My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
17
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
050608
>
17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/1/2008 12:58:16 PM
Creation date
5/1/2008 12:58:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/6/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br />Projects of this nature are categorically exempt from the requirements of the California <br />Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3, Section 15303(a), "New Construction or <br />Conversion of Small Structures," and Class 4, Section 15304, "Minor Alterations to <br />Land." Therefore, no environmental document accompanies this report. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The planning process is intended to invite neighborhood participation and input with the <br />goal of finding an alternative or compromise that would meet the neighborhood <br />concerns. <br />As proposed and conditioned, the proposed second unit complies with the above <br />Municipal Code standards, site development standards for setbacks, height, and size <br />and results in a 17.2-percent floor area ratio which is less than the 20-percent maximum <br />floor area ratio requirement for this development, and the required parking space for the <br />second unit would be provided. There are adequate public roadways, public utilities, <br />and public services to serve the second unit. <br />The neighbors expressed support for the design of the second residential unit related to <br />the architectural design and acknowledged that it looked like it fit with the existing home. <br />They noted that overall it appeared to meet the second-unit requirements as outlined <br />above but continued to have concerns about life safety, landslides, and property value <br />impacts. <br />Staff believes the applicants have attempted to have an inclusive process since <br />introducing their intent to the neighbors in 2006 to construct the second unit. They have <br />continued to have dialog with the neighbors throughout the preliminary, Zoning <br />Administrator, and Planning Commission processes. The Bawas are anxious to begin <br />the construction of their project in order to complete the swimming pool deck and patio <br />paving and to have an additional unit for a relative who will live there and be a daytime <br />caretaker for their child. <br />Regarding the PUD modification, staff believes that the proposed grading, retaining <br />walls, and tree relocation would not adversely impact the adjacent neighbors and are <br />acceptable. <br />Submitted by: <br />/~-- <br />Brian Dolan <br />Director of Planning <br />and Community Development <br />David P. Culver <br />Director of Finance <br />Fiscal Review: Approve y: <br />Page 11 of 12 <br />Nelson Fialho <br />City Manager <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.