News

City Council sets Oak Grove hearings for March 4

Move comes even before Friday's court decision on legal feud

The City Council Tuesday night agreed to schedule a series of public discussions March 4 on the controversial Oak Grove project, a multi-million-dollar luxury home and open space plan it approved last fall for the hills above Kottinger Ranch and Vintage Hills.

With the clock running toward a March 7 deadline for scheduling a possible referendum on Oak Grove on the state primary ballot on June 3, Councilwoman Cheryl Cook-Kallio said she wanted everything in place if legal disputes affecting Oak Grove are resolved Friday, as expected.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch has scheduled hearings on Friday morning on a request by Oak Grove landowners Jennifer Lin and her brother Frederic to declare invalid signatures gathered by former Councilwoman Kay Ayala and her citizens' coalition Save Pleasanton's Hills. Ayala and the organization collected more than 4,000 signatures from registered Pleasanton voters last fall seeking to overturn the council's decision that approved the project.

Another Superior Court Judge, Ken Burr, substituting for Roesch at the time, granted the Lins a temporary order restraining the County Registrar from certifying the signatures until the Lins' suit could be heard in full by Roesch, as scheduled on Friday. The Lins are arguing that Ayala and Save Pleasanton's Hills used deceptive tactics and failed to adhere to other rules in seeking voter signatures. They want Roesch to grant a permanent injunction that would invalidate the signatures so that they can get on with their project.

Ayala countered with a motion also filed in Superior Court that seeks the dismissal of the Lins' suit on grounds that it violates a state statute that protects individuals from "Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation, known as SLAPP. Roesch is expected to decide that claim on Friday also.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

At issue is the council's approval for the Lins to develop 51 large custom homesites on 77 acres of the nearly 600 acres of wooded hilltop land the Lins own. As part of its approval, the council also approved a development agreement with the Lins that would turn the rest of their property over to the city at no charge.

Pleasanton intends to use the acreage for trails, picnic grounds and equestrian paths. The council also will seek similar agreements with other adjacent landowners to create a 2,000-acre swatch of open space along the southeast hills of Pleasanton.

If Roesch decides Friday that the Lins' suit has merit and cancels the Ayala signature-gathering results, his decision would effectively end the dispute. If the Lins lose in court, however, then the County Registrar can certify the signatures collected by Ayala and her group as sufficient in numbers to call for a referendum.

In that scenario, the council, at its March 4 meeting, would likely consolidate its response to the citizens' coalition in four steps:

• Certify the signatures, as counted by the Registrar's office.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

• Vote to rescind its approval of the Oak Grove project or vote to place the measure on a public ballot on June 3.

• Adopt ballot language prepared by City Atty. Michael Roush formally describing the referendum and asking voters to approve or not approve an ordinance rescinding the council's action.

• Establish a referendum document containing Roush's formal language of the measure, with others writing arguments for and against the referendum.

At their meeting Tuesday night, council members noted the many variables that could affect their plan to move forward on March 4. But by officially placing the Oak Grove project on its agenda, the council can postpone or extend its four-part vote on the measure right up to the March 7 deadline.

If the council would decide to rescind its approval of the project, the issue would end without a referendum and with the Lins unable to build Oak Grove. The developer agreement between the city and the Lins for the 496-acre land grant to Pleasanton also would be cancelled.

Although most on the council appeared to favor placing the referendum on the primary ballot on June 3 if the referendum survives the Superior Court decision Friday and the council's action on March 4, Councilwoman Cindy McGovern said she wouldn't mind seeing the issue voted on at the General Election on Nov. 4.

That would move the Oak Grove debate into the municipal election campaign as well. Mayor Jennifer Hosterman and Councilman Matt Sullivan, who have announced that they will seek reelection to their posts, favor Oak Grove. McGovern, who is also eligible to seek another term on the council but has not yet announced her candidacy, opposes the project.

Roush said state law requires that a referendum on a local issue such as Oak Grove be placed on the ballot at the next election, or as part of the state primary on June 3. The council also could pay for a special election, or could wait until the Nov. 4 General Election.

All parties involved in the Oak Grove dispute could also appeal any Superior Court decision, a process that could take a year or longer as that appeal goes through the courts.

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow PleasantonWeekly.com and the Pleasanton Weekly on Twitter @pleasantonnews, Facebook and on Instagram @pleasantonweekly for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

City Council sets Oak Grove hearings for March 4

Move comes even before Friday's court decision on legal feud

by / Pleasanton Weekly

Uploaded: Wed, Feb 20, 2008, 4:37 pm

The City Council Tuesday night agreed to schedule a series of public discussions March 4 on the controversial Oak Grove project, a multi-million-dollar luxury home and open space plan it approved last fall for the hills above Kottinger Ranch and Vintage Hills.

With the clock running toward a March 7 deadline for scheduling a possible referendum on Oak Grove on the state primary ballot on June 3, Councilwoman Cheryl Cook-Kallio said she wanted everything in place if legal disputes affecting Oak Grove are resolved Friday, as expected.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch has scheduled hearings on Friday morning on a request by Oak Grove landowners Jennifer Lin and her brother Frederic to declare invalid signatures gathered by former Councilwoman Kay Ayala and her citizens' coalition Save Pleasanton's Hills. Ayala and the organization collected more than 4,000 signatures from registered Pleasanton voters last fall seeking to overturn the council's decision that approved the project.

Another Superior Court Judge, Ken Burr, substituting for Roesch at the time, granted the Lins a temporary order restraining the County Registrar from certifying the signatures until the Lins' suit could be heard in full by Roesch, as scheduled on Friday. The Lins are arguing that Ayala and Save Pleasanton's Hills used deceptive tactics and failed to adhere to other rules in seeking voter signatures. They want Roesch to grant a permanent injunction that would invalidate the signatures so that they can get on with their project.

Ayala countered with a motion also filed in Superior Court that seeks the dismissal of the Lins' suit on grounds that it violates a state statute that protects individuals from "Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation, known as SLAPP. Roesch is expected to decide that claim on Friday also.

At issue is the council's approval for the Lins to develop 51 large custom homesites on 77 acres of the nearly 600 acres of wooded hilltop land the Lins own. As part of its approval, the council also approved a development agreement with the Lins that would turn the rest of their property over to the city at no charge.

Pleasanton intends to use the acreage for trails, picnic grounds and equestrian paths. The council also will seek similar agreements with other adjacent landowners to create a 2,000-acre swatch of open space along the southeast hills of Pleasanton.

If Roesch decides Friday that the Lins' suit has merit and cancels the Ayala signature-gathering results, his decision would effectively end the dispute. If the Lins lose in court, however, then the County Registrar can certify the signatures collected by Ayala and her group as sufficient in numbers to call for a referendum.

In that scenario, the council, at its March 4 meeting, would likely consolidate its response to the citizens' coalition in four steps:

• Certify the signatures, as counted by the Registrar's office.

• Vote to rescind its approval of the Oak Grove project or vote to place the measure on a public ballot on June 3.

• Adopt ballot language prepared by City Atty. Michael Roush formally describing the referendum and asking voters to approve or not approve an ordinance rescinding the council's action.

• Establish a referendum document containing Roush's formal language of the measure, with others writing arguments for and against the referendum.

At their meeting Tuesday night, council members noted the many variables that could affect their plan to move forward on March 4. But by officially placing the Oak Grove project on its agenda, the council can postpone or extend its four-part vote on the measure right up to the March 7 deadline.

If the council would decide to rescind its approval of the project, the issue would end without a referendum and with the Lins unable to build Oak Grove. The developer agreement between the city and the Lins for the 496-acre land grant to Pleasanton also would be cancelled.

Although most on the council appeared to favor placing the referendum on the primary ballot on June 3 if the referendum survives the Superior Court decision Friday and the council's action on March 4, Councilwoman Cindy McGovern said she wouldn't mind seeing the issue voted on at the General Election on Nov. 4.

That would move the Oak Grove debate into the municipal election campaign as well. Mayor Jennifer Hosterman and Councilman Matt Sullivan, who have announced that they will seek reelection to their posts, favor Oak Grove. McGovern, who is also eligible to seek another term on the council but has not yet announced her candidacy, opposes the project.

Roush said state law requires that a referendum on a local issue such as Oak Grove be placed on the ballot at the next election, or as part of the state primary on June 3. The council also could pay for a special election, or could wait until the Nov. 4 General Election.

All parties involved in the Oak Grove dispute could also appeal any Superior Court decision, a process that could take a year or longer as that appeal goes through the courts.

Comments

Stacey
Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 20, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Stacey, Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 20, 2008 at 5:56 pm

PW, you forgot to mention the third scenario, which would be the possibility of one of the parties appealing to a higher court. It is possible that could delay a vote further until a November election.


slinky
Amador Estates
on Feb 20, 2008 at 7:39 pm
slinky, Amador Estates
on Feb 20, 2008 at 7:39 pm

The headline seems wrong. The court hearing is on Friday, not today. Right?


frank
Pleasanton Heights
on Feb 20, 2008 at 8:19 pm
frank, Pleasanton Heights
on Feb 20, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Yes, there is no "today's decision". Later in the text is written
"If Roesch decides Friday that..."

Seems like this article was written for Friday's publication.

Also, I agree that this complaint is a likely candidate for appeal if the Lin's lose, because the Appellate courts have been the primary venue to settle land use disputes vis a vis Election Law. All of this is a consequence of the fact that California has in its constitution an initiative and referendum process that is very liberal. Recall that few states in the union have the same and most have such process at all.


Karen
Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Feb 21, 2008 at 9:25 am
Karen, Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Feb 21, 2008 at 9:25 am

Even if the Restraining order is lifted on Friday, it looks like the best bet is to assume the council will push this through to the June 3 election. BTW, do judges normally form and offer their decisions the same day, or do they take it under advisement then get back to us in a few days?

The election will be very intersting come Novemeber. If OG goes down BIG in June by a vote of the citizens of Pleasanton, and councilmember Sullivan and Mayor Hosterman are on record as supporting, their offices could be at risk. Canidate Dan Faustino has said he also supports OG.

If Ayala's statements are true, and I have no reason to doubt them, signature collection - even in the Thanksgiving Holiday timeframe was easy - the majority could stand against OG and against the two of them.

Anyone intested in running on the Anti OG ticket?


Karen
Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Feb 21, 2008 at 9:28 am
Karen, Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Feb 21, 2008 at 9:28 am

Then there is the other option, as frank stated. If this goes to the Appellate courts and ultimately ends up on the November ballot... Again, the November election could be interesting with OG a pivotal issue that divides the voters of this town and helps characterize the candidates.


sad to say
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 21, 2008 at 1:14 pm
sad to say, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 21, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Oak Grove won't divide Pleasanton. Hypocrisy leadership will!


Angela
Heritage Valley
on Feb 27, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Angela, Heritage Valley
on Feb 27, 2008 at 11:18 pm

"Push this through to the June 3 ballot"? Karen, I thought that is what you all wanted, a vote on Oak Grove.

Actually, an appeal could push this longer than that. To get on the November ballot, that decision must be made by mid-August. The appeals court is slow...


Karen
Vintage Hills
on Feb 28, 2008 at 10:19 am
Karen, Vintage Hills
on Feb 28, 2008 at 10:19 am

Actually Angela, what I really want is for our Council to wake up and listen to their constituents. I strongly believe the majority of people in this town do NOT want OG, and they want their ridge lines & hilltops protected for perpetuity.

Since that is a smoke dream, I personally would like to see this on the ballot in June '08. If that doesn't happen, putting OG to a vote to the people in November would be more fun. Elected officials that voted in favor of OG, will find out just how commonly held their opinions are. It will also give the candidates a chance to fully present their points of view, which they claim they have NOT been able to do to the 5200 signers. Rather than promises, actual Council votes will reflect the Member's opinions and points of views.

The last Mayorial election was decided by less than 200 votes, and this could be a deciding factor. One thing is for sure, it will be a much bigger issue than improper use of email...


Stacey
Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 28, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Stacey, Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 28, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Karen,
As per the article in The Independent today regarding Pleasanton City Council's work plan for this year, I hope you are writing to City Council to encourage them to work on the development of a hillside ordinance if you truly care about this issue.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.