The council has done another lousy job. It is your job to make the necessary changes

Below is OpinionPleasanton’s council report card covering 2001 through 2007 in italics and 2008 in bold. We have chosen to publish our report card at this time because of the November 4 election.
It will take a clean sweep to alter much in Pleasanton. The socialist eco extremists still hold sway and until they are turned out or termed out, there would be no big ideas such as the Stoneridge Mall, Hacienda Business Park, and downtown revitalization. The Hacienda mixed use plan, Bernal, and the remainder of downtown revitalization will require counselors with vision. We do not see any names on the November 2008 ballot that fit that bill. The Chamber of Commerce is conducting a vision 2015 study. We hope it will be well received. But, we are not holding our breath.

2008 School buses are still the answer to school traffic mornings and afternoon. Mayor Jennifer Hosterman has had one good idea during her council and mayoral tenure and it flaps in the wind waiting for someone to salute. What a shame.

2007 Pleasanton Heritage Association—F—Who gave these people the idea that we need their association? If it is the City of Pleasanton, then we need to make some changes at City Hall. It is now up to the City Council to thank these folks for their concern but that we have downtown redevelopment and development covered. Thanks to the private developers, it is going quite nicely. If the members of this association have gripes with downtown development, there is ample opportunity to make their individual feelings know in the planning process. On the other hand, if they wish to weigh-in as a group, let them appoint a spokesperson to state their position—no more red-shirted mobs at City Hall please.

2008 Pleasanton Heritage Association—F—Just because they have not raised a ruckus recently is no reason to believe that they have reformed their butinski ways. Busy bodies never do. They should be given short shrift at City hall and should be strongly encouraged to attend council meetings when heritage issues are on the agenda just like every other Pleasanton resident—no special treatment here.

2007 Happy Valley—F—No progress here. No by-pass road is in works and a successful Callippe golf course is providing ample traffic to make long-time Happy Valley residents jump for joy. Is it all about Al Spotorno doing the heavy lifting by giving up the land for the bypass and a yet to be determined number of acres for extortion to build a few homes in the acreage now fast becoming Pleasanton’s private horticultural preserve (recreation is not allowed because those damn bratty kids might start a fire that Jennifer and Frederic Linn’s donated (extorted) fire truck cannot extinguish. And, duh, cattle produce methane gas)?

2008 Happy Valley—F—The good news is that is still somewhat rural. The bad news is the promised by-pass road is still a dream. Good thing the golf rounds will be going down along with the traffic.

2007 Oak Grove—F—The mayor and council fumbled the ball on this one. The compromise was so good it should have been discussed in public. It is now up to the citizens to educate the public on the many benefits of this project. We can only hope that the courts will disqualify former mayor Kay Ayala’s ill-conceived and maybe fallacious referendum petition and Jennifer and Frederic Linn can get on with developing this property that has been in the development stage for more than 20 years.

2008 Oak Grove—F—One day the Lin’s will stop throwing good money after bad and throw in the towel—just what the enviros want. What a shame. The deal the Lins made is one we should not disregard so that a few Pleasanton blue bloods can have a better view of the Sunol Ridge. This one has not gone away.

2007 Budget—F—We still do not know how much we pay yearly for consultants. We also do not know why expensive staff members (supposedly expert in city government) do not do what the consultants have been hired to do.

2008 Budget—F—The state is deep in debt so do not expect that its cold will not become Pleasanton’s (and every other California city) pneumonia. We cannot afford to make creeks and tear out perfectly good roadways. And, we certainly cannot afford to pay public safety employees unreasonable benefits. Finally, we cannot afford to let go the substantial sales tax revenue generated by our automobile dealers because we will not build a long-planned roadway.

2006 Leftist Politics—A—This category has been considered for several years. We waited until the results of last November’s election before deciding to include it in this year’s report card. With the recent council discussion on the war in Iraq, we felt our decision to include this evaluation was more than justified. (Because the Mayor and council have, in the past, failed miserably, we also did not want to upset the grade point average by giving them an A. The Leftist Politics A, however, is well deserved and we are confident will have no effect on the council’s g.p.a. Included in the Leftist Politics category is climate change malarkey, living wage drivel, affordable housing bleeding hearts, rent control to stick it to the man, and terrorist politics.

2007 Leftist Politics—A—Nothing happened and that is just fine. No development and saving the endangered red-legged frog are the indelibly written goals of the eco-extremists who occupy political power and the eco-bureaucrats who hold sway in City Hall. If you are looking for a change back to when everything was all about Pleasanton, be prepared for a challenge. The council must change and it must change the professional staff. But that is not the challenging part of the assignment. Finding new professionals not wedded to the leftist agenda is the real challenge. The rest of the staff also responds to three to two (the number of council votes to replace its boss).

2008 Leftist Politics—A—What a year. Elitism trumps lefty politics. The petitions and the initiatives to preserve a special interest groups’ view have been the featured discussions this year. Not once has the council even ruminated about Frederic and Jennifer Lin’s private property rights. Five hundred acres for a park for the normal and customary extortion payment was not good enough. Wow. Only in Pleasanton. Livermore and other cities are beginning to assess building fees to cover social programs. This is outrageous and when (not if) it is introduced in Pleasanton, we should stop it in its tracks. It is socialism—to each according to his need…

2001 Traffic—F--It just keeps getting worse. The council must provide for current needs even while advocating no-growth. There are several areas where the council can make a major contribution without inducing growth. A mass transit hub and the long-promised ACE Train station and high-density housing on the Bernal property will take many cars off the city streets and the freeways. The Stoneridge extension to El Charro is a vital east-west connection. El Charro to Stanley would be a vital north-south connection. Realigning West Las Positas Boulevard to its long-planned for four-lane configuration would move traffic off of Foothill Road to the Hacienda Business Park. Improvements to the Stoneridge/I-680 interchange will reduce accidents and speed traffic off Foothill to Hacienda and eventually to El Charro. Synchronizing traffic signals would speed-up traffic along Stoneridge, Hopyard, West Las Positas, Stanley, Foothill, Bernal.

2002 Traffic—F. The puny experiments with traffic lights have not done much. If that is all the council can offer, we might as well dig in for the long haul. Now they are considering turning on metering lights on the entrance to eastbound I-580. They are still pushing Sierra Club (high occupancy vehicle—HOV) lanes. They are also rolling over on Highway 84 improvements. Finally, they refuse to complete the road network (Stoneridge and El Charro) on Staples Ranch.

2003 Traffic—F—Not one thing has been accomplished. All of the issues outlined above still apply today. The metering lights are clogging things up on city streets and the freeway still only chugs along.

2004 Traffic—F—The lights are out of sync, they are agonizingly long when no traffic exists, and road improvements are on the back burner. Do not look for much to happen until the West Las Positas over crossing and the Stoneridge Drive extension are written out of the General Plan. The ACE train station, long promised, is flying under the radar. A mass transit center with ACE as the centerpiece is only spoken of in terms of Stanley Boulevard where no one will use it or if they do, they will drive there and increase the gridlock in downtown where freeway commuters will have to pass to reach a Stanley station. Finally, do not look for the mayor and current council to work on realigning Highway 84 or lending support to Congressman Richard Pombo’s freeway proposal connecting I-5 near Tracy with US 101 in San Jose. Instead, look for encouragement for the building of HOV lanes (High Occupancy Vehicle lanes) that only clog the already clogged freeways and spew pollutants into the already edgy air quality.

2005 Traffic—F—Not one darned thing was done to ease Pleasanton’s traffic woes and nothing is in the pipeline. Well, all except the removal of the Vineyard roundabout. The council and the bureaucrats just do not get it. The people want this problem to go away and the longer nothing is done the more painful the solutions will be to the obstructionists who control the agenda right now.

2006 Traffic—F—It has gotten worse with no relief in sight. The Stoneridge Drive extension will help and Supervisor Scott Haggerty and the surrounding mayors should exert as much pressure on the mayor and council to make it happen. Repairing Highway 84 will also help move city and freeway traffic. Mass transit, usually a socialist agenda item, is conspicuous by its absence on the council priorities. The ACE station, at the Fairgrounds or on the Bernal property, plus bus, van, and jitney connections from ACE to BART will also help. Sierra Club high occupancy lanes punish those who must commute and use their cars on the job. They also promote air pollution. Cars at idle emit more pollutants than cars moving at or near the speed limit.

2007 Traffic—F—It only gets worse. It looks as though realigning and repairing Highway 84 is our only hope of making a small dent in the gridlock that has gone unabated more than 16 years under mayors Tarver, Pico, and Hosterman. A comprehensive mass transit plan that includes BART, ACE, Wheels, local taxi service, and a jitney service (akin to Wheels’ new downtown senior service) needs to be prepared. Maybe a new City Manager can get that done (please, no more consultants).

2008 Traffic—F—The entire council has failed. City manager Nelson Fiahlo has failed. This is the year to build the Stoneridge Drive extension and to synchronize our traffic lights. With the field of candidates for this year’s council election, do not hold your breath. This sad situation just keeps getting worse.

2001 Bernal—F--The council has abdicated its leadership position to a citizens committee and offered no direction to the committee. The committee founders trying to prioritize potential projects including a spot for an animal farm. The Bernal property has been under study for more than 10 years and intense study for about five.

2002 Bernal—F. The committee, that was formed to stall and obstruct anything happening on Bernal, was doing a modicum of good in discussing potential uses when the plug was pulled by the mayor. It was serendipitous. One woman, with a protest poster advocating a park, was all the opening the mayor needed to nullify the work of the rudderless task force he formed and stacked with obstructionists likely to advocate a park anyway. On the heals of changing the discussion--a sea change--was the Bernal initiative, which eventually won at the polls. It happened so smoothly that it appeared to be choreographed. No one could be that lucky. However, the mayor is. Along the way, the mayor also apparently dodged the bullet on being an elitist and anti senior for backing the anti-housing initiative. He was reelected by a good margin. Today, Bernal is fallow awaiting a lighted sports park—the compromise for nothing else going on the remaining 300-plus acres. The expense for this charade is incalculable. Wasted consulting contracts, wasted committee meetings, and wasted staff time are all buried in the city budget and the professional staff (alone or at the will of the council) will not give up the costs.

2003 Bernal—F—We are still studying uses for the land not promised to the powerful sports lobby.

2004 Bernal—F—Well, we now have lighted sports fields on the books. The only thing missing is the money with which to build them. In fact, if the city continues playing a shell game with the treasury, it is not telling when the money will be available. The sports lobby is interested in more practice fields and that will only add to the pressure of funding Bernal.

2005 Bernal—F—The lighted sports fields will get underway this year or so they say at City Hall. The rest of the park is being laid out. The final draft of the plan will go to the ballot this November--maybe. Right now, it is likely that it will go to the ballot without an ACE train station and no affordable housing--things that we need and needed yesterday.

2006 Bernal—F—Bernal received the green light in November’s election. No one wrote a ballot argument detailing how that plan is deficient because it fails to address the pressing issues of the ACE train and senor subsidized housing. While we did not expect to have any organized opposition to Bernal, we did feel that the issue should have had greater discussion in the campaign. For the lack of discussions, we fault both the candidates and the media. Until Bernal is discussed for a new city hall facility, subsidized housing, and the ACE station, it will receive an F.

2007 Bernal—F—Not even the ballparks were started to satisfy the baseball lobby. We should only discuss Bernal when the plans include a new City Hall complex including a new library, theater facilities, and subsidized senior housing, and the ACE train station. At the very least, we should already have hundreds of trees dotting the 300-plus acres.

2008 Bernal—D—The lighted ball fields are underway. Whoo-hoo. The entire park and small residential island looks like hell. Big ideas need big thinkers unfettered by agenda politics. The City Hall should be built there along with the ACE station and that will take a council with vision and not a bunch of disparate neighborhoods and special interest groups nailing their demands on the council chamber doors. We have no chance of that with the current council or the one we will have after November. Maybe with Jerry Pentin on the council we can make a new beginning.

2001 Happy Valley golf course—F--The council is perfectly willing to suffer the environmentalist’s Red-Legged Frog demands but unwilling to even consider yielding one inch to the demands of the state and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for subsidized housing. The golf course study is approaching five years. By the time the council gets around to the course, green fees will be in the hundreds of dollars.

2002 Happy Valley golf course—F. Here, it is money that covers up for the council and professional staff ineptitude. Up to 2002, it was the special interest agenda of the environmentalist council that cost $17 million in golf course construction costs. Delays from outside agencies that issue permits for these types of local projects demanded habitat mitigation. In other words, they made the city (the developer on the golf course project) buy land elsewhere to save frogs and some such. While begging for those permits, the cost of building a golf course doubled. Additionally, the annexation of the land for the course was turned down by Happy Valley residents intent on maintaining their rural lifestyle. The city’s annexation of a smaller piece of land has resulted in a lawsuit initiated by landowners who feel that for technical reasons the annexation should be set aside. Their hope is to bludgeon the city into building the bypass road of their liking. The gambit has worked; the council voted unanimously to focus on the Spotorno alternative proposed in the very beginning. It was an extremely safe vote as there is no money to build that road even if environmental extremists would issue permits to do so. The Spotorno road would require the environmentalist council to approve more houses and the golf course was approved and pursued to prevent development on Pleasanton’s southern boundary. Although the mayor said that the city would have to look at increased densities to fund the road, he did so knowing that it is extremely unlikely that the road will happen. However, it is his willingness that will look good when and if the landowner suit goes to court. The city already turned down a Spotorno development plan thought to have too many houses. It would also require habitat replacement land—just in case that a Red Legged Frog ever showed up there—and that will likely add millions of dollars more to the already bloated golf course project.

2003 Callippe Preserve Golf Course—D—The course (named after an endangered butterfly) is under construction. The $36 million project is more than double the original estimate of $15 million. A promised Happy Valley by-pass road is not a part of the original project and is now in court at considerable more cost to the city. The economy is down and golf rounds are predicted to be fewer than in the original estimate and we still have not heard how much a round will cost using the new numbers.

2004 Open space and driving range—F—Golf will eventually be played at Callippe Preserve Golf Course and Open Space. There is just no telling when that might be or how much it will cost. The Developer on the project (City of Pleasanton) just lost control of its contractor and subs. Grass did not get planted before the rainy season began this autumn and it will have to be sown in spring. The good news is that the city can spend plenty of time with the driving range pole problem while watching the grass grow.

2005 Callippe Preserve Golf Course—D—They got it open. That is the good news. The bad news is that the city will be subsidizing the course to the tune of $1 million per year. The by-pass road is still not in the books and the city is now fighting with the county about golf course and Happy Valley traffic. They must have really perturbed supervisor Scott Haggerty down at City Hall.

2006 Callippe Preserve Golf Course and Open Space—D—So what that the new Pleasanton course placed ninth on the Golf Magazine “Best New Public Course under $75.” We still do not know how many rounds have been played and whether revenue from those rounds will reduce the $1 million subsidy the city has agreed to fund. The course is watered with potable not recycled water and it drains so well that in summer it gulps four million gallons a day. We hope by next year that we will be able to see operating expenses, rounds played by Pleasanton golfers versus out of towners, Pleasanton senior players, course handicaps, Happy Valley traffic and traffic accidents and speeding reports, and the by-pass road. Until then, we will just have to meet by the T box and hope for the best.

2007 Callippe Preserve Golf Course and Open Space—C—It is not paid off but it is successful so far. We will reserve final judgment until the bonds are paid off and the promised subsidy is no longer needed.

2008 Callippe Preserve Golf Course and Open Space—C—With golf rounds down and expected to go down farther, will Callippe continue to pay its way? We better have subsidy money set aside.

2001 Subsidized housing—F--The council appears to be elitist unwilling to clutter the landscape with houses selling for less than $1 million. The Bernal property and the newest fad of putting high-density housing near transportation hubs stare the council in the face and they appear as though they are deer caught in the headlights. The city has nearly $10 million in a subsidized housing fund and is considering buying shopping centers and trailer parks for subsidized housing rather than work with developers on Bernal or elsewhere.

2002 Subsidized housing—F. Here is where the council has really let down the people of Pleasanton. Bernal has plenty of room for senior subsidized housing for those most in need. The mayor and new council majority claimed that they favored other sites for such housing. They now have the opportunity to prove that they are not disingenuous when it comes to senior housing. However, their failure to speak out for the Elder Care Alliance’s— a coalition of the Sisters of Mercy, Burlingame Regional Community, and the Sierra Pacific Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America—proposed project on the St. Augustine Catholic Church’s nearly five acre parcel at E. Angela Street and Bernal Avenue. The church has pledged to return half of the land lease payment to provide charitable care for church members and Pleasanton residents. The silence on the proposed assisted living project is one more piece of evidence that they are elitists preferring to approve million dollar homes and to talk about some nebulous plan for a run-down shopping center site. And, why would they speak out? They have plenty of lemming followers who will go over the cliff singing the same chorus of “too much traffic” and “too much out of proportion.” Evidence is also mounting that they are as mean spirited as agenda driven.

2003 Subsidized housing—F—It is dwindling since those original apartment developer contracts are coming to an end and so are the subsidized units. The council’s answer was to raise subsidized housing fees charged to homebuilders and commercial- industrial developers (right when the economy is at its worst and business is fleeing the area and the state).

2004 Subsidized housing—F—No new housing stock has been added. No expenditures from the modest fund have been made. No new sites have been identified. And the most promising site at St. Augustine’s on Bernal Avenue was dismissed by environmentalists and the usual whiners as neighborhood unfriendly.

2005 Subsidized housing—F—Not much was added to the subsidized housing stock and not much done to stem the flow of subsidized housing from going back on the market at market prices.

2006 Subsidized housing—F—Outside agitators have joined local bleeding hearts on the subsidized housing rant know here as affordable housing or workforce housing. This socialist concept rewards those who are at the peak of their careers and at their peak earning power. Teachers and public safety employees are the first favored groups. Clamoring for recognition are single mothers and seniors. Regardless of expense, these special interest groups will be added to the frequently talked about list to cash in on middle income largess now that socialist Cheryl Cook-Kallio has taken a seat on the council. The real question is why we must consider subsidized housing at all. There is plenty of affordable housing elsewhere and while that is a bitter pill to swallow, that is the fact. No problem. Problem solved.

2007 Subsidized housing—F—Nothing has changed here. The group that might come close to needing subsidized housing is still not the focus of our generosity—seniors still take a back seat to public safety employees and teachers. Let us please use Bernal to make a complete civic center including subsidized housing for seniors (and not the ones who have deeded over their property and hidden their savings to qualify).

2008 Subsidized housing—F—Not much can be said about subsidized housing that has not been said before. It is pure re-distribution of wealth--a socialist tenet. In Pleasanton, it is distributing wealth from qualified renters or buyers to unqualified renters or buyers. It is not about developers! Developers pass on the expense of subsidized housing. Seniors and single mothers, those in most need, have never been the focus for Pleasanton’s largesse. Rather, we have concentrated on schoolteachers and public safety employees who are in their prime earning years and who do quite well, thank you. We must get out of the affordable housing business and tell the Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG) where to find affordable housing. Unfortunately, it is in greater supply today.

2001 Staples Ranch—F--The council should be leading the charge for the IKEA project. Pleasanton needs the sales tax revenue and the Staples Ranch location is perfect for a high-visibility retailer. The Council seems perfectly content to study this project to death wrapping it into an East Pleasanton study area. The project is a perfect segue into extending Stoneridge Drive to El Charro and El Charro to Stanley, two approved plans.

2002 Staples Ranch—F. This property is perfect for high visibility retail such as IKEA, chased away by council and staff stalling. IKEA needed streets. The council position that roads cause growth clearly was in play. IKEA could see the handwriting on the wall and skipped over the freeway to see if Dublin was friendlier. (The jury is still out on that.) If the council had chosen to extort tremendous amounts of money from IKEA as they have with Applera Applied Bio Systems and others we could have had developer help extending Stoneridge Drive to El Charro Road and El Charro to Stanley Boulevard which will ease commute traffic gridlock and add vital links out of Livermore in case of emergencies at the labs. Since those options run afoul of the council majority’s agenda, it is clear that stalling and studying will be the course of action. We can expect more bills for consultants, committees, commissions, and task forces for the “East Side” study. Look for a corridor here and an overlay there, a scenic corridor here and district there— Just about anything to slow down the process of development. The council feels that we are so flush with money that we can afford to flush down the drain a potential of $1 million in sales tax revenue. Had we accommodated IKEA a year ago, we might have a grand opening just in time to produce sales tax revenues to replace the loss of car tax revenues from the state.

2003 Staples Ranch—F—They are moving dirt. But for what reason? No projects have been announced for the 126 acres. No street network has been approved. No approved road extensions begun. IKEA is finalizing plans for a Dublin facility. The result? Pleasanton gets the increased traffic and bupkis in tax revenues. Good job Mr. Mayor.

2004 Staples Ranch—F—A baseball stadium with no Stoneridge Drive access? Senior living with no Stoneridge Drive access? A stadium will over utilize this property and senior living will under utilize it. Since ex-mayor Tom Pico and current mayor Jennifer Hosterman chased away the Swedish furniture retailer IKEA to Dublin, California, no major retailer is likely to propose retail development that would add to the treasury. Dublin’s Waterford shopping complex, that combines residential and commercial, would be an appropriate use that would also add housing to meet our state obligations. Do not, however, hold your breath on such a development.

2005 Staples Ranch—F—It is only five years into planning Staples Ranch so what is the hurry. Not even an auto dealer deadline will speed up this process.

2006 Staples Ranch—F—The automobile dealerships are getting antsy over the city’s foot dragging. We expect to see more dealers following others over to Dublin where they are welcome. When that happens, say goodbye to nearly $1 million in sales tax revenue. When we reach buildout, (when the council cannot extort development fees from developers) we will rue the day that obstructionists called the shots on vital developments heading toward buildout.

2007 Staples Ranch—F—It was hardball politics that got this long-stall project breathing again. Thank Supervisor Scott Haggerty. Alameda County said it would work with Livermore and/or Dublin if Pleasanton did not honor its commitments in a memorandum of understanding. Pleasanton had to find a face-saving way to hold onto its development plans and the eventual sales tax revenue that will flow into the city coffers. Pleasanton did but had to leave the Stoneridge Drive extension on the table to service the senior facilities, neighborhood commercial, and the Hendrick Dealership Group. Moreover, the city had to agree to more neighborhood involvement in the development plans. (Anyone moving into that neighborhood over the last 15 years had to see that Stoneridge Drive was designed to be a major thoroughfare continuing past the temporary barrier, a few hundred yards to El Charro Road.) The Stoneridge Drive extension has always been in Pleasanton’s development plans, so leaving it in should not be an earth-shattering event to most people. However, if the residents in the Mohr-Martin neighborhood do not get veto rights, the fragile so-called compromise could come a cropper. To keep on our current path will require retiring Mayor Jennifer Hosterman and retiring counselor Matt Sullivan—stooges for the Sierra Club and other left-wing, radical organizations playing identity (read that neighborhood) politics.

2008 Staples Ranch—F—Ball is in the council’s court. Say no to the Stoneridge Drive extension, and say goodbye to Staples Ranch and more than a million dollars in sales tax revenue and maybe even the right to develop this county-owned land. Livermore already has expressed an interest in taking Pleasanton’s position in annexing Staples. Pleasanton desperately needs the revenue since the state budget is forever out of balance and will be for the foreseeable future.

2001 ACE train station—F--If anyone should embrace public transportation and a mass transit village it should be environmental extremists. Our council leadership is afraid of houses and business and the ACE Train station that they promised (especially on the Bernal property) would encourage (be perfect for) high-density housing and compatible office, retail and hotel development.

2002 ACE train station—F. The council waited long enough to look seriously at the station they promised that the down economy took its toll on ACE ridership and now the council will appear prudent when they nix the station on Bernal, everyone’s location choice. They fear the station at Bernal because most forward thinking cities are now looking seriously at transit villages and building nothing on Bernal is still their special- interest agenda priority. They claim that a transit village at the BART station is preferred. They do so because a transit village/station at Hacienda will prove too costly. This is one more way that they do not have to commit to doing anything. So much for their commitment to mass transit, cleaning up the air, and relieving freeway and cross- town traffic.

2003 ACE train station—F—There is no station planned. We gave up our seat at the table of the ACE board. Traffic continues to worsen. Freeway lanes are not in the foreseeable future. Highway 84 is years away from being improved. BART is too expensive to get to Livermore. But, the Dublin transit village is moving forward at the West Pleasanton BART station. Good job Mr. Mayor.

2004 ACE train station—F—It might have a home on the Bernal property. It might be developed on Stanley Boulevard. Either way you look at it, there is no home other than the temporary spot on the Alameda County Fairgrounds. The environmentalists who control the council agenda cannot bring themselves to back a diesel solution even if it means getting cars off the gridlocked freeways and saving fossil fuels in the process.

2005 ACE train station—F—They made supervisor Scott Haggerty pretty darned unhappy with their cavalier attitude about reneging on their agreement to build the station on the Bernal property. There is no commitment on this council to do anything about public transportation and consequently air pollution.

2006 ACE train station—F—This will be the year the council completely reneges on the station. Supervisor Scott Haggerty will have to again play hardball on ACE. He may as well take a seat in the council chambers to address Staples Ranch, Stoneridge Drive extension, downtown parking and ACE.

2007 ACE train station—F—No station plans have been announced. It will take Supervisor Scott Haggerty to make things happen. Mr. Haggerty might tire of Pleasanton using the county fair parking lot across the street from the fair grounds. The rumored location on Stanley Boulevard is on the face silly but will require getting by the social engineers nee Stop Pleasanton Gridlock to get approval where The Home Depot (Regency Center and Frank Auf der Maur) could not. The station would generate more traffic (or should) than any national retailer. While there is still time (and in Pleasanton we have plenty of that because citizens are not very demanding of their elected officials) we should revive putting the ACE station on the Bernal property as a part of a new Civic Center development.

2008 ACE train station—F—Put it on Bernal and be done with it. Leaders with vision can put it together but time is running out. City Hall, library, and ACE on Bernal to rescue a park designed by committee and oh so green bureaucrats.

2001 Assisted living—F--The council talks a good game. Their actions speak louder than words however. There has been no council action over the last year even with an outside operator on board. Inviting Marriott to convert their Courtyard by Marriott property on Hopyard Road into assisted living in exchange for land on Bernal and allowing them to develop a regional conference center and hotel complex seems beyond the rural, off-the-hard-road mentality of the mayor and council. Their idea is to give away land and then loan money to get a puny project off the ground. Because it is seniors who need subsidized housing and assisted living the most, it also makes sense to assist in building rooms at Valley Care hospital in exchange for subsidized housing and assisted living credits with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the state.

2002 Assisted living—F. The city is in the assisted living business. Only they do not have a facility. The facility and management have been on the drawing boards about six years. Typical of anything Pleasanton touches, the gestation period defies logic. Hum? Could this also be why our counselors and mayor are mum on the Elder Care Alliance project on the nearly five acres at St. Augustine’s?

2003 Assisted living—F—Not a thing has happened. Our city-sponsored project is idled by a slowdown in the economy. However, the boomers are getting older and parents from the East Coast are still trying to get closer to their children and grand children.

2004 Assisted living—F—The bloom is off the rose? All the political points that could be had off senior issues have been had? When a faith-based proposal was presented, nothing but howls came from the eco-extremists. The project is too big, the project is too massive for the neighborhood, the project is too traffic generating. Or, is it really because it is supported by a church? After developers, churches must be the next evil bogeyman.

2005 Assisted living—D—We have studs.

2006 Assisted living—D—It is open and it is ugly just like the Senior Center next door. It conclusively proves that the city should not be involved in development. Their developments are either ugly or way over budget. If they convince us that we should have a new city hall, we should insist that they retain a developer to take on the project. It will save us time and money and it might actually have some architectural style. We must wait and see how the new facility operates before we can consider a higher grade. Ugly Betty will still be ugly however.

2007 Assisted living—C—The families seem happy. The facility is still ugly however. Let us hope that mature landscaping will divert our attention from the architectural features of which there are none with any redeeming value.

2008 Assisted living—C—More needs to be done. Expanding our existing facilities will help. Encouraging private investment in Pleasanton will also help. The Staples Ranch senior living proposal will help. Approval of a plan (five stories but no higher than 25 feet above ground level) on Stoneridge Drive and Foothill Road will be a shot in the arm.

2001 West Las Positas overcrossing—F--The current study is now about four years old. The interchange has been in the General Plan since the mid-seventies. It seems that most people would just like to put the issue to bed and there is excellent support for shelving the interchange and simply making improvements to the current overcrossing.

2002 West Las Positas overcrossing—F. The mayor and his quislings have the horsepower but not the intestinal fortitude to pull the trigger on pulling this project out of the General Plan. As recently as last week we heard about how it was going to be done.

2003 West Las Positas overcrossing—F—It looks as though it will be removed from the general plan but no plans have been announced to realign the current roadway to be traffic flow from Foothill Road to Hopyard Road. Pulling it from the plan needs another consultant at about $100,000. Say what? Who is fighting for us to save this expense?

2004 West Las Positas Overcrossing—F—It’s coming out of the General Plan and that will cost a bundle. However, nothing has been offered up to deal with traffic and safety on West Las Positas.

2005 West Las Positas Overcrossing—F—It is neither in nor out of the General Plan. Things move a little slowly in Pleasanton.

2006 West Las Positas overcrossing—F—Straighten out West Las Positas Boulevard to four lanes from Foothill Road to Santa Rita Road and call it square.

2007 West Las Positas Boulevard overcrossing—F—Ditto above. The overcrossing is a little dangerous to students crossing to attend Thomas F. Hart Elementary School.

2008 West Las Positas Boulevard overcrossing—F—Ditto 2001 through 2007.

2001 Stoneridge Drive extension—F--This extension has been in city plans for many years. It should be no surprise to anyone that Stoneridge would connect to El Charro. One need only to look from its dead-end a few hundred feet to El Charro to see that the extension was planned. Additionally, connecting Stoneridge to El Charro will complete a vital link to and out of Pleasanton in the case of a national emergency at the two Livermore labs. As it stands now only Stanley, Vineyard and Highway 84 are the safety links west out of Livermore.

2002 Stoneridge Drive extension—F. Build these roads and they will come. People that is. Or so say the environmental extremists on the council. Because of that convoluted thinking, these roads, long in the General Plan, will be studied to death. It will take the next progressive council to get these built. That is if this council leaves the land available. They could tie it up so nothing can be done with it except save frogs.

2003 Stoneridge Drive extension—F—All that has happened is that naysayers have begun their public relations project to sink the extension. The approved project is being studied in the Eastside Plan and restudied in the general plan review. The only bright spot is that neighbors in the area can abide the extension if they receive some concessions in return—namely four lanes instead of six.

2004 Stoneridge Drive extension—F—With Ms. Hosterman and Counselor Matt Sullivan on the council, the long-planned Stoneridge extension is moving toward extinction in the General Plan. Stoneridge is a vital east-west artery to move people in and out of Livermore in the case of an emergency. By getting people to El Charro Road and then to I-580, congestion will be relieved on city streets. Those residents along, Stoneridge from Santa Rita to the dead end near El Charro, must cope. The road was clearly meant to be a thoroughfare when residents purchased their homes. Additionally, sound walls block the noise and the visual impact of through traffic. This part of town is no different that Hacienda Business Park where travelers move at 45 mph past hundreds of homes.

2005 Stoneridge Drive extension—F—Their heads are still in the sand.

2006 Stoneridge Drive extension—F—It is getting interesting now that a citizen’s interest group that favors solving Pleasanton’s traffic woes has entered the picture. This group (see its Web site at www.stoppleasantongridlock.com) seems hell-bent getting something for all Pleasanton citizens and not favoring any one group over another. That is a new and unusual concept in Pleasanton for more than a dozen years. Livermore, Dublin, and Alameda County favor the extension to complete the circulation plan long ago negotiated and approved.

2007 Stoneridge Drive extension—F—It is not quite built but it is closer. It is not closer because of anything Pleasanton did. Supervisor Scott Haggerty got the ball rolling by telling Pleasanton that it could have all of the development traffic and Livermore could have all of the sales tax revenue. The peace treaty was good enough for Mr. Haggerty to give up the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way to Pleasanton for downtown parking. We suspect he will need that property for leverage to make Pleasanton build a permanent ACE train station. Oh well, he knows that Pleasanton has alternatives and will likely scramble to use one when he finally tires of Pleasanton’s reneging on its parking/station agreement.

2008 Stoneridge Drive extension—F—Supervisor Scott Haggerty has said he will pay for it. So let us get building. We cannot afford to cede our annexation rights to Livermore and we cannot afford to disregard, again, a million dollars in sales tax revenue. We cannot afford to leave the ice skating facility and a neighborhood park on the table. We cannot afford to force the senior facility out of town with our aging population.

2001 Flood control—F--The council has taken a dangerous wait-and-see position on upgrading our flood control plan. This could be the year of the hundred-year flood that they talk so much about and do so little to mitigate. Drought-like conditions have helped the council up until now but when might their luck run out. Costs for upgrading keep going up the longer that we wait just like the Happy Valley Golf Course. Letting developers do the upgrading is a good idea except that Pleasanton does not allow development. More importantly, there are several neighborhoods that are subject to flooding and the council puts those homeowners in jeopardy by not acting.

2002 Flood control—F. Still nothing concrete, pardon the pun. We saw the water in the arroyo rise a month ago and thought this might be the time for it to flood. The council lucked out again as they have for the past dozen or so years. Down by the green bridges watch the banks. They are not getting any better.

2003 Flood control—F—The Bernal property did receive collection ponds. They are pretty ugly though. The Arroyo de la Laguna is still untouched. The relatively dry winters have continued which means that future councils will be forced to deal with flood control.

2004 Flood control—F—As in 2001, the council has taken a wait and see approach to Pleasanton’s flood-control. There is nothing sexy about flood control. It is much more pleasant planning parks, theaters, and teen facilities. The sky is not falling today…

2005 Flood control—F—Have you looked at the arroyo near the green bridge on Bernal? The last couple of storms have eroded the banks and it might be too late for the eucalyptus logs to do any good.

2006 Flood control—F—Good thing that we have light rains so far this year. City officials would rather talk about nuclear non-proliferation and workforce housing than deal with the unglamorous flood control.

2007 Flood control—F—We had torrential downpours last month and the arroyos filled to the brim. There were no serious breaches however. We were lucky once again. No progress was made at City Hall to make the final repairs to prevent catastrophes to several of our low-lying neighborhoods.

2008 Flood control—F—Still no progress. Swales and enviro overkill notwithstanding, we continue to be lucky.

 

News Opinion

 

Here we go again with competing initiatives. May the best liars win

Pleasanton has to be among the handful of elite California cities that cannot wait to vote to pull up the moat to keep out the riff raff that would obstruct our views (veiwshed in bureaucratese) and inflame our sensibilities about saving the world and saving the red-legged frog, calipee butterfly, and the Alameda Whipsnake.

This November will be no exception to Pleasanton’s long tradition of putting neighborhood preferences ahead of the entire city, elitist sensibilities against private property rights, and environmental wackiness against common sense.

On November 4, you must vote no on PP. In a perfect world, you could disregard QQ and we could go back to putting the issue of Oak Grove to bed heading toward buildout. Pleasanton is far from a perfect world when it comes to elections, initiatives, and wacky environmental politicians who will gladly sacrifice the good of the entire community to make an agenda statement. So, vote yes on QQ to allow us the opportunity to continue to talk about private property rights and the right of the Pleasanton citizenry to expect that their elected representatives to make the difficult decisions and to stop relying on a sad-sack group of angry, agenda-driven elitists who have theirs and are perfectly willing to make sure you do not have or get yours.

Just say no…to the mayor’s conference.

Mayor Jennifer Hosterman just does not get it. Pleasanton voters want her to pursue making Pleasanton a better place. Making the world safe from the United States of America is the job of others—and, unfortunately, we have plenty of state, county, and national officeholders lining up to do just that.

Ms. Hosterman was again at the U. S. Conference of Mayors in Miami, FL voting to keep our gasoline prices sky high and to allow Iran to weaponize their nuclear capabilities.

We are confident that Jeb Bing, of the Pleasanton Weekly, had his tongue firmly in cheek when he wrote in a June 27 article that the U. S. Conference of Mayors is officially a non-partisan organization. It is certainly a leftist organization that makes liberal use of their constituent’s money to promote a leftist agenda that is harmful to the fabric of America and does nothing to better their cities.

The council should reconsider sending our mayor to this conference.

Guest Opinion

 

Those crazy letters to the editor

It is election time and all the supporters of this person or that or backers of this or that initiative all gather ‘round and cook up who will write this or that kind of letter to the various editors. In Pleasanton you read letters from the same people year after year. Year after year the various editors religiously run them. It is the First Amendment at work. However, it’s boring. Can we not move on? You elitists got yours so let just a few more have theirs and we’ll be done with it. Your view of Pleasanton and Sunol ridges cannot be that obstructed by a very few homes on a very few areas surrounded by donated park land. And to those on the other side of the equation, call a spade a spade. The obstructionists are elitist anti capitalists. Do not mince words..

The environmentalists just do not get it

Susan Chavez, in her October 16 letter to The Independent, shows how far left we have gone in Pleasanton. She concludes that the most cost-effective way to accomplish open space is through private ownership and conservation easements. The only thing that Ms. Chavez forgets is that private property owners just might prefer to be paid for their property that is available for development or sale. It is not against the law (at least not yet) to buy and develop land here. It has, however, become common practice for Pleasanton to extort goodies from property owners for the right to develop. It is also common practice for property owners to willing pay the extortion. You see, the home buyers are all too happy to pay exorbitant prices for their houses. Those high prices include very substantial city development fees and the extortion. Case closed. And, now that is not good enough for Ms. Chavez. Oh, and that is the reason why Pleasanton does not have or will ever have “affordable” housing—at least the unsubsidized free-market kind.

 

 

 

-30-