PC 092607 - Laserfiche WebLink

plans. As the project went on too long, the Building and Safety Division initiated action against him. He noted that Mr. Smith had not been sneaking around the Building and Safety Division and that everything had been built to Code. He would like to get the permits in order to finish the project. Steve Evans, 6335 Paseo Santa Cruz, noted that he had recently inspected the project and that it would be easy to bring the project to completion. He added that the workmanship was clean and to Code, and nothing must be removed. He had examined the exterior and believed that it may be completed easily in a month, with the exception of sidewalks and planting material. He believed that the stucco work and roofing completion could be completed rapidly and did not believe that will be a lingering situation. He added that if Mr. Smith received approval, he would be able to move forward. He further believed the interior could follow a timeline that can easily be finished in six months. He had done custom projects of similar size over the past 25 years, mostly in Orinda, Lafayette, Danville, and some in Pleasanton. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the interior had been demolished, Mr. Evans confirmed that had occurred and that the house was down to bare studs. Plumbing and most of the wiring was already in place, with the exception of lighting and the extension of wiring into the new areas. He believed the plumbing could be completed in two weeks or less and the electrical in ten days. He added that much of this work could be done in parallel, such as plumbing and electrical, and that interior and exterior processes may take place concurrently. Chairperson Fox invited comment from the previous speakers. Ms. Morgan noted that the quality of the work had never been in question and that the construction itself did indeed meet Code. She realized that the projects took so long because Mr. Smith’s standards exceeded that of the Code. The neighbors were very concerned because the construction violated the section of the Code that ensured a safe, attractive, and tranquil environment. She did not believe the appellants’ concerns had been accurately reflected and believed that the Building and Safety Division had been aware of Mr. Smith’s unpermitted work and had done nothing about it. She added that the neighbors were concerned that concrete would need to be poured and construction continued after the six months had expired. They were very concerned that the construction would not stop. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Fox advised that the Planning Commission’s decision may be appealed to the City Council within 15 days. Chairperson Fox recalled a similar situation in 2002-2003 with a prolonged construction project and inquired about the outcome of that hearing and other similar situations such as one she recalled on First Street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 2007 Page 13 of 20