12 Attachments - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan replied that at the last minute, there was some question about whether it was necessary to include the skylight condition, and ultimately, it was left in. Commissioner Pearce inquired if that was a "yes or no" question and not a discussion of the language or the intent of the condition or anything similar. Mr. Dolan said that was correct. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Rodney Lopez, Applicant , stated that the City Council staff report that came out after mediation had added the skylight and some other options done during mediation but that nowhere in the 140-page report does it mention the use of the funds for anything other than the installation of a skylight. He noted that Mayor Hosterman had stated during the meeting that they could work out the details later on, and this is what they are doing right now. Mr. Lopez stated that they are not attorneys but that they noticed later that this option, as written, had a loophole in that they were to pay the Perrys up to $2,500 for a skylight; however, there was no language to make sure the Perrys actually installed a skylight. He indicated that the option was written with the intent that the Perrys would install a skylight because of the issues they had brought up. He noted that when the time came, they questioned the ethics and how the option's language was intended, that they were hopeful it was not merely monetary with no intent to ever mitigate this issue. He added that they did not want this money to be seen as a bribe or buyout, so they went to the City to try and work it out. He stated that they felt this was not a good precedent to set for the City of Pleasanton and its Community of Character, that any neighbor could hold up a building process just to get a payment without mitigating the issue of concern. Mr. Lopez pointed out that in the staff report, they have offered an amendment to that option, which they prefer to Option 1 , which is also reasonable. He stated that both options have language stating that they will pay the funds for the installation of the skylight once it is installed. He noted, however, that they would like to add tonight two statements which were missing from both options: (1) that after 180 days, if the skylight has not been installed, the funds would be returned to the Lopez family; and (2) that the funds offered is up to $2,500 based upon some bids, but that it also be based on the actual cost of the actual skylight installed to prevent any bait or switching, in case the Perrys decide to install a skylight other than one of those on the bids, resulting in the Lopezes paying more than what the actual cost of the skylight is. Trina Lopez, Applicant, noted that the City Council Minutes indicate that, in regard to Option 3, Vice Mayor Cook-Kallio did ask whether or not the Perrys wanted the skylight. Ms. Lopez stated that, in good faith, the intent has always been to install the skylight and that the purpose of the $2,500 was never for any other usage. She added that this is the reason they are asking the Planning Commission to look at this again. She cited Mr. Lopez's earlier statement that they are not attorneys but residents of Pleasanton EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 25, 2012 Page 3 of 12