In response to your editorial published in the 2/12/16 edition of the Pleasanton Weekly:
Over who-knows-how many PAID signature gatherers, from a company you refuse to identify, collected the remaining signatures necessary in order to ensure your referendum petition opposing the approved Lund Ranch II project got more than enough signatures, although all of those signatures need to be verified as being valid, and that's certainly in question, specifically with regard to the ones the PAID signature gatherers obtained.
This effort was CLEARLY, indeed, to shift traffic from one neighborhood to another (from Sycamore Heights/Bridle Creek to Ventana Hills/Mission Hills), as residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek publicly supported having ALL traffic from the Lund Ranch II project go through OUR neighborhoods via Lund Ranch Road.
It is NOT "...a broader objective to ensure that Pleasantonâ€™s hillsides and ridges remain a community asset under the protection of Measure PP."
The Mayor and City Council already accomplished that with respect to the Lund Ranch II project by making a compromise decision that accepted the developer's (Greenbriar) set-aside to ALL of Pleasanton of 177 acres of hillsides and ridges.
Adhering to Measure PP WAS foremost in considering the Lund Ranch II project, a longstanding project that was a very complex one to deal with--not a simple 'black and white' issue with respect to Measure PP.
If the referendum ultimately qualifies for the ballot, I hope our voters will
will see through the smokescreen (i.e., deception and ulterior motives) you and others that already live on hillsides and ridges (Grey Eagle, Kottinger Ranch, and Sycamore Heights) are presenting and clearly see that this is nothing more than a self-serving plan to get what you and select few others with the financial wherewithal are trying to accomplish and preserve--Not In My Backyard.
Not In My Backyard--access to 31 homes and potential spoiled views from high above existing hillside homes.
I also hope voters will appreciate that 'the ends do NOT justify the means' here (i.e., paid signature gatherers saying anything and everything/making false statements to get people to sign on the dotted line so they'll get paid, plus a $250,000+ bill to Pleasanton taxpayers that's potentially on the way, along with a potential 'takings' lawsuit).
Spare us the phony altruism, Mr. Roberts. It's disingenuous, as opposed to the NIMBYism that's so clearly evident to those who've educated themselves beyond the deceptive full-page ads and false statements that have been posted on the SavePleasantonHillsides website.