Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Proposed Charter Amendment - Environmental Protections for G (2)
t taiiNcro 2000 Main Street, ys RR. ti Huntington Beach,CA �,� Y,•p=�R 92648 City of Huntington Beach -4 APPROVED 4-0-3 f:Af (MOSER, BOLTON, 1cFCOUNTY�P�\a+`fi KALMICK—ABSTAIN) File#: 24-479 MEETING DATE: 7/2/2024 Subject: Item Submitted by Mayor Van Der Mark, Mayor Pro Tem Burns and Council Member McKeon = Proposed Charter Amendment - Environmental Protections for General Plan Amendments Recommended Action: Place on the November 2024 Ballot a proposed Charter Amendment stating that "No City initiated general plan amendment or zoning change may be approved by the City where the related environmental review (EIR) finds the same proposed general plan update or zoning change presents "significant and unavoidable" negative impacts to the environment, without first receiving approval by a vote of the people." The proposed Charter Amendment should include language to the effect of "City Planning and Zoning is a local, "municipal affair," beyond the reach of State control or interference; and City Planning and Zoning is a local activity reserved for the City and its people, and not the State." Direct staff to bring back a proposed November 2024 ballot initiative within thirty. (30) days for City Council approval. Attachment(s): 1. Council Member Item -Van Der Mark, Burns, McKeon - Proposed Charter Amendment- Environmental Protections for General Plan Amendments 2. Exhibit A- Environmental Review (EIR) 3. Exhibit B - Statement of Overriding Conditions City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/26/2024 powere1ia LegistarT" ��TINGTo-, ��1t r (� OkN� �aa z,i,.'l/ G[° . T 1�/� O F TT HUNTINGTON BEACH �aUNT Gt'`d'�'. '-----®' City Council Meeting - Council Member Items Report To: City Council From: Gracey Van Der Mark, Mayor Pat Burns, Mayor Pro Tern Casey McKeon, Council Member Date: July 2, 2024 Subject: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT-ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council has a duty to protect the City's environment and typically does so by complying with the State's environmental laws set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As we have seen with recent State mandates for high-density housing, the State of California is imposing a draconian development policy on our City that demonstrates a disregard for our precious environment, natural resources, quality of life, and even for CEQA. The environmental review of the City's proposed 2023 Housing Element update revealed that the State's high-density housing quota of 13,368 new units,which translates to 41,000 new units at a 20% inclusionary rate of development, would present several "significant. and unavoidable" negative impacts to our environment. Those impacts include permanent reduction in our groundwater supply, permanent increase in greenhouse gases and air pollutants, permanent noise pollution, increased traffic and congestion, and threats to our local wildlife and natural undeveloped regions such as wetlands and large parks. The official Environmental Review document is attached to this item as Exhibit A. Further, as part of the City's Housing Element update, the State expects the City Council _ to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that essentially states that "the benefits of the State's proposed high-density housing of 13,368 new units outweighs the known significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the City's environment." The proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations that identifies the harm to our environment is attached to this item as Exhibit B. In April 2023, the City Council was unable to make or adopt this Statement of Overriding Considerations and made clear on the record their unwillingness to "sell out" the City's environment in favor of the State's misguided and onerous high-density development demands. The people of Huntington Beach should have a voice in whether the exchange of the City's current pristine environmental conditions for the State's high-density housing mandates is acceptable. Further, the residents of Huntington 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I www.huntingtonbeachca.gov 139 Beach should decide if they are willing to live with the long-term permanent negative impacts to the City's environment that are presented by the State's high-density development scheme. The City has Constitutional rights under Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution for local control,just as the City Charter currently sets forth in its Preamble and Sections 103 and 104, that local control, known as "home rule," applies to municipal affairs. For decades, and even now, California law has recognized that a Charter City's planning and zoning of its land is a local,"municipal affair,"beyond the reach of State interference and control. This concept was reaffirmed in a recent decision in the City of Redondo Beach, et al., v. Rob Bonta, in his capacity as California Attorney General, Case No. 22STCP1143 (2024), where the State was stopped from imposing its zoning policies on Charter Cities and the State's SB 9 was declared unconstitutional as applied to Charter Cities. The City Charter Preamble states"We, the people of the City of Huntington Beach, State of California believe fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is _: essential for confidence in government, that ethics and integrity are the foundation of public trust and that just governance is built upon these values. Through the enactment - of this Charter as the fundamental law of the City of Huntington Beach under the - Constitution of the State of California,we do hereby exercise the privilege of retaining for ourselves, the benefits of local government, by enacting the laws, rules, regulations and procedures set forth herein pertaining to the governance and operation of our City. It is incumbent upon those who govern and make decisions for and on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach to legally, as well as morally, abide by the provisions of this Charter, in its strictest sense, to ensure the continued success and well-being of our fair City." Huntington Beach City Charter Section 103 states'The City shall have the power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to such restrictions and limitations as may be provided in this Charter or in the Constitution of the State of California." Huntington Beach City Charter Section 104 states'The general grant of power to the City under this Charter shall be construed broadly in favor of the City. The specific provisions enumerated in this Charter are intended to be and shall be interpreted as limitations upon the general grant of power and shall be construed narrowly. If any provisions of this Charter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Charter and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby." RECOMMENDED ACTION Place on the November 2024 Ballot a proposed Charter Amendment stating that"No City initiated general plan amendment or zoning change may be approved by the City where the related environmental review (EIR) finds the same proposed general plan update or zoning change presents "significant and unavoidable" negative impacts to the environment,without first receiving approval by a vote of the people." The proposed 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I www.huntingtonbeachca.gov 140 Charter Amendment should include language to the effect of"City Planning and Zoning is a local, "municipal affair," beyond the reach of State control or interference; and City Planning and Zoning is a local activity reserved for the City and its people, and not the State." Direct staff to bring back a proposed November 2024 ballot initiative within thirty (30) days for City Council approval. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has not potential for resulting in physical change to the environment,directly or indirectly. STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL Goal 5- Housing,Strategy A-Take action to maintain local control of land-use planning. • ATTACHMENTS 1. Exhibit A-Environmental Review (EIR) 2. Exhibit B-Statement of Overriding Conditions 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I www.huntingtonbeachca.gov 141 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document"50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page"11 of 40 ,Page ID ' ' . • #:909 Resolution:No 24"2315- Exhibit'IA„ E : , . , . Subsequer t Final, Environmental thipact eport::. Findings•of:Fact/Statement of Overriding Cornsider,atiions - SC L.##2021.080 04; ,2021-202 Housing Element; Update .,,E ., - LEAD IAGENCY 1} ( • txv.: . y ,. i :. e„* g'`, t1�V7Y C `CITY OE HurmNG'ON BEACH • . • . v . : - . DEPARTMENT OE COMMUNITY;• •• : 200�MAiN STREET3RD FI OOR " - -'HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 426: ' :, - - r- ,. • (7z4}S36 5121".,' ' .:, ',ONSULTA&. i.,00-,,, -"--- .'.. • ' ' :.--'-''.,-,,,'„---;-. ,• '',,,--,'' '.',•. .--,-,!'-:.--.-.„ i. - •''',,,' ,. . ',',. •• - -,•-•-'',---;', -;'-''. , ,'-',- . :-.•• ..t. '•--,.r., ..,;. ..,..., .,... ,:. ,.. ;:._,,., . .,...•.:....s.. .._ , „ ......,„t,, . . .. , , - ._.: imlerina.rn. , ' , . . ,. ,.:,,,,,,,,,,,,..,4 ,. . , ,„ '..,...:.,,,,,,,,,-- .•,,,.,':-..r.,,, i. ' , ..:., , ,:::..., . KIMIEy'HORN AND ASSOCIATES,INC. : L4I s RIT�A GARCIA 1 - - UO W OTON AND COUNTRY ROAD,SUITE7OO -.- - : r 0R'ANGE,CA:92868. . _ • (714)78661461- COGTOBER°2022: : 142 11 ':ER-3"21 EXHIBIT 10 • Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 12 of 40 Page ID #:910 City of Huntington:Beach Final Subsequent Environmental.Impact Report 2021-2029 IiEU Findings of Fact/Statement t of Overriding Considerations Table of Contents 1.0 iNTRaDUCTIQN...,...., ......, ,.,,.. .,.,..., .. ..........,, . ,,,..... ..... . ...2 2,0 CEQA FINDINGS... ......... ...... ... . ............,... .. ......,.,.. .,. ,...,...,..,....4 3.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES:,..,. .... . . ....:........., ....,.:,. ...17 3.2, Project Objectives:..,, .,t. ....,,.. ,........... .. .........,...,...,,: .... _......17 3.3. Selection of Alternatives „N.-•„18 3.4. Project;Alternative Findings ...... .. ......._.... ,......,..... 18 4.0. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1. Introduction. r 25. 4.2. Significant Adverse Cumulative Impact........ ...<..,, ,..,.:. . ....,... ,.. .,,. ,,,.25 4.3. Findings 26 4.4. Overriding Considerations,... ........... .................. ........... .........,..... . .,.,..., ..,,.. ..:.,., ,26 List of Tables. Ta61e,1:CEM.Findings for the:HEU ....... .,..:.... ......... ..., . ...,,.. --. ........................ 5 ' E October 2022 12 Patel ER-322 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 13 of 40 Page ID #:911 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU.. Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 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 (City),pursuant to the requirements-of Sections 15091 and 15093,respectively,of the CEQAGuidelines prior to the approval of the City,of of Huntington Beach 2021- 2029 Housing Element-Update(otherwise referred to as"HEU"or'the'Project"): This document is organized as follows:` Chapter 1. Introduction to the Findings of.Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Chapter.2 CEQA Findings of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR), including the identified significant cumulative impacts.. Chapter 3 Summarizes the alternatives to the Project and evaluates them in relation to the findings. contained in Section 15091(a)(3)"of the CEQA Guidelines.The City 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 Statement of Overriding Considerations, as required by Section 15093.of the CEQA Guidelines,for significantimpacts of a proposed project.that cannot be"rnitigated-to a less than significant.level. The Housing Element,which is a component of the Huntington.Beach General Plan,provides direction for implementation of various programs to meet existing and projected future housing needs for all income levels within Huntington Beach. The City's projected housing need for the 6th.Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) planning period (2021-2029) is 13,368 dwelling,,units (11,743 units when accounting for existing applications and projects that are currently under review). State housing law requires the City to specify:the number'of housing units that can realistically be accommodated on,candidate housing sites.The City is not required to build dwelling units in order to meet its RHNA allocation,only to identify potential sites and create the framework to allow the market the opportunity to develop these units.Therefore,the Project,as defined for CEQApurposes,..consists of the Housing Program to accommodate the lower-income RHNA units,including amendments to existing,. land use designations and zoning districts, an affordable housing, overlay;, and identification of underutilized,residentially-zoned parcels in an inventory,of 378 candidate housing sites. The Housing Program specifically addressed in the SEiR includes amendments to the Huntington Beach Zoning:and`Subdivision Ordinance(HBZSO)-(Zoning.Map;Amendment Nos.22 001 and 22-002 and Zoning Text Amendment Nos.22-006,22-007,22-008,.and 22-009)and the Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element (General..Plan Amendment No.22-001) for changes to base/overlay districts and land use October2022 13 Pa 2. ER-323 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 14 of 40 Page ID #:912 City of Huntington Beach Final subsequent.Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029,HEU Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations designations, as, well amendments to other planning documents,. -as needed for clarification and consistency purposes and to accommodate future housing sites as part of the HEU's Implementation. Program..These amendments provide capacity for future development of approximately 19,738 housing units to meet the City's remaining unmet RHNAof 11,743 housing,units. Other Federal,State,,and local agencies are involved in the review and approval of the HEU; including those agencies designated as trustee and responsible agencies..A trustee agency is a State agency that has jurisdiction"by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State. A responsible agency is an'agency, other than the lead agency, that has"responsibility for carrying out or approving a project..Responsible"and trustee agencies are consulted by the.CEQA lead agency to ensure the opportunity,for input and also review and comment on the Draft SEIR.Responsible agencies also use the"CEQA document in'their decision-making.Several agencies other than the City may require permits,approvals,and/or consultation to implement various HEU programs, Responsible/Trustee Agencies for the HEU include;but are not limited to • South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD);. • Santa Ana,Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB);.and • State.Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD). Other agencies may use the Final SEIR in exercising their duties even if they do not have discretionary permit approval authority over all or parts of the HEU"(or implementation of individual projects"developed as a result of the HEU).All projects that are proposed in the future under the HEU will be required to obtain all necessary discretionary actions and:environmental clearance,separate-from this HEU. jE October2022: 14 Pa 3 ER-324 EXHIBIT 10 ..., ,. ,. . . . :'-', f', 6,„i,,:;p6.9 ,, ,..;,;: ,,,13.ade 15'9•!--.;,,,,.,;.: ..',•,,,:,,,,"4.,:!:.„.,,-„-:, ,., ,.•,-, . .. , , , • ,ij6/0 /-f.--', ':';',-.r;i:,•,',"..,:::,-]•:.:'',•.--;'....','',-:,''.-,-,:.•;.21-!-- -,,:••,:i-'::::.;-•,-,-';'..-- ', ., ' . .. Document,-.'- '60.4 '''....-:,' i,'„,i.•- .„ : '.,,-...•• -•-:-.-,---ii:-:',.':-''',"'-„" tii i'-itji•:4:1ti;'-':.tir:::'.-.' --•.• '•,':-'• ' ;':. -.••' ' '.'A'DI '- 4:91P,::','':::'':•-'1::;,:,.,.,.:',;.,:,r,' (iiit io.v. 11`7.:71-'4:con's'le.,-.77.,::::...--,:.i.,:f',-,-,' ,•,,,,..•,.,..".,,,: 2:3,:pw..,=.., ,,,-...,,'_.:..,.„i„,:•:,.::::,..•:::,,.„:,:•,:,,.,;:•::,,,,:.-,,,,.::::.::...,:;, •••.::-:,;:otoiLly4,;,‘*.,-if, ver7. Case 8:ii-Ov'g k4--',.' , .2.-:... .-:::: ;ii:..-...:FTi'r.4.i4i a4?!"..,,cti.,;.,:;;:, . .:.i`.:.:,-..'.:::..'.-,i'..-„':.,. .",-..,.. .;;',,::.,,,,';',....:..,''.:.:.!1:::-:';'.'!".. .i.'.,;',-.::•,':-.-:'.:.r:.:':, ;.-.',...: . '.:. .' ,:: :...!':::: ^..,:." :,.:.,l'i:::' ,.,.::::':::,::1,1 niiCQa :''' ::'-'.' ':; ::`;:''' '' -1,,,: §1.1,:' ni:itkOrP:71.:::::: :dist,of Huntington .;:' :::,;:.;,,,; :':64:::$4,1f..^q,..1V.Guidelines..,, S.'11*;::':,,::: :', k42;•Pit,..'-• :'."-- '-'• li ., iO4ii) ! rt,'•''':ijidt1'•'t'f',''::FA'ij:f;;::.•'J'•':;'!•jt';: j'J('•''• "•';:';:'!'l'''•:: :(:'44riii„i§'-'4':iin!3"- ii: ' ;'' ..:CE9P‘.: •;.. i :i:':?;,;- •..:-., :'.:Ii,,',.:7:'''.„:`,..,':::.,,•,.1 f.„"'.. -::' '''..,""1:'. :': '. H--:, in.4iIINV',:•';',,,'''', : it•:•*Ori,,,!"., ''•,.„%il:..trt'.1.50 l'? 'a' i..444'.f919,:',::::,,,,,,,-:::-..,,':::,?;.-'' 6;',',','i,:..;:.C ,t,:--!.,,,r,. .',::::.:! :, .:: ::',4";: ii-4-:T040:,':§i, ' '*-01:'.. ,!:- ;;A:1;iitio,10P ,:r.1-iijid;.:.. ..:.2: '.,,,,T..;:,-:,4--, „):.,‘,.,,:pot,9....,-,-..), accordance, .,„.••„:„.T:'...'„ittaii ,t k,.,-,,,•--,-.-.• .--,.•,--,•'-‘-';','-',..':-'-',- --''-'-iiihic'1"-,;-;'-'---'"' ';;',''.--,';','"-:•'''.---'-,-'•'•'-'-'--•' :.-,','"vi'„.--,-:•;-, '•- :-..., itiio*„::r...5.. ..:-;., iiif.e0'„!ft•-: :,:.: ::,:•,--iiithil41gP.., ice project7 a• iitifi0.1r`•,-::::'-'i".- :....• .'• ''.:'..: --.: '-:',':•-'''''-••''''-'--•-`-,--,- ••.'-• ' --- ' -chapter :;:iiif.ire',!. .7.: iiiitilt.ric? 7 g,e1,-ibtp.E...„,.;,..,:•,.i,::,,ifdat,: !.„,,,,,:ppc:.:,, ,•. -,,-.:,:: :-.•.....:..:„1.---,,: :.,',!,:A=.2i',::c-,:,;ft,:•:::::,.,,,,:..-.'" ,:::,;,•,•,•Thi. :04 ,.4,.,:hi.,diog,,-- 144,0;:4P:7,;fr. ',?:',:',.',`.,r. :'.-.?„::::.,!:,-2`.::•-::.,-::,ii-or-'091,74.,,,, ,•;-.;•,,,, ,iii,iii-0011.!:, ,,,,,,,,,!, :',-,.-,,'s,f,:,, ,,,,r,4.,..-,,,;..', -k-'• -•,-..`,_-„-,,,,-:,-,.-.....,,:,::,...,.:"::.,...,'..., as 1.1.';":,,,,,,i'''''''-:''.''''''''-', .'i-,:"•':-. ' SE14*1-:`1,•::'C7,,..", 4=C.ioI'''.,-! 1!--• ,:" :'''',.5-',. .''',"•- !-,•;.-.'-''-',.:':;' .2.-::tiiiii40';iP'--'°!' ific':4i*!P;ill .i-si.:<:-;::!';'-,k. • ik,-,40t!-.4Y.,.,...:-4;',-..iilf... . .'"'',I,:•''''.''''',. ','''': - nr!‘!s -,--;,,'''''.':',',:':::.,,-,-,V-:', .hav4';'..40,0,11-1A.,4..,,,!,-46.-,:of#11.)T ..„---..-:-',60erP14., 4iiiy,: .;:.:,'-:a and not t-•'',.; :.t1,.';''',.. - possible'' lia4tild:clss",'. 7 .4.-iiii..!:4iOO...j11Iiriiii0.1cn. .!' iich,..b:th,r1 '''-'-'•:•••'" 4-'•-•- liatii°: 1'9! .;. ,4;ii;.•.i :.f04 ,,, ,,,n16.iiik....1P1.,•ii•k-,!1'4840ii:01. !:..;',.i .;, p: .......,..,,,..:. .,.... . .- . •.... .! .:-Iat...:,,,,; ;:aily,...17.:-..;..'.,.,,,„,,141-4, , IiiiresF1,77. 64-0,#,,,,R, !...,....:,;:,,;:.",;:,,:::i:„;: ::,•,,,z•:•,:.-1-...,;,,-..•-•,- Fir.,-.,-..,,,..-;,' ,,.,,•,,,-,,,.,:,,,,,, l'i :..',',.,:•:,.-,-',-.::-,-:,,,...... ,T.i-,:-..'-•,-----,..-•,--,;:. ,'--,gitibitaF1! e.l•,'--iii:VF10F1.•-..-•,•••..• •• -44ittsor,..,,',--•;!-- i,44ifiges.:,,,...,,,,,,----•i,-4(-----;•,,,,,gc-.:':-;,p'..:•.:,,:i:-,-,mitigation- measures: , ,,,,,,,. ...,:f.,!..,;,....,..., .:-,. ,•-., :, - '.; 2:-•'. s j..:,-; ;-,,,-..-,,, ,..,..• • :..--,,,,., "..:!••••.;-:-,,,:.•,-,.(.-,,:•nu,i,iaft 4...„... :.;,:' .„risAl,-,'„...-. sucw,- ,,::..-:-,• ("Finding ,,L,.,'& -,,.-....,-.„, ,,...,,-,,•,,,,:.:,:':, Suc -,,,--,,--,:,!',.:-- Iiikkit64'ititpr4 ";#iiiii,P,-7 .•,,, -:.----iiicy.8....r .,• .,•-•• i6ji-1f7.,...,, ,i,H,',.:',,,„'',T.:,-.:',,,, ,,e,;-:,.:,..;'-, --'',.•°,--:-:-.,,,,-.- iaiing,7 , iiiiog-:tir , ;4,4*,17g-,.,,..,,•,..,,, _A,:.orlf,„,,,,,.;,,,,q,,;-•,,,,,:iiii,,Ii.,::,,,:;,,,-.,.,',:..'..;,;',.,„,,,,,,,,,,,,-,:f.,.::-::,.. .,:,•,.,,,;,.._..!:-,-,..!,;„,:,::,•,,,,,,...,-,, 1 i;,;;;'.1.:?:.'•!:,,,..:.,:',•:,.:-.'-'':,;: i''',.•--- t4''•',,.- 7.-;.,:-•;')::.!:•ii-4,ii011.Y:j.‘...7 .<:'ld be ifi414)?"9 . .'-i :7 ', feasible,to ::,',..•-,:-.i-::- -,, other considerations,•:.•`-i,',,-,',,•„`4/01i,.-r,',,,,,,•'.::;.--::.L..,,1,,,,,i,.,,:;-,.:4,.>11',••(:!•:•'-'.'Wherefe ,.., 1..6„iml,...:!,: ,i,:•'.,..,:.`:.:,,,•;.-,-,:,..,:;..?•„:.s,,'. 7.-:„.:' ,`,,•,'', 41.19pr or,z91•''',:„..--ii..iding :-.--,',;',-,;.,%;.„..-iA .:F-,'--,••,".;',!:--3-,•!<"•;.:.%,,,..P4-tivoi‘....- ..1'4,ieit4IX..c1r:.;".•-•,"•,- ,.„ •-, -..-.:-',j -,:r,;i,,,,,!;•.-, :-.,i,:,,,!:. ,--,.........,i;,,, r: •::, ,•'.„••,..,-,,,,,,:;,-,,I.,,,14r.t1,0,p,, ,,,,;-•:-•,.-1,...--,;•,,,4;....*x.. ..,2•1-•,:4EIR,‘ 77,...:', t`t`Ix ,..„,...,'., occur. ,•..,:•- ,•,,,,.-••:iii-.'f,-,,,,..!,' t,---<.-;,'.i..•.•-.....,:',..,...,--;' ,- .- •.-'-,,,-,•••:-:-',':',,.. „.;It,r;..;.'i..!--....,e-coilf;, . ...:',.'...-,L,,--r.:ile Dp',.,.t.,..:;,:y.,.•'!'4,,,!•:.!,?;:-,,i,-t-4--,•,:!. ,-•;•'!----',--.':iiiit'orc - ,,...--.•••,7.,."--- where the .,,`,.i`-` s,6401`15 ,4,,eilinr! ' .;-..,_=,atuteS.M's .''.'"•la otherwiseibit.or,Y! ,41-,,,,,,,..:. ..., i'Ck alternatives;'''''' '[41*°:.'Nit':-:-:•:',k,'''",:i-1-:44iita. ilitiqT-.!.z. ..•:-""•.„fhati7.??.,i.t .;-'i.i,'ittlf,4 :-:. ,..,•n,'64..,.(4'•,: lZ:''',-,'•'i:': ;"!.•''-:."•',,';:'''-'..• Q-', .:'..--, ,''','.:',.'-'1:,,,•,:-'-•,•,,- ,,,,,-db-pt.nl! '!-" iyi„:- t iniPa5! i-,•=iwtheY.:.,t,•-:-.- .15091:1,-` 77.''accomplished'-' '1ii4`'''''''•''''''''''"'- •'` project .2 ,iiid*:, •" . Aiiiiie...7.,„.•-: -",:,:•,"--- ...wv7 .--,Iiiiis§ ,,,. ,-,4,,,,..,-,.-.,-. ` ,..-.4:,....s .„-.'::':,:',....."..,.`f.:"."::::'`J.',..: ii,."pq'.'-.':',-:.:•:•''''•,;,,,,,.,;-.-:-.......,:'2:„.:,-", ,,,.•,..:-,,-.4-A-t-,,.- ',.;' ,-%-iii•4,t04.9...1etly!T7-,, .:-4-6t required - -•-,:zin4?„,-:„F'''''..,:•;,, " environmental, ''-''','• ``',.' •--" '- '- `- '`' '","'"`,--';-`AhaN, '.-`,. significantAttes.ar@. ;.i.„7- (c.E0,P,! Liif:,betnq: ittitIll,,,,--7....4-,:-,:',:;;-,:';,-.'!2. •;::::4,..',:.•-.::':;,,::•',.:-.„:::,:-":-.',''.;1',;:'';: ,.e,,:' ..i.4441:r:!.:'! reduce t ali'Yt: : : iiterr'a',7.JqL. it,ier:OgF.!;' • '' i02,0AY, iitilp;, !lv..-` - --1,2:`,„ tit?`-.`. :a' .;iiiiigtaP'4-;:.,',.,:-;.,.:tationi-9TS,--,t' lies-- iiiitfl.: 119i,..'0 to,.111,,n' ilifit.'--.'OS9,9.---'''-:•:',:'''iiiins-,1,•$:..,,F"-,-•;.-1•'`:,:.'L-:,....'.': ":,•',•-.,:•:,:. :,.,-,4,.:,:-...-..:::,.-„.,r:.-, *-,-;,:•:'.,,:--,!:c..,,..'ivoid:•y17:76,,•,, ,-.-:;;;-,%--'•,th•otl!1177 , „444: ,7;:,,'., ,i.16--Agitu., :-.akrriii,ii,1/20,;,..?";list.. iii!.,:::.•,..:114"7.6i:13.,-pt.,--„--ii4.:,,,,pi,..?:.:]k,,,,,,,,i,:. ri...- Project".modifying a P- .,4.-fioes,,--,,,-,:y. •::::r,-- ',',3:-2s:''',.'•'-'•'-'::::/:•'-,-,E':''. , .project. , • •- .-d•Eti.. •-.,..:.',Y;-'.,,-F-it fitt!i,1 -• (•--,•-'',-iddsc:-..Fc,-) 5,[2.7,§ ..--,,,,7„,,•.v,•‘,T,,.,,,,,,4,,,,•,:',.':.,::-...,„,.....,,:-,.....-..!•;' .,.",, „, ,,.,„ ,,,,, ,p.p ..,,, ,....„1-9c, !.,•,i,-..- ,,...,:;,,,0 21„,.,,,,,,,,„.;•1„.,-,period p .... • - I536‘ ti553,-Te77,,,,,,:,'-'.?,•',,-.-L,1]-:;4--,5'-'•'?:6. -•,•-.. `::----'2.-',:" ..," •--'-'--'' , ••:-. ..,:•::. .,: ::,-,..--,•- - ,•-,:,,....,tio.sip!!!!1 .4.,--',Ade.'.5g"174 - iiiblt...P7.-...,$;.:;;-'..%;-Sett1917:,,, .. ica4t-tidip...g:,,,,,,,-,.-,.‘,. ...,•,, , .,-, •-`'.`:,,!.,` ::::',,, responsibility for ro4.544 .4iet-0,14.71 ` ;ii,.tiOPkStatement of P7 ,,,t': ''')':',',.•'••'''.''''.....:',' -,', 1-",-;',•t'17,`:'''',:,i';',:,';.:::: '''.•:'''-''''''''-- fiiiiiiicle7.:•':K"'i•:•44e110#,'•t!. •%'''l'.' n.:CEIda•IPP !---,••''''''..";:::k::"4"" 5"‘•;",t!',?,",. i$trdtr/,', ..E,',••/"'"4q,#,2,•;.:'•77:,',.', .";.::,!:',. „: :',1,i,,. .,,,,:.,...,,,v•:,,,,:•, ;,..„,::1,:.:-!';,: .--,, ., iifa,--r11f:ocpf. ,,,:iory!...,95! . " iv-i',0491-.!,,7!.:,,,'': e xii.0.4.4. „..! ,iigoi0. ,::::,,i.,•,.;;,..:::-,,, >•.,:',.,;,.:::r,''., . ,:,,:,;;:;'''1:'51557:;:':and technological.', .ii!'liiar-Cl'`,.. .r.-,,•-.ii-M,..',;:,12;4 ).;, '''•i•64,..P',- ;•,',--2:1'ilci-'.-l'il': 98'Y ' ;-ioliile Vi.l?',:s.'•.•,i.''.':::-'''-!./.:'-':-,,,..,.:',-'.•-.-'''-,-, • 1,.--,N•.. ..,...,-,::1,:--,.2 -:-• iie(41....a --•:•,..--.4fiva!1 )!' '-.-,,,ii:-'-,. ,..,•:-•- ••51'.,:'4.r. -).'-•-:'-,-;,iiifteT !'•,::-•,.--,„,, -Shastaeffit F71.77,2,-, known'. i *`' .7.., -; :r.::','```'‘'`' •'`'''.:'. fis.,-.6f .,..P`ts:`,• `:':;' ,."'.: `',,,,`•.:-J :-...iiiiiiir10.17of m-000;....,,.,...-.,,,,:-:,--'---7-iiiiit'.#1.1. •-.,-,..'-z•-' '-••-iit.-1 :19,,,.,,; '... .:.i.ho-,,i.:::::,,,:,.',',--: s c112! ifriiiiiii0.41r ,-,..,:.,--iA,i64=,-'F11 :,,i;:-:-tif#:)1?• vr.1 :"ii4ilit !7,:iiii,-6F:p1/19f;c.,, 1,',,,,T,... 2:1':'..„;.i'::::,,::',,-...,:--......,.'-.'•,,-..: it*iiiiii3OPT...4; :ii;i4i44AIIY.h'',..t4ia...'4*.-. 17,..:-..i. ',.. .'.'r'.. :it4:::Th:%11,3is:iiii#117.:. ';;,4.''i.i.i....i :o.!1,ritf77.i:':' ::i,:;-E'1,,J'''.:::'-':':::•:1"'.'..'•, V::•.?f,::--:.:-".1,',;:;:,,.:„::,::.•.j,.•'::':':,:•:;i'.:,1:::','''':;,',°rj",:.':iiiiiri„iCi!6E6i.,Ai44:u:ir.;:!:#';eiiiifi :it-;ir. .:;'-i! : ri.i':.0f-::P'!d": .i.:Yi-4*4., "ir::%'g;;'.;. ,-:I'k;It*9'r:' he ':•:'-','•1'-;',•;.::',: :„.?Ana.&Ciiiii:;"771:1%,iirit iit:afr:!!!-(;•:.,;is.:-..tlit•..:',.. !-„,1 ,,,. .1.-,0-•,th'f ,,! i,,iii.-.,..e-.--:0:, pp! (a,ii* ff: cts,,„,:,., ay ':'•:1:4:77'.: -''':4riiict.99 ..•:`, binsici- 7`.:-z•:',,,,''',*0,1kitlf$:,'?: -:.,,-. •niiiriltig•Ilar7...-4 ,4p,•'...t79,:.•7,:•'.,--.:,•'.:- •:::1-:.'•!:: :','..-.,'•'..•:.:17.•':':;',.,.:,...;',...:',-,,.-L•••-.. -:, '.i li,,-,!,.,:,i,-.--- :.-:. : ,-•.• --,...,":-,-:-.-:,... ,-oition.:7f--.,-,,,,•:.•.:4',.,-•-,4iiding,"- s.‘,_ detisy?fl4ii"'.deL,:g,,,.:•:,,,; ▪ 41ital, s.,-f,,F,;':' ,.,-„.';''',.,',', :,,2:,'-';'•'-;!',.:;;. ;:if.4.g'°.:,'.•,,,,,,,›I':''''','-; .:' '-:.•' - • ! P'''''':i'':,;••:" •:•''''''': ''''' '•'''-'•'' - its4:,'Ciit'PNT.:.,'-' , ..,' te ,``kf, effects in ' :.'n`4:ii791117-,-,',`,: ri::`,..=!' •-4,44-1`„-.:•-,.-- '-•- , -•- s ,?:,41t.---‘-::-.. ;:,-;-.-..-- ..-':.--'.-•:-, :-;','.,•-tateiTteq7,,•,-,-••-•'.;`;:'.`diii(5fl '. ..,' i,,4i` '-aii,ierr' -.- aii00!-...!-,; L:-,".`:.,`,..'-':,:`. .V:''`,7-'..',.',.',"::,.%":'''''',`- ''':``7`.:;;.: :,..'-,'•;`'."'.." aiice:IP:'7.-7.V',,"r.•:':, :•-'T:'.'',-. • :...,..'„_.:-.4,* kl .-,.'''•iiiakcl .--:',•`-?;•-'-""';iiiidalF!!"',..,,.;:::::,..,...1.2..,.. substantial-,.a.11i;,,;i4e00 •,,•:.•:-,'., .:..: ••- t-,A,,,i,••••,.•,-,.; ;••,.,,,,,-'•,...,••„.-7.,.:,-;IhforTaiiist.:,x ,.,.17;,-::...„.:..ii.,:the:'pr,::,,,,,,,,4,,,,,,,-; ;:'„:„..:',',. . .. Iiii,:. ..: ii.st-OR ,.6 '....: ''iiiiii4*,,....F :,.',-4e.it..".::0#iri/ .;'. .c, .9i:.-,. ii.:-ofe.,-10.0!c''. support the ::-•'..-• '.:-' .-,., ' VI',-:;': ::•,''.:-::i:-s.:-:, ';:::'',:'" --.2. ili .5-f4',P' '4,;iibi§; .24-,:e.cigkr., 1' i .!tiPP ,:i' tha!' .atia'*‘(:`,1f. ,citv,asi ,.,_:explanationAdditional facts-.,.-,-• .-,...,r,riissiuru.-,-,-,,,,-.-'•----- -..,. -:. -- • • pir,::,,,,•:,,,-.f,.,-, ,,-•:,.•,,,,,,„.,,,'-..,,,,-00..,, ,,-...,:i'-',P7';-,:-•,*:1.'...: .:- -;1:-,'',-,-,::.iii ,,.•04971-;.- 1'-itPt,, •777:•;'' 1..,t4t.gi (1 'ij,4,4jiri!!,:,,i•:,,.:-..,;,::.--.::',,,,,,--,:::::,,,,,-„,.:J,.,2,,,''-:„,,,-,„,,.:::... •:.',,-• ., •,r--, ::.--1::ni.considered.....,iei47:4;:t.: ;'1-,,:-.,....:':;;i: ';.'1 .' 'i'-'findings,i,:.'1::(:E'64':::6;;;a,staff r;:t::;441'1;?)c:*°: ;•,;::'•.4...1:;-•:;,•-:'-1;""'•7--;.;',-.:,''',...:::-.'l''','.•,'.;..:,c;:•-,:-11;;',:'''.; '::'''",:' ..: : e ,:-This doC4 ;, Ot aCgt,-- ' the fiiovq---: 1-4itt,..4.74.,..,-.:. -.--::-.F,;-;„,•:':-;.1.1: ;•:,.:';-::-:.,;---•,,• -, •- ..,,significant• .,:;• p.levels•;...,,,'•`: , • ., s . t:',:i,1 •'-':`•• , : :. '''' ",''''': ,titiv.$14Pe,.., the In -cliii'-'10#7I, .-,-';','. ..-.'-'-'•'.,,';".'-:-.,,,':', ",•,-••,-,-,:.-c . -•.' less- , •: ,-'-iii-a-iiig4k..• ' '' ' ' ' . with i••;-...-„,'••,,-, "..tdc.q. :. .,.. gifil"- .- ....!::,4.,-....-,...,,,, ‘,.;',..,":',,''..'-•..'",.. ..-.'.,•••-•''''' ''••; "...,'.;:.:: ._1.'fi....,-:' than.- .,.'.4..oft.,.-.--,- '''' finding -4. ,,':;,-.',the.Draft , ..,:_1,--,eu.-, ,.,5 t,„64 ,.:. ,;;•-:tkethlil. .., `..dings.,;‘;,!-.7.,..--s.;:,.',:-,-,-.:,.':,',., ,..,,...-.',-,::-. •were reducedand.adoption,..,--, i,.:',7.4 s.",',:-....,,.,•::.,.-..-,.,.,:,,', s`,. .. --.,,,-. i,i-so..:..:!..!..,,,,t.' , of, orpce :that,W- itcAtig.R ,-.."-.2.-'-',:-.; .'f4iiii4S:' `.,..- .,..zietora'.. ,,..:1:-..:;.,,.,;_:g:`:,-".t-,"'..:-,--'‘.. i.impaqs ..,foi 0.r.,4.,-.-i",i".-..-..`-.-1.r....-' ,',.-'..:.s,-.`...'''..:---.,`,-,-,-„:. ,-. :.- .. . .., '.• , : !P"-I'l''''''•-..-:.`'!":`-' - -''': : '`"',''''.`. -iii.4;!.!. ..".."-`.,;`,,j,""',".:-,?;1-:-,..:,'.:-J:',:- ;‘ wriiffc4.11,.: , .,," topose9:-,.,:s;`:.:`.:.:,:r '':'':',:''..':..,'1"..1: ':.:,:: ''.'T'•.:;:'',:'•'''',1:!•: .....:::,'' ,` , ' ' :. :'•%1'::::.:•. Council, r;ft::::z',-,..'••:::•,,:-'-,.`;?..,..., :,'1,-' i ...!! atis;0P' ...`-.,-..:-`,.'' !. summarizes;the potentially•:-.,,,, iii6on !!7.2...,,--,'',',.:.,,i•',.:.' ' '-',-..,,..,',..1.:.:'-'-:'',''.''''':'` .::-,..',"..,',...:::',',::::--',•,-''-.;.-',:--';:'-', ','•.-1:-,.'', '''',',',-; ':'„-, L • si"o• - • - f,';',..1,s''',-::'-:.'•:,•-::'' ' -;„ ' ';''''-.- ii-•' . ,,,,,4tC-ii !r'!•-.T-''''..1‘:,;:-,,,,,`-',:',''.--.': '•-- •,''',-.''''',:•%.1 '...'''. '•••--,:- .--,... ';'.•.;;':,;;',2.";-'•i-.-.:.:',-..•:-.''-••-•T'' •:,-''.'-'"'-''''''•:,--•,'-'-'EXHIBIT :',., -',4--..:-.. ,..-.',:-.'.,,•-•i•-,-, ' •.,,Table,7,-:,,..•",r:. itiioii,O9 '".••••,•i,",'.,',;.,..-::;.',..,:r'',1'1;:27.:.-';'- ':''E••'!'.,....''':`•.:*:,:,.;::',., .'' ,:'.:-...i','-„,.''',-,•:;::,•:',,;'::., ,,-: .'",..;''.'.',..-•' -•:,..::-,' 'i, .- :::-... . ,.,, -.'''.' ' : • k9 1 ': •••••,;.',.••:', .'.. : • -. ,-.-!.,:,',.1;.:.,:.:.-z•::',;:,;.,;:,,,',..-.',',;.::•'''. :'.,..• '. ,,-, • ,•:•'•,.' -:,, .. : ':".'.•45•'',•,',',, .• , ,', ••-•,'i..,•:,.i., '' ": .-;r .. ..-,.'i'-'',..'''''1.'','''','', ' • 1'::S.'..•:,:',.2;'::I:'.1'rf:.;L"''::':''.''.'':r.:''."' '' ' • :':'''' ' ':.';•': •.'' r25: - • "•:':'.,:e.i-.;"' :l .,,•;.,',"': ., " -. • ...;;;:-..:::: .iiiii.- - ' ,''.._: ‘...:' '...-.;- ''.::::.,.1::,'-.:..--`'''•' . ' ..:tiocorr '-,•,..,....-.:: ---.:.- , - ,. . ._:.i-, , ., , h':,-.'"-!,. ,,-,•:', ,• h ,,*1.• -", - . Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS " Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23--Page 16 of 40 Page ID #:914 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent.Environmental„Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Table 1: CEQA Findings for the HEU Impact Statement Impact Summary Impact Finding Air Quality The project would result in a project- Air pollutant emissions associated with Finding 3.The City of Huntington Beach finds that even specific significant and unavoidable air implementation of the. HEU would result from with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures quality impacts associated with a construction activities and operation of uses allowed and compliance with applicable General Plan goals and cumulatively considerable net increase under the HEU.The amount of emissions generated by policies,emissions associated with the HEU could result of criteria pollutants'for which the region future development projects would vary depending on in an exceedance of established thresholds for daily is in nonattainment, its size,the land area that would need to be disturbed emissions due to the speculative nature of future during construction, the length of the construction projects.No mitigation measures in addition to GPU PEIR schedule; and the number of. developments being. MM 4,2-1 through MM 4.2.-14 are feasible to reduce constructed concurrently. Due to the speculative construction or operational air quality impacts to a less nature of estimating emissions from individual projects than significant level, at the programmatic level of the HEU,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.Despite compliance with applicable General Plan goals and policies and incorporation of mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4.2-1.through MM 4.2-14,the HEU 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. The project would result in less than As previously stated,air pollutant emissions associated Finding 1.The City of Huntington Beach finds that the significant impacts related to the with implementation of the HEU would result from identified changes or alterations in the Project, which exposure of sensitive receptors to construction activities and operation of uses allowed would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, substantial pollutant concentrations under the HEU,The amount of emissions generated by are hereby incorporated into the Project, No additional following incorporation of mitigation future development projects would vary depending on mitigation measures are necessary with implementation measures IV1IVIAQ-1 and.AQ-Z, its size,the land area that would need to be disturbed mitigation measures MM AQ-1.and AQ-2, during construction, the length of the construction schedule, and the number of developments being constructed concurrently. Future applicants for development projects facilitated by the HEU would be required to implement mitigation measures MM AQ-1 and AQ-2,which would require`project:specific health. risk assessments to minimize impacts associated with E, October 2022 16 Pages 147 ER-326 EXHIBIT 10 ..°, � 3i<i'i . w-i'_.«. �._..;;:' "= <," 4'"k`; ,..:n».n r _ .». .e,tu .- _• mea • ,4 `�frvG��a.17-0 .0 w'«a evID -A ✓ ..,...... ..^ <.2.3,,�a..u0 ..42<1`.F2W S'AD.S.. `;:.�Doc..um»e,nt�50.=2,<el-wF•led06%06%23?'`Pa e. . ...., . « :. - , " . , •• , Cit of H n'tin `fl a "_ _ se: o-. fin I'Su ue t:En,ir 'n il, cE'e•o _a k n v nme to mpa R rt .; ' �.° 2021-2024•HI=l1 Im lementa io .Pro ram� „ _ .. _..":':-,.�>.'�'° �:Findin's`of Fact State ent.of Overr•din .Considerations< F � " 1 ... a he .�U ' :; �n � T f E n �� 1 tin ^,f, �, . .H ",,., • Impact Statement Impact Summary Impact Finding 'he: a ur :°o,t V �- n e tos` 4' cn is sre��":ta �on"r" `try e 'i o tam .lck d. o` n h st.uct o n � u • _. ,. . : ,.�," ,..^.�+-. .,.,- ., :,emissio s., o� at result.in.the,exceeda ce'� f,ocalized�°;•.�- , " 3 ., �, , n.•d .n ,. n .o t1. n.,.sxx�. r. a: significance•thresholids;�/ith,impl'ementafioti af�ttiese:� -- ^, < ,.+.. .,.,• �`.- ,,. , .: measures, im acts"would be�reduGed,to�;less:�than' r.• , ,- 'xsi 'nificantlevel <" „ .,,, ,., . _ . . . .. T,he� ro ect�w uid"result in a?`.mutative Cumulativ °:::development;,co l ;.viola a an:atr:' uah `. Finding:3.In City".=of Hunttn on Beach finds, hat even . ,' . P „j _ : ,," _ Yo,.. ii + 0.14'.t,+, .t ,. " tY; • ,"@-'_ -'ti „ " ,, 6't.. t- .contributiot�;%to an:�'air qualit `:impact, .standardQ "" ontribute to;an existing orprojected air:<�with,ltitpl Implementation of a.,li;�feasible"mitig Lion measu es ; resulting in:a significant and'unavoidable,` 'quality violation' because'the South`Coast;Air Basin;' .an• d'compliance,with:applicable General Plan=goal sa•nd ,,'< ' " '''-'cumulativeim actktoair" uality. ;;�°;'_`r °"<" SCA•B is current ;In°`nonattainmen`tfor°:ozone,":PMio,T' . olicies >'Im lem�^ntation':of;trelat d1 could ":resul[:; ;, ; ;,:;,','. _ .:`'f P... �- t1C- is , n, and':�:wP`Y:S;'::�o cernin`�,�=dell"":'��r� `issipn"���''a �d��.`the� ��si nfficant.u�`avQi '�e�;"` �'a�":� ��elatedao+-.-.'curuulatve> `,. .,.;s,"». . , ,.... .. �^<x,�,„•.��:� I � e s o e<in. st„ctio,T `,"e . o i n ' ."< . � :.. „cumu attve ne#�incr a eof:<an culteria'= tlutartt-":for;. :Inc. as con ru . ,h:� d:o . rati.nal�:aintss Q s'ues;, ' .-. .".<... �'. ,-.�. ..: .,< .whichthe.re ian:�sfi'nonattainment:the,Rc4ectuxould3` `ta'<=th"e's� ecufative;,�na#use_=;of :fufures'';` roetts'''aV";=, x, • s. result, in. a_ cumulative) _.considerable_.increase�'to :.rriifi�^anon`rrmiaasur+es°in.°a"dditidn to GRU..R.EI '.iVIM<'42':'1 , ;� on M "an :PM n rds.m.-: , hrii-•aimpa t S.0, '_'✓ a ..i'I''�'"'e ` `:`: ... ... . -•. ne.-. • 's,,. , ug., _4 re duce cu"miilat ye„airy. .. n atta nm�nt.of ozo. d w sta, a t - f_as b eto, „ . :...... ...:. ..: ._, ' ., ;:� �r � :=8 e• u f"o%- �ionwi ,lndivid'_'.Individual ; "uali `"in a>i..,=ss;f a;.:.,.i: i .c , , ,,.,-.. .< :.. :.-. _.. = tk1e..�GA�; ,,�ecaus, nil?,;,nf,..:mat,. n,^.,.. 4!� A_._.SY..: .pa ;t4 . e h_.ns.gnflW,�ri�a„'evgl;:;-'x '__: :;;;�:. , •x. • , '- "> _.ra a s>is�eurreiifljr atiia ►YEgl�ti��.eo "tti,,dt+on ," ,Arai. , � . , . .»: .. ,.....,-.. .and...cs era lone).".,emissions ,.cannot....-Ise .a iJrateC . , _ . ... .. .,:=,. • • . .. . ..._o. ., Vic. - ua # e .:Ae i 1 c t e ai'Flab aal " ,:.:u„- n d i e s i s co • ao whG r . ,: - t1 m n .. ::".3....;:. .",�.F, � 'an "olicias: �1+�[iienta#li �:. rr%iti tion>_ p h, ",.. , .,_ ,. ... : .� measures 'G , tiP IR'M 2=1x�`through� �N! ��4:2-�. , 'daily conskrucfianand o�`�eratir'"ai,aii"� uialii `eaiissiQns.n ,�" , ,, •would:::=tse�conside�ed`:`curiiulatiyel` °'si''''''it: 'cnt`:and- , voi a >x.t::.- • t o � ,, _ __�<„ ,.: C-_, fat...b._N1Pgaa ,. < _ ._. , ., „ . . ' �.r.: .', s t =. : `s. r e: de m• ;`•- he°f to e= ' ' din '':,1.': e,., `i 'x;;<.".i.'•; -: <�.;, ..:::d5=,:,,.. t=onst- con,activities as.oetated..wi h ,It . c4..,rsn><iY'►nfaasibl, to.;., for ine what,, r;...0 ,r ..Fln; .fled-,.Th.!g.,.,."..f.Hunt�gtan;Bea h -_that the : ;` in • m le entatin of-the :Rro ct could a: •-develo menti_ under+° the- P'ro�ct`':<�ould' re,,,,, °in• " dentifi d then es`n altetatib s in.the`Rro act .wtiic^'',Y`. %<x - :':. i ,pm- n .,1._ „P J„,' w., , wo e_. g, 1-.,� . h °.cause.a substantial'adverse;change.inthe -'demolition•:or.removal of.:historical of archaeological; 'would reducethis=impact=fii-a less thansignt�cantlevel,'. ..:: :, ,' - si nificance of: historical°"arid/or an resources, or:-the.`disturbance,.>of unknown,=h`uman" "a`re-herebyin'cor,"elated Into•`the Project No-additional 8 P. I. ' °` r' aeo t<? `sourceand ma result -'iemains,within the`,` tannin''area.However future`; .�miti'anon iiieasures re necessa ith im lementation.:` a_ch.-.. Lpgiexa-,r a .,. , Y..,-.,...l., . ......., p._,..,,..8..++.,. ,> .' . .i'Y.w. P , t ist rba c d , -, ,".a ,, ,,... .". ._. ' :.r.. n he-iii u n e 9f,"unknown.human`: projetts=woul ."be`=requireci'a `irtiplen7e►t�rimtigatio ', mitigation measures P PEittMiyl°4; 1,MM tF,4 °eriil� ;'`;' , remain. With`. i'c rporatIoit : of `measure GPU!`PEi MM 4-1 M"Mn4.4-2;:and MiiA-•a g-- ,�MM 4 4,3,. " R<4 P � - i r ��t` �i ch<�o n es� e a n" i P P.E 4� .>3% u Q. d. r ,N,; rt a i easure .;� t(I.MM <wh o' e f h 11t _d. • , < <,. , ...:;<m tan" s t! � ut... < x�: �1.4 2 n ." M,,4r4 t ese, uture onstr ctio ,<act vit es to a sur . som Ira ,.a •"'�+-;"'"' �•F�`..,._<.;-.,,t..;; .:. 1 MM a .d,.M. " >3,. h.,, x fi c ". n n .o, nce. x P.., - h. c t r o s a to - ��'�`t l0 1 to..and d e a s i ,.. .: . a �a _Fe a ai-r ul tin . rta n n , .. ��� . .,, y , Oct oher2022. - - _. ... " �:� <,:E =327�`�,;� " ==��• `�:- 14 8',• " " , : " -EXHIBIT T 10+ _ R Case,8.23 cv 00421 FW5"ADS• Documen 50=2=-°.Filed Ofi/06%23Y` Page`18 of 40- Pa'a ID; , - . , - Y , ,. G o Hunt on,ee ch.,,. :. : :." .:.. ... ... �.: , . . f in a " . � � . . ,. �.. z'- :°.. .: ;Fi�aiS"bse ue nn�. , . ., •. kY., � _, ..-� . . .. - _ 9 ntEoyfr. me6tailmpacY,Re o%t - .2 2 .20 9 HUIm IementationPr r m, .. . , .. ..-.• , , ;_"". ;.° ��1=nd .'`Msiof:Fa'`"'ti,te� a tof:Qverri' i .Co�` ifuns`', " , . , ,...P-.�.....:�...H:-,.,,�P..-..-.,.-.:...,.<ol;,a-_..x,,.,.:.-."__- ,.� _,:. :... .... . ,.:,.. ..�. .... .: i:,,ins._� . ,ct/�a.,.�,:t1�,.,, dn6 -nsderaf_. . • , i. �f In •he E Tabl d r =�= Impact Statement • iit�pact Summary Impact Finding c ould e'r d es `'t r s.��i,", le f .,:". '; -.. ..,:, : e a su a ,.."::".a,.., t es" e�s ,rm a"is w. --_,b-." . ..uced to.a 1 _s h n ch. re-ui. .st .m ement"kioxt" o :. h e r.;tt>;.a ureS.. .��"°-_- ;.,-� • „a: significant a l.. ;., : ., .. would'�e sure��.tha'�-:Pr ect�,�.i_ acts�`�in��h:�`r s�"e� - 1 i�. i - - ,.. : .".. -" .... .- archaeo o rca..and.;:h star calk?�esQurcesr.°`.a a�wel6�as- - remains�:`�'°wouldr be .l,0i!.. -'than unknown .humarr " �° '� , : : 1. ni i a :c " , . " , � Soils... ... ,. , • �:��.:,. , ;`;Future�.`.develo menu<'.under;°the,°HFU� .'All..futur. 'housin .develo ment suS ecttorezonin`and:',Findin"�1 The.�Ci of"Hunting on'`Beach;finds`th"t`th"" ` • � R �_ .g j _ g a e -` could sex os -.eop le:;`and o.�.structures`„„:�within:overla zones; ould'.bere quired�tocom l''with :;identified~ch"an .s'a Y:alte ation 'in'the"Pro e c � hi ",` • P., P R., -h :: + q .V. Vie,,,r r- s j fit,,w".,ch - to„: • .otent a i > substantial adverse , Itcal5le`GeneralIan. oafs•°a—tiff4iolic es related to;: ,would reduc`e3th?.&,. "-act to a'•lessf`th'an significant level " '.';":,x: >�.;:.,;effectincludin the risk:of loss,in ury, `eolo and";�soils-an "-also'" tie.,-:re;'uired!:;tok;:''are:hereb incor,orated`:into-the Prject.No additionall. °�.`•,: ,. :'. ,�.::-„�;�, , .or. ••,death,n� involvin ,:,_fault ru-ture,.:; im lement. mit ation.•meassures;;;GPU. .PEIR:. :45=1 =mit'ation'measures"a a n'ecessa '":with implementation':'> ` � :. p P g. g.. • W,.._ ,p e:�. nsive, �-soils -:. .sir n . s .smi., .thfou h .I�rIM ..5,-,�..whi,h �re,ui e' that"re evant ":miti'atI©Fi�r►e` su�es�:GPU'PffR�FS.l thr '�h. 45;,���� eXP1 g 9. ,.& a,._ QUB h.,';: t„: a;" ti rou a n d e s Ic.re a eo e c st di �e de' k no.Y <.is"ua� 'e�of= riii M ��A' �4 ,.s k a r m # d t c ni b n n. M I Q "...i. . � . . .. e 4 Ilc g B �: e., a.,. rl •��.r � i : �,.: adi �a ';� � �u i � e mi "^F t - t' , ,�F,,. 4`,t r un a r ci n Ir. fact n r n nd t tr n r s�. .._u e". o nt:o n ct e d l' u Ud U E1 r d 4 r�:_ Q - > Is r o d - so- '.��r v r't t e m e E o ;w u l b d;xw to a eo a tend U� .o:; - e �i n _ : .., i e e. �n :, r i e t>;. .,., . .,-. a r, d . .. e H .. a c�.. ��. .e"•" . u le,.m n h � r � �� m cf :f r k o fi e s r R >M - -:�t ��4`��ha h t nt'al t `un it =gym u =2. :u�` �=4' ,. ,... . ,-. . �� o r '-d stu 4:. wn� °m a on� eS'=G '9, h 'M� .2 : , y r ti" P ��� , ,; ,paleontological• ,. ,. resources<. ,..:. With;" whir;hrettulresite.specific'stusiaes.and.compliance.with,r a �•n i� �� e e i e lat o" i s e t ton u �e� �o m l nt o. f It a m a r e u lons't m.ni �i im�� ,un" o ���1 i s s-�. � a .h-, m. i- n, m stun r m t >ih w @ R" ... El di. r �`Pll�":t?R� ;5= row '4; -�n a 'l �ea - es ce .1 1` e"t���"i" ,,,�```f„°ese'"P 4 .l°°� S� nta f ( ou s: e" n at o tfi fi:�'niity► �, �al o o m h i�4= co is e:wt e o c I Pi>,.4 s m I nc rm as �s n �ia� e�w ;G.ene I 'a °�'»M .4`�:as weli'a h�: ute ;a d c m i n th ral an'� oa s nd'M P.�.. P s .�,• " :a hcable State and";CI -.re Matra s' " olre�es, would:.reduce:;impacts associated..with� they: .,.:,....,,v.,., . : . < '-;'�,;;�� '�� > .these:im acts wouid'be,reduced to.a less. .ex osure,of,.peopleto,.si nlficant.risk..of, solo ica.- �,., �' �. ..- . 'f i ures s e �as.i 5 le to 0 1::� - ifc n . I . „� :,>' ..,,...,,,�:,. ,. I a ct• to�u k �o � n. - -. .than.si n i a. ,I ve., ". , a . ... ! .. .m .. .. .h .n w o.. ,I ica , �� 0"- " , , ,..; �" -resou 'esrto� le s: _ ,- .,.. . . ... _ .. ,." .. -.. ... .r:.. . .: c a s han�si [lific nt(evei. : ,..,. . ��; ., Gr enhnus,a Gas. .lesions...e.,:.":,. ,e . .. • ; .. _ ;::-" • The ro'. ,eta uld,result::in'".project=levelm.',The':Project,would potentially�generate4GHG'emisstons� ,,Findin 3.The.Ci, ,:of Huntin on Beach.finds that=even:;;.; ;- c d' a~e : i e`` ;:a ` ?-brit iila vex•k,;.°si'nlft t�"%�an' 'ttiateoul h v asi n ficantim 'acton'the:enuironm nt..Y`witiiii "le 'eiitatiainofali�liG`re ;-.,::n`me sq`es `"",.-g."..._.en_ ... _"d.". ..".."..."� B ,P. . mp-.m. _o.: .a,.-.r and;; " .0 a Id •.;• > -'--:"' mPa�$".:�...due:._to �athe�;�•and:could.conflict wit.�ap hcable;plags ifor;teducing;' x isamPliance����Witti�i�applicable�"'Gi�nenl,'Plan-:��oals'and� `� ,�=.�• `. ."� `"�.'�.�r, :,' P, g- ener atio-.�o >"t enhous as'° HG GH. ,<emissions.�'Althou h;they .r'j"e" would:aim.t of cies . HG a is_:i..:"s, ssoci to t a HE "coul .-. 5 :" • a n. -#`�` -e. �= (�, �i P c+� ct o� I. �.," m.,s on...i; .. wl-halt, 4J . -et emissions;and:the otent►al;conflict with,` .com l with GHG:reduction strategies outlined in the` `would. be,-.;significant.°and;";unavoi. able.--'No;feasible `'` ,. .. ",'.'.. : n`a lieableplart:�:,. ,.�:'x<;. •-= -h :..� ":.,°" <GPU_.PEfRf�thesestrategies°require'additi•or�ai-aGtion.bV� rriitigatipn:;measures:-are`:-x'availakile:`.ao' _'reduce.=.;GkIG�.-.�:,�.: -::,°.. applicable ..�,. , Cit .sta .and:<..officials`.�and th "feasibili" ofr.',.i" �a t etaa°`less t ` :s" ifica t v y' staff', - e-; ti4 mp cEs, �►an Ign. n leyel� _: .::. -... � implementing -=tliese;� ':strategies and "=ispecifi�c�` , r�: " ,,.. .,..,.tm (ementatton°details rel �,on"fi that. ",. umerous�factor`sx , . .:. ca no '":be�:.-a a ua I `f `eca"ted, ;�'t�°;tti �_`rrie�` - • : __. .,: .. n. d to ,.,,. or s a , is��=�te w '��:-�;„:� 'c n: 149 ohe .I II ct r. et 18 • Page`7', ER-328 EXHIBIT 10 Ca-§e13:23:6V:60421.-FW5:AD8- Deicurrient 50:2—Filic1-06106123—Page-19 6140 P-a-de-ID #:917 L City of Huntington:Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021=2029 HEU riT implernantatiorogratn Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations . . Table 1: CEQA Findings for thellEli Impact Statement Impact Summary Impact Finding Furthermore, GHG emissions may differ from actual ,Project future emissions dueto varioas fOctorsi As such, ,the Project's potential to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, once:potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or-regulation adopted, forthe purpose'of reducing the GHG emissions would` be significant and unavOidable. Although both future. housing development facilitated by the Project and cumulative projects are required to (identify preject, specific GHG einissiohs associated with construction. 'and 4operational activities and implement -feasible mitigation measures and/or GHG reduction strategies: ' to reduce .GHG emissions; the contribution of daily construction and operational GHG emissions has the potential to create 'a significant impact. Thus, 'the ProjeCt's GHG impacts would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable . ,.. .. Hazards . : - .,.- - , -. , Implementation of future projects under Future housing development facilitated by the Project Finding:1..The City Of Huntington"Beach finds that the' the FiEp 'could create a potential, would not involve ongoing or routine use of substantial, identified,changes or alterations in the Project, which significant hazard to the public or the quantities of hazardous materials,cluring operations,All would reduce this impact to a less than significant level,. 1 environment through reasonably future,housing development subject to rezoning and are hereby incorporated info the'Project. No additional 'foreseeable upset and accident within overlay zones would be subject to compliance mitigation measures are necessary with implementation r condition's Involving the release of with General Plan policies aimed at reducing Impacts: of mitigation measure pPLEPFIft MM 4,74. hazardous materials into the from hazardous material*, All' future housing environment However,. with development subject to rezoning and within overlay implementation of mitigation measure zones would also be subject to-compliance with GPLL _ GPU PEIR MM 4.7-1,this impact would PERK MM 47-1,which requires compliance with with be reduced to a less than significant Huntington Beach Fire Department specifications !eve', related to:the potential to encounter methane gas. ., Compliance witKCity'regulations;-deneral Plan policies, and implementation of mitigation'measure GPU PEIR MM 4,74 would ensure Project Impacts Would refrain less than significant ;..1 ii. October2022 19 Page 8 150 ,i. ER-329 EXHIBIT 10 -....,,,--„--„...,-,-„..„.7,-.7-7-7.:.7,z7,,wmor,'..?,F.R7. '[:;"!;:f:,,..;,;.,-•'ilic„,.--4:14 ,,...„,...„„..mi.,,-.7---77,--'7,: -..-E,M,i,•'-',•-„,:,,,,,•','..'--,,-,,,"..,-;:-.-,,,•,•,,,' ,!;,,,,„,,,......42,,u,,,,..,.,,,r";', -:.'2"4.4.',---:,.---,..,,,,---,,..';•- _ - - .,...„.,„ :.) • a,7777--77:7777, e2,kg7a§6:1-3..'t:4440,z,,, t;,..,0 04 1-Ft-.;•,,,-,;,,-;%7;z4-,,2-,-.-A7.4.7bS7- ,-,,),.-..2gcun.:i:f e i--.Ln-i-kit'!--.-;8.';.,Y;--2.„-,..:7.',.,'. Fi r eo„,:,, ,f,0- 6,.,/-,.„-u....-,,-....o;,,r;.-4,_---9 0,-,--d..,-.-..6,..-..:9n,0,."...,-."ri,.,'f,:-,;b:,• , r,,,:-•o,,,-:..y.,-;,,.g.,--i-!'-!..,"2;;:„',-:..:-.;..-,•,.--;:,-,„..-:--,-:'.],.,:,.,-,,:-,,,.;,.',:.',--.:,,-,:,-::1,.-,J--.,,.'.,:':„,;,""::::',_,,,..;:"-,-.--,-„,,,--.-.-..2:.",„t'",,<,,,.',,:,'.,-,,:;.',,•,:-'-.",:;.:';'':,-'•'-,'''',,--,,„,.,,'.-..''-'.;.,.„.-',.'''.'=..:'-'.'.-..'.- , ,,.,.,..:-..,.. • --.::..,,, ;:.; ..., A,--;...`,,,,, #!010r;',-,',','„ ,',7:,-.-:-.:-..'.',,--,.:..:',,..::Bii.,",-.:„••,,,,;-'i:„.-;:',.,..,---',-,,=`,.-,;-,..... ...r.,--r--;;:-.•,-,-,',..' -,----•,'-:• ,....',',.-,,',•;--,..-,-,. :-•'----,--;:',..;',,"••: --•--: -..•2-.,,... ' •-- -: • ConsiderationsCity of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ' '''•' -'''''''''-'--...-•'-'''' ''• :-''''''-•:2 :'::-''','::'''----'''''':.':-"•;;••••'-''''';'''.;-- • ,-': •.'''''''''''-''''.'--'-.',--.`-'-';''":,/...':'.C' 'r'''''''.''''''''',:''''''':",,'',.,"' :',':.,. ...',7. '''''7:'' :::''Findings:0 Fact/Statement R ,... .,,_. •„.,„-.. ,,-.,,-, . : .„ , entation Program Overriding ...,..20Z1,11UP'„kigV1mPern• --:--,r,-;""''''''--,-=-•---,,,:---„--:,;":7,',:,,T,-:,:,,;"':-• -=-'.=.1-T.:.--.'==;-,:',-',,,---.,-,-",'..---',,"."'"1",",'„,'," "?:!--'..; .-:"=,-",:'!:,,- -- ;----',,,,,,,--',::::: -'4',';,,-•',,',`.",„::::','.,i,„;,"'„,,,"."'=,..'',,,-:,''."-,•?,-.=,-„:;,--,'-;;,-;--- - - •--- ;-. • -- - . --•'.. ""-'.:;-. -!.::--:„;,',.".',----.`, ",".. .'':,--,::;=t for:. ih ,:'14E(E.,,:-,:,,,J..4i:14,:i.,....,•,••L..: ...;..'''''''''''' ''.- -• • Impact FindmF, „...,,. , ,,,,.:,:jfi'dt:th4;t6 ,-,-:•i:.:'.,,,-.,_.:,,•-'.,-.‘,.-..-,.,:-.... .. ,„-,'ii; -, :: ;,:•••'•',-,"' -'--::„...''-'1.--',H.S•ii6itt-''':".'' E-43)4".Findings ' e:• tnipact S-t-iMmani 'Fi '- . Ife-city-Of iiuntingt00,•Reeen,. ;.., ,„ ,... Identified' 'iite'irCif contamination„... „... :....-. . s r-alterations in e..,,Project,- rit:,,. Impact Statement area a list to f4ies thooa,:§vif199,-L -.-:level,"',--", ',',...„--,7;•-'-•,:-,,--, • ,• ,•::-4., .,i•-• '• ' ',„:',,.,'".,..,:,,'.'"::-I•'''.',1 Iric41,441,ial.,,,sitet4,,,.. .0t'th9,pfl!!!ii06/itgr:daiiii- ,..,,:w• C:111:1417;,..,,P4:111.1,::°:17:7ifit'olio.,: -!:--!.!"--1-6.!-*--.-?--;r!activito-)1..• diatInef,400.01000';. -_ !'1 .----,,,,,-„:,,,-;-.,..,•,,,,,,,:,' , ...".•- „ --, ",-- •: '''''''.'l'' :'1 a re`..':ipcludeg,:9 =„:,..-,„-= , ,,,..--,..ihe.„,,,..;,.itp--„":10"tore.",;,c911! !',1 •",-, , ..-' i' t''airl ' ' '''' i,:.„.t'anf-ri,.,,,:;.t ;-;0:1,,',,,,r.i,;;;:;'-wij?ci0t14;ifljre-edd;1.1.0a'n14417;;m9P.4t,-;P:,: :;',..'-''',.. . ., :::-..d"--irtfonai,,, i' teviiiii",'!i0014;trosYkin -„-_,•,- ••,'.7'!.•-•'•';;"'''iri..Eifinyttitiiii rriateria, ".1!„., ; --„ .- , ,;-,',,,,,,•-''-=';--,,,,- ''.-- ,.‘vit-htimplemen e) 'l'- k•bf contamina„ ,.,7,... aCti-tiK;',1eVelt,'.`a.:futor47pr.,,,,, aecitlenta ,,spread, .„ „ tiiiii:'•anu.,= contamination , ., .: ''''' ' 1:iiiiiigatiowthiasure4PPP - :,• ',.:.- .--,,-......,•„,„,,,,,,:.--..•••,-,---.;,.-:,,, ,T,•-•,,,,,.,•,,..,:-..,• - ,,.:• - — 6':*jefetet would be ==:flu 0 ,.'":.,,,,,.,k,,.% .„-:,--, ,port,mm-,,-4..1,z.-.40 MM,.._7.,..., ,i- i. , hazard to the -regulatory„,k2 '- - ' priorto,,c,„ ,.; „=..,.„;;...,z;.,.,„ „•,,,,,,..c.,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..„:„...;,„i.y,,,,,,,,,,..,•,,.,....,„,,,,,,,,,!.., ....,.,„; „.„,,,.; ,..;.;_ ..•, .; , ,,, ,.!,,.irt...4,ec1ro, 't'i;i;exc'ill''''''l';'ILeti'l1;rilitiiiy:ll'e :ii;e'-s3;0.4!'Fireicde.stsh:iv,'11-r°,'...7:7°:'„ "::::.._,4-'<:-,;,....;: --,,,kr, ii,,,i:,110-1.1-----t' ' • '-- ' ,"' deitike4ernediation procedures , . .,--„,„'„,,,,,; 004 create public or environment., Ho-efer';',iiitlf-, .reOuired.0,..yn ..,.. ,-; . 4.,.;,.:,04,i0000-0,00-]-0f-,. ,. ..„-•-,,,,:,7,-„,..,-,..,..,,,,,,,,:;;;--:-,,,,-",-..;:,;;,,,.,,,,:,-,_,.;,-- .;;;;,-,„:„-.3-,:;,.-k„,•,:,;;;.',';',',.-",=-2,''.-',,-'--T-'-',,,,';',,'.."', ,-,-.2--:.,•',-,;.--..,,.,-;,:-'.--•.- ": i '---'==-Il mitigation-measures. - grading---,---.=', .-. I-t--ty-oversjght:agencies.-Compliance-,-,- --_,--- •. •...,-....--.- - - . ••,- .=.-,,,,,,-,„,-„--;„:,,,,.,,,,t ....' -,-„-, -.,., - ,,--.- • - .- -- - 4 iniptenientati90-3,..,--..,- .:-.., t,4.:',-1. this appropriate▪ "appeoptiate•regg..„ ..,,,. • .-, ; f',mitigation,. u'-'PEIV'MA/14---41-r2''''---4-1 ''''''' - ''• `;'''•-'-'•'' City standards and Implementation..t. ,,i , -7;",,,,,,'',a'..;',„'-.„ - '' - "-, , ' -- .- " .-.----,.', ..„,' ,,,,,',f.r,T,,;,-,„. •;;',.. -'--. ,,-.,.,..,.,„ '-.-,.:, '' ..L.'would be i, -Ciiii.i."ii-ta-ii.OWtha02",••with,,••••- - - -••.'".:,•-'I.-"-' • -'-'4,:'mK4'47,=3,-=;which .-,,-vt. -.,,-,,,,,..-F4-i,J,,,,, ,.„.,,„,,-,--„.„;..-T;'-- ;---,-,,,:,„.".'„,,,==. ',=-,-..---",;7,',,,...-:.A.•,-,,,,,'Z-..::,,,,',.,,'.',,,,,'..,,";',.• ,'.-'' ',-'. ' tiii'PEIR'ISAM-.41a.,-an ., ., - - !- ,,,-,-_,--,-,,,..,--,-,4-,,s4,,..4,,,i,,,•!.,,i,,,, :,,,.,: -s-,,,,,,,, , :,.,.,,,..,-,...-,,, - ,-,, , -,-„•-,•,,,,,,o,,,,•, ,„„,,,,,,,,,,,...'-,, -.,. 4,..:.. , .- - ---.. •- 'inpawk‘AilY" -. '-,---;"=. ',- -'-- ,.':'''''',:4. ''measures 6- ''' ,..:....'1.!' environmental site ,,n.-Z: .'"..;..'n'<;::!„::::%..5AMT=Vi''''''',,:,'''-'''''.ir -;'-''''.:'''.;:.::'.:'-' ''' '', ',•:',..'';,:::'..*,:.,-,.,:-"JPY,',. .. ..,'-'''..;.:-.'. .:;','..;:.,-,." significant 100011.-"'”,":"•-"--,",`-':" ""---:- -" r ,preparation progr0,1*y, .... .,,-... ...•:. -,...:,:1' ':::',',',';'{',,',,,,,',,:,;,,,'„,,• ,-• ..,;,';,:-•„:4.4fgai,,,t,-,,,, ;,,i1-:;, ,7::::'•'.- •:: .,%':,`!,,,:••:,,I,:r„,i ',:,. .i•.,,:' ,,,''.i,-;:--..•.,,,„.:••••!:,.! , •-,.,,• - ,,.,,,,,:,,,•••,; r•Ogirl - ,,,....,..!,.:,• -,,,,,,,; ,:„,,,,,rj„,•,,,..•:•.:,.....,,,-,...,,,,iTi, „requirq,p119-P , .., ,.,,..T eiential.,49v,•,Qnpke, ,,,,,-,,,;,:,,,,,,,..,..,„-..,,,...:, ,-.-,tp=",,,;;;;;;44:::,,000-1-4.-,,-,4,,,-„N:','„'n_'.,-,.'-,' ="'„',..,--- ---;-,,,,',•''...."•,7,5,.: ,P:',.,,,•'.:,,`...2.,,-,,,',,..".,-,?!.." ',..,,,..,: .i„: ‘' ' ---''',":,,,•• -,,•''' •••,.,'--,4,-,'-g',Y‘)';',,,,••:•!.,',:i.\,`: . -t.''': ,.',.. ':'', :•;.-' -,„, .••;,, ,:„ei.ifpio•Oditer#HP(.4..,:,,119,`.4-P,-.‘.--. •,..,g----.,,,.:'-,'-, ,- -..±.,......,.-: -•-•,,. •,-.,„,eKtozr•7;:',.;,•.,,,,P....--,A:,:,„.„Px;',•,-';';;•-"--.-F.-,-.'.,;,-,-•,-.•-•-.'..,,,•''','''':•-.-'•::' in---.=:•'----,:-.' ':::,.-,-•:--''.-,.•',,,'' '''.':'' . •'-•-'.'./..,.;-:., . ''.,',';',,,-.:-,-•,','..:.'--',,,;.::,-:Kv•'‘.--T.,. ,•,•.,,•-:-.,-;:•-•...;: .•...-....-:,.-.::...''.a', ,"-*--17:. "." ,i,:-.',,„4..ihit,:lti•oproje.c,A,would:., ,-•,, --.,,---,•,-.,',-,-,-,- :-..,-,,,--;',.::',f-,te:',',A:P1,-'4:1,W,,k,::.•:•,:;;;6..:"•,.V'..,•,;,.'-,,',I,'',•••',v,'':::',. ••:_.'....,-'::>...,, :•-•.•••".'I.,:, '„-•-:'.•'.."- ,::,•:., :•.±•,‘,•..,.. .' • .;-::'•-'":''... ,':','...-,''';•:-",,:'''''''':- :".:,i,`,:',."1,-',,, • ,:,;i:.,i:"•.-'-.." 1'".r.:.•"•-,3•:.,1.,•• ' ,-,.,niiiiiiiii4tion',.1,w9u.„4?•-e11-,,!---- , , ,„•-,,i;•-islo.'•4-_,;-i.,-"Ase-=',.-,-..:;::;.;-v',----,--,:t2, ,,-;,„-;-,= ,-;;,,It„-,-;:--- --, ----,,F-:,,,;,. -,,-i-,,-,,-„,11',-,,„;;;;.u.';:",',"1--`,s."3--',.-i.,!'.''''',.:-;..',..',"-",:f'-'•::'',.-"'..-,'., L„•,'•S..,-',.;',,-:,:' , ',- .:,' .,,' ',,,;,, , .,,->.';.•'.'',"<-.,',!'' ,,..;'1,-',';',,,',.',--•'J,i'' '',',..-•-•'`,:R:, , ,,,.,,•0",. te„:,•:, _ ,,,,,,, '.,1.•','1;.hiaicutei,tnep4y,,,,,,--- I..- ---' ';"--' -•,,"--',.';,:'''= sv."',"-- ''-';'''''-,''-'.. ''''''':',,;,--;;.,'" ==.:1,i--,=.:--;:'-'',=',„•k.---%.";:,:_.,"-",'.;'----,' ,-hoi,t46i -,t-,:a.-kpi*PRIcal.,'-.f,----,,,,-. ',„- . ,;:iiiiia,.,•-•ia,, ,--,•N,,,,,,,,.,,;.,,...:,,,,..,,,„„2:,,..,:i.„.:.,%,---,-...n,,....•"q•,-z :::,......!• 4'..iR?::.,...,,•,-:-',.:,..,.:.:;:!- k.i:'..,..K:',,''.,,'„:,'•••:',:.,,7''.:f.'l':::,-,,];.::,':.-i,'., --,.-,,-.,1, '.. •'''''''1:'',i''2':':',:i,;,,'''".-,''''''''':f':.c:-'41.;,,;-,i',..i,=:: ::',',:',',';F'.,'''.?•:',',''./::::::.:,`',::'.17';''r -:: ' i-ihidiii6:4646•0401Y•7', • ..,•-,foreseeable- -„r!-..,,'.,:-'‘'. •".'`,.",•:' ,-,',,',,;•,•Pi?''. ..,••,..',;-,,q.]-:,,,g4'..-„i.:,.,",i1•,;,,,,,,.:',=,,,,07',..,6,:,,,,,p.,,, ,,`•,'.=.,!-i,'•,,,,.1.-"cs.,•;•,,.,,,::::',.:• '-',,, ,::,;•.:7,,,F. ',•::---..,..„---,:;„:•-• ,,.:. .,.:„,-.'.,.,,• ' .`''',,',..:•••• -...":.;.,,--•'•:-'1.• • •,;••',.'-',-,•'•. :•:-.,•,::•';:,••f.,,:..,---:,,-•';',..:•;:-.. .,','N:•,:c,.:.:;-,`-,•:.,•:‘,.',,,,:',,„,.::.;,..!..0itrit.907:1e1, ,, ....iiiiiitiviiii,illw-lelOoie t;1f,,,,:! ',5.,,,,i,,,,i...:',,,?;::',..,,..: ,,,,,, .,.,!1,- ,-,,I.,,,;:j...-„,,,,-•,,,,,,, ,:::,,,r;,..,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,, ,,,,,.,,,,-,4„,,-..,7,,:,,,..,,,,,,,,i.:„:::::-„,;.;:r,„,..„,,,, ,,:„,,,.,,.,:.; ,,,,,:-.-., „: :, ,::,, ..,. :,.,','f',,-,,,,,,---,.,-'.'•-,,,';',: ‘,„.,,,,..7.-;.:,-.,,,:::j.*.i:,,,:,,.,:-„,:si;,:f.',,;,,,,,,,-;:-.A. ,..,,i,,'„,-.:,:`,",..,.; ,,:',::'`41!..*•iici accident '-- ...,., _iie:4ei„iitnig ht.,,,,,;;;,=„=!;-:=',-.„,--. .;,,A;;--- -A,:g1:4..,"2--,, ,,,,,;, ,,,''„,','„'--, ,!'`,."-.','2J,i"..,--.,:''''-'. :i.''''',',',"';''''',..'"'''''"-'-''''-'-'.';','i--',--,•:',-`,-:', ' -'.'"'!,,...=','---?,-„,",'-;','-',.' ., ,"`„-',.;-';'-,"="":;,,',.';',".7,.---:', =.7.,:! •-,..---:-:-7.--:='-:?...;,'-'-',„:.„;::::-.'„:,:l'"--:---;,',„;,i-,;:72'..;•-;:1".:, ''',!!"-":.''-.r"-'.'==, -:-IiiliesijoOS:iniaterj010".Mt4:•ti10:9fiv117-5?'77.;,.„: -: ,..,7.,.,,,,.:.,!!',,,,j.:,:,,,,,..,,,,,,,;:::j.,;....,.-:-,;:-..2f;,..,:,-,,-,.--,,, ,','.''‘.',:'.,'',•.,''•'-;.-.-"-:.,„-;''-:.''-'-:-.-.'.''--,,,•'-:'-•;',,,:--':•,s•'..'"-''::,-•.,•-,':•:-'-,•-..-,-'..:-..,-,.''';,'-,'':-.'1,..:'''-,',:,,•..''"-,',-'::,..''"':7''',,'*•''„""]".:I'..'-)'.:''.,,.''',?."';,,•',-%,'''---:,:e'-,.'',,',,,-,''-;-.,",'.-;_''--,'-'"'..:''--.'':',„:.';-',3..',.-„,-'.i."'.','.''.'',..,'.'.'':•,";;'.•,.'''.':.,,•'.•:..,',-:"''',i,'-'..-;.,-'-.•'..'''-:-":-.-:'''`•:''-,',',•'.'''''--•''.':-;;'-.•--.',;•'-.=:''.:..;,'•':'1•'",,,''.;',"''-.,,''.„,.•.,'•-..''''•.:'„:,. •,!";'-.':'-.':*'',".-';-'''„'•-,-'''t`-'-'-'-.•'--'•''':,-,,•'-,,.'.;,'" --'.-'.-.,''-,:'-''--''.'..'-..•-'-'•'',;'''''Fi•''''-.--"''--.'-,-,'--_'--''•.„-'',.•---'•-''•,"'.-..'-'•,,'-':--'.-:-.'],''';.''..',-.-.'-,','''--'''-,:,•;'-'':--,',.";`;••.,:':.:.`.!;-,"-',''•'-''--,,'.;,-s-'-9'".:;„'•'-,''-,'1''-,--v''',:-;•"...,"7',.:''""''.:'.'.'..-.:,•'''-,„''•,:.:',-'i'•-,-"-1,-''-,:',-,:.';,.",,,.-'''i:-'-,"'•.-S-,.::-'':,'.;,.•:'''-;:.•,,',,-:',4'T.j''..''.,.-j,4,a';-...,---':.--•'-.-'.•,";''-.;'-;,-•;,:-:•:'-'-'";-.:,,,;r:.i't''-,,'4:.,'-"`•--,''''-':,:-',2-'.,.;,-.,.':,-"'',.,-''-.'.--1:"'•,'f-'•.:.,:.F"',,-'—',.''1,;•s:„,,'.'-7l".,-,,'.:,.',-;:.::,.,,'..•-t,''-,',;'"".;',,"E','-,'-,:.'.',--.,•„-'.•'',--••'",!-''.-':,,,',-,,,„--,',•',,,'.-,"k'^-.,—`„.',.„'•I',',.,,''.,2t.,.,'..',i.''',.'.:-.-:,''.',;-=:,--i-.',.,.:'.'•"•''','',.-'"-,-•'';,.,,,. l-,".,,.'-•'.--•e',,•,-'...-,-'",,.:'s---Ci.„,,s',.-t,-'--.•,,..--.-,,-' ,;1.•t•,,•:,-iP',;7' ,'.„v;:-'.-J..•„g- i.-.•-,.;•._..1•',..,•,',i.-•.f1.,•r.-:.,,.,,.•,i,:•::-..•-a'';.i:,`:.‘„...1.',•.-fi.--.,•,..i.'...-,-.•V,. e•.;,,,,-,-.'",'•-„i,,-.'-'.„-r•..i implementation of the HELVccu14 impair F ttfe:4eveloFfenk.Pcdit-..•.-.:•,.!•.,-.,-.-.-.-:.,„-,,'t,•e 4.•,,",-%"..',„-:•.'-.6'J,,'••,-'e Yi:,-.•-,,,.•,.i:,-.•:.-.;;-,.:.•:i.,.-•-.c',:i::•'2•.•:.-,-„,--'-0--:•.--i;-ti.•6,-:,'.• -•-,i.'--,..0.,,--.-'.,-.')..,,.4,.,,.- .-,,-*,--_-,.s;.:-,_,::_.•.'.,.:--.=:.,.•,..4-..,„1,*,--. 1.-,'---..'4;4."„,,.'-',',.-.,,7r.;,-,.-,-.::.,-:.-'-•`--",,,;:,-'---y':,-A'-,••,,,";---,f.'-•4,.,.-,.,.,,-l`-,:,,,.-,,,'--•,.'.,V'.4./'.,.i,,:''.,..,-'•.,,..„p.:.;7,,.-.„'„-7-,.,:„--,,,,.--.,-:4:,,,•:-.,„--,,„1,-..,,•d-,-..,--.,,:!-,--5--:,0-:,:•,:,;i7'-.,,:,,,!,,.,'.,,,,:,,•,,,!---,-'8I7,;.i'..:.-..4r:'..,•.A;T'. h-.„.,,.',,,'•.--,,-,.i--Ki.--,-,„-,.,?r,,-:a.,-t-...,..,,-z.,,:..,-...,-,-:,:,.:,•c("i..,:„'--•.tN;,,',,,,,-e-,'--,.-•-t,:.., i,'.,,f H-,,'.•'.d•.-:-:, M.,,,.•;X,r-.:O:-,,-•.,;,",:„.,,,;,••::t-..-,,.'„..,4,-,-,in....,-.--,-„•..•_„,',,-,,,.,-".g',,--,;.,.T.,,•,,,,,„.',,;.--2:-.,-t.-.;•,,r;'„•':,'3-,-:':.g,„,..,",.,,,,•,.,,,-,,,,,,4..,,n.,,.7.-,--,,,;••,.,,1,'.:,.'.,--,-.-,,'-'.,,:,,-,4',,,_,:;;,-„-.s,-.,;,.,-,•.-•,:.-:-...!:,...:..„)„;:„..1,'!.-,•:,,;,.,,,,,,'-,,,,,,,;,,.,,,-',,,.-.,,,2';--„-?„,'..:.,,f,.,.,,'--?:.i'=,,:...;--"','n,.-,:,',,;-,:',,.i'.,,,,.;-,':.:.„.-,.,''.-,,,..,'.[,,....::•-.,..-,-,,,',,,d:„finds, .,.'.,4,-,•,,; ,i:"..-,;-".,.,,-,.',:.:,,•-:„7j-,;4.,.,,-,T,-,,-'-,-,,,y.,'i,..,:,:.',--i,4:.,,;•..,.i,•.•.,,..,i::.,,,,J:'-,.•,.,•%4,-,.I-.f,-..k,-.-,.,-.,,,,,-,,,,„- i,„,.,.-,i.,,.'.,,,,,,:..,i;-.,.,,„7,:•.':-,.,•;i 160100gitotioo:ofOrp)Yca11V1n'eifpie 4ntivit0- 100114de154y,!9,certain area$of the Identified changes 04„aitqra0°6s110,ttlYrpiect which with 01- 0d000cren,gtni;rosp0ase resulting in greater Oontat1001000cen•r#t. ii, iitii12 ‘ inite0044"!TiF'1TPt.tciiiis .than'S1gpayc#0,; ,•:,-level,,.• Olan„ci3Onergl9 ' :ia :atiof„Olan, areas. interfere are hereby iiieoroorated•Int0,t00 Project.No FaVeie0 :wit+110PIPmen,riaA „tfiviii.om40047y,evacuation jitihO4eienf00'City-wide T!itaiidi' nelskre 'Orq necessary with mitigation neaiiri#000EIR49:,-47„e '.thiviti"„ jowe,Or:"th0,Proie, :r.7idi4!i404i 40. i19041?t - !sjio40C:104:40!4=7'4 t4iS1#04,'1 ;i;iiiiie4;teii'OaV 00400!'.?il -eiwiiiiiiiiiotoiap9n network. No significant. 440P44$0i #.,?*i,Fi444hof, iojiirr40o4b# implementation of, Oi;04V§icallY , 4ifli4f,wlth;'A0 Huntington-ieatn,,mersepy-rrge4tiitW-PIan/HazOrt Mitigation Plan. As „result,,the project would not conflictith any State or local plan a- ,,.:,.,"..,.„„-„.,.,•,,:,,..,„,t',:.,":,,-,,,,--",,,-,..--,:-..;-•'Yi.:,1y6j-,,!--,:;,,'-,.,,••,:.,,-,-,:-.,,•.i..''-.--„._,.„',,,,,..-,--,,,,-.‘,-,.'„;.:..,-,',•:,..•.,:,,.,,'-:..'..:„,;,,-,.;,.',„'.:-.;,':..„:,:,„::„,-'.-2'.'..-.-;,..=..•-,--.,.-.,,.-:";':.';,..;,.,,:',•-:t-.-..:.,2,.,..-,:„';.-,-,,;,,--:--:•..:,-i,-,.„,.-„,,;,..,‘,„,-:•-•,,;,,:;:•,„.',-";;',..,-..,..:.,',.,•,-",.,--..,.''"...;:'„-.,i,„--,-,:-,;;-.,--,,L.,..-_-,,.,:.-:.„,',"-,...„.,,..,'.,,-..,.,'.,,..,',:„•--,;1.,-,,,,.:,.,•.-,.'._.',:,,.,,.,.,•.....,:-'--.-,,..-.:„-,'.,,.,..,,,,,,..-:,,,.•,-:.,,.,':-.-:.,,:,•.-•.-,",,.,,,,;„.,,:-.-:-:..,;:,-.--,:,-..2„-,:.,..,,.,,`',..•--.:,-_t,,;,,,..,,„.-,,..,„,,.'.,,,,,,-•.,,.,..-...'-.•.,,,",-,„,,.N,,'.„-:.,'.,,.„,..,;,.•,:.,,,,:.,i-f,-,•.,.,..-;..:,,.'„.-‘,..,.,:".•,,„.,-.,•-,1-.--_',.,,:•,,:, med-at preserving „ - -•=., ----.,...•,•-.-,,-:'•.::'-.I''•"f,,--,'t''",'..:,-'--,.':'1:'•'`,''',',-'I':-`S'I,'''-'.;7-'•."'.,'-:::,•'.''"-,=,-'-,-,"„-:"::,-::-:-.-:t-,.-...-:•'•..:•:i',:'t,:''..-'',,'.••;t-....':,'::'',;'-''s,'•t'-,.'.,,'.-::-','`:';:-:';:'',.'',:-,',.,',.''',-.'.,=.'.:,,'''',,.=',',,'.'::;,';,,.-•,,,2=.•_''''.`,,,',,'',i.','4,,:',;.''"!.::-,1"''-;''.,,;-.:-:,;';•I,:',:.::",":".'':",,','F,,-'.k5„•"„,::,-''.".-:J';:.2","-,;,';..5.",-:•,!,"-',,-,„„,.:-,-,'..-,,..-,.,:',g..'1i'-,--,',',,,,.:.:,','-3',','-'.i:„,,''-.';-,'-'-':';'',,.''..,-„';'.-,..,-,';,,',,''".',-;,''',,,,.1':...!Z::.,:,: a'l•d;. i:.in'L.ta..'..",i;7.,iin,.•;g.':.•,-.„-a.:-t--'.o--•,O,''•.te.'."c •2-•,e•--.m e',..r==l-. response.,-,--i-,-,'- or emergency en, 477i„tiii6iiii 'Oian . Notwithstanding,. to minimize ronlMitei911 :F"*.hiiMIiiidtti-011'JitOre',04411 housing development eve PP and : , :a- -ewto,6pu-po :,,1'_7,'.->',p:,,,,.-::.,:,t,",:,,",,'.•,..•,:.•-„,..:i:..„',)T.;.;.,,.:::„.,,:-,-'';,:,,,,;;i1,:._7,--,,-,:•_,;.:'„.._;,!,-,p,',;=::,:,.:,-::.•:-.•,,;,'.„,-,•,..,i;•„•„-:'.,-::,,,,',•--,,,-.;-s.,'::-,,-,;,,.-,`s,.•,..,.:,.,;,:-„,,,,--':":,,,,,.:,.,;.%::,-'..::',':,,,:,.',,.:,:':.c:,:.:::',,!,,,,,';."•:.::-,',;:;„''•.•:,.---p,:!-..t.4-'-,,i;,.,'-,--,-,:.•,-,7:-":-f:-.-';-'-.-,',.:,-,.:,-7„'•,`-,,.':,...'y::•-,.•,--,,.-;.:..`-,-,'.'-,,-,,--•-.,-':,'.„'.,..r-'--,e:-•=•-'-„-,,,Ij'=;-„',,:.-„-,'",,,.,;-:.,.i„.-,r,,',,„,E,,,:,,,,,'::,;,,',-,;,,,,'.„.,-';-':,:,//,,i••',,'';'.'..9,'-::;,:''-'.,,,'",,-,,.,:.'‘;'i„,.,-,--2••2,?•,••'•'i'i:•._f-;-'-:•-!.-•,•:,•••',"',.•.-.•..,''!..-'.;,::.,',',-,:'•'.-.'•',-:-.;--'',--,.',.:,,'-,,:'.•-r-.='-•'':-'..:'.-'.'..,''-„,.',:•'.:-:-•-•.•-.,:•-t•.",'-,,,,.;,.,,-•:.::„.-,;:--,,,;:„•S-.!,-.,!:,41I'.,i,,- zones would be --' ,.. , .. . Oct Page 9 „ . . , •:. : 151 E1430 • ,' ' : '..):•,.:', ;,,,,i,. ..,•!....„.,-_,'.'-r.:‘.,.,.... ••:. '-,-E- XH I BIT„1 0;••..-. '••••:. , . .: .-• • . , „ , , . ,.., „ .. , -Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/O6/23' Page 21 of 40 Page ID a #:919 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HFU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Table 1 CEQA Findings for the HEU Impact Statement Impact.Summary Impact Finding 4.7-4, which requires future housing developments to consult with the City of Huntington Beach Police or Fire Departments to disclose temporary lane or roadway closures and alternative travel routes during construction,to ensure that there are no conflicts with emergency response and evacuation plans, thereby resulting in a less than significant impact. Hydrology and Water Quality Future development under the HEU It is anticipated that construction activities for future Finding 1.The City of Huntington Beach finds that the could result in violations of water quality housing development facilitated by the Project would identified changes or alterations in the Project, which standard or waste discharge that could include excavation,grading,and trenching,which could would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, degrade surface or groundwater quality displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for are hereby incorporated into the Project.No additional and could conflict with a water quality soils to be subject to wind* and water erosion: mitigation measures are necessary with implementation '. control plan: Implementation of Therefore;construction activities from future housing of mitigation measure GPU.PEIR MM 4.8-1 mitigation measure GPU PEIR MM 4.8-1 development could violate water quality standards or would reduce this impact to a less than otherwise degrade water quality. However, significant level. construction activities that could affect water quality would be addressed through compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program's Construction General Permit. Future housing:development would also be subject"to mitigation measure GPU PEIR MM 4.8-1,which requires new development projects to prepare project-specific Water Quality Management Plans. Compliance with this measure would reduce potential impacts associated with water quality violations and conflicts with a water quality control plan to a less than significant level. Future development under the HEU As discussed under Utilities and Service systems,there Finding 3.The City of Huntington Beach finds that even could result in substantial groundwater may not be sufficient water supplies available to`serve with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures dewatering and could deplete the Project.Therefore,Project-related water demands and compliance with applicable General Plan goals and '`A groundwater supplies, which in turn from future development would result in a significant policies, implementation of the HEU could result in could result in conflicts with water and unavoidable impact concerning water supplies.For significant and unavoidable impacts concerning t` quality control plans and/or sustainable this reason, the Project could substantially decrease groundwater supplies-and the sustainable management groundwater management plans, groundwater supplies resulting in a significant and of the groundwater Basin. No mitigation measures in October 2022 21 Page 10 152 ER-331 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8-:23-cv=00421-FWS-ADS Document"50-2 Filed 06106/23 Page 22 of 40 Page ID #:920 city of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Table 1: CEQA-Findings for the HEU Impact Statement Impact Summary impact Finding l; Despite 'implementation of mitigation unavoidable impact concerning sustainable addition to GPU PEIR MM 4,8-2 are feasible to reduce measure GPU- PEIR MM.4.8-2 Project- management of the Basin. Although future housing. Project-level or cumulative impacts, to a less than level and cumulative impacts would be projects would be:required to comply with City,state significant level significant and unavoidable. and federal goals and policies requiring water conservation, mitigation measure GPU PEIR MM 4.8-2 would also be required to ensure that applicants of future developments prepare groundwater hydrology study to ensure that dewatering activities do not interfere with groundwater supplies. Despite compliance with this measure and until water supply improves, both Project-level and cumulative water demands would result in a significant unavoidable impact concerning groundwater supplies.. Future development under the HEU Development,under the HEU'could result in an increase. Finding 1.The City of Huntington Beach finds that the could increase stormwater runoff, in the amount of impervious surfaces compared to identified changes or alterations in the Project, which exceed the capacity of existing or existing conditions, thereby increasing stormwater would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, planned stormwater:drainage systems, runoff. Incorporation of mitigation measure GPU PEIR are hereby incorporated into the Project No additional and cause on-or off-site flooding.With MM 4.8-3, which requires each future, project-level mitigation measures are necessary with implementation implementation of mitigation measure development application to demonstrate adequate of mitigation measure GPU PEIR MM GPU PEIR. MIVI 4.8-3, this irnpact is capacity in the storm drain system and provide for considered less than significant. mitigation of constraints,would reducethis impact to a less than significant level. Noise The Project would result in an increase in Construction activities associated with future individual Finding 3.The City of Huntington Beach finds that even ambient noise levels during construction developments could occur near noise-sensitive with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures of future housing; developments and receptors and noise disturbances could occur for and compliance with applicable General Plan goals and would also result in an increase in prolonged periods of time, thereby resulting in policies, the Project could result in a significant and ambient noise levels during operation potential construction noise -impacts. In addition, unavoidable impact due to an increase in the ambient due to an increase In vehicle trips during future housing developments facilitated by the Project noise levels. No mitigation measures in addition to operation that would result in a Project have the potential to introduce and increase new mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4.10-1 through MM specific significant and unavoidable roadway noise, thereby increasing ambient noise 4.10-4 are feasible to reduce impacts to a less than impact despite implementation of levels. As such, future projects would be required to significant level, mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4.10- comply with mitigation measures GPU PEIR 4.10-1 1 through 4.10-4. through 4.10-4, which include construction-level and operational noise reduction measures to reduce October 2022 22 Page 11 153 ER-332 EXHIBIT 10 Case 823-cv-0042I-FWS-ADS Dodu ent-50-2 m Filed 06/06/23 Page 23 of40 Page icc #:921 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Table 1: CEQA Findings for the HEU Impact Statement Impact Summary impact Finding ambient noise levels associated with the Project. Despite compliance with General Plan goals and policies aimed at reducing noise andimplementation of mitigation measures GPU PEIR 410-1 through 4.10-4, the Project would result insignificant and unavoidable impacts concerning construction-related and operational noise levels. The Project''s impact concerning the substantial temporary and permanent increase of ambient noise levels would be cumulatively considerable. The Project would result in a Project- Future development under HEU has the potential to Finding 3.The City of Huntington Beach finds that even specific significant and unavoidable generate construction vibration levels in exceedance of with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures impact due'to the exposure of persons to established thresholds at nearby sensitive receptor& and compliance with applicable General Plan goals and excessive groundborne vibration during Although future development would comply with policies, the Project could result in a significant and future construction activities. despite General Plan policies to reduce groundborne.Vibration, unavoidable impact due exposure of persons to the implementation of mitigation measure mitigation measure GPU PEIR MM 4.10-5, which generation of groundborne vibration during GPU PEIR MM 4.10 S:, requires new development projects that include pile construction, No mitigation measures in addition to driving activities to incorporate vibration-reduction mitigation measure GPU PEIR MM 4,10=5 are feasible to techniques to help to reduce impacts, construction reduce impacts to.a less than significant level, vibration levels would not be reduced to a level that would be less than significant.Compliance with General Plan policies and implementation of mitigation measure GPU PEIR MM 4.10-5 would reduce potential •groundborne vibration impacts.associated with future construction activities,but;not'to a level that would be less than significant because certain construction activities may still be required in proximity to nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable and would remain cumulatively significant and unavoidable despite implementation-of mitigation. Public Services Future development under the HEU Future development under the HEU would increase the Finding 1..The City of Huntington Beach finds that the would increase the demand on public demand on public services including fire, police, identified changes or alterations in the Project, which services including fire, police, schools, schools, parks/recreational facilities, and libraries. _ would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, 154 $'E October2022 23 Page 12. sf ER-333 EXHIBIT 10 ------------7.7,-Z;:ii:0 ------.--77-7-:Z:- ..,1'--''(''•,'''.'•,-,!....•s.'.''',:',.;i•-4'''.::',-;-'-',','-',:',•-...,•...-;. , ..:...':,,:l ,,,'-kl''':.'if-'.. .'-',''.:.':.'', .., ,' Page ID ...-.2y,,i,-,;,..:,:i:.„.,!..-.'.:„.:;',...,:•,. ..-. .,.:. ,.-'‘.•:.-.,:•• .• •;r. el,.2-47,:cif 4y ',,,:-.,,,,'',..,..-.,:,-.6`,,,,„?:.. .. -",:::::;.:::-';',.:14:'!':.',",...' :''.:,:.:','.',•. . ''':i . ii1:b.-6/66):247f'7.-: .!:,:,'::':-V:: ::::,:,::--,!:',',:','.':. :, i,-.• :.:•.-...F,'•,,-.:,-,-.„...-.::-::;:.,:::,?.,.,,,,:f .,.._,,„....................................................................... ........................'::;-,;-.,::c.,,'.:::::,:::!---::.:./,V,, ,,, ,i:','.- -,,:',:::::•;•'.1-;.'.,.::':::7::'.`,,:n';'-'''''''"-.';'::!`':;;,,,,, 4:-tieiic;4 :,..-:,'-':'.'•..:'..'::'----;', ,....-".''. ,'"•%'k-o, t:7 Documentii..9 22';`:,;,;,-;:',:,,:::'•',,,'!:':;;::1',.:,:::`...,-,,-,',':'..„,,-:.:.•,'-‘::'-::::„,-.,,:','.,::..;i1:.,„'1,I;''''.1•:''..":: ‘..',Iit.iiiiiii9Prile:iit,'.'c..t,Tri-sider4 .:,';:':'•'':'','"-•:'" : .' ''' . 1. . .-4J4;_viir.423.24FW.,,' ,:7, -:, ..;'•'.4.:.'.:'--?:ir,:::'',',7,.."-:-',7_,.:`,,-):::':',:!':'PilT:',.‘'-';‘"",:::,_•':''''':.:','•,-'''.:',',",'';'.....‘•:7*,;.1,,-,4inii*J109::14 , '.of ptjerkiliPsio;':;--,: ,,:-,„'•21:.,',.:.".,,,...-';',.•,'.::,',„..,.:-..., -'..:.- •.,. •.', '', ,: ii,1i,l'ili.';:-6:. : *.e'8.2..-i--7,:, : : :,,;,i.:.,f.,,:.:,,,,,..' r-,:J::!::.::',-..?; .:•.,'i Of Fact/Statement.-- ,.:,.2-,`',,- ,.,.' ..:,‘,„. „''',..'-'''::, , :',.; -'..,,,::- „.':,:-.:•-•---, ,,,,,' ;•,,..,..,:l. _ , ,,,„•,••.-.J-linding -- „ , • ,,,::.,.4., .._-',;,.....] -':.---,,; .,, ::, '.,•:.:•,'7.'7,', .'-,,,..:,•:',..;;•;'•-:.,,,,,,,,,:--,:.,,....,..,,k.,1••-,..4.`;-..,':.:J,!-, ',:::ft--,.• :::,',:,;:•,'••''..,",:•-..•,:c.:.::•,...„;;:",::..:.''',-',: ••:,.!•',' .,:.:,.:,,-,,. .„-.7.-,''',':-•.-,: ,•:',.,,.'.:•-•,'-'-.':,:•:.'••,:,.:...:,.,.......7'.'• • ,•-,.,,-,-*-:•:„.k.•,„;.;-.,::,,'.:•: •-- „ , - ' ,,:'',-'.:`,,':':-'' ,...:'. :,,'-•,.`,,:,.:, is:,?>••&5'-*42,47.'•-",-,'::j." '- .':'•.'•,''',..' .-'- ' -.."1::::'3.''''' '.,•-,,''''''''f''.::;'-:•-• .: .''' - ....''--. •'::::-..-'''. ..•,. .---L...L''..:',',':'::::.'-'•'.•;`',,.-,..,-,'"?'-':j.'- - '. .......,,,,:,••--7--;,',-.•':•-,;,',,-,:-..,:.3.',',: ' .-•,,ii:';.-. 1,.:,:e.''''.,•'''':..-:'' " ,•. ,:.:,,.:,..-,;-:,..:„..„.. . .. .1„;..: .' c :: ','- -.-,..,...„--• : ;. ., ."-, ..'-, :.-.• .- ..•,',..,,,:':','..'s,-' ''..' :-7,- :i.:,.,..'-.,'.'.:7'--;:-.--"-::-.";---....,--q.rTg.,.;`',-':'..:',;... :‘,......:'::.':s'.."..-,2.'-.:'.-;,•2,''''''•-•• ,;'.,-",:: :',: -.' ,. ., .:. •-•,,.••....,, • additionalpitifeif;;N•4, 1..,.,„.,.implementation '' ''' '•••' '' ''':-' ''' '' ' -- Huntington Beach ImplementationIPrc'graT --':•:'-',-" :.. - , . ..:.,•:"::.r::', •••.,";„':-.:y. .-,-:--- . incorporated, t---- 'necessary with11,z.throngn.- . • are hereby ,..-i .i7e.-,•n.#c ... ,„A,4,414.:,,,,'-'7,::,,,••,7'-"'..1.'-'',.'4 .-J,..,•.-',', ',,r,.-7,:''' -,-:-... -],. :i• mitigation ich measures '0".77..:',,,,mitigation--iil-kaSt€1r7, ,,•,: 6'..tf,FiEirt,T °nitVi.1;!?'0-2,-,9-.7" °,-...,. -..-, ....z.-';',.:::: ..''';.-..,i..-- 1,J ' measures CEQA However, thro '---''''' - - '•-‘ '''''Findings- ';Mr tneirl ct sum n'arY incorporation : ,i,'4.1:Z7',.:7;i:-."1.N. 'i;;r mitigation ions MM =,v4itkiincorr . ,••iitili&"0.4M. , 1•.-,_.:-1-14irviin ':-.-', "..i2.4.:;",-''',:,:•",.::::•,` ).!.:•::!:,:•--:::•.-i,l'.-?:.:-:-,,,, ,--,.,':::•'-:,,•:;;:•;'_''.:,,,: 4-,?,1:.:'-`-,:').',.:'4,'''', 2:;-.:.-.:.,• :•'...-,•:,,...: ;••, -•. it ' : • ' - • Table.2.14'2". - licable ts st ternent facilities, ...'"'..,-41d.*; 0ti,1,EIrt`,MrS4 - 4 .iii:O*Y,'aPP .7 4-i-4610oc -,..,._ ,,,,.,,.. ,:-,-,-,,,,,...:a..,.,-.,,._.•: .-:-.•:---,'-:;`...;••-g,%-,':',:.-"'•' •'•-'1:,-,"--r. -..2.-.'.::....;',7',': '.:" -' : , : :,.:: '..:,.r„r,.,.',:, . ! ,. , : T::::,':.','...',•:" I m p a c-..-,. ,,,„,;,,..,:,.„„tkctr- ...._,-,,. .-.- tif.: „Gu future, 'Pt°,1 "--5 .-'.'-',, fthesWeTY !...:.. ipi-sAton,-,. .,..,;:!`...-„,.'_..;.:!-:',:,. .-.:?,:',-,:;_;::::,;',,,'''.2., -,-7,-...,.;'...:•...',-,'-:,•.'.1-r.--,:A that the . .j,,.-;•,'-•-:-,.;:::::“...,.. '. ..,:,:.. parks/recreational incorporation'. .. . --::-.-,,•! - . ,-,..,-cito7.04ch 9,- • duien39,A'.7.-:!•::-.:.-....• -::'''::,..:j-•••''''-': ":":: . -•-'''''''',--'-''''-''...' Beach finds -,2• .----'. ,.,,:.,,,-- ., • , ,'„, :- ' . •,‘ .,..,.:.,,,,,,',,,;.-/:,.;.3..., , ,,:.•.v.-6.i.:.;.,witti, •..-,„:•mtv.i. ,4.:0,z requirefees related- , ;-•--'-eild-40:"...re7-reduced —„-,...,,'-;,:,,,'i::,,,.,:,17.::;::'-``:,r.-,,,,:','' .:::,..;,.,...,„,;:,,,,,,:',,,,,,,3:;.Y.:"'','•1' ."t iitiniington.,-.the,Project,which ,,„.•..,-.,-,,•.,••: .•:.(,...,•,-.:.. ,,..,•:.•,„,,•: , •,:','''''''::::':,':-:,'.'.'.:'z-:-.T.'-::'''' 1ibiiii0'7:' '''• -:-'''''''iibPki-PPF-:' these '•161Pa ! '1'-'::OnifOs-',.'"?•_-.,,,,;,,r:,?-'';',?-.::'''.,:',:'-'•,-'''..:'_. -':-.-:-... ., ,..:',:'-.-. ':•-•-•'''.-•;•'2..:-::-..4:,:ifie City • -:''alterations - 4640i-.,.2.'....,,, ''•.--.'„:...,..-.-:,,,,-.:::. . :!. - . ,•. , -• meaPr-.„'-:-,...., itn„,.,•.' -. .,fit-ese,,pni?„ ,..,.'..„ ,..---.,.., ,,,.-,::,-_,F - .-.-.7‘-oluding—- : • ,or than significant , or ,,,,;•,,,,.,,,.•- ,..._.,, ..,- •.. .. . .-- ,,,..',.-,,,,.',•,,,,,,,...:r.....,::-,,,,,-, mitigation ,,....,....,44z4;impacts. '...4 to a.''::-.:-.;.,'•`-,-..-tievel-,.:;,.;,, . ,,,J.,,„.,,,•.:i,...;.-., , ,eise„:,;„.- -:identified ge ',,,..,,;:,-,- to 4.-less , •-:,. •••••• ...additional- ,:.:1 -.------.:-, -..;.,,-•.-, - , ,-.- ;, ,-,.:-.-•,,,,„-, ,-.•.:-.,-,:i,:;...''--.- , "ogn:INIro !• ',..i.:bi,,:redgcn ., ..,.;..,,..,.iignificaP,:-,... ,•••,„ ..•„-_,,,•,..:,:'--.: -.-;-cfs,,wouici'!nc'-': .••.L,-,:`,r -r,' ,.,--,.. ,iiiiiiniPnc-,•,-.., . ;Arojet,t„: 1-,orc..., -•• --- •...irwopl ,:--: -.. ,,,,,,-,.,''. -2-,.., - ..,. ,.. •,,.--, r..,., '- rifle 11....,:., ...'er witn .„ 'i- .' -services'':: iltileiiii.'.''j':'IL.-- :.17',',-t-''••'-.'r-'-, I- Mint,iinde: .--••''''''ciS,•49wv• !tin-A4'.---,• -:: would'. 44: ' ''•,---:etinq.10 ,1-':•-':.piiii'04.14k`.:. 'i:•,:..;;!'", ..,•,L.!:.-.--,-...'. ---:',:• -.,--.;::.i: •red4cP-Incorporated1, initnIne-'7 .,.-,J',"-•.,-,'"-:::: --- -'•'„4---.,:-,: .,-,,•.,.•..' ":',":----',.-" ,,,-,',- : •:, :----- •••••'-'---'-' •••-';'; public--: --:•••Anifiga,-...!1.7'.-::,:<•,,-.•:::::7.--..`,;;--, '':.'";.,•••-•;,,,7,outure•iqr°P. -recreational ..:,GFti•pEIR -:::.,..,,,.:.; . .00•:"1)• r, i.-0105,*-4tr5,,-;.....,-igoo*.•9.fil!t!,„7,;..,.,,,,,A,,,A,,•02,-•;,:, z...„,•.,--,!„-.,,.. .-..,,,,• „. •,.•„..,..:-:,„•',.,, 16$:",tba."... ..-- ..-.-...:-. , ,- - ---'', Rec d for i ...: .,: , a,s'•':"...-•'•-f.: '-,- '..-.,---,-iiiikurc.i.,!,,,'-' -..., - tinder:tne'!:,i4E'U.,,.:ine,iiiinall. -°,t./reit.titigntiPn-T!..!,',4-?(-7ro,i0inpii ..1C,'!".:!1,;,.,;;..l.reltii:011°1Te- ..ofinliti010.7,:•-•,-.71:,r,..-.1,,-.:--,,-,;--,-i„,1,;?.,',:;,;'--;,:.:;±-:,'•.,7-:..4',,,-jr.-',',!,„',4•,11,•,"`„,,, ,,'.`..2';,.2:::•!..,,, '..„'',.",:,''';j''' t and ''''''Incorporation of •,,',-which 4 *--'-'•.- -"1000(fee%'"• Implementation-.1:-7,---,' ,',,,,,•,-;;;;%.,',Q''''',?"-'-,,-q-: :',.,'.-;,••-•:„•-•,.;,==:%''''.-::-„„- --','- -..--.„-•:,.„-..-.--'-' , : :.'• ' •':'.;;''•:.•• '-''':::;::':-- Future development i'ne.rIf'a's. thE..,'Cl°1Fr! .: •1 and tYtt%'.;1:4-447--.! •-in:400$1'.1i,n1 ';iiOn.7#:f.,.t.::1: .,.6 .14/id‘kik1,,, ,,:,-,-,;',:,,,,,-•,z,,,,.--,-,.,-,-,--,-,::..--„-,:„.,,,,,[..: ::-,..,„,.--;..,:-'.:,-,-,'..,..-',:-:',.- ,.. .',.., recreational services.-,: ,---,.,;-_,..i. ,,413,,.'-r, • iiiriient,,,-,,, facilities would ,4•••-,1. 7.,,,, that the '.,'.'...'-::• -:', '-- • '- .- -.", .„! ' ;:2.-:.'--•;.'•''..-''''''''' '...infoi,14l',--•-7.-..e_i•... tier.4.0... -•-;,,,',.;:.!, ,-- •119!:'':-'--'••-:::.•:,•,iiiii(tre.,0,.• :,,. .,',..-.•recreational tWO,'V--:"Ik.:,,--:, .,:= ',7,..,:,,..?,•;:.;:,:P',.4:,:,:i3-:,,,,:tR''',''''" „.. ii-d ,:tha ,,::,,,,, -;.,.-:-.,-,,,„....-,•-... ',..„:,.',',..„-:.:„,..t: ' - •''• -'--• parks"....',"-::009)., ,,,2•11:- P , .-•c-'•" .! ,citii•parn_-:•.-•,:. 4'hk,•46-iffegr .....:•'..,:-..,,i,..4eL.•:•,._'.';:. •: •• .,:...",J.,,.",,...,',...",?,,--."•,..,---'-.-----'.-....,.r.,-,,,-,-.-,:----,-. . ...---,:iivBiqc11:.‘! ...."-ilititOW., '",,,7. ..,.. ;-,iiiiktic.,;;;:-.‘,:7,....„„,incorporation,..„„,0,4,-44...5,-; .„,,,....;,-,,,,...,-,•.4-if0-.p9.7; ,significant 7r °.','.',.,1:::?,l',..:."...:; :;...',,,.'.,,,''. ,, .1 Hunp90. , :,-kiiiesli",;i7.77..,,:;,::::,....t impac ld be However, i6PuPPr!'''' irtei,,:"'1.•MP ...","-•'';'''::.'-'.tsS'..;han..,.'*.:,:z,..,./;--;:•---;:i''-',',,,--'-; i. ,..:::..,„.-;-.•:'•'',;(''''..-.:::,,,,,Th-e''citTP!..--.- 41tiri. ,-in1,An1„.,•.,..:,--,..;..,yitieveti.,:,:,.;,..,-,,,,.•:,-•,,,,::::',,,,-,,.;-- - .:-.::.- 'siii0,0*4F --',':"=•-•-•''')"i-'40101e-,•-:..`•:',c•'-'itis'Oeci.0"? _•'.--.2'..::-.,.:::::,;;-.::.: :--,::t...- Ten.,iiaify..,,,,,,.,,,,,otil!r.4:1,,, . .,;07t,,,04,!..a, ,....,,,i.iiiiiiignifi7.7, •,:, ,,, ,,,i•il,, ,..,•,,,,•„,,..,.,.,•,;,. ,,,,.,:,, ,..,i:.,,,,, fi tfcnang4 ...,....,....,..,--to7a,.leks'------•-14'additi0P-7,• - ..-,-•:,,--.---. --.,. -<. - --: .,,, aimed :-:-'-• . :'' .'-‘,--:;--,.•'.'•`,.:::' mitigation-••-:;1-siv110!-'4447 ' , 'WPA'----,:;-.-',,-",.:•-;- ..-4,-..;:.::•!----...................... ,..: -,-,,']'•,,,'.-.'`.-'...•;•,.-•,:-.•-•:.---iii.OPP- ---, ---';,"identis,.. -•-•...:•witr.,irrinacl ' Er iirajoet."1,74?", --rt:, '.,',:,,:•.,,'":',-...''', .;:. .-,'-' ,-t-:: •',--',''''.:';:--,--:::',.::•'::::-'e,:, '''1r'".'Hiil6;eatlijill facilities;' iit:.1eiiel;-':::-.' '--::--2. .,'i under:,.. . -,A6Cklf<Y2';.--_,,-, -iiiiotiectipr . •,.;...-.:•,..01-itt"e-d4ce... .- _-,-• • - ,oito!•ne •,, 1,1-,Eiti.•61,knoent,,tin,4..,,„:,..,,,..,=,,,,,,:• .,„:„.•: ,.', •.,,,,,,-,',,,,'.-,,,..f.,•,-, :,... s,-•';,'".";,i•-•';:•.-''':'.''....„„'':':.:,•:oni.ks'ai17.,-,, ,,iii•lion-mi!.999.:„..,..:::-;,:,,:,-.-..:--,,,,.!•-;.- -,....-:•:..;,;-::-;,,..i-oiiiiipm.F.:• .-,E.L-6sifiii:y..)*. .s-,,,,,,04.-'0-kijoist#::.„-r.,, .. incorporated, ,; .4;ifecipOr:$1,. ..! 4iviiiiii;,414, 1: ;i•-;,,t.,1,-;,,,:p.,',-r-:.;.•..::.:‹.-.•':,.•., ..,:.: worsen - --" ''''''''''''•.' -reduced tg'a 7•1:::'••---'''''''"'•--'-':'•;:- --:-:- E#-:1 'PiitYr:e`.'",; •• -of service ..:..• -t';,T..tttiiii-th .1-.!', ';.i;widit,: are hereby nfileaSi4 ....-P ' .,'.4434.ttr°94!',..:---;1-7 .::',0::,;-': ',",':',i.i.,,;';,:. ,,,,,:"-:'7;-,....•,,...-'4'.,.',,:.4 - ,"`.---',C.,'--'-'• -" ';`'' the. -,1-1 --,-;- levels' .,...,- z'..-14,:onflict,-,---,.:-,---.0fer 0-.9r.-r.- mitigation miNit , ..,.... .; .....,ii,.,..., .1,..,„:..,,,, ,,...,,,,,,,,.: ,,,,,,,.:,;,.„,..,.,„„ . ....,• —, es 7,..!..,,,,,,intersections ,...dur,9, ' .,ti.,mitigation. measures ,,2,--,.,. .-,.. ,...,,,,,.',,.',,'-,....".,:-,,- ,'...-•,,,:.-.:-, --.,:`'., - - .`,,-'', nsportation .- •-,• ..,'s• --,.' ' - ,- development---/bot.of•VONOIa:!.',''1• ••.:".th-;e1rOtYi'Y'l,t.11C--':.;:r;)'irf.n.ril.t.a:P ..,- t6rSOY.*-- •- ._•A•by.•',."io,, , ...--,,,,,„,,,p.',-N,s,- ,,,,,,;--,,,.,.•,,,,,,,,.„. '/,'...''i'''Y'','''.r',''''.';'r.'',';'''',''''':''''' 'H.', .'.. '''' ''. ,'' .'.' , 04tile.e'":, -the.'n0M.-‘:;..-;;•1,_-i h could In I- ', •-•:-- • specified,, -: - ,•.',-",troilew.iP..- ,facilitated .,,,,e,.:4-•,.. ..,..•,;-,47-;-,-;,,, ..%,•,,•.- •:_•••,-,,`,•.',..),.•,:'-„';?,;::'-_%-•-:,,-.:, ,,.,•....,,,,,-:',..,,,i...',',',,•:.-t,-,,„'-', -'-..--•,,,,',-,.-,. -,- ',-.,•,,-,-.. ",-,-,-:-, --,-:•-I,. --: i--,' --.,' : .-'..'....• ', ••••.';''.•,. - ' leicrea"-- r,=.4eia;;-m4----policies '"iinaillt.0!7.;,---,,,,,,,."-:irgnal-con,, ,..•-,•....,660iinglo ,pliii-,,',t,-,!•;::',4-7. ;:'1.-.;.,4.,!.';.A.'i.,15;,';': :-;,5',,:',I,"';'.:7;:!..;V''.:1:.?!.'-';‘'," <•. r..-'zi:;;:,1•,,:-,-,',;•, ;,• ,,,,.,z,.-.. ••::::::„.,';.,-f,-..,..,,,,r.'„:„'.,'- ,„,,:;.4 - . ',--.•-••-.---, '-•-•'--•-.- would.,,,:..-th ,••PrPieF -'.:goals;:inc,inl! 1' t0$:;".0.t-''''Ya,"-*7-:,••.-iifilie;'•all'f4tu' yowf040Per,...9!-, ,•- ,4'1'!:-.;.:::4;,,,•,:!..','V'2.!.,1in•'-f' of,"-.-:,,,: y•':,-, ..-':!•,-.:'.'.,,...!T:t,.,:;,'T-,,,.....-,,•::-:-L1',,,-.k11-:•:,„.„-q„.,,,',,_:,,f, :•,.,.E..,,.,.. .,:.,.•• ,::.,-:-.,,- -: ,triPs..! .--•with City ! • - ,.1,.:iNife'cifk:','.. :bOuri;Th,rip.,tniPP. 4.&,..,z,ii,a1,014:100','' . '.,,: ,;.?-• . ;..-!,,i...4::,.'',',",:::-,-4,:s-f"--::::',;..:..•',.',1.'4'.:-... .. .j.,-,.Y.-. .,.:! .-..,',"Y:`,; :'::,',,H.L:I'-':.:•;:l.., .,',:....i ,'.,:-•:.,:.•';,:',1::,:,•,, ...:'.:,-.-,.'.::;i. - . at thresholds ever, with the :::• ',..:• ;',..,...,-,',•,...: colfiirct''''!•'.'‘1 , maintaining specific peak,--', • ,0 would be required'•-•- i; ,,iiii.,',49,t ..,measures000 ,,r.j.t'•,...:::::'.,..,-.2.2.::::,,,.,,,%-• .-.;;-: ,,,,,.-„:...:.i. .,,--;:,.:::;,-.:,',;.,:',:':•1.:-.:',.'''','-'.. :-,'-'-:,,,T.. - -,. ',',..,..-,::7=;:-..,•.:•,.,•',.:..:r .. - ,...,, and policies with H.. -- -:,•' - pertaining-. tfort,..- „, h require future performance-!' c..-2.-..itiitilf,H0 :„•.:...- . ;i::,.:-goals,.2-..,. ..,,,.iyollance,,- ,--4,3,:whic .: -,-- 1,- harer., -2.•,,,:::--,,:-:.:&=:,-..-,..!„-:-?,..,-;','•- - ••-:- _ --._,•-,---::- `.',.:'-','- 7..„ '--,`'-' -, . , „.,..'-.-,,- :...,: .',. l' ilik' 11!:',.' ''Ittinliiiii?3'01.•, .-.,,"4,11-. subject'l '.-.--',-',r•-4.43thrnYe -;'4,-•:-.--• - -- tn-0101 ..'...,.-..,- iit's .•',,,,,,.:..:-.,:;,,,-,.',.,,,.;.--,-T ...-,,..-:.:..,,...,.-,-:,,,:„.:,...-,-.:-,-..„,,.• . . - ...,.. t.--:...,,,.., r-,- ::„.:- .:. .:,:,„ ::. '•'-.,,,, circulation '-:1-0f..:•.:-F9,.--through,,-toi-.4.4..-:!:...--,;••••"PEiR-„--„rm '44-.r.i,::.-•-•-.,specified intersections.-•;'.--,... :.•:-',.'----fitovAITIF-7.--,'S ‘..-7,.v::!:•:..0:::::- .,.-'_,.7-..., ,,,T::,..;-,,,-,,,?,,,,,,,,..•'4„-::::::::::.','•; ' '..... -:•.- --,''''' - :1 l%''.J:: ---,..,-;- , ••--.:' .-: incorporation tiii' m4.131---i.i.16'6';.*V.§IF0)-,.-, i,,,,,,t -,n0gr... ;','i....:::::•--&,,',•5‘peg!,--.,....-•-'-?-.:.---policies ,:-.,..,...'---..L.:.:::-, ,..:f ;-. ' , -',' ' „ -' - •'' ' ''.' - - .-'- ',„ . - - ''' • --‘' ' •r.:.b00:.PC14 ,,- ,..;.iii-i,:tjr4?0i,,,,::,iiti.0!.': projects near .,...-,,,,;.,iiiiii-,,,-.0n0....-- ,-, Iiii-!6,04...,::-,,:„....,--„,-,i';-,•,,:.-, -_-..,,,,,-,•-2„ ,-,,, ,.; s,,, -L::,.,•.,,,--2:-.„1,,,, :,,.. ;-:::,.,,,,-.',-..:;.,•- •,„,,, .:r.„, :,..,...,,...,,,,,,„„:•„,,, ,,,, •• ,,,, .•..-: --;:.,::--,,,,',• :.''''.'.-..i.:„I,„•, '-•,,A,,,:-,iiiin.005::,.?,:,:','..,-4...il,r.*.:'-::.ki !!!. ,„-•...-;;', '.'0.".,eioti7!!!?..•. := with---f'...-the ,". :,,measures !.v„:„iiiria..0* l'..:.,,,!,7„:: :-,•,.1.4,•-.-.,:i.:.. 1:.--- :•:,?.",,,,-,,,,.,., ,;'',:,r,,:',•!.:1'',.:;:''' ':'',,:finds, ifii. :(ti!t,',:-',:::-.'r'',.',::',''':,'-'..•.;-7..,':•;ti ''-'-'''''.1-.--,..-':. :-,--::-'-.• '", would be ne-',':lePYc•.„-.;-„,:„.--;:,-,,..,::.--`,.'r:'•:,•' f,.c.OniPlianc -.:-,••••,:6f.'mitigation 'fitiii4'-'tna'' -,,iito,, -...„..;:..',...,;4;..iiioekk, •-:,.-;,:..(,i,i,Ijill,":: . 1,4,puld.,, ,,,: -•••-'2.•...,'.,,:-.,.:-..,:, -._ :„City of , ...„66,,peOjec,,,, . .7„ ''';--7-i -leiiel,r-7•:•=''--= Implementation,2„i,,141.Wauld''.e 155 ,„:,„.,,- .,,:.`,•,.':„-:.-.,,-- significant'..'".,'. .„,- : ....,-,..R;',,•.,'.:',..-,..'.,-.`:-,',.': ..,,,,-ibittigh's-P---,7,.,.circulation system7 .:',. ..:',- .:.,‘..-:',',•.,•,-, ,:1;11* ,,.,.7...,...- ,watiobs',.-,!fl..,....„,,,,.;.„..„:;-..„--,,,'..._,:,.:--..: • i-., ,.. s,:- .. . ) ant '' '' ' '' . - -"''" ' ' ''' ''':'''-.• ''; '41k4"'• • ' • = :-Ivfs:':',c117c ..,•'-,1 veL,,',-,-..:- require ',Finding,-,.;.K.,.,'ili,:prA‘:,:.S:"„---;7,.'....'.:.'•''..',.;,,,,;-7,,, '7'-'4'.'''1,„-,-,..`.'.. --'." r -'. ., , '• ' . ',•:. , ;., ' ' ''•',' ,' ', ''' t.'. ,.•'::"2.n 1.'::'.. . '..y77,,,,, , ,„--„,,-.7..-.7,...., ..,,,,,'•.,,-!,7 related P?' • than- itgrli .„...:......,.. .:--bold not •,......,. the • ..,.., •: ..:.„,• ., ,,,,..:,,.,. ,,,,.;.,.s.,,..„.. .;.,:::: -,:,;.,,,,,,,,:,,.4,..•,,.,,:',.4.,-, ....,,,: Te • .al .i:loss.. ... housing..: sitew..,•,.:r, ii,prb Project,. ,...1,t!r! 7 ......::,•:.:.:,•••,41,4.,,,,..,•,!,T,c,:.,::N•1,,,:;,.:!•T:;,;.,. ,-,,..::,-,,,,,',:;:",,..,,-:,'::::::••:.i,,,,••••,:.,.i.,,,,,,,..:,....:,,,„;,,‘,,.,:,,,-:,:,•,..-,.__'_-__ •• , • ... :1‘,,,: , ,..,:: , .-.;,:,,,, .,- . ,:,,,,,-...,•:„.:„.'-',:,,,'`...,„ --,'',,..f„redngeulP„,......,-Aidite, 2. based,•,.:-.,,,--- ,.ortr.Sn'ta__...., . . tal of 325 increase the number of vehicular preparation analysis EV:-'Ac.--- --; ,.or a,.•-.V.M..T.- - - .,..''-.-,•.-•;,.,,-,,..,4:-::-.,...::-. ..,4...! .,,,,,,.,.-, ..:,,,,,i,,,-„, ,,,,,,,:,.„,.,. „.,.., .,....,,,,, .: .,,. ._, ,, . ...,,,,,Page 13,,EXHIBIT 10 Future., ER-334 ,• ,.- .:-- ,,,,...,:,,.:5 woulc!,:,..,...:.,•,•-,-.--,..'. -:. .. ;.-,:.,.,•.':kr%.E..,-- ,,,•-•,'-•--- .':','f,-*!•::::::::•-„:„.-•,,,:.:-.,...,-:i•...,,:.',: -.-. .•i,•-•..,...:.`-:,:'',.' 24::.".•:•::,::-,.--;•,--.. •-, --;,•,-,,•-•:. .",,„:Y;- ::- ' . ,•:-.,..:,--.;,-,,,,-''• - . .. , . . .... ., , . . . ,..„ . .• .. .„ , . „ .. . ...,.. . .. . . „. . . • , . • . - - '' - •-:,•-..• ,•,'-.:...:.-•.;.....- ..-- _•',.,- ,' -- .,'- :Li--- ,-.. •'- -.---,-.,,,,:.--,1.!:ir.:-,,:..-., r''" ''''''.' • , ,• , , , .' , ', •,X,.,, ' „ . • , . ' .. • - • •• :. ' • '. .• .... • ,a Case 8:23-cv-00421FWS=ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 25 of 40" Page ID #:923 City of Huntington;Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Table 1: CEQA Findings for the HEU Impact Statement Impact Summary impact Finding trips in the Project area, which would screening(<110 daily trips),low VMT area screening;or would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, generate additional vehicle miles proximity to transit screening.A total of 53 candidate are hereby incorporated into the Project.No additional travelled (VMT) that could result in housing sites would not be screened out, thereby mitigation measures are necessary with implementation conflicts with State guidelines pertaining requiring additional VMT analysis at the time of of mitigation measure MM Trans-1. to VMT'.However,with incorporation of development application.Candidate housing sites that mitigation measure MM TRANS-1, identify significant VMT impacts would require feasible impacts would be reduced to a less than mitigation measures to reduce the project's VMT significant level impacts,.Consequently,future housing development on these 53 sites would be required to reduce their average home-based VMT through compliance with applicable General Plan goals and policies and implementation of mitigation measure MM TRANS-1, ' which identifies feasible mitigation strategies that could help projects avoid or substantially reduce VMT- related impacts to a less' than significant level. Furthermore, future housing development would be, subject to all State and local requirements for minimizing VMT-related impacts. Therefore, future housing developments on the 53 candidate housing sites that were not screened out are presumed to result in a less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Tribal cultural"Resources Construction activities associated with It is currently infeasible to determine whether future Finding 1:The City of Huntington Beach finds that the implementation of the HEU could cause development under the Project would result in the identified changes or alterations in the Project which a substantial adverse change in the disturbance of tribal cultural •resources within the would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, significance of tribal remains on a planning area. However, future projects °would be are hereby incorporated into the Project.No additional Project-level basis.With incorporation of required to implement mitigation measures GPU PEIR mitigation measures are necessary with implementation mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4:4 2 MM 4.4-2 and MM 4.4-3, which require project of mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4.4-2 and MM 4.4- and MM 4.4-3,these impacts would be applicants to retain a qualified professional and/or 3. reduced to a less than significant level: Native American monitors to determine if the project could result in Impacts to tribal cultural resources and also require the halting of ail earth-disturbing activities within 100-feet, of a known discovery while data recovery and other methods are implemented. Implementation of these measures would ensure that, 156 October'2022 25 Page 14 ER-335 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-ev=00421=FWS-ADS -Document 50=2 Filed"06/06/23" Page-26 of AO Page ID "_. ..__ ;` #:924 i City of Huntington Beach. Final-SuhsequentEnvironmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of!Overriding Considerations Table 1: CEQA Findings for the'HEU Impact Statement Impact Summary Impact Finding Project impacts with respect to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant Utilities and-Service Systems Future development under HEU could Future development under the HEU could introduce Finding 1.The City of Huntington beach finds that the require new or expanded water, the need for additional infrastructure or connections to identified changes or alterations in the Project, which wastewater treatment or storm water existing infrastructure. With incorporation of would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, drainage,electric'power,natural gas,or mitigation measure. GPU PEiR MM 4,15-1, which are hereby incorporated into the Project. No additional telecommunication facilities. However, requires future projects to demonstrate that there is mitigation measures are necessary with implementation with implementation of mitigation adequate capacity in the wastewater collection system of mitigation measure GPU PEIR MM 4.15-1. measure GPU PEIR MM 4.15-1, this to accommodate discharges from future projects,and impact would be considered less than adherence to General Plan policies and existing City of significant. Huntington Beach processes, impacts to water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities would be reduced'to a less than significant level. The Project would result in a significant Given the uncertainty of water supplies across the Finding 3.The City of Huntington Beach finds that even and unavoidable project specific impact western United States and throughout the state of with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures on existing water supplies. despite California, a future 'supply deficit would result in a and compliance with applicable General Plan goals and implementation of mitigation .measure significant and unavoidable impact associated With policies, the Project:could result in a significant and GPU PEIR MM 4.15-2. water demands from future development facilitated by unavoidable impact to water supplies. No mitigation the proposed Project. Until such time as greater measures in addition to GPU PEIR MM 4.15-2 are confidence in and commitment from water suppliers feasible to reduce water supply impacts to a less than can be made,even with implementation of mitigation significant level. measure MM 4.15-2, which requires project-specific applicants to incorporate water conservation measures as part of future projects, and adherence to General Plan policies and existing regulations,the HEU would; result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to water supplies. The Project would result in a As with the Project-specific impact, given the Finding 3.The City-of Huntington Beach finds that even cumulatively considerable contribution uncertainty of water supply across the western United with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures to water, demand and a corresponding States and throughout the state.of California,a future and compliance with applicable General Plan goals and significant and unavoidable cumulative supply deficit would result in a significant and policies, the Project could result in a significant and : impact With respect to water supply. unavoidable impact. Until such time as greater unavoidable impact to water supplies. No mitigation 26 157 [1: October 2022 Page 15ER-336 EXHIBIT 10 Case 13:23-cv-00421-FWSLADS Document#50;925-2 filed 06/06/23 Page 27 of 40 -Page ID City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. 2021 2029;HEU implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Cpnsideratigns Table°1: CEQA Findings for the HEU Impact Statement Impact Summary Impact Finding confidence in and commitment from water suppliers measures in addition to MM 4.15-2 are feasible�to can be made,even with implementation of mitigation reduce cumulative water.supply"impacts to a less than measure GPU PEIR MM4:15-2,the Project would result significant level., In a cumulatively'considerable contribution to water supplies, resulting;"in a significant.and unavoidable cumulative impact. • 158 October 2032 27 Page 16 ER-337 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 28 of 40 Page ID #:926 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 3.1. Introduction The Draft.SEIR prepared for the HEU.considered two 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 chapterdescribes the project objectives and;criteria used to develop and ev`aluate'projectalternatives presented in the Draft SEIR. A description of the alternatives compared to the Project and the findings regarding the feasibility,of adopting the described,alternatives is presented for use by the City in the decision-making process. 3.2. Project Objectives In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15124, the following primary objectives,support the HEU's purpose, assist the' City, as the lead agency, in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated in this: SEIR, and ultimately aid decision-makers in, preparing findings and overriding considerations,if necessary.The HEU's purpose is to address the housing needs and objectives of the City and to meet the State.Housing,law requirements.The.HEU has the following goals: • Adopt State-mandated and locally desired programs to implenientthe City's Housing Element. • Maintain and enhance the quality and affordability of existing housing in.Huntington Beach:. • Provide adequate sites to accommodate projected housing unit needs at all income levels identified by the 2021-2029 RHNA. • Provide for safe and:decent housing for all economic segments of the community, • Reduce governmental constraints to housing production, with' an emphasis on improving processes,for projects that provide on-site affordable units. • Promote equal:housing opportunities for all residents,including'Huntington Beach's special needs. populations. • Promote a healthy and:sustainable Huntington Beach through support of housing at all income levels that minimizes,reliance on natural resources and automobile use. • Maximize solutions for those experiencing orat risk of homelessness. • Improve;quality of life and promote:placemaking. • Affirmatively further fair housing: October 2022 Pa1ba7 28 ER-338 EXHIBIT 10 :: ' Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06106/23 Page 29 of 40 Page. ID• city of-HuntingtonlBeach Final Subsequent Environmental,Impact.Repoit 2021-Z029,HEU Implementation;.Prograrit : ' . Eindings.of Fact/Statementof:0verridingCobsiderations: $.3:.: Selection of Alternatives ; The decision- ran e]of feasible•alternatives,Was:selected:and'�discussed in a°:manner.to foster meaningfu g l:public ;participation-and informed: making:•Among the:factors,that.were taken into account when: , considering the?:easibility o•f:alternatives.(es..described rn CEQA Guidelines:Section 15126;6(fj{1j)Were environmental ;impacts, economic„viabilit availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations,;. ,:-`•, jurisdictional boundaries,-and attainment of,pro1ect objectives As;stated.in Section 1512.E 6(a-);of the : ' ' .' CEQA:Guidelines the.Dreft.SEIR°need;not consider en alternafive whose effects could not be reasonably °identified, whose implementation is remote be 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. , 34 Project•Alter•native Findings " - The following :is`a`description:of the: alternatives:,evaluated in con parison to,Project,,:,as' well as a:,, • description oftl a specific economic,social„brother considerations that makethen'i infeasible for avoiding , ' _ `or lessening theimpacts,, '. - . , . ' . AS,shown below and ii*.Chapter 7-0[Alternatives) of the Draft-SEIR :two alternatives were evaluated in comparison to the Project,.'including the No_Project,Alternative required,by'•CEQA..The tw: alternatives : - analyzed represent a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project:The analysis in this section"focuses i,• .oii significantend unavoidable impacts:;attributable to each alternativeand tt a ability of.each alternative: i tolmeet basic protect objectives:. - NO Project"'-Alternative(Alternative 14- l • i E Accor ate CEO Guidelines §T5T26:6(e),the•specific f G`.alternative oNo Project"shall also be ding toSt i ' . -i evaluated along:with!its-impact.,,the purpose of describing and analyzing a:ldo Project Alternative is to. , allow decision-m.akers to compare the impacts of approving the.proposed:Project with impacts:of not i :approving the Project.The No Project:Alternative°analysis is required;to discuss;the existing-conditions at .:the time the Notice.of Preparation is:published (AQgust 4,;2021),:as:well"as what:.would be reasonably' expected to occur In ttte.foreseeable future,if the Project were not.approved,based on;current plans and, ;1 :consistent with available infrastructure:and"communityery sices. - ' ' 'Under Alternative 1,,develo ment within the:Ci would proceedpursuant tothe adopted CItyGeneral: - ' Plan and•zoning-The;City's ptd$Otett,tegiohalihitiusirwheicf for,the 6ti'Cycle RHNA planning.period(2021 g units ,743 units'when accountin for existin g a lic .2p29) is, 13,368-dwellin (,11 g g pp" atians and `pipeline E,} . projects)•:.Under Alternative 1,;the City:would:not implement the Housing Program required to comply `. =with=State law;.to'accommodate.the lowerincome`RHNA'units, including,:a amendments;to.existing land ;, ,use,designations=and zoning districts,'an affordable housing overlay, and identification"of underutilized, residentially-zoned:parcels in an'ihventory, of joam.iidqte housing sites: In.total;.the HEU identifies'378 - , candidate housing sites.(approximately 419 acres) The'proposed amendments"to the Huntington:Beach: October 202 pogo la 29 ER-339 ' EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 30 of 40 Page ID #:928 . ..M1 City'of Huntington Beach FinaU Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation;Program Findings of Fact/Statemegtrof Overriding'Considerations General;Plan.and the City of Huntington.BeachZoning and Subdivision Ordinance.of'the Cityof"Huntington. Beach.Municipal Code(Zoning Text"and;Zoning Map amendments)for changes:to"land use designations. ' and base/Overlay districts,,as well as ancillary amendments to:.other planning.documents,,,would not:be" Implemented..These amendments,which,are needed tn°accomrno"date"future;housing sites as partofthe HEU's Implementation Program,would not be implemented at the 37.aidentified candidate housing sites.. The capacity to develops 11,743 additional housing units that would be facilitated by Project implementation:would not be provided udder the No.Project Alternative. Because the Project proposes- only three.candidate housing;sites (Sites 3;,4;and 5)for rezoning,,and all other-sites would retain their , 1 existing underlying zoning,under.Alternative 1,rezoning of Sites 3,-4,,and5-would not occur;and existing; zoning would remain-in place;. Under this-:alternative;State Housing Law a;rid legislative"requirementsfor implementation.of the Projects: V.' proposed`programs and strategies to increase housing capacityand the production of affordable dwelling �l units in the City would neit;accur.Overatl, Alternative•l wouldriot consider the candidate housing sites. i ',' and adoption.oftJ a land'use amendments and rezones necessary ter achieve the City's RHNA.As a result,: the capacity for 11,743,multi-family housing uriitswould.not be created.This alternative would not satisfy the Project objectives,stated above because,implennentation of Alternative 1 would not facilitate the development of sufficient residential units to:meet the City's RHNA allocation and would not satisfy legislative:mandates for the HEU: Findings: , The NO Project Alternative iAiould result:if'fewer impacts than the Project:Although this"Alternativecould . _ :reduce environmental impacts.from future,hdusing development facilitated`by the HEU,the No Project 1 Alternative would not achieve-any"of the project objectives_The Na Project Alternative would not provide adequate housing sites to meet the City's'6t''Cycle RHNA allocation.or satisfy°State housing:lawincl'uding AS 1397..Under the.No•Project Alternative,the City Would not meet its RHNA obligations:Thus, this Alternative would directly conflict with Californja.Government Code §65583, which-stipulates that :a . E jurisdiction must assess its housing,element every eight years and identify adequate<sites for;housing:and ", I provide for the existing and,projected"needs of all economic segmentsofthe corrirnuni , ty. z Beach and Edinger Corridors Alternative("Alternative:2) 1 As'with the proposed Project,.the Beach and.EdingerCorridors.Alternative;cAlternative 2),would:meetthe City's RHNA. However, residential-development under Alternative 2 would!be concentrated around the ' `+ Beach:and Edinger Corridors area-of-the Beach and,Edinger Corridors.S_pecifc Pian(Specific.Pian-14).Mare 1 specifically,new r,,esidentialdevelopmentwould occurin portions of Specific Plan14'STransition Corridor Areas,(TCAS),which would support transit-oriented communities,.and"on:fewer total parcels.This would have the effect of further reducing vehicle miles traveled(VMT),transportation-related energy demands, and associated criteria air'pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions associated with"housing development: However;this approach=would require taller building heights and higher densities to achieve the,target housing:production in-this area necessary to meet the.RHNA„.which-could result in increased aesthetic. october2022' gg 30 .1' ER-340 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 31 of 40 Page ID #:929 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement.of Overriding Considerations impacts as compared to the Project. This alternative would also create dense/confined residential , development:and not expand housing opportunities across the City and would not affirmatively further fair housing.to the,same degree as the Project. Findings Alternative 2 would meet the majority of the project objectives as it is assumed that development under this,alternative would meet the 6th Cycle RHNA housing needs. However, Alternative 2 would fail to affirmatively further fair housing since this alternative :would not:provide new housing:within highest resources areas;with'access to highly rated•schools,,parks and community amenities. New housing would be concentrated within one area, of the City. Furthermore, Alternative.2 could;result in additional: constraints to housing because the densities necessary to accommodate all of the RHNA within the Specific Plan may not be supported,by the. market(e.g., land and construction costs), which could: potentially make it cost-prohibitive for developers to construct housing.As such, because Alternative 2 would fail to affirmatively further fair housing and:could result in additional constraints to the construction of housing, this alternative would likely not be certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD),as it would not substantially conform to Housing Element Law.. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Future Consideration Five additional alternatives were initially considered during the scoping and planning process,but were not selected:for detailed analysis in the Draft SEIR.These included: Reduced Dwelling Units Alternative, Alternate Housing,Sites Alternative, Palrn/Goldenwest Specific Plan. (SP 12) Alternative, Huntington Harbour Area Sites Alternative,and McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan(SP 11)Alternative. Reduced Dwelling Units Alternative A Reduced Dwelling Units Alternative was considered, but rejected from further consideration. This alternative was considered to assess if it would help mitigate the:significant and unavoidable impact to potable water resources associated with the proposed Project,as`future housing`development:facilitated by the Project would incrementally increase the demand for potable water.The projected water demand associated, with Project implementation, at buildout would' increase water demand in the. City by approximately. 2,905 acre-feet per year (AFY), or approximately 11 percent over existing 2022 and projected 2030;City.demands. While the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) did not specifically account for the population growth associated with the:Project,it did project that.the City would serve a population of 206,499 persons by 20301,which is an additional 9625 persons over the City's existing population.of 196,874"persons.2 Therefore, it can:be inferred that at least a portion (approximately,54 percent3,or 949 AFY)of the water demand associated with the Project population growth was accounted UWMP Table 3-2:Retail:Population-Current and Projected. "State of California Department of-Finance..2021.ES Populatiomand'Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the State,2011.2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark.hops://www.dof,ca.kov/Forecastine/De moeraphics/Estimates/e-5/(accessed June 2021). 3 Based on 25,020 persons/9,625 persons,. October2022 Page20 31 ER-341 EXHIBIT 10 „., ., .:,„„, • ''''77'.. . '•page -- • ,,,,.77,77, .bf,40,;',.•'.. ..--... ' . ' .. : ' • - ...-=_.,77, &60i ' '''.:•-';'-'-''''.--.'-•';'''S;,.,'''',.. '..!''',..:,:...''!'":-''",..'`,-..-',”. '• -. :,.;i . . ---7- '-. -• .i,""' rifent 5u-- Filed--,..... .`..:,'''.'..:-.',....,.;,,,;•.:- .:: .2.:.',-'...-''.,.'•,.:!: ..,..: " 4iiripaq1,99•44.--:-:.',-, '''• • ' -' '''''''1" •..:' ADS--D641';'i',11 i;939;'-. ni'iti'''f!°°!7:aiii.i; idra ,.••...:,j''-' 7:-.--', -.."=•-•''' 1- cid'41- rW. 7-''', - .._ :,:-°iiiii1tIciteiii4ii"t.'"'i'Clier11. .•".::•:::...:'::•'T'•'::''''"•:::ii:::''!''.'r:-::'..':','''..:.:•-'''':: , .,,,,...:•!-.;Case B.:237cv.:, :,::,',., .:,:.::.':: :'..*t.lilii164f:F.,,act: .‘",:'-'::-.',,,,'"-i-Ke:4)00i41.2 .fli-'''' ...:::.,-,,:'..,:;'....-:;:.:'„.,, -.-k'': ,:: ::-:: .,.: , .::::,::::„...,.:1., ,,;.!..,::::':./,...r.': :-:';;I:j.::...1,:...„-... .ai:.;:. .o-iI4PT354ii6-ji.;4P:7....:4A::':::.,,',•,,.:,-:;:'.-,,.,:',...,.: •`:' ;aoktia.:" -' .':iiiiderili''''.'-.'...,•:',' .'3'..;'.,:,:'"•••:'-',':-..--,4rnini1111i,! i'.:'"iii"4.000r941..4,, daPPPF4:Lr.? ;-;-,---,- of Huntington - • ' "....s.':,:,'.' '..".::;,;:'.':.-;••.''''.',=.•-:'.i.,„,..it4r'''!-,•'.,,';•,.--...-„„,„-%F -...„ .,....' h•.ail,4,:4- i;'-' order to -..- •.-:ci-tv,- 44- HEu:Implementation•- :_.• -,:-..••,,••.,,-- i.--,'.,‘:' future .,: 7::,.:-.2,; ,' .would 'I-removed,- -'-,',:f''','•-;kiitro04'' ,,:'-'•••',..-'.6.'(••tile.t:-...17,..,...i:''..-;•,;:.-.',:'.-.,.,.-.• --''-'....' J.---...:- rt us Ated,P0P lift[rerp.,.,'•.,:-...;..,!:,...„ tive would,,.-.., •;,,,,, .,. ..-• ii''''-;::','41 •.:• I:',":,-,,- ,,,..„.:.... ,202.1:4-....4 ".,,,• ,,:•:.''''-''...':,',.:::''',,,':‘‘.•::-.. inii44203'4... ;, 44.'1.1::!:i471',/ '''..-"utati, ,-; -aim :p,, fr...'„: .. - '.„-.• ',,.., !4",x'i',.q.. ..'- ., •-.....-- '''.. '.'- ' • ,','.'-.,..; ; .,.' KA" poi','•'.onP ...7 ,:itiied.IPP ' . 0.2,„,..'-atitioR-7,..?-..„.' .' iirch,w9Aito_rt ....-:.,:,;•,,,,,-A.'-':'..,:;"4:'...,.....''':-..,:-:' --- i',.'..!..ii.4.::,,y yy,.7.,.0,:::,:'with the iti „91r , t•,4:(0M - ..:,•-;,,•'-iii :-AFY.:-...!4Y,--;,:;,:::' 114:1401! :,L,,..iie,:j.R5 •,7 :•',:::':-...•-:.•'''..'''.:, ;. TO!' 11. iii;iiit4:#'1'f'7„."..,:,.:,i4i4drdr!7 ,.,ii. :•06e.60) .? . ..-:„.--Iiii-,64..gorP,,T .A..bi'eAt..!1:1 -. 7,,,.:,,,, ....,,,:1,,, l'...,',','•;:-T,.'.-.'':.'".j.:',:--,-:.',',.'. -, ii#ritaP9! .r fiiiiiit-',4FC97..":::!,`3''- .,.":',•,-7 ''''4ie,'.'tit'f, P,!! .,:,,16614-If;!!'.:,,r7:,-,::::::,E:',• ;',"10--::',,.-;..:;; ;4',',:'''-f.',-:, -, ','••,.'-'. assumed 14:7.- -.,,.,:";Y:'.::demand of approximately4ees.'„r9r' 46i'tp4‘;'`,77.:),;,,:' , ':;.:1-,' ,'..:-.;`,.•:..-:•:„.:,--.:',4'-:.:-...:.,:•,!• '-'.-L-;;..:•:'.--!:;,:,!:.=.1. ,7,-'..-::',`:' ::•:":':'':,r'..':. ,...;4;,"&a•'-:tiiit- ;.4'.,,‘,;iteit''' '.9.:7,-,• -isiik...:if0,-.r.,,, ,,g,;•':1,1ii:: :.'.',:c:':.::,)::',,,•i", l',,, ,,,•-j.:',,::-.:':: :::,,,--N!..:),•"',;,,;.4.::::,;'4.`•,,f,Pri:,,,::::-...' ',.:-.' '';',":'-:.A.,:'; '„-:','''.;'..,:'',`. ..,', ',.:i.,.1;'•.,,,.:itef#F.P4- i,.4,,,,,%;,oriajakt -1..•:-• iat.,isiiC4P!7",,i,::-:•- "k:-.-:•il'-::-.::V::::,..;.'-')'. ,',:','!„-;.:1•,:',!-:!:3.':,!: :.-•;',,,„:.:'•,'::";•.!-•.',".'V-,,k•''-,,-;,z:::'•_::,:•- ••'•;IV::'•,•:••-•';•''':'-:'--;:,•-•••,-' -- - -,'--,,,, •-,•-•'• '''''':'.-• , , • --' ,-''"-ceeta.,41 -,:r-number •. .-='-', 'I.,';''Z''';''F,':'';),'..1• =1::','.,.:!',.s''.--:-.'",:-:(!,;`-:,rf; . :,:E .',jf-,'„,.4,.,•,,",,.,,,4,v,,,',,7,-,,`,,,,..,41,•:-..;:q:;,i;;;,:,,!k:::,`..;,.:::..,,,"4..,,.',:'';..:-::,' fwa9t ?!.reduce4110.-:Jur „ ,:,-,i,. ,',rit,- ..: ..',,..„,...i!,:,,,,,," ihi.'0':-:',,, .,..,---.--:ii:,,, , ., -:,. .' ,,..:,,.:,..:,:----.---,:-,,.7,-.,T,kJ:,r.I.',-:'Ff-i;---iF:,.4i,,z,4,-.:;,,:, „. e. idet.a.:14.97,':.J.., ::::'-,''':::.r.'-'':.;'.i•-;-..': hY,-;`,,.,'•-,',---.7tie,`,, ,-,:j';'-,,.2,•--A,,,,,,-,•:'r",•-':',n.,.23',"--:-,',-,:-!-,:;',,..1;-:;•,-- -.4, 21,,=. 3-,.-• -•:,",--'"':.•-`:••';:..,•;,,i,•4:, •:?,,,,,•;`,k,•,..51',41-J.,'-,.:::',, her;"x9,!.--., ...,,:iitos;.,.: Ittdrilgt17-...,p,4 ,.,..-il,,,,, ,,.46 , ...,4,65.ql.,.4.E.,!.,.,,,,,,alternative ho,us1!, ....,. ;:,..',. .,,k.',-;;;:i!-;:-,:,',,,,',.:::::-:::-...,-..; 1*1.! ...,Aitiiiiefc!!1.44:0.'el .:5;;F::: ::,:: .„;:-,,,,;,'ka,i7ejOcC;$.?,. ..!:4V4Z,ii:-" .. . --:;,,,-;4ittalp ,-,..,,,,i,.::-.--.,-, -,"-•,-.:...:-- 1 property p:;;VN"P.','':',1.---,-,-'.•-.-,',- ,-„,.,:'-,:',:;:',---.-",',,--.---.,,:. f.sitea.077-„.,••:;.-. •'." '4-,ir.,,q-q42.-•,k,:`14:;.1 .14A teait.Y7."-],<':' . ..beca"..,..7„„...",..... ., -tite-,--• ,-,--•-,...-.. ,-,'.,- .,-,... -,. .-., '''';1 r::.:r',''':':.r..r,',' •:',,''''''.:;..rr'',:`;:',1::,;:.::'':.:.(:''''''''' ',1670sfp7',-,,,,:.1,-,L, -i',‘g-":t".''''',. ,:...'• 4.,rii....to0.4.,,T7.,.. ,-,,,iijeoro .,,L7k,„•1,,Pil,.tiii4i40,0,9 aiti/..,,ir.ri;o:Tg.„.:!:::::'-.:.;',--.,, :t.'-'-':::.:",,i.::::: -.. AiteTn7e,'4:,.':;tgi.' ,,;.i' ,c.:.,. AiteetiaPYT.',.,', ,,,?4'-'1-.1i;(i-iit:tile,',--..F9e.. isiti4;Mle,!,„.? ,,.... ..-::::A.0.41. r „:,•f. future -t„•,•,--.',',',:.,„,-....,:::•:.-.;'.::. ,,*3':41'.`,':-:, ',--:-•;; ,..'::.:-,%- ..,-,,..,-;,,:::,,,::.,-:. ;ii66iiot.,c'-'''',7::"':<e'i6f0-04'77.4,1v-ttzata.?01T - -''''.:.•:--il14',:exj:s:,-9!:-.7--. ,L.ii,,-e*--..5.7±' of alternative 4,,,...' Alternate!4,,'ii...iin,,"I'.o0':ct!"'° '.,,,; ii'"ikOF!/? 7ii4iirOOL",'i';:,:.o'="-4iiI;i':*1.0ffl...:ii'eW:: : 'Examples.''''4` .?"'-::': r-t:1'..iii.ii:e:::w! ' 64-.*itIe-PI.t4iiirij.i.,';F,971 .,t; 4,*,,A4t4 .% 4e,:ip'psl:,7;,-,52i,:., -,, ii;':N,,. .;;,...i,,,::;v,,,p:e;:, .,,,: ,„:•::11,;'.:41iftt''174.1,t,1iii:Av0:1 .--i.17 "'....c.t6..:-.4i,.;04:..,c7Tli,;,,id: . n0-0;,Y7,..,',..u.f,: : :.7z.:':.;.:5:::54,::,.;:f,'"::::::74.;:II:ii,':::::71-4,..:',.-.., ,-1::::,,,, ,,....,j:,,-., ..7, J.o‘i,4ne.,„;17-'!9,71-v.:sing sites iii,considered,avoided.or ii:itiitk(II,,,,.,, ,,..,..„: '''':''''-',,'-'-,:---- '''',.•' --.- -, '','- ,iii,146te-,:-hq.•,•-•''';',''-'--i'would,-••';' '.discusSe ..,L'-:ro:i•--.-,:'...: candidate, ,,:,i;-k i,amen ' „ ',--?.3-;•,",:•,id';'are' ,„.•?,,,•4:-,-1",:-. .i-:".,:%!.,:•?,-•,:,,,-.• ' .--,''‘,:,,Ai'•:,;‘,!.•',:,•':%,,,:,,,,:-,,-x.,----,tr ,,-:,:';';',•-,;,'• ..::'•'S',•;'•A'• '.•.•" -"2-i---'-'''andi•t4 .•. T.::•-:,•$•-• -•-=•-• Lic'ii:•;i4'1':- '-''•'''''-''-''";'",':,''.•2,.:1'",'-•,'-':'', --,-',:tiii,aeY?'7: iii_.6ciii414,!::,,,,:i:- .-‘,"' - ,::• :,•:4,,t'„:.',„`-,4-',073,4V;4P:t.-:":--•,:: :,,, ' illi.,stre,.!. ,,,,,',- :."„,:-:-.--,:-",.:.-.,".,-,'': .,'•,, (..,• 1....,;',.:.::;:,,,'.-•..,:::::•-,..'::,„-:,••:.-:•41 . aiti*ir .J.'`•,--,;•'-':'?.;,•',;::'.'-;: •"•::,',:','-'!:::'!•';'''liiii.,#.11,O.Y.,!;'' 44t.ia:.' ,.,,}7!:-...'I-.-iii'iiO4:.. .7"... :„,,'.:.',,., ',..-;'•,-:,.., ,-,:.,.'„...i;ittot!".- 1,;A:'..: ',„,iii:,':.2:::,...,':;:,iiii.'-.,-($),'!-, -,_5,..-,,L.51.t.;.,',;':: ,--;,.:: ,,ji,iiii'e0'sr:,4r,„': .iit0if*'f,F.°.,,.r.7..,t'f4,:'o.i97**..?:'':,'-.:1,"':'''.,''::::::;:.':' us 1 ' • 1:‘ii;:*047,1! .ii,;;N:::,,,; „'''.- ii'tiiii•-i4i,a'y,',.;?,..;'7,-' ,„':-ii-4,.'f..0. -.-y,lii':,.,•;,tit iii:-49.,J.,','',...,.., ;;Ir*O('-.),.:',':: ,-:::'.;';',;: k''r(.,:,:,-;... .:;• ...:',:,':,:::':,...';'!,;,',-...,.'.:-.••,-,:,--;''•yiiii0:914F., ..:77/::/::'..?-4::<:', Pacific 9:r'4ct,,'-'•.;.ii,•.(* :'•-q"--• it';'1;44s.:-P'reiisf W..911' i.-.ih4' ,::-.-..-;,;.. ::,-',1:,',:.,':.::::„:`..•,--'-.;:-.r f4.71i the Idii.-00.:.,4y.-.., i6efir:..5i,..r7i; :i0:4cic;P. <:--i,6i.iti*OrCF(P7,....:-; c,fiiii441".7.4',c?' ;:,,';'-:',:,-,:'4.; '..-::.•:'!,.,-., •,..414:',:irekt''..`•••; Coastal 4Q,P, ••'' .-fi•iiirititti# .--L--didatecl,,,v'„;-.•;',titaft0:13Aa''''::'.';..-.:-:1:•:;"•t'-',' fiii ‘,--1 -1?,' iii,:eiv/*.0pcif...c..„,,,,,..,...,,-.. i:s.04,-aifiF! ..:t4,,i,ror!t.r andiftIiti1:1..!+/!!::,.,„:,:i.:;,-.;,,,:,-,..i,,,,pii.:...:.: :,,,.„.,..f,:,,-.... 4,. ',.. ,,i.'-:',k,-1•-.,:'--:, tiii-iop.9:::.g,.P ,--,idcijd,gp ,,.--;:', , 4:0FrP.- iiIhoPF,,,,: ,,,,:,--.-- ctive 15 to ,',,--, '.:.--‘:'':']','--.-`:':•L'i- , ,-.4:the.Palr9.,.', ...;---keta Energy i^:"As.s,..14 ,„,--'.,[..•;',;-",'4,..,.-.,-.,::: :,..,.. ,-..,„,:-.,.',..,!-:..,. .-.. -.',.--,-;:,',.._-...-...,, ,„..,,-..-.., --',,'',,,-'-'',.-.„,,...,.'-,,.-.,,''''i',',,,i,',4'.:A ''.',:- '-'....'..,..','.-•:','•'.. '' ..,.--,•': ,'"y;p4-., ,iltfieitr=r•:.-:„-:.,-' • ,20-lear ;..-,,,-,,;,...',-,•,,,' .,--,,A-,,,,,,.! -.:F, ,,:',.,.-..,.-•„;.,-,,,,-,..,•,-,.,.<•,,,•,,-,,.: ,..,,,,,,,..,...,.. -„,,,...,,,,,,,-,;. ,,,,,,,4,,,,„.,,,.::-,-,....-,,-.,-..,..,„ .. ' s- •" - • ....„, ,, . ,., ,.". :.,,',-:';•!.,;':'''':•'":,: i;-<:,.':ii:ii*Oria'-i•,-•• :.,0iir:,±11!:..,r1Tt iii...;00,It','i:',,,,',,,.'„:1-:','-',,,•'.:•-.',..-4--'"---"77,',.+'44101 " v ,,,e,.•,... iis,:,.•44,-4E..,.:::- ..,,,,, ::,:,,,,,.,,ii,:.;i5,,,, ,:,,,,,,,..:„,:..::,,,:s.,.:.,,,,,,,,,,,,v,::,...,,::::,,,, ;c :,:::::. ,. '"-;•'-i '''',,,,,-••-:'''.. ,::::'''',"•-,::::::::-.:--:•-',-:'.--'-,••:•-•6citiOi99,..' tiiilior„.,... tpr; .atic 009cli..2:,„,,, ,,i,,:„.„.„,,.. ,:„-i,,,,:+14r.4 416,,,, ...Aik*40114:c,i::,v::,i,:,,':::,,',:.;:::.::ll,,t..',H;,::!:!:..,,:1:.::.'r,..::::,-:?,,;:,p,,,r, ;:,,:,:',: ',E,.-:::.-T.,,:,,,-..,•::,..„‘.:s.-,,,::: . ,,,:.,,: it-d;AftTT.,1,,„,„.,,,,:,,,-.),,,,,, ..*,,,ni,,,. ..? -:',..,' ,,-.:',..,,-,:,...,-,;,„:::,','.. izigti":"4iE.t--4),,...„,,:,...',2.:::,,,,,,,,,,,., :,',:,'.:'!.i:•.:''' ',„ :',46?...,,'-',.';.,:..,:4:4,z,,:,,y,':..';.:p;:::..':::: j,AI,• AL. 4 6 It,.414 p.,,....., Ak 4:'.-'..4.i?,. .:',';''';',:::,-.7,:::,-, 'IF:::-•:::i•-:'::-:..,::',..;,7:.:::.-i...',;.::-::.:'"' - 1'1'`::'.:,"'.1:::;.:;',;,'.!,..:,-',; -, ''i,t,,:q,z•:g.;,e.::::,of;qt,,,i-,..:'.....,...',T',":',I':?,:,,,,:,l',CA.,•ii72::411!Illr:TF,.4,-71 v.-,04,1,471',',-:-...:-. ,-'.,:n:.:-..,::T'.;-:,-:,-,.;.:'-',,'„:::,;,, ,,,,:.-::;:irr_.,2 ',L..:, -::-',...-,...:',.,--•---, --:c,._.:-...;;f,,,,;.:., :-:,:;:'::-,-.: ',r, .'' ''.:fTi',J<:;.;1:,:ir';!',, '!•,fi,:!:,•:''zt,:':';'::''':,;',:q:?.:''f:Cr,r,:,itiY. :,:',...:•.". e' [',••,,,,, !;:ilterr. :',4,:!!':„..):. r - -,-14-x: i'":::,;-.',.....;.:::..-7, ,,..-:::::-.A:,,';:::.:-;, -.:.::::..--,i,-;-:..,-.'..-v-'„-::':..•'-.--.,::-:.,:'...::?::,..,.:.,:-:-:: . . ii-i!i,,,,.,„A--,,.;.,. ...,, .,..,::i:.:,...,:,.:.,..,,..,:/.:, '.. -,. .;,:i::,:,,v,,,,,r.,-.4,::;.,,,,;.'1::;::.,;:ti.,,...,,,,.,:z.,-.:::!;,..:-..,,F..,..,-,,,„,, ,3.,, ,-,ki,!,',,..'",:4,,,.:, ::_-.' .. ._ ..,. ,,,.,,,,,:::',:,•'[.„:„!-,,,..,,-:-..., ..:.:„K,-,!'..-;,,,,--..:-,..,,,,,:,,,,::,::::-,... i'-'-.. ,. .,. -. !,',H,-.4 ...-,....,:'-;.:,.].„,,, ,,,,,.,:.,,:',,,.::.,,,,,„'„-,:..:.:,..,,,:,-,....-,, ,,..,:,,,,,-,,,...=,:::::::,-J.,,:::„...74y,.,,,,,,,:,:::.-';,.. ..,-.:::: --,',.-. .;-'-.' , -_,:,..,,,,:,..,,,,,,..,•,.:-.A)::::.:t.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,. .,,,-,,,.,:::::::,,,,:,,,:„4:!:,: -: ::,,,,,::.,,,,,i4,0,:-',.,,,. .!::-?: .-:,...,,,:'',:.,— .-,.--...,.;.-.:.:., '.:'!i9::-•..,-,;::::...:1,,1--',:-...:.„.,‘,-:,-,1',..-:&,.::;,:i-'j,,:4,',..:,.&,:',,,,,:::„.„:•, -;,:zi. 7,,,,-,,:,-:_.':,;,'',:,.--,!',.q,',1,-...,:.,:ii.:-..-,-...„';,,---„,:', .;‘:,..,,,z: : -,:,,i,.:,::::,,,,':,..,..,:.„..,2,-,'„,,,,,„,;,,,,;,-;:,,,,,,,,,,:;:,,,,,7,,,i,-:,,t,„,.„1.:r:.:',‘;',.•..i:',:-:,..' '...,;-...„ : '''''''',1]:',•<,.:•-,---./:-'.';.•:.':'-:='''',''r-_-. ''•:::' . :'''• 0:&i.'.;..`..-:.,::.;:•_.,,-.,:'',!-,, f:,:•:-,...::.;'.-.,.::..,:.s.,-..,:,,y,.,,Jf:.i,;:.••,:F.:4,..;.`•=4:!,",;::?;:,...:1:,:,-;',..1,',s'.-.-.'i.,',•:,:-,,:.',;','.,g.-:>:, ..:3:,,ilfi ', .: , :::;....;',. -:::•''':;•: :; ..''''i.,.'Plani*.:1;•';'3•;;;',1f':...;•;.::::':,Sk:'''''''' ''' because' :0‘ ' ::' ..::' 1,•':. '' - likti, lt!:',:•E'l-i .-.:...2 - -'';':',,.'••`'::,;—""'-'•,,,:'•-`..;,: ,;'.1‘...,,•1!„':,,',,,;:,.,%,';`,:,%::„,,,'-3,'',:.:::,,,, ,›Z,,,:,?.°'',",'':''..:'',',.,,t,.-.., ,r:',..75;:"(,"''''''-;''''' 'iiiiCifiu - c;'..:`?:-..;.7,,..1:,,,'..':.., "•••',.'...:.' :, , .. ,d, -$i,":11'''-'.'..'.':-':',„';':',.;:..-..:-..,. .-_,.',..'!,.:';':,'„":'-'. .•;,','„:',..,,.;.:4-..,,,..,:-.;:.4.:';',-''.:;:'-'-.:',...:..,:`,,;:, ,12.‘'''„,',"''::•••::''..F.':-..,V,-;',i.,•,,,,..id'anif.e$1'717."-:',-.: i?..;;"•''':'' •46'iltin0 Element•••,:.;..::-. „lb# ,:,, 'AS•-,'''.'1'..:,,' :.:-2'4•;.<1....''''';- '•''.-i.?;.t',','";.:3 '• ::.:',:;`;';:',:!':'''''''''''1, ''''''4:'•':•;•• •''; ''•'''‘'':',•::;',:cjiiiiiii411,,.!;775. (-.:::';'','....=;`;,:<.`''. 'J.-;''•?•''''?;6th',CY,P!.9•,:.•,, , ,.iiiit3itig'period .dible : • '• .. . :. . -;;',i;,;',4".!1: •'-',:,,:",:',.'„-?.k,...",,',:'',.':','.-7,.,.:.- . . .,.:,.',2:::: 1`.', ',"?,i.:.,--4,.,f;;;. ,:', ..,,,..',''J,„..,,,,,.-..,,":‘,,.:. ,.....,,,„,-,,,..y,,.:,,,.,r,f.;.•,; .1,.,,,,,,..,.. ..„, ..„.„..„.-e„!".0..,,tt,ia:•,,,..,::,„.iih.--1.-ti.o!.? .:.iiii.,.,,,ff9r.:„,,,:;,,,..,.,- .. ,•,.., , , , , .-,, -„„,,,,;,,,:,,:,,,,..,.f.„.";.....„-,::,',...,,,•-1„,,.;:,' . ._ . ---.. '=„-:-'-,:4,,r.:-;.:f.-1 .;.::,,,:,,'.,..,...::::-,-;.,-;‘,1,.,;i",,,,i',..', .•".1:_:',,i.,,,,,.,.::::.4.,':':.,y ..,i•Ae--.,h941P!.,'71 •' !,,!'!,,,',i'. ,:•.--,',17-i-hq,•:-.R179!..-, .,a,/i2m0 ....._.:,,),..;,,residential development,:'• : :40,PlY19 -2,. ...''..:'--1:-'•-:. ••,:, - -r '''' ':e,':'.',: • '' ', ':.'. ',4,,kr,1:11,1,',1,:';,,•';'' •::''','",'',.,'„]''.::,';''..T:-:-„ , ' .',.''.:::-::.'''':. ..:.:-„iiiified:;.4s..- -.',....„,*;-•fo-r.•17:0$*!e-,--'1,,i....,,, i4i',when ,r-':. •'':'''..`::..,•4''''''; ''l - ''''. '•'-'• .. ''.: ''''''',.'" ';;' • -"' ' . •;,.';:r.,'''.',.•,,•'.,1•:'..,',!,::-,:`,•:7:4 .:-,,,:' ,,,, .;:,•:,,:.•1:,:•.,'," :,.5;•,,..,'...'.• ,.;,..;Iiially.A:cli7- :::::,•i-.:.J,iilabilb..y••• •-...,„..,... ait T --.•,::-.-..,..:,",,.,:. .:'-1,:-_,;-°,:f.:-..,,.„.':..,...„.. -'•:-„,..-.,....,.,,:'''..,..,:„--....: ,..,„. „:' ' "... : .. ,i . „:....,,,....:.:.,,,..,,,:-::;,.::-„;•_,,:....,,:,, .1::',. ., -„ ,-.14,,,.wo!,,,p1.9:. --z.,...... ' a.Y 1..t-a0apv,' ,I, „',,„„,,r •' ,. ,.:1''i.Z. .r, • ,:''This '.--.• i.,'„,,: nd its.potential.. 1-i.:.J•', ',•-..", :.-::', -:: .1....-i:`:.-,':`.•„:,:;--,:iatige size:--•.'„ „., ..1fr 51,,,..g-' ' :,,,--,,,,?,-..„.i:,:t-,.',. ".-''....,!:.,•:''.,-.•":.'_'''..:',--.s: l',-;:•'-'-.:.,,:''..:,...;:::,.'',--2.'.::.'„;''''' .:..'-i:;''.,',..-'..-':r,' `;.., .' ..'afg. '' ' : :. •,. ;•:,;:4.'•''' ' •:' ',. .:' '.'-•.':'• tu7.' •';' tarrriamr:1' 2.:"..-',.„.::: '..,:1-,--.E-...;•,;.;',.'',.:::: ,,,::'',,,',..,,-,...,:,!.,.-: '.:,,i','.,;!'..:4'.;i:-.'„•,,•••-•;',,,,',.,•-,-..-,;,,,..,,,,-,,,f,': ';.:,..: -- - ,.-.::,.1,.„:,',,:.--.....'...: 40. 1.::?:::,5.5 .. 5 , ..!-., •:,.''' '-:. ,. n the.,,!1 ,';•::::','',..':•.. "..... '-'.,:,.,;`'''.:' ',.',;,...P.''!„,• .•,;..:;;r-,'. '-,•':„ ' .•'-`, •'''-'i. ..z.':;,:::''',•.,,e, ....•I . . -.";..'. .•• '.' , EXHIBIT ' 1:';:!''''.--:-..,:','' -::,;"- ,',:.-:...:.-.::::',.:;,•.:'.::::::,:,.;•-:,:,,.,:,;'-'',..:c..72::,''.::.: ., ' '.'''':: h: .,:, ,' , .; '. ,',. :',:- ',,:':: :f.`-. -,:,.. ..:, -- —,P,•!,:i'. .;:::'2'..:;-; :,,..::,' '.: :' '','. :, :::.-.:',-;::::.`'-,:,:,'''.'': :''','.,.., :-'-,:,,'::',''''' ., ' ' ,ri'; ',42,,'',: ' - .,''•, ,j'':.:',-,', . '''' ' l'''' ' '':',',::,;-,f: •Eir '''. ..' ociob6r 4C:12--2.• ,-...',.=. .• ''. :. ''.'• ,.- ' .,:'•,..;;;:y.:-,., , ' ' ' •.,.::.••,,::•:: ,.'..-.-: ,. ,.‘.1,..' .:..',S...'' ; '.•:•;•`• ..., k;!'i'if.:..:. '',.'2.,-,','''':..',', .',,.;'',. '• r'':::'',1 r'.,,,,.'f; '' r: ' '•• 1.,1 ':Ory'''.'::,•., ', ,..:r r ' 'r':r:•• ''''•', ' ' '' ' '' .'' je;::'`:'•. r. ' '''' " ' ' r. ''' ';1 ,•';.: ,.,.'.' . - i Case 8:23 cv- W -A 00421-FS DS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06123: Page.33 of 40 Page ID . •4, '#93�1 , Citvof.Huntington Beacfi:•. , . FinalSuhsequent E"ntaironmentat Impact Report: . I;4 ' 2O21 02.;HEU impletzierltation program :: • :.• ;• ,Findings-of Fact/Staterer of Querriding Considerations Housing Overlay,,would.=accommodatee4.0 to 50 percent of the'Cit�r's total RHNA(9ta:acres x 55 du/acre-up ' ' to 96 acresx 74 du/acre)" Although this site cou dromm accodate residential uses,,the site is located within; higher resource areas:that could result n greater'environmental impactsytharr other sites included:in:the" , :, • scopeofthe Project::The following are`reasons>whythis alternative was rejected: iF" The location:of:the site.switttin the Coastal Zone would;req uire'the California.Coastal Commission: ,• • . i ;--1:. .to•approve the Affordable Housing Overlay,designetiony timing of the`"rezoning'effort could be ,, -•, _lengthy;:with no;guarantee of approval from the Coastal Commission ' The potential„for costlitrernediatidh of the site due to its historic use.as oil=tield. The property owner no longer anticipates oil production activitiaes t+ cease;as describd.i en SP 12 ': . Therefore,the;property-is`rtot.expected to he available.for development prior to 20.0. The concentration of-almost;. Sty: percent•of 'Ili-INA allocation on:'one site'may lead to i overeoncentration Of affordable housing m one area,; - Huntington Nara&ourArea Sites Alternative '-,: , - v al -• There aretwo commerci areas n.i the'Hurntington Harbour.area witltia coimbined.acreage of,215•acres•:. , - One area=is the,Huntington Harbour; w mail?which is:an older mall developed;in the 1960s This•10 S-acre, ' : site was identified as apotential candidate housing site.because it is underutilized with one-and tyro-story.: buildings developed,at,a:relatively low°floor area ratio(FAIL),consider,ingthattthg-maximum allowed FAR •is 15 The site haS,potentia to be redeveloped as a fluxed-use4 project with:the ifclusion`af residential : -units at 3Q du/acre Thee site has close access to ifyarner Avenue,a„'major arterial The seeond;'area:is. Peter's.Landing.This site includes the'.)eter's.,Landing:-cominercral centersarid adjacent properties.along Pacific Coast Highway,and has been studied for mixed use(residiential/comm'ercial)in prior General-Plan, planning efforts_ln addition the<property owners previously showed nterestin adding residential uses in . existing'gr new development.projects on the sites..::Previous.site=analyses on ;this site indicate that residential could be accommodated at-higher d'ensities.: 5 � q YS*,4 '' , � 4 ' a . i - t } N' `V^,1 � °amt , ' + M 4 4t'; } '. y P •&• "' ' G -f4 `' 4M1 ,A• Y' i • a j IA„ s `3y s ,,...1• •+ ' , � . R' .•A 73 a • •x " "g •f A .. x s G" .-' . • « _ s S - '' .° �� *H{8 ,, s .".1fi .: s„. s e1' : . , Peter's Landing•Area • - • Huntington Harbour Malt , . tea octoher 2022 Pa e.22. 33 - . . '164- 41 . - .ER-343 . EXHIBIT 1:0 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 34 of 40 Page ID #:932 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental impact Report 2021-2029 HEU implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statementof Overriding,Considerations , The following are reasons why this alternative was rejected: , - The location of these sites within, the Coastal Zone would require the California Coastal " Commission to approve any changes to the zoning/land use designation including an:Affordable Housing Overlay designation.As such,the timing of the"rezoningit effort could be length with no guarantee that the Coastal Commission would approve the amendrnents, particularly because residential is a lower priority'use in the Coastal Zone. - These sites,in conjunction,with the general Huntington Harbour area,are shown inthe City's Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment as one of the most vulnerable areas in the City with :development in this area having the highest exposure to sea level rise hazards(e.g, storm and non-storm flood projections becoming widespread with 1.6-foot and 3.3-foOt sea level rise, respectively). McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan(SP 111 Alternative , The McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan encompasses 307 acres in the northwestern portion of the City.It has access from Boise Chica Street and,Bolsa,Avenue,both major arterials,with close access to the 405freeway.The area was firstdeveloped for the aerospace industry in the 1960sand a specific plan was adopted in 1997 with amendments in 2002 and 2006 that allowed for approximately eight million square feet of industrial,office,and ancillary uses(including the existing development).Boeing has been the primary landowner in the area,although other major business tenants have Moved into the specific - plan area.In 2018, Boeing began marketing some of its properties in the specific plan area.As such,the City evaluated housing potential within portions of the specific plan area for the 6Th Cycle, particularly workforce housing and lower income worker housing. The specific plan could accommodate a large capacity of housing units at higher densities due to itssize and existing and planned infrastructure, - , 44„. . . aspali14040.11P.A.. . I Al- -0'4' ' P441/27•,„,.. , 044 ' : - -It•44./. , ''',IMPra...... ,,' 1 , ,,,t,:. ' , ., , 1 , , mo......",...... ',..-. •r NIIIIIE , . „,,. ...„ ...,......% . ., 105.1t,"45'4 _ '-;.. • -- ,. , t...., I Afoot* 41) 11111111=111111N SkillAC2604 4. Emma, Vicinity MaPs ' ,,1 I McDonnell Centre Busines&Park Specific Plan(SP 11) , . October 2022 Rafgl..3 34 ER-344 EXHIBIT 10 2 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 35 of 40 Page ID #:933 City of Huntington Beach Finai Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU lmpiementation Program Findings,of;Fact/Statement'of Overriding,Considerations j The following are reasons why this alternative was rejected:. - There iii .a strong market for i:ndtiStriai land in this area of the,City..The site was even'more attractive to potential developers due:to its proximity to the freeway and because zoning and 'environmental approvals were:already in place;. Potential conflicts between industrial uses`and residential uses. - Potential costs.to rernediate site to residential standards, - Properties have already started,redeveloping with new industrial buildings recently completed I , and.future,phases approved:, 1" l'.' October 2022 Pa1.g e24 35 ER-345 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 51 Filed 06/06/23 Page 230 of 234 Page ID #:1168 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1., Introduction Section15093 of the CEQA guidelines states: (a) CEQA reqUires the decision-Makirigagentytb balance,as applicable,-the econornit;legal,social, technological,or other benefitsdf a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks When determining whether to approve the project. If the'specific economic, legal, social, tethnological; or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,the adverse environmentaieffect-vmay be considered"acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will in the occurrence of significant effeCts which are identified in the Final ER but are not avoided or substantially lessened,the agency shalt State in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the Final OR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in theretord. (c) Ifan agency Makes a statement of Overriding considerations,the statement should be included in the record of the project approvatand shoUld be mentioned in the notice of determination. The City of Huntingtori Beach proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Significant cumulative air quality,greenhouse gas,hydrology and water quality,noise,and utilities/water supply impacts of the Project This section describes the anticipated benefits and other considerations of the Project to support the decision to proceed, even though significant and unavoidable impacts are anticipated: 4.i. Significant Adildise Project attittumUlatiVie Impacts The City of Huntington Beach is proposing to approve the proposed Project with revisions to reduce environmental impacts,and has prepared a SEIR as required by CEOA.Even with revisions to the Project, the following impacts have been identified as being unavoidable as there Pare no feasible mitigation - Measures available to further reduce the impacts Refer Refer to Chapter 2 (CEQA Findings) for further clarification regarding the impact listed below. Air Quality Despite comciliance with General:Plan policies,-GPU PEIR mitigation,and MM AQ-1 and AQ-2,the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts concerning construction-related and operational emissions In addition, sites over two acres could expose sensitive receptors to significant impacts by exceeding construction LST thresholds. The Project-related contribution of daily construction and operational emiSsions associated with the HEU are considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Despite the recorrimendation of GreenhouSe Gas Reduction program-GHG reduction strategies, the Project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment and could October 2022 Pafg..5 230 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 51 Filed 06/06/2 3: P"age 231 of 234 Page ID :J • #:1169: • City of Huntington Beach. Fina[Subsequent EnvironmentalImpact Report: kj 20212029;HEU;ImpIEmentatan,Program. riding afFact/statementaf0uerridmg;Consideration" ; • cianfhct with appiicable,;plans far reducing GHG emissions. TFterefo e,7impacts on.GHG are•considered . grnficant aodiunavvldab.e,bothifor thP..r..o e lect and cumurattve c ndltions tfiydrology and W Q ater uality .' '' ' 'The Pro eet coutd_substantialty decrease groundwatersu plies resutt►ng in at:significant and unavoidable.• f ii pact-cancernmgsustarnable managemento sin ThfeSProiects impactconcernrnggroundwater. l supprt es would be cumulatively considerable and a significant';unavordable impact would occur, Despite compliance with GPU PEIR rttjigation, the Pro..ect 45n outd result in significant and unavoidable. 011 irr pactsconcernrngconstruction related noise andvrbratioh evel-and operational ncrrse levellassaciatecl: Witt traffic TheT Protect impact canceriling,the substantial tittipboor and permanent'r ease"of =ambie tt;noiseievels would=be cumulatively considerable T.he Project's impactconcerningc+onstruction.= - - related noise•and groundborne vibration would also be'eumu atively considerables ,. ' UtihtIes and Service Sy_stjn , 3 Despite-compliance wrtti GFU 'PEIR• mitigation, until the water supply situation irnpp s, the water. . demands trom future development pusuant to the FIEIJ would result rn a signs ficant arid:unavoidable R,• .l hilt actccncermngwaterrsuppliesAdditionaiy,unt ichtimeasgreate rconfi en ce;inand'commitmertt. P from wa uppliers canbe made ar t1 a water supply srtuat WW1 improves, the Projeces impacts . I concernin water: Pi? su lnes to serve future development would be.c impl.ativel considerable k a .3 ',Findings l " th`e City�af Huntingtan Beach has evaluated all feasible rriitrgatran measures,aand potential,changes to the.' . " ct w ro eith respect to xeducmgthei impacts that have Been rd asentjfied significant and unavoidable(see. Chapter: , CECQA Findings) The City cif Huntington Beach Etas also examined a reasonable range of, ,• alternatives to the project as proposed(see GhapterFindings`Regarding Project Atternattves Based on . . " p this examination, (the City of Huntington Beach ha d terrriined tthat thre No Project tternative ts. i :- Iconsidered to be the enuic°onmentatty=sixperior alternative I =. 4 4i t verriding„Constderatt®ns; ' : . Specific"econonntc,(socialor etherconsiderations�outweighthsignificantand`unavoidablernypactsstated - . • < altiisve The reasarts for"proc°eedreig witi1tfrie proposed project natwithstandirig the:identified significantt 3 andduriavoidable impacts are described belr?w , Il • Pi~ogosed Pr�o1ect Benei�#s . s 11 Tare HEU Tweitild facilitate the development of a wide rant a of housin types in sufficient•su" I to gLLdg g pp Y meet the, heeds of current and:future residents, particu pe larly for rsons-with3 specific needs; i includingbut not ilmited to extremely lbw,very tow,and lower income households,seniors,persons L1lcciyliei 2Q22 PaBa 26 231 • 168. ?,�? _� EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 51 Filed 06/06/23 Page 232 of 234 Page ID #:1170 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program. Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations with disabilities;large households,single-parent households,people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessnesS,and-farinwOrkert. 2) The HEU-would increase the supply Of affordable hOuting iii-high opportunity/resource areas, including areas with access to employment opportunities, community facilities and services, and amenities. 3) The HEU would provide a comprehensive system,of support arid would expand housing options aimed-to prevent and end-homelessness. 4): The HEU would reduce constraints to the development of housing, including affordable housing,, through programs-that allow ministerial approval processes; permit ready plans-for Accessory Dwelling Units,a review and update of the City's small lot ordinance,and housing overlays in non-; residential areas. 5) The HEU would address planning and' monitoring goals for long-term affordability cif adequate housing: 6y ,The HEU wouldfacilitate the development of an accessible hailing supply for all persons Without discrimination in accordance with State and federal fair housing laws. The HEU would-enhance existing lower resource neighborhoods by promoting livable, healthy, and safe housing"for all residents. 7), The HEU-provides a plan-for meeting-the cayt RHNA goals and to affirmatively further fair housing, which substantially complies with State law,thereby enabling the City to achieve certification of the HEU through the California Department of Housing and eommunity Development.'Certification of the HEU would also enable the City to maintain eligibility for funding programs tied to a compliant HEU, 8) The HEU would allow the City of to revitalize commercial corridors and older industrial areas by allowing for additional hOuSing opportunities in the City while maintaining the character of existing, long-established single-family residential neighborhoods in the CitV,.. tansistent'viith-dneral Plan Implementation Program LU-P.14, the Affordable Housing Overlay allows for housing within the Research and'Technology Zoned areas, which establishes housing opportunities for employees of,- business in these areas. The provisions of the Affordable Housing Overlay ensure that potential, conflicts between residential and non-residential uses in these areas would be minimized. The City Would continue to ensure that alrstandards for building design„streetscape design,and landscaping would be adhered to and-would-review development Proposals to ensure consistency with the character and visual appearance of the surrounding neighborhood 9) The HEU would'encourage future housing developmentsto better integrate with alternative modes of traditional transport because over half of the candidate housing sites identified-in the HEU are. located along High Quality Transit Areas.New development would also be encouraged to promote and support public transit and alternative modes of transportation by incorporating bus turnouts and shaded bus stops(where appropriate)and providing enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 101 With more organized development and guided use of existing resources,such potential impacts to water supply'can be monitored and improved for the health and"benefit of resident .Further,park October 2022 Page 232 EXHIBIT 10 ;" � Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 51 Filed 06/06/23 Page 233 of 234 Page ID #:1171 City of Huntington Beach Final-Subsequent Environmentaal;impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Irtrplementation Program Findings,of Fact/Statement of Overriding;Considerations lands and open spaces can be protected and retained in place throughout ttle"ptarlritng herxzp 4 provide recreational benefits tco' residents, visitors aid school agedf studetn A,shift toy and _ sctainable resources aldsetf su¢fide ,as outhned in the HSEU,uwil J.ailafvu foir`the continua ..,,.,,t d .w ,_.�....:, .,.,.«......... .....,....... ........a.....,... ..v. ..,,.Y.........., ne-.«....... .. ....s.. . .......a ..,.eF .. ... ..n:.,......,._..,......,. .,.,,.. ....�....M the. Glued:way of life Within the Ciityofr Huntington Beach throughout the pCanrtinghonzori for, example,future projects rvvould be required to comply.with General Plan Goal ERC 15 and Policies; ERc 1S.A and ERC 15 8 which;aim to=maintain ariaiequate supply of water and distribution , . facilities eapable of meeting existing.and future.wafer supply needs rand require monitoring to reduce impacts to the hater system`,in an 'effott to:;maintain 4n4 expand water supply and -4 r distribution facilities, • 1 1? Page 28. octohet zoaz 233 7o '• EXHIBIT 10 From: Estanislau,Robin To: Kalmick.Dan Cc: Moore.Tanis Subject: FW:Include in the agenda Date: Monday,July 1,2024 5:27:25 PM Attachments: SPUR Plannina by Ballot 0.odf jmage002.onq jmage003.onq jmaae004.onq jmaae005.onq jmaae006.onq Yes...Supplemental Communication for Agenda Item#13 Robin Estanislau, CMC, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 714-536-5405 ,f 4. '.i:T IN 17 j, 401 t '31 1Y Please consider the HB City Clerk's office for your passport needs! From: Kalmick, Dan <Dan.Kalmick@surfcity-hb.org> Sent: Monday,July 1, 2024 5:10 PM To: Estanislau, Robin <Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Include in the agenda Hi Robin, Would you please include this item with Agenda Item#13 Thanks, ,,r Dan Kalmick City Councilmember j City Council Office:(714)536—5553 Cell: (657)360—4796 dan.kalmick@huntingtonbeachca.gov H3 0 0 SUPPLEMENTAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNICATION 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 7/2/2024 Ming Date: 13 (24-479) Agenda Item No.; ,. +fit SPUR RESEARCH PAPER MARCH 2O24 Planning by Ballot Local land use ballot measures and their impact on housing production in California wwwspur.org/planningbyballot Acknowledgments Primary Author Emma Jordan Senior Advisor Sarah Karlinsky Special thanks to Marjan Kris Ramos Abubo, Livesey Pack,and Amanda Ryan for their research assistance. Thanks to Amanda Brown-Stevens, Paul Campos,Chris Elmendorf,William Fulton, Ned Levine, Paul McDougall,and Mai T. Nguyen for their input, review, or both of this report. The findings and analysis in this report are SPUR's and do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone who provided input to or reviewed the report.Any errors are the author's alone. This report was generously funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Edited by Melissa Edeburn SPUR San Francisco I San Jose I Oakland 654 Mission Street San Francisco,CA 94105 tel.415.781.8726 info@spur.org SPUR I Planning by Ballot 1 Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction: What Are Land Use Ballot Measures? 5 History of Land Use Ballot Measures in California 7 Types of Land Use Ballot Measures in California 8 Understanding California's Local Land Use Initiatives 12 Policy Evaluation 14 Conclusion 16 Appendix A:Additional Analysis of Ballot Measures 17 Appendix B:Court Cases on the Legality of Growth Management Techniques 21 Appendix C: Key Research on Land Use Ballot Measures in California 23 Our database of local land use measures in California may be found at spur.org/planningbyballot SPUR I Planning by Ballot 2 Executive Summary Californians have shown up at the ballot box to shape the patterns and nature of growth in their communities since the 1970s. Citizen initiatives adopted have included urban growth boundaries, hillside protection ordinances,and general open space or agricultural land preservation. These measures curb urban sprawl and protect open space by limiting new development to infill locations. But without concurrent incentives to promote infill development—that is,development of vacant or underutilized land in already-developed areas — many of the measures have the potential to limit the supply of housing overall. Moreover,other growth management ballot measures that have passed within city boundaries,such as zoning restrictions,voter approval requirements, height and bulk limits,and infrastructure provisions or parking requirements,have had a direct negative impact on infill housing production. To understand the impacts of local land use ballot measures on California,SPUR has cataloged 208 ratified housing- related local land-use ballot measures that restrict housing production during the period 1973-2023. SPUR's online database(see spur.org/planningbyballot)represents our best effort to capture all citizen-and city-sponsored initiatives in California.We were able to access many sources to compile the database, but some sources may not be reflected.We categorized the measures on the basis of their growth management technique: • Population/housing unit caps— Measures that place caps on the number of housing permits that a jurisdiction can issue.These caps were based on population projections or a housing unit ceiling. • Zoning— Measures that downzone or otherwise discourage density through zoning amendments. • Height/bulk limitations— Measures that place limits on heights and densities for development. • Infrastructure inadequacy/traffic limits— Measures that tie future growth to the provision of infrastructure or levels of service for traffic. • Urban growth boundaries— Measures that establish urban growth limit lines. Housing is not permitted outside of the lines. • Voter approval requirement—Measures that require voter approval to modify general plans or any other planning documents to construct new developments. • Supermajority requirement— Measures that require supermajority(two-thirds or more)approvals by city councils to amend zoning ordinances or general plans. • Hillside development— Measures that decrease density on hillsides or prohibit development there. • Open space preservation— Measures that restrict development of land on open or agricultural spaces. • Other discretionary— Miscellaneous approaches to growth management that emphasize local discretionary power. We then analyzed the number and percentage of each type of measure. Because some measures straddled more than one category,the total measure count adds up to more than 208 measures. Of the citizen initiatives we cataloged,22%were urban growth boundaries,17%were population or housing unit caps,15%were voter approval requirements,11%were height and bulk limitations,and 11%were open space, park,or agricultural preservation measures.The remaining measures were infrastructure inadequacy(7%),downzoning (to a less intensive use or less dense residential category)or zoning restrictions(7%), hillside development(5%),other discretionary(5%),and supermajority requirements(1%). SPUR I Planning by Ballot 3 Our analysis of California's measures yields four findings: 1. Many local land use ballot measures have led to the protection of open space and agricultural lands. 2. Some local land use ballot measures have undermined infill production. 3. Land use ballot measures can contain provisions that conflict with the implementation of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process and also with the adoption of compliant housing elements. 4. Measures that restrict infill housing can undermine housing affordability and have the potential to exacerbate racial segregation. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 4 Introduction: What Are Land Use Ballot Measures? Over the last several decades,Californians have increasingly used the initiative process to make local land use decisions. Local land use ballot measures may only be changed through another vote of the people.'This makes them extremely difficult to amend or overturn. In the land use context, ballot measures effectively freeze the land use changes described in the initiative until and unless they are repealed through another popular vote. Over time, land use ballot measures have proliferated in California,taking a variety of forms. Land use ballot initiatives range from population or housing unit caps that put ceilings on the amount of permits a jurisdiction can approve over a period of time,to urban growth boundaries,to height and bulk restrictions on new developments,to covenants that require voter approval to upzone or rezone areas of the city.Others still have focused on preserving hillsides and agricultural lands,designating open space that cannot be developed,and establishing "greenbelts"of open land around a jurisdiction where building is restricted. Although some of these measures protect open space and agricultural land vulnerable to sprawling development, other measures have made it harder to pursue infill development—that is,development of vacant or underutilized land in already-developed areas,such as those zoned commercial,residential,or industrial.These measures may make it difficult for local governments to adopt compliant housing elements and for regions to focus on growth within already urbanized areas. Three Types of Land Use Ballot Initiatives There are three types of land use ballot initiatives:citizen initiatives,city-or agency-sponsored initiatives,and referendums. Citizen initiatives are those where citizens collect signatures to place a measure on the ballot,city- sponsored initiatives are those where the local elected body places a measure on the ballot,and referendums are those where citizens collect signatures to place a measure on the ballot to overturn a legislative decision by the local elected body. For the purposes of this report,we refer to the first two types under the umbrella term "land use ballot measures."We were unable to catalog most referendums for this project. Land use ballot measures can apply only to legislative actions, not quasi-judicial actions.They cannot be used to change law in areas that have been preempted by the California State Legislature,such as exclusive delegation of authority to carry out state policy to the local elected body.2 For more information on court cases that have shaped the viability of land use ballot measures, please see Appendix B. 'According to the California Elections Code Sec.9217 for cities:"If a majority of the voters voting on a proposed ordinance vote in its favor,the ordinance shall become a valid and binding ordinance of the city....No ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the legislative body of the city without submission to the voters,or adopted by the voters,shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people,unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance."Sec.9125 applies the same language for counties,and in some charter cities or counties,charters provide for this limitation. 2 Extensive case law supports this perspective.The courts have asserted:"The state may if it chooses preempt the entire field to the exclusion of all local control.If the state chooses instead to grant some measure of local control and autonomy,it has authority to impose procedural restrictions on the exercise of the power granted,including the authority to bar the exercise of the initiative and referendum.(See Riedman v. Brison,supra,217 Cal.383,387,18 P.2d 947;Ferrini v.City of San Luis Obispo(1983)150 Cal.App.3d 239,246-248,197 Cal.Rptr.694;Mervynne v.Acker,supra,189 Cal.App.2d 558,562,11 Cal.Rptr.340.)."Committee of Seven Thousand v.Superior Court(1988)45 Cal.3d 491,511[247 Cal.Rptr.362,374,754 P.2d 708,720]. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 5 Legislative Versus Quasi-Judicial Actions All major planning and zoning decisions made by local zoning boards,commissions,and elected officials fall into two major categories:legislative decisions and quasi-judicial decisions.The main distinction between these two categories is that legislative decisions impact future land use decisions in a given jurisdiction or neighborhood.Some examples include adoption of plans and adoption of zoning ordinances. In contrast,quasi-judicial acts require local discretionary bodies to determine whether land use acts comply with the adopted policies and standards of an agency,and by extension,a community.a Administrative actions are actions taken by local agency staff to apply rules to individual developments.Citizen initiatives apply only to legislative actions,not to quasi-judicial,judicial,or administrative actions.b Therefore,initiative power does not apply to variances,conditional use permits,zoning code violations,subdivision map approvals, and certificates of compliance. a Institute for Local Government,Ballot Box Planning:Understanding Land Use Initiatives in California,2001,page 17,https://www.ca- c o frr n�: .. �'t_b .)a!l!1R l.l�CrS 71�`1C]-, ri LSe- it.ve5 c .Lforf;' b Institute for Local Government,Ballot Box Planning. Citizen Initiatives Through the process of citizen initiative,citizens have the right to place legislative measures on the ballot via signature collection.This right is enshrined in the state constitution.3 However,this authority is not unfettered — citizens can only enact legislative land use decisions such as general plan amendments and rezonings at the ballot. In 2014,the California Supreme Court ruled that California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)does not apply to citizen-sponsored initiatives, including initiatives adopted by elected officials rather than voters.' City- or Agency-Sponsored Initiatives City councils or boards of supervisors may vote to place land use measures on the ballot. In contrast to citizen initiatives,city-sponsored initiatives do not require the proponents to gather signatures. Referendums The process of the referendum allows voters to decide to revoke an action that has been taken by a legislative body. Referendums are placed on the ballot via signature collection. 3 Since 1911,the people of California have reserved the state constitutional right to"propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and(to) adopt or reject them."Cal.Const.art.II,§8(a).This initiative power was made applicable to local agencies through article II,section 11 of California's state constitution by the California State Legislature. °Tuolumne Jobs&Small Business Alliance v.Superior Court(Wal-Mart Stores,Inc.),59 Cal.4th 1029,175 Cal.Rptr.3d 601,330 P.3d 912(Cal. 2014). SPUR I Planning by Ballot 6 History of Land Use Ballot Measures in California Planning at the ballot box has held powerful appeal for local communities over the last 50 years.This appeal is rooted in the slow growth movement,which reached its peak in popularity in the late 1970s to 1990s and which is representative of a shift from top-down planning during the pro-growth, post-war period to a bottom-up, highly decentralized attempt at urban planning as homeowners began to shape local land decisions through popular vote ballot initiatives and referenda. In California,the ballot box emerged as the site of growth management first in the San Francisco Bay Area and other coastal regions,cropping up in rapidly growing jurisdictions such as Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,and San Diego counties. The construction of highways and freeways made suburban communities accessible to burgeoning job centers, forcing communities to confront their newfound status as desirable sites for starter-home developers. Localities responded with slow growth strategies aimed at curbing the growth rate in new development in order to mitigate urban sprawl and promote intentional development in urban areas.Sprawl —or low-density,scattered development — has been associated with a multitude of negative externalities, including air pollution,traffic problems,and poverty in urban areas.Additionally, proponents of slow growth measures believed, in many cases rightly,that the measures were necessary to protect open and agricultural spaces from the threat of development.5 In the 1990s,urban planners began to rethink the traditional growth management tools. Poor growth management techniques had led to traffic congestion,urban sprawl,traffic congestion,disconnected neighborhoods,and urban decay.The"smart growth" movement emerged from a desire to move away from the binary pro-growth versus anti- growth conversation and instead to promote transit-oriented,compact infill development. Environmental concerns played a large part in smart-growth management techniques—smart growth champions believed negative externalities arising from overuse of water,air,and land could reduce quality of life. Over the past several decades,other ballot measures that make it harder to build infill housing have moved forward within city boundaries.Such measures may have had less to do with environmental concerns and more to do with neighborhood opposition to the potential for new infill housing. 5 Arthur C.Nelson and Susan M.Watcher,"Growth Management and Affordable Housing Policy,"Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law 12,no.2(2003):173-187,https://www.jstor.org/stable/25782596. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 7 Types of Land Use Ballot Measures in California For this report,SPUR cataloged all the successfully adopted local land use initiatives in California over the last 50 years.The roughly 200 initiatives included in the database were derived from our review of all back copies of archived newsletters from the California Planning and Development Report(CP&DR)and from our review of supplemental data sources such as Ballotpedia, League of Women Voters, SmartVoter,and The California Association of Realtors' "Matrix of Land Use Planning Measures."6 We analyzed the text of each measure to categorize the measure based on type: • Population/housing unit caps— Measures that place caps on the number of housing permits that a jurisdiction can issue.These caps were based on population projections or a housing unit ceiling. • Zoning — Measures that downzone or otherwise discourage density through zoning amendments. • Height/bulk limitations — Measures that place limits on heights and densities for development. • Infrastructure inadequacy/traffic limits— Measures that tie future growth to the provision of infrastructure or levels of service for traffic. • Urban growth boundaries— Measures that establish urban growth limit lines. Housing is not permitted outside of the lines. • Voter approval requirement—Measures that require voter approval to modify general plans or any other planning documents to construct new developments. • Supermajority requirement — Measures that require supermajority(two-thirds or more)approvals by city councils to amend zoning ordinances or general plans. • Hillside development—Measures that decrease density on hillsides or prohibit development there. • Open space preservation — Measures that restrict development of land on open or agricultural spaces. • Other discretionary— Miscellaneous approaches to growth management that emphasize local discretionary power. Population and Housing Unit Caps In the late 1980s, housing permits or population caps were a popular method of growth management. Population caps place limits on housing construction on the basis of population growth projections and assumptions about how many people on average will live in each unit. Housing caps were permit limitations on the total amount of residential building permits in a given time period.'However,this growth management technique was rendered illegal by a 1994 court case.8 In placing limits on the production of new housing through growth or population caps, localities would sometimes require developers to compete for building approvals through "beauty contests"whereby communities sought everything from basic infrastructure provision (sewers,waters,and roads)to new suburban amenities,such as parks and trails.9 6 See"California Planning and Development Report(CP&DR)Reports Archive,1986-2004,"https://www.cp-dr.com/categories/report_archive; "Ballotpedia,"https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page;League of Women Voters,"Empowering Voters.Defending Democracy," https://www.lwv.orgi_'Voter's Edge California,"https://www.maplight.org/votersedge;and Local Governmental and Political Affairs Division of the California Association of Realtors,Matrix of Land Use Planning Measures,1971-1986. William Fulton,A Guide to California Planning,6th edition,(Port Arena,California:Solano Press Books,2022),page 215. s Fulton,A Guide to California Planning,page 216. 9 Fulton,A Guide to California Planning,page 216. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 8 Zoning Zoning is the most fundamental tool of land use regulation. Citizen initiative growth-management zoning techniques downzone developable land to prohibit multifamily or denser development. Or they change zoning uses to eliminate developable land by rezoning it for open space,agricultural,or other special purposes. Height, Bulk, and Other Development Limitations Height, bulk,and other development limitations amend a city's general plan or zoning ordinances to decrease or place restrictions on allowable heights or floor area ratios—the amount of usable floor area a building has in relation to the size of the lot or parcel the building is located on—for new developments.Also included in this category are development limitations,such as parking requirements.An example of a parking requirement is Albany's Measure D. Initially enacted in 1978, it requires two spaces for each constructed residential unit.SPUR found 32 ballot initiatives that placed restrictions on height and bulk or that posed other development limitations.An example of a height restriction is San Diego's City's Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone(CHLOZ). Enacted in 1972 by a voter initiative,the CHLOZ places a 30-foot height restriction on all areas seaward of Interstate 5, unless exempted explicitly by the San Diego Municipal Code.San Diego's CHLOZ was superseded by California's Density Bonus Law,effectively allowing other density bonus-qualifying projects that exceed the height limit to be built in the zone. Measures that restrict height and bulk such as San Diego's Proposition D,which authorized the CHLOZ,are in this category. Infrastructure Inadequacy Sometimes known as adequate public facilities ordinances(APPOs), level of service(LOS) requirements, or concurrency requirements, infrastructure inadequacy ties the allowability of development to the provision of infrastructure or levels of service for traffic infrastructure adequacy.These measures may establish specific standards for virtually all public infrastructure, including roads(congestion levels),schools(capacity and crowding), parks(acres per person),and police and fire services(response times) before development is allowed to occur.1° An example of an infrastructure inadequacy measure is Walnut Creek's Measure H. Residents of Walnut Creek passed the measure in 1985, in the midst of growing concern about excessive traffic congestion and construction. The measure placed a ban on all construction unless pea- hour volume to capacity ratios at key intersections were kept at or below 85%.The California Supreme Court found the measure inconsistent with the city's General Plan,and it was overturned in 1990.11 However, cities still use infrastructure inadequacy measures as growth management techniques,with Costa Mesa's Measure Y passing as recently as 2016. Urban Growth Boundaries Urban growth boundaries(UGBs), place limits on new development outside designated lines to promote smart growth and limit urban sprawl. UGBs are most popular in suburban or rural cities,especially those including productive agricultural land.12 These urban growth boundaries define which geographic areas are best positioned for urban growth,contingent on the provision of infrastructure and services,and which ones should not allow for the intensification of growth due to environmental sensitivity or preservation of rural character. The first UGB voter initiative passed in California was in Napa County in 1973.Voters moved to establish the Napa "Residential Urban Limit Line,"containing urban development within the specified boundaries. UGBs rose to 10 Fulton,A Guide to California Planning,page 216. 11 Lesher Communications,Inc.v.City of Walnut Creek,52 Cal.3d 531,277 Cal.Rptr.1,802 P.2d 317(Cal.1990). 12 Elisabeth R.Gerber and Justin H.Philips,Growth Management Policy in California Communities,Policy Report No.2,April 2004,Center for Local, State,and Urban Policy,https://closup.umich.edu/research/policy-reports/growth-management-policy-california-communities. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 9 popularity in the 1990s.A 1995 court ruling held that voters could create UGBs at the ballot box and prohibited amendments without voter approval.13 UGBs discourage development outside of their boundaries.They may also encourage infill development and redevelopment inside urban areas while increasing the value of land within the UGB through amenity effects.14 However, UGBs do lead to an overall reduction in the amount of developable land,potentially creating expensive barriers to development. More often than not, policies are insufficient to promote density and intensity within the urban core to offset the reduction of developable land created by UGBs. Nevertheless, UGBs play an important function in decreasing development on agricultural or undeveloped land,which has positive environmental impacts. Some of the Most Popular Citizen Initiative Measures Are Those That Preserve Open Space and Agricultural Resources Smart-growth save open space and agricultural resources(SOAR)measures,which emerged in the City of Ventura in 1995 and Ventura County in 1998,have enjoyed great success among Southern California voters.SOAR measures have amended cities'urban growth boundaries to encourage smart growth by requiring voter approval for rezoning agricultural or open space lands.SPUR categorized SOAR measures as urban growth boundaries and open space preservation because they amend urban growth boundaries to promote smart growth and require voter approval for rezoning designated open space lands. Ten SOAR measures have been passed and enacted in California jurisdictions as of 2023.a Rather than specify the type of development that can occur within a boundary,they allow agencies to consider the desired density of the interior and amount of infill. Although SOAR measures have the effect of disallowing growth in green fields,they have not always been accompanied by upzoning—zoning codes changes that increase the amount of development allowed in the future—within growth boundaries. a County of Ventura Resource Management Agency,"SOAR Questions and Answers," https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/brochures/SOAR.pdf. Voter Approval Requirements Voter approval requirements are citizen initiatives requiring that changes to zoning codes be accomplished only through a popular vote.Some stipulate that citizen approval is necessary only for certain designated development areas, increases in density,changes of land use designations from residential to commercial,or conversion of public land to private use.The most restrictive voter approval requirements apply to any change to the zoning code. Generally, most voter approval requirements aim to enshrine zoning approval in the hands of the local citizenry and to lengthen the approval process to discourage growth.SPUR identified 44 initiatives that contained voter approval requirements. There are two types of voter approval requirements:substantive changes and "frozen." In the first form of initiative,voters circulate language that would make substantive changes to the existing general plan or zoning,or they formally re-adopt existing land use designations.This type of initiative precludes any future amendments to these substantive provisions without voter approval. One example of this form of initiative is Walnut Creek's Measure A: "The Building Height Freeze Initiative,"which amended the zoning code to prohibit construction 13 DeVita v.County of Napa,9 Ca1.4th 763,38 Cal.Rptr.2d 699,889 P.2d 1019(Cal.1995). 14 Karen A.Danielsen,Robert E.Lang,and William Fulton."What Does Smart Growth Mean for Housing?"Housing Facts and Findings 1 no.3 (1999):12-15,https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/sea_fac_articles/353,and K.William Jaeger,Andrew J.Plantiga,and Cyrus Grout,"How Has Oregon's Land Use Planning System Affected Property Values?"Land Use Policy 29,no.1(2012):62-72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.005. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 10 of buildings taller than six stories or 89 feet.The legislation also stipulated that any changes to this zoning ordinance must be approved by the electorate.15 In the other form of initiative, proponents do not adopt or re-adopt any land use or zoning decisions governing any particular property. Proponents of this type of initiative do not circulate maps showing the affected area of the city, and they do not present text from the general plan or zoning to the electorate as part of the signature-gathering process. Instead,the measure states that all future amendments to the general plan or zoning changes that increase density will require voter approval.An example of this type of voter approval requirement includes Costa Mesa's Measure Y,passed in 2016,which requires voter approval on a development project that"adds 40 or more dwelling units,adds 10,000 sq ft of non-residential use, or generates over 200 additional trips."16 Supermajority Requirements Some citizen initiatives establish supermajorities(a two-thirds or greater majority approval)from city councils, planning commissions,or both to overturn or amend zoning designations. In the City of San Ramon, Measure G (1999) requires that any changes to the General Plan must achieve a four-fifths majority vote approval by the City Council and Planning Commission.17 Hillside Development In more rural and agricultural jurisdictions,such as the Central Valley,concern over the encroachment of urban development into agricultural and open spaces led to ratification of slow growth measures that prohibit construction on hillsides.SPUR found 17 citizen initiatives aimed at establishing controls on the development of new housing on designated city hillsides. Open Space Preservation Open space preservation measures set aside land parcels for agricultural or horticultural production, recreational use, natural beauty,or conservation of natural systems.18 Open space preservation initiatives exploded in popularity following the economic boom of the 1990s. Many of these initiatives are accompanied by voter requirement stipulations that lock up land use designations until citizens amend them with a popular vote. SPUR found 38 ballot initiatives related to open space preservation. Other Discretionary SPUR found other citizen initiatives that placed restrictions on development but did not neatly fall into the aforementioned categories.These initiatives include advisory measures that provide more general frameworks for jurisdictions to satisfy citizen growth concerns,such as Santa Cruz's Measure E,which urged the county to take any necessary steps to slow the growth of the University of California Santa Cruz.Another miscellaneous discretionary measure is San Diego's Measure C, passed in 1988,that calls for the establishment of a regional planning review board to coordinate growth management activities throughout San Diego County. 15 Aziza Jackson,"Measure A Height Restrictions,"Walnut Creek Magazine, https://www.walnutcreekmagazine.com/2018/09/04/179762/measure-a-height-restrictions. 16"Santee,California,Measure N,Development Project Voter Approval Requirement Citizen Initiative(November 2020),"Ballotpedia, https://bal lotpedia.org/Santee,_California,_Measu re_N,_Development_Project_Voter_Approval_Requ irement_Citizen_I nitiat ive_(November_2 020). 17 From San Ramon's 2023-2031 Housing Element,"Governmental Constraints"section,https://plansanramon.com. 18 From San Ramon's 2023-2031 Housing Element,"Governmental Constraints"section,https://plansanramon.com. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 11 Understanding California's Local Land Use Initiatives Summary statistics show that the most popular form of ballot measures are urban growth boundaries(45)followed by population/housing unit caps(36),and voter approval requirements(31) (exhibits 1 and 2).SPUR found 208 measures in total.Some measures fit multiple categories and,therefore,some categories include duplicates,adding up to a number greater than the total number of measures. Exhibit 1. Local Land Use Ballot Measures in California by Percentage and Number, 1973-2023 Nearly a quarter of the local land use ballot measures cataloged by SPUR were to establish urban growth boundaries.The next most popular measure was to cap the number of housing permits that a jurisdiction can issue. CATEGORY PERCENTAGE COUNT Population/housing unit cap 17% 37 Downzoning/zoning restriction 7% 17 Infrastructure inadequacy/traffic limits 7% 16 Voter approval requirement 15% 44 Supermajority requirement 1% 3 Height/bulk/other development limitations 11% 32 Hillside development 5% 17 Urban growth boundary 22% 50 Open space/park/agricultural preservation 11% 38 Other discretionary 5% 11 Source:SPUR analysis SPUR identified trends in the popularity of certain types of ballot measures(see Appendix A). Housing unit caps were most popular in the period 1982-1993. Urban growth boundaries became more frequent in the 1990s and enjoyed spikes in popularity in 2016 and 2020. Height and bulk restrictions peaked in 1986 and steadily decreased in popularity until 2008, when they increased before declining again. Infrastructure inadequacy requirements declined in popularity after peaking in 1988.Trends in zoning restrictions, hillside development,other discretionary measures, and supermajority requirements were less clear. Overall,the county that had the most measures that restrict housing was Los Angeles County,followed by Alameda County(Exhibit 3).Growth management measures were most popular along the coasts and urban areas. Alternatively,urban growth boundaries were most popular in rural or agricultural areas. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 12 Height and bulk restrictions were most popular in Los Angeles County(10)and regionally, in Southern California and the Bay Area. Zoning restriction ballot measures were most popular in Orange County(4)and Santa Clara County (3). Regionally,they tended to dominate Southern California and the Bay Area. Exhibit 2. Total Measures That Restrict Housing by County in California The highest concentrations of initiatives that restrict housing are along the California coast. 6 NcsvaUa it • 16\\ • • • • Alameda County had the • second highest number of ballot measures that restrict 11 • housing(17). • • California • • • Los Angeles County had • the highest overall number of ballot measures that • =1 restrict housing(25). • =5 • =10 • =20411 =25 Source:SPUR analysis SPUR I Planning by Ballot 13 Policy Evaluation Land use ballot measures take many forms.Some of these measures have protected important open spaces and agricultural lands.Others have undermined housing production in infill locations.The impact of land use ballot measures must be understood in the historic context in which the measure was adopted.SPUR's analysis of California's measures yields the following findings: 1. Many local land use ballot measures have led to the protection of open space and agricultural lands. Urban growth boundaries(48)and open space preservation(38)are the most popular and third-most popular local land use ballot measures.Along with hillside protection measures(17),they play a critical role in protecting environmentally important spaces.According to Greenbelt Alliance,two-thirds of the more than 2 million acres of the Bay Area's vital and scenic open spaces are protected because of growth management measures.19 And as a SPUR report notes, local land use ballot measures also have helped preserve agricultural land,especially large, contiguous agricultural areas and high-quality farmland and ranchland20 Across the state these measures have led to the protection of open space through initiatives such as Napa County's Measure J,which closed specific tracts of farmland to development. Other measures,such as the SOAR measures that proliferated in Southern California following The City of Ventura's 1995 Measure I, have limited development outside of urban growth boundaries. 2. Some local land use ballot measures have undermined infill production. Developers can revitalize vacant or underutilized land in already-developed areas,such as those zoned commercial, residential,or industrial, by"filling in"that land with new structures. Many measures cataloged by SPUR undermine production in these areas through zoning restrictions, height or bulk limits,parking requirements,or zoning code changes that can only be altered through voter approval. Height and density limits have been found to undermine infill production.A form of entrenched constraint,these limits codify exclusionary zoning,whereby apartment buildings and smaller homes are rendered illegal. Minimum parking requirements such drive up the costs of infill development,adding nearly$36,000 per unit for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit(LIHTC)-funded developments.21 Parking requirements also restrict permitting and construction of multifamily housing overall:cities that have higher parking requirements generally produce less multifamily units.22 Other initiatives such as Costa Mesa's Measure Y, which requires voter approval for any large-scale zoning changes or development projects that exceed 40 dwelling units,are potential blocks to infill development. 19 Greenbelt Alliance,"At Risk:The Bay Area Greenbelt 2017,"https://www.greenbeltorg/research/at-risk-the-bay-area-greenbelt-2017/. 20 Eli Zigas,Locally Nourished:How a Stronger Regional Food System Improves the Bay Area,SPUR Report,2013, https://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2013-05-13/locally-nourished. 21 David Garcia and Julian Tucker,"How AB 1401 May Impact Residential Parking Requirements,"Terner Center for Housing Innovation,UC Berkeley,April 13,2021,https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/ab-1401-residential-parking-requirements/. 22 Sarah Mawhorter,Housing Policies in California Cities,Terner Center for Housing Innovation and Center for California Real Estate,2019, https://siliconvalleyathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Terner-Center-Mawhorter_Housing_Policies_in_California_Cities.pdf. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 14 3. Land use ballot measures can contain provisions that conflict with the implementation of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process and also with the adoption of compliant housing elements. The state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment(RHNA) process identifies the number of market-rate and below-market-rate housing units a region needs to plan for in an eight-year cycle. Once a jurisdiction receives its RHNA allocation, it must revise its local zoning codes to accommodate allocated units. Citizen initiatives pose legal and political impediments for governments attempting to meet RHNA requirements. Indeed, Costa Mesa's Measure Y recently proved to be a major impediment to finalizing the city's housing element.The city was required to zone for an extra 11,760 residential units by 2029 to meet the regional housing needs assessment of the California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD). In 2022,Costa Mesa's City Council placed Measure K on the November ballot to loosen the grip of Measure Y's restrictions,and the electorate adopted the measure. Jurisdictions have attempted,through various methods,to address the potential obstacle that citizen initiatives pose to achieving housing element compliance.Some jurisdictions attempt a program approach,a strategy developed with HCD to deliver on housing needs. One example of this approach is Yorba Linda's Affordable Housing Overlay, which increases densities, height limits,and floor area ratios and eases other development restrictions for developers in exchange for projects providing 20%affordable units.23 This program addresses the Yorba Linda"Right to Vote" Measure B,which requires voter approval for any zoning changes. Other localities have addressed citizen initiative constraints by initiating comprehensive plan updates.The City of Escondido took this approach to address the constraint posed by Proposition S,the"Escondido Growth Management and Neighborhood Protection Act Initiative,"a citizen initiative that requires voter approval of specific changes to the General Plan. In response,the city updated its General Plan in 2012 to increase housing density in certain areas,such as the South Escondido Boulevard, raising the density from 24 to 30 units per acre. HCD determined that Prop.S was not a constraint on Escondido's short-term RHNA obligations,and the city amended the growth management initiative to accommodate additional units in the East Valley area to meet its RHNA.24 In the long term, Escondido was directed to monitor the initiative and its potential impacts on housing construction. In other localities, local governments have attempted to address citizen initiative constraints by asking voters to repeal them. In the City of Alameda,voters adopted Measure A,an amendment to the City Charter approved in 1973, that enshrined single-family zoning within the city's boundaries.The measure was amended in 1991 with Section 26- 3,which set the maximum residential density of one housing unit per 2,000 square feet(21.78 dwelling units per acre)throughout the city.This provision was found to be in direct violation of the State Housing Element Law because it prevented the city from meeting its allocated housing goals.25 Voters were asked to repeal Measure A through Measure Z in 2020, but the amendment failed. In 2021, HCD issued a letter stating that Measure A ran afoul of state law.26 The City of Alameda then set aside the provisions of Measure A in order to adopt a compliant housing element.27 23 See the"Governmental Constraints"section of the City of Yorba Linda's"2021-2029 Housing Element." 24 See the"Governmental Constraints"section of the City of Escondido's"6th Cycle Housing Element 2021-2029." 25 Paul McDougal,"RE:City of Alameda Measure A Provisions and Housing Element Compliance,"letter to Andrew Thomas,November 29,2021, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/alaalamedacity-ta-112921.pdf. 26 Paul McDougal,"RE:City of Alameda Measure A Provisions and Housing Element Compliance." 27 Adhiti Bandlamudi,"To Meet State Housing Goals,One Bay Area City Had to Overcome Its NIMBY Past,"KQED,January 23,2023, https://www.kged.org/news/11938267/to-meet-state-housing-goals-one-bay-area-city-had-to-overcome-its-nimby-past. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 15 4. Measures that restrict infill housing can undermine housing affordability and have the potential to exacerbate racial segregation. Land use ballot measures can constrain not just what land is available for housing development, but also restrict growth in low-density housing development in the locations where growth should most appropriately occur. Additionally,the land use policies that arise from ballot box planning have the potential to increase the cost of development and delay the development process, ultimately decreasing housing production,especially affordable housing production.28 SPUR identified 14 land use ballot initiatives in its database that directly aim to downzone areas to single-family zoning or that represent other anti-density victories. Multifamily housing tends to be more affordable than single-family low-density housing.29 Black and Latinx households are disproportionately lower income.30 Therefore, low-density zoning can contribute to residential segregation because higher-density dwelling units such as multifamily housing tend to be more affordable to minority populations. Other scholars have documented how housing restriction measures have the potential to perpetuate racial exclusion. Professor Mai Nguyen's research found that cities that qualified growth management ballot measures experienced greater growth in their white population and lower growth in their Latino population.31 Interestingly,she also found that growth management ballot measures were not a response to high rates of population growth within a community. Conclusion SPUR's Local Land Use Ballot Initiatives database represents the most recent database of ratified citizen initiatives that have the potential to limit housing production to date. Other growth management databases have focused on different time periods —the California Association of Realtors' Matrix of Land Use Planning Measures covers initiatives from 1971 to 1986 —or have included both ratified and failed initiatives,such as Mai Thi Nguyen's research database in"Growth Management at the Ballot Box:What Are the Motivations and Outcomes?" Further research to explore the impact of the measures identified in our database on infill housing production could better illuminate contributing factors to the housing crisis in California. 28 Lucy Acquaye,Joseli Macedo,Rhonda Phillips,and Douglas White,"Exploring the Impacts of Ballot Box Land Use Measures on Affordable Housing,"Housing and Society 34,no.1(2007):45-63. 29 National Multifamily Council,Multifamily Benefits:The Housing Affordability Toolkit,https://housingtoolkit.nmhc.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/D_NMHC_PDF-Sections_Multifamily-Benefits_PG-36-T0-44.pdf, 3°Sarah Karlinsky,Losing Ground:What the Bay Area's Housing Crisis Means for Middle-Income Households and Racial Inequality,SPUR Report, March 2023,https://www.spur.org/publications/research/2023-03-07/losing-ground. 31 Mai Thi Nguyen,"Growth Management at the Ballot Box:What Are the Motivations and Outcomes?"PhD diss.,(University of California Irvine, 2004),page xv. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 16 Appendix A: Additional Analysis of Ballot Measures SPUR analysis of land use ballot measures in our database includes the impact population/housing caps,the number of urban growth boundaries adopted by year,and the spatial distribution of various measures. Exhibit Al. Population/Housing Unit Caps per Year wr 9 California Supreme Court rules housing unit D• 8 /caps unconstitutional in Building Industry ZAssociation V.City of Oceanside(1994) i 7 O 2 o.• 6 u a 5 x r w 4 a • 3 Y /\/ - O 2 t O 1 0 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 YEAR Exhibit A2. Urban Growth Boundary Measures by Year w 14 � IE 12 } 10 Ventura County enacts the Save Open 'Z Space and Agricultural\ Resources(SOAR)Ordinance.1998 x• 8 0 IX 6 z m 4_ u. Q 2 O 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 YEAR SPUR I Planning by Ballot 17 Exhibit A3. Height and Bulk Restrictions by Year 4.0 VI O 3.5 f- u • 3.0 . j\_\A H W O: 2.5 X m Z 2.0 a H X 1.5 W 2 O 1.0 F Z O• 0.5 U 0.0 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 YEAR Exhibit A4. Height and Bulk Restrictions by County l'. \ u� California \---Ni Height and bulk restrictions were most frequent in Los Angeles County. COUNT OF HEIGHT AND BULK RESTRICTIONS 4 4 7311111111.111111111 SPUR I Planning by Ballot 18 Exhibit A5. Downzoning/Zoning Restrictions by County 111 Ca;ifornia a { Orange County had the `... 'rl / . highest frequency of r,-' downzoning or zoning restriction ballot initiatives. i COUNT OF OOWNZONING/ \ ZONING RESTRICTIONS w 1 4 Exhibit A6. Voter Approval Requirements by County L✓ - ) 7., \.. alsfornia -- ' li Arizona ( San Diego County had the ^%... highest frequency of voter approval requirement COUNT OF VOTER ballot initiatives. APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS 1 9 SPUR I Planning by Ballot 19 Exhibit A7. Open Space Preservation by County , 3 California Open space preservation impsz initiatives were most frequent in Los Angeles County. OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION • MEASURES S Exhibit A8. Urban Growth Boundary Measures by County Urban growth boundaries were most popular in Sonoma County. Ventura had the second most frequency of UGBs. It was also the locus of Save Open Space and Agriculture Resources (SOAR)measures. 1, COUNT OF URBAN GROWTH • BOUNDARY MEASURES 1 13 ..--- SPUR I Planning by Ballot 20 Appendix B: Court Cases on the Legality of Growth Management Techniques A series of court cases have defined the legality of various growth management techniques and, in particular,their application in land use ballot measures. Associated Home Builders, Inc. v. City of Livermore Key finding:Cities must account for the regional housing impact of growth management actions. The burden of proof is on the city to show growth management ordinances do not harm regional housing supply. This 1976 court case established a three-pronged test of validity for subsequent growth management plans wherein cities that restrict housing must consider the regional housing impact of their actions. In essence,to be legally sound, growth management plans must be demonstrated by cities and counties to not harm regional housing supply. Building Industry Association v. City of Camarillo Key finding:The regional housing impact burden of proof does not apply to initiatives. 32 In a 1986 case regarding Measure A,a growth control ordinance enacted in the City of Camarillo,the California Supreme Court ruled that cities do not need to show that growth management initiatives harm regional housing supply.Since Camarillo,the court has given much more deference to citizen initiatives than council-or board- approved growth ordinances.33 Arnel Development Company v. City of Costa Mesa Key finding:Initiatives are valid methods of amending county general plans.34 In 1995,the California Supreme Court further affirmed the legality of voter initiatives as legislative actions by ruling that the initiatives are valid methods for amending county general plans.This ruling led to an explosion of local land use initiatives. Building Industry Association v. City of Oceanside Key finding:Population or housing unit caps violate state housing element law.35 Guardrails have been placed to prevent abuse of the citizen initiative in light of regional housing mandates and state housing element law. Housing and population caps lost popularity following the late 1980s. In 1994,the Court of Appeals in San Diego ruled that the City of Oceanside's growth management system was a violation of state law. Proposition A,the voter-approved initiative in San Diego that restricted the number of residential units permitted per year,violated four important sections of state housing element law.36 The ruling weakened the standing of the 60 other population or housing unit caps put in place at the time, but jurisdictions can still defend the legality of such initiatives due to provisions that, unlike Proposition A,exempt affordable housing from unit caps.Communities 32 Building Industry Assn.v.City of Oceanside,27 Cal.App.4th 744,33 Cal.Rptr.2d 137. 33 Fulton,A Guide to California Planning,page 220. 34 Arnel Development Co.v.City of Costa Mesa,28 Ca1.3d 511,169 Cal.Rptr.904,620 P.2d 565(Cal.1980) 33 Building Industry Assn.v.City of Oceanside,27 Cal.App.4th 744,33 Cal.Rptr.2d 137. 36 The court found that Prop.A was in violation of(1)section 65913.1,which prohibits land use policies that discriminate against low-and moderate-income residents in need of housing;(2)section 65913.1,which calls on municipalities to zone vacant land to accommodate low-and moderate-income housing;(3)section 65913.1,which calls on municipalities to zone vacant land to accommodate low-and moderate-income housing;and(4)section 65915,which required localities to provide density bonuses for projects that are 100%affordable. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 21 that were known for employing them have now pivoted to the urban growth boundary as a new growth management tool.37 Devita v. County of Napa Key finding:Local general plans can be amended by the initiative process. Initiatives are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.38 In this 1995 case,a property owner challenged Napa's longstanding land use policy(Measure J),which requires voter approval for changing an agricultural land use designation to an urban land use designation. Richard M. DeVita argued that Measure J contradicted the city's General Plan and should be voided.The Supreme Court upheld the legality of Measure J and ruled that state elections law enables the initiative process to be a valid form of general plan amendment.39 Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton, Alameda County Key finding:Population and housing caps are invalid,and affordable housing development is mandated.4° In 2010,affordable housing advocates,with the support of then-Attorney General Jerry Brown,won a major victory when the Alameda County Superior Court struck down Pleasanton's 1998 voter-approved growth ordinance and housing caps.As of this decision, housing or population growth caps are no longer allowable. 37 Fulton,A Guide to California Planning,page 220. 38 DeVita v.County of Napa,9 Cal,4th 763(1995). 38 Fulton,A Guide to California Planning,220. 4°Urban Habitat Program v.City of Pleasanton,164 Cal.App.4th 1561,80 Cal.Rptr.3d 300(Cal.Ct.App.2008). SPUR I Planning by Ballot 22 Appendix C: Key Research on Land Use Ballot Measures in California Numerous scholars and practitioners have conducted extensive research on land use ballot initiatives in California. Our research draws on their efforts. The Effects of Local Growth Controls on Regional Housing Production and Population Redistribution in California Key finding:Growth management techniques reduce the supply of housing.41 Urban planning researcher Ned Levine analyzed the effects of local growth controls on regional housing production and population redistribution,determining from a comprehensive survey of data from 490 Californian cities and counties and net housing construction that the policies displaced new construction, particularly rental housing. Measures that limited available land or downsized existing zoning impacted low-income households and minorities in particular. Regional Growth, Local Reaction: The Enactments and Effects of Local Growth Control and Management Measures in California Key finding:Growth management techniques have evolved, their popularity coinciding with periods of economic growth.42 Madelyn Glickfeld and Ned Levine established a"sequence"of preferred growth management methods, beginning with population control measures,then infrastructure control measures,followed by zoning and political controls in the early 1980s,and floor space control and more general approaches in the late 1980s.The methods of growth management evolved and ebbed with regional growth patterns.The popularity of growth management initiatives in cities coincided with periods of economic growth.Cities confronted with the possibility of new demand brought on by economic boon grappled with how to manage fluctuating populations. Growth Management at the Ballot Box: What Are the Motivations and Outcomes? Key finding:Growth management measures are not motivated by elitist or community statuses. They also are not adopted in cities that experience relatively high growth rates.43 Mai Thi Nguyen built on prior research by providing a detailed study of growth management techniques or"tools" by cataloging and analyzing a ballot measure database containing 436 growth management measures appearing on local ballots in California between 1986 and 2000.Nguyen confirmed the findings of Glickfeld and Levine,finding no significant relationship between the adoption of growth management ballots and high rates of real past growth. Rather,growth management techniques can be understood as reactions to regional patterns of growth. Localities may have enacted them as mechanisms to prevent potential spillover growth from neighboring jurisdictions. 41 Ned Levine,"The Effects of Local Growth Controls on Regional Housing Production and Population Redistribution in California,"Urban Studies 36,no.12(1999):2047-68,https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Effects-of-Local-Growth-Controls-on-Regional-in- Levine/ae5c38869de9f754dc8cb4614320c8d7f9576c46. 42 Madelyn Glickfeld and Ned Levine,Regional Growth...Local Reaction:The Enactment and Effects of Local Growth Control and Management Measures in California,Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,1992,pages 35-36. 43 Mai Thi Nguyen,"Growth Management at the Ballot Box:What Are the Motivations and Outcomes?"PhD diss.,(University of California Irvine, 2004),page xv. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 23 Local Growth Control at the Ballot Box: Real Effects or Symbolic Politics? Key finding:Growth management measures can slow housing growth. There is also evidence that they reduce growth in Latinx and lower-income populations.44 Nguyen analyzed the sociospatial impacts of ballot box growth management measures.Through ordinary least squares(OLS) regression analysis,she found that the enactment of ballot box growth controls from 1986 to 1999 slowed housing unit growth overall and reduced Hispanic growth rates. Her work confirmed that ballot box growth measures are not purely"symbolic politics,"or political actions with negligible real consequences on growth trajectories.These measures have a real measurable impact on growth patterns and the potential to reduce growth in Hispanic and lower-income populations. The Effects of Local Growth Controls on Regional Housing Production and Population Redistribution in California Key finding:Growth management techniques reduce the supply of overall housing.45 Urban planning researcher Ned Levine analyzed the effects of local growth controls on regional housing production and population redistribution,determining from a comprehensive survey of data from 490 Californian cities and counties and net housing construction that the policies displaced new construction, particularly rental housing. Measures that limited available land or downsized existing zoning impacted low-income households and minorities in particular. Cities Under Pressure: Local Growth Controls and Residential Development Policy Key finding:Growth controls contribute to the affordable housing shortage.46 Paul G. Lewis and Max Neiman analyze the impact of local growth controls on the shortage of affordable housing. They delve into the motivations for growth restrictions, discovering that growth issues remain at the forefront of political exigencies in California municipalities,often affecting the outcomes of mayoral or city council elections. Lewis and Neiman assert that local citizen unease is highly linked with growth control policies,and cities that experience the slowest growth tend to adopt the most growth management policies. Growth Management Policy in California Communities Key finding:Cities with growth boundaries experience slower rates of housing growth.47 Research from Elisabeth R.Gerber and Justin H. Philips has demonstrated that cities with growth boundaries experienced slower growth rates than other California communities between 1990 and 2000.Additionally,cities with urban growth boundaries saw housing prices increase as much as 14%more than housing prices in their non-UGB- adopting counterparts. 44 Mai T.Nguyen,"Local Growth Control at the Ballot Box:Real Effects or Symbolic Politics?"Journal of Urban Affairs 29,no.2(2007),https://doi- org.iibproxy.berkeley.edu/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2007.00331. 45 Levine,"The Effects of Local Growth Controls on Regional Housing Production and Population Redistribution in California." 46 Paul Lewis and Max Neiman,Cities Under Pressure:Local Growth Controls and Residential Development Policy,Public Policy Institute of California,January 2002,https://www.ppic.org/publication/cities-under-pressure-local-growth-controls-and-residential-development-policy/. 47 Elisabeth R.Gerber and Justin H.Philips,Growth Management Policy in California Communities,Policy Report No.2,April 2004,Center for Local,State,and Urban Policy,https://closup.umich.edu/research/policy-reports/growth-management-policy-california-communities. SPUR I Planning by Ballot 24 0 S P U R San Francisco San Jose Oakland Ideas + action for a better city spur.org SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION 7/2/2024 kleab Date: From: Fikes,Cathy To: Aaenda Alerts Subject: FW:.More political theater on 7/2 agenda Date: Monday,July 1,2024 9:49:57 AM Agenda Item No.; 13 (24-479) From:Andrissa Dominguez<andrissahb@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday,June 29,2024 4:17 AM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Fwd:More political theater on 7/2 agenda Just so everyone knows what Dan Kalmick thinks Forwarded message From: Dan Kalmick<dan( dankalmick.com> Date: Fri,Jun 28,2024,5:09 PM Subject: More political theater on 7/2 agenda • To:<andrissahbCagmail.com> View this'email in:your browsert C1 I_can't say I was surprised when I save the agenda for our next City Council meeting The Council Majority submi•tted`an item to p#ace a charter amendment on the November2024 ballot requiring voter approval for any city'ini#sated general plan amendment or zoning • change that will make significant environmental impacts according to the California Environmental Quality;Act{CEQA) If your head is spinning, it should be This is a very technics#and complicated process and is rah#igating, at the ballot box,the housing case we last n Sari Diego Court justa'tdiot months ago. It also has a litany of unintended consequences that could be devastating to the •City and will affect commercial zoning too This is a dangerous political gambit,We know that residents in Huntington"Beach are sceptical of new housing and tf given the opportunity to vote, will likely vo#e against: it„Below is a slide from the last Yorba Linda City Council Meetings YL has a similar;'green fight'ordinance that requires;a vote of the people to change zoning on property This slide • :;llit ; ;ey a l thmentora Ee usingthir;Hrove° e't'apptrsdo their voensif wha Measue=showsntrolLCoLoca : :- . . 1-,~-',,,,,,r,,-,,..,,-."-,,•,:.,-,..,...:,,i.,i.,,-,':,...;i'...,,..','i.:.:.-,,,.,:,,,:.,•;-,i,,,,,!:,'„,.:,:i'.„;,;,-..,'-..—:,,,...;,.::.'...;..:'.,-3,',,:-:',,-,,':,r.,',...,'0.;..,,.",;-;','!_,'.'„,,,,.'.7--..,,,',,.,,,'.,.:"i",,-,',,';,.2',:,:',-•:„.;'.,:,'.:,::',;2,',,.,:,i.A.'',-:,!::,"',,,,::'''.,,,.,.•.-,,1'.,''.'......0-.,,1,'',,--,,'-',,,;,.'.','':,'',,,;.--..;..','.'.,'.,,..':.,„'v..,-'.'-is,,:::--'''.-,—,:-,':,,.',,„:7.,;--,,,,-:.„,•,',,,.,:;:‘;..%,-,,,...'r.,-,-,,,-'--,,-",1:...'',,:_.'.,-z',.':..,'",'i'':.ft,,..'';.,..::,..,:''-.„..:,-,'„=.l:.-,",„.,''..,,,,',:,:'-,,,:.'...''';..i.'"_'„i,,,.',:,,.„;"'-.:,,,...,,'-,',,';:',.s,-,,.',,,,---,-,'",.',:,,,,.'..:,,.',,,''.;-..,,,,.:'.,-',',-.,.,,,.-i--5:':',,",.,,,..-,-.,,:-,2,.,,:;..-',..,,.,•.,.",-,-'-:..,—,,,,.:,.,,.-.',:,-,?„'„,-,.;,,;t.',r':,,'.,',.'!,,',-,,:.7'.,,.2:,.'.7„-.-N.',2.''.-:-9:,_.:---,,,.',.:-.-',,.-'.'.:.,-!.1,.,'.:,..'''.'-,.='-,,,.',,''.:,,„.,?-,,,.,'--,:':":,',-.i:,,",,,--.-.„...,,.,'',-,..„'';,,„',,'.•,''i-',,.,t'',,.,.,...i,-,'-,:...._.."...',.,,:,.:.:.','.i,.',:,..,,-.k"........i"',.,•,.,-,,,,,.,..,..,-:.'.',.',-,-..'.,„,':„ 1. 1,,. ,.. ... ,. ... ., ':fin;':'::' ' „ .,. ".',.. , '�✓ n.: :,:..:.. ;.,.,.. .. :...:.. ._._ • ° ,',:':l:,':.--,,,,,,,''."i-',..,-,,,:,."-:-,-,E:'.,,,..---.''-',,,,-..,':',,.;..,,.,,,..,,-,:--':,,-;--"'',-.,.,:,',,-,,'::,-`,---'-,.,-.;,'.:.,,...L:'-".''",,:-,,-,...,',-......-,,.....-?,-.,:---i",-y--.-....-.-'",.ih.'.„..,:,,-?,:,.:'.-.,-.„,-'.--'-,..-:-..-'i,,--'„..-;':-''7-..'-;....-.-'„,,,;-,„'i 5-.„:,-.1.-:....:,,'-.''-..'',:;i,,,,.,..'`--„.-...,7-.-,:'::'.---:'::,-,7,;-'-',',,-,,'.',,,>'i,,'-,-:'-e-,,'L-:::-.,:,•i',:,-,-.-..,.--.,--:'.•:,-.-:'7,..:.'..,-::;,;;,,:„...,.2--.::,,,.:,'-",,',,...1.,,-,,.",-i,,,,-,.,.':'7-..:.':.",-,",.-,-::f,,,-'-:.-,;-,,',..:,...:'•.:-q,•:,,,...,.;-,,::,--,:.,-,-.-,:-':'''',,',-,':-i,?.„-..:.-',::7,,,.'„:--'„-,-:,:,:,-1,;,'.',,---,',1.,,-i-:,-,:.--',,,,.:,"„‘'- ven:after our Council-is an---this:amendr`:rent.will blockeor;:dela-.:and=n,.,-'the'cost of ,''_.all.bi :ci initiated: rojects for::ears to`coir e. An.,..chan es'to Downtown::Beach Blvd.the: " ' _ .;;-General.Plan;update;_or to'come,into compliance with,changes in state:law .will all likely,: : .- ' ;require a expensive election on a very technical and complicated issue (the:March,prin ary costt ie'Cit` :$395 O:OU We;were elected:to do-this:com'licated and>:hi hly-tect nicaf work not` ass;the hard`decisic ns'nvolvin "land='use°:off.to residents°who are:alread',- ' _•„ >__ .. p. 9. yrr overburdened. have:a lot more to say,on this and I don't:want'this_email<to>get toolong.Please tL!n " ,.,'::into (youtube°:link.the:Council Meetin on Tuesda�,'night.at 6°p`m:: _:=' "<'=° ;-`;,, %"; ; Once again they;-are_leading us down-a road,with;:more. nes, lawsuits,reckless ;. , , z.;'.'spending"ar d stagnation That's-why-these.'upcoming_elections are.:so critical We_need " to make;sure Councilrrmember,s Natalie Moser„Rhonda Bolton and;l are„elected in 2024 and rational leader..take the:majority .-back-in:.the:next election:. If ou re tired.of the,::'w .... ` <.':. ;political_theater';this is,the,opportune time'to donate,,organize, and,vote wisel, ',., _= n ATE TODAY DON .. .., on't for et:to'tune'into our:nettcouncil meetinaon:_Tuesda , Jul:.`2nd;at.6 rn: .'-:: ;': g ..:, g.._ . Y Y , p.-_ -52 fi Thank you so much,for your support In Service, Dan:Kalmick,. Huntington Beach City Council CU.0 HERE TQ DONATE. VISLTWEBSITE (� e : u g You are receivin this email because ou contacted-Councilmember Kalmick orare:a voter:in Huntingtond e Copyngfit©2t724 Re Efect Dan Kalmick to H8:City Council-FPPC/D#9460116,All n hts iesery � 9 Y Beach ` • Our mailing,address is: ReElect Dan-Kalmick to HB CityCouncil-,FPPC ID#1460116 " 249 E.:Ocean;Blvd;_#670 : . - : .: Long Beach,Ca:90802' Add us to your address book Want to y Chan e'how ou receive'the se emails?_: " `ou can'uodate your preferences or unsubscribe.frorri.this list. From: Fikes.Cathy To: agenda Alerts Subject: RN:PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT(June 2 City Council Meeting) Date: Monday,July 1,2024 9:52:09 AM From: Kent Braithwaite<kntbrthwt@aol.com> Sent:Sunday,June 30, 2024 6:30 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Kent Braithwaite<kntbrthwt@aol.com> Subject: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT(June 2 City Council Meeting) June 30,2024 Dear Mayor Van Der Mark and Huntington Beach City Council: I am writing this email to express my concern over the proposed Charter Amendment stating that no City initiated general plan amendment or zoning change that would incur significant unavoidable environmental impacts may be approved by the City without a vote by the people. While zoning and approval of new construction are certainly municipal affairs,even charter cities must follow State laws. While we all favor local control,your proposed Charter Amendment would prevent a Housing Element from being adopted unless voters approved it. Housing Elements are extremely complex documents better left for you,the City Council,with the expertise of our appointed Planning Commission to approve.Because we lack a Housing Element,and especially under the scenario where your Charter Amendment passes,we will be subject to Builder's Remedy rather than under the strict scrutiny of our own Planning Commission. Local control will be supplanted by State control. Very proud of our city's progress to fight homelessness over the last four years,I applaud recent progress such as the Huntington Beach Navigation Center and the construction of the new Jamboree project to house senior citizens. There is a marked contrast between the beautiful buildings managed by Jamboree and those which could be forced down our throats by Builder's Remedy.Imagine what will happen if we lose the state grants which support our projects to fight homelessness.Imagine what will happen if we are fined up to$600,000 per month because we are out of compliance on the Housing Element. As an advocate for SHIP and the unhoused population,I worry about whether you will direct law enforcement to criminalize poverty as a result of the Grants Pass Supreme Court decision. It is essential that we address the systemic issues at the core of our housing crisis—a lack of affordable housing within Huntington Beach..The proposed Charter Amendment will lead to restricting housing development as well as a shortage of workforce housing which harms local businesses trying to hire employees. If you truly care about environmental issues,please focus on sustainability concerns like sea-level rise,coastal erosion,and previously researched sustainability measures ready to be enacted. We all value local control,and we should pass the Housing Element rather than the proposed Charter Amendment,which will only trigger Governor Newsom's "Strike Force" of penalties. The short-sighted charter amendment will lead to much worse environmental risk when we consider the collective greenhouse gas emissions from all the people who have to commute from the Inland Empire in order to work in Huntington Beach. Is the charter amendment truly worth the tremendous costs it will impose in terms of future litigation,state fines, loss of local control, and greater environmental risk? Sincerely,...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Jenny Braithwaite From: Fikes.Cathy To: Agenda AIerN • Subject FW: balloting attempt Date: Monday,July 1,2024 9:55:48 AM From:cathy werblin <ccwerblin@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday,June 29, 2024 11:27 AM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:balloting attempt Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Please do your jobs overseeing the city, including accepting or rejecting building and zoning • requirements, and stop using the ballot box as a means to achieve your goals when the courts and residents are against you. It is exhausting.You are creating a hostile city with residents at each other's necks. Is this your objective? Reasonable, long-time residents are tired of the theater and of your on- going and ill-advised attempts to push through your unpopular agenda. Please,for the sake of our sanity, return to the normal functions of a city council and stop with all the drama.You are getting bad advise from your city attorney, and if you had a professional city manager rather than a police chief doing two jobs,you would have been informed of this. Of course, not everyone will always agree with the actions of their elected officials, but this is getting humiliating and you should be embarrassed . Cathy Werblin • From: Andrissa Dominguez To: suoalementalcommCla surfcity-hb.orq Subject City Charter Date: Saturday,June 29,2024 4:55:39 AM I am in FULL SUPPORT 11 i i i I of placing a charter amendment on the November 2024 ballot requiring voter approval for any city initiated general plan amendment or zoning change that will make significant environmental impacts according to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Thank you for giving HB's future back to the residents. Unfortunately we have members like Dan Kalmick who think that the residents of HB are stupid and cannot comprehend the charter amendment in fact in an email sent out by Kalmick he believes that our heads should be spinning... HE KNOWS HOW RESIDENTS OF HB FEEL about the Demoncrats push for high density development that he is part of ie... QUOTE from an email he sent out """ This is a dangerous political gambit.We know that residents in Huntington Beach are sceptical of new housing and if given the opportunity to vote,will likely vote against it. """" Remember why YOU SIT ON FIB CITY COUNCIL...voters put you there to do what HB residents want to protect our FIB lifestyle. Please vote YES Thank you for continuing efforts to protect HB... Stop overdevelopment and destruction of our HB lifestyle!!! Stop Dan Kalmick and the Demoncrats from the DESTRUCTION of FIB.... Sincerely Andrissa Dominguez Resident of hb for 54 years From: Cathy werblin To: suoolementalcomm(@surfcity-hb.orq Subject: ballot Date: Saturday,June 29,2024 11:30:36 AM Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Please do your jobs overseeing the city, including accepting or rejecting building and zoning requirements, and stop using the ballot box as a means to achieve your goals when the courts and residents are against you. It is exhausting.You are creating a hostile city with residents at each other's necks. Is this your objective? Reasonable, long-time residents are tired of the theater and of your on- going and ill-advised attempts to push through your unpopular agenda. Please,for the sake of our sanity, return to the normal functions of a city council and stop with all the drama.You are getting bad advise from your city attorney, and if you had a professional city manager rather than a police chief doing two jobs, you would have been informed of this. Of course, not everyone will always agree with the actions of their elected officials, but this is getting humiliating and you should be embarrassed . Cathy Werblin From: Judy Brusslan To: suoolementalcomm(aa surfcity-hb.orq Subject: No on Item 13(24-479) Date: Saturday,June 29,2024 7:52:31 PM Attachments: jmage001.onq imaae002.pnq Please vote NO on 24-479.Zoning is a complicated issue that affects environment and economy.Thousands of pages of documents are prepared to make informed decisions and citizens may not have time or expertise to evaluate these documents with sufficient knowledge to make informed decisions. In addition, Huntington Beach is a city under the regulations of the state of California,and zoning decisions must be in accordance with the laws of the state. It is unconscionable to waste taxpayer money paying legal fees and noncompliance fees. Thank you, Dr.Judy Brusslan Resident, Huntington Beach Professor of Biological Sciences Bridges to the Doctorate PI California State University, Long Beach L . , , ' , NE ,, AMBASSADOR .44 Ai01AE FEO + KrY From: cherivatkinson4aol,cOrn To: suoolementalcomm(alsurfcity-hb.orq;CITY COUNCIL,UNCL.CM0 STAFF) Subject: I vote no on Item 12(24-479)being on the ballot in November,2024 Date: Sunday,June 30,2024 8:53:46 PM Dear City Council, I vote no on Item 13 ( 24-479) The language is vague and it appears to be another way to resist complying with California directive ; to adopt a Housing Element, and another way to resist providing - affordable housing in HB. Cheri Atkinson LCSW (6/30/2024) From: Mark Tonkovich To: suoolementalcommCalsurfcity-hb.orq Subject: 24-479 Charter Amendment Date: Monday,July 1,2024 10:00:46 AM Hello, My wife and I support 24-479.Charter Amendment stating that"No City initiated general plan amendment or zoning change may be approved by the City where the related environmental review(EIR)finds the same proposed general plan update or zoning change presents"significant and unavoidable"negative impacts to the environment, without first receiving approval by a vote of the people." Thank you for continuing the fight to have local control of HB. Best, Mark and Valerie Tonkovich From: dfgbentlevca omail.com To: suoolementalcommCalsurfcity-hb.orq Cc: dfgbentlevCalgmail.com Subject Agenda Item 24-479 Date: Monday,July 1,2024 12:21:22 PM July 1,2024 Dear City Council Members, I am writing to communicate my strong opposition to item 24-479 on the July 2,2024 City Council agenda.The proposed charter amendment that would place before the voters any general plan amendment or zoning change could result in environmental impacts is a thinly disguised attempt to continue the practice of stopping reasonable housing development in Huntington Beach. It is also a recipe for complete gridlock in the functioning of the City government. Huntington Beach has an aging population of mostly single-family homeowners of a limited stock of very high-priced homes. If voters continue to prevent reasonable development of multi-family homes,there will continue to be a shortage of affordable workforce housing.And the City's employers will find it increasingly difficult to hire employees if those potential employees must travel ever farther to get to the City.The tax base will erode, and the City will find it difficult to fund the many infrastructure projects that loom in the near future.To ensure that Huntington Beach can thrive into the future,we must welcome new residents, not keep them out due to the high cost of our housing. This charter amendment will not prevent the State from imposing fines on Huntington Beach for non-compliance with State laws regarding housing development.And the specter of Builder's Remedy that currently looms over the City will only be worse if this charter amendment passes. Do we really want to let builders construct buildings of any height, on any parcel,and potentially without parking, because we have lost local control of our planning process?? Residents depend on City Council members, qualified City staff and members of Boards and Commissions to evaluate and make complicated,technical decisions regarding appropriate development in the City. If every development decision is left up to the voters in endless, expensive elections,what is the point of having a representative City government?? This proposed charter amendment will result in more fines, more lawsuits and severe damage to the future of our beautiful City. Please do not sacrifice the future of Huntington Beach on the altar of NIMBYism! Sincerely, Diane Bentley 23-year resident of Huntington Beach From: Carol Daus To: suoolementalcomm()surfcity-hb.orq Subject: In opposition to 24-479 Date: Monday,July 1,2024 10:20:10 PM Dear Council Members-I read with considerable interest your concern about Orange County's groundwater basin and potential impact of future high density housing in HB on the sustainability of the groundwater supplies. This is ridiculous. High density housing that replaces single family homes is an excellent use of water resources. The vast majority of groundwater used by residents in HB is used to water lawns (the State of California Department of Water Resources estimates that 67%of residential water use is to irrigate lawns -high density housing would not have lawns). High density housing is a great alternative to single family homes if the concern is optimal utilization of groundwater resources. Finally, the Orange County Water District,which manages the groundwater supply that HB draws from,runs one of the most well managed groundwater basins in the world. Anthony Daus Hydrogeology professional for 40+years and resident of HB From: Steven C Shepherd Architect To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF);supolementalcamm4surfcity-hb.orq Subject: OPPOSED TO AGENDA ITEM#13 Date: Tuesday,July 2,2024 8:27:12 AM You can attempt to rehash the local zoning and land use debate as it relates to housing in as many ways as you wish, but that doesn't change the basic underlying facts on this topic. The issue statement accompanying this agenda item continues to mischaracterize basic information and repeatedly uses incorrect zoning references solely for the purpose of inflaming emotions. This ongoing deception,whether intentional or simply due to basic subject matter ignorance, is not helpful and does a deep disservice to the residents of our community. The time has come for a serious discussion about the real-world consequences of this ongoing political stunt and how it all could have been easily avoided. Steve Shepherd Huntington Beach 92646 From: 13uffie Channel To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF);suoolementalcomm(@surfcity-hb.orq Subject: Against Agenda Item 13,24-479 Date: Tuesday,July 2,2024 8:32:49 AM To City Council: Well, well, well. Once again you F4 majority plus your ring leader Gates, drunk on power, prove to the people that you are merely playing politics instead of actually governing. Your short-brained and short-sighted stunt to change our Charter, once again, shows a complete lack of understanding the big picture ramifications of your impulsive decisions. Tying the hands of the City to address the future housing needs by codifying this into the Charter is irresponsible and an obvious last ditch effort to fight the growing lawsuits that we face. Since you are incapable of rolling up your sleeves and working together to address this housing problem, that most major metropolitan areas are facing across the country, you turn to playing games. Instead of having hard conversations and making rational, functional housing plans for our future, you bow to your puppet masters. We all know you did not come up with this plan yourselves. You are mere puppets bowing to your donor overlords and MAGA handlers. Kicking the housing plan can down the road serves no one. Pretending to "fight Sacramento" while paving the way for Builder's Remedy, serves no one. Who are you serving? Certainly not the people of HB who expect adults to work together on modern problems. I am vehemently against Agenda Item 13, 24-479. Do your jobs and stop the constant Charter amendment changes. Changing the Charter should always be accompanied by serious studies, data, examples of other cities that have done this, public input (prior to putting this on the ballot), and expert opinions. Your voters put you in your seats to make hard decisions. This irresponsible agenda item will stagnate growth, hurt businesses, workers, and impact school enrollment that is already down due to affordability for young families. It will put building and zoning into a quagmire of walls and red tape. Instead of embracing your responsibilities and doing the hard work you were elected to do, you sheepishly punt that burden to the people so you can shirk your responsibilities and attempt to be blameless. It's YOUR job, just like every other city, to address the housing crisis and make progress toward solutions. But instead you want to throw your hands up and complicate progress. Do you even know the ramifications of this? What studies can you show to support this? It's laughable that you cloak.this sinister agenda item in some kind of"environmental impact" mumbo jumbo. You all caring for the environment while you land planes on the beach? The hypocrisy is thick. Trying to change our Charter left and right just makes you look weak and impulsive and beholden to your donors because Builder's Remedy is on its way. You rolled out the red carpet for it. We've been predicting this since you arrived on the dais. Faux outrage towards Sacramento while your real estate developer donors and Apartment Association donors lick their lips in anticipation of Builder's Remedy. We know who your donors are. Buffie Channel 35 year Resident From: Levin.Shannon To: suoolementalcomm(a surfcity-hb.orq Subject: FW:Agenda item. Date: Tuesday,July 2,2024 8:37:39 AM From:Annilise Flanagan-Frankl<anniliseff@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,July 2, 2024 8:37 AM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda item. I am opposed to Placing a charter amendment on the November 2024 ballot requiring voter approval for any city initiated general plan amendment or zoning change I think it would be a problem for our city which continues to be run in such a way that we are constantly in a battle legally,which cost money which is unnecessary.The majority of members on this Council are spending money that could be used in other way to support and positively change our community. I oppose a charter amendment on the November 2024 ballot requiring voter approval for any city initiated general plan amendment or zoning change Annilise M. Flanagan-Frankl, M.A. Counsel ingPsychologist Nationally Certified School Psychologist Remember - the past is over, the future is a mystery,and today is a gift. That is why it is called the PRESENT. Make today count. Call: 847-226-3119 From: Levin.Shannon To: suoolementalcommCla surfcity-hb.orq Subject: FW:Vote No on Agenda#13 and Present an Alternative Motion to Address the Housing Needs of HB Date: Tuesday,July 2,2024 8:37:47 AM From: Pat Goodman <patgoodman@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday,July 2, 2024 7:34 AM To:Van Der Mark,Gracey<Gracey.VanDerMark@surfcity-hb.org>; CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF) <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Vote No on Agenda#13 and Present an Alternative Motion to Address the Housing Needs of HB Dear Mayor Van Der Mark and City Council, I'm opposed to agenda item #13, July 2, 2024 City Council agenda, because such a charter amendment, if approved by the people, will weaken local control of housing development in an attempt to circumvent state housing law. The city will continue to be lawbreakers and make it impossible to plan for any housing development in the future. If you vote in favor of this item you are putting the property owners' financial security at risk by causing an unstable, unpredictable housing environment. Generally, cities, including Huntington Beach, have met the assessed moderate and above income housing goals over the last 55 years, but have failed miserably to reach very low and low income housing goals thus creating a housing shortage and homelessness. I acknowledge that HB provides affordable, safe housing but it is not enough to meet the demand. We know this by the time it takes for residents to move through wait lists, re- apply, and the length of stays in transitional shelters. Residents have to overcome herculean hurdles to apply for affordable housing. We see people moving out of state, doubling up in units to try to live near their jobs and schools, causing labor shortages, pollution, and other burdens on our infrastructure. The current system of resistance, denial, and blame isn't working. Agenda Item #13 will not correct the problem. The council needs to come up with its own housing needs assessment and a working plan to address the housing needs of its residents. Such an action shows good faith to voters that you take your responsibility for running the city seriously. Without such a plan we're all in the dark and putting at risk the financial security of current homeowners, businesses and taxpayers. You will show to voters that you want to address housing blight and decay, and the lack of affordable housing stock in our city by developing a housing plan of your own making. Please vote no on Item #13, and present an alternative motion that addresses the housing needs of Huntington Beach. Thank you. Pat Goodman Huntington Beach, CA From: Levin.Shannon To: suoolementalcommCa)surfcity-hb.orq Subject: FW:Communication opposing July 2,2024 City Council Agenda Item#13(24-479) Date: Tuesday,July 2,2024 8:37:52 AM From:Tim Geddes<timgeddes3@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,July 2, 2024 1:28 AM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Communication opposing July 2, 2024 City Council Agenda Item#13 (24-479) Dear Mayor and City Council, Once again,the City Council majority has taken to weaponizing the City Charter to inflict its own reactionary agenda on our community by trying to foist its irresponsible and confrontational will on an unsuspecting general public. The Item (24-479) does nothing to inform the community about the consequences of failing to comply with state mandates. For over a year, this Council majority has done nothing to grapple with our affordable housing dilemma and is practically begging for the state to come down on us hard with fines, penalties, punishments, and unpalatable "remedies" so it can hide within the grievance-driven mantle it has cloaked itself in to avoid its duty of providing problem-solving leadership to our local government. The referenced Housing Element Update (HEU) from last year is being used to stonewall the state and manipulate the electorate into doing nothing constructive to bring ANY plan of compliance to address our housing dilemma. Many of the HEU and EIR findings are challenging and require the kind of deft decision-making and diplomacy the Council majority has utterly failed to provide to deal in good faith with now hostile state authorities. This Council majority has not only abdicated its responsibility to represent our citizenry effectively, it has condemned it to suffering all manner of development disasters and degradation if local control is stripped from us. Worse, it is suckering the public into believing that a charter amendment will stand up against the state better than the first two constructions of the Three Little Pigs. Yes, the state may be characterized as "the big bad wolf", but its ability to "huff and puff and blow our house in" cannot be ignored. The Council majority makes this mistake. And every"little pig" in Surf City will pay for it. The "all or nothing" strategy being adopted by the Council majority will not only fail, it will open the door to the destruction of the quality of life the 2022 Council election winners trumpeted they would preserve. The Council majority should withdraw this item and agree to negotiate with the state to mitigate our compliance status. It should be open and honest with the citizenry and not offer false hope and hollow promises. Our City Charter has already been besmirched with the irresponsible trappings of Measures "A" and "B" this year. It should not be further defiled. Sincerely, Tim Geddes Homeowner, Parent, 40 year.H.B. resident From: Paula Schaefer To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL,CM0 STAFF);suoolementalcommCalsurfcity-hb.orq;citv.manaoerCa�surfcity-hb.orq Subject: VOTE NO on Agenda Item#13 24-479 Charter Amendment Date: Tuesday,July 2,2024 8:47:47 AM City Council Members, Why is this being proposed if the City was confident in its legal authority and likelihood of success in its legal appeals? Putting this complex issue forward as a Charter amendment is a high-risk/low-reward proposition. 1. You are wasting City money on a Charter amendment that is unnecessary because you are failing to perform your duties as City Council members. 2. You are requesting a vote, that if approved, is likely to result in additional fines for failing to adopt a housing element that is approved by the State. 3. Without a compliant housing element, the City is likely prevented from applying for grant funds. 4. The City could be subject to the "builder's remedy" under which the City forfeits significant control over its zoning and planning authority. These are all possibilities and are unnecessary risks to take given the probability of one of the 4 results. VOTE NO! Paula A. Schaefer Huntington Beach resident From: Carol Daus To: supolementalcommesurfcity-hb.orq Subject: In opposition to agenda item,#13,24-479 Date: Tuesday,July 2,2024 8:52:03 AM Dear Council Members, I am opposed to agenda item, #13, (24-479) because this charter amendment, if approved, will weaken housing opportunities in Huntington Beach, and will lead to costly litigation. Our city needs a housing plan and should not be fighting the state on questionable "housing-is-bad-for-the-environment" issues that ultimately will lead to more litigation. Lawsuits are piling up in Huntington Beach and eventually residents will have to pay for them through cuts in service and increased taxes. Providing adequate housing for its residents is the responsibility of a city government. Housing is not a bogeyman and shouldn't be linked to specious environmental concerns. Agriculture is also bad for the environment, and no one is saying we should stop planting crops. People need food and people need housing. Your arguments showing the link between the environment and housing fall on deaf ears. Due to a lack of housing, many younger individuals and families can no longer afford to live in Huntington Beach. We desperately need more affordable housing, and multi-family units should be part of that plan. From an environmental standpoint, most new housing should be multi-story since these developments involve a smaller environmental impact. The housing debate is about affordability. It is about equity. It is about quality of life. It should not involve fighting the state for personal and political gains. Thank you, Carol Daus HB resident,28 years From: Cooper Carrasco To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CM0 STAFF);supplementalcommCa surfcity-hb.orq Subject: Oppose 24-479 Date: Tuesday,July 2,2024 8:55:45 AM You know those Measure M , Section 612 meetings that are happening? It's because of short sighted charter revisions just like this. If it goes through, we'll be having the same kind of meetings about this in the future and people we'll be asking,just like they are in the 612 meetings, "why did we even do this in the first place?" P.S. Take a shot if one of the councilmembers says something to the effect of"i thought you guys were pro-environment" From: Fstanislau.Robin To: Moore,Tania;Switzer.Donna Subject: FW: Urgent commnets On:Agenda item 24-479 Proposed Charter Amendment Date: Tuesday,July 2,2024 2:57:17 PM You should receive this from Cathy as well, but can we call it out separately on our SC memo? This is important. From: Dave Garofalo<hbnewsl@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday,July 2, 2024 2:00 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Parra, Eric(PD)<EParra@hbpd.org>; Gates, Michael <Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org>; Hopkins, Travis<thopkins@surfcity-hb.org>;jennifer@surfcityusa.com; Estanislau, Robin <Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Urgent cormmnets On:Agenda item 24-479 Proposed Charter Amendment HUNTINTON BEACH AUTO DEALERS ASSOC. Dear Mayor Van Der Mark and Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council. CC: City Clerk, Planning Director City Manager, City Attorney The Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Association (HBADA) COMPRISED OF 12 NEW CAR DEALERS, OCCUPYING ABOUT 50 acres of property on Beach Blvd., generating about $1 Billion in annual sales representing almost 15% of the total sales tax revenue enjoyed by the city. We have a few concerned about the to-be-considered changes to the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan (BECSP) on the potential impact of their individual properties. The referenced item is scheduled for discussion July 2 (Agenda item 24-479 Proposed Charter Amendment) We do not know what a New Car Dealership might look like in 10, 15 or 20 years from today. Generally speaking, future dealerships might not look like what we have today. That is of significant concern to my 12 members. Change is a constant. The average size of a current HBAD site is about 3 acres. The current process outlined in the current BECSP is a complete package of entitlements that almost every dealer has incorporated into their long terms financial plan with pre-expensed entitlement cost, etc. As we understand the proposed changes: 1. Should the City be party to a change in land use to support a desired applicant's needs then future EIR cost would have already been paid and a City- wide vote would be required to accommodate that new partnership use. This somewhat Measure C vote would be a serious obstacle. Honestly. who knows what potential partners could knock on our doors in the future wherein the city- partnership is the only way the proposed land use beneficial to the city -could happen...and leave that to a measure "C" vote...I think that would be tragic, particularly because there would be No Master Planning GOING ON. 2. Alternately, the private property owner could move forward independent of the City but then have to re-certify the plan with a new EIR, etc. with upward cost of perhaps $350,000. And not to be ignored is the issues that: THESE PRIOPERTY OWNERS HAVE VALUED THEIR PROPERTIES BASED ON THE MONETARY AND LAND USE VALUES CREATED BY THE CURRENT BECSP GUIDLINES. The proposed new approach to the DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ACCOMODATED BY THE CURRENT BECSP seem punitive. You all know me, and I never resist anything without having alternative options. For Example: *Why not consider reversing the incentives in the current BECSP by significantly incentivizing Commerical Developers to turn developer focus to this specific location. *Convene a think-tank group, clearly state the goals and adopt positive legislative alternatives to accomplish them. WE already have the think-tank in place, City's Planning Department. Please reconsider, any action tonight. Assemble two or three of the current landowners, discuss creative solutions, use the strengths and knowledge of staff and let's develop a plan that meets your goals. Sincerely and respectfully, Dave Garofalo Executive Director HB Auto Dealers Assoc. 714.914.9797 HBNewsl@aol.com PS: Please excuse this letter not being on letter head-time is of the essence. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 7/02/2024 13 (24-479) Agenda Item No. From: Fikes,Cathy To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:HB Council Agenda of 7/2/2024 Date: Tuesday,July 2,2024 5:13:45 PM From:gelliottl@socal.rr.com <gelliottl@socal.rr.com> Sent:Tuesday,July 2, 2024 1:15 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF) <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: HB Council Agenda of 7/2/2024 Item#13, 24-479 Is Builders Remedy the real goal of this Council's majority voting bloc of 4?It certainly appears to be, so why not just go full MAGA and carry white flags in the 4th of July parade to indicate your full surrender to special interests?It's already been well-established that you have no shame. Let freedom ring however hollow. C. Elliott(HB resident since 1980) From: Fikes,Cathy To: Agenda Alert Subject: FW:Vote No,on councilmember Item 13,7-2-24 CC mtg. Date: Tuesday,July 2,2024 5:14:31 PM From: Dan Jamieson<danjamieson4@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,July 2, 2024 1:55 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Vote No,on councilmember Item 13, 7-2-24 CC mtg. Dear HB Councilmembers: Please vote NO on councilmember Item 13,the Proposed Charter Amendment- Environmental Protections for General Plan Amendments. We don't need to be voting on zoning changes. HB residents have had enough ballot initiatives,which seem to have replaced considered decision making by councilmembers acting in good faith. This Item also seems like an admission that the "unleash Michael Gates" strategy of taking on the state re our housing plan is going to be a costly failure. The Item seems like a retreat, putting the fight on the backs of voters. HB needs more housing. Look around.Many young people can't afford to live here. Schools are closing for lack of students. Many younger people live with their parents,hoping to inherit a home in HB. The city has plenty of infill opportunities to sensibly develop new housing with more efficient land use that will make housing more affordable. Please vote NO on this item. Sincerely, Dan Jamieson Huntington Beach From: Ted Rosh To: suoolementalcommCa surfcity-hb.orq Subject Both sides playing fast&loose! Date: Wednesday,July 3,2024 12:54:27 PM Looks like both Democrats&Republicans could be acqused of last minute ballot changes. Reference our last HBCC Mfg! « Several major ballot measures have been dropped, sometimes in favor of legislative compromises. Meanwhile, Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislators have added two large bond issues and a criminal justice measure aimed at undermining a more punitive proposal already on the ballot. The common denominator of these maneuvers is that all - were negotiated and drafted in utter secrecy and are being implemented at warp speed." Sent from my iPhone Ted Ross Huntington Beach resident - Moore, Tania From: Levin, Shannon Sent: Monday,July 8, 2024 7:51 AM To: supplementalcomm@surfcity-hb.org Subject: FW: My comment on Natalie Mosers last words on the latest Charter Amendment Agenda Item#13. 24-479 From: larry mcneely<Imwater@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday,July 6, 2024 11:45 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: My comment on Natalie Mosers last words on the latest Charter Amendment Agenda Item#13. 24-479 Natalie said there was something we needed to talk about, "Those people who are living alone in a Family House" My Parents and My Inlaws Both decided they wanted to live their lives out in Their Homes they struggled to afford and raise their kids in. Natalie would have them living in an Elderly Rest Home with two shared beds in an 8' 10' room at$10K a month until their money runs out and on the street they go. Why Diversity and Equity so we can make way for people like the Three that killed that Tourist in Newport Beach?That Diversity?While Natalie is trying to subvert my 1st Amendment (secure in my home), I will be protecting myself by using my 2nd. Locked and Loaded. Natalie clarified that she wants Builders Remedy and Multi-Unit Apartments built in single-family residential tracts. Natalie will Destroy our Community to meet Newsoms Demands. Natalie Does Not Represent Our Community, Natalie Dan and Rhonda Represent Their Party and Newsom. SHAMEFUL And How Can We Forget Dan Kalmick's"Too Old To Run For City Council"Age Discrimination Comment?Yet he was allowed to pick Appointments, a City Council Replacement, and Board Members when He Should have Been Censured Like Natalie and Removed from office. I just want to make sure I get this on the Public Record as it will be included in their Reelection Mailers I will be co-funding, along with all their Voting Records on HDD and their spending on Vanity Projects like a$100,000 Ice Skating Rink. 1