News


Correction to 'Costco and the Mayor' editorial

 

A July 29 editorial, "Costco and the Mayor" concerning Pleasanton Mayor Jerry Thorne's voluntary recusal on City Council actions involving Costco and Johnson Drive referenced "a task force he appointed."

The "task force" actually referred to the Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone (JDEDZ), which isn't a task force or a committee, but a proposed zoning amendment that was halted when Measure MM was put on the ballot.

Mayor Thorne did not go outside his purview and appoint a task force, alone or as part of the City Council. There is no task force related to the JDEDZ.

We regret the error.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

44 people like this
Posted by Reality check
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 9:22 am

Good to see a factual correction here, much to the the chagrin of Yes on MM supporters, I'm sure.

Many Yes on MM supporters continue to erroneously claim that everything involving the Johnson Drive EDZ has already been decided (i.e., voted) on by the City Council.

That's a false claim. The fact is, NO development proposal re: Costco has even been brought to the Planning Commission as yet, let alone the City Council for review, debate and any vote.

There's a BIG difference between preliminary discussions and emails and the matter of due process, especially in Pleasanton--a long and arduous path before anything will ever be officially approved or rejected for the Johnson Drive EDZ.

Thus, if you add it all up, it amounts to a lot of non-stop posts by Yes on MM supporters that equates to nothing more than fear-mongering, pure conjecture and speculation on what *might* happen.

It's a misleading attempt to keep claiming that everything has been decided upon and approved in Costco's favor, when, in fact, nothing has. Nothing.



34 people like this
Posted by Interesting!!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 10:02 am

Thanks PW for setting the record straight!! I find the silence from all those who cited the task force as reported in the PW interesting. Especially the silence from Matt Sullivan. If they were really interested in the facts, we'd be hearing from them.


14 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Nov 1, 2016 at 10:15 am

I have to say that from what I've heard so far I've already lost faith in the city leaders in regards to negotiating forcefully for the interests of Pleasanton in this Costco deal. I know that Costco will be bringing out it's A-team of top negotiators, and I know that city of Pleasanton will bring out a group of "C-team" or "D-team" negotiators who just want a deal done. And that's a shame since, as I've pointed out before, Pleasanton actually has a fairly strong negotiating position. We don't need Costco. We don't need its relatively low-paying jobs, and we're not a poor community which desperately needs its tax revenue, either. Costco, on the other hand, seems to desperately want to get this deal done.

Personally, I'm not opposed to the basic idea of a Costco in Pleasanton - as long as Costco, not Pleasanton taxpayers, pays for any needed infrastructural improvements including roadwork. If Costco isn't willing to do that, our negotiators should tell Costco to go take a hike. Of course, our negotiators won't do that, so it's up to all of us Pleasanton citizens to rise up and vote YES on MM.


29 people like this
Posted by Reality check
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 10:52 am

@Sam,

You should take/present your arguments first to the Planning Commission, then to the City Council, if/when Costco (or whomever) presents a development proposal, which would first have to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, then by the City Council.

Participate in the due process that will inevitably occur.

Predicting what's going to happen if Measure MM fails is woefully premature.

Re: "Rise up and vote yes on MM?" Rise up and support a business owner who doesn't even live in Pleasanton (Bill Wheeler, Black Tie Transportation), and the local gas station owners whose prices help support the fact that Pleasanton has the 2nd highest gas prices in Alameda County?

No thanks.

I want our local elected leaders (or another referendum, if you like, initiated by people who actually live here) to determine the future of the Johnson Drive EDZ, not business owners with ulterior motives for pursuing passage of Measure MM.

Think Wheeler will have a problem with hotels being built in the EDZ instead?

Think the Shell and Valero gas station owners will have a problem not having to compete against cheaper gas prices that are close by?


21 people like this
Posted by Hansen Curious
a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 1, 2016 at 11:12 am

Hansen Curious is a registered user.

Financial deals, development agreements are always prepared and negotiated with staff. Those are never negotiated in a public meeting. The City Council will consider and have to approve any agreement in a public hearing. If you actually read the emails being posted from the City, you would read about cost sharing and not a subsidy. Costco giving a loan to the city for the city's share of infrastructure improvements is not a subsidy.


8 people like this
Posted by Joanne D.
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 1, 2016 at 12:49 pm

Joanne D. is a registered user.

Thank you Pleasanton Weekly for correcting this.


33 people like this
Posted by Seriously?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 1:13 pm

Seriously? is a registered user.

Thank you Pleasanton Weekly for correcting this and clarifying. So many people are being misled by Matt Sullivan and Bill Wheeler (Black Tie Transportation and main guy behind the Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth facebook group that continues to post misleading information in an effort to boost Bill Wheeler's business).

People need facts!!


11 people like this
Posted by Seriously?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 3:19 pm

Seriously? is a registered user.

I'm going to post to Facebook to SHARE this!!!


8 people like this
Posted by res1
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Nov 1, 2016 at 3:43 pm

res1 is a registered user.

The problem with the Economic Zone is it will not allow the citizens to have a say in what goes there as the zone gives a zoning by right and cannot be stopped with a referendum. If MM looses, the mayor and council will see this as a mandate to go forward with a Costco and this finance plan that they had the city manager negotiate and there will be nothing the residents can do at that point. Conversely, if MM passes, the council can negotiate a deal that the residents will support and bring that to the voters for approval.

The city manager does not negotiate deals like this without the direction of the city council; most likely in closed sessions.


7 people like this
Posted by Joanne D.
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 1, 2016 at 6:27 pm

Joanne D. is a registered user.

If MM loses any plans or suggestions from the City Staff will have to through the normal Commission, City Council approval process with plenty of public hearings. So, res1, you will have a say.


9 people like this
Posted by
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Nov 1, 2016 at 6:40 pm

is a registered user.

I was at meeting when the counsel would not listen. Everything was so rosey to them. It's as if they couldn't see anything else. Come to think of it, that's the whole reason MM started:

WE HAVE NEVER HAD A SAY.


23 people like this
Posted by Seriously?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2016 at 6:59 pm

Seriously? is a registered user.

@res1 - Almost everything you said is not true (thankfully) but I will focus on this one bit "Conversely, if MM passes, the council can negotiate a deal that the residents will support and bring that to the voters for approval."

That is also not true. It will never go to voters for approval unless another referendum is performed... thousands of signatures, months of time, lots of $$ from Bill Wheeler again (who is almost single-handedly funding the Yes on MM campaign for his own profit).

Conversely, if No on MM wins, it allows the council to put the BEST plan forward.


6 people like this
Posted by res1
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Nov 2, 2016 at 8:53 am

res1 is a registered user.

"Seriously?", you can check with the city. The economic zone does give zoning by rights which cannot be stopped by signature collections and another election.

The measure can be overturned by another vote of the people. Read the full text of the measure. Section 10. Amendment. This Act may be amended only by a vote of the People at a municipal election." If Measure MM passes, the Council could negotiate a better deal, if possible, with Costco, and put a Council initiative on the ballot without requiring signatures to approve the better deal.


18 people like this
Posted by Devoted
a resident of Downtown
on Nov 2, 2016 at 6:16 pm

Devoted is a registered user.

Thank you Pleasanton Weekly for your responsible reporting. Now, if I have it straight, Matt Sullivan and Bill Wheeler have built an entire argument based upon three points. The first is that Thorne tried to engineer Costco coming to Pleasanton by appointing a hand-selected task force to implement his will. The second is that he used his position to drive up the price of Costco shares so he'd personally benefit. And the third argument has been Pleasanton is about to give Costco $20 million so they'll build in Pleasanton.

Now that the true facts are coming out, we know the task force was an unfortunate error in reporting and therefore Sullivan's most important argument lays in tatters. We also now know the amount of Costco stock once owned by Thorne was around 26 shares, worth about $3,500. Sullivan and Wheeler never volunteered this information because it exposes the ridiculousness of suggesting anyone would so manipulate government for a possible gain of next to nothing, and this is believing adding one new store to the 705 Costco already has would impact the stock price at all. Finally, it's now clear the funding for needed road changes is the only money at issue and that one of the ideas suggested by staff is that a portion of this cost be covered by the City exclusively out of some of the future sales tax revenue generated by Costco and others in the Economic Zone. Put differently, no taxpayer money from any source other than this future sales tax income would be used to pay for the road construction. That doesn't seem to me to be a bribe or give-away. These road changes will be required no matter what type of stores go into the Zone.

Costco or no Costco is a choice each of us get to make next Tuesday. Sullivan and Wheeler shouldn't try to manipulate us into giving them the answer they want. Shame on two guys who should be better than that.


10 people like this
Posted by res1
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Nov 2, 2016 at 10:14 pm

res1 is a registered user.

You are forgetting that the FPPC wrote a letter to the City indicating it was illegal for Mayor Thorne to do any work with the Johnson Economic Zone since he owned stock in Costco. Like they said, it does not matter how much stock he owned; he had a conflict.

By stating it was only 26 shares is like saying somebody is a "little pregnant".

After he received the letter from the FPPC, he then had his campaign manager sign the ballot argument.

He then asked the City Attorney if he sold his stock now, could he continue to work on the project. How arrogant!

When interviewed and asked what his biggest regret during his tenure of Mayor and he replied "that I did not sell my Costco stock."

The mayor only has himself to blame in this issue getting bigger and bigger. When he was told about his conflict of interest, if he just apologized and then stepped away from the issue, people might have given him the benefit of the doubt. However, he just can't stop himself and digs his hold deeper.


4 people like this
Posted by Another fact checker
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Nov 4, 2016 at 10:28 am

Another fact checker is a registered user.

1)To Vineyard Avenue, I was at the same joint meeting you were and though the city DID LISTEN. That is why they chose to not put a competing measure on the ballot and halted future work on the EIR. They wanted the citizens to have a chance to vote first.
2) I agree that we need the EDZ, like all projects, to go through the Planning Commission so we can determine the best use for this land. I doubt the Planning Commission would ever accept a deal where a developer did not pay their fair share. Hopefully the public will come out to share their concerns about funding in this public forum so public officials can get this right.


6 people like this
Posted by Nan
a resident of Rosewood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 11:17 am

Nan is a registered user.

@ Another Fact Checker

I was at that meeting. The Mayor wanted a competing ballot. The majority of the Council agreed. Thorne said the people should be allowed to vote, but he was not in favor of the current initiative. He wanted a competing ballot. Karla Brown said that was "sleazy politics". Arne Olson said "I'm not against a little sleaze!" He, too, wanted a competing ballot.

The next night at the Planning Commission Meeting, Gerry Beaudin said we are moving forward with the Council's direction of a competing ballot. Fialho concurred. It was not until the City Attorney advised that there was not enough time for the competing ballot, did the "sleaze" idea end.

And, you think this deal will change? No way! They are dug-in.


10 people like this
Posted by Flightops
a resident of Downtown
on Nov 4, 2016 at 11:46 am

Flightops is a registered user.

If all you Costco naysayers think that Wheeler and Shell gas give 1 hoot about the town of Pleasanton then I've got some ridgeline property I can sell you that the city would be glad to re-zone for you for a whole slew of custom homes!! Wheeler would be ecstatic to see hotels on that property and Shell certainly doesn't want any competition against their overpriced stations, it certainly must be good to be at the top looking down on us locals trying to manipulate our strings.


14 people like this
Posted by E. K.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 1:11 pm

E. K. is a registered user.

Flightops,

A little "sleaze" by the city ok with you too? You keep talking about gas prices. You can go wait in line at Safeway. Better gas and shorter lines than Costco at same price. Plus, it's already in Pleasanton.

Did Safeway lower the prices in Pleasanton when they put in gas?

This isn't about gas prices, it's about $20 million giveaway; 25 year borrowing: and a corrupt deal. Did the City give Safeway $20 million? Or, Chevron, or Shell, or Valero? Or any other business. If so, please name one.


4 people like this
Posted by res1
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Nov 4, 2016 at 6:54 pm

res1 is a registered user.

The East Bay Times today had a front page article on Jerry Thorne about the State panel investigating Pleasanton’s Thorne over interest-conflict complaint. Thorne claims that he does not commit his holdings to memory. Since Costco was listed in Thorne's FPPC filing for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 which he filled out and signed each time, the excuse that the stocks were in a mutual fund-like account, where a manager moves them in and out, and he does not know what is in his account does not hold water.

From what I have read, there have been numerous meetings and workshops on the Johnson Drive Economic Zone starting in 2014 in which Thorne participated in although he had a conflict of interest. Possibly three years of meetings led by Mayor Thorne while he had a conflict of interest. If the City has been negotiating with Costco and the developer on a deal to pay for the infrastructure needs, I would suspect that Thorne has been meeting with the City Manager on these terms either in one on one meetings or closed sessions with the rest of the council. Since this project started in 2014 (and possibly sooner), Thorne would have filled out his FPPC form 700 which listed Costco for 2 or 3 times WHILE he worked on the project. Does not look good.


Like this comment
Posted by Gina A
a resident of Downtown
on Nov 4, 2016 at 8:09 pm

Gina A is a registered user.

res1,
What we have here is a double-correction to this article. Anyone want to say they back Thorne's actions?


5 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 8:10 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@res1,

From the article: "27 shares" in a "mutual fund-like account".

27 shares?

Are you kidding?

This just seems like some silly, petty NIMBY thing. Sullivan seems like he is all over the map, seeing conspiracies everywhere.

Talk about a personal agenda. Sullivan is the problem here, not Thorne. Thorne seems like a good responsible mayor to me.


10 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 8:11 pm

BobB is a registered user.

Let's hope MM goes the way of the anti-Lund Ranch thing. Pleasanton voters should reject this too.


5 people like this
Posted by res1
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Nov 4, 2016 at 9:07 pm

res1 is a registered user.

BobB, the FPPC has stated in the letter to the city that it does not matter the value of Thorne's holdings. There is no threshold. If he has a single share of Costco, he has to recuse himself from this discussion. Period. I agree that the amount is not that much but he has violated the law here. Think of being pulled over for speeding, and your argument is that nobody got hurt so you should get out of the traffic violation.

Also remember that Thorne went through ethics training at the city and was trained on this particular item.

I feel that Thorne "playing dumb" about not knowing he had that stock makes him look worse. He filled out the FPPC form in 2010, in 2011, in 2012, in 2013, in 2014 and in 2015. He might have even filled out the form with Costco in if for years prior to 2010 but the online records do not go back any further. If he has no idea what he put in that form, that is another issue; probably more serious. That is a serious election code form that should not be taken lightly. He even thumbed his nose at us by having his campaign manager sign the ballot arguments against MM after he received the letter from the FPPC saying he could not participate in the issue.


For me, I am tired of politicians who feel they are above the law


3 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 9:45 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@res1,

I think it is just laughable.

Just laughable.

There was no conflict of interest. No one thought he was"above the law".

Who cares what the FPPC stated. Silliness is Silliness.

NIMBYs are NIMBYs.


8 people like this
Posted by Nan
a resident of Rosewood
on Nov 4, 2016 at 10:02 pm

Nan is a registered user.

Back to the old NIMBY argument. That's when you are at the bottom of the barrel of you arguments.

There is an investigation of the Mayor by the FPPC. Not silly! Serious! The Times- Hearld Newspaper today said the FPPC found the complaint had merit for an investigation. It was headlines. That doesn't happen every day. It is serious. The mayor knows this is serious.


3 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2016 at 9:03 am

BobB is a registered user.

No NAN,

It isn't the "bottom of the barrel" argument. It is reality.

This is a NIMBY issue, and the supposed" conflict of interest" is just plain silly.


3 people like this
Posted by Nan
a resident of Rosewood
on Nov 5, 2016 at 9:33 am

Nan is a registered user.

BobB,

This is a $20 million issue
This is a 25 year borrowing issue


2 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2016 at 10:31 am

BobB is a registered user.

So you're for Costco and this location, just would like to see the final deal negotiated differently?


3 people like this
Posted by Nan
a resident of Rosewood
on Nov 5, 2016 at 10:46 am

Nan is a registered user.

Me personally, No! I don't want the traffic.
But, I am for getting a better deal, if the voters want Costco.
If the voters want a Costco, I do not want to pay $20 million or borrow for 25 years.
I will accept the will of the voters, but this deal must be killed!

Yes on MM!



6 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2016 at 11:33 am

BobB is a registered user.

Like I said the NIMBYs are trying to make up all kinds of nonsense to stop anything from being built. The "conflict of interest" nonsense. The "borrow for 25 years" nonsense.

No on MM!

We want Costco!


4 people like this
Posted by res1
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Nov 5, 2016 at 11:49 am

res1 is a registered user.

BobB,
As somebody who has been on a commission in Pleasanton and had to go through the ethics training, which is required by law with AB 1234, I know this is a conflict and illegal. The only questions now is if this is criminal or just civil, and what are the penalties. The FPPC has already confirmed this is a conflict when the city asked for an official opinion.

On the borrowing, the public information request from the city manager showed the borrowing amount and repayment plan as part of the Costco negotiations. There is probably some debate on whether the borrowing will be for 10 years or 25 years, or somewhere in between.


Like this comment
Posted by Dave J.
a resident of Parkside
on Nov 5, 2016 at 11:57 am

Dave J. is a registered user.

The City documents show that on April 1, Nelson Fialho proposed to Costco 25 year borrowing of $7.5 million with interest -- totaling almost $11 million. This was reclarified on April 5. It was confirmed by Tina Olson, Pleasanton Finance Director, on May 11 and agreed to by Costco on May 12 (Mike Dobrota).

These documents are all on Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth website.


Like this comment
Posted by Get the Facts
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2016 at 12:07 pm

Get the Facts is a registered user.

"Like I said the NIMBYs are trying to make up all kinds of nonsense to stop anything from being built. The "conflict of interest" nonsense. The "borrow for 25 years" nonsense."

There is 11 million reasons why this isn't nonsense, and we might be getting 25 years to think about all of this:

"The City documents show that on April 1, Nelson Fialho proposed to Costco 25 year borrowing of $7.5 million with interest -- totaling almost $11 million. This was reclarified on April 5. It was confirmed by Tina Olson, Pleasanton Finance Director, on May 11 and agreed to by Costco on May 12 (Mike Dobrota). "


9 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2016 at 2:24 pm

BobB is a registered user.

" ... and we might be getting ..."
" ... proposed ... "

innuendo

There was nothing unusual, out of the ordinary, or nefarious about these initial meetings.

" ... I know this is a conflict and illegal ... "

27 SHARES!!

Going 30.01 miles per hour in a 30 zone is illegal too. I don't think this even rises to that level.

That's just mudslinging.

This is a great location for Costco.

No on MM!


5 people like this
Posted by Alexis B
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 7:27 pm

Alexis B is a registered user.

@ Nan, the cost of $16-17 million is the same whether you vote yes or no. That is $ for infrastructure improvements that have been slated for a long long time. Will need to be done with or without Costco.


4 people like this
Posted by res1
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Nov 6, 2016 at 8:40 pm

res1 is a registered user.

The cost is most likely the same, who pays for it is not. The current plan has the City (i.e., us) paying out of our traffic fees for existing projects that still need mitigation and borrowing money, with interest, and paying that back over many years from sales tax revenue (revenue that would typically go towards police, fire, library, etc.). Every other development in Pleasanton had the developers pay for those fees, not the city. Voting Yes on MM stops Costco from going forward and prevents the council from signing the agreement where the City pays. As stated before, if the Council can come up with a better deal where Costco pays for their infrastructure, the Council can put a measure on the ballot which allows the voters to vote on a new deal with Costco with the new terms that are acceptable. Some people will still not want Costco because of other issues (traffic, etc.) but others might be willing to accept the deal.


5 people like this
Posted by Nan
a resident of Rosewood
on Nov 6, 2016 at 8:46 pm

Nan is a registered user.

Alexis B,
It's $16.8 million plus interest. Total $20 million plus cost increases.

Can you give me one example in the history of Pleasanton where the City has paid $20 million for infrastructure - sewer, gutters, curbs, roads, etc-- for a relatively small 40 acre parcel to improve the land so thr developer can make millions to sell and lease his improved property?

In Pleasanton, developers pay for infrastructure.


2 people like this
Posted by Alexis B
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2016 at 9:04 am

Alexis B is a registered user.

@res1, that is correct. The cost is the same, but the funding for the loan changes.

@ Nan - While the cost for the project is $16-17 million, the loan is smaller portion of that, approximately $7 million I believe. The current proposed loan is through Costco at a low interest rate of 3%, which many people have said is very low. A private loan would likely be much higher interest rate.

As far as the developer (Nearon) paying fees - they are. Right now, the city has negotiated $3 Million in fees to go toward the total cost for the project. Nelson has suggested that o he would ask them to pay even more as the process continues. But my point is that the developer IS paying fees. Please note that if Costco does not go in, the fees we collect will be significantly cut (because smaller business can't afford to pay us millions).

Be careful about getting information from Bill Wheeler. His group (Pleasanton Citizens for Planned Growth) and his spokesman's group (Pleasanton Citizens for Responsible Growth) are seriously bending the truth in order to gain votes for their own personal profit.


3 people like this
Posted by res1
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Nov 7, 2016 at 9:18 am

res1 is a registered user.

Alexis B, not so fast. If Costco does not go in, whoever develops that land will be paying the fees. The fees we collect are not profit to the city. They are the cost of the infrastructure. Whoever moves in there has to pay the infrastructure. It could be less infrastructure needed for a different use and that will result in lower infrastructure fees being charged. I seem to remember the city and mayor saying that "development pays for itself." If a new use goes in there that is similar in infrastructure needs that Clorox had there, then I would not expect much infrastructure fees. The way the deal has been negotiated for Costco going in, the developer is not paying their fair share of the infrastructure fees. They are being subsidized by the city (us).


Like this comment
Posted by PLSN Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2016 at 9:18 am

PLSN Resident is a registered user.

I would thoroughly expect the city to get better terms as the negotiations progress. First the DZ gets the ball rolling, then the Planning Commission asks for more money and better terms, and last the City Council asks for even more to give their approval.

Everyone with experience knows the process and the game. Costco wouldn't come out with their best offer up front knowing they have at least two more rounds of negotiations to get through! We should vote No on MM and let the normal course of negotiations and public comment continue.

Those people who think the current deal is no good have to keep in mind it's just like the 3rd inning of this game!


1 person likes this
Posted by res1
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Nov 7, 2016 at 9:24 am

res1 is a registered user.

PLSN Resident, typically the Planning Commission is not looking at the monetary deals. They are looking at it from a planning perspective. They did not have the authority to deal with the developer on the fees. The City has standard fees and the Council could reduce them if they felt the city was getting an amenity. That is not up to the Planning Commission. The other issue with this economic zone is that once it is approved, any business can move in there that is listed in the allowed uses and it is approved by staff without public hearings since this zone will be giving zoning by right. Future councils could not even deny an application, or make them pay more than the amount determined during the creation of the Zone. This Zone is a huge win for the Chamber of Commerce a their developer interests can do whatever they want without the potential of any pushback from the public.


3 people like this
Posted by Dave J.
a resident of Parkside
on Nov 7, 2016 at 12:06 pm

Dave J. is a registered user.


PLSN Resident,

You are mistaken, this is the way the game is played: The City Manager doesn’t negotiate any deal in advance unless he knows he has support from at least three members of the Council. He will talk with them one-on-one – even through it violates the Brown Act – to make sure he is on solid ground so to not embarrass himself and the developer later when the deal comes forward for Council ratification. The deal was cut back in April and May (documented by emails from the Public Records Act request) with undoubtedly the full knowledge and support of Thorne-Pentin-Olsen-Narum, aka the Chamber lackeys. We are now in the bottom of the ninth. The only way to come out of this with a win for the public is a walk-off home run – Yes on MM!


6 people like this
Posted by PLSN Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2016 at 12:42 pm

PLSN Resident is a registered user.

Here's an idea. If MM fails, will all the people voting Yes agree never to go to the Costco in Pleasanton? Not to use the gas station there? Not that anyone could enforce it but don't be a hypocrite - boycott it and help reduce traffic. ;-)

On the contrary, I bet Black Tie will be the first in line filling up all their buses there every day!


3 people like this
Posted by Brian Moore
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Nov 7, 2016 at 7:55 pm

Brian Moore is a registered user.

2 hrs 5 mins for my commute from the Mission (SF) to Stoneridge and Santa Rita tonight. I got a great email from a resident positively commenting on my recent post (some might say verbose). He recently moved to Pleasanton for "quality of life". He works in Palo Alto and supports my zero tolerance toward traffic worsening matters. 2.5 hours from PA to P-town is coming regardless of which way MM goes. 3 hours might be possible with a Costco there based on the data I have seen. What does that do to quality of life? If Costco goes in, I will not boycott it. That is tantamount to saying Jerry Thorne steered his decision because of owning a few shares of Costco. Complete nonsense. It is OK to disagree with him without mudslinging. I choose the greater regional good over Pleasanton self-interest. I voted YES.


Like this comment
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2016 at 9:49 pm

BobB is a registered user.

" ... my zero tolerance toward traffic worsening matters ... "

Every time I hear "zero tolerance" alarm bells go off.

Building anything at all has some impact on traffic.


2 people like this
Posted by M. Jensen
a resident of Val Vista
on Nov 7, 2016 at 9:55 pm

M. Jensen is a registered user.

Agree. I think his zero tolerance was intended as a hyperbole.


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

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

"Better" Dads and "Re-invigorated" Moms: Happier Couples
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,548 views

Alameda County Grand Jury calls out supervisors
By pleasantonweekly.com | 3 comments | 840 views

 

Nominations due by Sept. 16

Pleasanton Weekly and DanvilleSanRamon.com 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