bow W w V. 7 6.. r. Lsa4 L MOBILE HOME DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS size of Unit A compilation of tenant files, Appendix D, shows that the coach popula- tion is predominately double-wide units. The data indicates 200 coaches, or 84%, are double-wide units. This percentage is consistent with other sources. Age of Unit The distribution of the age of the coaches is extremely accurate and is compiled in Appendix D. A majority of the units, 81%, are over fifteen years old, and 41% are over 20 years old. These percentages correlate to 190 coaches over 15 years of age and 96 coaches over 20 years of age. Vnit Purchased In Park According to the 1982 survey, 188, or 79.5%, of the coaches were bought from within the park, rather than moved on-site from another location. From reviewing tenant files, it appears that this trend has continued and is W actually higher than the above rate. Mqnthly Rent A detailed current rent schedule was made available by The Robert Mayer Corporation. The 1987 statistics for rent distribution are 100% accurate as of July, 1987. Space rental in the park ranges from $320 to $475 per month. Currently, 143 of the residents, (61%), pay between $320 to $350 per month. Space rentals for most residents have not increased significantly over the last five years. irr w 8 �.r I 1.. 4 L r.� ■- Lsa REFERENCES City of Huntington Beach L 1982 Mobilg Home Park Survev, Department of Development Services, Hunt- ington Beach, CA. 1984 KQujinQ fle` ment. Department of Development Services, Huntington Beach, CA. County of Orange 1987 Orange County Med an ncome 7 . Forecast and Analysis Department, Santa Ana, CA. The Robert Mayer Corporation 1987 Tenanj Files. Newport Beach, CA. 1987 Tenant-Questionnaires. Newport Beach, CA. State Department of Finance 1979 ,Special .Census - Huntington Leigh. Sacramento, CA. U.S. Bureau of Census 1980 1980 Census. Vashington D.C. w k �Y 9 j.. L } Lsa APPENDIX A 1982 MOBILE HOME PARK SURVEY L L L l�« 6w 9 a. w L ALL PARX3 COMaINED 67 07, R�rPonsG rREQUENCY SUMMARY SHEET HUNTIrJGTON BEACH M031LE HOME PARK SURVEY 1. The size of the unit in which you now reside is: a. 20.2 !iingle-wide b. 77.3 * `double-wide w C. - 2-5» Triple-wide 2. The age of the unit in which you now reside is: n. 5.9 0-4 years old IN. 25.7 5-9 years old c. 7.%, * 10-14 years old - d. 17.2 . 15-19 years old e. 4t4 - 20 years or older 3. How long has your household lived in the park in which you now reside? G. 26.8 0-4 years b. 34.6 * 5-9 years C. 29.8 10-14 years d. T. — 15-19 years e. l.�- 20 years or longer The a. TFe unit in which you now reside wc:: a. 65.1 * r,torchased in the park +— b. 33.E '.loved to the hark S. Do yov own in full the unit in which you now reside? a. 80.2 i Yes b. 19.E NO c. If you do not own the unit in full, are you: u. 94.9 * Mat-ing payments on the unit? L b. 5.1 Renting the viit? 7. if you do own the unit in full or are making payments on the t,tu1i, do you reside in it at leastl30 days a year? a. 98.7 * Yes b. 1.2 1.10 S. The number of occupants in your household total: b. j.E.2 * - Two - e. 5.5 Three or more -7 r 7833E/115B/1&2 oO.TI:t'E ON gAr P 9. The age of the occupants in your household are: L. Occupant 1 Occupant 2 Occupant 3 . Age _ Total a• 6.8 7,6 54.6 * 44 years or less 8.9 +� b. 2.0 3.4 _ 2.5 45-49 years 2.5 C. 5.1 6.8 3.4 _ 50-54 years 5.7 d. 9.3 11.1_ 7.6-, 55-59 years 9.9 e. , 13.44 17.8 3`4 60-64 years 14.7 " f. 5.0 65-69 years 20.8 g. �* 70 years or more 37.5 10. Do any members of your household have a disability? If so, which is the most serious? OccuEaa, nt I Occueant 2 Occupant 3 Disability C. 3-2 - �.2 - .4 Blind or visually impaired b. -g- -.7 - � Confined to a wheelchair C. ?^ _ _1 _3 Mentally disabled d. _13.1_ -5.7 - --.5 - Other e. 57-6 f 21-3 9�3 No serious disability V 11. Which category best describes your household's gross income for 1981? Q. b. 17 2 $ 5,000 - $ 7,999 C. 21.2 * $ 8,000 - $1 1,999 d. 767 $12,000 - $14,999 . +w V. 1�.._ $15,000 - $19,999 f. 9.6 $20,000 - $24,999 9. 8.8 $25,000 - $34,000 h. 12 $35,000 - $49,000 i. $50,000 or above 12. Which category best describes your households current monthly rent? a. Q - 124 b. 10 2- $t 25 - $t 49 C. $150 - $199 r. d. 0.9* $200 - $249 e. 14.0 $250 - $299 f. 5_7 $300 or more 4.. '�" 7833cj 1 I5B11&2 r -brit' ti,looJ gsno. HUNTINGTON BEACH MOBILE HOME PARK SURVEY I. The size of the unit in which you now reside is: a. 17.015 Single-wide b. 04 Z8 Double-wide �-+ C. 3.r-4 Triple-wide 2. The age of the unit in which you now reside is: 0-4 years old h. 10431 5-9 years old C. r6.* 10-14 years aid d. -zr.Lj I S-19 years of d e. 20 years or older Ir. 3. How long has yo1jr household lived in the pork in which you now reside? a. 23.01 0-4 years b. 33.Gz 5-9 years C. �)-17 10-14 years d. g.19 I5-19 years e. _p- 20 years or Icnger T he xi t ir, w16 ch yo%, now reside was: i C. -M-46 Furcf csed in the park b. •ao.ryc ,.'.o:«-d to the pc.k 5. Do you oA-n in full the un;t in which yo:, row reside? 0. 115.16 Yes NO 5. I` you do not own the unit in full, are ycj: C. Mcking payments on the unit? Renting the unit? 7. If you do own the unit in full or are mc!cing payments on the unit, do you reside in it L. at least°0 days a year? C. Ch.%D Yes L.. zeo NO S. The number of occupants in your household total: 1.r a. One b. Two C. Three or more IW 7833ct 115311&2 mm.%zrr ai w cx Pr'.G-' °. The age of the occupants in yovr household cre: Occupant I Occupant-2 OCcv ant 3 Age L a. I,7 O S vs 100.130 44 years or less b. Ss6 •cr 45-49 years C. i1.s6 7 oti - 50-54 years d. 1Z q 6 rs�� -o- 55-59 years �-' e. 14.81 IGAo 60-64 years f. -yY.0-7 ZL -o- 65-69 years 70 years or mor-e 10. Do any members of your household have a disability? 1f so, which is the most serious? bw Occu ant I Occupant 2 Occupant 3 Disability a. L}.3g -o- Blind or visually impaired i.. b. -v- Confined to a wheelchair C. .o- Mentally disabled d. tz.zg g�`1 -0- Other w e. 68.GG 1on.ao No serious disability 11. Which category best describes your households gross income for 1981? l L a. 6.99 $ 0 - $ 4,999 b. %n.js $ 5,000 - $ 79999 C. V S3 $ 8,000 - $1 1,999 L d. t0.�7 512,000 - $14,999 e. mr. $15,000 - $19,999 f, 1078 $20,000 - $24,999 g. 11.1; $25,000 - $34,000 h. d $35,000 - $49,000 i $50,000 or above w 12. INhich category best describes your household's current monthly rent? i a. -0- $ 0 - S 124 b. 4 $125 - $149 C. q[ $150 - $l 99 d. . 01 $200 - $249 e. -11.21 $250 - $299 f. 'z:13 $300 or more L L 78334/115B/1&2 I" �r L `1 iLsa W� r APPENDIX B 1987 SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE ROBERT MAYER CORPORATION L 4 Ilw I � W Ir. ID �r ' I 1.. l" HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD �r NAME ADDRESS AT DRIFTWOOD DO YOU LIVE AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS FULL TIME yes----no IF NO, WHERE ELSE DO YOU LIVE ' ADDRESS DO YOU OWN A SECOND HOME yes. no IF YES, � ADDRESS DO YOU OWN THE COACH YOU ARE LIVING IN AT DRIFTWOOD yes_no IF NO, PROCEED TO THE NEXT QUESTION owl IF YES, WHAT ARE YOUR MONTHLY LOAN PAYMENTS AMOUNT STILL OWED s WHO ARE YOU MAKING PAYMENTS TO NAME ADDRESS DO YOU RENT THE COACH YOU ARE LIVING IN AT DRIFTWOOD yes_ o IF YES, WHAT ARE YOU MONTHLY RENT PAYMENTS WHO ARE YOU MAKING PAYMENTS TO NAME ADDRESS WHAT IS THE SIZE OF YOUR COACH (Excluding porches) WIDTH LENGTH HOW MANY BEDROOMS ARE THERE LICENSE OR DECAL NUMBER ' WHAT YEAR WAS THE COACH MANUFACTURED WHAT YEAR DID YOU PURCHASE THE COACH WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE CAN YOU PROVIDE PROOF OF PURCHASE yes-no WHEN DID YOU FIRST MOVE TO DRIFTWOOD HAVE YOU LIVED IN ANOTHER SPACE AT DRIFTWOOD yes---no IF YES, WHAT SPACE r. DO YOU HAVE ANY PETS yes----no IF YES, TYPE WEIGHT r lw tr w� WHERE DID YOU LIVE BEFORE MOVING TO DRIFTWOOD ADDRESS i HOW LONG DID YOU LIVE THERE WHO LIVES WITH YOU AT DRIFTWOOD Name Relationship to you Age Name Relationship to you Age �,. Name _ -__--_Relationship to you Age Name Relationship to you Age DO YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY yes---no. IF YES, FAME �.. ADDRESS a. low i �w a �M INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION TO BE FILLED OUT BY ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS WHO ARE OVER THE AGE OF � EIGHTEEN. EACH PERSON FILLS OUT A SEPARATE QUESTIONNAIRE NAME SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER w CALIFORNIA DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER ADDRESS awl AGE DATE OF BIRTH DO YOU LIVE AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS FULLTIME yes----no IF NO, WHERE ELSE DO YOU LIVE ADDRESS HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS w DO YOU PAY RENT yes--- no IF YES, WHAT ARE YOUR MONTHLY PAYMENTS HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU MOVED IN THE PAST TEN YEARS w OF THESE RESIDENCES, HOW MANY WERE OUTSIDE ORANGE COUNTY________ ARE YOU EMPLOYED yes----no IF YES, +w NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS WHEN DID YOU FIRST BEGIN WORKING THERE month year WHAT IS YOUR SALARY OR WAGE per month per year DO YOU WORK THERE FULL TIME yes no WHAT IS THE ROUNDTRIP DISTANCE FROM HOME TO WORK HOW MANY JOBS HAVE YOU HELD IN THE LAST TEN YEARS �. HOW MANY OF THESE WERE OUTSIDE ORANGE COUNTY DO YOU HAVE A SECOND JOB yea no IF YES, NAME OF EMPLOYER ADDRESS WHAT IS YOUR SALARY OR WAGE per month tier year ARE YOU SELF EMPLOYED yes----no IF YES, NAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS WHAT IS YOUR INCOME per month Per year ARE YOU RETIRED yes----no IF YES, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN RETIRED r. NAME OF EMPLOYER AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT ADDRESS HOW LONG DID YOU WORK THERE L W IN ADDITION TO YOUR SALARY OR WAGES, WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME (If necessary, please use 1986 for the annual figures) SOCIAL SECURITY per month_ per year RETIREMENT PLAN per month per year PENSION PLAN per month ------per year INTEREST per month_ __ per year w DIVIDENDS per month ._ Der year SPOUSAL/CHILD SUPPORT per month per year r RENTS per month_ per year GIFTS/TRUSTS per month Der year OTHER per month _ per year DO YOU ATTEND SCHOOL yes_—no IF YES, NAME OF SCHOOL ADDRESS YEAR AND PROGRAM CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN DO YOU DRIVE yes—no IF NO, WHAT MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IS AVAILABLE TO YOU NAME ADDRESS �+ DO YOU OWN A CAR yes no IF YES, YEAR - - MAKE/MODEL ARE YOU UNDER A DOCTORS CARE yes----no (Under a doctors care means seeing a doctor on a regular basis for reasons other than a regular check up or examination) +W IF YES, NAME OF DOCTOR 0 1 ti ADDRESS �y LENGTH OF TIME YOU HAVE BEEN UNDER CARE NUMBER OF TIMES PER YEAR YOU MUST SEE THAT DOCTOR ,■■ WHAT IS THE ROUNDTRIP DISTANCE FROM HOME TO DOCTORS OFFICE ■Y NAME OF DOCTOR 92 ADDRESS �Y LENGTH OF TIME YOU HAVE BEEN UNDER CARE NUMBER OF TIMES PER YEAR YOU MUST SEE THAT DOCTOR WHAT IS THE ROUNDTRIP DISTANCE FROM HOME TO DOCTORS OFFICE PLEASE LIST ANY OTHER DOCTORS ON A SEPARATE PAGE. WERE YOU ADMITTED TO A HOSPITAL DURING 1986 OR 19B7 yes—_no s• IF YES, NAME OF HOSPITAL ADDRESS LENGTH OF STAY FOR WHAT PROCEDURE �w f Ir. f IM DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN THAT ARE LIVING WITH YOU yes__-_no IF YES. �. NAME AGE DATE OF BIRTH NAME OF SCHOOL GRADE ADDRESS NAME ` AGE DATE OF BIRTH .► NAME OF SCHOOL GRADE ADDRESS NAME Lw AGE DATE OF BIRTH NAME OF SCHOOL GRADE ' ADDRESS DO YOU HAVE ANY RELATIVES NOT LIVING WITH YOU BUT ARE ALSO LIVING AT DRIFTWOOD yes____no IF YES, NAME ADDRESS THANK YOU FOR FILLING OUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE r • �M �M 1 its M Iw'. i lam t �w LEM1 ;M F r �M APPENDIX C *r STATISTIC TABULATIONS w� tr *r 1 f; `1 1 , 9L yi 11 W I 1w 1 1�r Lsal 1� r 4r r 1982-CITY SURVEY # ti <45 11 10.0 45-49 6 5.0 f . 50-54 7 6.0 55-59 15 13.0 60-64 IB 16.0 65-70 25 22.0 >70 —22 28.0 114 100.0 ' ISTIFATED 1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) �r <45 39 10.0 45-49 20 5.0 50-54 23 6.0 55-59 51 13.0 60-64 63 16.0 65-70 86 22.0 4. >70 LOI 28.0 391* 100.0 1987 RMC SURVEY <18 1 2.0 18-40 13 28.0 41-50 2 4.0 51-60 10 22.0 61-70 15 33.0 46 100.0 1987 RMC ,EILES Iwo <18 18 22.0 18-40 20 24.0 � 41-50 6 8.0 51-60 20 24.0 6140 I0 12.0 >70 8 10.0 �. 82 100.0 * Assumes (1' Units) .(1.6 persons per unit) W f IMF w L. Lsa hod HOUSMLQ SIZE 1982 E ITV SURVEY +� One 38 33.6 Two 66 57.5 Three or more -JQ 8.9 60 114 100.0 f ESTIMATED 1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) ►� One 132 33.6 Two 225 57.5 Three or more _L4 8.9 39l* 100.0 1987 RMC_SURVEY +� One I7 47.0 Two 15 42.0 Three 3 8.0 `, Four or more -, — 3, A 36 100.0 1987 RMC FILES One 80 35.0 Two 116 51.0 Three 26 11.0 Four or more 7 _M 229 100.0 * Assumes (I Units) (1.6 persons per unit) 1 iM 4- 1a► law Lsa M 1 �w FEPORTED HOUSEHOLD GROSS TNLOME t 98 Y, �URV Y (1981 dollars) 0 <$5,000 8 6.9 5,000-7,999 12 10.8 + 8,000-11,999 27 23.4 ;M 12,000-14,999 12 10.8 15,000-19,999 18 15.7 20,000-24,999 12 10.8 ' 25,000-34,999 13 11.8 35,000-50,000 6 4.9 >50,000 4.9 114 100.0 ESTIMATED 1986* (Projected from 1982 City Survey) <$6,510 16 6.9 h" 6,510-10,415 26 10.8 10,416-15,623 54 23.4 15,624-19,529 26 10.8 19,530-26,039 37 15.7 26,040-32,549 26 10.8 32,550-45,569 28 11.8 45,570-65,100 12 4.9 >65,100 _a4.9 f 237 100.0 w, 1987 )tMC SURVEY , . 05,000 1 3.0 �! 5,000-7,999 4 12.0 8,000-11,999 3 9.0 12,000-14,999 6 18.0 15,000-19,999 3 9.0 .� 20,000-24,999 6 18.0 25,000-34,999 5 16.0 35,000-50,400 2 6.0 >50,000 —1 9.0 33 100.0 6.1 rr k Yr ■r 1Lsa v. 1987 RMC FILES <55,000 1 1.0 5,000-7,999 3 4.0 8,000-11,999 4 5.0 12,000-14,999 8 10.0 15,000-19,999 7 9.0 �• 20,000-24,999 11 14.0 25,000-34,999 12 15.0 35,000-49,999 16 20.0 i+ 50,000-69,999 10 13.0 70,000-100,000 7 9.0 79 100.0 + An inflation factor of 30.2% was derived from the difference in O.C. median income from I981-1986. L� IF - (1986-19EI) (S41.537-S31.900) 1981 $31,900 In comparison, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by 15.1% and Social �+ Security payments increased by 18.7%. 1y Li �I Li �1 k MI 1 Y.1 k11 i I.. 4. Lsa �.+ LOW-MODERATE INCOME F Very Low Income less than So% of O.C. Median Income �+ Low = 50 to 80% of O.C. Median Income Moderate - 80 to 120% of O.C. Median Income Upper - greater than 120% of O.C. Median Income L. 1986 - O.C. MEDIAN INCOME - $41,537 (Sources: County Of Orange Forecast and Analysis Dept) Very Low Income <S20,768 Low Income $20,768-33,229 Moderate Income $33,229-49,644 Upper Income $49,844 1987 - O.C. MEDIAN INCOME - 43.264 (Source: County of Orange Forecast and Analysis Dept) Very Low Income <$21,632 Low Income $21,632-34,611 1 Moderate Income $34,611-51,916 Upper Income $51,916 1986 INFLATION-ADJUSTED,INCOME Very low 122 52.0 Low 63 26.4 Moderate 28 11.8 r. 9.8 Upper � 100.0 (Source: See Methodology Section) Iv, 987 RM URV Y Very low 17 51.0 Low 11 34.0 Moderate 2 6.0 Upper -2 9.0 33 100.0 1987 RMC FILES +6• Very low 23 29.0 Low 23 29' 0 Moderate 16 20:0 �. Upper 79 100.0 L i 6. w, lsa F . � LENGTH OF-RESTQENU 1982 CITY SURVEY # 0- 4 years 26 23.0 5- 9 years 38 33.6 10-14 years 42 37.2 15-19 years —..$ 6.2 114 100.0 t ESTIKATED_1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) 0- 4 years 54 23.0 5- 9 years 84 33.6 10-14 years 88 37.2 15-19 years _U __ 12 237 100.0 1987 RMC SURVEY 0- 4 years 18 50.0 5- 9 years 7 19.0 10-14 years 5 14.0 15-19 years 5 14.0 >19 years _1 _ 3.0 35 I00.0 4 1987 RMC FILES V 0- 4 years 88 40.0 5- 9 years 46 21.0 10-14 years 38 17.0 15-19 years 41 18.0 >19 years . -2 4.0 222 100.0 kbd i.. bet Lsa W DISABILT 82 CITY SURVEY 0 1 kw Blind - Visually Impaired 3 3.0 Confined to a Wheelchair 1 1.0 Other Disability 12 10.0 No Serious Disability M 86.0 114 100.0 ESTJMATFD_1287 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) Blind - Visually Impaired 11 3.0 Confined to a Wheelchair 2 1.0 but Other Disability 41 10.0 No Serious Disability "7_ 86.0 391* 100.0 60 * Assumes (# Units) 0.6 persons per unit) f k V u •r r Lsa TENANCY 1982 CITY SURVEY # 7 Permanent 111 97.2 Seasonal ^2.8 114 100.0 ESTIMATED 1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) Permanent 230 97.2 Seasonal 7 2.8 237 100.0 1987 RMC SURVEY Permanent 32 89.0 r Seasonal 4 11 .0 4 36 100.0 ' 1987 RMC FILES Permanent 222 96.0 Seasonal J-0 _4 Q 232 100.0 w 1.. W W Id r W ire W �,. Lsa Oi�1H_ ERSHTP 1982 CITY SURVEY Own Unit 113 99.0 Rent Unit --1 1.0 114 100.0 ESTIMATED 1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) Own Unit 235 91.0 Rent Unit _ 237 100.0 �.. 987 RMC_SURVEY Own Unit 3S 97.0 Rent Unit 1 ___3.0 36 100.0 1987 RMC FILES L Own Unit 209 88.0 Rent Unit ,?$ 22.0 237 100.0 La w W w W W w 1982 CITY SURVEY Held in Lien 24 21.2 No Lien J-0 78.8 114 100.0 r.. ESTIMATED 1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) L Held in Lien 50 21.2 No Lien M7 78.8 237 100.0 hw 1987 RMC SURVEY Held in Lien 22 59.0 im No Lien L _4L .0 36 100.0 1987 RMC FILES L Held in Lien 121 51.0 No Lien Ih 49.0 68 237 100.0 L W L Lsa L DEBT OWE 1987 RMC_SURVEY <$15,000 3 20.0 159000-24,999 2 13.4 259000-34,999 4 26.6 35,000-44,999 4 26.6 45,000-54,999 1 6.7 55,000-65,000 0 0.0 > 65,000 _ .7 15 100.0 Note: There were 7 questionnaires which failed to disclose the debt owed +�- on their lien. W L L r W Lsa SIZE OF UNIT 1982 CITYSURVEY 0 Single Aide 8 7.1 Double Wide 102 89.4 Triple wide 4 _ 3.5 114 100.0 ESTIMATED,1987 (Projected from 1982 City Survey) Single Wide 17 7.1 Double Wide 212 89.4 1 Triple Wide 8 _ 3.5 L 237 100.0 1987 RMC FILES Single Wide 33 14.0 Double Wide 200 84.0 Triple Wide 4 __ 2.g L 237 100.0 L L i.. rr ' Lsa f w ACE of UNIT 1987 RMC FILES 3 �+ 0- 4 years 0 0.0 0- 5 years 24 10,0 10-14 years 23 9.0 15-19 years 94 40.0 20-24 years 92 39.0 25-27 years 4 --1.0 237 100.0 ti W i f lw r Lsa �.. UNIT PURCHASED-IN-EARK 1982 CITY SURVEY # Purchased in Park 91 79.5 Moved Trailer to Park _n _z 114 100.0 ESTIMATED 1987 (Pro,jected from 1982 City Survey) Purchased in Park 188 79.5 Moved to Park -A2 _20.5 f 237 100.0 F w w I Ire Lsa W 1982 CITY SURVEY z $150-199 1 .9 200-249 22 i9.1 ' 250-300 88 77.3 >300 3 2.7 114 100.0 1987 RMC FILES $320-350 143 61.0 351-375 37 16.0 376-400 29 12.0 401-425 22 9.0 426-475 2.0 236 100.0 Mw+ w. r Lw L L W fir.• Lsa APPENDIX D MOBILE HOME PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1.� . 12 LW E r Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehone Park Listing of Coach Sizes and Date of Manufacture s=�==s===x=�c��ccnv=agar=szas�a�=sc«a=c�a�ccc=ox�s�ca===ca • Est. Living Date of Width Length Description Area (s.f. ) Mfg. �. ----- ------ ---------------------- --------- ------- 10 x 40 Single Wide 400 1966 10 x 50 Single Wide- 500 1964 10 x 50 Single Wide 500 1960 10 x 50 Single Wide 500 1965 10 x 54 Single Wide 540 1972 �+ 10 x 54 Single Wide 540 1964 10 x 54 Single Wide 540 1966 1 10 x 54 Single Wide 540 1965 10 x 54 Single Wide 540 1965 10 x 55 Single Wide 550 1966 10 x 60 Single Wide 600 1962 10 x 60 Single Wide 600 1967 10 x 60 Single Wide 600 1965 10 x 60 Single Wide 600 1960 12 x 53 Single Wide 636 1966 12 x 55 Single Wide 660 1974 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1969 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1962 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1964 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1968 12 x 60 Single Wide + Expansion 920 1965 ' 12 x 60 Single Wide + Expansion 920 1964 I�r 12 x 60 Single Wide + Expansion 920 1964 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1969 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1970 12 x 60 Single Wide 720 1970 12 x 61 Single Wide 732 1970 12 x 66 Single Wide 792 1966 14 x 52 Single Wade 728 1969 �+ 14 x 54 Single Wide 756 1969 14 x 58 Single Wide + Expansion 1,012 1970 14 x 67 Single Wide 938• 1969 15 x 54 Single Wide 810 1964 16 x 50 Double Wide 800 1964 18 x 48 Double Wide 864 1963 20 x 40 Double Wide 800 1972 �+ 20 x 40 Double Wide 800 1975 20 x 40 Double Wide 800 1966 20 x 40 Double Wide 800 1968 20 x 40 Double Wide 800 1973 20 x 43 Double Wide 860 1968 20 x 43 Double Wide 860 1969 20 x 44 Double Wide 880 1966 20 x 45 Double Wide 900 1963 20 x 48 Double Wide 960 1965 [ 20 x 48 Double Wide. 960 1975 Page 1 4 Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehone Park Listing of Coach Sizes and Date of Manufacture Est. Living Date of Width Length Description Area (s.f. ) Mfg. w. ------ ------ ---------------------- --------- ------- 20 x 50 Double Wide 1, 000 1965 20 x 50 Double Wide 10000 1966 20 x 50 Double Wide 1,000 1965 20 x 50 Double Wide 18000 1964 20 x 50 Double Wide 1,000 1965 �+ 20 x 50 Double Wide 1,000 1964 20 x 50 Double Wide 1,000 1967 20 x 50 Double Wide 1,000 1966 est. 20 x 50 Double Wide 1,000 1968 20 x 50 Double Wide 1,000 1970 20 x 52 Double Wide 11040 1965 ' 20 x 52 Double Wide 11040 1966 +- 20 x 52 Double Wide 11040 1976 20 x 52 Double Wide 1,040 1971 20 x 52 Double Wide 1,040 1974 20 x 52 Double Wide 1,040 1976 20 x 52 Double Wide 11040 1969 20 x 52 Double Wide 1,040 1970 20 x 53 Double Wide 1,060 1963 20 x 54 Double Wide + Expansion 1,280 1966 20 x 54 Double Wide 1,080 1966 20 x 54 Double Wide 1,080 1965 20 x 54 Double Wide 1,080 1967 20 x 54 Double Wide 1,080 1965 20 x 54 Double Wide 1,080 1964 20 x 54 Double Wide 1,080 1969 est. 20 x 54 Double Wide 1,080 1970 20 x 55 Double Wide 1, 100 1965 20 x 55 Double Wide 1,100 1964 wr 20 x 55 Double Wide 1,100 1965 . 20 x 55 Double Wide 1,100 1965 20 x 55 Double Wide 1,100 1967 20 x 55 Double Wide 1,100 1967 20 x 55 Double Wide 1,100 1966 20 x 55 Double Wide 1,100 1967 20 x 55 Double Wide 1,100 1965 - 20 x 55 Double Wide 1,100 1966 20 x 56 Double Wide 1,120 1972 20 x 56 Double Wide 1,120 1978 20 x 56 Double Wide 1,120 1966 est. 20 x 56 Double Wide 1,120 1973 20 x 56 Double Wide 1,120 1971 20 x 57 Double Wide 1,140 1964 ' W 20 x 57 Double Wide 1,140 1982 20 x 58 Double Wide 1,160 1964 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 11,77 w. Page 2 rr i �r+ Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park Listing of Coach Sizes and Date of Manufacture SIM Est. Living Date of I.' Width Length Description Area (s.f. ) Mfg. ----- ------ ---------------------- --------- ------- 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1964 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1974 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1967 ' 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1967 �. 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1966 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1968 i 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1967 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1971 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1967 est. 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1966 • 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1964 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1964 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1969 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1972 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1964 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1964 &in 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1973 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1969 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1965 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1972 20 x 60 Double Wide 1,200 1970 20 x 64 Double Wide 1,280 1971 w 20 x 64 Double Wide 1,280 1965 20 x 65 Double Wide 1,300 1966 21 x 50 Double Wide 1,050 1964 22 x 58 Double Wide 1,276 1969 24 x 40 Double Wide 960 1968 24 x 44 Double Wide 1,056 1969 24 x 45 Double Wide 1,080 1968 24 x 45 Double Wide 1,080 1968 24 x 48 Double Wide 1, 152 1963 24 x 48 Double Wide 1,152 1978 �. 24 x 48 Double Wide 11152 1967 24 x 50 Double Wide 1,200 1965 24 x 50 Double Wide 1,200 1964 24 x 50 Double Wide 1,200 1978 24 x 50 Double Wide 1,200 1968 24 x 52 Double Wide 1,248 1981 24 x 52 Double Wide 1,248 1981 Lai Page 3 r M.. i it Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehone Park Listing of Coach Sizes and Date of Manufacture Est. Living Date of • Width Length Description Area (s.f. ) Mfg. r.. ----- ------ ---------------------- --------- ------- 24 x 52 Double Wide 1,248 1966 w, 24 x 52 Double Wide 1,248 1982 24 x 52 Double Wide 1,248 1969 24 x 52 Double Wide 11248 1970 24 x 52 Double Wide 1,248 1970 24 x 53 Double Wide 1,272 1965 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1978 f 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1981 ,,. 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1967 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1967 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1967 est. 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1966 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1964 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1967 ' 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1975 w 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1969 est. 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1982 r 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1969. 24 x 54 Double Wide 11296 1969 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1969 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1970 ' 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1970 �.• 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1971 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1970 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1970 24 x 54 Double Wide 1,296 1970 24 x 55 Double Wide 11320 1968 F 24 x 56 Double Wide 1,344 1977 24 x 56 Double Wide 1,344 1968 24 x 56 Double Wide 1,344 1965 24 x 56 Double Wide 1,344 1979 24 x 56 Double Wide 1,344 1981 24 x 56 Double Wide 11344 1981 24 x 56 Double Wide 1,344 1981 24 x 56 Double Wide 1,344 1969 24 x 56 Double Wide 1,344 1970 24 x 57 Double Wide 1,368 1969 24 x 58 Double Wide 1,392 1973 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1964 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1976 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1974 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1981 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1973 1 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1978 Page 4 Iw . Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park Listing of Coach Sizes and Date of Manufacture Est. Living Date of Width Length Description Area (s.f.) Mfg. w. ----- ------ ---------------------- --------- ------- 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1978 24 x 60 Double Wide: 1,440 1979 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1980 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1967 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1967 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1965 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1968 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1968 �.. 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1980 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1976 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 11440 1968 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1964 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1968 6d 24 x 60 Double Wide 18440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 2,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1971 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 +- 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1974 ` 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 W 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1969 v 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 f 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1971 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1979 24 x 60 Double Wide 1,440 1970 24 x 60 Double Wide 2,440 1970 est. 24 x 60 Double Wide 11440 1970 24 x 62 Double Wide 1,488 1976 24 x 62 Double Wide 1,488 1970 24 x 62 Double + Exp. (Triple) 1,888 1980 LN , . Page 5 ! r ' i I Driftwood Beach Club Mobilehome Park Listing of Coach Sizes and Date of Manufacture wf Est. Living -Date of Width Length Description Area (s.f. ) Mfg. ., ----- ------ ---------------------- --------- ------- 24 x 64 Double Wide 1,536 1977 24 x 64 Double + Exp. (Triple) 1,936 1979 24 x 64 Double + Exp. (Triple) 1,936 1977 24 x 64 Double Wide 1,536 1970 24 x 64 Double Wide 1, 536 1977 r.. 24 x 66 Double + Exp. (Triple) 1,984 1978 24 x 69 Double Wide 1, 656 1968 r W 3 4 Notes: Expansion units are assunned to add 200 s.f. living area for units of width less than 24 ft. and 400 s.f. for units of width equal to 24 ft. 1 24 ft. wide units with expansion are considered "triple wides". Data excludes space 103 (manager's unit owned by RIM) . Data excludes space 307 (empty) . f w �r W W led APPENDIX J lug AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ibo l t �.I � I i irr 16► Nr. Project Name WAT Il Date : 11-23-1987 Analysis Year 2000 Temperature i 70 EMFAC7 VERSION EMFAC7C ... 1/4/87 L r Unit Type Trip Rate Size Tot Trips Days Op. V Condominiums (Adult) 8.0/Unit 894 7152 Community Shopping Center 26.5/1000 Sqf 99 2624 1 Hotel 6.0/room 1600 9600 1 Health Club 11.7/1000 Sqf 40 468 1 r Residential Commercial Hone-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Work Non-Work F Trip Length 8.8 3.2 5.2 8.1 5.5 o Started Cold 88.3 40.2 58.3 77.4 27.2 Trip Speed 35 35 35 35 35 Percent Trip 27.3 21.2 51.5 T L Vehicle Fleetmix L Vehicle Type Percent Type Leaded Unleaded Diesel Light Duty Autos 90.0 1.5 95.9 2.6 Light Duty Trucks 4.3 2.4 94.9 2.8 iw Medium Duty Trucks 1.8 5.9 94.2 0.0 ' Heavy Duty Trucks 1.8 33.3 66.7 N/A Heavy Duty Trucks 1.8 N/A N/A 100.0 L Motorcycles 0.5 100.0 N/A N/A Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type TOG CO NOX Condominiums (Adult) 82.6 850.1 103.0 Community Shopping Center 23.4 227.3 35.3 Hotel 107.0 1092.5 151.3 Health Club 4.4 42.8 6.5 T r Irr } L