12 Exhibits - Laserfiche WebLink

and loud signage. She noted that the applicant had very definitive conditions regarding those issues but that the City could not condition against a specific company. Commissioner Blank noted that former Chairperson Arkin had requested that a fast food use not be planned for the drive-through and that Mr. Knoedler noted that he may be agreeable. Commissioner Pearce noted that there were concerns about approving this plan before the General Plan was in place. Regarding the timing of approval for the project, she inquired whether there were advantages or disadvantages to approving this project before or after the General Plan was completed and certified, including the Circulation Element. Ms. Decker replied that there was no advantage either way and that staff examined every application for consistency with the current General Plan. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding the potential course of action if the intersection were to become LOS E or F after the project opened, Mr. Tassano replied that it would be a balance between a macro-simulation, which identified the amount of traffic, and a micro-simulation, which identified solutions for a certain amount of traffic. He added that staff could also reassess the intersection with a new traffic mitigation fee for future development. Commissioner O'Connor believed that if this project went forward and since the Johnson Drive hours were restricted, weekend hours should be examined more closely because of its location near a residential neighborhood. He was somewhat dismayed that the $2 million in traffic mitigation could not be used for Valley Avenue. He believed that the City should do what it could to alleviate the traffic on V alley Avenue, and he did not believe it would get any better. Commissioner Olson believed this project should be approved so that more pressure could be brought to bear on the subject of traffic within Pleasanton. He agreed with Commissioner O'Connor's comments that the traffic on Valley Avenue should be alleviated. He noted that there were several speakers who addressed the need to push the Stoneridge Drive extension through. He believed the Planning Commission had the responsibility to look at revenue in the City in view of what it needed to sustain itself over time. He would also be in favor of looking at weekend operating hours. He would particularly like to see the liquor store reference removed and not approved. Commissioner Blank agreed with most of Commissioner Olson's comments and believed the Stoneridge Drive extension was a discussion for another time. He agreed that the liquor store reference should be deleted from the plan and was very concerned about the hours of delivery, hours of operation, and truck traffic. He was very concerned about trucks lining up at 5:45 a.m. to be ready at 6:00 a.m. and about noise impacts. He would not support this project without the previously stated grill restriction. He agreed with Commissioner Olson's comment that tax revenue should be considered as the City approached buildout. He believed the consulting engineers and developers should be on the hook if their projections do not come to pass. He was not as concerned about a short-term closure of the Johnson Drive store because the revenue per square foot was slightly higher in the Johnson Drive store. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 13, 2006 Page 12 of 16