My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 090915
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
PC 090915
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:54:33 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:45:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/9/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mr. Damireddy said no. He stated that he pulled everyone who had applied and were <br />approved for a building permit and had provided their email addresses. <br />Commissioner Balch stated that he had applied for and has an approved building <br />permit, but he did not receive the email. <br />Mr. Damireddy replied that it could have been sent to a spam folder and that he could <br />not comment on those. He added that there is a large chance that some of those on the <br />list did not receive the email. <br />Chair Allen inquired if the poll had any ability for people to say why they selected <br />Option 1. <br />Mr. Damireddy said no. He indicated that there was a section where the respondents <br />could add comments, and no one left any. <br />Commissioner Ritter asked Mr. Damireddy if his preference is Option 1, followed by <br />Option 2, and then Option 3. <br />Mr. Damireddy replied that he would pick Option 1 as it is much better designed, and <br />Option 2 would be next because of the neighbors' concerns. <br />Commissioner Piper noted that Mr. Damireddy had said he had spoken to the neighbors <br />and asked if he spoke with all four neighbors. <br />Mr. Damireddy said no and added that they had four meetings. <br />Commissioner Piper asked how many neighbors were invited and how many showed up <br />at the four meetings. <br />Mr. Damireddy replied that he invited the current tenant in the home and adjacent <br />neighbors. He stated that he was reaching out to people who had expressed concern to <br />staff, which he took as an indication that they might have an issue with the project. He <br />added that only one showed up at the meetings. <br />Edward Cintrone, a neighbor, stated that he listened to all the reports about all the <br />structures that exist along Augustine Street, but there are only duplexes on that whole <br />street and they set way in the back. With respect to the neighborhood meetings, he <br />indicated that there are no neighbors; except for himself and one other owner, all the <br />residents are renters and do not own the property, so there is no reason for them to <br />come to the meetings. <br />Mr. Cintrone stated that the first unit is an eyesore and towers above the little house up <br />front, totally blocking their view; and the second unit takes over half of their view as well. <br />He indicated that he and his wife are in favor of three stories; it will take away a little bit <br />of the view, but they will be sitting in the back, like the other units down the street. He <br />added that they will be 30 feet high instead of the allowed 40 feet, and they will look <br />really nice. He stated that he is not in favor of the Option 1 plan; Option 2 comes over <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 9, 2015 Page 6 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.