My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2013-01-28
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
AgdaPkt 2013-01-28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2015 4:29:34 PM
Creation date
1/24/2013 6:45:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency
Date
1/28/2013
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.
/
807
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. - Page 23 <br /> City's Response: CEQA requires study of impact of project on environment, not impact <br /> of environment on project. Moreover, (1) the Project complies with existing regulations <br /> such as Floodplain Management requirement in Chapter 41 of the Municipal Code, and <br /> the Conditions of Approval so require this for the Project, (2) the Applicant has been <br /> working with BCDC to address project design features that respond to the need for <br /> adaptive management strategies, these design components have been incorporated <br /> into the project proposal, and (3) to the extent that the City has programs or regulations <br /> in place the Project is consistent with General Plan Polices relative to global warming <br /> and sea level issues, including BE 10.3, BE 22.2, BE 24.2, BE 24.11. (See General <br /> Plan, pp. BE-67, 78, 80, 81.). <br /> Thus, in sum, there are no substantial changes, new significant information or <br /> circumstances that lead to a new environmental impact or increased severity of a <br /> previously identified impact. <br /> G. Parkinq <br /> Appellant's Position: Providing two (2) parking spaces per unit, rather than 2.25 spaces <br /> per unit, "will have a disastrous impact on the spot" because there is not sufficient public <br /> transportation or other means of access to Pete's Harbor. (Appeal, p. 12.) <br /> City's Response: Parking is studied in the EIR (p. 7-70) and Addendum No. 2 (p. 3-32). <br /> With respect to the project as proposed, Appellant's assertions are mere speculation, <br /> and there are no substantial changes, new significant information or circumstances that <br /> lead to a new environmental impact or increased severity of a previously identified <br /> impact. <br /> H. The Traffic Issues Relative to Emerqency Have Been Thorouqhly <br /> Analyzed <br /> Appellant's Position: Conditions at Bair Island Road, East Bayshore Road, and Whipple <br /> Avenue could devolve to LOS F. (Appeal, p. 7.) <br /> City Response: <br /> Addendum No. 1 includes an analysis of traffic conditions for build-out of 796 units <br /> (rather than the 231 units ultimately approved and built), plus construction of 412 units <br /> at Pete's Harbor for the cumulative traffic impacts. (Addendum No. 1, p. 3-23; <br /> Addendum No. 2, pp. 2-1, 3-28.) Ultimately, One Marina has only 231 residential units. <br /> (See Addendum No. 2, p. 3-27.) The One Marina Project was required to adopt <br /> mitigation measures based upon the impacts associated with the 1,208 additional <br /> residential units (412 plus 796). (See Addendum No. 2, p. 3-27.) <br /> Page 23 of 27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.