PC 052307 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Derek Barragan, applicant, 1971 Brooktree Way, noted that he was available to answer questions. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding the conditions in Exhibit B, Mr. Barragan he replied that he suggested that instead of trees being planted by the fence, a flowering or evergreen vine could be planted through the lattice to provide screening and stop the deterioration of the lattice. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding what kind of vehicle would be required to pull the fifth wheel, Mr. Barragan replied that it should be at least a three-quarter-ton pickup truck. He described his trucks to the Commissioners. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O’Connor regarding whether there were any discussions with Ms Carter before he purchased and moved the fifth wheel, Mr. Barragan replied that he had spoken with her in May or June of 2006 before the Barragans made the purchase. She had not wanted the lattice, but he informed her that they did plan to purchase the recreational vehicle, and that they wanted to store it there. He noted that because Ms. Carter did not want to pay for the extra lattice, the Barragans incurred that expense for the length of the fence. He noted that the fifth wheel was delivered in July 2006. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the allowable fence heights, Ms. Decker confirmed that a fence may be six feet tall, with a design review approval for height greater than that, typically seven or eight feet. She added that eight-foot fences along busy thoroughfares are generally supported. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether any RV lots in town were open for storage, Mr. Barragan replied that he had not inquired about any openings but had started gathering storage costs. He noted that monthly costs ranged from $80 per month for a 25-foot vehicle, but the cost increases as the length increases. Rebecca Carter, 1963 Brooktree Way, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that when she learned about the fifth wheel, she was told it had already been bought and stored elsewhere. She had contacted a storage facility near the Pleasanton Fairground and was told there was availability for $85 for a 32-foot vehicle. She opposed this application because she believed it violated the Pleasanton Municipal Code and the Zoning Ordinance, because it adversely affected the surrounding properties, and because it was not desirable to the community. She noted that the staff report disregarded those legal standards in favor of finding visual mitigations. Her attorney advised her that this recommendation had misinterpreted California law. She described the visual impacts of the trailer and believed it harmed her property value. She was very concerned that it was clearly visible from the street. She believed the $85 monthly parking fee at the Pleasanton Fairgrounds was a fair price to pay for the improvement to the neighborhood. She did not believe the extra foot of lattice would improve the visual impact and that a higher lattice addition would be structurally unstable. She did not believe the trees could PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 2007 Page 7 of 20