PC 021308 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 approved 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. 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 subj ect 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 10 of 42