PC 062707 - Laserfiche WebLink

stoplight at Bernal Avenue and Nevada Street/Court. Ms. Decker confirmed that was the case and stated that the assessment evaluated for payment of that particular project was greater than the traffic impact fees, which included the improvements to that intersection by the provision of that streetlight. She added that there was considerable discussion among the Planning Commissioners that it may have been overinflated based on the size of the project and, therefore, did not require improvements to that intersection and reduced the traffic impact fees to the common calculation of traffic impact fees for the project. Chairperson Fox noted that reference was made to Home Depot, which is not in place at this time as its ordinance has not had a second reading at the City Council level. She inquired whether it would be possible to condition this project to install the stoplight at Utah Street and Bernal Avenue. Ms. Decker noted the information was not available to answer that question at this time, although she believed it was unlikely. She added that the Planning Commission and the community had spoken that a light at that location was undesirable. She could not speak to future projects but stated that the traffic engineer would look closely at that particular issue at that time. She noted that the Bernal Retail Center was considered to be too small, and Home Depot was too large for a comparable assessment of traffic impacts. She reiterated that this was a discussion of fees and how much the fair share of traffic impact fees would be for a 30,000-square-foot project. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the volume of traffic at Valley Avenue and Stanley Boulevard during the a.m. and p.m. peak times, Ms. Decker noted that the analysis would provide this information. She inquired whether a project had been approved in this area of the City without having a sense of the traffic impacts. Ms. Decker noted that in her conversations with the traffic engineer, she could not accurately reflect his sense of the traffic in those areas. However, he had a keen sense of confidence that this traffic study is to simply evaluate what the traffic impact fees would be. He did not anticipate that any additional improvement would be required with intersections. She noted that the condition of approval contained language to allow the traffic engineer to recommend an enhancement; the applicant considered that a fair condition of approval. Staff wished to provide maximum flexibility to protect the interests of both the applicant and the City. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Chairperson Fox disclosed that she met with Mr. Aminian several months ago. Commissioner Blank disclosed that he recently met with Mr. Aminian to discuss another project and did not discuss this project. Michael Aminian, applicant, complimented staff on doing an excellent job while working with him for the past few years. He was confident that those traffic issues would be resolved. He added that they would be happy to pay the traffic impact fee. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2007 Page 4 of 28