My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN081589
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
CCMIN081589
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:51:41 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 10:43:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
263 <br /> <br /> Mr. Andrew Valdez, 906 Crellin Road, recounted the background <br />of his application for a variance to allow the retention of an <br />existing deck structure/spa and shed in his backyard, which was <br />approved by the Board of Adjustment. He mentioned that the <br />decision was appealed and considered by the Council at its <br />July 18th meeting. He said he understood that the issue was <br />settled; therefore, he did not attend the Council meeting. He <br />then received a letter on August 9th, dated July 27th and <br />postmarked August 8th, indicating that the appeal was approved, <br />thereby reversing the Board of Adjustment's decision. He <br />requested that his application and the appeal be reconsidered. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that there is no procedural way to bring <br />this back to Council at this time because according to Council <br />rules, items for reconsideration must be brought before the <br />Council at its next meeting. In this case, the matter was <br />considered on July 18th; it should have been reconsidered on <br />August 1st. There are, however, other alternatives that may be <br />considered. Given what has taken place, if the neighbors would <br />agree, City staff could hold off the enforcement of the variance <br />for a period of time. If there is no opposition during this <br />period, then the application for a variance could be resubmitted. <br />Mr. Valdez could attempt to work out his differences with the <br />neighbors, and if the neighbors are satisfied with an alternative <br />plan, there should be no problem. <br /> <br /> Mr. Stanley Rathbone brought up an article in the "Letter to <br />the Editor" column of the August 15th The Valley Times, in which a <br />certified geologist wrote on earthquake faults. He mentioned that <br />very recently, the City of San Jose had to make restitution on a <br />claim on a slide in San Jose and recommended that the City take a <br />closer look at what is going on along Foothill Blvd. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tom Pico, 795 Neal Place, requested the Council to <br />consider a Certificate of Commendation for Mr. Daniel Blume of The <br />Valley Times, who has kept the citizens of Pleasanton informed on <br />City Council actions and political events in the City through his <br />unbiased and straightforward reporting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes commented that he felt it inappropriate for the <br />Council to pass resolutions in support of the press. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler agreed that it would be better to do this on an <br />individual basis. <br /> <br /> -6- <br /> <br /> 8-15-89 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.