PC 092706 - Laserfiche WebLink

for the hill behind it. She was very concerned about the lack of privacy to her backyard, as well as the shadowing of her yazd. She noted that she was the most affected by this project and asked that it not be approved. She noted that with respect to the list of approved setbacks and height vaziances on page 6 of the staff report, all those residents had asked for only one vaziance each; she noted that this applicant requested three variances. She added that the resident at 415 Abbie Street did not ask for a variance. Michael O'Callaghan, 125 West Neal Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that he was speaking as a private resident, not as a member of the Pleasanton Downtown Association. He noted that he was on a task force that was examining streamlined permitting in Pleasanton. He noted that the staff report was exhaustive, more so than what was normally seen in similar applicafions. He would like the Planning Commission to take heed of that report and support the staff's position on this project. He noted that he built the house next door (4558 Second Street) and lived there for ten years; it is now occupied by Mr. Boag. He noted that he would have been happy if the applicants' addition had been built when he lived there because he believed it would have enhanced his property value immensely. He noted that the house has been, and is, dilapidated. He noted that he did not know the applicants personally and believed the existing zoning for this area was outdated and needed to be updated. He supported staff's position with respect to this home's FAR, and it seemed to him that the opponents of this project wanted the applicants' house not to be lazger than their own, but they did not have any constructive ideas of their own. He believed the neighbors were micromanaging this project and added that staff had put in considerable time on their analysis. He believed the finding could be made for the variances. Brian Bourg, 4512 Second Street, noted that he had remodeled their own house when their children were born and that they kept their remodel within the scope and character of the neighborhood. He estimated that the actual FAR was 45.3 percent. He noted that despite all the meetings, no one on the 4500 block of Second Street supported this iteration of the application and believed it was too big and that should be toned down. He noted that there was only one otherthree-caz garage on the street, which is located on the lazgest lot on the street. He did not believe that was a use that was enjoyed by the majority of residents. He suggested reducing the garage to a two-caz gazage, which would lower the height and restore the pitch to the roof. Christine Bourg, 4512 Second Street, noted that while she did not oppose the idea of a remodel, she agreed with the other neighbors that it was good that the house would be fixed up, but that the proposed remodel was too big. She believed that three variances were too many, not including the issue with the trees. She disagreed with staff's assessment that this project fit the neighborhood, both in scale and lot coverage. She believed the design standazds for Downtown should be more stringent because of the unique chazacter of the neighborhood. She was worried about the task force being peopled by developers, and noted that she had not been notified about it. Patty Dutra, 971 Montevino Drive, spoke in opposition to this project. She believed the proposed project was too big for the neighborhood. She noted that Michelle Lutman was her niece and that she was very worried about her privacy and did not want to put curtains in her bathroom. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 27, 2006 Page 10 of 17