06 ATTACHMENT 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Pearce's assessment that if something were built without a permit, then the Commission would look at the item as if the wall did not exist and assess whether it would be approved. Mr. Iserson noted that from staff s perspective, an approval with reasonable conditions was the preferable outcome rather than a denial that required tearing the wall down. Commissioner O'Connor inquired whether the court could not force easements and whether the approval would still stand without Conditions Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Roush replied that if the court decided that Conditions Nos. 3 and 4 should not be imposed, the City would request that the matter be returned to the Planning Commission to consider the application in light of those conditions being removed. Commissioner Narum believed that of the three options, Condition No. 2 was the least desirable. She believed that the cost of Condition No. 2 should be borne by Hap's to achieve the safest exit. In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether the Planning Commission could require that the cost of Condition No. 2 be borne by the property owner of Hap's, Mr. Roush replied that the costs did not appear to be prohibitive. He noted that it appeared that the hasp and other locking mechanism would be required to be removed, as well as adding a modification so that the Building Code would be met. He was concerned about imposing that condition entirely upon Hap's and suggested a condition that would require the cost be split between the Hap's property owners and the Pereira partnership. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. Chair Blank noted that the public hearing was re-opened to provide clarification regarding comments about the easement versus the wall. Eric Hoff replied that they would like to have an easement for the garbage and that a better method of egress be found by Hap's. He noted that they did not want to give an ingress or egress easement to Hap's, although they would give an easement to Pleasanton Garbage Service. In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether the Pereira Partners would be willing to give an emergency egress easement to Hap's, Mr. Hoff replied that they would not record an emergency egress easement. He noted that they would like to retain the wall. In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether they would prefer to see the wall torn down rather than provide an emergency egress easement, Mr. Hoff replied that they were likely to fight it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Narum believed there should be some time limit on Condition No. 4, similar to that stated in Condition No. 3. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 2-13-08 Page 10 of 13