14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

permitted after review is done by the City of Pleasanton and that Exhibit A's bottom left hand corner indicates that the work is not drawn to scale but is just a representation of the wall. He noted that the wall also must be constructed 15 feet from the rear property line of his property and that no permanent structures are allowed in this area; this is the reason why it was moved toward the inside of the property. Mr. Jeffrey stated that he has no plans to build any additional structures or to install outside lighting for the pool. He added that he has planted additional plants, trees, and bushes. With respect to the actual wall height, he noted that there are six blocks with each measuring 7.75 inches high, with one in the ground for the actual foundation, which has been signed off, and atwo-inch cap on top. He stated that the total height is '/2 inch over the 48-inch mark and that the height varies due to the property not being level. Chair Blank noted that it appears Mr. Jeffrey is not willing to accept a condition where he would not be permitted to have an above-ground structure in a section of his backyard and asked Mr. Jeffrey for an explanation. Mr. Jeffrey replied that a restriction on the rear portion of his property was not acceptable because such a restriction would reduce the value of his property. He reiterated that he did not plan to put up any play structures in the area. Nelson Lam stated that he lives directly behind the Jeffreys, and the Johnstons are kitty- corner to the Jeffreys' property. He stated that he did not have a chance to read the memo regarding the summary of requirements imposed on the work. He noted that two places discuss having the landscaping screen replicated to the previous screen within five years. He stated that when he was at the hearing two weeks ago, he commented that he purchased his home six years ago, and the fact that he would not only lose his backyard privacy but would also have to wait five years is unreasonable. He added that he previously owned two other homes on zero-lot line properties and that the reason he purchased this home was the attraction of the backyard privacy. He therefore asked to have appropriate landscaping done that will allow the screen to be replicated in two to three years. Lisa Johnston, Appellant, stated that Mr. Jeffrey claimed he redesigned his plans, but he basically modified them. She added that she believes that mediation could have been resolved the matter a long time ago and that there were better options but were never brought up. She invited Mr. Jeffrey to look out her window, as she is closer to his property than he is to his own home. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Pearce stated that there is a concern that this project has not conformed to the original plans and inquired if there were a downside to having a condition stating it should conform substantially to Exhibit A and then adding that landscaping will be increased. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 5 of 14