PC 07/23/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

4.7 to 4.5, which would result in less parking spaces for a greater floor area. He said parking structures do not in any way add to the aesthetic value of the area. . Commissioner Cooper indicated that he wanted to see the mall flourish rather than lose tenants; however, there are potential traffic problems which need to be mitigated as specific proposals for the mall expansion arise. The City should look into mitigating traffic on Muirwood Drive and adding it to its traffic-calming list. He was in favor of keeping Condition l.b. since it would safeguard the City's interest. Commissioner Dove stated that denying the application would make it more difficult for Stoneridge management to operate and grow as necessary to increase the contributions to the City. There has not been any serious discussion about the proposed flyover from west-bound 1-580 to south-bound 1-680, which will have an effect on either West Las Positas and/or Stoneridge and which could present some problems that would make mall expansion more difficult without additional mitigation. He asked Mr. Iserson to verify his understanding that a Stoneridge expansion approval at this time would not give the developer a "carte blanche" approval but would only point to the direction the project could take, and that any new store or parking structure would have to come before the Planning Commission and City Council for approval, during which time traffic mitigation could be reviewed. Mr. Iserson replied that any new development proposal will have to come back before the Planning Commission; however, if the Development Agreement entitles the developer to a certain amount of square footage, then the proposal cannot be denied on that basis. He added that new traffic assumptions, if any, would be reviewed, but the City would be limited in terms of what it could do. . Commissioner Dove inquired if a specific proposal could be denied or put on hold, if LOS D is not attained, until such time that it were corrected or mitigated. Mr. Iserson said no. As the mall expands, the developer would be required to participate in the construction of specific traffic mitigations and improvements. Commissioner Lutz reconfirmed his decision in November 1996. He expressed concern about equity and fair play with regard to Condition l.b., having the applicant agree to a contract that the City can at some future time modify or renege on. He acknowledged the applicant's need for long lead times for their planning and those of their clients. The applicant has agreed to participate in any mitigation measures for the West Las Positas interchange or its substitute, and the City should not hold the applicant hostage because of changes in long-standing circulation patterns. Both the City and residents have a real interest in ensuring that Stoneridge mall remains a competitive first-class shopping center so that the City can retain its income from the mall and the residents would not have to travel to other communities to shop. Chair Barker stated that the mall needs to have a competitive advantage and have the option to expand. The Stoneridge project should be approved because it would be best to fill the City's cap with businesses that generate taxes rather than with residences that add more traffic. The 1-580 weave problem should be addressed immediately, possibly by putting a barrier to prevent a left turn while ensuring they can get to the mall if they keep going. Mr. Gill's proposal to condition the project to do traffic-calming measures on Muirwood is too far down the road; the City has an obligation to . Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 23, 1997