18 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

EIR would need to be done for Home Depot in order for it to go forward since it would be putting traffic in a place that is ah-eady gridlocked. Mr. Pavan replied that an EIR would not be necessary because the project includes mitigation measures in terms of widening streets and creating tln-ough and tw-n lanes. He explained that in the case of the service station, the project was relatively small so it was not feasible for that applicant to be able to do any changes at that intersection. He noted, however, that Home Depot is a large project and, consistent with the scope of project, should be responsible for mitigating traffic impacts to fix the traffic situation at the site. He added that the enviromnental study for the project would be handled as an Initial Study and Negative Declaration. Commissioner Fox noted that Stanley Boulevard would be widened from eight to ten lanes and Bernal Avenue at the south leg would be widened fiom six to eight lanes. She inquired if this would be constrained by the one-lane bridge on the other side and if a new bridge ~a~ould have to be built. Mr. Pavan replied that the City has reinstated the permit approvals to construct the bridge, which should begin in 2007. hl response to Commissioner Fox's inquiry if the bridge would have four lanes on either side, Mr. Grubstrick replied that the ne~~~ bridge would mirror the existing bridge and would have a total of four lanes. Conunissioner Olson commented that assuming that the 3,000 trips coming to IIome Dept are a net increase in traffic appeared to be fallacious because there is already a lot of traffic in the area. He stated that it did not seem appropriate to reason that because Home Depot is there, the traffic is a net increase since some of those vehicles are stopping on their way home or to work. He then inquired if it would be historically possible to run a traffic study at that intersection with the assumption that Stoneridge Drive extension is in place. Commissioner Blank indicated that he would not be in support of that since the Planning Commission and City Council had unanimously agreed in the past to remove Stoneridge Drive extension from the General Plan. Commissioner Fox noted that the Council had directed staff to take Stoneridge Drive extension out of all the models. Mr. Iserson stated that the model that would be done for this project would be "Existing Traffic Plus Approved Development Plus Project" and that a" Buildout" traffic model would not be done. He explained that if a "Buildout" traffic model would be utilized, Stoneridge Drive extension would have to be included as it is currently included the General Plan. Ile added that typically, the "Existing 'traffic Plus Approved Development Plus Project" model is done for new projects, and sir_ce Stoneridge Drive extension is not in the project, it would most likely not be included in the model. The Commissioners then provided their input and direction to staff and the applicant. Commissioner Olson stated that the property is prime for development, and as the City reaches buildout, sustainability comes to mind. He recommended that projects be put in place that will EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, May 24, 2006 Page 9 of 1 1