18 ATTACHMENT 13 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 amedium-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. She 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 Skimmer Court, noted that he lived across the court from the applicants. He 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 Commission may consider approving the project and requested that it be denied. Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore 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. Mark Becker, applicant, noted that they had approached 4-H and asked about the procedure for having chickens; nothing was said about a permit. He believed 4-H considered up to four chickens on a residential property to be allowable. He noted that had he known prior to obtaining the chickens, he would have contacted the City and taken care of that. He had been told by 4-H that the area he lived in was zoned for chickens. He noted that they had had the chickens for five or six months but that Mrs. Shoars-Mosby claimed that she had been affected for two months. He noted that she was on the other side of the property of a neighbor who rarely heard the chickens. He noted that it was his idea to get rid of the dog with respect to the Rojas incident. He noted that he had built a permitted 1,000-square-foot addition to his home and believed that would enhance the property values in the neighborhood. He emphasized that he lead no intention of turning the neighborhood into Castro Valley. THE PLiBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. [n response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding the allowable number of animals, dir. Ficken contirmed that the 1~lunicipal Code allo~~-ed up to three domestic animals. He noted that Section 7.36 of the Code provides that "no animal can disturb the peace and quiet of a reasonable person." ,1 discussion of animal entorcement for dons ensued. E`CCERPTS: PL,~'VNI;VG CU:ti11~11SSIUN :~1EEfING ~iINUTF,S. June ~?. ~U(15 Pa~:e 3 ~~f ~