ARA1993-26RESOLUTION NO. ARA93-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF A HNAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BROOKHURST COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared an
Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on the Redevelopment Plan for the Brookhurst
Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Project (the "Project") pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code ~ections 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 ("City") response io Said comments, and as so revised and
supplemented, a Final EIR has been submitted to the Agency; and
WHEREAS, a public hear~,ng was held by the Anaheim Redevelopment Commission
("Commission") on August 18, 1993, for the sole purpose of soliciting comments to the Draft
EIR 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 EIR consists of the Draft EIR, 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.
PUBL:9075_II3361B2621,40
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 Brookhurst
Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Project as set f6rth 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 cumulative adverse impacts on air quality
in the South Coast Air Basin region; (2) the Project will result in secondary land use impacts on
traffic, air quality, schools, local parks, and historic structures; and (3) the Project will
increase population in an area deficient in local parks. 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 'A' attached hereto.
Section 5. The Agency hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan in Exhibit ~B~
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 Orahge 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).
PusL:9075_II3361B2621.40 2
PASSED and ADOPTED by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency on this30rhday of
November, 1993.
ATTEST:
Agency Secretary
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a
public body corporate and politic
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth
/~g~ncy Special' C6unsel
PUBL:9075_l [ 336[ B2621.40 3
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. ARA93-26 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
held on the 30th day of November, 1993, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Chairman of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency signed said Resolution
No. ARA93-26 on the 1st day of December, 1993.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 1st day of December, 1993.
SECRETARY OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
12MPACT OF THE BROOKHURST COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The following Findings of Fact are made with regard to each potentially significant
environmental effect, supported by the facts in the record as summarized below.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Final EIR No. 319 identified the following effects of the Project to be adverse but less
than significant:
A. Earth
B. Drainage/Flooding
C. Long-Term Noise
D. Light and Glare
E. Water
F. Sewer
G. Solid Waste
H. Electricity
I. Police Protection
J. Fire Protection
K. Hazardous Materials
The Final EIR found that existing fed?ral, state, and local requirements and the City
standard project review procedures will reduce effects in most of the above areas of
enviromnental concern to a level of insignificance. In addition, the Final EIR and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan also include mitigation measures under the headings of "Drainage/Flooding",
"Water", "Sewer", "Solid Waste", and "Hazardous Materials" developed to further reduce
potential effects in these areas of environmental concern.
The Final EIR also identified Project effects on "Population/Housing" and "Aesthetics" to
be neither adverse nor significant. These impacts were identified to be potentially beneficial.
PUnL:9076_lI3361B2621.40
II.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND TO BE MITIGATED TO A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
1. CONSTRUCTION NOISE
A. Significant Effects
Construction activities within the Project Area could generate short-term
high noise levels affecting adjacent uses.
B. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR.
C. Facts in Support of Findings
The Final EIR No. 319 and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan include a
number of mitigation measures to reduce construction noise impact. These measures
include the use of solid barriers during construction; use of muffling devices on all
construction equipment operating in close vicinity to residences, schools, or other noise
sensitive uses; limitations on hours of construction; problem-solving meetings with the
staffs of schools within a quarter mile from any projects involving direct Agency
assistance; establishment of construction routes away from noise-sensitive uses; and
locating stockpiling and vehicle staging areas away from sensitive receptors. These
measures will substantially reduce construction noise problems.
2. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
A. Significant Effects
Final EIR No. 319 identified six intersections that may be significantly
affected by future development in the ,Project Area, as such development could increase
vehicular trips by 16 to 21 percent.
B. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR.
C. Facts in Support of Findings
le
Mitigation measures in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring
Plan include adding an eastbound right-turn lane at the intersection
of Brookhurst and Lincoln, and contributing on a fair share basis to
improvements at fifteen intersections. These measures will fully
PU~L:9076-113361B2621'40 2
mitigate potential impacts and result in intersections operating at an
acceptable level of performance (Level of Service D or better).
.
Additional mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan under the heading of "Air Quality" will
reduce traffic volumes generated by development in the Project
3. SCI400LS
A. Significant Effects
Final EIR No. 319 identified potential impacts on school districts serving
the Project Area and whose schools are over capacity or approaching capacity due to
generation of additional students.
B. Findings
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental
effects 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.
C. Facts in Support of Findings
.
The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan present for the
Agency's consideration a mitigation measure available as part of
the redevelopment plan adoption process which includes an attempt
buy the Agency to offset a demonstrated fiscal detriment to the
districts by meosures 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.
.
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 receiving their share of the
property tax as permitted, making regular and timely applications
for State construction funds, pursuing alternate means of financing
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.
PUltL:9076_113361 B2621.40 3
.
These measures will reduce impacts on school and community
college 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.
III.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF
THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMEN2~D
1. AIR QUALITY
A. 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
estimated at up 565 pounds of oxides of nitrogen above the SCAQMD daily threshold
criterion. Long-term emissions are estimated up to 320 pounds of reactive organic gases,
4,710 pounds of carbon monoxide, 818 pounds of oxides of nitrogen, and 2 pounds of
particulate matter above SCAQMD 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 the region
considered to be job-rich and housing-poor, and focus growth around major transportation
corridors and in an area in need of redevelopment.
B. Findings
.
With regard to actions that may be taken at the 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 EIR.
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 requiring employees ridesharing, and Rule 403
regulating construction emissions.
C. 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
PUBL:9076_113361 B2621.40 4
Mitigation Monitoring Plan under the 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 Co) emission controls on stationary sources.
2. LAND USE
A. 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 commercial uses, to residential
use. This effect is considered significant but NOT adverse.
The Final EIR also determined that secondary land use impacts on traffic,
air quality, schools, local parks, and historic structures could be significant.
B. Findings
o
With regards 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 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.
C. Facts in Support of Findings
The change of land use is a direct purpose of the proposed Project.
Subsequent development is anticipated to: (1) eliminate blight in the Project Area be
developing currently vacant parcels and underutilized land and eliminating uses that
contribute to blight, (2) to reduce conflicts between commercial or industrial and
residential land uses in long term by consolidating areas of mixed uses along Brookhurst
Street, and eliminating uses that are incompatible with adjacent uses, (3) to improve
PUBL:9076-113361B2621'40 5
physical appearance, landscaping and buffering from adjacent uses by redeveloping
individual sites to current standards.
The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan include mitigation measures
under the headings of "Air Quality', "Traffic", 'Schools', and "Historic Structure~ which
will avoid or substantially lessen the secondary land use impacts of the Project.
3. LOCAL PARKS
A. Significant Effects
The proposed Project will increase population in an area deficient in local
parks. Up to 2,497 new residents may be generated by development in the Project Area
requiring nearly 5 acres of local parks.
B. Findings
Changes or alterations have been have been required of, or incorporated
into, the Project to substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR.
C. Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed Project includes park facilities improvements including field
lighting, picnic shelter, and improved handicapped access at Brookhurst Park which
borders the Project Area. Residential development will be required to pay in-leu fees for
parkland.
~'UBL:9076_11336[ B2621.40 6
IV. FINDINGS CONCERNING THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Six 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 effects 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.
1. 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. However, 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.
Accordingly, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency finds that the "no additional
development" alternative is infeasible.
2. 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 necessary and
where they may not otherwise occur in order to eliminate existing blight and blighting
influences to make the area attractive to new development. In addition, the Project would
not provide funds to the Agency's low and moderate income housing set-aside, and so no
~'uBt.:9076_113361 B2621.40 7
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.
Accordingly, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency finds that the "no
redevelopment plan" alternative is infeasible.
3. More Residential Development
This alternative considers developing up to 364 more multifamily housing units in
the Project Area than proposed by the Project. These units would be developed on 22
acres of land that the Project proposes to develop with commercial uses. Under this
alternative, the Project Area would have a total of up to 1,141 units. As a result of
developing additional land with these housing units, office development would be reduced
by approximately 365,000 square feet, and business park development by approximately
122,000 square feet.
This alternative could increase demand for utilities and schools. From regional
perspective this alternative is considered slightly superior to the proposed Project because
it provides more housing in the region that is considered job-rich and housing-poor.
I-Iowever, because overall, significant impacts generated by development with additional
residential housing are similar to the aignificant impacts of the Project, and this alternative
does not reduce any of the Project's significant impacts to a less than significant level,
this alternative is rejected.
Accordingly, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency finds that the "more residential
development" alternative is infeasible.
4. Smaller Project Area
This alternative considers reducing the Project Area by approximately 89.6 acres.
Under this alternative only the portion of the Project Area north of Broadway Avenue
would be developed. This smaller Project Area would be developed as currently
proposed by the Redevelopment Plan. Implementation of the proposed redevelopment
plan is expected to result in most substantial changes occurring in this portion of the
Project Area, as most of the new development would concentrate in this area. Vacant and
PUBL:9076_l 13361 B2621.40 8
underutilized land and many commercial areas would be redeveloped with new residential,
commercial, business park, and public park uses.
Most of the area eliminated under this alternative, i.e., the area south of
Broadway Avenue, is not expected to have significant changes, but to continue to be
primarily a commercial area, albeit redeveloped with more viable and modern commercial
uses. Housing that the Project could provide in the area south of Broadway, would not
be constructed under this alternative.
Generally, a reduction in the size of a development area would result in less
development, and consequently, in reduced environmental impacts on air quality, noise,
traffic, and urban systems.
Overall, this alternative would generate mixed environmental impacts, as it would
increase some of the Project's impacts, while reducing others. This alternative could
generate less traffic and air pollutant emissions, but more demand for school facilities.
This alternative could also result in an adverse impact on the regional jobs/housing
balance.
This alternative would eliminate a portion of the Project Area found to be blighted
and in a need of redevelopment. The eliminated portion of the Project Area has
particularly undesirable social conditions, including a concentration of bars and other uses
that are creating public disorder and contributing to the area's decline. 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 in
the entire Project Area. The inability to achieve these goals and objectives makes this
alternative infeasible.
Accordingly, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency finds that the "smaller project
area" alternative is infeasible.
5. Development with Value-Oriented Retail Centers
This alternative considers developing value-oriented retail uses, or ~power
centers~, in the area adjacent to the Santa Ana Freeway. Power centers are retail uses
that attract customers from a large, often regional markets and which generate large
volume of sales. Centers with retail stores like Home Depot, Home Club, Ikea furniture,
the Citadel manufacturers outlet, and other large discount stores, are typical "power
centers~. Freeway access and high visibility of the areas in the northern portion of the
Project Area makes them well-suited to development with such uses. The widening of the
Santa Ana Freeway would make these locations even more attractive to such development.
Development under this alternative would result in more intensive use of land and
increased floor area of retail commercial uses. This increase in development, in turn,
would increase most environmental impacts, especially traffic, air pollution, land use
compatibility, and jobs/housing balance.
PUBL:9076_l 13361 B2621.40 9
This alternative, however, would generate greater tax increment revenues to the
Agency and the City than the Project, providing greater economic benefit to the residents
of Anaheim. This alternative would also create more employment opportunities for the
City residents than the Project. However, as development under this alternative would
result in more and greater environmental impacts than those of the Project's, this
alternative is considered environmentally inferior to the Project and is rejected.
Accordingly, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency finds that this alternative is
infeasible.
6. Alternate Location
This alternative considers an alternate location for a project area for the
Brookhurst Commercial Corridor 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 alternate 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
Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Project Area 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 specified area, this alternative is not
considered feasible for this Project.
Accordingly, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency finds that the "alternate
location" alternative is infeasible.
PUBL:9076_l [ 3361 B2621.40 1 0
Ve
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PROJECT'S DE MINIMUS EFFECT
ON FISH AND WILDLIFE
Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990) requires the California Department
of Fish and Game to impose and collect filing fees to defray the cost of managing and protecting
fish and wildlife trust resources. These filing fees are collected during the CEQA review process
and are to be paid at the time the lead agency files 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 final until the filing
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 finds 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 findings:
1. The name and address of the project proponent is:
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Tenth Floor
Anaheim, California 92805
2. Brief description of the Project and its location:
The proposed Project is the adoption and subsequent implementation of the
Redevelopment Plan for the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Project Area in
accordance with the Community Redevelopment Law. The primary objective of
the proposed Redevelopment P. lan 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
Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Project Area is located in the western portion of
the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, and includes the commercial frontage
along Brookhurst Street, generally bounded by La Palma Avenue to the north and
Ball Road to the south. Commercial uses near the three primary east/west
intersecting streets of La Palma Avenue, Lincoln Avenue and Ball Road are also
included in the Project Area.
o
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
?UBL:9076_l [3361 B2621.40 1 1
ATrACHMENT B
BROOKHURST COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
This mitigation monitoring plan for the Redevelopment Plan for the Brookhurst
Commerdal Corridor 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 separately on the checklist with space for
monitoring the progress of implementatior~ 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 ~hat 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 PIAN
2.1 Program-Level Mitigation Monitoring
The overall monitoring plan for the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor
Redevelopment Project will be conducted by the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency, who will monitor mitigation measures which apply to the Project Area as
a whole. 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.
22, 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 f'mal 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.
2.3 Ongoing Mitigation Measures (Project Specific)
An ongoing mitigation measure is a measure that is associated with the 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 Citfs 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 thc consultant services, as described in Section 5 of this
plan.
4. OTHER AGENCIES
Monitoring mitigation measures requested by bther 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 for 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 to 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 £mes.
Sanctions shall be enforced until the apf~licant has provided evidence showing
compliance with the City..
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0