PC 121003 - Laserfiche WebLink

I-I:omes. Staff believed that tl""1ere vvould Tlo1- be a sig.n..ificaJ.""1t difference in traffic impacts tl""1an those assc:~cia'Led -vvitl""1 Ponderosa :F-I"omes. Tn. reSpOl"1Se to an i1""1quiry by Commissi01""1er .Ka.lTleny,. 1'vfr. Isersc:-:>n. corl:firr::t."1cd tl""1at no response had been received from CalTrans vv-ith respect to directional signs. The COTlditio:ns requ.ire that the applican.t vvork -vvith CalTrans to bring that about; the CiLy vv-ould be -vvilli:ng to inter-vene in t:he process. I\Ilr. Iserson advised that the traffic "V'Vould be spread o-ver se-veral hours at the beginning arl.d end of the operational hours; although the peak park capacity -vvas at 2:00 p.1Tl." people "V'Vould lea-ve at different times. He noted that buildout traffic vvas not aI1alyzed because some of the key decisions" such as the ex.te:nsions of El Ch.arro Road and Stoneridge Drive", must be determined as part. of- tl""l.e G-el""l.cral Plan Update process. He noted 1:hat buildout conditions could be assumed based on the existing General Plan" but those assu.mptions may change as a result of the General Plan. Update. J\...1:r. Iserson. ad-vised that several traffic-related conditions "","ere recommended: The applicant must pay the City aI1d Tri-Valley tra-f'fic impact f:ees based 01"1 the highest peal<- "VVeekday traffic -volull""l.e" not the f:'ive-year average as proposed by the applicant; 2. If traffic conditions changed o-veT tirne" especially as t.he project pl"1asil"1g progressed", the use permit may be reopel"1ed. Possible additional n'l.itigation measures a..nd improvement may be examined to resolve those issues. 3. '-rhe applicant vv-ould pay a pro-rata share of the Ponderosa traffic mitigations at the Star11ey Boulevard/Valley .A-venue/Bernal Avenue intersection. In its mitigated negati-ve declaration.", the East Bay Regional Park District addressed traffic in its role as the lead agency. The traffic mitigations included suggestions that the City made during the revievv process; a condition of approval required all of the rnitigation measures to be cOITlplied -vvith. 11""1 respOrlse to an. in.quiry by CommissioT1er J.'vtIaas" l.V1:r. Iscrsor:L noted tl""1at if there vvere aJ.'l.y "L1-:n.alTticipated traffic impacts,. tl""1e City vvouId attempt to vv-ork ou.t additional mitigations vv-ith the business ovvn.er. If:-that did not vv-ork" staf:Fvv-ould notice a neVV'" public hearing and bring it back to the Commission. At that time", the Commission may impose mitigation measures and traffic improvemerl.ts. 'l'he vvorst-case sccl""1ario -vvou.ld enable the COITlmission to revoKe the use pern""1it. Because 01-- the high project cost.s involved" staff pref"erred tl""1at mitigation measures be used t.o address those issues. 1'V'1r. Iserson advised that the directional signs vvould encourage patrons to use .FIighVr.Tay 84 from northbound 1-680", 1-580 from southbound 1-680", and 1-580 to Air-vvay Boulevard to Isabel Avenue" vv-hich vv-ould encourage people not to crovv-d Pleasant.on streets to get 1:0 the park. PLA~ING COl'Vll'VlISSION l'VlINUTES December 10,2003 Page 5 -'.' --;-,---r----..- 'T - I -~'.--r