PC 062415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Harryman replied that she does not know how this is interpreted or if people who are just sitting in the backyard and being louder than 60 dBA are in violation of the ordinance. She indicated, however, that it would apply to TV noise; for example, if the TV was so loud that it was violating the 60 dBA threshold, then the police would come in and issue a noise citation. She noted that that does not change the application before the Commission one way or the other because the Code is there, no matter what. Mr. Weinstein stated that it is a very common occurrence for people to use their backyard sometimes very intensively. He indicated that staffs experience in talking with the Police Department and Code Enforcement Officer is that people calling about human voices and human voices contributing to exceedance of the noise threshold is not very common; it is not something staff hears about very much. Commissioner O'Connor stated that it sometimes happens with high school parties THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Rex Shoemake, Applicant, stated that he and his wife have lived in Pleasanton for 30 years, and this is their fourth home. He indicated that Ms. Amos represented and did an accurate job on the staff report and that they would like to comply with the height compromise of reducing it from 14 feet to 12'/2 feet. Jacki Martin, neighbor, stated that she shares a back fence with the Shoemakes; the part where the patio cover will be located. She indicated that she was initially shocked by the size of the structure as it seemed very imposing from the brief information given on the notification card sent out by the City. She noted, however, that in conversation with Natalie Amos of the Pleasanton Planning Division, she was informed that the Shoemakes would be willing to compromise and lower the height to 12'/2 feet. She added that she was also able to see the plans and that the patio cover would be located 10 feet from the shared fence. She stated that she then visited the Shoemakes to get a perspective from their yard, and she was comfortable with the location of the proposed patio cover. She added that she also saw the location of the orange tree which will eventually fill in nicely, but it is not at a location that would diffuse the lighting or any noise when the patio area is in use. She noted that the sketch of the bottom measurement of the roofline was not to scale, and the measurements were not given, but she believed the gutters on the structure will be at the same height as the gutters on their house. Ms. Martin stated that there were concerns regarding privacy and lighting leaking into their yard. She indicated that their master bedroom is in direct line with the patio cover and asked what her options for correction would be if the project lighting is approved but causes a problem. She stated that all in all, she does not object to this project going forward if the height of the structure is approved for the compromised 12'/2 feet and a means to correct any possible lighting issues that may arise are addressed and resolved. Heather Brillhart, neighbor, handed the Commissioners a picture of the view from her bedroom of the proposed patio cover. She stated that after she received notification of the Shoemakes' proposal, she went to the Planning Division and was dismayed to find PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 49 of 54