Res10 15059 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10/11/2010 Attachment 1.A density growth in the existing urban core (which contains all of Redwood City) to alternatives that could spread growth outside of the City limits, and thereby spread potential impacts outside of the geographic scope of the instant project. Put another way, adopting land use designations in Redwood City that would accommodate more growth in higher densities in existing urban areas may, from a more regional perspective, be considered environmentally superior to limiting densities in the existing urbanized areas and requiring growth to be relocated to less urbanized areas. (See, e.g., Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Housing Needs Plan 2007 -2014, June 2008; California Performance Review Commission, A Government for the People for a Change: Prescription for Change, August 2004) Alternative 2 would not be expected to avoid or substantially reduce any of the New General Plan's potentially significant and unavoidable impacts. Specifically, Alternative 2 would pose the same potential conflict with BAAQMD air quality planning efforts as the New General Plan (see DEIR at p. 5 -19), and the slight decrease in development under Alternative 2 would not result in a significant reduction in vehicle trips or vehicle miles traveled (see DEIR at p. 5 -23). Although Alternative 2 would generate slightly less demand for water supplies than the New General Plan, the slight reduction in demand would not be sufficient to balance the City's demands with its anticipated available supplies, so Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially reduce this potentially significant impact. (see DEIR at 5 -17 (Table 5 -2)) And Alternative 2 would retain all the policies and programs of the New General Plan to address rising sea level (see DEIR at p. 4.8 -24, New General Plan at pp. PS -5 to PS -6, PS -12 to PS -13, PS -15 to PS -18, PS- 28 to PS -33, PS -51 to PS -52, PS -55, and PS -58 to PS -63), and would not change the land use patterns proposed by the New General Plan enough to avoid or substantially lessen the potential effects of rising sea levels, so Alternative 2 would be expected to result in similar impacts in that regard (see DEIR at 5 -23). Alternative 2 would not be expected to achieve the City's goals and objectives for the Project to the same degree as the New General Plan. To the extent that Alternative 2 is expected to produce less housing and employment growth, Alternative 2 would not achieve the City goals relating to housing availability and job - production to the same degree as the New General Plan. Alternative 2 would implement all the same policies and programs relating to sustainability, historic preservation and community character, alternative transportation, and neighborhood and community participation in community development and government that would be implemented by the New General Plan. As a result, Alternative 2 would be expected to achieve the City's related goals and objectives to the nearly the same degree as the New General Plan, although the slightly reduced level of development anticipated under Alternative 2 could result in slightly lower fee revenues that might be used to implement infrastructure improvements, public facilities and programs and services contemplated by these policies and objectives. Because Alternative 2 would not be expected to substantially reduce or avoid any of the potentially significant effects that are expected from the mitigated New General Plan, and because Alternative 2 would not achieve the City's goals and objectives for the Project to AM /RESO /RESO.2055 /ATTACHMENT1.A 35 #15059 10/13/10 MUFF # 601