14 ATTACHMENT 4-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

completion timetable on the applicant for his original plans and to enforce strict compliance to those dates. He was concerned that Mr. Smith would continue the construction without permit or limit, which would continue to impact the neighbors. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding his reference to 15 years of construction, Mr. Morgan noted that he had lived in the neighborhood for 23 years, followed by Mr. Smith several years later. He started modifying the chimney and other external projects shortly thereafter. He added that around 1995, Mr. Smith then purchased a Bobcat to work on his yard, which was following by other restructuring projects on the house. He noted that his house was 1,872 square feet and that many of the houses were approximately 2,000 square feet. Diane Long, 3651 Manchester Street, read an account from the San Francisco Examiner of August 28, 2007, regarding the unpermitted construction of a Little League practice field in Danville. Teresa Morgan, 3502 Whitehall Court, noted that the purpose of the Pleasanton Municipal Code was to enhance property values and to ensure that all residents enjoyed the right to privacy, safety, and an attractive environment. She added that Code Enforcement ensured that property maintenance, lack of property nuisance, and other problems were adhered to. She noted that Title XX stated that it would be "unlawful for any person to construct, enlarge, alter, or maintain any structure or permit the same to be done in violation of this Code." She believed that Mr. Smith's premeditated choice to perform unpermitted construction on his home was a direct violation of the Code. She cited Title XI, which prohibited parking on the street which obstructed free travel on that street. She believed that the construction traffic violated that ordinance by blocking traffic, driveways, mail delivery, and trash removal. She also cited the noise ordinance and noted that the construction and commercial traffic far exceeded the 60-dBA limit; the average noise level was closer to 85 dBA, based on published criteria. She cited Title XIV, which covered the health and safety of families as they relate to unlawful property nuisances, including "buildings that have been left in an unreasonable state of partial construction, property that lacks landscaping so as to cause excessive dust; storing of dirt, sand, concrete, and other materials that are offensive to the senses for an unreasonable period of time." She noted that this house had been in a state of partial construction for 15 years and was very concerned about the dust and debris being carried into neighboring yards. She was concerned that the harmony and enjoyment of the adjoining properties had been significantly diminished. She believed the assertion that the additions were insignificant because the neighbors could not see them while closed up in their house was outrageous and in direct violation of Title XIV. She believed that the neighbors' privacy and free use of their property was being violated by these structures. She requested that the Planning Commission hold Mr. Smith accountable to the Municipal Code. Scott Smith, applicant, 3496 Whitehall Court, hoped to find a resolution that would satisfy the City and the neighbors. He understood his neighbors' concerns and hoped that those topics had been previously addressed by him and the City. He noted that the staff report outlined the specific areas of concerns and noted that he had been cooperative in trying to resolve them. He had attempted to establish and continue a dialogue with the neighbors and noted that his effort to complete the project had been hindered by the appeal process. Since the July 20, 2007 hearing, EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 26, 2007 Page 6 of 12