PC 07/23/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Gresham replied that it is the contemporary way of designing parking stalls since there has been a decline in 27-foot long vehicles. Most vehicles today fit very comfortably into the universal-size stall. . Mr. Carl Pretzel, 3633 Glacier Court, stated that his comments would apply to both Parkway Properties proposals before the Commission. He noted that the results of the traffic studies for these two projects are the exact opposite of those done for the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) project across the street. He suggested that this project include Condition l.c.l. of the Stoneridge Regional Shopping Center application which states that the City is not guaranteeing that the existing Level of Service (LOS) standards will be maintained in perpetuity and that no guarantee is made the City will be responsible for keeping those intersections at LOS D or better. He also suggested that the free shuttle service be extended to the proposed Central Valley train station in Pleasanton. Mr. Cooper asked staff if the condition that does not guarantee LOS D is included in all development project applications, similar to those of sewer and water, so developers cannot come back and sue the City if LOS D is not maintained at intersections surrounding their establishments. Mr. Iserson said no; however, the main distinction is that the Bernal Corporate Park is vested tllrough a Development Agreement that guarantees it a certain amount of square footage and a certain FAR for development as long as the traffic mitigation measures improvements are carried out by the applicant. This condition could be added but it would be more of an informational item than an actual requirement because of the Development Agreement. . Chair Barker clarified that Bernal Corporate Park is applying for design review approval, while the Stoneridge Regional Shopping Center's application is to add square footage. She noted, however, that the General Plan states that LOS D must be maintained in all intersections except in the Downtown and North Pleasanton. Mr. Iserson confirmed that the statement is in the General Plan and that it is our policy. The condition is to recognize that sometimes, despite the best planning and implementation, things may happen in the future that cause that LOS to be exceeded. Commissioner Dove inquired if it would right to assume that with this project, Bernal Corporate Park would be complete and would have paid its fair share of traffic mitigations, and therefore, the City cannot require additional mitigation of the Park for future traffic impact mitigations. Mr. Iserson said yes. This applicant has either installed all the traffic mitigations or will do so in implementing the final projects as they are constructed, and this is subject to and is being reviewed and approved according to an existing Development Agreement. On the other hand, the Stoneridge application is to modify its Development Agreement. Chair Barker inquired if Bill van Gelder reviews the traffic studies to see if these are done reasonably and with the proper methodology. Mr. Iserson replied that not only does Mr. van Gelder review them, he also takes an active part in the process, and if he disagrees with the assumptions or methods that are used, he submits his comments and makes sure the appropriate adjustments are made 10 the methodology used. . Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 23, 1997