Agmt09 Wagstaff and Associates (3/4/2010- Name Changed see sticky note)

Browse Search

fP FEHR & PEERS TRANS;:>ORTATION CONSULTANTS May 18, 2009 Mr. John Wagstaff Wagstaff & Associates 2512 Ninth Street, Suite 5 Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: Proposal to Prepare an Updated Transportation Impact Analysis for the Downtown Precise Plan in Redwood City, California P09.1763 Dear Mr. Wagstaff: Fehr & Peers is pleased to submit this proposal to complete an updated transportation impact analysis (TIA) for the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) in Redwood City, California. The DPP was completed in May 2007, and a TIA and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were prepared for the project. Due to legal challenges to the original ErR, Redwood City is preparing a new EIR for the DPP. This update effectively will replace the original EIR, and, ideally, would be a free-standing document. While the legal challenges did not involve the traffic portion of the original EIR, Redwood City has requested that the TIA be updated. The Scope of Work (Attachment A) outlines the tasks that we propose to undertake to prepare the updated TIA. This scope is based upon our experience in preparing the Redwood City General Plan, traffic studies for other projects in Redwood City, and downtown specific plans and the supporting EIR in other Bay Area jurisdictions. We have tailored this scope to minimize the cost to prepare the updated TIA for the new EIR. However, we feel it is important to note that the cost savings associated with the approach and methods could create openings for new challenges to the EIR. Specifically, we have incorporated the following assumptions into the scope which reduce the cost to prepare the study, but could be areas for a new challenge. The limitations and risks associated with each assumption are detailed below: 1 . Reducing the study scope (number of study intersections). It is possible to screen out six study intersections that operate acceptably under the Cumulative scenario of the 2006 DPP EIR (e.g., locations that operate at LOS B or better), since it is unlikely that these locations will result in significant impacts in the revised study. An additional six locations could be removed, if a delay based cut off of 25.0 seconds/vehicle were used reflecting the low end of LOS C operations. While there is some logical rationale for eliminating these locations, there is the potential for creating a perception that this is a less comprehensive analysis. 2. Use the 2006 DPP EIR Existing Conditions in the updated analysis. The counts used in the 2006 DPP EIR were completed in November and December 2005, nearly four years ago. In addition, the EIR states that several of the intersections were counted while under construction, and adjustments were applied to those locations These adjustements are not documented the available documentation for the EIR. Using these older intersection counts in the updated analysis reduces the defensibility of the EIR as it relates to the issuance of the new Notice of Preparation (NaP). While CEQA does not specifically define a timeframe for counts, many agencies require that intersection counts be less than two (2) years old at the time of the Nap, unless there is conclusive evidence that traffic volumes or travel patterns have not changed substantially. From our work on the RWC General Plan and the Mid-Point Technology Center, we have recent counts (2007-2008) at 16 of the 42 study intersections. We have compared traffic volumes at key locations from the 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 278.1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com