06 ATTACHMENT 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT oil spills and other messes. Hap's will participate in the deferred maintenance in anticipation that their garbage trucks will damage the parking lot; and 2. The 12-foot-wide alleyway between Hap's and the Gale Building was part of the agreement and part of a publicly noticed hearing ordinance for the egress to Neal Street. He did not believe that either the Planning Commission or the City Manager had the legal right to change the legal emergency access as agreed. He noted that it should be maintained and enforced. Gary Torretta noted that he was a member of the Pereira Partnership and supported his partners. He acknowledged that this had been along-running and emotionally-charged ordeal and that no one wanted this situation to become any more unpleasant. Mike Madden distributed the actual-size plan submitted by the Pereira Partnership for the wall, which was approximately the size of the business card. He agreed with Mr. O'Callaghan's statement that it was embarrassing to bring this issue before the Planning Commission and that he did not believe it was appropriate to build a wall based on a plan on a small strip of paper. He noted that once the wall had been built, a series of meetings commenced to craft a compromise. He had met with staff and Mr. Pereira, including a meeting with Mr. Pereira and his contractor, and another meeting with Mr. Pereira and his attorney. Mr. Pereira's in-town partner had attended a meeting, as did his out-of--town partner. He noted that he had attended many meetings and that on one occasion, he had received a belligerent message on his cell phone which had been left at 1:30 a.m. from Mr. Pereira. At that time, he had stopped attending meetings. He believed this issue originated from a mistake, which staff acknowledged in the report. He noted that at every meeting, he had tried to craft a compromise and that staff admitted that the wall had not been improved properly. He added that staff had asked him to find a way to go forward. Mr. Madden noted that he had met in good faith but that nothing productive had occurred as a result. He noted that he was not happy about the need to compromise but would be willing to do so in order to reach closure on this matter. He noted that the 1999 approval of Hap's conditioned his tenant to build two trash enclosures on their property, indicating cooperation between the two parties in the past. He added that the Hap's building underwent an extensive remodel in 1999 and that it was brought up to seismic standards of the day at that time. It also received many enhancements, including a full set of fire sprinklers. He expected to have his building returned to the same level of safety as it had before the wall was installed. He recalled that the Building Official had told him that in the Downtown District, current safety codes could not be unilaterally applied for financial reasons. He added that the official told him that the City tried to improve the situation as it pertained to safety. He believed this wall did not offer any safety improvements and could not accept that his building may be more dangerous than it was two years before. He would be willing to accept staff's recommendations in the staff report for closure but would like clarification on why a compromise was necessary. He noted that in Pleasanton, it was not always necessary to compromise with respect to schools, open space, or aesthetics. He believed that the wall should be taken down and added that the properties had co-existed for 40 years without a wall. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 2-13-08 Page 7 of 13