06 ATTACHMENT 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

Other Issues: Mr. Pereira has stated that the wall was also necessary to stop storm water runoff from sheet flowing from Hap's property onto the Pleasanton Station/Railroad Square site. He has also filed complaints with the City regarding Hap's non-compliance with the urban clean water requirements that prohibit grease and debris from being allowed to enter the storm drain system. Regarding the storm water runoff, there is a drainage plan on file with the City from 1967 which shows the Hap's site draining to Neal St., and there is no record of any subsequent drainage plan showing a different drainage pattern. The City may not require one property to accept another property's storm water, so Hap's must either comply with the 1967 plan or find another way to drain its storm water. Any claim to a right to drain across the property line is a civil matter which does not involve the City. Regarding the urban clean water runoff issues, City staff has inspected the Hap`s site and discussed this matter with Mr. Madden and Mr. Connors. With regard to the application at hand, this is a separate matter not related to the issue of whether or not the wall should be allowed to remain. Downtown Issues: The City discourages walls in the Downtown when they are used to obstruct or divide parking lots since City policy is to encourage that private parking lots be consolidated for maximum efficiency. In this case, the wall does not separate parking lots and therefore does not conflict with any City policies. The wall does contain and screen Hap's dumpster and grease containers, thereby improving the aesthetics of the rear of Hap's from the Pleasanton Station/Railroad Square parking lot. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Notices of the Planning Commission's public hearing on this item were sent to business owners and tenants within 1000 feet of the project area. Notification was also provided to the Pleasanton Downtown Association. No comments have been received as of the writing of this staff report. PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAJOR MODIFICATION FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance of the Pleasanton Municipal Code sets forth the purposes of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District and the considerations to be addressed in reviewing a PUD Development Plan. These considerations would~also apply to a major modification of an approved development plan. The Planning Commission must make the following findings that the proposed modification conforms to the purposes of the PUD District, before making its recommendation. PUD-81-28-05M January 9, 2008 Page 8 of 11