SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Sai burr'LtM lMt6AL MRII MDAL Subject FW: EPSP Provided to the City Council After Distribution of Packet From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:mjs7882©gmail.com] Date Y/ ✓ -- € Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 12:40 PM To: Mayor and City Council; Nelson Fialho Dear Mayor, Council, and Nelson, I wanted to send you my thoughts on your options tonight related to the EPSP. While I fully support having the voter's weigh in on this process before you take any action, I believe it is unnecessary. In my 20 years of participating in Pleasanton civic affairs as a citizen activist, City Councilmember, Planning Commissioner, and member of various city committees, I have never seen such an outpouring of public opposition to any plan or project that has come forward. The sheer numbers from the public over a series of community and City Council meetings in opposition to the EPSP is staggering and portends the outcome of any election on this subject. Why waste the taxpayer's money on a special election and force your constituents to spend an enormous amount of time and money on an election campaign when you already know the answer to the question? Do everyone a favor and stop the EPSP and EIR now—at least until (if and when)the drought situation improves and the next RHNA numbers are known. Regarding the characterization in the"Drought Rationale" of the staff report as something that will be "declared over" in the future and allow the EPSP to proceed, have you considered that due to the effects of climate change this may be the new normal? Even if we have one rainy year and Zone 7 declares that the "thought is over" it will not be the end of the problem. As a state we are over-stressing our water resources and our continued heedless development will do nothing but make the problem worse. Delta tunnels that siphon water to agribusiness in the San Joaquin Valley and environmentally destructive, energy intensive, and costly desalination projects are short-term stop-gap measures at best, and just digs the hole deeper. Our General Plan is full of sustainability polices when it comes to water use—now is the time to take this seriously. Based on an improving economy, we may be faced with new requirements for rezoning properties to meet our next RHNA mandates. The East Side should be preserved for this eventuality and not lost so that property owners and developers can maximize their profits now on a single-family home development. Your concern should be the long term planning needs of Pleasanton, not the short term financial benefits to the growth coalition in town that seems to call the shots.In addition, completing the East Side Task Force process to get a recommendation is meaningless. The Task Force is dominated by east side property owners, developers, and pro-development factions. The residents on the task force have been marginalized and their concerns have been dismissed. The process is a farce. Any recommendation will reflect what the pro-development majority wants, and will be tailored for the most palatable outcome for an election. Finally, if you do decide to send the question to the voters now, you need to provide more information for any of the ballot statements now proposed by staff. The proposed language is innocuous and does not reflect the gravity of the decision. Numbers of units and commerciallindustrial square footage—even is expressed as a range—is vitally important to ensure the voters understand the potential impacts of the project. This needs to be reflected in the ballot question itself, and further elaborated in the City Attorney's Impartial Analysis, if your intention is to provide the voters the necessary information to make an informed decision. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Matt Sullivan Pleasanton Resident 1