My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
100317
>
11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2017 4:35:21 PM
Creation date
9/27/2017 3:37:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
10/3/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ATTACHMENT 4 <br /> July 5, 2017 SUPPLEMENTAL 6 ;iATERDAL <br /> Provided to the Planning Commission <br /> City of Pleasanton Planning Commission After Distribution of Packet <br /> Aft: Eric Luchini ' LN J a <br /> P.O. Box 520 Date Distributed:� � L,4_L41‘_ng <br /> Pleasanton, CA 94566 <br /> Subject: P17-0372; Location: 3552 Yellowstone Court;Appellants: David and Sue Robles <br /> Dear Eric Luchini, <br /> We are in receipt of the Planning Commission Staff Report for the hearing scheduled for July 12, 2017. We <br /> appreciate the staff recommendations and would like to ensure the staff has all accurate information available <br /> before making any final decisions. If you are able to share this report prior to the hearing for their review, it <br /> would be greatly appreciated. <br /> PRIVACY CONCERNS <br /> The appellants cite their main justification to be allowed to move forward with north facing windows as: "[The <br /> Johnson's]have a view from a second story window into[the Roble's]yard and downstairs building structure". <br /> This is flawed reasoning, not at all a justification, and has no bearing on our concerns. We added our second <br /> story addition according to all legal processes, at which time the appellants had an opportunity to request a <br /> hearing regarding their own privacy concerns. They chose not to pursue any such process. <br /> Although irrelevant, we will address their aforementioned claim to inform. We do not have site-lines into their <br /> backyard and downstairs building structure from our south facing window. We have one window on the south <br /> side of our second story which is a frosted bathroom window. For our own privacy protection, the window <br /> either remains closed, or,when necessary for cooling and ventilation, is opened only from the top. When open, <br /> a portion of the top of the appellants' roof is viewable(see Figure 1). However, even if the window is opened <br /> from the bottom, the site-lines are of the side of the appellants' garage, not their yard or into their living space <br /> (see Figure 2). In fact, further examination of the site-line from this bathroom window shows that the <br /> appellants' expansion would allow for them to have a site-line into this bathroom when our window is open, <br /> bringing up further concerns for us(see Figure 4). <br /> lof 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.