Volume One, Number 2 What ElseYou Need To Know June 19, 2001

Power in Pleasanton has transmission lines arcing

The dustup between new councilman Matt Campbell and Jennifer Hosterman, chair of the Bernal Avenue Task Force was not about New Cities and its 48 homes in Happy Valley. It’s about power. It’s about the 2002 City Council election. Ms. Hosterman has been off and running for council even as the current council was being sworn in. That is not new in Pleasanton. The old Dream Team, headed by ex-mayor Ben Tarver, has spent nearly eight years packing commissions, task forces, committees with eco extremists (all in the name of slow growth.) With Mayor Tom Pico in the mayor’s chair, nothing has changed. Barring any missteps, the council race from the environmental extremist side is set. Until filing in July of 2002, Hosterman goes to the Bernal Avenue Task Force (awaiting the chairmanship of a proposed Energy Commission) and Matt Sullivan gets a highly visible, expanded role on the Planning Commission. In the wings is Jon Harvey, newly appointed Planning Commission alternate. (Mr. Harvey was a heavy contributor to the passage of Measure D the enviro initiative designed to stop growth and stifle economic and civic progress.) Councilwoman Becky Dennis and Vice Mayor Sharrell Michelotti must make a decision on running for mayor—both are term-limited from the council. Both were defeated in previous runs—Mrs. Dennis just last November. Mr. Tarver edged out Mrs. Michelotti. No other names are in circulation.

Falling farther behind the transportation curve

Pleasanton power brokers have talked the talk but not walked the walk on transportation issues facing Pleasanton and the Tri-Valley. While neighboring cities have come forward with transit ideas and designs—including the transit village Dublin is planning for the new West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station—Pleasanton sits on the sidelines. About the only plan put forward is adding an HOV lane on I-680. The problem is, HOV lanes don’t work. They would deprive 680 motorists of one fourth of the freeway. Some would suggest that because 680 is an interstate freeway that taking one lane is a violation of the equal protection clause of the U. S. Constitution. The sad fact is that by the time a HOV lane is completed more and more San Joaquin Valley and Contra Costa commuters will clog-up the three, non Sierra Club lanes left to commuters. Our council has also been sadly silent on improving local mass transit. They cannot make up their minds on the permanent ACE Train station location. ACE is a successful Pleasanton transportation solution that they could squander with inaction.

From the Opinion Pleasanton Assignment Editor…In future issues look for stories on:

A call to City Hall for details on the number and cost of consultants on the payroll… What prevents Stoneridge going through to El Charro?
Trees to twigs…

Thanks to all who have offered congratulations to Opinion Pleasanton

Feature Opinion

State to Dublin and Pleasanton:

“We are holding your bank account hostage. You have six months to change your General Plan’s housing element or suffer the consequences.”

The answer to this state extortion and the December 2001 deadline is quite simple. The Pleasanton City Council must, in the next few weeks, issue a “request for proposals” from the owners of the Merritt and Busch properties and quickly move forward with the IKEA proposal on the Staples Ranch property. Give owners 90 days to get the proposals to the council so that they can be reviewed in time to issue permits before year’s end. More importantly, the council must also do the same for the Bernal Avenue property that is city owned. And it’s on Bernal that the city can make a good-faith attempt to provide subsidized housing for those who need it most.

With no land left to significantly develop compliance would be that much more impossible to accomplish. No reasonable person or court would support the imposition of sanctions if there were no significant building left to do. If Bernal development includes significant housing subsidies so much the better for the council’s inevitable defense.

Bills in the state bill-mill right now demand local compliance for what amounts to un-funded mandates (something the Federal Government did away with) for affordable housing—however defined. The bill by state Senator Joe Dunn, D-Garden Grove calls for financial sanctions for not complying. Far more serious than sanctions is a bureaucracy dedicated to obstructing anything Pleasanton might consider that might need state assistance.

The legislation is not a surprise. The state is in the hands of Socialists dedicated to redistributing the state’s income to “favorites” or “protected” citizens. With the state government in the hands of liberals, there is little doubt that the legislation will pass. Needing a victory to pacify his base constituency, Gov. Davis will likely sign the legislation. The protected and privileged will demand no less. California voters will remain asleep on this issue and will give the governor and the legislature a pass.

In addition to asking for building proposals Pleasanton must also do one more thing. Pleasanton must make it absolutely clear to developers and property owners that this is not a get out of jail free card. There will be development requirements. However, with a property owner-city partnership, Pleasanton can complete its orderly buildout ahead of restrictive state regulation and property owners can move, when the economy is still good, to complete the remaining Pleasanton projects ahead of current schedules.

Pleasanton’s Bernal project requires an even greater leap of faith on the part of the Council. Not only should “affordable housing” be a major portion of the plan, it should be incorporated with other civic and transportation projects. They still have a window of opportunity to finance the entire project based upon the value of the land alone. Do the math. Land is currently selling for about $30. per square foot. There are approximately 14,080,000 million square feet on the site. The multiplication means $422 million in equity, which should be adequate for financing the civic projects. Business, in partnership with the city, can develop housing and commercial needs using their own borrowing power to finance them. Projects currently under discussion include: Transportation hub with the permanent ACE Train station as the centerpiece.

In the “transit village” could be subsidized senior housing as well as commercial and civic projects which can include:
New City Hall, library, police facility, museum, conference center, performing arts theater and a sports park.

Developers could be encouraged to build high-density rental and ownership housing in the transit village.

Once the Bernal project is completed, the city can sell it’s current civic center complex on 12 acres to bring in another $15 million (a good sum to offset much of the expense for a new civic center on Bernal). Then the city should request development proposals for parking and retail facilities at that end of Main Street. Parking and a greater variety of retail in Downtown are desperately needed. The plan works to solve several thorny Pleasanton problems and it bids the state good luck with their social engineering.

Finally, the Pleasanton City Council should join with Mayor Guy Houston of Dublin, and 200 other mayors, in protesting state extortion. It is sad that Mr. Houston did not hold sway when the Dublin council decided to reconsider its subsidized housing policy. It is not likely that homebuilders will back out of the community because of councilwoman Janet Lockhart’s subsidized housing plan. There is too much land upon which to build and too much profit to be made to take I-580 east to Tracy. Sadly, however, it will mean that Dublin housing costs will escalate for the middle class to pay for the council’s compassion. Moreover, if it is not subsidized housing for the elderly then it is the council’s misplaced compassion.

News Opinion

The Whole Enchilada?

Flop flip. Flip flop. The city council recently took a big bite out of the Pedro’s Restaurant developer’s approved plan to build an office complex on the failed restaurant site. Their disapproval has recently become re-approval. So just what has happened? It’s quite simple. Politics. Having suffered a couple of significant defeats, the eco lobby had to cobble together a victory. Here is a possible scenario. Knowing that councilwoman Becky Dennis is an ardent supporter of subsidized housing, the losers on the first Pedro’s vote had to rally subsidized housing special interests to apply pressure to Mrs. Dennis. The rally, in a packed council chamber, happened when Vice Mayor Sharrell Michelotti was away on a long-planned vacation (originally sandwiched between council meetings so that she would not shirk her council responsibilities) the liberals had a shot at flipping Mrs. Dennis. It worked and the eco extremists had their victory. In politics, timing is everything.

What is the result of such skullduggery? The subsidized housing advocates, knowing that their maneuvering would likely result in business park builders revisiting other business park land for housing, could change their tunes acknowledging that the Pedros site is unsuitable for housing. Because the Business Park is about the only elitist alternative for subsidized housing units, agenda politicians could reverse themselves with no political fallout. Who would oppose more high-density housing in the Business Park? With impunity, they could strong-arm the Business Park for high-density housing and leaving the rest of the undeveloped land on Bernal, Busch and Merritt for nothing or at the very least golf courses, sports fields and million-dollar homes. The council about faces likely gave the office builder acid indigestion and probably hit him in the pocketbook. And, Hacienda developers have come to expect being roughed up by the city’s liberal power structure. No matter, they’re just developers.

Tree frogs and flying squirrels

Is there an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Bernal Avenue tree removal? One local letter writer has suggested a tree-in. Since that involves humans, may we expect mitigation in the form of houses for people?

Some have humorously asked why no concern for habitat mitigation for the animal kingdom. After all, the 87 walnuts were thought to be habitat to the purple-guletted tree frog and the Pleasanton flying squirrel. Will Greenbriar be forced to provide acreage so these species can be relocated until the new “native” trees can again accommodate them? Or will they be asked to provide dual-use squirrel cages—the exercise wheels could generate electricity which could be bundled and sold.

Sadly, tree-cutting opponents bark is worse than their bite—even after hundreds of e-mail messages. The trees will go—tree-in not withstanding. It could be worse. The trees could stay and the many that are deseased or so small as to be like a new planting, could stand as a memorial to Pleasanton’s grass roots concern for plants and animals first.

PR Apparatus

No finer public relations apparatus has ever been created than the one put together by environmentalists and an obliging press. The latest example comes in the form of a news report on the council decision to “fund” the implementation of Measure D. The outrage, however, is not the funding it is in the cleaver way the Measure D issue is currently being framed. Rather than a no-growth measure, Measure D is now a measure to preserve agriculture. Counselors were told that there is not enough staffing to implement the plans called for in Measure D. The news report begins with the statement that a request of “$250,000 from the federal government to hire staff will enable agricultural enhancement programs to be implemented.” The money would come from the United State Department of Agriculture. Not said was that agriculture, in desperate defense of their industry, helped write the competing Measure C hoping to lessen the damage done by environmental extremist measures—Measure D included. But given the opportunity, agricultural interests would opt out of Measures D’s agricultural enhancements. With enhancements come strings and more importantly regulations—from all levels of government.

In a desperate attempt to maintain the value of their Tri-Valley land, agricultural interests had to sign on to Measure C. Off camera, most would report that their economic interests would be better served with no “growth” measures but since the environmental movement, it has become increasingly more difficult to oppose “preserving” the land. Interest groups and the press have done a masterful job of promoting wildlife and demonizing landowners. Opposing Measure D and writing Measure C was about the only step available to agriculture to protect it from owning “wetlands” or plant and animal “habitat” which essentially transfers that land from them (rightful owners) to the frogs and snakes through their surrogates—the people. Now with the money, let the enhancements begin.

Quick Opinion

Connecting the dots means trouble for the Pleasanton City Council

There are concerned citizens who view the operation of their beloved city with skepticism and concern. Why is Pleasanton possibly facing unrest? It is after all a pleasant place to live and its elected representatives appear to operate with collegiality.

Perception is not always reality. A look at the facts clearly indicates that things are slow to get done and have been for the last eight years. The legislative gridlock has exacerbated the problems that needed solving years ago. In spite of that, it’s not only the speed with which our city business is done that concerns a small but growing number of citizens. It’s the ideology stupid. And, tiresome agenda politics is beginning to get pretty expensive.

Pleasanton’s not-in-my-backyard and no trespassing signs have had unintended consequences now becoming abundantly clear.

Slow growth, over the Dream Team years, was supposed to keep Pleasanton a bucolic place to live and go to school. Those lucky enough to have moved here in the 70s and 80s could look over their city and see amber waves of grain and, on a good day in Mayberry, see wildlife including the beloved frog. Power wires and rooftop air conditioners, having been eliminated, were the albatross of other cities.

Forgotten during those years were the “farm to market” roads to get people quickly and conveniently to work and school and to soccer practice. Forgotten was energy for those privileged late comers who power up our local economy but could short circuit our homes’ cool interior environments. Forgotten was our contribution to regional transportation so that those less fortunate in surrounding cities would not have to inch along through our quiet little nirvana.

Forgotten by the no-growthers, who publicly advocated slow, “targeted” growth, was the infrastructure for that growth. Never mind that we already had the business park. We already had the downtown renaissance. We already had the estate homes with vineyards. Nexus here is that growth—no matter that it was elitist—needed the concomitant roads, power, transportation, schools and recreational facilities. And it didn’t happen. And, people who haven’t noticed before today are noticing now and are rightly concerned.

Our city’s desire for Mayberry was not misplaced. Except for circumstances beyond our control, the idea of Mayberry might have worked. Beyond our control were 680 and 580 and that changed Pleasanton’s prospects. Recently what has not changed was our approach to that change. Oh, at one time we were on course to provide for a citizenry that was busy with family and jobs. We invited business into town and won honors for our treatment of industry and its workers. We invited shopping into town and made it comfortable for visitors and residents alike. We held community events for the greater Bay Area to call attention to our beautiful little corner of Eden. It worked. Visitors returned to our redeveloped downtown to eat and shop and to the Fairgrounds for shows and fun. And all around us, cities grew at rates greater than ours did and that put pressure on Pleasanton to provide supply to meet the Tri-Valley’s demand.

The answer over the last few years was million dollar homes.

People with big mortgages have so little face time with their families that they surely would not have the time to keep up on city affairs or city politics. Weekends at the farmer’s market and on the soccer pitch don’t count—that’s decompression time. Oh, sure there would be bumps in the road for no-growthers. Historical silos must not exceed 40 feet. Bridges would need building. Power transmission lines would need moving to neighboring cities lest they give us cancer. But their answer to most issues was simply to show an over abundance of concern and those nettlesome bumps in the road would simply remain bumps and nothing would happen—precisely what they wanted.

Then came nexus. Traffic is gridlocked twice a day. Flooding is still possible for several neighborhoods. Housing, except for the wealthy, is in demand but in short supply. Boomer’s parents need a place to live and they need day care. Twenty and thirtysomethings need quality childcare. Planners in other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies are making demands for housing that we cannot meet. Increasing costs of our own making and a robust Tri-Valley economy is testing our compassion, in the form of subsidies. We have a successful new rail system but without a promised Pleasanton home. Food, fun and frolic are about all that’s left in downtown. Let’s hope that Pleasanton’s elite don’t pull in their horns or our restaurant owners will be boosting prices or leaving Pleasanton for Tracy and Manteca where rents are low and appetites are big for Bay Area cuisine.

Touchy, feely hasn’t worked

Huzzahs to councilwoman Becky Dennis and Vice Mayor Sharrell Michelotti. Measure D, which passed in last November’s election, is eco extremism. Supporting the measure’s defense in a yet unwritten amecus curiae--friend of the court--brief (along with Oakland and Berkeley) is agenda politics at its best. From where did the council’s support of the brief originate? Mayor Tom Pico, an ardent supporter of D, could always be counted on to put aside not knowing what would be in such a brief to score political points. Councilwoman Kay Ayala, who opposed Measure D, and a companion measure C, was considered a swing vote. Seeking to solidify her credentials as an environmentalist and her council power, she cast her lot and vote with the Sierra Club, Jon Harvey a Planning Commission alternate and a major financial backer of D and Mr. Pico. Mrs. Dennis, a friend to the environmental lobby, showed great restraint by refusing to sign-on to a document that isn’t even written. Mrs. Michelotti, always the levelheaded, common sense counselor, essentially said “show me the papers.” She also wouldn’t disavow her support of Measure C. Finally she reasoned that because Pleasanton voters were evenly split on the measures that the council had no mandate to support Measure D’s defense. The surprise was councilman Matt Campbell. He opposed Measure D and supported C. Mr. Campbell’s professional life, dealing with text book facts, should have lead him to the conclusion that, absent the facts (written brief), a vote that evening was at least premature. In addition, his reasoning on the result of the eco votes was pretty skimpy. The D and C votes were nearly evenly divided.

People who oppose eco extremism now know that you can’t bring a knife to a gunfight. Although the council’s vote is symbolic, it commits the city and some funds to a concept, a notion, and an ideal—not one upon which all Pleasanton voters agree. Mr. Campbell won his seat and supported Measure C. Jennifer Hosterman, Bernal Avenue Task Force chair, lost and supported Measure D. Maybe Ms. Hosterman was correct in her e-mail correspondence to Mr. Campbell that his council votes could disappoint the 12,000 voters who checked Campbell and the 11,000 of them who also said No on D.