PC 111605 - Laserfiche WebLink

__- applicant would not be able to pull building perrnits_ If the applicant can build the signal For $ 1 00,000, he would still need to pay $54,000 of traffic mitigation fees- If the costs of the signal exceed $ 1 54,000, he would need to pay for the balance of the signal installation- A discussion of possible procedural options ensued- THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED_ Commissioner Arkin moved toe ~1) make the finding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration for the project as shown on the staff report; (2) make the finding that the project has a De Minimus impact on the site's wildlife; (3) make the finding that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan; and (4) approve Case PDR-421, subject to the Conditions of Approval as listed on Exhibit C of the staff report, as recommended by staff, with the modification that the applicant be required only to pay $154,000 as a traffic impact fee and that no traftic light be required to be installed because without the traffic signal, the traffic impacts are not potentially significant, and the proposed project would not have a significant environmental impact, given the payment of traffic impact fccs_ Commissioner Maas seconded the motion_ Chairperson Maas supported Commissioner Arkin's motion because she did not want to see a traffic light at that intersection; she did not believe one was warranted at that intersection. She did not want to hold the applicant's prof cet up and noted that the traffic report dated October 25, 2005 was the first discussion the Commission has had that addressed any need of a. traffic signal at that intcrscction_ Commissioner Roberts noted that she liked the design but had been concerned about retail and the traffic; the :mitigation for that concern was the light, which she did not believe would be much of a disturbance at that location. Commissioner Fox did not believe that the traftic light would have much of an irnpact and added that the U-turn may need to be eliminated- Commissioner Blarilc perceived a lack of confidence in the analysis of the iraltic provided to the Commission. He noted that he traveled this area very frequently atzd. was very surprised to see a traftic light recot7irricnded for this area- C ornmissioner Arkin noted that a Home f7epot was being considered for the site across the street and added that there would be ample opportunity at that tiimc to consider a traffic light_ Commissioner Pearce did not believe that a traffic light would be needed at this intersection but was concerned that if the traffic increased, the tire engines would not be able to mmake a left turn out of the fire station. PLANNING COMMISSION MIND"['ES November 1 G, 2005 Page 13 of 23