Really. Arne thinks a short road is a structure. That is sad. I get Karla being against it because she is against almost everything. But Arne knows better. He is pandering to the few no on everything crowd. I campaigned for him. Never again. A road is not a structure and he damn well knows it.

I can see how "structure" could be interpreted to include roads, especially on a grade where there may be retaining wall work and other visible road materials. But the Measure was sold as a way to keep our hills from being full of visible homes like across 580.

Absent specific guidance in the Measure, I believe it would be reasonable to let the development build the visible road if that is the most logical route, and require them to make it appealing to look at through city approved landscaping and such.

I have voted Yes on 3 Ridgeline protection ballot measures the last 25 years I have lived in Pleasanton and wonder why on earth the former elected officials keep time and time again become a 'consultant' to overturn the ballot measures we voted for. Don't the city council get it? I voted Yes on Measure F, Yes on Measure N, Yes on Measure PP. And I voted for the Urban Growth Boundary in 1996.

Do these elected officials keep losing the paperwork for these ballot measures or do they somehow come up with some imaginary loophole each time?

I have both the purple and yellow Save Pleasanton Hills leaflets that came to my house. It says "They approved massive grading of hillsides, a mile long road spanning the top of may of our Southeast Hills" and the green Measure PP and QQ Fact Check also says in regards to developers: "They will need to design their developments in a way that does not put them on steep slopes or at the tops of ridges."

The green fact sheet says only 10 housing units or less is exempt from Measure PP and approving more than 10 housing units by splitting or subdividing a parcel is not allowed.

This is such an important issue. Oh wait. It isn't.

Find something worthwhile to spend your time on.

This is so funny!

They promised to support Measure PP, an important policy setting document voted on by the majority of Pleasanton, not just Ventana Hills residents, as they would have you believe. PP was designed to protect hillsides and ridgelines.

The politicians lied to us.

They told us to support their elections, we did.

They all decided the developer was more important to them than the residents that put them in office. Yes, they all 3 stabbed us in the back .

Narum, Thorne and Olson need to go.

DEAR DAVE, probably the reason former councilmembers become consultants is because voter authored initiative measures are always poorly written. Case in point, "is a roadway a structure". In this age of complexity and lawsuits, it takes a team of consultants to include technical and public relations. I think the ballot-box planning initiatives should be dramatically reformed in order to reduce lawsuits and excessive settlement costs. DONT KIDD YOURSELF. No-growth consultants exist as well, and for the correct settlement price, will agree to not challenge a project.

According to this video, Narum snagged the Contra Costa Times endorsement by indicating on the public record that a road is a structure and her vote is public record - see youtube video of Narum Web Link then she suddenly changes her mind?

Sounds like public corruption to me. What was that political scandal that was discussed in the April 16, 2013 city council meeting at Meeting Open to the Public? I have heard it involves police finding two people in some sort of situation.

YEP!!! Ended as predicted the flip flopping city council voted for those new homes while ignoring measure PP!! The door is wide open now, no stopping the next money grubbing developer wanting to get a piece of the action. Would love to follow the money trail to the city council and planning commission.

Both neighborhoods tried to use Measure PP as a traffic minimizing/control measure. PP does NOT address traffic, it addresses hillside and ridgeline protection. Often that means less traffic, but just because PP passed by over 18,000 voters does not mean you will have less cars going down your street.

By the way, I could not see on the TV but I was told there was about 150 people at the meeting last night. With simple math, that is 0.8% of the voting total. And the developer stated he does not live in Pleasanton so his percentage is 0%. Can someone tell me why less that 1% of the voters that put PP into our city laws are acting like they are all 18,000 voters?

And why would anyone believe Ms. Ayala as if she spoke for all 18,000 of us is ridiculous. She does not.

Like it or not, traffic and hillside protection are mutually exclusive and have no bearing on one another.