06 ATTACHMENT 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding the timeline in dealing with the grease runoff problem, Mr. Madden replied that if there was a grease problem, it was due to the restaurant operations; he noted that as the landlord, he was not involved in the daily operation of the restaurant. He added that he would be happy to work to resolve the grease problem and that anyone who dumped the grease improperly was subject to prosecution. He noted that he had a good track record with his properties in town and added that he would ensure that the grease disposal was handled properly. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding whether Mr. Madden would be willing to fix the grading if it contributed to the runoff issue, Mr. Madden replied that he would be willing to do so if done professionally. He assured the Planning Commission that he would not sheet water or grease onto their property and wanted a professional solution. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the egress to Neal Street, Mr. Madden did not believe it would be practical. He would need to see a detailed study to make any further assessment on that option. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Blank noted that he was conflicted with respect to this application and had difficulty with the aesthetics of the wall. He was not convinced that the exit on Neal Street was practical and that his greatest concern was the emergency exit. He noted that if there were a fire in the front of Hap's and people ran to the back to escape, the gate would be difficult to open from the inside, and there would be a problem for people trying to get past the dumpster. He was also concerned that the dumpster may roll into the escape route, and he did not believe the current position of the dumpster was desirable. He suggested putting another opening in the wall for an emergency exit or at the other side of the building. In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether getting an easement from Pleasanton Station constituted the taking of land, Mr. Roush replied that it was the City's collective opinion that it did not constitute the taking of land and that it was a reasonable condition to impose on the development with respect to putting the wall up. He noted that putting the wall up eliminated the ability of patrons leaving Hap's restaurant to essentially go on through the property with or without an easement. With the wall in place, staff felt it was necessary to create that easement so that it was clear that the emergency access would be available in perpetuity. In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether there was signage or markings on the ground indicate emergency evacuation purposes, Mr. Roush confirmed that was correct and that it indicated that in the future, the property could not be developed in such a way that the access could be blocked without providing access elsewhere. It required that the gate could not be locked from the inside to allow visual and practical emergency egress. Commissioner Olson was unsure whether this situation could be settled by the Planning Commission or the City Council. He noted that one of the owners stated that they would not grant easements and believed that having the garbage picked up is a form of easement. He noted DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 2-13-08 Page 8 of 13