|
<br />
<br />
<br />12
<br />
<br />Previous CEQA Analysis and Purpose of CEQA Guidelines § 15183 Consistency
<br />Checklist
<br />901 El Camino Real Commercial Component: Previous CEQA Analysis and Purpose of
<br />CEQA Guidelines §15183 Consistency Checklist:
<br />On January 24, 2011, a program environmental impact report (EIR) was certified by the
<br />City Council of Redwood City (Final Environmental Impact Report for the Redwood City
<br />Downtown Precise Plan, State Clearinghouse #2006052027), pursuant to the California
<br />Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council adopted the DTPP as a Planned
<br />Community District pursuant to Article 52 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which
<br />established new land use, development, and urban design regulations for the 183-acre
<br />DTPP area for a 20-year planning period. The EIR analyzed the potential environmental
<br />impacts resulting from implementation of the DTPP, as well as mitigation measures and
<br />alternatives.
<br />The EIR was a “program” EIR in that it studied a plan for the future development of the
<br />Downtown area, rather than, for example, a specific development on a particular parcel for
<br />which a developer sought land use entitlements. (See DTPP program EIR, pp. 1-2 and 3-
<br />1; see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[a] [“A program EIR is an EIR which may be
<br />prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project”].) However,
<br />rather than provide general analysis regarding a broad policy document, the DTPP EIR
<br />provided in-depth analysis regarding potentially significant impacts, mitigation measures,
<br />and alternatives related to the City’s plans for future development of the Downtown area.
<br />On June 26, 2023, a programmatic subsequent environmental impact report (SEIR) was
<br />certified by the City Council of Redwood City (Final Redwood City DTPP Plan-Wide
<br />Amendments Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse #
<br />2021090249), pursuant to CEQA. The City Council adopted the DTPP Plan-Wide
<br />Amendments, which further amended the DTPP adopted in 2011 and amended in 2012,
<br />2013, 2016, 2018, and 2022, to revise development Standards, Guidelines, and policies
<br />related to permitted or conditionally permitted land uses, streets and circulation (including
<br />pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation), building placement, building height and
<br />massing, parking requirements, historical resources, and open space. The SEIR analyzed
<br />the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the DTPP
<br />amendments, as well as mitigation measures and alternatives.
<br />In addition, the SEIR evaluated the potential for additional office and residential
<br />development in the DTPP area to accommodate six proposed Gatekeeper projects, one of
<br />which was 901 El Camino Real, and additional development potential in the DTPP area.
<br />As a programmatic CEQA evaluation, the SEIR evaluated the overall effects of the
<br />proposed amendments to the DTPP, including proposed increases in office and residential
<br />development caps, policy changes, and potential expansion of the DTPP area. The
<br />proposed increases in office and residential caps took into account 901 El Camino Real,
<br />which at the time comprised a six-story building with approximately 259,000 square feet
<br />of office space, an 8,000 square-foot teen center, 3,000 square feet of ground-floor retail,
<br />and about 23,200 square feet of public open space (Chrysanthemum Plaza and reconfigured
<br />open space in the general location of the existing Little River Park, which would be
<br />eliminated). The land exchange as described earlier in this “8. Description of Project,”
<br />realignment of the street grid by extending Franklin Street north from James Avenue to the
<br />intersection of Winklebleck and California Streets, closing California Street west of
<br />Winklebleck Street, and closing Winklebleck Street south of California Street, and the
<br />removal of existing Little River Park were also part of the original concept described in the
<br />ATTY/RESO.0028/CC RESO CEQA GUIDLINES (920 SHASTA) - EXHIBIT A
<br />REV: 04-22-25 VR
<br />
<br />Page 12 of 148
|