My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2010-10-11
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
AgdaPkt 2010-10-11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2015 1:07:15 PM
Creation date
10/7/2010 3:42:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
10/11/2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
245
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
7.A <br /> AttacnnRage 46 <br /> that implementation of the No Project Alternative would not substantially reduce or avoid <br /> • <br /> the potential impact relating to conflicts with the air quality planning efforts of <br /> BAAQMD. Rather, for the foregoing reasons, the City concludes that implementation of <br /> the New General Plan, including the various policies and programs therein relating to <br /> improved air quality and conformance with BAAQMD and other regional air quality <br /> planning efforts, would result in greater consistency with BAAQMD's air quality <br /> planning efforts than implementation of the No Project Alternative. <br /> As explained in Chapter 5 of the DEIR, the No Project Alternative is also <br /> not expected to avoid or substantially reduce the New General Plan's potentially <br /> significant and unavoidable impacts relating to traffic congestion, water supply <br /> deficiency, or rising sea levels,because the slight decrease in development allowed under <br /> the No Project Alternative would not result in substantial vehicle trip reductions, would <br /> not substantially reduce anticipated water demands, and would not affect the likelihood <br /> or risks associated with rising sea level. (See DEIR at 5-12 to 5-13) In addition, the <br /> 1990 General Plan does not include many of the policies and programs designed to <br /> reduce vehicle trips (see DEIR at pp. 4.14-35 through 4.14-57), conserve water and <br /> reduce water demands (see New General Plan at pp.NR-6 to NR-18), and respond to the <br /> risks of rising sea level (see DEIR at p. 4.8-24, New General Plan at pp. PS-5 to PS-6, <br /> PS-12 to PS-13, PS-15 to PS-18, PS-28 to PS-33, PS-51 to PS-52, PS-55, and PS-58 to <br /> PS-63). As a result, the No Project Alternative would be expected to have impacts that <br /> are similar to, or greater than, the impacts expected from the New General Plan relating <br /> to traffic congestion, water supplies, and rising sea level. <br /> Finally,the No Project Alternative would not achieve the objectives of the New General <br /> Plan to the same degree as the New General Plan, and also would not provide most <br /> of the benefits of the New General Plan. Among the City's objectives for the project are <br /> to plan for sustainability in the use of its finite resources, acknowledge and preserve the <br /> City's historic character, balance the number of jobs available in the City with anticipated <br /> increases in the available housing in a manner that enables the City to accommodate its <br /> fair share of regional housing needs, encourage neighborhood and community <br /> participation in community development and government, and promote alternatives to <br /> motor vehicle use and reduce the number of vehicle trips that occur in the City. As <br /> described in Chapter 3 of the DEIR, the New General Plan contains numerous new <br /> policies and programs specifically designed to achieve all of these objectives, nearly all <br /> of which are not included in the 1990 General Plan. As described in Section IV below <br /> (Statement of Overriding Considerations), these policies and programs are expected to <br /> generate substantial benefits for the City and its residents, in terms of improved <br /> infrastructure and services, enhanced community character, and a safer and higher quality <br /> of life in Redwood City. Because the vast majority of these new policies are programs <br /> that would not be implemented under the No Project Alternative, the No Project <br /> Alternative would not achieve the City's goals and objectives for the project or produce <br /> the benefits for City residents to the same degree as the New General Plan. <br /> Because the No Project Alternative would not be. expected to reduce or avoid any <br /> significant impacts from implementation of the No Project Alternative, and because the <br /> ATTY/RESO/RESO.2055/ATTACHMENT1.A 32 <br /> 1016/10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.