PC 111605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pavan summarized the staff report and described the background, scope, and layout of the application in relation to the recent workshop that had been held and identi tied the key issues. The rear bioswala would be reduced from tan feet, as shown on the site plan, to seven fact, which was reviewed by the Public Works Department and found to be acceptable- Staffreviewed and accepted the sign program and recommended several changes. He noted that themain issue identified with this project was traffic. A traffic report was prepared and attached to the staff report. Mr_ Yavan indicated that the project would impact Nevada Street/B ernal Avenue, Stanley Boulevard, Valley Avenue, and two others. This project would bring traffic through Level Service ~LOS~ E/F intersections and, even with long-term mitigation xrieasures identified in the traffic analysis, they would still operate at LOS E or F. Those three gateway intersections would be addressed by the forthcoming General Plan Update. Mr_ Pavan described that both the Ylanning C'omn~xission and CGity Council have directed staff to evaluate relatively small infill projects affecting these intersections should be examined on a cast-by-case basis- Staff believes that tlxe impacts to tlxese three intersections arc nominal, front less than one percent to two percent for intersections that are moving between 4,000 and 5,000 trips per hour during the critical morning and aiYernoon peak hours. Staff believes these impacts would be imperceptible to a motorist and, therefore, the recommended that the CGomniission should find these trip increases to be less than significant. Staff revised its racomxnendation of Condition No_ 5 to redact currant City practices with respect to intersections and the installation of traffic lights which, while identified as being part of a Capital improvexrxent Program ~CIP~ itexri~ arc also identi tied as project mitigation measures- In this case, the project has been conditioned to install a traffic signal at Bernal Avenue and Nevada Street, and the cost of up to $ 7 50,000 should be deducted from the traffic fees- 7-lowever, if the cost of the traffic signal exceeds the estimated fees of $1 54,000, Uwe signal must still be installed at the applicant's expense; the signal must also be installed and operational before the issuance of the final building permit For the structure- State believes the traffic impacts are nominal and requested the Planning Commission to approve the project by xrxaking a finding that the project is consistent with the General Ylan and that the attached Negative Declaration is appropriate, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit B with staffs modification, which was distributed to the Coxrxmission prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Arkin agreed that traffic was the primary issue and noted that the applicant followed the Comxrxission's advice perfectly, resulting in a very nice design. At his request, Nlr. Pavan explained the details c~F the iraFfie in-ipaets oFthe surrc~urxdirx ~, uses- Commissioner Arkin expressed concern that the applicant was not paying the same traffic impact fee paid by everyone else; they had the extra benefit of paying whatever it costs to put the signal in. Mr_ Yavan noted that the report identified this project as causing an intersection to go froxrx LOS B to LOS F and that the mitigation was the installation of that signal. To mitigate that impact for that intersection, the applicant is required to install and pay for that signal. Reflecting what the standard procedures and. practices of the City are where an applicant's project impacts PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 16, 2005 Page 10 of 23