AGENDA FULL PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Direct and Severe Impact on My Home: This project casts a literal shadow over my property, jeopardizing my ability to install solar panels and transition to clean energy, which conflicts with California's goals. The shadow study demonstrates that the development will significantly reduce the sunlight reaching my home, particularly in the mornings. Additionally, being so close to the development will significantly diminish my backyard privacy and expose my home to the overlook of multiple units. My wife and I purchased our home just five months ago, unaware of this looming project, and its approval would substantially devalue our property. I was never directly notified of this proposal, as should be required, further demonstrating the disregard for residents during this process. Misleading Information and Biased Review:The applicant's documents contain demonstrably misleading information. For instance, the perspective render on sheet A5 alters the key map to depict a building similar to the proposed development instead of the existing single-family homes. Additionally, the rendering on sheet A4 omits the red curb 'no parking' zones along the building, creating a false sense of ample parking space. These manipulated visuals, along with the city's review containing patently false statements about the project's compatibility with our neighborhood, hinder a fair assessment of the impacts. For example, the review claims the development "completely aligns with the character of the neighborhood," a statement demonstrably false to any observer. Furthermore, the reviewer injects subjective opinions on aesthetics which, they themselves state, should not be a basis for approval. This bias calls into question the entire review process. Lack of Enough Public Input:The volume of documentation provided, along with the short review timeline, made it nearly impossible for working residents to thoroughly analyze this complex project. In addition to this, many neighbors, including myself, never received a notice about this project. We are aware that SB330 limits the city's ability to fully assess subjective issues. However, the Planning Commission's own resolution highlights objective standards such as neighborhood character and traffic impacts. We demand evidence demonstrating how this project satisfies those requirements that remain within the city's power to consider. We believe the city has a duty to uphold its own codes and prioritize resident safety within the framework of state law. Mayor Brown, Council Members, the city planner, and the city manager, the residents of our neighborhood deserve a development plan that respects our homes and our established quality of life. I urge you to reconsider this proposal and engage in a meaningful dialogue with the community to find a solution that genuinely benefits Pleasanton. We welcome well-planned development, but this project is not the answer. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. I, and many other residents, stand ready to provide further evidence or answer any questions. P.S. For visual evidence of the concerns raised in this letter, please refer to the attached photos. Sincerely, AJ Jahadakbar, Valley Trails DR Pleasanton CA