AgdaPkt 2014-03-24 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

MIG F 8.A. - Page 287 City of Redwood City Revised Elm Huaenaurn January 22, 2014 Page 3-46 Conclusion. The 2003 EIR concluded that, in the absence of substantial evidence at the time that a subsequent WSA would be able to identify sufficient water supply to reduce project impacts to a less-than-significant level, Impact 10-1 should be identified as significant and unavoidable "until an achievable water supply sourced is identified." Mitigation 10-1 described the State requirement for a subsequent water supply analysis, reflecting City progress on its water supply and conservation strategies. The current Pete's Harbor project water demand is already factored into the City's most recent UWMP (which was adopted in 2010, after the 2003 project), and the impact on water service demand would be less-than-significant. Mitigation 10- 1 is no longer required. Impact 10-2 Analysis: Project-Related and Cumulative Impacts on Sewage Treatment and Transmission Capacity. As discussed in the 2003 EIR, the Marina Shores Village project would have generated a net increase of approximately 317,000 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd), with the previous Pete's Harbor component contributing about 105,000 gallons of that net increase. Based on the same formula from the 2003 EIR, the currently proposed Pete's Harbor project would generate a net increase of approximately 64,000 gpd, approximately 60 percent of the previous Pete's Harbor wastewater generation. Conclusion. Redwood City Engineering staff have determined that sewage treatment and transmission capacity exists for the current Pete's Harbor project due to current, improved conditions, including substantial ongoing water conservation efforts and improvements throughout the city, as well as sewage treatment and transmission capacity improvements implemented as part of the One Marina development ("Peninsula Marina" in the 2003 EIR) under construction and partially occupied south of the Pete's Harbor site. Unlike in 2003, the City no longer exceeds its Stage 1 treatment allocation from the South Bayside System Authority (SBSA). The impact on treatment and transmission capacity would be less-than- significant. Mitigation 10-2, which would have required the applicant to fund additional dry weather treatment capacity from SBSA to accommodate the project as well as implement various infrastructure improvements, is no longer required. Impact 10-3 Analysis: Project-Related Increase in Police Service Demands. The certified 2003 EIR concluded that buildout of the Marina Shores Village project would have required approximately four additional sworn police officers and requisite training, support staff, facilities, and equipment (based on an estimated on-site population increase of 3,910 residents). The current Pete's Harbor project would result in a population of approximately 855 residents (i.e., a 78 percent reduction from the previous Marina Shores Village estimate) and a proportional reduction in the need for additional police services. Therefore, the current Pete's Harbor project would require the equivalent of about 0.9 additional sworn officers, which generally would be funded from project property taxes. Conclusion. Modified impact and mitigation. Impact and Mitigation 10-3 have been modified to reflect the reduced project. Although the current Pete's Harbor project would result in reduced demands for additional police services, the 2003 EIR-required mitigation--completion of a staffing survey, etc.--remains applicable to the current Pete's Harbor project and remains sufficient to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 10-4 Analysis: Emergency Response and Evacuation Impacts. The certified 2003 EIR identified the possibility that project-related traffic congestion in the vicinity could inhibit T.110695 Pete's Harbor EIR Addendumlrevised addendum no 213(10695-01).doc