Post a New Topic
Original post made
on May 14, 2010
The title of the article should be 'Ms. No on Measure D'
Where was she when this was being negotiated by Matt Sullivan and Jennifer Hosterman? Her main problem is the grading? She obviously has not done her homework since there is less grading there than in the Kottinger development right below it. All developments have grading and this was designed to leave Heritage trees standing. The grading proposed will limit the visibility of the homes and the dirt will be spread throughout the property rather than trucked off site or dumped.
This project is a win win for Pleasanton. Half the number of homes than originally planned and almost five hundred acres of open space in perpetuity that will provide protected habitat for endangered species.
In addition money to the city and to the schools.
Less we forget, this will also provide jobs in our city and we certainly could use that. The home sites are on less than 100 acres for 500 acres of open space!
It pays to see the location. If you can't take a tour, drive up there yourself. From First street go east on Bernal and take a right on Hearst. It dead ends at the property. It will become very clear what a good deal for Pleasanton this really is!
The real truth behind the opposition to D is that the Kottinger people don't want it, just like they didn't want PG&E to run their upgrade through their neighborhood, so they sued and won and PG&E took the more expensive route and passed the charges on to, guess who, us. Since there is nobody to sue in this instance these people now want you, the voters, to believe their emotional lies.
The only way that development of that land can be stopped is by changing the General Plan or paying fair market value for it. Now we know the city can't afford it, but maybe all of the Kottinger residents can. This is the best deal, the next time the Lin's might opt for a Dublin-like project, and you know what that's going to look like.
The land owner can come back to the city with a plan that complies with Measure PP.
Measure PP does not define ridgeline or slope. The impartial analysis specifies that the references lack clarity. Anyone with any math skills know that where you start counting a slope will determine the % of the grade. Parts of PP was struck down by the housing cap litigation. MANY people thought they were voting on the ridge to the WEST.
In addition, Oak Grove was approved before PP and QQ. The land owner worked with the city, the council and stake holders to some up with this plan.
If you want clarity with this issue, read the documents, (the ordinance is in the ballot pamphlet). Better yet drive up there and look at it. You can't see it because Kottinger is in the way.
This is a good deal for the people of Pleasanton.
VOTE YES on Measure D.
This project provides a park larger than the Bernal Property park and fewer homes than have been placed on the Bernal Property. Oak Grove is an even better deal for the citizens of Pleasanton. Voting no on D doesn't guarantee no homes will be built. If this is defeated 98 homes may be built and we could lose a 496 acre park, the largest in Pleasanton. Some of the grading that is being so roundly criticized was added to appease the public in order to lower the home site. Please respect private property rights and vote YES ON D.
Another comparison between Bernal and Oak Grove parks.
There's a plan for park development with Bernal but no funding sources for building it. The City has to find other ways to fund the plan. Great, we have the land, but no funds.
The trails and staging area development for Oak Grove will be funded and built by the developer.
I cannot find anything wrong with voting YES on D.
I would rather have those homes built as planned, than having low income or high density houses built there. With the 51 homes, Pleasanton gets a lot of open space, something we may not have if something else is done with the land (it is PRIVATE land after all, and something will be done with it)
I think Steve B. is wrong to have an opinion against D on the PW. If I recall correctly, he used the argument about needing "starter" homes instead.... Kay Ayala has managed to get people behind her because she knows a lot of people, not necessarily because those people understand what the issue is. And there are quite a few renters with NO on D signs, wonder why?
YES on D.
"I think Steve B. is wrong to have an opinion against D on the PW. If I recall correctly, he used the argument about needing "starter" homes instead..."
I think Steve B. is wrong to have an opinion against D on the PW. If I recall correctly, in the PAST he used the argument about needing "starter" homes instead...
The general plan defines a slope and ridge already; read it. We already have protections on the main Pleasanton ridge with the same terms. If PP can be thrown out on ridge protections, then the Pleasanton ridge protections will be thrown out also.
Also, don't give into the scare tactics. You will not see low-income homes there. And why would a developer want to do that on land which is going to have very expensive infrastructure. No high-density homes will ever be there either. If a Council is stupid enough to approve such a thing, there will be another referendum, followed by a council recall. 98 homes cannot go there with Measure PP so don't worry about that.
The developer for Oak Grove will have a staging area for a trail with 11 parking spaces (I believe), and a simple trail that goes nowhere. Not anything that is difficult or expensive to do. Comparing this with Bernal facilities is somebody grasping at straws to find some reason to justify this development.
On the Bernal plan, the city has already put in the trails; much more usable trails than what Oak Grove would have since more of our population can use it being it is flat. What we have not put in on the Bernal property is all the sports fields and cultural arts facilities. There is nothing like that in the hills of Oak Grove. All that terrain will allow is a simple trail.
Whose land is Ms. Ayala standing on for that promo cover shot? The Lin's?
The language in PP trumps whatever you think defines a ridgeline in the general plan. Because the general plan uses the same words to describe different things it is contradictory. (Surprise!)
The definition of ridgeline and slope needs clarification.
You have to see the property to understand. Go and look and it is clear the highest ridge is not where the lots are.
This piece of open space is part of a larger vision which will connect trails from Calipe to Shadowcliff. 90% of the land will be protected in perpetuity/ 90%!!!!!!!
And yet my point remains the same. The developer is funding the improvements for the Oak Grove park. Would that we could have had the same for Bernal. Is that the vision of the opposition to Oak Grove? That Pleasanton will somehow acquire the Oak Grove land without buying it and then we'll have no funding source to develop a public park there on our own?
At least the Bernal property did not have 100's of trees cut down or 62,000 truck loads of dirt being moved to accommodate homes.
If the developer wants to come back with a more environmentally friendly plan, I will look at it. If they don't, we have time. Once you bring out the bulldozers, there is nothing you can do to undo what they do.
Oh no, they are going to use bulldozers on the land! Look at all the places that bulldozers have been used, they all lay waste in ruins. Thank god no bulldozers were used in any other Pleasanton development. In fact, they should pass an ordinance banning all bulldozers from Pleasanton forever.
Hey 'local.' How many truckloads of dirt have been moved off the Bernal property? Do you know? Or for that matter, how many truckloads of dirt were moved from Kottinger Ranch, where now you see so much hand-wringing and self-righteous 'no on d' signs?
And now you say "if the developer wants to come back with a more environmentally friendly plan I'll look at it." Are you kidding me? Is that a joke? THEY ALREADY DID THAT! Where were you when they met with neighbors, reduced to number and placement of homes, agreed to the bulldozing recommended by Matt Sullivan, and had public meetings over and over and over? Oh, you were too busy to bother going to those? I see.
YES ON D.
It's good for our trails and parks, it's good for the schools, and it's the right thing to do.
To 'local' - "At least the Bernal property did not have 100's of trees cut down or 62,000 truck loads of dirt being moved to accommodate homes."
Duh. Bernal was flat farmland. And they did use grading equipment for the work done to date.
All you have to do is to take a tour of the property, as I did this afternoon, so see the obvious merits of the Oak Grove development.
The building sites are towards the front of the property and set low enough that only a handful of people living in that part of town will ever be able to see even the occasional top of a roof.
The park land is on rolling hills, above and toward the back of the property. It contains the best of the Valley views. This area is filled with hundreds of old oaks and wild flowers. I walked the length of the proposed main trail and it was easy going even for this 64 year old.
Vote yes on D. Vote yes on this beautiful park.
Pleasanton in the news! Web Link
I just watched the Council meeting on the local tv. Interesting. There's the Yee property on the Pleasanton Ridge and they want to build four huge mega mansions - Councilmember McGovern made the motion, and Councilmember Sullivan seconded the motion. Are those proposed homes on ridges?
Salami, Salami … Baloney
By Tom Cushing | 25 comments | 770 views
Holiday Fund raises $70,000 for 12 Tri-Valley nonprofits
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 135 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
© 2018 Pleasanton Weekly
All rights reserved.