Original post made
on Nov 30, 2007
An opinion from March 3, 2005 on Oak Grove... well worth another look.
I laugh when I read complaints here about the grading of the ridgelines. Haven't you guys driven around Kottinger Ranch at all? Boy I wonder where you opponents to Oak Grove all were before the Lins (yes the same developer as Oak Grove) developed Kottinger Ranch. Oh wait, you live in Kottinger Ranch...
So it is ok for Kottinger Ranch to have PRIVATE trails on the valley floors between the ridgelines, massive ridgetop grading, and the associated addition to traffic and the schools, but not 51 homes in Oak Grove with a PUBLIC trail? *whew* I bet the Lins are ruing their decision to develop Kottinger Ranch.
Let's not show the public that we have short memories.
"Mayor Jennifer Hosterman, always hostile to development, insulted the Lins with questions regarding their motives and suggested that money was their only interest and they surely have some figure in mind to sell their property to the city for open space."
"The most irksome part of the Kottinger saga is that area residents wrote to City Hall to lament the loss of trees, the increase in traffic, increased school enrollment, and the loss of views. What a bunch of self absorbed, pretentious collection of NIMBYs. They did not even mask their pretentiousness by leaving out "their view" complaint. While every other street is gorged to the gills, these people have the unmitigated gall to suggest that 98 Charter Properties homes will be the straw that breaks the camel's back when it comes to traffic and school enrollment."
"What is more, the City Council is the developer of the Callippe Preserve Golf Course and Open Space and that project was approved to save 400 acres from development. "
Another thing that makes me laugh is when people write about Livermore voters turning down the Livermore Trails proposal and compare it with Oak Grove just because the developer is the same. The two proposals are completely different and the process they went though to get to a final stage were different too. Pleasanton would never even consider a plan to bring 1,200 homes to a ridgetop! Why do you think the developers were talked down from 98 homes to 51? This is like comparing apples to oranges. Please throw out that useless analogy.
By the way, the Lins did not own Livermore Trails...Pardee homes and Weyerhauser did. There is so much bad information out there. Let's let the City Council four-year review of the facts stand. Don't sign the petitions.
Run for Mayor Stacey. You should get your facts right before lip service.
Yea, you're right. I should doublecheck my facts before repeating nonsense written by other people on this forum.
"By the way, this is the same owner who wanted to develop land in North Livermore and called it "Livermore Trails". This development was overwhelmingly voted down by 72% of the residents of Livermore on an initiative. If you want to see other work by this developer, this is the same developer who is proposing a 21 story office building in Dublin.
Posted by long time resident, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 7, 2007 at 6:10 pm"
I would support Oak Grove except for the size of the homes - 12,000sf is too large to fit in with the surrounding neighborhoods and could easily dominate the landscape. I will sign the petition - why let the city take away our right to vote on this?
I think Matt Morrison's comparison of Oak Grove to the Pleasanton Ridge with the "Hayward Hotel" is slightly misleading. The Pleasanton Ridge is a primary ridgeline visible from the entire valley floor and building upon it affects everyone. The area around Oak Grove is not a primary ridgeline. It is more secondary or even tertiary. Take a look at a photo like here: Web Link The "Hayward Hotel" is on a ridgeline comparable to the one directly in the center while the Oak Grove lots are pointed out as being on a secondary ridgeline that is not easily visible.
Contrast this with looking at Dublin's buildout to the north where the homes are visible from practically everywhere.
A smart ridgeline ordinance would take the differences in primary, secondary, and tertiary type ridgelines into consideration. The initiative does not provide this. Keep the City's hands free to create a taskforce to compose a smart ridgeline initiative. Don't sign the initiative petition.
Not one home has been approved! The city council approved 51 LOTS with maximum size restrictions. There are only 3 lots that COULD BE as big as 12,500 sq ft. EVERY home must go through design review and planning. In addition, the city council approved many conditions for this project regarding height restriction, visibility, etc. The sites are located where impacts are less significant. All homes will be no more that 30 feet tall with single story homes on the most visible lots no more than 25 feet tall. Most of Oak Grove will go unseen to the rest of Pleasanton unless you go for a hike at the beautiful new park.
Elections are rarely the time or place for quality community dialogue. I am thankful to all of our public servants out there from commissioners to councilmembers who work hard to stay informed and try their best to make the best decisions for ALL of Pleasanton.
Stacey - if I were here when Kottinger was being built, I may have joined the forces to fight that one too. But, I wasn't and maybe that's a shame. It doesn't preclude my right to fight further development, does it? Regarding your post about "Pleasanton would never consider ridge top homes", what about Measure V? Because that passed, we got a reduction of something like 1500 homes off of Bernal (and forgive me, I may not have the exact number, but I'd have to look it up). Please don't believe for one minute that something like that doesn't happen here - it did! You had a comment about the city having a "smart ridgeline task force". Where did you get this? I haven't heard of such a thing. Please reference that if it's correct. If there were a task force in effect, these initiatives might not be in play here.
Angela - yes, the homes do have to be approved. I just found out that a 16,000 square foot home was recently approved in the Vineyard Corridor. What makes you think these size homes wouldn't get approved on these ridges? First off, it only takes a majority vote and there are probaby a majority pro-growth people on both the Planning Commission and Council. Second, do you honestly think the developer will build small homes up there? These are view top lots. They are not going to be 1500-2500 square foot homes that the average home buyer can afford. And, if I'm not mistaken, the 30 foot height restriction you mention, isn't that 3 stories?
Yes, our commissioners and council members do put a lot of time and effort into serving their city. That is definitely the case no matter what their viewpoints and opinions are. However, there are times when the residents feel that they make decisions that are not in sync with the majority of their constituents. That is when citizens feel compelled to act. Please allow them their right to do so. If the council's decision represent what the majority of the people want, then that will be reflected in a vote of the people. I don't understand why they can't see that.
I bought this house in Pleasanton because I wanted to live and raise my family in a small town. It seems everyone is dazzled by the idea of a "free" hiking trail, but at what cost... more houses and more people. I would rather have a small town with less homes, small local owned shops and walk down the street to see people I know.
No big box stores, no big huge chain restaurants, no huge houses on the hills.
I think Pleasanton is almost perfect -- no leave it alone.
And I will stand up to anyone who says that is wrong!