pages: PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2012-02-13 | 9 | a change of use and staff would need to reconsider the parking for whatever reason, then staff would look at the building type. If the building were a 100-year-old building, then staff would apply discretion to address the parking standards. President Ezzy Ashcraft called for the Board to make comments on the North Park Street Code Draft Environmental Impact Report. Board member Knox White stated that one of the things that the environmental impact report has to do is fit into the regional planning framework. He explained that in regards to the housing portion for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) Sustainable Community Strategy, the Environmental Impact Report doesn't seem to address how housing will be constructed in the Priority Development Areas. Also, the housing numbers seemed to be quite low and based on historical growth. He also commented on the document's overall format, where the findings are highlighted in some sections and in other sections it is not and he found the document difficult to read. He referred to section D6, the Mitigation for Storm Water Utilities, where it says the plan will result in a reduction of storm water runoff, but if development exceeds the assumptions, meaning if a development which is bigger than noted in the document is built then that would be trigger new thresholds and the City would have to write a new EIR. Mr. Thomas replied that if he essentially took all the development projections on page 9 and build all of that out staff would have done enough analysis that they believe the City's sewer and storm water systems could handle that and staff has it broken down essentially by block. Also, staff has setup a system where a developer can submit an application and staff can immediately see the capacity assumed for the block and know if the applicant is fine in terms of sewer and storm water. If the applicant jeopardizes the sewer and storm water capacity, then staff would study the proposal. Board member Knox White referred to the Transportation Mitigation Levels Of Service section. Based on the corridors of transit, the corridors are not defined in the level of service analysis and they do not follow the guidelines for transit corridors, which would be to look at two stops on either side of the transit area in order to expand the corridor as long as possible. Secondly, he couldn't find whether the automobile arterial segments levels of service were analyzed. Thirdly, he explained the bicycle analysis was fine, but the pedestrian portion of the analysis is incorrect because the analysis was looking at the average delay per person, in all directions at Park Street and Blanding Avenue. When referring to section IV-E21, the average pedestrian delay was 16 seconds, which seems to quick. So, there are issues with the cumulative pedestrian times. Regarding the Mitigation section, he noted that Mitigation 3 is completely out of compliance when referring to section 4.4.2.F of the General Plan. The first recommended mitigation does not have a TDM selected except unless the City does not do all the other TDMs. Fourthly, he stated the analysis that allows what is proposed for a mitigation is not in compliance with the General Plan, which says that no mitigations in an environmental impact report can be proposed if it degrades the pedestrian and bicycle levels of service. He doesn't see the level of service shown, but he knows that the mitigations will increase crossing times in the middle of the business district and it seems the plan is to propose all along Park Street what has been done at Encinal Avenue and Park Street. Furthermore, he pointed out the recommendations Approved Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 15 February 13, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf |