Town Square

Post a New Topic

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

Original post made on Jan 6, 2016

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

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, January 6, 2016, 8:59 AM

Comments (7)

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

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

Burning just one "old style" light bulb can cost $150 or more per year
By Sherry Listgarten | 11 comments | 2,656 views

Premiere! “I Do I Don’t: How to build a better marriage” – Here, a page/weekday
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,113 views

Community foundations want to help local journalism survive
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 349 views


Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Pleasanton Weekly Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Pleasanton Weekly readers contributed over $83,000 to support eight safety-net nonprofits right here in the Tri-Valley.