By The Independent
Pleasanton residents will decide on June 8 whether the Oak Grove development should be approved.
A “no” vote on Measure D would stop the development; a “yes” vote would allow it to move forward.
Oak Grove was approved by a 4 to 1 vote of the city council. A referendum qualified for. It was placed on the upcoming ballot following several years of litigation of the legality of the referendum. A Court of Appeal determined that the referendum was legal and sent it back to the city council to either rescind the development or place it on a ballot for voters to decide. The decision was to place it on the June 8 ballot.
The Independent interviewed proponents and opponents of Measure D. Issues include location and size of homes, school fees, the approval process, as well as grading and tree removal.
NO ON D
Kay Ayala and Karla Brown spoke for the opponents of Measure D. Councilmember Matt Sullivan was also questioned.
Ayala and Brown called Oak Grove an environmental disaster because it would locate buildings and access roads “mainly on the ridges.” Large quantities of dirt would be moved to prepare housing sites, cutting off the tops of ridges and dumping the dirt into valleys. Large houses, up to 12,500 square feet, would be visible from elsewhere in the city.
They also charge that statements made regarding the amenities the development would bring are misleading. In addition, the process leading up to the council approval was flawed.
Brown is president of the nearby Kottinger Ranch homeowners association. She referred to the plan as, “A massacre of the hills. Some lots are almost all fill. There is one that consists of 22 feet of fill.”
Ayala said that once the tops of the ridges are removed, there is nothing that can be done to return the area to its previous condition.
Both Brown and Ayala said there is a better way to develop the area. The 51 houses could be built off of existing cul-de-sacs in the area.
One statement by proponents of Measure D that both Brown and Ayala say is misleading relates to school fees. Literature distributed by proponents of Measure D touts $2 million that would be paid to the school district. Ayala said those fees are for facilities only. It is a one time fee. It would not save programs or teachers.
Brown added that the fee would not be paid by the current property owners, Jennifer and Frederic Lin, but by future owners of the homesites. She said those future owners can only be forced to pay the fee set by the state, $2.29 a square foot. The higher fee, $8.62 a square foot, is called a gift fee and is voluntary.
Fire is another concern. The homes would be surrounded by natural habitat. Brown said that students who hike in the area set off fireworks on the fourth of July and light campfires. The area is very dry. A spark could set it off. It is a disaster waiting to happen.
Ayala added that when people buy lots, they assume that if the city approved them it must be safe to live there. There is only one way in and out if an evacuation were required. The response time is now set at 7 minutes. Previously, the response time was 5 minutes. Ayala continued, the firefighters have to travel over narrow, windy roads. In addition, the requirement for low water usage landscaping will add to the fire danger.
There are other environmental issues, both said. Before any development could proceed, there are permits that need to be acquired from the state fish and wildlife and the federal government.
Brown said there are special species that have been identified on the site. As a result, the national Sierra Club has come out in opposition to the project, she pointed out.
Many trees would be removed. Those identified in the staff report to be removed are located in the area only along the main road, according to Ayala. Additional trees would have to be removed to make way for buildings, or property owners could try to build around heritage trees, said Ayala.
Both said there was a rush to have the development approved. Ayala points out that the planning commission never reviewed the plan. It rejected the environmental impact report. The planning commission asked for both an updated tree report and a story pole, which would demonstrate the visibility of houses, to look at the proposed development prior to making a decision. “They didn’t get anything they asked for,” said Ayala.
The project then went to the city council, where it was approved 4 to 1. Cindy McGovern was the only vote against it.
In commenting on the negotiations leading up to the project that went to the council, Brown said that the developer talked to a hand selected group of people from the area. “They did the best they could. However, the negotiations focused on reducing the number of houses from 98 to 51, not on grading or location of the homes.”
Continuing with another issue, Brown said that there was talk about traffic mitigation. It is estimated there will be ten car trips per day per house. That’s 510 cars that will be using the access road that are not using it now. During construction, there will be trucks and earth moving equipment going in and out of the property.
Another issue is the timing of the vote. The cost for a June ballot is $95,000 versus $10,000-$15,000 in November. “They are wasting $80,000 of the taxpayers’ money,” declared Brown.
Ayala said there appears to be an effort to discredit Councilmember Sullivan, because he changed his mind on the project.
Sullivan said that he had wanted to see if there could be a compromise between the developer and neighbors. The larger community didn’t agree with the compromise. Sullivan stated, “That told me, as a councilmember, that we didn’t do a good enough job in planning the area.”
Asked about the 496 acres of open space the project dedicates, Ayala said she would get more than that. “I would do that through PARC (Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee). Our vision is to go through PARC to protect the area. I see the East Bay Regional Park District as a perfect entity to take on the construction of a trail system. We want the trails; we will get them.”
She added that she believes their efforts to acquire the property will protect the southern urban growth boundary.
Sullivan agreed that there is more than one way to obtain open space. It has been possible on Pleasanton Ridge. “The price to obtain the open space in Oak Grove is too high for the larger community,” he stated.
Ayala said she is asked by people why they have to vote on Oak Grove since voters approved Measure PP that provides for protection of the ridgelands. She explains that Oak Grove was approved prior to the initiative’s approval. “If it came before the council today, it would be rejected,” she stated.
Brown added, “In 2010, we raise our children to conserve water and electricity, to keep the air clean and drive energy efficient cars. We need to think about being environmentally sensitive about the ridges. It is our duty to pass on the environment in good or better condition than we received it.”
YES ON D
Dolores Bengston and Councilmember Cheryl Cook-Kallio spoke for the proponents of Measure D.
They too accuse the other side of providing false or misleading statements.
It isn’t clear how one determines what is a ridgeline or how steep a slope is, according to Cook-Kallio. The location of homes can be interpreted differently. She pointed out that the impartial analysis of Measure PP (a ridgeline protection measure approved by Pleasanton voters) states that it “provides no clarity on ridgelines or slopes.” Cook-Kallio said the angle of a slope depends on where it is measured. Higher up on a hill will produce a different angle than lower. She added that the sites where homes are proposed to be built in Oak Grove are not located on what might be described as a traditional ridge. She pointed to the western hills in Pleasanton as an example of a traditional ridgeland.
Cook-Kallio said that the highest building pad will be at 790 feet, below the best defined ridge at 1265 feet. Building height is limited to 35 feet, placing homes much lower than the main ridge.
She said of the “Save Pleasanton Hills” statements that the goal is to save our hills, “They are not their hills. Without development, the area will remain as private property. Development will ensure publicly accessible open space.”
The open space will be available when the fifth lot is sold.
Bengston said that trail, park and open space advocates largely support the project. Of the Sierra Club opposition, she declared, “I often disagree with them.”
Cook-Kallio pointed out that the Sierra Club did not seek in information nor did it ask any questions about the development that she is aware of.
Bengston stated, “We see this as the only viable way to save 496 acres of open space with a conservation easement. If we are successful, it will open the door for 2000 acres of open space in southeast Pleasanton.” She pointed out that Oak Grove is within the urban growth boundary. It is zoned for development. “With development potential, it is unlikely that the property owners will give the land away.”
As for grading and dumping of dirt, Bengston said that the dirt that is removed will be dispersed evenly; it won’t be dumped into valleys. She noted that the last phase of Kottinger Ranch, the neighboring development, displaced more dirt than would be moved in Oak Ridge.
Cook-Kallio stated that the EIR identified the approved plan as the environmentally preferred one.
Bengston also noted that the location of the homes has been okayed by various protection agencies. “The houses are set very carefully. The sites weren’t just pulled out of a hat.”
In response to suggestions that the developer come back with a different plan and have a more inclusive process, Cook-Kallio said people who did not participate the first time, chose not to do so. This is the compromise plan. She suggested that the developer could decide to divide the area into ten estate homes. There would be no open space. Homes would be placed on top of the ridgelines. “It took four years to negotiate the plan down from 98 to 51 homes.”
Bengston wondered what plan the opponents of the project had to save open space. She asked how the land would become public. “This is a good way to get open space.”
As for the lack of planning commission approval, Cook-Kallio said, “The planning commission doesn’t have to approve a project for the council to act on it.”
Neither was concerned about fire safety, noting that evacuations would not just be along the public road. There are emergency vehicle access points people could use to leave the area.
School fees have been a major point of contention. Cook-Kallio declared that there is a letter from the developer that guarantees that the $8.62 per square foot fee will be paid to the school district. “The developer will pay. I’m sure that will be reflected in the price of the homes,” she stated. Fifty-one 5000 square foot homes would produce $2.2 million. The money is for capital projects or repairs. Having money to pay for such things as roof repairs means that the money will not have to come out of the school district’s general fund, Cook-Kallio stated.
In addition to the school fees, Cook-Kallio said there will be additional school bond money paid by the homeowners. The estimated 41 to 51 students will generate $200,000 in ADA for the district. That’s enough to pay three new teachers, she stated.
Cook-Kallio also pointed out that the city would receive a net $200,000 a year in property taxes.
There was a difference of opinion on tree removal plans from the statement provided by “no on D” advocates.. Bengston said, “Every developer has to deal with trees. Anyone regrets any tree that is taken down. The replacement program is a good one, using native trees.” She said that the plan calls only for the removal of 58 heritage trees along the lots, roads, the water tank and park staging areas.
Cook-Kallio said there would be 900 trees planted. The approval requires that an arborist be hired for five years to make sure the trees are viable.
The discussion about the size of homes is misleading, they both said, noting that only three of them can be as large as 12,500 square feet. Those homes would be tucked away. Most of the homes will range between 7500 and 9000 square feet. The homes do go through an approval process that would allow someone to appeal the approval to the council if he or she objected to the decision.
Both said they wished that the debate were on the merits of the project. People can discuss things civilly and come to different conclusions, said both Cook-Kallio and Bengston.
Cook-Kallio, as a Councilmember, said she is particularly dismayed by the insinuations that those who support the project have been “bought” by developer money. “It is insulting to me to say I could be bought. I don’t do this for the money. Such accusations take away from the merits of the project.”
“It has been made a political issue,” added Bengston. She says that is one good reason for the election to take place in June. “To continue the discussion until November would cause more dissention.” As to more people voting in November, she said she hopes there will be more committed who will come out and vote in June.
