Laserfiche WebLink
<br />28 Greenwood Lane <br />Redwooo9lly, CA 94063 <br /> <br />COMMENT LETTE~a~e ~ <br /> <br />~IEC ~ IT '$ IEIii) <br />JUN 1 2 2007 ~. <br /> <br />CITY OF HEOwO <br />PLANNING SER~Pc~1TY <br /> <br />June 12, 2007 <br /> <br />J"I Ekas, Planning Manager <br />City of Redwood City <br />1017 Middlefield Road <br />Redwood City, CA 94064-0391 <br /> <br />'td <br /> <br />Dear Ms. Ekas: <br /> <br />Willl regard to the Costco expansion plan. I have some concerns about the final E1R. Several of us J-' <br />have noticed that both the City Downtown Precise Plan DraftEIR (seclion9.4.4) and the Stanford <br />outpatient Center PrOject Draft Supplemental EIR (section 12.1.7) refer to the Costco expansion in <br />their discussion of background traffic conditions. Why did the Costco traffic al1a!~'5is make no mention <br />of these projects, even though their analysts ct~arlY thought Costco was relevant to their own situation? 1 <br /> <br />There also seems to be a discrepancy in the response to the Caltrans (etter B1 dated 12/21/06. In the 1 <br />response to paragraph nine, concerning the new trips generated, the report says "The majority of new <br />site trips are from the fuel station." Then, paragraph 10 of the letter stal~ that these new trips should <br />be counted as primary rather than internal. The response says that the surveys show most of the new <br />trips to be trips tathe warehouse store and so should not be counted as primary. It appears to me that <br />the Caltrans analyst arrived at the same conclusion as many of us who have studied the E1R: the traffic ".....,. I <br />accounting does not add up. ~ <br /> <br />Finally, in the Master Response section entitled "Inconsistency Between Pumping Volume and Traffic <br />Estimates., irsmentioned that the average trip count of 285 was increased to 390 weekday p.m. trips. <br />an increase of 37%. Likewise the pumping.voIume was increased from 540,000 gallons to 750,000 <br />gallons per month. a 39% Increase. aut in both cases, as I read it, the report claims that there Is no <br />adjustment needed to any other parts of the analysis, I don't understand how the models could be <br />insensitive to significant changes in the underlying assumptions. What is the explanation for this? <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />~1~~ <br /> <br />Rod McChesney <br />