12 Exhibits - Laserfiche WebLink

Deborah Madnick, 3095 Crestablanca Drive, did not understand the purpose of the project and did not believe that because a lot could accommodate a big box store it would be an ideal loeation for that use. She noted that there was a regional park and a residential neighborhood near this site and that the weekend business would severely impact the traffie. She believed this use would put smaller businesses in the vicinity out of business. She preferred that the Downtown eoncept of supporting smaller businesses be carried out in this location. Donald Adams, 4133 Stanley Boulevard, noted that he was not opposed to a Home Depot store but would like to see the orientation turned on the site. He requested that no other businesses be allowed on this site. He suggested that a Pleasanton design style be determined and applied to this store, similar to what Santa Barbara has instituted. Brian Schwartz, Arthur Drive, noted that he was a member of Beth Emek and understood the traffic, safety, and noise issues. He added that no one had addressed the issue of tax revenues for the City and believed the City would not make any more tax revenue out of this project. He believed this consumer center would make the current traffic flow worse. Chairperson Arkin wished to emphasize that the Planning Commission never met out of publie view, which would be a violation of the Brown Act. He added that when the Commissioners met separately with the applicant, financial aspects of the project were not discussed. David Bouchard, 434 Vineyard Place, spoke in support of this application. He noted that this project would generate approximately $1 million annually in sales tax revenue. He added that the project would pay for the impact fees as well. From his service with the Chamber of Commerce, he had seen the positive impact such a business can have on the community, from the standpoint of jobs creation and revenue generation. He would rather keep the tax dollars in Pleasanton. Pete Knoedler thanked the eomments from the residents and looked forward to working with them. He noted that they would work with the Temple regarding the noise eoncerns and could beef up the landscaping between their project and Nevada Court. He noted that they could add a berm with more mature trees to satisfy their concerns. He had been working closely with staff regarding tratlie, and they had hired their own traffic consultant. They considered the alternative of not having a loop road and added that the interseetion was severely constrained. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regarding the number of current customers expected to go to the new store, Mr. Knoedler replied that they would gladly perform an economic study to analyze tax dollar flow and leakage. He believed this project would generate $800,000-$ I ,000,000 in tax revenues. The other Home Depot did not expect a big drop-off from their store sales. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regarding changing the current Home Depot to a contractor's supply center, Greg George, real estate manager for Home Depot, replied that the original store was a non-prototype, smaller store. That store would remain as it is and would not be changed to a contractor store with the same merehandise mix. The reason they were looking at placing the store at this site was the result of a market study, which showed that signiticant volume was bleeding to the Livermore area. The new store would have a 35,OOO-square-toot EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, January 11,2006 Page 4 of7