|
EXHIBIT F
<br /> .
<br /> +,LE 1J. N T J\,
<br /> Kg4\ \\ __,VV[I
<br /> ���� t ; /a.
<br /> rill
<br /> `- - \°( 7 C "�1 ItttlrirL� 4'�� �.1
<br /> `7�--v�c,;�©� Sao C 'o�
<br /> '"-EV ��-), 9 \ ; `c^ q c%r_ .
<br /> Legend
<br /> a�40
<br /> /._____,v_x-N A
<br /> �J tV, ��0,05� AddressPt Accela
<br /> �� O/ c>„(\,.(<4r ��^' �!\ 0VeParcels Accela
<br /> op7pr t.4,:e o •-\�a_♦ Co
<br /> 1�
<br /> CO Q C1C/�\ C�r�©.
<br /> //////CNNi
<br /> ".-----"\C.) tw,:wol. ••o_s &..,
<br /> .0?„,"\\
<br /> .__, \A -.3:At fi 1:
<br /> --r$.,-;1:..- .r.1• ••••. A Asti......._____„-_ _________ i
<br /> 6,w, 013-7-winy clit
<br /> -) -\01-0-140),.; \••••,44t-„ , . Ac9e-crik..,%--ai -- „,„„k
<br /> 0....s, 44* sw., / , ,f-`="--wiy<Q70 / -.....,__j r.,..:
<br /> LI
<br /> / '\,7* V4>0 -' ..ryt<Ar. ,. 0„,, „ /\ ",%-.-tifoli--2Ahr iti--t-
<br /> ,$) ,..- ,k--2...-.:-.5,---,--:----_ 44,,.4.0 4, ,sts,",._ lig v...;,...,--,,:„,,., 2,43,0:;sz.","
<br /> ) 1"----
<br /> ____ cl-', ..\.
<br /> <,?>:"C% fr;it,.:86, 4.44`3:::0",8,1 ?‹
<br /> ,,,,,\----- ..-- .---/ \ "<>/ \-;• ri-\ sv s/ )&44k.N' (_:- ) LC
<br /> ...-""*".- / .c L L----n--__716)r1 \V:6)/(,,/ c(1
<br /> I I Froi--1-\---\\.3ii --T.
<br /> %, 00 a�� s • 14i77.-.......,..........
<br /> ,,...., \.A , \ .
<br /> 61�a
<br /> ZV-AgE0- 17\i . e/ —JE_,n
<br /> (Avib ...- r../...2c
<br /> n Y r`i ." l� ., ALD�\ t©, �'�� Notes
<br /> 0.4 0 0.22 0.4 Miles 7218 MOSS TREE WY_1000ft
<br /> 1:13,919
<br /> NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California III FIPS_0403_Ft_US
<br /> City of Pleasanton IT Department GIS Services
<br />ministrator adjourned the meeting at 10:33
<br /> a.m.
<br /> Respectfully submitted,
<br /> Jenny Soo
<br /> Associate Planner
<br /> P19-0130, Malik, 7218 Moss Tree Way Page 2 of 2
<br />less than 10 feet from
<br /> our house!We had bought the house and paid the premium price in Pheasant Ridge community
<br /> because among other reasons, we didn't want houses closely packed, this proposed
<br /> construction is going to take that away from us. That is going to drastically affect our quality of
<br /> life as well as property value.
<br /> An updated design was submitted by the applicant to address some of the privacy issues we
<br /> had raised. It seems in this design the width of the siding also encroaches a bit more into the
<br /> setbacks on the side of the house. None of the other homes in our neighborhood have had large
<br /> siding walls or overhangs like that put up and we are worried it would look out of place.
<br /> During the design review hearing process it became very clear that no matter what we said or
<br /> how it affected us, this was going to get approved. During the hearing we suggested an II
<br />at its closest point,a larger setback than the standards would require. The proposed addition would be built directly above the
<br /> existing garage and would maintain the existing building setback.
<br /> P19-0130 Planning Commission
<br /> 11 of 15
<br />
|