Reso 23-09 PC Reso 0034 Reso Recommending CEQA Approval - 505 E. Bayshore

Browse Search

ATTY/RESO.0034/PC RESO RECOMMENDING CEQA APPROVAL – 505 E. BAYSHORE – EXHIBIT A REV: 05-12-23 JB Page 23 of 30 Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures TRN-1.1 and TRN-2.1 will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP. Findings Regarding Impact TRN-2. The City Council hereby finds that incorporating the requirements of Mitigation Measure TRN 1.1 and TRN-2.1 into the Project would sufficiently reduce Impact TRN-C such that these potential impacts would be less than significant, because mitigation measure TRN 1.1 requires on-street improvements along the project frontage to incorporate the planned bicycle lanes on E. Bayshore Road. And mitigation measure TRN 2.1 requires the development of a TDM plan to demonstrate that VMT associated with the project is reduced to a level less than or equal to 10.5 miles per capita. This finding is based on the entire record of proceedings for the Project, including but not limited to the discussion and analysis set forth on pages 184 through 197 of the DEIR, which includes a full statement of the impact and applicable mitigation measures and is hereby incorporated herein in its entirety. C. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives Through the environmental review process, the City identified the following potential Project alternatives for consideration: Location Alternative In considering an alternative location in an EIR, the CEQA Guidelines advise that the key question is “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location.” The proposed project is a high-residential development on East Bayshore Road. It is not likely that an alternative location within this area of Redwood City would substantially lessen the identified impacts, other than those related to biological resources. A site not near the bay and tidal habitats would likely avoid the project’s impacts on biological resources and avoid the need for mitigation noted above. As a private development project proposed by a private applicant, the consideration of alternative locations is tempered by the fact the applicant has control over the current proposed site and may not be able to obtain control of another location, unlike a public agency, which may employ eminent domain to acquire a site. For these reasons, an alternative location is not considered further. No Project Alternatives The CEQA Guidelines [Section 15126(d)4] require an EIR specifically include a “No Project” alternative. The purpose of including a No Project alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project. The Guidelines specifically advise that the No Project alternative is “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project is not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” [Section 15126.6(e)(2)] The Guidelines emphasize that an EIR should take a practical approach, and not “…create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment [Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B)].”