Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 of2 <br /> <br />ItemC <br />ItemJ <br />I find no information concerning these questions addressed in my prior email. I do not find any evidence of <br />any appraisal service to access the devaluation to our property values due to this proposed addition. Staff <br />did not comment on this item, why? <br /> <br />Additionally there is no mention of Sec.18.20.030 <br />Item 1 <br />Item 2 <br />Item 3 <br />Item 4 <br />Item 5 <br /> <br />The staff does recognize that there are exceptions to development standards that would allow them <br />(Knights) to encroach into their rear yard setback. Staff stated the proposed single story addition has not <br />reached the maximum allowed encroachment in the rear yard. <br /> <br />The applicants felt that their addition would not set a president. This is a mis-quote by the staff. Stacy <br />stated from my notes. "Get used to it is the sign of the times in Pleasanton". <br /> <br />The staff stated that the city does not have a view preservation ordinance for private view. Please explain <br />and elaborate on Sec 18.20.030 item # 4 and # 6 regarding exterior lighting. <br /> <br />I find that after staff review that there are still areas that have not been discussed nor addressed in <br />accordance to the City <br />Administrative Design Review and section of objections. In light of these items I find that the staff <br />recommendations for approval of this project are not merited. <br /> <br />I would also like to state that until these items are addressed satisfactorily that I elect to protest the <br />decision of approval and if necessary appeal this decision. <br /> <br />Regards; <br /> <br />Ron Imperiale <br /> <br />6/9/2006 <br />