San Ramon Planning Commission Public Hearings
Feb 7th and Feb 21, 2006
Hundreds of Citizens voiced opinions to protect the golf courses with the strictest possible protection against future development with a General Plan Amendment with special designation for Golf Courses .10 FAR (as recommended by Planning Director, Phil Wong.)
Citizens Oppose -– Overlay Option for Commercial Recreation(CR) / Golf Course(GC). This is only a temporary Band-aid with NO REAL PROTECTION for the Golf Course.
Citizens have strongly opposed the City's recommendation to rezone the golf course to Commercial Recreation .35 FAR and have made this VERY CLEAR.
As it stands, the Commission has totally ignored the Requests of the San Ramon Citizens and, is Recommending an Overlay for CR and GC.
Hundreds of San Ramon Citizens Have Signed Petitions
250 Signatures on Petition for San Ramon Golf Course; 100 Signatures on Petition for Canyon Lakes; 100 Signatures on (4x6 cards); and multiples of letters, emails, and speakers urging the Commission to vote to allow a General Plan Amendment, only to fall on DEAF EARS.
Although, the Planning Commission and City Council had no problem voting to approve a General Plan Amendment to rezone the Open Space for the developer, Davidon, to build 55 Homes on the ridge at Old Ranch Road, again in OPPOSITION TO THE VOICE OF THE CITIZENS!
Past Planning Commission voting records show: NO to Citizens and YES to Developers!
Hold our Planning Commission and City Council Accountable.
Our elected Officials (City Council), and Planning Commission, (Appointed by the Council) - need to be REPLACED if they REFUSE TO HEAR THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE!
We have asked the Mayor; City Attorney; City Manager; Planning Commission; and Planning Director to see the Consultant's Presentation of the Comprehensive Draft Zoning Ordinance since January 17, 2006, and have been denied our RIGHTS!
The Consultant's Presentation was shown on January 3, 2006, the first Public Hearing that was held Illegally due to Non-Notification to the Public by the City of San Ramon
The next Public Hearing on January 17, 2006, was also confirmed to be held illegally, again due to the City failing to follow State Government Code for Notification to the Public!
No one has seen the presentation of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update, because the City refuses to show it to the Public. Why is the City being unfair and unreasonable? The Planning Commission saw it, why canÂ’t the Public?
Now, it's going to be too late! The City has delayed the showing of this presentation and, the last Planning Commission Public Hearing is March 7, 2006, 7:00 p.m. Senior Center where they will take their vote, and make their recommendation to Council!
Tell The San Ramon Planning Commissioners NO to Rezoning
planning@sanramon.ca.gov
Mike Digeronimo
Donna Kerger
Jeff Rhoton
Bob Patrino
Dennis Viers
Read the latest at sanramontalk.blogspot.com on Eminent Domain, and the City'’s proposal to rezone the San Ramon Royal Vista and Canyon Lakes Golf Courses to Commercial Development with a 250% increase in building intensity! Share your comments and knowledge with our fellow citizens! Get the Word Out!
Pass the word about sanramontalk.blogspot.com. Tell your friends and neighbors.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Zoning Hearings Planning Commission Recap
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Are we being hysterical! What do you think?
The City says, ...."Don't be afraid that we're rezoning your golf course from 'P' to 'CR'. We can handle the owner. You're being hysterical!"
We ask, ...."Why rezone at all? Parkland is good!".
The City answers, ....."We have to do it for legal consistency".
We request , ...."Then tell us, what's the slippery slope that you're putting us on?"
The City doesn't have a good answer. For example, it has been difficult for us to determine who really owns San Ramon Golf Course (SRGC) and their intentions. What little we've discovered so far is that the owner of record since March 30, 1999 is a seemingly innocuous entity, "San Ramon Royal Vista Golf" (SRRVG). We know that a big developer, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. with $1.5B (2004) yearly revenue, is associated with SRRVG.
A&B's real estate ventures are substantial and growing rapidly. They state that they legally develop to the " highest and best use". Their development and ownership spectrum includes: "planning, zoning, financing, purchasing, managing and leasing, selling and exchanging, and investing in real property". Under "planning and zoning" they list three "time consuming and costly steps" to obtain "development entitlement". The first one is "amendment of the general plan to reflect the desired residential use". The third one is "approval to rezone the property to the precise residential use desired".
If they can sell rezoned and developed property for ten to a hundred times investment, why wouldn't they attempt to develop the SRGC to its "highest and best use".
Conversely, if we can convince the City to stop rezoning now, wouldn't we be:
• much more confident that our beloved golf course would survive in perpetuity
• sending windfall-profiteers the message that "in-filling" SRGC would be too time consuming and costly for them to want to pursue it, ever!
Therefore, isn't it time to have "the best defense" by establishing a good offense? ...Let's start a virtual legal fund against a potential in-fill "slam dunk".
Join us today by showing your support at RobertFitzooth@cryptoheaven.com.
Our numbers will show them the depth and breadth of our convictions. Remember, Procrastination may be their greatest asset!
As a 40-year resident of Fairway Hills, it was with considerable alarm that I heard of the city's intention to rezone SRGC. If their goal is, as they say, to simply classify SRGC on a par (ooops!) with other similar properties then why resort to underhanded furtiveness? I suspect, as do many of my neighbors, that the billion-dollar developer and the city have other, more sinister, plans for this quiet, green but underperforming piece of real estate. Just what we need: A bunch more overpriced, nondescript homes and the two-plus vehicles that will clog their driveways and our roads. I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow night but, trust me, the residents of Fairway Hills will be watching how the appointees of our elected officials behave VERY CAREFULLY and what you now know as very good, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens will become people you wished you had never met!
Dear San Ramon Residents, Last July the Supreme Court decided against Mrs. Kelo, a homeowner in New London, Connecticut ,who was suing to keep her home and land from the hands of a developer, who wanted her waterfront property. The Supreme Court's decision was based on the fact that her property would bring in less tax dollars than the redevelopment of her property would. WHERE ARE OUR FREEDOMS? WHAT IS THIS COUNTRY COMING TO?
Yesterday I read about the same type of thing in San Ramon, Walnut Creek will probably need to take someone's home in their new plans for redevelopment. The lady whose home was next to the library escaped!
HOW CAN WE AS CITIZENS PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO OWN AND OCCUPY OUR HOME AND LAND? This best way I know is to help get signatures on California Eminent Domain Limitation Act, better known as "THE PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE". This is a nonpartisan, strictly volunteer effort, the petitions are simple, nothing confusing or drastic as in the other initiatives currently being tried. This petition basically says "NO EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE GAIN," which means we would not suffer potential abuse from developers who want the land upon which our homes and businesses rest. This would not cause us to have to deal with developers who have the strong arm of government on their side. It does allow for governmental uses for the general public such as roads, hospitals, etc.
If you wish to help this initiative gain enough signatures (800,000 statewide), please call Mary Phelps @ 925-939-3221 or e-mail: spchteach1@yahoo.com. We have to collect all our signatures by May 1, 2006. It is extremely important to get this on the November ballot for if we fail to do this, how will our Assemblypersons and Senators know how strongly we feel about our homes/properties?
It seems to me that zoining the golg courses is wrong. Why not create a new zoning code, say G, which will be reserved for golf courses?
Wow. This blog is quite a source of misinformation about the proposed zoning changes.
The rather absurd arguments made against the golf course zone change border on the paranoid. Instead of actual discussion of the *allowed uses* of the Commercial Recreation zoning designation, there is instead rather uninformed and tangential speculation about issues that have nothing to do with zoning (e.g., eminent domain).
First off, get your facts straight about how land use planning works. The General Plan land use designation and zoning ordinance designation Commercial Recreation zoning designation strictly limit allowed uses. The General Plan's description of commercial recreation states:
"Golf courses, sports and fitness clubs, horse stables, and amusement parks at intensities of up to 0.35 Floor Area Ratio." (Land Use Element, pg. 4-12)
http://www.ci.san-ramon.ca.us/gprc/images/chap4.pdf
And no, don't expect the golf club to decide to sell out to Six Flags anytime soon.
Second, even if the zoning remains as "Parks," there is absolutely nothing that prevents the owners of the golf course from applying for a General Plan Amendment and Change Zone to re-designate the property for other uses. Hypothetically speaking, the property owner could apply for a redesignation that would allow for uses such as a rendering plan, a Wal-Mart Supercenter, or perhaps most frightful of all (gasp!), Affordable Housing.
Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, remember that any GPA proposed for the golf course would be subject to a vote of the city electorate. Moreover, there is no practical reason for the City to approve more intense land uses on the golf course to begin with, since that was a corner stone land use concept for the surrounding residential area.
So, in conclusion, re-zoning opponents, please do us all a favor and take off your tin foil hats. The Commercial Recreation zoning designation is trivial, and rest assured, your property values will be just fine.
To Special Interests' Rick,
You sound like a professional lobbyist! We Citizens must be doing something right!
The issue with us is not about whether the owner of the golf course can ask for other uses for it. Of course he can.... The issue is how deep is our legal protection for the golf course.
As I see it, "paranoid", "misinformed, wearing-a-tinfoil-cap", golf-course neighbor that I am, it's really all about development "entitlements".
"General Plan Amendments and Rezonings are entitlements that are "costly and time-consuming" for owners to obtain. Once obtained, however, windfall profits have been made because the land is much more valuable as "best and highest use" things can be legally argued and likely built.
Because of obfuscation and lack of public notice, GP2020 and its ordinances would have flown through the legally required approval process with the SRGC rezoning intact, i.e., if it hadn't been for a Citizen's alertness, and our "hysteria and paranoia".
For whatever its reasons, the City would be handing over these in-filling entitlements on a silver platter.
Golf courses are being lost to "in-filling" fiscal interests left and right. Is this because impacted parties weren't alert and paranoid enough? The answer may be YES!
Rick, as you so pejoratively pointed out, we're new to this game, and only have this one case study that we unfortunately are living out. We are feeling our way and have a steep learning curve. What we do know is that in the case of other lost golf courses, that their legal protection didn't hold up. Parks and golf courses can't hold up to in-filling fiscal pressures unless they have in-depth zoning-law protection. "Profits" are too large otherwise.
We have been pleading with the Planning Commission to give us in-depth protection; Their afterthought "band-aide" solution probably won't work for very long, as it's legal message is too weak: I can see it now:
Deep Pocket's Lawyer says, "Your Honor, the City's Representatives didn't care enough to spend a few extra weeks to protect SRGC in its General Plan. Ergo, here's the Calif precedents of Golf Course in-filling...." ..
You can fill in the rest Mr. Name-Calling Lobbyist, Rick. While you're reading this, let's speculate a couple of more steps.
After the Band-Aide has been removed, if I were Mr. Deep Pockets and wanted to scare me, then I'd put together a development plan for CR-Zone Transitional Housing behind my house. With this plan on the Planning Commissions table (This time all impacted residents would get ample notice), I can see myself envisioning newly released felons taking their morning walk, cheerily greeting my wife and kids as they walk past my driveway.
Scared? Of course I am!! But wait, Mr. Deep Pockets is not really this mean! He's of a magnanimous nature .... What he's really looking for is to find me pleading to the City to rezone! But this time it's... "Please City, put some residential housing in!"
It's amazing where you'll sit when a 500-lb, hostile gorilla decides it wants to sit in your seat.
Dear Mr. Patrino,
You bring up a good point about purchasing the Golf Course. The City funds the parks for the schools, swim clubs, baseball, soccer, tennis and other sports. Golf is a recreational sport and qualifies under the Park designation, by voting to keep this land designation Parks, the City can purchase the land as parkland for the community. Great suggestion.
The City has told us that they have to rezone the golf courses from Park (.10 FAR) to Commercial Recreation (.35 FAR) to be legally consistant with the General Plan 2020.
Then why is 1/3 of the Canyon Lakes golf course being rezoned from Park (.10 FAR) to Open Space(.10 FAR).
Can someone on our Planning Commission or Council answer how this 1/3 proposed Open Space area is consistant with the General Plan.
If it is consistant, than why not rezone the entire golf course areas Open Space???????
Commissioner Patrino,
Thank you for your straight talk on rezoning and the law. We appreciate it and that you've given us your time and experience to help us understand the proceedings. You strike us as an honest broker who is trying to find Citywide solutions to very sticky problems.
You suggest that we buy SRGC to obtain owners rights. Maybe we could have before it was rezoned CR. Since then it's value has probably increased immensely, thus pricing us out of the market.
Without our ownership, you're telling us that if Mr. DeepPockets wants high-density residential, then he will eventually get it. His profits will be in the hundreds-of-millions of dollars. As a spinoff, this will provide obscenely high (Pretty Woman-type) increases in property taxes to the City. Increased traffic congestion, school overcrowding , and other negative impacts will be controlled by an enlarged police force and expanded City services, which will be financed by the City's increased "in-fill" tax base.
This is not evil (and we agree), it's just good business practice, both for Mr. DeepPockets and the City. Unfortunately, it's our "ox that's being gored".
You've said that we have "NO LEGAL PROTECTION". We cannot match dollars with Mr. DeepPockets in court. So, our short-lived goals have been unrealistic and have been framed badly. "In-depth legal protection" and keeping the "golf course in perpetuity" should be junked. A more-realistic goal would be delay. The purpose would be to keep the golf course around for as long as possible. Maybe if the delay is long enough, we'll get some relief from the courts.
Thus, with delay in mind, we ask, "What is the state of the proceedings?"
(1) We see a disorganized, obscure and messy GP and Ordinances that no one can get their arms around. It has evolved over more than a decade, is a product of many short-term decision makers, and does not have an adequate audit trail. For example, we don't know why the golf course was originally rezoned CR. It just shows up early-on!
(2) We also find ourselves taking part in what seems to be a charade of public reviews and hearings to get the Ordinances approved ASAP. It seems that the whole process is overbudget and about 2.5 years behind schedule.
(3) In the hearings we've attended, the City seems somewhat insincere. We're first told that we have a great option (Option 1 to keep P zoning for SRGC). Then, after about 250 residents unanimously chose it, we're told that it's not really a viable option afterall, that it would take too long to implement, i.e., the better part of a year. We're skeptical; we believe that if the City wanted to, they could take a step backwards and pickup the process about Dec 15. Things would quickly go forward again from there with only a three month delay. This time the City would have the added benefit of providing legal notice to us, the affected parties.
Thank you again, Commissioner Patrino, for your sage advice on our goals and trying to inform us. We want to understand all the implications of the City's actions on our beloved golf course.
Robin
Commissioner Patrino,
Thanks for the time that you're spending on this "thread" with us. We know you have a full schedule. We really appreciate this dialog with someone of your experience and knowledge.
Here, I'm responding to your recent comments on: (1) SRGC's "price"; (2) the "great" Option 1; and, (3) our "delay" strategy.
(1) About the Price: I like the idea of buying the golf course, too. Here's my thinking on its pricing.
A sole purpose building, e.g., a bowling alley, would only be worth, say, ten times its annual profit, i.e., as a business. Thus, it would be cheap if it were barely surviving from year to year. But if suddenly an owner were to become "entitled" to build a high-rise office building on the property, as its "highest and best use", then it would become extremely valuable.
Development entitlements are part of the cost equation. According to A & B Properties (a large developer), entitlements are "time consuming and costly" to obtain. Two of the most important are changes to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances.
We are about to approve the second of these entitlements for SRGC's owner, whether he knows it or not. That's why I believe, like I said previously, that we are already priced out of the market.
(2) The "great" Option 1: The word "great" as I applied it to the City's Option 1 was not the City's adjective; it was mine (and my neighbors).
With more care, I would have chosen a different term, possibly "unanimous", as a couple hundred citizens spoke in a single voice supporting it at the Feb. 21 Public Hearing.
(3) The Dec 15 Strategy: You've misconstrued my "Dec 15" statement as a suggested delay to Dec 15, 2006. I guess in my rush that I did not make myself clear; I'll try again.
I was attempting to convey a strategy for success, not delay. I was proffering that a SMALL step backwards to regroup would give us a BIG step forward in the process.
The idea (albeit possibly naive) is that the City go back to a recent point in the proceedings (which occurred about Dec. 15, 2005) when the Public should have received proper notification for: (1) the document public review and negative declaration period starting on Dec 23; and, (2) the January 3rd Public Hearing.
How would this help us? I heard one of my neighbors, who introduced himself to the Planning Commission as a lawyer, say that because of lack of proper notification the current proceedings are illegal. If the City were to take the suggested step backwards, besides giving proper notification this time, it could also add Option 1.
This would cost us only three extra months. For this, many impassioned and aggitated S. San Ramon residents would get what they've been asking for, a return to "P" zoning. We could envision them all going back to the "Shire", and living peacefully and happily everafter, forever singing praise to their elected and appointed City officials.
Any other alternative would cost us much more time...
Thank you again, Robin
Commissioner Patrino,
We appreciate your dialog with us about rezoning SRGC. You've helped us frame our problem and courses of action. You've convinced us that we can't save SRGC "forever". We've settled on a new, less ambitious, goal ... "as long as possible". You've also stated that there is no in-depth legal defense against "in-filling". We agree. The owner has rights and "best and highest use" is not evil.
Where we disagree is on the importance of rezoning. We think that it is of utmost importance and you seem to consider it of little importance.
For your argument, you've quoted an authorative source:
• "Zoning is merely a legislative planning designation. As such, zones are always subject to change and do not confer a right or entitlement."
For our argument, we've quoted a large development company's (A & B) annual report to its stockholders:
• "zoning is time-consuming and costly".
To us, the best evidence is that it's taken over 10 years for San Ramon to "almost" rezone SRGC from P to CR.
We don't believe this is happenstance; it's an example of what A & B is talking about. From the developers' perspective, rezoning is hard to get. This is especially true when the zoning change is to an area that is already serving the Public well, as it is with SRGC.
So, we need to stop the rezoning NOW, before it's too late!
If the City won't stop it on its own, then we believe that we have cause to stop it. The last three months of the rezoning procedures have been illegal because we were, amongst other things, not properly notified.
Besides the last three months, we are also concerned about the legality of the last ten years since the seminal decision to rezone was made in the 90s. Transparency and completeness of the Public Record is an issue during this period. To us, there should be good reasons for a rezone of this size and scope. To date, we have not been able to discover them by looking at the City's records.
The Commission has before it a suggested option to do a GPA making a GC zone for SRGC in GP2020. Chairman DiGeronimo said that he could support this if directed to do so by the City Council. This was the residents' unanimous choice at the Feb. 21 hearing. Apparently, the City Council saw it in the best interests of the City not to adopt it, as we presume that the Commission asked and was told not to support the Residents' choice.
In our opinion, the Planning Staff's recommended option was a palliative, not a compromise. The Commission proffered an easily applied solution: a couple of extra hearings and a CR patch limiting the use of SRGC to only a golf course. A patch can be as easily removed as it is applied. What happens when the owner asks for a permitted CR useage other than a golf course and threatens litigation? There goes the patch and here comes the useage with an FAR of 0.35. Isn't this the gist of what you've been telling us about owner's rights and legal defenses, Mr. Patrino? You've said that there is no legal protection!
So, here's our plan, Commissioner.
You've convinced us that we need good legal advice from a land-use attorney and that we need a strong, informed, persistant group.
Our purpose is to fight the good fight to save SRGC for as long as it takes. We want to gain as much strength and influence as possible.
Our groups current state:
• we're getting pro bono legal advice from fellow resident/attorneys and looking for the right "land-use" attorney. We have a pledged legal fund, which now amounts to many thousands of dollars.
• we're looking for alliances. We've already won two, the Canyon Lake residents and the E. D. foes. We've contacted Northern Calif. Golf Assoc., and an owner of a near-by golf course who says he will help.
• We believe that we've identified an endangered species on the golf course.
• We found a scientist/neighbor who has directed NEPA projects and written EIR's for the federal government.
• We found a seasoned PR guy who has contacts with nightly news TV stations
Our immediate action-items are:
• finding the right land-use attorney to advise us on how to slow down the City's rush to approve the Ordinances and consequently the rezoning of SRGC;
• writing an initiative to put the GPA/GC-Zone on the ballot; and,
• broadcasting our plight on the local nightly news station, Channels 2,5,7 and/or 11.
If you wish to help us, Mr Patrino, you can pledge fiscal support to "Save Our Golf Courses" legal fund at
• RobertFitzooth@Cryptoheaven.com. Like other pledgers, your support and identity will be kept confidential.
In your words, Mr. Patrino,
• "The realities of development are that often times success is when no one is happy."
In summary, we believe there is a simple and immediate solution before the Commissioners. It is the GPA/GC-Zone option.
Thank you again, Commissioner, for helping us get our arms around the right plan ...Robin
Post a Comment