PC 082510 - Laserfiche WebLink

With respect to being the largest home in the neighborhood, Mr. Lopez stated that it would not be the largest or the largest two-story home in the development. He noted that as presented in the staff report, their proposed home size at 2,607 square feet would be in the range of the homes within the vicinity of a 300-foot radius. He further noted that the Persins would still have largest home in the neighborhood and indicated that he wants to be given the same courtesy granted to the Persins when they increased their home size. Mr. Lopez then addressed the proximity issue, stating that there are many other existing homes with these same circumstances in cul-de-sacs within the development. He indicated that they are proposing a second-floor addition on a portion of their pre-existing first-floor footprint and that the second-floor addition is closer to the front of their home and farther away from the rear neighbors; at its closest location, the addition would be 20 feet away from their rear neighbor’s property line. Mr. Lopez clarified that they do not use their home for personal business but work from home and telecommute. He added that the proposal to move the addition to the west side of the property is a false sense of compromise that has come about because the staff report seems to be in support of the project. He indicated that he had asked several times if he could present their plans to the appellants, and they have always said no without looking at the plans. He stated that he felt the appellants do not understand that by reducing the scope of the home by one side, they will still be as close to the Hoehnes' residence to the rear and that there will probably be some additional windows to the east which will be facing the Perrys' home and which the Perrys have emphatically indicated they did not want. He noted that this would also not provide the additional square footage they need, given the current setbacks and regulations. He indicated that he did not find it is reasonable to ask them to build on their back yard as it would remove the area their three children use and play in. He also noted that at no time would the rear neighbors have the sun blocked in their backyards because they are located to the south, and their pool would never be affected since it is quite a distance away from the home area. Mr. Lopez then congratulated the Planning Commission and Planning staff, stating that the past month's issue of Money Magazine indicated that a national survey ranked Pleasanton as one of the top 100 best places in the U.S. in which to live. He added that Pleasanton was the only Bay Area city to earn this national honor. He noted that this was made possible because Commission members abide by existing zoning regulations and CC&R's, which he has met or exceeded. He stated that all parties involved should feel comforted and realize that these national honors and potential buyers seeing existing residents investing in their homes and neighborhoods will not decrease property values but would, in fact, increase because of projects like this th Mr. Lopez then addressed a letter dated August 16 and signed by Mr. and Mrs. Persin to clarify some misleading and incorrect information labeled as factual in a written narrative in support of the appeal. He stated that the letter had the incorrect square PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 25, 2010 Page 14 of 38