Laserfiche WebLink
allowing the wall, and that the correct process would have been a PUD modification with <br />public notification. <br />Staff agrees. In 2006, staff should have required a formal application with notice to the <br />neighboring property owners. To correct this, this matter is being processed as a PUD <br />Major Modification so that the proper public hearing process can be followed, <br />notwithstanding the fact that the wall has been constructed. Since the current <br />application is the result of a City error and was not submitted by Mr. Pereira (who <br />believes that he has already obtained the necessary City approval), the City of <br />Pleasanton is the applicant. <br />Figure 1 below shows the existing wall that is the subject of this application along with <br />the gate leading to the concrete pad in front of the trash enclosure serving Pleasanton <br />Station/ Railroad Square. <br />ANALYSIS <br />Mr. Pereira told staff that he requested the wall to prevent Hap's Restaurant employees <br />from crossing the property line onto the Pleasanton Station parking area. According to <br />Mr. Pereira, there have been occasions when Hap's employees disposed of oil and <br />grease on his property, which then entered the on-site storm drain. Mr. Pereira also <br />stated that he wanted a wall to prevent storm water from Hap's property from draining <br />onto the Pleasanton Station/Railroad Square property, since the storm drain <br />improvements on that site do not have the capacity to handle Hap's runoff. These and <br />other issues have created friction over time between the representatives of the two <br />properties. <br />. ~~~.~~. <br />:.~~ .1,. <br />. ,~.- <br />Figure 1, Masonry Wall with Gate, Chain Link Fence with Vines <br />PUD-81-28-05M January 9, 2008 Page 3 of 11 <br />