San Ramon Planning Commission - Recap 3/07
Of the two Rezoning options considered at the previous 2/21 hearing for the Golf Courses, the Planners chose the easy one for them.
It became apparent that the Zone-Overlay option is the only one the Planning Staff has been promoting. This option would rezone to CR/GC, Commercial Recreation / Golf Course Zone. They have allowed for Golf Course/Country Club, Park and Recreational Facility (two acres or less), Accessory Retail and Services, and Office (accessory.)
Over 450 San Ramon Residents have signed petitions, preferring the option that stopped the rezoning, thus, keeping it Parkland. This would slow down the Ordinance approval process, as it would legally require an amendment to the General Plan. The City representatives en masse don’t want to be slowed down. Why are they in such a hurry? There is no reason to change it from zoned Parkland immediately.
Golf course rezoning now goes to the City Council for approval, embedded in four years worth of Planners work on other Ordinances.
Note: According to the city planning staff, it does not have to follow state laws regarding public hearing notification to San Ramon citizens. Therefore, what is to prevent them from doing anything they want, whenever they want in the future? See the San Jose Mercury News article for additional insights.
Email the San Ramon Mayor and City Council today, and tell them no to Golf Course Rezoning.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Planning Commission Recap 3/07
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Dear Commissioner Patrino,
Our concerns are at least as great as yours in preserving and maintaining the character and quality of life in San Ramon. For us, this is especially true in the oldest part of the City, S. San Ramon. Like you, we feel that parks and open spaces (e.g., SRGC) are precious commodities and want to preserve and grow them. We say the more, the better! Congestion is bad; open space is good! Of course, such a simple ideal is beset with complex issues and fiscal forces. In your role on the Parks and Planning Commissions you've had to deal with these and we respect you for your long-term efforts and sacrifices on our behalf.
Thus, we hope with your help, that we might be able to understand why our beloved golf course is being rezoned to CR.
We feel that in your question to us that you missed the point about the rezoning. The right question is: ....Why would a developer want to rezone when the City has already rezoned for him? We feel that the City has more legal protection for our golf course if a developer needs to request a GPA and not simply legally remove an overlay on a CR zone.
With regards to our request for a GPA: We've been told that it would take nine months delay to get a new one to keep the golf course "P" zoned. Much of this time would be required for a new Environmental Impact Report...... Really, Mr. Patrino? How much time should it take to calculate the impacts; it's a golf course now and will be the same golf course later. There are no changes!
If "conveniently ignoring" questions is a sin, then you might have City representatives look in a mirror. We have asked them many questions that remain unanswered.
Response to Bob Patrino
March 10, 2006
Thank you Mr. Patrino for responding. We appreciate your comments. Now, we challenge you to be open and honest with the Citizens of San Ramon by posting the current General Plan Amendments (GPA) the City is proposing on our site for all San Ramon Citizens to see. This will show us that you really want us to know what changes the City is currently proposing to the voter approved General Plan 2020.
Simply put, Commercial Recreation (CR) zoning gives more options for development (i.e. Buildings, Pavement, and parking lots) with less grass, open vistas and open space. It’s that simple!
Park zoning (is how the golf course is currently designated in the Zoning Code) and can’t have a lot of building. .10 FAR allows a nominal amount of building to retain the open space and parkland. Why do you want to change this? The current 2020 General Plan allows for Golf course under Parks (http://www.ci.san-ramon.ca.us/gprc/images/chap4.pdf) and I quote “ Parks, Public and private recreational sites and facilities at intensities of up to 0.10 FAR”. If you are concerned that developers will use this against the city to alleviate development of parks, then go all the way and create a separate designation in the 2020 General Plan just for Golf Courses.
CR is a .35 FAR with a much higher building intensity. Park is a .10 FAR with a nominal allowance for development. They do not have anything in common. There are no similarities for protecting open space or parkland with CR.
To answer the question:
How is a rezone (general plan amendment) more difficult from a Parks Zoning, than from a Commercial Recreation Zoning?
First of all, Rezoning is not a General Plan Amendment (GPA). It is separate from the General Plan. Rezone/GPA is not a question of more difficult or less difficult. Do not attempt to confuse it. Keep it simple. Make it a Park designation to keep it as open space.
It appears from your standpoint, (CR is OK), and that someone within the city may want something other than a golf course. CR gives the property owner more flexibility to develop even with the proposed Overlay. The City changes things all the time without notifying the public. How easy would it be for the City to change the FAR back to .35 under the Commercial Recreation/Golf Course Overlay zone when the citizens aren’t being notified currently?
The most important point to make is, the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t need a 4/5 vote. If the City changes the current zoning code (against the voice of the Citizens) for the golf courses to change from Park to Commercial Recreation – then the hardest part for the developers is done! A GPA is much more difficult to change, and does require a 4/5 vote.
Currently the City is in the process of making General Plan Amendments. Why would this GPA (from CR to Parks for golf courses or a separate Golf course classification) be treated any differently? Hundreds of Citizens have unanimously urged the Commission to correct the General Plan to Parks and put it in line with the current Zoning Ordinance. Why have you ignored the people?
Mr. Patrino, we must point to your voting record and your pro-development comments that are very widely known in this City. You have been significantly in favor of pro-development in San Ramon over the past few years.
Mr. Patrino, if you are so passionately interested in Open Space and Park land, then why do your comments and your voting record prove otherwise? You have been very intimidating in the way that you communicate and use your vocal manner in a public forum. We change you to Vote for a GPA to keep golf courses as Parks. This is your opportunity to support the people of this City.
There is major corruption in our City Government that stems from many years ago. How could it be that back in 1995 our City Council passed a resolution to change the zoning of our two San Ramon Golf Courses from Park to Commercial Recreation without the knowledge of the public?
I am sick and tired of that "Roz" lady standing up and saying we don't read her website or we'd have all of this information. This isn't on her website as her website is only four years old.
I read through many past city council minutes and don't see any talk about rezoning of our golf courses.
The intention was to have all this fly under the radar without public knowledge. Thank God for the alertness of one (1) individual that caught this underhanded proposed golf course rezone.
This is not to say that all of our leaders are corrupt - but something is not right when not one individual in your community was aware of the rezoning and that such a major change was kept hush for over 11 years.
On March 8th I sent the following email to the email address on this blog:
"You might be interested in the my new Commentary in the Observer. I put a link to your website in my Info & Links page. I'd appreciate a link to the Observer,
www.sanramonobserver.org, on your Blog."
I have not received an answer, or at least not a direct answer. In my current Commentary, I point out that most of the replies on this blog are Anonymous, and that I've had bad experiences with anonymous messages in the past. Obviously the authors of this blog read my website and chose to defend anonymous postings by adding a privacy policy:
"Some have alluded to by name calling, on other San Ramon websites, to the fact that posting anonymously online is somewhat less than a real person. This quote from another San Ramon website says, ".. people will start discussing real problems and issues under their real names."
That type of communications attitude is not taking into the account the online privacy issues on the Internet. We, at SanRamonTalk.blogspot.com and our other site at SanRamonTalks.blogspot.com understand the online privacy issues and we respect those people that choose to remain private with their real names."
In fact the authors of this blog are so enamored with anonymity that they do not even provide their own names. In the ABOUT ME link in this blog, the authors say:
"This web blog is provided as a free speech area for the citizens and community members of San Ramon, CA. This is a community forum area. Comments and postings are the opinions of the respective authors."
Yet we do not know who most of these "respective authors" are. So how can we judge where these "opinions" are coming from.
I'd like to answer one of the anonymous posters who said my website doesn't go back far enough to explain the rezoning of the golf courses. This individual claims the rezoning was done surreptitiously 11 years ago. However, if that were true, then the current rezoning would be unnecessary. My website explains how and why the golf course zoning was change in the General Plan. If anyone really wants to know this information, you can click on Past Commentaries in the www.sanramonobserver.org website.
Roz
Thanks for your email Roz.
We want people to feel free to comment any way they feel comfortable. You have mentioned your website multiple times here in the comments area and please realize your name is "the" link to your site. Anyone that wishes to go to your website can click on the link.
You are free to respond to any anonymous comments in this blog, like you have done here and on your site.
Thank you very much.
Where does San Ramon plan to put the "Lifestyles" complex referred to in several documents. It is not housing on the golf course that worries me as much as large commercial developments of which San Ramon is short on land.
Now that's a good question. The City is looking into the three lots on Bollinger Canyon Road, where the City/Civic Center is planned, as a Lifestyle Center. There are two empty lots, 7 acres on the South side of Bollinger and 11 acres on the North, plus Bishop Ranch 2 to the West, which has small office buildings. These three parcels, totalling about 33 acres, is where the City hopes to build City Offices and housing, within a Lifestyle Shopping Center.
Another area that's proposed for this kind of development is the Crow Canyon Specific Plan area, along San Ramon Valley Road from Crow Canyon to the Danville border. That's the area for which eminent domain is proposed. That's why small business owners, mostly automotive services, and building supplies, are so concerned.
In addition to these two potential development areas, all of the major shopping centers are being rezoned Mixed Use, which means they can mix housing and commercial. With Ralph's moving out, that leaves that shopping center without an anchor store. If the owner cannot attract another major retailer to that shopping center, that could be a serious problem requiring redevelopment. That's a far more realistic concern than development of the golf courses.
Roz Rogoff
www.sanramonobserver.org
Regarding the choice to place our golf courses in a "Commercial Recreation" zone with a .35 FAR (floor area ratio) - Taking it out of a protective open space zoning of "Park" .10 FAR code,
thereby increasing the land usage allowances and increasing by 250% the amount of building allowable:
1) Why are we proposing the approval of a mistake that needs a bandaid (overlay-correction) before it is even approved by the City Council?????????
2) If we acknowledge that we need an OVERLAY to protect this land, than why are we submitting this new "Commercial Recreation" zoning for approval?
Can any San Ramon City Official prove that the voters of our comunity voted for this???????
The answer is simple. Just say NO
to any rezone!!!!!!!
Take the extra time to correct the mistake before submitting it.
Thank you.
What's the point?????? Now really,
voters NEVER approved the golf courses be rezoned for Commercial Recreation. NO WAY,
NO HOW!!!!!!!
Please answer this Mr. Patrino or someone from our "Honorable City Council/Commission". This makes absolutely no sense!
Post a Comment