HomeMy WebLinkAbout5824RESOLUTION NO 5824
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS AMENDED,
FOR THE REDLANDS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MAKING FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS HEREBY FINDS,
ORDERS, DETERMINES AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS.
Section 1 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Redlands (the
Agency") and the City Council of the City of Redlands (the 'City Council") have proposed
to adopt the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, As Amended, for the Redlands
Redevelopment Project (the 'Project").
Section 2. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was prepared by
an independent consultant to evaluate the potential adverse environmental impacts of the
Project. It was circulated for a 45 day public review and comment period pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000 et seq., ("CEQA')
and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq., (the
'Guidelines') A final EIR ("FEIR") which includes the comments and the responses to the
comments, was prepared and made available to the public on November 9 2000 The
FEIR includes the comments and responses to comments as well as a proposed mitigation
monitoring program, and incorporates the DEIR and the Appendices to the DEIR.
Section 3. The City Council and Agency held a duly -noticed joint public
hearing on the Project and the EIR on December 5 2000 All interested persons had the
opportunity to present both written and oral comments regarding the Project and the FEIR
at the hearing
Section 4 The City Council hereby certifies that the FEIR was completed
pursuant to CEQA and the Guidelines and that the FEIR (hereafter the 'EIR") represents
the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council also hereby certifies that
the City Council reviewed and considered the contents of the EIR prior to deciding whether
to the approve the Project.
Section 5 The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the
information and evidence set forth in the FEIR and upon other substantial evidence in the
record of the proceedings on the Project and the DEIR and FEIR, which include, among
other things, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR. The documents, staff reports,
plans, specifications, technical studies 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 City Clerk
of the City of Redlands, 30 Cajon Street, #4 Redlands, California. The custodian of said
records is the City Clerk of the City of Redlands.
Section 6 Based on the Initial Study the DEIR the FEIR, the public
comments and the record before the City Council, the Agency finds that the Project will not
cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of population and housing, land use
and planning geology and soils, water quality mineral resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, public services, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, recreation, and
biological resources.
12126\0002\629794 1 1
Section 7 With regard to one impact, flood hazards in the downtown area,
the FEIR identifies a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance The FEIR also identifies the following areas of significant impacts that
cannot be avoided as follows: air quality, traffic, noise, agricultural resources and historic
resources. The FEIR includes mitigation measures for these impacts however the
mitigation measures will not mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance
Section 8. In response to each significant impact identified in the EIR, and
listed in Table ES -1 of the FEIR, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or
incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impacts identified The changes or alterations required in, or incorporated
into the Project, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this finding with regard to each
impact, are contained in Table ES -1 of the FEIR and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
Section 9 The EIR 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 (1) Means other than eminent domain option, (2)
Alternative location alternative and (3) No Project Alternative. The alternatives identified
in the EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the
Project, or would do so only to a much smaller degree, and therefore leave unaddressed
significant social, physical and economic problems the Project is intended to eliminate, and
are thus infeasible due to social, physical and economic considerations, or they are
infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the
proposed Project. Accordingly and for any one of the reasons set forth herein, in the
record of the Agency's proceedings or in the EIR, each of the alternatives are infeasible.
Section 10 The mitigation measures set forth in Table ES -1 of the FEIR and
incorporated in Section 8 of this Resolution avoid or substantially lessenthe potentially
significant environmental impacts of the Project. Further the environmental, physical,
social, economic and other benefits of the Projectoutweigh any unavoidable, significant,
adverse impacts that may occur as result the Project. Attached to this resolution, as
Exhibit A, is a statement of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
This exhibit identifies the statutory requirements for findings, identifies effects that cannot
be mitigated to a less than significant level, identifieseffects determined to be mitigated
to less than significant levels, identifies effects determined not to be not significant,
identifies feasibility of project alternatives, and .finally provides a statement of overriding
considerations for the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redlands
Redevelopment Project. The Agency hereby adopts the Findings of Fact and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the proposed Amendment and as
included in Exhibit A.
Section 11 The City Council hereby adopts each of the mitigation measures
set forth in the EIR and incorporates these measures into the Project. The City Council
also hereby adopts the 'Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Redlands Redevelopment
Project' prepared by Cotton Beland and Associates, Inc. and attached hereto as Exhibit
'B' This Program will be used to monitor the changes and conditions to the Project which
have been adopted, or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in Section 7 above
and summarized in Table ES -1 of the FEIR.
Section 12. A full and fair joint public hearing regarding the proposed
Amendment has been duly noticed and held by the City Council and the Agency pursuant
to law and the Agency and City Council have received testimony concerning the
Amendment. The City Council has considered the Report to City Council, which is the
reports and information required by Health and Safety Code Section 33352 (to the extent
12126\0002\629794 1 2
warranted by this proposed Amendment in accordance with Health and Safety Code
Section 33457 1) and all testimony for and against adoption of the Redevelopment Plan.
Section 13 The Amendment, a copy of which has been presented to the City
Council and which is now on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved subject
to the mitigation measures set forth in Table ES -1 of the FEIR.
PASSED APPROVED and ADOPTED this 5 th day of December , 2000
2SA
Mayor
ATTEST
12126\0002\629794 1 3
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
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 (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21081) and
the CEQA Guidelines (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.
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)).
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued by the Redevelopment Agency on June 21 2000, in
accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Sections
15082(a), 15103, and 15375 In responses on the Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR, the County
Flood Control District noted that the FEMA flood hazard designation extends into the Project
Area and until Redlands Zanja is improved through the downtown area, a significant portion of
the area is subject to flooding.
Following the NOP review period, a Draft EIR was prepared addressing issues raised during the
NOP period. The DEIR identified potential significant impacts on air quality traffic, noise,
1
agricultural resources, and historic resources for which the resolution includes the required
overriding considerations. The DEIR also identified a potentially significant flood hazard issue in
downtown area for which feasible mitigation measures are included that reduce this impact to a
less than significant level.
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review and comment from August 29 2000 to
October 12, 2000 The following public agencies submitted comments on the DEIR. State
Clearinghouse and the State Board of Equalization, Local Revenue Allocation Section.
The comment letters did not raise any issues related to environmental analysis in the DEIR. The
State Clearinghouse provided information that the Redevelopment Agency has complied with the
OPR public review requirements, and the State Board of Equalization, Local Revenue Allocation
Section provided information that the project requires no action by the Local Revenue Allocation
Section.
Consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines, the Final EIR for Amendment to
Redevelopment for Redlands Redevelopment 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 The Final EIR also identified mitigation measures which will reduce or eliminate some
of these potentially significant effects. These mitigation measures are listed below The
determination whether or not to incorporate such mitigation measures and the rationale for such
determination are set forth 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 Redevelopment Plan for Redlands Project Area, 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 FEIR identified the following significant impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than
significant level even with incorporation into the project of all feasible mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR.
1 Addition of air pollutant emissions to the South Coast Air Basin primarily from vehicular
travel and contribution to cumulative air quality impacts in the South Coast Air Basin in
the long term.
Unavoidable Significant Impact. The Amendment will facilitate new development focused at
most desirable locations in the Project Area, that will contribute to regional emissions of air
pollutants primarily from vehicular travel. The Amendment also has the potential to accelerate
the pace of revitalization in the entire Project Area, that may result in adding air pollutant
emissions to the South Coast Air Basin sooner than otherwise. This may increase the intensity
2
and duration of air quality impact when combined with other development in the City over the
life of the Amendment.
Mitigation Measures. In compliance with City policies and programs, each new development
facilitated by the Amendment will incorporate TDM measures, including carpooling and
modified work schedules; use of public transit and bicycling; and parking management strategies
that discourage single -occupancy vehicles, as appropriate to reduce vehicular emissions. No
additional feasible mitigation measures are identified.
Findings. With regards to direct and cumulative air pollutant emissions, 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. The identified air quality impact is consistent with air quality
impact evaluated in the General Plan MEA/EIR and the EIR for the East Valley Corridor Specific
Plan, and with information in the Downtown Specific Plan No. 45 The Amendment is
consistent with local land use plans, and is one element of development planned for by the City
of Redlands. Implementation of the City and regional plans, policies and programs will reduce
cumulative emissions in the South Coast Air Basin. However, due to the Basin s continued
exceedance of federal and state standards, reduced emissions are considered a significant impact.
2. Contribution to cumulative traffic in the City
Unavoidable Significant Impact. The Amendment has the potential to accelerate commercial,
retail, office and other development that could lead to more rapid buildout of traffic levels in the
Project Area. As a result, the decrease in LOS at certain locations could occur sooner than
otherwise. This may increase the intensity and duration of the traffic impacts when combined
with other development in the City over the life of the Amendment. Impacts to regional
transportation systems, such as the Interstate 10 (I-10) and 210 Freeways, are projected to result
in exceeding LOS standards considered acceptable and therefore, are the impacts are
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measurer In compliance with City policies and programs, each new development
facilitated by the Amendment will incorporate TDM measures, including carpooling and
modified work schedules; use of public transit and bicycling; and parking management strategies
that discourage single -occupancy vehicles, as appropriate to reduce vehicular emissions.
Findings. With regards to cumulative traffic impact, 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. Development facilitated by the Amendment will comply with
City requirements that each new development mitigate its impact so that LOS C is maintained on
all roadways currently operating at LOS C or better, and the LOS becomes no worse at locations
3
where the LOS is below C This includes preparation of project -specific traffic analysis to
identify impacts and develop specific mitigation including roadway improvements, TDM
measures, and/or other measures that reduce vehicle trips, as appropriate. Since the objective of
the Amendment is to enable revitalization in the Project Area, no additional feasible mitigation
exists to reduce the cumulative impact. The impact, while significant, is consistent with traffic
impact evaluated in the General Plan MEAJEIR, the EIR for the East Valley Corridor Specific
Plan, and with information in the Downtown Specific Plan No. 45
3 Contribution to cumulative noise in the City
Unavoidable Significant Impact- The potential to accelerate commercial, retail, office, and other
development could lead to more rapid attainment of buildout levels in the Project Area. As a
result, the increase in noise at certain locations, associated primarily with vehicular traffic in the
long term and construction of individual projects in the short term, could occur sooner than
otherwise. This may increase the intensity and duration of noise impacts when combined with
other development in the City over the life of the Amendment.
Mitigation Measures- Each new development facilitated by the Amendment will comply with
policies and programs designed to reduce vehicular traffic and, thus, vehicular noise. Each new
development will comply with the General Plan specific policies and the standards and
requirements of the Specific Plans, to reduce noise impacts at locations affected by high noise
levels, including the use of sound walls, insulation, berms, and landscaping. All new roadway
projects will include noise abatement measures to protect residences and other sensitive
receptors.
Findings- With regards to cumulative noise impact, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the project altematives identified in the
final EIR or mitigation measures which could reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Facts in Support of Findings- In addition to policies and programs designed to reduce vehicular
traffic and, thus, vehicular noise, the General Plan contains numerous specific policies to reduce
noise impacts at locations affected by high noise levels, including the use of sound walls,
insulation, berms. and landscaping. All new roadway projects must include noise abatement
measures to protect residences and other sensitive receptors. Each new development facilitated
by the Amendment will comply with the standards and requirements of the General Plan and
Specific Plans, including provision of noise abatement measures as required. Since the objective
of the Amendment is to enable revitalization in the Project Area, no additional feasible
mitigation exists to reduce the cumulative impact. While the impact will be significant, it is
consistent with noise impact evaluated in the General Plan MEA/EIR, the EIR for the East Valley
Corridor Specific Plan, and with information in the Downtown Specific Plan No. 45
4 Direct and cumulative impact of converting Farmland to urban uses.
Unavoidable Significant Impact- With the Amendment, the conversion of Farmland within in
the Project Area may occur sooner rather than later if the Agency uses the option of eminent
4
domain to focus development at locations within the 54.6 acres where Farmland is located. If so,
this may induce conversion of the nearby Farmland located outside the Project Area boundary to
urban uses to occur sooner as well. The East Valley Corridor Specific Plan contains a policy
encouraging the preservation of agricultural land uses as long as possible. Since development
facilitated by the Amendment may lead to conversion of Farmland more rapidly than anticipated
under the General Plan and the Specific Plan, it may increase the intensity of the impact on
Farmland that was considered under these Plans.
Mitigation Measurer No feasible mitigation beyond compliance with existing City regulations
and policies contained in the General Plan and Specific Plans, exists to reduce impact on
Farmland to a less than significant level.
Findings* With regards to direct and cumulative impact on agriculture 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: The objective of the Amendment is to enable revitalization in the
Project Area, no feasible mitigation beyond compliance with existing City regulations and
policies contained in the General Plan and Specific Plans, exists to reduce impact on Farmland to
a less than significant level. While the impact will be significant, the ultimate conversion of
Farmland to urban uses in areas designated for urban development is consistent with impact on
agricultural resources evaluated in the General Plan MEAJEIR and the EIR for the East Valley
Corridor Specific Plan.
5 Some historic structures in the Project Area may be altered or replaced.
Unavoidable Significant Impact While the revitalization process facilitated by the Amendment
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 potentially may be of
historic value, may be affected. Reuse of such buildings may be difficult due to structural, safety
and 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 Some historic or potentially historic buildings may be materially altered or if reuse or
relocation is not feasible, demolished.
Mitigation Measures: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts on
historic resources:
1 In an effort to preserve and reuse historically significant properties within the Project
Area, the City's Historic and Scenic Preservation Ordinance provides for a period of up to
90 working days for a non -designated structure and 180 working days for a designated
structure prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. During this time the
Redevelopment Agency shall explore the following measures where appropriate:
5
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 funding 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 same architectural theme throughout the project.
2. Upon determination by the Redevelopment Agency that the alternatives of -Mitigation
Measures no.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 photos 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 regards 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 Amendment, 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 the General Plan policy 3.27c that encourages
preservation, maintenance, enhancement and reuse of existing buildings in redevelopment areas.
A large number of older buildings (50 years and older), including those on the national, state, and
local registers, are located in the Project Area. While the revitalization process facilitated by the
Amendment 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 potentially
may be of historic value, may be affected. Reuse of such buildings may be difficult due to
structural, safety and other constraints, including 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,
6
demolished. Individual proposals for development within the Project Area will continue to be
subject to review and approval by the Redlands Redevelopment Agency City of Redlands
Planning Commission, City Council, 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.
Section 3. Effects Determined to Be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels
The EIR identified potentially significant flood hazard impact since the downtown business
district is located in the 100 -year flood plain. However the Board finds that, based upon
substantial evidence in the record, adoption and implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR and set forth below will reduce this potential significant effect to a less
than significant level.
Potentially Significant Effects. A portion of the Project Area the downtown business district
is located in the 100 -year flood plain of Mission Zanj a Creek. The Amendment may result in
revitalization of Downtown to occur more rapidly than otherwise. This may result in the need for
planned area -wide flood improvements and facilities to occur more rapidly while the funding
sources for construction of identified flood control improvements and facilities have not yet been
identified.
Mitigation Measurer
1 The Agency will continue to ensure that each individual development within the 100 -year
flood hazard zone as mapped by FEMA at the time of development, facilitated by the
Amendment will comply the City requirements, including site-specific hydrology studies
to identify which specific flood -proofing engineering techniques will be used. These
techniques may include constructing floodwalls, levees, elevating structures; sealing
structures for water tightness, and/or other methods.
2. The Agency shall actively seek and explore funding sources for construction of flood
control improvements in the Project Area, including federal, state and local grants,
matching funds, and other sources.
3 The Agency may exercise eminent domain to acquire land for flood control
improvements and facilities within the Project Area to the greatest extent feasible.
4 The Agency shall continue to work with the San Bernardino Flood Control District and
other agencies as appropriate on issues involving flood control facilities in the Project
Area.
Implementation of the identified mitigation measure together with implementation of the adopted
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan policies and programs designed to reduce impacts
associated with flood hazard, including the preparation and implementation of a Master Drainage
7
Plan for the entire Redlands Planning Area, will reduce this impact to a less than significant
level. Use of eminent domain for flood control improvements and facilities will have a
beneficial effect.
Section 4. Effects Determined Not to Be Not 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 since the Amendment is restricted to property in non-residential use; no
existing housing will be affected. In addition, the potential for the Amendment to result in more
rapid provision of employment in the Project Area will help to improve jobs/housing balance in
the City and the SANBAG subregion,
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
Amendment will result in less than significant impact as a result of existing policies, programs,
and measures contained in the Redlands General Plan, applicable Specific Plans, and existing
City regulations, or no impact with regard to the environmental factors identified below and no
mitigation is required.
Land use and planning
Geology and soils
Water quality/hydrology other than flooding
Mineral resources
Hazards and hazardous materials
Public services
Utilities and service systems
Aesthetics
Recreation
Biological resources
Section 5. Feasibility of Project Alternatives
The FEIR, Section 4 0, Altematives to the Project, contains an analysis of the alternatives to the
Amendment. The Agency has a limited range of options other than eminent domain to facilitate
economic revitalization and reverse the existing negative trends within the Project Area, and
particularly within the downtown business district. Amendments to a redevelopment plan
generally involve either adding or deleting property from an existing project area; merging two or
more project areas for financial purposes; increasing or extending time of financing limitations;
adding or deleting agency powers and authority (such as eminent domain); changing permitted
land uses, development requirements, or similar provisions; or updating the plan's legal
provisions.
8
Means Other than Eminent Domain Option. Since Redlands has a single redevelopment
project area, merging project areas is not an available option. Adding territory to the Redland
Redevelopment Project Area would not accomplish the goal of revitalizing the existing Project
Area by focusing development at most desirable locations such as the downtown business
district, and stimulating development throughout the Project Area. Since revitalization is
intended to implement the General Plan land use policies within the Project Area, amending the
plan to change permitted land uses, development requirements, or similar provisions another
option available to redevelopment agencies is not applicable for this project. As a result, the
Agency is left with a limited range of means, primarily financing tools, such as an amendment to
increase limits on the amount of tax increment that can be allocated for a project area, or time
limit on the establishment of indebtedness, or extending time limitations, i.e. a duration of the
Redevelopment Plan. The Agency has considered such means, however, the redevelopment law
has limited the Agency's ability to either increase financial limits or extend the Redevelopment
Plan beyond current time limits. Thus, these means are not feasible alternatives to the project.
In addition, since the Project Area, and particularly the downtown business district, continues to
stagnate and exhibit negative economic trends, the means of increasing the tax increment limits,
the indebtedness limits, or Redevelopment Plan time limits would not accomplish the goal of
reversing the existing trends and stimulate economic activity to revitalize the Project Area. In an
area that continues to be unattractive to private development and where little development
occurs, the property values may not increase enough to generate additional tax increment even
within an extended time limit. Even if the additional additional tax increment were generated,
the Agency would not have the power to assemble land into parcels suitable for modern
development to focus redevelopment at most desirable locations, such as the downtown business
district. Future development would be anticipated to occur in piecemeal fashion on smaller
parcels and dispersed throughout the Project Area as described in the 'No Project' alternative.
Alternative Location Alternative. An alternative location alternative is not analyzed because the
goals and objectives of the Amendment are specific to the geographic context of the
Redevelopment Project Area. Implementation of the Amendment at another location outside the
Project Area would not achieve redevelopment objectives for the Redlands Redevelopment
Project Area. Areas outside the Project Area are not considered blighted and, thus, will not be
allowed by law to be included in a Redevelopment Project Area which requires presence of
blighting conditions.
Other Alternatives. No other feasible alternatives are identified for the proposed Amendment.
The No Project alternative required by CEQA is discussed below
No Project Alternative: Without the Amendment, redevelopment activity within the Project
Area would continue pursuant to the existing Redevelopment Plan. However without the tool of
eminent domain for non-residential properties, the existing conditions including negative
economic trends, property deterioration, and stagnation 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
would continue to be unattractive to private investment. Future development would be
9
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 higher and more economically viable uses. This would delay the
alleviation of the remaining blighting conditions in the area, including relocation or elimination
of remaining inappropriate non-residential land uses inconsistent with the General Plan. The
potential for high-quality visually attractive and cohesive development to occur in the
commercial and industrial areas would not be realized.
As with the project, given the number of older commercial and industrial buildings located in the
Project Area, such development would have the potential to impact some historic and potentially
historic resources in the long term. Farmland would be ultimately converted to urban uses
consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plans, even though such conversion may occur
over a longer period of time. Additional traffic, and the resultant air pollutant emissions and
noise, would be generated as development occurs in the Project Area. Ultimately the buildout of
the Project Area over a longer period of time would result in significant and unavoidable air
quality traffic, noise, agriculture and historic resources impacts.
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.
6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT TO
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDLANDS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The Board finds that mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program will, when implemented, mitigate or substantially reduce most of the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR for the proposed Amendment. Nonetheless,
certain significant environmental effect of the project are unavoidable, even after incorporation
of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. The benefits of the project have
been balanced against such unavoidable environmental effects in its approval.
The Board finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR will be
implemented with the project, and 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.
10
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 SANBAG subregion.
3 Potential to support flood control improvements in the downtown area and facilitate the
improvement and development of the City's infrastructure in the Redevelopment Project
Area, which would 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.
11
EXHIBIT "B"
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR
AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDLANDS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Environmental Mitigation Measures Monitoring Program
for
Amendment to Redevelopment Plan for
Redlands redevelopment Project
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a Lead or Responsible Agency that
approves or carries out a project for which an EIR identified significant environmental effects, to
adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or
made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment' The Redlands Redevelopment Agency is the Lead Agency for the Amendment to
Redevelopment Plan for Redlands Redevelopment Project.
This Mitigation Monitoring Program is designed to monitor implementation of all feasible
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
Modifications to the mitigation measures may be made by the Redevelopment Agency staff
subject to one of the following findings, documented by evidence included in the record.
a. The mitigation measure included in the final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring
Program is no longer required because the significant environmental impact
identified in the Final EIR has been found not to exist, or to occur at a level which
makes the impact less than significant, as a result of changes in the project,
changes in conditions of the environment, or other factors.
OR
b The modified or substitute mitigation measure to be included in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program provides a level of environmental protection equal to or
greater than that afforded by the mitigation measure included in the final EIR and
the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
AND
The modified or substitute mitigation measures do not have significant adverse
effects on the environment in addition to or greater than those which were
considered by the Board of the Redevelopment Agency in its decisions on the
final EIR and the proposed project.
AND
The modified or substitute mitigation measures are feasible and their
implementation can be assured by the Agency through measures included in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program or other Agency and/or City procedures.
Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to
1
mitigation measures shall be maintained in the project file with the Mitigation Monitoring
Program and made available to the public on request.
2
Amendment to Redevelopment Plan for Redlands Redevelopment Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Specific Action
Tlmeframe/
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Historic Resources
While the revitalization process
facilitated by the Amendment is not
The following measures shall be implemented to
reduce impacts on historic resources:
anticipated to affect most of the
existing buildings listed as historic
1 In an effort to preserve and reuse historically
resources on national or local
registers, some of the buildings
significant properties within the Project Area,
the City's Historic and Scenic Preservation
Check demolition
permit application and
Prior to issuance of
demolition permit
Redevelopment
Agency
that are 50 years old or older and
Ordinance provides for a period of up to 90
note on the
potentially may be of historic value,
may be affected. Reuse of such
buildings may be difficult due to
structural, safety and other
constraints. Upgrading older
structures and adding circulation,
working days for a non -designated structure
and 180 working days for a designated
structure prior to the issuance of a demolition
permit. During this time the Redevelopment
Agency shall explore the following measures
where appropriate:
application
parking and pedestrian
improvements necessary for reuse
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.
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;
3
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Specific Action
Timeframe/
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Historic Resources
(continued)
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 funding 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 same
architectural theme throughout the project.
2. Upon determination by the Redevelopment
Check demolition
Prior to issuance of
Redevelopment
Agency that the alternatives of Mitigation
Measures no.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 photos taken of each side of the
structure and submit them to the Heritage
permit application and
note on the
application that two
sets of archival
photos have been
submitted
as required
demolition permit
Agency/Developer
Room of the Smiley Library and the Planning
Division of the Community Development
Department.
4
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Specific Action
Timeframe/
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Flood Hazard
1 The Agency will continue to ensure that each
Check site plans, note
Prior to issuance of
Public Works
individual development within the 100-year
on plans.
grading or building
Department/Building
A portion of the Project Area the
flood hazard zone as mapped by FEMA at the
permit, whichever
Department
downtown business district is
located in the 100-year flood plain
of Mission Zanja Creek. The
Amendment may result in
revitalization of Downtown to occur
more rapidly than otherwise. This
may result in the need for planned
area-wide flood improvements and
facilities to occur more rapidly
while the funding sources for
construction of identified flood
time of development, facilitated by the
Amendment will comply the City requirements,
including site-specific hydrology studies to
identify which specific flood-proofing
engineering techniques will be used. These
techniques may include constructing
floodwalls, levees, elevating structures; sealing
structures for water tightness, and/or other
methods.
2. The Agency shall actively seek and explore
Prepare annual status
comes first.
On-going
Redevelopment
control improvements and facilities
have not yet been identified.
funding sources for construction of flood
control improvements in the Project Area,
including federal, state and local grants,
matching funds, and other sources.
reports.
Agency
3. The Agency may exercise eminent domain to
Prepare annual status
On-going
Redevelopment
acquire land for flood control improvements
and facilities within the Project Area to the
greatest extent feasible.
report.
Agency
4. The Agency shall continue to work with the
Prepare annual status
On-going
Redevelopment
San Bernardino Flood Control District and
other agencies as appropriate on issues
involving flood control facilities in the Project
report.
Agency
Area.
5