Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6195RESOLUTION NO. 6195 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS AMENDED, FOR THE REDLANDS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Redlands (the 'Redevelopment Agency") has initiated the proposed Amendment No. 4 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redlands Redevelopment Project (the 'Proposed Amendment")• and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (the 'CRL') (California Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the Agency has prepared its Report to City Council for the proposed Amendment, which includes the proposed Amendment and the Final EIR referred to below• and WHEREAS, the Agency as lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'), has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Amendment; and WHEREAS, all actions required to be taken by applicable law related to the preparation, circulation, and review of the Draft and Final EIR have been taken; and WHEREAS, the Redlands Planning Commission approved and forwarded to the Agency its report that the proposed Amendment is in conformity with the Redlands General Plan and has recommended approval of said Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Redlands (the 'City Council") has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the adoption of the proposed Amendment and all other information in the administrative record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to public notice duly given, the City Council and the Agency Board held a full and fair joint public hearing on the proposed Amendment and Final EIR on September 16, 2003; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands, California, as follows: Section 1. The Final EIR for the adoption of the proposed Amendment is hereby received by the City Council in the Report to City Council and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2: The City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR for the adoption of the proposed Amendment, as determined herein, has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ("CEQA'), as amended, the State CEQA Guidelines promulgated thereunder and the City Council's local CEQA Guidelines, that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Final EIR prior to approving the proposed Amendment, and that said Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Section 3: The City Council hereby specifically finds and determines, based upon the findings set forth in the Final EIR, that no new adverse impacts were identified that required mitigation to a less than significant level, except that significant unavoidable adverse impacts remain relative to cultural resources. Section 4. The City Council hereby further finds with respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the Final EIR: a) That the adverse environmental impacts associated with the adoption of the proposed Amendment have been considered and recognized by the City Council. b) Potential significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on cultural resources have been identified. Section 5. The City Council hereby further finds that the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR either would not achieve the objectives of the proposed Amendment, or would do so only with unacceptable adverse impacts. Accordingly and for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR, none of the alternatives are feasible, nor are the alternatives environmentally superior Section 6. The City Council finds that facts supporting the above-specified findings are contained in the Final EIR, the proposed Amendment, and the information provided to this City Council during the public hearing conducted with respect to the proposed Amendment and the Final EIR. Except to the extent they conflict with findings included directly in this Resolution, the statements and conclusions in the Final EIR and those made by staff and consultants at the hearing on the proposed Amendment are hereby adopted as findings of this body Section 7. The City Council hereby adopts a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 15091 and Section 15093 attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution, and as provided below To the extent that implementation of the Proposed Amendment induces the occurrence of potentially significant effects including significant and unavoidable impacts on historic resources, including any cumulative effects, the City Council has identified economic, ecological and social reasons that support the adoption of the Proposed Amendment and make infeasible the alternatives described in the Final EIR, as set forth below 2 a. The Proposed Amendment will help revitalize and upgrade the Project Area by increasing property tax revenues, providing adequate roadways, providing adequate flood control facilities, providing improved housing opportunities, correcting deficiencies in the public infrastructure, and promoting aesthetic improvements. b. Implementation of the Proposed Amendment will also help accelerate achievement of the General Plan's goals for land uses, circulation and housing within the Project Area. c. The Proposed Amendment is itself an implementation measure for the General Plan, which is intended to overcome various physical, economic and social conditions that may hinder the full achievement of the goals, policies and proposals of the General Plan. d. Implementation of the Proposed Amendment will help reduce incidence of blight in the Project Area through providing the means to fund public works, improvements, and various commercial and residential rehabilitation programs. e. The Proposed Amendment will encourage additional residential, commercial and industrial development in the Project Area through various powers, which will in turn increase local employment. g. The alternatives identified in the Final EIR either would not achieve the objectives of the Proposed Amendment, or would do so only with unacceptable adverse impacts. Accordingly and for the reasons set forth in Section 4 above and in the Final EIR, none of the alternatives are feasible, nor are the alternatives environmentally superior The City Council finds that facts supporting the above-specified findings are contained in the Final EIR, the Proposed Amendment, and the information provided to this City Council during the public hearing conducted with respect to the Proposed Amendment and the Final EIR. The City Council finds that because of the above overriding benefits and considerations, any unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts of the Proposed Amendment are acceptable. Section 8: The Final EIR for the proposed Amendment is hereby certified as final. Section 9: The City Clerk, in cooperation with the Executive Director of the Agency is hereby authorized and directed to file with the County Clerk of the County of Redlands within five (5) business days a Notice of Determination, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 15094 and is hereby authorized to pay fees pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 753 5. 3 ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 16th day of September, 2003 ATTEST Lomeoyzer, Cit CITY OF REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA Karl N Haws, Mayor I, Lome Poyzer, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of September, 2003, by the following vote AYES Councilmembers, Gilbreath, George, Hanson, Mayor Haws NOES None ABSENT Councilmember Peppler ABSTAIN None Lorre ' oyzer, C rk Ci of Redlands EXHIBIT "A" AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDLANDS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code Date Adopted by the City FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDLANDS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Section 1 Statutory Requirements for Findings The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21081) and the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15091) require that: 'No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identified one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. The findings required shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091) For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the lead agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21081[b]). The City of Redlands Redevelopment Agency (Redevelopment Agency or Agency) proposed an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redlands Redevelopment Project (project), originally adopted by the Agency in 1972 and subsequently amended in 1976, 1996, and 2000 The purpose of the fourth amendment was to extend the eminent domain authority of the Agency to residential properties within the project area. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and a Notice of Preparation (NOP) issued by the Redevelopment Agency on February 5 2003 in accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375 Following the 30 -day NOP review period, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was prepared addressing issues identified in the Initial Study as potentially significant environmental impacts, as well as issues raised by the public and public agencies during the NOP period. The Draft EIR identified one significant impact associated with project adoption and long-term implementation: the potential to impact historic resources. All other 1 potentially significant impacts were determined to be less than significant or capable of being mitigated to a less -than -significant level. The Draft EIR circulated for a 45 -day public review and comment period. The following public agencies submitted comments on the Draft EIR. • The State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control, dated July 21, 2003 • The County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works, dated August 4, 2003 The comment letters did not raise any issue related to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR for the project identified environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. The Final EIR identified certain potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the project. These effects are listed below In making these findings, all of the rationale and database contained in the Final EIR has not been repeated. The Final EIR and other source documents referenced therein are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full in this document. The analysis and conclusions of the Final EIR, including the responses to comments and any supplemental responses provided by the Agency staff and consultants in connection with the approval of the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redlands Redevelopment Project, are hereby adopted as findings by the Board of the Redlands Redevelopment Agency (the Board). Section 2: Significant Effects that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level The Final EIR identified the following single significant impact that cannot be mitigated to a less -than - significant level, even with project compliance with existing comprehensive City regulations: Issue 1. Older residential structures that may be of potential historic value could be impaired or demolished as a result of property acquisition and redevelopment activity Unavoidable Significant Impact: While the revitalization process facilitated by the project is not anticipated to affect the majority of existing residential structures listed as historic resources on national or local registers, as the Agency has no defined plans at this time to remove or alter any structures. However, some residential structures that are 50 years old and older, and may be of potential historic value, may be affected by future development proposals. Such residential structures may be altered or demolished if reuse or relocation is determined not to be feasible. Reuse of such structures may be difficult due to construction type, building condition, building configuration, or other constraints. Upgrading older structures and adding circulation, parking, and pedestrian improvements necessary for reuse may not be feasible for every building that is 50 years old or older Mitigation Measures: No practicable mitigation beyond and in addition to compliance with existing comprehensive City regulations for the preservation of historic resources is currently available. The existing regulations are: 1 In an effort to preserve and reuse significant properties within the Project Area, the Redevelopment Agency shall explore the following measures where appropriate: 2 a. The Redevelopment Agency shall evaluate alternative designs to the project which are economically feasible in order to maintain the structure or a portion of the structure. b The Redevelopment Agency shall assess the feasibility of relocating the structure to an alternate site either owned by the Agency or City within or outside the Project Area. c. The Redevelopment Agency shall consult with civic groups, interested citizens, and the public at large to determine feasible alternatives to relocating the structure to an alternate site. d. Grant finding shall be explored through the appropriate federal and state agencies to renovate the building for preservation and re -use. e. Evaluate the use of certain architectural elements of the building to be incorporated into the project and maintain the sante architectural theme throughout the project. 2. Upon determination by the Redevelopment Agency that the alternatives of measure number 1 are not economically feasible to support preservation of the building, and prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall have two sets of archival quality photographs taken of each side of the structure and submit them to the Heritage Room of the Smiley Library and the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. Findings: With regard to direct impact on historic resources, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR or mitigation measures which could reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. Facts in Support of Findings: With or without the project, development in the Project Area will be consistent with the policies of the General Plan, the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, and the Downtown Specific Plan No. 45 including General Plan policy 3.27e that encourages preservation, maintenance, enhancement, and reuse of existing buildings within redevelopment areas. Many older buildings (50 years and older), including buildings listed on the national, state, and local registers, are located within the Project Area. While the revitalization process facilitated by the project is not anticipated to affect most of the existing buildings listed as historic resources on national or Local registers, some of the buildings that are 50 years old or older and of potential historic value may be affected. Reuse of such buildings may be difficult due to construction type, building condition, building configuration, or other constraints, including the building s potential to be an integral part of a new development pattern, or it may be economically or functionally infeasible to reuse certain buildings. Constraints can include insufficient natural light; narrow entries, doors, windows, and hallways; deficient plumbing, ventilation, electrical, telephone, and other systems; lack of parking for employees and customers; seismic safety concerns; and others. Upgrading older structures and adding necessary circulation and pedestrian improvements necessary for reuse as restaurants, offices, retail stores, high technology facilities, and other commercial and industrial uses may not be feasible for every building that is 50 years old or older. Some historic or potentially historic buildings may be materially altered or, if reuse or relocation is not feasible, demolished. Individual proposals for development within the Project Area will continue to be subject to review and approval by the Redlands Redevelopment Agency the City of Redlands Planning Commission, the City Council, the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission, and various City Departments as appropriate. These requirements include evaluation of older buildings that have not yet been evaluated for their potential historical value at the time development is considered. 3 Section 3. Effects Determined Not to Be Significant The Board finds that, based on substantial evidence in the record consisting of the analysis in the Final EIR incorporated herein by reference, the project will result in no adverse impact on population and housing. The revitalization process facilitated by the project will have the beneficial effect of improving the supply of affordable housing through the use of the set-aside redevelopment funds. Compliance with Redevelopment Law, including Section 33413 of the Health and Safety Code, will ensure that any removed housing is replaced, property owners are compensated, and tenants are provided relocation and other assistance. The project will not result in a substantial population growth, depletion of the City housing stock, or construction of substantial replacement housing elsewhere. The Board finds that, based on substantial evidence in the record consisting of the analysis in the Initial Study contained an appendix to the Final EIR and incorporated herein by reference, the project will result in less than significant impact or no impact as a result of existing policies, programs, and measures contained in the Redlands General Plan, applicable Specific Plans, and existing City regulations with regard to the environmental factors identified below Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Geology/Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Section 4 Feasibility of Project Alternatives The Final EIR, in Section 4, Alternatives to the Project, contains an analysis of the following alternatives to the project: (1) the 'No Project' alternative, which considers development without the proposed Amendment to extend eminent domain authority to residential properties; (2) an alternative means of revitalization with public funds; and (3) an alternative means of revitalization without public funds. An alternative location for the project was not analyzed because the goals and objectives of the project are specific to the geographic context of the Redevelopment Project Area. Implementation of the project at another location outside the Project Area would not achieve the redevelopment objectives for the Redlands Redevelopment Project Area. Alternative 1. No Project — Development without the Amendment Without the project, redevelopment activity within the Project Area would continue pursuant to the existing Redevelopment Plan. However, without the tool of eminent domain for residential properties, the existing conditions including negative economic trends, property deterioration, and stagnation 4 would be expected to continue into the future. Without a tool that facilitates assembly of parcels into sites suitable for modern industrial, commercial, office, entertainment, mixed-use and other development, the Project Area could continue to be unattractive to private investment. Future development would be anticipated to occur in piecemeal fashion on smaller individual parcels dispersed throughout the Project Area. In the absence of modern, high-quality development within the Project Area, existing uses, including deteriorated, dilapidated, and obsolete facilities, would most likely remain rather than recycle to more economically viable uses. This would delay the alleviation of the remaining blighting conditions in the area, including relocation or elimination of remaining residential land uses inconsistent with the General Plan. The potential for high-quality visually attractive, and cohesive development to occur would not be realized. Since the general land use types, densities, and intensities that could be developed pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan would be the same without the project, the environmental effects of the No Project Alternative would be the same as those associated with implementation of the project. Historic or potentially historic residences could still be impaired or demolished under this alternative, as long as a proposed project complies with City historic preservation regulations. Therefore, the impact to historic or potentially historic residential structures would also be significant and unavoidable under this alternative. Since this alternative would ultimately result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the project but would not achieve any of the major project objectives, it is considered environmentally inferior Alternative 2. Alternative Means of Revitalization with Public Funds This alternative considers utilization of public revenue sources to stimulate economic development and revitalization activities within the Project Area. Federal, State, County and City programs exist that may foster economic development without the need to re-establish the use of eminent domain authority for residential properties. These sources of funding typically include mortgage revenue bonds, Community Development Block Grant funds, Economic Development Administration funds, Urban Development Action funds, and revenue bonds. Since this alternative would be expected to fund development in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan land use policy impacts associated with such development would be the same as those associated with implementation of the proposed project. Even with compliance with the City historic preservation regulation, historic or potentially historic residential structures could still be impaired or demolished without the use of eminent domain because funds could still be used to replace blighted residences. As with the project, the impact on historic resources would be significant and avoidable under this alternative. Funding mechanisms could be used to stimulate economic development and revitalization of the Project Area through investment in specific development projects or components consistent with the Redlands General Plan. However, funding mechanisms would not guarantee the assembly of land into parcels suitable for modern commercial and other development, as the City could not use the funds to force the sale of properties. Blighted residential uses could continue to exist. Funding mechanisms would only be useful to stimulate economic development where opportunities exist to acquire property not necessarily in those areas that are continuing to experience blighting conditions. Due to the uncertainty of available funding for necessary improvements and other blight removal actions, the achievement of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment goals could not be ensured. Therefore, this alternative would not achieve major objectives of the Redevelopment Agency objectives that could be achieved through the implementation of the proposed project. 5 Alternative 3: Alternative Means of Revitalization without Public Funds Pursuant to this alternative, the Redevelopment Agency would promote the adoption of one or more Business Improvement Districts and/or Assessment Districts to fund blight removal and economic development activities in the Project Area. Under a Business Improvement District, business owners form a district in which each business in the District is charged a fee based on gross receipts or other appropriate factors. The fee is used to support the operations of the District. Such districts typically are established to provide joint marketing efforts, shared advertising costs, focused aesthetic improvements, and other actions that benefit the district as a whole. Assessment Districts are typically established to fund major capital improvements, such as street improvements, landscape and hardscape improvements, lighting, drainage, and other utility improvements. The amount of development possible under this alternative would be the same as that associated with the use of eminent domain for residential property All development would occur pursuant to General Plan land use policy Thus, even with compliance with the City historic preservation regulations, some historic or potentially historic residential structures could still be impaired or demolished. Therefore, the environmental effects of this alternative would be the same as those associated with the proposed project. While both types of districts can be effective in limited areas with a focused and dedicated group of property and business owners promoting the district, it can be difficult to implement such a program in an area where property has already been allowed to deteriorate and where residential uses are involved. Such districts do not have the unique power available to the Redevelopment Agency to assemble key sites for development as an impetus for further private investment in the Project Area. The inability of such districts to provide for property assembly including residential parcels, is a substantial limitation to achieving revitalization and the removal of blight. Although these districts may stimulate economic development in commercial areas, this tool would be inadequate to address the remaining blight that exists within certain residential areas. 6 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redlands Redevelopment Project The City Council finds that certain significant environmental effects of the project are unavoidable because no practicable mitigation is currently available beyond and in addition to compliance with existing comprehensive City regulations for the preservation of historic resources. The benefits of the project have been balanced against such unavoidable environmental effects in its approval. The Board finds that any significant unavoidable effects remaining are outweighed and are found to be acceptable due to the following specific education, economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including provision of employment, based upon the facts set forth above, in the Final EIR, and in the public record of the considerations of this project, as follows: 1 Revitalization of the Project Area with modern industrial, commercial, office, and other mixed uses as permitted by applicable land use plans, particularly in the downtown business district, that will eliminate physical and economic blight and carry out the Redevelopment Plan goals. 2. Accelerated provision of employment opportunities for residents of Redlands and surrounding communities that will help to improve jobs/housing balance in the City and the San Bernardino Association of Governments sub -region. 3 Potential to facilitate the improvement and development of the City s infrastructure within the Redevelopment Project Area, which could include widening of streets, drainage systems, water and sewer lines, pedestrian systems, and public landscaping. 4 Generation of additional property tax, sales tax, and other tax revenue that broadens the City s tax base and supports various City services. 7