AgdaPkt 2002-12-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

A� 9..�-30 ��_t►u��.�;� The revised project does incocpoiate changes &om tLe approved project (conditio� (1), above), but these changes would not croau any new environmrntal impacts. Some identi5ed impacts — in particuiar, those on �affic and parldng — would be affected, and those effects are discussed 'm this Addendum. Some changes in the circucnstances imder afiich the project is being underml�en (condition (2), above}�have „ occutred: the small incresses in the docvntown. parldng supply and decreases in downtown PaT1�nB demand would reduce, rather than increase, the severity of the identified impacts, while the potential traf- fic and parldng demand from the proposed 'Zittic Fox" theater space would increase the severity of iden- rified impacts on nights when events are scheduled for that space. - Some aew information relevant to the project (condirion (3), above) has become available (refined estimates of,parking supply and demand; same as the changes in circumstances noted fo; condition (2)), but t5is information does not indicau new environmental impacts. Therefore,_none of the throe conditions imder which a subsequeat EIIt would be prepared applies W this proposed revision of the approved project. The changes that have occuaed in the project and circumstances, and the new information that has become available, are discussed in this Addendiim to theEIIL- Additional Studies Conducted for EIR Addendum Updates of the analyses of haffic and parldng, initially prepared for the original project and all of the altemarives considered in the earlier EIIt, were commissioned; the findings of those analyses are described briefly below. The reports aze appended to this Addendum. a. Updated Traffic Anslysis A new traffic analysis was conducted by Fehr & Peers Associates (F&PA) to evaluate the potential impacts of the revised project on haff'ic conditions in the vicinity of tlte project site. The F&PA report is summarized in the appendix to this Addendum and is on file, along with its own technical appendix, at the City of Redwood Ciry Community Development Deparlment. With the eliminarion of the office component, the revised project would conbin less building space than the approved project. As a result, the number of daily vehicle hips would be lower. Trip generation estimates for the revised project are compared to estimates for the approved project in Table 2. Each trip is a one-direction vehicle movement entering or e�citing the downtown area. The numbet of vehicles being added to the downtown streets would be one-half the number of total hips. The number of daily trips occurs over a full 24-hour day; the number of peak hour tnps on Fridays occurs between 4:00 and 5:00 PM and on Samrdays between 3:00 and 4:00 PM. Table 2 indicates that: • The revised project would generate 818 fewer daily trips on a Friday and 33 fewer daily trips on Saturday than the approved project. These reductions represent 7 percent and 0 percent, respec- tively, of projected traffic with the approved project. The reason for the greater reduction on a Fri- day than on a Saturday is the elimination of the office space included on Block 2 of the approved project: offices generate much more traffic on a weekday than on a weekend day (when most offices are closed); therefore, the reduction that would result from eliminating the offices would be greater on a Friday than on a Saturday. • The peak hour uaffic volume reductions would also be greater during the Friday peak how than dur- ing the Saturday peak hour. The revised project would generate 118 fewer Friday peak hour trips and 19 fewer Saturday peak hour trips than the approved project, reductions of 10 percent and 1 percent, respectively. 14