Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EIR would need to be done for Home Depot in order for it to go forward since it would be putting <br />traffic in a place that is alrcady gridlocked. <br /> <br />Mr. Pavan replied that an EIR would not be necessary because the project includes mitigation <br />measures in terms of widening streets and creating through and turn lanes. He explained that in the <br />case of the service station, the project was relatively small so it was not feasible for that applicant to <br />be able to do any changes at that intersection. He noted, however, that Home Depot is a large project <br />and, consistent with the scope of project, should be responsible for mitigating traffic impacts to fix <br />the traffic situation at the site. He added that the environmental study for the project would be <br />handled as an Initial Study and Negative Declaration. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox noted that Stanley Boulevard would be widened fl'om eight to ten lanes and <br />Bernal A venuc at the south leg would be widened ti'om six to eight lanes. She inquired if this would <br />be constrained by the one-lane bridge on the other side and if a new bridge would have to be built. <br />Mr. Pavan replied that the City has reinstated the permit approvals to construct the bridge, which <br />should begin in 2007. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Fox's inquiry if the bridge would have four lanes on either side, <br />Mr. Grubstrick replied that thc new bridge would mirror the existing bridge and would have a total of <br />four lanes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson commented that assuming that the 3,000 trips coming to Home Dept are a net <br />increasc in tratlic appeared to be fallacious bccause there is already a lot of traffic in the area. He <br />stated that it did not seem appropriate to reason that because llome Depot is there, the traffic is a net <br />increase since some of those vehicles are stopping on their way home or to work. He then inquired if <br />it would be historically possible to run a traffic study at that intersection with the assumption that <br />Stoneridge Drive extension is in place. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank indieated that he would not be in support of that since the Planning <br />Commission and City Council had unanimously agreed in the past to rcmove Stoncridge Drive <br />extension from the General Plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox noted that thc Council had dirccted staff to take Stoneridge Drive cxtcnsion out of <br />all the models. <br /> <br />Mr. lserson stated that the model that would be done for this project would be "Existing Traffic Plus <br />^pproved Development Plus Project" and that a" Buildout" traffic model would not be done. He <br />eXplained that if a "Buildout" traffic model would be utilized, Stone ridge Drive cxtension would have <br />to be included as it is currently included the General Plan. Hc added that typically, the "Existing <br />Tratlic Plus Approved Development Plus Project" model is done for new projects. and since <br />Stoneridge Drive extension is not in the project, it would most likely not be included in the model. <br /> <br />The Commissioners then provided their input and direction to statf and the applicant. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson stated that the property is prime for development, and as the City reaches <br />buildout, sustainability comes to mind. He recommended that projects be put in place that will <br /> <br />EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, May 24,2006 <br /> <br />Page 9 of II <br />