Agmt12 TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. MIG/TRA Environmental Services Inc.

Browse Search

need to be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, resulting in 102 oak trees needed to meet mitigation requirements. • Adding shrubs/bushes to the landscaping plan so they can be reflected in visual simulations. Additionally, CONSULTANT, through its sub-consultant, Callander Associates, will prepare new visual simulations for proposed project. Because the water tank was moved within the site since publication of the IS/MND, the visual simulations need to be updated to reflect the current site plan. Aesthetic Impact Analysis: The foundation of the aesthetic impact discussion will be the analysis presented in the IS/MND. CONSULTANT shall present updated visual simulations to reflect movement of the tank within the site and review the thresholds of significance carefully to ensure the EIR considers each threshold correctly according to City practice and whether additional thresholds of significance should be added to the analysis. The EIR analysis will discuss the definition of "scenic vista" as considered in the Redwood City General Plan as well as the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis will also review all the design measures currently included in the project to address visual impacts and will discuss additional measures that could be incorporated, should there be appropriate measures available (i.e., planting larger screening trees or painting the tank with a mural). Cumu/ative Impacts: Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that "An EIR shal/ discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in section 15065(a) (3). 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 its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable." The EIR will identify the cumulative setting for aesthetic impacts (viewshed from which the project is visible), along with any connection with the effects of past, other current or probable future projects. The analysis will consider the proposed project in addition to the existing Easter Bowl and Easter Cross water tanks, other existing public infrastructure facilities, along with surrounding residential development. Alternatives: The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effect. Project Alternatives: The EIR will present the following alternatives discussion: ATTY/AGR/2014/AMENDMENTS/AMEND NO.1 TRA ENVIRONTENTAL SCIENCES INC.—CALIFORNIA TANK REV:06-05-14 VR Page 4 of 17