CCMIN101805 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McGovern mentioned that she and Mr. Brozosky visited the site and the Crofton's. Benjamin Diaz, appellant and applicant, pointed out that the existing six-foot fence was adequate before the Crofton's contractor began the excavation of the fence and presented photographs for the record. During excavation, the fence was destroyed and when asked if the fence would be replaced, the contractor assured him that the fence would be replaced. He did not believe he should be required to pay for a fence that a contractor destroyed. He noted that the planting of trees required by the Croftons would extend up to the new addition and his existing deck has a wider field of vision than the new deck. He believed he was creating a situation that benefits both the Diazs and the Croftons by extending its deck forward and did not believe there was any place to plant three trees that would screen the view any more than what already exists. Mayor Hosterman closed the public hearing. Ms. McGovern wanted to resolve this issue in a fair and equitable manner. She believed the fence needed to be replaced and the cost shared equally by both homeowners. In addressing this matter with staff, legal counsel provided suggested language which would require within six months of the date of design approval, the Diazs are to construct a new fence similar in design and compatible with the fence that the Croftons have already constructed on the other side of its property on the Diaz/Crofton common property line. The design of the fence shall be approved by the Planning Director taking into consideration the input of the Croftons, and the cost of the new fence will be shared equally between the Diazs and the Croftons. If due to construction related reasons the Diazes would like to defer building the fence beyond the six- month period, the Planning Director may grant a reasonable extension of time in which to construct the fence. Mayor Hosterman asked Ms. McGovern if she addressed the issue of fence height? Ms. McGovern did not and wanted this to be discussed by Council. In addition, she would also like to require the applicant to replace the three trees that are to be removed with three 24-inch box plants since the Croftons are planting six trees on their side. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Ms. McGovern said she proposed the last suggestion to address the Diazs' concern that during the construction of their addition, the contractor might do something to cause a problem with the new fence and this provision would give the Diazs a period of time until they believed their contractor would no longer be building retaining walls in their backyard. Mr. Brozosky was concerned with this wording as it might allow this matter to return to Council. Ms. McGovern did not oppose changing the wording to require the fence to be installed prior to final approval of the building permit. She was concerned because through construction, the new fence could be damaged. Mr. Brozosky preferred removing the last requirement related to deferring the building of the fence beyond the six-month period. He asked staff what type of damage could occur to the fence while the Diazs are constructing their addition. Pleasanton City Council 9 10/18/05 Minutes