@Carlton Oaks Dan
Read the facts before making comments. I don't live in Ventana Hills, but can say the Bridle Creek and Sycamore Heights residents are not abiding by papers signed acknowledging Lund Ranch development when they purchased their houses and creating a raucous.

@Dan

Nothing but unsubstantiated accusations and slander.

Let's review the facts, please:

This whole referendum petition effort is a massive 'perception deception' by a select few seeking to protect and preserve their own self-interests based on NIMBYism.

First, a first-hand examination of the Lund Ranch II project site, per this PW Town Square post on 1/26/16 by 'Don't Understand the Fuss,' a resident of West of Foothill:

"With the clear weather today I decided to drive over to these neighborhoods and explore for myself what is being referendumed. Started by parking at Mission Hills Park and walking the length of Independence Drive past the fire road up to Sycamore Heights. Noted that both Mission Hills and Ventana Hills are clearly on flat land in the valley.

First street encountered in SH (Sycamore Heights) was Sunset Creek Lane. Seems to be perched on a ridge with about 1/2 a dozen homes. At the end of the street is a sign saying Pleasanton would extend the road further. Hill past the road rose slightly for about 50-60 yards then dropped off into a valley. I assume this is where the new homes are going. Met another walker doing the same examination of the issue. We agreed the SH people had it made - sitting on top of a ridge on a road on top of a ridge with great views.

Then walked over to Sycamore Creek Way. Whoa this was quite a climb. This street is on a higher ridge with about a dozen homes on that ridge. You know its the top of the ridge because there's a water tower and cities generally locate water towers on high points. Met two other walkers, also on a mission to examine what all the fuss is about. They agreed - SH residents have it lucky being on top of the ridges.

So SH residents are making a fuss about extending a road over a slight hill down into a valley. At the same time there are Pleasanton residents willing to take the time to examine the properties affected and make informed, intelligent, on-site visual decisions.

It's not supposed to rain the next few days. I suggest anyone interested in whether to sign the referendum or not first "walk the property" to see what all the fuss is all about.

Shakespeare may have had it right - it's seems to be much ado about nothing and the referendum supporters protest too much."

Here are some more facts to consider:

1. The two last full-page ads in the 1/22/16 and 1/29/16 editions of the Pleasanton Weekly are complete and total misrepresentations of the Lund Ranch II project, designed to instigate fear in order to compel voters to sign the group, "SavePleasantonHillsides'" referendum petition. The Mayor and City Council, on 1/5/16, approved a project of 43 homes, of which, ALL of them will be built on FLAT land, in a VALLEY, with NO homes to be built on ANY hillside or ridgeline whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. The Mayor and City Council approved a compromise re: traffic access into/out of Lund Ranch II, whereby 12 of the 43 homes will be accessed via Lund Ranch Road (in addition to the 17 homes on Middleton Place that already access Ventana Hills and Mission Hills neighborhoods, which originally they were not supposed to, adding to a total of 29), and the remaining 31 (i.e., the remaining homes in the approved Lund Ranch II project) will be accessed via Sycamore Creek Way (via Sunset Creek Lane). Part of that approval requires the building of a very short road, with a short jog down a hill (the City can confirm the exact length of this road) that will not be visible to the public.

7. Greenbriar Homes, the developer, agreed to building just 43 homes. The original plans for Lund Ranch II, part of the City's General Plan for over three decades, calls for approximately four times as many homes. Greenbriar is giving the City 174 acres (according to them; other reports state 177) of the property as permanent open space, which amounts to the remaining amount of the property (89.5%, again, according to Greenbriar) which they can NOT build on, due to Measure PP (i.e., hillsides and ridgelines). The total project site is 195 acres.

8. Greenbriar develops and pays for its own ads and other of its own efforts regarding opposing the Lund Ranch II project, which they have the right to do as they so choose. "Protect Pleasanton Neighborhoods" was created by and consists of residents of Ventana Hills and Mission Hills, and we contributed our OWN money to purchase two half-page ads in the 1/15/16 and 1/22/16 editions of the Pleasanton Weekly. We are not funded by Greenbriar. We don't have financial resources that the wealthy residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek have to run full-page ads and pay for signature gatherers and robocalls. Greenbriar pursues their own efforts for their own intents and purposes, which, quite frankly, is to be able to move forward with building the approved project of 43 homes.

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

Greenbriar did not get everything they wanted in the approved project, nor did Ventana Hills and Missions Hills residents, nor Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents. Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents are pursuing the referendum because they refuse to accept the compromise decision, reached after decades of review, public meetings and debate.

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

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

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

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

The above comments are all based on the FACTS @Dan. I strongly suggest you provide some FACTS instead of making unsubstantiated accusations and using smear tactics designed to obfuscate people.

@Dan,

Recommend you review the 'Karla Brown and the referendum' Town Square post made by @Just curious on 1/29/16, and MsVic's comments posted there.

Who's self-interested? Interesting reading.

Fact: Nearly every home in bridle creek is at a higher elevation than the Lund ranch development
Fact: the new road to Lund ranch only goes downhill, so it doesn't adversely detract from the neighborhood
Fact: bridle creek is funding the referendum request

Nimbyism at its best

We signed papers acknowledging the potential use of Lund Ranch land way back when Bridlecreek was new. We were very concerned about traffic when Sycamore Heights was built, but aside from a teenager careening up the street occasionally the traffic isn't really a issue.

The opposition to this build is disingenuous and unwarranted.

Dan

I think the council and neighborhoods are unable to settle this dispute, even though they tried. It is time to go to ALL of the voters in Pleasananton and settle this fight.

And to the daily blogger Ms Vic (her full name is listed many times but I am not going to contribute to it on this thread). You might notice most people don't put their real name for good reason.

I work in HR, and just like we tell the Gen Xers, the next time you go for a job interview, the employer will Google you and see this ugly, vile, mean and bullying. Stuff on line lives forever. Time to stop.

I think the council and neighborhoods are unable to settle this dispute, even though they tried. It is time to go to ALL of the voters in Pleasananton and settle this fight.

And to the daily blogger Ms Vic (her full name is listed many times but I am not going to contribute to it on this thread). You might notice most people don't put their real name for good reason.

I work in HR, and just like we tell the Gen Xers, the next time you go for a job interview, the employer will Google you and see this ugly, vile, mean and bullying. Stuff on line lives forever. Time to stop.

Thanks @all the voters need.... Not sure when truth became ugly and vile. Sorry if the truth hurts. And thanks for the hint about using my real name, I am not concerned, but appreciate your input.

If you have an opinion to share, I think you should own it. I get that most won't, but it has little to do with getting a job.

@The voters need make the final decision on Lund Ranch II
Although it sounds good, "have all Pleasanton voters decide the issue", it now puts the decision in the hands of people who probably know little about the issue but can provide a sound bite or text bite from either the pro or anti referendum talking points.
The Lund Ranch II decision process started in 2007. There have been countless public meetings - Council Meetings, Planning Commission Meetings - where the public (voting residents of Pleasanton) were invited to listen to and comment about information from urban planners, the developer, city counsel, council members and many, many residents of the affected neighborhoods (Mission Park, Bonde Ranch, Ventana Hills, Sycamore Heights, and Bridle Creek). Hundreds of Pleasanton residents got their 3 minutes of time to talk to the Council or Planning Commission and show there Powerpoints. Believe me, there were 100s of people who presented their views on the project with some meetings going past 11pm. All of these meetings and notices are fully documented and available for examination in 38 pdfs on the City of Pleasanton website. The text of every citizen who spoke at these meetings is captured in these 38 documents. Every neighborhoods concerns were heard.
I would hope anyone who believes we should have the whole city vote would also have read the 38 documents pertinent to this project. Then, it might be possible to make an informed vote.
Unfortunately the past few weeks have produced too many one-liners of emotional comments without regard for the complexity of the solution the City Council finally approved.

@ the voters need

"I think the council and neighborhoods are unable to settle this dispute, even though they tried"

Your premise is totally inaccurate and flawed. Council was able to settle this dispute, and Ventana/Mission neighborhoods were part of that solution by agreeing to the compromise made.

Unfortunately, Sycamore Heights/Bridle Creek NEVER even tried to be part of the solution. They chose to exacerbate "this dispute" by refusing to compromise. They elected instead to stomp their feet and further aggregate this "fight". Why "settle" for traffic from ~ 31 homes going through their neighborhood when what they wanted all along was NO TRAFFIC?

To further undermine the solution, A Roberts bankrolled up to $50, 000 to hire non Pleasanton residents to collect signatures via a propaganda campaign (A first for Pleasanton) while Ms Brown gave her blessing and her name.

In all due respect, with a HR background, I'm sure you are familiar with one of the cardinal rules of conflict resolution: having employees look for compromises so ALL parties can move forward.

Had Sycamore Heights/Bridal Creek chose compromise, instead of an "ugly, vile, mean and bullying" approach,
a settlement of differences by mutual concessions would of been the outcome and "ALL of Pleasanton" could of moved forward with 80%+ open ridge land park to enjoy.

So….. if you change the way you look at things, (i.e. your flawed premise) the things you look at change!

@Dan
You ask God to Bless Pleasanton.
Yet your accusations seem to ignore the Ninth of Ten Commandements.
the one about "bearing false witness".
Just saying...