The developer has published his 8 reasons to vote yes, but those are actually 8 good reasons to vote NO. Here are the developer's "reasons" and the factual answers.
1. Just 51 home sites, instead of 98 allowed in General Plan. There is NO entitlement in the General Plan or anyplace else to 98 homes on this property. This property is currently designated "rural low density". The developer doesn't want that zoning, so the developer needs to propose a plan with a different zoning which entails compromise. Let's have a compromise that complies with Measure PP to protect the ridgelines.
2. $2,000,000 to the school district. By law the most that can be required is $2.94/sq ft for school impact fees (less than $1,000,000). Any more than that would be a require a separate "gift" agreement. There is no gift agreement in place. Furthermore these fees can only be used for capital expenditures to pay for the facilities needed for the additional students that the development would bring to the district. They can not be used for teachers, counselors, class size reductions or other operations expenses.
3. $300,000 to the schools each year. There is no factual basis for this number. School operations are paid by the state on a per student basis, not from property taxes. The school district says the amount is from the state is insufficient. Therefore the schools will not be receiving an additional $300,000 each year from this development, it will likely be a net loss to the schools each year.
4. $1,000,000 in traffic improvements. This money would be spent on fixing the new traffic issues this project would create. This includes the need for a new signal at Hearst and Bernal, and traffic "calming" on Hearst.
5. $200,000 to the city each year. This project will create the need for additional services which will cost more than project will pay into the city. The costs of the maintenance spelled out in the Wildland Urban Interface Plan alone will cost more than $200,000 per year.
6. 496-acre park to protect the ridge line. Documents generated by the developer's and City document this placement of this project on the major ridge running the length of the property. The Kottinger ridge which is 2 miles long would have roads, a watertank and 40 homes built on top of it.
7. Creates a permanent block against future development to the southeast. The land to southeast of this project is outside the urban growth boundary. It is already protected. It doesn't need more houses to protect it further.
8. Each home design must be approved by the city. Each home is required to get an administrative approval from the Planning Department, which is no different than any other home project in Pleasanton. Only homes in the immediate vicinity will get notified of the application to the Planning Department
NO, this is not what we want!
We look forward to working with developer and the community to find a solution that is consistent with the general plan, PP and is acceptable to the Pleasanton residents.
The developer touts the 8 reasons to vote yes, but these are actual 8 of the many reasons to vote NO. Click here
They will have to go elsewhere!
The local, regional, state and national branches of the Sierra Club urge you to Vote NO on Oak Grove because of the negative impact on the ridges and environment of Pleasanton's hills. Read their newsletter.
The glossy flyer sent Pleasanton residents shows the current hills, but what will happen to those hills and trees if Oak Grove is built? Click here
Visit us on Facebook
Order now only a $10 donation!
If you are interested in helping save Pleasanton's ridgelines, please email us.
We need funds to educate the voters about saving Pleasanton's Hills. If you would like to donate, please send a check to:
Save Pleasanton Hills
1246 Hearst Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94566
or