18 ATTACHMENT 13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Roberts noted that based on Officer Roy Ficken's comments in the star memo regarding kennels, chickens aze considered to be fowl and not animals such as dogs or cats. Ms. Nerland stated that the definition of kennel in the Pleasanton Municipal Code is specific to dogs and cats. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mark Becker, 2598 Skimmer Court, stated that he did not have much to say at this point except that this issue had escalated to a ridiculous level. He indicated that the letter from the neighbors' attorney was a personal attack on his family, presenting issues that were not true and completely unrelated to the issue of the chickens. He added that he felt he and his family were being pressured, abused, and hazassed. He reiterated that the Commissioners were welcome to come to his home and see the site. Dave Larsen, 85 Crow Canyon Court in San Ramon, attorney, stated that he was a land use attorney who was hired by a group of neighbors to address the conditional use permit issues. He summarized his letter dated July 11, 2005, presenting the following four points: (1) Allowing the chickens to remain on site has impacted the adjacent neighbors for the past several months, so impacts are not theoretical but have been experiences by these neighbors. (2) While City staff has determined that there is no noise issue if the noise ordinance is not violated, the Pleasanton Municipal Code indicates that it is unlawful to keep animals that cause an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. He noted that the noise standazd is not a particulaz decibel but the peace and quiet neighbors should be able to enjoy without having to close their windows. (3) Allowing four chickens in every residence would change the nature of the subdivision. Most cities do not allow chickens in a residential neighborhood or subdivision. According to the Pleasanton Municipal Code, one of the purposes of the single-family residential zoning is to enhance property values, and the presence of chickens reduces property values. (4) Granting a conditional use permit would give the applicants a special privilege. The neighbors feel that the applicants will not be able to comply with the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit, given the applicants' past history with controlling their pets. Mr. Larsen reiterated that the neighbors aze opposed to conditional use permit; however, should the Commission grant the applicants this permit, he requested that the Commission include the conditions listed on pages 3 and 4 of his letter to ensure that the neighbors aze not fiuther impacted by this use permit. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, July 27, 2005 Page 2 of 6