Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 139 <br /> Development does not comport with this goal whatsoever. <br /> II. The Development requires preparation of a new EIR and/or violates provisions of <br /> the existing EIR. <br /> A. There has been no attempt to address the change in circumstances from the <br /> original EIR caused by the recent consolidation of all of the San Mateo County <br /> Courts into the Government Center Building in the middle of the Downtown area. <br /> Commencing earlier this year, essentially all court services previously existing in <br /> South San Francisco and San Mateo have now been consolidated in the local <br /> court. This has brought an increase in traffic and parking pressure that did not <br /> exist at the time of the previous EIR. Therefore, a new EIR addressing this <br /> specific issue is required before�development creating additional traffic and <br /> parking pressure should be approved in the area immediately adjacent to the court <br /> buildings. <br /> B. The Development blithely establishes an "unbundled"parking scheme in which <br /> parking places are not guaranteed to the potenYial occupiers of the residential <br /> components of the structure. While this was addressed orally in a very facile <br /> manner at the Planning Commission meeting leading to the approval of the <br /> Development, concerns were expressed there that were frankly never addressed by <br /> the developer. This type of"unbundling" has caused significant litigation in other <br /> areas and will ultimately impact parking in the surrounding vicinity because <br /> occupants of the residences may seek cheaper alternatives to paying for parking <br /> places within the structure by simply deciding to park on the streets, which are <br /> already impacted for the reasons described above. <br /> C. The EIR supporting the DPP apparently envisioned a four story maYimum height <br /> zone for the block affected across Bradford Street from the Development (see <br /> figure 73 of the EIR). When this was changed and whether relational height <br /> considerations were also analyzed is unclear in either the DPP or the EIR. <br /> D. To the extent these issues were considered, the EIR envisioned "tower wall step <br /> 9 <br />