Laserfiche WebLink
Subject: Comments and questions from applicants of PUD-148 (Meenu <br /> Gochhwal & Ashish Choudhary, 2207 Martin Avenue, Pleasanton, <br /> CA, 94588) with regards to the Application. <br /> Exhibits Attached: A— Development Standards received from City Planning Department <br /> regarding Tennis Court via email dated 08/22/2022 <br /> B — Setback standards received from Planning in email dated <br /> November 9t", 2022 in response to our ADR application for putting in <br /> lights on the Tennis Court <br /> C — Our attempts to reach out to our Neighbors (our neighbor <br /> residing at 3520 Dennis Dr, Pleasanton) <br /> D — Permit and initial application for addition to main residence in <br /> 2008. (PADR-1919) <br /> E — Property Details and Google Earth pictures of existing Tennis <br /> Courts in the neighborhood <br /> As the applicants we are left somewhat confused with the narrative, staff <br /> recommendation, and development standards proposed in the August 23, 2023, Item Six <br /> Agenda report. <br /> From our perspective, there are many additional relevant details and questions not <br /> included in the Agenda Report and recommendation. <br /> First, the Executive Summary and Background do not make it clear that the property <br /> owners (Robert and Beth Borchard) that applied for the PUDs (s) in 2021 are no longer <br /> the property owners and are not the owners interested in a tennis court on the property. <br /> That PUD 140 approval expires in November 2023, if no final parcel map is submitted. <br /> We wish to maintain this property as a single lot and not split it (as initiated by PUD 140 <br /> in 2021). <br /> Second, the document fails to mention that in 2008, an expansion was made to the <br /> existing residence in accordance with the PADR-1919 approval. The project was required <br /> to adhere to LDR standards for R-1-40,000. That permit approval documentation is <br /> provided as Exhibit D for reference. The City has retained no record of it, but it is <br /> included in Exhibit <br /> Third, there is a statement indicating that the "partially built sports court has been <br /> constructed without City Approval." We would like to express our disagreement with this <br /> assertion. Exhibit A, an email we requested, dated August 22,2022, from the Planner on <br /> Duty Eric Luchini, clearly says that as long as the fence posts and lights do not exceed <br /> ten feet in height no permit or Administrative Review is required. Our actions throughout <br /> Page 1 of 18 <br />