SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

6. Relationship of exterior lighting to its surroundings and to the building and a4joining landscape. Staff analysis: No additional exterior lighting is being proposed with this project. 7. Architectural style, as a function of its quality of design and relationship to building's colors and materials; and the design attention given to mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings. Staff analysis: The architectural style is compatible with the neighborhood and the function of design and relationship to the surroundings. The project proposes to use the same colors and materials of the existing residence. No mechanical equipment or other utility hardware was proposed with this project. 8. Integration of signs as part of architectural concept. Staff analysis: No signage was proposed with this project. 9. Architectural concept of miscellaneous structures, street fUrniture, public art in relationship to the site and landscape (Ord 1612 S 2,1993; Ord 1591 S 2,1993). Staff analysis: No miscellaneous structures, street furniture, or public art were proposed with this project. PUBLIC NOTICE Staff sent notices of the Planning Commission's public hearing on this item to all property owners and residents located within 1,000-feet of the subject property on June 1,2006. As of the drafting of this report, staff has received comments from the adjacent neighbors, which are attached as Exhibit M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sections 15301(e)(2). Therefore, no environmental document accompanies this report. CONCLUSION Staff is sympathetic with the neighbors' concerns; however, staff believes the addition is well designed and adheres to the Pleasanton Municipal Code requirements. In staffs opinion, the applicants are not proposing anything unusual and as conditioned, the addition would not result in negative impacts to the privacy of surrounding properties. As previously mentioned, the applicants' house pad is approximately 12- feet lower than the house pad of the neighbors to the rear and the height of the house is approximately 9-feet lower than allowed per code. Staff would like to note that there are no view easements granted to the subject property or surrounding neighbors and there are no City or homeowners' association restrictions in place to prevent second story additions in this neighborhood. For the reasons listed above, staff believes the project is supportable, as conditioned by staff. PAP-93, AppealofPADR-1472 Planning Commission Page 14 of 15