My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
20 ATTACHMENT 06
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
061708
>
20 ATTACHMENT 06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2008 8:26:30 AM
Creation date
6/13/2008 8:26:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/17/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
20 ATTACHMENT 06
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
ATTACHMENT 6 <br />~~ - 12-1 <br />~; <br />April 18~, 2008 <br />_' <br />~ ~: ~, <br />. _~ ~>a: <br />To: The City Council <br />Re: Appeal for PCUP 205 at 481 Sycamore Road, Pleasanton. <br />We are appealing the 4-1 decision the Planning Commission rendered on <br />April 9~, 2008. I have been a resident of Pleasanton for the past 3 years, after <br />purchasing a prime beautiful piece of land at 455 Sycamore Road. I feel that <br />my right as a resident with concerns regarding the unpermitted actions taken <br />by my neighbor, Janny Roacha was taken away. I am in hopes that the City <br />Council will reconsider the actions by Ms. Roacha as poorly intended, and <br />with malice as the main motivator. Ms. Roacha's placement of a huge water <br />tank in my frontage area without proper permitting should not be left in its <br />current location and size reduction should be discussed. By not making any <br />adjustments to her self preserved placement of this tank the City is only <br />rewarding Ms. Roacha for doing unpermitted work and excluding the <br />residents of this area from having any objections to her ill chosen placement <br />of this water tank. <br />The proper way a person relocates and replaces a water tank in the City of <br />Pleasanton is by applying for a conditional use permit, as explained by Natalie <br />Amos. In turn, the Planning Commission would schedule a public hearing <br />and the general public, 1000 feet from the existing tank would be informed <br />and invited to voice their concerns, objections, or support regarding the <br />relocation as well as the replacement of this tank. That right as a resident in <br />this city was excluded due to the direct action that Ms. Roacha executed in <br />May of 2007, by relocating and replacing a large water tank 35 feet further <br />away from her residence, making it a large, obtrusive object just off the fence <br />line, in my frontage that I share with Ms. Roacha. Furthermore, although lines <br />of communication are now absent, then, my husband had a conversation prior <br />to any action encouraging her that if she proceeds with relocating the storage <br />tank that we did not want it anywhere near the front of our home since our <br />frontage is her fence line. The size of the tank that was to be relocated was in <br />question as well, either 2500 or 5000 gallons, considering she was connecting <br />to city water and the water would be for irrigation purposes only. Ms. Roacha <br />briefly listened and went about her business. This area that Ms. Roacha <br />placed this tank is being disputed as well. She replaced the fencing and <br />relocated the tank within 5 feet of land that had been owned, by us, and had <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.