Laserfiche WebLink
Findings and Statements Required by the California Environmental Quality Act <br />Focused General Plan Update 49 <br />Final Environmental Impact Report January 2023 <br />shaking would be reduced, and noise impacts compared with the Project would be reduced but still <br />remain less-than-significant with mitigation. <br />With regard to population and housing, the No Project Alternative has a reduced potential <br />of residential development and population growth compared to the Project; this alternative’s <br />impacts, when compared with the Project, would be reduced and remain less-than-significant. <br />With regard to public services, No Project Alternative would result in decreased <br />development potential and a decreased number of residents, resulting in lower demand for public <br />services compared to the Project. The No Project Alternative’s public service impacts, when <br />compared with the Project, would be reduced, and would remain less-than-significant. <br />With regard to recreation, although the No Project Alternative would result in a reduced <br />number of potential housing units and associated population growth, which would result in less <br />demand for recreational facilities compared to the Project, any residential development project will <br />be required to provide a dedication of parkland or pay the in-lieu park fees. As such, the No Project <br />Alternative would result in reduced less-than-significant impacts than the Project due to the <br />decreased development potential. <br />With regard to transportation, although the No Project Alternative reduces the development <br />potential, the potential residential units are located throughout Redwood City and as such, increased <br />VMT would continue under the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would result in <br />a reduced VMT impact, compared to the project, however, the impact would remain significant and <br />unavoidable. <br />With regard to tribal cultural resources, compliance with existing regulations would ensure <br />that potential impact would be reduced both for the Project and the No Project Alternative; <br />therefore, this alternative would result in a similar less-than-significant impact when compared to <br />the Project. <br />With regard to utilities and service systems, the Project will have a less-than-significant <br />impacts related to sewer/wastewater treatment, storm drainage, and other utility services, and would <br />not require nor result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater <br />treatment of storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. The <br />Project will not have an impact on water supply. The Project would also not generate solid waste <br />in excess of State or local standards nor in excess of local infrastructure capacity, would not impair <br />attaining solid waste reduction goals, and would comply with federal, state, and local solid waste <br />management/reduction statutes and regulations. The No Project Alternative would result in a <br />decrease in residential development potential compared to the Project, therefore, the demand for <br />utilities and their service systems would be reduced as well and this alternative would result in <br />fewer impacts than the Project, though all would remain less than significant. <br />With regard to wildfire impacts, existing General Plan policies, including identifying <br />special on-site fire protection measures during project review, would continue to apply, however, <br />the additional wildfire policies contained within the proposed Public Safety Element would not be