Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of <br /> <br /> P&R-Tom Passanisi CITY OF REDWOOD CITY <br /> CITY CLERK <br /> From: dvalkenaar@sbcglobal.net <br /> <br /> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 6:33 PM <br /> To: Tom Passaanisi <br /> Cc: Dick Claire; Jeff Ira; Jim Hartnet; Barbara Pierce; Ira Ruskin; Colleen Jordan;-D~'~e Howard; <br /> Kendall Patton; Paul (RSOA); Gall Stebbins; Clay Lewis; CPmert@aol.com; Howard Levin (E-mail); <br /> Jerry Keller; Mary Morrissey Parden; Mike Gibson; Pat (RSOA) STarter; Sharon Campbell <br /> <br /> Subject: Redwood Shores Bayfl'ont Specific Plan <br /> <br /> I am in support of the general concepts behind the Redwood Shores Bayfront Specific Plan, but I have some <br /> major concerns with how the details are sorting out. <br /> <br /> First, I believe that, Technically, the Environmental Impact Report for the Redwood Shores Specific Plan is <br /> deficient in two ways. It does not either list or respond to all of the comments and concerns raised at the Draft <br /> EIR Hearings. Second, this EIR proposes to make major revisions to parts of the Draft EIR, revisions that will hurt <br /> the aesthetics and the acceptability of the plan to the Redwood Shores neighborhood of Redwood City. <br /> <br /> Specific to the plan, I am strongly opposed to ANY development of any property in Redwood City that attempts to <br /> bypass the Redwood City Code requirements for parking. Adequate parking is a very important requirement for <br /> any development. Lack thereof can often break a development. Lack thereof can also destroy a neighborhood <br /> . with overflow parking an.d. meandering traffic. <br /> <br /> The development of a 600 seat auditorium (the Fully Alive Christian Church worship center) with <br /> virtually NO parking onsite is a good example of a bad plan. The mitigation for this lack of permanent parking is <br /> that they (the FACC) has obtained temoorarv permits for parking on a nearby office center parking lot and on the <br /> more distant South Bayside Authority property. Both of these permits are revocable with very short notice. This <br /> is not good and is certainly not acceptable to the Redwood Shores neighborhoods along Redwood Shores <br /> Parkway. And it SHOULD not be acceptable to the City Council. The approval of an EIR that acknowledges a <br /> pr6blem but makes no effort to mitigate that problem sets a very bad precedent for Redwood City. It has the <br /> potential Of becoming a neighborhood ex3~losion due to the lack of permanent parking and/or good planning.. <br /> <br />- Please do NOT apprbve the development witfiout adequate pe[manent ~arking to serve the use inte~d. <br /> <br /> Next~ it appears that some of the linked requirements in the original Draft Specific Plan are being unlinked in the <br /> revised specific plan before you. Such things as landscaping, screening, pathways and trails, wetland restoration, <br /> and other features beneficial to the RedWood Shores neighbo~ood of Redwood City are no longer required to be <br /> done at the same time as the major dev~lopments of construction the worahip center by the FACC and the <br /> installation of the large tanks by the SSSA. Surely, havingthe aosthetic benefits completed ahead of or at heady <br /> the same time as the commercial benefits will not create a great hardship on the developers. <br /> <br /> Please do NOT approve the unlinking or removal of the aesthetic benefits from the plan. <br /> <br /> Sincerely, <br /> <br /> David end Lisa Valkenaar <br /> 534 Shorebird Circle #17101 <br /> Redwood City, Ca 94065 <br /> <br /> 9/3/2002 <br /> <br /> <br />