01 - Laserfiche WebLink

At the workshop, setbacks along the eastern project boundary were discussed, with the Commission and some neighbors wanting larger rear yard setbacks. The applicant responded by increasing rear yard setbacks in this location from 5 feet to either 9 feet 10 inches or 10 feet. The side yard setback of lot 8 increased from 7.5 to 14 feet to 9.5 to 18 feet. Some commissioners had also expressed a desire to reduce the square footage of the homes, primarily to increase the rear yard setbacks as well as provide some room for guest parking. The current proposal includes reduced home sizes, which previously ranged from 1,609 to 2,176 square feet. He stated the adjacent neighbor at 4151 Stanley Boulevard had contacted staff after the Planning Commission hearing and expressed concern regarding the potential of the proposed structures to block sunlight on his photo voltaic panels. The applicant has prepared a shade study, which concludes the shadows produced would have little to no shading impacts on the panels in question. Mr. Otto noted that all 20 trees on the site would be removed, including 12 that are designated heritage size trees. There would be only one oak tree removed, and that is a non heritage size coastal live oak in fair health. Staff feels that given the site's constraints, mitigation be made via new plantings and payment into the City's urban forestry fund. Councilmember McGovern said the lack of suitable space for planting new trees appears to be the result of lot sizes and the number of homes proposed. She said it needs to be clear there are impacts associated with this density, and one is that there is insufficient room to plant trees. Mr. Otto stated the existing bungalow style home was constructed in 1908. One member of the Planning Commission and the Pleasanton Heritage Association (PHA) had expressed concern with removing the house and recommended that it be retained. Staff hired a historic preservation consultant to analyze the historic significance of the house, and their finding was that the house did not meet the criteria to be considered a historic structure. Therefore, demolition of that structure would not be contrary to the City's historic preservation policies. Mr. Otto said staff believes the applicant has succeeded overall in designing an infill project in the downtown and recommends the Council approve the project, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Mayor Hosterman noted the applicant has been able to achieve only about 75 green points for the project. She said the Council has not recently approved any project with less than 100 points and requested that staff work with the applicant to improve that score. Mr. Otto said this project is technically exempt from the Green Building Ordinance, as all homes are less than 2,000 square feet. and staff felt that 75 was a good number in light of that. Mayor Hosterman confirmed with staff that current and future landscaping plans are geared towards native and drought tolerant plants. Councilmember Sullivan referred to pages 14 and 15 of the Planning Commission staff report, which discuss the General Plan noise standards and the infeasibility of mitigating interior noise to an acceptable level during the brief periods when the nearby train whistle may sound. He asked what noise levels occur at that time. Mr. Otto said it would exceed the City's standard by approximately 14 decibels. He said the General Plan does allow the Council to look at noise levels in the downtown on a case -by -case basis, and that there have been other projects in the area where the train whistle noise was excluded from consideration. City Council Minutes Page 8 of 16 December 7, 2010