Town Square

Post a New Topic

The Lesson of Half Moon Bay

Original post made by Stacey, Amberwood/Wood Meadows, on Dec 18, 2007

Don't know if any of you have been following the story, but here's a new article regarding what is happening over in Half Moon Bay. Web Link

Why do I feel that this is an important lesson for Pleasanton? Because some uninformed Oak Grove opponents have written here in the past with two thoughts. That 1) the voters will be able to create regulation that will prevent development of Oak Grove and that 2) somehow the Lins will just give their property over to the City as a tax writeoff.

The Half Moon Bay issue is a prime example of how the actions by a city (through regulation or otherwise) could be interpreted as violating the Fifth Amendment and what results from that. If anyone thinks that referending the Council decision and passing the initiative is somehow going to "Save the Hills" from development, think again. The first time the 98 homes plan was referended, there was no initiative "attached" to it. The development plans went back to the drawing board. Does anyone believe that will happen again here?

How much is the Oak Grove property worth undeveloped? Maybe about $50 million? Does Pleasanton have the ability to pay that amount?

Comments (5)

Posted by Shelley
a resident of Downtown
on Dec 18, 2007 at 2:42 pm

What a great article! I think this is the main idea Pleasanton should take away from Half Moon Bay's predicament: "...the city was found to have seized private property without paying just compensation."

Posted by Jerry
a resident of Oak Hill
on Dec 19, 2007 at 3:54 pm

In my opinion, no one is saying the property can't be developed.

Some are just objecting to the proposed way it will be developed - hill top homes that creates an adverse view of the hills, major grading required, slope angles, etc.....

Just my humble opinion............

Posted by Bill
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 19, 2007 at 9:03 pm

I guess "Stacey" is saying that somebody can propose anything and if it is denied that they can sue the city? Wow, I guess I can buy a property in Pleasanton, take down the house, and propose 5 story condos and when the city turns it down, I sue.

Jerry is right, no one is saying the property can't be developed; they are saying the property should not have homes on the hill tops.

I cannot believe how desperate "Stacey" is to ensure that Pleasanton has non-stop development. Everywhere she writes on this website she is advocating for development. She certainly does sound like somebody on the council who wants more developer money for her campaign. Sigh.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 19, 2007 at 10:19 pm

This article is a response to what others wrote on this Town Forum such as this: Web Link

"In the end, I agree with Stephen: it comes down to a choice of compromise now with some development so a park can be established and a huge section of hills can be permanently protected from development OR stopping this development now and working to eventually buy the land for parkland or create legislative restrictions that will render it undevelopable in hopes that the owners throw up their hands and donate it to take the tax write-off."
Posted by Patricia, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on Dec 5, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Regarding the impact to the view of the hills, try to take a look at the property when driving around various parts of Pleasanton. The hilltops are most visible if you are north of the property and east of or at El Charro. If you drive south on Valley towards Stanley they are partially visible but about the same height as Kottinger Ranch. If you drive south down Santa Rita or Hopyard you can't see them over the trees. If you drive east on Bernal from Foothill or 680, you see Kottinger Ranch homes. So the visual impact is highly selective depending upon where in Pleasanton you are. Contrast that with the visibility of the Pleasanton Ridge, which can be seen over the treetops from almost anywhere in Pleasanton.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 19, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Furthermore, the parkland that is created by this Oak Grove agreement will prevent development on almost 500 acres _within_ the Urban Growth Boundary through the conservation easements that will be established. Seems like a much safer method to prevent development to me.

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.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Premiere! “I Do I Don’t: How to build a better marriage” – Here, a page/weekday
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,586 views

Community foundations want to help local journalism survive
By Tim Hunt | 20 comments | 1,174 views


Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Pleasanton Weekly Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Pleasanton Weekly readers contributed over $83,000 to support eight safety-net nonprofits right here in the Tri-Valley.