My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
10
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
121614
>
10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/27/2015 11:38:48 AM
Creation date
12/10/2014 11:26:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/16/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ATTACHMENT 2 <br /> z6 November 2014 <br /> Pleasanton City Council <br /> zoo Old Bernal Avenue <br /> Pleasanton,CA 94566 <br /> RE: P14-1173 Appeal <br /> To Whom It May Concern: �'l L .. O rl 2 t j <br /> [[The appeal shall be made on a form approved by the Commission and shall state specifically <br /> wherein it is claimed there was an error or abuse of discretion by the person or body making <br /> the decision or wherein a decision following a public hearing is not supported by the evidence <br /> in the record. (Ord.1656§1,1995;Ord. 152o§ 5, 1991;prior code§ z-5.1o)1] <br /> Public bodies responsible for making decisions crucial to the well-being of <br /> Pleasanton's businesses and their clients have an obligation to be transparent as regards <br /> the factors on which their decisions are made. That was not the case in the Commission's <br /> consideration of this CUP. We were told that"noise and safety"were the general issues, <br /> but we were given no indication of the"technical and practical factors"on which noise <br /> would be judged. It is difficult to counter an indefinable parameter, like"noise." But it <br /> appears it was the Commission's intent that we should not be able to do so. <br /> We were exposed to the statements of one Commissioner as to her subjective <br /> objection to the sound of youngsters playing on a trampoline in a back yard adjacent to <br /> her home. Her statements assumed that all people object to the sounds made by children <br /> playing. We submit that her attitude is not the response of the majority,and likely not <br /> the response of the families who frequent the Oak Hills Shopping Center. In fact, many <br /> people find the sounds of children playing to be not objectionable intrusions, but life- <br /> affirming signs of the vitality and joy of our children. We note also that, of all the <br /> residents near the proposed site who were given notice of this application and hearing, <br /> NO ONE came to the hearing to register any objection, and only one letter was received <br /> by Planning listing potential noise as one of five concerns(including loss of a shortcut <br /> into the Center,and a rather far-fetched belief that the presence of children would <br /> necessarily attract sexual predators). <br /> There are outdoor play area installations comparable to ours in Pleasanton (one <br /> very recently approved), and another one in Dublin. Two of these three are closely <br /> adjacent to residential units, separated only by a cement block sound wall. One is located <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.