Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES-96-5840 (STRAND HOTEL & PARKING/F.E.I.R)1 01 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 96-5840 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HERMOSA INN HOTEL PROJECT AND CITY PARKING STRUCTURE; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HEREBY FINDS, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Keenan Land Company (the "Applicant") has filed an application for a conditional use permit, precise development plan, parking plan, parking agreement, vesting tentative tract map, and airspace encroachment permit for the development of a proposed 96 room hotel (the "Hotel Project") at 1300 The Strand (the "Hotel Site"). SECTION 2. The City of Hermosa Beach (the "City"), has proposed to construct a four -level public parking structure on a City owned parking lot (Lot "C", the "Parking Structure Site") located adjacent to the Hotel Site. The Applicant has requested the ability to satisfy part of the parking requirement for the Hotel Project by acquiring 100 spaces in the Parking Structure. The four level Parking Structure is therefore proposed to contain 480 parking spaces, along with 7,000 square feet of retail and office uses located along Hermosa Avenue (the "Parking Structure", collectively with the Hotel Project, the "Projects"). SECTION 3. The City prepared an Initial Environmental Study for the Projects pursuant to Section 15063 of the State Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA" ). The Initial Study concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several specifically identified resources and governmental services. The Initial Study was distributed for public review 4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In May 2, 1996 for a thirty (30) day public review period that ended on June 3, 1996. SECTION 4. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081, and used upon the information contained in the Initial Study, a decision was made to prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Projects. A Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was prepared for the Projects and sent to the State Clearinghouse in the office of Planning and Research for the State of California and to other responsible, trustee, and/or interested agencies and persons. The City contracted with an independent consultant for the preparation of the EIR. SECTION 5. On May 16, 1996 a public scoping meeting was held before the City's Environmental Review Committee. The public scoping meeting was noticed by publication in the local press, by posting on the Hotel and Parldng Structure sites, in the vicinity of the Project Sites, at City Hall, and through an announcement on cable television. The meeting provided an introduction to the project and the CEQA process, and provided an opportunity for the public and interested agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the EIR. SECTION 6. On September 19, 1996, the DEIR was completed. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, the City prepared a Notice of Completion of the DEIR which was filed by mail with the State Office of Planning and Research on September 19, 1996. A copy of the Notice of Completion and of the mailing list to agencies and interested individuals, is included in the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEW). The DEIR was circulated to interested persons and agencies between September 19, 1996, and November 3, 1996, for a 45-day comment period pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(c). A duly noticed public meeting was held before the City Council on September 25, 1996 for the purpose of taking public comments regarding the DEIR. In response to the circulation of the DEIR, the City received written and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The City prepared written responses to all comments which raised significant environmental issues. The City incorporated the -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ;omeents and the City's responses into the FEIR and returned responses to commenting agencies It least ten (10) days prior to the Certification of the FEIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. SECTION 7. The FEIR is comprised of the DEIR circulated September 19, 1996, including any revisions thereto; the list of persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the DEM the comments which were received by the City regarding the DEM and the City s written responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process, each of which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 8 . The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the FEIR and the Projects on December 3, 1996 at which time evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing was provided in accordance with applicable law. Based upon the record of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to certify the FEIR and to approve the Projects. The Planning Commission's decision was timely appealed by the Applicant. SECTION 9. In response to the Applicant's appeal, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 17, 1996. SECTION 10. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the EIR and upon other substantial evidence which has been presented in the record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based and the EIR for the Project are on file and available for public examination during normal business hours in the Office of the Community Development Director of the City of Hermosa Beach, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. The custodian of said records is the Community Development Director of the City of Hermosa Beach. -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 11. The City Council finds that the public and government agencies :lave been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Initial Study, DEIR, and SECTION 12. The City Council finds, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(e), that the EIR has been independently analyzed by the City and its Staff and that the EIR represents the independent judgment of the City as lead agency with respect to the Project. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports accompanying the Projects' descriptions and EIR, the corrections and modifications to the DEIR made in response to comments, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony presented at the above -referenced hearing does not represent significant new information so as to require re- circulation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1. SECTION 13. The City Council finds that the comments regarding the DEIR and the responses to those comments have been received by the City; that the City Council has received Ipublic testimony regarding the adequacy of the FEIR; and that the City Council, as the final decision -making body for the lead agency, has reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony prior to acting on the Project. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the City Council therefore certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 14. Based upon the Initial Study, the DEIR, the FEIR, public and agency comments and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Project will not cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Population, Employment and Housing, Biology, Geology, Energy, Cultural and Historical Resources, and Hazards. Explanations for why the foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are contained in the Initial Study in Appendix A of the DEIR, and also at pages 1-3 through 1-4, inclusive, of the DEIR. M I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 15. The Initial Study identified some of the Project's effects as "potentially significant." However, based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and the FEK and upon public and agency comments and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Project will not cause significant environmental impacts in the following areas identified as "potentially significant" in the Initial Study: a. Hydrology and Drainage: The proposed project will not degrade groundwater resources in the Project area, as the groundwater level below the Project site has been estimated at ten feet below ground. only a portion of the Parking Structure will require excavation, and only to roughly four feet below ground. Therefore, grading, excavation and construction activities for the Projects will not impact groundwater resources. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.1 of the EIR. b. Land Use. The proposed project will not be inconsistent with relevant plans and policies, including the City General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan, and more recent plans for the downtown area. With the implementation of mitigation measures contained in the EIR and the Applicant's decision to delete the roof deck and other roof top elements from the Hotel Project, the Projects are viewed as being consistent with applicable Plans. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.2 of the EIR. C. Aesthetics. The proposed project will not have a negative aesthetic effect on views from the Strand, the beach and surrounding public areas. The height, scale, mass, and design of the proposed hotel is not out of character with surrounding development. The potentially significant impact identified in the Initial Study largely was a result of proposed roof top elements of the Hotel Project which might have exceeded the City s building height limit. Roof top structures which may have exceeded the height limit have been deleted from the Hotel Project. Residential and commercial buildings in close proximity to the Hotel Site range in height from 30-45 feet. In addition, construction of the Projects will not increase shade and shadow effects in the vicinity of the Projects. While increased shade and shadow effects are inevitable with any development on the project site, existing streets and setbacks preclude any impact on sensitive uses. Further explanation for these determinations may be -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 found in Section 4.3 of the EIR. d. Parking. The proposed project will not increase the demand for parking in the downtown area. The Projects will ultimately have 480 new spaces of parking. Code compliant parking is provided throughout the construction process through a variety of enforceable measures. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.4 of the EIR. e. Circulation. Temporary road closures as a result of construction of the Projects will not significantly affect circulation in the downtown area, as traffic will be able to flow between Beach Drive and 13th Street, maintaining circulation to City parking lots. Other impacts will be short-term and occasional. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.4 of the EIR. L Traffic. Traffic generated by the Hotel Project will not adversely affect the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan ("CMP") intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia/Gould Avenue, based upon CMP evaluation criteria. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.4 of the EIR. g. Air Quality. The Projects will not cause violations of the State CO standard. Pursuant to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, CO concentrations at the intersections measured will decrease by the year 2000. Further, compliance with the Building Code will ensure that the Parking Structure Project will incorporate adequate ventilation to meet relevant standards. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.5 of the EIR. h. Noise. The Projects will not significantly contribute to traffic noise level increases along roadways in the project area. Traffic -generated noise level increases would result in noise levels within City standards. The Projects will not create significant nuisance noises from delivery staging areas, parking structure activities and other miscellaneous hotel operations. The Applicant has eliminated plans for a roof top deck which would have created some level of nuisance noises. Other potential operational nuisance noise sources will be located away from sensitive receptors. Further explanation for these determinations may be found -6- i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in Section 4.6 of the EIR. I. Public Services. The Projects will not significantly increase demand for fire, paramedic and police services. The Police and Fire Departments have indicated that staffing levels and response times are adequate to provide services for the Projects. Occupancy of the Hotel Project will not significantly increase the demand placed on recreational resources. The Applicant will pay a Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and the Hotel Project guests are expected to utilize the beach rather than public park areas. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Section 4.7 of the EM j. Utilities. The Projects will not significantly impact the Citys sewer system, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's ("LACSD") wastewater treatment plant, and the water supply. Projected wastewater generation from the Hotel Project is below the thresholds of significance established by the City, LACSD, and the local water purveyor. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.7 of the EIR. SECTION 16. Based upon the initial study, the EIR, public comments and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Projects may create significant impacts in the areas of hydrology and drainage, transportation, circulation and parking, air quality, noise, aesthetics and views, land use, public services, and utilities. The Projects may create significant cumulative impacts in the areas of traffic and circulation, air quality, aesthetics, hydrology and drainage, and public services and utilities. With the exceptions of construction impacts, operational air quality impacts, construction -related noise impacts, view impacts, and cumulative air quality impacts from increased vehicular emissions, the EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each impact that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. With regard to construction, operational air quality, construction noise, view impacts, and cumulative air quality impacts from vehicular emissions, the EIR identifies mitigation measures that will substantially lessen each impact. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Sections 2.0, 4.0 through 4.7, inclusive, and 5.0 of the EIR- N 'rE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 17. In response to each significant impact identified in the EIR, and fisted .n Section 16 of this Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or incorporated into, the Projects which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts identified. Each such change or alteration shall be a condition of approval of the Projects. The changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this finding with regard to each impact, are contained in Exhibit "A" of this Resolution and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 18. The FEIR describes, and the City Council has fully considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the "No Project" alternative; Alternative One, which incorporated long- term off -site parking; Alternative Two, which considered a 96-room hotel with a smaller parking structure; Alternative Three, construction of the Phase One Hotel only with on -site surface parking; and Alternative Four, construction of a 7,500 square foot restaurant and a 380 space parking structure. The alternatives identified in the EIR either would not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only with unacceptable adverse environmental impacts.. Accordingly, and for any one of the reasons set forth herein, in the EIR, or in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A," the City Council finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible each of the Project alternatives, including the "No Project" alternative, identified in the EIR and each is hereby rejected. The City Council further finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives into the preparation of the EM and that all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the EIR and the ultimate decision on the Projects. SECTION 19. The City Council hereby makes the findings contained in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" with I respect to each of the significant impacts defined in the FEIR and the alternatives analysis. Further, I the City Council hereby finds that each fact in support of finding is true and is based upon I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ,ubstantial evidence in the record, including the FEIR. The City Council hereby adopts the vfitigation Monitoring Program. SECTION 20. Upon approval of this Resolution, the Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Recorder's office, County of Los Angeles, and the California State Clearinghouse pursuant to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. SECTION 21. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of December, 1996. of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: -9- EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE. a. Hydrology and Drainage. i. Ouantity of Runoff. Development of the project will result in higher surface water runoff than currently leaves the project site, exacerbating existing deficiencies in the storm drain system serving the site. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts Supporting Finding: Mitigation Measure No. 4.1-1 requires the Applicant to contribute a fair share towards the construction of a 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain at the Thirteenth Avenue and Beach Drive sump in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Master Plan of Drainage. The fair share contribution shall be based on the project's contribution to run-off which would be directed to the storm drain. Construction of the storm drain shall be completed prior to the issuance of the occupancy permits. The storm drain at Thirteenth Avenue and Beach Drive would drain the sump at that intersection when its tributary lateral, storm drain flapgates are closed and would also provide a backup outlet for the Lower Pier Avenue area. ii. Ouality of Runoff. Approval and development of the project could result in degradation of the quality of storm drain runoff. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts Supporting Finding: Construction and operational activities could create sediments and pollutants to enter into the storm drain system, such as concrete wash water, fuels, oil, antifreeze, trash and debris. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.1-2(a) and 4.2-1(b), measures to reduce the impact of pollutants to runoff shall be in compliance with Hermosa Beach's existing ordinances and guidelines concerning best management practices for stormwater runoff. The City shall also install an oil/grease separator to treat runoff generated in the parking structure, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Stormwater Management Program. -10 - b. Land Use Conflicts. i. Operational Conflicts. Operational aspects of the hotel, including the meeting rooms, outdoor spa area, drop-off area, service deliveries and rooftop deck could result in land use conflicts with nearby nonconforming residential uses, The Strand and local businesses. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts Supporting Finding: To prevent impacts on the use of The Strand, Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(a) requires the hotel management to inform owners and guests that access to the beach and The Strand is permitted only from Thirteenth Street and Fourteenth Street via the hotel lobby. For the safety of the visitors and the general public, the hotel management will be responsible for enforcing this policy. The rooftop deck and trellises have been eliminated as features of the proposed project. This will eliminate possible noise conflicts with surrounding residences. To reduce impacts on adjacent residential uses associated with the siting and use of the parking structure, Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(c) requires that plans for the structure employ design techniques to minimize noise, lighting and visual impacts to the degree feasible. Special attention must be paid to those sections of the structure abutting residential uses. In these areas, designers should consider limited openings on the wall of the structure, modifying setbacks and the use of property walls, vines and landscaping. Finally, in order to prevent high noise levels associated with use of The Strand, the proposed parking structure and special events from affecting hotel guests, Mitigation Measures 4.2-2(d) and 4.6-4 require that the Applicant complete an acoustical study and shall install noise control measures such as double-paned.windows in all rooms fronting on The Strand, and facing the parking structure. ii. Height Impacts. The height of the hotel as originally proposed, specifically the trellis and other rooftop structures, exceed the basic height limit for the C-2 zone and may not be in compliance with the zoning code. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: The applicant has submitted revised plans to the City to eliminate the rooftop deck, chimneys and trellis structures from the project design. Prior to approving the project, the City Council must establish the relevant grade and will require that the Hotel structure comply with the height limit as measured from grade. iii. Temporary View Impacts. Construction of the hotel and parking structure could have temporary adverse effects on views from the beach and The Strand. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 requires that the City evaluate the height and design of construction fencing and pedestrian canopies prior to erection to ensure maximum screening of views to the construction site during construction from the beach and The Strand. iv. Aesthetic Impacts of the Parking Structure. The design of the parking structure could have a negative aesthetic impact on downtown. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a), design features shall be incorporated into the parking structure to reduce visual impacts, including articulation of the building mass through the use of off -sets, stepped terraces, changes in plane, and other such devices, to reduce the visual obtrusiveness of the structure. Mitigation Measure 4.4-3(b) requires that appropriate landscaping be installed including a fully automated sprinkler system, maximal (to the extent feasible) tree and vine planting, and textured or colored paving materials. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(c) requires that the structure be maintained in excellent condition throughout its lifetime. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3- 3(d), the fan palms located on Lot C shall be relocated or replaced with trees of a minimum 361, box size. C. Transportation Parking and Circulation. i. Cumulative Traffic Impacts. Increases in traffic associated with the project will adversely affect the capacity of intersections in the study area. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Additional changes or alterations are within the jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City Council. Such changes have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measures 4.4- 1(a) through (c), inclusive, require that the City and the Applicant will jointly fund improvements to the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue-14th Street intersection based on fair share contributions. The eastbound lanes at the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue-14th Street intersection shall be changed from their existing configuration to a dual left -turn and right -turn. In addition, prior to terminating the interim shuttle program to address short-term displaced parking the downtown areas (discussed below), the City shall determine the feasibility of implementing a long-term shuttle service for downtown visitors with the objective of discouraging automobile use and encouraging pedestrian circulation in the downtown area. This program shall be periodically evaluated and adjusted to maximize ridership and reduce congestion in the downtown area. The City also will implement a monitoring program at the Monterey/Pier Avenue Intersection to determine the timing for implementation of mitigation measures once the Level of Service at that intersection falls below LOS E. The City shall also continue to implement its Transportation Demand Management Plan on a project -by -project basis including various requirements for reducing vehicle trips. In addition to these measures, current plans by CalTrans and the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan will provide additional mitigation for cumulative impacts along PCH. However, the EIR indicates that the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may be the adoption of a Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance, rather than the imposition of conditions on a project -by -project basis. ii. Vehicular Circulation. Access to the parking structure and hotel will increase traffic operations in the project area, adversely affecting vehicular circulation. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, traffic signals at the 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue and at the Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue intersections shall be modified in the following ways to improve circulation in the vicinity of the hotel and parking structure: • Thirteenth Street and Hermosa Avenue: Provide left -through option lane on northbound Hermosa Avenue and modify existing traffic signal to produce split operation on Hermosa Avenue. • Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue: Provide left -through option lane on southbound Hermosa Avenue and modify existing traffic signal to produce split phase operation on Hermosa Avenue. -13 - iii. Temporary Parking Displacement. .Construction of the hotel and parking structure will temporarily displace 254 parking spaces. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measures 4.4(a) and (b) require that replacement parking totaling 338 parking spaces, be made available during the construction period at several identified locations. Further, a shuttle service shall be instituted to allow visitors to the downtown to park in these remote locations and take the shuttle into the downtown area. In developing the shuttle service, the City shall minimize the number of remote parking site and shuttle stops in order to maximize the efficiency of the system. Once operational, the shuttle service shall be periodically evaluated to maximize ridership and reduce impacts on parking and circulation the downtown area. If parking for construction workers and construction vehicles cannot be handled within the proposed construction staging, areas, -remote parking outside of the 'downtown areas shall be secured and used. This remote parking shall be provided in areas not proposed for parking use by the users of the shuttle service. The City has found shuttle service to be successfully employed to reduce vehicle congestion in the downtown area for special events, and expects shuttle service to be similarly successful in connection with the Projects. d. Short -Term Air Ouality Impacts. i. Fugitive Dust. Clearing, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground and wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces will generate dust at and near the project site during the construction period. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires that there be no dust impacts off -site sufficient to cause a nuisance, SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction, and other feasible dust control measures shall be implemented as part of the proposed project pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) and 4.5-1(c). Prior to approval of the grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that compliance will be achieved. Approved actions shall be reflected in the Grading Plan and the Applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs of compliance review. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1(b) requires that other measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions shall be implemented to the extent feasible during construction. These measures are identified in detail at Draft EIR page 4.5-13, A - and in Section 2.0 of the EIR, and include watering of the site, suspension of grading during high winds and smog alerts, spreading of soil blinders, daily street sweeping, and washing of tracks leaving the project site. The Applicant is required to maintain water trucks on site at all times during construction. ii. Combustion Emissions. Combustion emissions will be released from on -site construction vehicles and on -road vehicles of construction workers during the construction period. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 requires that, to the extent feasible, exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled in a manner that is, consistent with standard mitigation dictated by SCAQMD. These include use of low emission on -site equipment, maintenance of equipment per manufacturer's specifications, substitute electric, gasoline or methanol powered equipment for diesel -powered equipment where feasible. Other measures to reduce emissions from construction vehicles are identified at Draft EIR at pages 4.5-14 through 4.5-15. e. Creation of Opportunities for Crime. The parking structure could become a focal point for crime and lace an extra burden on the police department. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.7(3)(a) and (b), prior to submittal of detailed construction plans for the parking structure, the Applicant is required to meet with the Hermosa Beach Police Department to evaluate plans for security lighting, security systems, and ease of policing. The Police Department will conduct a subsequent review of the plans prior to their final approval to ensure that their recommendations have been incorporated. f. Construction Impacts on Special Events. Construction activities have the potential to interfere with special on the beach, The Strand, at Noble Park and in the downtown area. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.7- 5(a) requires that construction be suspended on certain days as determined appropriate by the City. Prior to commencement of construction or demolition activities, special event days that -15 - would require suspension of construction activities shall be identified by the City and the applicant's contractors shall be informed of these dates. Compliance with the schedule shall be enforced by the City. To prevent nuisances associated with construction during high use summer months, Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(b) requires that construction on the Phase One Hotel site be limited from June 15th to September 15 to exclude weekends and legal holidays. Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(c) requires that the Applicant limit hours of construction to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(d) prohibits temporary or permanent closure of the Strand for construction purposes, and requires that construction equipment access the site from public rights -of -way other than The Strand. Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(e) requires the preparation and approval of a Construction Operation Plan which will provide for fencing specifications, limits on construction hours and days, pedestrian circulation routes, the demonstration of safe and open access to the beach and the Strand, and designated construction haul routes. The Applicant is required to provide a pedestrian canopy over The Strand in conformance with the Uniform Building Code. Under Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(f); beach access at Thirteenth Avenue and The Strand shall be made available for special event trucks if required during Phase One hotel construction. g. Water Supply Impacts for Fire -Fighting Purposes. The project could result in demand for water which could exceed the capacity of the existing water supply facilities for fire- fighting purposes. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.8-4 requires the applicant to coordinate with California Water Service Company ("CWSC") to determine whether existing facilities would need to be upgraded to meet the fire flow requirement for the project site. If it is determined that upgrades are necessary, the applicant is required to enter into an agreement with CWSC to fund the improvements. Improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval prior to issuance of building permits. Any necessary upgrades are required to be constructed prior to occupancy of Phase One of the Hotel Project. h. Solid Waste Impacts. The project will result in the generation of approximately 1,000 pounds of solid waste per day. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Under Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(a), the applicant must include in its construction contract to recycle materials used in construction to the extent feasible in order to divert construction waste. from regional landfills. Other recycling measures -- outlined in more detail in the Draft EIR at pages 4.8-1 and following, and in the Final EIR -- also must be incorporated into the project. 2. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. a. Short -Term Land Use Impacts. Approval of the project will result in unavoidable, short-term, significant impacts on existing land uses including noise, dust and traffic arising out of the construction of the hotel and parking structure. Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address these impacts, short-term, construction - related impacts cannot be reduced a level of insignificance and are therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. Facts Supporting Finding: A number of mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impacts arising out of construction activities, including Mitigation Measures 4.7-5(a) through (e) concerning potential conflicts with special events; Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) through (c) concerning temporary construction noise impacts; Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) through (c) concerning temporary construction noise impacts; Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) through (c) concerning temporary air quality impacts; and Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a) concerning limitation of hours and days of construction. These measures will reduce certain aspects of the construction -related impacts to a level of insignificance. As to those construction -related impacts that cannot be reduced or avoided, including high noise levels from the use of heavy equipment, dust from grading activities, and temporary increases in traffic, the City finds that there are specific economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh its potential adverse construction -related impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared, and is set forth below. b. Permanent View Impacts. Approval of the project will result in significant, unavoidable impacts on existing and coastal views from residential and commercial properties, Noble Park, and other areas in the project vicinity. Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address impacts on existing views, obstruction of certain existing views cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance and is therefore found to be a significant and unavoidable effect of the project. -1 - Facts Supporting Finding: A portion of the project is to be located on a vacant lot over which certain existing homes and businesses currently enjoy ocean views. A three story parking structure will replace the existing surface parking. Neither the vacant lot nor the existing surface parking contribute significantly to the visual quality of the area. Nonetheless, the hotel and the parking structure will obstruct existing views of the ocean and coastline from a relatively small number of residences and businesses (see DEIR at 4.3-9 through 4.3-15.) Conditions of development require the Applicant to: • With respect to the Final Plans for landscaping for the pedestrian plazas at Fourteenth Street and Thirteenth Street and The Strand, specify plant species and concentrate landscaping along the edges of the street rights -of -way with the goal of framing and maintaining as much of a view corridor to the ocean as is feasible; • Screen rooftop equipment from all off -site vantage points, and contain mechanical equipment within rooftop penthouses. Rooftop screening materials shall be complimentary in material and color to the building's exterior; • Screen service areas from off -site view and enclose trash containers using materials complimentary to the buildings; and • Since the issuance of the Draft EIR, the developer has also agreed to revise its plans to eliminate the rooftop deck and trellises extending above the roof line. The above measures will reduce certain aspects of the view impacts to a level of insignificance. As to those view impacts that cannot be reduced or avoided, including blocking or partial blocking of some ocean views, the City finds that there are specific economic, social, legal, technological and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh its potential adverse view impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and is set forth below. C. Air Ouality Impacts. Approval of the project will result in increased regional and local air pollutant levels on a project -specific and cumulative basis. Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address the project's impacts on air quality, operational emissions caused by electricity and natural gas usage and by vehicular emissions from project -generated traffic will cause increases in regional and local air pollutants that cannot i be reduced to a level of insignificance and are therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. Facts Supporting Finding: Hermosa Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin, a non -attainment area for air quality standards under both federal and state law. The South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") has developed an Air Quality Management Plan designed to bring the region into compliance with federal and state standards. Vehicle traffic, by far the largest generator of the pollutant emissions in the Basin, would be generated by guests staying at the hotel, employees of the hotel, office and retail space, shoppers visiting the retail space and visitors to the parking garage. In addition, hotel operational emissions from the project will exceed SCAQMD daily operational emissions for several identified pollutants. Mitigation measures are adopted to reduce these emissions: Mitigation Measure 4.5-4(a): - Provide convenient access to transit stops; Mitigation Measure 4.5-4(b): - Provide complimentary bikes or bike rentals for hotel visitors and encourage use of The Strand; - Incorporation of bicycle storage facilities into the design of the project; - Encourage use of shuttle and/or bus service; - Consult with Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, and all feasible energy conservation measures shall be incorporated into the project; - Install energy efficient street lighting and surface parking lighting; Install low -polluting, energy efficient appliances in hotel; - Install solar water heaters where feasible; - Incorporate passive solar design; - Cascade ventilation air before exhaustion of air; and - Install facilities for electric -powered landscape maintenance equipment. Estimation of the efficacy of these mitigation measures to reduce vehicular and operational emissions is difficult. It is unlikely, however, that these measures will be adequate to _19 - reduce vehicular emissions to below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, operational and vehicular emissions from the project are considered significant and unavoidable. The City finds that there are specific economic, social and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh its potential adverse air quality impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and is set forth below. d. Noise Impacts. General construction activities will result in temporary significant increases in noise levels. Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address these impacts, short-term, construction - related impacts cannot be reduced a level of insignificance and are therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. Facts in Support of Finding: Some construction -related noise impacts are inevitable from any construction project. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through 4.6-1(c), inclusive, the Applicant is required to limit construction hours and days as specified in Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a) and to equip construction equipment with all feasible noise control devices. All construction is prohibits on weekends and holidays during the peak summer season from June 15th through September 15th. 3. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES The City Council has considered various project alternatives as analyzed in the EIR and makes the following findings: i. No Protect Alternative. The No Project Alternative assumes that the hotel site would remain vacant and the parking structure would not be constructed. Both the hotel site and Parking Lot "C" would remain subject to future development consistent with the requirements of the C-2 zone. Such development would have some or all of the same impacts as the Projects. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative. Facts in Support of Finding: The No Project Alternative is infeasible because it is inconsistent with the City's goals, among others, of providing additional parking for the downtown area through a joint public/private venture, encouraging high quality development that will complement the City's unique beach environment, generating new revenue sources for the City and to provide opportunities for retail reinvestment attracting new daytime users to the downtown area. The No Project Alternative is also inconsistent with the Applicant's goals, among others, of providing a financially sound project - V0 - while contributing to the fiscal stability of the City. The No Project Alternative would not obtain any of the City's or the applicant's goals and objectives. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. ii. Alternative One. Alternative One is the Projects with the exception of the parking plan alternative, 100 parking spaces would be long-term one mile of the hotel period for an interim period parking structure on City -owned Lot "C" is built. and visitors would be met by valets who would park the designated location. the same as Under this leased within until the Hotel guests all cars at Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible Alternative One. Alternative One is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. Facts in Support of Finding: Certain impacts associated with Alternative One would be greater than with the proposed project, such as land use conflicts, air quality, and noise. Impacts on traffic could be substantially greater than under the preferred alternative because of the doubling of trips associated with the initial arrival and departure of guests and each valet trip necessary to make these trips possible. Alternative One would meet the basic project objectives of the City and the Applicant but could be inconvenient for guests of the hotel because of the valet service and remote parking. Alternative One makes the project a less desirable resort destination than the preferred project and therefore a potentially less sound project financially. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. iii. Alterative Two. Alternative Two comprises a 96 room hotel with a 100 car parking structure which would be constructed and air -leased over Lot "C" owned by the City. The City would ultimately construct a multi -level parking structure that would be joined with the adjacent structure built by the hotel proponent. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible Alternative Two. Alternative Two is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. Facts in Support of Finding: This alternative would be less efficient than the proposed alternative due to the dual - V - ramping system necessary for the two structures and the extra cost of constructing and joining separate facilities that could have been constructed together. Air pollutant emissions would be higher because of double construction. The alternative is also less desirable than the preferred project because it would provide approximately 100 fewer parking spaces, which would not meet the long-term goals for parking downtown. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. iv. Alternative Three. Alternative Three consists of construction of the Phase I of the Hotel Project only. The Phase II hotel lot would be used for surface parking, with valet/self service for 54 spaces. The City would construct a 380-space parking structure, 14 spaces of which would be long-term leased to the hotel. Finding: Although Alternative Three may be environmentally superior to the Projects, specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible Alternative Three, and the alternative is rejected. Facts in Support of Finding: The reduction in size of the hotel from 96 to 54 rooms would reduce environmental impacts of the project, but would not fully realize the City's and the applicant's goals in that the project would be less financially successful, contribute less to the City's tax base, create fewer jobs and provide 100 fewer parking spaces than are desired by the City's long-term downtown parking goals. Alterative Three would have also similar environmental impacts as the preferred alternative in terms of views, construction, noise and land use conflicts. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. V. Alternative Four. .Alternative Four consists of the construction of a 7,500 square foot restaurant on the south end of the Phase I site. The Phase II lot would be used for surface parking. The City would construct a 380 space parking structure with 7,000 square feet of retail/office space. Finding: Specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible Alternative Four. Facts in Support of Finding: Alternative Four would not meet many of the basic objectives of the project, notably construction of a beach front resort hotel. Traffic, air quality -ZZ- and noise impacts could be greater under this alternative, particularly Saturday p.m. peak hour traffic, such that Alternative Four is not environmentally superior to the proposed Projects. There would still be view blockage impacts and construction impacts. Adding an additional restaurant to the downtown area could increase competition with respect to existing establishments. Alternative Four would provide 100 fewer parking spaces than the preferred project. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. 4. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council has considered each of the potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above (construction -related impacts, air quality and permanent view impacts) in deciding whether to approve development of the Projects. Although the City Council believes that many of the unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures incorporated into the project, it recognizes that approval of the Projects will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects. The City Council specifically finds that, to the extent that adverse or potentially adverse impacts set forth above have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance, that specific economic, social, legal, environmental, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Furthermore, the City Council finds that any and each of the following considerations is sufficient to approve the Projects despite any one or more of the unavoidable impacts identified and that each of the overriding considerations is adopted with respect to each of the impacts individually and that each consideration is severable from any other consideration should one or more consideration be shown to be legally insufficient for any reason. The following considerations support approval of the Projects: a. The Projects will implement the City's General Plan and other plans for the downtown area. The City has determined pursuant to its General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and other plans for the downtown area that the site is appropriate for a beach front hotel resort and parking structure and that the number of rooms proposed for the hotel and number of parking spaces proposed for the structure are appropriate for the site given the character of the surrounding area, prevailing market conditions, and existing parking demand; 2.3 - b. The Hotel Project will generate increased tax revenues for the City including a Transient occupancy Tax and increased sales and property tax; C. The Projects are consistent with and will implement the City's long range vision for the revitalization of the downtown area; d. The Projects will implement the recommendations contained in the Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) study; e. The Hotel Project will establish an appropriate buffer between the downtown area and the adjacent public park; f. The Projects will provide opportunities for retail reinvestment attracting new daytime users to the downtown area in peak and non -peak seasons; g. The Projects promote additional street-scape improvements; h. The Projects are aesthetically attractive and will enhance the beach front; i. The Parking Structure Project serves the City's goals in that it will provide safe and adequate parking that meets the City's parking requirements through a mutually -beneficial joint private/public venture; j. The Projects will improve the existing aesthetic condition of the sites; k. The Projects will contribute to needed traffic improvements within the downtown area; and 1. The Hotel Project will contribute to needed storm drain improvements within the downtown area. - z 4 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, Naoma Valdes, Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96-5840 was duly and regularly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Regular Meeting of said Council at the regular place thereof on December 17, 1996. The vote was as follows: AYES: Benz, Bowler, Edgerton, Reviczky, Mayor Oakes NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None DATED: December 18, 1996 Deputy City Clerk