SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS - Laserfiche WebLink

January 31, 2025 To: Mayor Balch and City Council Members: Subject: Feb 4 City Council Meeting re. annexation and update on Residential Development proposals • Second comment letter from Tom Grudkowski My first letter has already been received and on your website. I neglected to include mention of some issues which deserve consideration. I greatly appreciate your approach toward solving some issues which have been discussed in detail last year and are included in our past comment letters for The Draft EIR. Links to those letters are in my first letter of January 28th. Thank you for your work on these items. However, I did not see discussion of the following issues which are also rather important. 1) For Village at Ironwood homes which are located along the East wall boundary with the Planned Development, there is a 6 ft height difference between the Village land (PAD) and the Arroyo Lago land surface. At the boundary there is the Village wall followed by a 6 ft retaining wall, on top of which is an 8 ft "Good Neighbor Fence". This would result in a 14 ft wall facing the back of the Village homes. How would this fence be maintained if there is no space between the Arroyo Lago fence and the Village East Wall? Water and debris accumulation between these structures would need to be considered. Is there an alternate design which would remove this issue and leave the same or similar level of land on each side of the wall? The attached two drawings illustrate the issue for the cases of the County Plan and for the Annex plan. 2) What Pleasanton building standards are being excused in this revised plan? 3) Where would the ADUs be located? Hopefully not in the row of houses that face the Village East Wall. That would probably create nuisance levels of activity for the 55+ elderly community on the Village side of the wall. Thank you for your consideration on these and other points that are mentioned here and in other letters. Tom Grudkowski Resident of the Village at Ironwood