Great catch. There is not a single house on their signs either. They just talked about open space. What a lie.

Yes on K is paid for by the developer to put more houses in our town. Vote no on K.

I'm voting YES.

These houses won't be in the hills. Please go look at the site.

If you've only been here 7 years, you've missed a lot. The city got sued for not building enough houses. The city lost, and the high density apartments going up around town are the result of that. The current plan for these houses has nothing to do with that and is the result of a reasonable compromise. The main opposition is coming from 2 neighborhoods wanting to route all traffic through another neighborhood that already has a lot of traffic. This is mainly a traffic dispute, not a growth issue.

This isn't the sleepy little town that used to be summer homes for San Francisco residents. It isn't even the same town we moved into 20 years ago, nor the one we moved into 30 years ago. You are also neglecting that the Governor mandated more affordable housing, and not just in Pleasanton. Take a look at these projections to 2100: Web Link

The point is, the growth is coming. We can all move further out or we can vote for smart growth. This is a drastically reduced number of homes from the original plan. It preserves the majority of the land as open space, whether you choose to access it or not. It is not built in the hills, but on the valley floor. Either we vote this in or we face this land being designated for the possibility of denser housing.

If we want to control what is built there, voting yes on K is the only way to do it.

@Chris,

@Kathleen says it best, and @BobB briefly explains why you're seeing all the high-density 'stack 'n pack' housing being built all over town. I sure hope you'll take the time to get the facts and make an informed decision.

Web Link

As far as expenditures go, you should know how much the No on K folks have spent: $30,000 to $50,000 for paid signature gatherers, and more thousands for full-page ads, mailers, and big signage.

A good friend of mine lives off of W. Las Positas, by Foothill, if that's your neighborhood, and I can tell you that he was going to vote no until he got the facts. He also spoke with his neighbors, all of whom acknowledged they were duped/lied to by the paid referendum petition signature gatherers to get them to sign.

Hopefully you and your family can someday hike the publicly-owned (by City of Pleasanton) hillsides and ridges that will be 'hands off' to the state, ABAG, and Urban Habitat (all proponents of more and more high-density housing) from pursuing any future development.

Yes on Measure K. Not for the developer. For helping to preserve our quality of life.

@Mr Moore
I've posted on other threads but will summarize here. Lived here all my life. When I became eligible to vote Pleasanton's population was about 4000 people. Over the years Pleasanton residents (original and new-comers) have taken an active interest in ensuring "Planned Progress" and responsible development. The reason you don't see homes on the Pleasanton Ridge ridgeline (hills West of Foothill Road) is because of the activities of the Rural Foothill Defenders (I was one of them). We didn't want to ban development, just control were it goes along Foothill. So we've always had vigourous debate in Planning Commission and City Hall meetings and found ways to compromise on solutions that meet the "best" interests of Pleasanton.

Lund Ranch II is no different. As many have urged, please go to the ends of both Lund Ranch Road and Sunset Creek Lane and inspect where this project is proposed. If you stand at the corner of Lund Ranch Road and Independence drive you can see the ridgelines but you will never see a new house (except the ones in Sycamore Heights where much of the NO support is coming from). They'll be hidden in the flat part of the old Lund Ranch property (and only 43 homes negotiated down from 150 homes). And don't forget to notice all the open space available for walking trails (similar to the trails up on the Peasanton Ridge).

Then make your decision based on evidence, not flyers from either side off the debate. Which ever way you decide to vote at least you will be making an informed vote.

As for me, Pleasanton is still one of the best places to have grown up in and for new families to enter and enjoy it as well. I'm voting YES on K.

Well said Senior Citizen. Wholeheartedly agree. Visit the site, then you will really understand exactly what this well planned - compromised - development is all about. I am voting YES as a 32 year Pleasanton resident and a measure PP supporter.

If you are struggling with all the Yes on K campaign propaganda and how to vote on the Lund Ranch II referendum, I would suggest you step back and look at the bigger picture. Inequality. The inequality of power that the Growth Coalition that rules Pleasanton has over you. This is a coalition of developers, businesses, insider groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, and City Staff. They have one thing in common: money, either in the form of profits or tax revenue. Their appetite is insatiable but fundamentally unsustainable. With the exception of Karla Brown, the City Council are mere employees of the Coalition and serve to enact favored policies and projects, and are paid with campaign contributions and the prestige and nominal power of office.

This coalition is not concerned with the public interest, and as a result, we Pleasantonian’s have fought for our voice through the referendum and initiative process many times over since the 1980’s. Measure K, and the anti-Costco initiative now underway, are just the latest examples of citizens standing up for their rights to power over their lives and their community. If you think this is just the nonsense of a “conspiracy theorist”, well, I can tell you is I lived it as a two-term City Councilmember and saw how it worked.

Take back your power as self-governed citizens on June 7th and vote NO on Measure K. Doing so will not only preserve our hillsides but save what little we have left of democracy.

Matt, really; read the article. The growth is coming. Either we manage it for the better or lose it to things like 350 apartments at Stanley and Bernal or those under construction across from BART. This is the best deal, 43 homes and open space. That isn't propaganda. And Costco is about corporate space, unless we put another 350 apartments there too.

As to money, where is the surprise? The plan existed for decades as 150 homes. The developer is being charitable enough if you think it through. Measure K is a equitable compromise and the best way to ensure reasonable growth and open space. Yes on Measure K is our only way to control that space.

90% of the land for this project is being used for public open space. I think highlighting 90% of the project is a fairy accurate way to advertise it.

That being said, there are 43 homes that are part of the deal too, but they are all in a flat valley, making them 100% Measure PP compliant. I went on the tour last weekend and saw it for myself. Everyone there taking the tour was very impressed and felt more informed after the tour.


See for yourself on a tour this weekend, Sunday May 22nd at 10:30am at 1500 Lund Ranch Rd.

or visit

www.yesonk2016.com

@ Matt Sullivan the "no" on K campaign is almost entirely funding by wealthy residents that sit atop hills. You can read the campaign financial statements (publicly available as I'm sure you know) and see it for yourself.

So why would affluent hill-top residents care about Measure K?

This is an important question to answer. The current plan splits the traffic between Mission Hills Park neighborhoods and Sycamore Heights/Bridle Creek (the affluent hill toppers). Problem is that the affluent neighborhoods don't want to share the traffic at all - they instead want to dump it ALL into the Mission Hills neighborhoods. So, they paid LOTS of $$$ to put it on the ballot and now they mislead everything into thinking you'll be protecting the hillsides if you vote no... but the reality is that the only you are doing is keeping affluent neighborhoods traffic free.

I'm voting YES on K because it:

*Complies with Measure PP
*Limits the development to 43 homes (who knows what the next plan will be, and we likely won't vote on it)
*Gives the city a TREMENDOUS gift of 174 acres of Public Open Space (I enjoy walking the ridge, and now will enjoy walking that preserve too)
*Gives 1.2 Million to the schools (which is double the requirement and the schools negotiated this directly with the developer)
*Shares the traffic between two neighborhoods (instead of unfairly dumping it all around Mission Park)
*Keeps affluent neighborhoods from diverting their share of traffic into middle-class neighborhoods

And you can verify everything I say by calling the city and asking them.

More information: www.yesonk2016.com

Hi Chris. Nice to see your post since I normally see you at soccer games.

People like this Joe guy and Kay Ayala should be ashamed. These marketing pieces are trying to trick busy voters that don't have time to read the fine print about developer paid campaigns.

I'm voting No to all new housing. Enough already!!!

The only people "trying to trick busy voters" are the No on K supporters, who are counting on ignorance, short attention spans, misleading ads and misstatements of fact to get your vote.

Matt Sullivan, give us break from putting yourself and Karla Brown (who lives on hillside in Kottinger Ranch) on some self-righteous pedestal.

You can't even admit that Measure PP doesn't prohibit roads. Where's the integrity in that?

For those who haven't already, view and listen to what neither Matt Sullivan nor Karla Brown want you to see or hear: the words of Measure PP co-author Karla Brown herself, responding to direct questioning regarding roads and whether they were part of Measure PP or not by then-City Councilmember Matt Sullivan, as discussed between the two of them at a City Council meeting on June 26, 2008:

Web Link

(Note: The Q&A between Sullivan and Brown begins at the :47 second mark of the video)

If you can't view the video, here is the text, verbatim:

Matt Sullivan: "I have a question for you. Just to make sure I completely understand, when you talked about the road issue...

Karla Brown: "Yes?"

Sullivan: Is the intent of the initiative [Measure PP] (pause), what's the intent of the initiative as it relates to the Happy Valley Bypass Road?"

Brown: "I would not want to address that specifically. I'm not familiar with the Happy Valley Bypass Road, but the intent of the initiative is to control construction of residential and commercial structures, not roads."

Sullivan: "Okay."

Brown: "Does that help?"

Sullivan: "Okay, yeah. So it's not, the intent is to not prevent roads that may be on 25 percent slope."

Brown: "EXACTLY."

Sullivan: "Okay."

Brown: "EXACTLY. And, as I said, I've read my speech on purpose and I have a copy for you if you have any questions."


Now brace yourself for Matt's spin on the above.

More FACTS, including the video embedded here:

Web Link

YES on Measure K. Not for the developer. For ALL of US.

@"Resident of Ventana Hills" : "YES on Measure K. Not for the developer. For ALL of US."

Here's a more honest slogan:

"Yes on Measure K for the sake of the neighborhood traffic of 'Resident of Ventana Hills' "

Sorry, "Resident of Ventana Hills", but if you're free to question the motives of Karla Brown and other "No on K" people, then we're surely free to question your motives and those of other "Yes on K" supporters, right?

@Sam,
To clarify the traffic issue affects 4 housing developments on one side - Ventana Hills, Mission Park, Diamond (Crystal Lane), and parts of Bonde Ranch as well as cut-thru traffic off Bernal/Sunol from/toward the freeway. All this traffic funnels by Mission Park. Check out the park any late afternoon and you'll see hundreds of kids practicing soccer and other sports with long lines of parked cars on both sides along a S-curve Junipero Street. Cars doors often open unexpectedly on the center-side lane of cars as people enter or exit their cars.

@Senior Citizen

OK, fine. Let's talk about the real concerns rather than covering them up and pretending that they don't exist and that the motivations of many "Yes on K" supporters are driven by something other than local neighborhood traffic concerns. I'm sympathetic to finding ways to alleviate local traffic concerns, and personally wouldn't be averse to finding some way to make a special exception to Measure PP for this particular road in question - a special exception which DOESN'T weaken the force of Measure PP. What I don't like is the current tactic of "Pro-K" supporters of eviscerating Measure PP for all time just so that this particular road gets built. That's a stab in the back against everyone who voted for Measure PP.

@Sam,

I guess it's easy to conveniently ignore all of the times I've pointed out the overall benefits to ALL Pleasantonians. This isn't just about preserving a fair compromise on traffic between 4 neighborhoods. It's also about:

-An approved project that ensures NO homes are being built on any hillsides or ridges in the project area, ever.

-An approved project that gives 90% of the acreage, 174 acres of hillsides and ridges, to ALL Pleasantonians as PUBLIC, open space; hillsides and ridges that will no longer be private property, nor subject to the whims of the state, ABAG, or Urban Habitat.

-An approved project that has been reduced from up to 150 homes to now just 43, which the builder accepted and avoids any potential for a future takings lawsuit against the City.

You can question my motives all you want, @Sam, but I've made it clear time and time again that this isn't simply about my wants and desires, or NIMBYism on my part; it's about what's best for ALL Pleasantonians.

The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to send ALL traffic to Lund Ranch through Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek, which has always been the plan.

The City Council decided to split the traffic to strike a fair compromise, one which we accepted, but one which two neighborhoods simply can NOT accept, and try to use/leverage Measure PP as reason why folks should vote no, even though it's now been PROVEN that Measure PP NEVER included prohibiting roads, making that argument IRRELEVANT and utterly USELESS.

So yes, it's Yes on Measure K for the sake of ALL Pleasantonians, for the sake of fairness and equity for all, for the sake of bringing closure and restricted development and PUBLIC open space, and not just for the sake of me and my neighbors, rather than voting no for the sake of appeasing some wealthy residents who simply don't want any traffic in their backyard.

Try questioning THEIR motivations. Try sifting through all their lies, starting with the paid referendum petition signature gatherers pitch months ago, and since then, the subsequent misstatements of facts over the past few months, and the hypocrisy of many of the no on K supporters (Allen Roberts, Karla Brown, Bill Lincoln, et al) who live upon hillsides themselves, yet try to claim they want to "protect our hillsides."

PP is not eviscerated because roads are not part of PP. From one of the other threads; from the tape of a meeting, the conversation between Sullivan and Brown.

Brown: "I would not want to address that specifically. I'm not familiar with the Happy Valley Bypass Road, but the intent of the initiative is to control construction of residential and commercial structures, not roads."
Sullivan: "Okay."
Brown: "Does that help?"
Sullivan: "Okay, yeah. So it's not, the intent is to not prevent roads that may be on 25 percent slope."
Brown: "EXACTLY."
Sullivan: "Okay."
Brown: "EXACTLY. And, as I said, I've read my speech on purpose and I have a copy for you if you have any questions."

@Kathleen Ruegsegger: "PP is not eviscerated because roads are not part of PP."

The Planning Commission disagrees with you. Take a look for yourself on page 30. For emphasis, they even put the following sentence alone in its own paragraph AND put the sentence in bold type: "The Commission was unanimous that a road is a structure."

If that's not a forceful statement then I don't know what is.

( Web Link )

But, ultimately, it's not up to your opinion or Sullivan's opinion or Karla Brown's opinion or even the Planning Commission's opinion. Since Measure PP didn't explicitly say whether roads were to be considered "structures" or not, it was up to the voters of Pleasanton to interpret what the word "structure" in Measure PP meant to them when they voted on the Measure. It's not your place to try to tell voters that they didn't correctly read or interpret the clearly written English text of Measure K. I interpret the word "structure" in Measure PP as including roads. That's what was in my mind when I read the text of Measure PP and voted for Measure PP. And that's the interpretation I will keep in mind when it comes to voting on Measure K.

Correction: That should be ". . . .clearly written English text of Measure PP" (not K).

Karla Brown and Matt Sullivan, and Kay Ayala many times as well, for that matter, in clearly spoken and written English, determined that roads were neither a "structure," nor a part of Measure PP, BEFORE Measure PP was ever voted on in November 2008.

Continuing to debate on whether "roads are structures" or not is irrelevant regarding Measure PP, @Sam, no matter how you or the no on K supporters try to spin it otherwise. A road is a road is a road. If Karla Brown, a co-author of Measure PP, truly believed a "road is a structure," she would have said so/defined it as such months before the initiative was voted on when directly questioned on exactly that.

Brown: "....the intent of the initiative is to control construction of residential and commercial structures, not roads."
Sullivan: "Okay."
Brown: "Does that help?"
Sullivan: "Okay, yeah. So it's not, the intent is to not prevent roads that may be on 25 percent slope."
Brown: "EXACTLY."
Sullivan: "Okay."
Brown: "EXACTLY."

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

We appreciate the dialog on this important issue and it is great that everyone is so engaged on this. It is really a testament to the democratic process in this country that citizens can challenge government decisions and stand up for their rights like this.

If you would like more information on the "No" side, please visit http://savepleasantonhillsides.com. In particular I would recommend Web Link which walks through the following core points, with links to original documents, some of which others have already linked to above:

- 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, almost $100,000 to date.
- 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 remarkable 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

Thanks again, everyone, for your attention to this.

@"Resident of Ventana Hills"

If the interpretation about roads was the slam-dunk that you make it out to be, then it would have been explicitly written into the text of Measure PP. It wasn't. Therefore, it is up to the voters of Pleasanton to interpret what the words of Measure PP, including the word "structure", meant to them when they voted for it. I'm saying that the voters of Pleasanton have that power. If you want to disagree with that, then your problem is with the voters of Pleasanton, not with me.

Former City Attorneys Michael Roush and Jonathan Lowell already determined legally (and therefore, ultimately) who it is up to to interpret what the words of Measure PP, including the word "structure", means--the City Council.

The City Council never voted that "roads are structures."

More importantly, and what I'm saying, is that Karla Brown and Kay Ayala, the two who wrote Measure PP, both stated publicly and for the record before Measure PP was voted on, that it did NOT include roads.

Your conjecture on what was in people's minds when they voted for Measure PP aside, if a voter unfortunately didn't hear or read Brown's confirmation, or Ayala's, that still doesn't change the fact that Measure PP did NOT include roads, regardless of whether a voter at the time believed a road is a structure or not.

It's certainly clear that Karla Brown didn't believe a road is a structure when questioned by Matt Sullivan.

Your problem is you can't accept that the "roads are structures" argument is no longer relevant regarding Measure PP.

I have no problem accepting facts and reality.

@"Resident of Ventana Hills": "Your conjecture on what was in people's minds when they voted for Measure PP aside, if a voter unfortunately didn't hear or read Brown's confirmation, or Ayala's, that still doesn't change the fact that Measure PP did NOT include roads, regardless of whether a voter at the time believed a road is a structure or not."

Your arrogance is now veering off the deep end. Voters of ANY Measure decide their vote based on the specific, concrete text of the Measure placed before them. Voters have no requirement nor duty nor obligation to investigate the history of people's opinions that led up to the Measure. The text of the Measure stands on its own. What's printed in the text of the Measure is what they vote on, period.

@Ptown

"Lund Ranch will build homes on hillsides, which PP likewise prohibits."

That's total BS. It will not

Sam, let's be clear, voters did not determine the definition of structure; we were not asked to determine the definition. If you voted yes and believed it included roads, that was your interpretation. Others likely thought it did not include roads, and many others probably didn't give the definition of structure any real thought. But we don't know for certain and it doesn't matter, because the measure did not ask for our interpretation.

A smile change to add *two words* would have prevented all this speculation: "Housing units and structures, *including roads*, . . ." Once again, specificity matters. Let them come back to us with that definition. In the meantime, Yes on Measure K still is the best deal to protect the majority of this land.

Smile = small.

@Sam,

I guess miracles do happen. We can actually agree on something!

"Voters of ANY Measure decide their vote based on the specific, concrete text of the Measure placed before them." Yep, agreed.

"The text of the Measure stands on its own. What's printed in the text of the Measure is what they vote on, period."

Yep, agreed.

And the text of Measure PP never included roads, nor did the intent of the text of Measure PP include roads.

Proven by Karla Brown and Kay Ayala, in their own words and statements.

Period.

I'm not being arrogant. I'm just pointing out the facts.

@"Resident of Ventana Hills" : "And the text of Measure PP never included roads, nor did the intent of the text of Measure PP include roads."

LOL! You can't even keep your own argument straight in your head! Your personal beliefs on intents are irrelevant! You just stated that you agreed with me on the following: "The text of the Measure stands on its own. What's printed in the text of the Measure is what they vote on, period."

Read those two sentences - which, again, you just claimed that you agreed with me on. It's the actual written text which is important, not your perception or my perception of the intents of the people associated with the Measure.

Here (one final time) is what you agreed with me on:

"The text of the Measure stands on its own. What's printed in the text of the Measure is what they vote on, period."

And that text does not determine roads are structures nor does not once mention roads.

@"Kathleen Ruegsegger": ""Sam, let's be clear, voters did not determine the definition of structure; we were not asked to determine the definition. If you voted yes and believed it included roads, that was your interpretation. Others likely thought it did not include roads, and many others probably didn't give the definition of structure any real thought. But we don't know for certain and it doesn't matter, because the measure did not ask for our interpretation. "

I agree with you, Kathleen, that the voters were not explicitly asked for their interpretation of the word "structure" in the context of Measure PP. HOWEVER, since Measure PP never precisely defined the meaning of the word "structure" in the context of Measure PP that responsibility automatically fell onto each and every one of us who voted on that Measure. Yes, it certainly would have been better if the authors of the Measure had better anticipated all of the ambiguities present in the word "structure" and written a clearer statement. But they didn't. Nonetheless, we all voted on the Measure based on our personal interpretation of that "structure" statement and all the rest of the text of Measure PP.

So now we have an opportunity with Measure K to at least clarify the intentions of the voters who voted on Measure PP. Those like myself who believe that roads are "structures" within the context of Measure PP will vote against Measure K. Those like yourself who don't believe that roads are "structures" within that context can vote for Measure K. Let the democratic process play itself out.

@"Kathleen Ruegsegger": "And that text does not determine roads are structures nor does not once mention roads."

Please, Kathleen. Try to maintain some semblance of balance and fairness. The text does not state either way whether a road is or is not considered a "structure" in the context of Measure PP.

"The text does not state either way whether a road is or is not considered a "structure" in the context of Measure PP."

Exactly. Neither does K. There is no message about roads in either measure, either for including roads in structure nor in eliminating roads via K. You have to legally change PP. And we haven't. So until there is a suit or a such a vote, the current definition determined by our attorney and council members is that "structures" did not include roads.

You can protest that with your vote on K, but you have legally changed nothing.

I support YES vote on measure K!

Greenbriar has built some of this city's nicest neighborhoods. I'll gladly take this project over the low-quality, high-density, high-rise boxes being built all over the rest of the city.

Twist/spin it any way you want/can, @Sam.

I'm just stating the facts, as did Karla Brown and Kay Ayala.

It is sadly you who's got it wrong. It's YOUR personal beliefs on intents that are irrelevant, which I've pointed out previously. Nice try.

You so much want to believe that roads are explicitly prohibited in Measure PP and now by voting no on Measure K (thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy of that, @Kathleen, you are a consistent voice of reason in this whole debate), that you'll say anything to prove your point, including mocking me with nonsense.

Doesn't matter. The truth and the facts never change.

The text of Measure PP never included roads, nor did the intent of the text of Measure PP include roads.

Proven by Karla Brown and Kay Ayala, in their own words and statements.

For you, the truth hurts--over, and over, and over again.

Whoopee, Mr. Moore! So you have lived here 7 years.....give me a break! How about those of us who have lived here 57 years?!! Perhaps, we didn't want YOU to move here either. You are being very selfish which is so typical of many "newcomers" to P-town. They move here and then don't want any more growth to make room for others. This is 2016.....our "little" world of Pleasanton must grow with it. If you don't want/like growth, we'd be happy to see you MOVE!

Also, as far as Karla Brown who is mentioned by others, she's a realtor! Of course, she does not want growth. She wants to be able to sell existing homes. Perhaps, Mr. Moore would hire her to sell his home. Same with Gina Piper on Planning....she's a realtor as well and should not be on that committee.

Note that my ID, "Senior Citizen, Pleasanton Middle School" neighborhood has been hi-jacked by "Senior Citizen, Another Pleasanton Neighborhood". This new poster is not related to my posts of May 16, responding to Mr Moore, and and May 17, responding to Sam..

Looks like registering a new Name is the best way from being hi-jacked. I think you can see the tones of my messages and the new Senior Citizen are quite different.

NO ON K advertising is absolutely deceitful. There are NO homes on ridges. The only issue is whether a road is a structure. All the homes in this grouping are in a hollow / valley. No one will see them except those who buy there. If you see a person promoting NO ON K, ask him how many homes are being built on ridges. I've done that and they have no answer. What a crock and it's costing taxpayers (us) $150,000 to vote.

@ Senior Citizen of Another Pleasanton Neighborhood: Note that Gina Piper resigned from the Planning Commission almost 6 months ago.

And why can't Realtors who are residents of Pleasanton be active in city government? I'm sure some are pro-growth and others are slow- or non-growth, just like all the rest of us...

@kmary1,

Thank you. Just to clarify, it's actually costing us taxpayers $241,000. Check with City Manager Nelson Fialho, who can confirm.

My apologies "original Senior Citizen". I didn't see your original post, wasn't trying to "hi-jack" your post name at all. It was an honest mistake. However, you surely must realize there are many senior citizens in other developments/tracts in Pleasanton and not everyone who posts reads all comments of others. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.....yours as well as mine. Last I knew, we still live in USA.

@Senior Citizen, Another Pleasanton Neighborhood

Thank you for your reply. Agree it might not be the best ID/NAME; there are lots of seniors here in Pleasanton. Also agree that opinions will differ.
I'll change to a more specific ID/NAME for future posts.

Just reminding everyone that the ultimate meaning of the measure would be up to a court to determine.

It's also true that when a legislative body passes an ordinance, the meaning they intended to give the words can be used by a court, but whether it is persuasive is up to the court. Furthermore, when it becomes a measure to be voted on, those statements might not be persuasive at all.

So it's a crap shoot whether a court would agree with either interpretation.

From the animosity already seen, if Measure K passes this will likely end up in court, who will also have to determine if Measure K supersedes Measure PP for Lund Ranch. (It probably does, meaning that the development would go through.) If it fails, then there's no precedent and the next project that build a road on a slope will end up in court.

PS. Some people may be against Measure K because they don't want traffic in their neighborhoods. Others may be against Measure K because they simply want to frustrate all new housing. I'm not sure how you are telling the two apart--or even how much it matters, considering that almost all of the comments on this site are ad hominem and this bogus.

Finally I get to decide if more houses should come to Pleasanton or not.

Too often this pro developer city council approves more of EVERYTHING in town and we don't get a chance to vote. Thank you to the people that collected signatures to put this on the ballot.

My decision is not about roads, structures, senior citizens or BobB. I don't want MORE of anything and finally, I get a chance to vote on a project.

NO on K, No more houses or anything else for a while. Our wonderful little town has become a hotbed of construction thanks to Jerry Thorne and group. This must stop now---- NO on K.

This building project is not about the housing mandate, that is for affordable housing. This is not affordable housing. In reality this will only benefit a small number of people, and particularly those making money. It may sound wonderful: open spaces. Don't build and those spaces will remain open.

@Finally,

You misunderstand, if measure K fails that does not mean the houses won't be built.

As I said on another thread the builder could submit another plan that still builds the 43 houses, but routes all the traffic through the already busy neighborhoods. They could do this without any public vote.

@Jake,

A no vote does not mean the houses won't get built.

Bob, I understand that, but they won't be built there. Are you making money from the project or the few that will benefit from it: which is the Pleasanton way.

These homes are getting built regardless of the tally on measure K. This is just a self-serving act by neighborhood "leaders" who signed contracts when they bought their homes knowing that this development and road were being built. PP is not been violated b/c "structure" has never been clearly defined by city council and there are no homes on the ridges. In a nut shell, there are about 7 individuals who are putting up thousands of dollars to see if they can block off their access point past their greater than 25% sloped home, opportunistic environmentalists...

Matt Sullivan indicated on the Big Picture thread that there was no second reading by the council to define structure as roads. It was never finalized. My response:

"So then it is correct that structure was never defined to include roads and PP has not been violated.

"And the developer has worked to compromise with 43 homes instead of 150 and to give the community 170ish acres of permanent open space.

"PP and the approval process worked.

"As I said to Sam, you and the community have had the ability to change PP since 2008, and certainly since 2012 when you did try as a council member. That is where the definition needs to be. That is where the referendum money should have been spent. Instead, the no on K group is taking a weakness in PP and using it to their personal advantage. This has never been about those homes or this development; it's about not having people in their *hillside* neighborhood.

"I'm sorry Matt, but this was the wrong approach, particularly because this vote does not define structure, does not guarantee no development, does not protect this land from future state mandates, allows one neighborhood to dupe the community into believing this is about PP, and still requires a referendum or action by the council to define structure.

"I voted Yes on K. I hope others will see the truth of how this needless referendum came to be."

Jake - won't the houses still be built after the developers submit a new plan? Possibly a lot more houses with the traffic diverted to Mission Hills even though the traffic was always supposed to go through the Sunset Creek area? The legal issue is not the houses because they're not being built on hills. One pretty wealthy area wants traffic to go somewhere else. Which is really unfair to the people who live around Mission Hills. I don't live in either area, but I have friends in both areas. On this issue my sympathy is for the Mission Hills community who don't deserve this. I am very anti growth, but I feel the best and fairest solution on this one is a yes vote.

WE ARE VOTING YES ON K. I actually went to the property and it is NOT on a ridge top. I'm disgusted that the No on K mailer we received uses a photo of Dublin Ranch and try's to make it look like the Lund plan.
It gauls us that people who have moved here less than ten years or so complain when they themselves likely moved into a neighborhood where their neighbors protested about them coming here. Now I understand the protesters live in the bigger houses higher on the hill. What a bunch of snobs trying to pass themselves off as actually caring about Pleasanton and the rest of us flat landers. We have been residents for 30 years and do not oppose growth or new people moving here when the development is planned, nicely designed and especially protects open space I hardly think a city of 72,000 is a small town and we have to face facts. The Lund project is totally fine and had a lot of public meetings.

@Jake,

Yes, the houses will be built there. The dispute is about the roads and the flow of traffic, not the houses.

And what exactly are you accusing me of? Your comment sounds very presumptuous.

What I don't understand is why any of you care why anyone else brought forth the vote. Whether you should vote for or against K had nothing to do with whatever ulterior motives the people who got it on the ballot had.

It's now on the ballot. Get over it. Make your case why someone should vote for or against it on its own merits. Forget about the people involved on either side.

Good examples of relevant points about the measure itself (which may be entirely wrong, but at least are debatable):
* A no vote will result in a different plan, but will not stop the houses from being built.
* A no vote will send a message to th City Counsel to eliminate ridge line impact.
* A no vote will send a message of general protest.
* The houses themselves are not on a ridge line. Only the one road would cross a grade. If you like the road, vote yes. If not, vote no.
* A yes vote will set a precedent.

Examples of totally irrelevant ad hominem (attacking the person and not his argument--playing the man and not the ball) statements:
* Councelmember X holds her opinion because...
* The people who paid for signature gathering did so because...
* People supporting or opposing Measure K are doing so because...
* Commenter Y is saying so because...

As entertaining as reading what's going on here is, it would be nice to have at least a small but reasonable percentage of the discussion be about points for and against the actual measure.

Common Sense-

At the Planning commision meeting I attended the city attorney stated Lund II set no precedent. This was a case by case until "structure' was clearly defined.

@Common Sense,

You can find facts here, in addition to researching City Council meeting minutes from 12/1/15, 12/15/15, 1/5/16, and 3/1/16, all of which involved public discussions (and these are just the most recent) on PUD-25, aka the Lund Ranch II project.

Web Link

Two other things to keep in mind:

1. Know that your neighborhood, Kottinger Ranch, wouldn't even exist had Measure PP been in effect when the KR PUD was being proposed and submitted, as many of the homes sit on slopes greater than 25 percent grade; the entire Lund Ranch project, all 43 homes, are in a valley, not on slopes.

2. I hope you will agree that "the ends do NOT justify the means."
Just because some residents objected to the City Council's approval on 1/5/16 of the Lund Ranch project doesn't justify them having hired paid signature gatherers who were proven to have lied (see 3/1/16 City Council meeting minutes) to get people to sign the petition that got Measure K on the ballot in the first place.

Thank you.

Sure, many neighborhoods wouldn't exist today with Measure PP. That has nothing to do with whether approving Measure K is a good idea or not. No one is proposing razing existing housing to comply with PP, and even if they were, Measure K doesn't speak to that issue.

As for the means and the end, the whole point of a public vote is that the reason or method anyone got something on the ballot is strictly irrelevant to whether one should vote for or against the measure. This isn't like rooting for a sports team, where you may be against the Dodgers because you are for the Giants, or against the Giants because you think Barry Bonds was a cheater.

The history of the Measure's getting on the ballot doesn't matter for what the vote should be. It may be an iterating backstory for those who like politics and sausages.

@Bill Brasky,

The city attorney has one opinion. But that does not make him authoritative. Only a court would be. The thing about precedence is that there is an attempt to allow newcomers to have the same interpretation as before, and that can be persuasive in court should a developer get turned down for asking for the same interpretation as Lund Ranch II.

But no one knows unless it ends up in court. It is true that a judge could decide a road is a structure but simply call Measure K a waiver for this case only. It's also true that a judge could say the opposite. And it's true that the planning commission or the council could use the interpretation as precedent when making later decisions--or they could not. We don't know the future. Measure K failing could send a message that one interpretation is favored. Or the council could interpret its failure as a specific protest against traffic and press ahead elsewhere. We as voters don't have that question in front of us to decide on (yet?).

Measure K doesn't send a message, it just says no to this version of the plan. If you want the council to get a message, then write them or go to a meeting.

Saying no does not say we don't want a road, it doesn't define structure to include roads, it doesn't protect the land or prevent building, and it could give cause for a suit against the city. Ignoring how this ended up on the ballot is ignoring a lot of relevant information.

@Kathleen Ruegsegger,

For your first two points: personally, I have no idea what message the vote would send. The question on the ballot is very specific to that one plan. If it loses big, then that may cause the developer to slow down and try to figure out what to do to pass it. If it loses narrowly, the developer might just make a small chance and see if anyone stops it again. If it wins at all, I doubt that anyone will take away any message--though if the no camp is as motivated as they seem to be, they may sue. I suspect they wouldn't prevail, though. Sending messages is far easier by going to the meetings, but only this vote has any power.

As for how this ended up on the ballot, as a voter the question we are being asked is not whether we approve of how it ended up on the ballot, but whether we approve of the project itself. I'm afraid you'll never know what the voters at large think about howmit got here. It may be relevant to you personally, because you may have had a role in it or otherwise identify with it, but you haven't offered any argument that a voter needs to know how it got here to competently decide whether to vote for the project or not. If there is a (non-emotional, non-ad hominem) argument that how it got here makes a difference for how the project will unfold if it goes forward or not, I'd love to hear it.

@Common Sense,

Measure K does speak to the issue of hillside development, as this project ensures there isn't any on 174 acres of hillsides and ridges. In fact, it guarantees there won't be, as those 174 acres are being given to the City for as public, open space, taking it off the private property rolls.

As for you not caring about whether or not the ends justifies the means, the British statesman Sir Thomas More and I would beg to differ.

This isn't a game--people's lives are affected by this project, and displaying integrity and honesty in life vs. using dishonesty and "any means necessary" to get what you want in life is not "irrelevant," the latter of which is immoral, I think most people would agree.

Except for the No on K supporters.

@Common Sense, how did this get on the ballot?
A few people hired paid signature gathers that told outlandish lies to get people to sign the referendum. That's how it got on the ballot. I was told by one such person that our current councilmembers own land in Lund Ranch and that's why they want the development. Another pointed to the Hayward Hills and said the referendum was to stop homes from being built on those hills. Ask Kathy Narnum what she was told. There is zero reason this should be on the ballot. Projects like this that are part of the general plan are not voted on. Remember Home Depot that went to the voters, well that turned out well - 350 apartments that we didn't vote on.

"This isn't a game--people's lives are affected by this project, and displaying integrity and honesty in life vs. using dishonesty and "any means necessary" to get what you want in life is not "irrelevant," the latter of which is immoral, I think most people would agree."

Which side are you on again...

One thing to start: whether anyone likes it or not, the burden of proof is on the person putting forth an argument to show its relevance to the issue at hand--which is whether the consequences of voting yes are better than voting no on Measure K.

So let me take this one by one:

@Resident...: You are stating your point much stronger than it deserves, but you have a point that this plan does lock in those acres as open space, and a future plan should the measure make it might not. The question is, however, how likely would it be that a subsequent plan would reduce the number of acres set aside. I don't think that's likely, because it this plan fails the developer would want to make the minimal adjustments to fix it so that a similar plan passes, rather than go backwards.

As for whether this is a game, no one said it was. Rather, it's an election. If your side wants to prevail, it has to make convincing arguments. Attacking the opponent isn't terribly convincing, because it's irrelevant to the development itself, which is a thing, not a person.

By the way, statements about means and ends are about morals. Since Measure K isn't itself a moral issue, and whatever was done to get it on the ballot was done and itself only borders (giving your argument the best light) on the unfair, how it got here is moot and not a topic we are voting on. So I'm afraid you're going to have to get over it on your own.

@MsVic: you have to convince people that it matters how this ended up on the ballot. So far, from what I see, the consequences of voting for or against the development don't hinge on how it got here at all. So even though your point about the apartments is well taken, it's besides the point here.

@J: the same applies the other way, no? It doesn't matter what side the poster is on, if their point makes sense. I will say that Resident...'s argument is incomplete and seems to be an emotional appeal more than a thought.

Although I am personally tickled that some commenters are assuming that I'm against K, I actually am for whichever side makes the best argument. I really would love to see a pro K person try to make a convincing, logical argument as to why a voter should vote for K, that has to do with the consequences of the vote and not the past. Please! I really do want to hear it.

@Common Sense;
Most voters probably know very little about the actual process of how Measure K got on a ballot. The only current information available to the all potential Pleasanton voters is in the Voter Information Pamphlet sent to all registered voters. That's all we have. So every voter contemplating a vote for or against Measure K should, at the very least;
1. Read the Arguments For/Against and Rebuttuls For/Against in the Voter Infromation Pamphlet.
2. Read the Full Text of Measure K, Ordiance No. 2133 in the Voter Information Pamphlet.
3. Then, to finally convince yourself which way to vote, please walk the property in question, from the Lund Ranch Road entrance AND from the Sunset Creek Lane entrance.

Only then can anyone make an informed decision on how to vote.

Too bad this much energy does not go toward our schools. Typical first world, NIMBY, problem. Selfish. Build the houses and obtain a bunch of open space. Easy choice if you want to support this community along with the right to build on private property.

I support YES vote on Lund Ranch.
My decision is informed without the walk!

@Tom,

Thanks for the on-point post.

Personally, I've read the arguments, and although I haven't walked the property I've seen the maps and trust them.

From what I've seen, the Measure PP-themed question is whether the one road is against what the people of Pleasanton want or not.

If given the choice without further consequences, I could see someone vote no simply as an anti-growth vote, under the theory that it at least increased the pain for the developer and would require them to resubmit a plan at the risk of having it too voted on. I could see someone also vote for it under the theory that the property owne r has a right to profit from his land, that some housing project has been planned here for many years with fair warning to the residents, and that the ancillary benefits are very good

What's been missing from this discussion, in my opinion, is an even-handed (non catastrophizing) analysis of the consequences of a no vote. Does the developer resubmit with a different route for this one road? Does the compromise for the traffic routing go away and one neighborhood gets stuck with it in a new plan (clearly an unexpressed fear of the more vocal Yes posters)? Does the developer give up? Do they play hardball and submit a ridiculous plan as some sort of punishment? And, as I think the No team is concerned about, does this set a president for other ridge-area development such as Oak Grove?

Does anyone have any good analysis here?

@Common Sense,

" I really would love to see a pro K person try to make a convincing, logical argument as to why a voter should vote for K"

Please go back and look what I've posted on many other threads.

A brief (over) simplification would be that yes on K splits traffic from the new houses between two neighborhoods while a no on K sends all the traffic through one neighborhood.

@BobB,

There are two problems with the arguments you've made on those threads.

1) You're boiling this down as a battle between two neighborhoods. Of course, people in those neighborhoods are entitled to vote their interests, but Pleasanton is far larger than those two neighborhoods, and you haven't tried to make a compelling argument for anyone in the rest of Pleasanton.

2) You haven't proven that voting no will force traffic down one neighborhood. Although you may argue that this measure is the result of that traffic compromise and voting it down will prevent such a compromise in the next plan, I don't see why that would be so. Perhaps they move the road in question and still allow traffic to be shared. Perhaps they figure there's no way to build that second road and try to resubmit with traffic going down one neighborhood--in which case the counsel might not approve or the residents of that neighborhood could force a vote on that plan. Perhaps they give up entirely. You're making this black and white, and yet it is far less likely that a no vote would force a worse plan than a better one that satisfies even more interests. The developer is a business and they have an incentive to compromise further that perhaps you aren't seeing.

So, not to be crass about it--because I do care about the fairness issue of traffic--but can you make an argument for how the interests of people who don't live in those two affected neighborhoods are affected?

CS, the land. The protected open space. The inability of future growth in the Bay Area to be pushed on us by the state, again. The fact that this is our community, not just one neighborhood. A primary example of a previous bad decision for the benefit of one neighborhood is on Kolln St. at Valley--a wall that prevents through traffic to a school.

Kathleen,

I hear your point about that wall, though I don't know the story behind it or the trade offs that were made.

What I don't understand about your argument is why you see this as black and white. Sure, a yes vote gets those things. But a no vote doesn't stop those things. It rejects this specific plan, and forces the developer to come up with a new plan if they want to develop the land. If the developer came up with a new plan that had less open space, it likely wouldn't pass as it would be a step backwards. So what reason do you see that a no vote won't produce an even better plan?

As for high density housing forced on us by the state, this project isn't about that and won't make much of a difference. If you don't want high density housing, you need to force commercial development to stop.

Or is your concern rather that getting the traffic split between two neighborhoods was a hard fought battle and you fear that, if this proposal is rejected, it won't happen again and only one neighborhood will have the traffic in the next plan? If that's your argument, please say so.

@Common sense,

It seems to me that it may be a simple matter for the builder to just resubmit a plan that keeps the 43 houses, may or may not donate the open space, but just have all the traffic go through the Mission Park neighborhood. In what possible way would that be better for anyone in Pleasanton, except for the people who now get no traffic? And this would be despite their signing on cc&rs that they would share the traffic.

Further, I doubt the Mission Park residents would have the means to mount their own ballot measure to oppose the new plan. How is that good?

Produce an even better plan: The possibility of the developer suing would be one.
Traffic: This is only about the traffic for those who don't want it, even though they *signed* their acknowledgement in order to buy their hilltop homes. For me, though, I believe this was a reasonable compromise from 150 to 43 homes and for permanent open space.

How would this plan not make a difference? It protects all that land with a small number of homes and 174 acres of open space.

What constitutes a better plan in your opinion? What makes you think the community will agree to another plan? Will we have to pay for another referendum? Are we going to just insist on voting on every council decision?

Why do you think the state won't come back to us and say, "Hey, lots of people want to live here; build more"? What if the plan to address traffic from the central valley at some point in the future is to build more high density housing here? I already posted the projections for Bay Area growth through 2100.

Well, anyone can sue anyone else at any time. Whether they have a valid cause of action is a different point. The developer could sue should Measure K itself be voted down, but it's really hard to see how that suit would survive, given that only one specific plan failed and there is no reason to believe they couldn't get another plan approved. The suit would be way too early and would be tossed.

As for the state coming, no, unless they changed the law, Lund Ranch wouldn't be an issue for them. They care about affordable housing and offsetting commercial building. No one is arguing that Lund Ranch is affordable nor that it substantially offsets anything. Worrying about additional housing is a problem, but this issue won't impact that.

@BobB, the developer would not likely resubmit a plan without the open space. Even if that were purely a sweetener given to get the deal done now, they can't credibly take it back and expect to get anything by the planning commission or the council without it. And if they ever wanted to sue, the first response would be to resubmit with the open space. Pulling it out of any future plan would seem to smack of bad faith.

So it sounds like the real concern is that the council would simply approve a plan allowing all of the traffic to go through one neighborhood--and that those people in that one neighborhood are the most vocal opponents of the measure out of just this fear. The side arguments--not proven on their own--seem to be distractions.

Ok, I could buy the fairness argument, but I'd want to hear why you think the council would be so willing to give up on the traffic compromise without reducing housing. It seems to me that they could tell the developer that the second road can't be built because of PP/K, and therefore they need to reduce the housing further to accommodate. The developer could sue, but maybe they wouldn't because it isn't clear they'd prevail. The city doesn't have a duty to build higher capacity roads. So, can you address why you are so sure you'd get shafted on a no vote?

CS- I appreciate your well thought out scenarios

It's hard for me to leave the backstory out b/c I think it's amazing you can have Pleasanton voters disregard and not be aware of a document people signed while buying their home BUT I'll try.

Playing a game of chicken with the developer, new laws from the state of California and possibly US Government (after my man Bernie takes over) on residentially zoned land in one of the most desirable locations in the west coast makes 0 sense for my family, neighborhood and town. Especially over 43 single family million dollar homes. This is the Bay Area, liberals will never stop tinkering and housing Laws will most certainly change especially in this area due to the job market and BART system.

Over the issue of PP, it has not be violated because "structure" has never officially been clarified and voted on by city council.

Therefore, I am voting Yes.

Bill- a general plan over rules all HOA regulations. I don't see why that makes a difference, and certainly is not a reason to violate PP.

Whether PP is violated is probably a question for a court, although the passage of K adopts language stating the intent of the council to recognize roads not as structures and would probably be taken as persuasive given that it took a vote of the people to pass L, as it did to pass PP.

So there is some weight to a yes vote for K would lock in the definition of a road as not a structure, and if that's not what you want, don't vote yes.

I don't think it's a game of chicken, because the developer doesn't have a ton of power here over small issues. But I suppose they could propose more houses if K lost, at the risk of losing ground in court later.

I don't know if there's any strong evidence on the future consequences either way, however. I don't know what other projects people might want to stop are currently prohibited if roads are structure, and I don't know why the developer will do. I don't find the current proposed development to be terrible, but that's just me.

CS, to your post after mine: Here is where I have a problem with your approach . . . you said you didn’t read (or was it care?) about the information that lead to this measure. So maybe you missed the discussions about a possible “takings” lawsuit. Stating a lawsuit would be “too early” and “tossed” is bravado. The information about how long this project has been in the General Plan and how long it took to negotiate this compromise is available.

The state already blew out our housing cap, so it’s, again, bravado to say they won’t change the law. If it suits them, they will mandate.

To your second post: Measure K ONLY presents a yes or no vote on the proposed Lund II project as approved by the Council. It DOES NOT adopt language stating roads *aren’t* structures. It DOES NOT adopt language that says roads *are* structures.

Measure K ballot language reads: Should the Lund Ranch project in Southeast Pleasanton, which consists of 43 single-family homes on approximately 17 acres and 174 acres for permanent public open space and 2 miles of public traisl, be approved?

Let’s stick with just your one statement: “I don't find the current proposed development to be terrible, but that's just me.”

CS-

Measure K adopts absolutely no language concerning roads and structures.

@Kathleen,

No problem, I'm happy to help you find where you missed it. It's easy to get lost in the document.

Web Link

The full text of Measure K is at the end of the PDF. Passing it would adopt Exhibit A, 1(c), the statement reads, in pertinent part, "In this case, relative to the requirements of Measure PP, the City Counsil considers this road to be infrastructure and not a structure."

Although not dispositive, as the exhibit does not carry the force of law outside of this project, it's highly persuasive and a subsequent developer would have a good argument in court that the same standard should apply to them as precedent. I imagine you felt the No people who made this argument were catastrophizing, and I did too, but this seems pretty clear. There would be a substantial likelihood that a court would overrule the city for a future project on any element that tried to preclude a road as a structure. So you have that goIng against you, unfortunately.

As for a takings suit, there would need to be actual takings. Not approving Measure K is not preventing development--nor would it even be diminishing the value of the development below its current amount. It would simply reject this plan as is. Any substantive change, no matter how small, would allow the plan to be resubmitted. Now, the city could choose to prevent the development in its entirety, which could trigger a takings suit. But that's independent of the question in K. You're speculating--actually catastrophizing yourself--and your assumption is wrong.

A real possibility, however, is that the city could interpret K failing as stating not to build the road in question, and demand the developer to eliminate the houses that would have driven over the road. The developer could then sue for the lost houses (not the houses they already eliminated--they have unclean hands there). The city could defend saying that they don't have a duty to build more access roads than are already possible. I'd give the city the edge on that one.

As for my statement that I don't find the proposed development terrible, that is just me. You still haven't persuaded anyone, I'd bet, that they should vote for K just because it's not terrible. I'm doing my best to find the diamond in your arguments, but you have so many emotional statements and personal attacks in them that you're making my job--and doubtlessly yours--more difficult.

By the way, I'd like to call out both sides for their terrible signs, which I passed on the way home.

The Yes on K sign says "For Public Open Space". Although that's a benefit of K, they have yet to prove that voting no would lead to a loss of that space. The open space is a sweetener, but is much like offal. Just because a cow has a thymus (sweetbreads) doesn't mean it's true to say that the cattle industry's purpose is to primarily raise sweetbreads. It would have been no lie to have said "It's Fair for Everyone" instead.

The No on K sign says "No Hillside Sprawl". However, Lund Ranch II itself is not on a hillside. Only its access road is. An argument could be made that a road on a slope is still ugly. But that's not the argument I think they are trying to make. An argument could also be made that Lund Ranch is hillside sprawl simply because it's not on flat terrain and it is destroying a scenic valley. That would be true, but voting no doesn't stop the development, and if the city did try to stop it in its entirety, the landowner should sue, as there's no prohibition to building in valleys. I don't think that's the argument they are making either. I suspect they are trying to make the argument, rather, that much larger future developments will be built in the valleys behind the hills, as they are really just a road away--a road not built today because of PP. That argument could be persuasive with proof that there is such a possibility--but I'm the only one who said it that I've seen and I'm just trying to guess their argument. So if you mean this, say it and show it. Otherwise, you are just gambling on emotion and that may haunt you at the ballot box.

@Common Sense,

Since you presumably are appreciative of 'common sense,' think about this when considering one of the main arguments of the 'No on K' supporters is that "roads are structures," and therefore, the approved project violates Measure PP by allowing a single, existing road (Sunset Creek Lane) to be extended for 695 feet down a hill into the development:

Ask any unfortunate homeless person you should encounter if they believe a road is a 'structure.'

Call the Livermore/Pleasanton Fire Department and ask them, "If a road is on fire, do you refer to it as a 'structure fire'?"

Common sense vs. nonsense. I trust you can see the difference, and see how a group of wealthy individuals have spent over $42,000 (as individuals) to keep the approved project from coming to fruition.

No on K = nonsense, based on manufactured definitions, misstatements, and falsehoods.

Yes on K = facts, based on the truth, and a fair settlement for all.

It's as simple as that. Ala Common sense.

@Resident,

I think you're trying to debate the meaning of "structure" with me, and although it is an important debate, it doesn't persuade that a no vote is bad. You could very well be right that a court would use your interpretation--after all, as you rightly claim, you can't sleep under a road. But voting no on K might never get to the definition of structure. It really depends on what the council will do with a no vote. I have no idea. If you do, I'd love to hear it.

That doesn't mean that I think a road down a hill is a bad thing. I can see that residents of the one neighborhood are really sensitive to the fear that the next neighborhood over might want to stick them with all the traffic. But for those of us not in either neighborhood, you can't expect us to vote your interest. We need to vote ours. Right now, this feels like it's over the hill and through the woods. An appeal to fairness is interesting. But complaining about how this came to ballot is off topic and strange, in that it causes you to cede the high ground.

I'm pretty sure what we'd get if K passes. We'd get both this development and a likelihood that roads will not be considered when evaluating PP impact in the future. But, what I see for voting no is merely a lot of head scratching. Can someone please answer what they think would happen on a no vote and why? This way we can analyze it for its assumptions and assess the risk.

Again, the argument for fairness is not a bad one. You should make it a lot more and not make the other arguments. People want to be fair. They don't want to step into the Hatfields versus the McCoys.

Perhaps I should have picked "dispassionate" instead on "common sense"--although I meant that it is common sense to rise above the passions of both sides and look at the issue by the merits of its consequences alone, ignoring how it came to be. Trying to use a screen name in an argument is ad hominem, so unless it applies to all undecided voters it's unlikely to turn heads.

By the way, it's clear that Livingston, Lund Ranch, and Sycamore Creek were meant to continue into new developments. But Sunset Creek was clearly meant to end in a double-loaded court that is only singly loaded at the moment.

Why didn't they extend Sycamore Creek instead, or build down McCutchan? It seems they picked an odd spot. I imagine building from McCutchan could have made the whole issue of slopes moot. (Not that I want to throw those few homeowners on McCutchan into the mess, but it looks possible.)

@Common Sense,

Info on takings lawsuits in the State of California:

Web Link

This report was the most recent data I could find regarding land use issues in California and the 5th Amendment.

Some of the most cogent parts:

"The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires government to compensate citizens for the taking of private property. Under U.S. Supreme Court rulings, this constitutional takings clause can require government agencies to pay compensation to property owners for regulations that go too far in depriving owners of economically beneficial use of their property.

Beginning in 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of decisions on regulatory takings that tended to strengthen these protections. The rulings expanded the ability of private property owners to seek compensation from government for regulations as well as for exactions imposed on them as a condition of approval for development projects.

...decisions, such as those in the Agins and Lucas cases, have made it clear that a regulation totally eliminating economically viable use of a property will usually be considered a compensable taking.

Takings litigation threats are reported to be a common occurrence (once a year or more) in 22% of cities and 49% of counties. Actual lawsuits related to takings were reported by 33% of cities and 46% of counties. Yet it appears that very few local governments have any insurance to cover liability arising from takings claims."

I believe this summation by the researcher is very much of relevancy regarding the Lund Ranch Project:

"Although takings objections and litigation threats are often dismissed as mere rhetoric or "hot air," there is no doubt that local governments must often take the threat of takings litigation very seriously. This is especially true because, as the survey shows, it is very rare for local governments to have insurance coverage for the costs of defending, settling,
or paying damages in such lawsuits."

@Resident,

Thanks for the link. I am aware of takings suits.

Measure K failing in itself isn't enough to trigger a takings suit. That's because there is no change in takings before and after. Now, if after K were to fail the planning commission or council were to not negotiate fairly with the developer, or were to increase their takings, that could trigger a suit. But that's a separate act.

However, the developer could sue at any time for any reason anyway. Is our argument that the developer wants to sue right now, but is being mollified by the possibility of K passing? That could be true, though as I've stated before I wouldn't bet on their case since they've already shown the economic value of the takings in place to be acceptable if not zero in light of the ability to build the houses.

So, either way, I don't see a winning takings case here triggered by a no vote. That doesn't mean one should vote no, but it does mean that the threat of takings isn't enough to influence voters, I imagine.

Good morning, CS;
This is the full text of the paragraph: The applicant shall work with City staff to locate the road connection to Sunset Creek Lane to the least environmentally significant alignment and to minimize grading to greatest extent possible. In this case, relative to the requirements of Measure PP, the City Council considers this road to be infrastructure and not a structure.

I also wanted to provide a better link because the documentation is 33 pages and the following link is searchable. Web Link

Personally, "in this case," seems definitive. I agree another developer could argue otherwise. But this road (infrastructure) was a known for this development. I don't know if that is the case with other developments.

What seems more important is getting a definition in Measure PP of structure to include or not include roads. Frankly, had that been done first, we wouldn't be voting on Measure K as the project would have had to meet that definition, whatever case was chosen.

We seem to agree the development is not egregious. However, a yes vote does one thing I especially favor: guaranteed, permanently protected open space. There are no guarantees that will be the case if Measure K fails.