SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618 -1533 (510) 652 -5373 (voice & FAX) e -mail: stu @stuflash.com SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Provided to the City Council After Distribution of Packet Date December 1, 2015 Pleasanton City Council Pleasanton City Hall 200 Old Bernal Ave. Pleasanton, CA 94566 RE: Council Consideration of "Lund Ranch II" Project (PUD -25) Dear Mayor and Council Members, This follow -up letter to my letter of November 17, 2015 is written on behalf of The Ridge & Hillside Protection Association ( "RHPA "), an unincorporated association of Pleasanton residents and taxpayers, and the Sycamore Heights Neighborhood Association, to further comment on the proposed project approval for the above - referenced project. The City and developer have hurriedly redesigned the Sunset Creek Lane extension in an effort to garner enough support to gain approval of the project. City staff apparently feels that if they can reduce the traffic going through the Sunset Creek Lane extension, it will miraculously make it consistent with Measure PP. Staff continues to assert that the Council can find that a roadway is not a structure. Even if this were true (which it is not), that would not address the retaining walls needed to construct the road due to its traversing slopes of over 25 %. Walls cannot be considered anything but a structure, and the height of the wall doesn't allow the City to make it disappear under Measure PP. Quite simply, staffs leger de main cannot avoid the plain language of the ballot measure, which says structures are not allowed on slopes of over 25 %. Measure PP also needs to be read in the context of prior City laws, and specifically Ordinance 763, which the City adopted in 1975. (Copy submitted herewith.) That ordinance states that among its purposes is, "To preserve significant features of a hill area in essentially their natural state as part of a comprehensive open space system;" It further requires that the City find that, "Streets, buildings, and other man- made structures have been designed and located in such a manner as to complement the natural terrain and natural landscape." (Ordinance 763 at p.7 [emphasis added].) Thus, the City had already determined its intent to leave hill areas in their natural state, and that streets were structures. The voters are presumed to be aware of their own city's laws. The voters who approved Measure PP not only had the common sense understanding that streets and retaining walls are structures; they also had the language of Ordinance 763. In addition to these problems, the developer's almost literally last- minute change to the proposed location of the Sunset Creek Lane extension has not undergone any kind of environmental review. City staff proposes to have the Council approve a resolution certifying the EIR for this project, but the EIR is not for the project being approved. At the very least the changed roadway, which may be shorter but by the same token also appears to be steeper at its steepest points, needs to be evaluated for issues including 1) whether it will significantly increase the speed of stormwater draining from the road, resulting in an increased risk of erosion in the creek it will feed into, 2) whether the soil stability will adequately support the steeper slope without a risk of