PC 022515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Eisberg replied that she does have the exact number but that Exhibit C of the staff report is a notification map that shows the parameters of the 1,000 -foot radius of the project site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Susan Copley - Leonhardt, Director of Business Administration for Social Vocational Services, stated that Ms. Eisberg did a good job of explaining what is being proposed for the space. She indicated that they have offices throughout California and 45 facilities similar to what is being proposed in Pleasanton. She explained that the purpose of this proposed facility is to relieve crowding at their Hayward facility, noting that they are also serving people who currently live in Pleasanton so it was natural to come out to Pleasanton. She added that they conducted a research on the location regarding whether or not it will be a good fit for their clients and staff and found that it was a good match. She added that Planning staff believed it was a good fit for their proposal as well. Commissioner Piper asked Ms. Copley - Leonhardt if their other facilities share a common wall with another office or business, and if so, how many. Ms. Copley - Leonhardt replied that approximately one -half of the total number of their facilities have a shared wall with another business. Commissioner Piper further inquired if they typically get any complaints from noise. She expressed concern about the activities, specifically air hockey, karaoke, and similar activities on their proposal, Exhibit B of the staff report. Ms. Copley - Leonhardt replied that she would not say that they never have, adding that it occurred very rarely and possibly because of the karaoke activity. She noted that in cases like this, they would move their activity to another part of the facility and keep it down. She indicated that they always respond to complaints like this from neighbor because they understand there are mixed uses in the building, and they do not want to disturb anybody just as they do not want others to disturb them. Wayne Rudick, property and business owner at the same site, started by apologizing that he is very sorry to be even challenging this plan because he thinks the process of what the applicants are trying to accomplish is very honorable; what he is opposing is the location of the facility. He indicated that his wife and he are partial owners of the building, which has three owners. He added that they own Pleasanton Valley Insurance at Suite 200 and have been in Pleasanton for 22 years. He stated that they were approached by the broker of the new owner at Suite 100 approximately six months ago and indicated that there would be another facility, SVS. He noted that they very specifically questioned the broker then regarding the type of activities that would be taking place there, and they were told that it would be a professional office such as theirs, with no activities on site; that there would be vans, that would park in the back, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 4 of 46