Reso24 16254 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

resource. According to the Brandi Report (p. 4), the current onsite structure is “a Wells Fargo bank built circa 1960s as evidenced by a plaque mounted on the building dated 1967. It is not a historic resource according to the Downtown Precise Plan (DTPP).” Specific protections (standards and guidelines) are established for each historic resource in the DTPP, and these standards and guidelines govern changes to the resources themselves and also protect each historic resource by requiring new projects built adjacent to them to avoid a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of the adjacent historic resource, which protects the resource’s continued eligibility for listing on the California Register. According to the Brandi Report (p. 13), “The project does not physically touch or alter theses historic resources, so the project is consistent with the Downtown Precise Plan’s Standards and Guidelines.” Conclusion Regarding Impacts on Historic Resources According to the Brandi Report (pp. 16-18 and 21), despite the extent of changes that have occurred since the construction of the four identified historic resources adjacent to the proposed project component site, “The historic properties and the Main Street Historic District will still be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources after completion of the [1900 Broadway] project.” The project component site is not located in a historic district and therefore design compatibility guidelines or compatibility with district character-defining features do not apply from a historic preservation aspect. The Brandi Report concluded that project component will not affect the existing historic integrity of 726 Main Street (the Diller Chamberlin store), 800 Main Street (the Sequoia Hotel), 2000 Broadway (Bank of San Mateo County), 2020 Broadway (Fitzpatrick Building), or the Main Street Historic District and will not have a substantial adverse change under CEQA. The historic resources will still be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources after completion of the project component. The Historic Resource Advisory Committee (HRAC) concurred with the determination (Resolution No. 24-01, Historic Resources Advisory Committee of the City of Redwood City, February 8, 2024) Potential for Cumulative Impacts In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines, the DTPP program EIR (Section 17.2.4, p. 17-7) discusses the potential for cumulative impacts on cultural and historic resources. The DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR (pp. 17-12 through 17-13) provided a similar discussion. CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 states, “Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a) requires that “an EIR discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in Section 15065(a)(3).” Section 15065(a)(3) states, “’Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Furthermore, Section 15130(a) explains, “Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not ‘cumulatively considerable,’ a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe the basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The DTPP program EIR (p. 17-7) concluded that EIR Mitigations 7-2 and 7-3 would reduce the DTPP impacts, and thus the contribution to significant cumulative impacts, on historic resources and historic districts, to a less-than- significant level. The DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR (pp. 17-12 through 17-13) generally concurred with the DTPP program EIR conclusions regarding mitigations reducing DTPP impacts but provided additional analysis with respect to potentially significant cumulative impacts, concluding that “Even with the implementation of one or more of the mitigation measures established in the DTPP Final EIR and included in Chapter 7, Cultural and Historic Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources [of the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR], with clarifying amendments, the impact on historical resources by the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments would remain potentially unavoidable. Therefore, the contribution of the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments to cumulative impacts to historical resources would remain cumulatively considerable and thus significant and unavoidable.” However, as further determined by the DTPP Plan-Wide Amendments program SEIR, this would not be a new significant impact compared to DTPP Final EIR. As discussed in the previous analysis, the proposed project component would not result in a significant adverse effect on a historic resource or a historic district, and therefore the project component would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant historic impact. In sum, the 1900 Broadway project component’s impacts, both individually and cumulatively, were confirmed by the Brandi report and the HRAC to have no impact. Therefore, this project component is consistent with the analysis in the EIR/SEIR because it would not create new impacts or increase impacts and there is no new information of substantial importance for CEQA purposes. ATTY/RESO.0070/CC RESO 1900 BROADWAY (CEQA) - EXHIBIT 1 - CEQA CONSISTENCY CHECK LIST REV: 10-23-24 VR Page 50 of 135