CCMIN101999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Larry Dingman, 387 Sycamore Road, referred to the new two-story home that was approved next to his home. There was a condition for trees to provide privacy for his home. He also had requested a condition that established the property line so there would be no problems of structures trespassing onto his property. It has been two years and no trees have been planted. In addition, the next door property owner constructed his wall and a portion is trespassing on his property. He has sent several letters to the City and only received minimal response. There is now a proposal to modify the conditions and the trespass issue is not addressed at all. The appeal is to be heard next week and he asked why modify conditions for a home that is already built. Can the Planning Commission or City Council change conditions without the approval of all parties? If the conditions can be modified, then so can the design of the house, and he wanted the second story removed. He wanted Council to require the next door neighbor to install a retaining wall for drainage and erosion, compensate him for trespass since July 1997, and to revoke occupancy until the trees are installed. On another subject, he was out of town when a letter was received saying he had two weeks to make a decision to pay lower fees for his sewer connection. Then when he came back from being out of town there was another letter saying the fees were doubled. He asked for an exception to be made for the residents on Sycamore Road who either cannot afford it or were not timely in their payments. He believed there were only a few people involved. Ms. Acosta stated this item is on the Planning Commission agenda because staff has been unable to resolve the situation for a very long time. If the Planning Commission cannot resolve this, it will come before Council on a future agenda. With regard to the sewer fees, those are fees from another agency and the City of Pleasauton does not have the ability to waive them. Mayor Tarver said Council cannot take action on this because it is not on the agenda. The Planning Commission will hear this when all parties are them. Appeal can then be made to Council if desired. In response to Mr. Dingman's question, yes, conditions can be changed by a vote of the Council or Planning Commission. Janet Yarbrough, 4560 Euell Court, indicated she was here to rebut statements made by Kris Kamaran and newspaper editorials that indicated anti-CAPP spending exceeded $500,000. She is the treasurer for the Pleasanton No on D committee and indicated the committee has raised $10,200 and spent $15,400. All the Tri-Valley committees opposed to the CAPP Initiative have raised a combined total of less than $100,000. This is a far cry from the $500,000 claimed by Mr. Kumaran. CAPP supporters are believed to be on the side of slow growth. The Initiative is not about slow growth versus rapid growth. Pleasanton already has in place a slow growth General Plan. CXAPP is about planning and how it will take place. To insinuate that CAPP opponents are not for slow growth is inaccurate, false and misleading. These situations are a good example of why Measure D should be defeated. Many times campaigns lead to exaggerated statements being made by both sides and the public has a hard time separating fact from emotional, political rhetoric. When planning decisions are made at public hearings by the Planning Commission or City Council, false and inaccurate claims can be much more easily exposed and decisions made reasonable and rationally. 9 10/19/99 Pleasanton City Council Minutes