Laserfiche WebLink
7.A <br /> 9/30/2010 9:36 AM Page 78 <br /> > segmentation: <br /> > Page 2-5 , 2nd Paragraph: In addition, the inclusion of the 411 <br /> streetcar <br /> > system sends a signal of the City' s intent to invest time and <br /> effort to <br /> > consider the long-range provision of this future transit <br /> amenity. In this <br /> > sense, the inclusion of the conceptual streetcar network is <br /> intended to <br /> > encourage redevelopment and investment in the areas the <br /> streetcar network <br /> > would serve when constructed. " <br /> > Page 2-6, 5th Paragraph: "The corridors proposed for streetcar <br /> > implementation are planned to develop as mixed-use walkable <br /> neighborhoods <br /> > regardless of streetcar implementation. " (This statement is <br /> totally <br /> > untrue in the case of the Seaport Blvd. line - unless you <br /> include <br /> > Saltworks - which the City does not . The GP prohibits such <br /> development <br /> > along the Seaport alignment) . <br /> > Page 2 -6 last Paragraph: "The streetcar system is not being <br /> proposed as a <br /> > traffic mitigation measure , but as a part of the New General <br /> Plan, as a <br /> > means to increase mobility within Redwood City and as a <br /> catalyst for <br /> > higher density mixed-use development along its alignment . " <br /> > Do you see the inconsistency here? The GP is proposing a <br /> streetcar line <br /> > where hardly anyone currently lives, and where the GP land <br /> designations <br /> > prohibit residential development , yet the City states the <br /> purpose of the <br /> > streetcars is to encourage higher-density mixed-use <br /> development . And at <br /> > the same time, decides that it ' s inappropriate to consider <br /> the Saltworks <br /> > site as part of the GP, even though the development of that <br /> site likely <br /> > would be one result to go hand-in-hand with the streetcar <br /> 3 <br />