12 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

He stated that based on the fact Mr. Pretzel agreed to the fence and jointly filed the application, he is opposed to reducing the height of the fence and also because it would be very costly to lower the fence. Mr. Pretzel stated that it would take about 15 minutes to reduce the height of the fence. Mr. Baker stated that he thought all was fine after the submittal of the application and that Mr. Pretzel watched him build the fence, almost watching every nail and every screw. He again noted that during the complete fence process, not one word, complaint or comment from Mr. Pretzel and not even after the submittal of the application. He reiterated that he does not want to lower the fence. Mr. Baker stated that for security and privacy reasons he does not want to reduce the height of the fence. He mentioned that Mr. Pretzel has previously allowed access to his backyard to his neighbor and that neighbor has peered over the old fence into his yard and watched his family swimming in their pool. He noted that Mr. Pretzel has recently mounted a video camera at the rear of his house on the top of the wall that can observe his family in their yard and swimming pool. This camera also has visibility into their master bedroom. This camera was installed after the completion of the fence. He noted that the Pleasanton Police have been summoned numerous times because of Mr. Pretzel and his neighbor. He stated for those privacy reasons he does not want to lower his fence. He also stated that he has contacted his lawyer regarding the camera. Ms. Fink commented that Mr. Pretzel has a two-story house and can look out the window into Mr. Baker's yard, so privacy should not be an issue. Ms. Fink stated that Mr. Baker knew that she and Mr. Pretzel were against Mr. Deike's seven-foot fence from the beginning and she does not understand why Mr. Baker would think Mr. Pretzel would approve his fence. Ms. Stern stated that this hearing is not about Mr. Deike's fence. Ms. Fink mentioned that she was surprised when she saw Mr. Baker's fence go up because she knew Mr. Pretzel did not like Mr. Deike's over-height fence, so she thought he would not like this fence either. Mr. Deike stated that Mr. Pretzel did not have a problem with Mr. Baker's fence until Mr. Deike's fence got approved. Ms. Stern asked Ms. Fink what solution would be best from her perspective. Ms. Fink replied to cut it down would be the best solution from her side. Mr. Dieke suggested planting landscape so Ms. Fink does not see the fence. Mr. Pretzel stated he did mention his dissatisfaction about the dirt coming underneath the 2x10. Ms. Stern asked about the height of fence. Mr. Pretzel clarified that the one Peeping Tom incident Mr. Baker mentioned had happened was when they were on vacation sometime back in 1985 to 1995 and that was three of more statute of limitations ago. He noted that Mr. Baker did not mention they were swimming at the time. He stated that he did talk to that neighbor about the incident. Mr. Pretzel showed pictures of the fence and mentioned that a higher fence is not needed for privacy. Minutes, Zoning Administrator, PI 1-0731 October 25. 2011 Page 5