AgdaPkt 2000-11-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

IIA:\~lG . ,'. ~ . . La\\ Firm "" 3-4 Pat Webb October 25, 2000 Page Two different circumstances that were not known or considered during the initial scoping session and which caught the City so "off guard" that it required an urgency ordinance. . Housing was originally considered and dropped from the list of items for impact analysis. There needs to be clarification that housing is not proposed as an alternate use per se, but rather the FEIR needed to consider the impact of removing this site from the potential housing development inventory, just as the Interim Urgency Ordinance considers significant the potential development of space for office use rather than residential use. Indeed it would appear hypocritical for the City to say on one hand that its citizens and developers must labor under interim urgency regulations because of an immediate threat to the public welfare over housing and parking, and then simultaneously adopt an FEIR that fails to take into consideration current changed conditions. The City frequently makes the statement that "housing is a priority" in Redwood City in how the City approaches issues. What better place to demonstrate the truth of this statement than in the environmental impact report the City had prepared at is request. This concern is highlighted by the shift to Alternative 4, which adds office space to the parking structure in an apparent attempt to subsidize parking. The FEIR drafters apparently contend that this locale is suitable for office space but, "unlike" the Franklin Street project, is "too close" to the rail corridor for residential use. This has not been adequately demonstrated. This Appeal is also based upon the transcript of Citizen comments, including the observation of one V era Goldsmith, who pointed to the internal inconsistency in the FEIR analysis and the City's stated purpose in the project. While the FEIR relies on data from the Urban Land Institute for determining the parking demand, it fails to consider the specific plan to "lure" retail customers and restaurant patrons into the downtown area for extended visits beyond the "show". Given the wonderful blossoming of our restaurant and retail capabilities in Downtown, this is a highly plausible scenario and is unlike the existing Century use at Whipple. If one considers a 4.200 seat theatte at full booking, and 50% of the patrons overlap for one and one-half shows, at peak there is a potential equivalent of 8,400 seats, yet the project fails to meet parking requirements at 4.200. Further, the FEIR fails to consider the cumulative traffic impact; essentially simply concluding there are significant adverse traffic impacts that are or may be unavoidable (see, e.g., impacts B3, B4, B5, B7, B8 and B9). While each of these is an independent significant traffic issue, the report fails to adequately study the impact on the entire local traffic network as well as emergency response implicaTions. The arteries serving our Downtown bring it life and provide {POW:O354:TJHDMO191.DOCl } 507127/00 901 AMP I 0/15/00 9.51 AM T----~'T-- '