CC Min 1995-01-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

,. .' I . I I I .1 stated Highway 101 is at capacity now. Mrs. Ford described the difficulties ofIeaving Redwood Shores now during commute hours, and how traffic can stop when an ------ accident happens on the freeway. Mrs. Ford stated that this development will allow 14,700 additional trips per day, 1.5 times the traffic already occurring, which is already labeled "F" at Highway 101 northbound and southbound at Holly. Mrs. Ford advised that this situation was a grave health and safety issue, as residents cannot get out in case of an emergency and there are no medical facilities in Redwood Shores. Mrs. Ford added that the development lacks adequate parking. Mrs. Ford stated that the benefits of this project were at the expense of the residents in Redwood Shores, and asked that the Traffic Assessment District wording in the Development Agreement be iron clad to make the Traffic Assessment District an obligation before any building goes forward on Westport. . Lynn Adams, 708 Newport Circle, Redwood City, expressed her concerns with the materials dumped at the Westport site from 1948 through 1970 (as described by Mr. Atherly), stating there were no restrictions on what anyone could dispose of there at that time. Mrs. Adams said that the public's awareness of environmental risks associated with pollution exposures is much more sophisticated than it was 25 years ago when the landfill site was closed. Mrs. Adams stated that the previous Woodward Clyde risk assessments in 1975, and the 1989 supplemental EIR documented the presence of hazardous materials in the groundwater, soil and gases; and the scientific community is not in agreement with the length of time landfill sites will continue to generate various gases. Mrs. Adams stated that the ChemRisk report states that no significant health ~ risks are expected to occur, but it presupposes monitoring by the contractors and Developer during construction and after. Mrs. Adams stated it was impossible to determine future pollution liabilities and financial consequences, and asked what assurances the City had that it would be held harmless. Mrs. Adams raised the question of why the City was being asked to set the standards for utilities in a refuse area, for which no precedent has been set. Mrs. Adams stated her qualifications as an insurance broker and questioned the wording in the proposed Development Agreement that surety bonds do not insure public safety from construction hazards. Mrs. Adams asked the Council to review all the materials submitted by staff and the public, and to talk to the Council in Benecia about the South Hampton site and that law suit, as well as Mt. View. Laura Aden, 350 Turks Head Lane, Redwood City, thanked the Redwood Shores Homeowners Association for their work, and spoke about the problem traffic issues, and the lack of CalTrans funds to solve current problems. Mrs. Aden stated she was also worried about environmental and health risks that might arise from disturbing the cap. Mrs. Aden asked Council to think about living in Redwood Shores on a daily basis and dealing with traffic impacts of this development. Paul Bailey, 8202 Shorebird, Redwood City, said he agreed with the previous speakers. Mr. Bailey referred to the Crane Report, which was done many years ago, as describing - all the possibilities of what could happen in Redwood Shores, and asked the Council to Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTE BOOK NO. 53 January 16, 1995 Page No. 019 Page 10