PC 111319 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Brown inquired about the existing house in regard to the new ADU and privacy. He asked and confirmed there are four windows being removed and one added as part of the redesign. Ms. Soo confirmed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Appellant Niraj Gandhi stated he was not in opposition to the proposed project; however, he is opposed to the design that has been approved. He described the reasons for his appeal, noting that the design will drastically reduce the value of his property and also results in impacts to the privacy of some of the bedrooms and bathroom windows. He voiced added concerns about the lack of sufficient public notice, proposed parking, projection of outside stairways into the yard and views into the neighbors' master bedroom, the 15-foot requirement for the side yard setback which is 10 feet to the exterior stairway, conflicts with rear yard improvements, the proposal for an interior connection to the ADU which had not been part of the original plan, and lastly stated the addition does not protect the public's health, safety or welfare due to significant impacts. Chair Allen requested the appellant provide a copy of his letter to the Commission. Applicant's architect Wafaa Almahamid spoke of the proposed project and design and responded to the various points raised by the appellant and said the stairs only project six feet into the west side. The garage wall is at a 15-foot setback, which leaves a nine-foot setback, where only a five-foot setback is required. She referred to the pictures presented by the appellant and explained that the windows are five feet from a six-foot fence, along with a row of landscape screening. Additionally, parking in the driveway is allowed for an ADU, the unit is over an existing garage on the west side which they confirmed during the first meeting, the interior door has been on the plans with the intent for access to the inside of the house for their parents' use, and the stairway is also the only fire escape for the unit. They have worked with Mr. Gandhi throughout the process and felt that no matter what they do he will not support the project, but they hope someday he would be amenable to it. Commissioner Balch inquired about the screening wall, confirmed that it ends at the foot of the stairs, and he inquired how far the screening location was from the property line. Ms. Almahamid replied it is approximately nine feet. Appellant Niraj Gandhi provided rebuttal comments to the applicant's position on the proposed project, presented the plan showing no door coming into the main house, and said the 20-foot screening wall is not fireproof and he believes it cannot be used as a fire escape. He continued to say it creates bulk and mass and is less than 10 feet from his home. He then quoted the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC): (1) "Fence, walls and hedges greater than six feet but not over eight feet in height may occupy a required site or rear yard" and he stated the screen wall is 20 feet high; (2) "All additions to main structure which exceed 10 feet in height shall be Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 November 13, 2019