HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 2017-40 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-40
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CERTIFYING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 14-001 FOR. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 14-002
(GENERAL PLAN UPDATE)
WHEREAS, in October 2013, the City of Huntington Beach initiated an update to the
General Plan; and
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California(The`'`C.its'`i as I e• E1
Agency has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the 1-3--neral_ Plat-
Update; and
Said Final EIR is a program EIR, as defined by State and local guidelines for the
implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"); and
The Final EIR has been prepared to address the environmental effects, mitigation
measures, and project alternatives associated with the General Plan Update in accordance with
CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City environmental procedures; and
Written comments on the EIR were received from the public and responsible public
agencies during the review period from May 22, 2017 through July 7, 2017; and.
Such comments and testimony were responded to through a Response to Comments
document included in the Final EIR and said Final EIR was made available in a manner
prescribed by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
Public Resources Code 21092.5(a) requires that the City provide a written response to
any public agency that comments on the EIR, and the Response to Comments included in the
Final EIR satisfies this requirement; and
On August 15, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
certify Final EIR No. 14-001; and
The City Council has reviewed all environmental documentation comprising the EIR,
including all elements of the Final EIR, and has found that the EIR considers all envirormental
effects of the General Plan Update, is complete and adequate, and fiIlly complies ,A th all die;
requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the City shall not dreide to approve
or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless it has:
17-5944/162790/W 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-40
(A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment
where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA
Guidelines; and
(B) Determined that any remaining significant effects found to be unavoidable under
Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section
15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and as set forth in the attached Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A); and
Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City balance the benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve
the project, and the City Council has carefully considered said benefits and risks,
NOW,THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
1. That the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete and adequate in
that it addresses all environmental effects of the General Plan Update (General
Plan Amendment No. 14-002), and fully complies with the requirements of
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR is composed of the following
elements:
a. Draft EIR and Technical Background Report and Technical Appendices;
and
b. Planning Conunission and City Council staff reports; and
C. Planning Commission and City Council Minutes; and
d. Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments;
and
e. Errata to the Draft EIR
All of the above information has been, and will be, on file with the City of Huntington
Beach Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California,
92648 and with the City Clerk.
2. That the City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant
environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential
environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR.
3. That the City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable
alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain the basic project objectives
(including the "no project" alternative), even when these alternatives might
17-5944/162790/MV 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-40
impede attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the
City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in
the preparation of the Draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives were considered in
the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project.
4. The City Council further finds that the benefits gained by the City and its current
and future residents by virtue of implementing the goals and policies of the
General Plan Update, override the unmitigable effects detailed in Final EIR No.
14-001, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as
Exhibit A, and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
5. That the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby certify Final
EIR No. 14-001.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an
adjourned regular meeting held on 18thday of Septe m ber , 2017.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk Ci Attorney +�J
REVIEWS AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City P&aer/ Community eve opment Director
Exhibit A—Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
17-5944/162790/MV 3
EXHIBIT A
City
General
Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2015101032
Findings of Fact,/
a e
t "=ernt o oexr-ding Considerations
August 2017
Lead Agency:
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Prepared by:
ATKINS
3570 Carmel Mountain Road,Suite 300
San Diego, California 92130
Contents
Contents
1.0 introduction............................................................................................................................ i
2.0 CEQA Findings ........................................................................................................................3
3.0 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives.................................................................................13
3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................13
3.2 Project Objectives.............................................................................................................13
3.3 Selection of Alternatives.................................................................................................-14
3.4 Project Alternative Findings..............................................................................................14
3.4.1 General Plan Update Alternatives........... ...........................................................14
3.4.1.1 Alternative 1:No Project.......................................................................15
Findings............................................................................................16
3.4.1.2 Alternative 2:Full Implementation of the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Program(GGRP Alternative)..................................................16
Findings............................................................................................17
3.4.1.3 Alternative 3:Gothard Corridor Land Use Change
(Gothard Corridor Alternative)...............................................................17
Findings............................................................................................20
3.4.1.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation.........20
AirQuality............................................................................. ....20
LandUse...........................................................................................21
Noise.................................................................................................21
Utilities/Water Supply....................................................................21
Reduced Development Intensity Alternative...................................22
4.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations................................................................................23
4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................23
4.2 Significant Adverse Cumulative Impact............................................................................23
AirQuality............................................................................. ....23
CulturalResources............................................................................................................24
Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................24
Noise.................................................................................................................................24
Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................25
4.3 Findings.............................................................................................................................25
4.4 Overriding Considerations................................................................................................25
ProposedProject Benefits................................................................................................26
Table
Table 1 CEQA Findings for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update...............................................4
Table 2 Draft GGRP GHG Reduction Estimates....................................................................................17
Figure
Figure 1 Alternative 3, Gothard Corridor Land Use Change Alternative.,.............................................19
Atkins I City of Huntington Beach Generai Plan Update Prograrn 6R u Page i
August 2017
1.0 Inlroduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document presents the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that must be
adopted by the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15091 and 15093,
respectively,of the CEQA Guidelines prior to the approval of the General Plan Update.
This document is organized as follows:
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Chapter Presents the CEQA Findings of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
(Draft Program EIR),including the identified significant cumulative impacts.
Chapter 3 Presents the alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them in relation to
the findings contained in Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.The City of
Huntington Beach must consider and make findings regarding alternatives when a
project would involve environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less-
than-significant level, or cannot be substantially reduced, by proposed mitigation
measures.
Chapter 4 Presents a Statement of Overriding Considerations that is required in accordance
with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant impacts of a proposed
project that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The proposed project, as defined for CEQA purposes,consists of the adoption and implementation of the
General Plan Update, which establishes an overall development capacity of 7,228 residential units and
5,384,920 non-residential square feet above existing (2014) conditions for the City of Huntington Beach
and serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and character of the
City of Huntington Beach over an approximate 25-year planning horizon (to 2040). The General Plan
Update also includes a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) and a Coastal Resiliency Program
(CRP). A GGRP provides near-term specific and measurable actions, programs, and projects to achieve
greenhouse gas reduction goals as required by state legislation, and provides performance indicators and
a monitoring tool.A CRP provides guiding engineering,ecological,and community resilience principles to
address potential sea level rise in accordance with the adopted guidelines of the California Coastal
Commission, while also identifying potential preparedness goals, actions, and an implementation
strategy.
In addition to the GGRP and CRP, the General Plan Update incorporates components of the existing
General Plan (1996)that are still applicable today, while reducing the number of optional elements and
proposing a streamlined approach to the goals and policies.The General Plan Update also establishes a
new Research and Technology land use designation which highlights and prioritizes the city's commitment
to job growth and sustained economic growth and vitality. While the General Plan Update does not
change any of the existing residential designations or propose new areas of residential land within the
City of Huntington Beach,it allows for continued residential growth within existing residential areas and
the established densities of those areas.The General Plan Update functions as a plan for the management
of resources and infrastructure to accommodate this projected growth.As identified in the Draft Program
EIR, the General Plan Update is anticipated to result in eight significant unavoidable impacts (three
project-specific and five cumulative impacts). In comparison to the alternatives analyzed against the
Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program FIR v� Page I
August 2017
FincSngs of Faci/SfigfiornenP of 9_gqnsicieraflons
General Plan Update as proposed, the City of Huntington Beach finds that the Alternative2, Full
Implementation of the GGRP,is the environmentally superior alternative,
The General Plan Update is a policy and framework document regarding future development within the
City of Huntington Beach and does not include any specific development project. As such, the General
Plan Update under CEQA does not require discretionary approval from Responsible or Trustee Agencies.
However,in the future, as development is proposed in accordance with the General Plan Update,there
may be projects that, in addition to approval by the city, may need federal, regional, and/or state
Responsible and TrusteeAgencies discretionary approval over specific aspects of the General Plan Update.
Agencies that may have discretionary approval could include,but are not necessarily limited to:
■ Southern California Air Quality Management District regarding issues of air quality and associated
permitting;
■ Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding water quality and quantity, as well as potential
discharges into surface waters;
■ California Coastal Commission regarding potential issues relating to sea level rise;
■ California Department of Fish Wildlife regarding biological resources;
■ Caltrans regarding the Pacific Coast Highway and other roadways within the city that are under
the maintenance of the state;and
■ U.S.Army Corps of Engineers regarding waters of the U.S.and wetlands.
Other agencies may use the Final Program EIR in exercising their duties even if they do not have
discretionary permit approval authority over all or parts of the General Plan Update(or implementation
of individual projects developed as a result of the General Plan Update)-All projects that are proposed in
the future under the General Plan Update will be required to obtain all necessary discretionary actions
and environmental clearance,separate from this General Plan Update.
---------------- ------------------------------- --------------- -------------
Page 2 City of HunfiWton Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I Atkins
August 2017
2.PCEQA Findings
2.0 CEQA FINDINGS
This chapter presents the potential impacts that were identified in the Draft Program EIR and the findings
that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.The possible findings for each
significant and/or potentially significant adverse impact are as follows:
(a)Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid,
substantially lessen, or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Draft Program EIR("Finding 1").
(b)Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency
and not the agency making the findings.Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency. ("Finding 2")
(c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives in the Draft Program EIR("Finding 3").
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or project 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 a project lies with some other agency(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". CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor:
"legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta ll] [1990] 52
Cal.3d 553,565 [276 Cal.Rptr,410].)
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. 727].)CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific rationale to support
its actions based on a Final EIR and/or information in the record.This written statement is known as the
Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations provides the
information that demonstrates the decision making body of the Lead Agency has weighed the benefits of
a project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve a project. If the
benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may
be considered "acceptable_"
This document presents the findings of the City of Huntington Beach 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. (CEQA Guidelines §15091.). Additional facts that
support the findings are set forth in the Draft Program EIR, the Final Program EIR,staff reports to the
Planning Commission and City Council, and the record of proceedings.
Table 1 (CEQA Findings for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update) summarizes the potentially
significant impacts of the Draft Program EIR that were reduced to less-than-significance levels with
mitigation as well as the significant impact, as currently proposed for certification and adoption of the
General Plan Update.
Atkins I City or Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIRT Page 3
August 2017
N'D0 'ac cdDbCp 'o 'D
> a rnuo � o
C) as - v �; a �aa� m
I a° ° >
C >
c C4) 5 d-CO UC da
D
? c o d d N 2 L 0 a N d
a a a - a c'c a'a a a OR o Eiu
;aI Co rn� a o L) m_mc �� a C L)
c 'E ro °a m} v c c 0 0 o . 0-
o � (�N }� a i o Ec90 ak *o- u a I a rn a� N N a d CJI N N a a
o i O d N y }O Z d N'C
i D�a°, °orov o°' Daaiaomaui� 0.m
U o- U 6
2 c C
dN CC C C od0C � d0 �-0- p -0� - E
O 12
-C Q)` Q3 d U O r N (D d H E
(j c. E a) o E m a U c E CD
m_° � a' ° 7 C ° o- a� ° � ° x m C: 4)
a U•OC-0° d dU C - dd
.`: iy N c U d av�' pj N c U d a � °
CO E= 0 C �;--C a � E a o c �rnN
c N CL a- •--0 E c 0 Q C1:� � v d
' c ° 0c EO enoc � EO CL
� u0 0z ua � a� z
7 t d 0 N d ID
m C3 a c °a_0 mtv u o� c>,E v a-0 1
! >a � - � ; E � � a ' ac 0) 0-0- aco rn !
o} � Eac ° n, °' c ca dam.- � cmN a nB� 0 a€
{ 0 d d 0 d -0 ° O >a U c w aI a 0 O 1 -0i -0 °C � N U a)� � � ID� � a U _Q 0 O a�
aOa (D -0dNZ) `d - Nd OdcO adt CL CNp d'� N L r
! C U d > d = d.O N U Q N z) N a > c -0 E C C a'o ] c.". N N
s ( N ] N - Oj ?• CO 'a a 0 aUdOp.o � cN N O.a N
[ m= m °' 0 c C° °' °c a mcL•°�s °3 ''� m a a o 3'� ° w 0-4 a�e
a. a, u t � p c o o
cN � o wdmc °c> mnm C� a° �`�� od�accu0c 3
i y- >. VI V•N Q1 ¢ a�L• '° L �' a a a 0 ti- H O a>j
E. � E0ac � o'er pa) aC� p � cN v •- m
O u= O O t w.C] v,= C C L +c O c U c O•-U.c L O j a e
rn� u a d m d � u- oQ d v c E- } � H�a'
C O c 3 a O > d p > N O C] N d N ¢ Q� C O > d Q O a
dam'] m0 UOd-0 O:- ' O ouUUEdHmw Z ° c
0 i N-a d c 3 N N d 7 C d S5-0 C ] C- 'a -¢ C d
l3= p O N C 'd U;= U L O U ; U O U a N 00 N'_= U (D a� d�
p 'D ai 2 a :=w E o d z) c v u °� a d mac= g a ¢ c'�a'
a 3 ° c a a� ° ; as c Eo•- i
E o5odrn m pE Co- c3 0 Dom ro 0E0�- U
a -i NO- NQ� � o} EdN�.oroEac >.-D-: 0C3u0i ° w0 E0 "' � 0Eia'
;.d d 3 a rn� a 6�L a a2 � n o o "' axi T a 6� �rN c€
F d �'= �� C C O N� C].6 C C U 0 2• a x U O.0 ° m 0 E o
i E d 0 cc 0 - 0 -E � O a a o d d= = N N Z u N O� �'rn—S—
t ; Cz O N > O 7 p O N C - C� 0 C] Crj CD�'O a C } CDI
Q 0 q> c O C_
E� c a 0 u v c o a.a cr a - 3 c u
w ° c ° 0 0� Cl� amom ° > m aci'a me o E o a� c 3 a o��`
m � CdpCO� m °} utQ vac C DEEC0C3 (D ~ v} ate •- a0
t ; as � 30cE >>- a ,uESDoag ! a > cca-aEo u .} d c 0
c ( ?aQ ° cu �a co- oc��� w_u-_a 'aaa'D -d '6 � c��' o�
o OEua 0� u.�a mo� a ; muu ° a �.� d� E�¢sm
m a v ro d, o y � L c� -5 ° �� ° 0
} j N O p > N O' N V Oda i 7 O O X ° d 0 �.N 0 U CL > b
o� � m °a te � 'a � ' ¢ u c c m a a 3 u a a w 0 9 E�� rn
a
`g y! c C N a
of s d d (Da; ` a _ > a n.
v� co0 auo o
of wt O d 0 - � a > - a
C`C` pOdOd E a� m
ECL
3�' d d•oa a •d a (Dm! a� cam ° °n �a � L
o! a � N � ° a
C o
d N� �.d a 0 m
a E[ OU cCL 00mCz '
C d U•- C d'- i
T N O C > 5 0
01ol �! O j d j O O .00) U
cl
`�I (DU d •c C N D 7 = c
0 { o
¢. t Lri
C3c'p i s o v 4 m
o i �6 CDa3 I n>i A?5 U I
m
' o o C3' % o
i NAsC� U > m � �(�r> .2 c� 3C �
U m 0 -0 E.� U m - 0 m m O m p
!w 0-CD O
°m m0 ° uoi3y ao � �' �
1c mom= O c Qa2 0 m C3)U a0 0 �:
cc} mO)a 0oE °voE cEoc �a
O _
_O }
U ® E m •C3 u >m p •Q-a m ® i
s _fig ®-0 >o ® `c m-0 ® �' c o °O 0 - m
C -o _ z _- CD E
OE 0
C
0 0 5 o-a o ° m �� o ° C30 a 0zo °
E Ucc � O.c UccN � c Uc4 2 �
a) C3 u �Z . a) U > Oa m•0 � a C u -a 'E 2
m �'0 m ? m c p•> oC3 1
I
i _0 '0 rsE �°'m w o�-00000
� ® amp ; t� C3 � m = m � 0
W o iL •N Z W r •H CS U 0 O
c (D� I ®Uv m L Z5 a) 0'0 d ; N m
CD I a) t om C30 CS0 `�-0 w m o
I g�
jCT _0 ® ® 0 0mm 3 (D �000 q ® ° ° m � t3
o °'> 3 c c m� > >
f N0 U ®� y v m -o-d -._ E c -0-4 �� O C5 0 0
p C3 C3 .� 0 C3 C3 ®_ U C3 i3 « m U d C7 D m 3 O
�•_ p U. m m c -2 5 ° o ° C3 O cr C3 O m"0 v
' ate °} i ®oo � cD2 � °'m � m? � � t ® o�� � ao
as �O i m0. 0)- U0 -0"gO m Off - cc0 ,tea
a N_ m0 m � C3 Uma
}sa; m U `m o'u � �a o u c C3 m c m
aE i > _m > I m-+ O o m O m m m�U Q� > C3 0 >
I c'=�so ° o.�c o N °) 0 0 Qo 2 o 0 3 0-0 U a `m ° U c m D
i a'a cU 0� a ; Um0mTa Q�, � � m�o �Qc 'a o uomu
0.#C1`: O � mZ7!� c °)am w a0-0 ��� CS ° O m H _ U m
o ar C3 £ mc oQdE a) 0 a ° ® mom a) -c ® ° �
c3 �= c m _ �m C3� O mkt m U� ® 0-5 E p
I c; Oo 0 � oo ® 0 -0 � U'o "0Uc m p � po° o
> > m ° C30 �Hm_0 raUO� c °� a a > O Ucv >
�i a -0 ! c . m� � 0 0�m.acp •0a) ® m0 m 1.� O 0
U U C 0 7 m o i O
�3 : off o � n ' `�` NCO o0) � C3il Off ° a) > � N00
s U m s f m m•�^�„ = i O n" c •O j•"'- C3 ® g (� U m m.O
€ m
m00 I am c Camp ; cCSmmo c y 3 mm ° 0)C3 � cC3
> � � 3 ° pcc m s ,- � OC3o � Ec °cmm ° � i
gU � m � ' I u�� ��m D0 � � r2m[u� � n h °o0E� ° � i m
7 C3) O O O m m � O -� m m� �•FD 6 _ mt 3 m m 0 7• � � o
! u � _ a � � � _ emu ; ¢} a aa_ cr ¢ � aa.� u3 � m ; IQ
-------- ------ ---=------ --`--- ----__ - i
x, m m � N im
m 0 3 a 0 m m t 0 _ C3 d
® pm = � m � OUo > mEa) ® � 0C3� 0 b
f > U r3 p ® C m•p Q C.0 O 3 () O d U m m c
m 0 cO p U:E u o o(D-c— � F .o � �� 0 0
`z= r o o ca} �{ as 3 0• U 0)® aU c c a° o
Q' i 0j .N m' -0v+- ® ° m ,: m0C30 0U
C7'"+€ "�, a0 0° m c 0 ®� 0_0 3 ® ®,U ® � Em
I LU
U: `a). m•- ' fit= ° o f ,�,� U C��o -Cs p oN; "=. o T
i L2: T GI O 0 m y C 5 O'V 00 y E V' U C S> O p ^ G
O > amtni) o)c _ C �' C3O -0m0 Ij
C0 � � � C3 � � cC3z0 O � U C3_m
.m pmU Oo-- 0 m >•tp = m U ato p O7w E� -
•wi ? °c a arm ; ®� a) ts c=i paa °' 0) s� m ° me o E a ® a I
a► - E:9 E '0 m c > m N� a 2 � m 0) m QU .o
of -'j C3 � C Q� ® _ OOC3c s2 C: -0 —3o -
D; ±O; OO� °� O ; � 0ca) (D � m� ° aa� �.0UaD
7 t m v s I O
D ID
!E!E as a3OOmp 3
c O 75 }
m C 0 ! H U 3 U
{ a c 0--
cz m p a s
im Um0 �mmmQ u
1 U m a c I U m 0 Qz m
Q
C O O E _ t a t m
111i33�; mc•- �ao ' ' m� Uoam
;:::!:I:iMt { C V— I C w C Q U
.-€ l o p a o � > m E O
3 =v m m ( _ m=v ro
a ;t a
a a.-
j roz o maE cm >> s
i a � � a3c -n � Ira} �cmc
mm ; aQo� v,_mID a
;` t ace = cv� °ac5m'cac 6
cmo. a)am r cm� ,,mE�� �mC �
E -a
` p p m C C p m O m U s
! } QmC} o'a00 E > C c pa c's
a U m a7-0 O D m C m m E c m a E OL
0 3
a_ .n-a C Z-"- O] m a O m C O C a=•- a•a'
[ O a U ] i m m m 0—a a C o m V O o U a Q C m>
U OL � m m�
a �a O � � ' U n a�a m a,
1 w -0 O E3
mat mE ° � �— C? ac � mmcm EQma
I ..'. U - a U�0 O m c c c a c a s 0 EO m m5
s s 17 O i U m C n O d m C O p- a !— U C U s',
o =o Emu-0 b , E a•� U U a E m m m
o f v —° ��# moo=c��c m:�oa
o O Q Q
EF a oU � -0-
-0a5Q-- 2 V = u >�
�°c zcap�
a � 0 E mC m Dr mOa� 0 xUaOo m ma
o mmo `� o am° o° a a �o o
amaoz5 i _ma)°m ��00 - aea ) -�� m � a
c � mpom
(D a)a v
_ C
° 0a —
( UU 5o2moaa as ❑om0Q- o5c -aao a- aO
nOm * • - -p .0 a 2- � 0)o
L0 u �oo -a c
O.co aiaM a� E a omVQa
ats'' _
> C�i
j c! Lol, mo o flLE3 Om2 ca mU o a mNm mQa
fl � m--O = UOOo vo m o � E E OF
f i?
mi IfDo
C O c a ' CCL
p'o m C w .`. a U a a >. M
i t
C
a � Qo � mmaEma ' ma
°a,° �•� m c� c �} m a
•a o c iaa a E� �N 0.
u
t5 � .a m �
di+�i ma �oc � OL
�� mall C
mi �i qi4 NIR m C > > O _ N a m ut U O µ p
E! U vf=f ' m•- o 5-c- 5 m N' m c c rn
p E=y{ O O Q U + U'm m a-G yE7' O O O U B c
o ! of maomcmc°� L) oma
v 0,
m:D 0�. a a 2 U Cl Q� m 0 a u
c U m c E m o)'Qa oti c -
{ td
I I 5Q ° O
O N
O C mO �
y -
6; m �L;r c mkt F C m a) ° C
U m� m u mb m � c °C� m m
= p3 ° ° aEi r 3 ° ° mo? -
I r � mZE rUmZEy Ia � QmQ
I j O. m I �. m ff a c Q•
i a c O-- X- w O..,.• L E w m '° N
a�� i o D �� c I -C m E E
U� uQ-.- U UQ- � i U0Q° cam
=a^ )co c DO cocc Dccc �� E� o EQ o
{Vf US C-
ZL
0 o °
o aom � I �°m a)om a) c t
U m F
! m _ :c c Cc�
T � �
o m ° o m ° i
i = iOUo � a om� � Q � oaom
{ cd.so Uca,90 U°)3 Q£
° 73 m ° mo
° m Z
c ' L L - c -C v y
O
0 m N ° CO)
o ' -° c c o
m� m� " O
m Qom ° a)
m C O M:2 'w 0. C
N C O) O
s t m S c ] O C { -0 n 7 '�- m °
{ c i ° �a � r m -0 Q m a) a� c m c
_ O•ri m C � m C N I C 0•0 O O C3 -'> '
:{ C € r m E m O C UQ C rO+- I m e rL- fl-7 d m C°
_{ s N O N•�b 3 N ° Cl-
OL Co ° O d m o f d-0 0 0 3 "' �O ° m 0
V o
0= ff
c 5cc ° Emcm ° oEo 'ci ccm- oU•a?00 ° Uma
(1( m ���� � E
mQ u P °�'moo-° -ac � �• E � a � c
s
c S� c o � m o � � m o°� m °U a
-
UQOa}E' } ° O 6 �4m3
w-cmU
•c°E3cE»E-ELc ° Q 0j m ° � ° °CL Eo C OoOID C C �
O o o o
aLo
?3 � 0� �t � E E Q'Eme
am Q } CD
ak o o d) o ya O � E ° °
m > CE oc omm � o ° cm0° Q ° U� o � ° m°
-° oUo °am
Cl a 3 Q m 5 a) c )aG2C � D - Z> - 0 ' 2 3
Q �
EtcaD C3 > - � r �v c 0 0
C - 0c» = °61 � o : ooC) o �30) c0 - �0ct )Co
40 'SD c 5-° m o m m � D o m oo 0Op0am � � Los6 O ° j�
U >,c oo offm (D � u ra °
� 0 0mcm arn o 2 o-m
o °U -0- ca° rn3r '
o o > ° °° °
UO 3 °O ° o N m ° E 0 Uu- U ° °
U °)- oO
II�
�o
E
o---- ------
d' ° T b
( d) m 0 c I a
Q C r fl+ Q V ° y c:6 0- - 0 0 -0 Of N
E � O1r ° c o> > ° c _° mm ° c E s
i ° ° a) c c a) o c °c o m ° � n E m °
V3 Q m m O•�L 0-0
Q y _° Q O y� m E ° Q O y m
'� Q o d) r Q 0 m m C+ Q m
j > E m c_ U °L E } •S y O•C m m
V O Q�p O- 0 C O O O O C ! O O O C
E, c ° ac U a= o o- °c0 c o 1 c t Q-_° c °
I Q
m C O,: N- m O C m'O I m Q H , {I! '
C3 M 'E o � U IrO
�,0o
0-m-
Z may_o
U Uom ° ° EQc E c
a -0 0 E 0)o 00 E C-a E • � a) Q+ � d) Ua m > ° c
> CL
_ ° o aE
E ° Qa °)ai � o.` •°> E II-
o
c
� I 1mn
I O a O I aN
-i `a) m a) !
! m � m N i m N
r ca� m7 � Ca� a) m carom
f ° av amaE amoE
O E i r a ID p m N p m 0
f 'a c O C o i "a C 0� 7 a C Q C h a
C U m a C �- U a) a a C
?cE a} 0 0" j a O O O o i a� Q O O O
i m C a p m C CO
.- 0 El 0
c - c�c o c� U�0 p c �a
E C:m� °' ac C:o = a) m a = mama E I
o C
7pma)0a) 7 a) m2_ 7 - (3) m
o a a °• N o a
rn3 � o._ 0)3 = o 0) 3ho
' a)0u> a) 0Umz� mQUmz f
{ I ` ro ai'� '- m�i' c ro m 3
_0au o .0 7p 'i o p) p
c m Z m cm
c tc= � Q! � m
Q'� a a m�a oV
i
a o �'Q m a rn Z) c cv N o o 1]
+:I F od �, 0 � c 3m° 0
ova � aa) co a0wtC, � �,- � 5-0 7
�= m o� c m a m a ;, 3 a o m-� - a c
= C O -0 -0 O > : p>C CL m m m 0 0)p C
a .0aa)•oaNQm o i : 3a) a)aaao 0ou, 7
aE ° -� � 7� a a c o} U 7 - 3 o
c F 5a) a0 a) aC�• a) i 0-I uCma) 0) 00g3
a c 0) Cl ° ate } > U.0Om� vatSN mm CN i
m a E aq
o m} m a U m I 4-- c C m_o a) 0 0
m 7 7 .0. C m C a U i •a = a m T C a1
i aE' c cU00E a mo00 mU � O�a7 a 0 � cmm
a)r C a �;a C UO a �� m 7 7 co 7 n- O >
Ci»- C C� 3 O.° COT C O O u ro a a m Oro O o) �'� m
oia I � oao aa3 � C � f U3coo �E °)cm4 a)` QUmc
m Q rom � ma �� 0-0 a�° omoom °10 ! a E'cE °
C � m Q -0 a) 7 O N t.0:= C 3 t {,•- C t E
I DF-
O m� 7 p > U a o >.+ o O C
Ali -0 c U o c° adU` o a'3 m,� ate !
d. °S aci o o a m� w3 o m �m ma 0) 13)— 0} U) c
m C 0 3p�. co UQ1 . p _a o
a) N E 4)�- C.0 U_ 'j C Q) 7 w... m C a) N a
sF g E 0 0 o•a o Q°� a 'o U°L �c7i a� u E c E� ;
a= `� C, m o� 0- m� m m a Qa -5 o; o '` 7 m ° ° m l
o N a > C C i- Q C O m a) C a C .� a C
m� > 0� -0 � 0 o o c � �c $ ° 0 U 0 0 0 � a � m c o° a
3 o i -0 a) 7- mOaa) 0a ' U`COmUOOC E•- VOO
°'� °--� co)Cc° ° m 2�° m °'� ma a) 3 m o 61-0 W
,C a) Q k 7 v, ,? E U� U 01 C C C U'5 U Q 7 7 > m•� p a
{ mE ono Z5 maf� � , 00) 2u' octal a1UXUO- o
_ _ !1
N ° N a Q.} E a�3 U 1 N 7 t}if U O.0 m C E &
Oj i ? O N m m
z �+�- t C °
i a� mecca)) 0 m° m0 moc HE
gym
o, mN aom '�_ o _ me v c3� m3 �
C. -C. C G N 7 N C a C + o n a- a1 E m
p p 3C3 a"ap 1 _L 7a E�o N0a) 7 i d
e' cif to ° aa� °)�o3�maE ' m� oa�v I m �' a_°o
w: I 0- � C o l C N C r � i 0 a U c a p �
cr ° 0)a c a o� N ° m 0> �c �.� Q I m a a , �U u
Oi 'aiyS �! N C y C Q) Cl E+• �n 7 vi E I 7 U o"�'!n:- '^ paj
�I WFV Ea{ ° a'xaUNOEp �mma C � a� NN CC � m� EU c
t } m m-� oo 0
E! Ve 3; com5� c �°� QiERN ? Eoma� m Eo 30 m
i o U m O C C 0`0 7 z N Oa' U a N N U Q U O C
I �1 0aaao0 mao Ea mm `Lw- mma°'i000 oll =
LL� Fm VF m0 ym ,. 0 p , >� O ��37a cE)� aXHmC � j O
`ol . 0`' ;ot `�03mm � po11) o >�-0 mQp ��aO aQ �ma m•�E
` C m ° C H -a 3 C �7, C 7 O C 1 m C O C .a N C
oa O0 0 a-0o - O ; 7a22 3 � I � acac a ' �4
vi N 0 U �n a S E U i 1.- d O)E N'gin ti d 2 Q LS }
a a
t ) L I m0
rLE .i m k •� of I a• J
m
�r I . � cC) mOa,,� ma �, Q
d m a E 4 m 5 U
cvi 1 a_� N C CS a
I O m ° m ^ a � c 0 a) o c
3 m o a'o a CL as a
i r m -a m c E C 0+- c I
E ° U m o 00
E O O O UO b b-ty 2) a
{ a 4-- C (D 0) U Q} O
e4 N o ° ° I °' ' CQao � f
oo— ° o ii ° C� c _EcZmU
c j 0)-c) D � Q
E .0 �-0 U a !
I E: c a m c p 0 m•_
a m O Q = m C a) U
_ \ Y _
Q ,O
o ° ° ma, ° 0 0-0) > 0 > °a
€ �mQQoam , 5C' ca) 3'6m
f a)3 � O [ V c
V m � a a0
maUmZ _ O'�}ac0. I
IDm m N c O E m
U +- - H m a o
vi
3 0 � Ec.�cR
mc
I 1 C tj a w m C m Q Q a m O m
-0c c U m
Q CT1 m C m
E O C O) a a
U a•��.-
€ CDa a mrn C m o
o o a) 5 m 3 o o m- (D o o m
0 c a c
Im ° £ � a '
m' }m 1 > oE amma accs
e 'Q � m > Q�Um =m mmm -->
gy5m p .0pQ
0 U a
D O m ° 6a °
m
caCD
°NUs a c0m (moa) Dm ID
v)o �m a } o E
o � Ua o E o - -O-o( E� 0 av)
o � mE ° m
> � � °E a) a C _0a)a
c°a
iI�
m a a U m a O
a,L rnm(D o- E o o �E 0 a� a a) a O m_r m m
,n '0
ya tE�;Qc mv ° 3 mo ur v mu} ° m .0O �
E f 5m m a—0 -0 ji
� 0. 00N0m
�3m
_a0m
m 0 a)E•C O a `r a) v U a � o i mLE md m c o ) ° >
` r0E ac a
o m o � o - E E
oEc a —mmm o a a ° o -
O m ° aa> Eoo aao > m m
on Qom— o:= mC) a E a)x
00 U om } oaom a o> o
o ID
jCN
of �m maomm 0E E aEa0
�
�m
_
1 Cl mc� Qoa5a Uc maoa ,m a�, a ° �mU � j E
O.+- c > w.� a U a1 m a E m m 0 - ° m> (D ° m m '-^ i1 6
� U �Eamm ° E� ON �aa cE.Q3 °c 3: 3 _ a3 -_ � to
ml
ar ° ID
c E S m a o 0
mm3c
U� a5
CIE m 0 E m w 6 C:f i u, O m C c O c c C
m > Oc O O p y
0
ir;G)x ama'p3a0
m 0 U U
QSV c U Q o_ ? m U D
H Oa2. - „la Q (D
V ui mom»- boa a (D °
E o 3 a � Q, m� UQ m
E, o U o E o o E E o m� mE
G
m m m p 3 0 Q Q
mri a € m c a� I o
ma �ogy Qmm.50 I U
d `� c � O pi m E m m c is
,L2 Q0. z >= a > > a
' zn U
t e
m O O j Q-
n a) m I
o c p. j t c 0 m m .z c ��7 m m E
i t3 0 u $ i o � L c } �`w c j
13 Q d }-p m O j_� L O O 0 d I
js rn m O-> .o ` t m C _ O v=i O '
i C p m m p i C m}O # : a)}O-d m j
E f ov p c m �C9 uu m E E �� u ' E E
t Ecn U:_ � Qm- vsQ co vQ� co t I
v o� a
r a o 0 o
m
) o m �- U `-m� Q o}o cE oa
rn0
oa) m `4 a) E c oa) E`
t 'EQQo —� cm
c a) E 7 C " i O O j L _T Q� O O O
)t j!1 U C ] Z F t 0) vi O 01 j
g ' � m � u r c � mz� o' Ucsmzc s
f r i om - C mC I ) 0U > m' mLU > a) a
mcU uo 1 ^� 3c 13
� Z ^
cm py QO � o»u-= � OR
V= m ^
u c u
t — U O'N Q U E} I :� 'n C c L6 'n C
O C O p 3 a)v m i C U
L Z _
i O) n a m QO m - O i m� Q tCN k
E - O m "} _Q Q T m 4 U O g i d x
m mQ -- --o p oL p� E m o o)---
- S m
w U p w r t
p � E a)—m c � o
mv . -QOc z 0
t o - -0
t o> ' >v c }) -0 av1 0— � a ago ° a i Q= ° u ;
= m um`o omc aau ou > » t a � � a
ccmOc0o3t30 4va � cmo c � v � c ca)c m
j O p C 0) m 0)U -0 G + m c ! I _o U O Q- i 0 U Y
_ t3O- pe CQ s �� m
�'Q E u c1= m y p p 15;ir- c E 6 m U
I �.$IE� m9 'd O s p Q >m o-C C 0) D - Cm o m U c N ,'�-- I m a --5 9
t aEi c O 9y c ma top dd .,Cn oit i oci 0 ,
a) e
t ?H mo �aaQdE ���- oaf Tat j va � 3
�u mur�' oa � 4co� a) -0 t j a) a�ia) aa)im
v. 1 »-o c � 6 > ocE a) �� a) a j j aEu u
O. pnUmOmmdc aop mane > > t mE'�
E3 mcmS � E � u� Qp 9 uo ! m` O-mm� c
o �� 5 m : m E� � 0-0 0 + c: t � c 3 � � m n
41.t c u N O�0 d� 0) u m 0) I c O O d ] I c 0— u r
C.r O m E Q m p a) 7 LJ t d = d I E O �Q}
C9 acid 0aa)i'0r �4 � mo `� i � � aNm acid' Q £ I
u Qmo} E ° n m u ` a°ova- ! ESL ^ � EEEm
j O Q 0) 0Q 5 c a) — O 3 0— U e c 0 Q-0 u -0 �� d i m
d. mpu� m� � �� mm � om � u� 3 3 Imo mmp- m
I O( t � m 0-d-0O 0 0 u� m o �SCL f -o a) m a) � Q; 04 a a �
c» ) u m a m'c a) o. E� ' S c m' i m m p Q'c
OL0) ¢ �m�Q.E u -:E �} E L, E 0 l ,i c c E � �
! — o
h
j C O C
21 J Q € 0 O a) } m O >3. H y
m d ° t ,,c^^-0 a) U a) U O C E m 0 m c
Dl 0-0 � 4 mQi � OE s � m > ouo b
Ul
o atOomp � s I � mm•- mmmoo ffi
E. cif aamQo I m - 0)m � N� mo Ea) E
�Ct+e t m d I -0 aa)i a d o ^ p m> '6 m =r N f
of Q E 7 .p t j U `p 3: m ., � U m c6 a)
;C'rffyp C c I c u .,o) n} c u o1— rc
W:�U i O— p m C G � � a) C' � v m m =
j ;C):..jtst; �`c aa))a) aa)) m� �, p Ems" u m� m E � > r
t- 4 Q Q d) y I O U V p m'C 3 O O O I
Hr `E 3 : E� mU'' O � � - co � m� j O3cc � Ov 11
f �
StI 5 C O 1 m m -0,O U'v m _O O O U fi i
Y� a) O U 'y a>)-d U D 2 Q O a>i O o
U C O not 6 aQ " ON Q :v! 'D Qm Oct: O)'s {
a) m Q-C �� C Q O m �' 7 C 0'tl' N C r U
o ELQEOm� V� � � cQ � }- ,t' ? o� cu
r. uQ•� yal rL [Ld - o >_:m; LLa 0 m � ' la
b' I i a i a 33i t I m N
C 7 � C
1 CD:
I ( cN P a) CO a N� oaQ4>
i ca0a) a) - LCaU' a) > RR)._ O a 1
ul ' �'�'
I o j o a o o ! N a a�`a
I i � WC -0 � o o� a_R� i c E c� ov o
E'E c p V O } I
`c asQo0o a Qaco i oa '000
o s= m E `o R a a a} OL
-0 c'y 0 (3 o •a o m�0-R p c
M, I{ c u�:_ c ! c.E 4) a Q o.>
�..5 { 0 0 C•- a F O O �' R j � �' C L n Q i
OL
! N R -0 C3N c c 0-a N c c a R p a c
o -a. ooZ>'a oanm > � 3
f �, Raa) I «oRUaR4,
' i � � 3 ; o � F va) � o� Uc a� � � u
� RU�ZLo NaU > ZL �o'�� •ac-a6l
I UVt (D (D' Ra) p o N '
€ a ._
1 Ysc �"C C U BCaCCU vQ ��'c C
ca' � c � a a 062 4) 0a (1) � c oc0) o4> �y
u. D M'� EL 2 s L d C 2 U R'r Z
j 1 I aC3 a o v Q` a �� 30cc £ Qo £ o
' I I,-- co o 0 a)dL ocR £ cc I � � �� E Q
a) C � U a `_c a aka Q000)•ca) i L�0- 4. O-0 I
j Umo °£ o a �O(L � �� at � o o 0 lI1U cuooDc0u o •a o £ 05oE-a uo = -R UU II 1
CkN ] O�aA a) c o a) cp 0
y a) > 4) Qn
>C - o 0
'CO0
3 C0D
'UOa).o� cQ Q a)a a)
Q E O o c U� COQ4 U } N o NO Q
X o-
III
Q � O I L'.nCQ)(� i
i:::�,1ocD U o acU c c3c3 o ROR
CI oQao o c , tea _ � oaj
c
CL
c j� oQoo cS £ tv °)- CDQ)
; � °u, opa n �>,u
o0a ha � >=
os a N cs c� V c (D R
o 0 0 0 c �+ U a� R a > Q
'.1 2 ID Qa) �1 �— ` 'i N a)cc o�i� N I CsD�0
aL � L a ,u�Q)� oo O o U QR Uia N
�� 0
° ° 9U E
iI
0)C E o ¢ v ,
; p
1 wi j D t L 3 a a Q I a E a
75
p c O � j �
a o UQ a) a m SiLs
o ac a
R � Q •j x OJ) U a)clE I, m a Q
� � C U
Qi r D c o 0c 0)�-a D 4) (D c I o o I m
EECI � Q 0 E
oc a Q.
a 0000cO �
U' � oo f oQm i �
30 i�
aE `lalcv a7� a�. � Qv) oo3 > Uci
C3' IX o E l hL
c c o Ur , ;I
v
i
> m off
i > i7 0) h
j .n '.
N++(V fa
< =O— O
Cf
-C p F U 7
(D 0) m U
v CD
j Icv
cT) -T0-0 N t }}
0 I
O O - 7
F CS 0-N O - 7 N
! O D U -
e T O O O m c
! j U � j Ep.
U
-C U V p> O_0 .�
t (+) C U C O
0-0i7 U)m c
E ° O N N
a r O
i f o O O
L .
I e_ Dj CDC) m N Z
O U j > 0
U N O 12
� c � EqE E3 i
0 ��
? _ fog m$ �
C' rQ E u '
i g,�E c U o 0 ��
a E ° 3 m
'da h � mE� mo >
a � 3QEE ° o0 '
U. O-0 E m ? 5 `
�1 f2} 0 > U0-
E
u►F ' no C� U I
U .O Z3 U a OQi
j di (2> V m
I
mQ-a Um c� O
G' 0 .
tCl0 � � m a)
i7a
uD
t
gg
c '
a3w.�Utac°� cs 2
6i )
of .i 0 0•�
O
O O
U.j of a o
E€ 3
u0•0 s _x
m °moo � Q
of r .om � �
- U
�EE�
Omq
U 'a O i x
3.0 Fintlings Regarding Project Alte natives
3.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Introduction
The Draft Program EIR prepared for the General Plan Update considered three alternatives to the project
as proposed.Pursuant to Section 15126,6(a)of the CEQA Guidelines,the primary intent of an alternatives
evaluation is to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the
project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of
the alternatives."
This chapter describes the project objectives and criteria used to develop and evaluate project alternatives
presented in the Draft Program EIR.A description of the alternatives compared to the General Plan Update
and the findings regarding the feasibility of adopting the described alternatives is presented for use by
the City of Huntington Beach in the decision-making process.
3.2 Project Objectives
The guiding principles for the General Plan Update have been modified as follows to serve as project
objectives for the Program EIR:
1) Economic Vitality: Maintain an innovation-friendly environment where local businesses thrive
and become a top choice for highly qualified job seekers.
2) Infrastructure: Update water,sewer,drainage,street, and other infrastructure facilities through
a comprehensive systems approach to adequately serve future growth while supporting the
existing community.
3) Open Space and Recreation: Maintain a balance of open space and recreational activities
throughout the community.
4) Surf City Community Image: Promote Huntington Beach's unique Surf City image, identity, and
culture as a beach community.
5) Public Safety:Create a safe and secure community by preparing for natural hazards and improving
street lighting and design to enhance safety in public areas, parks,and streets.
6) Redevelopment and Revitalization: Revitalize commercial corridors and older industrial areas to
support economic development. Enhance the community through successful infill development
and a diverse array of housing types.
7) Mobility and Access: Retrofit high-traffic corridors to better connect cyclists, pedestrians, and
transit users,support use of alternative fuel vehicles,and reduce traffic congestion.
8) Resource Conservation: Protect natural resources within the community and become a regional
leader in sustainability. Shift toward renewable energy resources and conservation practices to
achieve the city's self-sufficiency goals.
Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Page 13
August 2017
Findings of tacllSiaiemenl of Oyemding Considerations
9) Resident Services: Update and expand community and social services to meet the needs of all
community members,including youth and seniors.
10) Culture and Arts:Support programs,activities,and facilities that celebrate the city's historical and
cultural heritage.
3.3 Selection of Alternatives
The range of feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public
participation and informed decision-making- Among the factors that were taken into account when
considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[fj[1]) were
environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations,
jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the
CEQA Guidelines, the Draft Program EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be
reasonably identified,whose implementation is remote or speculative,or one that would not achieve the
basic project objectives. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide
meaningful evaluation,analysis and comparison with the proposed project.
3.4 Project Alternative Findings
The following is a description of the alternatives evaluated in comparison to the General Plan Update,as
well as a description of the specific economic,social, or other considerations that make them infeasible
for avoiding or lessening the impacts. The City of Huntington Beach finds that the adoption of both
Alternative 2 and 3 could be feasible,given direction from the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
3.4.1 General Plan Update Alternatives
As shown below and In Chapter 5 (Alternatives) of the Draft Program EIR, three alternatives were
evaluated in comparison to the proposed project, including the No Project Alternative required by CEQA.
The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described. The
alternatives that were selected for analysis include:
■ Alternative 1:No Project—The No Project Alternative assumes the continued implementation of
the existing General Plan (1996), instead of the General Plan Update as proposed. Under this
alternative, the existing General Plan land uses would remain in place and development within
the City of Huntington Beach would occur as In a reasonable manner,as allowed by the goals and
polices of the existing General Plan.This alternative,which is required by CEQA,assumes that the
existing General Plan and implementing zoning would remain unchanged.The existing General
Plan would remain in effect, and no update to the existing General Plan goals and policies would
occur.The No Project Alternative would allow for an additional 1,096 residential units above that
proposed in the General Plan Update and 4,662,990 square feet of development below that
proposed in the General Plan Update.
■ Alternative 2: Full Implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP
Alternative)—Under this alternative,the City of Huntington Beach would require and implement
the entirety of the draft GGRP,which is currently proposed as a voluntary program as part of the
General Plan Update.Policy ERC-5.A in the General Plan Update sets targets for Huntington Beach
to reduce its total GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 53.33 percent
- ---
Page 14 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Updole Program EIR I Atkins
August 2017
-------------------------------------------------
below the 2020 target by 2040, placing the community on a trajectory to match the state's long-
term (2050) GHG reduction goals. Under this alternative, the draft GGRP would no longer be
voluntary and instead would be a required implementation action and undertaken in its entirety,
as part of approval of the General Plan Update. Based on the estimates provided in the draft
GGRP,full implementation would reduce GHG emissions in both 2020 and 2040 timeframes to a
less than significant level.As a result,the GGRP Alternative would eliminate one of the significant
and unavoidable impacts identified for the General Plan Update.
■ Alternative 3:Gothard Corridor Land Use Change(Gothard Corridor Alternative)—The Gothard
Corridor Alternative assumes that all land uses within the Gothard Corridor are changed from the
designation of Industrial to the new Research and Technology designation created under the
General Plan Update. Under this alternative, approximately 146 additional acres of land
designated as Industrial under the proposed General Plan Update would be changed to the new
Research and Technology land use designation. As a result of this land use change, new
opportunities for high tech, research and development uses that do not involve heavy industrial
uses would be allowed and promoted within the Gothard Corridor.It is anticipated that significant
and unavoidable impacts identified under the General Plan Update due to greenhouse gas
emissions and noise could increase as a result of the Increase in vehicle trips and associated
emissions. Therefore, the impact conclusion of significant and unavoidable would remain the
same as identified for the General Plan Update.
3.4.1.1 Alternative 1: No Project
The No Project Alternative assumes the implementation of the existing General Plan (1996), instead of
the General Plan Update as proposed. Under this alternative,the existing General Plan land uses would
remain in place and development within the city would occur as anticipated in a reasonable manner
allowed by the goals and policies of the existing General Plan. The anticipated growth under this
Alternative does not necessarily equate to the full buildout assumed at the time of adoption of the existing
General Plan(1996)but rather a lower level of growth that is reasonably forecast given existing conditions
within the city of Huntington Beach, and based on the development projects of the 2013 Circulation
Element as well as the goals and policies of the existing General Plan(1996).
Development under the existing General Plan would increase residential development by 1,096 units
when compared to buildout under the General Plan Update and result in a decrease in non-residential
development potential when compared to non-residential buildout potential of the General Plan Update.
Alternative is No Project .
Generaii Plan Update _ Existing 1996.General Plan ; Difference
- ,-.--. ....
Residential t 85,403 dwelling units -— 86,499 dwelling units +1,096 dwelling units
Non-Residential 50,410,990 square feet 45,748,000 square feet 4 662,990 square feet
Based on these estimates, the majority of development anticipated to occur under the No Project
Alternative would consist of residential development within specific plan areas(i.e.,Holly Seacliff Specific
Plan,Downtown Specific Plan, etc.),as well as areas surrounding these specific plan areas.
Thus, this alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the existing General Plan and
implementing zoning would remain unchanged.The existing General Plan would remain in effect,and no
update to the existing General Plan goals and policies would occur.
AMns I City of Hunlinglon Beach General Plan Updale Program EiR — — —� 'Page 15
August 2017
Pindfngs of Fact/Statement of Overriding Cornideratioru_____
row"
Ings
Under the No Project Alternative,development would continue as allowed under the 1996 General Plan
and would result in an increase of 1,096 dwelling units above the General Plan Update and a total of
45,748,000 square feet of non-residential square footage, a reduction of 4,662,990 square feet as
compared to the General Plan Update.
The No Project Alternative would generally meet the objectives identified for the General Plan Update in
that it would allow for land uses consistent with the existing character of the city and continue to provide
sufficient infrastructure to meet demand. However,the No Project Alternative would not fully meet any
of the objectives that will act as a catalyst to move the city into the coming decades, while creating
investment in employment opportunities,transit investment and increased mobility by which to enjoy a
more environmentally friendly and sustainable community. Further, the General Plan Update would
provide a unified planning approach and specific design standards where future subsequent projects serve
as independent pieces of the greater whole. Development under the No Project Alternative will be more
of the same type of development and does not include key policies and land use changes necessary to
spur employment and economic growth.
The No Project Alternative will not fulfill the objectives identified for the General Plan Update and while
it will not generally result in impacts with a different level of significance, it will increase the severity of
impacts within many of the topic areas (Population, Housing and Employment; Recreation; Utilities and
Service Systems).
3.4.1.2 Alternative 2: Full Implementation of the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Program (GGRP Alternative)
As identified in Section 5.2 (Alternatives Considered but Rejected as Infeasible) of the FEIR,the General
Plan Update is anticipated to result In a significant and unavoidable impact due to the uncontrolled
emission of greenhouse gases. In an effort to reduce the severity of this impact or avoid it entirely, the
GGRP Alternative is proposed.
Under this alternative, the City would implement the entirety of the draft GGRP, which is currently
proposed as a voluntary program as part of the General Plan Update. Policy ERC-5A in the General Plan
provides a target for Huntington Beach to reduce its total GHG emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by
2020, and 53.33% below the 2020 target by 2040, placing the community on a trajectory to match the
state's long-term (2050)GHG reduction goals.As proposed,the draft GGRP contains a suite of strategies
capable of reducing Huntington Beach's GHG emissions to levels at or below the following:
M 2020 GHG reduction target 1,234,260 MTCO2e
■ 2040 GHG reduction target 575,990 MTCO2e
As designed, this program proposes the reduction of GHG emissions within the city through a series of
programs, initiatives, and activities that reduce GHG generation, sequesters GHG emissions, or offsets
their production(i.e.,use of alternative energy sources).While portions of the draft GGRP would likely be
implemented alongside the General Plan Update, there would be no requirement to implement any
specific measures, nor to incorporate a combination of measures that would result in a reduction of the
greenhouse gases to a level that would be less than significant.
- -- -------—- -- — -- -- ----- ----------- - - --------------
Page i 6 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I Atkins
August 20''7
_____________ - __•,3.0 Flndlnas_Regarding Pro�ecf ANematives '
Under this alternative, the draft GGRP would no longer be voluntary and instead would be a required
implementation action and undertaken in its entirety, as part of approval of the General Plan Update.
Based on the estimates provided in the draft GGRP,full implementation would reduce GHG emissions in
both 2020 and 2040 timeframes to a less than significant level. Table 2 below identifies the estimated
reductions.
--------_------------
Table 2 Draft GGRP GHG Reduction Estimates _
,_.--2040MFCO2e ..-:-- 2D40NtTCOze
2020 MTCO2e ; (No CCA) (CCA)
Baseline emissions ; 1,452,070 1,452,070 1,452,070
--------------------------------- ---
Forecast with state and local accomplishments 1,308,690 1,101,020 1,102850
Reduction target I 1,234,260 575,990 575,990
Gap between forecast and reduction target i 74,430 525,030 526,860
------- -------
Emissions with Draft GGRP 1,218,090 618,320 570,370
Gap between Draft GGRP and reduction
target -16,170 42,330 -5,620
Target met Yes No Yes
As a result, the GGRP Alternative would eliminate one of the significant and unavoidable impacts
identified for the General Plan Update.
Hindings
Land use, associated assumptions regarding growth,identified mitigation measures and compliance with
General Plan Update goals and policies of the GGRP Alternative would be implemented in a manner
identical to the General Plan Update.The only change is that the draft GGRP shifts from bei ng a voluntary
set of strategies to reduce GHG emissions, to a required implementation action of the General Plan
Update.As such the GGRP Alternative would accomplish the Project Objectives outlined in Section 3.3.2.2
of the Program EIR in the same manner as the General Plan Update but would have a greater benefit with
regard to the project impact identified relating to GHG emissions and the potential achievement of State
and regional GHG emissions targets through 2040.Implementation of the GGRP Alternative is considered
to be the environmentally superior alternative.
3.4.1.3 Alternative 3: Gothard Corridor land Use Change
(Gothard Corridor Alternative)
As outlined in Section 5.2 (Alternatives Considered but Rejected as Infeasible) of the FOR, the General
Plan Update is anticipated to result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality, Greenhouse
Gases (emissions) and Noise, While the impact to Air Quality identified in relation to the General Plan
Update is based on the speculative nature of the programmatic level of the land use plan, the potential
for impacts at a future project-level can be further reduced by a reduction in the intensity of land uses,
and associated trip generation,criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.Furthermore,one of the
comment letters received on the NOP published for the General Plan Update in 2015 related to the
potential impacts due to noise,criteria pollutant emissions,and traffic generated by existing land uses in
Atkins I City of Hunfington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR _ Page 17
August 2017
Hndings of FactlStatement of Overriding Cons derations ____-__ -__- _--
the Gothard Corridor (specifically Republic Services). The comment letter went on to suggest that an
expansion of the new Research and Technology land use designation proposed under the General Plan
Update farther east along the Gothard Corridor could help to alleviate unsatisfactory existing conditions
that include odors and other air quality issues,noise and traffic impacts,and related environmental justice
issues. The letter also indicated that new heavy industrial uses would be concentrated in areas with
existing Industrial land use designations that would remain Industrial under the General Plan Update,
particularly along the eastern portion of the Gothard corridor, because they would no longer be allowed
under the Research and Technology designation. While the project proposed under CEQA(the General
Plan Update) and any project alternatives analyzed are not required to investigate the potential
remediation or mitigation of existing conditions, to address the concerns of the comment letter, the
Gothard Corridor Alternative is proposed for analysis. A change in development type and intensity can
also change the potential for noise impacts, particularly those due to roadway noise as identified for the
General Plan Update.
This alternative has been developed in direct response to identified land use compatibility concerns
regarding industrial land uses currently adjacent to residential and semi-public uses, including schools,
within the Gothard Corridor. The intent of the Research and Technology land use designation is to
promote the transformation of this corridor into an area focused on research and development,to attract
businesses and jobs in the high technology services and manufacturing sectors and potentially reduce
some of the environmental and quality of life impacts generated by existing uses today. Development of
this alternative attempts to address some of the environmental justice concerns that have been raised in
this area of the city.
The Gothard Corridor Alternative assumes that all land uses within the Gothard Corridor are changed from
the designation of Industrial to the new Research and Technology designation created under the General
Plan Update. Under this alternative, approximately 146 additional acres of land designated as Industrial
within the Gothard Corridor on the proposed General Plan Update land use map would be changed to the
new Research and Technology designation.Figure 1 shows the areas of the city changed by the proposed
alternative.'
As a result of this land use change,new opportunities for development that do not involve heavy industrial
uses would be allowed and promoted within the Gothard Corridor. However, this change would also
increase the FAR to 1.0 under the Research and Technology land use designation,as compared to the 0.75
FAR allowed bythe Industrial land use designation.This change could increase the allowable development
by approximately 990,000 square feet of non-residential uses within the Gothard Corridor.This increase
in development potential is anticipated to result in a marked increase in trip generation within the
Gothard Corridor and proximate areas.
The Traffic Analysis Zones(TAZs)affected by the Gothard Corridor Alternative include the follovAng: 102, 121,123,and
135.
__....._.._,..,.._..,_......... - _,.. - __....... __...._.....,_,.........,...._..............-.-.................__............,..,..-.._...._.. _..-._,...
Page 18 City of Huntington Beach Genetal Plan Update Ptogram EIR Atkins
August 2017
F
mv
RL
B21
_
.R=r
..rt•
x � �
r
'� A `u F •.. t�
y z *a
h s{
'91'11d.T10 - -.c
Eli
Y..
VIA
a —RE
Jgo
- � w' yam..� ; r ? ¢s•*r^.s'�3r._�^�#�lee
° § ti €
µ ^
r7
1'�rr�ayo[t.ItTArgA
f# bit
{ate re4, f
4c1ELC'.f:llypt.64134E4F�•l`]!_F!!!]Ct1 etft�
FIGURE I
Alternative 3, Gothard Corridor Land Use Change Alternative
Atkins I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Page 19
August 2017
Endings of Fact/Statement of Overr cfng Considergfions .
@E�U'EFFt
Land use, associated assumptions regarding growth,identified mitigation measures and compliance with
General Plan Update goals and policies of the Gothard Corridor Alternative would be implemented in a
manner identical to the General Plan Update.The only divergence from the General Plan Update would
be the change in land use designation along the entire Gothard Corridor from industrial to Research and
Technology.
Under the Gothard Corridor Alternative, the amount of land within in the planning area designated as
Industrial would be reduced and changed to the Research and Technology land use designation
(146 additional acres).
As a result of the Gothard Corridor Alternative, it is anticipated that significant and unavoidable impacts
identified under the General Plan Update due to greenhouse gas emissions and noise could increase as a
result of the increase in vehicle trips and associated emissions. However, the impact conclusion of
significant and unavoidable would remain the same as identified for the General Plan Update.
While this alternative would achieve the majority of the objectives identified for the General Plan Update
(as It Is substantially similar to the General Plan Update), it would not achieve avoidance of any of the
significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the General Plan Update and would increase the ADT
across the planning area,potentially resulting in an additional significant impact to traffic.
3.4.1.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further
Evaluation
Five additional land use alternatives were initially considered during the scoping and planning process but
were not selected for detailed analysis in the Draft Program EIR.These included: Air Quality, Land Use,
Noise,Utilities(Water Supply),and Reduced Development Intensity Alternative.
Air Quality
The significant air quality impacts that are identified as a result of the General Plan Update are the result
of the speculative nature of estimating the emissions from individual projects.The quantity of emissions
generated by a project varies depending on such aspects as its size,the land area that would need to be
disturbed during construction, the length of the construction schedule, as well as the number of
developments being constructed concurrently and in proximity to an individual project. Any variation of
a long-term planning document, regardless of land use changes, would result in the same significant
impacts due to the speculative nature of individual development projects.The only way to reduce these
impacts would be on an individual project basis, as each of the identified and project-specific factors
would be known and emissions could then be estimated accurately to determine whether they would
exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Due to the programmatic and high-level nature of the land use plan and
program,the General Plan Update cannot be considered as one project to support a feasible Alternative.
As a result, an Alternative specific to the reduction of the identified air quality impacts was rejected as
infeasible.
Page 20 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Atkins
August 2017
3,0 Findings Regarding Project Aliematives
Land Use
During the General Plan Update process (including GPAC),several other areas of the city were assessed
for potential changes to land use or enhancements to key intersections and/or developments.Two key
areas that were considered by the City, but ultimately rejected,include the Peters Landing Opportunity
area (consisting of Peter's Landing and adjacent parcels), located along the Pacific Coast Highway north
of the Sunset Beach area,and the Southeast Opportunity Area,which included the Ascon Landfill, Plains
tank farm, and AES power plant sites. Based on consideration and subsequent direction from the City
Council, it was determined that land use changes in these areas were not preferred and no changes to
land use are proposed as part of the General Plan Update.While the identification of these areas early in
the General Plan Update process as key opportunity sites for achieving economic growth in the city could
warrant further consideration for an alternatives analysis, these areas were already rejected by the
decision makers from further consideration as part of the General Plan Update. In addition, land use
changes for these areas would require increases in development density/intensity that are not likely to
reduce any potential impacts when compared to the proposed General Plan Update.
Noise
Similar to the speculative nature of identified impacts for Air Quality,a significant and unavoidable impact
due to roadway noise and groundborne vibration(during construction)were determined to be significant.
With regard to roadway noise levels, community ambient noise levels would still increase substantially
throughout the planning area by 2040. Because the increase in ambient noise levels would result from
vehicle-related noise, a likely alternative that would reduce traffic levels enough to reduce noise levels
due to roadway noise(based primarily on the location of existing residential uses) is not possible.
With regard to groundborne vibration,while it has been determined that the location of vibration-heavy
construction activities outside of 50 feet from a sensitive receptor would result in a less than significant
impact, it is not possible to ensure that vibration-inducing activities could, in fact be located at such a
distance in all cases. For example, in the Downtown area,where pile driving activities are necessary for
subterranean parking structure construction,it may be necessary in the future to allow forvibration-heavy
activities, Due to the uncertainty and the inability to prohibit such equipment,impacts in close proximity
to sensitive receptors will remain significant and unavoidable. Further, any variation of a long-term
planning document, regardless of land use changes, would result In the same significant impacts due to
the speculative nature of individual development projects. As a result, an Alternative specific to the
reduction of the identified groundborne vibration impacts was rejected as infeasible.
Utilities/dater Supply
Although the situation has improved within the latter part of 2016 and into the early parts of 2017,
California continues to face a significant water crisis. Along with continued water reserve issues
throughout the west and across California,delivery and reliability of water sources and supplies continues
to be speculative.These conditions have prompted water suppliers,including Metropolitan,to review and
continue to amend water supply projections,thus leaving less water available for jurisdictions than was
previously assumed.
The statewide supply situation is subject, and even likely, to change and over years, depending on
precipitation,could return to a condition of normalcy and regular pumping. However, until that point in
Atkins I City of Htintington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR Page 21
August 2017
findings of Fgcf/S!aternent o1 Overriding_Cons(deraSions
time,the water supply deficit and uncertainty exists regardless of implementation of the General Plan
Update or other individual projects and due to the uncertainty regarding imported water supplies, the
impacts would remain significant.As this is a condition across the state of California and not a result of
the General Plan Update,an Alternative that would significantly increase water supply availability is not
feasible.Therefore, an Alternative specific to the reduction of identified impacts to water supplies was
rejected as infeasible.
Reduced Development Intensity Alternative
Qverthe period of development of the General Plan Update,avariety of information has been considered
with regard to an alternative that would result in an overall reduced amount of development. This has
ranged considerably, addressing discussions through the GPAC process as well as requirements of the
MAND and the Housing Element,and aspirations of growth and organized future development within the
city of Huntington Beach.
To address reduction of significant and unavoidable Impacts resulting from the General Plan Update as
required under CEQA, further consideration of an alternative that reflected a reduced amount of
development was undertaken-This included discussions of such reductions as an overall reduced amount
of development (i.e., a reduction of a certain percentage across all residential and non-residential
development) to address general objection to the General Plan Update, increased changes to the non-
residential development land use designations to address comments received during GPAC and in
response to the NQP released for the General Plan Update EIR,and reduction of residential development
with the assumption that it would reduce traffic congestions perceived throughout the city. However,
when these were considered,none provided substantially different or reduced environmental impacts to
the more focused alternatives identified in Section 5.3 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis.Further,
as outlined by CEQA, any alternative analyzed must balance compliance with stated project objectives,
social and economic benefits and detriments, and the feasibility of implementing such an alternative. In
consideration of these potential alternatives, it was determined that the Full Implementation of the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program and Gothard Corridor Land Use Change Alternatives would result in
similar, if not more significant, reductions in the environmental impacts resulting from the General Plan
Update and as such,another alternative with a proposed reduction in development intensity but with less
focus and/or purpose would not be sensible, in alignment with project objectives, or supported by the
arguments outlined in CEQA Section 15126.6(a) with regard to the selection of project alternatives. As
such, analysis of a second alternative that addressed the potential reduction of development intensity
under the General Plan Update was rejected as infeasible.
As these five alternatives would not reduce or avoid additional significant and unavoidable impacts
identified for the General Plan Update and would not better achieve any of the project objectives, they
were not analyzed further.
------------------------------------------------ - - - - ------ - --- ---
Page 22 Cityof HuntinQ£on Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I Atkins
August 2017
_. .4;0 Statement of Overriding Coruiderations
4.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Introduction
Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines states:
(a)CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable,the economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks
when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects,the adverse environmental effects may be considered"acceptable."
(b)When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects
which are identified in the Final Program EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the
agency shall state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the Final Program
EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations,the statement should be included in
the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination.
The City of Huntington Beach proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the
significant cumulative air quality,cultural resource,GHG, noise,and utilities/water supply impacts of the
General Plan Update. This section describes the anticipated benefits and other considerations of the
General Plan Update to support the decision to proceed,even though significant and unavoidable impacts
are anticipated.
4.2 Significant Adverse Cumulative Impact
The City of Huntington Beach is proposing to approve the proposed project, with revisions to reduce
environmental impacts, and has prepared a Draft Program EIR as required by CEQA. Even with revisions
to the project,the following impacts have been identified as being unavoidable as there are no feasible
mitigation measures available to further reduce the impacts. Refer to Chapter 2 (CEQA Findings) for
further clarification regarding the impact listed below.
Air Quality
Project Specific
Due to the speculative nature of estimating emissions from individual projects at the programmatic level
of the General Plan Update,emissions cannot be quantified(as there is no project-level data)to establish
whether the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)thresholds would be exceeded and
the project would result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact due to the violation of an air
quality standard and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Cumulative
Due to the speculative nature of estimating emissions from individual projects at the programmatic level
of the General Plan Update,emissions cannot be quantified(as there is no project-level data)to establish
Atklna I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR _ Page 23
August 2017
Findings of Faci/Statement of Overrlding_Cons(deratlons
whether the SCAQMD thresholds would be exceeded in a region deemed to be in nonattainment,and the
project would result in a cumulative contribution to an air quality impact, resulting in a significant and
unavoidable cumulative impactto air quality.
Cultural Resources
Cumulative
As it is currently infeasible to determine whether future development under the General Plan Update
would result in demolition or removal of historical, archaeological and paleontological resources within
the planning area, the incremental contribution of the General Plan Update to these cumulative effects
could be cumulatively considerable and the General Plan Update would result in a significant and
unavoidable cumulative impact to cultural resources.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Cumulative
Thetopic of GHG emissions is inherently a cumulative impact.Whilefull implementation of the draft GGRP
would reduce emissions below reduction targets,as the city of Huntington Beach is not bound by laws or
regulations to implement the draft GGRP, there is no certainty that emissions would be reduced to
necessary levels. Further, draft GGRP does not analyze GHG emissions associated with specific potential
future development projects, and thus forecasted GHG emissions may differ substantially from actual
future emissions when implementation of the General Plan Update begins. As such, the General Plan
Update would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact due to the generation of GHG
emissions and the potential conflict with an applicable plan.
Noise
Project Specific
The General Plan Update would result in an increase in average daily trips (ADT)associated with future
development,increasing ambient noise levels across the city due to roadway noise levels, some of which
exceed established thresholds. As the increase in ambient noise levels is vehicle-related, there are no
feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ambient noise levels and exposure below the identified
thresholds and the General Plan Update would result in a project-specific significant and unavoidable
noise impact.
Further,future development under the General Plan Update has the potential to generate construction
vibration levels in exceedance of established thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., those within
50 feet of piling activities).Although future development would comply with General Plan Policies N-4.A
and N-4.1) and implementation of mitigation measure MM4.10-5 would help to reduce impacts,
construction vibration levels would not be reduced to a level that would be less than significant.
Therefore, the General Plan Update would result in a project-specific (and temporary) significant and
unavoidable impact due to construction vibration levels.
Page 2A City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I latldns
August 2017
___.__. 4.0 Sfatenieni of Overriding Cons dergtigns
Cumulative
The General Plan Update would result in an increase in average daily trips (ADT) associated with future
development,increasing ambient noise levels across the city due to roadway noise levels,some of which
exceed established thresholds. As the increase in ambient noise levels is vehicle-related, there are no
feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ambient noise levels and exposure below the identified
thresholds and the General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to noise
levels in the region, As such, the General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable
cumulative noise impact.
The project would expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels due to construction.The project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Project Specific
Given the uncertainty of water supply across the western United States and throughout the state of
California,a future supply deficit would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Until such time as
greater confidence in and commitment from water suppliers can be made,the General Plan Update would
result in a significant and unavoidable project-specific impact.
Cumulative
As with the project-specific impact,given the uncertainty of water supply across the western United States
and throughout the state of California,a future supply deficit would result in a significant and unavoidable
impact,Until such time as greater confidence in and commitment from water suppliers can be made, the
General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to water demand, result in
a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
4.3 Findings
The City of Huntington Beach has evaluated all feasible mitigation measures and potential changes to the
General Plan Update with respect to reducing the impacts that have been identified as significant and
unavoidable(see Chapter 2,CEQA Findings).The City of Huntington Beach has also examined a reasonable
range of alternatives to the project as proposed(see Chapter 3, Findings Regarding Project Alternatives).
Based on this examination,the City of Huntington Beach has determined that the Full implementation of
the GGRP Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative.
4.4 Overriding Considerations
Specific economic,social,or other considerations outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts stated
above.The reasons for proceeding with the proposed project, notwithstanding the identified significant
and unavoidable impacts are described below.
Awns I City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program°IR +� � � �T Page 25
August 2017
findings of Fact/Stotement of Oyemdiny-Consideraticns
rroposed Project Benefits
1) Vision: The General Plan Update is a policy document, "guiding future development within the
City of Huntington Beach as well as providing guidance to decision makers as they consider
proposals for new development and site reuse through the planning horizon of 2040.The General
Plan Update goals,policies,and Implementation programs define a roadmap for new housing and
job growth and provide guidance for decision makers on allocating resources and determining the
physical form and character of development."
2) Economic Vitality: By introducing a new Research and Technology land use designation, the
General Plan Update will provide for job growth, create additional flexibility for more jobs-rich
future use of current industrial properties, while attracting a range of cleaner and greener
businesses.
3) Infrastructure: To address the allocation of resources and to serve the potential increase in
development, the General Plan Update will also provide a plan for updating water, sewer,
drainage, street, and other infrastructure facilities through a comprehensive approach to
adequately serve future growth while supporting the existing community.
4) Community Image: The General Plan Update will promote Huntington Beach's unique Surf City
image, identity, and culture as a beach community while recognizing the desires of residents to
remain an economically vibrant and attractive community with a level of growth balanced against
the needs of the community.
5) Redevelopment through revitalization and innovation: The General Plan Update provides the
ability for the City of Huntington Beach to revitalize commercial corridors and older industrial
areas to allow for necessary economic development while supporting the attraction of innovative,
clean, green and industry-forward companies to land and expand their business potential within
the community.
6) Protection of residential land uses, particularly single-family residential. By focusing the
development of non-residential development(including commercial and industrial) into areas of
transformation within the City of Huntington Beach, long-established single family residential
neighborhoods can remain protected from encroachment of non-residential uses. Further, the
housing needs of the Orange County region and the City of Huntington Beach can be
accommodated within consolidated areas developed with varied housing types, efficiently
utilizing existing and enhanced infrastructure. This will maintain and enhance the community
image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality development
consistent with the existing character.
7) Mobility and Access:The General Plan Update will retrofit and enhance high-traffic corridors to
better integrate cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users, with a move towards alternative modes
of traditional transport(bus, rail, shuttle) as well as up-and-coming modes of transport such as
alternative fuel vehicles.
8) Resource Conservation:With more organized development and guided use of existing resources,
such potential impacts to watersupply can be monitored and improved for the health and benefit
of residents. Further, park lands and open spaces can be protected and retained in place
throughout the planning horizon to provide recreational benefits to residents,visitors and school-
aged students.A shift toward sustainable resources and self-sufficiency,as outlined in the General
Plan Update, will allow for the continuation of the valued way of life within the City of Huntington
Beach throughout the planning horizon.
------------------------------------------
Page 26 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Program EIR I Atkins
August 2017
Res. No. 2017-40
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU 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 September 18, 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: O'Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, Peterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSE: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California