My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
100317
>
11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2017 4:35:21 PM
Creation date
9/27/2017 3:37:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
10/3/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
d. Despite this significant and material change and lack of updated plans, the <br /> project was approved. Specifically, what was 'approved'? <br /> How can an Approval be rendered, when the full scope along with accurate plans are not <br /> available? What was"approved'? Was the "Approval" based on the outdated plans and <br /> incomplete submissions? <br /> 3. There are several Title 18 Zoning Ordinance sections that are clearly in conflict, or at <br /> least call into question the appropriateness of the Project/Approval. <br /> a. 18.04.010 Objectives and items"B", "C", "G", "I". <br /> b. 18.31.010 Purpose and items: "A", "B", "G", "I" <br /> Some of the relevant examples as to the the applicability of these sections are as <br /> follows: <br /> • The neighbor that shares the North boundary vigorously objected to the bedroom <br /> windows, which would provide a direct view into their backyard from the new addition. <br /> Due to a history of one of the occupants being caught 'peeping' at their teenage <br /> daughter while sunbathing or swimming, they felt that having windows on the North <br /> side of the project was a huge and substantiated concern, in that there was a high <br /> likelihood not only of invasion of their privacy, but infringement of their right to the <br /> quiet use and enjoyment of their property. <br /> • This same neighbor provided an alternate floor plan, showing that if the rooms were <br /> slightly reconfigured the windows could be moved to the West side of the <br /> project. Unfortunately this alternate plan was completely ignored. <br /> • The Subject Property is a well-know current and historical den of illegal activity. I <br /> possessed and referenced a print out from Pleasanton P.D. showing all of the calls for <br /> service over the last two-year period. From March of 2015 to May 25, 2017. There <br /> have been (104) calls for service to this address. <br /> Additionally, the neighbors mentioned that the PPD was there on 5/24 as well. It is <br /> obvious nefarious activity continues and is not "in the past" as the Applicant claims. <br /> The majority of calls are of a serious nature, I felt this was a significant factor and <br /> should have played a substantial role in denying this request. <br /> The Zoning Ordinance specifically encompasses a public health, safety and privacy <br /> obligation. Nevertheless, the aforementioned objections, facts and Ordinance <br /> obligations were completely ignored. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.