Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRedevelopment Agency - 340 RESOLUTION NO. 340 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA(AGENCY), CERTIFYING THAT THE AGENCY HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 01-02 FOR THE STRAND AT DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, CIM Huntington, LLC ("Developer") proposes to develop the Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach project ("Project"); and The City of Huntington Beach("City")prepared a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 01-02 ("SEIR") for the Project pursuant to, and in full compliance with, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),Public Resources Code, §21000,et seq.,and all applicable State and local CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto; and The City duly consulted with the Agency during the preparation of the Draft SEIR and afforded the Agency the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft SEIR prior to the preparation of the Final SEIR; and After subjecting the Draft SEIR to the process of public review and comment in accordance with CEQA and applicable CEQA guidelines,the City prepared and released the Final SEIR for the Project,which incorporates by reference the text of the Draft SEIR,and which includes corrections and revisions made to the text of the Draft SEIR as well as the responses to all comments on the Draft SEIR that were received during the public review period; and Following its public hearing held on September 24, 2002, the City Planning Commission certified the SEIR on October 1, 2002; and The Agency has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final SEIR. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, as follows: Section 1. The Agency hereby certifies that the Final SEIR prepared for the proposed Project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA,and all applicable State and local guidelines or regulations adopted pursuant thereto. 1 GAFIELD\2002 RESOLUTIOMAGENCY CEQA RESOLUTION.DOC Res. 34D Section 2. The Agency further certifies that the information contained in the Final SEIR and other documents in the record with respect to the Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Project have been reviewed and considered by the Agency Commissioners. Section 3. After separately and independently reviewing and considering the information contained in the Final SEIR and other documents in the record with respect to the Project, the Agency finds that its own determinations and findings of fact are in complete agreement in all material respects with those of the City.For this reason,Agency hereby adopts as its own,and hereby incorporates herein by reference in support of this resolution, the findings made by the City contained in Attachment "A" entitled, "Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations." Each and all of the findings and determinations set forth in said Attachment"A"are based upon competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and the Final SEIR, as separately reviewed and considered by the Agency in the exercise of its independent discretion. Therefore,notwithstanding the adoption in full of the text of the City's findings and determinations contained in Attachment "A," such findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Agency in all respects, and all of the language included in Attachment"A"constitutes findings by the Agency,whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. Section 4. All summaries of information and the findings contained in said Attachment "A"are based on the Final SEIR,the Project(and every component thereof)and/or other evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.The summaries of information in Attachment"A" are only summaries. Cross-references to the Final SEIR and other evidence in the record have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the Final SEIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. Section 5. The Agency finds that no additional environmental effects other than those identified in Attachment"A" will have a significant effect or result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse affect on the environment as a result of the construction of the Project. The Agency finds and determines that all significant environmental effects identified in the Final SEIR for the construction and operation of the Project have been reduced to an acceptable level in that: (a) All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated, or substantially lessened, as indicated in the findings contained in Attachment"A" and the Final SEIR; and (b) Based on the Final SEIR and other documents and information on the record with respect to the construction and operation of the Project, all remaining unavoidable significant impacts, described in the findings contained in Attachment "A," are overridden by the benefits of the Project as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in page 20 of Attachment"A." 2 GAFIELD\2002 RESOLUTIONWGENCY CEQA RESOLUTION.DOC Res. 34b Section 6. The Final SEIR identifies and discusses significant effects that will occur as a result of the Project. As the Findings contained in Attachment"A"indicate,despite changes in the Project and/or incorporation of mitigation measures designed to reduce significant impacts to below the level of significance, significant environmental impacts will remain that cannot be reduced to below the level of significance because specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations described therein make infeasible any mitigation measures or alternative development scenarios identified in the Final SEIR. Having adopted all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the effects of the Project and having balanced the benefits of the Project against the Project's potential and unavoidable adverse impacts, the Agency hereby determines that the remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are nevertheless "acceptable," based on specific economic, legal, social, technological, planning and other considerations associated with the Project that serve to override and outweigh the Project's unavoidable significant effects,as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations found on page 20 of Attachment"A." Section 15093(b)of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant impacts identified in the Final SEIR which are not mitigated to below the level of significance,the Agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the Final SEIR and/or other information in the record.The Agency finds that after independently reviewing and considering the Final SEIR and/or other information in the record and arriving at its own conclusions and determinations with respect to the significant impacts and countervailing benefits of the Project,such conclusions and determinations are accurately reflected in and restated by the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth on page 20 of Attachment"A." Accordingly,Agency hereby adopts as its own the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Attachment"A" in fulfillment of the requirements of said Section 15093(b). Section 7. Mitigation Monitoring Program Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines require that when a public agency is making findings required by Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the mitigation measures which have been made part of the Project. The Agency hereby adopts Attachment "B" as its Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project and finds that the Project meets the mitigation monitoring program requirement of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. After independently reviewing the final SEIR and all other evidence on record,the Agency finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared by the City, incorporated herein as Attachment `B" entitled, "Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring Program," adequately provides for the implementation and monitoring of the Project conditions intended to mitigate potential environmental effects, and hereby adopts as its own such Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in Attachment`B." 3 GAFIELD\2002 RESOLUTIOMAGENCY CEQA RESOLUTION.DOC Res. No. 340 Section 8. Pursuant to Section 21082.1(c) of the Public Resources Code, the Agency finds that the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Agency as Responsible Agency for the proposed Project. Section 9. Section 21081.6(a)(2)of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(e) require that the public agency shall specify the location of the custodian of the documents or other materials that constitute the record upon which its decision is based. Accordingly,the record and custodian of documents is the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of ctober , 200 . Chairperson ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ave of Agency ;-K7- Agency General Counsel REVIEWED AND APPROVED: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: A—Vd Agency rector Director of Econom Obevelopment 4 GAFIELD\2002 RESOLUTIOMAGENCY CEQA RESOLUTION.DOC ATTACHMENT A Kes. 3 14D r FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Introduction And Background This document provides the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations required for the approval of the Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104 and 105) project,as defined in the Draft EIR. As required under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare the Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach(Blocks 104 and 105) EIR was distributed on August 16, 2001 to responsible and trustee agencies as well as private organizations and individuals that may have an interest in the project. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that the Lead Agency planned to prepare an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the EIR. The NOP included a brief description of the project and identified those areas where the project could have potentially significant effects, as well as those areas where the project would have no effect. It also identified alternatives that were dismissed from further consideration. The NOP and responses to the NOP are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. On July 19,2002, the City of Huntington Beach issued a Draft EIR for public review for a period of 45 days ending on September 3, 2000. A Notice of Availability was issued which announced the release of the Draft EIR, identified where it was available for review, described the project, and its location,and summarized the significant environmental effects. The notice stated where documents referenced in the EIR are available for review,and stated the period for submittal of comments on the contents of the Draft EIR. The City of Huntington Beach distributed the Draft EIR to interested individuals, agencies, elected officials,special interest groups,and businesses. Copies of the Draft EIR were also made available for public review at the Huntington Beach Central Library. The City received nine (9) letters commenting on the Draft EIR during the public review period. The Draft EIR included a detailed description of the Proposed Project, an analysis of its potential environmental effects,and an analysis of the effects of three alternatives to the project: ■ No Project/No Development Alternative; ■ Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Hotel and commercial development on Block 105 only); The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR Res. 3 �10 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Alternative Mix of Uses (Development of proposed commercial components on both blocks,substituting residential units for hotel rooms). The Draft EIR also described cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts,. significant irreversible environmental effects,and significant and unavoidable impacts. In September 2002, the City of Huntington Beach released the Final EIR for the project. The Final EIR incorporates by reference the text of the Draft EIR and includes responses to the nine letters commenting on the Draft EIR,and corrections and revisions to the Draft EIR. 2. Project Objectives And Description The Project has the following primary objectives(see Draft EIR,p.2-3): Applicant ■ Develop a commercial project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. ■ Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed commercial project. ■ Promote the development of a commercial product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. City of Huntington Beach ■ To add a hotel to the Downtown core area and increase the attractiveness of Downtown to the City's tourists and visitors, as well as lodging services for visiting family and friends of residents. ■ To improve the perception of the Downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people from outside the area. ■ To enhance the Downtown as a destination for quality retailers and restaurants. ■ To contribute to efforts to create an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining Downtown in the evening for shopping,dining,and entertainment. ■ To provide for the highest and best use of previously under-utilized and currently unattractive properties. ■ To assist in the implementation of the City's Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed project consists of the hotel and commercial redevelopment of 2.97 acres of the 6.31-acre property Block 104/105 site located in the downtown area of the City of Huntington Beach,California,which is currently occupied by retail,commercial,office,and residential uses. Seven buildings ranging in height from two to four stories and containing a total of 226,245 gross square feet (gsf) are proposed as mixed-use vertical, visitor-serving development. The 2 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations project site currently contains small surface parking lots, vacant lots, and a one-story commercial structure occupied by Papa Joe's Pizza. The Papa Joes's Pizza structure would be removed to allow the proposed construction of Block 105. In addition, and to accommodate development of the project on both blocks 104 and 105, a 54-foot-wide easement for pedestrian and vehicular traffic between PCH and Walnut Avenue along Fifth Street would be provided in lieu of the existing 80-foot-wide right-of-way. Parking would be provided in a two-level subterranean parking garage located below the entire project site,and six spaces of surface level parking would be provided on Block 105, for a total of 403 parking spaces at the site. The proposed project would require the following approvals by the City of Huntington Beach: ■ Condition Use Permit for new construction within Downtown Specific Plan District Three; ■ Special Permits for encroachment into the minimum ground floor and upper-story setbacks, exceeding maximum building height, and reduction of the Fifth Street View corridor; ■ Coastal Development Permit for development within the City's designated Coastal Zone; and . ■ Tentative Tract map to consolidate properties into one lot for condominium purposes. The findings(Section 4 of this document)describe the effects of the project as defined above. 3. Record Of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City of Huntington Beach's decision on the project consists of the following documents: ■ The Initial Study/NOP prepared for the project; ■ Other public notices in conjunction with the project; ■ The Draft EIR; ■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR; ■ The Final EIR for the project; ■ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; ■ All findings and resolutions adopted by the City of Huntington Beach in connection with the project,and all documents cited or referred to therein; _ ■ All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, and other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Huntington Beach's consultants, or Responsible or Trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City of Huntington Beach action on the project; The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 3 �l TA C H IM LENT N0. ' des. 3 �CD Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ All documents submitted to the City of Huntington Beach by agencies or members of the public in connection with the project; ■ Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all information sessions,public meetings,and public hearings held by the City of Huntington Beach in connection with the project; : ■ Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City of Huntington Beach at such workshops,public meeting,and public hearings;and ■ Matters of common knowledge to the City of Huntington Beach, including, but not limited to federal,State,and local laws and regulations. The custodian of the documents is the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4. Findings Required Under CEQA Under CEQA, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment(Public Resources Code(PRC)§21081,subd. [a]); ■ Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been,or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC§21081,, . subd. (b));and ■ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, made infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report(PRC§21081,subd.[c]). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (State CEQA Guidelines §15091, subd. (a), [3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors". State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553,565 1276 Cal.Rptr.410].). 4 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a statement of overriding considerations. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433,442,445[243 Cal.Rptr.727j.) In cases in which significant impacts are not at least"substantially mitigated," the agency,after adopting the findings, may approve the project if it first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits"rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (State CEQA Guidelines §15093 and §15043, subd. [b]). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed,and therefore balanced." (Goleta 11,52 Cal.3d 553,576[276 Cal. Rptr.4011.) This document presents the City of Huntington Beach findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record. (State CEQA Guidelines§15091.). 5. Legal Effects Of Findings To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified,superseded or withdrawn,the City of Huntington Beach, in the adopting the findings,commits to implementing these measures. In other words, these findings are not merely informational,but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City of Huntington Beach approves the project. The mitigation measures are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be affected through the process of constructing and implementing the project. 6. Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP)has been prepared for the project,as required by PRC Section 21081.6. The City of Huntington Beach will use the MMRP to track compliance with adopted mitigation measures. The City of Huntington Beach will consider the The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 5 ATTACHMENT NO. •�� R e S'. 3 y d Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations MMRP during its certification of the Final EIR. The final MMRP will incorporate, under separate cover,all mitigation measures adopted for the project. 7. Significant Effects; Mitigation Measures, And Findings Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated to less-than- significant levels are listed below. The City of Huntington Beach finds that these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the existing City development review requirements,standards,and codes,as well as mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Air Quality Impact Impact 3.2-1: Demolition, site preparation, and construction activities would generate air pollutant emissions on a daily basis.(Final EIR,p.3.2-10) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part 1, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to air quality would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of developing and implementing a construction management plan, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes recommended or equivalently effective measures approved by the SCAQMD regarding construction parking, traffic, and equipment, as well as implementing all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD which are applicable to the development of the project (such as Rule 402-Nuisance and Rule 403-Fugitive Dust)and which are in effect at the time of development. 6 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cultural Resources Impact Impact 3.3-1: The proposed project could result in the destruction of paleontological resources. (Final EIR,p.3.3-15) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of monitoring during grading/construction by a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist, and data recovery, analysis, and report if archaeological or paleontological deposits or features are encountered and cannot be avoided. Impact Impact 3.3-2: The proposed project could result in the destruction of archeological resources. (Final EIR,p.3.3-15) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I,Section 4 of the Final EIR),the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of monitoring during grading/construction by a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist, and data recovery, analysis, and report if archaeological or paleontological deposits or features are encountered and cannot be avoided. Impact Impact 3.3-3:Potential Historical Degradation of El Don Liquors(Final EIR,p.3.3-16) The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 7 - es. 3yD Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as.identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of incorporating the design features of the adjacent Ocean View Promenade and El Don Liquors structures into the architectural and scale design concept for proposed Building C. Impact Impact 3.3-4:Potential Historical Degradation of the Helme-Worthy Property(Final EIR,p. 3.3- 16) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of incorporation of a 20-foot setback from the property line between the Helme-Worthy property and proposed Buildings D/G and F/G, a 15-foot upper- level setback for the third and fourth floors, and creation of a walkway connecting Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street as a buffer zone around the historic National Register property's southern and western borders. Geology and Hydrology Impact Impact 3.4-6: People and structures on the project site could be exposed to seismic hazards associated with ground shaking and fault rupture. (Final EIR,p.3.4-22) 8 City of Huntington Beach KTTACH"I NT NO. 70.E Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I,Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to geology and hydrology would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of implementing the grading plan for the proposed project, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes the recommendations or equivalently effective measures included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105 regarding site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavements, cement type and corrosion measures,surface drainage, trench backfill,plan review,and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. Impact Impact 3.4-7: Project development would locate structures on potentially expansive soils, unstable soils,soils subject to settlement,or corrosive soils. (Final EIR,p.3.4-23) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to geology and hydrology would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of implementing the grading plan for the proposed project, as approved by the City of Huntington Beach, which includes the recommendations or equivalently effective measures included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105 regarding site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavements, cement type and corrosion measures, surface drainage, trench backfill,plan review,and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 9 3VD Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Pubic Services and Utilities Impact Impact 3.8-2: Implementation of the proposed project would cause police.protection service levels to drop. (Final EIR,p.3.8-22) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to public services and utilities would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Required mitigation consists of consulting the Huntington Beach Police Department regarding the provision of adequate Crime Prevention Design measures and incorporating the Department's recommendations into the plan. Transportation and Circulation Impact Impact 3.9-1: The General Plan Build Out with Santa Ana River Bridges Plus Project Scenario could result in intersections and/or roadway segments operating at unsatisfactory levels of service. (Final EIR,p. 3.9-12) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to transportation and circulation would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Required mitigation consists of restriping the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound turn lane at the Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection as approved by the City Public Works Department. 10 City of Huntington Beach K! T,ACHMENT NO. -LO-10 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact Impact 3.9-2:The General Plan Build Out without Santa Ana River Bridges Plus Project Scenario could result in intersections and/or roadway segments operating at unsatisfactory levels of service. (Final EIR,p.3.9-13) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section'4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to transportation and circulation would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Required mitigation consists of restriping the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound turn lane at the Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection as approved by the City Public Works Department. Impact Impact 3.9-3: The proposed project could affect access to and internal circulation on the project site. (Final EIR,p.3.9-14) Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to transportation and circulation would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Required mitigation consists of demonstrating the provision of two inbound lanes and one outbound lane for the proposed subterranean parking structure. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR ATTACHMENT RO. �� Res . 3yd Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7. Environmental Effects Which Would Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation Aesthetics Impact Impact 3.1-4:Implementation of the proposed project could introduce new sources of light and glare into the project vicinity.(Final EIR,p.3.1-14) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR),the above impact to aesthetics would be mitigated,but not to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of using minimum light levels required for safety, exterior lights being directed downwards and away from surrounding uses, onto the project site, and using non-reflective facade treatments,such as matte paint or glass coatings. Impact Cumulative Increases in Light and Glare(Final EIR,p.3.1-16) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the cumulative impact to aesthetics would be mitigated,but not to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of using minimum light levels required for safety,exterior lights being directed downwards and away from surrounding uses;onto the project site, and using non-reflective facade treatments,such as matte paint or glass coatings. 12 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Air Quality Impact Impact 3.2-2: The project would generate daily operational emissions of VOC and NOx that could exceed established thresholds. (Final EIR;p.3.2-10) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR),the above impact to air quality would be mitigated,but not to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of installation of solar or low-emission water heaters,provision of built-in energy-efficient appliances, installation of energy-efficient air conditioners with automated controls,installation of double-glass-paned windows,installation of energy-efficient lighting with automated controls, exceedence of Title 24 wall and attic insulation requirements by at least five percent,and use of light-colored roof materials. Noise Impact Cumulative Increase in Roadway Noise(Final EIR,p.3.6-13) Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I,Section 4 of the Final EIR),the cumulative impact to noise would be mitigated,but not to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of implementing best management practices that include, but are not limited to, limiting construction hours to between 7 A.M. and 8 P.M. on weekdays and Saturdays, muffling or controlling construction equipment, locating noise generating equipment as far away as possible from existing residences, turning off equipment when not in use,not allowing equipment to run idle near existing residences,notifying neighbors within 200 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 13 Res. 3Wb Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations feet of major construction areas in writing prior to construction,and designating a "disturbance coordinator" who is responsible for responding to any local complaints.regarding construction noise. 8. Feasibility Of Project Alternatives Because the project will potentially cause unavoidable, significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City of Huntington Beach must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the proposed project. The City of Huntington Beach must evaluate whether one or more of more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433,443-445 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727]; see also PRC § 21002.). In preparing and adopting findings, a Lead Agency need not necessarily address the feasibility of both Mitigation Measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating approval of a proposed project with significant impacts. When a significant impact can be mitigated to an acceptable level solely by the adoption of Mitigation Measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation-to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the proposed project as mitigated. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council [1978] 83 Cal.App.3d 692,730-731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California [1988] 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426].). Accordingly, in adopting findings concerning project alternatives, the City of Huntington Beach considers only those environmental impacts that for the project are significant and cannot be avoided through mitigation. Chapter 4 of the Final EIR examined three alternatives to the proposed project to determine whether any of these alternatives could meet the project's objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant, unavoidable impacts. The following three alternatives were examined: Alternative 1:No Project/No Development Alternative; Alternative 2: Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Hotel and commercial development on Block 105 only);and 14 City of Huntington Beach Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Alternative 3: Alternative Mix of Uses (Development of proposed commercial components on both blocks,substituting residential units for hotel rooms). These findings examine the alternatives to the extent they lessen or avoid the project's significant environmental effects. Although presented here and in the Draft EIR, the City of Huntington Beach is not required to consider those alternatives in terms of environmental impacts which are insignificant or avoided through mitigation. In addressing the No Project/No Action Alternative,the City of Huntington Beach followed the direction of the State CEQA Guidelines that: The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions,as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[d][4]). No Project/No Development Alternative Aesthetics Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the current aesthetic condition would not change. Although the site would remain deteriorated and underutilized, no visual elements incompatible with surrounding development would be introduced onto the project site. Additionally, public coastal views across the project site from Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street would be preserved and the full width of the public view corridor provided by Fifth Street would be maintained. This alternative would create no new, significant aesthetic impacts; however, considering the existing condition of the site, the overall aesthetic quality associated with this alternative is considered less than that of the proposed project. Nonetheless,aesthetic impacts of this alternative would be less severe overall than those associated with the proposed project. Air Quality Under the No Project/No Build Alternative,the same number of cars would continue to use the surface parking lots on Blocks 104 and 105, and vehicle trips associated with existing uses would continue. Additionally,construction,demolition,and operational traffic impacts would not occur, as no development would occur and no uses would change. Air quality would, therefore, remain the same as on the existing condition of the site and impacts would be reduced from those of the proposed project. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 1S KFTACH"I'O l T NO, 19.15" 3 �LD Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Noise This alternative would not result in any construction-related noise or change the existing operational noise levels on the site. Noise impacts would, therefore,be less severe than those anticipated under the proposed project. ReducedlRevised Project Alternative (Hotel and Commercial Development on Block 105 only) Aesthetics Under the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative, redevelopment of Block 105 would increase the visual quality of the project site by eliminating vacant lots and deteriorating surface parking lots and would eliminate the impact of vehicular headlights upon the residences on the east side of Sixth Street. The lack of sufficient setbacks would exist as in the proposed project plans and the narrowing of the Fifth Street right-of-way would occur;however,Special Permits would be requested for this alternative. However, the introduction of a parking structure to Block 104 could result in the introduction of an incompatible visual element into the project vicinity. Nonetheless,aesthetic impacts would generally be less severe than the proposed project. Air Quality Under the Reduced/Revised Alternative, the current site would be developed to the same site coverage but not the same intensity of commercial development as the proposed project. Air Quality impacts associates with demolition/site preparation activities would be the same as under the proposed project; however, fewer operational trips by consumers and/or delivery trucks would occur, and air quality impacts would be less severe than those anticipated under the proposed project. Noise Because the ultimate development potential would be reduced under this alternative, operational vehicle trips would be reduced, and roadway noise impacts would be less intense than those described for the proposed project. A level of development similar to the proposed project would occur,resulting in short-term exposure of persons to the same level and duration of demolition, sire preparation, and construction noise. Similar•to the proposed project, construction-related impacts would remain significant, despite implementation of mitigation measures described for the proposed project,as limiting the amount of construction equipment at the project site is not considered feasible. However, on-site noise impacts related to the reduced commercial development of this alternative would be less than that of the proposed 16 City of Huntington Beach AT TAC i-11VIENT NO. •/(v Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations project, with fewer visitors arriving and departing from the project site than with the commercial intensity of the proposed project. Overall, noise impacts would be less intense under this alternative than under the proposed project. Alternative Mix of Uses (Development of proposed commercial components on both blocks, substituting residential units for hotel rooms) Aesthetics As with the proposed project this alternative would have a beneficial impact upon the current aesthetic qualities of unattractive, underutilized vacant uses and parking lots that currently characterize Blocks 104 and 105, by replacing existing, deteriorating urban uses with a mix of commercial and residential uses. Although the property would generally restrict public coastal views through the project site, this impact would be mitigated by the provision of upper level setbacks,pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan,which would reduce the feeling of increased intensity. The provision of these setbacks would also serve as a visual buffer for, and would provide visual consistency with, surrounding, smaller-scale residential and commercial uses. As with the proposed project, this alternative would infringe upon public views of the coast from the Fifth Street right-of-way,but would do so according to the allowed limits specified in the Downtown Specific Plan. Increased nighttime lighting levels would still occur, as would impacts of vehicular headlights upon neighboring residences on Sixth Street. Overall, the aesthetic impacts of this alternative are slightly less severe than those of the proposed project. Air Quality Under this alternative, the current site would be developed to a lower overall intensity than the proposed project. Restaurant, retail and office development intensity is identical to the proposed project, and the same number of vehicle trips by consumers and/or deliveries would be expected to occur. Construction activities would also be similar in scope, and air quality impacts associated with demolition,site preparation,construction,and construction worker and truck trips would not be substantially reduced from those expected from the proposed project. However, residential development, assuming primarily low-rise apartments, generates 6.59 daily trips per unit versus hotel development,which generates 8.23 daily trips per unit, and 89 dwelling units would generate a total of 587 daily trips,versus 1,251 daily trips anticipated from a 152-room hotel development. This residential generation of approximately half the vehicle trips of the hotel results in lower-intensity operational air quality impacts under this alternative than under the proposed project. Therefore,this alternative would result in less severe impacts to air quality than the proposed project. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 17 Res. 34� 0 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Noise Construction activities, which would result in short-term exposure of persons to construction noise,would still occur under this alternative,and would be substantially similar to the impact anticipated under the proposed project. As with the proposed project, such'impacts would be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of mitigation measures described for the proposed project, as limiting the amount of construction equipment at the project site is not considered feasible. As described above,under Air Quality,less project-generated traffic would be anticipated under this alternative than under the proposed project, and operational traffic noise impacts would be reduced from those anticipated from the proposed project. However, multi-family residential uses are considered to be higher noise generators than hotel uses, and on-site noise levels under this alternative would be greater than those anticipated under the proposed project. Overall,noise impacts under this alternative would be less severe than those under the proposed project. 9. Statement Of Overriding Considerations When a project results in significant unavoidable adverse effects, CEQA requires the decision making body of the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific responses to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Project Specific Significant and Unavoidable Impact The Proposed Project would have the following significant unavoidable impacts: Aesthetics ■ Impact 3.1-4: Implementation of the proposed project could introduce new sources of light and glare into the project vicinity. ■ Cumulative Impact Air Ouali!y ■ Impact 3.2-2: The project would generate daily operational emissions of VOC and NOx that could exceed established thresholds. Noise ■ Cumulative Impact 18 City of Huntington Beach , Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Public Services and Utilities ■ Cumulative Impact The City of Huntington Beach has adopted all feasible Mitigation Measures with respect to the unavoidable significant impacts identified above. Although these Mitigation Measures may lessen the impacts,they would not reduce the potential impact to a level of insignificance. As a result, to approve the Project, the City of Huntington Beach must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. The Statement of Overriding Considerations allows a Lead Agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been mitigated to a less-then- significant level. The statement explains why, in the agency's judgement, the benefits of the proposed project outweigh its unavoidable significant effect. 10. Independent Review and Analysis Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must (1) independently review and analyze the EIR, (2) circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judgment, and (3) as part of the certification of an EIR, find that the report or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. The City of Huntington Beach independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and determined that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment. Moreover, upon completing this review and making this determination, the City of Huntington Beach circulated the Final EIR, as described above. With the adoption of these findings, the City of Huntington Beach concludes that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 19 A FACH11 SENT NO. �{ 3 U Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING - CONSIDERATIONS To the extent that the significant effects of the project are not avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level, the City of Huntington Beach,having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project (which includes the Final EIR and Responses to Comments), and having reviewed and considered the information contained in the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable effects which remain,finds such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding considerations discussion (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to the greatest extent possible, and furthermore, that alternatives do not meet the complete objectives of the project,or do not provide the overall benefits of the project. The benefits of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following. Project implementation will: Develop a commercial project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed commercial project. Promote the development of a commercial product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. Add a hotel to the Downtown core area and increase the attractiveness of Downtown to the City's tourists and visitors, as well as lodging services for visiting family and friends of residents. Improve the perception of the Downtown and beach area as a destination for local residents as well as people outside the area. Enhance the Downtown as a destination for quality retailers and restaurants. Contribute to efforts to create an 18-hour Downtown, with visitors and residents remaining Downtown in the evening for shopping,dining,and entertainment. 20 City of Huntington Beach AT I ACH1111"AI T NO. l Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Provide for the highest and best use of previously under-utilized and currently unattractive properties. Implement many of the goals,policies and development standards of the City's Redevelopment Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Final EIR 21 ATTACHMENT NO. .Zt es yc ATTACHMENT B Res 3Y0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Purpose As identified by Section 15097(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of the Northam Ranch House Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures and/or project revisions identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to avoid, minimize, or compensate for potentially significant, adverse, environmeptal impacts resulting from the proposed project. The implementation of this MMRP shall be accomplished by Lead Agency staff(City of Huntington Beach), the project developer's consultants and representatives, and the property owner. The program shall apply to the following phases of the project: • Plan and specification preparation ■ Pre-construction activities ■ Construction of the site improvements • Post-construction activities Monitoring ensures that project compliance is verified on a regular basis during and, if necessary,subsequent to project implementation. Reporting ensures that the approving agency is informed of compliance with the mitigation measures. Responsibilities and Duties The Applicant shall designate a representative to coordinate on-site compliance efforts, and to serve as the primary point of contact with the City Planning Department. The representative shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the provisions of this MMRP, and shall have authority over the monitors/specialists retained by the developer and/or contractor, as well as construction personnel for actions that relate to the items listed in this program. Any problems or concerns shall be addressed by the Applicant's representative and the City Planning Department. The Applicant shall prepare a construction schedule for review and approval by the City Planning Department, and shall provide the Department with at least 48 hours'notice of any major revisions to or deviations from the schedule. The Applicant's representative shall also ensure that an information packet—which shall include a copy of the MMRP, the construction schedule,a monitoring log/sign-in sheet,and the The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach I ATTACHMEW NO. �L• 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program plot plan delineating all sensitive areas to be avoided—is present on-site during all demolition, grading, and construction activities. All on-site personnel shall be informed of the packet's presence and contents, .as well as the duties and responsibilities of each participant, communication procedures,monitoring criteria,and compliance criteria. Once construction commences, field meetings between the Applicant's representative, project consultants, and contractors shall be held on an as-needed basis in order to address unanticipated circumstances,assess potential effects,and resolve conflicts. Implementation Procedures Three types of activities will require monitoring: (1) review of the Conditions of Approval and Construction Plans and Specifications; (2) demolition,grading, and construction activities; and (3)ongoing monitoring activities during operation of the project. Monitoring Procedures The Applicant's representative, required consultants, and appropriate City staff (identified in the MMRP Matrix) shall monitor all field activities. The authority and responsibilities of the Applicant and City are described above. Reporting Procedures A schedule and two types of reports shall be prepared,as described below: 1. Schedule The contractor shall prepare a construction schedule to be submitted to the City prior to or at the pre-construction briefing. This schedule shall be updated, as necessary, and submitted to all involved parties,including the Lead Agency. 2. Bi-weekly Progress Reports The Applicant shall be responsible for preparing and submitting bi-weekly written progress reports during grading, excavation, and construction activities to the City Planning Department. These progress reports shall document field activities,compliance with project mitigation measures (such as dust control and sound reduction), and the monitors and monitoring activities during the preceding two-week period. 3. Final Report A final report shall be submitted to the City Planning Department when all monitoring (other than long-term operational)has been completed and shall include the following: 2 City of Huntington Beach ATTACHMENT NO. �f��- Res . -3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a. A summary of all monitoring activities; b. The date(s)that monitoring occurred; c. An identification of any violations and the manner in which they were resolved; d. Any required technical reports,such as noise measurements;and e. A list of all project mitigation monitors. MMRP Matrix The following MMRP Matrix describes each Initial Study and EIR mitigation measure,the entity responsible for ensuring compliance with each mitigation measure, the entity responsible for the actual monitoring or reporting activity, the action taken by the monitor to ensure compliance with the mitigation measure, the timing and frequency of monitoring or reporting activity, and the department of the Lead Agency that is responsible for verifying ultimate compliance with the mitigation measure. The MMRP Matrix is intended for use by all parties involved in monitoring the project mitigation measures, as well as project contractors and others working in the field. The Matrix should be used as a compliance checklist to aid in compliance verification and monitoring requirements. A copy of the MMRP matrix shall be kept on-site and in the project file to verify compliance with all mitigation measures. The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 3 ATTACHMENT NO. :IL5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ MiH,gationMeasure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification Aesthetics/Visual Quality Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: The Applicant City City Planning Plan review At plan check City Planning shall use minimum light levels required for Redevelopment Department Department safety,and exterior lights shall be directed Agency/Developer downwards and away from surrounding uses,onto the project site. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: To the extent City City Planning Plan review At plan check City Planning feasible, the Applicant shall use non- Redevelopment Department Department reflective facade treatments,such as matte Agency/Developer paint or glass coatings. Air Quality ■ Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: The project City City Planning Site inspection Periodically during City Planning developer(s) shall develop and Redevelopment Department, construction Department implement a construction management Agency/Developer Development plan, as approved by the City of Services Director Huntington Beach,which includes the following measures recommended by the SCAQMD,or equivalently effective measures approved by the City of Huntington Beach: • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference ■ Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain traffic flow (e.g., flag person) ■ Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hours to the degree > practicable "4 ■ Consolidate truck deliveries when > possible • Maintain equipment and vehicle engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers' specifications and per SCAQMD rules, M to minimize exhaust emissions Z • Use methanol-or natural gas-powered mobile equipment and pile drivers instead of diesel to the extent available 0 and at competitive prices 4 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE I MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification ■ Use propane- or butane-powered on- site mobile equipment instead of gasoline to the extent available and at competitive prices Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: The project City City Planning Plan Check,and During City Planning developer(s)shall implement all rules and Redevelopment Department/City verification of construction Department regulations by the Governing Board of the Agency/Developer Engineer implementation activities SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the Project (such as Rule 402—Nuisance and Rule 403—Fugitive Dust)and that are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are currently recommended to implement Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. These measures have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation: ■Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading and excavation to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations ■Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded and/or excavated,in the late morning and after work is completed for the day ■ All unpaved parking or staging areas, or unpaved road surfaces shall be watered three times daily or have chemical soil stabilizers applied according to manufacturers' specifications ■ Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt) f0 according to manufacturers' LA specifications ■The construction disturbance area shall -�{ be kept as small as possible W ■ All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or 0 other loose materials shall be covered or 5 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ MitigationMeastme Responsible Entity Monitor ActionbyMonitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas • Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads and used to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip ■ Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads ■ Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site • All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period ■ A traffic speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall be posted and enforced for the unpaved construction roads(if any) on the project site ■Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust on the surrounding area. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Solar or low- City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning emission water heaters shall be installed in Redevelopment Department verification of Department all new buildings within the project site to Agency/Developer implementation reduce energy demand and associated �! emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.24: Built-in energy- City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning .-� efficient appliances shall be provided in all Redevelopment Department verification of Department new buildings within the project site to Agency/Developer implementation reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2-5: Air City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning conditioners installed in all new buildings Redevelopment Department verification of Department within the project site shall be energy- Agency/Developer implementation efficient and shall have automated controls I 1 6 City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE I MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingl Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2.6: Double-glass- City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning paned windows shall be installed in new Redevelopment Department verification of Department buildings within the redevelopment area to Agency/Developer implementation reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2-7. Lighting City City Planning Design review,and At plan check City Planning installed in new buildings within the Redevelopment Department verification of Department project site shall be energy-efficient and Agency/Developer implementation shall have automated controls to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2-8: The new City City Planning Design Review,and At plan check City Planning buildings within the project site shall Redevelopment Department verification of Department exceed Title 24 wall and attic insulation Agency/Developer implementation requirements by"at least 5 percent to reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Mitigation Measure 3.2-9: The new City City Planning Design Review,and At plan check City Planning buildings within the project site shall use Redevelopment Department verification of Department light-colored roof materials to reflect heat Agency/Developer implementation and reduce energy demand and associated emissions. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Monitor during City City Planning Visual Prior to City Planning grading and excavation for archaeological Redevelopment Department/ inspection/Inform construction,and Department and paleontological resources: Agency/Developer archeological and construction during grading and 4 ■The Applicant shall arrange for a paleontological personnel excavation activities qualified professional archaeological consultant 0 and paleontological monitor to be present during demolition, grading, trenching,and other excavation on the --�■ project site. Additionally, prior to N M project construction, construction z personnel will be informed of the (14 i potential for encountering significant V, archaeological and paleontological resources, and instructed in the 1!J 7 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach d Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE I MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Tfnringl Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action byMmtitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification identification of fossils and other potential resources. All construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work on the project site until a qualified paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be informed of the requirement that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. ■ If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during earth moving activities, all construction activities on the project site shall cease until the archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the significance of the resource: in the absence of a determination, all archaeological and paleontological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, shall prepare a research design for recovery of the resources n consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation. The archaeologist or paleontologist shall complete a report of the excavations and findings, and shall submit the report for peer review by three County- certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report, the Applicant shall submit the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, M the California Coastal Commission,and Z the City of Huntington Beach. —� ■In the event of the discovery on the project site of a burial,human bone,or © susnected human bone. all excavatinn �.! 8 City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program _ TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX liming/ MitigationMeaswe Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Ouck Verification or grading in the vicinity of the find will halt-immediately and the area of the find will be protected. If a qualified archaeologist is present, he/she will determine whether the bone is human. If the archaeologist determines that the bone is human;or in the absence of an archaeologist, the Applicant immediately will notify the City Planning Department and the Orange County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of P.R.C. § 5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and reburial. Mitigation Monitoring 3.3-2: Building C City City Planning of the proposed project shall incorporate Redevelopment Department/City ground-level and second-story design Agency/Developer Design Review features of the Ocean View Promenade Board Structure and,to the extent feasible,of the building containing EI Don Liquors. These features shall include,but not be limited to, windows, textures, and roofing and lighting materials. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the revised project design concept shall be reviewed by the City Design Review Board for architectural and scale compatibility with the El Don Liquors structure. Mitigation Measure 33-3: Prior to City City Planning Plan check Prior to recordation City Planning submittal for building permits, the Redevelopment Department of the final map Department Applicant shall incorporate a 20-foot Agency/Developer setback from the property line between the Helme-Worthy project property and �y Building F/G of the proposed project. The plan shall also include, where Building F/G adjoins the Helme-Worthy buildings along the southern property line,a 10-15- foot average upper-level setback for the third and fourth floors to create a distinct separation between the new and older 713 --{ buildings. ro z N _0 9 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach W� -_ a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingl Mitigation Measure ResponsibleErtity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification Geology and Hydrology Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: The grading City City Planning Review of grading Prior to City Planning plan prepared for the proposed project Redevelopment Department,City plan construction/at Department shall contain the recommendations Agency/Developer Engineer plan check included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Blocks 104/105, City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment, Westerly of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, City of Huntington Beach, California prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated May 22, 2000. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation stability and shoring requirements, lateral earth pressure,foundation design,concrete slabs and pavements,cement type and corrosion measures,surface drainage,trench backfill, plan review,and geotechnical observation and testing of earthwork operations. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Prior to City Geotechnical Review of final Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a grading permit, the final Redevelopment consultant/Public grading and a grading permit Department grading and foundation plans shall be Agency/Developer Works Department foundation plans reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department to verify that the preliminary recommendations provided in this report am-applicable. Mitigation Measure 3A-3: The proposed City City Public Works Review of final Prior to issuance of City Planning --{ project shall include flatwork design and Redevelopment Department grading and a grading permit Department --{ structural BMPs to isolate contamination Agency/Developer foundation plans from the disposal bins and direct any runoff from the disposal area into a sanitary drain with a trash separator,an oil-� and grease separator, and/or other �., filtration system as required to meet water quality standards. --1 Land Use ate._ No mitigation required .� 10 City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program - TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingl Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action byMonitor FTTW-y Compliance Check Verification Noise Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: The project City City Planning Site Inspections Periodically during City Planning contractors) shall implement, but not be Redevelopment Department construction Department limited to,the following best management Agency/Developer activities practices: ■ Outdoor construction work on the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8.00 P.M.on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays • All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential,including all equipment powered by internal combustion engines,shall be muffled or controlled • All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as possible.from existing houses ■Machinery, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use ■ Mobile equipment shall not be allowed to run idle near existing residences Neighbors within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing prior to construction; the project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" who shall be responsible y for responding to any local complaints —} regarding construction noise; the ---� coordinator(who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; and a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be posted V, conspicuously at the construction site fence and included on the notification W The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Actionln/Monitor Frequency Compliance Oteck Verification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. Population and Housing No mitigation required Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to City City Planning Site inspection Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a building permit, the Redevelopment Department a building permit Department Applicant shall demonstrate that. the Agency/Developer project includes adequate access for emergency vehicles, automatic fire sprinkler systems, automatic fire alarms, properly sized elevators, and 24-hour security shall be provided. Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Prior to City City Planning Review and Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a building permit, the Redevelopment Department/ incorporate a building permit Department Applicant shall consult the Huntington Agency/Developer Huntington Beach adequate crime Beach Police Department regarding the Police Department prevention provision of adequate Crime Prevention measures into plan Design measures,and shall incorporate the Department's recommendations into the plan. Mitigation Measure 3.8-3: Prior to City City Planning Plan check/visual Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a building permit, the Redevelopment Department/ inspection a building permit Department Applicant shall demonstrate that the Agency/Developer Maintenance project includes adequate access for Services disposal collection vehicles including 55 Department feet to pickup and drop off containers on a straight shot and a minimum turning diameter of 86 feet. �A �� 12 City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingy Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Cluck Verification Mitigation Measure 3.84: Prior to City Environmental Plan check Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of building permits for the first Redevelopment Services Division/ building permits Department project component, the Applicant shall Agency/Developer Public Works submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to Department the City Environmental Services Division, Public Works Department, and recycling coordinator. This plan shall discuss how the project will implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs. Additionally, this plan shall include how the project will address the construction and demolition-generated waste from the site. These methods shall include,but shall not be limited to the following: ■ Emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning rather than demolition ■ Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum,and plastic for visitors and employees of the proposed project ■Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, plastic, wood, steel, and concrete for construction workers during construction phases ■ Bins for cardboard recycling during construction ■ Scrap wood recycling during construction ■Green waste recycling of landscape materials ,_4 Transportation and Circulation MM 3.9-1 Prior to issuance of an City City Public Works Review and Prior to issuance of City Planning occupancy permit, the applicant shall Redevelopment Department approve second an occupancy Department,City restripe the eastbound approach to provide Agency/Developer eastbound lane permit Public Works a second eastbound turn lane at the Department �. Brookhurst Street/Pacific Coast Highway v intersection, subject to review and approval by the City Public Works %,A -.� Department. Z W 0 13 The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach ty W Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timingl Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Cluck Verification Mitigation Measure 3.9-2: Prior to City City Planning Verification of the Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of a building permit,the applicant Redevelopment Department/City provision of a building permit Department,City shall demonstrate the provision of two Agency/Developer Public Works inbound and Public Works inbound lanes and one outbound lane for Department outbound lanes Department the proposed subterranean parking structure. Mitigation Measure 3.9-3: Delivery City City Planning vehicles shall be restricted to vehicles the Redevelopment Department size of or smaller than a medium or small Agency/Developer semi-trailer with a length of 50 feet. Mitigation Measure 3.9.4: Prior to City City Planning Review parking Prior to issuance to City Planning issuance of a building permit,the applicant Redevelopment Department management plan a building permit Department shall submit a parking management plan, Agency/Developer consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan, for review and approval by the City Planning Department. Mitigation Measure 3.9-5: During City City Planning Periodic site Ongoing inspection City Planning ongoing operations of the project, the Redevelopment Department inspection during Department applicant shall provide valet and/or Agency/Developer special events/peak remote parking for special events and seasons activities,and during peak summer season. Mitigation Measure 3.9-6: Prior to City City Planning Site inspection Prior to issuance of City Planning issuance of occupancy permits, the Redevelopment Department occupancy permits Department applicant shall develop an on-site signage Agency/Developer program to clearly identify parking opportunities, to direct vehicles to the subterranean parking structure, and to guide patrons to pedestrian access points and elevators within the project. Mitigation Measures Incorporated by Reference from the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project EIR 96-2 Population and Housing Mitigation Measure 4.2-A: The Agency City City Planning Verification of Prior to project City Planning shall relocate any persons or families of Redevelopment Department provision and approval/at plan Department low and moderate income displaced by a Agency implementation of a check redevelopment project. The Agency shall relocation plan adopt and implement a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. 14 , City of Huntington Beach Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Measure Respons+bfeEntity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency ComplianceClteck Verification The relocation plan ensures that no families or single persons of low and moderate income are displaced by a redevelopment project until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be available at rents comparable to those at the time of displacement. Further,housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the displace household,and must be decent, safe, sanitary, and otherwise standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be relocated with the minimum of hardship. Air Quality Mitigation Measure 4.5-D: In larger areas City City Planning Site Inspection Prior to and City Planning of both surface and subsurface Redevelopment Department/City during Department and contamination, a site assessment will be Agency/Developer Engineer and construction DOGGR(California conducted before any construction takes DOGGR(California Department of Oil, place at that locale. At locations where Department of Oil, Gas,and Geothermal spillage of fluids from the petroleum Gas,and Resources) extraction process has occurred, the soils Geothermal will be remediated using appropriate Resources) techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. These activities would fall under the direction of both local and State agencies, which would "sign off" on the remediation effort upon completion. If unforeseen areas of subsurface > contamination are encountered during excavation activities,these activities would 3j be curtailed in this area until the area could be evaluated and remediated as r appropriate. 70 Cultural and Scientific Resources ■ Mitigation Measure 4.12-A: Prior to City z the commencement of new construction Redevelopment that would displace or require Agency/Developer demolition of potentially significant W 0 resources, a complete assessment shall O is The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach v� Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Timing/ Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Frequency Compliance Check Verification be prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At a minimum, this assessment shall include the following documentation: ■ A full description of each building architectural style,roof design,window design,type of foundation,exterior wall treatments, special architectural features,etc. ■ Black and white photographs showing one or more facades of each building ■ A determination of construction date from existing records such as building permit record books on file in the Planning Department at the City. In the event that records cannot be located for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted with members of the local historical society or other individuals who may have relevant data to share. ■ A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to the demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present study. Additional measures may be implemented as a result, if necessary to prevent an adverse impact. Mitigation Measure 4.12-B: Should any City cultural artifacts,archaeological resources Redevelopment or paleontological resources be uncovered Agency/Developer during grading or excavation,a County of Orange certified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted by the Community Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of the resource,2) M establish protocol with the City to protect z such resources,3)ascertain the presence of --I additional resources, and 4) provide additional monitoring of the site, if ® deemed appropriate. 16 City of Huntington Beach Res. No. 340 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, Clerk of the Redevelopment . Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 215t day of October 2002, and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Green, Dettloff, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Boardman, Cook ABSENT: Houchen (out of room) ABSTAIN: None 49w� Clerk of the Redevelopme Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, CA