PC 062205 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Maas regarding from what part of her property she heard the chickens, Ms. Shoars-Mosby replied that it was either in her bedroom on the second floor or on her porch, where she normally paints. She described it as an intermittent clucking sound and was becoming weary of her quality of life being interrupted- She asked the Commission to give her quality of life back to her. Ruth and Tom Rojas, 2599 Skimmer Court, pointed out their lot on the overizcad projection and spoke in opposition to this item. Mr. Rojas noted that he had noticed iwo chickens walking loose in the applicants' backyard the previous night and pointed out that the staff recommendations stated that they must be kept in an enclosed area. He had hoped to decrease the number of arximal s, not increase them.. He noted that the Beckers' dog had previously bitten his eight-year-old son twice and was disappointed that they had not been able to develop a rapport with the Beckers. He submitted the police report from. that incident. Ile stated that he had experienced problems with the Beckers' dogs and cats and perceived a lack of consideration from the applicants- Chris Sartor, 2586 Skimmer Court, spoke in opposition to this item and had submitted a letter outlining her objections. She noted that she did like the Becker children and believed that chickens belonged in a rural area, not in a medium-density residential area- She noted that the cackling of the chickens was constant and irritating. She liked the sounds from. the sports park, but not from the chickens- She believed the neighbors who strongly objected to the chickens should be heard- She believed the applicants had imposed their rural lifestyle on. the neighbors and believed that they did not control their animals properly For the density of the neighborhood- Shc noted that the family was very nice, but believed that they should live in a more rural area if they wished to keep as many animals. She was concerned with the neighbors' inability to communicate effectively with the applicants and noted that the chickens had appeared with no notification of the neighbors- She was very concerned about the property values and added that she was considering selling their home because of the situation. She was concerned that the disclosure would affect the potential selling price and was concerned that the issues brought into the public record may be an issue of liability. She did not believe the staff report's assessment of the noise level was accurate_ Mark Fiala, 2583 Skininier Court, noted that he lived across the court from the applicants- I-Ie stated that he had moved away from Castro Valley, in part because his neighbor had a construction company, a goat, and some chickens. He had been advised of the tension when he moved in and was unhappy that he moved into a residential area with the same issues of construction trucks and chickens. He was very concerned that a use permit could be attached to that property and that the C=ox-rxmission may consider approvirxg the project and requested that it be denied. Kevin Close, 877 Sycan~ora Court, spoke in support of this application- He noted that chickens become quiet after sundown and noted that he had eight hens on his property- He noted that they could not be heard at night unless there was another animal nearby. He agreed with the staff report and noted the number of chickens per square foot was well within limits. He did not believe this would set a precedent for chicken farms in Pleasanton. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2005 Page 14 of 20