WHOOP-DE-DOO

No, you really should understand why so much housing is being built. Read any of the other threads on K.

Country Fair...No on K.....I remember when your house did not exist. Many people were sad to se a beautiful open filed covered by all those houses. One of the good things we got was some of the land that was ised for the tennis park. Measure K is the same thin, only better. For the development of 43 houses, we get a large amount of open space. Both are axamples of compromise with developers to get great parks for all residents to use. You are living in a dream world if you think you can stop development.....Silicon Valley is so close and there is no place to build....Fremont is full.....let's at least get what we cna to continue to make Pleasanton a great place to live. If you want wide open spaces, you need to move elsewhere.

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. Finally, the over $1.2 for this project goes directly to the Pleasanton school district and is spent how they (the school district) sees fit - which you are right, it is rare that funds go directly to our schools.. good thing this one does! I'm voting YES on Measure K.

You've got it bass ackwards, @no on K.

It's the no on K supporters who should stop the lies, from Councilmember Karla Brown, on down to the rest of those who've been propagating falsehoods, misstatements, and any other means to gain their selfish, NIMBY-driven ends.

YES on K--for truth, justice, fairness and equity for all.

What a joke. I went on the tour of the Lund Ranch Property and could not get a straight answer from anyone. The lady giving the tour just wanted to push the open space and cringed when I asked about the housing project. Easy vote-NO on K.

@Went on the tour - As someone who was there, I can with full confidence say you aren't who you say you are. Example: tour guides were MALE. Also they answered every question, no matter how detailed. Good effort on your part, but proper lying does take some homework.

"We have thousands of new houses approved under Mayor Thorne and I want it stopped." Exactly. Enough already. This development issue goes beyond just Measure K.

"Silicon Valley is so close and there is no place to build....Fremont is full.....let's at least get what we cna to continue to make Pleasanton a great place to live."

(i) Not every place/community needs to be built out. Pleasanton has long been known for its small town charm. Part of its appeal is its open spaces, and rolling green hills, (recognized in USA Today, and Forbes for what is has to offer, as it is). There are a number of other nearby, built-out, over-crowded, traffic-congested cities with existing available housing suitable for a concrete lifestyle.


ii) Doubtful Pleasanton will remain "a great place to live" once all of the current developments under construction (or pending approval by the city) are completed. The hundreds of units will bring an influx of new residents while the 680/580 corridor, our city streets, and PUSD are already heavily impacted.

There won't be anything “great” about adding more traffic on our roads getting to/from work or school, or not having enough parking around town.

There won't be anything "great" about not having enough room at our schools for all students.

There won't be anything “great” about the associated costs (parcel taxes or taking of land) for the required infrastructure development (sewer system upgrades, adding roads, road widening, new schools, more medical/emergency services, etc.)

And, there won't be anything “great” about being just another City, USA.

Under development/proposed:

(a) 62 three-story townhomes, 35 more traditional two-story homes and 210 apartment units backing onto I-680 (Township Square Development);
(b) high density, multi-story apartment complex along with 97 new homes on a 27-acre site at Valley Avenue south of Bernal Avenue (Pleasanton Gateway Center Development);
(c) 16-acre high-density multi-story buildings with 345 apartments at Bernal Avenue and Stanley Boulevard (Vintage Village Development);
(d) 185 apartment replacements (Kottinger Street Development);
(e) 94 condo/town home units (Summerhill Project Development);
(f) 19 single family two-story units (Altieri Rose Avenue project);
(g) 27 single family homes Property land use conversion (Centerpointe Homes);
(h) 177 apartment units and buildings as high on West Las Positas Boulevard across from Hart Middle School;
(i) five residential buildings (Rosewood Commons);
(j) eight apartment buildings with 250 units and eight buildings with 247 units (Bart station/Gibraltar and Hacienda drives);
(k) Office/apartment/multi-family residential units (Spring Street Mixed-Use Project);
(l) St. Mary Street Mixed Use Project;
(m) 110 Single family homes and a 40 unit affordable residential (Sunflower Hill)

Patcher, the governor and an organized citizens' group are on the side of unrestricted growth to accommodate need. We must permanently protect these 174 acres by voting yes on Measure K. And we need to protect anything else we are able to control as well. The growth will come; we need to be able to put up a no vacancy sign. And we can't do that as long as land is not protected legally.

Kathleen - I don't know if "permanent" is ever truly ever permanent. I only hope so in the case of Lund Ranch. Bonde Ranch is never supposed to be developed, either. We shall see. Looking at the bigger picture and where Pleasanton is heading is very alarming. The number of housing units approved and currently under construction is changing the landscape of Pleasanton. People (generally speaking) choose to move TO Pleasanton, FROM Fremont, San Jose, etc., and not FROM Pleasanton TO Fremont, etc., for a reason. The hillsides and open land are becoming fewer and fewer as they are being eaten up by development. Rather than containing and protecting our community, we are contributing to, and becoming urban sprawl, and as a long-time resident, I find that sad.

Maybe permanent is only until 2100. I most surely won't be here. We tried to beat the governor and lost. The next best thing is to protect what we can for as long as we can. To do less is foolish and would truly be sadder.

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.