15 - Laserfiche WebLink

To my total shock the application for a CUP stated that this was for a vocational training facility for adults with developmental disabilities. It also stated that we had to challenge this at the Planning Commission meeting that was set for the following Wednesday,the 25th. Unfortunately,the actual report was not made public until Friday the 20th, after 5:00pm. Thus we really only had three working days to respond to it. I had contacted Jennifer Wallis, Associate Planner on the 18t to explain that I would be challenging this proposed tenant and the CUP. I needed to gather details since I have never been involved in a process like this. As a partial owner of this 25,000 sq. ft. building which is governed by CC&R's and part of an association, just for this building and larger business park association, I held off on sending in my formal response to the City since I was trying to be kind by first reaching out to the two other owners of the building, Section A's commercial broker, the landlords representative and hopefully SVS. (Copy of that email attached—Item 1). Since SVS only responded to Section A's real estate broker on Tuesday the 24th, it left little time to submit our objections to the Planning Commission I have attached a copy of the email that was sent, showing how SVS responded to some of our concerns. Please pay particular attention to the section that states, "An average of about 30 clients will spend 5.5 hours in our facility M-F".(See attached—Item 2). If there is an actual recording of the Planning Commission meeting on the 25th, I think that you might understand how I felt that the board members did not actually see my email prior to the meeting even though it was made available to them. We also did not have an opportunity to respond to any misunderstood issues once I had been given our 5 minutes. Thus after the discussion amongst the board members,we had no voice. I certainly do not fault the board, but do feel that they did not really have a grasp of the magnitude of the negative impact this tenant and their operations will have on us and the surrounding business park. No one from the City had even bothered to visit an SVS site before voting. The board approved the CUP and immediately following the meeting I, my wife and Gary,the other owner of 6602,(section C), went up to the staff of SVS to politely introduce ourselves. I wanted to let them know that I had no ill will towards them or their organization, but merely was vehemently opposed to the site selection for several reasons. During the discussion, one rep from SVS stated that they do not expect to actually be in the building for a year to a year and a half. That surprised me and (by the way, has since surprised their landlord's rep), so I requested the opportunity to visit one of their Bay Area operations hoping to quell my concerns. This was at first somewhat rudely rejected. I mentioned that I would most certainly request that not only we be allowed, but the rep for the owner of section A, section C and a rep from the City be allowed a site visit. I think that my call into Jennifer Wallis the following day,asking what our next formal step was in objecting to this tenant's location may have helped us obtain a visit. A few days later, we indeed were allowed to visit a site in Newark. 2