My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
06 ATTACHMENT 1-5
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
030408
>
06 ATTACHMENT 1-5
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/29/2008 3:59:04 PM
Creation date
2/29/2008 9:50:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
3/4/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
06 ATTACHMENT 01-05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
Since we are here, I was originally going to build the fence out of chain link to match the existing fence along <br />that property line but in one thirty-day period after erecting temporary construction safety fence Haps <br />personnel destroyed it on two occasions including using some form of power saw to cut it to pieces. This was <br />done after Mr. Madden was given a personal tour of the surveyed property corners and shown where the <br />permanent fence was to be placed. As you have been informed, Mr. Madden, whom you and Nelson so <br />vehemently defend, was at the site at least two more times, one being the Friday before the fence was built and <br />the Monday directly after. On the Friday visit the masonry block was there and the continuous footing was <br />poured plus a week or so before Madden was told directly by my contractor at another community function, <br />that a "solid wall type fence with no openings "was going to be built. Madden was informed and chose to do <br />and say nothing lodging no formal protest until 7/10/07 over a year later. ff, as you contest, the fence construes <br />a major modification to our PUD why didn't you or Mr. Madden post a appeal as the time limit far such appeal <br />did not run for another four or five days after you, Nelson and Madden were at the site and had discovered that <br />the fence had indeed been submitted, approved and permitted by city staff? <br />Jerry, in closing, and as previously stated in this and other writings, <br />- I am still willing to permit Pleasanton Garbage Service to enter my property for the purpose of <br />collecting the Haps containers as often as is necessary using a pass key. No other Haps vendor or <br />personnel will be permitted to use the gate that I have provided and the gate will remain locked at all <br />times when not being used by PGS. This service is at my discretion as Haps can absolutely roll 90 <br />gallon garbage cans to the curb on W. Neal on a daily basis as other businesses in the down town do. <br />They need to learn to be good neighbors. <br />- I have installed in the fence, at my expense, for Pleasanton Fire Department use, a Knox box for <br />which I will provide an additional key for emergency Fire personal to access their property. <br />- I will now allow Madden and Haps use of the sewer line that I paid to have installed to the Haps <br />southern property line at no cost to them so long as that they only use it for their trash and mat <br />washing area as described in their 1999 conditions of approval #10 (which they are currently in <br />violation) <br />- I will install "no exit "signs in English and Spanish on the Haps side of my gate <br />- In exchange I shall not be sent any of Haps storm water or garbage and sewage affluent over the <br />surface of my property. Haps and Madden shall repair their grading and drainage to the 1967 plan <br />sending their storm water to W. Neal Street as required by their zoning permit (see attached) <br />- I get direct answers from staff to the questions asked in this and previously sent letters <br />- I do not consent to my Planed Unit Development being reopened for review at a public hearing. <br />Should this happen I will start from the beginning with the negotiations. <br />A That Staff, Madden, Maroon Bear and Connors respond directly in writing and we avoid any more <br />reneging on verbal agreements. The City of Pleasanton is not a legal service and should not be <br />spending public funds representing the civil interests of the Madden Family land holdings. This issue, <br />at best, is a civil matter. <br />The above offer of compromise is fair and in fact helpful to the property owner, Madden, and gives Haps <br />the convenience of not having to take their garbage to the curb on a daily basis. This proposal would not <br />require a public hearing and I will have my drainage concerns resolved. As the City of Pleasanton is not <br />vested with the authority to adjudicate the existence of prescriptive rights and we have the right to exclude <br />uninvited visitors from our land as indicated in the case law that I have attached for your review. This <br />matter becomes civil should Madden and Connors not agree to my offer. <br />Sincerely, y <br />Mitchell Pereira <br />cc Nelson Fialho <br />Michael Madden <br />enclosures (15) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.