Senior subsidized housing should go on Bernal

Ask any residential real estate broker in town about the affordability of Pleasanton's housing stock and you'll receive the same answer. Of course it's affordable.

Supply and demand, a capitalist idea that has been the cornerstone of America's experiment in representative democracy and free-market economy, clearly illustrates that our housing is indeed affordable. There are few houses on the market and those on the market are again selling for the asking price. In short, buyers have determined that they, indeed, can afford to live in Pleasanton.

So who are the buyers who cannot afford to live here?

First, children of boomers who came here in the 70's and 80's have a difficult time buying or renting here. Remember, though, that Pleasanton in the 70's and 80's provided those very same boomers affordable housing when they could not afford Concord, Walnut Creek, Lafayette or Orinda. It has always been that way in the Bay Area. Keep in mind, however, that the twenty and thirtysomethings are in their prime earning years. They will do just what their parents did. They will go where housing prices fit their budgets. In the Tri-Valley that means our adult children will go to Tracy, Manteca, Antioch and Brentwood to get their first shot at home ownership. And what is wrong with that? Because they are in their prime earning years, they have plenty of time to build up an equity nest egg to return here when prices finally align with their budgets.

Second, middle class seniors on fixed incomes, have a difficult time buying into the Pleasanton market. Equities in their older Pleasanton homes would surely cover smaller homes or townhomes here. But those equities are many times needed not only for housing but for living expenses as well. Therefore, any seniors not at the upper end of the middle class (with a paid-for home) are almost surely unable to afford Pleasanton homes.

Finally, Florida and Arizona have been great for active seniors who could travel to Pleasanton to visit their children and grandchildren. However, when active seniors eventually need basic living assistance, the distance between Florida and Arizona and Pleasanton is a burden on them and on their children. The ideal is that they move in with their children or at least closer to their children. With many two and three story homes in town it is not always practical that seniors can live with their children. Living close to their children then becomes an alternative that many of us have or soon will have to confront.

It is obvious that by our housing subsidy standards, anyone who earns less than $35,000. cannot live here without help.

Just who helps is the crux of the discussion.
First, under our form of government no one is owed housing. We, as a society, choose who will receive our compassion when they find themselves without suitable accommodations. There was a time when families took care of their own even when everyone in that family was indigent. There was pride in most families for providing for themselves. Those days, since the New Deal and later the Great Society, are long gone. We made a decision that society should provide for those who cannot provide for themselves and, eventually, would not provide for themselves.

So, today, who qualifies for subsidizing housing in Pleasanton? We have established that residency and income are the primary qualifiers. And based upon an income formula, we have determined that residency in Pleasanton and nearly $50,000 income qualifies applicants to receive our compassion and our subsidy.

It should be single working mothers and Pleasanton seniors with fixed incomes and no possibility of family assistance who deserve our compassion and our housing subsidy.

So where will that be? It should not be on expensive, in-fill parcels of land. That leaves us where? Current facilities are the best place to start. Expansion at those would be a cost effective way to increase our senior subsidized housing stock without extorting in-lieu funds from builders who just pass them along to the remaining buyers—making those units less affordable.

The most obvious next best place would be on city-owned land. Like our senior assisted living project still in negotiations, senior housing on our Bernal Avenue property could be the fastest and most cost effective way to greatly increase subsidized housing. As a part of a modest civic center/transportation project, seniors could have hundreds of private/public partnership units and they'd be in a place where they would have greater mobility and greater proximity to city-provided services.

We need to change our housing jargon. We provide subsidized housing. Now it's just a matter of determining who receives it and how much of it we will provide. Who is fairly simple. How much and where is a little more complicated. Absent government mandates, we provide only what we have deemed appropriate. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and others with no financial stake in the provision of the subsidies should be happy with what we provide. If they are truly interested in subsidized housing, more is better than less and we could just as easily provide none. Goals are different than mandates. Sometimes goals are not met. In the case of ABAG and their goals for us, they simply will not be met and it is time to come clean with them and our citizens and it is time to let others know that our compassion is our business. It is time to meet with other valley mayors to discuss a unified reaction to state-sponsored racketeering of withholding funds is we fail to meet their housing mandates.

Who could bash Pleasanton for telling it like it is while we're building subsidized units on our own, city-owned land? Not even the bureaucrats in the state or at ABAG will have the courage to hunt with that dog. Our state assembly and senate representatives will be able to make a good case in Sacramento on our behalf if we are doing all that we can do and it is substantial. The Bernal property and a comprehensive civic project are the answers that make that happen.

News Opinion

City Council should complete projects

The Pleasanton City Council should spend OUR money and our staff time on completing projects such as the municipal golf course, assisted living, subsidized housing for seniors, the Bernal plan including a transit village with the promised ACE Train station.

It cannot really take four years to decide if an interchange is needed or wanted at Las Positas. OpinionPleasanton urges that the council stops the costly consulting, dissolve the committee, and make the decision. They have more than enough information to make that decision. If they do, they will save the citizens of Pleasanton a great deal of money. More importantly, they will lighten the workload of an over-worked staff.

On the Bernal property, OpinionPleasanton urges that the council call for proposals to develop the civic projects that are needed today including a new city hall-library complex. The professional staff should formulate a plan in the next 90 days. That is its job. If the staff needs more information for projects that might receive council approval, they should involve local architects and planners to propose—pro bono--projects that include the wish-list ideas that citizen committees and residents alike have already compiled. Because the council has promised a citizen vote on any development, the citizens at large will make clear their final positions. The current committee is simply a collection of special interest representatives unqualified to design a park with suitable civic development. When charged with finding suitable uses for Bernal, the Bernal Avenue Task Force had a purpose. The council has changed the scope and should dissolve the committee.

Pleasanton residents can contrast business' approach to the Bernal project and the city approach. Business, in one year, is selling homes and has signs announcing occupancy dates. The city signs show a colorful map of diverse uses but demands parks, parks, parks. That is a euphemism for no occupancy.

Lastly, Pleasanton is behind the curve in many areas because past councils have been unwilling or unable to make decisions. Delays in deciding interchanges, traffic circulation and train stations did not make those issues disappear from radar screens. It just dumped them into the hands of future councils. The unintended consequences of those long delays are rush-hour gridlock and a successful train system without a promised Pleasanton home. Many suspect, with good reason, that the past councils were stalling on projects in hopes that many would just go away. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown changed most of the council options by insisting on developing the Bernal property. Ironically, that development can now save Pleasanton the embarassment of becoming the city of planned obsolescence.

Politically this has worked well for some. Nothing has happened. No one has noticed that nothing has happened. And, only a few really care that nothing has happened. OpinionPleasanton suspects, however, that if the citizens really knew of the cost overruns and consulting fees and connected the dots on traffic gridlock and no traffic circulation or mass transit plans, that they might be mildly upset with the council and its agenda. With the economic downturn, the council's string of good luck could end. People will notice that business has developed Bernal and done it quickly and efficiently. They will notice that on day one the third ACE Train had standing room only. They will notice that it takes even longer to get to school or to soccer practice. They will notice that neighboring cities have transit plans, high-density affordable housing, cultural arts facilities, conference centers and high-profile business prospects. They will begin to wonder about the affordability of Happy Valley green fees because of frog habitat tradeoffs. They will begin to question whether their kids can actually move them into assisted living in Pleasanton. They will notice that senior and child day care are needed even more than before.

They may even notice that by making everything a neighborhood issue that the council avoids making decisions for all of Pleasanton. One day, Vintage Hills residents might notice that the Arroyo near Laguna Oaks and Valley Trails could flood. One day, Stoneridge residents might notice that traffic could flow more smoothly if Stoneridge Drive went through to El Charro. One day, while shopping at Home Depot, Pleasanton Meadows residents might notice the foul smell coming from the sewer treatment plant next to Val Vista. One day Del Prado residents might notice that downtown has only restaurants and conclude there's no there there. When they do notice, the council had better have a better response than "let them go stand on the new lighted sports field and eat cake."

Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn. To benefit all of Pleasanton, OpinionPleasanton suggests that, starting immediately, the council puts these issues on the council agenda, one by one, and make some decisions. In two years, this council has come up empty. Pleasanton deserves better.

Quick Opinion

 

Feng Shui for Bernal property

Mayor Tom Pico recently took a trip to China. Not long after his return, Mr. Pico didn't feel good about how the Bernal Avenue Task Force was proceeding on the civic projects side of the Bernal development and sent task force members back to the drawing board.

OpinionPleasanton concludes that Mr. Pico must have returned home with a greater appreciation of the ancient Chinese art of Feng Shui, which brings practice into harmony with natural forces. Mr. Pico's "parks, parks, parks and arts, arts, arts" pronouncement must mean that the practice of building needed civic structures is not in harmony with the green of parks.

Guest Opinion

Planning

Did you happen to read the letter to the editor (in the Pleasanton Weekly) authored by Planning Commissioner Matt Sullivan? The gist of his letter is that Pleasanton's citizen's misuse of the public hearing process is slowing decision-making. I really find this hard to believe after attending a recent Planning Commission meeting. The first item on the agenda was an appeal of the zoning administrator's decision initiated by Matt Sullivan. Matt, being both the appellant and a commissioner, was able to sit on the commission, present his case as the appellant, and discuss the issue as a commissioner. The discussion, however, was closed to the public. Finally, Sullivan was able to vote on the item while two of his fellow commissioners abstained from the vote because they own property in proximity to the subject site. Mr. Sullivan demonstrated his ability to delay decision making, progress, collection of fees to pay for improvements, and furthermore, delay the plans of long-term Pleasanton residents forcing them to go to the City Council with their project. The result is an additional 2-6 week delay. How can Commissioner Sullivan honestly say that citizens are slowing the process?

There is more. On the third item on the same agenda, a small mixed-use project proposed in the downtown area, Sullivan refused to follow staff recommendations for approval. He pushed the applicant to work even more with staff on design even though the staff report clearly demonstrated that the applicant had been working with staff on the design for eight months, received preliminary design review approval, received approval from the PDA's Design and Beautification Committee as well as the board, and received no negative staff comments. There were no negative public comments from the surrounding neighbors. Sullivan still felt it necessary to comment on the lack of detail on the proposed two-story craftsman-style stuccoed project. He also expressed his concern for the use of stucco on a two-story craftsman-style building. When asked to suggest what could be added to the design to provide the additional detail he was seeking, his response was that he is not an expert on the architecture and doesn't know what would help the design. His suggestion, which turned into a condition of approval, was that applicant should go back and work with staff on the design. Many citizens had reviewed and approved the project up to that point so I guess Mr. Sullivan doesn't agree with all of them either. Once more, I ask, how can Commissioner Sullivan honestly say that citizens are slowing the process.

Later in his letter, Mr. Sullivan goes on about how former Mayor Tarver and current Mayor Pico have done an excellent job on getting the public involved in the notification and opposition process. I applaud them for that, but why haven't any of Tom Pico's neighbors on Railroad Avenue been notified about his project and work on a historical home. When I asked at the Planning Department why I was not notified on the project, I was told Mr. Pico was only adding one dormer and that was considered a minor modification, which did not require notification of neighbors. Since that time, two or three other dormers have popped up on the building, and the project has yet to go through a public hearing. Even if the public wanted to comment on the project it can't, it's not up for public input.

In this letter, I was hoping to point out the hypocrisy of Matt Sullivan's letter. I addressed the fact that Matt says that citizens are slowing down the process by indicating two situations recently, in which Commissioner Sullivan himself has delayed two projects. Secondly, I question the use of public notification process by Mayor Pico, when the public has no opportunity to review and comment on his proposed project on Railroad Avenue. It seems strange to me how those in power positions will go out of their way to make sure people who disagree with them cannot be heard. Lastly, I would just like Matt Sullivan to understand that if he wishes to use the public forum to state his concerns, his actions should speak for his words. Commissioner Sullivan, we are reading and watching.

Frank Auf der Maur, Jr.

Schools

I find it difficult to understand what I read from the Pleasanton school district. A recent article in The Independent explains that the school district is experiencing a shortfall for expansions at the two high schools and providing Neal school.

It is irritating to watch cars racing up and down my street in Vintage Hills with women driving their children from the Ruby Hill development to the Vintage Hills grade school. In a development with 850 million-dollar homes, one would expect a school and traffic capacity on local streets. I know of residents in Ruby Hill that are required to make two trips across town to Lydiksen to drop-off and pick-up their children because the school district let Signature Properties off the hook for millions in fees. It is a mere coincidence our City Manager is married to the person at Signature that pulled off the heist from the district. The district would like residents to believe the shortfall is due to the economy. Signature negotiated a deal with the district when developing Ruby Hill paying the district approximately one third the required fees to build Neal school. In exchange for not paying the full fee, Signature agreed to pick-up any shortfall the district encountered in the future. Two years ago the district declared a shortfall covered in the agreement and approached Signature. They received a prompt reply to go to hell. They were not going to pay a dime and there was nothing to be done about it. The district has since voided the agreement adopting a new one letting Signature off the hook.

They claim it's the economy and not a catastrophic screw-up that has shelved the Neal school. Are residents going to end up picking up Signature's agreement for millions they got away with? This is an issue that demands truth and accountability.

Joe Jones

 

-30-