Laserfiche WebLink
6.13. - Page 18 of 41 <br />environmental site assessment) will be desirable for use in responding to the CEQA <br />checklist questions regarding hazardous materials. Similarly, construction -related <br />details typically are unknown at this stage, but to the extent that the applicant has <br />information, AECOM will request details regarding construction phasing, durations, <br />type and number of construction equipment, number of construction workers, and <br />construction staging. <br />Based on City review and consolidated City and applicant comments, AECOM will <br />respond to one round of comments to finalize the project description for use in the <br />Initial Study, the Notice of Preparation, and subsequently in the Focused EIR. <br />AECOM will conduct one site visit to the project site. AECOM will respond to one round <br />of consolidated City and applicant comments on the draft project description. <br />Deliverables: <br />Draft project description in electronic format (MSWord) for City review. <br />Final project description in electronic format (pdf) for City approval. <br />Task 2: Peer Review of Project Applicant Technical Studies <br />The project applicant will provide technical studies by its team, addressing hazardous <br />materials, noise, trees, and historic resources, that will be used for the CEQA review. <br />These studies, if prepared adequately, should reduce the level of effort required for <br />these particular subject matters. AECOM will review the technical studies critically and <br />as necessary, raise questions, the responses to which will help bolster the CEQA <br />analyses and documentation. Chief considerations for review include: <br />Adequacy of the study area and the resultant data collection <br />• Consideration of City policies, standards, guidelines, and regulations, such as <br />the City's Noise Element, Climate Action Plan, and municipal code provisions <br />• Appropriateness of methodological assumptions and methodologies <br />• Rationale and justification for impact significance conclusions, particularly given <br />the risks due to public controversy or fair arguments that an impact may be <br />significant <br />Adequacy of mitigation measures to reduce identified significant impacts to less than <br />significant <br />• Consideration of reasonably foreseeable development projects for potential <br />cumulative impacts. <br />AECOM will spend up to 60 hours to review and supplement the technical studies, in <br />coordination with City staff. <br />Page 14 of 37 <br />ATTY/AGR/2018.270/AECOM PSA <br />REV: 12-07-18 PR <br />48 <br />