PC 02/12/86 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes Planning Commission. 2/12/86 Commissioner Michelotti discussed the parking structure issue with Mr. Callahan. Mr. Callahan explained that the requirement of parking structures would financially impact the marketability of the project. Commissioner Innes discussed the 37% landscaping proposed for the development and the fact that a large percentage of this is strip landscaping between rows of parking. Mr. Callahan stated in fact most of their landscaping has been adjacent to the buildings. Commissioner Inner then asked whether a condition restricting development within Phase I and II to the 7.3 million sq. ft. currently allowed in Phase I until Hacienda and Stoneridge interchanges had received final design approval and were under construction would replace Condition No. 16d. Mr. Callahan stated that they want Condition No. 16a deleted. They would prefer that the area they are currently allowed (square feet) be applied to both Hacienda I and II and Commissioner Inner suggested the condition be amended to include..."until such time as the Hacienda interchange is under construction." Mr. Callahan indicated he feels that only the Hacienda interchange should be required and not Stoneridge/T-G80. The 7.3 million square feet approved in Phase I should be spread to cover both developments. Other developments are more keyed to Stoneridge/I-680. Commissioner Inner felt that unless Stoneridge and Hacienda interchanges are built, Meyers and all other developments will not be constructed. Mr. Callahan indicated he does not understand the concern inasmuch as they could not apply to build more than the 7.3 million square feet over both projects. Mr. Swift stated staff wants 16a left in because of the results of the extensive traffic analysis over the north Pleasanton area. If those interchanges are not allowed, or are modified in any significant way, by Caltrans and other agencies, staff feels that scaling the project down from 4.4 million square feet would be necessary and staff is suggesting in Condition 16d that a project which could still work on the City's street system should be developed with the developer and the City working together. Commissioner Innes stated that the development agreement contains a condition relating to traffic LOS D. If the interchange doesn't come about, LOS D will be exceeded. Commissioner Innes then stated perhaps "any adjustments to intensity shall give priority to existing construction commitments and reasonable marketing considerations" should be added to Condition 16a. Mr. Callahan said this would be good because there are many investors who are not developers and third party transactions cannot be controlled. Commissioner Lindsey said Hacienda interchange needs to be built and secondarily Stoneridge Drive. Commissioner Inner felt that this should be a condition. Commissioner Lindsey did not feel this was properly addressed in a condition of staff or in Commissioner Inner' proposed amendment. Commissioner Hoyt felt - 5 -