Laserfiche WebLink
planned EVA. She added that no other property owners on the cul-de-sac were <br />notified at that time as City approval still needed to be obtained. <br />In response to Chair Blank's inquiry if there was a City easement for the EVA, <br />Ms. Hardy replied that there is a private access easement and that further <br />notification would not have been done beyond notifying the two properties at the <br />end of Sandstone Court. Ms. Decker advised that there was a easement <br />recorded on both the parcel map and through title documents. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Chair Blank asked if there was money available for the mitigation. <br />Commissioner Narum indicated that she was still confused about the mitigations <br />and asked for an explanation about how mitigation will work for some of the <br />intersections, particularly at Valley Avenue and Santa Rita Road. Commissioner <br />Fox stated that the Council also discussed the East Side Specific Plan and asked <br />how mitigations would be tied into that. <br />Mr. Tassano replied that there is a planned improvement at the Santa Rita Road <br />at Valley Avenue intersection, including a triple southbound left turn and a double <br />westbound left turn that would go from the Ironwood development, left to <br />Safeway, which is already moving forward and should be in construction next <br />year. He added that the double westbound left is included in the traffic study and <br />would be constructed within a year. Commissioner Narum requested confirmed <br />that there was, therefore, already one improvement to make the intersection <br />better. Mr. Tassano confirmed that this was so. Mr. Tassano added that the one <br />which has been in the traffic plan for the last ten years and in the General Plan <br />for the last 12 years is the triple southbound left turn. He noted that the City <br />moved forward with that project, had the design level complete, and is currently <br />working on the funding portion. He added that the City did not have sufficient <br />funds at that time and held off on it for awhile, adjusted some of the design <br />elements, and returned to the Council a couple of years ago. He noted that the <br />Council was not comfortable with a triple southbound left turn, as were the <br />residents in the area, due to concerns over pedestrian safety and the width of the <br />crossing. He continued that he was then asked to look at other potential <br />solutions and to determine if extending Stoneridge Drive would be a possible <br />mitigation to this LOS. He stated that what was determined was that right now, <br />Stoneridge Drive extension would mostly add some cross-town traffic to get back <br />on the freeway at EI Charro Road. He added that in the future, at build-out, there <br />would be a higher need in the Hacienda Business Park area, and extending <br />Stoneridge Drive would have more benefits as it will alleviate more traffic seen at <br />Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue. He stated that the Council is now faced <br />with a dilemma of not favoring the triple southbound left turn as a near-term <br />mitigation, with the knowledge that alonger-term mitigation in the future would be <br />the Stoneridge Drive extension. He noted that the question to be answered after <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 9, 2008 Page 22 of 39 <br />