My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE- 75A
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2020
>
04/21/2020
>
CORRESPONDENCE- 75A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2020 3:31:24 PM
Creation date
4/13/2020 8:06:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Item #
75A
Date
4/21/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Concern #3. Community want One Broadway Plaza to prepare a new Environmental Impact Report (an EIR), and <br />to conduct additional Traffic Studies. <br />The PC did not recommend OBP prepare a new EIR, or prepare new traffic studies. Instead the PC was satisfied that <br />traffic assumptions in the 2003 EIR were sufficient. Because the 2003 EIR does not address traffic impacts from over a <br />dozen newly -approved or anticipated apartment projects near OBP, this all but insures Main Street, Broadway, <br />Washington, Civic Center, Seventeenth, and streets in at least six adjoining neighborhoods, will be negatively impacted <br />for decades into the future. <br />Request #3: Developer to prepare a new Environmental Impact Report, to address traffic impacts from other recently <br />approved, and anticipated development projects, which surround One Broadway Plaza. <br />Concern #4. Community sought Additional Traffic Protections for the Logan, Lacy, Downtown, and Willard <br />Neighborhoods <br />The PC recommended only the Logan neighborhood receive traffic protections, leaving Lacy, Downtown, and Willard <br />neighborhoods without these benefits. <br />Request #4: Developer to include Lacy, Downtown, and Willard to the list of neighborhoods to receive traffic mitigation <br />protections as part of his project. <br />Concern #5. Community requested an Increase in Traffic Mitigation Fees for neighborhoods previously identified <br />to receive these benefits as described in the expired 2003 Development Agreement. <br />The PC agreed with Staffs recommendation to increase the original traffic mitigation fee (approved in 2003) from <br />$200,000 per neighborhood to $300,000 per neighborhood. Although the increase appears substantial, the extra <br />$100,000 may not even account for inflation, and would not significantly contribute to the design or construction of much - <br />needed neighborhood traffic mitigations. The PC also failed to address a timeline to plan, design and construct these <br />improvements. <br />Request #5: Developer to: <br />* Increase individual neighborhood traffic mitigation fees from $200, 000 to at least $500, 000 <br />• Create a timeline when the Developer will plan, design and build these improvements <br />* include Traffic Mitigation Fees as part of a new Development Agreement <br />"Developer and City will work directly with each of the impacted neighborhoods separately, and together, to prepare an <br />inter -related Traffic Mitigation Plan <br />Concern #6. Community asked that Park Development Fees for OBP remain within the impacted neighborhoods. <br />The PC agreed, and recommended that park development fees be available for use in the impacted neighborhoods. <br />Unfortunately the PC did not address where and how these dollars will be spent. <br />Request #6: Development Agreement to include the required park fees, and also discuss where and how these park fees <br />are used. This insures the Developer pays the required park fees, and also that City and Developer work with the affected <br />neighborhoods to identify important community -sought park projects. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.