06 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor: But again, that could be years of agony down the road again if we don't resolve something here tonight. I think after all this time of finally getting it back here, we need to come to some resolution going forward, and I think what I heard from Nancy is, and I'm kind of on board with Nancy, I'd like to go back to what wasn't a problem and that's the original CUP. But I think that the original CUP as staff pointed out is problematic in that I guess it could be interpreted because the CUP doesn't say everything that the staff report said, so there are a lot of implications in the staff report that should have been guiding the CUP but they didn't itemize everything in the CUP according to what the concerns were in the staff report. So I think we do need to go back and maybe add some language to the current CUP that gives us the result that we had for the first 20 years and essentially my concern is that I don't think there should be any activity in the back yard. I thought it was absolutely clear from the staff reports of that Planning Commission that there was supposed to be no activity in the buffer zone and that was their concern all along —was that they were too close to the houses. They wanted to move it further south but they're out of room. If they want to do parties in the parking lot and BBQs in the parking lot, if they want to have parties inside the building where noise doesn't escape; unfortunately these French doors might be a problem, but we didn't have any problem for over 20 years. It's been the last in the 10 years so that's where I'm at personally. Commissioner Balch: I'm going to back you on a portion of it, but I don't believe I'd be with you on everything, but in terms of the "hear it now or kick it later down ", I have to agree. In my opinion, we've got to hear this. It's a CUP that a body, where I wasn't around during the time, put forth and the conditions they've lived under for many years so those are the issues. I was adamant to get this back because it is something this body issued as a condition to build the building and we're tweaking that. And frankly, if we don't in my opinion, we reduce our credibility when we say to people if there's a problem with the CUP it comes back to this body. We say it every time. It will come back and we need to show when it comes back, we will do something with it. There's something with it may be doing nothing but at least it is here now. I'd also want to argue that waiting for an escrow to close as a developer, which is a bad word in Pleasanton, but as a developer I'm in six escrows now. None of them ever seem to close at the exact same time or the time you expect. There's always something. If they close on time, I could predict my life better, but there always could be something. They could assign it to a new buyer potentially upon close. We don't know what the purchase and sale agreement dictates or the terms of it. We don't know if there are additional contingencies or conditions and from my perspective, that is a moot point. I'm looking at the issue ahead of us and saying, well at least since 2006 or 2008 or whatever year we want to call it, until now we've got a problem. While I have the floor I do want to maybe point out to the audience the government process takes time, so while staff has technically had the issue for nine years or eight years or however you'd like to count it, if you've looked at the tedium of documents they've provided, many times it appeared they thought the issue was resolved and later found out it was not so I'm coming to their defense slightly to say that. I'm slightly still appalled that it's been this much time but I don't put the blame on staff and I just want to say that real fast. So I'd like to move on. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 28 of 52