CCMIN081815 - Laserfiche WebLink

community, not punished for something they have not done, and be allowed to make the improvements that they wish to their home. Kursad Kiziloglu, applicant, provided a brief personal and professional history for both he and his wife. He stated that they relocated to Pleasanton from the Sacramento area last year due to a job transfer and purchased their home with the intent to make improvements that would benefit both them and the community. He presented several photos depicting existing privacy conditions, which are significantly compromised throughout the neighborhood. He called the Council's attention to a photo of the Cumming's master bedroom taken from his own dining room on the first floor as well as one of their pool taken from one of his bedrooms. He also presented views of the eastern neighbors depicting the same limited sense of privacy, various views of vegetation over the course of the year and several examples of precedence already established throughout the neighborhood. Jamison Cummings, appellant, said that from the beginning he has supported the majority of the project but expressed concerns that the proposed balcony would alter the limited privacy of his home. He acknowledged that privacy is a subjective perception but said that the proposal nonetheless erodes what semblance of privacy they have. This is the same expectation of privacy they had when purchasing their home. He presented his own timeline of the process to date. He stated that the decision was made to place a restrictive covenant on the subject site at the March 10th hearing and that Ms. Kiziloglu was in fact very supportive of this condition, as evidenced by the absences of an appeal by the applicant until now. He disagreed with Ms. Bagley's contention that elimination of the balcony portion of the project necessitates the deletion of Condition No. 7 in its entirety. He also acknowledged the existence of other rear-facing second-story balconies but, as noted by Commission Piper, they do not fit within the context of the Birdland neighborhood. He expressed frustration that the applicants expect their neighbors to behave with decency, comportment and manners as it relates to their neighbors and privacy when they do not hold themselves to the same standard. He reported that the applicant has recently installed exterior cameras, one of which faces directly into his driveway and could perhaps afford them a view over his fence. There is no such camera facing the applicants' eastern neighbors, which leads him to believe this is intentionally aggressive behavior. Mr. Cummings said he is also frustrated that the applicants wish to keep the balcony but also to eliminate the restrictive covenant. He said he has been more than willing to compromise in accepting the design of the project and its potential impacts, provided the applicant is willing to compromise by giving up the balcony. He suggested that the applicants' true motives for wishing to eliminate the restrictive covenant relates to the recent installation of a basketball court in their back yard and their desire to move it closer to their home where the mulberry tree currently resides. He stated that this process has evolved as it should. He has compromised with his time, the plausible loss of any relationship with these neighbors and the fractal environment it has created. He said that he has never once indicted the applicant for their heritage or religion and is disappointed by the severely vitriolic behavior to which he has been subjected. He explained that he did not kick the applicants' front door. Rather, after witnessing Mrs. Kiziloglu recklessly back out of her driveway and almost run over his daughter and a friend he went to confront his neighbor. He said he was obviously alarmed and intentionally passionate in knocking on their front door but also explained that the older door style does tend to create more noise than one might expect. He said that while he has always had a good relationship with Mr. Kiziloglu, Mrs. Kiziloglu has almost always been hostile and at times even verbally aggressive. He stressed that he has every desire to get along with his neighbors and had hoped to be able to reach some level of compromise. Trisha (no last name provided) expressed her support for the Cummings and asked the Council to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. She said she spends ample time at the Cummings' home and would feel uncomfortable in their yard knowing that the existing level of privacy had been City Council Minutes Page 6 of 14 August 18, 2015