Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoeing Specific Plan EIR Vol 1s pecific Plan Project an In..vironmen #a 1 SCH NO. 200203101S ► * �l � r a IVA V r� U U r� l 1 ti r V r � L� r� r, l U s; i V r• U Administrative Draft EIR Completed: November, 2002 Draft EIR Completed: December, 2002 Final EIR Completed: April, 2003 ENVIR FINAL • B P SCH NO. 2002031015 Lead Agency: CITY OF SEAL BEACH Department of Development Services 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Contact. Mr. Mac Cummins 562.431.2527 Prepared by: RBF CONSULTING 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 -2069 Contact: Mr. Glenn Lajoie, A/CP 949.472.3505 April 2003 JN 10- 101776 I r -, L) Ste' TABLE OF CONTENTS �1 Section 2.0: Executive Summary ............................................................... ............................... 2 - 1 ; EIR VOLUME 'I Project Summary ................................................................... ............................... 2 -1 ci U Environmental Issues /Mitigation Summary .............................. ............................... 2 -2 2.3 Summary of Project Alternatives .......................................... ............................... 2 -32 Section 1.0: Introduction and Purpose .......................................................... ............................1 -1 1.1 Purpose of the EIR .................................................................... -1 1.2 Compliance with CEQA . ............................1 1 -2 LJ 1.3 EIR Scoping Process ................................................................ ............................1 -2 ' 1.4 Format of the EIR ......... ............................... 3 -6 L` 1.5 Responsible and Trustee Agencies ............................................ ............................1 -6 1.6 Incorporation by Reference ....................................................... ............................1 -7 Section 2.0: Executive Summary ............................................................... ............................... 2 - 1 ; 2.1 Project Summary ................................................................... ............................... 2 -1 ci 2.2 Environmental Issues /Mitigation Summary .............................. ............................... 2 -2 2.3 Summary of Project Alternatives .......................................... ............................... 2 -32 Section 3.0: Project Description ................................................................ ............................... 3 - 1 3.1 Project Location and Setting ................................................... ............................... 3 -1 LJ 3.2 Background and History ......................................................... ............................... 3 -5 3.3 Project Characteristics ........................................................... ............................... 3 -6 r 3.4 Project Objectives ................................................................ ............................... 3 -21 3.5 Phasing ................................................................................... ...........................3 -23 3.6 Agreements, Permits and Approvals ..................................... ............................... 3 -23 Section 4.0: Basis for Cumulative Analysis ................................................ ............................... 4 -1 Section 5.0: Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures . .. ..............5.1 -1 5.1 Land Use and Relevant Planning ................................... ............................... 5.1 -1 5.2 Aesthetics /Light and Glare ................................................... ............................... 5.2 -1 5.3 Traffic and Circulation ......................................................... ............................... 5.3 -1 5 .4 Air Quality ........................................................................... ............................... 5.4 -1 5 .5 Noise ................................................................................. ............................... 5.5 -1 r� � 5.6 ............................... Biological Resources 5.6 - 1 U ............................................................ 5.7 Cultural Resources ........................................................... ............................... 5.7 -1 5 .8 Geology and Soils ............................................................... ............................... 5.8 -1 5.9 Hydrology and Drainage ...................................................... ............................... 5.9 -1 5.10 Public Health and Safety ........................... ............................... .........................5.10 -1 5.11 Public Service and Utilities ........................ ............................... .........................5.11 -1 i V Section 6.0: Long -Term Implications of the Proposed Project ................... ............................... 6 -1 6.1 The Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment And the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity ........................ 6 -1 6.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes That Would Be Involved In The Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented ............................. ............................... 6 -1 6.3 Growth- Inducing Impacts ....................................................... ............................... 6 -2 Section 7.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...................................... ............................... 7 -1 7.1 "No ProjecVNo Development" Alternative ................................ ............................... 7 -1 7.2 "No ProjecVExisting Designation" Alternative .......................... ............................... 7 -4 7.3 "Residential Component" Alternative ....................................... ............................... 7 -8 7.4 "Environmentally Superior" Alternative .................................. ............................... 7 -12 Section 8.0: Inventory of Litigation Measures .......................................... ............................... 8 -1 Section 9.0: Inventory of Significance After Litigation .............................. ............................... 9 -1 Section 10.0: Effects Found Not To Be Significant ......................................... ...........................10 -1 Section 11.0: Organizations and Persons Consulted ...................................... ...........................11 -1 Section12.0: Bibliography ............................................................................. ...........................12 -1 EIIR VOLUME 2 Section 13.0: Litigation Monitoring Program ................................................ ...........................13 -1 Section 14.0: Comments and Responses ....................................................... ...........................14 -1 Errata ............................................................................................................. ............................... E -1 r, TABLE OF r<, 1 � - Li r� f` L l r u U Lj r• U iii Section 15.0: Appendices 15.1 Initial Study /Notice of Preparation l� 15.2 Traffic Study 15.3 Air Quality Data 15.4 Noise Data , 15.5 Biological Technical Reporl/Restoration Plan 15.6 Cultural Resources Assessment 15.7 Geology /Soils Analysis 15.8 Hydrology/Water Quality Data 15.9 NOP Correspondence f , 15.10 Proposed Boeing Specific Plan 15.11 Public Health and Safety Letters 1 � - Li r� f` L l r u U Lj r• U iii LIST OF 3 -1 Regional Vicinity .............................................................................................. ............................... 3 -2 3 -2 Site Vicinity ..................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -3 3 -3 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................ ............................... 3 -4 3 -4 Land Use Plan ................................................................................................. ............................... 3 -7 3 -5 Illustrative Site Plan .......................................................................................... ............................... 3 -8 4 -1 Cumulative Projects Map ................................................................................. ............................... 4 -3 5.2 -1 Photographs — Planning Area 1 ..................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -3 5.2 -2 Photographs — Planning Area 2 ..................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -5 5 .2 -3 Photographs — Planning Area 3 ..................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -7 5.2 -4 Photographs — Planning Area 4 ..................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -9 5.2 -5 Conceptual Landscape Sections No.1 (Westminster Boulevard) ......................... .........................5.2 -14 5.2 -6 Conceptual Landscape Sections No.1 (Westminster /Seal Beach Boulevard) ........ .........................5.2 -15 5.2 -7 Water Quality Basin and Retention Concepts ....................................................... .........................5.2 -16 5.3 -1 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls ..................... ............................... 5.3 -2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................... ............................... 5.3 -6 5.3 -3 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................... ............................... 5.3 -7 5.3 -4 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... ............................... 5.3 -8 5.3 -5 AM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................... .........................5.3 -20 5.3 -6 PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................... .........................5.3 -21 5.3 -7 Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................... .........................5.3 -23 5.3 -8 Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................... .........................5.3 -24 5.3 -9 Related Projects Location ................................................................................... .........................5.3 -25 iv LIST 1 I (CONTINUED 5.3 -10 Year 2006 AM Peak Hour Background Traffic Volumes ....................................... .........................5.3 -29 5.3 -11 Year 2006 PM Peak Hour Background Traffic Volumes ....................................... .........................5.3 -30 5.3 -12 Year 2006 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project Traffic 5.3 -31 5.3 -13 Year 2006 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project Traffic ............................. .........................5.3 -32 r � 5.3 -14 Future Planned and /or Recommended Improvements .......................................... .........................5.3 -45 5.5 -1 Existing Plus Project Noise Contours .................................................................. .........................5.5 -19 U 5.5 -2 Existing Plus Growth Plus Related Projects Plus Project Noise Contours .............. .........................5.5 -21 5.6 -1 Minimum Center Ditch Cross Section 5.6 -22 5.8 -1 Fault Zones ................................................................................................... ............................... 5.8 -5 5.9 -1 Conceptual Hydrology Map — Existing Conditions ........................................... ............................... 5.9 -3 { ' 5.9 -2 Illustrative Site Plan ............................................................................................ .........................5.9 -16 5.9 -3 Conceptual Hydrology Map — Proposed Site ....................................................... .........................5.9 -17 5.9 -4 Storm Drain and Water Quality Concept Plan ....................................................... .........................5.9 -20 i 5.9 -5 Water Quality Assurance Plan ............................................................................. .........................5.9 -21 5.10 -1 Study Area Boundaries ........................................................ ............................... .........................5.10 -2 r: 5.11 -1 Water and Sewer Master Plan ............................................ ............................... ........................5.11 -14 T I � 1� f ' i� r' r V 3 -1 Proposed Specific Plan Land Uses ................................................................. ............................... 3 -10 4 -1 Approved and Pending Cumulative Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site ...... ............................... 4 -2 5.1 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis ................................................................ ............................... 5.1 -4 5.1 -2 California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis ........................................................ .........................5.1 -15 5.1 -3 SCAG Policy Consistency Analysis ..................................................................... .........................5.1 -33 5.3 -1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method Level of Service Definitions ...... ............................... 5.3 -2 5.3 -2 Roadway Link Capacities ................................................................................... .........................5.3 -10 5.3 -3 Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary ................................................... .........................5.3 -11 5.3 -4 Existing Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary ............................................. .........................5.3 -13 5.3 -5 Project Traffic Generation Forecast ..................................................................... .........................5.3 -17 5.3 -6 Related Project Traffic Generation Forecast ......................................................... .........................5.3 -27 5.3 -7 Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary .............. .........................5.3 -35 5.3 -8 Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary .............................................. .........................5.3 -36 5.3 -9 Traffic Impact Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................... .........................5.3 -39 5.3 -10 Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary .......... .........................5.3 -41 5.3 -11 Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary ......................................... .........................5.3 -42 5.3 -12 Project Fair Share Percentage Calculations ......................................................... .........................5.3 -47 5.3 -13 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation ............................................................................ .........................5.3 -48 5.3 -14 Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary HCM /LOS Method of Analysis .........................5.3 -50 5.3 -15 Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary With Apollo Drive Connection . .........................5.3 -53 5.3 -16 Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary With Apollo Drive Connection .....................5.3 -55 5.4 -1 Local Air Quality Levels ................................................................................. ............................... 5.4 -4 5.4 -2 Construction Emissions ..................................................................................... .........................5.4 -13 vi L IST OF T ABLES j (CONTINUED) i 5.4 -3 Mobile Source Emissions ................................................................................... .........................5.4 -15 ' Source Emissions 5.4 -15 5.4 -4 Area ................................................................................ ............................... 5.4 -5 Long -Term Project Emissions ............................................................................ .........................5.4 -16 5.5 -1 Sound Levels and Human Response ............................................................. ............................... 5.5 -2 5.5 -2 California Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines ........................................ ............................... 5.5 -5 5.5 -3 City of Seal Beach Noise Standards ............................................................... ............................... 5.5 -6 5.5 -4 City of Seal Beach Noise Levels and Duration ................................................ ............................... 5.5 -6 5.5 -5 City of Long Beach Noise Standards .............................................................. ............................... 5.5 -7 5.5 -6 City of Long Beach Noise Levels and Duration ............................................... ............................... 5.5 -8 5.5 -7 Noise Measurements .................... ............................................................... ............................... 5.5 -9 1 5.5 -8 Existing Traffic Noise Contour Levels .................................................................. .........................5.5 -10 5.5 -9 Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure ....................................... .........................5.5 -12 5.5 -10 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ..................................................... .........................5.5 -13 j 5.5 -11 Estimated Construction Noise in the Project Area 5.5 -14 5.5 -12 65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus Project) ........................................... .........................5.5 -17 , Growth Plus Related Projects Plus Project) 5.5 -13 65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus ................5.5 -23 5.6 -1 Summary of Vegetation Associations 5.6 -4 5 .6 -2 Raptor Survey Conditions .............................................................................. ............................... 5.6 -8 5 .6 -3 Raptor Observed On- Site ............................................................................... ............................... 5.6 -8 5.6 -4 Recorded Raptor Behaviors On- Site ............................................................... ............................... 5.6 -9 {, U 5.6 -5 Summary of Site Visits Focused on Hydrology of Drainage Ditches ...................... .........................5.6 -14 t� vii LIST OF TABLES 5.8 -1 Active Southern California Faults ................................................................... ............................... 5.8 -6 5.9 -1 Summary of Existing Pollutants .......................................................................... .........................5.9 -12 5.9 -2 Existing First Flush Volumes ............................................................................... .........................5.9 -24 5.9 -3 Proposed First Flush Volumes for Proposed Project ............................................ .........................5.9 -25 5.9 -4 BMPs Efficiencies .............................................................................................. .........................5.9 -30 5.10 -1 Study Area 2 - Buildings ...................................................... ............................... .........................5.10 -4 5.10 -2 Study Area 3 - Buildings ...................................................... ............................... .........................5.10 -4 5.10 -3 Summary of Listed Hazardous Sites .................................... ............................... .........................5.10 -6 5.10 -4 Soil and Water Contaminants ............................................. ............................... ........................5.10 -12 5.10 -5 Comparison of Analytical Results to Preliminary Remediation Goals ................... ........................5.10 -15 5.11 -1 City of Seal Beach Groundwater Wells ................................. ............................... .........................5.11 -2 5.11 -2 Near -Term Historical Demands ........................................... ............................... ........................5.11 -10 5.11 -3 Seal Beach Normal Year Supply and Demand ..................... ............................... ........................5.11 -10 5.11 -4 Seal Beach Dry Year Supply and Demand ........................... ............................... ........................5.11 -11 5.11 -5 Seal Beach Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand .............. ............................... ........................5.11 -11 5.11 -6 Seal Beach Maximum Day Supply and Demand .................. ............................... ........................5.11 -12 7 -1 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................ ............................... 7 -13 viii L4 LJ 1 ®® Introduction and Purpose r I J I J 1� i J it I i Li J J. BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR � 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOS 101 PURPOSE OF THE EIR The City of Seal Beach is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is responsible for preparing the Environmental Impact { Report (EIR) for the Boeing Space and Communications Specific Plan (Boeing L�� Specific Plan or Boeing Project) (State Clearinghouse No. 2002031015). This EIR has been prepared in conformance with the CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City of Seal Beach. The principal CEQA Guidelines sections governing content of this document are Sections 15120 through 15132 (Content of an EIR), and Section 15161 (Project EIR). G r� F L, , r� i' i U U U The purpose of this Draft EIR is to review the existing conditions, analyze potential environmental impacts, and identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects. The project takes into account the entire 107 -acre Boeing property located between Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. Planning for this mixed use development includes preparation and approval of a Specific Plan coupled with General Plan Amendments and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (for more detailed information regarding the proposed project, refer to Section 3.0, Project Description). The EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR, addressing the environmental effects of the proposed project. In accordance with Section 15121 of CEQA, a primary purpose of this EIR is to provide decision makers and the public with specific information regarding the environmental effects associated with the proposed project, identify ways to minimize the significant effects of the project and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. Mitigation measures are provided, which may be adopted as Conditions of Approval in order to reduce the significance of impacts resulting from the project. In addition, this EIR is the primary reference document in the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring program for the proposed project. The City of Seal Beach, which has the principal responsibility of processing and approving the project, and other public agencies (i.e., responsible and trustee agencies, refer to Section 1.5 of this EIR) that may use this EIR in the decision making or permit process will consider the information in this EIR, along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. Environmental impacts are not always mitigatable to a level considered less than significant; in those cases, impacts are considered unavoidable significant impacts. In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if a public agency approves a project that has significant impacts that are not avoided or substantially lessened (i.e., unavoidable significant impacts), the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the Final EIR and any other information in the public record for the project. This is termed, per Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a "statement of overriding considerations." FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 1 -1 Introduction and Purpose BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR This document analyzes the environmental effects of the project to the degree of specificity appropriate to the current proposed actions, as required by Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The analysis considers the activities associated with the project to determine the short-term and long -term effects associated with their implementation. This EIR discusses both the direct and indirect impacts of this project, as well as the cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. CEQA requires the preparation of an objective, full disclosure document to inform agency decision makers and the general public of the direct and indirect environmental effects of the proposed action; provide mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects; and identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of such effects. 1.2 COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Draft EIR is subject to a 45 -day review period by responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 15085(a) and 15087(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City of Seal Beach, serving as the Lead Agency, will: 1) publish a notice of availability of a Draft EIR in The Sun, a newspaper of general circulation; and, 2) prepare and transmit a Notice of Completion (NOC) to the State Clearinghouse. (Proof of publication is available at the offices of the Lead Agency.) A copy of the NOC is provided at the front of this document. Any public agency or members of the public desiring to comment on the Draft EIR must submit their comments in writing to the lead agency at the address indicated on the document's NOC prior to the end of the public review period. During the public review period, the Environmental Quality Control Board of the City of Seal Beach will hold a public hearing regarding the Draft EIR. The public will be afforded the opportunity to orally comment on the Draft EIR at the public hearing. Such comments are recorded and have the same standing and response requirements as written comments provided during the public review period. Upon the close of the public review period, the Lead Agency will then proceed to evaluate and prepare responses to all oral and written comments received from both citizens and public agencies during the public review period. The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, and revisions to the Draft EIR and responses to comments addressing concerns raised by responsible agencies or reviewing parties submitted during the public review period. After the Final EIR is completed and at least 10 days prior to its certification, a copy of the response to comments made by public agencies on the Draft EIR will be provided to the respective agency. In compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Seal Beach has taken steps to maximize opportunities to participate in the environmental process. During the preparation of the Draft EIR, efforts were made to contact various Federal, State, regional, and local government agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments and to inform the public of the proposed project. This included the FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 1 -2 Introduction and Purpose (' NOP AND SCOPING RESULTS The following specific areas of environmental concerns were raised by responses to 1 the NOP for the project (the numerical reference in parenthesis is the EIR Section in which the analysis is provided). The NOP responses, and written comments received at the meeting are contained in Appendix 15.1. ® Changes to the visual character of the site and effects on the neighboring residential communities of Island Village and Leisure World (refer to Section 5.2 Aesthetics); FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 1 -3 Introduction and Purpose BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR distribution of an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) and two Public j loJ Scoping Meetings on March 13, 2002 and April 2, 2002 at the Seal Beach City Hall. INITIAL STUDY r; In accordance with Section 15063(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City undertook the preparation of an Initial Study. The Initial Study determined r that a number of environmental issue areas may be impacted by the construction and build -out of the project. As a result, the Initial Study determined that the Draft EIR should evaluate whether the project would result in significant impacts on a 1 r ; variety of environmental issue areas that are addressed in Section 5.0 of this EIR. Based on the Initial Study, no impacts upon agricultural resources, mineral resources, population and housing, public services and recreation are anticipated as L a result of the proposed development. As a result, these issues are addressed in Section 10. 0, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of this EIR. NOTICE OF PREPARATION Pursuant to the provision of Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as (; amended, the City of Seal Beach circulated a NOP to public agencies, special districts, members of the public and others requesting such notice for a 30 -day period commencing March 5, 2002, and ending April 3, 2002. The purpose of the NOP was to formally convey that the City is preparing a Draft EIR for the Boeing tj Specific Plan Project, and that the City, as Lead Agency, was soliciting input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. The Initial Study was circulated with the NOP. The NOP, Initial Study, and comments received in response to the NOP are provided in Appendix 15.1 of this EIR. EARLY CONSULTATION (SCOPING) During the NOP circulation period, the City of Seal Beach advertised and held two public scoping meetings. The meetings were held on March 13, 2002 and April 2, 2002. The meetings were held with the specific intent of affording interested individuals /groups and public agencies and others a forum in which to orally present input directly to the Lead Agency in an effort to assist in further refining the intended �j scope and focus of the Project EIR as described in the NOP and Initial Study. (' NOP AND SCOPING RESULTS The following specific areas of environmental concerns were raised by responses to 1 the NOP for the project (the numerical reference in parenthesis is the EIR Section in which the analysis is provided). The NOP responses, and written comments received at the meeting are contained in Appendix 15.1. ® Changes to the visual character of the site and effects on the neighboring residential communities of Island Village and Leisure World (refer to Section 5.2 Aesthetics); FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 1 -3 Introduction and Purpose Ci of sa - � - PeaA BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ® Consistency with Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) policies (refer to Sections 5.1 Land Use and Relevant Planning, 5.3 Traffic and Circulation, 5.4 Air Quality, and 5.9 Hydrology and Drainage); o Consistency with policies of the Coastal Act (refer to Section 5. 1, Land Use and Relevant Planning); ® Impacts to air quality, including air pollution from construction, increased traffic and implementation of project (refer to Section 5.4, Air Quality); o Impacts to biological resources, including flora, fauna and habitats located on -site and to the adjacent habitat restoration area (refer to Section 5.6, Biological Resources); o Impacts to subsurface archaeological resources including those of the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Nation (refer to Section 5.7 Cultural Resources); o Impacts associated with increased traffic and circulation routes for trucks (refer to Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation and Section 5.5, Noise); o Effects to State Highway facilities (refer to Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation); o Recreational activity effects, including the local paths and trails adjacent to Adolfo Lopez Drive (refer to Section 5. 1, Land Use); o Hazardous materials on -site (refer to Section 5.10, Public Health and Safety); o Noise from construction, buildout and operations (refer to Section 5.5, Noise); o The establishment of project objectives for Land Use, environmental design and water quality (refer to Section 3.4 Project Objectives); o The establishment of project alternatives regarding enhancing coastal access, protection of marine resources and environmentally sensitive habitat areas and public access to open space areas (refer to Section 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action); o Impacts to parking during peak summer use periods (refer to Section 5.3 Traffic and Circulation); o Impacts to biological resources due to import of fill of material (refer to Section 5.6 Biological Resource); o Solid waste generation, disposal capacity and flow rate (refer to Section 5.11, Public Services and Utilities); o Impact of increased discharge into the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin (refer to Section 5.9 Hydrology and Drainage); and FINAL o APRIL 2003 1 -4 Introduction and Purpose r ecC�� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o Impacts to bikeway access on Westminster Boulevard (refer to Section 5.3 Traffic and Circulation). U The EIR focuses primarily on changes in the environment that would result from the proposed project. The EIR identifies potential impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed project and provides measures to mitigate potential significant impacts. Those impacts which cannot be mitigated to levels less than r significant are also identified. This EIR addresses impacts in the following areas: L o Land Use and Relevant Planning; o Aesthetics /Light and Glare; L o Traffic and Circulation; o Air Quality; o Noise; e Biological Resources; o Cultural Resources; o Geology and Soils; o Hydrology and Drainage; o Public Health and Safety; and o Public Services and Utilities. 104 FORMAT OF THE EIR The Draft EIR is organized into 15 sections. Section 1.0, Introduction and Purpose, provides CEQA compliance information. Section 2.0, Executive Summary, provides a brief project description and summary of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures. Section 3.0, Project Description, provides a detailed project description U indicating project location, background and history, and project characteristics, phasing and objectives, as well as associated discretionary actions required. Section 4.0, Basis for the Cumulative Analysis, describes the approach and b methodology for the cumulative analysis. Section 5.0, Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, contains a detailed environmental analysis of the existing conditions, project impacts, recommended mitigation measures and unavoidable significant impacts. The analysis of each environmental category in this Section is organized as follows: o "Existing Conditions" describes the physical conditions that exist at the time the notice of preparation was published and which may influence or affect the 1 issue under investigation; o "Significance Criteria" provides the thresholds which are the basis for conclusions of significance. The primary resource for the criteria is Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000- 15387); f o "Project Impacts" describes potential environmental changes to the existing �j physical conditions which may occur if the proposed project is implemented; o "Cumulative Impacts" describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur if the proposed project is U FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 1 -5 Introduction and Purpose C,16� -of s� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR implemented together with all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; o "Mitigation Measures" are those specific measures that may be required of the project in order to avoid a significant impact; minimize a significant impact; rectify a significant impact by restoration; reduce or eliminate a significant impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; or compensate for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environment; and o "Level of Significance After Mitigation" discusses whether the project's impacts and the project's contribution to cumulative impacts can be reduced to levels that are considered less than significant. Section 6.0, Long -Term Implications of the Proposed Project, discusses significant environmental changes that would be involved in the proposed action, should it be implemented, and discusses growth inducing impacts of the proposed project. Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or to the location of the project that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project and still feasibly attain the basic project objectives. Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation Measures, lists mitigation measures proposed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts. Section 9.0, Inventory of Significance After Mitigation, describes those impacts which remain significant following mitigation. Section 10.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, provides an explanation of potential impacts which have been determined not to be significant. Section 11.0, Organizations and Persons Consulted, identifies all Federal, State or local agencies, other organizations and individuals consulted. Section 12.0, Bibliography, identifies reference sources for the EIR. Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program, identifies responsibilities for monitoring mitigation. Section 14.0, Comments and Responses, will be included in the Final EIR and will provide comments and responses pertaining to the Draft EIR. Section 15.0, Appendices, contains technical documentation for the project. 1.5 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES Certain projects or actions undertaken by a Lead Agency require subsequent oversight, approvals, or permits from other public agencies in order to be implemented. Such other agencies are referred to as Responsible Agencies and /or Trustee Agencies. Pursuant to Sections 15381 and 15386 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies are respectively defined as follows: "Responsible Agency" means a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project." (Section 15381) FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 1 -6 Introduction and Purpose kJ r - BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR L "Trustee Agency means a State agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. Trustee Agencies include...." (Section 15386, part) r+ Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited in accordance with Section 15148 of the CEQA Guidelines, which encourages incorporation by reference as a means of reducing redundancy and length of environmental reports. The following documents, which are available for public review at the City of Seal Beach, are hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR. Information contained within these documents has been utilized in the preparation of this EIR. A brief synopsis of the scope and content of these documents is provided below: o Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Environmental Impact Report Volume I (SCH 97091077) April 1998. The purpose of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center EIR was to assess all potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the development of Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center. The project involved a 218 -acre area located at the northeast corner of Seal Beach U Boulevard and the 1- 405/22 Freeway interchange. The uses include commercial /retail, recreation, hotel, restaurant, senior care, institutional ' church, and expansion/ renovation of an existing golf course. The analysis included evaluation of the following issues: Land Use, Socio- r ; Economics, Geology, Water /Drainage, Air Quality, Transportation /Circulation, Biological Resources, Energy, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities/ Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and Recreation. Analysis FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 1 -7 Introduction and Purpose Responsible and Trustee Agencies and other entities which may use this EIR in their decision - making process or for informational purposes include, but may not be limited to, the following: �j 0 Adelphia Communications 0 California Air Resources Board r o California Coastal Commission 0 California Department of Transportation o California Department of Fish and Game ' o 0 California Regional Water Quality Control Board City of Long Beach o City of Westminster o County Sanitation District of Orange County (CSDOC) 0 Federal Aviation Administration o General Telephone (GTE) o Orange County Fire Authority ' 0 Orange County Flood Control District 0 Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department o Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 0 Orange County Water District 0 South Coast Air Quality Management District o Southern California Edison (SCE) 0 Southern California Gas Company 106 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE r+ Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited in accordance with Section 15148 of the CEQA Guidelines, which encourages incorporation by reference as a means of reducing redundancy and length of environmental reports. The following documents, which are available for public review at the City of Seal Beach, are hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR. Information contained within these documents has been utilized in the preparation of this EIR. A brief synopsis of the scope and content of these documents is provided below: o Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Environmental Impact Report Volume I (SCH 97091077) April 1998. The purpose of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center EIR was to assess all potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the development of Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center. The project involved a 218 -acre area located at the northeast corner of Seal Beach U Boulevard and the 1- 405/22 Freeway interchange. The uses include commercial /retail, recreation, hotel, restaurant, senior care, institutional ' church, and expansion/ renovation of an existing golf course. The analysis included evaluation of the following issues: Land Use, Socio- r ; Economics, Geology, Water /Drainage, Air Quality, Transportation /Circulation, Biological Resources, Energy, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities/ Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and Recreation. Analysis FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 1 -7 Introduction and Purpose BOEING S14ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR concluded that impacts in the following areas would require a Statement of Overriding Consideration by the Lead Agency due to residual impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level: socio- economic, geology, air quality, transportation, and aesthetics. Due to the close proximity of the project site, this document was utilized in this EIR for background data. o City of Seal Beach General Plan Elements updated on various dates. The City of Seal Beach General Plan Update is the long -range planning guide for growth and development for the City of Seal Beach. The General Plan has two basic purposes: 1) to identify the goals for the future physical, social and economic development of the City; and 2) to describe and identify policies and actions adopted to attain those goals. It is a comprehensive document that addresses seven mandatory elements /issues in accordance with State law. These elements include Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise and Safety. Other optional issues that affect the City have also been addressed in the Plan. The City General Plan was utilized throughout this EIR as the fundamental planning document governing development on the project site. Background information and policy information from the Plan is cited in several sections of the EIR. o Final Extended Removal Site Evaluation Report (ERSE), Installation Restoration Sites 40 and 70 Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, October 1999. The report was prepared under the Comprehensive Long Term Environmental Action Navy (CLEAN) II Contract. The report presents the finding, conclusions and recommendations of the ERSE investigation performed at two Department of Navy (DON) Installation Restoration (IR) Program sites at the Naval Weapons Station (WPNSTA), Seal Beach, California. The objective of the ERSE investigation was to supplement data obtained during previous site investigations at the Concrete Pit/Gravel Area (IR Site 40) and at the Research, Testing, and Evaluation (RT & E)) Area (IR Site 70). The ERSE investigation for IR Sites 40 and 70 defined the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination; further refined existing geological and hydrogeologic site models; evaluated the fate and transport of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) from soil to groundwater, and within groundwater; and evaluated soil and groundwater to assess the potential threat to human health and the environment through screening risk assessments. This ERSE Report enables the DON to support one of the following decisions: 1) no further action (NFA); 2) removal actions; or 3) further evaluation. Analysis concluded that further evaluation was required for both IR site 40 and 70 regarding the human health risk associated with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) levels in the groundwater. No further action or evaluation was required regarding soils for both sites. o Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Volume I (SCH 96121009), April 1997. The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan EIR was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. The Hellman Ranch project is located just south of the FINAL o APRIL 2003 1 -8 Introduction and Purpose BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR J Boeing site. The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan allocated 178.5 acres to ' conservation uses which included restored wetlands, Gum Grove Nature Park and the existing Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. The remaining 52.8 acres proposed development of single - family residential, visitor - serving recreational /commercial, a golf course clubhouse and ancillary facilities and public land uses. The analysis in the EIR included evaluation of the following issues: Land Use, Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Soils, Geology and Mineral Resources, Hazardous Materials, Parks, Recreation and Open Space, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Transportation and Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Utilities, Energy and Natural Resources, and Hazards. t in the following ar as nalysis concluded that impacts e required a Statement e q of Overriding Consideration by the Lead Agency due to residual impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level: Soils, Geology and Mineral Resources, Cultural Resources, Air Quality, and Noise. o Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 00 -1— Pacific Gateway Business Center Tentative Parcel Map 2000 -134 February 2001. The Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for a prior project proposed by i Boeing. The project consisted of development of 42.0 acres of the western portion of the Boeing site, with light manufacturing, research and development and warehouse land uses. The proposed project consisted of approximately 663,100 square feet of light industrial uses including six low- rise, two -story buildings, two public streets with storm drains and the widening of Adolfo Lopez Drive. i The Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Pacific Gateway Business Center analyzed the potential environmental impacts that may result from the development and operation of the prior proposed project. The MND included mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures were required for the following environmental issues; Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, �.j and Utilities and Service Systems. During the 30 -day public review and comment period, comments received �j from resource agencies questioned whether three man -made drainage ditches constructed on the property in the late 1960's to early 1970's might have characteristics of wetlands. Based upon the comments on the MND, site - specific biological and regulatory analysis were conducted of the drainage ditches on the property. As a result of this comprehensive analysis, r . Boeing revised the Pacific Gateway Project to respond to operational factors I f and other constraints identified (refer to Section 3.2, Background and History, for further discussion regarding the Gateway project). o Negative Declaration 99 -2, Boeing Space and Communications Division — Temporary Office Facility October 1999. The proposed project included establishing a temporary office facility consisting of 50 modular office ' structures. The modular office structures would have been grouped into two L FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 1 -9 Introduction and Purpose 0 ofd � BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR separate office areas for a total of 36,000 square feet. The site is located within the central portion of the existing Boeing campus facility. In accordance with CEQA, an Initial Study was prepared to determine whether the project might have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of the study, the City found that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures. The City determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment provided mitigation measures for Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise, were implemented. o Negative Declaration 99 -1 — Seal Beach Boulevard /1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project, prepared for City of Seal Beach by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, July 1999. The Negative Declaration evaluated the proposed widening of the existing Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing to six through lanes, and widening portions of the existing interchange ramps. The City determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment provided mitigation measures for Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise and Transportation and Traffic were implemented. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 1 -10 Introduction and Purpose Lj f I L 2® Executive Summary Li k r u r I Li I r • L Ci D �aaC�iE'�CG� BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 2 .0 EXECUTIVE SUMMAR 201 PROJECT SUMMARY U The proposed Boeing Specific Plan Project consists of approximately 107 acres located in the City of Seal Beach, in the western portion of Orange County, ' California. The Project area is situated between Westminster Avenue to the north Li and Seal Beach Boulevard to the southeast. (, The Boeing Specific Plan Project provides for a planned mixed -use business park �.1 development that would be compatible with existing Boeing facilities and operations at the site. The Specific Plan establishes the general type, location, parameters and character of all development within the site's boundaries. The Project also includes U a General Plan Amendment (Land Use and Circulation), a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, a Coastal Development Permit and possibly a Development Agreement, r Conditional Use Permits and other approvals. The 107 -acre Boeing Specific Plan area is presently designated Light Industrial on the General Plan Land Use Map and zoned Light Manufacturing (M -1). The j proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment and zoning change from U the M -1 designation to Specific Plan Regulation (SPR). The adoption of the Boeing r Specific Plan would supersede the existing zoning and establish a new set of development regulations and design guidelines for the 107 -acre site. The Project �J also proposes an Amendment to the Circulation Element adding the proposed Apollo Drive alignment and deleting the outdated map. U The proposed Project involves maintaining approximately 1,150,000 square feet of existing building area (within Planning Areas 1 and 2). However, some or all of the existing buildings in Planning Area 2 (approximately 345,000 square feet) may be Li maintained and /or re -used. New light industrial buildings planned for Planning Area 2 would require relocation and /or demolition of existing buildings and facilities. The I project would include development of 345,000 square feet of additional building area within the existing Boeing facilities, 55,000 square feet designated for hoteluses and 32,500 square feet,' designated for commercial uses, including retail, restaurant and similar commercial uses and 973,000 square feet for Business Park uses. The proposed buildings /expansions would result in a total of 2,210,500 square feet of floor area, representing a net increase of 1,060,500 square feet over the existing floor area of 1,150,000 square feet. The new floor area would be developed with up f to thirteen new light industrial buildings, a hotel and up to three commercial buildings. Additionally, the proposed Project would develop new ingress /egress to the newly developed portions of the Boeing site via Apollo Drive, Apollo Court and Saturn Way. Apollo Drive would extend into the Business Park and may ultimately j� connect Seal Beach Boulevard to Westminster Avenue, if certain Boeing buildings are demolished. Two roadways from Apollo Drive (Saturn Way and Apollo Court) would be cul -de -sacs providing access to light industrial buildings. .L_.► ' Light industrial uses are also permitted. j 2 Assuming the existing buildings and facilities in Planning Area 2 would be relocated and /or demolished for new light industrial buildings. 1 FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -1 Executive Summary C&To-cs� BOEING S14ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 202 EIR SECTION 5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL, ISSUES/MITIGATION SUMMARY The following is a brief summary of the impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable significant impacts identified and analyzed in Section 5.0 of this EIR. Refer to the appropriate EIR Section for additional information. IMPACTS LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING City of Seal Beach General Plan 5.1 -1 The proposed Project would not 5.1 -1 conflict with the land use plan, goals and strategies of the City of Seal Beach General Plan. Analysis has concluded that a less than significant impact would occur with approval of Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements allowing implementation of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan. City of Seal Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 5.1 -2 The proposed Project would not conflict with the land use plan, policy, and regulations of the City of Seal Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Analysis has concluded that a less than significant impact would occur with approval of a Zone Change from M -1 to SPR Zone. California Coastal Act 5.1 -3 The proposed Project would not conflict with the policies and standards of the California Coastal Act. Analysis has concluded that a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide 5.1-4 The proposed Project would not conflict with relevant policies of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Analysis has concluded that the proposed project is considered consistent with relevant and applicable policies. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, with the incorporation of the project features including the proposed General Plan Amendments, the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts. 5.1 -2 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, with the incorporation of the project features including the Zone Change from M -1 to SPR, the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts. 5.1 -3 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, with the incorporation of the Project features including the proposed wetlands restoration and enhancement, the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts. 5.1.4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts in this regard. SIGNIFICANCE No unavoidable significant impacts related to Land Use have been identified following compliance with the policies and standards of the California Coastal Act, and the City of Seal Beach General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. r r FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -2 Executive Summary I� r i EIR I SECTION L1 11 1 U I r - l_.1 L L L 1 ' 1 1--j L BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 5.2 IMPACTS Cumulative Impacts 5.1 -5 The proposed Project, combined with other future development, could increase the intensity of land uses in the area. Analysis has concluded that impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is recommended. Projects are evaluated on a project - by- project basis in accordance with the criteria set forth within the jurisdiction in which the cumulative project is located. AESTHETICSILIGHT AND GLARE Short-Term Aesthetics /Light and Glare Impacts MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1 -5 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, with the incorporation of the Project features, the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts. 5.2 -1 Grading and construction activities 5.2 -1 associated with Project implementation would temporarily affect the existing visual character/ quality of the Project site and the surrounding area. Impacts are concluded as less than significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation. Long -Term Aesthetic Impacts 5.2 -2 Project implementation would affect 5.2 -2 the existing visual character or quality of the Project site from the surrounding area. Analysis has concluded that this impact is less than significant following compliance with the proposed Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards/regulations. Local Scenic Route 5.2-3 Development of the proposed Project 5.2 -3 would impact views along Seal Beach Boulevard. Analysis has concluded that a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Construction equipment staging areas shall be located away from existing residential uses and appropriate screening (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material), used to buffer views of construction equipment and material, when feasible. Staging locations shall be indicated on project Final Development Plans and Grading Plans and are subject to review and approval of the City. Compliance with this measure is subject to periodic field inspection by City Staff. No mitigation measures are recommended. No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, implementation of the Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards /regulations, the proposed project would not result in significant long -term aesthetic impacts. No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, implementation of the Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards /regulations and approval of the development by the City, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to views along Seal Beach Boulevard. SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No significant impacts related to aesthetics /light and glare have been identified following compliance with the proposed design guidelines and development standards/ regulations established in the Boeing Specific Plan. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 2 -3 Executive Summary C s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR SECTION 5.3 IMPACTS Light and Glare Impacts 5.2-4 Development of the proposed Project 5.2-4 may create a new source of light/glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. After compliance with Specific Plan lighting guidelines, light and glare impacts would be considered as less than significant. Cumulative Impacts 5.2-5 Project development, together with cumulative projects may result in greater urbanization in the Project area. Impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels separately on a project -by- project basis. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment 5.3 -1 The proposed Project would generate additional trips on the adjacent roadways, thus affecting the level of service at intersections and roadways identified below. Recommended mitigation measures include roadway improvements, compliance with the City of Seal Beach Transportation Impact Fee Program and Fair Share improvement contributions. The feasibility of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) in the City of Seal Beach by buildout Year 2006 is uncertain, thus, impacts are concluded to remain significant which requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, compliance with the Specific Plan lighting guidelines would result in less than significant impacts regarding light and glare. 5.2 -5 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, cumulative impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels separately on a project -by- project basis. 5.3 -1a Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall comply with the City of Seal Beach Transportation Impact Fee Program (RTIF). 5.3 -1b For impacted intersections subject to fair share improvements (impacted intersections include Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd Street/Westminster Avenue, Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue, and Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road), the project applicant shall participate in the improvements required on a pro -rata fair share basis as provided in Table 5.3 -12, Project Fair Share Percentage Calculations. 5.3 -1c In order to ensure that adequate access and egress to the project site is provided and impacts to through traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue are minimized, the project applicant shall be required to implement the following improvements /intersection enhancements: e Seal Beach Boulevard at Road A (Apollo Drive) - As part of the proposed intersection reconstruction project, construct raised median on Seal Beach SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Although planned improvements that are in accordance with the CIP /RTIF and the additional mitigation measures identified would reduce Traffic/Circulation impacts to less than significant levels, there is continued uncertainty whether the CIP improvements at the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge overcrossing and the Seal Beach Boulevard/ Westminster Avenue intersection can be implemented by the horizon year 2006. The OCTA has identified the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge for replacement at such time as the Garden Grove Freeway .(SR -22) is widened to accommodate a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. Since the SR- 22 widening project is planned to occur at a time beyond the 2006 horizon year timeline established in the Traffic Study, the City does not want to earmark funding toward the bridge improvement until after the FINAL o APRIL 2003 2 -4 Executive Summary u L Colk of BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r EIR SECTION U f' r + F+ L i� i, �.t r 1 i Li U { f { ' , IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot northbound left0tum lane. Widen Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot southbound southbound right -tum lane with a 90 -foot transition. The eastbound leg of Apollo Drive at Seal Beach Boulevard shall be designed to provide two eastbound left -turn lanes and one eastbound right- turn lane, and one inbound (westbound) lane. Modify and update the existing traffic signal as required by the City Engineer. 0 Westminster Avenue at Road A (Apollo Drivel — Modify /reconstruct existing median on Westminster Avenue to provide a 150 -foot westbound left -turn lane with a 90- foot transition. Widen Westminster Avenue to provide a 150 -foot eastbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. The northbound leg of Apollo Drive at Westminster Avenue shall be designed to provide two northbound left -turn lanes and one northbound right -turn lane, and one inbound (southbound) lane. Modify and upgrade the existing traffic signal as required by the City Engineer. ♦ Proposed Planninq Area.3 "Ridht- turn only" Drivewav at Westminster Avenue — Widen Westminster Avenue to prove a 150 -foot eastbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. ♦ Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive — Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive is currently unsignalized. An analysis of this intersection indicates that the "permissive" turning movements onto Seal Beach Boulevard from Adolfo Lopez Drive experience delays indicative of LOS E/F conditions with the addition of project traffic (see HCM /LOS calculations sheets in Appendix B of the Traffic Study contained as Appendix 15.2 of this EIR). This can be expected given the high volume of traffic that exists on Seal Beach Boulevard and the lack of sufficient gaps in the continuous SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION widening of SR -22 is completed. Thus, although the City's 2006 CIP shows the bridge improvement, it would realistically occur after 2006 resulting in continued deficiencies for bridge operations /access. Since 2006 is the horizon year of the Boeing Specific Plan Traffic Study analysis, impacts are concluded to be significant and unavoidable due to the uncertainty of implementation of CIP improvements. Although the Traffic Study notes that the additional northbound and westbound right turn lanes are necessary mitigation for the unacceptable service levels at Seal Beach Boulevard/ Westminster Avenue intersection with or without the proposed project, two considerations are noted. First, there is uncertainty as to the feasibility of acquiring necessary right-of-way from the Navy property for the noted improvements. These improvements may or may not occur by 2006 and are subject to conditions beyond the control of the City. Second, although the Traffic Study references deficiencies with or without the project, the project would nevertheless contribute to existing deficiencies at the Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue intersection. Based upon the uncertainty of implementing the recommended mitigation for the 2006 horizon year, impacts are concluded to be significant and unavoidable for the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. If the City of Seal Beach approves the project, the City shall be required to adopt findings in accordance with Section 15091 of CEOA +� FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 2 -5 Executive Summary BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SECTION north -south traffic during the PM peak commute hour. A three - phased traffic signal shall be installed at this location, along with a raised median on Seal Beach Boulevard from this intersection to tie into the raised median at Apollo Drive. Widen Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot southbound right4um lane with a 90 -foot transition. This improvement shall be the sole responsibility of the Boeing Specific Plan project. Appendix C of the Traffic Study, contained as Appendix 15.2 of this EIR, contains the traffic signal warrant worksheet for this key study intersection. Altemative Access Evaluation 5.3-2 Development of the proposed Project, 5.3 -2 Mitigation Measures 5.3-1a through with the extension of Apollo Drive, 5.3 -1d apply to the Alternative would result in similar impacts when Access Scenario. No additional compared to the proposed project. mitigation measures are recommended. 5.4 AIR QUALITY 5.3 -1d The project applicant shall be responsible for all sidewalk and landscaping improvements/ replacements necessary as a result of right -of -way acquisition/ dedications required in order to implement improvements. SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of CEQA. Short-Term Air Quality Impacts 5.4 -1 Temporary construction- related dust and vehicle emissions would occur during site preparation and project construction. Analysis has concluded that impacts would remain significant for NOX emissions after mitigation, requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 5.4 -1a During clearing, grading,, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts Rules and Regulations. Emissions associated with construction equipment within the Project area are anticipated to exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds for NOX. Feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce the significance of short-term construction NOX emissions to less than significant levels. As such, short -term air emissions for this pollutant would be considered significant and unavoidable. ♦ On -site vehicle speed will be limited to 15 miles per hour. ♦ All on -site construction roads with vehicle traffic will be watered periodically. ♦ Streets adjacent to the project reach will be swept as needed to remove silt that may have Additionally, the following air quality impacts would FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 2 -6 Executive Summary t U r BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR f EIR SECTION U I F1 r U + r U r; U rt U F . U L 1' L r - �.i L IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION accumulated from construction remain significant and activities so as to prevent unavoidable following excessive amounts of dust. mitigation: ♦ All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering will occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferable in the late morning and after work is done for the day. 0 All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities will cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 35 miles per hour averaged over one hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 0 All material transported on -site or off -site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 0 The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations will be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. ♦ These control techniques will be indicated on project grading plans. Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. ♦ Project Operations: (ROG, CO and NOX) emissions from project operations; 0 Project implementation would result in a significant unavoidable impact with respect to consistency with the AQMP. 0 Cumulative develop- ment would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to regional air quality levels of ROG, NO X, CO and PM10. If the City of Seal Beach approves the Project, the City shall be required to adopt findings in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. ♦ Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project will be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. 5.4 -1b Project grading plans shall show the duration of construction. Ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specifications, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic inspections of construction equipment vehicles by the City. 5,4 -1c All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material on -site shall U FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 2 -1 Executive Summary BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR IMPACTS SECTION comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. Long -Term Operational Impacts 5.4 -2 The proposed project would result in an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas consumption. Significance: Combined mobile and area source emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX and CO. ROG, NOX and CO emissions cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level which requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan 5.4-3 The project would conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Analysis has concluded that the proposed project is inconsistent with the AQMP criteria. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 5.4 -1d During overall site grading and public infrastructure construction phases, construction equipment and supply staging areas shall be located at least 400 feet from the nearest residence. During structure/building construction, equipment and supply staging areas shall be located at least 400 feet or as far as practical from the nearest residence. 5.4 -2a No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided, combined mobile and area source emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx and CO and PM cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. 5.4 -2b Should a potential end -user be identified whose land use would cause a particulate diesel index of 0.0003 ki/m or increase the volume to capacity ratio (also called the Intersection Capacity Utilization) by 0.02 (2 percent) for any intersection with a LOS of D or worse, a preliminary screening shall be conducted per SCAQMD Rule 1401 and 212 to determine whether a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared. SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION If the City of Seal Beach approves the Project, the City shall be required to adopt findings in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. 5.4-3 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, the proposed Project would not be consistent with the regional air quality management plan due to unavoidable impacts associated with construction NOx emissions, resulting in significant impacts. If the City of Seal Beach approves the Project, the City shall be required to adopt findings in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 2 -8 Executive Summary 0 BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r • EIR SECTION L U i' 5.5 L ... r. t.J I r - �r I ; r� �-i r� Li U L r� i I (� U� IMPACTS Cumulative Impacts 5.4-4 Impacts to regional air quality 5.4-4 resulting from development of cumulative projects would significantly impact existing air quality levels. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10. NOISE Short-Term Construction Impacts 5.5 -1 Grading and construction within the Project area would result in temporary noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors. Analysis has concluded that construction noise impacts would be temporary, and would be required to comply with City of Seal Beach Municipal Code requirements. With compliance to the City Code and recommended mitigation measures, impacts are concluded to be less than significant. Long -Term Noise Impacts 5.5 -2 Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate additional vehicular travel on the surrounding roadway network, thereby resulting in noise level increases. Analysis has concluded that long -term noise impacts would be less than significant for roadway segments under the Year 2006 buildout traffic scenarios. Stationary Noise Impacts MITIGATION MEASURES SCAQMD Standards and City Municipal Code requirements would be implemented on a project -by- project basis. 5.5 -1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Grading Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department to ensure compliance with the following: 0 All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 0 During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers, to the satisfaction of the Building Official. During construction and to the satisfaction of the Building Official, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors during construction activities. 5.5 -2 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, noise levels would not increase above 3 CNEL as a result of project - related traffic, resulting in less than significant impacts. 5.5 -3 Implementation of the Proposed 5.5 -3a Prior to Building Permit issuance, Project would result in the subsequent noise assessments shall generation of on -site noise be prepared, to the satisfaction of the SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No unavoidable significant impacts related to noise have been identified following implementation of recommended mitigation measures and compliance with applicable requirements set forth by the City of Seal Beach. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 2 -9 Executive Summary BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR SECTION IMPACTS associated with commercial and light industrial activities which include loading /unloading activities, mechanical equipment and activities occurring in parking lots. Analysis has concluded that stationary source impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with adherence to the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code requirements relating to noise level standards and recommended mitigation measures. MITIGATION MEASURES Director of Development Services, which demonstrates the site placement of stationary noise sources would not exceed criteria established in the City of Seal Beach Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall verify that loading dock facilities, rooftop equipment, trash compactors and other stationary noise sources are adequately shielded and /or located at an adequate distance from residential areas in order to comply with the City's noise standards. 5.5-3b Directional speakers shall be shielded and /or oriented away from off -site residences to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. 5.6 Cumulative Impacts 5.54 Implementation of the Proposed Project, combined with cumulative projects, would increase the ambient noise levels in the site vicinity. Impact analysis and mitigation of impacts are determined on a project -by- project basis. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Special Status Species 5.6 -1 Project implementation could affect species identified as special status. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 5.54 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, impacts would be mitigated on a project -by- project basis, resulting in less than significant impacts. 5.6 -1a In order to mitigate adverse impacts to 385 individual of southern tarplant, a translocation program has been developed. Plants shall be translocated on -site to the terraces adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B. 5.6 -1b The woolly sea -blite species shall be incorporated into plantings on the terraces adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat 5.6 -2 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the degradation of environmentally sensitive habitat. Analysis has concluded that impacts would be less than significant. 5.6 -2 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, there is no environmentally sensitive habitat on- site. SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential Biological Resource impacts to a less than significant level. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -10 Executive Summary f l� r • EIR SECTION L� r. • I r U U U �.J 5.7 G r; �.i L I r •,, r� L r I � - U o ,O -cs -- Pe =A BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR IMPACTS Jurisdictional Waters or Resources 5.6-3 Development of the proposed Project would impact jurisdictional waters. Analysis has concluded that impacts would be less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with regulatory requirements. Cumulative Impacts MITIGATION MEASURES 5.6 -3 Mitigation for impacts to 0.11 acre of CDFG and potential RWQCB jurisdiction shall be provided through creation of approximately 2.52 acres of wetland habitat on the terraces adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B, as well as within two water quality treatment basins at the site. The terraces and basins would be planted with native hydrophytes appropriate for the hydrological conditions expected for the terraces, resulting in a 23:1 mitigation ratio. 5.6-4 Cumulative development (including 5.6-4 the proposed Project) in the Project area may impact the area's biological resources. Analysis has concluded that Project implementation would not result in significant biological impacts with implementation of the specified mitigation. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological/Historical Resources 5.7 -1 Implementation of the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to archaeological and /or historical resources on -site. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, implementation of the wetland restoration plan and mitigation measures protecting the southern tarplant and woolly sea -blite would reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. 5.7 -1a Sites B -2. B -3. B-4 /H and Locus 4 of B_6. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified, City approved archaeologist to conduct archaeological testing in order to determine the depth, breadth, and nature of the contents of Sites B -2, B- 3, BA /H, and Locus 4 of B-6 and whether or not they qualify as historical resources. 5.7 -1 b A "Test Phase ", as described in the Archaeological and Historical Element of the City General Plan shall be performed by the City selected archaeologist, and if potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, a "Research Design document" must be prepared by the City selected archaeologist in accordance with the provisions of the Archaeological and Historical Element of the General Plan. The results of the test phase investigation must be presented to the Archaeological Advisory Committee for review and recommendation to the City Council SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No significant impacts related to Cultural Resources have been identified following implementation of mitigation measures referenced in this Section. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -11 Executive Summary �, o��� A BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT EIR u EIR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE _ ( 1 SECTION AFTER MITIGATION for review and approval prior to earth U removal or disturbance activities in 1 the impacted area of the proposed I project. L ? 5.7 -1c Project - related earth removal or disturbances activity is not authorized f until such time as the "Research 1 Design" investigations and evaluations are completed and accepted by the City Council, a ( 1 Coastal Development Permit is issued by the California Coastal Commission and until a written "Authorization to Initiate Earth Removal - Disturbance Activity is u issued by the City of Seal Beach Director of Development Services to applicant for the impacted area of the proposed project. 5.7 -1f An archaeologist and a Native American Monitor appointed by the I City of Seal Beach shall be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for foundations and U utilities that extend below five feet of pre - grading surface elevation. If any earth removal or disturbance activities result in the discovery of cultural resources, the project FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -12 Executive Summary 5.7 -1d During all `test phase" investigation _ ( 1 activities occurring on site, the City selected archaeologist and the Native U American monitor shall be present to 1 conduct and observe, respectively, such "test phase" investigation I activities. L ? 5.7 -1e If the testing program determines that Sites B -2, B-3, Bit /H and Locus 4 of ; 1 B-6 qualify as historical resources as defined in CEQA guidelines Section 15064.5, final mitigation measures as 1 defined in the Archaeological and I Historical Element of the General L ? Plan include the following if the researched site is not to be f preserved in situ: 1 0 Capping or fencing of the site; o Relocation of the cultural resource for preservation; 0 Total excavation of the site; 0 Partial excavation of the site; or 0 Renovation or reconstruction of } historic or archaeological ; structures. u U U1 Paleontologic Resource Mitigation Program. Burial Sites 1 i 5.7-3 Implementation of the proposed 5.7 -3a Should any human bone be lJ Project may disturb unknown encountered during any earth locations of human remains. removal or disturbance activities, all Implementation of the recommended activity shall cease immediately and mitigation would reduce impacts to the city selected archaeologist and less than significant levels. Native American monitor shall be immediately contacted, who shall f then immediately notify the Director LJ of Development Services. The Director of the Department of Development Services shall contact the Coroner pursuant to Section U 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the Cif�o <�� ReacA BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r ' Coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage L SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -13 Executive Summary EIR IMPACTS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURES U proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or disturbance C activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City selected archaeologist and/or Native American Monitor, who shall immediately notify the Director of Development Services. The City selected archaeologist will have the power to temporarily halt or divert the excavation equipment in order to evaluate any potential cultural material. The City selected archaeologist shall evaluate all r - potential cultural findings in L accordance with standard practice, the requirements of the City of Seal Beach Archaeological and Historical r Element, and other applicable Lj regulations. Consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission and datalartifact f U recovery, if deemed appropriate, shall be conducted. Paleontological Resources 5.7 -2 Implementation of the proposed 5.7 -2 If evidence of subsurface Project could impact paleontological paleontologic resources is found resources that may exist on -site but during construction, excavation and have not been documented. other construction activity in that area U Implementation of recommended shall cease and the contractor shall mitigation measures would reduce contact the City Development impacts to a less than significant Services Department. With direction level. from the City, an Orange County U Certified Paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontologic Resource Mitigation Program. Burial Sites 1 i 5.7-3 Implementation of the proposed 5.7 -3a Should any human bone be lJ Project may disturb unknown encountered during any earth locations of human remains. removal or disturbance activities, all Implementation of the recommended activity shall cease immediately and mitigation would reduce impacts to the city selected archaeologist and less than significant levels. Native American monitor shall be immediately contacted, who shall f then immediately notify the Director LJ of Development Services. The Director of the Department of Development Services shall contact the Coroner pursuant to Section U 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the Cif�o <�� ReacA BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r ' Coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage L SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -13 Executive Summary Monitoring 0 All ground disturbance in any portions of the project area with BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR U EIR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE SECTION AFTER MITIGATION a Commission shall be contacted I pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. (, 5.7 -3b If more than one Native American U burial is encountered during any U ( earth removal or disturbance activities, a 'Mitigation Plan' shall be ( 1 prepared and subject to approval by LJ the City of Seal Beach Community Development Department. The ( 1 Mitigation Plan shall include the U following procedures: Continued Native American 1 Monitoring 0 All ground disturbance in any portions of the project area with the potential to contain human U remains or other cultural material shall be monitored by a Native American representative of the I MLD. Activities to be monitored shall include all construction grading, controlled grading, and hand excavation of previously undisturbed deposit, with the U ( exception of contexts that are clearly within the ancient marine terrace that comprises most of ( 1 Landing Hill. LJ 0 Exposure and removal of each , burial shall be monitored by a i 1 Native American. Where burials lJ are clustered and immediately adjacent, one monitor is sufficient for excavation of two adjoining burials. 0 Excavation of test units shall be ( , monitored. Simultaneous U excavation of two test units if less than 20 feet apart may be monitored by a single Native American. 0 If screening of soil associated with burials or test units is done concurrently with and adjacent to ! J I the burial or test unit, the Native American responsible for that burial or test unit will also monitor the screening. If the screening is done at another location, a separate monitor shall be required. 0 All mechanical excavation J conducted in deposits that may FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 2 -14 Executive Summary 0 L L Ci o� �jea,Q�ec� BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ( EIR I SECTION I r U I (' LJ L' I� U r' ` r U I r ' ; U L' I r U r r r L l r -• U r IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION contain human remains (i.e., all areas not completely within the marine terrace deposits) shall be monitored by a Native American. Notification Procedures for New Discoveries 0 When possible burials are identified during monitoring of mechanical excavation, or excavation of test units, the excavation shall be temporarily halted while the find is assessed in consultation with the lead field archaeologist. If the find is made during mechanical excavation, the archaeologist or Native American monitoring the activity shall have the authority to direct the equipment operator to stop while the find is assessed. If it is determined that the find does not constitute a burial, the mechanical excavation shall continue. 0 If the find is determined to be a human burial, the lead archaeologist shall immediately notify the Site Supervisor for the developer, as well as the Principal Investigator. The Principal Investigator shall immediately notify the MLD and the Director of Development Services for the City of Seal Beach. The City shall provide the Coastal Commission with weekly updates describing the finds in writing. Identification of Additional Burials 0 For all discovered human burials, attempts shall continue to be made to locate additional burials nearby through hand excavation techniques. This shall be done through the excavation of 1 x 1 m exploratory test units (ETUs) placed along transects extending radially from each identified burial or burial cluster. The spacing of the ETUs shall be determined upon consultation with the Project Archaeologist and the MI-D. The radial transects shall be designed to test areas within 50 feet (15 m) from the edge of each burial or burial cluster. Excavation of these units shall be limited to areas FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -15 Executive Summary BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE SECTION AFTER MITIGATION containing intact cultural deposit (i.e., areas that have not been graded to the underlying marine terrace) and shall be excavated until the marine terrace deposits are encountered, or to the excavation depth required for the approved grading plan. The soil from the ETUs along the radial transects shall be screened only if human remains are found in that unit. 0 Controlled grading shall be conducted within these 50 -foot heightened investigation areas with a wheeled motor grader. The motor grader shall use an angled blade that excavates 1 to 2 inches at a pass, pushing the spoil to the side to form a low windrow. Monitors shall follow about 20 feet behind the motor grader, examining the ground for evidence of burials. 0 When a burial is identified during controlled grading, the soil in windrows that may contain fragments of bone from that burial shall be screened. At a minimum this shall include the soil in the windrow within 50 feet of the burial in the direction of the grading. 0 If additional burials are found during controlled grading, additional ETUs will be hand excavated in the radial patterns described above. Burial Removal and Storage 0 Consultation with the MLD shall occur regarding the treatment of discovered human burials. If the MLD determines it is appropriate to have discovered human remains pedestaled for removal, that activity shall be conducted in a method agreed to by the MLD. 0 After pedestaling or other agreed upon burial removal program is completed, the top of a burial shall be covered with paper towels to act as a cushion, and then a heavy ply plastic will be placed over the top to retain surface moisture. Duct tape shall be wrapped FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -16 Executive Summary L I r• U r• I L L. 1 r; t LJ L L I r -, l__I r u r I L r I' U BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR IMPACTS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE around the entire pedestal, securing the plastic bag and supporting the pedestal. Labels shall be placed on the plastic indicating the burial number and the direction of true north in relation to the individual burial. Sections of rebar shall be hammered across the bottom of the pedestal and parallel to the ground. When a number of parallel rebar sections have been placed this way, they shall be lifted simultaneously, cracking the pedestal loose from the ground. The pedestal shall then be pushed onto a thick plywood board and lifted onto a pallet. A forklift shall carry the pallet to a secure storage area or secure storage containers located on the subject property. ♦ If another agreed upon burial removal program is utilized, that method shall be carried out in a manner agreed upon after consultation with the MILD. Study of Burial Remains ♦ If the burials are removed in pedestal and are incompletely exposed, osteological studies are necessarily limited to determination (if possible) of age, sex, position, orientation, and trauma or pathology. After consultation, and only upon written agreement by the MLD, additional studies that are destructive to the remains may be undertaken, including radiocarbon dating of bone or DNA studies. If the MLD determines that only non- destructive additional studies may be allowed, one shell may be removed from each burial and submitted for radiocarbon dating. The assumption here is that the shell would have been part of the fill for the burial pit, and therefore would provide a maximum age for the burial. 0 The MLD may indicate a willingness to consider some additional exposure and study of the skeletal material removed from the sites. Such study would not involve removal of the remains r FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 2 -17 Executive Summary C• D-Ir sue- -- Rem BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR u U EIR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE SECTION AFTER MITIGATION a from the project area, but rather would be undertaken near the storage area. To the extent allowed by the MLD, the bones u would be further exposed within the existing pedestals or other medium containing the human remains and additional measurements taken. Consultation with the MLD regarding the feasibility of these additional studies prior to reburial would occur. Repatriation of Burials and I 1 Associated Artifacts �J 0 Once all portions of the project area have been graded to the a underlying culturally sterile marine terrace deposits, or to the excavation depth required for the approved grading plan, the repatriation process shall be initiated for all recovered human remains and associated artifacts. Once a reburial site has been identified and prepared, the remains and associated artifacts shall be transported from the secure storage area to the site for reburial. Appropriate ceremony will be undertaken during this process at the discretion of the MLD. Additional Studies 0 Considerable additional data J relating to regional research issues may be uncovered if substantial numbers of human ; 7 burials and other archaeological U features are encountered during the construction monitoring for the development. If this occurs, (�} additional analysis be conducted. U The analysis shall be designed to more completely address the research issues discussed in the { l approved "Research Design ", and U to provide additional mitigation of impacts to the sites in light of the new finds. The following studies would be potentially applicable: u - Radiocarbon Dating. In considering the implications of the burials in interpreting site use and regional settlement, it FINAL ® APRIL 2003 2 -18 Executive Summa ry r ' Ct of <e� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ( EIR ' SECTION L. I r - U Ll I r' U L. Ir r , L I r - U F U L l__J 1 I,J L r' IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION is critical to assess the time range represented by the interments. Do they correspond to the full temporal range of site use, or only a limited timeframe? Although direct dating of the bones may not possible due to the destructive nature of the radiocarbon technique, the MLD may approve the removal of a single shell from the interior of each burial for dating. Although this shall not provide a direct date of the burial, assuming the shell was part of the burial fill it should provide a maximum age (that is, the burial should not be older than the shell). In addition, an equivalent number of additional samples from non - burial contexts would also be taken for comparative purposes. These data would provide a more secure measure of the intensity of occupation during different periods. Sediment Cores. Dating results obtained to date on the Hellman Ranch /John Laing Homes properties may suggest a possible link between the use of the sites within the project area and the productivity of the adjacent lagoon and estuary systems. To assess this link using independent environmental data on the subject property, two sediment cores will be taken from suitable locations of the property. Sediments in the cores shall be examined and described in the field by a geologist, and samples collected for dating and pollen analysis. These data shall then be used to help reconstruct the habitats present on the property during the periods the sites were occupied. This analysis shall be included in the final report documenting the testing, data recovery, and construction monitoring phases of this investigation. - Comparative Studies. The substantial assemblage of L FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -19 Executive Summary � �T �G BOEINGS ECIFIC � PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE SECTION AFTER MITIGATION artifacts recovered during the monitoring on the Heilman Ranch /John Laing Homes properties provides a basis for U comparison with other sites and shall contribute to an understanding of regional patterns. This analysis shall be included in the final report (see below). - Animal Interments. Animal interments may be discovered within the project area. Because these are not human ( 1 remains, somewhat more U intensive study is possible. Because these features are uncommon and represent very culture- specific religious U practices, they are useful in reconstructing cultural areas during certain times in prehistory. Analysis of animal interments will include: (1) exposure to determine burial position; (2) photo J documentation; (3) examination of skeleton for age/sex; traumatic injury, pathology, butchering, or other cultural i modification; (4) radiocarbon dating; and (5) examination of grave dirt for evidence of grave goods or stomach contents. Curation 0 Cultural materials recovered from ! I the cultural resources monitoring U and mitigation program for the development shall be curated either at an appropriate facility in 4 Orange County, or, in consultation with the City, at the San Diego Archaeological Center. 1 Preparation of Final Report I L� I 0 The final technical report shall be prepared and submitted to the City iLJI and CCC within 12 months of the completion of the archeological field work. The report shall conform to the guidelines developed by the California Office of Historic Preservation for Archaeological Resource { Management Reports (ARMR). It ! will be prepared in sufficient FINAL o APRIL 2003 2 -20 Executive Summary U l� r� 01� of ( :3ea��eaA BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR I� SECTION IMPACTS U Li 1 Cumulative Impacts U 5.7-4 Cumulative development may adversely affect cultural resources. Resources are evaluated and L mitigated on a project -by- project basis. 5.8 GEOLOGYISOILS Soil ( 5.8 -1 Soil conditions could affect U development onsite due to the expansion and compressibility r I potential. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than reduce impacts to a less than significant level. r. I. �J LI L L. I U r•, I r MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE ecrcc uirir_eru quantity to distribute to interested regional researchers and Native American groups. It shall thoroughly document and synthesize all of the findings from all phase of the cultural resources program. Funding shall be provided by the landowner. 5.7-4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, cumulative impacts would be mitigated on a project -by- project basis, resulting in less than significant impacts. 5.8 -1a Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall submit a final geotechnical report to the City Engineer for approval. The report shall be in a form as required by the Orange County Grading Manual, Section 5.4 and the Orange County Excavation and Grading Code, Section 7- 1-819. Project proponent shall reimburse City costs of independent third -party peer review of said geotechnical report. No significant impacts related to Geology and Soils have been identified following implementation of mitigation measures and /or compliance with applicable standards and policies of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code. 5.8 -1b The project proponent shall incorporate measures to mitigate expansive soil conditions, compressible /collapsible soil conditions and liquefaction soil conditions, and impacts from trenching, which measures are identified in site - specific reports prepared by the project geotechnical consultant. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis. The geotechnical consultant's site - specific reports shall be approved by a certified engineering geologist and a registered civil engineer, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5.8 -1c All surfaces to receive compacted fill shall be cleared of existing vegetation, debris, and other unsuitable materials which should be removed from the site. Soils that are FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -21 Executive Summary C, ofd BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE SECTION AFTER MITIGATI( disturbed during site clearing shall be removed and replaced as controlled compacted fill under the direction of the Soils Engineer. 5.8 -1d In excavations deeper than four feet but less than ten feet, a slope no steeper than 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) shall be provided or utilization of appropriate trench and shoring methods shall occur. Steeper slopes or deeper excavations shall be provided with trench shoring and/or trench shields for stability and protection. OSHA safety requirements shall be adhered to throughout the entire duration of project earthwork. 5.8-1e All grading procedures, including soil excavation and compaction, the placement of backfill, and temporary excavation shall comply with City of Seal Beach standards. 5.8 -1f Permanent cut and fill slopes shall not exceed 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). 5.8 -1g Loose and soft alluvial soils, expansive clay soils and all existing uncertified fill materials shall be removed and replaced with compacted fill during site grading in order to prevent seismic settlement, soil expansion, and differential compaction. 5.8 -1h During grading, tests and observations shall be performed by the Soils Engineer or his representative in order to verify that the grading is being performed in accordance with the project specifications. Field density testing shall be performed in accordance with applicable ASTM test standards. The minimum acceptable degree of compaction shall be 90 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by the ASTM D1557 -91 test method. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be applied until retesting indicates satisfactory compaction. FINAL m APRIL 2003 2 -22 Executive Summary L L"11 o 0� s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r EIR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SECTION 5.8 -11 Prior to the initiation of project grading in any development area, all existing utilities shall be located and i either abandoned and removed, rerouted or protected. 5.8 -1j Graded, but undeveloped land shall L l maintained weed -free and planted with interim landscaping within ninety (90) days of completion of grading, U unless building permits are obtained. Planting with interim landscaping shall comply with NPDES Best Management Practices. L Seismic Impacts -. 5.8 -2 Development of the proposed Project 5.8 -2a Engineering design for all structures ` I would expose people /structures to shall be based on the probability that U effects associated with seismic the Project area will be subjected to activity. Analysis has concluded that strong ground motion during the a less than significant impact would occur in this regard following lifetime of development. Construction plans shall be subject to compliance with the City Municipal the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code, and Code and shall include applicable recommended mitigation. standards, which address seismic design parameters. 5.8 -2b Mitigation of earthquake ground shaking shall be incorporated into design and construction in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements and site specific design. The Newport - Inglewood fault r : shall be considered the seismic LJ source for the Project site and specified design parameters shall be used. L 5.8 -2c The potential damaging effects of regional earthquake activity shall be considered in the design of each L structure. The preliminary seismic evaluation shall be based on basic data including the Uniform Building r Code Seismic Parameters and the Sladden Report's exhibits and tables. u Structural design criteria shall be determined in consideration of building types, occupancy category, seismic importance factors and u possibly other factors. (' 5.8 -2d Conformance with the latest Uniform Li Building Code and City Ordinances can be expected to satisfactorily mitigate the effect of seismic groundshaking. Conformance with U applicable codes and ordinances shall occur in conjunction with the SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -23 Executive Summary BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR SECTION IMPACTS issuance of building permits in order to insure that over excavation of soft, broken rock and clayey soils within sheared zones will be required where development is planned. 5.9 Cumulative Impacts 5.8 -3 The proposed Project, combined with 5.8 -3 future development, may result in increased short -term impacts such as erosion and sedimentation, and long- term seismic impacts within the area. Mitigation is incorporated on a project -by- project basis to reduce impacts to a less than significant level in areas deemed suitable for development. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE - Water Quality — Construction 5.9 -1 Grading, excavation and construction activities associated with the proposed project may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drainage areas. Impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of NPDES and SWPPP requirements. No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, cumulative impacts would be mitigated on a project -by- project basis, resulting in a less than significant impact. 5.9 -1a Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit shall be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Such permits are required for specific (or a series of related) construction activities which exceed five acres in size and include provisions to eliminate or reduce off -site discharges through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Specific SWPPP provisions include requirements for erosion and sediment control, as well as monitoring requirements both during and after construction. Pollution - control measures also require the use of best available technology, best conventional pollutant control technology, and/or best management practices to prevent or reduce pollutant discharge (pursuant to definitions and direction). 5.9 -1 b Prior to the issuance of the first grading or building permit, a comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or a registered professional hydrologist to protect water resources from impacts due to urban contaminants in surface water runoff. The WQMP shall be prepared in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Orange SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No significant impacts related to hydrology and drainage have been identified following implementation of mitigation measures, compliance with applicable standards, policies and/or the 'City of Seal Beach Code requirements. FINAL o APRIL 2003 2 -24 Executive Summary I' L L I r U r L r c C r� I I U V L" L BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SECTION County, the City of Seal Beach and California Coastal Commission to insure compliance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit requirements. The WQMP shall include a combination of structural and non - structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) as outlined in Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. 0 Surplus or waste material from construction shall not be placed in drainage ways or within the 100 - year floodplain of surface waters. 0 All loose piles of soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, or other earthen materials shall be protected in a reasonable manner to eliminate any discharge to water of the State. 0 During construction, temporary gravel or sandbag dikes shall be used as necessary to prevent discharge of earthen materials from the site during periods of precipitation or runoff. 0 Stabilizing agents such as straw, wood chips and/or hydroseeding shall be used during the interim period after grading in order to 5.9 -1c The project is required to meet Storm Water Management regulations. The applicant shall file for an NPDES permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and abide by the conditions of the permit as issued. A copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP), and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to commencing grading operations. The SWPPP shall emphasize structural and non- structural BMPs in compliance with NPDES Program requirements. Specific measures shall include: 0 The project shall provide appropriate sediment traps in open channels and energy dissipaters in storm water conduits and storm drain outlets. SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -25 Executive Summary cll� w s� BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR IMPACTS SECTION strengthen exposes soil while ground cover takes hold. 0 Revegetated areas shall be continually maintained in order to assure adequate growth and root development. Hydrology and Drainage 5.9 -2 Development of the proposed Project would affect onsite and offsite drainage systems. Implementation of the design for site drainage consistent with the Specific Plan's guidelines and the recommended mitigation measure providing additional storm drain facilities to Planning Area 4 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 5.9 -2a Standing water and drainage problems occurring at the frontage of Planning Area 4 on Seal Beach Boulevard shall be corrected as part of the proposed Project development for Planning Area 4. A detailed cross - section survey of Seal Beach Boulevard extending about 1,000 feet north and south of the existing double box culvert crossing shall be conducted. A storm drain system shall be designed and connected to the double box culvert crossing. The design shall evaluate, the need for additional crossings of Seal Beach Boulevard. Refer to the Master Plan of Drainage Section 6, Recommended Improvements, for more information and detailed figures. 5.9 -2b A Finalized Hydrology and Retention Basin Study shall be submitted for review and approval by the County of Orange in conformance with the Orange County Hydrology Manual (OCHM) and the Addendum No. 1 to the OCHM. Hydrology, hydraulic and retention basin studies shall be based on Expected Value (EV) discharges for 2 -, 10 -, 25- and 100- year storm frequencies for existing and developed conditions. Approval by the County of Orange of this plan shall be received by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Water Quality 5.9 -3 Implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to water quality. Implementation of proposed treatment controls and mitigation measures would result in less than significant impacts. 5.9-3a The project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP), subject to approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which shall cite water quality control measures for the project. The approved SWPPP shall be submitted concurrent with grading permit application to the City u' SIGNIFICANCE r, AFTER MITIGATION FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -26 Executive Summary E I � J J �U U i 'J u u 'J 01 I Li L BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r EIR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE L.1 SECTION AFTER MITIGATION Engineer. The SWPPP may include r L y the following components: 0 Description of significant potential sources of pollutants in storm water discharges. 0 A listing of all chemicals which may contact storm water and estimates of concentrations. 0 An estimate of the area of impervious surfaces. H 0 Source controls. 0 Isolation /separation of hazardous from non - hazardous pollutant L sources. 0 Treatment/conveyance structures r' and their impacts on groundwater L quality. o Design criteria for the structures/ G I conveyances. 0 Maintenance schedules. . 0 Erosion control measures. U 0 An estimate of pollutant reduction levels expected from implementing r -; the controls. 0 Establishment of internal record keeping and internal reporting L ' procedures. 0 Eliminate illicit discharges of storm water to storm water system. H 0 Develop and implement a storm water monitoring, sampling, testing, and reporting program. 1 \l 0 Develop a special management plan for loading dock areas and vehicle refueling and maintenance r ' areas. 0 Installation and maintenance of oil/water separators for all parking lot areas. 5.9 -3b Non - structural BMPs shall be incorporated into the project, to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Li Quality Control Board. The applicable BMPs include: I r+ u FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -21 Executive Summary C#.Df s� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR IMPACTS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURES o BMP facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by the Owners Association for private BMP's and by a City - appointed person for public BMP's. ® All hazardous wastes shall be handled in accordance with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations and relevant sections of the California Health and Safety Code regarding hazardous waste management. 5.9 -3c Routine structural BMPs shall be incorporated into the proposed project design to facilitate future water quality measures, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to issuance of grading permits. Cumulative Impacts 5.9-4 The proposed Project along with'other future development may result in increased hydrology and drainage impacts in the area. Impacts are evaluated on a project -by- project basis in order to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. 5.94 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, impacts are evaluated on a project -by- project basis in order to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. 5.10 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY L 0 L 0 1 )J Hazardous Materials 5.10 -1 Implementation of the proposed 5.10- laSoil characterization and sampling of No significant impacts Project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the PECA's in the redevelopment areas of the Project site shall be conducted related to Public Health and Safety have been identified I environment through the conditions as needed to determine the presence following implementation of involving the release of hazardous or absence of hazardous materials, the recommended mitigation materials. Analysis conducted as part prior to grading activities. measures. of the Phase I and Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessments has 5.10 -1 b if concentrations of materials are concluded that no public health and detected above regulatory cleanup safety hazards exist within the studied levels during demolition or areas. Further investigation of the construction activities, the following wastewater discharge line would be mitigation measures shall include: required to determine if subsequent 0 Excavation and disposal at a breaks in the decommissioned line permitted, off -site facility; have led to contamination of the site o On -site treatment; or and therefore requires appropriate remediation and /or mitigation, 0 Other measures as appropriate. resulting in less than significant 5.10 -1c If the investigations conducted impacts. pursuant to Mitigation Measures 5.10 -1a and 5.10 -1b determine remediation actions are necessary, the project proponent shall comply with all applicable regulatory u standards. LE SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -28 Executive Summary" U Li L_d C o .0 <�;6e�eacg BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR rN EIR L SECTION L� U I r' L� L �J LJ f� I r - ! L u I h IMPACTS Agricultural Materials 5.10 -2 The historical use of the site as an agricultural use could result in soil contamination from agricultural chemicals. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Asbestos Containing Materials 5.10 -3 Some of the buildings located on -site could contain asbestos. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Lead Based Paint 5.10-4 The buildings located on -site that were built prior to 1972 could contain lead -based paint resulting in potential health hazards to building occupants. Implementation of mitigation MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 5.10 -2a Prior to grading permit issuance, soil sampling of the undeveloped portions of the Project site (Planning Areas 2 and 3) shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of banned agricultural pesticides. 5.10 -2b If concentrations of agricultural chemicals are detected above regulatory cleanup levels during demolition or construction activities, mitigation shall include the following: 0 Excavation and disposal at a permitted, off -site facility; 0 On -site treatment; or 0 Other measures as appropriate. 5 -10.3a Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey shall be required to determine presence or absence. The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Seal Beach. 5.10 -3b If asbestos containing material are found, abatement of asbestos shall be required before any demolition activities that would disturb asbestos containing material or create an airborne asbestos hazard is permitted. 5.10 -3c Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403. Rule 1403 regulations require: 0 A survey of the facility prior to issuance of a permit by SCAQMD; 0 Notification of the SCAQMD prior to construction activity; 0 Removal in accordance with prescribed procedures; 0 Placement of collected asbestos in leak -tight containers or wrapping; and 0 Proper disposal. 5.10 -4a Prior to demolition activities, a lead - based paint survey shall be required to determine presence or absence. The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Seal Beach. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -29 Executive Summary C o�� IC PL A BOEINGS ECIFAN PROJECT EIR EIR IMPACTS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURES measures - would reduce these 5.104b If lead -based paint is found, impacts to a less than significant abatement shall be required before level, any demolition activities occur that would create lead dust or fume hazard. 5.10 -4c Lead -based paint removal shall be performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and mandates good working practices by workers exposed to lead. 5.10 -4d Contractors performing lead -based paint removal shall provide evidence of certified training for lead- related construction work. Emergency Response Plan 5.10 -5 Development of the proposed Project 5.10 -5 No mitigation measures are could physically interfere with the recommended. Based on the Emergency Operation Plan adopted analysis provided above, compliance by the City of Seal Beach. with the City's Municipal Code would Compliance with City Municipal Code result in less than significant impacts and requirements would result in less to the City's Emergency Response than significant impacts. Plan. Cumulative Impacts 5.10 -6 The proposed Project, in combination with other cumulative Projects, could increase exposure to the public of hazardous substances. Compliance with Federal, State, and local requirements on a Project -by- Project basis would reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. 5.10-6 No mitigation measures are recommended. Base on the analysis provided above, compliance with Federal, State and local requirements on a project -by- project basis would reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. 5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Water 5.11 -1 Development of the proposed Project would result in impacts to the local water supply. Analysis has determined that there is a sufficient water supply to service the project. However, compliance with recommended mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 5.11 -1a In order to ensure adequate service to the proposed subdivision and the individual building structures, plans for the proposed public water and wastewater systems shall be approved by the City Engineer of the City of Seal Beach prior to the recordation of the final tract map. A condition on the tentative map shall state that all public infrastructure improvement plans, including sewer, water, streets, traffic signals, and grading shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the 0 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION t_I j� No unavoidable significant impacts related to public services and utilities have been identified following implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and compliance with applicable City, County, service or utility provider requirements, Codes, Ordinances and requirements. 0 J FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 2-30 Executive Summary 5.11 -1b In order to ensure proper usage of water, the development shall be 1 required to implement the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and conservation practices identified in r the City's adopted UWMP 2002, Water Supply Assessment and the California Urban Water Conservation r• Council. Wastewater 5.11 -2 Implementation of the proposed 5.11 -2 In order to ensure adequate service C ` Project would result in additional to the project site, plans for the wastewater treatment demands. proposed wastewater collection Implementation of the Boeing Water system shall be approved by the and Sewer Master Plan and mitigation Orange County Sanitation District measures would result in less than and the City Engineer of the City of \ ( U i significant impacts. Seal Beach prior to the recordation of the final tract map. Solid Waste 5.11 -3 Implementation of the proposed 5.11 -3a Prior to the issuance of building project would result in solid waste permits for the proposed structures, generation that may impact existing detailed construction plans shall be landfill facilities. Implementation of submitted to the Director of mitigation measures would result in Development Services for approval, less than significant impacts. delineating the number, location, and general design of solid waste enclosures and storage areas for recycled material. r 5:11 -3b The project applicant/individual Ll project applications shall adhere to all source reduction programs for the disposal of demolition and construction materials and solid waste, as required by the City of Seal Beach. Prior to issuance of building permits, a source reduction program shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Development Services for demolition of any existing r . structure over 5,000 square feet in area and for each future structure U constructed on the subject properties to achieve a minimum 60 percent reduction in waste disposal rates, L including green waste. r L L FINAL a APRIL 2003 2 -31 Executive Summary �� � f s�-'-RearA BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r EIR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE 1 SECTION AFTER MITIGATION � tract map. This is in conformance (r� with the subdivision map act and f approval authority of the City �} Engineer. 5.11 -1b In order to ensure proper usage of water, the development shall be 1 required to implement the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and conservation practices identified in r the City's adopted UWMP 2002, Water Supply Assessment and the California Urban Water Conservation r• Council. Wastewater 5.11 -2 Implementation of the proposed 5.11 -2 In order to ensure adequate service C ` Project would result in additional to the project site, plans for the wastewater treatment demands. proposed wastewater collection Implementation of the Boeing Water system shall be approved by the and Sewer Master Plan and mitigation Orange County Sanitation District measures would result in less than and the City Engineer of the City of \ ( U i significant impacts. Seal Beach prior to the recordation of the final tract map. Solid Waste 5.11 -3 Implementation of the proposed 5.11 -3a Prior to the issuance of building project would result in solid waste permits for the proposed structures, generation that may impact existing detailed construction plans shall be landfill facilities. Implementation of submitted to the Director of mitigation measures would result in Development Services for approval, less than significant impacts. delineating the number, location, and general design of solid waste enclosures and storage areas for recycled material. r 5:11 -3b The project applicant/individual Ll project applications shall adhere to all source reduction programs for the disposal of demolition and construction materials and solid waste, as required by the City of Seal Beach. Prior to issuance of building permits, a source reduction program shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Development Services for demolition of any existing r . structure over 5,000 square feet in area and for each future structure U constructed on the subject properties to achieve a minimum 60 percent reduction in waste disposal rates, L including green waste. r L L FINAL a APRIL 2003 2 -31 Executive Summary 016T -o� S�� BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EIR SECTION 2.3 Cumulative IMPACTS 5.11-4 Cumulative development could result in an increased demand for public services and an increase in the consumption rates for public utilities and services, potentially requiring expansions of the existing utility systems. Analysis has concluded that cumulative development is subject to standards and requirements of reviewing agencies and no additional mitigation is recommended. MITIGATION MEASURES 5.11-4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, cumulative development is subject to standards and requirements of reviewing agencies resulting in less than significant impacts. t. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6, Section 7.0 describes a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the proposed project,while evaluating the comparative merits of each alternative. The analysis focuses on alternatives capable of eliminating significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to less than significant levels, even if these alternatives would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the project objectives. Potential environmental impacts are compared to impacts from the proposed project. The following is a description of each of the alternatives evaluated in Section 7.0. `NO PROJECT /NO DEVELOPMENT" ALTERNATIVE The No ProjecVNo Development Alternative assumes the Boeing Specific Plan Project would not be implemented and land uses and other improvements identified in the Specific Plan would not be constructed. The existing undeveloped portion of the Boeing site, including the three manmade drainage ditches, would remain unaltered and in their current condition. All infrastructure improvements including water, wastewater, drainage and circulation facilities identified in the Specific Plan would not be constructed. The design and development standards for the Specific Plan would not be implemented and the General Plan land use designations and allowable uses set forth by the zoning code for the site would remain unchanged. "NO PROJECT /EXISTING DESIGNATION" ALTERNATIVE The No Project/Existing Designation Alternative involves development of the Project site based upon the existing designation in which the site would maintain its General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial and zoning of Light Manufacturing (M -1). The zoning provisions of the Code of the City of Seal Beach (the "Code ") has established the M -1 zone with the intent to encourage and require all development within the M -1 zone to take place under an industrial park concept in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses and to preserve the general health, safety and welfare of the community. The M -1 zone allows for the following permitted uses: SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION r� U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 2 -32 Executive Summary I F - N Ctl�of E BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR (� ♦ Wholesale businesses; ♦ Aircraft manufacturing;' ♦ Automobile painting and body work; r ♦ Boat building, repairing and outfitting; ♦ Bottling plant; Ll ♦ Light Manufacturing and component assembling; ♦ Research and development; r ♦ Adult- oriented businesses, except as provided in paragraphs (a)(i) through (a)(vi) of Section 11 E -5, of the Code, and subject to the other provision of Chapter 11 E of the Code; (� ♦ Veterinary hospitals; li ♦ Warehousing; ♦ Other similar enterprises when interpreted by the Planning Commission as meeting the intent of light manufacturing uses; ♦ Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to any of the above uses when located on the same site with the main building; r , ♦ The following additional uses subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use V Permit; - Off -site Hazardous Waste Facility ♦ Limited Permitted Uses (requiring that all business be conducted within an enclose building and behind a six -foot high block wall). Building material yard; and - Vehicle storage yard. r Development under this Alternative would be guided by M -1 development guidelines contained in the Code rather than the development guidelines established in the Boeing Specific Plan. This Alternative would be generally similar to the proposed Project, however, it would exclude the possible development of a hotel /commercial center in Planning Area 4 and additional land uses proposed in the Specific Plan. This Alternative would result in the intensity of land uses contained in the M -1 zone, including a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet with maximum lot coverage of 70 percent. The proposed Project establishes the same development standards for Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3 and provides a maximum lot size of 7,000 feet with maximum lot coverage of 60 percent in Planning Area 4. Overall, this Alternative would involve development that would be subject to the Code's development standards, but not the design, architecture, and landscaping guidelines established i in the Boeing Specific Plan. It is expected that this Alternative would be required to provide water quality and biological resource protection features similar to the r, proposed Project. "RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT" ALTERNATIVE r The Residential Component Alternative is based upon the Housing Element, which references the option of residential development of the undeveloped portion of the Project site. Program 5.2.1.2(E) of the Housing Element "calls for public hearings to determine the appropriateness and benefits of redesignating a portion of a 50 -acre underutilized site on the Rockwell International [Boeing] property for uses including residential development, with a- portion of the site considered for higher density housing affordable to lower income households, and other portions designated for Lill single family detached residential uses." This Alternative would provide for the development of high density residential on 11 acres fronting Westminster Avenue. F1 u FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 2 -33 Executive Summary cof iiw s� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR That would allow for development of up to 165 residential units in accordance with the Residential High Density (RHD) zoning designation. The remaining 34 acres of the undeveloped portion of the Boeing site would remain under its current Light Industrial land use and M -1 zoning designation. Under this Alternative, two of the three drainage ditches would be preserved and the hotel and commercial center would not be developed in Planning Area 4. M -1 zoning would still apply to Planning Area 4 and RHD guidelines would apply to the residential development. It is expected that this Alternative would be required to provide water quality and biological resource protection features similar to the proposed Project. "ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR" ALTERNATIVE CEQA Section 15126(d)(2) indicates that if the "No Project" Alternative is the "Environmentally Superior' Alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The No Project/No Development Alternative (Existing Conditions), in this case, would not result in the environmental impacts associated with construction of the proposed Project. Among the other alternatives assessed in this EIR, the Residential Component Alternative would result in a reduction in environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Project and would meet some of the Project Objectives. This Alternative would result in reduced impacts to aesthetics and air. As a result, the Residential Component Alternative could be considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative, however, this Alternative would also have greater impacts than the proposed Project in the following areas: land use, public safety and public services and utilities. Moreover, the proposed Project has unavoidable significant impacts only with respect to air quality (construction and project operation), which would be triggered by any increment of development because of the low thresholds of significance associated therewith: and traffic, which would be triggered by any increment of development because of the existing unacceptable levels of service at certain intersection that would be impacted by any development at the Project site. 3 Unit count considers 25 percent of land area for roadway /infrastructure improvements and 75 percent of developable area for residential. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 2 -34 Executive Summary r L 3,0 Project Description F La L Lori AA rJ The proposed Boeing Project consists of approximately 107 acres located in the City I a of Seal Beach, in the western most portion of Orange County, California (refer to Exhibit 3 -1, Regional Vicinity). The Boeing site is situated between Westminster Avenue to the north and Seal Beach Boulevard to the southeast (refer to Exhibit 3 -2, Site Vicinity). The site is accessible through the Cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach and is in close proximity to the San Diego Freeway (one mile to the north), San Gabriel River Freeway (two miles to the northwest) and the Garden Grove Freeway (1.5 miles to the northeast). r : EXISTING CONDITIONS ON -SITE The subject property is designated as Light Industrial in the City of Seal Beach General Plan and is zoned M -1, Light Manufacturing. Boeing occupies the developed portion of the site, which consists of a light industrial campus facility containing nine major structures with approximately 1,150,000 square feet of existing office, research and development, manufacturing and support operations space r' (refer to Exhibit 3 -3, Aerial Photograph). The site provides 3,100 parking spaces an approximately 41 acres of the site are currently vacant. SURROUNDING LAND USES The proposed project site is within the corporate limits of the City of Seal Beach and is located westerly of the Seal Beach Boulevard- Westminster Avenue intersection. Properties to the north, across Westminster Avenue, are General Plan designated V and zoned for Service Commercial, General Commercial and Residential High Density Planned Development uses. Within the Service Commercial and General El Commercial areas are located a service station, an approximately 87,000 square - foot neighborhood shopping center, and a United States Post Office facility. r ; The Residential High- Density Planned Development area comprises the Seal Beach Leisure World retirement community, consisting of approximately 6,500 housing units within 525 acres. To the east, across Seal Beach Boulevard, is the United States Naval Weapons 1. Station -Seal Beach, located within a Public Land Use General Plan and zoning designation. The Naval Weapons Station comprises approximately 5,000 acres and extends from the 1 -405 Freeway to the Pacific Ocean, between Seal Beach Boulevard and Bolsa Chica Road. Facilities nearest to the site consist of the Research, Testing and Evaluation Area. This area consists of multi -story office and r production buildings, parking areas, and various other above and below ground j, testing, evaluation and storage facilities. Between 1962 and 1973, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) utilized this area for the design and manufacture of the Saturn II launch vehicle for the Apollo Program. Currently, the facilities are used for storage, communications research, and office space by the Naval Weapons Station. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 3 -1 Project Description Newport Beach Santa Catalina Island San NNJ Clemente 0 - Project Site Not to Scale PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION ■ ■ ■ 04103 JN 10- 101776 CONSULTING CITY OF SEAL BEACH BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Regional Vicinity Exhibit 3 -1 Valencia I 26 L 0 S AN G E L E S C O U N T Y Simi San Fernando Valley 18 23 10 Thousand 5 Oaks _ 101 2 Pasadena 101 0 405 10 1 10 .+... Santa soy 60 71 Monica Los Angeles S 0 — BERNA INO 11 %", COUN 91 5 57 Yorba Linda 91 � Anaheim ss 22 Seal Santa O R A N G E each 40 ' Ana 0 0 0 N T Y -- �Long Irvine Beach Newport Beach Santa Catalina Island San NNJ Clemente 0 - Project Site Not to Scale PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION ■ ■ ■ 04103 JN 10- 101776 CONSULTING CITY OF SEAL BEACH BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Regional Vicinity Exhibit 3 -1 I3 � if l� I � I t �1 it y I uj 0 UJ E. U) tW m OR• lb ' OR E I h I r - f 2� l 1 • • rtc> t o if �1�- • . Ile to 10 Dep oil Oil 0 41 ' ii II g, e ( n 1 •:,,t; rr'• � Iw-{i I o �� \ •o va ''�® \ r ,,t r T i .. Q.? �t�i \ O 1�t �\ 11 / fcp Ao -° x 9�� _' L o c� I'S °o - oDwaF =s C(JASTL dlo to 'ems QJIP �� `� I• �1 ; 1 i� ai cY / o Y. ii V11 0 Q• �� r d tl o o 7 0 v oil gi /' u'' it II �'� \ �•,, i = = _>4 C-3 M W ~ m U C J W W � ■� C LL o Q CD CL U V Vr U w l d VJ G.3 Z w O m • • �� O O O N W O LU O LL C) r' L-1 ai v� c c" O 0 Z 0 cn U N u F d Z O) C Z 0 U Rf N _O E � Ls _co Q m W J CD O Z E Z Z g o CL cn O Q Z U) • J O to 0 rn 0 Z u Exhibit 3 -2 M d H O 41 d N CD U C a� a� a� E cm c c a 0 LL. hi 0 Z 20 C� LL, m U J w L w O CM U) CL O Ll- ubma o O U U U cc w ■� a_ L U) CD Z Q w O m r r 40 W 40 on r Z ul F o � 2 H Z O U ■ Z E9 N W O ■ E9 Z_ Z Z g g _gy O U k o i Z Exhibit 3 -' m r c, lea. BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR To the southeast and immediately adjacent to the Boeing property is an existing i' industrial facility, Accurate Metal, located on approximately 3.5 acres, containing approximately 62,700 square feet of light industrial fabrication facilities. To the south, across Adolfo Lopez Drive, are located the City of Seal Beach Police Department, Corporate Yard, and Animal Care Center facilities. These properties are General Plan designated and zoned for Public Land Use. r j To the west, across a flood control channel, and adjacent to Westminster Avenue, is the Island Village residential community within the City of Long Beach and the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin (LARB) within the City of Seal Beach. The Island Village S community is designated within the City of Long Beach General Plan and zoned •L� Planned Development 1, which is a specific plan zoning designation for residential land uses. The LARB is identified in the Seal Beach General Plan as Public Land Use. The LARB is within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, which designates the property for regional flood control purposes. The LARB is an existing facility r' providing collection and storage of storm water runoff from a 5,000 -acre watershed. 1 3.2 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY i The Boeing property was acquired in 1996 from Rockwell International and is home to the Boeing Space and Communications Group headquarters facilities. Boeing Realty Corporation ( "BRC ", a subsidiary of The Boeing Company), has previously submitted a Tract Map and site plan review request for a light industrial, research and development project (the "Pacific Gateway Project ") adjacent to the west of the Boeing headquarters facilities. The Pacific Gateway Project consisted of: L B Approximately 663,100 square feet of light manufacturing, research and development, and warehouse uses on approximately 42.0 acres (as i summarized below). The Pacific Gateway Project was consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that designates the site for "Light Manufacturing" land uses, a designation that has been in place for approximately the last 30 years. Six low -rise, one -story plus mezzanine buildings were proposed, with an average Floor Area Ratio of 0.43. Building architecture consisted of preformed concrete panels with blue tinted glazing. o Implementation of the Pacific Gateway Project would have required: grading; relocation of an on -site storage bin; removal of a small parking lot, exercise track, and tennis courts; and construction of buildings, roads, supporting utilities, and other infrastructure. Although the site is relatively flat, import of approximately 150,000 cubic yards of material would have been required to create the building pads and foundations, the public street and internal circulation system and parking areas. A Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") was prepared and circulated by the City in March 2001 for the required 30 -day public review and comment period. Comments received from resource agencies raised the issue of whether three man -made drainage ditches constructed on the property in the late 1960's to early 1970's may have characteristics of wetlands. y f: FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 3 -5 Project Description 0 of <�_�_ReacA BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Based upon the comments on the MND, BRC conducted site - specific biological and regulatory analysis of the drainage ditches on the property as part of the preparation of this draft EIR. BRC also performed feasibility and due diligence analysis of alternative land uses for the property. BRC's analysis included consideration of physical, environmental, community, fiscal impact, financial, market, regulatory, political, and operational factors, and constraints associated with the property. As a result of this comprehensive analysis, BRC revised the Pacific Gateway Project to respond to potential regulatory issues, operational factors, and other constraints identified above. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The Boeing Project concept provides for a planned mixed -use business park development that would be compatible with existing Boeing facilities and operations at the site. The proposed Boeing Specific Plan land uses are the product of extensive alternatives analysis and assessments. The Specific Plan establishes the general type, location, parameters and character of all development within the site's boundaries. Unlike its predecessor, the Pacific Gateway Project, the Boeing Specific Plan Project takes into account the entire existing 107 -acre Boeing Property. The Project also includes a General Plan Amendment (Land Use and Circulation), a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, a Coastal Development Permit and possibly a Development Agreement, Conditional Use Permits and other approvals. The proposed improvements to the existing Boeing campus are illustrated in Exhibit 3 -4, Land Use Plan. As outlined in Table 3.1, Proposed Specific Plan Land Uses, the Project involves maintaining approximately 1,150,000 square feet of existing building area (within Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2). However, some or all of the existing buildings in Planning Area 2 (approximately 345,000 square feet) may be maintained and /or re -used. New light industrial building planned for Planning Area 2 would require relocation and /or demolition of existing buildings and facilities. The project would include development of 345,000 square feet of additional building area within the existing Boeing facilities, 55,000 square feet designated for hotel used and 32,500 square feet, designated for commercial uses, including retail, restaurant and similar commercial uses and 973,000 square feet for Business Park uses. The proposed buildings /expansions would result in a total of 2,210,500 square feet of floor area, representing a net increase of 1,060,500 square feet over the existing floor area of 1,150,000 square feet (refer to Exhibit 3 -5, Illustrative Site Plan). The new floor area would be developed with up to thirteen new light industrial buildings, a hotel and up to three commercial buildings. Additionally, the proposed Project would develop new ingress /egress to the newly developed portions of the Boeing site via Apollo Drive, Apollo Court and Saturn Way. Access to the proposed business park would occur from both Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. Apollo Light industrial uses are also permitted. 2 I bid. 3 Assuming the existing buildings and facilities in Planning Area 2 would be relocated and /or demolished for new light industrial buildings. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 3 -6 Project Description Im CJ wo r A , J i� a. t # END I `ddd 7 Q � e 9y IL FOR C L► d,' *a" /T'U !� CL 4A oo&movw an r� .�. +if■ ii me qFi ini w ' s � o t W ;+� •� • t 4 .� F r � •1�1■Mylat 2 OC w w F— p � w J � LU U� y C:) U C- L J w IL U) CD z w O m Z� CD U D o ul � Z H Z U Z in Li 0 m Ul Z Z Q O J C IL C:) U co ■? Oct) U J • p O N " ■ Z O p Z Exhibit 3 -4 < V aU m < u o y 'S -j n a ca w• � A L • s• •w •••. Y d 4 o L_ _ S t cc {V-- - Lc _ —� / / C ! G ! / V — J _ / L L / U 2 W W ~ J ca U W W w 1 LPL ■ G Z C) H CL v� ca ►� W m CL L cry coo - c� W � m � • .0 wo a as z 10 �o U 7 0 F Z m z O U m z U7 Ul W Ul Z z Z M Q O J V a CD L cm ■ ? U J U) ■ 7 O Z C, Exhibit 3 -.'� t V L L BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Drive would extend into the business park and may ultimately connect Seal Beach Boulevard to Westminster Avenue, if certain Boeing buildings are demolished. Two roadways from Apollo Drive (Saturn Way and Apollo Court) would be cul -de -sacs providing access to all new light industrial buildings. SPECIFIC PLANNING AREAS ( The Boeing Specific Plan is divided into four (4) Planning Areas: l.J ® Business Park (Planning Area 1) o Business Park (Planning Area 2) ® Business Park (Planning Area 3) ® Hotel /Commercial (Planning Area 4) The proposed land uses and Planning Areas are illustrated in Exhibit 3 -4, Land Use Plan, and detailed in Table 3 -1, Proposed Specific Plan Land Uses. r•• PLANNING AREA 1: BUSINESS PARK (EXISTING BOEING SPACE AND COMMUNICATIONS CAMPUS) I U Planning Area 1 is approximately 41 acres and comprises the existing core campus use of the property. This includes Buildings 80, 81, 82, 83, 90, and 92, the surface parking fronting Westminster Avenue, and other facilities and structures. The existing office, research and development, warehouse and distribution, manufacturing, and support operations land uses in this Planning Area would be preserved and maintained. Planning Area 1 currently supports approximately 805,000 square feet of gross floor area. To respond to potential government and business contracts, and developing communication and space technologies, and to • support general business demands, Planning Area 1 is designated for a maximum of 1,150,000 square feet of gross floor area (an additional 345,000 square feet). The maximum FAR for Planning Area 1 is 0.75. PLANNING AREA 2: PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Planning Area 2 is approximately 16 acres and includes a range of Boeing facilities and buildings, including Buildings 84, 85, 86, 89, 91, 93, 94, 96, and 100, a fire system tank farm, an electrical substation and two trailers used for offices. The existing gross floor area is approximately 345,000 square feet. Existing buildings and facilities in Planning Area 2 may be maintained, reused, relocated or eliminated, depending on Boeing business requirements. Planning Area 2 is designated for business park purposes with a maximum of 345,000 square feet of new and /or existing gross floor area. The maximum FAR for Planning Area 2 is 0.60. r• U r L FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 3 -9 Project Description C116T'0'C s� U BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR j 1 Table 3 -1 Proposed Specific Plan Land Uses Planning Description Existing Building Area (sq. ft.) Area Existing Facilities Core Boeing Space & Communications Campus, 1 including buildings 80, 81, 82, 83, 90, 92 and other 805,000 facilities and structures Various buildings and facilities including Buildings 84, 2 85, 86, 89, 91, 93, 94, 96,100 and other facilities and 345,000 structures 3 Vacant Lands 0 4 Unused parking lot 0 Maximum Planning Land Use Gross Rooms Gross:Floor Description Area Acres Area Proposed Land Uses Existing core Boeing facilities. Allows for up 1 Existing Light Industrial 41 1,150,000 to 345,000 square feet of additional building area within Planning Area 1. Some or all of the existing buildings may be maintained and /or re -used. New business 2 Planned Business Park 16 345,000 park buildings planned for Planning Area 2 would require relocation and /or demolition of existing buildings and facilities. Vacant land planned for business park buildings, roads, infrastructure, etc. Portions 3 Planned Business Park 45 628,000 of the drainage ditches will be used for wetland restoration and water quality treatment purposes. Planned hotel and commercial land uses, 4 Planned Hotel Commercial 5 120 55,000 including retail, restaurant and similar 35,500 commercial uses. Business park uses are also permitted. SPECIFIC PLAN TOTAL 107 120 2,210,500 FINAL ® APRIL 2003 3 -10 Project Description L s 0 of��e BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR PLANNING AREA 3 PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Planning Area 3 is approximately 45 acres of vacant land. This Planning Area provides for the majority of new development on the Boeing site. New light industrial r,J buildings with up to 628,000 square feet of gross floor area are designated for this Planning Area. The maximum FAR for Planning Area 3 is 0.60. Planning Area 3 would include a new road system including ingress /egress from Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue via Apollo Drive, providing access to the new industrial park and existing facilities. As part of the development of Planning Area 3, Adolfo Lopez Drive would be widened and extended. Two man -made drainage ditches would be incorporated into the water quality and landscape plan for the project in this area. The water quality concept is to incorporate Li bio- filtration, treatment areas and best management practices (BMPs) to capture low flows and provide retention to meet the storm water runoff and water quality objectives of local and state agencies. In addition, the project would enhance and restore existing wetlands characteristics found in the two ditches. PLANNING AREA 4 PROPOSED HOTEL /COMMERCIAL AREA ' Planning Area 4 is approximately 5 acres consisting primarily of (unused) parking lot 7 at the eastern end of the property, between Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. This area is planned for hotel and /or commercial uses, allowing for up to 120 -hotel rooms and 32,500 square feet of commercial, including retail, restaurant L and /or other similar commercial uses. Business Park uses are also permitted in this Planning Area. The maximum FAR for Planning Area 4 is 0.65. r • RELATIONSHIP OF THE BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE GENERAL PLAN The City of Seal Beach General Plan identifies the 107 -acre Boeing Specific Plan area for Light Industrial land uses. The site has been designated for industrial land uses since the mid- 1960's, when North American Aviation initially developed the site. The existing General Plan recommends a "well- planned industrial park offering fully serviced, protected sites for quality industry." The Boeing Specific Plan meets the intent of the General Plan in that a quality business park is proposed for be property. However, the Boeing Specific Plan does require a General Plan Amendment for the following reasons: 0 To amend the Land Use Element to add the Boeing project site to the list of properties identified for Specific and Precise Plan; 0 To amend the Land Use Element to change the reference and description of "industrial park" to "business park" which would expressly permit point of sale industrial /manufacturing businesses in all Planning Areas and hotel and commercial uses in Planning Area 4; 0 To eliminate outdated references to Rockwell International and correct the acreages listed for light industrial use; and r LJ FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 3 -11 Project Description clikof s�' BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 0 To amend the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect these changes. ZONING REGULATIONS The 107 -acre Boeing Specific Plan area is presently zoned Light Manufacturing (M -1). The purpose of this designation as stated in the Code of the City of Seal Beach is as follows: "7t is the intent of the City to encourage and require all development in the M- 1 zone to take place under an industrial park concept in order to insure compatibility with surrounding land use and to preserve the general health, safety and welfare of the community." The Boeing Specific Plan proposes to rezone the site to Specific Plan Regulation (SPR) to allow for a business park planning concept that will assure compatibility, preserve the general health, safety and welfare of the community and create a cohesive, quality design for the project. The adoption of the Boeing Specific Plan would supersede the existing zoning and establish a new set of development regulations and design guidelines for the 107 -acre site. The zoning designation would change from the existing M -1 designation to SPR, which the Boeing Specific Plan would implement. The Boeing Specific Plan permits opportunities for point -of -sale industrial/ manufacturing uses and allows for office, commercial, hotel and other land uses currently not identified in the M -1 zone. The Boeing Specific Plan also identifies a range of conditionally permitted uses that are compatible with Boeing operations and the proposed business park. The Boeing Specific Plan further incorporates design guidelines and development regulations that would assure development compatibility with adjacent land uses. THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT The City of Seal Beach by Resolution Number 3248, approved and adopted a Draft Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) on February 28, 1983, after determining it to be in accordance with the goals and objectives of the California Coastal Act. The draft LUP was conditionally approved by the California Coastal Commission in 1983, but has never been certified. The draft LUP from 1983 divides the City into seven planning areas. The Boeing Specific Plan project site is known in the draft LUP as Area 3, the Hellman - Rockwell Property. Westminster Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard, the San Gabriel River and the Marina Hill District bound the Hellman /Rockwell Area, as designated in the draft LUP. This 336 -acre site is currently under the control of six interests, including the City of Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency (Police Station and Public Works Facilities), Hellman Properties (Open Space, Oil Production and Residential Development), State Lands Commission (Designated for Visitor - Serving Uses), Orange County Flood Control District (Los Alamitos Retarding Basin), Accurate Metals (manufacturing) and The Boeing Company (existing headquarters campus for Boeing Space & Communications Facilities). FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 3 -12 Project Description r C, oT J 44 BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EI �J Because the City's draft LUP and Local Coastal Program (LCP) remain uncertified, ' development within the Boeing Specific Plan would require Coastal Development �-' Permit (CDP) approval from the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The CCC is required to make findings that development of this site is in compliance with the s , goals and policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 ( "Coastal Act "). The CDP Li entitlement process with the CCC would be initiated after the City of Seal Beach discretionary approvals have been granted (i.e., General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Precise Plan Approval and Vesting Tentative Tract Map). 1J' LAND USE POLICIES Land Use Policies for the project are identified below: r ♦ The existing Boeing Space & Communications facilities may expand within each Planning Area concurrent with Precise Plan Review and /or Subdivision Map application. r QJ; ♦ Office uses are allowed in all Planning Areas. ♦ Point of sale industrial business and manufacturing uses are permitted and encouraged in all Planning Areas. ♦ Business park land uses, particularly light manufacturing, assembly, research t and development, warehouse and distribution are permitted in all Planning 1 -� Areas. ♦ Planning Area 4 is intended for hotel /commercial uses. Commercially 1 -� reasonable efforts to market the property for this use shall continue for a period of 18 months after adoption of the Boeing Specific Plan. If hotel /commercial uses are determined within such 18 month period not be feasible, Planning Area 4 may be developed with business park land uses. I L CIRCULATION PLAN The Land Use Plan and Illustrative Site Plan illustrate the general alignments and locations for streets within the Boeing Specific Plan. Internal circulation for the existing campus is currently provided by a network of private streets and drives that meet the requirements of current Boeing operations at the site. New primary access locations into the project area would be from Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard (Apollo Drive). Apollo Drive may ultimately connect Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue, with the demolition of buildings and facilities in Planning Area 2. Apollo Drive access points have been located and designed to provide full turning movements at existing signalized intersections. Two roads from Apollo Drive (Saturn Way and Apollo Court) would provide access to the new parcels and will cul -de -sac. As analyzed in Section 5.3, the roadway system would adequately serve the projected traffic volumes for the Specific Plan area. FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 3 -13 Project Description o of s� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR As also described in Section 5.3, the circulation system will accommodate the build - out of the Specific Plan area. Initial street construction and future phased construction or reconstruction would be completed in advance of occupancy of new facility- phased construction. The Director of Development Services and the Director of Public Works shall approve phasing plans for street improvement construction, consistent with development construction phasing and implemented through the Precise Plan Review and /or Subdivision Map process. Circulation Policies for the project are identified below: o Saturn Way and Apollo Court shall be designed to accommodate a public right -of -way of 60 feet. o Upon development of Planning Area 2, and in coordination with the City Engineer, Apollo Drive may be extended to connect Westminster Avenue with Seal Beach Boulevard. o Apollo Drive is proposed to accommodate a public right -of -way of 60 feet o Right -of -way design for public streets within the Boeing Specific Plan area will be finalized in connection with approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16375. o Project entries may include a larger cross-section to accommodate full turning movements, medians and traffic signals as determined by the Director of Public Works. o Pedestrian sidewalks shall be incorporated into the right -of -way for Apollo Drive, Apollo Court and Saturn Way. Sidewalks shall be installed to best accommodate pedestrian needs adjacent to new development within the Specific Plan area. o Other existing ingress /egress to Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard to the Boeing campus shall be maintained. o Adolfo Lopez Drive shall be improved adjacent to the project site. Access to adjacent lot(s) from Adolfo Lopez Drive shall be permitted. o Landscaped parkways for public streets are permitted between the curb and sidewalk. o On street parking shall not be permitted anywhere in the project area. o The "Trip Generation Budget" identified in EIR 02 -1 shall be reviewed with each individual project request at the time of Precise Plan Review and /or Subdivision Map submittal. GRADING CONCEPT Site grading is would require cut and fill to create building pads that are slightly elevated to match existing, developed conditions, and to facilitate adequate FINAL o APRIL 2003 3 -14 Project Description U r U BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR sewerage and drainage. Final grading plans will be approved by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a grading permit. r WATER SYSTEM PLAN i An adequate water supply is necessary to serve new development within the Specific Plan area. The City of Seal Beach Public Works Department currently provides (' domestic water service to the property. Existing water lines and facilities would be extended and new facilities would be constructed with new development. Currently, the City of Seal Beach provides water to its service area from four wells that have a total pumping capacity of 11.46 million gallons per day (mgd) or 7,800 gallons per minute (gpm). Additionally, the City of Seal Beach owns approximately r . 3.9 mgd (2,700 gpm) capacity in the Metropolitan Water District's OC -35 connection. The City's combined capacity is 15.36 mgd (10,500 gpm). The maximum daily demand, peak hour demand and fire flow requirements of development within the Specific Plan area can be met with the City's existing supply U capacity. All water mains are proposed to be dedicated to the City through r easements and /or through public dedication for road right -of -way purposes. SEWER SYSTEM PLAN The provision of adequate sewerage facilities is an important prerequisite to development. As described in Section 5.11, the sewerage facilities in Seal Beach are composed of shared, public pipelines and related facilities which collect and J transport water -borne wastes away from individual homes or businesses, treat the waste and then dispose of it in a manner that is not detrimental to the public health or to the environment. Collection and treatment of sewerage in Seal Beach is • accomplished by a combination of City and County facilities. This includes pipes, i pump stations and treatment plants, all of which have the capacity to serve development of properties within the Boeing Specific Plan area. Local wastewater is collected and conveyed through Seal Beach facilities to the Orange County Sanitation District Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach where it is treated. The treated effluent is then disposed of through the existing ocean outfall. 1 The Boeing Specific Plan is located within District 3 of the Orange County Sanitation District. Existing Boeing facilities connect into the City's lift station at Westminster Avenue. New development would include additional sewerage facilities, including service lines, force mains, lift stations and /or modifications to the existing City lift stations. ++ L� U r' r• LJ STORM DRAINAGE PLAN The Boeing Specific Plan area is developed with a series of private catch basins, storm water pipes and man -made open drainage ditches that convey runoff from the undeveloped and developed portions of the site to the adjacent Los Alamitos Retention Basin (LARB). The LARB is a 35 -acre regional flood control facility owned and operated by the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFD). The LARB provides for collection and storage of storm water runoff from a 5,000 -acre watershed, prior to being pumped into the San Gabriel River. FINAL 1 APRIL 2003 3 -15 Project Description BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The Boeing Specific Plan project includes use of, and extensions to, existing facilities to continue to control storm water on the site as well as construction of new facilities. The ultimate location and sizes of the proposed storm drain lines may vary from that shown on the plan. MATER QUALITY Water quality in California is primarily regulated by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES), under the federal Clean Water Act. The State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCQB) administer both State of California and NPDES regulations. Locally, the County of Orange has developed a Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and the City of Seal Beach has adopted a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWAMP). The SWQMP requires implementation of, and compliance with, all local, state and federal regulations regarding water quality. The Boeing Specific Plan states that the intent is to be consistent with all local, state and federal regulations. As described in Section 5.9, typical elements of Best Management Practices (BMP) program will include the use of City- approved catch basin filters and may also include the use of oil and grease traps, bio- filtration, local detention basins, vegetation filter strips and inlet separation devices. The intention is to use, expand and enhance the central and southern drainage ditches for wetland restoration, storm water runoff and water quality purposes. AWater Quality Assessment Report (included as Appendix 15.8 of this EIR) and a Conceptual Wetlands Restoration Plan (included as Appendix 15.5 of this EIR) have been prepared for this Project. SOLID WASTE Solid waste generated by the Boeing Specific Plan would be disposed of at County landfills. Within the City of Seal Beach, solid waste is currently picked up and recycled and /or disposed of by a private company selected by the City. As described in Section 5.11, based on service projections and anticipated demand increase, an adequate level of service would be maintained for the Specific Plan area. No solid waste disposal facilities are planned to be located in the Specific Plan area. ELECTRICITY The Boeing Specific Plan area is currently located within the service area of the Southern California Edison (SCE) Company. As described in Section 5.11, existing transmission and distribution lines are adequate to service current and potential future needs. Individual development projects may require relocating existing facilities, including the on -site sub - station, concurrent with other improvements. All new services would be provided underground. NATURAL GAS Natural gas service in the Specific Plan area is currently provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Development projects would require extensions and possible relocations of natural gas facilities. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 3 -16 Project Description ( r' U L L f� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR TELEPHONE Telephone service in the Specific Plan area is currently provided by General Telephone (GTE). Coordination with GTE would be required for relocation of existing facilities and installation of new service. All new services would be provided underground. CABLE TELEVISION Cable television service within Seal Beach is currently provided by Adelphia Communications. Coordination with this company would be required for the installation of new service. All new services would be provided underground. POLICE SERVICES The City of Seal Beach Police Department currently provides police services to the Boeing Specific Plan area. The Department currently has thirty -seven police officers, sixteen civilian employees, eight reserve police officers, and forty senior volunteers providing quality service to the City of Seal Beach. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES U The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) currently provides fire prevention/ ' suppression and emergency services to the City of Seal Beach. Stations serving the City of Seal Beach include Station 44 at 718 Central Avenue and Station 48 at 3131 Beverly Manor Road. DESIGN GUIDELINES r The Boeing Specific Plan is a planned community for existing and planned light ' industrial business, research and development, office and commercial uses. The design guidelines in the Specific Plan define the general criteria for implementing coordinated design, organizational unity and overall visual identity for the new areas to be developed, while maintaining opportunities for specific needs and creativity for each project. Included are parameters for integrated site planning, architecture, landscaping and exterior lighting, as well as procedures and requirements for design � 1 submittal and review. The intent of these guidelines is to establish a consistent U design concept that produces a clear image and a sense of prestige, efficiency and integrity. The design guidelines have been developed to be "guidelines" as opposed to "development regulations" and should not be interpreted to require stringent compliance with any particular element. To promote the quality of design planned for this project, the design guidelines provided in the Specific Plan establish criteria that enhance the coordination, organization, function and identity of the site, while maintaining a compatible relationship with development surrounding the Boeing Specific Plan area. u 1 1 U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 3 -17 Project Description cif � -of s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR SITE PLANNING Site planning guidelines for the Boeing Specific Plan have been developed to create visual consistency and promote the development of a quality business park. Site planning is to be developed in a manner that emphasizes a clean, pleasant and contemporary environment. The goals of the site planning guidelines are to control building placement, enhance entry effects, organize vehicular and pedestrian circulation, address future expansion for buildings and parking, and lessen the influence of disruptive elements such as service areas. (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS The regulations set forth in the Boeing Specific Plan are the standards for development within the Specific Plan area and would act as the controlling mechanism in implementing development. Implementation of these regulations will ensure that the project will proceed in a coordinated manner, consistent with the goals and policies of the Boeing Specific Plan and the City of Seal Beach General Plan, as implemented by the Specific Plan. Such regulations are proposed pursuant to Article 8, Authority and Scope of Specific Plans of the Planning and Zoning Law of the Government Code and are in compliance with the provisions of Sections 65450 of the Government Code, and Chapter 28, Article 29.5 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS POLICIES The following policies are proposed in the Boeing Specific Plan to apply to all developments and land uses within the Boeing Specific Plan area: o Unless otherwise specified, all development within the Boeing Specific Plan area shall comply with the Code of the City of Seal Beach. Terms used in the Specific Plan shall have the same meaning as defined in the Code of the City of Seal Beach unless otherwise defined in the Specific Plan. o Any standards, uses, details or issues not specifically covered by the Boeing Specific Plan shall be subject to the regulations of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. Wherever there is inconsistency between the development standards of the Code of the City of Seal Beach and the development standards of the Boeing Specific Plan, those in the Specific Plan shall control, pursuant to Section 28 -1702 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. o Development standards, regulations and procedures in the Boeing Specific Plan that reference the Code of the City of Seal Beach shall be those in effect on the date the application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16375 has been determined to be complete pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code. o Whenever a use has not been specifically listed as being a permitted use in a particular Planning Area of the Specific Plan, it shall be the duty of the Director of Development Services to determine if the use is consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan and compatible with other permitted uses. The FINAL o APRIL 2003 3 -18 Project Description C o BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR applicant and /or the Director of Development Services may request that the Planning Commission make the final determination. o Permitted land uses also include accessory buildings and uses that are customarily incidental to, and located on the same site with, the main building. o The Director of Development Services may determine that other conditional uses not specifically identified are conditionally permitted uses. The applicant and /or the Director of Development Services may request that the Planning I Commission make the final determination. o All construction within the boundaries of the Boeing Specific Plan shall comply with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code and the various mechanical, electrical and plumbing codes adopted or locally modified by the City of Seal Beach, as established by Section 5 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. o If any regulation, condition, program or portion thereof of the Specific Plan is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and the invalidity of such provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of the Specific Plan. o Requests for expansion and /or new construction of Boeing Space & Communications buildings and facilities within Planning Area 1 for Boeing- related uses shall be regulated by the Precise Plan Review process. o Planning Area 4 is planned for commercial lodging and retail land uses that provide commercial and visitor - serving services. For these uses, Planning Area 4 is regulated by design guidelines, development regulations and requirements identified for Planning Area 4. If, after 18 months from the adoption of the Boeing Specific Plan, such lodging and commercial land uses are determined infeasible, this Planning Area may be developed with (�f business park land uses. o Temporary buildings required for Boeing facility uses shall be permitted L j subject to review and approval by the Department of Development Services under the Precise Plan Review process. ��r ,,1 U V L G o All structures, facilities, and uses in existence within the Specific Plan area at the time of adoption of the Specific Plan shall be deemed to be in conformance with the development regulations, land use plan, public facilities and service plans, design guidelines and other applicable provisions of the Specific Plan. o The overall intensity for the Specific Plan area is proposed to be established with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The FAR for each Planning Area is identified in Table 5 -2, Development Standards, of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan. FINAL o APRIL 2003 3 -19 Project Description BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o FAR is defined as the ratio between the amount of gross floor area permitted to be constructed on a legal building lot and the size of the lot. In computing gross floor area of a building, the gross area confined within the exterior walls of the building shall be considered as the floor area of each floor of the building. This includes space devoted to hallways, stairwells, elevator shafts, lobbies, light courts and basement storage. Gross floor area does not include covered parking floor space with necessary interior driveways and ramps thereto, space within a roof structure or penthouse for the housing of equipment or machinery incidental to the operation of the building, and space for loading and storage of helicopters. ® Large -lot subdivision, for the purpose of financing or conveyance, may be approved provided the Subdivision Map related thereto includes a declaration that the lots created are not building sites. Installation or bonding of infrastructure improvements shall not be made a condition of approval of a large -lot subdivision unless for financing or conveyance purposes infrastructure improvements are necessary to provide required street frontage access. o Permits and approvals required from other agencies may necessitate revisions, adjustments and /or amendments to the Boeing Specific Plan. The City of Seal Beach shall not unreasonably withhold approval of any revision, adjustment or amendment that is mandated by conditions of approval imposed by any other governmental agency. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The development standards for the Boeing Specific Plan are proposed and intended to provide a quality business park in conjunction with the potential for hotel and commercial uses, within the context of existing Boeing operations and facilities. All Planning Areas are permitted to be developed with business park land uses. However, Planning Area 4 provides additional flexibility for commercial uses, including hotel, retail, restaurant, and other commercial land uses. The permitted and conditionally permitted land uses are in Table 5.1, Boeing Specific Plan Permitted Land Uses, of the Boeing Specific Plan. Table 5 -2 identifies the proposed development standards for each Planning Area. PARKING All developments will be required to meet the minimum parking standards as established by the City of Seal Beach Municipal code. In addition, the following parking standards outlined in the Specific Plan are proposed to apply to development within the Boeing Specific Plan area: o Standard parking stall size shall be nine (9) feet wide by nineteen (19) feet deep in Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3. In Planning Area 4, standard parking stalls shall be nine (9) feet wide by twenty (20) feet deep. Parking stalls may be reduced to provide a wheel stop at seventeen (17) feet and eighteen (18) feet, respectively, with a two (2) foot overhang to expand the landscaping. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 3 -20 Project Description j BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r This additional landscape area will not be credited toward the required U landscape percentage. o A compact parking stall size of eight feet zero inches (8' -0 ") wide by j seventeen (17) feet deep may be proposed for up to a maximum of twenty U five (25) percent of the total required parking spaces in each Planning Area. o Shared parking may be permitted for combined office, research and development, commercial and industrial uses. A shared parking program may allow for a reduction of required parking by up to twenty five (25) percent, based upon a shared parking analysis. A shared parking program may be �j approved under the provisions of the Conditional Use Permit process. o Handicapped accessible parking spaces shall be provided as required by law. o Any 9 9 existing Boeing facility required surface parking in Planning Area 1 removed for new development, shall be replaced on a one for one basis concurrent with such new development. If new development requires a 1 � greater number of parking spaces, the increase shall also be provided. o The parking standards for self- storage uses are not defined in the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code. Parking standards for this use shall be one (1) space per 10,000 square feet. 3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES j The purpose of the Boeing Specific Plan project is based on the following underlying principle: ` To create a quality business park campus, compatible with existing Boeing 0 Space & Communications Group headquarters, operations and facilities. L" FINAL o APRIL 2003 3 -21 Project Description The Boeing Specific Plan proposes to establishes the following: o Identification, location, character and intensities of the planned business park, (- hotel and commercial development activities. o Alignment and design of the circulation system. o Identification and location of all public and private facilities and infrastructure necessary to facilitate the project. o Land use and development standards for the existing Boeing facilities and for the planned business park, hotel and retail uses. o A compatible design theme for the project area, creating continuity within the planned business park and compatibility with existing buildings, facilities, operations and other surrounding land uses. L" FINAL o APRIL 2003 3 -21 Project Description clikof s� BOE INGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Project objectives have been proposed for the development of properties within the Boeing Specific Plan. These objectives are identified below: Planning and Environmental Design o Provide for comprehensive land use and infrastructure planning, while respecting the physical and existing Boeing operational constraints of the site. o Create a cohesive identity for the Specific Plan area, and provide a consistent project theme, development standards and design guidelines that allow design flexibility to better respond to market needs. o Promote high quality design and well ordered spatial relationships among buildings and land uses. o Unify the Specific Plan area through the implementation of a consistent landscape, architectural and street scene program; and create a comprehensive signage system that includes identification, directional and informational signage, which is appropriate for both the Specific Plan area and the overall community. o Establish an efficient pattern of local circulation, both vehicular and pedestrian, which will also provide linkage between the project area and the surrounding community. o Provide for wetland restoration and water quality treatment of urban runoff for new development by creating wetland habitat on the terraces along each side of Drainage Ditches A and B as well as within the water quality treatment basins at the site. Land Use and Development o Implement the policies of the Seal Beach General Plan for the project site and vicinity through the Specific Plan process. o Increase connectivity within the Specific Plan area, and provide a planning framework that responds to the physical and market driven aspects of future development opportunities. o Encourage the expansion of a range of employment opportunities within the City of Seal Beach by combining light industrial, manufacturing, research and development, commercial and office land uses in close proximity to similar existing uses. o Preserve and enhance one of only two sites in the City of Seal Beach zoned and used for industrial and manufacturing purposes. o Provide visitor - serving uses, open space, and public access within the Coastal Zone consistent with market demands and security concerns. FINAL o APRIL 2003 3 -22 Project Description In f ' BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 0 Comply with applicable Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Fiscal Benefits 0 Allow business park uses that provide point of sale opportunities, and provide for a commercial planning area (Planning Area 4) allowing for hotel and retail land uses. r U o Encourage revitalization and reuse within the project area in a logical, systematic manner, compatible with existing Boeing operations. 3.5 PHASING r Development and occupancy is not mandated by any phasing schedule. U Development would be dictated by market demand and phased accordingly. The following conceptual phasing schedule is provided for planning purposes and assumptions to conduct the analysis in this EIR. L Rough site grading, demolition, and construction of the pu blic roadway and r public infrastructure improvements to serve Planning Areas 2 and 3 of the project ' are anticipated to begin by the end of 2003 and be completed by mid -2004 in a single phase. Building construction may commence by early 2004 for the portion of Planning Area 3 located adjacent to Westminster Avenue and continue in a southerly progression. Building construction in Planning Area 4 may also commence by early 2005. It is currently anticipated that all buildings /lots would be constructed by BRC and /or sold to individual lot purchasers who would be responsible for the r construction of the buildings in accordance with the approved development plans. Occupancy is anticipated to occur as early as mid -2004, with full occupancy expected by the end of 2006. G ®g�g 30� 6°'1iG ®9��vO9ENTS9 P ERMITS AND APPR O VALS The City of Seal Beach is the Lead Agency for the project and has discretionary authority over the primary project proposal. To implement this project, the applicant will need to obtain various permits /approvals, including, but not limited to: City of Seal Beach L. L L L L' 0 Certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) o General Plan Amendments — Land Use, Circulation 0 Specific Plan approval o Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Final Map(s) approvals o Development Agreement (if utilized) 0 Any other approvals deemed necessary during the entitlement process o Precise Plan Approval Other Agencies 0 California Coastal Commission - Coastal Development Permit Approval FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 3 -23 Project Description BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 0 California Department of Fish and Game - 1603 Permit o Regional Water Quality Control Board - Section 402 NPDES Permit - Waste Discharge Permit 0 Federal Aviation Administration - Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Form 0 Any other approvals deemed necessary during the entitlement process Coordination with adjacent jurisdictions, agencies and utility companies referenced in Section 1.5 of this EIR may also be required. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 3 -24 Project Description r ij r r� r r laid r • L I r 4.rY r Ld r r 4 Lj r Lj r Lj 4.0 Basis f ®r Cumulati Analysis r• Lj L '�� --- RearA L BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR L o I CUMULATIVE ANALY U Section 15355 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as amended, provides the following definition of cumulative impacts: "Cumulative impacts' refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." Pursuant to Section 15130(a) of the aforementioned Guidelines, cumulative impacts of a �j project shall be discussed when the project's effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in Section 15065(c) of the Guidelines. The Initial Study Checklist provided as part of Appendix 15.1 indicates that the proposed project may yield potentially significant cumulative effects. As a result, Section 5.0 of this EIR provides a cumulative impact assessment for each applicable environmental issue, and does so to a degree which reflects each impact's severity and likelihood of occurrence. As indicated above, a cumulative impact involves two or more individual effects. Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the discussion of cumulative impacts shall be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), the following elements are necessary in an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts: �j 1. Either: a. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the Agency, or b. A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. 2. A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available; and 3. A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project's contribution to any significant cumulative effects. Table 4 -1, Cumulative Projects List, identifies related projects and other possible development in the area determined as having the potential to interact with the proposed project to the extent that a significant cumulative effect may occur. The location of these projects are also indicated in Exhibit 4 -1, Cumulative Projects Location Map. Information integral to the identification process was obtained from the City of Seal Beach, the City of Long Beach, and a review of several secondary i data sources. The resulting related projects include primarily only those determined U to be at least indirectly capable of interacting with the Boeing site. It is noted that although project 7 (residential development on Manila Avenue, Long Beach) and project 8 (commercial development on Marina Drive, Long Beach) are included in this list, they are not included in the Traffic Study due to their distance from the site r• FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 4 -1 Basis for Cumulative Analysis BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR (over two miles) and the limited size of the development descriptions. Table 4 -1, Approved and Pending Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site, summarizes the related projects according to location, type, and number of units /square footage realistically expected to develop on the site. Table 4-1* Approved and Pending Cumulative Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site Key Map Project Name' f Descri tion". • p Location Status 70 Single- family residential units West of Seal Beach and a 20,000 square foot Boulevard, southerly 1 Hellman Specific Plan visitor /recreation /community of The Seal Beach Approved commercial center Police Department Facility, Seal Beach Center rehabilitation and addition Seal Beach Boulevard /Saint Under 2 Rossmoor Center of Kohl Store for a total of 77,503 Cloud Drive, Seal construction sq. ft. Beach Northeast comer of 3 Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan Vacant floor area of Bixby Old Seal Beach Boulevard and the I- Plans approved and Ranch Master Plan (Area A) 405/22 Freeway, built Seal Beach Northeast corner of plans 3 Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan Vacant floor area Bixby Old Seal Beach Boulevard and the 1- approved and n Ranch Master Plan (Area B) 405/22 Freeway, under Seal Beach construction Northeast corner of 3 Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan Vacant floor area of Bixby Old Seal Beach Boulevard and the I- Plans approved and Ranch Master Plan (Area C) 405/22 Freeway, built Seal Beach Northeast comer of 3 Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan Vacant floor area of Bixby Old Seal Beach Boulevard and the I- Plans approved and Ranch Master Plan (Area D) 405/22 Freeway, built Seal Beach 4 Marina/1 Street Hotel 150 -Room hotel 1 Street, west of Marina Drive, Seal Allowable by Beach Specific Plan North of Katella 5 Los Alamitos Medical Center Development of 60,000 square Avenue, between Cherry Street and Approved foot medical office building Kaylor Avenue, Los Al amitos 6 10921 Cherry Street Medical Development of 7,685 square 10921 Cherry Street, Approved Center Office Building foot medical office building Los Alamitos 7 Residential Development 52 Single- family residential units 301 Manila Ave, Under Long Beach Construction Entitlements granted; 8 Commercial Development 19,500 Square foot commercial 190 Marina Drive, pending building Long Beach passage by Coastal Commission "Note: At the time of preparation of the Draft EIR, the current information in the Table was accurate. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 4 -2 Basis for Cumulative Analysis 0 L LI l.J I U f L�l L U U i 1 1 L...J xx CL W cc m W W0� LL z O CO 1-� CL U U a— LL CL U a) a. w cn Z � w � m m : -Z IE 01-� o alop6uudg :0 is m d 15 ram f-11 c a° N N c �? o U O > CD E U Id uowwoH P H oyouoa L cg O iv 2 CD C, d F iv E VS = E as W < Z E E PH Dom �I °8 ® Z cn t N C I C- U U Lt') cc ti co w A 0 u 'o M � ¢ ^ U U _ O c a� 3 0 ® O M O® �z c Lj c cnn Q c c 2 m y E � O PM9 ® 3 E r >` C N O X ¢` cc cc m i r N M `7 u c yooag K a 3 Rood A u u 0 � 191ond E[ , O village U Dr w w a tY G] m A� ja„octaPa7S o` iv � v in e G� J� a c N IB WmoU11a8 ��a O O Q n xx CL W cc m W W0� LL z O CO 1-� CL U U a— LL CL U a) a. w cn Z � w � m m i...r r t r L r La r' L4 r t Li r s Lj 1 L r• i r 1 r L + r • L r I.,:, r I.�.J r L ` r l am.! ! r Lj 5.0 Description of Environmental Setting, Im • Miti Measures L S�___Pe=A L BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ' 5.1 LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING U The purpose of this Section is to identify the existing land use conditions, analyze project compatibility with existing uses and consistency with relevant planning policies and to recommend mitigation measures to avoid or lessen the significance of potential impacts. Information presented in this section is based upon site surveys performed by RBF Consulting in June 2002, site photographs, the City of Seal Beach L General Plan and Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the California Coastal Act and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies. This section identifies on -site and L surrounding land use conditions and land use policy requirements set forth by the City of Seal Beach. L ExosaiNG cowDAT'oNs L ill r. I U L. L. L" U U U C r ORS -SITE LAND USES The proposed Boeing Specific Plan property consists of approximately 107 acres located in the southwestern portion of the City of Seal Beach. Existing headquarters operations are located on approximately 62 acres of the Project site while the remaining 45 acres are vacant. Existing uses on -site include approximately 1.15 million square feet of office, research and development, manufacturing, and support operations space. Over 3,000 people are employed at this location. A total of nine major structures, seven minor facilities /support structures and other related facilities exist on the property. Additionally, approximately 3,100 parking spaces, hardscape and landscape features, a heliport and other facilities exist in the developed portion of the property. For descriptive purposes, existing land uses on the Project site are identified below according to Planning Areas identified in the proposed Specific Plan (refer to Section 3.0, Project Description). Existing Boeing Space and Communications Campus Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2 form Boeing's existing campus (refer to Exhibit 3 -4, Land Use Plan). Planning Area 1 encompasses approximately 41 acres and comprises the existing core campus use of the property. Four buildings, surface parking adjacent to Westminster Avenue, and other facilities and structures exist in this area. The existing structures /facilities in Planning Area 1 represent approximately 805,000 square feet and house a mix of uses including office, research and development, warehouse and distribution, manufacturing, and support services. Planning Area 2 encompasses approximately 16 acres and includes eight buildings, a fire system tank farm, tank farm, and an electrical substation. The existing structures /facilities in Planning Area 2 represent approximately 345,000 square feet. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -1 Land Use and Relevant Planning C,16T,0,� s� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Unused Parking (Lot 7) . Planning Area 4 encompasses approximately 5.0 acres and is situated at the northeast portion of the Project site, between the core campus and the existing neighborhood shopping center located off -site. This area consists primarily of an unused parking lot known as Lot 7. Vacant Land Planning Area 3 encompasses approximately 45 acres generally situated at the western portion of the Project site. This area consists of a parking lot and vacant land. Various improvements exist within the vacant area including electrical transmission and distribution facilities, and three man -made ditches that convey runoff from Boeing's facilities. The vacant land and ditches are maintained on a regular basis for fire control, weed abatement, and drainage purposes. SURROUNDING LAND USES The proposed project site is within the corporate limits of the City of Seal Beach and is located westerly of the Seal Beach Boulevard - Westminster Avenue intersection. Properties to the north, across Westminster Avenue, are General Plan designated and zoned for Service Commercial, General Commercial and Residential High Density Planned Development uses. Within the Service Commercial and General Commercial areas are located a service station, an approximately 87,000 square -foot neighborhood shopping center, and a United States Post Office facility. The Residential High - Density Planned Development area comprises the Seal Beach Leisure World retirement community, consisting of approximately 6,500 housing units within 525 acres. To the east, across Seal Beach Boulevard, is the United States Naval Weapons Station -Seal Beach, located within a Public Land Use General Plan and zoning designation. The Naval Weapons Station comprises approximately 5,000 acres and extends from the 1 -405 Freeway to the Pacific Ocean, between Seal Beach Boulevard and Bolsa Chica Road. Facilities most adjacent to the Boeing Space and Communications Division consist of the Research, Testing and Evaluation Area. This area consists of multi -story office and production buildings, parking areas, and various other above and below ground testing, evaluation and storage facilities. Between 1962 and 1973, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) utilized this area for the design and manufacturing of the Saturn II launch vehicle for the Apollo Program. Currently, the facilities are used for storage, communications research and office space by the Naval Weapons Station. To the southeast and immediately adjacent to the Boeing Space and Communications property is an existing industrial facility, Accurate Metal, located on approximately 3.5 acres, containing approximately 62,700 square feet of light industrial fabrication facilities. To the south, across Adolfo Lopez Drive, are located the City of Seal Beach Police Department, Corporate Yard, and Animal Care Center facilities. These properties are General Plan designated and zoned for Public Land Use. To the west, across the Los Alamitos Channel and adjacent to Westminster Avenue, is the Island Village residential community within the City of Long Beach. Also to the west and adjacent to the Project site is Los Alamitos Retarding Basin (LARB), within the City of Seal Beach. The Island Village community is designated within the City of FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -2 Land Use and Relevant Planning f' L cll�ws�---PearA BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Long Beach General Plan and zoned Planned Development 1, which is a specific L plan zoning designation for residential land uses. The LARB is identified in the Seal Beach General Plan as Public Land Use. The LARB is within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, which designates the property for regional flood control purposes. The LARB is an existing facility providing collection and storage of storm water runoff L from a 5,000 -acre watershed. ( CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN U The City of Seal Beach General Plan is organized into ten elements. The General Plan Elements relevant to the proposed Project are described below. The General Plan goals and policies relevant to the proposed Project are detailed in Table 5.1 -1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. Land Use Element "The Land Use Element is an outline, or guide for decision making by both public and L private sectors to direct the growth of either new construction or modernization of the community into the type of an environment desired by it's people. "' The Element further identifies community goals that served as a general guide in making land use decisions. Land use goals relevant to the Project are outlined in Table 5.1- 1. G �i L i ll L, The City is divided into distinct planning districts to evaluate issues and potentials for the community. According to Figure 1 of the Land Use Element, Planning Districts, the Project site is located in the Marina Hills Planning District. The Element identifies the following issues and potentials with respect to the Marina Hills Planning District: Parcel of land between Gum Grove Park and the Boeing facilities Issue What are the future land use possibilities for this land? Potential This parcel of land located north of Gum Grove Park, is presently being utilized for oil products extraction. The life expectancy of this use is approximately 10 to 15 years. Of primary environmental concern for future development of this area is the existence of the Seal Beach Fault (an active fault trace). The design for any use in this area will have to compensate for possible land movement due to the fault trace. County Flood Control Basin Issue Can the Flood Control Basin and adjacent land be used for some use that is compatible? Potential The issue under consideration here is the use of adjacent land to the flood basin and the possible use of the basin during non -flood times. One concept that has been considered is a regional park designed in conjunction with the flood basin. ' General Plan Land Use Element, Revised through 1997. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -3 Land Use and Relevant Planning C,16�w s�� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable General Plan Goal /Objective LAND USE ELEMENT 6. COMMERCIAL: The City should explore available means to support and encourage commercial development with the community. 8. Seal Beach should encourage development of non - noxious industry, such as research and development and other light industry, in areas where such activities would be compatible with existing land uses. The City does recognize the advantages of industry in providing jobs within the area and contributing to the tax base of the community. 1. EXISTING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL: Two areas within the City are proposed to provide additional light industrial sites. The first is the parcel of land located directly adjacent to the Boeing facility. The existing facility and future expansion will occupy approximately 90 acres of the total 120 acre site. It is recommended that the remaining 30 vacant acres be designated for light industrial use, hopefully in the form of an "industrial park" instead of being permitted to develop in a haphazard manner. OPEN SPACEIRECREATION ELEMENT A 35 -acre basin is located south of Westminster Avenue and west of Rockwell International's Seal Beach facility. This basin may be suitable for dual usage. These uses would consist of a flood water retarding basin during the winter and a regional park during the drier portions of the year. 1J. Encourage emergency vehicular access that is of a sufficient width to allow people and emergency equipment into a hazard area and still allow for evacuation, if needed. 2E. Encourage and support the use of central drop -off centers and /or mobile collection vehicles for proper disposal of hazardous materials. Project Consistency Discussion Consistent: The Project provides for development of a business park, combined with hotel and commercial uses within the framework of the existing Boeing Space & Communications Consistent: The Project provides for development of a business park within the framework of the existing Boeing Space & Communications Group headquarters operations. Refer to Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, for a discussion of land use compatibility. Consistent: As indicated in Table 5 -1 of the Specific Plan, Boeing Specific Plan Permitted Land Uses, various light industrial uses would be permitted in the Specific Plan area. Thus, should the City of Seal Beach approve the proposed General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan's Development Standards and permitted uses, the proposed Project would satisfy the General Plan's designation and ultimate intended use of the subject site. Consistent: As noted in Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, the County of Orange has recently proposed infrastructure improvements (i.e., re- grading the pump basin and installing /adding new pumps) as well as a water quality treatment wetland in the existing LARB retention basin located adjacent to the Project site. Further, the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan designated this area for conservation and flood control uses. Project implementation would not interfere with the use of this area. Consistent Access to the proposed business park would occur from both Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue via the proposed Apollo Drive. Two roadways from Apollo Drive (Saturn Way and Apollo Court) would provide access to all new parcels. Both roads will cul -de -sac, providing safe and efficient on -site circulation for day -to -day traffic and emergency vehicles. Additionally, Apollo Drive may be extended in the future to connect Westminster Avenue with Seal Beach Boulevard. Consistent Project development would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Compliance with State and applicable local regulations would reduce potential impacts to less than significan levels. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -4 Land Use and Relevant Planning f� L L U G 1 L LEI L BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -1 -Continued General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable General Plan Goal /Objective 2N. Facilitate the proper separation of sewer and storm drain systems through construction upgrades and operation and maintenance of sewer and storm drain infrastructure to eliminate the flow of sewage into the City storm drains. SCENIC HIGHWAY ELEMENT 2. Protect and enhance aesthetic resources within corridors of designated scenic highways and local roadways. 4. Develop and apply standards to regulate the quality of development within corridors of designated scenic highways and local roadways. Consequently, these arterials, such as Westminster Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, are becoming increasingly congested and receive heavy traffic volumes well in excess of their designed capacity. This situation is of special concern on those arterials which provide access to the freeway system. Project Consistency Discussion Consistent the City as a prerequisite to development would require the provision of adequate sewerage facilities. New development would include additional sewerage facilities, including service lines, force mains, lift stations and/or modifications to the existing City lift stations. The Project includes use of, and extensions to, existing facilities to continue to control storm water on the site as well as construction of new facilities. Consistent Seal Beach Boulevard (Electric Avenue to Lampson Avenue) is designated as a Local Scenic Route. Seal Beach Boulevard forms the Project site's southeastern boundary and is fully improved with mature trees and landscaping. Seal Beach Boulevard's "Local Scenic Route" designation is not due to the presence of scenic resources along the roadway or because the roadway possesses attractive qualities. Rather, the designation is because the roadway "provides the major link between the coastal and interior portion of the community and is part of the City's bicycle route system. " Accordingly, development of the proposed Project would not adversely affect any scenic vistas along Seal Beach Boulevard. Further, Design Guidelines and Development Regulations established in the Specific Plan would enhance and protect views along Seal Beach Boulevard. Consistent The proposed Specific Plan provides for the type, location and density of land uses (refer to Table 2 -1 of the Boeing Specific Plan, Boeing Specific Plan Land Uses) and development standards and regulations (i.e., height, setback, landscaping, aesthetic, and parking requirements) (refer to Section 5 of the Boeing Specific Plan, Development Regulations). These would be subject to review and approval by the City. Consistent As noted in Table 5.3 -7, Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary, the proposed Project would significantly impact 6 of the 21 key study intersections, all of which are currently operating at an unacceptable service level. However, with implementation of the recommended mitigation, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. 2 General Plan Bicycle Route Element, Revised through August 1999. Li FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -5 Land Use and Relevant Planning BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -1 -Continued General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable General Plan Goal /Objective Policy 1.1. Within one year of the issuance of the first building permit for a development project, or within two years of the issuance of the first grading permit for said development project, whichever occurs first, ensure that the necessary improvements to transportation facilities to which the project contributes measurable traffic are constructed and completed to attain level of service (LOS) "D" at the intersections under the sole control of the City. Intersections under the jurisdiction of another city, the County, the State or those included on the deficient intersection list established by the City and compiled by the Growth Management Areas (GMAs) in which the City participates (see Policy 3.1) are exempt from this requirement. However, through the environmental review process, the City may tie the phasing of development to improvements outside of the City as' a mitigation measure/condition of approval for project generated traffic Policy 1.3. All development contributing measurable impacts to intersections on the deficient intersection list and all projects contributing cumulatively, or individually, 10% or more of the traffic using an intersection shall be assessed a mitigation fee determined by the jurisdiction in the GMA and locally administered as part of the City's capital improvement Policy 1.4: All development contributing measurable impacts to intersections on the City's Traffic Impact Fee Study and all projects contributing cumulatively, or individually, 5% or more of the traffic using an intersection shall be assessed a mitigation fee determined by the City and locally administered as part of the City's capital improvement program. Policy 1.5: Promote traffic reduction strategies through transportation demand management (TDM) measures as adopted by City ordinance, currently impacting employers of one hundred or more persons. Policy 2.1: Require all new development pay its share of the street improvements costs associated with the development, including regional traffic mitigation. Policy 2.5: All area development shall be required to establish a development phasing program which phases approval of development commensurate with required improvements to roadway capacity. A phasing plan shall include an overall build out development plan, which can demonstrate the ability of the infrastructure to support the Policy 2.6: Development phasing of new projects shall be a component of the development review and entitlement process and shall be approved prior to issuance of building or Project Consistency Discussion Consistent As noted in Table 5.3 -7, Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary, the proposed Project would significantly impact 6 of the 21 key study intersections, all of which are currently operating at an unacceptable service level. With implementation of the recommended mitigation pertaining to the necessary improvements and payment of fees, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. The recommended mitigation is outlined in Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation. With mitigation, a level of service (LOS) "D" would be attained at the impacted intersections. Consistent Refer to Response to Policy 1.1. Consistent Refer to Response to Policy 1.1. Consistent Future development within the Specific Plan area creating over 100 jobs would be subject to compliance with TDM measures as adopted by City ordinance. Consistent Refer to Response to Policy 1.1. Consistent Compliance with the recommended mitigation pertaining to the necessary improvements and payment of fees would be required prior to Building Permit issuance. Additionally, Precise Plans would be required for all Planning Areas prior to Building Permit issuance. Consistent Refer to Response to Policy 2.5. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.1 -6 Land Use and Relevant Planning U , BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR L L C L G C L" L U I 'I L" Table 5.1 -1 -Continued General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable General Plan GoallObjective Project Consistency Discussion Policy 2.7: The City shall monitor the implementation of the Consistent Refer to Response to Policy 2.5. development phasing program of each of the new development projects on a bi- annual basis and prepare a report indicating the status of development approval and required traffic improvements and relationships between them. ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL ELEMENT 1A. All currently undeveloped properties within the boundaries of Consistent A site investigation was conducted by KEA the City of Seal Beach shall be required to be researched and Environmental (May 2000) that reviewed the west side of surveyed for archaeological sites, remains, artifacts, ecofacts, the Project site that is currently undeveloped. archeological places, and historical structures and places, by an Archeologist Consultant, as defined in Archeological Consultants, prior to the approval by the City of any development entitlements. This work shall be at the expense of the party requesting the development entitlements (e.g., any necessary development entitlement or permit). 1 C. The Seal Beach City Council shall require thorough scientific Consistent A site investigation was conducted by KEA evaluation of properties and sites by qualified consultants as Environmental. The KEA staff who conducted the defined in Archaeological Consultants, prior to the issuance of evaluation are qualified consultants and meet the criteria development entitlement. identified in the General Plan. 2A. The Research Design document shall include a number of Consistent The site investigation (i.e., research design well- defined research problems. The relevance of those research document) conducted by KEA Environmental (included as problems to local chronological or cultural development or other Appendix 15.6) identifies both the purpose and questions useful to testing propositions of method and theory methodology of the proposed investigation. must be justified. 27. Principal investigator, Project Director or specialist in Consistent Refer to Response to Policy 1 C. Prehistoric Archaeology shall possess a PhD or at least an M. A. in Anthropology or Archaeology from an accredited College or University. In addition, he/she shall meet the requirements for certification in field research by SOPA and shall demonstrate familiarity with the prehistoric and ethnohistoric archeology of Southern California. BICYCLE ROUTE ELEMENT Figure 1 of the Element, Bicycle Routes, designates two bike Consistent The Boeing Specific Plan Project does not routes in the Project vicinity: the Seal Beach Boulevard Route propose to eliminate or alter the bicycle routes in the Project and the Westminster Avenue Route. The Seal Beach Boulevard vicinity. However, the use of these bicycle routes may be Route is a designated bike lane extending from Bradbury Road to temporarily interrupted during construction of improvements Electric Avenue. The Westminster Avenue Route is a designated along Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard (i.e., bike lane from the Seal Beach City limits to Bolsa Chica Street. Apollo Drive entries). Interruption in use of these bicycle routes would be considered a temporary inconvenience. As this interruption /inconvenience would cease upon Project completion, this impact would be considered less than significant. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.1 -7 Land Use and Relevant Planning BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -1 -Continued General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable General Plan Goal /Objective Project Consistency Discussion HOUSING ELEMENT Program 5.2.1.2(E). Conduct public hearings to determine the Consistent In conjunction with the hearings on the Boeing appropriateness and benefits of redesignating a portion of a 50- Specific Plan Project approval, public hearings will also be acre underutilized site on the Rockwell International [Boeing] conducted to determine the appropriateness and benefits of property for uses including residential development, with a portion redesignating a portion of the Boeing property for housing. of the site considered for higher density housing affordable to Further, Alternative 7.3, Reduced Project Altemative, is lower income households, and other portions designated for based upon the Housing Element's references to residential single family detached residential uses, to promote more development of the undeveloped portion of the Project site balanced housing inventory within the communi refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Prop osed Project). CIRCULATION ELEMENT Amendment 97 -1: Subsection titled "Roadway Proposals ", Consistent Although the 1997 Circulation Element Subsection 4 [which called for the extension of First Street Amendment deleted the proposed roadway improvements between Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway and and a related map, an earlier map was inadvertently not for a secondary street from the First Street extension to deleted. The Project proposes to delete the earlier map, Westminster] is deleted in its entirety, as is the Figure indicating which depicts the deleted roadway improvements, and may the proposed circulation system for an earlier development add the connection between Westminster and Seal Beach p roposal on the Hellman Ranch pro Boulevard via Apollo Drive. NOISE ELEMENT Goal: Reduce the level of noise, so that it causes less human Consistent A number of mitigation measures are stress or health damage and is not as likely to interfere with recommended in Section 5.5, Noise, to reduce the level of human activities such as sleep, work, play or thought. noise and avoid or lessen noise impacts. Objective: The identification in quantitative, numerical terms of Consistent Section 5.5, Noise, identifies existing and existing and projected noise levels, noise sources, and noise projected noise levels related to the proposed Project in sensitive land uses in the City of Seal Beach. quantified, numerical terms. In addition, subsequent noise assessments are recommended and will be required to ensure that additional quantitative information regarding noise levels is gathered. SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT 2N. Facilitate the proper separation of sewer and storm drain Consistent The Project proposes a storm drain collection systems through construction upgrades and operation and system, a multi - purpose water quality /detention basin, and a maintenance of sewer and storm drain infrastructure to eliminate new pump station. Refer to Section 5.9, Hydrology and the flow of sewage into the City storm drains. Drainag and Section 5.11, Public Services and Utilities. 3A. Require a soils and geology report to be prepared and filed Consistent A soils and geology report has been prepared for all development projects as specified in the City's Municipal for the proposed Project. Prior to issuance of a Grading Code. Permit, the Project applicant would be required to submit a final geotechnical report to the City. 3B. Require geological surveys to be prepared after onsite Consistent Onsite borings, subsurface explorations, and borings or subsurface explorations at the time subdivisions are geotechnical surveys have been prepared and are included submitted to the City for approval. in the Geology and Feasibility Soils Report (refer to Section 5.8, Geolo and Soils). 3C. Require supervision by a state licensed soils engineer for Consistent A state licensed soils engineer shall supervise g rading operations which require a grading permit. grading operations in connection with the proposed Project. 3D. Maintain and enforce protection measures which address Consistent The Project proposes a storm drain collection control of runoff and erosion by vegetation management, control system and a multi - purpose water quality/detention basin of access, and site planning for new development and major that would address runoff and water quality issues. Refer to remodels, including directing runoff to the street and compliance Section 5.9, Hydrology and Drainage. with setbacks. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.1 -8 Land Use and Relevant Planning U r; LJ u �I L� I U r, U U F L u L J BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -1 -Continued General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable General Plan Goal /Objective Project Consistency Discussion 31. Require the use of drought- resistant vegetation with deep root Consistent The Project requires a complete, automatic systems where appropriate for safety reasons in new irrigation system in landscaped areas that considers a development projects to reduce the potential for over - irrigation. number of water conservation measures, including: the use of low water plant species, audit of water use, "state of the art" irrigation technology to maximize efficient use of water, and designs to deeply soak root growth zones while avoiding flow rates that exceed infiltration rate of soil. 3N. Determine the liquefaction potential of a site prior to Consistent The liquefaction potential has been development and require that specific measures be taken, as determined as part of the environmental review. Refer to necessary, to reduce damage in an earthquake. Section 5.8, Geology and Soils. 4F. As a condition of new development, require private Consistent The Project proposes the development and responsibility for development and maintenance of necessary maintenance of new fire flow water lines and other new fire flow water lines and hydrants in accordance with the infrastructure necessary to support the development. recommendations of the Orange County Fire Authority. 5C. Contain and utilize runoff from impervious surfaces onsite to Consistent The Project proposes a storm drain collection the greatest extent possible. Transmit excess runoff to the system, multi - purpose water quality /detention basin, and a nearest street or facility capable of conveying the runoff without new pump station. Refer to Section 5.9, Hydrology and impacting downstream areas. Drainag and Section 5.11, Public Services and Utilities. The "land" referred to in the issues noted above involves the Hellman Specific Plan area situated southwest of the Project site. Although the issues are not considered applicable to the Project site, Section 5.8, Geology and Soils, addresses the Project site's exposure to potential seismic hazards. The Project site is designated Light Industrial. At the time the Land Use Element was prepared, the Boeing facility (formerly the Rockwell facility) was the only light industrial land use existing in the City. The Element proposes two areas to provide additional light industrial uses in the City, one of which is the subject property. The following was noted in the Element with respect to the Project site: "The first is the parcel of land located directly adjacent to the North American Rockwell facility. The existing facility and future expansion will occupy approximately 90 acres of the total 120 -acre site. It is recommended that the remaining 30 vacant acres be designated for light industrial use, hopefully in the form of an "industrial park" instead of being permitted to develop in a Fi) haphazard manner. An "industrial park" is the counterpart to a well- designed, landscaped residential subdivision. The advantage of this type of planned approach is that the community can compete for industry by offering fully serviced, protected sites for quality industry." The Project proposed to amend the Land Use Element as follows: r I 1' U ® To amend the Land Use Element to add the Boeing project site to the list of properties identified for Specific and Precise Plans; FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -9 Land Use and Relevant Planning oi� -of s� BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o To amend the Land Use Element to change the reference and description of "industrial park" to "business park," which would expressly permit point of sale industrial /manufacturing businesses in all Planning Areas and hotel and commercial uses in Planning Area 4; o To eliminate outdated references to Rockwell International and correct the acreages listed for light industrial use; and o To amend the Land Use Map to reflect these changes. The Land Use Element has identified areas of the community recommended for specific application (i.e., Specific or Precise Plans) due to their critical location and future impact on the community. The Project site was not recommended for a specific/precise plan. However, in 1983, the City of Seal Beach approved and adopted a Draft Coastal Land Use Plan as a Specific Plan of the City's General Plan. The Project site is located within the Coastal Zone and as such is subject to compliance with the California Coastal Act. Refer to the California Coastal Act section below for further discussion regarding the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. Open Space /Recreation /Conservation Element This Element addresses community needs with respect to open space, recreation, and conservation. Open space is defined and classified according to the various types. Parcels /areas presently being used for open space purposes are described and future open space needs of the community are discussed in this Element. The methods to be used to ensure that the present and future open space needs of the community are met are identified. The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area is situated adjacent to and southwest of the Project site. According to the Specific Plan, approximately 178.5 acres were designated for conservation and recreational uses including the following: o Saltwater wetland (23.1 acres); o Freshwater wetlands (9.7 acres); o Gum Grove Nature Park* (10.2 acres); o Hellman Ranch Reserve Golf Course (100.8 acres); and o Los Alamitos Retarding Basin* (34.7 acres). * Denotes an existing use or facility. These Specific Plan provisions were modified by a settlement agreement removing golf course development and in its place providing a 100 -acre deed - restricted area for wetland restoration. Additionally, the settlement agreement provided for a future 50 -acre deed restriction for additional wetland restoration upon the closing of oil production on the property. 0 L Fo- u J J 9 9� u 3 The Open Space /Recreation /Conservation Element designates Gum Grove Park as a special use park. Special use parks are defined as "park -like places or special recreational facilities where a unique recreational activity is provided." FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.1 -10 Land Use and Relevant Planning u I r II . L." L L u I r � U L". L 1 L El (1 L rI L 016T of < �6��eaA BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Bicycle Route Element The Bicycle Route Element of the General Plan is intended to identify routes that when implemented would afford City residents not only citywide bicycle trails but connections with routes in Orange County, Los Angeles County and Long Beach. A bike route is defined as "a route for bicycle travel along bike paths and other facilities which will accommodate bicycles and their riders. The bike route may be a bike path, bike trail, bikewalk, or a bike lane." A bike lane is defined as a lane within the roadway designated for the one -way or two -way use of bicycles. Figure 1 of the General Plan, Bicycle Routes, designates two bike routes in the Project vicinity: the Seal Beach Boulevard Route and the Westminster Avenue Route. The Seal Beach Boulevard Route is a designated bike lane extending from Bradbury Road to Electric Avenue. The Westminster Avenue Route is a designated bike lane from the Seal Beach City limits to Bolsa Chica Street. West of the Seal Beach City limits, this bike route has been adopted by the City of Long Beach. Circulation Element "The Circulation Element is intended to provide direction to the City in its efforts to attain a feasible and efficient system of transportation, incorporating many modes of transportation in a manner that will best serve the residents of Seal Beach and still blend with a regional network. ,4 The Circulation Element was amended in 1987 (General Plan Amendment 2 -87) in association with the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan to expand language regarding roadways. Subsequently, Resolution No. 4596 was adopted in December 1997. With this Resolution, Negative Declaration 97 -4 and Amendment 97 -2 to the General Plan Circulation Element were adopted "approving the summary vacation of the subject street right -of- way. " More specifically, Amendment 97 -2 noted the following: "Circulation Element Revision 97 -1 was necessary to delete roadways within Hellman Ranch designated for construction in the General Plan that will not be constructed when the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan project is constructed. " +J "The proposed Circulation Element amendment (97 -2] recognizes the future roadway is [no] longer necessary due to the reduction in future traffic impacts r ; from the Hellman Ranch property, which will comprise only 70 single- family residences. If in the future Boeing proposes additional facilities on their property, which would require additional roadway access, a future environmental evaluation of those projects would identify if the anticipated traffic generation would require a public roadway or private driveway access. If this environmental evaluation were to determine that a public roadway is required, that would be a condition of approval of the proposed project." � li L LJ 4 General Plan Circulation Element, Page 1. r', L . 5 The "subject street right -of -way" refers to a secondary street from the First Street extension to Westminster Avenue (the First Street extension referenced is between Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway). L FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.1 -11 Land Use and Relevant Planning C• o -cs� A BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR It should be noted that although the language and an accompanying map were deleted with Amendment 97 -2, an earlier map showing the roadway was inadvertently not deleted. The Boeing Specific Plan project proposes to delete this map. Refer to Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation for a discussion of traffic conditions. Seismic Safety — Safety Element "The Safety Element is intended to reduce loss of life, injury, damage to property and economic and social dislocation resulting from future natural and manmade hazards." s The Element serves as a tool for identifying hazards that should be considered before making land use decisions. It is organized into the following topics: o Emergency Planning /Response; o Hazardous Materials; ® Geologic Hazards; ® Fire Hazards; o Flood Hazards; ® Shoreline Protection; and © Implementation. According to the Safety Element, the Seal Beach Fault, a segment of the seismically active Newport- Inglewood Fault zone, extends through the Hellman Ranch property situated south of the Project site. Additionally, the area contains soils that are susceptible to liquefaction during ground shaking caused by an earthquake. Refer to Section 5.8, Geology and Soils, for a discussion of the Project site's exposure to potential seismic hazards. With regard to flood hazards, the primary storm drain facility within the City of Seal Beach is the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin, situated west of the Project site. According to the Safety Element, the Los Alamitos Channel that drains directly into the basin is inadequate to carry the 100 -year discharge.' Further, the existing pumping station is inadequate to hold a maximum water surface to prevent upstream flooding. As previously noted, the County of Orange has recently proposed infrastructure improvements (i.e., re- grading the pump basin and installing /adding new pumps) for the basin. Refer to Section 5.9, Hydrology and Drainage, for a discussion of the Project site's exposure to potential flooding hazards. Scenic Highways Element The Scenic Highways Element provides the basis for the development of scenic corridors, as well as identifying policies for their protection and enhancement. According to this Element, Seal Beach Boulevard (Electric Avenue to Lampson Avenue) is designated as a local scenic route. Seal Beach Boulevard forms the Project site's southeastern boundary. This Element notes thefollowing with respect to Seal Beach Boulevard: 6 General Plan Safety Element, August 1997, Page 1. Ibid. Page 65. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -12 Land Use and Relevant Planning U I I IL Cl ,w s� BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR "This roadway provides the major link between the coastal and interior portions of the community, and is part of the City's bicycle route system. The V scenery along this route varies considerably, but is generally considered good. From the crest of Marina Hill, it is possible to see the Pacific Ocean." �J Housing Element r The Housing Element is an official policy statement of the City regarding the type and amount of housing to be provided in the community. The Element reflects existing conditions and constraints, as well as opportunities for improving and expanding the housing supply. As indicated in Table 17 of the Housing Element, Vacant Site Analysis, the vacant portion of the Project site (previously known as Rockwell International), was identified as a 50 -acre Light Manufacturing (M -1) S i property. The Project site was not identified in the Element (Table 18, Analysis of Sites with Residential Redevelopment Potential) as having residential redevelopment potential. However, the Element's Program 5.2.1.2(E) notes the following with respect to the vacant portion of the Project site: "Program: Conduct public hearings to determine the appropriateness and benefits of redesignating a portion of a 50 -acre underutilized site on the , Rockwell International [Boeing] property for uses including residential U development, with a portion of the site considered for higher density housing affordable to lower income households, and other portions designated for single family detached residential uses, to promote more balanced housing inventory within the community. Anticipated Impact: The possible redesignation of approximately 50 acres of Rockwell International [Boeing] property to residential and other appropriate land uses, to permit the development of up to 250 units of low density housing on such parcel, including the redesignation of approximately 5 of the �; 50 acres to medium or high density residential (17 to 25 units/acres). If U redesignated, the 5 -acre portion of the Rockwell International [Boeing] site will be developed with 25 very low income, 50 low income, and 50 moderate I r income housing units. The development and maintenance of these housing !J units in these proportions and income categories will be encouraged and S I facilitated through application of Programs 5.2.2.2(A) and 5.2.2.2(B). i LJ Noise Element r The City's Noise Element, prepared in 1975, states its intent to "identify the potential L) noise impact areas in Seal Beach and propose means of reducing unacceptable noise levels which are within the local jurisdiction of the City." The policies identified in this Element are not relevant to the proposed Project since they require action by Li the City and /or local police. However, Section 5.5, Noise, addresses the existing noise environment in the Project area and identifies the relevant noise standards. r U I ; 8 Program 5.2.2.2(A): Encourage the use of density bonuses or other incentives for housing developments Li incorporating lower income housing units. Program 5.2.2.2(B): Assist private developers, both profit and nonprofit, in securing funding for the development and /or occupancy of affordable housing through.... . F b FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.1 -13 Land Use and Relevant Planning C,16�.Of s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Growth Management Element The primary purpose of this Element is to ensure that growth and development is based on the City's ability to provide an adequate traffic circulation system pursuant to the Orange County Division, League of California Cities' "County -wide Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Plan Component." Additionally, this Element is intended to guide the City's participation in inter jurisdictional planning efforts and establishes a goal to balance jobs and housing. Major transportation improvements identified in the Element that are relevant to the Project include the following: a Efficient utilization of existing roadway capacity through Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies; o Promotion of increased ridership through alternate means of travel such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, expansion of public transit routes, vanpooling and carpooling; and ® Intersection improvements at Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. The Growth Management Element has further identified the congestion on Westminster Avenue as a growth management issue. The congestion is attributed to heavy traffic volumes on the roadway in excess of its designed capacity. MUNICIPAL CODE The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 28) of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code offers a precise land -use plan for the City to "serve the public health, safety and general welfare and to provide the economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources." In order to classify, regulate, restrict and segregate the use of land, buildings and structures, and to regulate and to limit the type, height and bulk of buildings and structures in the various district and zones, and to regulate the areas of yards and other open areas about and between buildings and structures, and to regulate the density of population, the City is divided into seven districts and 15 zones. Although not part of the Hellman Specific Plan or subject to Hellman Specific Plan zoning, the Project site is located within District VII (Hellman Specific Plan) of the Zoning Ordinance. District VII consists of those lands north of Tracts 1817 and 2590, west of Seal Beach Boulevard, south of Parcel Map 94 -1, west of Record of Survey 83 -22, south of Westminster Avenue, East of the Los Angeles /Orange County line and north of Rancho Los Alamitos City line. The Project site is zoned Light Manufacturing (M -1). Article 15 of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code states that "it is the intent of the City to encourage and require all development in the M -1 Zone to take place under an industrial park concept in order to insure compatibility with surrounding land use and to preserve the general health, safety and welfare of the community." The Project proposes to change the zoning for the Specific Plan area to "SPR" zoning. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.1 -14 Land Use and Relevant Planning r j..s _ '__PeaA BOEING s I PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -2 California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis L lJ ri V , l am �J• Li U � r I Applicable Coastal Act Goa11Objective I Project Consistency Discussion Section 30210. In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Section 3oz11. ueveiopment Snail not mterrere wltn the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. Section 30212. (a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway. public facilities, including parking areas or facilities, shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area. Consistent Due to the sensitive nature of existing uses and concerns about security, access to the site has been restricted since the 1960s. The site has been developed with buildings and associated facilities suitable for light industrial uses and has been used as such for decades. The Specific Plan area is zoned and currently used for industrial and manufacturing purposes. The Specific Plan area is one of only two sites in the City of Seal Beach that is zoned for such uses. Because of security concerns (particularly since September 11), the need to protect the confidentiality of the existing on -site operations, and the limited availability of manufacturing and industrial sites within the City, public access through the Specific Plan area would not be appropriate. However, the Specific Plan would maximize access by improving Adolfo Lopez Drive, thereby providing a connection to potential access trails that may be located within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area directly south of the Specific Plan area. Consistent Refer to Response to Section 30210. Also, a significant portion (approximately 58 %) of the Specific Plan area is currently used as the headquarters site for Boeing Space and Communications Operations. The public has neither acquired nor claimed any right of access through use or legislative authorization over any portion of the area covered by the Specific Plan. This Chapter 3 policy, which expressly applies to the public's right of access where acquired through use or legislative authorization, does not apply to the Specific Plan as proposed. Due to the nature of the proposed uses and the location of the Project site, Project development would not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea. Consistent The nearest public roadway to the shoreline is two miles south of the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is not located between this public roadway and the shore, therefore this Chapter 3 policy, which expressly applies to maximizing access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline, does not apply to the Specific Plan as proposed. Nevertheless, the Specific Plan would maximize access from the Specific Plan area to the shoreline by improving Adolfo Lopez Drive, thereby providing a connection to potential access trails that might be located on the Hellman Ranch property directly south of the Specific Plan area. Refer to Response to Section 30210. Consistent The subject site is not located in an area deemed as having the potential for overcrowding or overuse with regard to public facilities. No such impacts would occur. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.1 -15 Land Use and Relevant Planning BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -2 - Continued California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis Applicable Coastal Act Goal /Objective Project Consistency Discussion Section 30213. Lower cost visitor and recreational Consistent Refer to Response to Section 30210. As facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where noted in the discussion above, the appropriateness and feasible, provided. Developments providing public feasibility of providing public uses near existing recreational opportunities are preferred. aerospace facilities would be limited. However, the Specific Plan would protect, encourage, and, where feasible, provide lower cost visitor and recreational facilities. More specifically, the Plan proposes visitor - serving uses, including hotel and retail land uses near the comer of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue, adjacent to existing retail uses located on the south and north side of Westminster Avenue Section 30214. (a) The public access policies of this Consistent Refer to Response to Section 30210. article shall be implemented in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics. (2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity. (3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and re -pass depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area and the proximity of the access area to adjacent residential uses. (4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to protect the privacy of adjacent property owners and to protect the aesthetic values of the area by providing for the collection of litter. Section 30222. The use of private lands suitable for Consistent Refer to Response to Section 30210. The visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities designed Speck Plan as proposed contemplates visitor - serving to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation hotel and retail uses on site, which would enhance public shall have priority over private residential, general opportunities for coastal access and recreation industrial, or general commercial development, but not consistent with this Chapter 3 policy. The majority (58 %) over agriculture or coastal- dependent industry. of the Specific Plan area is developed and designated for manufacturing and light industrial land uses, thus, requiring restricted access. Also, the Specific Plan area is not in proximity to coastal waters or other commercial recreational facilities. Private residential, agricultural, and coastal- dependent industry are also not contemplated or appropriate within the Specific Plan area. Section 30223. Upland areas necessary to support Consistent Refer to Response to Section 30210. coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such Because the Specific Plan area is one of only two uses, where feasible. industrial areas in the City, and because City zoning provides for recreational opportunities in other portions of the City, the Specific Plan area is not appropriate for recreational uses. Notwithstanding these concerns, the Specific Plan proposes hotel and retail uses that would support coastal recreational uses. These uses would be sited to take the above concerns into account, therefore the Specific Plan is consistent with this Chapter 3 policy. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -16 Land Use and Relevant Planning L li L ( S V �.J �.J L F � r L�. L BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -2 - Continued California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis Applicable Coastal Act Goal /Objective ' Project Consistency Discussion Section 30231. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterFlow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur. 5ectlon 3uz33. (a) I ne aiKing, mmng, or areaging or open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Section 30236. Channelizations, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and streams shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited to (1) necessary water supply projects, (2) flood control projects where no other method for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development, or (3) developments where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. Section 30240. (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. Consistent Consistent with this Chapter 3 policy, the Specific Plan as proposed includes use of, and enhancements to, existing facilities that would improve storm water quality on the site. The Specific Plan proposes to implement a variety of structural and non- structural Best Management Practices and to establish certain maintenance procedures and other management practices to prevent and /or reduce the pollution of downstream receiving facilities (i.e., the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin). A conceptual Water Quality Management Plan for the Specific Plan area has been prepared to address issues of water quality and the Specific Plan as proposed incorporates existing and proposed site features into the water quality plan. Consistent Future on -site uses would be required to comply with all requirements of the Orange County Fire Authority for the storage and use of any hazardous materials utilized at a specific facility. Therefore the Project would not create significant hazards to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Further, the Specific Plan as proposed would require protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products or hazardous substances as well as effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures for accidental spills that do occur, consistent with the State and County regulatory framework. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, the Specific Plan is consistent with this Chapter 3 policy. Consistent Consistent: While the Specific Plan area contains three manmade drainage ditches, formal delineations only found wetland values in specific areas of the two southern ditches. The two potential wetland areas would be restored and enhanced as part of a water quality management plan. Therefore, the Specific Plan is consistent with this Chapter 3 policy. Consistent Streambed alteration agreements with the California Department of Fish and Game, consistent with this Chapter 3 policy, would be obtained for the northernmost manmade drainage ditch (and for the enhancements related to the two southern ditches). Therefore, the Specific Plan is consistent with this Chapter 3 policy. consistent tiasea on tnorougn Dioiogicai surveys ana analysis, there are no environmentally sensitive habitat areas within the Boeing Specific Plan area. Therefore, this Chapter 3 policy does not apply or relate to the Specific Plan. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -17 Land Use and Relevant Planning O of BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -2 — Continued California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis Applicable-Coastal Act Goal /Objective I , I Project Consistency Discussion (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. Section 30244. Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required. Section 30250. (a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources.... (b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas. (c) Vistor - serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Consistent: An extensive and detailed site survey to identify potential archaeological and paleontological resources on -site has been completed. Additionally, a Research Design document has been prepared that identifies the methodology for an archaeological test phase program, prior to development. The Specific Plan as proposed would require that where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required. (See Cultural Resources Section, below). Consistent The Project provides for development of a business park, combined with hotel and commercial uses, within the framework of the existing Boeing headquarters facilities. Thus, the Project would be located within a developed area and is consistent with existing light industrial uses. Further, the Project would be located contiguous to developed areas situated north, south, and east of the Project site. A significant portion of the Specific Plan area is currently used as the Boeing headquarters site. The site has been developed with buildings and associated facilities suitable for light industrial uses and has been used as such since the 1960s. The Specific Plan area is zoned and currently used for industrial and manufacturing purposes. The Specific Plan area is one of only two sites in the City of Seal Beach that is zoned for such uses. The campus currently provides approximately 3,000 industrial and other jobs. Primary and arterial highways surround the Specific Plan site and several California State Highways are located in close proximity. Adjacent lands have also been developed for military, commercial, residential, flood control, retail uses and public works facilities. All necessary utilities to serve the Project are adjacent to the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan as proposed would locate new commercial or industrial development within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it. As concluded in Section 5.0, Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, Project implementation would not result in a significant effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. Future on -site uses may store and /or use hazardous materials. Future uses would be required to comply with all requirements of the Orange County Fire Authority for the storage and use of any hazardous materials utilized at a specific facility. The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -18 Land Use and Relevant Planning r I- l� L G L I V r= . i, I I � V r; U r i U l' •lJ O of <; eacA BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -2 — Continued California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis Applicable Coastal Act Goal /Objective , I Project Consistency Discussion Section 30251. The scenic and visual qualities or coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. Consistent Refer to Response to Section 30210. The site is located within an existing urban area surrounded by military, commercial, residential, flood control, retail uses and public works facilities. The Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, and the Long Beach Harbor are visible from the crest of Marina Hill, south of the Project site. Seal Beach Boulevard (Electric Avenue to Lampson Avenue) is designated as a local scenic route. Seal Beach Boulevard forms the Project site's southeastern boundary. However, the Project site —a developed, industrial area -- does not contain any canyons coastal bluffs, dunes, natural landforms or other similar aesthetic resources. Due to its location, Project implementation would not impact views to and along the ocean or scenic coastal areas. Grading of the Project site proposes cut and fill to create building pads that would be slightly elevated to match existing /developed conditions, and to facilitate adequate sewerage and drainage. Grading required for the Project would not significantly alter any natural land forms, as none are located on site. The Specific Plan proposes to enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the area by improvements to the main entry on Seal Beach Boulevard and by implementation of a comprehensive program of design guidelines and development regulations that will serve to enhance any existing aesthetic and visual qualities that exist on or adjacent to the property. These design guidelines define the general criteria for implementing coordinated design, organizational unity and overall visual identity within the Specific Plan area. Further, these guidelines establish criteria for maintaining a compatible relationship with development surrounding the Specific Plan area. Additionally, future development would be subject to review by the City during Precise Plan applications to determine compliance with the overall intent of the guidelines. Portions of the Project site, including the unused parking area (Lot 7) and the vacant land, may be considered visually degraded. The development of future uses in compliance with the intent of the guidelines described above is expected to enhance the visual quality of the Specific Plan area. Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue will be visually enhanced by improvement of the project and the incorporation and /or enhancement of landscaping, parkways and /or medians. r• 1 L_► FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -19 Land Use and Relevant Planning BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -2 — Continued California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis Applicable Coastal Act Goal/Objective I Project Consistency Discussion I Section 30252. The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing non - automobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high -rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development. Section 30253. New development shall minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. New development shall assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and Cliffs. Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the state Air Resources Control Board as to each particular development. Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled. Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods, which, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses. consistent i ne specmc Tian as proposea wouia enhance public access to the coast by providing commercial facilities adjoining residential development that would minimize the use of coastal access roads and provide adequate parking facilities to serve the development. Adequate on -site parking would be required to meet projected demands. Public transit stops (Orange County Transportation Authority) are located along Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. The Specific Plan proposes to zone a portion of the site for commercial and retail uses. These uses would be allowed in areas that are directly across the street or near two existing residential communities: Leisure World and Island Village. development within the Specific Plan area would not result in significant risks to life and property with respect to geologic, flood and fire hazards (refer to Sections 5.8, Geology and Soils, 5.9, Hydrology and Drainage, and 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, respectively). New development shall be assured of stability and structural integrity through compliance with Section 5 of the Boeing Specific Plan, Development Regulations. Section 5 outlines policies that would apply to all developments and land uses within the Specific Plan area. These regulations include, but are not limited to, compliance with the City Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the various mechanical, electrical and plumbing codes adopted and locally modified by the City of Seal Beach. Project implementation would neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area (refer to Section 5.8, Geology and Soils, and Section 5.9, Hydrology and Drainage). Project development would not require the construction of protective devices that would alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Further, there are no bluffs or cliffs located on the Project site. As concluded in Section 5.4, Air Quality, the proposed Project would be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan consistency criteria. Due to its location and scope, Project implementation would not adversely impact any special community or neighborhood that is a popular visitor destination point for recreational uses. FINAL ®APRIL 2003 5.1 -20 Land Use and Relevant Planning L� 1 . . C• o j BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -2 — Continued { California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis I f� U V Applicable Coastal Act Goal/Objective Project Consistency Discussion Section 30254. New or expanded public works facilities Consistent: The Specific Plan proposes a pump station, shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs water and sewer facilities, and storm drain, which would generated by development or uses permitted consistent be designed and limited to accommodate the needs with the provisions of this division; provided, however, generated by the development. With implementation of that it is the intent of the Legislature that State Highway the recommended mitigation pertaining to the necessary Route 1 in rural areas of the coastal zone remain a improvements and payment of fees, traffic impacts would scenic two -lane road. Special districts shall not be be reduced to less than significant levels. The formed or expanded except where assessment for, and recommended mitigation is outlined in Section 5.3, provision of, the service would not induce new Traffic and Circulation. With mitigation, a level of service development inconsistent with this division. Where (LOS) "D" would be attained at the impacted existing or planned public works facilities can intersections. accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal- dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor- serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development. r CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT The California Coastal Act of 1976 (California Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq.) sets state policies for the conservation and development of California's coastline, addressing public access, coastal recreation, the marine environment, coastal land resources, and coastal development. Under provisions of the Act, each local government along the coast is to develop a Local Coastal Program (LCP) consistent with these policies. An LCP consists of a land use plan, zoning documents and other implementing actions. The Coastal Commission exercises r regulatory authority over development within the Coastal Zone (CZ) until the local j' LCP is approved (i.e., certified), at which time primary land use authority reverts to the local level. f' A Local Coastal Program is defined by Coastal Act Section 30108.6 as follows: "Local Coastal Program" means a local government's (a) Land Use Plans, (b) zoning ordinances, c) zoning district maps, and (d) within sensitive coastal resources areas, other implementing actions, which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, this division at the local level." l Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies, outlines the policies /standards by which proposed developments are evaluated. The Coastal Act policies relevant to the proposed Project are detailed in I . Table 5.1 -2, California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis. U r - U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -21 Land Use and Relevant Planning ` 1 o cam� RaWA BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist form which includes questions relating to land use and relevant planning. The issues presented in the Initial Study Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it causes one or more of the following to occur: ® Physically divides an established community (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); o Conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental efect (refer to Impact Statements 5.1 -1 and 5.1 -2); and /or o Conflicts with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant). Generally, the intermixing of land uses may result in land use incompatibilities. Land use compatibility impacts associated with land development are a factor of quality of life issues, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, risk, and aesthetics (views/ physical scale). While these may generally be perceived as subjective issues, the significance criteria detailed in each of the respective issues sections provides a basis for assessing land use compatibility impacts. Potential impacts related to land use and consistency with related planning documents and policies have been identified. Mitigation measures are provided to avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts. OVERVIEW OF BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN The Boeing Specific Plan has been prepared to establish the planning concept, design them, development regulations and administrative procedures necessary to achieve compatible, orderly and efficient development of the Project site. The Boeing Specific Plan further establishes the following: o Identification, location, character and intensities of the planned business park, hotel and commercial development activities. o Alignment and design of the circulation system. o Identification and location of all public and private facilities and infrastructure necessary to facilitate the project. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.1 -22 Land Use and Relevant Planning BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR U o Land use and development standards for the existing Boeing Space & j Communications facilities and for the planned business park, hotel and retail LJ uses. o A compatible design theme for the project area, creating continuity within the planned business park and compatibility with existing buildings, facilities, operations and other surrounding land uses. r The Specific Plan serves as both a City's policy statement regarding development of a proposed project, as well as a tool to implement the provisions of the City's ` . General Plan as it applies to the specific project area. The emphasis in the specific plan is on standards and development criteria for use in the review of subsequent industrial and commercial site plans. Per California Government Code Section r ; 65451, Specific Plans are permitted to regulate site development including permitted 1 i uses, densities, community design, and building size and placement. Specific Plans �J also govern the type and extent of open space, landscaping, roadways, and the provision of infrastructure and utilities. Since the development guidelines established in a Specific Plan focus on the unique needs of a specific area, Specific Plans allow �f for greater flexibility than is possible with conventional zoning. j� L FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.1 -23 Land Use and Relevant Planning CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN 5.1 -1 The proposed Project would not conflict with the land use plan, goals and strategies of the City of Seal Beach General Plan. Analysis has concluded that a less than significant impact would occur with approval of Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements allowing r implementation of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan. Overall, Project implementation would not conflict with the land use plan, goals and r strategies of the City of Seal Beach General Plan. The Project proposes an j Amendment to the Land Use Element changing the land use designation from Light t� Industrial to Specific Plan Regulation (SPR) and to allow implementation of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan. The Project also proposes an Amendment to the Circulation Element adding the proposed Apollo Drive alignment and deleting the outdated map. A less than significant impact would occur with approval of the proposed Amendments. o To amend the Land Use Element to add the Boeing project site to the list of properties identified for Specific and Precise Plan; o To amend the Land Use Element to change the reference and description of "industrial park" to "business park" which would expressly permit point of sale industrial /manufacturing businesses in all Planning Areas and hotel and commercial uses in Planning Area 4; o To eliminate outdated references to Rockwell International and correct the j acreages listed for light industrial use; and o To amend the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect these changes. L FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.1 -23 Land Use and Relevant Planning BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The consistency analysis of the proposed Project with the applicable goals, strategies, and policies of the General Plan is provided in Table 5.1 -1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. As detailed in Table 5.1 -1, the proposed Project is considered consistent with all of the applicable goals, strategies, and policies of the General Plan. LAND USE ELEMENT The Project site is currently designated Light Industrial. Project implementation would require a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation from Light Industrial to Specific Plan Regulation (SPR). Development of land uses outlined in Table 5 -1 of the Specific Plan, Boeing Specific Plan Permitted Land Uses, would be allowed with the Amendment. More specifically, the Project proposes to amend the Land Use Element as follows: o To add the Boeing site to the list of properties identified for Specific and Precise Plans; o To amend the reference and description of "industrial park" to "business park ", which would expressly permit point of sale industrial /manufacturing businesses in all Planning Areas, and hotel and commercial uses in Planning Area 4. o To eliminate outdated references to Rockwell International and correct the acreages listed for light industrial use. o To amend the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the proposed changes. The Land Use Element recommended that 30 acres of the then 120 -acre North American Rockwell facility, be designated for light industrial use in the form of an "industrial park." The Project proposes a Land Use Element Amendment that would update the reference to the approximately 107 -acre Boeing property and would expand the "industrial park" concept to expressly allow implementation of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan. The proposed land uses and Planning Areas are discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, illustrated in Exhibit 3-4, Land Use Plan, and outlined in Table 3.1, Proposed Specific Plan Land Uses. The Boeing Specific Plan proposes the development of four (4) Planning Areas: o Planning Area 1 - Existing Boeing Space and Communications Campus; 0 Planning Area 2 - Business Park; o Planning Area 3 - Business Park; and o Planning Area 4 - Hotel /Commercial. The Specific Plan (Section 5.3) specifies the following Development Standards: "The development standards for the Boeing Specific Plan are established to provide a quality business park in conjunction with the potential for hotel and commercial uses, within the context of existing Boeing operations and facilities. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -24 Land Use and Relevant Planning C• d �! BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR All Planning Areas are permitted to be developed with business park land uses. However, Planning Area 4 provides additional flexibility for commercial uses, including hotel, retail, restaurant, and other commercial land uses. The permitted and conditionally permitted land uses are in Table 5 -1 [of the f Specific Plan]. Table 5 -2 [of the Specific Plan] identifies the development standards for each Planning Area. " (' As indicated in Table 5 -1 of the Specific Plan, Boeing Specific Plan Permitted Land Uses, various light industrial uses would be permitted in the Specific Plan area. Thus, in consideration of the Specific Plan's Development Standards and permitted T uses, the proposed Project would satisfy the General Plan's intended use of the subject site (i.e., light industrial use in the form of an "industrial park ") and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. F ; OPEN SPACE /RECREATION /CONSERVATION ELEMENT 9J As previously noted, the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area, including 178.5 acres designated for conservation uses, is situated adjacent to and southwest of the Project site. Project implementation would not interfere with conservation of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Also, refer to Section 5.6, Biological Resources, and Section 5.9, U Hydrology and Drainage, for further discussion relative to potential biological and hydrological impacts, respectively. 01 BICYCLE ROUTE ELEMENT •�J U F 1 U L r• U 4 r U Two designated bike routes have been identified in the Project vicinity: the Seal Beach Boulevard Route and the Westminster Avenue Route (refer to Figure 1 of the General Plan, Bicycle Routes). As previously noted, these routes are designated bike lanes. The use of these bicycle lanes may be temporarily interrupted during construction of improvements along Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard (i.e., Apollo Drive entries). Interruption in use of these lanes would be considered a temporary inconvenience. As this interruption /inconvenience would cease upon Project completion, this impact would be considered less than significant. CIRCULATION ELEMENT Amendment 97 -2 noted, "if in the future Boeing proposes additional facilities on their property which would require additional roadway access, a future environmental evaluation of those projects would identify if the anticipated traffic generation would require a public roadway or private driveway access." As illustrated on Exhibit 3-4, Land Use Plan, the Project proposes the development of Apollo Drive as a principal street that would be added into the Circulation Element when the General Plan is amended. This roadway may be extended in the future pursuant to Circulation Policy 2.10.2 of the Boeing Specific Plan, which notes the following with respect Apollo Drive: "Upon development of Planning Area 2, and in coordination with the City Engineer, Apollo Drive may be extended to connect Westminster Avenue with Seal Beach Boulevard." FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.1 -25 Land Use and Relevant Planning BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR As previously noted, an earlier map showing the roadway that was vacated with Amendment 97 -2 was inadvertently not deleted. In order to resolve this matter, the Project proposes an Amendment to the Circulation Element deleting the outdated map. With the addition of the proposed Apollo Drive alignment to the Circulation Element, and the deletion of the outdated map, a less than significant impact would occur. SEISMIC SAFETY — SAFETY ELEMENT Refer to Section 5.8, Geology and Soils, for a discussion of the Project site's exposure to potential seismic hazards associated with its proximity to the Seal Beach Fault and the presence of soils susceptible to liquefaction. Refer to Section 5.9, Hydrology and Drainage, for a discussion of the Project site's exposure to potential flooding hazards. As concluded in Section 5.8 and Section 5.9, no significant impacts related to geology /soils and hydrology /drainage have been identified following implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with the regulatory framework and applicable standards and policies of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code. Based on the conclusions provided in Sections 5.8 and 5.9, the proposed Project is considered consistent with the Safety Element of the General Plan. SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT The Scenic Highways Element identifies Seal Beach Boulevard (Electric Avenue to Lampson Avenue) as a local scenic route. Refer to Section 5.2,Aesthetics/Light and Glare, for a discussion of the Project site's potential impacts to views along Seal Beach Boulevard. As concluded in Section 5.2, no significant impacts related to scenic resources have been identified following implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and after compliance with the design guidelines and development standards /regulations established in the Boeing Specific Plan. Based on the conclusions provided in Section 5.2, the proposed Project is considered consistent with the Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan. HOUSING ELEMENT As previously noted, Housing Element Program 5.2.1.2(E) identified the need to "conduct public hearings to determine the appropriateness and benefits of redesignating a portion of a 50 -acre underutilized site on the Rockwell International [Boeing] property for uses including residential'development." That hearing will be a part of the proposed Project review and subsequent action on the Housing Element may or may not be necessary. NOISE ELEMENT Refer to Section 5.5, Noise, for a discussion of the Project 's potential short-term and long -term noise impacts. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -26 Land Use and Relevant Planning L� I r W L F '. U i I r LJ L r� U U L clf� s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Refer to Section 6.3, Growth- Inducing Impacts, for a discussion of the Project 's potential to result in growth- inducing impacts. As concluded in Section 6.3, no significant growth- inducing impacts have been identified with implementation of the proposed Project. Based on the conclusions provided in Section 6.3, the proposed Project is considered consistent with the Growth Management Element of the General Plan. Overall, Project implementation would not conflict with the land use plan, goals and strategies of the City of Seal Beach General Plan. Project implementation would require an Amendment to the Land Use Element changing the land use designation from Light Industrial to Specific Plan Regulation (SPR) and to allow implementation of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan. The Project would also require an Amendment to the Circulation Element adding the proposed Apollo Drive alignment and deleting the outdated map. A less than significant impact would occur with approval of the proposed Amendments. CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE 5.1 -2 The proposed Project would not conflict with the land use plan, policy, and regulations of the City of Seal Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Analysis has concluded that a less than significant impact would occur with approval of a Zone Change from M -1 to SPR Zone. The Project site is currently zoned Light Manufacturing (M -1). Implementation of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan would require a Zone Change from M -1 to Specific Plan Regulation Zone (SPR Zone) and adoption of the Specific Plan. Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance, Specific Plan Regulation Zone, contains the requirements for property zoned SPR as outlined in Sections 28 -1700, 28 -1701, and 28 -1702. According to Section 28 -1700, Permitted Uses, "all property in the SPR Zone shall be used only for the purposes permitted by the General Plan and the Specific Plan adopted for such property." The adoption of a Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of Article 29.5 (Section 28 -2950) of the Zoning Ordinance is required before any property in the SPR Zone may be developed or used for any purpose. Article 29.5 notes the following: "Section 28 -2950, Adoption of Specific Plan. A Specific Plan may be adopted for any property zoned Specific Plan Regulations (SPR) in the manner provided by this article. Such Specific Plan shall be consistent with and implement the General Plan. A Specific Plan shall provide for the type, location and density of land uses, the development standards and regulations, including but not limited to height, setback, landscaping, and parking requirements, the purpose, type, location and extent of public improvements and facilities, and any other matters considered appropriate or necessary. " FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -21 Land Use and Relevant Planning BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The proposed Boeing Specific Plan would be consistent with Section 28 -2950 of the Zoning Ordinance based on the following factors: ® The Project would be consistent with the General Plan upon approval of the proposed General Plan Amendments. Additionally, the Project would be considered consistent with the General Plan since the Specific Plan's Development Standards and permitted uses would satisfy the General Plan's intended use of the subject site (i.e., light industrial use in the form of a "business park ") (refer to the General Plan discussion above). o The Boeing Specific Plan provides for the type, location and density of land uses (refer to Table 2 -1 of the Boeing Specific Plan, Boeing Specific Plan Land Uses), the development standards and regulations (i.e., height, setback, landscaping, and parking requirements) (refer to Section 5 of the Boeing Specific Plan, Development Regulations), and the purpose, type, location and extent of public improvements and facilities (refer to Section 3 of the Boeing Specific Plan, Public Facilities and Services). According to Section 28 -1701, Minimum Area, the minimum area for a lot or parcel of land in the SPR Zone shall be 2.5 acres. The Project site, which is 107 acres, in its entirety meets the 2.5 -acre criteria. No impact would occur in this regard. Section 28 -1702, Development Standards and Regulations, outlines the following development standards and regulations for the SPR Zone: "All uses and development within the SPR Zone shall conform with the development standards and regulations and any other provisions of the applicable Specific Plan for the property upon which such uses and development are located. The provisions of a Specific Plan shall supersede and control over any conflicting provisions of this Chapter [Chapter 28: Zoning] without regard as to whether the provisions of such Specific Plan are more or less stringent than the provisions of this Chapter. Particular care must be exercised in the establishment of building height development standards for each Specific Plan under the provisions of Section 28 -2950. Factors to be carefully weighed shall include, but not be limited to, the Planning District in which the Specific Plan is to be located, the former zoning of the Specific Plan site, height of existing buildings immediatelysurrounding the Specific Plan site and the effect of the building height on the areas surrounding the Specific Plan site. No building within the SPR Zone shall exceed a height of 39 feet, except for non - habitable architectural features of any proposed buildings, in that portion of the City known as the Coastal Zone as defined by the California Coastal Act or north of the San Diego Freeway, except such portions thereof which are zoned M -1, Light Manufacturing, on the effective date of this Ordinance. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any validly existing Specific Plan approved by the City prior to the adoption of this section. " The proposed Specific Plan would be in compliance with the development standards and regulations as outlined in Section 28 -1702 based on the following conclusions: FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -28 Land Use and Relevant Planning L L� r • L F U F" U r; f� U L' L' L U r• �J BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o Section 5 of the Boeing Specific Plan has outlined Development Regulations/ Policies that would apply to all developments and land uses within the Boeing Specific Plan. Future development would be subject to review by the City during Precise Plan applications to determine compliance with the Development Regulations /Policies. o The Project site is located in the Marina Hills Planning District. As noted in the General Plan discussion, the issues pertaining to this District identified in the Land Use Element are not relevant to the Project site. This District is predominantly residential, although commercial, institutional, and industrial uses also surround the Project site. o The Project site is currently zoned Light Manufacturing (M -1). The Project proposes a Zone Change to SPR and provides for development of a business park, combined with hotel and commercial uses, within the framework of the existing Boeing operations. The Zone Change to SPR would expand the development concept anticipated for the M -1 Zone (i.e., industrial park). Further, compatibility between surrounding land uses and future development would be accomplished through compliance with the development regulations /policies specified in Section 5 of Boeing Specific Plan. o The height of existing buildings onsite and immediately surrounding the Specific Plan area vary from single story residences at Leisure World to six stories (approximately 75 feet) at the existing Boeing campus. According to Table 5 -2 of the Boeing Specific Plan, Development Standards, the maximum building height on a less than 10 -acre site within the Specific Plan area would be 40 feet and the maximum building height on 10 -acre or larger site would be 75 feet . In consideration of the existing on -site and surrounding buildings, as well as the buffers separating the Project site from adjacent residential areas (i.e., Westminster Avenue, building setbacks, and the flood control channel), future buildings on the Project site would be compatible in height with existing buildings. o The proposed Project would not be subject to the 39 -foot height limitation noted in Section 28 -1702, Development Standards and Regulations, since the property was zoned M -1, Light Manufacturing, on the effective date of the Ordinance. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. o The Specific Plan provides for minimum setbacks and landscape design guidelines that would serve to lessen potential incompatibilities between the proposed and existing uses. It is anticipated that the minimum setback of 35 feet (refer to Table 5-2 of the Boeing Specific Plan) and the proposed landscape treatment (refer to Exhibit 5.2 -6, Conceptual Landscape Design) along Westminster Avenue would lessen potential incompatibilities between the proposed Project and the Leisure World Community. In addition, the proposed setbacks for Building 3 (approximately 100 feet) and Building 4 (approximately 200 feet) (refer to Exhibit 3 -4, Land Use Plan) coupled with the proposed perimeter buffer area, would lessen potential incompatibilities between the proposed Project and the Island Village Community. 9 Architectural projections and screening of mechanical equipment are permitted, however, these features shall not exceed seven (7) additional feet. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -29 Land Use and Relevant Planning BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR In summary, analysis has concluded that the proposed Project would not conflict with the land use plan, policy, and regulations of the City of Seal Beach Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Further, in consideration of the existing on -site and surrounding buildings, the existing and proposed buffers, the proposed setbacks and landscape treatments, as well as the distances separating existing and proposed land uses, the Proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts to adjacent residential uses (i.e., Leisure World and Island Village). Less than significant impacts are anticipated in this regard with adoption of the proposed Specific Plan and the requirement that all future development be in compliance with the specified guidelines and standards /regulations. CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT 5.1 -3 The proposed Project would not conflict with the policies and standards of the California Coastal Act. Analysis has concluded that a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. As previously noted, the Coastal Commission conditionally approved the City's Draft Coastal LUP; however, it was not certified. Since the City's LUP has not been certified, the Project would be subject to compliance with Coastal Act Section 30600(c) which requires that a coastal development permit be obtained from the Commission. Issuance of a Coastal Development Permit requires compliance with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies, which outlines the policies /standards by which the permissibility of proposed developments are determined. The consistency analysis of the proposed Project with the applicable policies and standards of Chapter 3 is provided in Table 5.1 -2, California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis. As detailed in Table 5.1 -2, the proposed Project is considered consistent with applicable policies and standards of Chapter 3 and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. A number of Chapter 3 policies do not apply to the BSC Specific Plan Project for a number of reasons, including the industrial nature of the site and security concerns over existing and proposed uses. These policies and a brief description of specific reasons why they do not apply include the following: 0 30212.5 (development would not result in overcrowding or overuse by the public); 0 30220 (the BSC site is located 2 miles inland and is not suitable for water - oriented activities); 0 30221, 30221.5 (no oceanfront land lies within the Specific Plan area); 0 30224 (no boating uses are feasible or contemplated within the Specific Plan area); 0 30230 (no marine resources are located within the Specific Plan area); 0 30234 (the Specific Plan does not impact commercial fishing or recreational boating industries); FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -30 Land Use and Relevant Planning BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 30234.5 (the site is not suitable for fishing activities); U o 30235 (no revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, or other such construction that alters natural shoreline (; processes is proposed as par of the Specific Plan); ® 30237 (the Specific Plan does not impact the Bolsa Chica wetlands); U ® 30241, 30241.5, 30242 (no agricultural land is present on the site; the site is not suitable for developing agricultural uses); ® 30243 (neither agricultural land nor timberland are present on the Specific Plan area site; and 0 30254.5, 30255, 30260, 30261, 30262, 30263, 30264, 30265 and 30265.5 U (the Specific Plan does not contemplate the types of development covered by r these Chapter 2 policies, including sewage treatment plant, coastal - l dependent, tanker facilities, gas and oil, petrochemical facilities and thermal U electric generating plants). SCAG's REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE 5.1 -4 The proposed Project would not conflict with relevant policies of SCAG's f ? Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Analysis has concluded that the proposed project is considered consistent with relevant and applicable policies. r� u The consistency analysis of the proposed Project with relevant and applicable policies of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) is provided in Table 5.1 -3, SCAG Policy Consistency Analysis. As detailed in Table 5.1 -3, the proposed Project is considered consistent with relevant and applicable policies of the RCPG. CUMULATIVE 5.1 -5 The proposed Project, combined with other future development, could increase the intensity of land uses in the area. Analysis has concluded U that impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is recommended. Projects are evaluated on a project -by- project basis in accordance with the criteria set forth within the jurisdiction in which the cumulative project is located. f Development of the site as proposed would not result in any cumulative significant U land use impacts as other projects are implemented in the area. Each proposed project would undergo the same project review process as the proposed Project in order to preclude potential land use compatibility issues and planning policy U conflicts. It is assumed that cumulative development would progress in accordance with the criteria set forth within the jurisdiction that the cumulative project is located. Each project would be analyzed independent of other land uses, as well as within the context of existing and planned developments to ensure that the goals, objectives �J and policies of the General Plan are consistently upheld. r FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.1 -31 Land Use and Relevant Planning C1 of BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR MITIGATION MEASURES This section directly corresponds to the identified Impact Statements in thelmpacts section. CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN 5.1 -1 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, with the incorporation of the project features including the proposed General Plan Amendments, the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts. CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE 5.1 -2 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, with the incorporation of the project features including the Zone Change from M -1 to SPR, the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts. CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT 5.1 -3 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, with the incorporation of the Project features including the proposed wetlands restoration and enhancement, the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts. SCAG's REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE 5.1-4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts in this regard. CUMULATIVE 5.1 -5 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, with the incorporation of the Project features, the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No unavoidable significant impacts related to Land Use have been identified following compliance with the policies and standards of the California Coastal Act, and the City of Seal Beach General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -32 Land Use and Relevant Planning L r; U L r� G L ( r U U 'NJ Table 5.1 -3 SCAG Policy Consistency Analysis SCAG RCPG Policies "—gee Growth Management Chapter BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, L r; U L r� G L ( r U U 'NJ Table 5.1 -3 SCAG Policy Consistency Analysis SCAG RCPG Policies Consistency Statement Growth Management Chapter 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, Consistent The most current SCAG forecasts are reflected in which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Section 6.3, Growth- Inducing Impacts. As discussed in Section Council and that reflect local plans and 6.3, the proposed Project is consistent with local and regional policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases population, housing, and employment projections. of implementation and review. 3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public Consistent The proposed circulation system would accommodate facilities, utility systems, and transportation build -out of the Specific Plan area. Initial street construction and systems shall be used by SCAG to future phased construction or reconstruction would be completed implement the region's growth policies. in advance of occupancy of new facility- phased construction. Further, the Project would extend utilities/infrastructure from existing facilities that exist adjacent to the Project site. All future development projects would be subject to review by the City and responsible agencies. Core Regional Transportation Plan 4.01 Transportation investments shall be based Consistent The proposed circulation system would accommodate on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance build -out of the Specific Plan area. Initial street construction and Indicators. future phased construction or reconstruction would be completed in advance of occupancy of new facility- phased construction. The proposed transportation improvements are considered consistent with SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators. 4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate Consistent As indicated in Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation, environmental impacts to an acceptable where feasible, recommended mitigation measures would reduce level. potential traffic and circulation impacts to less than significant levels. It is noted that the feasibility of mitigation at the Seal Beach BoulevardMestminster Avenue intersection and the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing is uncertain as discussed in Section 5.3 of the EIR. 4.04 Transportation Control Measures shall be a Consistent As indicated in Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation, priority. transportation control measures have been identified as mitigation to reduce the significance of impacts. 4.16 Maintaining and operating the existing Consistent The Project does not propose to expand the capacity transportation system will be a priority over of the existing transportation system (i.e., Westminster Avenue expanding capacity. with Seal Beach Boulevard). The Project does, however, propose two roadways to facilitate access into the Project area: Saturn Way and Apollo Court. Further, Apollo Drive may be extended to connect Westminster Avenue with Seal Beach Boulevard. Additionally, improvements to Adolfo Lopez Drive are proposed adjacent to the Project site. Refer to Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation for additional discussions. GMC Policies Related to the RCPG Goal to Improve the Regional Standard of Living 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development Consistent Refer to consistency analysis for SCAG Policies 3.13 and land use, which reduce costs on and 4.16. infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. r U FINAL 1 APRIL 2003 5.1 -33 Land Use and Relevant Planning C+ of s�aQ BOEINGS ECIFIC P LAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -3 — Continued SCAG Policy Consistency Analysis SCAG RCPG Policies Consistency Statement 3.09 Support local jurisdictions' actions to Consistent Refer to consistency analysis for SCAG Policies 3.13 minimize the cost of infrastructure and public and 4.16. service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the p rovision of services. 3.10 Support local jurisdictions' actions to Consistent The proposed Boeing Specific Plan provides policies minimize red tape and expedite the and guidelines to expedite the permitting process. permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness. GMC Policies Related to the RCPG Goal to Improve the Regional Quality of Life 3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local Consistent The Project proposes development of business park jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing and hotel /commercial uses. The Specific Plan as proposed would land uses which encourage the use of transit enhance public access to the coast by providing hotel/commercial and thus reduce the need for roadway uses adjoining residential development that would minimize the expansion, reduce the number of auto trips use of coastal access roads and provide adequate parking and vehicle miles traveled, and create facilities to serve the development. Adequate on -site parking opportunities for residents to walk and bike. would be required to meet projected demands. Public transit stops (Orange County Transportation Authority) are located along Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. The Specific Plan proposes to zone a portion of the site for commercial and retail uses. These uses would be allowed in areas that are directly across the street or near two existing residential communities: Leisure World and Island Village. Additionally, pedestrian sidewalks are proposed into the right -of -way for Apollo Drive, Apollo Court and Saturn Way. Sidewalks are proposed to best accommodate pedestrian needs adjacent to new development within the Specific Plan area. 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that Consistent Development exists north, east, south and northwest maximize the use of existing urbanized areas of the Project site. Further, vacant lands existing west of the accessible to transit through infill and Project site are utilized as flood control facilities and designated redevelopment. for conservation purposes. Thus, the Project proposes the development of business park and hotel /commercial uses in an existing urbanized area and on property currently zoned for light industrial development since November, 1965. Public transit stops (OCTA) are located along Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard, adjacent to the Project site. 3.16 Encourage developments in and around Consistent Refer to consistency analysis for SCAG Policies 4.16 activity centers, transportation corridors, and 3.13. underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. 3.18 Encourage planned development in locations Consistent As indicated in Section 5.0, Description of least likely to cause environmental impact. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. In addition to the mitigation measures proposed in this EIR, the proposed Specific Plan contains policies to protect environmental resources and minimize adverse environmental effects. FINAL ®APRIL 2003 5.1 -34 Land Use and Relevant Planning r U L .v U U f F - 1 u U U 1,J U� U G ';�d BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -3 — Continued SCAG Policy Consistency Analysis SCAG RCPG,Policies Consistency Statement 3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such Consistent Refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not to be as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, Significant, and to consistency analysis for SCAG Policy 3.18. woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals. 3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures Consistent As indicated in Section 5.7, Cultural Resources, the aimed at the preservation and protection of recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential recorded and unrecorded cultural resources impacts to cultural resources to less than significant levels. and archaeological sites. 3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the Consistent The Project site does not contain areas of steep use of special design requirements, in areas slopes or high fire, flood, or seismic hazards. As indicated in with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and Section 5.8, Geology and Soils, and Section 5.9, Hydrology and seismic hazards. Drainage, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts associated with flood and seismic hazards to less than significant levels. 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce Consistent As indicated in Section 5.5, Noise, Section 5.6, noise in certain locations, measures aimed at Biological Resources, and Section 5.8, Geology and Soils, preservation of biological and ecological recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential resources, measures that would reduce impacts associated with noise, biological resources, and exposure to seismic hazards, minimize geology /soils to less than significant levels, respectively. As earthquake damage, and to develop discussed in Section 5.10, Public Health and Safety, emergency response and recovery plans. implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding emergency response and recovery plans. GMC Policies Related to the RCPG Goal to Provide Social, Political, and Cultural Equity 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service Consistent The Specific Plan proposes hotel and commercial providers in their efforts to develop uses adjoining residential development. These uses would be sustainable communities and provide, equally available to all members of the society. equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection. Air Quality Chapter 5.11 Through the environmental document review Consistent This EIR addresses air quality, land use and process, ensure that plans at all levels of transportation impacts of the proposed Specific Plan and provides government (regional, air basin, county, mitigation measures where feasible to reduce significant subregional and local) consider air quality, environmental impacts to a less than significant level. land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -35 Land Use and Relevant Planning C+ w s -- pec<c.Y�. BOEING S ECIFIC PL PROJECT EIR Table 5.1 -3 — Continued SCAG Policy Consistency Analysis SCAG RCPG Policies, Consistency Statement Water Quality Chapter 11.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the Consistent The Specific Plan as proposed includes use of, and region where it is cost - effective, feasible, and enhancements to, existing facilities that would improve storm appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water quality on the site. The Specific Plan proposes to water and wastewater discharges. Current implement a variety of structural and non - structural Best administrative impediments to increased use Management Practices and to establish certain maintenance of wastewater should be addressed. procedures and other management practices to prevent and /or reduce the pollution of downstream receiving facilities (i.e., the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin). A conceptual Water Quality Management Plan for the Specific Plan area has been prepared to address issues of water quality and the Specific Plan as proposed incorporates existing and proposed site features into the water q uality Ian refer to Appendix 15.8). 9.05 Minimize potentially hazardous Consistent Refer to the consistency analysis for SCAG Policy developments in hillsides, canyons, areas 3.22. susceptible to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency equipment. 9.06 Minimize public expenditure for infrastructure Consistent Through General Plan goals, policies, and and facilities to support urban type uses in implementation programs; Specific Plans and zoning areas where public health and safety could requirements, the City provides for adequate infrastructure and not be guaranteed. facilities, as well as ensures the public's health and safety. Public expenditures are determined by the City Council as a part of the City's annual budget process for the Capital Improvement Program. 9.08 Develop well- managed viable ecosystems or Consistent The General Plan promotes the protection of viable known habitats of rare, threatened and ecosystems and habitats through the preservation and endangered species, including wetlands. enhancement of open space uses. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.1 -36 Land Use and Relevant Planning r t lI,, , U u L L' L 1 r) U L . U Ell I u u iL 0 o�V <; �eaA BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 502 AESTHETICS /LIGHT AND GLARE Visual resources information for this Section was compiled from site photographs and site surveys conducted by RBF Consulting in June 2002. This analysis is based upon reference data from the City of Seal Beach and the Project Applicant. The purpose of this Section is to describe the existing aesthetic environment on -site and in the site vicinity and analyze potential Project impacts to the aesthetic character of the site. Consideration of public scenic vistas and views, impacts to scenic resources and the introduction of new sources of light and glare are also addressed in this Section. A key focus of the analysis is the effect on views from Seal Beach Boulevard, Westminster Avenue and neighboring residents. VISUAL SETTING /CHARACTER The Boeing site consists of approximately 107 acres, of which approximately 62 acres are developed with the existing Boeing facilities and 45 acres are vacant (refer to Exhibit 3 -3, Aerial Photograph). The developed portion of the site contains 18 structures including 12 industrial buildings, parking lots, two trailer complexes and four structures housing an electrical pump station, firewater pump equipment, model shop and hazardous waste storage, all located within Planning Areas 1 and 2. The Project area is described below according to Planning Areas identified in the proposed Specific Plan (refer to Section 3.0, Project Description). Existing Boeing Campus Boeing's existing campus comprises Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2 (refer to Exhibit 5.10 -1, Existing Boeing Buildings). Planning Area 1 encompasses approximately 41 acres and comprises the existing core campus use of the property. Planning Area 1 is bordered on the north by Westminster Avenue and on the south by Seal Beach Boulevard. A total of six office and industrial buildings are located in Planning Area 1 ranging in height from one story to eight stories (refer to Exhibit 5.2 -1, Photographs Planning Area 1). A vast asphalted parking lot including mature trees also exists in this area, along Westminster Avenue. Views of Planning Area 1 are dominated by the Boeing Headquarters building, an eight -story, building with columns interspersed on each of the building fagades. Views across Planning Area 1 from Westminster Avenue are partially obstructed by mature trees interspersed throughout the area. Access to Boeing facilities is provided via a vehicular turnaround from Seal Beach Boulevard. The turnaround contains landscaping including a manicured lawn, groomed hedges and mature palm trees. Planning Area 2 encompasses approximately 16 acres and includes nine structures used primarily for manufacturing and development (refer to Exhibit 5.2 -2, Photographs Planning Area 2). The buildings range from one to four stories in height, with the tallest structure situated at the northwest portion of Planning Area 2. Four buildings situated at the northeast portion dominate views across Planning Area 2. The structures contain no windows and include a cement plaster exterior and limited architectural features. Various support facilities exist inPlanning Area 2 including an electrical substation, firewater pump equipment, cooling towers, chillers, boilers, and a model shop at the westerly portion of the planning area and FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.2 -1 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare cof �,O� s�' BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR portable office trailers at the southeasterly portion. Also, an athletic track is located at the southern portion of this area, west of the trailer complex. Planning Area 3 . Planning Area 3 consists of approximately 45 acres and is bordered by Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2 to the east, Adolfo Lopez Drive to the south, a drainage channel to the west and Westminster Avenue to the north. Building 97, the only structure existing within the area, is located at the southern portion of Planning Area 3. Building 97 is essentially a covered area used to protect equipment/materials. The property's northern parking lots extend into the northeastern portion of Planning Area 3. The remainder of Planning Area 3 consists of vacant land with limited improvements including three man-made drainage ditches, and electrical transmission and distribution facilities (refer to Exhibit 5.2 -3, Photographs Planning Area 3). The vacant land lacks any topographical features. This undeveloped portion of Planning Area 3 is maintained on a regular basis for fire control, weed abatement, and drainage purposes. Planning Area 4 (Lot 7) . Planning' Area 4 encompasses approximately five acres situated at the eastern portion of the Project site, between the core campus and the existing neighborhood shopping center located off -site, to the northeast. This area consists primarily of an unused parking lot known as Lot 7 (refer to Exhibit 5.2-4, Photographs Planning Area 4). Deteriorated asphalt areas are visible throughout the central and eastern portions of Planning Area 4. Electrical and wastewater facilities (i.e., an electrical transformer, an electrical panel, and sewer monitoring system) are located at the northeast portion of Planning Area4. OFF -SITE North North of the proposed Project area is Westminster Avenue, a four -lane roadway. Landscaping and sidewalks exist on the south side of the street, along the developed portion of the Boeing site. A drainage facility is located north of Westminster Avenue, establishing a setback for the residential community of Leisure World. A block wall ranging from four to six feet in height aligned with mature trees borders Leisure World. Adjacent to the northeast portion of the Project area is a small single - story neighborhood commercial center. Northwest of the Project site is the Haynes Power Plant, containing three large round buildings, six smoke stacks and large metal structures. West A drainage channel extending to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin defines the western border of the proposed Project area. The Los Alamitos Retarding Basin consists of approximately 40 -acres including undulating topography and areas of ruderal vegetation and ponding. Northwest of the proposed Project area is the residential community of Island Village in the City of Long Beach. The community is comprised of two -story residential units with stucco exteriors and a si *foot cinder block wall around its perimeter. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.2 -2 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare cl z m c z ' ci ° a r o D w z Z_ z 0 0 m Ln m z C3 z in z o c E o � 4 ❑ rn z O .••F O tQ O W W o M m C T O n n • D CO z n m m _ Cc) m v, O�-i m N m D qmw� w... ter. W m Cv Cl) r+ CD C C O O CD LQ ^ CD O CD En r+ Cn I+ CD D CD c cD ,o CD 0 Cn O CD sv C) w CD. CD O h vo 00 0 0 r+ C/) � O CD C)7 n � CD CQ Cn O Cl) Q- < r+ CD C O O Q cn �. CD Ct� CD co CO CD C7 r+ m � W CD O -fK = O C D CD n O I Q- W-wo , 00 0 O CD L cD CD O h Cl) O c r+ CD 7 c� CD w sv r+ Cn O CD n O CD O LJ W a M up db PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION t o . ■ ■ 04/03 A 10- 101776 CONSULTING CITY OF SEAL BEACH BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Photographs • Planning Area 2 Exhibit 5.2 -2 A. Southwesterly view of Building 84 in the background from northeast corner of Planning Area 3. B. Northwesterly view of Planning Area 1 with southern parking area in the foreground. BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR This page intentionally left blank. FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 5.2 -6 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare n 0 z m z ' 61 ra o D w z z z cl 0 0 m Ln L) z 0 E 0 z m z -i o F- E V 0 V rn Z O OUNIN O CD CO) O M C m n T � nn � D � � z o m U, > _ CID m Ul �W .N m CD') W w 37 2 z O CD CD O O CD C) cn r4. CD O L J � J O CD m -0 z O O CD CD =3 CD .—t CD CD CS O w ---h C') O O O. cQ D CD w L CD w CD Cn T z O CD w Cn CD CD O w c� D CD w a 03 � C � C CD M cn CD CD -� CD 9 O LM O _O O D CD w 1 4 O O CD W Cn C) O O CD O r+ m =37 w CD Cn 0 7 r+ CD cQ < 0 CD O O O _O O c� D CD w CA) w D CD w O CD w CD C- 7 CQ < O D O —4, w O D CD w W M w O _O O c� D CD w 60 PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION ■ • ■ 04103 JN 10- 101776 CONSULTING CITY OF SEAL BEACH BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Photographs • Planning Area 4 Exhibit 5.2 -4 A. Easterly view of unused parking lot with commercial uses in background. B. Westerly view of unused parking lot with northern parking lot in background. 0 oV BOEINGS ECIFI PLAN PROJECT EIR South The southern border of the Project area is delineated by Adolfo Lopez Drive, which has limited improvements and a cul- de-sac at the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. Along the southern side of Adolfo Lopez Drive are the City of Seal Beach Police Station and Public Works yard, and an animal care center. Located on the northwest corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Adolfo Lopez Drive is Accurate Metals, a metal manufacturing company. South of Adolfo Lopez Drive is the southern portion of the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin, vacant land and the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area. East The eastern border of the Project area is defined by Seal Beach Boulevard, a six - lane roadway landscaped along the Project site with mature evergreen trees and manicured lawns. To the east and beyond Seal Beach Boulevard is the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, consisting of various multi -story metal industrial buildings. LOCAL SCENIC ROUTES Overall, the City of Seal Beach is urbanized with limited variation in topographical and natural features. The City has designated certain streets as scenic highways and local roadway corridors. According to the City of Seal Beach General Plan, the following criteria were used by the City in the designation of highways and corridors that are considered to have scenic potential: o Type of roadway (e.g. arterial, local) o Significant natural and man made features o Existing and potential landscape character o Existing and potential development character o Potential to link with the Bicycle Trail System. The City of Seal Beach Scenic Highways Plan governs development within designated scenic highway and local roadway corridors. Through implementation of the Scenic Highways Plan, additional landscaping and signage control in commercial areas can enhance the attractiveness of these routes. The Plan includes the following regulations concerning the control over land use: o Control of density and intensity of development; ® Detailed land and site planning; - Building height and setback limitations; - Undergrounding of utilities; - Attractive site planning; o Control of landscaping; - Screening offensive land use; - Tree preservation; o Control of the design and appearance of structures and equipment; and FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.2 -10 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare U 1 L U u C L Cif �of BOEING S ECIFIC P LAN PROJECT EIR ® Control of outdoor advertising, both on- and off -site. Certain streets or corridors along local scenic routes were designated for possessing attractive qualities, while others were designated for serving as links between scenic routes. Seal Beach Boulevard, which forms the Project site's eastern /southeastern border, is designated as a Local Scenic Route in the City of Seal Beach General Plan.' The roadway's designation as a Local Scenic Route is based on two factors: it serves as a link between Interstate 405 and Pacific Coast Highway (a City - designated Scenic Highway) and it forms part of the City's Bicycle Trail System. The scenery along Seal Beach Boulevard varies. However, from the crest of Marina Hill, south of the Project site, views of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island can be experienced from Seal Beach Boulevard. No scenic resources or designated vista points exist along Seal Beach Boulevard in the area adjacent to the Project site. LIGHT AND GLARE There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors passing through windows and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). Light introduction can be a nuisance to adjacent residential areas, diminish the view of the clear night sky, and if uncontrolled, can disturb wildlife in natural habitat areas. Perceived glare is the unwanted and potentially objectionable sensation as observed by a person as they look directly into the light source of a luminaire. Light spill is typically defined as the presence of unwanted light on properties adjacent to the property being illuminated. Currently, light and glare are being emitted from the existing Boeing headquarters. Existing sources of light on the Boeing campus are located within Planning Area 1, Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 4, and include interior lighting and exterior lighting from parking lot lighting, building illumination and security lighting. Planning Area 3 is currently vacant and does not generate lighting. Further, as the Project site is bordered by Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard, car headlights, and street and traffic lighting also influence light /glare on the Project site (and in the surrounding area). The Project area experiences lighting typical of urban areas with development existing north, northwest, south, and east of the Project site North and northwest of the Project site, light/glare is generated from the residential interior and safety exterior lighting associated with the Leisure World and Island Village communities. Further northwest and beyond Westminster Avenue, the Haynes power plant reflects a substantial amount of light/glare due to the large lighted smoke stacks. Northeast of the Project site, light/glare is generated by interior lighting and exterior lighting (i.e., parking lot lighting, building illumination and security lighting) associated with the commercial uses situated at the intersection of Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. South of the Project site, sources of light/glare include theinterior and exterior lighting associated with the City facilities along Adolfo Lopez Drive and Accurate Metals. The Naval Weapons Station is the primary light source situated east of the Project site, generating interior and exterior lighting. ' General Plan Scenic Highways Element, Page 5 -6. 2 The crest of Marina Hill is located approximately two miles south of the Project site. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.2 -11 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare clik s��e=A BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR I MPACTS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines includes checklist questions relating to aesthetics. A Project would potentially create a significant aesthetic impact if it caused one or more of the following to occur: ® Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); ® Substantially damage rock outcroppings, and to Section 5.2 -3); scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings within a State scenic highway (refer I l 0 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings (refer to Impact Statements 5.2 -1 and 5.2 -2); and /or o Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (refer to Impact Statement 5.2 -4). The evaluation of aesthetic impacts can be termed a subjective exercise due to widely varying personal perceptions. Nevertheless, development on -site would permanently alter the appearance of the Project area. Potential impacts are categorized below according to topic. Mitigation measures at the end of this Section directly correspond to the numbered impact statements below. SHORT -TERM AESTHETIC /LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS 5.2 -1 Grading and construction activities associated with Project implementation would temporarily affect the existing visual character/ quality of the Project site and the surrounding area. Impacts are concluded as less than significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation. The proposed Project would involve the development of up to 1,060,500 square feet of business park not limited to "light industrial' uses. Project construction activities would alter views across portions of the Project site from surrounding locations. Graded surfaces, construction materials, equipment and truck traffic would be visible. Soil would be stockpiled and equipment for grading activities would be staged at various locations throughout the Project site. These visual impacts can be considered significant unless mitigated. With implementation of the recommended mitigation pertaining to equipment staging areas and the use of screening, impacts in this regard are considered less than significant. Further, construction- related impacts are not considered significant as they are anticipated to be short-term and would cease upon Project completion. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.2 -12 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare i C• o BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR L L 3 Specific Plan, Page 4 -6 and Page 4 -9. V FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.2 -13 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare LONG -TERM AESTHETIC IMPACTS LJ 5.2 -2 Project implementation would affect the existing visual character or quality of the Project site from the surrounding area. Analysis has ' concluded that this impact is less than significant following compliance with the proposed Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards/regulations. U Existing views across the Project site are predominantly of the existing Boeing campus. Undeveloped land is also visible throughout the western portion of the property. Future development would permanently alter the visual appearance of the U Project site. With the introduction of the proposed Specific Plan uses including manufacturing, light industrial, research and development, warehouse, and commercial uses, current viewshed characteristics would be altered. Existing views L of parking lots and vacant land would be replaced with views of new buildings of contemporary classic and technical style and would involve exterior materials including natural stones, concrete and meta13 More specifically, views of the Project site would be affected as follows: U Views from the North L j Within Planning Area 1, views of the Project site from the north would be essentially unchanged as existing Boeing facilities and parking would remain. Within Planning Area 3, existing views of vacant land would be replaced with views of up to three U new business park buildings (Buildings #1, #2, and #3) and landscaping. As illustrated in Exhibit 5.2 -5, Conceptual Landscape Sections No. 1 (Westminster Avenue), an 18 -foot landscaping buffer, including street trees, groundcover, and a L screening hedge, is proposed along Westminster Avenue. Proposed landscaping would partially obstruct views of the new buildings and parking from the north. The construction of Apollo Drive would also be introduced into the viewshed from the Li north (refer to Exhibit 5.2-6, Conceptual Landscape Sections No. 2 (Westminster and Seal Beach Boulevard Entries)). The proposed Apollo Drive entry would include an eight -foot landscaped median, a screening hedge, thematic plant containers, two archways, specimen trees, street trees and two entry monuments. U Views of Planning Area 2 from the north would be obstructed by development within Planning Area 3. Within Planning Area 4, existing views of the abandoned parking lot would be replaced with views of a hotel /commercial center including up to 120 - hotel rooms and 32,500 square feet of commercial (i.e., retail, restaurant and /or other similar uses). U Views from the South ' Within Planning Area 3, existing views of vacant land would be replaced with views of up to two light industrial buildings (Buildings #5 and #6), associated parking, an open space area and a central drainage conveyance /retention area (refer to in Exhibit 5.2 -7, Water Quality Basin and Retention Concepts (Central Drainage L 3 Specific Plan, Page 4 -6 and Page 4 -9. V FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.2 -13 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare 0 W Q a m W W � Cc O Z ® M® !C2 U U U C.3 E/9 co Ij u' I a U co c ■® CD Z ED m � C U cc 0 CL CD C3 0 r, U 1 a 0 U I I ' L L r L L i U r r L U u L L I � U L t...J f ` L L L r� f• C C O D 2 W m U ® •� J W w °� U) a CO) L�.I om a •® c� C.3 :0 CO CL) U Cq W Ms CL cn CL) 0 Z CL co LU m CO) ca CD C Cc CO CL 0 CD CA E t� ca w Q E Z ' o 1 V 7 d rc Z m N Z O v i s z W 1 Q A p j W j Z Z j Z 9 � 01 co i 'C ku ® m Z `�, Z Exhibit 5.2-6 C c c c . t E F c c L G t 1 D i i c 0 ca ¢wC o w H CL m w cn d � 0 z O Q C U U LL- w� c� C� zCD :) o 0 m.� � CO) m cc o al a- � 0 0 N O 0 N d C [{S O_ ej w U CL 0 U) G O Z O N U O � � d to rc Z U N � c Z O E U O U Z .� L7 U N cX �o O1 C .O l7 m Z E Z O Z � r'� a�i s U CL N O Z Q J U) ok Z Exhibit 5.20 Ci D BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Conveyance /Retention Area), and Exhibit 5.2 -6, Conceptual Landscape Sections No. 2 (Building 6 to Adolfo Lopez Street)). As illustrated in Exhibit 5.2 -6, a landscaping Li buffer between 15 and 25 feet is proposed along Adolfo Lopez Street, including street trees, shrubs, and groundcover. r Planning Area 1, Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 4 would not be visible from areas south of the Project site (i.e., across Adolfo Lopez Street) due to development within Planning Area 3 and existing structures which include the Accurate Metals L building. � Views from the East L Within Planning Area 1, views of the Project site from the east would be essentially unchanged as existing Boeing facilities and parking would remain. Existing Boeing L facilities would obstruct views from the east of development within Planning Area 2. U Within Planning Area 4, existing views of the abandoned parking lot would be replaced with views of a hotel /commercial center. L The majority of development within Planning Area 3 would not be visible from the east due to the height and location of the existing Boeing facilities and development within Planning Area 4. More specifically, only one building (Building #7) proposed L at the southwest corner of the intersection of Apollo Drive and Saturn Way (proposed alignments) would be visible from the east. Views of Building #7 would replace existing views of vacant land. The construction of Apollo Drive would also be L introduced into the viewshed from the east (refer to Exhibit 5.2 -6, Conceptual Landscape Sections No. 2 (Westminster and Seal Beach Boulevard Entries), and the L Views Apollo Drive entry discussion above). from the West Planning Area 1, Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 4 would not be visible from L areas west of the Project site (i.e., across the detention basin and flood control channel) due to development within Planning Area 3. 1 i r I� U t L r L As the majority of the area west of the Project site consists of vacant land, changes in views within Planning Area 3 would go generally unnoticed, with the exception of views from the Island Village community. Within Planning Area 3, views from the Island Village community of vacant land would be replaced with views of business park development (Building #3 and #4), associated parking, and a perimeter buffer /retention area. As illustrated on Exhibit 5.2 -6, Conceptual Landscape Sections No. 2 (Building #3 to Building #2 and Adjacent Island Village Property), a screening hedge, screening trees, and g rou ndcover/sh rubs are proposed adjacent to Building #3. As illustrated in Exhibit 5.2 -7, Water Quality Basin and Retention Concept (Water Quality Basin), a buffer area with shrubs varying in width and a ten - foot maintenance buffer are proposed adjacent to Building #4. While views across the Project site would be modified, analysis has concluded that future development would not significantly alter the visual character of the Project site nor would it be considered a degradation to the visual character of the site or the surroundings. This finding is based on the following factors: FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.2 -17 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare clf� 0-cs�' BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o Use of the property as an industrial (business) park is acknowledged in the General Plan. The Land Use Element recommended that 30 acres of the then 120 -acre North American Rockwell facility, be designated for light industrial use in the form of an "industrial park." As indicated in Table 5 -1 of the Specific Plan, Boeing Specific Plan Permitted Land Uses, various light industrial uses would be permitted in the Specific Plan area. Thus, the proposed Project would satisfy the General Plan's intended use of the subject site (i.e., light industrial use in the form of an "industrial park "). ® Approximately 62 acres (Planning Area 1, Planning Area 2, and Planning Area 4) representing 58 percent of the Project site currently exists as an industrial use and /or associated parking. Development within Planning Area 3 would extend industrial /business park uses in a westerly direction along Westminster Avenue, intensifying an existing use. Future development would alter the appearance of the Project site, however, these improvements would not noticeably change the character of the property. Further, these improvements would not be considered degrading to the visual character of the site or the surroundings. o The proposed Specific Plan would meet the provisions of the SPR Zone (Section 28 -1702) relative to the development standards and regulations. Section 5 of the Boeing Specific Plan has outlined Development Regulations/ Policies that would apply to all developments and land uses within the Boeing Specific Plan. ® Adequate buffers would exist at the Project site's interface with existing residential uses (i.e., Leisure World to the north and the Island Village community to the west). More specifically, physical features existing in the Project area would serve as buffers separating the Project site from adjacent residential areas. Existing buffers to the north include Westminster Avenue, the drainage channel, and the block wall bordering Leisure World residences. Existing buffers to the west include the flood control channel (LARB) and the block wall bordering to the Island Village residences. Features proposed by the Project would further separate the Project site from adjacent residential areas including an 18 -foot landscaping buffer proposed along Westminster Avenue and a perimeter buffer /retention /maintenance area (between 20 and 100 feet) along the western property line. Further, it should be noted that the existing residences do not face the Project site, but rather are oriented in the opposite direction. ® Future buildings on the Project site would be compatible in height with existing buildings due to the existing on -site and surrounding buildings, as well as the buffers separating the Project site from adjacent residential areas (i.e., Westminster Avenue, building setbacks, and the flood control channel). In addition to the factors described above, design guidelines have been established in the Specific Plan that would minimize potential visual impacts resulting from Project development. The design guidelines in the Specific Plan define the general criteria for implementing coordinated design, organizational unity and overall visual identity for the new areas to be developed. Included are parameters for integrated FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.2 -18 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare U L BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJ EIR site planning, architecture, landscaping and exterior lighting, as well as procedures and requirements for design submittal and review. Site Planning Site planning guidelines for the Boeing Specific Plan have been developed to create visual consistency. Site planning guidelines involve building locations (compatibility with nearby uses and screening of loading /service areas), parking (screening by architectural design or landscaping), service areas (located out of view and screened by landscaping /architectural barriers), and utilities (install underground and /or screen). Architectural The objective of the architectural design guidelines is to establish a L consistent aesthetic theme throughout the development of the business park. The guidelines present parameters for architectural character (style, lines /forms, and image), building form /massing (respect natural /architectural context, composition and L scale), facades /fenestration (design, structure, and surfaces), entrances (integration and coordination), exterior materials (appropriate material types), exterior colors (appropriate color treatment) and mechanical equipment (screening and integration). L Landscape Design Guidelines One objective of the landscape design guidelines is to promote a unified environment within the Project area. The landscape design guidelines include parameters pertaining to on -site landscaping (compatibility, use as �j screen for parking /service areas, enhance building environment), project entry, parking areas (use to visually reduce pavement and maximize distribution), building perimeter (enhance building architecture), and signs (compatibility with adjacent buildings /surroundings and limitations on quantity and size). In addition to the design guidelines described above, development standards have been established in the Specific Plan pertaining to maximum building height, maximum intensity, maximum lot coverage, minimum setbacks, minimum landscaping (10 percent) and minimum perimeter landscaping. Future development r would be subject to review by the City during Precise Plan applications to determine U compliance with the Development Regulations /Policies. In summary, the alteration of the Project site's appearance would be permanent and would continue throughout the life of the Project. However, the proposed improvements would not be considered a degradation to the character of the site or its surroundings based on the analysis provided above. A less than significant L impact would occur in this regard. LOCAL SCENIC ROUTE 5.2 -3 Development of the proposed Project would impact views along Seal Beach Boulevard. Analysis has concluded that a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. r ; As previously noted, the General Plan designates Seal Beach Boulevard as a Local Scenic Route. Seal Beach Boulevard's "Local Scenic Route" designation is not due U to the presence of scenic resources along the roadway or because the roadway possesses attractive qualities. Rather, the designation is because the roadway "provides the major link between the coastal and interior portion of the community U U FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 5.2 -19 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR and is part of the City's bicycle route system.s Accordingly, development of the proposed Project would not adversely affect any scenic vistas along Seal Beach Boulevard. Further, development of the proposed Project would occur entirely within the limits of the Project site and west of Seal Beach Boulevard. Therefore,views of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island experienced from the crest of Marina Hill south of the project area would not be interrupted. Although future development within Planning Area 4 (i.e., proposed hotel /commercial uses) would be visible from Seal Beach Boulevard, the majority of development within Planning Area 3 would not be visible from the roadway due to the height and location of the existing Boeing facilities and development within Planning Area 4. More specifically, only Building #7 proposed at the southwest corner of the intersection of Apollo Drive and Saturn Way (proposed alignments) would be visible from the east. The construction of Apollo Drive would also be visible from Seal Beach Boulevard (refer to Exhibit 5.2 -6, Conceptual Landscape Sections No. 2 (Westminster and Seal Beach Boulevard Entries). Design guidelines established in the Specific Plan pertaining to site planning (i.e., building locations, parking, service areas, utilities, walls and fencing), architecture (i.e., architectural character, building form and massing, facades /fenestration, entrances, exterior materials, exterior colors, and mechanical equipment), landscape design (on -site landscaping, project entry, parking areas, and building perimeter), and signage would enhance and protect views along Seal Beach Boulevard. Finally, all future development within the Project area would be subject to review and approval by the City for compliance with the Scenic Highways Plan. That review has been accomplished through the analysis presented in this EIR. LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS 5.2 -4 Development of the proposed Project may create a new source of light/glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. After compliance with Specific Plan lighting guidelines, light and glare impacts would be considered as less than significant. Light and glare associated with the existing Boeing operations are presently generated from portions of the Project site. However, Project implementation would result in increased utilization of the property and an extension of development to the east and west. Development within Planning Area 3 would introduce business park uses into a presently undeveloped area. Additionally, development of Planning Area 4 would increase the utilization of this area, replacing a parking lot with hotel and /or commercial uses. The proposed uses would require lighting of building interior and exterior spaces (i.e., entryways and signs). In addition, the Project would include lighting for activity areas involving nighttime uses, parking, lighting around the structures (security lighting, walkways) and lighting for interiors of buildings. Light spill and glare are the major environmental concerns associated with outdoor u lighting installations. Unless mitigated, light and glare from the proposed development would have the potential to create significant impacts on adjacent a 4 Seal Beach General Plan, Scenic Highway Element, Page 5-6. 5 Existing Boeing facilities would also obstruct views from Seal Beach Boulevard of future development a within Planning Area 2. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.2 -20 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR residential uses located to the north and west of the Project site. More specifically, L r light sources from development within Planning Area 3 and Planning Area 4 may create spillover light and glare impacts on the adjacent Leisure World residences. Also, development within Planning Area 3 may create spillover light and glare impacts on the adjacent Island Village residences and residents to the north of the Li site. Light and glare impacts on adjacent residences are considered less than significant based on the following factors: r Lj ® The Project area experiences lighting typical of urban areas with development existing north, northwest, south, and east of the Project site. The introduction of new light sources on the Project site may not represent a noticeable increase in light/glare for adjacent residences due to the existing urbanized environment (i.e., Boeing facilities interior and exterior lighting, commercial uses interior and exterior lighting, power plant lighting and street (; lighting). o Physical features existing in the Project area serve as buffers separating the f Project site from adjacent residential areas. Buffers to the north include U Westminster Avenue, the drainage channel, and the block wall bordering Leisure World residences. Buffers to the west include the flood control L channel and the block wall bordering to the Island Village residences. o According to Table 5 -2 of the Specific Plan, Development Standards, a r ; minimum 35 -foot setback would be required along Westminster Avenue and a minimum 10 -foot setback would be required on the interior (west) side of Planning Area 3. The required setbacks would serve as a buffer between the existing residences and the proposed business park uses. 0 Limiting he effects of lighting on the adjacent residences would be an 9 9 9 J important aspect of the design of future development. Section 4.6 of the Specific Plan, Site Lighting Guidelines, has established site lighting guidelines for parking areas, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, building exterior, service areas, landscaping, security and special effects. Guidelines established in the Specific Plan that would minimize potential light spill -over impacts include the following: ( - All exterior on -site lighting should be shielded and confined within site Lj boundaries. No direct rays are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent lots. r' - Lights mounted to the roof parapet are not permitted. Wall- mounted light fixtures used to illuminate parking lots are not permitted. - Lighting shall create a sequence of varying illumination levels leading up to the building entrance. This would include the orchestration of light from parking light, to pedestrian lighting, special feature lighting, and lighting from within. U - All vehicular circulation, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian walkway lighting should have zero cut -off fixtures (i.e. lens is not visible from an L angle). r FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.2 -21 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare 0 o -C S��___ReacA BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Service area and security lighting should be visible only within the limits of the service area. Wall- mounted, security -type, service area lighting fixtures may be used only in screened service areas and only if direct lighting and glare is kept within these areas. In all other areas, wall- mounted service lighting should consist of cut -off type fixtures. In consideration of the existing urban environment, the existing buffers, and the setback requirements and lighting guidelines established in the Specific Plan, Project implementation would not result in significant light/glare impacts to the adjacent residences to the west (Island Village) in which a buffer of 232 feet would be provided from the nearest residential unit to Building 3 and a seven foot block wall surrounding the community would limit any light and glare from the project site. The distance of up to 150 feet separating the project site from Leisure World residences due to Westminster Boulevard and the drainage ditch combined with the concrete block wall surrounding the community would also limit any light and glare impacts to the residential units within Leisure World. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.2 -5 Project development, together with cumulative projects may result in greater urbanization in the Project area. Impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels separately on a project-by- project basis. Construction of currently approved and pending projects in the vicinity would permanently alter the nature and appearance of the area through the loss of undeveloped areas. Security and street lighting would introduce light and glare potential to the area. Impacts are typically mitigated separately on a project -by- project basis. Cumulative impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels with use of building materials that are consistent with the general character of the area, landscaping design, and proper lighting techniques to direct light on -site and away from adjacent properties. The proposed Project would contribute to the cumulative loss of undeveloped land within the City of Seal Beach. However, development of the currently vacant portion of the Boeing site would be guided by the development standards /regulations and design guidelines established in the Specific Plan, which would be subject to review and approval in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan identifies approvals that require discretionary permits (i.e., CUP for site plan review with greater than 10 percent change in FAR). As development occurs throughout the City, residents and visitors in the area would notice the visual effects of urbanization. However, the significance of these visual /aesthetic changes is difficult to determine, since aesthetic value is subjectively determined and potential impacts are site - specific. This section directly corresponds to the identified Impact Statements in the impacts subsection. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.2 -22 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare F; Li C� o BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR j 5.2 -3 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis U provided above, implementation of the Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards /regulations and approval of the development F; by the City, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to U views along Seal Beach Boulevard. F LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS U 5.2 -4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, compliance with the Specific Plan lighting guidelines Li would result in less than significant impacts regarding light and glare. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Li 5.2 -5 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, cumulative impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels separately on a project -by- project basis. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No significant impacts related to aesthetics /light and glare have been identified following compliance with the proposed design guidelines and development standards /regulations established in the Boeing Specific Plan. u L FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.2 -23 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare SHORT -TERRA AESTHETIC /LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS r , 5.2 -1 Construction equipment staging areas shall be located away from existing residential uses and appropriate screening (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material used to buffer views of construction equipment and material, when feasible. Staging locations shall be indicated on project Final Development Plans and Grading Plans and are subject to review and approval of the City. Compliance with this measure is subject to �J periodic field inspection by City Staff. No mitigation measures are recommended. L y LONG -TERM AESTHETIC IMPACTS r i 5.2 -2 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, implementation of the Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards /regulations, the proposed project would not result in significant long -term aesthetic impacts. LOCAL SCENIC ROUTE j 5.2 -3 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis U provided above, implementation of the Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards /regulations and approval of the development F; by the City, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to U views along Seal Beach Boulevard. F LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS U 5.2 -4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, compliance with the Specific Plan lighting guidelines Li would result in less than significant impacts regarding light and glare. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Li 5.2 -5 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, cumulative impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels separately on a project -by- project basis. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No significant impacts related to aesthetics /light and glare have been identified following compliance with the proposed design guidelines and development standards /regulations established in the Boeing Specific Plan. u L FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.2 -23 Aesthetics/ Light and Glare ur C1 -of BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJEC EIR r 5.3 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION U This Section is based upon the project Traffic Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LL &G), dated December 13, 2002, which is included as Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study, of this document. The evaluation considers impacts to local roadways, intersections, regional facilities and ingress /egress locations on -site. Mitigation r measures are recommended to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. u In order to understand the difference between an acceptable traffic condition versus an unacceptable traffic condition, the following discussion outlines the performance Ill criteria typically used in the transportation planning field to evaluate the level of L� service associated with any particular roadway /intersection. 1 ! PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA V A roadway or intersection's operating level of service (LOS) is used as a measure of E i traffic conditions for that facility. A number of measures, both qualitative and U quantitative, are used to describe the LOS for a roadway or intersection. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -1 Traffic and Circulation The key variables used in defining the LOS for a roadway or intersection include traffic volumes and the design capacity of the roadway. Roadway capacity is U generally defined as the number of vehicles that can be reasonably expected to pass over a given section of road during a given time period. For purposes of this i environmental analysis, 12,500 Average Daily Trips (ADT) was the assumed Li capacity for a two -lane undivided roadway, 25,000 ADTs for a four -lane undivided road, 37,500 ADTs for a four -lane divided road, and 56,300 ADTs for a six -lane ' divided roadway. The number of lanes and ADTs stated above are consistent with City policy and are based on information contained in the Guidance for Administration of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, dated November 1995 and Amended April 1998. V The criteria used to evaluate LOS conditions varies based on the type of roadway r and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted (flows restrained by traffic control devices such as stop signs or signals) or uninterrupted. The LOS definitions are described in Table 5.3 -1, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method Level of r , l� Service Definitions. L1 The LOS may be further defined in quantitative terms, using a volumeto- capacity ratio or v/c ratio. The v/c ratio is obtained by dividing a roadway's existing or projected traffic volumes by the roadway's design capacity. Table 5.3 -1 also U indicates the range of v/c ratios that correspond to each LOS definition. As indicated in the Table, a v/c ratio of less than 0.60 corresponds to a LOS A. C. LI The LOS definitions for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of ' traffic control. For signalized intersections, "average delay per vehicle" is used to determine LOS. The calculation of LOS is dependent on the occurrence of gaps occurring in the traffic flow of the main street. Table 5.3 -1 also indicates the corresponding LOS for average vehicle delay times (measured in seconds) for both C signalized and unsignalized intersections. �r FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -1 Traffic and Circulation BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.3 -1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method Level of Service Definitions Level of Description .(Assumes Uninterrupted Flow) VIC Ratio Avg. Deiayivehicie (sec.) Signalized Unsignalized Service (ICU) LOS "A" Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of 0.00 -0.60 0.0 -10.0 0.0 -10.0 others in the traffic stream. The traffic stream begins to be noticeable and freedom to LOS "B" select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a 0.61 -0.70 10.1 -20.0 10.1 -15.0 slight decline in the freedom to maneuver. The beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of LOS "C" individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions 0.71 -0.80 20.1 -35.0 15.1 -25.0 with others in the traffic stream. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and LOS "D" the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and 0.81 -0.90 35.1 -55.0 25.1 -35.0 convenience. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniformed LOS "E" value. Small increases in flow will causes breakdowns in 0.91 -1.00 55.1 -80.0 35.1 -50.0 traffic movement. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic LOS "F" approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse Above 1.0 Above 80.0 >50.0 the point. Queues form behind such locations. Acceptable Level of Service The City of Seal Beach considers LOS D (ICU = 0.81- 0.90) to be the minimum acceptable service level that should be maintained during the peak commute hours. However, an official definition of a "significant" project traffic impact has not been included in the City of Seal Beach General Plan. The City's Growth Management Element, Goals and Policies defines "measurable" traffic, with no standard interpretation of significance. To remain consistent and build upon these criteria, the following definitions are used in this study: "Measurable Traffic ". "measurable" traffic shall mean a traffic volume resulting in a 1.0 percent increase in the sum of the critical movements at an intersection. "Significant Traffic Impact " - In the City of Seal Beach, a "significant" traffic impact is defined as a 0.010 increase in ICU due to project - specific traffic, at a signalized location that currently, or in the future, operates at, or with the addition of project traffic, will operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or F). Intersections that are significantly impacted are required to be improved to an acceptable level of service, or, at a minimum, to without project conditions. For intersections within the City of Long Beach, a significant project impact is defined in this report as an increase in the intersection volume -to- capacity (V /C) of 0.020 or greater at any location where the final (future) LOS is unacceptable. This is the criterion used by the City of Long Beach and contained in the Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County. The City of Long Beach considers LOS D (0.81 <_ ICU <_ 0.90) to be the minimum acceptable LOS for all intersections. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -2 Traffic and Circulation CI of S�WReaA r BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR For the City of Long Beach, the current LOS, if worse than LOS D (i.e., LOS E or F), should also be maintained. L' At key unsignalized study intersections, a "significant" traffic impact is defined as a t.,...,+ 'ect.that ad .0 second of de �., i nt er sectio n op era ti n g t LO E r �irvua la aL a � intersecti0 o pe a in a O. o. F. A project's impact on a roadway study segment is considered significant if the project's V/C ratio increase is 0.01 or greater and the resulting LOS is E or F (V /C ratio > 0.90). EXISTING CONDITIONS L EXISTING ROADWAY CIRCULATION SYSTEM Regional access to the project site is primarily provided by the San Diego Freeway (1 -405), which generally extends in a northwest to southeast orientation in the vicinity of the project site. This 8 -lane facility is a major highway that extends through t Orange County and links Seal Beach with neighboring communities of Westminster, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, and Costa Mesa, as well as more distant locations, including Los Angeles and San Diego. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are provided on the 1-405 Freeway throughout Orange County. Primary access to the project site is provided via the Seal Beach Boulevard /1 -405 Interchange. Li L U I r I � i L9 r- L�� I The principal local network of streets serving the Boeing Specific Plan project consist of Seal Beach Boulevard, Westminster Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway. The following discussion provides a brief synopsis of these key area streets. These descriptions are based on an inventory of existing roadway conditions. Seal Beach Boulevard is a north- south, six lane divided arterial that borders the Boeing Specific Plan project site to the east. Seal Beach Boulevard is designated as a Major Arterial Highway on the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the City of Seal Beach Circulation Element. At the 1 -405 Overcrossing and south of Lampson Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard provides four travel lanes for through traffic, plus an auxiliary ramp merge lane. From the 1-405 Interchange south to Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach Boulevard provides six travel lanes. Curbside parking is not allowed on Seal Beach Boulevard. The posted speed limit on Seal Beach Boulevard is 45 miles per hour (mph) north of Westminster Avenue, 50 mph between Westminster Avenue and Adolfo Lopez Drive and 40 mph south of Adolfo Lopez Drive. According to recent traffic counts conducted in March 2002, daily traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard ranges between 20,666 vehicles per day (vpd) and 33,790 vpd on a "typical" weekday. Daily traffic on the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing totals approximately 42,411 vpd. Westminster Avenue is an east -west oriented highway, which borders the Boeing Specific Plan project site to the north. Westminster Avenue is designated as a Primary Arterial in the County MPAH and the City's Circulation Element. It is currently a four -lane divided roadway adjacent to the project site. Parking is not permitted along any section of this roadway in the study area. The posted speed limit on Westminster Avenue is 50 mph west of Seal Beach Boulevard and 55 mph east of Seal Beach Boulevard. West of Studebaker Road, the posted speed limit is FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -3 Traffic and Circulation BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 50 mph. Weekday daily traffic on Westminster Avenue ranges between 23,204 vpd, west of Seal Beach Boulevard, and 24,137 vpd, west of Bolsa Chica Road. Pacific Coast Highway is a major state route that extends along the California coast through Orange County and southern Los Angeles Coun ;�. !n the study Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) has a north -south orientation. North of the San Gabriel River, Pacific Coast Highway is a six -lane divided major arterial, providing three travel lanes in each direction. Curbside parking is not allowed on PCH within the vicinity of the project. The posted speed limit north of the San Gabriel River is 50 mph. PCH, south of the San Gabriel River is a four lane, divided roadway that is designated as a Primary Highway in the County MPAH and the City of Seal Beach Circulation Element. The posted speed limit on this section of PCH is 40 mph. Based on recent traffic counts collected in November 2002, daily traffic on PCH ranges between 41,920 vpd and 45,422 vpd on a "typical" weekday. Exhibit 5.3 -1, Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls, presents an inventory of the existing roadway conditions for the arterials and intersections evaluated in this report. The number of travel lanes and intersection controls for the key area intersections are identified. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES-TRAFFIC COUNTS Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the twenty -one key study intersections were obtained from traffic counts conducted by Transportation Studies Inc. in March 2002 and September 2002. Exhibits 5.3 -2, Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, and Exhibit 5.3 -3, Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, present the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections for a "typical" weekday, respectively. Appendix A of the Traffic Study (included as Appendix 15.2 within this EIR) contains the detailed manual turning movement count sheets for the key study intersections. Existing estimated weekday average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the eleven existing key roadway segments listed below are presented in Exhibit 5.3-4, Existing Daily Traffic Volumes. o Westminster Avenue, east of Studebaker Road a Westminster Avenue, between Road A (Apollo Drive) and Road B ® Westminster Avenue, west of Bolsa Chica Road ® Seal Beach Boulevard, north of Pacific Coast Highway o Adolfo Lopez Drive, west of Seal Beach Boulevard e Seal Beach Boulevard, between Road A (Apollo Drive) and Road C o Seal Beach Boulevard, between Saint Andrews and Golden Rain ® Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing, between 1 -405 northbound ramps and 1- 405 southbound ramps o Pacific Coast Highway, north of Main Street/Bolsa Avenue 0 Pacific Coast Highway, between Seal Beach Boulevard and Main Street/Bolsa Avenue ® Pacific Coast Highway, south of Seal Beach Boulevard FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -4 Traffic and Circulation j . . f' li is F�. 0 r , ju F I Li 1 i \ U 'J U1, U I JIILL F W �\ =_ 11IIt ! 1 IIIL \ \ ( II( I slopbuudS \ / Tjw a 0 c 15 o 20 �z o :S *af " JIILL T mWo Id uowu+ol{ _.I. IiIT pl. oy auoa 5 2°! zcn w 1 1 1 1 � N �1 QaZ Q N06 U IJ in z dN S4 JII r dN dNPH D9 oaly� = l Ii ( dN °slo8 09 a 2 t a _ z 3 a�� w w N Q == N N 0 i9 tin W °t 4 g 1 1 1 1 IL z / / \ a 1 W a � a PNe In a in 2 °° JIIL o dN .' ? / SIP / / / \ / dN 09 4aoa8 —� / IIL \ I // IIL � N a s ti r�J / r w O ai •_ i On - -, / z z Rood Ag ° �O 0 no 3 ¢ � oN�F \� \ Island V a w t \ II( / Village a / oo Dr'�� ` 0. a .. O � U m z z N ~ ` a r dN (S latlaisPnlSJI) P )`. I dN OY 1'III 4D N\aP JS cL no El 1 1 1 W / � O =I - b M S2 \ N m N rt1 VI \ w p 0 in rh Jll `- e \I O 1 W J / J � / Q' z f V no 0 co 0 V O as IC n N C C7 ob J O C J m 7 N = CO) C) IyJ s® w~ mw i J w O Cr 0 cn CL LL- m O CL 0 UU _i v W CL U) CD a— m CD m � m CO) m m cc cm LLJ L:6Z\ > 1 J 4 l r LLI I Ytz \\09 - -\ f� I c / W \ / H 1 u 1 \ - -� Dp S aF IS M OM r MIDA v - N 4 J l l �"a � W Id uowwol{ L9 J �� r PN oyauoa w S — rr z It 1 • o m u V W 4 � bu•N L6Y yj J J I l rL69 cr w P oalyo Zf6l J I r °sloe z 6 Y ik v o LY6l\ / --196 o \ J I IL r0Y PAIS —� \ // ,o \♦ `T� / ors 11 \� 1 4ej, 1 • / c / n i-ot 1 / Road I S 9 `o c - - - -- ,o � // \ r a a las ���v 1 \ r'JS 1 Island e h \�! I 1 Alage V / lr Dr o —i ��3 / $ ' ° " a° °Pais J 1 I esr „ IS / I o` LIL / I cv // •� ~ f \ I °+� ��'� I / J / � It \ 1 g , \4 I IS joaoillive u if 11 rf Exhibit 5.30 r� L f lV r `u J r I � u I � 1J 1 r� W alopbuud5 \ \ / / Z is < 4 �in a: 15 Ma!A na6uA v $ fin --me 7 Z 0 Jll r 'w 4 Id uowwOH L9 J I .b Ptl 042uaa o m � U • . o C �OAga —L as �i �L r J I L r-tt' o: w U PU oa14� L z9z J I r oslag = 9Zl 1 ^A �o 0 # S / L.gpZ\ 1If X� \ / I r-9* / 1 vile �n 1 / D \ / Rood A c ^ � r � � u \y ! I l \ I Island Village e Dr I\ I� / ww r "'l � Z le jo-ollin ry l \ 1 _ r lei 1 I \ / t n __ co w CD mW J 0 LLJ � a O Q J V U %b— W CL Isass U) CD has Z O CD Ln � V \V CL z CL Im y ) LU x o� Co w U 1 °° w U J � W � 2 C/) CL o Q �a LL c W . �+ a. �m C9 .® Co C) m cm X Uj u u 1.1 2 m o U oj i � dl f a Z m Z 0 V Z W m W O l7 Z 2 g a J N b c DF s / O a Z Exhibit 5.3;'� s � of °p6 0 1S 1S Maw BallaA ^ o F Id uowwoH Dii oy-3uoa 3 N K Y PH D7n3 09 1 0 8 A p a O c E PMB w w 062 .c �► t yzioag N � �F o K b S °j A Road A c C ° L r o ��o \ � 7 Island F, Village V Dr to ID k A) O jaMD9apnIS a' 4 44� o` �S z VI 4 0 0� CI' N 18 jamaINloo Q r n b c ry x o� Co w U 1 °° w U J � W � 2 C/) CL o Q �a LL c W . �+ a. �m C9 .® Co C) m cm X Uj u u 1.1 2 m o U oj i � dl f a Z m Z 0 V Z W m W O l7 Z 2 g a J N b c DF s / O a Z Exhibit 5.3;'� r C� o BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EI ( EXISTING INTERSECTION CONDITIONS t-1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method of Analysis In conformance with i the City %f Seal Beach and County o f O range CMP requirements, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of analysis. The ICU technique estimates the volume to capacity (V /C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) a time, and thus capacity, required by existing and /or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. i Per City of Seal Beach requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) for left -turn, through, and right -turn lanes, and dual left turn capacity of 3,400 vph. A clearance adjustment factor of 0.05 (5 percent) was j added to each Level of Service calculation. For intersections within the City of Long >� Beach, the ICU calculations utilize a lane capacity of 1,600 vph for left -turn, through and right -turn lanes; a dual left turn capacity of 2,880 vph, and a clearance interval of 0.10. The ICU value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative �' measure of the intersection performance. The ICU value is the sum of the critical 1, volume to capacity ratios at an intersection; it is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning movements. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range, as shown in Table 5.3 -1, Level of Service Definitions. r ; In the City of Seal Beach, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the peak commute hours. In the City of Long Beach, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the peak commute hours, or the current LOS if the existing LOS is worse than LOS D (i.e. LOS E of F). LOS D is also the minimum acceptable condition utilized by the City of Westminster. y..,J The ICU method of analysis and LOS concept are described in more detail in Appendix B of the Traffic Study. Appendix B also presents the ICU /LOS calculations for all key signalized intersections during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) The methodology in Chapter 17 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 for stop controlled intersections was utilized for the analysis of the two (2) unsignalized study intersections evaluated in this report. This methodology estimates the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the level of service for each movement. The overall average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle, and level of service is then calculated for the entire intersection. L The HCM control delay value translates to a Level of Service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -9 Traffic and Circulation C&Tof s " =A BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range, as shown in Table 5.3 -1, Level of Service Definitions. Appendix B also presents the HCM /LOS calculations for the two (2) unsignalized study intersections. ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS In addition to detailed intersection analyses, daily operating conditions for eleven roadway segments (links) have been investigated according to the volume -to- capacity (V /C) of each link. The WC relationship is used to estimate the LOS of the roadway segment with the volume based on 24 -hour traffic count data and the capacity based on the Orange County MPAH classification of each roadway. Table 5.3 -1, Level of Service Definitions, above presented the six levels of service corresponding to V/C ratios. LOS E or F conditions are considered deficient for purposes of the roadway segment analysis. The roadway link capacity of each street classification according to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) is presented in Table 5.3 -2, Roadway Link Capacities. As presented in Table 5.3 -2, the roadway capacities, in Vehicles Per Day (VPD), are only shown for the street classifications from Principal Arterials on down, which apply to the key study roadway links. Table 5.3 -2 Roadway Link Capacities Facility Type Number of Lanes Level of Service Criteria-with associated Roadway Capacity (vehicles`per =day) Values A B C. D E F Principal 8 -lanes divided 45,000 52,500 60,000 67,500 75,000 - Major 6 -lanes divided 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 - Primary 4 -lanes divided 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 - Secondary 4 -lanes undivided 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 - Commuter 2 -lanes undivided 1 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 - Source: Guidance for Administration of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, dated November 1995 and Amended April 1998. Existing Intersection Level of Service Results Table 5.3 -3, Existing Peak Hour Level of Service Summary, summarizes the existing peak hour service level calculations for the twenty-one key study intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry. Review of Table 5.3 -3 indicates that based on the ICU or HCM method of analysis and the City's LOS criteria, six of the twenty -one key study intersections currently operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS E or F) during the AM and /or PM peak hours. Fifteen key study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. The six locations operating at an unacceptable LOS are as follows: FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -10 Traffic and Circulation r' �1 D BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR �1 L L� . � f , U U II r I U I U E f! 1J r U L Table 5.3 -3 Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary Key Intersections . , Time parintl Control Type ICUIHCM LOS 1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2nd St/Westminster Ave AM PM 8� Traffic Signal 0.931 1.000 E E AM 3� Traffic 0.937 E 2. Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue PM Signal 0.818 D AM 3� Traffic 0.415 A 3. Studebaker Road at SR -22 EB Ramps PM Signal 0.695 B AM 30 Traffic 0.484 A 4. Studebaker Road at SR -22 WB Ramps PM Signal 0.830 D AM 50 Traffic 0.624 B 5. Pacific Coast Highway at Main Street/Bolsa Avenue PM Signal 0.724 C AM 60 Traffic 0.771 C 6. Pacific Coast Highway at Seal Beach Boulevard PM Signal 0.769 C AM 80 Traffic 0.340 A 7. Seal Beach Boulevard at Bolsa Avenue/Anchor Way PM Signal 0.394 A 8. Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive Am PM One-Way Stop Control 0.26 s/v 0.58 s/v A A AM 80 Traffic 0.926 E 9. Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue PM Signal 0.907 E AM 60 Traffic 0.888 D 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Southbound Ramps PM Signal 0.972 E AM 60 Traffic 0.706 C 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Northbound Ramps PM Signal 0.989 E AM 80 Traffic 0.950 E 12. Bolsa Chica Road at Westminster Avenue PM Signal 0.769 C AM 30 Traffic 0.281 A 13. Seal Beach Boulevard at Road A (Apollo Drive) PM Signal 0.310 A AM 30 Traffic 0.442 A 14. Road A (Apollo Drive) at Westminster Avenue PM Signal 0.469 A AM 20 Traffic 0.512 A 15. Island Village Drive at Westminster Avenue PM Signal 0.528 A AM 30 Traffic 0.457 A 16. Road B at Westminster Avenue PM Si nal 0.509 A AM 30 Traffic 0.276 A 17. Seal Beach Boulevard at Road C PM Signal 0.311 A AM 80 Traffic 0.492 A 18. Springdale Street at Westminster Avenue PM Signal 0.710 C AM 50 Traffic 0.296 A 19. Rancho Rd /Hamon Place at Westminster Avenue PM Signal 0.432 A 20. 1-405 Southbound On Ramp at Westminster Avenue Am PM No Control 0.56 s/v 0.95 s/v A A AM 50 Traffic 0.817 D 21. Pacific Coast Highway at Loynes Drive PM Signal 0.818 D Note: Appendix B contains ICU /LOS and HCM /LOS calculation worksheets for all study intersections. BOLD ICUILOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Seal Beach, City of Westminster, and City of Long Beach LOS standards. U FINAL A APRIL 2003 5.3 -11 Traffic and Circulation Olk of BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Key Intersection 1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd St/Westminster Avenue 2. Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue - 9. Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Southbound Ramps 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Northbound Ramps 12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road AM Peak Hour ICU /LOS 0.931/E 0.937/E 0.925/E 0.888/D 0.706/C 0.950 /E PM Peak Hour ICU /LOS 1.000 /E 0.818/D 0.907 /E 0.972/E 0.989/E 0.769/C Note: Bold ICU /LOS values indicate unacceptable service levels. Existing Roadway Link Level of Service Results Table 5.3 -4, Existing Roadway Link Level of Service, summarizes the existing service level calculations for the eleven existing study roadway links based on existing 24- hour weekday traffic volumes and current roadway geometry. As shown, four of the study links currently operate below the minimum link LOS threshold of D. Based on the V/C method of analysis, the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing currently operates at LOS E. The links of Pacific Coast Highway, from south of Seal Beach Boulevard to north of Main Street/Bolsa Avenue, currently operate LOS F on a daily basis. The remaining seven analyzed links currently operate at LOS A or B on a daily basis. 1;T_1:3:t Chapter 28 of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code provides zoning requirements for the City including specifying the parking requirements for each zoning designation. The zoning codes require that there be one space per 300 square feet of office and administrative uses (Section 28- 1203), one space per 800 square feet for industrial, manufacturing, research and development uses (Section 28- 1503(4)), one space per 800 square feet for warehousing and distribution uses (Section 28- 1503(4)), one space for each sleeping unit for hotel /motel uses (Section 28- 11403(4)(x)), one space per 100 square feet for restaurant uses (Section 28- 1304(4)) and one space per 300 square feet of retail uses (Section 28- 1304(4)). Table 5 -3, Parking Standards, of the Boeing Specific Plan shows the required parking for each land use, which is consistent with the above mentioned zoning requirements. In addition, while the City zoning code does not identify parking requirements for self- storage uses, which is a permitted use on Lot 6 of Planning Area 3, the Boeing Specific Plan requires one space per 10,000 square feet. TRANSPORTATION FEE PROGRAM The City of Seal Beach has established a transportation impact fee program for projects within the City of Seal Beach. The City of Seal Beach Transportation Fee Program (Traffic Fee Program) is intended to provide intersection and roadway segment improvements as development occurs within the City. The Traffic Fee Program specifies an amount charged per every square foot/dwelling unit/acre based on land use. The Traffic Fee Program charges for both development fees and application fees. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -12 Traffic and Circulation r; r -- L r; t' G G V I, 1� U r Li I; 4-� o aFs� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.3-4 Existing Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The traffic issues related to the proposed land use and development have been evaluated in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP). The City of Seal Beach is responsible for preparation of the traffic impact analysis, in accordance with both CEQA and CMP authorizing legislation. Environmental impact thresholds as indicated in Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines were also used as significance thresholds in this analysis. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.3 -13 Traffic and Circulation No. of MPAH Existing Year 2002 Existinj 1 Traffic Roadway Segment Existing Arterial Capacity Daily VIC Lanes Classification at LOS E Volume Ratio LOS A. Westminster Avenue, 4D Primary 37,500 23,066 0.615 B e/o Studebaker Road Arterial B Westminster Avenue, 4D Primary 37,500 23,204 0.619 B :1 Between Apollo Drive /Road B Arterial C Westminster Avenue, 4D Primary 37,500 24,137 0.644 B w/o Bolsa Chica Road Arterial D Seal Beach Boulevard, 6D Major 56,300 20,666 0.367 A n/o Pacific Coast Highway Arterial E Adolfo Lopez Drive, 2U Local 12,500 1,389 0.111 A w/o Seal Beach Boulevard Collector F Seal Beach Boulevard, 6D Major 56,300 26,975 0.479 A Between Apollo Drive /Road C Arterial G Seal Beach Boulevard, 6D Major 56,300 33,790 0.600 A Between St Andrews /Golden Rain Arterial Seal Beach Boulevard, between 1 -405 Major H. NB Ramps and 1 -405 SB Ramps 5D Arterial 46,875 42,411 0.905 E Overcrossin Pacific Coast Highway, north of Main 4D Primary 37,500 44,684 1.192 F Street/Bolsa Avenue Arterial J. Pacific Coast Highway, north of Seal 4D Primary 37,500 45,422 1.211 F Beach Boulevard Arterial K Pacific Coast Highway, south of Seal 4D Primary 37,500 41,920 1.118 F Beach Boulevard Arterial D = Divided, U = Undivided SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The traffic issues related to the proposed land use and development have been evaluated in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP). The City of Seal Beach is responsible for preparation of the traffic impact analysis, in accordance with both CEQA and CMP authorizing legislation. Environmental impact thresholds as indicated in Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines were also used as significance thresholds in this analysis. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.3 -13 Traffic and Circulation BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR As such, the project would create a significant impact if it would cause one or more of the following to occur: o Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing I raffic load and cap acity vf t Strut SyStem (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) (refer to Impact Statement 5.3 -1); o Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMP agency for designated roads or highways (refer to Impact Statement 5.3 -1); o Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); o Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (refer to Impact Statement 5.3 -2); o Result in inadequate emergency access (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); o Result in inadequate parking. capacity (refer to Impact Statement 5.3 -2); and /or o Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant). Impacts to traffic and circulation are analyzed below according to topic. Mitigation measures at the end of this Section directly correspond with the identified impact. TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT 5.3 -1 The proposed Project would generate additional trips on the adjacent roadways, thus affecting the level of service at intersections and roadways identified below. Recommended mitigation measures include roadway improvements, compliance with the City of Seal Beach Transportation Impact Fee Program and Fair Share improvement contributions. The feasibility of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) in the City of Seal Beach by buildout Year 2006 is uncertain, thus, impacts are concluded to remain significant which requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of the Boeing Specific Plan project, a multi -step process has been utilized. The first step is traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle rn�nL v MrKIL cuus 5.3 -14 Traffic and Circulation C o r , 1 BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR U trip generation equations or rates to the project development tabulation. The second step of the forecasting process is traffic distribution that identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound project traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing /expected future travel patterns in {r ' the study. area. LJ U The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time that may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. I r With the forecasting process complete and project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the project is isolated by comparing operational (LOS) conditions at selected key intersections using expected future traffic volumes with and without forecast project traffic. The need for site - specific and /or cumulative local area traffic improvements can then be evaluated. 1. t ' PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS U Project Traffic Generation Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one -way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation factors and equations used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the Sixth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C., 1997]. The approach for estimating the trip generation potential of the Boeing Specific Plan was based on information published in Chapter 3 — ' Guidelines for Estimating Trip generation of Trip Generation Handbook, ITE October 1998 and input from the City of Seal Beach. Table 7A, of the Traffic Study, contained in Appendix 15.2 of this EIR, summarizes the trip generation rates and equations that were considered in forecasting the trip generation potential of the existing land uses at the Boeing campus and the impact t of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project. Trips generated by the existing U development were estimated using ITE Land Use 140: Manufacturing, ITE Land Use 710: General Office Building, and ITE Land Use 760: Research & Development. i The trip generation potential of the proposed development of the Boeing Specific Land Use 110: General Light Industrial Plan were estimated using ITE La g , ITE Land Use 312: Business Hotel, ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Center, ITE Land Use 831: Quality Restaurant and ITE Land Use 832: High- Turnover Restaurant. Table 5.3 -5, Project Traffic Generation Forecasi present the trip generation forecast j for the existing uses and the proposed land uses of the Boeing Specific Plan. Review of the top portion of Table 5.3 -5 indicates that the existing uses within Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2 of the Boeing Specific Plan have an existing trip generation potential of 9,470 daily trips with 1,400 trips (1,214 inbound, 186 y FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -15 Traffic and Circulation C, 'a-cs�� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 1,399 trips (259 inbound, 1,140 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. Planning Area 1 . Review of Table 5.3 -5, Project Traffic Generation Forecast, indicates that the 345,000 square feet of genera! light industrial uses proposed within Planning Area 1 is forecast to generate 2,470 daily trips with 319 trips (281 inbound, 38 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 331 trips (41 inbound, 291 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. Planning Area 2 . Table 5.3 -5, Project Traffic Generation Forecast, summarizes the trip generation forecast for Planning Area 2. As shown, the 345,000 square feet of general light industrial uses proposed within Planning Area 2 is forecast to generate 2,470 daily trips with 319 trips produced in the AM peak hour and 331 trips produced in the PM peak. To provide a conservative and worse case analysis, a reduction in the trip generation potential for proposed uses in Planning Area 2 has been projected for only the existing occupied floor area that would be demolished within Planning Area 2. As shown, the occupied manufacturing, office and R &D floor area in Planning Area 2 have a combined trip generation potential of 1,526 daily trips, 136 AM peak hour trips and 151 PM peak hour trips. Comparison of these figures with that of the proposed uses in Planning Area 2 indicates that the construction of 345,000 square feet of general light industrial uses is forecast to result in an additional 944 daily trips with 106 trips produced in the AM peak hour and 120 trips produced in the PM peak hour. Planning Area 3 . Table 5.3 -5, Project Traffic Generation Forecast, shows that the 628,000 square feet of general light industrial uses proposed within Planning Area 3 is forecast to generate 4,590 daily trips with 654 trips (576 inbound, 78 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 737 trips (88 inbound, 649 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. The potential truck traffic generated by the proposed light industrial uses in Planning Area 1, Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 3 has been converted to its Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) based on the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. For the purposes of this analysis, truck trips were converted to passenger car equivalents (PCE) using a factor of 2.0 to reflect the impact of large trucks (i.e., 18 wheel WB -50). The number of PCE's generated by the proposed light industrial facilities of the Boeing Specific Plan are estimated to be ten percent (10 %). Hence, the proposed uses in Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2 are each forecast to result in a total PCE of 2,720 daily trip ends, with 351 PCE trip ends generated during the AM peak hour and 364 PCE trip ends produced in the PM peak hour. The light industrial uses proposed in Planning Area 3 are projected to generate a total PCE of 5,050 trip ends, with 719 PCE trip ends generated during the AM peak hour and 811 PCE trip ends produced in the PM peak hour. The potential traffic impact of the project PCE trip totals for Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 3, and the net additional project PCE totals in for Planning Area 2 are evaluated in the traffic analysis section of this report. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -16 Traffic and Circulation U r. Li I r, f • V fi U U L r7 L1 s of Tw BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.3 -5 Project Traffic Generation Forecast ' • 'I TC L I IQ �`n s " T c .,.oe ....�... , Project Description n2ily " _..� 2 -Way. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour •' In . Out.' ,Total In Out Total Existing Uses 0 140: Manufacturing 155,000 square feet in Planning Area 2 580 77 23 100 39 68 107 0 710: General Office Building 805,000 square feet in Planning Area 1 6,590 861 121 982 169 813 982 0 710: General Office Building 145,000 square feet in Planning Area 2 1,770 220 30 250 41 201 242 0 760: Research & Development 45,000 square feet in Planning Area 2 530 56 12 68 10 58 68 Total Trip Generation for Existing Uses 9,470 1 1,214 1 186 1,400 259 1,140 1,399 Proposed Development Planning Area 1(Phase IV - Year 2006) 0 110: General Light Industrial (345,000 square feet) 2,470 281 38 319 40 291 331 Planning Area 1 Trip Generation in PCEI 2,720 309 42 351 44 320 364 Planning Area 2 Phase /// -Year 2006 0 110: General Light Industrial 345,000 square feet 2,470 281 38 319 40 291 331 Planning Area 2 Trip Generation in PCE' 2,720 309 42 351 44 320 364 Planning Area 2 (Trip Credits - occupied square feet) 0 140: Manufacturing 31,000 square feet in Planning Area 2: 20% -116 -15 -5 -20 -8 -14 -22 0 710: General Office Building 72,500 square feet in Planning Area 2: 50% -880 -110 -15 -125 -21 -100 -121 0 760: Research & Development 45,000 square feet in Planning Area: 100% -530 -56 - -12 - -68 -10 - -58 -68 Total Vehicular Trip Credit for Planning Area -1,526 -181 - 32 -21 ' 3 - 39 -172 -211 Trip Credit for Planning Area 2 in PCE -1,540 -183 -32 -215 -40 -173 -213 Net Vehicular Trip Generation Potential for Planning Area 2 944 100 6 106 1 119 120 Net Trip Generation for Planning Area 2 in PCEI 1,180 126 10 136 4 147 151 Planning Area 3 Phase I- Year 2004 0 110: General Light Industrial 628,000 square feet 4,590 576 78 654 88 649 737 Planning Area 3 Trip Generation in PCE' 5,050 634 86 719 97 714 811 Planning Area 4 Phase H - Year 2005 e 312: Business Hotel 120 Rooms 870 41 29 70 44 30 74 0 820: Shopping Center 12,500 square feet 1,790 28 18 46 76 83 159 0 831:Quality Restaurant 10,000 square feet 900 7 1 8 50 25 75 0 832:High- Tumover Restaurant (10,000 square feet 1,300 48 45 93 65 43 108 Trip Generation Potential for Planning Area 4 4,860 124 93 217 235 181 416 Pass-by Ad'ustment -- - -- - -- -76 -58 -134 Net Trip Generation for Planning Area 4 4,860 1 124 93 217 159 123 282 FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -17 Traffic and Circulation BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.3 -5 — Continued Project Traffic Generation Forecast F i ,,,;�`' ap AM Peak Hour PM-Peak-Hour In; Out Total' In ' Out Total : 'Pt9ject'Description Y., SY �y• ' ?=WaY Boeing Speck Plan Trip Generation Summary Trip Generation for existing uses to remain in Planning 6,590 861 121 982 169 813 982 Area 1 Net Trip Generation for Planning Areas 1, 2, 3 & 4 in 15,350 1,376 263 1,639 344 1,477 1,821 PCE Trip Credit for Planning Area 2 in PCE -1,540 -183 -32 -215 -40 -173 -213 Total Net Trip Generation for the Boeing Specific Plan 20,400 2,054 352 2,406 473 2,117 2,590 Source: Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (1997). Notes: Daily traffic forecasts rounded to the nearest ten (10) vehicles. 1 Assumes Truck Traffic is approximately 10 percent of the total traffic generated by Light Industrial facilities. Truck Trips were converted to passenger car equivalents (PCE) in this analysis using a factor of 2.0 to reflect the impact of large (18 -wheel WB -50) trucks. 2 Source: Trip Generation Handbook, published ITE October 1998. To account for trips which come directly from the everyday traffic stream (i.e., existing traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue), the following Average Pass -by Trip Percentages were utilized in this report to estimate PM peak hour pass -by trips: Retail Shops: 34% Quality Restaurant: 44% High - tumover Restaurant: 43% Planning Area 4 . Table 5.3 -5, Project Traffic Generation Forecast shows that proposed 120 -room hotel in Planning Area 4 is forecast to generate 870 daily trips, with 70 trips (41 inbound, 29 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 74 trips (44 inbound, 30 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. The 32,500 square feet of retail and restaurant floor area proposed within Planning Area 4 is forecast to generate 3,990 daily trips with 147 trips (83 inbound, 64 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 342 trips (191 inbound, 151 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. Combined, these proposed uses are forecast to generate 4,860 daily trips, 217 AM peak hour trips and 416 PM peak hour trips. To account for trips that come directly from the everyday traffic stream on the adjoining streets (i.e. Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue) applicable pass -by reduction factors were incorporated into PM peak hour traffic forecasts of the propose retail and restaurant uses in Planning Area 4. The factors used in this report are based on information published in the Trip Generation Handbook, ITE October 1998. Hence, the resulting traffic generation potential of Planning Area 4 totals 4,860 daily trips, with 217 trips (124 inbound, 93 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 282 trips (159 inbound, 123 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. Boeing Specific Plan Trip Generation Potential As shown, the new development proposed as part of the Boeing Specific Plan project is forecast to generate 15,350 FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -18 Traffic and Circulation ( BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR daily PCE trips (one half arriving, one half departing), with 1,639 PCE trips anticipated during the AM peak hour (1,376 inbound, 263 outbound) and 1,821 PCE trips (344 inbound, 1,477 outbound) forecast during the PM peak hour. The potential traffic impact of this project PCE trip totals are evaluated in the traffic analysis section cf this report. Review of Table 5.3 -5, Project Tragic Generation Forecast, shows that at completion and full occupancy of all proposed development, the Boeing Specific Plan is forecast to generate a total of 20,400 daily PCE trips with 2,406 trips (2,054 inbound, 352 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 2,590 trips (473 inbound, 2,117 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment J 9 � � Exhibits 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E and 7F, contained in Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study, U present the traffic distribution patterns for the Boeing Specific Plan project. Exhibit 7A presents the traffic distribution pattern for the general light industrial development j within Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 3 that are located along Apollo Court and U would primarily access the site via Road A (Apollo Drive) at Westminster Avenue. Exhibit 7B presents the traffic distribution pattern for the general light industrial development within Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 3 that are located along Saturn Way and would primarily access the site via Road A (Apollo Drive) at Seal Beach Boulevard. Please note that the trip distribution patterns illustrated in Exhibits 7A and 7B assumes that the extension of Apollo Drive, between Apollo Court and Saturn Way, would not be constructed as part of the Boeing Specific Plan. The potential benefit/impact of this connection has been evaluated and the results are { summarized at the end of this report (see Alternative Site Circulation Analysis). �- Exhibit 7C presents the traffic distribution pattern for the general light industrial (; development in Planning Area 3 that has direct access to Adolfo Lopez Drive at Seal �J Beach Boulevard. Exhibit 7D presents the traffic distribution pattern for the business hotel. r� U r i U. Access to the hotel site in Planning Area 4 is assumed to be provided by a "right -turn only" driveway on Westminster Avenue. Exhibit 7E presents the traffic distribution pattern for the shopping center /retail uses. Access to the retail /commercial component of Planning Area 4 is assumed to be provided by the existing signalized driveway of Road C at Seal Beach Boulevard. Exhibit 7F presents the traffic distribution pattern for the proposed uses in Planning Area 1. For the purposes of the traffic study, access for the potential development in Planning Area 1 is assumed to be provided by the existing signalized driveways on Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. Because a site plan for the potential development in Planning Area 1 has not been prepared, it is not known which of the existing unsignalized driveways, now closed temporarily, would be utilized. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.3 -19 Traffic and Circulation /— \ / ono % _O \ < \ No 1 IS v C . IS .ayl neliol� o u ono —o 4 J I l ro Id uowwuH 0 -J I P 04ouoa 0 0 I l rtr P a oa1y� U , �� ( asloo Rq S 1 Xz its ! 1 1 0 10 PAJS 1 I ez tic \ \ / olio Or \ o � �O lelond 1 1 1 Village V / p Or 0 � 4 / r is ,logvpnIS t `9j/ IB JQ . ! \ / \ IN t n 0 0 N a 0 O m c co W n CD CD ( 6 J J hi cn O = °C CO) w m w J j = w O U) O C:) J ci CL V U v �= w CL cn cm Z C.3 w O O •� m O O O O CL z 41c z O O j 7 d� N z 0 Exhibit 5.3•u L L Ll U r' T L_.1 Ell f : r I • U E u l I ` I _.! L / / \ 0 J I \ z— mr `zoz\ _ fSZ \ I J l l r�9 I I 0 J11� 1 \ 69 \ N — o \ I �s d I \ i _ _ \ y�00g 1 I \ �o 7 I I I I I i I 1 I \ z gJ I 9Z 0 1 0•1og l SS \ !g 1 r' nd E. / 9 2j , (w ige V / 0 )r ,� , < of a . Lj IS -M ! J I l r I\ I \ ui�� l Il \1 jr • 15 o P a o4auoy U C 0 E o 0 Jll PH ooiy3 0 J 0 — St 1 B o ( �.9 si 1 o' I 1 Pros ' L-scz \ I r-zn I I Imf l L � / c \ c / xm y w Lu m W E w O mCC 0 0Z ¢� J CJ CL V U_ LL ,~ CC W .�* CL N CD Z_ v w CD O •� m qq� l�oloe L CC CL on, i I yro .. 'b� I . Lj IS -M ! J I l r I\ I \ ui�� l Il \1 jr • 15 o P a o4auoy U C 0 E o 0 Jll PH ooiy3 0 J 0 — St 1 B o ( �.9 si 1 o' I 1 Pros ' L-scz \ I r-zn I I Imf l L � / c \ c / xm y w Lu m W E w O mCC 0 0Z ¢� J CJ CL V U_ LL ,~ CC W .�* CL N CD Z_ v w CD O •� m qq� l�oloe L CC CL BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the site's proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e., 1-405, Seal Beach Boulevard, etc.); expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization and presence of traffic signals; existing intersection - Peak h vur turning movement volumes conducted at select project site driveway and study intersections, and ingress /egress opportunities at the project site. The anticipated AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes associated with the proposed Boeing Specific Plan are presented in Exhibit 5.3 -5, AM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes, and Exhibit 5.3 -6, PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes, respectively. Daily project traffic volumes are presented in Exhibit 10, contained in Appendix 15.2 of this EIR. The traffic volume assignments presented in these exhibits reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Exhibits 7A- 7F, contained in Appendix 15.2 of this EIR, and the traffic generation forecast of the project presented in Table 5.3 -5, Project Traffic Generation Forecast. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The existing plus project traffic conditions have been generated based on existing traffic conditions and the addition of new Boeing Specific Plan project traffic. The existing plus project traffic conditions have been prepared pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, which require that the potential impacts of a project be evaluated upon the circulation system as it currently exists. Although the proposed project is anticipated to be completed by Year 2006, this analysis identifies the roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the specific potentially significant traffic impacts of the project (if any). Existing Plus Project Traffic Volume Conditions Exhibit 5.3 -7, Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, and Exhibit 5.3 -8, Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, present "Existing Plus Project" AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twenty -one key study intersections, respectively. Exhibit 13, contained in Appendix 15.2 of this EIR, presents the "Existing Plus Project" daily traffic volumes at the eleven key roadway segments. The traffic volumes illustrated in these exhibits were analyzed and the results are presented in the "Traffic Impact Analysis Melhodology" subsection of this EIR Section. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Ambient Traffic Growth Year 2006 Horizon year background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using an ambient growth factor, which is intended to account for unknown future projects in the study area, as well as account for regional growth in traffic volumes and development of projects outside the study area. For this analysis, future growth in traffic volumes at the study intersections has been calculated at two percent per year (2.0 percent/year). The ambient growth factor is consistent with City of Seal Beach requirements. Applied to existing Year 2002 traffic volumes results in an eight percent growth in existing volumes at the key intersections to the Year 2006. FINAL A APRIL 2003 5.3 -22 Traffic and Circulation t--1 C L 1� L V u 1 1 L u r 1 L.! I Li a 1 \ SOC J� f 771 1 { l \ I ` alopBuudS \ / 0 is U C IS Maw /alloA .. .. .. . . p. .. •N$y �-Sli u Jll r�Ot E Id u0wwoli C9 { ( PH o"'uoa S , It N °' fit• —a►zt J I l i-Y19 PH O�yO Egl / { r 99t zoot S : / 1 \ { p� 1 / A 0110 Or c u 1 dloge Or Lq 4 / pd. dim / l i0„o / { C M Es to is-01;11 1 / sit, lit ( / { J — \ \ 1 b \0011 ` n N O cli CI m a 0 O 0 a> cm c w c C45 a oif J O C ..J ai CA 0 N _ cc CO) w Lu m w E w c zn a. O l]Q::m J CJ _ CL Cl U_ M- Il � w a- ct) C3 akcm Z O m A � A � C/ CL 1D A am CL _:3 CL cm CIO W / \ 1 \ 6[S — _r a a,Dpbuud$ \ / 15 \ r o -_ �i'Ti .. 0 I l r'ff Id uowwDH L9 1 I � PM DyouOy L A f 1 tot —List J I l r-zss PH Z9Z -J J�j Ds108 L9Y1 — .n 51 1 `r$ l---Nft6 1 I p ^� Ali I tic -� r 9 I \ Z96 Opt PAIG Fr Cr 1 1r-96z A 0110 Dr c 2 ` 1 I island lloge \ ° / or fy w c �{ CO 4 p d' br / r Str J ICL / o Zttt / I a n %`� 1 `•a ✓ � � — I t I iv v 9\ V 1 l 1 ZIS I 1 � — X5 - �•� 1 Iii`\ ° / N \ FIT I 18 ia.olllla8 o`y / 1 \ 1 11 1 z / \ Lot =E CO2 w Lu to w E Q O N CL O Q J CL a- Cj U U � U � W 11 C!3 � Z � w C) Y! CL m iL C3 CD Cm a® ledb •aam C uj Exhibit 5.3 -; `) G 1 I U ad I I r r� U r U V V I 1 U u ` r U 3 as c IS MOIA �IIoA V O O 9 PMe O O i .1 P8uud5 � uowwoH Pa � PH 9*!43 aloe Or E-, 9 Ar VI O N b N x oc = w m U J U w C T o.. A 0 Z Q CL � U CU CJ q � M W r� ■ ^4 U.1 CL cn CD z C:) w m \V CD cc N = m i 9 S m 0 E U w _ � W U � W J00 (S W � W g7j 2a' 9000 � d < m U O a a a a U S 2 S S 8 In K 09809 o o o o to m m m m Or E-, 9 Ar VI O N b N x oc = w m U J U w C T o.. A 0 Z Q CL � U CU CJ q � M W r� ■ ^4 U.1 CL cn CD z C:) w m \V CD cc N O O N Z O m n � � d o U Z cl /LJ U C C 2 W C d! cc CL W 0 N d C7 [7 �y Z 3 Z � 5 e a S N C Z � j H o r t -- v 0 W O 0 to Exhibit 5.3 -9 o of s� e=. BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Related Projects Traffic Characteristics In order to make a realistic estimate of future on- street conditions prior to completion of the Boeing Specific Plan project, the status of other known development projects (related projects) in the area has been researched. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impact of all other known development. Exhibit 5.3 -9, Related Projects Location, presents the general location of the related projects located in the City of Seal Beach and the City of Los Alamitos with respect to the Boeing Specific Plan project site. Based on discussions with the City of Long Beach staff, LL &G has concluded that there are no related projects within the project study area in the City of Long Beach. Seal Beach Developments According to City of Seal Beach staff, the related projects to be considered as part of the cumulative traffic setting includes the Rossmoor Center Expansion, the vacant floor area or unoccupied development of Areas A, B, C & D of the approved Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan, the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, and a proposed 150 room hotel on 1st Street, west of Marina Drive. The Rossmoor Center Expansion project includes the net entitled trips associated with 55,300 square feet of vacant floor area within the existing Rossmoor Center and a 22,203 square feet expansion to the shopping center. The inclusion of the net entitled trips of Rossmoor Center is indicative of its traffic activity based on full occupancy of the Center's existing (entitled) floor area. The Rossmoor Center Expansion project is located immediately west of Seal Beach Boulevard, bounded by Bradbury Road on the north, Saint Cloud Drive on the south and other development that fronts Montecito Road on the west. The Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan includes a 286,967 square feet retail shopping center (of which 250,861 square feet is currently occupied), a business hotel with 112 rooms, a 15,587 square feet retail center (10,348 square feet currently vacant), an 86,000± square feet facility consisting of a 126 -unit Assisted Living and 29 -bed Alzheimer's Care Facility, a 37 -tee public driving range, and a 78 single - family residential subdivision (47 units currently occupied). This related project is generally located north of the 1 -405 Freeway, and east of Seal Beach Boulevard (Source: City of Seal Beach). The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan consists of 70 single - family detached homes, and a 20,000 square feet visitor /recreation /community commercial center. The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan is generally located south of the Boeing Campus, and west of Seal Beach Boulevard (Source: Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report). Los Alamitos Developments Based on our research, the two related projects consist of the Los Alamitos Medical Center expansion (LAMC) and the Cherry Street Medical Office Building. The LAMC expansion includes the development of a third Medical Office Building (MOB III) with a total floor area of 60,000 square feet. The LAMC campus is generally located north of Katella Avenue, between Cherry Street and Kaylor Avenue, in the City of Los Alamitos. FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.3 -26 Traffic and Circulation 0 C• o (' BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR U The Cherry Street Medical Office Building development project consists of a 7,685 r square feet medical office building located at 10921 Cherry Street, directly west of Li the Los Alamitos Medical Center campus. T able 5.3 -6, Re Projects Tr aiC Generation - Forecast, summarizes the trip generation potential for the nine planned and /or approved related projects on a daily and peak hour basis for a "typical" weekday. As shown, the nine related projects are expected to generate 10,731 daily trips, with 571 trips (346 inbound, 225 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 1,078 trips (506 inbound, 572 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. Future Traffic Volumes t� r U L' r u E , l; F, . U I r. L r To develop Year 2006 traffic volume forecasts, distribution patterns for each of the related projects were developed based on the location of the trip attractors, type of land use, the related project site's proximity to major traffic carriers and freeways, and previously completed traffic studies. The traffic studies referenced in the preparation of this report include The Traffic Impact Study for the Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan, prepared by LLG, The Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Rossmoor Center Expansion, prepared by LLG, and The Traffic Impact Analysis Report for Los Alamitos Medical Center Medical Office Building Ill, prepared by LLG. Table 5.3 -6 *Related Project Traffic Generation Forecast Related Projects Description "Daily "' 2-Way " " . AM Peak "Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total 1. Rossmoor Center (77,503 square feet shopping center) 1,691 26 17 43 80 84 164 2 Area A - Old Ranch Town Center Net Entitled Trips (36,106 square feet of Vacant GLA) 779 16 10 26 38 38 76 3 Area B — Lampson Center (10,348 square feet of Vacant GLA,112 Room Hotel, 155 unit Assisted Living Facility) 2,102 64 49 113 141 122 263 4. Area C — Public Golf Driving Range (37 Tees) 463 14 10 24 20 27 47 5 Area D — Old Ranch Residential (31 unoccupied dwelling units) 296 6 18 24 20 11 31 6. Hellman Specific Plan 1,710 38 54 92 91 65 156 7. Marina/1st Street Hotel (150 Rooms) 1,240 51 33 84 48 44 92 8. Los Alamitos Medical Center (60,000 square feet) 2,170 116 30 146 60 160 220 9. 10921 Cherry Street (7,685 square feet) 280 15 4 19 8 21 29 TOTAL RELATED PROJECT TRIPS 10,731 346 225 571 506 1 572 1,078 *Note: At the time of preparation of the Draft EIR, the current information in the Table was accurate. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -27 Traffic and Circulation BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Year 2006 Exhibit 5.3 -10, Year 2006 AM Peak Hour Background Traffic Volumes, and Exhibit 5.3 -11, Year 2006 PM Peak Hour Background Traffic Volumes, present future Year 2006 AM and PM peak hour background (existing plus ambient traffic plus related projects) traffic volumes at the twenty -one key intersections, while Exhibit 17, contained in Appendix 15.2 of this EIR, presents the estimated daily traffic volumes on the eleven key roadway segments. Exhibit 5.3 -12, Year 2006 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project Traffic, and Exhibit 5.3 -13, Year 2006 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project Traffic, illustrate future Year 2006 AM and PM peak hourtraffic volumes with the addition of the trips generated by the new development proposed as part of the Boeing Specific Plan for weekday peak commute hour conditions. Exhibit 20, contained in Appendix 15.2 of this EIR, presents the "Cumulative Plus Project" daily traffic volumes on the eleven key roadway segments. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The relative impact of the added project traffic volumes generated by the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project during the AM and PM peak hours were evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the twenty one key study intersections, without, then with, the proposed project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future volume -to- capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. The significance of the potential impacts of the project at each key intersection was then evaluated using the LOS standards and traffic impact criteria defined above. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Year 2002 Traffic Conditions Table 5.3 -7, Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary, summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the twenty -one key study intersections for "Existing" traffic conditions and "Existing Plus Project' traffic conditions. The first column (1) of ICU /LOS values presents a summary of existing AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 5.3 -3, Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary). The second column ofTable 5.3 -7, lists "Existing Plus Project' traffic conditions. Please note that these two scenarios are based on existing intersection geometrics, as presented in Exhibit 5.3.1, Existing Roadway Conditions. Existing Traffic Conditions As previously presented in Table 5.3 -3, Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary, only six of the twenty one key study intersections currently operate at an unacceptable level of service based on the LOS criteria defined in this report. The locations operating at an adverse LOS are as follows: FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -28 Traffic and Circulation I U L (J 1� r1 l.�J ` r U u U L U f'. L L 1._.1 r PH D*!43 991 SON DL ! Il P o r \ I \ / gopouudS 09!08 l I-W \ l y I\ 9 C K J 1 PAIS `z PD88 Road A o � � c Mage m r janaaop°ls 7 6LL 1 o / 1 ,s _ 1 sus 4y 18 j Ilk / 1 S61 n 0 N co a 0 O iu c W C O. N C cm p CD 3 UT 0 N J O s s � Lu w m l U Q O LL- w N d O Q H ci U � etd W a C7 Z � W O m h- cm m ca CD CL cc cc CV cc co ^ N \ < ! 6 l 1fz ( I \ l9L is E Jll Id --WDH ZL PH D*!43 991 SON DL ! Il P o r \ I \ / gopouudS 09!08 l I-W \ l y I\ 9 C K J 1 PAIS `z PD88 Road A o � � c Mage m r janaaop°ls 7 6LL 1 o / 1 ,s _ 1 sus 4y 18 j Ilk / 1 S61 n 0 N co a 0 O iu c W C O. N C cm p CD 3 UT 0 N J O s s � Lu w m l U Q O LL- w N d O Q H ci U � etd W a C7 Z � W O m h- cm m ca CD CL cc cc CV cc co / H28 I J I l 19* 1\ si9 I I I C \ Nn ° 21oP6uudS \ / mem Ra11m _ v `-LSL c7 —ti � 1 Id uouJwoll Y6 -! Sb Pa 04011°a — L99t J I l r-r6s P o°Iy� S'9Z I [ °S l o e Ott 1 e / ~ \ o /n wu L-ZYZ\ v I Ot — \ \ r9z E PAle / ICr�W1 \ `v l/ u \ v i r9 I / \ I f Rd A $ IN oo u I ( L /-Or I Village V // t / g� I� f 9� �9s c� rn , a•lagap nIS M 1 / Z01 LS X. / I o ��rybti1 I �o ( BB c Lt9 i i •� .� 96 G° ^ � I I �s2 v \!'y° I \99ZI — / \ L r X10 - ♦ ytib N a � ! \ d I Is iaMollllae •C qa � (r '-66OL J l — ►9L \ \ I xx CO) w M w E ¢o w c UD n. } o F_— J CJ VUI*— w a. Cn CD `lei Z � w O M cm cin O Aq co CL cc p � CD Exhibit 5.3 -1- r U C f . u L r 1 Li �{ 1 1..J rt L1 i U L", 1, I ' u U "s ci 1S w a!A AalloA E u n `9lt \ 1 )Il I \ 19L —1 99 mn alopbuudS \ Is - c,;t `tgl J I lir Id uowwoH LL I N Lt e e• --0STI J I l r-es9 J oslog PH a0ly0 coni _ �! 1 PAIS / 9 9 J —LSS \\YL , NIf LOU 1 J I l r - tot \ I I J \ 9011 \ t[S 1 evn \ l or �r I \ � / Nj, ♦\ � �d- / I y� 1 y=ag fs ollo Or 6 u o ` I r I Village ri Or Eq I S E-4 .yo9aP^iS I 1 I 0 u► --� UL I �s I / �+•`� r, I l o� pis 1 / \ i i. r J l --es► 961 \9911 / n L ' C.3 C.7 W .® LU •e-• w t� aO� C/3 CL LL- C.3 } J � CL U c.:, a: L ES CL W CL C/) C3 ■® Z W cc CD E CD CL ICK co CD ce baw 03 \ \ fSl + ^re 1 I L I ° alop6uud5 \ I4 V 1C Mil/ �IIDA r `1• Id aowwoH t6 J� P o4000a 9 — n f 1 ��� L•lU J I l —L991 Pa X143 0191 ogoa J w 991 k 4 *\ _9601 \ I i I — \ 1 I ii \ \ E PAIB / m - -\ \1�ti,,�i� \ 3 \ til 61 ej Utz I x101 f A olla Dr `o o JAX o J ^'� 1 I r of j �Island a ge D ti&q mMogipnIS / q fi' 1 ( � ,f7 / I 66 \LSZI Jamolilive I \ / n x = CJ W ~ m Cl Cc a , 1 . W to _ a oa ca J _ C i -M U U LL L— W a � c! i® Z W m y CO Cc CD pp kL CL to CD �� Cc U O N z m cl O n u o v � d � o 0 z m ca z 0 o U d C ® 1 � 2 � c W C N ca W V O C N m C9 0 °a z z J z q � q c a 3 CO J U o f J e ® a w a CO Z Exhibit 5.3 -10 L' I I' L-i V r� �i U u C r� L' I u ` r 1 U The remaining 15 key study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns 2 and 3 of Table 5.3 -7, Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary, indicate that the Boeing Specific Plan project would significantly impact six of the twenty -one key study intersections, all of which are currently operating at an unacceptable service level. The locations forecast to continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of project traffic, and the peak hour in which the project has an impact are as follows: BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR PM Peak Hour Key Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU /LOS ICU /LOS 1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd SVWestminster Avenue 0.9311E 1.0001E 2. Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue 0.9371E 0.818/D 9. Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue 0.9261E 0.9071E 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Southbound Ramps 0.888/1) 0.9721E 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Northbound Ramps 0.7061C 0.9891E 12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road 0.9501E 0.769/C Note: Bold ICU /LOS values indicate unacceptable service levels. The remaining 15 key study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Review of columns 2 and 3 of Table 5.3 -7, Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary, indicate that the Boeing Specific Plan project would significantly impact six of the twenty -one key study intersections, all of which are currently operating at an unacceptable service level. The locations forecast to continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of project traffic, and the peak hour in which the project has an impact are as follows: Note: Bold ICU /LOS values indicate unacceptable service levels and project impact is considered significant. The remaining 15 key study intersections are expected to continue to operate at a satisfactory service level under Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. Review of column 4 of Table 5.3 -7, indicates that implementation of improvements at the six significantly impacted intersections would completely offset the impact of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project. These improvements will be discussed later in the report. FINAL A APRIL 2003 5.3 -33 Traffic and Circulation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU /LOS ICU /LOS 1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2nd St/Westminster Ave 0.9881E 1.0081F 2. Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue 0.9711E 0.900 /D 9. Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue 1.0261F 1.1201F 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Southbound Ramps 0.9551E 1.0611F 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Northbound Ramps 0.841/1) 1.009/F 12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road 1.038/F 0.866 /D Note: Bold ICU /LOS values indicate unacceptable service levels and project impact is considered significant. The remaining 15 key study intersections are expected to continue to operate at a satisfactory service level under Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. Review of column 4 of Table 5.3 -7, indicates that implementation of improvements at the six significantly impacted intersections would completely offset the impact of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project. These improvements will be discussed later in the report. FINAL A APRIL 2003 5.3 -33 Traffic and Circulation BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Future Year 2006 Traffic Conditions Table 5.3 -8, Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary, summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the twenty -one key study intersections for Future Year. 2006 -traffic conditions. T, ",is table is similar in format to that of Table 5.3 -7; the first column presents Existing traffic conditions, the second column presents Year 2006 Background traffic conditions, and the third column presents Year 2006 traffic conditions with project traffic. Year 2006 Background Traffic Conditions An analysis of future (Year 2006) background traffic conditions indicates that ambient traffic growth and related project traffic would adversely impact six of the twenty -one key study intersections. These intersections, reported below, are expected to operate at unacceptable LOS E or F during the AM and /or PM peak hour. Key Intersection 1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd StlWestminster Ave 2. Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue 9. Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at IA05 Southbound Ramps 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at IA05 Northbound Ramps 12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road AM Peak Hour ICU /LOS 1.0111F 1.011/F 1.01511' 0.984/E 0.794/C 1.029/F PM Peak Hour ICU /LOS 1.0911F 0.887/1) 1.0121F 1.100/F 1.140/F 0.836/1) Note: Bold ICU /LOS values indicate unacceptable service levels and project impact is considered significant. The remaining 15 key study intersections are expected to operate at adequate service levels (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak commute hours with the addition of ambient traffic growth and related project traffic. Year 2006 Future Background with Boeing Specific Plan Project Traffic Review of Columns 3 and 4 of Table 5.3 -8, Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary, indicates that traffic associated with the Boeing Specific Plan project, in combination with existing and future background traffic would have a significant impact at six of the twenty -one key study intersections, when compared to the City of Seal Beach LOS standards and the significant traffic impact criteria defined in this report. The six locations forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of Boeing Specific Plan project traffic and the peak hour in which the project has a significant impact are as follows: Key Intersection 1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd St/Westminster Ave 2. Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue 9. Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1405 Southbound Ramps 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Northbound Ramps 12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road AM Peak Hour ICU /LOS 1.06711' 1.0461F 1.112117 1.0491F 0.9291E 1.1171F PM Peak Hour ICU /LOS 1.09911' 0.9611E 1.2261F 1.1901F 1.1601F 0.935/E Note: Bold ICU /LOS values indicate unacceptable service levels and project impact is considered significant. 0 FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -34 Traffic and Circulation J Table 5.3 -7 (' Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary U L C L U J U Eli L U r• L ... Of D� <FR -- - PearA ( U BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR (3) '.. Table 5.3 -7 (' Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary U L C L U J U Eli L U r• L ... (1) Ye r2 9' a. 00_ `Existing J4 Y . ' Year 0G2 Existing (3) '.. (4) Year 2002 Key Intersections : "- - ` Time : Period : ..; - ;Traffic Plus Project , " ;Significant Impact With TraffieConditions Improvements Conditions ICU LOS ICU °LOS ICU Inc. YIN ICU LOS AM 0.931 E 0.988 E 0.057 Y 0.844 D 1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 n d St/Westminster Ave PM 1 1.000 E 1.008 F 0.008 N 0.906 E AM 0.937 E 0.971 0.034 Y 0.921 E 2. Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue PM 0.818 D 0.900 D 0.082 N 0.810 D AM 0.415 A 0.453 A 0.038 N 3. Studebaker Road at SR -22 EB Ramps PM 0.695 B 0.705 C 0.010 N AM 0.484 A 0.526 A 0.042 N 4. Studebaker Road at SR -22 WB Ramps PM 1 02830 D 0.841- D 0.011 N AM 0.624 B 0.654 B 0.030 N 5. Pacific Coast Highway at Main Street/Bolsa Avenue PM 0.724 C 0.727 C 0.003 N AM 0.771 C 0.777 C 0.006 N 6. Pacific Coast Highway at Seal Beach Boulevard PM 0.769 C 0.806 C 0.037 N AM 0.340 A 0.394 A 0.054 N - 7. Seal Beach Boulevard at Bolsa Avenue/Anchor Way PM 0.394 A 0.440 A 0.046 N AM 0.26 s/v A 0.39 s/v A N 8. Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive PM 0.58 s/v A 6.79 s/v A _ N AM 0.926 E 1.026 F 0.100 Y 0.800 C 9. Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue PM 0.907 E 1.120 F 0.213 Y 0.767 C AM 0.888 D 0.955 E 0.067 Y 0.680 B 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 105 Southbound Ramps PM 0.972 E 1.061 F 0.089 Y 0.727 C AM 0.706 C 0.841 D 0.135 N 0.639 B 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1105 Northbound Ramps PM 0.989 E 1.009 F 0.020 Y 0.835 D AM 0.950 E 1.038 F 0.088 Y 0.933 E 12. Bolsa Chica Road at Westminster Avenue PM 0.769 C 0.866 D 0.097 N 0.759 C AM 0.281 A 0.380 A 0.099 N 0.367 A' 13. Seal Beach Boulevard at Road A (Apollo Drive) PM 0.310 A 0.552 A 0.242 N 0.433 A AM 0.442 A 0.669 B 0.227 N 0.664 B 14. Road A (Apollo Drive) at Westminster Avenue PM 0.469 A 0.650 B 0.181 N 0.650 B AM 0.512 A 0.527 A 0.015 N 15. Island Village Drive at Westminster Avenue PM 0.528 A 0.602 A 0.074 N AM 0.457 A 0.560 A 0.103 N - - 16. Road B at Westminster Avenue PM 0.509 A 0.685 B 0.176 N - - AM 0.276 A 0.419 A 0.143 N - - 17. Seal Beach Boulevard at Road C PM 0.311 A 0.444 A 0.133 N - - AM 0.492 A 0.538 A 0.046 N 18. Springdale Street at Westminster Avenue PM 0.710 C 0.761 C 0.051 N AM 0296 A 0.366 A 0.070 N - - 19. Rancho Rd/Hamon Place at Westminster Avenue PM 0.432 A 0.526 A 0.094 N - - AM 0.56 s/v A 0.51 s/v A N 20. 1 -405 Southbound On Ramp at Westminster Avenue PM 0.95 s/v A 1.32 s/v A _ N AM 0.817 D 0.825 D 0.008 N 21. Pacific Coast Highway at Loynes Drive PM 0.818 D 0.825 D 1 0.007 N NOTES: Bold HCMILOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Seal Beach, City of Westminster and City of Long Beach LOS standards. 1 To minimize the required green time for the eastbound left -turn phase, a second eastbound left -turn lane will be installed. As a result, the green time for through traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard may be maintained and/or maximized. 2 To minimize the required green time for the northbound left -turn phase, a second northbound left -turn lane will be installed. As a result, the green time for through traffic on Westminster Avenue may be maintained and /or maximized. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -35 Traffic and Circulation BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.3 -8 Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -36 Traffic and Circulation 1 j (2) l3) (4) (51 . "2002 Existing ..YPar 2006. , � Year 2006 Pius Year 2006 Year 2006 Key Intersections Time Traffic Background . Traffic project Traffic project Only Significant With Conditions ' ' Conditions Conditions Impact Improvements .ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU* LOS ICU LOS 1. Pacific Coast Highway at g o d AM 0.931 E 1.011 F 1.067 F 0.056 Y 0.910 E Street/WestminsterAvenue PM 1.000 E 1.091 F 1.099 F 0.008 N 0.989 E 2. Studebaker Road at AM 0.937 E 1.011 E 1.046 F 0.035 Y 0.990 E Westminster Avenue PM 1 0.818 D 0.887 D 0.961 E 0.074 Y 0.874 D 3. Studebaker Road at SR -22 EB AM 0.415 A 0.442 A 0.480 A 0.038 N - Ramps PM 0.695 B 0.747 C 0.757 C 0.010 N - - 4. Studebaker Road at SR -22 WB AM 0.484 A 0.517 A 0.560 A 0.043 N - Ramps PM 0.830 D 0.892 D 0.904 D 0.012 N - - 5. Pacific Coast Highway at Main AM 0.624 B 0.682 B 0.713 C 0.031 N - - Street/Bolsa Avenue PM 0.724 C 0.796 C 0.799 C 0.003 N - - 6. Pacific Coast Highway at Seal AM 0.771 C 0.845 D 0.851 D 0.006 N - - Beach Boulevard PM 0.769 C 0.836 D 0.873 D 0.037 N - - 7. Seal Beach Boulevard at Bolsa AM 0.340 A 0.371 A 0.425 A 0.054 N - - Avenue/Anchor Way' PM 0.394 A 0.438 A 0.484 A 0.046 N - - 8. Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.26 s/v A 0.334 A 0.371 A 0.037 N - - Adolfo Lopez Drive PM 0.58 s/v A 0.357 A 0.424 A 0.067 N - - 9. Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.926 E 1.015 F 1.112 F 0.097 Y 0.866 D Westminster Avenue PM 0.907 E 1.012 F 1.226 F 0.214 Y 0.837 D 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at I- AM 0.888 D 0.984 E 1.049 F 0.065 Y 0.742 C 405 Southbound Rams PM 0.972 E 1.100 F 1.190 F 0.090 Y 0.810 D 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at I- AM 0.706 C 0.794 C 0.929 E 0.135 Y 0.811 D 405 Northbound Rams PM 0.989 E 1.140 F 1.160 F 0.020 Y 0.960 E 12. Bolsa Chica Road at AM 0.950 E 1.029 F 1.117 F 0.088 Y 1.005 F Westminster Avenue PM 0.769 C 0.836 D 0.935 E 0.099 Y 0.819 D 13. Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.281 A 0.308 A 0.418 A 0.110 N 0.405 A' Road A (Apollo Drive PM 0.310 A 0.364 A 0.607 A 0.243 N 0.497 A 14. Road A (Apollo Drive) at AM 0.442 A 0.479 A 0.705 B 0.226 N 0.700 Bz Westminster Avenue PM 0.469 A 0.512 A 0.691 B 0.179 N 0.691 B 15. Island Village Drive at AM 0.512 A 0.550 A 0.565 A 0.015 N - - Westminster Avenue PM 0.528 A 0.573 A 0.646 B 0.073 N - - 16. Road B at Westminster AM 0.457 A 0.495 A 0.598 A 0.103 N - - Avenue PM 0.509 A 0.555 A 0.730 C 0.175 N - - 17. Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.276 A 0.302 A 0.459 A 0.157 N - - Road C PM 0.311 A 0.349 A 0.516 A 0.167 N - - 18. Springdale Street at AM 0.492 A 0.530 A 0.576 A 0.046 N - - Westminster Avenue PM 0.710 C 0.771 C 0.817 D 0.046 N - - 19. Rancho Road /Hamon Place AM 0.296 A 0.319 A 0.390 A 0.071 N - at Westminster Avenue PM 0.432 A 0.470 A 0.564 A 0.094 N - - 20.1 -405 Southbound On Ramp AM 0.56 s/v A 0.60 S/V A 0.56 SN A - N - at Westminster Avenue PM 0.95 s/v A 1.24 SN A 2.00 SN A - N - - 21. Pacific Coast Highway at AM 0.817 D 0.881 D 0.888 D 0.007 N - - Lo nes Drive PM 0.818 D 0.881 D 0.887 D 0.006 N - - *Inc = Incremental ICU Notes: Bold HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Seal Beach, City of Westminster and City of Long Beach LOS standards. 1 To minimize the required green time for the eastbound left-turn phase, a second eastbound left-tum lane will be installed. As a result, the green time for through traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard may be maintained and /or maximized. 2 To minimize the required green time for the northbound left -turn phase, a second northbound left -tum lane will be installed. As a result, the green time for through traffic on Westminster Avenue may be maintained and /or maximized. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -36 Traffic and Circulation L BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT E IR The remaining 15 key study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable service levels (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak commute Li hours with the addition of project traffic. f t To offset the - impact of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project, as well as future- background traffic, intersection improvements would be required. The improvements identified at the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway /2n StreetAlVestminster Avenue and Studebaker Road/Westminster Avenue are generally consistent with those recommended in the Traffic impact Study for the Marina Shores Promenade' Evaluation of the Pacific Coast Highway and 2 Street- Westminster Avenue U, r intersection indicates that construction of exclusive northbound and southbound right -turn lanes, and a second southbound left -turn lane on Pacific Coast Highway T would mitigate the impact of future background traffic and Boeing Specific Plan project traffic. Implementation of these improvements would require the widening and U restriping of the northwest corner and southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway at 2 Street - Westminster Avenue. According to the City of Long Beach, preliminary engineering plans have been prepared and the City is currently negotiating with adjacent property owners to determine the feasibility of acquiring the right -of -way necessary to implement these improvements. j I At the intersection of Studebaker Road and Westminster Avenue, an additional U westbound lane, striped as an option through -right lane, on Westminster Avenue would offset the impact caused by future background traffc and Boeing Specific Plan project traffic. The evaluation of this intersection indicates that the existing westbound right -turn lane can be converted to a third through /right -turn option lane, but widening of the northeast corner of Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue ' would be required to maintain a separate westbound right -turn lane at this location. The phased approach was pursued because of the uncertainty of future freeway improvements impacting the bridge during the process and lack of funding for reconstructing the bridge required to accommodate the bridge widening for three lanes in each direction. Recent correspondence from OCTA has indicated that impacts to the facility would not happen until 2020. If the widening were constructed now, this would give the facility less than an approximately 15 -year life since the future project would again need to replace the bridge. The current cost to f , accommodate both the widening and the lengthening for the future HOV project is U estimated at $14,000,000. It is still the intent of the City to widen the bridge to three lanes in each direction even if there is no freeway project or traffic conditions warrant it sooner. The City intends to apply for the next reauthorization of the Federal TEA L Program, as have many other agencies along the 1-405 corridor for similar bridge type widening projects. The OCTA has identified the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge for replacement at such time as the Garden Grove Freeway (SR -22) is widened to accommodate a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. Since the SR-22 widening project is planned to occur at a time beyond the 2006 horizon year timeline established in the Traffic Study, the City does not want to earmark funding toward the bridge improvement (' ' Traffic Impact Study for PCH @ Studebaker (Marina Shores Promenade) Marketplace, dated September L 27, 1997, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers for the Selleck Development Group, Inc. and the City of Long Beach. L 1 FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -37 Traffic and Circulation C+ o f ��d A BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR until after the widening of SR -22 is completed. Thus, although the City's 2006 CIP shows the bridge improvement, it would realistically occur after 2006 resulting in continued deficiencies for bridge operations /access. Since 2006 is the horizon year of the Boeing Specific Plan Traffic Study analysis, impacts are concluded to be significant and u n avoidable due - -to thVe unc'rtainty of- implementation of CIP improvements. The improvements currently under design by the City of Seal Beach for the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue, which are partially funded under the Measure M Intersection Improvement Program, call for the construction of additional southbound, eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes, and a third eastbound through lane on Westminster Avenue. To accommodate the second westbound left -turn lane on Westminster Avenue, the existing westbound right -turn lane would be removed. The LUG analysis indicates that in addition to the above - mentioned improvements, a separate northbound righttum lane on Seal Beach Boulevard and a separate westbound right tum lane on Westminster Avenue would also be required to achieve a satisfactory service level at the Seal Beach Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection. These additional lanes are a part of the ultimate planned improvements for this intersection, but are not a part of those being considered for construction by the City of Seal Beach. Although the Traffic Study notes that the additional northbound and westbound right turn lanes are necessary mitigation for the unacceptable service levels with or without the proposed project, two considerations are noted. First, there is uncertainty as to the feasibility of acquiring necessary right-of -way from the Navy property for noted improvements. These improvements may or may not occur by 2006 and are subject to conditions beyond the control of the City. Second, although the Traffic Study references deficiencies with or without the project, the project would nevertheless contribute to existing deficiencies at the Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue intersection. Based upon the uncertainty of implementing the recommended mitigation for the 2006 horizon year, impacts are concluded to be significant and unavoidable for the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. Preliminary evaluation of the Bolsa Chica Road/Westminster Avenue intersection indicates that an additional eastbound and westbound through lane on Westminster Avenue would offset the traffic impact of future background traffic and project traffic. The implementation of these improvements would require widening and restriping of Westminster Avenue, east and west of Bolsa Chica Road, within the City of Seal Beach and the City of Westminster. There is also uncertainty as to the feasibility of acquiring necessary right -of -way for improvements at Studebaker/Westminster and Bolsa Chica/Westminster, which may or may not occur by 2006. The feasibility of these improvements is also subject to conditions beyond the control of the City. PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS A traffic impact sensitivity analysis has been prepared to determine at what level of occupancy /phase of development would the Boeing Specific Plan project have a significant impact, especially at the two intersections located within the City of Long FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 5.3 -38 Traffic and Circulation U E u u U L " Ell s J U U , U i u I r I L�J L BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Beach. As indicated in the traffic analysis presented above, the Boeing Specific Plan project would have a significant impact at the following intersections: Key Intersection 1: Pacific Gast Highway at 2" St, :Nestm Aven:.1e; _ 2. Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue; 9. Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue; 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Southbound Ramps; 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Northbound Ramps; and 12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road. Table 5.3 -9, Traffic Impact Sensitivity Analysis, summarizes the results of the traffic impact sensitivity analysis at the 6 intersections significantly impacted by the Boeing Specific Plan project. Table 5.3 -9 Traffic Impact Sensitivity Analysis FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -39 Traffic and Circulation Total '; ", . ;,.Total Background" ; ; ry project Impaetl Future Condifjons Level of Boeing Specific Plan_ �;,;;4Background ,: i Traffic :,:. : Significance : improvements Occupancy /Key Intersections • .Time " Traffic >r. .=With Project, ;,. K•... - ,� ,�W . , : : r< ICU LOS ; LOS ' , >, ICU Inc:,; YIN �' . ICU LOS �•" . Year 2004 ( Phase 1) 1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd AM 0.977 E 0.998 E 0.021 Y 0.860 D St/Westminster Ave PM 1.055 F 1.059 F 0.004 N 0.953 E 2. Studebaker Road at Westminster AM 0.977 E 0.989 E 0.012 N - - Avenue PM 0.859 D 0.895 D 0.036 N - - 9. Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.980 E 1.015 F 0.035 Y 0.803 C Westminster Avenue PM 0.977 E 1.097 F 0.120 Y 0.759 C 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 AM 0.950 E 0.983 E 0.033 Y 0.690 B Southbound Rams PM 1.064 F 1.110 F 0.046 Y 0.754 C 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 AM 0.769 C 0.844 D 0.075 N 0.731 C Northbound Rams PM 1.103 F 1.114 F 0.011 Y 0.923 E 12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa AM 0.992 E 1.037 F 0.045 Y 0.940 E Chica Road PM 0.807 1 D 0.861 D 0.054 N 0.762 C Year 2005 ( Phase 1 & 2 ) 1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd AM 0.994 E 1.026 F 0.032 Y 0.881 D St/Westminster Ave PM 1.073 F 1.080 F 0.007 N 0.973 E 2. Studebaker Road at Westminster AM 0.994 E 1.014 F 0.020 Y 0.960 E Avenue PM 0.873 D 0.919 E 0.046 Y 0.849 D 9. Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.997 E 1.057 F 0.060 Y 0.828 D Westminster Avenue PM 1 0.995 E 1.136 F 0.141 Y 0.785 C 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.967 E 1.010 F 0.043 Y 0.709 C 1-405 Southbound Ramps PM 1.083 F 1.142 F 0.059 Y 0.778 C 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.781 C 0.863 D 0.082 N 0.747 C 1 -405 Northbound Rams PM 1.122 F 1.135 F 0.013 Y 0.941 E 12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa AM 1.011 F 1.068 F 0.057 Y 0.966 E Chica Road I PM 0.822 1 D 0.885 D 0.063 N 0.787 C Notes: Bold ICUILOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards. 1 Improvements recommended are required to mitigate future non - project (ambient/cumulative) traffic and /or project traffic. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -39 Traffic and Circulation cilk'w s� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR As shown, the results of the traffic impact "sensitivity" analysis indicate that completion and occupancy of the 628,000 square feet of industrial floor area in Planning Area 3 (Phase 1 — Year 2004) of the Boeing Specific Plan would have a significant impact at PCH and 2 nd Street/Westminster Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard VV _h Seal B dhill section, the -- an VVE$Lllllllslel r1 VClll.le, tliC JGQI ucaa.�u� - ^05 Southbound ramps inter Seal Beach /1 -405 Northbound Ramps intersection and Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road. Only Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue is not significantly impacted when compared to the LOS standards and the significant traffic impact criteria defined in this report. The results of the sensitivity evaluation indicate that in the Year 2005, the occupancy of the proposed uses in Planning Area 4 (Phase 2) combined with the proposed development in Planning Area 3 (Phase 1) would significantly impact all six intersections. Appendix 15.2 contains the "sensitivity" analysis ICU /LOS calculation sheets for the six intersections impacted by the Boeing Specific Plan project. ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS Year 2002 Traffic Conditions Table 5.3 -10, Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary, summarizes the Year 2002 daily roadway link Level of Service results at the eleven study roadway links. The first column of LOS values in Table 5.3 -10 presents a summary of existing daily traffic conditions (which were also presented in Table 5.3-4, Existing Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary). The second column lists Year 2002 Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. The third column indicates whether the traffic associated with the Boeing Specific Plan project would have a significant impact based on the significance criteria identified earlier. Review of Columns 2 and 3 of Table 5.3 -10, shows that traffic associated with the Boeing Specific Plan project would have a significant impact at three of the eleven study roadway links when compared to the City's standards and significant impact criteria defined earlier. The Seal Beach overcrossing and two links of Pacific Coast Highway are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F, under "existing plus project" traffic conditions. Although Pacific Coast Highway, north of Seal Beach Boulevard, is forecast to continue to operate at LOS F with the inclusion of the Boeing Specific Plan project traffic, the project V/C ratio increment is less than the maximum allowable 0.010 threshold. The remaining seven roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS C or better on a daily basis. Future Year 2006 Traffic Conditions Table 5.3 -11, Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary, summarizes the Year 2006 daily roadway link Level of Service results at the eleven study roadway links. The first column of LOS values in Table 5.3 -11 presents a summary of existing daily traffic conditions. The second column lists Year 2006 background traffic conditions based on existing roadway geometry. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -40 Traffic and Circulation 0 Table 5.3 -10 Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary L L.... U I r '. U U J L + r • U L L L Ci D L BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Year 2002 Existing Traffic Table 5.3 -10 Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary L L.... U I r '. U U J L + r • U L L L FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -41 Traffic and Circulation No. of Existing Year 2002 Existing Traffic Year 2002 Plus Project Impact Roadway'Segment Existing MPAH Arteria l Capacity P act Traffic ro Lanes Class ification of LOS E Daily VIC, LOS Daily VIC LOS VIC Sign. .. � `Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Increase YIN' A. Westminster Avenue, e/o 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 23,066 0.615 B 26,271 0.701 B 0.086 N Studebaker Road B. Westminster Avenue, between 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 23,204 0.619 B 28,882 0.770 C 0.151 N Apollo Drive/Road B C. Westminster Avenue, w/p Bolsa 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 24,137 0.644 B 28,830 0.769 C 0.125 N Chica Road D. Seal Beach Boulevard, n/o Pacific 6D Major Arterial 56,300 20,666 0.367 A 22,096 0.392 A 0.025 N Coast Highway E. Adolfo Lopez Drive, w/o Seal Beach 2U Local Collector 12,500 1,389 0.111 A 1,744 0.140 A 0.029 N Boulevard F. Seal Beach Boulevard, between 6D Major Arterial 56,300 26,975 0.479 A 31,241 0.555 A 0.076 N Apollo Drive /Road C G. Seal Beach Boulevard, between 6D Major Arterial 56,300 33,790 0.600 A 38,923 0.691 B 0.091 N St. Andrews /Golden Rain H. Seal Beach 5D Major Arterial 46,875 0.905 E 0.972 E 0.067 Y Boulevard, between I- 42,411 45,542 405 NB and SB 7D [2] Major Arterial 56,300 0.753 C 0.810 D 0.057 N Ramps I. Pacific Coast Highway, north of Main 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 44,684 1.192 F 45,210 1.206 F 0.014 Y Street/Bolsa Avenue J. Pacific Coast Highway, north of Seal 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 45,422 1.211 F 45,422 1.211 F 0.000 N Beach Boulevard K. Pacific Coast Highway, south of Seal 4D Primary Arterial 37,500 41,920 1.118 F 43,350 1.156 F 0.038 Y Beach Boulevard Notes: 1 Projected Impact considered "significant" if Columns (2) minus (1) is 0.01 or greater and "LOS" (2) is 'E" or "F ". 2 Represents anticipated LOS and Project Impact after implementation of planned and /or recommended roadway improvement. 6D = 6 -lane divided arterial 4D = 4 -lane divided arterial 2U = 2 -lane undivided arterial FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -41 Traffic and Circulation O of��:ee BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.3 -11 Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2006 traffic conditions with the addition of Boeing Specific Plan daily project traffic. The fourth column indicates whether the traffic associated with the Boeing Specific Plan project would have a significant impact based on the significance criteria identified earlier. Review of Columns 3 and 4 of Table 5.3 -11 shows that traffic associated with the Boeing Specific Plan project would have a significant impact at three of the eleven study roadway links, when evaluated within a cumulative traffic setting. Review of this table shows that the project will have an impact on the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing. This segment of Seal Beach Boulevard between the 1-405 Northbound Ramps and 1-405 Southbound Ramps is forecast to operate at LOS F under the near -term cumulative traffic setting. However, with the planned improvements, the project impacts are completely offset and the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing is forecast to operate at LOS C on a daily basis. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -42 Traffic and Circulation . ''• ,cam > •• •(1) � .' `R).Yeat2006.Plus�s.ti,•: �� �) .4 • .•.� No. of kPAi'. Qs' ipl Eiclsting . a Yeu 2002 Existing Traffic ` : ' ^' •'8dckground Traffic, `4" z ', � ;p „ ^Piojk knpact , Roadway Seg ment ;. Ezlsting Lanes , -,Clsssliicahon Capa of i 05 E «' x� DIY , . : V� . ' ! '•.... : , t :•" Daily; a ; • Ylc «� • , LOS Dagy ' dVIC n,` :. . . Vic ' °' §Ign: •' _.: Yokrm ®• Itado Vohime -' Raft = VoMrme ; Ratla ' YINI A. Westminster. Primary Avenue,e /o 40 Arterial 37,500 23,066 0.615 B 25,389 0.677 B 28,594 0.763 C 0.086 N Studebaker Road B' Westminster Primary Avenue, between 4D Arterial 37,500 23,204 0.619 B 25,538 0.681 B 31,216 0.832 D 0.151 N Apollo Drive/Road B C. Westminster Primary Avenue, w/p Bolsa 4D Arterial 37,500 24,137 0.644 B 26,698 0.416 C 31,391 0.837 0 0.125 N Chica Road D. Seal Beach Boulevard, No Pacific 6D Major Arterial 56,300 20,666 0.367 A 23,401 0.120 A 24,831 0.441 A 0.025 N Coast Highw E. Adolfo Lopez Drive, w/o Seal Beach 2U Local Collector 12,500 1,389 0.111 A 11500 0.543 A 1,855 0.148 A 0.028 N Boulevard F. Seal Beach Boulevard, between 6D Major Arterial 56,300 26,975 0.479 A 30,554 0.555 A 34,820 0.618 B 0.075 N Apollo Drive /Road C G. Seal Beach Boulevard, between St. 6D Major Arterial 56,300 33,790 0.600 A 38.080 0.676 B 43,213 0.768 C 0.092 N Andrews/Golden Rain H. Seal Beach 5D Major Arterial 46,875 0.905 E 1.032 F 1.099 F 0.067 Y Boulevard, between 1- 42,411 48,377 51,508 405 NB and SB Ramps 7D [2) Major Arterial 56,300 0.753 C 0.859 D 0.915 E 0.056 N I. Pacific Coast Primary Highway, north of Main 4D Arterial 37,500 44,684 1.192 F 49,317 1.315 F 49,843 1.329 F 0.014 Y StreeUBolsa Avenue J. Pacific Coast Primary Highway, north of Seal 4D Arterial 37,500 45,422 1.211 F 50,079 1.335 F 50,079 1.335 F 0.000 N Beach Boulevard K. Pacific Coast Primary Highway,south ofSeal 4D Arterial 37,500 41,920 1.118 F 45,938 1.225 F 47,368 1.263 F 0.038 Y Beach Boulevard Notes: 1 Projected Impact considered - significant' if Columns (2) minus (1) is 0.01 or greater and 'LOS' (2) is 'E' or T. 2 Represents anticipated LOS and Project Impact after implementation of planned and/or recommended roadway improvement. 6D = 6-lane divided arterial 4D = 4-lane divided arterial 21.1 = 2 -lane undivided arterial The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2006 traffic conditions with the addition of Boeing Specific Plan daily project traffic. The fourth column indicates whether the traffic associated with the Boeing Specific Plan project would have a significant impact based on the significance criteria identified earlier. Review of Columns 3 and 4 of Table 5.3 -11 shows that traffic associated with the Boeing Specific Plan project would have a significant impact at three of the eleven study roadway links, when evaluated within a cumulative traffic setting. Review of this table shows that the project will have an impact on the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing. This segment of Seal Beach Boulevard between the 1-405 Northbound Ramps and 1-405 Southbound Ramps is forecast to operate at LOS F under the near -term cumulative traffic setting. However, with the planned improvements, the project impacts are completely offset and the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing is forecast to operate at LOS C on a daily basis. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -42 Traffic and Circulation r L li G U L L L BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR In addition, the Boeing Specific Plan is expected to have a daily impact at two of the three study segments on Pacific Coast Highway. This section of Pacific Coast Highway is forecast to operate at LOS F on a daily basis under the near -term cumulative traffic setting. Although link volume threshold are an indication of pe iormance, ti'eji are typically super cede by an analysis of the local intersection performance. If the terminal intersections operate satisfactorily (and traffic moves at both ends), the traffic flow along the segment (in the center) can flow satisfactorily. The daily impact of the Boeing Specific Plan on Pacific Coast Highway, from Main Street/Bolsa Avenue to south of Seal Beach Boulevard and north of Seal Beach Boulevard, is considered insignificant since the "terminal intersections" of Pacific Coast Highway /Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway /Main -Bolsa are forecast to operate at satisfactory conditions under the existing lane configuration of Pacific Coast Highway. Hence, no "daily" project impact would occur to this State Highway. The remaining seven roadway segments are projected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS on a daily basis. AREA -WIDE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS For the intersections where future traffic volumes are expected to result in poor operating conditions, the LUG report identifies improvements, which change the intersection geometry to increase capacity. These capacity improvements usually involve roadway widening and /or restriping to reconfigure or add lanes to various approaches of a key intersection. L 1, Planned Improvements The improvements recommended at the intersections of Seal Beach Boulevard and ! Westminster Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard and 1-405 Southbound ramps, Seal U Beach Boulevard and 1-405 Northbound ramps and widening of the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge overcrossing are consistent with the improvements identified in the current City of Seal Beach Capital Improvement Program (CIP). There is continued �J uncertainty whether the CIP improvements at the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge overcrossing and the Seal Beach Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection can be r ' implemented by the horizon year 2006 for reasons previously noted in this Section. L The following describes the CIP improvements at those locations: o Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue — Restripe Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a second southbound left turn lane. Widen and restripe Westminster Avenue to provide a second eastbound and westbound left- turn lane and a 3 eastbound through lane. Remove existing westbound right L turn lane on Westminster Avenue. Modify traffic signal accordingly. o Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Southbound Ramps — Widen Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing to provide a third northbound and southbound through lane, and a second southbound left -turn lane. Modify traffic signal accordingly. U FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.3 -43 Traffic and Circulation BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Northbound Ramps — Widen Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing to provide a third northbound and southbound through lane. Modify traffic signal accordingly. Recommended Improvements In addition to the planned improvements identified above, the following improvements are recommended to offset the impact of project traffic and cumulative traffic at the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway and 2 nd Street/Westminster Avenue, Studebaker Road and Westminster Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue, and Westminster Avenue and Bolsa Chica Road. o Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd Street- Westminster Avenue (City of Long Beach ) — Widen Pacific Coast Highway to provide separate northbound and southbound right -turn lanes, and a second southbound left -turn lane. Modify traffic signal accordingly. o Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue (City of Long Beach) Restripe the existing westbound right -turn lane on Westminster Avenue to provide an option through /right -turn lane. Widen Westminster Avenue to reinstall an exclusive westbound right -turn lane. Modify signal accordingly. o Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue Widen Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a northbound right-turn lane and widen Westminster Avenue to maintain the existing westbound right -turn lane. These lanes are not a part of the currently planned improvements for this intersection, but may be considered for future construction by the City of Seal Beach. As previously stated, improvements at the Seal Beach Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection are concluded as remaining significant due to the uncertainty of acquiring right -of -way from the Navy by the 2006 horizon year condition. o Bolsa Chica Road at Westminster Avenue (City of Seal Beach/Westminste Avenue ) - Widen and restripe Westminster Avenue, west of Bolsa Chica Road, to provide an additional eastbound through lane. Restripe existing westbound right -turn lane to a westbound through lane. Modify traffic signal accordingly. The Boeing Specific Plan project would be required to pay a "fair- share" of the improvement costs to mitigate its significant traffic impacts. The "fair- share" percentage and cost responsibility of the project at the three impacted intersections located outside the City of Seal Beach and the potential fees that the project could be assessed based on the current City of Seal Beach Traffic Fee Program is summarized below. PROJECT - SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS Recommended Circulation Improvements To ensure that adequate access and egress to the project site is provided and impacts to through traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue are minimized, the following improvements /intersection enhancements have been identified (refer to Exhibit 5.3 -14, Future Planned and/or Recommended Improvements). FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.3 -44 Traffic and Circulation L �J L L U �J 1 i U L L U L i 3: U 01oPbuudS m 7S c IS "VIA P z z �. 4 o auo ® ° Id YOWWDH P71 4 a Y Z N = W V Pa z ' z yo S 411 r coo V Q ♦ \ 44 z bi IL PAIG ♦ / J r / \ 6 ♦- 40000 L / \ \ W C Q z / Rood A `o U_ V Mtn O - - -- rb Ivrona V \ / \511090 Cif w Ck , ( y on e 6 i� A� iv„ogopo75 /S 6 1 IA _�I 1 (r \ N � W V J• / 71 n Q CV O O N a U 0 L d 61 C W ca CL CD N cm J 0 U J V O N xx y w H O m w 4! w E N C) } J U U CL ti r� E W N CD � LU Z O m 0a E O G7 O �ef gym/ O a) cc CL co U . BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o Seal Beach Boulevard at Road A (Apollo Drive) — As part of the proposed intersection reconstruction project, construct a raised median on Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot northbound left -turn lane. Widen Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot southbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot 'transition. �. We recommend that the ea�tbo;a. ^.d leg of Apollo Drive at Seal Beach Boulevard be designed to provide two eastbound left -turn lanes and one eastbound right -turn lane, and one inbound (westbound) lane. Modify and upgrade the existing traffic signal accordingly. This improvement should be the sole responsibility of the Boeing Specific Plan project. o Westminster Avenue at Road A (Apollo Drive) — Modify /reconstruct existing median on Westminster Avenue to provide a 150 -foot westbound left -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. Widen Westminster Avenue to provide a 150 - foot eastbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. We recommend that the northbound leg of Apollo Drive at Westminster Avenue be designed to provide two northbound left -turn lanes and one northbound right -turn lane, and one inbound (southbound) lane. Modify and upgrade the existing traffic signal accordingly. This improvement should be the sole responsibility of the Boeing Specific Plan project. o Proposed Planning Area 3 "Right -Turn Only" Driveway at Westminster Avenue — Widen Westminster Avenue to provide a 150 -foot eastbound right - turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. This improvement should be the sole responsibility of the Boeing Specific Plan project. o Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive — Seal Beach at Adolfo Lopez Drive is currently unsignalized. An analysis of this intersection indicates that the "permissive" turning movements onto Seal Beach Boulevard from Adolfo Lopez Drive experience delays indicative of LOS E/F conditions with the addition of project traffic (see HCM /LOS calculations sheets in Appendix B of the Traffic Study, contained as Appendix 15.2 of this EIR). This can be expected given the high volume of traffic that exists on Seal Beach Boulevard and the lack of sufficient gaps in the continuous north -south traffic during the PM peak commute hour. Thus, we recommend that a three - phased traffic signal be installed at this location. This improvement should be the sole responsibility of the Boeing Specific Plan project. Appendix C of the Traffic Study, contained as Appendix 15.2 of this EIR, contains the traffic signal warrant worksheet for this key study intersection. PROJECT - RELATED FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION City of Long Beach Improvements Table 5.3 -12, Project Fair Share Percentage Calculations, presents the peak hour percentage of net traffic impact at the two study intersections within the City of Long Beach and one intersection located partially within the City of Westminster impacted by the Boeing Specific Plan project. These fair share calculations are based on the recommended methodology contained on the Orange County CMP TIA procedures. As presented in Table 5.3 -12, Project Fair Share Percentage Calculations, the first column (1) presents future ICU value at the impacted intersection with the addition FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -46 Traffic and Circulation 6 Li C � D BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR As noted in the traffic study, the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project is projected to generate over 15,000 daily trip -ends, and thus meets the criteria requiring a CMP TIA. r' The CIMIPH' includes specific roadways, whic include State Highways and Super U Streets, which are now known as Smart Streets, and CMP arterial monitoring locations /intersections. Therefore, the CMP TIA analysis requirements relate to the potential impacts only on the specified CMPHS. U However, the project would not add traffic equivalent to 3 percent or more of the existing capacity at any of the CMP arterial monitoring locations or at any of the CMP highway system segments. The CMP highway system arterial facilities and CMP arterials closest to the project site consists of the San Diego (1 -405) Freevey, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), and Bolsa Chica Road. The CMP arterial monitoring F: I locations /intersections nearest to the Boeing Specific Plan site include SR -22 U Westbound Ramps at Valley View Boulevard in the City of Garden Grove, Bolsa Chica Road at Garden Grove Boulevard in the City of Westminster and Bolsa Chica f 1LJ Road at Bolsa Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. Based on project trip generation estimates and the trip distribution patterns (I presented in Exhibits 7A through 7F of the Traffic Study, the amount of project traffic using these CMP facilities would be minimal and less than the 3 percent threshold established by the CMP. L� 1 >J hi f� sJ r' 1—i Hence, it is concluded that the Boeing Specific Plan project would not have any significant traffic impact on the Congestion Management Program Highway System of Orange County. HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (HCM) METHOD OF ANALYSIS (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS) In conformance with the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requirements, existing and projected AM and PM peak hour operating conditions at the nine state - controlled study intersections within the study area have been evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000 for signalized intersections) operations method of analysis. In Chapter 16 of the HCM, only the portion of total delay attributed to the control facility is quantified. This delay is called control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. In contrast, in previous versions of Chapter 9 of the HCM (1994 and earlier), delay included only stopped delay. Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service that have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range for signalized intersections are shown in 5.3 -1, Level of Service Definitions. Table 5.3 -14, Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary HCM /LOS Method of Analysis, summarizes the peak hour Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000 for signalized intersections) level of service results at the nine state - controlled study intersections within the study area. The first column of HCM /LOS values in Table 5.3 -14 presents a summary of Year 2002 existing traffic conditions. The second column presents Year 2006 background traffic conditions based on existing FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.3 -49 Traffic and Circulation o of'6�e=A BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR intersection geometry, but without any Boeing Specific Plan project traffic. The third column presents future forecast traffic conditions with the addition of Boeing Specific Plan project traffic. The fourth column indicates whether the intersection would be adversely impacted by the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project based. The fifth column indicates the forecast operating conditions with intersection improvements, if required, recommended to achieve an acceptable Level of Service. Future Year 2006 Background Traffic Conditions Without Boeing Specific Plan Project Traffic An analysis of future (Year 2006) background traffic conditions indicates that the three State study intersections currently operating at adverse service levels (i.e., LOS E or F) would continue to operate at adverse service levels. As such, ambient traffic growth and related projects traffic would adversely impact three of the nine State study intersections. The three impacted intersections include Pacific Coast Highway at 2 Street/Westminster Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard at 1.405 Southbound ramps, and Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Northbound ramps. Table 5.3 -14 Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary HCM /LOS Method of Analysis FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.3 -50 Traffic and Circulation "( 2002 Existin g ' (2) Year 2006 " . (3) Year 2006 "" " (4) Project Year 2006 With Key Intersections Time Period " Traffic Conditions Background , Traffic Conditions- Plus Project Traffic Conditions Impact/ Significance Improvements ( seDelay I c/veh ." "LOS Delay ($ ctv h) " LOS Delay (sec/v h) LOS " Yes/No Delay (sec/v h) LOS 1. Pacific Coast Highway at AM 48.8 D 57.6 E 67.3 E Yes 47.5 D 2 °d St/Westminster Ave PM 59.4 E 78.8 E 81.2 F Yes 55.3 E 3. Studebaker Road at AM 6.9 A 7.0 A 7.1 A No - - SR -22 EB Ramps PM 8.1 A 8.9 A 9.1 A No - - 4. Studebaker Road at AM 11.7 B 11.8 B 12.6 B No - - SR -22 WB Ramps PM 17.5 B 19.2 B 19.6 B No - - 5. Pacific Coast Highway at AM 18.9 B 18.1 B 18.1 B No - - Main Street/Bolsa Avenue PM 24.4 C 25.1 C 26.9 C No - - 6. Pacific Coast Highway at AM 33.8 C 41.3 D 42.4 D No - - Seal Beach Boulevard PM 39.5 D 47.5 D 52.1 D No - - 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 59.2 E 83.2 F 102.4 F Yes 33.1 C 1-405 Southbound Ramps PM 61.6 E 93.6 F 122.4 F Yes 37.5 D 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 23.2 C 27.4 C 35.5 D Yes 26.3 C 1 -405 Northbound Ramps PM 73.5 E 117.0 F 115.8 F Yes 53.4 D 20. 1-405 Southbound On AM 0.6 A 0.6 A 0.6 A No - - Ramp at Westminster Ave PM 1.0 A 1.3 A 2.0 A No - - 21. Pacific Coast Highway at AM 22.4 C 23.6 C 23.6 C No - - Loynes Drive PM 35.3 D 39.7 D 38.8 D No - - Notes: Bold ICUILOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.3 -50 Traffic and Circulation r C• o BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Based upon application of the significant traffic impact criteria established for this + study, the deficient levels of service at these locations are significant without the U proposed project. The remaining six State study intersections are expected to continue to operate at adequate service levels (i.e., LOS D or better) during the ( ICJ, weeKUay AM and Pi`w peak i.Omri lut2 hoJi o. Future Year 2006 Traffic Conditions with Boeing Specific Plan Project Traffic Review of Column 3 of Table 5.3 -14 indicates that the Boeing Specific Plan project would contribute to the significant traffic impacts at three of the nine State stud�r intersections. These impacted intersections include Pacific Coast Highway at 2' Street/Westminster Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard at 1405 Southbound ramp, and Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Northbound ramp. Please note that these three intersections were also identified as significantly impacted intersections, based on the r ` ICU methodology (detailed above). V FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.3 -51 Traffic and Circulation To offset the significant traffic impacts of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project, 1 as well as ambient growth and future background traffic, intersections improvements .l would be required at these three intersections. The remaining six State study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable service levels during the AM and r� PM peak hours, with the addition of project traffic. U As previously noted for the 1-405 northbound and southbound ramps, the OCTA has identified the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge overcrossing for replacement at such r time as the Garden Grove Freeway (SR -22) is widened to accommodate a high Li occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. Since the SR-22 widening project is planned to r occur at a time beyond the 2006 horizon year timeline established in the Traffic Study, the City does not want to earmark funding toward the bridge improvement L I until after the widening of SR -22 is completed. Thus, although the City's 2006 CIP shows the bridge improvement, it would realistically occur after 2006 resulting in �T continued deficiencies for bridge operations /access. Since 2006 is the horizon year of the Boeing Specific Plan Traffic Study analysis, impacts are concluded to be significant and unavoidable due to the uncertainty of implementation of CIP f I improvements. ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EVALUATION! 5.3 -2 Development of the proposed Project, with the extension of Apollo Drive, would result in similar impacts when compared to the proposed project. This section of the traffic study evaluates the potential benefits /impacts of the extension of Apollo Drive, between Apollo Court and Saturn Way, within the Boeing r . Specific Plan. The extension between of Apollo Drive between Apollo Court and Saturn Way would provide a direct link between Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. L FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.3 -51 Traffic and Circulation BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The anticipated AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and daily traffic volumes associated with the proposed Boeing Specific Plan, assuming the Apollo Drive Connection between Apollo Court and Saturn Way Plan, are presented in Exhibits 21, 22 and 23, respectively, contained in Appendix 15.2 of this EIR. Exhibits 24 and 25, contained in Appendix 15.2 of this EIR, present future Year 2006 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the twenty -one key intersections, assuming the extension of Apollo Drive is constructed between Apollo Court and Saturn Way in conjunction with the buildout of the Boeing Specific Plan. Exhibit 26, contained in Appendix 15.2 of this EIR, presents the estimated daily traffic volumes on the eleven key roadway segments, and on Apollo Drive. As shown in Exhibit 23, the daily volumes on Apollo Drive are projected to range between 3,751 vehicles per day and 5,756 vehicles per day. These projections assume that up to 50 percent of the vehicles currently making either a northbound left#urn or an eastbound right -turn at the Seal Beach Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection would utilize the Apollo Drive Connection as an alternate route to travel to and from their destination within the project study area. Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Table 5.3 -15, Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary with Apollo Drive Connection, summarizes the peak hour Level of Service results at the twenty -one key study intersections for Future Year 2006 traffic conditions with the Apollo Drive Extension. This table is identical in format to that of Table 5.3 -8, Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary. As shown in Columns 3 and 4 of Table 5.3 -15, traffic associated with the Boeing Specific Plan project would have a significant impact at six of the twenty -one key study intersections. Assuming the Apollo Drive Extension is constructed, the six locations forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of Boeing Specific Plan project traffic and the peak hour in which the project has an impact are as follows: Review of Column 4 of Table 5.3 -8 indicates that implementation of previously recommended improvements at the six significantly impacted intersections would completely offset the impact of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project. Mitigation measures that address the project's impacts without the Apollo Drive Connection between Apollo Court and Saturn Way would be sufficient to mitigate the Boeing Specific Plan's impact with the Apollo Drive Connection as well. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -52 Traffic and Circulation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Key Intersection ICU /LOS ICU /LOS 1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2nd St/Westminster Ave 1.094/F 1.095/F 2. Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue 1.061/F 0.961/E 9. Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue 1.108/F 1.222/F 10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Southbound Ramps 1.049/F 1.190/F 11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Northbound Ramps 0.929/E 1.160/F 12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road 1.117/F 0.935/E Review of Column 4 of Table 5.3 -8 indicates that implementation of previously recommended improvements at the six significantly impacted intersections would completely offset the impact of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project. Mitigation measures that address the project's impacts without the Apollo Drive Connection between Apollo Court and Saturn Way would be sufficient to mitigate the Boeing Specific Plan's impact with the Apollo Drive Connection as well. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -52 Traffic and Circulation r BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR U r V r l ( u F U t}' ( C i r1 I• U IM 6-1 I 4J, Table 5.3 -15 Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary With Apollo Drive Connection lJ FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -53 Traffic and Circulation (2) (3) 11) 2002 Existing YcaT 2 ^ n ^ ry Y --r 2006 (4) (5) Time 'Traffic Background Plus Project Significant Year 2006 With Key intersections Period Conditions Traffic Traffic impact Improvement Conditions Conditions ICU'. LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Inc. YIN ICU LOS Pacific Coast Highway AM 0.931 E 1.011 F 1.094 F 0.083 Y 0.926 E 1, at 2 nd St[Westmmster PM 1.000 E 1.091 F 1.095 F 0.004 N 0.985 E Ave Studebaker Road at AM 0.937 E 1.011 F 1.061 F 0.050 Y 1.005 F 2 Westminster Avenue PM 0.818 D 0.887 D 0.961 E 0.074 Y 0.879 D Studebaker Road at AM 0.415 A 0.442 A 0.480 A 0.038 N S R 3 -22 EB Ramps PM 0.695 B 0.747 C 0.757 C 0.010 N - - Studebaker Road at AM 0.484 A 0.517 A 0.560 A 0.043 N S R - 22 4 WB Ramps PM 0.830 D 0.892 D 0.904 D 0.012 N - - Pacific Coast Highway at AM 0.624 B 0.682 B 0.686 B 0.004 N - - 5. Main Street/Bolsa PM 0.724 C 0.796 C 0.799 C 0.003 N - - Avenue Pacific Coast Highway at AM 0.771 C 0.845 D 0.851 D 0.006 N - S e a l - 6 Beach Boulevard PM 0.769 C 0.836 D 0.873 D 0.037 N Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.340 A 0.371 A 0.396 A 0.025 N - - 7. Bolsa Avenue/Anchor PM 0.394 A 0.438 A 0.477 A 0.039 N - - Wa Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.26 s/v A 0.334 A 0.361 A 0.027 N 8 Ad Lopez Drive' PM 0.58 s/v A 0.357 A 0.421 A 0.064 N - - Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.926 E 1.015 F 1.108 F 0.093 Y 0.879 D 9 Westminster Avenue PM 0.907 E 1.012 F 1.222 F 0.210 Y 0.840 D Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.888 D 0.984 E 1.049 F 0.065 Y 0.742 C 10. 1.405 SB Ramps PM 0.972 E 1.100 F 1.190 F 0.090 Y 0.810 D Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.706 C 0.794 C 0.929 E 0.135 Y 0.811 D 11 1-405 NB Ramps PM 0.989 1 E 1.140 F 1.160 F 0.020 Y 0.960 E Bolsa Chica Road at AM 0.950 E 1.029 F 1.117 F 0.088 Y 1.005 F 12 Westminster Avenue PM 0.769 C 0.836 D 0.935 E 0.099 Y 0.819 D Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.281 A 0.308 A 0.402 A 0.094 N 0.392 A 13 Road A (Apollo Drive) PM 0.310 A 1 0.364 A 0.569 A 0.205 N 0.479 A Road A (Apollo Drive) at AM 0.442 A 0.479 A 0.692 B 0.213 N 0.681 B 14 Westminster Avenue PM 0.469 A 0.512 A 0.657 B 0.145 N 0.655 B Island Village Drive at AM 0.512 A 0.550 A 0.570 A 0.020 N - - 15 W Avenue PM 0.528 A 0.573 A 0.651 B 0.078 N Road B at AM 0.457 A 0.495 A 0.573 A 0.078 N W estminster 16. Avenue PM 0.509 A 0.555 A 0.692 B 0.137 N - - Seal Beach Boulevard at AM 0.276 A 0.302 A 0.452 A 0.150 N 17 Road C PM 0.311 A 0.349 A 0.507 A 0.158 N - - Springdale Street at AM 0.492 A 0.530 A 0.576 A 0.046 N - - 18 Westminster Avenue PM 0.710 C 0.771 C 0.817 D 0.046 N lJ FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -53 Traffic and Circulation oiko,cs� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.3 -15 — Continued Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary With Apollo Drive Connection Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Table 5.3 -16, Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary With Apollo Drive Connection, summarizes the Year 2006 daily roadway link Level of Service results at the eleven study roadway links, as well as the three segments on Apollo Drive, with the Apollo Drive Connection between Apollo Court and Saturn Way. The first column of LOS values in Table 5.3 -16 presents a summary of existing daily traffic conditions. The second column lists Year 2006 background traffic conditions based on existing roadway geometry. The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2006 traffic conditions with the addition of Boeing Specific Plan daily project traffic and the extension of Apollo Drive between Apollo Court and Saturn Way. The fourth column indicates whether the traffic associated with the Boeing Specific Plan project would have a significant impact based on the significance criteria identified earlier. Review of Columns 3 and 4 of Table 5.3 -11, Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary, shows that seven of the eleven study roadway segments and the three segments on Apollo Drive are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better on a daily basis. Review of Segments H, I, and J of Apollo Drive in Table 5.3 -16 show that daily volumes on Apollo Drive are projected to range between, 3,751 vehicles per day and 5,756 vehicles per day. The daily volumes on Apollo Drive, between Apollo Court and Saturn Way, are projected to total 3,751 vehicles per day. Based on this projected traffic volume, the Apollo Drive Extension can be designed to the standards for an "Industrial — local a" street as indicated in the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) Standard Plan 1107 (i.e., 44 foot paved street within a 60 -foot right -of way). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of developing the Apollo Drive Connector. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.3 -54 Traffic and Circulation 111 (2) ( 2002 Existing - `ra' 2vtiv Year 2006 (4) (5) Key Intersections Time ','Tmfflc Background Traffic Plus Project Traffic Significant " Year 2006 With Period Conditions Conditions Conditions Impact Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU YIN ICU LOS Rancho Rd/Hamon 19. Place at Westminster AM 0.296 A 0.319 A 0.390 A 0.071 N — — Avenue PM 0.432 A 0.470 A 0.564 A 0.094 N — — 20. 1 -405 SB On Ramp at AM 0.56 s/v A 0.60 s/v A 0.56 s/v A — N Westminster Avenue PM 0.95 s/v A 1.24 s/v A 2.00 s/v A — N — — 21 Pacific Coast Highway at AM 0.817 D 0.881 D 0.888 D 0.007 N F — Loynes Drive PM 0.818 D 0.881 D 0.887 D 0.006 N — Note; Bold HCM /LOS value indicate adverse service levels based on City of Seal Beach, City of Westminster and City of Long Beach LOS standards. 1 Projected Year 2006 conditions represent anticipated service levels with installation of future traffic signal at the key unsignalized intersection. Roadway Link Capacity Analysis Table 5.3 -16, Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary With Apollo Drive Connection, summarizes the Year 2006 daily roadway link Level of Service results at the eleven study roadway links, as well as the three segments on Apollo Drive, with the Apollo Drive Connection between Apollo Court and Saturn Way. The first column of LOS values in Table 5.3 -16 presents a summary of existing daily traffic conditions. The second column lists Year 2006 background traffic conditions based on existing roadway geometry. The third column (3) presents forecast Year 2006 traffic conditions with the addition of Boeing Specific Plan daily project traffic and the extension of Apollo Drive between Apollo Court and Saturn Way. The fourth column indicates whether the traffic associated with the Boeing Specific Plan project would have a significant impact based on the significance criteria identified earlier. Review of Columns 3 and 4 of Table 5.3 -11, Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary, shows that seven of the eleven study roadway segments and the three segments on Apollo Drive are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better on a daily basis. Review of Segments H, I, and J of Apollo Drive in Table 5.3 -16 show that daily volumes on Apollo Drive are projected to range between, 3,751 vehicles per day and 5,756 vehicles per day. The daily volumes on Apollo Drive, between Apollo Court and Saturn Way, are projected to total 3,751 vehicles per day. Based on this projected traffic volume, the Apollo Drive Extension can be designed to the standards for an "Industrial — local a" street as indicated in the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) Standard Plan 1107 (i.e., 44 foot paved street within a 60 -foot right -of way). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of developing the Apollo Drive Connector. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.3 -54 Traffic and Circulation �I f �.J r'l � I U ' r; II �.J U U G r— I u G r .f U L r U r � f' I L BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.3 -16 Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary With Apollo Drive Connection As indicated earlier, the daily impacts of the project on Pacific Coast Highway are not considered significant based on the results of the peak hour intersection analysis prepared for the "terminal intersections," Pacific Coast Highway /Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway /Main Street -Bolsa Avenue. Both of these intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better under the existing land configuration for Pacific Coast Highway. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -55 Traffic and Circulation (1) Year 2002 Exiaung Irar'iic (2) Year 2006 Plus T _� Backyiour�u ..... c (3) Project Impact ( a rr)ect Impact Roadway Segment No. of Existing MPAH Arterial Classification Existing Capacity LOSE Dally VIC ' Defy VIC Daily VIC Sign. Lanes of 'Volume ' Ratio LOS Volume Ratio LOS Volume Ratio LDS re Increase YIN' A. Westminster Avenue, elo 4D Primary 37,500 23,066 0.615 B 25,389 0.677 B 28,594 0.763 C 0.086 N Studebaker Road Arterial B. Westminster Avenue, between 41) Primary 37,500 23,204 0.619 B 25,538 0.681 B 31,216 0.832 D 0.151 N Apollo Drive/Road Arterial B C. Westminster Avenue, w/p 4D Primary 37,500 24,137 0.644 B 26,698 0.416 C 31,391 0.837 D 0.125 N Bolsa Chica Road Arterial D. Seal Beach Boulevard, No 6D Major 56,300 20,666 0.367 A 23,401 0.120 A 24,831 0.441 A 0.025 N Pacific Coast Arterial Highwa E. Adolfo Lopez Drive, w/o Seal 21.1 Local 12,500 1,389 0.111 A 1,500 0.543 A 1,855 0.148 A 0.028 N Collector Beach Boulevard F. Seal Beach Boulevard, 6D Major 56,300 26,975 0.479 A 30,554 0.555 A 34,820 0.618 B 0.075 N between Apollo Arterial Drive /Road C G. Seal Beach Boulevard, between St 6D Major 56,300 33,790 0.600 A 38.080 0.676 B 43,213 0.768 C 0.092 N Andrews/Golden Arterial Rain H. Seal Beach 5D Major 46,875 0.905 E 1.032 F 1.091 F 0.059 Y Boulevard, Arterial 42,411 48,377 51,161 7D [2] Major 56,300 0.753 C 0.857 D 0.909 E 1 0.050 N between 1 -405 NB and SB Ramps Arterial I. Pacific Coast Highway, north of 4D Primary 37,500 44,684 1.192 F 49,317 1.315 F 49,841 1.329 F 0.014 Y Seal Beach Arterial Boulevard J. Pacific Coast Highway, north of 4D Primary 37,500 45,422 1.211 F 50,079 1.335 F 50,079 1.335 F 0.000 N Seal Beach Arterial Boulevard K. Pacific Coast Highway, south of 4D Primary 37,500 41,920 1.118 F 45,938 1.225 F 47,214 1.259 F 0.034 Y Seal Beach Arterial Boulevard Notes: 1 Projected Impact considered "significant" if Column (3) minus (2) is 0.01 or greater and "LOS' (3) is "E" or F. 2 Represents anticipated LOS and Project Impact after implementation of planned and /or recommended roadway improvement. 6D = 6 -lane divided arterial 4D = 4 -lane divided arterial 2U = 2 -lane undivided arterial As indicated earlier, the daily impacts of the project on Pacific Coast Highway are not considered significant based on the results of the peak hour intersection analysis prepared for the "terminal intersections," Pacific Coast Highway /Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway /Main Street -Bolsa Avenue. Both of these intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better under the existing land configuration for Pacific Coast Highway. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -55 Traffic and Circulation BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR MITIGATION MEASURES This section directly corresponds to the identified Impact Statements in the impacts subsection. TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT 5.3 -1 a Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall comply with the City of Seal Beach Transportation Impact Fee Program (RTIF). 5.3 -1 b For impacted intersections subject to fair share improvements (impacted intersections include Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd Street/Westminster Avenue, Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue, and Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road), the project applicant shall participate in the improvements required on a pro -rata fair share basis as provided in Table 5.3 -12, Project Fair Share Percentage Calculations. 5.3 -1c In order to ensure that adequate access and egress to the project site is provided and impacts to through traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue are minimized, the project applicant shall be required to implement the following improvements /intersection enhancements: 9 Seal Beach Boulevard at Road A (Apollo Drive) - As part of the proposed intersection reconstruction project, construct raised median on Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot northbound left0turn lane. Widen Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot southbound southbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. The eastbound leg of Apollo Drive at Seal Beach Boulevard shall be designed to provide two eastbound left -turn lanes and one eastbound right -turn lane, and one inbound (westbound) lane. Modify and update the existing traffic signal as required by the City Engineer. ® Westminster Avenue at Road A (Apollo Drive) — Modify /reconstruct existing median on Westminster Avenue to provide a 150 -foot westbound left -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. Widen Westminster Avenue to provide a 150 -foot eastbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. The northbound leg of Apollo Drive at Westminster Avenue shall be designed to provide two northbound lefMurn lanes and one northbound right -turn lane, and one inbound (southbound) lane. Modify and upgrade the existing traffic signal as required by the City Engineer. ® Proposed Planning Area 3 "Right -Turn Only" Driveway at Westminster Avenue — Widen Westminster Avenue to prove a 150 -foot eastbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. o Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive — Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive is currently unsignalized. An analysis of this intersection indicates that the "permissive" turning movements onto FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -56 Traffic and Circulation f ��e� C; o BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Seal Beach Boulevard from Adolfo Lopez Drive experience delays indicative of LOS E/F conditions with the addition of project traffic (see U HCM /LOS calculations sheets in Appendix B of the Traffic Study contained as Appendix 15.2 of this EIR). This can be expected given h v �^ th exists on Seal Beach Boulevard and the h I she hig � vo lume of � �ra �., , u lack of sufficient gaps in the continuous north -south traffic during the PM peak commute hour. A three - phased traffic signal shall be installed at this location, along with a raised median on Seal Beach Boulevard from this intersection to tie into the raised median at Apollo Drive. Widen Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot (� southbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. This improvement J shall be the sole responsibility of the Boeing Specific Plan project. Appendix C of the Traffic Study, contained as Appendix 15.2 of this EIR, contains the traffic signal warrant worksheet for this key study intersection. 5.3 -1 d The project applicant shall be responsible for all sidewalk and landscaping improvements /replacements necessary as a result of right- of-way acquisition /dedications required in order to implement 1 improvements. U ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EVALUATION 5.3 -2 Mitigation Measures 5.3-1a through 5.3-1d apply to the Alternative LJ Access Scenario. No additional mitigation measures are recommended. IF LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION U Although planned improvements that are in accordance with the CIP /RTIF and the r additional mitigation measures identified would reduce Traffic/Circulation impacts to less than significant levels, there is continued uncertainty whether the CIP improvements at the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge overcrossing and the Seal Beach Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection can be implemented by the horizon year 2006. The OCTA has identified the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge for replacement at such time as the Garden Grove Freeway (SR -22) is widened to accommodate a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. Since the SR-22 widening project is planned to occur at a time beyond the 2006 horizon year timeline established in the Traffic Study, the City does not want to earmark funding toward the bridge improvement until after the widening of SR -22 is completed. Thus, although the City's 2006 CIP shows the bridge improvement, it would realistically occur after 2006 resulting in continued deficiencies for bridge operations /access. Since 2006 is the horizon year of the Boeing Specific Plan Traffic Study analysis, impacts are concluded to be significant and unavoidable due to the uncertainty of implementation of CIP improvements. Although the Traffic y i Stud notes that the additional northbound and westbound right turn lanes are necessary mitigation for the unacceptable service levels at Seal Beach r ' Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection with or without the proposed project, two U considerations are noted. First, there is uncertainty as to the feasibility of acquiring I LJ FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.3 -57 Traffic and Circulation cl -0 -C BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR necessary right -of -way from the Navy property for the noted improvements. These improvements may or may not occur by 2006 and are subject to conditions beyond the control of the City. Second, although the Traffic Study references deficiencies with or without the project, the project would nevertheless contribute to existing deficiencies at the Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster �inster Avenue intersection. Based upon the uncertainty of implementing the recommended mitigation for the 2006 horizon year, impacts are concluded to be significant and- unavoidable for the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. If the City of Seal Beach approves the project, the City shall be required to adopt findings in accordance with Section 15091 of CEQA and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of CEQA. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.3 -58 Traffic and Circulation BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 5.4 AIR QUALI �1 This Section evaluates air quality associated with short and long -term impacts resulting from buildout of the Boeing Project. Information. in this Section is based I ' primarily on the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, prepared by the South Coast Air U Quality Management District ( SCAQMD), April 1993 (as revised through November z 1993), Air Quality Data ( SCAQMD 1995 through 2001); and the SCAQMD Final Air Quality Management Plan (January 1997). EXISTING CONDITIONS i SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN The City of Seal Beach is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), characterized U as having a "Mediterranean" climate (a semi -arid environment with mild winters, warm summers and moderate rainfall). The Basin is a 6,600- square mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and U San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Basin includes all of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino (` Counties, in addition to the San Gorgonio Pass area in Riverside County. Its terrain ' and geographical location determine the distinctive climate of the Basin, as the Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.4 -1 Air Quality The general region lies in the semi - permanent high - pressure zone of the eastern �J Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot 1 weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The extent and severity of the air pollution problem in the Basin is a function of the area's natural physical characteristics (weather and topography), as well as man -made influences (development patterns and lifestyle). Factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall and topography all affect the accumulation and /or dispersion of pollutants throughout the Basin. CLIMATE F The climate is characterized by moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities H with precipitation limited to a few storms during the winter season (November through April). The average annual temperature varies little throughout the Basin, averaging 75 degrees Fahrenheit. However, with a less pronounced oceanic influence, the eastern inland portions of the Basin show greater variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures. All portions of the Basin have had recorded r temperatures over 100 degrees in recent years. January is usually the coldest month at all locations while July and August are usually the hottest months of the year. Although the Basin has a semi -arid climate, the air near the surface is moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods J when dry, continental air is brought into the Basin by off -shore winds, the ocean t effect is dominant. Periods with heavy fog are frequent; and low stratus clouds, occasionally referred to as "high fog" are a characteristic climate feature. Annual average relative humidity in Seal Beach is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern part of the Basin. Precipitation is typically 9 to 14 inches annually in the FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.4 -1 Air Quality BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Basin and is rarely in the form of snow or hail due to typically warm weather. The frequency and amount of rainfall is greater in the coastal areas of the Basin. Nlk`1�ilf1. One of the most important climatic factors is the direction and intensity of the prevailing winds. With very light average wind speeds (five to seven miles per hour), the Basin has a limited capability to disperse air contaminants horizontally. Typically, the net transport of air on -shore is greater in the summer, while the net off -shore transport is greater in the winter. Whether there is air movement or stagnation during the morning and evening hours (before these dominant patterns take effect) is one of the critical factors in determining the smog situation on any given day. Seal Beach' location with respect to these flow patterns and the Pacific Ocean results in relatively good air quality. For the most part, the on -shore winds transport pollutants farther inland, away from the City. Since the night drainage winds are less intense, only a limited amount of this pollution is returned during the summer. SUNLIGHT The presence and intensity of sunlight are necessary prerequisites for the formation of photochemical smog. Under the influence of the ultraviolet radiation of sunlight, certain original, or "primary" pollutants (mainly reactive hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen) react to form "secondary" pollutants (primarily oxidants). Since this process is time dependent, secondary pollutants can be formed many miles downwind from the emission sources. Because of the prevailing daytime winds and time delayed nature of photochemical smog, oxidant concentrations are highest in the inland areas of Southern California. However, Seal Beach and other coastal cities are not exempt on those days with early morning easterly winds. TEMPERATURE INVERSIONS A temperature inversion is a reversal in the normal decrease of temperature as altitude increases. In most parts of the country, air nearground level is warmer than the air above it. However, Southern California's daily summertime sunshine and high barometric pressure reverse that pattern, creating warmer air at high elevations which trap pollutants by preventing cooler air from rising to the upper atmosphere. The height of the base of the inversion is known as the "mixing height" and controls the volume of air available for the mixing and dispersion of air pollutants. The interrelationship of air pollutants and climatic factors are most critical on days of greatly reduced atmospheric ventilation. On days such as these, air pollutants accumulate because of the simultaneous occurrence of three unfavorable factors: low inversions, low maximum mixing heights and low wind speeds. Although these conditions may occur throughout the year, the months of July, August, and September generally account for more than 40 percent of these occurrences. The potential for high contaminant levels varies seasonally for many contaminarts. During late spring, summer and early fall, light winds, low mixing heights and sunshine combine to produce conditions favorable for the maximum production of oxidants, mainly ozone. When fairly deep marine layers frequent the Basin during FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.4 -2 Air Quality r ' BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 1 spring and summer, sulfate concentrations achieve yearly peak concentrations. When strong surface inversions are formed on winter nights, especially during the 1-� hours before sunrise, coupled with near -calm winds, carbon monoxide from automobile exhausts becomes highly concentrated. The highest yearly con - ce of Carboy � monoxide, Monoxide, oxides of n itr ^v ^en and nitrates are measured during November, December and January. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Air quality at any location is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is primarily a function of Air Basin topography and wind 1 patterns. Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with Federal and State standards. Ambient air quality standards are the levels of air pollutant concentration j considered safe to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) were established by the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1971 for six air pollutants. States have the option of r adding other pollutants, to require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( CAAQS) for these pollutants and NAAQS are included in Table 5.4 -1, Local Air Quality Levels. The California Air Resource Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the � State as attainment, non - attainment, or unclassified for any State standard. An "attainment" designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A "non- attainment" designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An "unclassified" designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or non - attainment status. State and Federal ambient air quality standards have been established for the following pollutants: ozone (Os), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), fine particulate matter (PM,o) and lead. For most of these r pollutants, the State standards are more stringent than the Federal standards. The above- mentioned pollutants are generally known as "criteria pollutants ". The State has also established ambient air quality standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and particulate matter. r The U.S. EPA in 1997 announced new ambient air quality standards for Os and PM,o. The new standards were intended to provide greater protection of public }� health. EPA proposed to phase out the 1 -hour Os standard and replace it with an 8- U hour standard. With respect to PM,o, EPA proposed a new standard for the smaller particles, PM2.5, or particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -3 Air Quality 016�,of '��___PeacA BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.4 -1 Local Air Quality Levels FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.4 -4 Air Quality 0 Pollutant California " "Standard Federal Primary Year i ,� Y ,� 2 Days (Samples) 5tatelFederal Standard : ;_ Concentration Std. Exceeded 1997 9.0 0/0 20 ppm 35 ppm 1998 8.1 0/0 for 1 hour for 1 hour 1999 7.5 0/0 2000 7.2 0/0 Carbon Monoxide 2001 6.0 0/0 1997 6.6 0/0 9 ppm g ppm 1998 6.5 0/0 for 8 hour for 8 hour 1999 5.5 0/0 2000 5.7 0/0 2001 4.7 0/0 1997 0.095 1/0 Ozone 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 1998 1999 0.116 0.131 210 3/1 for 1 hour for 1 hour 2000 0.118 3/0 2001 0.091 0/0 1997 0.20 0/0 Nitrogen Dioxide 0.25 ppm 0.053 ppm 1998 1999 0.16 0.15 0/0 010 for 1 hour annual average 2000 0.14 010 2001 1 0.12 0/0 1997 0.011 0/0 0.25 ppm 0.14 ppm for 24 hours or 1998 0.014 0/0 Sulfur Dioxide for 1 hour 80 µg /m ppm) 1999 0.011 010 annual average 2000 0.007 0/0 2001 0.009 0/0 1997 87.0 10/0 PM�o 34 50 pglm 150 µg /m3 1998 1999 69.0 79.0 6/0 13/0 for 24 hours for 24 hours 2000 105.0 1210 2001 1 91.0 10 /0 1997 N/M N/A PM2.5 N/A 1998 1999 N/M 66.9 N/A NAM for 24 h urs 2000 81.5 N /A/4 2001 72.9 N/A/11 ppm = parts per million PM,o = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less N/M = not measured µg /m = micrograms per cubic meter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less NOTES: 1. Data is based on measurements taken at the North Long Beach monitoring station located at 3648 North Long Beach Boulevard, Long Beach, Califomia. 2. Maximum concentration is measured over the same period as the California Standard. 3. PM,o exceedances are based on state thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20, 2002. 4. PM,o and PM2 sexceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days. Source: Data obtained from the California Air Resources Board ADAM Data Summaries Websfte, www .arb.ca.gov /adamlwelcome.html. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.4 -4 Air Quality 0 r i BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The PM2.5 standards included an annual standard and a 24 -hour standard.' Following announcement of the new national standards, the SCAQMD began collecting monitoring data to determine the region's attainment status with respect to the standards. ATTAINMENT STATUS Despite implementing many strict controls, the SCAQMD portion of the Basin still fails to meet the Federal air quality standards for three of the six criteria pollutants: Os, CO and PM1o. For State standards, the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is also designated as non - attainment for 04 CO and PM10 2 This is important to note given the proximity of the Project site to the Los Angeles County border (approximately 0.4 miles west of the project site). LOCAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY The SCAQMD operates several air quality monitoring stations within the Basin. The `i project site is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 4, one of the 28 areas l� under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The communities within an SRA are expected to have similar climatology and subsequently, similar ambient air pollution ' concentrations. The North Long Beach Station is the nearest station, located 6.5 miles northwest of the project site. Due to its location along the coast, the project site is expected to experience the best air quality represented at each of the stations. The following air quality information briefly describes the various types of pollutants monitored at the stations. OZONE Os is a colorless toxic gas that can irritate the lungs and damage materials and r , vegetation. Levels of Os exceed Federal and State standards throughout the Air Basin. Because Oa formation is the result of photochemical reactions between NOx and reactive organic compounds (ROC), typically produced by combustion sources, peak concentrations of Os occur downwind of precursor emission sources. The entire Air Basin is designated as a non - attainment area for State and Federal Os L+ standards. As indicated in Table 5.4 -1, some exceedances of State standards for Os occurred at local air monitoring stations from 1997 through 2001. The State Os standard was exceeded between 1 and 3 times per year, over this period. The jJ Federal Os standard was exceeded once in 1999. Carbon Monoxide U CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas, produced almost entirely from combustion sources (automobiles). This pollutant interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the �J ' There are two new Federal PM2.5 standards: a 24 -hour limit set at 65 micrograms per cubic meter (mg /m of ambient air and an annual average limit set at 15 mgm The current PM10 standards will be retained. Areas will be considered in attainment for the annual PM2.5 standard when the three -year average of the annual arithmetic mean is equal to or less than 15µg /m For the new 24 -hour standard, attainment will be based on the 98th percentile r Of PM2.5 concentrations for each year, averaged over three years, to help compensate for any high concentrations that may be due to unusual meteorological conditions. 2 Obtained from the California Air Resources Board Website updated November 19, 1999. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -5 Air Quality clik ws�� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR brain and it is generally associated with areas of high traffic density. The Orange County portion of the Basin is designated as an attainment area for State CO standards while the entire Basin is designated a non - attainment area for Federal CO standards. The 8 -hour and 1 -hour standard have not been exceeded at the North n St a:.. t last fide years Long Beach OWI lil Lhe las nvv rCA NITROGEN OXIDES Nitrogen oxides (NOx), the term used to describe the sum of nitrogen oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and other oxides of nitrogen, are produced by high - temperature combustion processes (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2, a term often used interchangeably with NOx, is a reddish -brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at high levels. The entire Air Basin is designated as a non - attainment area for State and Federal NO2 standards. The NO2 standard was not exceeded at the North Long Beach station over the last five years. FINE PARTICULATE MATTER On July 1, 1987, the EPA replaced the total suspended particulate (TSP) standard with a new particulate standard known as PM1o. PM10 includes particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (a micron is one millionth of a meter). Sources of PM10 include agricultural operations, industrial processes, combustion of fossil fuels, construction and demolition, and windblown dust and wildfires. The entire Air Basin is designated as a non - attainment area for State and Federal PM10 standards. Particulates substantially reduce visibility and adversely affect the respiratory tract. As indicated in Table 5.4 -1, some exceedances of State standards for PMo occurred at local air monitoring stations from 1997 through 2001, ranging from 6 to 13 times in a given year (state standards for PM2.5 [particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter] did not exist during the monitoring period of 1997 through 2001 as shown in Table 5.4 -1, Local Air Quality Levels). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts due to fine particulate matter, both State and Federal PM2.5 standards have been created. In 1997, the EPA announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA's new standards. Beginning in 2002, based on three years of monitoring data, the EPA will designate areas as non - attainment that do not meet the new PM2.5 standards. Following the announcement of the new national standards, the SCAQMD began collecting monitoring data to determine the region's attainment status with respect to the new standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. The ambient annual PM standard was lowered from 30 micrograms per cubic meter (µg /rrt to 20 µg /m As no ambient annual state standard existed for PM2.5, a new annual standard was 3 Environmental Protection Agency Website, www.epa.gov/oar/aqtmd97/brochure/no2.html 4 Environmental Protection Agency Website, http: / /www.epa.gov /air /aotrnd97 /brochure /am10 html FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.4 -6 Air Quality L' 1 , � BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR t established at 12 µg /m A 24 -hour average standards for both PM10 and PM2.5 were i 1 retained. These standards were revised /established due to increasing concerns by �.� CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State PM10 standards during some parts of the year, and the statewide potential for significant health 'impacts 'associated with lJ particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide- ranging. Particulate matter impacts primarily effect infants, children, the elderly, and those f ' with pre - existing cardiopulmonary disease. SULFUR DIOXIDE AND LEAD Sulfur dioxide (S02), often used interchangeably with sulfur oxides (SOx), and lead (Pb) levels in all areas of the Air Basin do not exceed Federal or State standards. The Basin is designated as attainment for both State and Federal S02 standards. i There is no NAAQS for lead. The North Long Beach Station did not exceed State standards for SOx during the last five years. J + REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) authorized the establishment of the NAAQS, and set deadlines for their attainment. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 made major changes in deadlines for attaining NAAQS and in the actions required of areas of the nation that exceeded these standards. 5 Staff Report: Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, May 3, 2002. L-� FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -7 Air Quality CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR ACT I The 1988 California lean Air Act rnia requires that all air districts in the State ( CCAA ) re q endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for 03, CO, S02, and NO2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area -wide emission sources. The Act also gives districts new authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is to achieve a five percent annual reduction (averaged over consecutive three -year I 1J periods) in district -wide emissions of each non - attainment pollutant or its precursors. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SCAQMD) LJ The SCAQMD has prepared multiple Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to accomplish the five percent annual reduction goal. The most recent AQMP was published in 1997. To accomplish its task, the AQMP relies on a multi -level partnership of governmental agencies at the Federal, State, regional and local level. These agencies, which include EPA, CARB, local governments, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the SCAQMD, are the cornerstones that implement the AQMP programs. 1997 AQMP A 1997 AQMP was prepared and adopted by the SCAQMD on November 15, 1996. The 1997 AQMP was adopted by CARB on January 23,1997. 5 Staff Report: Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, May 3, 2002. L-� FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -7 Air Quality BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The 1997 Plan contains two tiers of control measures: short -and intermediate -term, and long -term. Short- and intermediate -term measures are scheduled to be adopted between 1997 and the year 2005. These measures rely on known technologies and other actions to be taken by several agencies that currently have the statutory authority to implement the measures. They are designed to satisfy the Federal CAA requirement of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and the CCAA requirement of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT). There are 37 stationary source and 24 mobile source control measures in this group. The 1997 AQMP continues to include most of the control measures outlined in the previous 1994 Ozone Plan with minor exceptions, but postpones many marginal measures found to be less cost- effective, drops future indirect - source rules that are now deemed infeasible, and focuses the SCAQMD's efforts on about ten major emission - reduction rules. The SCAQMD will focus its efforts onseven major rules to reduce volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a key ingredient in smog; and the Plan includes new market -based measures giving businesses greater flexibility in meeting emission - reduction requirements, such as intercredit trading and additional credits for mobile source emission reductions. The 1997 AQMP shows that measures outlined in the 1994 Ozone Plan are sufficient to attain the Federal health standards for the two most difficult ingredients in smog, PM, and ground level Os, by the years 2006 and 2010, respectively. The region already has met the three other Federal health standards for Pb, SO2 and NO2. To help reduce PM,o pollution, the 1997 Plan outlines seven control measures for directly emitted particulates which will reduce emissions from agricultural areas, livestock waste, wood - working operations, construction, and restaurants. The measures will also help control dust from paved and unpaved roads, which accounts for two thirds of the directly- emitted particulates. The 1997 AQMP Control Strategies The 1997 AQMP's off -road mobile source control measures are based on the EPA's proposed Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the Basin. The FIP's proposed control measures are based on a combination of stringent emission standards, declining caps on emission levels and emission /user fees. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS (TACs) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern in Southern California. There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset conditions. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage and death. The SCAQMD implements TAC controls through Federal, State and local programs. Federally, TACs are regulated by EPA under Title III of the CAA. At the State level, the CARB has designated the Federal hazardous air pollutants as TACs, under the FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.4 -8 Air Quality 1 olk w s�WpearA j r BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR f . authority of AB 1807. The Air Toxic Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588) requires inventories and public notices for facilities that emit TACs. Senate Bill 1731 amended AB 2588 to require facilities with "significant risks" to prepare a risk reduction plan (reflected in SCAQMD Rule 1402). SCAQMD also regulates source- . .specifi - TACs. - Diesel exhaust is a growing concern in the Basin area and throughout California. The CARB in 1998 identified diesel engine particulate matter as a TAC. The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate components, many of which are toxic. Many of these toxic compounds adhere to the particles, and because diesel particles are very small, they penetrate deeply into the lungs. Diesel engine particulate matter has been identified as a human carcinogen. Mobile sources (including trucks, buses, automobiles, trains, ships and farm equipment) are by far the largest source of diesel emissions. Studies show that diesel particulate matter concentrations are much higher near heavily traveled - highways and intersections. The cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust may r be much higher that the risk associated with any other toxic air pollutant routinely U measured in the region s Prior to the listing of diesel exhaust as a TAC, California had already adopted various regulations that would reduce diesel emissions. These regulations include new standards for diesel fuel, emission standards for new diesel trucks, buses, autos, and utility equipment, and inspection and maintenance requirements for health duty vehicles. Following the listing of diesel engine particulate matter as a TAC, ARB is �j currently evaluating what additional regulatory action is needed to reduce public exposure. ARB does not plan on banning diesel fuel or engines. ARB may consider additional requirements for diesel fuel and engines, however, as well as other measures to reduce public exposure. With the goal to reduce both toxic and smog- forming air pollutants, the SCAQMD is �+ seeking to shift public agencies to low emissions and alternative fuel vehicles. To enact this policy, the SCAQMD has adopted the following Rules: F o ADOPTED RULE 1191 -- Clean On -Road Light- and Medium -Duty Public I U Fleet Vehicles o ADOPTED RULE 1192 -- Clean On -Road Transit Buses r o ADOPTED RULE 1193 -- Clean On -Road Residential and Commercial U Refuse Collection Vehicles o ADOPTED RULE 1194 -- Commercial Airport Ground Access o ADOPTED RULE 1195 -- Clean On -Road School Buses o ADOPTED RULE 1196 -- Clean On -Road Heavy -Duty Public Fleet Vehicles o ADOPTED RULE 1186.1 -- Alternative -Fuel Sweepers r o ADOPTED RULE 431.2 -- Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels U The SCAQMD has proposed that whenever a public fleet operator with 15 or more vehicles replaces or purchases new vehicles, they should be either low- emission or alternative - fueled. The proposal also would cover vehicles in fleets used to transport passengers to and from the region's airports. �y 6 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Revised December 1999, page 6. U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -9 Air Quality ReaA BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Other air quality issues of concern in the Basin include nuisance impacts of odors and dust. Objectionable odors may be associated with a variety of pollutants. Common sources of odors include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, refineries, and chemical plants. Similarly, nuisance dust may be generated by a variety of sources including quarries, agriculture, grading and construction. Odors rarely have direct health impacts, but they can be unpleasant and can lead to anger and concern over possible health effects among the public. Each year, the SCAQMD receives thousands of citizen complaints about objectionable odors. Dust emissions can contribute to increased ambient concentrations of PM,o, particularly when dust settles on roadways where it can be pulverized and resuspended by traffic. Dust emissions also contribute to reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the general population. Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors) who are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long -term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent center, and retirement homes. The proposed project site is within the corporate limits of the City of Seal Beach and is located westerly of the Seal Beach Boulevard- Westminster Avenue intersection. Properties to the north, across Westminster Avenue, are General Plan designated and zoned for Service Commercial, General Commercial and Residential High Density Planned Development uses. The Residential High- Density Planned Development area comprises the Seal Beach Leisure World retirement community, consisting of approximately 6,500 housing units within 525 acres. To the south is the future planned Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, which among other uses includes 14.7 acres for a maximum of 70 single - family residential homes. To the west, across a flood control channel, and adjacent to Westminster Avenue, is the Island Village residential community within the City of Long Beach. I FiT] SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA In accordance with CEQA, the effects of a project are evaluated to determine if they will result in a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is required to focus on these effects and offer mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts, which are identified. The criteria, or standards, used to determine the significance of impacts may vary depending on the nature of the project. Air quality impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed Boeing Project could be considered significant if they cause any of the following to occur: ® Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (refer to Impact Statement 5.4 -3); FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -10 Air Quality 5.4 -1 Temporary construction - related dust and vehicle emissions would occur during site preparation and project construction. Analysis has concluded that impacts would remain significant for NOx emissions after mitigation, requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Short-term air quality impacts would occur during grading and construction r operations associated with implementation of the proposed Project. The short-term air quality analysis considers cumulative construction emissions combined with the proposed Project. Temporary impacts include: LJ ® Clearing, grading, excavating and using heavy equipment or trucks creates large quantities of fugitive dust, and thus PMo; r ® Heavy equipment required for grading and construction generates and emits diesel exhaust emissions; i ® The vehicles of commuting construction workers and trucks hauling 1J equipment generate and emit exhaust emissions; ® Off -site regional air emissions associated with temporary power lines needed �j to operate construction equipment (although these emissions are locally 7 t SCAQMD is in the process of revising the CEQA Air Quality Handbook . Three chapters have been revised to date including Chapters 2 - Improving Air Quality, 3 — Basin Air Quality Information, and 4 — Early Consultation and Sensitive Receptor Siting Criteria. j r - U FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.4 -11 Air Quality CI D ReaA r BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (refer to Impact Statements 5.4 -1 and 5.4 -2); ® Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for (; which the project region is non - attainment, under an- applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)(refer to Impact I Li Statement 5.4 -4); 0 Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (refer to r ; Impact Statement 5.4 -2); and /or ® Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant). U The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook establishes thresholds for pollutant emissions generated both during and following construction. Buildout of the Project would be required to implement control measures during construction activities in order to reduce the amount of emissions to below the significance thresholds, when possible. SCAQMD construction and operation thresholds are indicated in Tables F ,. 5.4 -3 and 5.4 -4, respectively. As previously stated, the Basin is designated U. non - attainment for State and Federal standards for 03, and PM,o and for CO (Federal standards only). Any increase in these pollutants would create a significant and unavoidable air quality impact.' SHORT -TERRA AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 5.4 -1 Temporary construction - related dust and vehicle emissions would occur during site preparation and project construction. Analysis has concluded that impacts would remain significant for NOx emissions after mitigation, requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Short-term air quality impacts would occur during grading and construction r operations associated with implementation of the proposed Project. The short-term air quality analysis considers cumulative construction emissions combined with the proposed Project. Temporary impacts include: LJ ® Clearing, grading, excavating and using heavy equipment or trucks creates large quantities of fugitive dust, and thus PMo; r ® Heavy equipment required for grading and construction generates and emits diesel exhaust emissions; i ® The vehicles of commuting construction workers and trucks hauling 1J equipment generate and emit exhaust emissions; ® Off -site regional air emissions associated with temporary power lines needed �j to operate construction equipment (although these emissions are locally 7 t SCAQMD is in the process of revising the CEQA Air Quality Handbook . Three chapters have been revised to date including Chapters 2 - Improving Air Quality, 3 — Basin Air Quality Information, and 4 — Early Consultation and Sensitive Receptor Siting Criteria. j r - U FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.4 -11 Air Quality o o-c� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR deminimus as they are dispersed throughout the western U.S., and individual power plants are required to mitigate air emissions); o Emissions from the stationary construction equipment used on -site. The above described power plant and vehicle emissions are generated during construction activities. Project - related power plant and motor vehicle emissions are further analyzed in the long -term impacts portion of this Section. Potential odors generated during construction operations are temporary in nature and are not considered to be an impact (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant). It should be noted that emissions produced during grading and construction activities are "short- term" in nature as they endure only for the duration of construction. Fugitive Dust Emissions (Less Than Significant) Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust (PM,o) emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut and fill operations, and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Dust emissions also vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from grading and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease following project completion. Additionally, most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health. Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM,o (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns) generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. As previously discussed, PM,o poses a serious health hazard; alone or in combination with other pollutants. The URBEMIS 2001 computer model (adapted from the URBEMIS7G model by the SCAQMD) calculates PM,o fugitive dust as part of the site grading emissions (refer to Table 5.4 -2, Construction Emissions). The proposed Project would implement standard construction practices which include dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering), limitations on construction hours and adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 (requires watering for inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.) which further minimizes fugitive dust emissions. Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust (Significant after mitigation for NOx emissions) Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the Project site, emissions produced on -site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to /from the site. Emitted pollutants would include CO, RPG, NOx, and PMo. Table 5.4 -2, Construction Emissions, presents exhaust emission factors for typical diesel - powered heavy equipment. Computer model results are also included in FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -12 Air Quality I t { ( , {, i, r F U r, U '; LJ �i U r' U r + U Im + f � L?• L BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Appendix 15.3. The maximum area estimated to be disturbed per day would total 5- acres, taking place five days per week throughout the year (260 days). Grading of the site is expected to utilize graders, scrapers, dump trucks, rollers, dozers, loader and other heavy equipment. Refer to Appendix 15.3, Air Quality Data, for a listing of mobile and Stationary construction equipmIent included in - these Calculations. Additionally, as part of the site's grading operations discussed above, the project would also require the import of fill material to elevate the building pad foundations. The grading operations are expected to import approximately 100,000 cubic yards of soil. Based upon the standard dimensions of a haul truck, it is estimated that each truck would haul 12 cubic yards, with an average of 3 minutes to load the truck. The haul route considered for this analysis is Interstate 405 to Seal Beach Boulevard. Depending on the location of import site, a conservative estimate is 500 yards a day, or 42 inbound and outbound trips per day. Emissions generated by the haul route operations have been included in the URBEMIS 2001 calculations, and are presented in Table 5.4 -2 below. Pollutants would primarily be limited to NOx and CO from the vehicle exhaust. PM10 emissions would not be significant due to implementing a standard construction practice of covering all haul trucks. As indicated in Table 5.4 -2, emissions associated with construction activities within the Project area are anticipated to exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds for NOx. Beyond adherence to standard construction practices involving properly tuned equipment, covered haul trucks and reduced speeds on exposed roads, feasible mitigation measures have not been identified by the SCAQMD to reduce the significance of short-term construction NOx emissions to less than significant levels. As such, short-term air emissions for this pollutant would be considered significant and unavoidable. Table 5.4 -2 Construction Emissions Emissions Pollutant (poundslday) Source ROG NOX CO PM10 Unmitigated Emissions 52.7 663.1 48.4 102.7 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? No Yes No No Mitigated Emissions 50.6 632.7 48.4 65.0 Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No Yes No No ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide PMio = fine particulate matter NOTES: ' Emissions calculated using the URBEMIS 2001 Computer Model as recommended by the SCAQMD and Project specifi construction data provided by the Project applicant. 2 Calculations include emissions from numerous sources including: site grading, construction worker trips, stationary equipment, diesel and gas mobile equipment, off -site haul route import and asphalt off - gassing using a maximum amount of grading per day of 5 acres for approximately 260 working days. Air quality modeling assumes that the roadway surface will be graded, and that rough grading will occur for the proposed pad foundations. Results are based on the maximum amount of site grading, construction and asphalt activity that would occur in one day. Refer to Appendix 15.3, Air Quality Data, for assumptions used in this analysis, including quantified emissions reduction by mitigation measures. Emissions would also exceed the SCAQMD quarterly construction emissions for NOx. a The reduction /credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigations included in the UREBMIS 2001 computer model and as typically required by the SCAQMD. The mitigations include the following: proper maintenance of mobile and other construction equipment and speed limitation on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.4 -13 Air Quality clikofs�d BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR LONG - TERRA OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 5.4 -2 The proposed project would result in an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts rftf 1 ellectricity and natural gas consumption. Significance: Combined mobile and area source emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx and CO. ROG, NOx and CO emissions cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level which requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The calculations for the following analysis are based upon the project Traffic Study (refer to Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation). Buildout of the Boeing Project would occur incrementally over time. However, per the phasing plan and project Traffic Study, the analysis identifies Year 2006 as the horizon buildout date. Long -term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from project- related traffic and from stationary source emissions generated directly from the natural gas consumed and indirectly from the power plant providing electricity to the Project site. Emissions associated with each of these sources are discussed and calculated below. Mobile Source Emissions Only: Regional Impacts Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOx, and PM,o are all pollutants of regional concern (NOx and ROG react with sunlight to form Os or photochemical smog, and PM,o is readily transported by wind currents). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source. Long -term impacts to regional air quality levels are analyzed below. As previously discussed, the Basin is a non - attainment area for Federal and State air quality standards for Os and PM,o and for CO (Federal standard only). Nitrogen oxides and ROG are regulated Os precursors (a precursor is defined as a directly emitted air contaminant that, when released into the atmosphere, forms or causes to be formed or contributes to the formation of a secondary air contaminant for which an ambient air quality standard has been adopted). Project- generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using the URBEMIS 2001 computer model (published by the SCAQMD and based on the URBEMIS7G model). This model predicts ROG, CO, NOx, and PM,o emissions from motor vehicle traffic associated with new or modified land uses (refer to Appendix 15.3, Air Quality Data, for model input values used for this project with the model output). Project trip generation rates were based on the Project Traffic Study and URBEMIS 2001 default settings (refer to Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation, and Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study). Table 5.4 -3, Mobile Source Emissions, presents anticipated regional mobile emissions. Mobile source emissions (emissions from project - related traffic) account for the majority of the projects operational emissions. Operational emissions are based on land use data provided by the Applicant (as discussed in Section 3, Project Description), and by assuming buildout occupancy by 2006. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -14 Air Quality r I BOEINGISECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.4 -3 Mobile Source Emissions L r U F V r U C r U L U U Project.. Pollutant (Pounds /Day) ROG . , ,NOx CO PMio (unmitigated) • Area Source Emissions' (unmitigated) 28.7 5.4 0.9 ROG = reactive organic gases CO = carbon monoxide • Vehicle Emissions' 148.3 28.7 1704.1 79.2 ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide PMlo = fine particulate matter NOTE: 1 — Based on UREBMIS 2001 modeling results, worst -case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions, and trip rate data provided in the Project Traffic Study. Area Source Emissions Stationary source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for electrical energy and natural gas consumption with the development of the proposed project (referred to below as "area source emissions "). This assumption is based on the supposition that those power plants supplying electricity to the site are utilizing fossil fuels. Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the air basin and Western United States, and their emissions contribute to the total regional pollutant burden. The primary use of natural gas by the proposed land uses would be for combustion to produce space heating, water heating and other miscellaneous heating or air conditioning. As shown in Table 5.4-4, Area Source Emissions, stationary source emissions generated directly from the natural gas consumed and indirectly from the power plant providing electricity to the project site would not exceed SCAQMD standards. Table 5.4-4 Area Source Emissions Project Pollutant (Pounds/Day) ROG NOx CO PM10 (unmitigated) • Area Source Emissions' 0.4 28.7 5.4 0.9 ROG = reactive organic gases CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides PMio = fine particulate matter NOTE: 1 — Area Source emissions excludes the use of fireplaces and wood burning stoves. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -15 Air Quality C; o�s�e BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Total Project Operational Emissions: Area and Mobile Sources (Significant after mitigation for ROG, NOxand CO emissions) As shown in Table 5.4 -5, Long Term Project Emissions, the mobile source and area emissions associated with the proposed project would generate pollutant emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would create a significant and unavoidable individual project impact from ROG, CO and NOx emissions. In addition, the Basin is in non - attainment for these same three pollutants. As the proposed project would exceed established ROG, CO and NOx thresholds, the project would create a significant and unavoidable impact to regional levels of these pollutants. Table 5.4 -5 Long -Term Project Emissions Project Pollutant (Pounds /Day) ROG NOx CO PM10 (unmitigated) • Area Source Emissions Z 0.4 28.7 5.4 0.9 • Vehicle Emissions 148.3 197.7 1704.1 79.2 Total Unmitigated Emissions 148.7 226.4 1709.3 80.1 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 Is Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes Yes No (Significant Impact ?) ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide PMlo = fine particulate matter NOTE: 1 — Based on UREBMIS 2001 modeling results, worst -case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions, and trip rate data provided in the Project Traffic Study. 2 — Area Source emissions excludes the use of fireplaces and wood burning stoves. Localized CO Emissions According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, localized concentration modeling for CO should be accomplished for projects whose associated traffic would negatively impact levels of service (LOS) at locations adjacent to sensitive receptors. In these instances, a localized CO hotspot (i.e., an exceedance of established State and /or Federal standard) may be created at specific intersections. Based upon the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis, which was based upon the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP), the proposed Boeing project is projected to generate over 15,000 daily trip -ends, and thus meets the criteria requiring a CMP Traffic Impact Analysis. The project would not add traffic equivalent to 3 percent or more of the existing capacity at any of the CMP arterial monitoring locations or at any of the CMP highway system segments. The CMP highway system arterial facilities and CMP arterials closest to the project site consists of the San Diego (1 -405) Freeway, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), and Bolsa Chica Road. The CMP arterial monitoring locations /intersections nearest to the Boeing project site include SR -22 westbound Ramps at Valley View Boulevard in the City of Garden Grove, Bolsa Chica Road at Garden Grove Boulevard in the City of FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -16 Air Quality BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR f , Westminster and Bolsa Chica Road at Bolsa Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. Based on project trip generation estimates and the trip distribution patterns, the amount of project traffic using these CMP facilities would be minimal and less than the 3% threshold established by the CMP. Therefore, the Boeing project would ' not. have any sig nificant traf is i�� pact on the- Congestion Management Program L 1 Highway System of Orange County. The Boeing project would contribute to traffic impacts at three of the nine State study intersections. These impacted intersections include Pacific Coast Highway at 2nd Street/Westminster Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard at 1.405 southbound Ramps, and Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 northbound Ramps. These three intersections were also identified as significantly impacted intersections, based on the ICU methodology. However, mitigation has not been identified which would improve the LOS or keep it at an existing level. Therefore, the project is assumed to worsen traffic levels. The Project site is in an area where CO emissions have dramatically decreased and have not exceeded the State and Federal standards over the past five years. Based upon the SCAQMD's recommendation, the highest CO concentration over the last five years of monitoring data was used. Therefore, the threshold would be 9.7 ppm, which was measured at the North Long Beach monitoring station on December 19, 1997. This is well below the State standard of 20 ppm and the Federal standard of 35 ppm. The measured levels of CO at this monitoring station can be considered worst -case, since the monitoring station is located in a more concentrated urbanized area and receives higher CO levels than the Boeing Specific Plan site. Therefore, based on a) decreasing ambient CO levels in the Project vicinity, b) the Project area is in attainment with State CO standards, and c) upon implementation of mitigation measures recommended in Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation, r . intersections would be significantly impacted by Project generated traffic beyond current levels, it is concluded that a CO hot spot could occur as a result of the proposed Project and would result in a significant impact. r CONSISTENCY WITH AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN U 5.4 -3 The project would conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Analysis has concluded that the proposed project is inconsistent with the AQMP criteria. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. J �r • lJ G c I . As noted under the Significance Criteria discussion, a potentially significant impact to air quality would occur if the project would conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Although the project would represent an incremental negative impact to air quality in the Basin, of primary concern is that project - related impacts have been properly anticipated in the regional air quality planning process and reduced whenever feasible. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the project's consistency with the AQMP. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD, April 1993), the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region's ability to FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 5.4 -17 Air Quality of �'O'c s6 BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the project is inconsistent, local governments need to consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. It is important to note that even if a project is found consistent it could still have a significant impact on air quality under CEQA. Consistency with the AQiviP means that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the federal and State air quality standards. Traffic associated with the Boeing project, in combination with existing and future background traffic would have a significant impact at six of the twenty one key study intersections analyzed within the Traffic Study, refer to Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation. The six locations forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of Boeing project traffic and the peak hour in which the project has an impact are as follows: o Pacific Coast Highway at 2nd Street/Westminster Ave ® Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue ® Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue ® Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 SB Ramps ® Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 NB Ramps ® Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road The remaining 15 key study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable service levels (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak commute hours with the addition of project traffic. Based on Table 5.4 -5, Long -Term Project Emissions, calculated for the currently proposed land uses (URBEMIS2001), it is estimated that the net increase in pollutants would be 138.9 pounds per day (ppd) of ROG, 215.9 ppd of NOx, 1530.3 ppd of CO, and 80.3 ppd of PM These net increases would exceed the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds for all criteria pollutants except PM,o. The proposed project would result in the deterioration of the level of service (LOS) at intersections in the project vicinity following implementation of referenced mitigation. Due to the deterioration in the level of service, the project has the potential to increase the likelihood of a CO hotspot. Based upon a significant impact on traffic levels, operational air quality and the potential to cause CO hotspots, the proposed project may conflict with the goals and policies set forth within the AQMP. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.4 -4 Impacts to regional air quality resulting from development of cumulative projects would significantly impact existing air quality levels. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for ROG, NOx, CO, and PMio. The annual short-term and long -term emissions associated with the proposed project and cumulative projects indicated in Section 4.0, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, would be dependent on the internal phasing of each project. Adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would help to alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions. However, the build -out, sale and occupancy of the proposed land uses would be controlled by market demand. Emission reduction technology, FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.4 -18 Air Quality r ieJ BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR strategies and plans are constantly being developed. As discussed in Impact Discussion 5.4 -2, the Basin is non - attainment for Oa, PM,o (both State and Federal standards) and CO (Federal standards). Additional emissions of ROG, NOx (precursors to Os), CO and PM,o would be considered significant and unavoidable cumulative- impacts. t MITIGATION MEASURES U The following mitigation measures directly correspond to the identified impact statements provided in the impacts Subsection for the proposed Project: U SHORT -TERRA AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 1 5.4 -1 a During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts Rules and Regulations. o On -site vehicle speed will be limited to 15 miles per hour. o All on -site construction roads with vehicle traffic will be watered periodically. o Streets adjacent to the project reach will be swept as needed to remove silt that may have accumulated from construction activities so ' as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. o All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering will occur at least twice daily U with complete coverage, preferable in the late morning and after work is done for the day. o All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities will cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 35 miles per hour averaged over one hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. U o All material transported on -site or off -site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. L o The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations will be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. U o These control techniques will be indicated on project grading plans. Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic site (, U inspections by the City. o Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project will U be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. �� FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -19 Air Quality 0 of S� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 5.4 -1 b Project grading plans shall show the duration of construction. Ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specifications, to the satisfaction of the Cii Eiigiii C ompliance : ".pith this measure will be subject to periodic inspections of construction equipment vehicles by the City. 5.4 -1 c All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material on -site shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. 5.4 -1 d During overall site grading and public infrastructure construction phases, construction equipment and supply staging areas shall be located at least 400 feet from the nearest residence. During structure /building construction, equipment and supply staging areas shall be located at least 400 feet or as far as practical from the nearest residence. LONG -TERM OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 5.4 -2a No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided, combined mobile and area source emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx and CO and PM cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. 5.4 -2b Should a potential end -user be identified whose land use would cause a particulate diesel index of 0.0003 12 /m 3 or increase the volume to capacity ratio (also called the Intersection Capacity Utilization) by 0.02 (2 percent) for any intersection with a LOS of D or worse, a preliminary screening shall be conducted per SCAQMD Rule 1401 and 212 to determine whether a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared. CONSISTENCY WITH AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 5.4 -3 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, the proposed Project would not be consistent with the regional air quality management plan due to unavoidable impacts associated with construction NOx emissions, resulting in significant impacts. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.4-4 SCAQMD Standards and City Municipal Code requirements would be implemented on a project -by- project basis. 0 111 G Emissions associated with construction equipment within the Project area are anticipated to exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds for NOx. Feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce the significance of short-term construction NOx FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -20 Air Quality r r iI U r► U r� l..r� L L L ", L" r r' U U BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR emissions to less than significant levels. As such, short-term air emissions for this pollutant would be considered significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the following air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.foliowing m itigation: - o Project Operations: (ROG, CO and NOx) emissions from project operations; o Project implementation would result in a significant unavoidable impact with respect to consistency with the AQMP. o Cumulative development would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to regional air quality levels of ROG, NOx, CO and PM,o. If the City of Seal Beach approves the Project, the City shal be required to adopt findings in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.4 -21 Air Quality r ' BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR u 5.5 NOISE L U L I U L The purpose of this Section is to analyze Project - related noise source impacts on- site and to surrounding land uses. Mitigation measures are also recommended to minimize the noise impacts of the Project. This Section evaluates short-term construction related impacts as well as long -term buildout conditions. Information in this Section was obtained from the City of Seal Beach General Plan and Development Code. Additionally, information was compiled from the City of Seal Beach Noise Ordinance, Chapter 13D, Noise Control, and noise standards established in the City of Long Beach Development Code. For the purposes of mobile source noise modeling and contour distribution, traffic information contained in the Project Traffic Study was utilized (refer to Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation, and Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study). Refer to Appendix 15.4, Noise Data, for the assumptions used in this analysis. 6, NOISE SCALES AND DEFINITIONS Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the Decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency- dependent rating scale has been revised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is judged to be twice as loud, and 20 dBA higher four times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Examples, of various sound levels in different environments are shown in Table 5.5 -1, Sound Levels and Human Response. Many methods have been developed for evaluating community noise to account for, among other things: r• L L U L o The variation of noise levels over time; o The influence of periodic individual loud events; and o The community response to changes in the community noise environment. Numerous methods have been developed to measure sound over a period of time. These methods include: 1) the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL); 2) the Equivalent Sound Level (Leq); and 3) Day /Night Average Sound Level (Ldn). These methods are described below. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.5 -1 Noise BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.5 -1 Sound Levels and Human Response COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL) The predominant community noise rating scale used in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL reading represents the average of 24 hourly readings of equivalent levels, known as Leq's, based on an A- weighted decibel with upward adjustments added to account for increased noise sensitivity in the evening and night periods. These adjustments are +5 dBA for the evening, 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and +10 dBA for the night, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. CNEL may be indicated by "dBA CNEL" or just "CNEL ". Leq The Leq is the sound level containing the same total energy over a given sample time period. The Leq can be thought of as the steady sound level, which, in a stated FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.5 -2 Noise dB(A) NojseZou—i-ce Nolse Response, =' Level 150 Carrier Jet Operation 140 Harmfully Loud 130 Pain Threshold Jet Takeoff (200 feet; thence.) 120 Discotheque Unmuffled Motorcycle 110 Maximum Vocal Effort Auto Horn (3 feet; thence.) Rock'n Roll Band Physical Discomfort Riveting Machine Loud Power Mower 100 Very Annoying Jet Takeoff (2000 feet; thence.) Hearing Damage (Steady 8 -Hour Exposure) Garbage Truck Heavy Truck (50 feet; thence.) Pneumatic Drill 50 feet; thence. 90 Alarm Clock 80 Annoying Freight Train (50 feet; thence.) Vacuum Cleaner 10 feet; thence. Freeway Traffic (50 feet; thence.) 70 Telephone Use Difficult Dishwashers 60 Intrusive Air Conditioning Unit 20 feet; thence. Light Auto Traffic (100 feet; thence.) 50 Quiet Living Room 40 Bedroom Library 30 Very Quiet Soft Whisper 15 feet; thence. Broadcasting Studio 20 10 Just Audible 0 Threshold of Hearing Source: Melville C. Branch and R. Dale Beland, Outdoor Noise in the Metropolitan Environment, 1970, page 2. COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL) The predominant community noise rating scale used in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL reading represents the average of 24 hourly readings of equivalent levels, known as Leq's, based on an A- weighted decibel with upward adjustments added to account for increased noise sensitivity in the evening and night periods. These adjustments are +5 dBA for the evening, 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and +10 dBA for the night, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. CNEL may be indicated by "dBA CNEL" or just "CNEL ". Leq The Leq is the sound level containing the same total energy over a given sample time period. The Leq can be thought of as the steady sound level, which, in a stated FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.5 -2 Noise J ( r ' BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r . period of time, would contain the same acoustic energy as the time - varying sound f level during the same period. Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24 -hour sample Li periods. DA:.NIOKT AVERAGE (LDN) Another commonly used method is the day /night average level or Ldn. The Ldn is a measure of the 24 -hour average noise level at a given location. It was adopted by j the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure. It is based on a measure of the average noise level over a given time period called the Leq. The Ldn is calculated by averaging the Leq's for each hour of the day at a given location after penalizing the "sleeping hours" (defined as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), by 10 dBA to account for the increased sensitivity of people to noises that occur at night. The maximum noise r ; level recorded during a noise event is typically expressed as Lmax. The sound level U exceeded over a specified time frame can be expressed as Ln (i.e., Lso, Lo, L,o, etc.). Lso equals the level exceeded 50 percent of the time, L,o ten percent of the time, etc. As previously mentioned, people tend to respond to changes in sound pressure in a logarithmic manner. In general, a 3 dBA change in sound pressure level is �j considered a "just detectable" difference in most situations. A 5 dBA change is readily noticeable and a 10 dBA change is considered a doubling (or halving) of the subjective loudness. It should be noted that a 3 dBA increase or decrease in the �j average traffic noise level is realized by a doubling or halving of the traffic volume, or by about a 7 mile per hour (mph) increase or decrease in speed. For each doubling of distance from a point noise source, the sound level will decrease by 6 dBA. In other words, if a person is 100 feet from a machine, and moves to 200 feet from that source, sound levels will drop approximately 6 dBA. For each doubling of distance from a line source, like a roadway, noise levels are l� reduced by 3 to 5 decibels, depending on the ground cover between the source and the receiver. NOISE ATTENUATION Noise barriers provide approximately a 5 dBA noise reduction (additional reduction j may be provided with a barrier of appropriate height, material, location and length). A row of buildings provides up to 5 dBA noise reduction with a 1.5 dBA reduction for each additional row up to a maximum reduction of approximately 10 dBA. The exact degree of noise attenuation depends on the nature and orientation of the structure and intervening barriers. f NOISE STANDARDS U l...i La It is difficult to specify noise levels which are generally acceptable to everyone. What is annoying to one person may be unnoticed by another. Standards may be based on documented complaint activity in response to documented noise levels, or based on studies on the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. All such studies, however, recognize that individual responses vary FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.5 -3 Noise 0 cli�o,c s� BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o considerably. Standards usually address the needs of most of the general (� population. STATE NOISE STANDARDS The State of California Office of Noise Control has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels which are based on the CNEL rating scale. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of "normally acceptable ", "conditionally acceptable ", and "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for various land use types. As shown in Table 5.5 -2, California Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines, a project in the "normally acceptable" category would be acceptable in terms of both its indoor /outdoor noise exposure without special noise abatement measures. Where outdoor noise exposure is less important, projects can be designed to provide acceptable interior environments in the "conditionally acceptable" category. This may involve providing air conditioning so that windows can remain closed, or, at higher levels, sound rated windows and walls. Acoustical reports are recommended to be required where the noise exposure is "conditionally acceptable" or "normally unacceptable." As shown in Table 5.5 -2, the State Office of Noise Control, in its Land Use Compatibility Standards, defines an outdoor level of 60 dBA CNEL or less as being "normally acceptable" for residential uses. The intent of the 60 dBA CNEL level is partly to provide acceptable outdoor levels. A 60 dBA CNEL is generally considered to be an appropriate exterior level near roadways where outdoor use is a major consideration, such as in backyards, recreation areas in residential projects, and many park areas. A second intent of the 60 dBA CNEL standard is to provide, either through design, location, or insulation, for interior noise levels no greater than 45 dBA CNEL, which is generally accepted as the maximum acceptable noise level for most indoor residential activities. State Noise Insulation Standards are consistent with the Office of Noise Control residential Land Use Compatibility standards. In 1974, the State adopted Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25, State Administrative Code) for new hotels, motels, and dwellings other than single - family detached dwellings. Those standards established 45 dBA CNEL as the maximum interior sound level (attributable to exterior sources) in any room. Where exterior sound levels are 60 dBA CNEL or above, acoustical analyses for projects are required to ensure that the structure has been designed to limit outside noise to the allowable interior levels. The State Noise Insulation Standards also include standards to be met for sound transmission between units. Local agencies may regulate noise levels of most sources not regulated by the Federal government, may provide standards for insulation of noise receivers either within the structure or by placement of noise barriers such as walls, and, through land use decisions, may reduce noise impacts by separating noise generators from noise sensitive uses. FINAL s APRIL 2003 5.5 -4 Noise r C; of(:3ea��eacA BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r� L I r• U L r; I r U u J L L r u f• L.► U Table 5.5 -2 California Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines r L FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.5 -5 Noise COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LAND USE CATEGORY Ldn or CNEL, dBA Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable', Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential - Low Density, Single - Family, 50-60 55-70 70 -75 75 -85 Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential - Multiple Family 50-65 60-70 70-75 70-85 Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels 50-65 60-70 70-80 80-85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, 50-70 60-70 70-80 80-85 Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50-70 NA 65-85 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50-75 NA 70-85 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50-70 NA 67.5-75 72.5-85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water 50-70 NA 70-80 80-85 Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business Commercial and 50-70 67.5-77.5 75-85 NA Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, 50-75 70-80 75-85 NA Agriculture Source: Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health. Notes: NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New Construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. NA: Not Applicable r L FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.5 -5 Noise BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR CITY OF SEAL BEACH NOISE STANDARDS Chapter 13D, Noise Control, of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code pertains tothe regulation of excessive noise. Section 13D -5, Exterior Noise Standards, of the Municipal Code establish noise levels that may not be exceeded based upon the nature of the receiving land use and the time of day that the noise occurs. Per Section 13D -5(a), "Noise Standards" are as follows in Table 5.5 -3, City of Seal Beach Noise Standards. Table 5.5 -3 City of Seal Beach Noise Standards Noise Zone .. Noise Level " :. Time Period 1 55 dBA 50 dBA 7:00 a.m. —10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. 2 65 dBA At any time 3 70 dBA At any time Source: City of Seal Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 131), Noise Control. The zones referenced in Table 5.5 -3 identify various sensitive receptors based upon the type of land uses: o Noise Zone 1 — All Residential Properties. o Noise Zone 2 — All Commercial Properties. o Noise Zone 3 — All Industrial, Manufacturing or Oil Properties. Exterior noise shall be measured on the exterior of any residential property and no noise level shall exceed the noise levels as indicated in Table 5.5-4, City of Seal Beach Noise Levels and Duration, for the periods specified. Table 5.5-4 City of Seal Beach Noise Levels and Duration Noise Level Exceeded Maximum Allowed Duration Period Noise Standard for a cumulative period 30 minutes in any one hour 5 dB (A) above Noise Standard 15 minutes in any one hour 10 dB (A) above Noise Standard 5 minutes in any one hour 15 dB (A) above Noise Standard 1 minute in any one hour 20 dB (A) above Noise Standard Not Permitted Source: City of Seal Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 131), Noise Control. The following sources are exempt from the noise level provisions stated above: o Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or in connection with emergency machinery, vehicle or work; o Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities take place between the hours of FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.5 -6 Noise r 1 ' BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and do not take place at any time on Sunday or local, State or Federal holidays; �. Noise sources - associated --with the mai ntenance of . any .. real property, provided said activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or local, State or C Federal holidays; ® Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or federal law. c L. G L I I r U G ( r• U CITY OF LONG BEACH NOISE STANDARDS Chapter 8.80, Noise, of the City of Long Beach Municipal Code is designed to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise vibration within the City. Although the project is not located directly within the City of Long Beach, it is within one - quarter mile of Districts 1 and 4. Per Section 8.80.150, "Exterior Noise Limits — Sound Levels by Receiving land Use District' are as follows in Table 5.5 -5, City of Long Beach Noise Standards. Table 5.5 -5 City of Long Beach Noise Standards Receiving Land Time Period Noise Level Use District* (dBA) District One Night: 10:00p.m. -7:00 a.m. 45 Day: 7:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m. 50 District Two Night: 1 0:00p.m.-7:00 a.m. 55 Day: 7:00 a.m: 10:00 p.m. 60 District Three Any time 65 District Four Any time 70 District Five Regulated by other agencies and laws NIA Source: City of Long Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80, Noise. NOTES: 'District One - Predominantly residential with other land use types also present District Two - Predominantly commercial with other land use types also present Districts Three and Four - Predominantly industrial with other land use types also present District Five - Airport, freeways and waterways regulated by other agencies "Districts Three and Four limits are intended primarily for use at their boundaries rather than for noise control within those districts I f ` �—+ FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.5 -7 Noise A BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The project site is adjacent to Districts 1 and 4, as outlined in the table above. Therefore, the noise standard would be the arithmetic mean of the two districts, as outlined in subsection 8.80.160 (D). The arithmetic mean is defined as: +�wN where a1 and a2 are separate noise levels and N is the number of noise levels. The resultant factor would be a daytime noise limit of 60dBA and a nighttime limit of 57.5 dBA. Exterior noise shall be measured on the exterior of the property line and no noise level shall exceed the noise levels as indicated in Table 5.5 -6, City of Long Beach Noise Levels and Duration, for the periods specified. Table 5.5 -6 City of Long Beach Noise Levels and Duration Noise Level Exceeded = Maximum Allowed Duration Period Noise Standard for a cumulative period 30 minutes in any one hour 5 dB(A) above Noise Standard 15 minutes in any one hour 10 dB(A) above Noise Standard 5 minutes in any one hour 15 dB(A) above Noise Standard 1 minute in any one hour 20 dB(A) above Noise Standard Not Permitted Source: City of Long Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80, Noise. The following regulations apply to noise sources generated by construction activities: o Weekdays and federal Holidays — except for emergency work, construction noise is prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. ® Saturdays — except for emergency work, construction noise is prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. on Friday and 9 am. on Saturday, as well as after 6 p.m. on Saturday. 0 Sundays — except for emergency work, construction noise is prohibited at all times on Sunday. LOCATION OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals, rest homes, long -term medical and mental care facilities and parks and recreation areas. Residential areas are also considered noise sensitive, especially during the nighttime hours. The proposed project site is within the corporate limits of the City of Seal Beach and is located westerly of the Seal Beach Boulevard - Westminster Avenue intersection. Properties to the north, across Westminster Avenue, are General Plan designated and zoned for Service Commercial, General Commercial and Residential High Density Planned Development uses. The Residential High- Density Planned Development area comprises the Seal Beach Leisure World retirement community, consisting of approximately 6,500 housing units within 525 acres. To the south is the FINAL A APRIL 2003 5.5 -8 Noise f Li C+ o f < ea Rea BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR future planned Hellman Ranch Project, which among other uses includes 14.7 acres for a maximum of 70 single - family residential homes. To the west, across a flood control channel, and adjacent to Westminster Avenue, is the Island Village residential community within the City of Long Beach. U EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENTS FIELD MEASUREMENTS In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, noise measurements were conducted by RBF Consulting in February 2002. The noise (' measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and U immediately adjacent to the Project site. U L L U U L Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise survey consisted of a Larson Davis Laboratories Model LDL 820 sound level analyzer equipped with a Bruel & Kjaer (B &K) Type 4176 %2' microphone. The instrumentation was calibrated prior to use with a B &K Type 4230 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements, and complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type I (precision) sound level meters. The results of the field measurements are indicated in Table 5.5 -7, Noise Measurements. The highest noise level measurement (69 dBA) was taken at Site 4 at Westminster Avenue, just west of the project site. Table 5.5 -7 Noise Measurements (Based on Field Measurements) site Location- - A) Time Time /Comments 1 Adolfo Lopez Drive Cul de 49.0 10:05 a.m. —10:20 a.m. Clear, sunny, no wind Sac 2 Westminster Ave. 66.8 10:30 a.m. —10:45 a.m. Clear, sunny, little wind Just east of Del Taco 3 Seal Beach Blvd. 65.3 10:55 a.m. —11:10 a.m. Clear, sunny, variable winds South of future hotel site 4 Westminster Ave. 69.0 11:20 a.m. —11:35 a.m. Clear, sunny, no winds West area of project Source: Noise Monitoring Survey conducted by RBF Consulting, February 2002. COMPUTER MODELING Ell L. The existing and future roadway noise levels within the vicinity of the proposed Project were projected using the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD -77 -108) together with several roadway and site parameters. These parameters determine the projected impact of vehicular traffic noise and include the roadway cross - section (e.g., number of lanes), the roadway width, the average daily traffic (ADT), the vehicle travel speed, the percentages of auto and truck traffic, the roadway grade, the angle -of -view, the site conditions ( "hard" or "soft "), and the percent of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.5 -9 Noise BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 24 -hour period. The model does not account for ambient noise levels (i.e., noise from adjacent land uses) or topographical differences between the roadway and n adjacent land uses. Noise projections are based on modeled vehicular traffic as l� derived from the Project Traffic Study. A 40 to 55 mile per hour (mph) average vehicle speed was assumed for existing conditions (varies depending on roadway) based on empirical observations and posted maximum speeds along the adjacent roadways. ADT estimates were obtained from the Project traffic report (refer to Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study). EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Table 5.5 -8, Existing Traffic Noise Contour Levels, indicates the location of the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL noise contours associated with vehicular traffic along local roadways as modeled with the aforementioned FHWA computer model. Vehicular noise along three major roadways was modeled to estimate existing noise levels from mobile traffic. These roadways include Westminster Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard and Adolfo Lopez Drive, as described below. Table 5.5 -8 Existing Traffic Noise Contour Levels (Based on Peak Hour Traffic Volumes) Roadway Segment ADT DBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway .Centerline Distance from Roadway Centerline to: (Feet) 60 CNEL Nolse•Contour 65 CNEL , Noise Contour 70 CNEL . Noise Contour Westminster Avenue: Studebaker Road to Road A 23,066 63.6 197 92 42 Road A to Road B 23,204 63.6 198 92 43 Road B to Seal Beach Boulevard 23,204 63.6 198 92 43 Seal Beach Blvd. to Bolsa Chica Road 1 24,137 1 67.3 350 163 75 Adolfo Lopez Drive: West of Seal Beach Boulevard 1,389 51.9 30 14 7 Seal Beach Boulevard: Golden Rain Road to Saint Andrews 33,790 66.2 310 144 67 Saint Andrews to Westminster 33,790 66.2 310 144 67 Westminster Avenue to Road C 26,975 66.4 319 148 69 Road C to Road A 26,975 66.4 319 148 69 Road A to Pacific Coast Highway 20,666 62.8 183 85 40 In order to assess the potential for mobile source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. Values reflected in Table 5.5 -7 — Noise Measurements, are used to verify the accuracy of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO Curves). Note that the values predicted by the model compare favorably with the model values given in Table 5.5 -8 — Existing Traffic Noise Contour Levels. This then verifies the accuracy of the model. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.5 -10 Noise I � U BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR IMPACTS u SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines contains analysis guidelines related to the assessment of noise impacts. These guidelines have been utilized as thresholds of significance for this analysis. As stated in Appendix G, a L project may create a significant environmental impact if one or moreof the following occurs: 0 Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (refer to Impact Statements 5.5 -2, 5.5 -3, and 5.5- r 4); o Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); 0 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact Statement U 5.5 -2); o A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact Statement 5.5 -1); L o For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); and L o For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Impact Statement 5.5-2). L Based on these standards, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a "less than significant impact" or a "potentially significant impact." Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If (J a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact. The standards used to evaluate the significance of impacts are L often qualitative rather than quantitative because appropriate quantitative standards are either not available for many types of impacts or are not applicable for some f types of projects. SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS A project is considered to have a significant noise impact where it causes an adopted noise standard to be exceeded for the project site or for adjacent sensitive receptors. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.5 -11 Noise C ows�' BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR In addition to being concerned about the absolute noise level that might occur when a new source is introduced into an area, it is also important to consider the existing noise environment. If the existing noise environment is quiet and the new noise source greatly increases the noise exposure, even though a criterion level might not be exceeded, an impact pact may occur-. - Lacking adopted standards for evaluating such impacts, general considerations for community noise environments are that a change of over 5 dBA is readily noticeable and, therefore, is considered a significant impact (refer to Table 5.5 -9, Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure)' Changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals and are, therefore considered an adverse environmental impact, since under these conditions sporadic complaints may occur. Changes in community noise levels of less than 3 dBA are normally not noticeable and are therefore considered less than significant .2 Adverse impacts would result if increases in noise levels are audible (increases equal to, or greater than 3 dBA), although the noise level may not exceed the significant impact criteria specified above. Table 5.5 -9 Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure Ambient Noise Level Without Project . , (Ldn or "CNEL) . Significant Impact Assumed to Occur if the 11 Increases Ambient Noise Levels by:' < 60 dBA + 5.0 dBA or more 60 -65 dBA +3.0 dBA or more > 65 dBA +1.0 dBA or more Sources: FICON, FHWA, and Caltrans as applied by Brown - Buntin Associates, Inc., 1997. Potential impacts are grouped below according to topic. The numbered mitigation measures at the end of this Section directly correspond with the numbered impact statements. SHORT TERRA CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS 5.5 -1 Grading and construction within the Project area would result in temporary noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors. Analysis has concluded that construction noise impacts would be temporary, and would be required to comply with City of Seal Beach Municipal Code requirements. With compliance to the City Code and recommended mitigation measures, impacts are concluded to be less than significant. Construction activities generally occur in a short and temporary duration, lasting from a few days to a period of months. Groundborne noise and other types of construction related noise impacts would typically occur during the initial site ' Assessment of Noise with Respect to Community Response, ISDR 1996, International Standardization, Switzerland. 2 Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1973. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.5 -12 Noise r L 1 L u L L 1 L L-11 11 U L co 'Of s� A BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR preparation, which can create the highest levels of noise. Generally, site preparation has the shortest duration of all construction phases. Activities that occur during this phase include earthmoving and soils compaction. High groundborne noise levels and other miscellaneous noise levels can be created during this phase due to the operation of. heavy-duty trucks, backhoes, and front -end loaders. • - - - Noise levels typically range from 73 to 96 dBA at a range of 50 feet from individual pieces of equipment 3 The figures indicated in Table 5.5 -10, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels, represents a "worst- case" scenario in which all equipment used during a given phase is operating. Since in most cases all equipment would not be operating during construction, actual noise levels would be lower than the levels presented in Table 5.5 -10. Table 5.5 -10 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Type of Equipment, Maximum Level, dB (50 feet) Scrapers 88 Bulldozers 87 Heavy Trucks 88 Backhoe 85 Pneumatic Tools 85 Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," prepared by Cyril Harris, 1979. In addition to construction noise from the project site, the construction periods would also cause increased noise along access routes to the site due to movement of equipment and workers on the site. The primary heavy construction equipment /vehicles are expected to be moved on -site during the initial construction period and would have a less than significant short-term noise impact affect on nearby roadways. Daily transportation of construction workers is not expected to cause a significant effect since this traffic would not be a substantial percentage of current daily volumes in the area, and would not be anticipated to increase traffic noise levels by more than 1 dBA. The import of 100,000 cubic yarde of soil from an off -site location would be required in order to accommodate the proposed development. Transporting this volume of soil could involve approximately 42 inbound and 42 outbound daily truck trips for a period of approximately 200 days, based upon an average truck load of 12 cubic yards. The haul route for the soil import is anticipated to commence along Interstate 405, exiting Seal Beach Boulevard and terminate at the project site. The additional soil transport traffic along Seal Beach Boulevard would result in an average 0.3 dB increase in traffic noise levels along the roadway segment. This increase is not significant. Increases along other roadway segments of the haul route would be less than 0.3 dB Therefore, construction vehicles utilized for the Project are concluded to not result in a significant noise impact. 3 United States EPA, 1971. 4 Per conversation with Dave Bartlett, Boeing Realty Corporation Consultant, November 4, 2002. 5 Based upon modeling results utilizing the FHWA -RD -77 -108 model. L FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.5 -13 Noise C o��� IC PLA A BOEINGS ECIFN PROJECT EIR A reasonable worst -case assumption is that the 3 loudest pieces of equipment would operate simultaneously and continuously over at least 1 hour. The combined sound a level of 3 of the loudest pieces of equipment listed in table 5.5 -10 (scraper, bulldozer and heavy truck) is 92 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source. Table 5.5 -11, Estimated Construction i"vo1SE {rr - ; he °ro;2ct A 1 which assumes this C ombined a source level, summarizes predicted noise levels at various distances from an active construction site. These estimations of noise levels take into account distance attenuation, attenuation from molecular absorption, and anomalous excess (� attenuation u Table 5.5 -11 Estimated Construction Noise In The Project Area Distance Attenuation , "Distance to Receptor (Feet) Sound Level at Receptor (dBA) 50 92 100 86 200 80 400 73 600 69 800 67 1,000 64 1,500 60 2,000 57 2,500 54 3,000 51 4,000 47 5,280 43 7,500 36 NOTE: The following assumptions were utilized: Basic sound level drop -off rate: 6.0 dB per doubling distance Molecular absorption coefficient: 0.7 dB per 1,000 feet Analogous excess attenuation: 1.0 dB per 1,000 feet Reference sound level: 92 dBA Distance for reference sound level: 50 feet Assumes simultaneous operation of 1 scraper,1 heavy truck and 1 bulldozer 0 J 0 0 111 I Construction noise would last the duration of construction, although it would be most noticeable during the initial months of site - intensive grading and building construction. Noise sensitive receptors in proximity to the construction site, which 6 Hoover, R. M., and R. H. Keith. 1996. Noise control for buildings, manufacturing plants, equipment and O products. Houston, TX: Hoover & Keith, Inc. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.5 -14 Noise I� I f' U L U L L ! s c L L cif � &C s� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJEC EIR include the Leisure World and Island Village communities, would experience increased noise levels resulting from construction activities. Leisure World is located along the northern border of the project, across Westminster Avenue, and is partially attenuated from the project site by a block wall along Westminster Avenue and Seal Deach••Boulevar - -Th perimeter wall is 5 feet high at Westminster Avenue /Seal Beach Boulevard and tapers down to 3 feet at Road A with a15 -foot setback. Along Seal Beach Boulevard, the wall is approximately seven feet high with a minimal setback. The Island Village Community is a gated community surrounded by a 7 -foot high block wall. Both communities typically feature one -story structures, and are situated so that the side and rear yards face the perimeter walls. These communities could face a slight increase in noise levels generated by construction work. Noise levels above 64 dBA can occur as far as 1,000 feet from the project site. However, ambient levels in the area are currently above 65 dBA, and with the perimeter walls and surrounding vegetation, these noise levels are not expected to intrude past the first row of residential units adjacent to the walls in which residences within Island Village are approximately 195 feet from the project site and residences within Leisure World are approximately 155 feet from the project site. The City of Seal Beach Municipal Code (Chapter 13D) exempts construction activities from adhering to City noise standards as long as construction is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays or when the City Building Inspector approves special provisions for construction activities. Additionally, the City of Long Beach Municipal Code noise standards (Section 8.80.202) stipulate that the project will be in conformance as long as construction is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays or when the City Building Inspector approves special provisions for construction activities. These impacts, however, are short-term and would cease upon completion of the grading /construction phase. As such, construction impacts are concluded to be less than significant. Implementation of the recommended mitigation (i.e., muffling/ placement of construction equipment and stockpiling /staging of construction vehicles) and compliance with Code requirements as outlined above, would serve to minimize the length of time residents are exposed to significant noise levels. Additionally, it should be noted that the estimated construction noise levels do not account for any noise attenuation due to existing walls, berms, intervening structures or topography. These factors may account for an acoustical attenuation level of up to 3 dBA. The primary sources of acoustical disturbance will be random incidents, which would last less than one minute, such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts. However, based upon the analysis, the local receptors will not experience ambient construction noise levels that are in excess of existing levels. With adherence to the Municipal Code, and due to the relatively short period of construction, noise and vibration impacts are concluded to be less than significant. Based upon the nominal increase in construction noise levels, additional mitigation measures beyond the City Code is not required. LONG - TERM NOISE IMPACTS 5.5 -2 Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate additional vehicular travel on the surrounding roadway network, thereby resulting in noise level increases. Analysis has concluded that long -term noise FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.5 -15 Noise � —Re= BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT EIR impacts would be less than significant for roadway segments under the Year 2006 buildout traffic scenarios. In accordance with the Project traffic study, mobile source noise impacts on the surrounding street network were modeled for Existing, Existing Plus Project, Existing Plus Future Growth Plus Related Project and Existing Plus Future Growth Plus Related Project Plus Project conditions. These four scenarios were modeled to demonstrate the Project's net acoustical increase over existing and future ambient conditions. The analysis results are compared to the City standard of 65 CNEL to determine the significance of noise impacts (it should be noted that identified estimates only identify traffic noise generated along a specific roadway segment and does not adjust for any existing noise barriers or differences in elevation). In Tables 5.5 -12 and 5.5 -13, the first contour (dBA at 100 feet from centerline) depicts the noise level that would be heard 100 feet perpendicular to the roadway centerline. This is the typical distance to the midpoint of a rear yard for a receptor adjacent to a roadway. The second contour (distance from roadway centerline) illustrates the distances for which various noise levels would be encountered. The distance from centerline, which is the midpoint of the roadway cross section, depicts the spreading effect of the acoustics generated by mobile sources. Existing Plus Project Noise Analysis Project noise impacts would result from attracting additional vehicular travel on the surrounding road networks. As the majority of the Project traffic would travel along Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard, the Project would contribute to future noise level increases along these roadways, refer to Exhibit 5.5 -1, Existing Plus Project Noise Contours. The projected traffic changes were applied to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Model to estimate future CNEL noise levels based on traffic. Table 5.5 -12, 65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus Project), details the locations of the noise levels from the roadway centerline. As indicated in Table 5.5- 12, the 65 CNEL contour would extend from 16 to 183 feet. The proposed Project would not create significant mobile noise impacts along the analyzed roadway segments based on 2006 traffic conditions. As indicated inTable 5.5 -12, the Project would cause traffic noise levels to increase by a maximum of 1.1 dBA along the roadway segments analyzed. As previously noted, changes in community noise levels of less than 3 dBA are normally not noticeable and are therefore considered less than significant. Existing Plus Growth Plus Related Projects Plus Project Noise Analysis This condition includes cumulative traffic volumes obtained from the Traffic Report. As indicated in Table 5.5 -13, 65 CNEL Projections (Existing Plus Growth Plus Related Projects Plus Project), the 65 CNEL contour would extend between 17 to 194 feet from the roadway, refer to Exhibit 5.5 -2, Existing Plus Growth Plus Related Projects Plus Project Noise Contours. Residences along Seal Beach Boulevard would not be impacted under cumulative conditions. With the addition of Project traffic, the 65 CNEL contour along this roadway would range between 96 and 193 feet. The Project traffic would add 1.1 dBA when compared to without Project conditions at 100 feet from the roadway source. Additionally, due to the seven foot wall along the property line, noise levels FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.5 -16 Noise 0 U a a u J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L L L L J J u L CI D� � @.GLJhC�jE'GCG� BOEING S ECIFIC PLA PROJECT EIR would be attenuated up to 2 -3 dBA. A less than significant cumulative impact would occur in this regard. Table 5.5 -12 6 vi\EL v Ci1tW%A1 P:^i� ^ .S %--. in Plus Project) FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.5 -17 Noise Existing Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment ADT DBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline Distance from Roadway - " ° Centerline to: (Feet) , ADT DBA @ 100 feet from Roadway Centerline Distance from Roadway Centerline to: (Feet) Difference in DBA @100 Feet from Roadway 60 CNEL Noise contour 65 CNEL Noise . Contour' 70 CNEL Noise Contour 60 CNEL Noise Contour 65 CNEL Noise Contour 70 CNEL Noise Contour W estminster Avenue: Studebaker Rd. to Road A 23,066 63.6 197 92 42 26,271 64.1 215 100 46 0.5 Road A to Road B 23,204 63.6 198 92 43 28,882 64.6 229 106 49 1.0 Road B to Seal Beach Blvd. 23,204 63.6 198 92 43 29,718 64.7 234 108 50 1.1 Seal Beach Blvd. to Boise Chip Rd. 24,137 67.3 350 163 75 28,830 68.1 394 183 85 0.8 A dolfo Lopez Drive: West of Seal Beach Blvd. 1,389 51.9 30 14 7 1,744 52.8 35 16 8 0.9 Seal Beach Boulevard: Golden Rain Rd. to Saint Andrews 33,790 66.2 310 144 67 38,923 66.8 341 158 73 0.6 Saint Andrews to Westminster 33,790 66.2 310 144 67 38,923 66.8 341 158 73 0.6 Westminster Ave. to Road C 26,975 66.4 319 148 69 33,377 67.4 368 171 79 1.0 Road C to Road A 26,975 66.4 319 148 69 31,241 67.1 352 163 76 0.7 Road A to Pacific Coast Highwa 20,666 62.8 183 85 40 22,096 63.1 192 89 41 0.3 Note: Noise level models computed for 2006 scenarios utilized existing 2000 roadway cross - section data. FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.5 -17 Noise BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT EIR This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 A 0 11 U i� s s A n FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.5 -18 Noise 0 i r 6 z c Z - ci z 0 0 rn I z 0 r D z ? m m z z cn cn M O . CD CD cD CD M N (n CD m n o. — O 0 z E = o - a O ca- = --I- CD n cD w & ❑ Q-Q'C') z O O O [n rN-r A N. O C ❑ -r O z CD O O T X. N = N O O N 70 O n p o CD =3 Cl) o O cD — z � - O N IV CD cn Q CD Cl) M x CD N. CD C� cQ r - r O N O O O O � Q O CD W CD- Z3 Q � Q C) O p O O O rr U) CD n C7 O O C O � Q co O Q.. N O r-r cn r-r CD Cn M vim rf CA M v -t O °J `.CD MJ M C �••~ cn Z m 0 n T_ CO) • C - ) C-) CD D < CM) T O cn D PENOM r G m C W --� m m n CO) =_ M x cr cn cn 1 n 0 Z N C � r � ■I z 0 z 0 0 a M x N I Z 0 1-4. r D z z z M rn z cn cn M -� O 3 E CD 0 w — CD o C/) D CD C/) CD Ln c, Q M 0 0 z 3 = o - C3 o M- = --4- CD n CD Q FIT 0 C) z O O O Ln r N. 0 C n CAD 0 O Q z r-r C3 —01 =7 `< O O CD i T X. N _ C CD = O p o CD N ' Z3 M 0 o rL) C/) O 00 �• CD _ z — O (n N CD cn CD- CD CD x CD Q O n (C2 O N =3 O CD O O Q O CD Q � Q C7 O p O (n O CD C7 n O O C � =3 Q O FLI Q (n O r-r CD C) u rn ■ el CO) M MMT O CO) M CD �• CD O. M a MONT O CD n W CO) O `. CD CD z C7 � •••~ cn z M M 0 C ') CO) c- n C[) D � � T O cn M � D O M C7 M --- I m "t m n CO) == F r i C• o � BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Residences along Westminster Avenue would not be impacted under cumulative j conditions. With the addition of Project traffic, the 65 CNEL contour along this l,} roadway would range between 106 and 194 feet. At 100 feet from the roadway centerline, which is the typical distance to a receptor, the Project traffic would add • ^ -M + Dr^ie^4 n i c S i n ce a no ise incr se of i.0 uDA when compared to without , 1%JJ % .,ond;tion.,. Sin,,,. o. ea� L 3dBA is barely noticeable, a 1.0 dBA increase would not be detectable over ambient levels. A less than significant cumulative impact would occur in this regard. r L J F U F ' L L L I r' LJ (i Li Table 5.5 -13 65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus Growth Plus Related Projects Plus Project) Existing + Future Growth + Related Projects Existing , + Future Growth + Related Projects + Project Difference in DBA Distance from Roadway Distance from Roadway Centerline DBA @ ib0 Centerline to: (Feet) DBA Q 100 to: (Feet) @100 Feet from Roadway Segment. ADT Feet from ADT feet from : " Roadway Roadway 60 CNEL ` 65 CNEL. '70 CNEL Roadway 60 CNEL 65 CNEL TO CNEL Centerline • Noise Noise : 'Noise Centerline . Noise . Noise Noise `Contour Contour . Contour Contour Contour Contour Westminster Avenue: Studebaker Rd. to Road A 25,389 64.0 210 98 45 28,594 64.5 228 106 49 0.5 Road A to Road B 25,538 64.0 211 98 45 31,216 64.9 242 112 52 0.9 Road B to Seal Beach Blvd. 25,538 64.0 211 98 45 32,052 65 246 114 53 1.0 Seal Beach Blvd. to Bolsa 26,698 67.7 374 174 81 31,391 68.5 417 194 90 0.8 Chica Rd. Adolfo Lopez Drive: West of Seal Beach Blvd. 1,500 52.2 32 15 7 1,855 53.1 37 17 8 0.9 Seal Beach Boulevard: Golden Rain Rd. to Saint 38,080 66.8 336 156 72 42,213 67.2 359 167 77 0.4 Andrews Saint Andrews to 38,080 66.8 336 156 72 42,213 67.2 359 167 77 0.4 Westminster Westminster Ave. to Road C 30,554 67.0 347 161 75 39,956 68.1 415 193 89 1.1 Road C to Road A 30,554 67.0 1 347 161 75 34,820 67.5 1 379 176 82 0.5 Road A to Pacific Coast 23,401 63.4 199 92 43 24,831 63.6 207 96 45 0.2 Highwa Note: Noise level models computed for 2006 scenarios utilized existing 2000 roadway cross - section data. I r - Future residences in the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area would not be impacted �t under cumulative without Project conditions. The 65 CNEL contour along Adolfo Lopez Drive would increase from 15 feet without the Project to 17 feet with the r l Project. At 100 feet from the roadway centerline, the Project traffic would add 0.9 dBA when compared to without Project conditions. As stated above, 100 feet from the centerline is the typical distance to the midpoint of a receptors rear yard. A less r than significant cumulative impact would occur in this regard. Overall, the Project would not result in cumulatively significant mobile noise impacts along the roadway segments analyzed. As indicated in Table 5.5 -13, mobile source noise level increases along the roadway segments analyzed would be a maximum of b (( r • , FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.5 -23 Noise BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 1.1 dBA. Changes in community noise levels of less than 3 dBA are normally not noticeable and are therefore considered less than significant. Helipad Noise Currently, private helicopter landing /takeoff facilities are located on the Boeing property. On a typical day there are approximately 1 to 3 helicopter flights between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Helicopter noise measurements conducted in (� 1991 concluded that the City standard of one minute for the 85 dBA noise level was U not exceeded, nor was the City standard of 90 dBA exceeded at any time by any operations from the helicopter facility. For the Boeing project, helicopter operations are not anticipated to change, and will still be subject to the 90 dBA City noise standard. STATIONARY NOISE IMPACTS 5.5 -3 Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of on -site noise associated with commercial and light industrial activities which include loading /unloading activities, mechanical equipment and activities occurring in parking lots. Analysis has concluded that stationary source impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with (� adherence to the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code requirements �J relating to noise level standards and recommended mitigation measures. Noise typically associated with operation activities of light industrial and commercial uses would be generated by the following sources: o Trucks traveling on the site, to and from loading docks; ® Activities at loading docks (maneuvering and idling trucks, banging and clanging of equipment); ® Mechanical equipment (air conditioners, trash compactors, emergency generators, etc.); o Parking lot sweepers; and o Typical parking lot activities (i.e., parking lot traffic). Existing residential uses are located to the north, south and west (north of Westminster Avenue, south of Crestview Avenue and west of the flood control channel). Noise Ordinance Standards 0 It is stated in the City's Municipal Code Noise Ordinance that exterior noise levels i Y P n residential property shall not exceed the basic noise standard of 55 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and shall not exceed 50 dBA between the hours of l 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. d In addition to the noise standards by zone, the City's Noise Ordinance specifies the maximum duration for which different noise levels cannot be exceeded. As noise levels increase, the time allowed decreases. Based on the ordinance, it is unlawful to create or allow any noise that exceeds the specified levels /duration when FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.5 -24 Noise `a Lk L -C < �� --- ReacA BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR measured on any residential, public institutional, professional, commercial, or industrial property. For events lasting less than 1 minute in any hour, the maximum noise levels allowed 1 n� B ai e l y du ' da ytim e nnr7 nighttim hours e vents are 70 and vv d respect �..nnlg day.�,lle al,.. ,,, For L lasting more than 1 minute but less than 5 minutes in any hour, the maximum noise levels allowed are 65 and 60 dBA, respectively, during daytime and nighttime hours. U For events lasting more than 5 minutes but less than 15 minutes in any hour, the maximum noise levels allowed are 60 and 55 dBA, respectively, during daytime and r ? nighttime hours. For events lasting more than 15 minutes but less than 30 minutes L in any hour, the maximum noise levels allowed are 55 and 45 dBA, respectively, during daytime and nighttime hours. Potential Source Noise Levels Representative parking activities, such as customers conversing and door slamming, would generate approximately 60 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Slow moving trucks, at 5 to 10 miles per hour (mph), would generate up to 75 dBA Lmax when traveling and braking at 50 feet. Passenger cars generate on average 8 to 10 dBA lower than trucks. Loading and unloading activities generate approximately 75 dBA Lmax at 50 feet when the loading area is fully open, and 8 to 10 dBA lower when the loading area is partially or fully blocked. Stationary Noise Analysis Based on the project's preliminary site plan for the light industrial /commercial uses, E ll, the distance from the nearest residential uses to the parking areas and loading areas were described previously in the noise sensitive receptor locations. C L i S. E I v r• L Parking Lot Noise Typical parking lot noise from conversation and door slamming of 60 dBA L max at 50 feet would be reduced to 49 dBA Lmax at 175 feet. Because these event occur intermittently and lasting only a very short time period (i.e., a few seconds), they are compared to the maximum noise level standard specified in the City's Noise Ordinance. For residential uses, the maximum noise level standard is 70 dBA Lmax during daytime hours and 65 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours. Therefore, typical parking lot noise generated at the project site would be below both the daytime and nighttime noise standards at the nearest existing and proposed residential uses. Loading /Unloading Noise Noise from loading /unloading activities of 75 dBA Lmax would be reduced by distance attenuation alone to 57 dBA Lmax (Building 97), 36 dBA Lmax (Building 84), 61 dBA Lmax (Planning Area 3), and 63 dBA Lmax (Planning Area 4) at the nearest residences in Leisure World and Island Village. Additionally, noise from the loading areas would be blocked partially to the north and northwest by the walls surrounding Leisure World, Island Village and the future planned Hellman Ranch project. Therefore, the loading /unloading noise would not exceed the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) maximum noise standard at the nearest residences. Although several noise sources would be introduced in the project area, most would occur for only very brief time periods, including truck movements, parking lot FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.5 -25 Noise C o ,CsW9e=A BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR sweepers and trash compactors. Trucks could potentially make deliveries to commercial operations at numerous access points via Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. Parking lot sweepers typically operate during the early morning hours when parking lots are empty. Trash compactors are often located near loading docks and usually operate a few times per day for 1 to 2 minutes during each compaction cycle. These types of sources and /or activities usually do not operate concurrently and can meet the hourly permitted standards described in the City of Seal Beach noise regulations. Other noise sources, such as air conditioning equipment, parking lot traffic, and loading dock activities operate for comparatively longer periods of time. Loading dock activities that generate noise include truck movements, idling trucks, roll -up doors and talking employees. The project would be required to comply with City noise standards and demonstrate adherence toChapter 13D, Noise Standards, of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code and Chapter 8.80 of the City of Long Beach Municipal Code (refer to Table 5.5 -3, City of Seal Beach Noise Standards, Table 5.5 -4, City of Seal Beach Noise Levels and Duration, Table 5.5 -5, City of Long Beach Noise Standards and Table 5.5 -6, City of Long Beach Noise Levels and Duration). Compliance with City Noise Standards and recommended mitigation would reduce stationary noise impacts to a less than significant level. This includes a subsequent noise analysis for the Light Industrial /Commercial Planning Areas prior to Final Development Plan approval. Noise studies shall demonstrate that stationary noise sources would not exceed Code criteria and would not significantly impact adjacent noise sensitive areas (i.e., residential areas). With the preparation of a noise analysis and adherence to the recommended mitigation measures, long -term stationary noise impacts generated within the project area would be reduced to a less than significant level. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.5-4 Implementation of the Proposed Project, combined with cumulative projects, would increase the ambient noise levels in the site vicinity. Impact analysis and mitigation of impacts are determined on a project -by- project basis. Implementation of the proposed project, combined with development of cumulative projects, would increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity. This increase would be due to both vehicular traffic noise along local roadways and stationary noise sources associated with development. The evaluation of noise impacts is typically determined on a project -by- project basis in order to focus mitigation on a particular noise source. As such, future development proposals within the City would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential noise impacts and identify appropriate attenuation measures where appropriate. As previously stated above, the proposed project, as well as cumulative development projects, would be individually required to reduce noise impacts to below City noise standards and demonstrate adherence to Municipal Code requirements. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.5 -26 Noise U BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT EIR MITIGATION MEASURES l� This section directly corresponds to the identified Impact Statements in the impacts subsection. SHORT - TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS 5.5 -1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Grading Plan shall be reviewed and G approved by the Planning Department to ensure compliance with the following: r' 1 1 0 All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, to the satisfaction of the Building Official. U o During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers, to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 0 During construction and to the satisfaction of the Building Official, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors during construction activities. LONG - TERM NOISE IMPACTS 5.5 -2 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, noise levels would not increase above 3 CNEL as a result of project - related traffic, resulting in less than significant impacts. LONG - TERM STATIONARY NOISE 5.5 -3a Prior to Building Permit issuance, subsequent noise assessments shall be ,I prepared, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, which demonstrates the site placement of stationary noise sources would not exceed criteria established in the City of Seal Beach Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall verify that loading dock facilities, rooftop equipment, trash compactors and other stationary noise sources are adequately shielded and /or located at an adequate distance from f , residential areas in order to comply with the City's noise standards. U i; 5.5 -3b Directional speakers shall be shielded and /or oriented away from off -site residences to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.5 -4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis Li provided above, impacts would be mitigated on a project -by- project basis, resulting in less than significant impacts. r' L L , FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.5 -27 Noise C116T,of s� BOEI S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR No unavoidable significant impacts related to noise have been identified following implementation of recommended mitigation measures and compliance with applicable requirements set forth by the City of Seal Beach. FINAL , O APRIL 2003 5.5 -28 Noise i Ct � BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJEC E IR S ; 506 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The purpose of this Section is to identify existing biological resources on -6ite and in the vicinity, analyze potential project - related impacts to these resources (including I sensitive species) and recommend mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen the significance of impacts that are identified. Information in this Section is 9 P based on the Biological Technical Report prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) in October, 2001 and a jurisdictional delineation for three on -site man -made drainage ditches conducted by Glenn Lukos Associates in June, 2001. The RBF team, conducted a peer review of the Report. The Report is included in its entirety in 7 Appendix 15.5, Biological Technical Report. Information regarding mitigation through i l the wetlands restoration program is based upon the Wetlands Restoration Plan, prepared by GLA in April, 2003, included in Appendix 15.5. This Section describes U1, the biological character of the site in terms of vegetation, flora, wildlife, and wildlife habitats and analyzes the biological significance of the site in view of federal, state and local laws and policies. U EXISTING CONDITIONS L FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.6 -1 Biological Resources GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The site was historically part of the Los Alamitos Ranch. The current facility was initially constructed in 1966 and occupies approximately 62 acres in the eastern portion of the site. The remaining 45 acres on the site are located within a vacant field traversed by three man -made ditches that convey runoff from the facility and y surrounding parking lots. The field and ditches are maintained on a regular basis for fire control, weed abatement, and drainage purposes. The site has existed in its current condition since construction of the facility in 1966 by North American Aviation, Inc. The three man -made drainage ditches were excavated from fill material placed during construction of the facility. Historically, the lower portions of the site were likely part of an old flood plain of the San Gabriel River. Channelization and construction of flood control levees on the river have disconnected the site and surrounding areas from any direct hydrologic connection with the river. Based on elevation and soil data, the project ` site is not subject to tidal influence and was not historically subject to tidal nfluence. SURVEY METHODOLOGY U Data regarding biological resources for the project site was obtained through literature review and field investigations. Focused surveys for raptor usage were conducted - monthly from June 2001 to April 2002. Focused surveys for southern tarplant (Centromedia parryi ssp.australis, FAC) were conducted on July 26, 2001 and May 21, 2002. General botanical and wildlife surveys were conducted on these dates as well as during the course of other focused surveys. Literature Review Sensitive biological resources potentially present, were identified through a literature review using the California Natural Diversity Data Base ( CNDDB) F (2001) and the California Native Plant Society (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994). L The CNDDB review was conducted for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) L FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.6 -1 Biological Resources BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR topographic maps Los Alamitos, California [dated 1964 and photo revised in 1981] and Seal Beach, California [dated 1965 and photo revised in 1981]. Sensitive species reported in the project vicinity were noted and the project site was evaluated for the potential to support such species. Field Reconnaissance The field study included focused surreys as well as general wildlife and botanical surveys. Focused surveys were conducted for the following species: (1) raptors and (2) the southern tarplant (Centromedia parryi ssp. australis) and woolly sea -blite (Suaeda taxifolia). Observations of all plant and wildlife species were noted. VEGETATION The 107 -acre site includes a 62 -acre developed area on the Boeing property. Facilities and infrastructure with limited ornamental vegetation used in landscaping are present. The remaining 45 -acre area consists of a disked field traversed by three engineered, man -made drainage ditches. The south ditch (Drainage Ditch A) is primarily unvegetated with sparse emergent vegetation occurring in the upper part. The central ditch (Drainage Ditch B) is vegetated with emergent vegetation. The north ditch (Drainage Ditch C) is sparsely vegetated with a ruderal community. Small areas of the following vegetation communities occur within the field and drainage ditches: riparian herb (0.28 acre), emergent vegetation (0.12 acre), ruderal vegetation (1.21 acre), and ornamental vegetation (0.01 acre). Exhibit 3 of Appendix 15.5, Biological Technical Report, depicts the locations of vegetation associations on the project site. VEGETATION MAPPING Vegetation associations were mapped in the field directly onto a 10Gscale base topographic map of the study area. Vegetation associations were mapped based upon descriptions provided by the Orange County Habitat Classification System (Bramlet and Gray, 1992) and Holland (1986) with, as appropriate, modifications to more accurately characterize site conditions. Vegetation mapping was performed on May 1 and June 11, 2001 by David Moskovitz and updated on November 20, 2002, by Sara Young and Tony Bomkamp. SENSITIVE PLANT SURVEYS A focused survey for the southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp.austra /is, FAC) was conducted on July 26, 2001 by David Moskovitz and on May 21, 2002 by Tony Bomkamp. RIPARIAN HERB Approximately 0.28 acre of riparian herb has been identified on the project site. Riparian herb is associated with two of the drainage ditches that occur oRsite and is heavily degraded due to regular mowing. This community contains a component of non - native ruderal vegetation. Riparian herb vegetation occurs on the slopes and banks immediately adjacent to the upper third of Drainage Ditch A and adjacent to all of Drainage Ditch B. Vegetation includes alkali weed (Cress truxillensis, FACW), salt grass (Distichlis spicata, FACW), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon, FAC), five -hook bassia ( Bassia hyssopifolia, FAC), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata, FAC), FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -2 Biological Resources BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r woolly sea -blite (Suaeda taxifolia, FACW +), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus, FACU), FAC), iceplant Iamb's quarters (Chenopodium album, small-flowered (Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum, FACU), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens, NI), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, NI), and barley (Hordeum murinum, NI). Areas of riparian herb are regularly mowed during the disking of upland areas. EMERGENT VEGETATION G Approximately 0.12 acre of emergent vegetation has been identified on the project site. Emergent vegetation occurs within 50 linear feet of the culvert inlet on Drainage ? Ditch A and within all of Drainage Ditch B. The areas of emergent vegetation are regularly disturbed through mowing and also contains a component of non - native ruderal vegetation. Plant species associated with the areas of emergent vegetation include tall umbrella -sedge (Cyperus eragrostis, FACW), alkali bulrush (Scirpus r maritimus, OBL), lesser duckweed (Lemna minor, OBL), curly dock (Rumex crispus, FACW -), rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis, FACW +), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum syn. L. perenne, FAC), needle spike -rush (Eleocharis acicularis, 1 OBL), scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis, FAC), yellow sweet - clover (Melilotus indica, FAC), bur - clover (Medicago polymorpha, FAC), dallisgrass (Paspalum r dilatatum, FAC), white amaranth (Amaranthus albus, FACU), bristle grass (Setaria (; sp., FAC), and bristly ox4ongue (Picris echioides, FAC). RUDERAL FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -3 Biological Resources Approximately 1.21 acres of ruderal vegetation has been identified on the project site. Ruderal vegetation is associated primarily with Drainage Ditches A and C, but also occurs in patches throughout the site where the vegetation has not been removed through disking /mowing. Vegetation includes black mustard (Brassica nigra, UPL), summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana, UPL), wild radish (Raphanus sativus, UPL), Russian thistle, scarlet pimpernel, London rocket (Sisymbdum irio, FACU), castor bean (Ricinus communis, FACU), yellow sweet - clover, bur - clover, and -1 Italian ryegrass and other non - native grasses. Also included within the ruderal plant community in Drainage Ditch C is the southern tarplant (Centromedia parryi ssp. australis, FAC). ORNAMENTAL Approximately 0.01 acre of ornamental vegetation has been identified on the project site. The ornamental vegetation consists of a patch of vegetation occurring around r the base of a power pole on the west edge of the project site. Ornamental vegetation includes olive (O/ea sp.) and date palm (Phoenix canariensis). This area also contains ruderal vegetation including wild radish and London rocket. 1 DISKED /DISTURBED Approximately 43.38 acres within the undeveloped portion of the project site consists r of areas that are maintained on a regular 'basis. These areas lack any significant lU vegetation. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -3 Biological Resources BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.6 -1 Summary of Vegetation Associations Vegetation Associations : Area (Acres) Disked /Disturbed 43.38 Riparian Herb 0.28 Emergent Vegetation 0.12 Ruderal Vegetation 1.21 Ornamental Vegetation 0.01 Total 45.00 SPECIAL - STATUS PLANTS Southern tarplant The southern tarplant (Centromadia paryi ssp. australis, FAC) is an annual that occurs along the margins of saltmarshes and can also occur in association with alkali meadows and marshes. It is able to tolerate high levels of disturbance. The southern tarplant is a CNPS List 1 B species.' Focused surveys for this species were conducted on July 26, 2001 and May 21, 2002 and updated November 20, 2002. Approximately 385 individual plants were identified within and along the margins of Drainage Ditch C. No individuals were found beyond the upper banks of Drainage Ditch C. The southern tarplant has been identified in several locations in the vicinity of the project site. The adjacent Hellman Ranch property contains a population of southern tarplant significantly larger than that found in Drainage Ditch C on the project site. This species is tolerant of disturbance and has persisted at the project site despite ongoing maintenance activities such as mowing and clearing of the ditches for drainage purposes. WILDLIFE REPTILES Identification of reptiles from the project site was determined by physical evidence and direct visual identification. Reptiles detected on -site during general surveys were limited to the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). The western fence lizard is not a listed or endangered species. MAMMALS Identification of mammals from the project site was determined by physical evidence and direct visual identification. Mammals observed on -site during general surveys include the desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonr), California ground squirrel ' The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a statewide non -profit organization which identifies plants native to California and lists them according to their level of extinction (1- presumed extinct to 4- plants of limited distribution). FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -4 Biological Resources p 1 BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ' (Spermophilus beechyt), and domestic dog (Canis familiaris). None of the mammals located on -site are either listed or endangered and therefore no species of concern + LJ were identified at the project site. r' L L G L. L L� L U L.l BIRDS Birds observed on the project site include: house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), American crow (Corvus brachyrhnchos), rock dove (Columba livia), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus), Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya), white - crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), western meadowlark (Stumella neglecta), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), and killdeer (Ceryle alcyon). None of the birds located on -site are either listed or endangered species. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES Burrowing Owl The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a ground - dwelling /nesting bird of prey that inhabits grassy fields, saltmarshes and other areas with flat or gentle topography with moderate to sparse cover. Topography and cover on the site are suitable for this species; however, the lack of many rodent burrows and /or banks or slopes where burrows or other nesting cavities could be found, along with the frequent disking of the site, severely limit the potential for this species to occur on the site. No individuals or potential burrows were observed during surveys of the site. Monarch Butterfly The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a migratory insect that winters on the California coast from Monterey to Mexico. The primary larval food plant for this species is milkweed (Asclepias sp.). In the Seal Beach area, monarchs are known to roost in eucalyptus groves. There are no eucalyptus trees on the project site and no extensive tree or shrub habitat of any kind that would be suitable habitat for the monarch. No monarch butterflies were observed during any of the on -site biological surveys. San Diego Horned Lizard San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei) is a small reptile that feeds primarily on ants and other insects. This species primarily inhabits coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities in and and semi -arid climates. These lizards prefer friable, rocky, or shallow sandy soils for burrowing during winter hibernation or periods of inactivity. The lack of suitable habitat or soils on the site, as well as frequent disturbance of the site due to disking and mowing activities, likely precludes the occurrence of this species on the site. No individuals were observed on the site during biological surveys. Reptiles observed on the site were limited to the much more adaptable western fence lizard. Western Yellow - Billed Cockoo Western yellow - billed cockoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) is a migratory bird that inhabits riparian areas along larger river systems. This species once inhabited the riparian woodlands of the Santa Ana River basin, but has not been identified in many years and is presumed extirpated from the area. The lack of riparian habitat on the project site would preclude any occurrence of this species. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -5 Biological Resources BOEING S14ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR RAPTORS Limited raptor foraging behaviors have been observed at the project site and suitable foraging habitat is of very low quality. Raptors observed within the vicinity of the project site during focused surveys included the red :ailed hawk (Buteo Je maicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and American kestrel (Falco sparvedus). Observed foraging activities exhibited by red - tailed hawks and turkey vultures at the site were limited to circling directly above or immediately off site. An American kestrel was observed on one occasion to successfully kill an item of prey in the adjacent flood - control basin and then return to the project site to consume the prey on a telephone pole. No other raptor species (including loggerhead shrike, white - tailed kite, northern harrier, and red - shouldered hawk) were observed utilizing the site. Red - Tailed Hawk Red - tailed hawks were observed circling above the site or immediately off site on seven occasions during focused surveys. The red - tailed hawk is common throughout California and can be found in a wide variety of habitats. Red -tail hawks eat small mammals up to hares in size, small birds, reptiles, amphibians, and some carrion. In winter, these hawks are largely dependent on mice, but will also take medium to fairly large birds on the ground. This hawk searches for prey by soaring, but will also perch and pounce, and occasionally hover. Turkey Vulture Turkey vultures were observed circling above the site and immediately off site on seven occasions during focused surveys. The turkey vulture is common during the breeding season throughout most of California and occurs in open stages of most habitats that provide adequate cliffs or large trees for nesting, roosting, and resting. Turkey vultures primarily eat carrion, rarely live birds, eggs, or live mammals. Turkey vultures are highly specialized soarers that forage aerially over roads, fields, open forests, and nearly all open habitats. Ths bird searches for carrion from the air and from a perch, aided by its sense of smell. American Kestrel American kestrels were observed perched on-site on three occasions, and were observed one time attempting and one time successfully killing an item of prey in the adjacent Los Alamitos retarding basin and then bringing the prey item to the site where it was consumed on a telephone pole. The American kestrel is common throughout California and can be found in a wide variety of habitats including urban areas and residential neighborhoods. American kestrels actively prey upon European starlings, deer mice, lizards and upon beetles and grasshoppers. Kestrels are able to capture insects more readily than other prey, and thus concentrate on them when they are readily available. Research has indicated that nearly all hunts were initiated from perches. A summary of raptors observed on -site and foraging behaviors observed within the project area is provided in Tables 5.6 -3, Raptors Observed On site and 5.6-4, Recorded Raptor Behaviors On -site. The fact that throughout the approximate one year study of the Boeing site for raptor foraging behavior, only three American Kestrels were noted to be foraging on -site and not one successful kill occurred on- site reveals that the site lacks the suitable terrain and habitat for foraging for raptors. Because the site is disked regularly, vegetation consists of only low growing species, none of which provide suitable cover for small mammals, including California ground squirrels. The only areas on -site that were utilized by California ground squirrels FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -6 Biological Resources BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR included three drainage ditches located within the western portion of the site that were avoided by disking activities. Although perching platforms (including telephone poles, telephone wires and fences) are present on -site, their location along the perimeter of the site greatly inhibits raptors from successfully ambushing prey from directly above. Ground squirrel activity is highest at the eastern. end - of the drainage ditches or away from potential raptor perching platforms. FOCUSED RAPTOR SURVEY Monthly raptor surveys were conducted between June 2001 and April 2002 for the y purpose of evaluating potential use of the site by foraging raptors. GLA biologist Jeff Ahrens conducted raptor surveys of the site on June 7, June 13, July 25, September 4, November 2, and December 11, 2001 and also January 17, February 19, March 15, and April 18, 2002. Observations were made throughout the proposed development area. Each survey lasted approximately three to four hours in duration. Survey conditions were conducive to observing raptors. A summary of the conditions recorded during these site visits is presented in Table 5.6 -2, Raptor Survey Conditions. Raptor surveys focused on raptor foraging behaviors. Raptor foraging may include the following activities: circling, hovering, perching, attempt, and kill. Each behavior is defined below. L r L r U r; L o Att empt - Pursuing a prey item without success. o Circling - Circling over an area while scanning the surface below for prey. o Hovering /Kiting - Hovering or kiting in mid -air while scanning the surface below for prey. This behavior is most often performed by American kestrels and white - tailed kites. o Kill - The action or process of chasing, capturing, and killing a selected prey item. o Perching - This behavior is performed by all raptor species. Most raptors will utilize telephone poles and wires, tall structures and fence posts as elevated lookout platforms. WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS F U r� Wildlife movement corridors link together or connect areas of suitable natural habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged topography, human disturbance, or changes in vegetation. Disruption of these corridors and fragmentation of natural areas which they connect leads to isolated patches or "islands" of wildlife habitat. The project site is surrounded on the northern and eastern boundaries by development. The western site boundary abuts the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. To the south, the site is separated from the neighboring Hellman Ranch along most of its boundary by Adolfo Lopez Drive and associated development. In the southwest corner of the site, a small vacant lot separates the project site from Hellman Ranch. While both the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin and Hellman Ranch may provide wildlife habitat in FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -7 Biological Resources o o -C s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR the area, the project site does not act as a wildlife movement corridor to these areas, due to its lack of connections to other natural areas. Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project to wildlife movement corridors. Table 5.6 -2 Raptor Survey Conditions 'Survey-Date Survey Time Cloud Cover Temperature Wind June 7, 2001 12:30 — 15:30 70% 70 C F 4 Mph June 13, 2001 09:00 — 13:00 Clear 74 a F 5 — 7 Mph July 25, 2001 10:00 — 13:00 100% 71 0 F 2 — 3 Mph September 4, 2001 9:30 —12:30 100% 71 U F 1 Mph November 2, 2001 7:30 —10:30 100% 64 0 F 1 Mph December 11, 2001 8:00 —11:00 Clear 63 0 F 5 — 8 Mph January 17, 2002 13:00 — 16:00 Clear 62 0 F 3 Mph February 19, 2002 10:30 —13:30 70% 67 0 F 1 Mph March 15, 2002 13:00 —16:00 Clear 71 O F 2 Mph April 18, 2002 10:00 -13:00 100% 70 U F 6 - 10 Mph Table 5.6 -3 Raptors Observed On -Site Survey Date Red - Tailed Hawk Turkey Vulture American Kestrel June 7, 2001 0 0 0 June 13, 2001 3 2 0 July 25, 2001 2 2 0 September 4, 2001 0 2 0 November 2, 2001 1 0 1 December 11, 2001 0 0 0 January 17, 2002 1 0 1 February 19, 2002 3 0 1 March 15, 2002 0 0 0 April 18, 2002 0 0 0 FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -8 Biological Resources f ' l� L L I L r� U u P i I f; ii i F � C s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EI Table 5.6-4 Recorded Raptor Behaviors On -Site . Behavior REHA TUVU AMKE Total Attempts 0 0 1 1 Circling 7 7 0 14 Hovers 0 0 0 0 Perched 0 0 3 3 Kills 0 0 1 1 Total 7 7 5 19 `REHA = red - tailed hawk, TUVU = turkey vulture, AMKE = American kestrel. These results do not reflect the number of birds using the property, instead these numbers reflect the number of observed foraging behaviors. ADDITIONAL SENSITIVE SPECIES The following sensitive species was identified within the study area or was determined to have potential to occur on -site. Woolly Sea - blite During the focused survey for southern tarplant (Centromedia parryi ssp. australis, FAC), approximately 12 individuals of woolly sea -blite (Suaeda taxifolia, FACW) were identified in Drainage Ditch B and along Drainage Ditch C. The woolly sea -blite is a CNPS List 4 plant species. SENSITIVE HABITATS The following sensitive habitats and associated species were identified in the CNDDB as occurring in the vicinity of the project site. Dune and Beach Habitats (Southern Dune Scrub and Southern _ F oredunes ). Species associated with these habitat types include: sandy beach tiger beetle (Cicindela hirticollis gravida), tiger beetle (Cicindela senilis frosti), tiger beetle (Cincindela gabbi►), Dorothy's El Segundo dune weevil (Trigonscuta dorothea dorothea), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), California least tern (Stema antillarum brown►), and coast woolly -heads (Nemacaulis denudata var denudata). Southern dune scrub or other types of dune or beach habitat do not occur on the site and none of the dune - associated species mentioned above could occur on the site due to a lack of suitable habitat. Wetlands or Saltmarsh (Southern Coastal Saltmarsh) Species associated with these habitat types include: Ventura marsh milk -vetch (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus), Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulten), saltmarsh (" L FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.6 -9 Biological Resources 0 of � � BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR skipper (Panoquina errans), California brackishwater snail (Tryonia imitator), Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis belding►), salt spring checkerbloom (Sida /cea neomexicana), saltmarsh bird's -beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. mar►timus), light- footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris leuipes), •Sanford's arrowhead (Sagittar►a -sanhordi►), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and southwestern pond turtle (Clemmy's marmarata). There is no saltmarsh habitat associated with the site due to a lack of current historic tidal influence. Emergent marsh or riparian herb habitat associated with the property is limited to the three drainage ditches. The northern and southern ditches (Drainage Ditches C and A respectively) are considerably drier than the central drainage ditch (Drainage Ditch B) and support only sparse wetland plant species. Due to the artificial construction of these ditches as well as the regular function and maintenance of them for flow /drainages purposes at the facility since 1966, there is limited habitat available that could support the above - mentioned marsh - associated species. As such it is unlikely that any of these species could occur on the site due to a lack of suitable habitat. None of these species were observed on the site during biological surveys. REGULATORY AGENCIES U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and /or fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" is defined at 33 CFR Part 328 and includes (1) all navigable waters (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide), (2) all interstate waters and wetlands, (3) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce, (4) all impoundments of waters mentioned above, (5) all tributaries to waters mentioned above, (6) the territorial seas, and (7) all wetlands adjacent to waters mentioned above Wetlands are defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support ... a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Corps jurisdiction over tidal waters of the Pacific Ocean extends to the line on the shore reachedby the mean of the higher high waters (MHHW)4 The MHHW reaches an elevation of 2.5 mean sea level at the San Gabriel River Mouth. ` A review of the Soil Conservation Service soil maps for the area indicates that Bolsa Silty Clay Loam occurs on the site. Tidal Flats occur over 2,000 feet from the site at the Anaheim Bay wetlands. 3 On January 9, 2001 the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling on Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et. al. (SWANCC). This ruling has been generally interpreted to say that isolated, intrastate waters are not subject to the provision of Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act. 4 Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. November 29, 1972. Public Notice Relative to Navigable Waters Within the Los Angeles District. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.6 -10 Biological Resources r: BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD U' Waters subject to the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act also require Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. - Watero-that do not fall,-un,der1he jurisdiction of the R%AIQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, may require authorization through application for waste discharge requirements (WDRs) or through waiver of WDRs pursuant to the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7). U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE P Pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), any federal agency undertaking a federal action (including issuance of permits) which may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA must consult with USFWS. Pursuant to Section 9 of the ESA, the "take" of a species listed as threatened or U endangered is prohibited. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600.1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFG regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. CDFG defines a "stream" (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow r , that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." Thus, CDFG jurisdictional limits closely mirror those of the Corps. Exceptions are CDFG's exclusion of wetlands which are not associated with a river, stream, or lake, the addition of artificial stock ponds and irrigation ditches constructed on uplands, and the addition of riparian habitat supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the r' riparian area's federal wetland status. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (CCC) F The California Coastal Act (California Public Resources Code Division 20, Section Lj 30240) restricts land uses within or adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs). The Coastal Act Section 30107.5 defines an ESHA as: j ...any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem • and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. F s Subsequent to the SWANCC decision, the Chief Counsel for the State Water Resources Control Board issued a memorandum addressing the effects of the SWANCC decision on the Section 401 Water Quality (, Certification Program. The memorandum acknowledged that isolated waters not subject to Section 404 of the Clean L Water Act would also not require 401 certification; however, the same waters were and would remain subject to the provisions of the State Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act. F ' FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -11 Biological Resources 0 of <; eacA BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Included within this definition are wetlands, estuaries, streams, riparian habitats, lakes, and portions of open coastal waters that meet the rare or valuable habitat criteria. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) regulates the diking, filing, or dredging of wetlands within the coastal zone. The Coastal Act Section 30121 defines "wetlands" as land "which ,may b2 c ;we ed periodically or permanently with shallow water." The CCC Statewide Interpretive Guidelines (adopted in 1981) state that hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation "are useful indicators of wetland conditions, but the presence or absence of hydric soils and /or hydrophytes alone are not necessarily determinative when the Commission identifies wetlands under the Coastal Act. In the past, the Commission has considered all relevant information in making such determinations and relied upon the advice and judgment of experts before reaching its own independent conclusion as to whether a particular area will be considered wetland under the Coastal Act. The Commission intends to continue to follow this policy." JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION An initial jurisdictional delineation of the site was conducted on May 1 and May 2, 2001 to determine the extent of: (1) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; (2) California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code; (3) Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act; and (4) California Coastal Commission jurisdiction pursuant to the California Coastal Act. Additional analysis of the drainage ditches was performed on April 21 and May 1, 2002, with a primary focus on establishing presence /absence of wetland hydrology within the ditches. Wetland hydrology requires that an area be continuously inundated or saturated close to the surface (within the upper 12 inches) for a period of at least five percent of the growing season. The growing season in coastal southern California is effectively 365 days long, five percent of which is approximately 18 days. In all cases hydrology data within the ditches was collected within 18 days of a significant rainfall event. The results of this hydrology evaluation are summarized in Table 5.6 -5, Summary of Site Visits Focused on Hydrology of Drainage Ditches. NON -TIDAL MAN -MADE DRAINAGE DITCHES Drainage features on the site are limited to three earthen non -tidal artificial drainage ditches excavated from upland for the purpose of conveying discharges from the facility to the adjacent flood control facility. In addition a series of concrete v- ditches act to channel surface runoff toward the central drainage ditch on -site. The three drainage ditches are oriented from east to west within the approximately 45 -acre disked field. The 1964 USGS topographic map for the area shows no blue -line drainages occurring on the site. Drainage features on the site are depicted on the Jurisdictional Delineation Map (Exhibit 4 of Appendix 15.5, Biological Technical Report). FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -12 Biological Resources ++ I� 1, tJ L U ll r � L.� , r; U �J 1' w L T•� l u BOEINGS ECIFIC PL PROJECT EIR Drainage Ditch A Drainage Ditch A is located at the southern property boundary, adjacent to Adolfo Lopez Drive (Exhibit 5, photograph 1 of Appendix 15.5, Biological Technical Report). This feature enters the site via a 48 -inch culvert and travels approximately 641 feet before exiting via a second culvert to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. The bottom width of this drainage (as measured from toe -of -slope to toe -of- slope) is approximately seven feet along the entire length. Ditch A was designed to convey runoff from a parking lot in the southeastern comer of the facility. A small tributary drainage ditch enters Ditch A approximately 350 feet down gradient from the inlet. This tributary appears to be supported entirely by runoff from a nearby animal shelter and an equipment staging area. A six-inch p.v.c. pipe from the animal shelter enters the tributary at its origin north of Adolfo Lopez Drive. The tributary extends approximately 120 feet from the inlet pipe to the confluence with Drainage Ditch A and is approximately two feet wide. During each of the three site visits to evaluate hydrology, saturation was observed close to the surface within the upper portion of Ditch A and below the tributary inlet. This ditch exhibits significant evidence of scour within the channel and vegetation within the channel was observed to be matted -down, indicating that the ditch conveys rapid and frequent flows of short duration. Flowing water was not observed in the ditch during any of the site visits. Drainage within the ditch is rapid and the ditch does not support continuous or long -term saturation throughout the entire channel. Saturation within the upper channel was found to extend between 27 and 56 feet from the culvert inlet on the evaluation days. In this area, saturation appears to be perched over a compact, clay -rich fill material used in the construction ofthe ditch. Saturation occurring below the tributary inlet was observed to extend for approximately 50 feet from the inlet on the May 1, 2001 evaluation date. On April 21 and May 1, 2002, no saturation was observed extending from the tributary inlet. On those days, ponded water in this area was limited to the small scour depression located immediately below the tributary outfall. Drainage Ditch B Drainage Ditch B is the central drainage ditch on the property and is located directly west of existing buildings (Exhibit 5, photograph 2 of Appendix 15.5, Biological Technical Report). This feature enters the site via a 24 -inch central culvert and two 18 -inch flanking culverts. It extends approximately 491 feet to the west before exiting via a 48 -inch culvert to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. The bottom width of this drainage ditch is approximately four feet along the entire length. This ditch was designed to convey runoff originating in the facility (Exhibit 5, photograph 3 of Appendix 15.5, Biological Technical Report). Drainage Ditch B receives frequent inputs from runoff and building condensates within the existing Boeing facility. On all three of the site visits to evaluate hydrology, standing water or saturation near the surface was observed throughout the entire channel. The ditch exhibits signs of flow within the channel including debris racks and drainage patterns within the soft sediment. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -13 Biological Resources BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Drainage Ditch C Drainage Ditch C is located at the northern property boundary, adjacent to Westminster Boulevard (Exhibit 5, photograph 4 of Appendix 15.5, Biological Technical Report). This feature enters the site via a 48 -inch culvert and travels approximately 680 feet before exiting via a second culvert to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. The bottom width of this drainage is approximately seven feet along the entire length. This ditch was designed to convey runoff from a parking lot on the north side of the facility. No saturation or inundation was observed in Drainage Ditch C during any of the site visits. This ditch does not exhibit any signs of recent flows within the channel, nor has evidence of flowing water been observed within the ditch at any point during the 2001 to 2002 evaluation period. Soil in this ditch is primarily composed of clay -rich fill material. This fine - grained substrate likely retains sufficient moisture from direct precipitation to support the ruderal plant community observed in the ditch. WETLAND FUNCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRAINAGE DITCHES A variety of methods have been developed to measure or assess functions provided by wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems. A widely accepted method, developed by the Corps, is the Hydrogeomorphic approach (HGM) that separates wetland functions into three distinct categories: Hydrological, Biogeochemical, and Habitat. Hydrological Functions include Dynamic and Long -Term Storage of Surface Water; Dissipation of Energy, and Moderation of Groundwater Flows. Biogeochemical Functions include Removal of Imported Elements and Compounds, Retention of Particulates, Nutrient Cycling, and Carbon Export. Habitat Functions include both Floral and Faunal Elements. The following is a qualitative assessment of Drainage Ditches A, B, and C relative to the above - mentioned functions. Table 5.6 -5 Summary of Site Visits Focused on Hydrology of Drainage Ditches Drainage Ditch Date of Evaluation " Extent of•Saturation - Date of Last Storm Event* PPT (in) Ditch A 5/1/2001 Saturated within 56 ft of culvert inlet and within 50 ft of tributary inlet 4/21/2001 0.04 Ditch B Saturated entire length of ditch Ditch C No saturation in ditch Ditch A 4/21/2002 Saturated within 27 ft of culvert inlet and small scour pond within 2 ft of tributary inlet 4/15/2002 0.08 Ditch B Saturated entire length of ditch Ditch C No saturation in ditch Ditch A 5/1/2002 Saturated within 32 ft of culvert inlet and small scour pond within 3 ft of tributary inlet 4/26/2002 0.04 Ditch B Saturated entire length of ditch Ditch C No saturation in ditch *Recorded at Anaheim Barber City Station #1117 /County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Department Data FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -14 Biological Resources r• BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT E DRAINAGE DITCH A Hydrologic Functions Drainage Ditch A was constructed to allow storm discharges to pass- as quickly and efficiently through the site as possible. The ditch provides for no dynamic or long- term storage of surface water, minimal energy dissipation and no moderation of subsurface flows. Biogeochemical Functions Drainage Ditch A is a largely unvegetated (or vegetated with sparse low- growing annual species) earthen channel. The ditch receives limited dry- season flows from the adjacent animal shelter and as such provides for limited removal of imported elements and compounds. Storm flows reaching the ditch originate largely on paved areas and carry only limited particulates, which would not be subject to significant r retention due to the lack of sufficient vegetation or topography that would allow particulates to settle out of the water column. The ditch would also provide for very limited nutrient cycling or carbon export, again due to the sparse character of the vegetation and minimal topographic complexity. V Habitat Functions Since Drainage Ditch A is largely unvegetated or vegetated with sparse low- growing Uj (and mostly non - native) vegetation, the ditch provides habitat values very similar to the adjacent upland areas that are regularly maintained. DRAINAGE DITCH B `r Hydrologic Functions �-•�' Drainage Ditch B was constructed to allow storm discharges to pass as quickly and efficiently through the site as possible. The ditch provides for no dynamic or long- term storage of surface water, minimal energy dissipation and no moderation of U subsurface flows. The ditch is a discharge point for dry weather flows that originate on the property in landscape areas and from other sources such as air conditioning condensate. As such, the ditch exhibits limited surface discharge on a regular basis. Biogeochemical Functions U Drainage Ditch B is vegetated with native and non - native hydrophytes that are supported by the dry- weather flows. The dry- season flows originate on the site and would be expected to exhibit limited amounts of imported elements and compounds that would be removed by the vegetation. Storm flows reaching the ditch originate largely on paved areas and carry only limited particulates, which would not be subject to moderate retention due to the vegetation associated with the channel. The ditch would also provide for nutrient cycling and carbon export due to the presence of the vegetation. L t' )u FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -15 Biological Resources clf�'Of s�' BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Habitat Functions Since Drainage Ditch B is vegetated with sparse low- growing vegetation, the ditch provides very minimal habitat values. DRAINAGE DITCH C Hydrologic Functions Drainage Ditch C was constructed to allow storm discharges to pass as quickly and efficiently through the site as possible. The ditch provides for no dynamic or long- term storage of surface water, minimal energy dissipation and no moderation of subsurface flows. Biogeochemical Functions Drainage Ditch C is a largely unvegetated (or vegetated with sparse low- growing annual species) earthen channel. The ditch receives no dry- season flows and limited storm flows. As such, the ditch provides for limited removal of imported elements and compounds. Storm flows reaching the ditch originate largely on paved areas and carry only limited particulates, which would not be subject to significant retention due to the lack of sufficient vegetation or topography that would allow particulates to settle out of the water column. The ditch would also provide for very limited nutrient cycling or carbon export, again due to the sparse character of the vegetation. Habitat Functions Drainage Ditch C is largely unvegetated or vegetated with sparse low- growing (and mostly non - native) vegetation and thus, provides very minimal habitat values. This ditch does support two special- status plant species but is not characteristic of the habitat typically occupied by these species. COORDINATION WITH REGULATORY AGENCIES U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Pursuant to the guidance provided in the Preamble to 33 CFR 328.3 that addresses the jurisdictional status of artificial drainage ditches, no Corps jurisdiction is present on the project site. The Corps Los Angeles District has concurred with this assessment in a letter dated August 1, 2001 which states that the project is not subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and will not require a Section 404 permit (Exhibit 6 of Appendix 15.5, Biological Technical Report. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME As noted above, CDFG can assert jurisdiction over artificial waterways where such waterways exhibit attributes associated with natural waterways. Although the three drainage ditches on the subject property do not support high quality aquatic habitat, portions of Drainage Ditches A and C, and all of Drainage Ditch B support annual FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -16 Biological Resources r S Ci D BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR L r and /or perennial wetland or facultative wetland species. The area associated with the three drainage ditches totals 0.27 acre. CDFG has made a preliminary determination that all portions of the three ditches are subject to CDFG jurisdiction and impacts to the ditches require authorization through a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement.' REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD As there is no Corps jurisdiction at the project site, the drainage ditches would not be subject to RWQCB jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. However, r , the RWQCB may require wastewater discharge requirements (WDRs) pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act, for impacts to waters of the state not covered under Section 404. This area would total 0.27 acre and would mirror the jurisdiction of CDFG. r CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Potential CCC wetlands at the site may include all areas that are permanently or periodically inundated or saturated close to the soil surface. Portions of Drainage Ditch A, its tributary drainage ditch, and all of Drainage Ditch B exhibit indicators of wetland hydrology including signs of periodic inundation or saturation. These areas also exhibit hydric soil characteristics and support sparse hydrophytic vegetation. The remainder of Drainage Ditch A and all of Drainage Ditch C do not exhibit indicators of wetland hydrology or hydric soil characteristics. The lack of wetland r hydrology in these areas was confirmed by monitoring of hydrology within the ditches on three occasions following precipitation events. A final determination by the Coastal Commission would not be made until a formal application is submitted. r U IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The determination of impacts in this analysis is based on a comparison of maps depicting project grading limits and maps of the site's biological resources. All Ui construction activities, including staging and equipment areas, are assumed to be contained within the limits of grading. Both direct and indirect impacts on biological resources have been evaluated. Direct impacts are those that affect habitats due to grading and construction. Indirect impacts are those that would be related to disturbance from construction activities (e.g., noise, dust) and use of the project site. Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist form which includes questions relating to biological resources. The issues presented in the Initial Study Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if one or more of the following occurs: 6 Crum, Laura. 2002. During a Personal Communication with CDFG representative Ms. Crum, Ms. Crum indicated that based upon guidance from her supervisors Mr. Don Chadwick and Ms. Terri Dickerson, it was expected that CDFG would require authorization, through a Streambed Alteration Agreement, for removal of any of the artificial ditches. iJ FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.6 -17 Biological Resources BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o If the project has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Game and Wildlife Service (refer to Impact Statements 5.6 -1, 5.692, and 5.6 -3). © If the project has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Game and Wildlife Service (refer to Impact Statement 5.6 -3). 0 If the project has a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (refer to Impact Statement 5.6 -3). o If the project interferes substantial with the movement of any native or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (refer to Impact Statement 5.6 -1 and 5.6 -2). 9 If the project conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (refer to Impact Statement 5.6 -3). o If the project conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant). Section 15065(a), Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if "...the project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species... ". An evaluation of whether an impact on biological resources would be substantial must consider both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional or local context. Substantial impacts would be those that would diminish, or result in the loss of, an important biological resource or those that would obviously conflict with local, State or Federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations. Impacts are sometimes locally adverse but not significant because, although they would result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions, they would not substantially diminish or result in the permanent loss of an important resource on a population -or region -wide basis. The actual and potential occurrence of these resources within the project vicinity was correlated with the previously identified significance criteria to determine whether the impacts of the proposed project on these resources would be significant. FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.6 -18 Biological Resources BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Potential impacts are grouped below according to topic. The numbered mitigation r measures at the end of this section directly correspond with the numbered impact statements. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIE S 5.6 -1 Project implementation could affect species identified as special status. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. r The project site contains two special status plant species: southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis - CNPS List 1B (rare or endangered in California and elsewhere)) and woolly sea - blite (Suaeda taxifolia- CNPS List 4 (plants of limited distribution)). There are no sensitive wildlife species present within the study area. Raptors observed on or adjacent to the Project site included the redtailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparvedus), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Foraging behaviors observed at the site were limited to circling above the site, except for one American kestrel that successfully captured an item of prey in the adjacent Los Alamitos retarding basin, and carried the prey item to a telephone pole or+ site where it was consumed. Grading for the Project would result in impacts to the southern tarplant and woolly sea -blite that are associated with Drainage Ditch C which would be filled to construct r the Project. However, as identified in the jurisdictional delineation and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Drainage Ditch C does not contain wetland habitat. Direct Impacts to Southern Tarplant Grading for the Project would result in the loss of 385 individuals of southern tarplant located within Drainage Ditch C.' Because this species is included on the CNPS List 1 B, the loss of 385 individuals would be considered significant prior to mitigation. Impacts to southern tarplant would be fully mitigated and are not considered significant with implementation of mitigation. U Direct Impacts to Woolly Sea -Blite Grading for the project would result in the loss of 12 individuals of woolly sea -blite located within Drainage Ditch C. Woolly sea -blite is included on the CNPS List 4 (a watch list) and is still common, exhibiting widespread distribution. Even though this species is wide spread and common and the 12 individuals are associated with a man -made artificial drainage ditch, mitigation measures are included to ensure that impacts are not considered adverse or significant. U Plant Relocation Program In order to mitigate adverse impacts to 385 individual of southern tarplant and approximately 12 individuals of woolly sea - blite, a translocation program would be 7 As noted, surveys were conducted in 2001 and 2002. Based on preliminary counts conducted in May 2002, the number of plants was considerably larger in 2001 (presumably due to higher rainfall) so the impact number of 385 is based upon the 2001 survey data. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -19 Biological Resources BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR developed that provides for the on -site relocation of these populations to the terraces adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B, as well as to the areas within and surrounding the proposed water quality basins. This would produce a more viable and protected population on site, since the proposed wetland terraces would not be subject to the ongoing maintenance activities that currently disturb the existing populations within Drainage Ditch C. The existing populations within Drainage Ditch C are subject to ongoing vegetation clearing for drainage purposes and are continually disturbed in their current location on the site. A larger, more viable population of the southern tarplant occurs on the adjacent Hellman Ranch property. The tarplant population in Drainage Ditch C is located nearly 4,000 feet from the Hellman Ranch site meaning that the on -site individuals are "isolated" from the Heilman population because the Halictid bees that serve as the primary pollinator have a average home range of between 300 and 400 feet, and a maximum range of no more than 600 feet. Establishment of a population in Ditch A, and within and surrounding the water quality basin adjacent to Ditch A, which is located closest to Hellman Ranch, would bring the on -site population into closer genetic contact with the Hellman population, which could be of benefit to both populations. Implementation of the Plant Relocation Program as part of the Wetlands Restoration Program would reduce impacts to the southern tarplant and woolly sea -blite to less than significant levels. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT 5.6 -2 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the degradation of environmentally sensitive habitat. Analysis has concluded that impacts would be less than significant. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) regulates activities within or adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs). These are areas in which plant or animal species or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem, and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities. Sensitive habitats and associated species occurring at, and in the vicinity of, the project site were identified using a literature search of the CNDDB. The occurrence of these habitats and species on the project site was evaluated using orrsite surveys. Sensitive habitats and species identified as occurring on the project site during general and focused surveys include wetland habitats and populations of the CNPS List 1 B southern tarplant (Centromedia parryi ssp. australis, FAC). The site was also evaluated for use as raptor foraging habitat. Wetland habitats occurring on the project site are limited to portions of Drainage Ditch A and Drainage Ditch B on -site. These ditches were artificially constructed to drain the Boeing facility and are not subject to tidal influence. Since these ditches contain only marginal aquatic habitat sustained by urban runoff, these ditches do not play an especially valuable role in the local, coastal ecosystem and would not meet the definition provided in the Coastal Act for ESHAs. Drainage Ditch C does not support periodically saturated or inundated conditions and does not meet the definition provided in the Coastal Act for wetlands. As such Drainage Ditch Cwould not be considered an ESHA. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -20 Biological Resources f L L L L� r; u ( ': U L u L w s� BOEING s ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR A small population of the southern tarplant (Centromedia parryi ssp. australis, FAC) was identified in Drainage Ditch C of the project site. The tarplant is tolerant of disturbance and has persisted in Ditch C despite contnual disturbance from ongoing maintenance activities at the site. A larger, widespread population of the southern tarplant exists on the Hellm Ranch property adjacent - to - the project site. It is likely that the Drainage Ditch C southern tarplant population has been derived from the Hellman population. The Hellman population will be preserved as a part of restoration activities at that site. The Boeing tarplant population is significantly smaller and more disturbed than the Hellman population, and it does not provide an "especially valuable role" in the local ecosystem and as such would not constitute or be considered an ESHA. No functional raptor foraging habitat exists on the project site. Foraging activities observed at the site have been almost entirely limited to circling behaviors high above the site. As the site does not provide especially valuable foraging habitat for raptors, it would not be considered an ESHA. Therefore, no impacts in this regard would occur. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OR RESOURCES 5.6 -3 Development of the proposed Project would impact jurisdictional waters. Analysis has concluded that impacts would be less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with regulatory requirements. Impacts to Drainage Ditches A and B Creation of flood - control and water quality features associated with these artificial drainage ditches would not directly impact the channel bed of either artificial ditch. Grading would create terraces that would provide for flood - control and water quality functions and limited habitat function. Cross sections of the flood - control and water quality features associated with Drainage Ditches A and B are provided in Exhibit 5.6 -1, Minimum Center Ditch Cross Section. r' Li Direct Impacts to Drainage Ditch C Grading for the project would result in impacts to 0.11 acre of CDFG and potential RWQCB jurisdiction associated with Drainage Ditch C. Since the artificial drainage ditch exhibits minimal aquatic function, the impact is considered adverse but not significant prior to mitigation. With mitigation, the impact is not considered adverse or significant. Implementation of the Wetlands Restoration Program would avoid impacts to r ' approximately 0.05 acre of CDFG jurisdiction associated with Drainage Ditch B and U would provide an additional 0.11 -acre of habitat within the bottom of Ditch A. Should any temporary impacts to vegetation within Ditch B occur during the restoration phase, the affected area would be restored to existing contours and replanted L following creation of the wetland terraces, as described below. U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -21 Biological Resources n NORTH OF C L SOUTH OF C L 25' BUFFER 10 25' BUFFER 17' 8' VARIES Li } 3:1 3:1 J - w 0.5' TYPICAL SOUTH DITCH CROSS - SECTION NO SCALE 25' BUFFER 10) 25' BUFFER 17' 8' 8' 17' 3:1 7 Ul) >_ 3:1 k �-o w 0.5' MINIMUM CENTER DITCH CROSS - SECTION NO SCALE 0 CITY OF SEAL BEACH BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR W PLANNING B DESIGN ® CONSTRUCTION Mini Center Ditch Cross Section 0 o v 04/03 JN 10.701778 CONSULTING Exhibit 5.6 -1 r L . , C f. i � [J r L L U r L U L L u L' L clf� of s� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Wetland Restoration Wetland restoration on -site would include the following components: 1) preservation of approximately 0.05 acre of existing wetland habitat within Drainage Ditch B; 2) restoration and enhancement of approximately 0.11 acM of ::1etland habitat within Drainage Ditch A; 3) creation of approximately 0.42 acre of wetland habitat on terraces adjacent to Ditches A and B; and 4) creation of approximately 2.10 acres of wetland habitat within and surrounding water quality basins (refer to Appendix 15.5, Wetland Restoration Plan). A total of approximately 2.68 acres of wetland habitat would be preserved, restored, or created on -site with implementation of the Wetland Restoration Plan (refer to Exhibit 5.9 -5, Water Quality Assurance Plan, contained in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Drainage). Ditch B currently supports a mix of native and non - native wetland plant species throughout the entire length. This habitat was created and is supported by untreated nuisance flows and stormwater runoff from the Boeing facility. Following construction, the existing source of hydrology to Ditch B would be maintained and the habitat would be managed in its current condition. Ditch A is currently primarily unvegetated and supports less than 0.01 acre of non - native wetland vegetation. With implementation of the Wetlands Restoration Plan, the Ditch A would be revegetated in its entirety with native wetland species, creating a net increase of 0.10 acre of vegetated habitat (and 0.11 acre of native wetland vegetation) within the Ditch A. Impacts to Ditch C would be compensated for through the creation of wetland terraces, eight feet wide, along each side of Ditches A and B. These terraces would be created by recontouring the banks of the ditches to an elevation approximately one foot above the existing bottom of the ditches. Wetland habitat on these terraces would be supported by runoff from the surrounding post - development Project area. Approximately 0.42 acre of alkali meadow /marsh habitat would be created on these terraces. Approximately 2.10 acres of wetland /riparian habitat would be created in two water quality treatment areas on -site. A series of small, linear basins would be constructed along the western perimeter of the site to capture runoff from the north portion of the site. A single, larger basin would be constructed between Adolfo Lopez Drive and Drainage Ditch A and would capture runoff from the south portion of the site. These basins and the surrounding area would be vegetated with wetland and riparian plant species and would function to filter low flow and first flush runoff from developed areas of the Project site. Refer to the Water Quality Assessment Report (contained as Appendix 15.8 of this EIR) for further information on the construction and function of these water quality basins. The created wetland terraces adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B would be managed to support wetland and riparian habitat and would not be subject to the ongoing maintenance activities that regularly disturb existing habitat within the ditches. The bottom of Ditches A and B are currently maintained on a periodic basis for flood control and drainage purposes. Maintenance of restored and preserved wetland areas along the bottoms of Ditches A and B would continue following construction, as these areas would continue to serve in their current capacity as FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -23 Biological Resources C� �� � BOEINGS I N PROJECT EIR drainage conduits for the site. Vegetated habitat would be allowed to establish along the bottom of these ditches in between periods of maintenance. Long -term maintenance would primarily be limited to occasional hand clipping of vegetation. Should the ditches ever require sediment removal, the procedure shall be coordinated with a biologist and re vegetation of the areas would be required. If required, revegetation of the bottom of Ditches A and B shall follow the planting plan outlined below in the Planting Plan subsection which follows. Implementation of the proposed comprehensive water quality treatment plan for the Project site, would reduce the need for periodic cleaning of the ditches, as additional runoff would be pretreated prior to entering the ditches. In additbn, development of the site would reduce the sediment load currently entering the ditches from the surrounding dirt field. Restoration plantings would be sustained in the long -term by the existing hydrologic regime at the Project site as well as supplemental flows from the newly developed portions of the Project site. The existing ditches receive runoff from the developed portion of the Boeing site. Unlike Ditch C, Ditches A and B receive sufficient runoff from surrounding areas to support predominantly non - native herbaceous wetland and riparian plant species. Following Project implementation, the volume of runoff entering the ditches is not anticipated to change significantly. Any additional runoff entering the ditches would be treated to remove oil /grease, sediment, trash, and debris prior to entering the ditches. The plant palette proposed for the restoration areas includes species known to favor the existing and proposed hydrologic conditions on -site. Restoration plantings would be established using container stock and seed. Tree and shrub species would be planted as container stock. Herbaceous species, as well as some shrub species, would be planted as seed. Restoration plantings would be subject to irrigation during the initial establishment. This irrigation would be slowly reduced over the first two or three years of the Project in order to allow the plantings to become self- sustaining. The seeding and planting of container stock would take place between October 1 and February 1 to take advartage of the winter rainy season, dormancy of foliage, and rooting period to ensure optimum survival of plantings. Planting Plan The restored bottom of Ditch A and the wetland terraces created adjacent to Ditches A and B would be planted with an alkali meadow plant community. The water quality basins and surrounding areas would be planted with an alkali meadow /marsh community. These plant communities were selected using information gathered during site visits and from general knowledge of local plant corr unities. Plant Palette Restoration of Ditch A and creation of wetland terraces would provide approximately 0.53 acre of alkali meadow /marsh habitat at the Project site. In addition, the CNPS List 1 B southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) and CNPS List 4 woolly sea -blite (Suaeda taxifolia) would be transplanted in portions of these terraces along both Drainage Ditches A and B. The alkali meadow /marsh plant community planned for the bottom of Ditch A and the terraces would incorporate the following species: FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.6 -24 Biological Resources 0 n 0 U u J 0 U BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) o L, Alkali bulrush (Scirpus maritimus) L o Alkali heath (Frankenia salina) o Yerba mansa (Anemopsis californica) o .. Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus, L r , o Clustered field -sedge (Carex praegracilis) o Alkali ryegrass (Leymus triticoides) o Douglas Baccharis (Baccharis douglasii) L, o Brewer's saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis brewen) o Spreading rush (Juncus patens) o Parish's glassword (Arthrocnemum subterminale) o Woolly sea -blite (Suaeda taxifolia) o Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) L The creation of wetland habitat within and surrounding the water quality basins would provide approximately 2.10 acres of alkali meadow /marsh habitat at the Project site. The southern tarplant and woolly sea - blite would also be transplanted to the areas within and surrounding these basins. The alkali meadow /marsh plant community planned for the basins would incorporate the following species: When possible, seed and cuttings from on -site vegetation or nearby sources would [j be utilized to produce the seed and container stock for the plantings. In the case of the woolly sea -blite and the southern tarplant, seed collection would occur on site to preserve the existing population. Seed and propagule collection would be coordinated with Project -site clearing and grubbing in order to ensure that use of on- site resources is maximized. Indirect Impacts Associated with Flood Control Features Grading would create basins adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B. The basins � would detain water for up to 48 hours during significant storm events. The infrequent Ll ponding with only limited duration would not have a measurable impact on the FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -25 Biological Resources o Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) �j o Southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus leopoldi►) o Alkali bulrush (Scirpus maritimus) o Saltmarsh heliotrope (Heliotropum curssivicum) o Alkali heath (Frankenia salina) o Yerba mansa (Anemopsis californica) r : o Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus) o Spreading rush (Juncus patens) o Clustered field -sedge (Carex praegracilis) o Alkali ryegrass (Leymus triticoides) A o Douglas baccharis (Baccharis douglasit) 1 o Parish's glasswort (Arthrocnemum subterminale) o Brewer's saltbush (Athplex lentiformis brewen) j o Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) U o Emory's baccharis (Baccharis emoryi) o Western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) o Woolly sea -blite (Suaeda taxifolia) U o Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) When possible, seed and cuttings from on -site vegetation or nearby sources would [j be utilized to produce the seed and container stock for the plantings. In the case of the woolly sea -blite and the southern tarplant, seed collection would occur on site to preserve the existing population. Seed and propagule collection would be coordinated with Project -site clearing and grubbing in order to ensure that use of on- site resources is maximized. Indirect Impacts Associated with Flood Control Features Grading would create basins adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B. The basins � would detain water for up to 48 hours during significant storm events. The infrequent Ll ponding with only limited duration would not have a measurable impact on the FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -25 Biological Resources G, ows� A BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR hydrology of the drainage ditches. As such, there would be no indirect impacts associated with creation of the flood control functions adjacent to the ditches. (� Indirect Impacts Associated with Water Quality Features U In addition to providing flood control, the graded basins would provide water quality functions as dry- weather nuisance flows and first flush flows would be directed onto the terraces adjacent to the drainage ditches. Existing dry- weather and storm flows O that currently discharge into Drainage Ditch B would continue as in the existing condition. As such, there would be no indirect impacts associated with creation of the water quality functions associated with the basins. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers No Corps jurisdiction is present on the project site. The Corps Los Angeles District Office issued a letter on August 1, 2001 stating that the project is not subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and would not require a Section 404 permit (Exhibit 6 of the Biological Technical Report, included as (� Appendix 15.5 of this EIR). �J California Department of Fish and Game U Implementation of the project would result in the loss of 0.11 acre of CDFG jurisdiction associated with the artificial man -made Drainage Ditch C. Although not considered significant, loss of this ditch would be considered adverse before mitigation. With mitigation, loss of this artificial feature would be fully mitigated and not considered adverse. Regional Water Quality Control Board If the RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over Drainage Ditch C, a Waste Discharge IJ Requirement (WDR) permit would be required for the loss of 0.11 acre of waters of t--1 the state. The loss of this ditch would not be considered significant but would be considered adverse before mitigation. With mitigation, loss of this artificial feature !� would be fully mitigated and not considered adverse. �J California Coastal Commission 0 Drainage Ditch C exhibits minimal aquatic function and does not exhibit criteria that u would be consistent with the Coastal Act definition of a wetland. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.6 -4 Cumulative development (including the proposed Project) in the Project area may impact the area's biological resources. Analysis has concluded that Project implementation would not result in significant biological impacts with implementation of the specified mitigation. When viewed in conjunction with other major developments planned for the City of Seal Beach, the loss of southern tarplant or woolly sea -blite and other native vegetation, as well as the loss of wildlife habitat could be considered a negative FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.6 -26 Biological Resources a. r L BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR cumulative effect. However, cumulative impacts to the southern tarplant (385 individuals) would be mitigated to a less than significant level. While impacts to the woolly sea -blite (12 individuals) are not considered significant due to the fact that the species is widespread and is associated with the man -made drainage ditch, r' � +{,�+ imn�r ,. i � would be r e d uce d to less than mitigation measures wound e a that ,,,, �� L significant levels. r ' Potential impacts would be site specific and an evaluation of potential impacts would U be conducted on a project -by- project basis. This would be especially true of those developments located in areas that contain sensitive species and habitat. Each incremental developments would be required to comply with all applicable State, Federal and City regulations concerning the preservation of biological resources. In consideration of these regulations, potential cumulative impacts upon biological r , resources would not be considered significant. MITIGATION MEASURES L This section directly corresponds to the identified Impact Statements in the impacts subsection. (; SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 5.6 -1 a In order to mitigate adverse impacts to 385 individual of southern tarplant, a translocation program has been developed. Plants shall be translocated on -site to the terraces adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B. 5.6 -1 b The woolly sea -blite species shall be incorporated into plantings on the L terraces adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT u 5.6 -2 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, there is no environmentally sensitive habitat on -site. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OR RESOURCES r • + 5.6 -3 Mitigation for impacts to 0.11 acre of CDFG and potential RWQCB U jurisdiction shall be provided through creation of approximately 2.52 acres r•, of wetland habitat on the terraces adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B, as well as within two water quality treatment basins at the site. The L terraces and basins would be planted with native hydrophytes appropriate for the hydrological conditions expected for the terraces, resulting in a 23:1 mitigation ratio. � CUMULATIVE f� U 5.6 -4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, implementation of the wetland restoration plan and mitigation measures protecting the southern tarplant and woolly sea - blite would reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -27 Biological Resources BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential Biological Resource impacts to a less than significant level. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.6 -28 Biological Resources L 'f L BOEINGS ECIFIC PROJECT EIR 5.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES The purpose of the Cultural Resources Section is to identify cultural resources existina on the property and to assess the significance of such resources. Mitigation measures are recommended to preserve and /or to protect the resources. The analysis in this Section has been prepared in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which considers potential impacts to prehistoric, historic and paleontological resources. This Section is based upon a literature review and site investigation conducted by KEA Environmental (dated May 2000 and included in Appendix 15.6, Cultural Resources Assessment), which reviewed the west side of the Boeing site that is currently undeveloped. This study was conducted in consideration of the original Pacific Gateway Project which would have developed only the western portion of the project site. Much of the project area east of the Pacific Gateway project area has been disturbed by development which includes structures and paved surfaces. L EXISTING CONDITIONS The territory surrounding and including the Project Area was originally composed of Quaternary alluvium floodplain, deposited primarily by the meandering San Gabriel L j River and other rivers of the Los Angeles Basin. During the Holocene period, seldom did these rivers discharge their waters into the sea, rather thewaters spread over the country, filling the depressions in the surface, and forming lakes, ponds, and marshes. The dispersion of these rivers provided for a variety of biotic resources, which included saltmarsh /estua freshwater marsh riparian woodland herbland- ry, p , grassland, coastal sage scrub, southern oak woodland, and beach - strand. These habitats provided an ideal environment for the Native American group, the Gabrieleno to not only exist but also flourish developing high population density villages with elaborate social, political, and technological systems. At the time the Spanish made contact with the Gabrieleno in 1769, the Gabrieleno territory extended north of San Fernando Mission to Aliso Creek continuing south of Laguna Beach. They extended east to west from Topanga Canyon to San Bernardino. In 1771, the Mission San Gabriel de Archangel was founded. By 1781, the project area was likely abandoned by the Gabrieleno with the founding of the pueblo of Los L Angeles as the Spanish quickly destroyed the Gabrieleno culture and reduced their population with disease. Eventually the remaining Gabrieleno population would be subjugated as cheap labor on the margins of pueblos and ranchos of New Spain or slave -like labor at the missions. When Mexico obtained its independence from Spain in 1821, half of the mission Li L i lands were to be given back to the Native American tribes as part of the secularization of the missions. However, during this time, ranching was becoming a lucrative industry in the area and as a result, Mexico began issuing land grants in order to encourage settlement of the area. Ultimately, the Native American U population received virtually none of the land promised to them as part of the secularization. Li FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.7 -1 Cultural Resources __� BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT EIR In 1784, Jose Manuel Perez Nieto, who was a retired Spanish soldier who had made the march from Baja California to help found San Diego in 1769, received a land grant near San Gabriel Mission, from his former commanding officer, Pedro Fages (by then the Governor of Alta California). Fages provided Nieto with another land grant,i%7.1796, bringing . Nieto's holdi to over 300,000 acres. -Even after Nieto lost a dispute with the mission in which he was left with 167,000 acres, Nieto had received the largest Spanish or Mexican grant in California, which included the current Boeing Project site. Nieto eventually passed away in 1804, and the property came under the control of Abel Sterns in 1829. During this time, sheep and cattle ranching were the primary industries for the area with agriculture becoming increasingly dominant. The surrounding area began to become more developed and urbanized beginning with the early 20 Century as Anaheim Bay became an important port for shipping produce from the German colony at Anaheim and the area became a popular resort destination. Eventually with the onset of World War II, the area witnessed the development of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station and the tradition continued into the Cold War with the development of the Rockwell facility in order to assist with aircraft and rocket production. CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ELEMENT In August of 1992, the City of Seal Beach adopted an Archaeological and Historical Element as part of the City General Plan This Element describes methods for protecting archaeological and historical resources, and also includes local policies to guide implementation of cultural resource preservation, beyond the protection afforded by applicable Federal, State and local laws. Some of the most important requirements set forth in the element specify that the appointment of archaeological consultants be made by the City Council, that cultural resource evaluations include a literature search from the City of Seal Beach Baseline Survey and a Cultural Resources Record Quick Check, and that mitigation plans be prepared consistent with the element's Research Design Document requirements. Section 1.A of the City of Seal Beach General Plan, Archaeological and Historical Element states, "All currently undeveloped (italics added) properties within the boundaries of the City of Seal Beach shall be required to be researched and surveyed for archaeological sites, remains, artifacts, ecofacts, archeological places, and historical structures and places..." As previously noted, the KEA archaeological study addresses the west side of the Boeing site in accordance with the Pacific Gateway proposal, while the current project now includes the entire 107.5 -acre Boeing site. However, as noted in Section 1.A of the City of Seal Beach General Plan, since the remainder of the Boeing site has already been developed, archaeological study would be impossible as the land has already been disturbed by construction and grading and for the most part is capped by buildings and asphalt parking lots. RECORDS SEARCH A records search of the entire City of Seal Beach was conducted at the Archaeological Information Center at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) by FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.7 -2 Cultural Resources m u 'u' u u 111 L ___ReaA • BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Environmental Research Archaeologists, a consultant to the City, in January 1991. This document entitled A Baseline Archaeological Study for the City of Seal Beach, L reports that a number of important archaeological sites have been recorded in 1958 by a survey conducted in 1958 by Peter Redwine. However, from existing documents, - does -not appear that the Redwine survey - encompassed the Boeing property considered here. Some confusion exists regarding the precise locations of the Redwine series of Landing Hill sites. But two of the sites recorded by Redwine are believed to be adjacent to the project site, one just west of the site and another recorded south of Adolfo de Lopez Drive adjacent to the southernmost point of the project area. However, the Baseline Archaeological Study does not identify cultural 1 resource sites at the subject property. L� FIELD SURVEY KEA's field survey for the original Pacific Gateway Business Center took place on the L 13 and 10 of January and on the 21 of Jan 2000. To conduct the fieldwork the team formed a line with a survey interval of 5 m (16 foot) between L archaeologists. The field team walked the project area in a systematic fashion examining the soil for signs of human occupation. When artifacts or shell fragments were observed, the research team dispersed in an attempt to identify the boundaries of the deposits. When these boundaries were identified, they were flagged. Then the team moved on to continue the survey. After the parcel had been surveyed, KEA began to record the sites that they had Lj encountered. Since the sites consisted primarily of prehistoric shell, (or in two cases, historic glass sherds), The KEA team worked to assess the relative densities of these items. Archaeologist were able to count the number of shell fragments every 5 meters in a 1 by 1 meter square from a central 2 by 2 meter square in the apparent center of each posited site until the shell count dropped to zero. L Munsell soil color samples were also taken in the center of each site, and index samples were taken in what is believed to be neutral sites that contained no archaeological resources nearby. These samples were taken in order to find midden L soil that is the darker soil associated with archaeological sites due to the increased organic material deposited during human occupation over time. L I A very low- density scatter of cultural materials was observed over most of the parcel along with specific localities of high- density. Sites were identified on the basis of shell distribution densities and soil color. The survey resulted in the discovery of seven prehistoric sites, one of which also contained a historic component, and one C; historic site. The prehistoric deposits consist primarily of scattered culturally deposited marine shell fragments. Clam (Chione) and scallop (Pectin /Argopectin) dominated the shell assemblages. Very few groundstone fragments and L hammerstones were also noted. The historic materials consist of very low- density historic glass and ceramic scatters in the northern part of the project area. KEA has determined that the historic refuse deposits are not significant but that the prehistoric L sites may be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. f L r , L FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.7 -3 Cultural Resources BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR RESULTS AND FINDINGS Two major archaeological studies have been completed for areas surrounding and /or including the project area. A records search of the entire City of Seal Beach was conducted at the Archaeological Information Center at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) by Environmental Research Archaeologists, a consultant to the City, in January 1991. This document, entitled A Baseline Archaeological Study for the City of Seal Beach (Stickel 1991) was part of the effort to create the 1992 Archaeological and Historical Element of the City General Plan. The most substantial archaeological research in the vicinity of the proposed project was undertaken on Landing Hill. In late 1954, Professor William J. Wallace, then of the University of Southern California (USC) was notified by one of his students that several prehistoric sites were endangered by development of the Landing Hill area. Jack Collins, the student who first called it to professor Wallace's attention, Roger Desautels, who would go on to form Scientific Resource Surveys (SRS), and Peter Redwine surveyed the area. They discovered and documented 10 archaeological sites; Redwine produced a report of the survey in 1958. Evidently, portions of the Redwine survey are quite close to the current project in the area just south and east of the Boeing track. However, some confusion exists regarding the precise locations of the Redwine series of Landing Hill sites. Much of the area has been reconfigured into terraces by mass grading and developed into residential housing. One of the sites recorded by Redwine, CA -ORA -265 is recorded just west of the project area, while another, CA -ORA -264 was recorded south of Adolfo de Lopez Drive adjacent to the southernmost point of the project area. ® Site CA -ORA -265 Site CA -ORA -265 was recorded by Redwine as LH10. From the surface of the site, he recovered whole or fragments of 12 manos, 5 mortars, 2 pestles, 1 medium -sized hammerstone, 1 projectile point, 2 blades, 1 scraper plane, 1 scraper, 1 steatite bowl, 1 charmstone, 1 incised stone, 1 fossil bone, 1 utilized flake ( "worked chip "), and 2 rubbing stones. o Site CA -ORA -264 Site CA -ORA -264, was originally recorded by Redwine as LH9 which contained the following surface assemblage; 3 millingstones, 14 manos, 2 mortars, 6 pestles, 3 medium -sized hammerstones, 1 polishing stone, 1 cornal (cooking slab), and 1 utilized flake. A Pacific Coast Archaeological Society site form also lists a pelican stone, a cogged stone, and a medicine tube from a private collection. These are rare, but thought to be characteristic of Late Prehistoric deposits. Redwine also noted five fragments of human bone, possibly representing two individuals (York et al. 1997:30). In subsequent excavation, Desautels revealed the existence of subsurface cultural deposits as deep as 140 cm. Several sites tested in the area (CA -ORA -264, -60, and — 263/852) had non -shell bearing midden deposits underlying the shell midden, suggesting a dramatic change in subsistence (York et al. 1997). In 1996, Stickel (1996) conducted a detailed survey of the Hellman Ranch property south of the Boeing parcel and expanded the boundary of CA -ORA -265 outward from the Redwine boundary by a considerable distance, recognizing lower density shell deposits within the confines of the site. Stickel did not examine the Boeing property, but by projections the bounds of the lower density scatter around CA -ORA -265 FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.7 -4 Cultural Resources f: I ' 11 U L L L" L L. L' v Ci o� ���eCC.�� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR would at one time have extended into the Boeing parcel. However, this part of the Boeing property appears to have been graded (cut) during construction activities. T here Landing Hill sites n ear the project area are relatively -complex--and probab represent long -term seasonal villages or base camps. Their elevation between 25 and 35 feet above the mean seal level (AMSL) would allow occupation during the wet season, whereas low lying areas like the project area, averaging about five feet AMSL, would be inundated during wet winters. The complex assemblages and deep middens of Landing Hill sites contrast with typical floodplain occupations. The latter tend to be low- to moderate - density shell deposits with rather few other cultural materials. Prehistoric camps in low -lying areas would presumably represent numerous short-term occupations focused on collecting resources from the surrounding floodplain environment. Important resources in this area might include various roots and tubers, cattails, tules, sedges, and, of course, shellfish. Collecting these kinds of resources may required the skillful use of a digging stick, but the kinds of stone and bone tools that tend to survive in an archaeological deposit are not necessary and they are not often encountered in these sites. POTENTIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN PROJECT AREA The sites discovered in the project area consist of low- to moderate - density shell deposits composed primarily of fragments of Chione fluctifragea, C. undatella, (small bay clams with no common name) and Argopectin aequisulcatus, (speckled scallop). A few specimens of Crepidula onyx (slipper shell), Polinices reclusianus (southern moon snail), and Ostrea lurida (native oyster) were also noted in some sites. The native oyster and slipper shell grow on rocks in protected waters of the low to middle tidal zone. Chione and Argopectin grow primarily in mud and sand flats of bays and estuaries. Seven discrete shell deposits, one with a historic component, and one historic deposit were identified during the systematic survey of the project area. They were given field designations: B -1, through B -8. In keeping with California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines (1995), prehistoric sites with historic components are designated by /H (e.g., B -4 /1-1), while historic sites are designated by an H (e.g., B- 5H). Site B -1 . Site B -1 is a low- density shell deposit composed primarily of fragments of Chione (a small bay clam with no common name) and Argopectin aequisulcatus (speckled scallop); both of these species are commonly found in Archaic period shell middens. The highest density was nine specimens /square meter. The site measured approximately 13m diameter. The site soil was grayish brown (10YR 5/2). Nearby sterile soil was a light brownish gray (10YR 6/2). These soils were composed primarily of indurated silt, with small amounts of fine sand. It was not possible to determine if subsurface deposits are likely to exist. Site B -2 . Site B -2 is large, low- to moderate - density shell deposit composed primarily of fragments of Chione and Argopectin. A few specimens of Crepidula onyx (slipper shell) and Ostrea lurida (native oyster) were also noted. The highest density was 22 specimens /square meter. The site measured approximately 62 m north - south by 58 m east -west. The site soil was dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2). Nearby L " FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.7 -5 Cultural Resources BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR sterile soil was a light brownish gray (10YR 6/2). These soils were composed . primarily of indurated silt, with small amounts of fine sand. An examination of ground squirrel holes suggests that this site does have a subsurface component greater than 30 cm deep. Site B -3 . Site B -3 is a low- density shell deposit composed primarily of fragments of Chione and Argopectin. Some specimens appeared to have been burned. The highest density was 12 specimens /square meter. The shell count increased as one approached Parking Lot 2, suggesting that parts of the site may have been capped by the parking lot, and perhaps by Westminster Avenue as well. The portion of the site that remains visible measured approximately 32 m northeast - southwest by 20 m southeast - northwest. The site soil was grayish brown (10YR 5/2). Nearby sterile soil was a light brownish gray (10YR 6/2). These soils were composed primarily of indurated silt, with small amounts of fine sand, typical of low energy, floodplain deposits. An examination of ground squirrel holes suggests that a subsurface component greater than 30 cm deep exists at this site. Site 13-4 /1-1 Site 13-4 /H is a multicomponent site consisting of a surface prehistoric shell deposit, a subsurface shell deposit and a surface historic deposit. The prehistoric surface component consists primarily of fragments of Chione and Argopectin. A few specimens of Crepidula onyx (slipper shell) and Ostrea lurida (native oyster) were also noted. The highest observed density was 5 specimens /square meter. These prehistoric shell fragments appear to continue under Westminster Avenue just north of the project area beyond the project area into the drainage canal and across the drainage canal off the northeast corner of the parcel. The prehistoric portion of the site measured approximately 53 m east -west by 33 m north - south. The site soil was pale brown (10YR 6/3). Nearby sterile soil was a similar color. These soils were composed primarily of fine, loose silt, with small amounts of fine sand. An examination of the walls of the drainage canal (out of the project area) revealed the presence of a substantial subsurface component separated from the surface deposit by a sterile stratum of approximately 70 cm. This component appeared to a lenticular stratum composed of perhaps 150 or more specimens /square meter. It appears to be only 10 to 20 cm thick. However, it was difficult to discern because the drainage canal was partially armored with cobbles and boulders in this area. The historic component consists primarily of small sherds of historic bottle glass. Colors include solarized amethyst, amber, clear, and light green. Most glass sherds have caliche stain. The historic component also contains a few small sherds of historic ceramics. There is no indication that the historic component has depth. This historic refuse scatter may be associated with the previous Hellman Ranch headquarters, approximately 0.5 miles south. Site 13-51-1 Site B -5H consists of a surface scatter of historic bottle glass distributed along Westminster Avenue. The site measured 32 m east -west by 17 m north - south. The deposit consists primarily of small sherds of historic bottle glass. Colors include solarized amethyst, amber, clear, dark green, and light green. Most glass sherds have caliche stain. There are also a few small sherds of historic ceramics. A few pieces of lime -based concrete with smooth, round reinforcing bar are also present. There is no indication that this historic site has depth, but thedeposit may continue FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.7 -6 Cultural Resources L BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR under Westminster Avenue. Observed density was up to four specimens /square L meter. This historic refuse scatter may be associated with the previous Hellman Ranch headquarters, approximately 0.5 miles south. Site B-6 Site B-6 is a very large, low- to high - density shell deposit composed primarily of fragments of Chione and Argopectin. Some specimens of Crepidula onyx (slipper shell), Polinices reclusianus (southern moon snail), and Ostrea lurida (native oyster) were also noted. The site measured approximately 400 m north- south by 200 m east -west. The site consists of four loci, numbered 1 through 4. The highest observed shell density in Locus 1 was 21 specimens /square meter. The soil in this area was grayish brown silt (10YR 5/2). The highest density in Locus 2 U was 71 specimens /square meter. The soil in this locus was approximately the same in Locus 1. In Locus 3 and 4, the soil was dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) fine sandy silt. The highest observed density in Locus 3 was 31 specimens /square meter, while f the highest observed density in Locus 4 was 92 specimens /square meter. Some U specimens in Locus 4 appeared to have been burned. A mano was noted between Locus 1 and Locus 4. This specimen, made of ellipsoid, red -brown river cobble, had crushing and chipping on its ends suggesting use as a hammerstone as well as a grinding implement. West of the track, was what appeared to be a cluster of possible Anasazi black on white pottery sherds. Because Puebloan ceramics are very rare on the southern California coast, these sherds were collected and sent to Dr. Kelley Hays - Gilpin of the department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University. She initially thought they might be Puebloan, but upon closer scrutiny under magnification, she identified the material as floor tile similar to what is humorously known in northern Arizona as NTUA Black on White. In the 1940's and 50's, the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) used a white floor tile in their housing projects. It was installed using a black, asphaltum -based mastic and a notched trowel, which spread the mastic into black striations on the bottom of the white tile. This superficially looks like Puebloan r ; Black on White wares especially when only small sherds of the tile area available. In l other words, what was initially thought might be Puebloan pottery consisted of small sherds of relatively modern floor tile. r L South of Locus 1 and east of Locus 2 is an expanse of fill material composed of pale brown fine sand and silt (10YR 6/2). Since shell was noted beyond the fill area near buildings 91 and 89, it is reasonable to assume that the site exists under the fill. L An examination of ground squirrel holes suggests that this site does have a subsurface component greater than 40 cm deep in the Locus 4 area. The existence of subsurface material in other loci is unknown. At the south end of the site, the soil surface is obscured by a deep layer of mulch, chipped vegetation, and palm fronds. This area measured approximately 200 by 100 mm. Ground visibility was better along the east -west trending drainage ditch in this area. Shell was noted on both sides of this drainage. The highest observed shell density on the south side of the drainage was four specimens /square meter. Shell was also encountered in the site area all along the fence that forms the west boundary of the Boeing parcel, between j it and the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. U Site B -7 . Site B -7 is a low- density shell deposit composed primarily of fragments of Chione and Argopectin. The site was located at the south end of the Boeing compound in an area where mulch and palm fronds covers much of the soil surface. L FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.7 -7 Cultural Resources BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The highest observed density was 12 specimens /square meter, but soil visibility was very limited in this area. The shell count increased as one approached the south fence of the Boeing compound, suggesting that the site may extend into that area. The visible portion of the site measured approximately 25 m east -west by 12 m north - south. The site soil .vas grayish brown (10YR 5/2). Nearby sterile soil was a light brownish gray (10YR 6/2). These soils were composed primarily of indurated silt, with small amounts of fine sand. There is no evidence upon which to suggest whether or not a subsurface deposit exists. South - southwest of Site B -6, some 150 m, at the southernmost point of the project area is one of the sites recorded by Redwine in 1958: LH9, or CA -ORA -264. This site is recorded south of Adolfo de Lopez Drive. The adjacent area within the Boeing parcel was examined, but it appears to have been recontoured and no sign of the site was discovered during fieldwork. Site B -8 . Site B -8 is a low- density shell deposit composed primarily of fragments of Chione and Argopectin. This site is located at the south end of the Boeing compound and the easternmost point of the project area. This was a plowed area with excellent ground visibility. The highest observed shell density was 16 specimens /square meter. The shell distribution appeared to continue north beyond the fence into the Boeing compound. The site measured approximately 22 m in diameter. The site soil was grayish brown (10YR 5/2). Nearby sterile soilwas a light brownish gray (10YR 6/2). These soils were composed primarily of indurated silt, with small amounts of fine sand. The existence of subsurface deposit is unknown at this time. East of Site B -8 approximately 45 m is a site previously recorded by Redwine in 1958: Site LH10 or CA -ORA -265. This site is recorded just upslope of the project property. This area appears to have been recontoured. No sign of the site was seen during the fieldwork. IMPACTS The purpose of this analysis is to identify any potential cultural resources within or adjacent to the Project area, and to assist the Lead Agency in determining whether such resources meet the official definitions of "historical resources ", as provided in the California Public Resource Code, in particular CEQA. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA According to Appendix G, the Initial Study Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would typically have a significant impact on cultural resources if the project would cause one or more of the following to occur. o Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (refer to Impact Statements 5.7 -1); o Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (refer to Impact Statement 5.7 -1); ® Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (Impact Statement 5.7 -2); and /or FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.1 -8 Cultural Resources L L L. L" L L f. C l: r� L 1: BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (refer to Section 5.7 -3). Based on these standards, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as eith a- "less than - jigni flcant- impact" or a "potentially significant impact ". If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of goals, policies, standards or mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact. The standards used to evaluate the significance of impacts are often qualitative rather than quantitative because appropriate quantitative standards are either not available for many types of impacts or are not applicable for some types of projects. ARCHAEOLOGICALMISTORICAL RESOURCES 5.7 -1 Implementation of the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to archaeological and /or historical resources on site. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The field survey conducted within the project area resulted in the identification of eight previously unrecorded archaeological sites. Seven of these are prehistoric shell deposits; one of these has a historic component. One site is a historic period site. However, the historic period deposits (viz., the historic component of B-4 /H and historic site B -5H) do not appear to have notable information to contribute to the understanding of local or regional history. The location of this material has been noted. No further research is recommended at these sites. The prehistoric sites may have important information to contribute to the understanding of regional prehistory. Sites B -2, B-3, B-4 /H, and Locus 4 of B -6 have demonstrable subsurface components. At site B -4 /H, a cultural stratum was discovered in a drainage canal cut below approximately 70 cm of sterile soil. Development of the proposed project therefore has the potential to disturb or destroy prehistoric archaeological resources. However, substantial integrity issues exist with regards to the sites recorded on the Boeing parcel. First, it appears that most of the project area was marshy in 1873, suggesting that shell might occur naturally on site and calling into question the suitability of the parcel for prehistoric human occupation. In considering this, it is noted that Holocene alluviation in lagoonal situations was not a uniform, unilineal process. Rather, lagoon -edge marshes were subject to periodic cycles of flushing and deposition, which often resulted in an undulating terrain with minor hillocks and wet areas. Slightly raised areas might have served as opportunistic shellfish processing areas for the inhabitants of the nearby Landing Hill sites. Second, it appears that part of Landing Hill was cut during construction, and this could have resulted in the redeposition of some cultural materials within the parcel. Third,in situ materials would probably have been subjected to some degree of construction - related disturbance at or near the natural grade. However, it is not clear that this damage would be so great as to diminish the integrity of the archaeological sites to a degree that they would not meet the National Register criteria. Moreover, the shell lens buried at a depth of 70 cm in site B -4 /H would indicate the potential forburied sites that escaped damage during construction. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.7 -9 Cultural Resources BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Thus, it is not possible to judge the full extent of the disturbances or the quantity and quality of the in -place artifact - bearing deposits without an archaeological testing program of scientific excavations to determine the current depth, breath, and content of the site. In order to determine whether the Project would have an effect on the prehistoric sites, a testing program should be undertaken to document the soil deposition history in site areas and to determine the surface and subsurface extent of these deposits, their dates of occupation, their functions within the prehistoric economic and settlement systems, and their overall significance and integrity. Development of the proposed project therefore has the potential to disturb or destroy prehistoric archaeological resources. Recommended mitigation measures would ensure proper monitoring of project grading activities and testing of any resources found as a result of project development. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.7 -2 Implementation of the proposed Project could impact paleontological resources that may exist on -site but have not been documented. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project site could yield fossil remains, which are valuable for paleo- biological, paleo- environmental, and paleo - climatological studies. Grading could lead to the loss of valuable fossil resources and limit scientific knowledge regarding the geologic past of the site and surrounding area. Of note is the fact that grading associated with the Project could unearth fossil resources, which may not have ever been discovered otherwise. The potential loss or destruction of fossil resources and the concomitant loss of scientific knowledge is considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA and mitigation measures are recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. BURIAL SITES 5.7 -3 Implementation of the proposed Project may disturb unknown locations of human remains. Implementation of the recommended mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Human remains in a previously unknown burial site could potentially be encountered during construction activities associated with the proposed Project. Any alterations to human remains associated with Project implementation would be considered a significant adverse impact. However, implementation of the mitigation which details the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered would reduce impacts in this regard to a less than significant level. Due to the discovery of human remains on the nearby Hellman Ranch properties, there is an increased potential for the discovery of unknown locations for human remains on the subject property. Mitigation procedures have been identified that would be required based on the compliance issues raised on the Hellman Ranch /John Laing Homes project to the south. The procedures have been utilized at the Hellman Ranch site in consultation with the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.7 -10 Cultural Resources L BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR mitigate the impacts to the discovery of any unknown human remains. Mitigation involves a "Mitigation Plan," should a significant number of unknown human remains be encountered during the test phase and construction grading monitoring on the Boeing property. CUMULATIVE 5.7 -4 Cumulative development may adversely affect cultural resources. (� Resources are evaluated and mitigated on a project -by- project basis. Potential impacts would be site specific and an evaluation of potential impacts would u be conducted on a project -by- project basis. This would be especially true of those developments located in area that contain prehistoric archaeological /historical resources. Each incremental development would be required to comply with all applicable State, Federal and City regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources. In consideration of these regulations, potential L cumulative impacts upon cultural resources would not be considered significant. MITIGATION MEASURES The section directly corresponds to the identified Impact Statements in the impacts subsection. ARCHAEOLOGICALMISTORICAL RESOURCES 5.7 -1a Sites B -2, B- 3, _6 -4 /H and Locus 4 of B -6 . The Project Applicant shall (i retain a qualified, City approved archaeologist to conduct archaeological testing in order to determine the depth, breadth, and nature of the contents of Sites B -2, B -3, B-4 /1-1, and Locus 4 of B -6 and whether or not L i they qualify as historical resources. 5.7 -1 b A "Test Phase ", as described in the Archaeological and Historical Element of the City General Plan shall be performed by the City selected L l archaeologist, and if potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, a "Research Design document" must be prepared by the City selected archaeologist in accordance with the provisions of the Archaeological and Historical Element of the General Plan. The results of the test phase investigation must be presented to the Archaeological Advisory Committee for review and recommendation to the City Council for review and approval prior to earth removal or disturbance activities in the impacted area of the proposed project. 5.7 -1 c Project - related earth removal or disturbances activity is not authorized L until such time as the "Research Design" investigations and evaluations are completed and accepted by the City Council, a Coastal Development r Permit is issued by the California Coastal Commission and until a written "Authorization to Initiate Earth Removal- Disturbance Activity is issued by the City of Seal Beach Director of Development Services to applicant for the impacted area of the proposed project. U u FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.7 -11 Cultural Resources BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 5.7 -1d During all "test phase" investigation activities occurring on site, the City selected archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be present to conduct and observe, respectively, such "test phase" investigation activities. 5.7 -1e If the testing program determines that Sites B -2, B -3, B-4 1H and Locus 4 of B -6 qualify as historical resources as defined in CEQA guidelines Section 15064.5, final mitigation measures as defined in the Archaeological and Historical Element of the General Plan include the following if the researched site is not to be preserved in situ: o Capping or fencing of the site; o Relocation of the cultural resource for preservation; o Total excavation of the site; o Partial excavation of the site; or o Renovation or reconstruction of historic or archaeological structures. 5.7 -1f An archaeologist and a Native American Monitor appointed by the City of Seal Beach shall be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for foundations and utilities that extend below five feet of pre - grading surface elevation. If any earth removal or disturbance activities result in the discovery of cultural resources, the project proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City selected archaeologist and /or Native American Monitor, who shall immediately notify the Director of Development Services. The City selected archaeologist will have the power to temporarily halt or divert the excavation equipment in order to evaluate any potential cultural material. The City selected archaeologist shall evaluate all potential cultural findings in accordance with standard practice, the requirements of the City of Seal Beach Archaeological and Historical Element, and other applicable regulations. Consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission and data /artifact recovery, if deemed appropriate, shall be conducted. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.7 -2 If evidence of subsurface paleontologic resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the contractor shall contact the City Development Services Department. With direction from the City, an Orange County Certified Paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontologic Resource Mitigation Program. BURIAL SITES 5.7 -3a Should any human bone be encountered during any earth removal or disturbance activities, all activity shall cease immediately and the city selected archaeologist and Native American monitor shall be immediately contacted, who shall then immediately notify the Director of Development Services. The Director of the Department of Development Services shall FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.7 -12 Cultural Resources ki U L" L L r� Li L. BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR contact the Coroner pursuant to Section 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to Public Re sources Code S 5047.98. 5.7 -3b If more than one Native American burial is encountered during any earth removal or disturbance activities, a "Mitigation Plan" shall be prepared and subject to approval by the City of Seal Beach Community Development Department. The Mitigation Plan shall include the following procedures: Continued Native American Monitoring o All ground disturbance in any portions of the project area with the potential to contain human remains or other cultural material shall be monitored by a Native American representative of the MLD. Activities to be monitored shall include all construction grading, controlled grading, and hand excavation of previously undisturbed deposit, with the exception of contexts that are clearly within the ancient marine terrace that comprises most of Landing Hill. U o Exposure and removal of each burial shall be monitored by a Native American. Where burials are clustered and immediately adjacent, one monitor is sufficient for excavation of two adjoining burials. o Excavation of test units shall be monitored. Simultaneous excavation U of two test units if less than 20 feet apart may be monitored by a single Native American. o If screening of soil associated with burials or test units is done concurrently with and adjacent to the burial or test unit, the Native American responsible for that burial or test unit will also monitor the G screening. If the screening is done at another location, a separate monitor shall be required. o All mechanical excavation conducted in deposits that may contain L human remains (i.e., all areas not completely within the marine terrace deposits) shall be monitored by a Native American. L Notification Procedures for New Discoveries o When possible burials are identified during monitoring of mechanical excavation, or excavation of test units, the excavation shall be temporarily halted while the find is assessed in consultation with the lead field archaeologist. If the find is made during mechanical excavation, the archaeologist or Native American monitoring the activity shall have the authority to direct the equipment operator to stop while the find is assessed. If it is determined that the find does not constitute a burial, the mechanical excavation shall continue. � -1, FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.7 -13 Cultural Resources c; of s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o If the find is determined to be a human burial, the lead archaeologist shall immediately notify the Site Supervisor for the developer, as well as the Principal Investigator. The Principal Investigator shall immediately notify the MILD and the Director of Development Services s__ the e., I Qo�..h The r`i ii chill r nrn�iHim the Coastal Io U e Cil o Veal Me c �. T h e v Commission with weekly updates describing the finds in writing. Identification of Additional Burials o For all discovered human burials, attempts shall continue to be made to locate additional burials nearby through hand excavation techniques. This shall be done through the excavation of 1 x 1 m exploratory test units (ETUs) placed along transects extending radially from each identified burial or burial cluster. The spacing of the ETUs shall be determined upon consultation with the Project Archaeologist and the MILD. The radial transects shall be designed to test areas within 50 feet (15 m) from the edge of each burial or burial cluster. Excavation of these units shall be limited to areas containing intact cultural deposit (i.e., areas that have not been graded to the underlying marine terrace) and shall be excavated until the marine terrace deposits are encountered, or to the excavation depth required for the approved grading plan. The soil from the ETUs along the radial transects shall be screened only if human remains are found in that unit. 6 Controlled grading shall be conducted within these 50 -foot heightened investigation areas with a wheeled motor grader. The motor grader shall use an angled blade that excavates 1 to 2 inches at a pass, pushing the spoil to the side to form a low windrow. Monitors shall follow about 20 feet behind the motor grader, examining the ground for evidence of burials. ® When a burial is identified during controlled grading, the soil in windrows that may contain fragments of bone from that burial shall be screened. At a minimum this shall include the soil in the windrow within 50 feet of the burial in the direction of the grading. o If additional burials are found during controlled grading, additional ETUs will be hand excavated in the radial patterns described above. Burial Removal and Storage ® Consultation with the MILD shall occur regarding the treatment of discovered human burials. If the MLD determines it is appropriate to have discovered human remains pedestaled for removal, that activity shall be conducted in a method agreed to by the MILD. e After pedestaling or other agreed upon burial removal program is completed, the top of a burial shall be covered with paper towels to act as a cushion, and then a heavy ply plastic will be placed over the top to retain surface moisture. Duct tape shall be wrapped around the FINAL , O APRIL 2003 5.7 -14 Cultural Resources LJ I IL clikof s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR entire pedestal, securing the plastic bag and supporting the pedestal. Labels shall be placed on the plastic indicating the burial number and the direction of true north in relation to the individual burial. Sections of rebar shall be hammered across the bottom of the pedestal and r ' � + a IA/ - ., , ber � p arall I r bar sect have_. paral II ' �el to "he ground. VV het G „i.m., l r ., ...�..e..e__. sections 1� been placed this way, they shall be lifted simultaneously, cracking the pedestal loose from the ground. The pedestal shall then be pushed onto a thick plywood board and lifted onto a pallet. A forklift shall carry the pallet to a secure storage area or secure storage containers located on the subject property. L G Ll [ U L I'll Fi �I U e l� If another agreed upon burial removal program is utilized, that method shall be carried out in a manner agreed upon after consultation with the MLD. Study of Burial Remains o If the burials are removed in pedestal and are incompletely exposed, osteological studies are necessarily limited to determination (if possible) of age, sex, position, orientation, and trauma or pathology. After consultation, and only upon written agreement by the MLD, additional studies that are destructive to the remains may be undertaken, including radiocarbon dating of bone or DNA studies. If the MILD determines that only non - destructive additional studies may be allowed, one shell may be removed from each burial and submitted for radiocarbon dating. The assumption here is that the shell would have been part of the fill for the burial pit, and therefore would provide a maximum age for the burial. o The MLD may indicate a willingness to consider some additional exposure and study of the skeletal material removed from the sites. Such study would not involve removal of the remains from the project area, but rather would be undertaken near the storage area. To the extent allowed by the MLD, the bones would be further exposed within the existing pedestals or other medium containing the human remains and additional measurements taken. Consultation with the MLD regarding the feasibility of these additional studies prior to reburial would occur. Repatriation of Burials and Associated Artifacts 0 Once all portions of the project area have been graded to the underlying culturally sterile marine terrace deposits, or to the excavation depth required for the approved grading plan, the repatriation process shall be initiated for all recovered human remains and associated artifacts. Once a reburial site has been identified and prepared, the remains and associated artifacts shall be transported from the secure storage area to the site for reburial. Appropriate ceremony will be undertaken during this process at the discretion of the MLD. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.7 -15 Cultural Resources C&Tof s� BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PRO EIR Additional Studies o Considerable additional data relating to regional research issues may be uncovered if substantial numbers of human burials and other archaeological features are encountered during the construction monitoring for the development. If this occurs, additional analysis be conducted. The analysis shall be designed to more completely address the research issues discussed in the approved "Research Design ", and to provide additional mitigation of impacts to the sites in light of the new finds. The following studies would be potentially applicable: Radiocarbon Dating. In considering the implications of the burials in interpreting site use and regional settlement, it is critical to assess the time range represented by the interments. Do they correspond to the full temporal range of site use, or only a limited timeframe? Although direct dating of the bones may not possible due to the destructive nature of the radiocarbon technique, the MLD may approve the removal of a single shell from the interior of each burial for dating. Although this shall not provide a direct date of the burial, assuming the shell was part of the burial fill it should provide a maximum age (that is, the burial should not be older than the shell). In addition, an equivalent number of additional samples from non - burial contexts would also be taken for comparative purposes. These data would provide a more secure measure of the intensity of occupation during different periods. Sediment Cores. Dating results obtained to date on the Hellman Ranch /John Laing Homes properties may suggest a possible link between the use of the sites within the project area and the productivity of the adjacent lagoon and estuary systems. To assess this link using independent environmental data on the subject property, two sediment cores will be taken from suitable locations of the property. Sediments in the cores shall be examined and described in the field by a geologist, and samples collected for dating and pollen analysis. These data shall then be used to help reconstruct the habitats present on the property during the periods the sites were occupied. This analysis shall be included in the final report documenting the testing, data recovery, and construction monitoring phases of this investigation. Comparative Studies. The substantial assemblage of artifacts recovered during the monitoring on the Hellman Ranch /John Laing Homes properties provides a basis for comparison with other sites and shall contribute to an understanding of regional patterns. This analysis shall be included in the final report (see below). D 0 J '19 0 1 0 Animal Interments. Animal interments may be discovered within the project area. Because these are not human remains, ( j somewhat more intensive study is possible. Because these u FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.7 -16 Cultural Resources 0 L kJ C BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR features are uncommon and represent very culture - specific religious practices, they are useful in reconstructing cultural areas during certain times in prehistory. Analysis of animal interments will include: (1) exposure to determine burial position; (2) photo documentation; (3) examination of skeleton for age!sex; traumatic injury, pathology, butchering, or other cultural modification; (4) radiocarbon dating; and (5) examination of grave dirt for evidence of grave goods or stomach contents. Curation i L C L ri 11 I f - u r LJ o Cultural materials recovered from the cultural resources monitoring and mitigation program for the development shall be curated either at an appropriate facility in Orange County, or, in consultation with the City, at the San Diego Archaeological Center. Preparation of Final Report o The final technical report shall be prepared and submitted to the City and CCC within 12 months of the completion of the archeological field work. The report shall conform to the guidelines developed by the California Office of Historic Preservation for Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR). It will be prepared in sufficient quantity to distribute to interested regional researchers and Native American groups. It shall thoroughly document and synthesize all of the findings from all phase of the cultural resources program. Funding shall be provided by the landowner. CUMULATIVE 5.7 -4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, cumulative impacts would be mitigated on a project -by- project basis, resulting in less than significant impacts. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No significant impacts related to Cultural Resources have been identified following implementation of mitigation measures referenced in this Section. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.7 -17 Cultural Resources L U L >J i t L" I i` w s� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The purpose of this Section is describe the geologic, soil and seismic setting of the project area, identify potential impacts associated with the proposed project, and recommend mitigation measures to reduce the significance of such impacts. Information in this Section is based on a Geology and Soils Feasibility Report for the site prepared by Sladden Engineering (dated July, 2002). Refer to Appendix 15.7 for additional information. The majority of the City of Seal Beach is located within an alluvial plain that extends southward from the convergence of Coyote Creek and San Gabriel River. The two channels drain from the northeast and north respectively and the combined flow reaches the ocean at Alamitos Gap. Landing Hill, located within Seal Beach, Alamitos Heights in Long Beach and Bolsa Chica Mesa in Huntington Beach, are the major topographic features within and near the City. Due to uplifted blocks within the Newport- Inglewood fault zone elevations within the City vary from approximately sea level at the Pacific Ocean to approximately 60 feet at Landing Hill. The project site is situated in the western portion of Orange County, along the Orange County -Los Angeles County border. The site is in a highly urbanized area of the Anaheim Plain, which is the southeastern extension of the Central Plain of the Los Angeles Basin. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute topographic map of the Los Alamitos, California Quadrangle, the elevation at the project site is approximately 25 feet above mean sea level. The land surface slopes downward from the east towards the west and north. West of the project site is the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. Approximately 1,300 feet northwest of the project site is a partial man -made lagoon associated with the Haynes Electric Generating Station. The San Gabriel River is located approximately 3,000 feet west of the project site. 1gt*X VA Regional Southern California is composed of several tectonic plates which move relative to each other. The primary zone of contact between these plates is the San Andreas Fault zone, located about 60 miles north /northeast of the City of Seal Beach. The area west of the San Andreas fault is known as the Pacific Plate, which is moving north relative to the North American plate on the east side of the fault. Each large plate is composed of smaller plates, moving relative to each other. The relative movements and collisions of these plates have created structures and geomorphic features with various orientations. Li The City of Seal Beach is in the Los Angeles coastal plain of the Peninsular Ranges of southern California, made up of hills and ranges with intervening, long and narrow r ' valleys which trend northwest. Some of the higher peaks in Southern California, such as San Jacinto peak at 10,831 feet above sea level, are in the Peninsular I r• i FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.8 -1 Geology and Soils C, "-R A 0 BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 0 Ranges. Much of the coastal margin has single or multiple wide flat benches upon which the highways and coastal cities are situated. 0 The City of Seal Beach is in a zone of deformation extending from the foot of the Santa Monica Mountains near Beverly Hills, southwesterly as far as Newport Beach; ( j it is called the Newport- Inglewood belt of hills and plains. This belt is actually the surface expression of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone. The zone varies in width from one to four miles and includes a series of folds which have given rise to most of n the surface hills, plains, and mesas. The flat areas represent segments of the 4v� Pleistocene land surface that was uplifted, tilted southwest, and folded by earth movements. Local Holocene age young alluvium covers the San Gabriel River basin. The young alluvium consists of silt, sand and gravel with varying proportions of clay; the 1J proportion of gravel is generally low. Thickness of these surficial deposits does not exceed 10 feet in most places. The deposits are generally uncemented, unconsolidated and have been flooded historically. Most are considered to be cohesionless, granular, and non - gravelly. Project Site The project site is located in the southward continuation of the deep central trough of the Los Angeles Basin. The Coastal Plain is bounded on the east by the Santa Ana Mountains, on the south by the San Joaquin Hills, and to the west by the Pacific Ocean. The Coastal Plain is also bordered by the southern extension of the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone along the southwest coastline, and the El Modeno fault, which occurs at the eastern margin along the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. According to California Earthquake Fault Maps, the project site is less than one -half mile from the Seal Beach Fault and is located within the northwest - southeast trending Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone. The Seal Beach Fault has been mapped just south of the project site on old oil field maps and is believed to be responsible for the uplifted hill south of the project site. Ii �] In the Coastal Plain area, the central trough is filled with more than 20,000 feet of Middle Miocene and younger sediments. These sediments reflect both marine and nonmarine deposition, with marine sediments dominating the older, deeper strata. The younger, shallower strata are mixed marine and non - marine deposits that are topped with recent nonmarine alluvium. Freshwater - bearing sediments in the Coastal Plain reach depths of greater than 4,000 feet in some locations. In the vicinity of the project site, freshwater - bearing sediments are estimated to be on the order of 3,000 feet thick. These freshwater - bearing strata have been divided into r i three systems, the Upper, Middle and Lower aquifer systems. These systems are IiLJf typically confined, although they are interconnected in some parts of the Coastal Plain. Lateral continuity between the Upper aquifer system and recent sediments has been reported in some areas, although it is uncertain whether there is continuity between them in the vicinity of the project site. I IN FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.8 -2 Geology and Soils a i i ' P U oi*f S�WR.A BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJE EIR SOILS According to the United States Department of Agriculture (1978), three different soil series have been identified at the project site. Most of the soil is a variant of the B ois a series, either a silty loan �, or a •sil ;clay loam. SoJIs in the- B olsa Geries form on nearly level, large alluvial fans. The project site is underlain primarily by sandy silts and silty clays with scattered generally thin silty sand layers. The various sedimentary soil layers observed within the initial borings and recent cone penetration test holes were fairly consistent in stratigrapny and thickness. The most prominent near surface soils consisted of silty clays and sandy silts but silty sands were observed below a depth of 40 feet. The near surface soils were found to be somewhat inconsistent in density but generally firm or stiff. Relatively undisturbed samples obtained during the initial investigation indicated dry density varying from 61 to 118 pound per cubic foot (pcf). Laboratory testing indicated moisture content varying from 3.1 to 69.0 percent. The soils were generally saturated below a depth of 19 or 23 feet within the majority of the borings. The upper two feet is generally light- brownish, gray silty loam and is underlain by another two to three feet of silty clay loam with reddish - yellow mottles. These soils are moderately alkaline and calcareous to a depth of about 50 inches. When bare, this soil is moderately permeable with slow surface runoff and a slight erosion hazard. Part of the southern portion of the project site consists of either Myford sandy loam or Alo clay. The Myford sandy loam is a moderately, well- drained soil that generally occurs on side slopes of terraces. The upper 12 inches of soil is typically a pale brown and pinkish -gray, medium} acid, sandy loam that is underlain by six inches of brown, medium -acid, sandy clay, then 17 inches of brown, neutral and moderately - alkaline, sandy clay loam. The lower three feet of soil is a light LI brown, calcareous sandy clay loam and sandy loam that is underlain by a substratum of very pale brown, slightly -acid, sandy loam. This soil is very slowly permeable, with medium to rapid runoff and a high erosion hazard when bare. The Alo clay is a well- , drained soil forming on ridges and toe slopes and is derived from weathered calcareous sandstone and shale. A typical profile is about two feet of dark grayish brown clay with soft lime masses occurring beneath a depth of 15 inches. The underlying material is light yellowish -brown lime coated weathered shale. This soil is slightly acidic to moderately alkaline and is slowly permeable with medium runoff and moderate erosion. Y is Ll r L Two key soil characteristics affect constructability and implementation costs for development of structures on the project site. They are expansivity and compressibility. Expansive Soils For construction and development considerations, clayey loams are often classified as expansive soils. This means they can have a moderate to high shrink -swell potential. Expansive soils swell considerably when water is added to them and shrink with the loss of water. The characteristics of expansive soils depend largely on the quantity and type of clay in the soil. Shrink -swell action can cause extensive foundation problems if not treated properly during grading and construction. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) used the United States FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.8 -3 Geology and Soils �_Re=A 0 BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Department of Agriculture — Natural Resources Conservation Services (USDA NRCS) data to estimate the expansivity potential of surficial soil classifications. Laboratory classification testing indicated that the surface soils consist primarily of sandy clayey silts an silty clays but some silty sands were also encountered in j isolated areas. Expansion testing indicates expansion indices of 93 and 113 for the near surface silts and clays that correspond with the "high" expansion category as designated within Section 18 -2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The silty sands were determined to be generally non - expansive. Compressible Soils I In addition to their expansivity, soils overlying the marine and noRmarine terraces Sul classified within the Myford association may also be moderately compressible. r These soils could cause structural damage to foundations under structural loads I } unless properly addressed during the design and construction. L1 Consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples indicated that some of the soils underlying the site remain compressible and may be susceptible to detrimental settlements due to additional loading associated with structure foundations and the placement of engineered fills. FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The Los Angeles Basin in which the alluvial plain is located is one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. Each year, low and moderate intensity earthquakes occur within or near the region. Southern California is likely to experience, on average, one earthquake of Magnitude 7.0 and ten earthquakes of Magnitude 6.0 over a period of 10 years. There are several active and potentially active fault zones that could affect the project site (refer to Exhibit 5.8 -1, Fault Zones). Potentially active faults are those believed to have generated earthquakes during the Quaternary period, but prior to Holocene time. These include faults that are currently l slipping, those that display earthquake activity and those that have historical surface �J rupture. The California Division of Mines and Geology defines active faults as those which have had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). Such displacement can be recognized by the existence of sharp cliffs in young alluvium, unweathered terraces, and offset modern stream courses. Table 5.8 -1, Active Southern California Faults, indicates that among the ten active faults and fault zones identified within proximity of the site, three faults are expected to generate earthquakes of significance; these are the Newport- Inglewood, the Whittier - Elsinore and the Palos Verdes fault zones. Despite values of Magnitude 7.5 and larger, the San Andreas, Raymond, San Fernando - Sierra Madre and San Jacinto systems are of secondary consideration because of their distance from the site. Groundshaking generated along the Whittier - Elsinore and the offshore Palos Verdes fault (with ground accelerations below 0.4 g) is not expected to impact the site. � FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.8 -4 Geology and Soils r Is 4 (j 3 f in P ass , Ralmdale f �" *Sari f and0 %% I G a' 1�" _ r r • N o t�h n"d e �I r ��'QC�lE3ffa * Los Angeles to Monica • \#San 1 *RIV8f5 k 'I — L •1 Not to Scale W. F PLAN NING I DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION ■ 04103 JN 10- 101776 CONSULTING CITY OF SEAL BEACH BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Fault Zones Exhibit 5.8 -1 BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.8 -1 Active Southern California Faults Active Faults and Active Fault Zones Maximum Anticipated Magnitudes Estimated Average Peak -Acceleration During Maximum Credible Earth uake Cabrillo fault 6.5 0.15 Cucamonga fault 7.0 0.08 Malibu -Santa Monica - Raymond fault zone ( Raymond Active 7.5 0.14 Newport- In lewood fault zone 7.0 0.52 Palos Verdes fault zone 7.0 0.21 San Andreas Central 8.25 0.10 San Andreas Southern 7.75 0.07 San Fernando - Sierra Madre fault zone 7.5 0.135 San Jacinto fault zone 7.5 0.07 Whittier - Elsinore fault zone 7.5 0.25 Newport Inglewood Fault Zone The Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone is made up of several faults and fractures, extends southeast through the Los Angeles Basin. Only a few miles south - southeast from the site, north branch of the Newport- Inglewood fault (distinctly different from the fault zone), is made up of three segments; thus, the accurate location of individual fault traces is likely to be uncertain. The fault is at least 10 miles long and its relatively recent (Holocene) activity is revealed by characteristic offset stratigraphy and groundwater cutoffs in young Quaternary alluvium. The most recent activity of this fault occurred during the 1933 Long Beach Magnitude 6.2 earthquake. Exploration wells have identified a Seal Beach Fault at a depth of over 4,000 feet. The Seal Beach Fault is considered potentially active and is included in the Earthquake Fault Zones established under the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Whittier - Elsinore Fault Zone The Whittier - Elsinore Fault Zone is located approximately half way between the San Andreas Fault and the Pacific Ocean. The Elsinore fault system bounds the northern edge of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Glen Ivy North and Glen Ivy South faults are the two Elsinore system members that could affect the site. The north branch, at least 17 miles in length, indicates recent (Holocene) activity through offset stratigraphy and characteristic physiographic features. Moreover, this fault is believed to be the originator of the Magnitude 6.0 earthquake of 1910 in the area. The Whittier Fault offsets stratigraphy near the Santa Ana River. It is believed that the 1987 Whittier- Narrows Magnitude 5.9 earthquake occurred along segments of this fault, located 6 to 10 miles below the earth surface. Palos Verdes Fault The Palos Verdes Fault separates the Palos Verdes hills from the Los Angeles basin. The fault has an active offshore component crossing the San Pedro shelf. Potentially Active Faults Potentially active faults, i.e., those which show evidence of displacement during the last 2 million years, but not during the last 11,000 years, are represented in the general area of the proposed project site by the Camarillo -Simi- FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.8 -6 Geology and Soils r E l l , BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Santa Susana, Indian Hill -San Jose, Eagle Rock-San Rafael, and Mission Hills fault systems. Their effect on the overall seismicity of the proposed project site is minimal ►-.i when compared to the activity of the more recent (Holocene) faults noted above. I Ti le expected ground motion characteristics of earthquake at a given Inration depends on the distance of the source of the earthquake to the site, the characteristics of the generating fault (intensity of the earthquake and duration of shaking), and the site - specific geologic and geotechnical conditions. A site underlain by thick alluvium would experience considerably more damage because of the soil's tendency to permanently deform to a greater degree than bedrock. . F' U r , U V U L L L f� Li In order to evaluate the site seismicity, two computer programs were utilized to compile data relative to earthquake fault zones in the region and previous seismic activity that may have affected the site. E.Q. Fault Version 2.01 provides a compilation of data related to earthquake faults in the region. The program searches available databases and summarized both surface accelerations and distances to causative activity along these faults. The attenuation relationship utilized for this project was based upon Boore (1993) attenuation curves. E.Q. Search Version 2.20 provides a compilation of previous earthquake activity that may have occurred in the area of the site. In addition, the accelerations that may have been experienced in the area of the site as a result of previous earthquake activity are estimated. As indicated on the summary page of the E.Q. Fault output data in Appendix 15.7, Geology /Soils Analysis, the Newport- Inglewood fault is the closest active fault to the site (approximately 2.1 miles or 3 kilometers to the southwest). The maximum credible site acceleration is estimated to be 1.022 g while the maximum probable site acceleration is estimated to be 0.549 g. The nearest documented historic earthquake was approximately 1 mile from the site. The maximum site acceleration that has been previously experienced on the site is estimated to be 0.467 g. Liquefaction Liquefaction is the loss of strength of cohesionless soils when the pore water pressure in the soil becomes equal to the confining pressure. Liquefaction generally occurs as a "quicksand" type of ground failure caused by strong ground shaking. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soil types, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. When a soil beneath a structure liquefies, the structure loses its integrity as the ground becomes unstable. Surface soils on slopes move downward. Ground oscillation occurs on areas of flat topography. Loss of bearing strength under structures is potentially most damaging because it leads directly to losses in the strength of the structure's foundation and results in danger for people and property. In the case of the project site, several of the factors required for liquefaction to occur are present. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 19 to 23 feet below the existing ground surface within the borings and Cone Penetration Test (CPT) holes. Isolated relatively uniform grained silty sand layers were encountered within the deeper CPT test holes. The site is located near several active fault systems. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.8 -7 Geology and Soils 0 o-C (3e�e=A BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Liquefaction analyses were performed based upon commonly accepted methods initially developed by Seed (and others). Supplemental evaluation utilizing cone penetration (CPT) test results and empirically developed correlations with standard penetration test (SPT) data was also performed. The analyses indicated that the majority of the deeper sandy soils -are generally considered too dense to liquefy during the expected maximum seismic event. The majority of the site soils consist of silts and clays that are generally considered nor0iquefiable. However, the relatively shallow depth of groundwater should be considered in foundation design and site development plans. High moisture contents and the presence of shalloN groundwater will limit the effective depth of recompaction and will affect remedial grading operations and subsurface installations. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist form used during preparation of the project Initial Study as contained in Appendix 15.1 of this EIR. The Initial Study includes questions relating to geology, soils and mineral resources. The issues presented in the Initial Study Checklist have been utilized as thresholds for significance in this Section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if one or more of the following occurs: o Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: - Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Impact Statement 5.8-2); - Strong seismic ground shaking (refer to Impact Statement 5.8 -2); - Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction (refer to Impact Statement 5.8 -2); - Landslides (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); o Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (refer to Impact Statement 5.8 -1); o Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse (refer to Impact Statements 5.8 -1 and 5.8 -3); o Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 -1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (refer to Impact Statement 5.8 -1); and /or o Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.8 -8 Geology and Soils r' 1. li C+ o� �ea.Q�eccY� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR the disposal of wastewater (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant). Potential impacts associated with the project area's activity id en tif i ed .,,., Mitigatio. -region's seismic active are IUenl111G4 .,2 � �. reduce the significance of impacts. G I r U E L r� SOIL topography, soils, and the mead � r es "' are nrf�vided to 5.8 -1 Soil conditions could affect development onsite due to the expansion and compressibility potential. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project. site is underlain primarily by sandy silts and silty clays with scattered generally thin silty sand layers. The various sedimentary soil layers observed within the initial borings and cone penetration test holes were fairly consistent in stratigraphy and thickness. The most prominent near surface soils consisted of silty clays and sandy silts but silty sands were observed below a depth of 40 feet. The near surface soils were found to be somewhat inconsistent in density but generally firm or stiff. Relatively undisturbed samples obtained during the initial investigation indicated dry density varying from 61 to 118 pound per cubic foot (pcf). Laboratory testing indicated moisture content varying from 3.1 to 69.0 percent. The soils were generally saturated below a depth of 19 or 23 feet within the majority of the borings. The presence of relatively shallow groundwater and the generally high moisture content of the near surface soils would limit the depth of over excavation and recompaction that may be reasonably accomplished, resulting in less than significant impacts. Compressibility Consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples indicated that some of the soils underlying the site remain compressible and may be susceptible to detrimental settlements due to additional loading associated with structure foundations and the placement of engineered fields. Due to the somewhat inconsistent density and potentially compressible nature of the near surface soils, remedial grading is recommended for building and foundation areas, resulting in less than significant impacts. Expansion Ell Expansion testing indicates expansion indices of 93 and 113 for the near surface silts and clays that correspond with the "high" expansion category as designated within Section 18 -2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). However, the silty sands were determined to be generally non - expansive. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures for the near surface silts and clays would result in less than significant impacts. Soil Erosion r' LJ The younger alluvial deposits within two major drainage channels are highly erodible. Adverse surface drainage could promote accelerated soil erosion which could FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.8 -9 Geology and Soils BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR undermine proposed structures. This impact would be considered significant if not mitigated. Mitigation measures, involving removal and recompaction of these soils, providing adequate surface drainage away from these soils would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. SEISMIC IMPACTS 5.8 -2 Development of the proposed Project would expose people /structures to effects associated with seismic activity. Analysis has concluded that a less than significant impact would occur in this regard following compliance with the City Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code, and recommended mitigation. Implementation of the proposed Project may result in impacts regarding the exposure of people /structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with rupture of an earthquake fault. The Seal Beach Fault is considered potentially active and is included in the Earthquake Fault Zones established under the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Additionally, the Newport- Inglewood fault is the closest active fault to the site which could produce a maximum credible site acceleration of 1.022 g while the maximum probable site acceleration is estimated to be 0.549 g. The California Uniform Building Code standard engineering designs for Seismic Zone 4 may be applied to acceleration less than 0.4g, special designs are necessary for values above 0.4g. Numerous controls would be imposed on engineering review and permitting process. development projects under the requirements Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, local project- specific mitigation measures. The compliance with the City's Municipal Code recommended mitigation and applicable City significant impact would occur. Liquefaction the proposed project through the In general, the City regulates land of the Uniform Building Code, the land use policies and zoning, and Project would also be subject to Following compliance with the and State standards, a less than Groundwater was encountered within the borings at a depth of approximately 19 feet below the existing ground surface within the borings. Based upon the prominence of silts and clays within the borings, and the generally firm condition of the sand layers encountered below the present groundwater table, the potential for liquefaction occurring at the site is negligible. In the unlikely event that liquefaction were to occur, the near surface silt and clay layers should impede the upward flow of pore - water and consequently the surficial affects of liquefaction should be limited. The proposed remedial grading would provide a uniform mat of compacted soil that should help span any subsurface subsidence related to liquefaction or seismic settlements. Based upon the investigation and analysis, liquefaction related mitigation measures, in addition to the recommended remedial grading, should not be necessary. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.8 -10 Geology and Soils L iU L" r' o DC < @Q - 9"-' '� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Ground Shaking Given the highly seismic character of the Southern California Region, moderate to severe ground shaking can be expected within the project area due to moderate to large earthquakes on-the nearby Newport- Ingle -c-od and San Andreas fault zones. The Newport- Inglewood fault is the closest active fault to the site (approximately 2.1 miles or 3 kilometers to the southwest). The maximum credible site acceleration is estimated to be 1.022 g while the maximum probable site acceleration is estimated to be 0.549 g. The nearest documented historic earthquake was approximately 1 mile from the site. The maximum site acceleration that has been previously experienced on the site is estimated to be 0.467 g. This impact would be considered significant if not mitigated. r , In order to reduce this impact to a less than significant level, all structures should be constructed in accordance with seismic design standards set forth in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.8 -3 The proposed Project, combined with future development, may result in increased short-term impacts such as erosion and sedimentation, and I rr long -term seismic impacts within the area. Mitigation is incorporated on a project -by- project basis to reduce impacts to a less than significant level in areas deemed suitable for development. Soils and geologic conditions in the project vicinity may vary by location. Short-term cumulative impacts such as erosion and sedimentation would occur. The only cumulative long -term impact related to geology is the exposure of people and the property in the vicinity of the Newport- Inglewood System to the potential for seismically induced ground shaking. Implementation of the cumulative projects would incrementally increase the number of people and structures potentially subject to a seismic event. However, such exposure would be minimized through strict engineering guidelines for development at each respective site. The cumulative effects of increased seismic risk would be mitigated to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES This section directly corresponds to the identified Impact Statements in the impacts r• subsection. SOIL r = 5.8 -1a Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall submit a final geotechnical report to the City Engineer for approval. The report shall be in a form as required by the Orange County Grading Manual, c Section 5.4 and the Orange County Excavation and Grading Code, Section 7 -1 -819. Project proponent shall reimburse City costs of independent third -party peer review of said geotechnical report. 1 It FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.8 -11 Geology and Soils Co of BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 5.8 -1 b The project proponent shall incorporate measures to mitigate expansive soil conditions, compressible /collapsible soil conditions and liquefaction soil conditions, and impacts from trenching, which measures are identified in site - specific reports prepared by the project geotechnical consultant. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis. The geotechnical consultant's site - specific reports shall be approved by a certified engineering geologist and a registered civil engineer, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5.8 -1 c All surfaces to receive compacted fill shall be cleared of existing vegetation, debris, and other unsuitable materials which should be removed from the site. Soils that are disturbed during site clearing shall be removed and replaced as controlled compacted fill under the direction of the Soils Engineer. 5.8 -1d In excavations deeper than four feet but less than ten feet, a slope no steeper than 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) shall be provided or utilization of appropriate trench and shoring methods shall occur. Steeper slopes or deeper excavations shall be provided with trench shoring and /or trench shields for stability and protection. OSHA safety requirements shall be adhered to throughout the entire duration of project earthwork. 5.8 -1 a All grading procedures, including soil excavation and compaction, the placement of backfill, and temporary excavation shall comply with City of Seal Beach standards. 5.8 -1 f Permanent cut and fill slopes shall not exceed 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). 5.8 -1 g Loose and soft alluvial soils, expansive clay soils and all existing uncertified fill materials shall be removed and replaced with compacted fill during site grading in order to prevent seismic settlement, soil expansion, and differential compaction. 5.8 -1 h During grading, tests and observations shall be performed by the Soils Engineer or his representative in order to verify that the grading is being performed in accordance with the project specifications. Field density testing shall be performed in accordance with applicable ASTM test standards. The minimum acceptable degree of compaction shall be 90 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by the ASTM D1557 -91 test method. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be applied until retesting indicates satisfactory compaction. 5.8 -1 i Prior to the initiation of project grading in any development area, all existing utilities shall be located and either abandoned and removed, j rerouted or protected. U 5.8-1j Graded, but undeveloped land shall maintained weed -free and planted with interim landscaping within ninety (90) days of completion of grading, FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.8 -12 Geology and Soils r' C• o BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR unless building permits are obtained. Planting with interim landscaping shall comply with NPDES Best Management Practices. SEISMIC IMPACTS 5.8 =2a Engineering design for all structures shall be based on the probability that the Project area will be subjected to strong ground motion during the lifetime of development. Construction plans shall be subject to the City of �j Seal Beach Municipal Code and shall include applicable standards, which address seismic design parameters. 5.8 -2b Mitigation of earthquake ground shaking shall be incorporated into design and construction in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements and site specific design. The Newport- Inglewood fault shall be considered the seismic source for the Project site and specified design parameters shall be used. � 5.8 -2c The potential damaging effects of regional earthquake activity shall be 4-► considered in the design of each structure. The preliminary seismic evaluation shall be based on basic data including the Uniform Building Code Seismic Parameters and the Sladden Report's exhibits and tables. Structural design criteria shall be determined in consideration of building types, occupancy category, seismic importance factors and possibly other ? factors. 5.8 -2d Conformance with the latest Uniform Building Code and City Ordinances can be expected to satisfactorily mitigate the effect of seismic groundshaking. Conformance with applicable codes and ordinances shall occur in conjunction with the issuance of building permits in order to insure that over excavation of soft, broken rock and clayey soils within sheared zones will be required where development is planned. Also refer to Mitigation Measure 5.8-1g. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.8 -3 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis Li provided above, cumulative impacts would be mitigated on a project -by- project basis, resulting in a less than significant impact. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION i No significant impacts related to Geology and Soils have been identified following implementation of mitigation measures and /or compliance with applicable standards and policies of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code. s V U I V FINAL. APRIL 2003 5.8 -13 Geology and Soils BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 5.9 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE This Section analyzes potential impacts on existing drainage patterns and flood control facilities in the Project area, as well as potential effects on groundwater and water quality. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Information in this Section is based on the Conceptual Hydrology Report for the Project prepared by Tait & Associates, Inc. (September 2002) and the Water Quality Assessment Report prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., revised March 2003. The Conceptual Hydrology Report and the Water Quality Assessment Report are included in Appendix 15.8, of this EIR. It is noted that these conceptual reports are preliminary and final Hydrology and Water Quality Studies would be generated during the project design phase. The sizing and location of all facilities identified in these reports have been estimated for planning purposes only and are subject to alterations in the final design of the project. The final design is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. EXISTING CONDITIONS U HYDROLOGY Surface Waters The nearest major surface water body in the vicinity of the Boeing site is the San Gabriel River, located approximately 3,000 feet west of the project site The San Gabriel River flows throughout the year in its lower reach and is subject to tidal action from the Pacific Ocean at its mouth, west of the project site. The Boeing site is located approximately two miles from the Pacific Ocean. West of the project site is the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. Approximately 1,300 feet northwest of the project site is a partial man -made lagoon associated with the Haynes Electric Ell Generating Station. The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the property. 0 { Existing Site Hydrology The Orange County Water District (OCWD) has separated the County into four major sub- basins: the Santa Ana Forebay, the Santa Ana Pressure, the Irvine Forebay, F and the Irvine Pressure subareas. The Boeing site is located in the coastal portion of the Santa Ana Pressure Subarea. The location within a Pressure Area means that depth to water based on water well data from deep - producing wells in those areas must be viewed cautiously since the water levels reflect water under pressure and not free - flowing groundwater. Based on Boeing and OCWD data, depth to groundwater in former monitoring wells that had been present on or near the Boeing site ranged from 15 to 20 feet Below Ground Surface (bgs). However, because the underlying material is alluvium, it is possible that lateral and vertical sedimentological variations could result in perched water levels that do not accurately reflect the depth to the regional groundwater table. U Based on data provided by the OCWD and on historic data collected by Boeing, the general direction of regional groundwater movement is approximately south - ,J southwest. This direction of groundwater movement is due in part to the influence of FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.9 -1 Hydrology and Drainage �_ ReaC U BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR the Los Alamitos Barrier fresh -water injection system located to the north and northwest of the Boeing site. The Los Alamitos Barrier injection system consists of a series of fresh -water injection wells that are designed to counter seawater intrusion. One of these wells (351-11) is located at the Boeing site, along Westminster Avenue. The site is drained by three existing drain collection systems on site. The three man- made ditches convey runoff from the facility and surrounding parking lots. The field and ditches are maintained on a regular basis for fire control, weed abatement, and t } drainage purposes. The network of on -site drains collect runoff that is eventually U conveyed through three separate 48 -inch pipes, which drain westerly into three manmade earthen ditches. These drainage ditches drain to three headwalls with 48- inch Gravity Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) pipes that connect to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin (LARB). The northern ditch drains the large parking area located along the northerly side of the Boeing site. The central ditch drains the main campus. The south ditch drains the adjacent fields and parking lot near Seal Beach Boulevard (refer to Exhibit 5.9 -1, Conceptual Hydrology Map — Existing Conditions). !J Off -site parcels along the southern property line drain into Boeing's watershed area. These off -site parcels include: Adolfo Lopez Drive, Accurate Metals, the Police U Station and City Facilities Yard. The Conceptual Hydrology Report assumes the City's property, including the undeveloped area northwest of the existing Animal Shelter adjacent to the City Facilities Yard, drains to Boeing's property. The Accurate Metals site, approximately 5.25 acres, currently sheet flows to and drains via its on -site valley gutter to the catch basin at the northerly corner of its lot. The catch basin connects to a storm drain pipe on the Boeing site, which eventually discharges to the southerly drainage ditch. The Police station and City Facilities Yard and an undeveloped area (approximately 6.8 acres), drain to Adolfo Lopez, which discharges onto Boeing's property and ultimately drains via the south drainage ditch to the LARB. Flooding The Boeing site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain as mapped on the U Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), dated September 15, 1989. However during the period between 1982 and 1983, winter rains caused minor ponding on the Boeing site as well as the nearby Hellman Ranch property. The ponding dissipated in a very short time and only ; ] affected a minor area adjacent to each inlet. Similar flooding occurred during the U winter months between 1991 and 1992. Standing water and drainage problems do occur at the frontage of Planning Area 4 on Seal Beach Boulevard. These need to be corrected as part of the proposed Project development for Planning Area 4. The existing flat longitudinal grades, combined with the flow - disturbance caused by the wide driveways, result in runoff ponding in the vicinity of the driveways adjacent to the Boeing site. minor ponding event. The levee breaching appeared to be caused by erosion from During the winter of 1995, high - intensity storms caused minor ponding similar to (� those experienced in the 1982 -1983 and 1991 -1992 seasons. During the 1995 U season, however, a portion of a levee to the LARB was breached causing a new FINAL ®APRIL 2003 5.9 -2 Hydrology and Drainage 0 z a 0 z In 0 c Z M > Z z z 0 O cr, CD m z CT ■ 0 O z C En z -1 o C o L) C3 z 1 .1 --mat JRjI 1 'A 34 MORI M& - 1 .,.•. - . ,} ; • ' e" .. `� ' ti .... ......... aM IV t AA k ' , �°:$ +� t ?, � &��•' ' t ` >^`,'• "Z�' \\ 21�+>���i�'g� .d •v r r , f '�, VI `1 � •'•`,'...' \`-� :t 6 v A f`r` , t - •^ - r••r - k.. v � �•• r,} �' \ c J k v I .J A" T., n Z T R .a..r '•;'�`„ty,:� "t • �`� + � d lF °., •t..•.... , }. t, � � '1 a�Jr, 1......F; -2b SK J 11 N s t \° d ,'lp g •+ � •+ : � � + ��� f�[�•., . "';i� i�s.'�. iJ� y i'a .41 i � t, > � i 3 ', "\, R�,.. ..ta ,x�_• %"""} ¢ sb • � i ', � �...� .',�•' � , €.l �..i.�'a�'�� � �-''` {• u. �1 ; � � j ; i t s • , \ ° —�. i �, 1'GrH.•.�..� �».xw': �ti:�.... {, ..x .'•,�` �� .f i � � �� { :' t t ry ir •, ,li' {.• � � •«• �•v�t e � `d ~ ' � "k � _;` � :` ;`$ iR" 1� '° ` � O ;`.�� } y� IaC1! ".,r !.. • f' t t �• �; � }� w: *- r 'A U u z 't , , ��,� S� n ,.. /'� y •V � � $,• - 1, . ±• 'I N "A, ' ir_ ­_­ ' y,q ti +� •r• N '^. / ' "'e.�, yg }� .z A; �„ ; r; .y;� �. , ✓t ,���± � � \ \� f i • ; - --- -- ----------- ... ..... rZ 4y, ^,� 4 �` .-� ! ,. r'; 2; } 1 e ° n! I nt_ tt � t > ti, ' t ! G+ st¢ Y�'' .J't ,',,: ,, , /' ,,.: ,`l e \ �fr %N, O4 i ,t � ` '^. t � k "� J i, '^ '� ''' ,���, eee K. � . •� /� '' " • i• , Q t 1 �♦ � .ra •,� "r t`'�N" ^ v � < IN" DI % h , I . lid 44 'On °•�,,».'� : p f """w., '`";: '�: jy :,'•,'�• ��•. .., �� ...�"",{'' N� 1:1 r��1 �'�,,;;aA ' � ...� I.Ci .....,. 3...�, '• ,e . '' �'�(��' } s �... ,� ,�fR '> ;�'•`'t5 }'''�' f e ,, a �+\,� t <wt e�' ``•'• a Y; A ^v Y•J r : `t �' � ,, � •` S .J' ° }• � o' � 4 " �' � 4 °'� ` f � �`' ' r S Y�<0� '�t,•••',,.J° ,f :'•^ �yfi ��: a :'� i(!•"�'y %I,`' tVtt�' .. ,� � �v�i�r "t' # '� 48 MA I !Nr, 3 qp _4 3 • 6x J " •,, • •` •" S 4YA• { �I � � `' ' \ r y e. � °� i 'F,fs• ,\�,�^,. r� K A ` i... i .......... $5 I A A I? 2 O.1C A M m m m 0 n a 3. CD 1 0 *saw* 1A 03 MCOULA a a u um to CL '4A *&iP4069 uiee 0 0 q oow.a .0 C) mm CO3 cn m -n e2 n 0 > C) -n -V m x cn CL x M C) > — C m r 0-I -} --I m m o CA 53 1 .1 --mat JRjI 1 'A 34 MORI M& - 1 .,.•. - . ,} ; • ' e" .. `� ' ti .... ......... aM IV t AA k ' , �°:$ +� t ?, � &��•' ' t ` >^`,'• "Z�' \\ 21�+>���i�'g� .d •v r r , f '�, VI `1 � •'•`,'...' \`-� :t 6 v A f`r` , t - •^ - r••r - k.. v � �•• r,} �' \ c J k v I .J A" T., n Z T R .a..r '•;'�`„ty,:� "t • �`� + � d lF °., •t..•.... , }. t, � � '1 a�Jr, 1......F; -2b SK J 11 N s t \° d ,'lp g •+ � •+ : � � + ��� f�[�•., . "';i� i�s.'�. iJ� y i'a .41 i � t, > � i 3 ', "\, R�,.. ..ta ,x�_• %"""} ¢ sb • � i ', � �...� .',�•' � , €.l �..i.�'a�'�� � �-''` {• u. �1 ; � � j ; i t s • , \ ° —�. i �, 1'GrH.•.�..� �».xw': �ti:�.... {, ..x .'•,�` �� .f i � � �� { :' t t ry ir •, ,li' {.• � � •«• �•v�t e � `d ~ ' � "k � _;` � :` ;`$ iR" 1� '° ` � O ;`.�� } y� IaC1! ".,r !.. • f' t t �• �; � }� w: *- r 'A U u z 't , , ��,� S� n ,.. /'� y •V � � $,• - 1, . ±• 'I N "A, ' ir_ ­_­ ' y,q ti +� •r• N '^. / ' "'e.�, yg }� .z A; �„ ; r; .y;� �. , ✓t ,���± � � \ \� f i • ; - --- -- ----------- ... ..... rZ 4y, ^,� 4 �` .-� ! ,. r'; 2; } 1 e ° n! I nt_ tt � t > ti, ' t ! G+ st¢ Y�'' .J't ,',,: ,, , /' ,,.: ,`l e \ �fr %N, O4 i ,t � ` '^. t � k "� J i, '^ '� ''' ,���, eee K. � . •� /� '' " • i• , Q t 1 �♦ � .ra •,� "r t`'�N" ^ v � < IN" DI % h , I . lid 44 'On °•�,,».'� : p f """w., '`";: '�: jy :,'•,'�• ��•. .., �� ...�"",{'' N� 1:1 r��1 �'�,,;;aA ' � ...� I.Ci .....,. 3...�, '• ,e . '' �'�(��' } s �... ,� ,�fR '> ;�'•`'t5 }'''�' f e ,, a �+\,� t <wt e�' ``•'• a Y; A ^v Y•J r : `t �' � ,, � •` S .J' ° }• � o' � 4 " �' � 4 °'� ` f � �`' ' r S Y�<0� '�t,•••',,.J° ,f :'•^ �yfi ��: a :'� i(!•"�'y %I,`' tVtt�' .. ,� � �v�i�r "t' # '� 48 MA I !Nr, 3 qp _4 3 • 6x J " •,, • •` •" S 4YA• { �I � � `' ' \ r y e. � °� i 'F,fs• ,\�,�^,. r� K A ` i... i .......... $5 I A A I? 2 O.1C A M m m m 0 n a 3. *saw* 1A MCOULA a a u um to '4A *&iP4069 uiee 0 0 q oow.a .0 % Li- 3011 a ®n�i � �, Z4 i � f � N g J -N P :n �r + 4-� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR rodent tunneling as opposed to an overtopping of the levee. As the waters in the LARB receded, so did all of the newly generated ponds. No major flooding or ponding episodes have been experienced on the Boeing site since 1982 -1983. GROUNDIWAT ER � The groundwater level often follows the surface topography and is generally higher under hills and lower under valleys. Groundwater levels are influenced by both natural and manmade conditions and events. Natural factors that affect groundwater levels include rainfall, infiltration, and the presence of surface water bodies and streams. Humans influence groundwater levels by removing water through pumping and by replenishing water through infiltration and injection. The following water bearing formations, in downward succession, have been j identified in the Seal Beach area where the Boeing site is located: U ♦ Recent alluvium; ® The Lynwood aquifer; and e The Silverado aquifer. r� l? L" UJ G if V F V U G i The Lynwood aquifer is just below the bottom portion of the layer of recent (Holocene) alluvium. The Lynwood and Silverado aquifers are separated by geologic barriers (aquicludes) and undifferentiated formations. Within these formations, at least three distinct bodies of groundwater exist. The uppermost is a body of semi - perched water that occurs in the upper part of the recent alluvium. The next lower is the principal body of groundwater that occurs chiefly inthe lower portion of the recent alluvium. The deepest are bodies of connate water underlying the principal groundwater. Connate water is that which has been out of contact with the atmosphere for an appreciable part of a geologic period. The semi - perched aquifer varies in thickness from 0 to 60 feet and is essentially unconfined. In many places on the site, it is separated from the principal aquifer by silts, clays or other material of relatively low permeability. Groundwater moves much slower than surface water. Groundwater movement, similar to surface water movement, is from higher to lower elevations. The direction of groundwater movement can be determined from a groundwater contour map, which shows the elevation of the groundwater. The movement of groundwater is in a direction perpendicular to the groundwater elevation contours. The City of Seal Beach and the Boeing site are located over the Central Basin of the Los Angeles Coastal basin in the area described as the Orange County Groundwater Basin. According to the Orange County Water District, local water purveyors from the cities of Seal Beach, Westminster and Huntington Beach, rely on groundwater for more than 70 percent of their total water needs. The annual production of the Basin averaged 328,000 acre -feet between 1995 and 1999, generally increasing with time. The shallow groundwater underlying the Boeing site is characteristically salty and is not suitable for beneficial (potable) water uses. Below this shallow groundwater, the Orange County Groundwater Basin is recharged by surface water from the adjacent San Gabriel Valley, by downward percolation of FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.9 -5 Hydrology and Drainage C&T <; BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR water from major streams, by direct percolation of precipitation and irrigation water, and by percolation of water diverted to spreading basins. Over time the area wide pattern of urban development has greatly reduced the ` d ^^la back: into the g rou nd and amount of water auGYveu ►v p e1NVIG�V ., g.__ g roundwater basin. g Widespread pavement, numerous structures, extensive sewer and storm drain systems, and paving of the natural rivers into flood control channels have all contributed to the reduction in groundwater recharge through percolation.' Discharge of groundwater from the Orange County Basin is normally to the Pacific Ocean. However, the pumping of groundwater from the Basin has lessened the amount of water available for discharge to the ocean. As a result, normal groundwater gradients have reversed, allowing saline seawater to move inland and contaminate coastal groundwater bodies with water containing high salt concentrations. Santa Ana River base flow comprises mainly treated wastewater discharged from treatment plants in Riverside County and San Bernardino County. Thus, about half of the water recharging the aquifer is incidentally recycled wastewater. In addition, OCWD injects about 5,000 AF /yr of recycled wastewater into the Basin near the coast as a seawater intrusion barrier. The OCWD recharge operations both expand the production capability of the basin and prevent seawater intrusion into the aquifers. Production capability of the Basin is rising due to increases in both the recharge supply and the number of production wells for the extraction of water from the Basin. Aquifers that presently store low - quality water (water high in nitrates, salt color or industrial pollutants) are being pumped, and the produced water is being treated at local water treatment plants or blended with potable water. This process of drawing out low- quality water and replacing it with high - quality recharge water is considered aquifer cleanup. Tidal Effects on Groundwater Elevations Groundwater level records from 1987 (Leighton and Associates) show that the most notable fluctuations of groundwater due to tidal effects were observed in wells closest to the San Gabriel River channel. Observed maximum fluctuations of approximately one foot are relatively insignificant when compared with the maximum tidal fluctuations of eight feet. WATER QUALITY Storm water quality is a significant concern in Southern California This section discusses typical pollutants found in storm water runoff and discusses the types of contaminants that may be found in existing storm water runoff. Nonpoint Source Pollutants A net effect of urbanization can be to increase pollutant export over naturally occurring conditions. The impact of the higher export can be on the adjacent streams and also on the downstream receiving waters. However, an important FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.9 -6 Hydrology and Drainage BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT EIR consideration in evaluating storm water quality from a project is to assess whether it j impairs the beneficial use of the receiving waters. Nonpoint source pollutants have been characterized by the following major categories in order to assist in determining the pertinent data and its use. Receiving waters can assimilate a limited quantity of various constituent elegy � ents, I o: vvav%— , there- are thresholds beyond which the measured amount becomes a pollutant and results in an undesirable impact. The backgrounds of these standard water quality categories provide an understanding of r typical urbanization impacts. V Sediment Sediment is made up of tiny soil particles that are washed or blown into y surface waters. It is the major pollutant by volume in surface water. Suspended soil particles can cause the water to look cloudy or turbid. The fine sediment particles also act as a vehicle to transport other pollutants including nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons. Construction sites are the largest source of sediment for urban areas under development. Another major source of sediment is stream bank U erosion, which may be accelerated by increases in peak rates and volumes of runoff due to urbanization. Nutrients Nutrients are a major concern for surface water quality, especially phosphorous and nitrogen. The orthophosphorous form of phosphorus is readily available for plant growth. The ammonium form of nitrogen can also have severe effects on surface water quality. The ammonium is converted to nitrate and nitrite forms of nitrogen in a process called nitrification. This process consumes large amounts of oxygen, which can impair the dissolved oxygen levels in water. The nitrate form of nitrogen is very soluble and is found naturally at low levels in water. When nitrogen fertilizer is applied to lawns or other areas in excess of plant needs, r nitrates can leach below the root zone, eventually reaching ground water. Orthophosphate from auto emissions also contributes phosphorus in areas with heavy automobile traffic. As a general rule of thumb, nutrient export is greatest from development sites with the most impervious areas. Other problems resulting from excess nutrients are 1) surface algal scums, 2) water discolorations, 3) odors, 4) 1 toxic releases, and 5) overgrowth of plants. Common measures for nutrients are total nitrogen, organic nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate, ammonia, total (, phosphate, and total organic carbon (TOC). Trace Metals Trace metals are primarily a concern because of their toxic effects on aquatic life and their potential to contaminate drinking water supplies. The most common trace metals found in urban runoff are lead, zinc, and copper. Fallout from automobile emissions is also a major source of lead in urban areas. A large fraction of the trace metals in urban runoff are attached to sediment and this effectively reduces the level which is immediately available for biological uptake and subsequent bioaccumulation. Metals associated with the sediment settle out rapidly and accumulate in the soils. Also, urban runoff events typically occur over a shorter duration, which reduces the amount of exposure and could be toxic to the aquatic environment. The toxicity of trace metals in runoff varies with the hardness of the receiving water. As total hardness of the water increases, the threshold ' concentration levels for adverse effects increases. Oxygen- Demanding Substances Aquatic life is dependent on the level of dissolved oxygen (DO) in water. When organic matter is consumed by microorganisms, then DO is consumed in the process. A rainfall event can deposit large quantities of LJ FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.9 -7 Hydrology and Drainage BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ' l 1 oxygen- demanding substances in lakes and streams. The biochemical oxygen demand of typical urban runoff is on the same order of magnitude as the effluent from an effective secondary wastewater treatment plant. A DO problem arises when the rate of oxygen- demanding material exceeds the rate of replenishment. Oxygen demand is estimated by the direct measure of DO and indirect measures such as 1 1 biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), oils and greases, and total organic carbon (TOC). Bacteria Bacteria levels in undiluted urban runoff exceed public health standards for water contact recreation almost without exception. Studies have found that total coliform counts exceeded EPA water quality criteria at almost every site and almost - every time it rained. The coliform bacteria that are detected may not be a health risk in themselves, but are often associated with human pathogens. Oil and Grease Oil and grease contain a wide variety of hydrocarbons some of which could be toxic to aquatic life in low concentrations. These materials initially float on water and create the familiar rainbow - colored film. Hydrocarbons have a strong affinity for sediment and quickly become absorbed to it. The major source of hydrocarbons in urban runoff is through leakage of crankcase oil and other lubricating agents from automobiles. Hydrocarbon levels are highest in the runoff from parking lots, roads, and service stations. Residential land uses generate less hydrocarbons export, although illegal disposal of waste oil into storm waters can be a local problem. Other Toxic Chemicals Priority pollutants are generally related to hazardous wastes or toxic chemicals and can be sometimes detected in storm water. Priority pollutant scans have been conducted in previous studies of urban runoff, which evaluated the presence of over 120 toxic chemicals and compounds. The scans rarely revealed , toxins that exceeded the current safety criteria. The urban runoff scans were U primarily conducted in suburban areas not expected to have many sources of toxic pollutants (with the possible exception of illegally disposed or applied household hazardous wastes). Measures of priority pollutants in storm water include - 1) phthalate (plasticizer compound), 2) phenols and creosols (wood preservatives), 3) pesticides and herbicides, 4) oils and greases, and 5) metals. Physical Characteristics of Surface Water Quality Standard parameters used to assess the quality of storm water provide a method of measuring impairment. The backgrounds of these typical characteristics assist in understanding water quality requirements. The quantity of a material in the environment and its characteristics determine the degree of availability as a pollutant in surface runoff. In an urban environment, the quantity of certain pollutants in the environment is a function of the intensity of the land use. For instance, a high density of automobile traffic makes a number of potential pollutants (such as lead , c and hydrocarbons) more available. The availability of a material, such as a fertilizer, u is a function of the quantity and the manner in which it is applied. Applying fertilizer in quantities that exceed plant needs leaves the excess nutrients available for loss to surface or ground water. The physical properties and chemical constituents of water traditionally have served as the primary means for monitoring and evaluating water quality. Evaluating the FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.9 -8 Hydrology and Drainage 0 oi� w BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR condition of water through a water quality standard refers to its physical, chemical, or biological characteristics. Water quality parameters for storm water make up a long list and are classified in many ways. In many cases, the concentration of an urban pollutant, rather that the annual load of that pollutant, is needed to assess a water quality - p roblem, - Some of the physical, chem6cal-or biological• characteristics that evaluate the quality of the surface runoff are outlined below. Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen in the water has a pronounced effect on the ' aquatic organisms and the chemical reactions that occur. It is one of the most important biological water quality characteristics in the aquatic environment. The dissolved oxygen concentration of a water body is determined by the solubility of oxygen, which is inversely related to water temperature, pressure, and biological activity. Dissolved oxygen is a transient property that can fluctuate rapidly in time and space. Dissolved oxygen represents the status of the water system at a particular point and time of sampling. The decomposition of organic debris in water i--� is a slow process and the resulting changes in oxygen status respond slowly also. The oxygen demand is an indication of the pollutant load and includes measurements of biochemical oxygen demand or chemical oxygen demand. J Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is an index of the oxygen- demanding properties of the biodegradable material in the water. j Samples are taken from the field and incubated in the laboratory at 2'C, after which the residual dissolved oxygen is measured. The BOD value commonly referenced is the standard five -day values. These values are useful in assessing stream pollution �j loads and for comparison purposes. Chemical Oxygen Demand The chemical oxygen demand (COD) is a measure of the pollutant loading in terms of complete chemical oxidation using strong oxidizing agents. It can be determined quickly because it does not rely on bacteriological actions as with BOD. COD does not necessarily provide a good index of oxygen demanding properties in natural waters. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) TDS concentration is determined by evaporation of a (' filtered sample to obtain residue whose weight is divided by the sample volume. The TDS of natural waters varies widely. There are several reasons why TDS are an important indicator of water quality. Dissolved solids affect the ionic bonding strength related to other pollutants such as metals in the water. TDS are also a major determinant of aquatic habitat. TDS affect saturation concentration of dissolved oxygen and influence the ability of a water body to assimilate wastes. �) Eutrophication rates depend on total dissolved solids. - ` H. The H of water is the negative to base 10, of the hydrogen L P 9 9, en ion (H + ) activity. Y 9 A pH of seven is neutral; a pH greater than seven indicates alkaline water; a pH less than seven represents acidic water. In natural water, carbon dioxide reactions are some of the most important in establishing pH. The pH at any one time is an indication of the balance of chemical equilibrium in water and affects the availability of certain chemicals or nutrients in water for uptake by plants. The pH of water U directly affects fish and other aquatic life and generally toxic limits are pH values less r than 4.8 and greater than 9.2. r F: L FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 5.9 -9 Hydrology and Drainage BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Alkalini . Alkalinity is the opposite of acidity, representing the capacity of water to neutralize acid. Alkalinity is also linked to pH and is caused by the presence of carbonate, bicarbonate, and hydroxide, which are formed when carbon dioxide is dissolved. A high alkalinity is associated with a high pH and excessive solids. Most streams have alkalinities less than 200 mg!! and ranges of alkalinity of 100- 200mg /I seem to support well - diversified aquatic life. Specific Conductance The specific conductivity of water, or its ability to conduct an electric current, is related to the total dissolved ionic solids. Long -term monitoring of a project's waters can develop a relationship between specific conductivity and TDS. Its measurement is quick and inexpensive and can be used to approximate TDS. Specific conductivities in excess of 2000 pohms /cm indicate a TDS level too high for most freshwater fish. Turbidit . The clarity of water is an important indicator of water quality that relates to the ability of photosynthetic light to penetrate. Turbidity is anindicator of the property of water that causes light to become scattered or absorbed. Turbidity is caused by suspended clays and other organic particles. It can be used as an indicator of certain water quality constituents such as predicting the sediment concentrations. Nitrogen (N) Sources of nitrogen in storm water are from the additions of organic matter or chemical additions to water bodies. Ammonia and nitrate are important nutrients for the growth of algae and other plants. Excessive nitrogen can lead to eutrophication since nitrification consumes dissolved oxygen in the water. Nitrogen occurs in many forms. Organic Nitrogen breaks down into ammonia, which eventually becomes oxidized to nitrate - nitrogen, a form available for plants. High concentrations of nitrate - nitrogen (N /N) in water can stimulate growth of algae and other aquatic plants, but if phosphorus (P) is present, only about 0.30 mg /I of nitrate - nitrogen is needed for algal blooms. Some fish life can be affected when nitrate - nitrogen exceeds 4.2 mg /I. There are a number of ways to measure the various forms of aquatic nitrogen. Typical measurements of nitrogen include Kjeldahl nitrogen (organic nitrogen plus ammonia); ammonia; nitrite plus nitrate; nitrite; and nitrogen in plants. The principal water quality criteria for nitrogen focus on nitrate and ammonia. Phosphorus (P) Phosphorus is an important component of organic matter. In many water bodies, phosphorus is the limiting nutrient that prevents additional biological activity from occurring. The origin of this constituent in urban storm water discharge is generally from fertilizers and other industrial products. Orthophosphate is soluble and is considered to be the only biologically available form of phosphorus. Since phosphorus strongly associates with solid particles and is a significant part of organic material, sediments influence concentration in water and are an important component of the phosphorus cycle in streams. The primary methods of measurement include detecting orthophosphate and total phosphorus. Water Quality Regulations Federal and State laws have been enacted which establish requirements for adequate planning, implementation, management and enforcement for the control of water quality in waters of the United States. The primary state law, the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, establishes a regulatory program to FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.9 -10 Hydrology and Drainage f b 01�of BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJEC EIR protect water quality and to protect the beneficial uses establishes the State of California Water Resources Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) as th e responsible for the control of water quality. U 4' J V r 1. U J � J 1 of the state waters and Control Board and nine principal state agencies The Santa Ana RWQCB, under the authority of the State Water Resources Control Board, has the authority for permitting waste discharges to land or surface waters through a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit and also formulates and adopts a Basin Plan for the Santa Ana Region that defines water quality objectives and beneficial uses. The Santa Ana Basin Plan sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained (or maintained) and describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. The NPDES storm water management program also calls for the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the "maximum extent practicable" (MEP) in providing control for non -point source pollution and urban runoff. BMPs consist of activities, practices and /or procedures that reduce non -point sources of pollution such as automotive by- products, trash, food wastes, landscape and agricultural runoff, including fertilizers and pesticides, and runoff from construction sites. On January 18, 2002, the Santa Ana RWQCB adopted the Orange County Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit for the northern portion of Orange County (San Diego RWQCB jurisdiction covers the remaining portion of Orange County). The new permit updates water quality standards for new development and these standards have been incorporated and applied to this project. These updated standards include numerical sizing criteria for water quality treatment and proper monitoring and maintenance of storm water facilities. Numerical sizing criteria specifically state that a certain quantity of first flush runoff shall be treated to remove the pollutants of concern (those introduced by the project) to the MEP. The permit supports the use of bio- swales, detention ponds, infiltration landscaping, constructed wetlands and structural BMP devices as means for meeting the MEP and best available technology (BAT) requirements. Existing Water Quality Lit F tj L The 107 -acre Boeing site is divided into two main components. The developed area consists of approximately 69 acres of parking lots, buildings, landscaped and hardscaped areas. This property contributes storm water runoff, non -storm flow runoff and pollutants associated with development such as total suspended solids (TSS), heavy metals, brake dust, hydrocarbons, trash, debris, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and pesticides. All runoff is conveyed through the three drainage ditches before discharging into the LARB. Typically, dry season runoff or nuisance flows meander through the drainage ditches, percolating into the soil and /or evaporating before discharging into the LARB. Observations have shown that there are sufficient nuisance flows in the central ditch to provide standing water throughout much of the year in depression points in the ditch. The ditches provide water quality treatment for low -flow events. During storm events, water is flushed through the ditches to the LARB and based on empirical evidence, concentrations of pollutants typically decrease with the larger volumes of flow. The remaining portion of the property (38 acres) is an undeveloped dirt field. This area contributes primarily sediment and TSS to the drainage ditches during storm FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.9 -11 Hydrology and Drainage C• 0 -C BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR events. The property receives off -site runoff from approximately 12 acres consisting of the bordering Animal Shelter, Police Station and City Facilities Yard adjacent to Adolfo Lopez Drive (6.8 acres) and the Accurate Metals property (5.2 acres). Such runoff may contribute pollutants related to these types of facilities such as nutrients, bacteria and hydrocarbons. Table_5.9 =1, "%-,, mar of E isti .g Pollutants, shows the most significant pollutants expected for each land use. Table 5.9 -1 Summary of Existing Pollutants Land Use Acreage _ Expected Pollutants Developed (Planning Area 1) 69 TSS, heavy metals, trash, debris, hydrocarbons, brake dust, pesticides Undeveloped (Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 3 38 Sediment, TSS, bacteria and nutrients Off -site runoff 12 Trash, debris, TSS, nutrients, bacteria, hydrocarbons SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist form used during preparation of the Project Initial Study, which is contained in Appendix 15.1, IS /NOP /Correspondence, of this EIR. The Initial Study includes questions relating to hydrology, drainage and water quality. The issues presented in the Initial Study Checklist have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, a project may create a significant environmental impact if it causes one or more of the following to occur: o Violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements (refer to Impact Statement 5.9 -2); o Substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)(refer to Impact Statement 5.9 -1); o Substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site (refer to Impact Statement 5.9 -1); o Substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site (refer to Impact Statement 5.9 -1); FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.9 -12 Hydrology and Drainage L BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT E IR o Creation or contribution of runoff water which would exceed the capacity of (, existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provision of substantial LJ additional sources of polluted runoff (refer to Impact Statement 5.9 -1); _..o. Otherwise substantial degradation of water quality - --(refer to Impact Statements 5.9 -2 and 5.9 -3); f f o Housing placement within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a L Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant); o Placement within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not to be > Significant); and /or U o Exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ' involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (refer to Section 10. 0, Effects Found Not to br Significant). Potential impacts associated with drainage and water quality are categorized below according to topic. Mitigation measures at the end of this Section directly correspond to the impact statements below. b L G G' U The following discussion is an evaluation of the proposed Project which is then compared to the existing conditions analysis to determine impacts associated with the development of the property. Proposed conditions investigated include: land use, proposed storm drain configuration, hydrology, floodplain mapping, and surface water quality. WATER QUALITY - CONSTRUCTION 5.9 -1 Grading, excavation and construction activities associated with the proposed project may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drainage areas. Impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of NPDES and SWPPP requirements. Construction controls are separated from typical water quality management programming because the measures are temporary and specific to the type of construction. The discharge of materials other than storm water from a particular site is prohibited. Pollutants of concern, as they relate to land development projects, would include silt and sediment, oil and grease, floatable trash, nutrients (such as fertilizers), heavy metals, pathogens (such as coliform bacteria) and other substances. These are referred to as "controlled pollutants," and their discharge into waters of the United States, including the LARB, are prohibited. On January 18, 2002, the Santa Ana RWQCB adopted the Orange County Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit for the northern portion of Orange County (San Diego RWQCB jurisdiction covers the remaining portion of Orange County). The new permit updates water quality standards for new development and these standards FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.9 -13 Hydrology and Drainage o1*,Cs� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR have been incorporated and applied to this project. Treatment of storm water runoff according to volume -based calculations, or flow -rate based calculations, is not a requirement for new development. However, meeting the storm water discharge requirements may require some form of treatment controls to be employed in new development projects, on the basis of requiring Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Technology (BCT). During construction, soil loss could occur due to sheet erosion of exposed soils with the highest probability of this occurring along freshly - graded slopes. In anticipation of construction - related impacts, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a Final General Construction Permit that requires the Applicant of any project over 5 acres to file for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Permit and abide by its conditions. The purpose of the NPDES Permit is to ensure the project area will eliminate /reduce construction -borne sediments and pollutants in storm water runoff. Construction sediment erosion can be adequately controlled through the application of standard construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). During planned construction activities on site, a number of BMPs are proposed to be employed to control the discharge of sediment in storm water runoff, the primary pollutant of concern to be managed during construction. BMP selection would be guided by the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks for Construction Activity and the ASCE Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23 and 87. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared for the various projects to take place within the Project Area and a Notice of Intent would be required to be filed with the SWRCB. During construction, sandbag barriers are typically placed around the perimeter of an area being graded to prevent dirt and sediment -laden storm runoff from exiting a site. Sandbags are also placed along swales, at the toe of slopes, and around storm drain inlets to reduce the erosive velocity of storm runoff and to promote the settling of sediment out of the flow. Storm runoff is directed to inlets that are protected by filter fabrics to screen out sediment before it enters the storm drain system. For larger areas of disturbed earth, a sediment basin may be installed in which the storm runoff ponds allow for settlement of the sediment to occur. An outlet pipe is set at the top of the ponded water for discharge of clean storm water. A stabilized construction entrance usually consists of a layer of heavy gravel that drains well to prevent mud conditions and helps to knock mud off the construction vehicle tires as they exit the site. A wheel wash may also be installed to remove mud from tires. As part of its compliance the NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent (NOI) would be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for the construction activities on -site. A copy of the SWPPP is required to be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. The SWPPP is to outline the source control and /or treatment control BMPs that would avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at a construction site to the "maxinum extent practicable ". FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.9 -14 Hydrology and Drainage L 0 of <; 4___Reacg I BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The goal of BMPs is to capture and treat "first flush" storm water rur+off generated by surrounding and on -site watersheds. Water quality management BMPs for grading L and construction scenarios may include the use of sand bags and straw bales for run -off diversion and velocity reduction, mulch topping, hydro- seeding and siltation fencing to prevent soil loss and measures to minimize vehicular leaking and spilling. Implementation of the specified requirements (i.e., compliance with the NPDES requirements and completion of a SWPPP) would reduce construction - related { impacts to water quality to a less than significant level. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE V 5.9 -2 Development of the proposed Project would affect onsite and offsite drainage systems. Implementation of the design for site drainage Y P consistent with the Specific Plan's guidelines and the recommended (± mitigation measure providing additional storm drain facilities to Planning U Area 4 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (i The proposed new development is located on approximately 45 acres of LJ undeveloped land (Planning Area 3) and involves the redevelopment of 16 acres of the existing campus (Planning Area 2). Proposed site development includes the construction of internal streets with storm drain collection system, and the widening �j of Adolfo Lopez Drive with a new storm drain line. The storm drain system within the proposed Saturn Way and Apollo Court right -of -ways would collect street runoff through a series of sump and catch basins and would drain to the proposed water quality /retention basins. Water quality and flood detention basins would be located along the western border of the Boeing site adjacent to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. Two of the existing man -made drainage basins would be maintained (central ditch and south ditch). The central ditch would provide an outlet for an existing 48- inch line south of Building 84 (refer to Exhibit 3 -3, Aerial Photo). A proposed 48 -inch storm drain would extend along Saturn Way and then south connecting with the south ditch. Ultimate sizing of this underground network would be determined during �.1 the final design phase. The water quality /retention basins would ultimately discharge through an energy dissipater, where necessary, into the LARB. () Industrial type buildings (except Planning Area 4) are proposed for the thirteen lots within the Specific Plan. Preliminary design indicates the drainage can be split to the front and back of each lot. Each lot would connect separately to the main storm j drain system. Water quality best management practices would be incorporated in the site design for during- and post- construction activities, including the construction of combined water quality /flood retention basins per the Specific Plan's Illustrative Site Plan, Exhibit 5.9 -2. New development would result in the relocation of two existing onsite 4 &inch storm drain pipes. The existing northern storm drain pipe would be relocated further north LJ to the southern side of Westminster Avenue. The existing southern storm drain pipe would be relocated to the southern border of the site, adjacent to Accurate Metals, and would connect with a proposed 48 -inch line that would extend along Adolfo Lopez Drive. A new private storm drain would route Accurate Metals runoff through Lot 6B to the proposed water quality /retention basin. The relocated lines would be rerouted to avoid development areas (refer to Exhibit 5.9 -3, Conceptual Hydrology C j Map — Proposed Site). FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.9 -15 Hydrology and Drainage 4 � < o c � � U u a z a a 0 a �.. lu 14 ._ � M z Q = L 2 DC LU F— o� U J L1J l / Q O W W C/) n L.L p z C/) F- CD U _U U W M Cl- L min- c� y z � w O m �J so 4m U 6 1 N i 4 C N u �e a a o � 4 + '!• �? «* � � i ce- • �` • + i / i / a i l/ O v 3 v a Im 10 40 r, Z 0 � o U M o F N Z Z U m z C7 N W Cl Z Z Z M a J IL � � 0 � Z U F Cl) n J fi O ■ Z Z a . n Z U) O Z ■ N O ' 5 C • � Z ■ D o D 0 w Z O Z w Z G7 (n v CD m _ m 0 G) CD Z D CD C Is 1 W El � N Z O Z � O ND o o Ci V O Z O CD t' Q. .'T O to E O rn CO z m `) m —n � T p C c-) � D � CA zo T m �p -, a u, E C2. cr m r •'° c C7 cn m cD rn n w CD � _ � ! ', •? ,: � ! L. ti � +� '+' f � S ,� t ,. w .� t � •.� r+�•+� � fi � ' It � ' fig (+ f� ! �R�q � e r - € � % f •: j : � � ' iii, ,� J, o •,^� \ 3 ll� �� �q i �,��a, '" d �"r:.,� � r .. " '� 'AtA ^+ r � "!� q �, .. � ,• a1` ` � � ,..!' 1 k ` 4` `� • r rw k Y ..i "'y � ,• � �} w � ' y /�/�{ �� dk' �'' � } r .4J • '•SPe46S+ ` A F ✓'" »...:• '•"a Q 'a ­­p, — .w. � s :� ..,� r , � r ya- {�� »: "�.�, .,F� ' �_��.'�F'�f��'�.••.�'� �\ ..�.' •.,, »...✓..• �.. � \" ��d.��.�� "'�" �•.� ,�,.' � H.• _ • � "a ; a r � ^� ��. , .MWA •.r'11 > ' i.ill. ♦ , .. .w '' Iw k.'� ,.•. _ '*"' Y {{� } , �:� :::J 1 Ia .P 1'1 C :.71 r ' r «.. e. «....r.s 1 ! a ..«.. +. 1 1 ' r .tl. ! ♦� ! 1PT�! 1 ..: ' t� [ r�. • ,. �� � a.,.•„ w �+�-' ,��•#f� �1� �,i ! 1 �°;�1.�1111�1a11,�,�,� ��•r ' � € �' , ✓ I lif II 11 11 '�• ,, /' � A � k 4`. , Y4' • � Oq ,,,� �I '.°�. � I � �, I•,n �- � 1.,++t i,., ,.,.' ` :S} J 3f �� f a: co f7 q ♦ ,?gyp e I .a«,• �I �: ! ,. e�t«» f ti. r. <•_ 44 . , { tz TM11Ti111T 1T1r1i11r1 ;:111(111iTf(' r 3 1 }� a,, �'4. t r ••, ��' , F ;' N r, • M.:,. 1 ��f 11HI ,,.rlrrnt'i�rrlrI, M•k.... ak , w .a} �',, r !. %'.111IJ111L,rIllUllEtl1 lllu:tll lllull3llllllllalrllll", r MItril•kTr'I�1'l"if1 ` o j J + ,7 € Ib x 1) �"�! -v�� wmm 1l11 l 11 `'• ' ' _, A111 s _ 1 � ..i { ° !e:: �'• u��, :..; ,,., . .... e ..,.... h ' e ', y a'^ •'.. : y, .� �, �'t t ! 1' ,. € yl �,.,z�b'•A e:: MI t Mf ( _ ,' "• •IIIIIIIIR .�,` , ♦r •!: ( 1 , i. N ."h' ',•i y"' { t 1' ' € . N w r 1 � b l r •' � � .,° " � ' . . ( � �1 i t �Jy �, t .."� f} � {�y', ^' € .+'f .� gyyy� „ .r �; } j I ��.'i^ p � r s { � +— � i r:: S � LY• ..,, �,.. ( f'� .,},t f �p"t f • �� i 4. { 1:., Y •¢ t ^ " ! y ■ ■��Sy' ! {! ,fit p, �,. r1� �•lb,e 1 '.iS Y' AIL • , y y ( j t '�, �w S i � • ' e p"' � i,r ' � •1 '.«( � ' '' � }• / ;'.� .f✓� i'"i € r' ? t{'rP -- +�i'' C' 'g J". JI . {. `!-'' t «— tS� {�.'' / ny ,, ''Y, � +�+ , � �, . �, •.a... ,.•, r e .�"' w, J E ,:. ' 1 �, . T, t— �" a .. 7i • ✓� �� �� "• � {�y .��� o�'� •y ►' Glll,o -•; � •r- -. � `° �'t ; illl,ll•.l�l� ir .r rl� *! ,.. ` -•} .. }- I-; �� `, u, ,lllllll lllllrllllrl ;�str °+ + ' � f r` d '�' ! �� �� A �„" •••f € I � � ;, „ ar• t: r� ►� .i 111i1r11Tl1rrlTl � >„« � � : � J 4 rt . .. 'r \ ^ k w I -g �, € -., I" _ ......_ _ . t ,- r Il 11 11 : �` r I .� r Pttr2 <,�t s, 3 - • �•� dr i y — � ••'! I "� 5. ; }• ' • 1 r.: , Il t i , 11311 t,1r , ... 4.. i1 � �y. J • ��� l f s., • t. �JP 1 E� •}' =. € # t � 1 'fi 'F � s w a } ` —,, k ,d; • Y4 � • t' :, G � I F f �. r ^ t } '+ + 3 °`�' � : r. •:' � Jt} • k� s �` ��'• t�,.e 1� r .�.«, ,.�,,, �1�,.�•S� � '— � � ✓} �'`r �": as a',N n i „M,' f �� f! ;' 0 � "' }� S � `F� n � ! Y � � +.T { � . € I � � � �+' E� (`�'rX ,{"`. � t«: � � r J'' •ti'+, P f�jr" `S { t �"�(3 r• t �i: „'tr a' 4k, ' �-r � � � � � � �", .+�..�?�'; w. ..> ' �r r' '.�1,' �~ � , r +�'�" +.� fT'+��.�'r'',r s € {�� }}. 1 • 3� O AM , . • I Vl` i, s ' • '� — ` . t + : ! 5 a. y am„ € !'+y * .p 4 t r"..' 1 + F. + t ,i1 !'( .. t, w „k r i y ,'" .' � , Y ° .' V• � € y. I ° f ,�., + f .j,..wt ... j. X111 «« .,, "'+;•'�" `�y�v�"n "' '�,nj % .I d 'r', r ?' S• ,+ i }• f �' .i r rry., S' "Y I �• l •�' + i -�i ° '^ ""i✓C1 e+r 'M4 'yAAP i/r ` • , � - i 7 V r . S � £ . x .:HII't S F ! i` i«• '^S" - •+•, +• ., +r'4 M�S� ' { i. . r1 � : t � �� fi � "`?s ti• �'• � ,, . +�f v 7 .'V � E` •• .W.,,a � Jl 1t ( • , %�"' � , dyrr�...l.... , , ,..n..,. /' Y 1,, �•�•'+" \ � 'a`••e �y� •� r A ^' / t t Pt , � � i 9 4... , t,;.., {{L P:t f t t.. _l"4 .f �. � 'Yw I ' � :�/ 1 ! �'l� . � !., t % —may' • a` YN•w ,.�q, r4 €{ }, '' Tom• lr ,, �r: / �$+r "'1 •aJ .� d� t E S � � ..r.. ..� .�,. ^,1Y,. r1•+ �Ro +� ^.,ra "� r} E{. IftrItal . ,•••�' ,P �'•' � � � •• � "+' '•'' k .'',r ` � , •�. •✓ice '� uK««wow .u.t„«:•� 0.«««. ..�,r,�,• 1. r, � MP d,,'r'+A,i1•�1`,�YYti'I ^l.'/•'I `� � i P (,.. P ��. i � � � 'r � :�,\ �:* v ""'ASl1ws...»...,"w...., t A...•„�.,r.:.. t• «�i,..,w.,,.:1. ..,.P�„ ,_ t < �a, r ;"+c'rr,� � ti, � s fir.` ; ✓� ? + r, I i, a � + . • r ' Fi...,. ,.ew, .i1A'�Y!S�»_��— ,� ��f'�G �,� �''� y � S \' � `i �'`"!�'" \ ' o ' �, •''. . ! ,.,,,.'+} . ` I S ♦ ♦ \' � V. 7 ; N} � } e '.,i'111 .... � .I'3�ew.rS}+.',..,r tw,, HR'�,.x',: ,A.•, ! ; i .✓„� 'G {±��� , .•` ^. . � q (�� � i ,r F � ! , III « .�M _ `�i '[ �f •, #� \ s r. �, ! \ }, !,, b � � }1 '� F� +' - ,�¢.°� r r •: r .. (I� ,••y, } !. ,y ,A r S."". ;a�Y t,'+ ' Y + i `" �"x I �,v�' 4 '� 11 � ` ice, � ° } 7 (1 %! a •"' ,,, •:•�' a a,♦ C' +.v.�h ✓ •Yr. � i '"}r� i ,,�,� ' 'y P f { '' , ♦ '. .� 6 f� {r" i , ✓ r ✓ ' ;y. �k ✓ +, •. '�' ; s ' •f ,k ®,.p'iY, '1 .•.'v i ; +�:i, ,ep €€ I/''1/ � �f p '+v�':`r �•,,w ,� ti _�'' ,�•:b "a,. `• � 7 e i� €� F t � V i � � � r.,Pr 'W� ✓�' k %� P \'''. '` f �� �'\ t J'a♦ '�,'r„ r f ��� Y e ++ �' � �1 �.. i �• i �j t 1' E r " r r' r A .�' a',"`. !".a :,P.d � • ♦l� SJ { � ° � }i� '1:.. : 'i1. �+ r 3 a 'P'a L r�✓ +• • ' Ei f € Z vP ! 1 1 ',�! ! `a`+�' ,r� '�' • 4 ry io" '"� ¢ 1€ € . x ,fiF' ,i' ''4+rLp• a ? ����11 "a ''�Y .' 3 t ; i t,.....r f Q ti. /' '4, ••"� '.` °s\ /'' ! ! a} r " 1� , f t i3y •.: r, !`f S., ✓r. r� .• kr ,fir 4`+ k 1 % r ', t e f . f '� r� Ilk 4� ��, P" } ` ..,y,, :w,t • '' �,�P •5 ' • ,� i + ���°°°3,,, � ! A'•♦, '"' i i i ! � f € .'•� � � � !�� +� �.,�i; •` y r a' 2 ! S � ,fi•`•"R',A,✓„ w a.. \w +tun 8' !� '.♦ ' +` „ ♦ }.# .•Q... is <' s.< r `yk kk. ✓� €ff : €'' r, °�" yy„ � ^.»s \ 'N \* \'N �:� • I. ✓ j` ." r , t t f t V k € ....Y.. �ttatm ytis , ! t or {Sr Prr : i . «. , ». ,, ... } t n } °p'♦.'V a�'4. � s. °^• ✓r''. ^�♦". !it'r•• W . »•,W�'4•'.!k,f...4• -•. ; .�..,..� � .\* t -� • • Y`{� @'• ,\ ^. Y/!'r ,f '4 �° i t" i ♦ `a..'ff 0.,i ;��.. ,� ;; ✓{�° fd�' sl3i {}s t! � ! r, k . ?. � a Y ;. , � tin ✓ y .�` �,`\a� 'M'q ,+ € h*f +' , 0. r � � r r v 1� b� � "'= 1��� �� R ' ira sT..• 4 1 4` \ ^, f "✓ i' � g° 1 � , . �. 1 fA> t 'a h, aYy ` •# . ✓ `� tfi i £ . i i €,. e� r1 } S ✓ y �; r ?\ r } , "4 {„� t ',, `' ✓ , r ,z '' +• �' "� S� s+ . € w,: e�-. , ; i s.. fi> i 41 � �,\ � „\ ',;++„ � f �� • ���'f' 3 �''S • �4s ,� j r + S : ,3 f. F a ' �' � � + % t�`,t" ^^ y� ,r�" 'a."•, s ?:,'c� � ti�r,�s t A;. 9r ,t � os { ''�•� a a � r � ;i,, +1+ �.. v..•°"• i ! r €€ }' :' € '; ,+y ti ♦:3 ?A . 'dod! '','a* ''✓/'�'• ro 4 % { sS S tr j • i R� ,, •," • '`yam , `° J "'' m r t ^ }� ,^ Y. ', A `' 1.,,x rrF i Y k1 \ \ r o fir, t. i I f" •a. \e` `+5. � t '�. ' p � ",l � } + t � • 3 °} .°:+'i• u.3...: } •..� '�'�' '' i i �' \4. % � d. v rid+, #'lt ,;.� € .t: 4 r �: 1 ..�'. , P 4' • 1 % f I "J'r € IR gZ .`Y, 'Y 1 ! F � d °dit�� ✓f , Y Y\ A. \.. ,j .f } � , s ,P '�` M + C� `q'1 "w' ; i r' (f' .,r'" "+F % • �' i ! 'a•� �r t w.:aw•w ,r S ` �r%y e. ' � t„ •✓�` •'� ,''•� • ?+• P . � 4 � i r�' ; }� ,. „�• ° ` ° •�r . 4 « ,,,� s i +�'• "�:i` 3 \ i "ph ✓ r�w „ r .. .. e• . ..... � ;r i ti', � 7 �!''�e;/'' • ild'�t I/ 3.4 y I .+�y�:,��ti. r ".' ✓/ 'a�..� ',✓�'• ' f } "F f € € 1�1 • F• !`iao$�,r ri }«��.�},,✓ 1! \ P �P' ;\• ,4 ✓ ``°'k ' '. � '4' � ;' •*'�4 fir /` fi✓ •� r � \ ! € i ' t ;$ Oit4 ei4$ 4y •{ '1 ? "r "\n i ✓✓ k, , ♦ ! t a fit! s�!!�` '1 •.s .l"•' 'ate q•'•. € ;I. f'srt�� $ ,a V 5 • k �'�+�..r's.r► I.'.'+'�' t ra. :�S '4.�'l f f i S�; .. IN I.h tt t = �♦ i ti , ..,+✓"� `� y h u•.� tR'4 ti �\ s" 4 r ` ' ! h ,�, 1�. (� t•y, a!' 1. Y .^,, N y ,r',.'� :'..:•h•'t yf,.i". 1 f t i' ' f ,# IV- 4 �'` �'S. Z d+ 'r rr ,l t f. i` O ! if } �`e' w °, a! ' r". �� r �a �K'Y, a •'`� • k � . *, { ( . k* ? '�4: i�, aV 'a.•\. ,r r .Q �� � P� e �, \'k .� '+.'1^, a°f•, sw� � r. i . , '•\ � 1.. K \ . ,€ 3 3" 1 '+,,. °, � ;ek �a � s.`',r �,s`'+.r �$ ;. t iC� , � " e� S' I i ,"•.; " ,. �a .'`,1 r ya' ° �' ; � � �' r" '°• Per ��, a' , , , •" w'� �� '�; "` „' �'� ` • Z F )� r' sst: "4t 1 ' � •t 1 4 ..ff ^. P * �. :.!J •'\ . ✓ � ' ,�,� 4 '" , �!• ✓ ) } 1 r.��, � - 1 a.. as c� � ;r P �`t'' �, ,•! + SJ r, I Y.s •,�,. , ' '� ','- .'>''', ' qao ✓ r^iu a, . ; � �, \ s r t•. . t it ..b ..,fr> 'mW� et.,i♦. .� t 1 � t y �7 , k 5 •; •�� �, .,,•r'r t f tr i �'/1 r ", . •Yt i t3 �i VVV :d „'. {{ r U.l1Mr17 :✓ 7' f t. ,' E .' > r S�' / � °1S + 1 w' yrw�' Ir All pul X !4 I ,� r• ! X � $ rr fir r: s 28 �II/ AI V V M M M M O O to > y� i��1t y ♦ «• N �Y' i•NUw�w 8119 -� QOww .4 fps 40 illa � : :: C w r•I 1� Pnjr i+boaw aa aegi'eNiv �Pv 0 n- 000000 «�apMp ��Sl�i t �IMNQ .IJ (w NNA lAgA y+ AIMOn +� a •oa n Anuo�ut► 4111 # upA :�VI�iV��RJ�IY + +O �7 , k 5 •; •�� �, .,,•r'r t f tr i �'/1 r ", . •Yt i t3 �i VVV :d „'. {{ r U.l1Mr17 :✓ 7' f t. ,' E .' > r S�' / � °1S + 1 w' yrw�' Ir All pul X !4 I ,� r• ! X � $ rr fir r: 4 r U I re U r U r; �r �i L L v L. I r U� L ' C r� 1. BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The entire off -site area of 6.25 acres (the City's property including the Animal Shelter and adjacent vacant land) has been conservatively analyzed as a commercial -like development with a corresponding imperviousness of 90 percent to ensure adequate maximum storm drain system sizing. The potential improvements and land use changes planned for the City properties along Adolfo Lopez Drive are outside of the project's boundary and do not influence the proposed project. Any future offsite development should include a similar analysis to determine and maintain the existing flows draining to the LARB. In conclusion, the proposed project would increase runoff from the site by approximately 9.8 cfs for the 100 -year expected confidence storm (i.e., the 25 year storm charts) per Orange County's Flood Control's Appendix 1. This would require 1.84 acre -feet of retention. The graded area for the water retention facilities is 2.1 acres and has a total capacity of approximately 2.8 acre -feet. By designing drainage retention into the system, the additional runoff into the LARB would be mitigated and would provide improved storm water quality over existing conditions by directing the future development drainage through a combination of storm water pollution control devices and retention basins. Retention capacity would be provided in conjunction with proposed water quality basins as shown on Exhibit 5.9 -4, Storm Drain and Water Quality Concept, reducing impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, standing water and drainage problems do occur at the frontage of Planning Area 4 on Seal Beach Boulevard. These need to be corrected as part of the proposed Project development for Planning Area 4. The existing flat longitudinal grades, combined with the flow - disturbance caused by the wide driveways, result in runoff ponding in the vicinity of the driveways adjacent to the Boeing site. A detailed cross - section survey of Seal Beach Boulevard extending about 1,000 feet north and south of the existing double box culvert crossing shall be required. A storm drain system shall be required to be designed and connected to the double box culvert crossing. The design shall evaluate the need for additional crossings of Seal Beach Boulevard. WATER QUALITY 5.9 -3 Implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to water quality. Implementation of proposed treatment controls and mitigation measures would result in less than significant impacts. Currently, the off -site areas located along Seal Beach Boulevard and Adolfo Lopez Drive, including Accurate Metals, the City Police Station, the City Maintenance Facilities, the Animal Shelter and the open dirt area west of the Animal Shelter, drain north and northwest into the proposed project site before discharging into the LARB. Under the proposed conditions, the Accurate Metals facility will continue to drain into the project site, while runoff from Adolfo Lopez Drive, the City Maintenance Facilities, the City Police Station, the Animal Shelter and open space adjacent to the Animal Shelter would be intercepted and re- routed through a separate storm drain system. The new storm drain system would extend from the end of Adolfo Lopez Drive into the LARB or Boeing property, dependent upon the final design and approval of the City Engineer. The runoff from Adolfo Lopez Drive and the associated facilities would be treated by storm water devices to remove the pollutants of concern. In FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.9 -19 Hydrology and Drainage I ' I it 1i J a � O W � II f L w ,?• I I ' �;' , o � c �� I o¢ z z I I AL F z y �Lij o cr I I I M W V) O Wo W Lu Z N O O 0 z CO O (L H � `a w \ I I \ l \ 1 I \. D II le III � � cc -17 - W� I' m z� Cl z � CI C, Z to C2 U d r I I I II i I � tic T j I WI 2"F- 1 I III I I 1:5 I I � Q '�.. � ,• I f op N o I I11 a l I I "a d Ow t "� R I I IW Er 4 / D I I i MR I a f c 1 I I 1 Qm °° z 0 ° o a NIB'v'8 DNMvia 1 BQLImviv eo I � J � w w +�r Z 0 U o m o Z H In z U . z emu: C7 Ln w 0 C7 z z Z M Q O J V CL z C) • J U) • O m 6 ■z ° z , Exhibit 5.9 -4 Cl o Z ❑ .. Z ■ r-F N O C ■ � [7 • 2 Z ID O a r o D w Z Z Z GI 0 m (n GI Z n Z Z C) C n o � m Z poop CD Mt CO co m U) M M CO) c CO) T _ C C- � D � z o T M 7C7 � O D C r M W M cC m n O C CD T C N C') O CD M CD CD v c� N UI N O O W O > Va O D O O 11 y T II ? r II D ifi OD w f OD C) Q 0 w Las Alamitos Retarding Basin • 1 O ry '4r =r 'n D ILn 1 i d 1 V flCPS. D. N i • r 4 1 O O If IA 10 1 � 1- � ca IV) c I r r� O yb Ji Q .. M 1 O: -4 ,A p GO p ; ca sn 1 i 3 � O ►` 1 m f ae _ 1 f ti� IC i i .1 Q 1 W 1 CD IN 1 1 m i W r i M S r• • Y Y _ _ Y+MCES TOi , 4X � S . " I A 04 8 = �� w 4 �! Q 1%? A J 1 f 1 f 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M � x v a GO M IA m n Q m M Z y Q �3 � v rte• • \ Y R 3 W Q ic 1111 7 0 CD � � O m 3 � O as C II 11 w W � ,a. y n n 611 n � _ al `�, o .a . 3 w Q� 3 W r i M S r• • Y Y _ _ Y+MCES TOi , 4X � S . " I A 04 8 = �� w 4 �! Q 1%? A J 1 f 1 f 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M � x v a GO M IA m n Q m M Z y Q �3 � v rte• • \ Y R 3 W Q ic 1111 7 0 CD � � O m 3 � O as C II 11 w W � ,a. y n n C 'O-c� � BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR addition, a storm water treatment device would be installed at the southeastern project boundary to treat the Accurate Metals runoff before discharging into the proposed project (refer to Exhibit 5.9 -5, Water Quality Assurance Plan). Tile ex isting storm drain system in Planning P.rea 1 would be modified to allow for the first -flush treatment requirements for redevelopment. The northern portion of Planning Area 1 (approximately 21 acres of parking lot) would be re- routed around Planning Area 3 to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin (LARB) to avoid interference with the storm water treatment facilities of Planning Area 3. A storm water device designed to remove parking lot pollutants from the parking areas would be installed in the modified storm drain system to treat first flush sizing requirements. The remaining 17 acres of the existing Boeing Campus area in Planning Area 1 would drain through a separate storm water device before discharging into the central drainage ditch. Any future development of Planning Area 1 would incorporate additional water quality design features to treat pollutants from the proposed land use within its own development area. The development of Planning Area 3, the 61 -acre property adjacent to the LARB, represents the most significant portion of the project because it has the greatest impact to water quality and flood detention. Development of Planning Area 3 into a business park would result in an increased impervious surface of roughly 38 acres, Cj thereby increasing surface water runoff and any associated pollutants introduced with the new development. L G U i; U Planning Area 4, a proposed hotel and retail development area, would undergo a three - pronged approach to storm water management including site design, source control and treatment control BMPs during the design stage of the area and would be documented in a Water Quality Management Plan subject to approval of the California Coastal Commission and the City of Seal Beach. The proposed land use would incorporate water quality design features within its own area consisting of such measures as infiltration, landscaping filtration areas and structural storm water devices to meet the treatment control BMP requirements from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Coastal Commission. The remaining property would be left largely untouched with the exception of the retail /hotel site proposed in the northeast corner of the property adjacent to Westminster Boulevard (Planning Area 4). Development of this area would not result in significant impacts to surface runoff or water quality because the site is an existing parking lot that contributes related pollutants to runoff during storm events. Any modifications to the site would be required to incorporate water quality treatment features into the design phase thereby improving storm water quality from the existing condition. Under the proposed conditions off -site drainage from Adolfo Lopez Drive, that previously drained into the project site, would be separated into two drainage patterns under the proposed conditions. Runoff from Accurate Metals would be treated by a storm water treatment device before discharging into the water quality basin adjacent to the south ditch. Runoff from the remaining drainage area of Adolfo Lopez Drive would be treated by a separate storm water device prior to discharging through a separate storm drain system directly into the LARB or proposed project, dependent upon the final design. The potential improvements and land use changes FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.9 -23 Hydrology and Drainage BOEING�SECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR planned for the City properties along Adolfo Lopez Drive are outside of the project boundary and do not influence the proposed project. Under the development condition, the urban runoff generated from Planning Area 3 has Ln a_., te "., -- lil +on +c ci v-h oc teach debris, hydrocarbon, heavy Ub po Le 11IG1 lV carr fJ�.n�uta Stu such metals, nutrients and bacteria, and sediment. The runoff from the project site and off - site property would not be allowed to discharge into receiving bodies (LARB) without adequate water quality treatment. The treatment must be applied inaccordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations, California Coastal Commission requirements and California BMPs. In accordance with the Orange County Municipal Storm Water Permit (January, 2002) and California Coastal Commission guidelines, the treatment control BMPs (volume- based) must be sized to adequately treat, infiltrate or filter the volume of runoff from a 24 -hour, 85 percentile storm event as determined from the local historical rainfall record. Similarly, for flow -based BMPs, they must adequately treat or filter runoff from a 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity, as determined from the local historical rainfall record, multiplied by a factor of two. For Orange County, it is generally accepted that 0.8 inches rainfall depth satisfies the 85 percentile treatment requirement for volume based BMPs or 0.2 inches per hour for flow -based BMPs. The first flush volume to be treated is calculated using the methodology adopted by the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and is commonly accepted by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The impervious area is estimated using the Orange County Hydrology Manual for industrial development. The first flush volume is calculated for Planning Area 3 independently of the other Planning Areas because water quality treatment facilities would be sized accordingly for each phase of development. The proposed condition consists of the Planning Area 3 development area (61 acres) and the off -site drainage area of Accurate Metals (5.2) generating a 3.6 acre -feet first -flush runoff volume. A similar calculation can be performed for the existing condition for comparison purposes. Table 5.9 -2, Existing First Flush Volumes and Table 5.9 -3, Proposed First Flush Volumes, indicate the increase of first flush in 0.8 inches of rainfall depth generated from the project site under the existing and proposed conditions. The first -flush volume for the existing condition consists of the existing hardscape included in Planning Area 3 (23 acres), the dirt lot area (38 acres) and the off -site drainage areas (12 acres). Table 5.9 -2 Existing First Flush Volumes Area Description Area First Flush - Volume (Ac -ft) Developed (Planning Area 1) Existing Hardscape 23 1.13 Undeveloped (Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 3) Dirt Lot Area 38 0.35 Off -site runoff Off -site Drainage 12 0.66 Total Existing PA -3 73 2.1 FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.9 -24 Hydrology and Drainage U i v L L L BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.9 -3 Proposed First Flush Volumes for Proposed Project As shown in Tables 5.9 -2 and 5.9 -3, the proposed project increases the first flush volume approximately 70% representing a significant increase in storm water runoff and pollutants typically associated with the project. The proposed development would increase pollutant loads to the receiving water body. To mitigate the impacts to an insignificant level, appropriate source control and treatment control BMPs would be implemented in the project site as discussed in the following sections. The Orange County Municipal Storm Water Permit specifically states that significant redevelopment projects are subject to first flush sizing criteria so the Planning Area 3 would include water quality treatment for the entire area, not just the increase in first flush between the proposed and existing condition. The remaining Planning Areas (i.e., Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 4) would meet first flush requirements at the time of development. L. L L Proposed Water Quality Features Urban runoff resulting from short- duration, low intensity storms or nuisance flows (runoff during dry periods) from the planned development and off -site drainage areas carry pollutants to receiving waters. Without appropriate design features and mitigation measures, impacts could adversely affect the downstream watercourses and habitats. To prevent potentially contaminated runoff from reaching downstream waters, adequate water quality treatment must be applied in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations and the California Coastal Commission requirements for new projects. The primary objective of the water quality element of the BMPs is to ensure that the project - generated pollutants (including off -site drainage) do not exceed the applicable water quality standards of the receiving waters established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Site Design C L The first component to water quality management involves site design. Site design objectives include a combination of factors that may include: minimization of impervious surfaces including roads and parking lots; preservation of native vegetation and root systems; minimization of erosion and sedimentation from susceptible areas; preservation of wetlands, riparian corridors, and buffer zones and establishment of reasonable limits on the clearing of vegetation from the project site; incorporation of water quality wetlands, biofiltration swales, etc. where measures are likely to be effective and technically and economically feasible; and minimization of FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.9 -25 Hydrology and Drainage Flush - Volume erpa .. . Description Area, ,. c First (A - st) a. y Developed (Planning Area 1, Planning Existing Hardscape 61 3.3 Area 2 and Planning Area 3 Off -site runoff Off -site Drainage 5.2 0.25 Total Proposed PA -3 66.2 3.6 As shown in Tables 5.9 -2 and 5.9 -3, the proposed project increases the first flush volume approximately 70% representing a significant increase in storm water runoff and pollutants typically associated with the project. The proposed development would increase pollutant loads to the receiving water body. To mitigate the impacts to an insignificant level, appropriate source control and treatment control BMPs would be implemented in the project site as discussed in the following sections. The Orange County Municipal Storm Water Permit specifically states that significant redevelopment projects are subject to first flush sizing criteria so the Planning Area 3 would include water quality treatment for the entire area, not just the increase in first flush between the proposed and existing condition. The remaining Planning Areas (i.e., Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 4) would meet first flush requirements at the time of development. L. L L Proposed Water Quality Features Urban runoff resulting from short- duration, low intensity storms or nuisance flows (runoff during dry periods) from the planned development and off -site drainage areas carry pollutants to receiving waters. Without appropriate design features and mitigation measures, impacts could adversely affect the downstream watercourses and habitats. To prevent potentially contaminated runoff from reaching downstream waters, adequate water quality treatment must be applied in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations and the California Coastal Commission requirements for new projects. The primary objective of the water quality element of the BMPs is to ensure that the project - generated pollutants (including off -site drainage) do not exceed the applicable water quality standards of the receiving waters established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Site Design C L The first component to water quality management involves site design. Site design objectives include a combination of factors that may include: minimization of impervious surfaces including roads and parking lots; preservation of native vegetation and root systems; minimization of erosion and sedimentation from susceptible areas; preservation of wetlands, riparian corridors, and buffer zones and establishment of reasonable limits on the clearing of vegetation from the project site; incorporation of water quality wetlands, biofiltration swales, etc. where measures are likely to be effective and technically and economically feasible; and minimization of FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.9 -25 Hydrology and Drainage of � s� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR impacts from storm water and urban runoff on the biological integrity of natural drainage systems and water bodies. During the conceptual site design phase, these objectives were analyzed within the constraints - of " IC ex lstir� g on-site uses and proposed land uses and were incorporated into the project where feasible. A summary of the incorporated site design measures includes: ® Preservation of the central "man- made" drainage ditch and the associated wetland habitat; o Restoration and enhancement of the south "man- made" ditch; ® Mitigation and on -site relocation of the Southern tarplant species from the north drainage ditch; ® Minimization of impervious surfaces within the development area, allowing for water quality treatment basins to treat and control pollutants from entering the LARB (> 2 -acre footprint); Preservation of historical drainage patterns; ® Minimization of directly connected impervious areas (DCIAs) by utilizing landscaped areas for roof drainage where feasible; ® Routine maintenance of all the catch basins, grate inlets, etc. for debris and litter removal; ® Storm drain stenciling or signage on all catch basins with highly visible source control messages; ® Educational materials related to urban runoff for all businesses and building owners; o Education and training of all maintenance staff to identify and incorporate BMPs into routine maintenance practices; o Title 22 CCR Compliance for all applicable facility uses; o Spill Contingency Plan for all applicable facility uses; ® Litter control for the entire project area; ® Housekeeping of all loading docks to minimize potential contact of pollufants with storm water; o BMP Maintenance Schedules including maintenance requirements of all treatment BMPs; and ® Each of these BMPs would be discussed in detail in the Water Quality Management Plan prior to project development. Source Controls The second phase of water quality management includes source control BMPs. Source control BMPs effectively minimize the potential for typical urban pollutants to come into contact with storm water, thereby limiting water quality impacts downstream. Several source control BMPs would be incorporated into the proposed project including: ® Native species planting within the water quality treatment basins and native drought tolerant species incorporated into landscaped areas; ® Efficient irrigation systems including rain shutoff devices and flow reducers; ® Minimization of pesticide and fertilizer application and proper landscape training; FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.9 -26 Hydrology and Drainage L C; o�� eaC4 BOEINGS I AN PROJECT EIR _ 0 Properly designed trash enclosures to minimize contact with storm water and diversion of trash drainage towards infiltration zones or landscaped areas; u o Properly designed outdoor material storage areas with secondary containment and roofs or awnings to protect from direct precipitation; ' o -No direct connections of truck wells (depressed loading docks) to the storm drain system; 0 Regularly scheduled sweeping of all streets and parking lots; 0 Routine maintenance of all the catch basins, grate inlets, etc. for debris and litter removal; 0 Storm drain stenciling or signage on all catch basins with highly visible source control messages; o Educational materials related to urban runoff for all businesses and building owners; 0 Education and training of all maintenance staff to identify and incorporate BMPs into routine maintenance practices; o Title 22 CCR Compliance for all applicable facility uses; o Spill Contingency Plan for all applicable facility uses; o Litter control for the entire project area; o Housekeeping of all loading docks to minimize potential contact of pollutants with storm water; and r i 0 BMP Maintenance Schedules including maintenance requirements of all U treatment BMPs. Each of these BMPs would be discussed in detail in the Water Quality Management �j Plan prior to project development. E ll Treatment Controls The third component to sound water quality management is the treatment control BMPs designed to reduce the impacts of urban development on downstream water bodies. The purpose of the BMPs is to remove the pollutants typically associated with each type of urban land use including the light industrial uses proposed for Planning Area 3. Potential pollutants associated with light industrial include: ' sediments, trash /debris, nutrients, oil /grease and pesticides. To mitigate the u discharges of urban runoff pollutants into receiving waters, the proposed project would incorporate two treatment approaches for reducing these types of pollutant discharges into the LARB (refer to Exhibit 5.9-5, Water Quality Assurance Plan). LJ The following water treatment strategies and devices would be utilized to treat both on -site and off -site pollutant sources. r•. U CDS Unit A CDS unit (or equivalent) is a pre -cast vault system that removes debris, trash, U oil /grease, sediment and parking lot particulates from storm water. The units would be installed underground within the storm drain system. As the water enters the underground storm drain system, it filters through the CDS unit and flows through a L vortex sieve which traps sediment and debris while oil /grease floats to the top where an USEPA approved absorbent removes the oil /grease from the storm water. The r' required units would discharge treated storm water to the central conveyance ditch and southern water quality treatment basin respectively before discharging into the U LARB. U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.9 -27 Hydrology and Drainage oie� .0,C BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The proposed BMP for the drainage area discharging into the central ditch is an underground CDS unit (or equivalent) that would be sized to treat runoff from approximately 40 acres (includes 23 acres within Planning Area 3 and 17 acres from Planning Area 1 equaling roughly 6.5 cfs low flow) of the project area east of the -• central conveyance ditch. The device is primarily used to -control trash, litter, oil /grease and sediment particulates associated with parking lots and rooftop drainage. A CDS (or equivalent) would be installed to treat runoff from the parking areas of Planning Area 1 and discharged directly into the LARB to avoid interference with the water quality treatment basins in Planning Area 3. In addition, an adequately sized CDS unit (or equivalent) would be installed to treat any off -site runoff draining into the southern water quality treatment basin. Detention Basin Multi- purpose water quality /detention basins would treat the remaining runoff of Planning Area 3 from the north and south portions of the site. Runoff from the north portion of the site (approximately 19 acres) would discharge into the series of linear water quality /detention basins along the western perimeter of the site. Runoff from the south portion of the site (approximately 27 acres) would discharge into the south water quality basin located between Adolfo Lopez Drive and the south ditch. The water quality basins control and remove nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), microbial contaminants (bacteria, fecal coliforms), and toxic materials (pesticides, heavy metals, oils, and organic matter). The water quality basins are sized to accommodate the 46 acres of first flush runoff that discharge into the basins for a total treatment capacity of approximately 2.8 acre -feet. The basins are also sized to accept the pre- treated flows from Accurate Metals and to accommodate detention of runoff for the 100 -year storm event to regulate discharges into the LARB at the pre - development condition. The water quality treatment basins would be designed to allow for low flow treatment of urban runoff with detention capabilities beyond the first flush requirements. A water quality basin is a basin with a wetland bottom and vegetation, which impounds surface runoff and gradually filtrates it through the basin floor. It is similar to conventional dry ponds. The detained runoff is filtrated through the soils beneath the basin, removing both fine and soluble pollutants. Removal mechanisms include absorption, filtering, and microbial decomposition in the basin subsoil. Due to the slow velocity, fine particles would settle in the bottom of the channel, runoff would infiltrate into the soil to recharge the groundwater basin, and vegetation would uptake fertilizers and nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus), microbial contaminants, pesticides and organic matter. The pollutant removal efficiencies rate ranges from 20% to 80% based on EPA NURP (Nationwide Urban Runoff Program) findings and CDM (Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.) experience published in California State BMP handbook (pp. 13-8) and Caltrans storm water data (2001). Metals can also be removed in a filtration basin. Most of the metals washed off of the parking lot would be in the metallic form, which settles out as solids in the basin. Ionic metals can be utilized by microbial activity. The filtration basin is designed to impound 0.8" of the "first flush" storm event from the local sub - drainage area or nuisance flows. The depth of water in the basin should be 2 feet or less to allow the UV light to disinfect the bacteria such as Fecal Coliform, FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.9 -28 Hydrology and Drainage 1 r ' {� BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Enterococcus, and E. coli. Exhibit 5.9 -5, Water Quality Assurance Plan, shows a typical cross section profile of the water quality basin. The graded area for the water quality treatment facilities is 2.1 acres and consists of two main components. A series- of connected :eater q! a!ity basins ru nning u north /south along the western perimeter of the project site would treat first flush and dry season flows from the northern portion of Planning Area 3. A separate water (; quality basin located along the southwest portion of the site adjacent to the south conveyance ditch and Adolfo Lopez Drive would treat flows from the southern portion of the site including off -site runoff from Accurate Metals. Additional water quality measures would be implemented throughout the project site including trash racks, catch basin inserts with hydrocarbon removal capabilities and grassy swales where feasible. The total capacity of water quality treatment for the designed water quality basins is approximately 2.8 -acre feet and this capacity is sufficient to detainand treat runoff from its associated sub - drainage area according to the volume based requirements of the Coastal Commission and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. �j The existing storm drain system in Planning Area 1 would be modified to allow for the first -flush treatment requirements for redevelopment. The northern portion of r I Planning Area 1 (approximately 21 acres of parking lot) would be re- routed around U Planning Area 3 to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin (LARB) to avoid interference with the storm water treatment facilities of Planning Area 3. A storm water device (; designed to remove parking lot pollutants from the parking areas would be installed in the modified storm drain system to treat first flush sizing requirements. The remaining 17 acres of the existing Boeing Campus area in Planning Area 1 would through a separate storm water device before discharging into the central G drain i drainage ditch. Any future development of Planning Area 1 would incorporate additional water quality design features to treat pollutants from the proposed land use within its own development area. At the present time, there are no plans for the r i redevelopment of Planning Area 1 so site specific BMPs have not been designed for U Planning Area 1. Water quality treatment for Planning Area 4 (4.5 acres) would include maximizing lJ runoff into local landscaping and planter areas throughout the parking lots and building footprint areas. This would serve to reduce the post - developed runoff rates and provide infiltration of the initial flows of storm water runoff for water quality Cj treatment. Structural BMPs for the parking lots would also be utilized if the infiltration zones are not able to handle the first flush treatment requirements. Bioswales may also be utilized but water quality basins would not be due to their size requirements. L, All BMPs would be adequately sized to treat, infiltrate or filter the volume -based or flow -based treatment requirements and would be documented in a Water Quality Management Plan subject to approval of the California Coastal Commission and the City of Seal Beach. Currently, the off -site areas located along Seal Beach Boulevard and Adolfo Lopez Drive, including Accurate Metals, the City Police Station, the City Maintenance Facilities, the Animal Shelter and the open dirt area west of the Animal Shelter, drain north and northwest into the proposed project site before discharging into the LARB. Under the proposed conditions, the Accurate Metals facility would continue to drain into the project site, while runoff from Adolfo Lopez Drive, the City Maintenance LV FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.9 -29 Hydrology and Drainage G; R eaA BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Facilities, the City Police Station, the Animal Shelter and open space adjacent to the Animal Shelter would be intercepted and re- routed through a separate storm drain system. The new storm drain system would extend from the end of Adolfo Lopez Drive into the LARB or Boeing property, dependent upon the final design and f Pp _ _ Y g 'h ff fm Adolfo Lopez Drive and the a ppr ova l -of lhG t/Il E n g i n eer. r"-- 11 Wlvn nv��. associated facilities would be treated by storm water devices to remove the pollutants of concern. In addition, a storm water treatment device would be installed at the southeastern project boundary to treat the Accurate Metals runoff before discharging into the proposed project. Water Quality Assessment for Mitigated Measures The Orange County Municipal Storm Water Permit (approved January, 2002) defines new criteria and regulations for new development projects. According to the Permit, the project shall mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and flows and ensure that post development runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant impacts on downstream erosion and stream habitat. The mitigated pollutant loadings are estimated based on regional and national studies that evaluate the effectiveness of the various BMPs chosen for the proposed project. Table 5.9-4, BMP Efficiencies, reveals how much the various water quality control measures remove pollutants from the water. Table 5.9-4 BMPs Efficiencies Pollutant ° Pollutant Removal=Efflciencies;(medlian value) Catch Basin'lnseit'' °,.;Storm Drain;lnsert? , Y - Water 3 ! , TSS 75% 75% 80% Hydrocarbons 70% 70% N/A Total -P 14% N/A 58% Soluble -P 0% N/A 65% NO2 + NO3 N/A N/A 20% TKN 14% N/A 30% Cadmium N/A N/A 70% Copper 11% N/A 60% Lead 15% N/A 70% Zinc 5% N/A 40% Stenstrom, M.K., Lau, Sim -Lin, and E.Khan, 1998. 'Catch Basin Inserts to Reduce Pollution from Storm Water", Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, UCLA, 2 Rinker Materials; Stormceptor Unit, 2002 3 StormWater Program- California Department of Transportation BMP Retrofit Pilot Program.- 2001 4 California Storm Water BMP Handbook, pg B- 9,1993 Note: N/A = Data not available or not measured FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.9 -30 Hydrology and Drainage , r + L. C L " , L' L' E. U U r+ L L U L U BOEING�SECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The proposed BMPs demonstrate a significant reduction in theanticipated pollutants. The combination of the source control BMPs and the treatment control BMPs would result in a low concentration of pollutants discharged into the LARB and water quality impacts would be insignificant. The increased post - development runoff rate an d. ve loc ity would n result in Si adverse flooding impacts -to the regional detention basin (LARB) because retention of runoff on -site would regulate the discharge to the predevelopment condition. With implementation of the proposed water quality control plan, the pollutants in urban runoff from the project site would be mitigated to meet the objectives set by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Coastal Commission. Impacts due to the urban runoff from the proposed development area would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Groundwater The proposed project would not install any wells to withdraw groundwater for any water usage. The project includes water quality treatment basins to permit the filtering of the urban runoff for water quality purposes. The urban runoff would infiltrate into the ground and undergo natural biological and chemical processes to remove pollutants. The proposed water quality treatment basins would include a perforated sub -drain system into the LARB to prevent any potential groundwater contamination through the first flush event. The proposed project would contribute clean and filtered runoff to groundwater recharge. The impacts on groundwater quality are concluded to be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.9 -4 The proposed Project along with other future development may result in increased hydrology and drainage impacts in the area. Impacts are evaluated on a project -by- project basis in order to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. The basis for the cumulative analysis is presented in Section 4.0, Basis For Cumulative Analysis, of this EIR. For purposes of drainage and water quality analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for projects in the same watershed as the Boeing site. These cumulative projects drain into the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin and are required to comply with the standards outlined in the Orange County NPDES Permit. There are no cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. MITIGATION MEASURES This section directly corresponds to the identified Impact Statements in the impacts subsection. WATER QUALITY — CONSTRUCTION 5.9 -1 a Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit shall be obtained from the Regional Water Quality FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.9 -31 Hydrology and Drainage BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Control Board. Such permits are required for specific (or a series of related) construction activities which exceed five acres in size and include provisions to eliminate or reduce off -site discharges through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). n%AInnn ,�nl„ rnmid m eats for erosion and J�eClll(: ovvrrr p rovisions i lncude sediment control, as well as monitoring requirements both during and after construction. Pollution - control measures also require the use of best available technology, best conventional pollutant control technology, and /or best management practices to prevent or reduce pollutant discharge (pursuant to definitions and direction). 5.9 -1 b Prior to the issuance of the first grading or building permit, a comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or a registered professional hydrologist to protect water resources from impacts due to urban contaminants in surface water runoff. The WQMP shall be prepared in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Orange County, the City of Seal Beach and California Coastal Commission to insure compliance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit requirements. The WQMP shall include a combination of structural and non - structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) as outlined in Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. 5.9 -1 c The project is required to meet Storm Water Management regulations. The applicant shall file for an NPDES permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and abide by the conditions of the permit as issued. A copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP), and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to commencing grading operations. The SWPPP shall emphasize structural and non - structural BMPs in compliance with NPDES Program requirements. Specific measures shall include: o The project shall provide appropriate sediment traps in open channels and energy dissipaters in storm water conduits and storm drain outlets. o Surplus or waste material from construction shall not be placed in drainage ways or within the 100 -year floodplain of surface waters. o All loose piles of soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, or other earthen materials shall be protected in a reasonable manner to eliminate any discharge to water of the State. o During construction, temporary gravel or sandbag dikes shall be used as necessary to prevent discharge of earthen materials from the site during periods of precipitation or runoff. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.9 -32 Hydrology and Drainage i � - . U C+ '0-c �jecc� BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 0 Stabilizing agents such as straw, wood chips and /or hydroseeding i shall be used during the interim period after grading in order to U strengthen exposed soil while ground cover takes hold. 0 Revegetated areas shall be continually maintained in order to assure adequate growth and root development. L L"' L' L HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE 5.9 -2a Standing water and drainage problems occurring at the frontage of Planning Area 4 on Seal Beach Boulevard shall be corrected as part of the proposed Project development for Planning Area 4. A detailed cross section survey of Seal Beach Boulevard extending about 1,000 feet north and south of the existing double box culvert crossing shall be conducted. A storm drain system shall be designed and connected to the double box culvert crossing. The design shall evaluate the need for additional crossings of Seal Beach Boulevard. Refer to the Master Plan of Drainage Section 6, Recommended Improvements, for more information and detailed figures. 5.9 -2b A Finalized Hydrology and Retention Basin Study shall be submitted for review and approval by the County of Orange in conformance with the Orange County Hydrology Manual (OCHM) and the Addendum No. 1 to the OCHM. Hydrology, hydraulic and retention basin studies shall be based on Expected Value (EV) discharges for 2-, 10 -, 25- and 100 -year storm frequencies for existing and developed conditions. Approval by the County of Orange of this plan shall be received by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. WATER QUALITY L L L. L' L r L I L 5.9 -3a The project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP), subject to approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which shall cite water quality control measures for the project. The approved SWPPP shall be submitted concurrent with grading permit application to the City Engineer. The SWPPP may include the following components: 0 Description of significant potential sources of pollutants in storm water discharges. o A listing of all chemicals which may contact storm water and estimates of concentrations. 0 An estimate of the area of impervious surfaces. 0 Source controls. 0 Isolation /separation of hazardous from non - hazardous pollutant sources. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.9 -33 Hydrology and Drainage BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EI o Treatment/conveyance structures and their impacts on groundwater quality. o Design criteria for the structures/ conveyances. o Maintenance schedules. o Erosion control measures. o An estimate of pollutant reduction levels expected from implementing the controls. o Establishment of internal record keeping and internal reporting procedures. o Eliminate illicit discharges of storm water to storm water system. o Develop and implement a storm water monitoring, sampling, testing, and reporting program. o Develop a special management plan for loading dock areas and vehicle refueling and maintenance areas. o Installation and maintenance of oil /water separators for all parking lot areas. 5.9 -3b Non - structural BMPs shall be incorporated into the project, to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The applicable BMPs include: o BMP facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by the Owners Association for private BMP's and by a City- appointed person for public BMP's. o All hazardous wastes shall be handled in accordance with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations and relevant sections of the California Health and Safety Code regarding hazardous waste management. 5.9 -3c Routine structural BMPs shall be incorporated into the proposed project design to facilitate future water quality measures, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to issuance of grading permits. CUMULATIVE 5.9-4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, impacts are evaluated on a project -by- project basis in order to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.9 -34 Hydrology and Drainage G u L L ReacA BOEINGS EC IFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No significant impacts related to hydrology and drainage have been identified following implementation of mitigation measures, compliance with applicable standards, policies and /or the City of Sea! Leach Lode requirements. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.9 -35 Hydrology and Drainage 1 '__Pe=A BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 5010 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY This Section addresses potential impacts related to the physical condition of the site and adjacent uses due to the past activities that have occurred in the Project area. Potential contamination on -site is discussed in this Section. This analysis includes a review of historic and existing on -site land uses and their associated activities. A review of Federal, State and local agency's databases of reported (suspect and /or known) hazardous materials and waste contamination sites located within the Project site and a one -mile or half -mile radius (depending on specified search radius) is presented. Potential safety issues associated with the use, storage, emission, (; disposal, and transport of hazardous waste on, and in the immediate vicinity of the L proposed Study Areas are discussed. (1 Information in this section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) for Study Areas 1, 2, 3, and Lot 7, dated December 31, 2001, and Phase 11 ESA for Study Areas 1 and 2 dated April 24, 2002, (Tait Environmental Management, Inc. (TEM)). The Study Area boundaries for the ESA's are depicted in Exhibit 5.10 -1, Study Area Boundaries. r EXISTING CONDITIONS u AGRICULTURAL USE OF PROPERTY The Project site historically has been in agricultural production. Agricultural activities rely on chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides to produce food. As such, pesticide residues may exist in the soil and groundwater on -site. Chlorinated hydrocarbons, including DDT, were commonly utilized as pesticides during the 1950's and early 1960's, until they were banned in 1965. - Residues in the soil can leach into the groundwater and surface water bodies for many years. These residues may exist in the soil and groundwater within the Project area. The only conclusive method to determine concentrations of pesticides in the soil would be to conduct soil sampling. G HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Four Phase I ESA's were prepared and a Phase II ESA was prepared in order to �J evaluate the potential presence of hazardous materials and the expected nature of the materials that may be on the subject sites. HISTORICAL SITE USAGE L L f' L r Study Area 1 According to historical topographic maps and aerial photographs, Study Area 1 was farmland until the mid- 1960's. At that time, a portion ofStudy Area 1 and property to the east were developed as part of the North American Aviation (later Rockwell International and then Boeing Space and Communications) facility. As reported by TEM, based on historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, there is FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 5.10 -1 Public Health and Safety _ °C y U w w OD C-) L J W - W C/) � C) >- Q O o- co U U E m U n L UD w CD � I r I r 1 J Exhibit 5.10 -1 z to F U o � F _o z N Z ❑ U Z 7 �. N W C7 Z Z Z r Q J ° V a ° a� L3 is ■ ? U U ' O F J •7 N +. • Z O p z n Exhibit 5.10 -1 I U { BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR U evidence of numerous trails and construction activity at Study Area 1 during the development of the main Boeing facility. There is however no evidence of any development on Study Area 1, except for Building 97 (refer to Exhibit 3 -3, Aerial Photo) which was utilized for hazardous waste storage. I i U, U U L L r' U Several drainage ditches, located in the northern, central, and southern portion of Study Area 1 extend from east to west, carrying runoff from the main Boeing facility towards the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. With the exception of the drainage ditches, and landscaped Study Areas around the circular running track, the site is lacking in vegetated ground covering, and most of Study Area 1 appears to have been recently plowed. In the developed portion of Study Area 1, several structures have been constructed including Boeing's hazardous waste accumulation area which, has inward sloping access points, no floor drains, and is completely bermed to contain any potential release. Study Area 2 According to historical topographic maps and aerial photographs, Study Area 2 was farmland until the mid- 1960's. Crops are apparent on the western portion of Study Area 2 with the surrounding area consisting of undeveloped farm /range land. The aerial photo from 1967 shows Study Area 2 under development for the North American Aviation facility. Additional buildings are apparent in Study Areas 2 and 3 in 1983 and 1992, and there is little change in the site and surrounding properties from that time to the present day. Refer to Table 5.10 -1, Study Area 2 — Buildings, for a description of the size and type of buildings located within Study Area 2, (Exhibit 5.10 -1, Existing Boeing Buildings, illustrates the locations of these buildings). Study Area 3 IU U According to historical topographic maps and aerial photographs, Study Area 3 followed the same development history of Study Area 2 and was farmland until the mid- 1960's. At that time, Study Area 3 and Study Area 2 were developed as part of the North American Aviation (later Rockwell International and then Boeing) facility. Refer to Table 5.10 -2, Study Area 3 — Buildings, for a description of the size and type of buildings located within Study Area 3, (Exhibit 5.10 -1, Existing Boeing Buildings, illustrates the locations of these buildings). Lot 7 Lj r Ui L According to historical topographic maps and aerial photographs, Lot 7 was also farmland until the mid 1960's. At that time, Lot 7 and Study Area 3 were acquired and developed as part of the North American Aviation facility. However, Lot 7 was never developed other than as a paved parking lot. RECORDS RESEARCH TEM reviewed both regulatory agency listings and historical use information to identify listed hazardous sites within the Study Areas. For regulatory agency listings, FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.10 -3 Public Health and Safety BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR TEM reviewed both Federal listings under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and State of California listings. Table 5.10 -1 S _ area 2 Buildin LM\Ar F VM �. rv..■w.. gC Building I.D.. :.. 'Building Use 84 Warehouse, maintenance, wind tunnel testing and electronic laboratory 85 Satellite fabrication and testing 86 Satellite manufacturing and maintenance 89 Maintenance 91 Weightlessness simulation testing 93 Electrical substation' 94 Houses firewater pump equipment' 96 Houses cooling towers, chillers, and boilers 100 Model shop' Trailer Complex T -North Office Trailer Complex T -South Office Notes: 1 These buildings are essentially covered areas to protect equipment. Table 5.10 -2 Study Area 3 - Buildings . ....Building I.D. :. Building Use .`: . 80 Office 81 Office; laboratory on 1 st floor 82 Houses backup electrical generator 83 Security offices 90 Office 92 Fitness Center Regulatory Agency Listings TEM reviewed a Site Assessment Plus Report prepared by Vista Information Solutions, Inc. in order to identify any contaminated sites listed under Federal or FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 5.10 -4 Public Health and Safety G F` �l BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR State listing agencies. The following sections summarize the databases searched within the corresponding search radii (refer to Table 5.10 -3, Summary of Listed Hazardous Sites, for a summary of the agency regulatory listed sites, within the specified search radii). Federal Listings — US EPA j ♦ NPL Properties designated for remedial action by the US EPA under the I „ comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 as of March 2001. One -mile search radius. i L o RCRIS — TSD Facilities that generate, treat, store and /or dispose of hazardous waste as of June 2000. One -half mile search radius. L RCRIS — VIOLATIONS Properties that have been cited for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) violations as of June 2000. One -half mile search radius. �,� ♦ RCRIS — GENERATOR Facilities that generate small or large quantities of hazardous waste as of June 2000. One -mile search radius. ♦ CORRACTS (TSD) RCRA facilities that are undergoing "corrective action" as of June 2000. One -mile search radius. r L o CERCLIS /NFRAP Sites currently or formerly under review for inclusion to the NPL as of March 2001. One -half mile search radius. L ♦ ERNS Properties with previously reported oil or hazardous materials spills through December 1999. Reporting requirements only include the site if applicable. �-' State of California ♦ CAL -SITES (AWP) (formerly CA SPL) Identifies known hazardous substance properties targeted for cleanup as of October 2000. One -mile search radius. L o CAL - SITES This database contains known and potential hazardous substance sites identified as of October 2000. One -half mile search radius. r ♦ LUST Properties with leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). One -half mile search radius. L o State, Regional and County SWF /LF Properties permitted as active or inactive solid waste landfills, incinerators or transfer stations as of September 1999. One -half mile search radius. o CA CORTESE Properties on state index of properties with hazardous waste as of April 1998. One -half mile search radius. I• L_j FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.10 -5 Public Health and Safety BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ♦ CA UST /AST Properties with registered underground storage tanks (USTs) or above ground storage tanks (ASTs). One -half mile search radius. Table 5.10 -3 cam....,. .. ..f 1 1sfor1 �3r Co �7NIIIIIla1 . y V `�.7«iv m /.ai.aa■ r MVMV v. vv Listings Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 Lot 7 Federal Listings NPL RCRIS - TSD 1 1 RCRIS - VIOLATIONS 1 2 1 1 RCRIS - GENERATOR 1 1 (The Site) 1 CORRACTS (TSD) 1 1 1 1 CERCLIS /NFRAP 1 1 1 1 ERNS 1 1 (The Site) 1 (The Site) 1 State of California Listings CAL - SITES (AWP) 1 1 1 1 CAL - SITES LUST 7 7 7 7 State, Regional, and County SWF /LF 1 CA CORTESE 4 4 4 4 CA UST /AST 1 1 (The Site) 1 (The Site) 1(The Site) Source: Phase I Environmental Assessment for Study Area 1, 2, 3, and Lot 7, TEM, December 31, 2001. Historical Use Information TEM reviewed public and private records in order to obtain all files and records regarding the Project site. TEM also reviewed environmental files from the Naval Weapons Station and the Boeing facility. As part of the public records review process, TEM personnel visited or contacted the following agencies and inquired as to the availability of any files or records regarding the four Study Areas: ♦ Orange County Water District (OCWD) ♦ Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) ♦ Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) ♦ Orange County Sanitation Districts (OCSD) ♦ Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) ♦ Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) ♦ City of Seal Beach Building Department (SBBD) In addition, Southern California Edison (SCE) was, contacted regarding the electrical substation located on the site. The Munger Map Book was reviewed to determine the presence of oil wells in the vicinity and OCWD and LACDPW were contacted regarding the presence of water wells on -site. For Study Area 2 and 3, additional research was conducted in regards to the geology and hydrology of the sites due to their location in the Coastal Plain of Orange County FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 5.10 -6 Public Health and Safety I r I BOEINGS bECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR and aerial photographs covering the years from 1927 to 1997 were reviewed to determine the historical uses of the sites. U SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND INTERVIEWS TEM performed multiple reconnaissances of the four Study Areas between May 2001 and December 2001. Bruce Wight, Senior Project Engineer with Boeing coordinated the reconnaissance. Discussions with Mr. Wight included a brief history of the Project site and questions regarding current and past environmental activities at the Boeing facility. With Boeing's permission, photographs were taken during the reconnaissances. According to Mr. Wight, the North American Aviation Company (later Rockwell International and then Boeing) began development of the Project site in the 1960's U as an industrial complex. Further development was undertaken in the 1980's and 1990's. L FINDINGS TEM performed the Phase I ESAs for the BSC facility, in conformance with the scope the American Society of Testing and limitations of ty 9 and Materials (AST" Practice E 1527, which is the standard practice for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment process. Based on the observations made during the reconnaissances, review of governmental agency file information, review of historical aerial photographs, review of historical topographic maps, and engineering judgment, TEM found the following environmental conditions in connection with the four Study Areas: Study Area 1 e Boeing environmental files contain a copy of a industrial waste disposal L permit ( #3526) dated October 27, 1965, an internal North American Aviation letter dated April 28, 1967, and a report entitled Prevention, Control and 1` ` Abatement of Water Pollution in Connection with Executive Order #11258, all related to an approximate 6,000 -foot wastewater discharge line thatextended from the then Saturn - II facility on the Naval Weapons Station to the San Gabriel River. The discharge line is reported to have routed wastewater containing sulfuric acid and hexavalent chromium from the facility to the river. The Boeing documentation also reported a leak in the line in May 1967. Information was not contained in the files reviewed by TEM personnel regarding the leak location, the final disposition of the line, or if sampling had been performed to assess any environmental impacts from operation of the line. A Phase II analysis has not been performed because of ongoing operations in the area. Hazardous waste storage has been ongoing at Building 97 since the 1990s. Previous to this, hazardous waste storage occurred at Study Areas 1 and 2 at the original hazardous waste storage area, an area immediately north of ( Building 97. A Phase II analysis has not been performed because of ongoing operation in the area. i � u FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.10 -7 Public Health and Safety BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ♦ An oil well is reported to have been drilled in the southern portion of Study Area 1 between April and October 1925. TEM personnel uncovered no information to indicate that the well was ever properlycapped. A geophysical survey was conducted to locate this oil well. Study Area 2 ♦ Refer to Finding No.1 in the Study Area 1 discussion above. ♦ A total of seven underground storage tanks (USTs) storing hazardous materials were noted at Study Area 2. One is still located onsite and the other six were removed. For the UST still present onsite, a Phase II analysis has not been performed because of ongoing operations. ♦ File information reviewed by TEM indicated that six USTs were removed from Study Area 2 during the mid- 1980's and early- 1990's. It was discovered that two gasoline tanks had leaked, impacting surrounding soils and underlying groundwater. Remediation was undertaken, resulting in the cleanup of both soil and groundwater. The OCHCA issued "No Further Action Required" letters for both the tanks. Information was not included in the OCHCA or SARWQCB file records reviewed by TEM personnel to indicate whether soil and /or groundwater investigation efforts were undertaken during removal of a 1,000- gallon plating rinse water tank in 1992. Thus TEM personnel cannot ascertain if operation of this tank or associated piping may have impacted the surrounding soil or underlying groundwater. A Phase II analysis was performed due to the lack of information regarding the possible contamination of soil and groundwater from the former plating rinse water UST's. ♦ OCHCA file information reviewed by TEM personnel indicate that the piping connecting the former plating tanks in Building 86 to the 1,000- gallon plating rinse water tank (both the original tank and the replacement tank) within the building footprint was never removed. In addition, sampling was never undertaken to assess if the piping leaked. Since sampling was never taken to determine possible contamination from the former plating tanks, a Phase II analysis was performed. ♦ Boeing environmental files contain a memorandum indicating the existence of three sumps /clarifiers (apparently in the area of Building 86) in 1986. These sumps /clarifiers were used for neutralization of acidic waters from labs and oil /water separators where steam cleaning or vehicle maintenance took place. Soil sampling reportedly was not performed following sump /clarifier closure in 1988. Due to the lack of information regarding the potential hazardous contamination from the sumps /clarifiers, a Phase II analysis was performed. However, only the clarifier in the steam cleaning area was found and investigated in the Phase II. ♦ Information was not contained in a Dames & Moore geotechnical report regarding the locating or the final disposition of a groundwater monitoring well installed in March 1988 as part of the Building 91 pre- construction activities. FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 5.10 -8 Public Health and Safety L I � I BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT E Further attempts to locate this well have not been performed because of r ongoing operations in Building 91. Li ® A sump on the west side of Building 86, was formerly used to capture C i condensate streams from air compressors, which contained trace auantities ; of lubricating oil, and which was subsequently drained directly into the underlying soil. Due to the lack of information regarding the potential hazardous contamination from the sump, a Phase II analysis was performed. ® A portion of the fenced area south of Building 89 used to house the original hazardous waste storage Study Areas. The area is also identified as such on L historical building permits and in OCHCA files. A Phase II analysis was performed. ® Electrical transformers using PCB - containing dielectric fluids were previously located in the basement of Building 80. Information contained in Boeing files .I' FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.10 -9 Public Health and Safety ® An electrical substation west of Building 86 was confirmed by SCE to have used PCB - containing fluids at various times. Records indicate that the fluid used at the substation contained low concentrations of PCBs. A Phase II analysis has not been performed because of ongoing operations. U a Two 55- gallon drums containing muriatic (hydrochloric) acid were stored on a pallet resting on the pavement outside the southwest corner of Building 86. A 50 foot trail of white sediment led from the drum storage area, with broken asphalt pavement in the area. As a result of the improper storage of the muriatic acid, a Phase II analysis was performed to conclude whether any soil or groundwater contamination had occurred. Study Area 3 L A Phase II analysis for the environmental conditions in Study Area 3 has not been performed because of ongoing operations in Study Area 3. r . 1 �J o Refer to Finding No.1 in the Study Area 1 discussion above. (� o Two active USTs storing hazardous materials were installed in 1987 and 1990 and are still located onsite. o Five USTs were removed from Study Area 3 during the 1980s and 1990s. Written closure was granted by the OCHCA for four of the diesel fuel USTs, and a McLaren report indicated that , "no further soil analyses were required by OCHCA at this site because the first sample did not contain petroleum hydrocarbons above the detection limit of 10 ppm." ® Four groundwater monitoring wells, north of Building 82 were noted. Two of the wells were installed as part of a leak detection system for the former 20,000- gallon diesel fuel USTs. I o A water well installed in the footprint of Building 81 has never been properly �i abandoned. ® Electrical transformers using PCB - containing dielectric fluids were previously located in the basement of Building 80. Information contained in Boeing files .I' FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.10 -9 Public Health and Safety C, of se� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR indicates that the transformers were properly removed and disposed of in 1985. o Information was not known regarding the former use of a capped pipe protruding through the concrete floor in the basement of Building 80. ® Some minor surface staining was noted around mechanical equipment but was judged to pose no significant environmental impairment. ® Elevator shafts in several building and the medical department in Building 82 were not accessible and therefore were not able to be observed for potential environmental impacts. Lot 7 o Refer to Finding No. 1 in the Study Area 1 discussion above. PHASE II ESA After conducting a records search and performing the site reconnaissance for the four Study Areas, TEM performed a limited Phase II ESAfor Study Area 1 and Study Area 2. The Phase II was intended to address only Potential Environmental Concern Areas (PECAs) identified during the Phase I ESAs conducted forStudy Areas 1 and 2 that were easily accessible. The work plan was developed to address the following PECAs at Study Areas 1 and 2: o Area of former plating rinse water Underground Storage Tank (UST) adjacent to Building 86 and removed in 1992 U o Piping within Building 86 footprint connecting former plating area with former plating rinse water USTs; o Study Areas surrounding Clarifiers /Sumps adjacent to Building 86; o Original hazardous waste storage area; and o Area of drum storage at southwest corner of Building 86. The objective of the Phase II ESA was to assess the likelihood that previous operations at the PECAs may have impacted underlying soil. Therefore, TEM conducted a Soil Sampling and Analyses Program and an Abandoned Oil Well Location Program. On March 21 and 22, 2002, TEM conducted soil sampling at the previously identified PECAs. Vironex Environmental Services provided drilling services. Soil sampling activities were monitored or performed by a TEM geologist When conducting the Abandoned Oil Well Location Program, TEM focused on the area reported in the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (CDOGGR) documentation as being the location of the well. FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.10 -10 Public Health and Safety I r• b� • r• BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r ♦ Gasoline- related compounds (TPH -G) and PCBs were not detected in soil samples collected from boring SB -1. PCBS and petroleum hydrocarbons in the gasoline, diesel fuel, and higher molecular weight ranges were not detected in the other soil samples collected within the original hazardous j waste storage area. ♦ Concentrations of CCR metals detected in composite samples from borings SB -1 through SB -9 and boring SB -10A (in the original hazardous waste storage area) did not indicate elevated levels of any of these metals. r o VOCs, including 1,2- dichlorobenzene, 1,4- dichlorobenzene, 1,2,3 - U tricholorobenzene, naphthalene, and xylenes, were detected in other soil samples collected within the original hazardous waste storage area. The reported concentrations of these compounds were estimated values, indicating that they were less than the respective practical quantitation limits. (, U' FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 5.10 -11 Public Health and Safety Possible Soil/Water Contaminants +r , l� The following Table 5.10 -4, Soil and Water Contaminants, describes the types of chemicals and metals that could contaminate the site and their possible health side .effects: Soil Sampling and Analyses Program r` Soil samples were taken at the following locations in order to determine if any soil or groundwater contamination had occurred due to the historical use of the site. Original Hazardous Waste Storage Area — Based on historical drawings maintained by the City of Seal Beach Building Department, this area was estimated to have (I been 300 feet by 100 feet. This area continued to be used as a hazardous waste storage area until a new facility (Building 97) was constructed. To assess �J environmental impacts that may have resulted from spillage or leaks of hazardous materials, TEM drilled 10 borings within the hazardous waste storage area. o Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soil samples collected from boring SB -1, located at the southern end of the original hazardous waste storage r area. The concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons containing carbon chains ranging from C12 to C40 was reported as 1,150 milligrams per kilogram (mg /kg). The majority of petroleum hydrocarbons (greater than 90 %) were reported in the C23 to C40 range. ' ♦ The pH of the soil sample collected from boring SB -1 at a depth of two feet below ground surface (bgs) was reported as 11.86. The soil pH of the r sample collected from 10 feet bgs was 8.06, a value within typical ranges. Soil pH was also within typical ranges in the other soil samples collected within the original hazardous waste storage area. r Us ♦ Concentrations of toluene, xylenes, and naphthalene in the soil sample collected from boring SB-1 at two feet bgs were reported as 4.0 micrograms per kilogram (µg /kg), 4.0µg /kg, and 5.0µg /kg, respectively. These concentrations were estimated values, indicating that they were less than the respective practical quantitative limits. r ♦ Gasoline- related compounds (TPH -G) and PCBs were not detected in soil samples collected from boring SB -1. PCBS and petroleum hydrocarbons in the gasoline, diesel fuel, and higher molecular weight ranges were not detected in the other soil samples collected within the original hazardous j waste storage area. ♦ Concentrations of CCR metals detected in composite samples from borings SB -1 through SB -9 and boring SB -10A (in the original hazardous waste storage area) did not indicate elevated levels of any of these metals. r o VOCs, including 1,2- dichlorobenzene, 1,4- dichlorobenzene, 1,2,3 - U tricholorobenzene, naphthalene, and xylenes, were detected in other soil samples collected within the original hazardous waste storage area. The reported concentrations of these compounds were estimated values, indicating that they were less than the respective practical quantitation limits. (, U' FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 5.10 -11 Public Health and Safety co ,D-c sN --_ ReA BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.10 -4 Soil and Water Contaminants Contaminant I Description Health Risk Soil Contaminants Soil pH Soil pH refers to the soil's acidity or alkalinity. This The pH of a soil will often determine whether certain plants property hinges on the concentration of hydrogen ions can be grown successfully in solution. A greater concentration of hydrogen results in a lower pH, meaning greater acidity. PCBs PCBs are a group of synthetic organic chemicals. Human health studies indicate that 1) reproductive function may be disrupted by exposure to PCBs; 2) neurobehavioral and developmental deficits occur in newborns and continue through school -aged children who had in utero exposure to PCBs; 3) other systemic effects (e.g., self - reported liver disease and diabetes, and effects on the thyroid and immune systems) are associated with elevated serum levels of PCBs; and 4) increased cancer risks, e.g., non - Hodgkin's lymphoma, are associated with PCB exposures. Total Petroleum TPH is a term used to describe a broad family of Some of the TPH compounds, particularly the smaller Hydrocarbons several hundred chemical compounds that originally compounds such as benzene, toluene, and xylene (which are (TPH) come from crude oil. They are called hydrocarbons present in gasoline), can affect the human central nervous because almost all of them are made entirely from system. If exposures are high enough, death can occur. h dro en and c arbon. Volatile Organic Substances containing carbon and different proportions All of the VOC chemicals can produce neurological Compounds of other elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, fluorine, impairment, and exposure to benzene can additionally cause (VOC) chlorine, bromine, sulfur, or nitrogen hematological effects including aplastic anemia and acute m eol enous leukemia. California Code of Regulation (CCR) Metals Barium Barium is a silvery-white metal found in nature. It occurs Ingesting high levels of barium compounds that dissolve well combined with other chemicals such as sulfur or carbon in water over the short term has resulted in: difficulties in and oxygen. breathing, increased blood pressure, changes in heart rhythm, stomach irritation, brain swelling, muscle weakness, damage to the liver, kidney, heart, and spleen. Chromium Chromium is a naturally occurring element found in Breathing high levels of chromium(VI) can cause irritation to rocks, animals, plants, soil, and in volcanic dust and the nose, such as runny nose, nosebleeds, and ulcers and gases. holes in the nasal septum. Ingesting large amounts of chromium(VI) can cause stomach upsets and ulcers, convulsions, kidney and liver damage, and even death. Skin contact with certain chromium(VI) compounds can cause skin ulcers. Some people are extremely sensitive to chromium(VI) or chromium(III). Allergic reactions consisting of severe redness and swelling of the skin have been noted. Cobalt Pure cobalt is a steel -gray, shiny, hard metal. The People exposed to 0.038 mg cobalt/m' (about 100,000 times natural sources of cobalt in the environment are soil and the concentration normally found in air) for 6 hours had dust, seawater, volcanic eruptions, and forest fires. The trouble breathing. Serious effects on the lungs, including man -made sources of cobalt in the environment are the asthma, pneumonia, and wheezing have been found in byproducts of burning of coal and oil; exhaust from cars, people exposed to 0.003 mg cobalt/m at work. People trucks, and aircrafts; industrial processes that use the exposed to 0.007 mg cobalt/m' at work have also developed metal or its compounds; and sewage sludge from allergies to cobalt that result in asthma and skin rashes. cities. Copper Copper is a reddish metal that occurs naturally in rock, Long -term exposure to copper dust can irritate the nose, soil, water, sediment and air. Copper also occurs mouth, and eyes, and cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, naturally in plants and animals. It is an essential and diarrhea. Wwater that contains higher than normal levels element for all known living organisms including of copper, one may experience vomiting, diarrhea, stomach humans and other animals. cramps, and nausea. Intentionally high intakes of copper can cause liver and kidney damage and even death. Very young children are sensitive to copper, and long -term exposure to high levels of copper in food or water may cause liver damage and death. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.10 -12 Public Health and Safety U BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.10 -4 — Continued Soil and Water Contaminants D U L r; 1 L Contaminant Description Health Risk Lead Lead - 'is a ii5turaliy occurring bluish -gray metal found in The most sensitive is the central nervous system, particularly small amounts in the earth's crust. Lead can be found in in children. Lead also damages kidneys and the reproductive all parts of our environment. system. The effects are the same whether it is breathed or swallowed. At high levels, lead may decrease reaction time, cause weakness in fingers, wrists, or ankles, and possibly affect the memory. Lead may cause anemia, a disorder of the blood. It can also damage the male reproductive system. Nickel Pure nickel is a hard, silvery-white metal, which has The most common adverse health effect of nickel in humans properties that make it very desirable for combining with is an allergic reaction to nickel. The most common reaction is other metals to form mixtures called alloys. a skin rash at the site of contact. The most serious effects of nickel, such as cancer of the lung and nasal sinus, have occurred in people who have breathed dust containing nickel compounds while working in nickel refineries or in nickel processing plants. Lung and nasal sinus cancers occurred when the workers were exposed to more than 10 mg nickel /m as nickel compounds that were hard to dissolve (such as nickel subsulfide). Exposure to high levels of nickel compounds that dissolve easily in water may also result in cancer when nickel compounds that are hard to dissolve are present, or when other chemicals that can cause cancer are resent. Vanadium Vanadium is a natural element in the earth. It is a white If large amounts of vanadium dusts is breathed in for short or to gray metal, often found as crystals. long periods, the person will have lung irritation that can make cough, and a sore throat and red irritated eyes. Zinc Zinc is found in the air, soil, and water and is present in Inhaling large amounts of zinc (as zinc dust or fumes from all foods. In its pure elemental (or metallic) form, zinc is smelting or welding) can cause a specific short-term disease a bluish -white shiny metal. called metal fume fever. If large doses of zinc (10 -15 times higher than the RDA) are taken by mouth even for a short time, stomach cramps, nausea, and vomiting may occur. Ingesting high levels of zinc for several months may cause anemia, damage the pancreas, and decrease levels of high- density li o rotein HDL cholesterol. Area of Former Plating Rinse Water UST Adjacent to Building 86 TEM personnel U did not uncover regulatory agency information during the Phase I ESA to indicate whether soil and /or groundwater investigation efforts were undertaken during removal of the 1,000 - gallon plating rinse water UST in 1992. Thus, TEM personnel could not ascertain if operation of this tank may have impacted the surrounding soils or underlying groundwater. As a consequence, TEM conducted soil sampling and analyses in the area of the former tank. Because the geophysical survey clearly r i delineated to the extent of the former tank excavation, it was determined that only U two soil boring would need to be drilled. ` o The pH of the soil samples collected from borings SB -17 and SB -18, both at a depth of 15 feet bgs, were reported as 6.36 and 5.00, respectively. Soil pH was within typical ranges for the other soil samples collected within the area of the former plating rinse water UST. o VOCs, including ethylbenzene and xylenes, were detected in soil samples collected from the area of the former plating rinse water UST. The reported concentrations of these compounds ranged from non - detect to 72 µg /kg of (, U FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.10 -13 Public Health and Safety C s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR xylenes, which are approximately equivalent to background values, in the soil sample collected from boring SB -18 at 13 feet bgs. o Concentrations of CCR metals detected in composite samples collected from the area of the former plating rinse water UST did not indicate elevated levels of any of these metals. Piping Connecting Former Plating Area With Plating Rinse Water UST Information was not included in the regulatory agency file records reviewed by TEM personnel to indicate whether soil and /or groundwater investigation efforts were undertaken along the piping connecting the plating tanks with the plating rinse water USTs following closure of plating operations in Building 86. Thus, TEM personnel could not ascertain if leakage may have occurred from the pipe that may have impacted the surrounding soils or underlying groundwater. As a consequence, TEM conducted soil sampling and analyses along the piping run within the Building 86 footprint. In addition, TEM drilled and sampled one boring along the former piping run between the building and the UST. o Soil pH was within typical ranges in the soil samples collected along the piping of the former plating rinse water UST. o VOCs were not detected in soil samples collected along the piping of the former plating rinse water. o Concentrations of CCR metals detected in samples collected along the piping of the former plating rinse water UST did not indicate elevated levels of any of these materials. Area Surrounding Clarifier /Sump Adjacent to Building 86 — A sump and clarifier are located adjacent to Building 86. The sump and clarifier are known to have been used for collection of condensate streams from air compressors and oil /water separation, respectively. To assess environmental impacts that may have resulted from use of this sump and clarifier, TEM drilled two borings adjacent to the sump and the clarifier. o Soil pH was within typical ranges in the soil samples collected nek to the sump and clarifier adjacent to Building 86. o VOCs were not detected in soil samples collected next to the sump and clarifier adjacent to Building 86. o Concentrations of CCR metals detected in samples collected next to the sump and clarifier adjacent to Building 86 did not indicate elevated levels of any of these metals. o Petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel fuel and higher molecular weight ranges were not detected in the soil samples collected next to the sump and clarifier. Area of Drum Storage at Southwest Corner of Building 86 During the Phase I ESA, TEM personnel noted two, 55- gallon drums of muriatic (hydrochloric) acid stored on FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.10 -14 Public Health and Safety C� o� � r BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR L) a pallet resting on the pavement outside the southwest corner of Building 86. Leading from this drum storage area was a trail of white sediment, the composition of which was not evident to TEM personnel. In addition, the asphalt pavement was broken up in this area. To assess environmental impacts that may have resulted from spillage or leaks-of hazardous'muter,als that had been stored in the area,TEM drilled two borings. G v s ' L� r- L U r� U L r ® Soil pH was within typical ranges in the soil samples collected in the area of the drum storage at the southwest corner of Building 86. ® VOCs were not detected in soil samples collected in the area of drum storage at the southwest corner of Building 86. Comparison of Analytical Results to Preliminary Remediation Goals Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) are risk-based concentrations, derived from standardized equations combining exposure information assumptions with USEPA toxicity data. They are used for site "screening" and as initial cleanup goals if applicable. They are considered by the USEPA to be protective for humans (including sensitive groups), over a lifetime. PRGs do not address nonhuman health endpoints such as ecological impacts. Table 5.10 -5, Comparison of Analytical Results to Preliminary Remediation Goals illustrates the range of elements or compounds detected in soil samples collected during the Phase II ESA and the corresponding PRGs. As a conservative approach, residential PRGs have been used. Table 5.10 -5 Comparison of Analytical Results to Preliminary Remediation Goals Detected Analyte Range of Concentrations Detected (mglkg) Corresponding Residential PRG (mglkg) Barium and Compounds 29.2-121 5,400 Total Chromium 6.9-24.1 210 Cobalt 3.0-13.7 4,700 Copper and Compounds 6.4-88.5 2,900 1,2- Dichlorobenzene 0.0057 370 1,4- Dichlorobenzene 0.0052 3.4 Ethylbenzene 0.002 - 0.0057 230 Lead 2.5-17.6 400 Nickel (soluble salts) 4.6-19.7 150 Toluene 0.002 - 0.004 520 1,2,4- Trichoorobenzene 0.005 650 Vanadium and Compounds 14.1-48.8 550 Xylenes 0.002 - -.072 210 Zinc 22.2-163 23,000 FINAL NO APRIL 2003 5.10 -15 Public Health and Safety BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ABANDONED OIL WELL LOCATION PROGRAM The geophysical survey conducted to locate the abandoned oil well was performed using an EM -31 and M -Scope TW -6 magnetometers. As reported by SubSurface Surveys, the abandoned oil well is loc at'd south of Adolfo Lopez Drive, across from the City of Seal Beach Water Department. It is estimated that the well is a minimum of 45 feet from the southerly edge of the Boeing property. ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL Asbestos is a strong, incombustible, and corrosion resistant material that was used in many commercial products since prior to the 1940's and up until the early 1970's. If inhaled, asbestos fibers can result in serious health problems. Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) are building materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos (some state and regional regulators impose a one tenth of one percent (0.1 %) threshold). Given the age of some of the buildings on the Project site, it is likely that some of them may contain asbestos. LEAD-BASED (PAINT The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) phased out the sale and distribution of residential paint containing lead in 1978. The mere presence of lead in paint may not constitute a material to be considered hazardous. In fact, if in good condition (no flaking or pealing), most intact Lead Based Paint (LBP) is not considered to be a hazardous material. In poor condition LBPs can create a potential health hazard for building occupants. Therefore, lead -based paint would likely be found in several existing buildings constructed prior to 1972. OFF-SITE North of the Project site is Westminster Avenue, which separates the Project site from Leisure World. Prior to the development of Leisure World in the 1960s, the land to the north of the Project site was farmland as evidenced by the presence of plowed fields in aerial photographs. To the northwest is the Haynes electric generating station, constructed between 1959 and 1967. Prior to that time, the area was undeveloped farmland. East and southeast of the Project site is the United States Naval Weapons Station. This facility has been present since at least 1949 when it was noted on the Los Alamitos 7.5- Minute Series Topographic Map, although it was not present on the 1942 Downey 15- Minute Series Topographic Map. As of 1952, the Naval Weapons Station area located nearest to the Project site was already developed and in a similar configuration as it appears today. Some additions have occurred, but its usage has basically remained the same. Southeast of the Project site is Accurate Metal Fabricators, a warehouse/ manufacturing facility. South and southeast of the Project site are Adolfo Lopez Drive and several City of Seal Beach facilities including the Police Station, the Department of Public Works, and the City Yard. Additionally, an animal control center is also located in this area. Adolfo Lopez Drive was not present until 1967 FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.10 -16 Public Health and Safety r BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR when it appeared to be a dirt road used for access to the Boeing property during construction. The City of Seal Beach facilities were completed in 1977 and 1978. r L� Approximately 500 feet southwest of the Project site, on the Hellman Ranch, is one of if ie_ active- oil-producin areas of the Seal Beach Oil Field. - Oil production and exploration has been occurring in this area since the early 1900s, and oil production and drilling is still ongoing at the present time. �j West of the Project site is the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin and Pumping Plant, which was constructed as part of the Orange County Flood Control District in 1958. r Prior to that time, the basin was part of the natural drainage that fed into the San Gabriel River. Currently the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin is listed on the National Wetlands Inventory (1994). It is also considered to be in a 100 -year flood zone, �i whereas the surrounding area, including the Project site, is considered to be in a 500 -year flood zone. The Island Village residential community, developed in 1973, is directly west of the project site in the City of Long Beach. This site was previously developed as a trailer park and was undeveloped farmland prior to the establishment of the trailer park. (i EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN r� L U n u G t C U The City of Seal Beach adopted an Emergency Operation Plan in June of 1996. This Plan details the City's specific responsibilities before, during and after any emergency. This Plan is consistent with the State Emergency Services Plan, which describes the response of all levels of government and certain private sector organizations to natural, man -made or war -cause emergencies that threaten life, property and the resources of California. Section 8568 of the California Emergency Services Act provides a basis for the City's emergency management programs by requiring cities to carry out the provisions of the California Emergency Plan. The City's Plan describes how the City will respond in the event of, but not limited to, a state of war emergency, natural emergency situations (earthquakes, fires, floods, storms and tsunamis) and man -made emergency situations (pollution spills, civil disturbances, aircraft accidents, industrial accidents, explosions and radiological incidents). Emergencies that are preceded by a recognized buildup period allow for advance warning to those impacted Study Areas and population groups. Timely warning and information broadcasts are important to the citizens' ability to help themselves and for their evacuation. Emergencies generally occur without advance warning, and therefore require prompt mobilization and commitment of the emergency organization after the onset of the emergency. The Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, which is adjacent to the proposed Project site, has been designated an evacuation center in the case of a major earthquake in the City. The Naval Weapons station can also provide personnel and equipment for emergency response activities. An Emergency Operations Center (EOC) has been established at the Seal Beach Police department, which is east of the proposed Project site across Adolfo Lopez Road, in order to manage community -wide or neighborhood emergencies. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.10 -17 Public Health and Safety BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJE EIR The City of Seal Beach planned responses to radiological and hazardous chemical release conditions are provided for in the County of Orange Hazardous Materials Area Plan. This is a state - mandated plan with established criteria. The primary goal of this plan is to achieve the preservation of life, property and environment with the most . offective and economical al allocation of resources in time of a hazardous materials emergency. The City is also a participant in the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, which provides options for siting of hazardous waste collection, treatment, recycling and disposal facilities throughout the County. Together, these Plans establish the City's responsibilities and goals and policies in dealing with a hazardous materials incident and with the identification, storage and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. The City presently requires the participation of businesses in the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program. This involves the disclosure at the time of obtaining a City business license, of whether the business will generate or use any of the hazardous materials contained on the list of such materials, as well as the quantities. This information is forwarded to the Orange County Fire Authority, Hazardous Materials Program Office, which determines a schedule of on -site inspections. These inspections currently occur at one- to two year intervals. During the inspections, there is a review of the businesses' hazardous material safe - handling, storage, dispensing and disposal criteria. Any noted violations are appropriately followed -up by the Fire Authority. The City presently contracts for services for small hazardous spills, which responds primarily to leaning up spill associated with vehicular accidents. Large spills of hazardous materials would involve a response from the Orange County Fire Authority, which has four Level A Hazardous Materials Mobile Units. The City has a joint powers agreement with the County for mutual aid and joint cost support of these units. In very large spills of hazardous materials, a responsible party is identified and private firms are contracted with for an appropriate and safe clean up of the site at the responsible party's expense. The City does not have an established evacuation route system. However, the Safety Element of the City of Seal Beach General Plan does acknowledge that there are several severely access - restricted neighborhoods that are subject to environmental constraints which could restrict access. One of the neighborhoods included is Leisure World which is immediately north of the proposed Project site across Westminster Avenue. Additionally, due to the size and location of Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard, it can be assumed that these roadways would be major evacuation routes assuming no damage is done to them during the emergency situation (i.e., earthquake, fire, etc.). SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study Environmental Checklist form used during preparation of theProject Initial Study, which is contained in Appendix 15.1 of this EIR Initial Study /Notice of Preparation. The Initial Study includes questions regarding hazards and hazardous materials. The issues presented in the Initial Study Checklist have been utilized as FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.10 -18 Public Health and Safety r C o���e - BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, a Project may create a significant environmental impact if it causes one or more of the following to occur: 9 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the _ _. routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (refer to Impact ' Statement 5.10 -1); o Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (refer to Impact Statements 5.10 -1, 5.10 -2, 5.10 -3 and 5.10 -4); ® Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or L � proposed school (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); ® Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (refer to Impact Statement 5.10 -1); ® For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Area (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); i ® For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Area (refer to Section r 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); ® Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (refer to Impact Statement 5.10 -5); and /or ® Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death r involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized Study Areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant). Potential impacts associated with public health and safety are categorized below according to topic. Mitigation measures at the end of this Section directly correspond to the impact statements below. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.10 -1 Implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Analysis conducted as part 'r of the Phase I and Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessments has concluded that no public health and safety hazards exist within the r L . FINAL s APRIL 2003 5.10 -19 Public Health and Safety 01k o� <�WgeaA BOEING S ECIFIC P LAN PROJECT EIR studied areas. Further investigation of the wastewater discharge line would be required to determine if subsequent breaks in the decommissioned line have led to contamination of the site and therefore requires appropriate remediation and /or mitigation, resulting in less than signi► impacts. Study Area 1 After completion of a Phase I investigation of Study Area 1, a total of three PECAs were identified. The three PECAs include a reportedly drilled oil well, a wastewater discharge line extending from the then Saturn —II facility to the San Gabriel River, which reportedly leaked in 1967, and a hazardous waste storage area located at Building 97. Abandoned Oil Well. A geophysical survey was conducted in order to locate a reportedly abandoned oil well. As reported by SubSurface Surveys, the abandoned oil well is located south of Adolfo Lopez Drive, in front of the City of Seal Beach Water Department. It is estimated that the well is at least 45 feet from the southerly edge of the Boeing property. Therefore, there are no impacts in this regard as it does not impact the Project site. Wastewater Discharge Line In 1994, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs), and its subcontractor IT Corporation (IT), conducted a Preliminary Assessment (PA) of the former North American Aviation facility, for Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command ( SWDIV). The facility is referred to by the Navy as the Research, Testing, and Evaluation (RT &E) Area. The purpose of the PA was to assess whether hazardous substances, wastes, or materials generated or used during past activities at the facility may have been released to the environment, and to assess the immediate or potential threat that such an actual or potential release may pose to human health or the environment (Jacobs 1995). The wastewater line (IW line), which extends from the facility to the San Gabriel River, is among the engineered features reviewed during the PA. While Industrial Waste Discharge Permit No. 3526 is among the historical documents cited and included in an appendix to the PA Report, there is no mention of a reported discharge line leak in 1967. The IW line was characterized in the PA as potentially containing residual fluids which could be a potential threat to the environment. Further investigation of the potential contents of the pipeline was recommended (Jacobs 1995). In 1995, Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI) conducted a Removal Site Evaluation (RSE) of the RT &E Area for SWDIV (BNI 1996). Liquid and sediment samples were collected from the IW line and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), phenolic compounds, hexavalent chromium, and heavy metals. The following contaminants were reported in IW line samples above the established screening criteria: trichloroethene (TCE), trichlorotrifluoroethene, trichlorophenol, dinitrophenol. pentachlorophenol, hexavalent chromium, aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, and thallium (BNI 1996). A visual inspection of the exposed vacuum breakers along the route of the IW line between the facility and the San Gabriel River identified a break in an exposed FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.10 -20 Public Health and Safety l am• N BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR portion of the line at the eastern -most crossing of the inlet to the flood control basin (Los Alamitos Retarding Basin). This is near the western end of the southern Boeing parking lot. The RSE Report recommended decommissioning (hydrostatic testing, cleaning, and capping) of the IW line and soil sampling in the vicinity of the break G , (BNi 199ii). In 1997, Battelle, and its subcontractor Foster Wheeler, performed the decommissioning of the RT &E Area (Battelle 1998). Soil samples were collected in Li the vicinity of the break identified during the RSE and analyzed for VOCs, semi - volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), CAM metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and pH. Metals were approximately equivalent to background values; VOCs, SVOCs and TPH were reported as not detected (ND); and pH ranged from 3.6 to 8.6. Based on these results, the Final Closure Report concluded that the soil in the r . vicinity of the break at the Los Alamitos Retention Basin did not appear to have been U impacted by possible releases from the IW line (Battelle 1998). During decommission activities to hydrostatically test, clean, and cap the IW line, I four additional breaks were reported in that portion of the line between the facility L4 and the river. The break locations coincide with the location of catch basins that were probably installed by the City of Seal Beach sometime after the IW line ceased operation. There is no way of knowing whether these lines contained residual fluids at the time the pressure boundary was breached by installation of the catch basins. The Final Closure Report (Battelle 1998) recommended that soil sampling in the vicinity of these breaks be conducted. The recommended sampling at these four locations has not been conducted to date. A Phase II investigation shall be required of the project proponent, to determine whether the four breaks in the IW line have led to soil and /or groundwater contamination. A break in the IW line was also discovered at the facility (within the property boundary of NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach) during decommissioning (Battelle 1998). r The break appeared to be the result of recent subsurface maintenance activities on a nearby fire hydrant. (' In 1997, BNI conducted an Extended Removal Site Evaluation (ERSE) of the RT &E �j Area to further delineate the nature and extent of contamination in soil and groundwater (BNI 1999). Soil samples were collected in the vicinity of the on- station i break in the IW line and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, hexavalent chromium, and U heavy metals. SVOCs and hexavalent chromium were reported as ND, and VOCs were reported at concentrations below screening criteria. The following metals were reported above stationwide background values: aluminum, antimony, copper, manganese, nickel, and vanadium (BNI 1999). The entire IW line from the then Saturn II facility to the San Gabriel River, has been decommissioned. The line segments were hydrostatically tested, cleaned, and capped. The segment that traverses property within the City of Long Beach (between the break at the inlet to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin and Windjammer Ct.) was grouted with 2 -sack cement slurry before both ends were capped, in accordance with the City of Long Beach's permit to abandon in place (Battelle 1998). Soil sampling analysis was not conducted along the wastewater discharge line as part of the Phase II analysis conducted by TEM. Further soil sampling analysis FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.10 -21 Public Health and Safety C&T -w s�' BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN P ROJECT EIR would be conducted along the wastewater discharge line that traverses Study Area 1 as a precursor to grading activities. Should concentrations of materials be detected in subsurface soil above regulatory cleanup levels, mitigation measures would be initiated. Hazardous Waste Storage Area Located at Building 97. Soil sampling analysis was not conducted in the area of Building 97, the current hazardous waste storage facility. Soil sampling and analysis would be conducted in this area during Building 97 demolition activities. Should concentrations of materials be detected in subsurface soil above regulatory clean up levels, mitigation measures would be initiated. Study Area 2 The Phase I investigation of Study Area 2 revealed a total of 10 PECAs which could contain possible hazardous contamination of the soil and groundwater. A limited Phase II investigation was conducted for five of the PECAs, in which no contamination was found. Further investigation for the other five PECAs would be conducted as detailed below. ® A wastewater discharge line that ran from the then Saturn II facility to the San Gabriel River is discussed earlier in the Impact Statement for Study Area 1. Soil sampling was not conducted along the wastewater discharge line during the Phase II investigation. Soil sampling and analysis would be conducted along the wastewater discharge line that traverses Study Area 2 as a precursor to grading activities. Should concentrations of materials be detected in subsurface soil above regulatory cleanup levels, mitigation measures would be initiated. ® A total of seven USTs storing hazardous materials were noted in Study Area 2, one UST is still located onsite and six were removed. Soil sampling and analysis was conducted for five of the UST removals and subsequent soil testing has concluded that no contamination exists from the sixth UST that was removed. Should concentrations of materials be detected in subsurface soil above regulatory cleanup levels, mitigation measures would be initiated. ® Information was not obtained regarding the location or the final disposition of a groundwater monitoring well installed in March 1988 as part of the Building 91 pre- construction activities. Investigation efforts to locate and properly abandon this well would be undertaken during building demolition activity. ® Two sump /clarifiers in the Building 86 area were used for neutralization of acidic waters from the labs and oil /water separator where vehicle maintenance took place. Investigation efforts to locate and conduct soil sampling and analysis would be undertaken during building demolition activity. Should concentrations of materials be detected in subsurface soil above regulatory cleanup levels, mitigation measures would be initiated. ® A portion of the fenced area south of Building 89 used to house the original hazardous waste storage areas. Soil sampling analyses confirmed that there is no soil or groundwater contamination as a result of the original hazardous FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.10 -22 Public Health and Safety u u u a u u U u 1, ' BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR waste storage located south of Building 89. A total of 10 soil samples were taken within this PECA, in which petroleum hydrocarbons, pH level, concentrations of toluene, gasoline - related compounds, CCR metals and VOCs were tested. All levels of chemicals and metals detected in the soil samp were within i typical ran resulting in less than significant impacts, o An electrical substation west of Building 86 was confirmed by SCE to have used PCB - containing fluids at various times. No redevelopment is planned i for the electrical substation. Thus, soil sampling and analysis is deemed unnecessary at this time. Should redevelopment be planned for this area, soil sampling and analysis would be conducted as a precursor to grading activities. Should concentrations of PCB be detected in subsurface soils above regulatory cleanup levels, mitigation measures would be initiated. r . ' ® Of the six removed USTs, one 1,000- gallon UST was removed without U verification soil sampling and analysis. Soil sample analysis conducted in the area revealed that soil pH was within typical ranges for soil samples collected in the area and that VOC levels and CCR metal concentrations were not elevated or at hazardous levels, resulting in less than significant impacts. Y ® File information indicated that piping connecting the former plating tanks in i Building 86 to the 1,000- gallon plating rinse water tank within the building footprint was never removed and soil sampling was never taken to determine possible contamination. Soil sample analysis conducted as part of the Phase �j II investigation revealed that soil pH was within typical ranges for soil samples collected in the area and that VOC levels and CCR metal concentrations were not elevated or at hazardous levels. Therefore, there are no impacts in U this regard. ® Sumps /clarifiers, near Building 86, were used for capturing condensate streams from air compressors and oil /water separators where steam cleaning took place. Due to the lack of information regarding the potential hazardous contamination from the sumps /clarifiers, including whether soil sampling was performed following its closure in 1988, soil sampling and analysis was conducted as part of the Phase II investigation. Soil sampling and analysis conducted in the area revealed that VOC levels and CCR metal i concentrations were not elevated or at hazardous levels. Additionally, petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel fuel and high molecular weight ranges were not detected in the soil samples collected next to the sump and clarifier, resulting in less than significant impacts. ® Two 55- gallon drums containing muriatic (hydrochloric) acid were stored on a - pallet resting on the pavement outside the southwest corner of Building 86. A Phase II analysis was conducted in order to assess whether any soil or groundwater contamination had occurred. Soil pH and VOC levels were r . tested in a soil sample analysis. Soil pH was within typical ranges in the soil samples collected in the area and no VOCs were detected in the soil samples, resulting in less than significant impacts. r r I' l i FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.10 -23 Public Health and Safety C. -0,C BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Study Area 3 Review of historical records and interviews conducted during the Phase I analysis for Study Area 3 revealed that there is no potential for environmental impacts of the . F —4 that the oGrn� rim nest ose a threat to public health and eight rE As identified, atw L„u< p_ -- safety. A total of seven USTs were noted in Study Area 3, two are still located on- site and five were removed during the 1980s and 1990s and written closures were granted for all five USTs. There are no possible threats of hazardous contamination or environmental impacts associated with the water well that is located in the footprint of Building 81, which was never properly abandoned or the four - groundwater monitoring wells in the area. Finally, no signs of contamination exist from the electrical transformers that used PCB - containing dielectric fluids, the capped pipe protruding through the concrete floor of Building 80 or the mechanical equipment that showed some minor surface staining. Yet, elevator shafts in several buildings including Building 82 were not accessible and therefore were not able to be observed for potential environmental impacts. However, building inspections and regular documented maintenance ensures the safety and security of the elevators. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous contamination in Study Area 3 are less than significant. An additional PECA noted in Study Area 3 is the 6,000 -foot wastewater discharge line that ran from the then Saturn II facility to the San Gabriel River. The line extends north along the railroad tracks, located at the northeastern corner of the Project site, extending to the easement located south of Westminster Avenue. At present, redevelopment activities are not planned for Study Area 3. Thus, soil sampling and analysis is deemed unnecessary at this time. Should redevelopment be planned for Study Area 3, soil sampling and analysis (including the 6,000 -foot wastewater discharge line) would be conducted as a precursor to grading activities. Should concentrations of materials be detected in subsurface soil above regulatory cleanup levels, mitigation measures would be initiated. Lot 7 The only PECA associated with Lot 7 is the 6,000 -foot wastewater discharge line that extended from the then Saturn —II facility to the San Gabriel River as discussed earlier in the Impact Statement for Study Area 1. Soil sampling and analysis was not conducted along the wastewater discharge line during the Phase II investigation. Soil sampling and analysis would be conducted along the wastewater discharge line that traverses Lot 7 as a precursor to grading activities. Should concentrations of materials be detected in subsurface soil above regulatory cleanup levels, mitigation measures would be initiated. It is noted, that the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, located adjacent to the east of the Project site, is identified as containing several regulatory sites (i.e., leaking underground storage tanks). A tricholorethylene (TCE) groundwater plume associated with the historic storage of hazardous substances on the U.S. Naval Weapons Station has traveled in a southeasterly direction towards the Pacific FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.10 -24 Public Health and Safety s BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Ocean.' Due to the location of the plume and the reported travel in a southeast L direction, no significant environmental impact is anticipated on the Project site. Future on -site uses would be required to comply with all regulatory requirements, including the Orange County Fire Authority for the storage and use of any hazardous materials utilized as a - specific facili w. Therefore the Project would not create I significant hazards to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, there are no significant impacts in this U' regard. The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. It is noted that some transportation of hazardous materials does occur on Seal Beach Boulevard within the City which is regulated by standards set forth by the United States Department of Transportation for the safe handling and transportation of hazardous materials, resulting in a less than significant impact. r j AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 5.10 -2 The historical use of the site as an agricultural use could result in soil contamination from agricultural chemicals. Implementation of mitigation Li measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Based on historical information collected during the Phase I ESA, it is believed that agricultural chemicals were used at the site. This belief is predicated on the fact that the site was used for farming for at least 15 years. Agricultural chemical usage is not considered as "Recognized Environmental " Standard E 1527 i.e. Conditions, as defined in ASTMS d ( "agricultural chemicals fall g under de minimus conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies "). Accordingly, information was not collected during the Phase I ESA regarding the types of agricultural chemicals used, their application rates, or where the chemicals were applied at the site. However, if significant concentrations of agricultural chemicals are detected during demolition or construction activities, T mitigation measures can be implemented, including excavation, on -site treatment, or other measures as appropriate, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS 5.10 -3 Some of the buildings located on -site could contain asbestos. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Given the age of some of the buildings on the Project site, it is likely that some of them could contain asbestos. Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey would be required. If asbestos containing material is found, abatement of asbestos r l i ' Final Extended Removal Site Evaluation Report Installation Restoration Sites 40 and 70, Naval Weapons �1 Station Seal Beach, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, October 1999. L FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.10 -25 Public Health and Safety BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR is required before any demolition activities that would disturb asbestos containing material or create airborne asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal would be performed in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 in order to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. LEAD-BASED PAINT 5.10 -4 The buildings located on -site that were built prior to 1972 could contain lead -based paint resulting in potential health hazards to building occupants. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Lead -based paint would likely be found in several existing buildings constructed prior to 1972. Before demolition activities, a lead -based paint survey would be required. If lead -based paint is found, mitigation measures would be required before any demolition activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard, in order to limit impacts to a less than significant level. Lead -based paint removal would be performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and mandates good working practices by workers exposed to lead. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 5.10 -5 Development of the proposed Project could physically interfere with the Emergency Operation Plan adopted by the City of Seal Beach. Compliance with City Municipal Code and requirements would result in less than significant impacts. The City's Emergency Operation Plan was adopted in June of 1996 and details the City's specific responsibilities before, during and after any emergency. This Plan is in compliance with the State Emergency Services Plan. In regards to future development of the site, all new businesses would be required to participate in the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program which requires a new business to disclose whether they will be handling hazardous materials, what kind and quantity, reducing impacts to a less than significant level. It is anticipated that traffic flow would be temporarily impacted during construction of these proposed improvements. However, Project compliance with City Development Code would be required. Impacts associated with the Emergency Response Plan would be considered as less than significant after compliance with the Development Code. Further, it should be noted that the proposed Project is enhancing development and improvements to the proposed Project site. The proposed access improvements are being designed to facilitate adequate traffic movement for peak hour conditions which would also ensure adequate emergency condition vehicular movement from the Project site and along the adjacent roadway network. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Project would not have a significant impact relative to the implementation or interference with emergency response plans. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.10 -26 Public Health and Safety f' C o BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS L 5.10 -6 The proposed Project, in combination with other cumulative Projects, could increase exposure to the public of hazardous substances. .. �___ +c. ► o +., +., ,,,r �,. 1 . ,. ,i o tc n a Prninr. - v- Comp►1dl�l:C with Fedc ^ra ^i, %nary a �vCa� �eyG,rem..n.., G'.. �,, ,t b� L Project basis would reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. L Compliance with local, State, and Federal regulations would ensure that contamination or exposure to hazardous substances is avoided or controlled to F minimize the risk to the public on a case -by -case basis as the cumulative Projects U are constructed. ` r MITIGATION MEA SURES ll The following mitigation measures directly correspond to the identified impact statements in the Impact subsection. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.10 -1 a Soil characterization and sampling of PECA's in the redevelopment areas of the Project site shall be conducted as needed to determine the presence or absence of hazardous materials, prior to grading activities. ' r 5.10 -1 b If concentrations of materials are detected above regulatory cleanup levels during demolition or construction activities, the following mitigation f I , measures shall include: f_J ® Excavation and disposal at a permitted, off -site facility; ® On -site treatment; or ® Other measures as appropriate. 5.10 -1 c If the investigations conducted pursuant to Mitigation Measures 5.10-1a and 5.10-1b determine remediation actions are necessary, the project proponent shall comply with all applicable regulatory standards. ' AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 5.10 -2a Prior to grading permit issuance, soil sampling of the undeveloped (' portions of the Project site (Planning Areas 2 and 3) shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of banned agricultural pesticides. ' 5.10 -2b If concentrations of agricultural chemicals are detected above regulatory cleanup levels during demolition or construction activities, mitigation shall include the following: o Excavation and disposal at a permitted, off -site facility; ® On -site treatment; or ® Other measures as appropriate. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.10 -27 Public Health and Safety C• ofsWe=A BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS 5 -10.3a Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey shall be required to determine presence or absence. The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Seal Beach. 5.10 -3b If asbestos containing material are found, abatement of asbestos shall be required before any demolition activities that would disturb asbestos containing material or create an airborne asbestos hazard is permitted. 5.10 -3c Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403. Rule 1403 regulations require: o A survey of the facility prior to issuance of a permit by SCAQMD; ® Notification of the SCAQMD prior to construction activity; ® Removal in accordance with prescribed procedures; ® Placement of collected asbestos in leak -tight containers or wrapping; and ® Proper disposal. LEAD -BASED PAINT 5.10 -4a Prior to demolition activities, a lead -based paint survey shall be required to determine presence or absence. The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Seal Beach. 5.10 -4b If lead -based paint is found, abatement shall be required before any demolition activities occur that would create lead dust or fume hazard. 5.10 -4c Lead -based paint removal shall be performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and mandates good working practices by workers exposed to lead. 5.10 -4d Contractors performing lead -based paint removal shall provide evidence of certified training for lead- related construction work. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 5.10 -5 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, compliance with the City's Municipal Code would result in less than significant impacts to the City's Emergency Response Plan. n CUMULATIVE �u} 5.10 -6 No mitigation measures are recommended. Base on the analysis provided above, compliance with Federal, State and local requirements on a project -by- project basis would reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. {� FINAL ®APRIL 2003 5.10 -28 Public Health and Safety 0 BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJEC EIR LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No significant impacts related to Public Health and Safe have been identified 9 P Safety following implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. {{ 1J. (( tJ L I U r � 1J G r- U IJ L G f ' U FINAL + APRIL 2003 5.10 -29 Public Health and Safety BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r , 5.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES U Information in this Section was obtained from correspondence from public services and utility agencies (refer to Appendix 15.1, Initial Study /Notice of Preparation, and Appendix 15.9, Correspondence. Service and utility systems evaluated include water, wastewater and solid waste. This Section includes an Existing Conditions discussion which provides background information necessary to understand potential ! impacts of the proposed Project. The criteria by which an impact may be considered lJ potentially significant is provided along with a discussion of impacts pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation measures are identified in an effort s� to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. U EXISTING CONDITIONS i - WATER The City of Seal Beach has two sources of water supply: local groundwater from �J Orange County Main Groundwater Basin and imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) through Municipal Water District (' of Orange County (MWDOC). The Boeing site currently utilizes 163,800 gallons of U water per day (GPD).' C L . , rr U f 1 I; GROUNDWATER The water supply resources in Orange County are enhanced by the existence of a large groundwater basin. The City of Seal Beach Water Division operates groundwater producing facilities in the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin). The City of Seal Beach produces, on the average, 3,000 acre -feet of water per year (AFY) from the Orange County groundwater basin. The water is produced by three active wells, from an average depth of 800 feet (refer to Table 5.11 -1, City of Seal Beach Groundwater Wells). Although there has been some saline intrusion into the upper aquifers of the Basin, it has not affected the strata from which the City wells produce. Water quality is within standards set for acceptable drinking water by the federal government and the California Department of Health Services. The following is a description of each well facility: o Beverly Manor Well — The well, constructed in 1969, is housed in an enclosed building along side the two booster pumps referred to as the Beverly Manor Booster. The well pump, driven by a natural gas engine, pumps directly into the Beverly Manor Reservoir. It has a capacity of 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm)• o Bolsa Chica Well — This well, constructed in 1979, is located on Bolsa Chica Road, south of the San Diego Freeway. The well pump can be driven with an electric motor as well as a natural gas engine. The well discharge pressure is maintained by varying the speed of electric motor by means of Toshiba Variable frequency Drive or by a Murphy controller acting on the natural gas engine. The maximum output into the distribution system is 2,500 gpm. According to the Water and Sewer Master Plan for the Boeing site, Tait Engineering, November 2002. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.11 -1 Public Services and Utilities BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o Leisure World Well — Leisure World Well is located behind a fenced enclosure in Leisure World on Beverly Manor Road. The well pump is driven by an electrical motor. The well pumps into Beverly Manor Reservoir but has the ability to pump directly into the Leisure World Distribution System. Capacity of the well IS u^ ^rovimmt 1%, 9,800 nnm ® Well No.7 — Well No. 7 , located on the south side of Westminster Avenue and just east of Seal Beach Boulevard, has not been utilized in recent years and is on "inactive" status. Table 5.11 -1 City of Seal Beach Groundwater Wells Well State Well No. Well Well Date , Bored Elevation Cased Depth Site Subtype Status Drilled Depth, Ground Nell 05S/11W -07CO2 Casn Inactive 7/1/50 674 9.00 674 Bolsa Chica 05S/11W -05H01 Single Casing Active 1/14/77 1050 21.00 1040 Beverly 05S/12W -01A04 Single Active 11/27/68 920 11.20 800 Manor Casin Leisure World 05S/12W -01A03 Single Casin Active 417/62 840 9.80 840 Groundwater is not actually an indigenous source of supply but rather storage of supply that includes natural runoff, treated wastewater and imported water. Runoff from local rainfall is the main sources of recharge for the smaller basins and accounts for some of the recharge of the Basin. The amount of runoff recharge is highly variable and can only be estimated. Most of the recharge of the Basin is from Santa Ana River flow percolated in- stream or diverted to off - stream spreading basins operated by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). OCWD is responsible for the protection of water rights to the Santa Ana River in Orange County as well as management and replenishment of the Basin. The Basin underlies the north and central area of Orange County. The annual production of the Basin averaged 328,000 acre -feet between 1995 and 1999, generally increasing with time. Groundwater conditions in the basin are influenced by the natural hydrologic conditions of rainfall, groundwater seepage and stream flow. Groundwater extraction and injection through wells, use of imported water for groundwater replenishment, and water use efficiency practices also influence the Basin. Santa Ana River base flow mainly comprises treated wastewater discharged from treatment plants in Riverside County and San Bernardino County. Thus, about half of the water recharging the aquifer is incidentally recycled wastewater. In addition, OCWD injects approximately 5,000 AF /yr of recycled wastewater into the Basin near the coast as a seawater intrusion barrier. The OCWD recharge operations both expand the production capability of the basin and prevent seawater intrusion into the aquifers. FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.11 -2 Public Services and Utilities j'. BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Production capability of the Basin is being increased by increasing both the recharge supply and the number of production wells for the extraction of water from the Basin. Aquifers that presently store low - quality water (water high in nitrates, salt color, or industrial pollutants) are being pumped, and the produced water is being treated at lams or bl wit potable water: Drawing out low-quality uality IOGa water trea tm ent plat na v� vice w..0 rr.a. � r ... g q U water and replacing it with high - quality recharge water anticipate aquifer cleanup. Orange County Water District (OCWD) under the Orange County Water District Act, L Water Code App., Ch. 40 (the Act), manages the Basin. The Act empowers OCWD to impose replenishment assessments and basin equity assessments on production r and to require registration of water producing facilities and the filing of certain reports. However, the OCWD is expressly prohibited from limiting extraction unless a producer agrees (Section 40- 2(6)(c)) and from impairing vested rights to the use of water (Section 40 -77). Thus, producers may install and operate production facilities under the Act without requiring OCWD approval. Although the rights of the producers within the Basin have not been adjudicated, they nevertheless exist and have not been abrogated by the Act (Section 40-77). The rights consist of municipal appropriators' rights and may include overlaying and riparian rights. OCWD is required to annually investigate the condition of the Basin, assess r overdraft and accumulated overdraft, and determine the amount of water necessary U for replenishment (Section 40 -77). OCWD has studied the Basin replenishment needs and potential projects to address growth in demand until 2020. This is described in detail in the OCWD Master Plan Report (MPR). In April, 2002, the Board of Directors of OCWD declared by Resolution No. 02 -4 -63 that the accumulated overdraft as of June 30, 2001 was 328,000 acre -feet and that the estimated annual overdraft for the current wateryear July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002 (' was 95,000 acre -feet; and that the estimated annual overdraft for the ensuing water U year from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 would be 95,000 acre -feet. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has identified the Basin as o✓erdrafted L in its most current Bulletin 118 that characterized the condition of the Basin. Bulletin 118 is currently being updated by DWR. The efforts being undertaken by OCWD to eliminate long -term overdraft in the Basin are described in the MPR, including in U particular, Chapters 4, 5, 6, 14 and 15 of the MPR. Although the water supply assessment statute (Water Code Section 10910(f)) refers to elimination of "long -term overdraft ", overdraft refers to conditions that may be managed for optimum basin L; storage, rather than eliminated. The Act defines annual groundwater overdraft to be the quantity by which production exceeds the natural replenishment of the Basin. Accumulated overdraft is defined in the Act to be the quantity of water needed in the L groundwater basin forebay to prevent landward movement of seawater into the fresh groundwater body. Seawater intrusion control facilities have been constructed by j . OCWD since its inception, and have been effective in preventing landward L movement of seawater. These facilities allow greater utilization of the storage capacity of the Basin. OCWD has invested over $250 million in seawater intrusion control (injection barriers); recharge facilities, laboratories, and Basin monitoring to effectively manage the Basin. Consequently, although the Basin is defined to be in an "overdraft" i condition, it is actually managed to allow utilization of up to 500,000 AF or more of u storage capacity during dry periods, acting as an underground reservoir and buffer FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.11 -3 Public Services and Utilities BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR against drought periods. OCWD's stated goal is to operate the Basin to maintain accumulated overdraft of 200,000 AF. If the Basin is too full, artesian conditions can occur in many areas including the coastal zone, causing rising water conditions and water logging, both adverse conditions. Imported Supply Treated imported water is supplied to the City from the importation and delivery system of the Metropolitan. Metropolitan delivers water through the institutional arrangements with MWDOC at the service connection referred as OC -35. MWDOC in turn delivers water supplies to the facilities owned and operated by West Orange County Water Board ( WOCWB), a joint powers agency, of which the City is a member. The City owns 14 percent of the WOCWB facilities with an estimated delivery capacity of 4,600 gpm, equivalent to 7,435 AFY. The City has not traditionally utilized its full capacity from this source. Therefore, in this assessment only 2,700 gpm, equivalent to 4,300 AFY, which represents City's normal usage, has been used for comparison purposes. Metropolitan supplies its member agencies with wholesale imported water provided by the Colorado River Aqueduct and State Water Project System. Metropolitan is the only source of imported water presently available to the City. Water in Southern California is provided through a complex system of infrastructure operated by many different institutional entities. More than 300 public agencies and private companies provide water on a retail basis to approximately 17 million people living in a 5,200 square -mile area. Metropolitan is the primary wholesale provider of imported water for the region. Metropolitan serves 26 member agencies, comprising 14 cities, 11 municipal water districts, and 1 county authority. Metropolitan's member agencies, in turn, serve customers in more than 145 cities and 94 unincorporated communities. The State Water Project (SWP) conveys water from Northern California to areas south of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta through a series of rivers, canals, reservoirs, aqueducts, and pumping plants. Water from the SWP originates at Lake Oroville, located on the Feather River in Northern California, and subsequently flows into the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. From the delta, the California Aqueduct transports the water through the Central Valley and into Southern California. This system is owned and operated by the State Department of Water Resources (DWR). Colorado River water is conveyed from the California- Arizona border to the metropolitan area via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA). Its 242 -mile journey begins from the intakes at Lake Havasu to the terminal reservoir known as Lake Matthews, located near the City of Riverside. The CRA is owned and operated by Metropolitan. Imported water supplies are subject to availability. To assist local water providers in assessing the adequacy of local water supplies that rely in whole or in part on Metropolitan imported supply, Metropolitan has provided information concerning the availability of the supplies to its entire service area. This report, entitled "Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies" (February 11, 2002) ( "Metropolitan Report"), is consistent with Metropolitan's Regional Urban Water Management Plan (December 2000) (RUWMP). FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.11 -4 Public Services and Utilities 11 C Li L. L L� u 1.J U F L BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR In order to assure supply reliability for its service area, Metropolitan has developed its Water Resource Strategy. The key elements of Metropolitan's strategy are: o Portfolio of Diversified Supplies — Metropolitan continues to develop a portfolio of diversified supplies. The diverse water project investments reduce the risk of failure in any single part of the portfolio. Risks stem from cost, quality, or supply availability. It also reduces the potential impact of a severe drought or an emergency such as a major earthquake. The portfolio of diversified supplies avoids the pitfalls of "putting all your eggs in one basket." ® Supply Reserves to Mitigate Uncertainties Metropolitan plans to mitigate for supply uncertainties by continuing to secure supplies and build infrastructure improvements that are available in advance of the time of need and can provide back up capabilities. This adaptive management approach creates supply reserves that maintain Metropolitan's flexibility in responding to changes in demand and supply conditions. ® New Rate Structure — Metropolitan's Board of Directors approved a new rate structure in October 2001. The rate structure provides the necessary financing capabilities to support the Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) and strategic planning vision that Metropolitan is a regional provider of services, maintains the reliable delivery of imported water supplies, encourages the development of additional local supplies like recycling and conservations, and accommodates a water transfer market. Through its regional services, Metropolitan ensures a baseline of reliability and quality for imported water deliveries in its service area. By unbundling its full - service water rate, Metropolitan provides greater opportunity for member agencies to competitively manage their supplies and demand to meet future needs in a responsible, cost effective manner. 0 Implementing water management programs that support the development o cost - effective local resources — Metropolitan has established and implemented programs to provide financial incentives to member agencies in the development of local resources. These programs include the Local Project Program (water recycling and groundwater recovery), Conservation Program, and Request- for - Proposal process for ocean desalination projects. These programs are meeting the resource objectives in the IRP. The status and progress of Metropolitan's efforts in implementing programs to support the development of conservation and local resources management programs are documented in Metropolitan's RUWMP and Metropolitan's Annual Progress Report to the California State Legislature on Achievements in Conservation, Recycling and Groundwater Recharge, dated February 1, 2002. o Securing additional imported supplies through programs that increase the availability of water delivered through the Colorado River Aqueduct and the California Aqueduct — Metropolitan has implemented several programs to continue the reliable deliveries of water supplies through the Colorado River Aqueduct, the California Aqueduct and the development of in -basin groundwater storage. These efforts include participating in federal and state FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.11 -5 Public Services and Utilities Colkof S��_�_ReaA BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR initiatives such as the California Water Use Plan for the Colorado River, CALFED for the Bay - Delta, and the Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement. Beyond these initiatives, Metropolitan has acquired additional supplies through cooperative agreements and business partnerships with entities in the Central Valley and w ithi n the Colorado River system to implement water transfers, storage, conservation and land management programs. Finally, in accordance with Metropolitan's IRP and Strategic Plans, Metropolitan and the member agencies have moved ahead in maximizing the use of available water supplies through in -basin groundwater conjunctive use programs. The establishment of a comprehensive management plan for dealing with periodic surplus and shortage conditions is documented in the RUWMP and Metropolitan Report No. 1150, Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan. Water Transfers The City relies on MWD for exploring dry year water transfer options with agricultural districts and others statewide. Since groundwater recharge operations are dependent upon purchase of imported water supplies to a certain extent, MWDOC is discussing transfers with other agencies in other parts of the State. WASTEWATER The Boeing site utilizes collection facilities currently operated by the City of Seal Beach that are connected to facilities operated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). A private 8 -inch sewer line carries wastewater west to east along the southern border of parking lots 3 -6 to a private 18 -inch sewer line with flows routed to the City -owned Boeing Pump Station located at the northeast corner of the site (Planning Area 4). The City's Boeing Pump Station is a wet well /dry well facility, which services the entire Boeing facility as well as the commercial lots located at the southwest corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. The pump station was originally constructed in 1966 consisting of three 1050 gallons per minute (gpm) capacity pumps. The City now maintains two 1050 gpm pumps in operation. The station is at the end of its service life and will be replaced by September 2003 by a new 490 gpm pump station. The existing pump station consists of an 8 -foot by 14 -foot by 25 -foot deep precast concrete dry well housing three submersible 30 hp vortex -type pumps. The dry well contains ventilation equipment, a sump pump and stairway access from the surface. The wet well acts more as a flow splitting structure than as a storage device. Storage for pumping is provided in the influent sewer which surcharges during normal pump cycling. Current flows estimated from pump running hours are only 32 gpm on average The influent sewer to the pump station is an 18 -inch VCP line that is approximately 19 -feet deep. The depth is required to serve some of the below -grade areas at the Boeing site. This line also provides storage for the pump station, and surcharges during normal pump operation. 2 City of Seal Beach Sewer System Master Plan, February 1999, page 6 -15 3 Ibid. a Ibid. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.11 -6 Public Services and Utilities U �� �� //J� Q Ci D f �i°Wpe,,A L , BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The Preliminary Design Report — Boeing Pump Station Replacement~ dated July 2002, indicates that the Boeing Pump Station was found to be critically deficient and in need of immediate replacement. Some of the more significant deficiencies that plague the station include: L ® The dry well is structurally unsound. The walls have moved inward and are now supported by steel bracing installed by the City. The structure is not watertight thus allowing significant amounts of groundwater to enter the U structure and consequently, there is always standing water on the floor. Entering the dry well is dangerous, as are the operations and maintenance of +� electrical equipment in this environment. U ® The wet well does not provide pump operational storage. It is simply a splitting structure to divert flows from the influent sewer to the pumps. � r Surcharging of the 18 -inch influent sewer is used to provide operational volume for pump cycling. This can create odors in the gravity system and also result in the settlement of solids. L ® All mechanical equipment, pipe, valves and fittings are badly corroded and need replacement. Ui ® There is no telemetry system to report alarms and failures to City personnel. ® The station has no emergency power system or provisions for connecting a portable power source. Sewage collected at the City's Boeing Pump Station is pumped through a City I maintained 6 -inch cast iron force main east across Seal Beach Boulevard to a U manhole on the 24 -inch gravity sewer. The city maintained 24 -inch sewer line conveys wastewater to OCSD's Seal Beach Pump Station (SBPS). The SBPS has eight pumps with a capacity of 26,500 gpm, which is equivalent to 38.2 million gallons per day (mgd). Current average daily flows are approximately 85 mgd. The SBPS pumps the wastewater in two 16 -inch force mains to the Westminster Avenue Interceptor, which connects to the Knott Interceptor, which terminates at OCSD's Treatment Plant No. 2 s OCSD's Plant No. 2 has a design capacity of 186 mgd and is currently operating near full capacity. Although additional capacity is not available at Plant No. 2, flows are often diverted to Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley, which has a greater available capacity. Under the 1989 OCSD's facility master plan, Plant No. 2 is proposed for expansion to provide an ultimate treatment capacity of 240 mgd.' SOLID !WASTE F I Solid waste from the project area that cannot be recycled or reduced is disposed of { at the Olinda Alpha Landfill located near Brea. The total permitted capacity of this U landfill is 74.9 million cubic yards of which 58.5 million cubic yards have been used. L This landfill is required to close in the year 2013 regardless of any additional s Daily Summary of Operations -Pump Stations, Orange County Sanitation District, June 24 -30, 2000. 6 Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, page 5 -205. �I 7 Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Environmental Impact Report, page v -191. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.11 -7 Public Services and Utilities BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR available capacity. This facility currently permits a maximum disposal rate of 8,000 tons of refuse per day and requires an annual daily average not exceeding 7,000 tons. Currently, this landfill is accepting approximately 6,000 tons per day. The Boeing site generates between 5 and 62.5 pounds of solid waste per day per 1,000 square feet of building area, or between 6,000 and 72,000 pounds of solid waste on a daily basis, based on criteria prepared by the California Integrated Waste Management Board . Solid waste (including recycled materials) in the area is handled and transported by Consolidated Disposal. Consolidate Disposal is one part of Republic Services which is the third largest waste hauling servicer in the nation. Locally, Republic Services has 24 franchise contracts with municipalities in Orange and Los Angeles County and is the second largest department in the "open market" in Los Angeles County. In response to regional and statewide concerns, the California Integrated Wastewater Management act of 1989 (AB 939), and its implementing regulations (adopted on March 19,1990), have created mandatory goals for the reduction of solid waste. The main purpose of the statute is to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste to the maximum extent feasible. AB 939 requires that cities and counties reduce the amount of solid waste being sent to landfills by 25 percent by January 1, 1995, and by 50 percent by January 1, 2000. To help insure that cities meet this mandate, they are required to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element for approval by the California State Solid Waste Management Board (CSWMB). Additionally, counties must develop Integrated Solid Waste Management Plans incorporating the Plans for all cities located within the County. On February 24, 1992, the City adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element in accordance with the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. The City of Seal Beach is in compliance with these solid waste reduction goals. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Pursuant to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a Project would normally have a significant adverse impact on public services if it results in any of the following: A significant impact would occur if the project... o Exceeds wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (see Impact Statement 5.11 -2); o Requires or results in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (see Impact Statements 5.11 -1 and 5.11 -2); 8 Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Environmental Impact Report, page v -191. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Industrial Establishments, California Integrated Waste Management Board, September 5, 2000. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.11 -8 Public Services and Utilities U L of T&C 4 �� ' Pe=A BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT E 0 Requires or results in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities i or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause tJ significant environmental effects (refer to Section 5.9); ♦ Existing and committed demand (without the Project) ( "baseline ") - This Lj provides a baseline condition as of the date of the assessment, consisting of existing land uses, plus development that is already in progress. ♦ Existing and committed demand, plus the Project (with- Project). Future water demands and supplies, starting in 2005, were compared in two different ways, based on the two projections described above (baseline and with - Project). ♦ On a total annual quantity basis (stated in acre -feet per year (AFY)) ♦ On a peak flow (maximum day) basis (stated in gallons per minute (gpm)) U ♦ Demand and supply were compared under three climatic conditions: base (normal) conditions and single -dry and multiple -dry year conditions. These FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.11 -9 Public Services and Utilities Has insufficient water supplies available to serve the - p from existing Cj entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed (see Impact Statement 5.11 -1); ♦ Results in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments (see Impact Statement 5.11 -2); 0 Is served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the U project's solid waste disposal needs (see Impact Statement 5.11 -3); and /or ♦ Does not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related f " 1 U to solid waste (see Impact Statement 5.11-3). Potential impacts are categorized below according to topic. Mitigation measures at L the end of this Section directly correspond to the impact statements below. WATER 5.11 -1 Development of the proposed Project would result in impacts to the local water supply. Analysis has determined that there is a sufficient water supply to service the project. However, compliance with recommended mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. j A November 2002, Water Supply Assessment prepared by the City, indicates that L1 the total water demand for the proposed project is estimated to be less than 300 acre -foot per year (refer to Appendix 15.8, Water Supply Assessment). i Water demands were reviewed for two conditions: ♦ Existing and committed demand (without the Project) ( "baseline ") - This Lj provides a baseline condition as of the date of the assessment, consisting of existing land uses, plus development that is already in progress. ♦ Existing and committed demand, plus the Project (with- Project). Future water demands and supplies, starting in 2005, were compared in two different ways, based on the two projections described above (baseline and with - Project). ♦ On a total annual quantity basis (stated in acre -feet per year (AFY)) ♦ On a peak flow (maximum day) basis (stated in gallons per minute (gpm)) U ♦ Demand and supply were compared under three climatic conditions: base (normal) conditions and single -dry and multiple -dry year conditions. These FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.11 -9 Public Services and Utilities clik w s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR conditions are applicable to comparisons of annual demands and not the peak flow demands. Peak flow is a measure of the water delivery system's ability to meet the highest -day demands placed on the system within a given year. Peak demands occur during the hot, dry season and as a result do not vary si by dry-year conditions whereas dry year conditions significantly increase total annual demands. For the purposes of this assessment total annual dry-year demands were assumed to be 7 percent greater than the normal demands. The following Table 5.11 -2, Near- Tenn Historical Demands, summarizes the actual demands on the City water system for the past five years. Table 5.11 -2 Near -Term Historical Demands Year = . Groundwater (AF)" ,;.: Imported Water (AF) Total (AF) " 1997 3,890 240 4,130 1998 2,850 1050 3,900 1999 3,110 1014 4,124 2000 3,160 830 3,990 2001 3,170 930 4,100 As Table 5.11 -2 indicates, historical water demand has remained relatively constant over the past five years but has shown a slight decrease since 1997. However, due to population increases anticipated over the next twenty years, water demand is expected to increase. Table 5.11 -3, Seal Beach Normal Year Supply and Demand, Table 5.11 -4, Seal Beach Dry - Year Supply and Demand, Table 5.11 -5, Seal Beach Multiple Dry - Year Supply and Demand, and Table 5.11 -6, Seal Beach Maximum Day Supply and Demand, exhibit the amount of demand anticipated under varying seasonal conditions, with and without the project. Table 5.11 -3 Seal Beach Normal Year Supply and Demand Supply 2002 2005 2010 2015 2020 Current Supply Imported Supply 4,300 AF 4,300 AF 4,300 AF 4,300 AF 4,300 AF Groundwater Supply 7,200 AF 7,200 AF 7,200 AF 7,200 AF 7,200 AF Total Supply 11,500 AF 11,500 AF 11,500 AF 11,500 AF 11,500 AF Baseline Demand 4,250 AF 4,200 AF 4,310 AF 4,420 AF 4,580 AF Demand with Project 4,550 AF 4,500 AF 4,610 AF 4,720 AF 4,880 AF Reserve Supply 6,950 AF 7,000 AF 6,890 AF 6,780 AF 6,620 AF FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 5.11 -10 Public Services and Utilities b i t •` u C; ofs� A BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR As shown in Tables 5.11 -3 through 5.11 -6, the City supplies remain constant j between normal, single-dry and multiple -dry years. This is due to the fact that U groundwater and Metropolitan imported water account for all of the City water supply. Groundwater production typically remains constant. It may even be increased in cycles 'of dry years by temporarily i� i creasing overdraft of the basin, as groundwater L producers reduce their demand on imported supplies to secure reliability. As to imported water, Metropolitan indicates that through the continued implementation of Metropolitan's supplies under development, it can meet 100 percent of its member G agencies' supplemental water demands over the next 20 years, even in a repeat of the worst drought. Table 5.11 -4 Seal Beach Dry Year Supply and Demand f . U L c u L L L ��r I• L Supply 2002 2005 2010 2015 2020 Current Supply Imported Supply 4,300 AF 4,300 AF 4,300 AF 4,300 AF 4,300 AF Groundwater Supply 7,200 AF 7,200 AF 7,200 AF 7,200 AF 7,200 AF Total Supply 11,500 AF 11,500 AF 11,500 AF 11,500 AF 11,500 AF Baseline Demand 4,548 AF 4,494 AF 4,612 AF 4,730 AF 4,900 AF Demand with Project 4,869 AF 4,815 AF 4,933 AF 5,050 AF 5,222 AF Reserve Supply 6,631 AF 6,685 AF 6,567 AF 6,450 AF 6,278 AF Table 5.11 -5 Seal Beach Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Supply 2002 2005 2010 2015 2020 Current Supply Imported Supply 4,300 AF 4,300 AF 4,300 AF 4,300 AF 4,300 AF Groundwater Supply 7,200 AF 7,200 AF 7,200 AF 7,200 AF 7,200 AF Total Supply 11,500 AF 11,500 AF 11,500 AF 11,500 AF 11,500 AF Baseline Demand 4,578 AF 4,494 AF 4,612 AF 4,730 AF 4,900 AF Demand with Project 4,869 AF 4,815 AF 4,933 AF 5,050 AF 5,222 AF Reserve Supply 6,631 AF 6,685 AF 6,567 AF 6,450 AF 6,278 AF 10 Water Supply Assessment - Boeing Headquarters Development, City of Seal Beach, November 2002. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.11 -11 Public Services and Utilities o D ,cs� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Table 5.11 -6 Seal Beach Maximum Day Supply and Demand Supply 2002 2005 2010 2015 2020 Current Supply Imported Supply 2,700 AF 2,700 AF 2,700 AF 2,700 AF 2,700 AF Groundwater Supply 4,500 AF 4,500 AF 4,500 AF 4,500 AF 4,500 AF Total Supply 7,200 AF 7,200 AF 7,200 AF 7,200 AF 7,200 AF Baseline Demand 4,800 AF 4,800 AF 4,800 AF 4,800 AF 4,800 AF Demand with Project 5,150 AF 5,150 AF 5,150 AF 5,150 AF 5,150 AF Reserve Supply 2,050 AF 2,050 AF 2,050 AF 2,050 AF 2,050 AF The existing 18 -inch water line in Westminster Avenue and 12 -inch water line in Seal Beach Boulevard would be utilized to provide water services to Lots 1 -6 and 8 -10 and 12 -13. A proposed 12 -inch water main loop system would extend south on Apollo Way, turning west on Apollo Court, and then turning south towards Saturn Way. From Saturn Way, the line would travel east and connect to theexisting 12- inch line in Seal Beach Boulevard, Planning Area 4 would be serviced from the existing public water mains in Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. Lot 6 in Planning Area 1 would be serviced off the existing 10 -inch main in Adolfo Lopez Drive, which would be looped with the new proposed water system. Lots 1 -4 and Lots 10, 12 and 13 would be serviced off the 12 -inch main in Apollo Court. Lots 5, 7, 8 and 9 would be serviced off of Saturn Way (refer to Exhibit 5.11 -1, Water and Sewer Master Plan). In conclusion, the Project would add additional water demands on the City water system amounting to less than 300 acre -feet per year. Pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15083.5, the Water Supply Assessment concludes that the total projected water supplies available during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry water years as shown in the Water Supply Assessment, would meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the system's existing and planned future uses. The existing and proposed water lines that would be included as part of the proposed project, would provide sufficient infrastructure to service the project site. Mitigation measures. recommending approval of the proposed water system plan by the City and implementation of best management and conservation practices would ensure impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. WASTEWATER 5.11 -2 Implementation of the proposed Project would result in additional wastewater treatment demands. Implementation of theBoeing Water and Sewer Master Plan and mitigation measures would result in less than significant impacts. A Water and Sewer Master Plan (dated November 2002) was recently completed for the Boeing site. Based on the Water and Sewer Master Plan, the proposed FINAL A APRIL 2003 5.11 -12 Public Services and Utilities I�IIIII � p � I W 0 J gig C i !S ell Z 6 IH ' wa srg °' I Is U Zz Cy _ U W yyyy i. _ 4 CDs N^ C F ) c I CD O N Z f I ! =cc = r Q w cc r w F— YYft• r m U J W CL r Q O L LU cc LL. . a fi r W Z o J COD F— a LL L w a cn CD CL) Z y M C) L C Oyu § a $ 'OP- ;" 3 $' S3 ;3 a 8A e° b� 9 MO ! € 1 a gQ i� ° ! � i s $ � . @ - � j5 r s p� 6Ie 4 N ($ •� r � G 3 Cg ^pYB as �� p � ����� ®._bp Rgyk�� L9y.d i p 'X�tl�'y y e 4R • ! 11 F $ C a Ff[J 83 Cj R �. • : 9 .i:3d�11 ag S$ g 9e R�� �S� 66 . �Mu ' be € Er €15Ae2 E ayf ' €a "$ €e all K: °aF gg� gt $ e x e e•' {• y 9 xFx a 3E �° °9� p$e aekp � Y $� Nii $ � � �! �6 Cj +�aa $ �'�Fx i$ 2€$@ ��� "s6 _� �e g ° ! g ^ c�yol €6R $ SP k3 a =k a y S F, @a °yb" $ €' i c - a GG G i s � ig EC$A�.E g ° fi b ° i� $+ 4 GR € €R " as g y3E F= g xe "x 8k$d$ La >r�95e Y��$ >ryi��$6 58aR i�Y •, x — 7ZZ:==7 M e $, 1 1 $78 y� qq p � 3a 6 e3 t �� $ �g 1 °y} 39 e€ 4 €re tE ek bi i� 9g 2 p - e? B€ bknE 3 $$ R e@ e4 i a Y 4 g gl[a�y F g $ l ip A l i A d! $f g �eBg pg Q a 62 - - \\ \ \\ $ 6� � p � "` gaQ$ � - �i C � p °• $¢�� $ 5 ° g € y3 � k E5 � "� R R �,te $ -- - 5 - � -- --- 33 Y 6e� � YYa�€ °000G0a 0 ®0®®® ®® ®® ® ®® as Ri =/� = o eon . IF 11 p � \ ` %\ / /, % \ /. %/ \ _ - - 1III�/._ ° z n _O U o v � d rc M z M z 0 L1 ■ z W ■ U Z_ z J � i a S � n z • J • 7 z ■ Z 0 U I L Ci o� �F.cLQ�ecCY� BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT EIR development of a 120 -room hotel, 32,500 square feet of commercial uses and L 973,000 square feet of business park development would contribute an average 214.8 gpm of flows into the Boeing Pump Station" U r I� U M L L T Ile Willer and Sewer Master Plan indicates that an existing 6-inch cast force. (rain would be replaced with a 12 -inch line which connects the City's Boeing Pump Station to the city maintained 24 -inch gravity sewer line in Seal Beach Boulevard. The 24- inch line provides flows to the OCSD Seal Beach Pump Station at Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. A proposed private gravity sewer line (Line "A ") serving Lots 1-4 and 10, 12 and 13 would extend east along Apollo Court to connect to the City of Seal Beach existing lift station at the northeast corner of the property. A proposed private gravity and pressure sewer line (Line "B ") serving Lots 5-7,8 and 9, would extend east along Saturn Way, from anew lift station, to the existing sewer line in Seal Beach Boulevard. The lift station would be built for a peak flow of 122 gpm and average flow of 47 gpm as shown on the proposed master plan developed by Tait & Associates. Proposed development within Planning Area 4 would be serviced by the Boeing Pump Station (refer to Exhibit 5.11 -1, Water and Sewer Master Plan). During the submittal of improvement plans, the City Engineer will evaluate the need and decide whether sewer, water and other infrastructure would be maintained by the City for public health and safety. It is envisioned that the City would only accept facilities that are located within public right -of -way except for water distribution mains which are necessary for operation of a looped system for the City. As part of the City's Capital Improvement Program, the City's Boeing Pump Station will be replaced with a facility capable of a firm pumping capacity of 490 gpm and completion is anticipated in the Fall of 2003. To develop a design that meets the development objectives for the project, the facility would provide the same level of service as the existing pump station. This pump design adheres to all applicable codes and regulations, standard industry practices, economic and good engineering judgment. Li Improvements in accordance with the Water and Sewer Master Plan, along with replacement of the Boeing Pump Station would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. �I SOLID WASTE 5.11 -3 Implementation of the proposed project would result in solid waste L generation that may impact existing landfill facilities. Implementation of mitigation measures would result in less than significant impacts. U r� " Unit flows per AKM Sewer Master Plan 1999, with hotel rates projected at 225 gpd /room, 2,090 gpd /ac and 3,167 gpd /ac. 'Z Even though this new lift station is shown on the Master Sewer and Water Plan, as being in the Saturn Way public ROW, it may end up being on private property and further discussions with the City will determine if the Saturn Way lift station will be public or private. U FINAL ® APRIL 2003 5.11 -15 Public Services and Utilities C&T o4'���� BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 123 tons of solid waste per month. Citywide recycling programs would apply to the proposed project. In order to ensure compliance with the requirements of State and local source reduction laws, a source reduction program shall be prepared and submitted to the ^uirector of uevelopment SeVices for each future structure constructed on the subject properties to achieve a minimum 60 percent reduction in waste disposal rates. Compliance with the local source reduction laws would result in a decrease of 73.8 tons of solid waste per month. As a result, approximately 1.6 tons of solid waste per day would be sent to the Brea Olinda landfill. As earlier indicated, the Brea Olinda landfill has the capacity to accept an additional 1,000 tons per day. This increase in solid waste would have a limited impact upon the existing and projected landfill capacity of the Brea Olinda landfill. Implementation of the mitigation measures would ensure impacts would remain at less than significant levels. CUMULATIVE 5.11 -4 Cumulative development could result in an increased demand for public services and an increase in the consumption rates for public utilities and services, potentially requiring expansions of the existing utility systems. Analysis has concluded that cumulative development is subject to standards and requirements of reviewing agencies and no additional mitigation is recommended. In relation to the cumulative development outlined in Section 4.0, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, of this EIR, the proposed Project would cumulatively contribute to an increased demand of water, wastewater and solid waste. The proposed Project and related projects would add to the cumulative demand for such services through the introduction of new residents, tenants, and users of the proposed facilities. However, this growth has been considered for in long -range plans. The site is located in an area that is served by all utilities (i.e., water, sewer, and energy utilities) and other public services (i.e., police, fire, schools and solid waste). Existing facilities can be readily extended into the area to serve the proposed development. No additional governmental services or activities would be cumulatively impacted by the proposed Project. Since the respective providers of such services and facilities have indicated that the Project's incremental impacts can be sufficiently mitigated, cumulative impacts on public services and utilities anticipated to result from this development are not considered to be significant. MITIGATION MEASURES This section directly corresponds to the identified Impact Statements in the impacts subsection. 13 Per communication with Doug Dancs, Director of Public Works /City Engineer for City of Seal Beach, September 23, 2002. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.11 -16 Public Services and Utilities r• L �.J f L L U u G L U u BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR WATER 5.11 -1a In order to ensure adequate service to the proposed subdivision and the individual building structures, plans for the proposed public water and wastewater systems shall approved by the City Engineer of the City of Seal Beach prior to the recordation of the final tract map. A condition on the tentative map shall state that all public infrastructure improvement plans, including sewer, water, streets, traffic signals, and grading shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the tract map. This is in conformance with the subdivision map act and approval authority of the City Engineer. 5.11 -1b In order to ensure proper usage required to implement the Best conservation practices identified Water Supply Assessment and th e Council. WASTEWATER of water, the development shall be Management Practices (BMPs) and in the City's adopted UWMP 2002, California Urban Water Conservation 5.11 -2 In order to ensure adequate service to the project site, plans for the proposed wastewater collection system shall be approved by the Orange County Sanitation District and the City Engineer of the City of Seal Beach prior to the recordation of the final tract map. SOLID WASTE 5.11 -3a Prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed structures, detailed construction plans shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for approval, delineating the number, location, and general design of solid waste enclosures and storage areas for recycled material. 5.11 -3b The project applicant/individual project applications shall adhere to all source reduction programs for the disposal of demolition and construction materials and solid waste, as required by the City of Seal Beach. Prior to issuance of building permits, a source reduction program shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Development Services for demolition of any existing structure over 5,000 square feet in area and for each future structure constructed on the subject properties to achieve a minimum 60 percent reduction in waste disposal rates, including green waste. CUMULATIVE 5.11 -4 No mitigation measures ar provided above, cumulative requirements of reviewing impacts. e recommended. Based on the analysis development is subject to standards and agencies resulting in less than significant FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 5.11 -17 Public Services and Utilities o 'O -c BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No unavoidable significant impacts related to public services and utilities have been identified following implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and compliance with applicable City, County, service or utility provider requirements, Codes, Ordinances and requirements. FINAL o APRIL 2003 5.11 -18 Public Services and Utilities r � I II r , L I' i r L 1 • • -Term Implicatio of the Proposed Project L L } r , L r L 4 r I r• , L r L r LJ L I - L L V 0 `u U If the proposed Project is approved and constructed, a variety of short-term and long -term impacts would occur on a local level. During Project grading and construction, portions of surrounding land uses may be temporarily impacted by increased dust and noise. Short-term erosion may occur during grading. There may also be an increase in vehicle emissions caused by grading and construction activities. However, these disruptions would be temporary, and may be avoided or lessened to a large degree through mitigation cited in this report and through compliance with the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code (refer to Section 5.0, Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures). Ultimate development of the Project site would create long -term environmental consequences associated with the development of previously vacant land. Development of the proposed Project and the subsequent long -term effects may impact the physical, aesthetic, and human environments. Long -term physical consequences of development include: increased traffic volumes, increased noise from Project - related mobile (traffic) and stationary (mechanical equipment and parking lots) sources, incremental increased demands for public utilities, and increased energy and natural resource consumption. Long -term visual impacts would occur with the alteration of views across portions of the Project site. Incremental degradation of local and regional air quality as a result of mobile source emissions generated from project - related traffic and stationary source emissions generated from the natural gas and electricity consumption. 6.2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED L Approval of the proposed Project would cause irreversible environmental changes. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the following changes: [ j o Permanent commitment of land that would be physically altered to business park and /or commercial uses. o Soil erosion due to grading and construction activities. ♦ Alteration of the human environment as a consequence of the development L process. The Project represents an enhanced commitment to business park and commercial uses that would intensify land uses on the Project site. r L FINAL ® APRIL 2003 6 -1 Long -Term Implications BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ® Utilization of various new raw materials, such as lumber, sand and gravel for construction. Some of these resources are already being depleted worldwide. The energy consumed in development and maintenance of the site may be considered a permanent investment. ® Incremental increases in vehicular activity in the surrounding circulation system, resulting in associated increases in air emissions and noise levels. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), the following discussion addresses ways in which the proposed Project could foster economic, housing, or population growth, whether directly or indirectly in the surrounding environments. Growth- inducing impacts of the proposed Project are assessed in terms of whether the Project removes obstacles to development, requires construction of expanded facilities that could serve other future developments, or otherwise facilitates or encourages development of other activities that could significantly affect the environment. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. Growth- inducing impacts fall into two general categories, direct and indirect. Direct growth- inducing impacts are generally associated with the provision of urban services to an undeveloped area. The provision of these services to a site, and the subsequent development, can serve to induce other landowners in the vicinity to convert their property to urban uses. Indirect, or secondary growth- inducing impacts, consist of growth induced in the region by the additional demands for housing, goods, and services associated with the population increase caused by, cr attracted to, a new project. CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN The City of Seal Beach is part of a large, growing region. Over the last twenty years the pace of new development has in some cases outstripped the ability of infrastructure to adequately support that development. Therefore, the City of Seal Beach includes a Growth Management Element in its General Plan. The Growth Management Element includes goals and policies for planning and providing traffic improvements, coordinating and cooperating with other jurisdictions, and balancing jobs and housing in the City for orderly growth and development. The Element satisfies the growth management requirement of the "Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance" (Measure M) of the County of Orange County, and conforms to the guidelines for Growth Management Elements as set forth in the "Countywide Growth Management Program Implementation Manuaf' prepared by the County of Orange. In addition, this Element minimizes duplication between the, Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG) Growth Management Plan, the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), and State Assembly Bill 471 (Proposition 111— Congestion Management). Recognizing that growth has both positive and negative aspects, the Element lists some immediate issues and opportunities for the City. One of the concerns arising from growth relates to the congestion of major arterials that provide access to the FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 6 -2 Long -Term Implications U f C; o BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR freeway system and Pacific Coast Highway, including Westminster Avenue. As a result, the Growth Management Element provides goals and policies for: 1) Traffic Congestion, 2) Adequate Transportation Facilities, 3) Inter - Jurisdictional Coordination /Cooperation, and 4) Jobs /Housing Balance. Additionally, the Element requires that any new, large development prepare a comprehensive development plan (i.e. Specific Plan) and environmental impact analysis. This requirement would enable the City to anticipate the impacts of large projects prior to development of any portion of the project, and permit additional time to plan for public services and L facilities needed to support the project. REGIONAL AND LOCAL SETTING LJ The following population, housing, and employment data was obtained from the following sources: , ® City and County 1990 Population and Housing State of California, Department of Finance, City /County Population and Housing Estimates, F 1991 -2000, with 1990 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, May 2000. ® City and County 2000 and 2002 Population and Housing State of California, Department of Finance, City /County Population and Housing Estimates, Lj 2002, Revised 2001, with 2000 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, May 2002. G ♦ City 2000 Employment: U.S. Census 2000, American Factfinder, DP -3, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. Population U The City of Seal Beach is located in the County of Orange, one of the six counties that comprise the Southern California Associations of Governments (SCAG) region. According to SCAG, since the 1990 Census, population in the six - county region (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial Counties) has r l grown from 14.6 million to 16.5 million persons, an increase of 12.8 percent. All of the counties in the SCAG region experienced at least 12 percent growth in population, with the exception of Los Angeles County which grew by 7.4 percent.' The population projection for the year 2010 for the SCAG region is an estimated 20.5 million persons, representing a population increase of approximately 25 percent (4.2 million persons) between 1998 and 2010. SCAG attributes the growth in population for the region to natural increases and net in- migration 2 The Orange County Council 1 of Governments ( OCCOG) is the subregional governing body for Orange County. Ly OCCOG is comprised of members from 32 Orange County cities representing a population of approximately 2.9 million persons in 2000. Population in the OCCOG rr�I subregion is anticipated to grow to approximately 3.3 million persons by the year �J 2020, representing a 16.7 percent increase. U ' SCAG forecasts are the 2001 RTP (April 2001) Population, Household and Employment forecasts for the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) subregion and the City of Seal Beach. U 2 Natural increase is defined as the excess of births over deaths. Net in- migration is defined as the total number of people entering the region minus the people leaving the region. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 6 -3 Long -Term Implications C of S� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Between 1990 and 2000, the County of Orange grew from 2,410,668 persons to 2,846,289 persons. This population increase represented a growth of approximately 18 percent (435,621 persons) over the decade. In 2000, the County's population represented approximately 17 percent of the Region's total population. The County's estimated p as of January 2002 is 2,939,547 persons. The County is anticipated to continue the population growth trend with a projected population of 3,163,000 persons in 2010 and 3,335,000 persons in 20203 According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Seal Beach's population was estimated at 25,098 persone in 1990 and estimated at 24,157 persons in 2000. Department of Finance data is a typical reference /resource for population /housing data. As of January 2002, the City's population was an estimated 24,675 persons. According to SCAG forecasts, the City's population is projected to increase to approximately 28,984 persons in 2020. The City's General Plan Land Use Element projects a population of 30,080 persons at General Plan buildout. Housing The number of households in the OCCOG in 2000 was approximately 909,705. This estimate is forecast to increase to approximately 1.1 million in 2020. The County of Orange's housing supply totaled 875,105 housing units in 1990 and 969,484 housing units in 2000. Between 1990 and 200, the housing supply in the County increased by approximately 10.8 percent (94,379 units). As of January 2002, the County's housing supply was 986,606 units. The residential vacancy rate, a translation of the number of unoccupied housing units on the market, is a good indicator of the balance between housing supply and demand in a community. Orange County's vacancy rate was 3.53 percent as of January 2002. The average number of persons per household in the County was 3.04 (January 2002). According to State Department of Finance estimates, between 1990 and 2000, the City of Seal Beach's housing supplied decreased from 14,407 housing units' to 14,267 housing units 8 As of January 2002, the City's housing supply was 14,325 units, representing an increase of 0.41 percent (58 housing units) over the 2000 estimate. The vacancy rate in the City as of January 2002 was 8.54 percent (1,224 3 Southern California Association of Governments Region. httP:// www.scag.ca.goy /growthforecast/ June 2002. 4 City and County 1990 Population and Housing: State of California, Department of Finance, City /County (� Population and Housing Estimates, 1991 -2000, with 1990 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, May 2000. 1 I 5 City and County 2000 and 2002 Population and Housing: State of California, Department of Finance, � City /County Population and Housing Estimates, 2002, Revised 2001, with 2000 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, May 2002. 6 City of Seal Beach General Plan Land Use Element Summary Report, No Date, Page 1. 7 City and County 1990 Population and Housing: State of California, Department of Finance, City /County Population and Housing Estimates, 1991 -2000, with 1990 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, May 2000. 8 City and County 2000 and 2002 Population and Housing: State of California, Department of Finance, 1 City /County Population and Housing Estimates, 2002, Revised 2001, with 2000 Census Counts. Sacramento, u California, May 2002. FINAL o APRIL 2003 6 -4 Long -Term Implications a Ir ' L L' BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR vacant housing units). The City's vacancy rate was over double the County's vacancy rate of 3.53. The number of persons per household in the City was 1.86 (January 2002), or nearly 40 percent less than the County's estimate of 3.04 persons per household. According to SCAG, the number of households in the City is forecast tv I� �crease.to approximately 11,764 n 2020, Employment Ell' U G E l r� r� L t G F OCCOG's employment in 2000 was an estimated 1.5 million. Employment in the subregion is forecast to increase to approximately 2.0 million in 2020. According to the 2000 Census, the County's civilian labor force totaled approximately 1.4 million. An estimated five percent (71,059 persons) of the County's civilian labor force was unemployed at the time of the Census. The majority (approximately 38 percent) of the County's labor force was employed in management/professional / related occupations. The County's labor force primarily filled positions in the manufacturing and educational /health /social services industries, representing approximately 17 percent and 16 percent, respectively. The 2000 Census reported a total civilian labor force of approximately 9,922 in the City of Seal Beach. Approximately 3.5 percent (344 persons) of the City's civilian labor force was unemployed at the time of the Census. This unemployment rate was slightly lower than the County's five percent unemployment rate. Over one -half (approximately 53 percent) of the City's labor force was employed in management/ professional /related occupations. As with the County, management/professional / related occupations represented the largest group in the City. The majority, an estimated 24.4 percent, of the City's labor force filled positions in the educational/ health /social services industry. According to SCAG, the City's employment is forecast to increase to approximately 13,500 in 2020. IMPACT ANALYSIS Population /Housing /Employment As outlined in Table 3.1, Proposed Specific Plan Land Uses, the Project involves maintaining approximately 1.15 million square feet of existing building area (within PA -1 and PA -2). However, some or all of the existing buildings in PA -2 (approximately 345,000 square feet) may be demolished and /or re -used. New light industrial buildings planned for PA -2 would require relocation and /or demolition of existing buildings and facilities. The project would include development of 345,000 square feet of additional building area within the existing Boeing facilities, 55,000 square feet designated for hotel uses and 32,500 square feet designated for commercial uses, including retail, restaurant and similar commercial uses. The proposed buildings /expansions would result in a total of 2.2 million square feet of floor area, representing a net increase of 1.0 million square feet over the existing floor area of 1.15 million square feet. Project implementation would create approximately 1,300 positions associated with the proposed light industrial uses" 9 Light industrial uses are also permitted. 70 Ibid. " Public Hearing Application Package for the Boeing Specific Plan, Revised 2/2000, Page 7. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 6 -5 Long - i erm impncauuns BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR and approximately 100 positions associated with the proposed hotel /commercial uses. The Boeing Specific Plan does not propose the development of housing which would result in a direct growth in the- City's permanent population. However, the employment created by the proposed uses has the potential to result in an indirect growth in the City's population since the potential exists that "future employees" (and their families) may choose to relocate to the City. Estimating the number of these future employees who would choose to relocate to the City would be highly speculative since many factors influence personal housing location decisions (i.e., family income levels and the cost and availability of suitable housing in the local area). Further, additional housing opportunities exist for the Project's future employees in the communities surrounding the City of Seal Beach. Nonetheless, due to the uncertainty which exists with regard to the number of new employees which may choose to relocate to the City, a more conservative analysis of impacts associated with the City's permanent population is provided. For analysis purposes, if 25 percent of the Project's new employees were to relocate to the City, the Project could potentially create a demand for 350 housing units and result in a population increase of approximately 651 persons. 12 As previously noted, the housing supply and vacancy rate in the City as of January 2002 was 14,325 housing units and 8.54 percent vacancy (1,224 vacant housing units), respectively. Vacancy rates of 4.0 percent are typically considered ideal to provide an adequate return for property owners and to provide for adequate "turnover' and mobility within the market. Assuming that future Project employees would occupy existing housing, Project implementation would decrease the City's housing vacancy rate to approximately 6.10 percent (874 vacant housing units). Therefore, the Project would not decrease the City's vacancy rate such that the ideal vacancy rate of 4.0 percent would be met. Further, a 6.10 percent resultant vacancy rate would be greater than the countywide vacancy rate of 3.53 percent. In consideration of the City's existing housing supply and vacancy rate, it would appear that the housing demand created by the Project could be absorbed without significantly impacting housing availability. The potential population increase of 651 persons generated by the Project would increase the City's 2002 population of 24,675 persons to 25,326 persons, constituting an approximately 2.6 percent increase. The potential 2.6 percent population increase resulting from Project implementation is not considered a significant growth inducing impact based on the following conclusions: o As noted in Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan's intended use of the subject site (i.e., light industrial use in the form of an "industrial park "). Therefore, the General Plan anticipated development of the subject site and it is inherently assumed that a proportion of future employees would also be City residents. o The City's General Plan Land Use Element projected a population of 30,080 persons at General Plan buildout. This represented a population increase of 12 The Project's potential population increase was calculated based upon the Project's potential demand for 350 housing units and the City's estimate of 1.86 persons per household (January 2002). FINAL o APRIL 2003 6 -6 Long -Term Implications BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 4,282 persons over the 1990 population of 25,098. This population projection was based on the development of a small parcel of land designated as low density residential located behind Marina Hill, which would add approximately 800 people. The high density residential area located directly behind the Rossmoor .C enter .vas ex tP to increase approximately 330 new residents, and the medium density land use in the College Park East neighborhood was anticipated to increase approximately 150 additional people to the City. In consideration of the City's projected population of U 25,326 persons with the Project, and the current population growth potential of 1,280 persons, the City would be well below the General Plan buildout population projection of 30,800 persons. LJ In summary, the Project proposes the development of business park and hotel /commercial uses in an urban setting. The Project would not result in direct growth- inducing impacts since it does not involve the provision of urban services to an undeveloped area. As discussed in Section 5.11, Public Utilities, the Project would extend utilities /infrastructure from existing facilities that occur adjacent to the (' Project site. The extension of facilities onto the Project site would not induce the conversion of surrounding property to urban uses. Development exists north, east, south and northwest of the Project site. Further, the vacant lands that exist west of the Project site are utilized as flood control facilities and have been designated for [j conservation purposes. Further, as discussed above, the Project would not create significant population increases or significant demand for new housing, therefore, F , would not result in indirect growth- inducing impacts. 1 ' Growth Element Consistency Analysis r ' Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with goals and policies Lj identified in the Growth Management Element. Additionally, the Project would be consistent with the Element's requirement to prepare a Specific Plan (Boeing ' Specific Plan) and environmental impact analysis (this document). L1 I r U� r% L FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 6 -7 Long -Term Implications r Ld R r C 0 L 7,0 Alternatives to the Proposed Pro c F L c F , L r ' L rI L r 1 r L r L�, 1 ` C r BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 7.0 AL TERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PR OJECT In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6, the following Section describes a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the ` proposed Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed Project. The evaluation considers the comparative merits of each alternative. The analysis focuses on alternatives capable of eliminating significant ,1 environmental effects or reducing them to less than significant levels, even if these U alternatives would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the Project objectives. Potential environmental impacts associated with three separate alternatives are compared to impacts from the proposed Project. The alternatives include the "No Project/No Development ", "No Project/Existing Designation" and a "Residential Component" Alternative. The chapter concludes with identification of the "Environmentally Superior' Alternative. Refer to Table 7 -1, Comparison of �l Alternatives, at the end of this Section for an impact matrix which compares the alternatives to the proposed Project. 7.1 "NO PROJECT /NO DEVELOP ENT" ALTERNATIVE ) r ' DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 1J The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes the Boeing Specific Plan Project would not be implemented and land uses and other improvements identified in the Specific Plan would not be constructed. The existing undeveloped portion of the Boeing site, including the three manmade drainage ditches, would remain + unaltered and in their current condition. All infrastructure improvements including water, wastewater, drainage and circulation facilities identified in the Specific Plan would not be constructed. The design and development standards for the Specific Plan would not be implemented and the General Plan land use designations and allowable uses set forth by the zoning code for the site would remain unchanged. IMPACT COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT rl Land Use And Relevant Planning Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Boeing site would remain in its present condition. While the proposed Project involves a General Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to Specific Plan Regulation (SPR), the No Project/ No Development Alternative would not require an Amendment. Also, this Alternative would not require an Amendment to the Circulation Element because no development would be proposed. It is further noted that the Housing Element notes the possibility of redesignating a portion of the 50 -acre underutilized site of the Boeing property for residential uses. Since this Alternative assumes no development, residential uses would not be a consideration, although not precluded i from future consideration. L FINAL ® APRIL 2003 7 -1 Alternatives to the Proposed Action o ocs�� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The Project site is currently zoned Light Manufacturing (M -1). Implementation of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan would require a Zone Change from M -1 to Specific Plan Regulation Zone (SPR Zone) and adoption of the Specific Plan, which would not occur under this Alternative. The No Project/No Development Alternative is considered neither anvil vnmentwlly SUn nor inferior. Aesthetics /Light And Glare The No Project/No Development Alternative would maintain the currentviews across the Project site from off-site vantage points. Aesthetic improvements to the site resulting from Project implementation would not occur. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative no new light sources would be developed. Thus, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Traffic and Circulation A peak hour intersection analysis was conducted for the existing condition traffic scenario. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared for the Project, six intersections presently operate at Level of Service (LOS) "E" or "F" during the peak hours. Current traffic conditions would continue and none of the Project's proposed and required circulation improvements would occur. The OCTA has identified the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge overcrossing for replacement, however, the overcrossing replacement is planned to occur at a time beyond the 2006 Project horizon year timeline, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact under the proposed Project. While this deficiency would also occur under this Alternative, it would not be aggravated by the additional traffic generated by the Project. Therefore the No Project/No Development Alternative can be considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Air Quality The demolition, grading and construction activities associated with the proposed Project would not occur with this Alternative. Therefore, the emissions associated with proposed Project construction equipment concluded to exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds for NOxand other air quality impacts would not occur under this Alternative. Thus, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Noise Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no new land uses would be developed on the site. Thus, new stationary and mobile noise sources would not occur and ambient noise levels would not increase. It is noted, that under the proposed Project, impacts from construction, mobile, and stationary noise sources would be reduced to less than significant levels following mitigation. Nevertheless, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 7 -2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action C, w r- BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Biological Resources r U Construction - related impacts to special status vegetation types, plant species, sensitive habitat and jurisdictional waters would not occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative as new• buildings and ..de areas would not be constructed. Long -term impacts to sensitive species (such as the southern tarplant and the woolly sea - blite) and jurisdictional waters would not occur with this Alternative. This Alternative would maintain all three manmade drainage ditches and would not require mitigation for the 0.11 acres of jurisdictional waters that would be impacted with development of this Project. None of the wetlands restoration activities proposed as part of the Project would take place. The No Project/No Development Alternative would be considered environmentally inferior to the proposed Project. F . Cultural Resources The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in any grading or (� construction on the Project site. Therefore, this Alternative would not result in any l,J potentially adverse impacts to archaeological sites located on -site. This Alternative would not result in the disruption of fossil bearing formations and there would be no potential to unearth previously unknown subsurface historic resources. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Geology and Soils , Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would not expose r additional people and structures to potential adverse effects associated with seismic activity, adverse soils or geologic conditions. Additionally, as this Alternative would not involve construction activities, potential soil erosion impacts would not occur. a Although potentially significant impacts have been identified with Project implementation, impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. Nevertheless, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be considered r ? environmentally superior to the proposed Project. U Hydrology F f� The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in short-term impacts to water quality associated with grading, excavation and construction activities since development of the proposed Project would not occur. Additionally, the existing quality and quantity of storm water and urban runoff would not change, since the Boeing site would not be altered from its current condition. However, this Alternative not result in the water quality control measures associated with the proposed would Project, which would improve existing conditions. Thus, the No Project/No inferior to the Development Alternative would be considered environmentally proposed Project. L j Public Health and Safety By not developing the remainder of the Boeing site, there would be a potential in the risk associated with exposure to hazardous materials including lead reduction L, FINAL ® APRIL 2003 7 -3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action <�� ReaA BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR based paint, asbestos and contamination of local groundwater and soil from past agricultural uses. Additionally, the potential to interfere with an adopted emergency evacuation plan for the area would not occur with this Alternative since development would not occur. Thus, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be consi ` irons v+Project. lly superior r o the propose Proj CVIIjiUGI GIJ eiivu viuiw���Zi .. p, �,,,o t,. - Public Services and Utilities This Alternative would not necessitate the expansion of the existing sewer and water system. An increase in solid waste generation would not occur with this Alternative, as the proposed Project's facilities would not be developed. The No Project/No Development Alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. ABILITY TO (MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES This Alternative would not fulfill the Specific Plan objectives, including, `To create a quality business park campus, compatible with existing Boeing Space and Communications Group Headquarters, operations and facilities." Land use and development objectives including providing a range of employment opportunities, and enhancing one of only two sites in the City zoned for industrial and manufacturing purposes, would not be fulfilled. By maintaining the existing site in its current condition, there would not be the opportunity to provide visitor - serving uses, open space, and public access within the Coastal Zone along with providing the fiscal benefits of providing point of sale opportunities and encouraging revitalization and reuse of the Project site. • . ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE The No Project/Existing Designation Alternative involves development of the Project site based upon the existing designation in which the site would maintain its General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial and zoning of Light Manufacturing (M -1). The zoning provisions of the Code of the City of Seal Beach (the "Code ") has established the M -1 zone with the intent to encourage and require all development within the M -1 zone to take place under an industrial park concept in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses and to preserve the general health, safety and welfare of the community. The M -1 zone allows for the following permitted uses: ® Wholesale businesses; ® Aircraft manufacturing;' o Automobile painting and body work; o Boat building, repairing and outfitting; 6 Bottling plant; o Light Manufacturing and component assembling; ® Research and development; FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 7 -4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action '0 r� f ^; u �r SJ f' L-� V W c F L o&� ,� s�`geWA BOEING S EC IFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Adult- oriented businesses, except as provided in paragraphs (a)(i) through (a)(vi) of Section 11E-5, of the Code, and subject to the other provision of Chapter 11 E of the Code; Veterinary hospitals; Wareh o Other similar enterprises when interpreted by the Planning Commission as meeting the intent of light manufacturing uses; o Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to any of the above uses when located on the same site with the main building; ® The following additional uses subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit; Off -site Hazardous Waste Facility ♦ Limited Permitted Uses (requiring that all business be conducted within an enclose building and behind a six -foot high block wall). - Building material yard; and - Vehicle storage yard. Development under this Alternative would be guided by M -1 development guidelines contained in the Code rather than the development guidelines established in the Boeing Specific Plan. This Alternative would be generally similar to the proposed Project, however, it would exclude the possible development of a hotel /commercial center in Planning Area 4 and additional land uses proposed in the Specific Plan. This Alternative would result in the intensity of land uses contained in the M -1 zone, including a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet with maximum lot coverage of 70 percent. The proposed Project establishes the same development standards for Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3 and provides a maximum lot size of 7,000 feet with maximum lot coverage of 60 percent in Planning Area 4. Overall, this Alternative would involve development that would be subject to the Code's development standards, but not the design, architecture, and landscaping guidelines established in the Boeing Specific Plan. It is expected that this Alternative would be required to provide water quality and biological resource protection features similar to the proposed Project. IMPACT COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Land Use and Relevant Planning f U -1 I , b C The No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would exclude development of the Boeing Specific Plan, therefore, the proposed General Plan Amendments to the Land Use Element, would not be required. The proposed Amendment to delete the outdated map from the Circulation Element would still be required, but the Amendment to link Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster via Apollo Drive would not. Additionally, this Alternative would not require a Zone Change from M -1 to SPR Zone and adoption of the Specific Plan. Like the proposed Project, however, this Alternative would require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. It is further noted that the Housing Element notes the possibility of redesignating a portion of the 50 -acre underutilized site of the Boeing property for residential uses. Since this Alternative assumes M -1 development, residential uses would not occur. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 7 -5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR The Boeing Specific Plan provides for uses under its business park, office and commercial uses that are not allowed under the M -1 zoning (refer to Table 5 -1, Boeing Specific Plan Permitted Land Uses, of the Boeing Specific Plan). Permitted uses and other uses requiring a conditional use permit would be limited under this Alternative. Except for the Circulation Element Map that was inadvertently not deleted, existing entitlements (this Alternative) do not conflict with the policies of the City of Seal Beach General Plan, California Coastal Act and Code. While adoption of the General Plan Amendments and zone changes required under the proposed Project would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, the No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Aesthetics Under this Alternative, future development of the site would be subject to M -1 zoning. Views from Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard would not be enhanced with the landscaping design proposed in the Specific Plan. Buildings would be setback 15 feet pursuant to code, as opposed to the 35 feet established in the Specific Plan. Without specific development standards and design guidelines, development on -site may lack a cohesive identity or a consistent project theme. In addition, there would be no design guidelines to ensure high quality design and well - ordered spatial relationship among buildings and land uses. Thus, the No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed Project. Traffic and Circulation According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project, six intersections presently operate at Level of Service "E" or "F" during the peak hours. Implementation of the No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would result in a decrease of traffic volume when compared to the proposed Project, since the site would be developed with light industrial uses and would not include development of a hotel and commercial center which generates higher traffic volumes. Just as with the proposed Project, this Alternative would require mitigation measures, which would result in acceptable levels of service at the impacted intersections. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project. Air Quality Since this Alternative would result in fewer vehicular trips to the Project site, there would be fewer impacts associated with mobile source emissions. Therefore there would be a reduction of mobile and energy source emissions compared to the proposed Project. However, construction - related emissions would still occur with this Alternative, which would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to NOx levels. Additionally, stationary source emissions may be greater with development of this Alternative since it would be developed as a business park (including industrial and manufacturing uses), which could emit more emissions than a hotel and commercial center. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project. FINAL o APRIL 2003 1 -6 Alternatives to the Proposed Action f r. �r • E l L" Id L. b if F, r o f w s�'Re'WA BOEINGS ECIFIC P LAN PROJECT EIR Noise This Alternative would include development of only light industrial /manufacturing uses and no hotel and commercial center. Mobile noise sources would be less than the proposed Project due to fe"eter ahiriilnr trips, to the Project site. However stationary noise sources may be higher as a result of developing the entire site with light industrial /manufacturing uses. Short-term vibration and noise impacts would be similar due to the buildout potential provided under both scenarios. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project. Biological Resources Construction activities could create significant disturbances to existing wetland resources and sensitive species including the southern tarplant and woolly sea - blite. This Alternative does not provide for wetland restoration that would protect the jurisdictional water resources located in Drainage Ditch C. In addition, this Alternative could include creation of terraces adjacent to channel bottoms for Drainage Ditch A and Drainage Ditch B that would provide wetland habitat, flood - control, water quality, and buffer functions. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project. Cultural Resources This Alternative would result in grading and construction, which could result in potentially significant adverse impacts to cultural sites identified on -site. Development of this Alternative would be subject to similar mitigation measures as the proposed Project, which results in less than significant impacts to historical, cultural and paleontological resources. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would be neither environmentally inferior nor superior to the proposed Project. Geology and Soils The topography of the Project site would be altered in order to prepare the site for the uses under this Alternative. The extent of grading and associated impacts on geologic and soil conditions is expected to be similar to that associated with the proposed Project. The No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would be neither environmentally inferior nor superior to the proposed Project. Hydrology and Drainage Potential impacts related to water quality would be similar to the proposed Project. Under the proposed Project, drainage plans call for the development of a 2.8 acre - feet retention facility in order to accommodate the increased runoff from the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, this Alternative includes water quality control measures, which would remove pollutants that would otherwise be discharged into the LARB. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project. FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 7 -7 Alternatives to the Proposed Action BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Public Health and Safety Development of this Alternative would result in similar impacts with regard to the exposure of hazardous materials when compared to the proposed Project. Mitigation measures would ba required for any new development due to agricultural Chemicals, asbestos and lead -based paint. However, with the development of the entire site for industrial /manufacturing uses, there could be an increase in the amount of hazardous chemicals transported to the site. Development of this Alternative would be subject to compliance with City Code, which would reduce impacts to the Emergency Response Plan. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed Project. Public Services and Utilities Under this Alternative, demand for water, solid waste disposal services and sewer system facilities would be similar to the demand created by the propose Project. The difference in demand of utilities and services however, would depend greatly on the type of facilities built. The primary difference between the proposed Project and this Alternative would be the development of the hotel and commercial center in Planning Area 4. Therefore, while some light industrial /manufacturing uses may utilize a greater amount of public utilities and services (i.e., aircraft manufacturing, automobile painting and body work, and boat building) others may require less. Thus, the No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would be considered neither environmentally inferior nor superior to the proposed Project. ABILITY TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES The No Project/Existing Designation Alternative would meet some of the Project goals but would not be consistent with the planning and environmental design goals established in the Specific Plan. By developing the remaining Boeing site without a Specific Plan to guide design and land use development, this Alternative may not unify the project area with a consistent landscape, architectural and street scene program; and would not create a comprehensive signage system as proposed under the Specific Plan. Additionally, this Alternative would not provide the fiscal benefits associated with allowing a business park that provides point of sale opportunities and a commercial planning area that provides hotel and retail land uses. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE The Residential Component Alternative is based upon the Housing Element, which references the option of residential development of the undeveloped portion of the Project site. Program 5.2.1.2(E) of the Housing Element "calls for public hearings to determine the appropriateness and benefits of redesignating a portion of a 50 -acre underutilized site on the Rockwell International [Boeing] property for uses including residential development, with a portion of the site considered for higher density housing affordable to lower income households, and other portions designated for single family detached residential uses." This Alternative would provide for the development of high density residential on 11 acres fronting Westminster Avenue. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 7 -8 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 4� ,(r BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR That would allow for development of up to 165 residential units in accordance with the Residential High Density (RHD) zoning designation' The remaining 34 acres of the undeveloped portion of the Boeing site would remain under its current Light Industrial land use and M -1 zoning designation. Under this Alternative, two of the three drainage ditches- would be preserved and the hotel- and commercial center would not be developed in Planning Area 4. M -1 zoning would still apply to Planning Area 4 and RHD guidelines would apply to the residential development. It is expected that this Alternative would be required to provide water quality and biological resource protection features similar to the proposed Project. IMPACT COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Land Use With the Residential Component Alternative, the General Plan Amendmentchanging the land use designation from Light Industrial to Specific Plan Regulation (SPR) and the amendment to the Circulation Element would not occur. This Alternative would ` require an Amendment to the Land Use Element allowing for High Density �j Residential uses on the 11 acres of the Boeing site, fronting Westminster Avenue. Locating residential uses immediately adjacent to manufacturing and light industrial uses would present land use compatibility concerns. This Alternative would require an Amendment to the Housing Element, incorporating up to 165 residential units. A zone change from M -1 to RHD and a subdivision map would also be required. ! ' This Alternative would require a coastal development permit from the California Zone, this Coastal Commission. As a "new housing" development within the Coastal Alternative would also be required to comply with the Mello Act, which would impose affordable housing requirements either on -site, elsewhere within the Coastal Zone, or within three miles of the Coastal Zone, which would impact the economic feasibility of this Alternative. Therefore, the Residential Component Alternative would be considered environmentally inferior to the proposed Project. Aesthetics r� i Development of this Alternative would be consistent with the adjacent residential uses to the north and west. Views of the northeast corner of the site would not ( change, as development of the hotel and commercial uses would not occur. Development under this Alternative would be subject to M -1 and RHD zoning standards contained in the Code, rather than the development guidelines and design T regulations established in the proposed Boeing Specific Plan. Development of this Alternative may not include the additional development standards and landscaping that establish a minimum landscaping buffer of 35 -feet along roadways guidelines versus 10 -feet established in the RHD zone. In addition, this Alternative may not in the Boeing provide design, architectural and landscaping guidelines established TI Specific Plan that promote a unified environment within the Project area. Li Unit count considers 25 percent of land area for roadway %infrastructure improvements and 75 percent of developable area for residential. L FINAL ® APRIL 2003 7 -9 Alternatives to the Proposed Action BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR This Alternative may reduce the amount of light and glare produced as a result of developing the northern portion of the site with residential uses. Additionally, the hotel and commercial uses would not be developed, further reducing light sources from the Boeing site. This would especially affect the light impacts to traffic along Westminster Avenue that would not experience the additional light impacts associated with security, parking, interior and exterior building lights. The Residential Component Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Traffic and Circulation Implementation of the Residential Component Alternative would result in a decrease of traffic volume since the hotel and commercial uses (in Planning Area 4) would not be developed, even though other uses consistent with existing zoning may be developed. Hotel and commercial uses result in the highest traffic generation rates, whereas light industrial and high density residential uses are relatively equivalent in the amount of traffic they generate. Like the proposed Project, this Alterrative would mitigate impacts by paying traffic impact fees to the City and making fair share contributions for improvements. The Residential Component Alternative would be neither environmentally inferior nor superior to the proposed Project. Air Quality Since this Alternative could result in fewer vehicular trips to the Project site, there would be reduced impacts associated with mobile source emissions. Therefore there would be a reduction of mobile and energy source emissions compared to the proposed Project. While construction - related emissions would still occur with this Alternative, they would also be reduced since the northeast portion of the project site would not be developed with the hotel and commercial uses. There would be fewer impacts to stationary source emissions with development of this Alternative since a portion of the Project site would be developed with residential uses, which produce fewer emissions than light industrial uses and the hotel and commercial uses would not be developed. However, the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project would not be avoided. Therefore, the Residential Component Alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Noise Implementation of this Alternative would result in the introduction of additional sensitive receptors (residential uses) to the area. The residential units could be impacted by the traffic noise along Westminster Avenue, existing noise at the Boeing site and by M -1 uses that would be developed on the remaining portion of the Boeing site. Therefore, development of the residential uses may require additional buffering including increased setbacks and the development of sound walls in order to ensure that the residential units were not adversely impacted by the stationary and mobile noise associated with the traffic along Westminster Avenue and the operations of the adjacent light industrial buildings. However, as a source of noise, development of this Alternative would result in a decrease of stationary noise sources since residential uses do not produce the amount of noise associated with the operations of light industrial uses (i.e., generators, pump stations, blow off valves). The Residential Component Alternative would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 7 -10 Alternatives to the Proposed Action BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Biological Resources I r }I U Under the Residential Component Alternative, two of the three drainage ditches would be maintained in their current condition. Thus impacts to the existing wetland r 1 resources. and sensitive species including th? southern - tarplant and woolly sea -blite l� would be just as with the proposed Project. Construction activities could temporarily disrupt the sensitive habitats, therefore impacting the southern tarplant and woolly sea - blite. However, these impacts would be temporary. Additionally, this Alternative does not include a wetland restoration program as included with the proposed Project. Therefore, the Residential Component Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project. Cultural Resources r ' The Residential Component Alternative would result in grading and construction, which could impact cultural sites identified on -site. Development of this Alternative would be subject to similar mitigation measures as the proposed Project, which results in less than significant impacts to historical, cultural and paleontological ` resources. Therefore, the Residential Component Alternative would be neither environmentally inferior nor superior to the proposed Project. Geology and Soils U C U r LJ ) L The topography of the Project site would be altered in order to prepare the site for the uses under this Alternative. The extent of grading and associated impacts on geologic and soil conditions is expected to be similar to that associated with the proposed Project. The Residential Component Alternative would be neither environmentally inferior nor superior to the proposed Project. Hydrology and Drainage Potential impacts related to water quality would be similar to the proposed Project. Under the proposed Project, drainage plans call for the development of a 2.8 acre - feet retention facility in order to accommodate the increased runoff from the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, this Alternative includes water quality control measures, which would remove pollutants that would otherwise be discharged into the LARB. Therefore, the Residential Component Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project. Public Health and Safety Development of this Alternative would result in additional impacts with regards to the exposure of hazardous materials by locating sensitive receptors adjacent to light industrial uses. With the development of industrial /manufacturing uses, there is the potential for exposure to hazardous materials as a result of the transport and storage of chemicals associated with M -1 development adjacent to residential. This Alternative would also be subject to compliance with City Code, which would reduce impacts to the Emergency Response Plan. Therefore, the Residential Component Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed Project. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 7 -11 Alternatives to the Proposed Action C 4 s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Public Services and Utilities Cpl' Under this Alternative, demand for water, solid waste disposal services and sewer system facilities could be increased when compared to the demand created by the proposed Project. Eve though there would be a decrease in demand of utilities and services due to the hotel and commercial uses not being developed, the development of high density residential uses would increase the demand for school, police, fire and other public services. While some light industrial /manufacturing uses would utilize a greater amount of public utilities and services (i.e., aircraft manufacturing, automobile painting and body work, and boat building) others would require less utilities and services (i.e., research and development warehousing). However, because of the development of high density residential uses, the Residential Component Alternative would be considered environmentally inferior to the proposed Project. ABILITY TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Residential Component Alternative would not meet the proposed Project's planning and environmental design objectives of providing a comprehensive land use and infrastructure plan and promoting high quality design by unifying the Specific Plan area through the implementation of a consistent landscape, architectural and streetscape program. Without the development standards and design guidelines established in the Specific Plan, development of the Boeing site would not include an efficient pattern of local circulation and water quality treatment of urban runoff for new development. This Alternative would also limit the expansion of a range of employment opportunities within the City of Seal Beach by limiting the development of M -1 uses by developing residential units. Finally, the fiscal benefits associated with the proposed Project would not occur since the hotel and commercial uses would not be developed. 4 CEQA Section 15126(d)(2) indicates that if the "No Project" Alternative is the "Environmentally Superior' Alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The No Project/No Development Alternative (Existing Conditions), in this case, would not result in the environmental impacts associated with construction of the proposed Project. Among the other alternatives assessed in this EIR, the Residential Component Alternative would result in a reduction in environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Project and would meet some of the Project Objectives. This Alternative would result in reduced impacts to aesthetics and air. As a result, the Residential Component Alternative could be considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative, however, this Alternative would also have greater impacts than the proposed Project in the following areas: land use, public safety and public services and utilities. Moreover, the proposed Project has unavoidable significant impacts only with respect to traffic (trip generation, distribution and assignment) and air quality (short-term, long -term operation, plan consistency and cumulative impacts), which would be triggered by any increment of development because of the low thresholds of significance associated therewith: and traffic, which would be triggered by any increment of development because of the existing unacceptable FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 7 -12 Alternatives to the Proposed Action L U L u r' r' . U BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR levels of service at certain intersection that would be impacted by any development at the Project site. Table 7 -1 FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 7 -13 Alternatives to the Proposed Action No Project/No Development No Project/ Existing Designation Residential Component Land Use = < > Aesthetics < > < Traffic < _ Air < _ < Noise < _ Biological > _ Cultural < _ Geology /Soils < Hydrology > Public Safety < > > Services and Utilities < _ > < - Indicates an impact that is less than the proposed Project. _ - Indicates an impact that is equal to the proposed Project. > - Indicates an impact that is greater than the proposed Project FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 7 -13 Alternatives to the Proposed Action r L I La i `sue' r 8.0 inventory of Mitigation Measures summon r L r F L rr� r r� r r 1 La r l lid i o w� � BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 8.0 INVENTORY OF M ITIGATION MEASURES V LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN 5.1 -1 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, with the incorporation of the project features including the proposed General Plan Amendments, the proposed Project would not F , result in significant land use impacts. U CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE r 5.1 -2 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, with the incorporation of the project features including the Zone Change from M -1 to SPR, the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts. CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT 5.1 -3 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, with the incorporation of the Project features including the proposed wetlands restoration and enhancement, the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts. I� u FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 8 -1 Inventory of Mitigation Measures SCAG's REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE 5.1-4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, the proposed Project would not result in significant } impacts in this regard. CUMULATIVE Cs 5.1 -5 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, with the incorporation of the Project features, the ( proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts. U AESTHETICS /LIGHT AND GLARE L SHORT -TERM AESTHETIC /LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS 5.2 -1 Construction equipment staging areas shall be located away from existing residential uses and appropriate screening (i.e., temporary fencing with u opaque material), used to buffer views of construction equipment and material, when feasible. Staging locations shall be indicated on project { Final Development Plans and Grading Plans and are subject to review and approval of the City. Compliance with this measure is subject to periodic field inspection by City Staff. No mitigation measures are f recommended. tj I� u FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 8 -1 Inventory of Mitigation Measures co 'Of s� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR LONG -TERM AESTHETIC IMPACTS 5.2 -2 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, implementation of the Specific Plan design guidelines and developme ta nd ds/rog� lations the pro posed project would not $►a� i a r.. ..�.�. result in significant long -term aesthetic impacts. LOCAL SCENIC ROUTE 5.2 -3 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, implementation of the Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards /regulations and approval of the development by the City, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to views along Seal Beach Boulevard. LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS 5.2 -4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, compliance with the Specific Plan lighting guidelines would result in less than significant impacts regarding light and glare. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.2 -5 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, cumulative impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels separately on a project -by- project basis. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT 5.3 -1 a Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall comply with the City of Seal Beach Transportation Impact Fee Program (RTIF). 5.3 -1 b For impacted intersections subject to fair share improvements (impacted intersections include Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd Street/Westminster Avenue, Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue, and Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road), the project applicant shall participate in the improvements required on a pro -rata fair share basis as provided in Table 5.3 -12, Project Fair Share Percentage Calculations. 5.3 -1c In order to ensure that adequate access and egress to the project site is provided and impacts to through traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue are minimized, the project applicant shall be required to implement the following improvements /intersection enhancements: ® Seal Beach Boulevard at Road A (Apollo Drive) - As part of the proposed intersection reconstruction project, construct raised median on Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot northbound left0turn FINAL o APRIL 2003 8 -2 Inventory of Mitigation Measures i C� o I BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR .L.r lane. Widen Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot southbound southbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. The eastbound leg of Apollo Drive at Seal Beach Boulevard shall be designed to provide two eastbound left -turn lanes and one eastbound right -turn lane, and one inbound (westbound) lane. Modify and update the existing traffic signal as required by the City Engineer. L U r r• 1 V 5.3 -1 d The project applicant shall be responsible for all sidewalk and landscaping improvements /replacements necessary as a result of right - of -way acquisition /dedications required in order to implement improvements. ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EVALUATION 5.3 -2 Mitigation Measures 5.3-1a through 5.3-1d apply to the Alternative Access Scenario. No additional mitigation measures are recommended. FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 8 -3 Inventory of Mitigation Measures ® Westminster Avenue at Road A (Apollo Drive) — Modify /reconstruct existing median on Westminster Avenue to provide a 150 -foot westbound left -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. Widen Westminster , Avenue to provide a 150 -foot eastbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot T U transition. The northbound leg of Apollo Drive at Westminster Avenue shall be designed to provide two northbound left; turn lanes and one northbound right -turn lane, and one inbound (southbound) lane. r Modify and upgrade the existing traffic signal as required by the City �) Engineer. ® Proposed Planning Area 3 "Right -Turn Only" Driveway at Westminster Avenue — Widen Westminster Avenue to prove a 150 -foot eastbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive — Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive is currently unsignalized. An analysis of this - , intersection indicates that the "permissive" turning movements onto Seal Beach Boulevard from Adolfo Lopez Drive experience delays indicative of LOS E/F conditions with the addition of project traffic (see HCM /LOS calculations sheets in Appendix B of the Traffic Study contained as Appendix 15.2 of this EIR). This can be expected given the high volume of traffic that exists on Seal Beach Boulevard and the lack of sufficient gaps in the continuous north -south traffic during the PM peak commute hour. A three - phased traffic signal shall be L (? installed at this location, along with a raised median on Seal Beach Boulevard from this intersection to tie into the raised median at Apollo Drive. Widen Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot U southbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. This improvement shall be the sole responsibility of the Boeing Specific Plan project. Appendix C of the Traffic Study, contained as Appendix 15.2 of this �j EIR, contains the traffic signal warrant worksheet for this key study intersection. L U r r• 1 V 5.3 -1 d The project applicant shall be responsible for all sidewalk and landscaping improvements /replacements necessary as a result of right - of -way acquisition /dedications required in order to implement improvements. ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EVALUATION 5.3 -2 Mitigation Measures 5.3-1a through 5.3-1d apply to the Alternative Access Scenario. No additional mitigation measures are recommended. FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 8 -3 Inventory of Mitigation Measures BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR AIR QUALITY SHORT -TERM AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 5.4-1a • During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts Rules and Regulations. o On -site vehicle speed will be limited to 15 miles per hour. o All on -site construction roads with vehicle traffic will be watered periodically. ♦ Streets adjacent to the project reach will be swept as needed to remove silt that may have accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. o All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering will occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferable in the late morning and after work is done for the day. ♦ All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities will cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 35 miles per hour averaged over one hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. o All material transported on -site or off -site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. ♦ The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations will be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. ♦ These control techniques will be indicated on project grading plans. Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. o Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project will be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. 5.4 -1 b Project grading plans shall show the duration of construction. Ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specifications, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic inspections of construction equipment vehicles by the City. 5.4 -1 c All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material on -site shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to FINAL o APRIL 2003 8 -4 Inventory of Mitigation Measures 0 L"' L ' J f , V r� 1 LJ L" l 1 L' �i U U U U BOEING S ECIFIC PLA PROJECT EIR Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. 5.4 -1 d During overall site grading and public infrastructure construction phases, construction equipment and ci mnly staging areas shall be located at least 400 feet from the nearest residence. During structure /building construction, equipment and supply staging areas shall be located at least 400 feet or as far as practical from the nearest residence. LONG -TERM OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 5.4 -2a No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided, combined mobile and area source emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx and CO and PM cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. 5.4 -2b Should a potential end -user be identified whose land use would cause a particulate diesel index of 0.0003 µ /m or increase the volume to capacity ratio (also called the Intersection Capacity Utilization) by 0.02 (2 percent) for any intersection with a LOS of D or worse, a preliminary screening shall be conducted per SCAQMD Rule 1401 and 212 to determine whether a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared. CONSISTENCY WITH AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 5.4 -3 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, the proposed Project would not be consistent with the regional air quality management plan due to unavoidable impacts associated with construction NOx emissions, resulting in significant impacts. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.4 -4 SCAQMD Standards and City Municipal Code requirements would be implemented on a project -by- project basis. NOISE SHORT -TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS 5.5 -1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Grading Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department to ensure compliance with the following: o All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, to the satisfaction of the Building Official. ® During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers, to the satisfaction of the Building Official. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 8 -5 Inventory of Mitigation Measures clik&cs�� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o During construction and to the satisfaction of the Building Official, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors during construction activities. LONG- TERI:A NOISE IAADAeTC 5.5 -2 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, noise levels would not increase above 3 CNEL as a result of project - related traffic, resulting in less than significant impacts. LONG -TERM STATIONARY NOISE 5.5 -3a Prior to Building Permit issuance, subsequent noise assessments shall be prepared, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, which demonstrates the site placement of stationary noisesources would not exceed criteria established in the City of Seal Beach Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall verify that loading dock facilities, rooftop equipment, trash compactors and other stationary noise sources are adequately shielded and /or located at an adequate distance from residential areas in order to comply with the City's noise standards. 5.5 -3b Directional speakers shall be shielded and /or oriented away from off -site residences to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS f 5.5 -4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, impacts would be mitigated on a project -by- project basis, resulting in less than significant impacts. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 5.6 -1a In order to mitigate adverse impacts to 385 individual of southern tarplant, a translocation program has been developed. Plants shall be translocated on -site to the terraces adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B. 5.6 -1 b The woolly sea -blite species shall be incorporated into plantings on the terraces adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT �I 5.6 -2 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, there is no environmentally sensitive habitat on -site. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OR RESOURCES 5.6 -3 Mitigation for impacts to 0.11 acre of CDFG and potential RWQCB jurisdiction shall be provided through creation of approximately 2.52 acres of wetland habitat on the terraces adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B, FINAL ® APRIL 2003 8 -6 Inventory of Mitigation Measures U U BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR as well as within two water quality treatment basins at the site. The terraces and basins would be planted with native hydrophytes appropriate (� for the hydrological conditions expected for the terraces, resulting in a 23:1 mitigation ratio. �j CUMULATIVE If U t r ,� U U L u r v r u L U L 5.6 -4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, implementation of the wetland restoration plan and mitigation measures protecting the southern tarplant and woolly sea -blite would reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. CULTURAL RESOURCES ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL RESOURCES 5.7 -1a Sites B -2 B -3. B -4 /H and Locus 4 of B -6 The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified, City approved archaeologist to conduct archaeological testing in order to determine the depth, breadth, and nature of the contents of Sites B -2, B -3, B-4 /1-1, and Locus 4 of B -6 and whether or not they qualify as historical resources. 5.7 -1 b A "Test Phase ", as described in the Archaeological and Historical Element of the City General Plan shall be performed by the City selected archaeologist, and if potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, a "Research Design document' must be prepared by the City selected archaeologist in accordance with the provisions of the Archaeological and Historical Element of the General Plan. The results of the test phase investigation must be presented to the Archaeological Advisory Committee for review and recommendation to the City Council for review and approval prior to earth removal or disturbance activities in the impacted area of the proposed project. 5.7 -1 c Project - related earth removal or disturbances activity is not authorized until such time as the Research Design investigations and evaluations are completed and accepted epted by the City Council, a Coastal Development Permit is issued by the California Coastal Commission and until a written "Authorization to Initiate Earth Removal- Disturbance Activity is issued by the City of Seal Beach Director of Development Services to applicant for the impacted area of the proposed project. 5.7 -1 d During all "test phase" investigation activities occurring on site, the City selected archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be present to conduct and observe, respectively, such "test phase" investigation activities. 5.7 -1e If the testing program determines that Sites B -2, B -3, B -4 /H and Locus 4 of B -6 qualify as historical resources as defined in CEQA guidelines Section 15064.5, final mitigation measures as defined in the Archaeological and Historical Element of the General Plan include the following if the researched site is not to be preserved in situ: FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 8 -7 Inventory of Mitigation Measures C; ,O,c s - ge=g BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR o Capping or fencing of the site; ® Relocation of the cultural resource for preservation; ® Total excavation of the site; o Partial excavation of the site; or 6 10% 2novution or r e c onstruction of historic or archaeological structures 5.7 -1f An archaeologist and a Native American Monitor appointed by the City of Seal Beach shall be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for foundations and utilities that extend below five feet of pre - grading surface elevation. If any earth removal or disturbance activities result in the discovery of cultural resources, the project proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City selected archaeologist and /or Native American Monitor, who shall immediately notify the Director of Development Services. The City selected archaeologist will have the power to temporarily halt or divert the excavation equipment in order to evaluate any potential cultural material. The City selected archaeologist shall evaluate all potential cultural findings in accordance with standard practice, the requirements of the City of Seal Beach Archaeological and Historical Element, and other applicable regulations. Consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission and data /artifact recovery, if deemed appropriate, shall be conducted. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.7 -2 If evidence of subsurface paleontologic resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the contractor shall contact the City Development Services Department. With direction from the City, an Orange County Certified Paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontologic Resource Mitigation Program. BURIAL SITES 5.7 -3a Should any human bone be encountered during any earth removal or disturbance activities, all activity shall cease immediately and the city selected archaeologist and Native American monitor shall be immediately contacted, who shall then immediately notify the Director of Development Services. The Director of the Department of Development Services shall contact the Coroner pursuant to Section 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. 5.7 -3b If more than one Native American burial is encountered during any earth removal or disturbance activities, a "Mitigation Plan" shall be prepared and subject to approval by the City of Seal Beach Community Development Department. The Mitigation Plan shall include the following procedures: FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 8 -8 Inventory of Mitigation Measures i BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Continued Native American Monitoring o All ground disturbance in any portions of the project area with the potential to contain human remains or other cultural material shall be monitored by a Native American -representative of the MLD. Activities to be monitored shall include all construction grading, controlled grading, and hand excavation of previously undisturbed deposit, with the exception of contexts that are clearly within the ancient marine terrace that comprises most of Landing Hill. o Exposure and removal of each burial shall be monitored by a Native �I American. Where burials are clustered and immediately adjacent, one monitor is sufficient for excavation of two adjoining burials. r' U L. o Excavation of test units shall be monitored. Simultaneous excavation of two test units if less than 20 feet apart may be monitored by a single Native American. o If screening of soil associated with burials or test units is done concurrently with and adjacent to the burial or test unit, the Native American responsible for that burial or test unit will also monitor the screening. If the screening is done at another location, a separate monitor shall be required. U FINAL o APRIL 2003 8 -9 Inventory of Mitigation Measures o All mechanical excavation conducted in deposits that may contain human remains (i.e., all areas not completely within the marine terrace deposits) shall be monitored by a Native American. Notification Procedures for New Discoveries 1 o When possible burials are identified during monitoring of mechanical U excavation, or excavation of test units, the excavation shall be temporarily halted while the find is assessed in consultation with the r lead field archaeologist. If the find is made during mechanical excavation, the archaeologist or Native American monitoring the activity shall have the authority to direct the equipment operator to stop while the find is assessed. If it is determined that the find does not constitute a burial, the mechanical excavation shall continue. o If the find is determined to be a human burial, the lead archaeologist shall immediately notify the Site Supervisor for the developer, as well as the Principal Investigator. The Principal Investigator shall immediately notify the MLD and the Director of Development Services for the City of Seal Beach. The City shall provide the Coastal Commission with weekly updates describing the finds in writing. ` U Identification of Additional Burials o For all discovered human burials, attempts shall continue to be made to locate additional burials nearby through hand excavation I' techniques. This shall be done through the excavation of 1 x 1 m U FINAL o APRIL 2003 8 -9 Inventory of Mitigation Measures BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR exploratory test units (ETUs) placed along transects extending radially from each identified burial or burial cluster. The spacing of the ETUs shall be determined upon consultation with the Project Archaeologist and the MLD. The radial transects shall be designed to test areas n tr n ; +ti;., LO 1 % , + r� 5 m ) fro the edge of ea ch burial or burial cluster. io i 1,.. Excavation of these units shall be limited to areas containing intact cultural deposit (i.e., areas that have not been graded to the underlying marine terrace) and shall be excavated until the marine terrace deposits are encountered, or to the excavation depth required for the approved grading plan. The soil from the ETUs along the radial transects shall be screened only if human remains are found in that unit. o Controlled grading shall be conducted within these 50 -foot heightened investigation areas with a wheeled motor grader. The motor grader shall use an angled blade that excavates 1 to 2 inches at a pass, pushing the spoil to the side to form a low windrow. Monitors shall follow about 20 feet behind the motor grader, examining the ground for evidence of burials. o When a burial is identified during controlled grading, the soil in windrows that may contain fragments of bone from that burial shall be screened. At a minimum this shall include the soil in the windrow within 50 feet of the burial in the direction of the grading. o If additional burials are found during controlled grading, additional ETUs will be hand excavated in the radial patterns described above. Burial Removal and Storage o Consultation with the MLD shall occur regarding the treatment of discovered human burials. If the MLD determines it is appropriate to have discovered human remains pedestaled for removal, that activity shall be conducted in a method agreed to by the MLD. o After pedestaling or other agreed upon burial removal program is completed, the top of a burial shall be covered with paper towels to act as a cushion, and then a heavy ply plastic will be placed over the top to retain surface moisture. Duct tape shall be wrapped around the entire pedestal, securing the plastic bag and supporting the pedestal. Labels shall be placed on the plastic indicating the burial number and the direction of true north in relation to the individual burial. Sections of rebar shall be hammered across the bottom of the pedestal and parallel to the ground. When a number of parallel rebar sections have been placed this way, they shall be lifted simultaneously, cracking the pedestal loose from the ground. The pedestal shall then be pushed onto a thick plywood board and lifted onto a pallet. A forklift shall carry the pallet to a secure storage area or secure storage containers located on the subject property. FINAL o APRIL 2003 8 -10 Inventory of Mitigation Measures Li E ll BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ♦ If another agreed upon burial removal program is utilized, that method shall be carried out in a manner agreed upon after consultation with Li the MLD. L L G G F , UI El U D u Study of Burial Remains ♦ If the burials are removed in pedestal and are incompletely exposed, osteological studies are necessarily limited to determination (if possible) of age, sex, position, orientation, and trauma or pathology. After consultation, and only upon written agreement by the MLD, additional studies that are destructive to the remains may be undertaken, including radiocarbon dating of bone or DNA studies. If the MILD determines that only non - destructive additional studies may be allowed, one shell may be removed from each burial and submitted for radiocarbon dating. The assumption here is that the shell would have been part of the fill for the burial pit, and therefore would provide a maximum age for the burial. ♦ The MILD may indicate a willingness to consider some additional exposure and study of the skeletal material removed from the sites. Such study would not involve removal of the remains from the project area, but rather would be undertaken near the storage area. To the extent allowed by the MILD, the bones would be further exposed within the existing pedestals or other medium containing the human remains and additional measurements taken. Consultation with the MLD regarding the feasibility of these additional studies prior to reburial would occur. Repatriation of Burials and As sociated Artifacts ♦ Once all portions of the project area have been graded to the underlying culturally sterile marine terrace deposits, or to the excavation depth required for the approved grading plan, the repatriation process shall be initiated for all recovered human remains and associated artifacts. Once a reburial site has been identified and prepared, the remains and associated artifacts shall be transported from the secure storage area to the site for reburial. Appropriate ceremony will be undertaken during this process at the discretion of the MILD. Additional Studies ♦ Considerable additional data relating to regional research issues may be uncovered if substantial numbers of human burials and other archaeological features are encountered during the construction monitoring for the development. If this occurs, additional analysis be conducted. The analysis shall be designed to more completely address the research issues discussed in the approved "Research Design ", and to provide additional mitigation of impacts to the sites in light of the new finds. The following studies would be potentially applicable: FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 8 -11 Inventory of Mitigation Measures BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Radiocarbon Dating. In considering the implications of the burials in interpreting site use and regional settlement, it is critical to assess the time range represented by the interments. Do they correspond to the full temporal range of site use, or only a limited timefra;;;e? Although direct. dating of the bones may not possible due to the destructive nature of the radiocarbon technique, the MLD may approve the removal of a single shell from the interior of each burial for dating. Although this shall not provide a direct date of the burial, assuming the shell was part of the burial fill it should provide a maximum age (that is, the burial should not be older than the shell). In addition, an equivalent number of additional samples from non - burial contexts would also be taken for comparative purposes. These data would provide a more secure measure of the intensity of occupation during different periods. Sediment Cores. Dating results obtained to date on the Hellman Ranch /John Laing Homes properties may suggest a possible link between the use of the sites within the project area and the productivity of the adjacent lagoon and estuary systems. To assess this link using independent environmental data on the subject property, two sediment cores will be taken from suitable locations of the property. Sediments in the cores shall be examined and described in the field by a geologist, and samples collected for dating and pollen analysis. These data shall then be used to help reconstruct the habitats present on the property during the periods the sites were occupied. This analysis shall be included in the final report documenting the testing, data recovery, and construction monitoring phases of this investigation. Comparative Studies. The substantial assemblage of artifacts recovered during the monitoring on the Hellman Ranch /John Laing Homes properties provides a basis for comparison with other sites and shall contribute to an understanding of regional patterns. This analysis shall be included in the final report (see below). Animal Interments. Animal interments may be discovered within the project area. Because these are not human remains, somewhat more intensive study is possible. Because these features are uncommon and represent very culture - specific religious practices, they are useful in reconstructing cultural areas during certain times in prehistory. Analysis of animal interments will include: (1) exposure to determine burial position; (2) photo documentation; (3) examination of skeleton for age /sex; traumatic injury, pathology, butchering, or other cultural modification; (4) radiocarbon dating; and (5) examination of grave dirt for evidence of grave goods or stomach contents. FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 8 -12 Inventory of Mitigation Measures G L L I u U E ll, U G U BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PRO EIR Curation CUMULATIVE 5.7 -4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, cumulative impacts would be mitigated on a project -by- project basis, resulting in less than significant impacts. GEOLOGY /SOILS SOIL 5.8 -1 a Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall submit a final geotechnical report to the City Engineer for approval. The report shall be in a form as required by the Orange County Grading Manual, Section 5.4 and the Orange County Excavation and Grading Code, Section 7 -1 -819. Project proponent shall reimburse City costs of independent third -party peer review of said geotechnical report. 5.8 -1 b The project proponent shall incorporate measures to mitigate expansive soil conditions, compressible /collapsible soil conditions and liquefaction soil conditions, and impacts from trenching, which measures are identified in site - specific reports prepared by the project geotechnical consultant. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis. The geotechnical consultant's site - specific reports shall be approved by a certified engineering geologist and a registered civil engineer, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5.8 -1 c All surfaces to receive compacted fill shall be cleared of existing vegetation, debris, and other unsuitable materials which should be removed from the site. Soils that are disturbed during site clearing shall be removed and replaced as controlled compacted fill under the direction of the Soils Engineer. ♦ Cultural materials recovered from the cultural resources monitoring and mitigation program for the development shall be curated either at an appropriate f a r-it in Orange County, or, in consultation with the City, at the San Diego Archaeological Center. Preparation of Final Report ♦ The final technical report shall be prepared and submitted to the City and CCC within 12 months of the completion of the archeological field work. The report shall conform to the guidelines developed by the California Office of Historic Preservation for Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR). It will be prepared in sufficient quantity to distribute to interested regional researchers and Native American groups. It shall thoroughly document and synthesize all of the findings from all phase of the cultural resources program. Funding shall be provided by the landowner. FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 8 -13 Inventory of Mitigation Measures clf�w S� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 5.8 -1 d In excavations deeper than four feet but less than ten feet, a slope no steeper than 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) shall be provided or utilization of appropriate trench and shoring methods shall occur. Steeper slopes or deeper excavations shall be provided with trench shoring and /or trench shields for stability and protection. OSHA safety requirements shall be adhered to throughout the entire duration of project earthwork. 5.8 -1 a All grading procedures, including soil excavation and compaction, the placement of backfill, and temporary excavation shall comply with City of Seal Beach standards. 5.8 -1f Permanent cut and fill slopes shall not exceed 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). 5.8 -1 g Loose and soft alluvial soils, expansive clay soils and all existing uncertified fill materials shall be removed and replaced with compacted fill during site grading in order to prevent seismic settlement, soil expansion, and differential compaction. 5.8 -1 h During grading, tests and observations shall be performed by the Soils Engineer or his representative in order to verify that the grading is being performed in accordance with the project specifications. Field density testing shall be performed in accordance with applicable ASTM test standards. The minimum acceptable degree of compaction shall be 90 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by the ASTM D1557 -91 test method. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be applied until retesting indicates satisfactory compaction. 5.8 -1 i Prior to the initiation of project grading in any development area, all existing utilities shall be located and either abandoned and removed, rerouted or protected. 5.8-1j Graded, but undeveloped land shall maintained weed -free and planted l with interim landscaping within ninety (90) days of completion of grading, (J unless building permits are obtained. Planting with interim landscaping shall comply with NPDES Best Management Practices. SEISMIC IMPACTS 5.8 -2a Engineering design for all structures shall be based on the probability that the Project area will be subjected to strong ground motion during the lifetime of development. Construction plans shall be subject to the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code and shall include applicable standards, which address seismic design parameters. 5.8 -2b Mitigation of earthquake ground shaking shall be incorporated into design 1 and construction in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements L and site specific design. The Newport- Inglewood fault shall be considered the seismic source for the Project site and specified design parameters shall be used. FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 8 -14 Inventory of Mitigation Measures 0 BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 5.8 -2c The potential damaging effects of regional earthquake activity shall be considered in the design of each structure. The preliminary seismic evaluation shall be based on basic data including the Uniform Building Code Seismic Parameters and the Sladden Report's exhibits and tables. C%4. design criteria shall be determined in consideration of building types, occupancy category, seismic importance factors and possibly other factors. 5.8 -2d Conformance with the latest Uniform Building Code and City Ordinances can be expected to satisfactorily mitigate the effect of seismic groundshaking. Conformance with applicable codes and ordinances shall occur in conjunction with the issuance of building permits in order to insure that over excavation of soft, broken rock and clayey soils within sheared zones will be required where development is planned. G Also refer to Mitigation Measure 5.8-1g. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5.8 -3 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, cumulative impacts would be mitigated on a project-by- project basis, resulting in a less than significant impact. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE WATER QUALITY — CONSTRUCTION U 5.9 -1 a Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit shall be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Such permits are required for specific (or a series of (; related) construction activities which exceed five acres in size and include U provisions to eliminate or reduce off -site discharges through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). Specific SWPPP provisions include requirements for erosion and sediment control, as well as monitoring requirements both during and after construction. Pollution - control measures also require the use of best available technology, best conventional pollutant control technology, j and /or best management practices to prevent or reduce pollutant discharge (pursuant to definitions and direction). 5.9 -1 b Prior to the issuance of the first grading or building permit, a comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or a registered professional hydrologist to protect water resources from impacts due to urban contaminants in surface water runoff. The WQMP shall be prepared in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Orange County, the City of Seal Beach and California Coastal Commission to L insure compliance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. The WQMP shall (� include a combination of structural and non - structural Best Management U V FINAL ® APRIL 2003 8 -15 Inventory of Mitigation Measures C owS�d BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Practices (BMPs) as outlined in Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. 5.9 -1 c The project is required to meet Storm Water Management regulations. IIie applicant shall file for on NPDES permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and abide by the conditions of the permit as issued. A copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP), and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to commencing grading operations. The SWPPP shall emphasize structural and non - structural BMPs in compliance with NPDES Program requirements. Specific measures shall include: o The project shall provide appropriate sediment traps in open channels and energy dissipaters in storm water conduits and storm drain outlets. ♦ Surplus or waste material from construction shall not be placed in drainage ways or within the 100 -year floodplain of surface waters. ♦ All loose piles of soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, or other earthen materials shall be protected in a reasonable manner to eliminate any discharge to water of the State. o During construction, temporary gravel or sandbag dikes shall be used as necessary to prevent discharge of earthen materials from the site during periods of precipitation or runoff. ♦ Stabilizing agents such as straw, wood chips and /or hydroseeding shall be used during the interim period after grading in order to strengthen exposed soil while ground cover takes hold. ♦ Revegetated areas shall be continually maintained in order to assure adequate growth and root development. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE 5.9 -2a Standing water and drainage problems occurring at the frontage of Planning Area 4 on Seal Beach Boulevard shall be corrected as part of the proposed Project development for Planning Area 4. A detailed cross - section survey of Seal Beach Boulevard extending about 1,000 feet north and south of the existing double box culvert crossing shall be conducted. A storm drain system shall be designed and connected to the double box culvert crossing. The design shall evaluate the need for additional crossings of Seal Beach Boulevard. Refer to the Master Plan of Drainage Section 6, Recommended Improvements, for more information and detailed figures. 5.9 -2b A Finalized Hydrology and Retention Basin Study shall be submitted for review and approval by the County of Orange in conformance with the Orange County Hydrology Manual (OCHM) and the Addendum No. 1 to FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 8 -16 Inventory of Mitigation Measures L G v L' 0 ,of <� BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT E IR the OCHM. Hydrology, hydraulic and retention basin studies shall be based on Expected Value (EV) discharges for 2-, 10 -, 25- and 100 -year storm frequencies for existing and developed conditions. Approval by the County of Orange of this plan shall be received by the City Engineer prior I issuance of a grading- permit.. WATER QUALITY L E U G c L' I r U u 5.9 -3a The project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP), subject to approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which shall cite water quality control measures for the project. The approved SWPPP shall be submitted concurrent with grading permit application to the City Engineer. The SWPPP may include the following components: ® Description of significant potential sources of pollutants in storm water discharges. o A listing of all chemicals which may contact storm water and estimates of concentrations. ♦ An estimate of the area of impervious surfaces. ♦ Source controls. ® Isolation /separation of hazardous from nonhazardous pollutant sources. ® Treatment/conveyance structures and their impacts on groundwater quality. o Design criteria for the structures/ conveyances. ® Maintenance schedules. ® Erosion control measures. o An estimate of pollutant reduction levels expected from implementing the controls. ® Establishment of internal record keeping and internal reporting procedures. ® Eliminate illicit discharges of storm water to storm water system. ® Develop and implement a storm water monitoring, sampling, testing, and reporting program. o Develop a special management plan for loading dock areas and vehicle refueling and maintenance areas. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 8 -17 Inventory of Mitigation Measures 01k BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR ♦ Installation and maintenance of oil /water separators for all parking lot areas. 5.9 -3b Non - structural BMPs shall be incorporated into the project, to the a•_c__a•,.... F 44 o....',� .,I W a ter rli i�li+� C Bo ard . The I satiaid of arc Keg iOn al ..a.,.., ..%uon n rol B h.,.app licable BMPs include: ♦ BMP facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by the Owners Association for private BMP's and by a City- appointed person for public BMP's. ♦ All hazardous wastes shall be handled in accordance with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations and relevant sections of the California Health and Safety Code regarding hazardous waste management. 5.9 -3c Routine structural BMPs shall be incorporated into the proposed project design to facilitate future water quality measures, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to issuance of grading permits. CUMULATIVE 5.9 -4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, impacts are evaluated on a project -by- project basis in order to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.10 -1 a Soil characterization and sampling of PECA's in the redevelopment areas of the Project site shall be conducted as needed to determine the presence or absence of hazardous materials, prior to grading activities. 5.10 -1 b If concentrations of materials are detected above regulatory cleanup levels during demolition or construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall include: ♦ Excavation and disposal at a permitted, off -site facility; ♦ On -site treatment; or ♦ Other measures as appropriate. 5.10 -1c If the investigations conducted pursuant to Mitigation Measures 5.10 -1a and 5.10-1b determine remediation actions are necessary, the project proponent shall comply with all applicable regulatory standards. FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 8 -18 Inventory of Mitigation Measures LJ G i BOEINGS PECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR J L AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 5.10 -2a Prior to grading permit issuance, soil sampling of the undeveloped portions of the Project site (Planning Areas 2 and 3) shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of banned agricultural pesticides. 5.10 -2b If concentrations of agricultural chemicals are detected above regulatory cleanup levels during demolition or construction activities, mitigation shall include the following: ♦ Excavation and disposal at a permitted, off -site facility; G ♦ On -site treatment; or ♦ Other measures as appropriate. j ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS lJ 5 -10.3a Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey shall be required to r l determine presence or absence. The results of the survey shall be U submitted to the City of Seal Beach. r 1 5.10 -3b If asbestos containing material are found, abatement of asbestos shall be u required before any demolition activities that would disturb asbestos containing material or create an airborne asbestos hazard is permitted. FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 8 -19 Inventory of Mitigation Measures 5.10 -3c Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403. Rule f } 1403 regulations require: u ♦ A survey of the facility prior to issuance of a permit by SCAQMD; ♦ Notification of the SCAQMD prior to construction activity; (� ♦ Removal in accordance with prescribed procedures; LJ ♦ Placement of collected asbestos in leak -tight containers or wrapping; and ♦ Proper disposal. LEAD -BASED PAINT 5.10 -4a Prior to demolition activities, a lead -based paint survey shall be required to determine presence or absence. The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Seal Beach. 5.10 -4b If lead -based P aint is found, abatement shall be required before any demolition activities occur that would create lead dust or fume hazard. r 1 u 5.10 -4c Lead -based paint removal shall be performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, which provides for (; exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and U mandates good working practices by workers exposed to lead. (1 5.10 -4d Contractors performing lead -based paint removal shall provide evidence of certified training for lead- related construction work. FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 8 -19 Inventory of Mitigation Measures G, Ws� BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 5.10 -5 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, compliance with the City's Municipal Code would result ii � iess t~an Signific-nt impacts to the Ciiv Emergencv Response Plan. CUMULATIVE 5.10 -6 No mitigation measures are recommended. Base on the analysis provided above, compliance with Federal, State and local requirements on a project -by- project basis would reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES WATER 5.11 -1a In order to ensure adequate service to the proposed subdivision and the individual building structures, plans for the proposed public water and wastewater systems shall be approved by the City Engineer of the City of Seal Beach prior to the recordation of the final tract map. A condition on the tentative map shall state that all public infrastructure improvement plans, including sewer, water, streets, traffic signals, and grading shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the tract map. This is in conformance with the subdivision map act and approval authority of the City Engineer. 5.11 -1b In order to ensure proper usage required to implement the Best conservation practices identified Water Supply Assessment and th e Council. WASTEWATER of water, the development shall be Management Practices (BMPs) and in the City's adopted UWMP 2002, California Urban Water Conservation 5.11 -2 In order to ensure adequate service to the project site, plans for the proposed wastewater collection system shall be approved by the Orange County Sanitation District and the City Engineer of the City of Seal Beach prior to the recordation of the final tract map. SOLID WASTE 5.11 -3a Prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed structures, detailed construction plans shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for approval, delineating the number, location, and general design of solid waste enclosures and storage areas for recycled material. 5.11 -3b The project applicant/individual project applications shall adhere to all source reduction programs for the disposal of demolition and construction materials and solid waste, as required by the City of Seal Beach. Prior to FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 8 -20 Inventory of Mitigation Measures L G u [i cll� 0� s�" BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJE EIR issuance of building permits, a source reduction program shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Development Services for demolition of any existing structure over 5,000 square feet in area and for each future structure constructed on the subject properties to achieve a minimum 60 percent reduction in waste - disposal rates, including green waste. 'All J, Lei WA I 1TW 5.11 -4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, cumulative development is subject to standards and requirements of reviewing agencies resulting in less than significant impacts. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 8 -21 Inventory of Mitigation Measures r 1. L L r l� L 0 9.0 Inventory of Significance After Mitigati r r L L r L L L , L L --�ea� BOEINGS ECIFIC PWN PROJECT EIR ri r; 9.0 INVENTORY OF SIGN MITIGATI r I� LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING U No unavoidable significant impacts related to Land Use have been identified following compliance with the policies and standards of the California Coastal Act, and the City of Seal Beach General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. AESTHETICS /LIGHT AND GLARE No significant impacts related to aesthetics /light and glare have been identified ( following compliance with the proposed design guidelines and development U standards /regulations established in the Boeing Specific Plan. i I i L u r V L Li TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Although planned improvements that are in accordance with the CIP /RTIF and the additional mitigation measures identified would reduce Traffic /Circulation impacts to less than significant levels, there is continued uncertainty whether the CIP improvements at the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge overcrossing and the Seal Beach Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection can be implemented by the horizon year 2006. The OCTA has identified the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge for replacement at such time as the Garden Grove Freeway (SR -22) is widened to accommodate a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. Since the SR-22 widening project is planned to occur at a time beyond the 2006 horizon year timeline established in the Traffic Study, the City does not want to earmark funding toward the bridge improvement until after the widening of SR -22 is completed. Thus, although the City's 2006 CIP shows the bridge improvement, it would realistically occur after 2006 resulting in continued deficiencies for bridge operations /access. Since 2006 is the horizon year of the Boeing Specific Plan Traffic Study analysis, impacts are concluded to be significant and unavoidable due to the uncertainty of implementation of CIP improvements. Although the Traffic Study notes that the additional northbound and westbound right turn lanes are necessary mitigation for the unacceptable service levels at Seal Beach Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection with or without the proposed project, two considerations are noted. First, there is uncertainty as to the feasibility of acquiring necessary right -of -way from the Navy property for the noted improvements. These improvements may or may not occur by 2006 and are subject to conditions beyond the control of the City. Second, although the Traffic Study references deficiencies with or without the project, the project would nevertheless contribute to existing deficiencies at the Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue intersection. Based upon the uncertainty of implementing the recommended mitigation for the 2006 horizon year, impacts are concluded to be significant and unavoidable for the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 9 -1 Inventory of Significance After mitigation olk'w s� BOEING ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR If the City of Seal Beach approves the project, the City shall be required to adopt findings in accordance with Section 15091 of CEQA and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of CEQA. AiR QUALi ' Emissions associated with construction equipment within the Project area are anticipated to exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds for NOx. Feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce the significance of short-term construction NOx emissions to less than significant levels. As such, short-term air emissions for this pollutant would be considered significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the following air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable following mitigation: ® Project Operations: (ROG, CO and NOx) emissions from project operations; ® Project implementation would result in a significant unavoidable impact with respect to consistency with the AQMP. o Cumulative development would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to regional air quality levels of ROG, NOK, CO and PM,o. If the City of Seal Beach approves the Project, the City shall be required to adopt findings in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. NOISE No unavoidable significant impacts related to noise have been identified following implementation of recommended mitigation measures and compliance with applicable requirements set forth by the City of Seal Beach. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential Biological Resource impacts to a less than significant level. CULTURAL RESOURCES No significant impacts related to Cultural Resources have been identified following implementation of mitigation measures referenced in this Section. GEOLOGY /SOILS No significant impacts related to Geology and Soils have been identified following implementation of mitigation measures and /or compliance with applicable standards and policies of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 9 -2 Inventory of Significance After Mitigation L" r, H 0 u G Fil [,I Pli L' Ci oT < 3 WPearA BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE No significant impacts related to hydrology and drainage have been identified following implementation of mitigation measures, compliance with applicable stand J__J � , pol an d/ Or City of Scal C emnc- , C rone re quir ements. al ds icies a� door t ri �/i�y V VGG IJV4 V11 Vv PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY No significant impacts related to Public Health and Safety have been identified following implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES No unavoidable significant impacts related to public services and utilities have been identified following implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and compliance with applicable City, County, service or utility provider requirements, Codes, Ordinances and requirements. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 9.3 Inventory of Significance After Mitigation F L F L r"- Ld r L r r L 10,0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant if F L F u F L r 0 I u J 0 D J J. J l L C o�<; eacA r ' BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR 10.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT i The City of Seal Beach conducted an Initial Study in March, 2002 to determine significant effects of the project. In the course of this evaluation, certain impacts of the project were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The effects determined not to be significant are not required to be included in primary analysis sections of the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the following section provides a brief description of potential impacts found to be less than significant. A copy of the Initial Study is found in Appendix 15.1. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? L No Impact. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Thus, project implementation ` would not result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural uses. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ( No Impact. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural U use. There are no Williamson Act parcels located within the project area. In addition, existing agricultural operations to the east of the project site, within the U U.S. Naval Weapons Station, would not be affected by the proposed project. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or E ll nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. The project does not involve changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use. There are no U farmland uses on the subject property. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat ! conservation plan? U No Impact. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural r Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the subject property. L I I I Li FINAL ® APRIL 2003 10 -1 Effects Found Not To Be Significant BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR GEOLOGY AND SOILS Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides? No Impact. The project area consists of relatively flat topography and the surrounding areas are flat with no unusual geographic features. Impacts associated with landslides or mudslides are not anticipated. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The project proposes to install on -site sewer lines. It would not be necessary to install septic tanks or other alternative types of wastewater disposal systems. No significant impacts are anticipated in this regard. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The project site is not located within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impacts would occur in this regard. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) is located immediately north of the City of Seal Beach Corporate Limits, approximately two miles to the northeast of the project site. Flight operations from the JFTB generally include a take off pattern over the City of Seal Beach, resulting in a potential for an emergency response, particularly in the event of an aircraft accident. Determining the significance of impacts associated with the aviation related air traffic is based upon the following standards: Location of structures within a Clear Zone (Civil Runway Protection Zone) as described in FAR Part 77.2g. ® Location of incompatible land uses within the Clear Zones (CZs) or Accident Potential Zones (APZs) defined and established in an applicable Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Study. No portion of the project site is located within the Clear Zone (Runway Protection Zone), as described in FAR Part 77.28 and as applies to Military Airports. It should be noted that according to the AFRC Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) study published in 1994, Clear Zones are contained entirely within the boundaries of the AFRC. The AICUZ identifies no off -base Accident Potential FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 10 -2 Effects Found Not To Be Significant r� C o L BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Zones (APZs).' In addition, the project site is not located within the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan L area and will not be reviewed by the ALUC for land use compatibility. Thus, it is concluded that no safety hazard impacts would occur in this regard. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. Private helicopter landing and takeoff facilities are located on the Boeing property. On a typical day there are approximately 1 to 3 helicopter flights between the hours of 7:30 AM and 7:00 PM. Helicopter operations have been conducted as part of the ongoing operational characteristics of the facility since 1991. There have been no accident or safety issues relative to the operation of this helicopter facility since initiation of operation? Because FAA regulations and procedures must be followed as a matter of course, no significant �J impacts are anticipated. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving L wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Impact. Project implementation would include the introduction of additional ornamental landscaping, which is not anticipated to F create hazardous conditions associated with brush fires. Furthermore, U flammable brush, grass and trees do not currently exist on the proposed development portions of the site. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood ` Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation U map? No Impact. The proposed project does not involve the development of housing. Lj The site is not located within the 100 -year flood plain and project implementation would not involve the placement of structures within a 100 -year flood hazard (1 area.3 u Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.8(g) of the Initial Study, contained as Appendix 15.1 of this Report. Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Study - Armed Forces Reserve Center Los Alamitos Army Airfield, Los Alamitos, Orange County, California, Adjutant General, California National Guard, June 1994. 2 Rockwell Ground Helipad Noise Assessment, Myles Simpson & Associates, 1991. 3 Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06059C0026E, National Flood Insurance Program, September 15, 1989. LJ FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 10 -3 Effects Found Not To Be Significant C of '� ReaA BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The City of Seal Beach has obtained membership in the Federal Emerge Manages i Lei �t A �FE " ",A; Flood Insurance Pro According to flood insurance rate maps published by FEMA, the Project area is not located within a 100 -year floodplain area. Additionally, no levees or dams which would induce flooding are located in the vicinity. No impacts in this regard are anticipated. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. Due to the approximately 1.5 miles from Gabriel River, the potential for anticipated. location and nature of the proposed project, the Pacific Ocean and 0.5 miles from the San inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is not LAND USE AND PLANNING Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project would not divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The project location is within the existing approximately 107 -acre Boeing Space and Communications Division property. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. There are no applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans within the City of Seal Beach. As a result, project implementation would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. MINERAL RESOURCES Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. As indicated by a 1981 geologic map of Orange County, the project site does not contain mines, mineral deposits or other mineral resources. The nearest identified oil and gas fields are located approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the project site, on the Hellman Ranch properties. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 4 Negative Declaration 99 -2, Boeing Space and Communications Division — Temporary Office Facility, City of Seal Beach, 1999. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 10 -4 Effects Found Not To Be Significant L. ol�of U BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR No Impact. Refer to Response 4.10(a) of the Initial Study, contained as (; Appendix 15.1 of this Report. � NOISE f For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Li L" u r' U L E 6, U E i r u No Impact. The project site is not located within the Airport Planning Area of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's adopted "Airport Environs Land Use Plan ". Refer to Response 4.7(e) of the Initial Study, contained as Appendix 15.1 of this Report. POPULATION AND ROUSING Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the displacement of housing. No impacts in this regard would occur. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.12(b) of the Initial Study, contained as Appendix 15.1 of this Report. RECREATION Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.13(a)(4) of the Initial Study, contained as Appendix 15.1 of this Report. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts in this regard are not anticipated. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 10 -5 Effects Found Not To Be Significant BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.7(g) of the Initial Study, contained as Appendix 15.1 of this Report. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the nature of the proposal, no conflicts with any adopted policies supporting alternative transportation would occur. At the time of project - specific development application, the City would impose standard conditions regarding transportation facilities, which may include bus turnouts, bicycle racks, and electric vehicle charging stations. FINAL ® APRIL 2003 10 -6 Effects Found Not To Be Significant r Li F L 1 Organ • P erso ns • • r L r• L r• L A r F L L r , City of Seal Beach Department of Development Services 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Mr. John Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Mac Cummins, Associate Planner Mr. Doug Dancs, Public Works Director Mr. Ron Brust, City Consultant (j Mr. Larry Hoge, Hogle- Ireland, City Consultant �J Mr. Bill Cunningham, Hogle - Ireland, City Consultant r ; APPLICANT TEAM U Boeing Realty Corporation 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 500 Long Beach, California 90806 (, Ms. Dede Soto, Project Manager u D. Bartlett Associates, Inc. 36 Bramford Street U Ladera Ranch, California 92694 Mr. Dave Bartlett, Principal L Stone Creek Company 30322 Esperanza Avenue, Suite 200 Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688 Mr. Clay Corwin, Principal I , Ms. Ginny Kerr, Project Coordinator PREPARERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RBF Consulting lJ 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 -2069 Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP, EIR Project Director Ms. Collette Morse, AICP, Senior Project Manager Ms. Rita Garcia, Senior Environmental Analyst E Mr. Michael Harden, Environmental Analyst FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 11 -1 Organizations and Persons Consulted B OEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR Ms. Lindsay Anderson, Environmental Analyst Mr. Bob Matson, Transportation BonTerra Consulting K ai S c_2nn 1.7 I f \dll I ICJJ NI riv e, vui�c E L- - - 2 0 W Costa Mesa, California 92626 Ms. Ann M. Johnston, Associate Principal FINAL o APRIL 2003 11 -2 Organizations and Persons Consulted I L f , L I tee I 12,0 Bibilo9 ra NJ I I I I of C ���gea r BOEINGS I PL PROJECT EIR lJ r I 12.0 BIBLIOGRA U 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (Final) SCAQMD, September 1997. i 1999 Airport Environs land Use Plan Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, 1999. Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Study - Armed Forces Reserve Center Los Alamitos Army Airfield, Los Alamitos, Orange County, California Adjutant I , General, California National Guard, June 1994. Archaeological Survey of Western Portions of the Boeing Facility, Seal Beach, j I Orange County, California KEA Environmental, May 2000. U Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan Environmental Impact Report Volume I (SCH 91091019) Prepared by EIP Associates, dated November 1994. Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Environmental Impact Report Volume I (SCH 97091077) Prepared by Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc., dated April 1998. Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Environmental Impact Report Volume II Technica Appendices dated April 1998. California Waste Facilities, Sites, & Operations Database California Integrated Waste Management Board, September, 2000. CEQA: Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD, April 1994. L1 City and County Population Estimates Table E -5, Department of Finance, January 1, 1998. City of Seal Beach General Plan Elements updated on various dates. I Daily Summary of Operations —Pump Stations Orange County Sanitation District, June 24 -30, 2000. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Industrial Establishments California Integrated Waste Management Board, September 5, 2000. L Final Extended Removal Site Evaluation Report, Installation Restoration Sites 40 and 70, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Southwest Division, Naval Facilities (f Engineering Command, October 1999. U Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), City of Seal Beach, Panel 060233- 0005C Prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) dated September r ; 18, 1985. U Geotechnical Feasibility Report — Proposed Industrial Development — 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard & 2600 Westminster Boulevard, Seal Beach, California Sladden Engineering, March 27, 2000. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 12 -1 Bibliography BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT EIR Geotechnical Report Summary — New Tank, Boeing Facility Coleman Geotechnical, October 6, 1998. Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Volume I (SCH 9 6121009) Prepared by P & D Consultants, dated April 1997, Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Volume II Technical Appendices dated April 1997. Highway Capacity Manual Highway Research Board Special Report 87, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1965. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 001 - Pacific Gateway Business Center Tentative Parcel Map 2000 -134 February, 2001. Negative Declaration 99 -1 — Seal Beach Boulevard /1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project prepared for City of Seal Beach by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, July 1999. Preliminary Hydrology Report for Boeing -Seal Beach Facility at Westminster and Seal Beach Blvd Tait & Associates, Inc., August 11, 2000. Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (Regional Mobility Chapter) SCAG, May 1995. Regional Mobility Element (RME) SCAG, June 1994. Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Report of Foundation Investigation Proposed Additions to Building 86, 2201 Sea Beach Boulevard, Seal Beach California for Rockwell Internationa Crandall and Associates, December 29, 1982. Rockwell Ground Helipad Noise Assessment Myles Simpson & Associates, 1991. Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County California United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1978. Thomas Brothers Maps, Orange and Los Angeles Counties 1999. Topographical Quadrangle, Los Alamitos United States Geological Survey (USGS), California, 1981. Traffic Impact Analysis Report — Boeing Realty Corporation Industrial Park, Seal Beach, California Linscott, Law & Greenspan, September 12, 2000. Traffic Impact Study for PCH an Studebaker (Marina Shores Promenade) Marketplace Linscott, Law & Greenspan, September 27, 1997. Traffic Noise Analysis Boeing Seal Beach Property, Tentative Parcel Map 2000 -134 Envicom Corporation, September 20, 2000. FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 12 -2 Bibliography BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT EIR Trip Generation Institute of Transportation Engineers. L Vacant Lands at Westminster Ave and Seal Beach Boulevard — Review of Existing Conditions — Biological Resources Envicom Corporation, August 1, 2000. U u C s L U L. U 1 u U u L FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 12 -3 Bibliography