CC Min 2012-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

(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 analysis of traffic impacts during construction and revise the risk assessment of potential cancer risk. Andy Faber, an attorney representing Urban Housing, noted that he was going to address the City Council on behalf of the developer. He noted that the comments just made were responded to in the EIR in great length by the consultants. In fact, he mentioned that staff provided responses to all the issues even though there was no requirement to do so. He reiterated that the EIR meets the legal requirements, he believes this is a great project, and that it abides by the various zoning and general plan standards. Attorney Faber referred to a Housing Accountability Act and how if a project complies with the zoning and general plan, then the City cannot arbitrarily turn it down. This can only occur if very specific findings are made, which is not the case in this project, according to Mr. Faber. He believes the appeals do not have any merit. Mayor Aguirre asked if there were specific Council questions and there were none. She opened the Public Hearing, and to be respectful of everybody's time, she provided every speaker finro minutes (there were 26 speakers' cards submitted). Public Comment: CITY COUNCIL February 13, 2012 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 8 MINUTE BOOK NO. 64 Page No. 41