Laserfiche WebLink
8.A <br />Ms. Riordan said it would be tripped by project impacts. She said it would have been <br />required with a higher occupancy scenario, if the project created more traffic impacts <br />than anticipated by Kaiser in their application submittal. She said staff has a mitigation <br />monitoring program in place so they know if the project is creating more impacts than <br />originally antia�ated. <br />Commissioner Garcia asked what kicks in to where the widening is actually done. He <br />said that if it is going to be widened, some of the legs holding up the overpass would <br />have to be moved, and so presumed Caltrans would get involved. <br />Mr. Riordan said it was her understanding that it would not require moving any of the <br />legs holding up the overpass. She said the project will be making use of existing land <br />underneath the roadway. Ms. Riordan said she would speak with Traffic Engineer, Rich <br />Haygood, and get back to him with more information. <br />Commissioner Garcia said he was under the impression that the project was going to <br />widen the part from Woodside Road to Veteran Boulevard to Chestnut Street to make it <br />wider than one lane in each direction. He questioned that the determination that if there <br />is "x" number of cars and they have to pay "x" number of dollars, does that money just sit <br />some place until somebody decides to actually widen the road? <br />Ms. Riordan said Kaiser is one of three projects that would be contributing toward this <br />impact: She said the other two developments (Abbott Labs and Marina Village) would <br />also pay their fair share portion. Ms. Riordan said when all the funds are together to <br />spend on the improvement, that is when it would occur. <br />Commissioner Seybert referred to circle page 33, and noted that the City was asking the <br />developer to pay "... in whole or in part..." He said in his mind that statement firmed it <br />up, because there has to be proof of what that part is, because it is based on the impact. <br />Chair Foust said she was not 100% comfortable with this issue. She said she wanted to <br />make sure the fact of the matter (when it comes later) is fairly clear that each entity that <br />contributes to traffic pays a certain amount, but not above and beyond. She wanted to <br />know how to present that in the Precise Plan when there is so much in flux, in terms of a <br />22 -year build -out, and the fact that they have not seen the other two projects yet. <br />Planning Manager Church said that Commissioner McCoy (at the June 24, 2003 <br />meeting) said he was comfortable with the language because it is generic enough that it <br />did not require anything above and beyond what the project would normally have to <br />bare, because of its contribution to the traffic load. Mr. Church referred to Commissioner <br />McCoy's motion to accept the language, which passed with a majority vote. Mr. Church <br />also said that if Kaiser has paid the Traffic Impact, that will be an off -set from any future <br />contribution. He said if a decision is made that the improvement absolutely has to <br />happen because the traffic burden is so great, and it cannot wait until the other projects <br />come on line, then there would be some mechanism staff would draft (not yet in place), <br />which would allow for an entity like Kaiser to advance the money, and then get <br />reimbursed from subsequent developers. <br />Chair Foust clarified that there would be a couple of checks between now and when it <br />gets built out, i.e., Traffic Mitigation Fee, as well as the PC Permit. <br />Page 3 of 7 <br />