Town Square

Post a New Topic

ELECTION RESULTS: Voters reject southeast hills development plan

Original post made on Jun 9, 2010

A plan by landowners' Frederic and Jennifer Lin to build 51 custom homes in Pleasanton's southeast hills was scuttled yesterday when voters rejected the Measure D referendum thst would have allowed them to proceed.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, June 9, 2010, 5:07 AM

Comments (139)

Posted by Dan, a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jun 9, 2010 at 5:47 am

Given the results from previous referendums on this topic, is this really a surprise? The citizens of Pleasanton continually say no to more building, more congestion, and more expansion.

Maybe it's time we focus our attention on the people we've elected who continually out of touch with us.


Posted by Just the facts, a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Jun 9, 2010 at 6:35 am

But now what? The land is still zoned residential - will the Lins now come up with a plan that puts more houses with no public land? Will they build 75 homes just smaller in scale and not on any ridge line? Pleasanton lost out on this one...


Posted by Ptown renter, a resident of Birdland
on Jun 9, 2010 at 6:41 am

Thank goodness so many people are willing to stand up to a private landowner and tell them they can't use their private land the way it was designed (in the city's general plan) to be used. I'm glad we have people courageous enough to put a stop to people doing what they want to do with things they own. Its time for us to take back the land from those that claim to own it - to put it to better use like increased affordable housing. At last the people are starting to make a stand!!!


Posted by Dan, a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jun 9, 2010 at 7:06 am

To "Just the facts": No, the Lins may try to put more homes on that land, but this is a false threat. Yes, the Lins own the property, and they can propose anything they want - hell, they can propose 1000 units of inner-city project housing, a skyscraper, or a strip club. Nothing can happen without approval by the city though, and if the city is dumb enough to once again approve a project that the citizens don't want, then we will fight it again, and we will prevail once again.

And to "Ptown renter" - The Lins are property owners, but so are the rest of us. We all have the right to fight for the kind of community we want. The true difference here is that the Lins just want to make a bunch of money off their investment - the rest of us live here and want to maintain the quality of life that we paid a lot of money for.


Posted by Ajay, a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jun 9, 2010 at 7:19 am

The citizens of this great city have spoken. The politicians and the developer should hear the message loud and clear. The city council wasted so much money by putting this on the ballot in June instead of Nov. Should they be asked to pay for the difference from the pocket?
This was a case of David vs Goliath. The developer spent almost half a million dollars against a few thousand by the local citizens.


Posted by sickofit, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 9, 2010 at 7:29 am

It will be interesting to see exactly how much the developer spent. Not all the reports are in.

Let us hope that he does not decide to file more lawsuits. Build a development in compliance with PP and guess what, none of this would have happened.

City Council - next time listen to your citizens - you clearly failed to do so here.


Posted by Laura, a resident of Bonde Ranch
on Jun 9, 2010 at 7:37 am

Nice job Pleasanton residents. Get ready for 98 mega mansions on the ridge.


Posted by resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 7:48 am

Thanks Dan - I agree with both your comments and want to add a few of my own. The current direction that ANY development should take (in any city) should be environmentally sensitive or environmentally progressive designs. The age of the "McMansion" is over! Housing today should be built with recycled material, solar power, drought resistant landscaping, etc. Who actually needs 12,000 sq ft to live in? Will these houses hold 12 people? I doubt it.

I can only guess that the Lins have a long history of making money by the old motto "BUILD, BUILD, BUILD". I've seen the part of the world that they come from. The air quality is horrible and the environment is raped every day in Taiwan for the goal of making a buck.

Further more, the public land the Lins want to give to the city for trails is poorly thought out. If you carefully examine other parks/trails in Pleasanton, you'll notice the streets leading to these parks are designed for high throughput traffic. However, the street leading to the proposed Lin development is a narrow residential street. AND, who will regulate the proposed trail area? Will it have rangers or city facility workers making sure there is no illegal activity going on in this HIGH FIRE DANGER area? Sounds like more cost to the city.

For those 45% of folks who voted in favor of this development - I'm not exactly sure why you did...the money? It's not a lot - this money will easily be swallowed up by expenses caused by problems from this development.

My direct comment to the Lins:

Please realize that your way of making money is not socially acceptable anymore nor is it socially responsible. Our world is just starting to understand the damage we've done and the mess our future generations will have to deal with. There are other ways to make money - I suggest you investigate them.



Posted by One of "those" teachers, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 7:58 am

Ajay-
"The citizens of this great city have spoken." About 16% of the registered voters have spoken to create this result. Hardly a majority vote.

However, the about 70% who didn't even vote will also have to pay the costs of this result including city staff time to create a new plan as well possible litigation and/or judgment expenses. Don't complain about this if you could even be take the small amount of time necessary to vote.


Posted by m, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:02 am

Holsterman may have miscalculated when to put this up on the ballot. In thinking that getting up in the "light turnout" phase of voting, the issue would stand out as a more important issue, less adversarial push, and ... well wrong guess. The Lin's will get tougher this next go around ... I am sure the Pleasantonian stance on "Woah development horsies" will be the up to the task.


Posted by Donna, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:16 am

I agree with Laura, you silly people, they will now build 98 huge homes, maybe not (up to) 12k sq feet but probably 6-8 AND that's already approved. Did you not do your homework.
Did you all not notice that Hearst IS a "to be continued" road just like Stoneridge Dr. ?? I can't understand the number of people that believe the stories that realtors dish out. Just like the one where 84 was going to stay a 2 lane road - HA - and that an elementary school along would be started in 1998 - double HA.
I think the lawsuits are being prepared. Nice job Pleasanton.(scarcasm implied)


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:16 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Just the facts wrote: "But now what? The land is still zoned residential"

We'll get to find out now!

The opponents don't know either. They just "hope" that there won't be a lawsuit and "hope" that the next proposal won't be 10 mega-mansions on hilltops. They "hope" that any such proposal can be stopped. They sure didn't place enough "hope" in the public planning process to come up with a great compromise plan like Measure D was, but they'll "hope" for a different outcome.


Posted by Donna, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:16 am

I agree with Laura, you silly people, they will now build 98 huge homes, maybe not (up to) 12k sq feet but probably 6-8 AND that's already approved. Did you not do your homework.
Did you all not notice that Hearst IS a "to be continued" road just like Stoneridge Dr. ?? I can't understand the number of people that believe the stories that realtors dish out. Just like the one where 84 was going to stay a 2 lane road - HA - and that an elementary school along would be started in 1998 - double HA.
I think the lawsuits are being prepared. Nice job Pleasanton.(scarcasm implied)


Posted by Chin, a resident of Del Prado
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:17 am


Every registered voter was given the right to vote. To those who did not, you just gave up your right to have your voice heard. Don't cry if the outcome was not what you wish to see.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:27 am

Stacey is a registered user.

resident wrote: "For those 45% of folks who voted in favor of this development - I'm not exactly sure why you did...the money?"

Are you kidding? It was the 500 acre park placed into a conservation easement to protect against future development. It was the 500 acre park from 90% of the property as the keystone in a 2000 acre open space and hiking trail system stretching over the southeast hills. We need seed land in order to start and here it was being given as a land dedication. We didn't have to pay for it. The money was always, always secondary.


Posted by resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:28 am

to "Donna".....you need to drive on Hearst to understand that it is NOT wide enough for high throughput traffic. ALSO - there is no way to make it wide enough. There are existing houses that you would have to tear down to widen this street. Yes, the street can be "continued" further up the road but the street that is there (which connects to Bernal) is not "improvable" in any way to accommodate more traffic. Have you personally driven from Hearst from Bernal to the proposed development site? Let me know when you have so we can have an intelligent conversation about this matter. By the way, 84 looks NOTHING like Hearst (before or after the 2 lane road was changed). Further proof that you haven't even driven on Hearst to understand the issue.


Posted by West Side Observer, a resident of Oak Hill
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:28 am

The best thing to do now is to throw out the leftists on the Council and begin appointing commissioners and committee members who are not elitist leftist extremists.


Posted by resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:30 am

To "Stacey" please CAREFULLY reread my post to understand why a 500 acre park is not feasible and would cause more problem than added benefits.


Posted by MoneyTalks, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:35 am

Now that Measure D has failed, the next day of reckoning approaches.

The political 'Lin Axis' of Hosterman, Thorne, and Cooke-Kallio, time for you to go.

You sided with the Lins, and you lost, and the voters of Pleasanton who defeated Measure D won't forget whose side you were on come November.

You're done. Finally, just maybe, in a few short months we will have elected officials who actually REPRESENT the wishes of the electorate, instead of slick politicians beholden to special interests.

You'll need those thousands of dollars of campaign contributions you got from the Lins, but one only has to see what the Lins hundreds of thousands of dollars bought 'em to see what that will get you--nothing.

What's your collective platform going to be? "Hey, sorry we supported the Lins and not you, Pleasanton residents, but really, we do represent what you want. Really."

Or perhaps, "The majority of you who voted No on D, hey, you were wrong, but, please do vote to re-elect me anyway."

Methinks the majority of voters in Pleasanton aren't buying your salespitch anymore, either now, or in November.

Let's throw these arrogant bums out once and for all.


Posted by Stacey wrong as usual, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:39 am

Stacey - wrong as usual! We know exactly what it means. The Lins have to submit a plan that complies with PP

and Donna - they DO NOT have an approved plan for 98 units. They have NO development entitlements.

You both have been drinking the Hosterman/Lin Koolaide too long!


Posted by Houses, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:41 am

I see a lawsuit coming . . . the defeat of Measure D is going to cost our city A LOT of money.


Posted by Joe, a resident of Danbury Park
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:42 am

If I recall, the Mayor, Cook Kallio & Thorne WANTED this item in June so they did not have to run a campaign with Oak Grove as the main issue in debates. At a great cost to the Citizens of $95,000 for a June ballot item, vs. $10,000 for a November ballot.

Those up for re-election may have been hoping for a low turn out - because they got it.

Perhaps they were also hoping that in June, the Governor primaries would bring out the Republicans (esp. those that are pro-property owner rights) for a well publicized race, while the Democrats (esp. the environmentally protective folks) with a no-competition for Jerry Brown, would stay home.


Posted by resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:49 am

To my fellow namesake "resident – a resident of another Pleasanton neighborhood",

Property development is no longer a socially acceptable business? Really?

I agree that the residents of Pleasanton do not want unbridled growth like the iron block developments that now grace the Dublin hills. And in case you haven't noticed, they are now constructing overpasses to access new areas in northern Livermore. Any guess why they are building high traffic volume overpasses to cattle pastures?

The point is that the current land holder has made a long term investment and obviously has deep pockets. They will continue to challenge our resolve through the court system and eventually manage to develop their property. Reaching a compromise that preserves the bulk of the land is a sensible approach. Personally, I would have liked to see this issue resolved without further taxpayer expense, but it appears we will be fighting this battle for some time to come.


Posted by resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:02 am

To my fellow resident - it's good to see our hearts are in a common place. Yes, I agree that the Lins have deep pockets and that a compromise was logical. But my heart screams out against the Lins. I suppose we could all be logical and not fight the Lins anymore but I suggest "the path less traveled" (Robert Frost).

The fight goes on...at least for today. And for that, I am happy.


Posted by Nosy Neighbors, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:09 am

To the NIMBY's of P-Town... PPPPPhhhhhhhhhhhtttttt!! You suck!


Posted by No to the Lins, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:13 am

If the City needs to defend themselves - it is because the LIN'S are sue-happy land owners. Don't demonize the No on D folks. The problem is with the Lins and their attorney(s). Say no to gorilla tactics and lawsuits.

BTW, the land is zoned 1 house per 5 acres of land/rural residential -- not residential. There is a big difference. Kottinger Ranch is zoned residential. Oak Grove is zoned for small farms of 5 acres or more.


Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of Val Vista
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:14 am

Parent of Two is a registered user.

Interesting how the Measure D proponents are using scare tactics like threats of lawsuits and rampant overdevelopment as their reasoning for their support. Either Pleasanton accepts the demands of the Lins (partially disguised as a "compromise"), or boy-oh-boy, there will be big trouble for us down the line...

Isn't that called "extortion"?


Posted by resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:15 am

resident (also),

Oddly enough I drove up Hurst to view the property yesterday before voting, as I was undecided on this issue prior to that visit. You are absolutely right that Hurst is not a street conducive to high traffic volume. That said, we are (or were) talking about an open space park over hilly terrain. There is not much chance that the park was destined to create much additional traffic. There is a similar park at the top of Golden Eagle Estates that currently gets little usage. My guess is that the real issue for the Hurst property owners is the desire to "hold position" in terms of spot on the street relative to the top of the development. No one wants to "move down the hill", so to speak. While I expect that the property value of existing Hurst homes would actually increase over time if this development had been approved, it is likely it would bruise some egos. My advice to the Hurst residents is to accept a reasonable compromise that preserves the bulk of the land if it is offered. It is going to cost a lot of money to keep kicking that can down the road. And sometimes it is better to dance with the Devil you know.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:18 am

Stacey is a registered user.

I think it's funny that there's a poster who uses my name in their moniker, claims that I'm wrong, yet offers nothing of substance. A plan of ten mega-mansions on hilltops complies well with Measure PP. Anyone can go read the text of Measure PP and come to the same conclusion.

resident,

I did read what you wrote about the 500 acre park. Just because YOU dismiss the park doesn't mean others do. No one sat back and dismissed the creation of the Pleasanton Ridge park because of those issues.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:22 am

Stacey is a registered user.

No to the Lins wrote: "Oak Grove is zoned for small farms of 5 acres or more."

That's a misrepresentation. The zoning designation doesn't mean each lot will be 5 acres or more. One house per 5 acres on the Oak Grove acres zoned for rural residential means 98 homes.


Posted by Sue, a resident of Pheasant Ridge
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:25 am

It would not surprise me if Lin family is happy that measure D did not pass.

The eventuality is that homes will be built on that land. It belongs to the Lin family and in tlme the ruling will be in their favor. Measure D was a reasonably compromise, building fewer homes than are currently approved in the plan and donating almost 500 acres of land. Voting yes on measure D would have limited building and ensured that the donated land would never be developed. Who knows what will happen down the road.

Those of you who were campaigning against this measure may feel accomplished and powerful, but I fear although well meaning you have made a mistake. I hope that in the future we do not all look back at Measure D as a missed opportunity to preserve 500 acres of ridge line and limit building.


Posted by resident, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:27 am

Why do we have City Council? They really are on our side and looking out for our City's best interests.

Now we may be looking at HUNDREDS of homes topping our beautiful ridge lines, not just 51 designed to fit within the existing trees and topography...


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:31 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Nah, not hundreds. Can't be more than 98. Might even be just 10 on the hilltops.


Posted by local, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:36 am

The election is over. Accept the results of the voters and move on. To all you Yes on D people here, the people have spoken. You can stop the scare tactics now.

Will the developer sue? Probably, since they sue at the drop of the hat for anything. That does not mean you have to be intimidated and do what they want or they will sue you. Even if the development won approval by the voters, they would have sued if the city only allowed a house to be 12,450 square feet instead of 12,500 feet. That is just the way the developer is.

The real question now is what will happen at the mayor and city council election in November. All of those up for re-election in November were against the ridgeline protection of measure PP which won by a wide margin, and they were for the Oak Grove development, which the voters shot down. It appears that those up for re-election do not do a very good job in representing the residents. With the mayor going "all in" with Oak Grove, using her name and office on phone calls and the many flyers we received, she has clearly proved she is out of touch with the voters. Reading the posts here you would have thought that Oak Grove would have won by a huge majority. Shows that the posters here do not reflect the community either.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:37 am

Stacey is a registered user.

More humor...

You can either consider support for the 51 homes as evidence of a person who is pro-development or you can consider the request for a 500 acre park as a leftist extortion of a property owner. LOL!


Posted by Jon, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:43 am

The sad part is that we have 38,000 voters and only about 11,000 showed up. You can not say that Pleasanton is against it and we show look at the leadership that is out of touch with us. If you do not vote then you have no say in what happens. And I do not want to hear you complain about the state of anything. This is very unfortunate for Pleasanton. The NO people missed the point on this one.


Posted by Embarrassed to Say "Resident", a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:53 am

This morning I am embarrassed to say I am a resident of this town. This is the second time this has happened since we moved here, the first being the Merritt (I believe that was the name) property on Foothill Rd. Why once people move to this town they think that, by referendum, they can take away others property rights is beyond me. What a joke. Why the courts let them do it is also beyond me. I can imagine their outrage if people started changing the rules on their property and telling them what to do with it after the fact. You all hate the "elitist" rich people so go live in the projects of Oakland where there are none. Take away the money they donate to the many causes they support and see how it effects your town. And, by the way, it was some of these "elitist rich people" who live on the ridges in Kottinger (NIMBYS) who were behind No on D. Get realistic guys, you have been had by the people you thought you beat and lost school money and a park for all your work. I find it unbelievable the puppets that live in this town.

By the way the referendums in this state let the those too lazy or unwilling to actually serve complain and stop the exhaustingly researched decisions of the very people they elected to make them. They instead let them be made by people largely uneducated about the issues (because there is no way most people have the time to educate themselves of the years of research that goes into these things). This town is about what is best for a few and not what is best for the community overall. However, the rich elitist behind this were amazing in their ability to convince you that is what the other side was. I guess I've got to hand it to them for that. For all you sheep, there is no excuse for the way you let yourself be duped and one day you will be sorry that your property rights are being constantly diluted.


Posted by Jeff Wilson, a resident of Dublin
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:55 am

Serious question: at what point does this issue begin to run afoul of the takings clause of the US Constitution? It seems that the busybodies in Pleasanton are de facto devaluing the property by continually preventing its lawful use by its owner. Aren't they due compensation at some point under the umbrella of eminent domain types of considerations?


Posted by Ed, a resident of Happy Valley
on Jun 9, 2010 at 9:56 am

Happy to see my vote helped take the Lin's down on this one.

If you want to support your falling propertry values, vote NO on any new residential development.

The Tea Bag crowd here doesn't seem to understand supply and demand.


Posted by Jeff Wilson, a resident of Dublin
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:07 am

Hey Ed, glad to see that you regard property rights as an issue of supply and demand for your own little tiny world.

What needs to happen here is that the Lins should do something like the guy down in Alexandria (or Georgetown, forget exactly where but somewhere near D.C.) did with his storefront. Thwarted by the local jerk busybodies, he scrapped his original plans and put in a sex shop.


Posted by Agree..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:10 am

I was thinking precisely this:

"This morning I am embarrassed to say I am a resident of this town."

What a complete and utter joke many of you are. I'm ashamed to live among such selfish people.


Posted by Bill, a resident of Stoneridge
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:11 am

What a sad day for Pleasanton. A lost opportunity for a 400 acre park, with only 51 more homes in Kottinger Ranch.
I've driven Hearst many times, and if it can currently handle the occupants of the existing 215 homes, surely the additional traffic from 51 more homes would have been manageable. I have never experienced a traffic problem on Hearst...the only possible challenge is sometimes turning onto Bernal.

And to think that less than 30% of our registered voters even took the few minutes necessary to vote on such a major, contentious Pleasanton issue. So approximately 16% of our eligible voters determined the defeat of Measure D.

And to again deny the Lins, the property owners, the right to develop the remainder of Kottinger Ranch. Time will tell if the over 70% of our registered voters who couldn't bother to vote will regret their decision.



Posted by At a loss to understand..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:18 am

It's almost comical that "Dan" and others from Kottinger Ranch claim victory...talk about living in Glass Mansions, that goes for 3 of the 4 main vocal opponents of Oak Grove...they live in Mansions on the Ridges, just like "Dan" in Kottinger Ranch. Who built Kottinger Ranch? The Lins? Where was "Dan" when those ridges got flat-topped? When those 25 percent grades got bulldozed? When the neighbors below watched their pristine hills disappear? And did Kottinger Ranch share their open space with the rest of Pleasanton? Of course not! Not then, not now and probably never. As for the comments that the voters have spoken..oh please. 11,000 of 38,000 doesn't make a mandate especially with a slim margin of less than 1,000 votes. But this is okay..the NIMBY's get their way...just don't throw those stones too hard and too fast...living in glass mansions and all...


Posted by Nomo Payola, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:28 am

Great job, Pleasanton, in rejecting Meaure D.

Now everyone needs to focus of getting rid of the three council members that foisted this whole debacle on us. We really, really, really need to get rid of the Hippy Mayor, and Councilmembers Thorne and Cook-Callio. You also need to really start raising hell with the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce whose endorsement and PAC fund contributed largely to them getting elected. Go to the Chamber's website, and get the names and contact information for all the members of the Chamber's Board of Directors. Call them and tell them you are not going to support the business they own or work for if they continue to support the likes of Hosteman, Thorne and Cook-Callio. VOTE THESE 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS OUT!


Posted by @ resident, a resident of Birdland
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:31 am

"For those 45% of folks who voted in favor of this development - I'm not exactly sure why you did...the money?"

WHY? Because we believe in property rights and have people in the city council and planning commission who get paid to review and approve/reject these plans. If they approved it, am I going to vote against it (and vote against property rights) just because a few P-towners couldn't deal with having more neighbors?


Posted by resident, a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:34 am

I am just thankful that the pro-Oak Grove people were not in charge of trying to save the Pleasanton Ridge years ago. They would have "negotiated" only 50-100 mega-mansions on top of the ridge to "save" the hills by Palomares Canyon.

As to the "rights" of the property owner to build what and how they want, this is the same property owner that last year proposed 4 15 to 21 STORY SKYSCRAPERS next to Lowes in Dublin. How thoughtful they are to want to grace our valley with such appropriate structures! Should we not have ANY say how the valley we live in develops????

The siteing of the Oak Grove lots was NOT appropriate. No other siteing was considered except the ridgetops. They have 600 acres there, they could easily have sited them off the ridgetops and this whole fight would probably have never happened.

The last proposal the Lins had for this property would have sent drunken golf course traffic down a winding residential street. That got refferended too because they were unwilling to reroute the traffic.

If they come back with a good plan it will have a good chance of being built, if not they can always keep building on their land in Dublin (very attractive. NOT!)


Posted by susan, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:35 am

Well lets see, we started with a golf course, we defeated it. Next was a 82 house project, we defeated it. Does this not have a esclating stage to it. Next will be 400 houses when the the economy gets better. This was a close race, my sympatizes our with the Lins. When you comply with the city and still can't do anything with your own property. THIS IS SOCIALISM AT ITS WORST.


Posted by Roger Smith, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:36 am

My sympathy to the poor Lin family which spent a few hundred thousand dollars and the council majority who did not care a damn about what the voters want.They were defeated by a citizen's group which spent less then $7,000. The council majority spent a lot of extra money to put this on the ballot in June instead of Nov.They have lost touch with the people who voted them in. They sided with the Lins from begining to the end. The Lins sued the No on D people in court just for trying to bring this issue to the people. This is a clear message to the Lins also.No one is against more housing in the city. Instead of Mega Mansions we need a housing development near BART so it is easy for commuters. It should be affordable so our young Police Officers, Firefighters and Teachers can afford to live here.

To all the Yes On D people be humble and accept defeat.Stop being mean.I myself heard Ms Cook saying mean things at the Farmers Market to the NO on D volunteers.


Posted by Sal, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:37 am

Mark my words: Nimbys and right-wingers will ruin this town.

If the conservative idiocracy gains power in this town, Pleasanton will go downhill fast. So long high property values and good public schools!


Posted by Amy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:44 am

My suggestion to the Lins...

Sue this socialist town that doesn't believe in private property rights.

"D" would have been a win-win.


Posted by Me, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:44 am

[deleted]

The Planning Commission REJECTED the EIR.

The Lins appealed that decision to the City Council. The Council approved the EIR and THEN completley bypassed the Planning Comission by approving the PUD and the Development Agreement.

This did not go through the normal channels. This was only approved by the council not by the citizens on the Planning Commission.


Posted by Miss Manners, a resident of Castlewood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:50 am

Now, now, Sal. Name calling is not an effective form of communication. Perhaps you should take a deep breath, scream into a pillow, or something else to get it out of your system. When you're finished, then maybe you'll be ready to treat others with more respect.

By the way, the people whom you seem to fear the most (i.e. the "Nimbys" and "right-wingers") already do in fact run this town. That's why Measure D was defeated.

[deleted]


Posted by Roger Smith, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:50 am

Who is this Stacy? She seems to have nothing better to do but post things in favor of the Lins, The council majority and PW. Stacy great job.Now don't go running to your Grandpa.


Posted by hikergirl, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 9, 2010 at 11:02 am

To those who say it was a small margin of victory, please Google "definition of an election landslide":

A landslide election is an election in which one candidate wins by a substantial margin. The precise definition of a landslide election varies, with some people saying that the margin needs to consist of five points or more, setting a relatively low bar, while others say that the margin should be much higher, closer to 10 or 15 points. If a candidate achieves a landslide victory, it suggests a strong mandate from the people.


Posted by Diva, a resident of Beratlis Place
on Jun 9, 2010 at 11:03 am

Now can we force the Lins to divide up those 600 acres into 2400 pieces of 1/4 acre land and sell them cheap to residents of this town? Then 2400 lucky people will be able to own a piece of the ridge and build whatever they want on there. That alone will win 2400 votes, more than 1/3 of the votes to win the measure.

Alternatively, the Lins should consider donating those land to the Housing Authority and designate them for low-income housing projects.


Posted by sickofthegreed, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 11:08 am

Maybe now the City's elected illuminati and has-beens will pay attention to more than their own egos and prospects of a quid pro quo. Quit cramming this unneeded and unwanted Lin development down our throats. No means NO. I don't know how many times and ways that needs to be demonstrated. Sheeze.

Time to work on remedying the City's failure to comply with the requirement for affordable housing. Get to work on that. Just do your jobs, for once. How much has all this Oak Grove nonesense cost us to this point?


Posted by Use What You Have, a resident of Pleasanton Village
on Jun 9, 2010 at 11:39 am

There are plenty of vacant homes, yet developers want to build more? Same with the Staples Ranch project, plenty of empty retail/office but we want to build more? This is nonsense.


Posted by No to Diva, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 11:41 am

Dear Ms. Diva, where do you get your facts? This land is zoned 1 house for 5 acre parcel or more. That equates to 98 homes - and thanks to PP - all of them must be off the ridges and off a 25% slope. PP will reduce the number of homes - hence all of the strong arm aggression & legal wrangling from the land owner. Lin's - come back with a better plan or better yet - move here and build a home on your own land!


Posted by PTown-Lifer, a resident of Birdland
on Jun 9, 2010 at 12:26 pm

HAHA, we won.

Cry all you want, make excuses, call the voters stupid. Whatever.

Nice campaign and mass mailers with quotes from people that don't matter to anyone, the people of Pleasanton are not fooled be your "you better approve this, or we will do something even worse" tactic.

Remind me of a kid that threatens to call the police when he deservedly gets spanked by his parents.



Posted by Bill R, a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jun 9, 2010 at 12:41 pm

So when will Jerry Brown file suit against the Ptown housing cap and will that add weight to the Lin's development case? Looks better and better for the Lin's to have the defeat. Enjoy what you see today, a worse alternative will be considered with the blessing of Sacramento.


Posted by james, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 12:43 pm

I have watched while the once lovely hills in Dublin exploded with one development after another until the hills were covered, and not all the properties are even sold or occupied. all of the multiple family projects that sprang up like tall weeds to further block the hills still have many vacancies. it was un-controlled growth permitted by a greedy city council that could only see tax revenue instead of thinking about quality of life. all of those homes and multi family buildings have placed a definite burden on the Dublin infrastructure and certainly in increased traffic.

i think we need to take a hard look at why our city council and mayor hosterman backed this proposition. if we want to keep pleasanton as the beautiful town it is then we need another mayor and city council. or if you want uncontrolled growth, and more traffic and become just like dublin and san ramon and the other 680 bedroom community clones then keep hosterman.


Posted by Hosterman needs to go, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 9, 2010 at 12:52 pm

Sorry Jen H, time to go. You listened more intently to the developers than you do to your citizens. You are out of touch, smiling at the microphone in meetings, but not listening at all. If you thought about running for a bigger office, that is out too.

And Cheryl and Jerry, you backed this one to the hilt and you were also out of touch.

Follow the money and coruption is not far behind.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 12:53 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

The Oak Grove proposal was not anything approaching what has occurred in Dublin. Try as hard as you might, 51 homes with 90% of the land donated for a park does not constitute a growth issue.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I took at hard look at why Hosterman, Cook-Kallio, Thorne, and Sullivan approved the plan. It was a great compromise plan short of out-right purchasing the property from the Lins.


Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community
on Jun 9, 2010 at 1:06 pm

I agree with Laura, now get ready for more building but maybe not for megamasions how about a couple of low income comunities? Pleasanton need to comply with that. We need some diversity too.


Posted by Shameful, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 9, 2010 at 1:07 pm

To all the Kottinger Ranch neighborhood folk who opposed D (need I say NIMBY's) you would not be living in the house you live in today if not for the Lin's project back in the early-90's and the city's OK. There are many homes on a half-dozen ridgelines extending off Hearst Drive that can be seen from everywhere. I don't know what was accomplished by voting this project down, but it's only a matter of time until something is built there.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 1:10 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Forget the KR folks. I'm wondering when Allen Roberts is going to resubmit his hilltop mega-mansion plans to the City now that the election is over.


Posted by sickofit, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 9, 2010 at 1:25 pm

Our arrogant city council needs to be held responsible for forcing this early election at a cost of at least $80,000 to the City. That was just a waste of money that didn't need to happen and, based on the political contributions that have been made, did not appear to happen by coincidence. Watch the tape of that meeting - fascinating.

In any event, it is over and we need to come together as a community. Name calling and accusations won't get us anywhere. Let's hold our elected officials responsible for their actions (especially the one's who say they don't believe in referendums etc) and let's move on.

All of the speculation of 98 homes, low cost housing etc isn't founded in fact but is just that - speculation.


Posted by Pat, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 1:44 pm

The first time I heard Kay Ayala's name was when I saw that with Ben Tarver and Terry Spraggins she signed the ballot arguments AGAINST 2600 houses on the ridgelands, fighting against the loss of the spectacular Sinbad Canyon.

Thank goodness for Kay Ayala!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

It isn't speculation that the property has a zoning designation of rural residential which means 1 home per 5 acres. It is a fact that the zoning designation allows up to 98 homes on that property. The only speculation that can occur is trying to figure out home many homes it will actually be.

The ball is in the Lins' court now. Will they sue over the poison pill language or go for creating another plan? One can say this or that about the Council, but they have to at least be given kudos for helping the opponents not have to gather signatures for two referendum elections by adding in the poison pill language. State law clearly outlines the method by which Council decisions can be referended. It isn't clear if poison pill language is a valid method.


Posted by Brad, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 9, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Now that Pleasanton has dodged a third bullet (the water park and Home Depot in the middle of town being the other two) it's time to rid our council of these hicks and aging hippies who still see Pleasanton as the dirty backwater burg it was 50 years ago. We need Pleasantonians on council who see this as an upscale community and one of the nicest in the Bay Area. If the mayor and council want Tracy, then go live in Tracy and stop trying to ruin our city.


Posted by Big Brother, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Again we have spoken and again we have protectod OUR hills.

Now we need to enact the following five point plan to protect our existing community.
1-All existing homes shall be repainted a color of OUR choice
2-No home shall contain more than one child.
3-No one over age 60 shall be allowed to live in OUR town.
4-No one from Livermore shall be allowed to drive through OUR town.
5-No more new homes will be built in OUR town.

Don't believe it? See you at the ballot box.

Big Brother has spoken.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:18 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Brad,

Home Depot? Really? You DO remember that it was Council who ultimately voted against that project, right?

Here's a great quote I just read:
"By now the best chicken-and-egg argument in California politics is: Which came first, the unresponsiveness, arrogance, and incompetence of California's elected politicians or the orgy of initiatives designed to bypass cretin government and set things straight?" Web Link


Posted by Jerry, a resident of Oak Hill
on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:20 pm

I'm wondering if those that failed to show up at the polls(to help decide the fate of "D")didn't really care one way or the other...

If "abstain" can be considered a "no" vote, can not voting on an issue be considered a "no" vote...

Just wondering...


Posted by Plenty of homes availiable, EVERYWHERE!, a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:20 pm

Why build 58 more?





Posted by Brad, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:25 pm

Stacey,

Do you recall council quickly and decisively killing the Home Depot in the middle of town (which was only a pincers move by Home Depot against Lowe's and was never intended to make money)? I don't. I remember months of deliberation before a close call vote. The "orgy of initiatives" wouldn't be needed if governments would serve the electorate as designed. This town has to constantly do end-arounds on council because they are only looking out for their own interests (i.e. campaign contributions by the builders) and NOT the interests of the voters. I hope a council of Pleasantonians will operate in the best interests of the city. This council of P-Towners certainly does not.


Posted by Brad, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:36 pm

P.S. If the council really cared about anything other than their contributions from the builders they never would have put the town through the cost of divisiveness of another ballot measure on a topic the town has clearly and repeatedly spoken on. This election has always been a forgone conclusion, but council had to show good faith to their benefactors by running it up the flagpole once more. And if that cost the city money and causes strife, who cares, right?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:42 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Brad,

Why is deliberation such a bad thing? That deliberation (and it wasn't months long) resulted in the project being killed. If it weren't for that deliberation, it would not have been discovered that Pleasanton business would actually have lost revenue. And there was no close vote. It was practically unanimous with Thorne the only unknown because he excused himself due to feeling sick.

Is it really difficult to give people some credit for, after thoroughly researching the issues, doing what they feel is in the best interest of Pleasanton instead of just following the noise of whoever shouts the loudest?


Posted by Brad, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:47 pm

When an issue is clear cut, YES deliberation is a bad thing. That Home Depot would have been a blight on the area and it was painfully obvious that this was all part of a battle between Home Depot and Lowe's and Home Depot had zero interest in what was best for Pleasanton. If you're going to run for office, you either represent the interests of your electorate, or you lose your job. Just like Jerry McNerney is about to learn.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:54 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I don't think it is THAT easy, Brad. Sometimes issues that seem clear cut are not and deliberation is necessary to shine a light on all potential issues.


Posted by Disgusted, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 2:57 pm

It is ridiculous to say the "people" have spoken when the opposition represented a mere 6.3% of the Pleasanton voting population.

Those of you who ever want to remodel or build on "your" land can expect to have your project scrutnized by your neighbors and your project will take more time and money than you wanted to spend as a result of having people who have no business in your project, delaying it and making you change it to appease them. What in the heck happened to landowners rights? There are contractors and vendors who refuse to work in Pleasanton due to our outdated and ridiculous rules!

How much more big brother can we stand? I don't care if the Lins have $100K or $100 million. They bought the land to develop and should have been allowed to develop it and yes, make a PROFIT! Since when is that a dirty word? Used to be the American Dream! That is what this country is built on so those of you who keep mud slingling about how much money they have, go somewhere else to live.

I hope the Lin's sue in spite of the fact that we will all probably have to pay for that. It is the principle of the matter. If Pleasanton wants to protect land, buy the land and make it into park for all residents. Will you all be willing to pay for that!


Posted by Brad, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 9, 2010 at 3:02 pm

In theory, yes. In reality and on the issue you raised...Home Depot, hardly. A little big picture perspective here...Danville, Los Gatos, Saratoga and other premiere Bay Area communities would never even have considered a water park or big box store in the middle of their towns or leveling off their ridge lines to build on top of. That the Pleasanton council DOES, says that they don't see our town with how most of our community sees it. Again, if you want to live in Tracy, move there.


Posted by Pat, a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jun 9, 2010 at 3:07 pm

I think it's so funny that all of the negitive comments are from NON Kottinger Ranch residents. Let's talk when you've lived in your neighborhood for 17 years and they want to build 98 homes and turn your only access to the neighborhood into a thouroughfare.
Can we hear from some of the neighbors?


Posted by Voted No, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on Jun 9, 2010 at 3:09 pm

"Only 51 mega-mansions and a park, otherwise it will be 98 homes" sounded like extortion to me. The sheer volume of mailings and phone calls from the "Yes on D" side and the amount of money it must have cost to do that didn't sit well with me either. I even had a phone call from someone calling on the mayor's behalf asking me how I was going to vote. That put me off too. I don't think this town needs anymore multi-million dollar homes. Affordable housing would be nice but there isn't any money in that, is there?


Posted by @ Brad, a resident of Birdland
on Jun 9, 2010 at 3:42 pm

Give it a rest, Brad. We have enough idiots in this country who jump to conclusion too quickly without analyzing all the facts. I know they never taught you to think in school at one of the state U but do try anyway. Yes, what seems to be "clear cut" in your definition may be anything but. I expect our representatives to fully analyze and discuss all matters BEFORE jumping to a conclusion.


Posted by Confused, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 3:46 pm

There's something I don't understand here.

Amy said:
'My suggestion to the Lins...
Sue this socialist town that doesn't believe in private property rights.
"D" would have been a win-win. '

Yet it's the same City Council that folks above are calling "leftist" and "socialist" who were supporting Measure D, and therefore, saying that the Lins *did* have the right to build on their property, under the conditions of the compromise.

So which way is it? Are the "socialists" the ones who *did* support Measure D and the "conservative"/"right-thinkers" the ones who voted against personal property rights?

??


Posted by Brad, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 9, 2010 at 3:56 pm

Yes, yes. You can't debate me on the points, so jump to the childish insults (love the irony about having my intelligence insulted by someone who can't write or form a cogent thought.) If you're so comfortable with your position, put your name on your post like I am.

By the way, I have to thank the "Yes on D" team for their horrible marketing. Having no opposition in this debate from a messaging and marketing standpoint, certainly helped our cause.

==============================================
Posted by @ Brad, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, 6 minutes ago

Give it a rest, Brad. We have enough idiots in this country who jump to conclusion too quickly without analyzing all the facts. I know they never taught you to think in school at one of the state U but do try anyway. Yes, what seems to be "clear cut" in your definition may be anything but. I expect our representatives to fully analyze and discuss all matters BEFORE jumping to a conclusion.


Posted by manfred, a resident of Del Prado
on Jun 9, 2010 at 4:18 pm

I grew up in the Valley. I remember the grassy and oak-laden hills before Castlewood, well before Ruby Hills. While I am not for the sprawl by any means, you have to be fooling yourself that no development would ever occur. Dublin sprawl is a joke in my opinion, but, for Pleasanton, where is the line? In your mind, does Oak Grove represent more homes on visible hillsides and ridge lines OR simply more homes period? 51 homes is nothing compared to Ruby Hills and Dublin, but where is the line? By itself, without thinking history or politics, Oak Grove is not all bad - park land preserved, high end homes (most not visible), more revenue. But taking in the history, politics, and what we see over in Dublin, I sense that most people are just plain frustrated over more development with little perceived benefit for the town.


Posted by Lisa, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 4:48 pm

Enough with the name-calling..."you silly people"...To name call when you do not agree with someone is ridiculous.
People have a right to speak. They have a right to vote the way they want. Threats of something bigger and badder will just serve to grow the will of the slow growth/no growth folks here in Pleasanton. Thank-you Dan for a voice of reason.


Posted by Pat, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 5:05 pm

To me, calling unbuildable terrain that has high maintenance costs a so-called 'park' was a real turn-off. Pleasanton taxpayers would have had to shell out money for maintaining steep, poorly configured open space surrounding "water tanks" on unbuildable terrain. Who wants open space left over from and overlooking ridgetop development?

If the plan would have put an additional court of a few houses off of the three existing courts, the referendum would have never happened.


Posted by Sort of confused here...., a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jun 9, 2010 at 5:24 pm

@Disgusted

Complaining that a mere 6.8% voted is funny considering the D people wanted it on this ballot because turnout would be lower and easier to slip this by. You can't have it both ways.


Posted by Brad, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 9, 2010 at 6:06 pm

@Confused Excellent point. The Pro-D people also wanted to have the vote ASAP instead of waiting until the fall (at no additional cost to the taxpayers) because they thought the No-D people wouldn't be able to get their message out and convince enough people in time. MAJOR miscalculation. The momentum and sentitment was on the side of No on D all along. More time (and better messaging in general) could of swayed some No voters. As it was, the people who were motivated to vote, were the NO voters. It was the Yes side that could have potentially benefited from more time. Low turnout was ONLY going to benefit the NO side. They were too smart by half.


Posted by junebug, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jun 9, 2010 at 6:26 pm

Im surprised by No on D people posting about no development, no traffic, no retail, etc. I remember when their houses were being debated and finally built. But I guess its OK for farmland to have been removed and trees cut down for their tract subdivisions and I guess they dont add to traffic congestion because they are after all them. I guess they dont want the nice restaurants, parks,schools, and maintained streets that are funded by development fees and increased sales revenues. These are the same people that thought a housing cap is legal and that affordable housing should be built anywhere but here. Totally uninformed, motivated by fear and change, and dont have a clue about property rights and lawsuit exposure.


Posted by Caesar, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 9, 2010 at 6:34 pm

Jennifer Lin and Jeniffer Hosterman.
Back to the drawing board.

They will come up with some new hair brained scheme for those hills.
It seems as voters, we have to reject things several times. Our representatives still don't get it.

Get ready for the next redundant vote......Parcel tax.....again.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 7:44 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Brad,

Well, presumption of innocence is just a theory too, but used even in cases that seem so clear cut.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 7:59 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I wonder how many times the process of creating a plan, submitting it to the City, getting it approved, having it referended, etc., can go on. Somehow I doubt that the intent of the law was to have endless cycles.


Posted by voter, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:01 pm

With all the talk about "Carbon Footprint" issues, why is there always the compulsion to build more homes? Instead of using all new home materials, digging up land, extending sewers or installing septic tanks, etc., why not buy an existing house and renovate/upgrade it? If you have enough money to build a large house, then you have enough money to renovate an existing home. This valley is looking more and more like Orange County. All of the orange groves are gone. It's all cement and homes. The allure of this area when I moved here 20 years ago was how nice it had been kept a small town. Jennifer H.: you claim to be an environmentalist, yet you want more homes built? It doesn't make sense. The Lins don't live here. I don't believe they even live in this country, so they don't care about the community. The community keeps talking, but no one listens. A new council seems to be needed.


Posted by Brad, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:02 pm

Uh...I thought we were talking about Measure D. Not criminal prosecutions...


Posted by MainStreetDiva, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:08 pm

MainStreetDiva is a registered user.

@Stacey:

--->Forget the KR folks. I'm wondering when Allen Roberts is going to resubmit his hilltop mega-mansion plans to the City now that the election is over.<---

What's the deal with this? I haven't heard about it.



Posted by Mike, a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:22 pm

I am a Nimby, by definition of several of my fellow Pleasantonians, and I have repeatedly made it clear to many of the Yes on D people that park by the entrance to the Lin property near my home that I am not opposed to developing Oak Grove; I simply don't like the plan that they proposed, which was negotiated on my behalf by a few of my neighbors without my blessing, and then forced upon our city by shamelessly buying our Mayor's influence, suing one of our private citizens who dared to organize resistance to this plan, and then by hiring a high profile PR firm to try to influence our community. It's insulting, really, to think that we are that gullible, and that we, as a community, were forced to put up with these intimidation tactics and fork out almost $100,000 of taxpayer's money to put this measure on the ballet when we made it very clear when proposition PP was passed that this is not the direction that we want to go.

The project has been voted down by a majority of Pleasanton voters that bothered to take the time to exercise the privilege of expressing their opinion at the ballot box. The vote was against intimidation, against special interest groups, against the lobbying of our City Council, and a reaffirmation that we, as a community, resent outside interests that attempt to force development of our hillsides in a manner that is inconsistent with the general plan.

Come back with a plan that does not scar our ridgetops, that does not create a fire hazard, that does not force the city to maintain a fake park that is really nothing more than land that could not be developed, and do it without trying to buy off our City Council.

Then we'll talk.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:27 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Brad,

We were talking about our governmental processes that were created to ensure that the rights of both minor and major parties in an issue are held to be equal even when things appear so "clear cut" that they give the appearance of not requiring these processes.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:31 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Mike wrote: "attempt to force development of our hillsides in a manner that is inconsistent with the general plan."

I respect that you voted no because you didn't like the plan, but at least don't revise history. You know as well as I that Ordinances 1961 and 1962 were held to be consistent with the General Plan that was in effect at their time of approval.


Posted by Brian, a resident of Del Prado
on Jun 9, 2010 at 8:40 pm

Hey Mike why don't you add to your list of "demands" that the park not be public, because as I recall, that's when you KR people started coming out in droves against this project. Before that, nary a peep. Hmm...


Posted by Brad, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:31 pm

@Brian You mean the residents on Hearst didn't want a public park and all of the associated traffic at the end of their street? Crazy...

(of course on the upside, the "park" would have been mostly inaccessible land, so no one would have gone there anyway, other than one time for all of the gullible people that bought the Lins propoganda.)


Posted by Informed Citizen, a resident of Birdland
on Jun 9, 2010 at 10:50 pm

Well score another victory for the people already living on the developed hills (a.k.a. Kottinger). Kay is quite good at duping the rest of this town to go along with her. Didn't we spend a bunch of taxpayer money a few years ago to fix up their Kottinger drainage ditch; er...I mean Creek? Just shows what a bunch of powerful well-connected folks can accomplish when they put their minds to it. Too bad these folks that want to 'save our hills' don't care about anything but themselves.


Posted by Jennifer Hosterman, Mayor, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 9, 2010 at 11:59 pm

To Mike, the self proclaimed NIMBY (I am too, on some occasions, no worries) do call a neighborhood meeting and invite me - I'd love to hear what you think the development project, up the hill from yours, could/should look like. I look forward to hearing from you!

Yours in service,

Jennifer
...................................................
Jennifer Hosterman
Mayor
City of Pleasanton, CA


Posted by Pat, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2010 at 12:54 am

I for one, hope the June 3rd desparate, pleading letter I received from Hosterman is the very last letter I ever receive in my mailbox with her name on it (the one talking about 12,000 so called supporters of Oak Grove talking about a so called ridgeline park when in fact no ridgelines will be left there).

Mike said "Come back with a plan that does not scar our ridgetops, that does not create a fire hazard, that does not force the city to maintain a fake park that is really nothing more than land that could not be developed, and do it without trying to buy off our City Council."

Voters throughout the city soundly defeated Oak Grove, not just a single neighborhood. City politicians, including Pleasanton's very own Pardee promoting, Lorraine Dietrich-equivalent mayor, still don't get that this is a city issue. Unbelievable.


Posted by reasonable, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2010 at 8:59 am

I am sad to see this project back to the drawing board. Who knows what will come next on this property. Hearst may not be a thoroughfare but could easily handle the traffic of 50 more homes. I personally looked forward to the hiking space (so many of Pleasanton's beautiful hills -- i.e. KR's trails -- are "look but don't touch".)

The argument that they were giving us "unbuildable" land for a park is just fine!! Just because land is not suitable for development does not mean it is unsuitable for hiking.

My real question is why did this come up for a vote at all? If a landowner proposes a development within existing zoning requirements, shouldn't this be a matter for the city planning commission? Period? Otherwise, what protection does a landowner have that his/her zoning will be respected and the land's value is actually real?


Posted by molly, a resident of Birdland
on Jun 10, 2010 at 9:54 am

some of you need to read all the facts, like "donna" and "laura". I voted yes on D, but your comments are false and could lead people to be afraid of our cause!


Posted by Glad the bullies lost., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:06 am

How much Justice can you afford?

I voted against mostly because the Lins sued
little citizens to try to invalidate a legitimate petition to put this to a vote.

Amazingly they won the first round, (how?)
but that bad decision was appealed, and justice prevailed.
A good thing, so people can actually use the petition process, not just big money like PG&E, trying to keep their monopoly; or like the builder in No. Livermore, who tried to change the rules to develop outside of the boundaries, using paid campaigners from out of the city.

Imagine how the little guys felt when attacked by the developers legal hounds?
Did the Lins pay for the defense lawyers? They should .
How about for the stress, and suffering they caused.
Do they even care?

Developers often double their money.
After all the fees, land cost, bulldozers, and actual building costs, they can get back twice what they spent, so they don't care about the community- they just want to build as big and as profitable as possible.


Posted by resident, a resident of Del Prado
on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:09 am

Congratulations, voters! Let's start electing city officials who will keep our town a "Small Town". That's why so many of us moved here in the 60's and 70's. The pro growth members of the council are padding their own pockets, just like the Lins want to do! Stop the growth!!!


Posted by Mr Cranky, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:18 am

It's great to see such a lively debate. At least we can agree on a few key points:

- Most PW forum posters have absolutely no problem pontificating about anything from city planning to labor relations to national politics.

- All Pleasantonians (except each of us!) are either idiots, conservative racists, liberal socialists, NIMBYs, or all of the above.

- Many Pleasantonians must have a lot of free time to verbally assault each other via the PW forums.

It's good to be rich and enabled, (or poor but entitled) isn't it?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:19 am

Stacey is a registered user.

The idea of voting something down not because of the project itself but because one considers the owner a bully is amazing criteria to use! That isn't justice. That's tyranny.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:26 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Calling a Council that has yet to approach the number of housing units approved by past councils "pro-development" or "pro-development" is like saying that all the No on D voters are against conservation because they didn't want the 500-acre park.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:26 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Edit: "pro-development" or "pro-growth"


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:30 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Of course you know it isn't true that No on D voters are against conservation, but the potential for lying about them like that is there just like it is easy to lie and say that the Council is pro-growth.

Responsible growth is not a pro-developer, pro-growth position. I think even the leaders of the No on D campaign are not against growth in and of itself, but want responsible growth as well.


Posted by MoneyTalks, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2010 at 2:09 pm

To Mike in KR, and Mayor Hosterman:

Mike, good comments.

Mayor Hosterman, I read your comments in today's Tri-Valley Herald regarding the defeat of Measure D ("This was a rock-solid plan.").

If it was, then why did it lose? Sorry, it wasn't.

Your arrogance just won't allow you to accept the truth, and it's beyond getting old now. Let it go. YOUR 'grand vision for Pleasanton' failed.

The majority of voters who voted (and you chose the 6/8 primary election date, btw, not us) said thumbs down, therefore, you're flat out wrong.

Time for you, and Thorne and Cook-Kallio to go.

Let's elect a new Mayor and two new councilmembers that respect the will of the people they're supposed to represent.


Posted by sickofit, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 10, 2010 at 3:28 pm

Stacey - while you and I were on opposite ends of the Measure D debate, I believe you are correct. I have heard even the most strident Measure D opponent state that they were OK with development as long as it complied with PP (and by extension QQ).


Posted by Rick, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2010 at 3:54 pm

This is just about voting against what are Mayor and other clowns want us to do. If we trusted them the measure would pass easily. But I don't and I know many others that think we have clowns in Pleasanton like we do in Sacramento and Washington.


Posted by Lisa, a resident of Mission Park
on Jun 10, 2010 at 4:00 pm

I would love to see the Oak Grove property zoned to be a natural habitat for the wildlife that currently roams there. Shouldn't we stop encroaching on the habitats of what remaining wildlife there is in the Bay Area?


Posted by Arroyo, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2010 at 4:23 pm

I'm embarassed for Pleasanton. Knocking down every plan put forth is simply "confiscation without compensation. If you want the damned hills left pristine, write out a check to the Lins and get it over with. But, no, it seems the attitude is let's just keep them from building and save our money. What a disgusting pathetic group of nimbys.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Lisa,

I have a better idea. Let's re-zone your property for multi-family units and require that some number of years down the road your non-conforming use of the property must be brought into compliance.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 10, 2010 at 4:36 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

That way we don't need to encroach on the remaining habitats of wildlife.


Posted by DB, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 10, 2010 at 6:33 pm

Let's continue the momentum and vote the bums who don't represent us out of office in November: Let's say good bye to Hosterman, Thorne, and Cooke-Kallio.


Posted by WOW, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2010 at 8:28 pm

Have all of you forgotten that it was Matt Sullivan and Jennifer Hosterman who negotiated this agreement with the property owners, developers, homeowners, etc. Matt came down to the city council with a big grin on his face feeling like he had done a great thing and announced how he and Jennifer had brokered this wonderful agreement with everyone with a vested interested in the development plan. It was Matt and Jennifer who convinced the other council members that this was the way to go and after a long discussion the council voted 4-1 to accept Matts motion(yes he very proudly made the motion to go forward)and then he double crossed the council members who he convinced to supported his motion. He even wrote negative letters criticizing them during the no on D campaign. Well he did such a good job of convincing the others that it was such a great plan that they continued to support it. What a sham.


Posted by WOW, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2010 at 8:32 pm

I forgot to mention that all you have to do is go on line and read the minutes of the council meeting and you will see that this is a very true story sad to say.


Posted by curious, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2010 at 9:07 pm

So then maybe we need to start circulating a petition to recall Matt Sullivan. . .


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 10, 2010 at 9:09 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

You mean these minutes? Web Link

"Councilmember Sullivan said at the last meeting he made his views known on the project which have not changed. The City spent 3.5 years working with the neighbors, the developer, and the City to come up with something that would provide balance, something that people could support and live with and provide an incredible amenity for the community which he felt has been done. He believed in the process; felt it was a good project, agreed there were trade offs. He does not like the idea of houses in the hills but felt there were also controls in place to minimize, reduce, or eliminate the houses from the [view of the] majority of the City. He supported moving forward with placing the additional language in the ordinance and said he supports the citizens' right to pursue a referendum. He felt the Council should not add additional barriers to the citizens in doing this and he was also supportive of the additional language proposed."


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 10, 2010 at 9:12 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"He asked that if this is subject to referendum, people on both sides should present information accurately, honestly, and not mislead, as he thought such issues are easily argued in sound bites. As big as the project is, it is complicated and it cannot be presented in a one sentence argument or statement. [Don't mess with our ridges!] He also asked the citizens prior to signing a petition or not signing a petition, to do their homework and research the project."


Posted by and they did, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:42 pm

And the residents researched the project. They received the PUD and Dev. agreeement in their voter's pamphlets and they voted NO to Oak Grove. End of story.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 10, 2010 at 11:51 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Ordinance 1962, the development plan, was not in the Voter's Pamphlet. Hope everyone looked at it too!


Posted by Hey KAY WHERE'S OUR PARK, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 11, 2010 at 2:01 am

Hey KAY Where is our park?

You promised that if you got to stand up and be shrill and get the spotlight and get back into politics, and we voted down Measure D, that we would get the park anyway.

You did.

You said that when you told us to tell people that we were having sign petitions for PPP that it wouldnt rule out Oak Grove. You said that it was ok because it was a white lie.

We lied to get signatures. We listened to you rant and rave and try to play martyr, because we want our 500 acre park! You said we were going to get it.

So where is it? When are we going to get it? When my 3 kids are too old to go hiking. When I'm too old to walk?

Im beginning to think you lied to us. Why?

You are a poor excuse for a human being that lets her own silly ego cheat the entire town out of a 500 acre park as the beginning of 2000 acres.

Please, run for something. I cant wait to see you try. You will be humiliated and then we can all go up to where our park would have been and cry.


Posted by Amy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 11, 2010 at 7:47 am

If I were a resident of KR, I would be quite unsettled with all the uncertainty of the fate of the hills. Who in their right mind would want to purchase a home on Hearst or nearby streets (thanks in large measure to our very leftist Mayor and City Council) ?


Posted by Disgusted, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 11, 2010 at 8:48 am

How in the hell did Hosterman get re-elected? Has anyone actually been to a meeting and heard her speak? She is completly condescending, fake, and has absolutely no care for what the people of Pleasanton want. It is pretty funny how she always arranges the speakers at the city council meetings so that the speakers that agree with her get to speak last. We need to get someone in as mayor that has a brain.


Posted by Also Very Disgusted, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:10 am

I say let's petition a RECALL of Hosterman.


Posted by Jerry, a resident of Birdland
on Jun 11, 2010 at 9:23 am

I say let's petition a RECALL of the people who wants to RECALL Hosterman and then ship them to Oakland or Richmond, whichever is cheaper.


Posted by Still confused, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 11, 2010 at 11:10 am

I posted a question the other day, and wasn't able to get an answer. My question has to do with the people who are labelling the Mayor and City Council members as "leftist, socialist" for urging a Yes vote on Measure D, a vote which, in essence supports the idea of personal property rights by saying the owners *could* go ahead and develop the land according to the rules of the compromise plan.

So how is it that a "leftist, socialist" (according to Amy, among some others above) mayor and city council can also support personal property rights?

Which side are you arguing? Please "unconfuse" me.


Posted by Roger Smith, a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jun 11, 2010 at 11:13 am

I second Mike's comments. I live on Hearst Dr and am directly impacted.Bing the KRHOA at that time and a couple of other residents never got approval from the community. It was their compromise not that of the whole neighborhood.The City Council never listened to our pleas and just kept pushing this project down our throats. When they heard so many protests and when PP and QQ were passed they should have heard the message. No they were too drunk with power and thought they could get this passed with power and money. Mayor Hosterman I am glad that you read these posts and you should know how we all feel. To Amy who is concerned about our property values I am perfectly happy with the results. To all those who say that we are NIMBYs the KR development was planned, approved and built before most of the KR residents moved into the city. So how could we oppose this project at that time. This is the same as blaming any future resident of Oak Grove for the development. Those folks will have had no chance to have any input.
Biggest problem with this plan was having only one ingress/exit, building all the homes on ridge tops and having too many mega homes.


Posted by Nimby, a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jun 13, 2010 at 1:14 am

[post removed because it was off topic]


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

What about the annual housing cap?
By Tim Hunt | 5 comments | 1,072 views

DSRSD's Kohnen Scholarship on Hold
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 703 views

Be a sport: Send us your youth sports news, scores and photos
By Gina Channell-Allen | 0 comments | 307 views

When Adult Children Go Off to College: Keeping Your Eye on The Law
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 83 views