San Ramon Planning Commission: Faria Preserve will happen

You might want to check the date of that planning commission meeting...today is Dec 24.

Isabel,

It was last Tuesday, December 17th.

Roz

Glenn you hit the nail on the head when you state, "It's not a question of whether development of a large parcel of land in northwest San Ramon will happen, but a question about what that development will look like."

Back when the NWSP and the Faria Preserve project came to the Planning Commission, I sat with residents in the Deerwood area and discussed their concerns. I advised them, like I advise any resident group, in most cases if you try to stop a development, you will come out on the short end. It makes more sense to work to revise and adjust the plans to get a more win-win situation with the developer.

Apparently this advise has been forgotten over the years.

Bob,

I couldn't agree more. I simply don't understand this "all or nothing" attitude that seems to prevail. When did "compromise" become such a dirty word?

MLO

When you stuck me with your seat MLO. Good to hear from you Bob.

I think you stuck yourself there, Dave. I don't care to have it back.

MLO

ML and Dave,

Dave must have wanted it back since he ran for reelection!

Roz

The new Faria Development project Layout is out of compliance with both the 2030 General Plan and North West Specific Plan. It will need to go back to the voters or get 4/5 of the City Council and PC for a GP and NWSP revision to become compliant.

Jim

Jim, interesting statement. Care to back it up with any facts?

Jim,
how is it out of compliance? The city has known about the project for at least 7 years??? The GP has been updated since then. I doubt that staff "forgot" to add this project. sounds like Jim being Jim, everything is illegal, out of compliance, it will ruin San Ramon, blah, blah, blah. Have you ever been right about anything???? I would be surprised because you cannot seem to understand anything.

Didn't your group and the Sierra Club already fight this in court, and wasn't there already a settlement about this?

This is what you get when you specify a project so tightly in the General Plan and the Specific Plan that any deviation makes it out of compliance. The Rafferty project has a lot of deviations from the plan approved by the votes in 2002 and the Planning Commission in 2008. The access rood is different, the church is different, and location of the affordable housing is different, the environmental impact is different, The traffic impacts, etc.

The Sierra Club/EBRPD lawsuit and agreement was for a different project. You left yourself little room for change without starting all over again.

Starting over without compromise means no project will ever be seen on these hills. You don't have four votes on the City Council anymore.

Jim

Thank you Jim for clarifying. I have learned a long time ago that Jim likes to be 'coaxed' to provide details. It is correct, that if there are changes in this project that are different than the GP and/or NWSP then it does need a GPA and 4/5 votes of the PC and Council. This is not easy, but with compromise it can be done.

However, if the project complies with the GP, then there is no need for a GPA.

Glad Dave still has the "seat" vast improvement of pure dedication and pragmatic thinking (without the drama)