Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 69 <br /> Section 4: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts <br /> Policy BE - 36.2 Develop citywide narrative context for historic resources <br /> Policy BE - 36.3 Continue to maintain the Historic Resources Inventory in a digital format that can be easily <br /> updated and tracked. <br /> Goal BE - 37 Protect, preserve, restore, rehabilitate, and /or enhance historic resources. <br /> Policy BE - 37.1 Enhance, restore, preserve, and protect, as appropriate, historic resources throughout the <br /> city. <br /> Policy BE - 37.2 Preserve historic landmark structures, landscapes (including trees), trails, and sites that <br /> serve additional community needs, such as recreational open space and /or cultural needs. <br /> Policy BE - 37.3 Encourage the retention and /or adaptive reuse of historic residential, commercial and <br /> industrial buildings. <br /> Policy BE - 37.4 Consider relocation of landmark structures to vacant sites within established landmark <br /> districts when no other alternative exists for their preservation, or if a particular structure is <br /> not protected by ordinance. <br /> Policy BE - 37.5 Provide incentives, support, and guidance to the owners of designated historic landmark <br /> sites to preserve and rehabilitate structures. <br /> Policy BE - 37.6 Allow only compatible, historically appropriate development on vacant parcels within or <br /> adjacent to designated historic areas, neighborhoods, and /or sites in compliance with the <br /> Secretary of the Interior's Standards. <br /> Policy BE - 37.7 Strive for compatibility with existing historic resources when planning for infrastructure <br /> improvements, restorations, new construction, alternations, or similar projects in designated <br /> historic districts. <br /> Policy BE - 37.8 Permit removal of non - contributing elements of structures in or adjacent to designated <br /> historic resources to allow replacement by compatible, historically appropriate structures. <br /> b) Less Than Significant Impact. Although the City of Redwood City is highly urbanized, the presence of significant <br /> subsurface archaeological resources is always a possibility in areas where only surface inspections have taken <br /> place. According to the Redwood City General Plan EIR, the City contains one historic - period archeological site <br /> that includes the remains of the historic downtown area. In addition, there are eight reported, but not officially <br /> recorded, cultural resource sites in the plan area, three of which are understood to be associated with Native <br /> Americans. Adoption of the Housing Element and its implementation pursuant to existing General Plan land use <br /> policy, could result in the development of vacant land and land identified as underutilized located in these areas. <br /> Ground - disturbing activities associated with subsequent development of land within the City could unearth <br /> previously unknown archaeological resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element has <br /> the potential to disturb or destroy undocumented archaeological resources. <br /> General Plan policies require the development of mitigation measures for projects located in archaeologically <br /> sensitive areas. The General Plan EIR implemented Mitigation Measure 4.5 -1b requiring project applicants to <br /> provide adequate training for the construction crew to identify possible federal or state - eligible cultural resources <br /> and understand the correct procedure if any archaeological resources are found. Where resources are identified, <br /> detailed mitigation plans, monitoring programs, and recovery and preservation plans shall be included. Adherence <br /> to General Plan policies, General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5 -1b, and the CEQA Guidelines where <br /> 30 Redwood City Housing Element Initial Study <br />