CC_Minutes_2007_0723 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

iZegular City C®uncil 1V.leeting ®nday, .Tuly 23, 2007 Page 45 Councilmember Pust noted the original concerns raised in various comments regarding vegetation, water quality and runoff; and opined that those concerns were addressed to her satisfaction. Councilmem- ber Pust advised that her only remaining concern was timing of traffic mitigation strategies and triggering mechanisms, as well as cost- sharing for traffic mitigation. Councilmember Pust sought clarifica- tion for the basis of emission statements and other items identified in underlying reports, as referenced on page 5, paragraph 26 of college responses to agency comments. Additional discussion ensued on mitigation measures planned and up- grading of existing conditions in various scenarios; and timing of pro- posed mitigation. Councilmember Pust opined that upon completion of the college's immediately proposed improvements, she anticipated mitigation for increased traffic generation at that time, not ten years later. Council- member Pust clarified that, if she were to vote in favor of the negative declaration for an EIS, her expectations were that the college under- stood that if they were seeking to increase the traffic problem in the neighborhood that she expected them to participate totally in the solu- tion, not just minimal solutions. Mr. Paschke noted that background traffic considerations were in- cluded in mitigation, not just college expansion; however, noted that the PIJL) would solidify triggering mechanisms for improvements. Mr. Schwartz concurred, and noted that the traffic modeling scenarios used assume many different background growth considerations; and included growth assumptions related to Twin Lakes redevelopment as well and impacts to traffic in the area; and may be triggered based on their growth alone (i.e., Lydia at Fairview). Mr. Schwartz opined that