Laserfiche WebLink
Legend. Applicant = project applicant, City = City of Redwood City <br />Page 51 May 18, 2004 WP9.016451MMCHT.645 <br />Mu,41TORING <br />VERIFIt;ATION <br />IDENTIFIED IMPACT <br />RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE <br />Impl. <br />Type of Impl. <br />Monitoring and <br />Timing <br />Signature <br />Date <br />(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) <br />Entity <br />Action <br />Verification Entity <br />Requirements <br />than 150 feet away from an access <br />point (such that fire hoses do not have <br />to extend over 150 feet). <br />Piers, wharves, or floats more than 250 <br />feet from fire apparatus access shall be <br />provided with an approved wet <br />standpipe system. <br />The City may consider other alternatives to <br />these requirements if it determines that such <br />alternatives are feasible and such access <br />will not jeopardize emergency response. <br />Implementation of these measures would <br />reduce this impact to a less -than- <br />significant level. <br />Impact 10 -7: Emergency Access Impacts. <br />Mitigation 10 -7. As a condition of tentative <br />Applicant <br />Design project per <br />City <br />Prior to tentative <br />The project has the potential to conflict with <br />subdivision map approval, require (a) City <br />Fire Dept. <br />map approval <br />RCFD standards for road design (e.g., 20 feet <br />review and approval of the proposed <br />standards or City - <br />of unobstructed width and 45- foot/22 -foot <br />tentative subdivision map, and (b) <br />approved <br />minimum outside and inside turning radii, <br />demonstration by the applicant that the <br />equivalent <br />respectively). Any potential conflicts with <br />project complies with all applicable City of <br />alternatives. <br />RCFD road design standards could cause <br />Redwood City and RCFD road design and <br />emergency access deficiencies, representing <br />emergency access standards. The City <br />a potentially significant impact. <br />may consider other alternatives to these <br />requirements if it determines that such <br />alternatives are feasible and such access <br />will not jeopardize emergency response. <br />Implementation of this measure would <br />reduce the impact to a less -than- <br />significant level. <br />Impact 10 -8: Project Impacts on Parks and <br />Mitigation 10 -8. Implement one of the <br />Recreation Services. The new residents <br />following two alternative measures: <br />resulting from the project's 1,930 -unit <br />residential component would increase the <br />(1) If the Parks, Recreation and <br />(1) Appli- <br />(1) Comply with <br />(1) City <br />(1) Prior to GPA/ <br />demand for local parks and recreational <br />Community Services Department <br />cant <br />Strategic Plan <br />Precise Plan/ <br />services. The City of Redwood City has not <br />Strategic Plan currently being <br />provisions; or <br />Design Review <br />adopted a citywide parks standard, however, <br />formulated by the City is adopted prior <br />(Architectural) <br />in order to maintain the City's current parks <br />to approval of the project - requested <br />Permit/or <br />ratio of 1.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 <br />General Plan Amendment, Precise <br />subdivision map <br />residents, approximately 6.8 acres of <br />Plan, Design Review (Architectural) <br />approval <br />Legend. Applicant = project applicant, City = City of Redwood City <br />Page 51 May 18, 2004 WP9.016451MMCHT.645 <br />