PC 092601 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Sullivan provided the following comments on the Draft EIR: ,.- . Page 4-21, Item 18. Does not feel that "encouraging" will accomplish this. Real programs and funding will be needed to make this happen. . Page 4-35 and Page 4-48, reference that the extension of Rose Avenue to Valley will have a less than significant impact on the neighborhood. He noted that he does not believe that and would like to get the traffic numbers. . Page 4-92, reference to energy. He noted that the Energy Committee is a long way from developing an energy ordinance. He advised that the impacts on energy use need to be looked at closer in this EIR, and that the mitigation measures that they have already discussed, such as green building, need to be included. . Page 4-119, reference to demolition and remodeling of historic buildings needs to be strengthened. . Would like to see the positive impacts of relocating the ACE train station on the neighborhood and traffic. He noted that the Planning Commission needs data to help them make a recommendation regarding the Pacific Locomotive train. . Would like information regarding the regional impacts of the loss of the regional transportation corridor. He commented that the parking goals and transportation goals conflict. Commissioner Kameny expressed concern about the lack of information related to the Pacific Locomotive Railroad and the proposed Rose Avenue Extension. Commissioner Roberts stated that she feels that a lot ofthe conflicting goals have been analyzed r- quite well. She stated that she feels the train analysis is inadequate and may be inaccurate. She noted that there is no mention of the traffic analysis if 325 Ray Street is changed to High Density Residential. She stated that she feels there are some other things in the City's General Plan that may provide alternatives to traffic on First Street, such as the extension of Stoneridge Drive and El Charro through to Stanley, which should be addressed in the traffic analysis. Commissioner Arkin stated that he agrees with most of what the Commissioners have said. He noted that he would like to see a more thorough analysis on the Niles Canyon Railroad. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Iserson provided information about the development and certification process of the Final EIR. Ms. Seto advised that the question! answer format used in the development of the Final EIR has proven to be the most helpful method for people to see how their comments are addressed. In response to an inquiry from Chairperson Maas, Mr. Iserson advised that the Final EIR will come back to the Commission with the Specific Plan. He noted that he anticipates this to be in December. He further advised that staff would instruct the consultant to contact the Pacific Locomotive Association to establish a communication and ensure that the information is correct. Commissioner Arkin stated that it seems like the Draft EIR was written based on assumptions in the Specific Plan. He advised that he is concerned that the Commission may want to look at the Specific Plan first. Mr. Iserson explained that the Specific Plan cannot be approved without the CEQA process. Commissioner Arkin commented that the Planning Commission is not being r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26,2001 Page 11