PC 012506 - Laserfiche WebLink

r,-~ Chairperson Arkin generally supported the project and would like to see it moved three or four feet back from the sidewalk to allow more space, seating, and planters. He inquired if the outdoor seating could encroach on the sidewalk. Ms. Decker confirmed that both of his questions could be implemented. The grading would have to be examined closely. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Chazles Huff, project architect, noted that there would be a challenge with respect to Chairperson Arkin's suggestion regazding the north elevation of the site and the grading. He added that there were some drainage problems with that part of the pazking lot. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regazding whether there would be enough room for outdoor dining on the Angela Street side, Mr. Huff replied that there would be plenty of room, especially since afour-foot encroachment onto the sidewalk would be allowed. Michael O'Callaghan, Pleasanton Downtown Association (PDA), 125 West Neal Street, noted that the PDA had approved the project for the second time. He stated that he was also the builder on this project and noted that with respect to outdoor dining, a small restaurant had been interested in the space on the southwest corner. A dining layout was created, taking the five percent ramp at the front door into consideration; there is currently room for outdoor dining for 32 to 35 seats on the west side of the building. There had been earlier discussion about moving the building back. He advised that the (~ backing-up in the rear pazking is currently marginal, and removing another three feet from the site would require a redesign of the reaz pazking lot. Mr. O'Callaghan supported the green building ordinance and noted that they would use their best efforts to support the green building measures. He expressed concern about a new engineering requirement regazding the bond. He noted that they would use appropriate erosion control measures and added that they would take out a portion of the pazking lot just for the building. The pavement would be left intact until the spring after the rainy season ends. Regarding the requirement for the trash enclosure, he had spent two days negotiating between the Dublin San Ramon Services District and the City's Engineering Department regazding the original approval to have the trash enclosure designed so that it would contain its own water. They installed sumps in the trash enclosure to contain its own water. Ms. Decker noted that the Engineering Department had concerns about maintenance if the sump was not connected to the sewer lines. Mr. Grubstick concurred with Ms. Decker's statement and indicated that he was not aware of discussions by staff with respect to any alternatives to connecting to the sanitary sewer system. He noted that it was typically required that a trash enclosure area be covered to keep rainwater out of the system and that it drain to a sanitazy sewer system. He suggested that Condition 63(b) include the language "or as approved by the City ~ Engineer." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 2006 Page 5 of 19