SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

From: Joanne Hall Provided to the City CouncH Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 4:25 PM To: Brian Dolan; Maria Hoey; Pleasanton City Clerk After Distribution of Packet Subject: Berlogar PUD 84 At tach ments: Sto neWall.png; Stone Wall2.png ®�$� Attachments to email included.... From: Alex Win Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 3:54 PM To: gevan reeves; Mayor and City Council Subject: Re: Berlogar PUD 84 Dear Mayor and Council Members, I would like to add my concern of the cinder-block retaining walls which I believe mentioned by the developer as reaching up to 14' in combined height at some locations. I along with the neighbors certainly don't want to see freeway-style walls ruining the natural beauty of the hills. No matter how many trees and landscaping you put in front of the walls, you're not going to completely block some sections of the cinder-blocks from showing. Our concern also is with the maintenance and upkeep of and landscaping used to mitigate the walls. Who will be responsible for them and who will enforce any requirements we may agree on? Who will pay for the watering and replacement of dead plants and trees? My recommendation in addition to landscape mitigation is to ensure that even without landscaping, the walls are visually pleasing not only to the neighbors who will look at them everyday, but also folks who will see the hills as they drive by Vineyard Ave and walk along the trails of Shadow Cliff. Instead of using industrial cinder blocks, I would like to see the walls fit into the natural surroundings better with a look of stone. Attached are two photos of what I can envision as something that would not detract from the natural feel of the hills. I appreciate you taking the time to consider our concerns. Sincerely, Alex Win Silver Oaks HOA Board Member& Resident On Monday, April 14, 2014 10:25 AM, gevan reeves -_ — •wrote: 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