HomeMy WebLinkAbout6724_CCv0001.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 6724
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS
CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF THE FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NORTH REDLANDS REVITALIZATION
PROJECT; MAKING WRITTEN FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Redlands (the "Agency") is
proposing adoption of a redevelopment plan (the "Plan") for the North Redlands Revitalization
Project (the "Project" or "Project Area" as applicable), a redevelopment project in accordance
with the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law (CCRL_; California
Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Redlands (the "City Council" and the "City,"
respectively), pursuant to its Resolution No. 6612 adopted June 5, 2007 designated a survey
area and directed the Planning Commission of the City (the "Planning Commission") to select a
project area and formulate a preliminary plan in connection with the proposed Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, pursuant to its Resolution No. 1146, adopted
September 25, 2007, selected and established that area within the Survey Area shown on the
map of the Project Area on file in the office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein, as the
boundaries of the proposed Project Area and formulated, approved and adopted the Preliminary
Plan, on file in the office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein, for the redevelopment of the
Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the Agency, pursuant to its Resolution No. 411 adopted October 16, 2007,
accepted the Preliminary Plan and approved the recommendation of the Planning Commission
for the boundaries of the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the Agency caused an Initial Study of the Project to be prepared to evaluate
the potential for adverse environmental impacts, concluding that a Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) would be prepared for the Project, and the Initial Study with a Notice of
Preparation was mailed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible and trustee agencies and other
interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study concluded that implementation of the project would have
less than significant or no impacts in the following categories: Aesthetics, Biological Resources,
Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water
Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services,
Recreation, and Utilities/Service Systems within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the Plan for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the
provisions of the CCRL; and
WHEREAS, the Agency, authorized as a "lead agency," prepared a Draft EIR (DEIR) for
the adoption of the Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (the "CEQA
Statutes"; Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State Guidelines for
6724 NRRP.doc
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (the "CEQA Guidelines"; Title 14,
California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.) And the City's local procedures for
implementing CEQA, which hereafter are collectively referred to as CEQA, which DEIR is on file
with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, all actions required to be taken by applicable law related to the preparation,
circulation, and review of the DEIR have been taken; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the DEIR the Planning Commission, pursuant to its
Resolution No. 1159 adopted April 22, 2008, approved and forwarded to the City Council a
report finding that the Plan for the Project is in conformity with the City's General Plan, approved
the Plan as proposed, and recommended Plan approval and adoption to the Agency and the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, public notice having been duly and regularly given as required by law, a full
and fair joint public hearing has been held by the Agency and the City Council concerning
adoption of the Plan and approval of the Final EIR (FEIR) related thereto, and all interested
persons expressing a desire to comment thereon, or object thereto have been heard; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR consists of the DEIR, as revised and supplemented to incorporate
all comments received during the public review period, if any, and the responses of the Agency
to any such comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has reviewed and certified the FEIR, made written findings
required by CEQA, adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations with respect to impacts to air quality which cannot be mitigated to a less than
significant level, all in the exercise of its independent judgment; and
WHEREAS, copies of all documents and the record of proceedings related to the
Agency's approval and certification of the FEIR are on file in the Agency offices, 210 E. Citrus
Avenue, Redlands, California, and the FEIR is on file in the offices of the City Clerk, and all such
documents are available for public inspection; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the FEIR and the Mitigation
Monitoring Program with respect to the Plan, and all comments and responses thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. The Agency has proposed adoption of the Plan for the Project for the
purpose of enabling effective redevelopment of the 859.6-acre Project Area. The principal
objective of the Project is to help improve the existing conditions of blight that exist within the
Project Area, To achieve such objective the Plan contemplates the implementation of select
projects and programs to: i) upgrade public facilities and infrastructure; ii) promote and facilitate
economic development and job growth; iii) provide additional affordable housing opportunities
for eligible persons; and iv) generally improve the quality of life for residents, and business and
property owners within the limits of the Project Area, specifically, and generally within the City,
6724 NRRP,doc
Section 3. A DEIR was prepared to evaluate the potential adverse environmental
impacts of the Project and to incorporate previously prepared CEQA analyses, as applicable. It
was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period pursuant to CEQA requirements.
The FEIR, which includes written comments, if any, and responses to said comments, was
prepared and made available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk prior to the
adoption date of the Agency Resolution certifying the FEIR. The FEIR, including comments,
responses, and a proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program, makes minor corrections to the
DEIR, and incorporates the DEIR and Appendices to the DEIR.
Section 4. The City Council hereby certifies that the FEIR was completed in
compliance with CEQA and that the FEIR represents the independent judgment of the City
Council. The City Council also hereby certifies that it has reviewed and considered the
contents of the FEIR prior to deciding whether to approve the Plan for the Project. The City
Council further finds that the public comments and responses, if any, to the DEIR following the
public comment period do not constitute significant new information as defined in the Public
Resources Code Section 21092.1 and in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Section 5. The City Council and the Agency held a duly noticed joint public hearing
on the Project and FEIR on June 17, 2008. All interested persons had the opportunity to
present both written and oral comments regarding the Project and the DEIR at the hearing. The
City Council has considered all comments received on the DEIR, which comments and
responses thereto are contained in the FEIR. These actions having been taken, the FEIR is
hereby approved, certified and adopted as the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Project and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 6. The findings made in this Resolution are based on the information and
evidence set forth in the FEIR and upon other substantial evidence in the record of the
proceedings on the Plan and the FEIR, which include, among other things, the City of Redlands
General Plan, the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, and the Redlands zoning regulations. The
documents, staff reports, plans, specifications, technical studies and other relevant materials,
including, without limitation, the FEIR, that constitute the record of proceedings on which this
Resolution is based are on file and available for public examination during normal business
hours in the Agency offices, 210 E. Citrus Avenue, Redlands, California. The custodian of said
records is the Secretary of the Agency. Additionally, the FEIR is on file and available for public
examination during normal business hours in the office of the City Clerk, City of Redlands, 35
Cajon Street, Redlands, California. The custodian of the FEIR is the City Clerk of the City of
Redlands.
Section 7. Based upon the Initial Study, the DEIR, the public comments, the FEIR
and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Project will not cause
significant environmental impacts in the areas of: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, Hydrologymater
Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public
Services, Recreation, and Utilities/Service Systems within the Project Area.
Section 8. Based on the Initial Study, the DEIR, the public comments, the FEIR and
the record before the City Council, the City Council declares that there is no evidence before it
that the Project has any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or habitats and has
rebutted the presumption of adverse effects set forth in the Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, Section 753.5(d).
6724 NRRP.doc
Section 9. Based on the Initial Study, the DEIR, the public comments, the Final EIR,
and the record before the City Council, the City Council hereby makes and adopts the CEQA
Findings and Statement of Facts as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing sentence, the City Council
hereby expressly approves and adopts each of the mitigation measures set forth in the attached
Exhibit A, and hereby requires that such mitigation measures shall be implemented in
connection with, and are hereby made a part of, the Plan, the Implementation Plan, and the
Project. In addition, the City Council acknowledges that it will consider the recommendations
contained in the FEIR as it implements specific projects.
Section 10. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that the Project
may create significant impacts in the areas of Air Quality and Transportation/Traffic. Based on
such Findings of Fact and the foregoing adoption and requirement for mitigation measures,
which are contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby finds that the mitigation measures
have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will eliminate, or reduce to a level
of insignificance, the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project identified in the
FEIR, except for impacts to air quality, as fully described in Section 2.4 of the FEIR. With
regard to the impacts in Section 2.4, the City Council finds and determines that the Project and
the Plan will have a significant environmental effect on Air Quality which cannot be mitigated to
a level of insignificance.
Section 11. Based on the foregoing, as to the potentially significant impacts to air
quality which are not eliminated or substantially lessened, the City Council hereby adopts the
Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit B hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference, and finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, including but not
limited to the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects to air quality.
Section 12. Exhibit A sets forth, and Section 3.0 of the FEIR more fully describes, a
reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, which have been fully considered by the City
Council. These alternatives include the "No Project Alternative," the "Financing Alternative,"
which considers supplanting tax increment revenues with funds from a variety of other programs
and sources; and the "Alternative Project Area Alternative," which considers reduction of or
enlargement of the Project Area as proposed. As set forth in Sections 9 and 10 of this
Resolution, the FEIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each significant impact in the
FEIR that could be mitigated and in Section 11 adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for that impact that can not be wholly mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council
hereby finds that the alternatives described in the FEIR and identified in Exhibit A 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 would therefore leave unaddressed significant social, physical
and economic problems the Project is intended to eliminate. Of the reasons set forth herein in
the attached Exhibit A, in the record of the City Council and Agency's proceedings, or in the
FEIR, none of the alternatives, including the No Project alternative, is environmentally superior
because each would reduce redevelopment and blight removal activities, limit job creation, and
constrain the Agency's ability to correct current environmental problems.
Section 13. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the mitigation
measures and the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in the FEIR will mitigate or avoid all
significant environmental effects that can be feasibly mitigated or avoided. The City Council
hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in Section 7.0 of the
FEIR and attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. This program will
6724 NRRP,doc
be used to monitor the changes and conditions to the Project which has been adopted, or made
@ condition ofProject Bpp[Vv3| 83 set forth in Sections A and 10 above and in Exhibit Ab} this
Resolution.
Section 14. Upon adoption of the P|3D by the City Council, the City Clerk shall cause
@ Notice Of Determination to be filed fOdhvvdh in the [)Mic8 of the County Clerk of the COUOtv Of
San Bernardino and the State Clearinghouse pursuant to CEC}A Guidelines SeCbOO 15094.
Section 15. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution
and itshall thereupon take immediate effect and beinforce.
ADUPTED. SIGNED AND APPROVED this 1st day 0fJuly 2OOR
ATT
EST /
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BEF<NAR0NO )ss.
CITY OF REDLANDS )
|. LOrrie POyzer, City Clerk of the City of Rud|and8, hereby certify that R85O(UbOn NO. 6724 was
duly adopted bythe City Council Ofthe City ofRedlands at8regular meeting thereof held oDthe
1Stday ofJuly, 2OO8. bythe following vote:
AYES: CDUDci|nneUlberSGilbreath, Gallagher, Aguilar, Bean; Mayor Harrison
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
8724NRRP,doc
EXHIBIT A
CEQA
FINDINGS ARID STATEMENT OF
FACTS
6724 NRRP.doc
FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
NORTH REDLANDS REVITALIZATION PROJECT
1. FINDINGS CONCERNING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT.
Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Exhibit A shall have the meanings given in the
Resolution to which this Exhibit A is attached and made part (the "Resolution") or in the Final
Program EIR as applicable.
As further provided in the Resolution the mitigation measures set forth below in this Part I of
Exhibit A are each expressly approved and adopted by the City Council and the Agency and
incorporated into and made requirements of the Project pursuant to the Plan.
As used below in this Part I of Exhibit A, the phrases "insignificant" or "less than significant" or
similar words as found in various subsections headed "Level of Significance After Mitigation"
mean, for purposes of the CEQA Guidelines, with particular reference to CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15091(a)(1), that:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect as identified in the Final
EIR.
Please refer to the applicable sections of the Final Program EIR, incorporated herein by
reference, for additional information concerning Project impacts and required mitigation
measures and further explanation of the rationale for the significance findings set forth below in
this Part I of Exhibit A
A. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
IMPACTS
AGRICULTURE
Long-term implementation of the Project, consistent with the policies of the General Plan
and EVCSP, may contribute to the ultimate conversion of the small remaining amount of
Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance (77 acres) catalogued in the
Revitalization Area to their formally designated urban uses, even as these acres, while
undeveloped, are not in active production. City Counsel Resolution No. 5220, adopted
October 17, 1995, certifying the EIR for the General Plan pursuant to CECA
requirements found and determined that implementation of the General Plan would
result in the "conversion of designated prime farm land to urban uses," a significant
unavoidable adverse impact, which could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is final and
conclusive with respect to the conversion of agricultural land within the City planning
area, including those portions located in the Revitalization area. No land included in the
Revitalization Area is under a Williamson Act contract. A total of approximately 95 acres
of land within the Revitalization Area has been identified by the DOC as having the
potential to be considered important farmland; however, only the Texas Grove (12.1
acres) is in active agricultural use and it is currently being preserved through existing
General Plan land use policies and zoning regulations. The Plan does not alter or in any
way modify agricultural land use designations. Such policy change in land use
designation is solely within the purview of the General Plan amendment process.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No further mitigation measures are recommended as a condition of Redevelopment Plan
Adoption. As a matter of policy, the General Plan promulgates all feasible measures to
minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural lands and to preserve important
agricultural lands while seeking land for needed future urbanization in a logical manner.
However, despite such goals, conversion of agricultural land within the City's corporate
boundaries is cumulative, unavoidable and irreversible and therefore could not be
feasibly mitigated to a level that is less than significant. In recognition of this, the City
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to conversion of
agricultural land within its planning area, finding that any adverse environmental effects
associated with the loss of agricultural land within the City planning was considered to
be acceptable.
Additional mitigation measures, as appropriate and necessary, may be added at such
time as site-specific projects are proposed from time to time for Agency assistance or
participation.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant. The issue of conversion of agricultural land within the City's
planning area has been addressed through the General Plan and EVCSP planning
processes, and all available feasible mitigation measures have been applied. As to
those effects that could not be reduced to a level of insignificance, a Statement of
Overriding Consideration was adopted. The Plan for the Project herein identifies no new
agricultural acreage that will sustain adverse impacts not previously addressed in the
General Plan and specific plan adoption processes.
B. AIR QUALITY
IMPACTS
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS:
Temporary impacts are projected to result from Revitalization Area construction
activities, which may include demolition of existing structures and grading, generating
fugitive dust. Specific site preparation, including demolition and grading, represent the
construction activities that would result in the highest levels of air pollutant emissions
associated with construction. The majority of the CO, VOCs and NOx emissions would
generally be generated by heavy construction equipment, while the majority of the PM10
emissions would be from ground disturbance. Air pollutants would not only be emitted by
on-site construction equipment but also from off-site haul trucks and construction
workers traveling to and from the site. Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG - an ozone
precursor) would be released primarily during asphalt laying and the application of
architectural coatings. These are likely to be significant impacts.
6724 NRRP.doc
LONG TERM IMPACTS:
Regional Air Quality: The primary source of regional emissions generated by the
proposed Project will also be from motor vehicles. The proposed Project at buildout (30
years) is estimated to generate a net increase of 74,462 new daily trips. Emissions
generated by these additional trips, based on SCAQMD's emissions thresholds, are
projected to result in a significant regional air quality impact. The Project is consistent
with the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management Plan.
MITIGATION MEASURES
SHORT TERM IMPACTS: The following measures shall be considered as potential
mitigation measures for short-term air quality impacts when and as specific projects are
approved for Agency assistance and at the time of project construction/ reconstruction
(but are not recommended as conditions of Redevelopment Plan approval):
Particulate Emission (PM10) Control:
AQ-1: Comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. During construction of Agency-
assisted, site specific projects in the Revitalization Area, property owner/developers and
contractors shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to assist in the reduction of
fugitive dust emissions.
Construction Emission Control:
AQ-2: Reduce construction equipment emissions by implementing the following
measures:
1. Use low emission mobile construction equipment. Site-specific project property
owners/ developers/contractors shall comply with CARE requirements for heavy
construction equipment.
2. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.
3. Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment as required by
SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2.
4. Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when available. This measure
would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators.
5. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
6. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Construction should be planned so
that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum.
7. Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours to the best
extent when possible.
8. Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction
activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public
transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.)
ROG Control Measures:
6724 NRRP,doc
ACI-3: The following measures should be incorporated into specific project construction,
when proposed, to the greatest extent feasible:
I Minimize the amount of paint used by using pre-coated, pre-colored and naturally
colored building materials; and
2. Use high transfer efficiency painting methods such as HVLP (High Volume Low
Pressure) sprayers and brushes/rollers where possible.
LONG-TERM
Regional Air Quality Impacts: The following measures, which will be included in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program, shall be considered as potential mitigation measures for
regional emissions to be imposed when and as specific projects are considered by the
Agency (but are not recommended as mandatory conditions of Project approval):
Travel Demand Management (TDM) Measures:
1. Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to
minimize vehicle idling at curbsides.
Z Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate and provide roadway improvements
at heavily congested roadways.
Energy Efficiency Measures
3. Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with
automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
4. Install energy efficient lighting.
5. Capture waste heat and reemploy it in nonresidential buildings (applicable
commercial buildings).
6. Landscape with native drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption
and to provide passive solar benefits,
7. Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to
comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure.
8. Synchronize traffic signals.
9. Introduce window glazing, wall insulation and efficient ventilation methods.
Although not recommended as a condition of Plan adoption, it is recommended that all
available new emission control technologies be reviewed and considered for mitigation
measures at the time new site specific projects are proposed. Additional mitigation
measures, as appropriate and necessary, may be added at such time as site-specific
projects are proposed from time to time for Agency assistance or participation.
C. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
IMPACTS
The Plan proposes no specific design site projects in the Revitalization Area, or other
Agency-assisted construction/reconstruction activities because no tax increment funds
6724 NRRP.doc
are yet available to fund such projects. However, based strictly on General Plan buildout
calculations (Table I of the Final Program EIR), it is reasonable to conclude that the
Project would contribute to the increased AM and PM peak hour trips, at least on some
roadway segments, as anticipated by the General Plan EIR.
The General Plan EIR determined that General Plan buildout in the entire City planning
area may result in significant traffic impacts despite roadway improvements specified in
the General Plan Circulation Element, including an increase in ADTs, impacts to existing
residential units fronting on arterials and higher volumes of traffic on residential collector
streets. The General Plan EIR determined that such impacts would be reduced by the
following Circulation Element guiding and implementing policies: i) maintaining a LOS C
or better level of roadway service; ii) monitoring traffic levels of service; iii) implementing
roadway improvements; iv) coordinating freeway and highway requirements with
Caltrans; v) levying fees on new developments for roadway improvements; vi) keeping
certain roadway classifications below specified average daily trip volumes; v) supporting
SANBAG's CMP; and vi) establishing a comprehensive network of bicycle and
pedestrian routes, among other things. The General Plan EIR concluded significant
traffic impacts would accompany growth toward General Plan buildout and also
concluded that the impacts of development of the East Valley Corridor and resulting
increase of employment, which would rely for access mainly on existing street and
freeway systems, could only be partially mitigated at the General Plan level.
The City Council, in certifying the General Plan EIR, and based on the information and
analysis contained therein, made the finding that although policies included in the
General Plan would provide various types of mitigation measures to reduce impacts on
traffic, implementation of the General Plan may result in significant unavoidable adverse
impacts based on the following: i) traffic LOS might be E or F on several arterial streets
segments and on segments of 1-10 and SR-30 despite roadway improvements specified
in the Circulation Element; and ii) direct impacts as a result of the General Plan would
include an increase in average daily trips, impacts to residential units fronting onto
arterials and high volume traffic on residential collector streets; all impacts which can not
be feasibly avoided. Consequently, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, finding that the benefits of the updated General Plan guiding and
implementing policies in the City planning area outweigh the impact related to traffic and
any adverse environmental effects associated with this impact are considered to be
acceptable.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measure is recommended as a condition of Project adoption:
T-1: Upon submission of an application for a site-specific development project within
the Revitalization Area to the City, and pursuant to applicable local, regional, State and
federal threshold requirements, applicant shall conduct a traffic analysis to determined
the project's actual impact on Revitalization Area affected intersections and/or roadway
segments. Scope of the analysis can be as simple as a trip generation study for small
developments, or a full-scope analysis for larger developments. The traffic analysis will
be used to determine whether the following mitigation measures, among others, are
adequate or appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project, or whether a greater or
lesser mitigation requirement is needed:
6724 NRRP.doc
Recommended Mitigation for Cumulative Impacts
In addition to mitigation measures required to address direct specific project impacts,
depending on the results of the site-specific study and based on the City's traffic impact
significance standards, a project may be required to implement one or more of the
following measures to mitigate the project's impacts and improve the overall operation of
traffic in the Revitalization Area:
• Add and/or reconfigure lanes at intersections that operate at an unacceptable
levels of service
• Require new development to provide adequate on-site loading and unloading
areas for truck deliveries
• Require new development to provide adequate on-site parking
0 Restrict and/or eliminate on-street parking as appropriate
0 Consolidate curb cuts and driveway accesses between individual parcels
• Add raised medians or other center divider treatments to restrict left turns at
driveways and unsignalized intersections to right turns in and out only
• Implement signal synchronization along main corridors
• Participate in a fair-share funding mechanism, such as a traffic impact fee
program, an improvement benefit district, or other program, as established by the
City.
0 Enhance existing street lighting
Additional mitigation measures, as appropriate and necessary, may be added at such
time as site-specific projects are proposed from time to time for Agency assistance or
participation.
11. FINDINGS CONCERNING THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The following are summaries of alternatives to the Project, as currently proposed, which
are examined in more detail in Section 3.0 of the Final Program EIR.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Under the "No Project Alternative," the Redevelopment Plan would not be adopted. No
actions would be taken by the Agency to remediate blighting conditions and stimulate
additional private investment in or for the benefit of the Revitalization Area. No Agency-
facilitated actions would be taken to fund infrastructure and facility improvements or to
sponsor neighborhood revitalization and business development in the Revitalization
Area. This alternative would, for an indeterminable period of time, avoid or delay some
of the potential environmental side effects that could be generated from select
redevelopment projects in the Revitalization Area, such as incremental traffic increases
or loss of agricultural acreage. The No Project Alternative would cause less physical
6724 NRRP.doc
impact on the environment, at least for some period of time, because the Agency would
not be promoting and assisting new and intensified land uses and other ancillary
activities in the Revitalization Area, which could result in slower, less orderly growth as a
result of existing physical deficiencies.
The No Project Alternative will deprive the Agency of the means to ameliorate existing
adverse physical blight conditions through redevelopment. The No Project Alternative is
not environmentally superior to the Project because, in the end, it does not avoid the
cumulative impacts of continued urbanization in the Revitalization Area, while it denies
the Revitalization Area the environmental benefits associated with Agency-facilitated
activities such as structures rehabilitation, redevelopment of underutilized parcels,
accelerated recycling of non-conforming land uses to General Plan designated land
uses, infrastructure and community facilities improvements, increased economic
development and increased, improved and preserved affordable housing for eligible
very low-, lower- and moderate-income persons and families.
ALTERNATIVE REVITALIZATION AREA ALTERNATIVE
An "Alternative Revitalization Area Alternative," one that would consist of either more or
fewer parcels than that number selected for the Project, does not take into consideration
that the Revitalization Area, as proposed, was selected based upon existing conditions
and an identified need for redevelopment.
Expanding the Revitalization Area to include parcels that do not exhibit blighting
conditions and/or are not essential to the effective redevelopment of the Revitalization
Area in accordance with the CCRL, is not permitted by the CCRL; therefore, an
expanded Revitalization Area alternative is not feasible, as a matter of law, and is not
considered.
Reducing the Revitalization Area's size (the "Reduced Revitalization Area Alternative")
by eliminating various developed or undeveloped assessed property would diminish the
Agency's ability to address conditions of deficiency and disuse within the area.
Redevelopment of the Revitalization Area with the boundaries as proposed is
environmentally superior because blighting conditions will be addressed throughout the
entire area qualified for Agency assistance, mitigating adverse environmental impacts
now present, and as may occur in the future. The Reduced Revitalization Area
Alternative is environmentally less desirable because it would allow the adverse effect of
blighting conditions to continue indefinitely in those areas excluded from the Project.
LIMITED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would require the reduction of Agency activities and/or authority within
the Revitalization Area. Such a limitation would reduce the likelihood that needed
improvements and facilities would be provided. Additionally, tax increment funding
would be severely restricted. Also, if activities were limited, problems of blight would
continue, which would adversely affect and discourage investment in the Revitalization
Area. In the final analysis, the Limited Redevelopment Activities Alternative is not an
environmentally superior alternative to the Project because the environmental benefits of
a limited redevelopment activity, such as, for example: 1) a decrease in short-term
impacts from reconstruction/construction activities, or 2) a decrease in long-term
impacts, are outweighed by the concomitant negative impacts that would result from
6724 NRRP.doc
limited redevelopment activity such as, for example: 1) increased impacts on existing
public facilities without upgrading those facilities or 2) restrictions on the Agency's ability
to mitigate infrastructure deficiencies and undertake aesthetic improvements in the
Revitalization Area.
FINANCING ALTERNATIVE
Various financing programs, as an alternative to Redevelopment Plan adoption, might
include Revenue Bonds, Community Development Block Grant funds, Economic
Development Administration funds, special assessment districts, such as Infrastructure
Financing Districts (IFDs), and/or other County, State and federal assistance and
funding programs, some of which are currently being used, as available and permitted
by law. Although most of these programs may be used to supplement the tax increment
financing enabled by the CCRL through redevelopment, each financing program, taken
alone, has inherent limitations and disadvantages; therefore, reliance on any of these
sources as a sole financing too[ is not considered feasible, Existing disadvantages
associated with the Financing Alternative would jeopardize the Plan's long-term
implementation and prevent the Agency from being able to effect positive economic and
physical changes within the Revitalization Area. Therefore, this alternative would allow
existing conditions of deficiency, which negatively affect the proper utilization of the
Revitalization Area, to continue without a substantial means of abatement. In contrast,
adoption of the Plan will lead to a steadily available source of funding through tax
increment revenues for an extended period of time. Additionally, to obtain increased
benefits, the Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to take advantage of all
available financing sources and programs allowed by law, in addition to its tax increment
receipts in order to effect redevelopment of the Revitalization Area. Moreover, the
CCRL requires that the Agency give consideration to alternative financing sources when
it proposes to provide public facilities and improvements with tax increment revenues, in
effect causing the examination of alternative financing sources throughout the term of
the Plan.
CONCLUSION
The Agency's primary goal is to eliminate blight within the Revitalization Area. The No
Project Alternative will not achieve this goal, because blight in the Revitalization Area
could not be addressed through Agency redevelopment assistance. The Financing
Alternative, the Limited Redevelopment Activities Alternative and the Reduced
Revitalization Area Alternative would each achieve the Agency's goal in part, but the
ultimate success of the Agency's redevelopment effort would be limited by the specific
constraints imposed by each alternative. In the end, all alternatives to the Project,
including the No Project Alternative, fall short of achieving the Agency's goal of
neighborhood revitalization and economic improvement through blight elimination in the
Revitalization Area,
6724 NRRP.doc
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
6724 NRRP.doc
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Exhibit B shall have the meanings given in the
Resolution to which this Exhibit is attached and made a part, or the Final Program EIR, as
applicable.
As detailed in Section 2.4 of the Final Program EIR, the Project is expected to create a
significant, unavoidable and adverse impact on Air Quality, even after adoption and
implementation of all relevant mitigation measures. This Exhibit B constitutes the Statement of
Overriding Considerations of the City Council and Agency in connection with the significant,
unavoidable and adverse impacts of the Project on Air Quality, made in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15093.
The City Council and Agency have carefully and independently considered the significant,
unavoidable and adverse impacts to Air Quality in deciding whether to approve the Project.
Although the City Council and Agency believe that the unavoidable impacts will be lessened by
the mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, each recognizes that approval of the
Project will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects.
The City Council and Agency have weighed the benefits to the community of the Project against
its environmental risks. The City Council and Agency each specifically find that, to the extent
that any adverse or potentially adverse impact has 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 and Agency each find that any and each of the following considerations is sufficient
to approve the Project despite any one or more of the unavoidable impacts to Air Quality
identified; 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 considerations be shown to be legally insufficient for any reason. The
following considerations support approval of the Project:
1. The Project will remedy, remove and prevent physical and economic blighting influences
which are present in the Project Area.
2. The Project will encourage increased employment and business opportunities through
environmental and economic improvements resulting from the redevelopment activities.
1 The Project will provide for the rehabilitation of commercial and manufacturing structures
and residential dwelling units,
4. The Project will revitalize neighborhoods by providing for participation in the
redevelopment of property by owners who agree to so participate in conformity with the
Plan.
5. The Project will provide public infrastructure improvements and community facilities,
such as the installation, construction and/or reconstruction of streets, utilities, public
buildings, facilities, structures, street lighting, landscaping and other improvements
which are necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Project Area.
6. The Project will increase, improve and preserve the community's supply of affordable
housing available to eligible families and persons.
6724 NRRP,doc
7. The Project will encourage the redevelopment of the Project Area through the
cooperation of private enterprise and public agencies.
8. Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will ensure the development and
redevelopment of the Project Area in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of
the City's General Plan and the EVCSP, as applicable.
9. Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will protect the safety of people living and
working within the Project Area by improving the seismic safety features of existing
buildings and infrastructure.
The documents and reports in the administrative record of these proceedings, which support the
foregoing considerations and which the City Council and Agency have each considered in
support thereof, are the following:
1. Redevelopment Plan (Included in Tab 2 of the Joint Public Hearing Evidentiary Record).
2. The Final Program Environmental Impact Report (included in Tab 3 of the Joint Public
Hearing Evidentiary Record).
3. The Agency's Report to the City Council (Included in Tab 4 of the Joint Public Hearing
Evidentiary Record).
4. The Planning Commission's Report on Conformity with the City's General Plan {included
in Tab 5 of the Joint Public Hearing Evidentiary Record
6724 NRRP.doc
EXHIBIT C
MITIGATION MONITORING &
REPORTING PROGRAM
6724 NRRP.doc
The following Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program is excerpted from Section 7.3.3 of the Final Program EIR for the Project.
NORTH REDLANDS REVITALIZATION PROJECT(A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT)MITIGATION MONITORING& REPORTING PROGRAM
RESPONSIBLE ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MONITORING
MITIGATION MEASURES ENTIT(IES) AGENC(IES) PHASE(S) AGENCIES}
7,13.1 AIR QUALITY
SHORT TERM IMPACTS: The following measures shafl be considered as potential mitigation measures for short-term Project Applicant City of Redlands Pre-Construction Redlands
air quality impacts when and as specific projects are approved for Agency assistance and at the time of project Community
construction/reconstruction(but are not recommended as conditions of Redevelopment Plan approval): Developer Redevelopment Construction Development
Agency of the Department
Particulate Emission(PM10)Control: Redeveloper City of Redlands
South Coast Air
AQ-1: Comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, During construction of Agency-assisted, site specific projects in the South Coast Air Quality
Revitalization Area,property ownerldevelopers and contractors shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to assist Quality Management
in the reduction of fuqifive dust emissions. Management District
District
Construction Emission Control:
AQ-2, Reduce construction equipment emissions by implementing the following measures:
1. Use low emission mobile construction equipment. Site-specific project property owners/ developers/contractors
shall comply with CARR requirements for heavy construction equipment,
2. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.
3. Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment as required by SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2.
4. Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles)when available. This measure would minimize the use of higher
polluting gas or diesel generators.
5. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
6. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Construction should be planned so that lane closures on existing
streets are kept to a ruinimum,
7. Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours to the best extent when possible.
8. Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities(the plan may include advance
public notice of routing,rise of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.)
ROG Control Measures.
AQ-3, The following Measures should be incorporated into specific project construction, when proposed, to the
greatest extent feasible.
1. Minimize the amount of paint used by using pre-coated,pre-colored and naturally colored building materiats;and
2. Use high transfer efficiency painting methods Such as HVLP (High Volume Low Pressure) sprayers and
brushesfrollers where possible.
NORTH REDLANDS REVITALIZATION PROJECT(A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT)MITIGATION MONITORING& REPORTING PROGRAM
RESPONSIBLE ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MONITORING
MITIGATION MEASURES ENTITIES) AGENCIES) PHASE(S) AGENC(IE S)
7.3.3.1 AIR QUALITY
LONG-TERM Project Applicant City of Redlands Pre-Construction Redlands
Community
Re tonal Air ugAl ty ins @ ts: The following measures,which will be Included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program,shall Developer redevelopment Construction [development
be considered as potential mitigation measures for regional emissions to be imposed when and as specific projects are Agency of the Department;
considered by the Agency(but are riot recommended as mandatory conditions of Project approval); Redeveloper City of Redlands Operation
South Cries#Air'
Travel Demand Management(TCM)Measures` South Const Air Quality
1. Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. Quality Management
, Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate and provide roadway improvements at heavily congested roadways. Management District
Energy Efficiency Measures District
3. Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal brad with automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
4. Inst li energy efficient lighting.
5. Capture waste heat and reemploy it in nonresidential buildings(applicable commercial buildings).
E, Landscape with native drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits.
7. Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous
Sources MSC-01 measure,
8. Synchronize traffic signals.
, Introduce window glazing,wall insulation and efficient,ventilation methods.
Although not recommended as a condition of Plan adoption, it is recommended that all available new emission contrail
technologies be reviewed and considered for miti afon measures at the time new site specific projects are proposed.
Additional mitigation measures, as appropriate and necessary,may be added at such time as site-specific projects arra
proposed from time to time for Agency assistance or participation,
6724 Nf1RP,doc
NORTH REDLAN S REVITALIZATION PROJECT(A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING&REPORTING PROGRAM
RESPONSIBLE ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MONITORING
MITIGATION MEASURES ENTIT{IES} AGEN (IES) PHASE(S) AGENC{IES}
7.3.3.2 TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC
The following mitirgatiori i easure is recommended as a condition of Project adoption: Project Applicant Oty of Redlands Pre-Construction City Community
Development
T-1. Upon submission of an application for a site-specific development project within the Devitalization Area to the Developer Redevelopment Construction Department
City, and pursuant to applicable local, regional, State and federal threshold requirements, applicant shall conduct a Agency of the
traffic analysis to determined the project's actual 'impact on Rev'ital'ization Area affected intersections and/or roadway Redeveloper City of Redland Operation Caltrans
segments. Scope of the analysis can be as simply;as a trip generation study for small developments, or a full-scope
analysis for lamer developments. The traffic analysis will be used to determine whether the following mitigation
measures, among others, are adequate or appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project, or whether a greater or
lesser mitigation requirement is needed:
Recommended Mitigationfor Cumulative Impacts
In addition to mitigation measures required to address direct specific project impacts, depending on the results of the
site-specific study and based on the City's traffic impact significance standards,a project may be required to implement
one or more of tete following measures to mitigate the project's'impacts and improve the overall operation of traffic in the
Revitalization Area'.
• Add andror reconfigure lanes at intersections that operate at an unacceptable levels of service
• Require new development to provide adequate on-site loading and unloading areas for truck deliveries
• Require new development to provide adequate on-site parking
• Restrict andlor eliminateon-street parking as appropriate
• Consolidate curb cuts and driveway accesses between individual`parcels
• Add raised medians or other center divider treatments to restrict left turns at driveways and unsrgnalized
intersections to right turns in and out only
• Implement signal synchronization along main corridor
• Participate in a fair-share funding mechanism, such as a traffic impact fee program, an improvement benefit district,
or other program,as established by the City,
• Enhance existing street lighting
Additional mitigation measures,as appropriate and necessary,may be added at such time as, site-specific projects are
proposed from time to time for Agency assistance or participation.
6724 NRRP