|
<br />
<br />
<br />31
<br />b. There are no agriculturally zoned land uses or Williamson Act contracts in the vicinity of the Commercial Component
<br />(DTPP program EIR p. 18-4). The DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR (p. 18-7) concurred with the DTPP
<br />EIR conclusion. Because there are still no agriculturally zoned land uses or Williamson Act contracts in the vicinity,
<br />the Commercial Component would not conflict with any agricultural zoning use or a Williamson Act contract. For
<br />these reasons, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed Commercial Component and it would be consistent
<br />with the analysis in the EIR/SEIR. It would not create new impacts or increase impacts, and there is no new information
<br />of substantial importance for CEQA purposes.
<br />c. and d. The EIR/SEIR noted that there is no forest land nor are there timberland resources in Redwood City. (DTPP
<br />program EIR p. 18-4, SEIR p. 18-7.) The City’s “urban forest” is comprised of a street tree system, trees on parks and
<br />other public lands, and trees on private properties and in yards throughout the city, particularly in older neighborhoods.
<br />The DTPP area is fully urbanized, is not zoned for forest land or timberland, and does not contain any such lands.
<br />There are no conflicts with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production, nor is there cause
<br />for rezoning of any such land, and no impact would occur as a result of the proposed Commercial Component. Because
<br />the Commercial Component would not have impacts on forest land or timberland resources, it would be consistent
<br />with the analysis within the EIR/SEIR. It would not create new impacts, or increase impacts, and there is no new
<br />information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes.
<br />e. As noted above, the EIR/SEIR specified there are no agricultural, or forest land resources in the DTPP or vicinity and
<br />there was no impact on these resources. Because there are no current or planned agricultural or forest land activities
<br />in the vicinity of the Commercial Component, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed 901 El Camino Real
<br />project component. This is consistent with the analysis within the EIR/SEIR. It would not create new impacts or
<br />increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes.
<br /> CONCLUSION
<br />With regards to the issue area of Agricultural / Forestry Resources, the following findings can be made: (1) no peculiar
<br />impacts to the Commercial component or its site have been identified, (2) there are no potentially significant effects
<br />or off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the EIR/SEIR, (3) no substantial new information
<br />has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the EIR/SEIR, and (4) no
<br />mitigation measures contained within the EIR/SEIR would be required because the project component specific impacts
<br />would be less than significant. For these reasons, the agricultural / forestry resources impacts of the proposed
<br />Commercial Component would be consistent with the impacts identified in the EIR/SEIR and this project component
<br />does not require additional environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
<br />
<br />Housing Component:
<br />a. No agricultural uses are located in the Focused GPU planning area, and the area does not contain any Prime Farmland,
<br />Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance; the Focused GPU planning area does not include any existing
<br />agricultural land uses and includes mostly urban/suburban uses, except for designated park areas (Focused GPU
<br />program EIR p. 4.2-1). The Focused GPU EIR therefore concluded that there would be no impact of development in
<br />the Focused GPU planning area.
<br />As before, there are no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of statewide Importance in the Focused GPU
<br />planning area. The Housing Component is located in a built-out urban environment and would not convert farmland
<br />to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur as a result of the proposed Housing Component. For these reasons,
<br />this component would be consistent with the analysis in the Focused GPU EIR and would not create new impacts,
<br />increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes.
<br />b. There are no agriculturally zoned land uses or Williamson Act contracts in the vicinity of the project component
<br />(Focused GPU program EIR p. 4.2-1). Because there are still no agriculturally zoned land uses or Williamson Act
<br />contracts in the vicinity, the Housing Component would not conflict with any agricultural zoning use or a Williamson
<br />Act contract. For these reasons, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed Housing Component and it would
<br />be consistent with the analysis in the EIR/SEIR. It would not create new impacts, or increase impacts, and there is no
<br />new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes.
<br />c. and d. The Focused GPU EIR noted that there is no forest land nor are there timberland resources in Redwood City.
<br />The City’s “urban forest” is comprised of a street tree system, trees on parks and other public lands, and trees on
<br />private properties and in yards throughout the city, particularly in older neighborhoods. The Focused GPU planning
<br />area does not include any portions dedicated to the conservation and protection of forestry resources, including any
<br />forest land or timberland, and does not contain any such lands (Focused GPU program EIR p. 4.2-1). There are no
<br />conflicts with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production, nor is there cause for rezoning of
<br />ATTY/RESO.0028/CC RESO CEQA GUIDLINES (920 SHASTA) - EXHIBIT A
<br />REV: 04-22-25 VR
<br />
<br />Page 31 of 148
|