SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Law Offices of sQ U�C.��j �1ti� .. Stuart M. Flashman "®r to' ��4 5626 Ocean View Drive ��'P/' ,Q 16`1 '..• Oakland,CA 94618-1533 O�P� � �� US'Of (510)652-5373 (voice&FAX) e-mail: stu @stuflash.com '2° 1O" April 9, 2014 Pleasanton City Council Pleasanton City Hall 200 Old Bernal Ave. Pleasanton, CA 94566 RE: Second Reading and Adoption of Draft Municipal Code Chapter 18.70 Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am writing on behalf of The Ridge & Hillside Protection Association ("RHPA"), an unincorporated association of Pleasanton residents and taxpayers, to renew that group's objections to the City's apparent intent to move forward on adopting an "implementing" ordinance for the Save Pleasanton's Hills & Housing Cap Initiative, approved by Pleasanton's voters as Measure PP in November 2008. This letter follows up on my previous letter to the Council, dated May 6, 2013 and reiterates the objections contained in that letter. Those objections included: a The Ordinance illegally attempts to amend Measure PP without voter approval by: o changing the intended definitions of ridge and ridgeline; o exempting roadways and their associated retailing walls from the measure's prohibitions on placing structures on steep hillsides or on or near ridgelines; a The Ordinance claims to be exempt from CEQA review as a mere implementation measure for a voter-approved initiative, when in fact it will significantly increase environmental impacts beyond those of the initiative itself, including specifically wildlife habitat fragmentation impacts due to new roadways through hillside areas, visual and aesthetic impacts from those roadway, growth-inducing impacts, traffic and traffic safety impacts, utilities and city services impacts, biological impacts, and land use impacts. All of these potentially significant impacts should have been addressed through environmental review, and specifically an EIR, prior to the City's considering adopting the ordinance. Indeed, any ordinance that attempts to materially change any of the provisions of Measure PP must not only be placed on the ballot for voter approval, but must first undergo CEQA review to address its potentially significant environmental impacts. In addition to the previously identified and very problematic aspects of the proposed ordinance, the ordinance as now proposed goes even further in violating state law by adding more illegal provisions. RPHA still wants to work with the City to produce an ordinance that truly seeks to implement measure PP. However, after, failing to respond to RHPA for nearly three months, the City revised its proposed ordinance to reflect alternatives that the City