Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 6260 RESOLUTION NO. 6260 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING AND CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2 FOR PIERSIDE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2 and related entitlements have been prepared; and The City of Huntington Beach was the lead agency in the preparation of the environmental impact report; and Notice has been duly given and all persons and agencies wishing to respond have been heard by the Planning Commission, either through written communications or during public hearings held on August 21, 1990, October 2, 1990, October 23, 1990 and November 6, 1990, and such comments were duly noted and responded to; and The City Council has considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission as well as all persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly given, either through written notice or during a public hearing held March 18 19 91 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : SECTION 1. The City Council finds that Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2 was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all relevant state and local guidelines . I -1- SECTION 2. The City Council has considered all significant effects detailed in Environmental Impact Report No . 90-2, together with proposed mitigation measures to mitigate such effects (see Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) . SECTION 3 . The City Council finds that through the implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures some of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the proposed project can be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance, and Council has made appropriate findings (see Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) . SECTION 4 . The City Council further finds that the benefits accruing to the City by virtue of implementing the Downtown Specific Plan, override any unmitigable effects outlined in Environmental Impact Report No . 90-2, as detailed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Exhibit C, I attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) . SECTION 5 . The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby adopts and certifies as adequate Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2 . SECTION 6 . The Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to file with the Office of the County Clerk and the State Office of Planning and Research a notice of determination for Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2, as required by Section 15094 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines . -2- 6260 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of March 1991 . yor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney G REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Ad i trator Dire orlof Community Development -3- 6260 EXHIBIT A MITIGATION MEASURES 1 . Windows shall be shaded and/or recessed to the extent feasible to reduce glare. 2 . Outdoor lighting shall utilize energy savings lamps . All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto the beach and Pacific Coast Highway, and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations . 3 . A final Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity) , an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9608 and the Downtown Specific Plan of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits .The existing mature palm trees on-site shall be stored and returned to the site, and incorporated into the project ' s landscape plan. 4 . Prior to issuance of demolition permits for Maxwells, the history- and architecture of the building shall be recorded to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey (NABS) . This includes the preparation of a detailed historical narrative, and complete graphic documentation of the building through large format photography. Historic photographs and building- plans- are- also reproduced for the NABS record, w1lich ultimately is curatbd in the Library of Congress . Since the significance of - the structure is historical rather than architecteiral, oral history in addition to archival records are required. 5 . The plans for the project shall incorporate a means of memorializing the existing Maxwell ' s structure. Such measures could include placement of a commemorative plaque on or near the site,- development "of an exhibit either on or off site (e.g. at a local historical museum, public library or City Hall) , and/or -development of 'a- publication interpreting the role of the Pavilion-in the histbry-of the City, prepared by a qualified historian: The=p`r6pbsed measure(s) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to . issuance of building permits. (7505d-19) 6260 EXHIBIT B a CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2 (PIERSIDE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 90-17/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-18 Background. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which indentifys one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant environmental effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding" (Section 15091, CEQA Guidelines) . The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Hereafter referred to as Finding 1. 2 . Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency. Hereafter referred to as Finding 2. 3 . Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the-mitigation measures or project-alternatives identified-in the final EIR. Hereafter referred to as Finding 3 .The City of Huntington Beach is considering approval of Conditional Use Permit No 90-17 and Coastal Development Permit No. 90-18 . Because the proposed actions constitute a project under the CEQA guidelines, the City of Huntington Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report. This Environmental Impact Report has identified certain-significant effects which may- occur as a- result of the project. ,_Further,- the-City desires to approve thls_project and, after determining that the EIR is complete and has been - prepared in acc6rdance;with CEQA_ -and the Guidelines, the, findings set forth herein_,are,made: , - 6260 EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT: The City of Huntington Beach prepared an Initial Study to identify the effects of the proposed project which are and are not _- potentially significant. Those topics determined not to be significant are listed below. In addition, Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2 concludes that impacts in the areas of shade and — shadow, and traffic/parking are not significant . These are also listed below: Air Human Health _ Water Natural Resources Plant Life Risk of Upset Animal Life Population Noise Recreation Energy Shade/Shadow Public Services Housing Traffic/Parking Utilities Land Use Earth/Liquification, Tsunamis EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE: Effect #1 The addition of on-site lighting and reflective building windows would increase the amount of light and glare emanating from the site. IFinding Finding #1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue-of the followiAg, mitigation.measures identified-in thetFinal Environmental Impact Report and incorporated into the project as conditions of approval : 1. Windows shall be shaded and/or recessed to- the extent feasible to reduce glare. 2. Outdoor lighting shall utilize energy savings lamps. All , outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage"_:.onto the beach and Pacific Coast Highway, and shall be noted on the site. plan and elevations. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH-CANNOT=BE,AVOIDED: IF4�ZHE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED: Effect #1 �. ) Project implementation would result in the demolition of the historic Pavalon (Pavilion) building, currently used for Maxwell ' s restaurant. This building is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and is considered an historical resource of the City of Huntington Beach. 6260 Finding Finding #3 - Specific social, economic, or -other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures and alternatives identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report Facts in Support of Finding There are no measures which can fully mitigate the adverse impacts to the integrity of the historic building if the structure is demolished The following measures will reduce impacts to the extent feasible 4 Prior to issuance of demolition permits for Maxwell ' s, the history and architecture of the building shall be recorded to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) This includes the preparation of a detailed historical narrative, and complete graphic documentation of the building through large format photography Historic photographs and building plans are also reproduced for the HABS record, which ultimately is curated in the Library of Congress Since the significance of the structure is historical rather than architectural , oral history in addition to archival records are required 5 . The plans for the pr03ect shall incorporate a means of memorializing the existing Maxwell ' s structure Such measures could include placement of a commemorative plaque on or near the site, development of an exhibit either on or off site (e g at a local historical museum, public library or City Hall) , and/or development of a publication interpreting the role of the Pavilion in the history of the City, prepared by a qualified historian The proposed measure(s) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development pr;or to issuance of building permits The specific considerations referred to in Finding #3 are detailed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit C) . Effect #2 The proposed buildings.;-would obstruct direct views- of the ocean and the pier from Pacific Coast Highway and inland proper* ies, in some local ions FindAna Finding #3 - Specific social, economic, - or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures and alternative identified in the - - Final Environmental _Impact ,Report - - - ---`-- 6260 Facts in Support of Finding There are no measures which can fully mitigate the obstruction of direct views if the project is implemented. The project has been designed to incorporate view corridors to the extent feasible, , The specific considerations referred to in Finding #3 are detailed in the Statement of Overriding considerations (Exhibit C) . PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2 evaluated alternatives for the proposed Pierside Restaurant Development. The following provides a brief description of the project alternatives, which were rejected in favor of the current project proposal. The rationale for rejection of each alternative is provided below, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit C) . NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative assumes the continuation of present uses on the site. The existing Maxwell ' s restaurant, beach concessions, parking lot, and lifeguard headquarters would all remain. Finding Finding #3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the no project alternative, in that : The no project alternative does not as effectively implement important goals of the Huntington Beach General- Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, or Downtown Design Guidelinest These , include creation of a major activity node at the pier head, provision of commercial uses on and alongside the pier which _ will enhance and expand the public' s use and enjoyment of the area, and provision of varied types of visitor serving facilities- in the`Coastal Zone. Significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against the facts -set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit C) and stated above. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIOW ALTERNATIVE: This, alternative. envisions- removal of all exist-ing uses on the site, including;the,parking_ lot, .Maxwell ' s-.restaurant; •and- the beach concessions, andzconversion­of the site to -openjspace with minor public; recreation;;amenities : - :Finding Finding-#3:,- Sp ecific_economic, social; -or ,other considerations make infeasible the Open Space and Recreation Alternative, in that: I 6260 The Open Space and Recreation Alternative does not fulfill the intent of the General Plan Land Use designation, zoning and Coastal Land Use Plan for this site in that it does not provide for visitor-serving commercial uses . It would remove a potential National Register structure without providing off setting sales tax revenue or tax increment benefits to the city. It would also eliminate existing public beach parking spaces . Significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit C) and stated above. PRESERVATION OF MAXWELL' S ALTERNATIVE: This alternative envisions the preservation of Maxwell ' s in the existing structure, and the addition of two new restaurant buildings, plus beach concessions . The uses and approximate square footage would remain the same as the proposed project . FindinQ Finding #3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Preservation of Maxwell ' s Alternative, in that : The preservation of Maxwell ' s Alternative does not provide for the appropriate size pier plaza as currently envisioned by the City Council, or provide for an architecturaly cohesive project . Significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit C) and stated above. OFF SITE ALTERNATIVES: Off-site alternatives would locate the project on a site or sites other than southeast of the pier . Finding Finding #3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Off-Site Alternative,1.in _that :- The proposed project is inherently related-to the subject site. The project proponent seeks to develop pier-related commercial uses in- accordance -with the intent of :the',Downtgwn Specific- Plan District 10 . As such, no other site is: immediately-adjacent=to the pier, with the exception of the site immediately north of- - the pier, where a parking structure has been approved. No •dther site fulfills one of the primary project objectives of creating a. focus- at the confluence-of-Pacific -Coast Highway and -the`Pj er . 4 6260 LOWER INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE(S) : This alternative could include the preservation of Maxwell ' s and the addition of fewer or smaller buildings than the proposed project, or the demolition of Maxwell 's afid reconstruction Of 'fewer or smaller buildings than proposed by the project . Finding (Note: this Finding should be made if the project is approved as proposed by the applicant) r Finding #3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Lower Intensity Alternative, in that: Lower intensity projects may result, to some degree, in the same types of impacts that would occur as a result of implementing the proposed project, but would not as effectively implement the Downtown Specific Plan, and Coastal Land Use plan. A smaller project would not provide the same degree of sales tax revenue or tax increment revenue. Significafit effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overruling Considerations (Exhibit C) and stated above. (7505d-20,25) EXHIBIT C - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2 for the construction of resttkurants and beach-related concessions (Pierside Restaurant _ Development) identifies certain unavoidable significant adverse - environmental effects . CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires the- decision-maker to balance the -benefits of a proposed project against unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether the project should be approved. If the decision-maker concludes that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the effects may be considered acceptable. Here, the City of Huntington Beach does find that the benefits flowing to the City and its residents from the project outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects which remain after the project ' s mitigation measures are implemented. Primary among these considerations is the project ' s furtherance of the Downtown Specific Plan' s and Local Coastal Plan' s objectives of providing improved access to coastal amenities, creation of a visitor-serving commercial node at the pierhead, and revitalization of the Downtown Core Area. Another important consideration is the increased sales f tax and tax increment revenue that will flow to the City and Redevelopment Agency as a result of increased property values and sales activity. Such revenue can be used to the benefit of the community as a whole to improve service levels, construct capital facilities, and provide additional affordable housing. The Final Environmental Impact Report identifies two unavoidable adverse impacts . These are: a. Demolition of a structure which is important in the history of Huntington Beach, and which is eligible for the National35egister of Historic Places. +ke b. Impact to views of the pier and the ocean from cgrr.ain locations along Pacific Coast Highway. Some of :.he effects are lessened by the mitigation measures suggested in the Environmental Impact Report, which measures will be required and incorporated into the project. The reasons the City has determined that the remaining effects are acceptable, given offsetting project benefits, are discussed below. M 6260 1 Historic Impacts Implementation of the project will involve demolition of Maxwell ' s restaurant, a National Register eligible structure The Environmental Impact Report has identified mitigation measures that will help lessen these impacts, including complete documentation of the site to be maintained for public review, and appropriate memorialization of the building Some project alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, and Preservation of Maxwell ' s Alternative, would eliminate the impact to historic resources . However, none of these alternatives would as effectively meet important goals of the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Redevelopment Plan, or Downtown Specific Plan These include revitilization of the Main Street corridor, provision of additional visitor-serving facilities in the coastal zone, development of a major activity node at the pierhead, and improving vertical access to the shoreline Other alternatives would also have the drawbacks of providing less sales tax and tax increment revenue, or would entail similar adverse impacts to view corridors The proposed project will provide for high quality visitor-serving development at the end of the vital Main Street commercial core, contributing to the rejuvination of the Downtown area Based on the above stated public benefits of the project, the City finds that the impact to historic resources is acceptable. 2 . View Impacts The project will block views of the ocean and the pier from certain points along Pacific Coast Highway and inland properties The Environmental Impact Report has identified mitigation measures which will help lessen impacts to the extent feasible, including - appropriate lighting and landscaping The project also incorporates public plazas and boardwalks which will provide the public with-6pen vistas from the site - Although some project alternatives including the No Project, Open Space, and Lowet Density alternatives would reduce view impacts, they would not as effectively implement important goals of the General Plan Local Coastal Program, Redevelopment Plan, or Downtown Specific Plan These include revitilization of the Downtown area, provision of adequate visitor-serving commercial facilities, and improved vertical access to the shoreline - Given the many public benefits of the project as referenced above, the City finds that impacts to views associated with t$e project= are acceptable 6260 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Res, No. 6260 COUNTY OF ORANGE ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day Of March 19 91 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: MacAllister, Silva, Kelly, Robitaille NOES: Councilmembers: Winchell, Green, Moulton-Patterson ABSENT: Councilmembers: None city ClerFand ex officuyulerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California