CCMIN040505 - Laserfiche WebLink

ten years, it has been a problem establishment and over the past two years, it became a public nuisance. Mayor Hosterman noted that this property is a good location for a business. She did not want to see more dark storefronts on Main Street. In an effort to provide Mr. Straface all of the leeway he needs to secure a new tenant, she asked staff for the best course of action to take. Mr. Iserson said staff would encourage Mr. Straface to secure a tenant that would blend in with the downtown. Staff would be willing to support and talk to anyone who would be a perspective tenant that seemed like they wanted to start a business that would be the kind of business that would fit in with the area. Mr. Sullivan asked if Council could amend the conditions that the Planning Commission recommended if Council decided it did not want to saddle the next business with the baggage of the old establishment? Mr. Iserson said Council could amend the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Sullivan believed Council would also have the opportunity to add conditions when a new establishment was secured. Mr. Iserson said that if the same type of business were to occupy these premises, and if Council left the use permit in tact with the modifications to the conditions, the new business would be obligated to abide by those conditions of approval. The new business could request a modification to the conditions of approval if it is being a good neighbor. The consideration to modify a conditional of approval would be heard and discussed by the Planning Commission. Mayor Hosterman declared the public hearing open. Dan Straface, property owner and appellant, was not present to defend the actions or the operations of the prior tenant. The Union Jack Pub was not operated in a professional business like manner. He had a discrepancy with the presentation made concerning the contacts made to the property owner, as in early 2004, he was asked to meet with the Code Enfomement Officer. He expressed his frustrations with the tenant and asked what could be done to eliminate the problems and remove the tenant, as a landlord has limitations in removing a tenant if the tenant is paying rent and abiding by the use that is stated in the lease. At that time, he was informed that there were insufficient complaints to allow the City to revoke the use permit. The only reason he appealed the modifications to the conditions of approval was because some of the conditions were vague and difficult to adhere to. He asked if the modified conditions of approval were similar to other restaurant bars in the community. He noted that there has been a substantial amount of interest in this property. He and the property owners do not want another bar operating in this location, and they are interested in a restaurant that has the ability to serve alcohol. He had reservations about accepting responsibility for maintaining the fence as it is broken on a regular basis. He has received three proposals from existing downtown Pleasanton restaurants. He and the property owners are trying to work with these establishments. He has informed these establishments that he cannot make any decisions until after Council hears the matter. As soon as the tenant went into monetary default they were evicted. He pointed out that the problems that exist are not necessarily those of the property owner. He noted that the property owners will do everything they can to control the problems, but if there is a use permit in place that allows the tenant to do certain things, it is out of the property owners' control. He pointed out that sewer hook up fees are expensive for restaurants and for a building of this size, the business owner would incur a fee of approximately $100,000 to $200,000. Pleasanton City Council 12 04/05/05 Minutes