Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . . <br />. <br />Ms, Donna Decker August 10, 2005 <br />2) We object to the imposition of the requirement that we construct and pay <br /> for a seven-foot high fence at the north property line for the length of the <br /> back yard, the design of which would be subject to the review and approval <br /> of the Planning Director and the design and installation approved by, the <br /> Croftons. <br /> There already exists a six-foot fence along the north property line extending the <br /> length of the back yard. The fence is already three to four feet above our site <br /> elevation. To add one additional foot in height to the fence would do nothing to <br /> provide additional privacy to the Croftons from our proposed relocated second <br /> story deck nor from our proposed first floor windows, which will already be <br /> below the top of the six-foot fence. If this was intended as a mitigation to our <br /> proposed addition, it does not serve that purpose. <br /> All the fences in the neighborhood, including the recently constructed rear <br /> property line fence in the Crofton's yard, are six feet in height. A seven-foot <br /> high fence is not consistent with the standard in the neighborhood. <br /> The existing six-foot fence between our properties was damaged by the <br /> Crofton's contractor in the course of excavating for their basement. The <br /> contractor had previously agreed to replace the damaged fence. This is his <br /> responsibility, not ours, The Planning Commission action absolves the <br /> contractor and the Croftons of their responsibility to replace the fence that was <br /> damaged as a result of their actions not our. <br /> To give the appellant Croftons unfettered approval rights is delegating the <br /> Planning Director's responsibility to hostile private individuals and shifts to <br /> them control over the cost and timing of the construction of the fence and <br /> potentially the Diaz addition, <br />We ask the City Council to grant our appeal and remove these two conditions of <br />approval imposed by the Planning Commission. <br />Sincerely, <br />~'V-Q~~,(~ <br />B JA IN R. DIAZ & L. DIAZ <br />4769 Peaceful Lane <br />Pleasanton, CA <br />Office telephone: 925-462-6364 <br />Cc: Kevin D. Lally, Esq, <br /> Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally LLP <br />