SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

' n I PPL U JV L U TALC MATERIAL Provided to the City CoLuuvolU February 29,2016 After ®i�t�ibUtiofl o$ Pac '� 5744 Hanifen Way Data Pleasanton,California 94566 Pleasanton City Council City of Pleasanton Pleasanton,California 94566 Sent via email Re: City Council Meeting on Lund Ranch II, PUD-25 Dear Councilmembers: I write to address the Lund Ranch matter, expected to be taken up on Tuesday by the Pleasanton City Council. As you know,we collected and turned in over 6,000 signatures in support of the referendum against the Lund Ranch project and have now officially qualified for the ballot. You face three important decisions on Tuesday: (i) Whether to rescind the Ordinance. • (ii) If no rescission,whether to take up the referendum on the.June or November ballot. (iii) If no rescission,what language to use on the ballot. Rescind the Ordinance There was a groundswell of support for this referendum. The Pleasanton Weekly and the Independent wrote editorials in support it. A former mayor, former Councilmembers and former Commissioners lined up to support. Two of the three proponents of Measure PP supported the referendum. The influential citizens group Pleasanton Voters supported it. On the ground, in the streets,we saw the same thing. My wife and I were two of the volunteers who collected signatures. I collected at the Farmer's Market and at area grocery stores, and my wife went door to door. We got a great response from Pleasanton voters. There is deep concern here over new development and its impact on our traffic, on our schools, and on our water supply. Against that background,add the specific concerns that arise from this project. First and foremost, there is the road. It violates Measure PP. It will be built across acres of hillside. It will require the movement of hundreds of truckloads of dirt. It will require the construction of hundreds of feet of six-foot high retaining walls. All in our hillsides. All of this just isn't what the voters contemplated when they passed Measure PP,and we firmly believe this message will resonate if this referendum goes to ballot. One of the principal arguments we heard from anti-referendum folks was that this ballot measure will cost Pleasanton money. That choice — whether to spend that money — is now yours to make. Please seriously consider rescinding the ordinance now. I am confident we can make a persuasive case to the voters and as such I think we have a strong chance at the ballot.