Councilman postpones hearing scheduled for tonight on Lund Ranch housing plan

City awaiting ruling by state commission if Councilman Pentin lives too close to affected area to participate in vote

A public hearing scheduled for tonight on a bid by Greenbriar Homes to build 50 houses on the now-vacant 195-acre Lund Ranch II site in the hills south of Sunol Boulevard has been postponed, at least for two more weeks.

Councilman Jerry Pentin requested the delay while Pleasanton City Attorney Jonathan Lowell seeks a determination by the state Fair Political Practices Commission if Pentin lives too close to the areas affected by Greenbriar's housing bid to participate in the discussion and vote by the council.

Depending on how soon the FPPC's decision is made, the council will reschedule the public hearing for either Nov. 3 or Nov. 17.

The postponement is yet another delay in the consideration of a plan for a major housing development on the former Lund cattle ranch. The first plan was proposed in September 2002 when 113 homes were proposed for construction on 12,000-square-foot lots.

At that time, the city's Planning Commission expressed concern over that project's effect on hillsides. The proposed development then changed hands and it was not until April 2007 a new builder proposed 149 homes on 3,000-square-foot lots. Those plans again were delayed and, a year later, Measure PP became the law of Pleasanton.

Although Measure PP doesn't affect the latest 50-home development plan which would be built on a fairly flat bow of the old ranch, not on hillside slopes, it's the needed 50-yard extension of Sunset Creek Way that will have to cross a steep slope that falls under Measure PP's terms.

The city's Planning Commission approved the plan Aug. 26 in a 4-1 vote, ruling that the upscale home development could be accessed only by a new 24-foot-wide road that Greenbriar must build to connect to Sunset Creek Lane, which homeowners would then use to reach Sycamore Creek Way and Sunol Boulevard.

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.


6 people like this
Posted by unclehomerr..
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 20, 2015 at 12:04 pm

If Pentin's residence is cause for postponement, wouldn't it be appropriate to mention his location. How close to this area does he live???

2 people like this
Posted by Step down
a resident of Danbury Park
on Oct 20, 2015 at 2:22 pm

If it is close, he should step down. This project is headed to court most likely, and if his vote is steeped in possible bias, he should not be allowed to vote.

4 people like this
Posted by preservemeasurePP
a resident of Sycamore Heights
on Oct 20, 2015 at 2:33 pm

Mr. Pentin has behaved honorably in agreeing to the delay. However, there is a conflict of interest as Mr. Pentin does indeed in fact live in one of the neighborhoods potentially affected by the Lund Ranch II development (Mission Hills/Ventana Hills area behind Raley's). This is especially troubling as another council member, Mr. O'Connor, has had to recuse himself from voting (Mr. O'Connor lives in the Sycamore Hts/Bridle Creek area).

Hopefully the FPCC will make a fair assessment of the situation. Anyone who has any personal stake in the decision should not be allowed to vote

8 people like this
Posted by Dave
a resident of Bonde Ranch
on Oct 20, 2015 at 3:26 pm

The council should stop the Lund Ranch II development. If it's reconsidered, it should be several years after the traffic, schools, and water issues are resolved for the Tri-Valley.

4 people like this
Posted by MeasurePPTrumpsAll
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Oct 20, 2015 at 4:45 pm

If this Jerry Pentin turned out indeed lives too close to be unbiased, that would explain why he voted so vehemently based on his bias and preference before.

He totally disregarded Pleasanton voter approved Measure PP, which should trump all. His vote caused the 2-2 tie before and as a consequence changed the whole course and plans thereafter.

This guy is a disgrace that he didn't excuse himself before and will only bring the law suit and bad name to the city council. We should remove his previous votes from the record and revisit what's voted before on this issue.

11 people like this
Posted by Map
a resident of Del Prado
on Oct 20, 2015 at 6:17 pm

Why do we even bother passing measures like PP to save our hillsides when later down the "road" it gets by-passed and the developers get their homes! We should have zoned that property for churches like at ironwood--- oops that didn't work either, big dollars buy the planning commission every time

Like this comment
Posted by Jim Van Dyke
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Oct 21, 2015 at 9:47 am

Hey 'MeasurePPTrumpsAll' (and any others), it is cowardly for you to criticize our volunteer public servants by name, when you hide behind anonymity. Please add something to the conversation, and do so with your real identity if you are going to call out others--including those who put in countless hours with no compensation--by name.

(And yes, I've used my real name in this communication).

7 people like this
Posted by Vicki LaBarge
a resident of Mission Park
on Oct 21, 2015 at 7:45 pm

There are opinions being shared on here where the authors know nothing about the issues. Lund Ranch II always had a planned exit through Sunset Creek. Those of us that live on Junipero should not be forced to take an additional 500 yep 500 cars a day. This will be in addition to new cut through traffic from the apartments going up on Bernal/Valley, so that number becomes 1160 additional car trips a day down a street never intended for this much traffic. It put small children at the park at risk. This is a very important topic and people need to remember why we voted for PP. I was one of those voters and never was a road connector considered as part of PP.

2 people like this
Posted by Bill C. To Jim VD
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 27, 2015 at 8:29 am

Dear Jim;
Your elected officials get compensation (though not a lot) and health insurance. Anyone who tells you they work for free or volunteer their time is not being honest which is the whole point of this thread.

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

Be the first to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Couples: "When Good People Have Affairs" by Mira Kirshenbaum
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,083 views

One of Pleasanton's "characters" passes on
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 858 views