06 ATTACHMENT 1-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Now to the issues at hand Some three weeks ago, on or about September 8, George Thomas visited me at the site and informed me that "in no way would the wall issue be any longer a hold on the final occupancy of the building". (big relief) He also made a suggestion that unlocking the gate, then locked, for a reasonable period of time and writing a letter to Madden or Connors giving them time to make corrections to their emergency access and their garbage area might go a long way to defuse the situation. The next day a letter to Connors and copied to Thomas, (see attached) was sent and through the time of this writing the gate has been unlocked with only a twig or piece of rolled paper to keep it from banging in the wind. Since then there has been no evident construction activity or a responsive letter from Madden or Connors. Based on this lack of activity coupled with the following events I don't think they are planning to do any repairs in the near future. My on site construction staff has been confronted on at least tlu~ee occasions with Haps delivery persons contentiously stating that they have a right to use the gate, per Haps management. On another occasion my contractor was assaulted by a Haps delivery man mining into him with his hand buck making the same assertions as the others regarding his right to use of the gate and Mr. Connors, on the second day that the gate was unlocked, made a personal appearance in the Haps rear yard area making multiple obscene gestures for all to see and yelling four letter vulgarities accompanied by overly boisterous laughter. I guess he was showing us that it was he that was victorious in getting the gate unlocked! Go figure. So, no they still have not learned how to get along with their neighbors and I still do not want them on my property. Now for the emergency access issue. Per my last writing no one has answered my question, why h~Iial~s been allowed to operate for the last veer in violation of the Uniform Buildin~a ~ Fire Code and of their Mav 24 1967 conditional usg, aunroval for the addi¢„on of their banquet room condition. #2 on exhibit B. and why mould you consider bringi~mv rnoiect back before the Plamiina commission without considering this issue at the s&me time? I have completed the work as agreed and Haps sits there in violation of several of their 1967 and 1999 conditional permit items. We have asked taus safety question of Mr. Fialho, Building, Fire and Planning staff on multiple occasions without any definitive response. I can only conjecture since they have all been aware of this issue for some time that it is you that is not informing them of the 1967 Planning approval (see attached) May I direct you to "Exhibit B work to be performed" " 2. To provide the City with dedicated easement m comply with Uniform Building Code, before final date of said revocable permit, or in the alternative, to modify the interior of said building to provide emergency exit to West Neal Street." This means, Jerry, either they operate under the eight foot "non-exclusive revocable permit" (attached) given to them by Judge Gale or possibly build a one hour fire corridor from the back banquet area forward thus exiting the building on W. Neal St. I am really surprised that someone over there has the power to make the building and Fire departments look the other way on such a sensitive life safety issue! On to the issue of the garbage containment. Haps personnel is so concerned over their refuse area not being in violation of their conditions of approval that last week when it rained they left both covers to their trash container open. Since they are propped up against my fence I some times push them closed but they just leave them open the next day, as they probably are right now. Sewage and oil spills are an almost daily coarse of business with the Haps personal. Although the Pleasanton Source Control has been out to see them on at least six occasions in the last year, why have they not been sited? They have been caught red handed at least three times intentionally spilling contaminated affiuent as well as several other times with the trail of spillage leading right m their back door? Makes one wonder what the hey is going on here in River City! Source control refused to let me see their files and I don't think that Madden or Haps has any fear of reprisal! I wonder why? As for their use of one of our containment areas, I cannot believe my ears that you would have the bravado to threaten me with a bad outcome at public hearing or carry to me a threat of a law suit on the Madden and Connors behalf. Thev have no right. title or easement of amr kind whatsoever to enter up uQ~my properly. I, on the other hand, have an absolute right to fence my property so as to protect it from their continual abuse and trespass. Had my many complaints to the city for their violations of conditions of approval not fallen on deaf ears maybe I wouldn't had to spend twenty thousand dollars to build a protective fence. Just for the record all- previous use of our land for airy reason by them or the previous owners or tenants of Haps was not adverse but by permission and for the most part bywritten contract. Although the containment stall was at one juncture a topic discussed it was rebuffed by Madden and hence consumed by my tenant needs with the addition of a second restaurant on our site. So it is no longer an option for this reason as well as the continual problems we have experienced with Haps personnel. They need to build their own trash enclosure.