Laserfiche WebLink
Findings and Statements Required by the California Environmental Quality Act <br />Focused General Plan Update 53 <br />Final Environmental Impact Report January 2023 <br />programs and would result in reduced less-than-significant impacts compared to the Project due to <br />the reduced development potential. <br />With regard to land use and planning, the RHNA +15% Residential Buffer Alternative <br />would be similar to the Project and would not physically divide an established community. The <br />potential development is consistent with the Plan Bay Area 2050 as it meets RHNA (the base for <br />the Plan’s growth projection). This alternative’s impacts are similar to the Project and would remain <br />less-than-significant. <br />With regard to mineral resources, the Planning Area is designated as having little potential <br />for development of mineral resources. The RHNA +15% Residential Buffer Alternative would <br />have a similar no impact on mineral resources when compared with the Project. <br />With regard to noise, mitigation measures would still be required for development to ensure <br />that train ground vibration and vibration noise is mitigated for residential projects within 200’ and <br />commercial projects within 120’ of the rail track. However, fewer units will be impacted train <br />ground shaking and noise, and this alternative would result in reduced less-than-significant impacts <br />compared to the Project due to the decreased development potential. <br />With regard to population and housing, the RHNA +15% Residential Buffer Alternative <br />would result in a decreased number of potential housing units and population growth compared to <br />the Project. although the development potential would continue to satisfy RHNA. Given the <br />reduction in population and housing potential, this alternative would also continue to satisfy the <br />Plan Bay Area 2050 but not as well as the Project. This alternative would result in a similar less- <br />than-significant impact, when compared to the Project. <br />With regard to public services, the RHNA +15% Residential Buffer Alternative would <br />result in decreased development potential and a decreased number of residents, resulting in lower <br />demand for public services compared to the Project. The decreased development potential and <br />decreased number of residents is anticipated to result in less demand for public services compared <br />to the Project. This alternative’s public service impacts, when compared with the Project, would be <br />reduced, and remain less-than-significant. <br />With regard to recreation, although the RHNA +15% Residential Buffer Alternative would <br />result in a reduced number of potential housing units and associated population growth, which <br />would result in less demand for recreational facilities compared to the Project, any residential <br />development project will be required to provide a dedication of parkland or pay the in-lieu park <br />fees. As such, the RHNA +15% Alternative would result in reduced less-than-significant impacts <br />than the Project due to the decreased development potential. <br />With regard to transportation, although the RHNA +15% Residential Buffer Alternative <br />reduces the development potential, and the alternative would result in similar less-than-significant <br />impacts compared to the project; however, because the potential residential units are located <br />throughout Redwood City, the VMT impact under the alternative, though somewhat reduced, <br />would remain significant and unavoidable.