News


Editorial: Vote Yes on Measure K

 

Measure K on the June 7 ballot for Pleasanton voters affirms the action of the City Council last January in approving the latest developer's plan for 43 upscale homes on the 194-acre Lund Ranch II site in the southeast corner of the city.

The council's decision also closed out 14 years of debate over development plans for the property where, at one time, more than 100 homes were planned on the site, which is zoned residential.

We believe the council's action is in the best interest of the city and, especially, the two neighborhoods on either side of the proposed development whose streets would bear an equitable share of traffic from the 43 homes.

As part of the agreement, Greenbriar Homes Community, the developer and property owner, will donate 174 acres of its property to the city as open space, which will be kept free of any future development in perpetuity with hiking trails to be added.

Greenbriar's development also will provide more than $1.2 million for our schools, approximately $1 million in additional community benefits, over $500,000 for local and regional traffic improvements, two miles of new public trails, and, by deeding all but the 43 flatland home lots to the city in perpetuity, guaranteeing protection of remaining hillsides under Measure PP, the 2008 citizens' initiative that prohibits structures on slopes of 25% or greater or within 100 feet of ridgelines.

Measure PP is a critical issue in the Measure K referendum. Opponents, those advocating a No vote on Measure K, contend that 500 feet of a proposed road connecting one part of Lund Ranch II to Sunset Creek Way and Sycamore Creek Way to Sunol Boulevard would cross a slope that's greater than 25%. A majority on the City Council, in their vote, determined that Measure PP's restrictions apply only to residential and commercial structures, not roads. Measure K opponents disagree.

Measure PP is vague on the definition of roads. Even PP's authors, Councilwoman Karla Brown, who opposes Measure K, and former Councilwoman Kay Ayala, who supports it, disagree. Measure PP is written to prohibit residential and commercial structures from being on the ridge slopes. It's silent on whether that extends to roads.

The real argument over Measure K is about traffic. The Council-approved plan calls for 12 of Greenbriar's new homes to use Lund Ranch Road, Independence Drive and Junipero Street to reach Sunol Boulevard which, with Middleton Place traffic, would mean motorists from 27 homes would be using these thoroughfares.

Motorists from the other 31 new Lund Ranch II homes would use Sunset Creek Way and Sycamore Creek Way to Sunol Boulevard. That's unacceptable to those living along Sycamore Creek and in the Bridle Creek communities.

That's what makes this an unusual referendum because for the first time in our city, we have a small wealthy neighborhood with deep pockets paying for signature gatherers to qualify a measure (Measure K) for the ballot that would keep a housing development's traffic off "their" streets and send all of it to Ventana Hills and adjoining neighborhoods and streets on the other side.

If Measure K loses, Greenbriar must wait one year to reassemble its project and again seek approval from the city Planning Commission and City Council. It could be for up to 43 homes again, but this time with all traffic using Ventana Hills and adjoining streets.

Whether Greenbriar would again contribute free of charge the rest of its property to the city of Pleasanton is unclear. It's private property and not accessible to the public, which it would be with a favorable vote June 7 on Measure K.

We believe the city has the best deal now and urge a Yes vote on Measure K.

Pleasanton Weekly staff.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

65 people like this
Posted by Bill
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on May 23, 2016 at 9:22 am

Something WILL be built there someday. The open space sounds great. The NIMBYs split the very limited traffic increase.

Yes on K is an easy vote for me.


68 people like this
Posted by ???
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 23, 2016 at 9:27 am

The Weekly got it correct. Measure K is about one neighborhood not wanting traffic on their street. I'm voting YES to put 174 acres into permanent public open space!


56 people like this
Posted by MsVic
a resident of Mission Park
on May 23, 2016 at 9:33 am

MsVic is a registered user.

The Weekly absolutely nailed this on the head. Yes on K is good for all of Pleasanton.


51 people like this
Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on May 23, 2016 at 9:34 am

Michael Austin is a registered user.

Yes on measure K!


56 people like this
Posted by Vote Yes on K
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 23, 2016 at 9:37 am

This is absolutely correct. Vote YES on Measure K.


67 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 23, 2016 at 9:47 am

The Pleasanton Weekly has accurately and succinctly as possible highlighted the facts and history regarding the Lund Ranch II project, Measure PP and Measure K.

For fairness and equity for all, please vote Yes on Measure K.


13 people like this
Posted by PTownPride
a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on May 23, 2016 at 9:53 am

PTownPride is a registered user.

There are a number of regrettable inaccuracies in this editorial. If anyone would like more information on the "No" side, please visit Web Link. In particular I would recommend Web Link, which walks through the following core points, with links to original documents:

- Lund Ranch will build roads on hillsides, requiring over an acre of hillside grading.
- Measure PP prohibits roads on hillsides.
- Lund Ranch will build retaining walls within 100' of ridge lines.
- Measure PP prohibits walls within 100' of ridge lines.
- Lund Ranch will build homes on hillsides, which PP likewise prohibits.
- Lund Ranch is the first of several hillside developments to come.
- What happens with Lund Ranch sets a precedent for those future developments.
- "Yes on K" is funded 99%+ by the Developer.
- Measure K isn't about "Open Space"
- Measure K isn't about "Money for Schools"
- It isn't true that "We're getting 43 homes, yes or no."

We also have a video up, highlighting the parallels between the pitch the Oak Grove developer gave us on "Measure D" six years ago and the pitch the Developer here is giving on Measure K. (Voters rejected D and should reject K.) Web Link


45 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on May 23, 2016 at 10:01 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Ptown - really?

From Measure PP:
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 ridgeline.

The provisions of this initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Pleasanton at a City general election and overrides any existing General Plan.

Measure K:
In this case, relative to the requirements of Measure PP, the City Council considers this road to be infrastructure and not a structure.

PROBLEM: Structure is not defined.
SOLUTION: Referend PP to include four words “including roads and retaining walls"
IMPORTANT: “In this case . . . “

For those who didn't want the roadâ€"which they knew was coming and signed their agreement to that road well in advanceâ€"our money would have been better spent referending the definition of structure. But it isn't about that road as much as this is self-serving to avoid the traffic created by the road.

So to the bullets:
The first four are inaccurate
There are NO homes on hillsides
Change the rule about roads and retaining walls in PP
It is unlikely this sets a precedent, and PP can be changed
No on K is funded by the current hillside residents
It is about permanently protecting 174 acres of open space
Schools do receive developer fees
We are getting 43 homes and 174 acres of permanently protected space

Having a no on K campaign is no surprise, but for each inaccuracy and outright fib, the no side loses voters. This should have been a referendum about the definition of structure; instead this is about people already on hillsides trying to prevent homes in a valley to avoid access past their homes.

I don't think a video makes up for the walk of the property and plans where voters can see for themselves.

A thoughtful editorial!


51 people like this
Posted by Tom
a resident of Bridle Creek
on May 23, 2016 at 10:26 am

Very well done Pleasanton Weekly!
As I previously stated on this site: I am a resident of Bridle Creek and am in favor of voting YES on Measure K!
The compromise the city has reached with the developer, in regards to the number of homes and permanent open space and the residents of both neighborhoods in regards to traffic flow and access was very well done and thought out. As a resident of Bridle Creek since 2006 I had been expecting a much worse scenario with more homes and even access to the golf course through our neighborhood. This is the best case for all involved and I feel that it's very unfortunate that some of my neighbors want to ruin it.
Please vote YES on K!


14 people like this
Posted by Get it Straight
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 23, 2016 at 10:29 am

@PTownPride:
There are a number of regrettable inaccuracies in your comment. This all began when BC/SH objected to the traffic coming through BC/SH.
@Kathleen R
Thanks for clarifying the FACTS in your response.


10 people like this
Posted by Don
a resident of Canyon Creek
on May 23, 2016 at 10:37 am

I'm voting NO on this measure and disagree that something will eventually be built here. The purpose of measure PP was to protect our hillsides. Building here does not meet what the voters wanted them or now. Protect what little we have left!


42 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 23, 2016 at 10:43 am

@Kathleen,

Thanks for calling out @PTownPride's continued false statements.

The only thing "regrettable" is how anyone can have any "pride" in continuing to promote blatantly false statements.

Here's an idea:

For anyone that would really like more information on the "No" side, please visit Kottinger Ranch.

First, drive along Bernal until you get to Hearst Drive. Proceed up Hearst, past the stop sign at the intersection with Concord Street. Shortly thereafter, just past the pool and tennis courts, make a right onto Smallwood Court. Continue up the hill on Smallwood, passing Benedict Court (where Councilmember Karla Brown lives, btw). Keep going all the way up to the top (it'll take you a while), noting the quite large homes built on both sides of the incredibly steep hillsides, and continue until it dead ends at the very top of the ridge, where there's a large, circular turnabout. Step out and have a look at the view from above, but remember this is private property outside of the street.

Most importantly, note straight in front of you a familiar "No on K" yard sign, planted just beyond the turnabout, with the words, "No Hillside Sprawl" on it.

Then re-read the Pleasanton Weekly editorial posted above.

Yes on Measure K.


50 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Downtown
on May 23, 2016 at 10:56 am

Dear wealthy nimbys

I live on first st and I want you to stop driving by my house, creating noise and traffic. Furthermore, don't ever again park on the street in front of my house because I own that, right? Don't come to the concerts and make noise either, you have no right to transit my neighborhood. I knew about the traffic and the concerts and all of the other downtown issues when I bought my house. Just like you knew that the road would eventually go through. You probably even drive on the Stoneridge extension that those people fought to prevent. So STOP IT, right now, stop driving on "my" street and on "their" street. Go back under your rock and stop trying to buy the votes to keep those residents off of "your" street. You did pay for that street right? We are not talking cut through traffic in the thousands of cars per day realm that I have to deal with. We are talking about a very few cars belonging to people living as your neighbors. You nimby jerks make me sick. My vote is a resounding YES.


39 people like this
Posted by Tom Paine
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 23, 2016 at 11:03 am

@PTownPride;
Unfortunately There are a number of regrettable inaccuracies in your post.

- Lund Ranch will build roads on hillsides, requiring over an acre of hillside grading.
1. One road, Sunset Creek Lane, which aleady exists on a hill in Sycamore Heights, will be extended down into the valley within Lund Ranch where the new homes will be built.
2. Yes, dirt will be graded to build a road. One acre of dirt is equivalent to about 3 lot sizes in the current Sycamore Heights development where many of the no support is coming from. That’s not a lot of dirt.

- Measure PP prohibits roads on hillsides.
1. Not according to City of Pleasanton legal staff.

- Lund Ranch will build retaining walls within 100' of ridge lines.
1. Absolutely FALSE.

- Lund Ranch will build homes on hillsides, which PP likewise prohibits.
1. Absolutely FALSE, none of the homes are on a PP-protected hillside.

- Lund Ranch is the first of several hillside developments to come.
1. First, Lund Ranch II is not a hillside development.
2. Secondly, what future hillside developments can you point out?
3. Wouldn’t PP restrict future hillside developments of homes?

- What happens with Lund Ranch sets a precedent for those future developments.
1. This isn’t a point, it’s a “straw man”.

- "Yes on K" is funded 99%+ by the Developer.
1. Well, the developer has a right to defend his interests.

- Measure K isn't about "Open Space"
1. Part of K is definitely about Open Space for all Pleasanton residents to enjoy.

- Measure K isn't about "Money for Schools"
1. Part of K is definitely about investment in our schools.
2. Every development includes contributions from the developer toward our schools.

- It isn't true that "We're getting 43 homes, yes or no."
1. What the heck does this mean?


43 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on May 23, 2016 at 11:22 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Don: "The purpose of measure PP was to protect our hillsides." Nothing is being built on the hillsides.

"Protect what little we have left!" Exactly. 174 acres permanently protected and accessible to all of us.


47 people like this
Posted by Hikers voting YES
a resident of Golden Eagle
on May 23, 2016 at 11:25 am

As an avid hiker, I look forward to hiking at the new 174 acre open space that a Yes vote would create. This was a tremendous compromise that the city council created. I mean 90% of the land is DONATED as open space- holy cow!! I don't care if they build a few homes at the bottom of a valley, and I went on the tour and saw it for myself too. All the beautiful hills and ridges are going to be permanently protected. Can't wait!!!


6 people like this
Posted by Matt Sullivan
a resident of Stoneridge
on May 23, 2016 at 11:29 am

Matt Sullivan is a registered user.

No surprise the Pleasanton Weekly endorsed this development. Tell me the last time the Weekly failed to endorse a development project, or a pro-growth City Council candidate, for that matter. It's their job as a mouthpiece for the Chamber of Commerce.

Fortunately the whole community gets to weigh in with their vote.


50 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 23, 2016 at 12:02 pm

@Matt,

Yes, agreed, the whole community gets to weigh in with their vote, but unfortunately at a taxpayer expense of $241,000, which could have been avoided if a group of wealthy "Not In My Backyard" residents who live on hillsides and don't want any traffic on "their" streets had accepted a fair and equitable compromise that provides benefits to ALL Pleasantonians, instead of pursuing an unjust cause that benefits just them.


44 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Vintage Hills
on May 23, 2016 at 12:29 pm

This is a debate that has gone on for years and was well communicated to those residents who bought homes in the Sycamore neighborhood. This project is a good compromise considering other types of building that is occuring in many sections of Pleasanton. This project doesn't come close to the impact of 345 apartments on Bernal or the many other apartment structures that are being built throughout the city of Pleasanton. If the City Council really wanted to mitigate traffic or drought water conditions - they would have STOPPED building these massive apartment structures and the mess of buildings next door to the Safeway Plaza. Pleasanton residents - take this project off the table and keep the building to 43 homes. Keep what open space is designated in the project to retain some of the beauty of the hills around us. VOTE YES on K


32 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on May 23, 2016 at 12:58 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

To be fair, most of the apartments have been forced on us by the state. That is why I think it is important to permanently protect these 174 acres. While the city is addressing the requirements, we need to protect all we can from any future mandates.


25 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Bonde Ranch
on May 23, 2016 at 1:00 pm

My wife and I voted YES! Stick it to the no traffic in my neighborhood folks!


3 people like this
Posted by Bill Brasky
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 23, 2016 at 1:23 pm

Bill Brasky is a registered user.

@Kathleen

To your point, Jerry Brown is proposing new affordable housing legislation for 2016-17.


Web Link


3 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on May 23, 2016 at 2:20 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

"Bloom said he shares that concern. His three housing bills aim to make it easier to build an additional unit on a property, allow developers to build at greater density if they add affordable units, and reduce permitting requirements for properties already zoned for housing. All three, Bloom said, would make small increases to supply."

This is just the beginning. It will only get worse.


22 people like this
Posted by gram5x5
a resident of Mission Park
on May 23, 2016 at 2:47 pm

gram5x5 is a registered user.

Thank you Pleasanton Weekly! You are correct....this is about a road. We took a tour of the site and there is no homes on hills...the future road isn't even on a hill top. These deep pockets talk small town but they built on open land and did not see it as an issue. The real small town left in the 90's. You missed it pockets...it was a great town with farms and fields and horses taking rides down main Street.


3 people like this
Posted by Ventana Hills are the nimbys
a resident of Stoneridge Orchards
on May 23, 2016 at 3:10 pm

Drive through Junipero and Independence. The real "not in my backyard" folks are those angry and ugly people intent on pushing traffic onto another neighborhood.

You are 100% wrong, it is not about traffic, it is about saving the hills from roads, grading and other development. YOU think it is about traffic in on your streets, but the rest of the city things its about hillside protection.

This reminds me of QQ vs. PP. All of the elected people were against hillside protection (PP) and in favor of more development. As I learned in school, the main reason to study history is that things tend to repeat themselves. Now pentin, thorne, olson and narum are at it again.

Vote no to save our hills.


35 people like this
Posted by Tom
a resident of Bridle Creek
on May 23, 2016 at 3:41 pm

@Ventana Hills are the nimbys

Unfortunately you are the one that is misinformed...Measure K is about many things, one of which is traffic! The others are in fact about saving our hills from development, which measure K accomplishes, and providing 174 acres of permanent open space to be enjoyed by all.
So, if your going to comment about the facts it would be a good idea to actually have them...as far as history, the Pleasanton City Counsel and Planners have been promising the residents of Ventana Hills and Mission Park for 20+ years that NO additional traffic would ever be going through their neighborhoods but that assurance was compromised with the Approval of Lund Ranch II and ironically they aren't the ones complaining. We here in Bridal Creek have been told from day 1 that there would be additional traffic from the Lund Ranch Development coming through our neighborhood.

I do hope that helps you with the correct facts so that you will now be able to make an informed decision.


36 people like this
Posted by MsVic
a resident of Mission Park
on May 23, 2016 at 3:42 pm

MsVic is a registered user.

@ventana hills - you are completely wrong. There are no homes being build on hillsides. i am a PP supporter and I am voting yes on Measure K.


33 people like this
Posted by Tom Paine
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 23, 2016 at 5:29 pm

@Ventana Hills are the nimbys;
OK, if you want to vote NO on K then say say so. That's your right but others have the right to vote differently without the name-calling. No need to call people who disagree with you ""angry and ugly".
By the way, Mr Pentin recused himself from the vote so why are you picking on him?
Keep it civil. Keep it factual.


28 people like this
Posted by Chris
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 24, 2016 at 9:34 am

YES on K all the way!!


27 people like this
Posted by Yes on K
a resident of Parkside
on May 24, 2016 at 10:46 am

Absolutely voting YES ON K!


5 people like this
Posted by Measure PP Supporter
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 24, 2016 at 1:51 pm

Measure PP supporter here voting "NO" on Measure K.


32 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 24, 2016 at 2:07 pm

BobB is a registered user.

Measure PP supporter voting YES on K.


25 people like this
Posted by New Pleasanton Resident
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on May 24, 2016 at 2:59 pm

If the goal is to get usable open space, What are viable alternatives to deals like this? Seems like land just stays private and inaccessible if owners can't monetize a small portion. Why would owners simply donate? This seems like a great compromise. Excited for usable open space. And, I went and saw this this weekend. There is nothing being built on anything resembling a hill. However, all the neighborhoods around it are ...


Like this comment
Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on May 24, 2016 at 5:04 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

Just sampling the opinion on this thread, it appears that opinion is five to one in favor of yes vote on measure K.

Is this an indication that all bond measures, partial tax measures, etc., will be defeated, because of voter wrath?


13 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on May 24, 2016 at 5:24 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

I don't think this measure is a good indicator for future bonds or parcel taxes, but I hope our elected officials will think carefully about how and what they propose. I am not against new taxes, but it won't be a blank check for their every wish.


5 people like this
Posted by Pete
a resident of Downtown
on May 24, 2016 at 6:48 pm

I for one will vote against any and all taxes. We are already taxes beyond belief. The city continues to build build build and then they say there is no water for the residents. School board and its system is corrupt. We need new blood in key positions both on the school board and city leadership. If the school board members were objective they would see that they do not have the capability to succeed, are failing, and would submit their resignations. This proposed bond is just the latest example of their incompetence.


14 people like this
Posted by Voting YES for the Truth
a resident of Mission Park
on May 24, 2016 at 9:56 pm

Voting YES for the Truth is a registered user.

I'm voting YES. I wish every project donated 90% of the land back to the city as unbuildable public open space - don't you?


15 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on May 24, 2016 at 10:33 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

We drifted a bit. I voted yes on K.


3 people like this
Posted by New Pleasanton Resident
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on May 25, 2016 at 12:29 pm

Does anyone know if there's any public access to the hills around the Lund Ranch development? Someone told me that it's open at the end of Hearst or Smallwood Court, but that doesn't seem to be the case? Would love to take a run in the hills on any areas open to the public. Thanks.


1 person likes this
Posted by Tom Paine
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 25, 2016 at 1:04 pm

@New Pleasanton Resident;

Check at the end of Sunset Creek Lane in Sycamore Heights where the road will be extended into Lund Ranch.


7 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 25, 2016 at 1:18 pm

@New Pleasanton Resident,

Yes, there will be LOTS of public access (over 2 miles of trails) to the 174 acres of hills around the Lund Ranch development. The light green lines on this map of the property represent where the new trails will be:

Web Link

Whomever told you "it's open at the end of Hearst or Smallwood Court," you are correct, that's definitely not the case/it's not open; it's closed. Those areas beyond Hearst and Smallwood Court (part of Kottinger Ranch and beyond, i.e., another property) are private property, with no trespassing allowed.


3 people like this
Posted by New Pleasanton Resident
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on May 25, 2016 at 2:02 pm

Thanks for the access answers. Smallwood sounds like it'd make for a more brisk run if someone decided to enforce the no trespassing! Think I'll wait for Lund to open.


16 people like this
Posted by Voting YES for the Truth
a resident of Mission Park
on May 25, 2016 at 2:07 pm

Voting YES for the Truth is a registered user.

There will be another tour of the property for anybody interested in seeing it for themselves. The tour takes about 20 minutes, and it's very informative. Here is the info:

Sunday, June 5th from 10:30am-12:30pm @ 1500 Lund Ranch Rd

or visit www.yesonk2016.com for more information.


Like this comment
Posted by Me Too
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 25, 2016 at 10:26 pm

Pete say "School board and its system is corrupt." - you know you voted for these folks


2 people like this
Posted by Bill Brasky
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 27, 2016 at 10:55 am

Bill Brasky is a registered user.

Hopefully the volunteers of the "Yes" campaign will be passing out this Pleasanton Weekly editorial as well as the East Bay Times article leading up to the vote.

Web Link


25 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2016 at 11:31 am

Another full-page ad in today's edition (5/27/16) of the Pleasanton Weekly, another effort of intentional misdirection, deception, and outright lies led by a few wealthy hilltop residents who are so desperate to get what they want (no traffic access to the Lund Ranch II project in their neighborhoods, on 'their' streets), they'll use any means necessary to achieve their selfish ends.

Falsehoods--that's just what they want you to believe so they can get what they want. They want you to think NO means open space preservation.

Here's the TRUTH simplified regarding Measure K:

YES: 43 homes built in a VALLEY, on FLAT land; ZERO of these HOMES on hills, and just a 695 foot extension of a SINGLE, EXISTING road, Sunset Creek Lane, down into the valley project site. See it for yourself via a walking tour on Sunday, June 5th.

NO: Rejects a project that could have seen up to 150 homes built, and also rejects 174 acres (90% of the project area) being set aside as permanent, protected PUBLIC open space of hills and ridges for ALL Pleasantonians to enjoy forever.

Please vote YES to truly save Pleasanton's hillsides, instead of satisfying the NIMBYism of a select, privileged group of wealthy hilltop residents who've shown they will say and do anything to get what they want.

YES on Measure K - Not for the developer, for you and ALL Pleasantonians.

Web Link

Fact check: Web Link


10 people like this
Posted by Bill Brasky
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 27, 2016 at 6:59 pm

Bill Brasky is a registered user.

@Voting YES for the Truth:

Do you know approximately how many people have taken the tour so far?
And what has been their reaction afterwards?


19 people like this
Posted by New Pleasanton Resident
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on May 29, 2016 at 1:51 pm

Bill Brasky: Not sure how many and what reaction for all. Speaking for myself, my reaction was: "There is no development planned on anything remotely resembling a hill." Even the section of road that's being put forth as problematic is way lower than any existing home around. There are homes on the actual hills on a few sides. The 43 proposed homes are in a very low spot that couldn't possibly be considered a "hill". My take is that the No line of reasoning only really works if people don't see the actual site and take on faith what they read. I wonder if the Sierra Club actually laid eyes on this before endorsing the No side. I don't want hills developed and, if it were feasible, I'd stop all development. However, this one seems like a good compromise to get open space that's open to the public while protecting the hills. One guy's take ...


15 people like this
Posted by Voting YES for the Truth
a resident of Mission Park
on May 30, 2016 at 5:58 pm

Voting YES for the Truth is a registered user.

@Bill Brasky - last week there were 30-40. I'm not sure how many were there the week before that.

The reaction? I would say 50% of the people were undecided when the tour started, but 100% (everyone that I know of at least - it is possible I missed someone I suppose) were voting YES when they left.. even taking bumper stickers, lawn signs, etc.

I think once people SEE it, they instantly realize they are being flat out lied to by the 'no' campaign. They also see the homes are in a flat valley, and that a Yes vote protects all the hills from future development by making them permanently unbuildable (a 'no' vote doesn't do that, even though they claim to be saving the hills.. it does nothing to actually save one single hill).

I seriously recommend that everyone, no matter how you think you will vote, do the tour this Sunday. 1500 Lund Ranch Rd from 10:30am-12:30pm. Tour takes approximately 20 minutes and you can stop by anytime in that 2 hour window.

Can't make the tour? There is a virtual tour you can take with Espi: Web Link


10 people like this
Posted by Bill Brasky
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 5, 2016 at 9:46 pm

Bill Brasky is a registered user.

@Voting YES for the Truth
Glad the tour was available for voters leading up to Tuesday. I am sure it opened up a lot of people's eyes to some of the flimsy arguments of the no supporters.


6 people like this
Posted by Voting YES for the Truth
a resident of Mission Park
on Jun 5, 2016 at 10:01 pm

Today there was a GREAT turnout - lots of folks from all around Pleasanton who were looking to see the property, get the facts about the project, and get their questions answered. Thanks to all who came out!

www.yesonk2016.com


4 people like this
Posted by David
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Jun 6, 2016 at 4:20 pm

We drove up the looked at this property since all the hub bub over the election tomorrow. We do not know about all the definitions of the code but what we did see was that this area is not on ridge tops and the new houses will be much lower. The pictures we got on the brochures in the mail was completely false on this.

Our family thinks when a plan is designed in good faith during a public process, all property owners -- existing residents, Lund Ranch owners/residents -- give a little. Our family thinks all the open space and trails with about 45 houses is a good solution for the neighborhood and our city.


2 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2016 at 4:27 pm

@David,

Thanks for taking the time, and God bless ya for seeing and getting the facts, and realizing the truth.

Please tell your neighbors who are voting tomorrow.

Reject the outright lies, misleading statements, ads, mailers, emails, signage, etc. from no on K supporters.

For truth, justice, fairness and equity, YES on Measure K.

NOT for the developer. For ALL Pleasantonians.


2 people like this
Posted by Manipulation
a resident of another community
on Jun 6, 2016 at 7:21 pm

That was a lot of instant, overly-enthusiastic responses within minutes of each other soon after this article was posted. Guess all those Yes folks just jumped in and read this at the same time, eh...

What a coincidence.


2 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 6, 2016 at 8:02 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Or a great number on yes voters were glad to see this endorsement. No coincidence.


2 people like this
Posted by MsVic
a resident of Mission Park
on Jun 6, 2016 at 8:08 pm

MsVic is a registered user.

I am so glad to see so many people in many places express that they are voting yes tomorrow or already have voted yes.

This is a good plan for Pleasanton. I voted yes and will continue to promote why I voted yes.

174 acres of permanent open space!
1.2 million for schools
2 miles of hiking trails
43 homes built in a Valley - flat land!
No homes on hillsides or ridges

Koow the truth and vote Yes on Measure K


2 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2016 at 10:23 pm

@Manipulation,

The only ones manipulating anyone are the no on K supporters, who have been lying from the start of their petition gathering effort and continuing through present day to get what they want--whatever it takes/use any means necessary.

YES on K supporters have just been telling people the truth by sharing the facts--over and over and over and over again.

We keep telling the truth--it never changes, never requires manipulation or spin, as opposed to those who have spent their time and effort to 'spin', or manipulate the facts, which is what no on K supporters, including Councilmember Karla Brown, have been doing for months. They lie, and they've been proven to have lied, over and over and over and over again.

So, you can either allow yourself to be manipulated to satisfy the selfish, NIMBY-driven desires of a select group of wealthy, hypocritical residents who live on hillsides, or, instead, you can vote YES on Measure K--for truth, justice, fairness, and equity for ALL Pleasantonians.


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

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

10x Genomics stock soars with initial public offering
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 1,105 views

Helping Partners Become Couples (vs. Helping Couples Become Partners)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 792 views