06 ATTACHMENT 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

Before approving the wall, Mr. Pereira discussed these issues with City staff, which encouraged Mr. Pereira to continue discussions with Mr. Madden and Mr. Connors and to attempt to work out a solution between the two parties. According to Mr. Pereira, discussion occurred but the friction between representatives of the fiNO properties continued, and he believed that the wall was needed to prevent Hap's employees and their delivery trucks from entering the Pleasanton Station parking area. Mr. Pereira and his consultants then submitted the request for the wall to the City in conjunction with construction drawings for the trash enclosure for their new building apt 55 W. Angela St; Planning staff signed off on the wall on June 5, 2006, and it was constructed soon after. In signing off the wall, staff considered it to be an extension of the existing chain link fence already separating a portion of the two properties and was told that dialogue between the two property owners and/or tenants had occurred with respect to the proposed wall. Staff also felt that the wall would be beneficial by scrE;ening Hap's trash dumpster and would limit the opportunity for any continued un-neighborly behavior. Furthermore, the wall was to be located entirely on the Pleasanton ~~tation property, not on the common property line. Nevertheless, the correct process for considering a change to the existing PUD development plan such as was proposed would have been as a formal PUD modification. Figure 2, Transition from Masonry Wall to Vine Covered C:hain Link Fence PUD-81-28-05M January 9, 2008 Page 4 of 11