06 ATTACHMENT 1-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Madden argues that-;the wall restricts the em_e~geney exiting from the restaurant. I respond by stating • : that there has been no evidence pr-oduced by anyone that I am required to provide his property with emergency exiting: A review Qf the CJniform Building•Cacle:andse~eral consultations with The City's... - Building department's staff Yeveals no such requiremetits E. In fact, it is`tlie Hap's' Management'that restricts the egress: Recently Hap's employees and contractors, coxistrueted their own 6' gates and `' fences (without peinuts) that illegally restrict ped`estriaii ftow from the fear yard area iri:question. Ivlr. _ , Madden, City Officials arid, City-:Fire Inspectors are aware that :this condition has existed for months, ~ - - but take no steps.-to correct it. WHY? - The. oiily inconveni-once to the neighborhood that Mr-Madden cornplairis of, is .that the:Hag's delivery: _ :. peoph must now .use their fro~t-entcance for delive~es as other restaurants and shn~s do in the area, I will no longer allow the-use of my..property for the corXiinexcial use of the Hap's. business if -for no:. - -other reason; aside from the damage and; coiigestiom aliey cause; than my insurance does not covez,it. . :: ~ The accessible parking space that Madden sites he loses: is nothngsliort of a canard. The Haps .Management or contractors installed an accessible parking sign near their 1iaclt door, which vitas -riot at : : • a required'nor marked accessible'.parking: sta11•. Most'of the time, their. companydehvery van ryas ` . - ` parked u~ the spoYor their valet driver used it to park cap.'s restaurant.patrons' Ialso dnri't:believe • there: is any condition for my properties atiat state that I shall provide Hips vvjfh aii ADA accessible . • parking space. and it is also a fact,that tl}eir priiria~y accessible entrance is in the front on W heal St,.~ - For"Mn.1Vladden'•s final assertionahat vve. have altered his.praperty.is again a misnomer The masonry.: , - wall is 100% on:our lands, Hap's managerrient and or contractors did the only.illegal alteratigri of his property `when~they substantially changed the stoiin watefnuioff plan ~of the 1967 City, Design Review - approved rear yard drainage system: This occurred during their 199:8 reconstiniction project. - _ .., , _ - Nelson, again whle.we r~mam-.open to ;discussion regazding this property line issue,.it might be wise g - .. g proparty~ owners and stake. Holders to the table at. this. tune: :for you to brin all -the surroundin ' regarding Hap's and their neighborhood anhcs•. You and, I aze both fully,aware ,that-they have created. - - multiple other proBlems'with parking, trash.arid ab'usrveaehavior and ale m wiolatloii:of several of . _ ,, .... their original conditions of approvals. ~ - ~- In closing we aze not m approval of flTe.. City reinovuig our wall. even if; ~ as you say, it would be - aceoinplisHed using .eommutrity.fun4ls:' Webelieve that we Have the necessary City approvals arid: - believe the wall is much needed to protect our new and existing projeets, from the abuse that our - • property has experienced duruig the tenure of the current Haps ownership and management, Although :: wa.highly value our-relationship with the. City staff; we, are prepared to fight :the demolition with ' whatever avenues.that *1i~ fawr~ay afford i.is: `` Sincerely I re, - _ - _ . . ,.. _ . :. 'tench Pereira- . .. Owner/ Railroad Square 8i Pleasanton Station - 925:989.284:6 , eiman Michael"Roush _, . , .. • Jeiy I'se;son - George Thomas `. ; - .. -. • Robert Wilson. Attachment: Madden'Let 7x0.07 (2) Fialho L:et. 6.28.06