Town Square

Post a New Topic

How many "No On D" signs can one city handle LOL?

Original post made by trying to understand D on May 10, 2010

So I was coming home from Mother's day shopping last weekend when low and behold, I see one Kay Ayala planting "No On D" signs through out one of the local neighborhoods. Taking a drive yesterday, these signs are EVERYWHERE now. Breeding like rabbits.

I haven't really looked at D yet other than the mailers I've received. At first pass, it looks OK to me. I like the idea of extra money going to our schools as a result of this development, especially after all the cuts. It seems to preserve a lot of land for parks. I admit, now that I've seen some of the names against Measure D, I'm much more prone to voting yes. But I am undecided. Is measure D the end of all things natural for the ridge lines? Or is this a good deal for our community?

Comments (73)

Posted by Nicole, a resident of Downtown
on May 10, 2010 at 9:56 am

My neighbor had a No on D sign. When I asked why, he said that this would keep the land open forever, that is was zoned agricultural and it would keep "those" people out, all false statements.

When I explained that it was zoned rural residential, that the number of house or density of the carbon footprint might increase and that the land would not be accessible open space, he took the sign down.

Obviously, it was a longer conversation but the point needs to be made.

Please be informed and ask questions.

There will be money that goes to the schools and to the city in the form of tax dollars and ADA. ADA does come from the state but it is based on the tax revenue within the school district.

This does reserve 500 acres of open space for all of Pleasanton.

This area is not visible to virtually all of Pleasanton. Drive up there and see for yourself. What once might have been visible is blocked by the homes of some of the opponents of D. Go up Bernal pass St Augustine's and turn up through Kottinger Ranch.

The signs are inaccurate. They are not "our" ridges. It is private property and the property owner went through the very public process of nine public meetings.

Please be informed. Ask questions. Meaure D is planned progress and benefits all of Pleasanton.

Vote Yes on Measure D.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 10, 2010 at 10:04 am

Stacey is a registered user.

If anyone you speak with believes that voting no on D will prevent development, kindly ask them to read page PLMD-8 section "The No Development Alternative" in the Sample Ballot and Voter Guide.


Posted by Curious, a resident of Del Prado
on May 10, 2010 at 10:13 am

I am curious what the "No on D" folks see as the end game? As the previous poster commented, the ridges and property in question do not belong to Pleasanton, so to say "Save our Ridges" is false and a tad on the arrogant side. The Lin Family owns the land. The land is zoned rural residential. The Lin Family has gone through the long and painful approval process and has made many concessions that benefit all of Pleasanton.

I see the outcome of a "No on D" vote as the Lin Family moving forward with the original plan of 90+ homes, no open space granted to Pleasanton, and a loss of money for roads and schools. It is their lands folks, they can develop it unless someone can come up with the funds to purchase the land. Is Kay Ayala going to step up and plunk down the money to purchase the land? I don't think so.

I find it very amusing that the same small government, free-market types are the very ones trying to block this development. All that Tea Party rhetoric is great until it directly impacts their lifestyle.

Vote Yes on D and let's move forward to secure 500 acres of open space, more money for schools and roads, and stop wasting tax payer money on frivolous lawsuits.


Posted by Clueless, a resident of Heritage Oaks
on May 10, 2010 at 10:17 am

It's all down to how you market those measures. Some people will show up at the polling station without a clue what they are voting on so they cast their votes based on lawn signs. That's just the way it is.


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 10, 2010 at 10:34 am

Who is paying for this stuff?
Lawn signs, poster boards, ads in the weekly!!!

Where is the money coming from?


Posted by Joe, a resident of Downtown
on May 10, 2010 at 11:21 am

I understand the reasons and emotions of those who vote no D to preserve "open space", but the genie has been out of the bottle for a long time now and she isn't going back in. This is privately owned land and if the no D supporters are so adament to keep it as open space then pool your money and buy the land from the current owners and your problem is solved. Even if you win it will wind up in court and get shot down just like the housing cap did.
PS to "curious"...what does the Tea Party have to do with this issue?


Posted by No on D, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 10, 2010 at 11:41 am

59+% of the citizens of Pleasanton voted in November 08 to STOP building on the ridges. Oak Grove was approved before Nov 08, and it places almost ALL of their huge mansions on the ridges. End of story.

Stacey, the "No Development Alternative" was penned BEFORE measure PP because this whole OG project got folks off their sofas and started to say NO more ridgeline development.

Danville has ridgeline protection and Fremont has ridgeline protection - But Dublin does not. Take a look north on 580 and say NO to ugly sprawl we don't want that in Pleasanton. No to Oak Grove, No on D on June 8th.


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 10, 2010 at 12:07 pm

Go up there and look! The homes are NOT on the ridgelines!!!!! That is just FALSE!!!!!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 10, 2010 at 12:10 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Measure PP does not change the zoning designations of the Oak Grove property. The "No Development Alternative" outcome would remain the same. The only way to ensure implementation of the "No Development Alternative" would be for someone to purchase the land from the Lins and place a conservation easement over the entire property.


Posted by No on D, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 10, 2010 at 12:25 pm

I am not advocated changing the zoning. The restrictions of 25% sloped areas and 100' off the ridge will reduce the number of homes in OG.

And with regards to the houses on the ridges in Dublin.... Have you viewed Dublin Ranch? Go by Trader Joes, Pimlico or MacDonalds. The houses line the tops of the Dublin ridges.


Posted by Clueless, a resident of Heritage Oaks
on May 10, 2010 at 1:10 pm

All these discussions are too complex for me to understand but I do respect private property rights, as I would others to respect mine. I'm voting yes...end of story. No on D people probably don't own properties and have no concept of what that means.


Posted by Concerned, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 10, 2010 at 2:06 pm

"No on D people probably don't own properties and have no concept of what that means."

That is a general statement which is not completely true, but I do know at least one family which lives about 3 blocks from my house that has a NO on D on their front yard, and they are renters who moved to Pleasanton only last year. I suppose the NO on D people talked a good talk to these individuals - I do not see a good reason why a renter comewhat new to Pleasanton would agree be against D.

I will vote YES on D. I would rather see the 51 homes and the open space promised to Pleasanton in exchange, than seeing the land used for something else like low income housing. If D passes, we get to preserve a big space for use as open space, but if D fails, the entire land can and will be used for something else. It is zone residential after all.

YES on D.


Posted by local, a resident of Jensen Tract
on May 10, 2010 at 4:20 pm

The message above that school income is based on local tax dollars is completely false. The dollars per student are the same for our city no matter what our local property value is or the number of houses. This was due to some previous state laws that thought it was unfair for richer communities to have better schools. So the state controls how much the schools get and the local property taxes do not figure into the equation. The schools get s "revenue limit" If local tax revenue is higher, the state chips in less. If local tax revenue is lower, the state chips in more. In the end, our schools get exactly the same amount of money. While Pleasanton does receive more money per student than other districts, it is not based on our local tax revenue or property taxes. It is based on a calculation that was done many years ago and Pleasanton was at the better end of the stick. If we add more houses, or not, expensive houses, or not, the revenue per student stays the same.

As for the ridges, look at the grading plans. It shows the top of the ridges are being graded and the new home pads are at the top of some of the ridges.

While there are some who do not want any homes out there, or possibly any more homes in Pleasanton because of the congestion we already face, most people who are against this plan would accept a plan that has less homes so they can fix the home appropriately in that environment. The property owner can always come back with another plan.


Posted by Lisa, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 10, 2010 at 7:54 pm

I think most of us just want the small town feel of Pleasanton preserved. Over the years I have seen Ruby Hill, Laguna Oaks,Mohler Ranch disappear and all those developments along Bernal appear. I think the population has more than doubled since I have lived here for the past 21 years.

Developers are out for one thing...money. That is their business. But those of us who call this home and want the growth to stop are worried. No on D sounds good because it simply represents to most of us "No more Growth". No more people....small and quaint is good.

As for Dublin, the houses are all over the ridgelines, but what are we comparing ourselves to? Dublin is just a mess. Anything looks better than that.


Posted by Jennnifer Hosterman, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 10, 2010 at 10:52 pm

I have to tell you that that after inspecting the site plan and walking the entire property (it's huge!) and understanding how 51 housing units will be placed under tree canopies, which ridgelands in the distance (no, no homes will be place on any ridgeland, that's a total disregard for the facts) I am totally in agreement that this is a good plan for the people of Pleasanton, and somewhat okay for the property owner. In my estimation, that's a win/win!

If you would like to see how these particular landuse sights look on the land, I will personally take you on a tour! Once you see how your City Council has mandated that these homes be situated, and environmentally so, You will conclude that this is an amazing opportunity for the people of Pleasanton to realize almost 500 acreas of open space, to preserve and protect these gorgeous blue and valley oak woodlands, in perpetuity for their sake and for ours, forever. I am convinced this is the best plan for all!

If you think otherwise, I'll gladly take you on a tour! Call me. 925 567 6868. Saturday for an hour? I'll meet you at the top of Hearst!


Posted by Jennnifer Hosterman, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 10, 2010 at 10:52 pm

I have to tell you that that after inspecting the site plan and walking the entire property (it's huge!) and understanding how 51 housing units will be placed under tree canopies, which ridgelands in the distance (no, no homes will be place on any ridgeland, that's a total disregard for the facts) I am totally in agreement that this is a good plan for the people of Pleasanton, and somewhat okay for the property owner. In my estimation, that's a win/win!

If you would like to see how these particular landuse sights look on the land, I will personally take you on a tour! Once you see how your City Council has mandated that these homes be situated, and environmentally so, You will conclude that this is an amazing opportunity for the people of Pleasanton to realize almost 500 acreas of open space, to preserve and protect these gorgeous blue and valley oak woodlands, in perpetuity for their sake and for ours, forever. I am convinced this is the best plan for all!

If you think otherwise, I'll gladly take you on a tour! Call me. 925 567 6868. Saturday for an hour? I'll meet you at the top of Hearst!


Posted by Shirley Davis, a resident of Del Prado
on May 11, 2010 at 8:46 am

Sure hope she reads up on Measure D. I don't think the schools will get all that is promised. and we have a lot to loose.

We need more low income, or afforable housing instead of big huge
houses that most people can't afford..

I hope to see more NO ON D signs around town!!


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Carriage Gardens
on May 11, 2010 at 8:50 am

This project is one of the best things that could happen to Pleasanton. It has been well thought out and planned. The benefit to Pleasanton is HUGE! Be smart Voters and don't let a bunch of signs fool you--Please vote YES on this important issue.


Posted by olfthfl, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am

Jennifer -Very nice of you to offer the tour but non of the No on D folks are going show up because they certainly would not want to know the truth.


Posted by mommy2all, a resident of Del Prado
on May 11, 2010 at 9:15 am

I have a sign in my lawn for a No on D. Being a mom, I have become very involved in raising money for our schools. I would never shy away from a cause that would give money back to our schools but, this is not the answer. It feels like it's a bribe. If you the voters let us build up Pleasanton, which will make it look more and more like the Dublin hills, I will give you money for your schools.IS the timing on this questionable? Everybody know how much the schools need money, but let's not let our fear in the school budget's devolope Pleasanton.


Posted by jessica, a resident of Las Positas Garden Homes
on May 11, 2010 at 9:20 am

If we keep adding homes we will need to add schools! Will this money that is supposed to be given if this passes cover THAT cost? I say NO ON D


Posted by Truth, a resident of Bordeaux Estates
on May 11, 2010 at 9:28 am

More to the point the developer of this project is misleading the community to believe that they are giving money that will relieve the schools budget problems. The truth is that the developer is not giving any money to the schools, they are saying the home builders will. The truth is that the amount of money that the schools will get will be inconsequential to the budget.


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Foothill High School
on May 11, 2010 at 9:41 am

At market Saturday, I overheard one of the No on D demonstrators explaining that if the homes were built, it would block his view. He stated, "That's my back yard. How would you like that in your back yard?" My immediate thought was that, based on where he lived, his home was in my back yard, blocking my view. It's all a matter of "I got mine, sc**w you". I'll be voting yes.


Posted by VH II Nieghbor, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 11, 2010 at 9:52 am

Your asking all the right questions. Keep in mind, it was fully disclosed to every home buyer in the Kottinger Ranch neighborhood when they purchased their homes additional phases of developement in thier area were planned and pending. For those individuals to now mount the campaign to "save our hills", AFTER they moved in to the hills, seems less than a generous spirit regarding what is best for Pleasanton.

Drive on Hearst through the development, you can see plenty of homes up on Remillard and Casterson of which we now all share a view. How is it reasonable the community should be denied an amazning park, trails and open space as well as funds for schools becasue a small number of exisitng home owners prefer not to have "the hills" disturbed.

The current Oak Grove plan has reduced the number of buildable lots (nearly in half) from what they orginally asked for 15-17 years ago when they were stopped from developing. Accepting the gift of the park, half the homes originally planned, urgently needed money for our schools offers a planned, moderated development with huge benefits to the entire community.

I reccommed looking at the map suppled by "Yes on D" that shows where each home site is located. It is a sharp contrast to the misleading photo featured on No on D ads and flyers distributed in the past reflecting a large, block-style condo building looming above other homes on a hill. There is little to none in resemblance to the actual plan.

"Yes on D" website offers tours of the development which I've signed up for. If you have questions a tour may help answer your remaining concerns.


Posted by P-town dad, a resident of Amador Estates
on May 11, 2010 at 9:59 am

The Lin family owns the property and as long as they've gotten city approval they should be allowed to develop it. They have made concessions to protect house from being developed at the top of the ridgelines, they are donating land for a huge park for us and they are paying for the additional burdens place on schools. What's not to like about this plan? I say YES on D and let them do what they want. This isn't a preserve and it isn't "our" ridgeline. It's their land and let them do what they want within the guidelines put forth. It's great for Pleasanton.

Full disclosure: I have no financial interest in this project directly or indirectly. I am a Pleasanton tax-paying resident.


Posted by Considerate Citizen, a resident of Valencia
on May 11, 2010 at 9:59 am

RE: "... I like the idea of extra money going to our schools as a result of this development, especially after all the cuts."

Every development in Pleasanton's past has sold itself by saying that it will give money to schools. But after the development is approved and the money is granted, it seems that we always need more.
So I do not feel it is a reason to support this development. Besides, where do the 'cuts' really take us back to? Where we were in 2003?, in 1996?, in 2005? Whatever it is, we got by then. But the school funding is a seperate issue and needs to remain seperate. Pls review the Proposal on any other merits besides emotional ones.


Posted by Jose, a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on May 11, 2010 at 10:07 am

Pleasanton is a great place to live - beautiful weather, great services, good community values, etc. By the logic of people like "anonymous", it is not OK to want to keep/enjoy what you have. We all moved here at some point, blocking someone else's view of something they valued. We all use the services of the community, taking up room on the streets and in the schools.

So what's the end game? Do we never say "that's big enough"? Is it never OK to keep a buildable acre of land vacant in order to keep a little bit of nature within the city limits?

Many of us have paid a premium to live in Pleasanton because the quality of life is so much better than many of the surrounding cities. I guess that's not OK to people like "anonymous". We have money and nice homes and therefore we must be punished.


Posted by Rick, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2010 at 11:09 am

Hey we just don't trust government anymore, including the clowns in Pleasanton. They want to control everything and spend waste are money doing all sorts of boondoggles. No trust anymore for our Mayor and most of the rest of them. So vote no for anything they stand for.


Posted by pleasantonian, a resident of Del Prado
on May 11, 2010 at 11:30 am

I like the idea of open space for the public and funds for the schools. However, is there a drawing of what the land looks like now and what it will look like with the new homes? I"m envisioning it to look like our west hills, which seem OK to me. Anything available online for those of us who can't take the tour on Saturday?


Posted by Of course "Yes on D", a resident of Bordeaux Estates
on May 11, 2010 at 11:40 am

Money for schools, almost 500 acres of open space forever, public access to a beautiful preserved area of Pleasanton: educate yourself and vote yes. Don't let a few vocal malcontents in Kottinger Ranch mislead you. They will show up to vote what's best for them; make sure you show up to vote what's best for the rest of the city. If you think "No on D" is the green, responsible choice, you have been lied to. Find out the facts for yourself.


Posted by Bubba, a resident of Canyon Meadows
on May 11, 2010 at 11:42 am

As a Tea Party Republican I believe in freedom and private property rights. I believe a landowner should be able to do what they want with their private property. Therefore I'm voting NO ON D! If the property owner's last name was "Johnson" or "Williams" I could support this project, but until a new owner takes the property, I'll continue to be a right-wing hypocrite.


Posted by Nosy Neighbors, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on May 11, 2010 at 12:12 pm

I'm voting YES on Measure D for these reasons.

The ridge line in question is not public property, it is owned fair & square & legally by the Lin family. The property is also zoned for residential construction, whether it's going to be 55 large, tastefully designed & scrutinized by the building permit dept. homes or 90 smaller, ridge filling homes, there will be homes there one day.

Having grown up around this particular area I know of the trail network that exists in the area & further south. I have been known to at times take a bike ride or hike in the hills & have always been amazed to my good fortune that I have been able to have these trails to myself & the few other locals that frequent these "pirate hikes." With proper grading & maintenance these trails would afford easier access to the older hikers & bikers that find the Pleasanton Ridge a bit daunting at times & make for some fantastic views for everyone to appreciate.

I also vaguely remember the same arguments, rebuttals & whining about the development of Kottinger Ranch when it was proposed. As with all new development in this town it is almost assured of that there will be opposition to somebody with a bigger, higher, nicer plot of land than they do. (I'm sure than John Neal probably thought the same about those "new folks up the street" back in the late 1800's too) The lucky few who already live in the Measure D proposed area are surprisingly, the most vocal. Especially those who just happen to live on an existing multi-acre, ridge line home that also just happens to have a street named for them. Can't guess who that is? Just Google Brozosky Hill Ln. (as in STEVE), Rock Springs Rd. & the general vicinity. Yep, all those homes & property values will undoubtedly take a hit so what do they do? Begin a campaign of half truths, fear & class envy to persuade the general public.

If anyone has driven, walked or just stepped outside their front door in town & looked to the southern hills you'll notice one thing immediately. You can't see them. Unless you happen to be driving on certain stretches of Bernal, Kottinger, Vineyard or Stanley this particular ridge line is simply not in the general field of view. There are in fact, very few homes that would be impacted by ANY development in those hills aside from their lower flying neighbors in Grey Eagle, Vintage Hills & Kottinger, yet the opponents want you to believe that these will all be 5000+ sq. ft. mega-mansions visible from traffic on Hwy. 680. A quick side note. Think for a minute what the views of these proposed homes will be of. Stanley Blvd., the construction quarries, Shadow Cliffs, a nice senior citizen mobile home park, Hwy. 680 & the Dublin Hills. Million+ dollar homes with views of mobile home parks? But I digress.

There still exists in this town oversight & approval by the folks that ultimately grant building permits & sit on planning commissions. If & when this or some other measure passes you will have the ability to show up, voice your objections to the plans & work with the developer, architects & property owners to devise building plans, landscaping & grading that will be aesthetically pleasing & complimentary to the surrounding area. If it took a neighbor of ours over six months, three separate visits to the planning commission & a few thousand $$ in design fees, permits & delays to change his windows, remove siding, cut down a dead pine tree & re-surface a driveway all because of the naysayers in the neighborhood, just think of the hassles that the homeowners of Measure D homes will be subjected to.

IMHO, once this passes, the homes finally begin to be built & everybody's tempers calm down the public will see that there will be little visual impact on the proposed ridge line, we will have a truly amazing park & trail network to enjoy, a few extra $$ for the town & schools & some nice new gracious neighbors that will spend their money locally.

For all this I'll (reluctantly albeit) give up my little private hiking area for the benefit of the better public's interest.


Posted by Bruce, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on May 11, 2010 at 12:15 pm

How does one define a ridge? An anthill has a ridge. Shall we protect all anthills in Pleasanton. As I drive around town, the Western ridge is visible from everywhere. There may be 2 or 3 streets that can see the eastern hills and I 100% back the protection of the Western ridge, but the NIMBYS are really trying to pull one over on the electorate. By voting no on D, all you're going to do is protect Kottinger Ranch owners from someone having a house higer on the hill than theirs. Please try and vote with common sense. The developement will provide money to the schools and city, provide parkland to the citizens and provide some much needed jobs in a very depressed industry


Posted by Simple, a resident of Foxborough Estates
on May 11, 2010 at 12:15 pm

No one is answering where is the money coming from for the "no on D" campaign. It is clear to me that it coming from a faction that reflects mostly a Kottinger Ranch resident or several residents. It's astounding that people who live in a neighborhood that has many more visible ridges than the proposed Oak Grove could be so against someone else living in the same are. The proposed trail head is _really_ what is at stake hear. Those selfish nimby's in Kottinger simply don't want others in town to share what they already have. This is not about development, it is about simple selfishness. Again IMHO.


Posted by Joey, a resident of Mission Park
on May 11, 2010 at 12:29 pm

Jennifer, I don't think too highly of you as our mayor, but I have to admit that is a pretty good offer.

I voted to repeal the Oak Grove development, only because I felt this is large enough of an issue for the voters to decide. I haven't committed one way or the other, but I'm sure by the time the election comes around I will have the knowledge that I need.


Posted by Arroyo, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2010 at 12:42 pm

If you don't want to see homes built on the property, buy it from the Lin family. It's pretty simple.

I see a large tract of land that is currently locked off and I have no access. After Yes on D passes, I will have access to over 400 acres of the property.

When Kay Ayala was busy voting yes on issues that many of us did not want passed, it was too bad for us. However, when she lost the vote on this private property land use issue, she got her panties in a bunch and launched her disingenuous attempt to get the Council's decision reversed.

I'm voting YES ON D.


Posted by incorrect?, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2010 at 12:51 pm

only asking so stay calm- has the developer been passing any money around to assist our our decision making?


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2010 at 12:54 pm

There should be no vote regarding this, period. The land is privately owned and the city zoned it as residential and approved housing development on it. Now you want to tell these people they can't develop it. Thats like some people deciding that there are too many people in Pleasanton so they get a bunch of people to sign a petition, through intimidation and false statements, so that it goes on the ballot that your property should no longer be zoned residential and you cannot sell your house to anyone planning to live in it. Sure you can continue to own it or sell it to someone that just wants to look at it sitting there but no one can live there because we need to reduce population. It is the same thing. A small group of people decided they wanted, for their own selfish reasons, to change the rules after the fact. So what if you were told you could sell your house as a residence when you bought it? They did the same thing to the people who owned the almond farm on Foothill Road. I can't believe our court system allows property owners rights to be taken away like this over and over again. The housing cap has been overturned but this faction wants to take away property owners rights to build as ALREADY APPROVED one development at a time and force property owners to spend hundreds of thousands or more to uphold their rights. It absolutely infuriates me.


Posted by Joe, a resident of Downtown
on May 11, 2010 at 1:21 pm

NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY from what I've read and people I've talked to. The people of Pleasanton shouldn't even be voting on this issue...this is why we have a planning commission and a city council. If you don't like their decision then vote them out or change the minds of the zoning comm. As I said earlier if you want this land to be "free space" then BUY THE PROPERTY from the current owners.
A lot of people rant and rave against this development, but how many have actually been there to see the site..I have...and I would hope that you NO voters will take the mayor up on her offer and GO SEE FOR YOURSELF "cuz the genie ain't goin' back in the bottle".


Posted by Love Our parks, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on May 11, 2010 at 1:32 pm

Yes on D---is a great deal for our city------parks and park access is always a priority


Posted by Yes on D, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Jessica posted, "If we keep adding homes we will need to add schools! Will this money that is supposed to be given if this passes cover THAT cost? I say NO ON D"

Jessica, are you not aware that every campus in Pleasanton has empty classrooms and laid off teachers at this time? While we're thinking about those classrooms, let's do a little math. 51 homes--let's say EVERY family in the homes has 2-3 children (a high estimate). Let's say EVERY one of those children is school aged. That would be about 125 new students or about 10 oer grade level at the very most. These children would help provide money to fill those empty classrooms and hire back teachers. 125 students would not necessitate a new school. Class dismissed.


Posted by Joe, a resident of Downtown
on May 11, 2010 at 1:58 pm

This thought just "popped" into my brain...if the NO/D people win and this project is rejected, and since Pleasanton lost the "housing cap" in court, and since the area is zoned "residential", and since Pleasanton is required to provide "low income housing" then wouldn't this land be the perfect place for LOW INCOME HOUSING? Maybe my thought processes are askew, but I think the NO/D people better take the better deal and vote YES.


Posted by No on D, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm

Joe and "Yes" people.. Why don't we just keep approving developments all over the valley? There is lots of open space and we KNOW from current experience, developed land is worth more than agricultural land. Land owners will pay for politicans' campaigns, so let's take them up on it. Why deny anyone the Lins or anyone else that has land and wants to build it?

Why? Because more people will change this quaint little city we live in. At what point do we say, Smart Growth or NO Growth? Maybe, homes located within in-fill areas near transit with green construction and small carbon footprint MAY make sense. I don't know.

However, we must take into consideration the whole affect of the additional houses. Smart growth is more than just Taiwanese land owner's property rights, cut off ridges and politican contributions.

Bottomline, more houses and more people will not balance school budgets or improve the character, crime statistics, traffic, city budget, etc. And we know for a fact, more people living on our south east hills will remove our ridgetops forever.

Vote No on D/No on Development of the ridges.


Posted by fact checker, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm

The school district has already included children from the Oak Grove area in their future projections. At one time it was around 51 and i think the last time it was projected at around 41.

Vote Yes on Measure D


Posted by No on D, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 11, 2010 at 2:12 pm

Joe, perhaps you ought to lay down. Those little thought bubbles over your head are started to burst.


Posted by NO ON D, a resident of Avignon
on May 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm

We need to vote NO on D to stop the development of more high-end homes in Pleasanton. What we need are affordable homes for the needy and those who cannot afford to buy a home otherwise. Let's not waste more land on big expensive homes and vote No on D.


Posted by Joe, a resident of Downtown
on May 11, 2010 at 2:27 pm

To "No on D"...Why don't you address the message-LOW INCOME HOUSING-instead of trying to make fun of the messenger, in this case me, and point out why the land couldn't be used for low income housing. When you "attack" the poster you remove yourself from the discussion, but when you "attack" the comment you add to the discussion.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 11, 2010 at 2:37 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

If we need more affordable housing, vote Yes on D. Measure D requires the developer to build 20 affordable housing units elsewhere in the City.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 11, 2010 at 2:39 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

No on D,

Why should the valley floor alone be burdened with supporting "smart growth"? We've built over all our agricultural land! Instead we should have built in the mountains and left the valley floor alone to grow food. Allow the rivers to inundate the valley floor again! We need that marshland!


Posted by David Cannon, a resident of Birdland
on May 11, 2010 at 2:56 pm

David Cannon is a registered user.

I am voting Yes on D.
Reasons:
1. The property is owned by a private party (I sure would not want my property rights taken away from me).
2. The land is and has been zoned for low density residential development. Additionally, the total number of homes has been reduced to only 51.
3. The planning commission retains the ability to approve and disapprove each building site/plan.
4. Through a prolonged (years) negotiation process the city will be granted a huge amount of land which will be protected from this point forward.
5. Adequate development funds will be paid to the city.
6. Adequate funds will be paid to the schools.
7. The city has negotiated an incredible deal for the city with the Lin family.
8. If the No on D folks win, then the Lin family will have every right to legally claim that the city has caused them a financial loss. They will have an excellent legal position to file suit against the city (our tax dollars will be paying for the lawyers).

Vote YES on D.


Posted by Ito, a resident of Downtown
on May 11, 2010 at 3:41 pm

I believe Joe is on to something. We should in fact build low income high density housing on the hills. We are going to be required to do it anyway so why no do it as part of the initiative?


Posted by Joe, a resident of Downtown
on May 11, 2010 at 3:46 pm

Although there is way too much to read in the voter info pamphlet some things do stick out. Consider...THE NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE.
"The Oak Grove site is designated for residential development under the Pleasanton General Plan. As noted above in the discussion of the "no project" scenario, it may reasonably be assumed that, if the current proposal should not be approved, an alternative proposal would be brought forward. No development is, therefore, not a feasible alternative...."
Even if you vote no development of that area is not going away unless the General Plan gets changed or you "pool" your money and buy the land.


Posted by MarieB, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 11, 2010 at 4:06 pm

Yes on D

Voting yes on D is not a vote against affordable housing.

Allowing legally zoned and appropriately planned development of high-end homes, while adding dedicated open space to the community does not equate to anti-affordable housing efforts.

We can and will have both. Clouding this issue and the facts with emotional triggers does not preserve what we all love about living here.


Posted by Ann Pfaff-Doss, a resident of Val Vista
on May 11, 2010 at 4:11 pm

For those who would like a tour of the property, the Oak Grove website has a form for signing up for tours. Web Link You could also call their number 485-3772 and asked to be included. Their are two that I know of on May 16th, one at 1:00 pm and the other at 2:30.

Pleasanton is the town it is because of smart growth choices, not no-growth choices. In the 1930s a dog slept most of the day in the middle of Main Street without being disturbed. In the 1970s, there were three department stores in the Valley and none of them was in Pleasanton. There was a lot more open space, but the town was very short on amenities.

The no-growth chants are not new. Forty years ago people wanted to keep the cows in the valley, but didn't want to help the dairy farmers stay in business. You can't ask other people to pay for your scenery.

You create your General Plan so that you get a balance. Development on the Oak Grove property is in compliance with that plan, plus we gain a large chunk of dedicated open space.

The hills south of town were always a good place to hike, and once there is a park there, everyone will have access.

Vote Yes on D.


Posted by Hector, a resident of Downtown
on May 11, 2010 at 4:33 pm

We need to show the fat, lazy, uber-rich people of Pleasanton that this is *our* town, and we have every right to the hills around it! They may pay the taxes that fuel this town, but we live here too, and they owe us! We're the ones who cook their meals, we're the ones who clean their houses, and we're the ones who educate their spoiled brat kids! They may be the ones with the big paychecks, but we outnumber them, and we will take our share!

Yes on Measure D!


Posted by Nosy Neighbors, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on May 11, 2010 at 4:35 pm

Joe...that's brilliant! Low income (for Pleasanton standards)housing on the ridge. Go & sign me up for a nice 3500-4000 sq. ft' house on a 1/2 acre lot that I'll be able to buy for under $600K. I'll learn to deal with the mobile park & quarry views & somehow suck it up.

Seriously people, don't even joke about this & give the Urban Knuckleheads any ideas. You want the hills to look like Dublin? Go ahead & vote no on D. Some crafty developer is probably drooling over just the very thought of the ridge littered with little ugly condo's.


Posted by Michelle, a resident of Del Prado
on May 11, 2010 at 4:44 pm

Hey "Nosy Neighbors", what's wrong with condos? Just because you think they're ugly doesn't make it so. What's wrong with putting affordable housing in the area of the proposed Oak Grove development? People on fixed incomes have just as much right as anyone else to this area. It's about time Pleasanton started investing in us for a change instead of the Ruby Hill crowd.


Posted by Condos on ridge - YES. NO on D!, a resident of Bridle Creek
on May 11, 2010 at 4:53 pm

I like the idea of low-income/affordable condos on the hills. The view can be enjoyed by more people and we can diverse the demographics in the hill area. It's un-American to offer such a great view and piece of property to those who are filthy rich. Commoners should be able to enjoy living in an area with a view. So please vote NO on D and YES on affordable housing in the hills!!!!


Posted by Condos on ridge - YES. NO on D!, a resident of Bridle Creek
on May 11, 2010 at 4:53 pm

I like the idea of low-income/affordable condos on the hills. The view can be enjoyed by more people and we can diverse the demographics in the hill area. It's un-American to offer such a great view and piece of property to those who are filthy rich. Commoners should be able to enjoy living in an area with a view. So please vote NO on D and YES on affordable housing in the hills!!!!


Posted by Nosy Neighbors, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on May 11, 2010 at 5:10 pm

Sorry, should have prefaced my posting with...

[THE FOLLOWING POST CONTAINS SARCASM, IRONY & SOME DISPARAGING COMMENTS AIMED AT UGLY, DENSE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS]

The blight that I refer to is the massive sea of Condo-World that is the development in Dublin just north of 580. If you think that will never find it's way to this town just wait. Whether it's next to BART or up in the hills, somebody will eventually build it.

Hey, compared to the $2-3+ Million that the ridge line homes will be going for $600K IS low income housing for that area.


Posted by What Will Be Built Instead, a resident of Vineyard Hills
on May 11, 2010 at 10:18 pm

I have no respect for how three of our council persons handled this whole application, bypassing the planning department and planning commission. I also have no respect for the Lins and the Judge that came up with such flimsy excuses for tossing out the petition to put this matter before the voters. However, all of that is done and past, and regardless of whether this proposition passes or fails none of the above folks will be suffer. At the same time we have Governor-elect Jerry Brown and others of his political persuasion telling us that Pleasanton must build its "fair share" of bottom-end housing. The Lins could make a very handsome profit by building 100s of high density, government-subsidized apartments in the valleys of their land. All the crime and traffic would then flow out into Pleasanton's adjacent neighborhoods (I live in one of them). I will take 51 mega-mansions on top of the ridges any day. I am voting Yes on D. This could be a whole lot worse!


Posted by sknywench, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on May 12, 2010 at 6:11 pm

Becky Dennis and Delores Bengston SUPPORT MEASURE D. They are primarily responsible for the preservation of the Pleasanton Ridge. They are certainly credible and knowledgeable. I think we Pleasantonians can trust them alot more than NIMBY neighbors and certainly more than Kay Ayala who is just plain angry at the world. The development area on the OG property will NOT be visible to the community, the homes will not be on the ridgeline, and design guidelines will ensure proper placement , building architecture and tree replanting. Lets VOTE YES ON D, and acquire approx. 500 acres of permanent open space as well as needed school and development fees


Posted by More YES, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 13, 2010 at 11:23 am

It is right to THINK....WHAT will be built instead !! It coulda/shoulda been the 98 homes. Instead Pleasanton will get an almost 500 acres beautiful open ridge-park with view and trails and 51 magnificent homes with owners that are required to plant a minimum of 15 oak trees (choice from 3 native oak varities). ...PLUS the tax windfall for the city. It is a win-win.
Sadly, so many EMOTIONAL selfish, narrow-minded people have charged forward without the facts. Along with their emotion however, they have blanked the city with signs and sadly their signs deliver the NO message. The YES signs do not do the job...the signs would have been better with just THICK, BOLD, YES on D, and nothing else. The MESSAGE to remember is ... Y E S on D. I don't know who's on the sign committee, but signs don't cut it. SAD. D is RIGHT for Pleasanton.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 13, 2010 at 11:49 am

Stacey is a registered user.

I finally saw one of the yes signs. The essential message sure does disappear into thin air.


Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of Country Fair
on May 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm

Yup. If 'D' loses, how about a new proposal from the Lins for 4,000 units of section 8 housing on Oak Grove. Jerry Brown would go for that. Given he helped overturn the voter's will on the housing cap, surely he can overturn PP/QQ and anything else required. And then get federal money to put public transit bus lines into the hills. Put a northern entrance into the land so cars/buses can go out to Livermore. Then the Lins could negotiate it down to 2,000 units and add some small parks to show they can compromise with big bad Pleasanton.
On second thought......Yes on D, it's a win-win for all.


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 13, 2010 at 6:46 pm

Becky Dennis and Delores Bengston were campaigning against ridgeline protections in the last election. In fact, whenever there is housing being proposed at the city council, Becky seems to be there in support. Becky was lobbying for tens of thousands of new homes in the current General Plan. Delores had nothing to do with the protection of the Pleasanton Ridge. I believe she was an employee of the city at that time.

On school fees, both current and former school board members have been stating that this development will not be helping the schools finances. It seems the proponents of the developer keep repeating this misinformation, hoping that people will believe it if they hear it enough times.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 13, 2010 at 7:07 pm

Anonymous, I'm not sure this represents the whole story on school funding. Each child brings ADA and each new house brings facility money. So it is not like there is no funding coming to the district. i said somewhere out here, are we asking for a moratorium on children? Because then no one should be allowed to sell a home to families with school aged children.


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 13, 2010 at 8:35 pm

Each child that goes to our schools bring ADA but we also have to educate that student. The school district has been going after parcel taxes because they say the ADA is not enough to educate our students.

I have not heard a moratorium on children but rather do not fall for the developers ads that the schools are getting additional revenue each year from this development. You can decide whether you think the development is good or bad. The school fees should not be part of your decision as the yearly fees are actually offset by additional expenses; possibly more than the income, and the facility fees are to pay for that developments impact for the additional students; not to help our current situation.

You are trying to twist around the argument that the school fees not helping our current school problems is the same as us wanting a moratorium on kids.

If we want more kids and the ADA that comes with it, we can easily do this by allowing students from outside of Pleasanton to attend our schools. Don't know if you have been to a Pleasanton school registration lately but you have to bring two forms of proof (utility bills) to prove you actually live in Pleasanton in order to register.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 14, 2010 at 6:57 am

Anonymous, The school district has been going after parcel taxes because of special program costs and 85% of the budget is salary and benefits, which are increasing. Every child brings in funding, and in the case of Oak Grove developer--fees for facilities, that cannot completely cover what we are paying in salary and benefits and programs like class size reduction. So ANY child that moves into the district does not bring in enough.

My example before was me--if I sold my house to a family with school aged children, the burden those students brings is the same as any in Oak Grove, except there is no mitigation for facility needs. Bring all the proof that's needed, it doesn't change the fact that if you want to stop growth in enrollment, no existing home should be able to sell to families with school aged children.

Truth is, PUSD actually likes getting enrollment growth . . . and the district can choose to allow inter-district transfers from any other district to ours if they deem there is space to do so. . . . until it hits the tipping point on facilities, it brings in more funding for the budget (salaries and program).

If we are ready to take away the rights of a landowner because of schools, then that should also apply to any homeowner--sell only to people without kids, who don't intend to have kids, or whose kids are grown.

For me, this is a great compromise and a 500 acre start on saving hills in that area. OR, all Pleasanton residents can chip in to pay to buy the land at a fair market price to suit our collective desires for open space. Until then, they are not "our" hills.


Posted by Gimme a Break, a resident of Birdland
on May 14, 2010 at 8:06 am

"all Pleasanton residents can chip in to pay to buy the land at a fair market price"

And then we arm-twist the seller to sell his/her land? Last I checked, property owners still have rights.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 14, 2010 at 8:14 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Why chip in when the developer is going to give 90% of the land to the City with passage of Measure D?


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 14, 2010 at 8:54 am

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point is exactly that the landowner has rights and if we don't like the current compromise, we can offer to buy it to make it "ours." I don't propose that should be the case; it's an alternative choice to us voting away their rights-- pay rather than steal. I am in favor of what has been offered (51 homes and 500 acres of preserved parkland).


Posted by sknywench, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on May 14, 2010 at 11:23 am

To Anonymous, Becky Dennis supported QQ in the last election and that is not the campaigning for destruction of ridgeline protections you call it. Nice of you to gloss over the fact that she was instrumental in the Pleasanton Ridgeline Preservation. No good deed goes unpunished as they say. I dont know where your "tens of thousands" of homes estimate comes from, so please clarify. I know Becky has spoke in favor of affordable housing at Kottinger and other locations to try to comply in some small way with the regional fair share alloted to Pleasanton and which is required by Law. But aside from the history lessons, VOTE YES ON D. 51 homes for 500 acres of permanent public open space is a no brainer.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

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

Moneyball, the Sequel: Billy Beane for President!
By Tom Cushing | 6 comments | 952 views

Spedowfski Announces run for Livermore City Council
By Roz Rogoff | 1 comment | 854 views

Planning the "Pleasanton way"
By Tim Hunt | 8 comments | 802 views

Take Full Advantage of Free Standardized Testing Opportunities
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 297 views