Att #9-Addendum No. 1 to the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan EIR — City Council/Public Financing Authority, July 5, 2022

ADDENDUM TO HOLLY-SEACLIFF

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT No. 89-1
(SCH # 89010412)

FOR THE

HOLLY TRIANGLE TOWNHOMES

PROJECT

Lead Agency:

City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Project Applicant:

Bonanni Development
5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 120
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

CEQA Consultant:

2355 Main Street, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614

April 2022
Revised May 2022

This page left intentionally blank.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

1 Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................. 4

1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................... 5 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................................... 7

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.3 EXISTING LAND USES AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE ..................................... 7

2.4 SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ....................................................... 7 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 17

3.1 PROJECT SITE PLANNING AND CEQA BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 17

3.2 HSSP FINAL EIR ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROJECT SITE ............................................................................ 17

3.3 PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................................................. 17 Project Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Project Features........................................................................................................................................ 18 Construction and Phasing ....................................................................................................................... 20 Discretionary Approvals, Permits, and Studies ................................................................................... 20 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...................................................................................................... 39

4.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 39

4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................................ 40

4.3 DETERMINATION: ........................................................................................................................................ 40

4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 41 Terminology Used in the Checklist ......................................................................................................... 42 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 43

5.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................................... 43

5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 49

5.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................. 52

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................................... 61

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................. 65

5.6 ENERGY............................................................................................................................................................ 71

5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS............................................................................................................................... 76

5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................... 85

5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............................................................................................. 91

5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.................................................................................................... 103

5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ..................................................................................................................... 115

5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 128

5.13 NOISE ........................................................................................................................................................... 130

5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................................ 137

5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 140

5.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................................... 146

5.17 TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................................... 149

5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 155

5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 162

5.20 WILDFIRE ....................................................................................................................................................... 168

5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................................................... 171 6 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS......................................................................... 174 Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

2 7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 175

Tables
TABLE 2-1: SURROUNDING EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS.......................................................................................... 7 TABLE 3-1: UNIT BREAKDOWN ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 TABLE AQ-1: SCAQMD REGIONAL DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS ...................................................................................................... 54 TABLE AQ-3: REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 55 TABLE AQ-4: NET OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................................... 56 TABLE AQ-5: LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS .............................................................................................................................. 57 TABLE AQ-6: LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES .............................................................................................................. 57 TABLE AQ-7: LOCALIZED NET OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ......................................................................................................... 58 TABLE E-1: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FUEL USAGE .............................................................................................................................. 72 TABLE E-2: ESTIMATED PROJECT VEHICLE FUEL USAGE.............................................................................................................................. 73 TABLE E-3: TOTAL CONSTRUCTION FUEL USAGE ...................................................................................................................................... 73 TABLE E-4: PROPOSED PROJECT ANNUAL NET OPERATIONAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................... 73 TABLE LU-1: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN ................................................................................................................... 117 TABLE LU-2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH HSSP POLICIES ................................................................................................................... 126 TABLE N-2: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET ......................................................................................................................... 133 TABLE N-3: CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS (VDB) ............................................................................................................ 134 TABLE PS-1: SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BETWEEN 2014-15 AND 2020-2021 ....................................................................................... 142 TABLE PS-2: CITY PARKS WITHIN 1.2 MILES........................................................................................................................................... 143 TABLE T-1: COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROJECT TRIPS AND HSSP BUILDOUT TRIPS ANALYZED IN FINAL EIR .................................... 150 TABLE UT-1: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY (AF) ...................................................................................... 164 TABLE UT-2: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECTED WATER DEMAND (AF) .................................................................................... 165

FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL LOCATION .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 FIGURE 2-2: LOCAL VICINITY .................................................................................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 2-3: AERIAL .................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 2-4: SITE PHOTOS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 15 FIGURE 3-1: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ....................................................................................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 3-2: EXAMPLE BUILDING ELEVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 25 FIGURE 3-3: COLOR AND MATERIALS ....................................................................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 3-4: STREET ELEVATIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 3-5: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ........................................................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 3-6: CENTRAL VILLAGE LAWN ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 FIGURE 3-7 CENTRAL COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE ..................................................................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 3-8 WALL PLAN ........................................................................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 3-9A: EXISTING OIL PIPELINE LOCATION .................................................................................................................................... 111 FIGURE 3-9B: EXISTING OIL PIPELINE LOCATION .................................................................................................................................... 113

Appendix
Appendix A. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Analysis Appendix B. Cultural Study
Appendix C. Geotechnical Report
Appendix D. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments and Addenda Appendix E. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

3 5 INTRODUCTION

5.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This document is an Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 (HSSP Final EIR) (SCH #89010412) certified by the City of Huntington Beach (City) on January 8, 1990. The HSSP Final EIR, in conjunction with this Addendum, serve as the environmental review for the proposed Holly Triangle Townhomes Project. The Project proposes development of a 2.11 gross-acre (1.80 net-acre) site, including the demolition of the existing building on the site, capping the four existing oil wells, and construction of 35 three-story townhomes, with 15 percent affordable units along with parking, landscape, and common use amenities (proposed Project).

The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan (HSSP) was adopted by the City of Huntington Beach in 1992 as a tool for providing development standards, design theme, and administrative procedures necessary to implement the policies of the City of Huntington Beach General P lan and the Holly -Seacliff Master Plan (General Plan Amendment 89-1). The HSSP divided the Specific Plan area into four distinct Planning Areas (Planning Areas I-IV). The HSSP Final EIR also divided the Holly-Seacliff Area into five distinct Planning Areas (Planning Areas A-E). Planning Area B, as analyzed in the HSSP Final EIR, was not designated as a planning area within the Specific Plan itself as it was incorporated into the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan.

The Project site is located within Planning Area IV of the HSSP, which includes various areas designated as medium density residential. The HSSP Final EIR analyzed Planning Area IV as Planning Area E. The HSSP allowed for development of a total of 3,022 residences within the Specific Plan area. The HSSP Final EIR analyzed the development of approximately 785 residential dwelling units, 22 acres of industrial, 53 acres of mixed development, and 4 acres of commercial within Planning Area E.

The site is designated Commercial (C) by the HSSP and has a G eneral Plan land use designation of Commercial Neighborhood -Specific Plan (CN -sp). The HSSP designation of Commercial (C), allows development of General Commercial uses pursuant to the development standards set forth for the General Commercial (CG) zoning designation in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The Municipal Code’s CG zoning designation allows for development of general commercial uses at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.5.

As such, the HSSP Final EIR analyzed development of up to 117,612 square feet (SF) of commercial uses on the 1.80 net-acre Project site.

The Project evaluated herein involves a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, a Zoning Map Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and a Density Bonus Waiver for construction and operation of 35 for-sale townhomes on an approximately 1.80 net-acre site located at 19006 Holly Lane within the City of Huntington Beach.

Development within the HSSP area is subject to mitigation measures identified in the HSSP Final EIR, the development regulations in the HSSP, and the City’s municipal code. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.2, the HSSP Final EIR must be conclusively presumed to be valid with regard to its use for later activities unless any of the circumstances requiring supplemental review exist.1

This environmental checklist provides the basis for an Addendum to the previously certified Final EIR and serves as the appropriate level of environmental review of the proposed Project, as required pu rsuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines. This Checklist confirms that the Project is within the scope of the HSSP analyzed in the HSSP Final EIR, as provided in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, and the Addendum

1 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1130 (“[a]fter certification, the interests of finality are favored”); Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 689, 705-706.)
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

4 augments the analysis in the HSSP Final EIR as provided in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164 and provides the basis for the City’s determination that no supplemental or subs equent EIR is required to evaluate the proposed Project. Environmental analysis and mitigation measures from the HSSP Final EIR have been incorporated into this Addendum , and applicability of each has been described . In cases where mitigation measures from the HSSP Final EIR have been revised or satisfied by studies prepared for Addendum, it is noted.

Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the Lead Agency, is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed Project. As part of the decision- making process, the City is required to review and consider the potential environmental effects that could result from construction and operation of the proposed Project. The analysis i n this document discusses the impacts identified within the HSSP Final EIR for buildout of the site with 117,612 SF of commercial uses and compares them with the impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Proje ct’s 35 townhomes.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) and Project Design Features (PDFs) Throughout the analysis of this document, reference is made to requirements that are applied to all development on the basis of federal, state, or local law. Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies are collectively identified in this document as PPPs. Where applicable, PPPs are listed to show their effect in reducing potential environmental impacts. The Project incorporates various measures that serve to reduce potentially significant impacts. These measures are referred to as Project Design Features (PDFs), which are required to be incorporated into the Project. Additionally, applicable Mitigation Measures from the HSSP Final EIR are included herein and will be incorporated into the Project. As shown throughout the analysis, the Project does not result in any new impacts and no additional mitigation measures are required. All references to mitigation measures relate only to those from the HSSP Final EIR.

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES

Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City’s review of the Checklist and Addendum will determine if approval of the requested discretionary actions and subsequent development could cause a change in the conclusions o f the certified Final EIR and disclose any change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would substantially change the conclusions of the HSSP Final EIR.

This environmental Checklist and Addendum provide the City with information to document potential impacts of the proposed Project.

Pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major rev isions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the p roject is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substa ntial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

5 b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR.
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. d) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared “if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that where the later ac tivities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written Checklist to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR. Under Sec tion 15168, where if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document is required.

In reviewing this Addendum, the question before City decision-makers is not whether the HSSP Final EIR complies with CEQA, but only whether one of the events triggering the need for subsequent environmental review has occurred. ( A Local & Regional Mon itor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773; Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32.)

This Addendum and the technical studies in support of the analysis review the proposed Project and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the HSSP Final EIR was certified. It also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the HSSP Final EIR was certified. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the proposed Project. This Addendum relies on use of the Environmental Analysis provided herein, which addresses environmental issues on a section -by-section basis and provides a comparison to the findings in the HSSP Final EIR.

On the basis of the findings of the certified HSSP Final EIR and the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City as the Lead Agency determined that, as documented in t his Addendum to the previously certified Final EIR, no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required to review the proposed Project.

5.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

As directed by CEQA, this Addendum relies on the environmental analysis in the HSSP Final EIR. A summary of the previous environmental documentation and how it relates to the proposed Holly Triangle Townhomes Project (proposed Project) is provided below.

The HSSP was adopted by the City of Huntington Beach in 1992 as a tool for providing development standards, design theme, and administrative procedures necessary to implement the policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan a nd the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan (General Plan Amendment 89 -1). The HSSP Final EIR evaluated buildout of the HSSP area pursuant to HSSP design criteria and residential and non-residential allowances . The HSSP divided the Specific Plan area into four dist inct Planning Areas (Planning Areas I-IV). The Final EIR divided the Holly-Seacliff Area into five distinct Planning Areas (Planning Areas A-E). Planning Area B, as analyzed in the HSSP Final EIR, was not designated as a planning area within the Specific Plan itself as it was incorporated into the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. The Project site Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

6 is located within Planning Area IV of the HSSP, which includes various areas designated as residential medium density. The HSSP Final EIR analyzed Planning Area IV as Planning Area E. The HSSP allowed for development of a total of 3,022 residences within the Specific Plan area. The HSSP Final EIR analyzed the development of approximately 785 residential dwelling units, 22 acres of industrial, 53 acres of mixed development, and 4 acres of commercial within Planning Area E. The HSSP Final EIR identified that the HSSP would have significant and unavoidable environmental effects related to air quality, biological resources, noise, transportation, utilities and service systems.

The HSSP Final EIR also identified 14 environmental impact areas for which mitigation measures were required to reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level : air quality; aesthetics; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils (referred to as earth resources in the HSSP Final EIR); hazards and hazardous materials (referred to as Human Health and Safety in the HSSP Final EIR) ; hydrology and water quality; land use; noise; public services; recreation; transportation; and utilities and service systems.

This Addendum incorporates by reference the HSSP Final EIR and the technical documents that relate to the proposed Project or provide additional information concerning the environmental setting of the proposed Project. The information within in this Addendum is based on the following technical studies and/or planning documents:
• Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan
(https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/departments/planning/sp/) • Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 • The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Mitigation Measures
(https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/HSSP98%20Revised%20VI.pdf) • City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code (http://www.qcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/) • City of Huntington Beach General Plan
(https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/departments/planning/gp/index.cfm) • Technical studies, personal communications, and web sites listed in Section 6, References In addition to the websites listed above, all documents are available for review at th e City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, located 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

7 6 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

6.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The 2.21 gross-acre (1.80 net-acre) Project site is located within the central portion of the City of Huntington Beach. As depicted on Figure 2-1, Regional Location, the Project site is a triangle shaped parcel located southeast of the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Holly Lane and northwest of M ain Street, at 19006 Holly Lane (APNs: 159-281-01, -02, -04, -05, 03). Regional access to the Project site is provided via Beach Boulevard (also referred to as State Route 39 ) located approximately 0.6 mile to east. Local access is provided by Holly Lane, Garfield Avenue, and Main Street as shown in Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity.

6.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE

The Project site is currently developed with a one -story, 4,200 SF neighborhood commercial building occupied by De Guelle Glass and the remainder of the site is unpaved and used by a local car dealership as a car storage lot, as shown in Figure 2-3, Aerial View and Figure 2-4, Site Photos. In addition, there are four abandoned oil wells on the property . There is also a n existing 6 -inch crude oil transmission pipeline within a 10-foot easement that runs across the center of the Project site, operated by Crimson Pipeline, L.P.

6.3 EXISTING LAND USES AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE

The Project site has a General Plan designa tion of Commercial Neighborhood -Specific Plan (CN-sp). The Project is located within the HSSP and is currently designated as Commercial (C), which allows development of General Commercial uses pursuant to the development standards set forth for the General Commercial (CG) zoning designation in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The Municipal Code’s CG zoning designation allows for development of general commercial uses at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.5. The General Commercial (GC) category include s conveniences and commercial developments, community shopping centers, regional shopping centers, and highway related commercial uses.

6.4 SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS

The Project site is located within a fully developed and urbanized ar ea. Land uses surrounding the Project site are described in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation
Zoning Designation HSSP Designation
North
Garfield Avenue
followed by single-
family residences
Residential
Medium Density
Specific Plan
Overlay (CN-sp)
Specific Plan
Designation (SP9)
Residential Medium
Density (RM)
South Main Street followed by
multi-family units
Residential
Medium Density
Specific Plan
Overlay (RM-sp)
Specific Plan
Designation (SP9)
Residential Medium
Density (RM)
West
Holly Lane followed by
multi-family apartment
buildings
Residential
Medium Density
Specific Plan
Overlay (RM-sp)
Specific Plan
Designation (SP9)
Residential Medium
Density (RM)
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

8 Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation
Zoning Designation HSSP Designation
East Main Street followed by
multi-family units
Residential
Medium Density
Residential (RM)

P(I) (Public)
I (Industrial)
Residential Medium
Density (RM)
PS (Public-
semipublic)
IG (Industrial
General)
N/A

Figure 2-1
Regional Location
Holly Triangle Townhomes

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

10 This page intentionally left blank.

Local Vicinity
Figure 2-2
Holly Triangle Townhomes

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

12 This page intentionally left blank.

Figure 2-3
Aerial View
Holly Triangle Townhomes
Florence Avenue
Lake Center Park
Pioneer Boulevard
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

14 This page intentionally left blank.

Figure 2-4
Site Photos
Westbound views of the western boundary of the Project Site from Holly Lane.

Existing views of the southeastern boundary of the Project Site from Main Street.

Holly Triangle Townhomes

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

16 This page intentionally left blank.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

17 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

7.1 PROJECT SITE PLANNING AND CEQA BACKGROUND

As previously discussed, the HSSP Final EIR was certified in 1990 for the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan (General Plan Amendment 89-1) and the HSSP was adopted by the City of Huntington Beach in 1992 as a tool for providing development standards, design theme, and administrative procedures necessary to implement the policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan.

7.2 HSSP FINAL EIR ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROJECT SITE

The site is designated Commercial (C) by the HSSP, which allows development of General Commercial uses pursuant to the development standards set forth for the General Commercial (CG) zoning designation in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The Municipal Code’s CG zoning designation allows for development of general commercial uses at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.5. As such, the HSSP Final EIR analyzed development of up to 117,612 SF of commercial uses on the 1.80 net -acre Project site (approved Project, previously approved Project).

7.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Overview
The Project proposes the demolition of the existing uses and the development of the 2.11 gross -acre (1.80 net-acre) site with 7 buildings containing 35 three-story, for-sale townhomes along with parking, landscape, and common use amenities, as shown in Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan. Five of the for-sale units would be set aside as moderate-income affordable units.

The Project Applicant is requesting approval of:
• A General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the site from Commercial Neighborhood -Specific Plan (CN-sp) to Residential Medium Density -Specific Plan (RM-sp); • A Specific Plan Amendment to change the HSSP designation from Commercial (C) to Residential Medium Density (RM);
• A Tentative Tract Map to consolidate 12 existing lots into a single 1.8 net -acre lot for the development of 35 residential townhome units;
• A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for development of the 35 residential units, as well as for 6-foot- high masonry walls to be constructed within the front yard setback areas along Holly Lane, Main Street and Garfield Avenue.
• A Density Bonus of 10 percent for a density of 16.59 dwelling unit/gross acre for providing 15 percent (or 5.25 units) for moderate-income affordable units. o Waiver of development standards to reduce the front building setback along Holly Lane from 15 feet to 10 feet and to allow a building separation reduction from 20 feet to 15 to 16 feet.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

18 Project Features
Building Summary
The proposed residential units would include 11 two-bedroom units and 24 three-bedroom units that would range in size from 1,300 SF to 1,866 SF as shown in Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1: Unit Breakdown
Unit Name Unit Type Square Footage Number of Units
Unit 2A 2-Bedroom/2.5 Bath 1,300 SF 11
Unit 3A 3-Bedroom/2.5 Bath 1,755 SF 16
Unit 3B 3-Bedroom/2.5 Bath1 1,866 SF 8
Total Units 35
1 Includes 4 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible units

The proposed residences would have a modern traditional architectural style with board and batten siding, brick, decorative metal railings, decorative exterior light figures , of with white and grey tones on building exteriors, black window fixtures, and wooden accents, as shown in Figure 3-2, Example Building Elevations and 3-3, Color and Materials. Figure 3-4, Street Elevations, depicts the Holly Lane, Garfield Avenue and Main Street elevations, with mature landscaping. The maximum height of proposed buildings, including the architectural projections and parapet walls, would be 39 feet.

Affordable Housing Component
The Project includes a density bonus of 10 percent, resulting in 16.59 dwelling unit/gross acre, for providing 15 percent (or 5.25 units) of the total units as units affordable to moderate income households pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO or Zoning Code) Section 230.14 and the California Density Bonus Law. Of the Project’s 35 total unit count, 5 units would be designated as moderate- income affordable units, as required by the HSS P and Section HBZSO 230.26. The fractional unit ( 0.25) would be satisfied by paying the City’s affordable housing in -lieu fee. The affordable units onsite would consist of 3 two-bedroom units and 2 three-bedroom units , dispersed throughout the development . In addition, the Project requests waiver of development standards in order to facilitate a greater number of units on the site and maximize the number of affordable units provided as part of the Project. Waivers of development standards requested as part of the project include a request to reduce the front building setback along Holly Lane from 15 feet to 10 feet and a request to allow a building separation reduction of 15 to 16 feet in lieu of 20 feet. The Project complies with the 16.5 du/acres allowed with the density bonus.

Access and Parking
Access to the site would be provided via a 25-foot-wide driveway on Holly Lane. Onsite drive aisles would provide residents and guest access to guest parking spaces and residential garages. A decomposed granite fire access lane would be provided from Main Street. The fire access lane includes 5'-6'' high metal vehicular Emergency Vehicle Access-only gate with Knox Box and Opticom.

Each townhome would have an attached two-car garage with direct access to the unit. Twelve guest parking spaces, including one handicapped space, would be dispersed throughout the Project site. The Project would utilize a by-right parking reduction provided in the HBZC 230.14 D. 1(2 parking spaces per unit for 2- and 3-bedroom units), for a total of 70 required parking spaces. The Project would exceed this requirement by providing 82 spaces, including 70 garage spaces and 12 open off-street spaces (1 of which would be an Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] accessible space). The Project also includes 10 short-term bike parking spaces. The site’s access and parking distribution is shown on Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

19 Recreation and Open Space
The Project would include approximately 11,719 SF of common open space throughout the site. Open space areas would be landscaped and paved, as shown in Figure 3-5, Landscape Plan. The Project would include a central community open space area with enhanced paving, spec imen trees for shade, trash receptacles, an 8-foot-high shade structure, a built-in BBQ counter, and outdoor seating for small social events and group gatherings. The Project would also include a central village lawn area for active us e with bench seating, dog-bag station and canopy trees. Additional amenities would include a fire-pit seating area with outdoor fire-pit and lounge seating , a BBQ gathering area with picnic table seating, and a freestanding BBQ.

Amenities provided as part of the Project are shown in in Figure 3-6, Central Village Lawn and Figure 3-7, Central Community Open Space.

The Project would also provide approximately 16,284 SF of private open space within patios, second-level decks and roof decks. A minimum of 80 SF of private open space per unit would be provided for the two- bedroom units and 90 SF to 125 SF of private open space would be provided for the three-bedroom units, which would exceed the minimum 75 SF of private open space per unit required by the HSSP.

Landscaping
The Project would install new drought tolerant ornamental lan dscaping throughout the Project site and enhanced landscape treatments along the site boundaries and at each of the Project’s three corners, which would include 36-inch box olive, magnolia, and fern pine trees. In addition, a variety of 15-gallon trees and ornamental shrubs, vines, and groundcover would be installed throughout the Project site . The proposed Project would result in a n increase of impervious areas onsite from 7 percent impervious under existing conditions to 79 percent impervious areas following Project development.

Lighting and Walls
The Project would install new exterior lighting onsite for security, to accent landscaping, and to light signage, walkways, and parking areas.

The Project would also install a variety of walls throughout the site, with varying heights and materials, as shown in Figure 3-8, Wall Plan, including:
• 6-foot-high split-face or stucco over CMU wall, with a 2-inch-high split-face or stucco CMU cap along portions of the Main Street and Garfield Avenue frontages; • 5'-6" high back tube steel fence along portions of the Main Street frontage at the central village lawn amenity;
• 3'-6" High precision CMU wall, with 2 -inch high precision CMU cap along Holly Lane and interior lots; and
• 6-foot high patio walls consisting of 4-foot CMU with a 2-foot horizontal slatted wood fence.

In addition, the fire access lane includes 5'-6'' high metal vehicular Emergency Vehicle Access-only gate with Knox Box and Opticom devise.

Infrastructure Improvements
The proposed Project would construct onsite infrastructure including new internal streets, and storm drain improvements, wet and dry utilities, and related infrastructure improvements.

Sidewalk Improvements
The Project would construct new sidewalks along Holly Lane.

Water and Sewer Improvements
The Project would construct private domestic water and sewer lines onsite that would connect to an existing 8-inch water and an existing 8-inch sewer line in Holly Lane.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

20 Drainage Improvements
An onsite storm drain system is proposed which will outlet to a modular wetland system treatment unit. After treatment, the flow would be directed to the public storm drain system within Garfield Avenue via a storm drain line with a new connection point. Water would then be conveyed from the public Strom Drain system along Garfield Avenue and continue east and then south along Delaware ultimately to the Huntington Beach Channel.

Construction and Phasing
Construction activities for the Project would occur over in phase and would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings , as shown in Table 3 -2.

Construction is expected to occur over 12 months and would generally occur between 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday to Friday, and if required on Saturdays, in accordance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code.

The proposed grading of the site would retain the relatively flat topography currently present on the site.

Demolition and grading activities are anticipated to occur over a period of approximately 2 months starting in starting in late 2022.

Construction of the Project also includes re-abandonment of two onsite wells pursuant to City Specification 422 and installation of methane barrier systems under the residential structures pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.04.170.5503 and City Specification 429. No changes are proposed to the existing 6” crude oil pipeline, which has an existing depth of approximately 5’-1” to 5’-8” below existing surface. Upon Project completion, the pipeline would be in the range of 4’-4” to 5’-3” below proposed surface and would remain in its current location under the proposed internal roadway connecting Holly Lane and Main Street.

Table 3-2: Construction Schedule
Activity Total Working Days
Demolition 20
Site Preparation 3
Grading 6
Building Construction 220
Paving 10
Architectural Coating 10

Discretionary Approvals, Permits, and Studies
The following discretionary approvals and permits are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the proposed Project:

City of Huntington Beach
• Adoption of this Addendum;
• A General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the site from Commercial Neighborhood - Specific Plan (CN-sp) to Medium Density Residential-Specific Plan (RM-sp); • A Zone Text Amendment to change the HSSP designation from Commercial (C) to Medium Density Residential (RM) and modify text and figures throughout the HSSP; • A Tentative Tract Map to consolidate 12 existing lots into a single 1.8 net acre lot for the development
• of 35 homes;
• A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for development of the 35 residential units, as well as for6-foot high masonry walls to be constructed within the15-foot front-yard setbacks along Holly Lane and Main Street.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

21 • A 10 percent Density Bonus to allow a density of 16.59 dwelling unit/gross acre based on the provision of 15 percent (or 5.25 units) of the total units as moderate-income affordable units. o Waiver of development standards to reduce the front building setback along Holly Lane from 15 feet to10 feet and to allow a building separation reduction from 20 feet to 15 to 16 feet.
• Recommended approval of the Project design by the Design Review Board • Approvals and p ermits necessary to execute the proposed Project, including but not limited to, demolition permit, grading permit, building permits, etc. • General Plan Conformance for the disposition of the City-owned lot (the parcel running through the center of the Project site with the 10-foot pipeline easement on it) and disposition of the City-owned lot to the project Applicant.

State of California Geological Energy Management Division (CalGEM) • Approvals and permits necessary for re-abandonment of onsite wells.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) • Approvals, permits, and remedial actions necessary to meet address contamination in soil and soil gas and to meet applicable DTSC residential and Recreational Screening standard.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

22 This page internationally left blank.

Holly Triangle Townhomes
Figure 3-1
Conceptual Site Plan

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

24 This page intentionally left blank.

Holly Triangle Townhomes
Example Building Elevations
Figure 3-2

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

26 This page intentionally left blank.

Holly Triangle Townhomes
Colors and Materials
Figure3-3

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

28 This page intentionally left blank.

Holly Triangle Townhomes
Street Elevations
Figure 3-4

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

30 This page intentionally left blank.

Holly Triangle Townhomes
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Figure 3-5

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

32 This page intentionally left blank.

Holly Triangle Townhomes
Central Village Lawn
Figure 3-6

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

34 This page intentionally left blank.

Holly Triangle Townhomes
Central Community Open Space
Figure 3-7

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

36 This page intentionally left blank.

Holly Triangle Townhomes Figure 3-8
Wall Plan

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

38 This page intentionally left blank.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 39 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

8.1 BACKGROUND

Date: April 19, 2022

Project Title:

Holly Triangle Townhomes Project
Lead Agency:

City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Lead Agency Contact:

Alyssa Helper, Associate Planner
[email protected]
Project Location:

The 2.21 gross-acre (1.80 net-acre) site is a triangle shaped parcel bounded by Garfield Avenue to the north, Holly Lane to the west, and Main Street east and southeast, at 19006 Holly Lane (APNs: 159-281- 01, -02, -04, -05, 03).

Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Bonanni Development
5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 120
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Land Use and Zoning Designation:

General Plan designation of Commercial Neighborhood-Specific Plan (CN -sp). The Project is located within the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan and is zoned Commercial (C).

Project Description:

The Project proposes to develop a 2.11 gross-acre site, including the demolition of the existing building on the site, capping the four ex isting oil wells, and constructing 35 three -story townhomes within 7 buildings, with 15 percent affordable units , as well as with parking, landscape, and common use amenities. A more detailed description of the proposed Project is provided in Section 3, Project Description.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The Project site is within an urban environment, is partially developed with commercial uses, and is surrounded by residential and commercial uses.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:

None

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 40 8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

8.3 DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation

No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without modification.

The Checklist/Addendum concludes that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exists in connection with the design of the Project.

No substantial changes have been proposed to the project described in the Final EIR that require major revisions to Final EIR. No new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental effects would occur. The Checklist/Addendum also indicates that there have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the project site, including the project, would be undertaken that would require major revisions to the Final EIR. The Checklist/Addendum concludes that no substantial changes with respect to circumstances under which the project is undertaken have occurred that have not already been accounted for. The Checklist/Addendum also concludes that no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the Final EIR was certified, shows that the proj ect would cause or substantially worsen significant environmental impacts discussed in the Final EIR, that mitigation measures or alternatives found infeasible in the Final EIR would in fact be feasible, or that different mitigation measures or alternative s from those analyzed in the Final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant environmental effects found in the Final EIR.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 41 Substantial changes are proposed in th e project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous ND, MND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or sub stantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant. Therefore, a Subsequent MND is required.

Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major rev isions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation. Therefore, a Supplemental EIR is required.

Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions t o the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3) such as one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Signature Date

___________________________________________________________________________________ Printed Name For

8.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The evaluation of environmental impacts in this addendum summarizes conclusions made in the HSSP Final EIR and compares them to the impacts of the proposed Holly Triangle Townhomes Project. Mitigation measures referenced are from the Mitigation Monitoring Final adopted as part of the HSSP Final EIR and are described as either being previously implemented, applicable to the proposed Project, or not applicable.

This comparative analysis has been undertaken pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, to provide the factual basis for determining whether the proposed Project, or any new information that has come to light that permits or requires the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

The analysis herein follows the outline and format, and applies the impact thresholds of, the HSSP Final EIR, as required by CEQA. (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788.) As discussed previously in Section 1.2 Environmental Procedures, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when an EIR has been previously certified that includes the scope of development of a site or area, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following three conditions are met: 1) the project would result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; 2) changes in the circumstances surrounding the project result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; or 3) new Alyssa Helper
5-26-22
Alyssa Helper
City of Huntington Beach
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 42 information has come to light showing that new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR will occur.

Terminology Used in the Checklist
For each question listed in the Environmental Checklist, a determination of the level of significance of the impact is provided. Impacts are categorized in the following categories:

Substantial Change in Project or Circ umstances Resulting in New Significant Effects. A Subsequent EIR is required when 1) substantial project changes are proposed or substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and 2) those changes result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and 3) project changes require major revisions of the EIR.2 New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than Previous EIR. A Subsequent EIR is required if new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified, shows 1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; or 2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR.3
New Information Identifying New Mitigation or Alternative to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined.

A Subsequent EIR i s required if new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified shows 1) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible (or new mitigation measures or alternatives are considerably different) and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.4
With regard to the foregoing three categories, a Supplement to an EIR can be prepared if the criterion for a Subsequent EIR is met, and only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the EIR adequately apply to the proposed Project.5
Minor Technical Changes or Additions. An Addendum to the EIR is required if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the criteria for a subsequent EIR is met.6 No Impact. A designation of no impact is given when the proposed Project would have no changes in the environment as compared to the original project analyzed in the EIR.

2 CEQA Guidelines. California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, § 15162, as amended. 3 CEQA Guidelines. § 15162.
4 CEQA Guidelines. § 15162.
5 CEQA Guidelines. § 15163.
6 CEQA Guidelines. § 15164.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 43 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The section briefly summarizes the conclusions of the HSSP Final EIR, and then discuss whether or not the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the HSSP Final EIR, or if further analysis is required in a supplemental or subsequent EIR. Mitigation measures referenced herein are from the HSSP Final EIR.

9.1 AESTHETICS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway

c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR determined that development of the HSSP area would lead to visual alteration of 768 acres of partially passive open space into a variety of urbanized uses. Upon ultimate development, the HSSP Final determined that the scenic character and aesthetic appearance of the site would be altered and that views of the new land uses would be visible both from areas within the HSSP and from certain offsite locations. With implementation of HSSP mitigation measures, project-specific impacts related to aesthetics were determined to be less than significant. The loss of open space views was considered a project- specific cumulative impact, which was considered an unavoidable adverse impact.

Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project:

Aesthetics 4. Landscaping of future projects should be designed so as to minimize visual impacts on adjacent parcels. Special consideration should be given to orientation of the project's residences (i.e., windows and decking) so as to respect the privacy of adjacent and nearby homes.

Light and Glare 2. All outdoor lighting should be consistent with the standards established by future Specific Plans to minimize off-site light intrusion.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 44 Light and Glare 3. All outdoor lighting should be hooded and directed downward to minimize direct light and glare impacts on public rights-of-way and surrounding properties.

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The loss of open space views was considered a HSSP project-specific cumulative impact, which was considered significant and unavoidable.

The Huntington Beach General Plan does not designate any scenic vistas within the Project area. The nearest designated view corridor is Pacific Coast Highway, which is considered a Major Urban Scenic Corridor that offers views of natural environments, and is located 1.62 miles southwest of the Project site. The Project site is also located in an urbanized area of the City, surrounded by commercial and residential uses. The Project site and surrounding public rights-of-way do not feature any scenic views. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas from the proposed Project would not occur.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The loss of open space views was considered a HSSP project-specific cumulative impact, which was considered an unavoidable adverse impact.

The Project site is not located within view of a state scenic highway, as there are no designated state scenic highways within the vicinity of the site. The nearest eligible state scenic highway is Pacific Coast Highway, located approximately 1.62 miles southwest of the Project site. The Project would not result in impacts to trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur.

c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded implementation of the HSSP would alter the existing visual character or quality of the HSSP area with the goal of improving visual character.

As described previously, the Project site is located within an urbanized area and is surrounded by roadways, single-family and multi-family residences, and commercial uses. The existing character of the Project site and surrounding area is neither unique nor of special aesthetic value or quality. The proposed Project would replace the existing neighborhood commercial building and car-sales parking lot and would develop 35 dwelling units. Impacts to visual resources from buildout of the Project site would be less than significant with Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 45 compliance with the HSSP Development Standards, the City’s General Plan, and the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. As detailed in Table AES-1, the Project would be consistent with the HSSP standards for the Residential Medium Density (RM) zone. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable zoning regulation related to scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table AES-1: Consistency with HSSP Development Standards Development
Feature
HSSP Code
Section
Medium Density
Residential (RM)
Provided
Density HSSP III.D.4
HBZSO
230.14.C
15 du/gross ac
(Maximum)

16.5 du/gross ac
(with Bonus, 10%
Bonus allowed with
15% Mod. Inc.

Affordable)
Consistent. 16.59
du/gross acre
(35 du / 2.11 gross
ac)
(2.11 ac x 16.5
du/ac = 34.8 du,
allowed to round up
to 35 du per HBZSO
230.14.C.2)

Building Height HSSP III.D.4.d 3 story, 40 Feet Max Consistent. 3 story, 39 Feet
Building Offset HSSP III.D.4.k Structures having
dwellings attached
side-by-side shall
be composed of not
more than 6
dwelling units unless
such structures
provide an offset on
the front of the
building a minimum
of 2 feet for every
2 dwelling units in
the structure.

Consistent. Structures
with greater than 6
units provide offsets
of 2 feet or greater
at every 2 units.

Landscaping
HSSP III.D.4.k All setback areas
visible from an
adjacent public
street and all
common open space
areas shall be
landscaped and
permanently
maintained in an
attractive manner
with permanent
automatic irrigation
facilities provided.

Trees shall be
provided at a rate
of 1 36-inch box
tree per 60 feet of
Consistent. See
Figure 3-5,
Conceptual Landscape
Plan. One 36-inch
box tree per 60 feet
of street frontage
provided.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 46 street frontage or
fraction thereof.

Setback Minimums HSSP III.D.4.d Front Yard;
dwelling: 15 ft

Consistent. 15 ft
(Main/Garfield)

10 ft on Holly per
waiver of
development
standards
Front Yard; garage
(side entry): 10 ft

N/A
Front Yard; eaves,
fireplace, balcony 5
ft
Consistent. 8 ft
Side Yard Int;
dwelling, garage,
acc: 5 ft

N/A
Side Yard Ext;
dwelling, garage,
acc: 10 ft

N/A
Side Yard Ext;
eaves: 18 inch

N/A
Side Yard Ext;
unroof balcony, 8 ft
architectural
feature:

Consistent. 8 ft
Rear Yard;
dwelling, garage: 5
ft

N/A
Building Separation
(3-Story): 20 ft
Consistent. 15.5 ft
(consistent with
waiver allowed
under the California
Density Bonus Law
Site Coverage HSSP III.D.4.e 50% Max Coverage Consistent. 35.7% coverage
Common Open
Space
HSSP III.D.4.i 11,700 SF Consistent. 11,719
SF
Private Open Space HSSP III.D.4.i 75 SF per unit min. Consistent. 80 SF per unit min.

In addition, the Project would comply with Chapter II of the HSSP, Community Theme Guidelines, which are intended to provide for the development of neighborhoods, open spaces, buildings and streetscapes having a distinctive visual identity to promote individual neighborhood identities and to promote interrelationships between complementary land uses and community open space features. The Project also complies with the City’s Design Guidelines for multi -family projects, including providing articulated massing, coordinated fenestration, enhanced paving at entries, and walkways linking dwellings, common areas, an d sidewalks.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 47 The architecture reflects a contemporary design with architectural features , such as balconies and awnings that create variation in the building plane as well as variation in the color scheme for each building elevation.

The Project design pro poses the use of durable high quality building materials including brick, exterior cement plaster and fiber cement siding. The architecture and building materials were reviewed and approved by the City’s Design Review Board for compliance with the City’s Design Guidelines contained in Municipal Code Section 210.06 (RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts —Property Development Standards) and the Community Theme Guidelines in the HSSP.

With the requested waivers of development standards permitted under the State Density Bonus Law, the Project would be consistent with the required building setbacks and the minimum building separation requirements. The Project would develop the site with multi-family uses, which is consistent with the land uses adjacent to the site and would be visually compatible with the surrounding uses. Thus, the Project would not conflict with applicable HSSP criteria and other regulations governing scenic quality , nor would the Project degrade the visual character of the site and surrounding area. Impacts would be less than significant.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that future development within the HSSP area would introduce new sources of lighting. However, compliance with the land use regulations and the zoning and development standards of the Specific Plan, the General Plan and the Huntington Beach Municipal Code would preclude significant impacts.

The Project site is partially developed with one permanent building with the remaining portion of the site used as an unpaved parking lot. The Project would replace existing sources of light and introduce new sources of light from new building lighting, exterior lighting, interior lights shining through building windows, and headlights from nighttime vehicular trips generated by the Project. However, the Project would only slightly increase lighting and glare compared to the existing condition of the area surrounding the site, and new landscaping would be provided throughout the Project site that would limit impacts from new sources of light and glare. For example, perimeter l andscaping, including trees, would limit the spill of light onto adjacent properties. Also, as a standard condition of Project approval, the proposed Project would be required to comply with lighting standards detailed in the City’s Municipal Code, which would require Project lighting to be shielded, diffused, or indirect to avoid glare to both on offsite residents, pedestrians, motorists.

Compliance with the Municipal Code would be implemented through the construction permitting and plan check process. Therefore, impacts associated with new lighting would be less than significant.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding aesthetics. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 48 previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)

PPP AES-1. The proposed Project shall comply with lighting standards detailed in the City’s Municipal Code, which requires Project lighting to be shielded, diffused, or indirect to avoid glare to both on offsite residents, pedestrians, and motorists.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no mitigation measures are required for aesthetics. The Project design satisfies HSSP Mitigation Measure Aesthetics.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 49 9.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST

RESOURCES
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment Project
and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project ; and the
forest carbon measurement methodology provided
in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:

Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) 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?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to no n-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR did not analyze impacts related to agriculture and forest resources.

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The Project site is currently an unimproved graded parcel, with the exception of an existing one-story building at the northwest corner occupied by De Guelle Glass. In addition to the glass shop, the site is currently used by a local car dealership as a storage lot for cars. The site is not designated as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (CDC 2022). Therefore, the proposed Project would not have Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 50 impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965) restricts the use of agricultural and open space lands to farming and ranching by enabling local governments to contract with private landowners for indefinite terms in exchange for reduced property tax assessments. The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use or located within an Agricultural Resource Area. Additionally, the Project site does not have a Williamson Act contract. As such, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with an Agricultural Resource Area or Williamson Act contract, and no impacts would occur.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as define d by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The Project site is currently an unimproved graded parcel, with the exception of an existing one-story building at the northwest corner occupied by De Guelle Glass. The site does not contain forest land and there are no forestland resources in the vicinity of the Project site. It is not designated or zoned as forest land or timberland or used for timberland production. As a result, the Project would not result in impacts on timberland resources.

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As discussed previously, there are no forest or timberland resources on or in the vicinity of the Project site. The proposed Project would not convert forest land to a non -forest use. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses.

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 51 No New Impact. As previously stated, the Project site consists of an unimproved graded parcel, with the exception of an existing one-story building at the northwest corner occupied by De Guelle Glass. The site is not used for agricultural purposes and is not designa ted or zoned for forest land. The proposed Project would not convert farmland to a nonagricultural use or convert forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and the Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding agriculture and forest resources. There have not been 1) changes related development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substanti al changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site undertaken that require major revisions of the previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the seve rity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)

None.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe agriculture and forest resources impacts would result from the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for agriculture and forest resources.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 52 9.3 AIR QUALITY Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?

b) 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)?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?

The discussion below is based on the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis Memo, prepared by EPD Solutions. Inc., which is included as Appendix A.

Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR

The HSSP Final EIR analyzed programmatic impacts from buildout of the HSSP related to air quality in Chapter 4.8. The HSSP Final EIR found that development of individual projects would result in less than significant construction related impacts on air quality with implementation of applicable HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures. The HSSP Final EIR also determined that o ccupancy of residential units on individual sites would result in less than significant long-term increases in stationary source emissions both on and off- site as well as increase in vehicular source emissions . According to the HSSP Final EIR, buildout of the HSSP in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects would contribute to degradation of regional air quality and would result in significant and unavoidable regional operational air quality impacts despite the implementation of applicable HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures.

Development of the HSSP had the potential to expose residents to odors from oil leakage, which was a less than significant impact with implementation of applicable HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None.

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin. In preparation of the AQMP, SCAQMD and Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 53 SCAG use land use designations contained in General Plan document s to forecast, inventory, and allocate regional emissions from land use and development-related sources.

As described in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), a project would conflict with the AQMP if a proposed project would have a development density and vehicle trip generation that is substantially greater than what was anticipated in the General Plan. On the other hand, if a project’s density is consistent with the General Plan, its emissions would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP, and the project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans. In addition, the SCAQMD considers projects consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation.

The HSSP Final EIR found that although implementation of the HSSP would be consistent with the AQMP, buildout of the HSSP in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects would contribute to degradation of regional air quality and would result in significant and unavoidable regional operational air quality impacts despite implementation of applicable mitigation measures.

The current 2016 AQMP (adopted in March 2017) is based on buildout of the land use designations in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan , which designates the site as Commercial Neighborhood -Specific Plan (CN -sp). The HSSP Final EIR assumed that the Project site would be developed as 117,61 2 SF of commercial uses, whereas the Project proposes to construct 35 three-story townhomes.

As further described in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the 35 new residences would result in a 1.21 percent increase in residential units within the City. This limited level of growth would not substantially exceed growth projections and would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP. Furthermore, as shown in Section 5.3b below, the proposed Project would result in net negative vehicle trips and net negative long- term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds.

Likewise, emissions generated by construction of the proposed Project would not exceed thresholds. Thus, although the land use designation on the Project site would change, the emissions generated would be consistent with the AQMP the Project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans.

As described in the analysis below, the emissions from the Project would be less than those anticipated by the HSSP Final EIR, and the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with the AQMP from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

b) 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)? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR found that buildout of the HSSP would result in cumulatively considerable net increases of pollutants during operation, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of applicable mitigation measures. Construction impacts were considered less than significant.

The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in a non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, federal carbon monoxide standards, and state and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. The methodologies from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating Project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ -1. Should Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 54 construction or operation of the proposed Project exceed these thresholds a significant impact could occur; however, if estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant.

Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds
Pollutant Construction
(lbs/day)
Operations
(lbs/day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Source: Regional Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015 (Source: EPD, 2021 (Appendix A).

EPD Solutions prepared an air quality and greenhouse gas analysis for the proposed Project (provided as Appendix A herein). The analysis quantifies the air quality criteria pollutants 7 generated from construction and operation of the proposed Project, using CalEE Mod, and compared them to SCAQMD emissions thresholds. No credit was taken for existing onsite uses. Table AQ-2 provides the assumptions used for the project previously analyzed as part of the HSSP Final EIR (previously approved Project) and the proposed Project:

Table AQ-2: Previously Approved and Proposed Project Data Inputs Metric Previously Approved Project
(Commercial)
Proposed
Project
(Residential)
Size 117,612 Square Feet 35 Dwelling Units
Base Year 2023 2023
Utility Southern California Edison Southern California Edison CalEEMod Land Use Shopping Center Apartments/Townhomes (Low Rise)1 Daily Trip rate (ITE 10th Ed)
Land Use Code 820: Shopping
Center

57.08 (weekday, fitted curve)

83.8 (Saturday, fitted curve)

21.1 (Sunday)
Land Use Code 220: Multifamily
Housing (Low-Rise)

7.32 (weekday)

8.14 (Saturday)

6.28 (Sunday)
Fleet Mix CalEEMod Defaults CalEEMod Defaults
Trip Distances CalEEMod Defaults CalEEMod Defaults
Note 1. ITE trip rate for Apartment (Low Rise) is characterized Low-rise multifamily housing includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have two or three floors (levels).

Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) demolition of the existing structures and removal of the existing infrastructure and pavement, (2) site preparation, (3) grading, (4) bu ilding construction, (5) paving, and (6) architectural coating. The quantity of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring. Construction activities would generate emissions fro m the demolition of the existing 4,200 SF commercial structure and onsite infrastructure. In addition, the Project would generate a

7 Criteria pollutants are the only air pollutants with national air quality standards that define allowable concentrations of t hese substances in ambient air. Criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SOx), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Note that ozone is another criteria pollutant; however, in terms of defining significanc e thresholds, ozone is represented as a threshold by its precursor components, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 55 need for construction worker vehicle trips to and from the project site during the estimated 12 months of construction.

It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle underca rriages before vehicles exit the proposed Project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 is included as PPP AQ-1.

In addition, implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113, which governs the volatile organic compound ( VOC) content in architectural coating, paint, thinners, and solvents is included as PPP AQ-2. As shown in Table AQ- 3, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by demolition of onsite structure and construction of the 35 -unit proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, construction activities would result in a less than significant impact.

Table AQ-3: Regional Construction Emissions Summary
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM-10 PM-2.5
2022
Demolition 1.7 16.8 14.4 0.0 1.1 0.8
Site Prep 1.8 20.2 10.7 0.0 1.7 0.8
Grading 2.3 26.1 10.3 0.0 4.3 2.4
Building Construction 2.1 16.1 17.1 0.0 1.4 0.9
Maximum Daily
Emissions 2.3 26.1 17.1 0.0 4.3 2.4
2023
Building Construction 2.0 14.9 16.9 0.0 1.3 0.8
Paving 1.1 8.6 12.1 0.0 0.6 0.4
Architectural Coating 36.6 1.8 2.7 0.0 0.2 0.1
Maximum Daily
Emissions 36.6 14.9 16.9 0.0 1.3 0.8
Maximum Daily
Emissions 2022-2023 36.6 26.1 17.1 0.0 4.3 2.4
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 and PM2.5 = particular matter; ROG = reactive organic gasses; SOx = sulfur oxides
Source: EPD, 2021 (Appendix A)

As such, potential pollutant emissions from construction of the proposed Project would be less than those analyzed in the HSSP Final EIR.

Operation
Implementation of the 35 residential units would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. However, operational vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the emissions generated from the Project. As discussed above under threshold 3(a), the emissions from the Project would be less than those anticipated by the HSSP Final EIR. As detailed previously, up to 117,612 SF of commercial uses could potentially be developed on the Project site based Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 56 on allowable Commercial designation of the site and associated 1.5 FAR limitation on the 1.80 net -acre site. However, t he proposed P roject includes a General Plan Amendment to change the designation to Residential Medium Density and develop the site with 35 dwelling units. The proposed residential use would generate 6,457 fewer daily trips vehicle trips than the Commercial designation evaluated in the HSSP Final EIR (refer to discussion in Section 5.17, Transportation).

Operational emissions associated with the previously approved Project were modeled using CalEEMod and were compared to those of the proposed Project as presented in Table AQ-4.

Table AQ-4: Net Operational Emission Estimates

Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Total Proposed Project
Operational Emissions 2.1 1.0 11.1 0.0 2.1 0.6
Total Previously
Approved Commercial
Operational Emissions

24.0 19.9 179.0 0.4 39.8 10.8
Total Net Operational
Emissions -21.9 -18.9 -167.9 -0.4 -27.7 -10.2

As shown in Table AQ-4, the proposed Project would result in net negative long-term regional emissions of the criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Furthermore, the Project shall comply with SCAQMD rule 445 (PPP AQ-4) prohibiting use of wood burning fireplaces. Therefore, the Project’s operational emissions would not exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( CAAQS), would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the emissions generated by the proposed Project would be less than those identified by the HSSP Final EIR.

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR found that buildout of the HSSP could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ; however, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of applicable mitigation measures.

The nearest sensitive receptors are existing single-family and multi -family residences located west and southwest of the Project site across Holly Lane, multi-family residences to the southeast across Main Street, and single-family homes across Garfield Avenue to the north of the site. The distance between the Project site boundary and the closest existing residence is 60 feet across Holly Lane, west of the Project site.

The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of locali zed NO 2, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis. The impacts were analyzed pursuant to th e SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. According to the LST Methodology, “off -site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs” (Urban 2019a).

SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM 10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The Project site is located in SRA 18. Sensitive receptors can include uses such as Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 57 long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered sensitive receptors. The nearest LST sensitive receptors to the Project site are the existing residences that are 60 feet to the west of the site.

The localized thresholds for development projects were derived using the SCAQMD Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Threshold 3F
8 and Appendix C of the SCAQMD 2008 Final Localized
Significance Threshold Methodology (SRA 18), as presented in Table AQ-5. The thresholds from SCAQMD are for one-, two-, or five-acre sites, and distances of sensitive receptors for 25 to 500 meters. The cl osest sensitive receptor from the project is a residence 60 feet (20 meters) west of the site ; therefore, the most restrictive (25 meter) thresholds were used.

Table AQ-5: Localized Significance Thresholds
Air Pollutant
Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Construction Operation
NOx 115 115
CO 962 962
PM10 7 2
PM2.5 5 2
Source: SCAQMD 2008: Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology

Construction
Localized Significance Analysis. Construction of the proposed Project may expose nearby residential sensitive receptors to airborne particulates as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). The localized thresholds from the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to 5-acres in size or have a disturbance of less than or equal to 5 acres daily and were used to evaluate LSTs. As shown in Table AQ-6, with implementation of SCAQMD Rules 403 and 1113 (included as PPP AQ -2 and PPP AQ -3), the maximum daily construction emissions from the proposed Project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST thresholds.

Table AQ-6: Localized Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM-10 PM-2.5
2022
Demolition 16.6 14.0 0.9 0.8
Site Prep 20.2 10.4 1.6 0.8
Grading 26.1 9.9 4.2 2.3
Building Construction 15.3 15.2 0.7 0.7
Maximum Daily Emissions 26.1 15.2 4.2 2.3
2023
Building Construction 14.2 15.1 0.6 0.6
Paving 8.6 11.7 0.4 0.4
Architectural Coating 1.7 2.4 0.1 0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions 14.2 15.1 0.6 0.6
Maximum Daily Emission 2022-2023 26.1 15.2 4.2 2.3
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 115 962 7 5
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No

8 SCAQMD Fact Sheet for Applying CalEE Mod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2od-guidance.pdf (aqmd.gov) Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 58 Additionally, potential Project pollutant emission s from construction would be significantly less than those from development of the site pursuant to the HSSP. As such, potential pollutant emissions from construction of the proposed Project would be less than those analyzed in the HSSP Final EIR.

Operation
Localized Significance Analysis. For operational LSTs, onsite passenger car and truck travel emissions were modeled. As shown on Table AQ-7, operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s LST thresholds for any criteria pollutant at the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to localized emissions from operational activities.

Table AQ-7: Localized Net Operational Emission Estimates Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Total Proposed Project Operational
Emissions 0.3 4.5 0.0 0.0
Total Previously Approved
Commercial Operational Emissions 6.3 54.5 0.6 0.2
Total Net Emissions -6.0 -50.0 -0.6 -0.2

CO Hotspots. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, wher e traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.

With the turnover of older vehicles and introduction of cleaner fuels, electric vehicles, and vehicles with stop- start systems (where the engine shuts down when the vehicle is stopped and restarts when the break petal is released), as well as implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin and the state have steadily declined.

The analysis of CO hotspots compares the volume of traffic that has the potential to generate a CO hotspot (exceedance the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm) and the volume of traffic with implementation of the proposed project. In 2003, the SCAQMD estimated that a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix —in order to exceed state stand ards and generate a CO hot spot.

As detailed in Section 5.17, Transportation, shown on Table T -2, the proposed Project would generate net negative 205 vehicle trips (-133 inbound trips and -72 outbound trips) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak ho ur, the Project would generate net negative 593 vehicle trips ( -282 inbound trips and -311 outbound trips). Over a 24 -hour period, the Project is forecast to generate approximately 6,457 fewer daily trips than what was analyzed for the site by the HSSP Final EIR. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour —or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix and would not generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, impacts related to CO hotspots from operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 59 No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the pr oposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the HSSP Final EIR.

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR found that development of individual projects would result in less than significant construction related impacts. The proposed Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. The Project site is not located near existing agricultural uses . Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities. However, any construction odors would be temporary in nature.

Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction, such as odors associated with diesel -powered equipment , materials from demolition activities and asphalt during paving . The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. Project- generated refuse would be stored in covere d containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to implement California Air Resources Board (CARB) Rule 2485 regulations that limit idling to 5 minutes (13 CCR, Chapter 10 Section 2485), which would reduce odors from the smell of truck exhaust. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (PPP AQ -1), which prohibits any persons from discharging air contaminants or other materials that may cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public, to prevent occurrences of public nuisances associated with odors . Therefore, odor impacts associated with the proposed Project’s construction and operations would not b e significant compared to what was previously analyzed and determined in the HSSP Final EIR.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding air quality. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measu res or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 60 Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)

PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. The construction plans and specifications shall state that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such qu antities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

PPP AQ-2: SCAQMD Rule 403. The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.

PPP AQ-3: SCAQMD Rule 1113. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rul e 1113. The Project shall only use “Low -Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113.

PPP AQ-4: SCAQMD Rule 445. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 445. Wood burning stoves and fireplaces shall not be included or used in the new development.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe air quality impacts would result from the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for air quality.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 61 9.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Have 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have 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 Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR analyzed programmatic impacts from buildout of the HSSP related to biological resources in Section 4.12. The HSSP Final EIR noted that onsite impacts include the conversion of then existing open areas into residential and commercial uses would result in the removal of vegetation and the destruction or displacement of wildlife which uses the onsite habitat, including nesting raptors. Offsite impacts included the increased access and encroachment into the wetlands located to the west of the HSSP, which may destroy habitat and disrupt breeding and foraging activities of wildlife. The HSSP Final EIR also concluded that night lighting associated with HSSP buildout may disrupt wildlife activity. Impacts were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures related to wetlands.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 62 a) Have 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur to candidate, sensitive, or special status species.

The Project site is partially developed, completely disturbed, and located within an urban area that does not contain any ornamental landscaping or native habitats. Due to the disturbed status of the site, it does not provide habitat that could be utilized by species listed or candidates for listing by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) , or California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Therefore, no impacts related to nesting birds occur.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological resources. Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the regio n by regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors.

As described above, the Project site is completely disturbed, and partially developed with commercial uses, a gravel parking lot, and does not have ornamental landscaping. No riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities exist on the site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans would result from proposed Project implementation, and no mitigation is required.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, f illing, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological resources.

As described previously, the Project site is completely disturbed and partially developed with urban uses.

No natural hydrologic features or federally protected wetla nds as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur onsite, and the Project site does not meet the Army Corps of Engineers criteria for wetlands and waters of the U.S. (FWS, 2021). Therefore, no direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of a wetland area would occur with development of the Project site.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 63 No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the HSSP Final EIR.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological resources.

The Project site does not contain wildlife habitat and is located within a developed urban area. The proposed Project area is developed and surrounded by urban developed land uses, including roadways. Therefore, no impacts to wildlife corridors would occur.

There is no existing ornamental landscaping or trees on the site that have the potential to provide habitat for nesting migratory birds. Therefore, there is no potential for the proposed Project to impact related to nesting birds, and no impacts would occur.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological resources.

As described previously, the Project site is partially developed and located within an urban area. No biological resources are located on the site. Consistent with the conclusions of the HSSP Final EIR, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological resources within any established Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved type of habitat conservation plan.

The proposed P roject is not located within a within any established Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved type of habitat conservation plan.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 64 Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions i dentified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding biological resources. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availabil ity of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)

PPP BIO-1: The Project shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ( MBTA) (United States Code Title 33, Section 703 et seq.; see also Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code during the avian nesting and breeding season that occurs between February 1 and September 15. The provisions of the MBTA prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe biological resources impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project ; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for biological resources.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 65 9.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?

The discussion below is based on the Cultural Resource Research and Records Check 19006 Holly Lane, Main & Garfield, Huntington Beach, CA, prepared by SRSINC, February 2022, which is included as Appendix B.

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR analyzed impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources in Section 4.11. The HSSP Final EIR noted that there were buildings and structures of historical, cultural, and architectural importance within the HSSP area. The HSSP Final EIR also noted that the Holly Sugar was located at the northeast corner of Garfield and Main (opposite the Project site). The Holly Sugar Refinery became operational in 1911 and remained active for about a decade and then was converted to other uses. The building was destroyed between 1922 and 1986 . The plant was historically noteworthy because of its role in revitalizing the industrial sector in the Huntington Beach economy and because it was the first such plant to be fully electrified.

While the properties within the HSSP area have been extensively altered by prior ground disturbance , oil drilling, and development, the Final HSSP EIR determined that there was the potential for HSSP implementation to affect previously unidentified archaeological resources. Ultimately, the HSSP Final EIR concluded that future development within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with mitigation measures requiring future applicants to retain an archaeologist to determine if any found archaeological deposits are significant. With mitigation, impacts were considered less than significant.

As described by the HSSP Final EIR, there was indication from record searches that there is the potential for burials/human remains to be present within the HSSP area and it is unknown if human remains would be discovered during HSSP implementation. Mitigation was included stating that treatment of burials would be in accordance with a burial strategy, to be developed with input from Native American Tribes . With mitigation, impacts were considered less than significant.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project

Archaeology 1. It is suggested that the research design be prepared by the Principal Investigator selected to perform the work and that it be reviewed by a second consulting archaeologist. This step will help insure the completeness and viability of the research design prior to its implementation. The involvement of a second professional is viewed as an inexpensive means of insuring that no major elements are overlooked.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 66 Archaeology 2. The archaeological deposits within the Holly -Seacliff study area should be subjected to a program of excavation designed to recover sufficient data to fully describe the sites. The following program is recommended:

a. Analysis of the collections made by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Long Beach State University and any community college which has such material. If the collections are properly provenienced and are accompanied by adequate documentation, they should be brought together during this phase and complete analysis performed. Of particular importance during this phase is the recovery of survey date to be used to determine the exact locations of previous excavation efforts.

b. Prior to the beginning of any excavation effort, a burial strategy should be developed by the archaeologist retained to accomplish the excavation members of the Native American community and appropriate City Staff. The strategy should address details of the handling and processing of human remains encountered during excavation, as well as the ultimate disposition of such remains.

c. Completion of test excavations should be made at each of the archaeological deposits. The information gained from the test excavation will guide the following data recovery excavation. The excavations should have two primary goals:
• Definition of site boundaries and depth.
• Determination of the significance of the site and its degree of preservation.

d. A statistically valid sample of site material should be excavated. The d ata recovery excavation should be conducted under the provisions of a carefully developed research design. The research questions presented earlier in this report should be incorporated into the research design, other important research questions should be developed from the test excavation data included, and a statement of methodology to be observed must be included.

e. A qualified observer appointed by the Principal Investigator/Archaeologist should monitor grading of the archaeological sites to recover important material which might appear. The monitor will be assigned by the Principal Investigator. This activity may require some minor delay or redirecting of grading while material is being recovered. The observer should be prepared to recover material as rapidly as is consistent with good archaeological practice. Monitoring should be on a full time basis when grading is taking place on or near an archaeological deposit. However, the grading should terminate when the cultural deposit has been entirely removed and clearly sterile deposits exposed.

f. All excavation and ground disturbing observation projects should include a Native American Observer. Burials are known to exist at some of the sites, a circumstance which is extremely important to the Native American community.

g. A detailed professional report should be prepared which fully describes the site and its place in pre-history. Reports should receive sufficient distribution which includes the City, the County and the UCLA repository for archeology to insure their availability to future researchers.

h. Arrangements should be made for proper curation of the collections. It is expected that large quantities of materials will be collected during the excavation. Curation should be at an institution which has the proper facilities for storage, display and use by interested scholars and the general public.

Archaeology 3. The shell and lithic scatters should be subjected to test excavation to determine if they are or are not in situ archaeological deposits. If any of the scatters prove to be in situ archaeological material, a site record should be prepared and submitted to the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 67 Angeles, and the site should be treated as in mitigation number one. If the sites are shown to be not archaeological in nature or not in situ, then no further action should be taken.

Archaeology 4. Ground disturbing activity within the study area should be monitored by a qualified observer assigned by the Principal Investigator/Archaeologist to determine if significant historic deposits, (e.g., foundations, trash deposits, privy pits and similar features) have been exposed. The monitoring should be on a full-time basis, but can be terminated when clearly undisturbed geologic formations are exposed.

If such exposures occur, appropriate collections should be made, followed by analysis and report preparation. Historic material may be encountered anywhere within the Holly -Seacliff property, but the area around the old Holly sugar Refinery is probably more sensitive than the balance of the project area.

Historical material recovered at the archaeological sites should be treated with those deposits.

Archaeology 5. The plaque commemorating oil well Huntington A -1 should be preserved. As development in the area continues, it may be desirable to upgrade this feature.

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that implementation of the HSSP would not cause adverse impacts to historic resources, and impacts would be less than significant.

According to the State CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource is defined as something that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requiremen ts of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by the Project’s Lead Agency.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as there are no eligible historical resources on the Project site.

The California Register of Historical Resources defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, Cali fornia, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Based on online resources and other research materials to provide information on historic resources within the HSSP area, the most significant historic resource in the area was the Holly Sugar Refinery at the northeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Main Street opposite the Project site. The Refinery did not extend onto the Project site; however, a 1924 aerial photograph and 1922 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map do indicate that a 10-room boarding house and garage, grocery, and oil well were on the Project site at that tim e. These structures were located where DeGuelle Glass Company is today and no longer exist on the property.

The existing commercial/manufacturing building on the site was built in 1961, is more than 50 years old and, thus was evaluated for its historic status. The building was assessed by an architectural historian and a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) form of 19006 Holly Lane (DeGuelle Glass Co.) was prepared (provided as an attachment to the Cultural Resource Research in Appendix B [SRSINC 2022]). The DPR form determined that the building is not a historical resource pursuant to the California Register of Historical Resources, as follows:

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 68 1) Huntington Beach’s development in the 1960s focused on a) large scale industrial development in aerospace and power generation, b) civic and cultural improvements in the city, and c) fast-growing residential development. None of these key patterns of development in Huntington Beach are reflected in the construction of this structure in 1961. The building has been used for typical commercial/manufacturing uses, which are not of historical significance. Therefore, it is not “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of [Huntington Beach] history.”
2) The building’s ties to the De Guelle family are indirect. The De Guelle Glass Company and its founders have an extensive history in the city. Jim De Guelle and his sons opened the glass company in 1962. In 19 88, Barbara and Mike Haynes joined the business and purchased it from the De Guelle family in 1996. However, the company’s current locale on Holly Lane is not its original location, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that De Guelle Glass has been located at this site for more than 10-15 years. The building does not appear to be “associated with the lives of persons significant” in Huntington Beach’s past.
3) There also are no architecturally important aspects to the building. The building’s current condit ion does not maintain its architectural integrity nor does it “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master…”. Word of mouth suggests that a portion of the building was moved fr om the oil fields to its current location after World War II. However, there is no evidence to support this statement. Furthermore, according to the Secretary of the Interior, buildings or structures removed from their original location lose their historical integrity unless their primary significance is architectural value or strong association with a historic person or event. An unspecified oil field support structure is not associated with an historic person or event.
4) The building has not yielded and does not have the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Additionally, the building is not associated with an individual of local, regional, state, or national historical significance. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to historic resources.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that, impacts to archaeological resources from buildout of the HSSP would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

The Project site has been previously disturbed from past uses that involve oil drilling, grading, and building construction. Because the site has previously been disturbed, there is reduced potential for the Project to impact archeological resources. Howeve r, the Project may result in excavation into the underlying older alluvium where undiscovered archaeological resources could exist, including archeological resources that are also tribal cultural resources. HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures require the retention of an archaeologist for archaeological monitoring if resources are discovered and observance by a Native American monitor .

With implementation of HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource and impacts would be less than significant.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 69 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR noted that impacts relating to the discovery of human remains would be less than significant.

The Project site has been previously disturbed, as described above, and has not been previously used as a cemetery. It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Project would result in the disturbance of human remains. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (included as PPP CUL -1) requires that disturbance of the site shall halt until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative. The Coroner would also be contacted pursuant to Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. In the event the Coroner determines the human remains to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC would then be required to contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who would then serve as a consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98) would reduce potential impacts involv ing disturbance to human remains would be less than significant.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other env ironmental document to evaluate proposed Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding cultural resources. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation m easures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

PPP CUL-1: Should human remains be discovered during Project construction, the Project would be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the body until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Nat ive American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 70 the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe cultural resources impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for cultural resources.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project:

Revisions to existing Final EIR mitigation measures are shown in underline and deletions are show i n strikethrough.

Archaeology 4. Ground disturbing activity within the study area should be monitored by a qualified observer assigned by the Principal Investigator/Archaeologist to determine if significant historic deposits, (e.g. foundations, trash deposits, privy pits and similar features) have been exposed. The monitoring should be on a full-time basis, but can be terminated when clearly undisturbed geologic formations are exposed.

If such exposures occur, appropriate collections should be made, followe d by analysis and report preparation. Historic material may be encountered anywhere within the Holly -Seacliff property, but the area around the old Holly Sugar Refinery is probably more sensitive than the balance of the project area.

Historical material recovered at the archaeological sites should be treated with those deposits.

Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall provide written evidence to the City Planning Division that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the applicant/developer to monitor initial ground disturbing activities to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries and any archaeological requirements (e.g., conditions of approval) that are applicable to the project. The applicant/developer shall conduct a field meeting prior to the start of construction activity with all construction supervisors to train staff to identify potential archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological materials area encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has assessed the discovery and appropriate treatment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is determined.

If discovered archaeological resources are f ound to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and any consulting Native American groups expressing interest following notification by the City, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per C EQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that c onfirmed resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery, reburial/relocation, deposit at a local museum that accepts such resources, or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as a historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resou rce as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 71 9.6 Energy Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

The discussion below is based on the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis Memo, prepared by EPD Solutions. Inc., prepared March 2022, which is included as Appendix A.

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR analyzed energy consumption in Section 4.13. The HSSP Final EIR described that new development within the HSSP would increase demand for electricity and natural gas services. During development of the HSSP , the HSSP Final EIR noted that energy would be consumed by grading, site preparation and construction activities, however, construction related energy impacts were considered less than significant. The HSSP Final EIR ultimately concluded that build out under the Specific Plan would result in a substantial demand for energy that would require expanded supplies, and even with implementation of mitigation, impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None.

a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact.

Construction
During construction of the proposed Project would consume energy in three general forms:

1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off -road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project site, construction worker travel to and from the Project site, as well as delivery truck trips;

2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and

3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Construction activities related to redevelopment of the site with residential uses would be required to comply with existing fuel standards, machinery efficiency standards , and CARB requirements that limit idling of trucks. Through compliance with existing standards, the Project would not result in demand for fuel greater on a per-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. There are no unusual Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 72 Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient compared to other similar construction sites in other parts of the state. In addition, the extent of construction activities that would occur are limited to an approximate 12-month period, and the demand for construction- related electricity and fuels would be limited to that time frame.

Construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable CARB regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy -duty diesel on- and off-road equipment as part of the City’s construction permitting process. In addition, compliance with existing CARB idling restrictions, which is included as PPP E-1, would reduce fuel combustion and energy consumption. The project construction fuel usage over the estimated 12-month construction period would result in the need for 13,696 gallons of diesel fuel, which is summarized in Table E-1.

Table E-1: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage
Activity Equipment No. Hours
per day
Horse-
power
Load
Factor
Days of
Construction
Total
Horsepower-
hours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Demolition
Concrete/Industri
al Saws
1 8 81 0.73 20 9461 0.041907068 396
Rubber Tired
Dozers
1 8 247 0.4 20 15808 0.020601315 326
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
3 8 97 0.37 20 17227 0.019146832 330
Site
Preparation
Crawler Tractors 1 8 212 0.43 3 2188 0.022175849 49
Graders 1 8 187 0.41 3 1840 0.021161331 39
Scrapers 1 8 367 0.48 3 4228 0.024988526 106
Grading
Crawler Tractors 2 8 212 0.43 6 8751 0.022175849 194
Graders 1 8 187 0.41 6 3680 0.021161331 78
Rubber Tired
Dozers
1 8 247 0.4 6 4742 0.020601315 98
Building
Construction
Cranes 1 8 231 0.29 220 117902 0.014895293 1756
Forklifts 2 8 89 0.2 220 62656 0.010444403 654
Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 220 109402 0.046976028 5139
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
1 8 97 0.37 220 63166 0.019146832 1209
Welder 3 8 46 0.45 220 109296 0.026611905 2909
Paving
Cement and
Mortar Mixers
1 8 9 0.56 10 403 0.035533486 14
Pavers 1 8 130 0.42 10 4368 0.021532281 94
Paving Equipment 1 8 132 0.36 10 3802 0.018464524 70
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38 10 4864 0.019836075 96
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
1 8 97 0.37 10 2871 0.019146832 55
Architectural
Coating
Air Compressors 1 8 78 0.48 10 2995 0.027922152 84
Total 13,696

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 73 Table E-2 shows that construction related vehicle usage would use approximately 2,452 gallons of diesel fuel and 6,741 gallons of gasoline to travel to and from the Project site. Tables E-3 shows that a total of approximately 16,148 gallons of diesel fuel and 6,741 gallons of gasoline would be used for construction of the proposed Project.

Table E-2: Estimated Project Vehicle Fuel Usage
Construction
Source Number VMT Fuel Rate Gallons of Diesel
Fuel
Gallons of
Gasoline Fuel
Haul Trucks 19 380 5.85 65 0
Vendor Trucks 14 16,698 8.90 2,387 0
Worker Vehicles 95 176,900 26.24 0 6,741
Total 2,452 6,741

Table 1: Total Construction Fuel Usage
Construction Source Gallons of Diesel Fuel Gallons of Gasoline Fuel Construction Vehicles 2,452 6,741
Off-road Construction
Equipment 13,696 0
Total 16,148 6,741

Construction activities related to redevelopment of the site for new residential uses would be permitted to require compliance with existing fuel standards, machinery efficiency standards, and CARB requirements that limit idling of trucks. Through compliance with existing standards the Project would not result in demand for fuel greater on a per-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. There are no unusual project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State. Therefore, construction-related fuel consumption by the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Once operational, the Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for fuel tanks. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the building, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, parking lot and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity, natural gas, and water to the areas where they would be consumed. This use of energy is typical for urban development, and no operational activities or land uses would occur that would result in extraordinary energy consumption. As detailed in Table E -4, operation of the proposed Project would use approximately 1,168,291 fewer kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year of electricity, approximately 200,622 more thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year of natural gas, and 442,244 fewer gallons of gasoline annually when compared to the previously approved Project.

The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by the City. The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation m easures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy -efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); energy -efficient indoor and ou tdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, Project impacts related to peak Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 74 energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. Thus, operation of the Project would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner, and no operational energy impacts would occur.

Table E-4: Proposed Project Annual Net Operational Energy Requirements Operational Source Energy Usage
Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours)
Proposed Project 140,729
Approved Land Use 1,309,020
Net -1,168,291
Natural Gas (Thousands British Thermal Units)
Proposed 434,670
Previous 234,048
Net 200,622
Petroleum (gasoline) Consumption
Annual VMT Gallons of Gasoline
Fuel
Proposed Project 871,715 33,219
Approved Land Use 12,476,666 475,463
Net -11,604,951 -442,244

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are designed to ensure new and existing buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality.

These measures (Title 24, Part 6) are listed in the California Code of Regulations. The California Energy Commission is responsible for adopting, implementing and updat ing building energy efficiency. Local city and county enforcement agencies have the authority to verify compliance with applicable building codes, including energy efficiency. All development is required to comply with the adopted California Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 6) , which is ensured through the City’s development permitting process included as PPP GHG‐1.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate proposed Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding energy. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 75 HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previou sly identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

PPP GHG‐1: Title 24 Standards. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Manager, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency standards for residential uses require that solar photovoltaic electricity be installed equal to the amount used annually.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe energy impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for energy.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 76 9.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) 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 Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42?

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?

c) 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?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?

The discussion below is based on: Geo technical Investigation and Design Report for Proposed Residential Development Huntington Beach, California, dated November 4, 2020, prepared by Group Delta Consultants and provided as Appendix C.

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to geology and soils in Section 4.3, Earth Resources. The HSSP Final EIR described that HSSP area lies within a region of active faulting and seismicity in Southern California.

The HSSP Final EIR found that development within the HSSP area had the potential to result in groundwater impacts, landslides, liquefaction, and subsidence impacts. However, the HSSP Final EIR found the HSSP area to be suitable for development provided special considerations are given to these constraints in the design and construction of the of individual projects. The HSSP Final EIR also stated that detailed analysis of specific onsite development areas w ould be required as part of future geotechnical investigations and to comply Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 77 with the City of Huntington Beach Code (e.g., California Building Code) prior to the final development plan for the property. After mitigation, pr oject specific impacts associated with local geology, groundwater, seismicity, liquefaction, subsidence, tsunamis and other hazards were considered less than significant.

The HSSP Final EIR found that i mpacts to paleontological resources would be less than sig nificant with implementation of mitigation measures.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project Paleontology 6. A qualified paleontologist should be retained to periodically monitor the site during grading or extensive trenching activities that cut into the San Pedro Sand or the Quaternary marine terrace units.

Paleontology 7. In areas where fossils are abundant, full -time monitoring and salvage effort will be necessary (8 hours per day during grading or trenching activities). In areas where no fossils are being uncovered, the monitoring time can be less than eight hours per day.

Paleontology 8. The paleontologist should be allowed to temporarily divert or direct grading operations to facilitate assessment and salvaging of exposed fossils.

Paleontology 9. Collection and processing of matrix samples through fine screens will be necessary to salvage any microvertebrate remains. If a deposit of microvertebrates is discovered, matrix material can be moved off to one side of the grading area to allow for further screening without delaying the developmental work.

Paleontology 10. All fossils and their contextual stratigraphic data should go to an institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Orange County Natural History Foundation. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. 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?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that buildout of the HSSP would not result in any significant impacts in relation to a rupture of a known earthquake fault.

The Project site is located 0.4 miles northeast of the closest faults and not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Project site does not contain and is not in the vicinity of an earthquake fault . The closest active fault is the Newport Inglewood Connected alt 2 fault located at about 0.6 km (0.4 mile) south of the site. Therefore, the potent ial hazard of ground surface rupture at the site is considered low (Group Delta 2020). Because the Project site is not within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault zone and the site does not include, or adjacent to a fault, impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map are considered less than significant.

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the HSSP Final EIR.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 78 No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements.

The Project site is located within a seismically active region of Southern California. As mentioned previously, the closest earthquake fault is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located approximately 0.4-mile away (Group Delta 2020). Thus, moderate to strong ground shaking can be expected at the site. The amount of motion can vary depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the local geology.

Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an earthquake epicenter, in areas that consist of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium, and in response to an earthquake of great magnitude.

Structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), included in the Municipal Code as Section 8102 .

Compliance with the CBC would ensure earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soils onsite, and the probable strength of the ground motion. Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. Therefore, with CBC compliance, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking more than other developments in Southern California.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant with compliance with the C BC. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine -grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground surface. Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer.

As described in the in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Figure HAZ-3, the Project site is located within a low liquefaction hazard zone ( Huntington Beach 2017). The existing soils at the Project site are generally very stiff to hard sandy clays and silts with no groundwater encountered to the maximum explored depth of approximately 51.5 feet below ground surface. Due to the presence of very stiff to hard clayey soils and the absence of groundwater table, the potential for soil liquefaction at the site is the event of strong ground shaking during an earthquake is very low (Group Delta 2020).

However, the Project would be required to comply with the CBC, as included in the City’s Municipal Code.

Additionally, as required by Municipal Code, the CBC and Final EIR Mitigation Measure Liquefaction 7, the Project must demonstrate compliance with the geotechnical report prepared , including geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Project prior to the issuance of grading permits . Compliance with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code would reduce impacts related to liquefaction.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 79 iv. Landslides?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The Project site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the south. The site is not near any hillsides or slope areas that could result in a landslide. Therefore, no impacts related to landslides would occur from redevelopment of the Project site.

b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. Consistent with the assumptions of the HSSP Final EIR, the proposed Project would involve excavation, grading, and construction activities that would disturb soil and leave exposed soil on the ground surface. As such, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s grading standards and erosion control measures , as verified through the permitting and plan check process. Additionally, the Construction General Permit (CGP; Order No. R8-2002-0011) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), regulat es construction activities to minimize water pollution, including sediment. The proposed Project would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulations, including implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prev ention Plan ( SWPPP) and associated best management practices ( BMPs) during grading and construction , which would be required during construction permitting of the Project. BMPs include, but are not limited to:
• Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies; • Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction;
• Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; • Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and • Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.

Adherence to the BMPs in the SWP PP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from project -related grading and construction activities. After completion of construction, the Project site would be developed with seven new residential buildings, streets, and landscape improvements, and would not contain exposed soil.

Thus, the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be low. In addition, the City of Huntington Beach requires new development projects to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) including Low Impact Development BMPs to reduce the potential of erosion and/or sedimentation through site design and structural treatment control street sweeping private streets and parking lots, storm drain signage, and use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design. Implementation of the WQMP and BMPs is verified through the City’s permitting process . Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to soil erosion.

c) 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 80 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to unstable geologic units and soil would be less than significant with compliance to regulatory requirements.

As described above, the Project site is relatively flat, and does not contain nor is adjacent to any significant slope or hillside area. Furthermore, the Project itself would not create slopes on the site. Thus, on or off-site landslides would not occur from implementation of the Project.

The site is not located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse (Group Delta 2020). The Project site is not within a liquefaction hazard area. Prior to issuance of grading permits, pursuant to the CBC, the Project must comply with the geotechnical report and its recommendations (see PPP GEO-3). The report would provide CBC regulations for the proposed development to reduce the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement to a less than significant level and would be verified by the City through the building plan check and development permitting process, and would reduce potential impacts related to liquefaction, settlement, and ground collapse to a less than significant level.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant with compliance to regulatory requirements. Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or well as the moisture content changes; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with seasonal changes of soil moisture experiences, such as southern California, have a higher potential of expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.

Testing indicated that onsite soils have a low expansion potential. The clay soils encountered in the borings generally have a medium plasticity content. Atterberg limit testing was performed in three soils samples in the upper 20 feet of soil at the Project site to determine the moisture content within onsite soils. Results of this testing indicate that onsite soils above 20 feet are expected to have a low expansion potential (Delta Group 2020).

In addition, as described previously, compliance with the CBC would be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval to ensure that Project structures would withstand the effects related to ground movement, including expansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

e) 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?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts would not occur related to septic tanks.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 81 The proposed Project would connect to existing sewer lines within Holly Lane. No septic tanks are proposed.

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. A paleontological analysis was conducted for the Project site that included a records search through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County’s Vertebrate Paleontology Section, a literature search, a review of geological maps, and impact analyses that are documented in the followin g text.

Geologic mapping shows that the Project site lies in “old paralic deposits undivided (late to middle Pleistocene” (Qop). This means that late to middle Pleistocene deposits laid down on the landward side of a coast, in shallow fresh water subject to marine invasions, underlie the shallow disturbed layer at the surface.

Both freshwater and marine fossils can be preserved in such deposits.

The proposed Project would demolish the existing building and construct new residential buildings on the site.

Earthmoving activities, including grading and trenching activities, would have the potential to disturb previously unknown paleontological resources if earthmoving activities occur at significant depths below previously disturbed soils . However, the proposed Project would implement HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures s Paleontology 6 through Paleontology 10, which require the implementation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Management Plan (PRIMP) and retention of a paleontologist and paleon tological monitoring. With implementation HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures , potential impacts to paleontological resources and unique geologic features would be less than significant.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding geology and soils. There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

GEO‐1 The Project shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Design Parameters or the most current CBC adopted in the City’s Municipal Code.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 82 GEO-2 As required by the current CBC adopted in the City’s Municipal Code, prior to issuance of a grading permit, site preparation shall follow the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation and Design Report for Proposed Residential Development Huntington Beach, California (dated November 4, 2020), prepared by Group Delta Consultants, as well as any additional future site -specific, design -level geotechnical investigations of the Project.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe geology and soils impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for geology and soils.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project:

Revisions combine the requirement of HSSP mitigation measures Paleontology 6 through 10 into one measure.

Revisions are shown in underline and deletions are shown in strikethrough.

Paleontology 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading plan, a A qualified paleontologist should be retained to periodically monitor the site during grading or extensive trenching activities that cut into the San Pedro Sand or the Quaternary marine terrace units. shall prepare a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) for submittal and review by the City. Implementation of the PRIMP will ensure that adverse impacts to potentially significant paleontological resources are mitigated to a level less than significant level. The PRIMP shall comply with the provisions outlined below:

1. Shall comply with Holly-Seacliff Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Paleontology 6 through 10.

2. Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be performed by a qualified paleontolo gist or paleontological monitor. The PRIMP shall stipulate that monitoring will be conducted either full or part time at the determination of the paleontologist, based upon the identification of undisturbed sediments of “old paralic deposits undivided (lat e to middle Pleistocene” (Qop). The Project paleontologist is responsible to periodically visit the property during the initial stages of grading to identify the Pleistocene deposits and direct the initiation of monitoring.

3. Paleontological monitors shall b e equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. The monitor shall notify the Project paleontologist, who will then notify the concerned parties of the discovery. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified pale ontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources.

On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites shall be protected by flagging to prevent them from being over-run by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins. Fossils shall be collected in a similar manner, with notes and photographs being taken before removing the fossils. Precise location of the site shall be determined with the use of handheld GPS units. If the site involves remains from a large terrestrial vertebrate, such as large bone(s) or a mammoth tusk, that is/are too large to be easily removed by a single monitor, a fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find, encase the find within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove it after the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment may be solicited to help remove the jacket to a safe location.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 83 5. Isolated fossils shall be collected by hand, wrapped in paper, and placed in tempo rary collecting flats or five-gallon buckets. Notes shall be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which shall be photographed before it shall be vacated and the fossils are removed to a safe place.

6. Particularly small invertebrate fossils typically represent multiple specimens of a limited number of organisms, and a scientifically suitable sample can be obtained from one to several five -gallon buckets of fossiliferous sediment. If it is possible to dry screen the sediment in the field, a concentrated sample may consist of one or two buckets of material. For vertebrate fossils, the test is usually the observed presence of small pieces of bones within the sediments. If present, as many as 20 to 40 five -gallon buckets of sediment can be collec ted and returned to a separate facility to wet-screen the sediment.

7. In accordance with the “Microfossil Salvage” section of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (2010:7), bulk sampling and screening of fine -grained sedimentary deposits (includ ing carbonate-rich paleosols) must be performed if the deposits are identified to possess indications of producing fossil “microvertebrates” to test the feasibility of the deposit to yield fossil bones and teeth.

8. In the laboratory, individual fossils are cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks are repaired, and the specimen, if needed, is stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72).

9. Recovered specimens are prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation (not display), including screen -washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.

Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time -consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.

10. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Western Science Center or the Orange County Natural History Foun dation) shall be conducted. The paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the lead agency (e.g., the City of Huntington Beach) will be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material.

11. A final report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). The report, when submitted to, and accepted by, the appropriate lead agency, will signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts to any potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affect ed without such a program in place.

12. Decisions regarding the intensity of the MMRP will be made by the Project paleontologist based on the significance of the paleontological resources and their biostratigraphic, biochronologic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, and taxonomic attributes, not upon the ability of a Project proponent to fund the MMRP.

Paleontology 8. The paleontologist should be allowed to temporarily divert or direct grading operations to facilitate assessment and salvaging of exposed fossils. (Satisfied through implementation of revised HSSP Measure Paleontology 6).

Paleontology 9. Collection and processing of matrix samples through fine screens will be n ecessary to salvage any microvertebrate remains. If a deposit of microvertebrates is discovered, matrix material can be moved off to one side of the grading area to allow for further screening without delaying the developmental work.
(Satisfied through implementation of revised HSSP Measure Paleontology 6).

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 84 Paleontology 10. All fossils and their contextual stratigraphic data should go to an institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Orange County Natural History Foundation. (Satisfied through implementation of revised HSSP Measure Paleontology 6).

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 85 9.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR did not evaluate impacts related to generation greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) or as the threshold was not included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G at the time the HSSP Final EIR was written.

While GHGs existed at the time of the HSSP Final EIR, CEQA thresholds went into effect March 2010.

Because at the time the HSSP Final EIR was certified, GHG impacts were known or should have been known, adoption of the requirement to analyze GHG does not constitute significant new information, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR ( Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City o f Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320).

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
The discussion below is based on the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis Memo, prepared by EPD Solutions. Inc., dated March 2022, which is included as Appendix A.

Explanation
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate.

Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change.

Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to hum an activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses.

Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Transportation is responsible for 37 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO2 and N 2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off - Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 86 gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean.

California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO S-03-05, EO S-20- 06 and EO S -01-07. These regulations require the use of alternative energy, such as sol ar power. Solar projects produce electricity with no GHG emissions and assist in offsetting GHG emissions produced by fossil- fuel-fired power plants.

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. Global climate change (GCC) describes alterations in weather features (e.g., temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) that occur across the Earth as a whole. GCC is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global clim ate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact.

The principal GHGs of concern contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulf ur hexafluoride. GHGs are produced by both direct and indirect emissions sources. Direct emissions include consumption of natural gas, heating and cooling of buildings, landscaping activities and other equipment used directly by land uses. Indirect emissio ns include the consumption of fossil fuels for vehicle trips, electricity generation, water usage, and solid waste disposal.

The large majority of GHG emissions generated from residential projects are related to vehicle trips.

The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions; however, the SCAQMD has proposed interim numeric GHG significance thresholds that are based on capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from development, which is 3,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year (SCAQMD 2008). This approach is widely used by cities in the South Coast Air Basin, including the City of Huntington Beach. As such, this threshold is utilized herein to determine if GHG emissions from this Project would be significant.

During construction, temporary sources of GHG emissions include construction equipment and workers’ commutes to and from the site. The combustion of fossil -based fuels creates GHGs such as CO 2, CH4, and N2O. As shown on Table GHG -1, the Project has the potential to generate a total of approximately 17 MTCO2e per year from construction emissions amortized over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology. During operations, the proposed residences would generate long-term GHG emissions from vehicular trips; water, natural gas, and electricity consumption; and solid waste generation. Natural gas use results in the emission of two GHGs: CH 4 (the major component of natural gas) and CO 2 (from the combustion of natural gas).

Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combusting fossil fuel.

Table GHG-1 shows the increase in operational GHG emissions that would result from operation of the 35 residential townhomes. The large majority of GHG emissions generated from the residences would be from vehicle trips. As shown in Table GHG-1, the Project would generate approximately 372 MTCO2e per year, which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 87 Table GHG-1: Proposed Project Total GHG Emissions
Activity
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Proposed Operational Emissions
Area 1
Energy 48
Mobile 290
Waste 8
Water 13
Total Operational Emissions 360
Total Construction Emissions 365
Emissions (amortized over 30
years)
12 Total Emissions 372
Significance Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No

Table GHG-2 shows the change in operational GHG emissions that would result from operation of the 35 residential townhomes compared to 117,612 SF of commercial uses on the 1.80 net-acre Project site.

Table GHG-2: Proposed Project Net GHG Emissions
Activity
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Project Net Operational Emissions
Total Proposed
Project Emissions
372
Total
Previously Approved
Emissions
4,572
Total Net Emissions -4,200

As seen in Table GHG-2, the net change in GHG emissions from implementation of the proposed Project is estimated to be negative 4,200 MTCO 2e. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in fewer MTCO 2e than the previously approved Project. In addition, the proposed Project would emit less than the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e, and therefore, would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 88 The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. As described in the previous response, the Project would not exceed thresholds related to GHG emissions. In addition, the Project would comply with regulations imposed by the state and the SCAQMD that reduce GHG emissions, as described below:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) is applicable to the Project because many of the GHG reduction measures outlined in AB 32 (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, advanced clean car standards, and cap -and-trade) have been adopted over the last 5 years and implementation activities are ongoing. The proposed building would not conflict with fuel and car standards or cap- and-trade.
• Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493) establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new (model year 2009-2016) passenger cars and light trucks. The Project would develop new residences that would not conflict with fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (Title 24) establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction that address the energy efficiency of new (and altered) buildings. The Project is required to comply with Title 24, which would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process.
• Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard [LCFS]) requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10 percent less by 2020. Because the LCFS applies to any transportation fuel that is sold or supplied in California, all vehicle trips generated by the Project would comply with LCFS.
• California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) provides requirements to ensure water efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. The Project is required to comply with AB 1881 landscaping requirements, which would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process. • Emissions from vehicles, which are a main source of operational GHG emissions, would be reduced through implementation of federal and state fuel and air quality emissions requirements that are implemented by CARB. In addition, as described in the previous response, the Project would not result in an exceedance of an air quality standard.

The regulations, plans, and polices adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that are directly applicable to the Project include the latest Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings ( PPP GHG-1) and the Title 24 Californ ia Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (PPP GHG-2). The Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Standard at the time of building permit issuance.

Furthermore, t he City of Huntington Beach adopted their Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (City of Huntington Beach General Plan Volume III – Appendix G GHG Reduction Program, October 2017) to reduce GHG emissions. The City’s General Plan Policy ERC-5A sets goals to reduce community wide greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and reduce GHG emissions by 55.33 percent below the 2020 target by 2040. Table 5 -1 in the GHG Reduction Program summarizes the proposed reduction strategies and implementation actions to meet the goals set by Policy ERC -5A. Below are the policies that apply to the proposed project:

• LU-1 Improved pedestrian network
o The project proposes to construct new sidewalks along Holly Lane, connecting the residences to the existing community sidewalk network
• LU-2 Inclusionary housing units
o The proposed multifamily project provides 15% of the total units as units affordable to moderate income households.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 89 • T-1 Bike ridership
o The project includes 10 short-term bike parking spaces, encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation.
• T-3 Increased transit ridership
o The project is located 0.54 miles from Beach Boulevard, a high quality transit corridor. • F-2 Electric vehicles
o The project will be built to allow EV charging onsite garages. • RE-1 Residential solar
o The project will be buil t in compliance with the Solar Ready Requirements of the 2019 Energy Code.

As described above, the project is consistent with the goals and strategies set by the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. In addition, emissions would not exceed the thresholds set by SCAQMD . Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding greenhouse gas emissions. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substa ntial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the se verity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guideline s 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

PPP GHG‐2: CALGreen Standards. Projects shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR 11). The Building Manager, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 90 Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe greenhouse gas emissions impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures with respect to greenhouse gas emissions impacts are required.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 91 9.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?

b) 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?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?

d) 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 publ ic or
the environment?

e) 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?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures , either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

Revisions to this Section of the Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR made in May 2022 are show in underline for additions and strikethrough for deletions.

The discussion below is based on Phase I, Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, and Addendum to Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report 2022, both all prepared by Carlin Environmental Consulting, Inc. and provided as Appendix D.

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project The HSSP Final EIR describes that the site contains areas of oil contamination that would require site specific evaluation to determine the precise type, location, and method of clean up to be utilized. The evaluation will include methane gas. The HSSP Final EIR determined that with proper institution of mitigation measures, the Project would have a positive impact on the existing condition due to the removal of contamination. The HSSP Final EIR also determined that mitigation related to methane gas would reduce impacts to a less than Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 92 significant level. The HSSP Final EIR also describes that mitigation related to operating wells would reduce potential impacts related to fire and explosion to a less than significant level. The Final EIR determined the storage and use of hazardous materials is a normal part of industrial operations, and impacts would not be significant with adherence to existing regulations. The HSSP Final EIR includes 10 mitigation measures. Those of which are applicable to the Project are listed in the mitigation discussion below.

Existing Conditions
The Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments describe that there are four abandoned wells on the Project site, as well as associated infrastructure. The oil infrastructure onsite consists of an existing 6-inch crude oil transmission pipeline, approximately 5’-1” to 5’-8” below existing surface, within a 10-foot easement that runs across the center of the project site, operated by Crimson Pipeline, LLC . Two of the wells: CWC #51 (API 0405901594) and Republic #4 (API 04045901698) require re-abandonment pursuant to current State of California Geological Energy Management Division (CalGEM) standards. Testing has confirmed that well Republic #4 is not leaking but requires re-abandonment as it was not abandoned pursuant to existing CalGEM standards. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment identified h igh concentrations of methane close to well CWC #51 and determined that well CWC #51 is most likely leaking . This well requires re- abandonment pursuant to CalGEM standards that would include leak repair. The other two wells on the site (MK #37 [API 0405902444] and MK #7 [0405902396] have been abandoned in compliance with CalGEM and City Specification 422. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment confirmed that these two wells are not leaking, and no additional work is required.

The Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments also describes that four oil tanks, piping, and other oil related facilities were previously used on the site. As detailed in the Addendum to the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, part of testing onsite included identification and location of a pipeline vault, and sampling a location in close proximity to this feature , as well as investigation of sample locations on either side of the existing pipeline alignment. Due to the existence of wells and oil infrastructure , t he Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 17.04.170.5503 indicates that the site is within a Methane Overlay District which includes areas that have the potential to produce methane gas due to oil field and/or high organics beneath the site and require installation of methane barriers under the residential structures to preclude methane and soil vapor intrusion.

The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment conducted methane gas testing on the Project site , which found all locations except for one were under the City’s threshold of 5,500 ppmv. The location that exceeded the threshold for methane gas is close to the well that is leaking [CWC #51 (API 0405901594) ], and at approximately the same depth that well heads are typically found. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment also completed soils testing and soil gas testing and determined that soil samples of VOC soil vapor concentrations on the site did not exceed the Huntington Beach City Specification NO. 431-92 Table 2 - Screening Level for Hy drocarbon Remediation - Residential and Recreational Screening standard, but did exceed applicable California Department of Toxic Substances Control ( DTSC) residential soil vapor screening levels. The Phase I and II investigations concluded the there is no indication in the data collected that soil contamination is causing VOC soil vapor, and that the source of VOC could be offsite, or from onsite historical automotive repair operations. The investigations further concluded that significant or extensive soil contamination, including from the existing pipeline , was not detected. The crude oil pipeline was characterized as a potential REC based on the possibility that a leak or other release from the pipeline could happen in the future.

a) Create a significa nt hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 93 to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that regulatory agencies have a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the envi ronment if released into the home, workplace, or environment. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment.

Construction
The proposed construction activities would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking during construction activities. In addition, hazardous materials would routinely be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site.

These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state regulations that are implemented by the City during building permitting for construction activ ities. Construction of the Project would not require the use of acutely hazardous materials. As such, impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is not expected. Therefore, impacts related to use of these materials during construction would be less than significant.

Contaminated Soils. As described previously, the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment completed soils testing and determined that VOC soil vapor concentrations on the site are above applicable DTSC residential soil vapor screening levels but do not exceed the Huntington Beach City Specification NO. 431-92 Table 2 - Screening Level for Hydrocarbon Remediation - Residential and Recreational Screening standard. Thus, the review, additional investigation, and mitigation of soil vapor VOC concentrations above screening levels and evaluations of vapor intrusion potential are not under the purview of the Huntington Beach Fire Department’s soil cleanup standard (City Specification 431-92) and remedial actions to address contamination in soil and soil gas would be done under DTSC oversight. HSSP Final EIR mitigation measure Human Health and Safety 4 has been revised to require that prior to issuance of grading permits, the Proj ect Applicant will have implemented all required site assessment and remedial actions to address contamination in soil and soil gas, as prescribed by the DTSC and would obtain a “No Further Action” letter or other written concurrence from DTSC indicating t he successful completion of remediation activities . In the event that DTSC elects not to oversee remediation activities on the site, the Applicant would seek oversight from the Orange County Health Care Agency or the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and demonstrate compliance with applicable residential soil vapor screening levels. As required by City Specification 429, Methane Mitigation Requirements, and City Specification 431 -92, the written documentation will be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department for approval.

The Project includes excavation and recompaction of a minimum of three feet of onsite soils. This process would expose indication of any areas of currently unknown soil contamination. In the case that currently unknown areas of contaminated soils are uncov ered during excavation and grading activities, existing federal, state, and City regulations related to hazardous materials and construction include procedures to follow. Excavated soil containing hazardous substances and hazardous building materials would be classified as a hazardous waste if they exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3). State and federal regulations related to hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act that is implemented by California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA), and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Additionally, the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the RWQCB specifically address management of hazardous materials and waste handling in their adopted regulations (CCR, Title 14 and CCR, Title 27).

Should any indication of soil contamination be identified during construction, the contamination would be required to be investigated and remediated in compliance with CalGEM standards (which incorporate federal and state regulations) that are implemented through City Specification 429, Methane Mitigation Requirements, and City Specification 431-92, Soil Quality Standards (included as PPP HAZ-2 and PPP HAZ- 3).

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 94 Thus, compliance with existing regulations and existing HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures, as revised, would ensure that impacts related to upset or accident conditions involving the release of contaminated soils into the environment would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project involves operation of new single -family residences, which involve routinely using haza rdous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, operation of the Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less than significant.

b) 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? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact.

Construction

Accidental Releases. The routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable regulations during construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant impacts. To avoid an impact related to an accidental release, the use of best management practices (BMPs) during construction are implemented as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (and included as P PP HWQ-1). Implementation of an SWPPP would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the environment. Construction contract specifications would include strict on-site handling rules and BMPs that include, but are not limited to:
• Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies; • Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal o f chemical products used in construction;
• Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; • Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and • Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.

Pipeline. The existing oil pipeline is 6” in diameter, and its existing depth is approximately 5’-1” to 5’-8” below existing surface and is under the jurisdiction CALFIRE Office of the State Fire Marshal Pipeline Safety Division. Upon Pro ject completion, the pipeline would be in the range of 4 ’-4” to 5’-3” below proposed surface and would remain in its current location under the proposed internal roadway connecting Holly Street and Main Street, as shown in Figure 3-9, Existing Oil Line Location. During construction, the Project Applicant will be required to coordinate with the pipeline operator and to comply with California State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin 03 -001, Encroachments into or on Pipeline Easements (included as PPP HAZ - 4), which states that nothing shall encroach into or upon the pipeline easement, which would imp ede the pipeline operator from complete and unobstructed surface access along the pipeline right of way and that it is the responsibility of the pipeline operator to ensure they have unimpeded surface access and to be able to Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 95 physically observe all portions of their pipeline rights of way. The pipeline operator, Crimson Pipeline L.P., has reviewed the Project plans and has provided construction requirements in proximity to the operational pipeline. To ensure accidental release of hazardous materials would not occur during construction Mitigation Measure Human Health and Safety 4 has been modified to clarify that, prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits, the Applicant shall coordinate with oil pipeline operator (Crimson Pipeline, L.P.) and the State Fire Marshall's Office Pipeline Safety Division and shall demonstrate to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department that a construction plan is in place to ensure that no damage would occur to the pipeline during construction and to confirm the installation and operation of the fire flow line would not be impacted by the oil pipeline. The mitigation also states that the pipeline operator requires that all excavation in the vicinity of the pipeline be done with hand tools in the presence of the pipeline operators inspector consistent with California State Law requirements and that any damage to the pipeline shall be reported immediately.

The pipeline operator shall perform the necessary repair to ensure the public safety and shall be reimbursed for all repair work necessary to continue with the safe, reliable operation of the pipeline. With implementation of California State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin 03 -001 (included as PPP HAZ-4), and HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measure Human Health and Safety 4, impacts related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment from the pipeline would be less than significant.

Well Re-Abandonment. Two of the wells: CWC #51 (API 0405901594) and Republic #4 (API 04045901698) would be re-abandoned pursuant to DOGGR standards as implemented through City Specification 422. Due to the high concentrations of methane close to well CWC #51 that was identified by the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, the Project assumes that well CWC #51 is leaking and that this well re-abandonment would include the leak repair, which would improve the existing environment of the site. City Specification 422 requires that Project review and permitting with CalGEM and the City’s Fire Department occur to ensure that the wells are abandoned correctly, and that appropriate testing and inspection are completed. With implementation of City Specification 422 (included as PPP HAZ-1), impacts related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment from re-abandonment of the wells would be less than significant.

Contaminated Soils. As described previously, the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment completed soils testing and determined that VOC soil vapor concentrations on the site are above applicable DTSC residential soil vapor screening levels and remedial actions to address contamination in soil and soil gas would be done under DTSC oversight. HSSP Final EIR mitigation measure Human Health and Safety 4 has been revised to require that prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant will have implemented all required site assessment and remedial actions to address contamination in soil and soil gas, as prescribed by the DTSC, and will obtain a “No Further Action” letter or other writte n concurrence from DTSC indicating the successful completion of remediation activities . In the event that DTSC elects not to oversee remediation activities on the site, the Applicant would seek oversight from the Orange County Health Care Agency or the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and demonstrate compliance with applicable residential soil vapor screening levels. As required by City Specification 32 and submit this written documentation to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department fo r approval. The Project includes excavation and recompaction of a minimum of three feet of onsite soils. In the case that previously unknown hazardous materials are uncovered during these grading and excavation activities, existing state and federal regulations that are implemented through City Specification 431 -92, Soil Quality Standards (included as PPP HAZ-3) and existing HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures, as revised, would reduce impacts related to the release of soil contamination into the environment to a less than significant level.

Operation
The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment conducted methane gas testing on the Project site, which found all locations except for one were under the City’s threshold of 5,500 ppmv. The location that exceeded the threshold for methane gas is close to the well that is leaking [CWC #51 (API 0405901594)], and at approximately the same depth that well heads are typically found. Also, the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 17.04.170.5503 indicates that the site is within a Methane Overlay District , and installation of methane barriers under the residential structures is required to preclude methane and soil vapor intrusion.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 96 In compliance with City Specification 429, the Project includes installation of vapor barrier systems under the residential structures.

The vapor barrier system would be designed and installed pursuant to City Specification 429 (included as PPP HAZ -2), which includes testing and installation requirements, and requirements for system review, approval, and inspection by the City Fire Department . As detailed by the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and the Project Description , the methane barrier system will include a vent cone over each oil well, an impermeable membrane capable of precluding methane as well as other potential contaminated soil vapors from migrating into the residential structures, and vent piping through the roof of the residential structures. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts related to methane gas would be less than significant.

Pipeline. As discussed above, the existing oil pipeline is 6” in diameter and upon Project completion, the pipeline would be in the range of 4’ -4” to 5’-3” below proposed surface and would remain in its current location under the proposed internal roadway connecting Holly Street and Main Street, as shown in Figure 3-9, Existing Oil Pipeline Location. The Project has been designed in consultation with the pipeline operator to ensure it is designed in accordance with State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin 03-001 (included as PPP HAZ-4) and to ensure the pipeline operator has unimpeded surface access and would be able to physically observe all portions of their pipeline rights of way. Project design features include but are not limited to:
maintaining a 3-foot minimum cover (and 6-foot maximum cover) for the pipeline; all utilities are required maintain a 6 to 10-foot parallel clearance (depending on the material used for the utility line casing) and 1-foot vertical clearance; utility crossings are required to be as close to 90 degrees/perpendicular and cross below the pipeline; no residential structures are allowed within the easement; and no improvements, structures, or landscaping that prohibit access for maintenance would be allowed on the easement. In addition to the Project’s design, during operation, the Homeowner’s Association would be required to coordinate with the pipeline operator and to comply with California State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin 03 -001, Encroachments into or on Pipeline Easements (included as PPP HAZ- 4), which states that nothing shall encroach into or upon the pipeline easement, which would impede the pipeline operator from complete and unobstructed surface access along the pipeline right of way and that it is the responsibility of the pipeline operator to ensure they have unimpeded surface access and to be able to physically obse rve all portions of their pipeline rights of way. Mitigation Measure Human Health and Safety 4 has been modified to clarify that, prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit , an operational plan has been coordinated with the oil pipeline operator (Crimson Pipeline, L.P.) and the State Fire Marshall's Office Pipeline Safety Division, that demonstrate to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department that the Homeowner’s Association will be informed and the CC&Rs include the allowable and prohibited encroachments into or on the pipeline easement, the contact information for the applicable regulatory agencies ( City and state), and emergency procedures, as well as the contact information and responsibilities of the pipeline operator and all other relevant information to ensure no damage would occur to the pipeline during operation and to protect the health and safety of onsite residents. As stated in PPP HAZ -5: all pipeline operations will comply with all provisions contained in Part 195 (Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Section 31010, et seq., of the California Government Codes, the California Pipeline Safety Act, both as may be amended, as well as other State, federal, and local requirem ents.

Existing State and federal regulations that are implemented through State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin 03-001 (included as PPP HAZ-4) and existing HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures, as revised, would reduce impacts related to the release of acc idental release of hazardous material into the environment during operation of the Project to a less than significant level.

Other operational aspects of the proposed residential Project involve use and storage of common hazardous materials such as paints , solvents, cleaning products, fuels, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides. Normal routine use of typical residential products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 97 No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the HSSP Final EIR.

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to hazardous material use near schools would be less than significant.

The closest school to the Project site is Coastline Christian School, located 0.30-mile southeast of the site. As noted in Sections 5.9(a) an d 5.9(b), the proposed Project is a residential project and is not anticipated to release hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or h andle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school and impacts would be less than significant.

d) 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?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact.

The Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, which included a database search of local, regional, state, and federal databases related to hazardous materials, determined that the Project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site. As described previously, the Project site includes two wells that require re - abandonment, and the site is within a Methane Overlay District . The project includes the installation of methane barriers under the residential structures which would preclude methane and soil vapor intrusion to avoid any significant hazards to the public or environment on the site. Furthermore , the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

e) For a project 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?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. John Wayne International Airport is located approximately 7.4 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project site is not within the John Wayne International Airport land use plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people working on the site and impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 98 No new or substantiall y greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the HSSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the HSSP Final EIR.

f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that the HSSP would not impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of new driveways and connections to existing and proposed infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project would not require closure of Red Hill Avenue or San Juan Street. Any temporary lane closures needed for utility connections or driveway construction would be required to implement appropri ate measures to facilitate vehicle circulation, as included within construction permits. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access or evacuation impacts to a less than significant level.

Operation
Direct access to the Project site would be provided from Holly Lane by one driveway. The Project driveways and internal circulation would be required through the City’s permitting procedures to meet the City’s design standards to ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation. The Project is also required to provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers). The Fire Department and Public Works Department would review the development plans as part of the permitting procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), included as Municipal Code Section 8104. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the HSSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the HSSP Final EIR.

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to wildland fires. The Project site is within an urbanized area surrounded by residences, utility, and commercial uses.

The Project site is not adjacent to any wildland areas. According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not within an area identified as a Fire Hazard Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2022). As a result, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 99 identified in the HSSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the HSSP Final EIR.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hazards and hazardous materials. There have not been 1 ) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require addi tional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

PPP HAZ-1: City Specification 422, Oil Well Abandonment Permit Process. In accordance with this City regulation, the Project plans will include the requirements for oil well abandonment. Pursuant to this requirement, before any oil well abandonment operations are commenced, the State of California Geological Energy Management Division (CalGEM) must be contacted, and the following processes initiated:
• For all sites undergoing development, the owner must complete and submit a Well Review Program Introduction and Application to the CalGEM. At completion of the CalGEM review, a Well Review Letter will be issued to the owner.
• The well operator must submit an application to abandon or re-abandon each oil well to the DOGGR when the well is not abandoned to the current CalGEM standards, or when the well casing will be modified. The CalGEM will then issue a permit that sets forth their agency requirements and conditions.
• The CalGEM Well Review Letter (if applicable) and abandonment permit must be presented to the Huntington Beach Fire Department to obtain a Fire Department permit for well abandonment.

PPP HAZ -2: City Specification 429, Methane Mitigation Requirements . In accordance with t his City regulation, the Project plans and construction permits will implement the requirements for methane gas testing and mitigation systems for new structures. The proposed re sidential st ructures would include methane mitigation systems that will be reviewed and approved by the City of Hunt ington Beach Fire Department during the Project permitting process.

PPP HAZ-3: City Specification 431-92, Soil Quality Standards. In accordance with this City specification, the Project plans and construction permits will implement regulations to assess site soils for the presence of chemical contaminants and to implement the required actions in the event that contamination is identified.

PPP HAZ -4: California State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin 03 -001, Encroachments into or on Pipeline Easements. In accordance with Bulletin 03 -001, during construction, the Project Applicant will be required to coordinate with the pipeline operator (Crimson Pipeline, L.P.) and to comply with California State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin 03 -001, Encroachments into or on Pipeline Easements, which st ates that nothing shall encroach into or upon the pipeline easement, which would impede the pipeline operator from Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 100
complete and unobstructed surface access along the pipeline right of way and that it is the responsibility of the pipeline operator to ensure they have unimpeded surface access and to be able to physically observe all portions of their pipeline rights of way.

PPP HAZ-5: Pipeline Operations. All pipeline operations shall comply with all provisions contained in Part 195 (Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Section 31010, et seq., of the California Government Codes, the California Pipeline Safety Act, both as may be amended, as well as other State, federal, and local requirements.

PPP HWQ -1: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. As listed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

PDF HAZ-1: Well Re-Abandon Onsite Wells. The Project includes re-abandonment of two onsite wells [CWC #51 (API 0405901594) and Republic #4 (API 04045901698) ] pursuant to CalGEM standards as implemented through City Specification 422.

PDF HAZ-2: Methane Barrier Systems. The Project includes design, permit, and install ation of soil vapor barrier systems beneath the residential structures in accordance with City Specification 429. The methane barrier system will include a vent cone over each oil well, an impermeable membrane capable of precluding methane as well as other potential contaminated soil vapors from migrating into the residential structures.

The gravel beneath the membrane shall have perforated vent piping through the roof of the residential structures.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe hazards and hazardous materials impacts would result from the proposed Project; therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for hazards and hazardous materials.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project:

Revisions to existing Final EIR mitigation measures are shown in underline and deletions are show n in strikethrough.

Oil Facilities 2. All new development proposals should be accompanied by:
• A plan which addresses the requirements for abandoned wells. • The abandonment plans for existing wells.
• The operational plans for any remaining wells and facilities.

These plans must satisfy the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the Division of Oil and Gas California Energy Management Division (CalGEM).
(Satisfied through Project plans for well re-abandonment pursuant to CalGEM standards and City Specification 422).

Human Health and Safety 1. Prior to grading and development, a site reconnaissance should be performed including a phased Environmental Site Assessment to evaluate areas where contamination of the surficial soils may have taken place. The environmental assessment should evaluate existing available information pertinent to the site and also undertake a limit ed investigation of possible on -site contamination. Phase I should include:
a. Review of available documents pertinent to the subject site to evaluate current and previous uses. b. Site reconnaissance to evaluate areas where contamination of surficial soils may have taken place.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 101
c. Excavation and testing of oil samples to determine presence of near surface contamination of soil. d. Subsurface exploration to determine presence of sumps on-site. Testing of possible drilling fluids for heavy metals.
e. Completion of soil gas vapor detection excavations located adjacent to the existing on-site wells. f. Testing of air samples for gas vapor, methane gas and sulfur compounds. (Satisfied through completion of the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, included as Appendix D)

Human Health and Safety 2. The actual site characterization and remedial action plan would be developed as part of a later phase. Upon completion of the Environmental Assessment, a Remedial Action Plan can be developed. This plan should address the following items:
a. Treatment of possible crude oil contaminated soils. A possible solution to this condition would be aeration of the contaminated soils to release the volatile gases and then incorporation of the treated soils into the roadway fills (subgrade).
b. Treatment of possible drilling sumps by either on-site disposal of noncontaminated drilling fluids or off-site disposal of contaminated fluids.
c. Treatment of the possibility of the accumulation of methane gas. (Satisfied through completion of the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, included as Appendix D)

Human Health and Safety 3. Prior to development, a thorough site study for the presence of surface and shallow subsurface methane gas should be performed. Any abnormal find ings would require a Remedial Action Plan and further studies to assure sufficient mitigation of the hazardous areas prior to building construction. All structures should have a gas and vapor barrier installed underneath the slabs and foundations. Gas coll ection and ventilation systems should be installed over abandoned wells which are underneath or within ten (10) feet of any structure, and over wells which show evidence of surface emissions of methane gas. Additionally, following construction of structure s, an organic vapor analysis should be conducted and the results evaluated to assure that acceptable air quality is maintained within buildings and residences.
(Satisfied through completion of the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, included as Appendix D, and PDF HAZ-2: Methane Barrier Systems in accordance with City Specification 429)

Human Health and Safety 4. The presence of methane gas on-site should be the subject of future studies that include the following tasks:
a. Drilling of test wells to monitor for subsurface methane deposits and confirm or deny the presence of biogenic methane bearing strata near the surface in the development area. b. Shallow excavation and sampling in areas either known or assumed to be potential drilling mud sumps;
c. Vapor monitoring of shallow vapor probes placed at strategic locations on the site and collection of soil vapor samples;
d. Vapor survey areas adjacent to known abandoned oil wells; e. Laboratory analysis of selected soil samples for metals and soil vapor samples for gases. f. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall have implemented all required site assessment and remedial actions to address residual contamination in soil and soil gas, as prescribed by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and under DTSC oversight. The Project Applicant shall obtain a “No Further Action” letter or other written concurrence from DTSC indicating the successful completion of remediation activities and submit this written documentation to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department for approval. In the event that DTSC elects not to oversee any Voluntary Cleanup activities on the site, the Applicant will seek oversight from the Orange County Health Care Agency or the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and demonstrate compliance with applicable residential soil vapor screening levels. The Applicant will hire a City-approved consultant to conduct any required site assessments and remedial ac tions to address residual contamination in soil and soil gas on the site in compliance with existing regulations, Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 102
and the City-approved consultant will submit all reports and materials to the appropriate regulatory agency and to the City simultaneous with any submittals to the Applicant. g. Protection of 6-inch crude oil pipeline:
 Prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits, the Applicant shall coordinate with the oil pipeline operator (Crimson Pipeline, L.P.) and the State Fire Marshall's Office Pipeline Safety Division and shall demonstrate to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department that a construction plan is in place to ensure that no damage will occur to the pipeline during construction and to confirm the installation and operation of the fire flow line will not be impacted by the oil pipeline. The pipeline operator requires that all excavation in the vicinity of the pipeline be done with hand tools in the presence of the pipeline operators inspector consistent with California State Law requirements, and that any damage to the pipeline shall be reported immediately. The pipeline operator shall perform the necessary repair to insure the public safety and shall be reimbursed for all repair work necessary to continue with the safe, reliable operation of the pipeline.
 Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit, an operational plan shall be coordinated with the oil pipeline operator (Crimson Pipeline, L.P.) and the State Fire Marshall's Office Pipeline Safety Division, to demonstrate to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department that the Homeowner’s Association will be informed, and the CC&Rs include, the allowable and prohibited encroachments into or on the pipeline easement, the contact information for the applicable regulatory agencies ( City and state), emergency procedures in the event of pipeline damage, as well as the contact information and responsibilities of the pipeline operator and any other relevant information to ensure no damage would occur t o the pipeline during operation and to protect the health and safety of residents.

(Items a-e satisfied through completion of the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, included as Appendix D)

Human Health and Safety 5. Oil wells scheduled for abandonment should be completed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the City of Huntington Beach and the California Division of Oil and Gas California Energy Management Division (CalGEM). Wells which have previously been abandoned must be re-abandoned to the most current requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the Division of Oil and Gas CalGEM.
(Will be s atisfied through completion of PDF HAZ-1: Well Re-Abandon Onsite as implemented through City Specification 422.)

Human Health and Safety 10. Prior to development, a review of available public health records should be performed to evaluate possible public health risk sites in the vicinity of the subject site. (Satisfied through completion of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, included as Appendix D) Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 103

9.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?

b) Substantially de crease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that t he project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area , including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:

i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site;

ii) substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;

iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or

iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
g) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?

h) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

The discussion below is based on Preliminary WQMP prepared by Walden & Associates, dated June 8, 2021, provided as Appendix E.

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to hydrology and water quality in Section 4.4, Hydrology.

According to the HSSP Final EIR, the HSSP area drains as surface flow into natural swales to four primary drainage outlets. As identified, the majority of the HSSP drains as surface flow into natural swales with four primary drainage outlets. The existing closed conduit storm drain facilities within the HSSP are minimal and consist primarily of street undercrossings. The HSSP Final EIR determined that elimination of swales by development could potentially cause drainage impact s; that development of the HSSP would increase the amount of impervious surface which w ould increase drainage runoff ; and that development of the HSSP would i ncrease downstream siltation and contribute to the degradation of water quality. Through Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 104
implementation mitigation measures requiring hydrologic and drainage studies to address project-specific impacts regarding run -off, siltation, water quality, erosion, and downstream conduit systems, resultant impacts were anticipated to be reduced, but had the possibility to remaining significant and unavoidable.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None. Final EIR air quality mitigation measures are regulatory requirements.

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that implementation of the HSSP would have the potential to adversely impact water quality in downstream receiving waters through discharge of runoff that contains various pollutants of concern.

The Project site currently surface drain s in two directions. The site has two tributary areas . The first area surface flows in a northwesterly direction towards Garfield Avenue and then along the southerly edge towards an existing catch basin. The second area surface flows in a southeasterly dir ection towards Main Street and then along the westerly edge to an existing catch basin. The conveyed flow then drains in an easterly direction within an existing storm drain system and eventually discharges to the Huntington Beach Channel. The Project site is currently 93 percent pervious.

Construction
Construction of the Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment, and then have the potential to mix with surface water runoff and degrade water quality. Pollutants of concern during Project construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and transport of sediment downstream compared to existing conditions. During a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. In addition, construction - related pollutants, such as chemicals, liquid and petroleum products (e.g., pa ints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste, could be spilled, leaked, or transported via stormwater runoff into adjacent drainages and into downstream receiving waters.

These types of water quality impacts during construction of the Project w ould be prevented through implementation of a SWPPP, which is required to identify all potential sources of pollution that are reasonably expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site (see PPP HWQ-1 and PPP HWD-4). Construction of the Project would disturb more than one acre of soil; therefore, the proposed project would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (see PPP HWQ-2). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as trenching, stockpiling, or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP that is required to identify all potential sources of pollution that are reasonably expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site. The SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings, stormwater collection and discharge points, general pre - and post -construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways. The SWPPP would also include construction BMPs. The SWPPP would include construction BMPs such as:
• Maximizing the permeable area,
• Incorporating landscaped buffer areas,
• Maximizing canopy interception with drought tolerant landscaping • Installation of Low flow infiltration within sand filter zones • Landscape design to capture and infiltrate runoff
• Conveying roof run-off into treatment control facilities

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 105
With a dherence to the existing requirements and imp lementation of the appropriate BMPs as ensured through the City’s construction permitting process, which would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, potential water quality degradation associ ated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed Project includes the operation of residential uses, which would introduce the potential for pollutants such as, chemicals from cleaners, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles and trucks. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of water quality. However, the proposed Project would be required to incorporate a WQMP with post-construction (or permanent) Low Impact Development (LID) site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs (see PPP HWQ -3). T he LID site design would minimize impervious surfaces and provide infiltration of runoff into landscaped areas.

The source control BMPs would minimize the introduction of pollutants that may result in water quality impacts; and treatment control BMPs that would treat stormwater runoff. The proposed Project would install an onsite storm drain system that would convey runoff to a modular wetlands system. This system would remove coarse sediment, trash, and pollutants (i.e., sediments, nutrients, heavy metal s, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria, and pesticides). Under proposed conditions the site would be 21 percent pervious , and the entire site would drain to an onsite storm drain system that would outlet to a modular wetland system treatment unit. The flow after treatment would be directed to the public storm drain system within Garfield Avenue via a storm drain line with a new connection point. It would then be conveyed from the public storm drain system along Garfield Avenue and continue east and then south along Delaware and ultimately the Huntington Beach Channel (D01).

With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that are outlined in the Preliminary WQMP prepared by Walden & Associates (Appendix E herein) that would be reviewed and approved by the City during the permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the im pacts identified in the HSSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the HSSP Final EIR.

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. Redevelopment of the Project site would increase the impervious surfaces o n the site from 7 percent to 79 percent of the site.

The Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), underlies the northwestern section of Orange County within the lower Santa Ana River watershed. OCWD recharge basins are located in and adjacent to the Santa Ana River, Carbon Creek, and Santiago Creek, in the cities of Anaheim and Orange. No recharge basins are located within the City of Huntington Beach or near the Project site. The refore, the proposed Project would not interfere with the groundwater recharge activities of the OCWD.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 106
Excavation activities would not extend into the underlying groundwater (depth of groundwater was not encountered at 51 feet) at the site, which has a historical high depth to groundwater at approximately 30 feet below ground surface at the site, and dewatering would not be required as part of Project construction.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Impac ts would be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirement as identified above, and no mitigation is required. As a result, the proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge ; and the Project would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Th us, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

c) Substantially alter 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:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to runoff increase s would be less than significant.

Construction
As described previously, existing City regulations require the Project to implement a SWPPP during construction activities, which would outline erosion control BMPs, such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding, that would be implemented during construction to reduce the potential for siltation or erosion. With adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the appropriate BMPs as ensured through the City’s construction permitting process, potential erosion and siltation onsite or offsite associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed Project would introduce additional impervious surfaces to the site. The pervious surfaces remaining on the site would be landscaped and would not generate soils that could erode. There would be no substantial areas of bare or disturbed soil onsite subject to erosion. In addition, the proposed drainage infrastructure would slow and retain stormwater, which would also limit the potential for erosion or siltation.

Finally, the Project is required by the City to implement a WQMP that would provide operational BMPs to ensure that operation of the industrial warehouse would not result in erosion or siltation. As a result, stormwater runoff and the potential for erosion and siltation would not increase with implementation of the proposed Project. With implementation of these regulations, impacts related to erosion or siltation onsite or off-site would be less than significant.

No new or s ubstantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the HSSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the HSSP Final EIR.

ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 107
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to runoff increases would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 5.10(a) above, during construction, a SWPPP would be implemented to control drainage and maintain drainage patterns across the proposed Project. Also, as discussed in the Preliminary WQMP prepared for the proposed Project (see Appendix A), drainage runoff from the Project site would be adequately handled by the proposed Project’s drainage system. The Project would include onsite storm drain lines to convey onsite runoff to biofiltration chambers to provide the appropriate design capture volume, and the Project would not result in flooding on - or off-site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to runoff increases would be less than significant. See response to Section 5.10(c)(ii), above.

Existing regulation require an onsite storm drain system that would accommodate 100- year flood flows, in accordance with Chapter 255 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Orange County Hydrology Manual, and other City specifications (see PPP HWQ-5). Redevelopment of the Project site would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.

iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to runoff increases would be less than significant.

According to FEMA’s FIRM Flood Map 06056C0261J, the Project site is classified as Zone X, which includes areas with a minimal or 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impede, or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant.

No new or substantially great er impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the HSSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the HSSP Final EIR.

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 108
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to flood hazard, tsunami, and seiche zones would be less than significant.

As discussed in Response 5.10(c)(iv), the Project site is not within a flood hazard area. Additionally, proper storage requirements for hazardous materials, such as fuels and oils, would be followed in order to limit the risk of release of pollutants due to site inundation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to inundation in a flood hazard zone. Also, the Project site is located over 1.6 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and is not located within a tsunami zone. Thus, impacts related to tsunamis would not occur.

A seiche is the sloshing of a closed body of water from earthquake shaking. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water . However, there is no large body of water upstream of the site that may be subject to seiche and that could result in potential flooding on the Project site. Therefore, impacts related to seiche would not occur.

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

As described previously, the Project would be required to have an approved SWPPP, which would include construction BMPs to minimize the potential for construction related sources of pollution. For operations, the proposed Project would be required to implement source control BMPs to mi nimize the introduction of pollutants; and treatment control BMPs to treat runoff. With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that would be required by the City during the permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

There are no groundwater wells on the Project site, and no wells are proposed as part of the Pr oject. As discussed in Checklist Response threshold 5.10a, the proposed Project would not involve direct withdrawals of groundwater, nor would it interfere with groundwater recharge such that it would result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table levels. Excavation activities would not extend into the underlying groundwater due to its depth at 30 to 51 feet below ground surface. The Project site is also within the coastal plain/Orange County Groundwater Basin (UWMP 2020). Groundwater production in fiscal year 2019-20 was expected to be approximately 325,000 acre-feet, but declined to 286,550 acre- feet primarily due to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances impacting wells requiring them to being turned off around February 2020 (UWMP 2020). However, according to the 2020 UWMP groundwater levels are expected to return to normal soon, as treatment systems are constructed. Because pumping in the groundwater basin is managed, which limits the allowable withdrawal of wa ter from the basin by water purveyors, and the Project does not involve groundwater pumping (as water supplies would be provided by the City)., impacts would be less than significant. As detailed in Section 5.19b, Utilities and Service Systems, and as anticipated in the HSSP Final EIR, the demand for water supplies is expected to be met by the City’s available water supply . Additionally, according to the Municipal Water District of Orange County’s (MWDOC) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, increased demands from further development in Orange Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 109
County are expected to be met by existing water supplies. Overall, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a groundwater management plan, and no impacts would occur.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and no new substantial environmental impacts would occur in comparison to the HSSP Final EIR.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exis t regarding hydrology and water quality. There have not been 1) changes related to the development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substan tial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

PPP HWQ ‐1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with California’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing in a manner meeting the satisfaction of the City’s Department of Public Works. Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during all phases of construction. A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the construction site and be available for State and City review on request.

PPP HWQ ‐2 General Waste Discharge Requirements. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, if construction dewatering or discharges from other specific activities (e.g., dewatering from subterranean seepage, potable water system maintenance discharges, fire hydrant flushing, etc.) are required, the Project Applicant shall notify the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and any discharges into surface waters shall be conducted in compliance with the S anta Ana RWQCB’s Order No. R8 -2015-0004 (NPDES No. CAG998001), which includes General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for discharges to surface water that pose an insignificant (de minimis) threat to water quality. The General WDRs include provisions mandating notification, testing, and reporting of dewatering and testing-related discharges, and contain numeric and performance-based effluent limits depending upon the type of discharge.

PPP HWQ‐3 Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, the final Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Pra ctices (BMPs) that address Pollutants of Concern. The WQMP shall comply with the requirements of the Orange County MS4 Permit, the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), Model WQMP, and Technical Guidance Manual, and the City’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP), Citywide Urban Runoff Management Plan (CURMP), Project WQMP Preparation Guidance Manual, and pertinent regulations in the Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 110
Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works Department the following:
• All structural BMPs described in the Project’s approved WQMP have been implemented, constructed, and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications; • Demonstrate that the Project Applicant has complied with all nonstructural BMPs described in the Project’s WQMP;
• Provide certifications from the Engineer of Record or Landscape Architect that the LID BMPs and treatment control BMPs were constructed and installed per the approved plans and specifications; • Copies of the Project’s approved WQMP (with attached O&M Plan and Educational Materials) are available for each of the initial occupants and tenants of the Project; and • The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) includes pertinent BMPs in the approved WQMP and O&M Plan.

PPP HWQ‐4 Grading and Erosion Control Plans. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit for review and approval by the City’s Public Works D epartment, the grading and erosion control plans for the Project. The plans shall demonstrate that proposed grading and excavation activities on the site shall include the installation of permanent and semipermanent erosion control measures in compliance with pertinent requirements of the City’s Grading and Excavation Code, as contained in Chapter 17.05 of the Municipal Code.

PPP HWQ-5 Storm Drainage Plan. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, the storm drainage plan for the Project. The plan shall include the installation of an on -site storm drain system that would accommodate 100- year flood flows, in accordance with Chapter 255 of the Cit y’s Municipal Code, the Orange County Hydrology Manual, and other City specifications. In addition, the Project Applicant shall pay the applicable fees for the City’s local drainage fund in accordance with Chapter 14.48 of the Municipal Code. Prior to the approval of final inspection, the on-site storm drain system shall be constructed, or provide evidence of financial security (such as bonding), in a manner meeting the approval of the City’s Public Works Department.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe hydrology and water quality impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for hydrology and water quality.

Holly Triangle Townhomes
Figure 3-9a
Oil Pipeline Location
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

112

This page intentionally left blank.

Holly Triangle Townhomes
Figure 3-9b
Oil Pipeline Location
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

114

This page intentionally left blank.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 115

9.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final HSSP EIR
The HSSP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to land use on in Section 4.1, Land Use and determined impacts would be less than significant with mitigation

The HSSP Final EIR, which was a General Plan Amendment EIR, described that the land use plan provides for the ultimate development of the 768-acre Holly-Seacliff Area. In contrast to the existing General Plan, the HSSP provides an overall plan for the entire area , which results in a consistent, coordinated approach to development of the area. The HSSP plan had fewer total units than the existing General Plan, decreasing the maximum planned number of residential units from the 5,848 allowed by the then present General Plan and zoning, to a total of 4,410 dwelling units. The HSSP plan increased acreage for residential development, but reduced acreage for high density residential development.

The HSSP Final EIR determined that significant cumulative impacts would result because the HSSP would result in the conversion of 768 acres of land to urban uses that are at a much greater degree of development than what was existing under the General Plan. Although this HSSP proposed 1,438 units fewer than with the then existing General Plan buildout, th e project represent ed a greater degree of development than what currently existed onsite at the time.

The HSSP Final EIR determined that d evelopment of the project may result in less than significant impacts from oil service vehicles driving through proposed residential developments . Development of the project would impact the goals of the Housing Element by reducing the housing stock by 25 percent. Grading activities or development on-site could disrupt or destroy on-site natural swales. This would be inconsistent with goals stated in the Open Space/Conservation Element.

The HSSP Final EIR determined that d evelopment of the project may result in short -term compatibility, less than significant impacts, from new residential communities adjacent to old industrial areas.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project

Land Use 2. All potential buyers and renters of on-site residences should be notified of the affects resulting from on-site and off-site oil production activities. The notification should state the frequency and locations of maintenance and service operations. The notification should indicate that noise levels from oil activities may also significantly increase during these times.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 116

a) Physically divide an established community?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As stated previously, the Project site is currently developed with a commercial/manufacturing building with the remaining portion of the site used as a car storage lot. The proposed Project would develop the site with a residential community consisting of 35 townhome units. No residential uses currently occur on the site that would be impacted or divided by development of the proposed Project.

The Project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, south, east, and west. The proposed Project would be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the Project would not divide or disrupt the physical arrangement of the existing adjacent residential neighborhoods and would serve as an extension of existing residential area. Furthermore, access to the site would be provided by driveways off existing roadways, including the singular Project access point on Holly Lane and an emergency-vehicle- access-only driveway on Main Street. Thus, impacts related to physically dividing an established community would not occur from the proposed Project.

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consiste nt with the impacts identified in the HSSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the HSSP Final EIR.

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. With respect to regional planning, SCAG is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial counties. As the designated MPO, the federal government mandates SCAG to prepare plans for growth management, transportation, air quality, and hazardous waste management. In addition, SCAG reviews projects of regional significance for consistency with the existing regional plans. SCAG’s regional planning programs, including the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and RTP/SCS, are not directly applicable to the proposed Project because the P roject is not of Statewide, regional, or area -wide significance, as defined by Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, the Project would contribute to new housing development in the City of Huntington Beach, and thus contributes to the City’s RHNA housing goal of 13,368 new dwelling units between 2021 and 2029. Local plans and programs relevant to the Project and the consistency of the proposed Project with these plans and programs are discussed below.

The City of Huntington Beach General Plan, comprehensively updated in 2017, is the primary planning and policy document of the City of Huntington Beach. It provides the regulatory framework for the use and management of the City’s resources and articulates policies related to public and private lan d use, design guidelines for development and open spaces, housing conservation and new residential development, public services and infrastructure, natural resources, economic resources, and policies to guard against natural and manmade hazards. The City’s General Plan consists of nine elements including Land Use, Circulation, Environmental Resources and Conservation, Natural and Environmental Hazards, Noise, Public Services and Infrastructure, Historic and Cultur al Resources, Housing, and Coastal. The Coas tal Element of the General Plan serves as the Land Use Plan for the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and establishes detailed land use policies within the Coastal Zone. However, it should be noted that the Project site is not within the City’s Coastal Zone. An evaluation of the Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan is provide in Table LU-1.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 117

Table LU-1: Project Consistency with General Plan
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Land Use Element
Goal LU‐1. New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community. Goal LU ‐1. New commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community.

LU‐A: Ensure that development is consistent with the
land use designations presented in the Land Use
Map, including density, intensity, and use standards
applicable to each land use designation.

Consistent. Although the proposed Project is not
consistent with the existing General Plan land use
and Zoning designations for the site, as part of the
discretionary actions, a General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change are proposed that would render
the proposed Project consistent with the plans.

LU‐B: Ensure new development supports the
protection and maintenance of environmental and
open space resources.

Consistent. Although the Project does not include an
active park within the site, the Applicant would
contribute to the City’s park in -lieu fees. There are
also passive open space areas provided onsite. This
area would be planted with turf and vertical trees
at its perimeters. No conflict with this policy w ould
occur.

LU‐C: Support infill development, consolidation of
parcels, and adaptive reuse of existing buildings.

Consistent. The proposed Project is an in -fill
development on a site that is currently partially
developed with a commercial/manufacturing
building. The building is not historically significant, as discussed in Section 5.3, and the component of
the policy pertaining to adaptive reuse of existing
buildings is not applicable, as the existing building
and associated site uses would be demolished to
accommodate the Project. No conflict with this policy
would occur.

LU‐D: Ensure that new development projects are of
compatible proportion, scale, and character to
complement adjoining uses.

Consistent. As described in detail in Section 5.1, the
proposed Project involves development of a 35-unit
townhome residential development community
surrounded by single- family residential cul-de-sac
streets to the north and multi -family to the south,
east and west. The proposed Project would be
compatible with the adjacent residential
communities. Further, the proposed Project aims at
creating an aesthetically cohesive and high- quality
development that compliments the area. No conflict
with this policy would occur.

Goal LU‐2: New development preserves and enhances a distinct Surf City identity, culture, and character in neighborhoods, corridors, and centers.

LU‐A: Ensure that future development and reuse
projects are consistent with the Land Use Map to
provide connections between existing
neighborhoods and city attractions.

Consistent. Please refer to the discussion above,
under LU-1D. In light of that analysis, no conflict
with this policy would occur.

LU‐B: Improve trail, bicycle pathway, roadway,
sidewalk, and transit connections to new
development and reuse projects.

Consistent. Pedestrian circulation would be
provided via a new sidewalk along Holly Lane and
existing public sidewalks along Garfield Avenue,
and Main Street, which will connect to the Project’s
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 118
LU‐3C: Ensure connections are well maintained and
safe for users.
internal walkways. The Project will protect the
existing sidewalk along project frontage and, if
necessary, repair or reconstruct them along the
Project frontage per the City’s request. The existing
sidewalk system within the Project vicinity provides
direct connectivity to the adjacent existing
residential communities and to public transit (i.e.,
Orange County Transportation Authority ( OCTA)
bus stops on Main and Garfield) . Additionally, the
Project recognizes that the City’s Bikeway Master
Plan considers the needs of bicycle users and aims
to create a complete and safe bicyc le network
throughout the City. Currently Class II bike lanes are
provided along Main Street and Garfield Avenue,
No conflict with these policies would occur.

LU‐C: Distinguish neighborhoods and subareas by
character and appearance and strengthen physical
and visual distinction, architecture, edge and entry
treatment, landscape, streetscape, and other
elements. Evaluate the potential for enhancement of
neighborhood entrances and perimeter walls.

Consistent. The design of the proposed Project
would maintain the informal aesthetic elements of
the existing beach community. A hierarchy of
landscaping, including trees, shrubs, and turf would
be provided to soften edge conditions that would
include thematic masonry, wood and metal
perimeter and yard walls. The pr oposed Project
design would be developed to complement the
architectural style of the overall site and
surrounding area. Both sides of all visible perimeter
walls and fences would be architecturally designed
and treated to complement the surrounding area.

No conflict with this policy would occur.

Goal LU ‐7: Neighborhoods, corridors, and community subareas are well designed, and buildings, enhanced streets, and public spaces contribute to a strong sense of place.

LU‐A: Preserve unique neighborhoods, corridors,
and subareas, and continue to use specific plans to
distinguish districts and neighborhoods by character
and appearance.

LU‐B: Use street trees, signage, landscaping, street
furniture, public art, and other aesthetic elements to
enhance the appearance and identity of subareas,
neighborhoods, corridors, nodes, and public spaces.

Consistent. As discussed under LU-2C and LU-2E, the
proposed Project design would maintain the
informal aesthetic elements of the existing beach
community. A hierarchy of landscaping, including
trees, shrubs, and turf would be provided to soften
edge conditions that would include thematic
masonry yard walls. Enhanced landscape treatment
is provided on all three corners of the Site. The
Project design would be developed to complement
the architectural style of the overall area and
incorporate artistic and aesthetic elements to add
visual interest and enhanced site feature. No
conflicts with this policy would occur.

LU‐F: Encourage undergrou nding of utilities on
approaches to and within the intersection subareas.

Consistent. All new and existing public and private
utility lines and distribution facilities, would be
installed underground, including dry (power and
communications) and wet (water , gas, and sewer)
utilities except for surface -mounted transformers,
pedestal-mounted terminal boxes, meter cabinets,
and other equipment requiring for above ground
installation (see Section 5.19, Utilities and Service
Systems for additional information). No conflict with
this policy would occur.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 119
Circulation Element
Goal CIRC ‐1a: The circulation system supports existing, approved, and planned land uses while maintaining a desired level of service and capacity on streets and at critical intersections.

Goal CIRC‐1c: Through ongoing evaluation of jurisdiction, efficient transportation management provides the highest level of safety, service, and resources.

CIRC‐B: Maintain the following adopted
performance standards for citywide level of service
for traffic -signal-controlled intersections during
peak hours.
a. Locations with specific characteristics
identified as critical intersections: LOS E (ICU to not exceed 1.00)
b. Principal Intersections: LOS D (0.81 –0.90
ICU)
c. Secondary Intersections: LOS C (0.71–0.80
ICU)
Not Applicable.

Automobile delay, as described solely by Level of
Service (LOS) or similar measure of traffic
congestion, is no longer considered a significant
impact under CEQA, except in locations specifically
identified in the Guidelines. (Pub. Resources Code,
§ 21099(b)(2).) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
- Determining the Significance of Transportation
Impacts states that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is
the most appropriate measure of transportation
impacts and provides lead agencies with the
discretion to choose the most appropriate
methodology and thresholds for eval uating VMT.

The signalized intersection of Main Street and
Garfield Avenue operates at a LOS A with and
without the Project, which is in compliance with the
City of Huntington Beach performance standards
and requirements and other pertinent jurisdictions,
as applicable (K2 Traffic Engineering, 2021).

CIRC‐D: Require additional right -of-way and
restrict parking on segments adjacent to principal
intersections to allow for future intersection
improvements and turning movements as needed to
satisfy performance standards.

Consistent. On-street parking is not propo sed. The
Project would comply with the City’s parking
requirements. The on -street parking would not
impact performance standards. No conflict with this
policy would occur.

CIRC‐E: Maintain compliance with the OCTA
Congestion Management Program or any
subsequent replacement program.

Consistent. The Project generates a net -6,457 daily
trips and does not meet the criteria requiring a CMP
analysis. CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis
be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or
more daily trips, o r 1,600 or more daily trips for
projects that directly access the CMP Highway
System. The Project has an access driveway to Holly
Street, which is not part of the CMP. No conflict with
this policy would occur.

CIRC‐F: Require development projects to provide
circulation improvements to achieve stated City
goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent
feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and
neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related
to the project.

Not Applicable.

Automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or
similar measure of traffic congestion, is no longer
considered a significant impact under CEQA,
except in locations specifically identified in the
Guidelines. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099(b)(2) .)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 - Determining
the Significance of Transportation Impacts states
that VMT is the most appropriate measure of
transportation impacts and provides lead agencies
with the discretion to choose the most appropriate
methodology and thresholds for evaluating VMT.

The intersections near the proposed Project
operates at a LOS A and B which is in compliance
with the City of Huntington Beach performance
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 120
standards and requirements and other pertinent
jurisdictions, as applicable (K2 Traffic Engineering,
2021).

CIRC‐G: Limit driveway access points, require
driveways to be wide enough to accommodate
traffic flow from and to arterial roadways, and
establish mechanisms to consolidate driveways
where feasible and necessary to minimize impa cts
to the smooth, efficient, and controlled flow of
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

The proposed circulation design would avoid
pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. The Project
would be accessed via a singular driveway on Holly
Street, and a 25 -foot w ide emergency -vehicle-
access-only driveway on Main Street. The
residential private roads would be in compliance
with public works standard plans and would
provide adequate areas for maneuvering and
emergency vehicle access. No conflict with this
policy would occur.

Goal CIRC‐6: Connected, well-maintained, and well -designed sidewalks, bike lanes, equestrian paths, and waterways allow for both leisurely use and day -to-day required activities in a safe and efficient manner for all ages and abilities.

CIRC‐A: Provide pedestrian and bicycle routes that
integrate with local and regional transit, connect
destinations, and provide end-of-trip facilities.

Please see discussion for LU-B. No conflict with these
policies would occur.

Goal ERC‐1: Adequately sized and located parks meet the changing recreational and leisure needs of existing and future residents.

ERC‐A: Maintain or exceed the current park per
capita ratio of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons,
including the beach in the calculations.

Consistent. In addition to the Applicant contributing
to the City’s park in -lieu fee, the Project proposes
11,719 SF of common open space as described in
the Project Description. No conflict with this policy
would occur.

Goal ERC‐4: Air quality in Huntington Beach continues to improve through local actions and interagency cooperation.

ERC‐A: Continue to cooperate with the South Coast
Air Quality Management District and other
regional, state, and national agencies to enforce air
quality standards and improve air quality.

As discussed in Section 5.3, Air Quality, the
proposed Project would include compliance with all
applicable regulatory thresholds including the
SCAQMD and other regional, state, and national
agencies to ensure enforce ment of air quality
standards as related to the proposed Project. No
conflict with this policy would occur.

ERC‐B: Continue to require construction projects to
carry out best available air quality mitigation
practices, including use of alternative fuel ve hicles
and equipment as feasible.

ERC‐D: Require grading, landscaping, and
construction activities to minimize dust while using as little water as possible.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.3, Air Quality,
the Project would have emissions less than the
SCAQMD’s mass daily regional construct ion and
operation emissions thresholds and localized
significance thresholds. The proposed Project would
include implementation of PPP AQ-1, which requires
compliance with all the fugitive dust control
measures listed within SCAQMD Rule 403, and PPP
AQ-2, which requires compliance with nuisance from
air contaminants. Therefore, the proposed Project
would be developed consistent with the City’s goals
pertaining to air quality mitigation practices and
minimization of dust. No conflict with this policy
would occur.

Goal ERC‐5: Greenhouse gas emissions from activities occurring in Huntington Beach are reduced to levels consistent with state goals.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 121
ERC‐C: Explore strategies to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions from off -road construction and
landscaping equipment.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.8, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, amortized construction and
operation emissions would be less than the
SCAQMD’s r ecommended 3,000 MTCO2e
threshold for all land use types. In addition, the
proposed Project would be required to comply with
the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (PPP
GHG-1) and the applicable Cal ifornia Green
Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (GHG-2). As
such, no conflict with this policy would occur.

Goal ERC‐12: New buildings are increasingly energy efficient and ultimately equipped to support zero net energy performance.

ERC‐A: Create incen tives for proposed
development and reuse projects to exceed the
minimum energy efficiency standards established in
the California Building Standards Code when
constructing new or significantly renovated
residential and nonresidential buildings, including
achieving zero net energy performance in advance
of state-level targets.

ERC‐B: Promote the use of passive solar design
techniques and technologies in new buildings to
reduce energy use for heating and cooling.

Consistent. The proposed Project would promote
building energy efficiency through compliance with
energy efficiency standards (Title 24 mandated in
the 2019 code update). The Project will include
solar photovoltaic system; high efficiency insulation
and filters; and ultra-low NOx furnaces. No conflict
with these policies would occur
Goal ERC‐15: Adequate water supply is available to the community through facilities, infrastructure, and appropriate allocation.

ERC‐B: Monitor demands on the water system,
manage new development and reuse projects and
existing land uses to mitigate impacts and/or
facilitate improvements to the system, and maintain
and expand water supply and distribution facilities.

Consistent. The proposed Project would not require
new or expanded off -site water or wastewater
lines. The City has sufficient capacity to provide
water service for the proposed Project. Orange
County Sanitation District (OCSD) has sufficient
capacity and will provide wastewat er treatment
services to the proposed Project. Existing off -site
infrastructure exists to provide water and
wastewater service to the Project site. The UWMP
indicates that the City would have adequate water
supplies to meet demands during normal, single -
dry, and multiple -dry years to 2040. The City
would have available water supplies to serve the
proposed Project. No conflict with this policy would
occur.

Goal ERC‐16: Water conservation efforts are maximized in every aspect of use.

ERC‐A: Continue to requ ire incorporation of
feasible and innovative water conservation
features in the design of new development and
reuse projects.

ERC‐C: Require the use of recycled water for
landscaping irrigation, grading, and other non -
contact uses in new development or su bstantial
retrofit projects where recycled water is available
or expected to be available.

Consistent. As described in Section 5.19, Utilities of
the Addendum, the proposed Project would comply
with Sections 4.303 and 4.304 of the CALGreen
Code, which requ ire indoor and outdoor water
conservation measures such as low flush toilets,
aerators on sinks and shower heads, other water -
efficient appliances, and water-efficient automatic
irrigation system controllers. The Project would also
comply with the City’s water conservation measures.

No conflict with these policies would occur.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 122
Goal ERC‐17: Enhance and protect water quality of all natural water bodies including rivers, creeks, harbors, wetlands, and the ocean.

ERC‐A: Require redevelopment to comply with the
City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit and other regional permits issued by
the State Water Resources Control Board and the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.

ERC‐B: Require that new development and
significant redevelopment projects employ
innovative and efficient drainage technologies that
comply with federal and state water quality
requirements and reduce runoff and water quality
impacts to downstream environments.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.8, Hydrology
and Water Quality, the proposed Project would
generate storm water polluta nts during demolition
and construction activities on the site. However,
preparation and implementation of the SWPPP in
compliance with the NPDES Construction General
Permit (PPP HWQ-1) would reduce pollutants in the
storm water. Therefore, the proposed Project would
be developed consistent with the City’s goals
pertaining to future demands on the City’s storm
drain/stormwater conveyance system, compliance
with the City’s NPDES Permit and other regional
permits issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board. No conflict with these
policies would occur.

ERC‐C: Continue to require new development and
significant redevelopment projects to propose
protective safeguards and implement best
management practices that minimize non - point
source pollutio n and runoff associated with
construction activities and ongoing operations.

ERC‐D: Continue to require that new development
and significant redevelopment projects incorporate
low-impact development best management
practices, which may include infiltration, harvest and
reuse, evapotranspiration, and bio-treatment.

ERC‐F: Reduce pollutant runoff from new
development to marine biological resources and
wetlands by requiring the use of the most effective
best management practices currently available.

Consistent. As specified in Section 5.10, Hydrology
and Water Quality, the proposed Project would
include water quality features and drainage system
designed to meet the City’s requirements for water
quality. A preliminary WQMP has been prepared
for approval by the City of Huntington Beach. The
proposed Project’s storm drain system would be
maintained by the City of Huntington Beach while
the proposed water quality BMPs would be
maintained by an HOA. In addition to long -term
water quality management, the proposed project
would be required to mitigate the construction -
period pollutant by developing a SWPPP, including
construction BMP procedures to control and prevent
the entry of pollutants into the storm drain systems
and waterways and incorporation of sh ort-term
and permanent BMPs that would remove pollutants
and improve the water quality of storm water
runoff from the site. No conflicts with these policies
would occur.

ERC‐H: Reduce impacts of new development and
significant redevelopment project sites ’ hydrologic
regime (hydromodification).

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology
and Water Quality, based on the
hydromodification analysis for the proposed
Project, the site is located in an area of the Santa
Ana River watershed that is not sus ceptible to
hydromodification and therefore, the proposed
Project would not have the potential to create
hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) that may
result in downstream flooding or the erosion of
downstream natural channels. No conflict with this
policy would occur.

Natural and Environmental Hazards Element
Goal HAZ‐4: The risk of urban fires is reduced through effective building design and effective fire services.

HAZ‐A: Ensure that all new construction is designed
for easy access by fire and other emergency
response personnel.

Consistent. The proposed development includes a
25-foot wide emergency access driveway on Main
Street that would connect to the primary drive aisle
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 123
running through the site to Holly Lane . The
emergency vehicle access poi nt on Main Street
would be gated to prevent public access to the site
from this driveway; however, the fate would be
equipped with a Knox Box to provide emergency
access by fire and other emergency response
personnel. Additionally, the layout of the intern al
streets is similar to the adjacent residential
developments. The development area would not be
gated, allowing full access. All access ways would
be free and clear of any and all structures
including, but not limited to, utility devices. The fire access roads would meet the California Fire Code
Section 503.1.1 and City of Huntington Beach Fire
Department Specification No. 401 requirements for
location, width, and turning radii. All private streets would provide adequate areas for maneuvering,
stacking of vehicles, and emergency vehicle access.

No conflict with this policy would occur.

Noise Element
Goal N‐1: Noise-sensitive land uses are protected in areas with acceptable noise levels.

N‐A: Maintain acceptable stationary noise levels at
existing noise -sensitive land uses such as schools,
residential areas, and open spaces.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 5.13, Noise, the
operational on-site noise associated with the Project
would be heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) equ ipment, landscape maintenance, and
trash collection. These noise sources are typical for
developed land uses and would be consistent with
the noise from surrounding residential land uses. No
conflict with this policy would occur.

N‐B: Incorporate design a nd construction features
into residential, mixed -use, commercial, and
industrial projects that shield noise - sensitive land
uses from excessive noise.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 5.13, Noise, noise-
generating construction activities would be limited
to the hours allowed by the Municipal Code. The
Project would introduce residential uses within an
area surrounded by the same and would therefore
be consistent with existing uses. No conflict with this policy would occur.

Goal N‐3: The community is not disturbed by excessive noise from mobile sources such as vehicles, rail traffic, and aircraft.

N‐A: Mitigate noise created by any new
transportation noise source so that it does not
exceed the exterior or interior sound levels specific
in Table N-2.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 5.13, Noise,
operation of the 35-unit proposed Project would
generate traffic along roadways in the Project
vicinity. However, the proposed Project would
generates a net -6,457 daily trips. A doubling of
traffic volumes would result in traffic noise increases of 3 decibels. A 3 -decibel increase is the minimum
change in noise levels that is perceptible to human
hearing in outdoor environments. Because traffic
noise increases are below the limits of human
hearing to detect an audible change in noise levels,
traffic noise increases from the Project would not be
perceptible or substantial. No conflict with this
policy would occur.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 124
N‐B: Prioritize use of site planning and project
design techniques to mitigate excessive noise. The
use of noise barriers shall be considered a means
of achieving the noise standards only after all other
practical design-related noise mitigation measures
have been integrated into the project.

N‐C: Employ noise -reducing technologies such as
rubberized asphalt, fronting homes to the roadway,
or sound walls to reduce the effects of roadway
noise on noise-sensitive land uses.

As detailed in Section 5.13, Noise, the proposed
residential uses would be co nsistent with the
surrounding existing development. All operational
noise was determined to be less than significant. As
such, no conflict with these policies would occur.

Goal N‐4: Noise from construction activities associated with discretionary projects, maintenance vehicles, special events, and other nuisances is minimized in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.

N‐A: Reduce construction, maintenance, and
nuisance noise at the source as the first and
preferred strategy to reduce noise conflicts.

N‐C: Encourage shielding for construction activities
to reduce noise levels and protect adjacent noise -
sensitive land uses.

N‐D: Limit allowable hours for construction activities
and maintenance operations located adjacent to
noise-sensitive land uses.

The Project would result in noise associated with
demolition activities; however, as detailed in
Section 5.13, Noise, all noise impacts would be less
than significant. No conflict with this policy would
occur.

Public Services and Infrastructure Element
Goal PSI‐1: Public safety services, education, facilities, and technology protect the community from illicit activities and crime.

PSI‐A: Consider the relationship between the
location and rate of planned growth and resulting
demands on police facilities and personnel.

PSI‐D: Ensure that new development and reuse
projects and existing land uses promote community
safety.

As discussed in Section 5.15, Public Services of the
Addendum, the proposed Project would create the
typical range of service calls for residential
developments. The proposed Project would
generate a demand for police protection services
once the proposed dwelling units are occupied. The
incremental demand of the Project for police
protection services is not anticipated to increase
Huntington Beach Police Department (HBPD)
response times to the Project site or surrounding
area. Compliance with PPP PS -3, which requires
payment of development impact fees for police
facilities (Huntington Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 17.75), would ensure that adequate police
protection services are provided and impacts to
police protection services would be less than
significant. No conflict with these policies would
occur.

Goal PSI‐2: Huntington Beach residents and property owners are protected from fire hazards and beach hazards, and adequate marine safety and emergency medical services are provided by modern facilities and advanced technology
PSI‐2A: Consider the relationship between the
location and rate of planned growth, the placement
of critical facilities, and the resulting demands on
fire, marine safety, and EMS facilities and
personnel.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.15, Public
Services of the Addendum, the proposed Project
would create the typical range of service calls for
residential developments. The City of Huntington
Beach Fire Department (HBFD) provides response to
fire protection, medical emergencies, marine safety,
hazardous materials incidents, natural and man -
made disasters and related emergencies in an
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 125
PSI‐E: Ensure that new development and reuse
projects and existing land uses promote fire safety.

PSI2G: Ensure development provides adequate
access for public safety responders in the event of
an emergency
effort to reduce life and property loss. The Project
site is currently covered by the HBFD response
standards and would not have an impact on
response standards. In addition, the proposed
Project would not require an increase in firefighting
staff or an increase in firefighting equipment, trucks, or facilities. No conflict with these policies would
occur.

Goal PSI‐7: The flood control system supports permitted land uses while preserving public safety.

PSI‐C: Monitor demands and manage future
development and reuse projects and existing land
uses to mitigate impacts and/or facilitate
improvements to the storm drainage system.

PSI‐E: Control surface runoff water discharge into
the stormwater conveyance system to comply with
the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit and other regional permits issued by
the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board.

Consistent. The proposed Project would generate
storm water pollutants during grading and
construction activities on the site. However,
preparation and implementation of the SWPPP in
compliance with the NPDES Construction General
Permit (PPP HWQ -1), compliance with the Santa
Ana RWQCB’s dewatering regulations (PPP HWQ-
2), and implementation of BMPs would reduce
pollutants in the storm water. Therefore, the
proposed Project would be developed consistent
with the City’s goals pertaining to future demand s
on the City’s storm drain/stormwater conveyance
system and compliance with the City’s NPDES Permit
and other regional permits issued by the Santa Ana
RWQCB. No conflict with these policies would occur.

Goal PSI‐9: An adequate and orderly system for solid waste collection and disposal meets the demands of new development and reuse projects, existing land uses, and special events.

PSI‐A: Ensure that new development and reuse
projects provide adequate space for recycling and
organics collection activities to support state waste
reduction goals.

PSI‐B: Continue to exceed state solid waste
reduction goals and work toward making
Huntington Beach a zero-waste community.

Consistent. As described in Section 5.19, Utilities
and Service System, the proposed Project would
comply with applicable solid waste statutes and
regulations including waste diversion programs. The
proposed Project would generate 469.2 pounds of
long-term solid waste per day prior to required
waste diversion requirements. There is sufficient
solid waste disposal capacity in the existing landfills to meet the solid waste disposal needs of the
proposed Project. Therefore, the prop osed Project
would be developed consistent with the City’s goals
pertaining to solid waste. No conflict with these
policies would occur.

The documents regulating land use for the Project site include the HSSP, City’s General Plan, and the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed Project’s relationship to these planning documents is described below.

General Plan. As discussed previously, the Project site is designated as Commercial Neighborhood-Specific Plan (CN-sp) and would require a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the site to Medium Density Residential-Specific Plan (RM-sp). Upon Project implementation, the residential uses would be similar to the surrounding uses to the south, west, north, and east. As shown in Table LU -1 above, the Project is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 126
HSSP. The Project site is designated as Commercial (C) by the HSSP. The Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would change the HSSP designation to Medium Density Residential (RM). The Project would develop 35 units and would be consistent with the HSSP Goals as outlined in Table LU-2, below.

Table LU-2: Project Consistency with HSSP Policies
HSSP Goals Project Consistency

Distribution of planned residential uses, definition
of permitted housing types, and provision of a
diversity of housing types.

Consistent. The proposed Project would introduce
35 three-story townhomes which would include 11
2-bedroom units and 24 3 -bedroom units that
would contribute to the diversity of housing types
within the HSSP area.

Location, character and intensities of planned
commercial, industrial and mixed development
uses.

Consistent. The Project would include a Specific Plan
Amendment to chan ge the designation of the site
from Commercial (C) to Medium Density Residential
(RM). The Project would be consistent with the
character and intensities of the surrounding
residential uses and would be located within a
residential area.

Alignments and design of arterial highways and
locations of traffic control devices.

Not Applicable. The Project would construct internal
driveways and would not include offsite roadway
improvements.

Design of community open spaces, parks, trails and
recreation facilities.

Consistent. As shown in figures 3-6 and 3 -7, the
Project would include a central village lawn and
community open space area that would be used for
recreational purposes.

Grading Guidelines Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.7, Geology and Soils, the proposed Project would involve
excavation, grading, and construction activities that
would disturb soil and leave exposed soil on the
ground surface. As such, the proposed Project would
be required to comply with the City’s gra ding
standards and erosion control measures, as verified
through the permitting and plan check process.

Design of required public facilities to serve
existing and proposed development.

Consistent. As discussed above, t he Project would
include a central village lawn and community open
space area that would be used for recreational
purposes.

Design and implementation of the community
theme elements.

Consistent. As demonstrated in Table AES -1, the
Project would comply with the community theme
guidelines by including landscaping with approved
plant covers, walls, and open space.

General Plan. As discussed previously, the Project site is designated as Commercial Neighborhood-Specific Plan (CN-sp) and would require a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the site to Medium Density Residential-Specific Plan (RM-sp). Upon Project implementation, the residential uses would be similar to the surrounding uses to the south, west, north, and east. As shown in Table LU -1 above, the P roject is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies.

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent wit h the impacts Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 127
identified in the HSSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the HSSP Final EIR.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding land use and planning. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of p reviously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

None.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe land use and planning impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required regarding land use and planning.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 128

9.12 MINERAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) 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?

b) 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?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts to natural resources were less than significant.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None.

a) 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?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that no impacts would occur related to mineral resources.

The Project site is partially developed with a commercial office building and associated parking and is not used for mineral extractions. The Project site is identified as within Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-3, which indicates information is unavailable or historic mining has not occurred, and therefore the significance of mineral resources is unknown . No known mineral resources are located on the site or surrounding areas.

Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not result in impacts related to mineral resources.

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As described previously, the Project site is identified as within an MRZ-3 zone by the CGS and has an existing HSSP designation of Commercial (C). Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local plan, and no impacts would occur.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 129

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. The propos ed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the HSSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the HSSP Final EIR.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Sect ion 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding mineral resources. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require addi tional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

None.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe mineral resources impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required regarding mineral resources.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 130

9.13 NOISE Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project result in: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?

This section prepared with Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Impact Study, prepared by Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning, dated April 2, 2021, provided as Appendix F.

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR

Impacts related to noise were analyzed on pages 4.9-8 through 4.9-25 of the HSSP Final EIR. The HSSP Final EIR noted that construction noise is a short -term and less than significant effect of the project on residences that are located within 150 feet of the site , and that the Noise Ordinance limits hours of construction to minimize potential noise impacts.

The HSSP Final EIR also noted that the off-site traffic noise was modeled and determined that a cumulative traffic noise increase of over three dBA would occur along Garfield Avenue, Ellis Street, and Edwards Street.

The HSSP Final EIR also describes that roadway noise along Garfield Avenue ranges from 65 to 70 CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and that sound barriers would need to be in stalled for future residential uses. In order to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise level standard , building attenuation may need to be as high as 29 dB that may require special construction measures (such as higher rated windows and doors). The HSSP Final EIR includes mitigation measures that consist of existing regulations related to allowable construction hours, limiting exterior ambient noise to 65 dBA in residential areas , and interior noise to 45 dBA to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project

Roadway Noise 1. Enforcement of the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance should be implemented which limits the hours of construction to normal weekday working hours.

Roadway Noise 2. Measures should be designed to satisfy the requirement that 65 CNEL not be exceeded in residential outside living areas. Where residential buildings are to be located within these 65 CNEL Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 131
contours, mitigation measures should be undertaken to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier. A barrier which does not break the line-of-sight is not an affective barrier, while one which just interrupts the line-of-sight achieves a 5 db A reduction in noise. The greater the penetration the greater the noise reduction. Increasing building setbacks should also be used to attenuate noise down to acceptable levels.

Roadway Noise 3. The City of Huntington Beach should require that the housing portion of this project comply with the State of California Noise Insulation standards. The code requires that "interior community noise levels (CNEL) with window closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room." Any measures, such as window upgrades, can be specified at the time of building permit application.

Roadway Noise 4. At the time of building permit application, the design should again be reviewed to ensure that sound mitigation is included in the design.

Existing Ambient Noise Levels
The existing ambient noise levels in the Project area are dominated roadway noise. The noise level measurements listed in Table N-1 show that ambient noise is between approximately 66.5 dBA and 60.5 dBA.

Table N-1: Noise Level Measurements
Noise Metric Noise Level (dBA) Location 1 Noise Level (dBA) Location 2 LMAX 100.5 dBA 81.9 dBA
L99 100.5 dBA 80.7 dBA
L90 73.0 dBA 74.2 dBA
L75 70.7 dBA 68.3 dBA
L50 51.5 dBA 53.0 dBA
Lmin 51.5 dBA 53.0 dBA
Average Noise Level 66.5 dBA 66.4 dBA

City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance
Noise generated in t he City of Huntington Beach is regulated under Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control) of the City’s Municipal Code. The allowable exterior noise levels are listed in Table N-2.

Table N-2: Municipal Code Exterior Noise Standards
Land Use Leq Noise Level dBA Lmax Noise Level dBA Time Period Low-Density Residential 55 75 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
50 70 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.

Medium-, High -Density
Residential, Hotels,
Motels
60 80 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
50 70 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.

As shown in Table N -2, the Municipal Code exterior noise standards for the proposed medium density residential use allow an Leq of 60 dBA between the hours 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM and an Leq of 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. In addition, the Municipal Code Section 8.40.050 allows for an Lmax noise level (the highest sound level measured during a single noise event [such as a vehicle pass by or short-term equipment noise]), of up to 80 dBA at nearby sensitive land uses. Municipal Code Section 8.40.050. F. states that in the event the measured ambient noise level exceeds any of the noise limit categories above, the noise limit shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 132

In addition, Municipal Code Section 8.40.050.B. states that the aforementioned noise standards do not apply to the establishment of multi-family residence’s private balconies and patios. Multi-family developments with balconies or patios that do not meet this standard are required to provide occupancy disclosure notices to all future tenants regarding noise levels.

a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR noted that construction noise is a short-term and less than significant effect of the project on residences that are located within 150 feet of the site, and that the Noise Ordinance limits hours of construction to minimize potential noise impacts. The HSSP Final EIR also determined that a cumulative traffic noise increase of over three dBA would occur along Garfield Avenue, Ellis Street, and Edwards Street, and included mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Existing Sensitive Receptors
The Project site is surrounded by residential uses that are located across Garfield Avenue, Holly Lane, and Main Street, as close as 60 feet from the Project site.

Construction Noise
Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Construction is expected to occur in the following stages: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, paving. The Project would not include pile driving, which typically results in the highest construction noise volumes.

The Project construction noise would be temporary in nature as the ope ration of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use. The typical operating cycle for a piece of construction equipment involves one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings.

This construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements published in the Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Si tes by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) which provides a comprehensive source of reference construction noise levels. Table N‐3 provides a summary of the construction reference noise level measurements expressed in hourly average dBA Leq using the estimated FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) usage factors to describe the noise generated by typical construction activities for each stage of Project construction. As shown on Table N -2, noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment would range from approximately 67 to 79 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source. Because the closest noise sensitive receptors are 60 feet from the Project site, construction noise at the closest sensitive receptors would be less than 79 dBA at the loudest. Construction activities are exempt from the City’s noise control standards pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.80.090 (Special Provisions) which states: “Nois e sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property; provided that 1) the City has issued a building, grading or similar permit for such activities; (2) said activities do not take place between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday; and (3) the average construction noise levels do not exceed 80 dBA Leq at nearby noise-sensitive land uses.

If outdoor construction activities are permitted by the City after 7:00 p.m. or before 7:00 a.m., the average construction Noise Levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses shall be limited to 50 dBA Leq. The proposed Project’s construction activities would occur pursuant to these regulations and would not exceed e stablished standards. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant. Consistent with the Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 133
findings of the HSSP Final EIR, construction noise generated from the proposed Project would be short-term and less than significant with compliance with the Noise Ordinance.

Table N-2: Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Highest Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Demolition
Demolition Equipment 69
71 Backhoes 61
Hauling Trucks 71
Site
Preparation
Crawler Tractors 77
77 Hauling Trucks 71
Rubber Tired Dozers 71
Grading
Graders 79
79 Excavators 64
Compactors 67
Building
Construction
Cranes 67
72 Tractors 72
Welders 65
Paving
Pavers 70
70 Paving Equipment 69
Rollers 69
Architectural
Coating Air Compressors 67 67
Source: DEFRA 2004.

Operational Noise

Traffic Noise. Development of the Project would result in the development of 35 multi-family residences on the Project site. Operation of the project would generate approximately 256 daily vehicular trips, of which 16 would occur in the AM peak hour and 20 would occur in the PM. peak hour (refer to discussion in Section

5.17, Transportation). This equates to approximately one vehicle trip every 3.75 minutes in the AM peak hour and one vehicle trip every 3 minutes in the PM peak hour . The additional ambient noise from the one new vehicular trip every 3 minutes would not result in a n audible increase in ambient noise in the Project vicinity. Therefore, traffic noise impacts associated with operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Onsite Noise. Once the proposed Project is operational, noise would be generated from stationary equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units that would be installed for the new residences; onsite vehicular movements on streets and driveway s; trash removal activity ; and activity at outdoor gathering areas. Noise generated from the Project would include people shouting/laughing, which averages

64.5 dBA; car doors slamming, which averages 62.5 dBA; cars idling, which averages 61 dBA; cars starting, which averages 59.5 dBA; and people talking, which averages 41 dBA. All of these averages were taken at a standardized distance of 50 feet from the source (Appendix E), and thus are conservative and slightly louder than the noise at the closest offsite receptor at 60 feet from the Project site. The Project’s operational noise sources are typical of residential uses and would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise or result in an exceedance of the noise standards. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 134

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR did not identify any impacts related to vibration.

Construction
Ground-borne vibration can be generated from construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Construction of the proposed Project would involve grading, site preparation, and construction activities but would not involve the use of construction equipment that would result in substantial ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise on properties adjacent to the Project site.

No pile driving or blasting are proposed, and the site is relatively level, so substantial grading activities are not required.

Typical construction related vibration would be generated by use of large bulldozers, loaded trucks , and jackhammers. As listed on Table N-3, large bulldozers generated approximately 87 Vdb at 25 feet.

Table N-3: Construction Vibration Source Levels (Vdb)
Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 75 feet 100 feet
Large Bulldozer 87 81 77 75
Loaded Truck 86 80 76 74
Jackhammer 79 73 69 67
Source: General Plan EIR, page 4.10-21.

Like noise, groundborne noise and vibration will attenuate at a rate of approximately 6 VdB per doubling of distance. The groundborne vibration generated during construction activities could be located as close as 50 feet to a sensitive land uses . However, at 50 feet, the vibration would be below the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration impact threshold of 85 VdB for human annoyance, which would be considered excessive and is also below the vibration threshold for building damage. Thus, construction of the Project , which is a minimum of 60 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors would not generate significant effects relating to construction vibration. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Operation
Operation of the proposed residential uses would include heavy trucks for residents moving in and out of the residential units and garbage trucks for solid waste disposal. Truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. However, typical vibration levels for the heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds would be approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV, based on the FTA Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Truck movements on site would be travelling at very low speed, so it is expected that truck vibration at nearby sensitive receivers would be less than the vibration threshold of

0.08 in/sec PPV for fragile historic buildings and 0.04 in/sec PPV for human annoyance, and impacts would be less than significant.

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 135
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to airport noise would be less than significant.

John Wayne International Airport is located approximately 7.24 miles east of the Project site. The Project site is not within the John Wayne International Airport Land Use Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, and impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding noise. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require addi tional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

PPP N-1: Municipal Code Section 8.80.090 (Special Provisions). Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property; provided that: (1) the City has issued a building, grading or similar permit for such activities; (2) said activities do not take place between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday; and (3) the average construction noise levels do not exceed 80 dBA Leq at nearby noise-sensitive land uses. If outdoor construction activities are permitted by the City after 7:00 p.m. or before 7:00 a.m., the average construction Noise Levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses shall be limited to 50 dBA Leq.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe noise and vibration related impacts would result from the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for noise or vibration.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project Roadway Noise 1. Enforcement of the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance should be im plemented which limits the hours of construction to normal weekday working hours.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 136

Roadway Noise 2. Measures should be designed to satisfy the requirement that 65 CNEL not be exceeded in residential outside living areas. Where residential buildings are to be located within these 65 CNEL contours, mitigation measures should be undertaken to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier. A barrier which does not break the line -of-sight is not an affective barrier, while one which j ust interrupts the line -of-sight achieves a 5 db A reduction in noise. The greater the penetration the greater the noise reduction. Increasing building setbacks should also be used to attenuate noise down to acceptable levels.

Roadway Noise 4. At the time of building permit application, the design should again be reviewed to ensure that sound mitigation is included in the design.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 137

9.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to population and housing on Section 4.5. The HSSP Final EIR discussed that the anticipated growth rate for the City is anticipated to result in a 2000 population of nearly 206,640 persons and determined that impacts were less than significant. The HSSP Final EIR determined that the HSSP resulted in a 25 percent decrease in the amount of housing planned for buildout under the then existing General Plan and would decrease the supply of affor dable housing. With implementation of mitigation measures, c umulative impacts to housing supply were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None.

a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that the HSSP’s population, housing, and employment growth are within overall SCAG projections for the City of Huntington Beach , and impacts would be less than significant.

The Project would involve the demolition of the existing commercial building on the Project s ite and development of 35 townhome residential units . Using the City’s population generation factor of 2.913 persons per unit (adopted pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2012 -66), the Project would directly generate approximately 102 residents. Overall, SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS population and household growth forecast from 2016 through 2045 envisions a population increase of 10,500 additional persons (from 196,900 to 205,300), yielding a 4.3% growth rate. Huntington Beach is projected to have a population 8,400 persons by 2045. The proposed Project would generate approximately 102 new residents, which represents approximately 0.049% of the forecasted population of 205,300 in 2045 and approximately 1.21% of the forecasted growth between 2016 and 2045 for the City. In addition, according to the California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark indicate that there are approximately 2.51 persons per household, which would result in 25 fewer person s. The City’s population generation factor utilizes a more conservative approach than the California Department of Finance. Thus, the proposed increase in population, Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 138
housing units, and jobs a s a result of the proposed Project is within SCAG’s 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS growth forecast.

Furthermore, the proposed Project is located in an urbanized area of Huntington Beach and is surrounded by residential and commercial uses. The proposed Project does not propose to expand surrounding utility infrastructure (e.g., water, electricity, cell tower, gas, sanitary sewer, and stormwater drains) in the Project vicinity. All onsite systems would be provided and maintained by the property owner, as well as connect to existing and planned infrastructure within adjacent roadways. Because the Project proposes development in an already built-out neighborhood, it would not indirectly induce population growth through the extension of roads or other infrastructure.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to displacement of housing would be less than significant.

The existing Project site contains one commercial building with the remaining portion of the site used as a surface parking lot or vacant land. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace a substantial number of existing people and would also provide 35 new residential units on the Project site. With construction of the additional housing units, replacement housing would not need to be constructed elsewhere. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing, and impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding population and housing. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 139
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

None.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe population and housing impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for population and housing.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 140

9.15 PUBLIC SERVICES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause signif icant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:

Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR

Impacts related to noise were analyzed on pages 4.16-1 through 4.16-19 of the HSSP Final EIR. The HSSP Final EIR noted that development of the HSSP would create the need for additional fire service. The HSSP Final EIR identifies that the development of the proposed fire station on Springdale Avenue would reduce project specific impacts to a less than significant level. Development within the Project area would adversely impact the level of police services provided. According to the proposed plan, approximately nine additional police officers would be needed to serve the project area. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce the project specific impacts to a less than significant level. Development of the area would impact the Central Library which has inadequate parking and overcrowding. The residential development proposed by the HSSP may additionally increase the use and demand of the Main Street Branch. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that implementation of library construction fees would allow for expansion of the Central Library. Thus, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. The HSSP Final EIR noted that the HSSP would increase enrollment beyond current capacities in both the elementary and high school districts. Based on the district’s generation factors, 1,217 students would be generated which includes elementary, middle school, and high school students. The Huntington Beach School District proposed developer fees to pay for the construction of a new school. Increases in enrollment in high school students would require the reconstruction of the existing facilities to house additional students beyond the existing capacity. However, the District Master Plan had previously accounted for the HSSP buildout and impacts would be less than significant upon payment of development impact fees. The HSSP was not anticipated to adversely impact Pacifica Community Hospital services but would require an additional 60 employees due to increased demands.

The HSSP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to recreation in Section 4.3, Recreation, and determined that development of the HSSP would contribute to the conversion of vacant/oil producing land to urban use, including parkland. The HSSP planned for open space and parkland exceeding the City’s 5 acres per 1,000 persons ratio and with mitigation, impacts were considered less than significant.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None.

a) Fire Protection and Emergency Services

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with the construction of the proposed fire station on Springdale Street.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 141

Fire protections services would be provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department (HBFD). The HBFD operates eight stations within the City and aims to provide a 5-minute response time for emergency fire and medical calls 80 percent of the time. There are currently 4 HBFD stations located within 3.5 miles of the Project site. Station 1, which is located approximately 1 mile from the Project site, is the first responding unit.

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would increase demands for fire protection and emergency medical services. As described previously, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in 102 new residents. The residential uses are expected to create the typical range of service calls to HBFD.

Because the Project site is within 3.5 miles of 4 existing fire stations and the Project site is within a developed area that is currently served by these stations, the Project would not result in the requirement to construct a new fire station. The Project would comply with the California Fire Code, adopted as Chapter 17.56 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code . In addition, development impact fees included as PPP PS -1 would be paid for fire suppression facilities, as required by Chapter 17.74 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code.

b) Police Protection

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts to police services would be less than significant with the hiring of additional officers as the HSSP area developed.

Police protection services are provided by the City of Huntington Beach Police Department (HBPD). The HBPD headquarters is located at 2000 Main Street, approximately 0.9 mile from the Project site.

The proposed Project would generate a demand for police services during construction and operation of the proposed Project. Although response time to service calls may vary, the City’s goal is to respond in 5 minutes or less. The HBPD currently has 213 sworn staff and 104 non -sworn staff and is authorized for 223 sworn staff and 122 non-sworn staff (HBPD, 2022). The incremental demand for the 102 new onsite residents is not anticipated to increase HBPD response times to the Project site or surrounding area. Thus, the Project would not require any additional officers at the HBPD. In addition, the Project would comply with Chapter

17.75 of the City’s Municipal Code , included as PPP PS -2, which requires the payment of development impact fees for police facilities. Therefore, with existing personnel at the HBPD, law enforcement personnel are anticipated to be able to respond in a timely manner, and within set standard response times, to emergency calls in the Project area.

c) School Services

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP concluded that impacts would be less than significant with the development of a new elementary school in the project area and payment of school impact fees.

The Project site is located within the Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD), which serves grades K-8 and the Huntington Beach Union High School District (HBUHSD) which serves grades 9-12. The schools that serve the site are listed below:

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 142
• Agnes L. Smith Elementary School (K-5) located at 770 17th Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648, which is located 1.4 roadway miles from the Project site. • Ethel Dwyer Middle School (6-8) located at 1502 Palm Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92648, which is located 1.4 roadway miles from the Project site.
• Huntington Beach High School (9-12) located at 1905 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648, which is located 0.8 roadway miles from the Project site.

The Project proposes the development of 35 residences, which would bring additional students to the area that would be served by the existing schools. Student generation rates for HBCSD and HBUSD are identified as 0.66 elementary school-age child per household, 0.12 middle school-age child per household, and 0.1367 high school age child per household (City of HB GPU) . Using these generation factors, the proposed 35 residences would generate 24 elementary school students, 5 middle school students, and 5 high school students. Additionally, the applicant would be required to pay developer fees to the school districts pursuant to Section 65955 of the California Government Code, included as PPP PS-3. As shown in Table PS-1, below, school enrollment for all schools has steadily declined or stayed relatively consistent since 2021. Based on the steady or declining enrollment rates, local schools would have the capacity to serve the increase in students generate by the proposed Projec t. Thus, the Project would not generate the need for new or physically altered school facilities and the 32 new students would be accommodated by existing facilities.

As such, impacts related to school services would be less than significant.

Table PS-1: School Enrollment between 2014-15 and 2020-2021 School 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 Agnes L. Smith
Elementary School
636 728 744 804 829 844 806
Ethel Dwyer Middle
School
1,142 1,276 1,307 1,354 1,317 1,284 1,243
Huntington Beach
High School
2,945 2,951 2,983 2,954 2,946 2,954 2,939
Source: California Dept. of Education

d) Parks

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR analyzed parks under Section 4.6, Recreation. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that future development of the HSSP would result in less than significant impacts.

The City of Huntington Beach has 79 parks and public recreation facilities totaling 1,073 acres. This includes City-owned parks, a public golf course, non-City owned public open space areas/parks, recreation facilities, and 207 acres of City-operated beaches (Huntington Beach 2017). The City also provides various recreation facilities, including community centers, senior centers, golf courses, bikeways and trail systems, campgrounds, and City-run marine-based amenities such as beaches, a pier, and harbor ch annel. There are nine public parks with 94.57 acres of within 1.2 miles of the Project site, as shown in Table PS-2.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 143
Table PS-2: City Parks within 1.2 Miles
Name Address Distance from Site Amenities Acres
Neighborhood Parks
Discovery Well
Park

6720 Summit Drive 0.9 mile Parking lot,
basketball courts,
swing set,
playground areas,
picnic tables, park
benches, large
grass area, sand
and soft turf
playground areas,
and shaded area.

6.60 McCallan Park 2318 Huntington
Street
1 mile Grass area,
benches, and street
parking.

5.84 Perry Park

8166 Deauville Dr. 1 mile Playgrounds, picnic
tables, shaded
area, swing sets,
and street parking

1.88 Peter Green Park 18751 Seagate
Drive

0.6 mile Parking lot, sand
volleyball,
basketball court,
playground areas,
swing set, covered
picnic tables, and
large grass area.

4.04 Talbert Park

19222 Magnolia
Street

1.2 miles Playground, Swing
set, and large grass
area

5.44 Terry Park 7701 Taylor Dr. 1.2 miles Basketball court, park benches, picnic
tables, sand
playground area,
swing sets; toddler
and regular large
grass area.

4.81 Worthy Park 1831 17th Street 1 mile Picnic tables, open play area,
children’s play
area, pickle ball
courts, soccer field,
softball field, and
restrooms.

6.61 Community Parks
Central Park
Sports Complex

18100
Goldenwest

1.2 miles 8 softball fields
overlaid with 7
soccer fields, 3
open artificial turf
fields and 1 arena
turf field, batting
cages, 2 concession
stands, 2
45 Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 144
playgrounds and
restroom buildings
John Baca Park

7329 Sherwood
Drive

0.7 mile Children's play area
with pla y structure,
lawn volleyball,
half-court
basketball, picnic
tables & benches,
large & small open
grassy play areas,
and a walking path.

14.35 Total 94.57

Residents are expected to utilize the onsite open space to a greater degree than offsite facilities due to convenience and proximity. In this way, the Project’s provision of open space would reduce the use of area parks by residents. Nevertheless, some Pro ject residents would be expected to utilize other public recreational facilities.

The Project would develop 35 townhome residences and 11,719 SF of common open space recreation area on the site for use by residents. As described previously, development o f the Project would introduce approximately 102 new residents on the site. This equates to approximately 1.07 new resident per acre of the 94.57 acres of parkland within 1.2 miles of the site. Due to the limited increase in population from implementation of the Project and provision of onsite open space and recreational amenities, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of any existing park facility. Thus, substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or expanded facilities would not occur.

In addition, the impacts of development of the proposed 11,719 square foot open space recreation area on the site are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this addendum. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the park are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections.

As such, impacts related to parks would be less than significant.

e) Other Public Facilities

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR includes mitigation which requires future development to pay a community enrichment fee that would help fund the library expansion program. The Huntington Beach Public Library provides library services through five libraries. In addition, Golden West Community College has a public library with resources available to residents. The closest library is the Main Street Branch Library located at 525 Main Street approximately 1.8 roadway miles from the Project site. The addition of 102 new residents would not result in the need for construction of new or expanded library facilities. In compliance with Chapter 17.67 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and PPP PS -4, the proposed Project would contribute development impact fees that would ensure adequate library services are provided. As such, impacts related to other public facilities would be less than significant.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 145

Conclusion
Based on the for egoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding publ ic services. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified e ffects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require add itional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)

PPP PS-1: Fire Protection Fees . Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or final building approval, the Project Applicant/Developer shall pay the required development impact fees for fire suppression facilities, as required by Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.74.

PPP PS-2: Police Protection Fees. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy or final building permit approval, the Project Applicant/Developer shall pay required development impact fees for police facilities as required by Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.75.

PPP PS-3: School Fees. Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or prior to building permit final inspection, the applicant shall provide payment of the appropriate fees set forth by the applicable school districts related to the funding of school facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq.

PPP PS-4: Library Fees. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy or final building permit approval, the Project Applicant/Developer shall pay req uired library development impact fees as required by Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.67.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe public services impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for public services.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 146

9.16 RECREATION Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) 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?

b) 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?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to recreation in Section 4.6, Recreation, and determined that development of the HSSP would contribute to the conversion of vacant/oil producing land to urban use, including parkland. The HSSP planned for open space and parkland exceeding the City’s 5 acres per 1,000 persons ratio and impacts were considered less than significant.

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to parkland would be less than significant.

The Project would develop 35 townhome residences and 11,719 SF of common open space recreation area on the site for use by residents. While most residents would primarily use onsite amenities, residents are also expected to utilize local neighborhood and regional parks. The City parks within 1.2 miles of the Project site are described in Table PS-2 above in Section 5.15, Public Services. As described previously, approximately 102 new residents would be introduced to the area as a result of the proposed Proj ect. This equates to approximately 1.07 new resident per acre of the 94.57 acres of parkland within 1.2 miles of the site. Due to the limited increase in population from implementation of the Project, provision of onsite open space and recreational amenities, and the amount of existing recreation facilities near the site, impacts related to the increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities, such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated would be less than significant.

Furthermore, the Project is required to comply with the Huntington Beach General Plan requirement of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents through payment of in -lieu fees for improvements to existing City parks, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Department, prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy or final building permit approval (see PPP REC-1). Based on the City’s standard for parkland provision of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the Project would be required to provide 0.51 acres of parkland. However, the Project Applicant is proposing to pay park in lieu fees instead , which would be Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 147
used for the purpose of acquiring, developing, improving, and expanding open space and parklands. Thus, the Project would contribute to maintenance of citywide recreational facilities.

b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to parkland would be less than significant.

As described above, the project includes 11,719 SF of common open space area . The impacts of development of the onsite amenities are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this addendum. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the recreation area are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation sections.

As discussed previously, approximately 102 new residents would occur from the proposed Project. This equates to approximately 1.07 new resident per acre of the 94.57 acres of parkland within 1.2 miles of the site. Due to the limited increase in population from implementation of the Project, provision of onsite open space and recreational amenities, and the amount of existin g recreation facilities near the site, would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding recreation. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to sig nificant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

PPP REC‐1 The Applicant shall comply with the Huntington Beach General Plan requirement of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents through payment of in-lieu fees for improvements to existing City parks, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Department, prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy or final Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 148
building permit approval.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe recreation impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for recreation.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 149

9.17 TRANSPORTATION Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR also quantified emissions from vehicle miles on page 4.8-9. The traffic analysis for the HSSP forecasts the number of trips per day generated by the project. Those forecasts were combined with an average trip length of 10 miles per trip to calculate the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day for the project. The HSSP Final EIR determined that Project-specific VMT emission would be reduced to a less than significant level though implementation of the AQMP, which includes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Since the HSSP Final EIR was approved before July 1, 2020, when VMT became the threshold utilized for analysis of CEQA impacts, levels of service (LOS) was utilized by the EIR to analyze transportation impacts. According to the HSSP Final EIR, Section 4.7 Traffic/Circulation, development of the HSSP would result in impacts to Garfield Avenue/Main Street intersection from access locations along Garfield Avenue. Approval and development of the HSSP was determined to create traffic impacts on three off -site intersections which will operate below LOS C in both peak hours. These intersections included: Main/Garfield; Beach/Garfield; Goldenwest/Pacific Coast Hwy.

Mitigation measures were included to require traffic studies for future development projects and limiting access to Garfield Avenue. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce project generated trips to a less than significant level. However, the intersection of Main Street and Garfield Avenue could not be mitigated to a level of less than significance. Despite measures for limiting access on Garfield to reduce the impact, impacts to the intersection of Main Street and Garfield Avenue remained an unavoidable adverse impact.

The HSSP Final EIR also noted that the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) provides bus service to the Holly Seacliff study area , offering service on two routes : Route74 - Irvine to Huntington Beach and Route 25/25A - Fullerton to Huntington Beach. There were eight existing OCTD stops in the Holly Seacliff area at the time the HSSP Final EIR was prepared, and t he majority of these stops d id not include bus turnouts, benches or shelters. The HSSP Final EIR determined that provisions for these amenities would be addressed with the development of the HSSP project and impacts were less than significant.

The HSSP Final EIR discussed that through the City’s design review process and traffic access analysis, future development under the HSSP would be evaluated to determine the appropriate permitting requirements and conditions of approval. Mitigation measures were included to require traffic studies for future development projects and limiting access to Garfield Avenue. Therefore, impacts due to hazards as a result of design features or incompatible uses were not identified.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 150

a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that buildout of the HSSP would result in significant an d unavoidable impacts related to traffic.

The proposed Project involves the construction of 35 dwelling units. The primary patrons of the proposed development would be residents and their visitors. As discussed above, due to amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay is no longer considered a significant impact. Thus, the following information is provided solely for informational purposes. The Project trip generation was calculated using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 10th Edition, as well as other sources. The HSSP Final EIR assumed that the Project site would be developed with up to 117,612 SF of commercial uses. As shown in Table T -1 below, the p roposed Project is forecast to generate approximately net -6,457 daily trips, including -205 vehicle trips (-133 inbound trips and -72 outbound trips) during the AM peak hour and -593 vehicle trips ( -282 inbound trips and -311 outbound trips) during the PM peak hour. Therefore, Project- related decreases in vehicular trips associated with a change in use from Commercial to Medium -Density Residential uses on the site would likely result in a corresponding improvement in LOS levels at intersections surrounding the site. As discussed in Table LU -1, the signalized intersection of Main Street and Garfield Avenue operates at a LOS A with and without the Project, and the remaining intersections operate at a LOS A and B, which is in compliance with the City of Huntington Beach performance standards and requirements (K2 Traffic Engineering, 2021).

Table T-1: Comparison of Proposed Project Trips and HSSP Buildout Trips Analyzed in Final EIR

Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via one public driveway on Holly Lane. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project area. The proposed Project would construct internal roadways that would provide resident access to residential units and driveways. In addition, final design plans would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. As such, the proposed Project would not introduce any new roadways or land uses that would interfere with adopted plans, programs, ordinances, or policies regarding roadway facilities.

Alternative Transportation
Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project Trip Rate
Shopping Center1
TSF 57.08 1.17 0.71 1.88 2.50 2.71 5.21
Mutifamily Low Rise2
DU 7.32 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56
Specific Plan Land Use Trip Generation ( 78,408 sq ft, 0.35 FAR ) Neighborhood Commercial1
117.612 TSF 6713 137 84 221 294 319 613
Proposed Project Generation
Townhomes2
35 DU 256 4 12 16 12 8 20
Total Net Trip Generation -6457 -133 -72 -205 -282 -311 -593 TSF = Thousand Square Feet, DU = Dwelling Units
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation,10th Edition, 2017 . Land Use Code 820 - Shopping Center fitted curve equation.

Daily Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.68 Ln(X) + 5.57, where T is Daily Rate, X is the 1000 sq. ft. gross area.

AM Peak Hour Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.50(X) + 151.78, where T is Daily Rate, X is the 1000 sq. ft. gross area.

PM Peak Hour Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 2.89, where T is Daily Rate, X is the 1000 sq. ft. gross area. 2 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation,10th Edition, 2017 . Land Use Code 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise).

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 151
The HSSP Final EIR determined that neighborhoods within the Specific Plan area will be linked to major open space/recreation facilities such as Huntington Central Park and the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park by bike lanes on arterials. Garfield Avenue is classified as a Pri mary Arterial running east-westerly with two lanes and a Class II bicycle lane in each direction separated by striped medians. Main Street is classified as a Major Arterial, running north-southerly with 3 lanes and a Class II bicycle lane in each direction. The proposed Project is 1.2 southeast of the Huntington Central Park and the bicycle route would provide bicycle transportation opportunities for residents of the Project site. The Project would not conflict with any bicycle facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would also not conflict with pedestrian facilities. Overall, Project impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR did not evaluate impacts related to conflicts or inconsistenci es with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.2, subdivision (b) as the threshold was not included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G at the time the HSSP Final EIR was written. CEQA analysis of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) went into effect July 1, 2020, and therefore was not a CEQA consideration in 2018, when the HSSP Final EIR was certified.

This addendum does not need to include a VMT analysis because the HSSP Final EIR was certified before VMT analyses were required to be prepared (A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773, 1801). Also, because at the time the HSSP Final EIR was certified, VMT impacts were known or should have been known, adoption of the requirement to analyze VMT does not constitute significant new information, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR ( Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4 th 1301, 1320). Nonetheless, the following analyzes the Project’s VMT impacts. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed into law on September 27, 2013, and changed the way that public agencies evaluate transportation impact under CEQA. A key element of this law is the elimination of using auto delay, level of service, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA. The legislative intent of SB 743 was to "more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of publ ic health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions." According to the law, "traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" within CEQA transportation analysis.

SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or level of service as part of other plans (i.e., a city’s General Plan), studies, congestion management and transportation improvements, but these metrics may no longer constitute the basis for transportatio n impacts under CEQA analysis as of July 1, 2020. For example, in the City, the General Plan identifies level of service as being a required analysis, and even though it will no longer be a requirement of CEQA, unless the General Plan is amended, level of service will continue to be analyzed as part of project review.

The Governor's Office of Planning and Research updated the CEQA Guidelines to establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Based on input from the public, public agencies, and various organizations, the Office of Planning and Research recommended that VMT be the primary metric for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 152
In December 2018, OPR issued a Technical Advisory on evaluating transportation i mpacts in CEQA that provides the following screening criteria for land development projects that may result in a less than significant VMT impact:
• Local-serving retail less than 50,000 SF, including schools, daycare, student housing, etc. • Small projects generating less than 110 trips per day • Residential and office projects located in areas with low-VMT • Projects near transit stations or a major transit stop that is located along a high quality transit corridor
• Residential projects with a high percentage of affordable housing

In addition, the Technical Advisory describes that projects with the following may result in a VMT impact:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the Lead Agency with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization).

The City of Huntington Beach has yet to adopt individual VMT Guidelines. Therefore, Project-related VMT impact has been assessed qualitatively based on guidance from the OPR Technical Advisory. As shown above in Table T-1, the Project generates net negative 6,457 daily trips, fewer than 110 net daily vehicle trips.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on VMT. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that circulation impacts would be less than significant.

Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via an ingress and egress driveway connecting to Holly Lane; vehicle access to Main Street would limited to emergency vehicles only, via a gate with Knox Box and Opticom device. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project area. The proposed Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal circulation, is subject to the City’s development standards and HSSP design guidelines . The Project design would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant.

No new or substantially greater impa cts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the HSSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the HSSP Final EIR.

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact.

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of driveways, connections to existing infrastructure systems, and construction of new infrastructure Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 153
that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure of one side or portions of roadways for a short period of time (i.e., hours or a few days). However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City’s perm itting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less than significant level.

Operation
As described previously, the proposed Project area would be provided via an ingress and egress driveway connecting to Holly Lane; vehicle access Main Street would be limited to emergency vehicles only, via a gate with Knox Box and Opticom device. The construction permitting process would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project area, and would provide routes for emergency responders to access different portions of the Project site. The Fire Department and the Public Works Department would review the development plans as part of the permitting procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), included as Munic ipal Code Section 8104. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City ’s permitting process, potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.

Also, as detailed in Table T-1, the proposed Project would result in approximately 6,457 fewer daily trips, 205 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 593 fewer PM peak hour trips than buildout of the site pursuant to the HSSP. Thus, the Project would not generate traffic that would impact roadway capacity in such a manner that would result in inadequate emergency access. Overall, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding transportation and traffic. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

None.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 154

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe transportation impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for transportation.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 155

9.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place,
or object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:

Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
As described in Section 4.11 of the HSSP Final EIR, there was indication from record searches that there is the potential for burials/human remains to be present within the H SSP area and it is unknown if human remains would be discovered during HSSP implementation. Mitigation was included stating that treatment of burials will be in accordance with a burial strategy, to be developed with input from Native American Tribes.

With mitigation, impacts were considered less than significant.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project

See in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources.

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires t hat lead agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice of Exemption or Addendum.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 156
Pursuant to the provisions of Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) , the City contacted the following tribal representatives on December 8, 2021 requesting consultation in compliance with SB 18:
• Campo Band of Mission Indians
• Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office
• Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation
• Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrieleño/Tongva Nation
• Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribe
• Juaneño Band of Mission Indians-Acjachemen Nation
• La Posta Band of Mission Indians
• Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation
• Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
• Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians

The City received responses from two tribal representatives regarding the proposed Project, as follows:
• The Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation stated that coastal Huntington Beach is an extremely sensitive area the tribe, and this project is takin g place in proximity to several of their sacred sites. The tribe approves of the Native American monitoring condition and ask ed that the mitigation measures include monitoring by a representative of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjcahemen Nation- Belardes. No Project site-specific information was received. • The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation participated in a consultation with the City on February 1, 2022 and provided information about the importance of the Project area and of recent Tribal Cultural Resources ( TCRs) and human remains found nearby in Fountain Valley . Mitigation measures were provided to the City requesting monitoring of ground disturbance by Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation. No Project site-specific information was received.

In addition to consulting with two tribal representatives regarding the Project, the City also contacted the NAHC and requested that a Sacred Lands File search be conducted for the subject property. On January 6, 2022, the NAHC responded to the City’s request and confirmed that the Sacred Lands File search was negative for any known cultural resources on the site.

The Project site is currently partially developed with a commercial building and site soils have been previously disturbed from past grading and installation of utility infrastructure for the existing building as well as historic oil drilling activities . There are no known tribal cultural resources on the site. Furthermore, there is reduced potential for the Project to impact tribal cultural resources because the site has previously been disturbed. However, the Project related ground disturbance may result in excavation into the underlying older alluvium where undiscovered tribal cultural resources could exist. HSSP mitigation measure Archeology 2b requires development strategy with Native American tribes prior to excavation. Mitigation measure Archeology 2f requires all excavation and ground disturbing projects to include a Native American monitor; the measure has been revised to incorporate language requested during SB 18 consultation, including a tribal monitoring agreement, procedures for unanticipated discovery of human remains, and procedures for burials and funerary remains.

In addition, mitigation measure Archeology 4 in Section 5.15) requires the retention of an archaeologist for archaeological monitorin g and notification to tribes if tribal cultural resources are unearthed . With implementation of Archeology 2b, 2f and 4, as well as regulatory requirements, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Therefore, the proposed Project Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 157
would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 that is a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or PRC Section 5020.1(k) and no new substantial environmental impacts would occur in comparison to the HSSP Final EIR.

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native Americ an tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria s et forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As discussed above, there are no known tribal cultural resources that would be affected by the Project. The Project site is currently partially developed with a commercial building and site soils have been previously disturbed from past grading and installation of utility infrastructure for the existing building.

There are no known tribal cultural resources on the site. There is reduced potential for the Project to impact tribal cultural resources because the site has previously been disturbed. However, the Project may result in excavation into the underlying older alluvium where undiscovered tribal cultural resources could exist. HSSP mitigation measures Archeology 2b and 2f require tribal monitoring and Archeology 4 requires the retention of an archaeologist for archaeological monitoring and notification to tribes if tribal cultural resources are unearthed. With implementation of these measures, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

Additionally, the California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 require s that if human remains are discovered in the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, they shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant and no new substantial environmental impacts would occur in comparison to the HSSP Final EIR.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures ex ist regarding tribal cultural resources. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severit y of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 158
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

(See PPP CUL-1 in Section 5.5)

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe tribal cultural resources impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for tribal cultural resources.

HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project Archaeology 2. The archaeological deposits within the Holly-Seacliff study area should be subjected to a program of excavation designed to recover sufficient data to fully describe the sites. The following program is recommended:

d. A statistically valid sample of site material should be excav ated. The data recovery excavation should be conducted under the provisions of a carefully developed research design. The research questions presented earlier in this report should be incorporated into the research design, other important research questions should be developed from the test excavation data included, and a statement of methodology to be observed must be included.

e. A qualified observer appointed by the Principal Investigator/Archaeologist should monitor grading of the archaeological sites to recover important material which might appear. The monitor will be assigned by the Principal Investigator. This activity may require some minor delay or redirecting of grading while material is being recovered. The observer should be prepared to recover ma terial as rapidly as is consistent with good archaeological practice. Monitoring should be on a full time basis when grading is taking place on or near an archaeological deposit. However, the grading should terminate when the cultural deposit has been enti rely removed and clearly sterile deposits exposed.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 159
f. All excavation and ground disturbing observation projects should include a Native American Observer. Burials are known to exist at some of the sites, a circumstance which is extremely important to the Native American community. Therefore, the developer/applicant shall:

1. Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from a consulting tribe (Tribe). The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground- disturbing activities, the type of construct ion activities performed, locations of ground -disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCR s, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Tribe from a designated poi nt of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground - disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground -disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Tribe to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact TCRs.

E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the monitor and/or archaeo logist. The Tribe will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objec ts, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized on the project site, then all construction activ ities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground -disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain h alted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, they shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 160
D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Tribe determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).) E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

3: Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:

A. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.

B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.

C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.

D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this typ e of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.

E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.

F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.

G. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sk etches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 161
NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize an y scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 162

9.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequa te capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to utilities and service systems on pages 4.16-1 through 4.18-

9. According the HSSP Final EIR, the existing domestic water facilities are operated and maintained by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. The existing water supply is a combination of both ground water wells and imported water from Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The current water system cannot provide the necessary service to the area. However, the City’s Water System Master Plan indicates that the newly constructed major transmission and main lines should provide adequate capacity. The storage capacity should be increased when proposed reservoirs are constructed. The increase in storage capacity should be sufficient to provide adequate supply. The peak flow demand for the HSSP was approximately 1,250 gallons per minute (gpm) compared to the City’s General Plan buildout of 1,516 gpm. Thus, the proposed HSSP would not significantly impact the service for which facilities have previously been planned and designed for within the City. However, given the uncertain sources of future water supplies, the HSSP would have project specific and cumulative impacts to the City’s water supply.

According to the HSSP Final EIR, the existing sewer facilities for the Project areas are served by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department and the Sanitation Districts No.3 and No.11 of Orange County.

The wastewater is processed at treatment plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The City’s Master Plan of Sewers indicated that four major truck lines and one City pump station would ultimately be required to collect and convey sewage. The HSSP Final EIR analyzed sewer flows by utilizing the recommended unit flow generators for average dry we ather flows as provided by the City Public Works Department. The peak sewer flow based on the 383 proposed residential units within Planning Area IV Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 163
(Planning Area E of the Final HSSP EIR) is approximately 0.195 million gallons per day (mgd). Based on the calculations, the Final HSSP EIR concluded that existing public lines can accommodate the completed development envisioned under the HSSP. The construction of a parallel main in Goldenwest Avenue from Ellis Avenue to Talbert Avenue was anticipated to be required along with an extension of the Coast Trunk Sewer line at Goldenwest Street and Orange Avenue. A new 10-inch line was also anticipated to be required to extend west in Garfield Avenue from Goldenwest Street. The construction of these lines was anticipated to be completed with the City’s Goldenwest Street Improvements and was separate from the HSSP Final EIR.

With implementation of the HSSP mitigation measures, impacts to the City’s sewer system would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Development of the HSSP was estimated to generate approximately 22,932,000 pounds of solid waste per year. The HSSP Final EIR noted that the solid waste disposal firm Republic (formerly known as Rainbow Disposal) was operating below capacity and new facilities were not anticipated to be required to serve the HSSP. With implementation of the HSSP mitigation measures, impacts related to solid waste disposal would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Development of the HSSP was estimated to generate approximately 22,932,000 pounds of solid waste per year. The HSSP Final EIR noted that the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas to the City and indicated that gas service to the HSSP area could be serviced from the existing mains within the Project area. With implementation of the HSSP mitigation measures, t he HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to Gas would be less than significant.

Development of the HSSP was estimated to generate approximately 25,768,400 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. According to the HSSP Final EIR, the Southern California Edison Company (SCE) owns and operates an electrical distribution substation facility which supplies electrical energy to a large portion of the City and as such, SCE indicated that electricity demands of the project were within its service capacity. Therefore, the HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to electricity would be less than significant.

According to the HSSP Final EIR, telephone service was provided to the City of Huntington Beach by General Telephone Company (GTE) and cable television service was provided by the City of Huntington Beach by Rogers Cable TV . The HSSP Final EIR noted that future development would increase the demands for telephone and cable service, which may in turn require the installation of new se rvice lines. With implementation of the HSSP mitigation measures, the HSSP Final EIR concluded that i mpacts related to telephone services would be less than significant.

Applicable HSSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures

None.

a) Require or result in the cons truction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that due to the uncertainty of future water supplies, impacts related to expanded water would have a significant and unavoidable and cumulative impact to the City’s water supply. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that wastewater treatme nt would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. In addition, the HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to electricity and natural gas would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Domestic water services would be provided to the Project by the City through the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), and Orange County Water District (OCWD). Wastewater treatment services are provided to the area by the Orange County Sanitation District Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 164
(OCSD). As discussed previously, the Project would construct private domestic water and lines sewer lines onsite that would connect to an existing 8 -inch water and an existing 8 -inch sewer line in Holly Lane. In addition, an onsite storm drain system is proposed which will outlet to a modular wetland system treatment unit. The flow after treatment would be directed to the public storm drain system within Garfield Avenue via a storm drain line with a new connection point. Water would then be conveyed from the public Strom Drain system along Garfield Avenue and continue east and then south along Delaware and ultimately the Huntington Beach Channel.

The Project would also connect to existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities.

Therefore, the Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities that could cause environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those i dentified in the HSSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the HSSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the HSSP Final EIR.

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the pr oject and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to water supplies would be a significant and unavoidable impact due to the increased demands for water supplies and the uncertainty of water supplies in Southern California.

The City of Huntington Beach provides water to the City and works with the MWD, MWDOC, and OCWD to ensure safe and reliable water supply for the City. The City’s water distribution system is connected to three MWD main connections located in the northeast, northwest, and southeast sections of the City.

Groundwater is currently pumped from eight active wells located throughout the City. In addition, the City operates four storage and distribution water reservoirs with a total capacity of 55 million gallons.

The 2020 City of Huntington Beach Urban Water Manag ement Plan (UWMP) details that MWDOC and OCWD have adequate supplies to serve its customers during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year demand through 2045 with projected population increases and accompanying increases in water demand.

Furthermore, MWDOC and OCWD forecasts for water demand are based on population projections of SCAG, which rely on adopted land use designations contained in general plans that cover the geographic area. Implementation of the Project would result in an incremental and less than significant increase in the demand for water . The UWMP detailed a 2020 water demand of 109 gallons per capita per day. As described previously in the Population and Housing section, the Project would result in approximately 102 new residents. Thus, the Project would generate a water demand of 11,118 gallons per day or 12.5 acre- feet per year, which is within the anticipated increased demand and supply for water, as shown on Table UT-1 and Table UT-2 below.

Table UT-1: City of Huntington Beach Projected Water Supply (AF) Water Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
OCWD Basin Groundwater 22,439 22,545 22,388 22,179 22,146 Purchased or Imported
Water
3,960 3,979 3,951 3,914 3,908
Total 26,399 26,524 26,339 26,093 26,054
Source: City of Huntington Beach 2020 UWMP
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 165

Table UT-2: City of Huntington Beach Projected Water Demand (AF) Water Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable and other non -
potable water
25,966 26,399 26,339 26,093 26,054
Source: City of Huntington Beach 2020 UWMP

Redevelopment of the Project site would also be required to comply with CALGreen/Title 24 requirements for low-flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation, which would provide for efficient water use. Therefore, MWDOC and OCWD have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts would be less than significant.

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to wastewater would be less than significant.

Sewer collection pipelines are maintained by the Sunset Beach Sanitary District (SBSD) and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Sewage collected by the City and the SBSD system flows into the OCSD trunk sewer system and leads to the OCSD treatment plant No. 2 which has a capacity of 312 million gallons per day (mgd). OCSD also operates Reclamation Plant No.1 which has a capacity of 320 mgd (City of HB GPU).

Based on the OCSD wastewater generation rates of 7,516 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac) for residential, the Project would conservatively generate a total of 16,610 gpd (0.006 mgd) of wastewater.

This capacity is adequate to ser ve the Project and the Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of th e capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to the generation of solid waste would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As discussed in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR, all solid waste collected in the City is taken to a transfer station/materials recovery facility located at 17121 Nichols Avenue. The facility has a permitted capacity of 4,000 tons per day of solid waste and currently receives approximately 1,800 to 2,000 tons of solid waste per day (City of HB GPU).

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 166
Project construction would generate solid waste for landfill disposal in the form of demolition debris from the existing buildings and infrastructure that would be removed from the site. Construction waste in the form of packaging and discarded materials would also be generated by the proposed Project. However, Section

5.408.1 of the 2 019 California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste.

Thus, the demolition and construction solid waste that would be disposed of at the landfill would be approximately 35 percent of the waste generated. The solid waste from the Project would be taken to the Bowerman landfill. As the Bowerman landfill has a limit of 11,500 tons per day and currently receives approximately 8,863 tons per day, it has an additional capacity of 2,637 tons per day (CalRecycle 2022), the facilities would be able to accommodate the addition of solid waste during construction of the proposed Project.

Operation of the Project in cludes development of the 35 three-story townhomes. Based on the per capita solid waste generation factor for the City of Huntington Beach of 4.6 pounds per person per day, the Project would generate approximately 469.2 pounds of waste per day or 0.23 tons per day. However, pursuant to AB 341, at least 75 percent of the solid waste is required to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 0.06 tons per day. As previously stated, the Project’s solid waste would be taken to the Bowerman landfill facility, which has an additional capacity of 2,637 tons per day; therefore, the facility would be able to accommodate the addition of 0.06 tons per day of solid waste from operation of the proposed Project. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impacts. The HSSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

The proposed Project would result in new development that would generate an increased amount of solid waste. All solid waste -generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code tha t requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. Development of th e Project would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through the City’s permitting process; and impacts would not occur. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with feder al, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding utilities and service systems. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 167
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation m easures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

None.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe utilities and service systems impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required regarding utilities and service systems.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 168

9.20 Wildfire Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Su bstantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollution concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines, or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongo ing impacts to the
environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the HSSP Final EIR
The HSSP Final EIR did not evaluate impacts related to wildfire as the threshold was not included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G at the time the HSSP Final EIR was written.

Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project None.

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not within an area identified as a Fire Hazard Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2022). As stated in Section 5.9 of this Addendum, the proposed Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The Project driveways and internal access would be required to meet the City’s design standards to ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9). Additionally, the proposed Project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closures or long-term blocking of road access) that would substantially impair or otherwise conflict with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Therefore, impacts related to emergency response and evacuation plans associated with construction of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Public access to the Project site would be provided by one public driveway off Holly Lane. Fire access to the site would be provided via the main entrance off Holly Lane and an additional emergency -vehicle-only driveway on Mai n Street that would include a 5'-6'' high metal gate with a Knox Box and Opticom . The Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 169
Project does not include any changes to public or private roadways that would physically impair or otherwise conflict with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Further, the proposed Project would not obstruct or alter any transportation routes that could be used as evacuation routes during emergency events. Further, access to and from the Project site for emergency vehicles would be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and the City as part of the Project approval process to ensure the proposed Project is compliant with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR.

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollution concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As stated previously, the Project site is not located within a fire hazard area. Additionally, the Project area is currently primarily developed with residential uses. The areas on and surrounding the site lack extensive combustible materials and vegetation necessary for the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

The Project site is flat and there are limited elevation changes in the Project vicinity. The Project proposes development of residential uses in an urban area. As such, the Project itself would not exacerbate wildfire risks as compared to existing conditions because it is representative of existing development in the area.

Conversely, removal of the aged building and fire suppression system an d installation of new construction and fire suppression systems may reduce fire risks. Thus, no impact related to other factors that would expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would occur from the Project.

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR.

c) Require the installation or maintenance of ass ociated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As stated previously, the Project site is not located within a fire hazard area. The Project does not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (including roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that would exacerbate fire risk or that would result in impacts to the environment. Although the Project includes a new driveway and fire access lane within the Project site, the Project does not include any changes to public or private roadways that would exacerbate fire risk or that would result in impacts to the environment. Although utility improvements, including domestic water, recycled water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain lines proposed as part of the Project would be extended throughout the Project site, these utility improvements would be underground and would not exacerbate fire risk. As described by the HSSP Final EIR, adherence to existing regulations would reduce risks from urban and wildland fire threats to the City to a less than significant level. The utility improvements that are part of redevelopment of the Project site would be reviewed and approved by the City part of the Project approval process to ensure complian ce. Therefore, the proposed Project would not include infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities), that would exacerbate fire risk or that would result in impacts to the environment.

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 170

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As stated previously, the Project site is not located within a fire hazard area. According to FEMA’s FIRM Flood Map 06056C0261J, the Project site is classified as Zone X, which includes areas with a minimal or 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard. The Project site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the south and southwest. The site is not near any hillsides or slope areas that could result in a landslide.

As established in Section 5.10 of this Addendum, soil would be compacted and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered due to grading during Project construction, and there would be an increased potential for flooding compared to existing conditions. However, construction BMPs would be identified and implemented as part of the SWPPP required for the proposed Project. Implementation of construction BMPs would control and direct surface runoff to prevent flooding . As such, Project construction would not expose people or structures to significant risks related to downslope and downstream flooding. During opera tion, the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing onsite drainage patterns. Compliance with the proposed operational BMPs would ensure onsite storm drain facilities would be sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the Project site s o that onsite flooding would not occur. Further, projects in the City are required to comply with the CBC, which would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. These features would reduce potential impacts related to landslides to a less than significant level.

No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the HSSP Final EIR.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Sect ion 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding wildfire. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require addi tional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)

None.

Project Design Features (PDFs)

None.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 171

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

No new impacts nor substantially more severe wildfire impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required regarding wildfires.

9.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to 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, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered pl ant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?

a) Does the project have the potential to 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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, the Project site is completely developed and located within an urban area that does not contain any native habitats. Due to the disturbed status of the site, it does not provide habitat that could be utilized by species listed or candidates for listing by USFWS, CDFW, or the CNPS. There is no existing ornamental landscaping or trees on the site that would have the potential to provide for nesting migratory birds. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to fish and wildlife species or plant community, which is consistent with analysis within the HSSP Final EIR.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 172
As discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, there are no historic resources located with the Project site. In addition, due to the development of the Project site and previous disturbances associated with the construction and operation of the existing site use, the potential for encountering paleontological and archeological resources is small. However, the Project would implement Final EIR mitigation measures Paleontology 6 through 10, Archeology 2b and 2f and Archaeology 4, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The proposed Project’s potential cumulative impacts were analyzed in the HSSP Final EIR as part of build out of the HSSP and would not result in new impacts beyond those analyzed in the HSSP Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable impact under any impact area, including aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems , or wildfires. With implementation of existing regulations and the relevant Final EIR’s mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts.

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As described throughout Section 5, above, the proposed Project has no new or substantially more severe potentially significant impacts and no new mitigation measures would be required. The implementation of the HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures, City standards, and City guidelines would ensure that there would be no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There would be no new impacts.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, none of the co nditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist. There have not been 1) changes rela ted to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the HSSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new informatio n of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the HSSP Final EIR was certified as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1516 2 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require addi tional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the HSSP.

Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
As outlined in Sections 5.1 through 5.20, above.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 173

Project Design Features (PDFs)

As outlined in Sections 5.1 through 5.20, above.

Mitigation/Monitoring Required

As detailed previously, the HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project would be implemented for the Project as intended by the HSSP Final EIR. Upon implementation of applicable Final EIR mitigation measures, no new impacts nor substantially more adverse impacts would result from the implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. No refinements related to the proposed Project are necessary to the HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 174
10 Document Preparers and Contributors

Lead Agency:

City of Huntington Beach
Planning Division
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648

CEQA Document Preparer:

EPD Solutions, Inc.

Konnie Dobreva, JD
Brooke Blandino
Alex Garber
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 175
11 References

City of Huntington Beach. City Parks. Accessed:
https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/residents/parks_facilities/parks/

City of Huntington Beach City Specifications. Accessed:
https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire/fire_prevention_code_enforcement/fi re_dept_city_specifications.cfm

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor. Accessed on 2 February 2022. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed on 1 February 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/

CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System Facility/Site Search. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/

CalRecycle Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility (ca.gov). Accessed:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility

CalRecycle Landfill Tonnage Reports: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LandfillTipFees/

California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Cal FIRE. Accessed from: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

California Important Farmland Finder. California Department of Conservation. Accessed from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed 21February 2022 from:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=026e830c914c495797c969a3e5668538

CalRecycle. Landfill Tonnage Reports, 2019. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LandfillTipFees/

Caltrans Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental- analysis/noise-vibration/guidance-manuals

City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR, 2017. (City of HB GPU) Accessed:
https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/Final-EIR-08_04_17.pdf

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites (DEFRA 2004). Accessed:
https://www.academia.edu/13212564/UPDATE_OF_NOISE_DATABASE_FOR_PREDICTION_OF_NOISE_ ON_CONSTRUCTION_AND_OPEN_SITES

EnviroStor. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Accessed from https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. CalRecycle. Accessed from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates

Fault Activity Map of California. California Department of Conservation. Accessed from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project 176

FEMA Flood Map Center. Accessed: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home

Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). Accessed:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and- vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf

Huntington Beach, City of, General Plan, 2017.
https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/Natural-and-Environmental-Hazards.pdf

Municipal Water District of Orange County. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.mwdoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/MWDOC-2020-UWMP_2021.06.02.pdf

Natural Community Conservation Plan & Habitat Conservation Plan. County of Orange Central & Coastal Subregion. Participants in the NCCP/HCP Process (ES-6). July 17, 1996.

Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, and Addendum to Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. 2022. Prepared by Carlin Environmental Consulting, Inc., Appendix D

2019 Residential Energy Code Fact Sheet (2019 Fact Sheet). Accessed:
https://energycodeace.com/content/resources-ace/file_type=fact-sheet

2019 Building Ene rgy Efficiency Standards. Accessed:
https://energycodeace.com/site/custom/public/reference-ace- 2019/index.html#!Documents/section1500mandatoryfeaturesanddevices.htm#mairdistributionandventilati onsystemductsplenumsandfans.htm
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or public agency that approves or carries out a project for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted which identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects and where findings with respect to changes or alterations in the project have been made, to adopt a “…reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.6).

The Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89 -1 (HSSP Final EIR) (SCH #89010412) certified by the City of Huntington Beach (City) on January 8, 1990, in conjunction with an Addendum HSSP Final EIR, serve as the environmental review for the proposed Holly Triangle Townhomes Project. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented for the Holly Triangle Townhomes Project (Project). The City of Huntington Beach is the Lead Agency for the Project and is responsible for implementation of the MMRP. This report describes the MMRP for the Project and identifies the parties that will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the individual mitigation measures in the MMRP.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The MMRP for the Project will be active through all phases of the Project, including design, construction, and operation. The attached Table 1 identifies the mitigation program required to be implemented by the City for the Holly Triangle Townhomes Project . The table identifies the Standard Conditions; Plan, Program, Policies (PPPs); Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures from the HSSP Final EIR required by the City to mitigate or avoid significant adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the Project, the timing of implementation, and the responsible party or parties for monitoring compliance.

Revisions to existing HSSP Final EIR mitigation measures are shown in underline and deleti ons are show in strikethrough.

The MMRP also includes a column that will be used by the compliance monitor (individual responsible for monitoring compliance) to document when implementation of the measure is completed. As individual Plan, Program, Policies; and mitigation measures are completed, the compliance monitor will sign and date the MMRP, indicating that the required actions have been completed.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

2 This page intentionally left blank
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

3 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials

AESTHETICS
PPP AES-1. The proposed Project shall comply with lighting standards detailed in the City’s Municipal Code, which requires Project lighting to be shielded, diffused, or indirect to avoid glare to both on offsite residents, pedestrians, and motorists.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Community Development
Department

AIR QUALITY
PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. The construction plans and specifications shall state that the project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Grading and
Building Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Public Works Department
and Community
Development Department

PPP AQ-2: Rule 403. The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD
guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Grading Permits.

Ongoing during Construction
Activities.

City of Huntington Beach
Public Works Department
and Community
Development Department

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

4 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
PPP AQ-3: Rule 1113. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. The Project shall only use “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building Permits
City of Huntington Beach
Public Works Department
and Community
Development Department

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Demolition Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Public Works Department
and Community
Development Department

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PPP BIO-1: The Project shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (United States Code Title 33, Section 703 et seq.; see also Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code during the avian nesting and breeding season that occurs between February 1 and September 15. The provisions of the MBTA prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Community Development
Department

CULTURAL RESOURCES
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. Should human remains be discovered during Project construction, the Project would be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the body until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Grading Permits.

Ongoing during Construction
Activities.

City of Huntington Beach
Community Development
Department

Mitigation Measure Archaeology 4. Ground disturbing activity within the study area should be monitored by a qualified observer assigned by the Principal Investigator/Archaeologist to determine if significant historic deposits, (e.g. foundations, trash deposits, privy pits and similar features) have been exposed. The monitoring should be on a full-time In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Grading Permits.

Ongoing during Construction
Activities.

City of Huntington Beach
Community Development
Department

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

5 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
basis, but can be terminated when clearly undisturbed geologic formations are exposed. If such exposures occur, appropriate collections should be made, followed by analysis and report preparation. Historic material may be encountered anywhere within the Holly-Seacliff property, but the area around the old Holly Sugar Refinery is probably more sensitive than the balance of the project area. Historical material recovered at the archaeological sites should be treated with those deposits.

If discovered archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and any consulting Native American groups expressing interest following notification by the City, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that confirmed resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery, reburial/relocation, deposit at a local museum that accepts such resources, or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as a historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

6 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2.

ENERGY
PPP GHG‐1: Title 24 Standards. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Manager, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency standards for residential uses require that solar photovoltaic electricity be installed equal to the amount used annually.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Community Development
Department

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PPP GEO‐1 The Project shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Design Parameters or the most current CBC adopted in the City’s Municipal Code.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Community Development
Department

PPP GEO-2 As required by the current CBC adopted in the City’s Municipal Code, prior to issuance of a grading permit, site preparation shall follow the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation and Design Report for Proposed Residential Development Huntington Beach, California (dated November 4, 2020), prepared by Group Delta Consultants, as well as any additional future site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigations of the Project.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Grading and
Demolition Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Community Development
Department

Mitigation Measure Paleontology 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading plan, a A qualified paleontologist should be retained to periodically monitor the site during grading or extensive trenching activities that cut into the San Pedro Sand or the Quaternary marine terrace units. shall prepare a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) for submittal and review by the City. Implementation of the PRIMP will ensure that adverse impacts to potentially significant paleontological resources are mitigated to a level less than significant level. The PRIMP shall comply with the provisions outlined below:

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Grading Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Community Development
Department

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

7 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials

1. Shall comply with Holly -Seacliff Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Paleontology 6 through 10.

2. Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. The PRIMP shall stipulate that monitoring will be conducted either full or part time at the determination of the paleontologist, based upon the identific ation of undisturbed sediments of “old paralic deposits undivided (late to middle Pleistocene” (Qop). The Project paleontologist is responsible to periodically visit the property during the initial stages of grading to identify the Pleistocene deposits and direct the initiation of monitoring.

Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources.

4. Fossils shall be collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field number, coll ector, and date collected. Notes shall be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which is photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are removed to a safe place. On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites shall be protected by flagging to prevent them from being over -run by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins. Fossils shall be collected in a similar manner, with notes and photographs being taken before removing the fossils. Precise location of the site shall be determined with the use of handheld GPS units. If the site involves remains from a large terrestrial vertebrate, such as large bone(s) or a mammoth tusk, that is/are too large to be easily removed by a single monitor, a fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find, encase the find within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove it after the plaster is set. For large Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

8 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment may be solicited to help remove the jacket to a safe location.

5. Isolated fossils shall be collected by hand, wrapped in paper, and placed in temporary collecting flats or five-gallon buckets.

Notes shall be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which shall be photographed before it shall be vacated and the fossils are removed to a safe place.

6. Particularly small invertebrate fossils typically represent multiple specimens of a limited number of organisms, and a scientifically suitable sample can be obtained from one to several five -gallon buckets of fossiliferous sediment. If it is possible to dry screen the sediment in the field, a concentrated sample may consist of one or two buckets of material. For vertebrate fossils, the test is usually the observed presence of small pieces of bones within the sediments. If present, as man y as 20 to 40 five -gallon buckets of sediment can be collected and returned to a separate facility to wet-screen the sediment.

7. In accordance with the “Microfossil Salvage” section of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (2010:7), bulk sampling and screening of fine -grained sedimentary deposits (including carbonate -rich paleosols) must be performed if the deposits are identified to possess indications of producing fossil “microvertebrates” to test the feasibility of the deposit to yield fossil bones and teeth.

9. Recovered specimens are prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation (not display), including screen - washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and
vertebrates. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time- consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.

10. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Western Scienc e Center or the Orange County Natural History Foundation) shall be conducted. The paleontological Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

9 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
program should include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the lead agency (e.g., the City of Huntington Beach) will be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material.

12. Decisions regarding the intensity of the MMRP will be made by the Project paleontologist based on the significance of the paleontological resources and their biostratigra phic,
biochronologic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, and taxonomic attributes, not upon the ability of a Project proponent to fund the MMRP.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PPP GHG‐1: Title 24 Standards. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Manager, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency standards for residential uses require that solar photovoltaic electricity be installed equal to the amount used annually.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Community Development
Department

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building Permits.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

10 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
PPP HAZ-1: City Specification 422, Oil Well Abandonment Permit Process. In accordance with this City regulation, the Project plans will include the requirements for oil well abandonment. Pursuant to this requirement, before any oil well abandonment operations are commenced, the State of California Geological Energy Management Division (CalGEM) must be contacted, and the following processes initiated:
• For all sites undergoing development, the owner must complete and submit a Well Review Program Introduction and
Application to the CalGEM. At completion of the CalGEM
review, a Well Review Letter will be issued to the owner. • The well operator must submit an application to abandon or re- abandon each oil well to the DOGGR when the well is not abandoned to the current CalGEM standards, or when the well casing will be modified. The CalGEM will then issue a permit that sets forth their agency requirements and conditions. • The CalGEM Well Review Letter (if applicable) and
abandonment permit must be presented to the Huntington Beach Fire Department to obtain a Fire Department permit for well abandonment.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Grading Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Fire Department

PPP HAZ-2: City Specification 429, Methane Mitigation
Requirements. In accordance with this City regulation, the Project plans and construction permits will implement the requirements for methane gas testing and mitigation systems for new structures. The proposed residential structures would include methane mitigation systems that will be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department during the Project permitting process.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Fire Department

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Demolition Permits
City of Huntington Beach
Fire Department

PPP HAZ -4: California State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin 03-001, Encroachments into or on Pipeline Easements. In accordance with Bulletin

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

11 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
03-001, during construction, the Project Applicant will be required to coordinate with the pipeline operator (Crimson Pipeline, L.P.) and to comply with California State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin 03-001, Encroachments into or on Pipeline Easements, which states that nothing shall encroach into or upon the pipeline easement, which would impede the pipeline operator from complete and unobstructed surface access along the pipeline right of way and that it is the responsibility of the pipeline operator to ensure they have unimpeded surface access and to be able to physically observe all portions of their pipeline rights of way.

PPP HWQ-1: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. As listed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Demolition Permits
City of Huntington Beach
Building Division

PDF HAZ-1: Well Re-Abandon Onsite Wells. The Project includes re- abandonment of two onsite wells [CWC #51 (API 0405901594) and Republic #4 (API 04045901698)] pursuant to CalGEM standards as implemented through City Specification 422.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building and
Grading Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Fire Department

PDF HAZ-2: Methane Barrier Systems. The Project includes design, permit, and installation of soil vapor barrier systems beneath the residential structures in accordance with City Specification 429. The methane barrier system will include a vent cone over each oil well, an impermeable membrane capable of precluding methane as well as other potential contaminated soil vapors from migrating into the residential structures. The gravel beneath the membrane shall have perforated vent piping through the roof of the residential structures.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Fire Department

Mitigation Measure Oil Facilities 2. All new development proposals should be accompanied by:

See PDF HAZ-1 City of Huntington Beach
Fire Department
Satisfied through
completion of the
Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

12 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
• A plan which addresses the requirements for abandoned wells. • The abandonment plans for existing wells.
• The operational plans for any remaining wells and facilities.

Assessments, included
as Addendum
Appendix D and PDF
HAZ-1
Mitigation Measure Human Health and Safety 1. Prior to grading and development, a site reconnaissance should be performed including a phased Environmental Site Assessment to evaluate areas where contamination of the surficial soils may have taken place. The environmental assessment should evaluate existing available information pertinent to the site and also undertake a limited investigation of possible on-site contamination. Phase I should include:
a. Review of available documents pertinent to the subject site to evaluate current and previous uses.
b. Site reconnaissance to evaluate areas where contamination of surficial soils may have taken place.
c. Excavation and testing of oil samples to determine presence of near surface contamination of soil.
d. Subsurface exploration to determine presence of sumps on-site.

Testing of possible drilling fluids for heavy metals.
e. Completion of soil gas vapor detection excavations located adjacent to the existing on-site wells.
f. Testing of air samples for gas vapor, meth ane gas and sulfur compounds.
(Satisfied through completion of the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, included as Appendix D)

See PDF HAZ-1 and PDF HAZ-2 City of Huntington Beach
Fire Department.

Satisfied through
completion of the
Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site
Assessments, included
as Addendum
Appendix D.

Mitigation Measure Human Health and Safety 2. The actual site characterization and remedial action plan would be developed as part of a later phase. Upon completion of the Environmental Assessment, a Remedial Action Plan can be developed. This plan should address the following items:

See PDF HAZ-1 and PDF HAZ-

2. City of Huntington Beach
Fire Department
Satisfied through
completion of the
Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site
Assessments, included
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

13 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
a. Treatment of possible crude oil contaminated soils. A possible solution to this condition would be aeration of the contaminated soils to release the volatile gases and then incorporation of the treated soils into the roadway fills (subgrade).
b. Treatment of possible drilling sumps by either on -site disposal of noncontaminated drilling fluids or off -site disposal of contaminated fluids.
c. Treatment of the possibility of the accumulation of methane gas.

as Addendum
Appendix D.

Mitigation Measure Human Health and Safety 3. Prior to
development, a thorough site study for the presence of surface and shallow subsurface methane gas should be performed. Any abnormal findings would require a Remedial Action Plan and further studies to assure sufficient mitigation of the hazardous areas prior to building construction. All structures should have a gas and vapor barrier installed underneath the slabs and foundations. Gas collection and ventilation systems should be installed over abandoned wells which are underneath or within ten (10) feet of any structure, and over wells which show evidence of surface emissions of methane gas. Additionally, following construction of structures, an organic vapor analysis should be conducted and the results evaluated to assure that acceptable air quality is maintained within buildings and residences.

Will be satisfied through
completion of PDF HAZ-2.

See PDF HAZ-2 Satisfied through
completion of the
Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site
Assessments, included
as Addendum
Appendix D, and PDF
HAZ-2.

Mitigation Measure Human Health and Safety 4. The presence of methane gas on-site should be the subject of future studies that include the following tasks:
a) Drilling of test wells to monitor for subsurface methane deposits and confirm or deny the presence of biogenic
methane bearing strata near the surface in the development area.
b) Shallow excavation and sampling in areas either known or assumed to be potential drilling mud sumps;
c) Vapor monitoring of shallow vapor probes placed at strategic locations on the site and collection of soil vapor samples; d) Vapor survey areas adjacent to known abandoned oil wells; e) Laboratory analysis of selected soil samples for metals and soil vapor samples for gases.
f) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall have implemented all required site assessment and remedial In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building and
Grading Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Fire Department
Items a-e satisfied
through completion of
the Phase I and Phase
II Environmental Site
Assessments, included
as Appendix D.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

14 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
actions to address residual contamination in soil and soil gas, as prescribed by the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) and under DTSC oversight. The Project Applicant shall obtain a “No Further Action” letter or other written concurrence from DTSC indicating the successful completion of remediation activities and submit this written documentation to the City of Huntington Beach Fire
Department for approval. In the event that DTSC elects not to oversee any Voluntary Cleanup activities on the site, the Applicant will seek oversight from the Orange County Health Care Agency or the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board and demonstrate compliance with applicable residential soil vapor screening levels. The Applicant will hire a City-approved consultant to conduct any required site
assessments and remedial actions to address residual
contamination in soil and soil gas on the site in compliance with existing regulations, and the City-approved consultant will submit all reports and materials to the appropriate regulatory agency and to the City simultaneous with any submittals to the Applicant.
g) Protection of 6-inch crude oil pipeline:
• Prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits,
the Applicant shall coordinate with the oil pipeline
operator (Crimson Pipeline, L.P.) and the State Fire
Marshall's Office Pipeline Safety Division and shall
demonstrate to the City of Huntington Beach Fire
Department that a construction plan is in place to
ensure that no damage will occur to the pipeline
during construction and to confirm the installation and operation of the fire flow line will not be impacted
by the oil pipeline. The pipeline operator requires
that all excavation in the vicinity of the pipeline be
done with hand tools in the presence of the pipeline
operators inspector consistent with California State
Law requirements, and that any damage to the
pipeline shall be reported immediately. The pipeline
operator shall perform the necessary repair to insure
the public safety and shall be reimbursed for all
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

15 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
repair work necessary to continue with the safe,
reliable operation of the pipeline.
• Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit, an
operational plan shall be coordinated with the oil
pipeline operator (Crimson Pipeline, L.P.) and the
State Fire Marshall's Office Pipeline Safety Division,
to demonstrate to the City of Huntington Beach Fire
Department that the Homeowner’s Association will be
informed, and the CC&Rs include, the allowable and
prohibited encroachments into or on the pipeline
easement, the contact information for the applicable
regulatory agencies (City and state), emergency
procedures in the event of pipeline damage, as well
as the contact information and responsibilities of the
pipeline operator and any other relevant information
to ensure no damage would occur to the pipeline
during operation and to protect the health and safety
of residents.

Mitigation Measure Human Health and Safety 5. Oil wells scheduled for abandonment should be completed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the City of Huntington Beach and the California Division of Oil and Gas California Energy Management Division (CalGEM). Wells which have previously been abandoned must be re-abandoned to the most current requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the Division of Oil and Gas CalGEM.

Will be satisfied through
completion of PDF HAZ-1and
Mitigation Measure Human
Health and Safety 4f.

City of Huntington Beach
Fire Department
Will be satisfied
through completion of
PDF HAZ-1: Well Re-
Abandon Onsite as
implemented through
City Specification
422.

Mitigation Measure Human Health and Safety 10. Prior to development, a review of available public health records should be performed to evaluate possible public health risk sites in the vicinity of the subject site.

Prior to project approval. City of Huntington Beach
Community Development
Department
Satisfied through
completion of the
Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment,
included as
Addendum Appendix
D.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PPP HWQ‐1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with California’s General Permit for In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
City of Huntington Beach
Public Works Department

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

16 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing in a manner meeting the satisfaction of the City’s Department of Public Works. Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during all phases of construction. A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the construction site and be available for State and City review on request.

issuance of Grading and
Demolition Permits.

PPP HWQ‐2 General Waste Discharge Requirements. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, if construction dewatering or discharges from other specific activities (e.g., dewatering from subterranean seepage, potable water system maintenance discharges, fire hydrant flushing, etc.) are required, the Project Applicant shall notify the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and any discharges into surface waters shall be conducted in compliance with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Order No. R8-2015-0004 (NPDES No. CAG998001), which includes General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for discharges to surface water that pose an insignificant (de minimis) threat to water quality. The General WDRs include provisions mandating notification, testing, and reporting of dewatering and testing-related discharges, and contain numeric and performance-based effluent limits depending upon the type of discharge.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Grading Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Public Works Department

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

17 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works Department the following:
• All structural BMPs described in the Project’s approved WQMP have been implemented, constructed, and installed in
conformance with approved plans and specifications;
• Demonstrate that the Project Applicant has complied with all nonstructural BMPs described in the Project’s WQMP;
• Provide certifications from the Engineer of Record or Landscape Architect that the LID BMPs and treatment control BMPs were constructed and installed per the approved plans and
specifications;
• Copies of the Project’s approved WQMP (with attached O&M Plan and Educational Materials) are available for each of the initial occupants and tenants of the Project; and
• The Covenants, C onditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) includes pertinent BMPs in the approved WQMP and O&M Plan.

PPP HWQ‐4 Grading and Erosion Control Plans. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit for review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, the grading and erosion control plans for the Project. The plans shall demonstrate that proposed grading and excavation activities on the site shall include the installation of permanent and semipermanent erosion control measures in compliance with pertinent requirements of the City’s Grading and Excavation Code, as contained in Chapter

17.05 of the Municipal Code.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building and
Grading Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Public Works Department

PPP HWQ-5 Storm Drainage Plan. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, the storm drainage plan for the Project. The plan shall include the installation of an on-site storm drain system that would accommodate 100- year flood flows, in accordance with Chapter 255 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Orange County Hydrology Manual, and other City specifications. In addition, the Project Applicant shall pay the applicable fees for the City’s local drainage fund in accordance with Chapter 14.48 of the Municipal Code. Prior to the approval of final inspection, the on-site storm drain In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building and
Grading Permits.

City of Huntington Beach
Public Works Department

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

18 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
system shall be constructed, or provide evidence of financial security (such as bonding), in a manner meeting the approval of the City’s Public Works Department.

NOISE
PPP N-1: Municipal Code Section 8.80.090 (Special Provisions). Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property; provided that: (1) the City has issued a building, grading or similar permit for such activities; (2) said activities do not take place between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday; and (3) the average construction noise levels do not exceed 80 dBA Leq at nearby noise-sensitive land uses. If outdoor construction activities are permitted by the City after 7:00 p.m. or before 7:00 a.m., the average construction Noise Levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses shall be limited to 50 dBA Leq.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Grading and
Building Permits. Ongoing
during Construction Activities.

City of Huntington
Community Development
Department

Mitigation Measure Roadway Noise 1. Enforcement of the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance should be implemented which limits the hours of construction to normal weekday working hours.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Demolition Permits.

City of Huntington
Community Development
Department

Mitigation Measure Roadway Noise 2. Measures should be designed to satisfy the requirement that 65 CNEL not be exceeded in residential outside living areas. Where residential buildings are to be located within these 65 CNEL contours, mitigation measures should be undertaken to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts.

The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier. A barrier which does not break the line-of-sight is not an affective barrier, while one which just interrupts the line-of-sight achieves a 5 dbA reduction in noise. The greater the penetration the greater the noise reduction. Increasing building setbacks should also be used to attenuate noise down to acceptable levels.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Demolition Permits.

City of Huntington
Community Development
Department

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

19 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
Mitigation Measure Roadway Noise 3. The City of Huntington Beach should require that the housing portion of this project comply with the State of California Noise Insulation standards. The code requires that "interior community noise levels (CNEL) with window closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room." Any measures, such as window upgrades, can be specified at the time of building permit application.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Demolition Permits.

City of Huntington
Community Development
Department

Mitigation Measure Roadway Noise 4. At the time of building permit application, the design should again be reviewed to ensure that sound mitigation is included in the design.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building Permits.

City of Huntington
Community Development
Department

PUBLIC SERVICES
PPP PS-1: Fire Protection Fees. Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or final building approval, the Project Applicant/Developer shall pay the required development impact fees for fire suppression facilities, as required by Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.74.

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building Permits.

City of Huntington
Community Development
Department

In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Building Permits.

City of Huntington
Community Development
Department

Prior to approval of a tentative
map.

City of Huntington
Community Development
Department

PPP PS-4: Library Fees. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy or final building permit approval, the Project Applicant/Developer shall pay required library development impact fees as required by Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.67.

City of Huntington
Community Development
Department

RECREATION
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

20 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
PPP REC‐1 The Applicant shall comply with the Huntington Beach General Plan requirement of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents through payment of in-lieu fees for improvements to existing City parks, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Department, prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy or final building permit approval.

Prior to approval of a tentative
map.

City of Huntington
Community Development
Department

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. As listed above in Cultural Resources. In Construction Plans and Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Grading Permits.

Ongoing during Construction
Activities.

City of Huntington
Community Development
Department

Mitigation Measure Archaeology 2. The archaeological
deposits within the Holly-Seacliff study area should be subjected to a program of excavation designed to recover sufficient data to fully describe the sites. The following program is recommended:

a. Analysis of the collections made by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Long Beach State University and any community college which has such material. If the collections are properly provenienced and are accompanied by
adequate documentation, they should be brought together during this phase and complete analysis performed. Of
particular importance during this phase is the recovery of survey date to be used to determine the exact locations of previous excavation efforts.

c. Completion of test excavations should be made at each of the archaeological deposits. The information gained from the test In Construction Plans and
Specifications. Prior to the
issuance of Demolition and
Grading Permits. Ongoing
during Construction Activities.

City of Huntington
Community Development
Department

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

21 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
excavation will guide the following data recovery excavation.

The excavations should have two primary goals:
• Definition of site boundaries and depth.
• Determination of the significance of the site and its degree of preservation.

d. A statistically valid sample of site material should be excavated. The data recovery excavation should be
conducted under the provisions of a carefully developed research design. The research questions presented earlier in this report should be incorporated into the research design, other important research questions should be developed from the test excavation data included, and a statement of
methodology to be observed must be included.

e. A qualified observer appointed by the Principal
Investigator/Archaeologist should monitor grading of the archaeological sites to recover important material which might appear. The monitor will be assigned by the Principal
Investigator. This activity may require some minor delay or redirecting of grading while material is being recovered. The observer should be prepared to recover material as rapidly as is consistent with good archaeological practice. Monitoring should be on a full time basis when grading is taking place on or near an archaeological deposit. However, the grading should terminate when the cultural deposit has been entirely removed and clearly sterile deposits exposed.

1. Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities
A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from a consulting tribe (Tribe). The monitor shall Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

22 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on- site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground- disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods.

Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project
applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Tribe from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground- disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Tribe to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or
development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact TCRs.

E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

23 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
TCR has been fully assessed by the monitor and/or archaeologist.

The Tribe will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, they shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Tribe determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

24 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

3: Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:

B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.

D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

25 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials
the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.

G. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

Addendum to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR MMRP City of Huntington Beach Holly Triangle Townhomes Project

26 Standard Condition/ Plan, Program, Policy/ Project Design Features/Mitigation Measure Timing
Responsible for
Ensuring Compliance
/ Verification
Date Completed
and Initials

City Council/Public Financing AuthorityJuly 5, 2022

City Council/Public Financing Authority
July 5, 2022