11 - Laserfiche WebLink

d. Despite this significant and material change and lack of updated plans, the project was approved. Specifically, what was 'approved'? How can an Approval be rendered, when the full scope along with accurate plans are not available? What was"approved'? Was the "Approval" based on the outdated plans and incomplete submissions? 3. There are several Title 18 Zoning Ordinance sections that are clearly in conflict, or at least call into question the appropriateness of the Project/Approval. a. 18.04.010 Objectives and items"B", "C", "G", "I". b. 18.31.010 Purpose and items: "A", "B", "G", "I" Some of the relevant examples as to the the applicability of these sections are as follows: • The neighbor that shares the North boundary vigorously objected to the bedroom windows, which would provide a direct view into their backyard from the new addition. Due to a history of one of the occupants being caught 'peeping' at their teenage daughter while sunbathing or swimming, they felt that having windows on the North side of the project was a huge and substantiated concern, in that there was a high likelihood not only of invasion of their privacy, but infringement of their right to the quiet use and enjoyment of their property. • This same neighbor provided an alternate floor plan, showing that if the rooms were slightly reconfigured the windows could be moved to the West side of the project. Unfortunately this alternate plan was completely ignored. • The Subject Property is a well-know current and historical den of illegal activity. I possessed and referenced a print out from Pleasanton P.D. showing all of the calls for service over the last two-year period. From March of 2015 to May 25, 2017. There have been (104) calls for service to this address. Additionally, the neighbors mentioned that the PPD was there on 5/24 as well. It is obvious nefarious activity continues and is not "in the past" as the Applicant claims. The majority of calls are of a serious nature, I felt this was a significant factor and should have played a substantial role in denying this request. The Zoning Ordinance specifically encompasses a public health, safety and privacy obligation. Nevertheless, the aforementioned objections, facts and Ordinance obligations were completely ignored.