News


Lund Ranch backers sizzle at GOP message to vote 'No'

County Republican Party urges a vote against Measure K

David Erlich, the new chairman of the Alameda County Republican Party, is facing strong criticism from fellow party members for an email he sent urging them to vote No on Measure K, a June 7 referendum on a Lund Ranch housing development planned in Pleasanton.

The measure was placed on the ballot by members of the Pleasanton City Council after opponents of the 43-home project obtained the needed signatures to force a public referendum.

Three of the five council members, including Mayor Jerry Thorne, who is active in Republican circles, approved the Lund Ranch project in January. Another councilman, Jerry Pentin, declined to vote because his home is close to the planned development. A fifth, Karla Brown, voted against the project.

Although Measure K is a nonpartisan referendum, a large number of Republican activists have supported the Lund Ranch project and sport "Yes on Measure K" signs in front of their homes and businesses. A "Yes" vote would enable Greenbriar Homes Communities, the developer, to build the homes with access roads to 13 homes on one side and 30 homes on the other.

A "No on Measure K" vote would block the project for at least a year before another development could be proposed.

In his email and the party's election flier, Erlich wrote:

"The Alameda county Republican Party and specifically the members in the 16th district urge voters in the city of Pleasanton to strongly oppose measure K.

"The Lund Ranch housing project is the first hillside development approved by the City Council since Measure PP (our hillside protection ordinance). It was overwhelmingly passed by the voters in 2008. Measure PP's stated purpose is "protect our city from uncontrolled growth and the impact it has on ridgelines and hillsides, traffic, schools, water supply, and our overall quality of life."

Republicans active in the county Republican organization said Erlich, who was elected chairman last January, lacked authority to send the "No on Measure K" messages.

"The Republican Central committee for the 16th district should call a special, emergency meeting and remove this rogue chairman for gross disregard of the standing rules," said Jan Batcheller, a Pleasanton business owner who also is seeking election to the Alameda County's Republican Central Committee in the 16th State Assembly District.

Frank Capilla, owner of Can-AM Plumbing in Pleasanton, agreed. In an email to Erlich, Capilla asked:

"What is the matter with you? I'm voting yes on measure K. Why don't you talk to some (real) Republicans in Pleasanton before you make such a recommendation. It's no wonder the voters are so upset with the Alameda County Republican Party."

Councilman Pentin added: "I absolutely agree, Frank. I questioned this yesterday. Four Republican Pleasanton Council members out of five support Yes on Measure K. Apparently that's bad math for the Alameda County Republican Party. Just another example of bad leadership."

Pleasanton Councilwoman and Vice Mayor Kathy Narum said she is "thoroughly disgusted" with the email from the Republican chairman, especially considering it wasn't voted on at the central committee meeting.

"Now we need to do damage control," she added. "If you've looked at the opposition Facebook page ("Save Pleasanton Hillsides), they've got a video up commenting that it (the Lund Ranch development) must be bad if both the Republican party and the Sierra Club are against Measure K."

"Erlich's message sounds very messy and poorly thought out to me," added businessman Brad Hirst.

Before becoming chairman of the Alameda County Republican party, Erlich ran as a Republican candidate for the 18th State Assembly District against Rob Bonta, a Democrat, who won.

Erlich, an electrician and enthusiastic Donald Trump supporter, said working on the 2016 primary and General Election campaigns, including referendums in the county, "is exciting."

"We can probably make it cool to be Republican again," he added.

Comments

14 people like this
Posted by I'm voting No on K
a resident of Del Prado
on May 11, 2016 at 8:30 am

I'm a Democrat and of course as an environmentalist that is against the destruction of our beautiful ridgelines and hillsides, I will be voting No on K. I also voted No on Oak Grove (Measure D) in 2010 and No on K in 1992 when the City of Pleasanton put a ballot measure to build over 2,600 houses on Pleasanton Ridge plus yet another road up Pleasanton Ridge along with Santos Ranch Road.

Glad to see that the Republicans also are taking an environmentalist stance as well and are against the Lund Ranch 2 project. Bravo!


53 people like this
Posted by Senior Citizen
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on May 11, 2016 at 9:26 am

"Erlich, an electrician and enthusiastic Donald Trump supporter, said working on the 2016 primary and General Election campaigns, including referendums in the county, "is exciting." "We can probably make it cool to be Republican again," he added."

Well Mr Erlich count this long-time Republican as now an Independent - it's just not cool anymore. Think of what Donald Trump might have done if he owned the Lund property. He would probably have wanted all 150 original houses, would have built 10,000 sq ft mansions on the ridgeline, and would have sued the City of Pleasanton if he didn't get his way.

The Vote Yes on K folks got it right. Resonable compromise that benefits all of Pleasanton.


47 people like this
Posted by Fact Checker
a resident of Downtown
on May 11, 2016 at 9:32 am

I am a Democrat and am for public open space. This project reduces development and preserves 90% of the land for pubic open space. And money for schools? I am voting Yes on K. I can't wait to hike on that side of town with my family. What a great view of the ridge that property must have.


40 people like this
Posted by local republican
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 9:46 am

The Republican party has NO business being involved in local politics especially if they did NOT follow their rules in deciding whether or not to take a position on something on the ballot. No wonder the Republican party is dying a slow death! Time to become an independent!


44 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 10:05 am

To Alameda County Republican Party chairman Dave Erlich:

It's unfortunate that you are so completely ignorant of the facts, and obviously haven't even bothered to examine them, nor any of the history re: the Lund Ranch II project.

Re: "The Lund Ranch housing project is the first hillside development approved by the City Council since Measure PP (our hillside protection ordinance)."

Wrong.

Here are some FACTS (aka 'the TRUTH'):

It's NOT a "hillside development." All 43 homes are to be built in the VALLEY portion of the project area, on FLAT land.

In regards to Measure PP's stated purpose to "protect our city from uncontrolled growth and the impact it has on ridgelines and hillsides, traffic, schools, water supply, and our overall quality of life."

Re: the approved Lund Ranch II project, Measure PP WORKED. A project that's been on the books for over 20 YEARS that allowed for up to 150 homes has been REDUCED to only 43, with NONE of them being built on hillsides or ridges. That's a FACT: NONE--ZERO, zip, zilch.

If you want to "protect our city from uncontrolled growth" and "the impact it has" on "our overall quality of life," why don't contact Governor Jerry Brown and challenge him and the State of California when it comes to shoving massive, 'stack 'n pack' housing projects down our throats? Massive projects that are being built all over Pleasanton, or were you not aware of those facts, either, Mr. Erlich?

That, Mr. Erlich, would be a far better use of your time, rather than making pronouncements based on ignorance of the FACTS.

Get INFORMED, get the FACTS (aka the TRUTH).

Vote Yes on Measure K.


33 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 10:13 am

Memo to Mr. Erlich:

If you care to examine the FACTS, here's where you can find them, including FACTUAL information debunking the many myths, misinformation and falsehoods the No on Measure K supporters are promoting:

Web Link


8 people like this
Posted by Burn
a resident of Bordeaux Estates
on May 11, 2016 at 10:46 am

I love that the GOP (Grouchy Old People) continues to selfdistruct.


25 people like this
Posted by Long-Time Pleasanton Resident
a resident of Danbury Park
on May 11, 2016 at 10:53 am

I am voting Yes on K. The Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce has endorsed, along with the Alameda County Democratic Party. If they both agree, then I am definitely a supporter. See for yourself how many community leaders and long-time residents, like me, are voting yes on Measure K. yesonk2016.com


15 people like this
Posted by Registered Joe
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 11:08 am

I can't see any compelling reason why building these homes benefits anybody in Pleasanton, other than the developers and the City Council members that support. The proposed land that would be provided to the city is too steep to be built upon anyway, and will remain open regardless of the outcome of Measure K. Additional tax revenue is a red herring because it won't be used to fill any gaps in current spending; we all know how governments function; it will be used instead for new programs, buildings, etc. that will only need maintenance in the future and will add to the existing revenue burden. Traffic will increase; infrastructure will need to be provided and maintained; green space will be replaced with concrete whether we can see it from downtown or not.

I'm really disappointed at the Council for not taking a stand against this, even if it's only an opinion in light of current law. Bigger is not better. From what I can tell, they're mesmerized by the prospect of new, free revenue. City leaders need to learn to live within the existing budget, instead of looking to empire-build with new revenue. Election time is not too far away!


35 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 11:30 am

@Registered Joe, et al:

If you're interested in taking the time to get the FACTS (aka the TRUTH), in order to uphold JUSTICE, a hallmark of preserving THE AMERICAN WAY, instead of relying on short soundbites and false advertising, then read on:

Myth: "These homes will be located in the hillsides behind the Ventana Hills and Sycamore Heights neighborhoods, in southeast Pleasanton. Lund Ranch is the first hillside housing project to be considered after the passage of Measure PP."
FACT: None of the homes in the approved project are located in or on any hillsides. All 43 homes are to be built in the valley on the flatest portion of the property. With a yes vote, 89.5% of the property will be permanent, PUBLIC open space, for ALL Pleasantonians to enjoy.

Myth: "Measure PP prohibits roads on slopes over 25% or within 100' of a ridge line."
FACT: The text of Measure PP does not prohibit roads. Further, at a City Council meeting in June 26, 2008 in advance of Measure PP appearing on a ballot, there was a question posed to proponent Karla Brown from then Councilmember Matt Sullivan about whether Measure PP prohibited roads.

"Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with Ms. Brown that the intent of the Initiative is to control construction of residential and commercial structures and not roads that may be on 25% slope."

Full minutes can be found at Web Link

The extension of Sunset Creek Lane goes downhill into the valley portion of the project site, not on top of a ridgeline, and will not be visible outside of the project area.

Myth: "Lund Ranch will build houses on steep slopes."
FACT: Measure PP prohibits homes on slopes of greater than 25%. There are no homes to be built on slopes greater than 25%.

Myth: "It will set a precedent for future developments."
FACT: Former City Attorney Jonathan Lowell publicly stated at a City Council meeting in December 2015 that decisions on Lund Ranch project neither set, nor legally hold/bind the City Council to setting or adhering to any precedent(s) for future development.

Myth: "A No vote will prevent the Lund Ranch housing development from going forward and as a result the land would remain undeveloped."
FACT: The land is privately owned by Greenbriar Homes, and has been part of the City's residential plans for over 20 years. A no vote rejects the currently adopted plan and the developer can resubmit another project for development.

Myth: "Measure K is the developer's plan."
FACT: The developer submitted a project with 50 homes. The Council-approved plan only has 43 homes.

Myth: "Measure K, aka the Lund Ranch II development, will allow the construction of 40+ homes that violate the hillside protection ordinance, Measure PP, passed overwhelmingly by Pleasanton voters in 2008."
FACT: No homes violate the hillside protection ordinance. All 43 homes are in the flat portion of the property.

Myth: "A no vote on Measure K tells the Council and the developers to stay off of our hills."
FACT: The hills in question are private property owned by Greenbriar Homes. All a no vote does is tell YOU, the public, to stay off the hills. A no vote would prevent the City from gaining 174 acres of permanent open space and 2 miles of new trails that will be open to the public.

Myth: "This development access road also requires 6' retaining walls and culverts, also within 100' of a ridge."
FACT: There are no retaining walls required to build the Sunset Creek Lane extension, the road that will provide access to 31 of the homes in the approved project There is a culvert which is at the bottom of the creek, clearly not on a ridge.

Here is the full text of the City Council ordinance that approved the project on 1/5/16 (i.e., more FACTS): Web Link

FACT: One of the major supporters of the No on Measure K effort, Allen Roberts, is a developer, who lives atop a hillside in a gated community at the end of Crellin Road, Grey Eagle Estates.

FACT: Another one of the major supporters of the No on Measure K effort, Councilmember Karla Brown, also lives atop a hillside on Benedict Court in Kottinger Ranch, a luxury subdivision of multi-million dollar homes that includes hillsides and ravines that are accessible only to residents--those that don't already have massive , multi-million dollar homes already built upon them.

FACT: Another one of the major supporters of the No on Measure K effort, Bill Lincoln, lives at the current end of Sycamore Creek Way in Sycamore Heights, another luxury subdivison of multi-million dollar homes that are built upon a hillside. Sunset Creek Lane would be extended from that current end into the approved Lund Ranch II project area (the valley/flat portion).

FACT: Every single homeowner in Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek signed documents included in their titles/deeds indicating they were aware of and acknowledged that Sycamore Creek Way would be extended into the Lund Ranch II housing project at a future/TBD time.

FACT: The supporters of No on Measure K, aka the referendum, paid a company, whom they refuse, to this day, to identify, to help them collect enough signatures for the petition to qualify the referendum for the ballot. Councilmember Kathy Narum publicly stated/confirmed at the 3/1/16 City Council meeting that she was lied to by these paid signature gatherers when they attempted to get her to sign the referendum petition by making false statements to her, which is against the law/California state election code.

FACT: The residents of Mission Hills and Ventana Hills accepted a compromise decision made by the Mayor and City Council on 1/5/16, accepting traffic from 12 of the homes in the approved Lund Ranch II project; the residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek, all of whom live in homes considerably larger and more expensive than those in Mission Hills and Ventana Hills, have refused to accept the compromise because they refuse to accept ANY traffic access to the approved Lund Ranch II project through their neighborhoods.

FACT: The massive, 'stack 'n pack' 345 apartments + retail complex being built at Bernal Avenue and Stanley Boulevard (aka PUD-87), which was approved by Councilmember Karla Brown, will funnel additional cut-through traffic through Ventana Hills and Mission Hills neighborhoods. Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents will not be subject to any cut-through traffic from this project, yet they refuse to accept an extension of a dead end road, Sycamore Creek Way, to access 31 homes in the approved Lund Ranch II project, even though the road will REMAIN a dead end road after it's extended.

FACT: No on Measure K supporters are paying substantial amounts of money for their own ads, and campaign and yard signs--in their case, erroneously showing homes built on hillsides, including plastering larger versions of their ads on a moving billboard box truck, and are paying for full-page ads in the Pleasanton Weekly suggesting that thousands of homes are going to be built on hillsides and ridges in the Lund Ranch II project area. All FALSE advertising.

FACT: No on K supporters have repeatedly, and illegally, placed their 'yard signs' on public property, breaking the law in violation of City code prohibiting it, and have continued to do so.

The above statements are all FACTS.

The No on K supporters are banking on the ignorance of Pleasanton voters and others to get what they want. Not In My Backyard. NIMBYism. They want no traffic access to the project via their neighborhoods (Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek). That's all they really care about.

The above information is the TRUTH.

I urge you to visit and view the project site for yourself. Take a drive up Sycamore Creek Way--all the way up the hill to where it ends, where Bill Lincoln lives, to examine where the road down into the valley (the project site) will be extended.

Take another drive up Hearst Drive to see where Councilmember Karla Brown lives; take another up Crellin Road to see where developer Allen Roberts lives.

Then ask yourself, are these three people--all major supporters of No on Measure K, really concerned about protecting hillsides and ridges? Or are they more interested in protecting their own self-interests and ulterior motives, based on NIMBYism?

Ask yourself whether a group of people who refuse to identify a signature gathering company that was proven to lie, and break the law (state election code), to get what they want, is being truthful with you, and most importantly, worthy of your vote on June 7th.

Ask yourself if that's not an example of hypocrisy, than what is?

Do you believe in JUSTICE? If so, then you've probably taken the time to read this, and realize that this referendum is about FAIRNESS and EQUITY to ALL Pleasantonians, and that is, indeed, a true hallmark of THE AMERICAN WAY.

Do what's right. Do what's just, for ALL Pleasantonians.

For Truth, Justice, and the American Way, the choice is clear:

I urge you to Vote YES on Measure K.


4 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on May 11, 2016 at 12:02 pm

Pretty obvious that someone here is working overtime with constructing and putting up multiple long posts because he or she is concerned about how the vote on Measure K will affect traffic flow through their own neighborhood.


22 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 12:17 pm

@Sam,

It's about overcoming ignorance and calling out/providing facts in a '30 seconds (or less) soundbite world' to inform people of the truth.

Am I "concerned about how the vote on Measure K will affect traffic flow through their own neighborhood"?

Yes, as are the No on K supporters. There is way more at stake in this, though, and I think you and others know that by now.

The difference is, re: traffic, that's all the No on K supporters care about. Not In My Backyard.

The difference is, I believe in FAIRNESS, and not just for me and my neighbors/neighborhoods, but for EVERYONE.

That's a BIG difference.

As long as I see ignorance at work, I will continue to take the time to call out the TRUTH (i.e., FACTS). Facts are facts--they don't lie, and neither do I.

I'm confident that all those voting who take the time to learn the truth will do what's right, do what's just, do what's fair--for us, for themselves, and for ALL Pleasantonians by voting Yes on Measure K.

Hopefully, that will be the majority come election time.


16 people like this
Posted by Matt Sullivan
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 12:35 pm

I’m shocked, shocked that gambling is going on in here! What about the endorsement of Yes on K by the Alameda County Central Committee of the Democratic Party? Just coincidently, Greenbrier lobbyist Angela Ramirez-Holmes is on the board of the Central Committee, and only Yes on K folks were invited to the meeting where they considered the endorsement. No on K Democrats like me had no knowledge that the meeting was taking place. A strange world when Corporatist Democrats can outdo Corporatist Republicans on the Corporatist scale! Small wonder that Sanders and Trump are resonating so broadly.

And by the way, I agree with Sam that there is something fishy about “Ventana Hills”. My guess is that our anonymous and persistent bloviating pontificator is none other than the aforementioned Greenbrier lobbyist. Come on, Ventana – reveal your true identity!


34 people like this
Posted by Sad State of Our City
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 1:03 pm

Our city is in a sad state. All this bickering is childish and shows lack of respect for our follow neighbors.

Please vote YES on K, so we can get beyond this neighborhood against neighborhood situation. Houses will be built on a portion Lund Ranch at some point. It's not a matter of IF, but WHEN. The current plan is a compromise.

Let's make Pleasanton a better place by putting this issue behind us and prevent another 10 or more years of bickering. Vote yes on K. (btw-- being a republican or democrat has nothing to do with the issue.)


25 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 1:27 pm

@Sad State of Our City,

Agreed, thank you.

And to former Councilmember Matt Sullivan, you can hurl all the insults you want, it doesn't change or contest the facts or the truth.

People tend to seek quick, easy answers to complex issues, like Measure K and the Lund Ranch II project.

There aren't quick, easy answers to the Lund Ranch II project--something that's dragged on for 25 YEARS--just the facts and the truth, regardless of whether you like that (facts and the truth) or not.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams


14 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 1:49 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@Joe,

Why don't you ever answer my question? Are you afraid?

You said "I can't see any compelling reason why building these homes benefits anybody in Pleasanton, other than the developers and the City Council members that support."

I said what about someone who wants to buy one of the 41 houses? Don't they count for anything? Is this all about you?


30 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 2:54 pm

BobB is a registered user.

Agree with "Senior Citizen",

I would add that I can only guess why an " enthusiastic Trump supporter" would oppose measure k.


6 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Siena
on May 11, 2016 at 3:42 pm

Anyone that believes these houses are being proposed for a flat valley- I have some swamp land for sale.

No more houses. Get it mr mayor?!?


24 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 4:18 pm

@Bob,

I guess you've never bothered to visit the project site. Please do so. Go to the end of Lund Ranch Road and you'll be able to confirm the VALLEY that all 43 homes are to be built in. See it for yourself so you can confirm the TRUTH.

FACT: None of the homes in the approved project are located in or on any hillsides. All 43 homes are to be built in the valley on the flattest portion of the property.

Reject the LIES. Get the FACTS. Get INFORMED.

Web Link

Yes on Measure K.


12 people like this
Posted by A Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 6:10 pm

As a 45 yr resident of Pleasanton, I have seen many changes. It's become a NIMBY world. I did actually try to visit the site under discussion and failed,lol. I bet all the people being asked to vote on this issue have never seen the site and probably never will, It's secluded and out of the way.

If the people who want the homes built were to have a computer model of where the homes are to be built, that may settle the issue.

I understand the city gains 173 acres of free land with this development also. Is that a bad thing?


13 people like this
Posted by PTownPride
a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on May 11, 2016 at 6:29 pm

PTownPride is a registered user.

I encourage everyone to visit savepleasantonhillsides.com for more information. The Ballot Breakdown page may in particular be helpful to walk through a response to many of the points the Developer is making for the "yes" vote. Some basic points though:

"Yes on K" is 99%+ funded by the developer. The developer has given almost $100,000 to this campaign to date.

"Open space" is at best a red herring. The "donated" land is unbuildable land. There is nothing on it now. Nothing will ever be built on it, regardless of your yes or no vote. All the donation does is transfer maintenance costs from the developer to the city. (Do you know how the developer came up with this, by the way? They paid to have a "robocall" voter survey done, testing various slogan and themes. "Open space" is presumably the result.)

This development will absolutely put homes on hillsides. The Council said it won't because it "defined" certain slopes as "not hills."

This development will absolutely build close to ridge lines. Again, the Council said it won't because it "defined" certain ridges as "not ridges." (Indeed, the City's own staff agreed to on the ridge lines and in the final vote the Council essentially redrew the map.)

This development will absolutely put roads and retaining walls on hillsides. I don't think anyone even disputes that. The dispute is over whether roads are covered by Measure PP. The campaign materials for PP referred to roads as being covered, the City's statutes likewise make clear that roads are covered by PP, and the City election guide that accompanied PP said the Lund Ranch development would be limited to fewer than 10 homes because of the road issue. The Council pushed this through by declaring PP doesn't apply to road construction (including acres of grading, retaining walls, etc.) A "NO" vote sends a message that we're not going to stand by while the Council redefines PP.

I think the key thing that some "yes" commenters are ignoring is that there are at least three additional hillside development projects waiting in the wings. Lund Ranch sets a precedent. Even the City Attorney admitted as much in one of the final Lund Ranch meetings -- the Council can't very well, for example, define "road" to mean one thing for one project and another for another project. The direction we go on this development is going to set us on a path for future developments.

NO DEVELOPMENT IN PLEASANTON HILLSIDES. VOTE NO.


17 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 6:50 pm

BobB is a registered user.

PtownPride,

That is an outright lie. There will be no houses on slopes.


5 people like this
Posted by Fredrick the mathematician
a resident of Danbury Park
on May 11, 2016 at 9:24 pm

Bob B, you are sadly under informed. The valley is riddled with hills and valleys. The builder wanted to put a house on top of a steep knoll, then the council made them remove it at the last minute.

Check out this map on page 10 and look at the yellow, light green and dark green areas in the valley. These areas range from 0-25% grade and are NOT flat. Web Link

In addition, all of these houses are supposed to have a building pad that is MORE than 100 feet from a ridge, as per the vote by city council in November 2012 (including Mayor Thorne).

Using the city staff and council's own method to measure the end of a ridge. The last hill of the ridge is measured at 515 ft. above sea level and the valley's low point of 415' right at the road entrance of Lund Ranch road, there is no way to construct houses in the valley beyond 10 units. This is math not emotions. I am sure people have told you that this was quoted as a 10 unit project by city staff. That is why.

Since members of the council wanted to approve as many houses as possible for their friend Angela Holmes and Greenbrier Homes, they arbitrarily changed the last point of the ridge to 580' and lost confidence of many of their voting public in the process including me.

Following simple math, staying 100' from the last hill, this is a 10 unit project.


2 people like this
Posted by Angela Ramirez Holmes
a resident of Heritage Valley
on May 11, 2016 at 9:32 pm

Hi Matt,

Let's clear up a couple of things for the record.

-I am not "resident of Ventana Hills" and I do not know who is.

-At the April 6 meeting, the Alameda County Democratic Party considered all local measures on the June ballot, most of which were placed on a consent calendar. No representatives of either side of Measure K, Yes or No, were present. Members of the committee have a right to pull any item off of the consent calendar for further consideration. No members did that. In accordance with the bylaws, a vote was taken on the consent calendar. Yes on K was on it, no member pulled, therefore it was endorsed. I was not in attendance at that meeting.

-I am not a lobbyist. I am a political consultant working on the Yes on K campaign, a 17 year Pleasanton resident, and active community member.

Please feel free to contact me if you have more questions.


9 people like this
Posted by Ed Lai
a resident of Heritage Valley
on May 11, 2016 at 11:05 pm

It sounds like the Dems and Angela Holmes are pushing for more houses in the hills and she got her committee to agree with one huge vote for a mass of issues and K was one of them. Doesn't Holmes have something to do with water? Maybe she should focus on that job and get rid of water penalties like EBMUD.

And when the Republicans recommended No houses in the hills, the old GOP Jan Batchelor, Jerry Pentin and the plumbing guy from Can Am would make money off construction so they got mad and said, they want more houses in the hills too.

I am so glad that I vote Independent. And I am voting No on K, no houses in the hills for Pleasanton.


Like this comment
Posted by resettlement camp
a resident of Amador Estates
on May 12, 2016 at 6:55 am

I am a democrat and strongly believe this property should be given to thousands of undocumented immigrants that are crossing our borders. Let's make this a "resettlement camp" for all. Another sanctuary city safe zone.


7 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 12, 2016 at 7:00 am

BobB is a registered user.

@Frederick,

Your comments make no sense. All houses in the world are built on 0 to 25% slopes.

None of the houses in the proposed development are on slopes prohibited by PP.

That is simple math, not emotions.


5 people like this
Posted by Confused
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 12, 2016 at 8:18 am

I'm honestly confused.

The No side does not want homes built. The Yes side does not want homes built. Why the hell are we building homes?

Why is everyone assuming this project "has" to be built?

Just because Geeenbrier owns the land does not mean we have to accept homes shoved down our throats.

Last I looked, we supposedly had a say in our own community. Why is the planning board turning neighbor against neighbor on a community that not one resident of Pleasanton wants?


13 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 12, 2016 at 9:36 am

@Confused,

The developer, Greenbriar Homes, who owns the Lund Ranch II property, has a legal right to develop it, since a.) the project, known as PUD-25, has been on the books for over 20 years, and b.) they have legal rights, as do all property owners, per the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

So, yes, if all of the affected neighborhoods, including mine, could prevent any homes from being built, we'd all be happy to accept that, but that's not reality--that's not going to happen.

The reality is, what once was a project that allowed for as many as 150 homes has been reduced to 43, and almost 90% of the project land, consisting of hillsides and ridges, is being given to you, me and the rest of Pleasanton as public, open space by Greenbriar--permanently removing it from their private ownership and any possible future development.

Greenbriar Homes accepted the City Council's compromise decision on 1/5/16. Unfortunately, two neighborhoods, Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek, are fighting the decision tooth and nail to keep some of the project's traffic access out of their neighborhoods, using any means necessary to convince people to reject it, including promoting misstatements of fact, and more.

Get the facts, and get informed, so you're no longer confused.

Web Link

Once you discover the truth, I'm confident you'll vote Yes on Measure K.


3 people like this
Posted by Registered Joe
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 12, 2016 at 9:43 am

Bob, et al,
I simply can't make it clearer that I don't see a compelling reason to allow the development. I'm being asked to vote, and this is my opinion. So in that sense, yes, it is all about me. If I were one of the potential 41 new home owners, or if I was in the development business, or if I was on the city council worried about reelection, perhaps I'd have a different view. But I'm not, so I don't.


17 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 12, 2016 at 9:49 am

@Frederick,

It is you, sadly, who is misinformed.

@BobB IS informed, and so should you.

For one thing, you reference a document from March 2015. The complete, approved ordinance (Ordinance 2133), with 140 conditions of approval, and the one and only document which the City Council approved regarding the Lund Ranch II project (aka PUD-25) on 1/5/16, can be found here: Web Link

For more facts, go here: Web Link

By the way, while you're there, be sure to watch and listen to Councilmember Karla Brown clearly and unequivocally state to former Councilmember Matt Sullivan that roads are NOT part of Measure PP.

Thus, Measure K is fully compliant with Measure PP (also noting that Measure PP co-author Kay Ayala has also previously stated publicly, and for the record, that prohibiting roads were never part of Measure PP).

Please feel free to visit the project site to see the valley where the homes are being built for yourself. Tours to be held this Saturday, May 14th.

Reject the LIES, and seek the TRUTH. Get the FACTS, and get INFORMED.


17 people like this
Posted by Neal M.
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on May 12, 2016 at 9:54 am

We've been privileged to have been "escorted" up through the East side hills behind Lund Ranch and off Hearst Drive by friends of ours who are USGS Engineers and have hiked and explored this part of town for the better part of 15 years. It is no secret that this land has been earmarked for an eventual build and if anybody were to simply look at the plans or even better, get off your butts and out from hiding behind your computer and actually visit the site you'd see that there is no possible way these proposed homes would be visible from any part of town or even close to the ridge lines.

The REAL eyesore (IMHO) that Pleasanton is about to face and what could turn us into the next Dublin is the Township monstrosity off Bernal and the Governor Brown mandated development near BART/Oracle. THAT my friends is Stack & Pack housing at its finest.


4 people like this
Posted by Disgusted
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 12, 2016 at 10:02 am

So in other words:

A Yes vote means: I hate this development but we better accept this sh*tty proposal of getting 1/3 of the traffic through my neighborhood before they come back at us with something worse.

A No vote means: I really hate this development and am willing to risk that they may come back at us with something worse because they are making 2/3 of the traffic come through my neighborhood.

Either way, Pleasanton is rolling over and giving all our power to the developers. Again.

And btw, the 5th Anmndment does not allow unequivocal development of property by an owner. You obviously need to get informed so you don't continue to be confused yourself.


23 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 12, 2016 at 10:37 am

@Disgusted,

You're entitled to your opinion, but I believe you are wrong in accusing the Mayor and City Council of "rolling over" and "giving power" to developers.

The stack 'n pack housing that @Neal M. points out (as have I in previous posts), was forced upon Pleasanton by Governor Jerry Brown and San Francisco-based Urban Habitat succeeding in winning a lawsuit against Pleasanton that invalidated the City's previously existing housing cap, and mandated that a required number of housing units be built to satisfy a state-mandated housing-to-business ratio.

Re: the 5th Amendment, again, I've referenced how this applies to the Lund Ranch II developer, Greenbriar, in previous posts, should the project either be completely rejected or reduced to a number of units that would be unacceptable to them, so I'm quite informed, thank you.

For your benefit, here's where you'll find quite a bit of information regarding it: Web Link

This report was the most recent data I could find regarding land use issues in California and the 5th Amendment.

Some of the most cogent parts:

"The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires government to compensate citizens for the taking of private property. Under U.S. Supreme Court rulings, this constitutional takings clause can require government agencies to pay compensation to property owners for regulations that go too far in depriving owners of economically beneficial use of their property.

Beginning in 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of decisions on regulatory takings that tended to strengthen these protections. The rulings expanded the ability of private property owners to seek compensation from government for regulations as well as for exactions imposed on them as a condition of approval for development projects.

...decisions, such as those in the Agins and Lucas cases, have made it clear that a regulation totally eliminating economically viable use of a property will usually be considered a compensable taking.

Takings litigation threats are reported to be a common occurrence (once a year or more) in 22% of cities and 49% of counties. Actual lawsuits related to takings were reported by 33% of cities and 46% of counties. Yet it appears that very few local governments have any insurance to cover liability arising from takings claims.

Although takings objections and litigation threats are often dismissed as mere rhetoric or “hot air,” there is no doubt that local governments must often take the threat of takings litigation very seriously. This is especially true because, as the survey shows, it is very rare for local governments to have insurance coverage for the costs of defending, settling,
or paying damages in such lawsuits."


30 people like this
Posted by Voting YES for the Truth
a resident of Mission Park
on May 12, 2016 at 12:12 pm

Voting YES for the Truth is a registered user.

To everyone that wants to see the project site for themselves (in lieu of looking at maps and interpreting them for yourselves), they are having a tour Saturday at 9:30, 1500 Lund Ranch Rd 94566.


27 people like this
Posted by Voting YES for the Truth
a resident of Mission Park
on May 12, 2016 at 12:19 pm

Voting YES for the Truth is a registered user.

@Disgusted - The city lost a lawsuit regarding new housing and as a result HAS to build new housing with approximately 2/3 of the new housing for affordable housing. If you have a problem with new housing, you will have to take that up with the State of California and Urban Habitat. Read more: Web Link

So we HAVE to have new housing, and lots of it. Most of the new housing is seen in a negative light and I understand that people are tired of it all. But we literally HAVE NO CHOICE. The city has spent millions of OUR dollars trying to fight it and they LOST.

So what can we do now? Recognize a good deal when there is one in front of us. This particular development gives us almost 90% of the land back to the city as public open space. Don't you wish EVERY development gave us back 90% of the land?

I'm voting YES.


31 people like this
Posted by Senior Citizen
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on May 12, 2016 at 12:42 pm

Hopefully people who are considering voting no for K will realize that their vote is not a way to stop continued development in Pleasanton. Please read all the information in the Voter Information Pamphlet thoroughly (available from the Amaleda County Registrar of Voters) before making your decision. YES on K is the best compromise solution for all Pleasanton residents.


5 people like this
Posted by Registered Joe
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 12, 2016 at 6:10 pm

Senior Citizen,
But it is a way to stop development in Pleasanton. The citizens have shown that any development will be rigorously opposed. Resisting the opposition in order to develop costs money, money that will (a) have to come from developers' pockets, before development, without a guarantee of return, and (b) will therefore not make it into the election coffers of our city council. Sooner or later it will become apparent that it's better/cheaper/faster to develop somewhere else.


18 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 12, 2016 at 7:24 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@Joe,

It didn't stop the 350 apartments going up not too far from my house and the other ones going up near the BART station. It was opposition to _all_ development that got the city sued, and we're getting a lot more than we bargained for. We could be sued again.


42 people like this
Posted by Senior Citizen
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on May 13, 2016 at 10:35 am

@Joe,
Having lived here all my life I've seen Pleasanton grow from a small farming and ranching area to become one of the "sought-after" places for people to want to live. We even made the "best places to live" in a couple of national publications.
50-60 years ago if we had all taken the attitude that (1) all development was bad and (2) we should "stick it to developers" by making it inhospitiable to invest here, then 99% of the people living here today would NOT BE HERE because there would be no housing, few schools, no jobs, and no businesses.

Increased taxation made it difficult to continue to be a farming and ranching community. Early town councils had the foresight to develop a "City of Planned Progress". 2-lane Foothill Road (anyone remember the windmill) gave way to Stoneridge Mall which generates lots of tax revenue for Pleasanton. Likewise Hacienda Business Park where the lowlands no longer flood after a heavy rain. Does anyone remember the Rural Foothill Defenders in the early 70s that kept homes off the Pleasanton Ridge but allowed for responsible development along Foothill Road?

Every development decision requires lots of deliberation, compromise, and foresight. People who moved here because Pleasanton" is one of the best places to live" cannot now decide it's time to close the gates. Everyone always has an opportunity to express their concerns at Planning Commission Meetings, City Council Meetings, and even sponsor referendums. We've reached the logical end - allowing every registered voter to exercise their decision about Lund II. Whatever the outcome, hopefully both sides will abide by the decision.

I'm happy I was able to grow up here and watch a fantastic community grow here under responsible development. As for me I'm voting YES on K because (1) everyone is asked to give a little, but (2) everyone in Pleasanton wins at the end.


5 people like this
Posted by Long Timer
a resident of West of Foothill
on May 13, 2016 at 12:50 pm

ALL PLEASANTON VOTERS and supporters of Measure PP, please VOTE NO on Meaasure K.

Measure PP was about preserving the character of our hills and surrounding. Green hills and open space.

Lund Ranch is a hillside property. The developer Greenbriar has choosen to position this to build only at the base of the hillside development and claiming that this is out of site out of mind....when in fact most of the property is hillside. This makes in in the jurisdiction of Measure PP/QQ.

Greenbriar has purchased this property 20 years. What most people don't realize was that was during the Ben Traver and Tom Pico years of slow growth and open space. At that time we were the 6th fastest growing city in California. We could easily have looked like Dublin. Greenbriar knowing purchased this land waiting for an opportunity and city mayor and council that would be receptive to development in the hills. And it looks like they found them.

Measure PP limits the development to 10 homes. IMHO, this was 9 too many. but I voted for it anyway since it would limit the growth and preserve the open space that I so loved. Measure K allows 43 home sites. 43 > 10.
What this measure does is cloud the impact of Measure PP and basically undermines it and what we voted for of limiting growth. There is no limit after this ... it is subject to interpretation. It really opens the hills to future development.

The road that is not a road. I suspect that the road is not simply a road...it is about services. A new sewer and water pipe. You can't build multi-million dollar homes if you are running on septic tanks and well water. With the drought, the well water is unreliable. And even if the pipes existed....it was certainly not large enough to handle a 43 home development.

Greenbriar has position this as a community fight when in fact it has city wide ramification of affecting our green hills and open space.

Mayor Jerry Thornton, Council Members Cathy Narum, Joan Laursen, Kelly French, Herb Ritter I am very disappointed in you guys. Your vote clearly violates Measure PP. I hope that you can do better next time....otherwise I will be voting elsewhere.

Greenbriar, if you come up with a proposal to build 10 homes, I would be all for it.

PLEASANTON VOTERS, PLEASE PRESERVE OUR HILLS AND OPEN SPACE.
PLEASE VOTE NO ON MEASURE K

Long Timer,
Resident off of Longview.


3 people like this
Posted by J
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 13, 2016 at 1:04 pm

"What this measure does is cloud the impact of Measure PP and basically undermines it and what we voted for of limiting growth. There is no limit after this ... it is subject to interpretation. It really opens the hills to future development."

This.

And don't think our council won't run with it.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Bonde Ranch

on May 13, 2016 at 1:06 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Like this comment
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 13, 2016 at 1:11 pm

You can read and assess what No on K supporters are saying, or read and assess what Yes on K supporters are saying, or skip both and instead read and assess what the Pleasanton Weekly's Tim Hunt has to say.

Who's Tim Hunt?

As he states, he's a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently lives in the house he grew up in that is more than 100 years old. He spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in addition to writing editorials for more than 15 years. He has served as a director of many non-profits in the Valley and the broader Bay Area and currently serves as chair of Teen Esteem and on the advisory board of Shepherd?s Gate. He's also served as founding chair of Heart for Africa and have traveled to Africa seven times to serve on mission trips. His wife, Betty Gail, has taught at Amador Valley High (from where they both graduated) since 1981.

Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by Long Timer
a resident of West of Foothill
on May 13, 2016 at 1:17 pm

David Erlich,
I applaud you on your support.
It more than just about short term profit, developers are here and gone.
IMHO, it is about maintaining our values and preserving our wealth and value.
There heeds to more like you in our party!

GO GET THEM!

Long Timer.


15 people like this
Posted by MsVic
a resident of Mission Park
on May 13, 2016 at 5:24 pm

MsVic is a registered user.

I continue to be amazed at people believing that a no will stop the development of Lund Ranch. That is simply not true. And measure pp doesn't restrict any development to 10 homes. Where do these falsehoods come from? The no on k people. Please get the facts. If you haven't been to the many meetings then please read the facts in the ballot booklet. The planned development is the best deal we are going to get for Lund development. I have been to the meetings and I am informed and I will vote yes.


5 people like this
Posted by Delete Me
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 13, 2016 at 7:22 pm

For the love of everything holy, Resident of Ventana Hills, give it a rest. You make your cause look bad.

Tim Hunt has proven his allegiance to the council in print many times over. Regardless, no one is going to take one man's word as gospel. Nice try with the meaningless propaganda, however. Who's Tim Hunt, indeed.


6 people like this
Posted by Long Timer
a resident of West of Foothill
on May 14, 2016 at 1:44 am

MsVic;
"And measure pp doesn't restrict any development to 10 homes"

You have been drinking a little too much of the yes on K koolaid.

Web Link

" Required the city government to formulate an ordinance to add to the General Plan that would restrict future hillside developments to slopes of less than 25 percent or within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline. Developments of 10 or fewer homes would go through the existing planning review process"

The language says that 10 or fewer homes would be allowed to go to the city planning process. Anything else is "not allowed. "

It seems pretty to clear to me.

RE: Resident of Ventana Hills

Tim starts out by saying:
No on K folks in Pleasanton are certainly a pace-setter.
This is the crew of folks in a neighborhood directly affected by traffic from 43 homes that the City Council approved earlier this year after the typically lengthy Pleasanton approval process.

I am not part of that community. Greenbriar & Tim Hunt would mislead you to think that this is only a neighborhood fight. It is not. It is about preserving the character of our city.... and not be swayed by a large Developer who bought the property at a bargain price.
Ben Traver became our mayor in 1992 on the platform of slow growth and open space. Greenbriar purchased the Lund Ranch II property in 1998. They full well knowing bought the property during Ben Traver time in office.

Please look at where Greenbriar has donated:

Web Link

I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Long timer


14 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 14, 2016 at 9:56 am

BobB is a registered user.

Ms Vic is right. PP doesn't stop all development to 10 houses. Only those built on "slopes" or near "ridge lines" as defined by PP. These houses aren't.


7 people like this
Posted by John Godfrey Saxe
a resident of West of Foothill
on May 14, 2016 at 11:09 am

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

For those who don't know what Measure PP actually says;

FULL TEXT OF MEASURE PP Save Pleasanton’s Hills & Housing Cap
Purpose
The purpose of this Initiative is to protect our city from uncontrolled growth and the impact it has on ridgelines and hillsides, traffic, schools, water supply, and our overall quality of life.
I. Pleasanton General Plan Amendments
Policy 12 Program 12.3 on Page 11-17 of the City of Pleasanton August 6, 1996 General Plan is added as shown:
Policy 12.3: Ridgelines and hillsides shall be protected. Housing units and structures shall not be placed on slopes of 25 percent or greater, or within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline. No grading to construct residential or commercial structures shall occur on hillside slopes 25% or greater, or within 100 vertical feet of a ridge- line. Exempt from this policy are housing develop- ments of 10 or fewer housing units on a single property that was, as of January 1, 2007, “legal parcel” pursuant to the California Subdivision Map law. Splitting, divid- ing, or sub-dividing a “legal parcel” of January 1, 2007 to approve more than 10 housing units is not allowed.
Policy 15 on Page 11-19 of the City of Pleasanton August 6, 1996 General Plan is added as shown:
Policy 15.3: A housing unit is defined to include any residence that includes a kitchen (sink, cooking device, and refrigerator) and a bathroom (toilet, tub or show- er). The City Council shall uphold the housing cap and shall not grant waivers that exclude housing units con- sistent with this definition.
II. If any portions of this initiative are declared invalid by a court, the remaining portions are to be consid- ered valid.
III. The provisions of this initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Pleasan- ton at a City general election and overrides any existing General Plan.


2 people like this
Posted by Pleasantonian
a resident of Del Prado
on May 15, 2016 at 12:05 am

Hi
Seems to me this is a two step process, and those who have skin in the game know it:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- Build ~40 homes first.
2- Sue to force the rest of the land to b built. since you have precedence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the rest seems just like a bunch of noise, bickering and obfuscation.


4 people like this
Posted by Long Timer
a resident of West of Foothill
on May 15, 2016 at 2:46 am

RE;
John Godfrey Saxe

Looks like we have a poet maybe even a poet laureate amongst us. :)

I like to ad Matt Henry quote:

None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.

When I voted for Measure PP, I was part of silent majority about 60% who basically said we don't want our beautiful hills touched.... preserve that open space. IN it as you can read it mentions a 10 house limit. For our
mayor and the named council members to "re-interpret" this is unacceptable. They are not staying the letter of the law nor the intend.


Also,

I hinted at but will explicitly call out.

from Greenbriar website:
Greenbriar has given the City of Pleasanton over 300 acres of land
which has been used for open space, parks, and recreational and
community facilities. The members of the Greenbriar family have
been involved with and donated to various organizations including
the Pleasanton PTA Council’s Reflections Program, the Tri-Valley
Community Foundation, and Pleasanton Partnerships in Education Foundation.

There is nothing wrong with donating...but
the organizations that received the donations either have council members representatives or former leaders.

PPIE - founder is Kelly French
Pleasanton PTA former President is Joan Laursen.

The question I have ... if there is a conflict of interest... why did Kelly and Joan not abstain.

IF Greenbriar opennly and publicly support these two council members organization.... did they also donate to other council members privately?

IMHO there is definitely a conflict of interest.

AGAIN, When I voted for Measure PP as well as the other 60% majority of PLeasanton that we are not messing around with those hills. Lund Ranch property is on the hill. Only 10 homes per Measure PP can be built on it.
This is what the 60% majority voted for... this is not subject to interpretation. It is immutable.

So, Honorable Mayor, Council members..... are you listening? Do you see what I and the 60% majority are seeing?

FELLOW PLEASANTONIANS, PLEASE VOTE NO ON MEASURE K.


Long Timer






11 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 15, 2016 at 9:37 am

BobB is a registered user.

@Long Timer,

The houses aren't in the hills.


11 people like this
Posted by res2
a resident of Birdland
on May 15, 2016 at 12:35 pm

Pleasantonian, what you may not realize is the rest of the land will be donated to the city and not owned/controlled by the developer. So they cannot come back and sue for more development as they will no longer own the land.


17 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on May 15, 2016 at 12:37 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Long timer, it was 60% of those who voted, not 60% of Pleasanton voters. It is a difference that matters. I posted a link on a similar topic that showed the growth through 2100. The Pleasanton we moved here for will not be the same, it isn't even the same now as 20 years ago. So either we plan and build intelligently and preserve what land we can protect or we will have an apartment complex there in the not too distant future

A smart vote, an informed vote, is to realize we are getting the best deal. . . A drastically reduced number of homes; over 100 acres of open space, whether you choose to use it or not; and control of our future to the best of our ability as voters. A clear yes for K.


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

Pleasanton's home-grown "unicorn"
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,211 views

Ten Tips for Teens and Young Adults to Survive a Dysfunctional Family
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 739 views

Can You Afford Your ‘Dream School’?
By Elizabeth LaScala | 2 comments | 351 views

The Five
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 197 views