Cook-Kallio launches re-election bid at downtown park rally

High school history, government teacher wants Pleasanton to keep attracting business

Pleasanton City Councilwoman Cheryl Cook-Kallio combined her birthday celebration with a campaign for re-election Sunday at a festive ice cream social at Lions Wayside Park.

Reserving the park for the special occasion, she reminded supporters that Pleasanton was recently recognized as one of the top 100 small cities in the nation "confirming how fortunate we are to live in such a wonderful place."

She said she will work in her next four years on the council to keep it that way.

"If you like the direction that Pleasanton has gone in the last four years, I thinks it's important that you help us maintain that progression forward," she told the crowd. "As a council, we have made a huge number of decisions lately that have benefitted Pleasanton."

A key move, she said, was the council's decision last week to approve the final environmental plan that paves the way for multi-million-dollar residential, commercial, retail and sports developments on Staples Ranch, a 124-acre farmland owned by Alameda County that will soon be home to a new senior retirement community and an auto mall.

"We need to make sure that we keep business strong and that we keep attracting jobs here," she said.

She also emphasized three things: improving traffic circulation, the need for more affordable housing, and building community consensus on key issues affecting the city's future.

"We have made progress but it is not enough," she told the crowd. "I ask for your support to create an environment that makes it attractive to do business in Pleasanton, to strengthen and attract commerce and to encourage everyone to shop here by making it easier to do business in Pleasanton.

Cook-Kallio, a Pleasanton resident for over two decades, is a 33-year veteran teacher currently teaching Advanced Placement U.S. History and U.S. Government classes at Irvington High School in Fremont. She is also the school's "We the People" competition civics team coach.

She was first elected to the Pleasanton City Council in 2006 and is seeking re-election to another four-year term.


Like this comment
Posted by Howard Neely
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Aug 31, 2010 at 11:14 am

Cheryl is one dedicated woman in a number in at least two area of which I'm familiar. One, I worked with her as a teacher at Hopkins Jr. High in Femonet, where she was truly a professional putting in many hours of extra time to make her students the best they could possibly be. Two, in the last four years she has brought real "class" to the City Council. She is not a switch hitter, because her priorities have not waveried, when prssured to take the easier course of action. In our most recent ballot, property rights were denied to the Lin family on Oak Grove, so now the City, which is you and I, are being sued and rightfully so. Members of the City Council need to be "Long Term Thinkers" who are well aware of short term decisions............think about it, and relect her.

Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Mohr Park
on Aug 31, 2010 at 6:20 pm


You are right. I for one will be voting for Cheryl. I like how she thinks things through.

Like this comment
Posted by Salty Sally
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2010 at 8:01 pm

Pleasanton voters may want to consider that:
- Cheryl has consistently voted for developers
- A significant amount of her campaign contributions are coming from developers
- She has consistently ignored the wishes of a majority of Pleasanton residents concerning development
- She was elected primarily with the assistance of the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee
- She generally votes in lock-step with our left wing hippie Mayor

After you have compared her voting record with your wishes, you may want to join me in voting against Cheryl Cook-Callio. Pleasanton needs a new direction and Cheryl Cook-Callie, Jerry Thorne and the hippie Mayor need to be sent packing.

Like this comment
Posted by Salty Sally
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2010 at 8:08 pm


Letting property owners build whatever they want to build on their property is how you get places that look like Los Angeles, San Jose, Fremont, Hayward and Castro Valley.

Like this comment
Posted by Jason
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Aug 31, 2010 at 8:25 pm

"Left Wing" but aligned with developers and the Chamber of Commerce?

Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Country Fair
on Aug 31, 2010 at 9:05 pm

Perhaps Cheryl belongs to the new political party, the one that votes which ever way the campaign contributors ask her to.

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 31, 2010 at 9:15 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

It is a tradition in Pleasanton for developers to donate to the campaigns of practically all the candidates running for Council. Just go ask for historic campaign reports from the City Clerk.

Like this comment
Posted by Chris P.
a resident of Charter Oaks
on Aug 31, 2010 at 11:12 pm

I'm trying to understand - left wing, hippie, wacko is the same as business, developers of buildings which bring businesses, and the Chamber of Commerce which is made up of business owners. . .

I think its a nice mix! Go mayor!

Like this comment
Posted by Check Campaign Reports
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 1, 2010 at 6:56 am


If YOU check the campaign records, you'll find that Hosterman, Cook-Kallio, and Thorne have taken TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars in contributions (aka legalized bribes) from developer and business interests. And, of course, they do whatever those interests want. McGovern and Sullivan have received little if any developer money, and my guess is that Brown will not either. Calling it a "tradition" doesn't make selling out your constituents any more palatable. THIS is the central issue in this election.

Like this comment
Posted by justwondering
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 1, 2010 at 8:02 am

CCR, looking at the campaign records of McGovern and Sullivan, they both took thousands of dollars in contributions from two neighborhoods; Stoneridge Dr and Kottinger Ranch. And look how they both voted on the Oak Grove Development and Stoneridge Dr extension.
Did they vote in the best overall interests of Pleasanton or how these 2 neighborhoods wanted them to vote? Council members are elected to represent Pleasanton and not specific neighborhoods.

So as far as the Mayor's race is concerned, I don't see much difference in either candidate when it comes to contributions as an issue.

I'm not understanding your comments about Cook-Kalio and Thorne taking tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from developers given that their lastest campaign reports show a total of $12,000 and $13,000 and there are clearly donations from local residents. That seems like a gross exageration. And I would guess that when Brown files her disclosure, we'll see a lot of contributions from very specific neighborhoods; Kottinger Ranch and Stoneridge Dr given the list of supporters on her web site. So that begs the question if she will vote in the best interests of Pleasanton or for specific neighborhoods where she has received contributions.

What I don't understand is that all of the candidates are talking about we need to attract business to Pleasanton, bring jobs, etc. It would seem that developers/businesses would contribute to the candidates that seem to best understand their needs and how to try and make pleasanton a friendly place to do business rather then trying to delay everything.

Like this comment
Posted by George
a resident of Parkside
on Sep 1, 2010 at 8:35 am

About donations from two main areas of Pleasanton, if I recall, Sullivan, McGovern and Brown were against Oak Grove, and so was the majority of the whole town. If you added up Kottinger and Stoneridge alone, the election would have failed.

And Kay Ayala lives in the flat land and she was against it.

There is good development and there is bad, like cutting off the ridges. The people of pleasanton don't want it. There is no denying that the 3 incumbents keep trying to force it on us. Why? Could be campaign contributions.

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 1, 2010 at 8:39 am

Stacey is a registered user.

That's what I like about Cheryl Cook-Kallio. She is one of the few who understand that the role of Council is to put the best interests of the greater citizenry of Pleasanton at the forefront. That's why she voted no to Home Depot (which would have hurt other business in Pleasanton), yes on Oak Grove (a compromise plan that would have put an end to endless land use battles), no to the Oak Grove poison pill (which has now brought Pleasanton into yet another lawsuit), and yes to Staples Ranch with the Stoneridge extension so that a regional road is paid for by regional funds.

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 1, 2010 at 8:42 am

Stacey is a registered user.


Or the three incumbents understand that endless land battles with property owners are not in the best interests of the greater citizenry of Pleasanton. Oak Grove was a great compromise plan.

Like this comment
Posted by George
a resident of Parkside
on Sep 1, 2010 at 8:49 am

Whose greater interest is she putting forward?

I admit I spend too much time watching the council meetings on TV, but as I recall - Cook-Kalio voted:

Staples ranch - After the locals got involved and fixed the problems, everyone voted YES 5 to 0. Weak example stacey.

Oak Grove & poison pill - She voted YES - but most of the public said NO after learning about the project. Last election she got thousands from that same developer. Influenced? Who knows?

Homedepot - Maybe because they did not contribute to her campaign, so she voted NO. I think it was a 0 to 5 no vote, but I am not positive.

Like this comment
Posted by Barry
a resident of Southeast Pleasanton
on Sep 1, 2010 at 9:03 am

Dear Elizabeth,

I don't agree that Ms. Cook-Kalio thinks things through too deeply.

Stoneridge Dr. is going through but at the cost of almost all the environmental polution and noise control numbers. It was horrible to see that the violations of our air and ears are noted as "unavoidable and regretable". What a way to note for posterity that they didn't give a *&(%$#!)&$ about our quality of living.

We are on a very slippery slope with un-regulated developers drooling in the wings with all their fun-money. Corporations/ Developers do not have a great track record for caring about anything else but their bottom line. Look it up.

At the end she was acting like she cared about the noise measurements and asked some pretty simple questions that she should have understood a long time ago. It was obvious just lip service on her part.

Hosterman, Thorne, and Cook-Kalio got very strangley locked step at the same time to try to rush that thing through.

I think the choice is clear this November, do we want un-regulated sprawl?????? It seems like it doesn't matter that our quality of air and noise will get worse to those in charge. They just blew by issues of the noise and cancerous toxins like they weren't even there. It was an "Oh well" "Too bad" attitude that sucks!!!

I think we can still have growth that makes sense but not this way.

Our politicians have sold our jobs and economy to the highest bidders (Corporations/Developers) and the lowest bidders (local illegals and foreign outsourcing).

I've never seen so many vacant businesses in Pleasanton.

I hope everyone who cares gets out to vote this Nov.

Let's thimk :) for a change..

Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Mohr Park
on Sep 1, 2010 at 12:29 pm


I disagree with you about the Stoneridge extension. You don't say how long you have lived in Pleasanton, but when we moved here 15 years ago, Stoneridge Rd. ended at Kamp Dr. We were told then, and it was in the general plan then that Stoneridge Rd would go out to Livermore. Honestly, it was one of the reasons we bought in Mohr Park. I have no problem with the extension or the environmental review; and I support Ms. Cook-Kalio.

Like this comment
Posted by Baffled
a resident of Avila
on Sep 1, 2010 at 2:58 pm

I think a lot of people were like me when Cheryl first ran for office. She was a civics teacher with an unknown record who seemed like a decent choice.
Should have known better. Someone whose only prior public service was a minor stint with the Amador band boosters cannot be expected to know much about Pleasanton at all. Her attitude about elective representation (you elected me so I get to do what "I" want) just baffles and disappoints me. Despite a rather anti growth majority in town she continues to vote for every conceivable growth project that comes her way.
I would bet that in closed session she is still voting to let the Oak Grove project go through regardless of the fact that voters have shown-twice!-that they don't want it.
Matt Campbell already showed us that good civics teachers make lousy city council members. Like him, Cheryl needs to limit her public service to the 4 year term served.

Like this comment
Posted by Local
a resident of Birdland
on Sep 1, 2010 at 4:00 pm

There are a couple of problems with teachers as council members.

First, they are more used to teaching theories.

Second, If they have been teaching for some time, they have complete job security and cannot not be fired and therefore do not understand what most of us go through in trying to find a job or worry about our companies going out of business. A tenured teacher will always have their job for them.

Third, more importantly, teachers like Cheryl belong to the CTA (California Teachers Union). They will never do anything in controlling city pensions and employe expenses at the city level as they know that once it starts there, it will affect teachers and their unions. Having somebody from the teachers union in this level of authority is like having the fox guarding the henhouse.

As an added thing, Cheryl might be a good teacher in Fremont but she is the most condecending person I have ever seen from the council dias if you have a differing opinion. She thinks she is always right and there is no room for a differing viewpoint. She has repeatidly voted against the public. First with the ridgeline protections. Not only did she try to stop the citizens from signing an initiative to put it on the ballot, and she did not support it when it was voted on, she was instrumental in getting a competing measure on the ballot of confuse the voters (the Tri-Valley Herald called her actions slimy). She lost big time on that issue on the ballot. She was also pushing for Oak Grove and trying to give away the store to the Lins and the voters disagreed with her again. So if you voted for ridgeline protections, you should definately not vote for Cheryl. While Cherly is on the Council, the public is going to have to keep a real close watch and ready to start the next referendum or initiative. It is much easier to throw her out of office.

Like this comment
Posted by frank
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Sep 1, 2010 at 8:49 pm

Cook-Kallio and Thorne have their heads screwed on correctly. Always had. Hostermann started out a bit shakey as mayor but matured over time and became flexible and more broad-minded, thereby representing the best interest for all of Pleasanton through her votes and pushed to the background the ideology she brought in originally. That now makes three with heads screwed on correctly. The other two, McGovern and Sullivan, are hopeless, inflexible creatures who have their feet stuck in the cement they created for themselves. They can never fully see the big picture for the larger interests of all of Pleasanton citizens.

If this were a football game, the first three of the above mentioned members of council try and do move the ball down the field toward the goal line. The latter two are happy to return it to their own 20.

Like this comment
Posted by Local
a resident of Birdland
on Sep 2, 2010 at 7:28 pm

It is obvious that Cook-Kallio, Thorne and Hosterman do not see the larger interests of all of Pleasanton citizens since they had their approval referended and they lost on their attempt to prevent the public from approving ridgeline protections. Being that Oak Grove lost when their side spent over $600,000 in their campaign shows they had to spend a lot of money to try to convince the voters, and they still could not.

Using your football game scenario, you are saying the Cook-Kallio, Thorne and Hosterman were there to win and give the most return to their employers; the developers. For McGovern and Sullivan it is not about themselves but working with the community. It seems obvious the C, T, and H team are running against the public in the ridgeline protections and Oak Grove and are currently down 0-2 against the voters. Time to replace their team.

Like this comment
Posted by hmmm
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2010 at 4:40 pm

So we are a one issue town huh? This is all about protecting Karla's backyard. There has been hardly any development in the last five years. Almost none.There was more development when Ayala was on the council. You can look at the reports online and see that money from all areas have gone into Cook-Kalio, Thorne's and Hosterman's campaigns. It is not just one group. Look at McGovern's and i will speculate Brown's too and you will see a very narrow special interest group, it is basically one narrow vision group that has created a not in my backyard approach. If you go back further you will see that McGovern has taken money from the Oak Grove developer too.

Vote how you will but Please base it on fact!

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: Wanting, Yet Missing One Another
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 929 views

Superintendent's new contract may portend difficult employee negotiations
By Tim Hunt | 8 comments | 687 views

Scott Raty bows out as CEO of Pleasanton Chamber
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 399 views

Trends for the Class of 2019 to Consider
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 111 views


Nominations due by Sept. 17

Pleasanton Weekly and are once again putting out a call for nominations and sponsorships for the annual Tri-Valley Heroes awards - our salute to the community members dedicated to bettering the Tri-Valley and the lives of its residents.

Nomination form