Reso25 16298 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

67 Community Development and Transportation Department), in coordination with a qualified paleontologist, assess individual development proposals for the potential to destroy unique paleontological resources and to determine provisions to protect such resources when applicable, possibly including complete avoidance of the resources, in-place preservation, and/or data recovery as detailed in Mitigation Measure 7-1. The DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR (pp. 16-13 and 16-14) concurred with the DTPP EIR conclusion and includes Mitigation Measure GEO-6, which restates Mitigation Measure 7-5 from the DTPP Final EIR with minor text revisions (“clarifying amendments”). Therefore, this impact was found to be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation. The proposed Commercial Component would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known (recorded) paleontological resources in the project component vicinity. Nevertheless, it would be subject to Mitigation Measure GEO-6, which shall be required as a condition of project approval and would reduce the potential impacts of the project component on paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the Commercial Component is consistent with the analysis in the EIR/SEIR because it would not create new impacts or increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. CONCLUSION With regards to the issue area of Geology and Soils, the following findings can be made: (1) no peculiar impacts to the Commercial Component or its site have been identified, (2) there are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the EIR/SEIR, (3) no substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the EIR/SEIR, and (4) feasible mitigation measures contained within the EIR/SEIR would be applied to the project component and render its specific impacts less than significant. For these reasons, the geology and soils impacts of the proposed Commercial Component would be consistent with the impacts identified in the EIR/SEIR, and this project component does not require additional environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183. Housing Component: a. i) The Redwood City Focused GPU EIR Planning Area is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. The significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay Area are generally associated with crustal movement along well-defined, active fault zones of the San Andreas Fault system, which trends in a northwesterly direction. The project component site is located approximately 3.6 miles northeast of the San Andreas Fault. Other major active faults in the region include the Hayward, Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, San Gregorio-Sal Cove, Maacama, West Napa, Green Valley, Concord, and Greenville Faults. The two nearest major active faults in the area (not including the San Andreas Fault) are the Hayward Fault, located over 14 miles from the project component site, and the San Gregorio- Seal Cove Fault, located approximately 15 miles northwest of the project component site (Focused GPU EIR p. 4.7- 1). The Focused GPU EIR found this impact to be less than significant. The Housing Component site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Focused GPU EIR p. 4.7-1); therefore, there is no known potential for fault rupture on the site. The Housing component is consistent with the analysis in the EIR/SEIR because it would not create new impacts or increase already identified impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. ii) and (iii) The Housing Component site lies in a seismically active region and is subject to ground shaking from an earthquake along major active regional faults. This is common to virtually all development in the San Francisco Bay Area. Development on the site would be subject to review and approval by the City, and shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable seismic standards adopted by the City of Redwood City, including the California Building Code (CBC) (Title 24 Part Two) and/or California Historical Building Code (CHBC), which requires that a site-specific, design-level geotechnical report be conducted and report prepared by a California- registered professional geotechnical engineer (Focused GPU EIR p. 4.7-13). The site-specific geotechnical report must adequately prepare for foreseeable geologic and soils disturbances that may impact a proposed project component. The geotechnical report is required in the City’s GPU through Policies PS-6.1 and PS-6.3, and Program PS-24 (Geotechnical Analysis), and the City Code (Section 9.154 – Geotechnical Report). The City Code contains development standards that further mitigate potential impacts related to soil and geological phenomenon, namely earthquake related events, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides that have the potential to create risk of loss, injury or death (Focused GPU EIR, p. 4.7-13). Techniques and standards for effective geotechnical practices are widely known and accepted. Individual measures for particular sites and projects are typically specified at a detailed level of design. The City routinely requires such geotechnical/geologic investigations and specifications, and a significant record exists demonstrating the effectiveness of such design and engineering requirements in adequately addressing potential soil and geologic issues. Under the ATTY/RESO.0031/CC RESO CEQA GUIDELINES (901 EL CAMINO REAL) REV: 04-22-25 VR Page 67 of 148