Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout315 RDA_CCv0001.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 315 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 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; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN; AND APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 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 Agency 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 Agency.The Agency also hereby certifies that the Agency 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 response 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 Agency, 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 121 \CO2,,2\62 95 14 .1 1 materials, public services, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, recreation, and biological resources. 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 FEIR describes, and the Agency 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 FEIR 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 lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project outweigh 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, identifies effects 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 Agency hereby adopts each of the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR and incorporates these measures into the Project. The Agency 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 121-26\0-0012\629514 . 1 2 to law and the Agency and City Council have received testimony concerning the Amendment. The Agency has considered the Report to City Council, which is the reports and information required by Health and Safety Code Section 33352 (to the extent 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 Agency 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. Section 14. The Agency hereby recommends approval and adoption of the Amendment by the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 5th day of December 2000. Chairman ATTEST: /0 Secretary 12126',0 66£ 62'9514 .1 3 EXHIBIT "AY9 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 2108 1) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15091) require that: "i'v'o 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 oj'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) Specc 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 mitisation measures are included that reduce this impact to a less than sianificant 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 FIR 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 FIR, 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 can-not be mitigated to a less than significant level even with incorporation into the project of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR: I 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 JVleasures: 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,etalIoff ice 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 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. 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 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 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: 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 01 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 Alleasures: 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 MEA/EIR 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: I. 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.I 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 mav 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 building's 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 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 control improvements and facilities have not yet been identified. Mitigation Measures: 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 miticration 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 Alternatiti•es The FEIR, Section 4.0, Alternatives 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, In the indebtedness limits, or Redevelopment Plan time limits would not accomplish the goal of reversing the existinc, 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 modem 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 modem 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 modem, 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 01 environmentally inferior. G. 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: I. Revitalization of the Project Area with modem industrial, commercial, office, and other mixed uses as permitted by applicable land use plans, particularly in the downtown business district, that will eliminatep hysical 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. 1. 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. EXHIBIT "Bly ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDLANDS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Environmental Mitigation Measures Monitoring Program fo r 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 Z:) Monitoring Program provides a level of environmental protection equal to or greater than that afforded mitigation by the measure included in the final EIR and I 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 I 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 Timeframe/ Monitoring Responsible Impact Mitigation Measures Specific Action Milestone Monitoring Party Historic Resources White the revitalization process The following measures shall be implemented to facilitated by the Amendment is not 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 significant properties within the Project Area, Check demolition Prior to issuance of Redevelopment registers,some of the buildings the City's Historic and Scenic Preservation permit application and demolition permit Agency that are 50 years old or older and Ordinance provides for a period Of Lip to 90 note on the potentially may be of historic value, working days for a non-designated structure application may be affected. Reuse of such and 180 working days for a designated buildings may be difficult due to structure prior to the issuance of a demolition structural, safety, and other permit. During this time the Redevelopment constraints. Upgrading older Agency shall explore the following measures structures and adding circulation, where appropriate: parking and pedestrian improvements necessary for reuse a. The Redevelopment Agency shall evaluate may not be feasible for every alternative designs to the project which are building that is 50 years old or economically feasible in order to maintain the older. Some historic or potentially structure or a portion of the structure; historic buildings may be materially altered or it reuse or relocation is not feasible,demolished. 3 Timeframe/ Monitoring Responsible Impact Mitigation Measures Specific Action Milestone 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 dernolition Prior to issuance of Redevelopment Agency that the alternatives of Mitigation permit application and demolition permit Agency/Developer Measures no,I are not economically feasible note on the to support preservation of the building,and application that two prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, sets of archival the applicant shall have two sets of archival photos have been quality photos taken of each side of the submitted Structure and submit them to the Heritage as required Room of the Smiley Library and the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. 4 Timeframe/ Monitoring Responsible Impact Mitigation Measures Specific Action Milestone 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 time of development, facilitated by the carnes first, located in the 100-year flood plain Amendment will comply the City requirements, of Mission Zanja Creek. The including site-specific hydrology studies to Amendment may result in identify which specific flood-proofing revitalization of Downtown to occur engineering techniques will be used. These more rapidly than otherwise. This techniques may include constructing may result in the need for planned floodwalls,levees,elevating structures; sealing area-wide flood improvements and structures for water tightness, and/or other facilities to occur more rapidly methods. while the funding Sources for Construction Of identified flood 2. The Agency shall actively seek and explore Prepare annual status On-going Redevelopment control improvements and facilities funding sources for construction of flood reports. Agency Dave not yet been identified. control improvernents in the Project Area, including federal, state and local grants, matching funds, and other sources, 3. The Agency may exercise eminent domain to Prepare annual status On-going Redevelopment acquire land for flood control improvements report. Agency and facilities within the Project Area to the greatest extent feasible. 4. The Agency shall continue to work with the Prepare annual status On-going Redevelopment San Bernardino Flood Control District and report. Agency other agencies as appropriate on issues involving flood control facilities in the Project Area. 5