SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

however moving the addition from one side to another would just be moving the problem from one neighbor to another. Ms. Decker said that Mr. Bennett presented the same concems at the individual meeting that he presented at the last hearing, such as the loss of openness, damaging views, and the loss of property values. She said that Mr. Bennett said that the applicants should relocate elsewhere if a larger home is desired and finished the meeting by saying that he was sincere that mitigation measures would not help. Ms. Decker said that she would like everyone to know that she was not going to go into detail about the individual meetings, but just re-cap them for everyone. Ms. Decker said that she visited Mr. and Mrs. Georgatos' home and said that their concems and comments have not changed. Ms. Decker then read their list of concerns and comments from the meeting notes. Ms. Decker said that she appreciated the letter the Georgatos' submitted about the devaluing of their home. She said that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempt cities from assessor and economic issues and Pleasanton does not review these types of issues. Ms. Decker also said that based on statistical analysis reports, homes that do additions to increase the square footage increase property values for the home as well as the neighborhood. Ms. Decker said that she and staff met with the Georgatos' on March 28 and visited the Georgatos' home on April 10. She said she looked from their family room and backyard and stated the addition would be visual from the interior as well as the exterior. Ms. Decker said that the elevation change from the house to the backyard creates a vantage change and the sense of openness would not be as it was before. Ms. Decker said that Mr. Imperiale's meeting did not bring any new concerns nor mitigation measures addressing concerns he had. She said that Mr. Imperiale felt that staff has under- performed and he felt that his time has been wasted and a more thorough review is needed from Planning. Ms. Decker said that staff provided Mr. Imperiale with a map of the adjacent neighborhood that indicated what properties did in fact have view easements. She said that staff pointed out that the original subdivision for his neighborhood did and does not have restrictions on second story additions and that view easements were not granted to him or surrounding properties. Ms. Decker said that Mr. Imperiale was not courteous to her or staff during their meeting and said that staff has done, and is continuing to do, a thorough review of the project. Ms. Decker said that she met with Martha Wensel and discussed shadowing impacts. Ms. Decker said that San Francisco has a light ordinance for certain areas of the city where a certain amount of light has to be maintained. She said that while Pleasanton does not have a light/shading ordinance, shadowing impacts are taken into consideration if they are significant. Ms. Decker went over the diagram the Mr. Shutts provided that illustrated the various sun angles through out the seasons. Ms. Decker stated that there is an impact on Ms. Wensel's property, however it is short lived and it only covers a small portion of the home and side yard and not the entire home or lot. She also said that the shadowing that does occur is not on a year round basis and that there is only minimal impact during the winter months. Minutes: PADR-1472 Page 2 of 5 April 13, 2006