15 - Laserfiche WebLink

3/19/2015 Pleasanton City Council, Regarding P15-0008 Social Vocational Services—SVS I regret even having to be involved in this entire fiasco and will state that we have nothing against SVS, whatsoever. We merely feel that the selection of this location is totally inappropriate for the surrounding area. This would be true for an auto body repair shop, wood shop,day care for kids, etc. It is the wrong environment for this type of operation! SVS wants to move into a portion of a standalone building located at 6602 Owens Drive. This commercial condo building is owned by three different parties. To be clear,that portion of the building being proposed for this tenant, which I will refer to as section A is owned by someone other than myself, whom I have never met. My wife and I own the center section, section B of this 25,000 sq.ft. building or roughly 7,500 sq.ft. We share the interior walls with this proposed tenants space. We have a third owner, (Gary Gibson),section C whom we share walls on the West side of the building. Gary will be again objecting as he did at the planning meeting. This entire building is set up for professional offices and not industrial operations. I am in the insurance industry and am very familiar with non-profit organizations since I serviced many from a safety and risk management standpoint. We also insure such operations. I bring this up because we have much more insight and experience due to the business that we are in. Approximately 6 months ago,the real estate broker representing the owner of section A approached me regarding this possible tenant. We were told that this would only be used for professional office personnel and drivers. The employees would work in these offices have vans parked in back overnight. The drivers would come in, park only in the rear of their space and then take approximately 6 to 8 vans into the community on a daily basis. The clients of SVS were not going to be at this site,since the service was to provide transportation to various outreach programs and business sites where these clients were to be placed daily. I purposely and specifically asked if any onsite activities or drop offs would take place here. I was told at that time that it would not happen. I explained that I would be 100%o opposed to any such tenant if that were to be the case, whether for developmentally disabled, a training center or even a childcare type operation since this is a professional office complex. There is absolutely no question in my mind that I was crystal clear on this point,again because of my background and understanding of this industry. Once I was assured that it was only drivers and office employees, I figured it was going to be a normal professional office tenant. I can only assume that section A's broker was misinformed as well. During the week of February 16th,2015 we received the yellow NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING. I believe that notice got to us on the 18th, one week ahead of the scheduled meeting. 1