Wonder why there is no affordable housing in Pleasanton?

Finally there is a study that shows some of the costs of eco extremism in Pleasanton. The United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) has concluded that in south Pleasanton critical habitat for the California Tiger Salamander would add more than $27,000 to the average cost of a house there. The FWS contrasts that with $13,000 added to the cost of the average home in east Dublin.

The calculations were made by Charles River Associates in Oakland and consider how much money a developer would lose by having to give up a certain numbers of units to preserve land for habitat.

Add that $27,000 to the fees that the City of Pleasanton, Zone 7, and other agencies assess and you can see why the million dollar homes cost a million dollars.

Remember, however, that there are always kit foxes, butterflies, whipsnakes and red-legged frogs in Pleasanton. So, if the California Tiger Salamander does not cost you, one of the other “threatened” species will. (Developers of Lamoine Ranch had to install a whipsnake wall to keep the whipsnake out of landscaping where domestic pets and lawnmowers could kill them. Houses in Lamoine Ranch were estimated to sell for $750,000 to $1.2 million before development and eventually sold for $1.2 to $1.6 million after construction.

Most traditional fees have formulas for calculation. Habitat fees are pretty much determined by how severe developers will be punished and for how much undeveloped land is selling. Many developers are forced to buy undeveloped land miles away from their projects to “mitigate” developing on habitat for this or that species. In areas such as Pleasanton, land could be as much as $1,000,000. per acre.

 

News Opinion

City takes a mulligan on golf course fees

The City of Pleasanton as a developer has failed miserably. The Callippe Preserve Golf Course and Open Space has come in at $42 million nearly $30 million over budget and is about five years late.

However, as a marketer of golf rounds they have done a magnificent job. Rounds of $36 for weekdays and $51 for weekends are competitive and will not likely dissuade Pleasanton golfers from playing a projected 55,000 rounds. Of course, if you are subsidizing those rounds to the tune of $1 million a year the marketing effort is a hole in one.

With a record such as this, it is no wonder that skeptics hope that the city does not take on any other development projects including sports fields, a train station, senior housing, and a new civic center.

On eminent domain think nationally, act locally

Steven Anderson, in a recent guest commentary, says “redevelopment statutes such as California’s, which give local governments the eminent domain power, are written so vaguely that they can literally apply to any property, making any property fair game.” Anderson is the coordinator of the Castle Coalition, a nationwide citizen group fighting eminent domain abuse at www.castlecoalition.org.

With a dozen or so blocks near Pleasanton’s City Hall needing some tender loving care, property owners must be vigilant about redevelopment, the liberal politicians “process” of choice to acquire and finance the needed or perceived makeover. (Redevelopment’s tax increment financing essentially uses other people’s money to pay for projects.) More pernicious, however, is the notion that the older houses, duplexes, and apartments do not throw off enough property tax to the city and that new dwellings would. And since the
U. S. Supreme Court has established that economic development is now a public use of private property, Pleasanton’s downtown property owners should be on the lookout for city officials at the front door saying, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Property owners with property near the recently abandoned downtown firehouse should also be on the lookout for helpful government officials. Once the firehouse is converted into a small theater and gallery, parking demand will increase and parking facilities will become a necessity for an economically vital downtown. A booming downtown economy will bring in more tax revenue than a few older homes and apartments. On two separate occasions the city has called these homes and those near City Hall “blighted” and subject to redevelopment. Fortunately a coalition of downtown interests has beaten back these attempts.

The current city council is more elitist and left leaning than past councils. Consequently, redevelopment is more of an option.

Chickens a nuisance neighbors say. Planning Commission disagrees

It is probably not a good idea to encourage suburban animal husbandry. But four roosterless chickens that only cluck and peck are probably not the end of the world in a residential neighborhood. After all that is why 20 years ago City Fathers said that residents could raise chickens if they applied for a use permit.

Spending a bunch of city time (the planning commission heard the issue at two different meetings) on the issue is probably where the wheels came off.

Public health element in General Plans?

Government is just not big enough. Now public health is being floated as an element in the general plans of California cities.

Dr. Richard Jackson, California’s state public health officer before a meeting of a joint committee of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Bay Area Air Quality District, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) did not provide details but suggested that there is a general link between urban design and people’s health.

Dr. Jackson said, “It’s hard to imagine that a developer might be enthusiastic about it.” And therein lies the tale. A public health general plan element is sure to cause time consuming paperwork and mitigations for developers that will be passed along to homebuyers and business owners. It a runaway economy the added expense matters little to the developers. In a slow economy the costs can cause marketing problems.

More importantly, a public health element is one more step toward totally socialized medicine.

Quick Opinion

 

Full faith and credit?

Pleasanton’s two face policies are quite a contrast from the public perception of Pleasanton as a low-key, straight forward, no non-sense little city.

How we actually raise our hackles when the City of San Francisco stiffed us for three acres right where the city wants to erect a city hall campus when we stiffed the county on the ACE station on Bernal is a perfect study of “it depends upon whose ox is gored.”

As a part of the Bernal development deal, the city was to have been given the option to buy the three acres for $500,000 by then-mayor Willie Brown. Only the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is not obligated to honor Mr. Brown’ handshake deal. The courts eventually agreed that absent a signed deal no obligation exists. With such an important parcel, a signature on the dotted line might have been order. Whose head was lopped off for forgetting this tiny, minor matter when negotiating Bernal? No heads have rolled so far. Things move just a little slowly in Pleasanton.

Guest Opinion

 

Keep Stoneridge Drive Extension in Pleasanton General Plan

During the past few weeks, there have been several informative and in depth stories and letters in the local media about the above subject. I agree with the contributors, we have here, a regional issue, and it will be ongoing, and should be addressed now, and on that basis. Input by the Pleasanton Chamber, county supervisor, Mr. Scott Haggerty, and local traffic consultant, Mr. Chris Kinzel, have provided insight, which many others and I agree with.

For years, I have been disappointed with a city council that seems to get elected by catering to neighborhood hot button concerns to the detriment of the balance of our citizens, and the city as a whole.

Whether the issue is seniors, churches, or traffic, a few negative strident voices hold sway and the city council and planning commission buy in. This commission is, of course, a mayor’s primary appointed tool. Stoneridge Drive is the latest NIMBY thing. All who live in Pleasanton should share equally in the gain and pain experienced by our city growth. The city council has however, ignored the years of traffic frustration suffered by residents on the Bernal Ave., Sunol Blvd., First Street, Stanley, and Valley Ave. corridors.

In the Stoneridge area east of Santa Rita Rd. and south of Arroyo Mocho, residents surely must have noticed, when locating there, a four-lane road with a wide median, and a tall sound wall. A very good clue as to what would occur. This extension has been in our general plan since 1986 and thru 1996.

Very interesting, is that from the current eastern end of Stoneridge to the city limits is only about ½ mile. East of that and past El Charro Rd, towards the airport, about 1.75 miles, is Alameda County property.

In our June election, all the candidates, and the city council said no to the extension, as this was the current NIMBY hot button. Pleasanton has 38,329 registered voters. In the East Stoneridge voting area and south to Mohr, there are 1670 registered voters, but only 466 of these good folks cast a ballot in June. How is it possible that 1.2% of our voters could dictate to the council what should be done to equalize traffic flow in this city, and at the same time negate cooperation with our neighbor cities and Alameda County?

Livermore has indicated a desire to extend Jack London Blvd. To Stoneridge, and it is likely that the county would donate the land. It is possible then, that Dublin would consider the extension of Dublin Blvd. East to help regional traffic flow.

The Stoneridge extension should and must be left in our General Plan. This is planning that concerns all local cities and the county. Unfortunately, it could be likely that a referendum would have to be initiated to resolve this issue for Pleasanton, and if a petition were imitated to put this on a ballot, I would sign it in a heartbeat, and I am certain that many other frustrated and concerned citizen groups would do the same.

Gerry Brunken

Boy did the Chamber of Commerce stir up a hornet’s nest

Gerald W. Hayes, in his letter to the editor of the Valley Times, August 22, 2005, accurately spells out how special-interest politics in Pleasanton has created traffic gridlock and will cripple future councils from doing the right thing for the entire community. Mr. Hayes is specifically speaking of the extension of Stoneridge Drive to El Charro Road and then to an extended Jack London Boulevard in Livermore.

Mr. Hayes recalls how Valley Avenue became a divided four-lane thoroughfare, “there were no special meetings with the city—it was decided by the city leaders that traffic had to move and the right course was to make Valley a divided road.”

Mr. Hayes suggests that if the city council cannot come to grips with the traffic problem and the Stoneridge solution then the people should make the decision at the ballot box as has been suggested by the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce and Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty. Ex mayor Tom Pico suggested several years ago that the Stoneridge extension issue would be on the ballot. It is believed that that Mr. Pico thought that the extension would be approved and that Stoneridge residents would have to referend the issue and not that the citizens with the help of the Chamber of Commerce would have to do the signature gathering.

No sparks from Flint

Tri-Valley Herald letter writer Dorothy Flint has it bass-akwards. The Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce represents Pleasanton business and the beleaguered drivers of Pleasanton who have been bottled up by special interest, no-growth politics.

Ms. Flint takes the Herald’s Tim Hunt to task for his call for building the Stoneridge Drive extension for the good of Pleasanton and the entire Tri-Valley. What she does not do is advance a logical argument. “Throw away some of the beautiful sections of Pleasanton to traffic?” and “risk turning sections of Pleasanton into strip mall areas?” and “a Band-Aid approach?” The Stoneridge Drive extension has been in the General Plan for 20 years and in planning since 1966. Stoneridge Drive near where it stubs out a few hundred yards from El Charro Road has high, decorative sound walls, highly landscaped sidewalks and median, only a few cross streets, and a low speed limit to mitigate hazards, noise, and the feeling of driving in an aqueduct.

Ebright’s hysteria is predictable

Paul Ebright’s kind of hysteria is predictable—the kind we have been hearing since the 70’s. Build roads and they will come—homes and people that is. Growth is the windmill at which Mr. Ebright has been tilting all these years. At least his points have some relationship to reality. Though the entire city council favors elimination, new Counselor Jerry Thorne wavered, waffled, and whiffed on this issue during his last two elections but has the open-mindedness to revisit this issue especially if the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce is successful in re-framing the issue in a citywide discussion.

Mr. Ebright makes some assertions that are just wrong, however. Livermore wants the extension to be built. The obstructionist Livermore council can even see that El Charro Road and Stoneridge Drive can provide additional escape routes in case of a major emergency. They can see that their residents need a more unobstructed route to Valley Care Hospital in Pleasanton. He also implies that local traffic engineer Chris Kinzel is in someone’s pocket because he concludes that extending Stoneridge would reduce traffic on Valley Avenue and Santa Rita Road--the typical tactic of the Looney left.

Mr. Ebright does have one thing right, without a ballot initiative, the Stoneridge extension is caput. If you want to maintain the gridlock status quo do not sign the petition.

 

 

 

-30-