Town Square

Post a New Topic

City Council continues again a decision on Lund Ranch II development

Original post made on Nov 18, 2015

The City Council, hopelessly deadlocked over a developer's bid to build 50 homes in Pleasanton's southeast hills after a 3-1/2 hour public hearing, voted unanimously Tuesday night to try again at another meeting.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, November 18, 2015, 8:00 AM

Comments (31)

Posted by shocked
a resident of Danbury Park
on Nov 18, 2015 at 9:01 am

First of all, if it has taken 13 years for the city to process paperwork that this developer submitted their plans in 2002, it sounds like the entire set of departments and management need to be let go. 13 years is absolutely ridiculous.

What gives with the Planning Commission proposing a brand new road that violates Measure PP and is also a road the developer never had in the their plans? How do they, the Planning Commission, have the authority to not only violate Measure PP, but put in a road on the fly that the developer does not want?

The city did the same thing to Trinity Lutheran church by proposing a road from Del Valle to Golden Road through the church's own property!!!!

Greenbriar Homes is the developer and they propose a road that is on flat land that the environmental report says is the best, environmentally sound plan.

Also, I signed the petition in 2007 at the Safeway and was shown a grading map and specifically recall that the woman representing Save Pleasanton Hills said it would stop the "mile long road" on top of the ridge lines and steep slopes.


Posted by Disgruntled
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 18, 2015 at 9:43 am

Why is Pleasanton allowing this community to be built at all? Between the increased traffic concerns, the neighbors fighting against neighbors, violations of Measure PP, possible violation of a prior agreement by the City Council, disruption of a stream bed, etc, this is a horrible proposal for our town. Who exactly benefits from this construction? Only the builder, not us! The City of Pleasanton is supposed to work in the best interests of it's residents and clearly, in this case, they are not!


Posted by shocked
a resident of Danbury Park
on Nov 18, 2015 at 11:35 am

The city has not met its RHNA numbers so if this winds up in court I am sure Frank Roesch will mandate that the residential development include dwellings to meet regional affordable housing needs. The initiative is here on the smartvoter site Web Link and the argument in favor says "a mile long road" and Cindy McGovern in this November 23, 2007 article Web Link clearly states "streets" with "If this ridgeline preservation ordinance had been developed and adopted, the Oak Grove development would not have been approved since it has ridgetop streets and driveways, houses of up to 12,500 square feet (plus an additional 800-square-foot garage) within 100 vertical feet of the ridgeline, and grading on slopes of 25 percent or greater in these picturesque southeast hills."

Jerry Thorne and Kathy Narum cannot change the initiative because it says in the intiative the voters adopted:

"III. The provisions of this initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Pleasanton at a City general election and overrides any existing General Plan."

If they change it themselves, of course Thorne and Narum will be recalled by the voters. Someone posted a thread earlier with a video of Kathy Narum saying "A road is a structure and I voted a road is a structure and it's public record." It is on Youtube.


Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 18, 2015 at 11:51 am

The City Council is trying to create a compromise with two neighborhoods that aren't interested in any-Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek.

Junipero Street is currently taking cut-through commuter traffic daily, from Bernal via Independence Drive, ending at the intersection with Sunol Boulevard. It has become a major arterial roadway, and the intersection located at Junipero and Sunol Boulevard has deteriorated to a Level of Service grade of F.

In addition, the approval of PUD-87 in 2013-14 is only going to make things worse for Ventana Hills and Mission Hills residents. It’s the massive housing (350 apartments) and retail complex currently under construction at the southeast corner parcel bordered by Bernal Avenue and Stanley Boulevard.

Once completed, that project will create even more cut-through traffic on the Bernal-Independence–Junipero-Sunol corridor that will further adversely affect the existing Mission Hills and Ventana Hills neighborhoods. It’s a cut-through corridor that was NEVER addressed by City Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano, nor in any reports at the time in 2013 when the PUD-87 project was being decided upon.

What Mr. Tassano did acknowledge at the time was that First Street can NOT be widened to accomodate any additional traffic. Think First Street traffic is bad now in the morning and afternoon? Wait until PUD-87 is completed.

That project is being built. That additional traffic is coming to Ventana Hills and Mission Hills neighborhoods. It won't be coming to Sycamore Heights or Bridle Creek, no matter what.

Through various City Council and Mayoral administrations, including various City staff over the past 25 years, Ventana Hills and Mission Hills residents were consistently promised that all traffic from any Lund Ranch II development would exit through Sycamore Creek Way in Bridle Creek.

Ventana Hills and Mission Hills residents are already suffering through cut-through traffic, including dangerous speeding through the S-curve along Junipero adjacent to Mission Hills Park. Ventana Hills and Mission Hills residents will be suffering through even more once PUD-87 is completed. To take on any additional traffic through our neighborhoods is not safe, not sensible, and not equitable, and the Planning Commission has agreed.

What affect will PUD-87 have on Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residential traffic?

NONE.

The Planning Commission’s appropriate decision to extend what will remain a dead end road, not a thoroughfare, to provide access to 50 new homes is NOT asking too much of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents. It was always planned that way, and that’s very little traffic pain for them to have to accept.

In fact, Ventana Hills representatives were willing to accept a compromise of a 10 Lund Ranch II homes being accessible via Lund Ranch Road, with it being extended as a cul de sac. Option 3 as known in PUD-25 City documents.

What compromise have Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek residents offered?

NONE. EVER. Not In My Backyard.

Instead, they:

-Lobby the Sierra Club and City Councilmembers to accept their own personal interpretation of Measure PP to serve their own self-interests of Not In My Backyard re: Lund Ranch II;
-Intimidate Councilmember Jerry Pentin into recusing himself from voting on the matter by accusing him of a conflict of interest, despite the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) determining that there isn't, reaffirmed by the City Attorney;
-Claim that there are currently more daily car trips on Sycamore Creek Way then on Junipero, which is ludicrous.

NIMBYism at it's finest.

Expecting residents of Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek to accept any kind of compromise?

Not In My Backyard.

You'd have better luck winning the lottery.


Posted by Map
a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 18, 2015 at 12:54 pm

Very interesting meeting, lots of valid points brought up by nearby residents, had to agree with them I wouldn't want anymore vehicles coming through my neighborhood! Maybe we build an overpass out of there into a neighborhood that everybody agrees on and quit worrying about measure PP because obviously the planning commission could care less about what us citizens want. I'm guessing they will keep delaying till one night when only about 3 of us show up for a public meeting a little hocus pocus, PP has been re-interpreted, and the project gets approved- surprise!


Posted by shocked
a resident of Danbury Park
on Nov 18, 2015 at 2:05 pm

The Lund Ranch Road side wants to take away property rights of the Lund Ranch owners. The existing Lund Ranch Road to access the Lund Ranch area has been in place for years. The property rights of the owners of Lund Ranch means the owners of Lund Ranch can continue to use their property through Lund Ranch Road including future subdivisions of the main property allowing additional homes. I suppose the neighbors who want to block the existing Lund Ranch Road want to overturn Hill v. Allan and allow neighbors to block an existing road to a property.

Greenbriar has proposed a development that uses an existing road, Lund Ranch Road, but neighbors want to block the existing road that the property owners have used for years. The subdivision of the property was foreseeable and the plans submitted to the city in 2002 access the property through Lund Ranch Road and the plan submitted to the city council last night accesses the proprty through Lund Ranch Road.

I would not be surprised if Greenbriar and the property owners of Lund sue the city for taking away their property rights as well as the adjacent neighbors trying to close their existing access point.


Posted by Fed Up
a resident of Sycamore Heights
on Nov 18, 2015 at 3:35 pm

The Planning Commission mishandled the issue and now the City Council can't work it out either. Regardless if a road is or isn't a structure, the retaining wall that will need to be built to support the road, surely is. How about the city council just flat out turn down the development? Way too much new construction has been approved, our schools and city are going to suffer. I can't wait until election time comes and these fools are standing on the corner during farmers market, asking for my vote. Or when I receive a flyer from Blaise Lofland asking if I'd like to list my house (his wife is one of the clowns on the planning commission). The mismanagement of this issue has put two neighborhoods at odds and this development is in no way approving our city. Boo City Planning Commission, Boo City Council.


Posted by Map
a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 18, 2015 at 5:42 pm

Hopefully everybody that voted these clowns in remember all these shenanigans come next election time, we certainly aren't getting what was promised to us!! I'm feeling another big lawsuit coming up against the city over Lund ranch, lucky lawyers, going to be easy pickings. Hope we can clean house soon, us old timers are really tired of the vultures circling overhead.


Posted by Julie
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 18, 2015 at 7:56 pm

@fed up -- Blaise's wife isn't on the planning commission. What are you smoking??? You just invaudated the rest of your posts with your intentional misinformation.


Posted by Tony
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Nov 19, 2015 at 10:37 am

If a road with retaining wall is not a structure, only houses are considered as structure, as some Ventana Hills residents suggested, then the Great Wall of China is not a structure! How ridiculous is that?!

A road on a more than 25% slope, with retaining wall as high as 10 feet, with hundreds of truck load of dirt to be removed, with careful engineering work required, that's not a structure?!

Let Pleasanton voters decide on that, I am sure most will resoundingly vote that is a structure!


Posted by Tony
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Nov 19, 2015 at 10:47 am

Guess who objected to letting voters decide whether that's a structure? The committee member Kathy Narum who has opinion it's not a structure. She knew well that the voters will say yes to that question, it's a structure!


Posted by Realist
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 20, 2015 at 8:22 am

This is about 50 homes????

Give me a break

This is all a very local issue driven by local residents who "have theirs" meaning a house in the neighborhood - your house has just as much impact on the environment as any house you are fighting

If you really want to save the environment - tear your house down, dedicate your lot to the east bay regional park district and move to a one bedroom apartment in San Francisco


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 20, 2015 at 9:15 am

First World problems!

You NIMBY people are so funny. Stop worrying about this and go do something useful.


Posted by Pleasant Resident
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Nov 20, 2015 at 10:16 am

To the people who are crying NIMBY, and calling for us to do something useful, you clearly have not been in Ventana Hills, especially during commute hours. Or, perhaps you have, and you are but one of the many law breakers who decide to blow through the stop signs along Independence and Junipero. We have heavy overflow traffic, for people who do not want to deal with Bernal/1st St. With cars parked on both sids of the steet, Junipero couldn't possibly accomodate the construction trucks and traffic. Our roads have taken on all they can, not only from our neighborhood residents, but others in this town as well. Sycamore Heights residents signed papers when they moved in, recognizing that the traffic for Lund Ranch II would go through their neighborhood. PP is as clear as mud.


Posted by Julie
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 20, 2015 at 10:33 am

@Pleasanton Resident - c'mon. Boo hoo. I live in Birdland and have a lot of traffic during school hours in my community but you don't hear Birdland residents complaining about it. That's what happens when you live in a community.


Posted by Jtjh
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Nov 20, 2015 at 10:39 am

'Map' wrote:

>> I'm guessing they will keep delaying till one night when only about 3 of us show up for a public meeting <<


Exactly. standard planning practice.

Which side has the most financial support? Because in the end, that's the one that will almost certainly win the day.

When it comes to planning and development, democracy is usually just an illusion.


Posted by Pleasanton Resident
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Nov 20, 2015 at 12:00 pm

@Julie. School traffic is one thing. Commute and all hours traffic from people bypassing an intersection, that's something else. No one is boo hooing it, pay attention. We live with it everyday, it's fine. What our roads will not be able to handle, is more traffic, on top of what we already have. Also, we will be getting even more cars coming through with the new high density apartments on the corner of Bernal/Stanley. We were willing to compromise with Sycamore Heights, they are unwilling to do the same. We have a park in our neighborhood, team sports practices take place all year eound at the park, I hope and pray that the added congestion on our roads doesn't put any kids or families from anywhere in our town at risk.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 20, 2015 at 1:15 pm

@Pleasanton Resident,

And your house didn't add traffic?

This is pure NIMBY.


Posted by Pleasanton Resident
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Nov 20, 2015 at 2:09 pm

@BobB. Yes, my house adds traffic, to my OWN neighborhood. What kind of straw man argument IS that? Don't talk about doing something useful, when you are arguing a point that most likely, has nothing to do with you. Now go do something useful.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 20, 2015 at 2:26 pm

Your neighborhood and every other neighborhood you drive through.

Of all the things you could be concerned with, or doing something about...

You people make me laugh.


Posted by Pleasanton Resident
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Nov 20, 2015 at 2:43 pm

@BobB.



"Of all the things you could be concerned with, or doing something about..."

Right back atcha!


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 20, 2015 at 4:11 pm

Have to keep laughing. This is so important!


Posted by Pleasanton Resident
a resident of Pleasanton Middle School
on Nov 20, 2015 at 4:28 pm

"Have to keep laughing. This is so important" - someone arguing over the internet


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 21, 2015 at 9:55 pm

Funny and sad that people waste their time with this stuff.


Posted by Deny Builder!
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 24, 2015 at 10:15 pm

I agree with the previous comments that this "neighborhood" should not be built at all! It clearly violates PP, contributes major problems to our traffic, endangers children if even more cars pass through by the park on Junipero or even on Sycamore and causes our town nothing but problems.

Why, for once, doesn't Pleasanton do what the residents are demanding:

.......deny the builder's application!!!!


Posted by Map
a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 25, 2015 at 2:02 pm

"deny builder" must be new to our once quaint little town! How many old timers remember the promises of our hacienda business park that no residential units would be built within the business park?? Or the passage of measure PP that is somehow being re-interpreted to favor developers or maybe the best one yet is the rezoning of church property back to residential to take care of a couple of good ol boys (ponderosa homes) and a nice tidy profit for the church that bailed.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 25, 2015 at 3:10 pm

Oh no! Oh no! Our very way of life is threatened. Under assault!

We're becoming like refugees!!!

The sky is falling!!!


Posted by Another Pleasanton resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 25, 2015 at 8:29 pm

Just a point of clarification, Amy Loughlin is on the Ventana Hills Steering Committee not the Planning Commission. I think Ventana Hills residents may want to check in with her regarding the "Sycamore Heights won't compromise" issue. I guess she didn't mention that the Sycamore Heights Steering Committee initiated and met with the VH steering committee and offered to take 10 homes with all access coming down Sunset Creek Rd NOT LUND RANCH RD. By building only 10 homes, the subdivision is in compliance with PP as it was written. I guess she also didn't mention that the VH Steering Committee said "No we cannot support that but we won't oppose it." So much for trying to work together to seek a solution.


Posted by Wikiwiki
a resident of Foothill High School
on Nov 25, 2015 at 9:06 pm

Pretty obvious that Blaise and Amy Lofland support development in Pleasanton, as they are big money, successful realtors--just no development in their neighborhood! What a self-serving, double standard that seems to be.


Posted by Map
a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 26, 2015 at 9:04 am

Great time to be a realtor, a lawyer, or an independent consultant in our once quiet little town, lots of money to be made here for those 3 groups thanks to our city council and our city planners. Sure miss the good ol days before "greed" moved into town.


Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 26, 2015 at 9:39 pm

Happy Thanksgiving!

Much to be thankful for.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from PleasantonWeekly.com sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

How we eat away at our open space, even in Palo Alto
By Sherry Listgarten | 5 comments | 6,457 views

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 6 comments | 3,202 views

Applying for Dental School
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 1,112 views

Dallas vs. San Francisco Sunday sparks plenty of memories
By Tim Hunt | 6 comments | 899 views

Now we're cooking with gas
By Monith Ilavarasan | 4 comments | 590 views