Laserfiche WebLink
Karen Diaz <br /> Subject: FW: East Side Plan i r':L MATERIAL <br /> ,< tc he City Council <br /> From: Matt Sullivan < Distribution of Packet <br /> Date: June 18, 2013 4:50:48 PM PDT <br /> To: Mayor and City Council <citvcouncil(a(citvofpleasantonca.gote <br /> Cc: Nelson Fialho <NFialho(ci),cityofpllcasantonca.gov>, Jonathan Lowell <br /> <jlowell(d!cityofpleasantonca.go_v>, Brian Dolan <hdolanui;citvofplcasantonca.gp> <br /> Subject: East Side Plan <br /> Dear Mayor and Council, <br /> The Staff Report for Item 23 tonight puts forward development alternatives for the East <br /> Side that expand the Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate urban uses, specifically <br /> a school site, industrial, high density housing, and a relocated transfer station. As I'm <br /> sure you are aware, the General Plan requires a vote of the people to amend the UGB <br /> except for "minor" adjustments. The types of uses proposed for an expanded UGB are <br /> hardly minor. In addition, the GP specifically addresses this area and states that <br /> adjusting the UGB is allowed "on reclaimed land which is currently designated as Sand and <br /> Gravel Harvesting in East Pleasanton when the potential future use is non-urban." <br /> It is very concerning that this Council, who has been in office for barely six months, has <br /> already tried to change two voter-approved initiatives that require a vote of the people <br /> for modification: Measure PP and Measure FF. Based on your bias for development <br /> and business interests over the will of the people you will undoubtedly move forward <br /> with this. But be advised that it will not go unnoticed. You're already in Iiot water over <br /> Measure PP. Do you really want to add FF to the list? <br /> Matt Sullivan <br /> t <br />