06 ATTACHMENT 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT clear of contaminants. He objected to this application because he believed it was a civil matter that should not involve the City. He noted that he could not grant easements to other property owners and did not want part of his property to be taken. He stated that Hap's had other means of emergency egress and believed this egress was important because they wanted to run the parking lot, which he did not agree to. He noted that he hired Michael O'Callaghan as a paid consultant. Eric Hoff noted that he and his wife were also partners in the project. He noted that he was the first tenant in the old train station. He described the background of this building and added that he was the managing partner of the building. He noted that the dumpsters at Hap's were pulled three times per week and that their own dumpsters were pulled once per week; he noted that the wear and tear originated on the Hap's side with respect to the garbage truck. He noted that the garbage truck was the only truck to come onto their property. With respect to the handicapped parking, there had always been a sign on the wall, but nothing had been painted on the ground as a designated handicapped area; he noted that was not an issue. He distributed pictures displaying the egress access available between the two buildings to Hap's. He added that they would be able to egress by Clyde's property, which would provide a direct exit to the fire lane if they chose to spend the money to install an exit door. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the cost of the wall, Mr. Hoff stated that the wall cost $17,500, the dumpster cost $74,850, and the gate cost $3,500. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding the disposition of the wall if the application was denied, Mr. Hoff replied that they did not want to give a permanent easement to Hap's. Michael O'Callaghan noted that he had called the Planning Department specifically to ensure that the projector would operate properly, and the fact that the projector did not work seriously impacted his ability to properly present his case. He did not believe this application should be a Planning Commission matter and did not believe this was a constructive use of the Commissioners' expertise. He did not believe a dispute over a property line should be brought before the Planning Commission. He had prepared an arduous contest to Mr. Iserson's staff report, which he believed contained misnomers, misstatements, and what he felt to be misrepresentations; he intended to address those items before the City Council and possibly before a court of law. He intended to seek a productive solution. He noted that the Pereira partnership cannot take on the liability of this emergency egress, which included the taking of a piece of property without proper compensation to include an emergency access, when there were at least two other Code-compliant emergency accesses. He noted that since Mr. Pereira was willing to grant access to the property and Haps' dumpsters to Pleasanton Garbage, that became the line in the sand from which to negotiate. He noted that there was no health and safety code that required him to do so and that the only Code issue was that no one shall obstruct the pick-up of the garbage. He noted that Hap's was able to take their garbage to Main Street through the use of garbage cans. On behalf of the applicants, he presented the following proposal: 1. The Pereira Partnership was willing to enter into a licensing agreement with Hap's to allow Pleasanton Garbage to pick up the garbage. For $50 monthly, they would clean the DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 2-13-08 Page 6 of 13