Editorial Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Apr 26, 2008 at 4:07 pm
At long last, the City Council will hold a special meeting Tuesday to discuss if the city of Pleasanton and its taxpayers should pay the cost of appealing a Superior Court decision that, in effect, supported the council's decision on Oak Grove. Oak Grove is the proposed 51-luxury-home development proposed for a 600-acre site atop Kottinger Ranch and Vintage Hills, where the developer also has agreed to turn over 496 acres to the city of Pleasanton for hiking, equestrian trails and a nature park. Following the council's 4-1 vote last November to allow Oak Grove to proceed, a citizens' coalition--Save Pleasanton's Hills--organized and led by former Councilwoman Kay Ayala, spent the next 30 days collecting signatures on petitions seeking to force a referendum to overturn the council's action. The Alameda County Registrar's office later affirmed that the group had collected more than the 3,700 signatures needed from registered Pleasanton voters, as required by law. However, the Oak Grove developers, Jennifer Lin and her brother Frederic, filed a suit through their attorneys to block certification of the voter petitions on grounds that they were improperly obtained. Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch agreed and, in a decision rendered last Feb. 22, ruled against Ayala, thus allowing the council's decision to stand. It's that decision that Ayala and Save Pleasanton's Hills are appealing before the First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, April 25, 2008, 12:00 AM
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I have yet to discover any legal assessment, impartial or otherwise, of the likelihood that an appeal of this judgement may be accepted by the appeals court and an assessment of the likelihood that it may subsequently succeed.
I would expect that our city attorney would develop such an assessment and present it to council since such information is a necessary component for their consideration, irrespective of on what side of the political issue one may sit.
I suspect the principals in this situation have already been advised that the appeal will be throwing good money after bad, but are using politics to bait our council in footing the bill at taxpayers' expense.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I'm trying to watch the meeting via the live webcast. It looks like the City's streaming server is very slow. I assume since the meeting isn't being broadcast on TV30 that everyone is trying to watch on the webcast. This sucks! I'm only hearing bits and pieces.
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2008 at 8:03 pm
The assumption here is that the video webcast of council meetings is from streaming servers owned by the city. If this is true, local democracy would be far better served if the city spent some money on technology so its citizens can participate in city processes rather than funding the attorneys for a faction to appeal the faction's mistakes in the courts.