Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Judge delays Oak Grove ruling
Decision comes after tentative ruling in favor of Lin family hours before

by Jeb Bing

It's not over yet for the opponents of the Oak Grove project after Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch delayed making permanent an earlier tenative ruling that favored the development.

The judge had issued a tentative ruling in advance of last Friday's court hearing on legal disputes involving Jennifer Lin and her brother Frederic who own the hilltop land above Kottinger Ranch they want to develop. The tenative ruling also went against former City Councilwoman Kay Ayala and her Save Pleasanton's Hills citizens' group that is trying to stop it.

Roesch delayed his ruling last Friday at the downtown Oakland courthouse after attorneys for the Ayala group showed him 14 pounds of materials that the Lins' attorneys said the group should have carried while seeking signatures on a proposed referendum to overturn the Oak Grove project.

Roesch said he hoped to render a final decision in the next few weeks.

In the previous tentative ruling, Roesch had agreed with the Lins' argument that the signature-gathering effort by Ayala's group was "non-compliant" with the law's requirement that groups seeking a referendum provide those signing their petition to show all documents related to the issue. Roesch said that didn't happen, thereby nullifying the effort.

If the judge were to render a permanent ruling, the Lins, who already have the approval of the Pleasanton City Council to proceed with their project, could start the development. He would also likely ask the Ayala group's Palo Alto lawyers to suggest another remedy. They could ask for another 30 days to conduct a signature-gathering effort again with all of the data Roesch said they should have displayed. Legal analysts say that is unlikely, since the law states that petitioners seeking to overturn a City Council decision have 30 days from that action, a deadline that Ayala's group met by obtaining more than 4,000 signatures, but also a deadline that has long passed.

Of course, Ayala's organization could appeal Roesch's decision, if it goes against them, an action that would delay an outcome for a few months to a year or more. Legal costs for an appeal could also reach $40,000 to $60,000, which Ayala's group might have to pay upfront but could recover from the Lins if the citizens' coalition wins on appeal.

At its meeting Feb. 19, the City Council agreed to schedule hearings on all issues relating to the Oak Grove development if Roesch denied the Lins' petition for a permanent ruling to throw out the Ayala's referendum petition. If he had proceeded with his tentative ruling, the council discussion won't be necessary since the Lins have all they need from the council to proceed with plans to create 51 large luxury home sites in the hills at the end of Hearst Drive in Kottinger Hills.

As part of the development agreement with the council, the Lins also will turn over 456 acres of wooded open space that they own adjacent to the 77-acre housing development. City and community leaders, in land use discussions that have gone on for nearly four years, plan to preserve the open space that they will be given free of charge and eventually connect it to other land parcels along the southeast hills from the Callippe Preserve Golf Course to the Shadow Cliffs Regional Park on Stanley Boulevard.

As part of their agreement, the Lins also agreed to pay the costs of building public trails, equestrian paths, picnic areas and a staging area to be reached by way of Hearst Drive for visitors to the new parkland.

Posted by Sue, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Feb 29, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Finally a voice of reason!

" Roesch's interpretation, at least in his tentative ruling, seems overly strict. If indeed it follows the state code, our legislators should review the law to see if that's really what they intended when placing these requirements on petition proponents. Calling for a referendum should be easier than what Roesch has initially ruled."

Posted by wondering, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Feb 29, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Right you are, Sue. To heck with actually following the law. Let's just make it up as we go! Let's not really read the law, or even really pay attention. Let's just decide what we want to do, and do whatever we want, then complain about how mean the nasty people are who suggest we broke the law.

Posted by Sue, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Mar 1, 2008 at 10:21 am

I do not live near Oakgrove. I am not a primary supporter of the referendum nor do I share many of the concerns that they have. I do support their right to ask the voters to decide.

I have participated in past referendum. This grassroots group of Pleasanton citizens followed every good faith effort and the guidelines given to them by the City Attorney. The financing has been explained. No money was collected; a handful of citizens/neighbors paid independently as needed. They did not meet the threshold to file disclosure. There is no cover up; reasonably neighbors are typically the start of a call to arms.

The continued accusation of wrong-doing is malicious.

Frank, Stacey and Shelly you are bully's, we can not have a real community exchange of thoughts because no one reasonable wants to play with you.

Fast forward to childish response..................

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2008 at 11:11 am

What is more childish? Name calling or self-righteousness?

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2008 at 11:13 am

Sue, at least I've had the courtesy to never call you names on a public forum or denigrate your name.

Posted by Sue, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Mar 1, 2008 at 11:40 am

Stacey,

In review of your posts I regret including your name.

My apology.

Sue

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Apology accepted. We all make mistakes.

Posted by Questioning???, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Sorry Sue, but the handful of neighbors that paid independently as needed met the dollar threshold ($1000, less then the cost of one Weekly ad) for having to file an independent campaign expense disclosure just like political action committees. And i think anyone can reasonably question whether at least one of these neighbors was acting independently when he was pictured with Kay turning in signatures at City Hall. Which then means Kay needed to form a Committee.

What's interesting is that Kay in a very visable manner called for people to follow the money. Please explain why that shouldn't apply to her side? If there's no cover up then why not disclose who these neighbors are and how much they spent? Sorry but it seems to me that what's good for one side should be good for the other side, period. Particularly, in light of all the statements made at City Council meetings by the opponents of Oak Grove.

Posted by Simple, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Mar 2, 2008 at 10:15 pm

One word simple answer the the post above.

HYPOCRITE!!!!!

Posted by confused, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Hypocrite???? What?

Why is asking for transparency hypocritical? I don't get it? Where did the money for the ads et all come from? I would like to know.

Posted by Questioning???, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, on Mar 3, 2008 at 7:34 am

I assume Simple is referring to Kay as the citizen's committee seems to have disclosed all their expenses.

Its like Councilmember McGovern saying she doesn't want any houses built in the hills (opposing Oak Grove) while she herself is living in a house on a hill.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 4, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Just checked DomainWeb. No word yet from the court on a ruling. I guess the Council won't be able to discuss the issue tonight and therefore we're looking at the November ballot if there are no appeals and the judge rules in favor of Ayala.