AgdaPkt 2010-10-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A Page 70 within the downtown area; however, the downtown street right-of-way does not allow this. Regarding the transit center questions, she suggested interested parties go through and look at the existing land use map for the train symbols which designate the transit center. Within the General Plan document there was consistent mention of the transit centers being a fundamental component of the downtown concept. With regard to the bike and pedestrian usage along the Caltrans route, she believed there was some discussion of this within the General Plan and the EIR. She noted, with regard to the Farmhill pedestrian-enhanced design, all of the routes with these features will have their own review process and outreach. Genevieve Sharrow spoke towards the comments regarding the ABAG projections. She noted that information on this was found within the Housing Element of the New General Plan since those projections were linked to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RENA) allocated to ABAG for each city. This was the number of housing units anticipated to be developed in each jurisdiction. These numbers are further divided by affordability levels. She noted ABAG used those projections on jobs and housing and correlate this with RENA. She stated they could experience some reduction in the projections due to the economy. This was basically used in the Housing Element as it correlates to the RENA. In developing the Land Use Policy they worked to develop a policy appropriate for Redwood City in working with the Planning Commission and the Community to develop the specific policies. The ABAG projections were used as a checkpoint on their modeling assumptions to be consistent. She also addressed the comments on sea level rise and spoke to the goals and policies within the General Plan which pertained to this. Joseph Aranda, Assistant City Attorney addressed the comments regarding the possibility of BCDC's involvement, and when appropriate, the City will defend its authority. Regarding alternatives, he noted the City Council was the legislative body which determined whether or not the proposed project or one of the alternatives would best meet the City's objectives for the project. The required CEQA findings and statements of over-riding considerations also took place at this level. Ms. Ekas addressed the streetcar routes, their selection process and specifically the Seaport Alignment. She noted that all the routes selected already have some form of rubber tire transit occurring in those areas. These were known locations where a linkage was identified as an important transportation route. She reiterated the need to balance transit to where most concentrations of development may occur. With a focus on Seaport, she noted this location was different than the others because it was not a mixed use alignment. She noted this particular corridor was selected because it connected the proposed ferry and an employment concentration along Seaport Boulevard, the port, downtown and the Caltrans station. She addressed the comments on clarification of the definition of in-fill, smart growth. She noted they would take another look at these. Commissioner Borgens thanked Staff for the additional information on the streetcar lines. She noted it has been several years that they have been discussing the streetcar issue. She reiterated that the streetcar issue was not just about Seaport Boulevard, but that it actually took into consideration other areas of the City. She noted as well that the focus would return to Seaport Boulevard and its future potential. Commissioner Smith stated most of the commentary had been addressed. He thanked Staff and the consultants for their work thus far. Page 11 of 12