Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> 6.1 C <br /> Page 17 <br /> Air Quality <br /> As stated above, it is assumed the IS corapleted in November 2008 for the project adequately <br /> addressed all other environmental impacts not referenced in the Settlement Agreement, including <br /> potential air quality issues. However, given the March 2010 amendments to ihc statewide CEQA <br /> Guidelines and the updated Bay Area Air Quality Mana�ement District (BAAQMD) Guidelines <br /> adopted in June 2010, both of which provide new guidance for consideration of air quality impacts <br /> including greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, the EIR will update and revise as necessary <br /> the IS's discussion of the project's potential air quality and greenhouse �as/climate change impacts. <br /> Project Alternatives <br /> The alternatives discussion will focus on those alternatives tl�at could feasibly accompfish most of <br /> the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially tessen one or more of the <br /> significant environmental ef�'ects. This secrion will evaluate the impacts of each alternative, as , <br /> required by CEQA (Guidelines Section 15126.6) and based on the "rule of �eason." The alternatives , <br /> discussion will describe the environmental impacts and benefits of the alternatives, compared with <br /> the proposed project. ln accordance with CEQA, the EIR will iden6fy an environmentally superior ' <br /> alternative, based an the EIR analysis. <br /> The EIR will analyze four to five (4-S) project altematives: two alternatives per the Settle�nent <br /> Agreement desi�ned to be potentially feasible and to meet most project objectives (described below) <br /> and two to tliree alternatives provided by the City including the required "No Project" alternative. <br /> Alternatives per the Settlemcnt Agreement <br /> {i) Four or Five Unit R-1 Zoning Alternative. Development on the Project site consisting of <br /> four or five single-family dwellings plus accessory dwellings as allowed under the existing <br /> R-1 (Residential- Sin�le-Family) District zoning standards without a Planned Development <br /> Permit or Use Permit; <br /> (ii) Nine Unit Standard Setbacks Alternativc. Development on the Project site �vith a Planned <br /> Development Permit under Article 46 of the Redwood Ciry Zoninb Code that includes <br /> residences set back a minimum of twenty-five feet from the top of the bank of Cordiileras <br /> Creek (as "top of bank" is defined by Section 2.101.5 of the City's Zoning Code), a private <br /> roadway designed to City standards wiih a sin�le entrance onto Finger Avenue, and rear and <br /> side setbacks compliant with R-1 District standards where the Projectparcels directly adjoin <br /> parcels in the existing neighborhood. <br /> DJP&A will provide an objective evaluation of the environmental advantages and disadvantages of <br /> each of the alternatives included in the EIR. This scope of work assumes the altemative site plans <br /> will be prepared/designed by the City or by others (not DJP&A) under the City's direction. This <br /> scope also assumes the City or others (not DJP&A) under the City's direction will evaluate the <br /> alternative site plans for economic and/or engineering feasibility. Per case law, if the City is to reject <br /> these altematives as infeasible, there must be substantial evidence to suppori the City's conclusions <br /> independent of the project proponent. <br /> Cumulative Impacts <br /> Cumulative impacts are the combined effects oFpast, present, and reasonably foreseeable future <br /> projects. In this section, the cumulative contribution from implemeniation of the project will be <br /> 5 <br />