County holds scoping session on Tassajara Valley development Comments on Stories, posted by , a resident of , on May 18, 2011 at 10:56 am
Applicants FTC Land has proposed using 771 acres of land along Camino Tassajara east of San Ramon to develop 187 residential units and cultivate olive trees. The project would preserve open space and wetlands, providing community gardens and staging areas for trails, but also calls for the creation of a community center and cemetery/mortuary.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 1:48 PM
Posted by Jim Gibbon, a resident of San Ramon, on May 18, 2011 at 10:56 am
San Ramon Mayor's Opinion about New Farms Project:
Our Mayor Wilson stated at the last City Council meeting on May 10th that the city will express no opinion about the proposed New Farm development in Tassajara Valley. He stated that the defeat of Measure ĎWí meant that the residents of San Ramon did not care about what happens in the valley was he didnít either.
Itís his way or the highway. He said that if the residents had a problem with his opinion they could go to the county and speak for the residents themselves. He had no intention of opposing the development project. His council would just set by sitting on their hands.
I guess he donít care to represent the 72% of voters last November who opposed any urban development in the valley. Maybe that means he donít want us to vote for him and his council members this coming November.
Posted by observer, a resident of San Ramon, on May 18, 2011 at 8:58 pm
I was at that meeting at I don't recall hearing the major say that. I do recall him saying that residents should now take their concerns to the county, but not that he didn't care about what happened. It would be nice if someone with access to the video would fact check this. My memory may be faulty.
Posted by Publius, a resident of San Ramon, on May 19, 2011 at 10:12 am
With every step the county takes on this new farm project it is becoming more apparent that San Ramon residents were sold a bill of goods on this measure w. We were told by the no on w literature that San Ramon would mass develope this area. We were told that the county would never build past the urban limit line and that San Ramon could not be trusted. Many of us who voted no on w are now questioning our choice. Given how the county planned out Dougherty Valley we are beginning to see the same thing in Tassajara. Damn.
Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer, on May 20, 2011 at 11:39 am Roz Rogoff is a member (registered user) of San Ramon Express
Yes, I tried to warn voters that No on Measure W was bought and paid for by environmental organizations with lies and scare tactics. Seth Adams as much as admitted it at one of the Council Meetings. See my commentaries on [Web Link Lies, Distortions, and Fallacies], [Web Link Tassajara Valley according to Tom Koch], and [Web Link Tassajara Valley's population could grow by 100,000] .
Posted by David G., a resident of San Ramon, on May 20, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Mr. Gibbons has never let facts get in the way of his bombastic observations and comments.
His sole purpose in posting here seems to be an attempt to stir the pot against our fine elected and appointed officials. Even when he has been told the correct facts he repeats the wrong information over and over.
Take everything Mr. Gibbons says with a grain of salt.
Posted by dave, a resident of San Ramon, on May 20, 2011 at 3:40 pm
San Ramon has a legal right to plan property inside the city limits and is advisory outside the city limits. Measure W had no sites for development in Tasajara and 72% of the voters said "no" to no development. I doubt that is what all the voters believed they were doing but that is what is on record. The county is being presented with a rural development plan which is permissable outside the UGB under SB375 and measure J. By voting no on measure W including the UGB expansion and ordinance 197, San Ramon has left itself with little more than campaign rhetoric about Tasajara for the next 5 years until the UGB comes up for a countywide review again (per measure L-2006). 78% of the voters in General Plan 2020 (2002) said we will do cooperative agreements with the landowners and the county through 2020. So much for a negative Tasajara position. San Ramon can not annex "their half" of New Farm or risk losing their measure J return to source money over approximately eighty homes. Without an affirmative vote to extend the UGB, even with development proceeding around us, San Ramon can not include these houses against the certified housing element. You get the impacts but you don't get the money or credit.
There never was a plan to develop Tasajara Valley, extend water service, or expand the city limits....in San Ramon. There never will be without our vote. But, there will be development in Tasajara Valley outside the city limits and there already is development on the westside.
All councilmembers including the Mayor have come out against development in Tasajara. Without a resident approved Eastside Specific Plan, staff will not process a development and the city council will not hear it. The General Plan Update Committee in 2000-2001 made this very clear that this was their wish and stated that they wanted future development to proceed under the "blueprint" of General Plan 2020 for a 20 year term. We just missed a golden opportunity to extend their work until 2030 with a voter approved General Plan 2030. You will have to express your individual comments about New Farm in Martinez. That's where the hearings will be held.
Posted by Proud San Ramon, a resident of San Ramon, on May 23, 2011 at 7:24 am
Shame on all of the outside influence that BOUGHT the 72% no votes on Measure W. Its not like this was a big secret. New Farm went to the county weeks before the elections to bypass San Ramon. This developer saw the No campaign as a lottery ticket. They knew San Ramon officials would have opposed it therefore had no interest in supporting W. They just went to the county since it was much easier to pass through. The County is hurting financially(unlike San Ramon) and jumped at the opportunity for more revenue. I hope this inevitable BACKFIRE scraps the plans for whoever was paid, oops, I meant "Groomed" for the open Mayor seat in San Ramon!