Town Square

Post a New Topic

Letter: 'No' on Measure D

Original post made on Apr 16, 2010

Dear Editor,

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, April 16, 2010, 12:00 AM

Comments (11)

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 16, 2010 at 10:11 am

Stacey is a registered user.

When someone quotes a staff report or meeting minutes, I encourage interested readers to dig further into the referenced document and not take the quote at face value because it could be taken out of context.

Here's the referenced staff report: Web Link and here's the minutes from that meeting which are also enlightening: Web Link

Notice that the quote is taken from a staff report for "Kottinger Hills", which was the name given at the very beginning of the process that lead to the latest proposal, 51-home Oak Grove with 500 acre parkland dedication to the City, etc. In other words, the quote describes the overall property, not specific details of the Oak Grove project that is being put to a vote.

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 16, 2010 at 10:14 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Oh yea, and don't forget to look at the screenshot I took from Google Earth of the Oak Grove property to see what this "main east-west trending ridge" is, you know, the one that lies OUTSIDE of the Oak Grove property? Because it is "near the easterly boundary of the Kottinger Hills site"!

Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by Repleasnacrat
a resident of Stoneridge
on Apr 16, 2010 at 10:59 am

I really hope this passes! The arguments "against" are incredibly lam. I have mountain biked and hiked back there. As in the Pleasanton Ridge park lands, 99.999999999% of the residents have and will never venture onto this expanse of land! Oh, but the McMansions! Who are you, me and we to tell someone there house is too big. Mind your own business! worry about what is inherently wrong with you that you have to spend this much time and effort worry about what someone else is building in a secluded area! And do NOT get me started about the private property issue! Does it meet CITY codes, standards, requirements etc. YES. Therefore they should be allowed to build. Now go back to your mundane lives and ponder what I said!

Like this comment
Posted by YES on D
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 16, 2010 at 12:32 pm

I think YES on D is a good thing.

Perhaps the self-serving people against this should come out and tell people where they live, that would explain why they are against it.

Doesn't Steve B. live on a road with his last name? That is okay but it is not okay for others to build a nice home close by?

YES on D.

Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 16, 2010 at 5:19 pm


Like this comment
Posted by Kareen
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Apr 17, 2010 at 9:11 am

Apparently you don't care how this development affects your neighbors in the south east. This is not good building for Pleasanton. Leave our hills alone! I would love my kids to know what a Pleasanton ridge looks like - and it is not a 12,500 sq. ft. monstrosity perched on top of a ridge! There is plenty of room for building in the flat lands near bart.

Like this comment
Posted by iwastheretoo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2010 at 9:39 am

There you go again Karen, twisting the facts of the proposed development. Once again you know that only 3 out of the 51 homes can be up to 12,500 and those 3 lots are tucked back in the property. And not one house has been approved and just because someone could build a 12,500 square foot house doesn't automatically mean that's what they'll build.

And I don't get your comment about affecting the neighbors in the southeast. That sounds a bit like the whole stoneridge drive debate and why should some neighborhoods such as Valley ave bear the brunt of traffic and the Stoneridge Dr neighborhood bear none? It was clear that the plan was to extend Hearst Dr and some point and that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who purchased a home in the area.

I for one would like my children to be able to LEGALLY access the ridge and hike along it as the views are spectacular. 51 homes well-thought out in location on 500 acres seems like a no-brainer. Not too mention the other benefits the City and school district will receive.

Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Apr 17, 2010 at 9:46 am

Kareen--Our hills? It is so easy to live wherever you do and then essentially close the door to the next person. What did the space where you live look like before you and your neighbors got there? What if those before you said, "Enough"? Maybe then you could be the one living in "the flat lands near bart." If you don't want these homes, buy the land by fairly (read not dirt cheap) compensating the owners and don't build.

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 17, 2010 at 12:30 pm

Stacey is a registered user.


Which Oak Grove lot numbers will be the 12,500 sq ft monstrosities perched on top of a ridge? Do you know about the affordable units in the "flatlands near BART" that the Oak Grove developer is obligated to build?

Like this comment
Posted by Chuck Norris
a resident of Pleasanton Village
on May 5, 2010 at 7:27 pm

Yes on D. I think that people should be allowed to build more houses. It would do good in dropping Pleasanton's lucratively high real estate prices.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Ridgeview Commons

on Jun 5, 2017 at 3:07 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

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

GE's re-organization reaches San Ramon digital headquarters
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,932 views

Sound and Fury over Vile and Slur-ry
By Tom Cushing | 72 comments | 1,136 views

New state housing requirements could affect Pleasanton
By Jeb Bing | 2 comments | 439 views