Town Square

Post a New Topic

False statements posted to

Original post made by Fact checker, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Feb 10, 2016

There are several misstatements of fact/falsehoods currently posted to (as of today, 2/10/16):

"Lund Ranch II proposes roads on hillsides" FALSE.

"In addition to the access road, another of the roads in the project also is to be constructed on a slope greater than 25%." FALSE

TRUTH/FACT: There is A road (i.e., one road) that was approved for the project that involves a hillside/slope, Sunset Creek Lane. The road actually exists today, and there are homes on it that are part of Sycamore Heights. It's about 150 yards below the ridgeline, and it has nowhere to go but down if it's extended into the Lund Ranch II development.

"Lund Ranch II proposes houses on steep slopes." FALSE

" least 7 lots of the proposed 43 are on slopes greater than 25%." FALSE

TRUTH/FACT: The approved project is for 43 homes, ALL of which are to be built in a VALLEY, on FLAT land. NONE of the 43 homes are permitted to be built on any slopes contained within the Lund Ranch II property.

"We want PP to be followed, which prohibits structures including roads and retaining walls." FALSE

TRUTH/FACT: Measure PP does not prohibit roads. In fact, in the impartial analysis of Measure PP in 2008 by the City Attorney, he commented, "Some clarification of terms in the Measure (e.g., “structure”, “ridgeline”, how to measure “slope”) may be necessary in order that General Plan policies remain internally consistent and to resolve potential conflicts between
other City policies and the Measure. The City Council has never determined/voted that 'a road is a structure.'

"Allowing the City to interpret Measure PP on a case-by-case basis is not how the law is supposed to work, and sets a very dangerous precedent for other hillside development in the future." FALSE

TRUTH/FACT: The City Attorney stated publicly during a City Council meeting that interpreting Measure PP on a case-by-case basis is legal, and making a decision regarding Lund Ranch II and Measure PP does NOT set a precedent/make it a binding decision for other hillside development in the future.

At the very least, it would behoove the leaders of SavePleasantonHillsides to correct these misstatements of fact.

Comments (5)

Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Feb 10, 2016 at 11:43 am

Here's another point of view from the "Save Pleasanton Hillsides" web site:

"Save Pleasanton Hillsides FAQs:

In response to those who oppose our Referendum, we have posted the following at the top of this page. Pertinent Q’s & A’s remain at the bottom of the page.

Why are residents opposing the referendum?

The anti-referendum group’s concerns begin and end with traffic. In exchange for their support for this hillside development, the Council and developer agreed to send only a small part of the development’s traffic through their neighborhood, and to send the rest through other neighborhoods. So, these residents are concerned that if the referendum is approved and the development voted down, the developer will come back with another plan that sends more traffic their way. That is the single motivation for their opposition. This is, unfortunately, shortsighted. Why? In supporting the development and opposing the referendum, they are complicit in the violation of Measure PP. The FAQs above and below detail these violations, but briefly: the Council determined that it could apply Measure PP on a case by case basis, changing the scope and definitions in PP to meet the needs of particular developments. In this Lund Ranch II case, there are at least two critical “redefinition” problems. First, the Council defined PP so as not to apply to roads, leaving open the prospect of future developments putting roads all over Pleasanton hillsides. And second, the City’s own staff gave the Council a map of ridge lines. The Council elected to ignore the map, and to define one of the obvious ridge lines as “not a ridge line,” so as to permit the development of homes and other structures in that area. This case by case application of Measure PP means that in the future the Council can “adjust” or “interpret” as they see fit to appease developers at the expense of Pleasanton and its hillsides. The conclusion? No neighborhood is safe from future development and, more specifically, with the Lund Ranch II project as precedent, hillside roads and grading is “fair game” in the Council’s view despite Measure PP.

It’s important to note that GHC Lund Ranch, LLC, the DEVELOPER, is currently funding advertising against our referendum efforts. The costs of petitioning for this referendum, however, are being paid by Pleasanton citizens in support of upholding Measure PP, thereby preserving our hillsides.

Web Link

Posted by Fact checker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm


Point of view? Nice deflection--how about the group correcting false statements?

But if you want yet another point of view, how about this:

It's the referendum group's concerns that really begin and end with traffic. They don't want any traffic from the project in their backyard--it's called NIMBYism.

So, these residents (those being Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents) are concerned that if the referendum is not approved and the development isn't voted down, the developer will build the project, including extending Sunset Creek Lane, which will permit more traffic their way.

That is the single motivation for THEIR opposition.

You and they can hide behind your own personal interpretations of Measure PP all you want, but at the end of the day, it's just a smokescreen being used to cover certain folks' ulterior motives--to keep traffic out of THEIR neighborhoods.

Add to that the outright lies PAID signature gatherers--from a firm DEVELOPER Allen Roberts refuses to identify--used to help them get the required number of signatures for their petition.

DEVELOPER Allen Roberts is one of several wealthy individuals bankrolling 'SavePleasantonHillsides' efforts.

Roberts, Councilmember Karla Brown, and several residents of Sycamore Heights all live in neighborhoods/homes that are built on hillsides (Grey Eagle, Kottinger Ranch, Sycamore Heights). They don't want any additional traffic through their neighborhoods and/or their views from above spoiled. If they care so much about "preserving our hillsides," why do they live in homes/in neighborhoods that are built on them?

Posted by Bill Brasky
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Feb 10, 2016 at 12:58 pm

Bill Brasky is a registered user.

The only reason they can say it with a straight face that it isn't only about traffic is because it's about traffic AND having builders in their neighborhood for 6 months.

If it was about Measure PP the HOA in that neighborhood could have donated the adjacent land which would then not harm the "ridge" during construction.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood

on Feb 10, 2016 at 1:00 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Posted by Alexis B
a resident of Mission Park
on Feb 10, 2016 at 2:06 pm

Alexis B is a registered user.

Thanks for posting this! It is such a shame that people signed that silly referendum given the amount of false information that was spoon fed to them.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Pop open the beer at the holiday table
By Deborah Grossman | 3 comments | 991 views

I Do I Don't: How to build a better marriage Page 15
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 979 views

Local foundation tracks the state of giving here
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 378 views


Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Pleasanton Weekly Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Pleasanton Weekly readers contributed over $83,000 to support eight safety-net nonprofits right here in the Tri-Valley.