PC 092513 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Allen stated that the next question she had was whether these fears are really justified. She noted that crime is crime but questioned if they are justified. She added that she looked at the OSHA report that actually has a list of highest risk establishments, and it lists gas stations, liquor stores, and convenience stores as three of the top five high -risk establishments, actually, twice as risky as late night bars. She noted that those are national statistics and that they would certainly be better in Pleasanton. Finally, Commissioner Allen stated that she looked at what benefit the City is getting from this business. She noted that the applicant had shared that there is not a big tax impact because food is not taxed. She continued that she then looked at the survey that was in the staff report that was discussed earlier and had all the different locations and the crime reports. She indicated that she looked at the crime incidents a little differently than the applicant did, looking for total incidents that were occurring at these operations that were cited as somewhat comparable. She stated that she took the total incidents and averaged them, including the applicant's location, and it averaged around eight incidents per month, which is close to 100 per year. She indicated that she does not know what 100 incidents per year for the Police Department costs, but if it is, say, $1,000, which amount could be way off, that would be $ 100,000 per year in City costs. She indicated that this concerns her too. In summary, Commissioner Allen stated that she does not feel like this is the right fit for this neighborhood. She indicated, however, that it does leave the question of what should be done to make this more vital. She emphasized that she does think other things need to be looked at and that she is concerned about this for this neighborhood. Chair Pearce stated that she agrees in part with what Commissioner Allen said. She indicated that she looked at the zoning, and it talks about minimizing adverse impacts on adjoining residential uses; and given the concern of the neighborhood, it raises some red flags for her. She noted that the Planning Commission has dealt with this a number of different ways: there have been 24 -hour requests that the Commission has denied, and there have been requests that the Commission has modified. She added that she wants to be sensitive to the neighbors and their concerns because this is a big jump, but she also wants to know if there is a way to have less hours and not go 24 -hours right away; have more hours than they have if there is a concern, but pare it down to serve alcohol at earlier times. She indicated that she does not want to say all the way yes, and she does not want to say all the way no either. She stated that there may be a way, in conversations that Mr. Hirst is going to have with the neighbors, to find a middle ground where everyone is a little bit happy and try it for a while. She noted that there have been some situations in the past where the Commission has allowed a business to do something for a while, and then, if the Commission's concern was crime, ask for Police Reports to come back in a year or six months, see what this looks like and what the neighbors' concerns are. Chair Pearce also agreed with Commission Allen that she would like to see a noise study on the carwash. She stated that a carwash would obviously have to comply with PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 25, 2013 Page 14 of 45