HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCDC Minutes 06/03/2002June 3, 2002
Page 1
City of Petaluma, California
nn Petaluma Communitv Development Commission Meetinq
Meeting Minutes
Monday, June 3, 2002 - 8:20 p.m.
Regular Meeting
1 PRESENT: Cader-Thompson, Vice Chair Healy, Maguire,
2 Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatt
3 ABSENT: Chair Thompson
4
5
6
7 PUBLIC COMMENT
8
9 None,
10
11 COMMISSION COMMENTS
12
13 None,
14
15 PUBLIC HEARING
16 WATER STREET DEVELOPMENT PLAN
17
18 Discussion and Possible Action on Water Street Redevelopment Plan.
19
20 Paul Marangella, Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment,
21 explained that he was returning tonight at the Commission's direction with two
22 additional options for Water Street. They have been presented at two public
23 meetings. What was being presented tonight was the Site Plan and Architectural
24 Review Committee's (SPARC's) preferred project, Alternative E.
25
26 Dennis Rinehart, CSW Stuber-Stroeh, is assisting the City with implementation of
27 the Petaluma River Enhancement and Access Plan. Five alternatives were
28 developed - the one presented here and four others were presented at two
29 public hearings, and reviewed by Fehr and Peers, Traffic Engineers. Their findings
30 were shared with the public at these hearings. The two alternatives with the
31 most public and staff support were B and E.
32
June 3, 2002 Page 2
1 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Regarding Alternative B - was there a
2 variation without the left-hand turn lane?
3
4 Mr. Rinehart - That will come up when public input is discussed.
5
6 Commissioner Torliatt referred to page 9 of the Staff Report. She did not think the
7 EIR would have to be recirculated - but this says it would. Regarding the second
8 community meeting - page 7, # 7 of the consensus items says phased parking
9 was acceptable. She did not remember that as being one of the consensus
10 items.
11
12 Mr. Rinehart - We can discuss that in the wrap-up.
13
14 Steve Arago, CSW Stuber-Stroeh - At the May 6, 2002 PCDC meeting, the
15 Commission directed them to consider some additional alternatives. They
16 prepared them in time for the May 11th community workshop meeting. He
17 explained the guiding principles and criteria used for developing alternatives,
18 and then quickly reviewed the five alternatives.
19
20 Commissioner Maguire - On Alternative D, does the pedestrian promenade
21 allow for service vehicle deliveries?
22
23 Mr. Arago - Yes. All alternatives do, and all provide some sort of river access,
24 pedestrian and bicycle access (except D), permanent pedestrian promenade
25 along River, additional trash enclosures, some level of outdoor space for cafes.
26 Emergency vehicle access is maintained. All schemes can maintain trolley lines.
27
28 Commissioner Maguire - Where the tracks are or would go back down - would
29 they be in the travel lane as opposed to where the parking spaces are?
30
31 Mr. Arago - Yes.
32
33 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Even on C?
34
35 Mr. Arago - Yes, although it would require some realignment.
36
37 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - In all alternatives, the ramp to the river is in the
38 same place. What about moving the ramp south?
39
40 Mr. Arago - That came up in the public meetings, This was in response to the
41 SPARC meeting in January. A lot we've heard since then suggests we may need
42 to move ramp south.
43
June 3, 2002
Page 3
1 Commissioner Torliatt - Existing telephone poles - is that basically the line for
2 private/public ownership? Where is the sidewalk on the building side in
3 relationship to those poles? She could see parking would get eliminated.
4
5 John FitzGerald, CSW Stuber-Stroeh - Configuration of the buildings dates from
6 before the turn of the century. Buildings lines do not represent the plated
7 property lines.
8
9 Commissioner Torliatt - So the property lines are basically in line with the
10 electrical poles?
11
12 Mr. FitzGerald - We have not compared them. Historically, poles were placed
13 where older poles were. He would make an educated guess that the poles run
14 inside what is considered public right-of-way.
15
16 Mr. Arago - Did not count private parking spaces or spaces that they did not
17 think were legal.
18
19 Commissioner Torliatt - Where did you get 73 as the number of parking spaces?
20
21 Mr. Arago - Aerial photographs. We defined spaces as those that could be seen
22 in the photographs.
23
24 Commissioner Torliatt - Went down and could only find 69 spaces. We're all off a
25 few parking spaces in a variety of areas when looking at alternatives,
26
27 Mr. Arago - Will clarify that so Commission can see how they came up with that
28 number. Alternative D does provide some additional parking, but loses the
29 potential for outdoor cafes. Alternative E has the least impact because it does
30 not change the traffic pattern. The street can be closed off completely for
31 events.
32
33 Mr. Wick - Described the community meetings. They agreed on attributes they
34 wanted in design. The paving treatment used on the Golden Concourse should
35 extend across Petaluma Boulevard. Regarding phased parking - one of two
36 issues remained unresolved at the end of evening. Both E and B incorporate
37 phased parking.
38
39 Commissioner Maguire - Do you mean "phased parking" with the idea of
40 phasing it in or phasing it out?
41
42 Mr. Wick - Those who liked B were for eventual phasing out of all parking. Those
43 who liked E favored retaining as much parking as possible right now - but with
44 eventual phasing out.
June 3, 2002 Page 4
1
2 Vice Chair Healy - Good news; People feel passionately about this town and
3 area.
4
5 Mr. Wick - The majority of SPARC recommended E and recommended some
6 aesthetic changes. An environmental review was done on E. According to the
7 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) you can only do an environmental
8 review on one project.
9
10 Commissioner Torliatt - In the project description what is allowed/not allowed -
11 why was an environmental review done on E when we hadn't decided on E?
12
13 Mr. Wick - Physical description of project is required in environmental review.
14
15 Commissioner Torliatt - If you read the project description, it is so general it could
16 be any of the alternatives.
17
18 Mr. Wick - That's because it incorporates the graphic, which is detailed. He
19 received letter from Petaluma Trolley requesting that the tracks remain.
20 Additional language may be incorporated to make it clear that the tracks will
21 be replaced. Operation of trolley could happen with any of the alternatives -
22 would have to be phased. The trolley can only run in areas where traffic is going
23 the same way. It would have to start on the other side of Washington.
24
25 Commissioner Moynihan - Any consideration given to alternatives? If you had to
26 maintain utility lines would that not impact parking?
27
28 Mr. Rinehart - Not in parking area. Sewer and water would have to be located
29 in an area outside of where track would be.
30
31 Commissioner Moynihan- Will the Water Street sewer main be replaced?
32
33 Mr. Rinehart - We will be involved in that and also fire hydrants and water main.
34 Underground existing utilities through underground utility district.
35
36 Commissioner Moynihan - You'll incorporate utilities into the next step of the
37 design?
38
39 Mr. Rinehart - Yes.
40
41 Commissioner Moynihan - E retained the most parking but still loses some 36
42 spaces?
43
44 Mr. Rinehart - Mostly because of landscaping and outside use areas.
June 3, 2002 Page 5
1
2 Commissioner Moynihan - Thought there was an alternative that only lost five or
3 six spaces.
4
5 J.T. Wick - Thought Councilmember Moynihan was referring to the meeting with
6 PDA where they talked about removing trees on the riverside - which would
7 add 5 to 8 spaces.
8
9 Vice Chair Healy - Does option B continue to have left turn movement out of
10 Golden Concourse?
11
12 J.T. Wick - No, it eliminates that.
13
14 Vice Chair Healy - The draft EIR for the Central Specific Plan will focus heavily on
15 traffic issues in the downtown area. We are anticipating additional traffic with
16 the kinds of development hoped for through the Central Specific Plan. Did Fehr
17 and Peers use existing conditions?
18
19 Mr. Wick - Yes.
20
21 Mr. Moore - Nothing in the Specific Plan speaks to Water Street or any change in
22 circulations.
23
24 Vice Chair Healy - Does not want to look only at Water Street circulation - wants
25 to look at the bigger picture.
26
27 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - It's important when we look at redevelopment
28 in the budget that we obligate money so we can go into partnership with
29 developers to a build parking structure.
30
31 Vice Chair Healy - Alternative E - was there a discussion about preserving
32 options for the future as things unfold?
33
34 Mr. Wick - That was the primary reason SPARC liked E. It has the most flexibility.
35
36 Commissioner Torliatt - Wants to hear the public's thoughts about trees against
37 building versus trees along water. It's a neat place already and it doesn't have
38 that many trees. She would like some follow up - maybe Mr. Marangella -
39 regarding comments property owners/merchants made regarding parking
40 issues, lack of street maintenance, code enforcement, etc.
41
42 Vice Chair Healy - Are you trying to get Commission preference on circulation
43 alternatives with more specific design details later?
44
June 3, 2002 Page b
1 Mr. Wick - If the Commission were to adopt the resolution tonight, he will come
2 back later to SPARC with design details.
3
4 Vice Chair Healy - See opportunity in all alternatives to squeeze in more parking
5 spaces. Wants the Commission to focus on bigger picture.
6
7 Mr. Wick - What we were trying to do is take the two policy documents and
8 reflect them.
9
10 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Agree with Commissioner Torliatt. Think some
11 trees can be removed for parking spaces. Think there are other ways to
12 beautify.
13
14 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
15
16 Lauren Williams, Petaluma Trolley, thinks the trolley could operate in the opposite
17 direction of traffic with appropriate signalization. The demolition of the trestle
18 between Water Street and First Street would be a major setback to the trolley
19 project. The trolley project is a historical renovation project.
20
21 Kate Fulton, Petaluma, member of Petaluma River Enhancement Committee - A
22 little disturbed to hear so much talk about how we can expand parking along
23 the river. Realize parking important. The whole gist of committee's effort was
24 toward preserving, expanding, creating places for people, not their cars. She
25 was at SPARC meeting - was told then that at May 11 meeting there were five
26 groups and four of them wanted to preserve more pedestrian - B - tonight it
27 sounds like it's 50/50. Clarification?
28
29 Commissioner Maguire - Wants to hear, as well.
30
31 Mr. Wick - At the end of the meeting, after each group had given their critique
32 of each alternative, tried to globally agree on attributes important without
33 picking a particular alternative.
34
35 Commissioner Maguire - In those meetings, was the majority of support for E?
36
37 Mr. Wick - Out of five, there were three who preferred B, one liked E as is, one
38 liked E but close Golden Concourse in middle.
39
40 Commissioner Torliatt - At that time there were about thirty people left - not the
41 some number as was there originally.
42
43 Ms. Fulton - Appreciates the time and thought going into this. Whatever we
44 choose, we will live with for a long time. Whatever we design - that's how it will
June 3, 2002 Page 7
1 be used, and it will display the values of community. Supports option B - keeps
2 some parking and allows people space on river.
3
4 Bridget Lee, Petaluma - Has been to every meeting. Don't see it as an expansion
5 of parking. At SPARC meeting she kept hearing support for merchants and
6 business - customers have to have place to park. Everybody agreed we want
7 places for people to come - eventually be pedestrian access. Starting with E
8 and move toward B. Water Street is ugly. No reason for it to be. Thrilled at idea of
9 improving. Starting with E - start where it works for everybody.
10
11 Mary Dooley, Petaluma - Was on the Specific Plan Committee and is happy to
12 see progress. First need to look at greater good. She was at May 11 th meeting -
13 thought there was division between people looking out for entire community
14 and people who work/have businesses in area. Alternative E is a huge
15 compromise for merchants in area. This is not least impact - is least investment in
16 future. Alternative E is "status quo with trees" - fluffing up what's there - not
17 celebrating this riverfront and heart of town and exciting things on Water Street,
18 Noticed that Healdsburg is investing in their town - surpassing us so quickly. We
19 have a great downtown core. Must have a public place - the best place is
20 where the trestle bridge comes in. That is the perfect place to establish a "sense
21 of place. " Scheme B plus a little more parking is her idea.
22
23 Joann Posey, Petaluma - Finds it frustrating to come to one of these meetings
24 without having been provided with the staff report. Why are we starting with this
25 piece, which is the most volatile? What if we don't ever get the rest of it done?
26 None of these looks particularly like a real waterfront. In all the meetings she
27 attended the one concurrence is that we need to go through the
28 inconvenience of getting the utilities under street taken care of. Page 1,
29 paragraph - I believe E was favored at public meeting before SPARC meeting -
30 with removal of parking spaces to run concurrently with creation of new parking
31 spaces elsewhere. We are not seeing these replacement parking spaces
32 scheduled. Interested in seeing the parking resolved. Our money was used to
33 get those parking spaces years ago, our money is now being used to take them
34 away, and money is not being set aside for replacement spaces. Suggested in
35 specific areas parking be retained. Does not think it's "not a big deal" to come
36 up with maintenance money. Talk about places for people to gather -
37 concerned with
38
39 Diane Reilly -Torres, Petaluma - The factory outlet EIR mitigation is in conflict with
40 this plan! Why are you talking about this when this other thing ,might undo it?
41 Think we should be doing General Plan update - public workshops could be
42 folded into that. Do you know CSW Stuber-Stroeh was the hydrologist for
43 Redwood Technology and Factory Outlet?
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
June 3, 2002
Vice Chair Healy - Don't think that's correct.
Ms. Reilly -Torres - Who is Petaluma's Traffic Engineer? Why did Fehr and Peers do
the traffic analysis on this and nothing else? And who is paying for it?
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma - Supports revitalization of downtown. This is the first
step forward in that process. She was in the group that supported B with no left
turn from Golden Concourse onto boulevard. Will have to proceed with traffic,
circulation and parking study and other elements of Central Petaluma Specific
Plan. Suggest go ahead with this project - and proceed with traffic, etc, study
and CPSP as well.
David Keller, Petaluma - Talked about past proposals for downtown - tear it all
down and build a mall - tear it all down and put in parking lot. PCDC goals and
objectives, 1976 - read from that - sounds like it called for a project like this.
Called for area along river from 'D' street o Washington as a linear park. Nothing
in CPSP says "put parking on your most valuable real estate.' These alternatives
look good from a pigeon's eye view - but have nothing to do with streetscape.
If we want to market downtown as a place to be it has to be something that's
enjoyable, and accessible to pedestrians. Alternative E will not serve the
community in the long run. It's important to take the longer -range view.
Regarding closing streets for special events - we all know merchants complain
about closing streets for special events. The staff report was not made available
ahead of time - he did not know the meeting was happening until he saw it in
the Press Democrat on Friday. Plan B has only 13-15 fewer parking spaces than E.
B is a compromise. E will get you nowhere. Thinks the Commission should support
B - but earn merchants trust by saying that the CIP will include two parking
structures. If this doesn't happen now, the entire downtown project will fall apart.
Samantha Frates, Petaluma Downtown Association, Petaluma - Water Street
parking would not exist if merchants had not taxed themselves to provide them.
Alternative E is already a huge compromise. With the CPSP not implemented,
and lack of alternative parking. Will also lose parking spaces with Basin Street
Properties construction. With the interest of seeing bigger picture, they feel this is
best compromise right now. Downtown Petaluma is in transition. Basin Street will
affect development from this point forward. Without places for people to park
to patronize businesses, there will not be any businesses.
Paul Johnson, Petaluma - Thought the May 11 th meeting was a waste of time if
he comes here and the Commission isn't being told that people wanted B. The
way this was presented that was not clear.
Vin Smith, Board of Directors, PDA, and Basin Street Properties - We need to do
something. This is another opportunity to create another retail street in this town
June 3, 2002 Page 9
1 - an opportunity to take advantage of energy and enthusiasm of merchants
2 downtown. There must be a deliberate focused approach to making
3 improvements. Basin Street projects will provide two new public plazas that will
4 connect with Water Street pedestrian walkway. From what he hears - there is
5 support to close off Water Street to parking eventually - there is not support to
6 do that now. It is not clear that new parking garage is coming - and it needs to
7 be - location needs to be determined - funds need to be obligated.
8
9 Jon Pierre, Petaluma - Had recent visitors who thought it extraordinary that there
10 was not pedestrian access to riverfront. He runs a non-profit in San Anselmo -
11 they were afraid that losing parking spaces would mean losing business - but
12 the opposite has happened. It has become a "destination. "
13
14 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
15
16 Commissioner Maguire - How difficult will it be ,to synchronize the alternatives
17 with the parking structure improvements?
18
19 Mr. Marangella - The parking structure improvements are scheduled for this
20 summer - alternatives not till 2003-2004.
21
22 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Supports Alternative B - if the floating dock
23 moved south,* could create more parking spaces, another six parking places
24 further now. Thinks project will increase business because people will want to go
25 downtown. Will see a lot more people getting off road and riding bicycles
26 around community. If we go to E - I don't see that we're ever going to see a
27 public space. Alternative B+ - creates that space now. The river is key to
28 downtown - interconnection with the rest of the City. She knows someone with
29 an upscale business in Healdsburg who talked about how people come to
30 Healdsburg because it's pedestrian friendly. She thinks Petaluma has more of an
31 opportunity than other local towns because we have the river. She supports B
32 without the left-hand turn. The parking survey says 40% of parking downtown is
33 merchants. She wants to put natural planting in the river area - not just trees on
34 Water Street.
35
36 Commissioner Torliatt - Has attended every single meeting and understands the
37 necessity of parking. She would like to challenge the design architect to go
38 back and see if they can create 52 parking spaces, including Golden
39 Concourse. Thinks can create some parking along backs of buildings. Want to
40 help merchants improve backs of buildings. Need to make commitment on
41 parking structure. Hopes Council goes forward in committing funds toward that.
42 Would like to see trolley track replacement put into this initial study. When doing
43 trestle improvement, brought up to level that trolley can actually run on. Agree
44 there is no maintenance budget for this yet. Need to figure out how we are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
June 3, 2002 Page 10
going to maintain this. She would be happy to reduce the number of trees in the
northern portion. Interesting what Diane said of other project proposals in
community that speaks to parking we aren't even looking at here. Thinks Paul
should coordinate with PDA the development that is occurring in downtown.
Can't leave merchants stranded. Need good signage, good coordination.
Commissioner O'Brien - favors alternative E. People coming from out of area are
not walking or driving. Need to be able to provide as much parking as possible
until new parking structure built.
Commissioner Maguire - Third Street in Berkeley. Huge amount of growth, huge
increase in parking difficulties - but people still go there. Easy parking isn't the
thing that makes these things successful - it's an attractive pedestrian access.
We need to maximize trees - global warming is hitting us hard. People like to be
around trees - always enhances an environment. We have to start biting the
bullet and wean ourselves from our addiction to automobiles. Thinks B represents
the best possible combination - get rid of left-hand onto PBN, agree with
Commissioner Cader-Thompson to move floating dock south. Closed off section
toward Western - maybe add 8 spaces parking. Don't want floating dock to be
"dead end" - access from both sides, Between 25% to 40% of the parking
places are taken up by merchants and their employees. Improvements to
parking garage may take care of that. Support rails being replaced. Shared
parking structure in CIP appropriate response - long-term thing - in meantime
need to commit to pedestrian element of Water Street project. Agree that what
we've seen with Dempsey's - if you have something with pedestrian appeal on
other side of bridge - create a very dynamic space. Can add some spaces to
Alternative B.
Commissioner Moynihan - always struck that there's always a vision people
embrace and a reality. Need to find a balance. None of these alternatives
really stir him. Not looking at economic advantages of this type of investment.
Very expensive investment. Need to address parking/circulation issues. There are
outside impacts we're not even discussing because we're only talking about four
blocks. We talked about River Enhancement Plan - not backed by reality - no
numbers included. We have draft CPSP - financial aspects wanting - have a
hard time saying let's eliminate parking where we have, gussy up existing
parking garage. Stirred negatively by costs of the project. Where is payback?
Need to discuss further. There is clearly no maintenance budget. Floating dock
would invite maintenance problems and headaches. A lot of this looks good on
paper, but doesn't think investing this much capital in this project at this time is
good for community.
Vice Chair Healy - Likes 3rd street neighborhood in Berkeley - but on other hand,
drove around Haight for 20 minutes looking for parking before they gave up.
June 3, 2002 Page 11
1 Think parking can get addressed as things move forward through design process
2 and through SPARC. For tonight is more focused on circulation issue -
3 concerned with cumulative impacts downtown coming from other projects -
4 Eden, etc. Inclined toward an "E Light" with emphasis on looking at design
5 features as it goes through SPARC that make it readily changeable in the future
6 as other projects come on line. Agrees there needs to be at least one parking
7 structure in near future and one or two more down the road - timing uncertain -
8 unfair to ask merchants to hang on and wait for those. The first parking structure
9 needed will be in the area behind the Fire Station. Excited about- vision of
10 creating public space - can have without eliminating cars entirely. There are
11 other opportunities downtown for enhancing public space. Support replace
12 tracks on Water Street to accommodate trolley service down the road. Not
13 convinced floating dock makes sense.
14
15 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Felt B+ was a real compromise. There is a
16 need to upgrade downtown and make a real change. Alternative E - why
17 don't we just fix the water mains underneath it, repave it and say the hell with it?
18 If this community wants to make downtown a vital, economic area - it's not just
19 for people coming from outside Petaluma. She feels Alternative B would be the
20 first step in having a public place, public amenity. With E - why would we put so
21 much money into an area that is basically for cars? Knows things don't "get
22 phased out." Every other community has bit the bullet and moved forward and
23 Petaluma is moving like a snail, like we always do. Why stay in the 1950's?
24
25 Vice Chair Healy - Hoping commissioners would try to address statements of
26 other commissioners.
27
28 Commissioner Torliatt - It's difficult to find a compromise between closing/not
29 closing. What she keeps hearing about at the public meetings is the parking
30 issue. She firmly believes we can provide more parking with B+ than we can find
31 in E. She is willing to sacrifice the docks to create a little more parking. We need
32 to say more parking, close the street. We need to take a leap of faith - have a
33 sense of vision.
34
35 Commissioner Maguire - What he sees is "E Lite" - still has cars going through
36 and does destroy the attempt to have pedestrian area. He is willing to hold off
37 on the docks to see if we can add a couple of spaces, but if we do get rid of
38 the docks, he suggests a fountain. Generally, we're asking ourselves, "Are we
39 willing to make a greater/lesser commitment, take a greater/lesser risk?' What
40 we're hearing universally is "make it pedestrian, " Merchants are saying that will
41 hurt us - but foot traffic is good for business. The big question is ending circulation
42 through that last branch. If the Commission can agree to stop circulation
43 through that Western extension portion, he thinks they're on their way.
44
June 3, 2002 Page 12
1 Commissioner Torliatt - Vice Chair Healy was on the CPSP Committee. She was
2 sure the vision of the CPSP and River Enhancement Plan has always been to
3 create a place by the river. Not a drive through place - a pedestrian place.
4 Besides, it smells when cars. go by the outdoor cafes.
5
6 City Manager Fred Stouder - Maybe a motion/second are not possible tonight.
7 Would the Commission like to bring it back next week for discussion?
8
9 Vice Chair Healy - It would helpful to have when we do come back to have a
10 more detailed analysis from Fehr and Peers regarding B and E.
11
12 Mr. Moore - Fehr and Peers is going to do the traffic analysis for the Specific Plan
13 EIR. He did not think that information would be available immediately.
14
15 Commissioner Maguire - Would be willing to make a motion to approve
16 Alternative B, but terminating last section.
17
18 Vice Chair Healy - How would it be different from Alternative B?
19
20 Commissioner Maguire - Ask the consultants to come back with how many
21 more parking spaces they can maintain, solutions for the dock issues, etc. The
22 intent of all the plans is to create pedestrian space - the only way to do this is to
23 eliminate parking through the western extension.
24
25 Commissioner Torliatt - On the issue of circulation, the Commission/Council
26 needs to make a policy decision - whose project is going to create the traffic
27 impact that's the straw that breaks the camel's back? He is afraid it will be the
28 project that gets in line first instead of the project that's best for the community.
29 We cannot continue to delay the Central Petaluma Specific Plan,
30
31 Vice Chair Healy - When is the draft EIR coming out?
32
33 Mr. Moore - We are trying to finalize the schedule of meetings for June and July
34 - to get some feedback on the April draft - and the final draft of the CPSP and
35 EIR should come out this fall.
36
37 Vice Chair Healy - We will still be able to adopt it this fall?
38
39 Mr. Moore - That's my hope.
40
41 Commissioner Torliatt - The Traffic Element of the General Plan, with better
42 modeling, is due in September. For now we should have moratorium on
43 development in order to be able to make good decisions.
44
June 3, 2002 Page 13
1 Commissioner Cader-Thompson- This is just like Southgate, What about the next
2 project? What is the cumulative impact? Are we going to wait for the General
3 Plan? There's another project next week. We're doing it piecemeal,
4
5 Commissioner Moynihan - See a need for more traffic analysis for B and E. He
6 would like a cost estimate for B, E and No Project. He would also like input on the
7 economic advantages of each,
8
9 Commissioner Maguire - That's "paralysis by analysis. "
10
11 Motion to direct staff look revised Alternative B to see if more parking spaces
12 could be added, M/S Maguire/Torliatt,
13
14 Vice Chair Healy - Would not support that. He would like more input from Fehr
15 and Peers,
16
17 Mr. Moore - The Fehr and Peers traffic model is not at an appropriate level to do
18 a CEQA analysis - that's why we are not using it for projects coming forward,
19
20 Commissioner Torliatt - Supports motion on the floor but also wants to make a
21 decision that's not contentious. If Vice Chair Healy feels he needs more
22 information to make decision, she's willing to allow him that, although she would
23 strongly like to move forward,
24
25 Commissioner Maguire: More information will just make us more nervous,
26
27 Mr, Stouder; If it's a slim vote, you'll be visiting it again and again, He would
28 rather have the development team come back with some options,
29
30 Commissioner Maguire: Withdrew motion, He wants to come to an agreement
31 with some support. Commission should think about it and be ready to commit to
32 a plan,
33
34 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Withdrew second,
35
36 Commissioner Torliatt - Motion to make initial study for Alternative B as well as
37 Alternative E.
38
39 Vice Chair Healy - Didn't think a motion was needed for that. He thought the
40 Commission had given staff as much direction possible,
41
42 Commissioner Torliatt - Can we give staff direction to do the same work for B as
43 for E?
44
June 3, 2002
1 Commission consensus,
2
3 ADJOURN
4
5 The meeting was adjourned at 11;20 p.m,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Michael Healy, Vice Chair
13
14
15
16 ATTEST;
17
18
19 Claire Cooper, Recording Secretary
20
21
22
23 ******
Page 14