PC 021308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson noted that it was not clear to him that it was out of the front and was worded in an unclear manner. It was difficult for him to respond to what was done or not done in 1967 or why. He noted that it may have been paved at one time and then deteriorated. Commissioner Fox noted that there had been several situations, such as the Ponderosa project where the neighborhood wished to put ingress and egress through the Selway property and have additional access off of Martin Avenue. She did not recall previous conditions where the City has asked a private property owner to have an ingress/egress easement on another property owner and where the property owner did not agree to give the easement. She cited the Reznick issue where Mary Roberts and Ford Roberts agreed to have the emergency vehicle access (EVA) through their property. She inquired whether the City was allowed to do that for private use since the City did not have a redevelopment agency. Mr. Iserson believed the City was able to take that action because the party that was being asked to provide the easement was the party that would benefit from the approval of the application. He noted that technically, the City had to become the applicant in this case, although the original applicant was Pleasanton Station. He noted that they were being asked, as the developer, the party that would benefit from the wall, and the party that proposed the wall, to grant the easement to the neighbor to restore a situation that was present before the wall was there. He noted that was analogous to the Reznick property in that the Reznicks, as the developer, were asked to provide the easement to the Roberts family. He added that this was analogous that the City would ask the party that benefits from the wall to grant an easement to a neighbor for access purposes. He believed the City Attorney would concur that it was legal and that it did not involve the need for condemnation or redevelopment agencies and that it was a fair and usual type of requirement that can be made of one who benefits from an application. Commissioner Fox inquired whether it was correct that there were two existing ingress/egress points that, if they were conforming, would meet ingress/egress requirements. Mr. Iserson believed that they would comply, from a technical Code point of view. He noted that staff wished to look beyond the minimum Code requirements, which was possible with the PUD. He noted that was common with PUDs and that staff endeavored to look beyond the letter of the law in order to do what was best for the situation. In this case, the pre-existing situation was that the patrons of Hap's had an unobstructed method of exiting in case of emergency, which was no longer available to them. Staff wished to go beyond the strict limitations of the Building Code and restore the type of access that was present before the wall was built. Staff believed that if the Pleasanton Station owners would like to enjoy the benefit of the wall, they would be asked to accommodate the pre-existing situation in terms of safe emergency access. With respect to modifications of the gate, Commissioner Pearce inquired whether staff anticipated removing the lock and the hasp or whether other modifications would be made. Mr. Iserson replied that was one modification and that there was no lock in place but that staff would like the hasp to be removed so that it could not be locked. The gate would also have to be modified because it was too big; the large size was a problem PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 4 of 42