AgdaPkt 2013-11-18 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The DTPP EIR evaluation does assume the "Required" new streets, (DTPP, f$�A. - Page 19 New Streets Map) under "Project conditions (DTPP EIR p. 9-38). 5. Staff properlv concluded that there have been no substantial chanqes in the existinq environmental conditions since preparation of the DTPP EIR that would necessitate a new CEQA analysis, both qenerally and in particular with reqard to the consolidation of personnel at the Superior court. The Appellant incorrectly suggests that the recent consolidation of all of the San Mateo County Courts in the Government Center Building in the middle of the Downtown area constitutes changed circumstances that may result in new traffic impacts that were not accounted for in the DTPP EIR, and that therefore require further environmental analysis under CEQA (see Appeal, Item II.A). In response, City staff did additional research on this item to assess potential impacts from this consolidation. Please see the attached letter (posted Aug. 5, 2013 on the Superior Court's website, and Attachment 10) from Presiding Judge Foiles of the San Mateo County Superior Court. This letter describes the reassignment of personnel to Redwood City based on budget, personnel, and operational cuts--not on an expansion of services. In fact, the Judge's letter describes an overall 34°k reduction (from a high of 385 in 2008 to 254 in the Fall of 2013) in the County's trial court workforce over the past five years. In addition to the Judge's letter, the physical facilities at the Superior Court have not been expanded as a result of the reassignment of personnel. The traffic counts used for the DTPP EIR were taken in approximately 2009, and since that time, further workforce reductions at the Superior Court were implemented, such that total reductions reached their current peak of 34°k. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that traffic has not increased substantially at the County Court since 2009. In addition, the DTPP EIR did not identify any impacted intersections in the immediate vicinity of the County Government Center under existing conditions. The DTPP EIR evaluated full build out of the Downtown under the DTPP, which has not yet occurred. In that analysis, the DTPP evaluated the development potential of 2,500 residential units, 500,000 square feet of office, 100,000 square feet of retail and 200 hotel rooms. These capacities have not been reached with the recent development activity in Downtown. In fact, the City is approximately 50°k through the capacity for residential (at 1 ,239 units, including the Project), about 40°k through the capacity for net new office and no hotel rooms have been built. Therefore, any increase (if any) in traffic caused by the County Court would be subsumed under DTPP EIR's the cumulative traffic analysis (see DTPP EIR p. 9-58). 6. The Citv thorouahlv analvzed the traffic impacts from the Proiect and concluded that there are no substantial chanqes, new information or circumstances relative to Prolect build out that would warrant additional environmental analvsis. The City, in compliance with City regulations, required a transportation evaluation for the Project (Sandis — Project Trip Generation and Consistency with the Downtown Precise Plan Transportation Evaluation, revised July 25, 2013) that shows 525 Middlefield's traffic generation forecast is well within the overall DTPP trip generation Page 19