PC 051204 - Laserfiche WebLink

- In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Chan replied that the applicant would perform general clean-up and weed abatement. He believed that the landlord had the responsibility to improve the paving. Robert Barry, 901 16~h Street, San Francisco, noted that it would be their responsibility to maintain the facility with respect to landscaping. He did not know whether the landlord would take responsibility for the paving. He noted that they did not generally perform heavy truck maintenance in the lot and that they intended to maintain the fleet for safety and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) requirements. He noted that the frequency of maintenance on the site was limited and that they abided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) containment requirements when changing oil. He noted that they would be willing to use the alcove for maintenance as recommended by staff. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Barry advised that they had approximately 15 trucks in the fleet. He noted that the maintenance on the trailers were quite light and that they normally performed brake adjustments, which were a manual operation. He noted that maintenance could also be performed off-site. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson agreed that an enclosed building with aroll-up door could be constructed in the alcove. Mr. Barry advised that would increase the project's cost. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Iserson noted that the Noise Ordinance limited noise levels at the property line between industrial and residential uses. Because this application was a use permit, any excessive noise would enable the use permit to be brought back before the Commission, and the fences may be replaced with solid walls to attenuate the noise. He believed that the residential developers would have to disclose the adjacent industrial use. Mark Triska, Collier International Commercial Real Estate Service, 5050 Hopyard Road, representing the tenant, noted that they had brought a residential application to the City for this site and was not supported. The City wanted to retain the site as an industrial property because Pleasanton had a limited amount of industrial real estate remaining. He noted that it was the responsibility of the residential developer next door to disclose this pre-existing industrial use to proposed buyers. He noted that the tenant intended to restore the site and believed that it would be an excellent use for the site. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Triska replied that the applicant would perform only light maintenance on-site and that heavy maintenance would be performed off-site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2004 Page 7 of 14