AgdaPkt 2019-02-11 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Below are some reasons why the General Plan should not be changed for Harbor View. Amending the General Plan for this project will: 1. Bring thousands of more cars daily to an area that does not have the infrastructure to support the increase. Traffic impacts will be significant and unavoidable according to the draft EIR; they will negatively impact the ability of businesses on Seaport Blvd. to efficiently transport goods and significantly lengthen commute times for thousands of Peninsula commuters. The draft EIR projects that the average vehicle miles traveled per day per employee will be 26 miles, indicating that many, if not most, employees will be living far from Harbor View and traveling to work by car. 2. Exacerbate the City's current housing shortage and housing affordability crisis by significantly driving up housing demand. The draft EIR underestimates this effect by claiming that the City's capacity to build more than 33oo additional housing units will partially mitigate this effect. In fact, the available capacity estimate used in the DEIR is outdated, as more than i000 units have been built or are under construction since that evaluation was made. Furthermore, the DEIR fails to consider that there is already more than 2.8 million square feet of office space approved, proposed, or under construction in Redwood City - all in areas approved for office development in the General Plan. These offices will more than use up available capacity, even if the Harbor View site remains vacant. The City cannot continue to approve large office -only development - in particular amending the General Plan to do so - otherwise, drastic land use changes in the future will be required to increase housing capacity within the city limits (such as developing existing parks or open space, such as the Cargill salt ponds). 3. Erode the capacity for Redwood City to broaden its economic base via light - industrial activities. The site is perfectly suited for industrial uses, being adjacent to the port, rail and freeway, and far from residences. Industrial activities provide economic diversity to the City which will help mitigate the negative effects of economic downturns. Furthermore, industrial operations provide well -paying, long term jobs for blue collar workers. Developer and trade association/union claims of the benefit to construction jobs for this project are short term only. Office construction can occur elsewhere in the City (with union labor) without the need to amend the General Plan. 4. Potentially hinder the ability to preserve and expand the Port of Redwood City and its supporting industries. A major goal of the General Plan is to preserve and enhance Port operations, which is an asset critical to the regional economy. Upzoning the Harbor View site will raise land values and potentially encourage redevelopment of adjacent industrial facilities critical to Port operations. The current General Plan land use for the Port area resulted from an extensive community visioning process. If the City wishes to now encourage high density office development northeast of tot, it should do so as part of a new community visioning process that looks at all areas of the city likely to redevelop in the future - not do so in an ad hoc fashion via parcel -specific General Plan amendments. There is no intrinsic need for or benefit to a large office project north of ioi, especially with recent and ongoing office construction. Overriding considerations to accept significant and unavoidable environmental impacts should be considered where broad scale economic benefit to the city as a whole is anticipated, or where a project fills a community -wide need. No clear benefits like those from the Downtown Precise Plan (e.g. significant downtown revitalization, high-density housing, restaurants and entertainment venues) can be anticipated for Harbor View. Instead, proposed project "benefits" consist largely of required impact fees, and contributions toward infrastructure projects that are already planned by the City (eg. Blomquist extension and ioi/Woodside Road interchange improvements). Many of the "community benefits" are designed to primarily make the project more attractive to project tenants and allow the developer to maximize rents. Housing impact fees and proposed donations for construction of affordable housing will likely produce no more than a few dozen units - far less than the nearly i000 units of affordable housing that would be necessary to accommodate the project's demands. Tax revenues from office construction can be acquired elsewhere without a General Plan amendment. In fact, a significant number of the proposed benefits could be reasonably expected from development of the site under the General Plan, as evidenced by other projects such as Broadway Plaza, which proposes significant benefits and site improvements while not requiring a General Plan Amendment.