Urban Growth Boundary is moving east

Apparently Mr. Gibbon doesn't remember (or wasn't around) to see what the county will do when you trust them to do the right thing. Anybody remember the Dougherty Valley?

Apparently the longtime resident likes the revisionist version of the Dougherty Valley. After working with the city for over a year Tom Koch and his developers (Shappell and Windimer)were not satified with 7000 houses approved by the San Ramon City Council for Dougherty Valley and decided to go to the county where they got 11,000 houses approved. The city sued the county and finally approved of a settlement that allowed the project to go forward. The then city council agreed to allow 11,000 houses in the valley after they made a financial deal that we still have to living with. Now there are people on the council that would like to forget there involvement in the settlement and their agreement to 11,000 houses.

I have lived and have had a business in San Ramon for 34 years. I now from what I speak.

Jim Gibbon AIA, LEED-AP

Jim,

You mention "The then city council agreed to 11,000 houses in the valley," but go on to say "Now there are people on the council that would like to forget there (sic) involvement in the settlement . . ." The Dougherty Valley Settlement agreement was in 1994. No one on the city council today was on the council in 1994. Three members of the City Council and Mayor Wilson were elected since 2001.

The DV Settlement was a negotiated legal agreement between the County, the Town of Danville, and the City of San Ramon. It was not something the "then council" could do much about. That's why the current council is cautious about the county making decisions on plans that the city has no input into.

I don't like the way the council dodged questions about a major portion of the New Farm development being in the SOI area and leaving it out of the 2030 General Plan EIR (which you corrected at the Scoping Session), but I understand why it is in the city's best interest to have a Sphere of Influence in that area BEFORE any development is approved.

Roz

This city council needs to be more transparent about their intentions. I get the "sphere of influence" play. But I also see nothing but aggresive growth plans coming out of this council. Many of us residents do not want to live near a higher density restacked downtown nor a developed "new farm" Tassajara Valley. Enough is enough!! The voters made it clear in 2006 what we thought about urban growth in the valley. Unfortunately for us, it seems this council and supporting staffers smell not the grasslands and trees of the valley, but the tax dollars that big growth brings to their budgets. We are on a highway to over-growth hell.

Roz, I have not seen New Farms and I am still not clear where the housing or other components of this development are preposed or will eventually be built. When were the public hearings in Martinez? It is not a San Ramon development. Apparently, Jim Gibbon doesn't know either. The point everyone misses is New Farm is being processed in the county and does not require a vote. San Ramon can only control what is in their urban growth boundary if the county and the landowners agree and there is an Eastside Specific Plan which would require a full EIR. If residents vote to maintain the current UGB then Danville can expand and the county can continue to develop. There is no no-growth scenario. When New Farm is daylighted I will comment on it. The vote in 2006 only reaffirmed that the citizen of any city in Contra Costa can vote to amend or maintain their UGB. San Ramon residents led in this being part of the principles of agreement for Measure L, the voter approved Urban Limit Line (2006). I was at all three SOI meetings with the county and Danville. The priority for determining a mutual agreement for a Danville SOI may have been New Farm, but San Ramon was focused on good planning and effects of traffic, noise, light, open space, etc. for San Ramon in a cooperative venture with the county. There were no maps or development plans for New Farm at these meetings.

Dave- I would respectfully suggest that you and your fellow city council members daylight your position on growth in our community. Send it to the Times as an open letter to county leadership. "Won't get fooled again" might be a good headline. Let the readers / residents of San Ramon determine if their council's position aligns with theirs.

While you're at it, you could do another open letter to SR citizens on the city's own plans to increase density and big plate retail downtown. Let the residents decide whether more tax dollars to fatten city coffers is more important than the quality of life we moved here for.

Planning meetings at dinner hour aren't the way to effectively communicate with / connect with our residents. 99% of residents have no clue about the decisions that are being made about their adjoining neighborhoods. These permanent growth initiatives will impact us long after the doors for input and debate are closed. The council needs to go the extra mile to communicate position & intent on city planning on this scale.

Mr. Gibbons, are you suggesting that because you've lived here one year longer than me, you're more qualified to convey your creative interpretation of events to push your agenda?

SJO,

I like your suggestion about the City Council sending open letters to newspapers, or even using the Town Square options here, to explain their positions on growth and development and city revenues to residents. I wrote the San Ramon Observer for eight years to inform residents about what the City Council was doing. I had maybe 3000 total readers out of 50,000 residents, which shows the level of interest among residents on these issues.

You say the Council should, "Let the residents decide whether more tax dollars to fatten city coffers is more important than the quality of life we moved here for."

I'm not a long-time resident. I've lived in San Ramon about 13 years, when this was already a City in a suburban mold. Some of my neighbors, and you and Mr. Gibbon, moved here when it was still rural and open space. So I can see why you feel the city has moved away from the quality of life you moved her for. But for me, it is maintaining the quality of life I moved here for.

All those tax dollars (which are not fattening the city coffers as much as you believe) are necessary to keep this city running at the level most of us expect, which is why so many residents don't pay attention to what happens in City Hall unless something impacts them or their neighborhoods directly. Most residents are very happy, or at least not unhappy, about the way this city is being run.

I for one appreciate our elected officials keeping our city economically sound, especially during difficult times. One way to insure this is to build up the city coffers for a rainy day. In case you haven't noticed, we've had a lot of rain lately.

Roz