Have you been approached by people with clipboards asking if you want to save the hills? The sound bites are attractive. However, let’s look at the facts.
We understand that at the most basic level a referendum allows the voters to weigh in. However, a referendum reverses the City Council’s decision, a group elected by the voters to make these kinds of decisions, based on research and discussion over a long period of time.
Our concern is that voters end up making decisions on who has the best sound bite. The council is faced with defending a decision in five minutes or less, that took years on which to arrive. A consensus plan for this project was developed after four years of discussions with the city, developer, landowner, homeowner’s association representatives, trails and open space advocates, the fire chief and city staff. It was a transparent process that included no less than nine public meetings/hearings, numerous planning commission meetings and two six-hour council meetings. Councilmembers also received hundreds of emails and phone calls discussing the issue. This is a compromise based on a community dialogue that has taken place over the past four years.
It is difficult for the proponents of the referendum to replicate a four-year process in a few minutes of discussion with you and therefore easy to manipulate the facts. Everything the council maintains is public record. We want people to make decisions based on evidence.
Fact: This development reduces the number of homes from 98 to 51.
Fact: The city receives 496 acres of open space in perpetuity, a million dollars for traffic mitigation, 20 affordable housing units, a water tower and a fire engine.
In the general plan, the area is zoned for 98 homes. If the referendum passes, it will still be zoned for 98 homes. It does not mean the zoning goes away. It means this particular project goes away until replaced with a different proposal. The project only contains lots, which include ratios. Not one home has been approved. Each home will be considered individually and must meet requirements including environmental concerns, visibility, and size. This is the most comprehensive development agreement that has ever been prepared in Pleasanton. All approvals will be subject to a full public hearing process if requested by any Planning Commissioner, councilmember or member of the public wishing to appeal the decision of the zoning administrator.
Pleasanton is well planned because decisions are made in a thoughtful, deliberative manner. The 496 acres of park is a piece of what we hope to be 2,000 acres of continual open space defining the southeast border of Pleasanton. The council stands by its decision. We are asking people not to sign the petition because not signing supports the transparent democratic process used in a representative democracy.
We work for you and would be happy to discuss any concerns or questions by email or phone.
Councilwoman Cheryl Cook-Kallio was elected to the Pleasanton City Council in 2006. Councilman Jerry Thorne was reelected that same year, having been first elected to fill an unexpired one-year term in a special election in 2005.
