Loading...
CDA Resolution 89-28 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 28 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 8 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GILROY CERTIFYING REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND STATING OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF GILROY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Gilroy (the "City Council") and the Community Development Agency of the City of Gilroy (the "Agency"), that: WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on the City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Gilroy Community Redevelopment Project (the "Project") was prepared by the City of Gilroy pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq., hereafter "CEQA"), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 e__t. seq., hereafter the "State Guidelines") and the City's Guidelines for Implementing CEQA ("Local Guidelines"}; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 1989, the City forwarded the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those agencies which have Jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, to all affected~axing agencies and to the Chair of the Fiscal Review Commit%~% pursuant to Healt~ & Safety Code Section 33333.3, and to Jther interested persons and &gencies, and sought the comments of much persons and agencies; and RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 28 (COUNCIL) RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 8 (AGENCY) -1- WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies of the completion of the Draft EIR was published in the Gilroy-Morgan Hill Dispatch on February 28, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy Planning CommiSsiOh -C0nddcted noticed public hearing on the Draft EIR on March 16, 1989; and WHEREAS, 13 comments were received on the Draft EIR. The comments received and the City's responses to such comments, as well as a comprehensive summary of the EIR, are contained in the Final EIR, which document is incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, by resolution adopted on May 4, 1989, the Gilroy Planning Commission recommended to the City Council and the Agency the certification of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, a Joint public hearing was held by the City Council and the Agency on May 22, 1989 on the Redevelopment Plan and Final EIR, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto were heard, and the Final EIR was considered; and WHEREAS, the Final EXR consists of the Draft EIR (dated February, 1989) the Final EIR incorporating comments and written responses thereto (dated Nay, 1989), and any additional comments received at the Joint public hearing together with the City Council and the Agency responses to those comments Bet forth in the record of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, by this concurrent resolution, the City Council, as the lead agency under CEQA for preparing the Final EIR and the entity responsible for adopting the Redevelopment Plan and RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 28 (COUNCILDZ- RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 8 (AGENCY) WHEREAS, by this concurrent resolution, the City Council, as the lead agency under ~EQA for preparing the Final EIR and the entity responsible for adopting the Redevelopment Plan and approving the Project; and the Agency, as the agency responsible for preparing and carrying out the Redevelopment Plan under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et. seq.), jointly desire to comply with the requirements of CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Local Guidelines for consideration, certification, and use of the Final EIR by lead and responsible agencies in connection with the approval and subsequent implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. BE IT NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT: 1. That the City Council and the Agency hereby find and certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines; that the Final EIR adequately addresses the environmental issues of the Project and the Redevelopment Plan; and. that the City Council and the Agency have reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project and the Plan. 2. That the City Council and Agency hereby identify the significant effects, adopt the mitigation measures, adopt the monitoring program to be implemented for each mitigation measure, make the findings, and declare the statement of overriding considerations set forth in detail in the attached Exhibit A which is incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. The statements, findings and determinations set forth in Exhibit A a~e based on the above certified Final EIR and other information available to the City Council and the Agency, and are made in compliance with Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the Sta~e EIR Guidelines and Section 21081.6 of CEQA. -3- APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL: Passed and adopted this l~h day of June, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: COUNClLMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: HALE, KLOECKER.~ MUSSALLEM, PALMERLEE and VALDE Z. None GAGE and HUGHAN ATTEST: APPROVED: APPROVAL OF AGENCY: Passed and adopted thisl3th day of June, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: AGENCYMEMBERS: NOES: AGENCYMEMBERS: ABSENT: AGENCYMEMBERS: HALE, KLOECKER, MUSSALLEM, PALMERLEE, and VALDEZ. None GAGE and HUGHAN. APPROVED: ~hairperson ATTEST: Susanne Stetnmetz, o5/10/s9 %002/B49702 RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89 = 8 (COUNCIL) (AGENCY) -4- EXHIBIT A CITY OF GILROY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, MONITORING PLAN, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS I. General Information and Description of the Project The project under consideration by the City Council of the City of Gilroy ("City Council") and the Community Development Agency of the City of Gilroy ("Agency") is the City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Project (the "Project"). The Redevelopment Plan has been prepared pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et. seq.) to enable the City of Gilroy ("City") and the Agency to eliminate the physical, economic and social blighting conditions that currently exist in the City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") so that the Project Area may be developed in conformance with the Gilroy General Plan to the benefit of Project Area residents and businesses and the Gilroy community as a whole. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Redevelopment Plan has been prepared by the Agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines and applicable local CEQA Implementation Guidelines. The City has served as "Lead Agency" and the Agency has served as a "Responsible Agency" in the preparation and consideration of the EIR. The process began in December, 1988 with the preparation of an Initial Study and the mailing of a Notice of Preparation to all interested and affected agencies, followed by the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR"). The DEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review on March 1, 1989 (SCH #88122001). The 45-day comment period closed on April 14, 1989. On February 28, 1989, the Notice of Completion of the DEIR was published in the Gilroy-Morgan Hill Dispatch. Pursuant to Health and Safety Section 33333.3, the DEIR and the Redevelopment Plan were distributed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to all affected taxing agencies and the fiscal review committee. Copies of the Notice of Completion of the DEIR were also mailed to the City's mailing -1- list of intere~d persons regarding envir/ental issues. The Gilroy Pla~ng Commission conducted a~'oticed public hearing on the DEIR on March 16, 1989. 13 comments were received on the DEIR. The comments received on the DEIR, the City's responses to such comments, and a comprehensive summary of the EIR are contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIR"), which document is incorporated herein by this reference. At its meeting on May 4, 1989, the Gilroy Planning Commission recommended that the City Council and Agency certify the FEIR and that the City Council adopt the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan and the FEIR for the Redevelopment Plan came before the City Council and the Agency on May 22, 1989. On June 5, 1989, the City Council and the Agency certified the EIR for the Redevelopment Plan and adopted the following Findings, Monitoring Plan, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. II. The Record The record of the City Council and the Agency relating to the Redevelopment Plan and its potential environmental effects includes: A. The Preliminary Redevelopment Plan; B. The City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Plan; C. The Report on the Redevelopment Plan for the City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Project ("Report on the Plan"); D. Documentary and oral evidence received by the Gilroy Planning Commission, the Agency and the City Council during public hearings on the Redevelopment Plan and the EIR for the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's response to written evidence received before and at the public hearings; E. The Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") prepared for the Redevelopment Plan, consisting of the DEIR, the comments on the DEIR, and the City's responses to such comments; F. The Written Findings and Responses Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33363, adopted by the City Council on June 5, 1989; and G. Matters of common knowledge to the City Council and the Agency which they consider, such as the Gilroy General Plan (the "General Plan"). III. Significant Environmental Effects The FEIR for the Redevelopment Plan, certified by the City Council and Agency, identified 18 potentially significant -2- environmental ~ects attributed in part t he Redevelopment Plan. These p4~ntially significant envi 1 effects, as well as proposed mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Parts II and III of the FEIR, and the responses to comments on the DEIR, and summarized on pages S-2 through S-6 of the FEIR. Each potentially significant environmental effect identified in the FEIR, the proposed mitigation measures and corresponding monitoring program for that effect, and the City Council's and Agency's findings with regard to that effect are discussed in Section IV below. IV. Findings and Monitoring Program Notwithstanding the identification of the significant environmental effects of the Redevelopment Plan, the City Council and the Agency have approved the Redevelopment Plan, as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093. As required by the aforementioned references, the following findings are made for which there is substantial evidence in the record. Further, as required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a monitoring program is adopted for each mitigation measure adopted by the City and Agency. A. Land Use Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. Development induced by the Project may cause conversion of prime agricultural lands to urban uses. (2) Mitigation. Implement and enforce the General Plan policies and implementation measures relating to the preservation of agricultural land (General Plan, Section III, Policies 38-41 and Implementation Measures FF-HH). (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning approval of each specific development project, the City Director of Planning will require conformance of the specific project with the General Plan, including through the imposition of appropriate conditions of approval, if necessary. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted; however, based upon the information and analysis in Part II(A) of the FEIR and the responses to written comment #3, contained in the FEIR, the finding is made that the significant environmental effect described in A(1) above cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, this significant effect will be discussed in Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations) below. -3- B. Housi (1) Significant Environmental Effect. Pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency may be involved in the acquisition of dilapidated housing for rehabilitation within the Project Area, which may involve the dislocation of occupants. (2) Mitigation. Require that redevelopment activities which may cause displacement occur in conformance with the relocation standards set forth in the Redevelopment Plan and all applicable State relocation law requirements. (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of Agency acquisition of property, the Deputy Executive Director of the Agency will ensure adherence to the Agency Relocation Plan and State relocation law and guidelines. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the information and analysis in Part II(C) of the FEIR the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in B(1) above. C. Traffic and Circulation Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. The projects proposed by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will facilitate an increase in future growth in the Project Area which will indirectly increase traffic. Agency-funded circulation and parking improvements will lessen the impact of increases in traffic but will not mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. (2) Mitigations. a. Evaluate potential traffic impacts of proposed specific development actions during the environmental assessment process for each specific development action and impose appropriate mitigation measures on approval of such projects. b. Implement and enforce the General Plan policies and implementation measures relating to transportation and circulation development (General Plan, Section VI, Policies 35-49 and implementation measures O-R). (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of environmental assessment and planning approval of each specific development project, the City Director of Planning will assess the traffic impact of each project and impose conditions of approval as necessary to mitigate such impacts -4- and shall requ/ conformance with the Gen~ imposition of a~'~Sropriate conditions of ap~ Plan, including val, if necessary. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted; however, based on the information and analysis in Part II(C) of the FEIR, the finding is made that the significant environmental effect described in C(1) above cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, this significant effect will be discussed in Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement of Overriding Consideration) below. D. Noise Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. Some of the projects proposed by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will result in increased noise levels, including short-term increases in noise levels due to construction activities and long-term increases in community ambient noise levels resulting from increases in population density and economic activity. (2) Mitigations. a. Limit construction to daylight hours; require machinery to be turned off when not in use; require proper muffling and location of machinery as far as possible from neighboring buildings and pedestrian areas. b. When individual projects are proposed, require the developer to design projects to provide the necessary sound attenuation, so that the interior noise levels of the buildings will conform to the State Building Standards (Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 2), as a condition of issuance of any building permits. c. Implement and enforce the General Plan policies and implementation measures relating to noise control measures (General Plan, Section III, Policies 31-37 and implementation measures BB-EE). (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of approval and issuance of building permits for individual development projects, the City Chief Building Official will impose the mitigation measures set forth in 2(a) and 2(b) above as conditions of issuance of the building permits. At the time of planning approval of individual development projects, the City Director of Planning will require conformance with the General Plan, including through the imposition of conditions of approval, if necessary. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted and, based upon the information and analysis in Part II(D) of the FEIR, the -5- read'hat fihding is the adoption of the ~e m~tigation measures and monitoring prograr0 will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects described in D(1) above. E. Soils Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. The Redevelopment Plan may finance projects and facilitate proposals which would promote development of existing vacant sites. Development of such sites would overcover soils and change the amount and quality of surface water run-off. Agency-funded drainage improvements will lessen the impact of such water run-off impacts but will not mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. (2) Mitigation. Implement and enforce the General Plan policies related to soil conservation and surface water run-off (General Plan, Section III, Policies 19-30). (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning approval of specific development projects, the City Director of Planning will require conformance with the General Plan, including through the imposition of conditions of approval, if necessary. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted; however, based on the information and analysis in Part II(E) of the FEIR, the finding is made that the significant environmental effect described in E(1) above cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, this significant effect will be discussed in Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement of Overriding Consideration) below. F. Fish and Wildlife Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. The Redevelopment Plan may finance or facilitate the development of projects on vacant sites, which could cause deterioration of existing wildlife habitats. For example, such projects as the Gilroy Truck Stop, sewage plant improvements, and economic development assistance in industrial areas may result in the overcovering of some presently agricultural and undeveloped lands, resulting in a significant effect on fish and wildlife habitat. (2) Mitigation. At the time specific developments are proposed, any development of previously undeveloped land which may have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat must be mitigated to the satisfaction of the State Department of Fish and Game. -6- (3) M~. At the of planning approval of s~fic development projects City Director of Planning will require identification of potential impacts on fish or wildlife habitat and refer projects where potential impact is identified to the State Department of Fish and Game for imposition of mitigation measures. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted and, based upon the information and analysis in Part II(F) of the FEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in F(1) above. G. Air Quality Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. a. Cumulative regional air pollutant emissions may result from the development encouraged by the Redevelopment Plan. b. Local air pollutant emissions may increase due to increased vehicular traffic. This impact will be reduced by Agency-funded traffic improvements, but will not be reduced to a level of insignificance. c. Intermittent pollutant emissions may result from construction activities. (2) Mitigations. a. Implement and enforce the General Plan policies related to the reduction of air pollution through promotion of alternative means of transportation such as bicycling, walking, and public transportation (General Plan, Section VI, Policies 37-42). b. Incorporate particulate control requirements into Agency agreements with individual developers and contractors to reduce potential construction phase pollutant emissions. Similar requirements will be imposed by the City as a condition of building permit issuance. (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning approval of each specific development project, the City Director of Planning will require conformance with the General Plan, including through the imposition of conditions of approval, if necessary. At the time of approval and issuance of building permits for individual development projects, the City Chief Building Official will impose the mitigation measures set forth in 2(b) above as conditions of issuance of the building permit. -7- · (4) F~. The above mitigatio easures and monitoring pr~r~-~re hereby adopted; bas ~pon the information and analysis in Part II(G) of the FEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mftigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in G(1)(c) above. However, based on the information and analysis in Part II(G) of the FEIR, the finding is made that the significant environmental effects described in G(1)(a) and (b) above cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, these significant effects will be discussed in Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (statement of Overriding Consideration) below. H. School Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. Although the present projects proposed by the Agency will not in themselves produce a significant impact on the number of school age children in the school district, secondary impacts of redevelopment related to overall community and regional growth could increase the number of school age children seeking enrollment in the Gilroy Unified School District. (2) Mitigations. a. Implement and enforce the General Plan policies related to school development (General Plan, Section VI, Policies 18-25). b. Implement the Agency' school parks and grounds. s proposals to improve c. Provide for a pass-through of a portion of Agency tax increment revenue to the Gilroy Unified School District, to be utilized for capital improvements to School District facilities. (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning approval of each specific development project, the City Director of Planning will require conformance with the General Plan, including through the imposition of conditions approval, if necessary. At the time of Redevelopment Plan adoption, the Agency approved a fiscal agreement providing for passthrough of a portion of the Agency's tax increment revenues to the School District. Pursuant to the fiscal agreement, the funds will be utilized to make capital improvements to school district facilities including school parks and grounds and will therefore provide for implementation of the Agency's proposals to improve these facilities as well as other School District goals. -8- (4) ~~_~. The above mitigat~ measures and monitoring prog/"~m are hereby adopted; base~'on the information and analysis in Part II(I)(1) of the FEIR and Part 12 of the Report on the Redevelopment Plan, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in H(1) above. I. Fire and Police Protection Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. The secondary effects of population growth, due to Project Area buildout and regional growth, would result in an increased demand on police and fire protection. An additional 20 firefighters and 35 police officers may be required to maintain current levels of these services. (2) Mitigation. Implement planned Agency capital improvement projects which will enable the fire and police departments to better serve the Project Area and the community (for example, undergrounding of utilities, redesign of Monterey Street traffic patterns, replacing of old water mains, unreinforced masonry structure safety rehabilitation program, public facility improvements). (3) Monitoring Program. Each year during the term of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency Deputy Executive Director will identify capital improvement projects to be undertaken that year, establish a budget, and seek Agency Board approval of the improvement projects and funding mechanisms. Every two years, the Agency as required by state law, will hold a public hearing for the purpose of evaluating its progress in implementing the Redevelopment Plan. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted; however, based on the information and analysis in Part II(I)(2) of the FEIR, the finding is made that the significant environmental effect described in I(1) above cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, this significant effect will be discussed in Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement of Overriding Consideration) below. J. Parks and Recreation Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. The secondary effects of population growth, due to buildout of the Project Area and regional growth, will increase the need for additional parks and recreational facilities. (2) Mitigations. -9- a :Implement and enforce t? ,neral Plan policies and i ementation measures relat parks and recreation (General Plan Section VI, policies 5-17 and Implementation Measures A & B). b. Implement the Agency's proposals to improve city parks and recreation facilities as set forth in the Redevelopment Plan. c. Provide for a passthrough of a portion of Agency tax increment revenue to the Gilroy Unified School District, to be used, in part, for capital improvements to school recreational facilities which are available for use by the general public. (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning approval of each specific development project, the City Director of Planning will require conformance with the General Plan, including through the imposition of conditions of approval, if necessary. Each year during the term of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency Deputy Executive Director will identify capital development projects to be undertaken that year, establish a budget to fund those projects, and seek Agency Board approval of the improvement projects and funding mechanisms. Every two years, the Agency, as required by the state law, will hold a public hearing for the purpose of evaluating its progress in implementing the Redevelopment Plan. At the time of Redevelopment Plan adoption, the Agency approved a fiscal agreement providing for passthrough of a portion of tax increment revenues to the Gilroy Unified School District to be utilized for capital improvements to School District facilities, including playgrounds, swimming pools and other recreational facilities which are available for use by the general public. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted; and, based on the information and analysis in Part II(I)(3) of the FEIR the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in J(1) above. K. Electricity and Natural Gas Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. Projects proposed by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will facilitate future growth within the Project Area which will produce an additional need for electricity and natural gas service. -10- (2) ations. a. PG&E has indicated that it has the capacity and ability to accommodate the need for additional electricity and natural gas service as a result of Project buildout. b. Implement the Agency's proposals pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan to improve electricity and natural gas services in the Project Area. (3) Monitoring Program. Each year during the term of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency Deputy Executive Director will identify capital development projects to be undertaken that year, establish a budget to fund those projects, and seek Agency Board approval of the improvement projects and funding mechanisms. Every two years, the Agency, as required by the state law, will hold a public hearing for the purpose of evaluating its progress in implementing the Redevelopment Plan. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted; and based on the information and analysis in Part II(J)(1) of the FEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in K(1) above. L. Water Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. Projects proposed by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will facilitate future growth within the Project Area which may increase the demand for water service in the Project Area. (2) Mitigations. a. Implement and enforce the General Plan Policies related to the development of future water supplies (General Plan Section VI, Policies 30-34). b. Implement Agency proposal to replace old water mains in specific areas. (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning approval of each specific development project, the City Director of Planning will require conformance with the General Plan, including through the imposition of conditions approval, if necessary. Each year during the term of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency Deputy Executive Director will identify capital development projects to be undertaken that ye&r, establish a budget to fund those projects, and seek Agency -11- Bo'ard approval the improvement project~ ~d funding mechanisms, y two years, the Agency, required by the state law, will hold a public hearing for the purpose of evaluating its progress in implementing the Redevelopment Plan. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted; and, based on the information and analysis in Part II(J)(2) of the FEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in L(1) above. M. Sewage Treatment. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. Projects proposed by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will facilitate future growth within the Project Area which will increase the demand for sewage treatment capacity. (2) Mitigations. a. Implement and enforce the General Plan policies related to management of sewage facility needs (General Plan, Section VI, Policies, 26-29). b. Implement Agency plans to facilitate improvements to the sewage treatment system that increase capacity, including sewer plant improvements and replacement of old sewer lines. (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning approval of each specific development project, the City Director of Planning will require conformance with the General Plan, including through the imposition of conditions approval, if necessary. Each year during the term of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency Deputy Executive Director will identify capital development projects to be undertaken that year, establish a budget to fund those projects, and seek Agency Board approval of the improvement projects and funding mechanisms. Every two years, the Agency, as required by the state law, will hold a public hearing for the purpose of evaluating its progress in implementing the Redevelopment Plan. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted; and based on the information and analysis in Part II(J)(3) of the FEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in M(1) above. N. Solid Disposal Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. Project Area growth facilitated by the Redevelopment Plan may increase the production of solid waste. (2) Mitigation. Evaluate potential solid waste impacts of individual developments as they are proposed and impose appropriate mitigation measures on approval of such projects. (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of environmental assessment and planning approval of specific development projects, the City Director of Planning will identify potential impacts of solid waste disposal and impose specific mitigation measures as conditions of approval, as necessary to mitigate any impacts. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted, and based on the information and analysis in Part II(J)(4) of the FEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in N(1) above. O. Storm Water Drainage Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. Development promoted by the Redevelopment Plan will increase impervious surfaces which in turn will increase the amount of runoff into the drainage system. (2) Mitigations. a. Implement Agency plans to replace old storm drains and correct inflow and infiltration problems that presently affect the drainage system. b. Implement and enforce the General Plan Policies related to storm drainage and flood prevention (General Plan, Section III, Policies 23-30). (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning approval of each specific development project, the City Director of Planning will require conformance with the General Plan, including through the imposition of conditions approval, if necessary. Each year during the term of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency Deputy Executive Director will identify capital development projects to be undertaken that year, establish a budget to fund those projects, and seek Agency Board approval of the improvement projects and funding mechanisms. Every two years, the Agency, as required by the -13- state law, wil evaluating its Plan. a public hearing for / purpose of 'ress in implementing th~edevelopment (4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring program are hereby adopted and, based upon the information and analysis in II(J)(5) of the FEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in O(1) above. P. Cultural Resources. (1) Significant Environmental Effect Development facilitated by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan may upset archeological sites and sites and buildings of historical significance to the founding and growth of the community. (2) Mitigation. Implement and enforce General Plan policy and implementation measures regarding preservation of historic buildings and archaeological sites (General Plan, Section III, Policy 14 and Implementation Measures K and L). (3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning approval of each specific development project, the City Director of Planning will require conformance with the General Plan, including through the imposition of conditions of approval, if necessary. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted and, based upon the information and analysis in Part II(K) of the FEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in P(1) above. Q. Growth-Inducing Impacts. (1) Significant Environment Effect. Projects directly stimulated by Project implementation are detailed on Table 7 (page 60) of the FEIR. Secondary growth inducing effects, due to the Agency's use of its financial tools, may release existing constraints to development, i.e. the provision of adequate utilities or circulation facilities may facilitate new development which may not otherwise have occurred. (2) Mitigation. None proposed, as growth and revitalization of the Project Area is a goal of the Redevelopment Plan. (3) Monitoring Program. Not applicable. -14- (4) Based on the infor/ion and analysis in III(E) of the FEIR, the f~ing is made that the significant environmental effect described in Q(1) above cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, this significant effect will be discussed in Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement of Overriding Consideration) below. R. Cumulative Impacts. (1) Significant Environmental Effect. Development facilitated by the Agency within the Project Area, combined with anticipated residential development outside the Project Area, may result in increased impacts related to loss of agricultural land, traffic conditions, public services, soils, and fish and wildlife habitats. (2) Mitigations. Same mitigation measures as proposed in subsections A, C, E, F, H, ! and J above. (3) Monitoring Program. Same monitoring program measures as proposed in subsections A, C, E, F, H, I and J above. (4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and monitoring programs are hereby adopted; however, based on the information and analysis in Part III(A) of the FEIR, as well as in Parts II(A), II(C), II(E), II(F), II(I)(1), II(I)(2) and II(I)(3) of the FEIR, the finding is made that some of the significant environmental effects described in R(1) above (in particular, impacts related to loss of agricultural land, traffic conditions, soils and fire and police protection) cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, these significant effects will be discussed in Section VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations) below. V. Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects The following significant impacts of the proposed Redevelopment Plan are considered unavoidable: (1) The conversion of prime agricultural land to urbanized uses (as described in Part IV, A(1) above); (2) Increased vehicular traffic in the Project Area and vicinity (as described in Part IV, C (1) above); (3) Loss of vacant lands and resulting overcovering of soils will increase the amount and quality of surface water run-off (as described in Part IV, E(1) above); -15- (4) Cumu~ve regional air pollutan~issions resulting from~velopment encouraged by tt~Redevelopment Plan (as described in Part IV(G)(1)(a) above); (5) Increases in air pollutant emissions due to increased vehicular traffic (as described in Part IV G(1)(b) above); (6) Increases in demand on police and fire protection services due to population increases (as described in Part IV, I(1) above); (7) The growth-inducing influences of providing the Agency with redevelopment powers and financing tools, including population increases (as described in Part IV, Q(1) above); (8) Increases in population which will increase service demands and induce growth (as described in Part IV, I(1) and Q(1) above); and (9) Cumulative impacts of redevelopment-induced Project Area growth combined with anticipated residential development outside the Project Area (as described in Part IV, R(1) above). These significant adverse impacts may occur despite the adoption by the City Council and Agency of all mitigation measures related to these impacts that were identified in the FEIR. No mitigation measures identified in the FEIR have been rejected by the Agency and the City Council as being infeasible due to specific economic, social, or other considerations. VI. Findings on the Feasibility of Alternatives to the Proposed Redevelopment Plan The FEIR discusses four alternatives to the Redevelopment Plan, the adoption of which would, in some cases, avoid the significant environmental effects listed in Section V above. Each alternative is discussed in this section, and findings are made regarding its feasibility. No Project Alternative. The "No Project" alternative would involve no action by the City or the Agency on the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area. Potentially adverse impacts such as the conversion of agricultural land to urbanized uses, increased traffic, increases in service demands such as police and fire, and increases in air pollutants would not occur in the immediate future. This alternative would avoid the growth-inducing aspects of the Redevelopment Plan and would delay the secondary environmental effects of the growth descr/d in Part IV of this doc~ However, given~e General Plan policies likely that over time many of these impacts would occur as the Project Area develops in accordance with the General Plan. The "No-Project" alternative would mean foregoing for the near term the many Project Area improvements which would follow from Redevelopment Plan adoption. Thus, the City would remain in the position of desiring but being unable to implement the improvement projects which are essential to the orderly and productive development of the Project Area. Options for City participation in economic development and the creation of employment would be limited. Moreover, as development occurs in the Project Area over time, many of the public improvements proposed by the Redevelopment Plan would not be built and, thus, many development impacts would be severe and many of the significant benefits of redevelopment would not be realized. Because of the blighting conditions in the Project Area it is likely that under the "No-Project" alternative the area would continue to decline. The "No-Project" alternative would not provide the significant benefits of the Redevelopment Plan; i.e., mechanisms to finance many public improvements needed to enhance the safety and welfare of Gilroy residents; revitalization of commercial and industrial areas of the community; facilitation of new investment and expansion; improvement of housing conditions and opportunities for low- and moderate- income residents; improvement of park and recreational facilities; and elimination of blighting influences which have constrained proper development of the area to date. Consequently, the "No-Project" alternative would be expected to maintain the status quo situation, and preserve the site for future development options. Because of the blighting conditions in the Project Area, further decline could be expected to occur. At some point, if ameliorative actions continue to be delayed, the costs of blight elimination could become exorbitantly high, in which case the Project Area could become a permanent liability to the City of Gilroy. It is therefore concluded that adoption of the "No-Project" alternative would not meet community development goals for the City of Gilroy, and the finding is made that this alternative is infeasible -17- pur to 14 California Code 15091(a)(3). gulations Section Alternative Land Use Patterns: The Redevelopment Plan is designed to provide generalized guidance for allowable land uses in accordance with the City's General Plan, as the Redevelopment Plan incorporates the land uses, standards, and controls set forth in the City's General Plan. Changes in the configuration of allowable land uses without changes in the overall densities would not alter the environmental effects of the Project to any significant degree. Increases in the amounts or densities of allowable development would be expected to result in additional environmental effects. Decreases in densities or the amounts of allowable development would be expected to lessen the environmental effects of the Project. Since land uses inconsistent with the General Plan would not be permitted without an amendment to the General Plan, it is unlikely that such an alternative would be physically, economically or politically feasible in the future. It is therefore concluded that adoption of the "Alternative Land Use Patterns" alternative would require amendment of the City General Plan and would contradict established goals for development in the Project Area, and the finding is therefore made that this alternative is infeasible pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(3). o Alternative Project Area Confiqurations: The Project Area defined in the Redevelopment Plan represents the consensus of City staff and decision-makers on the area within which "blighted" conditions occur and which could benefit from Redevelopment Plan activities. The Project Area boundary also defines, generally, the extent of the environmental effects of the Project as well as the area within.which tax-increment funds would be allocated to the Agency. Thus, shifts in the boundaries of the Project Area which would reduce its geographical area would tend to reduce the environmental effects of the Project and might reduce the economic effects of the Project on other agencies but would also reduce the tax increment income available to the Agency and thus its ability to finance projects of benefit to the Project Area. Also, changes in the boundaries would mean that while some blighted areas may improve, other areas which are currently blighted would continue to stagnate and may in the long term detract from the redevelopment -18- effor~ sewhere. Given the nat~ of land use patterns in the Gilroy area, shifts in the boundaries of the Project Area which would increase its size would include either: (a) undeveloped lands that are not predominantly urbanized or blighted; or (b) lands containing relatively new development that would not meet state law blight definitions. As such, a larger area would not conform to state law, or to the City's policy of minimizing fiscal and other impacts of its redevelopment proposals. Minor shifts of the Project Area boundaries would be possible; however, given that the Redevelopment Plan is general in nature, significant differences in impacts would not be anticipated with minor differences in Project Area boundaries. It is therefore concluded that the "Alternative Project Area Configurations" alternative would not meet the City's community development goals or the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and, therefore, the finding is made that this alternative is infeasible pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(3). Addition/Deletion of Plan Activities and Goals: The deletion of Redevelopment Plan activities and goals could result in the avoidance of certain environmental effects of Redevelopment Plan implementation. However, deletion of activities and goals would most likely mean that some blighting influences in the Project Area would continue and the full mitigating impacts of some activities would not be realized. The addition of activities and goals could be considered in order to address adverse environmental or economic effects identified by the FEIR or in the process of consulting with other agencies on the adoption of the Plan. However, the Agency has carefully tailored the activities and goals set forth in the Redevelopment Plan to projections of available financial resources to fund such activities. Thus, an addition of activities and goals may ultimately make implementation of the Redevelopment Plan financially infeasible, and would also likley increase the environmental effects of Redevelopment Plan implementation. It is therefore concluded that the "Addition/Deletion of Plan Activities and Goals" alternative would jeapordize the realization of the City's community development goals, and would violate state law financial feasibility requirements, and therefore the finding is made that this alternative is infeasible -19- purs~ to 14 California Code 15091~)(3). uf[ations Section VII. Statement of Overridinq Considerations Notwithstanding the disclosure of the unavoidable adverse effects of the Redevelopment Plan which are summarized in Section V above, the City and Agency have determined pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15093, that the benefits of the proposed Redevelopment Plan outweigh these unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and the Redevelopment Plan should be approved. The City Council and Agency approve the Redevelopment Plan for the following reasons based upon the record: ao The Redevelopment Plan will provide a mechanism to provide essential infrastructure improvements to the Project Area, including, but not limited to, street and intersection improvements, transportation system improvements, frontage improvements, drainage improvements, sewer plant improvements, undergrounding of utilities, lighting, off-street public parking, landscaping, and off-site improvements for industrial park development. Bo The Redevelopment Plan will provide a mechanism to strengthen the existing Project Area residential areas by assisting in rehabilitation of the housing stock, promoting new infill housing construction, assisting in school parks and grounds improvements, providing neighborhood open space, improving drainage facilities, and constructing street and frontage improvements. Co Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will improve and upgrade deteriorated housing stock in the Project Area and will assist in the construction of new affordable housing, thereby improving and expanding the supply of housing affordable to low and moderate income households. The Redevelopment Plan will enable the Agency to facilitate the redevelopment of parcels designated for commercial and industrial development in the General Plan, and to provide economic development assistance, in order to revitalize the stagnant economy of the Project Area, improve the jobs/housing balance consistent with General Plan policies, and provide job opportunities and enhanced incomes for economically disadvantaged Project Area residents. The Redevelopment Plan enables the City and the Agency to eliminate the blighting influences present -20- in the Project Area so that the Area may be of phys,, social and economic bel it to the resins of the Project Area the community as a whole. Fo The Redevelopment Plan will enhance the tax revenue Generating capacity of the Project Area to the ultimate benefit of the City and all affected taxing agencies. 06/01/89 SB051/B49702 -21 - I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 89-28 is an original resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 13th day of June 1989 , at which meeting a quorum was present. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this 16th day of June , 19 89. erk of the City of Gilroy trl (Seal) I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the Community Development Agency of the City of Gilroy, California, at a meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of June, 1989. (Seal)