Finally. It is good to know that my signature mare a difference and that this project hopefully can be revised to be compliant with PP which I supported. . Keeping Measure PP Strong should be a priority for the council ... and if not, the votors.
















































.

I find it interesting that concerned citizens all over town including me from Val Vista, collected signatures to over turn the Lund Ranch 2 approval including me, but only a small group of neighbor's receiving traffic from a paltry 12 houses were willing to yell, scream at me and call me names state that we are liars and more.

These 10 overly aggressive people do not represent the majority of our community and frankly they are an embarrassment to their neighborhood.

@PP supporter
If your sentence were "but only a small group of neighbor's receiving traffic from a paltry '43' houses" instead of 12 houses would you change your mind about why they might be asking people not to sign?
The real number is 43 homes, not 12.

But this really isn't about PP...

Please read the many other postings on this.

BobB-you say this is not about PP for you, speaks volumes. That explains your earlier posts.

It may not be about PP for you, but it is about PP and hillside protection for the rest if us, the 99% that live in town.

The 99%?? Rather a bold statement. By the way, I hope the 6000 who signed (at least those who weren't lied to) and the people who backed the signature collection are paying for this if it goes to a referendum.

This was never about PP. The road UP the hill already exists, as do the homes on "this side" of the hill. Unlike some who posted about NIMBYism, I think this is about "I got mine." If this was about protecting ridgelines and hillsides, why would such principled people purchase the existing homes?

@Jay, and others:

Here's some facts for @facts are facts and others to also consider below regarding Measure PP--a real eye opener.

And to @PP Supporter, you're ignorant of the facts involving the approved project--I recommend you review the facts before making accusations based on ignorance.

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.

The fact is that no one know what portions of the Happy Valley Bypass road is on the fault line for the earthquake fault, what the alignment is, what is over 25 percent slope and what is near a ridge or on a ridge. The plans were vetted outside of the Planning dept in a 2007 blue ribbon committee. We do know that geologists said the previous alignment was not build able due to unstable soils. Kay Ayala did not attend any blue ribbon committee meetings and did not attend any general plan meetings when the new general plan was developed.

Measure pp allows the construction of a road in a single parcel if the number of housing units is 10 or fewer units. If the slope on the whole parcel exceeds 25 percent only one unit is allowed according to the public safety element.

The fact is that Kay Ayala in her mythic account of who wrote Measure PP misled the press and attempted to mislead the Kottinger Ranch neighborhood on her role in the writing of the initiative. The savepleasantonhillsides website contains the factual information. Kay Ayala was a mediocre city council member and if it had ever been her desire to protect a single ridge or hill in Pleasanton she would have made an effort in the 8 years on the city council to enact a hillside ordinance when she was an elected official. She did absolutely nothing.

@facts are facts,

Re: "The fact is that Kay Ayala in her mythic account of who wrote Measure PP misled the press and attempted to mislead the Kottinger Ranch neighborhood on her role in the writing of the initiative."

Really? How so? Unsubstantiated accusations. Please provide proof.

Re: "The savepleasantonhillsides website contains the factual information."

Presumably factual information on Kay Ayala? Guess what? There's not one mention/reference to Kay Ayala on the SavePleasantonHillsides website--not one.

I guess using the words 'exposing liars' was an appropriate part of the title for your Town Square post.

Calling people names is most definitely inappropriate.

Kay Ayala lied to former Contra Costa Times reporter Meera Pal when she was quoted saying their were no ridge line and hill side proposals before the city council when she was on the council from 1996 to 2004. You can pull up this article and others in Google. She lied to Meera Pal because of course Lund Ranch 2 was submitted in 2002 and Oak Grove / Kottinger Hills was submitted as well. Ayala had no objections to these while she was on the city council as well as other Summerhill and New Cities proposals that dozed the hills. Ayala claims she also uncovered irregularities with PUSD cash out refunding General Obligation bonds. Ayala also claims she attempted to ban ridge line development while she was on the city council, But none of the minutes on the city's website support that. Also none of the minutes on the city website support any concern whatsoever with developers dozing ridges or destroying hillsides. Ayala never brought up any PUSD General Obligation bond issues as well.

I suppose she assumed she could lie to Meera Pal at the time because she was a new reporter for that publication.

Ventana Hills has no proof that Ayala did any of these activities. If they did, you could post your city council minutes that back up Ayala's claims. I can't even find any evidence that she spoke as a member of the public to support the Becky Dennis Measure N initiative to save Pleasanton Ridge. Tom Pico is in the minutes supporting it in 1990. Can you find any minutes showing her support for Measure N in any minutes? Or any letters she wrote supporting Measure N? If so post them here. Also Ayala did not support the Save Open Space County Measure D in 2000 and is quoted as saying she did not support it in the Pleasanton Weekly.

Ayala's actions prove she is a pro uncontrolled growth development advocate who has never been an environmentalist except when it comes to getting her name in the papers to suit her agenda to stand for whatever the opposite of whatever Jennifer Hosterman stands for.