Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCode Amendment 77-1 - Ordinance 2184 - Negative Declaration Affidavit ®f Publication . State of California County of Orange } ss _ �� City of Huntington Beach 1 George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is-a 3 citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach News, 'a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said Published Huntington. Beach`NewS,'Mar. County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination 24, 1977. of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING subscription list of --Code Amendment No. 77-1 p paying subscribers, and said paper has been established, printed and published in the State of California, and NOTICE •IS HEREBY -GIVEN that a public'hearing will• be held by the City County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication Council.of the City of, Huntington Beach, of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not in' the Council Chamber. of the Civic devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any .j Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour particular class, profession, 'trade, calling, race or denomination, or of.7 bI.PA., or d soon thereafter 'as possible. 'on Monday the 4th day 'of i any number thereof. ('.April,`1977;'for ftie purpose of consider- The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper ing Code Arrrendrrient No' 77-1 referred of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court to as the ', menca`community Plan., "'Said Amendment-, proposes to estab- of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No.A-5931. Tlish specific plan zoning..consisting of 'Offic_e-0rofossiorial:.uses and -residential multi-story' uses', and .the development That the CODE AIVE NDMENT NO. 77-1 I standards for such uses. These require- ments WIII -specify standards.for build- ing locations and heights,' landscaping, yard setbacks; 'off-street pa.,king,. and other related standards., ,The subject of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- property' is generally bounded by Main Street,'Florida.,Street; Huntington Street, and a south bqundary linerunn!ng par- paper at lit 011e issue aliel with Garfield Avenue approximate- ly,660 feet.north of:Garfield Avenue; A copy of the proposed ordinance and io- commencin from the 24th March ce par ent is•on file i.. the,Planning g day of 'Department 'office'.',. All interested persons are invited to 1r{� and ending on the 24•th March attend. said and express their .�!�y g day of opinions for,, or against said'Code Am- endment No. 77-1.- Further information may be obtained both days inclusive, and as often during said period and from the Office of the City clerk. DATED: 3-22-77 times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the CITY OF HUNTINGTON. BEACH regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a I Bv:, Alicia NI: Wentworth supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following.. L City Clerk dates, to-wit: -- Mar, 24, 1977 PPublisher Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 5 t h day of March 19 77 -7 ,2_�.' Notary Public Orange County, California ---Ps ,----THOMAS Q. WYLLIE Notary Public-California r ,� mom.,. : Orange County / i f°zk �. My Commission Expires r 77 s "``rQ"0 Septamber I2, 1978 I '-------------- --- ------- ------ r L. ,Wright to CC. Pacif'.a Plan. -3 -9-77 *" If these are ..onsidered to be insi ific- _�t differences it may. . _. I • y i indicate that the whole multi-story process needs a deeper looking into. From their discussions, the councilmen also seemed to sense that more questions need to be asked. Auestions on the Pacifica Plan j On this and; other items 1 the' CC needs to have sufficient factual information so� that . you ,can make informed, decisions . you ihave some feel ;for what's likelyi to result from these decisions. ; .. We should have information for several :alternatives i such;as,: I f Max. A t I S0% of a oo°7o o r 2 Yobs' cf 3oo-7e of pact �4 den Cy Max. Ant Ma Max.. Awt si, x• Apt Max, 1Apt ni d¢ns i ty d ¢ns�t'l dens►'t d ent.�'ty De11 S i'Cy; units% '�a3f acre 35 52.5 -70 No. of. PXf-Kiler Spaces , . per joo u,nr . , er'p Acreere- t � I Iot�rey��.rQd I r ' Top- �ota I Comr►ruv. Ore. Space I re t) t E Iosecl Pa-rlGin paeKtn o In the Pacifica Plan: . is unenclosed parking considered as part of open space? (Towers = 25% - of lot, other buildings, up to 20%, remaining for open space and parking 55%) . would we have much visual open ' space if Pacifica were, required to follow apartment standards for parking, including the number of spaces per unit.-and enclosed of parking? Or at...lesser number of spaces per unit? I the, units are "likely" (not ."possibly") to be subsidized? to what extent would this be a bad project if conditions changed so that it would no-longer solely be a senior-citizen project? Although you couldn°t increase the unit size, what could be :doneconcerning f parking, population, open-space e.tc ? f k ° xa i Le, Wright to CC . Pacifica Plan, -4- 4-9-77 Questions on the process. of granting hi-rise devei-pment a, Study the areas first. As Steve Kellogg had recommended (and I strongly supported)•, before hi-rise is allowed in the area, a study of the area should: determine if hi-rise is reasonable for the area, refine the circles (from the circles drawn on the policy plan map) , further delineate sub-boundaries within the area where hi-rises are allowed. This should be done before any development proposal is processed,. We want accepted proposals to fit our criteria rather than have the criteria altered (or ignored) to suit where someone wants to put a hi-rise . b. Requestor supply an EIR. Mr. Zingrabbe should supply an EIR before the Pacifica ordinance is approved. This should encourage: . proposals to .be more nearly in line with the multi-story ordinance. a higher probability that things are done correctly. If the Pacifica is approved, the pressure will be strong to make the EIR satisfy the ordinance. My understanding is that an EIR is legally required. before the Pacifica Plan is approved unless you can show that there's no signifi- cant impactp. And there are significant impacts In my opinion, the EIR should concentrate on impact items and not spend a lot of time on things that have no impact. c. We may be able to expedite items a. (the study) and b. (the EIR) . You can take a long time doing something -- try it, .find changes and recycle etc. Or we can try to get all the questions and concerns, account for reasonable ones, do a thorough job -- including pro's and con's and expedite the process , Either way takes a lot of work. d. What's to happen from now on? It's disconcerting that after we get a multi-story ordinance, the first proposed developeent ignores the ordinance and substantially exceeds the ordinance in several major categories: increased number of units, reduced parking and unit size, unenclosed parking. Are others also going to be able to use the specific plan approach so as to ignore the multi-story ordinance? If the CC hadn' t decided to. look deeper arA get further information, we might have ended up with: bad results . a distrust of city govt . opposition with sufficient information and rallying to kill other proposals ' L. `Wrigh�t to CC . Paci a Plan. -5- 4-9-77 The Multi-story ordinance The situation that exists with the Pacifica Plan makes it seem practical to review the multi-story ordinance to make sure that all bases are covered, whether or not any changes are made. There may be no problem, but so far we 've taken everything for granted without having backup information (with examples) to show that concerns are adequately taken care of. It would be good to have support info (and examples) to show how concerns such as the following are accounted for: . open space : Part of my comments in my 3-24-77 letter assumed that the Pacifica Plan goes by the multi-story ordinance (since Pacifica doesn't use apartment standards for unit size, unit densities and parking requirements, I assumed that other' hi-rise proposals could similarly ignore apartment standards. ) avoiding a wall of hi-rises within a hi-rise area. Height limits. Maximize views and breezes. This includes visual open space . / ,j i 1 i .fit Publish M9f3,124/77 .ri Mi gMq�l��lli� P JfiAIK Postcards 91 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HYING Code Amendment No. 77-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in .the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of. 7 P.M. , or as soon thereof ter as, possible, on , Monday the 4th day of April, 1977 , for the Purpose of Considering Code Amendment No. 77-1 referred to as the "Pacifica Community Plan." Said Amendment proposes .to establish specific plan zoning consisting -of Office Professional uses and residential multi-story uses and the development standards for such uses. These requirements will specify standards for building locations and heights, landscaping,. yard setbacks, off-street parking, and other related standards. The subject property is generally bounded by Main Street, Florida Street, 4untington Street, and a south boundary line running parallel .with Garfield Avenue approximately 660 feet north of Garfield Avenue. A copy of the .proposed ordinance and location map is on file in the Planning Department office. i 1 1 All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or, against said /Ua. . Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk . ' D/11`E®- CITY Of- HUNTINGTON BEACH BY: Alicia M. Wentworth ! City Clerk i j 4 r Publish �O NX Postcards NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY`' GIVEN that a public hearing will be 'held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on the day of � t't 19 for the�= purpose of �- considering s ` 't �, . i ! �n � SRO �1 'P i c1 .7� P'?aev, t ° W II ? s r �t ,, � R oy rAo\ SAY-e4 N 0\ o ivy C 166 Y)�Y) klo \rjn V_Ovvv'4�. - r All interested persona are invrited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said v � Further information any be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. DATED 7 f CITY OF INGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk ,g + WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY"BLUE-CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTING WN BEACH No. GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR ' CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION Date Request made by .., Department 3/1/77 Al Montes Planning " RN INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested: Please prepare an Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code by adding thereto Article 964 entitled "PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN" per attached sample. This Code Amendment was approved as revised (see. italicized .statements) by the Planning Commission .on..March 1, 1977. ti f. f I l i 1 Desired effective date Signed: Approved as to availability of funds City council 3%21/77 of Director of Finance City Attorney— Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: City Administrator 3.6 Water: a. If project will not require installation or replacement of new water mains, check here and omit sections b through f. b. Attach a map showing the project, size and location of lines. C. If new water mains are to be constructed, indicate length and size (diameter) of new mains: Length Size See d. What is the area in acres and the population to be served by the new Appendix A-4 mains? Indicate the approximate service area on a map. e. If new mains are replacing existing mains, give length and size of ex- isting mains: Length Size f. Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. 3.7 Sewer: See a. If project will not require installation or replacement of new sewer mains Appendix A-4 check here and omit sections b and c. b. Attach a map showing the project, size and location of lines. c. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. 3.8 Utility Lines: a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. Unknown at this time. However, new utility lines and energy sources shall be required. b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? YeS If so, please describe facilities. Existing utility poles along west side of Delaware will necessitate relocation. c. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project? If so, please describe how. Unknown at this time -7- 3.9 Education: For residential projects, note primary and secondary school districts: Primary: Huntington Beach Union High School District Secondary Huntington Beach City School District 3. 10 Population Displacement: a. Will any residential occupants be displaced-by the project activities? No If not, do not answer question (b) . b. What is the total number of residents to be displaced? 3.11 Demolition: a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? "No If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of_buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. c. List approximate volume of exported material. d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. 4.o Mitigating Measures: 4.1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (E1egri i� as, wa e o ildlifq 2 Please describe. Potential 3ybingt use o� facril�ties will economize on energy consinnption. Building materials and energy conservation measures will be adhered to in development of senior citizens residential multi-story. 4.2 Describe facilities designed into the project that are proposed to minimize P.ros,ioncaping and i proper drainage tlb 7 e Sy property. ty. 4.3 Describe types of building materials and/or construction methods for the project that are designed to minimize the effects caused by flooding, if pro- ject is located within flood hazard area. Project is not located within flood hazard area. 4.4 Briefly describe what efforts are being proposed to minimize the short-term impacts caused by construction. Conformance with city building code regulations shall be required. -8- 4.5 Describe measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons occupying project. Proper sound and thermal insulation of building and adequate separation of structures. Also walls and landscaping shall serve as sound barriers within project. 4.6 Describe measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise gener- ated by the project. Appropriate perimeter and street setbacks are set forth in the development provisions of the Specific Plan. Also proposed landscaping shall diffuse noise in filtration. 4.7 Describe how the design of the project (architectural treatment and land- scaping) has been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect. No design or appearance standards are contained within thfi Specific Plan, however open space and landscaping requirements including such ele- ments as fountains pools benches, sculptures, planters, qardens and__similaritems are.-intended to enfiance.tAe area. 4.8 Describe measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate re- source recovery. Permanent open space areas. 5.0 Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Yes Please explain all project alternatives. The maximum level of intensity of the specific plan may be reduced by eliminating the provisions for residential multi-story developments. However, the degree of adverse impact to the physical environment and infra structures of the specific plan area and the community as a whole resulting from the multi-story development provisions may prc ve to be insignificant in comparison with the social and economic advantages generated by senior citizen high rise structures. I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. sAjKature Date tiled RRV- F/74 -9 PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN Existing Occupancy Projected Occupancy Employees + Patients = Total Employees + Patients = Total 1. Pacifica Hospital 200 109 = 309* 10 80 = 90 2. . Convalescent & Residential Care Facilities • H.B. Convalescent Hospital 38 123 = 161* • Existing Residential Care & Facility on 13 110 = 123* Florida Street . New Residential Care Facility (1 acre 10 100 = 110 site on Delaware) 3. Medical/Office Buildings 2 Story Medical Towers Bldg. 28 150 = 178* (1 acre site at Main & Delaware) . 2 Story Medical Building 13 70 = 83* (1 acre site on Delaware) . Medical Building 100 125 = 225 (2.45 acre site on Delaware) 1 acre Medical Building site 25 100 = 125 . 2 acres office bldg site (.87,120 S.F. x 450 lot coverage) = 39,204 S.F, @ 100 S.F./occupant - 392 occupancy 4. Residential Multi Story (Approx. 425 units @ 1.18 persons/unit = 500 resident dwellers + 25 employees = 525 oc cupr *Source: Delma Corporation,18811 Florida Street, Huntington Beach APPPMTX A-1 PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN ESTIMATED TRIP ENDS (TE' s) PLORIDA ST. . Residential Multi-Story 425 Units @ 4 Tl�/UN. = 1720 TE Approx. 7000 s. f. of office use on 1st pl. @ 34TE/1000 s. f.=248TE • Office Building 16, 800 . s: f. @ 34 TE/1000 s. f.=571 TE 2 ,539 TE DELAWARE ST. Medical Buildings 2 acres=87 ,120 s. f. 2 (50% lot coverage) 43, 560 @ 34 TE/1000 s. f.=1, 481 Hospital Expansion Say 100 beds @ 10 TE/bed=1, 000 Office Buildings 2 acres @ 300 TE/acre= 600 TE 3, 081 TE MAIN ST. Office/Professional Buildings 1. 5 Acre @ 300 TE/acre= 450 TE Appendix A-2 FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION GEOLOGIC AND SEISMICITY STUDY For the Proposed Addition to the Pacifica General Hospital 18792 Delaware Avenue Huntington Beach, California o� Conducted For: tirt Delma Construction Company 18811 Florida Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 AACTION (213) 598.8579 ENGINEERING (714) 821 .3150 CONSULTANTS SOILS ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGY 10621 81oomfieId Avenue Suite 23 • L u s Alamitos California 90720 a ' August 30, 1974 W.O. 5D1-165-01 Delma Construction Company 18811 Florida Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: Mr. Zinngrade Re: Foundation Investigation and a Geologic and Seismicity Study for the Proposed Addition to Pacifica General Hospital , 18792 Delaware Avenue, in the City of Huntington Beach, California Dear Sir: Pursuant to your request a Foundation Investigation and a Geologic and Seismicity Study was made for the referenced project. The purpose of this report is three fold; a). to determine the general engineering charac- teristics of the soil underlying the site and to provide specific recom- mendations for the design of Foundations; b). to determine the nature and severity of the Geologic and Seismic Hazards of the site and to present information for the seismic design of the proposed structure; c) . to comply with the State of California Senate Bill No. 519. The proposed addition will be of two story type I construction. Structural loads are not known at this time. However, for the purpose of this report maximum column loads are assumed to be on the order of 175 kips and maximum wall loads are assumed to be on the order of 6 to 7 kips per lineal foot. The site of the proposed addition is presently used as a parking lot and lawn area. -7- W. -)01-16541 , IGEOLOGY , REGIONAL GEOLOGY { The subject parcel lies within the limits of the Los Angeles Basin. l The Los Angles Basin is a northwest-trending alluviated lowland plain about 50 miles long and 20 miles wide. i A Geological Reconnaissance was made of the site. The site is described in the soils portion of this report. No evidence was found of fault creep or active faulting at the site. The subject parcel lies be- tween the southwestern and the central blocks of the Los Angeles Basin. This is a northwest-trending line of low hills and mesas (underlain by I the Newport-Inglewood structural zone) that extends from the mouth of the Santa Ana River to Beverly Hills. i The subject parcel lies on the Huntington Beach mesa, the central i of the three coastal mesas that constitute the southeastern and lower part of the Newport-Inglewood zone. The mesa is bounded to the northwest and southeast by two of the six gaps which interrupt the hills and mesas. i The Bolsa gap to the northeast and the Santa Ana gap to the southeast. i These gaps were cut by major streams which existed on the late Pleistocene surface. The site is underlain by deposits of late Pleistocene age, under- lain at a relatively shallow depth by the lower Pleistocene San Pedro for- mation of marine sands, gravels, slits and clays. Lying uncomfortably below the San Pedro formation are the Pliocene Pico and Repetto formations and the underlying Miocene Rocks. These are -II- W. 5D1-165-01 all marine sediments and responsible in large part for the prolific oil production of the Huntington Beach oil field in the vicinity of the subject parcel . The base of the Miocene Rocks in this area is estimated 7 at + 5 - 6,000 feet. Beneath the Miocene Rocks in these oil fields, deep wells have penetrated into the pre-tertiary metamorphic basement rock of the area. This basement rock has been correlated to the catalina schist of Franciscan Age. FAULTING The dominant features of the regional structural geology of the site are the northwest trending, right-lateral San Andreas and Newport-Inglewood Faults and their tributaries and the east-west trending faults associated with the transverse fault system. The important faults that immediately affect the site in terms of ground shaking are The Newport-Inglewood Fault, The Palos Verdes Fault, and The San Andreas Fault. Other faults include The Whittier-Elsinore Fault, The San Fernando Fault Group, The Raymond Fault and The Norwalk Fault. The extensive faulting associated with production in. the local oil fields is pre-quaternary in age and is considered to be non-active. NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD FAULT The Newport-Inglewood structural zone is a regional anticlinial fold extending northwestward from Newport Mesa to Beverly Hills, a distance of some 40 miles. At the land surface it is marked by the common alinement of j low hills and costal mesas - The Beverly, Baldwin, Rosecrans, Dominguez, Signal , and Landing Hills, and the less conspicuous Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach, and Newport Mesas. , The continuity of these hills and mesas is broken 1 I 1 i -9- L 01-165-01 by Flood Plain gaps including the Bolsa and Santa Ana gaps. From the axis of this structural zone the rocks dip generally downward, both oceanward and landward. Superposed on this regional structure are successive closed anticlines or domes, with intervening structural saddles. The domes, and to a lesser degree the saddles, are broken by nearly vertical normal faults and reverse faults that are discontinuous and arranged in echelon. The faults are more numerous at depth, although a number continue to the land surface and disrupt it. Several geologists have suggested that a great depth this struc- tural zone is underlain by a continuous fracture that separates and up- thrown block of metamorphic rocks (Franciscan?) on the southwest from a downthrown block of granitic rocks on the northeast. The basement complex of metamorphic. rocks extends continuously along the southwest side of the Newport-Inglewood zone. Little is known concerning the character of the basement rock on the northeast, beyond the general conclusion from seismological evidence that it is much deeper beneath the land surface. The Newport-Inglewood zone has been a locus of structural activity throughout much of Tertiary and Quaternary time. That it continues to be ! an area of active deformation is attested by the major Inglewood earthquake in 1921 , the major Long Beach Earthquake, with a Richter magnitude of 6.3 centered near Newport Beach in 1933, and a minor earthquake in 1941 that damaged several oil wells of the Dominguez Field (Bravinder, 1942, pg. 388). The geologic structure of the Huntington Beach mesa is complex, but i several branch faults of the Newport-Inglewood structural zone strike north- westward across the mesa parallel to the present shoreline. (see attached geologic neap of the site vicinity). Data indicating faulting at depth in -10- W. 5D1-165-01 rocks of Miocene and Pliocene age was obtained from studies of the area conducted ,by the California Division of Oil and Gas. More recent fault- ing at shallow depth was determined from ground water data interpreted by Poland., et.al . , 1959, The California Division of Water Resources and The California Division of Mines and Geology, and a study of nuclear power and desalting plant sites in the area published by the National Technical Information Service. This information indicates that histori- cally active (from Holocene times to the present) segments of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone may be inferred within ± 1500 feet north of the site and + 4000 feet south of the site. Although no evidence of surface rupture is present. Other faulting located in the vicinity interpreted in logs of oil wells is also present in the area, but somewhat to the south of the site. This Tertiary faulting is considered to be non-active. The faults shown on the attached geologic map are generally based on Preliminary Report No. 15 of The California Division of Mines and Geology and U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper No. 1109. The inferred fault traces north and south of the site are referred to as the North Branch fault and the South Branch fault respectively in { the Geotechnical Inputs Study of the Huntington Beach Planning Department. Ground water data indicates as much as 180 feet of vertical dis- placement in rocks of Pelistocene age from below 150 feet below sea level ( along the North Branch fault segment. The hi h de ree of Seismic activity associated with The Newport- Inglewood structural zone suggests a relatively high probability of future activity along one or more faults along the zone. Due to its. proximity 1 i j 0. 5D1-165-01 to the site, The Newport-Inglewood structural zone should be considered the dominant factor in considering the seismicity of the site. It is believed (Greensfelder 1973) capable of generating a maximum credible or "design" magnitude of 7.1 Richter magnitude earthquake. The San Andreas fault zone is considered to be the most active fault in the state. The length of this right-lateral-fault and its seismic history indicate that it has a rather high potential of generating a major earthquake in the near future. The greatest historical occurrence of seismic activity in the Southern California Area occurred in The Fort Tejon Earthquake of 1857, when an earthquake of Richter magnitude + 8 occurred. Ground sur- face rupture associated with this event were reported to- have extended some + 200 miles along the fault. The San Andreas fault approached to within some 55 miles of the city at its nearest point. PALOS VERDES FAULT The Palos Verdes fault trends approximately northwesterly and is .f some + 10 to 12 miles long. At its closest point to the subject site, the estimated buried trace of the Palos Verdes fault comes to within some 11 miles west of the site. This fault has no historic events greater than Richter magnitude 4.0 definitely associated with it. The location f of the trace of the Palos Verdes fault is based upon oil well E-Log data, an inference that the uplift of the Palos Verdes Hills must have taken place along a fault near the Bedrock-Alluvium boundary, and a gravity anomaly that exists which parallels this fault trend. E NORWALK FAULT The Norwalk Fault is approximately 16 miles long, northwest trending and at its closest point approximately 14 miles north of the site. This -12 W. 5D1-165-01 accurate fault trace lies between Buena Park and Tustin. On July 8, 1929 a magnitude 4.7 earthquake occurred that caused damage in Whittier i and Norwalk. It is estimated (Richter 1958) that the fault may be cap-, able of generating a magnitude of 6.25 earthquake. WHITTIER-ELSINORE FAULT j At its northerly extension, the Workman Hill fault branch of the Whittier-Elsinore fault lies about 23 miles north of the site. This northwest trending fault continues southeastward from the Alhambra area through the Santa Ana mountains to the Mexican Border, it is a zone of moderate activity having produced several magnitude four earthquakes and a few magnitude five shocks. Seismicity related to the northern portion of the Whittier-Elsinore fault is indicated in the seismic portion of this report. SAN FERNANDO FAULT GROUP The February, 1971 San Fernando Earthquake (magnitude 6.4) occurred I on a related group of fault segments some 60 miles north of the site. j The ground surface ruptures occurred on little known pre-existing faults in an' area of low seismicity and previously unknown ground displacements. Due to its distance from the site the maximum expected magnitude of 6.6 (Greensfelder, 1973) would not be as significant on the site as that of The Newport-Inglewood zone potential . i ! RAYMOND FAULT ` The vicinity of the Arroyo Seco in Pasadena, The fault provides a groundwater barrier and an apparent topographic scarp along a portion of its western extent. This fault, considered to be potentially active approached to within some 35 miles of the site. The area surrounding -13- 0. 5D1-165-01 the fault is essentially one of low seismic activity and no epicenters of magnitude 4 can clearly be associated with it. This is possible displacement of Quaternary alluvial material adjacent to the fault to add evidence to its activity. EARTH U( UAKE RELATED DAMAGE Ground Rupture - a study of the published literature and an .+C3r.YWifA+aM.ran:a+Yw•rwa.4v.+irpWARNgb'RI*'r#.YIMa9N1f analysis of our test borings indicate that evidence is not present of a fault trace beneath the property. On this basis there is no evidence for ground rupture to be present at the site during a seismic event near the site. Tsunami - based on a study of the records of the 1964 Crescent City Tsunami and other published studies and the location of the site, Tsunami damage should .not be a factor to be considered significant at the site, it being situated some 55 feet above sea level on the Hunt- ington Beach mesa. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Although the test borings did not encounter ground water, infor- mation obtained from The Orange County Water District indicates that the present water table elevation. was at approximately 6 feet below sea level at the site, indicating a depth to ground water from the surface of some 60 to 65 feet. The water district indicated that the water i table is gradually lowering in the area. . This coupled with the relative densities of the sediments encountered indicate that the potential for liquefaction at the site is nil . Differential Compaction - density of the material as disclosed in I the Soils Engineering portion of this study and the uniformity of the material in the test,� borin s indicates that differential compaction would -14- . W. 5D1-165-01 not be a factor to be considered in the seismic analysis of the site. Flooding - the site would be safe from the failure of any dams during a flood due primarily to the proximity of the site to any dams, and the site elevation above the Santa Ana and Bolsa gaps on either side of it. SUBSIDENCE The site lies north of the productive limits of Huntington Beach oil field. Possible future water injection into the oil reservoir will not cause subsidence or affect the site. No damage or safety hazard is to be associated with oil field subsidence within the City of Huntington Beach or near the site. The I fact that the site lies near the depleted or nearly depleted portion of the Huntington Beach oil field would tend to indicate that future- sub- sidence will not be a factor to be considered in the design of the structure. LANDSLIDES Slope stability problems are not considered to be a factor at the site. The site is located some distance from the slopes of the Huntington I Beach mesa, and the nature of the engineering properties of the subsurface materials would dispel any tendency of any flow type slides to be considered f in the seismic analysis of the site. A SEICHE HAZARD The lack of any enclosed bodies of water near the site on the mesa would preclude any possible need to considering seiche hazard. 1i I R -17- w. 0. 5D1-165-01 LSeismicity of the Site The site is located at 1170 59' 30" W and 330 41 ' 21 " N. The earthquake distribution map of the area 47 x 47 miles centered by the site was prepared Figure 10, from period 1932 to 1970. The seismic history has been studied for the area which bounded by Latitude 3400 N to 3320 N and Longitude 11740 W to 11820 W from the period January 1932 through December, 1972 on the basis of epicenter magnitude and location. This is an area of about 2209 square miles (5625 Km2) . A frequency-magnitude relationship has been developed for the earth- quakes occurred -in this area Which represents a. nearly 40 year period of i record Figure 11 . The intensity-frequency relationship given in Figure 11 V has been computed from the equation Log N (per yer) = a + b M, where N is 4 the number of events per year of magnitude M and a and b are constants f i probably depending upon tectonic factors such as the nature of the tectonics, { geology, and the stage of tectonic development of the area associated within the earthquakes. The straight line relationship shown in Figure 11 is normally considered to hold for values of magnitude 2.5 to magnitude 6.3. The maximum epicentral magnitude of earthquake ground motion of historical record experienced at the site for 100 years is of magnitude 6.40. Based upon the linear relationships defined in Figure 11 , the pro- jected frequency of occurrence of this magnitude for the entire 2209 square mile area is about once every 100 years. These do not however, represent ' the frequency of occurrence for these events at a specific location in the 2209 square mile area, such as for the site. Table 3 represents the number of earthquakes for different magnitude from the period 1932 to 1972 which was used for the recurrence curve. r While the frequency relationships for the 2209 square mile area is -15- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 of interest, probability studies by Housner, 1970 provide additional insight to this problem. Housner has indicated the probability of a specific loaction in California experiencing a given peak earthquake ground acceleration based upon statistical data for California and the world at large. His relationships are indicated to be an average for California with some areas being more active than others. The proba- bility of a specific site in the 2209 square mile area in a 100 year i interval is shown in (Table IV). Based on the above_.._analysis of the earthquake history in the - - - -_. -. __. ! 2209 square mile area defined in Figure 10, it is our opinion that a magnitude 6.4 earthquake ground motion is the maximum that can reason- ably be expected to occur during the planned life of this facility. This motion should be associated with a magnitude 6.4 earthquake and k a peak ground acceleration of .35g. The above discussion has been restricted to a consideration of epicentral and magnitudes recognizing that some consideration must now be giver to the magnitude of ground motion that could potentially result at the site from more distant large magnitude earthquakes. The peak rock acceleration values were calculated by Greensfelder, 1973, using the maximum credible earthquake magnitude based on length of fault rupture and by using Schnabel and Seed 1972 curves relating peak acceleration in rock, distance from fault- rupture, and magnitude. SEISMIC ZONES AFFECTING THE SITE The site is located in a seismically active area and it is in Zone 3 on the seismic risk map of the U. S. (Figure 1.2a and b) and in zone of maximum expectable earthquake intensity III in California seismic -19- h. 0. 501-165-01 risk map (Figure 13). The site falls also in the area of 0.5g bedrock acceleration, (Figure 3) , Greensfelder, 1973. The major earthquake induced ground motion at the site would be a result of seismic activity along the five major fault zones as well as some minor earthquakes from man-made means due to fluid withdrawal or injection and subsidence as well as the scattered earthquakes in the area, which are not related to surface structure. a). San Andreas Fault Zone The principal fault of California, the San Andreas, movement along this fault was responsible for the great shocks in 1857 and 1906 and many of lesser magnitude. The San Andreas fault zone is more than 650 miles long and is located approximately 52 miles east of the site. Fault systems along this zone can trigger earthquakes as large as 1 the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake, or that of 1906 San Francisco earthquake, with magnitude 8 or 8.2 on the Richter scale. Numerous small earthquakes occur in this fault zone. Greensfelder, 1973 rated San Andreas fault as 1 , (Table V) and the maximum credible or "design" magnitude M0 = 8.25 Allen, et. al . , con- structed the recurrence curve of the San Andreas fault which is represented in (Figure 14) . This recurrence curve constructed for 156 earthquakes representing an area of 8400 Km2. b). Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone Since 1933 Long Beach earthquake, the Newport-Inglewood fault and its several side branches have been recoginized as the major active tectonic features in Southern California (Richter, 1958; Allen et. al . , 1965). The site is located approximately 1i to 1 mile to the fault branches. The fault ruptures along this zone can generate earthquakes with magnitude as large f� - -20- W. 0. 501-165-01 { as 6.5 on the Richter scale such as that of 1933 Long Beach earthquake. The activity rating of this fault zone is considered a 3, 4, 7, (Table V) . The maximum credible or "design" magnitude M0= 7.1 (Greensfelder, 1973) . The Newport-Inglewood structural zone is a source of certain risks. This structural zone of folds and faults are the surface expression of a zone of geologic unrest that has been active almost continuously since mid-Tertiary time. The Newport-Inglewood structural zone is seismically active. Numer- ous earthquakes strong enough to be felt have occurred along the zone. Although the historic record is brief, it does indicate that, except for the 1950' s potentially damaging shocks have occurred several times each docado. I hore is no reason to believe that this pattern will change in the future. History records no surface displacement on known faults along the zone, but subsurface movement on faults in three oil fields along the zone has been associated with earthquake activity. c). Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone This fault zone is located 22 miles east of the site. It is con- ceivable ,that an earthquake as large as the 1769 Los Angeles County Earth- quake with a magnitude 7 on the Richter scale, would occur along this fault zone. Greensfelder rated the activity of this fault as 4 (Table V) and the MU = 7.6. d). Palos Verdes Fault Zone This fault is located about 10 miles in the west of the site. This fault is rated 3.5 (Greensfelder, 1973) Table V, and MD = 7.2. This fault is considered inactive but from (Figure 10) there are 6 events which have occurred from the period May 1971 to June 1973. The -21- W. i. 5D1-165-01 largest magnitude of shocks is 5 and the .shortest distance from the site if 10 miles. The bedrock acceleration due to this event is .15g. e). Santa Monica Fault Zone . This fault zone has been the source of moderate size earthquakes. The site is located 28 miles south of this fault zone. This fault zone includes several faults as the Malibu, Santa Monica, Raymond Hill , Sierra Madre, and Cucamonga faults. Historically, fault ruptures along this zone i can generate earthquakes as large as magnitude 6 on the Richter scale. Recently, 1973 Point Mugu earthquake is an example of such events. Greenfelder rated the activity of this zone as 4 or 5 (Table V) and MD = 7. 5. f). San Gabriel-Santa Susanna Fault Zone The site is located 32 miles west of this active reverse thrust zone. Historically, this zone can trigger an earthquake of magnitude 6.5 on the ,Richter scale. The 1971 San Fernando earthquake is an example of such events. Greenfelder noted this fault zone as 1 ,5 and the MD = 6.7. g. ) Man-Made Earthquakes Man-Made earthquakes have been known since Carder, 1945 and Evans, 1966, Healty et.al . , 1968. Most of these tremors range from microearth- quakes to intermediate ones and this is caused by the load of water in lakes, also the injection of waste fluids and due to fluid withdrawal or injections. At Long Beach a seismic monitoring system was established to study the .seismicity and its relation to water flooding in oil fields along the Newport-Inglewood fault of the Los Angeles Basin Area (Teng et. al . , 1973), (Figure 9) shows the microseismicity of this area by this system. For the period beginning February 6, and ending December 31 , 1971 , a total _of 47 -22- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 events ranging in magnitude from 0.96 - 3.2 have been registered. A majority of earthquakes located along the Newport-Inglewood fault while the remainder are distributed in the area to the west of the fault zone (Figure 9) . The hypocenters are confined within the basement. Teng et. al . , (1973) suggested a correlation between microearthquake l ! events and water flooding (fluid injection). Microearthquake activities in 4 the Los Angeles Basin (Figure 9) shows the activity along a portion of the Newport-Inglewood fault where the accumulating tectonic stress is inter- , i acting with massive oil pumping and water flooding. h). Scattered Earthquakes which are Non-Related to Fracture Zones (Figures 7, a and b) show many scattered earthquakes which are not related to surface structures. The majority of these shocks occur at relatively shallow focal depths of 5 to 15 miles and only the large magni- tude events are known rupture zones or faults. Movement along these faults are responsible for these shocks especially the great shocks. These earthquakes may be related to a deep-seated fault zone which is more complex than the single straight fault zone (Newport-Inglewood fault zone). Also these events may also be due to more complex basement structure. The complexity of the basement is represented structurally as well, as petro- logically. Also the complexity of contacts in basement foundations are the source of the seismic activity of this area. Seismicity of the Site The particular interest in this study are events located in the vi- cinity of the site, specially the Newport-Inglewood fault zone near the site. For the period 1932 to 1972, a total of 1300 events ranging in magnitude for 1 .0 to 6.3 have been registered and some of these have been located along or near the area of study (Figure 10). -23- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS AT THE SITE As discussed previously five major active fault zones may affect the site. These faults, along with their minimum distance to the site, and estimated Richter magnitude of the maximum probable earthquake that 4 can occur along each fault, are indicated in (Table VI) . (TableIV) also include the other faults which can affect the site. To estimate the peak ground acceleration of the resulting ground shaking at the site, two . approaches are used. The first is to utilize the Housher acceleration - distance relationships (Figure 15). The second approach is to utilize the results of Schnable and Seed (Figure 16). The first is based on attenuation of peak acceleration through bedrock, while the second is based on attenuation through most deep alluvium layers. In addition, the approximate peak accelerations values were estimated at the site from magnitude and distances of large historic earthquakes events using the two procedures (Table VII) . Based on the above historic analysis, it is our opinion that a value of 0.35g should occur in the lifetime of the structure (100 years) and a value of 0.25g should occur more frequently in the lifetime of the structure. In order to estimate the maximum historic earthquake ground motions at the site, strong motion data available from different earthquakes were collected. From the previous study of historic ground motions (Table VII) it can be seen that among the more reliable data obtained from strong motion recording stations, the recent 1971 San Fernando earthquake caused the largest recorded ground accelerations in the vicinity of the site. The frequency of occurrences of different levels of ground acceler- -24- W. 5D1-165-01 ations at the site in the region under study is obtained by counting the number of times that the level of acceleration is generated and the area associated with each level of acceleration, (Table VIII and IX) Morachi and Dixon, 1972. (Table VIII and IX) are acceleration areas for sites i ' underlain by'firm soil and sites underlain by bedrock respectively. (Figure 17) represents the result of this study for the Los Angeles Area, G Marachi and Dixon, 1972 and the results are presented in terms of 10, 25, 100 and 1000 year return accelerations. (Figure 18 shows a comparison Y ( g ) p of the number of occurrence versus acceleration relationships for bedrock and soil site in the Los Angeles Area, Marachi and Dixon, 1972. The result of this study for the site is represented in (Figure 19), and shows the return periods associated with different levels of maximum ground acceleration. The probability of occurrence of any level of ground acceleration is evaluated by assuming that Poisson' s distribution law is valid for occurrence of earthquakes. This assumption has been examined previously by Kallberg and Cornell and was found to be closely valid. On this basis, the probability of occurrences of different level of acceler- ation during 100 years is represented in (Table X). MAXIMUM CREDIBLE MAGNITUDE AND ACCELERATION Greensfelder, 1973 constructed a curve for magnitude versus length of fault rupture (Figure 20) . He also estimated the fault activity in California. In order to estimate the bedrock acceleration, , the magnitudes of maximum credible earthquakes on the adjacent active faults were determined by Greensfelder, 1973. This was accomplished by assuming the relation -25- W. u. 5D1-165-01 between the length of historic surface fault ruptures and the magnitude of the accompanying earthquakes (Figure 20) . The acceleration due to these maximum credible earthquakes was ! determined using (Figure 15 and 16) for the active faults at the neighbor- hood of the site. In selecting a record to correspond to the close-in earthquake, it is important to consider the earthquake magnitude and causative fault distance and soil conditions of the site at which the record was obtained. The magnitude and causative fault distance for the close-in earthquake is shown in (Figure 22) while the soil conditions at the site corresponds to layers of dense sand, gravel , and alluvium deposits to a depth ranging from 200-250 feet. As a result of examing a number of records, the following are the records whose properties come closest to resonably satisfying the -close-in earthquake criteria. a. Orion Record - February, 1971 The recording accelerometer was located approximately 5 miles from the causative fault - Hudson, 1971 on a deep saturated alluvium. The maximum acceleration of the north-south component was 0.279. The 1971 San Fernando earthquake was assigned a magnitude M = 6.5 on the Richter scale. Ground motion at Sylmar and Olive View with approximately O.5g peak ground acceleration would. be representative of close-in earthquake motions for a magnitude 6.5 condition. -26- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 However, the criteria for the site calls for a magnitude 7.0 for 3 mile distance to the causative fault, and the alluvium thickness is about 200-250 feet while Holiday Inn calls for a magnitude 6. 5 for 5 miles distance to the causative fault, and 600 feet of alluvium. An i average factor of 1 .2 was used to scale up the Holiday Inn N-S record as shown in (Figure 21 ). From (Figure 17) maximum acceleration of 0.35g is calculated. b. Glendale Record - February, 1971 The recording accelerometer was located approximately 12 miles from the source on shallow, dense, alluvium which is approximately 250 feet deep. The maximum accelerations were 0.23g for the S20W component and 0.28g for the S60E component. Since the distance from the Glendale site to the causative source is greater than the distance of the Orion site to the causative fault, the. Glendale record was scaled up to account for the difference. Two scaling procedures were considered. The first is based on attenuation of peak ground accelerations through bedrock (Figure 15). The second is based on attenuation through most deep alluvium layers (Figure 16) . However, since the Glendale site is neither a bedrock site nor a deep saturated alluvium site, an average factor of 1 . 5 was used to scale up the Glendale record as shown in (Figure 27) . CONDITION OF A GREAT EARTHQUAKE ALONG THE SAN ANDREAS FAULT As indicated in (Table VII and XI ) , it is hypothesized that a magnitude of 8.25 earthquake can conceivably occur along the 650 727- W. u. 5D1-165-01 mile length of the San Andreas fault. The effects of such an earthquake, when centered along the portion of the fault closest to the site, represents i the second condition to be considered at the site. The estimate of the peak ground acceleration of the resulting ground shaking at the site, which is located 50 miles from the fault in (Table VII and XI ) . El Centro Record - May, 1940 The E1 Centro earthquake originated on the Imperial fault, a southerly extension of the San Andreas fault system, and the fault motion was strike slip. The slip developed over a length of 40 miles. The recording accelerometer was on very deep alluvium and approximately 7 miles from the zone of energy release, rather closer to the northern end than to the center. The maximum acceleration recorded during the M = 7 E1 Centro 1940 shock was 33 percent g, Trifunac, 1959 for the north-south component. The acceleration time history and the 5 percent damped spectrum for this component are shown in (Figure 23 and 24). Comparison of peak accelerations estimated from Housner results, and site-dependent calculations indicate that the peak acceleration for El Centro 1940, N-S component falls in the range of accelerations obtained by the two approaches and is conservative since its value of 0.33g is closer to the peak acceleration estimated by Housner method. Also, the E1 Centro record has a long strong motion duration which is representative of large events on the San Andreas fault. Therefore, .the north-south component of the El , Centro record will be used without scaling to represent ground motion at the site due to a great earthquake along the San Andreas fault. Comparison of Response Spectrum for E1 Centro and Close-in Adjusted Smooth Spectrum Based on Orion and Glendale Records from (Figure 24) it is -28- W. J. 01-165-01 Observed that: ! a. The adjusted smooth spectrum is correlated well with the E1 Centro spectrum. a b. Both spectra are quite comparable in the high and low frequency range. c. El Centro record underestimates the response in the frequency range between 0.4 and 2.0 cps. The maximum difference occurs at 0.6 cps. The above comparison indicates that the close-in smooth spectrum correlates well with the 1940 El Centro spectrum. Therefore, the adjusted smooth spectra constructed can be adopted as the spectrum of the maximum probable earthquake motions at the site (Figure 24). COMPARISON OF RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR SAN FRANCISCO PARK AND THE. CLOSE-IN ADJUSTED SMOOTH SPECTRUM BASED ON ORION AND GLENDALE RECORDS From (Figure 25) it is observed that: a. The adjusted smooth spectrum is correlated well with the San Francisco Park spectrum in the high frequency range. b. San Francisco Park record underestimates the response in the frequency range between 4.0 to . 1 cps. The above comparison indicates that the close-in smooth spectrum can be readjusted by constructing a new smooth spectrum as an average be- tween both (Figure 25). This new spectrum will be the maximum probable earthquake response spectrum. The response spectrum for the maximum probable earthquake was further compared to the Newmark-Hall spectrum, Newmark and Hall , 1969 -29- J. 5D1-165-01 constructed for 0. 359 maximum ground acceleration (Figure 26) . The shape of the maximum probable earthquake response spectrum is in general agree- ment with the shape of Newmark-Hall response spectrum. LURCHING AND AMPLIFICATION The approximate range of frequency for the structure under study is around 3 cps. From the smoothed readjusted spectrum (Figure 25) the lurching (displacement) at 3 cps. is 1 .5 inch. From (Figure 25) the amplification is 3 at 3 cps. SURFACE AND BEDROCK ACCELERATION The effect of soil on the base motions can be seen from comparison of (Figure 15 and Figure 16). This effect of local soil on the base motions performed at UC Berkely Shake Program, Schnabel and Lysmer, 1972 and the estimated effect of moderate deep site (250-300' ) to bedrock and base motion strength level on surface accelerations is shown in (Figure 27). The result of this curve indicate the kind of trend that might be expected at the site, namely, that as the input base motion and/or depth to rock increases , the ratio of surface peak acceleration to base peak acceleration decreases. At soil depth and base acceleration of the magni- tude estimated for the site, a 25 percent attenuation of peak acceleration might be expected. Therefore, a peak ground acceleration of 0.389 would be estimated to happen at the site which represents 0.509 peak bedrock acceleration by Greensfelder, 1973. So, the peak ground acceleration would be ranging from 0.38 to 0.35g. From the comparison of (Table XII) indicates that changes in magni- tude and predominant frequencies are to be expected because of statistical variations of ground motion samples, soil and geologic conditions, and E -30- W. 0. i1-165-01 ,1 h source mechanism (azimuth) . Therefore, an adjusted smooth spectrum is more reliable for design (Figure 25) . Qr. The adjusted spectrum of Modified Orion and Glendale is shown �++` in (Figure 22) and was constructed as a smooth average of the two adjusted spectra, it is also readjusted for short periods by comaring it with San Francisco Golden Gate Park (Figure 25). I CONCLUSIONS � i We recommend that the dynamic analysis for the site be based upon the smoothed spectra constructed in (Figure 25) , Greenfelder map (Figure 3) corrected for attenuation .and the probability calculations (Table IV). The peak horizontal ground acceleration which can be expected to occur with reasonable probability once during the life of the structure should be approximately 0. 38 - 0. 35g (Figure 3 and Figure 25). The structure should also be able to accomodate less intense earthquake motions .several If times during the lifetime of the structure. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the re- sponsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the at- tention of the Architect and Engineers for the project and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for the project. -31- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. /ROFESS%— Respectfully submitted, ��c•'�� ���'� �' �e��r\ ACTION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS w °= No. 20,296 Jeffrey R. LeBoff �UPRCE 20296 Cl v i l- F CAOI Norman D. Wiener CEG 881 � WIENER NURMAN D. 1 Ahmed Fouda Registered Geophysicist 104 \ �rf OF "A"\� f ;y r 1.7 ...! I++vice evcl I� 16 �,�'' !j r ail�•�• �: C I\ i'i�:'+ �If GN'1'INr,'I'+iW '�Ir nr'll'� 'v`il��m" �� �''li"��• A 1�' � •��1•. � '.:i,,iic��� 'fir �' � r .� 1�.,,��i,r Mu4'w I, .I 1� +P ll I' II•' II ._. �. _. �1 .II A.. .gip�°,�, �. r. Ike r°V � JI L1A, �, ., ,. • !�� H,� +�°L��`• ��'11 lid n�;. 1�,���f.,,i. ,. i�,�1 i,i �n• ��� � ,. 41_ I�� NGTON It�d���l'�1 �i .,,1 Ir �, • �E�ENv ,v w u.PT d1NL'+/tj�UOO 3�%EE7� GfOIO�/(�it�1�° Is�a� ., �eir•v/.r.:uc.0 a tv c✓aaia! o fva/7s' - PPfP4ffp"ale ,..��•_.• lJarT,�u rta�('f"lave,,.�:s.�a,�rc/�.erfr_o P,Pff'.4,PE0 .9Y• psu.00 f�acz:;/ui�fdr'iC.nlLl'vCri�E� ia.r��f�r vt;aLT� U•(',t r:_Ci 7'O• /D6c`'/B1 UO,NF/ELO,O!/E.SU�J'E P3 .err...++. f•J!/.a"�'�'�'.'�/Yd,V.9LlY•9c'?/+�eJ •(JJ�:/.`U LUS �fLA.N/TUS,C.4 907?6 Ola 3O/-10-3-a/ of �• � Y9i I \j'� z / a� r" �C, r ' ' f 4 , ..S 7 S \`♦ MAXIMUM EXPECTED BEDROCK .`.. tip \` ACCELERATIONS FROM EARTHQUAKES IN CALIFORNIA OPK Frp ' ....• s ` ° = q \ ` '0(,EF< GREENSFELDER-CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY `�cµ� IS72 it. IEU-SAti7A xI'sa i •• o �•. SIT \ LEGEND °C _. 1..AC-_I _ or PO"LENTIA..LLY ACTS FAULTS �``O \ 4� ? H�urfE flr �ass f Sri �<v� Dashed mere opprcx,rnately Ioccted,dotted where concealed. Numaer in poreothe3es is the maximum expeoled earthquake rncynduce for the fault. •'j•. Lines and arrows d—de the Son Andreas fault into four tectonic 1. Sect is n3. - Ouer.e3 c1 the ends of a fault mdlcole lack o! 37•ong ev:dence act far ti3 ac vity BEDROCK ACCELERATION CONTOURS .2 is Units arc decimc!fractions of the acceleretnon of gravity,from 0.05g to O 50g. PREOCIMMANT PERIOD OF BEDROCK ACCELERATIONS Itxe,ereton rohge Predo—cnr penod ;02g 0.35 seco.nc!s ®o dli�FS OI-C2q O40 0.05-0.1g 050 •�O O 60 d0�/LO.SIL'7'EPS Mean duration of moarons20-30 seconds - - Ft�I�RF_ 3 cC LO 20 10 3 6 4 2 60� 1 S .6 ,4 .2 1 .,,.n-6 J2 01 -- ,`_�--_—{- _ �--•f�C-'•--"�x_T-'--_'��-- �--'- __-` ..'r--�� ��-- ter-� �--.%._.� � ,_ ' \ \ t. _tom 'Q / !� � `Y �../: _ R Y^ / \1 /`�� .i.-�C i \ rr ,/ - • r- (% - it .J• -i, / 2v_--^-=ti \` _ _ _'ti-.. /� \ k \ �\ /' ( '•Y i\l \. Xt\` f 'V ''-_` r ,•• • ' ' T'^'_�_ / - AffUliS V S`I 7[, +y / . \ ,1\ \ ,� `• /v' �. '/` - I %,: -Pr,R'� �T TR 8—Y _ ,i ."' t A• r� �.� -7t\ _ yY t l�r r+ en Q ��ttK-ss :ktr.J��'1i KE \O: '.1/ /�/� y r'•-- - � .ter'/-� .� _ -�._ - �'. -/r• -�. ..... .�� fa tA ej /� /.._.^ , `',• . / %/\' yf —�' `fir)-. :1 .`�' _� �:_..•���� .. ►• .-� �_� .�T__.��.�.-��.-� �v -� '�. =✓ ,/r-\ � `O S�,'T-. .\, �``�%�-,1, `'•:C'O, p'•CVS:�t♦�SLS!_ PAR(\ o• _ `"\ `r/po! '�/", � \`,,:>��'��\ I ��`:?moo/" .t/.1, !./�.���� ,/� � 1/�r •._._� �. 2:: �•`' o� a v�.. `. r! , { \ T\ \i \ \!C�p� ! 1 'i 1\ \ '/ `.c9r \( ,'t ,' /`� \ r�'', S•• ► f hli:.11l l�ii I'Ii:I�1i:,,: Il:li i � i 11•i11 llll.i 1.':I •Ilr;: .n'. ::�Ilil 1111f 111' il'. t.�..',. •-t ..' G1 .02 .04 G6 ,08 . 1 .2 .4 .6 .8 i 2 4 6 8 10 20 ti0 60 c0 iG0 FREOUEUCY., CPS FIGURE 25 RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SAN FRANCISCO 1957 SAN FRANCISCO GOLDEN GATE PARK S800Ej `CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGnM BEACH i To Dave Eadie From Michael Zambory Planning Dept. Dept. of Public Works Subject Pacifica Hospital Specific Plan Date August 16, 1976 �. As per the request in your memo dated August 5, 1976, we offer the following: 1. Traffic: We anticipate the proposed commercial buildings will generate 25 vehicular trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area, while the residential portion will generate 8 trips per dwelling unit. This additional traffic will undoubtedly necessitate traffic signals at' Main and Delaware and/or at Main and Florida. We recommend that a traffic engineer's report be requested of the developer in order to ascertain parking requirements, access needs, and data pertinent to other traffic matters. 2. Water Distribution: There exists an 8 inch water main beneath a portion of the existing hospital building. This main must be abandoned and/or re-aligned along with its metering and backflow equipment. Re-alignment can be determined with the assistance of the staff of the Water Division. In order to provide adequate fire flows and indeed service flows to the proposed development, it will be necessary for the developer to extend the 8 inch water main in Florida to a connection with the existing main in Main St. In addition, the existing 8 inch water main in Delaware must be extended to create a looped system with Garfield St. More specific data, including cost estimates, can be obtained by the developer's engineer from our Water Division staff. 3. Sanitary Sewers: The proposed high rise apartments fronting Florida St. must be sewered to Main St, at Ellis Ave. because the existing sewer in Florida St. does not have the capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, it will be necessary to construct an 8 inch sanitary sewer from the development to the Main St.-Ellis Ave. line. The additions proposed to the hospital on Delaware St. can be temporarily sewered by the existing Delaware Ave. line; however, when the City constructs the Main St. interceptor sewer, the hospital will be required to reroute their sewage to the new Main St. interceptor. Here too the staff is available to discuss the precise alignments with the developer's engineer. M' el a City Engi APPENDIX A­4 MZ;jy ( ITY OF HunTmGTon DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P_ O_ BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 N Ems' 1,77 TO: Department of Environmental Resources FROM: Planning Department I . O. sm 190 DATE: February 8, 1977 Nunun&n Beoch, Calif. �`2 RE: 1. Code Amendment No. 77-1 "Pacifica Community Plan" Negative Declaration No. 77-10 Pursuant to your request for additional information regarding the above referenced items, the following comments are provided: 1 . Reduction of Parking Spaces for Senior Citizen Residential Develop- ments and Street Traffic Capacities A reduction of parking space requirements for senior citizen resi- dential high rise is provided in the specific plan code amendment. Based on the staff research of how other cities handle parking requirements for senior citizens, the staff has found that many municipalities will reduce parking space requirements for senior citizen housing projects. It is generally acknowledged that senior citizen residential develop- ments often generate less of a demand for private vehicular trans- portation than standard residential projects. Ratios of the number of parking spaces required per dwelling unit vary among residential projects for senior citizens. Depending on the location, setting and supplementary modes of transportation, ratios range from 1: 2 to 1: 4. (See Exhibit 1.A and l.B. ) As supplemental information regarding parking and traffic capacities , the attached memo from the traffic engineering division of the Public Works Department is submitted for the Environmental Resources Department' s review. 2. Drainage According to the Public Works Department, there is a drainage flow problem within the immediate area. During rains flooding does occur along Delaware and Huntington between Main and Garfield. The area was included as part of a larger section of the City whereby the City attempted to establish a Drainage Assessment District. PROJECT UNITS PARKING RATIO Community Garden Tower 210 58 1 -3.6 n Orage, California Paptist Gardens 200 69 1 -3 Long Beach, California Westlake Christian Terrace 199 50 1 -4 Oakland, California M,�c Arthur Tower 183 63 1 -3 Los Angeles, California Harbor Tower 180 62 1-3 _ ` Los Angeles, California Wycliffe Plaza 200 67 1-3 Santa Ana, California 4000 �. Christ Unity Terrace 156 61 1-2.5 Los Angeles, California �n Norwalk Christian Tower 185 98 1 -2 Norwalk, California r Pilgrim Tower 258 91 `�`t'\ 1-3 R Pasadena, California R� Pacific Home 169 42 1-4 Burbank, California Little Tokyo Tower 301 75 1-4 Los Angeles, California r� Pioneer iI 198 50 1-4 Sacramento, California Ralston Towers 179 54 1-3 _ 1` Modesto, California �• EXHIBIT l.A v � SENIOR CITIZENS HIGH RISE Wycliff Plaza Community Garden Santa Ana Orange No of Stories/bldg ht. 13/114 ft. 14/122 Total Units 200 210 Site Area 70, 350 sq. ft. 70, 052 sq. ft. Density 124 un/acre 130 un/acre Site Coverage 12 , 500 sq. ft. 11 , 035 sq. ft. (17 . 8%) (15. 7%) Setbacks Front 96 ft. 53 ft. Exterior Side 100 ft. 131 ft. Interior Side - 67 ft. Rear ,30ft�. 35y ft• Parking Ratio �-.., 1-3* 1 1-3•. 6* . Total Spaces *approved by variance EXHIBIT 1.B Page 2 Referred to as the Oldtown Assessment District proposal, the plan .would have remedied flooding within this section of the City. However, due to strong opposition from community residents, the project was voted down. Thus, drainage problems still exist within the area during heavy rains. It can be anticipated that the drainage problems will continue to exist unless the City can enter into an agreement with property owners to pro- vide needed improvements. Additional information regarding the utility systems within the subject area is attached. 3. 0 Noise Impacts Traffic flow at ultimate development will generate a significant increase over existing traffic flow. A comparison table of existing and projected traffic noise volume is provided below: Street Existing Ldn Projected Ldn Delaware Ldn541 Ldn581 Florida Ldn541 Ldn581 Main Ldn652 Ldn651 AM/s Attachment 1Derived from attached Exhibit 3.A. Based on trip ends generated from project. 2Derived from the Noise Element Background Report, June 1975. w - s CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH C•1 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION M MINCION DIM H To Mike Zambory From Jeff Renna Subject Sewering of Pacifica Date February 7, 1977 Development After analyzing the existing sewerage facilities of the Pacifica development area, I found that the existing lines in Huntington, Delaware and Florida Streets are running at almost maximum capacity. The connection of new developments of the types proposed will definitely surcharge the existing lines to such levels that problems may occur. I suggest that the City construct the planned Main Street/Beach Blvd. trunk sewer in advance of the proposed development. This trunk sewer would allow permanent connection of the development to the sewer system at the time of their construction, rather than allowing them to connect to an existing line on a temporary basis with the stipulation that reconnection to the trunk sewer be done at some future date. Construction of the trunk sewer would also help alleviate the problems of inter-district flow as outlined in Milo Keith° s report as well as future surcharging of the existing lines. Per your request, attached is a map showing the existing and proposed sewer lines in the area of concern. i J f na i i ngineer Assistant JRR:jy Attach. so i . 6. -'40 AUT'OMOBI LES 70 - 1 o0,00 00 ow- i i } AVERAGE S PEE v c 60 ! (mpH) ' 1 i w 0 W 50 o o I i ' i 9 2 40 Q � r W 30 x Z 20 3 4 5 6 78 100 2 3 4 5 6 78 1000 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10,000 2 3 g HOURLY AUTO VOLUME, VA - vph x PLOT OF L50 FOR AL=MOBTLES AS FUNCTION OF VOLUME FLOW AND AVERAGE OPT tr = car FIGURE 13 w r _< - = — — — - — --- - - - - - -. - -- -, a .'_. -, ., i. - .-.-.d-_- - - ` .. - - ...,+ •1" .� N w ® CITY OF HunTmGTon ® DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES • 1 . O. BOX 190, HUNIINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 "t TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Environmental Resources DATE: February 10, 1977 l SUBJECT: Negative Declaration No. 77-10 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach REQUEST: Code Amendment No. 77-1 which would establish standards for the implementation of a Specific Plan Ordinance for . the development of office-professional uses, medical build- ings, residential multi-story structures intended, senior citizens, etc. LOCATION: Southeast section of Main Street between Huntington and Florida Streets. (Pacifica Community Hospital Area) . j. Negative Declaration No. 77-10 was posted in the office of the City Clerk February 3, 1977 and as of February 10, 1977 no comments have been -eived as a result of this public posting. Recommendations: The Department of Environmental Resources recommends that the Planning Commission grant Negative Declaration No. 77-10 , having found that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the physical environment. No environmental impact report has been prepared for this proposed ordinance. Findings are based upon the information contained in the negative declaration. request, the public posting, subsequent review and staff discussion between 1 . the Planning Department, Public Works Department, and Department of Building and Community Development. It should be noted that this finding is made on the proposed ordinance only and does not reflect an environmental assess ment of any specific development plan. n M. Cope pt. of Environmental Resources .TMC:gc FRI NEGATIVE DECLARATION - Q NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: 1. Planning Department REF: Negative Declaration No. 77.-10 Applicant Date Posted February 3 , 1977 2. Clerk of the Board EIR No. None P.O. Box 687 Public Hearing Date: February 15, 197 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Application/Permit No. CA 77-1 Notice is hereby given that the City of Huntington Beach on [] approved the pro (Discretionary Body) (Date) ❑ disapproved ject as herein described and located: Project Description: Development of a Specific Plan ordinance i consisting of establishing development provisions and requirements for office- professional uses, medical buildings , residential health care facilities, and multi-story structures intended for use of senior citizens Project Location/Address: located on an approximately 20-acre parcel within an area generally southeast of Main Street between Huntington and Florida Streets, Huntington Beach. and that the City, as the Lead Agency, finds that the project [] will not will have a significant (substantial adverse) effect on the environment.'. An initial study was conducted by the City of Huntington Beach. . The study consisted of a review of the application submitted by the project sponsor and is supported by adequate scientific and factual data to support the finding. The application was posted in the Office of the City Clerk fo:- public and private review and comment. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report has not been prepared for this project. DAn Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and adopted fo^ this project. The form and content of' that environmental docu- ment was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (et seq) . NOTE: A copy of all information in support .of the application and of all subsequent discretionary proceedings may be reviewed in the Department of 'Environmental Resources, City of Huntington Beach, P.O. Box 190, Huntington. Beach, California, 92648. Department of the City filing notice:. Department of Environmental Resources . Secretary of the Decision-Making Body Date cc: Environmental Council Ilk +�- ~ City of Huntington Beach County of ®range State of Califor'nia 5; Jffidavitof Publication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher Huntington Beach News Filed Clerk By Deputy Clerk 1 �d -- HURUHIM Beach Nanning commiWon P.O. SOX 990 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator RE: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 77-1 "PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN" PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ON MOTION BY GIBSON AND SECOND BY SHEA NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 77-10 WAS APPROVED ON MARCH 1, 1977 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Gibson, Shea, Newman, Boyle NOES: Finley, Parkinson ABSTAIN: Slates ABSENT: None ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY GIBSON CODE AMENDMENT NO. 77-1 WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED ON MARCH 15, 1977 BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1191 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Finley, Gibson, Newman, Boyle NOES: Parkinson, Shea ABSTAIN: Slates ABSENT.: : None PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 77-10 and Code Amendment No. 77-1 "Pacifica Community Plan. " PLANNING- COP•IMISSIONERS FINLEY_.AND:.'.PA-RKINSON MINORITY REPORT The Pacifica Specific Plan will allow in District 2 : a density of 100-125 units per gross acre (as ; opposed to the 15-35 units usual in high density development) ; units that. will have 125 sq. ft. less space than required in our apartment standards; and approximately 425 units at full development. Examined in light of this intensity of development, it is important that the socially desirable aspect of the project not obscure the need for care- ful and adequate early assessment. The 1974 multi-story study laid out procedures for analysis of a total area before high rise designation. Such an early analysis can determine what obstacles to developing .high rise uses exist and the means and alternatives available for overcoming such obstacles. In addition, an analysis can take into consideration existing. and future uses in relation to high rise so that multi-story uses can be well integrated into the total area. In this case, we have not made such such an assessment of the total Five Points area but instead reacted to a specific project in a small part of that area. Page Two Not only have we not made this total assessment, but we have, by granting a Negative Declaration held off any in depth assessment of the project area until the proposal comes in for a Conditional Use Permit. We have done this even though the initial study raises serious concerns, such as: 1. The multi-story site is located in that part of the Specific Plan area closest to a fault line shown in our Seismic/Safety Element as being of "highest seismic risk. " 2 . Sewer lines are reputed at capacity. 3. Drainage problems exist 4. Total circulation needs study 5. Water pressure and other fire protection concerns should be addressed. The aforementioned concerns should be addressed at this early stage if early decisions are to be made on the basis of adequate information. This is particularly important since we do not have a comprehensive assessment of high rise impacts developed from any prior high rise environmental study in Huntington Beach. SUMMARY The proposed Code Amendment is a specific plan governing 20 acres of land generally bounded by Main Street on the north, Florida Street on the east, approximately 680 feet north of Garfield on the south, and Huntington Street on the west (see Specific Plan Map in attached Code Amendment 77-1) . Contained in the specific plan are development provisions and standards for new office/professional uses, medical buildings, support services, and residential multi-story structures intended for senior citizens' use. Existing uses within the specific plan boundaries are also included within the specific plan. The specific plan would replace the existing R5 and C2 zoning of the properties within its boundaries and would establish two districts within the subject area. The particular uses allowed within each district are outlined within the contents of the proposed specific plan ordinance. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Pacifica Community Plan evolved from a private proposal to improve a large portion of the subject area. The developer' s conceptual proposals consisted of plans to (1) expand the existing Pacifica Hospital, (2) develop new residential health care facilities, (3) construct new office and medical buildings, and (4) erect two Senior Citizens Residential structures of 14 and 15 stories. The Planning Staff had initially evaluated the merits of the developer' s proposals with special emphasis on the concept of integrating senior citizens residential high rise as part of a planned medical, office/ professional and residential complex. Page' Three The subject area is presently recognized as a viable medical/office professional activity center. Expanding these uses and incorporating Senior Citizen multi-story as part of the center would create a compatible relationship of land uses. Also., the Commission and staff viewed the potential of providing housing .for the elderly very favorably and endorsed the concept of locating senior citizens residential within walking distance to health care and commercial facilities. This endorsement was further reinforced as a result of the developer' s expressed desire to participate under the City' s Housing Assistance Program. Based on preliminary estimates, approximately 400 elderly housing units may possibly be provided through the development of the proposed multi-story structures. Of the total 400 residential units, 20o may be allocated for low cost elderly housing. The twenty (200) percent allocation would yield approximately. 80 low cost units and would satisfy a large portion of the City' s housing goal of 185 low income elderly housing units under its HCD program. Upon recognizing the nature of the project and the unique development characteristics of the area, it was determined .that the formulation of a specific plan would provide the most desirable mechanism in establishing the appropriate development provisions. In the course of formulating and reviewing the specific plan, the Planning Commission did express some concerns regarding the provisions for multi- story residential development. Of primary concern, was the suitability of locating multi-story/high rise within this general area. . As a result of this particular concern, the development of the proposed Multi-Story Policy Plan evolved, the. essence of which is discussed as a separate item on the agenda. Additionally, the Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the parking ratio requirements for residential multi-story. Upon adoption, the code amendment was modified to reflect a requirement of one space per three (3) residential multi-story units in lieu of the recommended ratio of one (1) space to 3. 5 units. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 77-10 was approved -by the Planning Commission on March 1, 1977. The Planning Commi s s ion stipulated, however, that further environmental documentation should be required upon submittal of the actual project. FISCAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION: No significant negative fiscal .impact is anticipated as a result of proposed Code Amendment No. 77-1. Page Four STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 77-10 and Code Amendment No. 77-1 as submitted. Respectfully submitted, Edward D. Selich Secretary Attachments: Code Amendment No. 77-1 Resolution No. 1191 Negative Declaration No. 77-10 EDS:DE:gc RESOLUTION NO. 1191 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON .BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 77-1 , PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN. WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California has held a public hearing in compliance with the State Government Code in order to consider and review said Community Plan; and WHEREAS , said Community Plan contains provisions and standards for the development of Office/Professional,. Commercial and Residential uses consistent with the City' s General Plan; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission .of the City of Huntington Beach has determined that said Specific Plan will allow for the orderly development and. protect the public health and safety of the inhabitants of the community;. and .WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reasons for approving the specific plan are as follows: 1. The specific plan allows for the comprehensive development of the d subject area in a manner consistent with the policies of the General Plan. 2 . The specific plan is intended to fulfill a major goal. of the City' s Housing Element of providing housing for the elderly. 3 . The specific plan will set forth development provisions and requirements for the subject area that are not otherwise provided in the City ' s existing zoning provisions. 4. The specific plan consists of development provisions and features conducive to the unique conditions and characteristics of the . subject area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission I f the City of Huntington Beach hereby approves said Code Amendment No. 77-1. REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington . Beach, California on the 15th day of March, 1917 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman NOES : Parkinson, Finley, Boyle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATVdD e Q lic Charles T Gibson Secretary Vice-Chairman -To : City Council, From: Leonard Wright 4-9-7? City. -of Huntingtor. ,ach 60( 15th St, HB Subject: Pacifica. Community Plan .�'•3t. ',, �� �1 My position on hi-rises We know of the nearly unanimou's" position of residents in my general area against being adversely impacted by,,hia,ri�es. My positions will not be such that they can later be construed'°as promoting what might lead to adversely impacting some residentsa"" ��us, I don't promote hi-rises. And I don't blanketly oppose hi-rise developments. As usual, my views are independent of those of any organized group. My general position is that: hi-rises should be such that they don't adversely impact residents -- reasonable concerns of residents should be accommodated. � - . all questions and concerns should be fully investigated. We should have spelled-out (with backup info) how each item is safeguarded or accounted for. Thus far the latter item hasn't been adequately addressed. What's .happened 1. A lot of time spent on the-hi-rise ordinances The original hi-rise ordinance took an inordinate amount of time to finalize and still didn't include residential hi-rises (the more controversial of the two) . Complaints naturally resulted. Complaints were also directed at the standards for commercial hi-rises (I don't know if these complaints were significantly valid or not. Thus far there hasn't been a strong push of firm, viable commercial proposals) . My reaction is similar to that of some councilmen. It sometimes seems that it takes an interminable amount of time to get some things . completed via the govt process . 2. A feeling of "Let's get on with it! " Some may ,feel that we 've blocked and delayed hi-rise development * so long that it's only right that we now push something thru fast -- the faster the better (partly to minimize the chance of hi-rise ordinances being blocked),. Because of past complaints regarding flexibility: certain hi-rise criteria may have been spelled-out to Staff. an attitude may have developed that most criticisms of the ordin- ances either: # would lead to too much inflexibility. # are obstructionist. # are motivated by other reasons. I don't know to what extent these concerns are justified. But I believe that these concerns initially resulted in downplaying most of the concerns raised about the ordinances. 3. The result: not all of the items were adequately addressed. Unfortunately, this also resulted in not asking all of the right - questions oY, requiring suitable .answers with proof (concrete facts and examples that verify .the answers) . This situation is further aggravated because members of the PC and CC don't have enough time to thoroughly dig out, on their own the facts and background info on each item that comes up. On something new L.• Wright to CC. Pao! ;a Plan. -2- 4-9-77 4; like this, it's often difficult to even know what questions to ask. So it went thru the 'PC without the desired probing, fact-finding and questioning. Some of this may also have been short-circuited because the Pacifica Plan is for senior-citizens housing -- and "no one" wants to talk against housing for senior-citizens. 4. Realization that more questions should be asked and answered. As previously mentioned, most concerns about the ordInces were downplayed. We heard such comments as : a. 50 people have applied for housing in the proposed senior-citizen towers . Not one has requested a parking space. You can draw the inference that no parking at all is required for the 4.20 units proposed in the 2 towers. We might ask counter- questions: . When people ask about renting, how many ask in writing about parking available? Don't most assume that parking is available? . Were forms used that provided a space for the applicant to indicate how much parking he required? My guess is no. . Were these requests for the subsidized or unsubsidized units? My assumption is that all, or almost all, were for the subsidized units . How much can we rely on general statements that "our analysis shows that one parking space per 5 units is sufficient."? On this and such as market analysis, we need to know: . What specific developments are used for comparison? Their make-up and location? . Are they fully subsidized? Partly subsidized? (Possibly only 20% of Pacifica towers will eventualy subsidized according to Mr. Zingrabbe) . What's the breakdown in rents, parking etc.? Are there problems? . Are we comparing oranges and oranges or oranges and apples? How much can we rely on other general statements without suffici- ent backup information? b. All of the units could become subsidized. This contrary to what Mr. Zingrabbe told me. His feeling was that 20% eventually would be subsidized. We should be more interest- ed in probabilities than possibilities. Almost anything is possible. If we rely on all the good things that are "possibilities, " we're likely to later be disappointed when the realities connected with the "probabilities" occur. c. The Pacifica Plan is not significantly different than the multi- story ordinance. There are very significant differences that include: . greatly increased density of units (3 times the current apart- F: ment -maximum and the multi-story ordinance maximum) . . greatly reduced parking (where 1" spaces/unit are required: 4-1ff times as much parking is required as for the Pacifica Plan) 50% of common open space can be covered (as opposed to 15% -- someone said -- for apartment standards) . . parking to be unenclosed. -i, Published Huntington. Beach News, Mar. 24, 1977. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Code Amendment No. 77-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center; Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday the 4th day of April, 1977, for the purpose of consider- ing Code Amendment No. 77-1 referred to as the "Pacifica Community Plan" Said Amendment proposes to estab- lish, specific plan zoning consisting of Office-Professional uses and residential multi-story uses and the development standards for such uses. These require- ments will specify standards for build- ing locations and heights, landscaping, yard setbacks, off-street parking, and other related standards. The subject property is generally bounded by Main Street, Florida Street, Huntington Street, and a south boundary line running par- allel with Garfield Avenue approximate- ly 660 feet north of Garfield Avenue. A copy of the proposed ordinance and lo- cation map is on file in the Planning Department office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Code Am- endment,No. 77-1. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. DATED: 3-22-77 CITY OF HUNT►NGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk CODE AM ENDMENT, 77-1 r i11-243-2s 111-243-16s I11-242-9s Seri ncrield,.Ltd Stafac Inc Espitia, Albert S Shell Oil 00 18761 Huntington St Sol�pl, Jerry`I, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 651.7 'I�nc-y IU Western Tax Region Nano Palos Verdes, CA p.n. Box 3397 Tem... N-Wax Los Angeles, CA 90051 ia.1-243-2s 111-242-10s Bruno, ,Joe Springfield Ltd 18965 Jurupa Ave 3Shbol, Jerry L 6517 Nancy Rd Bloomington, CA 92316 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 111--243-3s 111-243-17, Its 159-091-1s 2 si Diward B etal Pacifica Medical Properties Iuntington Beach Co Sher, .Sidney 31 Oranget prpe Ave Flanagan, Paul 11 ertan, CA 92633 18792 Delaware St 1801 Ave of Stars #605 tirigtc�n Beach, CA 92648 Los Angeles, CA 90067 111-243-18s 159=091-3s Ill- 43-4s Pacifica Medical Properties Blackman, Dirt G :si 3rl(Iric k, Sylvia , Melvin 2730 Angus St 22�; in St 18821 Delaware St Los Angeles, CA 90039 Liar In St Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach. CA 92648 . 111-244-016 159-092-3s 1' 0_-55 Marion, John H etal Tr Bank, Lloyds CA etal :�ir�on, Philip II BOX 108 Barnes, Robert S 3612 Se)ulv;�(;a Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P T 669 lt) �e, CA 90505 P.O.. Box 325 ~� 111-244-029 Santa Ana, CA 92702 11: 243-6s Huntington Signal Oil Co etal rda r:, Robert I' etal 3913 Fang Beach Blvd. Sx �zr�t tday Long Beach, CA 90807 Scuita Fe SNri719s, CA 90670 111-241-6s I 159-092-04s Ill /377s 13 Huntington Beach Co hunt' cjton ?'xiach Cb Standard Oil Co of CA Main Medical Arts Assoc. t', h viaiaii Kaufman, & Enzer Property Tax Div 13107 Ventura Blvd 223 Nash St 225 Bush St ;pan Frnncisco, CA 94120 Studio City, CA 9I604 San Francisco, CA 94120 159-102-�3s' 111-243 9s Bank, .United California Pa(:Ien' 111it:h .L t:r 'Realty, Corp ` s o !' Tr 1.�u Y.O. x 20G9 60.0 S Spring St 16th Floor Ncwri3, ( , 91766 Los Angeles, CA 90014 111-242-8 159--102-6s, L11-21:3-1Os Ghan, C Curtis �k yenberg, Uo,yd V 18771 Huntington St Schroeder, Bans J 4.71.0 Ci-LiLlno i'z uela Huntington Beach, CA 9264818651 Beach.Blvd. `1'i :sfln, F ix x 3 85718 Huntir►gbon Beach, CA 92647 111-242-617,85-- g- 111-24J-15�� Kircbmeyer, Patti.cia L. SohreedY q-)pa, (ri�n G R R 1 Box. 64 8 _ r etal 13821 De-lerware St �202 Kula, Maui, Hawaii 96790 �+ _�__ luntington Beach, CA 92648 159-102-7s 159-162-20S 159-111-03s schroeder, Hans J etal Axterberry, Frank 1 Bonin, Arthur I 3367 Wisteria Cir 1315 Pine St P.O. Box 1220 Costa iiesa, CA 92626 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159--102-8s 159-102-21s 159-111-04s hallis, Albert J etal King, E I ETAL Dot Datsun Inc 528 N Palm Dr 5312 Shrewsbury Ave 18835 Beach Blvd Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Westminster, CA 92683 Hutnignton Beach, CA 92646 159-102-10s 159-102-26s 159-111-05s B' feldt, Robert J Denney, George T etal Woods,. Harris L 1 Lynne Dr 818 Camino De Los Mares Dot Datsun Inc G,111dezi Grove, CA 92643 San Cleamite, CA 92672 18835 Beach Blyd. n Huntington Beach, C, 92646 �- 159=102-29s 159-111-06s 1.510. 11s Helm, Eflh l L Carroll,: John 11 G etal Almgren, Viola M 1 W Washington Ave 18582 N Main Box 121 Dot Datsun Inc s i Ana, CA 92706 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 18835 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 02-12s 159-102-30s 159-111-06s er, Edna etal D Ambra Inc Jenner, Charles W etal Jalhnson, Bettie M D Amhra, Dennis 10832 Los Alamitos Blvd 1 Alabama Ave 6961 LawAnaven Dr Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Ii ngton .Leach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 -102-�13s 159-102-31s 159-111-08,9s 1- tschel, Frank J Miscione, Lillian Crossley, Sid 1 672 Florida St 1003 E Magnolia Blvd Toyota Inc , tIuntin9ton Roach, CA 92648 Burbank, CA91501 Attn: Bill Maxey 18881 Beach Blvd: 1 / 02-14s 159-102-33s Huntington Beach, CA 92648 final, William F Gardner, Lily L 18 )2 Florida St P.O. Drawer E ii gton Beach, CA 92648 Lockeford, CA 95237 , 15y-102--1:is 159-111-01s . 159-111-1Ds Franklin D Jones MD Inc Russette, Louis J Crossley, -Sick 718 S Brovkhurst St Suite 1 18751 Beach Blvd 1055 Rose.Ave 11nal-i--ixn, CA 92804 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Palm Springs, CA 92262 City of Huntington Beach 159-111-02s 159-11.16-11s < IINI:31TfZATION Hess, Theresa M Mac Milian, Kathryn T 18771 Beach Blvd Union OIl Co of CA 159-102�17s Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Property Tax Div P.O. Box 76000 159-102-18s 15 , 1 3s Los Angeles, CA 90054 Riffle, Bettyruth Bonita, ur I 1046 ltl oraryge St P•O• 220 Hu Orange, CA 92667 1 159~111-12s 159-121-06s 159-121-17s t9aC Mi l2 an, Kathryn T etal Brown, .John C Found, Dian K tk�ac:n Car Wash %judinak, Rass 166 Fairview St Wla" i" ' ` Paul 16511 Brookhurst St Laguna Beach, CA 92651 18976 Beach Blvd. Fountain Valley, CA 92108 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-121-707s 159-121=-18s 'Brown, John C Convalescent & Rehabilitatic 7811 Shaffer Cir 'Enterprises In Huntington Beach, CA 92648 2545 E Chapman Ave Full, CA 92631 159-111-13s 159-121-10s 159-121-19s ' T , 2 i,eto Ave Joseph Aguirre, Alex R g Beach, CA 90803 9301 CaN etal ndlew�ood Dr 1472 Nancy Lee Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 WkBstmdnstex, CA 92683 1.5 11-14s 159-121-8s 159-121-20s Vaughn, William D Brown,.John 'C Gabrielson, Carl E 36 W Camille St 7802. Shaffer Cir 7761 Garfield Ave SiArua, CA 92704 Huntington. Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 - 1=-15s 159-121-12s 59-121-21s I. ' Gardens Bonnett, Charles A Pearson, Hard P.O. tax 6348 7842 Shaffer Cir Pearson, Lester A Oraa-,, CA 92667 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 26M W Rainier Way La Habra, CA 90631 JB 12.1-1s -st,ex'r' Violet E 159-121-135 159-121-22s c;ar r, Inc IAOwick, Lanney E Bagstad, Eldon W 50:i 149at�ison St 5utit , 21C1 1005 12th St 901 Catalina Ave 505 e P7n S 98109 iuntington Beach, CA 92648 Seal Beach, 'CA 90740 15 21-02s 159-121-14s 15.9-121-23s S a IncIIJ Bragg, Harold V Jettie, Mildred M ;ralx�' 12 etal 5540 E 6th St 936 7th St 18 1 Florida St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1"Yg Beach, CA 90814 Sibley, Iowa 51249 159--121-°03v Safec,are Caqpany Inc 159-121-155 159--121-24s 4347 �.Tooklyn Ave P& Natoo Realty Fund #3 Huntington Beach Co Seattle, Wash 98105 1621 Centinela Ave Safec,are Co Inc Irkkewo6d, CA 90302 4347 Brooklyn Ave NE Seattle, %%SH 98105 onnett,C 159-121-16s 159-121-25s 275 Vic Charles A Gene J etal Safecare Gcupany Inc 2']5 Victoria St Suite l8 ��°Ci' Costa h3csa, CA 92627 2431 La Loma.Dr 505 Madison St R6= 210 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Seattle, WASH 98104 159-121--5s Lkxuiett, Cl axles A 159-121-17s s 8872 Warner Ave P iuid, Diane K S Fduntia�i Valley, CA 92708 166, Fairfiew St2Lana , �'A 92651 1 , `9_ 607 w 159-121-26S Nk>ran, P C U222C Handler 11 Hollywood CA 91607 159-131-238 Jones, Glenn W 1717 Crestview Ave Seal Beach, CA 90740 159-131-24s son, Albert N 1 11 Croyden Ter Irvine, CA 92715 131-25s Winn Robert E 08 Port rxxness P1 ( t Beach, CA 92660 . ]. -131-23s s:i:eux, Barbara 3792 rbntsyo Dr Eupti.ngton Beach, CA 92649 I �t v a HOME COUNCIL, lie P.O. BOX 1601, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92667 April 132 1977 City Council City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 .Huntington Beach, Ca. .92648 Dear City Council Members, I offer the following as .a summary of my oral presentation before your body on April 4, 1977, regarding the "Pacifica Community Plan", Ordinance No. 2184. I can not emphasize too much that HOME Council ' s position is not one of. opposition to the proposed project(s) in District Two of the Pacifica Plan but it is a position which seeks to improve the proposed projects. In regards to .the report supporting the Negative Declaration 77-10.9 I again wish to bring to your attention that it is incomplete ., It doesn't include the map( s) required to answer page 7 questions in Section 3 .6 Water a-d, and Section 3 .7 Sewer a-e , nor does Appendix A-4 attached in substitute adequately address the uestions by quantifying the problems. The comment of J. itenna ' s 2/7�77 memo suggesting that the Main Street/Beach Blvd. .sewer trunk be constructed in advance of the proposed development merits further exploration in regards to fiscal impact considering the fact that the first residential tower may be started before the end of this year. I also notice on page 2 'of Exhibit 1B the comment, " addi- tional information on the utility systems within said district is attached, " when in fact it is not a part of the report as pre- sented. In regards to the Specific Plan itself, HOME; Council requests the following changes : (1 ) Addition of more descriptive general provisions for water supply, sewage disposal, storm water drainage, disposal of solid waste. for the entire area, and the population density of District Two to meet requirements of State .Code Article 8, Authority For and Scope of Specific Plans, Section 65451 (c ) , d d a s HOME Council Letter to City Council Page Tuo, April 13 , 1977 (2) Under Section 9642 Definitions add words to the effect that a Senior Citizen residential Complex shall mean residential structure(s) whose tenants are qualified by being 62 years of age or older. In the event of joint tenancy at least one of the persons is 62 years of age. (3) Modify Section 9645 .1 (b) District Two Permitted Uses, sub-section (1 ) and (2) to read Senior Citizen apart- mentsstructures which may also intergrate commercial support services as herein described. . . . . . (4) reconsider Section 9645 .7 Minimum Distance Between Buildings provisions in view of the fact that District Two has three legal lots and present provisions would allow a 140 foot high structure on each with only a minimum required distance of 65 feet b6tween.`structures. (5) Add a additional 9645 Section relating to population density in District Two as required by State Code . (6) Modify Section 9645 .10 Parking Requirements to require District Two residential parking spaces to be covered and in the ratio of one space per 2. 5 units and further that all residential parking requirements be met within said district. (6) Modify Section 9645 .14 (d) to allow no more than 30% of required open space be enclosed in structure rather than allow 50%. (2-4 Apartment Standards allows only 15% enclosed space. ) In closing I wish to make you aware that this Specific Plan has already undergone considerable change as a result of Planning Commission instruction to staff. As originally proposed by staff District Two would have allowed apartment units as small as 300 square feet . Apartment parking ratio would have been 1 space to 3 .5 units with no guest or staff parking allowance. Allowed site coverage would have been 70% and there were no interior or rear side setbacks at all . On behalf of HOME, Council members I thank you for your kind attention to past and present recommendations. Sincerely, Lorraine Taber 1st Vice President CODE AMENDMENT NO. 77-1 PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN The following question and answer summary is intended to clarify inquiries and statements made at the City Council meeting of April 4, 1977 and to answer inquiries received subsequent to that meeting. Speaker Inquiry/Statement/Question Response B. G. Williams 1. A special privilege has been No special privilege would be granted. (Builder and Developer) given to the developer in terms Development provisions and standards of an increase in density, a are reflective of what the Planning reduction of parking, and a Commission and staff believe to be reduction in standard unit size. appropriate requirements for the type of uses proposed within the Specific Plan zoning district. 2 . $350 per month rent is too high The type of construction often dic- for a one bedroom unit. tates subsequent rental structures . The building types designed for this location are of a different type than conventional residential development. Added costs in development are nec- essary to offer support services and amenities for the occupants. 3 . Project is being constructed for The project is being constructed to residents outside the City. meet the needs of the elderly. There is .sufficient demand in Huntington Beach to support more than this project. Dean Albright Seismic safety impacts - proximity Although the geologic study referenced (Environmental Council) to Bolsa/Fairview faultline within the environmental documentation was for a two story building and ad- dressed associated impacts to such a structure, all conclusions reached in the study remain relevant. For example, no evidence exists of a fault trace be- neath the property. On this basis there is no evidence for ground rupture to be resent at the site during�. p g a seismic event near the site. Page Two Speaker Inquiry/Statement/Question Response The matter of safety then becomes an engineering function - to design a structure to withstand ground shaking in accordance with minimum regulations . Lance Jacot Project ' s impact on sewer system not The existing system will be improved (Resident) adequately addressed. in accordance with the master plan of sewers regardless of what type of future development is to occur on this site. Master planned sewerage facilities are adequate to .support high rise structure development. Gordon Offstein Area is in close proximity to a high Huntington Beach Police Department in- (Resident) crime problem area . Reference was dicates that the Pacifica Community made to the "Slater slum. " Hospital area is not subjected to a high crime rate. Project area is somewhat distant from the Slater area and therefore the staff believes that there is no direct correlation between the two areas . Lorraine Faber 1. Negative Declaration was in- The initial study form is intended to (Representing complete. Did not include.. gain necessary information in order to Home Council) maps or answers to specific judge environmental impacts . The questions . questions asked in the form are merely guidelines , intended to prompt a thorough answer to a general question Where portions have been left blank in the initial study on this project . reference information in the Appendix - accompanying the study represent the staff' s answer. 2 . A definition of senior citizen Under the advisement of the City is needed. Attorney' s office, a definition of senior citizen housing was deliberately omitted because of legal limitations . It should be mentioned, however, that Page ThreE Speaker Inquiry/Statement/Question Response Lorraine Faber (Cont'd. ) the major purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide housing for the elderly. The staff believes that it has in- corporated appropriate provisions and requirements that serve to assure the City that the residential uses within the project- will be for senior citizens use . 3 . S. 9643 Conditional Use Permit Parking requirements are based on the Sentence regarding parking particular use, not the district. The should be revised so as each City currently employs the practice of district should be self suf- allowing joint use of parking where ficient in parking demand. adjacent uses have different peak de- mands . This practice (provided by: ordinance) is intended to avoid creating an overage of parking:• Requiring each district to be self sufficient would preclude the option of the City to con- sider possible joint use of parking. 4. S. 9645. 1 Support services need Support services would be required to not be included as part of the be incorporated within District Two definition of apartments im- to assure that the facilities, ser- plies that businesses must be vices, and amenities associated with incorporated into high rise senior citizens would be provided. structures. Such services would not have to be situated in the actual apartment structure but would have to be located within District Two. 5 . District Two of the Specific Open space, parking, and perimeter set- Plan has the potential of ac- back requirements dictate the amount of commodating 3 high rise struc- bulk and height that can be constructed tures. on the total site. Because of these controlling factors the development of 3 high rise structures is improbable. Page Four Speaker Inquiry/Statement/Question Response Lorraine Faber (Cont' d. ) 6. Due to a lack of a maximum The Pacifica Community Plan meets all density, provisions for water requirements of the Government Code. supply, sewage disposal, storm This has been confirmed by the City water drainage and disposal of Attorney' s office. solid waste, ordinance does not meet state requirements for specific plans . 7.. Recommend that parking ratio The parking requirement of one space be one space for every two and for three units reflects what the one-half (2 1/2) units . majority of the Planning Commission desired. The ratio is a reasonable amount of parking space required for the type of use proposed based upon a survey of similar--developments (attached) . 8 . Requirements for covered The majority of similar developments parking should be provided. surveyed provided no covered parking. This is an item, however, that would be evaluated upon submittal of a pro- ject proposal (subject to a con- ditional use permit) whereby functional details of the project can be assessed more thoroughly and the need for covered parking can be ascertained at that point in the process . 9 . Enclosed recreation should not The allowance for a greater percentage be, to fulfill more than 15% of of enclosed .recreation 'provides .more the total open space require- opportunities for indoor type rec- ment (apartment standards) . The reation activities and is appropriate Specific Plan ordinance allows in recognition of the type of uses pro- 50% . posed for the site . Page :F�ive Speaker Inquiry/Statement/Question Response Lorraine Faber (Cont' d. ) 10. On page 2 of Exhibit 1 B of Staff communications regarding the the initial study "additional drainage of the area was provided information on the utility by the Department of Public Works systems is attached" - it was as a part of the study. not a part of the report as presented. 11. Suggest reconsideration of We feel the minimum distance between Section 9645.7 - Minimum structures is adequate. However, in Distance Between Buildings consideration of site relationship provisions in view of the and building design at the Conditiona" -fact that District Two has Use Permit level additional setbacks three legal lots and presents can be gained if this is' deemed provisions which allow a necessary. 140 ft. high structure on each with only a minimum re- quired distance of 65 feet be- tween the structures . Councilman Siebert 1. Explain why the EIR is not being Upon submittal of a development plan (Questions extracted prepared before the Conditional specific impacts associated with the from April 13, 1977 Use Permit level. project can be more accurately exacted Council communication and understood prior to any project to Planning Director) approval. An example of the intent behind this approach is that the City would be able to assess possible impacts upon adjacent property and specific traffic impacts if it was kn< where the buildings are to be placed and where the points of vehicular ingress and egress will be. This could not be done at the zone change level of environmental assessment.. This approach has similarly been utilized in other cases in the City. For example property near the northeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boulevard was rezoned from C4 to R2 . Environmental effects of the zoning were reviewed in conjunction with environmental documents for a General Plan Amendment affecting Page Six Speaker Inquiry/Statement/Question Response Council Seibert (Cont'd. ) that property. Subsequent environmental documentation has been required upon the same property to assess the impacts associated with the actual development proposals. ..2. After specific plan ordinance The Conditional Use Permit is a dis- is approved, the Conditional Use cretionary act whereby the plan pro- Permit process is merely a posal is studied and either .approved or rubber stamp procedure . denied based upon its merits, i.e. compliance with the ordinance, design amenities provided, locational aspects, and other related considerations . Conditions of approval are imposed to mitigate environmental concerns, to promote a better development, and to remedy any other problems which can be more accurately ascertained with a detailed site plan. 3. How can the Planning Department This is a zoning ordinance for an area justify the Specific Plan of the City where unique circumstances without having a specific exist and it is necessary to have a development plan? special zoning ordinance to allow the type of development desired to occur. We do not require specific development plans prior to zone changes nor have w P required them for the three existing specific plan ordinances . 4 . The developer has not told us The developer has mentioned that all the exact square footage of the proposed residential units will be one units. bedroom units containing approximately 550 sq._ ft. The Specific Plan has flexibility to allow a minimum size unit of 500 sq. ft. We feel this standard is the minimum desirable size for this type of project. n ' e Page Seven Speaker Inquiry/Statement/Question Response Councilman Seibert (Cont'd. ) 5. We really do not know .the The minimum required open .space, in- amount of open space. cluding recreation and leisure areas, is 200 sq. ft. per unit The actual amount of open space that will be provided cannot be determined at this time until a project proposal is sub- mitted to the City under the Con- ditional Use Permit application. 6. Within the Specific Plan there Specific plans have been utilized in are five areas which are ex- the City where unique characteristics ceptions or variances to the of an area, and in certain cases pro- current ordinance. They are posed developments on those areas, as follows: (1) open space prompt planning for facilities unlike requirements, (2) height those uses normally governed under limits in District One, the base district zoning. The townlot (3) multiple uses within 4nd _Oldtown Specific. Plans took the structures, (4) size of dwell- existing lot configuration into con- ing unit reductions, and sideration (25 ft . wide lots) and (5) parking requirement re- appropriate development standards for ductions. Does the staff residential uses were imposed. While agree and approve of these the standards were not as restrictive variances? If so, why? as the base districts they would be in no way considered variances . The standards were created to fit a unique circumstance as in the case at hand. A similar approach was taken in the North Huntington Center Specific Plan which provided for mixed use develop- ment (residential/commercial condo- miniums) . Such designs are not provided for in the base districts and a Specific Plan is a mechanism to achieve this desired land use. In regard to the development standards mentioned in the question, the staff report dis- cusses the reasoning behind the recommended standards (see also attached parking survey) . Page Eight Speaker Inquiry/Statement/Question Response Councilman Seibert (Cont'd. ) 7 . In regard to costs: The City will pay for the Main Street sewer trunk as is standard practice for . Who will pay for main line all trunk lines in the City . The sewer hookup? developer will pay for all lines in Delaware and Florida Streets . What are the time schedules for sewer development? The Main Street sewer trunk will be sent out to contract in six months and Who will pay for traffic will be paid for out of the sewer fund. engineering? If the developer proceeds with a project prior to completion of the . Who will pay for the traffic Main Street sewer trunk, which is signal if one is required? unlikely, Public Works would .allow a temporary hookup to sewer lines in . Who will pay for general Main and Florida ' Streets at his expense . street improvements to However, at such time as completion handle increased traffic? of the Main Street sewer trunk, the developer, again at his expense, would have to hook up to the Main Street trunk. Sufficient traffic analysis for the General Plan and zone change has already taken place in the planning process . The developer will be required to subs a detailed traffic engineering study at his expense prior to development. This process has been common procedure in the past. The traffic study will dictate any needed traffic signalization which would be necessary and the developer will have to pay his share to install any signals (approximately 25% of the cost) . b 4 e Page Nine Speaker Inquiry/Statement/Question Response Councilman Seibert (Cont'd. ) All street improvements that are necessary for this project will be re- quired of the developer pursuant to the requirements of the ordinance code except perhaps in regard to the bus turnout- indicated on the specific .plan map which the City may participate in a portion of the cost as it is in- tended for use for the general public. 8 . In regard to subsidized housing : The Section 8 new construction for the • On what basis is subsidized elderly program is administered by HUD. housing given? Each HUD area office (such as the one in Los Angeles) will advertise the . How does subsidized housing availability of rent subsidy funds when work on a percentage basis as such funds are released from the HUD far as the amount of seniors central office in Washington D.C. in the City? Proposals for elderly housing projects . How are allocations given out? are invited by HUD and HUD selects those projects they believe to be of the • Who decides what rental areas best design and the most needy area on will be subsidized and which a competitive basis. Those projects selected and approved by HUD will re- will not? ceive a guarantee 20 year rent subsidy for a percentage share of units also designated by HUD (HUD has a preferenc( for projects with 20 percent of the units subsidized, but may subsidize 100 percent of the units in a project) . In all cases, the private developer is responsible for securing construction financing. The staff has secured "Pre-Selected" site designation status from HUD which increases the project' s likelihood of receiving-allocation. City approval of zoning on the property will further enhance the project' s ability to re- ceive Section 8 units IL PARKING SURVEY: HOUSING PROJECTS FOR THE ELDERLY UNITS PARKING COVERED RATIO Bethel Tower 270 140 None 1 : 2 Costa Mesa Community Garden Tower 210 58 None 1 : 3 . 6 Orange Wycliffe Plaza 200 67 None 1: 3 Santa Ana Union Tower 200 50 None 1 :4 Los Angeles Plymouth West 196 54 10 1 :4 .1 Long Beach Norwalk Christian Tower 185 94 None 1 : 2 Norwalk %NTY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION � • • HUNIINGTON BCACH i TO Ed Selich FROM Richard Siebert, Planning Director Councilman SUBJECT PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN DATE April 13 , 1977 The following questions are in regards to the City Council Meeting of a week ago Monday evening on the Pacifica Plan. Hopefully, addressing these Questions now will save time at the Council meeting , although I may have additional questions at that time . 'l . Although the Pacifica Plan as a whole would provide good access to Senior Citizen' s needs such as the Five Points S14opping Cen- ter , the medical care , etc . could you please explain to me why the E . I .R. is not being prepared before the Conditional Use Per- mit? It seems to me that the, Conditional Use Permit is merely a rubber stamp procedure after this ordinance is passed. We are really addressing a specific plan in this area without giving attention to that specific plan. In other words , if we as the Council addressed ourselves to the specific area in giving this pr . lTate developer these variances to build this complex , how can the "fanning Department justify with really no specific plans having ever been given to the City? The developer , Mr. Zinngrabe , has not really told us the exact square footage of the units . We really do not know the amount of open space . The variances do provide desireability on the part of the developer . However , it is my feeling that the City should not grant a variance , unless that variance meets the nleedE of the City , not the developer . It would seem to me that in proving the Pacifica Plan , by ordinance we are really short-cut- ting the traditional method of granting variances . I real'ze that this has been done before in this City, where by ordinance , specific areas have been set aside and not required to meet ord- inances . However , I have a great deal of reluctance to do so on the Pacifica Plan because I have never seen a specific plan for the area. Within the "Pacifica 'Plan" there are five areas which are excep- tions or variances to current ordinances . Does staff agree and approve of these variances , and if so , why? 1) Open space requirement 2) Height limits in District 1 3) Multiple uses within structures. 4) Size of dwelling unit ('reduction) 5) Parking requirements (reduction) OL Ed Selich - 2 April 13 , 1977 Neat point .in the report of the Pacifica Plan: No fiscal impact is checked as far as money needed . Could you explaizi to me who will be paying for things like the main line sewer hookup , what the time schedules are for sewer development in the City, and who will pay for traffic engineering around the area? Right now there is no way to get safely from Pacifica Hospital to the Five Point Shopping area other than a crosswalk that is not regulated by a boulevard signal . Who is going to pay for regulation of traffic across Main Street so that the Seniors can get from the towers to the shopping and enter- tainment facilities? Who will pay for general street improvement in the area to handle traffic? These seem like they are fiscal impacts on the City because the streets and area until. this time did not war- rant and could not handle that kind of traffic. . The last point is in the area of subsidized housing . I don' t know a great deal about this , but I do remember reading in the 'report that up to 20 percent may be Senior Citizens subsidized housing . On what basis is subsidized housing. given? It was my understanding that the developer could not be guaranteed that he would be allowed any sub- sidized housing , but that all depended on the amount of rent subsidy already given within the geographical area of assistance . Even though the rental units and the type of living would normally call for sub sidized ,housing on behalf of the Seniors , the developer nor the City would be directly involved; we couldn ' t be assured that any subsidiz- ed housing would occur within the units . Could you fill me in on how subsidized housing works on a percentage basis as far as the amount of Seniors in the City. How are the allocations given out? Who de- cides what rental areas rill be subsidized and which will not? I do still have a lot of questions regarding the use of the negative declaration and I have to do a little more work on that. There is nothing that I really can address right now because I am still look- ing at the Environmental Impact areas that have been addressed in the negative declaration, but still leave me with some questions . RS : cb cc : Floyd G . Belsito Ili F Published Huntington Beach News, Mar. 24, 1977. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Code Amendment No. 77-1 NOTICE IS. HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the :Council Chamber of the Civic Center; .Huntington Beach, at the hour ofi 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as passible, on Monday the. 4th day of April; 1977, for the purpose of consider- ing Code Ame-ndment No. 77-1 referred to as the "Pacifica Community Plant' Said Amendment proposes to estab- lish specific plan zoning consisting of Office-Professional uses and residential multi-story uses and the development standards for such uses. These require- ments will specify standards for build- ing locations and heights, landscaping, yard setbacks; off-street parking, and other related standards. The subject Property .is generally bounded by Main Street, Florida Street, Huntington Street, and a south boundary Line running par- aliel with Garfield Avenue approximate- ly W feat north of Garfield Avenue. A copy of the proposed ordinance and io- ca-tion map is on file in the Planning Department office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Code Am- endment No. 77-1. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. DATED: 3-22-77 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Aiicia M. Wentworth City Clerk i Published Huntington Beach News, Feb. 3, 1977. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CODE AMENDMENT NO.77-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub- lic hearing will be held by the City Plan- ning Commission of the City of Hunting- ton Beach, California, for the purpose of considering Code Amendment No. 77-1 re- ferred to as Pacifica Community Plan. Said amendment proposes ,to establish specific plan zoning consisting of office- professional and residential multi-story development provisions and requirements. These requirements will be 'provided standards for height(140 feet maximum), landscaping requirements, setback stand- ards, parking requirements, etc.): The I subject property is generally bounded by Main.Street, Florida Street and Hunting- ton Street, approximately.660 feet north of Gartleid Avenue. A copy of the:pro- posed ordinance is on file in the Plan- ning Department Office. Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7:00 P.M., on February 15, 1977, in the Council Channbers Building of the Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Hunting- ton Beach, California. All. interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the. proposed Code Amendment No. 77-1. Furthr information may be obtained from the City Planning Department. Telephone No. (714) 536-5271. DATED this 3rd day of February, 1977. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION By Edward D. Selich Secretary Planning Department CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. Box 190 Jolmwitherspoon Pais° Huntington Beach,California 0648 ' �r U.S. 99 { PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 77-10 {� rvV CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINCTON BEACH To Al Montes, Project Planner From John Cop Code Amendments Nos. 77-1, Associate lanner 77-2 Subject Negative Declaration Nos. Date February 23, 1977 77-11 and 77-10 I The most recent changes to the multi-story (-MS) suffix code amend- ment are ministerial and do not apply to the development standards under which multi-story structures would be constructed. The staff believes that these minor changes do not alter or affect the previous environmental assessment. Regarding the Pacifica Community Plan, the revisions to the Code Amendment are also minor and do not constitute a major change to the previous environmental statements. Perhaps, the only significant change to the ordinance is the establishment of a minimum floor area size of 500 square feet for one bedroom units. This change to the ordinance, however, is difficult to quantify in terms --the environmental impacts of the project. The initial envi- ronmental assessment cQnducted .on the Pacifica Community Plan was partially based on the projected total number of dwelling units and did not concern itself with sizes of the units. Additionally, other land uses beside residential multi-story were included in estimating the environmental impacts. This is particularly true on tabulating the impact .on such items as utility systems and traffic. However, for the purposes of quantifying the impact of the proposed change, the following general information is provided: IMPACT ON UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION Because the projected number of .425 dwelling units would remain the same, it can be presumed that the previous statement of the impact on the utility system would also remain the same. It was recognized by the Department of Public Works that future development in the area - would necessitate improvements to the existing utility system. Regarding energy consumption, a general assumption can be made that the one bedroom units as a whole will generate a greater demand for energy than that generated from the smaller efficiency units. lElectrical power and heating system demands will be greater due to the additional square footage generated from the larger one bedroom units. IMPACT ON TRAFFIC The previous traffic impact was based on the total amount of trip ends generated .from all proposed land uses within the specific plan area. Consequently; residential multi-story contributed only a portion of the total amount of projected traffic increase. Futher- more, the traffic increase generated from residential multi-story was based on the number of units and not the size of the units. Consequently, the change in the one bedroom units does not affect the staff' s previous assessment of the traffic impacts. In general., it can be stated that the unit size revision will generate a greater demand on certain utilities but would yield a more desirable living environment for senior citizens than that which would have other- wise been provided by the small efficiency units. 1.2 What are the objectives of the project? 1.3 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) 1.4 Legal Description: Lot: Block: Tract: Section: Township: Range: Assessor's Parcel No. 1.5 Project land area (acres) : 1.6 General relationships of the project to surrounding properties: (Information available in Planning Department on District Maps) USE ZONING LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN Present Proposed Surrounding north Surrounding south Surrounding east Surrounding west *NOTE: If property is vacant at this time, has said property been used for ,agriculture in the past five years? _ -2- PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION INITIAL STUDY Fee - $75.00 City of Huntington Beach Applicant/Authorized Agent FOR CITY USE ONLY 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach Mailing Address Project Y) Number `y 7 536-5271 De t. of Origin; Telephone _ Other Application Property Owner or Permit Numbers �.. 777- / r Mailing Address/Telephone NOTE: Not all projects require the preparation of an environ- mental impact report (EIR) . To assist the Department of Environmental Resources in making this determination, the following information must be supplied. Add addi- tional information if pertinent. 1.0 Project Information: (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photographs of subject property) 1.1 Nature of Project: Give a complete description of the proposed project. The project consists of establishing a specific plan ordinance consisting of development provisions and requirements for office-professional uses, medical buildings, residential health care facilities and residential multi-story structures intended for senior citizens' use. Existing uses within the specific plan area are also included as part of the total complex. a. If the project is commercial or industrial, give a complete description of activities. The specific plan includes provisions for retail commercial developments and also support services to the residential multi-story including but not limited to eating facilities, beauty- barber, private health clubs, and health care facilities. b. If the project is residential, indicate number, types, and size of units and associated facilities. provisions for residential multi-story are included in the specific plan of which all dwelling units shall be exclusively one bedroom units consisting of 500 sq.ft. Indica- tions List all typeshof ba�Rdrp g materials 0 b�' 9 Rrya� � S&P49tfl the project. Unknown 1.2 What are the objectives of the project? To provide a medical, office/professional and senior citizens residential complex and activity center consisting of established uses and new development proposals. Intended to promote the optimum level of medical services and operations by concentrating such facilities within a centralized section of the community and comple- mented with the concept of locating housing for senior citizens within walking distance to medical facilities and health care services . 1.3 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) Southeast section of Main Street between Huntington and Florida Streets. Pacific Community Hospital area. (Refer to the specific plan map included in the ordinance. 14 Legal Description: Block F, Lots,_1_-5,•-_Block__G, _.Lots 1-9,-_and- the_.north one-half of Lot 10 of Tract 7 as recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange , County, Book 9 , Page 8 Assessor's Parcel No. 1.5 Project land area (acres) : Approximately 20 acres 1.6 General relationships of the project to surrounding properties: (Information available in Planning Department on District Maps) LAND USE ELEMENT USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN Medical & office/Prof. C2, R5 Present * M ica office/Prof. Specific Office/Pro- Proposed & Residential Plan, fessional Five Points Ccmnercial General Surrounding north Center C2 Ccmercial Surrounding south Residential R2 Residential Surrounding east Residential R5 Office/Pro- f s Residential and Surrounding west Residential and vacant. R2 Office/Profess- land R5 ional *NOTE: If property is vacant at this time, has said property been used for agriculture in the past five years? Planning Department records indicate that the subject area has not been used for agricultural purposes within last five years. -2- 1.7 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval, authoriza- tion, certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑ O.C. Sanitation District ❑ Calif. Regional Water ❑ City Council ❑ O.C. Flood Control Dist. Quality Control Bd. y ❑ Planning Commission ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control ❑ Local Agency Formation ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments .bistrict Commission ❑ Design Review Board [] Calif. Coastal Zone Con- ❑ State Division of servation Commission Highways ❑ Other: ❑ Corps of Engineers C 1.8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within this project? Pacific Hospital - 400!, Convalescent .and residential care facilities - 400 Medical Office buildings - 900, Residential Multi-Story - 5 See Appen ix A--I ) (If commercial or industrial usage, indicate occupancy in terms of employees and customers.) 1.9 Traffic: a. Indicate the presen tr ffic vol um rterials and added trips per day from the roj t. �:x TE� A�nde� Delaware ar 11,300 3,098 TE K Cc 6 (See Appendix A-2) Delaware 3, Florida 3,000 2,540 TF. .� 6,_070 TE b. Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. MaJ_n St. Delaware Florida c. What is existing speed limit at the project location? Main St. - 40 MPH Florida - 40 MPH Delaware - 35 MPH d. What is the estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the mules* x 6070 total TE = 33,385VMr *General standard applied to City of Huntington Beach Source: Huntington Beach.Public Works Dept. , Traffic Engineering e. If there is a source of data used. to answer traffic questions above, please indicate. City Staff, Orange County 'Roads Department 1.10 What is the percent (%) coverage proposed by the project for: Buildings over 45 ft. bldg. ht. - a max. of 25% of site coverage a. Building Buildings less than 45 ft. bldg. ht. - a max. of_ 45% of site " b. Paving Approximately thirty (30%) percent of specific plan area Approximately ten (10%) percent of specific plan area c. Existing landscaping d. New landscaping Approx, twenty-five (25%) percent of entire area 1.11 Describe the offstreet park g (locatio , e, And number of space ) -t be. ovid d for the ro c1 Ai� commercial of ce�ofessional am meciicaY buildings shall conform wi�hr parpking requLWa s of Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Park n fo sexiior ci izens residexitial multi-sto shall rovided at' a ratio of one s ac /3.5 resi- �tia T e reci coon k1 s ce r VJor seniorci�t��z A v,�ar ahtede in ��n Fj, erpngu the ype o' use, )press nt w ler t eapissery ced b uaerbutelaand°stop. e Points commercial center and (4) the fact that he y 2..0 Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: Describe the following existing environmental conditions: 2.1 Land form (topography and soils) : a. Soil type Ramona Loam b. Topography A slope of approximate 5% to 8% in southeasterly direction. 2.2 Relative location matrix: CHARACTERISTIC DISTANCE Nearest fault line Within 1/8 mile* Nearest bluff 1/2 mile Natural flood plain 1/2 mile Flood channel 2 miles Shore line 3 miles 2. 3 Objects of historic, aesthetic, or archaeological significance on subject property: No archeological resources were recorded per Archaeological Research Incorporated study., 2.4 If the project is commercial, industrial, or residential, what is the roadway distance in miles from project to the nearest: a. Shopping center 1/8 mile b. Freeway exit 2-3/4 miles c. Elementary school 1/2 mile d. Public library 1 mile 3.0 Environmental Impact of the Proposed Project: 3.1 Natural resources: a. Does any wildlife use thq pr ect area for a place to feed, nest, or rest during a given season? Misce-Li-aneous avian and ground fauna If so, please list: *IIn A t of 1 4 G 1oc�ic eism c t Stud o the s ect area was conduct b tion En - x rac ran° ie sst y are provided n ppe°errn�t. eva�ua n 'ie aci icas�s itoy P an Roject, _n- b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced or affected by the proposed project? Yes If so, how? Future construction will displace or affect subject fauna. c. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches, estuaries, bays, tidelands, or inland water areas? No If so, describe: Describe how the project will affect any body of water.. None d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number, type, and size of trees to be removed. A tree stand consisting of twelve eucalyptus trees may have to be rived. Tree stand is located at the southeast corner of Main Street and. Florida. e. Biota matrix: TYPE EXTENT Flora Eucalyptus tree stand dsisigveetsinex n deelognn Approximately 100 of acre and setback areas. Miscellaneous avian and Concentrated primarily in Fauna ground animals open field sections portions of the area ave raged and presently 3.2 Land form: roved• other inciiuding the large vac - e are 11 ea Fed oorfweedh as lement. struc- a. Is the property presently graded? b. What is the range and direction of slope of .subject property as it now exists? Flat to 8% slope to southeast C. How much grading is proposed? Unknown at this time (Gross cubic yards) d. How much land is to, be graded? 7 acres (Acres) e. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? Unknown at this time. . f. Is the surrounding area graded? See 3.2 a. If so, how will it affect subject property? Drainage and runoff pr-oElcms occur during heavy rains according to Public Works staff. -5- 3.2 Land Form (cont.) g. During construction of the project, what efforts are being taken to min- imize erosion or siltation of' the property? Specific efforts to control erosion and siltation are unknown at this time. However, conformance with all construction codes to assure protection to abutting properties will be required. 3.3 Drainage and flood control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: Unknown at this time b. To what extent will the project be located within a flood ,hazard area? Please describe. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Standard Project Flood.) Specific plan is located on Huntington Beach mesa and located approxi- mately 1/2 mile frcm flood.. plain area. 3.4 Air Quality: a. If project is industrial, describe and list air pollution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. N/A b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. N/A C. If project is highway improvements, list existing and estimated traffic projection for 10 years in future. N/A 3.5 Noise: a. Describe any adjacent offsite noise sources (i.e. , airports, industry, freeways) . Traffic noise is generated primarily from Main Street and Beach Boulevard. b. What noise will be produced by the project? If available, please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when no ill prod,qced. Ambient levels can be expected to increase as a re- su� e oy traffic noise generated from new.land uses plus noise generated fran mechanical equipment and resident dwellers. c. How will noise produced by project compare with existing noise levels? Decibel levels may slightly increase. However, one can assure that decibel levels as projected on the City's Noise Elanent to the General Plan would remain the same. -6- 3.6 Water: a. If project will not require installation or replacement of new water mains, check here and omit sections b through f. b. Attach a map showing the project, size and location of lines. C. If new water mains are to be constructed, indicate length and size (diameter) of new mains: Length Size See d. What is the area in acres and the population to be served by the new Appendix A-4 mains? Indicate the approximate service area on a map. e. If new mains are replacing existing mains, give length and size of ex- isting mains: Length Size f. Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. 3.7 Sewer: See a. If project will not require installation or replacement of new sewer mains, Appendix A-4 check here and omit sections b and c. b. Attach a map showing the project, size and location of lines. c. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system: 3.8 Utility Lines: a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. Unknown at this time. However, new utility lines and energy sources shall be required. b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? YeS If so, please describe facilities. Existing utility poles along west side of Delaware will necessitate relocation. c. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project? If so, please describe how. Unknown at this time -7- 3.9 Education: For residential projects, note primary and secondary school districts: Primary: Huntington Beach Union High School District Secondary Huntington Beach City School District 3.10 Population Displacement: a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? No If not, do not answer .question (b) . b. What is the total number of residents, to be displaced? 3.11 Demolition: a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? '- If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of_ bui_ldings or improvements to be demolished by the pro ect. -- - -- -- --—— - -- ---= C. List approximate volume of exported material. d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. 4.0 Mitigating Measures: 4.1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources �Electxi ity,, as, was ox Wi],dlifel'> Please describe. ote tMa 3os.n use o aciliti- wi 1 economize on energy consumption. Building materials and energy conservation measures will be adhered to in development of senior citizens residential multi-story. 4.2 Describe facilities designed into theproject that are proposed to minimize L andscaping lai proper drainage �lo3we sy .LEMS. ty. 4. 3 Describe types of building materials and/or construction methods for the project that are designed to minimize the effects caused by flooding, if pro- ject is located within flood hazard area. Project is not located within flood hazard area. 4.4 Briefly describe what efforts are being proposed to minimize the short-term impacts caused by construction. Conformance with city building code regulations shall.be required. -8- 4.5 Describe measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons occupying project. Proper sound and thermal insulation of building and adequate separation of structures Also walls and landscaping shall serve as sound barriers within project. 4.6 Describe measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise gener- ated by the project. Appropriate perimeter and street setbacks are set forth in the development provisions of the Specific Plan. Also proposed landscaping shall diffuse noise in filtration. 4.7 Describe how the design of the project (architectural treatment and land- scaping) has been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect. No design or appearance standards are contained within the Specific Plan, however open space and .landscaping requirements including such ele- ments as fountains pools benches, sculptures, planters, ciardens i and similar tems-are-intended - re-intended to enfiance-_tfie_-area. __ 4.8 Describe measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate re- source recovery. Permanent open space areas. 5.0 Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Yes Please explain all project alternatives. The maximum level of intensity of the specific plan may be reduced by eliminating the provisions for residential multistory developments. However, the degree of adverse impact to the physical environment and infra structures of the specific plan area and the community as a whole resulting from the multi-story development provisions may prc ve to be insignificant in comparison with the social and economic advantages generated by senior citizen high rise structures. I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. � 4 Irl Si at re Date tiled � 1 2- J/ Ia/7`7 ��.��. CZ 17A -9 l PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN Existing Occupancy Projected Occupancy Employees f- Patients Total Employees +. Patients = Total 1. Pacifica Hospital 200 109 = 309* 10 80 90 2. Convalescent & Residential Care Facilities H.B. Convalescent Hospital 38 123 = 161* Existing Residential Care & Facility on 13 110 = 123* Florida Street New Residential Care Facility (1 acre 10 100 = 110 site on Delaware) 3. Medical/Office Buildings 2 Story Medical Towers Bldg. 28 150 = 178* (1 acre site at Main & Delaware) 2 Story Medical Building 13 70 = 83* (1 acre site on Delaware) . Medical Building 100 125 = -225 (2.45 acre site on Delaware) 1 acre Medical Building site 25 100 = 125 2 acres office bldg site (87,120 S.F. x 45% lot coverage) = 39,204 S.F. @ 100 S.F./occupant - 392 occupancy 4. Residential Multi Story (Approx. 425 units @ 1.18 persons/unit = 500 resident dwellers + 25 employees = 525 occupancy *Source: De]ma Corporation,18811 Florida Street, Huntington Beach APPENDIX A-1 PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN ESTIMATED TRIP ENDS (TE' s) FLORIDA ST. • Residential Multi-Story 425 Units @ 4 TE/UN. = 1720 TE Approx. 7000 s.f. of office use on 1st pl. @ 34TE/1000 s. f.=248TE • Office Building } 16, 800 . s:f: @ 34 TE/1000 s.f.=571 TE 2 ,539 TE DELAWARE ST. Medical Buildings 2 acres=87,120 s. f. 2 (500 lot coverage) 43, 560 @ 34 TE/1000 s. f.=1, 481 Hospital Expansion Say 100 beds @ 10 TE/bed=1, 000 Office Buildings 2 acres @ 300 TE/acre= 600 TE 3, 081 TE MAIN ST. Office/Professional Buildings 1. 5 Acre @ 300 TE/acre= 450 TE Appendix A-2 / . . . . FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION ^ ^ GEOLOGIC AND SEISMICITY STUDY For the Proposed Addition to the - QPacifica General Hospital 18792 Delaware Avenue ` / < Huntington peach, California Conducted For: . Delma Construction Company . . { 18811 Florida Street \ . untington Beach, California 9,2648 / . . . . y . .. . $ . . . . ACTION (213► 5 9 8 -8 5 7 9 ENGINEERING (714) 821 -3 1 50 CONSULTANTS SOILS ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGY 1.0621 Bloomfield Avenue Suite 23 Los Alamitos California 90720 =d August 30, 1974 W.O. 5D1-165-01 [,1 Delma Construction Company 18811 Florida Street '' Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: Mr. Zinngrade Re: Foundation Investigation and a Geologic and Seismicity Study for the Proposed Addition to Pacifica General Hospital , 18792 Delaware Avenue, in the City of Huntington Beach, California Dear Sir: Pursuant to your request a Foundation Investigation and a Geologic and Seismicity Study was made for the referenced project. The purpose of this report is three fold; a) . to determine the general engineering charac- teristics of the soil underlying the site and. to provide specific recom- mendations for the design of Foundations; b) . to determine the nature and severity of the Geologic and Seismic Hazards of the site and to present information for the seismic design of the proposed structure; c) . to comply with the State of California Senate Bill No. 519. p Y The proposed addition will be of two story type I construction. ` i Structural loads . are not known at this time. However, for the purpose of this report maximum column loads are assumed to be on the order of 175 kips and maximum wall loads are assumed to be on the order of 6 to 7 kips per lineal foot. The site of the proposed addition is presently used as a parking lot and lawn area. -7- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 I=EOLOGY, REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject parcel lies within the limits of the Los Angeles Basin. The Los Angles Basin is a northwest-trending alluviated lowland plain about 50 miles long and 20 miles wide. i A Geological Reconnaissance was made of the site. The site is described in the soils portion of this report. No evidence was found of fault creep or active faulting at the site. The subject parcel lies be ' tween the southwestern and the central blocks of the Los Angeles Basin. This is a northwest-trending line of low hills and mesas (underlain by the Newport-Inglewood structural zone) that extends from the mouth of the } Santa Ana River to Beverly Hills. The subject parcel lies on the Huntington. Beach mesa, the central of the three coastal mesas that constitute the southeastern and lower part of the Newport-Inglewood zone. The mesa is bounded to the northwest and southeast by two of the six gaps which interrupt the hills and mesas. The Bolsa gap to the northeast and the Santa Ana gap to the southeast. These gaps were cut by major streams which existed on the late Pleistocene surface. The site is underlain by deposits of late Pleistocene age, under- lain at a relatively shallow depth by the lower Pleistocene San. Pedro for- mation of marine sands, gravels, slits and clays. Lying uncomfortably below the San Pedro formation are the Pliocene Pico and Repetto formations and the underlying Miocene Rocks. These are -B- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 all marine sediments and responsible in large part for the prolific oil production of the Huntington Beach oil field in the vicinity of the. subject parcel . The base of the Miocene Rocks in this area is estimated at + 5 - 6,000 feet. Beneath the Miocene Rocks in these oil fields, deep wells have penetrated into the pre-tertiary metamorphic basement rock of the area. This basement rock has been correlated to the catalina schist of Franciscan Age. FAULTING The dominant features of the regional structural geology of the site are the northwest trending, right-lateral San Andreas and Newport-Inglewood Faults and their tributaries and the east-west trending faults associated 3 with the transverse fault system. The important faults that immediately affect the site in terms of ground shaking are The Newport-Inglewood Fault, 4 The Palos Verdes Fault, and The San Andreas Fault. Other faults include The Whittier-Elsinore Fault, The San Fernando Fault Group, The Raymond 5 Fault and The Norwalk Fault. The extensive faulting associated with production in the local oil fields is pre-quaternary in age and is considered to be non-active. NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD FAULT The Newport-Inglewood structural zone is a regional anticlinial fold extending northwestward from Newport Mesa to Beverly Hills, a distance of some 40 miles. At the land surface it is marked by the common alinement of low hills and costal mesas - The Beverly, Baldwin, Rosecrans, Dominguez, Signal , and Landing Hills, and the less conspicuous Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach, and Newport Mesas, , The continuity of these hills and mesas is broken f -9- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 by Flood Plain gaps including the Bolsa and Santa Ana gaps. From the axis of this structural zone the rocks dip generally downward, both oceanward and landward. Superposed on this regional structure are successive closed anticlines or domes, with intervening structural saddles. The domes, and to a lesser degree the saddles, are . broken by nearly vertical normal faults and reverse faults that are. discontinuous and arranged in echelon. The faults are more numerous at depth, although a number continue to the land surface and disrupt it. Several geologists have suggested that a great depth this struc- tural zone is underlain by a continuous fracture that separates and up- thrown block of metamorphic rocks (Franciscan?) on the southwest from a downthrown block of granitic rocks on the northeast. The basement complex of metamorphic rocks extends continuously along the southwest side of the Newport-Inglewood zone. Little is known concerning the character of the basement rock on the northeast, beyond the general conclusion from seismological evidence that it is much deeper beneath the land surface. The Newport-Inglewood zone has been a locus of structural activity 3 throughout much of Tertiary and Quaternary time. That it continues to be 1 i an area of active deformation is attested by the major Inglewood earthquake t in 1921 , the major Long Beach Earthquake, with a Richter magnitude of 6.3 centered near Newport Beach in 1933, and a minor earthquake in 1941 that i damaged several oil wells of the Dominguez Field (Bravinder, 1942, pg. 388). i The geologic structure of the Huntington Beach mesa is complex, but j several branch faults of the Newport-Inglewood structural zone strike north- westward across the mesa parallel to the present shoreline. (see attached geologic map of the site vicinity) . Data indicating faulting at depth in i -10- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 rocks of Miocene and Pliocene age was obtained from studies of the area conducted by the California Division of Oil and Gas. More recent fault- ing at shallow depth was determined from ground water data interpreted by Poland, et.al . , 1959, The California Division of Water Resources and The California Division of Mines and Geology, and a study of nuclear power and desalting plant sites in the area published by the National Technical Information Service. This information indicates that histori- cally active (from Holocene times to the present) segments of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone may be inferred within ± 1500 feet north of the site and + 4000 feet south of the site. Although no evidence of surface rupture is present. Other faulting located in the vicinity interpreted in logs of oil wells is also present in the area, but somewhat to the south of the site. This Tertiary faulting is considered to be non-active. a The faults shown on the attached geologic map are generally based on Preliminary Report No. 15 of The California Division of Mines and Geology and U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper No. 1109. i The inferred fault traces north and south of the site are referred to as the North Branch fault and the South Branch fault respectively in I the Geotechnical Inputs Study of the Huntington .Beach Planning Department. } Ground water data indicates as much as 1BO feet of vertical dis- i s placement in rocks of Pelistocene age from below 150 feet below sea level j along the North Branch fault segment. ; The high degree of Seismic activity associated with The Newport- In lewood structural zone suggests a relatively high probability of future F activity along one or more faults along the zone. Due to its proximity i r f -11- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 to the site, The Newport-Inglewood structural zone should be considered the dominant factor in considering the seismicity of the site. It is believed (Greensfelder 1973) capable of generating a maximum credible or "design" magnitude of 7. 1 Richter magnitude earthquake. The San Andreas fault zone is considered to be the most active fault in the state. The length of this right-lateral-fault and its seismic history indicate that it has a rather high potential of generating a major earthquake in the near future. The greatest historical occurrence of seismic acti.v.ity in i i i the Southern California Area occurred in The Fort Tejon Earthquake of 1857, when an earthquake of Richter magnitude + 8 occurred. Ground sur- { face rupture associated with this event were reported to have extended some + 200 miles along the fault. The San Andreas fault approached to within some 55 miles of the city at its nearest point. i PALOS VERDES FAULT f . The Palos Verdes fault trends .approximately northwesterly and is some + 10 to 12 miles long. At its closest point to the subject site, the estimated buried trace of the Palos Verdes fault comes to within some j 11 miles west of the site. This fault has no historic events greater i than Richter magnitude 4.0 definitely .associated with it. The location of the trace of the Palos Verdes fault is based upon oil well E-Log data, an inference that .the uplift of the Palos Verdes Hills must have taken place along a fault near the Bedrock-Alluvium boundary, and a gravity anomaly that exists which parallels this fault trend. j NORWALK FAULT The Norwalk Fault is 'approximately 16 miles long, northwest trending i ( and at its closest point approximately 14 miles north of the site. This . , R p i i -12- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 accurate fault trace lies between Buena Park and Tustin. On July 8, 1929 a magnitude 4.7 earthquake occurred that caused damage in Whittier and Norwalk. It is estimated (Richter 1958) that the fault may be cap f able of generating a magnitude of 6.25 earthquake. WHITTIER-ELSINORE FAULT At its northerly extension the Workman Hill fault branch of the Whittier-Elsinore fault lies about 23 miles north of the site. This northwest trending fault continues southeastward from the Alhambra area through the Santa Ana mountains to the Mexican Border, it is a zone of moderate activity having produced several magnitude four earthquakes and a few magnitude five shocks. Seismicity related to the northern portion of the Whittier-Elsinore fault is indicated in the seismic portion of 7 this report. SAN FERNANDO FAULT GROUP The February, 1971 San Fernando Earthquake (magnitude. 6.4) occurred f on a related group of. fault segments some 60 miles north of the site. The ground surface ruptures occurred on little known pre-existing faults { in an area of low seismicity and previously unknown ground displacements. 1 Due to its distance from the site the maximum expected magnitude of 6.6 (Greensfelder, 1973) would not be as significant on the site as that of The Newport-Inglewood zone otential . � p i RAYMOND FAULT The vicinity of the Arroyo Seco in Pasadena, The fault provides a groundwater barrier and an apparent topographic scarp along a portion of its western extent. This fault, considered to be potentially active approached to within some 35 miles of the site. The area surrounding 1 1 i E -13- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 the fault is essentially one of low seismic activity and no epicenters of magnitude 4 can clearly be associated with it. This is possible displacement of Quaternary alluvial material adjacent to the fault to add evidence to its activity. i EARTHQUAKE RELATED DAMAGE Ground Rupture - a study of the published literature and an analysis of our test borings indicate that evidence is not present of + a fault trace beneath the. property. On this basis there is no evidence for ground rupture to be present at the site during a seismic event near i the site. Tsunami - based on a study of the records of the 1964 Crescent City. Tsunami and other published studies and the location of the site, i Tsunami damage should ,not be a factor to be considered significant at. the site, it being situated some 55 feet above sea level on the Hunt- ington Beach mesa. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL { Although the test borings did not encounter ground water, infor- mation obtained from The Orange County Water District indicates that C the present water table elevation was at approximately 6 feet below sea level at the site, indicating a depth to ground water from the surface of some 60 to 65 feet. The water district indicated that the water table is gradually lowering in the area. This coupled with the relative densities of the sediments encountered indicate that the potential for a liquefaction at the site is nil . Differential Compaction - density of the material as disclosed in 9 the Soils Engineering portion of this study and the uniformity of the material in the test -borings indicates that differential compaction would -14- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 not be a factor to be considered in the seismic analysis of the site. Flooding - the site would be safe from the failure of any dams during a flood due primarily to the proximity of the site to any dams, and the site elevation above the Santa Ana and Bolsa gaps on either side of it. t SUBSIDENCE The site lies north of the productive limits of Huntington Beach oil field. Possible future water injection into the oil reservoir will not r cause subsidence or affect the site. i No damage or safety hazard is to be associated with oil field subsidence within the City of Huntington Beach or near the site. The fact that the site lies near the depleted or nearly depleted portion of k the Huntington Beach oil field would tend to indicate that future- sub- F :G.-a"a.".�.":ti i;2=.:Y,:s-".:"i'K;2:a.;:5::14$�,:.Y.:tti::�na*:"•saa�x,.iii.CfiYC- sidence will not be a factor to be considered in the design of the R t' ..: ..ia.w._..;2.i"Xk::.,_.xrar:s..W;ii".:..::::.G':�.=F.v._:..iwf.;'b:. ._..s,..i.'a[.lWi':�P�.'9�fiP".'� ...Lei='._.M2...'7:'._..-.':•..-'Y.^_.:'4W.1�r+.b�#nclts^..a4+A:.Y^.',uu�"=°,a�epc�st—•x.e' structure. LANDSLIDES Slope stability problems are not considered to be a factor at the site. The site is located some distance from the slopes of the Huntington Beach mesa, and the nature of the engineering properties of the subsurface materials would dispel any tendency of any flow type slides to be considered in the seismic analysis of the site. SEICHE HAZARD The lack of any enclosed bodies of water near the site on the mesa would preclude any possible need to considering seiche hazard. ? .__ - ,.,....__..,..,a. ............'�...s...,..>.�:�.:`�'..ti..5,+'.'k'; _�C.`?:Mws_.:F�mc��u._�::a^5dt5 v..,-_.,._»_..;r,•„^.z lea:.-,.,,....._n-��s.'^'_"�* d c y -17- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 (Seismicity of the Site The site is located at 1170 59' 30" W and 330 41 ' 21 " N. The earthquake distribution map of the area 47 x 47 miles centered by the site was prepared Figure 10, from period 1932 to 1970. i The seismic history has been studied for the area which bounded by Latitude 3400 N to 3320 N and Longitude 11740 W to 11820 W from the period jJanuary 1932 through December, 1972 on the basis of epicenter magnitude and location. This is an area of about .2209 square miles (5625 Km2). { A frequency-magnitude relationship has been developed for the earth- quakes occurred in this area which represents a nearly 40 year period of record Figure 11 . The intensity-frequency relationship given in Figure 11 has been computed from the equation Log N (per yer) = a + b M, where N is I the number of events per year of magnitude M and a and b are constants probably depending upon tectonic factors such as the nature of the tectonics, geology, and the stage of .tectonic development of the area associated within the earthquakes. The straight line relationship shown in Figure ll is normally considered to hold for values of magnitude 2.5 to magnitude 6.3. The maximum epicentral magnitude of earthquake ground motion of historical record experienced at the site for 100 years is of magnitude 6.40. Based upon the linear relationships defined in Figure 11 , the pro- jected frequency of occurrence of this magnitude for the entire 2209 square mile area is about once every 100 years. These do not however, represent the frequency of occurrence for these events at a specific location in the 2209 square mile area, such as for the site. Table 3 represents the number of earthquakes for different magnitude from the period 1932 to 1972 which was used for the recurrence curve. While the frequency relationships for the 2209 square mile area is �'u =18- 14. 0. 5D1-165-01 of interest, probability studies by Housner, 1970 provide additional insight to this problem. Housner has indicated the probability of a specific loaction in California experiencing a given peak earthquake ground acceleration based upon statistical data for California .and the i world at large. His relationships are indicated to be an average for California with some areas being more active than others. The proba- bility of a specific site in the 2209 square mile area in a 100 year k 1 interval is shown in (Table IV) . Based on the above analysis of the earthquake history in the 2209 square mile area defined in Figure 10, it is our opinion that a i magnitude 6.4 earthquake ground motion is the maximum that can reason- ably be expected to occur during the planned life of this facility. } This motion should be associated with a magnitude 6.4 earthquake and a peak ground acceleration of .35g. The above discussion has been restricted to a consideration of epicentral and magnitudes recognizing that some consideration must now be giver to the magnitude of ground motion that could potentially result at the site from more distant large magnitude earthquakes. The peak rock acceleration values were calculated by Greensfelder, 1973, using the maximum credible earthquake magnitude based on length of fault rupture and by using Schnabel and Seed 1972 curves relating peak acceleration in rock, distance from fault rupture, and magnitude. SEISMIC ZONES AFFECTING THE SITE The site is located in a seismically active area and it is in Zone 3 on the seismic risk map of the U. S. (Figure 1.2a and b) and in ' zone of maximum expectable earthquake intensity III in California seismic -19- W. 0. 501-165-01 risk map (Figure 13) . The site falls also in the area of 0.5g bedrock acceleration, (Figure 3) , Greensfelder, 1973. The major earthquake induced ground motion at the site would be a result of seismic activity along the five major fault zones as well as some minor earthquakes from man-made means due. to fluid withdrawal i or injection and subsidence as well as the scattered earthquakes in the area, which are not related to surface structure. a). San Andreas Fault Zone The principal fault of California, the San Andreas, movement along this fault was responsible for the great .shocks in 1857 and 1906 and many of lesser magnitude. The San Andreas fault zone is more than 650 miles long and is located approximately 52 miles east of the site. Fault systems along this zone can trigger earthquakes as large as the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake, or that of 1906 San Francisco earthquake, with magnitude 8 or 8.2 on the Richter scale. Numerous small earthquakes occur in this fault zone. Greensfelder, 1973 rated San Andreas fault as 1 , (Table V) and the maximum credible or "design" magnitude M0 = 8.25. Allen, et. al . , con- structed the recurrence curve of the San Andreas fault which is represented in (Figure 14) . This recurrence curve constructed for 156 earthquakes representing an area of 8400 Km2. b). Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone Since 1933 Long Beach earthquake, the Newport-Inglewood fault and its several side branches have been recoginized as the major active tectonic features in Southern California (Richter, 1958; Allen et. al . , 1965). The site is located approximately 2 to 1 mile to the fault branches. The fault ruptures along this zone can generate earthquakes with magnitude as large -20- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 as 6.5 on the Richter scale such as that of 1933 Long Beach earthquake. The activity rating of this fault zone is considered a 3, 4, 7, (Table V) . The maximum credible or "design" magnitude MD= 7.1 (Greensfelder, 1973). The Newport-Inglewood structural zone is a source of certain risks. This structural zone of folds and faults are the surface expression of a zone of geologic unrest that has been active almost continuously since mid-Tertiary time. The Newport-Inglewood structural zone is seismically active. Numer- ous earthquakes strong enough to be felt have occurred along the zone. Although the historic record . is brief, it does indicate that, except for the 1950' s potentially damaging shocks have occurred several times each doc, ldo, There is nu reason to believe that this pattern will change in t the future. History records no surface displacement on known faults along the zone, but subsurface movement on faults in three oil fields along the zone has been associated with earthquake activity. c). Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone This fault zone is located 22 miles east of the si1te. It is con- ceivable that an earthquake as large as the 1769 Los Angeles County Earth- quake with a magnitude 7 on the Richter scale, would occur along this fault zone. Greensfelder rated the. activity of this fault as 4 (Table V) and the MD = 7.6. d). Palos Verdes Fault Zone This fault is located about 10 miles in the west of the site. This fault is rated 3. 5 (Greensfelder, 1973) Table V, and MD = 7.2. This fault is considered inactive but from (Figure 10) there are 6 events which have occurred from the period May 1971 to June 1973. The -21- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 largest magnitude of shocks is 5 and the .shortest distance from the site if 10 miles. The bedrock acceleration due to this event is . 15g. e). Santa Monica Fault Zone . i This fault zone has been the source of moderate size earthquakes. The site is located 28 miles south of this fault zone. This fault zone j includes several faults as the Malibu, Santa Monica, Raymond Hill , Sierra s Madre, and Cucamonga faults. Historically, fault ruptures along this zone i can generate earthquakes as large as magnitude 6 on the Richter scale. i Recently, 1973 Point Mugu earthquake is an example of such events. Greenfelder rated the activity of this zone as 4 or 5 (Table V) and MD 7.5. f). San Gabriel-Santa Susanna Fault Zone The site is located 32 miles west of this active reverse thrust zone. Historically, this zone can trigger an earthquake of magnitude 6.5 on the Richter scale. The 1971 San Fernando earthquake is an example of such events. Greenfelder noted this fault zone as 1 ,5 and the MD = 6.7. 9. ) Man-Made Earthquakes Man-Made earthquakes have been known since Carder, 1945 and Evans, 1966, Healty et.al . , 1968. Most of .these tremors range from microearth- quakes to intermediate ones and this is caused by the load of water in lakes, also the injection of waste fluids and due to fluid withdrawal or injections. At Long Beach a seismic monitoring system was established to study the seismicity and its relation to water flooding in oil fields along the Newport-Inglewood fault of the Los Angeles Basin Area (Teng et. al . , 1973) , (Figure 9) shows the microseismicity of this area by this system. For the period beginning February 6, and ending December 31 , 1971 , a total .of 47 -22- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 events ranging in magnitude from 0.96 - 3.2 have been registered. A majority of earthquakes located along the Newport-Inglewood fault while the remainder are distributed in the area to the west of the fault zone (Figure 9) . The hypocenters are confined within the basement. 4 i Teng et. al . , (1973) suggested a correlation between microearthquake events and water flooding (fluid injection). Microearthquake activities in the Los Angeles Basin (Figure 9) shows the activity along a portion of the Newport-Inglewood fault where the accumulating tectonic stress is inter- acting with massive oil pumping and water flooding. h) . Scattered Earthquakes which are Non-Related to Fracture Zones (Figures 7, a and b) show many scattered earthquakes which are not related to surface structures. The majority of these shocks occur at relatively shallow focal depths of 5 to 15 miles and only the large magni- tude events are known rupture zones or faults. Movement along these faults are responsible for these shocks especially the great shocks. These earthquakes may be related to a deep-seated fault zone which is more complex than the single straight fault zone (Newport-Inglewood fault zone) . Also these events may also be due to more complex basement structure. The complexity of the basement. is represented structurally as well as petro- logically. Also the complexity of contacts in basement foundations are the source of the seismic .activity of this area. Seismicity of the Site The particular interest in this study are events located in the vi- cinity of the site, specially the Newport-Inglewood fault zone near the site. For the period 1932 to 1972, a total of 1300 events ranging in magnitude for 1 .0 to 6.3 have been registered and some of these have been located along or near the area of study (Figure 10) . -23- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS AT THE SITE j As discussed previously five major active fault zones may affect i the site. These faults, along with their minimum distance to the site, 1 and estimated Richter magnitude of the maximum probable earthquake that can occur along each fault, are indicated in (Table VI ). (TableIV) also include the other faults which can affect the site. To estimate the peak ground acceleration of the resulting ground shaking at the site, two approaches are used. The first is to utilize the Housher acceleration - distance relationships (Figure 15). The second approach is, to utilize the results of Schnable and Seed (Figure 16) . The first is based on attenuation of peak acceleration through bedrock, while the second is based on attenuation through most deep alluvium layers. In addition, the approximate. peak accelerations values were estimated at the site from magnitude and distances of large historic earthquakes events using the two procedures (Table VII) . Based on the above historic analysis, it is our opinion that a value of 0.35g should occur in the lifetime of the structure .(100 years) and a value of 0.25g should occur more frequently in the lifetime of the structure. In order to estimate the maximum historic earthquake ground motions at the site, strong motion data available from different earthquakes were collected. From the previous study of historic ground motions (Table VII ) it can be seen that among the more reliable data obtained from strong motion recording stations, the recent 1971 San Fernando earthquake caused the largest recorded ground accelerations in the vicinity of the site. The frequency of occurrences of different levels of ground acceler- -24- W. O. 5D1-165-01 ations at the site in the region under study is obtained by counting the number of times that the level of acceleration is generated and the area associated with each level of acceleration, (Table VIII and IX) Morachi and Dixon, 1972. (Table VIII and IX) are acceleration areas for sites underlain by firm soil and sites underlain by bedrock respectively. (Figure 17) represents the result of this study for the Los Angeles Area, ' Marachi and Dixon, 1972 and the results are presented in terms of 10, 25, 100 and 000 year return accelerations. (Figure 18 shows a com arison 1 y ( 9 ) p of the number of occurrence versus acceleration relationships for bedrock and soil site in the Los Angeles Area, Marachi and Dixon, 1972. The result of this study for the site is represented in (Figure 19) , and shows the return periods associated with different levels of maximum .ground acceleration. The probability of occurrence of any level of ground acceleration is evaluated by assuming that Poisson' s distribution law is valid for occurrence of earthquakes. This assumption has been examined previously by Kallberg and Cornell and was found to be closely valid. On this basis, the probability of occurrences of different level of acceler- ation during 100 years is represented in (Table X) . MAXIMUM CREDIBLE MAGNITUDE AND ACCELERATION Greensfelder, 1973 constructed a curve for magnitude versus length of fault rupture (Figure 20) . He also estimated the fault activity in California. In order to estimate the bedrock acceleration, the magnitudes of maximum credible earthquakes on the adjacent active faults were determined by Greensfelder, 1973. This was accomplished by assuming the relation -25- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 between the length of historic surface fault ruptures and the magnitude of the accompanying earthquakes (Figure 20) . The acceleration due to these maximum credible earthquakes was 3 z determined using (Figure 15 and 16) for the active faults at the neighbor- hood of the site. In selecting a record to correspond to the close-in earthquake, it is important .to consider the earthquake magnitude and causative fault distance and soil conditions of the site at which the record was obtained. The magnitude and causative fault distance for the close-in earthquake is shown in .(Figure 22) while the soil conditions at the site corresponds to layers of dense sand, gravel , and al.luvium deposits to a depth ranging from 200-250 feet. As a result of examing a number of records, the following are the records whose properties come closest to resonably satisfying the close-in earthquake criteria. a. Orion Record - February, 1971 The recording accelerometer was located approximately 5 miles from the causative fault - Hudson, 1971 on a deep . saturated alluvium. The maximum acceleration of the north-south component was 0.27g. The 1971 San Fernando earthquake was assigned a magnitude M = 6. 5 on the Richter scale. Ground motion at Sylmar and Olive View with .approximately 0.5g peak ground acceleration would be representative of close-in earthquake motions for a magnitude 6. 5 condition. -26- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 However, the criteria for the site calls for a magnitude 7.0 for 3 mile distance to the causative fault, and the alluvium thickness is about 200-250 feet while Holiday Inn calls for a magnitude 6. 5 for S } 5 miles distance to the causative fault, and 600 feet of alluvium. An average factor of 1 .2 was used to scale up the Holiday Inn N-S record as shown in (Figure 21 ) . From . (Figure 17) maximum acceleration of 0.35g is calculated. b. Glendale Record - February, 1971 The recording accelerometer was located approximately 12 miles from the source on shallow, dense, alluvium which is approximately 250 feet deep. The maximum accelerations were 0.23g for the S20W component and 0.28g for the S60E component. Since the distance from the Glendale site to the causative source is greater than the distance of the Orion site to the causative fault, the Glendale record was scaled up to account for the difference. Two scaling procedures were considered. The first is based on attenuation of peak ground accelerations through bedrock (Figure 15) . The second is based on attenuation through most deep alluvium layers (Figure 16) . However, since the Glendale site is neither a bedrock site nor a deep saturated alluvium site, an average factor of 1 .5 was used to scale up the Glendale record as shown in (Figure 27) . CONDITION OF A GREAT EARTHQUAKE ALONG THE SAN ANDREAS FAULT As indicated in (Table VII and XI ) , it is hypothesized that a magnitude of 8.25 earthquake can conceivably occur along the 650 -27- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 mile length of the San Andreas fault. The effects of such an earthquake, when centered along the portion of the fault closest to the site, represents 1 4 r the second condition to be considered at the site. The estimate of the peak ground acceleration of the resulting ground shaking at the site, which is located 50 miles from the fault in (Table VII and XI ) . 1 El Centro Record - May, 1940 The El Centro earthquake originated on the Imperial fault, a southerly extension of the San Andreas fault system, and the fault motion was strike slip. The slip developed over a length of 40 miles. The recording accelerometer was on very deep alluvium and approximately 7 miles from the zone of energy release, rather closer to the northern end than to, the center. The maximum acceleration recorded during the M = 7 El Centro 1940 shock was 33 percent g, Trifunac, 1959 for the north-south component. The acceleration time history and the 5 percent damped spectrum for this component are shown in (Figure 23 and 24) . Comparison of peak accelerations estimated from Housner results, and site-dependent calculations indicate that the peak acceleration for El Centro 1940, N-S component falls in the range of accelerations obtained by the two approaches and is conservative since its value of 0.33g is closer to the peak acceleration estimated by Housner method. Also, the El Centro record has a long strong motion duration which is representative of large events on the San Andreas fault. Therefore, the north-south component of the E1 Centro record will be used without scaling to represent ground motion at the site due to a t' great earthquake along the San Andreas fault. Comparison of Response Spectrum for El Centro and Close-in Adjusted Smooth Spectrum Based on Orion and Glendale Records from (Figure 24) it is -28- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 Observed that: 3 a. The adjusted smooth spectrum is correlated well with the E1 Centro spectrum. } b. Both spectra are quite comparable in the high and low frequency range. c. El Centro record underestimates the response in the frequency range between 0.4 and 2.0 cps. The maximum difference occurs at 0.6 cps. The above comparison indicates that the close-in smooth spectrum correlates well with the 1940 E1 Centro spectrum. Therefore, the adjusted smooth spectra constructed can be adopted as the spectrum of the maximum probable earthquake motions at the site (Figure 24). COMPARISON OF RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR SAN FRANCISCO PARK AND THE. CLOSE-IN ADJUSTED SMOOTH SPECTRUM BASED ON ORION AND GLENDALE RECORDS From (Figure 25) it is observed that: a. The adjusted smooth spectrum is correlated well with the San Francisco Park spectrum in the high frequency range. b. San Francisco Park record underestimates the response in the frequency range between 4.0 to . 1 cps. The above comparison indicates that the close-in smooth spectrum can be readjusted by constructing a new smooth spectrum as an average be- tween both (Figure 25) . This new spectrum will be the maximum probable earthquake response spectrum. The response spectrum for the maximum probable earthquake was further compared to the Newmark-Hall spectrum, Newmark and Hall , 1969 �f. wN..- -29- 0. 5D1-165-01 i l constructed for 0.35g maximum ground acceleration (Figure 26) . The shape I of the maximum probable earthquake response spectrum is in general agree- ment with the shape of Newmark-Hall response spectrum. i 4 { LURCHING AND AMPLIFICATION The approximate range of frequency for the structure under study is around 3 cps. From the smoothed readjusted spectrum (Figure 25) the lurching (displacement) at 3 cps. is 1 .5 inch. From (Figure 25) the amplification is 3 at 3 cps. SURFACE AND BEDROCK ACCELERATION The effect of soil on the base motions can be seen from comparison of (Figure 15 and Figure 16). This effect of local soil on the base motions performed at UC Berkely Shake Program, Schnabel and Lysmer, 1972 and the estimated effect of moderate deep site (250-300' ) to bedrock and base motion strength level on surface accelerations is shown in (Figure 27) . The result of this curve indicate the kind of trend that might be expected at the site, namely, that as the input base motion and/or depth to rock increases, the ratio of surface peak acceleration to base peak acceleration decreases. At soil depth and base acceleration of the magni- tude estimated for the site, a 25 percent attenuation of peak acceleration might be expected. Therefore, a peak ground acceleration of 0.38g would be estimated to happen at the site which represents 0.50g peak bedrock acceleration by Greensfelder, 1973. So, the peak ground acceleration would be ranging from 0.38 to 0.35g. From the comparison of (Table XII) indicates that changes in magni- tude and predominant frequencies are to be expected because of statistical variations of ground motion samples , soil and geologic conditions, and x-. ty a. i, -30- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 source mechanism (azimuth) . Therefore, an adjusted smooth spectrum is ;; more reliable for design (Figure 25) . The adjusted spectrum of Modified Orion and Glendale is shown in (Figure 22) and was constructed as a smooth average of the two adjusted spectra, it is also readjusted for short periods by comaring it with San Francisco Golden Gate Park (Figure 25) . CONCLUSIONS i We recommend that the dynamic analysis for the site be based upon the smoothed spectra constructed in (Figure 25) , Greenfelder map (Figure 3) corrected for attenuation and the probability calculations (Table IV). The peak horizontal ground acceleration which can be expected to occur with reasonable probability once during the life of the structure should be approximately 0.38 - 0.35g (Figure 3 and . Figure 25) . The structure should also be able to accomodate less intense earthquake motions several times during the lifetime of the structure. E This report is issued with the understanding that it is the re- sponsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the at- tention of the Architect and Engineers for the project and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the ' Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for the project. -31- W. 0. 5D1-165-01 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. 1 i QROFESS%o Respectfully submitted, -D 6' F ACTION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS C w "C No. 20,296 R; -A- Jeffrey R. LeQoff s RCE 20296 �-VV CIvo- F CAL1�/ ( G�NEERIN� \\ Norman D. Wiener v CEG 881 \0 <o :jZ NORMAN D. WIENER Ahmed Fouda Registered Geophysicist 104 qTE OF N��t r Ji t< a X'. I =H, t ', KQJ, .. ............ e;i-:. k.+*`,d �, � 'l'? I ��::.'• _t ��• 11 °���--��. ' �� IIL.�llc�pa ~�( a;.�. C�..�..2: j AV, -CAPITA .............. IS •WJICI., (4/1 + gh� _ J .. :: �I � I� I s, J, 7 IVMAN 42 C111 my t ;a I A I U L N I IN, 10 "Jok .....41H_ 3 6 15 15 0, L AVtj LiIVI A VL 9p WN'j'jN T N 141 '11 ._WT I L3 Q u 41 .. .... • ------ Vr • 1 4&_ J • �7 P1 W nllo. DR- �,4 00 4r N u YYY 0 I JAI' A(IAA1' 6 10 IJ 1112 31- IN 1_411�i Ncil Y11 0 It 41 II lLLU kcH, UN N 'PON Li H t 0 1 L Dq FIE E 40 ffeWV7 dZl elkI14,Z .4A1,0 el;W,7�1Z W4Ee,:!F_ 4•0gi coo..... aA 9 dn Imp as t 17-laV.4ZZ 4e7_1k�� 411 wa. 5.al- 1405-al I_Zreaaa tigo s � `�•'• s - •S � �'rf 30 � 4 z s` Ii 1 'off . � � Psi,PihE (7d) /• - 5 MAXIMUM EXPECTED BEDROCK ACCELERATIONS FROM EARTHQUAKES IN CALIFORNIA °�'�°�f .;5;' S' '�` sJ �!06ER GREENSFELDER-CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY s at' •• l ?2 MA'rfOU-SAN7A MONICA GS1•. SIT LEGEND -,�.Cilti y or PO El�iIP?LY ACTIVE FPULTS �S \°c, '•ffl !� 'S ? HAN.I6al �—ss .ice Dashed mere approai•notely Ic CCIed, dotted where conceolad Nunoer in porentheses is the mcximum expected earthquake rrcgnituce for the fault. •�• `� Ltres and arrows dmdt the San Andreas teutt into tour tectonic l� secticns. Ouer,es ct the ends of o fault indicate Ieck o' s',ong ev.dence for 115 actin If - • r• 1 - BEDROCK ACCELERATION CONTOURS Un its ere decimcl fractions of the acceleration of gravity,from 005g to 050g PREODMINANT FERIOD OF SEOROCK ACCELERATIONS Acc"erct:on range Predo�riod 2O 2 g 0 35 seconds 10ea OI-02g 040 0.05-0.Ig 050 "!541 O 60 AOJr/L0,We7f.PS Meon duration of motion-20-30 seconds - FIGURE 3 PERIOD,. SEC lOC c0 60 40 20 10 8 6 4 2 1 .8 .6 60'.- � _ 4 2 t .0 .G6 .04 02 .01 _— ' r� rr: :iuir i:ill� r 7"'.1,l:—� 40�� •.'<< /T- J� � ' Y Y,��: 1'.� ,r � / v I / v I �,�<�' i..� ��� �-�'t _'�-t.-- C��-r "��-r r—.t--=r'F - f- i C- �-�� _-------�-,��.... ,lam--I /', r Y ` __';•��\_��-'-�_ I � J \,'/`�;. ��\ � � ` 1`J �\- � -O ,+ _<� `• � `���.i.J.c.r`J i fJ,�/I\�� \ iVA i ��.}�,�T'��;�\ y v A �vA /' r ?,�Ji `/A � �•\ �- �2-.� _� r.� F A,iy C 1 S.CD - 4 Y MUST Sf?lL�i17;�J ��T=� \r1" - -f- 6 f' - r PAR r / : 1 r �c r,1 -GL�"vO.�L;E�%�` `� �;x 87 _-���'�r�• � ('� l\ � �'.. 4:', /,'- r� t��'F- _k^'C\ � _ — _, Y _ �\��� _ _ •1^' ..:J�1�-'.L 1 1 1.J C"�.4 t r'{l�� . Cf �� ,f .�—'AVI ,.r—w I ,.�.' r.' b�\. i �r-.---.�_ ..- �<. ��� � .� _T� _.�_i_ �-"--_ti----' ( -�---�r-"--!'_'—��-�--•-• '✓ J<' .\,/ t_ y. .k � Yi'�'/`-`,•� \'. / .. ( „<r.� �`,- 'fit � I/ _ � � . �' 1 _ r ! 1�-- - -- , � - -f _fJ�-- i, .r• �. mot. ; _ . �� ---S�—r. �.t- ' PARK IN . __ ° �:,� r ,• �.} �.. \4 \I \. .?Y J �`".};. � 'Off±\ ./, f "): }.• �; - �: � ' Ci i I l t r lr�l II I�i III!1'iil I Ii:li: I I I I!ji-IfI�l1 02 .04 G6 .08 . 1 i .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 c0 IGO FREOUENCY, CPS FIGURE 25 RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SAN FRANCISCO 1957 SAN FRANCISCO GOLDEN GATE PARK S800E) 8, FB CITE F H NTIN TBEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH +`4 ,To Dave Eadie From Michael Zambory Planning Dept. . Dept. of Public Works Subject Pacifica Hospital Specific Plan Date August 16, 1976 As per the request in your memo dated August 5, 1976, we offer the following: E 1. Traffic: We anticipate the proposed commercial buildings will generate 25 vehicular trips per 1, 000 sq. ft. of floor area, while the residential portion will generate 8 trips per dwelling unit. This additional traffic will undoubtedly necessitate traffic signals at' Main and Delaware and/or at Main and Florida. We recommend that a traffic engineer's report be requested of the developer in order to ascertain parking requirements, access needs, and data pertinent to other traffic matters. 2. Water Distribution: There exists an 8 inch water main beneath a ."� portion of the existing hospital building. This main must be abandoned and/or re-aligned along with its metering and backflow g g g equipment. Re-alignment can be determined with the assistance of the staff of the Water Division. In order to provide adequate fire flows and indeed service flows to the proposed development, it will be necessary for the developer to extend the 8 inch water main in Florida to a connection with the existing main in Main St. In addition, the existing 8 inch water main in Delaware must be extended to create a looped system with Garfield St. More specific data, including cost estimates, can be obtained by the developer's engineer from our Water Division ' staff. 3. Sanitary Sewers: The proposed high rise apartments fronting Florida St. must be sewered to Main St6 at Ellis Ave. because the existing sewer in Florida St. does not have the capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, it will be necessary to construct an 8 inch sanitary sewer from the development to the Main St.-Ellis Ave. line. The additions proposed to the hospital on Delaware St. can be temporarily sewered by the existing Delaware Ave. line; however, when . the City constructs the Main St. interceptor sewer, the hospital will be required to reroute their sewage to the new Main St. interceptor. Here too the staff is available to discuss the precise alignments with the developer's engineer. M;25erel 2famboftor City Engi APPENDIX A-4 MZ: jy O �7 OF L1 LI u L1 LI u ffl \J 7 0 LI LI BEACH �d DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES v._ P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 NM DEPAMMENT 1977 TO: Department of Environmental Resources FROM: Planning Department P.DATE: February 8 , 1977 Hwmn& B� , 'S2W RE: 1. Code Amendment No. 77-1 "Pacifica Community Plan" Negative Declaration No. 77-10 Pursuant to your request for additional information regarding the above referenced items, the following comments are provided: 1. Reduction of Parking Spaces for Senior Citizen Residential Develop- ments and Street Traffic Capacities A reduction of parking space requirements for senior citizen resi- dential high rise is provided in the specific plan code amendment. Based on the staff research of how other cities handle parking requirements for senior citizens, the staff has found that many municipalities will reduce parking space requirements for senior citizen housing projects. It is generally acknowledged that senior citizen residential develop- ments often generate less of a demand for private vehicular trans- portation than standard residential projects. Ratios of the number of parking spaces required per dwelling unit vary among residential projects for senior citizens . Depending on the location, setting and supplementary modes of transportation, ratios range from 1: 2 to 1: 4 . (See Exhibit 1 .A and 1.B. ) As supplemental information regarding parking and traffic capacities, ` the attached memo from the traffic engineering division of the Public Works Department is submitted for the Environmental Resources Department' s review. 2. Drainage According to the Public Works Department, there is a drainage flow problem within the immediate area. During rains flooding does occur along Delaware and Huntington between Main) and Garfield. The area was included as part of a larger section of the City whereby the City attempted to establish a Drainage Assessment District. j � PROJECT UNITS PARKING RATIO i Community Garden Tower 210 58 1 -3.6 `t•, �/ Orange, California Baptist Gardens 200 69 1 -3 - Long Beach, California Westlake Christian Terrace 199 50 1 -4 Oakland, California Mac Arthur Tower 183 63 1 -3 — Los Angeles, California .e- Harbor Tower 180 62 1 -3 ` Los Angeles, California Wycliffe Plaza 200 67 1 -3 Santa Ana, California A Christ Unity Terrace 156 61 1-2.5 000 Los Angeles, California r4 Norwalk Christian Tower 185 98 1-2 �s Norwalk, California /4 Pilgrim Tower 258 91 1-3 !; v Pasadena, California $ Pacific Home 169 42 1-4 Burbank, California A Little Tokyo Tower 301 75 1 -4 ✓ Los Angeles, California Pioneer II 198 50 1 -4 Sacramento, California Ralston Towers 179 54 1 -3 _ Modesto, California 4 `,,' EXHIBIT 1 .A �. SENIOR CITIZENS HIGH RISE Wycliff Plaza Community Garden Santa Ana Orange No of Stories/bldg ht. 13/114 ft. 14/122 Total Units CIT, (:�10 Site Area 70, 350 sq. ft. 70, 052 sq. ft. Density 124 un/acre 130 un/acre Site Coverage 12 , 500 sq. ft. 11, 035 sq.ft. (17 . 80) (15. 70) Setbacks Front 96 ft. 53 ft. Exterior Side 100 ft. 131 ft. Interior Side - 67 ft. Rear 30 ft. 35_f,,,�,� Parking Ratio 1-3* 1-3. 6* Total Spaces 67 58 *approved by variance a EXHIBIT 1 .B 4 Page 2 Referred to as the Oldtown Assessment District proposal, the plan would have remedied flooding within this section of the City. However, due to strong opposition from community residents, the project was voted down. Thus, drainage problems still exist within the area during heavy rains . It can be anticipated that the drainage problems will continue to exist unless the City can enter into an agreement with property owners to pro- vide needed improvements. Additional information regarding the utility systems within the subject area is attached. 3. 0 Noise Impacts Traffic flow at ultimate development will generate a significant increase over existing traffic flow. A comparison table of existing and projected traffic noise volume is provided below: Street Existing Ldn Projected Ldn Delaware Ldn541 Ldn581 Florida Ldn541 _ Ldn581 Main Ldn652 Ldn651 AM/s Attachment Derived from attached Exhibit 3.A. Based on trip ends generated from project. 2Derived from the Noise Element Background Report, June 1975 . s J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH t ;? INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mike Zambory From Jeff Renna Subject Sewering of Pacifica Date February 7, 1977 Development After analyzing the existing sewerage facilities of the Pacifica development area, I found that the existing lines in Huntington, Delaware and Florida Streets are running at almost maximum capacity. The connection of new developments of the types proposed will definitely surcharge the existing lines to such levels that problems may occur. I suggest that the City construct the planned Main Street/Beach Blvd. trunk sewer in advance of the proposed development. This trunk sewer would allow permanent connection of the development to the sewer system at the time of their construction, rather than allowing them to connect to an existing line on a temporary basis with the stipulation that reconnection to the trunk sewer be done at some future date. Construction of the trunk sewer would also help alleviate the problems of inter-district flow as outlined in Milo Keith`s report as well as future surcharging of the existing lines. Per your request, attached is a map showing the existing and proposed sewer lines in the area of concern. J f na i i ngineer Assistant JRR: jy Attach. so 70 -, t 6%0 . 50 J'40 AUTOMOBILES 30 r' 70 - t c 20 o - iAVERAGE SPEED Q 60 (MPN1 m 11-10 00, i w a > c0 uj 50 , J z 40 2 I �- Q w 30 z 20 3 4 5 6 78 10O 2 3' 4 5 6 781000 2 3 4 5 6 781(),000 2 3 HOUIRLY AUTO VOLUME, VA - vph x PLOT OF L50 FOR AUTOMOBILES AS FUNCTION OF VOLUMEC FLOW AND AVERAGE P= FIGURE 13 w 2�rr.•ram -e...»-.-.r- '. ,� .r,. .�...w..�w �..�r..,=-....���:. ....,_'>-' �.'_wi'bc '.�,:i�+ �'a._w.�..s�v "�`t.^"�,-,`-,.',`�•,�c?:���i.; ,�- "� t`...'�1.��.,`�:?;�''�'�y,"�`' "�'^'3".zrs�' '.xtti � „,�.�__„"�"':""""y'7�;°u'""e�'s+sa'+'t:+a'.�,..^*,. ^'•. .Y.- .-..,, .+��..�+,�.s�.�_.,........t:�. '�^� -� .��•e�:_._'�� -°� ss', ram-..a � z; �s e� �_ � �-x°�:Gb �s,?'�_. ��.�, � � � ll � lf � � uu u � uu � � © uu oI� WQUlI �d DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Environmental Resources DATE: February 10, 1977 SUBJECT: Negative Declaration No. 77-10 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach REQUEST: Code Amendment No. 77-1 which would establish standards for the implementation of a Specific Plan Ordinance for the development of office-professional uses, medical build- ings, residential multi-story structures intended, senior citizens, etc. LOCATION: Southeast section of Main Street between Huntington and Florida Streets. (Pacifica Community Hospital Area) . Negative Declaration No. 77-10 was posted in the office of the City Clerk on February 3, 1977 and as of February 10, 1977 no comments have been received as a result of this public posting. Recommendations: The Department of Environmental Resources recommends that the Planning Commission grant Negative Declaration No. 77-10, having found that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the physical environment. No environmental impact report has been prepared for this proposed ordinance. Findings are based upon the information contained in the negative declaration request, the public posting, subsequent review and staff discussion between the Planning Department, Public Works Department, and Department of Building and Community Development. It should be noted that this finding is made on the proposed ordinance only and does not reflect an environmental assess- ment of any specific development plan. L A. n M. Cope hA pt. of Environmental Resources JMC:gc F-xl NEGATIVE DECLARATION y NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: 1. Planning Department REF: Negative Declaration No. 77-10 Applicant Date Posted February 3 , 1977 2. Clerk of the Board EIR No. None P.O. Box 687 Public Hearing Date: February 15, 197 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Application/Permit No. CA 77-1 Notice is hereby given that the City of Huntington Beach on approved the pro- (Discretionary Body) (Date) disapproved ject as herein described and located: Project Description: Development of a Specific Plan ordinance consisting of establishing development provisions and requirements for office- professional uses, medical buildings, residential health care facilities, and multi-story structures intended for use of senior citizens Project Location/Address : located on an approximately 20-acre parcel within an area generally southeast of Main Street between Huntington and Florida Streets, Huntington Beach. and that the City, as the Lead Agency, finds that the project F] will not will have a significant (substantial adverse) effect on the environment. An initial study was conducted by the City of Huntington Beach. The study consisted of a review of the application submitted by the project sponsor and is supported by adequate scientific and factual data to support the finding. The application was posted in the Office of the City Clerk for public and private review and comment. EiAn Environmental Impact' Report has not been prepared for this project. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and adopted for this project. The form and content of' that environmental docu- ment was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (et seq) . NOTE: A copy of all information in support of the application and of all subsequent discretionary proceedings may be reviewed in the Department of Environmental Resources, City of Huntington Beach, P.O. Box 190 , Huntington Beach, California, 92648 . Department of the City filing notice: Department of Environmental Resources Secretary of the Decision-Making Body Date cc: Environmental Council T z � PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 77-10 CITY OF HU14TINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON REM To Al Montes, Project Planner From John Cop Code Amendments Nos. 77-1, Associate lanner 77-2 Subject Negative Declaration Nos. Date February 23, 1977 77-11 and 77-10 The most recent changes to the multi-story (-MS) suffix code amend- ment are ministerial and do not apply to the development standards under which multi-story structures would be constructed. The staff believes that these minor changes do not alter or affect the previous environmental assessment. Regarding the Pacifica Community Plan, the revisions to the Code Amendment are also minor and do not constitute a major change to the previous environmental statements. Perhaps, the only significant change to the ordinance is the establishment of a minimum floor area size of 500 square feet for one bedroom units. This change to the ordinance, however, is difficult to quantify in terms the environmental impacts of the project. The initial envi- ronmental a;.se;;sment conducted on the Pacifica Community Plan was Partially based on the projected total number of dwelling units and did not concern itself with sizes of the units. Additionally, other land uses beside residential multi-story were included in estimating the environmental impacts. This is particularly true on tabulating the impact on such items as utility systems and traffic. However, for the purposes of quantifying the impact of the proposed change, the following general information is. provided: IMPACT ON UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION Because the projected number of 425 dwelling units would remain the same, it can be presumed that the previous statement of the impact on the utility system would also remain the same. It was recognized by the Department of Public Works that future development in the area would necessitate improvements to the existing utility system. Regarding energy consumption, a general assumption can be made that the one bedroom units as a whole will generate a greater demand for energy than that generated from the smaller efficiency units. Electrical power and heating system demands will be greater due to the additional square footage generated from the larger one bedroom units. IMPACT ON TRAFFIC The previous traffic impact was based on the total amount of trip ends generated from all proposed land uses within the specific plan area. Consequently, residential multi-story contributed only a portion of the total amount of projected traffic increase. Futher- more, the traffic increase generated from residential multi-story was based on the number of units and not the size of the units. Consequently, the change in the one bedroom units does not affect the staff ' s previous assessment of the traffic impacts. In general, it can be stated that the unit size revision will generate a greater demand on certain utilities but would yield a more desirable living environment for senior citizens than that which would have other wise been provided by the small efficiency units. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION INITIAL STUDY Fee - $75.00 City of Huntington Beach Applicant/Authorized Agent FOR CITY USE ONLY 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach Mailing Address Project )V� Number O 536-5271 De t. of Origin; Telephone Other Application Property Owner for Permit Numbers 77 7 Mailing Address/Telephone NOTE: Not all projects require the preparation of an environ- mental impact report (EIR) . To assist the Department of Environmental Resources in making this determination, the following information must be supplied. Add addi- tional information if pertinent. 1.0 Project Information: (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photographs of subject property) 1.1 Nature of Project: Give a complete description of the proposed project. The project consists of establishing a specific plan ordinance consisting of development provisions and requirements for office-professional uses, medical buildings, residential health care facilities and residential multi-story structures intended for senior citizens' use. Existing uses within the specific plan area are also included as part of the total complex. a. If the project is commerdial, or industrial, give a complete description of activities. The specific plan includes provisions for retail commercial developments and also support services to the residential multi-story including but not limited to eating facilities, beauty- barber, private health clubs, and health care facilities. b. If the project is residential, indicate number, types, and size of units and associated facilities. provisions. for residential multi-story, are included in the specific plan of which all dwelling units shall be exclusively one bedroom units consisting of 500 sq. ft. Indiz�a- tions are that a oximate•11� Obrisya srt4�r�s • c. List all types of bupi�dding mate r3 is Itlga the project. Unknown 1.2 What are the objectives of the project? 1.3 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) 1.4 Legal Description: Lot: Block: Tract: Section: Township: Range: Assessor's Parcel No. 1.5 Project land area (acres) : 1.6 General relationships of the project to surrounding properties: (Information available in Planning Department on District Maps) USE ZONING LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN Present Proposed Surrounding north Surrounding south Surrounding east Surrounding west *NOTE: If property is vacant at this time, has said property been used for agriculture in the past five years? -2- 1.2 what are the objectives of the project? To provide a medical, office/professional and senior citizens residential complex and activity center consisting of established uses and new development proposals. Intended to promote the optimum level of medical services and operations by concentrating such facilities within a centralized section of the community and comple- mented with the concept of locating housing for senior citizens within walking distance to medical facilities and health care services . 1.3 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) Southeast section of Main Street between Huntington and Florida Streets. Pacific Community Hospital area. (Refer to the specific plan map included in the ordinance. 1.4 Legal Description: Block F, Lots, 1-5; Block G, Lots 1-9; and the north one-half of Lot 10 of Tract 7 as recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County, Book 9, Page 8 Assessor's Parcel No. 1.5 Project land area (acres) : Approximately 20 acres 1.6 General relationships of the project to surrounding properties: (Information available in Planning Department on District Maps) USE ZONING LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN Medical & Office/Prof. C2, R5 Present * M ica 0 ice of. Specific Office/Pro- Proposed & Residential Plan fessional' Five Points Ccarmercial General Surrounding north Center C2 Ccamnercial Surrounding south Residential R2 Residential Surrounding east Residential R5 Office/Pro- fessimal Residential and Surrounding west lKesidential and vacant R2 Office/Profess- land R5 ional *NOTE: If property is vacant at this time, has said property been used for Ti in the past five years? Planning Department records indicate that the subject area has not been used for agricultural purposes within last five years. -2- 1.7 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval, authoriza- tion, certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑ O.C. Sanitation District ❑ Calif. Regional Water K ❑ City Council ❑ O.C. Flood Control Dist. Quality Control Bd. ❑ Planning Commission ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control ❑ Local Agency Formation ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments District Commission ❑ Design Review Board ❑ Calif. Coastal Zone Con- ❑ State Division of servation Commission Highways ❑ Other: ❑ Corps of Engineers o 1.8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within this project? Pacific Hospital - 400', Convalescent and residential care facilities - 400 M ical 0 ice buildings - 900, Residential Multi-Story - See Ap ix A--I ) (If commercial or industrial usage, indicate occupancy in terms of employees and customers.) 1.9 Traffic: a. Indicate the present traffic v e rterials and added trips per day from ther. r� jt. 11,960 5ppTE - Delaware 3300 3,0 0 TE r (See Appendix A-2) Florida 3,000 2,540 6,_0 TE u; b. Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. Main St. De aware Florida c. What is existing speed limit at the project location? Main St. - 40 MPH Florida - 40 MPH Delaware - 35 MPH d. What its the estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the n miles* x 6070 total TE = 33,385VMT *General standard applied to City of Huntington Beach Source: Huntington Beach Public Works Dept. , Traffic Engineering e. If there is a source of data used to answer traffic questions above, please indicate. City Staff, Orange County 'Roads Department 1.10 What is the percent �%) coverage proposed by the project for: Buildings over 45 ft. bldg. ht. = a max. of 25% of site coverage a. Building Buildings less than 45 ft. bldg. ht. -. a max. of 45% of site " b. Paving Approximately thirty (30%) percent of specific plan area Approximately ten (10%) percent of specific plan area c. Existing landscaping d. New landscaping Approx- twenty-five (25%) percent of entire area 1.11 Describe the offstreet park (location, e, And number of s ace t9 be, ovided for the ro cIt A�1.�gc�nercia� oii'Yce/pofessional am m, ical buildi.r- ;ha11 conform wi i parking equi. s of Article 979 of the Huntington Bach Ordinance Code. k- fo sexiior c izen r sidential ti-sto� shall ro0rvsen3.orided at' a ratio Qf ones c /3.5 resi- ierrnu lf�fh y r cusoen Ares- nRcel10'� 5 ttclo z 1 0 o ��n- ve Points ccmmercal center and (4) the fact that the area isserv�ce by a'' u route an sfc . 2.0 Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: I Describe the following existing environmental conditions: 2.1 Land form (topography and soils) : i a. Soil type Ramona loam b. Topography A slope of approximate 5% to 8% in southeasterly direction. 2.2 Relative location matrix: CHARACTERISTIC DISTANCE i Nearest fault line Within 1/8 mile* Nearest bluff 1/2 mile I Natural flood plain 1/2 mile I Flood channel 2 miles Shore lime 3 miles i 2. 3 Objects of historic, aesthetic, or archaeological significance on subject property: No archeological resources were recorded per Archaeological Research Incorporated study.. I 2.4 If the project is commercial, industrial, or residential, what is the roadway distance in miles from project to the nearest: a. Shopping center 1/8 mile b. Freeway exit 2-3/4 miles C. Elementary school 1/2 mile d. Public library 1 mile 3.0 Environmental Impact of the Proposed Project: 3.1 Natural resources: a. Does any wildlife use th� project area for a place to feed, nest, or rest during a given season? i e aneous avian and ground fauna If so, please list: l,� &&Aa4 tA�A_t&l a� rfU y O&Pl�tuier r s wasa nd fit �l n�ce s udy pr'xx P-3eva ua aci ica ��ty P jest. -4- r b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced or affected by the proposed project? Yes If so, how? Future construction will displace or affect subject fauna. c. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches, estuaries, bays, tidelands, or inland water areas? No If so, describe: Describe how the project will affect any body of water. None d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number, type, and size of trees to be removed. A tree stand consisting of twelve eucalyptus trees may have to be removed. Tree stand is located at the southeast corner of Main Street and Florida. e. Biota matrix: TYPE EXTENT Eucalyptus tree stand Flora Zands�a v etation Approximately in exis�in� �evelopnents APp y 10% of acre and setback areas. Miscellaneous avian and Concentrated .primarily in Fauna ground animals open field sections Portion* of the area c-Lve graded and resent roved. Other areas including the large vzl�- 3.2 Land form: ejar a el+i rfwee &Nllti�-bstory str�.ic- en a. Is the property presently graded? b. What is the range and direction of slope of subject property as it now exists? Flat to 8% slope to southeast C. How much grading is proposed? Unknown at this time (Gross cubic yards) d. How much land is to be graded? 7 acres (Acres) e. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? Unknown at this time. f. Is the surrounding area graded? See 3.2 a• If so, how will it affect subject property? Drainage and Ru-n-oTf `pro�L�ns occur during heavy rains according to Public Works staff. -5- 3.2 Land Form (cont.) g. During construction of the project, what efforts are being taken to min- imize erosion or siltation of the property? Specific efforts to control erosion and siltation are unknown at this time. However, conformance with all construction codes to assure protection to abutting properties will be required. 3.3 Drainage and flood control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: Unknown at this time b. To what extent will the project be located within a flood hazard area? Please describe. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Standard Project Flood.) Specific plan is located on Huntington Beach mesa and located approxi- mately 1/2 mile from flood plain area. 3.4 Air Quality: a. If project is industrial, describe and list air pollution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. N/A b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. N/A C. If project is highway improvements, list existing and estimated traffic projection for 10 years in future. N/A 3.5 Noise: a. Describe any adjacent offsite noise sources (i.e. , airports, industry, freeways) . Traffic noise is generated primarily frari Main Street and Beach Boulevard. b. What noise will be produced by the project? If available, please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noisei�l produced. Ambient levels can be expected to increase as a r v- sult o tra i noise generated fran new land uses plus noise generated fr m mechanical equipment and resident dwellers. C. How will noise produced by project compare with existing noise levels? Decibel levels may slightly increase. However, one can assume that decibel levels as projected on the City's Noise Element to the General Plan would remain the same. -6-