PC 08/28/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairman Mahern asked Mr. Dunkley if he had any opposition to the wording change suggested by Mr. Iserson for Conditions 7, 8, and 10. Mr. Dunkley replied that he did not object. In response to Commissioner Michelotti, Mr. Dunkley replied they have no intention of having a retail nursery or open storage, and have no intentions of storing anything on the vacant lot. Commissioner Hovingh asked Mr. Dunkley if he had any problem with regard to Condition l.d. regarding additional language not allowing the storage of pesticides and herbicides. Mr. Dunkley felt it would be less confusing to leave the wording as it presently stands. Mike Patterson, 4050 Walnut Drive, stated that his property backs up to this project. He said any source of concern is gone and rose from the initial application which was much broader. He stated he can support the application as it stands at present. Robert Cordtz, 260 Angela, expressed concern about the fact that Poo1time is presently parking a semi-trailer on the site that contains pool cleaning chemicals. He was also concerned about a gas tank on the property that no body knows about. He noted that the applicant said he has reported this to the Fire Department, but the Fire Department has done nothing about it. He was concerned that the gas tank could leak into the Arroyo. He suggested that the Fire Department check this out before moving forward on the project. In response to Mr. Cordtz's concerns about the gas tank and chemical storage, Mr. Iserson said the Fire Department has agreed to make that a top priority item. He said he personally has spoken to the officials in the Fire Department and it appears the lack of personnel is the reason that it has not been taken care of. The gas tank is located near the southeast corner of the storage shed. Mr. Dunkley returned to the podium. He clarified that the gas tanks have never been filled; two gas pumps on the site have never even been electrified. He felt the entire issue could be worked out between the Fire Department and staff. Mr. Dunkley agreed with the suggestion that additional wording be incorporated into Condition 10 regarding the timeframe for landscaping. A motion was made by Commissioner Hovingh, seconded by Commissioner Michelotti recommending approval of the Negative Declaration prepared for Case PUD-91-4 inasmuch as the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Minutes Planning COmais.ion August 28, 1991 Page 8 ,. .