Jay,

Thank you for the unbiased and informative post.

Echoing Bill Brasky,

Thanks for some common sense.

Jay,

If only you could have attended one of the planning commission's meetings you probably would have had chuckled. People were trying to explain why this was a structure by citing some line in a wikipedia definition.

by your definition a cell tower is infrastructure. Line the ridge tops with cell towers connecting structures? To that I say "no".

Cell towers? People are bringing up cell towers now?

First, let me commend Mr Green for clarifying the semantics of the word "structure". Having supported PP I always assumed we wanted to keep "structures" off the hilltops meaning large houses or mansions lining the ridgelines. Never considered it to preclude roads that might be used for all kinds of purposes like fire lanes or access to trails for biking and hiking and even access to non-ridgeline housing,

As Inigo Montoya said in the movie "The Princess Bride": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.".

One more thing. Even President Obama agrees with Mr Green's definition of a road as infrastructure.

See the New York Times, Feb 2, 2015 "Obama Proposes Tax for Upgrade of Infrastructure" where roads are called out as infrastructure.

I am guessing this is why they didn't sue the city because there is no way PP is in violation with a structure violation. Instead they are trying to change the definition of "structure" through a referendum to get what they want...

@ Bill

WOW- you nailed it - that is exactly why Bridle Creek/Sycamore Heights , Allen Roberts and company did not sue the city. thx for the insight.

They still had the money though to pay $50,000 to pay out of town people- some who behave like thugs to the opposition, to collect signatures.

@Trina

Plus,K. Brown would no way attach her name to a lawsuit against the city, it would be political suicide. A referendum "protecting the ridges, while I live on a ridge" can be spun so many ways when campaigning for her next election.

Road is a structure, and infrastructure includes structure. To say infrastructure is not a structure is wrong. 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.

@ Bill

Makes so much sense when you connect the political dots in regard to K Brown.

To have the referendum and K Brown supporters (joined at the hip) pay $50,000 to buy signatures for a referendum "protecting the ridges, while I live on a ridge" then was good value for their overall campaign dollar and her early election bid "spin" and eventual political favors.

again- thank you for bringing such clarity to this issue.

@ nodublin2

From Oxford American Dictionary:

1. The arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex
flint is extremely hard, like diamond, which has a similar structure
1.1 A building or other object constructed from several parts
1.2 The quality of being organized

@NoDublin2. Thank you for bringing clarity and authority to this issue! This confirms infrastructure may contain structures and Road is a Structure!

@ nodublin2

Cambridge Dictionary:

1.the ​arrangement or ​organization of ​parts in a ​system:

2.something ​built, such as a ​building or a ​bridge

It does seem a bit comical to quote the dictionary on this one. What's next, wikipedia? A stray dog?

Jay Green said it beautifully - Roads are infrastructure.

An expert in his field vs. random person on the internet with a dictionary. hmmmm whom to believe?!......

You can trust the so called expert's opinion, the problem is that there were also experts opinions that road is a structure. Bet people including court will take the definition in trust-worthy dictionary like Merriam-Webster more than the claims from one such expert who did not even provide which text book explicitly says road is not a structure.

This author is confused. Infrastructure is something needed and essential, but a road to nowhere can not be possibly called infrastructure. So you can see road may be a part of infrastructure, or may not be. Infrastructure includes structures like roads or others like rail lines, power lines, ... Sorry, in this case, the dictionary is correct.

This section of road is going to be leveled then paved. Nothing is being built

@ lover of structure

I find it "comical" that you would jump to the conclusion that jay is an "expert" just because he has a degree and experience.

I do know it does not take an expert however to understand that "this section of road is going to be leveled then paved. Nothing is being built"

Bill Brasky might just be a genius (by Einstein's definition) for making simple what the referendum supporters have tried to make so very complex.

@Bill Brasky The builder is going to truck away more than 645 truckloads of dirt from hillside, and build retaining walls 6 feet tall or more, plus it will require serious engineering work and environment impact study, and it will waste a lot of water just to suppress the dust during the construction, also there will be erosion prevention work to be done, you call that's not being built?! Even the city and builder was not as bold as you.

@roadisbuilt

You're right you build a retaining wall and pave a road

@RoadIsBuilt,

Why don't you ask Councilmember Karla Brown, who lives in Kottinger Ranch, a major subdivision built on hillsides and ridges:

1. How many truckloads of dirt were trucked away from the hillsides to build Kottinger Ranch, where she lives?

2. How many retaining walls 6 feet tall or more were built that required serious engineering work and an environmentmental impact study?

3. How much water was used/wasted just to suppress the dust during the construction of Kottinger Ranch?

4. How much erosion prevention work was done, you call that's not being built?

5. How many acres of hillsides and ridgelines in Kottinger Ranch are protected and accessible to the general public of Pleasanton? ZERO. Private property (that is, those hillsides and ridges which haven't been built upon).

6. How many acres of hillsides and ridgelines in the approved Lund Ranch II project are protected and will be accessible to the general public of Pleasanton? 177 acres.

Suffice it to say Councilmember Karla Brown is pretty bold as well.

Check out the facts re: Lund Ranch II.

Also recommend you read the "Karla Brown and the referendum" Town Square post by Just curious. Eye opener.

@ Roadisbuilt - please check your facts. The dirt is not being hauled away from this project, the dirt is being used within the projects. Please research your facts before you post. Thank you - have a great day.

Folks - Roads are a part of infrastructure at the federal and state level in all ways including (but not limited to) planning, development, budget, etc.

You are are SERIOUSLY going to sit here and say that little ol' Pleasanton, CA is going to go against the road=infrastructure definition?! We would be the laughing stock of the country.

And for those playing semantics.. EVERYTHING possesses a structure. Even a line on the ground, a blade of grass, an atom of air - they all HAVE a structure but that does NOT mean all they ARE structures in terms of building and development. By that logic, we would have to ban air and grass on the hills. Any takers?

It just doesn't make any sense and it's semantic word games.

Roads are clearly a part of infrastructure.

@ This is crazy,

Yep.

Read the Town Square post, 'Karla Brown and the referendum', and you'll understand why she, Allen Roberts, and residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek argue that 'a road is a structure.'

Eye opener.

@ this is crazy

I know, the country would think it's laughable how a neighborhood who bought their homes knowing all the traffic from a 178 home development was going by their neighborhood had it to reduced to 48 homes (planning commision). Then have the traffic split (city council) with the next neighborhood over who was not suppose to get any would then respond with "we are well funded" and start a referendum.

The referendum would close down the compromised access point through their neighborhood and shift all the traffic to their neighbors 1.5 miles away whose road is already overcrowded, has a middle school and elementary school crosswalks, a neighborhood park and a dangerous blind "s" curve.


*This will be my final post on PW

@ Bill Brasky,

Thanks for your cogent remarks.

Reinforces that this referendum effort isn't about "protecting Measure PP."

What it is about, is "Not In My Backyard," or NIMBYism by "well-funded" people who insist you believe that that isn't their ulterior motivation, and are banking on misinformation, fear and ignorance to get what they want.

A neighbor mine that lives in Mission Hills commented to me over the weekend that "rich people are used to getting what they want."

Don't let them. Let the fair compromise decision that benefits ALL of Pleasanton prevail.

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

The only people who seem to have actually seen the "elephant" is the City Council members and the Planning Commission, city staff, and attorneys who advised them.
City Council made a difficult but absolutely correct decision on Lund Ranch II.