Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 10288 (Central SR Redevelopment Plan)RESOLUTION NO. 10288 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael (the "City Council") has been informed by the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") that the Second Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project (the "Amended Plan") and a Report thereon have been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Agency has submitted copies of the Amended Plan and Report to this Council for its review; and WHEREAS, there is a need for a joint public hearing with the Agency to consider the Amended Plan and Report, and to have interested groups and citizens be heard on the Amended Plan and Report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the convening of a joint public hearing with the Agency on Tuesday, September 8, 1998, at 7:30 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 1400 5th Avenue, San Rafael, California for purposes of considering the Amended Plan and Report thereon. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish, in cooperation with the Agency, the "Legal Notice - Joint Public Hearing" which has been prepared by Agency staff, a copy of which is on file with the Agency Secretary and by this reference incorporated herein, not less than once a week for three successive weeks in The Marin Independent Journal, a newspaper of general circulation published in Marin County and circulated in the City of San Rafael. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to cooperate with the Agency in mailing a copy of the Notice to the last known assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area designated in the Amended Plan, at the assessee's last known address as shown on the last equalized roll of Marin County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to cooperate with the Agency in mailing a copy of the Notice to the occupants of each address in the Project Area. 141\11\113584.1 1 �t BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to cooperate with the Agency in mailing a copy of the Notice to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon any property in the Project Area designated in the Amended Plan. I, Jeanne M. Leoncini, Clerk of the City of San Rafael hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on Monday, the 3rd day of August, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None - Jeann6�cini, City Clerk 141\11\113584.1 2 REPORT ON THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT [TO BE SUPPLEMENTED] San Rafael Redevelopment Agency July 28, 1998 Attachment A 141\1 1\113565.1 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law, the following reports and analyses are submitted by the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") to the San Rafael City Council (the "City Council") as the Report on the Second Amended and Restated Central San Rafael Redevelopment Plan (the "Report"). The original Central San Rafael Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the City Council on November 20, 1972 by Ordinance No. 1079, was subsequently amended and restated on October 16, 1989, by Ordinance No. 1572, and was further amended on November 21, 1994 by Ordinance No. 1669 (collectively, the "Plan"). Reports on the Plan were prepared for its initial adoption and subsequent amendments in accordance with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Sections 33352 and 33457.1. The Plan and the reports prepared for the Plan for its initial adoption and subsequent amendments are incorporated herein by this reference. The purpose and reasons for the amendments to the Plan contained in the proposed Second Amended and Restated Central San Rafael Redevelopment Plan (the "Amended Plan") are set forth in detail in Part I of this Report. As noted in Part I, the purpose of the Amended Plan is limited. Because of the narrow scope of the proposed amendments to be implemented through the Amended Plan, only a few of the reports and analyses required by Health and Safety Code Section 33352 are relevant and merit discussion in this Report. This Report has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seg.). All Code Section references used in this Report are to the California Health & Safety Code unless otherwise specified. This Report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Code Section 33457.1, which states in relevant part, "To the extent warranted by a proposed amendment to a redevelopment plan, ... the reports and information required by Section 33352 shall be prepared and made available to the public prior to the hearing on such amendment." Parts VII, VIII and XII of this Report are not yet complete since certain scheduled meetings have not occurred at the time of preparation of this Report. This Report will be supplemented prior to approval of the Amended Plan, as the additional information becomes available. 141\11\113565.1 PART I. DESCRIPTION AND REASONS FOR AMENDMENT By Ordinance No. 1079 adopted November 20, 1972, the San Rafael City Council adopted the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Plan which was subsequently amended and restated on October 16, 1989, by Ordinance No. 1572, and which was further amended on November 21, 1994 by Ordinance No. 1669 (collectively, the "Plan"). The 1989 amendment to the Plan made changes to conform the land uses in the Plan to the General Plan land uses. The 1994 amendment imposed certain time limits on the Plan as required by redevelopment reform legislation enacted in 1993 (AB 1290). The Plan calls for the revitalization of the central area of the City of San Rafael (the "Project Area"), encompassing approximately 1,920 acres. At this time, the Agency is proposing for consideration by the City Council certain technical amendments to the Plan described generally as follows: 1. Minor Technical Revisions. Since the time of adoption of the initial Plan, various amendments have been made to the California Redevelopment Law of a technical nature. The proposed Amended Plan has been updated to reflect such changes. These proposed changes include authority in the Plan for the Agency to take graffiti removal/abatement actions, to undertake hazardous materials remediation, to provide commercial rehabilitation loans, to assist in financing manufacturing and industrial facilities and to provide assistance with seismic retrofits. None of the proposed changes are of a substantive nature and do not change the scope, goals, or objectives of the Plan. 2. Eminent Domain Power. The Plan grants the Agency the power of eminent domain, under specified circumstances, through January 5, 1999. The proposed amendment would extend such authority twelve years to January 5, 2011, as permitted by the California Community Redevelopment Law through the redevelopment plan amendment process. Following such amendment, all Plan and state law safeguards and requirements with respect to property acquisition and relocation benefits would continue to apply. This extension of time to exercise the power of eminent domain is necessary to enable the Agency to implement its acquisition program in an orderly fashion over the coming decade, without having to make precipitous decisions that may adversely affect property owners in order to meet a premature acquisition deadline. The Agency has no current plans to acquire particular properties. It is important to note that the Agency's use of this tool would be limited and used only as a last resort toward a project of greater community benefit. The proposed amendments to the Plan will not expand the Project Area, change any of the financial provisions of the Plan (e.g. limits on allocation of tax increment revenue to the Agency; limits on the time to incur debt, undertake activities or collect tax increment; and limits on the amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness), or modify the basic purpose of the Original Plan and powers of the Agency. 141\1 1\113565.1 2 Thus, the proposed amendments are not of the type described in Health and Safety Code Section 33354.6 which would require observance of the procedures set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law for the adoption of an initial redevelopment plan. The Agency and the City Council will comply with all requirements for adoption of an amendment of a redevelopment plan as set forth in Health and Safety Code Sections 33450-33458. 141\11\113565.1 PART H. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC ECONOMIC CONDITIONS EXISTING IN THE PROJECT AREA This part of the report on a plan for a new redevelopment plan typically sets forth the conditions which entitle a project area to qualify for redevelopment (blight analysis). This analysis was completed for the Report prepared for initial adoption of the Plan and served as the basis for the City Council's finding in the ordinance adopting the initial Plan, mandated by Code Section 33367(d)(1), that the Project Area was a blighted area, the redevelopment of which was necessary to effectuate public purposes. Since the basis for the blight finding was definitely established by the initial adoption of the Plan, and since the proposed amendments to the Plan contained in the Amended Plan do not change the Project Area boundaries in any way, no further analysis of the description of the Project Area and blighting conditions therein are required at this time. However, it should be noted that the Project Area continues to contain parcels of inadequate size, shape, and design for modern use, depreciated property values, incompatible uses and inadequate flood control and traffic improvements. While the Agency has developed and implemented successful programs to promote redevelopment of blighted properties and alleviate blighting conditions that remain in the Project Area, the use of eminent domain remains necessary as a last resort to deal with those blighting conditions that remain in the Project Area. In order to allow the Agency maximum ability to revitalize the Project Area, the law provides redevelopment agencies with certain techniques to overcome blighting conditions in redevelopment areas. One of the techniques is the Agency's power of eminent domain. Although eminent domain would only be a "last resort" solution to acquisition of properties in the Project Area, the Agency is moving into the implementation phase of several of its remaining redevelopment programs. The Agency is now implementing various public improvement activities and is planning for longer-term land development transactions with interested property owners and developers. The process of planning for, negotiating, and implementing a land development transaction or a public improvement project typically is a multi-year endeavor. It often involves discussions with, or solicitation of proposals from, existing property owners of parcels that are critical to the overall redevelopment program, to determine if they are interested in and capable of participation in the redevelopment of their own properties or if they are willing to voluntarily sell their properties at fair value to the Agency or a designated developer. Next, the process involves negotiations of detailed development contracts, with property owners or selected non -property owner developers, followed by preparation of detailed architectural plans, procurement of all necessary governmental permits and approvals, and procurement of development financing. Only when all these activities have been completed is it typically possible to proceed with land assembly or a public improvement project, using condemnation as a last resort to achieve such assembly. 141\1 1\113565.1 4 This land development and public improvement process can require two, three, or more years to complete. Since the Agency's current eminent domain power under the Plan expires in about six months, there is no cushion for orderly implementation even of those land developments that the Agency commences in the coming year. The Agency, in fact, envisions that it may need to initiate several land development transactions for key parcels in the Project Area throughout the decade of the 2000s. Given the limitations on Agency financial and staff resources and the ebb and flow of the general real estate market, it is not possible or even desirable for the Agency to try to force commencement of all its land development transactions into the next few months, so as to ensure that it can complete all necessary land assembly for such transactions within the current deadline for exercise of its eminent domain power. Indeed, some transactions will become feasible and advantageous to the Agency only later in the next decade, after improvements and actions undertaken in the next few years have further enhanced the physical and economic environment for Project Area redevelopment. For all these reasons, it is necessary that the time period for the exercise of the power of eminent domain be extended as provided in the proposed Amended Plan. 141\11\113565.1 5 PART III. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This part of the report on a Plan for a new redevelopment plan typically would set forth the requirement imposed by the passage of recent legislation to describe specific goals and objectives of the agency, specific projects proposed by the agency, how these projects will alleviate the documented blight conditions in the project area, and a program of actions and expenditures proposed for the first five years of plan implementation. The newly enacted legislation also required the Agency to adopt an Implementation Plan by December 1994 which covers the information described above as well as other information. The Agency's current Implementation Plan was adopted on December 5, 1994 and was amended in January 1996 and again in November 1996 and covers the period until 2000-2001. The Agency's currently effective Implementation Plan is incorporated herein by this reference. A new implementation plan will be considered and adopted in 2000-01. Since the Agency currently has an effective Implementation Plan and given the limited nature of the proposed amendments to the Plan, no additional Implementation Plan information is required to be included in this Report. 141\1 1\113565.1 6 PART IV. PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA This part of the report on a plan for a new redevelopment plan typically considers the costs and potential revenue of redevelopment actions in order to determine if there is a financially feasible method to finance the redevelopment project. This analysis was completed for the Report for the initial adoption of the Plan and served as the basis for the City Council's finding in the ordinance adopting the initial Plan, mandated by Code Section 33367(d)(3), that the adoption of the initial Plan and the carrying out of the Plan, was economically sound and feasible. Since the proposed amendments to the Plan contained in the Amended Plan do not add any new redevelopment activities, no further analysis of the economic feasibility of the Project Area is required at this time, except for the following observations: The proposed extension of the Agency's eminent domain power will enable the Agency, under specified conditions, to assemble small properties with marginal economic utility into larger sites or to install needed public improvements, both of which will promote more intensive modern uses, thus, over time, allowing the Project Area to generate additional tax increment revenue for redevelopment activities. Although such acquisition may also involve cost to the Agency, the Agency will work closely with property owners and developers to insure maximum private sector involvement in any acquisition project, so as to minimize the use of eminent domain and the use of public funds. On balance, the extension of the Agency's eminent domain power is expected to have a neutral or positive impact on the financial feasibility of the Project. 141\11\113565.1 7 PART V. METHOD OR PLAN FOR RELOCATION OF FAMILIES AND PERSONS TO BE DISPLACED FROM HOUSING FACILITIES IN THE PROJECT AREA As part of the adoption process of the Plan, the Agency prepared a Relocation Report, which sets forth the Agency's general policies for the administration of the relocation program and the provisions of services and benefits to displaced families, individuals, businesses, and community institutions. The Relocation Report also provides information about housing stock conditions and availability of housing units to support the anticipated relocation caseload from redevelopment activities. The Relocation Report is incorporated herein by this reference. The Relocation Report serves as a general plan for relocation services and housing stock availability. As recommended in an October 1982 State Department of Housing and Community Development study entitled "A Study of Relocation and Housing Development in California Redevelopment Agencies," a comprehensive and detailed plan will not be developed until relocation is imminent. At that time, a more specific analysis will be prepared, pursuant to Title 25, Section 6038 of the California Code of Regulations. The Agency is currently setting aside 20% of its tax increment revenue for affordable low and moderate income housing and is undertaking various activities to stimulate the production and rehabilitation of the affordable housing stock, using both tax increment revenue and other funding sources. Thus, the Agency possesses the resources to ensure affordability of the available housing stock for any limited number of households that may be displaced by future redevelopment activities. Based on the information set forth above, the Agency is satisfied that there is a comprehensive basis for the City Council to find that: (a) The Agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families and persons displaced from the Project Area, if the Plan may result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area; and (b) There are, or are being provided, in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to the displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment; and (c) Permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time occupants of the Project Area are displaced and that pending the development of the facilities, there will be available to the displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the community at the time of their displacement. 141\1 1\113565.1 8 PART VI. ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PLAN Health and Safety Code Sections 33450-33458, regarding adoption of redevelopment plan amendments, does not require the adoption of a preliminary plan for the amendment of a redevelopment plan. A Preliminary Plan was prepared for the initial Plan; however, given the fact that preliminary plans are not required to be prepared and adopted for plan amendments, and given the limited nature of the proposed amendments to the Plan, no Preliminary Plan was prepared, and therefore, no analysis of the Preliminary Plan is necessary as part of this Report. 141\11\113565.1 9 PART VII. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Upon receipt of the Amended Plan, the Planning Commission will prepare and adopt its report and recommendations regarding the proposed amendments. Immediately upon receipt of the Planning Commission's report and recommendations, Agency staff will supplement this Report with the Planning Commission's report and recommendation. 141\11\113565.1 10 PART VIII. SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND CONSULTATIONS REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS No formal Project Area Committee was required to be formed for the initial Plan pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33385; and therefore, no Project Area Committee was formed. However, in order to continue the City Council's policy of providing interested citizens ample opportunity for participation, the City Council appointed a Citizens Advisory Committee in 1974. The members of this Committee represent residents, businesspersons, and representatives of community organizations in the Project Area. Agency staff consult extensively with the committee regarding the redevelopment process and programs. Code Section 33385.3, effective January 1, 1994, provides that a Project Area Committee shall be formed if a proposed plan amendment would do either of the following: 1) Grant the Agency authority to acquire by eminent domain residential property occupied by persons of low- and moderate -income: or 2) Add territory to the project area in which low- and moderate -income persons reside and eminent domain authority is being granted. The proposed Amended Plan does not propose to add new territory to the existing Project Area, nor does it propose to grant new eminent domain authority over residential properties. For this reason the Amended Plan does not require the formation of a Project Area Committee. Consistent, however, with the Agency's desire to obtain community input, the Agency adopted Resolution No. 98-18 on May 18, 1998, expressing its desire "to seek active consultation with the Citizens Advisory Committee, interested residents, businesses and community organizations in the Project Area...." This resolution directed Agency staff to consult with and obtain the advice of the Citizens Advisory Committee, residents, businesses, and community organizations within the Project Area...." Such consultation is provided for in Section 33385(f) for plan amendments not requiring formation of a statutory Project Area Committee. As directed by Resolution, staff commenced a formal process of consultation with Project Area residents, business and property owners, and members of community organizations. The Agency staff is scheduled to review the Amended Plan and this Report _at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee (the "CAC") on August 6, 1998. This Report will be supplemented by the minutes of the CAC meeting when they become available. Agency staff has scheduled a community meeting to be held on August 12, 1998 to obtain community comments and input regarding the proposed Amended Plan. Notice of said meeting is scheduled to be published in the Marin Independent Journal. A copy of the notice and the minutes of the meeting will be added to this Part VIII of the Report once they become available. 141\11\113565.1 11 The Agency and City Council are scheduled to direct staff to publish legal notice of the joint public hearing and to conduct a mailing of notices to property owners, residents, businesses, and community organization, as required by Code Section 33452 on August 3, 1998. Notice is scheduled to be sent by first class mail to every property owner, business, community organization and resident in the Project Area, as required by Code Section 33452 on August 4, 1998. In addition, notice of the public hearing is scheduled to be published in the Marin Independent Journal on August 14, 1998, August 21, 1998 and August 28, 1998. This part of the Report will be supplemented with copies of the notices as they become available. On September 8, 1998, the City Council and Agency are scheduled to hold a joint public hearing to consider the adoption of the Amended Plan. All of the comments made at that hearing will be a part of the record of the adoption of the Amended Plan. 141\1 1\113565.1 12 PART IX. REPORT REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65402 The report required by Government Code Section 65402 will be contained as part of the Planning Commission report and recommendations on the Amended Plan (see Part VII of this Report). 141\11\113565.1 13 PART X. REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 21151 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE The City of San Rafael General Plan 2000, Environmental Impact Report, certified by the San Rafael City Council on July 18, 1988, (the "EIR") will serve as the required environmental documentation for the Amended Plan, as the Amended Plan implements the General Plan and no new activities are proposed in the Amended Plan. An environmental checklist dated July 1, 1998 (the "Environmental Checklist") was prepared by the City and follows this Part X of the Report. This Environmental Checklist shows (1) that pursuant to CEQA Section 21166, no substantial changes are proposed to the project which will require major revisions of the EIR, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances of the project which would require major revisions of the EIR and no new substantial information has become available which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified; and (2) that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168, the Amended Plan will not have effects which were not examined in the EIR and no new mitigation measures would be required and therefore the Amended Plan is within the scope of the EIR and no new environmental documentation is required. The certification of the EIR does not constitute approval of the Amended Plan itself. The separate EIR document will serve as the principal background reference for environmental impact and mitigation information for the Planning Commission, City and Agency decision makers during deliberations pertaining to the Amended Plan. In compliance with Code Sections 33352(k) and 33457.1, the EIR documents and the Environmental Checklist should be considered to be incorporated by reference into this Report. Notice of the proposed intention to rely on the EIR was incorporated into the notice of the public hearing for the Amended Plan, which was published in the Marin Independent Journal, and was mailed to all property owners, businesses, community organizations and residents within the Project Area, and all affected taxing entities as described in Parts VIII and XII of this Report. Copies of these notices are attached to Parts VIII and XII of this Report. 141\11\113565.1 14 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title 2. Lead Agency 3. Lead Agency Contact 4. Project Location 5. Project Sponsor 6. General Plan Designation 7. Zoning Second Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project San Rafael Redevelopment Agency Katie Korzun, Senior Planner Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project Area San Rafael Redevelopment Agency Varies Varies 8. Description of Project Includes the entire action involved, with later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or offsite features necessaryfor implementation. The Redevelopment Agency is proposing technical amendments to the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project to extend the limits for Agency activities and revisions to bring the Plan into conformance with recent changes in Redevelopment law. There are no land use or program changes, and the Plan remains consistent with the City of San Rafael General Plan. The Central San Rafael Redevelopment Plan was initially adopted in 1972. It was amended and restated in 1989 to conform with the City's General Plan and amended again in 1994 to conform the Plan's time limits to the provisions of AB 1290. A Second Amended and Restated Central San Rafael Redevelopment Plan has been developed to incorporate technical changes to bring the Plan into conformance with new enabling legislation at the State level. No new territory is proposed to be added to the Project Area. The proposed amendments include the following: 1) Reflect the Agency's ability to take any actions necessary to remove or abate graffiti on public and private properties in the Project Area; 2) Indicate that the Agency can take any actions necessary to remediate hazardous materials from public and private properties; 3) Include the Agency's ability to provide loans for rehabilitation of commercial buildings within the Project Area; 4) Extend the Agency's deadline for the commencement of eminent domain proceedings by approximately twelve years; 5) Reflect the Agency's ability to provide assistance in financing of facilities or capital equipment for properties being developed or rehabilitated for industrial or manufacturing uses within in the Project Area; and 6) Show the Agency's ability to take any actions necessary to provide assistance with seismic retrofit of Project Area property rehabilitation projects. In addition to the proposed new amendments, the Amended Plan will reflect previously adopted amendments which stem from AB1290. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project Area is surrounded by residential development, open space and San Francisco Bay. 10. Other Public Agencies whose approval is required Includes permits, financing approval or participation agreements None. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a `Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated on the following pages. 13 Land Use and Planning 13 Population and Housing 13 Geological Problems 13 Water 13 Air Quality DETERMINATION 13 Transportation/Circulation 13 Biological Resources 13 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Hazards 13 Noise 13 Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 Public Services 13 Utilities and Service Systems 0 Aesthetics 13 Cultural Resources 0 Recreation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A hIITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or is "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: 1) Have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards; and 2) Have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to an earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. The earlier EIR adequately analyzes the proposed project, so NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 4�� 0" /gig Signature Date U Printed Name: Katie Korzun Title: Senior Planner 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is provided in the Discussion section for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer is explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers take account of the entire action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." Mitigation measures are described and how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced. 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. 6. Where ever possible, references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) are incorporated into the checklist. Where appropriate, a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated is included. A source list is attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted, are cited in the discussion. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Potentially Potentially Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Impact Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? p p p E b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies p p p 0 adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? p p p 0 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts p p p N to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an p p p E established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 5 Potentially Potentially Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Impact Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated El. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 0 0 0 N projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or 0 0 0 0 indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 0 0 0 E III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 0 0 0 E b) Seismic ground shaking? O O E3 ■ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 0 0 d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 0 0 0 ■ e) Landslides or mudflows? 0 0 0 E f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 0 0 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? 0 0 0 N h) Expansive soils? 0 0 0 N i) Unique geologic or physical features? 0 0 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate 0 0 0 and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards? 0 0 0 c) Discharge into surface waters or other alterations of 0 0 0 surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxy- gen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in a water body? 0 0 0 e) Changes in course or direction of water movements? 0 0 0 f) Change in groundwater quantity, either by direct 0 0 0 additions or withdrawals, or by interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or by substantial loss of ground- water recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 0 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 0 0 0 otherwise available for public water supplies? 5 Potentially Potentially Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant lmpact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: ■ a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? ■ b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause ❑ ❑ any change in climate? ■ d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves ❑ ■ or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., ❑ ■ farm equipment)? ❑ c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? ❑ VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats ❑ (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ❑ c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, ❑ coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ❑ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient ❑ manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ resource that would be of future value to the region and state residents? 0 El 13 ■ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 0 13 ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 13 ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 0 ■ 13 ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ 0 ❑ ■ 13 ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ 7 Potentially Potentially Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant InVact Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous p p 13 0 substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or p p 0 0 emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health p p Cl E hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health p p p E hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, p p p 0 grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? p p p 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? p p 13 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services, in any of the following areas: a) Fire Protection? p 0 13 0 b) Police Protection? p p E3 N c) Schools? p 0 E3 E d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? p p 0 E e) Other governmental services? p p 0 0 XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? p 13 E3 0 b) Communications systems? p p p E c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution p p p N facilities? d) Sewer, septic systems, or wastewater treatment and p p p E disposal facilities? e) Storm water drainage? p p E3 0 f) Solid waste materials recovery or disposal? p p p a g) Local or regional water supplies? p p p 0 7 9 Potentially Potentially Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? p p 0 E b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? p p 0 0 c) Create adverse light or glare effects? p 0 E3 E XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? p 13 13 E b) Disturb archaeological resources? p p 0 0 c) Affect historical resources? 0 0 13 N d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which p p p E would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the p p p 0 potential impact area? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks p p p 0 or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? p p p 0 XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality p p 13 0 of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, p p p 0 to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts that are individually p p p 0 limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will p p p cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 9 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS I. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Would the proposal conflict with the General Plan designation or zoning? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It is therefore not in conflict with the General Plan. b) Would the proposal conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and contains no reference to environmental plans or policies. c) Would the proposal be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? No hnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and implements the land uses deemed appropriate in the General Plan. d) Would the proposal affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and there are no agricultural uses within Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project Area. e) Would the proposal disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? No hnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Would the proposal cumulatively exceed original regional or local population projections? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. As such, it will not change population projections. b) Would the proposal induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. As such, it will not induce growth beyond that anticipated in the General Plan. 9 c) Would the proposal displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. Any displaced housing must be replaced as required by State Redevelopment Law and City policy, and the requirements for same are not altered by the proposed amendment. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS a) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving fault rupture? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It does not change the exposure to fault rupture impacts. b) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It does not change the exposure to seismic ground shaking. c) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It does not change exposure to seismic ground failure. d) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It does not change exposure to seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard. e) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudflows? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not change exposure to landslides or mudflows. f) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the 10 General Plan. It would not change exposure to erosion, changes to topography or unstable soil conditions. g) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not change exposure to subsidence. h) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not change exposure to expansive soils. 1) Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not change exposure to impacts from unique geologic or physical features. IV. WATER a) Would the proposal result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not change absorption rates, drainage patterns or surface runoff. b) Would the proposal result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not change exposure to water related hazards or flooding. c) Would the proposal result in discharge into surface waters or other alterations of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not cause changes to surface waters or water quality. II d) Would the proposal result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not cause changes to the amount of surface water. e) Would the proposal result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not cause changes to currents or water movements. f) Would the proposal result in change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not cause changes to groundwater quantity. g) Would the proposal result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not cause changes to groundwater flow. h) Would the proposal result in impacts to groundwater quality? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not cause changes to groundwater quality. i) Would the proposal result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not cause changes to groundwater availability. V. AIR QUALITY a) Would the proposal violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not cause changes to air quality. 12 b) Would the proposal expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not change exposure to pollutants. c) Would the proposal alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not alter air movement, moisture or temperature. d) Would the proposal create objectionable odors? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. It would not generate odors. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a) Would the proposal result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no traffic impacts other than those already identified in the General Plan. b) Would the proposal result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no safety hazards created. c) Would the proposal result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to access. d) Would the proposal result in insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to parking. 13 e) Would the proposal result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? No hnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no pedestrian or bicyclist hazards created. f) Would the proposal result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No hnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There are no changes to policies proposed. g) Would the proposal result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No hnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to rail, traffic or water traffic impacts. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Would the proposal result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? No hnpact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changed impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or habitats. b) Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? No hnpact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changed impacts to locally designated species or habitats. c) Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No hnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changed impacts to locally designated natural communities. d) Would the proposal result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? No hnpact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changed impacts to wetland habitats. 14 e) Would the proposal result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No hnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no altered impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. VIII. ENERGY AND XMTRAL RESOURCES a) Would the proposal conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No hnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be changes to energy conservation plans. b) Would the proposal use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? No hnpact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no change to the use of non-renewable resources. c) Would the proposal result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and state residents? No hnpact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to the availability of known mineral resources. IX. Hazards a) Would the proposal involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? No hnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to the risk of accidental explosions or release of hazardous materials. b) Would the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no interference with emergency response or evacuation plans. c) Would the proposal involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? No hnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no creation of health hazards. 15 d) Would the proposal involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No bnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to exposure to sources of potential health hazards. e) Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No bnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no increased fire hazard. X. NOISE a) Would the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels? No Inipact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no increases in noise levels. b) Would the proposal result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? No bnpact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no exposure of people to severe noise levels. M. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in the area of fire protection? No bnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no need for increased fire services. b) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in the area of police protection? No bnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no need for increased police services. c) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in the area of schools? No Inipact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no increase in the need for schools. 16 d) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in the area of maintenance of public facilities, including roads? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no increased need for maintenance services. e) Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in other governmental services? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no need for altered government services. ISI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no need for new or increased power or natural gas systems. b) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communications systems? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no need for changes to the communication system. c) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no need for increased water systems. d) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sewer, septic systems, or wastewater treatment and disposal facilities? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no need for increased wastewater disposal or treatment services. 17 e) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no need for changes to the stormwater system. f) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to solid waste materials recovery or disposal? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no increase in the amount of solid waste generated. g) Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no increase in the need for water. XIII. AESTHETICS a) Would the proposal affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no impacts on scenic vistas. b) Would the proposal have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no demonstrable negative aesthetic impact. c) Would the proposal create adverse light or glare effects? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no glare generated. XIV. CULTURAL a) Would the proposal disturb paleontological resources? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no disturbance to paleontological resources. 18 b) Would the proposal disturb archeological resources? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no disturbance to archaeological resources. c) Would the proposal affect historical resources? No bnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no impacts on historical resources. d) Would the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? No bnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to items that would impact local ethnic cultural values. e) Would the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No bnpact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to items that would restrict existing religious or scared uses. XV. RECREATION a) Would the proposal increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? No bnpact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to the demand for recreational facilities. b) Would the proposal affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to existing recreational facilities. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 19 No Impact, Reference I and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to the impacts already identified in the General Plan 2000 EIR. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to the impacts already identified in the General Plan 2000 EIR. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, the effects of probable future projects.) No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to the impacts already identified in the General Plan 2000 EIR. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact, Reference 1 and 2. The proposal is an amendment to the technical aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, and allows the Plan to continue to function as an implementation tool for the General Plan. There would be no changes to the impacts already identified in the General Plan 2000 EIR. XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analysis may be used in this document where one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. In those situations, a) The earlier analysis documents are identified and listed in the References Section; b) Any impact identified in this document which is within the scope of the impacts evaluated in these earlier documents are identified in the Discussion Section above, and the mitigation measures. All environmental impacts identified -the checklists are evaluated herein. References to earlier environmental documents are also noted accordingly. c) Any mitigation measures incorporated into or refined for this document from the earlier documents are noted in the Discussion section above. 20 REFERENCES 1. City of San Rafael General Plan 2000; City of San Rafael; Amended July, 1996 2. City of San Rafael General Plan 2000, Final Environmental Impact Report, Certified July 18, 1988. 21 PART XI. REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER As described in Part I of this Report, the proposed amendments incorporated in the Amended Plan do not add any territory to the Project Area or change any of the other fiscal parameters of the Plan. Consequently, no report of the County Fiscal Officer was required and none has been obtained in connection with the preparation of the Amended Plan. 141\1 1\113565.1 15 PART XII. CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES As described in Part I of this Report, the proposed amendments to the Plan do not add any territory to the Project Area or change any of the other fiscal parameters or time limits of the Plan. Consequently no formal consultation with affected taxing agencies. However, consistent with the Agency and City Council desire for input, the Agency sent each taxing agency, by certified mail, a copy of each of the following documents on July 23, 1998: 1) Statement of Preparation of Amended Plan (including notice of the City's and Agency's intent to rely on the City of San Rafael General Plan EIR); 2) Environmental Checklist prepared for the Amended Plan, dated July 1, 1998, and 3) Draft Second Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project. The Agency consulted, or attempted to consult, with each of the affected taxing agencies through a series of telephone calls. Agency staff contacted all taxing agencies by phone after distribution of the above listed document and prior to publication of the notice of the public hearing. A phone log of these calls will be attached to this Part XII of this Report when it is completed. During each phone call, Agency staff discussed concerns expressed by the affected taxing agency regarding the proposed Amended Plan. The Agency verbally responded to all concerns and presented follow up information as requested. Each affected taxing agency will be sent on August 4, 1998, by certified mail, notice of the public hearing on the Amended Plan. A copy of this notice will be attached to this Part XII of this Report after it is available. 141\1 1\113565.1 16 PART XIII. NEIGHBORHOOD RVIPACT REPORT The impact of the project with regard to the physical and social quality of the Project Area and surrounding areas is set forth in the EIR on the General Plan, which is incorporated by reference in this part of the Report and is not anticipated to substantially change with the amendments proposed in the Amended Plan. It is not expected that implementation of the Amended Plan will destroy or remove low - and moderate -income persons or families. The Agency does not have a housing production requirement under Health and Safety Code Section 33413(b) because the Plan was adopted prior to January 1, 1976. The Agency does not expect to destroy or remove low- and moderate - income housing, therefore, the Agency does not expect to incur a replacement housing obligation under Health and Safety Code Section 33413(a). As described in the Agency's currently effective Implementation Plan, the Agency expects to aid or obtain development of approximately 200 units of low- and moderate -income housing in the Project Area over the next three years. That housing may be financed from a number of sources, including use of Agency tax increment revenue, bond proceeds, City funds, bond financing and use of low income tax credits. 141\1 1\113565.1 17 PART XIV. ANALYSIS OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER'S REPORT As discussed in Parts XI and XII of this Report, because of the limited nature of the proposed amendments, a Fiscal Officer's Report was not required or prepared in conjunction with this proposed Amended Plan. Consequently, no analysis of the Fiscal Officer's Report is required to be included in this Part XIV of the Report. 141\11\113565.1 18