My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2021.02.08 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
AgdaPkt 2021.02.08 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/11/2021 4:35:44 PM
Creation date
2/4/2021 4:26:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
2/8/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
Text box
ID:
1
Creator:
Created:
2/10/2021 2:38 PM
Modified:
2/10/2021 2:38 PM
Text:
https://tinyurl.com/52hajlgn
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
612
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
4. Why do we continue to ignore the jobs -housing imbalance and the impact on our <br />most vulnerable renters given the additional 5.5M+ sq feet of office space (equal to <br />22k -27k office workers) in the pipeline for Redwood City? This mind -numbing number - <br />without nearly enough housing - includes the 1.25M proposed by this project. <br />https://tinyurl.com/52hamlgn <br />5. 1 agree with the bundled approach to CEQA review. It seems that the "project" is the <br />plan for the Transit District. Therefore, piecemeal project review of bits of that Transit <br />District Plan would not be permissible under CEQA. In any case, all components of the <br />Transit District Plan would be required to be reviewed in any CEQA assessment of a <br />component of the District Plan as "cumulative projects". <br />6. The last paragraph under Environmental Review on pp. 1-0-11 of the Staff Report <br />states "The EIR would likely raise the caps to allow for the initiated projects, create the <br />Transit District with specific land uses and modified development standards, as well as <br />minor updates to allow for ..... other infrastructure changes". That is not within the <br />purview or the purpose of CEQA. Any changes to the City's General Plan must follow <br />the General Plan Amendment process, under California Planning law. CEQA review just <br />assesses the impacts of those changes and comes after the changes have been <br />proposed as part of a discretionary approval action. <br />7. Is this truly a "once a generation opportunity" or is it creating a false sense of urgency <br />especially given the vast uncertainties surrounding Caltrain/grade <br />separation/high-speed rail? Also, expiring retail leases are a normal cost of doing <br />business and should not be reason in itself to advance a seriously flawed project. <br />8. Should we be advancing a project with 2M+ total sq feet of development given so <br />many unknowns regarding Caltrain? <br />• Caltrain needs to explain what they plan AND what it will cost AND how it <br />will be funded <br />• CalTrain should discuss options of moving the station and transport away <br />from Sequoia station <br />• CalTrain should show ridership actuals vs estimates post COVID <br />• Caltrain should offer alternative land for a possible swap with the <br />developer <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.