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 November 17, 2015 Pleasanton City Council Pleasanton City Hall 200 Old Bemal Ave. Pleasanton, CA 94566 RE: Council Consideration of "Lund Ranch 11" Project (PUD -25) 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 object to the proposed project approval for the above - referenced project. In particular, I must object to the violation of Measure PP by the proposed Lund Ranch Road extension to Sunset Creek Lane over an area of steep slopes, in violation of Measure PP's prohibition on placing any structure on such slopes. I had written to the Council in May of 2013 to oppose staffs proposal to enact an "implementing" ordinance for Measure PP that would have explicitly excluded roadways as structures. I include below the portion of that letter which explained why such an exclusion would violate the voters' intent in enacting Measure PP, and would therefore be illegal without explicit prior voter approval. Those sections of my 2013 letter remain equally applicable today. I would also ask that the full City files pertaining to the City's proposed Measure PP Implementing Ordinance, including specifically all of my letters to the City commenting on the proposed ordinance, be incorporated into the record for this project's approval by this reference. Staffs proposal to redefine structures to exclude streets and roadways is flawed. The purpose of the initiative was to protect the ridgelines and hillsides from impacts associated with uncontrolled development. In particular, the measure prohibits housing units or structures from being placed on slopes of 25% or greater. In addition, it prohibits grading for residential or commercial structures on hillside slopes of 25% or greater. While the grading prohibition was limited to residential or commercial structures, the prohibition on structures themselves was more general. Further, there can be no question that roadways placed across hillside areas can do significant environmental damage. A chief purpose of Measure PP was to prevent such damage. Exempting streets and roadways from its provisions would run counter to the intent of the measure. Secondly, at the time Measure PP was put on the ballot, the Municipal Code already included a definition of structures. That definition included as structures "Anything constructed or erected which requires a location on the ground, including a building or swimming pool, but not including a fence or wall used as a fence if the height does not exceed six feet, or access drives or walks." Significantly, while the definition specifically excludes access drives or walks, it does not exclude streets or roadways, and streets and roadways (as opposed, for example, to infrastructure such as water, sewer, and gas lines or electrical conduits that are placed under the ground [hence infrastructure]) require a location on the ground. Further, access drives are not equivalent to streets or roadways. An access drive is generally considered a private