Letters: Residents weigh in on Lund Ranch

Readers also comment on proposed referendum to overturn City Council's OK

In the wake of the Pleasanton City Council voting 3-1 to endorse a project to add 43 upscale homes to Lund Ranch in the city's southeast hills, Pleasanton residents on both sides of the debate shared their thoughts about the council's decision and a new referendum effort aiming to overturn it.

The following are Letters to the Editor published in the Jan. 15 edition of the Pleasanton Weekly:

Accept Lund Ranch decision for all Pleasantonians

Dear Editor,

Paid signature gatherers are soliciting Pleasanton residents right now in various locations around the city in an effort to gain signatures for an unnecessary referendum regarding a recent decision by City Council.

Sponsors of this signature-gathering petition, while claiming to be protecting Measure PP (saving hillsides), are really trying to keep Lund Ranch II exiting traffic out of their subdivision. Bridle Creek and Sycamore Heights have known about this exit plan since purchasing their homes, yet are taking a "Not in My Backyard" approach to try to overturn the public process and buy their way out of the planned exit route of traffic from the Lund Ranch II development.

Instead the residents of Bridal Creek and Sycamore Heights would rather push all exiting traffic through already traffic-burdened neighborhoods of Ventana Hills and Mission Park, specifically Junipero Street. A large park in Mission Hills already has children at risk today from existing traffic; any further traffic will only further endanger the children that play at this park.

A referendum on this topic will cost Pleasanton residents up to $350,000 and is an unnecessary taxpayer expense when the City Council has already done their job and made a sound decision. Please be aware of all the facts before signing any petitions to have a referendum go to the voters. Our City Council has done their job and their decision should stand.

-- Vicki LaBarge,

Mission Park

PP is threatened

Dear Editor,

After campaign promises were made to follow Measure PP, the council majority ignored their own definition of a ridge and voted to remove a ridgeline protection because it was inconvenient for the Lund Ranch II project.

The council also approved a road and significant grading in an area they had earlier established as "open space." Council ignored the definition of a structure in the city municipal code, instead making up a new definition of a road as "infrastructure." How can such steps give residents confidence of hillside protection in the future?

Although I applaud the Pleasanton Weekly for finally acknowledging PP as a positive step, I wish I could share the Weekly's optimism that our hillsides and ridges are now safe from development. The approving council members stated each hillside project in the future would face different interpretations of PP.

Developers create development plans, EIRs and public hearings without knowing what the PP rules are until the final hearing by the City Council. Pleasanton residents must come argue on every project to have their PP upheld. Haven't we learned anything from the five-year turmoil that was Lund Ranch II?

Because of these actions, a group of citizens across Pleasanton have joined to put the project approval on the ballot so everybody can vote and reaffirm we want our hillsides and ridges protected. Our effort is not to force traffic on a different neighborhood, it is about protecting Pleasanton's natural hillside beauty for all. Please sign so you can decide.

-- Allen Roberts

No referendum needed

Dear Editor,

After over 20 years of planning for a large development of homes, and more recently a thorough review and approval by Pleasanton's planning staff, Planning Commission and City Council, a much smaller plan of only 43 homes has been approved on Lund Ranch II (PUD-25), land zoned for housing in our General Plan. This small development is located in southeast Pleasanton in the valley, well below visible ridgelines for Pleasanton's residents due to Measure PP.

This is a perfect example of long-term planning, Pleasanton ridgeline protection, careful traffic routing and compromise. Only 31 homes, far less than the 125 originally planned, will gain access through Sycamore Heights/Bridle Creek neighborhoods (via Sunset Creek Lane), and because of compromise by Ventana Hills and Mission Park residents, 27 homes that were originally planned to go through Sycamore Heights/Bridle Creek will exit via Ventana Hills/Mission Park neighborhoods (via Lund Ranch Road).

Let's not waste up to $350,000 of our money on a referendum that's not needed. For more information, visit

-- Amy Lofland,

Ventana Hills

Accept Lund Ranch decision for all Pleasantonians

Dear Editor,

The City Council's Jan. 5 approval of a massively scaled down, 43-home project built on flat land in southeastern Pleasanton is fair. Opponents want to reject it via referendum because they object to where some of the roadway access to the project will be -- a 50-yard, inconspicuous extension of a dead-end road to access some of the homes.

The City Council struck a compromise to honor obligations made by previous city administrations to Ventana Hills and Mission Hills residents, and longstanding plans (in writing) for the entire project to be accessed via Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek neighborhoods. Residents of those latter two neighborhoods want all of you to accept their own personal interpretations of Measure PP.

Their referendum is not about honoring Measure PP (saving hillsides), it's about benefiting their own "Not In My Backyard" self-interests by routing all traffic through the former neighborhoods, currently suffering from cut-through traffic, which will increase once a 350-apartment plus retail complex at Stanley and Bernal is completed.

It will cost all Pleasanton taxpayers up to $350,000 to put their referendum on the June ballot. Should all Pleasanton residents be footing that bill to benefit a select group of residents' NIMBY self-interests?

All of us should accept the compromise, which guarantees 177 acres of protected hillsides and ridges and adds to our property tax base. The compromise benefits all Pleasanton residents and is why I'm not signing their referendum. I strongly urge you not to, either.

-- Mark Priscaro,

Ventana Hills

Truth about referendum

Dear Editor,

Residents of Pleasanton are being asked to stop Lund Ranch development by signing a referendum at grocery stores and schools. I'm not signing for the following reasons:

1. A small group of residents are paying $30,000-$50,000 to an outside firm to collect the signatures. They do not have enough Pleasanton residents that are against the project to collect signatures.

2. This group is telling people that Measure PP is being violated when it is not.

3. It is going to cost the Pleasanton taxpayers up to $350,000 to put this on the ballot if they collect the required signatures.

4. The road connection from Lund Ranch to Sunset Creek has been planned since 1991.

Let common sense prevail.

-- Kay Ayala ,

City Council member, 1996-2004

Good gov't deserves praise

Dear Editor,

The Lund II development approved during the Jan. 5 Pleasanton City Council meeting has been a long and complex decision process that impacted multiple neighborhoods, included a prominent builder, required the careful consideration of longstanding agreements and the application of a sensitive and valued city initiative.

The Pleasanton City Council carefully considered each of these important factors and delivered a decision that represents a sound compromise that protects our city and provides 177 acres of open space for all of our citizens to enjoy.

Local government often is accused of getting it wrong; this time the mayor and the Pleasanton City Council got it right. Pleasanton was well served -- no referendum needed.

-- Bill Spain

Pleasanton Weekly staff.

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.


16 people like this
Posted by Am I missing something??
a resident of Heritage Oaks
on Jan 18, 2016 at 10:32 am

Why is one neighborhood and a loud political activist afraid of me voting for or against more houses, more traffic, more students and more water users here in Pleasanton?

I see why the developer wants the deal ($$$), and I see why rich realtors want the deal ($$$), but why are the others trying to block me from voting? The way I understand it, 99% of the originators of Measure PP (hillside protection) just want the public to vote and I TOTALLY support that!

BTW, never use the cost of an election to discourage voters. That is a basic cost of a representative government. Right now I am questioning your intentions to take my rights away with threats of expenses.

Please, get out of the way and let me and others vote on this housing project in the hills.

38 people like this
Posted by You are missing something
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 18, 2016 at 11:43 am

To Am I missing something??:

Yep, you sure are.

First off, this isn't a housing project in the hills. The 43-home project is to be built in a valley.

Two of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Pleasanton, Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek, are pushing this referendum as their last-ditch attempt to achieve their "Not In My Backyard" desire to prevent road access to some of the homes via their neighborhoods.

The City Council struck a compromise regarding roadway access to the vastly scaled-down project, with some of the traffic going through Mission Hills and Ventana Hills neighborhoods, and the rest going through Sycamore Heights and Bridle creek neighborhoods.

There are NO homes being built on hillsides or ridges--none, zero, zip, zilch.

The referendum petition effort is all about NIMBYism, pure and simple.

So, if you're inclined to help two neighborhoods get what they want/satisfy their purely selfish interests under the guise of honoring Measure PP, then so be it.

Get educated on the facts and history of the Lund Ranch II project before drawing inaccurate conclusions about what this referendeum effort is REALLY about, so you don't find yourself being used by others for their own ulterior motives.

41 people like this
Posted by Concerned
a resident of Castlewood Heights
on Jan 18, 2016 at 1:58 pm

@Am I Missing Something?
Here is what you are missing. When Bridle Creek/Sycamore Heights residents purchased their homes, they signed a statement recognizing that additional homes were to be built in the next parcel over, and traffic will run through their neighborhood. They literally signed up for this. They are not concerned about whether or not the homes are built, they are using the petition and referendum as a smoke screen to hide their true intention which is to not have the traffic go through their neighborhood. They are not interested in saving the hills, and they know it. Does the rest of Pleasanton know it as well?

24 people like this
Posted by What is happening here?
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jan 18, 2016 at 2:00 pm

So now that we now people living in Bridle Creek are being deceitful, what can be done about it?

42 people like this
Posted by 46 year resident of Pleasanton
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 18, 2016 at 2:31 pm

To Am I missing something??:

The decision reached by the City Council was the result of hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of planning commission meeting and city council meetings where the citizens of Pleasanton were given opportunities, regardless of their neighborhood, to express their concerns about this project. The developer was also allowed this open-ended opportunity. Anyone who attended these meetings heard comments from neighbors, opponents, lawyers, the developer, city planners, and council members. Many of these meetings lasted well past 11:00pm. City Council members spent hours walking the property and talked to the neighborhoods to assure everyone's concerns were adddressed. Traffic studies were conducted several times to insure morning and evening commute traffic would be routed properly past a park were 100s of children practice and play soccer late afternoon and evenings during the Spring-Summer-Fall season.So after reaching a long, arduous, complex compromise solution some citizens are upset that they didn't get the solution they wanted. Guess what - nobody got everything they wanted. The developer got far less homes to build and the affected neighborhoods will get a little more traffic (but more evenly distributed). But Pleasanton also gets over a hundred acres of open space and hiking trails and NO homes will be built on the ridgeline. That's how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

11 people like this
Posted by Peter
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Jan 18, 2016 at 2:32 pm

Me and most of my friends voted for Measure PP and it is now the law. I drove up there yesterday and this project is in the hills. Yes, it is in a valley but the location IS UP in the hills. One of the roads in and out is over a steep grade and looks to be 25% or more, but I am not expert.

Common folks, you are looking like you think we are a bunch of idiots. We voted for PP, these ARE houses and they ARE in the hills of Pleasanton. Stop trying to block the voters and let us weigh in. Cut through traffic is bad, and I don't like it in our area either.

Give us a chance to vote and we will do what we can to keep this project very small. But let us VOTE. We are not the enemy.

32 people like this
Posted by I Can't Wait!
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 18, 2016 at 3:48 pm

I truly cannot wait until karma bites the people of Sycamore. No matter HOW this pans out, they will HAVE to deal with Calippe traffic being rerouted right through their neighborhood, so Alisal will not have to deal with the large amount of traffic that its roads were never designed to hold. And yes, all residents of Sycamore are aware that an exponential number of cars compared to Lund II will cut rght through them. And yes, Concerned, they signed up for this as well.

36 people like this
Posted by Fact checker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 18, 2016 at 7:03 pm

To Peter:

Sorry. But you are wrong. None of the 43 homes are in the hills. They are all to be built in a VALLEY.

Please educate yourself on the facts instead of drawing inaccurate conclusions.

177 acres of hillsides and ridges are to be given to all Pleasantonians as part of the compromise reached. A compromise that two neighborhoods, Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek, refuse to accept.

32 people like this
Posted by Alexis B
a resident of Mission Park
on Jan 19, 2016 at 12:40 am

I live next to the development and it is definitely NOT in the hills. It's in a valley. Measure PP already ensures that no homes will be built on the hills or ridges. That's why we don't need an expensive referendum!

9 people like this
Posted by PTownVoter
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jan 19, 2016 at 2:53 am

The NIMBYism that goes on around here is blatantly toxic. Let them build the damn houses already. The only adjustment is that a large percentage should be allocated to working people within a lower economic strata than the median Pleasanton home owners.

5 people like this
Posted by Stop lowering the bar
a resident of The Knolls
on Jan 19, 2016 at 4:28 pm


Why should there be any allocation to "working people"? (I assume you mean lower income but want to be misleading about what you truly mean and dissrespectful to people you are highly compensated for thier efforts)

I pay alot of money to live here with no one making it easier for me. We as a society should be rewarded for our hard work and not lower standards for equality sake. There are no participation prizes in life. Aspire to rise to the bar and not have it lowered to you.

10 people like this
Posted by Ayala and Brozosky-Detect Complete Contradictions
a resident of Bonde Ranch
on Jan 21, 2016 at 10:24 am

Steve Brozosky voted with Kay Ayala to increase the number of houses on Lund Ranch 2 from 113 houses to 150 houses in June of 2003, increasing the density where they wanted to **increase** the number of houses apparently to spread houses all over Lund Ranch 2 from ridge to ridge.

I believe Ayala and Brozosky want our southeast hills to look like eastern Dublin.

For this reason, I seriously doubt either of them had anything to do with developing a ridge or hill protection measure. Since Brozosky was a school board member at PUSD during 2006-2008, the school board should have records in its databank of emails if he really had anything to do with it. I also do not remember him collecting signatures to referend Oak Grove or put Measure PP on the ballot. How do I do a public records Freedom of Information act request to obtain Brozosky's PUSD emails?

Once Ayala and Brozosky increased the houses on Lund Ranch 2 to 150 houses:

1 This set off a firestorm of surrounding neighborhoods that demanded a moratorium on any approvals in the southeast hills because otraffic and grading steeply sloped hillsides threatened public safety. The planning commission-Sullivan, Arkin, Fox-agreed. The interim moratorium request was initiated by Phillip Blank.

2. Ayala as the Pleasanton Weekly reported in 2004 Web Link then at the city council level, led the charge to **reject** the interim moratorium so that the 98 megamansions on Oak Grove and the 150 megamansions and affordable housing units she wanted on Lund Ranch 2 could proceed without any chance of there being any ridgeline and hillside protections developed for the southeast hills.

3. Ayala said grading on hillsides was not a public safety threat in the city council meeting.

4. Ayala said traffic was no problem in the city council meeting and there was no danger to public safety.

In 2008 she is handing out literature talking about massive grading of hillsides and a mile long road spanning the top of many of our Southeast Hills along with literature to elect Brozosky for mayor. And now she wants a ridgetop road conceived in 1991, two years before any ridge protections were put in place by Pleasanton voters?

What is the process to do a Freedom of Information request to obtain Brozosky's PUSD emails?

17 people like this
Posted by Joey
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2016 at 9:18 am

You folks need to understand that this property will be built. This is not an issue of being able to stop it via PP/QQ. The land is zoned for the buildout, and the city has an obligation to recognize the property owner's right to develop achieve value as a result. If you don't want Pleasanton to grow then change the zoning process and the general plan. Once the zoning is in place, then the planning group and the city council can only moderate within certain limits if the development follows the specific use plan. This does. So then you need to look at if this is the best compromise between the developments of Mission hills, and Sycamore/surrounding areas, once again it is. Both sides took the same amount of traffic, it was just graduated at differing times, but it is the same. There has been signage for 20+ years showing the traffic plan to Sycamore so it is not a surprise. Move on and get'r done.

6 people like this
Posted by Another Pleasanton resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2016 at 10:46 am Supports the Referendum Effort

Web Link

14 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 22, 2016 at 12:28 pm

More misinformation and fear mongering.

" is a non-partisan group of Pleasanton residents with the goal of educating Pleasanton voters about new and massive development projects that may negatively affect our City. We have defined goals of preserving ridgelines and open space, protecting our voter approved Urban Growth Boundary, and retaining the best qualities of our City for future generations."

"Non-partisan?" Hardly. You're supporting the self-interests of two of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Pleasanton, Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek.

"Massive development project?" That's not Lund Ranch II, which is what the referendum petition is trying to stop. 43 homes to be built in a valley, with none to be built on hillsides or ridgelines--none.

Finally, re: "We have defined goals of preserving ridgelines and open space, protecting our voter approved Urban Growth Boundary, and retaining the best qualities of our City for future generations."

The compromise decision the Mayor and City Council approved includes the setting aside, in perpetuity, 177 acres of protected (preserved) hillsides and ridges (open space) for future generations.

Get the facts, please. Another waste of time and effort

The referendum, if the petition effort succeeds, will NOT stop this development. In addition to costing City taxpayers at least $247,000, it could also expose the City to a 'takings' lawsuit, which could cost City taxpayers millions of dollars.

Get the facts/research what's been discussed and debated for over 20 years, instead of drawing conclusions based on misleading ads and efforts by two neighborhoods who are simply refusing to compromise because of their NIMBYism.

Thank you.

2 people like this
Posted by Resident of Sycamore Hts
a resident of Sycamore Heights
on Jan 26, 2016 at 12:32 am

Savepleasantonhillsides and referendum supporters have garnered the endorsement of, a "...nonpartisan grass-roots organization of Pleasanton residents interested in educating Pleasanton voters. We offer information from a resident’s point of view, without any bias from building developers, land speculators and special interest groups."

Take a moment to look at their website to see what they have to say in support of the referendum effort. I've placed a small excerpt below.

"The current signature gathering to put the proposed Lund Ranch II project to a vote of the residents of Pleasanton is just that---the opportunity for you, as a Pleasanton resident, to weigh in on a project that will have a long range impact on the future of our city. We have studied the project and made a site inspection and determined that it does violate the integrity of Measure PP (Pleasanton's hillside protection ordinance) and sets a precedent. Passage of a referendum would allow more discussion to take place, which could result in a smaller development that is in compliance with Measure PP."

**To those who persist in calling out Sycamore Hts. and Bridle Creek neighbors as wealthy residents attacking their less fortunate neighbors, current listings in Ventana Hills, Mission Hills, et al (those affected by Lund Ranck II as well) average above $1M, most near Lund Ranch road are over $1.4M. Stop playing the class card. It's patently hypocritical and untrue.

6 people like this
Posted by justwondering
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2016 at 7:14 am

So this group is a small self-appointed group of residents with closed meetings to make their decision. Think about it--have you seen any announcement to join & be part of the decision making? Are their meetings open to any resident? Have you even seen an announcement of their meeting? How can they be nonpartisian when Councilwoman Karla Brown is one of the few members that decides what position they take? If their goal is to truly educate the Pleasanton voter wouldn't they provide the web site for the side opposing the referendum which is a citizen's group? How about letting the voters/taxpayers know that putting the referendum on the ballot will cost the City/taxpayer well over $200,000. What is their real objective?

My only point here is to ask some questions around this group unless of course you live in Sycamore Heights.

1 person likes this
Posted by Map
a resident of Del Prado
on Jan 26, 2016 at 8:50 am

Still forgetting the most important part- that new road and retaining walls on that slope violate measure PP!! If that "structure" gets built, then hold on to your wallet, developers will be lining up to build on all the hillsides and it will cost us citizens a lot more than what a referendum would cost us now

5 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2016 at 9:48 am

More 'perception deception' by the referendum petition supporters. The group, "", unfortunately, is woefully ignorant of the facts and history regarding Lund Ranch II.

Here ARE the facts, and you can learn more at

1. The latest full-page ad in the 1/22/15 edition of the Pleasanton Weekly on p. 9 is a complete and total misrepresentation of the Lund Ranch II project, designed to instigate fear in order to compel voters to sign the group, "SavePleasantonHillsides'" referendum petition. The Mayor and City Council, on 1/5/16, approved a project of 43 homes, of which, ALL of them will be built on FLAT land, in a VALLEY, with NO homes to be built on ANY hillside or ridgeline whatsoever.

2. Residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek, along with Allen Roberts of Gray Eagle, a gated community at the top of Crellin Road, and Councilmember Karla Brown, a resident of Kottinger Ranch, a subdivision of some of the most expensive homes in Pleasanton, of which many could never have been built under Measure PP because they sit on hillsides and ridgelines (involving thousands of truckloads of dirt removal to create the pads for those homes on those hillsides and ridgelines), object to a road being extended from Sycamore Creek Way to access 31 of the 43 homes to be built. They are using the argument that a road is a structure, and that that is part of Measure PP, to thereby leverage Measure PP to force the rescinding of the project's approval.

3. The SavePleasantonHillsides group claims to be a 'grassroots' effort to protect Pleasanton's hillsides and ridgelines/safeguard Measure PP. The definition of 'grassroots,' as found on Wikipedia:

"A grassroots movement (often referenced in the context of a political movement) as defined by Webster's Third International Dictionary, is one which uses the people in a given district as the basis for a political or economic movement. Grassroots movements and organizations utilize collective action from the local level to effect change at the local, regional, national, or international level."

SavePleasantonHillsides is using PAID signature gatherers who are NOT residents of Pleasanton (i.e., are NOT local), at a cost of approximately $30,000 to $50,000, bankrolled by an unknown number of wealthy individuals in order to acquire enough signatures to put their referendum on the ballot.

4. Residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek are on record several times requesting that ALL traffic to the Lund Ranch II project be accessed through Lund Ranch Road, which currently is a dead end road located in Ventana Hills.

5. Residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek signed documents when purchasing their homes that clearly stated Sycamore Creek Way would be extended into the future Lund Ranch II housing development.

6. The Mayor and City Council approved a compromise re: traffic access into/out of Lund Ranch II, whereby 12 of the 43 homes will be accessed via Lund Ranch Road, and the remaining 31 will be accessed via Sycamore Creek Way (via Sunset Creek Lane). Part of that approval requires the building of a very short road (the City can confirm the exact length) that will not be visible to the public.

7. Greenbriar Homes, the developer, agreed to building just 43 homes. The original plans for Lund Ranch II, part of the City's General Plan for over three decades, calls for approximately four times as many homes. Greenbriar is giving the City 174 acres of the property as permanent open space, which amounts to the remaining amount of the property (89.5% according to Greenbriar) which they can NOT build on, due to Measure PP (i.e., hillsides and ridgelines).

8. The Mayor's and City Council's decision was a compromise decision to strike a balance between honoring previous, long-standing obligations previous City administrations had made to the residents of Ventana Hills and Mission Hills, in addition to following through on similarly long-standing plans to provide road access to Lund Ranch II via Sycamore Creek Way (extending it by building Sunset Creek Lane). The Mayor and City Council, in reaching their decision, also took into account PUD-87, which is the major apartment (approx. 350 apartments) and retail complex being built on the southeast corner of Bernal and Stanley. Much of the traffic resulting from that project will be traveling on Bernal, with a strong likelihood of much of it adding to the existing cut-through traffic that flows through Ventana Hills and Mission Hills via Independence to Junipero to Sunol Blvd.

9. Re: SavePleasantonHillsides claim that the Mayor and City Councilmembers previously voted/determined/finalized that "roads are structures," that is NOT true, as what's known as a 'second reading', or vote on that matter NEVER has taken place. Thus, it has never officially been determined, regardless of what others may claim.

10. The SavePleasantonHillsides group claims that the Mayor and City Council's approval of the Lund Ranch II project sets a precedent for future projects. That is also NOT true. According to former City Attorney (now retired), Jonathan Lowell, he clearly stated during City Council meetings held in late 2015 that that was NOT the case, and that the Mayor and City Council could make determinations on whether projects adhere to Measure PP on a case by case basis.

11. The developer, Greenbriar, can reject any future decision to further reduce the number of homes in the Lund Ranch II project, and could choose to file a 'takings' lawsuit against the City, rather than resubmit a new project proposal. That could expose the City to tens of millions of dollars in liability. The former City Attorney stated anything below 30 homes, in his opinion, would put the City at risk of losing in court. Regardless of whether or not Greenbriar accepts a 30 home project, which would require the cancellation of the current project, and Greenbriar submitting an entirely new project proposal, it does NOT eliminate the fact that the residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek are on record for NOT wanting to accept ANY traffic for Lund Ranch II through their neighborhoods (insisting that all traffic go through Ventana Hills and Mission Hills via Lund Ranch Road), and are now using the argument that it violates Measure PP to succeed in doing so because they refuse to accept the Mayor's and City Council's majority compromise decision. Greenbriar, if the referendum qualifies and is approved, will need to decide which makes more sense/would be more profitable to them--building a 30 home project, or a 10 home project, which under Measure PP, allows them to build all 10 homes atop of hillsides and ridgelines within the project site, but with no guarantee that any reduced project will be approved, or filing a 'takings' lawsuit against the City to recoup lost potential profits from the rejection of the previously approved project, PUD-25.

12. The referendum petition, if successful, will result in costing taxpayers at least $247,000 to put on the local ballot, based on the cost per person Alameda County charges for doing so, times the minimum number of valid signatures required to qualify the referendum to be put on the ballot.

Think about what paid signature gatherers (the vast majority) are telling you in order to get you to sign on the dotted line, in addition to the few who aren't being paid.

Then you need to think and decide, is this referendum petition really about protecting Measure PP and "Saving Pleasanton Hillsides", OR, is it really about protecting the self-interests of two of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Pleasanton, who selfishly insist on a "Not In My Backyard", or NIMBY attitude under the guise of protecting Measure PP/Pleasanton's hillsides and ridges, and are bankrolling/paying out-of-towners several dollars per signature to absolutely ensure that they get enough local residents to sign their petition to ensure a referendum gets on the June ballot so they can continue to pursue those NIMBY self-interests.

Ultimately, you need to decide--have the City continue to spend considerable, further time, money, effort and resources for who knows how long (think years) on further debating and planning, yet again, the Lund Ranch II project, or decide that the COMPROMISE decision, where no one gets everything they wanted--not Ventana Hills and Mission Hills residents, not Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents, nor Greenbriar Homes--makes the most sense for ending this matter once and for all, moving on, and also preventing the City from any potential exposure to a takings lawsuit that could cost all of us tens of millions of dollars.

Like this comment
Posted by Fradycove
a resident of Mohr Elementary School
on Feb 11, 2016 at 3:50 am

Hmmm, COMPROMISE decision of City of Pleasanton in building only 43 homes in wealthy area of Pleasanton but high density homes, dealerships, Walmarts, Pacific Pearl, retirement home, dollar store for the rest of Pleasanton in northeast. Great job by City Council!

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Don't be the last to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Premarital and Existing Couples: Marriage Rules: Yours, Mine, or Ours?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 631 views

Three Alameda County Supervisors vote thumbs down on public safety
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 595 views

Council halts plans for 90-home senior housing on Merritt property
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 245 views