17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Some documents q 3. "There are many designs in the other houses that may intrude privacy, including some from the Susanto's' ". Again, we are not talking about absolute privacy here. We lived in an urban neighborhood, and understood the need for tolerance; including privacy. But from what I can see in our property, all the items mentioned by the applicant have some things that helped mitigate the privacy issues, like a distance of more than 40', and trees There must be something that the previous owner had compromised with the neighbors that allows them to build those. However, there is definitely none that will violate others' privacy in such an extent like the planned second story window. Even if the existing condition has some privacy issue to talk about, we think you will agree with us that "a bad plan in the past should not be used as a basis of a bad plan in the future. Planning is for the future, and good planning is essential for the benefit of the current and future residence. Privacy should be part of the planning and be preserved whenever possible. 4. The Leroudier mentioned that "If we can see you, you can see us too. So if we are violating your privacy, you are also violating ours " While it may have some slight logic behind it, this statement is absurd. It says that if I punch you in the face, it means you use your head to hit my hand? The pre- existing privacy situation that is being violated is ours, not Leroudier's. 5. "To meet egress requirement ". It is not a requirement by the city to open another window to comply with egress requirement to fix the wall that was previously damaged by black molds. The egress requirement is there if the applicant is to open a window, not the other way round. In fact the applicant's room has another window that the applicant, if they want to, can be enlarged to meet with egress requirement. We would like to ask the planning commissioners to re- consider this case with some additional information that we found from reviewing how other cities view privacy and second story windows. The issue of privacy, especially those that are posed by second floor side windows, is one of the major concems to all these cities, and which value should also be considered by city of Pleasanton. 1. Exhibit II ( "Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines - Guideline 5 - Placement of Second Story Windows and Decks for Privacy ") Approval Criterion: "The size, placement and orientation of second story windows and decks shall limit direct sight lines into windows and patios located at the rear and sides of adjacent properties in close proximity. *Complete privacy is not a realistic expectation. Designs should reduce opportunities for individuals to be causally observed by others and minimize intrusions upon PRE - EXISTING privacy situations, such as the MAIN OUTDOOR LIVING AREA or PRIMARY PATIO "). There are figures on the attached document, having 2nd floor windows, that shows very similar situation to our case, including the orientation of the planned window, the location of the main patio, and the direct sight line to the family sliding door. 2. Exhibit III ( "Study Session to Review Recommendations for changes to Single Family (R -1) 3