PC 02/10/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Weissman further noted that the buildings on site are temporary for approximately a two-year period of time until final plans are approved. He noted that the applicant needs to remain in business to generate income in order to develop the final plan of buildings. Russ Morgan, applicant, noted he is trying to resolve staffs issues and he has paid the penalties for non-compliance. He stated that this is an interim phase and wants to work with staff to get to the end of the process. Commissioner Cooper noted after discussion with the Fire Marshal, he confirmed that the applicant is in conformance with hazardous waste issues. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Cooper, the applicant noted he is the only supplier of oxygen in Pleasanton and would be agreeable to a review of the permit in six months. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny, the applicant noted that tents have not been removed due to no authorization for removal being granted. The applicant noted his concurrence with staffs conditions with the exception of conditions that are time sensitive. Mr. Morgan noted that the conditions relating to the sewer and dedication of land are not feasible due to the applicant not owning the land, but leasing. Mr. Iserson noted staff has met with the property owner and that the property owner is in support of the conditions and that the time sensitive conditions have been adjusted accordingly. The Commission can impose conditions relating to the sewer and dedication of land. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Cooper, Mr. Morgan noted he is in agreement with bonding requirements being posted within a two-week period of time. Discussion ensued relating to the two-year timeline for completion of the final plan for the project and whether proposed buildings meet zoning requirements. The City's policy for temporary structures was also discussed. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Roberts stated she cannot make Finding No. 1, "The proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located," and noted her concern with staff having to enforce regulations. She commented that in her opinion this is a junk yard and does not enhance the appearance of the City and would be a detriment other businesses nearby. She expressed concern with the hours of operation and noted methods of other rental businesses for retrieving equipment. She expressed concurrence with staff that there are other locations where open air storage could occur. She expressed concern with chemicals being used in a business where there is access to the Arroyo, there could be a public health hazard due to possible chemical runoff, and with the applicant not cleaning up the property. She concluded by stating that she could not make Finding No. 1 and that two years of temporary outdoor storage is an inappropriate use for site. She would deny the project. Chairperson Kumaran disclosed that he met with applicant at the site. He expressed concern with the applicant's lack of compliance with City codes. He noted he could not make Finding No. 1. Further, he stated that due to non-compliance and concerns expressed by neighbors relating to land-use PLANN1NG COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 February 10, 1999