Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pleasanton panel denies neighborhood appeal, upholds approval for two‑story Liberty Drive addition
Summary
The Planning Commission on May 13 denied an appeal from neighbors and upheld the zoning administrator’s approval of an about‑816 sq ft two‑story addition on Liberty Drive, after split deliberations over neighborhood character, shadow impacts and precedent.
The Pleasanton Planning Commission on May 13 denied an appeal and affirmed a zoning administrator’s approval of a proposed two‑story, roughly 816‑square‑foot addition to a house in the Shadow Cliff neighborhood.
Planner Natalie Amos told the commission staff’s review concluded the project met applicable PUD and municipal code findings, including setbacks and the 40 percent floor‑area‑ratio limit, and recommended denying the appeal.
Appellant Yuktiri Notova urged the commission to overturn the approval, saying the project’s scale and massing would permanently alter neighbors’ light and views. “This is about the place my family calls home,” Notova said, arguing the approval relied on inconsistent interpretations of the city’s floor‑area limits and on a limited shadow analysis that, she said, should have included winter‑solstice modeling.
Neighbors described construction impacts and lost sunlight. Michelle Tornaghi, a 35‑year resident, said the addition would “obliterate” backyard sunlight used by young children and elderly family members. Resident Nazrat and others raised concerns about precedent and the tight lot spacing in Shadow Cliff.
The applicant’s team, including architect Kurt Harold, said the design meets setback and FAR requirements and that the proposed addition faces north, so shadows fall toward the street rather than neighboring backyards. “All the shadows that the house and the new addition are gonna project are all on the north side,” Harold said, arguing the addition was consistent with nearby two‑story development.
Commissioners split over the subjective finding that requires a project to have an “harmonious relationship” with adjacent buildings. Several members noted the proposal complies with the city’s numeric standards while others said the massing and blank wall facing neighboring yards made it inconsistent with immediate neighborhood character.
Commissioner Jago moved to find the project meets the required findings and to deny the appeal; Commissioner Jane seconded. The motion carried by a majority vote; Chair Pace announced the appeal was denied and reminded the appellant of a 10‑day window to appeal the commission’s decision to the City Council.
The commission’s action affirms the zoning administrator’s approval subject to the conditions listed in the zoning record. The appellant may seek further review at the council level during the appeal period.
