Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Roberts disagreed with Commissioner Arkin's assessment and noted that <br />the Commission did consider and rejected the placement of underground tanks next to the <br />arroyo- She recalled that Commissioner Sullivan was very involved. in that discussion. <br />Chairperson Maas felt confident in the information provided by the Fire Station and <br />weighing it against the environmental and safety concerns- She would rather be able to <br />see and monitor the above-ground tanks_ <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Maas and Roberts. <br />NOES: Commissioner Arkin and Blat~~k. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />RECUSED: Commissioner Fox_ <br />ABSENT: None_ <br />The motion did not carry due to a tie vote. <br />Commissioner Arkin moved to continue this item in order to gather further <br />information and to provide a broader motif icatiou of the neighboring residents <br />within a 1,000-foot radius_ <br />Commissioner Blank seconded the motiou_ <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox whether she could participate in the <br />continued hearing, Ms. Nerland conFirmed that it would be cleaner not to participate at <br />this meeting. She added that Commissioner Fox could participate during the continued <br />hearing if she reviewed the minutes that covered the portions of the hearing that she <br />missed- <br />In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Maas regarding a continuance date, Mr. Pavan <br />replied that it could be brought back to the Commission at its February 9, 2005 meeting <br />for afour-week continuance. Council would be required to take action on this item <br />within 40 calendar days of this meeting. <br />At staff s request, Commissioner Blank reviewed the questions he would like answered: <br />1 _ The safety record over the past five years in terms of above-ground versus <br />underground storage tanks in California; <br />2. Broader public notification within a 1 ,000-foot radius of the site; <br />3. Encouragement £or the homeowners and the applicant to engage in dialogue <br />about this use; <br />4. Better detail on the emergency response plans, how they would be effected, and <br />neighborhood notification during an emergency. <br />5. Any Departmeni of Transportation DOT)- or State-mandated leak notification <br />requirements. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 7 2, 2005 Page I O of 21 <br />