Council OK's developer's plan for 43 homes on Lund Ranch

Decision ends years of debate over major development on southeast side

The City Council closed out years of debate over building houses on Lund Ranch in the southeast hills of Pleasanton Tuesday night, approving the latest developer's plan for 43 upscale homes on the 194-acre site.

As part of the agreement, Greenbriar Homes Community will donate 177 acres of its property to the city as open space, which will be kept free of any future development in perpetuity with hiking trails to be added.

Although the council's 3-1 vote to approve the plan came at the end of the sixth public hearing on the Greenbriar proposal, the two-hour-long final public hearing was again contentious both for council members and a council chamber half-filled with interest groups both in favor and opposed to the Lund Ranch development.

Mayor Jerry Thorne and council members Kathy Narum and Arne Olson voted in favor of Greenbriar's bid. Councilwoman Karla Brown again voted against it. Councilman Jerry Pentin again recused himself from the discussion and voting because he lives close to one of the proposed access routes to the project.

Brown said a roadway planned as an extension of Sunset Creek way to homes in the Greenbriar development the plan would be built on hillside slopes greater than 25% in violation of Measure PP, a voter-approved measure that now rules against hillside construction.

She said Measure PP rules that nothing is allowed with 100 feet of a ridge, no scarring, no severe grading, which the roadway extension will require.

"This is not protecting the ridgelines and there's no way as a PP supporter that I can support this plan," she said in voting against the plan approval ordinance.

But the three others on the council disagreed.

"Most everything that can be said about this project has been said since 2002," said Thorne. We're coming down from over 100 houses once planned to less than 50 because of PP. It worked."

Olson, who once said that roadways should be considered as structure and not allowed on hillside with 25% or greater slopes, said he changed his mind after seeing the need to build this road extension to reach Lund Ranch.

"I had to change my opinion on this project in order to get to this point after seeing how Measure PP impacted this (Greenbriar) plan, so I did," he added.

"I also think that PP worked," added Narum. "I think we honored it and residents should be proud of that."

"The city is receiving 177 acres of open space from this developer," Narum continued. "It's pristine open space, at the top of the ridge. It's gorgeous, beautiful land that all of us are going to want to hike on."

Most of the 10 speakers at the council meeting voiced opposition to the Greenbriar plan.

Planning Commissioner Greg O'Connor, speaking as a homeowner in Bridle Creek, a neighborhood served by Sycamore Creek Way that much of the new Lund Ranch traffic will use to reach Sunol Boulevard, urged the council to postpone again a final vote on the project.

He said the access road off Sunset Creek Way will be built on a slope of 25% or greater and will require retaining walls within 100 feet of a ridge, in violation of Measure PP rules.

Alan Roberts, who lives in the gated Gray Eagle community at the end of Crellin Road, also opposed the project.

"The only reason you made a decision that that is not ridgeland is because of the inconvienence (this would cause) the developer of this property," he said. "I think that is wrong and I urge you to reconsider what you are doing."

But another speaker called the final plan that was approved by the council "a very fair compromise."

"I would like to thank all of you for the time you put into this," he said. "I know it's well beyond what you normally deal with in considering housing developments. Now let's move on."

Another speaker, a homeowner in the Sycamore Creek Way community, vowed to seek a referendum to overturn the council's decision.

"Tonight, we'll be starting the signature process immediately," he said. "For the next 30 days you'll be seeing us in every neighborhood, every workplace, everywhere you shop and play. We're well-funded and we'll easily obtain the required signatures to place this on the ballot."

"This project blatantly disrespects the use of Pleasanton's ridges and hillsides," he added. "The City Council and city staff made an arbitrary decision as to the location of ridgelines."

The Greenbriar plan approved Tuesday calls for 12 of the new homes to use Lund Ranch Road, Independence Drive and Junipero Street to reach Sunol Boulevard which, with Middleton Place traffic will total motorists from 27 homes using these thoroughfares, and motorist from the other 31 new Lund Ranch homes using Sunset Creek Way and Sycamore Creek Way to Sunol Boulevard.

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


10 people like this
Posted by Lin
a resident of another community
on Jan 6, 2016 at 9:29 am

With the houses and ALL the apartments that are and have been built when is Pleasanton going to build another hospital and a school? I don't think Valley Care which is now Stanford can take care of every need in Pleasanton. If we have a crisis we will really be in trouble. I'm not sure we have enough police to take care of everything either..
Let's slow down on building and catch up on the things that are necessary to run a city. We could use another park n ride as well.

8 people like this
Posted by Parento2
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 6, 2016 at 12:51 pm

I would like to speak not as a homeowner but as a PUSD parent. There has been a lot of development in or near Westside Pleasanton, not to mention all the new apartments. Why are the council members not requiring the developers to fund another school site to be built? The Neal site is still a viable place. Pleasanton parents of school-age children are being scammed by the developers and council members.

11 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 6, 2016 at 4:43 pm

Re: "...the homeowner in the Sycamore Creek Way community, [who] vowed to seek a referendum to overturn the council's decision.", let me say this:

I've been told by people very familiar with the local referendum process that it will cost ALL Pleasanton taxpayers $350,000 to put that community's desired referendum on the ballot in June.

I've also been told that it typically costs between $30,000 and $50,000 just to hire signature gatherers for acquiring the necessary amount of valid signatures in the required 30 days time limit.

That community may be "well-funded" to achieve that goal, but I seriously doubt they're going to underwrite (fund) the $350,000 required to put it on the June ballot.

ALL Pleasanton residents, in particular, taxpayers, should seriously ponder whether WE should be footing the bill to accommodate (i.e., pay for) a small group of residents' relentless desire to insist on "Not In My Backyard."

6 people like this
Posted by Feeling claustrophobic
a resident of The Knolls
on Jan 6, 2016 at 6:35 pm

There needs to be a cap at some point, packing this awful town with more A**Holes is an egregious offense. There will be a tipping point at which all decent Pleasanton residents will seek shelter elsewhere and Pleasanton will soon look like Hayward/San Leandro....Have fun with that

10 people like this
Posted by No more, por favor!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 6, 2016 at 7:52 pm

If this flip flop council had done the right thing, there would be no talk of referendums, ballot measures, nimbyism, costs to taxpayers, etc. It's on them. They were elected for their environmental protection promises and totally reneged on them. They had a perfect opportunity to stand up for our few remaining hillsides for all of Pleasanton residents to enjoy, now and into the future. They caved in on the pressure from somewhere. Our city growth and water problems are now increased, thanks to their incomprehensible vote last night.

10 people like this
Posted by Local Ptown
a resident of Birdland
on Jan 6, 2016 at 8:04 pm

It was inevitable that the city council did this. They've never cared about the opinions of the residents. They just do what they want. Same as the school district.

5 people like this
Posted by Pete
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 7, 2016 at 6:42 am

I think everyone is missing the point here. This has nothing to do with open space, water, electricity, schools etc and has everything to do with money. We have a huge and growing payroll in this city and that monster must continue to be fed. We need all the revenue we can get. This will continue.

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: Reading List
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,494 views

New Donlon school is at least four years away
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 876 views