pages: TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-06-25 | 9 | that staff did not have an occasion to remove a sign, but if they receive a request, it may be because of a substantial land use change, such as a new school. It was staff's goal that ultimately all streets would be signed. Commissioner Ratto moved to accept staff's recommendation to deny the appeal. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1 (No: Schatmeier). 6C. Review of Draft Schedule for Completing Analysis of Thresholds of Significance. Staff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that the major issue was how to resolve conflicts. The City Attorney has stated that a Supplemental EIR would be necessary. He noted that the Transportation Commission has asked staff to determine how to resolve conflicts prior to bringing the EIR to the City Council. He noted that they would present a schedule to bring the resolution forward. The five items listed in the discussion to be implemented before reaching the goal of having the threshold of significance were: 1. The final selection of methods of evaluation or level of service criteria; 2. Development of draft implementation policies to address conflicts among different transportation modes; 3. Running the transportation model to see where the impacts were, and how to mitigate them; 4. Modify the draft policies as appropriate; and 5. Process the necessary environmental document so City Council could say they understood the conflicts and the impacts, and that they would approve the new thresholds of significance. He noted that the City Council must also disclose the impacts to the public, which was a very important item, in accordance with proposed EIR Policy 7. As an example, he noted that the City of San Jose had selected a few intersections that were protected, and that they would not be mitigated by adding more lanes; they would create a system of other modes in the City, and that the impacts at the other intersection would pay for the improvements. He noted that in order to collect the money from a developer or from projects, it would be critical to have a nexus between the fees collected and the impacts. A statement of overriding consideration would be needed for those intersections that would trigger the requirement of a supplemental EIR. He described the contents of the schedule in Table 1. He noted that in order to meet the schedule, a joint public hearing for the Draft EIR with the Transportation Commission and the Planning Board was being considered for August. The Final EIR would be brought to the Transportation Commission before it went to City Council. He noted that resolutions to the conflicts must be determined, and that staff hoped to return to the Transportation Commission in August or September with those recommendations. Chair Knox White noted that the Transportation Commission requested that the procedures for resolving conflicts come to this meeting, rather than a schedule. Staff Khan indicated that staff would continue to bring information forward as it became Page 9 of 11 | TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf |