So sorry to hear of these minor mitigations as opposed to a worthy decrease in project size. I continue to believe? 740 housing units are way too many for this hilly, key traffic area by Crow Canyon and in conjunction with the frontage road of San Ramon Valley Blvd., to/from Danville adding great burden to this route in traffic. The impact is going to be pretty awful. EBMUD assures one and all? They can handle the water needs...Again, I'm very doubtful of that promise.

I remain very skeptical of the true benefits of this massive housing project and it just brings back the memories of damages done to our Dougherty valley by with too many housing units.

This is truly a model case of where the developer's rights have trumped the community and this particular area of land in San Ramon.

Did anyone really expect the San Ramon city council to do anything but accept this massive development without adding any meaningful mitigating conditions? Of all of the city governments in the Tri-Valley, the San Ramon city government is the least responsive to the citizens, and by far the least concerned about any environmental and transportation impacts of development.

Since I live in Danville, I had no say in this development. However, I will fight the attempts by San Ramon to gain control of unincorporated Tassajara Valley. If the Tassajara Valley came under San Ramon's control, there would soon be massive housing developments much like there is in the Daugherty Valley.

Is there nothing we can do to prevent San Ramon from sprawling onto every piece on land within its reach?

Here's the thing gentlemen...Faria Preserve is the LAST huge parcel in San Ramon. After this? I believe there is one much smaller piece of land left to develop. I don't know how aggressive San Ramon will be with going for the unincorporated Tassajara valley. Not sure. Remember, the plan in Dougherty was only for construction of some 7,000 houses if I'm not mistaken. A "slip" earlier (no names mentioned) caused that number to reach 10-11K homes...Most unfortunate. Poor job done with this massive wall to wall housing as well, as most of us realize. The city of San Ramon as with the city of Danville probably have little control at this point - the county "holds most the cards" in further development along with land owners. If the two joined together (and maybe they are and I don't know it?) they could be a powerful force with the county IF both cities united in their desire for more land protection. I hope others speak to this issue as well since I don't know the "plan" now for this area.

I wouldn't believe for a millisecond that the Faria Preserve property is the last big undeveloped property in San Ramon. Other ag-zoned properties are bound to pop-up sooner rather than later. Do you really think that a ag-zoned property owner can make more money grazing cows or raising houses. It is not even close.

As for Ms Bunny's and others opposition to the scale of the project. This is where we lose, by negotiating scale, when there is little reference to what is deemed "massive." Assume the developer had put in 1,100 homes, and at the last minute down-sized it to the current 740. Many people would likely accept it.

The developer stategy is to throw as many at the wall as possible and see how many stick. They did that already, and the council approved it at 740.
So when late to the game citizens come to complain, the council knows they have already chiseled it down enough to their liking.

So to stop this takes organized opposition at the start of the process, not the end.

I think a San Ramon citizens group like Save Mount Diablo would do well to form and start getting in early, else people like Ms Bunny will be left to complain about scale, during a phase that scale is not open to much debate.

Our city counsel lacks leadership except for Councilman Sachs. Our city has grown to the point where we need a city council that will fight for the needs of its current citizens. We need to vote these guys out and elect a council with more diversity in thought and leadership.

Sharkman,

Sachs was on the Planning Commission when the 740 homes were originally approved. I'm not sure if O'Loane was still on it then too.

Ms. Bunny, the city's original plans for Dougherty Valley was 9,000 houses. I wasn't living in San Ramon then, but the story I heard was that in 1998 the Sierra Club put the Save Our Hills initiative on the ballot to keep DV from being built out. That's when the developers went to the County and were permitted to build 11,000. The last 3,000 are being built now.

JT, New Farm is back. Now it is called Tassajara Parks. The big patch of land next to Sid Corrie's would be sold to East Bay Regional Parks to keep as open space or parks, and the smaller parcel next to Danville would be used to build 152 homes. In past years Danville did not oppose the New Farm development there, so I'm supposing that it still does not.

All I can say to you guys, is be careful what you try to stop. It could just make it worse.

Roz

I see I was off on the number - yes, another 2,000 makes a difference Roz...Then again? Look at what we have to show for Dougherty valley development. Massive wall to wall concrete with little or no REAL relief in regard to vegetation, mature trees, graveled walking paths, etc. Still, I can't ignore the fact 11,000 built when originally the plan was for 9,000 (never mind JT's commentary on my use of the word "massive" - 740 is far too many buildings for the area of Faria given it's strategic location as many other pieces of land in San Ramon developed earlier could handle this better) The county stance is KEY in all of this and has been, as well as developer rights and will CONTINUE to be, unfortunately, unless by some "miracle of miracles" San Ramon and Danville decide to join forces and make a greater concerted effort to try and mitigate the laws governing the rights of both county/developers in the future.

Roz and Bunny,

The Save our Hills group was formed in the early 90's and developed what became Ordinance 197, which provided guidelines for hillside development. Contrary to popular belief 197 does not prohibit development but provided guidelines for it. The Dougherty Valley developers read the tea leafs and decided that it would be better for them if they approached the County, who did not have the restrictions of 197. As they say, the rest is history. For the record, San Ramon and Danville did band together to sue the County for the ability to influence the planning process. That resulted in the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement and the oversight committee.

It might be interesting to remember that the Faria Preserve Project was given 197 exemptions during the General Plan Review process, to allow the grading of minor ridge lines. I raised a stink about this, but it fell on deaf ears, both with the planners and public. Had the 197 provisions been in force at Faria, it is possible that we would have had a much smaller footprint of development than is now proposed and approved.

If we think traffic is bad now....just wait!! 680 and downtown Danville will be an absolute mess!
Oh well, guess I'll go out and wash my car and water the heck out of my lawn because apparently there is plenty of water somewhere that are not aware of!!!

Bob, according to a worthy councilmember since the inception of the project? "It was studied and evaluated for some years by 5 cities in two counties". It was these same entities who "approached Mr. Corrie to make a cemetery. The Dougherty Valley Settlement agreement by the courts made the process clear: It is a county project" (yes, I'm quoting parts from him)

Ms Bunny....
1) your punctuation is curious...do you intend? To do this to impede? Your message??
2) can you and your twin Pavem Abram just ? Let us know?
3) can Tom ? Koch ? Buy your dinner tonight?
4) do you have a penchant for Jordanian ? Cuisine ?

Stop lecturing us, you are totally annoying and we do not need your civics lessons ??

Bunny, are you talking about Sid Corrie's cemetery project or the Dougherty Valley? I believe that the cemetery has been looked at by a Task Force of different cities, and did the DV Settlement Agreement address the cemetery issue?

Anita, Tom Koch is cheap, he wouldn't spring for dinner.

Anita,

Love your name and just you wait and see......Ms. Bunny doesn not take lightly to folks who criticize her random punctuation. I, like you - - cannot seem to read those posts without having to read it two or three times to figure out what the heck she is trying to say. Why all the question marks?

Yes Bob, speaking of the Creekside Memorial Park proposed in Dougherty Valley.

(It would behoove you to get a life here Anita dear (or have another cocktail, whichever) Your pettiness is truly pointless. If you have something of worth to say on the subject? Please do so. Otherwise? It's time to pull up those big-girl panties and behave like an adult here instead of being a boorish whinny girl)

PS David dear, did I cover it all? Hope I've entertained you (lol)

Bob, sorry we got off track here with Dougherty valley and Creekside.

I'm curious, 197 "exemptions" to the project and none were accepted? I still think Faria Preserve was "kept under wraps" media wise and quietly made its way through the channels BEFORE most San Ramon citizens knew what was happening. It's just so hard to believe both the "planners and public" turned a "deaf ear" to the man sensitive issues of building in this particular area of San Ramon, when it is of such size and scope and in such a strategic location.

Ms. Bunny worked for home developers in the valley for years. Doesn't that make her part of the evil empire?

@Bunnie, I agree... lose the question marks and your message will be clearer.
I think what is happening is you are legitimately asking a question in your mind, so you put a question mark there to note that. But to us readers, the sentence doesn't read like a question, so the Qmark is confusing.
If you were speaking, the pattern of your voice/intonations would tip off that the sentence was a question. Not true in typed text however.

It seems that a developer can now buy a pass to develop by contributing to "open space". Wow. Councilmember Sachs was the only person to even support less units. A very sad commentary. Our neighborhoods will be changed dramatically and a million dollars was the price to be paid. We should be very alarmed by this.

Until the laws are altered? This scenario will continue. There was a time when it made reasonable sense to allow landowners to develop their property pretty much any way they chose to with little interference. As cities and counties have grown and state laws have come into play? The power of cities to have much say in all has been reduced in many instances. Statutes that were put in place 20 to 40 years ago and longer are very often, no longer feasible/flexible to protect communities that feel they are truly at their max in buildings, both housing and commercial. Of course this all affects our environment and those laws aren't tough enough if someone can build in spite of the obvious depletion of natural resources. So until a concerted/united movement becomes strong enough/powerful enough AGAINST this situation? Expect more of the same. California is getting far too crowded. Agricultural land has become housing beyond belief when it has always been that this state grew 2/3rds of the nation's fruit and vegetables for the rest of the US. Will we be bulldozing down homes in another 50 years to restore what is being abused for the sake of population growth? I wonder. We're splitting at the seams in this state. Until we have better control of immigration and migration and more say in future land use decisions as communities, we're simply going to have MORE building of housing and everything else squeezing the existing like "sardines" and definitely, harming the quality of life for most.

You do realize that Lafferty Homes had an legal entitlement to build 786 home on that property. The Faria property IS WITHIN the voter approved Urban Growth Boundary. They will build 740 homes not the 786 they were entitled to build.

I think the council got the best deal they could get from Lafferty homes.

"could" being the key operative word...You "get" that LT, right?

Sad commentary, is it not?

The bottom line is this. This development complies with the Voter Approved General Plan, it is within the city limits (ULL, UGB as well, of course). It has prior Planning Commission and City Council approval. The total unit count has been reduced and the development footprint reduced. There was no legal basis to deny or to not approve the Lafferty Proposal. To deny the application would have opened the City to almost certain legal liability.

When cities make decisions about housing projects, they have to take into account RHNA numbers and the cities obligations to plan for affordable housing. Citizens may not like to hear that, but its the reality of housing law in California. Change the law, abolish ABAG, that is the only way around it. Ask Pleasanton what happens when you ignore state laws.

The Planning Commissions that approved this, and the City Councils that approved this had no legal basis to deny it.

It absolutely Bob, ISN'T about "affordable housing" for me whatsoever - it is ABOUT, this very location and HOW it will impact the roadways/traffic, the hillsides/aesthetics, the water usage and air quality.
Have you ever been up in these hills and hiked around? This is a hilly area that does not lend itself well to THIS MANY HOUSING UNITS without very major cuts. I have to say, once again? After all is said and done? Laws needs to be CHANGED in this state in regard to county/state influences and developer rights. Another area of land and this wouldn't be such an issue but this PARTICULAR area of land in the location nestled between CC Road and SR Valley Blvd? Many accidents of different types waiting to happen here...And they will. From hillside erosion, the potential flooding, traffic patterns, etc. Again, FAR TOO MANY UNITS squeezed into this area.

Yes. It's DONE and has been, for sometime. All this additional "hoopla" rests merely on formalities...Always the way. The laws of the land once again? "Tie the hands" of this community on this particular project.

Bunny, the unfortunate reality of California is, the State has taken control of local planning out of the hands of local government. A sad fact, but the reality of the situation. SO, all the angst and hand wringing over this, is for naught.

I do agree with you on the beauty of the area, and yes, having lived right down the street from the Faria property, I have witnessed it first hand. I have hiked and walked the hillsides on both the Tassajara side and the Western side of San Ramon. I also have worked on the specific plans in both the East and West side. To say I am have intimate knowledge of the area would be an understatement.

I will also say, I agree that there will be an impact to the area, when and if this project moves to the construction phase. Will it be as dire as everyone predicts, I suspect not. My experience has taught me that some impact is unavoidable, but its never as bad as detractors paint it out to be. I will also opine, again from experience, that I predict that traffic will be the most notable negative. I never believe traffic studies, ever.

Faria development will have 280 low and very-low-income housing units.

Oh, what fun!

Enjoy.

Bob, I can appreciate your grace in believing it probably won't be so bad. That's the spirit, find that 'ol "silver lining" in all this. This is one project in San Ramon however, I absolutely cannot support. Coming from the real world of development and much hillside development and knowing how reports are "tweaked" and promises made, I truly have a bad feeling about this one IN PARTICULAR.

The resulting impacts will affect not just San Ramon, but Danville residents as well and most surely diminish the quality of life for both. I honestly have no doubt on that point. I'm sorry, but 740 units IN THIS PARTICULAR CORNER of north San Ramon and even if only half have two cars, I can't even imagine the air quality not diminishing substantially. Further, you can cut only so far and so deep into hillsides, put in so many drains and YOU still can have erosion issues beyond belief.

Yes. I know the State of California's mandates and power. Also, CCC and some of their issues (questionable) Everyone is following like "sheep" here and it just isn't right. But we both know that their "might doesn't make right" don't we? It is high time that communities unite and form a much stronger alliance than they have, and figure out HOW to further challenge the state across California in unvarnished truth.

The most well connected, powerful people in this state have been and it seems continue to be, land developers.

I find it very strange that Phil O'Loane tosses out a random suggestion of the applicant contributing monies to the Open Space Fund - and then all of a sudden the applicant jumps up and offers $1 Million ($500K x2 installments based on build-out #'s). Kind of seems to me like O'Loane and Lafferty had a conversation ahead of time and set this all up prior to the meeting. I have a hard time believing that this was just a coincedental or spontaneous act of kindness. Just smells of inside deals and cutting the public out of the process. I'd expect this in San Francisco or Chicago or New York City, but not San Ramon. How does the applicant cough up $1 Million that quickly without this being discussed ahead of time? Call me cynical, but something doesn't smell right to me.....

After the fiasco of the veritable ocean of million-dollar homes that comprise the Dougherty Valley, the sneakily titled "Faria Preserve" is just another black-eye to the predominantly developer/real-estate enabled San Ramon Council. Not that the current council is squarely to blame, just that the 5 year old agreement/can was kicked down the road by the previous incumbents for the current folks to have to deal with. Reading between the lines, San Ramon is under an "obligation" to provide a certain percentage of affordable housing (or the state will penalize San Ramon). Vastly increased drought induced water consumption issues aside, this begs the question as to why that was not planned during the Dougherty Valley planning - oh yes, let's not sully the high property values with the less desirable "affordable housing" blight and an even worse Bollinger Canyon Road nightly backup!!! But here we are in 2014 with a council forced to vote AYE to this fiasco.

The "Preserve" is nothing of the sort, normally that label suggests, peace and quiet, tranquility and a riparian setting. Nope, it is HIGH DENSITY HOUSING and all of its accompanying traffic, access and other problems. Expect massive delays at the Bollinger/Crow Canyon intersections. We the people of San Ramon seem unable to stop this obvious train-wreck of a project it seems that contractually and state mandate governed we are locked into a commitment to see this tragedy through to its ugly conclusion.

The council made these plans and agreements during the time when the San Ramon growth situation was vastly different than it is today (See this Bloomberg study: Web Link . The Bloomberg article identifies the "demand" for housing fueled by AT&T (moved to Texas), Chevron (moving many organizations to Texas), Zynga (rapidly declining revenues and massive layoffs), Robert Half (declining fortunes and recently voted the 7th worst company to work for by Fox Business). Thus there are strong arguments that the rationale behind pushing forward with the Faria Preserve no longer exists.

So why is the Council being so boneheaded on pulling the plug? Is there something else they are not telling us?

(Also posted this on the CoCo times article)

Martin, you would do well to "bone up" on the county's role in this, state laws governing housing AND, the rights of land owners this coupled with the history of this project? Would lend itself to "opening your world" when it comes to understanding what's truly going on here...

Pleasanton recently finished spending $5,000,000 fighting the state over the requirement to allow developers to build housing. They lost. The $5million is gone. The citizens wanted city hall to fight the state. The state Supreme Court found in favor of the state.

I don't think we should spend money fighting the state just to satisfy some disappointed citizens.

Lafferty has the right to build on this property.

For Mr. Bramble - if Mr. O'Loane spoke to Lafferty outside of the meeting, that IS legal. The fact that you and the public weren't invited is also legal. The only problem would be if Mr. O'Loane PERSONALLY benefited. Or offered to "sell" his vote. That would be a problem. There is no evidence that he did benefit.

Ms. Bunny, I too have spent a considerable amount of time in the real world of planning and development. My belief that the project won't be a nearly as bad as you might believe comes from experience, not faith. Every planning decision, whether small (home day care) or huge (West Side Specific Plan developments) has detractors who predict dire and doom if the projects are built. The time where the community needs to put their collective "feet down" and say enough is enough is in the General Plan amendment process and/or Specific Plan development process. Protesting about single development projects that are proposed that comply with the General Plan, and are legal is like playing Don Quixote. The best you could hope for is little concessions in the plan, and maybe give backs from the developer in the way of in lieu fees.

LT Resident is spot on. Learn from Pleasanton and their experience in fighting state law. They ended up paying the State $5 million for the privilege of being able to follow the law. Claremont Homes, then Lafferty has the absolute right to build on their property, like it or not.

Martin, the developer would not be proposing building this project if they didn't think they could sell the homes. The city makes decisions on whether the proposed development is legal and not on the economic feasibility of it. The question is always asked in the negotiations, that yes, occur outside of public meetings, what is the smallest amount of homes that can 'pencil out'. Yes, meetings, both with staff, commissioners and council members occur outside of regular meetings. Those are not illegal or unethical if promises are not made or decisions are not made outside of public view. The Council would be 'bone headed' to pull the plug (See above about a $5 million bone head move).

Bob, I am protesting THIS one development for San Ramon, no other in recent years. I realize once the General Plan was in place it was a "no win" for the most part, but even BEFORE this occurs? State laws governing development are clearly in the favor of the developer and just too loose with many counties and cities as they grow, having no real clout or flexibiity to do anything other than mitigate certain aspects. I do know what occurred in Pleasanton. aware what happened in Pleasanton. They didn't REALIZE what they were taking on. All this said in "beating this dead horse" of a project? It is this ONE development that has me very troubled due to size and location. It sounds like even now, you are resigned/supportive (-like I said, you see that 'ol "silver lining" that I do not, in THIS case)

Bunny, several aspects of the Faria project has always troubled me as well. The decisions that could be made were limited by the fact that the project was in compliance with a voter approved general plan. Do you realize how binding that is? I could have voted against the Claremont Homes original proposal and been the lone symbolic no vote, but I see no point in that.

Local planners in California are hamstrung by state law as far as being given the flexibility to control housing numbers and type. Local governments are required to have Housing Elements that contain provisions for the planning of Affordable Housing. That can't be ignored or taken lightly. The numbers and locations of this planned affordable housing must be realistic and feasible. Thinking that state law favors developers is wrong. If that were the case, there would be no affordable housing ever built in California.

The revenue generated by "affordable housing" IS what has been a driving force for the state. It's really a "conflict of interest" if you think about it. The state wanting the taxation revenue - the developers enjoying usually, one heck of a profit margin. As I have said countless times here? Until the laws governing land use are more reasonably written/amended, these issues with continue with state "mandates" and developer's taking full advantage. Just my take...

Bunny, if the developers built only market rate homes they would make much more money and the state would generate much more tax revenue. There is no profit in building affordable housing, that's why the state has to mandate its construction.

While a developer may make more money on a market rate home, particularly in this area of affluence? It would be interesting to know for truth, their profit margin in this venture. ONLY the Section 8 housing in this development comes under the guidelines you mention. The county assessments should be plenty high for the rest of the development. That said...

I still believe Bob, our state laws need to be amended to address the growing cities and communities with many issues that are impacted by a land owner/developer when it comes to housing specifically. That's been my primary point all along in future new housing construction in our valley.

Section 8 housing is NOT the same as affordable housing. Any house can be Section 8. It depends on the occupant. You could have section 8 in ANY neighborhood. It is a tenant based program that works with the landlord.

Affordable housing is developer/property manager based program.

Yes, and it is a program of subsidized housing no matter what.

Lemmee see, at last count there were 15 comments posted by 'Ms. bunny' and 5 by BoB P.on the Faria subject.
This forum should be titled The Bob and Bunny Show.

Dear James VH??? If you had ANYTHING to say, you should of, you could of. No one is stopping you. [removed]

Ms. Bunny? Really? You do SUPPORT this project, Just not the BIG SIZE? right. Claiming this project will foul the air and create untold traffic problems when it is only a fractional percentage increase? is totally a losing argument. AMAZING, only THIS PROJECT you are against? Really, only the size that matters? for you.

[Removed] Each and every development needs to be weighed in on in consideration of all. [Removed]