Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso RDA 13-2000 RESOLUTION NO. 13-2000 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONFIRMING REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATED THERETO WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared a second amendment to the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan Amendment" or the "Program") in compliance with the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq.) for adoption by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco ("City"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the City is the "Lead Agency" as defined by CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21067); and WHEREAS, when the City adopted the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan in 1993, it certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2000, the City released for public review a focused Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Plan Amendment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168; and WHEREAS, the forty-five day public review and comment period on the Draft SEIR began on March 24, 2000, and closed on May 8, 2000, and included the opportunity to give oral comments at a public hearing on the Draft SEIR on April 12, 2000, and a Planning Commission meeting on May 4, 2000; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing, Planning Commission meeting and through submitted written comments, the City received comments on the Draft SEIR from the public, responsible agencies, other governmental and private organizations, as well as from City and Agency staff; and WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received during the public review period and at the public hearings, which responses clarify and amplify the information contained in the Draft SEIR, providing good faith reasoned analysis supported by factual information. The comments and responses to comments were published in a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the "FSEIR") in May 2000, prepared pursuant to Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, the Agency as Responsible Agency has consulted with the Lead Agency in order to assist the Lead Agency in preparing adequate environmental documents for the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, § 15090), the City acting as the Lead Agency has certified that the FSEIR (i) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and (ii) was presented to the decision making body of the Lead Agency and that the decision making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the FSEIR prior to taking action on the Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the public notice duly given, a full and fair joint public hearing has been held on the Plan and the FSEIR, and the Agency as Responsible Agency has considered all written and all oral comments and testimony relating thereto and is fully advised thereon; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, acting as a Responsible Agency pursuant to Guidelines Section 15096 has considered the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR as prepared by the Lead Agency; and W~[-IEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco has not found any feasible alternative or mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment that have not been identified already by the City. NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Agency has reviewed and considered the environmental effects of the project as contained in the FSEIR prior to deciding whether to approve and adopt the Plan. Section 2. The mitigation findings in Exhibits A, B, and C as adopted by the City are hereby adopted and incorporated fully herein by reference. Section 3. The Statement of Overriding Considerations as adopted by the City is hereby adopted and incorporated fully herein by reference. Section 4. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan in Exhibit E as adopted by the City is hereby adopted and incorporated fully herein by reference. r 1 i I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a Regular meeting held on the 14th day of June ,2000 by the following vote: AYES: Boardmembers Pedro Gonzalez, Eugene R. Mullin and John R. Penna, Vice Chair Joseph A. Fernekes and Chair Karyl Matsumoto NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. __ City ~terk ~ F:\WPD'uMnrsw\405\00 I~Redevelopment'~El Camino\CEQA AGENCY 2.wpd EXHIBIT A FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15091, the following findings address the project's significant and potentially significant impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. In each case, the appropriate statutory finding includes an explanation of how identified mitigations lessen or avoid the related impact. Findings pursuant to § 21081 (c) concerning project alternatives are made in Exhibit C. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Reliance on Record. The findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Redevelopment Plan Amendment and the SEIR. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 2. Nature of Findings. Any finding made herein by the City shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by the City, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. The City intends that if these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by the City with respect to any particular subject matter of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings. 3. Scope of Review. The SEIR is a supplement to a program EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The Redevelopment Plan and the Amendment is a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and is related as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions and in connection with the issuance of the Redevelopment Plan and Plan Amendment that will govern the conduct of the continuing redevelopment program. Subsequent activities in the redevelopment program will be examined in light of the program EIR and SEIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. 4. Limitations. The City's analysis and evaluation of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project of the scope and size of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the program will not exist. This practical limitation is acknowledged in CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 which states that "the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible." One of the major limitations on analysis _ .. of the program is the City's lack of knowledge of future events, particularly those occurring outside the City of South San Francisco. In some instances, the City's analysis has had to rely on assumptions about such factors as growth and traffic generation in areas outside of the political boundaries of the City of South San Francisco. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework in which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. 5. Summaries of Facts, Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Alternatives, and other Matters. All summaries of information in the findings to follow are based on the SEIR, the Redevelopment Plan and Plan Amendment and/or other evidence in the record. Such summaries are not intended to be exhaustive recitations of all of the facts in the record upon which they are based. Moreover, the summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are only summaries. This document includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for the findings set forth below. Cross references to the SEIR and other evidence such as City Council or Agency actions have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the SEIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. Conflicting interpretations of the language of the SEIR and the language of mitigation conditions adopted by the Agency shall be resolved in favor of the latter as the most appropriate way to mitigate the impact in question. 6. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings address the numerous mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR for impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. Some of the mitigation measures are implemented by changes incorporated into the Plan Amendment and others by adoption of standards in the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. In its actions approving the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the City adopts those mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR that have not already been incorporated into the project except with respect to those that are rejected by the City in the specific findings as being infeasible or unnecessary. Where multiple mitigation me/asures are adopted for a single impact, all of the identified measures are required to support the related mitigation finding, unless otherwise specified. The City finds that all the Mitigation Measures now or previously incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan Amendment are desirable and feasible and shall be implemented in connection with the implementation of the program in accordance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. 7. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. The SEIR for the program recommended mitigation measures to reduce most of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects to insignificant levels. The City reviewed the SEIR and agrees with the SEIR conclusions. The City finds that to the extent any residual impact remains that has not been fully mitigated in those instances where the City finds that mitigation has occurred, the residual impact is overridden by the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided for in Exhibit D. r I i IMPACTS, MITIGATIONS AND MITIGATION FINDINGS IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: Under the Amended Redevelopment Plan, a significant level of service impacts would occur in the A.M. peak hour at Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp, Evergreen Avenue/Hillside Boulevard intersection, Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue and in the P.M. peak hour at Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard, El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue, Evergreen Avenue/Hillside Boulevard, and Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue. MITIGATION: For Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp, the mitigation measure is to provide a fair share contribution toward signalizing the intersection. For Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard, there are no warranted improvements. For Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue, the mitigation measure is to provide a fair share contribution towards signalizing the intersection, restriping the eastbound Chestnut Avenue approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and an exclusive right turn lane, provide an exclusive left tum lane on the westbound Chestnut Avenue approach, and provide protected left turn signal phasing east-west (on Chestnut Avenue) and split signal phasing north-south. Provide a fair share contribution towards restriping the eastbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right mm lane, widen the westbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane and restripe the existing shared left/through lane as an exclusive through lane, and change east-west signal phasing from split to protected phasing for left turns. For El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue, provide a fair share contribution toward the following improvements: provide a second left turn lane on the southbound El Camino Real approach and eliminate the exclusive right turn lane on the southbound E1 Camino Real approach, maintain two exclusive southbound through lanes and provide a shared through/right turn lane. For Mission Road/Evergreen Drive/BART Access, provide a fair share contribution toward signalization of this intersection. For Mission Road/Grand Avenue, provide a fair share contribution toward signalization. FINDINGS: Because signalization at the intersection of Hillside Boulevard and Evergreen Drive is not warranted, impacts at that intersection would remain unavoidably significant. With regard to the other impacts mentioned above, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program which avoid or substantially 3 lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the SEIR. IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC SAFETY. The Plan Amendment would result in some pedestrian safety impacts as well as safety impacts related to excessive speeds along Evergreen Drive and the provision of driveways along Mission Road, Oak Avenue and E1 Camino Real. MITIGATION: Each project would minimize the number of driveways serving all new developments. Provide right turn deceleration areas on the E1 Camino Real approaches to new major driveways. Consider providing a continuous two-way left turn lane along Mission Road near Oak Street in location with major driveways lining both sides of the street. Increase speed enforcement along Evergreen Drive if speeding traffic becomes a problem due to the opening of the BART station. If regular speed enforcement is not an option, consider providing traffic calming measures along the street to reduce speeds. With regard to pedestrian safety, SamTrans buses should stop to let students offor pick students up on the high school side of Evergreen Drive (north side) and Mission Road (east side.) E1 Camino High School should regularly advise students to use crosswalks and not jaywalk. If this does not relieve mid-block crossings before or after school, the high school should consider fencing the grounds fronting on Mission Road and Evergreen Drive to channel students into and out of gates located near crosswalks. FINDINGS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the SEIR. The identified mitigation measure applied on a project specific basis will reduce the potential for impacts on pedestrian and traffic safety. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS: The Amendment would result in short-term impacts related to construction noise. No new or increased impacts other than those studied in the 1993 EIR would occur under the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. MITIGATION: Each project development would be required to limit noise-generated construction activities, including truck traffic going to and from a site, limit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines, local stationary noise-generating equipment as far as practical from nearby existing residences, select quiet construction equipment, notify neighbors of the construction schedule, and designate a noise disturbance coordinator. FINDINGS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the program which lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the SEIR, but construction noise impacts would remain unavoidably significant. NOISE IMPACTS. On-site noise levels along E1 Camino Real in the vicinity of proposed residential uses could exceed 65 dB(A) CNEL; this would be a significant impact. The impact was addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increase impacts would result from the Plan Amendment. Single-event aircraft flyovers could result in excessive noise levels at new 4 residential uses within the Project Area. The impact would be significant, but has been addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increased impacts would occur. Cumulative traffic would result in on-site noise impacts to future residential uses along E1 Camino Real. This cumulative impact would be significant, but has been addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increased impacts would occur. MITIGATION: The nosie compatibility of future residential and other development in the Project Area will be assessed during individual project review. As a condition of individual residential project approvals in the project area, mitigation measures should be required as wan'anted to reduce noise levels in primary outdoor use areas to below 65 dB(A) CNEL and reduce interior noise levels to below 45 dB(A) CNEL in habitable rooms. In addition, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code establishes standards that apply to all new multi-family residential units in California. These standards require that all multi-family buildings to be located in areas where the existing noise level exceeds 60 dB(A) CNEL must have an acoustical study performed to identify acoustical measures that may be required in order to limit maximum interior noise levels to 45 dB(A) CNEL in any habitable room. As a condition of development approval and/or project assistance, all project-related residential projects in the project area should be designed to achieve the necessary exterior to interior noise reduction to meet the single- event criterion limits and the City's interior noise standard. This would require specific studies at the development stage for each individual project to outline the steps necessary to comply with the applicable standards. FINDINGS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the EIR. The identified mitigation measure applied on a project specific basis will reduce the potential for exposure to fugitive dust to a less than significant level. IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY: The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment would contribute toward an increase in VMTs than is greater than the increase in population and would not be consistent with the 1997 Clean Air Plan. The Plan Amendment would potentially result in additional toxic emissions. MITIGATION: The Plan Amendment includes the types of transit-oriented development projects that are encouraged in the Clean Air Plan, specifically the mixed-use, multi- family residential projects in the vicinity of the Hickey BART station. These transit- oriented features of the Plan Amendment will serve to partially mitigate the negative air quality impacts of the program. Future retail and commercial uses within the project area shall include an adequate buffer zone from adjacent residential uses. The dimensions of the buffer zone must ensure that the encroaching retail/commercial use does not expose adjacent residences to nuisance levels of odors or toxic emissions. Applicants of future development shall implement all applicable and feasible measures that are identified in Table 15 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Lighting for parking areas and other public areas shall utilize energy efficient fixtures and mechanical, computerized, or photo cell switching devices to reduce unnecessary energy usage. Sellers of new residential units and managers of new apartment buildings shall be required to distribute brochures and other relevant information published by BAAQMD or the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to new project area residents regarding the importance of reducing VMTs and related air quality impacts, as well as on local opportunities for public transit and rideshafing. FINDINGS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program which lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the SEIR, however, the program would still increase YMTs at a greater rate than population and would therefore be inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan. FURTHER IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY. Fugitive dust generated by construction and demolition activities under the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment could result in health and nuisance-type impacts in the immediate vicinity of individual construction sites. MITIGATION: The City shall condition approval of individual development proposals under the Redevelopment Plan on implementation of an appropriate dust abatement program, patterned after the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) approach described in the SEIR. In the case where a specific development proposal under the Redevelopment Plan would entail the demolition of a building containing asbestos materials, the City shall require that the project sponsor consult with BAAQMD staff concerning the specific requirements of BAAQMD. FINDINGS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the EIR. The identified mitigation measure applied on a project specific basis will reduce the potential for exposure to fugitive dust to a less than significant level. IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES. Updated studies have indicated that archaeological resources could be present on the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites. There is a proposed senior housing project and a fire station planned for those sites that may impact these resources. MITIGATION: Sites indicating archaeological resources should be recorded and additional fieldwork conducted to determine the exact location of resources. A Research Design should be developed to guide evaluation of the potential archaeological significance of the resources. The best available construction plans for specific projects should be scrutinized to assess potential impacts to the site and minimize adverse impacts. If archaeological deposits are found to be potentially significant, a mitigation 6 plan should be prepared to minimize impacts and guide mitigation efforts, including a data recovery program to include hand excavation of the deposits, laboratory analysis of recovered material and documentation in a technical report. FINDINGS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the program which may lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the SEIR, but there is evidence that these proposed mitigation measures may not be feasible. Accordingly, the impact on archaeological resources would still be significant. J:\WPl~MNRSW'~OSX001\Redevelopmen~EI Camino'~CEQA EX}I A.v,~l EXHIBIT B Less than Significant Environmental Impacts The City finds that all other impacts of the proposed project are not environmentally significant as documented in the SEIR and supported by evidence elsewhere in the record. In some cases, the SEIR suggests mitigations for impacts that are less than significant even without mitigation. CEQA does not require mitigation for less than significant impacts, nor does it require findings for mitigation measures proposed for less than significant impacts, therefore, no findings are made with respect to such mitigation measures. The City has determined that the SEIR is correct in all those instances where it states that impacts are less than significant. J:\W~PD~VfNRSW~405~001~RedevelopngnI~EI camm°\CC CEQA EXH B.wpd EXHIBIT C Findings Concerning Alternatives The SEIR as certified identifies a significant impact which cannot be reduced to less than significance through the application of mitigation measures. Where mitigation measures are not identified to avoid significant environmental impacts, the City as lead agency must review the SEIR project alternatives to determine if any of the feasible alternatives will avoid the unmitigated impacts. The City hereby finds that the alternatives analyzed in the EIR will not avoid the unmitigated significant impacts and/or are not feasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA § 21081(c) and CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6. The significant impacts of the Project include noise impacts, increased congestions at some local intersections, pedestrian safety impacts, regional air quality impacts, and impacts to archaeological resources. Project alternatives are identified and analyzed in DEIR Section VII and in the Responses to Comments. They include the No Project alternative, Alternative 2 -deletion of the Willow Gardens area, and Alternative 3 - the deletion of the E1 Camino Addition. As reflected in the SEIR analyses, only the No Project alternative eliminates all of the significant impacts of the Amended Plan as identified in the SEIR. No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative, in which the Amended Redevelopment Plan is not implemented, is the environmentally superior alternative because the impacts of the Amended Plan would not occur. However, the existing E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan would remain in effect and the environmental impacts identified in the 1993 EIR would still occur. Further, the City finds the No Project alternative infeasible because it would not achieve the City's objectives for the project. This alternative would not result in the upgrading and expansion of civic, cultural, and educational facilities, the upgrading and expansion of recreational areas and open space and would not assist in the revitalization of the Willow Gardens neighborhood. Alternative 2 - Elimination of the Willow Gardens Addition. This alternative would delete the Willow Gardens Addition from the proposed Amended Project Area. It is assumed that the remainder of the amended area would be included and developed. This alternative would result in similar traffic impacts to the Amended Plan as proposed, reduced construction noise impacts, similar traffic noise impacts, and identical cultural resources impacts. However, the City finds this alternative infeasible because one of the project objectives is the revitalization of the Willow Gardens neighborhood. This alternative would not meet that objective. Alternative 3 - Elimination of the E! Camino Addition. This alternative would eliminate the E1 Camino Addition from the Amended Plan Area. Part of this addition, the South San Francisco High School site, has already been recommended for deletion from the Amended Project Area by the Planning Commission. Under Alternative 3, the remainder of the El Camino Addition would be deleted as well. Under this alternative, traffic impacts at certain intersections would be reduced, construction impacts would be somewhat reduced, but would still occur in the remainder of the Project Area, and lower regional air emissions would result, but not enough to be consistent with the Clean Air Plan. Lastly, no development would occur on the Califomia Water Service Company site, thus reducing impacts on cultural resources. Barfing consideration of the No Project Alternative, this Alternative would be environmentally superior. However, this Alternative would not be feasible because none of the project objectives for the El Camino area would be met. There would be no presentation and creation of civic, cultural, and educational facilities and amenities as catalysts for area revitalization and recreational areas and open space would not be expanded. Further, none of the existing objectives for the existing Redevelopment Plan would be met in the E1 Camino Addition area. l:\WPD~iNl~Va405~001~Redevelopment\El Camino\CC CEQA EXH C.wpd 2 EXHIBIT D Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines SeCtion 15093, the City of South San Francisco makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City has balanced the benefits of the proposed E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment against the adverse impacts identified in the SEIR as significant and potentially significant that have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and the Project should be approved. The City has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project. The Redevelopment Plan will eliminate areas of blight within the City of South San Francisco and improve commercial, residential and industrial areas of the City. The City specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations which support approval of the Redevelopment Plan. Similarly, if any identified adverse or potentially adverse impact is not mitigated to insignificant levels, notwithstanding adopted findings that it is so mitigated, any residual impact is acceptable for specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations set forth below. The City further finds that any one of the overriding considerations identified hereinafter is sufficient basis to approve the project as mitigated. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are associated with the proposed project as identified in the SEIR: IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: Under the Amended Redevelopment Plan, a significant level of service impacts would occur in the A.M. peak hour at Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp, Evergreen Avenue/Hillside Boulevard intersection, Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue and in the P.M. peak hour at Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard, E1 Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue, Evergreen Avenue/Hillside Boulevard, and Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue. IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC SAFETY. The Plan Amendment would result in some pedestrian safety impacts as well as safety impacts related to excessive speeds along Evergreen Drive and the provision of driveways along Mission Road, Oak Avenue and El Camino Real. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS: The Amendment would result in short-term impacts related to construction noise. No new or increased impacts other than those studied in the 1993 EIR would occur under the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. NOISE IMPACTS. On-site noise levels along E1 Camino Real in the vicinity of proposed residential uses could exceed 65 dB(A) CNEL; this would be a significant impact. The impact was addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increase impacts would result from the Plan Amendment. Single-event aircraft flyovers could result in excessive noise levels at new residential uses within the Project Area. The impact would be significant, but has been addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increased impacts would occur. Cumulative traffic would result in on-site noise impacts to future residential uses along E1 Camino Real. This cumulative impact would be significant, but has been addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increased impacts would occur. IMPACTS ON REGIONAL AIR QUALITY: The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment would contribute toward an increase in VMTs than is greater than the increase in population and would not be consistent with the 1997 Clean Air Plan. The Plan Amendment would potentially result in additional toxic emissions. FURTHER IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITy. Fugitive dust generated by construction and demolition activities under the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment could result in health and nuisance-type impacts in the immediate vicinity of individual construction sites. IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES. Updated studies have indicated that archaeological resources could be present on the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites. There is a proposed senior housing project and a fire station planned for those sites that may impact these resources. The City has considered the public record of proceedings on the proposed project and does determine that the approval and implementation of the project would result in the following substantial public benefits: Social Considerations: Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating the social benefits which the City of South San Francisco would derive fi'om the implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Specifically, the Amended Plan will: a. Facilitate the development and redevelopment of blighted and underutilized properties in the Amended Area. b. Upgrade housing in the Amended Area. c. Provide public facilities and improvements in the Amended Area. Economic Considerations Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating the economic benefits which the City would derive fi.om implementation of the project. Specifically, the Project will provide tax increment financing to improve underutilized areas in the City. Such activities will improve property values throughout the Project Area. Other Considerations Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating other benefits which the Agency and the City would derive from implementation of the Project. Specifically, they include, provision of public improvements to improve circulation in the Project Area, rehabilitation of existing parcels and development of vacant parcels along El Camino Real, a proposed fire station and provision of open space, and the revitalization of the Willow Gardens housing area. l:\WPDXMNRSWh405XOOl\Redevelopment~EI Camino\CC CEQA EXH D.wpd 3 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15091, the following findings address the project's significant and potentially significant impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. In each case, the appropriate statutory finding includes an explanation of how identified mitigations lessen or avoid the related impact. Findings pursuant to § 21081 (c) concerning project alternatives are made in Exhibit C. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Reliance on Record. The findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Redevelopment Plan Amendment and the SEIR. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 2. Nature of Findings. Any finding made herein by the City shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by the City, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect, The City intends that if these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by the City with respect to any particular subject matter of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings. 3. Scope of Review. The SEIR is a supplement to a program EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The Redevelopment Plan and the Amendment is a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and is related as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions and in connection with the issuance of the Redevelopment Plan and Plan Amendment that will govern the conduct of the continuing redevelopment program. Subsequent activities in the redevelopment program will be examined in light of the program EIR and SEIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. 4. Limitations. The City's analysis and evaluation of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project of the scope and size of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the program will not exist. This practical limitation is acknowledged in CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 which states that "the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible." One of the major limitations on analysis ..... of the program is the City's lack of knowledge of future events, particularly those occurring outside the City of South San Francisco. In some instances, the City's analysis has had to rely on assumptions about such factors as growth and traffic generation in areas outside of the political boundaries of the City of South San Francisco. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework in which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. 5. Summaries of Facts, Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Alternatives, and other Matters. All summaries of information in the findings to follow are based on the SEIR, the Redevelopment Plan and Plan Amendment and/or other evidence in the record. Such summaries are not intended to be exhaustive recitations of all of the facts in the record upon which they are based. Moreover, the summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are only summaries. This document includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for the findings set forth below. Cross references to the SEIR and other evidence such as City Council or Agency actions have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the SEIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. Conflicting interpretations of the language of the SEIR and the language of mitigation conditions adopted by the Agency shall be resolved in favor of the latter as the most appropriate way to mitigate the impact in question. 6. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings address the numerous mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR for impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. Some of the mitigation measures are implemented by changes incorporated into the Plan Amendment and others by adoption of standards in the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. In its actions approving the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the City adopts those mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR that have not already been incorporated into the project except with respect to those that are rejected by the City in the specific findings as being infeasible or unnecessary. Where multiple mitigation measures are adopted for a single impact, all of the identified measures are required to support the related mitigation finding, unless otherwise specified. The City finds that all the Mitigation Measures now or previously incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan Amendment are desirable and feasible and shall be implemented in connection with the implementation of the program in accordance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. 7. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. The SEIR for the program recommended mitigation measures to reduce most of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects to insignificant levels. The City reviewed the SEIR and agrees with the SEIR conclusions. The City finds that to the extent any residual impact remains that has not been fully mitigated in those instances where the City finds that mitigation has occurred, the residual impact is overridden by the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided for in Exhibit D. 2 IMPACTS, MITIGATIONS AND MITIGATION FINDINGS IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: Under the Amended Redevelopment Plan, a significant level of service impacts would occur in the A.M. peak hour at Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp, Evergreen AvenuedI-Iillside Boulevard intersection, Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue and in the P.M. peak hour at Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard, El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue, Evergreen Avenue/Hillside Boulevard, and Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue. MITIGATION: For Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp, the mitigation measure is to provide a fair share contribution toward signalizing the intersection. For Evergreen Drive/Hillside Boulevard, there are no wan'anted improvements. For Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue, the mitigation measure is to provide a fair share contribution towards signalizing the intersection, restriping the eastbound Chestnut Avenue approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and an exclusive right turn lane, provide an exclusive left turn lane on the westbound Chestnut Avenue approach, and provide protected left turn signal phasing east-west (on Chestnut Avenue) and split signal phas.ing north-south. Provide a fair share contribution towards restriping the eastbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane, widen the westbound Hickey Boulevard approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane and restripe the existing shared left/through lane as an exclusive through lane, and change east-west signal phasing from split to protected phasing for left turrls. For El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue, provide a fair share contribution toward the following improvements: provide a second left turn lane on the southbound El Camino Real approach and eliminate the exclusive right mm lane on the southbound E1 Camino Real approach, maintain two exclusive southbound through lanes and provide a shared through/right turn lane. For Mission Road/Evergreen Drive/BART Access, provide a fair share contribution toward signalization of this intersection. For Mission Road/Grand Avenue, provide a fair share contribution toward signalization. FINDINGS: Because signalization at the intersection of Hillside Boulevard and Evergreen Drive is not warranted, impacts at that intersection would remain unavoidably significant. With regard to the other impacts mentioned above, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program which avoid or substantially 3 lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the SEIR. IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC SAFETY. The Plan Amendment would result in some pedestrian safety impacts as well as safety impacts related to excessive speeds along Evergreen Drive and the provision of driveways along Mission Road, Oak Avenue and El Camino Real. MITIGATION: Each project would minimize the number of driveways serving all new developments. Provide right turn deceleration areas on the El Camino Real approaches to new major driveways. Consider providing a continuous two-way left turn lane along Mission Road near Oak Street in location with major driveways lining both sides of the street. Increase speed enforcement along Evergreen Drive if speeding traffic becomes a problem due to the opening of the BART station. If regular speed enforcement is notan option, consider providing traffic calming measures along the street to reduce speeds. With regard to pedestrian safety, SamTrans buses should stop to let students off or pick students up on the high school side of Evergreen Drive (north side) and Mission Road (east side.) E1 Camino High School should regularly advise students to use crosswalks and not jaywalk. If this does not relieve mid-block crossings before or after school, the high school should consider fencing the grounds fronting on Mission Road and Evergreen Drive to channel students into and out of gates located near crosswalks. ..... FINDINGS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the SEIR. The identified mitigation measure applied on a project specific basis will reduce the potential for impacts on pedestrian and traffic safety. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS: The Amendment would result in short-term impacts related to construction noise. No new or increased impacts other than those studied in the 1993 EIR would occur under the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. MITIGATION: Each project development would be required to limit noise-generated construction activities, including truck traffic going to and from a site, limit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines, local stationary noise-generating equipment as far as practical from nearby existing residences, select quiet construction equipment, notify neighbors of the construction schedule, and designate a noise disturbance coordinator. FINDINGS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the program which lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the SEIR, but construction noise impacts would remain unavoidably significant. NOISE IMPACTS. On-site noise levels along El Camino Real in the vicinity of proposed residential uses could exceed 65 dB(A) CNEL; this would be a significant impact. The impact was addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increase impacts would result from the Plan Amendment. Single-event aircraft flyovers could result in excessive noise levels at new 4 residential uses within the Project Area. The impact would be significant, but has been addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increased impactS would occur. Cumulative traffic would result in on-site noise impacts to future residential uses along El Camino Real. This cumulative impact would be significant, but has been addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increased impacts would occur. MITIGATION: The nosie compatibility of future residential and other development in the Project Area will be assessed during individual project review. As a condition of individual residential project approvals in the project area, mitigation measures should be required as warranted to reduce noise levels in primary outdoor use areas to below 65 dB(A) CNEL and reduce interior noise levels to below 45 dB(A) CNEL in habitable rooms. In addition, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code establishes standards · · that apply to all new multi-family residential units in California. These standards require that all multi-family buildings to be located in areas where the existing noise level exceeds 60 dB(A) CNEL must have an acoustical study performed to identify acoustical measures that may be required in order to limit maximum interior noise levels to 45 dB(A) CNEL in any habitable room. As a condition of development approval and/or project assistance, all project-related residential projects in the project area should be designed to achieve the necessary exterior to interior noise reduction to meet the single- event criterion limits and the City's interior noise standard. This would require specific studies at the development stage for each individual project to outline the steps necessary to comply with the applicable standards. FINDINGS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the EIR. The identified mitigation measure applied on a project specific basis will reduce the potential for exposure to fugitive dust to a less than significant level. IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY: The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment would contribute toward an increase in VMTs than is greater than the increase in population and would not be consistent with the 1997 Clean Air Plan. The Plan Amendment would potentially result in additional toxic emissions. MITIGATION: The Plan Amendment includes the types of transit-oriented development projects that are encouraged in the Clean Air Plan, specifically the mixed-use, multi- family residential projects in the vicinity of the Hickey BART station. These transit- oriented features of the Plan Amendment will serve to partially mitigate the negative air quality impacts of the program. Future retail and commercial uses within the project area shall include an adequate buffer zone from adjacent residential uses. The dimensions of the buffer zone must ensure that the encroaching retail/commercial use does not expose adjacent residences to nuisance levels of odors or toxic emissions. Applicants of furore development shall implement all applicable and feasible measures that are identified in Table 15 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Lighting for parking areas and other public areas shall utilize energy efficient fixtures and mechanical, computerized, or photo cell switching devices to reduce unnecessary energy usage. Sellers of new residential units and managers of new apartment buildings shall be required to distribute brochures and other relevant information published by BAAQMD or the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to new project area residents regarding the importance of reducing VMTs and related .air quality impacts, as well as on local opportunities for public transit and ridesharing. FINDINGS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program which lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the SEIR, however, the program would still increase VMTs at a greater rate than population and would therefore be inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan. FURTHER IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY. Fugitive dust generated by construction and demolition activities under the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment could result in health and nuisance-type impacts in the immediate vicinity of individual construction sites. MITIGATION: The City shall condition approval of individual development proposals under the Redevelopment Plan on implementation of an appropriate dust abatement program, patterned after the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) approach described in the SEIR. In the case where a specific development proposal under the Redevelopment Plan would entail the demolition of a building containing asbestos materials, the City shall require that the project sponsor consult with BAAQMD staff concerning the specific requirements of BAAQMD. FINDINGS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Program which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the EIR. The identified mitigation measure applied on a project specific basis will reduce the potential for exposure to fugitive dust to a less than significant level. IMPACTS ON CULTUR. AL RESOURCES. Updated studies have indicated that archaeological resources could be present on the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites. There is a proposed senior housing project and a fire station planned for those sites that may impact these resources. MITIGATION: Sites indicating archaeological resources should be recorded and additional fieldwork conducted to determine the exact location of resources. A Research Design should be developed to guide evaluation of the potential archaeological significance of the resources. The best available construction plans for specific projects should be scrutinized to assess potential impacts to the site and minimize adverse impacts. If archaeological deposits are found to be potentially significant, a mitigation plan should be prepared to minimize impacts and guide mitigation efforts, including a data recovery program to include hand excavation of the deposits, laboratory analysis of recovered material and documentation in a technical report. FINDINGS: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the program which may lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in the SEIR, but there is evidence that these proposed mitigation measures may not be feasible. Accordingly, the impact on archaeological resources would still be significant. 7 EXHIBIT B Less than Significant Environmental Impacts The City finds that all other impacts of the proposed project are not environmentally significant as documented in the SEIR and supported by evidence elsewhere in the record. In some cases, the SEIR suggests mitigations for impacts that are less than significant even without mitigation. CEQA does not require mitigation for less than significant impacts, nor does it require findings for mitigation measures proposed for less than significant impacts, therefore, no findings are made with respect to such mitigation measures. The City has determined that the SEIR is correct in all those instances where it states that impacts are less than significant. $:XWPD~ll~WM05~O01~Redevelopmea61~l Camlno~C C~QA raxH B~wgd EXHIBIT C Findings Concerning Alternatives The SEIR as certified identifies a significant impact which cannot be reduced to less than significance through the application of mitigation measures. Where mitigation measures are not identified to avoid significant environmental impacts, the City as lead agency must review the SEIR project alternatives to determine if any of the feasible alternatives will avoid the unmitigated impacts. The City hereby finds that the alternatives analyzed in the EIR will not avoid the unmitigated significant impacts and/or are not feasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA § 21081(c) and CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6. The significant impacts of the Project include noise impacts, increased congestions at some local intersections, pedestrian safety impacts, regional air quality impacts, and impacts to archaeological resources. Project alternatives are identified and analyzed in DEIR Section VII and in the Responses to Comments. They include the No Project alternative, Alternative 2 -deletion of the Willow Gardens area, and Alternative 3 - the deletion of the E1 Camino Addition. As reflected in the SEIR analyses, only the No Project alternative eliminates all of the significant impacts of the Amended Plan as identified in the SEIR. No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative, in which the Amended Redevelopment Plan is not implemented, is the environmentally superior alternative because the impacts of the Amended Plan would not occur. However, the existing El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan would remain in effect and the environmental impacts identified in the 1993 EIR would still occur. Further, the City finds the No Project alternative infeasible because it would not achieve the City's objectives for the project. This alternative would not result in the upgrading and expansion of civic, cultural, and educational facilities, the upgrading and expansion of recreational areas and open space and would not assist in the revitalization of the Willow Gardens neighborhood. Alternative 2 - Elimination of the Willow Gardens Addition. This alternative would delete the Willow Gardens Addition from the proposed Amended Project Area. It is assumed that the remainder of the amended area would be included and developed. This alternative would result in similar traffic impacts to the Amended Plan as proposed, reduced construction noise impacts, similar traffic noise impacts, and identical cultural resources impacts. However, the City finds this alternative infeasible because one of the project objectives is the revitalization of the Willow Gardens neighborhood. This alternative would not meet that objective. Alternative 3 - Elimination of the E! Camino Addition. This alternative would eliminate the El Camino Addition from the Amended Plan Area. Part of this addition, the South San Francisco High School site, has already been recommended for deletion from the Amended Project Area by the Planning Commission. Under Alternative 3, the remainder of the E1 Camino Addition would be deleted as well. Under this alternative, traffic impacts at certain intersections would be reduced, construction impacts would be somewhat reduced, but would still occur in the remainder of thc Project Area, and lower regional air emissions would result, but not enough to be consistent with thc Clean Air Plan. Lastly, no development would occur on the California Water Service Company site, thus reducing impacts on cultural resources. Barring consideration of the No Project Alternative, this Alternative would be environmentally superior. However, this Alternative would not be feasible because none of the project objectives for the El Camino area would bc met. There would be no presentation and creation of civic, cultural, and educational facilities and amenities as catalysts for area revitalization and recreational areas and open space would not be expanded. Further, none of the existing objectives for the existing Redevelopment Plan would be met in the E1 Camino Addition area. J:\W]~I:~MI~TILSW~405~001~R~dcvcIopn~-nI~EI CarninoXCC (:t~qk F.,XH C.wlXl EXHIBIT D Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City of South San Francisco makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City has balanced the benefits of the proposed El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment against the adverse impacts identified in the SEIR as significant and potentially significant that have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and the Project should be approved. The City has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project. The Redevelopment Plan will eliminate areas of blight within the City of South San Francisco and improve commercial, residential and industrial areas of the City. The City specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations which support approval of the Redevelopment Plan. Similarly, if any identified adverse or potentially adverse impact is not mitigated to insignificant levels, notwithstanding adopted findings that it is so mitigated, any residual impact is acceptable for specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations set forth below. The City further finds that any one of the overriding considerations identified hereinafter is sufficient basis to approve the project as mitigated. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are associated with the proposed project as identified in the SEIR: IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: Under the Amended Redevelopment Plan, a significant level of service impacts would occur in the A.M. peak hour at Avalon Drive/I-280 Southbound On-Ramp, Evergreen Avenue/Hillside Boulevard intersection, Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue and in the P.M. peak hour at Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard, E1 Camino Real/Westbomugh Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue, Evergreen Avenue/Hillside Boulevard, and Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue. IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC SAFETY. The Plan Amendment would result in some pedestrian safety impacts as well as safety impacts related to excessive speeds along Evergreen Drive and the provision of driveways along Mission Road, Oak Avenue and E1 Camino Real. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS: The Amendment would result in short-term impacts related to construction noise. No new or increased impacts other than those studied in the 1993 EIR would occur under the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. NOISE IMPACTS. On-site noise levels along El Camino Real in the vicinity of proposed residential uses could exceed 65 dB(A) CNEL; this would be a significant impact. The impact was addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increase impacts would result from the Plan Amendment. Single-event aircrat~ flyovers could result in excessive noise levels at new residential uses within the Project Area. The impact would be significant, but has been addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increased impacts would occur. Cumulative traffic would result in on-site noise impacts to future residential uses along El Camino Real. This cumulative impact would be significant, but has been addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increased impacts would occur. IMPACTS ON REGIONAL AIR QUALITY: The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment would contribute toward an increase in VMTs than is greater than the increase in population and would not be consistent with the 1997 Clean Air Plan. The Plan Amendment would potentially result in additional toxic emissions. FURTHER IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITy. Fugitive dust generated by construction and demolition activities under the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment could result in health and nuisance-type impacts in the immediate vicinity of individual construction sites. IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES. Updated studies have indicated that archaeological resources could be present on the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites. There is a proposed senior housing project and a fire station planned for those sites that may impact these resources. The City has considered the public record of proceedings on the proposed project and does determine that the approval and implementation of the project would result in the following substantial public benefits: Social Considerations: Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating the social benefits which the City of South San Francisco would derive from the implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Specifically, the Amended Plan will: a. Facilitate the development and redevelopment of blighted and underutilized properties in the Amended Area. b. Upgrade housing in the Amended Area. c. Provide public facilities and improvements in the Amended Area. 2 Economic Considerations Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating the economic benefits which the City would derive from implementation of the project. Specifically, the Project will provide tax increment financing to improve underutilized areas in the City. Such activities will improve property values throughout the Project Area. Other Considerations Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating other benefits which the Agency and the City would derive from implementation of the Project. Specifically, they include, provision of public improvements to improve circulation in the Project Area, rehabilitation of' existing parcels and development of vacant parcels along E1 Camino Real, a proposed fire station and provision of open space, and the revitalization of the Willow Gardens housing area. J:~V~I~vflqR~WMI05~001 ~R~'wlopm~t~EI C~n~o~C: C:EQA EXH D.wpd 3 ~[~ o[~ c o ~