Reso23-14 Reso 0048 PC23-14 PC Reso Recommending Certification of the SEIR GP & DTPP

Browse Search

Findings and Statements Required by the California Environmental Quality Act Redwood City DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments 56 ESA / 202100421.01 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report May 2023 Amendments, and would be similarly reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3a, AQ-3b, and AQ-3c. Subsequent development proposed under the Altered Land Use Mix Alternative would not include any major sources of odor, and therefore odor impacts would be less than significant, as with the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure CC-1, the proposed DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments could result in significant impacts on climate change because the City’s Reach Codes allow limited exceptions to the requirement for all-electric buildings (i.e., no natural gas). significant cumulative climate change impacts as with the project. Mitigation Measure CC-1 would apply to this alternative, but Impacts CC-1, CC-2, and C-CC-1 are considered significant and unavoidable, as with the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments. With the same land uses at a reduced intensity, compared to the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments, the Altered Land Use Mix Alternative could result in similar, albeit somewhat lesser, construction noise impacts as the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments, and these impacts would likewise be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure NO-1. With the same land uses at a reduced intensity in at least some of the same locations as with the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments, the Altered Land Use Mix Alternative could result in similar, albeit somewhat lesser, building equipment noise impacts as the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments; these impacts would likewise be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure NO-2. Like the proposed DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments, as this alternative would generate approximately 5 percent fewer daily vehicle trips than with the proposed DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments. With the same land uses at a reduced intensity, compared to the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments, the Altered Land Use Mix Alternative could result in similar, albeit somewhat lesser, construction- generated vibration impacts as the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments, and these impacts would likewise be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure NO-3. Effects related to airport noise would be less than significant with this alternative, as with the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments. With the same land uses at a reduced intensity, compared to the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments, the Altered Land Use Mix Alternative would have less-than-significant impacts with respect to population and housing, as with the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments. Regarding jobs/housing balance—although not explicitly identified as a topic for consideration under CEQA—the Altered Land Use Mix Alternative would have a lesser ratio of jobs to employed residents as would the proposed project (1.6 vs. 4.1), because it would reduce office space by almost 50 percent while increasing the number of residential units by approximately one-third compared to the proposed DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments. With the same land uses at a reduced intensity in at least some of t he same locations as with the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments, the Altered Land Use Mix Alternative would likewise have less-than-significant impacts with respect to public services (police, fire, and emergency medical services; parks and recreational facilities; schools; and libraries) as would the DTPP Plan- Wide Amendments.