SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

From: Joanne Hall Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:54 AM To: Brian Dolan; Maria Hoey; Pleasanton City Clerk Subject: FW: Berlogar PUD 84 SUPPLEMENTAL fiATIEI OAL Attachments: Shadow Cliffs view of Berlogar Dev.pptx; Berlogar site pla r1ro ided to the City Council After Distribution of Packet Here is the attachment that goes with this email. Joanne Date ?t3/ ----Original Message----- From: gevan reeves Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:25 AM To: Mayor and City Council Subject: Berlogar PUD 84 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: As you are aware, the Berlogar development (PUD-84) is on the City Council agenda for Tues April 15. While we have been active during the planning commission process, the proposed development today is practically the same as originally proposed, and our concerns and recommendations have not been adequately addressed. Of major concern, as you can see in the attached site plan, the proposed development Parcel 2 is entirely outside the Designated Development Area as defined in the 1999 Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. The new location is at elevation on the hill top so the developer can grab the `million dollar views' at the expense of existing property and homeowners. The proposed development is designated a Hill Side Residential area per the Specific Plan, and has a higher standard of care because of the potential environmental and visual impacts. As referenced in the HOA letter to the Planning Commission Staff of March 2013, the Specific Plan has very clear language that one would expect offers protection to the existing owners: 1. "No Homes are permitted within the Open Space area (page 22)" - As you can clearly see in the site plan below (mustard color is the limitation of the Designated Development Area by the Specific Plan), Parcel 2 is located almost exclusively in area designated as Open Space. 2. "Open Space surrounding the Hillside Residential is to be permanently preserved", and that "land use standards are to be applied without variance." 3. "In Hillside Residential Areas, all homes sites must be located within the designated development areas as generally depicted on the land use plan. Lot lines may extend into land designated as Open Space, but primary residential buildings and residential accessory structures may only be sited within the designated development areas." (page 25) Surely moving a home completely outside of the Designated Development Area as depicted in the Specific Plan, and onto a hilltop designated as Open Space violates both the letter and spirit of the Specific Plan?? This significant variation must exceed any `wiggle room' the staff has on siting the property?? In an October 2006 memo to the Planning Commission, Wayne Rasmussen, former Principal Planner and project planner for the Specific Plan stated that "due to the environmental constraints in the Hillside Residential areas, the house locations were meant to be fairly precise as represented by the "blob." Yet, despite info to the contrary as highlighted above, Staff and the developer have continued to argue a developer-friendly approach that the "land use plans are not usually meant to be precise, but can be flexible." Staff has pointed to a recent GIS aerial overlay to claim that the Specific Plan was not accurate due to the technology of the time. However,