Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7."-~6 <br /> <br />23. As discussed on page B9 of Appendix B to the FEIR, using the Shared Parking <br />Methodologies, the theater parking demand is conservatively estimated at 100 percent <br />capacity during the peak evening hour of 8:00 p.m. While this level of demand may be <br />appropriate for a theater of two or three screens, the parking effect of a theater with 20 <br />screens is likely to be substantially less because the availability of multiple start times for the <br />'. same film allows patrons to choose different showings consequently reducing the occupancy <br />levels at each showing. As shown on Table B7 of the FEIR, even assuming 100 percent <br />capacity of the theater during the peak evening hour, there would still be a parking surplus of <br />544 spaces during the weekday and a 366-space surplus during the weekend. The <br />Appellant's contention, which was not supported by any empirical evidence, (50% of the <br />patrons overlap for one and one-half shows) is based on the assumption that the parking <br />analysis did not consider patrons visiting multiple establishments when patronizing a mixed- <br />use development. In fact, the ULI research is based on patrons visiting multiple <br />establishments when patronizing a mixed-use development. Applying Mr. Hannig's <br />assertions to the parking analysis in the FEIR would in effect result in double counting <br />parked cars. Additionally, in the event that a parking deficit were to exist, it would be <br />mitigated by the measures recommended in the EIR (see Mitigation Measures CIa and Clb). <br /> <br />24. Appellant further contends that the cumulative traffic impacts of several "clogged <br />intersections" will have a direct, adverse impact on "the entire local traffic network, as well <br />as emergency response implications." and that the FEIR does not adequately analyze the <br />cumulative impact of multiple-clogged arteries. <br /> <br />25. The DEIR analyzes cumulative traffic impacts throughout the entire 32 page traffic section <br />(pages 60-92). Both baseline and cumulative conditions (through 2020) are analyzed with <br />project trips added in order to determine the impacts of the proposed development (DEIR p. <br />61,63). Thus, the EIR extensively analyzes cumulative traffic impacts. <br /> <br />26. The study intersections in the DEIR were identified through discussions with City Staff and <br />by the responses to the Notice of Preparation. Figure 21 of the DEIR reviews the study <br />intersections. The local intersections adjacent to the project site were chosen for analysis <br />because they could be directly impacted by the proposed development. Next, the road <br />corridors (Jefferson Avenue, Middlefield Road, and Broadway) were identified for detailed <br />intersection analyses because they provide direct access between the project site and the <br />regional road system. Select intersections on Veterans Boulevard (provides direct freeway <br />access) and El Camino Real (provides sub-regional access) were identified for analysis to <br />quantify the character of traffic on these facilities. Last, regional roads in the area such as US <br />101, Woodside Road, and El Camino Real were evaluated to address regional traffic <br />concerns raised by the City/County Association of Governments for San Mateo County <br />(C/CAG). <br /> <br />27. CEQA requires that cumulative traffic impacts be addressed through either a list-based or <br />plan-based approach. Redwood City, because it is located in San Mateo County, has access <br />to the regional travel demand model developed by the City/County Association of <br />Governments for San Mateo County. By using this model as the basis for developing traffic <br />projections, the EIR takes into account the total anticipated traffic load associated with <br /> <br />5 <br />