Town Square

Post a New Topic

City Council to decide outcome of PP, QQ passages

Original post made on Nov 6, 2008

Hillside protection measures PP and QQ both came out of Tuesday night election returns with decisive victories, leaving the matter to be ultimately dealt with by the City Council.
Because both Measures PP and QQ received favorable votes from a majority of those casting ballots, both measures were officially approved. It will now be up to the City Council to consider the measures and develop an action plan for putting a hillside protection ordinance in place that reflects the intent of both measures.


Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, November 6, 2008, 11:18 AM

Comments (14)

Posted by Fact Checker, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2008 at 10:45 pm

QQ does not require a citizens task force. It simply requires a public process.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2008 at 11:07 pm

As I understood from the staff report, the City needs to come up with some clarifying ordinances anyway in order to implement PP. I can picture another ballot measure asking voters to adopt whatever comes out of the QQ process that might even overturn PP.


Posted by Jerry, a resident of Oak Hill
on Nov 7, 2008 at 1:15 am

Stacey,

If that happens(a ballot measure to overturn PP)I can envision the clipboards coming out for a recall ballot measure...:)

Do you suppose it will ever end...:):)


Posted by Ouch, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 11, 2008 at 6:47 pm

The Council gets to decide? Smells like the fox / henhouse thing. Citizens be prepared to have your will blunted yet again.


Posted by justwondering, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Yes, the Council will have to make some decisions but they will have to take into account parameters in PP such as 25% slopes, parcels with fewer then 10 homes, etc. Unfortunately, with this situation, it would seem like there will be an even greater likelihood of someone suing such as the land owner or supporters of PP thinking that the content of PP wasn't put into place.

Meanwhile, with all the focus on this, what kind of attention will Main St. receive? Tree House has a store closing sign on their windows as well. How many store fronts does that make that will be soon vacant? I hope that everyone will work together to come up with hillside protection so that the community can put some attention to Main St. which I suspect is going to get worse before it gets better given the economic times.


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 11, 2008 at 8:31 pm

The state of CA has a $27 billion deficit!! yeo, it is likely to get worse!


Posted by frank, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Nov 11, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Ouch, did you fall asleep in government class, or what? The "will" of the "citizens" said implement both PP and QQ. Who do you think is supposed to do this? I'm all ears to hear about your understanding of how this should happen.


Posted by Karen, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 11, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Yes, both PP & QQ passed by a wide margin. The people want hillside protection and that want it now! More voted "yes" for PP than QQ, so does that affect the council? I think it should.

Does anyone else remember the fear that QQ supporters threatened, if PP passes there will be lawsuits? Now that both passed, the gray mututally exclusive areas (where they differ) could cause more lawsuits that PP alone ever could have. Now the council must interpret the will of the voters and open themselves up to lawsuits by the public or maybe lawsuits by the land owners. Can you say Lose, Lose?

Sounds not have muddied the water. Perhaps they should have let PP got to a vote all by itself!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 11, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Ouch,

If you happened to read the staff report on PP, you would already know this. PP adds language to the General Plan, but because it isn't specific on a certain number of things, the City needs to create additional ordinances in order to clarify the implementation of PP. These are intended to make sure that PP is consistent with other policies in the General Plan, as required by State law. You can't have a General Plan with conflicting policies.

Or are you saying you didn't understand what you were voting on because you didn't do the homework required?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 11, 2008 at 10:41 pm

I apologize to Ouch. There is no homework required in order to vote.


Posted by Jerry, a resident of Oak Hill
on Nov 12, 2008 at 12:39 am

I'd be inclined to wager that if the "ridge tops", "25% slopes" and some modified version of the "parcels with fewer than 10 homes" is kept intact, the PP crowd just might be satisfied. Well, maybe not, who knows... Someone probably has to devise a means of defining a slope and ridgetop. I suppose someone couldn't simply look at a slope/ridgetop and say, "Yep, that's a slope/ridgetop. Now let's decipher the degree". Might need NASA satellite assistance...

Before the process to meld PP and QQ begins, you don't suppose the developers will be waiting at the city council's door looking for a payback for campaign contributions... Naaaw...:)

Local politics - a fun process to watch...:):)


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 12, 2008 at 8:28 am

Jerry,

PP's language gets adopted "as-is". There can be no "modified version". Open questions remain such as what will happen to the Happy Valley Bypass road. PP supporters are on record as saying the bypass road is not intended to be affected by PP. In order for that to happen, additional language needs to be created to define what PP means by "structure" and if grading is allowed on 25% slope for the road because the road is meant to also serve future construction (Spotorno) in addition to existing development. Otherwise a strict interpretation of PP would prohibit the bypass road and require some sort of other resolution of the conflict between PP and the Happy Valley Specific Plan.

Is this a loophole or just unintended consequences? Will it again pit neighborhood against neighborhood over which interpretation should be used? Some group is not going to be happy.


Posted by another concerned homeowner, a resident of another community
on Nov 12, 2008 at 8:56 am

it seems to ME - that people should have done their homework before voting - from an arial view there is other access to that land - This will now be tied up in courts just like the elementary school that should have been built in 1996 but the then council was just to blind to see it.
They both should have been no and gone back to the drawing board for a real solution. This is going to be costly and drag on for a long time.


Posted by Greg, a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 12, 2008 at 12:42 pm


While I agree with your conclusion that we should have voted no on both PP and QQ you should not blame the "Council" for something that was done by the Pleasanton Unified School District Board of Trustees (the School Board). The School Board that brought us the Neal School mess was lead by none other than our biggest Council race vote getter in the last election, Cindy McGovern. Now who needs to do their homework before voting?


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Tough new rules on water are necessary
By Tim Hunt | 9 comments | 1,016 views

Saving Water
By Roz Rogoff | 4 comments | 736 views