Volume
Three, Number 4 What ElseYou Need To Know December 18, 2003
Council report card 2003
The current city council has been
seated for more than two years. Like the council before it, its accomplishments
are few and its deficiencies are many. It is apparent that Mayor Tom Pico
and his council colleagues are happy with doing things slowly.
Even clearer than before, this policy has cost Pleasanton citizens millions
of dollars and plenty of headaches.
The process, embraced by bureaucrats and liberal politicians, simply is to study proposals to death—except those favored by the eco extremists. The studies, usually conducted by outside consultants, come at a considerable financial cost. More importantly, the enormous cost in staff time and wasted motion by well-intentioned citizen volunteers is staggering.
It is no wonder that, in his recent announcement that he will run for the 20th Assembly district seat, Mr. Pico failed to mention his Pleasanton accomplishments except for his seat on regional boards, etc. For Mr. Pico, and apparently the council, it is all about process. Accomplishments be damned.
Sadly, all we have to say again is ditto. The mayor has been a failure. The council—even with shifting, more flexible votes—was a failure. The only conclusion that can be reached is that the city’s professional staff is letting us down and needs a serious review by the new 2004-2005 council. OpinionPleasanton is realistic and knows that the staff is not likely to be reviewed any time soon. Today, they are heroes. Nothing happening is precisely what the council wants. Nothing, however, costs Pleasanton residents many millions of dollars in wasted motion. A new council may see this.
Add specious environmental issues such as sustainability to the list under review and you see that when the issues suit the special-interest agenda of the counselors, things happen rapidly. Otherwise, they let the “process” take its course. The speedup on energy and sustainability issues is akin to Counselor Kay Ayala recommending that the council and staff install the lights on Bernal’s new lighted sports field quickly before the houses are built and the new homeowners have a legitimate reason to gripe about the inconvenience of light shining in their bedroom windows.
The process, embraced by Pleasanton’s bureaucrats and liberal politicians, simply means that proposals will be studied to death. The studies are usually conducted by outside consultants at an enormous financial cost. More importantly, the cost in staff time and wasted motion by well-intentioned citizen volunteers is staggering.
With environmental extremists and their sympathizers on the council, it appears that progress on the above front is doomed to study and more study, expense and more expense. Look for global warming and frog habitat to replace traffic and flood control as priority items worthy of speedy council action.
Below is OpinionPleasanton’s council report card for 2000-2001,
2001-2002 in italics, and 2002-2003 in bold for the important issues facing
the mayor and city council (see the complete text of the 2001-2002 report
card in Volume Two, Number Seven issue of OpinionPleasanton).
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 east bound 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.
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.
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 which issue permits for these type 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.
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).
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.
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.
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 Marriot to convert their Courtyard
by Marriot
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.
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 optimize 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?
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. As a result
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 nay sayers 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.
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.
| Nineteen
thousand six hundred ninety nine, nineteen thousand seven hundred
trees. That done, let’s start counting consultants. Editors
feel that it stands to reason that this might just take a minute
or two. Pleasanton is a small city. Then again it might take a
great deal of time to find them hidden in the minutia of the department
budgets. And trying to shame the City Council, the Mayor, or the
City Manager into revealing how many there are and how much they
cost has been a two-year effort for naught…we are following
up on how eight office buildings morph into housing… |
Feature Opinion
Haugen, Weaver and Pulido elected to school board
Pleasanton voters liked the status quo when it came to the school board election November 4.
The surprise was the re-election of board president Kris Weaver. She virtually spent no money on her campaign—meaning she mailed no literature and more importantly she displayed no lawn signs with which to influence--at the last minute--ignorant and uninvolved voters. Voters mistakenly think schools are good in town and did not want to rock the boat.
Steve Pulido is hardly a rock-the-boat candidate. Having slated up with Juanita Haugen, Mr. Pulido has been out in front with school volunteer activities. Volunteerism has been good enough in the past to get candidates elected to the board. It worked this time too.
Mrs. Haugen, a 24-year veteran of the board, was a sure bet in a don’t rock-the-boat election. Her experience alone dictated she be returned. Mrs. Haugen can keep the relative newcomers honest and up-to-speed.
The only problem is is that two of this threesome have not done the job in the recent past and the prospects for change are minimal. In terms of elections—same ole, same ole.
Catherine Tsairides and Mark Moses mounted spirited campaigns. If board members Pat Kernan and Gloria Fredette do not run in two years, they might have a future on the board. The likelihood of this happening is great since City Counselor Matt Campbell has chosen not to run for re-election to the City Council and Mayor Tom Pico is expected to win in his run for the state assembly. That means two council seats open. Former board member Cindy McGovern is a sure bet to run for the council again. Mr. Kernan and Ms. Fredette have ties to Mr. Campbell and could ride his endorsement onto the council. (Eco-holic, Matt Sullivan could run a on a dream team ticket with Ms. McGovern).
Ron Fiala, a realtor, got no traction. Neither did Christian Bendixen
or Michael Jurkovic.
Jurkovic and Bendixen have great resumes but finished so far out of
the running that they would need a major board meltdown to be elected.
Mr. Jurkovic, like Ms. Weaver, spent no money on his campaign. Mr.
Bendixen’s signs went up late and he took on the teacher’s
union contributions to the incumbents and the handpicked. He also
had the nerve to clearly demonstrate election law violations in the
school’s mailrooms.
One of the most disappointing aspects of the election is that Philip Patrick, who withdrew from the election, garnered more than eleven hundred votes. This is another dose of anecdotal evidence that Pleasanton voters are uninvolved and ignorant of the issues. Those Patrick voters, trying to be informed, read the voter pamphlet before going to the polls. What they did not do is read the three newspapers in town or watch any of the candidate forums on CTV. Those 1,124 votes might have made Ms. Tsairides a winner or given Mr. Fiala or Mr. Moses more respectable vote tallies. Those voters, after reading their voter guides, were obviously looking for a change on the board.
News
Opinion
Why Lund Ranch development should concern you
T
Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc. was told by the Pleasanton Planning Commission to prepare the expensive report (or to take a hike). Greenbriar was asking to construct 150 homes on 80 acres of the 195-acre project on Lund Ranch Road. The remaining 115 acres are to be dedicated to the city as a significant public amenity. The problem for commissioners was that much of the land is steep and unusable and thus not considered an amenity.
Eco-holics, like the chemically dependent, are hooked on asking for more and more including demanding useable greenbelts. In the recent past, man was excluded from using land up for grabs for mitigation. It was accepted that as long as the California Tiger Salamander or the Callippe Butterfly can be saved no matter that man is left out of the equasion.
The project also requires extensive grading and the extensive removal of native oak trees. It mattered little to commissioners that the Callippe Preserve Golf Course, the city is developing adjacent to Lund Ranch, required extensive grading and the removal of native oak. It mattered little that the huge canopy of Sycamore trees along Bernal Avenue that were removed were later replaced by developers.
In order to keep houses under a million dollars, developers can afford specimen trees to replace those removed for development. An EIR will cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and take up to two years to complete. The permit process will take that much time or more. In four years much can happen to the cost of development—just ask the Pleasanton City Council. The council’s golf course—in five short years—went from a projected $14 million to an estimated $35 million. Rounds of golf will cost more you can be sure. Greenbriar’s homes will skyrocket in four years.
Eco-holics would say “so what.” But that cavalier attitude does this to Pleasanton. First, expensive homes mean a more elite population. Expensive homes upset our affordable to unaffordable housing ratio—even though Greenbriar might consider selling a couple of the million-dollar homes for $850,000 in addition to paying the affordable housing (subsidized housing) fees already on the books. The developers love those expensive homes--fewer homes on larger parcels—because they made more profit. So city policy environmental policy ends up making those hated, evil developers plenty of profit.
More importantly, eco extremists set and control the agenda. It has
come so far that we now can easily discuss these once esoteric development
issues. Ipso facto, projects need EIR’s and multiple agencies
must sign off before developers can be issued permits. In Pleasanton’s
case, it only hurts when the city is the evil developer. What’s
more, the politicos and the city staffers are keeping mum on the convoluted
process that adds time and considerable costs.
What are the costs for Pleasanton’s commenting on Livermore’s General Plan, airport.
Turn about is fair play. Pleasanton’s General Plan is now under review. You can be sure that once it is released for public scrutiny, Livermore will be first in line to bash the water park on Stanley Boulevard, an ACE train station on Stanley across from the water park, the extension of Stoneridge Drive to El Charro Road and El Charro to Stanley.
Quick
Opinion
We do things a little slowly cannot apply to the city Website
The city’s Website is woefully inadequate on several fronts. When it comes to property for sale—Pleasanton’s Website is frankly amateurish. Listing properties as available for development is ludicrous on the face of it for Pleasanton—one of the most business unfriendly cities in the Bay Area. But for those who have not meandered through the maze of bureaucrats and regulators at City Hall, the listing of those properties that are two years old or older is simply inexcusable. What business executive is going to view Pleasanton as well-run city with glaring public relations faux paus?
The solution is, of course, to update this section of the Website
every week—the same time that agendas and meeting minutes are
posted. Department heads are quick to use the Internet to publish
meeting notices, agendas and related activities for environmental
extremist topics but there appears to be no one dedicated to publishing
anything related to business or doing business in Pleasanton.
Haggerty goes over to the other side
Never, ever, ever is social program funding turned down at holiday time. It is no different today. Supervisor Scott Haggerty voted with the majority to place a one-half cent sales tax increase on the March 2004 ballot to pay for health and social program enhancements. Those new entitlements will all be over the hill clearly out of the reach for Tri-Valley needy. The only thing not out of reach is the pocketbook of the softheaded and softhearted Tri-Valley taxpayer.
What was Mr. Haggerty to do? Just say, “make do.”
Of course, since no one filed to run against Mr. Haggerty in next year’s election, he will have less motivation to say no to anything. Hold onto your pocketbooks.
Guest Opinion
Brainwashing is easiest at
an earlier age.
A Letter to the Pleasanton City Council
September 16, 2003
Go Green! What
a great campaign slogan. Will the youth be passing out (candidate)
campaign literature next? Oh, not yet? That probably comes a little
later--one step at a time.
Was there any debate among the city scholars about the wide range of synonymous equivalents? I am disappointed there were no other obvious options for the name. I understand not using Go Democrats! Or Go Republicans! So why Go Green?
I agree it is great advance planning. Brainwashing is easiest at an earlier age. That makes the transition sooo much easier at 14-15 years of age to include candidate’s literature…great school project. And, when a naïve youth is faced with WIDE ranging political questions, it is a natural transition to chant, Go Green!! Brilliant!!
Just like no blending of church and state, taxpayer schools should not be blending politics and state. This was no accident…How sad for the political overlap. How sad nobody involved was gifted enough to select a non-partisan name for the initiative. Surely another title could have been used, for an otherwise, presumably, well-intentioned idea.
The last several months the City Council vaguely disguised partisan activities as having other motives. The partisan politics that has taken over our previously non-partisan community is scary. Are the students still being taught the disguised Trojan-Horse technique? Is the ability to reason saved for college?
This is just too blatant to let pass.
Judy Symcox
Pleasanton
The lust for money
“The city of Pleasanton, while being run by Mayor Tom Pico and his posse, doesn’t care about middle-income families. We don’t fit into their exclusive, upscale community plan,” wrote Ray Winther in a letter to the Valley Times.
Mr. Winther was writing about the three Ti-Valley city’s definitions of affordable housing. Mr. Winther correctly defines it as subsidized housing.
Bravo to Mr. Winther for his astute observation.
Fixing Pleasanton Traffic?
John P. Ferrari wrote in a Tri Valley Herald My Word piece that he found it interesting that “…in an effort to stop cut-through traffic, our Pleasanton residents have to spend more time away from their families while sitting in self-inflicted, bumper-to-bumper traffic.”
Mr. Ferrari’s suggestion to change our computer system to make a few simple adjustments is right on target. If our lights were synchronized and if left turns were permitted on green lights as well as green arrows, we would move things.
The problem is the two freeways. They are grid locked. If we are to make a dent there, we need to add lanes and not just HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes. We must also expand Highway 84 from Isabel to I-680, extend Stoneridge Drive to El Charro Road and El Charro to Stanley Boulevard, and add a two-lane over crossing to realign West Las Positas Boulevard from Muirwood Drive over I-680 to Payne Road.
-30-
Copyright © 2003 Opinion
Pleasanton. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Legal Stuff
All images on this site are copyrighted by N.E.W.Graphics,
with the exception of some altered public domain graphics and varous business
logos belonging to local businesses who support Opinion Pleasanton. No
graphic located on this site may be altered, sold, or put into any collection
without written confirmation from N.E.W. Productions. No article, poll,
or visitor comment may be altered or reprinted on another website or news
article without the express written permission of the Opinion Pleasanton
edtors,Bob Cordtz and James Jordan. To do so may result in legal action.
For more information on copyright laws and protections
click here.