"Fact - Measure PP doesn't allow homes to be built on hillsides. There are no homes in Lund Ranch II being built on ridges or hillsides."

Measure PP says no housing units or "structures", which when I voted on the Measure I took to mean no housing-related development whatsoever. Don't like to see apparent attempts to water down Measure PP in this way. As far as I'm concerned no development means no development. If there is some disagreement over the meaning of Measure PP in the minds of Pleasanton voters then fine. Let's have a referendum so that we can get everyone's opinions on this and settle this once and for all.

@Sam,
Measure PP never said no development. It did restrict development of residential and commercial structures on ridgelines. Here's the text of what you voted for.

Measure PP
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.

@Sam,

Spend some time researching this issue. This isn't about PP at all. This is two wealthy, influential neighborhoods funding a campaign to route all the traffic from a modest new development through two other less wealthy neighborhoods.

@"Here's the text" :"@Sam, Measure PP never said no development. It did restrict development of residential and commercial structures on ridgelines"

Exactly. And yes I did read it before I voted, and I re-read the exact text you posted in order to refresh my memory before I put up my previous post.

@BobB

Thanks for the information.

@Sam,

You don't know all of the facts and long history of this project.

All the referendum will do is rescind the approved project. It does NOT end the project, and it does NOT decide whether "a road is a structure." In addition to reviewing the facts below (if you care to spend the time to get educated on the issues involved in this project, spanning some 25 years, including many Planning Commission and City Council meetings, especially over the past several years on this matter), also read the Town Square post, "Councilmember Karla Brown and the referendum." This and that post are real eye openers.

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.

@Resident of Ventana Hills : "@Sam, You don't know all of the facts and long history of this project."

I read through your many points and didn't find any of them particularly relevant to the issue at hand. It's not relevant that the Lund Ranch houses themselves will be built on flat land; it's not relevant where Karla Brown lives; it's not relevant what the definition of "grassroots" is, etc., etc.. In fact, it seems like you're just trying to throw up a lot of things just to obfuscate what should be a very simple matter. The matter is this:

Fact: Measure PP was passed.
Fact: Measure PP places restrictions on "housing units and structures" on ridgelines and hillsides.

So why do we need to delve into 25 year old history? Again, seems like an attempt to muddy the waters. Does Measure PP stand on its own or not? If there is a big problem with interpreting it then fine: Let's let the citizens of Pleasanton who voted for the Measure in the first place decide. As for the cost of a referendum, judging from the strong opinions that so many have on this subject, it seems that this is one time where the cost of a referendum is well justified.

"Let's let the citizens of Pleasanton who voted for the Measure in the first place decide."

I think that's the problem right there. Do we take a vote every on the "meaning" of something _every_ time one small group has some objection to something?

Bridle Creek residents don't want any traffic through their neighborhood, even though they signed CC&Rs agreeing to accept traffic from more homes than this development. They refused to share traffic with Mission Hills and Ventana Hills, so they resorted to this petition, and some of the ugly, deceitful tactics that people have already pointed out.

@Bob: "I think that's the problem right there. Do we take a vote every on the "meaning" of something _every_ time one small group has some objection to something?"

It's not just "one small group" that has an objection to this. That's an unfair characterization. And the CC&R's that they signed are irrelevant to this topic. They can't renounce Measure PP on behalf of the rest of the citizens of Pleasanton. All Pleasanton citizens who voted for Measure PP including myself have a stake in ensuring that the provisions of Measure PP are upheld.

@Sam,

I'm not trying to obfuscate at all. Quite the opposite. You've highlighted what I and many others have pointed out time and time again--this isn't a simple 'black and white' matter. There's a lot of gray.

Additionally, if the referendum makes the ballot and passes, it does NOT decide whether or not a road is a structure. It also does NOT stop the property from being developed.

Councilmember Karla Brown is a public official. Does she have her own personal/ulterior motives and gain for supporting the referendum, or more specifically, whether or not a road is a structure, or not?

Why do we need 25 year history? Because without appreciating (and reviewing) the long, dragged-out history of the Lund Ranch II project, neither you nor others can possibly make a well-informed decision.

All of the above is hardly irrelevant.

@Sam,

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.

@Sam; "Let's have a referendum so that we can get everyone's opinions on this and settle this once and for all."

I'm getting lost in all the rhetoric.
1. Isn't the signature-gathering the referendum?
2. If they get enough valid signatures (referendum is successful) isn't something going to be put on a ballot for us to vote for or against?
3. What is that something? What is the alleged ballot wording we are going to be asked to vote for or against? In one sentence hopefully.

People I've talked to seem to think they're signing a referendum to stop building homes on the ridgelines. Doesn't Measure PP already do that? Haven't seen any ridgeline homes being built or being proposed. Some people think it's to stop all home building in Pleasanton. Don't think that was what Measure PP was about. And I don't think we'd be voting to add new language to PP or amend PP.

From what I can gather this whole deal is about overturning a city council decision. Have we become facebook voters? Do we get to "Like" or"Not Like" city council decisions? Is this Ancient Rome? Do we to "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down" every city council decision? How about "Twitter Trending" of city council decisions.

@Senior Citizen: "I'm getting lost in all the rhetoric. 1. Isn't the signature-gathering the referendum?"

No, the signature gathering is merely to get the issue put on the ballot as a referendum for a vote by the citizens of Pleasanton.

As for other items, I'm new to this controversy and I'm as lost as you are. Not sure how things ended up this way with those opposed to the plan being required to mount a signature-gathering campaign. It seems that the Planning Commission and City Council should have adhered to a strict interpretation of Measure PP and denied the plan based on the construction of the new hillside road. It would have then been incumbent on the developers and the supporters of the hillside road to mount a signature-gathering campaign to ask for some sort of exemption from Measure PP requirements.

Instead, we seem to have things backwards with those who are insisting on an adherence to a strict interpretation of Measure PP being required to mount a signature-gathering campaign because the Planning Commission and City Council failed to strictly adhere to Measure PP. At least, that's how things appear to me.

I would have greatly preferred it if the Planning Commission and City Council had adhered to a strict interpretation of Measure PP. As it is, it seems that they are choosing to ignore Measure PP and the will of the people who voted for it whenever it is inconvenient for them, which brings up the question of what the purpose of Measure PP is? What's the point of Measure PP if we are going to ignore it anyway? Why did we even waste the time and ink putting it on the ballot? Why did I or anyone else even bother to vote on it?

@Sam
Thanks for your feedback. Saw an earlier post here by @Here's the Text of PP.
Didn't see any mention of roads. Did refer to traffic mitigation.
I have walked those hills. Sunset Creek Lane is already a road into that open space.
For me the best choice is not to sign. If it goes to a ballot our votes will just cancel each other out. But that's how democracy works sometimes.
Thanks for sharing your opinions.

@Senior Citizen,

Yes, to reiterate what you posted, "..this whole deal is about overturning a city council decision."

That is 100% correct. If passed, it doesn't accomplish anything else.

@BobB's reply to @Sam pretty much sums up the 'why', too (as succinctly as possible).