AgdaPkt 2014-10-06 Closed and Joint with SA

Browse Search

7.3.B. - Page 62 (Mitigation of Impacts of Development on Properties that Contain Historic Resources which may be Altered, Relocated, or Removed). These standards are those described above and are identical to program EIR Mitigation 7 -2. In addition to DTPP program EIR Mitigation 7 -2 and the DTPP guideline regarding relocation, the four recommendations described above shall be required as conditions of approval for the project. b. & d. The proposed project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known archaeological resources in the project vicinity. However, the Downtown Precise Plan program EIR (pp. 7 -33 through 7 -35) concluded that there is a high potential for new development facilitated by the DTPP to disturb unrecorded archaeological resources, which represented a potentially significant impact. Mitigation 7 -1 of the Downtown Precise Plan program EIR requires that in the event that any deposit of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials are encountered during project construction activities, all work within an appropriate buffer area shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist meeting Federal criteria under 36 CFR 61 be contacted to assess the deposit and make recommendations, possibly including complete avoidance of the resources, in place preservation, and /or data recovery. This measure, which shall be required as a condition of approval for the project, would reduce the potential impacts of the project on archaeological resources to a less - than - significant level. c. The proposed project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known paleontological resources in the project vicinity. However, the Downtown Precise Plan program EIR (p. 7 -41) concluded that earthmoving activity associated with DTPP facilitated development could potentially disrupt, alter, or eliminate as yet undiscovered paleontological resources, which represented a potentially significant impact. Mitigation 7 -5 of the Downtown Precise Plan program EIR requires that prior to the issuance of grading or demolition permits, the Planning, Housing, and Economic Development Department (now the Community Development 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 7 -1. This measure, which shall be required as a condition of approval for the project, would reduce the potential impacts of the project on paleontological resources to a less- than - significant level. e. The proposed project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known cemeteries or human remains in the project vicinity (DTPP EIR p. 7 -7). However, should any human remains be found during on- or off-site improvements associated with the proposed project, the City of Redwood City Cultural Resources Management Plan guidelines and EIR Mitigation 7 -1 require that construction activities be halted immediately and the County coroner and a professional archaeologist be consulted to evaluate the significance of the find. If the remains are Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission is required to be notified. These measures, which shall be required as conditions of approval for the project, would reduce the potential impacts of the project on human remains to a less - than - significant level. Summai:y of Impacts Potentially Less than Significant Less than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — R ould ihe project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: The project would not create new geologic hazards that could damage project or nearby facilities. Therefore, this section focuses on the effect of local geologic conditions and activity on the proposed project. i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent X Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X 13