SR 06:247 - Laserfiche WebLink

detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This finding can therefore be made. (B) Increase in Accessory Structure Height As conditioned, any proposed accessory structure is required to meet all applicable Uni- form Building Codes and will therefore not be detrimental to public safety or be materi- ally injurious to properties or improvements. This finding can therefore be made. (C) Increase in Floor Area Ratio Similar to the above finding, all structures are required to meet all applicable Uniform Building Codes and will therefore not be detrimental to public safety or be materially in- jurious to properties or improvements. This finding can therefore be made. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT Staff sent notices of the Planning Commission's public hearing on this item to all prop- erty owners and residents located within 1,000-feet of the subject property on September 13,2006. Staff has received numerous phone calls and emails relating to the project. The neighbors who are opposed to this project have stated that this project is "too much" for the size of the lot. They object to the height ofthe two-story addition including the attic, the square-footage and height of the three-car garage, and expressed concern with soil stability over the extensive grading required to construct the basement and the garage. In addition, several of the neighbors feel the proposed addition is unattractive and not com- patible with the charm of the neighborhood. Staff has also received public comment in favor of the project. Those in support of the project feel the project is well-designed and will fit in well in the neighborhood (Exhibit H). On June 7, 2006, staff received a petition signed by 57 Pleasanton residents who opposed the project (Exhibit E). On August 4, 2006, staff sent a reduced set of latest plans (Ex- hibit A) to all signers of the petition along with a letter asking them if, based on the latest set of plans, they still opposed the project. Staff received 33 responses: 30 of the petition signers still oppose the plans; 3 no longer oppose the plans (Exhibit F). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Projects of this nature are categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301(e) and Section 15303 (e). Therefore, no environmental document accompanies this report. CONCLUSION Staff notes that in order to support the revitalization of the Downtown District, the City has expressed a desire to increase both the height of accessory structures and the FAR within the District's residential areas. The increased standards would allow primary and Item 6.b. PADR.I338IPV.13I Page 13 of 14 September 27, 2006