Town Square

Post a New Topic

New plan for 10 'ranchettes' on Pleasanton's southeast hills expected this week

Original post made on Mar 21, 2011

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

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, March 21, 2011, 7:31 AM

Comments (25)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Payola Rules
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Mar 21, 2011 at 8:47 am

What is it with the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce being the biggest proponent of turning the Tri-Valley into another Los Angeles? As my Grandpa used to say, "When it doesn't make sense, there is usally payola involved." Marty Inderbitzen, the Lin's attorney, is a power player in the Pleasanton Chamber. Scott Raty, the CEO of the Pleasanton Chamber, seems to be the leader of the cheerleading squad to cover every last square foot of land in Pleasanton with asphalt or concrete. What exactly is the relationship between the Lins and the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce? The Pleasanton Chamber Political Action Committee has been basically contolling our city elections with their payola (er, campaign contributions), and has been instrumental in keeping the Three Stooges on the City Council. Ummmmh. Greedy Lins --$$--> Pleasanton Chamber --$$--> Elect Three Stoges --$$--> Three Stooges approve Lin's developments.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Meghan
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Mar 21, 2011 at 9:01 am

This is so sad, though not unexpected... what a loss to the public, all the fees that would have supported the City, not to mention the open space that could have been open to all.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by concerned
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2011 at 12:45 pm

Meghan, you were misinformed. The fees that would have been collected were to pay for the impacts the development has on the community. They are not donations rather IMPACT fees. So although we do not have the fees, we do not have the impacts. If we had the fees, it would not have helped anything.

If you want public open space, continue to go to city meetings and demand that the Lins dedicate trails to the city, like other developments have been required to do.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Brian
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 21, 2011 at 1:01 pm

@concerned- I don't know of another development that's had to provide trails through private property- can you cite examples?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Meghan
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Mar 21, 2011 at 1:09 pm

"Concerned"- I am not misinformed. I am well aware of what IMPACT fees are. However, while these fees would have been incurred because of the additional residences built, the improvements they would have provided would have benefitted all. An additional fire fighting vehicle, crossing guard and a new signal at Bernal and Kottinger would all be added value to this area of Pleasanton.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pete
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2011 at 1:21 pm

Meghan, your impression of improvements and value are not shared by many in Pleasanton. Your statement is an opinion only! That's "ALL"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2011 at 1:30 pm

The Preserve in NW Pleasanton was required to provide trails through its development. In addition, it provided land for a park (which is not maintained well by the city and is a magnet for drug deals) and a parking lot for a horse staging area.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by concerned parent
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2011 at 4:28 pm

Brian, there are a couple of landowners in the Vineyard Corridor that have to allow trails through their properties. Those are supposed to connect to Oak Grove, which then connects to Callipe.

You also had Golden Eagle which in addition to the trails had to allow for residents to go through their gated community in order to get to the trails which lead to the ridge.

The Preserve, as stated above.

The Ponderosa project off of Mohr had to pay to put in the Iron Horse Trail at their location and have easements dedicated to it.

Sycamore Creek has trails across parcels that had to be dedicated.

And just like Resident said above, many developments had to dedicate land for parks and some had to dedicate land plus pay for the development of the park. The City has not purchased much land for parks. Much of it were dedications in exchange for approving development.

Meghan, you talk about items which are "benefits to that neighborhood". However that neighborhood was probably the most vocal about not wanting that development as designed. So I do not think those people living there saw those as benefits to their neighborhood.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arroyo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2011 at 9:19 pm

@Concerned Parent

"However that neighborhood was probably the most vocal about not wanting that development as designed. So I do not think those people living there saw those as benefits to their neighborhood."

Sad, but NIMBYism rules Pleasanton.

10 Ranchettes or 100 homes, it makes little difference -- I don't believe that the "neighbors" of Oak Grove will ever approve of anything being built on "THEIR" hills.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arroyo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2011 at 8:38 am

Arroyo,

You wrote, "I don't believe that the 'neighbors' of Oak Grove will ever approve of anything being built on 'their' hills". Why in the *%$% would we want something built on the hills? Do you want to turn this area into Oakland or Hayward or Los Angeles - places that generally look like %*@&. It's amazing that Californicators think they have to pour concrete and asphalt over every square foot of land. They are not satisfied until everything is an eyesore.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fair is Fair
a resident of Mission Park
on Mar 22, 2011 at 8:49 am

One post said the "greedy Lins". Wow. I wonder if any of us are really any different from the Lins? Do any of us make investments not wanting to make a profit in the end? Do we not go to war to protect our freedoms - including capitalism? Don't we all to some degree admire people like Trump, Buffet, Gates...because they "made it" and are billionaires?

But yet, some of us begrudge the Lins from making money on their investment, fighting (in court) for their interests, and for being wealthy.

Why is that? Think carefully and hard before you answer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by HotSam
a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Mar 22, 2011 at 11:31 am

To answer the above question: most of us are different from the Lins because we actually live in Pleasanton vs. the Lins who live in Taiwan and really don't have much of a stake in the community beyond their land holdings.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by In addition
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2011 at 11:48 am

In addition, we citizens collectively have a say regarding common resources - air, water, skyline, etc. E.g., while my neighbor may want to build and oil derrick in his residential backyard, good thing common rules do not allow this as it would be detrimental to the neighborhood.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arroyo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2011 at 12:52 pm

@ Arroyo's "illegitimate son"

Just remember that the home you currently live in used to be a potential nightmare to those that were here before construction. (For all I know, it might still be an nightmare for some of your neighbors.)

NIMBYism should not be confused with concern about development. None of us wants an oil derrick or rifle-range next door. Pleasanton just seems to have more than its share of people who never want another home built or yard of concrete poured.......


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fair is Fair
a resident of Mission Park
on Mar 22, 2011 at 4:29 pm

HotSam - you make a good point. So when the Lins last proposal for selling their property to 51 high-earning families and GIVING Pleasanton hundreds of acres for FREE ... that was surely a selfish act by FOREIGN LAND BARONS who don't care about the community in which they invested gobs of money. Note my sarcasm, please. Those 51 families would have paid healthy property taxes year over year to us, paid sales tax of luxury items year over year to us, and most likely been good citizens for Pleasanton (for us). The open space for Pleasanton could have been ours FOREVER. But no, the good citizens of Pleasanton bit off our noses to spite our face and we get a proposal for 10 ranches and no open space. We basically denied the Lins from given us 51 families that HotSam rather prefers. Nice job.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fair is Fair
a resident of Mission Park
on Mar 22, 2011 at 4:49 pm

And to "In Addition" thanks for your "oil derrick" example. I totally agree that there should be limits to what a land owner can and cannot do with his property. I am glad there are such rules. We need regulations like that. Apparently my view of what those limits should be are different from most voters in Pleasanton who voted agains the Lins proposal. So, how about 10 "ranches"/homes that are in this new proposal? Sound good? I wonder if those 10 parcels will be zoned for actual farming? They sound big enough... especially since Pleasanton lost the open space we would have gotten under that last proposal. I sure hope the 10 farms up there will grow lots of good stuff for us, like GRAPES. We can't have enough grapes around here. And good thing you brought up water... we have enough for those 10 farms, too. What a perfect plan!! I just hope those farmers don't build their vine trellises too high or else it's going to spoil my view of those beautiful, brown hills.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anti-class envy
a resident of California Somerset
on Mar 22, 2011 at 5:48 pm

I would have responded earlier, but "Fair Is Fair" told us we should think carefully and hard before responding. After careful and hard thought, my conclusion is that if my next-door neighbor can make a profit by having an oil derrick installed on his property well then, I say, all the more power to him. See, that's capitalism at work. To be against profit-making oil derricks in one's neighborhood is the same as being communist. I, for one, am all for living in grit and grime if it means that capitalism succeeds. Chances are my oil-derrick owning neighbor worked hard for the opportunity to pollute our neighborhood. I don't want to begrudge him his success. Now, those class-envious people who are against progress, I want YOU to think carefully and hard before responding: What's more important to you? Your kids' lungs or your neighbor's bulging pocketbook?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by common sense
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2011 at 5:55 pm

I wonder what comments would be made if the Lin's simply sold their land.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fair is Fair
a resident of Mission Park
on Mar 22, 2011 at 8:37 pm

Just to be clear, I never advocated building an oil derrick in a residential neighborhood. Those who would suggest that either didn't read what I wrote or are trying to debase the message by introducing a completely ridiculous notion. Last I heard, the Lins weren't the Clampets and we weren't voting against oil rigs in our back yard hills. I'm pretty sure the Lins weren't intending to introduce any type of public hazard or danger unless you consider 51 bigger-than-yours homes a threat to your ego. Or perhaps the hundreds of acres they were going to donate to the city would put hikers in danger of spraining an ankle.

I thought about what Common Sense just wrote and I would also be interested in what people would say if the Lins sold the whole property to someone else. But actually, the Lins DID try to sell the land to someone else, didn't they? -- 51 potential home buyers -- and give Pleasanton a huge open area for Free. So I guess Common Sense's good question has already been answered...

But, okay let's say the Lins sold the land now. God help the new buyers if they were from England or France because then OF COURSE we'd treat them the same way as the Lins because they would be foreign land barons intruding in our community! I also suggest any of you who have property or vacation homes in other countries sell, too, because you surely have no interest in those local communities.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Long Time Resident
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Mar 22, 2011 at 8:48 pm

Actually the homeowners of Kottinger Ranch generally were in favor of the 51 home development, and we are the community that would have the traffic from the 51 homes going through the neighborhood. It seemed like a better deal than any of the previous proposals, and eventually something was going to built on that land.

Personally, I am delighted with the 10 home proposal. It is fewer homes, we will no longer have to put up with the addition of a traffic-impeding signal on Bernal, and the potential of criminal activity in the 400+ acres that would have been donated is greatly reduced.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by concerned
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2011 at 9:00 pm

The Lins were "giving" the rest of the land to the city so they no longer would have to pay property tax. they do not care about the land or the community. Just look at their "lovely" high-density developments in Dublin. They just want to make as much money as they can and be done with it. If they did not give the extra undevelopable land away, they would still be paying property taxes on it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A KR Resident
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Mar 23, 2011 at 11:50 am

I live on Hearst Dr and would among those most effected. Yes we did oppose the 51 home proposal as there was going to be only one ingress and exit meaning all traffic would have gone on Hearst Dr. I would support the new proposal of 10 Ranches if it is true. The land has to be developed and this is the best proposal so far. All those who are lamenting the loss of a "PARK" do not understand that it would have been just a open space with some trails. Imagine how much the city would have to spend on taxes and maintaining it. We have enough Regional parks in the area.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fact checker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 23, 2011 at 2:46 pm

The real ridge, the one most people thought they were protecting when they voted, (note I said most not all) IS "JUST OPEN SPACE WITH SOME TRAILS". Yah, who wants that? Well, I did! I would have had to deal with more traffic too!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jocelyn Combs
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Mar 23, 2011 at 4:44 pm

This will be an interesting proposal from the Lin's.

I supported the 51 house proposal because of the public open space, potential trail connections and agricultural use of the open space.

Ranchettes are problematic. They may be used initially for some kind of agriculture, if Pleasanton will allow it, but after time tend to become too expensive to maintain with no homeowners' association. Then comes the push to subdivide.....

Interesting.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Junebug
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Mar 28, 2011 at 6:49 pm

I AGREE WITH MEGHAN. The impact fees applied by Pleasanton and many other cities far exceed the actual impact of the development. Dedication of public trails are typically agreed to as a condition of approval in order to get local support and approval. For instance, development of private land does not create the impact of precluding public access to open space when the public did not have the access to begin. On the examples cited, developments typically receive park fee credits against the value of dedicated land and/or park improvements to benefit the community. The fees received from Oak Grove would far exceed the actual mitigation costs


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 | 1,534 views

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 982 views

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