Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsider the Submission of One Charter Amendment Ballot Meas (2) �NTIN�ro . City of Huntington Beach 041 0 . « '' r� •., -32000 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 `010101%''c �_ (714) 536-5227 • www.huntingtonbeachca.gov '�cF ��o��� Office of the City Clerk °ONTV CP��I Robin Estanislau, City Clerk July 15, 2024 Robin Stieler, Clerk of the Board/ Orange County Supervisors County of Orange 400 W. Civic Center Drive, Sixth Floor Santa Ana CA 92702-0687 Hello Robin, Enclosed please find a certified copy of City of Huntington Beach Resolution No. 2024- 38, approved by the City Council on Tuesday, July 8, 2024 that orders the submission to qualified electors of the City, a Charter Amendment Measure relating to environmental protection at the General Municipal Election of Tuesday, November 5, 2024, as called for by Resolution No. 2024-34, and request for consolidation and assistance through the Orange County Registrar of Voters via Resolution No. 2024-35. If you have any questions, please call me at ( 714) 536- 5405. Sincerely, Robin Estanislau, CMC City Clerk c: Bob Page, Orange County Registrar of Voters Enclosure: Resolution No. 2024-38 Sister City: Anjo, Japan RESOLUTION NO. 2024-3 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY A CERTAIN CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AT THE NOVEMBER 5,2024, GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2024-34 WHEREAS,on July 2,2024,the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-34 calling a General Municipal Election for Tuesday,November 5, 2024; and On July 2, 2024,the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2024-35 requesting that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on November 5,2024, and requested assistance of the Orange County Registrar of Voters; and Pursuant to authority provided by the California Constitution, Article XI and the Government Code,Title 4, Division 2, Chapter 2(commencing at§ 34450) and the Election Code Division 9, Chapter 3,Article 3 (commencing at § 9255) of the State of California,and under the provisions of the laws relating to Charter cities in the State of California,the City Council desires to submit to the voters of the City, at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5,2024, a proposed Charter Amendment related to Environmental Protection, The City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed Charter Amendment to the voters, NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, does hereby resolve,declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein. • SECTION 2. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to Charter Cities, and pursuant to the California Constitution, Article XI and the Government Code, Title 4,Division 2, Chapter 2(commencing at § 34450) and the Election Code Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 3 (commencing at § 9255)of the State of California,the City Council does hereby order submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5,2024, the following question: "Shall proposed Charter Amendment No. 1,which would amend the City Charter to state that City Yes Planning and Zoning is a local,municipal affair, and require voter approval of City initiated general plan amendments or zoning changes when such items No present significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment, be approved?" SECTION 2. That the complete text of the Charter Amendment submitted to the voters Pam / 7' • RESOLUTION NO. 2024-38 is attached as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority(50%+1)of the votes cast. SECTION 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange and the Registrar of Voters of the County of Orange. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council oft of Huntington Beach at a special meeting thereof held on July 8,2024. M Q' Mayor REVIEWED AND APPIpVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: • City Manager City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: ;,City Manager 2 24-14888/345858 Pam a y RESOLUTION NO. 2024-3 8 EXHIBIT A CHARTER AMENDMENT PROPOSED ADDITIONS SHOWN AS UNDERLINED PROPOSED DELETIONS SHOWN AS Charter Amendment Measure No. 1 Section 807.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 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 the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is submitted. City Planning and Zoning is a local,municipal affair,beyond the reach of State control or interference,a local activity reserved for the City and its people,not the State. • • I � I � t 1 I+1 � 1 j 3 • 24-14888/345858 6 LDSy Res. No. 2024-38 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a special meeting thereof held on July 8, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: Burns, Van Der Mark, Strickland, McKeon NOES: None ABSENT: Moser, Bolton, Kalmick ABSTAIN: None (_ ?:(-441/4) 944,14a4A-d City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California rho foregoing Instrument is a correct copy of the original on file In this office. Attest_ / ,---20 -ZL/ City Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk oft he City Council of the city of Huntington Beach, California. By , 14LIACI-;7 Deputy 6 6,„ y y 0121GTp 2000 Main Street, 9� Huntington Beach,CA JI `- 92648 t= City of Huntington Beach 9 ..' '� APPROVED 4-0-3 FcoUN (MOSER, BOLTON, KALMICK— cav ABSENT) File #: 24-465 MEETING DATE: 7/8/2024 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Eric G. Parra, Interim City Manager VIA: Travis K. Hopkins, Assistant City Manager PREPARED BY: Jane Chung, Assistant to the City Manager Jennifer Carey, Acting Deputy City Manager Subject: Consider the Submission of One Charter Amendment Ballot Measure for Voter Approval for the November 5, 2024, General Election and the Adoption of Resolution Nos. 2024-38, 2024-39, and 2024-40 Statement of Issue: On July 2, 2024, the City Council voted to place one Charter amendment ballot measure for voter approval on the November 5, 2024, General Election. The City Attorney's Office has since prepared the following Resolutions, which contain the proposed amendment to the City Charter, ballot question, and exhibit for final consideration by the City Council. 1. Resolution 2024-38 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City a Certain Charter Amendment Measure Relating to Environmental Protection at the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election as Called by Resolution 2024-34 2. Resolution 2024-39 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Setting Priorities for Filing Written Arguments Regarding a City Measure and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis of the Measure to be Submitted to the Voters at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 3. Resolution 2024-40 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Providing for the Filing of Rebuttal Arguments for a City Measure Submitted at Municipal Elections To place this measure on the ballot, the City Council must vote to approve or amend the proposed ballot question and exhibit available in Resolution No. 2024-38; set priorities for written arguments and rebuttal arguments in Resolutions Nos. 2024-39 and 2024-40; and adopt all three resolutions. City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 4 Printed on 7/11/2024 powered by LegistarT" File #: 24-465 MEETING DATE: 7/8/2024 Following adoption, the City Attorney's Office will prepare an impartial analysis for the measure per Resolution 2024-39. Furthermore, the City Clerk's Office will gather the written arguments and rebuttals for the measure and all other required election material for submittal to the OC Registrar of Voters (ROV) by their filing deadlines. Financial Impact: The estimated additional cost to place one Charter amendment measure on the November 5, 2024 General Election ballot is $10,000, bringing the total estimated cost for the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election to $310,000. Funds to cover this amount are budgeted in FY 2024/25 Election Account No. 10010201.69505. Recommended Action: A) Consider the proposed Charter amendment ballot measure, ballot language, and exhibits for placement on the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election ballot for voter approval; and B)Adopt Resolution No. 2024-38, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City a Certain Charter Amendment Measure Relating to Environmental Protection at the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election as Called by Resolution 2024-34;" and C) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-39, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Setting Priorities for Filing Written Arguments Regarding a City Measure and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis of the Measure to be Submitted to the Voters at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024;" and D) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-40, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Providing for the Filing of Rebuttal Arguments for a City Measure Submitted at Municipal Elections." Alternative Action(s): Do not approve one or more recommended actions and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: On July 2, 2024, Mayor Van Der Mark, Mayor Pro Term Burns, and Council Member McKeon submitted a Council Member Item to place on the November 5, 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." The City Council directed staff to City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 4 Printed on 7/11/2024 powered by LegistarTm File #: 24-465 MEETING DATE: 7/8/2024 bring back a proposed November 2024 ballot initiative within thirty (30) days for City Council approval. The proposed ballot measure language and Resolution were developed by the City Attorney's Office. If approved this language will be placed before the voters. Proposed Ballot Language for Consideration (max 75 words): "Shall proposed Charter Amendment No. 1, which would amend the City Charter to state YES that City Planning and Zoning is a local, municipal affair, and require voter approval of City initiated general plan amendments or zoning changes when such items present significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment, be approved?" NO Redlined Charter text with the proposed amendment will be attached to the ballot measure language (see Attachment 4) to help voters visualize and better comprehend this change. Following adoption of the Resolution, the City will prepare an impartial analysis for the measure and gather arguments and rebuttals. Please note the following timelines for all items to be submitted to the City Clerk's Office, should the Council approve the recommended action today: Timeline for Impartial Analysis and Written Arguments: July 8, 2024 -July 22, 2024 Timeline for Rebuttal Arguments: July 22, 2024 -August 1, 2024 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 no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Strategic Plan Goal: Non Applicable - Administrative Item For details, visit www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/strategicplan <http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/strategicplan>. Attachment(s): 1. Resolution 2024-38 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City a Certain Charter Amendment Measure Relating to Environmental Protection at the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election as Called by Resolution 2024-34 2. Resolution 2024-39 -A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 4 Printed on 7/11/2024 powered by Legistar'' File#: 24-465 MEETING DATE: 7/8/2024 California, Setting Priorities for Filing Written Arguments Regarding a City Measure and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis of the Measure to be Submitted to the Voters at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 3. Resolution 2024-40 -A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Providing for the Filing of Rebuttal Arguments for a City Measure Submitted at Municipal Elections 4. Redline of Proposed Charter Amendment 5. July 2, 2024, Council Member Item 24-479 6. Presentation City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 4 Printed on 7/11/2024 powered by LegistarTm City Council/ ACTION AGENDA July 8,2024 Public Financing Authority 4:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALLED TO ORDER SPECIAL MEETING—4:00 PM ROLL CALL Present: Burns, Van Der Mark, Strickland, McKeon Absent: Moser, Bolton, Kalmick PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Led by Deputy Fire Chief Eric McCoy ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution) Administrative Items #1 (15) PUBLIC COMMENTS (3-Minute Time Limit)— 7 Speakers ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 1. 24-465 Approved Submission of One Charter Amendment Ballot Measure for Voter Approval for the November 5, 2024, General Election, and Adopted Resolution Nos. 2024-38, 2024-39, and 2024-40 Recommended Action: A) Consider the proposed Charter amendment ballot measure, ballot language, and exhibits for placement on the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election ballot for voter approval; and B)Adopt Resolution No. 2024-38, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City a Certain Charter Amendment Measure Relating to Environmental Protection at the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election as Called by Resolution 2024-34;" and C)Adopt Resolution No. 2024-39, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Setting Priorities for Filing Written Arguments Regarding a City Measure and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis of the Measure to be Submitted to the Voters at the General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024;" and D)Adopt Resolution No. 2024-40, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Providing for the Filing of Rebuttal Arguments for a City Measure Submitted at Municipal Elections." Approved 4-0-3(Moser. Bolton. Kalmick-Absent); Pursuant to Resolution 2024-39, Councilmembers Burns. McKeon and Van Der Mark to author argument in favor of Charter Amendment Measure 1 ADJOURNMENT—4:30 PM The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority is Tuesday, July 16, 2024, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY A CERTAIN CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AT THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024, GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2024-34 WHEREAS, on July 2, 2024,the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-34 calling a ' General Municipal Election for Tuesday,November 5, 2024; and On July 2, 2024,the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2024-35 requesting that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on November 5, 2024, and requested assistance of the Orange County Registrar of Voters; and Pursuant to authority provided by the California Constitution, Article XI and the Government Code, Title 4,Division 2,Chapter 2 (commencing at § 34450) and the Election Code Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 3 (commencing at § 9255) of the State of California, and under the provisions of the laws relating to Charter cities in the State of California, the City Council desires to submit to the voters of the City, at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024, a proposed Charter Amendment related to Environmental Protection, The City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed Charter Amendment to the voters, NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, does hereby resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein. SECTION 2. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to Charter Cities, and pursuant to the California Constitution, Article XI and the Government Code, Title 4, Division 2, Chapter 2 (commencing at § 34450) and the Election Code Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 3 (commencing at § 9255) of the State of California,the City Council does hereby order submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024,the following question: "Shall proposed Charter Amendment No. 1, which would amend the City Charter to state that City Yes Planning and Zoning is a local, municipal affair, and. require voter approval of City initiated general plan amendments or zoning changes when such items No present significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment, be approved?" SECTION 2. That the complete text of the Charter Amendment submitted to the voters RESOLUTION NO. 2024-3 8 is attached as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority(50%+1) of the votes cast. SECTION 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange and the Registrar of Voters of the County of Orange. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of • of Huntington Beach at a special meeting thereof held on July 8, 2024. E Mayor et(41 Crik— REVIEWED A APP VED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: - 6 ( /1 City Manager City Attorney f,-t- INITIATED AND APPROVED: ity Manager 2 24-14888/345858 ' RESOLUTION NO. 2024-3 8 EXHIBIT A CHARTER AMENDMENT PROPOSED ADDITIONS SHOWN AS UNDERLINED PROPOSED DELETIONS SHOWN AS STRIKETHROUGH Charter Amendment Measure No. 1 Section 807 . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 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 the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is submitted. City Planning and Zoning is a local, municipal affair, beyond the reach of State control or interference, a local activity reserved for the City and its people, not the State. 3 24-14888/345858 Res. No. 2024-38 _ STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a special meeting thereof held on July 8, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: Burns, Van Der Mark, Strickland, McKeon NOES: None ABSENT: Moser, Bolton, Kalmick ABSTAIN: None 1"4/Li eablizZea-444) City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 2024-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 5, 2024 WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Huntington Beach, California, on November 5, 2024, at which there will be submitted to the voters a ballot measure related to an amendment to the City Charter regarding environmental protection; and The City Council wishes to authorize arguments in favor of and in opposition to this _ measure and authorize the preparation of an impartial analysis of this measure, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, does hereby resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That with respect to the following measure (hereafter,the "Measure"): "Shall proposed Charter Amendment No. 1, which would amend the City Charter to state that City Planning and Zoning is a local, municipal affair, and require voter YES approval of City initiated general plan amendments or zoning changes when such items present significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment, be approved?" NO a. That the City Council authorizes the following member(s) of its body: Pat Burns (Councilmember In Favor/Against) Casey McKeon (Councilmember In Favor/Against) Gracey Van Der Mark (Councilmember In Favor!Against) (Councilmember In Favor/Against) (Councilmember In Favor/Against) ,(Councilmember In Favor/Against) (Councilmember In Favor/Against) to file a written argument not exceeding 300 words regarding the Measure as specified above, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California. The RESOLUTION NO. 2024-39 arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the Measure may be submitted to the City Clerk. Said argument to be accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the authors(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization,the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers. The arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement to be Filed by Author(s) of Argument as provided for in California Elections Code Section 9600. SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Measure to the City Attorney. a. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure not exceeding 500 words showing the effect of the Measure on the existing law and the operation of the Measure. If the Measure affects the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney, the City Council may direct the City Clerk to prepare the impartial analysis. b. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing body of • the city. c. In the event the entire text of the Measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the voter information guide,there shall be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in no less than 10-point type, the following: "The above statement is an impartial analysis of Charter Amendment Measure 1. If you desire a copy of the Measure, please call the election official's office at 714-536-5405 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you." d. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. SECTION 3. That if more than one argument for or against the Measure is submitted to the City Clerk within the time prescribed, she shall give preference and priority, in the order set forth in California Elections Code Section 9287,to the arguments in favor/against submitted by: 1)the legislative body, or member(s) of the legislative body authorized by that body, 2) individual voter or bona fide association of citizens or combination of voters and associations, who are the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the Measure, 3) bona fide associations of citizens, 4) individual voters who are eligible to vote on the Measure. REST OF PAGE NOT USED 2 24-14888/345857 • RESOLUTION NO. 2024-3 9 SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a special meeting thereof held on July 8, 2024. 14* en_t_ Mayor REVIEWED AND PROVE APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager City Attorney Q� INITIATED AND APPROVED: ty Manager 3 24-14888/345857 ARGUMENTS FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHORS OF ARGUMENTS All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning with§ 9200)of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be signed by each proponent, and by each author, if different, of the argument: The undersigned proponent (s) or author(s) of the (primary/rebuttal) argument (in favor of/against) ballot proposition (name or number) at the (title of election) election for the (jurisdiction) to be held on , 20 hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of (his/her/their) knowledge and belief. Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) Print Name Signature Title (If applicable):Submitted on behalf of: Date (name of organization) All Authors must print his/her name and sign this form (EC 9600) AND Print his/her name and sign the Argument itself (EC 9283) AND Print his/her name and sign the Rebuttal Argument itself (EC 9285) Further, pursuant to Election Code § 9282, printed arguments submitted to the voters shall be titled either"Argument In Favor Of Measure_" or"Argument Against Measure ". Likewise,printed rebuttal arguments submitted pursuant to Election Code§9285 shall be titled either"Rebuttal To Argument In Favor Of Measure_"or"Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure ': § 9200, 9282, 9283, 9285, 9600 E.C. Statement of Authors of Arguments §9600, E.C.and(Steven Vargas v.Cheryl Balz and City of Brea; Revised 10/2009) F-A- 1 Res. No. 2024-39 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a special meeting thereof held on July 8, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: Burns, Van Der Mark, Strickland, McKeon NOES: None ABSENT: Moser, Bolton, Kalmick ABSTAIN: None g Abtaitatu) City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 2024-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURE SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS • WHEREAS, § 9282 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides for written arguments to be filed in favor of or against City measures not to exceed 300 words in length; and WHEREAS, § 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures submitted at municipal elections; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the elections official has selected the arguments for and against each measure (not exceeding 300 words each) which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the elections official shall send a copy of an argument in favor of the proposition to the authors of any argument against the measure and a copy of an argument against the measure to the authors of any argument in favor of the measure immediately upon receiving the arguments. The author or a majority of the authors of an argument relating to a city measure may - prepare and submit a rebuttal argument not exceeding 250 words or may authorize in writing any other person or persons to prepare,submit,or sign the rebuttal argument.A rebuttal argument shall not be signed by more than five authors. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) - and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization,and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, •. not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. The rebuttal arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement To Be Filed By Author(s) of Argument. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. That all previous resolutions providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures are repealed. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. 24-14888/345859 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-40 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a special meeting thereof held on July 8, 2024. 4111trae_ Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager City Attorney . •V INITIATED AND APPROVED: ity Manager 2 24-14888/345859 ARGUMENTS AUTHORIZATION FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO SIGN REBUTTAL ARGUMENT The following majority of authors of the Argument ❑ In Favor of ❑Against Measure authorize the following person(s)to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument ❑ In Favor of ❑ Against Measure for the City of Election to be held on , 20 Signatures of a majority of the authors of the Argument ❑ In Favor of ❑Against Measure are required: Name(Print) Signature Date Name (Print) Signature Date Name (Print) Signature Date The following authors are authorized to prepare, submit or sign the Rebuttal to the Argument ❑ In Favor of ❑Against Measure Print Name Signature Title Date Print Name Signature Title Date Print Name Signature Title Date Print Name Signature Title Date Print Name Signature Title Date Attach this form to the Form of Statement of Authors Form submitted with the Argument ❑ In Favor of ❑Against Measure § 9285, E.C. Authorization for Others to Sign Rebuttal Argument (Added 10/2008, Amended 10/2016) F -A-2 Res. No. 2024-40 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a special meeting thereof held on July 8, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: Burns, Van Der Mark, Strickland, McKeon NOES: None ABSENT: Moser, Bolton, Kalmick ABSTAIN: None (*494, 9,6"klizZaitu) City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 2024-38 EXHIBIT A CHARTER AMENDMENT PROPOSED ADDITIONS SHOWN AS UNDERLINED PROPOSED DELETIONS SHOWN AS STRIKETHROUGH { Charter Amendment Measure No. 1 Section 807 .ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. No City initiated general plan amendment or zoning change maybe 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 the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is submitted. City Planning and Zoning is a local,municipal affair, beyond the reach of State control or interference, a local activity reserved for the City and its people,not the State. _ { . 3 24-14888/345858 20 • . CITY OF •7,1_ HUNTINGTON BEACH ou'4Tv C #' City Council Meeting — Council Member Items Report To: City Council From: Gracey Van Der Mark, Mayor Pat Burns, Mayor Pro Tem 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 21 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 22 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 23 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 11 of 40 Page ID #:909 Resolution No. 2023-15 Exhibit "A" Subsequent Final Environmental Impact Report: Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations et, SCH #2021080104 2021-2029 Housing Element Update LEAD AGENCY A. 1�1 1�i\\ o� *- --Wiz-- t \\, .e... Tr=111 UMTY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 2000 MAIN STREET 3RD FLOOR HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 (714)536-5721 CONSULTANT Kimlev ;>> Horn KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES,INC. Ms. RITA GARCIA 1100 TOWN AND COUNTRY ROAD,SUITE 700 ORANGE,CA 92868 (714)786-6116 OCTOBER 2022 11 24 ER-321 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 HEU Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 2.0 CEQA FINDINGS 4 3.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 17 3.1. Introduction 17 3.2. Project Objectives 17 3.3. Selection of Alternatives 18 3.4. Project Alternative Findings 18 4.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 25 4.1. Introduction 25 4.2. Significant Adverse Cumulative Impact 25 4.3. Findings 26 4.4. Overriding Considerations 26 List of Tables Table 1: CEQA Findings for the HEU 5 October2022 Pag1L.1 12 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 CEQA Guidelines 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 significant impacts of a proposed project that cannot be mitigated 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 CEQA purposes, 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 October 2022 Pat.62 13 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 RHNA of 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. October 2022 14 a ER-324 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 15 of 40 Page ID #:913 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2.0 CEQA FINDINGS This chapter summarizes the potential impacts that were identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR (Draft SEIR) and the findings that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each significant and/or potentially significant adverse impact are as follows: (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen,or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft SEIR ("Finding 1"). (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. ("Finding 2") (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the Draft SEIR ("Finding 3"). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or project alternatives, where feasible,to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modifications or alternatives are not required where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying a project lies with another agency (CEQA Guidelines §15091, subd. (a), [3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553,565 [276 Cal. Rptr.410].) Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433,442,445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727].) CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific rationale to support its actions based on a Final EIR and/or information in the record.This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations provides the information that demonstrates the decision making body of the Lead Agency has weighed the benefits of a project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." This document presents the findings of the City as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings,and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record. (CEQA Guidelines §15091.). Additional facts that support the findings are set forth in the Draft SEIR, the Final SEIR, staff reports to the Planning Commission and City Council, and the record of proceedings. Table 1 summarizes the potentially significant impacts that were reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation as well as the significant impacts,as proposed for certification and adoption of the HEU. October 2022 15 Pa ER-325 EXHIBIT 10 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 MM AQ-1 and AQ-2. 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 29 October 2022 16 Page s ER-326 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 17 of 40 Page ID #:915 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 the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants and to ensure that construction emissions do not result in the exceedance of localized significance thresholds.With implementation of these measures, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The project would result in a cumulative Cumulative development could violate an air quality Finding 3.The City of Huntington Beach finds that even contribution to an air quality impact, standard or contribute to an existing or projected air with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures resulting in a significant and unavoidable quality violation because the South Coast Air Basin and compliance with applicable General Plan goals and cumulative impact to air quality. (SCAB)is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PMio, policies, implementation of the HEU could result and PM2.5. Concerning daily emissions and the significant unavoidable impacts related to a cumulative cumulative net increase of any criteria pollutant for increase in construction and operational emissions due which the region is in nonattainment,the Project would to the speculative nature of future projects. No result in a cumulatively considerable increase to mitigation measures in addition to GPU PEIR MM 4.2-1 nonattainment of ozone,PM2 s,and PMto standards in through MM 4.2 14 are feasible to reduce cumulative air the SCAB. Because no information on individual quality impacts to a less than significant level. projects is currently available,cumulative construction and operational emissions cannot be accurately quantified.Despite compliance with General Plan goals and policies and implementation of mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-14, daily construction and operational air quality emissions would be considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable. 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 Project could development under the Project would result in identified changes or alterations in the Project, which cause a substantial adverse change in the demolition or removal of historical or archaeological would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, significance of a historical and/or an, resources, or the disturbance of unknown human are hereby incorporated into the Project.No additional archaeological resource and may result remains, within the planning area. However, future mitigation measures are necessary with implementation in the disturbance of unknown human projects would be required to implement mitigation mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4.4-1,MM 4.4-2,and remains. With incorporation of measures GPU PEIR MM 4.4-1,MM 4.4-2,and MM 4.4- MM 4.4-3. mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4.4- 3, which outline procedures to be followed during 1, MM 4.4-2, and MM 4.4-3, these future construction activities to ensure compliance with local,State,and Federal regulations pertaining to so October 2022 17 Page 6 ER-327 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 18 of 40 Page ID #:916 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 impacts would be reduced to a less than such requires. Implementation of these measures significant level. would ensure that Project impacts with respect to archaeological and historical resources, as well as unknown human remains, would be less than significant. Geology and Soils Future development under the HEU All future housing development subject to rezoning and Finding 1.The City of Huntington Beach finds that the could expose people and/or structures within overlay zones would be required to comply with identified changes or alterations in the Project, which to potentially substantial adverse applicable General Plan goals and policies related to would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, effects,including the risk of loss,injury, geology and soils and would also be required to are hereby incorporated into the Project.No additional or death, involving fault rupture, implement mitigation measures GPU PEIR 4.5-1 mitigation measures are necessary with implementation expansive soils, strong seismic through MM 4.5-3, which require that relevant mitigation measures GPU PEIR 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-3 groundshaking and/or seismic-related geotechnical studies be undertaken prior to issuance of and MM 4.4-4. ground failure, including liquefaction. grading and construction permits.Future development Future development under the HEU also projects would also be required to implement has the potential to disturb unknown mitigation measures GPU MM 4.4-2 through 4.2-4, paleontological resources. With which require site-specific studies and compliance with implementation of mitigation measures existing regulations to minimize impacts to unknown GPU PEIR 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-3 and paleontological resources. Implementation of these MM 4.4-4, as well as compliance with measures and compliance with General Plan goals and applicable State and City regulations, policies would reduce impacts associated with the these impacts would be reduced to a less exposure of people to significant risk of geological than significant level. failures,as well as impacts to unknown paleontological resources,to a less than significant level. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The project would result in project-level The Project would potentially generate GHG emissions Finding 3.The City of Huntington Beach finds that even and cumulative significant and that could have a significant impact on the environment with implementation of all GHG reduction measures and unavoidable impacts due to the and could conflict with applicable plans for reducing compliance with applicable General Plan goals and generation of greenhouse gas (GHG) GHG emissions. Although the Project would aim to policies,GHG emissions associated with the HEU could emissions and the potential conflict with comply with GHG reduction strategies outlined in the would be significant and unavoidable. No feasible an applicable plan. GPU PEIR,these strategies require additional action by mitigation measures are available to reduce GHG City staff and officials, and the feasibility of impacts to a less than significant level. implementing these strategies and specific implementation details rely on numerous factors that cannot be adequately forecasted at this time. Si October 2022 )8 Page 7 ER-328 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 19 of 40 Page ID #:917 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 Furthermore, GHG emissions may differ from actual Project future emissions due to various factors.As such, the Project's potential to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, and potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the 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 quantify project- specific GHG emissions associated with construction and operational 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 HEU 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 during operations.All would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, environment through reasonably future housing development subject to rezoning and are hereby incorporated into the Project.No additional foreseeable upset and accident within overlay zones would be subject to compliance mitigation measures are necessary with implementation conditions involving the release of with General Plan policies aimed at reducing impacts of mitigation measure GPU PEIR MM 4.7-1. hazardous materials into the from hazardous materials. 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 GPU GPU PEIR MM 4.7-1,this impact would PEIR MM 4.7-1,which requires compliance with with be reduced to a less than significant Huntington Beach Fire Department specifications level. related to the potential to encounter methane gas. Compliance with City regulations,General Plan policies, and implementation of mitigation measure GPU PEIR MM 4.7-1 would ensure Project impacts would remain less than significant. October 2022 19 Page 8 32 ER-329 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 20 of 40 Page ID #:918 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 Individual sites within the planning area Development of any identified sites of contamination Finding 1.The City of Huntington Beach finds that the are included on a list of hazardous would be required to undergo remediation and clean identified changes or alterations in the Project, which materials sites that could result in the up before construction activities can begin. If would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, accidental spread of contamination and contamination at any future project site were to exceed are hereby incorporated into the Project.No additional could create a significant hazard to the regulatory action levels, a future project would be mitigation measures are necessary with implementation public or environment. However, with required to undertake remediation procedures prior to of mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4.7-2 and MM 4.7- implementation of mitigation measures grading and development under the supervision of 3. GPU PEIR MM 4.7-2 and 4.7-3, this appropriate regulatory oversight agencies.Compliance impact would be reduced to a less than with City standards and implementation of mitigation significant level. measures GPU PEIR MM 4.7-2 and MM 4.7-3, which require preparation of a preliminary environmental site assessment to determine the potential for onsite contamination, would ensure that the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment,resulting in a less than significant level. Implementation of the HEU could impair Future development facilitated by the Project would Finding 1.The City of Huntington Beach finds that the implementation of or physically interfere increase housing density in certain areas of the City, identified changes or alterations in the Project,which with an adopted emergency response resulting in greater population concentrations within would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, plan or emergency evacuation plan. certain areas. This increased density could interfere are hereby incorporated into the Project.No additional However, with implementation of with emergency evacuation in the event of a City-wide mitigation measures are necessary with implementation mitigation measure GPU PEIR MM 4.7-4, emergency. However,the Project would not result in of mitigation measure GPU PEIR MM 4.7-4. this impact is considered less than changes to the City's existing circulation network. No significant. land uses are proposed that would impair the implementation of, or physically conflict with, the Huntington Beach Emergency Operations Plan/Hazard Mitigation Plan. As a result, the Project would not conflict with any State or local plan aimed at preserving and maintaining adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. Notwithstanding, to minimize all potential impacts, all future housing development subject to rezoning and within overlay zones would be required to adhere to GPU PEIR MM 33 October 2022 20 Page 9 ER-330 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 21 of 40 Page ID #:919 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 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 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 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 34 October 2022 2 I Page tO ER-331 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 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 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 a groundwater hydrology study to ensure that dewatering activities do not interfere with groundwater supplies. Despite compliance with this measure and until water supply 3 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 4.8-3. GPU PEIR MM 4.8-3, this impact is capacity in the storm drain system and provide for considered less than significant. mitigation of constraints,would reduce this 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. 1 through 4.10-4. through 4.10-4, which include construction-level and operational noise reduction measures to reduce 2') 35 October2022 Page 13 ER-332 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 23 of 40 Page ID #:921 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Table 1: CECIA 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 and implementation of mitigation measures GPU PEIR 4.10-1 through 4.10-4, the Project would result in significant 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 receptors. 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 4.10-5. 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, 36 October 2022 23 ER-333 PagEXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 24 of 40 Page ID #:922 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 parks/recreational facilities, and However, with incorporation of mitigation measures are hereby incorporated into the Project.No additional libraries.However,with incorporation of GPU PEIR MM 4.12-1 through MM 4.12-7, which mitigation measures are necessary with implementation mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4.12- require future projects to pay applicable development of mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4.12-1 through 1 through MM 4.12-7,impacts to these impact fees related to each of these serves,impacts to MM 4.12-7. public services would be reduced to a these public services would be reduced to a less than less than significant level significant level. Recreation Future development under the HEU • Future development under the HEU would increase Finding 1.The City of Huntington Beach finds that the would increase the demand for and on the demand on recreational services.However,with identified changes or alterations in the Project,which parks and recreational services. incorporation of mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, However, with incorporation of 4.13-1 and MM 4.13-2,which require compliance with are hereby incorporated into the Project.No additional mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4.13- City parkland requirements and payment of park fees, mitigation measures are necessary with 1 and MM 4.13-2, impacts related to impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be implementation of mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM parks and recreational facilities would be reduced to a less than significant level. 4.13-1 and MM 4.13-2. reduced to a less than significant level Transportation Future development under the HEU Future development under the HEU could potentially Finding 1.The City of Huntington Beach finds that the would increase the number of vehicular worsen levels of service(LOS)for various intersections identified changes or alterations in the Project, which trips in the Project area, which could in the City,which could conflict with the City's policy to would reduce this impact to a less than significant level, conflict with City goals and policies maintain specified performance standards for citywide are hereby incorporated into the Project.No additional aimed at maintaining specific LOS at traffic-signal-controlled intersections during mitigation measures are necessary with implementation performance thresholds addressing peak hours.Therefore,all future housing facilitated by of mitigation measures MM 4.13-1 through MM 4.13-3. circulation in the City. However, with the HEU would be required to comply with General Plan incorporation of mitigation measures goals and policies pertaining to LOS and would be GPU PEIR MM 4.13-1 through MM 4.13- subject to compliance with mitigation measures GPU 3, impacts to the circulation system PEIR MM 4.14.1 through 4.14-3,which require future would be reduced to a less than projects near specified intersections to make fair share significant level contributions toward specified improvements. Compliance with these goals and policies and implementation of mitigation measures GPU PEIR MM 4.14.1 through 4.14-3 would ensure that impacts related to the City's circulation system would be reduced to a less than significant level. Future development under the HEU A total of 325 candidate housing sites would not require Finding 1.The City of Huntington Beach finds that the would increase the number of vehicular preparation of a VMT analysis based on Small Project identified changes or alterations in the Project,which 7 37 October 2022 Page 13 ER-334 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Piled 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 I 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 all 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 38 October 2022 -5 Page 14 ER-335 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 26 of 40 Page ID #:924 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Table 1: CEQA Findin: 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 39 October 2022 26 Page 1,5 ER-336 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 27 of 40 Page ID #:925 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 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 MM 4.15-2,the Project would result significant level. in a cumulatively considerable contribution to water supplies, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. 27 40 October 2022 ER-337 Page 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 chapter describes the project objectives and criteria used to develop and evaluate project alternatives 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 implement the 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 or at risk of homelessness. • Improve quality of life and promote placemaking. • Affirmatively further fair housing. October 2022 o Page17 ER-338 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 29 of 40 Page ID City of Huntington Beach #:927 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3.3. Selection of Alternatives The range of feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that were taken into account when considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) were environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines,the Draft SEIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project. 3.4. Project Alternative Findings The following is a description of the alternatives evaluated in comparison to Project, as well as a description of the specific economic,social,or other considerations that make them infeasible for avoiding or lessening the impacts. As shown below and in 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 two alternatives analyzed represent a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. The analysis in this section focuses on significant and unavoidable impacts attributable to each alternative and the ability of each alternative to meet basic project objectives. "No Project" Alternative (Alternative 1) According to State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e), the specific alternative of "No Project" shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a No Project Alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed Project with impacts of not approving the Project.The No Project Alternative analysis is required to discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published (August 4, 2021), as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future, if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Under Alternative 1, development within the City would proceed pursuant to the adopted City General Plan and zoning.The City's projected regional housing need for the 6th Cycle RHNA planning period(2021- 2029) is 13,368 dwelling units (11,743 units when accounting for existing applications and pipeline projects). Under Alternative 1, the City would not implement the Housing Program required to comply with State law, 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 candidate housing sites. In total, the HEU identifies 378 candidate housing sites (approximately 419 acres). The proposed amendments to the Huntington Beach October 2022 Page 18 29 42 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 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations General Plan and the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of 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 to accommodate future housing sites as part of the HEU's Implementation Program,would not be implemented at the 378 identified candidate housing sites. The capacity to develop 11,743 additional housing units that would be facilitated by Project implementation would not be provided under 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 existing underlying zoning, under Alternative 1, rezoning of Sites 3,4, and 5 would not occur and existing zoning would remain in place. Under this alternative,State Housing Law and legislative requirements for implementation of the Project's proposed programs and strategies to increase housing capacity and the production of affordable dwelling units in the City would not occur. Overall, Alternative 1 would not consider the candidate housing sites and adoption of the land use amendments and rezones necessary to achieve the City's RHNA.As a result, the capacity for 11,743 multi-family housing units would not be created.This alternative would not satisfy the Project objectives stated above because implementation 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 would result in fewer impacts than the Project.Although this Alternative could reduce environmental impacts from future housing development facilitated by the HEU, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives.The No Project Alternative would not provide adequate housing sites to meet the City's 6th Cycle RHNA allocation or satisfy State housing law including AB 1397. Under the No Project Alternative, the City would not meet its RHNA obligations. Thus, this Alternative would directly conflict with California Government Code §65583, which stipulates that a jurisdiction must assess its housing element every eight years and identify adequate sites for housing and provide for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. Beach and Edinger Corridors Alternative (Alternative 2) As with the proposed Project,the Beach and Edinger Corridors Alternative(Alternative 2)would meet the 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 Specific Plan(Specific Plan 14). More specifically, new residential development would occur in portions of Specific Plan 14's Transition 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 October 2022 Page 19 30 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 6' 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, Palm/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 9,625 persons over the City's existing population of 196,874 persons.'Therefore, it can be inferred that at least a portion (approximately 54 percent',or 949 AFY)of the water demand associated with the Project population growth was accounted UWMP Table 3-2:Retail:Population-Current and Projected. 2 State of California Department of Finance.2021.E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the State,2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark.https flwww dofca gov/Forecastine/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/(accessed June 2021). 3 Based on 25,020 persons/9,625 persons. October 2022 31 Page 20 44 ER-341 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 32 of 40 Page ID #:930 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations for in the UWMP's anticipated 2030 future water demand. Thus, after considering the existing water demand associated with the displaced land uses that would be removed, the approximately 54 percent assumed to be already accounted for in the UWMP's anticipated population growth,and unaccounted for net Project water demand of approximately 46 percent or 823 AFY which would remain unmet. In order to not exceed the projected water resources for the City, the Reduced Dwelling Units Alternative would have to reduce the number of housing units to a number that would fail to meet the basic RHNA requirements. Alternate Housing Sites Alternative The Alternate Housing Sites Alternative was considered, but rejected from further consideration. This alternative was determined to be infeasible during the scoping process because alternative housing sites not included in the scope of the Project were found to be infeasible due to regulations, site constraints, property owner interest in developing housing, community input, and existing uses. Additionally, some candidate housing sites were considered, but rejected because potentially significant effects of future housing development would be avoided or substantially lessened by rejecting those sites. Examples of alternative sites initially considered are discussed below. Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan(SP 12)Alternative This is a 96-acre area bordered by Pacific Coast Highway, Goldenwest Street, and Seapoint Street and is located entirely within the Coastal Zone. The property is designated for visitor serving commercial uses within the Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan.At the time the specific plan was adopted in 2000,the property was an active oil field. Aera Energy owned the property and indicated that the property would remain in oil production for the next 15 to 20 years.As such,the specific plan was adopted to plan for reuse of the site after oil production activities ceased. . ,.. ., ‘ ..4 .v4wy/441$44 ‘. t1/44.* s � i ii* 1‘1A' smecT sTE Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan 12 This site was originally identified as a candidate housing site in the 6th Cycle Housing Element because of its large size and its potential availability for residential development within the planning period (based on the information in SP 12). Housing capacity on the site, when applying the proposed Affordable October 2022 Page 21 32 45 ER-342 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 50-2 Filed 06/06/23 Page 33 of 40 Page ID #:931 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Housing Overlay,would accommodate 40 to 50 percent of the City's total RHNA(96 acres x 55 du/acre up to 96 acres x 70 du/acre).Although this site could accommodate residential uses,the site is located within higher resource areas that could result in greater environmental impacts than other sites included in the scope of the Project.The following are reasons why this alternative was rejected: - The location of the site within the Coastal Zone would require the California Coastal Commission to approve the Affordable Housing Overlay designation; timing of the "rezoning" effort could be lengthy with no guarantee of approval from the Coastal Commission. - The potential for costly remediation of the site due to its historic use as oil field. - The property owner no longer anticipates oil production activities to cease as described in SP 12. Therefore,the property is not expected to be available for development prior to 2030. - The concentration of almost 50 percent of RHNA allocation on one site may lead to overconcentration of affordable housing in one area. Huntington Harbour Area Sites Alternative There are two commercial areas in the Huntington Harbour area with a combined acreage of 21.5 acres. One area is the Huntington Harbour mall, which is an older mall developed in the 1960s. This 10.8-acre site was identified as a potential candidate housing site because it is underutilized with one and two-story buildings developed at a relatively low floor-area-ratio (FAR) considering that the maximum allowed FAR is 1.5. The site has potential to be redeveloped as a mixed-use project with the inclusion of residential units at 30 du/acre. The site has close access to Warner Avenue, a major arterial. The second area is Peter's Landing. This site includes the Peter's Landing commercial center and adjacent properties along Pacific Coast Highway,and has been studied for mixed use (residential/commercial) in prior General Plan planning efforts. In addition,the property owners previously showed interest in adding residential uses in existing or new development projects on the sites. Previous site analyses on this site indicate that residential could be accommodated at higher densities. s - ..._.....,_ • v '1\1i t4'4i%'`1.$.:'.t 4.;._t,R',',1 ti4‘.4 s?_.i1.,7.1\,...>,6-r,..'•,t,f,,i,v4i-.1 Zh,A•g•„‘•\:/-/%e4*•-\,,.A•-/r A,'.,.•.,,\.'-.-I ..:....,i.,A,..4,y.:,•..._-.,,,'.",", :„I-.,e'i:t 4.I1:.t.,.t.i.a_.,.,,-.;L„.:.7-Ns;4.7t-._rr .T 4:.^.•..r:.I.._C-s3‘,Li r:•••"1U•#.1'.4-_4.,1......,.,,:,..s11 0,4,.t.1.i.U„pa.--.l.i—..,,.i'Er...,......'iI.'i. isb'`•,.,'•.-..-..-1.,;.411.,.e-.‘.4'.„.'-'.\'e74.,5.?4ti 4'-.:.:1 V.'--4 4.',-1,-.,-,.,'..,7..*,,.-"_'' 11 ' C� ,t t. I-,-.:;„l.•:a1:,.N-...:1ti,-d j i.;t':f'i,u,1Ii t::4 4 :.:'?..,0,..:..4.F. „„-l-..7..Is:-.:_:...t:7,1:::,:z'...'-ai•..'.t..-4.".N.....,.2s-_-,;i‘—.-‘t,s.,,..e., .•.-...-_1: Y" c. .; . ..•,3At�F..> ' ° '.+'y[�'} am' ' ^.. +t ` i " \ 1 t c® 410: , .* t i Peter's Landing Area Huntington Harbour Mall October 2022 Page 2? 33 46 ER-343 EXHIBIT 10 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/Statement of 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 "rezoning" effort could be length with no guarantee that the Coastal Commission would approve the amendments, particularly because residential is a lower priority use in the Coastal Zone. - These sites, in conjunction with the general Huntington Harbour area, are shown in the 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 11)Alternative The McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan encompasses 307 acres in the northwestern portion of the City. It has access from Bolsa Chica Street and Bolsa Avenue,both major arterials,with close access to the 405 freeway.The area was first developed for the aerospace industry in the 1960s and 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 6`h 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 its size and existing and planned infrastructure. ;— 1,.. i4 ' . - -:.. --. „.,;' ,,5‘,..; 111e-i,..s.wil,.!`1,:-F ;t1r.i--. : , ILL '.1 :7;_litk...- S g.,4 6 ra i ‘. ‘elk:C7.:?,.'': AM F. 1 . , ... . . 0 , ,; ,. , , 14. � t . , , .. �%/ice-iL'�: i , ,u1....--- 1 F. , .�'. e- ,.., 4, iglitinal i ! _ r--- Site Location .,. J k ' S I t[,xwn , Vicinity Maps , Oa,'MR lip; -II ICJ . — mew II ,. McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan (SP 11) October 2022 Page 34 4723 ER-344 EXHIBIT 10 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 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations The following are reasons why this alternative was rejected: - There is a strong market for industrial 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 remediate site to residential standards. - Properties have already started redeveloping with new industrial buildings recently completed and future phases approved. October 2022 Pag4824 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 Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines states: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological,or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened,the agency shall state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations,the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The City of Huntington Beach proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant cumulative air quality,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. 4.2. Significant Adverse Project and Cumulative 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 CEQA. Even with revisions to the Project, the following impacts have been identified as being unavoidable as there are no feasible mitigation measures available to further reduce the impacts. Refer to Chapter 2 (CEQA Findings) for further clarification regarding the impact listed below. Air Quality Despite compliance 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 recommendation 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 Page 25 230 49 EXHIBIT 10 Case 8:23-cv-00421-FWS-ADS Document 51 Filed 06/06/23 Page 231 of 234 Page ID #:1169 City of Huntington Beach Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations conflict with applicable plans for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts on GHG are considered significant and unavoidable, both for the Project and cumulative conditions. Hydrology and Water Quality The Project could substantially decrease groundwater supplies resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact concerning sustainable management of the Basin. The Project's impact concerning groundwater supplies would be cumulatively considerable and a significant unavoidable impact would occur. Noise Despite compliance with GPU PEIR mitigation, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts concerning construction-related noise and vibration levels and operational noise levels associated with traffic. The Project's impact concerning the substantial temporary and permanent increase of ambient noise levels would be cumulatively considerable. The Project's impact concerning construction- related noise and groundborne vibration would also be cumulatively considerable. Utilities and Service Systems Despite compliance with GPU PEIR mitigation, until the water supply situation improves, the water demands from future development pursuant to the HEU would result in a significant and unavoidable impact concerning water supplies.Additionally, until such time as greater confidence in and commitment from water suppliers can be made, or the water supply situation improves, the Project's impacts concerning water supplies to serve future development would be cumulatively considerable. 4.3. Findings The City of Huntington Beach has evaluated all feasible mitigation measures and potential changes to the Project with respect to reducing the impacts that have been identified as significant and unavoidable (see Chapter 2, CEQA Findings). The City of Huntington Beach has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project as proposed(see Chapter 3, Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). Based on this examination, the City of Huntington Beach has determined that the No Project Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. 4.4. Overriding Considerations Specific economic,social,or other considerations outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts stated above.The reasons for proceeding with the proposed project, notwithstanding the identified significant and unavoidable impacts are described below. Proposed Project Benefits 1) The HEU would facilitate the development of a wide range of housing types in sufficient supply to meet the needs of current and future residents, particularly for persons with specific needs, including but not limited to extremely low,very low,and lower income households;seniors;persons October 2022 Page 26 231 50 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 farmworkers. 2) The HEU would increase the supply of affordable housing in 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 and 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 of adequate housing. 6) The HEU would facilitate the development of an accessible housing 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 City's 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 Community 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 City. Consistent with General 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 all standards 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 developments to 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. 10) 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 residents. Further, park October 2022 Page 27 J 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 Environmental Impact Report 2021-2029 HEU Implementation Program Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations lands and open spaces can be protected and retained in place throughout the planning horizon to provide recreational benefits to residents, visitors and school aged students. A shift toward sustainable resources and self-sufficiency,as outlined in the HEU,will allow for the continuation of the valued way of life within the City of Huntington Beach throughout the planning horizon. For example, future projects would be required to comply with General Plan Goal ERC-15 and Policies ERC-15.A and ERC-15.B, which aim to maintain an adequate supply of water and distribution facilities capable of meeting existing and future water supply needs and require monitoring to reduce impacts to the water system in an effort to maintain and expand water supply and distribution facilities. October 2022 Page 28 233 52 EXHIBIT 10 -0'02.:4. 411W� INGOT ` �••••••••••• �/ Nit p0P0RA �'1•0. AO ‘ 'v \ V - • - _ _ _- S Proposed Charter - • • z ��� -- • 1 Amendment Measure .• �8 ----- - -----, :---- s,• 'B• 17, 19n , ,�.• ' 0 July 8, 2024 e•••••••••• �� II UNT' Background • On July 2, 2024, Mayor Van Der Mark, Mayor Pro Tern Burns, and Council Member McKeon submitted a Council Member Item to place on the ballot a proposed Charter Amendment stating: • "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." • The City Council directed staff to bring back a proposed November 2024 ballot initiative within thirty (30) days for City �E =i Council approval. Proposed Charter Language • 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 the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is submitted. City Planning and Zoning is a local, municipal affair, beyond the reach of State control or interference, a local activity reserved for the City and its people, not the State. /,,Ion;,,-;;G pp dF' ot ,V � a/1 2,� oU�ry CP���r� a Proposed Ballot Question "Shall proposed Charter Amendment No. 1 , which would amend YES the City Charter to state that City Planning and Zoning is a local, municipal affair, and require voter approval of City initiated general plan amendments or zoning changes when such items present significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment, be approved?" NO �����NiIVGTp 11 n� \o gggg v� F Recommended Action • Consider the proposed Charter amendment ballot measure, ballot language, and exhibits for placement on the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election for voter approval; and • Adopt Resolution Nos. • 2024-38 — Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City a Certain Charter Amendment Measure Relating to Environmental Protection at the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election • 2024-39 — Setting Priorities for Filing Written Arguments and Impartial Analysis • 2024-40 — Filing of Rebuttal Arguments ,',� F9, .s e a Councilmember Kalmick is not here tonight as he had a scheduled vacation but is now home ill with Covid. Councilmembers Bolton and Moser had pre-existing commitments. Here is the statement they have provided. Statement Regarding Monday's Special City Council Meeting —Charter Amendment "No Charter Amendments!" That was the election promise of this Council Majority. Yet, in the eighteen months since their election, they've proposed more than a dozen, put three on the ballot at a cost of$395,000 just four months ago, and now they're at it again. Similar to their attempt last fall to slip Charter amendments onto the ballot with minimal public notice, the Council majority has proposed this new Charter amendment with less than a week's public notice; only one business day for staff to draft it, and a last-minute Special Meeting called with one business days' notice during a holiday weekend to ratify the proposed amendment for the November ballot. This process is broken. Amendments to the City Charter— essentially our City's Constitution — should be made thoughtfully and with robust public input. This process has had neither. The rushed nature of the Council majority's process is reflected in the proposed Charter Amendment itself. It is poorly drafted and likely unenforceable, suggesting its true aim is to evade state housing laws. This is a desperate attempt to avoid compliance despite the City losing its second legal challenge to state housing mandates. Adopting a Charter amendment that would likely prevent the City from ever passing a housing element is likely to face court rebuke. Some may argue that voters can reject this Charter amendment, but this amendment is disguised as an "Environmental Protection" measure with ambiguous language, that "sounds good." Huntington Beach residents' skepticism of new housing makes it likely the amendment will pass. However, the Council majority's ploy will not maintain local control or "fight the state." Builder's Remedy (developers can build whatever they want, bypassing our locally controlled zoning) and $600,000 monthly fines for non-compliance with State Housing law could mean this amendment's ultimate legacy is the City's fiscal insolvency. If these consequences (Builder's Remedy and fines) become unbearable, the City may waste a million dollars on a special election, as early as next year, to convince a highly skeptical electorate to zone for more housing-- a complicated and detailed task historically and traditionally handled by the City Council. No other City Council in the State has proposed a ballot measure like this, with good reason. The City Council majority's refusal to take the time to study the Charter amendment's implications means we know little about the costs and unintended consequences. What is immediately clear is that the City will struggle to master plan anything again. Master Planiii.PPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION 7/8/2024 Meeting Date: 1 (24-465) Agenda Item No. saves everyone money, by allowing for a larger shared vision instead of a piecemeal approach. If the economics of downtown, the hotel resort area, or Beach Blvd with our auto dealers (who produce 15% of our City's Sales Tax revenue) change, they'll be on their own at much greater cost. No one at the City will want to risk the time and money necessary to take a holistic plan to the voters. Our experience with Measure C (our parks protection voter-driven initiative adopted in response to potential building on the beach) is instructive. Only one Measure C project (the Senior Center) has gone to a vote in the nearly twenty years since Measure C passed. And, it barely passed with 50.1%. In summary, the hasty process and disregard for unintended consequences means this Charter amendment will, in the end, harm the City for years to come, much like many of this Council Majority's actions. ,, logh BUILDING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. fq Bill<` ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE July 8, 2024 PRESIDENT BROOKE DOI SHEA HOMES Mayor Van Der Mark City of Huntington Beach 1.VICE PRESIDENT MEGAN ELTRINGHAM 2000 Main Street THE NEW HOME COMPANY Huntington Beach, CA 92648 TREASURER DAVE MELLO LANDSEA HOMES Dear Mayor and Council, SECRETARY JOE OFTILE WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California - Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC), I am very concerned the proposed TRADE CONTRACTOR VP ALAN BOUDREAU Charter Amendment you are considering reduces local control. BOUDREAU PIPELINE In short, this proposal shifts a City Council approval process onto the ASSOCIATE MEMBER VP MARK HIMMELSTEIN General Public. It does not alter, excuse or in any way prevent state NEWMEYER&DILLION,LLP mandates from being enforced against the city. Thus, if the State requires a compliant Housing Element, enforcement actions will be brought MEMBER AT LARGE PETER VANEK against the city regardless of who is responsible for approving the INTREGAL COMMUNITIES Housing Element. MEMBER AT LARGE SEAN MATSLER At the very minimum, we need a Study Session with an actual Land Use COX,CASTLE,&NICHOLSON LLP attorney to review the future impacts this measure will, and will not, have on city operations. IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT ERIC NELSON TRUMARK HOMES Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. SR.VICE PRESIDENT,OC CHAPTER SUPPLEMENTALADAM WBIAOOOD C Sincerely, COMMUNICATION Adam Wood Meeting Date: 7/8/2024 Sr. Vice President BIA/OC — Orange County Chapter Agenda Item No. 1 (24-465) 17192 MURPHY AVE#14445,IRVINE,CA 92623 949-553-9500 I BIAOC.COM From: Gerald Donohue To: 5uoolementalcomm(aa surfdty-hb.org Subject: Charter amendment Date: Saturday,July 6,2024 7:34:23 AM Really? You want to continue to skirmish with the state over housing issues. Majority members, I thought your election platform included a clause where you would refrain from additional charter amendment revisions during your tenure. Some may forget your words but they carry on even if your memory sometimes fades. Please,we will be paying fines for previous lack of compliance issues with the state. Do we need additional charges? HB has enough day to day issues of importance to the citizens. We don't need a quartet of Don Quixote's jousting with the attorney general. Thank you SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 7-5-2024 1 (24 465) Agenda Item No. From: Julie Ault To: suoolementalcomm(@surfcitv-hb.org Cc: Subject: David Snyder Comment on Special Meeting Charter Amendment Date: Saturday,July 6,2024 9:57:25 AM Council- Please accept this communication as an opposition to the proposed charter amendment open for public comment on July 8th. First, the sudden announcement of a special meeting on Friday of the Independence Day holiday weekend for Monday afternoon is clearly an attempt to subvert the duty transparency of government owed to the citizens of the community. Secondly, a charter amendment to block development of housing in the City is nothing more than another attempt to subvert the laws of the State of CA. This blocking of housing development also ignores the City's role in thoughtful and strategic planning of future development so that our community moves forward with changes and growth in a positive, cohesive manner that will enhance property values and promote a safe and pleasant way of life in HB. Lastly, this 'under the radar'attempt to enact an amendment in contravention of State Law will again result in the involving the City Attorney and staff in litigation, and demonstrates a clear unwillingness to accept the Court's rulings in this regard. I do not consent to my tax dollars funding this agenda based litigation in the name of HB when the true goal is to elevate the notoriety and political careers of the four council members, City Attorney and others in this camp, rather than utilizing the resources of the community for the benefit of the community. Listen to (all) your constituents. You serve at the will of the people. Thank you, Julie A. Ault 92648 From: David Rynerson To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL,CM0 STAFF1;5uoolementalcomm(alsurfaty-hb.org Subject: Special meeting for yet another charter amendment Date: Sunday,July 7,2024 12:26:05 PM City Council majority- When I first came to Huntington Beach,the Golden Bear was on PCH,every business on Main Street was single story,neither the Hyatt nor the Hilton existed,and neither did Paseo or Pacific City.Costco did not exist,the Huntington Beach Mall was dying,and the Westminster Mall was thriving. Huntington Beach is not exactly the same as it was when I moved here,and it&rsquo;s an unrealistic expectation to think that it should be.Like it or not,life is about constant change,and learning to manage and embrace that change is critical. Housing costs are a challenge throughout the state and are probably the#1 reason people cite for moving out of state.The housing element is the state&rsquo;s way of trying to address this issue.Rather than creating a housing element and engaging in constructive dialog with the state,the council majority has held its breath,stomped its feet, and thrown a temper tantrum with the result that Huntington Beach is now a pariah to the state government.We are at risk of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines per month,losing control over planning and permitting processes,and being exposed to Builders&rsquo;Remedy. Builders&rsquo;Remedy,would make the city forfeit its authority to deny affordable housing projects on the grounds the project is inconsistent with zoning and/or General Plan standards. Which means that without a compliant housing element,a builder can come in and build a ten-story affordable housing apartment complex pretty much wherever they can find land. So rather than be responsible and create a housing element to protect us from fines and Builders&rsquo;Remedy, this council majority is doubling down on their obstructionism by proposing yet another charter amendment to try to make a great many developments in the city require a vote of the people&Idquo;on environmental grounds&rdquo;. Even if it were to be successful,all it would really do would be to make HB citizens responsible for detailed understanding of CEQA law and create even more lawsuits between Huntington Beach and the state. And,by the way,property taxes from new housing developments would be one source of revenue to close the budget deficit you were just complaining about. This council majority has its head in the sand,it fingers in its ears,and its brains stuck in an endless loop. Sincerely, David Rynerson From: Judy Morris To: 5uoolementalcommfatsurfcity-hb.orq Subject: Objection to Proposed Charter Amendment-Environmental Protections for General Plan Amendments Date: Sunday,July 7,2024 1:24:49 PM City Council, As you know,there was an extensive amount of discussion around the housing element during March and April 2023 at which time City Council was not comfortable executing the Statement of Overriding Considerations. I do not understand why the Statement of Overriding Conditions was originally brought up in March and April of 2023 and is just now re-surfacing as what appears now to be a rush to get it on the November ballot. Per Casey McKeon's December 20,2022 memo to the City Council,the RHNA was 13,368 and that due to the 20%affordable threshold 30,000 new total units of high density housing would need to be built. Casey's memo dated July 2, 2024 states that the updated 2023 quota of 13,368 new units translates to 41,000 new units due to the 20% inclusion ratio. The Housing Element seems to me to be a complicated and technical matter. I believe the City Council should have the expertise necessary to deal with its related minutia and processes which includes deciding whether to execute related documentation. This appears to be an attempt to place the onus for difficult decisions on the voters when these decisions are the responsibility of those who were elected to make them. You were given the "signing authority"to choose whether or not to sign documents when you were elected. Additionally, it seems that the proposed Charter Amendment could create additional expenses to the overall Housing Element issue. For the reasons stated above, I object to the proposed charter amendment- Environmental Protections for General Plan Amendments. Finally, I respectfully request that serious reconsideration be given to the overall economic impact of the Council Majority's stance to continue to litigate over this matter. Would it make economic sense and if so is it at all possible at this point to attempt work with the state to address the shortcomings in the RHNA process, or has that bridge already been burned? Sincerely, Judy Morris 30 year resident of HB Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone From: K Carroll To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF);SuoolementalcommCa)surfcity-hb.orq Subject: City Council Special Meeting 7/8/2024-24-465-including Adoption of Resolution Nos.2024-38,2024-3039 and 2024-40 Date: Sunday,July 7,2024 8:21:12 PM Greetings Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, Pro Tem Pat Burns, Councilman Casey McKeon and Tony Strictland, Thank you for bringing forward 24-465. I strongly support this item being placed on the November, 5, 2024 General Election along with the Resolutions noted above. We have lived here since 1994, over the last 10-15 year's, I observed many, many HB property owners and Tax Payers, attend CC meetings protesting high density. The many speakers would present their thoughts. EIR's presented to the City Council were often outdated and were not accurate. EIR's are contracted by the developer who wants the project approved. Many of these project EIR's did show significant negative impacts to HB overall, HB cItizens and taxpayers.. However, regardless of the input from citizens and homeowners, City Council Majority had/has sole discretion to approve the project if"they felt'; that the benefits of the project exceeded the negative impacts in the EIR. I think many of the projects EIR's indicated substantial negative impacts. Some negative impacts include overall parking, quality of life, property value, safety (car accidents, etc.) and dense housing results ie.,transient tenants, increased crime and; overall substantial strain on infrastructure and utility resources. You are the first City Council Majority who has listened to the citizens complaining about high density with the exception of Erik Peterson who was the lone ranger. City Council terms after term..Everything that residents'communicated to the City Council was dismissed and progressively got worse. All of the citizen's predictions have come true. Dan Kalmick stated there are so many rules and regulations that the citizens do not have the knowledge to vote. Dan, adding that of course all the voters will vote yes. 100%right because of the history. Thank you so much for listening, keeping promises, continuous hard work and dedication. Best regards, Kris Carroll From: cornetto45(aaearthlink.net To: 5uDDlementalcomm aC)surfcity-hb.orQ Subject: item 24-465 Date: Monday,July 8,2024 7:15:05 AM I oppose putting this on the ballot. The city council has failed to show how this will protect Huntington Beach from the builder's remedy. In addition, it increases the risk of suffering from the Builder's Remedy. There is no criteria for when it must go to a vote. It is too vague. It would be harder to be more vague than the current wording"... significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment...". This will lead to messy and divisive discussions. Because the criteria is so flimsy, the city council will have to explain why this project can go forward,when another would have to be put on the ballot. Huntington Beach needs more housing, and Hunting Beach needs a range of housing types. Huntington Beach will get tax revenue from new housing. The airshow results"significant and unavoidable negative impacts to the environment"-why won't that go onto a future ballot? The criteria is too vague. The motion takes control of our city zoning out of the hands of our city council. Why is it good for this environment action, and bad for the library subcontracting of services? This whole process is rushed; it was less than a week after it was approved by the city council. There have been no working groups, and basically no explanation on why this will protect our city from the Builder's Remedy, which will lead to hap-hazard building without any control by the city. We can wait, do the job well, and put it on the March ballot. Charlie Jackson 23 year resident of Huntington Beach From: Levin.Shannon To: 5uoolementalcomm(@surfcity-hb.orq Subject: FW:The Ballot Measure being drafted is NOT"Environmental"' Date: Monday,July 8,2024 7:49:29 AM Original Message From:Shammy Dingus<shammyd@mac.com> Sent:Sunday,July 7,2024 11:51 PM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:The Ballot Measure being drafted is NOT"Environmental"! Dear Council Members, It seems pretty ridiculous to title the new anti-housing Ballot Measure proposed by the council as"Environmental". In fact,such a title is clearly MISLEADING to voters—and the council should beware the likelihood that the it might face legal consequences for such deceptive labeling.The bill is entirely directed at limiting the development of new housing and the public should be made amply aware of that. It is my understanding that the"Charter Amendment related to Environmental Protection"would only apply to residential property,not businesses,which would be exempted.The stated goal is that it is a"Housing Strategy",not an environmental one.It specifically addresses the approval of changes in zoning related to the adoption of a "housing element"plan,which would not take into consideration proposals for zoning changes related to commercial development which may have a greater impact on the city! No consideration AT ALL is given to the evaluation of environmental impact of COMMERCIAL property zoning changes or project approvals—yet businesses are much more likely to create pollution and strain the city's resources and infrastructure.Whether retail,services,or manufacturing,commercial development is much more likely to: -generate toxic emissions and waste products -increase traffic(including heavy vehicles)and require additional parking -burden our utilities with greater demands for electricity,gas,and water -create a need for substantially increased waste disposal and sewage -place a heavy burden on not only the city's infrastructure,but also require additional police and fire staff for tourism events -And oil well emissions and potential accidents?The emissions from wells are extremely toxic to nearby residents or facilities,and we already have a history of huge financial costs related to pipeline accidents,drilling operations and operating or uncapped wells. We should focus on eliminating that! Further,It's completely irresponsible for the city to mislabel this proposed ballot measure as"Environmental"when it is actually only"Anti-Housing".Until an appropriate ENVIRONMENTAL study of all of Huntington Beach's contributing elements and the burden they place on local resources,and pollution,no ballot measure like the proposed charter amendment should even be considered. Flying blind with virtually no comprehensive studies,input from the community,and ignoring the city's established Boards and Commissions(in favor of secret 3-member ad hoc committees)will surely lead to unnecessary mistakes that existing residents will have to pay for.Why even have official advisory councils that are routinely cut out of the planning and recommendation process?I think most residents would prefer decisions made on thorough investigation and expert advice—rather than political grandstanding. This is a bad act that may haunt the city for decades. C"Shammy"Dingus shammyd@mac.com Huntington Beach,CA From: Levin.Shannon To: suoDlementalcomm( surfcity-hb.orq Subject: FW:Vote NO on Agenda Item#1,June 8,2024 Date: Monday,July 8,2024 7:49:46 AM From: Pat Goodman <patgoodman@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday,July 7, 2024 9:04 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 Item#1,June 8, 2024 Mayor Van Der Mark and City Council, This week there are two issues of concern to me that affect housing development in Huntington Beach: one is Agenda Item # 1 at the special city council meeting on Monday, June 8 and the other is the Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA) to be heard on Wednesday, July 10th at the CA Coastal Commission, ITem # 11. The council voted unanimously on December 19, 2023 to submit this item to the CA Coastal Commission. Agenda # 1 on the June 8th Special Meeting would require voters to accept or reject development projects in the city if they have significant environmental issues that cannot be mitigated. This charter amendment, if approved by voters, would cause delays in development, an unfriendly/uncertain environment to property owners and developers, and bring about a lawsuit against the city by the State of California. How is this agenda item consistent with the CA Coastal Commission request for the LCPA? There are many unanswered questions about this item especially what are the fiscal impacts to the city and property owners? Would projects be submitted to voters once per year or as needed? Please reject Agenda Item # 1. It appears, The Issue Statement related to Agenda Item # 1 paragraph 2 states that in order to reach the RHNA goal by 2029 of affordable units, the city would have to build 41,000 units. That's true if all the units built were market rate housing. The Draft Housing Element Cycle 6 prepared by staff identifies a path to follow to meet the RHNA requirements by income class. Please correct paragraph 2 to reflect the truth about the 6th Cycle RHNA goal that if only market rate housing were to be built then the city needs to build 41,000. However, Huntington Beach has shown its ability to build quality affordable housing that is totally dedicated to affordability. Here are a few examples we have: Bowen Court, Oceana, Oakview Apartments. And there are two sites in process of development fully dedicated to affordability: HB Oasis and Pelican Harbor. The LCPA requests a zoning change to the LCP for the area known as the Magnolia Tank Farm from industrial to residential and commercial. This site is subject to flooding due to sea level rise, sits at the end of the Inglewood/Newport earthquake fault, abuts the Ascon Toxic waste site. A project, I believe, that has significant environmental issues that cannot be mitigated. The LCPA is a zoning change request and is not unlike the zoning changes found in the Housing Element 6 Cycle that the majority council rejected because of the necessary approval of the State of Overriding Considerations (SOC). This SOC requires an agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological benefits of a project, against unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the project. I find it interesting that the Housing Element as a plan for a period of time it and is not an approval for specific development projects but requires an SOC. In addition an SOC is attached to a specific development project. Each project will assess its environmental impacts and mitigations. Such projects will still come before the city for approval, like the Showoff project, that they fit within the zoning of the site and design standards established by the city (local control of development). If the Coastal Commission approves the LCPA zoning change, will you submit this project to the voters of Huntington Beach to approve? My personal opinion is the Showoff development is worthy of consideration however, I reject the location of the project due to environmental concerns of sea level rise and toxic soil conditions. If this project was on the ballot I would vote against it. However, I would hope that the council would offer a different location for the same project for me to consider and possibly vote in favor. I believe that a solution to bring this Shopoff project forward is that the City, County, and State work with the developer to find a suitable property in the city. The Magnolia Tank Farm site should be a buffer between the tide and the existing commercial and residential properties that surround it. This site then would absorb any flooding that occurs and create a safety net to the residents in the surrounding area. This would take leadership by you and other agency officials to accomplish this outcome. This was a really difficult letter for me to write and took me several hours but sometimes things don't add up these items are such a time, and I persisted. Pat Goodman Huntington Beach, CA From: Levin.Shannon To: 5uoolementalcomm(a)surfcity-hb.org Subject: FW: No Charter Changes Date: Monday,July 8,2024 7:50:44 AM From:Chris Varga<christopher.j.varga@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,July 5, 2024 9:27 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: No Charter Changes Stick with your campaign plan "No Charter Changes" Chris Varga Huntington Beach From: Paula Shawa To: suoolementalcomm( surfcity-hb.oro Subject: NO on Agenda Item 1/Special City Council Meeting July 8,2024 Date: Monday,July 8,2024 8:54:20 AM As a resident of Huntington Beach, which is located in the state of California and not separated from it, I am opposed to the proposed charter amendment and resolutions put forth by the whining extremist majority on the city council. Please do your job, working with all involved parties, to maintain and improve the quality of life in Huntington Beach, instead of constantly whining and complaining. Paula Shawa, 20-plus year HB resident From: Flees.Caw To: Aoada Alerts Subject FW:Attachment added Fwd:Support Environmental Protection and Local Control for Zoning,Development Date: Monday,July 8,2028 8:54:20 AM From:Ann Palmer<714anniep@gmail.com> Sent:Monday,July 8,2024 8:28 AM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Attachment added Fwd:Support Environmental Protection and Local Control for Zoning,Development TRUTH ABOUT INCREASED HOUSING ' DOES NOT = AFFORDABLE. DATA 2020-2023 SHOWS: ■ California Population (Net) Decreased by 1 • Housing units Increased by 3% • Cost of housing* Increased by 20% *Purchase,Rent / \ A PALMER HBCC Comments 07.08.24 I: Ai, -�''�.L,t'100 oo n oo oo 1•'i.a+1'``-- AS A REMINDER, DENSE DEVELOPMENT ' HAS ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ISSUES • Developers in CA propose builds beyond the capacity of infrastructure • Sites deemed "Against Geological Advice" (AGA) for even single dwellings are sought for multi-family structure developments ■ DWELLING AND SPACE AFFECT HUMAN WELLBEING'" • Studies show place and space impact health and wellbeing of residents • Quality green and open space adjacency are major requirements • Visible horizons and avoiding urban sun occlusion are key • Older, classically designed urban spaces are better *Purchase,Rent A PALMER HBCC Comments 07.08.24 --=' 00 00 00 00 ,L; -- Forwarded message From:Ann Palmer<714annieo(wgmail.com> Date:Mon,Jul 8,2024 at 8:25 AM Subject:Support Environmental Protection and Local Controlfor Zoning,Development To:HB supplemental CC and city++<city councilCa)surfcity-hb.org> Huntington Beach City Council: This is to state strong support of the proposal to amend the Huntington Beach City Charter regarding environmental protection,local control and voter approval in matters of zoning and housing development. Attached is a document containing pertinent information related to this topic.If the city does not act at this time we may further lose the ability to have any say over the future density throughout our community.Even if we prevail in the current challenge of the State of California government overreach,we can with certainty say that the concerted efforts of powerful developers and legislators to implement high density housing schemes in coastal cities will proliferate into the future. Thank you, Ann Palmer 30+yr resident/homeowner Huntington Beach CA From: Fikes,Cathy To: Agenda Alerts Subject: RN:VOTE NO on Agenda Item# 1 July 8,2024 Agenda Item Date: Monday,July 8,2024 8:55:33 AM From: Paula Schaefer<pas92649@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,July 8, 2024 8:55 AM To:CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF) <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:VOTE NO on Agenda Item# 1 July 8, 2024 Agenda Item Mayor and City Council Members: In all likelihood,this email will not be read, and even if I attend the meeting and read this to you, my message would fall on deaf ears. However, I write anyway and address this email primarily to the majority four. This proposed charter amendment is a hypocritical and cynical ploy to stop any development by cloaking it in language purporting to protect our pristine environment. Your"Issue Statement" should rightfully be labeled "Fab 4 Propaganda Statement." The housing element is a planning document- it does not direct or authorize that any of the 13000+ housing units be built(not 41000 that is claimed). However,that is what you hope the average reader will understand.Your continued use of the phrase "high density development" is just another dog whistle to those who translate that as "low income housing" and assume the worst.A further offense to the average reader is your failure to explain the likely downside to the failure to adopt a housing element. Why haven't you done this? If this charter amendment is placed on the ballot and passed by the voters (your desired outcome),the"builders' remedy" is a very possible consequence.This could result in only minimal city control over what housing is constructed.You will only have yourselves to blame if that happens. Again I urge you to vote NO on this agenda item, drop the charter amendment, and comply with the state's housing laws by adopting a housing element. This is what governing in the interests of all residents is, not the actions proposed here. Paula A. Schaefer From: Steven C Shepherd Architect To: suoDlementalcomm4surfcity-hb.ora:CITY COUNCIL(INCL.CMO STAFF) Subject: AGENDA ITEM#1 IS NOTHING MORE THAN POLITICAL GARBAGE Date: Monday,July 8,2024 8:57:40 AM I originally pushed back against this nonsense less than a week ago primarily because of the incorrect and needlessly inflammatory use of the term"high-density,"but now it has become clear that this is just another political stunt to engender resentment and further your divisive "us versus them" narrative. The ongoing efforts to govern the City of Huntington Beach as if it were an island does a deep disservice to our residents and broader community. I oppose this agenda item in the strongest possible terms. Steve Shepherd Huntington Beach 92646 Moore, Tania From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday,July 8, 2024 4:41 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Citizen Approval Of City Initiated Development From:cchristie333@gmail.com <cchristie333@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,July 8, 2024 3:52 PM To: CITY COUNCIL(INCL. CMO STAFF)<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Citizen Approval Of City Initiated Development Dear Council Members, I am opposed to the ballot measure for Citizens to become involved in City Development. Thank you, Clarence Christie 1