Agmt09 Wagstaff & Associates (3/4/2010 Name Change)

Browse Search

Wagstaff and Associates City of Redwood City November 13, 2008 Contract Exhibit "A" Downtown Precise Plan Additional CEQA Documentation Page 2. · A revised comprehensive description of how the project (DPP) addresses the need to protect specific downtown historic resources, including added text and illustrative information describing the historic resource-related revisions to the Draft DPP that have been incorporated into the adopted DPP as part of the City Council's approval action. · Additional categorization, listing and mapping to illustrate resources (properties) most likely to be affected and resources (properties) that would not be affected. · Description of the most likely outcomes for the highest Ilevel" and most vulnerable buildings, including, to the extent confirmed by the re-evaluation, that the resources (buildings) most likely to be affected are not the highest Ilevel" (unique) landmark structures, but rather are those that have a lower historic value. · More description of how the potential project (DPP) impacts may affect the entire landscape and full scope (context) of historic resources in the City and downtown. · To the extent feasible, more site-specific historic resource evaluation and mitigation. · More mitigation detail, including revisions to the DPP in order to reduce the perceived degree of mitigation deferral--Le., degree of mitigation detail left for future determination. · More clear explanation of the fact that in the case of a loss (material impairment or demolition) of an historical resource, preparation of an EIR will be required, and a significant unavoidable impact will occur, requiring a statement of overriding considerations, etc. The SEIR will more clearly acknowledge that such an impact would be significant and unavoidable, and that mere documentation and/or placement of a historic marker or plaque would not constitute mitigation to a less-than-significant level under CEQA. · Revision of the mitigation discussion to provide more explanation regarding why and how application of the Secretary of the Interior Standards can constitute adequate mitigation, and how mitigation adequacy is determined through the Secretary of Interior prescribed process. · Mitigation discussion revisions to provide additional mitigation detail for identified specific impact potentials (specific locations and buildings), how and what Secretary of Interior standards' would be applied in each of these various circumstances, and how proper application of the standard will be ensured and will adequately protect the resource. 2.2.5 Differences from Previous EIR Evaluation and Conclusions. The differences in impact assessment scope, methodology and conclusions between the previous EIR and the current SEIR, and their responsiveness to Court-identified concerns will be summarized. 2.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Court-identified concerns regarding the adequacy of the previous EIR alternatives description and evaluation will be summarized, and the necessary supplemental alternatives evaluations and comparisons will be provided. Supplemental alternatives evaluation subtasks will include: 2.3.1 Summary of Court-Identified Issues and Concerns. Court-identified concerns regarding the adequacy of the previous EIR alternatives analysis will be summarized, including the finding that, given the EI R conclusion that the project (DPP) as proposed could have a significant unavoidable impact on one or more planning area historic resources, the feasibility and relative C:IDocuments and SettingslkmateolLocal Settings\Temporary Internet FileslOLKEBIOB07 exhibit-a (city edits oct 200B).doc