Town Square

Post a New Topic

Oak Grove developers are back with a new plan

Original post made on Mar 16, 2011

Proponents of a 51-home development called Oak Grove in Pleasanton's southeast hills are back.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 7:59 AM

Comments (20)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by MomO2
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2011 at 8:51 am

It seems there is nothing barring the Lin's or their representatives from talking to the City about another plan if the law simply bars them from resubmitting until June. That's not so far away and 3 months prior would be a natural planning period for such an activity. Where's the crime in that, Kay?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stop the bullies
a resident of Amador Estates
on Mar 16, 2011 at 9:33 am

Are you tired of the 5 bullies trying to run plesanton without being elected by spreading lies and mis- information? Let's send a message to Ayala, Brozosky, fox, butler, and Arkin to go disturb the peace somewhere else. We elected our city leaders to lead. Let them lead or get elected yourself. Oh that's right you tried that and were rejected by the people.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Del Prado
on Mar 16, 2011 at 10:16 am

I think Kay Ayala should apologize to the City for putting us through this costly process.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 16, 2011 at 10:38 am

Stacey is a registered user.

I guess this means the Lins aren't going to donate this property to the City as a tax write-off? I wonder if they will submit a plan to build 10 big houses/mini-ranches on top of the ridges with no land for a City park. It would meet the requirements of PP/QQ too.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shelley
a resident of Laguna Oaks
on Mar 16, 2011 at 10:39 am

I couldn't agree more with the above comments. Let Kay and her buds start paying for this. Or let THEM buy the land and do with it what they want.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by DC
a resident of Country Fair
on Mar 16, 2011 at 10:43 am

If a proposal is rejected, the developer is required to wait and resubmit plans a full year after it is rejected. This rule applies to everyone.

So why does the City not seem to know this? I guess the Lins seem to circumvent all the rules.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by More $$ not more kids
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2011 at 11:00 am

I'm all for a few classy homes to offset the hundreds, or was it thousands of new families that will come with the subsidized low-income projects that Gov Brown is forcing us to provide. Suddenly we'll become the hot new low-income magnet, including some illegals. I think 51 expensive homes would be a really nice supplement to our parcel tax.. As I recall the 51 houses came with giant amount of money upfront for our schools. I'll take lots of $$ FROM 51 familes, over many more kids in our schools...anyday ! OH, let us reflect for a moment how GRAND it WOULD have been to receive the giant pot of gold from the Lin family upfront for our schools.
No doubt the brains who said no to 51 houses with a giant jackpot, are the same people who are now pushing the parcel tax ! ! HYPOCRITES!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by b
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2011 at 11:45 am

Kay will continue to waste our tax money on this, while preventing land owners from reasonably using their land. Very, very sad.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dancermom
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Mar 16, 2011 at 11:48 am

Here we go again, the same Hostermann, Thorne, Cook-Kallio group behind the scenes negotiating with developers. Gov. Brown isn't forcing low income housing on us--Pleasanton has been breaking the law for not providing it all along. The Lins are breaking the rules discussing this before the legal time limit. Birds of a feather (including most of the writers on this forum) flock together.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mooseturd
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Mar 16, 2011 at 11:48 am

mooseturd is a registered user.

Let Kay keep rooting around and the new proposal will be for a 37 floor high rise of low-income housing. Solves a lot of problems.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 16, 2011 at 11:56 am

Stacey is a registered user.

dancermom,

If you believe a law is being broken (which one?), sue.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fact checker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2011 at 12:35 pm

There is no law that bars anyone from approaching a council member and discussing a proposed plan. Does Ayala et al think they are the only ones who can talk to the council? She must be doing plenty of talking herself! How did she know that the Lin's or anyone else approached the council. Either the Lin's called her or she heard from a council member who had been approached! I wonder which one?

In addition, The same group said they would be happy to talk to the Lin's if they came back with a plan that corresponded to PP.

Oh by the way, many people discuss what they are going to do with the city prior to formally submitting.

Aren't people getting tired of the world according to Kay Ayala?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nosy Neighbors
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Mar 16, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Nosy Neighbors is a registered user.

Wow. I think Ms. Ayala needs to take a step back & just think for a moment who has actually put the city of Pleasanton through this "costly process?" From the wrongly named "Save our Hills" campaign (they're not OUR hills Kay, Steve, et.al.) They seem to still have a tough time coming to grips with that whole nasty private property issue that just won't go away. The outright lies told to people about the location of the ridge lines, as they were perfectly happy if people simply assumed that they were trying to protect the Pleasanton Ridge/Augustin Bernal Park area. I still will bet you over 75% of people can't even point to the area specifically or better yet even see the proposed site except from certain areas on Stanley, Vineyard, Bernal or the general Kottinger vicinity.

Now personally, I hope they don't build it. I've been hiking, biking & even occasionally horse-back riding in those hills for over 20 years & they are truly a unique & beautiful hidden treasure in this town & it would be a shame to have my own private trail network destroyed for the sake of a few homes & couple extra $$ for the city coffers.

Or am I just being selfish?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arroyo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2011 at 1:50 pm

Nosy,
1.) Yes, you're selfish -- next question..!! (But, only if you voted against a private property owner utilizing their land.)

2.) The "Save Our Hills" group cost the city a nice addition to the local network of parks with plenty of room for riding and hiking (You know, the legal kind - without trespassing.)

3.) There are still "Save Our Hills" voters out there who think they stopped more development along Foothill Road, and haven't got a clue as to where "Oak Grove" is actually located.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Keri
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 16, 2011 at 2:35 pm

Arroyo is totally correct. It really annoys me that the majority of people who voted AGAINST the development don't even know what hills we're talking about OR that there would be a network of parks/trails included in that development. Don't rock the vote. Sadly, most people are stupid and uninformed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nosy Neighbors
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Mar 16, 2011 at 2:37 pm

Nosy Neighbors is a registered user.

Sorry, I should have mentioned that my USGS credentials allow for "field survey and land/terrain assessment." Not that I'd ever abuse their leeway but I've also gotten to know many of the home & ranch owners in the area over the years.

How do you think I (we) know about most of the hidden trails back there!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by D W
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2011 at 4:40 pm

"Sigh" We could have the entire Pleasanton population scream "NO!" and it still won't stop the Lins! Both sides are becoming pathetic on this issue. No wonder the Mayor was so irked.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Mar 16, 2011 at 9:37 pm

I love Elizabeth's comment and it is soooo fitting in response to Ayala's statement.

"I think Kay Ayala should apologize to the City for putting us through this costly process."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Mar 16, 2011 at 9:51 pm

Oh, another point. There still is time left before the Lin's must file an appeal of the Superior Court decision or decide not to. So, the details of a plan that complies with Measures PP/QQ in combination with the possible ongoing lawsuit probably plays into the Lin's strategy to continue to try to develop their property as opposed to donating it as the Pleasanton communists want. Under Measure PP/QQ they have the right to develop 10 lots of 50 acres each where the houses can sit wherever the owner wants them to (including hilltops). It is pretty clear at this point they won't donate the land.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Scott Raty
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Mar 17, 2011 at 2:53 pm

As I read the Elections Code, Section 9241 (below) the limitation is on ENACTMENT by the City Council not application. The one year time limit also applies only to "THE" ordinance i.e. the same ordinance and not a new or different project.

I am not aware of any time constraints prohibiting the Lin's from submitting a new project - perhaps the City Attorney will verify this.

9241. If the legislative body does not entirely repeal the
ordinance against which the petition is filed, the legislative body
shall submit the ordinance to the voters, either at the next regular
municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the order of
the legislative body, or at a special election called for the
purpose, not less than 88 days after the order of the legislative
body. The ordinance shall not become effective until a majority of
the voters voting on the ordinance vote in favor of it. If the
legislative body repeals the ordinance or submits the ordinance to
the voters, and a majority of the voters voting on the ordinance do
not vote in favor of it, the ordinance shall not again be enacted by
the legislative body for a period of one year after the date of its
repeal by the legislative body or disapproval by the voters.


Scott


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


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

Prop 46: Two Bridges Too Far
By Tom Cushing | 21 comments | 1,537 views

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 986 views

My secret identity is revealed!
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 982 views