Lawsuit Against City Claims Oak Grove Project Should Move Forward

Owners of the Oak Grove property have filed a lawsuit against the City of Pleasanton in an effort to move forward with a 51-home project.

The lawsuit by Frederic and Jennifer Lin through their attorney Andrew Sabey of Cox, Castle and Nicholson was filed on June 8. City Attorney Jonathan Lowell was notified of the suit last week.

Pleasanton voters rejected the plan, 54 percent to 46 percent, during a June 8 referendum.

The referendum specifically mentioned Ordinance No. 1961, the Planned Unit Development plan, which governs how the property is zoned and specifies the design guidelines for the homes.

Another ordinance, No. 1962, includes approval of a development agreement between the city and Oak Grove owners. One section of the agreement, known as "the poison pill language" links the two ordinances. It says that if No. 1961 is "set aside by referendum" then No. 1962 can't take into effect.

Essentially, the owners' lawsuit argues that despite the June referendum and its triggering of the poison pill language, the city already entered into the agreement with the owners. 

The claims include:

• That the "city has a contractual duty to protect the Lins' vested rights" according to the agreement.
• The agreement is a "binding contract that becomes effective 30-days" after adoption of the ordinance.
• That the June referendum "cannot reach" the actual development agreement.
• Even with the poison pill language, the development agreement should "remain in full force and effect."

In addition to breach of contract claims in the lawsuit, the Lins are also asking the court for injunctive relief. According Lowell, injunctive relief would require the city to take specific action abiding by the development agreement.

Lowell said that he is unable to talk about the city's stance on the lawsuit.

"I'm still analyzing this lawsuit," said Lowell.

He said there will probably be closed session discussions about the lawsuit in September.

Karla Brown, one of the leaders of the campaign against the project, said she wasn't surprised about the lawsuit. With continuing litigation, Brown said the Oak Grove owners are "harassing the city and harassing its citizen."

"They've just about sued everyone related to this particular process," she said.

Councilmember Jerry Thorne, who supported the project, said he wasn't surprised by the lawsuit either and read the document yesterday.

"The most important thing for me to do is to hear what the public thinks about this," he said. "It seems to be the prevailing wisdom from the community that they don't want this project."

When asked if he thought the city council would respond with litigation, he said, "There's a lot of consideration and data that I don't have that will go into that (decision). What are the chances we are going to win the lawsuit? How much will it cost if it's appealed? These things can get very expensive. But right now I don't have all the information."

The June 8 referendum cost the city $97,500.

For more on the history of Oak Grove, click here.