AgdaPkt 2012-04-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.A. - Page 27 Environmental Quality Control Act) challenges/appeal, he noted that generally the areas of "concern" or "issues" are traffic, air quality, sewage plant, and a few others. He believes staff has addressed the issues satisfactorily. He also noted the consultants were available to respond to questions. Mayor Aguirre clarified that the Council has read all the documents submitted by both parties and has reviewed all the additional materials presented. Mayor Aguirre asked speakers to emphasize points of significance and to not repeat items already on the record. Diana Reddy, appellant with Redwood City Local Housing, said she believes this development is not a good fit for the neighborhood. She acknowledged that this is a self-serving appeal because there are people in this organization who live in the area. She then provided statistics on socio-economic demographics of Redwood City. She does not support 100 percent market rate developments along priority development areas like EI Camino Real. She noted that according to the San Mateo County Department of Housing Statistics, Redwood City currently provides 13 percent of the affordable housing stock in San Mateo County. She opined that she was raised in a community where the main axioms were to support our workers, housing, and the environment. Elaine Breeze, Urban Housing Group, addressed the Council and provided details about the project which asks for no variances, no concessions and no exceptions (presentation on file). Furthermore, she noted its compliance with the Grand Boulevard Initiative. She also reviewed some of the community benefits: the closing of Secrets Adult Superstore across the street; enhancement of the existing storefronts near the project; improvements to the pedestrian experience; safety along EI Camino Real; relocating and refurbishing the Mel's Bowl sign; approximately $2.3 million in City fees including more than $1 million for parks; 225-250 temporary construction jobs; new transit and service oriented rental housing; and, five (5) below-market rate units for median income Redwood City residents. Ms. Breeze summarized the outreach meetings led and the input received from residents. She provided details on each of these items and requested a denial of the appeals. The second appellant's attorney, Tara Kaushik , with Redwood City Citizens for Responsible Development, spoke about the EIR and how she does not believe its conclusions are accurate. She believes the project has significant vehicle emissions on EI Camino Real which seem to exceed the Bay Area Quality Control Management District standards and these toxic air contaminants will increase the exposure and cause higher cancer risk. She opposes the City's conclusion on toxicology and opined it was not handled correctly because it used averages instead of corresponding figures per year and therefore the figures are incorrect. She consulted with Dr. James Clark, a toxicology specialist and dispersion modeling specialist, and he concluded that the City's analyses failed to disclose, analyze, or mitigate the cancer risk. She believes there might be significant traffic impacts during construction and she believes the EIR lacks such analysis. Regarding the vesting map, she opined it was inconsistent with the municipal code. She urged the City Council to uphold the appeal and require an CITY COUNCIL February 13, 2012 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 7