SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . Written statement of Dennis and Barbara Georgatos We have been a part of the Pleasanton Community for 40 years and have lived at our home at 790 E. Angela St. for the past 12. When we bought the home in 1994, we did so with the expectation that we would maintain the level of privacy, neighborhood asthetics, and views that were present upon our purchase. The proposed second-story remodel of 779 Mirador Dr. would destroy our privacy, clash with the characteristics of the neighborhood and obliterate our view. It would also adversely affect our property value, causing a decline of up to $30,000 and likely greater difficulty in selling should we decide to put it on the market. That's based on the opinion of a respected Pleasanton appraiser. We ask that the city reject proposal on grounds that it is extremely intrusive on our privacy rights, out of step with the character of the neighborhood and damaging to our property value, and overall quality of life. It is also not in keeping with the planning department's mission statement that visual factors and the impact on surrounding properties should be considered At no time did the Knights or their architect look into how their proposal would impact us prior to drawing up their plans. Their plans were submitted to the city with zero consultation from the neighbor most affected by their addition and since then they and the city have consistently underestimated the impact on our property, our privacy and our quality of life. The staff report in support of the Knights' project, I believe, also is biased in favor of the applicants. It fails to give proper weight to our privacy concerns, and makes no mention of the flawed architectural sight plans by Mr. Shutts that underestimated how much our privacy would be compromised. The Knights' architect had assured us during a preliminary meeting that the master bedroom windows would be staring out into our fence. However, when the Knights put up the story poles, they showed that the top of the windows were well over our fence line with a direct line of sight into our backyard, kitchen, family room and two of our three bedrooms. We showed this to the assistant city planner, and she concurred with us at that the windows clearly were over the fence line and not looking into the fence as the archiect's sight plans showed. As a matter of fact, as we stood in our kitchen, and we showed how it would be possible to see and literally wave to someone standing in what would be the master bedroom windows of the remodel. Natalie Amos' comment to me at that point was that "the windows can't go there." Yet, she made no mention of this in her staff report and I can only wonder why .Further, we didn't buy our house to have someone looking into it or to have a structure staring us right in our face. In addition, the architect painted a less intrusive picture of the roof elevation of the remodel than demonstrated by the story poles. From our kitchen looking through our glass door, where we have a skyline view, it would be totally blocked. We would be staring into a structure where we now see only skyline and trees. This too, was demonstrated, to the planning department and all too easily dismissed in the staff report and by the project architect in our earlier meeting. IRl IE C IE ~ If E [) H'\DR- \4~2 II ^" '" 200 lji;""\K I.: j 6 CITY OF PL:j,~',',.;T0"J PLANNiI',G DEPT.