03/31/2011 - The Independent

PAGE 10 - The Independent, MARCH 31, 2011(continued from page 4)to support the BART-on-580initiative.The United States is currentlydeficit spending to the tune of10% of its GDP, and continuedexpenditures on bad investmentswill bankrupt us. There is no waythat the taxpayer will recoupany return remotely close tothe $4B for the proposed route.$4B is 60% the cost of the newBay Bridge, which has a hugeeconomic impact, and the costof BART to San Jose, which hasa population more than 10 timesthat of Livermore.$1B for a single Livermorestation (perhaps at the NorthLivermore Ave exit) is the onlything that may make sense, andI am not even sure of that comparedto allocating equivalentcorridor space to a HOT expresslane, such as recently installedon I-680, along with adequateparking at the Pleasanton-Dublinstation and the new RAPID bus.Some say we deserve better forall the money we paid in taxes,but we have put in far less than$1B, let alone the benefits wehave received from the Pleasanton-Dublinstation.The argument that currentregulations require us to haveTOD or not get funding is bothillogical and disingenuous. If theregulations don’t make sense inour case, they can and shouldbe changed. I find it offensivethat priority is placed on linkingBART to new housing developmentat the expense of servicecurrent residents. I also notethat none of the advocates of the$4 billion plan seem concernedabout BART’s #2 expansionpolicy goal: “Generate new ridershipon a cost-effective basis.”BART’s numbers say that the$4B two-station plan will generateonly 1.5 times as many ridersas a $1B one-station plan. Theincremental ridership costs sixtimes as much, a good example ofthe law of diminishing returns.If you look on the MTC webpageat the cost of various constructionprojects, you will seethat freeway improvements arefar more cost effective for reducingtransit time, with the possibleexception of going to downtownSF. Projects are from tens tohundreds of million dollars. Forexample, fixing the I-238 bottleneckcost only $128M. By analogy,converting SR84 to a limitedaccess freeway between I-580and I-680 would be far more costeffective for reducing congestionon I-580 between Livermore andPleasanton, which is close to theworst in the Bay Area.Finally, some opponents ofdowntown BART have linkedit to criticism of the regionaltheater. I agree with theaterproponents that the connectionis inappropriate. However, Iheard many downtown-BARTproponents speaking before thecity council make that link, so thewound was self inflicted.BART to LivermoreClarence HoenigLivermore“Hats off” to the Junction AvenueSchool Mother exercisingher Free Speech rights circulatinga Livermore BART FreewayAlignment Initiative petition (Independent3/17/11). Fortunately,in that same article LivermoreCity Engineer was able to correctsome inaccuracies and summarizefactually the many reasonswhy the Downtown / VascoAlignment was selected by theCity Council and BART Boardafter many well announced publichearings.First, and foremost, the agencythat controls all Bay Areatransportation funding fromFederal, State and Local sourceshas ordained, in the interest ofgetting cars off the freeway, thatnew BART stations should bebuilt close to existing and futurehousing. A freeway alignmentrequires 6,414 new housing unitswhile Downtown/Vasco BARTwould require only 1,516 newunits. Does Livermore need 4900extra houses? I don’t think so.An I-580/Isabel Station locatedin our Airport ProtectionArea would be ineligible for anysignificant new housing. Virtuallyall those 6,414 units wouldhave to be built around the I-580/Greenville Station - an impossibilityfor many good reasons.So plain and simple - no BARTstation housing - no funding - noBART. Is this what Livermorewants after paying into BART formore years than I can remember?I hope not.Second, not only is the initiativemisleading, it is couldbe harmful to the next step in aBART funding. Our grant applicationto the Association for BayArea Governments (ABAG) forStation Area and Land Use Planningcould be seriously harmedby this initiative. It could givethe impression that we don’t wantBART to Livermore?Keep BART on 580Ron GerenLivermoreHere are six reasons, amongmany, to keep BART on I-580and out of downtown Livermore:1 - A BART station in townwould significantly alter Livermore'ssmaller downtown character.2 - The proposed downtownstation would require 6 to 7 yearsof "cut and cover" constructionalong Portola and Junction Avenuesand would further disruptresidents and businesses withabove ground construction enroute to a Vasco Road station.3 - A route on 580 would avoidthe noise and vibration below andabove ground that would resultfrom 152 BART trains runningabout every 8 minutes about 20hours a day.4 - The downtown price tagof nearly $4B (in today's dollars)is more than 3 times the cost ofextending BART to a station atIsabel/580.5 - Tunneling to downtowncould cost Livermore and itscitizens over $2B, based uponBART's past insistence thatBerkeley and Fremont pay fortheir own tunneling.6 - Livermore residents havebeen paying for BART for 46years with nothing to show forthe investment. With the highcost of a downtown route andscarce transportation dollars,BART to Livermore runs the riskof not being funded.Please sign the petition toplace this issue before Livermorevoters. Go to www.keepbarton580.orgfor more informationand where to sign or get apetition.Yes on "E"Annette JunellRealtorAll property owners in Pleasantonshould vote yes on MeasureE.As a Realtor who does businessin Pleasanton, I can tell youour high-quality schools are theprimary reason why familiesconsider moving to Pleasanton.Good schools improve demandon homes which in turn keepsproperty values up.As a mom, I can tell you thatour schools have been devastatedby the state’s $19.4 million infunding cuts. Just two years ago,there were 20 kids in K-3 classes.This year, there are 25 or in somecases, 26 children. If Measure Efails, class sizes could reach 30in K-3 classrooms next year andall elementary age children mayspend fewer hours in school.Ask yourself: 1.) How willlarger classrooms and reducedinstructional time impact ourchildren's education? 2.) Whatdoes this mean to me/my propertyvalues?I only see negative answers tothose questions. That’s why I’mvoting yes on Measure E. I hopeyou do the same.A Great InvestmentChristina MaehrPleasantonAs a Republican, I don’t liketaxes, but the Measure E parceltax makes good financial sense.Pleasanton schools are highquality – most score 10 of 10 ongreatschools.net – for a bargainprice. Our per-student spendingis a meager two-thirds of thenational average reported in theU.S. Census, despite our significantlyhigher cost of living. Ourdistrict is lean and efficient. Wedon’t waste money here. So statecuts in education will directlyimpact the quality of our schools,unless we secure local funding.Neighboring communitieshave already passed local fundingmeasures. If we layoff moreteachers and increase class sizesfor those who remain, Pleasantonwill be at risk of losing our bestteachers to other districts.Our schools are perched onthe edge of a slippery slope, andthe price of maintaining qualityis so much lower than the price ofrecovering it. Consider Fremont,where home values drop 25%when you cross the street from arank 10 to a rank 5 school. The$98 that Measure E asks is penniescompared to millions we willlose if we let the quality of ourschools slide.To protect school quality andhome values, VOTE YES on E.No on Measure EPatrick CarrollPleasantonEven though I have a grandchildattending school in PleasantonI am going to vote no onMeasure E, the Pleasanton ParcelTax. Call me cynical, but I donot believe that another tax willdo much, if anything to improvethe quality of education providedby the PUSD. History has shownthat tax increases rarely do whatthey are intended to do, and theadditional funds just seem tomysteriously disappear into theblack hole of bureaucracy.As to the advertised "seniorexemption." I hope that all seniorsclearly understand that thisis not an "automatic" exemption.It must be reapplied for everyyear. Miss the deadline, or forgetto apply, and you pay the tax. Iam sure that the authors of thismeasure are counting on manyseniors forgetting to reapply. Thatis why the exemption is not automatic.You can get the facts andm o r e i n f o r m a t i o n a tthe following website: www.pleasantonparceltaxinfo.com.Please join me in rejectingthis tax increase. Vote no onMeasure E.No on Measure EDorene Paradiso-CarrollPleasantonI am a Grandparent of a childin the PUSD and I am goingto vote no on Measure E, thePleasanton Parcel Tax. Given theSchool District's past accountabilityand the current state ofthe economy, any increase inproperty taxes is simply wrong.I for one also believe thatit is extremely unfair, if notunjust, for seniors to vote for atax increase that they can avoidpaying. This places a burden onyoung families, many of whomare struggling financially. Thepro tax people are counting onseniors to win this election forthem. I wonder just how manyseniors understand that they willhave to reapply every year forthe exemption. If you forget toapply every year, you will pay thetax. They are counting on seniorsforgetting. Check out the FACTSat www.pleasantonparceltaxinfo.com.Please join me in rejectingthis tax increase. Vote no onMeasure E.Reponse to LetterLen AlexanderExecutive Director, LVPACI was surprised to read PatriciaGrimes’ letter of March 24 th andfind that the Livermore ValleyPerforming Arts Center (LVPAC)is now in charge of redevelopingdowntown Livermore. When lastI looked, that role is played by theCity of Livermore and is defined,in part, by the City’s DowntownSpecific Plan and Urban GrowthBoundary. For our part, LVPAChas been responsible for theconstruction and operation ofthe well-regarded and successfulBankhead Theater and is seekingto construct and operate the2000-seat Regional PerformingArts Theater, recently approvedby the City Council. We aredefinitely not in the condo orapartment building business.But, since Ms. Grimes hasraised the subject, I’ve seensome of the proposed plans forresidential development in ourLEGAL NOTICES/CLASSIFIEDSdowntown and can say that theydon’t look anything like the hugemulti-story buildings describedin her letter. In fact, the scaleis in keeping with what alreadyexists, and seems to be generallyappreciated, around the BankheadTheater. Personally, I’dwelcome a well-designed mulit-storycommercial/residentialbuilding over vacant lots, emptystorefronts, and aging strip malls.Perhaps we should give our cityplanners credit for some visionand sensitivity to our communityrather than trying to scare folkswith unfounded tales of Dublinrevisited.Local FundingSandy PideritPleasantonMeasure E will provide a localfunding source for our schoolsthat Sacramento cannot takeaway. It will support core academicprograms for Pleasanton’spublic school students.As a school volunteer, I haveseen how specialized readingintervention helps students overcomechallenges. As many as20% of students experience somechallenges, and could fall behindwithout help. Without local funding,Pleasanton may be forcedto cut the budget for readingspecialists.As a parent, I have seen howPleasanton’s excellent scienceteachers inspire young studentsand teach them to grasp complexscientific concepts. Fifth-graders’test scores have improveddramatically since science specialistswere hired. Without localfunding, those specialists couldbe eliminated.In the last three years, theschool district budget has beencut $19.4 million. Administrativeand district office staff havebeen cut by 30%. It will not bepossible to cut the budget morewithout direct negative impactson students.With local funding from MeasureE, key programs that makeour schools high-performing canbe preserved. I know that excellenteducation for our youngstersis a worthwhile investment inPleasanton’s future.I encourage all Pleasantonresidents to vote YES on MeasureE.LivermoreMarie LambertLivermoreI read last weeks letter fromPatrica Grimes about keepingLivermore the same. I agree ourcity doed not need any morechanges building thousandsmore condos and apartmentsis crazy when homes are beingforeclosed. Who do they thinkwill buy theses condos & apartments.I was born and raised in thistown so I have seen many changeshere all not for the good ofus who like Livermore to staythe friendly town we love. SoLivermore citizens tell our citycouncil to stop thinking uglyurban cities and keep Livermorea friendly town.Worthwhile InvestmentCathy NeedhamPleasantonAs a political conservative, Iwince at the thought of increasingtaxes. However, Measure E,the Pleasanton Unified SchoolDistrict Board of Trustees localschool funding measure, hascaused me to reconsider.Measure E, if passed in May,is a local source of funding thatplaces money directly into classrooms.It will help attract andretain qualified teachers and providefunding to support core academicinstruction that improvesreading, science and math skills.Libraries will remain open. Themeasure will minimize class sizeincreases. Each parcel within thedistrict will be assessed $98 peryear for four years only.My sons attended Pleasantonschools since kindergarten. Theolder son is now in college, theyounger son a sophomore atAmador Valley High School .We have long appreciated thehigh caliber of teachers, qualityof education, and availability ofcounselors.www.independentnews.comUnfortunately, the schoolsmight not have the same level ofexcellence this fall. The state hasimposed severe cuts on the PUSDbudget. Measure E is not a cure.It can, though, help preserve afraction of what we value in ourschools.During recessions, peoplemake tough financial decisions.Measure E is a worthwhile investmentfor our children’s future.Yes on Measure EScott and Erica McNerneyPleasantonOur school district faces amyriad of funding problems andpassing Measure E won’t cure allof them, but it does ensure thatthe funds it raises will go directlyto benefit the children of thePUSD, and not the bureaucratsin Sacramento. NO funds fromthis measure will go to increasesalaries and benefits of PUSDemployees. Also, there will be anindependent oversight committeethat will review the allocation offunds at a public forum.The funds raised by MeasureE will help to minimize class sizeincreases, keep school librariesopen, and help to improve math,science and reading skills. Thesemuch needed funds will ensurethat our schools maintain theirexcellent level of standards andgive our children every opportunityto maximize their talents.A yes vote on Measure E is aninvestment in our city that willpay dividends for years to comein terms of higher property values,and a better educated workforce that will lead our city intothe future. Let’s not depend onthe politicians in Sacramento-Vote YES on Measure E.Credibility LackingFrank DoljackPleasantonMeasure E goals are noble,but in reality credibility is lackingthat Pleasanton teachers andstaff can implement them. Letus just consider the first in themeasure.• Emphasize core academicinstruction that improves math,science and reading skillsTeaching staff is generallynot qualified to teach math andscience and this is true throughoutthe U. S.. The majority ofteachers are overwhelmed whenit comes to teaching STEM tostudents at all grade levels. Thisis evidenced by the need to payextra for “science specialists”in elementary schools. Insteadwe should require that everyclassroom teacher be capable ofteaching STEM.The measure goes on to addressaccountability by creatingan independent citizen committeeto oversee and ensure the useof the funds for these purposes.There are no metrics for this.How will they know that moneyis being used to “improve math,science ……….skills? Theywon’t.Quality of Pleasanton Schools.What amazes me is that everybodyignores the quality of theirchildren and the culture and upbringingthat parents contribute,which in reality is responsible forthe intelligence, capabilities, andachievements of their kids.Delta StewardshipG.F. Duerig,General ManagerCalifornia is experiencinga near-record water year withthe snow pack at 148 percent ofnormal.Yet Zone 7 Water Agency,a State Water Contractor thatrelies heavily on Delta-conveyedwater to serve the citiesof Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublinand part of San Ramon, expectsto receive only 70 to 80 percentof its contracted water amountthis year. Central Valley Projectcontractors serving primarilyagricultural lands anticipate just65 percent.One might ask why the fullcontract amount is not availablein this year of plenty. Contributingto the shortfall are courtimposedpumping restrictionsaimed at protecting endangeredfish species in the Delta, alongwith operational limitations ofthe state’s aging infrastructure.Following three very dry hydrologicyears, the State Project’slimitations hurt Zone 7’s abilityto store surplus water forlong-term drought recovery andprotection.The Bay Delta ConservationPlan, being developed cooperativelyby water agencies,environmental groups and fishagencies, offers the best holisticsolution to achieve the state’sco-equal goals of restoring watersupplyreliability and protectingthe Delta’s ecosystem.Moving ahead with the BDCP,which is intended to become partof the larger Delta StewardshipPlan, is necessary to help ensurethat we can take advantage ofnature’s bounty when it’s againavailable.Downtown HousingJulie OrvisLivermoreAs a member of Livermore’sGeneral Plan Steering Committee,which developed Livermore’scurrent General Plan, Ibelieve clarification is in orderregarding the “additional housingnumbers” presented in a recentarticle about BART’s placementin downtown Livermore.City staff has stated that only1,516 additional residential unitswould be needed to meet Federalfunding requirements for housingwithin a half mile radius ofthe Downtown and Vasco RoadBART stations. It has been suggestedthat about half this numberwould likely be allocated todowntown.However, it is not only a portionof these 1,516 new unitsthat will be built downtown.Additionally, BART will lockLivermore into permitting theDowntown Specific Plan maximumof 3,259 new units, most ofwhich have not been constructedyet. Bringing BART downtownadds housing that will substantiallyexceed this controversialportion of the downtown plan,and renders the plan’s review at1,400 approved units pointless.The Dublin Bart Transit Centerhas 674 housing units. Imaginethe impact on Livermore’sdowntown of 5 or more of thesemassive housing complexes,plus a BART station, plus BARTparking. The excessive urbanizationof our downtown is notour best BART option. HoldingLivermore’s downtown housinghostage to BART numbers takescontrol away from Livermoreresidents. Please visit KeepBAR-Ton580.org.BART to LivermoreBob BaltzerChair, Friends of LivermoreThere has been quite a bit oftalk by the proponents of BARTon 580 against the urbanizationof downtown Livermore. Instead,what they are proposing is theurbanizing of the freeway. Foran example of that, look northfrom the freeway while passingbetween Pleasanton and Dublin.Instead of the green ridgelinesthat used to be visible with Mt.Diablo behind them, there is nowa garish commercial strip backedup with monstrous condos andcheek & jowl houses from ridgetop to ridge top.It is no coincidence that thespokesperson for the I-580 camp,Linda Jeffery Sailors is a formermayor of Dublin, the sprawlcapitol of Alameda County. Shewon’t be content until Livermorelooks like Dublin, which doesn’thave a downtown, is completelyauto-centric and the epitome ofsprawl.It is also no accident that,with the exception of Bob Allen,all of the former office holders(rejected by the voters in theirlast run for office) are proponentsof sprawl development in NorthLivermore. These people wouldstop the redevelopment of downtownabout halfway through theprocess, choking off the downtownhousing that is key to successfulrevitalization and forcingthe state mandated growth northof the freeway. These folks wantus to go back to the discreditedsprawl of the past and away fromthe “Smart Growth” principlesthat are being embraced by alllevels of government.LEGAL NOTICESFOR INFORMATIONPLACING LEGALNOTICESCONTACT RICHARD @925 243-8000FICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAME STATEMENTFILE NO. 448621The following person(s) doingbusiness as: Motion Analytix,2480 Ancona Circle, Livermore,CA 94550, is herebyregistered by the followingowner(s):Douglas L. Perry, 2480 AnconaCircle, Livermore, CA94550This business is conductedby: an IndividualThe registrant began to transactbusiness under the fictitiousbusiness name(s) listedabove on January 25, 2011.Signature of Registrant:/s/: Douglas L. PerryThis statement was filed withthe County Clerk of Alamedaon February 28, 2011. ExpiresFebruary 28, 2016.The Independent Legal No.2950. Published March 10,17, 24, 31, 2011.FICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAME STATEMENTFILE NO. 447798The following person(s) doingbusiness as: The UPSStore (#4722), 1452 N VascoRd, Livermore, CA 94551,is hereby registered by thefollowing owner(s):Edward B. Belmont, 1154Central Ave, Livermore, CA94551Leslee Belmont, 1154 CentralAve, Livermore, CA 94551This business is conductedby: Husband and WifeThe registrant began to transactbusiness under the fictitiousbusiness name(s) listedabove on April 7, 2003.Signature of Registrant:/s/: Edward B. BelmontThis statement was filed withthe County Clerk of Alamedaon February 7, 2011. ExpiresFebruary 7, 2016.The Independent Legal No.2951. Published March 10,17, 24, 31, 2011.FICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAME STATEMENTFILE NO. 448475The following person(s) doingbusiness as: Deliver More,454 North L St, Livermore, CA94551, is hereby registered bythe following owner(s):Amber Star Lancaster, 454North L St, Livermore, CA94551This business is conductedby: an IndividualRegistrant has not yet begunto transact business underthe fictitious business nameor names listed.Signature of Registrant:/s/: Amber S. LancasterThis statement was filed withthe County Clerk of Alamedaon February 24, 2011. ExpiresFebruary 24, 2016.The Independent Legal No.2952. Published March 10,17, 24, 31, 2011.FICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAME STATEMENTFILE NO. 448530The following person(s) doingbusiness as: Willow Tree,6513 Regional St, Dublin, CA94568, is hereby registered bythe following owner(s):Willow Tree Restaurant, Inc.,a California Corporation,6513 Regional St, Dublin,CA 94568,This business is conductedby: a CorporationThe registrant began totransact business under thefictitious business name(s)listed above on December14, 1983.Signature of Registrant:/s/: Marina Chin, SecretaryThis statement was filed withthe County Clerk of Alamedaon February 25, 2011. ExpiresFebruary 25, 2016.The Independent Legal No.2957. Published March 17,24, 31, April 7, 2011.FICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAME STATEMENTFILE NO. 448875The following person(s) doingbusiness as: MavericksWood, 3661 A N. VascoRd., Livermore, CA 94551,is hereby registered by thefollowing owner(s):Leland Jay, 3661 A N. VascoRd., Livermore, CA 94551This business is conductedby: Co-partnersRegistrant has not yet begunto transact business underthe fictitious business nameor names listed.Signature of Registrant:/s/: Leland Jay and JanetJayThis statement was filed withthe County Clerk of Alamedaon March 4, 2011. ExpiresMarch 4, 2016.The Independent Legal No.2958. Published March 17,24, 31, April 7, 2011.FICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAME STATEMENTFILE NO. 448412The following person(s) doingbusiness as: Four FoolsWinery, 3408 Isle Royal Ct,Pleasanton, CA 94588, ishereby registered by the followingowner(s):John J Conroy, 3408 IsleRoyal Ct, Pleasanton, CA94588This business is conductedby: an IndividualRegistrant has not yet begunto transact business underthe fictitious business nameor names listed.Signature of Registrant:/s/: John J ConroyThis statement was filed withthe County Clerk of Alamedaon February 23, 2011. ExpiresFebruary 23, 2016.The Independent Legal No.2959. Published March 17,24, 31, April 7, 2011.FICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAME STATEMENTFILE NO. 449024The following person(s) doingbusiness as: Sarva-IT Solutions,5716 Owens Dr, Apt102, Pleasanton, CA 94588,is hereby registered by thefollowing owner(s):Gopikrishna Manchala, 5716Owens Dr, Apt 102, Pleasanton,CA 94588This business is conductedby: an IndividualRegistrant has not yet begunto transact business underthe fictitious business nameor names listed.Signature of Registrant:/s/: Gopikrishna ManchalaThis statement was filed withthe County Clerk of Alamedaon March 9, 2011. ExpiresMarch 9, 2016.The Independent Legal No.2960. Published March 17,24, 31, April 7, 2011.STATEMENT OFABANDONMENTOF USE OFFICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAMEFILE NO. 439480The following person(s) has(have) abandoned the useof the Fictitious BusinessName: STOP-N-WASH CoinLaundry, 1344 Railroad Ave,Livermore, CA 94550The Fictitious business NameStatement for the Partnershipwas filed on June 10, 2010 inthe County of Alameda.The full name of Registrant:Kathy Kemp Anderson, 7481Northland Ave, San Ramon,CA 94583This business was conductedby: Kathy Kemp AndersonSignature of Registrant:/s/: Kathy Kemp AndersonThis statement was filed withthe County Clerk of Alamedaon March 22, 2011. ExpiresMarch 11, 2016.The Independent Legal No.2962. Published March 24,31, April 7, 14, 2011.FICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAME STATEMENTFILE NO. 449252The following person(s) doingbusiness as: Fall Design, 275Rose Ave, Pleasanton, CA94566, is hereby registered bythe following owner(s):Rose Fall, 3855 Forest HillAve, Oakland, CA 94602,This business is conductedby: an IndividualThe registrant began to transactbusiness under the ficti-