Town Square

Post a New Topic

Land owners to seek city's approval for 10 'ranchettes' on former Oak Grove hilltop acreage

Original post made on Mar 18, 2011

Proponents of a 51-home development called Oak Grove in Pleasanton's southeast hills are expected to submit a new proposal next week to subdivide their 526 acres of hilltop land into 10 residential—or ranch-type-lots.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, March 18, 2011, 8:03 AM

Comments (22)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sal
a resident of Downtown
on Mar 18, 2011 at 9:20 am

Thanks you Kay Ayala for costing the city 497 acres of park land. Anymore bright ideas from the Pleasanton's right-wing peanut gallery? Gotta love the sour grapes of people like Ayala who can't get elected to local office.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2011 at 10:30 am

Where is our Park? Now their going to develop the whole thing and we're out any access to open space... what type of forward thinking have we been doing? In the end, they are going to get EXACTLY what they wanted and we're going to be without anything to benefit the City... oh and did we forget to mention the LEGAL bills? Ayala, did you really benefit the City AT ALL?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mooseturd
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Mar 18, 2011 at 10:55 am

mooseturd is a registered user.

Thanks for nothing Kay. My grandchildren thank you too.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arroyo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2011 at 11:17 am

("Rightwing"??? Kay?? Sal, I'm not sure you know your right from your left.)

Okay, let's think about this - 10 ranchettes. If they are three-car families that means 30 possible cars traveling in the morning, and 30 cars in the afternoon. And, then they'll probably want friends coming by - add another 10 per day. Way too much traffic.

Therefore, if they get approval, we need to make sure that the city allows no more than one vehicle per ranchette. And, it's got to be an electric car. Oh yeah, and no ranch houses larger than 900 square feet - with a tiny teeny weeny carbon footprint - just like Daryl Hannah's environmental friendly home. (Loved her in "Splash")

On second thought, I'm really sorry, I just can't support that much explosive growth along Foothill Road.

What? What do you mean it's not on Foothill Road? Oh well, I'm voting NO anyway...!! Damned developers and landowners wanting to spoil MY hills -- no way..!! Sorry, but I'm holding out for a Pleasanton Ecological Learning Center, well hidden, with a maximum 5 car parking lot, and windmill driven recharging stations for visitors.

"All the way with Kay" is my motto....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Roger Smith
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Mar 18, 2011 at 11:32 am

Stop whining about your park. It was to be just an open area. We have lots of such parks in the area. The city would have had to pay a lot of money to maintain it. The EBRPD has lots of Regional parks in the area so one more or less does not make a difference. But hundreds of car daily car trips on Hearst Drive and Bernal does make a difference. I think this new proposal is very good. It will have only 10 big homes.
I think Kay did a wonderful job. I really appreciate her efforts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Assumptions
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2011 at 11:39 am

First, SAL, I'm fairly certain Kay is not on the right, but the center. I think that assumption says more about where you are, than what she really is. (oh light bulb,,,you jumped to assumption because of public union issue) So Sal, we KNOW where you are on both issues and you want to get back at her for public union stance, which she is right on.
Regardless, be it any number between 10 or 51 homes, either would be good for Pleasantonians. The horror would be something over 51.
I think there would be some public space requirement even with 10...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Assumptions
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2011 at 11:55 am

Arroyo, your scenario was cute,and did point out the No-Nos absurdities. The NO,NOs were tacky with dishonest campaigning, scaring Foothill residents with the implication that the houses would be on their hills....dirty politics. We don't know if it was Kay, or certain corrupt Foothill principals / instructors that conned gullible H S students and USED them to do the walking and false literature distrubution along Foothill Rd......the OPPOSITE side of town from the 51 homes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nosy Neighbors
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Mar 18, 2011 at 1:59 pm

Nosy Neighbors is a registered user.

Arroyo...thank you, that was priceless!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Unbelievable
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Mar 18, 2011 at 2:37 pm

When are people going to realize that Ayala has NO expertise in regards to what the law means and no motivation other than vindictiveness. She and others in her camp said they would have NO PROBLEM with a development that conformed to PP. Her recent fit at the last council meeting says that she does not think that others should have the same rights or access that she thinks she has and that this is way too personal for her.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 18, 2011 at 3:57 pm

There is no public space requirement with 10 houses. I'm sure the kottinger ranch people are pleased as punch because they only started coming out to oppose oak grove after hearing that there would bs a public park, which meant that the public would be driving through their neighboroid. Check the planning committee minutes and see. Astonishing.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tim
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 18, 2011 at 4:48 pm

How about using that land for some of the 3,000 low income housing units that we are required to build thanks to Jerry Brown and Urban Habitat?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jacob and alma
a resident of Carlton Oaks
on Mar 18, 2011 at 6:50 pm

Kay is a very angry person.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by common sense
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2011 at 7:51 pm

Has this become a bash Kay site? She had support for what was done. Sometimes, bribes dont work, ala a park. That typed, I see nothing wrong with a 10 unit building site. I wish the landowners well, its their property btw.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 18, 2011 at 8:36 pm

It's not a bribe, it's an amenity, negotiated by the city.

Now those 10 units and their secondary units can go anywhere - tops of hilltops, wherever - and there's no park, or open space, or size requirement...yeah that was definitely worth the millions of dollars spent on Kay's lawsuits...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by local
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 19, 2011 at 11:52 am

It looks like the same group of angry people who supported the development are back here. It is amazing that they think that Kay has that much power. It is the voters who signed the petition to get the voters to weigh in on the development and the voters who voted to not approve this project. It is not a single person. Just because your side lost in this vote does not make it Kay's fault. The reason there are lawyer costs is because of the Lin's. They keep suing the city. They loose every time but they continue to sue. Their tactic is to intimidate the city and public into approving whatever they propose or it will cost you money in legal fees. They do this everywhere where they do not get their way. Just ask the people of Livermore.

The article in the paper is very misleading. Obviously written by a supporter of the Lins, without any real facts.

1) The development before was charged a specific amount of fees for traffic mitigation for the impact that development has to the city. Every project in Pleasanton has to do this. The developer is not making a donation to the city. I would expect traffic mitigation fees to be less with 10 homes because there is less traffic. Funny how that works out. Traffic mitigation fees are not there to solve other traffic problems in the city. They are to MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF THEIR PROJECT on the city.

2) Same for the school fees. Developers in Pleasanton pay the school district IMPACT FEES. That is based on the square feet of a house and maxes out at 6,000 square feet (I believe that is the number). The IMPACT FEE is to handle the extra impact on our schools by the additional students in the development. Actually the landowner (the Lins) does not pay it. It is paid by whomever submits a house plan to the city for permits. The previous development would have generated more school fees because the additional houses would have made more of an impact on the school system.

3) The city does not have to accept this development from the landowner. The city always has the right to deny or modify plans. They do this with EVERY home in Pleasanton. You see they even do this for somebody adding a second story on their house (previous articles). While Measure PP does not automatically deny developments under 10 homes, the city still uses its discretionary approval process. Just like all other developments in Pleasanton. The City can require amenities by the new development, just like the city does for all other developments. There are many projects in Pleasanton where the City required the development to put in trails, or to dedicate easements for trails. There are some homes in the Vineyard Corridor that are required to allow trails to go through their property. These trails would hook up to trails in Oak Grove. And Oak Grove would connect with Callipe. So if the city already made owners of the Vineyard Corridor to allocate trails, at no cost to the city, which connect to Oak Grove, you can assume it would be fair to have Oak Grove to continue the trail, at no cost to the city. Actually if they don't then there are probably owners in the Vineyard area that would sue the city saying that they were not treated fairly.

The article quotes Scot Ray from the Chamber for being a legal expert on the election code (this is the same person who would speak about Measure PP & QQ at city council meetings where the city attorney would consistently say that Scot's remarks were incorrect). The Chamber is heavily financed by the Lins and their team. Easy to see that Scot would support the Lins. Back in the 1990's the City was voting on saving the main Pleasanton Ridge. It was Scott back then who was the spokesperson for the land owners who wanted development on the hills. You can look at the ballot arguments from back then and there is Scot saying that the Pleasanton Ridge should be developed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fact Checker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 19, 2011 at 3:21 pm

The above post is an example of why one should ALWAYS do their own homework. . .


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Del Prado
on Mar 19, 2011 at 6:10 pm

The problem is that if the City decides to turn down this development, it will likely be considered a taking. So the City, thanks to Kay, has likely lost lots of its discretionary review with this project.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Local Yokel
a resident of Foothill Farms
on Mar 20, 2011 at 9:12 am

local,

You're right about not blaming Kay. I mean, how much damage can one bull really do in a china shop? It's really a complex issue of frangibility, gravitational pull, impact tolerances and other factors that have little, if anything, to do with any one individual stirring things up and costing us millions as a result.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Candyce Roberts
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Mar 20, 2011 at 8:55 pm

I never knew until reading this article, that the Lin Family agreed to pay for a traffic light at the corner of Kottinger and Bernal as a part of their 51 home development. I don't EVER want to see a traffic light there. That 4 way stop corner is self-controlling and appropriate in a clearly quite, residential area. A proposed traffic light vs the current four way stop is totally inappropriate for this quiet residential area. I was in favor of the 51 home development by the Lins until I read about this traffic light. Now, I'm glad it wasn't accepted and am willing to give up the walking/hiking paths through the area in exchange for NO traffic light. Imagine trying to sleep with a traffic light blaring in your window all night long if you lived on that Kottinger-Bernal corner. Or having to sit at a stop light when there is NO other traffic around as is usually the case at that corner. A huge, expensive, unsightly traffic light does not belong in a quiet residential neighborhood which is easily controlled with an inexpensive four way stop sign.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by justme
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2011 at 9:13 am

10 homes, that' will just be the beginning. The Lins are never going to give up


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 21, 2011 at 9:49 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Voters supported the idea of 10 homes built on hilltops by passing PP.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mark094
a resident of Birdland
on Mar 31, 2011 at 12:07 am

Yokel, you're right about Ayala being a Bull in a china shop and this being a complex issue, but she is the point on the spear in this issue. She put herself out in the forefront of the "No on D" campaign. She deserves all the heat the citizens of Pleasanton can bring her.


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

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 32 comments | 2,201 views

Prop 47: not perfect, just preferable.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 896 views

The Vranesh situation heads to court
By Tim Hunt | 9 comments | 733 views