My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75A
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2018
>
04/17/2018
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2018 10:36:58 AM
Creation date
4/17/2018 3:43:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
4/17/2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council <br />April 2, 2018 <br />Page 2 <br />reason, we are requesting a one-month delay to (i) allow Mr. Bisno, the Xerox Building owner, <br />and State Fund the opportunity to reach agreement on the use of State Fund Drive as the exit <br />path for the new parking structure and (ii) provide time for design modifications to provide for <br />an appropriate primary loading zone and the addition of a moue-in/move-out loading area for <br />the tenants of the proposed residences. <br />Our specific objections are as follows: <br />s The Morning Peak Hour Cross -Traffic. This project impact was not addressed in the traffic <br />study, which focused on Cabrillo Park Drive at Xerox Centre, but not upon the proposed <br />project's interface with the existing circulation on Xerox Centre Drive, In fact, the traffic <br />study does not even state how many cars will be entering or exiting the Xerox Building <br />parking structure at peak hours or, for that matter, at any time. As of now, the City, the <br />public, and the owner and tenants of the Xerox Building have no idea to what degree this <br />conflict will impact tenants and visitors to the Xerox Building or traffic on Cabrillo Park <br />Drive. <br />Curiously, Table 5-1 of the traffic study cites the number of cars that would enter and exit <br />the Madison parking structure if the Madison site was built out as a 210,000 square foot <br />office tower, (Note that the project site is the Phase II of the Xerox Centre identified by <br />Table 5-1, whereas the existing Xerox building is Phase 1 and has a square footage of <br />321,833.) This is curious because CECA is not concerned with comparing a proposed project <br />to what theoretically could have been built under existing or prior zoning, but rather what <br />the potential impacts of the proposed project are when compared to existing conditions. <br />Here, it is indisputable that existing conditions do not include cross -traffic from a second <br />parking structure. It is equally indisputable that the project will result in traffic leaving the <br />new parking structure and crossing the incoming traffic lane for the existing Xerox Building <br />parking structure, The potential conflicts must be analyzed. Instead, the traffic study <br />concludes on Page 14 that "the traffic impact potential associated with the proposed <br />Project would likely be less than that of the entitled land use." That may be interesting <br />information, but it is not a CECA analysis. <br />Even if the correct square footage is applied to the analysis and the number of morning <br />peak hour entry trips are extracted from the ITE manual, the ITE manual is not intended to <br />and cannot judge the potential morning peak hour conflicts on Xerox Centre Drive because <br />those potential conflicts are uniquely defined by existing characteristics and conditions. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.