Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Narum believed that of the three options, Condition No. 2 was the least <br />desirable. She believed that the cost of Condition No. 2 should be borne by Hap's to <br />achieve the safest exit. <br />In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether the Planning Commission <br />could require that the cost of Condition No. 2 be borne by the property owner of Hap's, <br />Mr. Roush replied that the costs did not appear to be prohibitive. He noted that it <br />appeared that the hasp and other locking mechanism would be required to be removed, as <br />well as adding a modification so that the Building Code would be met. He was <br />concerned about imposing that condition entirely upon Hap's and suggested a condition <br />that would require the cost be split between the Hap's property owners and the Pereira <br />partnership. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. <br />Chair Blank noted that the public hearing was re-opened to provide clarification <br />regarding comments about the easement versus the wall. <br />Eric Hoff replied that they would like to have an easement for the garbage and that a <br />better method of egress be found by Hap's. He noted that they did not want to give an <br />ingress or egress easement to Hap's, although they would give an easement to Pleasanton <br />Garbage Service. <br />In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether the Pereira Partners would be <br />willing to give an emergency egress easement to Hap's, Mr. Hoff replied that they would <br />not record an emergency egress easement. He noted that they would like to retain the <br />wall. <br />In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether they would prefer to see the <br />wall torn down rather than provide an emergency egress easement, Mr. Hoff replied that <br />they were likely to fight it. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Commissioner Narum believed there should be some time limit on Condition No. 4, <br />similar to that stated in Condition No. 3. <br />Commissioner Pearce did not see Hap's benefiting from the wall in any way and did not <br />believe the Commission should require Hap's to pay for any of it if it were being built <br />anew. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 13 of 42 <br />