Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Editorial
Taxpayers shouldn't foot costs for Oak Grove appeal

At long last, the City Council will hold a special meeting Tuesday to discuss if the city of Pleasanton and its taxpayers should pay the cost of appealing a Superior Court decision that, in effect, supported the council's decision on Oak Grove. Oak Grove is the proposed 51-luxury-home development proposed for a 600-acre site atop Kottinger Ranch and Vintage Hills, where the developer also has agreed to turn over 496 acres to the city of Pleasanton for hiking, equestrian trails and a nature park. Following the council's 4-1 vote last November to allow Oak Grove to proceed, a citizens' coalition--Save Pleasanton's Hills--organized and led by former Councilwoman Kay Ayala, spent the next 30 days collecting signatures on petitions seeking to force a referendum to overturn the council's action. The Alameda County Registrar's office later affirmed that the group had collected more than the 3,700 signatures needed from registered Pleasanton voters, as required by law. However, the Oak Grove developers, Jennifer Lin and her brother Frederic, filed a suit through their attorneys to block certification of the voter petitions on grounds that they were improperly obtained. Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch agreed and, in a decision rendered last Feb. 22, ruled against Ayala, thus allowing the council's decision to stand. It's that decision that Ayala and Save Pleasanton's Hills are appealing before the First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Ayala and others now have asked the council to pay for the appeal, arguing that since 4,000 to 5,000 voters here signed the anti-Oak Grove petition, the city should represent them in court. She is also seeking financial help from other organizations, including the Sierra Club and the ALCU. The costs of arguing an appeal through to conclusion is estimated at $40,000 to $50,000, and Ayala said neither she nor her organization have those kinds of funds. In recent weeks, several residents--but not many--have joined Ayala before the City Council to support her bid for financial help. Others, including the Lins' development representative, Atty. Marty Inderbitzen, have argued that the Superior Court ruling should stand and it's time to get on with the Oak Grove project. But so far, hamstrung by rules preventing them from discussing pending legal action, councilmembers have been unable to discuss Oak Grove. However, with Judge Roesch's ruling now recorded, the council must decide if it wants to appeal a ruling that went its way. Tuesday will be its first opportunity as a group, with the public invited to give its views at the start of the 6:30 p.m. meeting and then councilmembers to discuss the question among themselves in a closed session with City Manager Nelson Fialho and City Attorney Michael Roush. Following their discussion, the council will report out on any decision it made in closed session. Each councilmember is expected to speak publicly for the first time about Roesch's decision and if they think the city should join Ayala in an appeal or let her and her organization fight that legal battle on their own.

It's been four years since the Lins filed a development plan for Oak Grove. There have been dozens of public meetings and opportunities for the community to weigh in on whether the project should move forward. The City Council, after workshop meetings and public hearings, decided in a 4-1 vote that the 51-home development, accompanied by the largest land grant ever given to Pleasanton, would be good for the community. It would make no sense to us for the council and taxpayers of Pleasanton to now reverse course and appeal a decision that supports the development. We should use our resources to advance other public projects and let the Ayala appeal run its course.

Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2008 at 4:07 pm

I have yet to discover any legal assessment, impartial or otherwise, of the likelihood that an appeal of this judgement may be accepted by the appeals court and an assessment of the likelihood that it may subsequently succeed.

I would expect that our city attorney would develop such an assessment and present it to council since such information is a necessary component for their consideration, irrespective of on what side of the political issue one may sit.

I suspect the principals in this situation have already been advised that the appeal will be throwing good money after bad, but are using politics to bait our council in footing the bill at taxpayers' expense.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2008 at 7:20 pm

I'm trying to watch the meeting via the live webcast. It looks like the City's streaming server is very slow. I assume since the meeting isn't being broadcast on TV30 that everyone is trying to watch on the webcast. This sucks! I'm only hearing bits and pieces.

Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2008 at 8:03 pm

The assumption here is that the video webcast of council meetings is from streaming servers owned by the city. If this is true, local democracy would be far better served if the city spent some money on technology so its citizens can participate in city processes rather than funding the attorneys for a faction to appeal the faction's mistakes in the courts.

Yes, the webcast is a disaster.