15 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 1 of 2 Steve Otto From: Kevin Reedy , _ Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:12 PM To: Steve Otto Subject: PUD-32, Sarich Property -Comments Steve, Thanks for spending time on the phone with me on Thursday. My wife (Lynn) and I went to the Planning Department on Friday afternoon and reviewed the documents for the Sarich property. As you may recall from our conversation, we live at 1333 Montrose Place in the estate lot bordering directly on the Sarich property. We have several comments: The drawings show the driveway entrance to the Sarich property apparently cutting into the corner of our property. The label on the drawing shows this as a "Roadway Easement in Adjacent Property". This is the first we've heard of this and we naturally are concerned. In addition to being an infringement on our property, that particular corner of our lot is already set aside as a wetland easement. Since we are not allowed to do anything to change the wetland, it seems very strange that a neighbor would be allowed to pave over a part of it. 2. There are many trees being removed as part of the development plan, but there are six in particular that concern us. Trees 193, 194 and 159 are close to the roadway being constructed and two of them are heritage trees. Is there any way to re-route the driveway to preserve these trees? Trees 191, 606 and 607 (the last two also being heritage trees) are planned for removal but are not close to the driveway or to the main house. The notes say something about being removed for a retaining wall. These trees are directly in the line of sight from our backyard towards the Sarich proposed house and should help in screening the house from view. Is there any way to preserve these? 3. The existing barn/garage directly abuts our property with virtually zero setback. This has been in place for some time and we don't expect that to change. However, to the extent that significant changes or expansion are to be done (unclear from the plans we reviewed), we would like to make sure that new work meets normal setback provisions. 4. It is clear from the simulated photos (as well as our direct observation) that the house will be fairly visible throughout Montrose Place and will clearly interrupt the top of the ridgeline. Preserving the natural view of the ridge would be much more desirable. The existing house is clearly below the ridgeline and is therefore much less intrusive than the proposed new house. 5. We are very strongly opposed to the statement in one of the documents that the excavated material from the building pad will be deposited on the lower part of the property where the vineyard is proposed. We do not want any change to that topography that would increase it's height. This becomes a major issue when/if that part of the property is developed and houses built there. By having those houses be even higher than they otherwise might, the eventual negative visual impact of those houses would be increased even more. The other concern is that spreading that dirt will disrupt the natural environment for quite some time and will also create large amounts of dust throughout the neighborhood. Overall, while we'd prefer the entire lot remain in a natural state, we recognize that this is not realistic or fair to the Sarich's. A tradeoff that would significantly mitigate our concerns would be to have the lower part of the lot become a permanent vineyard and put within the purview of the Tri-Valley Conservancy (as our vineyard is). Doing that and formally giving up future development rights to that part of the property would be a good tradeoff in our view that would significantly mitigate the concerns we mention above. If you'd like to talk about any of this, I can be reached on my cell phone at 510-710-2123. We'll be out of town (but reachable) on Tuesday, but home on Wednesday. Unfortunately we will not be able to make it to the Planning Commission meeting Wednesday night. We look forward to hearing back from you about the result of 3/7/2008