Laserfiche WebLink
-2— <br /> That said, no one would dispute that this has been a divisive issue. That is going to get worse, not <br /> better,when this matter goes to the ballot. So let's put our differences aside and focus over the next <br /> year on arriving at a compromise. We offered a compromise in writing to the Ventana Hills <br /> Steering Committee in the run up to the Council vote. While we weren't able to reach agreement <br /> with them then, we will commit to continue to work with them, to work with the City, and to work <br /> with Green Briar in good faith to arrive at a development that honors Measure PP, that addresses <br /> the Ventana traffic concerns, and that provides the developer with use of their land. <br /> So, I encourage you. Let's all put down our swords,rescind the ordinance now and let's come to the <br /> table together to try to find some common ground. <br /> If No Rescission,The November Ballot Is The Low Cost Option <br /> If you do vote to go forward with the referendum, the next choice is fairly easy. The City Manager <br /> has now estimated the financial impact of the referendum. As the Manager reports,inclusion on the <br /> November ballot is already budgeted and will cost the City only a small amount of additional <br /> printing costs. The June ballot on the other hand will pose both those printing costs plus an <br /> additional$164,900 to $247,000. <br /> There is no reason why the City should spend as much as $247,000 simply to accelerate the <br /> referendum from the November to the June ballot. Instead, our proposal is that the City dedicate <br /> any money saved by November ballot placement (or, better, rescission) to traffic remediation <br /> measures. <br /> If No Rescission, The Ballot Language Should Make Clear The Referendum Concerns A <br /> Housing Development In The Southeast_Hills <br /> The most frequent, basic questions we got when gathering were signatures were 'What is this <br /> development?" and "Where is it?". The referendum language should answer those questions. Lund <br /> Ranch is a housing development. And it is located in the southeast Pleasanton hills. These are both <br /> neutral, incontrovertible facts that should be included in the referendum text. The Council should <br /> therefore adopt the following: <br /> Shall the Development Plan for the Lund Ranch II housing project, <br /> located in the southeast hills, be approved? <br /> Thank you for your attention to these important issues. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Defdy•d �. <br /> David Melaug Olivia Melaugh <br />