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. impact of a reduced building height alternative and an "alternative location in Redwood City" should be evaluated. 2.3.2 Methodoloav. The methodology for addressing Court-identified additional alternative evaluation needs will be refined in consultation with staff and briefly described. 2.3.3 Summary of Previous EIR Alternatives Evaluation. The previous EIR alternatives overview and conclusions will be summarized. 2.3.4 Supplemental Alternatives Analvsis. A supplemental identification and comparative evaluation of the following additional alternatives will be prepared. Following the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of each additional alternative will include a comparative description of its principal characteristics (in comparison to the proposed project), a determination of its feasibility in meeting the identified project (DPP) objectives, and if warranted, an evaluation of its comparative adverse and mitigating effects (in comparison to the proposed project). The following additional alternatives will be described and evaluated: (a) Reduced Building Height Alternative. The previous EIR included a description and evaluation of a reduced height (9-story Height Limit) alternative (Alternative 3). In response to Court-identified concerns, this discussion will be revised and expanded as necessary to describe in more detail (or specific reductions in height determined to be pertinent to the protection of historic resources) its comparative adverse and/or mitigating effects on identified downtown historic resources. (b) Alternative Project Location. The previous EIR did not include a discussion of why an alternative project location was not evaluated. Given the EIR-identified potential unavoidable significant impacts of the project (DPP) on historic resources, the feasibility and relative impact of an alternative project (DPP) location in Redwood City will be thoroughly discussed. (c) Revised Alternatives Evaluation Conclusions Re: Environmentally Superior Alternative. The previous EIR conclusion regarding the environmentally superior alternative, including the impact comparison matrix, will be revised as necessary to incorporate consideration of the revised and added alternatives. 2.3.5 Differences from Previous EI R Evaluation and Conclusions. The differences in alternatives evaluation scope and conclusions between the previous EIR and the current BEIR, and their responsiveness to Court-identified concerns, will be summarized. 2.4 Supplemental CeCA Conclusions 2.4.1 Unavoidable Sianificant Adverse Impacts. The previous EIR findings regarding identified unavoidable significant adverse impacts will be summarized, revised and expanded as necessary to clearly indicate that implementation of the project (DPP) as proposed would result in a potentially significant unavoidable adverse impact on one or more historic resources. 2.4.2 Difference from 2007 EIR Conclusions. Any differences in significant unavoidable impact conclusions between the 2007 EIR and current SEIR, and their responsiveness to Court- identified concerns, will be summarized. C:IDocuments and SettingslkmateolLocal SettingslTemporary Intemet Fi/es\OLKEBIOB07 exhibit-a (city edits oct 200B).doc