Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 97-51RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR HEREBY FINDS, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") and the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar ("City Council") have proposed to adopt a Redevelopment Plan (the "Project") for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the "Project Area"). The Project Area is proposed to include approximately 1,300 acres of publicly and privately owned land. While many existing uses in the Project Area will be retained, the Agency proposes to facilitate redevelopment and rehabilitation of underutilized and blighted properties with light industrial, office, and retail uses, and through the improvement of public infrastructure including streets, public service facilities, parks, utilities, drainage facilities and landscape to improve the economic health of the Project Area. All anticipated development in connection with the Project will be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar. Section 2. The City prepared an Initial Environmental Study for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the State Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Initial Study concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact in certain specifically identified categories. Section 3. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081, and based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, a decision was made to prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project. A Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was prepared for the Project on November 18, 1996 and sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for the State of California and to other responsible, trustee, and/or interested agencies and persons. The City contracted with an independent consultant for the preparation of the EIR. Section 4. The DEIR was circulated to interested persons and agencies for public comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(c). In response to the circulation of 970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 97-51 the DEIR, the City received written and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. Written responses to all comments which raised significant environmental issues were prepared. The City incorporated the comments and written responses to those comments which raised comments relating to CEQA into the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("FEIR") and returned responses to commenting agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the Certification of the FEIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. Section 5. The FEIR is comprised of the DEIR, including any revisions and/or addenda thereto; the list of persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the DEIR; the comments which were received regarding the DEIR; and the written responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process, each of which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. Section 6. The City Council and Agency held a duly - noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR on May 20, 1997. At the hearing, interested persons presented both written and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the FEIR. Section 7. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the FEIR and upon other substantial evidence which has been presented in the record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, plans, specifications, technical studies and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based and the FEIR for the Project are on file and available for public examination during normal business hours in the Office of the Community Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar, 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, California 91765. The custodian of said records is the Community Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar. Section 8. The City Council finds that the public and government agencies have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Initial Study, DEIR, and FEIR. Section 9. The City Council finds, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(e), that the EIR has been independently analyzed by the Agency, the City, and its Staff, and that the EIR represents the independent judgment of the lead agency with respect to the Project. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports accompanying the Project description and the FEIR, the corrections and modifications to the DEIR made in response to comments, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony presented at the above -referenced hearing does not represent significant new information so as to require recirculation of any section of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1. 970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 - 2 97-51 Section 10. The City Council finds that the comments regarding the DEIR and the responses to those comments have been received by the City and Agency; that the City and Agency have received public testimony regarding the adequacy of the FEIR; and that the City Council, as the final decision-making body for the lead agency, has reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony prior to acting on the Project. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the City Council, on the basis of the foregoing and the record of the proceeding, certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. Section 11. Based upon the Initial Study, the DEIR, the FEIR, public and agency comments and the record before the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the Project will not cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Land Use and Planning, Geology, Water, Transportation and Circulation, Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Aesthetics, and Recreation. Explanations for why the foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are contained in the Initial Study in Appendix A of the DEIR. Any reduction in the size of the Project Area will further reduce the environmental impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area subject to development pursuant to the Project. Section 12. The Initial Study identified some of the Project's effects as "potentially significant." However, based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and the FEIR, and upon public and agency comments and the record before the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the Project will not cause significant environmental impacts in the following areas identified as "potentially significant" in the Initial Study: a. Land Use and Planning: The Project will not substantially conflict with the City's long range land use plans, or conflict with existing uses in the vicinity. The Economic Revitalization Area Redevelopment Plan does not propose any change in land use policy or permitted intensity of development for the Project Area. The intent of the Project is to revitalize the Project Area in conformance with the City's General Plan land use designation and policies. Future development in the Project Area will be required to be consistent with the General Plan and existing Zoning. Further explanation for this finding can be found in Section 3.1 and 7.0 of the FEIR. b. Population and Housing. The Project will not induce substantial growth -or concentration of population through provision of employment or housing that is inconsistent with regional growth management plans or create demand for housing which exceeds available supply on either a project - related or cumulative basis. The EIR indicates that the employment, housing and population needs generated by the project are well within applicable regional and local 970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 3 97-51 projections. The Southern California Association of Governments ("SLAG"), in a letter dated March 25, 1997, found in Section 9 of the FEIR, also indicates that the Project is consistent with regional policies within SCAG's jurisdiction, to the extent such consistency can be determined. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Sections 3.2, 7.0, and 9 of the FEIR. C. Schools. The proposed project will not result in a project - related or cumulative increase in current student enrollment beyond school districts' current capacity at a rate that cannot be accommodated by capital improvements funded by developer fees or other sources of funds available to the. districts. Fees from residential and non-residential development anticipated as part of the Project, as well as other state school funding mechanisms, will generate sufficient revenue to mitigate new student demand generated by future development of the Project Area. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Section 3.5 and 7.0 of the FEIR. Section 13. Based upon the initial study, the EIR, public comments and the record of these proceedings, the City Council finds that the Project may create significant adverse impacts in the area of Traffic and Circulation and Air Quality. With regard to Traffic and Circulation impacts, the EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each impact that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. With regard to Air Quality impacts, the EIR identifies mitigation measures that will substantially lessen, but not eliminate, such impact. Any reduction in the size of the Project Area will further reduce the environmental impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area subject to development pursuant to the Project. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Sections 2.0, 3.3 and 3.4 of the FEIR. Section 14. In response to each significant impact identified in the EIR, and listed in Section 13 of this Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts identified. The changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the Project, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this finding with regard to each impact, are contained in Exhibit A of this Resolution and are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 15. Any reduction in the size of the Project Area will further reduce the environmental impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area subject to development pursuant to the Project. Such a reduction still attains the goals and objectives of the Project to a significant extent and the environmental consequences of reducing the scope of the project are primarily beneficial in that they reduce the area of 970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 4 97-51 development and thus the environmental consequences of development. Section 16. The FEIR describes, and the City Council and Agency Board have fully considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the "No Project" alternative; the Smaller Project Alternative, which considered a smaller geographic are for the Project Area; the Lower Traffic -Generating Alternative, which proposed replacing high -traffic generating commercial, entertainment and restaurant uses with less traffic -intense uses such as office, business park, research and development uses. The alternatives identified in the EIR either would not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only with unacceptable adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, and for any one of the reasons set forth herein, in the EIR, or in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A," the City Council finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible each of the Project alternatives, including the "No Project" alternative, identified in the EIR and each is hereby rejected. The City Council further finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives into the preparation of the EIR, and that all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the EIR and the ultimate decision on the Projects. An alternative site was not considered feasible because an alternative site would fail to fulfill the most basic goal of the Project by not failing to address conditions of blight in the Project Area. Section 17. The City Council hereby makes the findings contained in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" with respect to each of the significant impacts defined in the FEIR and the alternatives analysis. Further, the City Council hereby finds that each fact in support of finding is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the FEIR. Section 18. The City Council hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area" prepared by Cotton/Beland Associates, Inc. This program will be used to monitor the changes to the project which have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as provided herein and in Exhibit "A." Section 19. Upon approval of this Resolution, the Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Recorder's Office, County of Los Angeles, and the California State Clearinghouse pursuant to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Section 20. A full and fair joint public hearing regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan has been duly noticed 970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 5 97-51 and held by the City Council and the Agency pursuant to law and the Agency and City Council have received written and oral testimony concerning such proposed Redevelopment Plan. The City Council has duly considered the recommendations of the Agency; has evaluated the Agency's Report to the City Council, which is comprised of the reports and information required by Health and Safety Code Section 33352, and which report was previously submitted to the City Council, and all evidence and testimony for and against adoption of such Redevelopment Plan; and has adopted written findings in response to each written objection, communication or suggestion, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33363. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the responses made to each written objection, communication or suggestion are full and complete and have addressed each written objection, communication or suggestion in detail, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections, and suggestions and include good -faith, reasoned analysis which describes the disposition of the issues raised. All objections to the proposed Redevelopment Plan were heard and passed upon by the Agency and the City Council and are hereby overruled by the City Council. Section 21. The proposed Redevelopment Plan, a copy of which has been presented to the City Council and which is now on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved subject to the mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit A hereof. Section 22. The City may expend funds which may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the redevelopment of the Project Area. The City hereby declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July 1997. Mayor ATTEST: Ci Clerk 970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 6 97--51 I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution as duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held on the 1st day cf July , 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Werner, MPT/Herrera, M/Huff NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Ci�y lerk, City'6f Diamond Bar California 970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 7 — 97--51 EXHIBIT "A" STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE. Traffic and Circulation. Traffic Demands and Level of Service. The Project will result in increased traffic and will cause or worsen unacceptable levels of service ("LOS") at certain intersections in the Project Area. The intersections are specifically identified in Section 3.4 of the FEIR. Cumulative traffic impacts or related projects also may be created without mitigation. Finding: For each such intersection, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts Supporting Finding: The Project includes the following traffic and circulation mitigation measures which have been demonstrated in the FEIR to reduce each Project -related significant traffic impact to a level of insignificance based on LOS and intersection volume/capacity ratio, as described more fully in Section 3.4, Table 13 and Figure 10 in the FEIR. Cumulative traffic impacts will be mitigated as well through the implementation of such measures and project -specific mitigation measures for related projects: a. Diamond Bar/Golden Springs: Add a left turn lane to each approach on Golden Springs for a total of two in each direction. This can be accomplished within the existing street width but requires elimination of the bicycle lanes at the intersection. b. S 60/57 East -Bound Ramps/Grand Avenue: Change the S 60/57 off -ramp approach stripping and operations to prohibit a through movement (allow left and right turns only). This will allow a right turn overlap signal phase from Grand Avenue (northbound) to S 60/57 on-ramp. Modify the S 60/57 off -ramp approach to provide a free right turn from off -ramp to south -bound Grand Avenue. Three southbound lanes presently exist on Grand, south of the freeway ramp. C. S 60/57 West -Bound Ramps/Grand Avenue: Restripe the north Grand Avenue approach to provide a left, through, through/right, and right turn lane. d. Grand Avenue/Golden Springs: On Golden Springs for what was identified as the eastbound approach, add a left turn lane (for a total of two) and improve the eastbound right turn to a free right turn. 970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 - 8 - On westbound Golden Springs, add a right turn lane. e. Diamond Bar Boulevard/Grand Avenue: Implement improvements to provide three through lanes on the Grand Avenue approaches and the southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard approach. The existing southbound right turn lane will be converted into a through lane. For the northbound approach, stripe for a through, through/right, and right turn lane to accommodate the high number of northbound right turn during the PM peak hour. These improvements will be implemented as determined appropriate by the City pending a review of alternate traffic routes, effects on adjacent residential areas, and other applicable factors. f. Brea Canyon Road/Golden Springs -Calami: Add a left turn lane to the northbound and southbound approaches on Brea Canyon Road, for a total of two. Eastbound - make improvements to convert the right turn lane to a through lane. Westbound - add a left turn lane to provide a total of two. g. Pathfinder Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard: Make modifications to provide an added northbound through lane at intersection. This will impact existing bicycle lane at this location. 2. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. Air Quality Impacts. Development in the Project Area will result in additional mobile and stationary emissions above the SCAQMD daily thresholds for CO, ROG, and Nox on a project -specific and cumulative basis. Findina: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address these impacts, project -related air quality impacts cannot be reduced a level of insignificance and are therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. Facts Supporting Finding: A number of mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce air quality impacts resulting from development pursuant to the Project, a number of mitigation measures have been imposed. A full description of those mitigation measures is found in Table 2 and Section 3.3 of the FEIR. While these measures will reduce certain aspects of the Project -related air quality impacts, estimation of the efficacy of these mitigation measures to reduce vehicular and operational emissions is difficult. It is unlikely, however, that these measures will be adequate to reduce mobile and stationary emissions to below the 970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 - 9 - 97-51 SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, mobile and stationary emissions from the Project are considered significant and unavoidable. The Agency hereby finds that there are specific economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh its potential adverse construction -related impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared, and is set forth below. 3. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES The City Council has considered various project alternatives as analyzed in the EIR and makes the following findings: i. No Proiect Alternative. The No Project Alternative considers retaining the Project Area in its existing condition with no additional development taking place in the framework of the Redevelopment Plan. This alternative would permit continuing development in the Project Area without the guidance and benefits of the Redevelopment Plan. Because such development would be undertaken pursuant to the existing General Plan, this alternative would create the same environment impacts as the Project. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative. Facts in Support of Finding: The No Project Alternative is infeasible because it does not achieve any of the stated goals and objectives of the Project including, without limitation, the elimination of blighted conditions in the Project Area, the improvement of public facilities and public infrastructure, and the encouragement of resident and business participation in the economic revitalization of the Project Area. The Project is intended, in part, to provide necessary tax increment financing for public infrastructure and facilities in the Project Area which would not be supplied under the No -Project Alternative. Buildout of the Project Area in the absence of the Project will not have as beneficial an impact on reducing blighted conditions as would the Project in that the No -Project alternative would result in the piecemeal development of the Project Area over a longer period of time than that estimated in the FEIR. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. ii. Smaller Project Area Alternative. The Smaller Project Area Alternative considers the Project in a smaller geographic area than the Project Area. Reducing the size of the Project Area could result in reduced traffic impacts, and air 970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 - 10 97-51 quality impacts could be reduced, although not to a less -than - significant level. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the Smaller Project Area Alternative. The Smaller Project Area Alternative would not meet the goals and objectives of the Project and would not eliminate the significant unavoidable environmental impact of the Project. Facts in Support of Finding: While a reduced level of development under the Smaller Project Area Alternative would create less traffic, thereby reducing traffic -related impacts, the Smaller Project Area Alternative would not produce all of the needed infrastructure and facility improvements created by the Project. Partial implementation of such improvements could exacerbate deficiencies related to traffic and parking that will affect the City's ability to attract high-quality development into the Project Area, thereby adversely impacting the goals and objectives of the Project. In addition, while a reduction in traffic may, to a certain extent, reduce air quality impacts caused by mobile emissions, such a reduction is not likely to be in the 4000-800% range necessary to reduce air quality impacts to a less than significant level under SCAQMD guidelines. Therefore, the Smaller Project Area Alternative would not eliminate the significant unavoidable impact of the Project. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. iii. Lower Traffic -Generating Alternative: This alternative considers development of the Project Area with commercial and industrial uses that would generate less vehicular trips that those anticipated for the Project. The alternative would replace "high trip" uses such as retail and entertainment/ restaurant with office, business park, and research and development uses which generate fewer vehicle trips. The result would be a reduction in the overall volume of traffic from the Project Area. As with the Smaller Project Area Alternative, this reduction in vehicle trips would reduce traffic -related impacts and the need for traffic improvements as mitigation measures. With less traffic, mobile air pollutant emissions also would be reduced. However, as with the Smaller Project Area Alternative, this reduction would not be sufficient to reduce air quality impacts below a level of significance. In addition, this Alternative would be inconsistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, and might require the imposition of development restrictions not currently in place. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the Lower Traffic -Generating Alternative. This Alternative would not meet the goals and objectives of the Project and is not environmentally superior to the Project. 970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 - 11 - 97--51 Facts in Support of Finding: This Alternative would not implement the policies, goals, objectives and strategies of the General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar to the same extent as the Project would, in that revisions to the General Plan and Zoning Code would be required to replace retail, restaurant and entertainment uses with office, research and development and business park uses. This Alternative also would not meet the goal of providing opportunities for retail business. Fewer retail and restaurant/entertainment uses also would result in a significant reduction in sales tax revenue to the City, by comparison to the Project, making this Alternative economically infeasible. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council has carefully and independently considered the significant unavoidable adverse air quality impacts identified above in deciding whether to approve the Project. Although the City Council believes that the unavoidable air quality impacts identified in the FEIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures incorporated into the project, it recognizes that approval of the Project will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects. The City Council has weighed the benefits to the City of the Project against its environmental risks. The City Council specifically finds that, to the extent that any adverse or potentially adverse impact set forth above has not been mitigated to a level of insignificance, that specific economic, social, legal, environmental, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Furthermore, the City Council finds that any and each of the following considerations is sufficient to approve the Projects despite any one or more of the unavoidable impacts identified; that each of the overriding considerations is adopted with respect to each of the impacts individually, and that each consideration is severable from any other consideration should one or more consideration be shown to be legally insufficient for any reason. The following considerations support approval of the Project: a. The Project will implement the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and other policies, goals, plans, objectives and strategies for the development of the Project Area in a coordinated manner that will revitalize existing blighted areas through the imposition of design and use standards. b. The Project will proposes and will provide tax increment revenue to finance improvements of public infrastructure, including streets, public service facilities, parks, utilities, drainage facilities, and landscape that are necessary to promote the 970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 12 — 9751 economic revitalization of the Project Area and attract appropriate businesses to the area. C. The Project will promote local job opportunities in the community. d. The Project will encourage participation by residents, businesses, business persons, public agencies and community organizations in the economic revitalization of the Project Area. e. The Project will preserve and enhance the unique open space resources in the community. f. The Project will increase, improve, preserve the supply of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households. 970529 10572-00001 gas 1201795 - 13 - 97-51 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVrrALIZATION AREA SCA. NO. 96111"7 May 29, 1997 97--51 Introduction This addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area in the City of Diamond Bar was prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 1500 and following). Under provisions of CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency may prepare an addendum to an EIR if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make an FJR under consideration adequate under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. This addendum is hereby included as part of the Final EIR. The City of Diamond Bar will consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. Issues Addressed in this Addendum This addendum addresses effects of the change in the territory to be included within the boundaries of the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area. On May 27,1997, the City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission recommended the deletion of certain properties from the Revitalization Area, as shown in the attached Exhibit A. The deletion will result in a decrease of approximately 154 acres in territory comprising the Revitalization Area, from 1,454 acres to 1,300 acres. The territory to be deleted includes parks, public rights of way, and an undeveloped area designated for residential uses in the City's general Plan. The change to the Revitalization Area will result in no change in expected commercial or industrial development within the project area, and a reduction of approximately 130 residential units from projected development analyzed in the Final EIR Environmental Effects Associated with the Reduced Revitalization Area The Final EIR considered environmental effects of redeveloping a 1,454 -acre Revitalization Area. Redevelopment of a smaller Project Area is anticipated to reduce the magnitude of most environmental effects considered in the Final EIR, including traffic impact which was found to be the only significant impact of the project. Mitigation measures have been included in the project that reduce traffic impact to a less than significant level. With less territory, most of the environmental impacts analyzed in the Final EIR, including traffic, will decrease in rough proportion to the reduction in the potential for new development on the territory deleted from the Revitalization Area. Thus, the analysis of environmental impacts in the Final EIR represents the "worst case" development scenario for the project inclusive of impacts that will occur in a smaller Revitalization Area. Such environmental impacts are, therefore, fully and adequately addressed in the Final M and the change in the Revitalization Area's territory will not result in any new or increased siguiScant environmental impacts. 97-51