I wish Measure K was just about Greenbrier's building around 50 homes on Pleasanton hillsides, but it is not. This Measure is an attempt by out of town property developers to cripple Measure PP by allowing development over and streets through currently prohibited hillsides. Once passed, Measure K will allow the city council to approve developments into the southern hill of Pleasanton and onto the hillsides of the Pkeasanton Ridge west of town.

Don't we already have enough traffic? Aren't we already short on water? Since the drought began over a thousand new housing units have been approved and are just now being sold. With Measure K's adoption thousands more homes can follow. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 against Lund Ranch II. The city council then approved it anyway. We need the city council to hear we have all the traffic we can stand already. It is time to think about the citizens of Pleasanton, not the desires of non-resident developers.

Still more false statements.

Get the facts (i.e., the truth) here: Web Link

In fact, please VISIT the project site, @Arbie, so you can see that what you're claiming about homes being built on hillsides is completely FALSE.

This Sunday, anytime between 10:30a-12:30p.

@Arbie - the statements you are making are simply not true and underscore what the "No on K" campaign is all about - spread misleading information to the citizens of Pleasanton and hope that no-one checks the facts. It's like what Daniel Moynihan once said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

The bottom line is that if you have educated yourself to the facts about this project, the real facts, you will be voting YES on K!
If you believe the falsehoods being spread around by the uninformed, the misinformed or by those trying to mislead, sadly, you will probably be voting no.

I have done the research (and by the way live in Bridle Creek so I have seen the argument up close) and will be voting YES ON K!

Be smart, get the facts!

Arbie, the Planning Commission gave their unanimous support to the Lund Ranch project! Furthermore, Measure K is an up or down vote on the Lund Ranch plan which the Council approved in January. It is 43 homes, zero of which are on hills! With a yes vote, 89.5% of the property will be permanent public open space.

Out of town property developers? I guess Fremont is pretty far. Greenbriar has built 6 beautiful communities in Pleasanton and has been a terrific community partner. For example, being a Silver Sponsor of the PPIE Run for Education every year since its inception. Also, donating the land that is being built as Bernal Community Park.

A no vote on K does not stop growth. Only a yes vote changes the current zoning and locks up nearly 90% of the property as unbuildable forever. Better still, it will be open to the public and we can say that they are in fact "our hills". Until then they are private property zoned for residential development with a no trespassing sign out front.

Arbie, Measure K is ONLY about the Lund property. It has nothing else to do with any other developments in town.

You have your neighborhood as "Vineyard Hills". If so, you are probably living in the hills and probably live in a house built by Greenbriar as they build most of the existing homes in the Vineyard Corridor.

I think you are reading the "No on K" propaganda, which is totally false. Please go on a tour of the property and see the truth.

I talked to a Property Law attorney about this because I was so conflicted. In the attorney's opinion, K violates Measure PP and yes, it would set a precedent. And the attorney said there were grounds for a lawsuit. I'm voting No on K.

@Here since '58 I'm not sure which attorney you saw, but frankly this has been examined by many many attorneys, including the city attorney. Measure PP is clear in some areas (no homes on hills) and vague in others (are roads included). The city attorney did NOT think it violated Measure PP, nor did a host of other committees, members of city council, countless residents, or even the author of Measure PP, Kay Ayala.

Here since '58 and you are conflicted?
After all of the evidence you still don't get it?
What part of yes on measure K is conflicting?
Verses every part of no on measure K is conflicting!
No on measure K in incompatible and contradictory.
There is none of this with yes on measure K.

If an attorney offered an opinion, I'd like to have their name and what area of law expertise they practice. Otherwise, they are just a citizen (hopefully a Pleasanton resident).

Remember to vote YES on Measure K. The yes group has been completely honest in their information. Any one wanting to check has been told to call the City to fact check and verify. The developer opened up the land for tours so everyone could see for themselves.

What do I have to say about the no group - simply that I hope they can sleep at night after all the fabrications, false statements, deceiving pictures they have used.

The Lund Ranch Development is good for all PTown residents - um except for those living in Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek - the group trying keep the traffic off their streets.

Know the truth, Lund Ranch doesn't violate Measure PP - end of story.

Who am I - a 32 year resident of Missio Park and a supporter of Meaure PP and a YES voter on Measure K.

Ar i.e. Is correct. Once a precedent is created, the city can continue to follow it for all future developments. That is the law, no matter what Greenbrier and the city coucil may say. I already have problems driving to the office. I'm sure when the development above Old Vineyard is completed, it won't get any better.

Next time it takes you 20 minutes to get from Bernal to I-680 try to imagine what another couple of developments off Vineyard will do. We don't need more people, houses and cars. We do need a different city council that is interested in our quality of life.

Try driving down Santa Rita during rush hour. Too much traffic. Too little consideration by the mayor. With the drought continuing and people moving into Township and soo the development at Stanley and Bernal, we won't have enough water for a 70% allocation. With the town's rush to build more housing, we better plan on drinking from purple pipes.

The folks against this City Council approved plan had the opportunity to pursue a lawsuit to determine if said approval violated Measure PP. They opted for a referendum instead. What does that tell you? By the way, they no longer have an option for a lawsuit as that time limit has expired.

why aren't the developers paying for the extra water capacity their development are going to use? Why are my rates going up because we have out run our water supply? Don't our votes count as much as the developers' political contributions. It's time to stop them all.

If you think a no vote stops growth, you are mistaken. This property has been slated for residential development for over 20 years. This property will be developed. The ONLY way to lock up 174 acres of this property is to vote yes. That is the only way to change the zoning. A no vote keeps it slated for development. Further, the growth you are talking about that you see around town is the result of a lawsuit that the City lost. Keep voting no to everything, then the state or a court gets to decide.

Because this development has been in the general plan for over 20 years, the water has already been planned for. Water is planned based on buildout! We are almost there. Your rates are not going up because of lack of supply. A no vote on K does not stop growth.

No on K! We do not need any more traffic in Pleasanton. No to Costco, also! This place is getting jammed and we do not have the water to spare. No! No! No!

I do not understand why it is so hard for anyone to get it - a no vote doesn't stop this development - that my friends is the end of the story. A no vote just postpones the when. Please do your homework on this issue. Many people have done their homework and understand this development is not a bad plan for our town.

Santa Rita is a zoo during the rush hour. Soon Valley will be also. Why is Pleasanton's council doing this to us?

What is it you think the council is doing to us. They have an agreement that permanently protects 174 acres of our town.

@Sophie and @Do your homework -

Pleasanton previously did have a housing cap, but our city was sued by Urban Habitat and the State of California in 2008 and we lost. As a result, we paid millions in legal fees and were required to add additional housing (over 3,000 units). That is a large part in why Pleasanton has grown. That being said, this particular land has been in our general plan for over 20 years and was originally zoned for approximately 150 homes. The city council negotiated that down to just 43 in a flat valley, along with a 174 acre donation of all the hills around the valley. We cannot legally prohibit the land owner from building homes (because that would likely result in a lawsuit we would lose... again), but we CAN work WITH the developer alongside Pleasanton neighbors, residents, the school district, city staff and various committees to come up with plans that work for all of Pleasanton. 4 years and 14 public meetings - we have all worked very hard on this project. With 90% of the land donated back to the city as unbuildable... I wish EVERY project donated 90% of the land! We should support the good projects when we get them.

@Voting Yes :"Pleasanton previously did have a housing cap, but our city was sued by Urban Habitat and the State of California in 2008 and we lost. As a result, we paid millions in legal fees and were required to add additional housing (over 3,000 units)."

That's a very, very abbreviated and somewhat misleading picture of what happened. You left out the part about how Pleasanton was knowingly violating state laws by inviting all sorts of businesses into Pleasanton but then trying to shuffle off the responsibility for housing all of those new workers off onto surrounding communities. And Pleasanton didn't just step a little over the line. It stepped WAY OVER the line with a ratio of 1.6 jobs for every adult working age resident of Pleasanton. So please don't try to make it sound like sweet, innocent Pleasanton was minding its own business and doing nothing wrong and one day the evil Urban Habitat and evil State of California came up and unjustly sued Pleasanton. That's not how it happened. The city leaders of Pleasanton knowingly had Pleasanton step over the line and they gambled that they and Pleasanton wouldn't get caught. They were fools. With a 1.6 jobs-to-residents ratio they stepped so over the line that they were practically thumbing their noses at the State of California. The rest is history.

BTW, there is a lesson here for all those who think that inviting all sorts of large businesses into Pleasanton will somehow "crowd out" all the available land so we won't have to build any more housing. That's not how it works. We invite more businesses, then we have to increase our available housing in direct proportion to the number of new workers in our city. Can't say "yes" to more and more businesses and then "no" to housing all those new workers. Already tried going down that road before, and it doesn't work.

Sam, Of the apartments being built on Bernal or by BART, how many of those residents do you expect will actually work in Pleasanton? I don't have that answer, but it would be my guess, at least for the BARTside apartments, not many.

As a former commuter, I understand why people want to live closer to job opportunities rather than coming from the Central Valley. Isn't it the addition of businesses throughout the Bay Area driving the need for housing here?

@Kathleen Ruegsegger :"Sam, Of the apartments being built on Bernal or by BART, how many of those residents do you expect will actually work in Pleasanton?"

No Kathleen, you miss the point. Actually, two points: (1) The requirement is that a community provide housing in proportion to the number of jobs in order to reduce the distance between people's residences and their workplaces, thereby limiting highways congestion and pollution and the burden on public transportation. The people in the new apartments don't necessarily have to work in Pleasnton to accomplish that. (2) Arguing over the logic over the California laws regarding this requirement is as futile as arguing with a traffic cop or judge about the logic of having a certain posted speed limit on a road. The law is the law.

Pleasanton city leaders knew about this requirement to build housing in proportion to the growth of jobs and they chose to ignore it. They probably would have gotten away with it if they had just stepped a little over the line with, say, a ratio of 1.1 jobs to every working age adult resident. But, no, they foolishly stepped way over the line with a ratio of 1.6 . Blaming Urban Habitat or the State of California for all the new housing is like blaming a traffic cop for giving you a speeding ticket when you were doing 45 mph in a 25 mph zone. Put the blame where it belongs.

@ Sam my statement was in no way misleading."Pleasanton previously did have a housing cap, but our city was sued by Urban Habitat and the State of California in 2008 and we lost. As a result, we paid millions in legal fees and were required to add additional housing (over 3,000 units). That is a large part in why Pleasanton has grown." is a summary of the situation but has no factual errors.

And you are wrong that it was "city leaders" who "foolishly" refused to add new housing. Measure PP was passed by Pleasanton voters and even that included a housing cap that was struck down by the lawsuit as well. The sentiment of no-growth is even around today among residents.

Ok Sam, you made my point; people will live here to work elsewhere. I'm not against the affordable housing; most of this community's adult children can't afford to live here. And, 350 of those apartments will affect my neighborhood when they are completed. I'm not excited about it, but I see the need.

Pleasanton is not the only community that got slapped by the state. Most like their rural feel, as opposed to being more like Walnut Creek. And communities like Piedmont pay a variety of high taxes so they have no job ratios to meet. No businesses, no jobs, higher taxes. Catch 22.

So, the blame goes everywhere. And still protecting what land we can is our only tool to minimize the growth that I already posted is coming. Yes on K gives us 174 acres toward any goal of keeping permanently protected space.

Unless the state decides we need more apartments; then they can take those 174 acres and order them developed or else no matter what measure K sets aside.

The open space will be protected with a conservation easement. It would be very, very difficult to undo and then build there. These easements have contracts with third-parties who are dedicated to preserving open space and would fight any changes. Although nothing in live is 100% guaranteed, if this land is not in a conservation easement, like it is today, the state can easily force the zoning it wants and require the city to build whatever the state wants.

STOP THE GROWTH. Our schools are more and more congested. Too many cars on the road. Can't even ride our bicycles with our children anymore without worrying about getting hit by cars from silicon valley commuters. Pleasanton is loseing it's identity and will soon be like Dublin - no character. Spike in water and spike in property taxes. Schools are the reason we moved here. Last thing i want is for our schools to get congested and lose their credibility. STOP THE GROWTH!!!! GREEDY DEVELOPERS.

Pleasanton population is around 72,000. Dublin is far less than that. Your comment doesn't make sense. A no vote does Not stop building on this property. It just stops this particular plan. Something WILL get built there--be careful what you wish for.

KPS, read the thread on the Governor. That is who you need to stop. View the PBS Newshour piece; there is a citizens group suing cities for more affordable housing. Permanently save 174 acres TODAY with a yes vote on Measure K. Take off the blinders to what is actually happening all around you in the Bay Area.

Pleasanton will be like Fremont before we know it. , which will bring more crime, and more congestion. GREEDY BUILDERS.

KPS, this is not about the builders. You, as a voter, can start now to protect land.

Kathleen, thank you so much for your continued pursuit of posting the truth.

I can't wait for this election to be over today. It's been so maddening since the whole signature collection process was begun. All the lies that have been told and continue to be told about the proposed development make me sick. Most of the people who initiated the measure live in homes that wouldn't exist today if PP had been in place prior to their construction.

There is far too little housing and prices are far too high all around the bay area. To allow this development will hardly make an impact on that front, but having the open space available to all will be worth so much more.

To top it off, Pleasanton residents have to foot the bill for the fact that this measure was added to the ballot at all. I hear far more support of Measure K than comments continuing to spread the lies against it, so I'm hopeful that K will pass with flying colors. After that, I think the people who brought Measure K to the voters in the first place should be responsible for paying the bill.

YES YES on K!

MY FAMILY HAS BEEN IN THE WATER TREATMENT/drilling/commercial use application industry since '75- I sat in Dublin THIS very morning 6/7; I am TOTALLY perplexed HOW there is a water shortage-who is paying for access-who is granting that access to TONS of daily water for the construction in the Dublin hills... HOW is it possible this insane volume -JUST for dust control- is sprayed liberally while you residents face fines, increase monthly costs,& the BS story of Delta smelt...?! How long AGO were these deals struck to promise copious quantities of water to builders, & developers, & residents o waters in your hills at our drought time!? ANYBODY SEEN "WAG THE DOG" LATELY? Our BROWN rotted governor has been a busy agenda driven salesman for some years now. & CA is his stage! WHAT'S FACT & WHAT'S PURE CRAP? Your area politicians ARE SELLING YOUR STATE FROM BENEATH YOU! HELLO?!

I agree its nice to have the scenery and open land, however the die was cast when the powers that be decided to zone for as much office space as they did without keeping up with housing. Hence, they were sued (rightly so) by the state, and lost. If you don't like all the people moving here then maybe start with refusing the offices and the jobs that come with it...if not, those jobs require someplace to live, as unpleasant a fact that may be. Refusing to do this is how we end up with the horrendous traffic we already have since everyone has to live out in Tracy and commute in since there was nowhere else to go.

@Kathleen Ruegsegger.."As a former commuter, I understand why people want to live closer to job opportunities rather than coming from the Central Valley. Isn't it the addition of businesses throughout the Bay Area driving the need for housing here?"

You would be right. Everyone it seems wanted the lure of high paying jobs but went into NIMBY mode about building enough housing for those jobs, and then passed the buck to the next city until everyone was out in the Central Valley clogging up the 580 to morbid levels. I moved here in '99 and at the time the .com boom was still in full swing, and every empty parcel of land in Silicon Valley was being zoned for new office space and where was the housing. Ditto in Milpitas, Fremont and then Pleasanton. The politicians who let that happen were foolish and we are paying for it now.

@Valorie:

You are spot on with your sentiments.

"Mother Nature creates water shortages, politicians create droughts." - Unknown

I really wish everyone wold wake up and realize this.

Congrats to all Measure K supporters, we did it!! Although I have a feeling our neighbors above us are not finished whining, let's see what they do next, buckle up.

Congratulations to all Measure K supporters. Sure was good to see the final tally around 2am!