SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Subject: FW: Lund Ranch II From: Carolyn English Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 9:25 PM To: Mayor and City Council Subject: Lund Ranch II Re: Lund Ranch II Dear Mayor and City Council, SUPPLE ENT AL MATERIAL Provided to the City Council After Distribution of Packet /"/.-14r/ ate r I can sympathize the difficult decision you need to make. It is clear that you don't want to anger citizens, who understandably don't want additional traffic in thier neighborhoods Trying not to upset constituents in those specific neighborhoods may be a nice thing to do and it may feel good, but its not your job! People voted for you because they believed they could trust you to follow the current General Plan, abide by Municipal Codes, carry out the voters mandate (preserve hillsides and ridgelines) and do what is best for the majority of current and future residents. Trying to find loopholes, or interpreting things the way you want to, sets a very dangerous precedent, For example: Three of you have voted that a road is a structure in the Municipal Code. If the City documents can vary on a case by case basis, they become weakened and people (and developers) will not respect what is in them. It sends a very clear message to developers and others that if they can get a few Council members on their side, exceptions can be made and they don't need to abide by Pleasanton's General Plan and Municipal Codes. Future Council members may have very different values and priorities than those on this Council; if you set a precedent that supports future Councils making their own interpretations of the General Plan and Municipal Codes, it will cause confusion and mistrust of our City's leaders and there will be no faith in the content of our City's documents. Is that really the legacy you want? Please honor the trust the majority of Pleasanton voters put in your hands and follow what was voted into the General Plan and Municipal Codes. The reason the people of Pleasanton voted for PP was to protect our hillsides and ridgelines from being destroyed, (and to put a 29,000 unit housing cap in place which was overturned by the courts.) The location for the proposed retaining walls and concrete culvert (both are definitely structures), are within 100 ft. of a ridgeline and clearly violates PP. (And I believe the applicant stated that it was not feasible to build a road without a wall.) Whether someone builds a house, or builds a road, the grading and construction of either will destroy land and ruin habitat areas. If you think cutting out at least 800+ truckloads of earth from a hillside would be OK with all those who voted for PP, then put that "exception" on the ballot to let those voters decide. There has been so much written and said on this issue... it's exhausting! Pleae take a step back and look at the big picture...I think you'll see that there is at least one alternative that honors the General Plan and Municipal Code and does not violate any of PP!! hope that you will put your personal opinions and desires aside, so that the citizens of Pleasanton can be proud of the trust we put in you. Sincerely, A long time Pleasanton resident Click here to report this email as spam. 1