PC 111605 - Laserfiche WebLink

could build the project, and if there were no tenants, a signal would not be required. She clarified that the moment the building or any one business was occupied, the signal must be operational _ in response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding staff's preference for a signal location, Ms_ Decker confirmed that Nevada Strect/Bernal Avenue intersection was the prelbrrcd location for the signal_ In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox whether there were any other mitigation options besides a traffic signal, Ms_ Decker replied that according to the traffic study and the traffic engineer, there was no other way to have the box checked "less than significant impact" for that inters Ceti on _ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED_ John Mahoney, on behalf of the applicant, thanked the Commissioners for their comments and noted that the applicant had gone through a very long process. He noted that they would not put in adrive-through. restaurant as a mitigation measure, and in an effort to work with ttxe City- Uzc applicant was very amenable to understanding the intent of the City and was aware that traii3c was an issue. ltxe applicant was willing to continue the discussion and added that this project had been on the table since November 2004_ He believed the project was a good one, and the applicant had gathered cotrimenis on many aspects of the developxnent_ The applicant believed the schedule could. be met and would like the project to move forward. The original discussions with staff had. raised the issue of a traffic impact fee; the City's need for the traffic light at the intersection had been iriade clear. He noted that the signal was originally in tlzc City's CIP program, and he did not want the project to be delayed further by investigating the issue of the fees and the signal_ Michael O'Callaghan., 125 West Neal Street, Pleasanton Downtown Association, noted that Jeff Knowles was an excellent traffic engineer but believed the traffic issue had been over- engineered_ He noted that when traffic on that intersection went to LOS F, it was because of the cut-through traffic coxrting in on Valley Avenue during the afternoon peak hours. He noted that the permitted uses within U~is subdivision ware planned a long time ago and believed that the inability to deal with this cut-through traffic has now impacted a pern-xittcd use for this site. He did not believe the cut-through traffic should be this applicant's problem. It was his experience that the trati-ic in the bigger intersections ran more srrxoothly when the traffic lights were broker~- he believed the traffic model did not reflect his experience. Conznzissioner Arkin suggested that the project be approved. and that the installation arxd payment of fees for the traffic light be delayed rmtil the General Plan Update is completed- the City can then determ Inc whether the traffic light is desired for the General Plait process. Ms. Decker advised that as the project is currently conditioned. and as indicated by the traffic study and the traffic engineer, there is no option to _j ust pay the fees and. not construct the traffic signal.. If the Commission were to not require the installation of the traffic signal and not require - - the payment of fees by rolling it into the General Plan, the project would be delayed, and the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 16, 2005 Yagc 12 of 23