06 ATTACHMENT 1-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE CITY OF ~1e:: dd 111= +111 ~n HIW:~ Ili wlu~i ~ L~ ~S~NTON, October 9, 2007 Mr. Mitchell Pereira 620 East Angela St. Pleasanton, CA 94566 Re: Railroad Squaze/Haps Property line Dear Mr. Pereira: I have received your letter dated October 2, 2007. The letter raises several substantive issues which will be addressed in the Planning Commission staffreport; the meeting date for this item is tentatively scheduled for November 14, 2007. I would like to address a few points here. First, I need to clarify why the City is processing this matter as a PUD Modification. What I stated was that the City did not initially follow the convect process for approving the wall, and now the City is obligated to bring the proposed wall through the proper public review process. I stated that the code does not specifically address the particular, after-the-fact situation we aze now in and referred you to Chapter 18.68 which concerns processing PUD's. To clarify, since the development on your property is a PUD, since Chapter 18.68 establishes a procedure for modifying PUD development plans, since your proposed wall is a modification to the approved development plan, and since staff did not correctly follow the procedure in Chapter 18.68 for modifying a PUD development plan when we signed the plans allowing the wall, we are correcting this error by bringing it through the City's review process at this time. It is not an appeal nor is it something the City just decided to do; it is because the correct procedure described in the code was not initially followed and the City is now correcting this by bringing this matter through the public review process. The City Attorney has concurred that this is the appropriate method to handle the current situation. Second, I am disappointed that you have interpreted my discussions with you as containing threats and coercion. Never did the City engage in that type of language or behavior; we were trying to present our honest opinion that if the involved parties failed to negotiate a compromise, then the resulting public process would not be pleasant due to this involving an emotional neighbor dispute. I also gave you my opinion that due to comments I have heazd and the history of issues and legal questions involved, that City staff believed that this matter may well end up in court. Nelson Fialho and I have both spent many hours attempting to work out a solution in good faith to avoid these scenarios, but unfortunately you have interpreted this effort in a negative light. The resolution I was seeking was simply to encourage you to make available to Haps one of the new trash enclosures that you constructed with your new building, which I understood you to have previously agreed to; that would have ended the controversy. Appazently, that is not something that you are prepared to do. O. ~3ox :~'Z0, Pleasanton, CA 94566-~9~302 'nn r;tta sz~~.,~~ :~, ~., .aunui~ uc ~_vnnt,u,U,y LJC V(10!)iTiell[ t3Uia("1!I fly irslzection fJ tility Fi!lin; 'business License 925i'~31-~r~il!J =i35i 931-7 Grp ~ i'= n 2 ~,~x: 931-~-it;~ _ -, rl__ .31 '~31 ~=~ `=X31-~-+0 -ax: '_;~ 1-~ t?8 fax: ~~ 3 ? - =.1x: 93 1-.;-+81