News

Lund Ranch referendum petitions due at 5 p.m. tonight

Opponents complain to City Council about signature gatherers' tactics

Proponents of placing a measure on the June ballot to overturn the City Council's approval of a 43-home development in Lund Ranch have until 5 p.m. tonight to gain signatures from 10% of the city's registered voters -- 4,124 people -- and turn the petitions into city clerk Karen Diaz.

After referendum backer Allen Roberts and others leading the referendum effort turn their petitions, Diaz will make a prima facie (first look) review. If they have the needed number of signatures, she will then forward them to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, whose office will check each signature against voter registration records and also look for duplicates.

The registrar's office must complete its review within 60 days.

It's that office's final number that will determine if at least 10% of the city's registered voters signed the petitions to call for a referendum.

If they did, Diaz will send that verification to the City Council which could repeal the ordinance it approved Jan. 5 authorizing Greenbriar Homes to move forward on its proposed Lund Ranch development.

Or, more likely, the council within 88 days must call for a special election to ask voters to decide how to proceed. That election would likely be held during the June 7 primary at an estimated cost to city taxpayers of $250,000.

Opponents of placing the measure on the June ballot complained vigorously Tuesday night about what they called strong-arm tactics by those seeking signatures to hold the referendum.

"What have we created here?" asked former Councilwoman Kay Ayala after 14 speakers addressed the City Council meeting.

At the council meeting, residents complained that they had been verbally accosted by signature gatherers at street corners, outside supermarkets and even on the Hearst Elementary School campus.

Particularly troubling, speakers said, were the paid workers who sought their signatures on the proposed referendum that would stop the plans by Greenbriar Homes to build the houses on Lund Ranch, a 194-acre site it owns. As part of the agreement, Greenbriar would donate 177 of those acres to the city as open space, which would be kept free of any future development in perpetuity with hiking trails to be added.

One couple told the council that they were disappointed with the referendum leaders for using paid workers from outside Pleasanton to collect the needed signatures.

"It's a black eye for our city," they said.

Another woman, who lives on Junipero Street where traffic would increase with the development, said she was afraid to allow her children to go to Raley's supermarket on Sunol Boulevard or even to walk to Hearst Elementary, which they attend, because of the overly aggressive signature solicitors.

"My father, a Vietnam veteran, was yelled at by one of these outsiders," she said. "My kids can't go to the park or library when they are around."

Another woman said she was subjected to verbal abuse.

"I am angry and I want to know who hired these people and what the name of the company is that supplies these kinds of workers," she said.

Referendum backer Roberts told the council that while some of the signature gatherers were being paid, another 50 of them were Pleasanton volunteers.

But when Councilman Arne Olson asked him to identify the firm that is supplying the paid workers, Roberts said he knows the company but declined to disclose that information.

Comments

20 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2016 at 9:31 am

To all:

I've made many posts on various Town Square strings over the past few weeks (i.e., responding to posts, making my own posts, and responding to/commenting on stories published by the PW), trying to share as many facts as possible, as succinctly as possible, so folks can make an informed decision re: the referendum petition. It comes from participating in many Planning Commission and City Council meetings over the years, and reviewing the many documents published re: Lund Ranch II, all in an attempt to dispel misinformation based on ignorance.

It has not been easy, as those familiar with the Lund Ranch II project (like me), know the history of the planning of this project is incredibly long/extensive--going back to 1991 25 years. Further, actually, when you consider it was included/referenced in the City's General Plan in 1986. That was 30 years ago.

However, as today's deadline approaches, here's the best/quickest summary I could find to sum things up, courtesy of a frequent poster/commenter on this issue, @BobB, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood (posted earlier this week):

"No one is "renouncing Measure PP". The petitioners are asking to apply PP where it doesn't apply. They have a problem with sharing traffic with another neighborhood, so they manufactured an issue with PP, and are trying to get voters to reinterpret it. These two wealthy neighborhoods that can afford to hire outside petitioners are trying to turn this into a Pleasanton-wide issue, but it is really all about them.

Like a said, what is to prevent anyone from doing this again and again in the future? Do we take a vote every time someone cries "not in my back yard"? That would be a waste of time and resources."

Thanks, Bob, and thanks to everyone who took the time to educate themselves on the facts before making an informed decision on whether to sign the petition or not.


14 people like this
Posted by Wow!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2016 at 9:42 am

A paid signature gatherer came to my door last night and asked me to sign the referendum petition. I declined, but then asked him how much he's getting paid per signature. He said that he's getting $15 per signature. Wow . . . desperate times, call for desperate measures! Don't sign!!!


9 people like this
Posted by concerned!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2016 at 10:16 am

What's more concerning is that paid signature gatherer had a list of registered voters with addresses. At $15 per signature, what's to keep him from adding a couple of names to his petition to bolster his pay???


13 people like this
Posted by MoreConcerned
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Feb 5, 2016 at 11:17 am

If it's true the paid signature gatherer had a list of registered voters then shouldn't the city of Pleasanton be required to publish the final list submitted for approval to make sure those of us against signing don't have our names and addresses mysteriously appear on the final list? There should be some kind of public audit of the list.


3 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 5, 2016 at 12:52 pm

@"Resident of Ventana Hills": "No one is "renouncing Measure PP". The petitioners are asking to apply PP where it doesn't apply. "

Isn't this about a proposal to build a road on a protected hillside? How could Measure PP not apply?

Seems to me that all this talk about rude or paid signature gatherers is really beside the main point. The only thing that matters here is whether the proposed plan goes against Measure PP, which we all voted on and passed.


9 people like this
Posted by Matt Foltz
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 5, 2016 at 1:10 pm

Matt Foltz is a registered user.

@ Sam

I think this is why they need the referendum b/c the city attorney has stated that this road does not currently violate PP


6 people like this
Posted by MoreConcerned
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2016 at 1:34 pm

Just to be clear the word "road" does not even appear in Measure PP.


16 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2016 at 2:04 pm

@Sam and @Matt Foltz,

Measure PP does not apply because roads were never specifically stated as being a structure in Measure PP, and the Mayor and City Council have never determined (i.e. voted on) that roads are structures. That said, yes, you are correct, @Matt Foltz in stating that the City Attorney (Jonathan Lowell at the time; since retired) has previously/recently stated that the road (an extension of Sunset Creek Lane) does not violate Measure PP.

Others have often claimed 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 final vote on that matter has NEVER taken place. Thus, it has never officially been determined, regardless of what others may claim.

Your comments parallel what the residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek are promoting/keying in on (per @BobB): "They have a problem with sharing traffic with another neighborhood, so they manufactured an issue with PP, and are trying to get voters to reinterpret it."

This referendum, even if it qualifies for the ballot and passes, does NOT determine whether a road is a structure. It would rescind the currently approved project, at which time, Greenbriar can then choose to: submit a new project proposal; walk away (doubtful); sell the property (possible, but unlikely), or determine (either now or possibly when the project is resubmitted), whether a 'takings' lawsuit against the City is justified, especially if the only project the Mayor and City Council is going to approve next time is for far fewer homes than what was originally approved. Based on an approved project of 43 homes, the City Attorney (Lowell) previously stated that anything less than 30 homes would put the City at risk of being sued for a takings, and Greenbriar has previously stated they would not accept a 10 home project.

As far as Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents are concerned, their primary goal is to not have any Lund Ranch II project traffic access through their neighborhoods (via Sunset Creek Lane). That is validated by the fact that both of those neighborhoods supported the project and didn't have a problem with it when all of the traffic was to be routed through Ventana Hills and Mission Hills via Lund Ranch Road.

Ventana Hills and Mission Hills neighborhoods accepted the compromise decision, as did Greenbriar. Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents did not.

This is a "Not In My Backyard" traffic issue, not a "protect Measure PP" issue.


3 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 5, 2016 at 2:16 pm

@"Resident of Ventana Hills" : "Measure PP does not apply because roads were never specifically stated as being a structure in Measure PP, and the Mayor and City Council have never determined (i.e. voted on) that roads are structures."

Come on, I think that that is a really weak argument. According to your interpretation, Measure PP would allow the hillsides to be covered with a network of roads because "roads are not structures".

According to the definition of "structure" that I found, a road certainly does fall under the definition of a structure:

structure (noun) ...
"2. something built or constructed, as a building, bridge, or dam."


5 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 5, 2016 at 2:26 pm

@MoreConcerned: "Just to be clear the word "road" does not even appear in Measure PP."

Neither do airport runways, large billboard signs, cell phone towers, etc.

However, airport runways, etc., and roads are all "structures" according to the definition I posted above. They are all "something built or constructed, as a building, bridge, or dam".

Look, I don't think that this issue is even close to being ambiguous. This is a clear attempt by some to ignore or bypass Measure PP because it is viewed as being an obstacle.


7 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2016 at 2:54 pm

@Sam,

You're making an argument based on what you think the definition of structure is.

I'm stating facts, not making an argument. Measure PP never stated that roads are structures, two of the three proponents/authors of Measure PP (Kay Ayala and Steve Brozosky) have stated publicly that roads were never included in Measure PP, and there have since been many arguments/much debate on whether roads are structures or not. Regardless, the referendum being petitioned for does not/will not determine nor define that.

In that regard, residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek, and the backers of SavePleasantonHillsides claim that the Mayor and City Council's approval of the Lund Ranch II project sets a precedent for future projects re: roads and Measure PP by allowing the extension of Sunset Creek Lane. That is also NOT true. City Attorney Jonathan Lowell 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.


8 people like this
Posted by MoreConcerned
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Feb 5, 2016 at 3:17 pm

@Sam,
With all due respect, saying "according to the definition I posted above." as your basis for arguing against a legal decision rendered by the Pleasanton City Attorney's Office and his staff on Measure PP speaks volumes of why the Lund II development has been so contentious.
We've all become chairside lawyers who think we know about urban and city planning law. Or may NOT. Maybe we just have opinions, biases, and mis-interpreations of what we want Measure PP to be, not what it is according to legal analysis.


31 people like this
Posted by res
a resident of Birdland
on Feb 5, 2016 at 3:57 pm

With or without measure PP, the council can deny an application or modify it should it feel it is not the best project for the city and could violate any of the general plan guidelines, which includes views. The impacts are analyzed on a per project basis.

For Lund Ranch, the council could make the determination that a road is not a problem because the road actually goes down the slope to the houses that are below the grade of where the road started and is not visible offsite. For Oak Grove the council can make the determination that a road is a problem because the road goes up the slope and is visible offsite.

So those people who feel that Lund Ranch is a precedent for a future Oak Grove proposal, that is not true.

For this project, the Bridle Creek and Sycamore residents do not want the development as they do not want any traffic in 'their' neighborhood (although they all signed an agreement indicating 150 homes would be built in Lund Ranch and there is a sign at the end of the road indicating the road will be going through to a new development). The Kottinger Ranch people are working with the Bridle Creek/Sycamore residents as they feel this project going through opens the door for a new development in Oak Grove, which puts traffic in their neighborhood.


41 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2016 at 4:13 pm

@res,

You are correct/accurate on all counts. Councilmember Karla Brown is a resident of Kottinger Ranch, and a prominent supporter of the referendum and its petition drive.

Re: "..the council could make the determination that a road is not a problem because the road actually goes down the slope to the houses that are below the grade of where the road started and is not visible offsite."

They not only could, they did, as part of reaching the compromise decision on 1/5/16, which has since been contested with the referendum petition drive.


11 people like this
Posted by Alexis B
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 5, 2016 at 4:26 pm

"Save Pleasanton Hillsides" group should call themselves what they REALLY are: "Save my 2.5 million dollar home on a hillside from having any traffic."


6 people like this
Posted by SamIsRight
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Feb 5, 2016 at 9:21 pm

@Sam
You are correct, road is a structure, which is very clear in dictionary. Quote: Here is the definition from merriam-webster: infrastructure is "the basic equipment and structures (such as roads and bridges) that are needed for a country, region, or organization to function properly". See, here clearly said infrastructure may include structures, and more clearly, it says road is a structure.

So why Ventana Hills people keep saying it is not a structure? Because twisting the meaning of this fits their interests and needs. It is very convenient. Even the council members who approved plan didn't all say road is structure.


3 people like this
Posted by To res of Birdland
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2016 at 7:16 am

Please tell me where Measure PP states,

"the council could make the determination that a road is not a problem because the road actually goes down the slope to the houses that are below the grade of where the road started and is not visible offsite. "


PP does not grant exceptions for one project over another. PP does not grant exceptions to how many or few can view a structure. PP does not grant approval for a road/structure up versus down a slope.

Stop making up provions and exceptions to PP. The voters never granted those exceptions to you or to the council.


2 people like this
Posted by Matt Foltz
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 6, 2016 at 8:48 am

Matt Foltz is a registered user.

@Sam is right

Interesting, I thought a structure meant you had to be able to "enter" or "go into" it. Thanks for the info, I'll have to do some research on this...


2 people like this
Posted by curious
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2016 at 9:23 am

Regarding is a road a structure and Measure PP--let's consider 3 facts.

1. In the city attorney's impartial analysis of PP in the voter guide, it states "Some clarification of terms in the Measure(e.g. "structure", "ridgeline", how to measure "slope") may be necessary in order that General Plan policies remain internally consistent & to resolve potential conflicts between other policies & the Measure." This was never questioned or challenged during the election cycle.

2. Karla Brown, one of the signers of PP, stood at the podium at Council meeting open to the public prior to the vote on Measure PP and had an exchange with Councilman Sullivan that Measure PP wasn't about roads rather about houses on ridgelines. This is on tape and is consistent with #1 above & the arguments for PP in the voter guide.

3 Stu Flashman, a land use attorney, testified during one of the public hearings in Dec that when a Measure isn't clear, the legislative body (Council) has the responsibility to interpret such as the question is a road a structure. BTW, he was paid as he left the chamber by Sycamore Heights/Bridle Creek residents David Melaugh & Greg O'Connor.

Measure PP specifically talks about commercial & residential structures neither of is a road. It seems clear that road is a structure question is open to interpretation.

Worth noting, the current referendum, if qualified for the ballot does nothing formally to deciding this question. It will be a yes/no vote on the 43 unit project on Lund Ranch.


2 people like this
Posted by MeasurePP
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 6, 2016 at 9:25 am

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.


11 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2016 at 9:37 am

But this really isn't about PP...

Please read the many other postings on this.


6 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2016 at 11:55 am

@curious,

Thank you for presenting more facts. To further elaborate on your item #2:

The following is an excerpt from the Pleasanton City Council Special Meeting Minutes from June 26, 2008 prior to the vote on Measure PP:

"Karla Brown spoke on behalf of all three authors of the Initiative. She said the initiative is not Kay Ayala’s alone but that Ms. Ayala, one of many who want to protect Pleasanton’s quality of life. She clarified that the intent of the Initiative is to protect hills from development, direct development away from lands with environmentally sensitive features or with primary open space values, and to make the General Plan’s definition of a housing unit consistent with the federal and state definitions. She quoted portions of the staff report the proponents agree with, believed there was no need for the Council to place a competing Initiative on the ballot, and asked for their Initiative to stand on its own for residents to decide. She provided a letter to the City Clerk identifying those portions of the staff report that the proponents agree with.

Councilmember [Matt] 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 a 25% slope and leads to the conclusion that the intent of the initiative is not to preclude construction of the Happy Valley Bypass Road."

Full minutes are available at CityofPleasantonca.gov. Karla Brown’s statement is on Page 10.


2 people like this
Posted by Joni
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 6, 2016 at 12:02 pm

Protect hills from development. Exactly right.


7 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2016 at 12:07 pm

@SamIsRight,

Wrong.

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.

Claims that the Mayor and City Council's approval of the Lund Ranch II project sets a precedent for future projects 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.

As @curious has pointed out, in the city attorney's impartial analysis of PP in the voter guide, it states "Some clarification of terms in the Measure(e.g. "structure", "ridgeline", how to measure "slope") may be necessary in order that General Plan policies remain internally consistent & to resolve potential conflicts between other policies & the Measure." This was never questioned or challenged during the election cycle.

To accuse 'Ventana Hills people' of saying a road is not a structure "..because twisting the meaning of this fits their interests and needs," is hypocritical, at the very least.

Quite the opposite, actually. It's actually quite convenient for the referendum supporters to claim a road is structure to serve their NIMBY self-interests (i.e., Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents).

Finally, re: defining whether a road is a structure, two things:

1. Ask an unfortunate homeless person in the Bay Area if a road is a structure, and;

2. Ask any fire dept. when they receive a report of a road that's on fire, if that's referred to/categorized as a "structure fire."

You won't like either answer. Some of us still rely on common sense, instead of manufactured, 'convenient' definitions to suit our ulterior motives.


16 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2016 at 12:11 pm

@Joni,

You're sadly mistaken. All passage of this referendum will do is rescind the approved PUD-25 project. The builder can pursue several other options, including possibly suing you, me and the rest of the taxpayers of Pleasanton for what could amount to tens of millions of dollars. It's called a 'takings.' Please investigate prior City Council meeting minutes, if you care to learn more.

All you're doing by voting for the referendum is protecting two of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Pleasanton from having any traffic to the approved project from going through their neighborhoods.


14 people like this
Posted by MoreConcerned
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Feb 6, 2016 at 12:37 pm

Would be interesting to poll all those who think this is about protecting PP if they've ever read PUD-25, Ordiance 2133, and Ordiance 2134. If they have read them then they would know that none of the 43 homes are being built on hillsides or ridgetops and 177 of the 194 acres are deeded back to the city of Pleasanton as open space for hiking trails.
Measure PP is being fully applied per land use legal application of the law. Unfortunately for many neither Merriam nor Webster and their dictionary is the source of land use law in California.


6 people like this
Posted by Alexis B
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2016 at 5:31 pm

@Moreconcerned - Exactly right. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Pleasanton residents were lied to. If anybody thinks this referendum is about building homes on hillsides (which everyone does), that is evidence of the extent of the lies. Measure PP prevents homes from being built on hillsides, and NONE of the 43 homes were on hillsides.

I stood next to the paid signature gatherers and heard them lie... again and again and again. They knew they were lying, but at $15/signature, they did not care.

So is it really a victory for Pleasanton if you lie to people to get signatures?


2 people like this
Posted by Paid signers? Who cares!!
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 6, 2016 at 6:42 pm

The only people that care if the signature gathers are paid is Kay Ayala and the Ventana Hills/Mission folks. The rest of us in town don't really care.

These are people that may not be as educated as you, they work along side the residents of Pleasanton, and they like the flexible hours. Big hairy deal. They are gathering signatures to place on the ballot funding for public preschools and raise minimum wage in the state of CA. Fine with me.

Quit your whining.


5 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana HillsH
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2016 at 7:16 pm

@Paid signers

It is a big deal when paid signature gatherers make false statements (i.e., lie). In fact, it's against the law.


6 people like this
Posted by curious
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2016 at 7:28 pm

Paid signature gatherers had voter reg info to tell them which doors they knocked on as they canvassed. First, you SHOULD care that these out of town folks who are looking to make a buck had your name and address. Second, because they were paid $15 per signature and had the voter reg data, the opportunity to increase one's pay was quite easy. Time will tell based on how many signatures are actually deemed valid.


6 people like this
Posted by curous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2016 at 7:33 pm

As a follow-up, all other projects successfully referended (think Oak Grove) had the same amount of time 30 days to collect signatures as this one. Again ask yourself why this group turned to using paid signature gatherers when other attempts used ONLY non-paid Pleasanton residents? If this was such a huge issue to all of Pleasanton, shouldn't they have been able to use residents to collect signatures like Oak Grove did?

If paid signature gatherers are no big deal, why did Allen Roberts refuse to divulge the name of the company? What is he hiding?


4 people like this
Posted by A Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2016 at 8:57 pm

Had to drive there to see what this is all about. Being a 45 yr resident of Pleasanton have never been to that area. I found many newer multi million dollar homes. Was unable to even see the ridgeline over the homes. I guess the residents are worried about the traffic to be caused by the addition of 43 other multi million dollar homes. BTW the definition of Infrastucture includes roads.


2 people like this
Posted by Downtown resident
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 6, 2016 at 9:22 pm

Measure pp says housing units and structures shall not be placed on slopes 25 percent or greater or within 100 vertical feet of a ridge line. The Notice of Intent says exempt 10 or less housing units and supporting infrastructure on legal parcels from hillside development restrictions.

The city council and planning commission voted that according to the Pleasanton municipal code definition of a structure that a street is a structure.

Lund Ranch's consultant Angela Ramirez Holmes also held a meeting at New York Pizza with the Sierra Club and indicated the roadway from Sunset Creek violated Measure PP. Plans submitted to the city from the developer never included a roadway from Sunset Creek.

Lund Ranch violates the General Plan and Measure PP.


4 people like this
Posted by res
a resident of Birdland
on Feb 6, 2016 at 9:28 pm

This is the first initiative or referendum in Pleasanton where paid signature collectors were hired.

I understand the need to pay people for statewide initiatives due to the large geography to cover. However I feel that local land use issues should be a local thing. Those people who came in for this job have no idea what and where things are in Pleasanton. Since all other referendums were done with local residents getting signatures and qualifying in the 30 days, this group must not have felt confident enough that they could get the signatures without paying outsiders to help. I have helped collect signatures on several issues in Pleasanton and know the time commitment and also know enough about the city to answer questions. I also never argued with those who did not agree with me or try to mislead them. If I could not get enough signatures by telling the truth and not trying to coerce people into signing, there would be little chance of the issue winning on the ballot.

This is the first local land use petition I have not signed in Pleasanton and I have been here 35 years.

Will be interesting to see how the signature verification goes. When I collected signatures there were a lot of people who wanted to sign but did not live in the proper city of Pleasanton (e.g., Happy Valley, Castlewood) or were not registered to vote. I was able to to thank those people for their support but not collect a signature as it would not be of value. Be interesting to see the quality of the signatures from paid collectors.


7 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2016 at 9:47 pm

@Downtown resident,

You make a false statement. Nowhere in the text of Measure PP does it include the word "infrastructure."

Here's the whole text: Web Link

You make another false statement that the city council voted that according to the Pleasanton municipal code definition of a structure that a street is a structure.

The Mayor and City Councilmembers never voted/determined/finalized that "a road is a structure," as what's known as a 'second reading', or final (i.e., official) vote on that matter NEVER has taken place. Thus, it has never officially been determined, regardless of what you or others may claim.


2 people like this
Posted by Downtown resident
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 6, 2016 at 10:08 pm

resident of vents a you are wrong on all counts.

Please see the 5 statements at the bottom of the initiative under the line and under the statement Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition.

The 3rd point refers to exempting 10 or less housing units and supporting infrastructure. You can obtain a copy of it as I did from the city clerk office and it is stamped OCT 16 2007.

Kay Ayala is also quoted in the city council minutes as stating a road is a structure and that specific plans should be grandfathered in. Specific plans are plans but the General Plan supersedes any Specific Plan.

The 1996 general plan on p. X 12 program 16.1 called doe the adoption of hillside design standards. Kay Ayala did not lift a finger to start this process. if you can find any evidence that Kay Ayala ever in her role as a public official did anything to protect Pleasanton's hillsides or parks, do share it with us.

As far as spouting off claiming to be an expert on the initiative, it appears you don't even have a copy of it. You might want to actually obtain a copy.


5 people like this
Posted by RobtW
a resident of Castlewood
on Feb 7, 2016 at 6:03 am

The bottom line to all this is: can the city build streets, retaining walks, sewers and utility junctions on our hills and ridge lines. The current council says "yes". Lund Ranch II is being used to establish a "consistent use." Once established, they can use the same definition in the hills above Ventana, Vintage Hills Ruby Hills, Castlewood and up the ridge to Stoneridge. Don't let the developers mislead you into thinking this is just about 40+ houses. It's much larger than that.

I don't want Pleasanton to look like East Dublin.


3 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 7, 2016 at 9:14 am

I think that it's pretty clear that the intent of Measure PP was to prohibit all residential development of Pleasanton's ridges and hillsides, including putting down and new roads on ridges and hillsides. Personally, I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of trying to find a way to grant an exemption in this particular case, but to claim that a "road is not a structure" is nonsense. Some people seem to be so desperate to have this road built that they are willing to emasculate Measure PP and throw it into the trash bin. IF "roads are not structures" then neither are street lights for those roads, or cell phone towers, or utility boxes, etc.. We need to uphold the integrity of Measure PP and not let it become permanently weakened because some people see it as an inconvenient obstacle in this particular case.


10 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 7, 2016 at 10:40 am

@Downtown resident,

Sorry, but 'Notice of Intent' is not part of the Measure PP text. If you bothered to click on the link, you'd see it states "full text."

I've never claimed to be an 'expert on the initiative,' either.

I've already provided proof that the City Council never determined that a road is a structure.

You might want to review previous City Council meeting minutes.

You (and others) continue to drag Kay Ayala through the mud, which is ironic, considering she's always been a strong supporter of Measure PP/was one of the original proponents of it.

@Robtw, do you know that Castlewood is not a part of Pleasanton? If you signed the petition, your signature will be invalidated. Just FYI. Many homes built on hillsides and ridges are a part of Castlewood, though.

As stated before by the City Attorney, no precedent is set by any decision re: Lund Ranch II. The City can determine/intepret Measure PP on a case by case basis.

@Sam, you've got it wrong--to claim a road is structure is the real nonsense.

Ask an unfortunate homeless person if a road is a structure; ask any fire department if, when a road is on fire, they categorize that as a 'structure fire.' See common sense.

And as far as "trying to find a way to grant an exemption in this particular case," yes, that would the residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek.

The 'desperate people' you refer to are those same residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek, who found it necessary to pay out-of-town signature gatherers to get their way (see Not In My Backyard) via a referendum, supported by a developer (Allen Roberts, who lives atop a hill, Grey Eagle Estates), and Councilmember (Karla Brown, who also lives atop a hill, Kottinger Ranch).

Maybe we can make Measure PP retroactive, so Grey Eagle and Kottinger Ranch homes (can't include Castlewood homes, of course, because Castlewood isn't a part of Pleasanton) can all be torn down to uphold the integrity of Measure PP.

The 'inconvenient obstacle' was the Mayor and City Council approving a compromise decision that people wealthy enough to object to can afford to try to find a way to override (the referendum).


13 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Birdland
on Feb 7, 2016 at 11:22 am

Wouldn't it be poetic if the Sycamore/Bridle Creek neighborhood ended up with ALL the traffic for the 43 homes? Be careful what you wish for people.


2 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 7, 2016 at 11:48 am

@"Resident of Ventura Hills" : "@Sam, you've got it wrong--to claim a road is structure is the real nonsense. Ask an unfortunate homeless person if a road is a structure; ask any fire department if, when a road is on fire, they categorize that as a 'structure fire.' See common sense."

You know very well that many professions, including firefighters, have their own vernacular usage for many words. Please don't insult my intelligence or the intelligence of everyone else who voted for Measure PP by resorting to such transparently obvious silliness. The definition of the word "structure" is quite clear from any dictionary. It means something that is built or constructed, and that definition is consistent with the purpose and intent of Measure PP.


10 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 7, 2016 at 1:02 pm

@Sam,

Please don't insult common sense. Also, please don't determine traffic flows through my neighborhood. Oh wait, Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents have that covered already.


7 people like this
Posted by Science Facts
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 7, 2016 at 7:17 pm

@ Sam - Just because something has structure does not mean it violates Measure PP. You are confusing possession of structure with actually being a structure.

Everything possesses structure. Even grass and air. Should we ban those on the hills?

Not everything qualifies AS a structure though. Example: Air has structure but would not qualify as a structure.

Semantics semantics semantics. My point is, don't play around with words. City planners around the world call roads infrastructure.


5 people like this
Posted by Alexis B
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 7, 2016 at 7:26 pm

@ Paid signers? Who cares!!

The paid signature gatherers were thugs that threatened women and children to garner more signatures. Many had extensive criminal records. A couple were arrested here in Pleasanton for burglary and threatening a child with sexual assault. I personally stood next to another guy with such an extensive criminal record involving guns, drugs, and firing weapons... and we were at the library for two days.

The problem with paid signature gatherers is also that it is not in their best interest to tell the truth. It is in their best interest to get signatures.. which they did by lying.

Don't Pleasanton residents deserve to know the truth before they sign?


3 people like this
Posted by paid signatures are okay with me
a resident of Del Prado
on Feb 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm

I live across town, but I think paid gathers are required for state initiatives, and they are fine with local ones too.

While I was at Safeway I saw one of your loony residents harassing what I think was a paid gatherer.

Let me guess Alexis B, you must be one of the people that shouted "liar" to the man. Do you honestly think you have the right to be rude, then report them? Freedom of speech is guaranteed under our first amendment rights. If you have a brain cell and any common sense, then you know, get in their way and they will defend themselves with words - which is just fine with me!


6 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Castlewood Heights
on Feb 7, 2016 at 11:36 pm

@paid signatures are okay with me from Del Prado,

"Freedom of speech is guaranteed under our first amendment rights."

True, but free never comes without consequences.

It's disheartening to know there are people out there who are so gullible, they are called useful idiots. ;-). I was walking into Safeway and declined to sign the petition. Just a simple no thank you was all I gave. Upon walking into the store, a paid signature gatherer proceeded ro shout at me to make me feel guilty, or perhaps goad me into some sort of confrontation. Not something I asked for, or sought out, at all. I continued walking away, as my elevator does not go to that level. Carry on fighting the good fight, you are useful to someone!


Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 8, 2016 at 7:22 am

@Science Facts : "Everything possesses structure. Even grass and air. Should we ban those on the hills? Not everything qualifies AS a structure though. Example: Air has structure but would not qualify as a structure."

You see a post by me telling someone else not to insult my intelligence by playing word games with me over the meaning of the word "structure" in Measure PP and then you present me with the nonsense above?

Thanks, but I already know what the word "structure" means in the context of Measure PP and so do other voters.


Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 8, 2016 at 7:35 am

@Resident :"I was walking into Safeway and declined to sign the petition. Just a simple no thank you was all I gave. Upon walking into the store, a paid signature gatherer proceeded ro shout at me to make me feel guilty, or perhaps goad me into some sort of confrontation."

Never in all my years has any signature gatherer ever done anything like that with me. I'm pretty sure that they are extensively coached on proper behavior while gathering signatures. So I'm a bit skeptical of the stories I hear on these forums about so many paid signature gatherers on this particular referendum acting improperly. I suspect that there is more to the story for many of these tales.


18 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 8, 2016 at 8:52 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Sam, don't be so dismissive of others' experiences. Good for you if it hasn't been yours. A family member was approached at New Leaf and said no thank you. The signature gatherer challenged rather than accept that response. I think the training was likely purely motivational, "We need X signatures and you get X dollars for each."


Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 8, 2016 at 9:31 am

@Kathleen Ruegsegger

Kathleen, this isn't the first time that Pleasanton has ever had paid signature gatherers soliciting people for their signatures. Any speculations as to why there are apparently so many problems in this particular case? Quite a coincidence that there are so many problems with paid signature gatherers on this particular referendum in which people of certain neighborhoods have such strong, passionate feelings about, isn't it? To the paid signature gatherers there's nothing special about this particular assignment - it's a paid gig just like all of their other gigs. No reason for them to feel any more passionate or combative about gathering signatures for this assignment than any of their many past assignments. But to some Pleasantonians it seems that they've almost elevated it to a life-or-death affair. So if there are problems and conflicts between two parties over this particular signature gathering, guess where my suspicions lie?

So here's the picture I have: Some Pleasantonian who views his or her neighborhood as being threatened by the proposed referendum sees people gathering signatures for the referendum. How dare these paid outsiders come to Pleasanton to upset their neighborhood. The Pleasantonian walks by while shooting a rude remark or gesture at the signature gatherers. (Or are you going to claim to me that all such Pleasantonians were on their best behavior in such circumstances?) The signature gatherers then retaliate in kind. The Pleasantonian then reports how rude or offensive the paid signature gatherers were while conveniently omitting to mention that they instigated the conflict.

I've already seen plenty of intellectual dishonesty here from those who are opposed to the referendum, such as ridiculous attempts to argue that the word "structure" does not really mean what the dictionary says it does. So I'm going to have to take the accusations of inappropriate behavior by paid signature gatherers from many of these same people with a grain of salt.


7 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Castlewood Heights
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:21 am

@Sam
You are right Sam, I am a liar. Because you weren't there to see it with your own eyes, it absolutely didn't happen. "Eyeroll"


14 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:35 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Sam, I am sorry you can't see that, in some cases, these people were rude. I could spin a story to satisfy your doubt, just have you have spun yours. Rather, I'm trying to tell you that the rudeness did occur to someone in my family. Pretty simple.

I do believe 6,000 people, lied to or not, are about to cost us $250,000 because people, who knew a development was coming, want to change the game now that the project is approved. I don't agree with them. I don't want tax dollars spent on this or the potential lawsuit. Those people are already on the hills and so is the road. Where is your outrage at that?

If they don't want the development, they can buy the land and end the discussion and waste.


1 person likes this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:37 am

Is it me or Ventana Hills comments on all of these forums seem pretty desperate and mean. Did the builder bribe their steering committee or something?


13 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:51 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Why would they need to bribe anyone? They have more than compromised, they have a decision in their favor, it appears they have a case for a takings suit if needed. They'd be wasting money bribing anyone.


3 people like this
Posted by Neutral
a resident of Birdland
on Feb 8, 2016 at 11:26 am

Encountered a signature person at the dollar store, she smiled and other than that barely acknowledged me. I sort of expected more with all of the commotion about these people. I did see someone standing with a sign next to the signature people at farmers market. Neither of them were saying anything but seems like that would make the experience pretty tense for everyone? The signature people have nothing more to gain except their hourly wage? Seems sort of outrageous that they would be so aggressive with people, unless they have their own quotas and commission? The person with the sign about NOT signing had just as much to gain and made the environment just as hostile?


11 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Castlewood Heights
on Feb 8, 2016 at 11:37 am

@Neutral. - I don't know about an hourly wage, but I do know they were paid by the signature. As time wore on, they were paid more per signature. They also had other petitions to sign, not just the referendum, they appeared to be nothing more than mercenaries.


Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 8, 2016 at 11:53 am

@Kathleen Ruegsegger :"If they don't want the development, they can buy the land and end the discussion and waste."

Kathleen, a simple question for you: Did you or did you not vote for Measure PP?

If you did not vote for Measure PP, then I'll just point out that the majority of Pleasanton voters did vote for and pass Measure PP and would disagree with your statement above. If you did vote for Measure PP, then how do you reconcile your vote with your statement above?


6 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 8, 2016 at 12:23 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Okay, I'm a stickler on one point: it's a majority of those voting. That may also be a majority of Pleasanton registered voters, but not necessarily (40,000 registered voters; yes votes were 18,000; no votes were 12,000; lots of people who didn't vote). You also can't tell me the majority disagree, because you don't actually know that is true. And Measure PP isn't being violated, so altogether, how I voted is irrelevant.

The statement is a fact, they can buy the land (or at least make the attempt). Kind of a put your money where your mouth is thing.


26 people like this
Posted by MoreConcerned
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Feb 8, 2016 at 12:24 pm

@Sam,
I voted for PP and know exactly what it says and doesn't say. Even gathered signatures for PP.
I didn't sign the current petition because I re-read PP, read the Ordinances approving Lund II (#2133 and 2134) and did not see a conflict. I know lots of Pleasanton residents who voted for PP who did not sign the petition.

You have a right to your opinion/interpretation. We have a right to ours.


Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 8, 2016 at 12:31 pm

@Kathleen Ruegsegger

Thank you for your very direct and succinct answer, Kathleen.

:-)


1 person likes this
Posted by Pleasantonian
a resident of Castlewood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 1:23 pm

Less housing? 150 or so cut down to 45, cut down again to 10? Count my tax dollars in? 300 possible new students in our South Pleasanton schools cut down to possibly 20? Count me in, again and again!

I wish the neighborhoods near Safeway would have rallied together to cut those monstrosities being built there.

As far as the city council support, one neighborhood is arguing about, our job is to keep them on their toes, regardless of how many times they vote. There was no loyalty when they approved all of this new housing or when they were given the opportunity to change old votes on new housing!

How about we stick together as a city and divert our attention to all the new crime coming into our city?

These two neighborhoods are obviously passionate, why is less housing such a bad thing, regardless of allowing or not allowing new bridges or roads in whoever's backyard!


15 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 8, 2016 at 4:52 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Pleasantonian, I think this is an attempt to vote away the rights of one property owner by other property owners by dragging the whole town into the battle and have us pay for it to boot. So, if the vote takes those rights, how happy will we be if we are sued and have to pay millions for the "taking"?

I did a quick search and couldn't find an immediate answer to this question, if the city is sued and loses and pays millions, do we then own the land? If we don't (and I suspect that is going to be the answer), how good will taxpayers then feel when we no longer have sufficient funds for the services we expect, like fighting crime?


8 people like this
Posted by Notsopleasanton
a resident of California Reflections
on Feb 8, 2016 at 5:28 pm

To address what Kathleen has said, no, we won't own the land after the lawsuit. Even if Greenbriar lost, we would not own the land. They would sue to recoup their loss, but granting Pleasanton the property would not happen. City services such as police, even if these services ARE paid out of City budgets, would still be paid out. HOWEVER, think about the money we'd have to borrow in order to do it. Debt debt debt. Crippling debt. Are we prepared to pay out tens of millions? Makes me a little sick to my stomach to think of that. Time is money, and even if Greenbriar was put off for another year in order for us to go back to the drawing board for another attempt at reinventing the wheel, I don't think they are beholden to any of this nonsense, they could sue at any point. They want to make their money to be able to move on to other projects.


6 people like this
Posted by rres
a resident of Birdland
on Feb 8, 2016 at 5:51 pm

Not that I would want this but... if there were a "taking" then the numbers suggested here are way off in the value of the project. You cannot just figure out how much the developer gets for the houses. You have to subtract expenses. Don't think they are making 10's of millions in dollars in profit in this project.

To those who say we have too much housing traffic and school congestion, these few houses will be nothing as compared to all the high density apartment complexes and housing near Safeway that are being built.

On another thread Matt Sullivan says this was not a compromise since both sides did not get something. However, wasn't Matt on the Council when Oak Grove was approved and he voted for that project as he felt there was a good compromise there? Can't say that Oak Grove was a compromise and Lunch Ranch was not. The concerns of the neighbors in Lund Ranch was traffic on 'their' neighborhood. That is what the council compromised and moved half the traffic into Ventana Hills. The developer did not ask for that.


8 people like this
Posted by Notsopleasanton
a resident of California Reflections
on Feb 8, 2016 at 6:06 pm

@rres-"Not that I would want this but... if there were a "taking" then the numbers suggested here are way off in the value of the project. You cannot just figure out how much the developer gets for the houses. You have to subtract expenses. Don't think they are making 10's of millions in dollars in profit in this project."

So if tens of millions is way off the mark, let's put some rough numbers out there. It costs approx $200/per square foot to build a home. The homes are slated to be anywhere from 3500-4500 square feet. 43 homes multiplied by 4000/ft per house, multiplied by $200. That alone, is over $34,000,000. Do not forget the price of the land itself, plus the improvements needed to the land to even be able to build on it. I don't think that land was a cheap purchase for Greenbriar. That is not an expense we can incur, do you feel it is? And in the end, it still wouldn't be our land.


4 people like this
Posted by Notsopleasanton
a resident of California Reflections
on Feb 8, 2016 at 6:18 pm

If those numbers above seem a little high, figure out how much the land cost Greenbriar, plus expenses incurred buying it, and you have your amount. It's still in the millions. Those lots alone would go for 800k a piece. How much was the whole thing? And let's not forget they are behind on putting money made towads other projects. I am sure the original purchase price is public record somewhere.


5 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 8:59 pm

Since the latest posts have brought up the possibility of a 'takings' lawsuit, all Pleasanton residents should know it's a very real possibility. I'm reposting information I found and posted to a different string earlier today.

It's a study that was done in 2000 (couldn't find anything more recent), but it's quite informative.

Web Link

Here's the smoking gun, if you will, in this study (and again, this is from a study in California done just over 15 years ago; can't find an update on it, if any, but it is factual data):

"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."

Some additional key excerpts:

"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.

Some observers have feared that these rulings would impose a "a chilling effect," forcing local governments to either retreat from reasonable use of their regulatory authority or else be overwhelmed by takings lawsuits. Others, more sympathetic to the property rights movement, have hoped the rulings would rein in excessive government regulation.

Some have argued the rulings do not go far enough and that additional legislation is needed to protect property rights.

Defending a lawsuit can be prohibitively costly even if the takings claim is not valid. Furthermore, takings law is notoriously unpredictable, and unexpected lawsuits or judgments are always a possibility. One issue that deserves further exploration is the lack of insurance among cities and counties.

However, the best way to reduce the distorting influence of takings litigation is to avoid disputes over takings altogether."

On 1/5/16, the Mayor and the majority of City Councilmembers made a well-informed, compromise decision on Lund Ranch II that, in part, took the above into account, I'm sure.


18 people like this
Posted by Alexis B
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 9:05 pm

@ paid signatures are okay with me

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I did not shout and I was never rude to either the paid signature gatherers or the residents of Pleasanton. I believe firmly in mutual respect for all parties involved. I was never at Safeway (either one) but rather you probably saw me at Lucky's, Neighborhood Walmart, the library, or at Farmer's Market. Nobody had to "defend" themselves from me. I was always peaceful and smiling. The reason why some signature gatherers were threatening and verbally abusive towards me was 100% because when I was around, they didn't make as much $$$. I peacefully spoke to residents and explained my background and thoughts on this project. After hearing my side of the story, people rarely signed. That is it, and that is why I was threatened by the paid signature gatherers. That is also why other mothers and women were threatened as well.

If you don't believe me, please go ask the Pleasanton Police what they think of the conduct of the paid signature gatherers vs residents. Or, go ask the local managers of Safeway, Lucky's, Walmart, Raleys.. you name it. They saw all of us and can probably give you some new insight.




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

Swalwell reaches way too far
By pleasantonweekly.com | 32 comments | 852 views

Livermore veteran, 96, has reason to be proud
By Jeb Bing | 2 comments | 687 views