PC 11/23/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

27, due to his request that the time be changed from two weeks to four weeks from approval of case; No. 37, due to his request that the time be 15 days from issuance of the building permits versus approval of case; No. 44, due to his request that the time be changed from two weeks to four weeks; and No. 65, due to his request to eliminate installation of remote control mechanisms on gates since the gates won't be automatic. In conclusion, he requested that the conditional use permit be approved to allow for development of the new facility. Discussion ensued relating to disposal of waste water, non-compliance with provision of an inventory list of hazardous material to the Fire Department; property access for fire vehicles; length of time on present site; and, disposal of water to holding tanks. Mr. Morgan provided an overview of the hazazdous material violation, reasons for non-compliance with permits; nature of business; and issues relating to landscaping. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Sullivan expressed concern with the illegal operation of the business, lack of the applicant's responsibility in meeting City requirements; discharge of wastewater to a septic tank or holding tank; and, the type of activities being conducted on the site with the potential for dischazges being situated too close to the Arroyo. He expressed sympathy with Mr. Morgan's position; however, he stated he could not support the findings. Commissioner Kameny expressed sympathy with Mr. Morgan and his position; however, he expressed concern with his lack of follow through for code compliance in previous locations, the potential for overflowing of holding tanks, the aesthetics of the new building, the inability to fully screen the site, concerns expressed by neighbors, hours of operation, and non-compliance with the Fire Department and heazing officer decisions. In conclusion, he stated he would vote in support of staff s recommendation to deny the application. Commissioner Cooper expressed his reluctance inputting the applicant out of business by not approving the permit and stated there is a need for this type of business in Pleasanton. However, he stated that due to the lack of the applicant's organization, the long duration of the applicant's non-compliance with codes, and the City's inability to enforce requirements due to lack of resources, he stated that he could not approve granting a permit unless major modifications were made. Commissioner Cooper stated that he could vote in support of the application if all hazardous material was removed from the site, the applicant eliminated his medical-rental business, one of the trailers was removed to allow for fire access, there was no dishwashing or laundering on the site until such time that a sewer is available, and if the applicant returned to the Commission with an application to run a truck rental and parry supply business, and all requirements imposed by staff were met. Further, he stated he could only support the modified application, i.e., one that left out the hazazdous materials, if a one-year conditional use permit were granted. In conclusion, he stated that due to the inadequacy of the present proposal and the tremendous burden on staff to enforce restrictions on an uncooperative applicant, he would vote in favor of denying the application. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 November 23, 1998