Town Square

Post a New Topic

'Planned progress' continues with Oak Grove

Original post made on May 7, 2010

My name is Kathleen Hart-Hinek. I'm a 44-year resident of Pleasanton. I will be voting Yes on Measure D at the June 8 election. Before I tell you why I am voting Yes on Measure D, I'd like to share my Pleasanton story:

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, May 7, 2010, 12:00 AM

Comments (57)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by She lives on a ridge top
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 7, 2010 at 7:04 am

I wonder what her neighbors think of her selling them out. My friend says she lives on a ridge and her husband worked for a builder. How does she feel driving by all of her neighbors on Hearst that don't want the traffic, the cut off hills and the lawsuit against some of them that gathered signatures so they could vote on it?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jack
a resident of Downtown
on May 7, 2010 at 8:03 am

How does she feel? She pretty much answers that question with her first three words! I'm sure she feels proud and rightly so, to enter this jungle of mostly ignorant mud-slingers with her own name. As for her neighbors on Hearst DRIVE, by the time those houses were finished (except for the bottom handful off Bernal) Kottinger Hills had already been approved by the City Counucil letting everyone know that Hearst was going to be opened up in the future. And by the way, the original Kottinger Hills approval was perhaps even more generous to Pleasanton, as it included a public golf course, that if built, would have saved us the $45 million we spent building Callippe. Good for you Kathleen!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 7, 2010 at 8:07 am

Stacey is a registered user.

"She lives on a ridge top" wrote basically the same thing about Becky Dennis in another thread. It's just lies.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 7, 2010 at 8:10 am

Stacey is a registered user.

I wouldn't have liked 98 homes with a golf course in Oak Grove. That's why I like what is currently offered: 51 homes and public park land.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jack
a resident of Downtown
on May 7, 2010 at 8:43 am

Stacey, 51 vs 98, golf vs hiking, aren't my issues. It was the spending 45 million dollars for something we could have had for free... Pleasanton used to be smarter than that.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Clueless
a resident of Heritage Oaks
on May 7, 2010 at 9:56 am

Most of you don't even live around there so why would you care? Property owners should be able to do whatever they please with THEIR OWN PROPERTY! Naysayers should just get a life!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fact Checker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 7, 2010 at 10:04 am

Not all referendums are good.

This was a collaborative process. No on D people are misrepresenting the project by telling voters they can go back and get something better. This developer did everything that was asked by the community and then some. Many of the D people did not avail themselves of the public process and now just want you to think that there is a chance of amending the project.

Fact
If this project goes away there is no incentive for the developer to work with the neighborhood. They did it in good faith once.

Fact
With the housing cap gone, they could come back with more single family homes and no open space.

Fact
Loosing this open space will surely sink the plan for the two thousand acres of open space planned for by the council to connect trails surrounding Pleasanton. The is one piece of a bigger plan to increase open space around Pleasanton protecting it in perpetuity.

Fact
They could come back with higher density condos on the lower elevations that would generate more traffic, more school impact and less revenue.

Fact
There is no definition of ridgeline or slope in PP. The impartial analysis of the measure states that. The council will have to define slope and ridgeline before anything can be approved under PP. Parts of PP have been struck down by the courts.

This is not the Pleasanton Ridge. (The one we clearly see on the west side of Pleasanton. We purchased the property on top of the Pleasanton Ridge.) The area is adjacent to Kottinger Ranch to the SOUTHEAST. Take a drive up there and see the property for yourself.

Finally, this is private property zoned rural residential. These are not OUR hills. They belong to someone else.

This is a good plan, it was collaborative. Many people were involved in the discussion. The benefits to Pleasanton are huge.

Vote yes on Measure D


 +   Like this comment
Posted by FACT
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 7, 2010 at 2:21 pm

If the builder, land owner and whole project go away.... that sounds good to me! BTW, the Pleasanton housing cap lawsuit required the city to zone low income housing in our city, exp. near transit. Oak Grove does not offer low income house, it is not near a freeway, and it is way to expensive to develop for subsidized housing.

And about the huge pipe dream of the mayor creating a gift of land stretching across town, in exchange for ridgetops and massive grading. That should go away as well!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 7, 2010 at 2:28 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"Oak Grove does not offer low income house, it is not near a freeway, and it is way to expensive to develop for subsidized housing."

Actually, the Oak Grove developer is required to build 20 affordable housing units elsewhere in the city. I'm guessing you didn't read the ordinances you're going to be voting on.

See section 3.03 of Ordinance 1962 (that is tied to Measure D through "poison pill" language)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by justthefasts
a resident of Amador Estates
on May 7, 2010 at 3:19 pm

To Fact checker...you should check your facts better...

Not all referendums are good.




This was a collaborative process. No on D people are misrepresenting the project by telling voters they can go back and get something better. This developer did everything that was asked by the community and then some. Many of the D people did not avail themselves of the public process and now just want you to think that there is a chance of amending the project.

(This not true. There was no collaboration with the neighborhoods. No HOA endorsed this project and, in fact, the people who claimed to be speaking for their HOA's were doing so on their own. Sad, but true. The development agreement was not reviewed by the Planning Commission (which is standard) and neither were the Conditions of approval (also standard). In fact, the City Council (another 3-2 vote) had to order the City Manager to sign the agreement when he refused. Collaborative with the out-of-town developer suing everyone in sight - I don't think so).


Fact


If this project goes away there is no incentive for the developer to work with the neighborhood. They did it in good faith once.

(They never worked with the neighborhood to begin with. Not with Bridle Creek or Kottinger Ranch or with any other neighborhood. In fact, so far, the only folks from those neighborhoods who have endorsed this project are those who are in the building trades...hmm...I wonder why. One open space advocate has sold his Kottinger Ranch home...now there is a message!).


Fact


With the housing cap gone, they could come back with more single family homes and no open space.

(Nope - there is PP and QQ. They could come back with between 28 and 32 homes. They would not be visible from the ridge lines. This has nothing to do with the housing cap. It is a false nexus that the developer is trying to use to scare folks.)


Fact


Loosing this open space will surely sink the plan for the two thousand acres of open space planned for by the council to connect trails surrounding Pleasanton. The is one piece of a bigger plan to increase open space around Pleasanton protecting it in perpetuity.

(Nope- the trail system can still be made. In fact, this is why the Planning Commission (who didn't approve the EIR) should have reviewed the approval conditions etc. You don't need the 'gift' for the trails or to protect our southern boundary. Again, more scare tactics).


Fact


They could come back with higher density condos on the lower elevations that would generate more traffic, more school impact and less revenue.

(Nope - there are not lower elevations. Sounds good but simply not true. There are nothing but ridges after Hearst. Could they come back with infill affordable housing near Bart or the Freeway? Absolutely and that would have minimum impact and do more for the housing cap issue).



Fact


There is no definition of ridgeline or slope in PP. The impartial analysis of the measure states that. The council will have to define slope and ridgeline before anything can be approved under PP. Parts of PP have been struck down by the courts.

(There is a definition of rideline in the general plan. It really isn't that hard. Parts of PP struck down? MOre scare tactics).


This is not the Pleasanton Ridge. (The one we clearly see on the west side of Pleasanton. We purchased the property on top of the Pleasanton Ridge.) The area is adjacent to Kottinger Ranch to the SOUTHEAST. Take a drive up there and see the property for yourself.


(You really can't...it is fenced off. It is easily visible from many parts of pleasanton including the fairgrounds. Hard to imagine but these ridges (and yes, we can figure out what they are) can be seen in a lot of Places in Pleasanton).

Finally, this is private property zoned rural residential. These are not OUR hills. They belong to someone else.

(You are correct here. They belong to an out-of-town developer who is spending 10's of thousands of dollars to promote this project. Follow the money - they don't care about Pleasanton, only the bottom line. They have hired professional PR firms and professional out of town pollsters. Heck, one of the people handing out literature at the Farmers market is a paid PR person from San Francisco. Be skeptical and don't believe the propaganda. They can still develop - just comply with PP and QQ)






Vote NO on Measure D


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 7, 2010 at 3:54 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"In fact, the City Council (another 3-2 vote) had to order the City Manager to sign the agreement when he refused. "

I love these one-way hash arguments. They're a form of spin. You write a true statement but conveniently leave part of it unspoken. What you're not telling readers is that the agreement had to be signed because a court ordered Pleasanton to. Instead you make it sound like the City Council forced staff to do something they didn't want to do, that they're oppressive. It's like telling readers that homes up to 12,500 sq ft will be built. That's true, but what's also true is that those homes are only allowed on 3 of the 51 lots and those 3 lots are tucked away from view.

Let's stick to the pros and cons of the project, not resort to the political coloring of history.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 7, 2010 at 3:57 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"One open space advocate has sold his Kottinger Ranch home...now there is a message!"

And what message would that be? That someone is finally putting their money where their mouth is and deciding not to be so hypocritical to own a home in Kottinger Ranch and oppose Oak Grove at the same time? If Kottinger Ranch were to be proposed today, there would be even more support opposing it than there is opposing Oak Grove.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Justthefacts
a resident of Amador Estates
on May 7, 2010 at 6:11 pm

Stacey

We won't agree on this and that is OK. YOu leave out the part that the judges decision was under appeal and Fialho wanted to wait to see what would happen with the appeal which eventually overturned the judges decision.

It is not just the 12,500 sq foot potential homes but the others that are truly on top of the ridelines. The grading map shows it all!

I won't get into name calling about Jon. Many disagreed with his position on Oak Grove and the fact that he assumes that it is inevitable is truly sad. Why is he selling and moving out? Could it be that he knows what will happen to the hills in the area? No one will ever know for sure. Not you and not me


 +   Like this comment
Posted by observer
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 7, 2010 at 6:49 pm

Vote No on D people lie through their teeth. The case in which the clerk (not city manager) had to sign the ordinance was separate from the referendum case and the judges decision was never appealed. Misrepresenting facts is lying in my book. Lying apparently designed to impune the integrity of anyone who supports D.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by justwondering
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 7, 2010 at 8:22 pm

Justthefacts, please check your facts. If Oak Grove is defeated, they can only come back with up to 10 homes according to PP. 98 homes down to 10 homes has to be considered a taking.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fact checker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 7, 2010 at 10:46 pm

Wow, what a spin.

The housing portion of PP was struck down by the lawsuit.

The impartial analysis of PP says there is no clarity on what a ridgeline or slope is. It will have to be clarified by the council before anything is approved under PP.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 9, 2010 at 1:03 pm

I don't know everyone signing the no ballot for D, but I do know at least three of them live in what can be defined as "the hills" in various parts of the community. Good for them; someone made it possible for them to buy (and in a couple cases it is acres) and build.

A lot of these signers against D were at a city council meeting 15 or more years ago when an elderly lady stood up to say none of us would be here if families like hers, longtime residents and business owners, had voted to keep all of our homes from being built. An approach that says "I got to do what I wanted, but now that I'm here, you can't is one argument that doesn't stand on solid footing.

There are other reasons to say yes to D--there's been compromise from 98 to 51 homes; there's nearly 500 acres that can be the starting piece for more preservation in those hills; and not asking EBRPD to buy the land with our tax dollars when we essentially get it for free (save it for another purchase) are just a few.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jane B
a resident of Carriage Gardens
on May 9, 2010 at 9:27 pm

I was up there, with the site plan, yesterday. The "No" on D people are so wrong! There are NO houses on RIDGES! None! There are 8 planned future units in one area which will be slightly visible to Alan Roberts' new mansion, if he ever gets it approved, at the top of the Emergency Vehicle Access road (for those of you who may be interested, he's the guy that said he'd pay for Kay Ayala's legal fees, and he had an application into the City for his new huge mansion, but pulled his application, just before this Oak Grove issue became a heated discussion - fair weather environmentalists, to be sure!

This project, through the great work of our elected officials, Matt Sullivan and the Mayor, is a win/win for all of us. I am so glad I went on the tour - the land is beautiful- and it's true - you don't save land by leaving it alone - you save it by re deeding it - in this case, to the people of Pleasanton. And, what a great gift! Vote YES on D - only 51 homesites, in trade for almost 500 acres of saved, pristine oak woodlands, for all of us, in perpetuity. Thank you Matt and Jennifer!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Del Prado
on May 10, 2010 at 8:16 am

Thank you for doing our legwork, Jane. I'm hoping to get on a tour but your descriptions sells me!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Che
a resident of Livermore
on May 10, 2010 at 8:50 am

Why don't you build low income subsidized housing up there?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Danville
on May 10, 2010 at 10:05 am

Jane.... You must be joking! You went on a tour, heard one side of the discussion and went home. Do you you have any idea what a ridge is? I have some swamp land...

50 of the 51 homes are ON the main ridge. At least the ridge AFTER up to 43 vertical feet are cut off. Yes, you were standing above where the roof lines will be in some cases.

As you walk and the land drops off on both sides of you.. THAT is a ridge... at least that is the "before" version of it. I suppose you say after the bulldozers cut the ridge off, it will no longer be a ridge, but that is a lie too.

No on D. Save the ridges for our grandkids. This land is zoned "rural agricultural" and it should be for small farms and a few horses, or as it is now, leased to a cattle rancher.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 10, 2010 at 10:09 am

What is apparent to me is that the politicians that approved this development AFTER PP was approved to protect our ridges in Nov. 08, need to step down. Their job is done.

They KNOW the Citizens don't want development on the ridges, they could have rescinded their approval, but did not.

I will never vote for Cheryl Cook Kalio, Jerry Thorne or Jennifer Hosterman again. They all said they would listen but turned a deaf hear to the voters - and they need to go home!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 10, 2010 at 10:09 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Kindly please read page PLMD-8 under section "The No Development Alternative" of the Sample Ballot and Voter Guide.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 10, 2010 at 10:13 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Oak Grove was approved BEFORE PP. The opponents who claim they wanted to vote on it urged to council to rescind that approval after PP. They don't really want people to vote on this project.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 10, 2010 at 10:14 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Oak Grove actually has two zoning designations. One part is "rural residential" and the other is "open space/public health". The developer can build up to 98 housing units in the "rural residential" part.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 10, 2010 at 10:16 am

Pro-growth politicians! In some cases, they stood on the streets and tried to take away our right to referend this development. They asked Citizens to "do not sign the Petition", which is our only legal method to rescind or put to a public vote, their horrific decision to decimate our hilltops and ridges.

Stop the bulldozers, stop the mega-mansions, stop the additional burden to our school budgets. And next time you are on a propaganda tour, as you go to the end of Hearst drive, see all of the NO on D signs then tell me the Kottinger Ranch people "collaborated" and agreed on this development.

Jon Harvey moved as he was supporting the decision to build, which would take away his view of the hills. He is quoted all over their paperwork as being an environmentalist - yet he is one of their biggest supporters of 51 ridgetop homes.

Vote NO on D(Development in the hills).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Che
a resident of Livermore
on May 10, 2010 at 10:21 am

Just build low income subsidized housing up there. This would give us property tax revenue and also allow people of less than our means to live the good life in Pleasanton.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 10, 2010 at 10:30 am

Stacey, how many acres are "open space/public health"?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 10, 2010 at 10:44 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Karen,

From the text of Measure D:

"As described in the DEIR, the 562-acre site carries two designations: On the 489-acres within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), the designation is Rural Density Residential (RDR) which allows no more than one dwelling unit per five gross acres, or 98 dwelling units. On the 73 acres outside the UGB, the designation is Public Health and Safety, which allows no development other than a single-family dwelling unit on existing private lots of record."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Del Prado
on May 10, 2010 at 11:01 am

Karen, Your assumptions are really off base. Not all citizens of Pleasanton think development is bad as evidenced by many who support yes on Measure D. Thank you,Stacy, for clarifying her errors. I have read these posts from time to time and the No on Measure D supporters are emotional and misleading. I will be voting yes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 10, 2010 at 11:02 am

I see. So the land owner is giving land outside the urban growth boundry as part of their gift?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Del Prado
on May 10, 2010 at 11:23 am

Karen, The YES on D campaign has to love your posts. Keep on writing, you are really making a case for me, anyway, to vote Yes on D because the NO supporters are so out of touch and emotional. Why are the NO supporters so emotional? Do they live in a house? In Pleasanton? Who owned their land prior to their home being built? From what I gather, Karen, if you really do live in Vintage HILLS, do you think these were once "hills" or "ridges". What grading was done to build your home?

One more comment, Kay Ayala reminds me of an old worn out athlete. Just trying to hang on with any team that will listen to her. Come on, Kay, don't you have grandkids to bounce on your lap?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 10, 2010 at 11:50 am

Robert, you are stooping to the level of the bullies in elementary school. Personal attacks are just mean. I personally expect more from an adult Plesanton resident, even if your opinion on OG are different than mine. Community of Character? Guess you skipped school that day.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Che
a resident of Livermore
on May 10, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Karen, you would probably only hear from Robert for a little while longer. School lunch period is almost over and most teachers have to go back to class.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fact checker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 10, 2010 at 12:10 pm

Urban growth boundaries can be changed if Pleasaton owns the land.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 10, 2010 at 12:21 pm

Isn't the urban growth boundry an item that requires a vote of the people?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Del Prado
on May 10, 2010 at 12:31 pm

Sorry Ms. Karen.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kitty Harvey
a resident of Downtown
on May 10, 2010 at 1:26 pm

Karen,
If you have any comments/questions for Jon, give him a call, he's very approachable and would very much like to have a reasonable conversation with anyone regarding the history of the Oak Grove project and his opinion about it...but then you'd have to use your REAL NAME.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 10, 2010 at 2:27 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Above it was written, "One open space advocate has sold his Kottinger Ranch home...now there is a message!"

But since no one has a clue as to what this "message" is supposed to be, everyone is free to make it up!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Del Prado
on May 10, 2010 at 2:32 pm

Yoo hoo, Karla, will you be meeting with Jon?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Del Prado
on May 10, 2010 at 2:34 pm

Oops, I meant Karen. Sorry for the confusion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by long time resident
a resident of Birdland
on May 10, 2010 at 4:38 pm

The reason we are voting on Oak Grove now, after the timing of PP and QQ being passed by the voters, is the property owner of Oak Grove sued the city to not have the vote on this project first, and moved the date of the vote of Oak Grove until after PP passed by all their delay tactics. Since the developer is the one who delayed the vote, it seems fair that this development should be part of the PP rules. The residents and the city did not delay this vote until after PP, the developer did.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 10, 2010 at 6:24 pm

The right to ask for signature also extends to the right to ask people not to sign, especially given the erroneous arguments made by some of the signature gatherers.

The signature gatherers received enough by touting that the people would have the right to vote on the project. NOW they want to short circuit the process by complaining that Pleasanton is now going to have a vote.

ask questions, get the facts
Yes on Measure D


 +   Like this comment
Posted by justwondering
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 10, 2010 at 6:28 pm

Wow Karen, its okay for you to stand up at Council meetings and attack the Mayor but somehow not okay for Robert to call you out on some of your statments here.

Karen, did you know that Matt Sullivan was the person who insisted the grading for Oak Grove be done in the manner that's proposed? If you don't believe me, ask him publicly at the next council meeting. For Matt to want the grading to be done this way, tells me that its the prefered environmentally sensitive method.

The No on D folks are being misleading about where the houses are going to be and how visable they'll be from various parts of the City. Jane is right--go take a tour of the property and see exactly what land the City gets and where the homes actually go. Don't be mislead by the ads or pictures that the No on D folks are showing!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Del Prado
on May 10, 2010 at 7:29 pm

Thanks for having my back, just wondering. Why the silence Karlan? Have you been outed????


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 10, 2010 at 9:33 pm

I do not see the signature collectors against the election. When the council did take this item up there were some that thought that now that we have PP that their decision was made. Now that it is going to a vote, I don't see the signature collectors trying to stop an election.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by SRN
a resident of Highland Oaks
on May 11, 2010 at 1:55 pm

As I saw dozens of No on D signs sprout all over the place during the past few weeks, I started to wonder who was funding that side of the issue. The SavePleasantonHills website lists 131 names as supporters. After checking around a bit, it appears that one person has donated the lion's share of the funding to try to defeat the measure. Someone who doesn't want houses higher up the hill than his. If this is truly a grass roots movement against measure D, maybe the web site could list all supporters donating more than 10% of the funding, and what percentage was donated.

I've been following the issue of what to do with that land off and on for more than a decade. It looks to me like the city council members and those others who helped put the measure together have done a good job of looking out for the overall needs of the residents of Pleasanton. Voting against measure D could result in something less desirable going into that land a few years from now. Let's be reasonable here.

Pleasanton is the city of Planned Progress. But it needs your support to continue to progress.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karla Brown
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on May 11, 2010 at 2:53 pm

Hello! I was told by a friend that there was a blog and that my name was being used, so I figured I would address any issues that were being discussed myself. I only see one other real name, so I don't know if it okay, or will I get blasted by the anonymous groups? Anyway, here we go!

No secret, I am not in favor of Measure D. No secret I often speak at City Council meetings, Farmer's Market and First Wednesday against this development. In general, I am not a fan of development, esp. in the hills.

No secret that I am a member of the Sierra Club, as are many of the other No on D folks. I was raised in the country, and both my husband and I are concerned about the environmental destruction these new homes will bring. We think there are better options.

If Jon will take us, I will go! Simple. No one ever asked us before and the barbed wire is a good deterent. Thanks.

I know a few others that would like to go as well to see this land in person. Is that okay?

Basically we may disagree about many things, but I hope everyone knows this is not personal, but a difference of opinion. Thanks for the offer!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Laura Danielson
a resident of Ruby Hill
on May 11, 2010 at 5:15 pm

Karla is correct, I would very much like to see the property myself (never set foot on it Dolores believe it or not!) as I am puzzled by this seemingly new definition a of ridge top.
So Jon, if you're up for it, I'm in too.







 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 11, 2010 at 5:16 pm

Regarding the impact to schools, each child that moves into this community will come with the growth dollars based on our ADA formula, which does include the property tax data.  (If property tax income didn't matter, every district should be receiving the same dollar amount per student.)  That the ADA is insufficient for the programs we want and the costs of personnel to have those programs is not the fault of the next child in the door. 
 
If the logic for Oak Grove is that the money these new students generate is not enough, then none of us should be able to sell our homes either.  For example, I have no children at home anymore.  If I sell to a family with two children, I create just as much pressure with my sale (on program and capacity) without the requisite fees to cover capacity issues.  The projected $2 million that might be gained in developer fees (frankly, who cares whether the Lins pay and pass it on to the homebuyer or the homebuyers pay when they build) can mitigate the growth.  Not in an ideal sense, but the district can make it work and has done so every time someone in Pleasanton sells a home to families with school aged children.  In my example, there are no new fees for development—no capacity mitigation when any of us sell to young families. 
 
Are we ready for a moratorium on children (oh, and you can only sell to people with no/non-school aged children)?  What would Pleasanton look like then?
 


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Del Prado
on May 11, 2010 at 5:29 pm

Karla and Laura, If I'm reading this blog correctly, John's wife offered for you to "call" him to discuss the issues. I don't see anywhere where is offered to provide tours. Jennifer Hosterman was the one who offered the tour. Another one of your attempts to misconstrue the what is written.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Del Prado
on May 11, 2010 at 5:31 pm

Karla,

Can you expand on the "environmental destruction" that was necessary to build your Kottinger Ranch home? Or was that not a concern of yours when you and your hubby purchased your new home? That's what I thought.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 11, 2010 at 5:57 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Robert,

I think you have Karla and Karen confused. They are in fact two different people.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Del Prado
on May 11, 2010 at 8:39 pm

Stacy, I'm an investigator by trade and can read between the lines. Ms. Harvey offered her husband to speak to "Karen" and Karla and Laura Danielson answered the call. Hmmmmm. I've noticed a trend with the No on D posters and clearly, they have a couple computers and type away. If you'll also notice, in the first post on this blog, "she lives on a ridge" began with, "my friend tells me". On Karla Brown-Belcher's recent post, she says, "I was told by a friend.." I'm just saying...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jack J.
a resident of Charter Oaks
on May 11, 2010 at 8:50 pm

Around 50 comments, so five of you chimed in 10 times each? Makes sense.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 11, 2010 at 10:59 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Web Link
Main Entry: dis·cus·sion
Pronunciation: \di-ˈskə-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hill Resident
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 12, 2010 at 12:16 pm

I'm voting Yes on Measure D. It is a compromise measure which many worked long and hard to develop.

I'm also tired of hearing Kay Ayala crying foul at every turn instead of showing at least some respect for the process. The people of Pleasanton can exercise independent thought and formulate their own opinions. We are not sheep unless you allow yourself to be treated as one.


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

Hayward NAACP officials threaten blog posters
By Tim Hunt | 21 comments | 2,182 views

Duck!
By Tom Cushing | 20 comments | 991 views

The Giving Season
By Roz Rogoff | 1 comment | 784 views

Thanksgiving Transfer Fever!
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 240 views