Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-07-05TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. July 5. 2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Consideration of acceptance of a final scoping document for the draft Enyironmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed Maplewood Apartments Redeyelopment project located between Maple Ayenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-10.2, 63.-2- 1, 63.-2-2, 63.-2-14, and 63.-2-3, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal inyolyes demolishing the existing Maplewood housing complex and redeyeloping the +/- 17 acre site with up to 500 residential units (studios and 1-4 bedroom units) in a mix of townhomes, stacked flats, and multi-family apartment buildings. The project will also include some small retail, new interior streets, parking areas, pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and a community center. Cornell Uniyersity, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, Agent. Copies of the current draft scoping document are ayailable at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY (call 607-273-1747), or on the Town's website: www.town.ithaca.nv.us. 2. Persons to be heard 3. Approyal of Minutes: June 21, 2016 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747 or SPOLCE@TOWN.ri HACA.N^ .I'S. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Plannini; Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page (httD://www.town.ithaca.iiv.us/nicetinu-auenclas). Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street July 5, 2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address [0"? \LIc>\ . TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, July 5, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarry, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAugistine, Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Consideration of acceptance of a final scoping document for the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed Maplewood Apartments Redevelopment project located between Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63.-2-10.2, 63.-2-1, 63.-2- 2, 63.-2-14, and 63.-2-3, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing Maplewood housing complex and redeveloping the +/-17 acre site with up to 500 residential units (studios and 1-4 bedroom units) in a mix of townhomes, stacked flats, and multi-family apartment buildings. The project will also include some small retail, new interior streets, parking areas, pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and a community center. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; EdR Trust, Applicant; Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning &. Design, LLC, Agent. Mr. Wilcox asked the board whether they'd like to go through the redlined version they've had for a couple of weeks or the new version they received that day, which contains suggested language from the staff. Board members agreed to work from the redlined version. Mr. Wilcox said he didn't want perfect to get in the way of good. If we strive for perfection, it will take at least one more meeting. He wants a good document that covers all the topics that need to be covered and that ensures the environmental reviews that are important get done and that ancillary issues are covered as well. Mr. Bosak said he would prefer to deal with what to him are two big issues - to get those out of the way and then go through other issues, including comments from the public he thinks need to be taken into account. There are a lot of modifications staff would like to make. The two big issues are restructuring Chapter 5 and considering a proposed rewrite he had for Chapter 10. Mr. Wilcox proposed attacking the top environmental issues first: energy, cumulative impacts, community character, and transportation. Transportation is not inclusive enough because not only is he concerned about cars and where they go, he's also concerned about the movement of people around the area. Mr. Bosak said that after dealing with those large issues, he'd want to start at page 1 and go through the document. The board agreed. Planning Board Minutes 07-05-2016 Page 2 of 10 Energy Impacts Mr. Haefeli said he thinks the issue with the energy in particular comes from a place that had no attention paid to it. Ms. Collins said the DEC policy [Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environ mental Impact Statementsl was extremely helpful. She was struck by the focus on onsite generation of energy. Both natural gas and electricity have their upsides and their downsides. She would like to see something more along the line of what's in the guide, such as rooftop solar, green roofs, etc. She also thought there were great lists we could refer to: metrics to use for measuring, building design and operation measures, efficiency mitigation measures. Then the applicant can pick out things they think are appropriate. She said the board struggled with how to look at building materials and the DEC pointed out several examples of energy modeling software that can do it. It seems to her we can just cite pages in the guide. Mr. Bosak commented that the DEC policy was tailor-made for what we're doing. He noted that on pages 5 and 6 it says, "In cases where GHGs are analyzed in an EIS, both direct and indirect GHG emissions should be assessed. Each of these categories includes both stationary and mobile sources." A concern we had was that trying to assess greenhouse gas emissions in construction was impossible, but not according to the DEC: there's a whole methodology for doing exactly that. Consequently, he sees no reason to leave construction out of the scoping. The DEC provides some exceptions; for example, "A qualitative discussion of the GHG emissions resulting from the construction phase." He also would like the board to address the concerns raised regarding methane leakage. For better organization of these topics, he proposed pulling the references to GHGs from Chapter 5, which is about energy use, and making a new section 10 at the end of Chapter 3 to put GHGs in with the rest of the environmental impacts. He handed around and read aloud a proposal that does those two things and that uses staff s recommendations as a basis, which he rearranged and layered upon. He pointed out that electricity is the least efficient way to heat. Electricity is created somewhere else by burning fossil fuel, and, in addition to the efficiency losses due to the conversion, there are line losses from its delivery to the site. His rewrite shows the consequences of using electricity instead of gas, and they need to be quantified. The decision to use only electricity means that on a global basis, more energy will be consumed and more GHGs will be released. Ms. Brock took issue with his proposal's mention of methane leakage if natural gas is used, since the project proposal is to use electricity and not burn fossil fuels onsite, although they didn't specify the source of the electricity. Mr. Bosak agreed that as long as a statement appears somewhere in the scoping document to the effect that the applicant won't use natural gas for HVAC or appliances, references to methane could be deleted. He will make the changes to his document the board agreed on and send the revised copy to staff. Ms. Brock said that if they decide to use natural gas, there might need to be a supplemental EIS. Cumulative Impacts Mr. Wilcox said the board seems to be struggling with information that Cornell has sketch plans, visions, or ideas for other undeveloped and developed parcels on East Hill. Should we take that into Planning Board Minutes 07-05-2016 Page 3 of 10 account given the level of detail we've been able to observe publicly? How do we take into account a vision Mr. Beacb said be thinks we should take those into consideration because of the wealth of property in the South Campus Precinct. Even if those plans are visions, it's an expansive area that somewhere down the road will be developed parcel by parcel. His fear is of segmentation. We're facing all kinds of unanticipated environmental impacts from a series of events from the same applicant. We can't ignore the vision. Ms. Meier Swain said that from a work standpoint at her job, they take into account vision in terms of the probability that it will come together. Mr. Wilcox said he wants more than a reference to it; a reference simply acknowledges the existence of where development might go on East Hill. In order to weigh cumulative impacts, we need to be able to quantify them. Ms. Collins said she finds it hard to believe, given the 2008 Master Plan that outlines three zones in this precinct, that Cornell would not have good ideas about what's likely to happen, particularly in this case about housing graduate students. The Cornell plan says that the second zone will have student residential units. She can't believe an analysis hasn't been done. She'd like some insight into that thinking. Ms. Balestra said to keep in mind that it's a 50-year plan. They don't expect all of the various precincts they envision will be developed within 5, 10, 20 years. A 50-year plan could change drastically. Ms. Collins said we're at step 1, and asked what the reality is right now. What's the rationale for putting this number of units of housing in this spot with this number of beds as a first step? Mr. Bosak said the Cornell Master Plan is not vague. The following verbatim statement is a reaction to staff s rewrite of the scoping document: I see two big problems with the staff version of Chapter 10. Problem number 1. The staff version assumes that the planned East Hill Village project is at this stage purely speculative. It's clear from even a cursory examination of the Cornell Master Plan that this isn't true. The East Hill Village development is presented in the Master Plan as an integral component of Cornell's plan for the South Campus Precinct. The East Hill Village component is presented in exactly the same terms as the Maplewood component as part of a single plan. The Maplewood component is proceeding just as planned, and there is no reason at all to think that the East Hill Village component won't also proceed as planned. In fact, a member of the public reported at our June 21 meeting that Cornell actually presented a sketch plan for the East Hill Village development to a focus group in 2014. Cornell's plan for the South Campus Precinct has been formally adopted and published by the Board of Trustees, which has seen no reason to revise it in the eight years since it was adopted. It is their plan of record for that area; they have begun to execute on that plan; and we have no reason at all to doubt that they will continue to execute on that plan. This is what Cornell is saying they intend to do, and I believe them. Planning Board Minutes 07-05-2016 Page 4 of 10 It should be noted that staffs version of Chapter 10 appears to be self-contradictory on this topic. It calls Cornell's plans for the South Campus Precinct "too speculative" to be considered in assessing cumulative impacts, but states that "the analysis will examine the Project's impacts on, and compatibility with, the South Campus Precinct's guidelines, initiatives, and develop ment parameters. For example, the analysis will examine whether the Project buildings' loca tions would prevent the construction of pedestrian connections or other transportation im provements that are described in the Master Plan, or would affect views within the South Cam pus Precinct that the Master Plan identifies for preservation and enhancement." In the staffs version of this requirement, Cornell's plan for the South Campus Precinct isn't speculative at all - in fact, its "guidelines, initiatives, and development parameters" are detailed and solid enough to form the basis for an analysis of views, connections, and building locations. 1 agree with this, but it directly contradicts the position that the plan doesn't specify the components of the projected development of the South Precinct in enough detail to assess its cumulative im pacts for the purposes of environmental review. 1 am not a lawyer, but I've been to a lot of classes on the SEQR process in my seven years on this board, and considering the Maplewood proposal in isolation from Cornell's formally adopted development plan for the South Campus Precinct looks to me like a textbook example of illegal segmentation. Given what appears to be a fair amount of public opposition to this project, you don't have to be a lawyer to see that a failure to consider the cumulative impacts of Cornell's plan for the South Campus Precinct is an open invitation to a lawsuit against the Town. In fact, this very issue has been pointedly raised on several occasions before this board by a concerned member of the community who has pointedly identified himself as a lawyer. 1 don't know whether we would win such an action, but I'd like to see us avoid this problem when we can so clearly see it coming. Problem number 2. The staff version of Chapter 10 assumes that the only cumulative environ mental impacts that need to be considered in a study of possible environmental impacts are impacts related to "resources," specifically to "the transportation network, utility infrastructure, and community services." 1 have no idea where this concept comes from, but it's completely illogical. If the only meaningful impacts to be considered in assessing environmental damage are impacts to community resources, we wouldn't be looking at any other issues in considering possible significant impacts due to the project as proposed. For example, if energy use and OHO emissions in the Maplewood component of Cornell's plan are environmental considera tions, which they certainly are, then energy use and OHO emissions due to other projects in the area are equally important in assessing cumulative impacts. The "E" in SEQR stands for "environmental." It doesn't stand for "resources." 1 can see no rational basis for excluding issues that clearly relate to the environment from the issues that need to be studied in an Environmental Impact Statement. And it troubles me that our staff appears to be unclear on what constitutes an environmental impact. 1 would like, therefore, to propose an alternative version of the section relating to EIS Chapter 10 for adoption into the Scoping Document. Mr. Bosak went on to read from his proposed rewrite of Chapter 10. Mr. Wilcox said he had a problem making Cornell responsible for the cumulative impacts of others. Planning Board Minutes 07-05-2016 Page 5 of 10 Ms. Brock stated that there's no authority to require a cumulative impact analysis for independent projects that are completely unrelated to this project, except where this project is using the same resources as those independent projects use. For the Holochuck proposal, for example, we looked at other projects using the same road network. Staff has suggested looking at impacts on transportation, utilities, and community services because this project and other projects within the area, including those going up in Collegetown that have received preliminary approval, all use the same resources. Mr. Bosak asked whether the SEQR Act says the only cumulative impacts we care about are those related to resources. Ms. Brock responded that it doesn't say that at all, but the courts have said that if projects are independent and not part of a common plan, you don't have to look at them. The SEQR Handbook says that where you have a common resource, look at them. The staff proposal is that for projects within a geographic area, if this and those other projects all use a common resource, they look at the impact on that resource: transportation, utilities, and community services. You don't have the authority to require them look at every impact of every project within a geographic area. Mr. Bosak asked where the ability to look at cumulative impacts comes from. What authorizes us to look at any cumulative impact? Ms. Brock responded that case law says you don't have to look at cumulative impacts where projects are completely independent. Many cases say you can't look at any impacts; they don't talk about common resources. They say there's no need to do a cumulative impact analysis where they're completely independent: there's no common owner, they're not dependent on each other, there's no common plan. They just say don't do it. Staff is trying to go further than that and to have them look at cumulative impacts where there's a common resource. And that's why it was drafted for the independent projects only to look at these impacts on common resources. If one project is dependent on another, you can look at the impacts of both projects. Mr. Bosak asked if we can look at more if it's not an independent project. Ms. Brock said there are lots of cases and lots of nuances, but if one project is dependent on another, you would look at all the impacts of both projects. Mr. Bosak allowed that, given the case law, his rewrite would have to be reworked. He said his problem is that this is being represented as a project to build about 450 units, whereas according to Cornell, this is a project to build about 850 units in the South Campus Precinct as a whole. Their Master Plan shows another 340 units next door, adjacent to this property. The crux of the matter to him is that it's not two plans, but one plan. To Cornell it's one plan. Ms. Brock asked what he would look at in the analysis. Aside from the housing units, they're going to propose more stores, more retail, etc. She asked if Mr. Bosak would look at traffic and require as mitigation that they build more travel lanes. What is the purpose of having the applicant look at things that haven't been proposed yet, that are hypothetical, and that aren't allowed by current zoning? They're going to have to tear down the CISER building, all the East Hill Plaza buildings, the hotel, the gas station, the fast food restaurant, and relocate all of them. They're going to have to ask the town for rezoning. So staff is suggesting that a complete buildout and the impacts are too Planning Board Minutes 07-05-2016 Page 6 of 10 speculative at this point. They're suggesting a qualitative analysis. How would you do a quantitative analysis? What mitigations would you impose on this project if they were to do a full buildout on East Hill Village? You're supposed to analyze reasonable impacts, not speculative impacts. Ms. Collins said let's assume this project comes to be, and then two years down the line. East Hill Village comes before the planning board. She asked if we could backtrack and talk about Maplewood as part of that project and the way 342 units of student housing might not be appropriate. Ms. Brock responded that you would look at all the impacts of Maplewood - you'd know what they are. Background traffic from Maplewood would be known. You would know the existing capacity for water and sewer. Ms. Collins said that's just talking about resources. There's no opportunity to deal with the more esoteric elements. There's no way to go back and change the density of the project. It makes more sense to look at the South Campus Precinct as one project because once you've done step 1 and go on to step 2, you can't go back. It's better to look at it as a whole. Mr. Wilcox said there is a way to account for Maplewood's impact on resources to determine what mitigation measures might be required in the second part. The existing conditions will have been bumped up by the presence of Maplewood. Mr. Bosak said that what Ms. Collins is getting at is that we can't retroactively point to Maplewood in particular. The point is that in a couple of years, they'll give us the plan for East Hill Village, and the greenhouse gas impact we'll be looking at is of 342 units. We don't get to look at the almost 500 units we just built by claiming it was a separate project. We don't get to look at this as one project with 800 units. That's why it's segmentation. Mr. Wilcox disagreed: segmentation is if they build 342 units, but they come in with a plan for 170, get their approval, and then come in with a plan for another 170. Mr. Bosak and Ms. Collins said that's exactly what's going on. They have a plan to build 842 units, but they're only showing us part of that. Ms. Ritter said she attended meetings in 2014 concerning the revised plans for the East Hill Village concept, and the previous real estate director brought in an architect who came up with a totally different idea. The Master Plan has a range of units; it is not a firm plan. This changed the Master Plan quite a bit, and tells her that they don't know for sure what they're doing for the Master Plan. Mr. Bosak said we know that the range they gave for Maplewood ended up at the upper end. Ms. Ritter reiterated what Ms. Brock said: if they do a traffic analysis and determine that when they build the next project they'll need another traffic light at the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Route 366, would you require that of the Maplewood project? Would we ask for a bigger elementary school because we might have 25 new children down the road? What would we do with those numbers? Also, they can do nothing with the Master Plan until the town rezones it, so this is speculative. When they do come in, we'll require another EIS for the rezoning, and at that time, traffic, utilities, community services, etc, from Maplewood are going to be considered. Planning Board Minutes 07-05-2016 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Bosak reiterated a point he made a few weeks ago as to what the SEQR process is. What Ms. Ritter said makes the usual assumption: what we're here for is to look at the impacts and mitigate away as many as we can, and when we've mitigated everything we can, we're done. That's not what SEQR is. SEQR is: We've mitigated everything we possibly could. Here's the impact. Does the social benefit outweigh the impact? At the end of this process, he needs to know what the impact is. To know that, he needs to know the impact of the "whole enchilada"; otherwise, he can't determine whether the benefit of the "whole enchilada" outweighs the impact. Mr. Wilcox asked where it would end if we take Mr. Bosak's logic: considering what Cornell and developers may or may not build in the future. Mr. Beach said he was hearing staff say we can only focus on Maplewood and we shouldn't care about anything else that is floating out there on Cornell property. Ms. Ritter said that's not correct: we've asked for a traffic analysis of any approved plans that are within a two-thirds-mile radius that will be adding traffic. We'll take into account whether they'll be adding sewer to the same line, or wanting water from the same source, or using the same school. Those cumulative impacts have to be looked as well. Ms. Brock added that for utilities, the staff proposal is not limiting the independent project analysis to the two-thirds of a mile; any independent project anywhere in the town or city that uses the same utility will be studied. By independent, she means any non-Cornell project in the town or city. They'll do a qualitative (not a quantitative) analysis of all the impacts in the South Campus Precinct, and assume a full buildout per the Master Plan. Because it's Cornell, the same owner, it will consider all the impacts, not just resources. She reiterated that the limitation on being able to look at the impacts on shared resources only applies to independent, non-Cornell projects. Mr. Bosak asked if we would be able to look at things other than resources if Cornell had specified in enough detail to convince staff that it was a real project and not just speculation, because it's not an independent project. Ms. Brock said they would. Mr. Bosak concluded that they had identified the point of disagreement: it all boils down to that he thinks what's in the Master Plan rises above the level of mere speculation and staff doesn't. Transportation Mr. Bosak pointed out that someone from the public wanted to make sure that traffic was analyzed during the school year and at times when people are dropping off and picking up students at the elementary school. Mr. Haefeli asked how we arrive at the peak hours. Ms. Ritter responded that there's an analysis done on how much traffic is happening now and on how much traffic they estimate this project will generate once it's in place. They start with traffic Planning Board Minutes 07-05-2016 Page 8 of 10 counts at certain intersections. This data has already been collected and it was done during the school year. Mr. Beach said they need to make sure to look at traffic when the elementary school gets out, during the 2:00 to 2:30 window. Ms. Brock said that peak hour is data driven. They don't pick a time and say it's peak hour; they look at the data for every hour, and say something is the peak hour because it has the highest numbers. Then they figure out capacity of intersections, capacities of road segments, delays at intersection. As long as they're looking at worst case, which is peak hour, what do we care whether or not that's during the school pickup and dropoff times? We need to know how the road functions at worst case, and then perhaps require mitigation. Mr. Bosak said the concern is that someone with a child in elementary school has to deal with the situation twice a day. It's a bad situation at pickup time, and this development will put twice as many people on the road at that time even though it's not a peak hour. That's an impact. Mr. Wilcox said mitigation measures are traffic lights instead of stop signs; they're turning lanes, wider lanes, or narrower lanes; they're shoulders. If you put in a mitigation measure to ease traffic between 4 and 5, it's there between 2 and 2:30. Mr. Bosak said that assumes the signals are programmed the same 24/7, and they're not. Suppose we have the mitigation in effect only during certain hours? Mr. Wilcox said the turning lane won't go away. The issue is the safety of the children and the parents. We're supposed to propose language for the scoping document, and this is proposing a mitigation measure. Ms. Brock pointed out that mitigation measures are provided on page 15 of the clean copy. Mr. Wilcox wanted to add a bullet to consider putting a stop sign at Mitchell and Vine Street, which would slow traffic down. He suggested that the city has done this in certain locations. Ms. Brock suggested simply adding "including stop signs" instead of specifying one location and Mr. Wilcox was satisfied with the wording. Ms. Brock confirmed with the applicant that data was collected at every intersection, including those around the school, throughout the day. That raw data will be provided in the appendices. Mr. Bosak noted that another resident wanted Ithaca Road included in the traffic study, but the board was confident that the necessary roads and intersections are covered. He also noted that the city planning department suggested that the history of pedestrian and bicycle accidents should be evaluated. Ms. Brock said the scoping document already has an accident evaluation section. She didn't know if NYS accident data includes pedestrian and bicycle accidents. She wasn't sure why the city would suggest that. Planning Board Minutes 07-05-2016 Page 9 of 10 Ms. Ritter noted that the scoping asks for three years' worth of data. The board thought a longer evaluation period was warranted and agreed on five. Mr. Bosak also pointed out that the city asked about pedestrian and vehicular connections. Mr. Wilcox said there are two road stubs in the design, which would allow for internal traffic to connect to another property. Ms. Ritter said Miller Street is privately owned, so there can't be a connection. Mr. Bosak said there were strong suggestions from the public that we refer to goals TR-6 and TR-7 of the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested new language. Ms. Ritter responded that the Town of Ithaca has a complete streets policy, which says you have to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars. For this project, sidewalks are required as part of the PDZ language. Internally, they won't need a bike lane because the traffic should be slow enough for bikes and cars to travel together. There are transit stops at least on Maple Avenue, but she doesn't think TCAT will go into this development. Mr. Wilcox said that although Mr. Bosak's language won't add anything with regard to the environ mental review, it would be important as part of site plan review. Community Character Mr. Wilcox said community character is revolving around the four-story buildings and their location on Mitchell Street. Models will have to be done to show the buildings and hopefully these will show the visual impacts. There were significant public comments on this topic. Board members had no comments on the language in the draft. Ms. Collins asked for a clarification regarding beds. She saw a reference to 887 bedrooms. She thought the reference had originally been to beds, and that it was one bed per person. Mr. Resetco said the intent is to have one bed per bedroom. This is not necessarily one person per bed. They intend to lease per bedroom. Mr. Beach said the issue is muddy. One bed could equal more than one person. What's going to be the increase in population? Ms. Balestra said staff has requested population projections to address that. Ms. Collins wanted to include a projection, not just for students, but clarification on the breakout of graduate, professional, and undergraduate students. What is the likelihood that undergraduates will live there? If only 80 percent of the units are rented, who will the applicant put in the units? This could have an impact on community character. Planning Board Minutes 07-05-2016 Page 10 of 10 The board started going through the document page by page with no notable disagreements or concerns. On a motion by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Mr. Beach, the board unanimously agreed to hold a special meeting on July 12th in order to continue discussion of the consideration of acceptance of the final scoping document for the Maplewood Redevelopment Project. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2016-034: Minutes of June 21, 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Linda Collins RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of June 21, 2016, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak Abstention: Fogarty AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by John Beach, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted. )ebra DeAugistin&rDeputy ToWn Ckrk