San Ramon Golf Courses Rezoning
Why aren't you writing more about the golf course rezoning?
Last night I saw the Mayor of San Ramon on Channel 30. He said the zoning change was just a name change from "Park" to "Recreation". He forgot to say the "Commercial" word, as in "Commercial Recreation" - (you know - with all the multiple land uses and the increase of 250% building intensity from when it was zoned as "Park").
Mr. Wilson, if this is just a name change, why is the building intensity increasing from .10 FAR to .35 FAR? That's an increase of a minimum of 35 buildable acres on one golf course alone.
The mayor said they weren't building homes on the golf course -but what concerns me even more is all the other commercial land uses that can be built on the golf course under this Commercial Recreation zoning code.
I've done a lot of research on golf course land use and zoning and found that golf courses are zoned in a .10 FAR zone to protect the open space.
On the other hand, I've read stories where City Councils have changed their golf course zoning code similar to our situation here, only to have it result in REDEVELOPMENT of the golf course property!
I don't like our Planning Commission's "overlay-bandaid" solution. Why put the golf course in a .35 FAR Commercial zoning code only to put a patch on it and say its a .10 FAR golf course.
What is our City up to and why are they making this zoning change seem like nothing. Zoning codes are serious business!!! They obviously want to make our golf course land available for other "commercial" uses if need be, or else they would not be so adamant about changing our Park .10 designation to a .35 FAR Commercial Recreation designation.
Remember - for 40 years our golf course has been zoned "Park" with a .10 FAR - like the majority of all other golf courses in the United States. This is proper Zoning for a Golf Course in order to protect the open space.
They can call it Open Recreation or Park or Specialized Recreation or Golf Course or Open Space - just leave the .10 overall designation(NOT a .10FAR bandaid)-within a .35FAR Commercial zone!!!! That is not a solution.
If 1/3 of Canyon Lake's golf course is being changed from Park to Open Space, than why not zone 9/10 of the San Ramon golf course Open Space and the other 1/10 Commercial Recreation?
Who in this City ever came up with this Commercial Recreation .35 FAR zoning - that only applies to three city locations: Club Sport and San Ramon's two golf courses? WHY did they come up with it?????? AND show us documentation of HOW, WHEN, WHERE, WHO and WHY this came to be.
To date, the City has not provided the people with this information. We've heard all their words - but no written documentation that proves that the golf course zoning was ever authorized to be changed to Commercial Recreation.
If anyone out there has this information - can you please post it to this website. Thank you.
Excellent comments from a San Ramon Reader
The two are linked together by the use of the Redevelopment Agency. In todays public redevelopment plans the golf course is not included for Redevelopment. It is tomorrows use of the Redevelopment Agency that should be of major concern to all the citizens of San Ramon. Once the rezoning of the golf courses takes place, then the City Council, who is the Redevelopment Agency, can take the next step from rezoning it, to include it in redevelopment, to approve it, finance it, and develop it, all with out public approval or input.
Bear in mind, that most of the homes on the south end of San Ramon are over 50 years old and the businesses on the north end of town are also old established businesses and hence the City is targeting the older sections of our communities for potential redevelopment and Eminent Domain.
Feel Free to send in your letters to srcommunity@gmail.com
5 comments:
Mr. Patrino,
We don't like the .10FAR OVERLAY within the .35FAR Commercial Recreation Zoning code. As easily as our elected City officials changed our golf course "Park" zoning to "Commercial Recreation" without the public's knowledge - they will certainly remove the overlay bandaid when the time is right - AGAIN without the public's knowledge.
When this happens, it will be 3 times more easier for our elected officials to get away with it.
Our elected officials have proven to be not trustworthy -
and we want to keep our beautiful
open space golf course as long as
possible.
Mr. Patrino
One question - would the Commercial
Recreation Zoning be a .10Far with
a GC overlay of .10FAR?
Could someone please answer the following multiple choice question.
What is our Planning Commission
proposing that City Council vote on
in the upcoming weeks regarding our
Golf Course Zoning Code:
a.) Commercial Recreation Zone with a 35 FAR - then putting a golf
course overlay inside that with a
.10 FAR.
b.) Commercial Recreation Zone
with a .10 FAR - then putting a golf course overlay inside that with a .10 FAR.
c.) Golf Course Zone .10 FAR
Can Mr. Patrino, or anyone who has
the answer to my question - please
respond. Thank you
THE CORRECT ANSWER & MORE QUESTIONS
FOR ANONYMOUS--THE CORRECT ANSWER
"a.) Commercial Recreation Zone with a 0.35 FAR - then putting a golf course overlay inside that with a 0.10 FAR."
ABOUT THE COUNCIL'S VOTE
The Council will be voting (likely pro forma) on a new set of Ordinances (ORD2006). The golf course rezoning is buried in a two-inch thick, evolving document that no one person seems to have their arms around.
THE REZONING HISTORY
In 1995, the City apparently without Public Notice, Public Debate, or Public Record surreptitiously rezoned SRGC and Canyon Lakes from P & 0.1 FAR to CR & 0.35 FAR. This change was done in the City's existing General Plan (GP83), by amendment (GPA1995). Since then, we're told that the City's GP83 and GP2020 and reigning Ordinances (ORD1989) have been legally out-of-whack.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS
An SRGC Resident inadvertently found the zoning change from P to CR in ORD2006. Unfortunately, this was after ORD2006's legal EIR review and Negative Declaration period had already occurred.
Word-of-mouth of SRGC's rezoning stirred up a large group (~300) of worried Residents who showed up unannounced at the Feb. 7 Public Hearing.
One of the Residents, an attorney, announced publicly that lack of proper notification to the Residents made the hearings illegal. The City essentially said, "We're sorry about insufficient notification. It was simple human error. The proceedings will go forward." This obviated any chance for Residents to respond formally in a Review and Negative Declaration period.
THE COMMISSIONERS' OPTIONS
At the next hearing, Feb.21, the City had golf course rezoning on its agenda and gave Residents four options for consideration. Only two were of interest. These two completely polarized the Planning Commissioners and Residents:
•Option 1, which the Residents were unanimously for, was to keep the golf courses zoned as they are in the current Ordinances ORD1989 (P & 0.1 FAR). This would require a GP amendment to undue what had been done back in 1995 and, thus, slow the proceedings by a few months.
•Option 4 was the "band-aid" that was unanimously favored by the Commissioners. It wouldn't require a slow down, but would be easily removed as it's an overlay to the CR-zone. It permits only golf course use and has FAR = 0.1.
OUR TRUST
Again, the City is asking us to trust it and the band-aid. They say, "They'll do right by us in the future." They also tell us that the owner of the golf course (who incidentally would get a major windfall profit from rezoning) has the right to develop it to its "best and highest use". We say,
• "OK... He purchased it as P so let him use it as P".
OUR QUESTIONS
• Isn't the City's agenda important enough to be carried out properly? The City has admitted that they didn't give proper notice. Also, the City has not answered many of our questions, e.g., How did the 1995 decision to rezone to CR come about?
• If the current City Officials don't have answers, should they still go forward with such an important rezoning... or should they slow down and let us fully pose and debate the issues?
• If we were allowed time to discover the answers, isn't it possible that they might be something less than savory?
QUESTION FOR AN ATTORNEY
The City Officials probably won't slow themselves down, so is there a legal way for us to do it? These proceedings are neither fair nor right!
Now I understand - when they say the tax increment will be from
$"34 to $ 96,000.00", my taxes may
not increase, but the cities tax
income will increase.
So that means if they get rid of
old people in the city that are paying minimal taxes because they
purchased their property many years
ago, and replace them with new real estate purchasers at todays real estate prices - the cities tax income will increase - by higher property tax income, thereby increasing their TAX INCREMENT!!!!
More money for the City. Kick out
the old and loyal land owners (forcing acquisition of their property by means of EMINENT DOMAIN) - REDEVELOP their land and sell to new land purchasers - thereby bringing in increased TAX
INCREMENT!
Great move San Ramon! It's great hearing that the City is in better
financial shape than they thought and now seeking every other avenue to gain even more money!
Kicking out loyal citizens and successful businesses in our
city to increase TAX INCREMENT!
In addition, those two old golf courses - San Ramon Royal Vista and
Canyon Lakes, although very beautiful and functional in their
current state - would provide more
TAX INCREMENT - if we changed their
LAND USE DEFINITION - from "Park .10FAR " to "Commercial
Recreation .35FAR". Open space is
so rare in San Ramon, and much to
valuable to WASTE it on such low
producing TAX INCREMENT - let's change the Land Use definition to
open the doors to more $$$$$$$$ producing TAX INCREMENT!
Wake up San Ramon Citizens. It is Time to Recall our City Oficials if
this is what they promoting for our
City amidst the public outcry of the citizens they serve.
I say let's RECALL our City Officials should they move forward
with such plans.
Did we vote them in for this?
Post a Comment