Wagging the dog | The Observer | Roz Rogoff | DanvilleSanRamon.com |

Local Blogs

The Observer

By Roz Rogoff

About this blog: In January 2002 I started writing my own online "newspaper" titled "The San Ramon Observer." I reported on City Council meetings and other happenings in San Ramon. I tried to be objective in my coverage of meetings and events, and...  (More)

View all posts from Roz Rogoff

Wagging the dog

Uploaded: Mar 8, 2012
I attended the Planning Commission Public Hearing on the North Camino Ramon Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report for the plan. I am having doubts about the size, scope, and need for this Specific Plan as it is currently designed. I didn't speak on the EIR because I haven't read it yet, but if the plan is changed, the EIR would have to be changed too.

Two residents living near the plan area said the EIR was flawed because it didn't consider the impacts of traffic and noise, which they felt would be significant. One resident from Fostoria, which is technically Danville, but directly across from the northern area of the plan, commented on the proposed extension of Alcosta Blvd. to Fostoria and connecting the Iron Horse Trail at Fostoria.

After the discussion of the EIR, Commission Chairwoman Donna Kerger opened the Public Hearing on the NCRSP. I was the first to speak on it. After looking over Planner Lauren Barr's PowerPoint presentation, I now consider this plan to be too ambitious. It is trying to cover too much territory, some parts of which are not compatible with other parts.

I supported the zoning change in the General Plan, but that merely set the stage for a Specific Plan. It wasn't "specific," which of course the NCRSP is. Some of the specificity in the Specific Plan is too grandiose and unrealistic. I suggested dividing the whole 295 acres into two plans, arbitrarily putting a division between the north and south sides of Norris Canyon Road. This was hardly a planner's approach, but at least I recognized that this plan covers too much territory and assumes too much cooperation from property owners.

I am concerned about the increase in housing, the height of buildings, and traffic that the proposed big box retail would bring in from neighboring cities. Traffic and parking were major issues with speakers. The plan is supposed to be "smart growth," which presumes people who live near where they work won't drive much. This is one of those assumptions that has not panned out well in California in the last 20 years and there's no reason to believe it would in the next 20 years.

After the Public Comment closed, the Commissioners discussed the plan. Commissioner Harry Sachs questioned the traffic and the parking, and then he said something where I went, "Duh, why didn't I think of that?"

Harry said the whole northern most part of the Plan between Crow Canyon Road and Fostoria Way should be dropped. He said everything that's there is what we want there. Service Commercial is at the Eastern End, two big box retail stores, Office Depot and PetCo, are in the middle section, and two tower office buildings are on the west, next to the Crow Canyon Road freeway on and off ramps.

The plan calls for in-fill development in all of these sections. In-fill development is new housing within city limits to prevent sprawl development in open space outside of Urban Growth Boundaries. This is supposed to keep open space, like Tassajara Valley, open, which is what voters said they wanted when they opposed Proposition W.

But Harry is right that in-fill development makes no sense here. One of the goals of this Specific plan was to add more big box retail, so why take out two popular stores to put in housing, and why would anyone want to buy a house next to the I-680 on the West and Costco on the North? The City Council has been insisting that Service Commercial should stay, so why not leave it where it already is.

Donna Kerger mentioned that the owner of the office buildings recently remodeled them and is not interested in tearing them down. The Petco was also recently expanded. I shop there and at the Office Depot. I bought a $200 desk at Office Depot a few years ago. I'm typing this on that desk. That purchase added about $18 in sales tax of which the City received $1.80. These stores provide exactly the kind of sales tax income the City needs to get.

New housing would generate income for the City in permit fees and property taxes, but now isn't a good time to put in housing. Of course I keep saying this plan is for 20 years in the future, so housing wouldn't be considered until the real estate market picks up. But putting a housing overlay on properties usually increases the value, and developers might want to buy those properties in a depressed market and hold them until prices go back up.

The way this plan is designed, it presumes a domino effect on neighboring properties. Suppose the owners of the lots with the Petco and Office Depot decides to sell their properties to a housing developer. The office buildings and service commercial on either side will still be there. The proposed development would back up to Crow Canyon Road, which is the most heavily trafficked road in San Ramon. Why would anyone buy a home there?

That makes as much sense as when the Council, or was it the RDA it's always hard for me to tell the difference, closed the Recycling Center on Omega Road for low cost housing. This location is across the street from Morgan's Masonry, which is a terrible place to put housing. Some of the Councilmembers realize that now.

There's very little chance that anything will be built in that lot unless the Housing Authority, which the City reactivated last year to retain the two properties the RDA reserved for low income housing, determines that the property would be better off given to the Oversight Committee to dispose of. Then at least it could be used for non-residential development and the city could get some property taxes and sales taxes for a retail or service commercial business on that vacant lot.

My concern about the NCRSP is that the City Council is being driven by outside influences, such as ABAG and MTC. That's why the RDA tried to put a housing overlay on the Service Commercial businesses on Beta Court, but the Planning Commissioners wouldn't go along with it.

The Planning Commission is often the stopgap that keeps its head when the City Council is pressured into doing what these outside agencies mandate. Councilmember Dave Hudson often brings up Pleasanton's legal battle against ABAG's housing requirements.

Pleasanton's case was lost in Alameda, and we are in Contra Costa County. Pleasanton was sued by a non-profit housing developer in addition to ABAG, and it was based on a housing cap Pleasanton voters approved in 1996. Our situation is different. There's no non-profit or housing cap, but we could and should challenge ABAG's numbers.

I'm not naïve about the clout these regional and state agencies have, but we need to fight back in court or in the ballot box instead of making plans residents don't need or want to prove that we are in compliance with what ABAG and MTC want. I called it "The tail wagging the dog," and this dog needs to bite back.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by sandybarclay, a resident of San Ramon,
on Mar 9, 2012 at 10:26 am

Hi Roz

Way to go with that brillant mind of yours. Kevin is right and other residents that are speaking out. Today tomorrw 10 20 30 years from now this plan is to massive for the area.

Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on Mar 9, 2012 at 11:24 am

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.


As you know but most people don't remember, I was against getting rid of the service commercial businesses on Beta Court to put low income housing there. Even Donna Kerger was concerned about grouping too much low income housing in one location. Housing should be mixed so that neighborhoods don't deteriorate.

The NCRSP provides for a mix of in-fill (owned homes), workforce (rentals) and senior housing with different financial qualifications. But the issue isn't how well the housing blend is planned, but where it goes and whether it belongs there.

There are areas of the Crow Canyon Specific Plan (CCSP) where housing would blend in, and areas where it shouldn't go. The Planning Commission recognized that and did not put the housing overly on Beta Court.

Of all of the properties in the northern section of the plan, I consider the block on the eastern border where the extension of Alcosta Blvd is planned, as the best location for in-fill housing because there's already housing on the other side of Fostoria in Danville. So just because Kevin wants to protect his business isn't a reason not to put housing there.

However, I agree with Harry that the service commercial there should stay, because it's already there and is needed in San Ramon. It's a good location for it, out of the public eye but accessible, just like the shops on Beta Court in the Crow Canyon Specific Plan (The CCSP is west of San Ramon Valley Blvd and north to the Danville border).

Also the City would have to pay to relocate these shops and it is expensive for them to move. It wouldn't be easy for them to find new locations in San Ramon, and they already bring in sales taxes, which is what the City wants.

The problem isn't our planners or our City Council. It is the outside pressures from the State. We need to elect representatives to the State Assembly and Senate who represent cities to stop the social engineering and unfunded mandates by state and regional agencies like MTC and ABAG.


Posted by Edward Plotkin, a resident of San Ramon,
on Mar 9, 2012 at 2:52 pm

I'd like to know why San Ramon HAS to be at the mercy of ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). If you go to the ABAG website, it states that the 101 cities are "voluntary" members. Is that like when the military drafts young men for "volunteer" service? San Ramon doesn't have to be a member of ABAG. Yes, I know they collectively group all the cities and other government agencies to yield us more power and influence at the state and natinal leve, BUT I think they are holding us hostage at the same time. How much money and benefit do we really get from being in ABAG? What would happen if we pulled out?? Nobody questions this, and we just keep adding more and more departments, agencies, authorities, districts - - - who all really just take a salary from us. Cut all the fat and take back our independence in San Ramon!

Posted by Jim Gibbon, a resident of San Ramon,
on Mar 9, 2012 at 2:58 pm

I would like clarify the reasons for the City Council and planning staff's desire to grow the city as much as possible. ABBG is not driving growth in the city. They are trying to improve "connectivity" in the city as it relates to traffic and transportation in the tri-valley. They are trying to reduce Carbon emissions through reduced traffic required in future development. It is more about making urban development better planned to make it more pedestrian friendly discourage more sprawling development.

What is driving more growth in the city is the desire by the city to be eligible for the most ?millions? under Measure ?J?, the One Bay Area Grant Program and the proposed federal transportation moneys. It does not matter if the specific plan is real or practical as long as it is approved.

Based on the approval of the North Camino Ramon Specific Plan and the size of traffic improvements needed in the city and regional the more money we get. It does not matter what happens after that, either to the city congestion or quality of life of its residents. It does not real matter if it works. All of this is for the money. There is about 250 billion out there and the city wants its share.

Don?t blame ABAG or MTC for forcing us to grow. The blame the city council and staff for being greedy. The only ones to suffer will be the residents of the San Ramon.

Jim Gibbon
San Ramon for Open Government

Posted by Roz Rogoff, the San Ramon Observer,
on Mar 9, 2012 at 4:45 pm

Roz Rogoff is a registered user.

Jim & Edward,

I urge you to read the article on the Pleasanton law suit in the link above. I agree with Pleasanton Councilman Jerry Thorne that the State is taking away land use control from cities.

Mayor Abram Wilson told Kevin L'Hommedieu at the April 26, 2011 City Council meeting, "those numbers come from the Association of Bay Area Governments and not from the City. He stated his desire to keep Service Commercial in San Ramon to provide a variety of services to residents."

Wilson said in effect that these plans are to meet ABAG's housing requirements and not necessarily what the City Council or City planners want.


Posted by Bob P, a resident of another community,
on Mar 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm

The state has been holding local control of growth and housing hostage for years. Assigning the blame to ABAG is only partly correct. I wish we could have ignored the RINA numbers, but they are mostly a fallacy, while the penalties and lawsuits are very real ( as Pleasanton learned the hard way).

The fallacy about the RHNA numbers is that the housing never has to be built, only planned for. That's why the plans from the GPRC back in 2000 showed the Toyota property as potential housing. They needed spots for numbers to be buried.

California has long ago decided that local cities will never build affordable housing without a big stick being wielded in the form of withholding funding. If the state had its way, planning for housing would not be within the local cities sphere of influence at all.

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from DanvilleSanRamon.com sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Burning just one "old style" light bulb can cost $150 or more per year
By Sherry Listgarten | 11 comments | 2,623 views

Reflecting on lives this Thanksgiving Day
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 1,199 views

Premiere! “I Do I Don’t: How to build a better marriage” – Here, a page/weekday
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,094 views