Loading...
ARA1993-31RESOLUTION NO. ~A9 3-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (the "AgencyM) has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on the Redevelopment Plan for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project (the "Project") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.: "CEQA"), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000, et seq.: the "State CEQA Guidelines'), and procedures adopted by the Agency relating to environmental evaluation of public and private projects; and WHEREAS, the Agency transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR and thereafter in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines forwarded the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested, to incorporate comments received during the public review period, and to provide the Agency's and City of Anaheim's ("CityM) response to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR has been submitted to the Agency; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Anaheim Redevelopment Commission ("Commission~) on August 18, 1993, for the sole purpose of soliciting comments to the Draft ErR relating to the Project, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto have been heard, and the Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto having been considered; and WHEREAS, the Final ErR consists of the Draft ErR, as revised and supplemented to incorporate all comments received during the public review period and the responses of the Agency, the Commission and the City thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency as follows' Section 1. The Agency has evaluated all comments, written and oral, received from persons who have reviewed the Draft EIR. Section 2. The Agency hereby certifies that the Final EIR for the Project is adequate and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and local procedures adopted by the Agency pursuant thereto, and that the Agency has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, and the Agency finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the Agency. Section 3. The Agency hereby makes and adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Relating to the Environmental Impact of the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project as set forth in Exhibit 'A" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference (including without limitation the mitigation measures therein set forth). Based on such Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Agency hereby finds that significant environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level in that all significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened except for the following: (1) the Project will result in areawide impacts on transportation and circulation; (2) the Project will result in cumulative adverse impacts on air quality in the South Coast Air Basin region; and (3) the Project will result in secondary land use impacts on traffic, air quality, schools, local parks, and cultural resources. Based on the foregoing, the Agency finds and determines that the Project will have a significant effect upon the environment. Section 4. As to each of the significant environmental effects identified in Section 3 of this Resolution which are not eliminated or substantially lessened, the Agency hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Exhibit "Ar attached hereto. Section 5. The Agency hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan in Exhibit "13" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Section 6. The Agency Secretary is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15094 of the State CEQA Guidelines, along with two copies of the Certificate of Fee Exemption as required pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(c). PUI~L:9249_l 13361 B2621.40 2 12/14/93 PASSED and ADOPTED by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency on t. his 14thday of December. 1993. ATTEST: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body corporate and politic Chairman Agency Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stradling. Yocca, Carlson & Rauth Agency Special Counsel ~'um.:9249_ 1 ] 336 J B2621.40 3 12/14/93 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, LEONORA N. SOHL, Secretary of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ARA93-31 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency held on the 14th day of December, 1993, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES AGENCY MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly NOES AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSEN-r: AGENCY MEMBERS: None AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Chairman of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency signed said Resolution No. ARA93-31 on the 15th day of December, 1993. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 15th day of December, 1993. SECRETARY OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SEAL) EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMF.~ OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE ENVIRONM'ENTAL IMPACT OF THE COM34W. RCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPME~ PROJECT ENTRODUCTION This document presents f'mdings that must be made prior to approval of the Project pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Sections 15091 and 15903 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, the decision maker is required to make written findings explaining how it has dealt with each alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the draft environmental impact report and final environmental impact report. The possible findings are: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 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 by such other public agency or can and should be adopted by such other public agency. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. This document is divided into the following sections: to m. IV. V. VI. F24VIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND TO BE MITIGATIqD TO A IF. SS THAN SIGNIFICANT l.lqVg. I. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEIV[ENlm_~ FINDINGS CONCERNING THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVF~ STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PROJECT'S DE MINIMUS EFFECT ON FISH AND WILDLIFE I. F_2NVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The Final EIR for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project (Final EIR No. 318) identified the following effects of the Project to be adverse but less than significant: A. Drainage/Flooding B. Long-Term Noise C. Light and Glare D. Water E. Sewer F. Police Protection G. Fire Protection H. Risk of Upset/Human Health Finding Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential adverse but less than significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project (Final EIR No. 318). Facts in Support of Finding The Final EIR found that existing federal, state, and local requirements and the City's standard project review procedures will reduce effects in most of the above areas of environmental concern. In addition, the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan also include mitigation measures under the headings of "Drainage/Flooding", "Water", "Sewer", "Solid Waste", and "Risk of Upset" developed to further reduce potential effects in these areas of environmental concern. The Final EIR also identified Project effects on aesthetics to be neither adverse nor significant. This impact was, in fact, determined to be potentially beneficial. PUBL:9720_l [3361 B2621.43 2 12/14/93 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND TO BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL A. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Significant Effects Development of the Project Area under the General Plan scenario will affect twenty intersections which are projected to operate at an LOS worse than D. Eight of these intersections are projected to operate at an LOS worse than D even without the addition of the project traffic. Additional traffic generated under this Alternate Use scenario will affect the twenty-five intersections projected to operate at an LOS worse than D. Eight of these intersections are projected to operate at an LOS worse than D even without the addition of the project traffic. lo Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project (Final EIR No. 318). . 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. Facts in Support of Findings The Alternate Land Use designation of General Commercial north of the Route 91 Freeway, found in the Draft EIR to have significant adverse traffic impacts, has been eliminated from the Redevelopment Plan, substantially reducing the potential traffic impacts of the Project. The Final EIR (No. 318) and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan include a number of additional mitigation measures to reduce traffic impacts. These measures include: le Project Share Category. The future non-committed improvements referenced here include the master plan improvements and, in some cases, additional improvements to achieve intersection augmentation as required by future traffic demands. The project mitigation will involve participation in the cost of these improvements on a fair share basis. PUBL:9720_l 133611~2621.43 3 12/14/93 Project Mitigation Category. These are cases where the Master Plan arterial system would be adequate for future no-project traffic conditions and project generated traffic creates additional capacity needs, or cases where a deficiency has been identified under no-project traffic conditions and project generated traffic increases the deficiency by an amount in excess of a specified impact threshold. The additional improvements would be the responsibility of the project. e Special Study Areas. This third category of mitigation measures involves specific locations which require comprehensive improvements such as freeway access changes or systemwide circulation improvements in which neighboring jurisdictions are involved (in this case, the City of Fullerton). This category of mitigation measures is in some cases not known at this time to be capable of fully mitigating project and cumulative effects and is further discussed under III. C., below. In order to implement the mitigations involving special study areas, the City of Anaheim will cooperate with the City of Fullerton to develop a program to mitigate project-related and cumulative traffic impacts from the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project Area within the City of Fullerton. The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency will participate or will require developers to participate in a fair share contribution to feasible improvements at affected intersections. This program may include intersection improvements, improvement of alternate parallel routes, and adoption of transportation demand management and transportation systems management measures for the area having greatest impact on these intersections. The City of Fullerton will have primary responsibility for determining the appropriateness and feasibility of specific measures and for carrying out the mitigation measures within its jurisdiction. B. POPULATION/HOUSING Significant Effects Impacts related to jobs/housing balance are considered significant since the Redevelopment Plan will not contribute to the improvement of the subregion's jobs/housing balance. PUIlL:9720_I [ 3361B2621.43 4 12/14/93 Finding . Changes or alterations have been made, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen potential environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding Development of housing in the City in accordance with the City's Housing Element is expected to provide substantial additional housing in other areas of the City outside the Project Area, balancing development in employment areas. C. RECREATION Significant Effects The project could result in up to 1,639 new residents and up to 3,239 new employees in the Project Area at buildout. The Project Area has existing park space deficiencies. Finding o Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan present mitigation measures available as part of the redevelopment plan which will reduce impacts related to recreation facilities in the Project Area to less than significant levels. These measures include improvements to existing parks, as well as construction/development of a new park and/or recreation facility in the northern portion of the South Anaheim Boulevard Subarea. Residential developments are required to pay in-lieu fees for acquisition/improvement of City parks. D. UTILITIES (SOLID WASTE) Significant Effects Buildout of the Project Area is estimated to generate an additional 2.7 to 18.9 tons per day of solid waste over existing conditions. This is a 6.4 to 45 percent increase over present conditions. Since landfills in Orange County axe near capacity, any additional solid waste generation is considered a significant impact. PUBL:9720_l 3361B2621.43 5 12/14/93 Finding o Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As noted in the administrative record, the City has adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) that describes the programs that will be undertaken to implement the 25 percent and 50 percent solid waste diversion requirements. The City is currently implementing the SRRE. The City will continue to comply with the State of California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act. E. PUBLIC SERVICES (SCHOOLS) Significant Effects Because development within the Project Area would contribute to cumulative enrollment growth in the Districts which are approaching capacity, the Project's impact is considered potentially significant. Findings , Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. , 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. Facts in Support of Findings The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan present a mitigation measure available as part of the redevelopment plan adoption process which includes an attempt by the Agency to offset a demonstrated fiscal detriment to the school districts by measures permitted by law, which may include a pass-through of Project tax increment revenues, assistance with site acquisition or facility construction, loans or grants for construction or rehabilitation, or other measures which may be identified. The Agency has entered into agreements with the school districts pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33401 for the purpose of offsetting the school district's fiscal detriment. Other changes are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the school districts and the State of California. These changes include the districts electing to continue PUBL:9720_t { 3361 B2621.43 6 12/14/93 receiving theft share of the property tax as permitted, making regular and timely applications for State construction funds, pursuing alternate means of f'mancing schools as those are made available through changes in state law, and using year-round schedules and double sessions as necessary and appropriate. Also, these changes include the State continuing to finance construction of new schools and classrooms in response to enrollment increases. These measures will reduce impacts on elementary and high school districts serving the Project Area to a less than significant level. The Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on schools may not be mitigated to a less than significant level, but will be mitigated to the extent allowed by state law. ~'[JBL:9T20_I ] 3361 B2621.43 7 12/14/93 me SIGNIFIC~ ENVIRONME~~ EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEME~D A. AIR QUALITY Significant Effects Estimated construction and long-term emissions of subsequent development in the Project Area will be above threshold criteria established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for selected pollutants. Construction emissions are projected to exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold criteria for all measured air pollutants. Additional long-term daily emissions are projected to be up to 1,339 pounds of reactive organic gases, 22,218 pounds of carbon monoxide, 3,180 pounds of oxides of nitrogen, and 324 pounds of particulate matter. All of these emissions are above the SCAQlVlD daily threshold criteria. The proposed project however, is consistent with the regional Air Quality Management Plan as it will improve jobs/housing balance in the Project Area by developing residential housing in a region considered to be job-rich and housing-poor, and focus growth around major transportation corridors and in an area in need of redevelopment. Findings o With regard to actions that may be taken at local level, changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated into, the project which substantially reduce the potential environmental effects identified in the Final EI~. , With regard to regional and cumulative air quality effects which depend on regional strategies and standards, changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Such changes have been adopted by the SCAQMD in the Regional Air Quality Management Plan, Regulation XV requiting employees ridesharing, and Rule 403 regulating construction emissions. , Specific economic, social, or other considerations (including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers) make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives icrentitled in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The construction and long-term emissions of subsequent projects in the Project Area will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures required in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. These measures are listed in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. These measures are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan under the PUBL:9720_l [ 3361 B2621.43 8 12/14/93 heading of "Air Quality". Each of these listed mitigation measures shall be incorporated into subsequent projects in the Project Area as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Other mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These measures include; (1) SCAQMD Rule 403 requiring control of construction- related emission; (2) SCAQMD Regulation XV requiring all developments in the Project Area to prepare and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs at their sites: and (4) other measures and programs to reduce cumulative effects of growth in the region on air quality that have been adopted by those agencies and include; (a) steadily improving vehicles emissions and (b) emission controls on stationary sources. Only the "No Project" alternative is capable of fully mitigating air quality impacts. However, this alternative does not meet the Project objectives as outlined in the Final EIR. Finding No. 3 will require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration as a condition of Project approval. B. LAND USE Significant Effects The Final EIR determined that development in the Project Area will result in a substantial physical change to existing land uses resulting primarily from a conversion of currently vacant land, or land now used for low-intensity uses, to higher intensity commercial, industrial or residential uses. The Final EIR also determined that secondary land use impacts on traffic, air quality, schools, local parks, and historic structures could be significant. Findings o With regard to a physical change to the existing land uses in the Project Area no changes or alterations are required of the project because this effect was found not to be adverse. . Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen secondary land use effects on air quality, traffic, schools, locals parks, and historic structures. . Specific economic, social, or other considerations (including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers) make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. ?u~.:9720_1 t 3361 B2621.43 9 12/14/93 Facts in Support of Findings The development of vacant and underutilized land for productive and efficient modern land uses is a basic purpose of the proposed Project. Subsequent development is anticipated to: (1) eliminate blight in the Project Area by developing currently vacant parcels and underutilized land and eliminating uses that contribute to blight, (2) reduce conflicts between commercial or industrial and residential land uses in the long term by consolidating areas of mixed uses, and eliminating uses that are incompatible with adjacent uses, and (3) to improve the physical appearance, landscaping and buffeting from adjacent uses by redeveloping individual sites to current development standards. Preventing these land use impacts would defeat the fundamental purpose of the proposed Project. Finding No. 3 will require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration as a condition of Project approval. C. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Significant Effects The EIR found that significant project and cumulative traffic effects on a number of intersections in the City of Fullerton could not be mitigated by measures known at this time to be feasible. The feasibility of these measures cannot be determined by the Anaheim R ,edevelopment Agency because these intersections are located in another jurisdiction, and the City of Anaheim does not have primary jurisdiction over determination of the feasibility or appropriateness of specific mitigation measures, and cannot can'y out these measures. . Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project (Final EIR No. 318). . 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. o Specific economic, social, or other considerations (including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers) make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. PUBL:9720_I ] 336 ! B2621.43 10 12/14/93 Facts in Support of Findings The Alternate Land Use designation of General Commercial north of the Route 91 Freeway, found in the Draft EIR to have significant adverse traffic impacts, has been eliminated from the Redevelopment Plan, substantially reducing the potential traffic impacts of the Proj~t in the City of Fullerton. The Final EIR No. 318 and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan include the following mitigation measure to reduce traffic impacts on intersections in the City of Fullerton. However, because the primary responsibility for determining feasibility and appropriateness of specific mitigation measures and for carrying them out lies with the City of Fullerton, whether or not these measures are feasible and whether or not they will be carried out cannot be determined at this time. These measures include: o The City of Anaheim will cooperate with the City of Fullerton in a program to mitigate project-related and cumulative traffic impacts from the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project Area within the City of Fullerton. The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency will participate or will require developers to participate in a fair share contribution to feasible improvements at affected intersections. This program may include intersection improvements, improvement of alternate parallel routes, adoption of transportation demand management and transportation systems management measures for the area having greatest impact on these intersections, or other measures. The City of Fullerton will have primary responsibility for determining the appropriateness and feasibility of specific measures and for carrying out the mitigation measures within its jurisdiction. The Final EIR found at pages 3.9-28 through 3.9-31 that mitigation was likely to be infeasible for a number of intersections in the City of Fullerton in that existing structures may prevent widening of the right-of-way sufficiently to add traffic lanes except at a prohibitive economic and social cost. Finding No. 3 will require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration as a condition of Project approval. D. CULTURAL RF~OURCES Significant Effects If structures in the Project Area are listed on, eligible for listing, or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register, they may be affected by the redevelopment of the Project Area. This is considered a potentially significant impact, if any listed, eligible for listing, or potentially eligible properties are destroyed. The eligibility of the Truxaw-Gervais House for the National Register of Historic Places may be affected by the proposed project. ~,um.:9720_113361 B2621.43 11 12/14/93 F~d~g , Changes or alterations have been have been requirexl of, or incorporated into, the project to substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final h-:IR. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project, as described in the Final EIR (No. 318), and as listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Although these measures cannot with complete certainty reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level, these measures ensure appropriate study of the area and implementation of feasible mitigation measures before any potentially significant historic structures are affected by a site-specific development project. This impact will require the adoption of a Statement of Ovemding Consideration as a condition of Project approval ~,vm.:9720_1 [336t B2621.43 12 12/14/93 IV. FINDINGS CONCEJUXrING THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in the Final EIR. The Agency has reviewed and considered such alternatives in light of the adverse environmental effects which may result from the project and the reduction or elimination of such eff~ts which may be accomplished by selection of the alternatives. The alternatives are summarized below, and specific economic, social, or other considerations that render such alternatives infeasible are set forth. No Additional Development (No Project) The no additional development alternative, required by law to be considered the "no project" alternative, considers the impacts associated with no additional development beyond what currently exists in the Project Area. This alternative is used to establish a baseline to which all other alternatives, including the proposed project, can be compared. This alternative is included in Section 3. (Environmental Analysis) of the Final EIR as the Environmental Setting for each impact area. The "no additional development" alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project, because it would not generate any additional or new environmental impact. This alternative would not achieve the stated goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan which include eliminating blight conditions, promoting new continuing private sector investment, facilitating commercial sales activity, expanding existing businesses, and creating local job opportunities, all of which rely on additional new development. Failure to achieve these goals and objectives makes this alternative infeasible. Based on the administrative record, the above considerations and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency f'mds that the "no additional development" alternative is infeasible. No Redevelopment Plan (Development Without Redevelopment Plan) The "No Redevelopment Plan" alternative assumes that there is no approval of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. Under this alternative, some development of the Project Area is assumed to occur in accordance with the General Plan. However, improvements of the type and to the extent described in the Redevelopment Plan would not be feasible without redevelopment. Private enterprise acting alone would be unable to eliminate conditions of blight. Any development that may occur in the Project Area under this alternative would be expected to take place at a slower rate than would be the case with the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan due to lack of direct Redevelopment Agency action. Direct Agency action which would be prevented under this alternative could include property acquisition, relocation of existing businesses and residences, site preparation,and installation of public infrastructure improvements where neces~ and where they may not otherwise occur in PUBL:9720_l 13361 B2621.43 13 12/14/93 order to eliminate existing blight and blighting influences to make the area attractive to new development. In addition, the project would not provide monies to the Agency's low and moderate income housing set-aside fund, and so no additional affordable housing would be constructed, as it would under the Redevelopment Plan. This alternative is considered infeasible because private enterprise acting alone would not achieve the stated goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan including the elimination of blight and deterioration, the replanning and development of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and providing costly public improvements protecting the general welfare of the citizens of the City. Environmental impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project, except that planned public improvements would not be made, such as improvements to existing park facilities, installation of new storm drains, and sewer improvements. Therefore, this alternative has a potential to result in additional significant impacts on drainage and sewer systems. This alternative could also retain adverse impacts on police and fire protection due to blighting conditions. Based on the administrative record, the above considerations and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency finds that the "no redevelopment plan" alternative is infeasible. Development of South Anaheim Boulevard Subarea (no redevelopment plan for North Central Industrial Subarea) With this alternative, the North Central Industrial Subarea would be excluded from the Project Area, and only the South Anaheim Boulevard Subarea would be considered as the proposed project. The development scenario under this alternative includes buildout of the South Anaheim Boulevard Subarea using the intensities described in the General Plan and Alternative Use. Generally, a reduction in size of a development area would result in less development, and consequently, in reduced environmental impacts on air quality, noise, traffic, urban systems, and public services. Overall, this alternative would generate mixed environmental impacts, as it would increase some of the impacts relative to the project, while reducing others. This alternative would have a comparable amount of housing, but substantially less commercial and industrial development than the proposed project. Existing commercial and industrial development would be replaced with retail, office, auto, and motel uses would be replaced by more modem and integrated retail and service development. Light industrial and warehouse facilities would be replaced by business parks. The park/recreation facility in this subarea would still be part of the project, but the expansion of La Palina Park and improvements to Julianna Park in the North Central Subarea would not. PUltL:9'720_ 1 [ 336 [ B2621.43 1 4 12/14/93 This alternative would eliminate a portion of the Project Area found to be blighted and in need of redevelopment. Eliminating this area from redevelopment would preclude an achievement of the goals and objectives of the proposed project to eradicate blighting conditions and prevent their reoccurrence throughout the Project Area. The inability to achieve these goals and objectives makes this alternative infeasible. Based on the administrative record, the above considerations and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency f'mds that the "no redevelopment plan for North Central Industrial Subarea" alternative is infeasible. Alternate Location This alternative considers an alternate location for a project area for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Plan. A major objective of a redevelopment plan is the elimination of blight and blighting conditions. The Project Area has been selected for redevelopment because preliminary studies have been completed that identify it as a blighted area in need of assistance. The exact location and extent of a redevelopment plan at an alte:nate location would have to comply with criteria regarding blight contained in the Community Redevelopment Law. The selection of an alternate location would mean that no benefits associated with redevelopment would be undertaken such as street and infrastructure improvements or consolidation of property in the commercial, industrial and residential areas within the Commercial/Industrial Project Area that have been found to be blighted. Redevelopment in some alternate project area would not allow the Project Area to benefit from redevelopment activities. Because this alternative would not meet the basic objectives of the proposed project within a specW~ed area, this alternative is not considered feasible for this project. Based on the administrative record, the above considerations and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency finds that the "alternate location" alternative is infeasible. PUSL:9720_l t3361 B2621.43 15 12/14/93 V. STATEMFNT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. (Title 14, California Code of regulations, Section 15093). Based on information set forth in the Final EIR and the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency finds that the adverse environmental impacts of the Project related to air quality, land use, traffic and circulation and cultural resources are potentially significant and cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the Project is implemented. However, the unavoidable significant environmental effects of the Project are overridden by the benefits of the Project and the consideration described below. Therefore, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency hereby approves and adopts this Statement Of Ovemding Considerations and f'mds that, for the reasons set forth below and in the administrative record, economic, social and other benefits of the Project (including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers) outweigh its unavoidable significant environmental effects identified in the Findings of Fact: The proposed Project will provide up to 4000 or more additional jobs in the Project Area, replacing jobs previously lost in the Project Area, as outlined in the Final EIR, pages 3.8-2 through 3.8-4. , The proposed Project will provide tax increment revenues to the Agency to provide needed public improvements for the Project Area, which revenues would not be available to the Agency without the Redevelopment Project . The proposed Project would provide a program for the elimination and prevention of the spread of blight in the Project Area through provision of public improvements, redevelopment of substandard properties, provision of incentives for the improvement of business, and provision of low- and moderate-income housing which would not be available without the Redevelopment Project, as outlined in the Redevelopment Plan. . The adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan will provide methods of eliminating blight, such as through acquisition of blighting properties, which would not be available to the City except through the power of redevelopment. . Many of the adverse environmental effects of the Project would occur if the area were developed without redevelopment powers under the City's General Plan, although such development would be expected to take place at a slower pace. Redevelopment powers will provide the Agency and the City with methods of mitigating these effects (such as through areawide studies and mitigation programs) which would not be available or would be more difficult to implement without redevelopment. ~'um.:9720_ 113361 B2621.43 16 12/14/93 . Achievement of the goals and objectives of redevelopment in the Project Area, which are as follows: lo The improvement of the physical appearance of the Project Area through rehabilitation of commercial and industrial buildings and sites, through public improvements including undergrounding electrical utilities, upgrading streets, sidewalks, and streetscapes, and through the creation of a comprehensive urban design and planned signage program. . The provision of walls and landscaping to create a buffer between commercial/industrial properties and residential areas. , The reduction of crime and graffiti in the Project Area through coordination of efforts with Project Area owners, residents, businesses, the Anaheim Police Department, and the Anaheim Code Enforcement Division. o The provision of additional parks or improvement of existing parks and open space within the Project Area to ensure they are clean, safe, and desirable places for use by the community. 5. The elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration; and the conservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment of the Project Area in accord with the General Plan, specific plans, the Redevelopment Plan and local codes and ordinances. . The achievement of an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, and urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objects of the Plan. . The provision for increased sales, business license, hotel occupancy and other fees, taxes and revenues to the City. . The provision for tax increment to provide funds as necessary to finance public improvements and development programs which cannot be accomplished through existing publicly funded programs or by the private sector acting alone to eliminate blighting influences in the Project Area. . The retention and expansion of as many existing businesses as possible by means of redevelopment and rehabilitation activities and by encouraging and assisting the cooperation and participation of owners, businesses and public agencies in the revitalization of the Project Area. ~,um_:9720_ 1 [ 336 [ B2621.43 17 12/14/93 10. The creation and development of local job opportunities and the preservation of the area's existing employment base. 11. The establishment of modern, convenient industrial and commercial areas to serve the needs of the City. 12. The elimination of melioration of certain environmental deficiencies, including substandard vehicular circulation systems; inadequate water, sewer and storm drainage systems; insufficient off-street parking; and other similar public improvements, facilities and utilities deficiencies adversely affecting the Project Area. 13. The encouragement of investment by the private sector in the development and rexlevelopment of the Project Area by assisting in the alleviation of impediments to such development and redevelopment. 14. The expansion of the community's supply of housing, including opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. 15. The elimination of blight through abatement or code compliance, reconstruction and assembly of parcels into more developable sites for more compatible uses. 16. The improvement of public parking, other public facilities, services, utility lines, lighting, public safety and public transportation. 17. The expansion and upgrading of housing opportunities in the community to eliminate blight and improve housing stock and standards for the present population. 18. The encouragement of maximum participation of Project Area occupants, property owners, and community organizations in the redevelopment of the Project Area. 19. Assistance and encouragement of car dealerships in the area to upgrade and modem their facilities and to promote increased patronage of the automobile industry in the Project Area. 20. The encouragement of maximum reuse of parcels impacted by the CalTrans freeway expansion and assistance with landscaping and other mitigating improvements not included in the CalTrans program. Redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the proposed Redevelopment Plan and the above goals and objectives will attain the purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law by' (1) elimination of areas suffering from economic dislocation and disuse; (2) replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment of areas which are stagnant or PUI~L:9720_113361112621.43 18 12/14/93 improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without public participation and assistance; (3) protecting and promoting sound development and redevelopment of blighted areas and the general welfare of the citizens of the City be remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of appropriate means; (4) installation of new or replacement of existing public improvements, facilities and utilities in areas which are currently inadequately served with regard to such improvements, facilities and utilities, and (5) other means as determined appropriate. PUBL:9?20_I 13361B2621.43 ] 9 12/14/93 FLNDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PROJECT'S DE MINIMUS EFFECT ON FISH AND WII.DLIFE Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990) requires the California Department of Fish and Game to impose and collect f'fflng fees to defray the cost of managing and protecting fish and wildlife trust resources. These f'ding fees are collected during the CEQA review process and are to be paid at the time the lead agency Fries a Notice of Determination with the county clerk of the county in which the project is located. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21089 (b) and Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c), "no project shall be operative, vested, or f'mal until the tiding fees required pursuant to this section are paid." However, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 (d) provides that no filing fee shall be paid, regardless of whether or not a negative declaration or EIR is prepared, for "a project which is found by the lead or certified regulatory agency to be de minimus in its effect on fish and wildlife." If the lead agency f'mds that, considering the record as a whole a project involves no potential for adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife, no fee is required. (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(c).) In order to qualify for a de minimus exemption, the lead agency's findings of fact must include certain specified information. As the lead agency for the Project, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency hereby makes the following f'mdings: (i) The name and address of the project proponent is: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Tenth Floor Anaheim, California 92805 (ii) Brief description of the Project and its location: The proposed Project is the adoption and subsequent implementation of the Redevelopment Plan for the Commercial/Industrial Project Area in accordance with the Community Redevelopment Law. The primary objective of the proposed Redevelopment Plan is to eliminate conditions of blight in the Project Area by revitalizing and upgrading the residential, commercial and industrial properties, and public properties/facilities within the Project Area. The Commercial/Industrial Project Area is located in the north and central portions of the City of Anaheim, County of Orange. The Project Area includes a total of approximately 895 acres in two noncontiguous areas approximately one mile from each other. The North Central Industrial subarea is located along the Riverside Freeway (State Highway 91) between Harbor Boulevard and Fast Street/Raymond Avenue, directly adjacent to the City of Fullerton. The southern part of the project area, referred to as the South PUB[.:9720_ 113361 B2621.43 20 12/14/93 (iii) (iv) (v) Anaheim Boulevard Subarea, is located along Anaheim Boulevard and Interstate 5 from Broadway on the north to Orangewood Avenue on the south. The Agency hereby states that an initial study has been conducted by the Agency so as to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The Agency hereby declares that, when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the Agency that the proposed Project will have potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. This finding is based upon the following: (A) The Initial Environmental Study for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project concluded that (i) the proposed Project would have no impacts on plant life or animal life, and (ii) the proposed Project did not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. By letter dated October 17, 1991, Pete Bontadelli, Director of the Department of Fish and Game, notified counties and cities that DFG had compiled a list of types of projects which could in specific factual situations be de minimus in their impacts on fish and wildlife. Among the categories listed was "redevelopment on existing urban subdivisions with no wildlife habitat." The record demonstrates that the Redevelopment Plan for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project fits this category in that it provides for the redevelopment of an existing urban, commercial environment with no wildlife habitat. The Agency hereby declares that, on the basis of substantial evidence it has rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(d). PUBL:9720_113361 B2621.43 21 12/14/93 EXHIBIT "B" COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM This mitigation monitoring plan for the Redevelopment Program for the Commercial/Industrial Project Area has been prepared in compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The plan has been designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. 1. MONITORING CHECKLIST Project mitigation measures, identified to mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen significant effects on the environment have been incorporated into a checklist. Each mitigation measure is listed sepm'ately on the checklist with space for monitoring the progress of implementation of the mitigation measure. This checklist is the basis for the monitoring plan. Any information provided to the City by the applicants for individual development projects must be kept with the checklist in the project file for that project for the purpose of verification. The table showing each mitigation measure and details of monitoring is included at the end of this section. 2. MONITORING PLAN 2.1 Program-Level Mitigation Monitoring The overall monitoring plan for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project will be conducted by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, who will monitor mitigation measures which apply to the Project Area as a whole. The Agency will annually review the overall mitigation monitoring program and the rate of development in the Project Area to ensure that progress is made on continuing measures and that project- level measures are in place. 2.2 Project-Level Mitigation Monitoring A project level monitoring program must be carried out for each individual development or public improvement project in the Project Area. Many mitigation measures can be monitored through the City's plancheck process. When a proposed project with mitigation measures is submitted for review by the City, the City shall submit a copy of the application to Agency staff for review along with a copy of the monitoring checklist. As City staff reviews the project plan, the plans will be checked for compliance with each mitigation measure. Construction Mitigation Measure (Project-Specific) Construction mitigation measures are those that are designed to reduce the impacts of construction, and, in general, are required to be maintained in operation continually during construction of individual projects. An example of a conshuction mitigation measure is: to configure construction parking to minimize traffic i,,~terference. Monitoring will be verified by buildings, public works, or grading inspectors as appropriate during their regular visits to construction sites. Reporting of compliance with mitigation measures will be required at least monthly, with reporm of violations made immediately to the appropriate department. Project Design Mitigation Measure (Project-Specific) A project design mitigation measure is a measure that will be incorporated into the project design, for example: provision of a retention basin or construction of an acoustical barrier. Such measures will normally be shown on the building and/or grading plans. These plans will be reviewed for each mitigation measure, and each mitigation measure shown on the plans will be noted on the checklist and signed off. If a mitigation measure is not shown, the plans will be sent back for corrections. Plans will not be approved until each mitigation measure has been incorporated into the project design. After the plans are approved, and before the final inspection of the project, the project proponent will submit proof that each mitigation measure shown on the plans has been installed or incorporated into the construction project. Verification of compliance will then be noted on the monitoring checklist and signed off, thereby completing the process for that particular monitoring measure. Ongoing Mitigation Measures (Project Specific) An ongoing mitigation measure is a measure that is associated with a specific development project over a period of time, such ,as dust control or landscape maintenance. Monitoring of this type of measure will be similar to that described in Section 2.1, except that the status of each mitigation measure will be noted at various times on the checklist, until monitoring is no longer needed. The project proponent may be required to submit periodic reports to the City on the status of this type of mitigation measure. 3. OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS For cases in which compliance with a mitigation measure cannot be verified through the plancheck process or the City's established inspection process, or require specialized expertise, an outside consultant may be hired. The project proponent may hire outside consultants subject to City approval, or the City will do so. Should the City hire consultants, the City will collect a deposit from the project proponent for the consultant services, as described in Section 5 of this plan. 4. OTHER AGENCIES Monitoring mitigation measures requested by other agencies will be the responsibility of the requesting agency. These agencies will be notified of their mitigation measures which have been included as part of project approval. The agencies will then submit a proposed monitoring program to the City. These agencies will inform the City in writing when monitoring is complete. 5. MONITORING PLAN RECORDS 5.1 Processing Fee The City may charge the applicant for the actual cost to the City t-or monitoring all mitigation measures for a specific development project as described in this program. A deposit may be required by the City to be applied towards this fee. Any unused portion of the deposit will be refunded to the project applicant. 5.2 Consultant Fee The cost associated with services of outside consultants will be paid by the project proponent. A deposit may be required by the City to be applied towards the consultant services. Any unused portion of the deposit will be refunded. 6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN AGREEMENT The City may require a separate agreement from the project applicant specifying the project applicant's fiscal responsibility for the monitoring program, including manner of payment, penalties for non-compliance, and financial security arrangements. The project applicant's responsibilities for monitoring and reporting on the status of implementation of specific mitigation measures will also be included in this agreement, as will any other pertinent issues identified by the City. 7. SANCTIONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE In order te achieve full compliance with this monitoring program, all mitigation measures contained in this program shall be implemented. The City has the authority to apply sanctions or penalties to an applicant for non-compliance with these measures. Sanctions and penalties may include, but not be limited to, withhold building permit or certificate of occupancy, stop work orders, or fines. Sanctions shall be enforced until the applicant has provided evidence showing compliance with the City. Z~ [- Z Z~ 0 0 [,.. Z Z ~0~ 0