Op Ed: Just Say No to General Plan 2030
An San Ramon resident and advocate for keeping the Tassajara Valley free from development shares his thoughts about some proposed changes to the city's general plan.
Photos
On July 13 , the San Ramon City Council meets to review and likely approve their amended General Plan 2030. On the surface this may sound routine, but if this plan is also approved by residents in November, it will forever impact where we live.
Buried deep within General Plan 2030, there is a provision to expand San Ramon's "Urban Growth Boundary" (or UGB) into the beautiful Tassajara Valley to the east and into the hills on the west of the city.
If you've ever driven along Camino Tassajara Road between Blackhawk and Dublin, you know how amazingly rural and open Tassajara Valley is. It is filled with green and brown rolling hills, ancient oaks, horse stables, small family ranches and historic sites. All this within minutes of Interstate 680. If you love rural and open spaces near to where you live, you have to love Tassajara Valley – as it is.
There is no question expanding the UGB will mean eventual development in the valley and the west side hills – something that has been tried for years but resisted by residents.
The valley has a long history of outside land speculators wanting to pave it over. No matter what residents want, it seems those efforts just won't die. Disturbingly, the city has already started work on an "Eastside Plan" to determine how Tassajara Valley ought to be carved up for development. The usual suspects are working the back offices of city hall – a Jordanian land speculator named Samir Kawar and his sidekick consultant Tom Koch – are peddling their latest development schemes to any politician willing to listen (and accept their generous campaign contributions).
Do we really want greedy foreign speculators paving-over our hills and valleys? More traffic, more pollution, more water and sewer demands, more cookie-cutter housing blanketing the horizon? No way. Highly respected conservation organizations such as Greenbelt Alliance and Save Mount Diablo agree – General Plan 2030 needs to be rejected.
Measure F in Brentwood was defeated by residents who soundly voted "no way" to a similar annexation and development plan. Likewise, San Ramon residents must defeat "General Plan 2030" in November in order to keep the boundary as it is. Our quality of life depends on it.
I encourage you to visit our blog savetassajaravalley.wordpress.com to find out how you can help us raise awareness and stop this latest attempt to develop the beautiful Tassajara Valley and the west side hills.
Dave Fancher
11:09 pm on Friday, July 9, 2010
I whole Hearterdly Agree, I recently Drove through what was "Left" of Tassahara Valley and I was thinking back 35 years, imagining the way things used to be.I am Heartbroken by the unbridled "Development". We Need our Wild Spaces too! I think that should remain zoned as "Rural" though I know inherently that goes against Property Owners Rights, but in this Case, I think it's the Right thing to do. Look Folks, We really can not Sustain more Growth, and More Development, what I'd like to see are areas zoned out for Pasture and Family "Hobby Farms" and to Provide Locally Grown Produce for the Windmills Farms and Farmers Markets. This is one way of Preserving the Areas Heritage and Sustainability.
Kathy
12:33 pm on Saturday, July 10, 2010
The County is already working with a developer in the Tassajara Valley. They did the same thing with the multi developments in Dougherty Valley. The county had full control of that construction zone, collected the taxes, and under paid us for providing the services; police, fire. We've learned from that experience.
This time, we are trying to be the ones in control of the area, rather than the county. The area will eventually be within our city lines. Don't we deserve a say over what is developed there?
Steve O'Brien
2:37 pm on Saturday, July 10, 2010
Personally I have zero faith the city of San Ramon will leave this area as is. I was a member of one of their committees and saw first hand the pro-growth nature of city staff, planning commission and city council. As I mentioned above, there is already an "Eastside Plan" being developed by the city. They need the revenue to afford the highest paid staff in the Tri-Valley (see http://savetassajaravalley.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/san-ramon-its-all-about-the-money/ ). Dougherty Valley was a completely different time (pre-UGB) and set of circumstances. The best approach is to leave the UGB where it is. I encourage anyone who doubts this to visit our blog and/or Save Mount Diablo's website for more info.
Jennifer Wadsworth
2:59 pm on Saturday, July 10, 2010
Thanks for your comments! I have a reporter working on a news story about the proposed boundary expansion. Look for it soon. I may run it early next week.
Harry Sachs
11:26 am on Wednesday, September 8, 2010
One should understand that Mr. O'brien was on the housing advisory committee for about 6 months, before he quit. His first hand accounts of the "pro-growth" nature of San Ramon are vastly over-rated. As a Planning Commissioner since 2006, I can tell you factually that there is NOT an Eastside Plan for Tassajara Valley. being developed by the city. An Eastside Specific Plan is called for in San ramon's General Plan and that must occur if, and only if, any landowner wishes to develope and submits a development proposal to the city of San Ramon. I can tell you factually that no one has done that because that land is under the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County.
Expanding the UGB would allow both San Ramon's Planning Commission and City Council to have needed input on any development in Tassajara, a No on Measure W would leave the decision making solely in the hands of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors.
No on Measure W
3:51 pm on Sunday, September 12, 2010
Bull, Harry - Measure W (the General Plan update) specifically calls for creation of an Eastside Specific Plan, as well as a North Camino Ramon Specific Plan, and for breaking San Ramon's voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary to add another 2000 acres to the city. The ONLY reason for expanding a growth boundary is to allow more growth. The ONLY reason for a Specific Plan is to plan more growth. The city doesn't need a developer's permission to create a specific plan but usually they get it because the developer wants their land to be made more valuable. They DO need a majority of the developers to approve the land they control being added to the city - and the only reason a developer wants their land added is for more development.
It's the county that put the Tassajara Valley outside of the Urban Limit Line in the first place (in 2000), and the county that sponsored Measure L in 2006 that made it a requirement for the county and for cities to get a vote of the people to expand urban growth boundaries. In Measure L the voters countywide and in San Ramon voted just 4 years ago to leave the Tassajara Valley outside of the growth boundaries. That's what San Ramon is trying to change - a vote of the people to expand the boundary, which if successful will lead to massive new development.
If Measure W passes the decisions will no longer be the public's. If Measure W is defeated the public will still be in charge.
No on Measure W
3:54 pm on Sunday, September 12, 2010
And while conservation groups and many residents are concerned about the Tassajara Valley and the westside hills, residents should be equally concerned about North Camino Ramon, 295 acres east of 680 and south of Fostoria - where the Measure W vote would give the city the go-ahead for another 1500 houses there (on top of approx 4200 in the Tassajara valley and 4600 which are already approved but not yet built in the city and Dougherty Valley), PLUS 4.3 million sq ft of new commercial - that's the equivalent of 8 Transamerica Pyramids.