|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When you receive your voter information pamphlet that was mailed out yesterday for the June 7 primary, take time to carefully read the arguments in favor and opposed to Measure K.
This is the referendum placed on the ballot by the City Council to determine if its approval of a 43-home project should go forward on what is commonly referred to as Lund Ranch II, a 195-acre site in southeast Pleasanton.
The rezoned property as proposed by the council in a 3-1 vote Jan. 5 would also include 174 acres of land dedicated to the public for open space and trails.
Of the two council members who did not vote in favor of the project, Jerry Pentin abstained because he lives close to the streets that would connect to the property, and Karla Brown is opposed to the part of the plan that would allow access to the development through Sycamore Heights off Sunol Boulevard.
If the informational ballot seems heavy, it is. Besides providing written arguments for and against Measure K, along with a full copy of Ordinance 2133 that sets conditions for the Lund Ranch approval, the document Pleasanton voters will receive also covers other contests on June 7.
The first day for early voting is May 9.
In the Alameda County District 4 Board of Supervisors race, incumbent Nate Miley, who represents Pleasanton, faces one challenger, Bryan Parker. Congressman Eric Swalwell, a Democrat, will be challenged by Republican Danny Turner for the 15th Congressional District seat.
State Senator Steve Glazer in District 7, which includes Pleasanton, is being challenged by fellow Democrat Guy Moore and Republican Joseph Rubay. In the 16th State Assembly District, incumbent Republican Catharine Baker and former Pleasanton City Councilwoman Cheryl Cook-Kallio, a Democrat, are the only candidates on the ballot.
The two top vote-getters in the state Senate and Assembly primary contest, regardless of political party association, will meet again as candidates in the Nov. 8 General Election.
Seven candidates are vying in the June 7 election for three open seats on the Zone 7 Water Agency Board of Directors, with only the top three to be elected. Candidates include incumbents Angela Holmes, Dick Quigley and Sandy Figuers. The challengers are Eric Thiel, biology teacher at Amador Valley High School; Jackie Williams-Courtright, owner of Alden Lane Nursery; Al Exner, a financial analyst; and Victor Karpenko, a mechanical engineer.
In their arguments in favor of Measure K on the June 7 ballot (the Lund Ranch II plan), five people are urging voters to vote “yes.” They are Mayor Jerry Thorne, Councilwoman Kathy Narum, school board trustee Joan Laursen, Pleasanton Partnerships in Education (PPIE) Foundation founder Kelly French and city planning commissioner Herb Ritter.
They contend that Pleasanton’s General Plan would allow up to 143 homes on the 195-acre site, but the council approved only 43 houses with 174 acres set aside permanently for public open space and that the development will provide more than $1.2 million for schools along with $500,000 for local and regional traffic improvements.
Signing arguments against Measure K are Brown, former City Councilwoman Cindy McGovern, former planning commissioner Anne Fox, Kellene Cousins and William Rasnick.
They argue that development on Lund Ranch II will violate the rules imposed by voter-approved Measure PP against new hillside housing; that it will put additional stress on water supplies, traffic and school capacity; and that it will ignore environmentally preferred plans by bulldozing hilly terrain and removing 645 truckloads of dirt to build roads on slopes over 25%.
Pleasanton Weekly staff.
Thank you Pleasanton Weekly for presenting the information on Hillside development in an unbiased manner.
There is no way I would vote for development, roads, structures or anything else in the hills. Leave these pristine majestic hills alone, they are the crowning glory of our town! My vote is NO on Measure K, and I know I will be joined by the majority of my Pleasanton friends who are tired of this council constantly approving more houses.
Vote No on K.
Please make sure you understand where this proposed development is. It is in a bowl and will not be seen by the community. None of the houses are in the hills or on slopes. I understand if you do not want any more houses in Pleasanton and therefore vote against this measure. However, if your concern is on protecting the hills, this development will not impact them. Measure PP did what it was supposed to do by taking the number of homes from 148 down to 43 homes.
Vote YES on measure K. Send it loud and clear to a few folks that don’t want traffic on their streets! Don’t believe their BS about Pleasanton Hills!
@Clear choice,
Re: “Leave these pristine majestic hills alone,..”
That’s exactly what the approved project does–174 acres of hillsides and ridges become the property of the City of Pleasanton, for ALL Pleasantonians to enjoy in perpetuity.
If you want them to become part of ‘our’ town, instead of remaining private property, that is still subject to development, then you and your friends should vote YES on K.
I encourage you and your friends to take a tour of the Lund Ranch II project site to see exactly where the 43 homes are to be built (on flat land, in a valley). It’s a real eye-opener.
Learn the facts. I know I will be joined by the majority of my Pleasanton friends who are tired of the misinformation and inaccurate statements promulgated by one Councilmember (Karla Brown, who lives in a home built on hillside), and who is supported by others with ulterior motives, in voting YES on K.
The high-density, ‘stack ‘n pack’ housing being built all around town that no one likes, including me, was forced upon the City of Pleasanton by Governor Jerry Brown and San Francisco-based Urban Habitat, after the City lost a lawsuit pursued and won by him and them, that successfully challenged the City’s previous housing cap preventing Pleasanton from meeting its state-mandated housing requirements, based upon a business-to-housing ratio that the state requires all California cities to adhere to, by law.
Councilmember Brown approved of/voted for all of it, too, btw, as did the Mayor and the rest of the City Council. They had no choice after the City lost the lawsuit.
Get the facts, then make an informed decision.
There are primarly three groups of people who are against the Lund Ranch development:
1) Those who do not want any development; residential, corporate, or Costco added to Pleasanton. These people are pretty consistent and vocal (although nothing against those who have a passion for this)
2) Those people living in the Sycamore Creek area of Pleasanton who do not want any traffic on ‘their’ streets. Although all of those people had to sign disclosures indicating there could be 150 homes added in Lunch Ranch II that will all go down Sycamore Creek Rd, and there was a sign at the end of the road indicating the road will be going through to support another development.
3) Those living in Kottinger Ranch who do not want any more traffic on ‘their’ streets from a potential development on Oak Grove and they feel that Lund Ranch will be a precedent. They feel if Lund Ranch II goes through, that the Oak Grove developers will bring something back that is compliant with Measure PP (i.e., no development near ridgelines or on slopes over 25%), but puts additional cars on ‘their’ road.
@res1,
Yep, you got that right (all three points).
BTW, guess who lives in Kottinger Ranch (on a hillside)?
Councilmember Karla Brown.
Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents succeeded in intimidating Councilmember Jerry Pentin from recusing himself from the Lund Ranch II project (even though the Fair Political Practices Commission cleared him of any impropriety; he still chose to recuse himself to eliminate any accusations/claims of impropriety on his part.
Interesting how Councilmember Brown hasn’t seen fit to recuse herself (nor have any of her supporters sought to have her recuse herself, either, for that matter) from voting on/being directly involved with the same project with such an obvious conflict of interest/ulterior motive.
The same motivation/ulterior motive they all have–all of those who won’t accept a fair compromise on traffic (and that’s all this is about, really)–Not In My Backyard. Shove all the traffic to a 43 home development in a valley down someone else’s throats (that being the residents of Ventana Hills and Mission Hills) and protect our special interests, including those who already live on hillsides.
Again, please get informed, and get the facts. Yes on Measure K.
I now know that any time you change a hill problems may occur. The land below my lot went into my rear neighbors pool (pool was boarded up for over 2 years and fixed with steel pounded into the hill). In addition to that fences behind homes on Hearst Drive went down the same hill and had to be fixed. Improper grading, compacting and drainage ditches were not done properly
(Explained to me by an engineer). Keep the hills the way they are without the grading, etc. I want to thank the city of Pleasanton for stopping the continuation of Hearst Drive and the destruction of all the natural beauty. They told us the same thing (Kottinger
Ranch Home Owners Meeting) accept the number of homes or we will come back with a greater number. Vote no on K, protect our hills and their beauty-once gone it can never go back!
If you are smart, you will VOTE YES ON K.
More housing will be built in Pleasanton. There are no houses being built on the hillside. The houses are in the valley but the road that connects them to an existing development must go over a hillside.
The folks that got people to sign the referendum did so because they are rich and don’t want any outside traffic in their neighborhood. They want to treat their street like a private road and keep normal folks out of their rich neighborhood.
The deal the Council reached with the developer is the best the City and its residents will get. The City gets a bunch of public land that we will all get to enjoy – the only ones that suffer are going to be the NIMBY Sycamore folks.
To those suggesting a No vote on Measure K, you really should move behind the gates in Ruby Hill.
I’m surprised no one has proposed eminent domain takings to tear down some of the development that has taken place over the last 30 years or so on the hills. We could tear down a lot of the unsightly houses on Grey Eagle Court and restore the area to its natural state. I used to have a nice view from Crellin Road before those houses went up. Lots of natural beauty and wildlife habitat was destroyed. I propose measure T to tear all that down and restore our hillsides.
Yes on Measure T!
@The Truth,
Right on-the truth will set you free. 😉
@BobB,
Re: tearing down a lot of the unsightly houses on Grey Eagle Court and restore the area to its natural state.
Well, first you’d have to get past the gate to that private development, built by wealthy developer Allen Roberts, who also resides on that hillside development, btw. The same Allen Roberts who supposedly wants to “protect the hillsides and ridges.” Yeah, right. Just the ones neither he, nor Councilmember Karla Brown (Kottinger Ranch), nor the residents of Sycamore Heights (who live at the current end of Sunset Creek Lane) already live upon.
Hypocrisy, anyone?
To @Live on hill, if you want to protect 174 acres of hillsides and ridges, and make them available for ALL Pleasantonians to access and enjoy, then you need to vote YES on K.
“Resident of Ventana Hills” is 100% RIGHT! All of his facts are dead on. The hypocrisy that Karla demonstrates is disgusting. Please vote Yes on K.
I’m voting YES on Measure K. The city council negotiated that 90% of this public land would become public open space with trails. 90%!!! Wouldn’t it be awesome if we got that good of a deal on every project?! And it is fully compliant with Measure PP and no homes will be built on hillsides or ridges. The “no” camp just lies to you when they say that – which makes me not trust anything else they say. I’m definitely voting YES on Measure K
Thanks everyone for taking the time to learn more about this important issue for Pleasanton! We do appreciate your consideration and/or support. Here is our website link for more information: http://yesonk2016.com/
I just moved here and I don’t have an opinion on this matter yet, but I’d like to note that the Yes on K camp active here is being really pushy and could stand to be more polite please. Someone who disagrees with you isn’t necessarily dumb. Civil discourse is key to positive outcomes—we all want this place to be great. We’re all neighbors, after all!
Why are any homes being built now when there is a government-created water shortage and we’re expected to let our landscaping die, take two minute showers and leave toilets unflushed?
Bystander:
The reason some of us sound annoyed is because we are.
There should never have been a referendum on this issue to begin with. Unfortunately, several well-funded residents of the Sycamore community decided to hire paid signature gatherers to get this on the ballot, and they succeeded.
The paid signature gatherers approached me and misrepresented the issue they were gathering signatures for and they were mean and nasty when I told them I supported the development that had been approved by the Council.
We are wasting public money on referendum that is misleading and benefits a select few.
Hopefully most Pleasanton voters will be smart enough to understand the true issues and VOTE YES on K.
To me it’s pretty obvious that Measure K (the Lund Ranch II development) is against both the letter and the spirit of Measure PP, the “no development on hillsides” Measure that we voters all passed. I think that all this talk about rude signature gatherers, Sycamore residents, Karla Brown, etc., are all red herrings intended to draw people’s attention away from the key question here. The only relevant question here is whether Measure K violates the letter and spirit of voter-approved Measure PP.
I think that it is very clear that it does and intend to vote “No” on Measure K.
@Sam,
I’m sorry, but I respectfully disagree with you. For those willing to take the time to review the facts and information regarding the approved Lund Ranch II project, Measure K very clearly upholds the letter and spirit of voter-approved Measure PP.
Vote YES on Measure K, which clearly adheres to Measure PP, and, moreover, provides clear, substantial benefits to ALL Pleasantonians, rather than voting no, which ensures benefits to a select few wealthy individuals and Councilmember Karla Brown, who are clearly seeking to protect their own self-interests.
As someone who has been in the thick of things all along, I can assure @Sam that there are no red herrings when we talk about rude signature gatherers. Ask Pleasanton PD what they thought of the signature gatherers.. but I digress.
If you do look at Measure K, you will see that it is fully compliant with Measure PP. Even Kay Ayala, co-author of Measure PP, is a supporter of Measure K. Simply put, there are no homes on hillsides or ridges.
@Alexis B :”If you do look at Measure K, you will see that it is fully compliant with Measure PP. …..Simply put, there are no homes on hillsides or ridges.”
Alexis, thank you for giving a wonderful example of the meaning of the word “disingenuous”. Here’s the definition:
……………
Disingenuous (adjective) : not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
………
Notice, everyone, how Alexis carefully chose her words. She did not say that there would be “no homes OR OTHER STRUCTURES on hillsides or ridges”. No, she simply said “no homes on hillsides or ridges”, hoping that that fastball would zip past you without your noticing.
I moved here last month so I wasn’t here when the signatures were gathered, but I love these hills and I want them left alone.
If you can’t see a place, that is no reason to ruin it! I can’t see Pleasanton’s Main street from my rental house, but I don’t want it bulldozed either. Amazing –you live in a wonderful place and you want to ruin it.
And the that awful lady that kept interrupting me when I was talking to a person (sorry I forgot your name) at Farmer’s Market, I guess your dad never taught you manners. Your were rude and condescending.
So if you want to be rudely interrupted by the *yes on K* people, go to Farmer’s Market Saturday morning. Take your kid and you can teach them what NOT to do.
But I am voting No on K to protect these gorgeous hills. I guess you have no idea how perfect they are as they stand right now.
John – don’t ruin the hills and Sam:
Gentlemen – you are misinformed if you believe that a No On K vote is going to stop this development.
The development is going to happen – the only question is where access to the development will be from. You will either have a road over some hills, a tunnel, or an entry from a different direction – perhaps your neighborhood. Either way, a development will happen in this location as long as the economics justify it.
However, if the No on K voters get their way and the ingress/egress becomes economically non-viable, I strongly suspect the City is likely to be the subject of an inverse condemnation lawsuit by the current property owners since the City will effectively be taking away their rights to use their property.
Given the City’s rather unsuccessful (putting it mildly) track record in litigation, you can expect your tax dollars to continue to fund this mess.
“John – don’t ruin the hills”, I feel the same as you in protecting the hills. However, Lund Ranch II is not in the hills. the homes are all being built in the valley. Originally they did want to build in the hills but after Measure PP passed (before you moved in) they had to reduce the number of homes from around 150 down to 43 and make sure all the homes are not on a slope or near the top of a ridge. The hills are being protected.
@Sam,
Have you been to the site? I can’t see how anything proposed violates the spirit or letter of PP.
@BobB :”@Sam, Have you been to the site? I can’t see how anything proposed violates the spirit or letter of PP.”
You don’t see how building roads on hillside slopes of 25-degrees and greater violates the spirit and letter of Measure PP? Uhhhh, OK. I would have thought that Measure PP was pretty clear on that. Don’t know why I should have to visit the site to reach my conclusion about how to vote on Measure K unless you and other pro-K supporters are disputing the fact that the slopes in question are 25-degrees and greater.
Just saying you should go have a look.
@John,
Please get the facts on Measure K. Voting YES protects 174 acres of hillsides and ridges…almost 90% of the property Greenbriar currently owns, not the City of Pleasanton.
Voting no ensures that the property remains private property owned by Greenbriar. Voting no protects nothing, just rejects the currently approved project.
Voting YES gives property ownership to the City of Pleasanton, protecting 174 acres of hillsides and ridges, and providing access to YOU, and ALL Pleasantonians via 2 miles of trails.
@Sam, again, promulgating the “roads are structures” argument is futile, because neither Measure PP nor the City Council ever determined that they are.
Also, there aren’t “roads” (plural) being built. There is, in fact, one existing road, Sunset Creek Lane, that is planned to be extended downhill to the valley/bowl project site.
Also, @Sam, I find it truly remarkable that you have and continue to make so many comments and draw so many conclusions on the project site, without EVER having visited the site to see it for yourself?!
Wow.
Those who do take the time to visit the site get a very clear visual understanding. Invaluable.
Adhere to Measure PP? Protect the hillsides and ridges, and reinforce that NO homes are being built on any hillsides or ridges on the project site?
Vote YES on Measure K.
To all:
Get more FACTS, right here:
http://yesonk2016.com/fact-check/
Of particular interest to many, I’m sure:
The text of Measure PP does not prohibit roads. Further, at a City Council meeting in June 26, 2008 in advance of Measure PP appearing on a ballot, there was a question posed to proponent Karla Brown from then Councilmember Matt Sullivan about whether Measure PP prohibited roads.
“Councilmember 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 25% slope.â€
Full minutes can be found at http://weblink.cityofpleasantonca.gov/WEBLINK8/0/doc/78467/Page10.aspx
The extension of Sunset Creek Lane goes downhill into the valley portion of the project site, not on top of a ridgeline, and will not be visible outside of the project area.
Those are FACTS.
Get informed, know the FACTS, and vote YES on Measure K.
“@Sam, again, promulgating the “roads are structures” argument is futile, because neither Measure PP nor the City Council ever determined that they are.”
I think that it’s pretty obvious that roads are the types of man-made “structures” that Measure PP was intended to prevent from being built on hillsides. It’s true that Measure PP never explicitly stated that “roads are structures”. On the other hand, it never stated that “airport runways are structures” or “helicopter landing pads are structures”, either, so I suppose by your logic airport runways and helicopter pads are allowable on hillsides since they are not explicitly prohibited by Measure PP either but only “structures” are.
“”Also, there aren’t “roads” (plural) being built. There is, in fact, one existing road, Sunset Creek Lane, that is planned to be extended downhill to the valley/bowl project site. “”
Yes, but if Measure PP is weakened into irrelevance by the precedent of allowing this road to be built, then you can expect many, many more such roads to be built on hillsides in the future. What is to stop developers? They can simply say: “Hey! A road isn’t really a “structure”! See, we already built an extension of Sunset Creek Lane down a hill! No problems with Measure PP! Why, we can cover the hillsides with roads and there’s no problem!”
Like the old Arab saying goes: “Don’t let the camel get his nose into the tent”.
“Also, @Sam, I find it truly remarkable that you have and continue to make so many comments and draw so many conclusions on the project site, without EVER having visited the site to see it for yourself?! ”
I have seen the site by Google Maps. You’re not even denying that the hillside slopes in question are greater than the 25-degrees limit specified by Measure PP, so exactly what would be the point of my visiting the site in person? Are you now denying that the slopes are greater than 25-degrees? Should I bring a measuring bob or protractor?
@Sam,
The oft-repeated claim that allowing the extension of Sunset Creek Lane will set a precedent for future developments is a myth.
FACT: Former City Attorney Jonathan Lowell publicly stated at a City Council meeting in December 2015 that decisions on the Lund Ranch project neither set, nor legally hold/bind the City Council to setting or adhering to any precedent(s) for future development.
Do you really believe the Mayor and City Council are going to approve all kinds of long road extensions all over hillsides and ridges? I don’t think so. I don’t think the majority of Pleasanton residents do, either.
The Mayor and City Council asked the City Attorney re: precedent-setting to ensure that any decision(s) they made regarding Lund Ranch II would NOT establish ANY legally binding precedent(s) that they would be required to adhere to in the future/wrt future developments.
The Sunset Creek Lane extension goes downhill for approx. 50 yards (City Planning staff have more details on the precise length) into the valley project site.
That extension has been planned for decades, and the property owners in Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek acknowledged and accepted it, in writing, when they bought their homes.
Google Maps? C’mon, visit the site, Sam. Go to the end of Lund Ranch Road. Better yet, go to the end of Sunset Creek Lane and examine the project site, and where the short extension of Sunset Creek Lane is planned to go. Many others have in order to understand “what all the fuss is about.”
Measure PP was not/is not weakened. There’s NO precedent set, and a project that originally was to allow for 150 homes, with many to be built on hillsides and ridges, has, because of Measure PP, been reduced to 43, with none of them being built on any hillsides or ridges, and nearly 90% of the project site becoming publicly accessible property of the City of Pleasanton for ALL Pleasantonians to enjoy.
Those are facts.
Measure PP worked/did what it was supposed to do, as written, and more.
@Resident of Ventana Hills : “The oft-repeated claim that allowing the extension of Sunset Creek Lane will set a precedent for future developments is a myth….”
OK, I’ll read the literature on the Measure with an open mind and determine that for myself.
You know, it would have helped your credibility with me, though, if you hadn’t jumped on this nonsensical “roads are not structures” bandwagon that other pro-K people have been promoting. As things stand, you’re so wrapped up in this Measure that I strongly suspect that you’ll say just about anything to try to convince people to vote for Measure K.
@Sam my intention was not to be disingenuous. If you disagreed with something I said, you don’t have to jump all over me with sarcasm and insinuations. My words were not carefully crafted or disingenuous, but rather typed quickly between a work call and feeding my children. Given my strong background in Environmental Planning, I will say what every other environmental planner says: Roads are not structures. And let us just say that IF you think roads are structures, you should also note that even Karla Brown herself clarified in June of 2008 that roads were not intended to be included in Measure PP’s wording of “other structures.” @Resident of Ventana Hills posted a link to this. So whether you believe roads are structures, or not, at the time that we voted on Measure PP both Karla Brown nor Kay Ayala stated publicly that they were not included in it.
@Sam,
Re: “….if you hadn’t jumped on this nonsensical “roads are not structures” bandwagon that other pro-K people have been promoting.”
I never jump on bandwagons–I review the facts, and, more importantly, believe in common sense, irrespective of Measure PP, Measure K, or anything else.
I strongly believe it’s the No on Measure K supporters who are nonsensical, when it comes to promoting that roads are structures.
Either way (whether you believe roads are structures or not), the fact of the matter is, the two signatories of Measure PP, Karla Brown and Kay Ayala, have both publicly stated that roads were not included as part of the measure, making claims that they are included in Measure PP a falsehood for those who would claim otherwise.
Re: “As things stand, you’re so wrapped up in this Measure that I strongly suspect that you’ll say just about anything to try to convince people to vote for Measure K.”
I consistently point out facts, and I firmly believe that voting Yes on Measure K is not exclusively of benefit just to me/my neighborhood, and my Mission Hills neighbors, but, most importantly, a Yes on Measure K vote ensures fairness to all four neighborhoods involved, and ultimately provides the BEST benefits to ALL Pleasantonians.
I admit to being a bit of a TV council geek and geologist, but I need to correct many misstatements above by my fellow citizens.
Here are the indisputable Facts: Kay Ayala on November 27, 2012 stated into the record during a city council meeting (that I watched from my easy chair) “streets and/or roads ARE structures and therefore covered by PP.” Straight from the horses mouth (my apologize to Ms. Ayala). Ms. Ayala lives not far from me and she is not in the hills.
Then later Ms. Carla Brown was also there and she said she agrees with Ayala that streets and roads ARE structures, then she quoted the PMC muni code that describes what a structure is and that it would include a road as a structure. Fine, that was in 2012.
BUT wait, Amy Lofland grand leader of the Ventana Hills steering committee attended and spoke as well. Our dear Ms. Amy stated on the top of page 4, that YES, she agrees with the Staff report that streets and roads ARE structures. http://weblink.cityofpleasantonca.gov/WEBLINK8/0/doc/250831/Page1.aspx
Wait, let me save the best for last. Mayor Thorn on the SAME day voted as an official council member and mayor-elect that a road IS a structure). Link and proof: look at pages 3 and 4. Based on an interview with Thorn that he “got it” and will follow the will of the people, I voted for him twice. But no more.
On the flip side at a Planning Commission meeting, vice mayor Kathy Narum said a road is a structure on March 13, 2013 the SAME DAY council Arniee Olson voted a road IS definitely, a structure and PP applies. Therefore all roads should not be placed within 100 feet of a ridge or on 25% slope. Everyone agrees!!
Yes, there are the FACTS. here is the link: http://admin.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23348
So with that information and ALL of these leaders stating a road is a structure, it is clear. And this link to the text (check out page 35). Clearly there is something fishy going on. Anyone want to enlighten me and the rest of us?
Mr Go Green, I find it interesting that you conveniently ignore the comments made by Resident of Ventana Hills at 9:43am yesterday. In that post, they quote from the minutes of 6/28/2008, where Karla Brown (with Kay Ayala at her side) said PP was not about roads rather about controlling building of residential and commercial structures. She specifically said not about roads. This exchange was then with Councilman Sullivan. Its in the minutes and I have to believe a video of this exists as well.
Now we have Councilmember Brown saying PP is about roads. The point here is that ALL of the elected body of changed their position about roads. Let’s be honest. I’d rather have people who are open minded enough that when they get new/more info they are willing to make a change. But let’s not call out some when all have done it regardless of which side you are on.
@Resident of Ventana Hills :”I strongly believe it’s the No on Measure K supporters who are nonsensical, when it comes to promoting that roads are structures.”
I just looked at the “Planning Commission Meeting Minutes” kindly provided by Mr Go Green above ( see the 2nd link of his post). The middle of page 30 has the following sentence standing alone and highlighted in Bold Type:
“THE COMMISSION WAS UNANIMOUS THAT A ROAD IS A STRUCTURE”.
Slam dunk. Game over.
@??? : “In that post, they quote from the minutes of 6/28/2008 . . .”
GAME OVER.
From the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 13, 2013 :
“THE COMMISSION WAS UNANIMOUS THAT A ROAD IS A STRUCTURE”.
@Mr. Go Green, and @Sam:
Amazing how you can create smoking guns by taking statements out of context.
Let me help.
First, re: “Here are the indisputable Facts: Kay Ayala on November 27, 2012 stated into the record during a city council meeting (that I watched from my easy chair) “streets and/or roads ARE structures and therefore covered by PP.” Straight from the horses mouth (my apologize to Ms. Ayala).”
Taken at face value, out of context, yeah, that sure sounds good. Taken in context, though, the reality (i.e., facts, in this case, the word-for-word/verbatim meeting minutes) tells otherwise:
“[City] Staff therefore supports Option 3, which determines streets and/or roads are a structure and therefore, covered by PP unless the street or road is intended to provide access to a public park, trail, or similar facility and/or is covered by a previous Specific Plan, PUD Development Plan, or Development Agreement.”
PUD-25, aka Lund Ranch II, has been on the books for over 20 years.
“Kay Ayala said they, whom she did not define, were supportive of staffs [sic] recommendation with some additional language. She asked that Option 3 regarding streets and/or roads read that streets and/or roads are a structure and therefore, covered by PP unless the street or road is
intended to only provide access to a public park, trail, or similar facility and/or is covered by a previous Specific Plan, PUD Development Plan, or Development Agreement approved prior to November 2008 when Measure PP was passed.
She noted that she had inquired about and accepted staff’s definition of “similar facility” as something like a water tower.
She asked the Council to clarify with staff whether the intent was to exempt only those PUD plans that were approved and built as opposed to those that had not yet been constructed.
City Manager Fialho said staff is proposing to grandfather those plans and development agreements [see PUD-25, aka Lund Ranch II]. He noted that there is a bit of a legal question around whether a previously approved PUD on one site can bind the PUD on another site that is yet to be developed, as would be the case with Lund Ranch II. The answer to that is unclear from a legal perspective, but the City can rely on the larger Specific Plan, in this case the North Sycamore Specific Plan, which says that certain connections will be made.”
Re: “BUT wait, Amy Lofland grand leader of the Ventana Hills steering committee attended and spoke as well. Our dear Ms. Amy stated on the top of page 4, that YES, she agrees with the Staff report that streets and roads ARE structures.”
Again, sure sounds good taken out of context. Here’s the reality:
“Amy Lofland stated her support for the staff recommendation on streets and roadways, assuming that PUDs, Specific Plans and CC&Rs approved prior to November 2008 are exempted [this includes PUD-25, aka Lund Ranch II]. Her specific concern related to PUD 90-18 for Bonde Ranch, PUD 97-03 for Greenbriar for Bridle Creek, PUD 97-12 for Sycamore Heights, the North Sycamore Specific Plan, Happy Valley Specific Plan and the CC&Rs for Bridle Creek and Sycamore Heights.”
The reality/fact of the matter is, the City Council never legally/officially determined that “roads are structures,” as a final vote, including a second reading stating such, has, to this day, never taken place.
The comments by Kay Ayala and Amy Lofland were, at the time, in support of Option 3 with respect to future/newly proposed PUDs, not existing ones, and in Kay’s case, with the further conditions/stipulations/exemptions that she requested. Neither Kay nor Amy were stating that roads are structures, rather, they were willing to accept City Staff’s proposal (Option 3) if it did not include PUD-25 (aka Lund Ranch II).
Here are some other cogent comments from those same meeting minutes:
“Councilmember Sullivan said he largely agreed with staff’s conservative approach, which generally meets his understanding of the intent of PP. He said he could support the substitute motion with several changes. While he initially supported Option 2 for streets and roads, he could see the benefit of allowing some roads under certain conditions. He felt the Council should defer to the initiative authors with Option 3 and the additional language they requested.”
One could conclude, then, that now-former Councilmember Matt Sullivan actually supports Measure K (i.e., he’s Yes on Measure K). That’s great, thank you Matt!
Still not convinced?
“Mayor Hosterman questioned and Councilmember Sullivan clarified that his intent was to grandfather streets and roadways addressed in PUDs and Specific Plans implemented prior to 2008.”
That would include PUD-25, Lund Ranch II. Awesome, Matt!! Yes on Measure K, thank you!
“Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she heard [Councilmember] Ms. [Karla] Brown say this evening that a road is a structure but referred again to the minutes of June 6, 2008, which reflect the opposite. While more restrictive than what was reflected in the minutes, she said she preferred staff’s recommended Option 3 over Option 2.”
Hey, whadda ya know? So Councilmember Karla Brown is a flip-flopper, too, just like former Councilmember Sullivan–go figure! See @???’s comments above.
Slam dunk. Game over. Indeed.
Thanks.
Sick of this!
A No means the the builder sues the city….we all pay for that The road will run through Ventana Hills development and down around the park on Junipero by Raileys. It is a matter of the rich VS the middle class. A Yes means 10 homes will run the Venttana Hills route and 29 will run through the 2 million dollar homes of Sycamore Valley and Bridal Creek. The people who live in Ventana hills agreed to taking some of the traffic. Bridal Creek paid for the people to get the referendum on the ballot by having paid people say that our hills would look like Dublin if this went through. I personally and tired of the rick buying and lying their way to get what they want. IF you went to the meetings people from Bridal Creek stood up and said….”WE DONT WANT THE TRAFFIC GOING PAST OUR HOMES!” Do yourself a favor and drive both routes and see which development should shoulder the traffic!
I support YES vote on measure K!
Thanks @Resident of Ventana Hills, the statements made by Sam were totally out of context. I have personally seen the video from 2008 where Karla Brown publicly states that roads are not intended to be part of Measure PP. Proves that Karla Brown is a hypocrite and flip flops herself. Everyone should know that her council position is up this year and she is running again. I for one will never vote for her. I cannot tolerate the lies being told and propagated by Ms. Brown.
McGovern lives or at least did up on the hillsides just under the ridge. So its ok for her? But majority of No on Measure K supporters live in a development that was created on open land. Didn’t mind then.