15 - Laserfiche WebLink

from the site. In addition, Commissioner Fox stated she was uncomfortable with the possible parking solutions should CalTrans need to remove all or a portion of the 222- space parking lot at the rear of the site for a future I-580 to I-680 flyover (the applicant had suggested that parking could be located below a raised freeway structure or, in a worst-case scenario, that two-level, stacked mechanical parking be installed). Staff notes that a condition of approval (#15) requires that the applicant provide additional on- or off-site parking to meet the parking demand for the project and/or implement measures to reduce parking demand on the site in the event that the 222-space parking lot at the rear of the site is partially or entirely removed by CalTrans at some point in the future. DISCUSSION Staff and the Planning Commission believe that the proposed site plan and positioning of the buildings is appropriate for the subject site. Furthermore, the proposed buildings are very attractively designed and will complement the surrounding developments (BART station and parking garage, Stoneridge Mall, and office complexes). The applicant will be required to mitigate traffic impacts created by the project to meet City standards. The project will also provide a significant number of very low-income rental units with a minimal cost to the City. A detailed analysis and discussion of the proposal is included in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated April 23, 2008, including: project history, General Plan conformity, zoning and uses, affordable housing, site design, common and private open space, traffic and circulation, parking, noise, school impacts, grading and drainage, building design, Green Building, BART electrical substation, landscaping, tree removal and mitigation, and signage. PUD FINDINGS Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report, pages 26-29, for a discussion of the considerations needed to approve the proposed PUD development plan. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice regarding the proposed project and related City Council public hearing was mailed to the surrounding property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the subject property and was also published in the local newspaper. At the time this report was written, staff had not received any public comment. The owner of Stoneridge Mall, Simon Property Group, has the authority through private CC&R's to review and approve the proposed development on this site. The applicant indicated that it received approval by the Simon Property Group. Since the proposed project will share a drive aisle and slightly modify some of the parking of Stoneridge Corporate Plaza, the property owner's agent of Stoneridge Corporate Plaza, Carole Sullivan, had previously requested that she be able to review the aspects of the project that could affect the Stoneridge Corporate Plaza property. The applicant met with Ms. Sullivan and indicated that she doesn't object to the proposed project. Page 7 of 9