Reso13 PC 13-16 2898 PC Reso Recommending Stanford EIR Certification

Browse Search

paying its Traffic Impact Fee in effect at time of paymant and issuance of a building permit. Applicant's full funding or constr�ction of the impro�ement, subject to potential reimbursement as pro�ided in the Precise �'lan, wauld a�so mitigate the project's contributian to this impact. Finding: Implemenfation of M�tigation 7-8(a) would improve the level of service (LOS) at this intersectian to an acceptable LOS C in the AM pealC hour and L�S D in the PM peak hour, res�lting in a less-fha►r-sigr��cant impact. or Implementation of Mitigation 7-8(b) wauld improve the �evel of service {LOS} at this intersection ta an acceptable L�5 B during the AM peak hour and k.OS C during the PM peak hour, resuftir�g in a less-than-significanf impact. Facts in Support of Finding: lmplementation of either aption for Mitigation 7-8 would reduce the project's tra�c irnpact at the Charter Street/Bay Road intersection to a less- than-significant le�el. Mi#igation option 7-8(a} requires a combination of a traffic signal with protected and permifted phasing (to replace the current Stop signs} and restriping; Mitigation option 7-8{b) requires the design and construction of a single-lane raundabout. In either case, the project would mitigate its contribution to the impact by contributing its fair share (estimated to be 41 percent)toward the cost of the improvement or, if in efFect at building permit issuance, by payFng its Ciry Traffic Impact Fee. These facts are described in Draft EfR chapter 7 (Transpo�tation, Circulation, and Parking) on pages 7-1 through 7-70, Draft EIR appendix 2�.3 (Supplementai Transpartation Information), and Final EIR appendix A {5upplemental Traffic information}, which are hereby incorporated by re#erence. fmpact: Impact 7-9: Near Term Plus Project Impact on Douglas AvenuelBroadway Intersection. Under Near Term Plus Praject conditions during the AM peak hour, project traffic would cause the intersectiQn to degrade from L05 C (21.9 seconds) to LOS F (179.1 seconds). During the PM peak hour, the in#ersection would cantinue to operate at LOS F, but project trafFic Wouid cause the critical delay at the intersection to increase from 5�4.5 seconds ta 223.4 seconds (i.e., by 168.9 seconds). In additian, this intersection would have peak hour volume increases larg� enough under bo#h peak hours to satisfy the peak hour signal warrant. Mitigation: Mi�igation 7-9. Implement Mitigatior� 7-� (the project applicant would be responsible far fully fundinglcompleting the mitigation). Finding: Implementation of Mitigation 7-9 would imprave the le�el of service (LOS) at this intersection to an acceptable LOS C during both peak hours, resulting in a less- than-sign�cant impacf. Facts in Support of Find�ng: Implementation of Mitigation 7-9 would reduce the project's traffic irrzpact at the Dauglas AvenuelBroadway i�tersection to a less-than- signifECant level thraugh a combination of a traffic signal with protected phasing (to replace th� current Stop signs) and roadway restriping. This mitigation would ATTY/RE50.2898/PC RE50 RECOMMENDING STANFORp�lli C�RTIFICATIpN REV'U&15-13 VR Page 33 of 56