News


Referendum backers file petitions with 6,086 signatures

If verified, petitions could force referendum on June ballot

Proponents of placing a measure on the June ballot to overturn the City Council's approval of a 43-home development in Lund Ranch submitted petitions with 6,086 signatures Friday, well over the 4,124 -- or 10% of the city's registered voters -- needed to force a referendum.

City clerk Karen Diaz accepted the box loads of petitions from referendum backer Allen Roberts and others leading the referendum effort in her office in City Hall.

After her initial count of the signatures, she forwarded the petitions to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, whose office is now in the process of examining and verifying the signatures against Pleasanton voter registration records and also looking 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.

If voters approve the proposed referendum, plans by Greenbriar Homes to build the houses on Lund Ranch, a 194-acre site it owns, would be scuttled. The developer would have to wait one year before resubmitting the same or another plan for building homes on its Lund Ranch property.

Comments

15 people like this
Posted by Terry
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 7:27 am

Wow, 6000 signatures. Hopefully the council can listen to the voters now and get a plan that compiles to PP.























.


15 people like this
Posted by We Decide
a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 8, 2016 at 8:19 am

Agree but I'm not sure the council will listen and I also don't think that they can be trusted to make decisions that will ensure that PP is fully respected since I haven't seen much evidence from this council to convince me otherwise. Being somewhat of an optimist, I'm hopeful they will choose to keep PP strong, but I'm also a pragmatist and think as there is just too much special interests involved that collectively desire to weaken PP.


41 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 8:47 am

But this wasn't about PP. It was about 2 wealthy neighborhoods trying to route traffic through another neighborhood that was already dealing with too much traffic.


57 people like this
Posted by Bill Brasky
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Feb 8, 2016 at 8:57 am

Bill Brasky is a registered user.

250k and approximately 35k for ads and petition gathers spent for a TRAFFIC issue. I wonder how many part-time teacher aides or police officers could have been hired for that amount.


32 people like this
Posted by Matt Sullivan
a resident of Stoneridge
on Feb 8, 2016 at 9:20 am

Well, I spent three weekends collecting signatures for the referendum and it was ALL about Measure PP for me. I live in the west side of town so had no personal stake in the traffic issue. But Bob B. is right that the issue was about traffic for many, and the Council and the developer’s lobbyist took advantage of this by setting up a “divide and conquer” strategy to oppose the referendum. Fortunately, this failed and it appears that this project will be going to the voters (the Council could simply rescind its approval of the project and avoid an ugly and expensive political campaign, but let’s not hold our breath).

Instead of fighting each other, both neighborhoods should join with the PP supporters to fight the real enemy: the small-town corporatocracy that Pleasanton has become. The Ventana Hills neighborhood seems to believe that if the referendum is successful the Council will approve a similar project with ALL the traffic going down their streets. This is not inevitable, and I for one would help them protect the commitment made by earlier Council’s to prevent this, and if we join as citizens against these insidious plans we can be successful. This is not the first referendum in Pleasanton’s history, and indeed, citizen action like this has been the only avenue for government by and for the people in this town for 20 years. As residents with the same basic concerns about the condition of our local government let’s work together instead of fighting each other, especially when in the long run it benefits no one but Greenbrier Homes.


42 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 9:26 am

Thank you @BobB, @Bill Brasky, and @huh? for providing details of what this is really about, succinctly, pure and simple.

I would also add Councilmember Karla Brown, who lives in Kottinger Ranch, another neighborhood built on hillsides and ridges, and whose support of the referendum is really about keeping any additional traffic off of Hearst Drive, because, like Allen Roberts, she also doesn't want any houses in Oak Grove built that would add traffic to her neighborhood.

But OK to add traffic to others' neighborhoods.

Sad that people who signed the petition can't see they're simply being used as pawns to satisfy some rich people's NIMBYism.

That's all this is--all it ever was. Rich people getting what they want.

At least some of us aren't ignorant enough to be their pawns because we know what the truth is.

Unfortunately, all of us will be on the hook for the $250,000 (or more) of taxpayer dollars to pay for the rich people's referendum.

As many have said before, how do rich people get rich? They spend other people's money.


65 people like this
Posted by Shame for Pleasanton
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 9:26 am

It's a shame for Pleasanton that the wealthiest neighborhoods in town can pay outsiders to lie and collect signatures - all to keep traffic out of their neighborhoods.

Yes a few residents collected signatures, but the VAST MAJORITY of the signatures they collected were through paid people. I stood next to them... they lied left and right. It was in their interest to lie to get more $ because they were getting paid per signature.

This has nothing to do with Measure PP since none of the 43 homes violated it. 100% a traffic issue.

Shame.


21 people like this
Posted by We Decide
a resident of Mohr Park
on Feb 8, 2016 at 9:32 am

Hi BobB. If this was about two neighborhoods as you infer, then I believe the votors in Pleasanton (who I argue are smart, knowledgeable people ... which is one reason I like living here), wouldn't sign. The arguments put forth in the material available (www.savepleasantonhillsides.com web site) supporting the referendum stated that this was about PP and hillside protections. To me it seemed sensible and, considering both sides of the argument, compelled me to agree and sign. Of course, everyone has the rights to their own opinions and I would respectively disagree with your viewpoint on this issue.

Bill, I completely agree with you that the city should not spend $250K on this and that this money is better spent on police/fire/education. Lets hope that the council (who ultimately controls what money the city spends or not) agrees with you and I as well and chooses to abide by every aspect of PP and reject the project in its current form thereby saving tax payers from spending that money on an election. As was the case with election results for Oak Grove referendum, we have seen the movie and we already know how it will end.


88 people like this
Posted by Long time resident
a resident of Country Fair
on Feb 8, 2016 at 9:40 am

Classic case of a few wealthy individuals who "got theirs" and knew that the road was to be extended when they bought homes, and are willing to waste $250,000 or more of city money to keep others from driving on their street or getting their dream home. Maybe they should get together and buy the land, and then they can decide what to do with it.


9 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 8, 2016 at 9:48 am

@Long time resident

You got 34 votes for your post in less than 6 minutes? What's going on here?


24 people like this
Posted by b
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 9:49 am

$250k of taxpayer money, on top of what has already been wasted on this Nimby battle. Oh wow.

Greenbriar has a strong history of building nice neighborhoods here in Pleasanton, including some homes that these petitioners live in. Thanks to them and other builders from the past, we all have the great pleasure of living here. This is another responsible development that improves our community. Time to move forward.


17 people like this
Posted by SeniorCitizen
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 9:50 am

SeniorCitizen is a registered user.

@Matt Sullivan
Really appreciate your call for cooperation and common cause.
It would seem the only way to solve the current Lund II and future problems like this is to ban all future new housing development in Pleasanton. Is that possible? Aren't we already over some cap on housing set way back years ago?
Measure PP, in its current reading, doesn't ban building, it just restricts certain kinds of building on certain types of topography. It's also ambiguous with regard to infrastructure. Thus, all the interpretations, arguments and counter-arguments we see going on in these posts on PW.


16 people like this
Posted by Ridge runner
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Feb 8, 2016 at 9:53 am

No need to go through the vote if the city council would choose to listen to the voters right now, uphold PP, and reject the Lund Ranch development right now; but they won't, because they are on the developer's payroll...


25 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:02 am

@Matt Sullivan,

You conveniently forget that the residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek stood at the podium at more than one Planning Commission and City Council meeting re: PUD-25/Lund Ranch II and publicly supported having all of the traffic from the Lund Ranch II project go through Ventana Hills and Mission Hills.

You also forget that they wouldn't agree to have a road connection through Sycamore Heights HOA-owned land, per their attorney's letter to the City Council. "Highly unlikely." Nope, not in our backyard.

Additionally, saying we should "join with the PP supporters" insinuates that we don't support Measure PP, and that's false. The compromise decision protects/sets aside 177 acres of hillsides and ridges, but let's throw that out so rich people like Allen Roberts (a developer), and Bill Lincoln can get what they want. No traffic in their backyards.

Why don't you ask Allen Roberts, Councilmember Karla Brown, and Bill Lincoln if they care so much about protecting hillsides and ridges, why do they live in neighborhoods that are built on them? Utter hypocrisy.

Why don't you check out PUD-87 and learn where a lot of the cut through traffic from that huge housing project is going to go? The residents of Ventana Hills and Mission Hills know, as do the Mayor and some of the City Councilmembers. So does Councilmember Karla Brown, who, when approving PUD-87, regarding potential traffic impacts, said, "We all have to share the pain."

I don't think she's sharing any pain--now, or if/when Lund Ranch II is ever built.

Spare us the 'holier than thou' pitch.

Residents of both Ventana Hills and Mission Hills have been dealing with this project and its potential impacts for 25 years.

Additionally, don't be so fast to count your chickens--all those signatures have to be validated, including the ones collected by the paid signature gatherers, from the company Allen Roberts refuses to identify.

And, if/when the referendum petition is validated, it needs to pass.

A select few rich people in this town have won a battle and are enjoying their views from above, but they just might not win the war to get what they want.


23 people like this
Posted by b
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

The residents of Bridle Creek, Sycamore Heights, etc should just be thankful that they have their $2m homes courtesy of prior neighbors who were a little more tolerant and less combative. We all have our predecessors to thank for our homes, and should be more tolerant of well-planned neighborhoods, since years ago, they were ours.


17 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Mission Park
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:10 am

Maybe the city and residents of Pleasanton can sue the homeowners who bought their house/property knowing about the project and the road being extended. They have a signed contract, they should be liable for all costs.


15 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:15 am

@Ridge runner,

Re: "...they [the City Council] are on the developer's payroll..."

Which City Councilmembers, specifically?

Which developer's or developers' payroll?

How much are each of them getting paid?

You make accusations, yet you provide no proof.

Did you know Allen Roberts is a developer, btw?

Web Link

Kind of ironic, isn't it?


24 people like this
Posted by Potential Lawsuit?
a resident of Birdland
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:16 am

I read about people hoping the Lund Ranch project will be shut down. You are being naive. It will not get shut down, the homes are going in. What COULD happen however, is Greenbriar can go ahead and sue the city, for, oh, maybe $10 million, in what is called a 'takings'. That amount makes the money spent on on a ballot meausre look like chump change. I hope it was worth it!


19 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:29 am

@Potential Lawsuit?

Another good point that should be well-taken, and one that I and others have brought up before, including the City Attorney.

It won't be for $10 million, though. If the project is refused/completely rejected, that's 43 homes we're talking about. At $2 million per home, try $86 million.

If the project's approved for just 10 homes, that's 33 homes, or $66 million.

Here's some more info I've found on 'takings' lawsuits, btw, for those who care to learn more. It's a study that was done in 2000 (couldn't find anything more recent, yet), 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 15+ years ago; can't find an update on it, if any):

"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 “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."


13 people like this
Posted by Dancermom
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:36 am

It is funny to me how voters 7 years ago voted PP into law and now objections are being raised to uphold that law. Regardless of where you live or how much money you do or don't have, the majority of voters in ALL of Pleasanton voted for PP then and seem to have supported it again by signing this petition--I don't think this many people are stupid or being tricked. I think Pleasantonians are a pretty smart bunch. Let's hope the City Council thinks so and doesn't bring this to a second expensive vote.


16 people like this
Posted by Potential Lawsuit?
a resident of Birdland
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:42 am

@Ventana Hills, wow, thanks for expanding on my thought. I threw $10 million out as a random number. Yes, you are right, the number would be exponentially higher, of course. This makes me think of Half Moon Bay, when a developer sued the city due to a rescinding of approval on some land by the city council, influenced by The Sierra Club. What a mess, and you couldn't blame the developer, he did what he had to do to recoup his loss. Halk Moon Bay I believe is now bankrupt. Does the Sierra Club give a darn? Not really.


15 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:44 am

Couple other cogent excerpts from the study I referenced above:

"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.


23 people like this
Posted by Seeking Clarity
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 11:10 am

@Dancermom (and others)
Could you please cite what part of Measure PP has been violated by the City Council decision of 1-6-2016? Here's PP as a refresher.

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.

Reading through the City Council and Planning Commission meeting minutes looks like the decision bent over backwards to follow PP (as advised by the City Attorney's office) and other agreements in place from previous city councils.


16 people like this
Posted by justwondering
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 11:29 am

Matt Sullivan, could you please clarify the following questions for me?

1. What part of PP does Lund Ranch violate given that you had an exchange with Karla Brown during a council meeting confirming that PP was NOT about roads rather about houses on ridges?

2. Please explain how this is a grass roots effort when Allen Roberts and a few residents in Sycamore Heights spent $50,000 (from their website) to hire paid signature gatherers when they had the same 30 days to gather signatures that residents did for Oak Grove?

3. Do you think it was ok for Allen Roberts to refuse to identify the company they hired given the statements made by the 2 women and that at least one of the paid signature gatherers was arrested?

Thanks


11 people like this
Posted by Matt Sullivan
a resident of Stoneridge
on Feb 8, 2016 at 11:57 am

Resident of Ventana Hills,

You have repeatedly stated that the City Council made a "compromise" decision on Lund Ranch II. The definition of compromise according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute". The key phrase is "reaching agreement", something that did not occur in this case by all stakeholders. If you're defending the Council action it sounds good, but this clearly was not a compromise.

When a City Council refuses to consider the will of the people referendums are the result.


27 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 12:27 pm

Matt,

The Mayor and City Council did make a compromise decision (i.e. they reached agreement), one which the residents of Sycamore Heights, Bridle Creek, and Allen Roberts refused to accept (they, and we, had hoped they would accept it, too--they did not).

So, yes, the referendum is a result of the fact that those two neighborhoods and their wealthy developer friend/sponsor would not accept the compromise decision.

Nobody got everything they wanted--not the residents of Ventana Hills and Mission Hills, not the residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle creek, and certainly not the developer, Greenbriar.

Re: the City Council refusing to consider the will of the people, sorry, but they did consider the will of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents (i.e., some of the people) in reaching their decision, and it's inaccurate and disingenuous to suggest that those two neighborhoods plus Allen Roberts alone represent the will of ALL of 'the people' in Pleasanton.

They do not.

A minimum of 4,127 registered voters/maximum of 6,000 (depending on how many signatures are actually determined to be valid), also doesn't represent the will of ALL the people in Pleasanton.


7 people like this
Posted by Wind
a resident of another community
on Feb 10, 2016 at 8:16 am

Wind is a registered user.

@Matt Sullivan

It's really wasting your time trying to reason with those Vantana Hills folks using the definitions from dictionary, they will simply either twister it or stretch the meaning of those. When the dictionary clearly says a road is a structure, they refused to admit it. There is a pattern, they will keep saying whatever suit for their needs. When clearly Vantana Hills backed city council members approved a plan favoring them, they say it's a compromise, their motivation is to move the traffic elsewhere regardless whether it will cause any environment damage, for this 6000+ voters said NO.

Now the burden is on city council to come to their senses and not spend that money and uphold PP by cancelling the plan. Well, I am not optimistic about that, as some Vantana Hills folks said, they lost this battle but they want to win the war, which is to take to the voters to decide, that's exactly what referendum proponents asked for, but Vantana Hills folks objected to and tried every possible way to disrupt that democracy process.

There are so many possibilities even if the plan is eventually rejected, the number of houses can be reduced much more but houses can be bigger, so builder can still make money, etc. It is a no no to violate PP. No roads should be allowed to built on top or cut through our ridges.


17 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2016 at 8:43 am

BobB is a registered user.

@Wind,

You said "When the dictionary clearly says ..."

But the dictionary says otherwise. You misread it. Go back and try again.

Further, the road is already there (It would just be improved), and it goes down to the proposed houses, not up. Go look at the property. I have.

This was never about PP. This was about two neighborhoods spending money to bring in outside petitioners who use whatever lies and intimidation they could to get this on the ballot. All so that they can route traffic through another neighborhood.


15 people like this
Posted by SeniorCitizen
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2016 at 9:15 am

SeniorCitizen is a registered user.

@Wind,
Could you be more specific about which provision of Measure PP (I, II or III) is being violated by the City Council with regard to the Lund II decision? Someone posted Measure PP's full text earlier in this thread so you can use that for reference.

Also, like many others have stated I also (like @BobB) drove up to the road in question (Sunset Creek Lane).
1. The road actually exists today, there are homes on it that are part of Sycamore Heights.
2. It's about 150 yards below the ridgeline.
3. It has nowhere to go but down if it's extended into the Lund II development.

Again, what provision of Measure PP has been violated?


7 people like this
Posted by Wind
a resident of another community
on Feb 10, 2016 at 1:09 pm

Wind is a registered user.

@BobB

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.

Can you provide any from dictionary Road is not a structure?


9 people like this
Posted by Wind
a resident of another community
on Feb 10, 2016 at 1:19 pm

Wind is a registered user.

@SeniorCitizen

No structures unless it is connecting to less than 10 houses shall be built on 25 percent or higher slope, that is PP. Vantana Hills people tries to argue a road is not a structure, which is ridiculous, most voters will not agree with them.

You need to look at builder plan map, it shows where the ridge will be cut open, and 645 truckload of dirt will need to be trucked away, and 6 feet retaining walls need to be built, also the road needs to cross a seasonal creek, ... Serious engineering work!


7 people like this
Posted by Wind
a resident of another community
on Feb 10, 2016 at 1:35 pm

Wind is a registered user.

The previous city council members cut some behind scene deals with certain neighborhoods, promising this promising that, good we have PP to stop that kind of Ponzi schemes from going on. PP trumps all, so do not bring up previous promises made by previous few officials, they were already deemed legally unbinding, confirmed by city attorney many times, got it?!


15 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2016 at 1:37 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@wnd,

" something (such as a house, tower, bridge, etc.) that is built by putting parts together and that usually stands on its own"

Web Link

You're looking at the definition of "infrastructure", not "structure".

Of course that isn't what this is all about anyway. It is a traffic dispute between neighborhoods.


9 people like this
Posted by Wind
a resident of another community
on Feb 10, 2016 at 2:15 pm

Wind is a registered user.

@BobB

Funny it's Vantana Hills people argued road is not a structure but an infrastructure, that caused people to look up in the dictionary, there clearly said about the road is structure, hah!

No, it's argued as traffic disputes only by Vantana Hills neighborhood, who tried rather unsuccessfully so far to cover up the damage the road may cause to our hills.


13 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2016 at 3:01 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@wnd,

"... there clearly said about the road is structure, hah! ..."

What? I have no idea how to make sense of that sentence.

"... who tried rather unsuccessfully so far to cover up ..."

Again, what? What you typed makes no sense.

You say you are from a different community, then you say "damage the road may cause to our hills". Our hills? Have you even been here? Have you looked at the road? It is already there and goes down. Nothing to violate PP or anything else. What community are you from? Are you one of the paid signature gatherers?


6 people like this
Posted by Wind
a resident of another community
on Feb 10, 2016 at 3:59 pm

Wind is a registered user.

@BobB

Now I know you have no clue that a new road will be built. You need to read builder plan before come here claiming the road is already there. That is ridiculous. The new road will cut through the ridge, and requires removing 645 truckload of dirt. Guess you have no clue that will happen. Wasting time.


13 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2016 at 5:52 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@Wind,

I've not only looked at the plans, I've walked around the site. Again, have you?

You say you are from a different community. Are you one of the paid signature gatherers? What community are you from? Have you even been to Pleasanton?

You also say "... good we have PP to stop that kind of Ponzi schemes from going on ...", whatever that is supposed to mean. Do you have any idea what a Ponzi scheme is?

Web Link

"A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business."

How could that have any application to Lund Ranch?


10 people like this
Posted by Alexis B
a resident of Mission Park
on Feb 10, 2016 at 6:24 pm

Alexis B is a registered user.

@Wind

I'm sorry but the entire academia of city planners (including Pleasanton) define roads as infrastructure. You are asking little ol' Pleasanton to change the definition in order to divert traffic from one neighborhood to another. But on principal, this is wrong. What's next? Change the definition of a house?


6 people like this
Posted by Wind
a resident of another community
on Feb 10, 2016 at 6:33 pm

Wind is a registered user.

@BobB

I don't need to waste more time with you. You don't know the builder plan, you don't know the analogy, and how Ponzi scheme uses unrealistic future expectations and promises to solve temporary problems.


5 people like this
Posted by Wind
a resident of another community
on Feb 10, 2016 at 6:51 pm

Wind is a registered user.

@Alexis B

Infrastructure and structure are not mutually exclusive, understand? Structures can be part of infrastructures. Check the dictionary, it's also language approved by voters, which can be further confirmed by voters.

I understand the definition of infrastructure from Merriam-Webster is not something you like, fine.


17 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2016 at 6:53 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@Wind,

"... and how Ponzi scheme uses unrealistic future expectations and promises to solve temporary problems ..."

What? I can't make any sense of how that applies to Lund Ranch.

Again,

You say you are from a different community, then you say "damage the road may cause to our hills". Our hills? Have you even been here? What community are you from? Why are you even commenting here? Have you been to the site?


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

Couples: It's Normal to Get Defensive . . . Then What?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,191 views

Bringing great burgers to downtown Pleasanton
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 327 views