PC 121003 - Laserfiche WebLink

CommissiorH:~r Fox asked vvhether City staff had vv-orked vvith D"Llblin. to obtain tra.:fI1c studies on V'Veekend traffic impact on 1-580 Tor Ikea a..nd the adjacen.t lifestyle center. She expressed concern that in spite of directional signs", congestion at 1-580 on VV"eekends V\fould cause -vehicles to ex.it 1-580 prior to .AirVV"ay Bo-ulevard and cut t.hrough Pleasanton streets to reach the V\Tater park. Commissioner S-ulli-van noted that the traffic stl..1.dies seemed to "focus on capacity but tl"1at it did not- address the additiorLal cars on the streets" cSl~ecially the r~irst Street and Bern.al Avenue rleigl""1borhoods. He inquired hovv- rnany additional cars per day vv-ere estin"1ated to be on. the street.s" especially during the summer holiday vveekends. l'v1r. Iserson ad-vised that on. the Fourth of ~July" there vvould be approximately tVV"o-and-a- halftimes the amount of traffic than an average summer day. He suggested that C01T1.missioner Sullivan ask the applicant'" s traTT1.C engin.eer Tor the specific n.u.mbers during the public hearing. I\Ilr. Iserson ad-vised that a parking analysis vvas prepared f:or the project,. based on the number of spaces provided aI1d the projected increase of spaces. Staff believed that on-site parking vv-ould be s-u.:fI1cient aI1d that a parking nnalysis vvould be completed by the applicant before each phase cOl..1ld be constructed. At that time", the City may add conditions for more parking if necessary. Staff believed there vv-as a large distance (from 0.6 to 1 mile) betvveen the park a..nd the nearest residential neighborhood a..nd that fevv- people V\Tould VV"alk that distance to get to the park to avoid paying f:or parking. If a problem did arise", the City could easily il."1stitute a parking rebate that the operators cO"Llld ofrer to the customers. He noted that a residential parkirLg permit "V'Vas another possible l.Tlitigation n:1eas-ure. rrhe C':it.y vvould pre.:fer :not to instit"Llte that measure beIore the park opened becal..1se permit-parking systems tended to be cumbersome in terms of cn1-orcement and administration. Follovv-ing a discl..1ssion regardi1""1g traf:Iic and parking mitigation measures" lVlr. Iserson ad-vised that the Commission vv-as free to add additional conditions that it. deems appropriat.e. CommissioT1er l'v'faas did not believe that tl""1e operator should be financially responsible Lor to"V\Ti:n.g fees i-t-- a cust<:>mer parked illegally. 1\Ilr. Iserson advised that at the request of the Commission" the applicant"s original noise report "V'Vas peer revievv-ed by the City"s noise consultant. The initial comments led to a supplemental noise study to address those comments and vv-as subsequently accepted by the City"'s peer re-vic"V'V. The City"'s most conservative noise standard vvas 70 dB at 25 feet. The mitigating factors regarding noise included: 1. The dist.a..nce to the residential areas; 2. The site is at a 10VV"er grade than the surrol..1:n.ding properties; PI_A~~I~G COl'Vll'VlISSION l'VlINUTES December 10,2003 Page 6