Tough one for the NIMBYs.

Good this finally passed. This was possibly the best deal for everyone (except the few nimby people). It is a small development and the hills will be preserved including open space accessible by all.
In addition we can now stop wasting the cities money on this.
If it didn't pass the city would have probably been sued for $$$millions by the developer.

If people want something of significant to protest -- protest the 1000's of new condos and apartments being built in the city and the resultant congestion.

Wow that was close. But at least the animosity will come to an end. I think it was a fair question to have been put to a vote, and the fact it was so close shows that there isn't much to learn from the results.

I think the city should do something to relieve the concerns of those who worry about a precedent being set that might allow other developments to be built in the valleys at the top of the hills that are really just a road away. But I agree that Lund Ranch seems like a good development and the set aside trails will be a nice additional place to walk.

I think everyone on both sides should be far more worried about the bill that would allow developers to build as a matter of right. That will affect us all. Perhaps both sides here will see the light, realize how effective they were in campaigning, and join sides to fight the state bill.

Done! So happy this is done with, although I have concer this will not end here.

I agree with John....protest the real building issue in the town.

It is nice to see the wealthy cannot lie and buy all the worlds elections.

It won by 254 votes. Technically it is a win, but honestly, we are divided as a town. I voted NO, and as time goes on, it will prove to be a mistake. Maybe Jerry Brown can come in and overturn it.

If you want Jerry Brown to overturn things you are asking for high density housing in the hills. I thought that was what you didn't want?! Anyhow the vote is done, let's move on and spend this kind of effort on the right issues in the future. This project gives a lot of land to us permanently -let's enjoy it.

Truth, justice, fairness and equity for ALL Pleasantonians were the winners last night.

THANK YOU to all who took the time to seek out the facts and voted YES on Measure K.

Glad we stuck it to the no traffic in my neighborhood folks!

@2 cents. I was prepared to fight them at all building. Remember no growth, slow growth? The only people that are going to profit is the contractor, the 65 people who can afford to purchase the homes, and the immediate surrounding residences that will benefit from their homes increasing in values. People are so easily fooled. Good luck with moving on, this will return.

As a rural homeowner on Alisal Street, I am glad this passed! I think it is a great compromise for all. Thank you to all those involved for their time and hard work for coming up with what I think is a fair compromise.

How about smart growth? We protected 174 acres; that's a good day.

I thank those who did vote and agree it was a squeaker. Disappointed that more people didn't vote at all. Some 13,000 out of 40,000ish? That's a lot of apathy considering it's easier than ever to vote by mail.

I would not cry victory yet, not all votes have been counted. Last, I am ashamed of our leadership for allowing this and for manipulating a law that the residents voted into place. Why have a law in place when you can re-vote on a project or individual case that would otherwise not be allowed? Sorry - but like my dad always told me ... "You can't BS and BS'er" lol

The steep road from Sunset Creek is so steep the Greenbriar developer will never build it anyway. The soil is unstable. All traffic will flow from Lund Ranch road eventually anyway.

Alameda County says 100%. No law was manipulated; road is not defined as structure. Leaders need to define that word. Even I think it's time to decide if that includes roads.

Have "ALL" the votes really been counted? What about the "provisional" votes?Unfortunately, our vote was provisional and we were told it would take a while before they were counted. I'm surprised to hear "all" the votes were counted??? Does anyone know how to check on the status of provisional votes?

Web Link If they haven't finished the mail ins (possible), it shouldn't say 100% But that's my opinion, not necessarily fact.

We win on precedent. If it takes 13 years of fighting every time and has to go the ballot to come away with deals like this then we are coming away a lot better. Look no further than over the freeway to Dublin and their runaway sprawl west to Castro Valley and east to Livermore. Then San Ramon building in 3 valleys (San Ramon, Dougherty, and Tassajara valleys).

A road is a structure. Here is the definition of Structure Web Link Since said "Road" will be constructed on a steep area it will have to be "engineered" properly to meet proper federal, state and county codes. Generally when applying mass amounts of weight, concrete footing are needed to help retain the integrity of the "road" or "Structure". If you were not aware, the primary base of the soil here in Pleasanton is "Clay/loam" soil. Depending on the actual percentages, if more clay is present, you will have more expanding/contracting and will deal with cracking. If more loam, then you have issues with possible shifting/sliding of said "Road". To properly reduce or eliminate this issues you will have to engineer the "Structure". I would love to see whom in the city was qualified and educated in "engineering" and especially "Structural Engineering". Last, whom is responsible for the maintenance and liability for the trails and additional land? How about if these "Roads" are improperly installed?

Civil Engineering defines a road as a structure. But I agree clarification is needed as it pertains to Measure PP. Possibly another Measure to amend PP to define the term structure? And personally I would prefer 43 homes on the Lund property as opposed to High Density Housing. I was also put off by the No on K supporters who alluded to in their campaign material that a Yes on K vote meant our hills would now be open for developers to build on as our out of control (IMHO) neighbor Dublin has which is just not true.

The debate is between infrastructure and structure. Structure was used, but is not defined in PP. And your link doesn't define structure as road--it says "such as a building". If the city defines structure and includes road, so be it for the future. It was a flaw in PP's drafting. It seems reasonable that the city will control the construction of the road. In reality, no matter the soil, a good shaker could make most roads impassable (see Oakland or LA).

My guess on the trails is they will be dirt paths. I haven't been on the Pleasanton Ridge in a long time. Are they paved in any way? As the acreage is gifted to the city; responsibility of the city. I hope there is a way to donate for its maintenance. We protected 174 acres. Again, a good day.

All ballots have not been counted yet. The registrar still has to count all the mail-in ballots that were turned in to a polling station on election day plus provisionals. Although I have not spoken with the registrar, typically they still have to count ballots mailed in and received on Monday or Tuesday.

The 100% number you see on the website is 100% of the votes placed at a precinct have been tallied.

Thanks, local.

Can't wait to go for a hike on the 174 acres of new public open space!! I'm so excited to see this project proceed.

A quick search shows a few resources that that refer to roads as structures. But legally may still could be open to interpretation.

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

MG, I agree this needs to be clarified for PP so it is not interpretive in the future.

start building..I may one of the new homes there with plenty of open space around them!

Authors of PP said their initiative EXCLUDED roads being defined as structures. Argue all you want about definitions but those that wrote the initiative agree they are NOT structures as it pertains to PP. Carry on.....

All ballots have not been counted. Can't crow yet.

Yes on K,

How were the voters who voted for or against PP supposed to know what the writers where thinking? Therefore it was open to interpretation during the elections. What the writers of PP agree on is irrelevant. What is relevant is the wording in Measure PP. The authors did define what a "housing unit" was but left out the definition of structure. Therefore clarification is needed, most likely via an amendment.

FULL TEXT OF MEASURE PP:

Save Pleasanton’s Hills & Housing Cap

Purpose

The purpose of this Initiative is to protect our city from
uncontrolled growth and the impact it has on ridgelines
and hillsides, traffic, schools, water supply, and our overall
quality of life.

I. Pleasanton General Plan Amendments
Policy 12 Program 12.3 on Page 11-17 of the City of
Pleasanton August 6, 1996 General Plan is added as
shown:

Policy 12.3: Ridgelines and hillsides shall be protected.
Housing units and structures shall not be placed on
slopes of 25 percent or greater, or within 100 vertical
feet of a ridgeline. No grading to construct residential
or commercial structures shall occur on hillside slopes
25% or greater, or within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline.
Exempt from this policy are housing developments
of 10 or fewer housing units on a single property
that was, as of January 1, 2007, “legal parcel” pursuant
to the California Subdivision Map law. Splitting, dividing,
or sub-dividing a “legal parcel” of January 1, 2007
to approve more than 10 housing units is not allowed.
Policy 15 on Page 11-19 of the City of Pleasanton
August 6, 1996 General Plan is added as shown:

Policy 15.3: A housing unit is defined to include any
residence that includes a kitchen (sink, cooking device,
and refrigerator) and a bathroom (toilet, tub or shower).
The City Council shall uphold the housing cap and
shall not grant waivers that exclude housing units consistent
with this definition.

II. If any portions of this initiative are declared invalid
by a court, the remaining portions are to be considered
valid.

III.The provisions of this initiative may be amended or
repealed only by the voters of the City of Pleasanton
at a City general election and overrides any
existing General Plan.

As a recent seller of my house in Pleasanton, I tried to exercise my last right to vote in this election, particularly so I could vote on (and for) Measure K. Alameda County Election Board did not send my absentee ballot, despite my two conversations with them prior to applying.
FYI- I sold because I was getting sick of the NIMBY-influenced litigious residents, who don't want to share the great town the Pleasanton has been with new homeowners buying new houses. Pleasanton has lost lots of open space through the NIMBY manipulation at both the ballot box and with the threat of litigation.
If those lucky enough to have received an absentee ballot confirm this initial result, bravo for a great city. If not, fools will be fools.

I just want to publicly thank the many Pleasanton residents who volunteered their time to make sure the truth about measure k was known. I am glad the measure is ahead and I am certainly hoping that it remains ahead. Come on final count of last minute mail in ballots.

I don't expect to benefit nearly as much as one of the potential lucky homeowners, but I supported this measure, a known and seemingly reasonable plan, at a time when the rest of the city is being forced into overbuilding that is already starting to overcrowd the good schools my children attend.

I voted YES for Measure K. Despite the many outright lies from the NO side (in addition to all the lies that moved this to a ballot) I remain hopeful that this measure will pass the simple majority and TRUTH can claim victory.

From a practical side, what was won in the end was a COMPROMISE for both neighborhoods and open space for the entire community of Pleasanton.

TRUTH-COMPROMISE-COMMUNITY -all winners!

I agree this was a good compromise, hence why I voted for it. I still see a lot of wishful thinking for no growth, as if you can stop people from moving here or having babies. That is never going to happen. Best to plan for the growth smartly because it's coming and there's not a thing any of us can do about it.

What is the measure for a city which is built out?

Percent of land occupied with a building? All dirt covered? Roads in a state of gridlock?

Does anyone know the newer to this?

I found one thing about sewage capacity, but nothing that says a community can be considered built out. Can eminent domain play a role? So several houses are taken and town homes and apartments are put in to address growth? Build and rebuild over and over. The opposite would be Detroit. Tearing down abandoned homes and building gardens and parks. I know Palo Alto also was mandated to add affordable housing and spots along the railway corridor are getting affordable housing. I would agree we aren't going to escape growth, need to protect what we can, and be smart about how we meet the need.

@Trina,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, and for voting Yes on K. You've stated it as well as anyone could.

And to @MG, regarding interpreting Measure PP, specifically: "How were the voters who voted for or against PP supposed to know what the writers were thinking?"

I and many, many others have consistently addressed that with factual evidence MANY times over the past several months.

The two authors of Measure PP, Kay Ayala and Karla Brown, both publicly stated, on the record, that it NEVER included roads. Period.

Kay Ayala has reiterated this repeatedly at many, many past City Council meetings, most recently in late 2015 (check meeting minutes of November and December 2015, and in her many public statements published in Letters to the Editor, etc.).

Karla Brown clearly and publicly stated this in response to direct questioning from Matt Sullivan during a City Council meeting on June 26, 2008, months before Measure PP was ever voted on: Web Link

Go to the :47 second mark of the video and view it for yourself.

Thus, re: "Therefore it was open to interpretation during the elections." No, it was not.

Again, the authors made it clear to everyone that Measure PP never included roads, months before it was ever voted on in November 2008.

Thus, what the writers of PP agreed on IS absolutely relevant--I mean, c'mon, they are the ones who wrote the Measure, put it before the voters, and clearly stated what was and wasn't included in it.

It's this incessant debate over whether roads are structures or not that is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Can we finally now end the endless fighting and wasting of tax payers money on this matter? Its been approved now twice, and it's ridiculous that local politics keep bring it back.

Does anybody know when and if ever they are going to build the direct road to the Callippe golf course and stop using Happy valley and Sycamore Road for temporary access road?
I thought the plan was to extend Sycamore Creek road to join the clubhouse drive. But I could be wrong.
Maybe passing this will help building the permanent access road for the golf course.

The golf course bypass road will never be built.

The homeowners in the Sycamore Creek area did sign disclosures about the bypass road going in (just like the homes on Lund Ranch) but if this neighborhood is spending all this money to fight 20 something homes having access to Sycamore Creek rd, imagine the fight for all the golf course traffic.

Need some help. I was told that the votes submitted by mail could be received up until 6/10 (post marked by 6/8). If there is only 254 vote difference shouldn't they wait until all the votes are counted?

Am I wrong on this process? (voting regulations are not my forte)

I didn't keep my instructions after I voted. I think you'd have to drop off or have a postmark of June 7 (date of the vote). No one has declared victory or conceded because they have votes left to count. The 100% posted online does not make that clear. I'm hanging with cautiously optimistic for the yes side. It could be a week before we know according to the registrar.

@LanceM, @Kathleen:

From the Alameda County Registrar of Voters website:

Web Link

"Your Vote-by-Mail Ballot must be postmarked on or before Election Day [postmarked on before June 7th, in this case] and received by the Registrar of Voters office no later than 3 days after Election Day." [so by this Friday, June 10th, in this case]

Additionally, you had the option of dropping off your vote-by-mail ballot in person as follows (again, per the website]:

"In Person

-At the Registrar of Voters office during business hours; 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday
-At any polling place in Alameda County from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Election Day
-At any drop-box location: See below for locations and hours.

Vote by Mail Ballot Drop-Off Sites
photo of ballot drop box

Vote by Mail voters who do not want to mail in their ballots can drop their voted ballots off at any 24-hour location.

Vote by Mail voters may also drop off their ballots at the Registrar of Voters office Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. located at 1225 Fallon Street, Rm. G-1, in Oakland. Map / Directions"

There you have it.

Also found this from the Vote By Mail FAQ on their website:

When does my ballot have to be returned?

Vote-by-mail ballots that are personally delivered can be delivered to the Registrar of Voters office during business hours; 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM - Monday through Friday up until Election Day or to any polling place in Alameda County between 7:00 AM. and 8:00 PM. on Election Day. Vote-by-mail ballots that are mailed must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by the Registrar of Voters office no later than 3 days after Election Day.

Web Link

WOW- Did you ever stop to think where the money came from for the overwhelming "YES" advertising. Is there so much profit in building those homes that the developer can spend like a drunk sailor? Now that the camel's head is under the tent, The next developer won't be far behind. What Dublin has done to their hills is disgusting. Just goes to show what happens when a city council is in the pocket of the developers.

@Jim - They had a lot of donations from all across the city from individuals and organizations that supported Measure K. I was one of the people that donated in fact, and I know about 20 other people who did too. The 'no' campaign liked to mislead people by saying the yes campaign was only the developer but that was completely false.

@Jim,

Did you ever stop to think where the money came from for the overwhelming "NO" advertising?

Read all about it here:

Web Link

Close to $100,000 spent, including a reported $26,000 alone spent just for PCI Consultants of Calabasas, CA -- the previously unknown (because they had always refused to disclose) signature gathering company the "No" supporters hired months ago.

And keep in mind several of those donors and supporters live on hillsides (Allen Roberts, Bill Lincoln, David Melaugh, et al), and their most prominent supporter, Councilmember Karla Brown, also lives on a hillside.

And keep in mind the $241,000 it cost City taxpayers like you and me to put this unnecessary referendum on the ballot.

Big money/deep pockets on the No side and hypocrisy to boot.

Just goes to show what happens when a group of wealthy residents will pursue any means necessary to satisfy their own personal self interests at the expense of the common good.

Local,

The golf course bypass road will never be built.

The homeowners in the Sycamore Creek area did sign disclosures about the bypass road going in (just like the homes on Lund Ranch) but if this neighborhood is spending all this money to fight 20 something homes having access to Sycamore Creek rd, imagine the fight for all the golf course traffic.


IF THEY SIGNED THE DISCLOSURES WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE HOMES THEN WHY ARE THEY COMPLAINING NOW? THEY KNEW THAT THERE ARE PLANS TO EXTEND THE SYCAMORE CREEK AND SUNSET CREEK ROAD. WHY WASTE ALL THIS TIME, MONEY AND PEACE.

"And keep in mind several of those donors and supporters live on hillsides, and their most prominent supporter, also lives on a hillside." RoVH, you are a broken record...it's done. People living in every area,of Pleasanton, supported both sides...of those that voted. BTW, the prominent one served those who elected them...what tough decisions have the others had to make...? if not agreeing with their string pullers. I respect all people who serve...but it is what it is. As a resident of Pleasanton, with as little $$$ as I have, it was a small price,$241,000, to pay to have their say. They had that right!!!!!

@Resident of Ventana Hills

I respectfully disagree with you that what was said outside of what was written is relevant. You are referring to the "spirit of the law" From a legal perspective the letter of the law is followed not the spirit. I doubt that a significant number of voters ever attended or viewed this council meeting back in 2008 before they voted. Many just read the wording of Measure PP at the voting booth. All I am saying is that the wording of PP when referring to a structure is open to interpretation. PP needs clarification for future development plans to either exclude or include a road as a structure.

The voting is finished.
The voters have spoken.
Time to move on!

Alameda County still has about 152,000 ballots to count. No way of knowing how many are for Pleasanton however. The registrar has until July to finish counting so expect periodic updates on their website until then. The law must have been recently changes as the registrar had to receive the ballots by the end of the election day where now you only have to postmark it by then. Not sure when that changed

Jerry, I agree with you. They signed the disclosures and should live with them.

Any group that wants to put a measure in the ballot should have to pay the full cost of the issue. If the no people were so set on overturning this, even in the face of their signed disclosures about the road, they should have had to post a bond to cover the $241,000 that the taxpayers if this city were forced to pay. No different from filing a frivolous lawsuit and having the judge force you to pay all of the expenses including those of the court.

I know this is a different issue but a little related.
I did some research.
Back in the days when city built the golf course, the residents of happy valley, alisal and sycamore road were told that their roads will be used as a temporary access to the golf course.
Greenbrier was building sycamore creek homes and the deal was that they will build the permanent access road that was extending the sycamore creek road all the way to connect to clubhouse drive. When that is done the temporary access from happy valley will be shut.
All the home owners in sycamore creek signed this document in their CC&R's. And now they are complaining about the traffic?
I think all the neighbors in happy valley, alisal and sycamore road need to get together and push the city for the permanent access road to the golf course.

To anyone who has accused the Mayor and City Councilmembers of 'being in the developers' pockets,' having their strings pulled/influenced by others, being labeled as corrupt, hope you've read this:

Web Link

"The California Association of Realtors this week applauded a "build by right" proposal by Gov. Jerry Brown that Pleasanton Mayor Jerry Thorne and the League of California Cities oppose."

"The governor's 'By Right Housing Proposal' pre-empts local discretionary land use approvals, eliminates opportunities for public review of projects and project-level environmental review and restricts design review," City Manager Nelson Fialho states in a report to be presented to the Pleasanton City Council tonight. [tonight referring to the June 7th City Council meeting].

"These factors support the city taking an 'oppose' position to the governor's proposal," Fialho added.

The Mayor and City Council are in the developers' pockets? Yeah, right.

Don't think so.

RoVH, willful misinterpretation of what people say sometimes, suggest points to be made like your last, is already law. The obligations in my time living in Pleasanton has always been understood, IMO, to protect neighborhoods/people the same within a balanced environment, to preserve our quality of life. How many new neighborhoods,future HOA's,etc. are coming on board sooner than later. They are not equal. Some require help.I know you do not understand. For that, I am sorry. Take care...

Yes on K just updated. Now up by 319 fires.

Votes, not fires.

@ Trekmtb

Fire---votes…both a bright light of TRUTH at the end of this dark tunnel paved w/ lies.

@Pete,

I think a lot of the people pushing to get measure K on the ballot, with their paid signature gatherers and all, weren't accustomed to being told "no". Well the voters said "no" to them by passing Measure K. It was the right thing for our community.

Regardless of outcome, BobB...I will celebrate the approx. 38% of Pleasanton voters who participated toward our future. I will celebrate both sides, Council and Staff for their due diligence. Others, not so much...

ALL of us have the pleasure of living in this wonderful community because those who lived here before us allowed vacant land to be turned into homes. It is never an easy decision, as there is no turning back once that first shovel is turned. This new neighborhood has a high probability of enhancing our community. Greenbriar has built some of Pleasanton's finest neighborhoods, including nearby Bridle Creek. This will undoubtedly be a similarly outstanding neighborhood, surrounded by open hills that we can all enjoy. I'm thankful to those who came before me, who allowed my home to be built, and I'm thankful for a successful resolution to this long process, ensuring thoughtful and high-quality progress. Now about those giant, dense, low-quality boxes being built around the rest of town...

So happy to finally have hiking trails on the east side of town. If we can have the same type of trails as on the ridge it will be a fabulous trade off for a small number of homes.

Last vote update was Monday June 13th at 4:57pm, it is now a 625 spread.

9928 Yes 51.62%
9303 No 48.38%

Don't count on the so-called "Permanent Open Space" land to be that way forever. In all likelihood, any easements put into the deeds for that land are only enforceable by the City Council, and they may choose not to enforce them at some time in the future.

Also, by permitting the Council to consider roads not to be "structures" under Measure PP, the "yes" vote has set a dangerous precedent to allow the Council to do it again, thus opening otherwise undevelopable land to large-scale development.