HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05091995 - H.4 �.Rr �E. 8 E...
•.'' --...- _ -.��'• Contra
TOI BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �; Costa
0.
County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON ° " ~
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: May 9, 1995 OUN
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT-NEA GOLF ENTERPRISES (APPLICANT) -
WEST/FLANIGAN/SILVA (OWNERS) , COUNTY FILE #2017-92, OF THE DENIAL
DECISION BY THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF
APPEALS TO ESTABLISH A GOLF COURSE, IN THE DANVILLE AREA.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Option #1
Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal.
Option #2
1. Refer the matter back to the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission for public hearings and direct Staff to
renotice for new public hearings in seven months; and
2. Allow the applicant four months to complete the reclaimed
water routing study under the direction of the Dublin San
Ramon Service District (as indicated by the applicant's
January 9, 1995 letter) and resolve the potable water issues;
and
3 . Direct Staff to complete the appropriate environmental
documentation upon receipt and acceptance of all the
information requested of the applicant; and
4 . Direct staff to prepare a staff report with recommendation on
the applicant's proposal following completion and posting of
the appropriate environmental documentation; and
5. Require the applicant to provide monthly reports to staff on
the progress being made on completion of the reclaimed water
routing study and the provision of potable water. If t e
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 9, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x _
See Addendum for Board Action
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Debbie Chamberlain ATTESTED May 9, 1995
cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
New Golf Enterprises THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works-Attn: Mitch Avalon COUN DMINISTRATOR
r4
BY 7 a , DEPUTY
DC:df
Page Two
applicant fails' to provide a monthly or no progress is made
within the four month period, direct Staff to renotice and
schedule this item with a recommendation for denial with
prejudice before the Board of Supervisors; and
6. If the requested information is provided to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Department, direct the applicant
to deposit the sum of $7, 000. 00 prior to beginning work on the
environmental documentation to cover staff time for processing
the appeal and to complete the processing of the application.
FISCAL IMPACT
None, if the appropriate fees are collected to process the
application, as indicated in Option #2 (6) .
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The application to establish a 27 hole golf course was filed in
March of 1992 . The application was subsequently deemed incomplete
in November of 1992. The application was then suspended from
processing until July 28, 1993 at the request of the applicant, to
resolve related zoning issues. The applicant was notified on
September 28, 1992 of the information required to complete the
environmental documentation. As of this date, all the information
requested of the applicant in September 1993, has not been
provided. A chronology of events is provided in the Staff Report
to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission dated March
15, 1995. In summary, the applicant failed to provide the
information which staff had requested numerous times, in order to
complete the environmental review for the project. Information
which was' received by the applicant, was not complete or adequate
to complete the environmental review. The application was
scheduled for denial before the County Zoning Administrator on
August 8, 1994. The item was subsequently continued to September
12, 1994 and to October 10, 1994 and finally to January 9, 1995 to
allow the •applicant the opportunity to' provide information on a
timely basis, preventing staff from providing a complete and
accurate assessment of the project.
The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the
San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. The Commission
considered the applicants appeal on March 15, 1995. The
discussion among the Commissioner's focused on the
inappropriateness to approve a project that is outside the Urban
Limit Line and the boundaries on an ultimate service provider.
Concerns about open, space surrounding the project would be
developed and approving a project without a verifiable source of
water. After taking testimony and considering all the evidence
before them, the Commission voted 6-1 to deny the appeal of the
applicant and uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision.
The applicant's appeal to the Board of Supervisor's does not raise
any new issues that were not addressed in the March 15, 1995 Staff
Report to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM H.4
MAY 9, 1995
This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors for hearing on the appeal of New Golf Enterprises
(appellant) from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals on the
application of New Golf Enterprises (applicant) and
West/Flanaga/Silva (owners) to establish a 27-hole golf course
and related facilities (LUP 2017-92) in the Danville area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented
the staff report, commenting on the lack of information presented
by the applicant to make an environmental determination.
The following persons presented testimony:
John L. Baker, 6 Lois Lane, Lafayette, representing New Golf
Enterprises;
Bert Michalczyk, 7051 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, representing
the Dublin/San Ramon Services District;
Ken Stromgren, 7450 Johnston Road, Pleasanton;
Marcia Muething, 6800 Johnston Road, Pleasanton;
Dennis Hurlburt, 7191 Johnston Road, Pleasanton;
Cindy Kohler, 5795 Bruce Drive, Pleasanton;
Jim Perry, 6667 Johnston Road, Pleasanton;
Steve Williams, 260 Joseph Lane, Danville;
Mike Johnston, 6975 Johnston Road, Pleasanton;
Hugh Afshar, 671 Ironbark Circle, Orinda;
Burke M. Critchfield, 5510 Sunol Boulevard, Pleasanton,
representing CoWest, property owner;
Kris Kalstrom, 7191 Johnston Road, Pleasanton;
Rich Penarelli, 6850 Johnston Road, Danville;
Nora McClelland, 5775 Johnston Road, Pleasanton.
The Chair read comments from Jackie Martin, 555 Bruce Drive
in Pleasanton expressing her concerns on issues including water.
Mr. Baker spoke in rebuttal .
The Board discussed the issues .
Supervisor Bishop moved approval of staff recommendation #1
and Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion.
Supervisor DeSaulnier moved approval of staff recommendation
#2 with the addition of a recommendation 47 requiring the
applicant to provide ten to fifteen thousand dollars for staff to
get a financial feasibility study with an estimate of what the
return would be to the County in taxes .
After further discussion, the Board took the following
action:
APPROVED Option #2, recommendations 1 through 6, relative to
LUP #2017-92 , referring the matter back to the San Ramon Valley
Planning Commission and other related actions; ADDED
recommendation 7, directing that the applicant provide the
financial resources to the Community Development Department to do
a financial feasibility study, with the inclusion of an estimate
in terms of what the return in taxes to the County would be from
this proposed project .
APPEAL
NEW GOLF ENTERPRISES (APPLICANT)
WEST/FLANIGAN/SILVA (OWNERS)
COUNTY FILE #2017-92
A request to establish a Golf Course
in the Danville area.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MAY 9, 1995 - 2 : 00 P.M.
Contra
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON •,
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Sra coU
DATE: May 9, 1995
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT-NEA GOLF ENTERPRISES (APPLICANT)-
WEST/FLANIGAN/SILVA (OWNERS), COUNTY FILE 02017-92, OF THE DENIAL
DECISION BY THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF
APPEALS TO ESTABLISH A GOLF COURSE, IN THE DANVILLE AREA.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) 4 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Option #1
Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal.
option #2
1. Refer the matter back to the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission for public hearings and direct Staff to
renotice for new public hearings in seven months; and
2. Allow the applicant four months to complete the reclaimed
water routing study under the direction of the Dublin San
Ramon Service District (as indicated by the applicant's
January 9, 1995 letter) and resolve the potable water issues;
and
3. Direct Staff to complete the appropriate environmental
documentation upon receipt and acceptance of all the
information requested of the applicant; and
4. Direct staff to prepare a staff report with recommendation on
the applicant's proposal following completion. and posting of
the appropriate environmental documentation; and
5. Require the applicant to provide monthly reports to staff on
the progress being made on completion of the reclaimed water
routing study and the provision of potable water. If t e
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATUREl_"_
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E
_ APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Debbie Chamberlain ATTESTED
cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
New Golf Enterprises THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works-Attn: Mitch Avalon AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
DC:df
j f
Page'Two '
applicant fails to provide a monthly or no progress is made
within the four month period, direct Staff to renotice and
schedule this item with a recommendation for denial with
prejudice before the Board of Supervisors; and
6. If the requested information is provided to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Department, direct the applicant
to deposit the sum of $7,000.00 prior to beginning work on the
environmental documentation to cover staff time for processing
the appeal and to complete the processing of the application.
FISCAL IMPACT
None, if the appropriate fees are collected to process the
application, as indicated in Option 12(6) .
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The application to establish a 27 hole golf course was filed in
March of 1992. The application was subsequently deemed incomplete '
in November of 1992. The application was then suspended from
processing until July 28, 1993 at the request of the applicant, to
resolve related zoning issues. The applicant was notified on
September 28, 1992 of the information required to complete the
environmental documentation. As of this date, all the information
requested of the applicant in September 1993, has not been
provided. A chronology of events is provided in the Staff Report
to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission dated March
15, 1995. In summary, the applicant failed to provide the
information which staff had requested numerous times, in order to
complete the environmental review for the project. Information
which was received by the applicant, was not complete or adequate
to complete the environmental review. The application .was
scheduled for denial before the County Zoning Administrator on
August 8, 1994. The item was subsequently continued to September
12, 1994 and to October 10, 1994 and finally to January 9., 1995 to
allow the .applicant the opportunity to provide information on a
timely basis, preventing staff from providing a: complete and
accurate assessment of the project.
The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the
San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. The Commission
considered the applicant's appeal on March 15, 1995. The
discussion among the Commissioner's focused on the
inappropriateness to approve a project that is outside the Urban
Limit Line and the boundaries on an ultimate service provider.
Concerns about open space surrounding the project would be
developed and approving a project without a verifiable source of
water. After taking testimony and considering all the evidence
before them, the Commission voted 6-1 to deny the appeal of the
applicant and uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision.
The applicant's appeal to the Board of Supervisor's does not raise
any new issues that were not addressed in the March 15, 1995 Staff
Report to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.
7 �
1
RESOLUTION NO. 12-1995
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEAL - New .Golf Enterprises, Applicants
West Flanigan/Silva, Owners .
Land Use Permit #2017-92 -
Danville area
WHEREAS, on August 12 , 1992, New Golf Enterprises (Applicant)
and West/Flanigan/Silva (Owners) , filed an application to establish
a 27 hole golf course and related facilities, in the Danville
area; and
WHEREAS, the application was subsequently deemed incomplete
for environmental purposes after requesting and only receiving a
portion of the information required to continue with the
Environmental Process; and
WHEREAS, a decision was made to schedule a public hearing and
recommend denial without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a
public hearing was held by the County Zoning Administrator on
August 8, 1994 and was continued until September 12 , 1994 and
continued again to October 10, 1994 and once again to January 9,
1995 for the remainder of the requested information; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 1995, the County Zoning Administrator
considered and Denied without prejudice the request; and
WHEREAS, following the decision, a letter was received by the
Community Development Department on January 19, 1995 from the
applicant appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals; and
i
WHEREAS, at a lawfully noticed scheduled public hearing on
March 15, 1995, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
Board of Appeals upheld the Denial decision of the Zoning
Administrator and denied the appeal; and
Page Two RESOLUTION # 12-1995
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals denied the appeal and
upheld the Zoning Administrators's decision of denial without
prejudice; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing was given by
vote of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of
Appeals in a regular meeting Wednesday, March 15, 1995 as follows:
AYES: Commissioners - Gibson, Naidorf, Harvey, Lucia,
Pancoast, Matsunaga
NOES: Commissioners - Kaplan
ABSENT: Commissioners - None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the decision of the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals was appealed
by the applicant on March 24, 1995.
ATTEST:
Secretary of the San Ramon
Valley Regional P anning
Commission, County of Contra
Costa, State of Calif. nia
DC/df
2017-92.res
John L. 'Baker West/Flanagan Jim Blickenstaff
New Golf Enterprises 5500 Bruce Drive 2410 Talavera Drive
P.O. Box 381 San Ramon, CA 94566 San Ramon, CA 94583
Lafayette, CA 94549-0381
Mr. & Mrs. Denny Kahler Debbie Compilli Dorothy Burt
5795 Bruce Drive 7220 Johnston Rd. P.O. Box 2286
Pleasanton, CA 94588 Plesanton, CA 94566 Danville, CA 94526
Jim Perry Beverly Matta Reza Manafi
6667 Johnston Road 1613 Sunnyvale Avenue 274 Sequoia Terrace
Pleasanton, CA 94588 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Danville, CA 94506
Transcredit Afshar Hugh Afshar Emma Hites
1200 Mt. Diablo Blvd. 671 Ironbark Circle 259 Joseph Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Orinda, CA 94563 Pleasanton, CA 94588
Jeorge Hites Stephen Williams Paul Speroni
259 Joseph Lane 260 Joseph Lane 245 Joseph Lane
Pleasanton, CA 94588 Danville, CA 94588 Pleasanton, CA 94566
Marcia Muething Kay Stromgren Del Thonpson
6800 Johnston Road 7450 Johnston Road 6821 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94566 Plesanton, CA 94566 Plesanton, CA 94566
Carl Caban John Ochoa Anthony & Ra c;
6621 Johnston Road 7171 Johnston Road Montemayor _
Plesanton, CA 94566 Plesanton, CA 94566 6550 Johnston Road
Plesanton, CA 94566
Dennis Hurlburt Gary Wolfe Mike Johnston
7191 Johnston Road 6911 Johnston Road 6975 Johnston Road
Plesanton, CA 94566 Plesanton, CA 94566 Plesanton, CA 94566
Donald Black Bert Michalczyic Wilbert Perry
6971 Johnston Road DublinSanRamon Servs. 6575 Johnston Road
Plesanton, CA 94566 7051 Dublin Blvd. Plesanton, CA 94566
Dublin, CA 94568
Jim Perry Gary Wolfe Tony Teixeira
6667 Johnston Road 6911 Johnston Road 6615 Johnston Road
Plesanton, CA 94566 Plesanton, CA 94566 Plesanton, CA 94566
Steve Williams B. Critchfield Jeff Ryan
260 Joseph Lane 5980 Stoneridge Drive 5870 Bruce Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Pleasanton, CA 94588.
Michael & Nora McClelland
5775 Johnston Road
Plesanton, CA 94566
r
John & Suzanne Kenton
PO Box 31.91
Danville, CA 94526
MAG
Mike & Lois Johnston
6975 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Robt & Diamond Hunter
5445 Bruce Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
i
John & Regina Holloman
6915 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Elaine M- Halpin
370 N. Civic Dr, #312
-.-,_..r rrprk. CA 94596
L
Phil & Nancy Fay
7225 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Rick & Troy Deherrera
196 Cambridge Ave
San Leandro, CA 94577
Sandra J. Dare
6900 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Frank F. Coelho
25633 Clover Road
Hayward, CA 94542
Paul & Janet Brock
5785 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Frank & Clara Bonde
5707 Highland Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
t Donald & Frances Black
6971 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
James & Lee Ann Bowers
7210 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Emil & Cate Carre
7400 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
i
J•
Danny & Kathleen Corneil
5600 Bruce Drive
.Pleasanton, CA 94588
. I;For L'i-•. arJv
1
Annette C. Darnes
5351 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Donald & Kim Fastabend
5730 Old School Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
UNA _
Peter & Mira Goetsch
5910 Bruce Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
George & Emo Hites
259 Joseph Lane
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Kenneth & Renae Howland
PO Box 1133
Dlaacant-nn, CA 94566
h�
I VSA Cy
W. Bugh & Mary Hustead
PO Box 2002
Danville, CA 94526
Dennis & Cynthia Kahler
5795 Bruce Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Scott Bishop & Dorothy Burt
PO Box 2286
Danville, CA 94526
Henry F. Borghi
5574 Old School Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Michael & Teri Brown
5655 Bruce Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
ii use G _
Bobby & Shalini Chaudhuri
5500 Bruce Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Charles & Patricia Daggett
5311 Bruce Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Robert D. Elworthy
Po Box 628
Danville, GA 94526
Lawrence & Dorothy Ferry
7754 Country Lane
Pleasanton, CA 94588
tF.us. «�
Bradley & Marilyn Haupt
7300 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
• . . !� USA G
,�Fvl:i.ddrtvo oN.
Charles & Vivienne Holman
5400 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
James & Lorraine Hudack
5400 Penny Lane
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Arnold Jacobs& Sue Kamins
5660 Old School Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Weideman Properties
2301 Norris Canyon Rd
San Ramon, CA 94583
Frank & Carmen Taylor
5530 Johnston Road
CA 94588
Pleasanton,
usAG
Edward & Diem Zobrist
5601 Highland Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Cory Soltau
240 Joseph Lane
Pleasanton, CA 94588
M. David Silva
6000 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Jeff & Geraldine- Ryan
7225 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
r
Chas & Monica Pottier
6700 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
USA G
i - :.Fw lLi dbouoµ
Ken & Tracy Spencer
5401 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Delbert & Joan Thompson
6821 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
z William T. Tauscher
5611 Highland Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Amy Stiles
5451 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Lyle & Kathleen Setter
5310 Bruce Dirve
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Louise Rutledge
5390 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Wilbert & Helen Perry
6575 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
John & Linda Ochda
7171 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
r Dieter & Jennifer Norpchen .
254 Joseph Lane
Pleasanton, CA 94588
i
Ronald Nunes
5885 Bruce Drive
_, rn QAgRR
Dan &Deborah McHugh
5300 Penny Lane
Pleasanton, CA 94558
Erika R. Marshall
5920 Old School Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Anthony & Mrs Montemayor
6550 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Paul & Wendla McCann
7111 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Gary & Kathleen Loda
6921 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Us,,G
I;hx LS+ddrtum aNc •
James & Shelley Kerr
6650 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Howard & Jacqueline Martin
5555 Bruce Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Louis & Kristi Miramontes
6611 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Gerald & Marcia Muething J:
6800 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
_ MAV
Ernest & Margret Pearson
5621 Highland Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Charles & Donna Rund
255 Joseph Lane
Pleasanton, CA 94588
w,+V
Kenneth & Marlene Santos
5750 Old School Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Paul & Michelle Speroni
245 Joseph Lane
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Leroy & Marilyn Stevens
5848 Old School Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
� us.,G
lF«us.ee,vow. i
Kenneth & Kathryn Stromgrei
7450 Johnston Road
USA G
Anthony & Bonnie Texeira
6615 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
James Soule
7470 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Dennis Hurlburt
PO Box 2257
Pleasanton, CA 94588
q
. �;wus..em—«JY
Pedro D. Zamora
22 Dartmouth Place
Danville, CA 94526.
uan V '
- i!For L'S.dd,mo mh
Constance E. West
6351 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
usn G
Carol Roen
1530 Finley Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Bruce & Debbie Compilli
7220 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
The Pringle Group
90 El Camino Real
Burlingame, CA 94010
P 4'
Stephen R. Williams
260 Joseph Lane
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Norbert & Jo Ann Walz
5400 Bruce Drive
({ uSA G
Tim Caban
6621 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Norah Tuttle &
Michael McClelland
5775 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Margaret. G. Wiley Trust
6901 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Ronald L Ferry
5656 Johnston 89
Pad
leasanton, CA 94588
Gary & Levi Wolfe
6911 Johnston Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
New Golf.Enterprises 1
PO Box 381
Lafayette, CA 94549-
NEW (5I0) 284-7100
FAX 284-7112
GOLF
(Z) ENTERPRISES March 24, 1995
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Appeal ICO Use Permit Application, County File No. 2017-92 (Golf
Course: Fox Creek Country Club, in the vicinity of Tassajara)
1. This letter appeals the March 15, 1995 decision of the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission to deny referenced application.
2 . The reasons for denial stated by the Commission:
a. The decision concerning bringing reclaimed water back into the
county for a project like this is most appropriately considered by the
County Board of Supervisors .
3 . The reasons for appeal stated in my letter of appeal dated January
19 , 1995, which will be included in your staff report, are still
germane. This is a win-win project which provides jobs and recreation
for county citizens . It also provides several kinds of taxes for the
county' s coffers . It does so at no environmental or growth impact and
helps positively recharge the aquifer i the Tassajara/Finley Road/
Johnston Road area.
John .
C �
CO
vi
my ..
-� O
Agenda Item #�
Community Development Contra Costa County
SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
BOARD OF APPEALS
I. INTRODUCTION
NEW GOLF ENTERPRISES (Applicant) - WEST/FLANAGAN/SILVA (Owners), County
File #2017-92. This is an appeal by the applicant of the Zoning Administrator's denial
decision to establish a 27 hole golf course and related facilities. The subject properties
are approximately 616 acres fronting approximately 3,800 feet on the north side of
Johnson Road approximately 1 ,350 feet east of Camino Tassajara, in the Danville
Area. (A-80, A-40, A-2) (ZA: U-20, V-20, V-21 ) (CT 35.51 -03) (APN's 203-050-021 ,
204-100-012, 204-160-001 , 206-200-003, 204-080-007, 204-110-003, 204-180-
005).
II. RECOMMENDATION
A. Staff recommends the Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision,
deny the appeal.
B. Alternatively, if the Commission finds merit in the applicant's request for
continuance, Staff recommends the following course of action:
1 . Continue the matter for seven months; and
2. Allow the applicant four months to complete the reclaimed water routing
study under the direction of Dublin San Ramon Service District (as
indicated in the applicant's January 9, 1995 letter) and resolve the
potable water issues; and
3. Direct staff to complete the appropriate environmental documentation
upon receipt and acceptance of all the information requested of the
applicant; and
4. Direct Staff to prepare a staff report with recommendation on the
applicant's proposal following completion and posting of the appropriate
environmental documentation; and
5. Require the applicant to provide monthly reports to Staff on the progress
being made on completion of the reclaimed water routing study and the
provision of potable water. If the applicant fails to provide a monthly
report or no progress is made within the four month period, direct staff
to re-notice and schedule this item with a recommendation for denial
with prejudice before the Commission. .
2
6. If the requested. information is provided to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Department, direct the applicant to deposit the
sum $7000.00 prior to beginning work on the environmental documen-
tation to cover staff time for processing the appeal and to complete the
processing of the applications.
111. BACKGROUND
A. Summary: The application to establish a 27 hole golf course was filed in March
of 1992. The application was subsequently deemed complete in November of
1992. The application was then suspended from processing until July 28, 1993
at the request of the applicant, to resolve related zoning issues. The applicant
was notified on September 28, 1993 of the information required to complete
the environmental documentation. As of this date, all the information requested
of the applicant in September 1993, has not been provided.
B. Chronology:
1 . March 12,1992: An application to establish a golf course and related
facilities was filed with the Community Development Department.
2. April 10, 1992: The applicant was notified _that the application was
incomplete and additional information was needed to process the
request. (See Exhibit 1 Correspondence)
3. October 14, 1992: Submittals were received from the applicant and the
_application was deemed complete by default on November 13, 1992.
(See Exhibit 2 Correspondence)
4. February 24, 1993: The applicant agrees to suspending the application
from processing until July 28, 1993 until determination if the properties
currently under Williamson Act Contract could be included as part of the
application submittals. (See Exhibits 3, 3A - Correspondence, 3B
Correspondence)
5. August 27, 1993: The applicant was provided with a tentative schedule
for processing the application, including a County initiated revision to
the Zoning Ordinance to include golf courses as a permitted use with the
issuance of a land use. permit in the A-4 (Agricultural Preserve). (See
Exhibit 4 Correspondence)
6. September 28,1993: The applicant was notified of the information
necessary to complete the environmental assessment of the project,
because the information requested is related to the environmental issues
of the project, said information could not be requested at the time the
application was deemed incomplete. (See Exhibit 5 Correspondence)
3
7. January 4, 1994; The text amendment pertaining to the application of
the A-2 and A-20 ordinance 'was heard by the County Planning
Commission at which time the Commission recommended approval to
the Board'of Supervisors. Following the Planning Commission meeting,
staff later determined that it would be necessary to include watershed
uses as a part of the ordinance code text amendment. This item has not
been rescheduled before the Commission. (See Exhibits 6A - Staff
Report and 6B - Transcript of Hearing)
8. April 6, 1994: A portion of the requested information was received by
the applicant. The applicant's cover letter indicated the remaining items
would be forwarded within the week. No further information was
received.(See Exhibit 7 Applicant's Submittal)
9. May 1994: The applicant informed staff by telephone that additional
information would be submitted within the week. No further information
was received.
10. August 8, 1994: Zoning Administrator meeting. Staff recommended the
item be denied for delays by the applicant in processing the application.
The applicant submitted additional information at the Zoning Administra-
tor Hearing. The Zoning Administrator continued the matter to Septem-
ber 12, 1994 to allow staff the opportunity to review the submitted
information. (See Exhibits 8A - Staff Report; 8B - Applicant's Submittal)
1 1 . August 25, 1994: The applicant was notified the information requested'
in Staff's September 28, 1993 was not provided at the August 8, 1994
Zoning Administrator Hearing. (See Exhibit 9 Correspondence)
12. September 12, 1994: Zoning Administrator meeting. Staff continues to
recommend denial of the application for delays by the applicant in
processing the application. The applicant provided additional information
at the Hearing. The Zoning Administrator continued the matter to
October 10, 1994 to allow staff the opportunity to review the submitted
information. (See Exhibits 10A - Staff Report; 10B Applicant's Submit-
tal)
13. October 10, 1994: Zoning Administrator meeting. The applicant at the
September 12, 1994 meeting provided the information requested in
Staff's September 28, 1993 letter. The information was not adequate
to demonstrate that a verifiable source of reclaimed water or potable has
been secured for the project. Staff recommended an indefinite continu-
ance to allow the applicant the opportunity to meet with DSRSD and
initiate the Planning Study necessary to demonstrate if reclaimed water
is viable for the subject property. A verifiable water source for irrigation
of the golf course is necessary to demonstrate that an adequate water
supply exist prior to staff completing the environmental documentation
for the project.
4
The applicant requested a three-month continuance to January 9, 1995
to provide the information. (See Exhibits 11 A - Staff Report; 1 1 B -
Transcript of. Hearing)
14. October 27, 1994: Staff met with the applicant and DSRSD to discuss
providing reclaimed water to the project site. DSRSD preliminary
suggested that if all the appropriate studies are completed and infra-
structure and planning cost are covered, they are not opposed to
servicing the site. County Staff and DSRSD further indicated to the
applicant, that preliminary engineering studies would b.e required before
completing the environmental documentation for the project. Addition-
ally, Staff and DSRSD suggested that the applicant begin meetings with
County Health Services Department and if necessary, the State
Department of Health Services,to discuss the proposed water treatment
facility. Staff requested notification of any meetings with the County
Health Services Department.
Additionally, at the October 27, 1994 meeting Staff requested the
applicant submit the preliminary engineering studies or a status report
two weeks prior to the next Zoning Administrator meeting on January
9, 1995.
15. January 9, 1995: Zoning Administrator Hearing. The applicant did not
provide staff with the preliminary engineering studies or a project status
report prior to the writing of the staff report. Therefore, staff recom-
mended denial of the application with prejudice for continued delays by
the applicant.
The applicant, provided a project status and indicated that he retained
an engineering firm to complete the study and was currently awaiting
funding. After receipt of funding, the study would take approximately
four months to complete and the applicant requested continuance of the
same length.
The Zoning Administrator after hearing the applicant's testimony and
that of neighbors opposed to the project about the numerous continu-
ances and delays, denied the application with prejudice. (See Exhibits
12A - Staff Report; 12B - Applicant's Submittal; 12C - Transcript of
hearing)
16. The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator decision on January
19, 1995 at 5:00 pm. (See Exhibit 13 - Appeal Letter)
IV. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION
The Zoning Administrator on January 9, 1995, denied the applicant's request with
prejudice for the following reasons:
5
A The applicant realized early on that in order to establish the project would have
.to be major provision for the extension of water and the applicant is now, after
two and one-half years beginning to engage a potential water district about
providing water. The items should be identified early in the process, prior to the
application being filed with the County.
B. Cost of $2,000,000.00 to extend an eight inch water line to the project site
may not be realistic given today's planning considerations in terms of
annexations and decisions that would have to involve other properties and may
raise a number of planning issues beyond the scope of this project.
C. Lack of response on the part of the applicant. No response is received from the
applicant until the day of the hearing on information which has been previously
requested, information which is required to proceed with the project.
D. The neighbors have continued to attend the public hearings and it would not be
fair to keep continuing the item, if the applicant is unwilling to provide
information in a timely manner.
V. ISSUES OF APPEAL
Staff has provided a summary of the applicant's four issues of appeal and a staff
response to those issue. The appeal letter is attached as Exhibit 13 to this staff report.
Issue #1 : The applicant was not informed of the continuance date from October 10,
1994 to January 9, 1995.
Staff Response: The applicant was present at the October 10, 1994 meeting at which
time he requested a three month continuance. The Zoning Administrator did not have
a 1995 Public Hearing Calendar, but requested staff to the call the planning secretary
for the date, so as not to unduly burden the neighbors. The date of continuance to
January 9, 1995 was announced at the hearing. Additionally, staff informed the
applicant at the October 27, 1994 meeting of the continuance date and additionally
requested the applicant provide a project status two weeks prior to the January 9,
1995 meeting. Furthermore, neighbors opposed to the project appeared and spoke at
the January meeting. In staff's opinion, the applicant and interested parties were
adequately notified of the January 9, 1995 meeting.
Issue #2: A process for continuance had been worked out between the applicant and
staff. However, because of the applicant's non-communication, staff had presumed
the applicant was not proceeding with the project.
Staff Response: Staff concurs that a process for the applicant to proceed with
completion of the required studies had been agreed to. However, staff requested the
applicant to provide a project status two weeks before the next Zoning Administrator
hearing. The burden of proof is placed on the applicant to supply staff with complete
and accurate information in a timely manner. The applicant following the October 27,
1994 meeting had not communicated with staff until receipt of the staff reports in
6
early January 1995 recommending denial. As in the past, the applicant provided
information at the public hearing, not allowing staff an opportunity to provide a staff
report reflecting the applicant's submittals.
Issue #3: The project has been delayed considerably.
Staff Response: Please see chronology of the project in the Section lll, "Background"
of this staff report. In staff's opinion, processing of the application was delayed
because of the applicant's failure to submit the requested items in a timely manner.
Issue #4: Reclaimed water routing system could be made a condition of approval on
the project.
Staff Response: The project is not within the Ultimate Service .Boundary of EBMUD
or CCWD and the applicant has not provided a verifiable source of water for irrigating
the golf course and servicing the clubhouse. In order for staff to adequately assess the
environmental impacts of the project, a preliminary design for the delivery of reclaimed
water is necessary to ensure a verifiable source of water exist for the project.
Furthermore, hydrogeologic investigations prepared by Engeo, Inc. determined that
adequate groundwater does not exist to serve the project.
VI. CONCLUSION
The Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the project was based on the applicant's
failure to provide requested information on a timely basis, preventing staff from
providing a complete and accurate assessment of the project. The applicant has not
presented any new information, that was not available to the Zoning Administrator at
the time of decision.
DJC/AB/aa
LUPXX/2017-92.DJC
3/1/95
•
> f�� 1T l
Community Contra Harvey E. Bragdon
. Development I 1 Director of Community Developmc
Department COSta
County Administration Building County
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553.0095
Phone{510) 646-2091 f
April 10, 1992
New Golf Course Enterprises
3466 Mt. Diablo Blvd., C-205
Lafayette, CA 94549
Dear Applicant:
The Contra Costa County Community Development Department has reviewed your
application, County File No. 2017-92.
Your application has been found to be incomplete. The following information will be required
before we can further review your request:
In order to complete your application, the following information must be provided:
Project Components:
cording tour application, your project involves:
18 hole golf course
Clubhouse with classrooms
Tennis Center
Pro-shop
Dining Facilities
Golf Cart Storage
Parking
For each of these project elements, provide the following information:
a. Location (if not shown on site plan).
b. identify and describe all necessary improvements
c. identify the hours and days of operation
2. Elevations:
Provide elevation drawings showing all portions of the planned project.
3. Geology:
The report submitted as part of your application entitled, "Fox Creek County Club
..Geologic Evaluation Revised February 12, 1992," Engeo Incorporated has been
copyrighted. For the purposes of the Public Record Act, provide a release from
copyright restrictions. Similarly, any copyright restriction on a document submitted
as part of the application or as required in order to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act must be removed.
This report will be submitted to the County's Geologist for review.
4. Environmental Assessment:
The report submitted as part of your application entitled, "Limited Phase One
Environmental Site Assessment," Engeo Incorporated, January 21 , 1992. This report
is a limited study based on property owner recollection and a site visit. No testing was
conducted, and regulatory agencies which might have information on potential
contamination were not contacted.
Provide additional information on the types and quantities of hazardous materials
located on the site which were referenced in the report (e.g. location, size, contents
by type and estimated quantity). Regulatory agencies should also be contacted to
ascertain if they have information regarding any potential contamination.
5. Water Supply:
Provide the following information:
a. Identify the location of all existing and proposed on-site wells.
b. Identify the location of existing and proposed off-site wells which may be used
to augment irrigation supply. -
C. Provide a conceptual proposal for preventing' the interconnection of the
domestic and irrigation water supplies.
d. Identify the location of storage area(s) for fuel, fertilizers,pool chemicals,etc.
in relation to existing and proposed wells, including nearby off-site
wells.
e. Identify/describe the effect of the project on underlying aquifers (i.e.
groundwater withdrawal vs recharge).
f. Identify the location of off-site septic systems and disposal (leach) field
replacement areas in relation to any existing or proposed on-site wells located
within one hundred (100) feet of project boundaries.
g. Provide additional information regarding the proposal to obtain treated
wastewater from the Dublin/San Ramon Services District. This includes:
1 . Copies of any Board action relative to the proposal.
2. Tasks which must be completed in order to deliver the water including
the responsible party and timetable for completion. This includes
engineering studies, district Board approvals, other agency approvals,
(e.g. annexation, change in Sphere of Influence), acquiring easements,
and construction.
3. In our .verbal discussions, you stated that a services district would be
formed in order to reimburse for the cost of the pipeline. Provide
information detailing the proposed extent of the service district and any
actions to date relative to this need.
5. Sewage Disposal:
Due to the large volume of projected wastewater flows (15,000 to 50,000
gpd), a package treatment plant is indicated. Such a plant will operate under
a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. . Provide the following
information:
a. A conceptual design of the package treatment plant.
b. The location of the plant.
C. The location of on-site wells relative to the plant.
d. If the plant is proposed within one hundred (100) feet of property lines,
provide the location of nearby off-site wells.
NOTE: The Regional Water Quality Control Board may have additional
requirements involving the construction and operation of a package treatment
plant.
6. Solid Waste:
Identify/describe your proposal to handle solid waste generated by the this
project, in particular waste generated by the maintenance of the golf course
(e.g. on-site composting).
7. Traffic:
a. Submit.a traffic study which is acceptable to the County Public Works
Department. The study submitted as part of your application has been
submitted to the Public Works Department for their review. For
information regarding the scope of additional traffic studies, contact the
Public Works Department, Road Engineering Division.
b. Show the structure setback lines for all natural watercourses traversing
the property. Because of the size of the land considered under this
application, you may show the approximate location of this line on the
topographical map. The line should be based on representative cross
sections and the criteria specified in Section 914-14.012 "Structure
Setback Lines for Unimproved Earth Channels," of the County Ordinance
Code.
8. Regulatory Agencies:
Identify any agencies which have regulatory authority over the establishment
or operation of the project. If other agencies have permitting authority, identify
the entitlement (s), and the status of your discussions/submittals.
9. Growth Management Standards:
Provide detailed information on how this project will comply with the Growth
Management Policies and the 1990 Measure C provisions of the 1991 Contra
Costa County General Plan (refer to attached).
Please submit the information requested above as soon as possible so that the processing of
your application will not be delayed.
Sincerely,
Catherine Kutsuris
Mat Senior Project Planner
cc: Mary Fleming
Eileen Doten
County File No. 2017-92
John Compaglia
New Golf Enterprises
3466 Mt. Diablo Blvd., C-205
Lafayette, CA 94549-3952
NEW (510)284-7100
FAX 284-7112
GOLF
(�D ENTERPRISES
October 12, 1992
Re: Use Permit Application, CCC File No. 2017-92 (Fox Creek Country
Club, vic Tassajara)
In response to the specific requests in CCC-CDD letter of 10 April:
1. Prof ect Components:
a. Locations are generally depicted on the .blue-line and
color renderings of the golf facility, attached, prepared by Robert
Muir Graves, Ltd, Golf Course Architects. Clubhouse, classrooms,
cart storage, pro shop and dining facilities are all part of one
coherent structure or group of structures located where the
"clubhouse" is on the renderings. Parking is also as depicted.
The Tennis Center may be located immediately adjacent to the
Clubhouse or on the land immediately south and east of the "corner"
made by the 3rd green and 4th hole in the "North Valley 9 . " Tennis
location is dependent on a detailed clubhouse site analysis to be
conducted during clubhouse design.
b. Improvements: whole facility is new construction.
c. Hours for outdoor recreation are sunrise to sunset, or a
nominal maximum of 6 am to 8:30 pm. Clubhouse dining will provide
for breakfast for the sunrise starters though evening events which
would not normally go later than 2 am. Parking will generally
support these times with clubhouse staff arriving and departing
about an hour before and after opening and closing times. Parking
will also include perhaps up to 4 club owned vehicles (station
wagon, sedan, small vans) parked overnight in the parking lot.
2 . Elevations: Specific elevations will be submitted for the
Clubhouse design once completed. Since the design of a clubhouse
is extremely expensive and integrated with the individual course
design, normally that phase is not undertaken until the golf course
Use Permit Request is approved. It is anticipated that review and
approval of the clubhouse and associated components will be a
Condition of Approval for the course.
3 . Geology: ENGEO' s copyright on its Soils Report has been
rescinded.
4 . Environmental Assessment: the additional work requested has
been performed and the study is attached. See also Soils and Site
Assessment on the Silva Ranch to the requested standard.
Regulatory agencies have been contacted and minor stains, etc. will
be appropriately removed prior to course construction.
5 . Water Supply: Since the Dublin San Ramon (Water) Services
District Board has approved the application for the use of
reclaimed water to the site, on and off-site well water is not
required for this project. It is the intention of Fox Creek to not
use well water for any use. The one exception may be the clubhouse
use (average of 20, 000 gallons per day) . If not permitted to use
Super Still technology to provide potable water from reclaimed
water for clubhouse use, Fox Creek would require the 20, 000 gallons
per day from wells. Specific information requested:
a/b. Location of On/Off Site Wells: See map attached.
C. Interconnection of dissimilar supplies: Reclaimed and
rain run-off supplies are collected and stored in lakes on the
course. Potable wateris stored in tanks adjacent to clubhouse.
There are no common connections to both systems.
d. Storage of fuels and chemicals: in the Maintenance Area in
the vicinity of the current West Ranch farmhouses and outbuildings .
No closer than 250 feet from any well, nor .230 feet from any
exterior property line.
e. Effect on Underlying Aquifers: None, if Super Still
permitted. If not, the total land could be divided into 15 - 40
plus acre parcels, as currently zoned. Clubhouse consumption of
20, 000 gallons per day would be the equivalent usage of 1, 333 GPD
per zonable ranch, well below normal consumption in the vicinity.
The provision of reclaimed water for irrigation has the net effect
of recharging the aquifer.
f . Proximity of On and Off-Site Septic and Leach Fields to
Wells: None within 100 feet either side of any project exterior
property line.
g. Treated Wastewater (reclaimed water) :
1. Enclosed is the Resolution (DSRSD #23-92) and
Contract by and through which DSRSD agrees to provide Fox Creek
with reclaimed water. It should be noted that the water is Title
22 standard, Tertiary grade water, suitable for watering any plants
which routinely come in contact with humans.
2 . The Process: after approval of the use permit for an
outdoor golf facility, the following takes place:
a. DSRSD prepares the engineering plans for the
pipeline. This includes an assessment of possible additional users
who currently exist (ranchers, existing ranchettes, etc) and what
their requirements might be. The idea is to provide for the needs
of current potential users without over-sizing to a growth inducing
level .
b.' Fox Creek agrees to the forecast costs of the
pipeline. .
C. DSRSD obtains approval from Water Quality
Regional Board and California Department of Health Services for
engineered project.
d. DSRSD builds pipeline over existing easements
and rights of way from Sanitary plant to golf course site.
e. The whole process, from this point on, will take
from 6 months to a year, from time of County golf course Use Permit
approval . We would not commence construction of the course until
the waterline project is sufficiently underway to provide reclaimed
water to the course when it is ready to start irrigating turf -
about 6 to 9 months from start of construction (depending upon rain
delays during grading) .
3 . Reclaimed water service district: this would be run
by the. DSRSD, as they provide for their other customers. No new
"district, " pe se, needs to be created.
-5 . Sewage Disposal: Please see package plant plan, attached.
6 . Solid Taste:
a. Package plant solids are trucked away about every two
months per the plan.
b. Grass clippings, leaves and tree prunings are mulched,
composted and recycled back onto the golf course and clubhouse
landscaping. The compost pile is located in the vicinity of the
maintenance area, no closer than 100 feet from any property line,
streambed or well .
7. Traffic: Plan as submitted also will be coordinated with
County Public Works Department. It should be noted that a 27 hole
facility does not increase the traffic on Johnston Road or Camino
Tassajara. Setback lines are shown on Bluelines, attached.
8 . Regulatory Agencies:
a. Army Corps of Engineers -. Wetlands permit (Nationwide 26)
and Water Quality Certification.
b. Fish & Game: a 603 Streambed Alteration Agreement.
9 . Growth Management Standards: this project fully complies with
the growth management standard of measure C and the revision to the
County General Plan in that it provides an outdoor recreation
facility both in and outside the Urban Limit Line without impacting
traffic (LOS at serving roads remain at LOS A) . It adds to the
quality of life within the county without adding any infrastructure
requirements .
c. DSRSD obtains approval from Water Quality
Regional Board and California Department of Health Services for
engineered project.
d. DSRSD builds pipeline over existing easements
and rights of way from Sanitary plant to golf course site.
e. The whole process, from this point on, will take
from 6 months to a year, from time of County golf course Use Permit
approval . We would not commence construction of the course until
the waterline project is sufficiently underway to provide reclaimed
water to the course when it is ready to start irrigating turf -
about 6 to 9 months from start of construction (depending upon rain
delays during grading) .
3 . Reclaimed water service district: this would be run
by the DSRSD,- as they provide for their other customers. No new
"district, " pe se, needs to be created.
5 . Sewage Disposal: Please see package plant plan, attached.
6 . Solid Waste:
a. Package plant solids are trucked away about every two
months per the plan.
b. Grass clippings, leaves and tree prunings are mulched,
composted and recycled back onto the golf course and clubhouse
landscaping. The compost pile is located in the vicinity of .the
maintenance area, no closer than 100 feet from any property line,
streambed or well .
7 . Traffic: Plan as submitted also will be coordinated with
County Public Works Department. It should be noted that a 27 hole
facility does not increase the traffic on Johnston Road or Camino
Tassajara. Setback lines are shown on Bluelines, attached.
8 . Regulatory Agencies:
a. Army Corps of Engineers = Wetlands permit (Nationwide 26)
and Water Quality Certification.
b. Fish & Game: a 603 Streambed Alteration Agreement.
9 . Growth Management Standards: this project fully complies with
the growth management standard of measure C and the revision to the
County General Plan in that it provides an outdoor recreation
facility both in and outside the Urban Limit Line without impacting
traffic (LOS at serving roads remain at LOS A) . It adds to the
quality of life within the county without adding any infrastructure
requirements .
Community Contra Harvey oE.f Bragdon
Director of Community Developmer
Development Costa
Department County
Administration Building
651 Pine Street
SE
4th Floor, North Wing �E•�•-- i_--_o„
Martinez, California 94553.0095
Phone: 646-2091 x� -
•zJy
A C"UNC
February 24, 1993
John Baker, President
New Golf Enterprises
3466 Mt. Diablo Boulevard; C-205
Lafayette, CA 94549-3952
Dear Mr. Baker:
At our January 27, 1993 meeting with Mr. John Compaglia, we discussed the effect of the
Williamson Act contracts (which are on the Silva and West properties) on the processing of
an application for a golf course. I explained that neither the contract nor the A-4 zoning
ordinance provided for a golf course on these properties. You explained your understanding
that the County's proposal to revise the A-4 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to include golf
courses would resolve this issue. We agreed that your attorney, Mr. Sandy Skaggs, would
write a letter to our department which outlines your belief as to how the County could make
the findings necessary to either amend the A-4 section of the Zoning Ordinance to allow golf
courses within .Williamson Act areas or to amend the contracts on these properties.
On February 1 , 1993 Mr. Sandy Skaggs contacted Mr. Harvey Bragdon to discuss this issue,
and stated that other jurisdictions have allowed golf courses within lands that are under
Williamson Act contract. Mr. Bragdon requested that your attorney write a letter to our
department detailing which other agencies have taken this action and the rationale for making
the findings. I assume that information is currently being prepared.
At our January 27, 1993 meeting you agreed with my recommendation that our department
suspend processing the application until the issue.of whether a golf course may be allowed
within a Williamson Act area is resolved. The exception to that suspension is, of course, any
work necessary to resolve that issue, and the sending of various reports to the County Public
Works Department, the Health Services Department, and the County Geologist.
2.
I
I look forward to receiving your information. If you have any further questions, please do not
hesitate to call me at 646-2091 .
Sincerely,
CATHERINE KUTSURIS
_ Senior Planner
CK/aa
LTRIV/2017-92.CK
cc: 2017-92
` New Golf Enterprises `
3466 Mt. Diablo Blvd.. C-205:;!'-. ? ..
Lafayette, CA 94549-3952 J T
(510)284-7100
NEW (:D FAX 284-7112 f'J ";GOL UG 24 PF9 I: 48
(Z) ENTERPRISES
ii:NT DEPT
August 20, 1993
Catherine Kutsuris
Senior Project Planner
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Use Permit Application, March 12, 1992 , County File No. 2017-92
(Golf Course: Fox Creek Country Club vic Tassajara)
Dear Ms. Kutsuris:
1. Per your request this letter confirms that subject project
process was suspended from the date of your letter, February 24,
1993 until determination of status under the Williamson Act was
made and other zoning issues were determined. Such issues were
resolved by the Director of the Community Development Department of
Contra Costa County by and on July 28, 1993 .
2 . For purposes of the Permit Processing Streamlining Act, this
means that the subject project was tolled from February 24 to July
28, 1993 .
Sincerely,
;�
q
nr. 4Be
President
cc: Sandford Skaggs, McCutchen Doyle
John Compaglia, Bryan & Murphy
Harvey E. Bragdon
Community Contra Director of Community Development
Development Costa
Department
County Administration Building County-
651
unty
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing ,E.--SE:L
Martinez, California 945530095
f =_
Phone:
646-2031
CSO;
- ST1 COUK�
August 27, 1993
John L. Baker, President
New Golf Enterprises
3466 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, C-205
Lafayette, CA 94549
Dear Mr. Baker:
RE: Land Use Permit Application.for the Fox Creek Country Club (County File #2017-92)
Per your request, please find attached a tentative schedule for the processing of the zoning
ordinance change and the land use permit for your project. You will note that the schedule
provides that our department will give you a decision as to whether we think a Negative
Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is appropriate by September 10, 1993.
As I explained to you in our telephone conversation earlier this week,this application is being
transferred to Ms. Debbie Aime. Ms. Aime and I will be working together on the project
during the next two to three weeks to ensure a smooth transfer.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call either Debbie or myself at 646-2091 .
Sincerely,
CATHERINE OSTERMAN KUTSURIS
Senior Planner
COK/aa
LTRXII/2017-92.CK
cc: 2017-92
Sanford Skaggs
John Campagilia
Harvey E. Bragdon
Debbie Aime
I
NEW GOLF ENTERPRISES
APPLICATON PROCESSING SCHEDULE
A. SCHEDULE FOR ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGE:
Prepare Zoning Ordinance Change September 17 ,1993
* Post Negative Declaration September 17 , 1993
Negative Declaration Posting October 11, 1993
Period Ends
Zoning Ordinance Change to P. C. October 19 , 1993
Zoning Ordinance 2nd hearing at PC November 2 , 1993
(if needed)
Zoning Ordinance to the BOS -1st November 30, 1993
(assumes a 4 wk scheduling.
delay for the BOS)
Zoning Ordinance to the BOS - 2nd December 14 , 1993
Ordinance Effective Date January 13 , 1994
* Assumes a Negative Declaration is appropriate; If 'an Exemption
is appropriate, the Ordinance could be heard by the Planning
Commission at their October 5, 1993 hearing.
B. SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT.: ASSUMING NEGATIVE DECLARATION
"Internal" Initial Study September 10, 1993
All additional information/studies to October 11, 1993
be submitted by applicant and found to
be sufficient for preparing a Negative
Declaration
Negative Declaration Posting October 15 - Nov 8 ,
1993
Zoning Administrator's hearing January 25, 1994
C. SCHEDULE ASSUMING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
"Internal" Initial Study September 10, 1993
All additional information supplied September 30, .1993
by applicant and found to be sufficient
Notice of Preparation Issued October 8 - Nov 7
EIR Contract Approved by the Board November 30, 1993
Draft EIR Issued February 18, 1994
Draft 45 Day Review Closes April 4, 1994
Final EIR Prepared May 2 , 1994
Project LUP to Hearing May 9th or May 23 ,
1994
ck1: 2017 . sch
Harvey E. Bragdon
Community Contra Director of Community Devefopmen;
Development Costa
Department COUry r G
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street AT1 & a4T.
4th Floor, North Wing E•—; -
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Phone: (510) 646-2031
as
September 28 , 1993
Mr. John Baker ,
New Golf Enterprises
3466 Mt. Diablo Blvd. C-205
Lafayette, Ca 94549
Dear Mr. Baker:
RE: LUP 2017-92
The Community Development Departm-ent is completing the
environmental review for the above referenced project. Please
provide the following information before our final assessment.
1. Please indicate how reclaimed water is provided to the
project site from DSRSD. If the water is unable to be piped
in, please provide the number of trucks and trips per day
which are required to provide adequate water supply to the
site.
2 . The County General Plan requires "no net loss" of wetlands.
It is unclear from the information provided how you will be
mitigating for the loss of wetlands.
3 . The amount of csf of runoff the project will generate.
4 . A copy of the "Hydrogeologic Evaluation for Ground-Water
availability" prepared by Engeo. In addition, please
provide the location of all existing and proposed wells.
5. A site plan showing all the improvements proposed for the
project site and building elevations of each structure.
6. The geotechnical report does not examine a clubhouse
location and design and location of additional uses such as.
tennis courts, swimming pools, etc. Please provide a
preliminary geologic assessment of the clubhouse and
acessory uses.
Please provide all the information as soon as possible oo avoid
delays in processing your application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call .
Sincerely,
Debbie Aime
Senior Planner
cc: Sandy Skaggs
w
Agenda Item #
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT 3-93: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 84-80:
SECTION 84-80.404, OF THE COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE (A-20)
This is a public hearing to consider a proposed revision to Section 84-42.404 and
Section 84-80.404 of the County Ordinance Code pertaining to the application of the
A-4 and A-20 ordinance. The proposed revision would expand the "Uses - requiring
land use permits" to include "Commercial recreational facilities when the principal use
is not in a building". The modification would affect all lands Countywide with a zoning
designation of A-20, A-40 and A-80.
Il. RECOMMENDATION
Recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they approve the proposed text
amendment as recommended by staff.
III. DISCUSSION
The Open Space Element of the 1991 General Plan identifies goals and policies that
are directed at preserving open space lands for recreation uses. The goals and policies
are as follows:
A. Open Space Goals:
9-A. To preserve and protect the ecological, scenic and cultural/historic, and
recreational resource lands of the County.
9-C. To achieve a balance of open space and urban areas to meet the social,
environmental and economic needs of the County now and for the future.
B. Open Space Policies:
9-7. Open space shall be utilized for public safety, resource conservation and
appropriate recreation activities for all segments of the community.
C. Recreational Goals:
9-H. To develop a sufficient amount of conveniently located, properly designed
park and recreational facilities to serve the needs of all residents.
9-J. To promote active and passive recreational enjoyment of the County's
physical amenities for the continued health, safety and welfare of the citizens
of the County.
The proposed amendment would allow consideration of proposals for uses such as golf
course, baseball/soccer fields, marinas, campgrounds, outdoor sports and athletic
complexes, duck and hunting clubs. Uses would be limited to those low- to medium-
intensity establishments that do not rely on urban levels of service or infrastructure,
i.e., a public water or sewer system, and in the case of flood-prone area will not draw
large concentrations of people.
The wording for the proposed amendment would be as follows:
"Commercial recreational facilities of low to medium-intensity,
which do not rely on urban levels of surface, when the principal
use is not in a building."
DJA/aa
SPVIII/Golf.DJA
12/15/93
I
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
4 January 1994 - Tuesday
7:30 P.M., Board Room
(Transcript of Item #2)
ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT: PUBLIC HEARING:
ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT #3-93, PROPOSED.REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 84-
80: SECTION 84-80.404, OF THE COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE (A-201:
This is a public hearing to consider a proposed revision to Section 84-42.404 and
Section 84-80.404 of the County Ordinance Code pertaining to the application of the
A-4 and A-20 Ordinance. The proposed revision would expand the "Uses - requiring
land use permits" to include "Commercial recreational facilities when the principal use
is not in a building". The modification would affect all lands Countywide with a
zoning designation of A-20, A-40 and A-80. DJA
CHAIRMAN CLARK: Staff, are there any changes suggested to the agenda?
MRS. KUTSURIS: Staff recommends that Item #2 be handled as .a consent item.
Item #2 is Ordinance Text Amendment #3-93. This would consider a proposed
revision to Section 84-42.404 and Section 84-80.404 of the County Ordinance Code
pertaining to the application of the A-4 and A-20 Ordinance.
The proposed revision would expand the uses which require land use permits to
include commercial recreational facilities when the principle use is not a building. The
modification would affect all lands countywide with the zoning designation of A-20,
A-40 and A-80.
CHAIRMAN CLARK: Does anyone wish to make a motion on the suggestion by staff
that we place item #2 on the consent calendar and approve it as outlined in the staff
report of today's date?
COMMISSIONER GADDIS: Did anyone submit---
CHAIRMAN CLARK: No. We have no speakers cards on it.
COMMISSIONER TERRELL: So move on your recommendation, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER ACCORNERO: Second.
CHAIRMAN CLARK: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say "Aye".
AYES: Commissioners -Terrell, Accornero, Wong, Woo, Gaddis, Straus,
Clark.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
CHAIRMAN CLARK: It's unanimous. Present the next item, please.
Agenda Item #
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 1994 - 1 :30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
NEW GOLF ENTERPRISES (Applicant) - WEST/FLANAGAN/SiLVA (Owners), County
File #2017-92: The applicant requests approval to establish a golf course and related
facilities. The subject properties are approximately 616 acres fronting approximately
3,800 feet on the north side of Johnson Road approximately 11350 feet east of
Camino Tassajara, in the Danville area. (A-8, A-40, A-2) (ZA: U-20, V-20, V-21) (CT
3551.03) (Parcel #204-050-021 , #204-100-012, #204-160-001 , #206-200-003,
#204-080-007, #204-110-003, #204-180-005).
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends this application be denied without prejudice for excessive delays on
the part of the applicant in processing this application.
III. DISCUSSION
This application was filed with the Community Development Department on March 12,
1992 and was subsequently deemed incomplete on April 10, 1992. The applicant
submitted a portion of the requested information on October 11, 1992 and the project
was deemed complete by default on November 11, 1992. The application was
suspended from processing from February 24, 1993 to July 28, 1993 at the request
of the applicant to determine if an ordinance text amendment was necessary. The
applicant was notified on September 28, 1993 of the required information necessary
to complete an initial study of environmental significance. A portion of the requested
information was received on April 6, 1994 with the remainder to be submitted within
the week. No further information was received. The applicant telephoned staff in
early May and indicated the information would be submitted within the week. No
information was provided.
The applicant has filed to provide staff with the requested information numerous times
on a timely manner. Staff, therefore, recommends this application be denied.
DJC/aa
LUPXXXXI/2017-92.DJC
5/31/94
7/26/94
New Golf Enterprises
3466 Mt. Dtablo Blvd., C-205 - O IER V I
Lafayette, CA 94549-3952 I V
(510) 284-7100
NEW � FAX 284-7112 AUG 8 1994
T
GOLF Cf NTRA COSTA COUNTY
(::D ENTERPRISES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING
August 08, 1994
Debbie Chamberlain
Senior Project Planner
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Use Permit Application, County File No. 2017-92 (Golf Course:
Fox Creek Country Club vic Tassajara)
Dear Ms . Chamberlain:
1. Attached please find the additional information requested by
your letter dated September 28, 1993 .
Sincerely,
John B ker
President
cc: Sandford Skaggs, McCutchen Doyle, Walnut Creek
New Goif Enterprises
3466 Mt. Dtablo Blvd., C-205
Lafayette, CA 94549-3952
NEW (:Z) FAX84�112
GOLF
(�D ENTERPRISES
August 08, 1994
Re: Use Permit Application, CCC File No. 2017-92 (Fox Creek Country
Club, vic Tassajara)
In response to specific. requests in CCC-CDD letter of 28 September:
1. RECLAIMED WATER:
a. Route: Overland pipe, buried in existing utility rights
of way, are utilized to bring reclaimed water to the site. The
route from the DSRSD treatment site (southeast of the intersections
of I-680 and I-580 at Johnson Drive in Pleasanton) is overland
north, then east along the utility right of way (URW) of I-580 to
Camino Tassajara, then north along the URW of Camino Tassajara to
Johnston Road, then east along the URW of Johnston Road to a
terminus in the southwest corner of Parcel 204-160-100-7
(the "West Ranch, " which comprises the northeastern portion golf
course) .
b. Requirement: The size of the pipe is about 12 inches in
diameter to supply approximately 500 acre feet (ACFT) per year of
reclaimed water to the site. The .pipe diameter is sized to meet
the peak summer requirements of the golf course (4 . 5 ACFT per day
for days on which temperatures meet or exceed 100 degrees
Fahrenheit - about 14 days on an average summer at this location) .
That requirement is buffered somewhat by the 45 ACFT of storage
afforded in onsite lakes or ponds integrated into the golf course
design. The grade of reclaimed water is Title 22 , Tertiary (non
potable, yet better than what 800 of the country drinks ! ) .
C. Engineering: Final design of the pipeline will be
initiated by DSRSD once the golf course use has been approved.
Detailed engineering and installation of the pipeline takes about.
six months in the dry season, seven months when more two months or
more of the November-March "rainy season" are involved. This is
good fit for a golf project because it takes , 6 to 9 months of
coarse and fine grading, irrigation and drain system installation,
etc. , before the course is ready for grass irrigation. Due to the
approximate rise of 600 feet in elevation from about 100 feet Mean
Sea Level (MSL) at the source to 700 feet MSL. at golf course entry.,
the pipeline requires about three pumps along its 8 mile length.
One pump will be located at the DSRSD source site and two along
Camino Tassajara in the URW. Pumps are electrically driven,
inconspicuous, and look like a. 4 X 5 foot utility box.
d. Trucking: No trucking of water is required for irrigation
of the golf course . Turf growing will not commence on the golf
project until the reclaimed water pipeline is in place and
1
providing irrigation (the cost of trucking in water for course
irrigation would be prohibitive: 150 to 200 tank truckloads per
day! ) . Since this course is not designed to use any on-site
existing or developed water (ie. wells) for course irrigation or
clubhouse use, any construction water requirements (dust reduction)
will be trucked in until the reclaimed water is available at the
site. Worst case (hot day, summer) dust reduction for this site is
about four - 4, 000 gallon water truckloads per day. Normal day
dust reduction requirements are about l 1/2 to 2 truckloads (6, 000
to 8, 000 GPD) .
2 . WETLANDS: No wetlands are lost through the construction of
this golf course project. Indeed, there is a net gain of about 13
acres of lakes. internal to the golf course site.
a. Lakes: The two existing stock ponds .are kept and
improved, as ponds or lakes on the course. Other, new, additional
lakes are created on the course and will be used to store rain
runoff internal to the course/clubhouse and reclaimed water pumped
to the project from off-site.
b. Creeks: No existing streambeds are effected by the
course. The main creek "internal" to the course (unnamed) proceeds
along Johnston Road and is not altered by golf course construction.
and associated drainage. Indeed, the Johnston Road creek is not
part of the course, is left in its natural state, and is not in
play or accessible to golfers. Due to the relative flatness of the
topography along this creek through the golf course site, no
drainage currently occurs from the site into the creek, nor will
any drainage occur as a result of construction.
R
C. Drainage: In the northwest sector of the project along
the little valley which continues southwest of the existing
stockpond, there is some nuisance drainage which currently occurs
in severe rains onto the two adjacent properties immediately to the
west. This drainage does not reach Tassajara Creek. This nuisance
drainage onto the adjacent properties will be eliminated through
course construction and internal drainage back into course ponds .
3 . RUNOFF: No runoff generated internal to the course and
clubhouse effects adjacent properties or creeks . All runoff
generated is collected in course lakes and then utilized later for
course irrigation. The overall effect of course construction is to
reduce runoff: hills tend to be leveled, permitting more rain to
soak into the soil . Additionally, the soil medium is improved from
the existing clay-silt, providing better water retention in the
soil and eliminating soil erosion.
a. Impervious Surfaces: The project creates 11.93 Acres of
impervious services per Table 1, below. This in turn would
generate 11 . 88 CFS in a 1 inch per hour worst case rain. That is
the equivalent of 42, 771 CFH / .98 ACFT per hour for the 50 year
occurrence one inch per hour rain: For 3 inches per day (100 year
occurring day) , 128 , 313 CFD / 2 .94 ACFT per day is produced, or
1 . 49 CFS average over the 24 hour period. That is well within the
capacity of the approximately 242 ACFT of storage provided by on
2
site lakes . Over a nominal normal 20 inch rainfall year,
impervious surfaces "collect" 19 . 7 ACFT, which are deposited in
course lakes through the stormwater drain system.
TABLE 1
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
Created by Fox Creek Project
I14PERVIOUS SURFACES
ITEM SOFT ACRES
CLUBHOUSE FACILITY 166, 666 3 .78
(33, 152 SQFT Total All Floors)
Roofline and Decks 24, 586 .54
Patios 10,400 .24
Parking (300 Cars) 130, 680 3 .00
TENNIS/SWIM/EXERCISE FACILITY 250, 061 5.74
(14, 541 SQFT All Floors)
Roofline 14, 036 .32
Patios & Pools 18,225 .42
Parking (150 Cars) 65,340 1.50
Outdoor Tennis Courts (13) 152,460 3 .50
ACCESS ROADS (New, Hard Surfaced) 106, 848 2 .45 .
(2, 500 X 421 )
TOTAL 523, 575 SQFT 11.97 Acres
b. Normal Surfaces: Whereas, the golf course does not
produce more GPS than grazing pasture (it actually causes less to
be generated) , the course design easily accommodates runoff, even.
at worst case rain rates . If ground saturation is assumed (thereby-
permitting
therebypermitting 1000-. runoff over the nominal 400 acres of watershed
which underlies and feeds the course) , a one inch per hour rain
generates 33 .9 ACFT in one hour, or 102 ACFT in 3 hours. Again,
this is well within the capacity of the internal lake system to
handle. In the winter rainy season the Course Superintendent tries
to utilize as much natural rain/runoff as possible. He, therefore,
keeps the water level in the lower lakes on dry days at about one
third of capacity. Since the lower lakes have a capacity of about
162 ACFT, the course can routinely handle any worst case day
without checking a weather report (2/3rds of 162 ACFT of lower lake
storage capacity = 108 ACFT = immediate capacity to handle the 102.
3
ACFT created on a saturated 3 inch rain worst case day, plus the
2 .94 ACFT generated by impervious surfaces, per para 3 .a. , above) .
4 . HYDROGEOLOGIC EVALUATION: The ENGEO report requested is
attached. The three wells not previously depicted were the three
on the Silva Ranch, to the south. One well on the northwest
section of the Silva property serves the western-most four acre
property north of Johnston Road about 250 yards north of the well .
The other two wells serve the Silva farmhouse and are both within
100 feet northeast of the farmhouse, as shown. It should be
pointed out that none of these wells, or any other shown on any of.
the properties used for the golf course, will be used either for
course irrigation or the clubhouse (cooking, drinking, etc. ) . All
of the water requirements for the complete facility will be met
though the use of reclaimed water. The potable water requirements
(clubhouse, swimming pool) will be met though Super-Still treat-
ment on site of reclaimed water and site runoff collected.
5. BUILDINGS: A site plan showing the Clubhouse, Tennis/Swimming/
Exercise Center, associated parking and access roads is attached.
The 27 hole golf course has the following buildings associated:
a. Clubhouse Facility: Wood Frame/Stucco construction on
concrete piers and concrete retaining walls on uphill (northwest
and northeast) sides . Essentially a 2 1/2 story structure which
does not exceed 35 feet in height when viewed from the down hill
southeast and southwest, it mostly looks like a 1 12/2 story
building from the uphill northwest and northeast. The indoor
finished clubhouse encompasses 38, 452 square feet (SQFT) : 23 , 891
SQFT on the first floor and 14, 561 SQFT on the second floor. This
facility contains a golf pro shop, locker rooms, a major food
i t service operation serving several dinning rooms, lounges, and
administrative offices . An unfinished concrete basement like
structure of 10, 215 SQFT is located below grade under the southwest
portion of the first floor and is utilized for golf cart, golf bag
and furniture storage. Approximately 6, 630 SQFT of deck accessible
from the 2nd floor is planned on top of the first floor mostly to
the southeast and southwest. On grade patio of about 10 , 400 SQFT
is planned off the first floor to the southeast and southwest .
Nominal interior dimensions in feet are: first floor 266 X 96 ;
second floor 248 X 76; cart and bag storage 160 X 64 .
b. Tennis/Swimming/Exercise Facility: Square shaped 2 1/2
story building of about 14, 541 SQFT, of which 12, 321 SQFT are on
the first floor. Located approximately 200 yards east of the Main
Clubhouse in the western part of the area bordered by holes 3 , 4
and 5 of the North Valley Nine. Wood Frame/Stucco construction
which does not exceed 35 feet in height . Each side of square is
111 feet. The building contains 3 indoor handball/ racquetball
courts (20 X 40' each) , exercise and exercise equipment rooms,
locker rooms including shower and toilet facilities, spas, saunas,
pro shop, administrative offices for the tennis, exercise and
swimming professionals and their assistants . The lighted outdoor
tennis courts are of standard size and composite material are built
over appropriately keyed, filled and compacted underlayment materi-
al . A 13th "Stadium Court" includes seating for 300 observers .
4
c. Maintenance Facility: A Butler building type structure of
about 4, 200. SQFT and 1 1/2 stories is located in the Maintenance
area (vicinity of the two houses at the old West Ranch) . It houses
mowers and other course maintenance equipment and provides
maintenance shops for the equipment, offices and lounge for the
Greens Superintendent and his staff of - about 7 people.
6. GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT: The Clubhouse, Exercise/Tennis/Swimming
Facility and Maintenance Barn are located on the standard clay-silt
soils prevalent throughout the site. None are located on or
adjacent to slide areas or surface seismic faults. The soils are
. stable and adequately support pier, retaining wall and grade beam
foundation construction. Grading involved is minimal : soils will
be keyed and compacted in accordance with code and established
engineering practices. No streams, wetlands or springs exist in
the areas of building construction. All building- designs include
supporting storm drain systems which drain to course lakes on site.
5
.. ��i-tl ►3 iT��
Community Contra Harvey oE.f Bragdon
Director of Community pevelopn
Development Costa
Department COUnty
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Phone:
646-2031 - `=
fT�.cOkiK{`
August 25, 1994
John Baker
New Golf Enterprises
3466 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, C-205
Lafayette, CA 94549-3952
Dear Mr. Baker:
RE: 2017-92
I have reviewed the material submitted at the August 8, 1994 Zoning Administrator hearing,
as requested by my letter dated September 28, 1993. The following information was not
provided:
1 . A site plan .showing the improvements to the site and building elevations of each
structure.
Your letter dated August 8, 1994 describes additional structures that were not shown
on the original submittal.
2. Additional structures identified in your August 8, 1994 letter were not described in the
Preliminary Geologic Assessment prepared by Engeo, Inc. This additional assessment
was required in my September 28, 1993 letter.
3. The "Hydrogeologic Elevation", prepared by Engeo, Inc., was not provided which was
required in my September.28, 1993 letter.
Furthermore, your August 8, 1994 letter mentions "The potable water requirements
will be met through super-still treatment on site of reclaimed water and site run-off
collected." There is no conceptual plan in the file which describes this facility. This
information will be required to further process your application.
Since the following information was not provided as requested by the Zoning Administrator
on August 8, 1994 and my letter of September 28, 1993, staff will be recommending denial
of your application.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE CHAMBERLAIN
Senior Planner
DJC/aa -
LTRXVII/2017-92.DJC
cc: 2017-92
a
• Agenda Item #�
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1994 - 1 :30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
NEW GOLF ENTERPRISES (Applicant) - WEST/FLANAGAN/SILVA (Owners), County
File #2017-92: The applicant requests approval to establish a golf course and related
facilities. The subject properties are approximately 616 acres fronting approximately
3,800 feet on the north side of Johnson Road approximately 1 ,350 feet east of
Camino Tassajara, in the Danville area. (A-8, A-40, A-2) (ZA: U-20, V-20, V-21) (CT
3551.03) (Parcel #204-050-021 , #204-100-012, #204-160-001 , #206-200-003,
#204-080-007, #204-110-003, #204-180-005).
IL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends this application be denied without prejudice for excessive delays on
the part of the applicant in processing this application.
III. DISCUSSION
This application was filed with the Community Development Department on March 12,
1992 and was subsequently deemed incomplete on April 10, 1992. The applicant
submitted a portion of the requested information on October 11 , 1992 and the project
was deemed complete by default on November 1 1 , 1992. The application was
suspended from processing from February 24, 1993 to July 28, 1993 at the request
of the applicant to determine if an ordinance text amendment was necessary. The
applicant was notified on September 28, 1993 of the required information necessary
to complete an initial study of environmental significance. A portion of the requested
information was received on April 6, 1994 with the remainder to be submitted within
the week. No further information was received. The applicant telephoned staff in
early May and indicated the information would be submitted within the week. No
information was provided.
At the August 8, 1994 Zoning Administrator hearing, the applicant provided some of
the information requested in staff's September 28, 1993 letter. However, the
applicant has not provided all the required information. The applicant was notified by
letter on August 25, 1994 of staff's requirements.
The applicant has failed to provide staff with the requested information numerous
times on a timely manner. Staff, therefore, recommends this application be denied.
DJC/aa
LUPXXXXI/2017-92.DJC
5/31/94
7/26/94
8/25/94
n
l t t t5\T \C)E
New Golf Enterprises
PO Box 381
Lafayette, CA 94549MKXr-D-3.81
NEW �./ (510)284-7100
FAX 284-7112 er ! ;
S 1 ' 3
. (2--) ENTERPRISES
September 09, 1994
Debbie Chamberlain
Senior Project Planner
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Use Permit Application, County File No. 2017-92 (Golf Course:
Fox Creek Country Club vic Tassajara)
Dear Ms . Chamberlain:
Attached please find the additional information requested by your
letter dated August 25, 1994 (paragraph numbers keyed to yours) .
1. A site plan which includes the Tennis/Swim/Exercise Center and
the associated pool/patio, tennis courts (one stadium court seating
300 and 12 regular tennis courts) , and parking (for 150 vehicles) .
2 . The Preliminary Geologic Assessment prepared by ENGEO (Revised
February 12 , 1992) addresses the general area for course and club-
house development. It shows known slide areas and notes soil types
and distribution. The Tennis/Swim/Exercise Center was located, as
a detached part of the Clubhouse Facility, in the same soil type
clear of any slides with the concurrence of ENGEO: both the main
clubhouse and TSEC/pool/courts are suitable for both sites geolog-
ically. Of course ENGEO also recommends further site specific
soils studies when the final clubhouse design is conducted, which
would most certainly be completed prior to engineering/structure
design of the buildings, pool and courts .
3 . The Hydrogeologic Evaluation is attached. Our extra copies
were misplaced when we. recently moved our offices .
Attached also find a description of the Reverse Osmosis System
which will be used for the potable water requirement for the
clubhouse (drinking, cooking, showers, etc. ) . The Aqua Design
model S-050 meets the needs of the Clubhouse and TSE Center in that
it provides significantly more of a reserve capacity than a
similarly priced "super still" system. The ROS also is
considerably more energy efficient, somewhat more reliable, and
generally well understood by most municipalities (the technology
has been available for a number of years) .
.. gyp.
. The concept is to use reclaimed water as the exclusive source or
"feed supply" to the ROS, since there is virtually no residue
generated by tertiary water. The average daily . "clubhouse
requirement" is 20, 000 gallons of potable water per day; it would
be prudent to have a surge capacity of 35, 000 to 40, 000 GPD for
special events (member tournaments for instance) . The model 5-050
provides a maximum of 50, 000 GPD when operated continuously. .Note
thatthe plant size is 15 X 5 X 7 feet . It is housed in a small
building of that size adjacent to the kitchen/back of the house
area of the main clubhouse. Potable water is stored in a 30, 000
gallon tank located adjacent to the ROS shed (dimensions of tank:
25 foot diameter, 8 foot height) . The storage tank is masked by
landscaping foliage.
Please note the new address of New Golf Enterprises : PO Box 381,
Lafayette, CA 94549-0381. Your letter of August 25, postmarked
August 30 was received by us on September 8, 1994 . Hopefully the
information provided herein is sufficient for consideration of this
application.
Sincerely,
ohn 4Baer
President
cc: Sandford Skaggs, McCutchen Doyle, Walnut Creek
Agenda Item # 2,
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1994 - 1 :30 P.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
NEW GOLF ENTERPRISES (Applicant) - WEST/FLANAGAN/SILVA (Owners), County
File #2017-92: The applicant requests approval to establish a golf course and related
facilities. The subject properties are approximately 616 acres fronting approximately
3,800 feet on the north side of Johnson Road approximately 1 ,350 feet east of
Camino Tassajara, in the Danville area. (A-8, A-40, A-2) (ZA: U-20, V-20, V-21) (CT
3551.03). (Parcel #204-050-021 , #204-100-012, #204-160-001 , #206-200-003,
#204-080-007, #204-110-003, #204-180-005).
II. RECOMMENDATION
Continue indefinitely to allow staff time to coordinate with Dublin-San Ramon Services
District on the issue of reclaimed water, and process the appropriate environmental
document.
Ill. DISCUSSION
The applicant has provided staff with the information that has been requested for the
past two years. The project has been modified to include a potable water treatment
plant, which will require approval of the County Health Services Department.
Furthermore, a verifiable source of water has not been determined for the project. The
applicant has received authorization from the Dublin-San Ramon Services District to
participate in a planning study. This authorization does not guarantee the applicant will
receive water. The applicant is required to pay Dublin-San Ramon Sanitary District
appropriate fee to .review the potential for providing water. The applicant is also
responsible for contracting through the Dublin-San Ramon Services District for .a
consultant to complete the environmental review.
The County will be the lead agency in processing the environmental documents, with
the Dublin-San Ramon Services District as a responsible agency. Since this project is
relying solely on recycled water for water service to the property, all the impacts
associated with providing reclaimed water to the site need to be examined.
DJC/aa
LUPXXXXI/2017-92.DJC
5/31/94
7/26/94
8/25/94
9/27/94
b,XH Ir 7 . .�
New Golf Enterprises
3466 Mt. Diablo Blvd., C-205
Lafayette, CA 94549-3952
NEW (510)284-7100
FAX284-7112 ��I I
GOLF ;r . Q, P 3. 24
<:ZD ENTERPRISES
LL
April 06, 1994
_Debbie Aime
Senior Project Planner
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Use Permit Application, County File No. 2017-92 (Golf Course:
Fox Creek Country Club vic Tassajara)
Dear Ms. Aimee:
1. . Attached please find the text of the additional information
requested by your letter dated September 28, 1993 (also included) .
The site plan, building elevations and copy of ENGEO' s Hydrogeo-
logic Evaluation will be forwarded within the week.
Sincerely,
John L.4Baer
President
cc: Sandford Skaggs, McCutchen Doyle, Walnut Creek
�(ca h no+ prDYi d.Ld
New Golf Enterprises i
3466 Mt.Diablo Blvd., C-205
Lafayette, CA 94549-3952
N E (510)284-7100
FAX 284-7112
GOLF
(Z) ENTERPRISES
April 06, 1994
Re: Use Permit Application, CCC File No. 2017-92 (Fox Creek Country
Club, vic Tassajara)
In response to specific requests in CCC-CDD letter of 28 September:
1. RECLAIMED WATER:
a. Route: Overland pipe, buried in existing utility rights
of way, are utilized to bring reclaimed water to the site. The
route from the DSRSD treatment site (southeast of the intersections
of I-680 and I-580 at Johnson Drive in Pleasanton) is overland
north, then east along the utility right of way (URW) of I-580 to
.Camino Tassajara, then north along the URW of Camino Tassajara to
Johnston Road, then east along the URW of Johnston Road to a
terminus in the southwest corner of Parcel 204-160-100-7
(the "West Ranch, " which comprises the northeastern portion golf
course) .
b. Requirement: The size of the pipe is about 12 inches in
diameter to supply approximately 500 acre feet (ACFT) per year of
. reclaimed water to the site. The pipe diameter is sized to meet
the peak summer requirements of the golf course" (4 .5 ACFT per day
for days on which temperatures meet or exceed 100 degrees
Fahrenheit - about 14 days on an average summer at this location) .
That requirement is buffered somewhat by the 45 ACFT of. storage
afforded in onsite lakes or ponds integrated into the golf course
design. The grade of reclaimed water is Title 22, Tertiary (non-
potable, yet better than what 800 of the country drinks ! ) .
C. Engineering: Final design of the pipeline will _ be
initiated by DSRSD once the golf course use has been approved.
Detailed engineering and installatioh of the pipeline takes about
six months in the dry season, seven months when more two months or
more of the November-March "rainy season" are involved. This is
good fit for a golf project because it takes 6 to 9 months -of
coarse and fine grading, irrigation and drain system installation,
etc. , before the course is ready for grass irrigation. Due to the
approximate rise of 600 feet in elevation from about 100 feet Mean
Sea Level (MSL) at the source to 700 feet MSL at golf course entry,
the pipeline requires about three pumps along its 8 mile length.
One pump will be located at -the DSRSD source site and two along
Camino Tassajara in the URW. Pumps are electrically driven,
inconspicuous, and look like a 4 X 5 foot utility box.
d. Trucking: . No trucking of water is required for irrigation
of the golf course . Turf growing will not commence on the golf
project until the reclaimed water pipeline is in place and
1
providing irrigation (the cost of trucking in water for course
irrigation would be prohibitive: 150 to 200 tank truckloads per
day! ) . Since this course is not designed to use any on-site
existing or developed water (ie. wells) for course irrigation or
clubhouse use, any construction water requirements (dust reduction)
will be trucked in until the reclaimed water -is available at the
site. Worst case (hot day, summer) dust reduction for this site is
about four 4, 000 gallon water truckloads per day. Normal day
dust reduction requirements are about 1 1/2 to 2 truckloads (6, 000
to 8, 000 GPD) .
2 . WETLANDS: No wetlands are lost through the construction of
this golf course project. Indeed, there is a net gain of about 13
acres of lakes internal to the golf course site.
a. Lakes: The two existing stock ponds are kept and
improved, as ponds or lakes on the course. Other, new, additional
lakes are created on the course and will be used to store rain
runoff internal to the course/clubhouse and reclaimed water pumped
to the project from off-site.
b. Creeks: No existing streambeds are effected by the
course. The main creek "internal" to the course (unnamed) proceeds
along Johnston Road and is not altered by golf course construction
and associated drainage. Indeed, the Johnston Road creek is not
part of the course, is left in its natural state, and is not in
play -or accessible to golfers. Due to the relative flatness of .the
topography along this creek through the golf course site, no
drainage currently occurs from the site into the creek, nor will
any drainage occur as a result of construction.
c. Drainage: In the northwest sector of the project along
the little valley which continues southwest of the existing
stockpond, there is some nuisance drainage which currently occurs
in severe rains onto the two adjacent properties immediately to the
west. This drainage does not reach Tassajara Creek. This nuisance
drainage onto the adjacent properties will be eliminated through
course construction and internal drainage back into course ponds .
3 . RUNOFF: No runoff generated internal to the course and
clubhouse effects adjacent properties or creeks. All runoff
generated is collected in course lakes and then utilized later for
course irrigation. The overall effect of course construction is to
reduce runoff : hills tend to be leveled, permitting more rain to
soak into the soil . Additionally, the soil medium is improved from
the existing clay-silt, providing better water retention in the
soil and eliminating soil erosion.
a. Impervious Surfaces: The project creates 11 . 93 Acres of
impervious services per Table 1, below. This in turn would
generate 11 . 88 CFS in a 1 inch. per hour worst case rain. That is
the equivalent of 42 , 771 CFH / .98 ACFT per hour for the 50 year
occurrence one inch per hour rain. For 3 inches per day (100 year
occurring day) , 128, 313 CFD / 2 . 94 . ACFT per day is produced, or
1 .49 CFS average over the 24 hour period. That is well within the
capacity of the approximately 242 ACFT of storage provided by on
2
site lakes . Over a nominal normal 20 inch rainfall year,
impervious surfaces "collect" 19 .7 ACFT, which are deposited in
course lakes through the stormwater drain system.
TABLE 1
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
Created by Fox Creek Project
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
ITEM SOFT ACRES
CLUBHOUSE FACILITY 162, 666 3 .74
(33, 152 SQFT Total All Floors)
Roofline and Decks 21, 586 .50
Patios 10,400 .24
Parking (300 Cars) 130, 680 3 .00
TENNIS/SWIM/EXERCISE FACILITY 250, 061 5.74
(14, 541 SQFT All Floors)
Roofline 14, 036 .32
Patios & Pools 18,225 .42
Parking (150 Cars) 65,340 1.50
Outdoor Tennis Courts (13) 152,460 3 .50
. ACCESS ROADS (New, Hard Surfaced) 106, 848 2 .45
(2, 500 X 421 )
TOTAL 519,575 SQFT 11.93 Acres
b. Normal Surfaces: Whereas, the golf course does not
produce more GPS than grazing pasture (it actually causes less to
be generated) , the course design easily accommodates runoff, even
at worst case rain rates. If ground saturation is assumed (thereby
permitting 1000-. runoff over the nominal 400 acres of watershed
which underlies and feeds the course) , a one inch per hour rain
generates 33 . 9 ACFT in one hour, or 102 ACFT in ,3 hours . Again,
this is well within the capacity of the internal lake system to
handle . In the winter rainy season the Course Superintendent tries
to utilize as much natural rain/runoff as possible. He, therefore,
keeps the water level in the lower lakes on dry days at about one
third of capacity. Since the lower lakes have a capacity of about
162 ACFT, the course can routinely handle any worst case day
without checking a weather report (2/3rds of 162 ACFT of lower lake
storage capacity = 108 ACFT = immediate capacity to handle the 102
3
ACFT created on a saturated 3 inch rain worst` case day, plus the
2 . 94 ACFT generated by impervious surfaces, per para 3 .a. , above) .
4. HYDROGEOLOGIC EVALUATION: The ENGEO report requested is
attached. The three wells not previously depicted were the three
on the Silva Ranch, to the south. One well on the northwest
section of the Silva property serves the western-most four acre
property north of Johnston Road about 250 yards north of the well .
The other two wells serve the Silva farmhouse and are both within
1.00 feet northeast of the farmhouse, as shown. It should be
pointed out that none of these wells, or any other shown on any of .
the properties used for the golf course, will be used either for
course irrigation or the clubhouse (cooking, drinking, etc. ) . All
of the water requirements for the complete facility will be met
though the use of reclaimed water. The potable water requirements
(clubhouse, swimming pool) will be met though Super-Still treat-
ment on site of reclaimed water and site runoff . collected.
5. BUILDINGS: A site plan showing the Clubhouse, Tennis/Swimming/
Exercise Center, associated parking , and access roads is attached.
The 27 hole golf course has the following buildings associated:
a. Clubhouse Facility: Wood Frame/Stucco construction on
concrete piers and concrete retaining walls on uphill (northwest
and northeast) sides. Essentially a 2 1/2 story structure which
does not exceed 35 feet in height when viewed from the down hill
southeast and southwest, it mostly looks like a 1 12/2 story
building from the uphill northwest and northeast. . The indoor
finished clubhouse : encompasses 33, 152 square feet (SQFT) : 19 , 891
SQFT on the first floor and 13, 261 SQFT on the second floor. This
facility contains a golf pro shop, locker rooms, a major food.
service operation serving several dinning rooms, lounges, and
administrative offices . An unfinished concrete basement like
structure of 10, 215 SQFT is located below grade under the southwest
portion of the first floor and is utilized for golf cart, golf bag
and furniture storage. Approximately 6, 630 SQFT of deck accessible
from the 2nd floor is planned on- top of the first floor mostly to
the southeast and southwest. On grade patio of about 10,400 SQFT
is planned off the first floor to the southeast and southwest .
Nominal interior dimensions in feet are: first floor 311 X 64;
second floor 288 X 46; cart and bag storage 160 X 64 .
b. Tennis/Swimming/Exercise Facility: Square shaped 2 1/2
story building of about 14, 541 SQFT, of which 12 , 321 SQFT are on
the first floor. Located approximately 200 yards east of the* Main
Clubhouse in the western part of the area bordered by holes 3 , 4
and 5 of the North Valley Nine. Wood Frame/Stucco construction
which does not exceed 35 feet in height. Each side of square is
111 feet. The building contains 3 indoor handball/ racquetball
courts (20 X 401 each) , exercise and exercise equipment rooms,
locker rooms including shower and toilet facilities, spas, saunas,
pro shop, administrative offices for the tennis, exercise and
swimming professionals and their assistants . The lighted outdoor
tennis courts are of standard size and composite material are built
over appropriately keyed, filled and compacted underlayment materi-
al . A 13th "Stadium Court" includes seating for 300 observers .
4
, r
c. Maintenance Facility: A Butler building type structure of
about 4, 200 SQFT and 1 1/2 stories is located in the Maintenance
area (vicinity of the two houses at the old West Ranch) . It houses
mowers and other course maintenance equipment and provides
maintenance shops for the equipment, offices and lounge for the
Greens Superintendent and his staff of about 7 people.
6. GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT: The Clubhouse, Exercise/Tennis/Swimming
Facility and Maintenance Barn are located on the standard clay-silt
soils prevalent throughout the site. None are located on or
adjacent to slide areas or surface seismic faults. The soils are
stable and adequately support pier, retaining wall and grade beam
foundation construction. Grading involved is minimal : soils will
be keyed and compacted in accordance with code and established
engineering practices . No streams, wetlands or springs exist in
the areas of building construction. All building designs include
supporting storm drain systems which drain to course lakes on site.
5
2
Based on the above information, staff recommends the application be denied with
.prejudice for excessive delays by the applicant.
If the Zoning Administrator determines there is merit in denying the application without
prejudice, allowing the applicant the opportunity to refile the application immediately,
the following information is required to process the application:
A. Preliminary engineering studies to determine the approximately location of the
pipeline and pumping facilities.
B. Detailed information on the proposed Reverse Osmosis Water Demineralization
System or other system to provide potable water to the site that is acceptable;
to the County Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division, and
the State Department of Health Services.
DJC/aa
LUPXXXXI/2017-92.DJC
5/31/94
7/26/94
8/25/94
9/27/94
1/3/95
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
10 OCTOBER 1994 - 1 :30 P.M.
Item #2 on the Agenda.
LAND USE PERMIT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
NEW GOLF ENTERPRISES (Applicant) - WEST/FLANAGAN/SILVA (Owners) - #2017-
92
The applicant requests approval to establish a golf course and related facilities. The
subject properties are approximately 616 acres fronting approximately 3,800-ft., on
the north side of Johnston Road, approximately 1,350-ft., east of Camino Tassajara,
in the Danville area.(A-80, A-40, A-2) (ZA: U-20)- (CT3551 .03) (Parcel #204-050-
021, #204-100-012, #204-160-001, #206-200-003, #204-080-007, #204-110-003,
#204-180-005), (Continued from 9-12-94) - DT (RHD)
ROSE MARIE PIETRAS: Staff is recommending continuing this indefinitely to allow
staff time to coordinate with Dublin-San Ramon Services District on the issue of
reclaimed water and to process the appropriate environmental documents.
MR. BARRY: Thank you. Is the applicant present?
MR. JOHN BAKER: I'm with New Golf Enterprises. What we're requesting is a
continuance to a date certain to determine what the process will be for approving and
obtaining reclaimed water. We think that's the logical next step and if we can do it
in a finite period of time, I think we can determine what the process is and that would
be a big help to us.
MR. BARRY: Is there anything else you would like to add?
MR. BAKER: Well, in the staff report, there is a discussion---a minor discussion about
the potable water. We're totally flexible on how the potable water is done, whether
it's through the reverse osmosis system, a super still or pumping water in the ground
and coming back up through wells, whatever works---that's for the clubhouse
requirement.
MR. BARRY: Sir, how much time do you think you'd need? You asked for a date
certain. How much time would you like for pulling together the various information
that the staff is looking into?
MR. BAKER: Well, what we're looking for is a determination of what the process is;
what---really, it's a function of how quickly the staff and staff from the Dublin-San
Ramon Water Services District can meet and agree and I would think that---we would
hope that within a month that meeting could happen and we could determine what
the required steps would be.
MR. BARRY: Well, I'm reluctant to continue this for a month without knowing that
we're going to have a staff report. Certainly, the environmental documentation will
have to be done; whether that is in the form of an environmental impact report or a
mitigated declaration, or what-have-you, it seems to me that given the processing
requirements for any of those documents, that a month is not going to be sufficient
time. It may be sufficient time to pull together the technical information upon which
to perfect the request and the proposal; but, to analyze it and to document it for
CEOA purposes is probably insufficient.
I'm going to suggest to you that three (3) months continuance would be appropriate.
MR. BAKER: That's fine.
MR. BARRY: Okay. Is there anything else that you'd like to add to your testimony?
MR. BAKER: No. Thank you.
MR. BARRY: Thank you very much. I have a speaker's.card from Jim Blickenstaff,
2410 Talavera Drive, San Ramon, California, who indicates that he requests postpone-
ment; he opposes the project; he has given us a written request which among other
things asks that additional notification be provided to the Preserve Area Ridgelands
Committee, Save Mt. Diablo, Mt. Diablo Audobond, Sierra Club and Save our Hills.
t: . In continuing this today I would not be asking for additional noticing since it would
be a continued public hearing; but, I would ask that the staff take this in submission
and so notify the organizations as to the continuance date should one be granted.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? I have a speakers card for
a Mr. Steve Williams. 'Would you like to speak, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams spoke from the audience section of the Board Room. He is not audible
to the transcriber.
MR. BARRY: Mr. Williams has indicated that he would like to be notified as well and
would ask staff to please do so along with the other organizations.
MR. TONY TEXIERA, 6615 Johnston Road, Danville, California. I didn't plan on
speaking today. I wanted to hear what was going to be said; but, what I don't
understand is they applied for this in 1992 and now they're just figuring out they are
going to have to get together with the County about water. I don't quite understand
that. It's kind of frustrating for me because I have to take off work to be here and
this is going to go on and on. It started, I believe, in August and now it will be
another three months down the road when, in fact, I thought they applied for this
originally two years ago. And., I'm not really saying I'm against the project. All I'm
-2_
saying is that I want to know what's going on because it seems like it's just going to
go on forever. That's really all I have to say. It's kind of frustrating though.
MR. BARRY: And, I understand your frustration and I'm sure that the applicant does
too, In terms of the time limit that you alluded to, there is a stipulation in the
California Environmental Quality Act that a delay on the part of the applicant in
providing information necessary for the environmental review will result in extension
of the time limits in it; so, that means if we don't have the information to do the
environmental document,that sometimes these things do get continued an reasonable
amount of time from the perspective of someone like yourself who has to take time
off to come down and I do apologize for the process in that respect. We try to make
sure that everyones' constitutional rights are protected.
MR. BAKER: Right. I understand. 1 was going to add that with what they've
submitted so far---because I.don't know what they have submitted---I take it that the
County is happy with that, because I don't they haven't submitted anything for I
guess two years and I think at the last hearing I was at they said that they were
waiting for some more information from this group. Now, are we saying that we've
accepted that portion of the information that they've supplied and now we're going
under something else or what are we saying?
MR. BARRY: The County has deemed the application submittal complete for the
purposes of proceeding with the process. Now, what that means is that the next step
is to go into the environmental review. Additional information is needed to complete
that environmental review and that's what we're trying to complete at this point. So,
if you are interested in reviewing the project files, it's all a matter of public record and
the project planner is Debbie Chamberlain and you can call her, make an appointment
and come in and take a look at the file at any time that is mutually convenient for you
and staff.
MR. BAKER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BARRY: So,' if there is no one else to speak on this item---I'm looking now at the
schedule---we don't seem to have the 1995 meeting schedule. At the risk of unduly
delaying the people who are waiting for their hearing, I'm going to ask staff to call
upstairs for a calendar of 1995 so they can give me a date that's essentially three
months from today in order to continue this hearing to a date certain and we'll go
ahead with the next item on the agenda.
This matter will be continued to the meeting of January 9, 1995.
_3_
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
9 JANUARY 1995 -1:30 P.M.
Item #3 on the agenda,- Decision only.
LAND USE PERMIT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
NEW GOLF ENTERPRISES (Applicant) - WEST/FLANAGAN/SILVA (Owners) - #2017-
92
The applicant requests approval to establish a golf course and related facilities. The
subject properties are approximately 616 acres fronting approximately 3,800-ft., on
the north side of Johnston Road, approx., 1,350-ft., east of Camino Tassajara, in the
Danville area. (A-80, A-40, A-2) (ZA:U-20) (CT-3551 .03) (Parcel #204-050-021,
#204-100-012, . #204-160-001, #206-200-003, #204-080-007, #204-110-003,
#204-180-005) - (Continued from 10/10/94) (DC) - (RHD)
(The following dialogue picks up with the Zoning Administrator talking after the
applicant gives his rebuttal)
MR. DRAKE: I have two concerns with this project. One is that the applicant
apparently realized early on.that in order to establish this project there would have to
be major provision for extension of water to the site and is only now beginning to
engage a potential water district about providing that water and I think these things.
ought to be identified early on in the process rather than after the application is filed
with the County.
My other concern is that the sheer scope of extending a water Fine eight (8) miles to
the site, costing $2,000,000. with the sole purpose of serving this site is---I'm not
sure that it's realistic given today's planning considerations in terms of annexations
and decisions that would have to involve other properties and may raise a number of
planning issues beyond the scope of this project.
I'm also concerned that there hasn't, until the day of the hearing that we seem to get
any response from the applicant from the previous identification on the necessary
information that we need to pursue this thing and I don't want to trouble the
neighbors further on this matter. That's not to say that ultimately down the line it
may be possible to demonstrate the feasibility of establishing a golf course on this site
and we would be Willing to consider that; but, based on the existing circumstances
for that area, I'm not prepared today to come to the conclusion that there is a
reasonable possibility that the County is likely to be able to approve this project.
So, based on those matters, I am going to go along with the staff recommendation
and deny the application. At the same time, I would ask staff to advise the applicant
of his appeal rights if he chooses to appeal this decision to the next higher body.
_1_
MRS. CHAMBERLAIN: To clarify your decision, briefly, that is denial with prejudice?
MR. DRAKE: Yes. Basically, what that means is that we would not accept an
application within a year's time frame unless it addresses the issues that have been
raised to date in terms of level of information. We would have to have a substantially
changed application. It would have to address the water provision issues, the
reclaimed water issues to the site---you would need to demonstrate to us that there
is a feasible program from a planning, engineering and financial perspective to provide
for reclaimed water from D.S.R.S.D., or some other water source to the site. In the
absence of that within a one-year time frame, we would not accept an application,
unless you file an appeal within ten days.
MRS. CHAMBERLAIN: The appeal must be filed within a ten-day period which expires
on January 19, 1995 at 5:00 P.M. The appeal must state the grounds for the appeal
and be accompanied by the appropriate fee and noticing envelopes. An appeal
instruction hand-out is on the railing. This item, if appealed, would then be heard by
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission at a date to be specified later
and notification would be mailed to anyone who testified at the numerous hearings
that have been held or is within 300-ft., of the subject property.
MR. DRAKE: And, to anyone who submitted green sign-in slips.
There was no further discussion on this item.
-2-
j Agenda Item #
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1995 - 1 :30 P.M.
1. INTRODUCTION
NEW GOLF ENTERPRISES (Applicant) - WEST%FLANAGAN/SILVA (Owners), County
File #2017-92: The applicant requests approval to establish a golf course and related
facilities. The subject properties are approximately 616 acres fronting approximately
3,800 feet on .the north side of Johnson Road approximately 1,350 feet east of
Camino Tassajara, in the Danville area. (A-8, A-40, A-2) (ZA: U-20, V-20, V-21) (CT
3551 .03) (Parcel #204-050-021 , #204-100-012, #204-160-001 , #206-200-003,
#204-080-007, #204-110-003, #204-180-005).
This item was continued by the Zoning Administrator on October 10, 1994 to allow
the applicant the opportunity to meet with Dublin-San Ramon Service District to
resolve the issues of providing reclaimed water and potable water to the project site.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends this application be denied with prejudice for excessive delays by the
applicant in processing the application.
III. DISCUSSION
Staff,the applicant and representatives of Dublin-San Ramon Service District (DSRSD)
met on October 27, 1994 to discuss the issue of providing reclaimed water to the
project site. The applicant initiated a planning study with DSRSD in 1992, but no
further work has been completed to assess the viability of providing reclaimed water
to the project site. DSRSD has preliminarily suggested, if all the appropriate studies
are completed and infrastructure and planning cost are covered, they are not opposed
to servicing the site. Staff and DSRSD indicated to the applicant, preliminary
engineering studies would be required before completing the environmental review for
the project.
The meeting with DSRSD further focused the applicant's proposal to install a Reverse
Osmosis Water Demineralization System to provide potable water. Staff requested the
applicant meet with the County Health Services Department, Environmental Health
Division, and the State Health Services Department to discuss the proposed system.
To staff's knowledge, no meetings have occurred and the applicant has not provided
any new information to staff on the issue.
�nEt t �T
New Golf Enterprises
Y&XY&P_EhHB11Xvd3.81"x J
Lafayette, CA 94549-3952 L—Vo cG --?
(510)284-7100
NEWC FAX 284-7112
GOLF
(�D ENTERPRISES January 09 , 1994
Debbie Chamberlain, Senior Project Planner
Community Development Department, Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Use Permit Application, County File No. 2017-92 (Golf Course:
Fox Creek Country Club vic Tassajara) ; Project Process Status
Dear Ms . Chamberlain:
1. This letter informs you and staff about the status of project.
2 . At a meeting attended by yourself and representattives of the Dublin
San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) on October 27, 1994, it was agreed
that there were essentially 3 steps remaining prior to project approval,
all of which deal with water issues:
a. Resolving with the County and Health Services Departments how
the potable water for clubhouse use would be accomplished. The likely
solution would utilize reclaimed water as a source, turning it into
potable water though either an injection/well, reverse osmosis or still
type system.
b. Conducting a "Routing" and Engineering Study under the auspices
of DSRSD. Such a study would determine the appropriate route, size and
probable cost of a pipeline from the DSRSD' s Pleasanton facility to the
proposed Fox Creek/ Johnston Road site.
c. Once the routing study is completed, an environmental review on
the pipeline would be conducted under the leadership of the county.
3 . In preparation for the potable water conversion determination, para
2 .a. , above, New Golf Enterprises has obtained the services of an
engineering firm which speL4alizes in this type of work and which is
familiar with the general location. It has been forwarded the
hydrogeologic and geotecnical studies conducted for this application in
preparation for discussions with the state and county Health Services
Departments . We expect that part of the process to be completed and
resolved within another month.
4 . Concerning the routing study with/by DRSRD, we expect funding shortly
to be able to start that process within 2 to 3 weeks. DSRSD has indi-
cated a window of about 2 1/2 to 4 months to complete that study. The
subsequent environmental review timing would be study results dependent .
5 . Therefore, request a continuation of our application in order to
permit the completion of the process discussed in this letter.
Sincerely ,
John L. B er
�X1 t l 6 IT 1�L
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
9 JANUARY 1995 - 1:30 P.M.
Item #3 on the agenda - Decision' only.
LAND USE PERMIT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
NEW GOLF ENTERPRISES (Applicant) - WEST/FLANAGAN/SILVA (Owners) - #2017-
92
The applicant requests approval to establish a golf course and related facilities. The
subject properties are approximately 616 acres fronting approximately 3,800-ft., on
the north side of Johnston Road, approx., 1,350-ft., east of Camino Tassajara, in the
Danville area. (A-80, A-40, A-2) (ZA:U-20) (CT-3551 .03) (Parcel #204-050-021,
#204-100-012, #204-160-001, #206-200-003, #204-080-007, #204-110-003,
#204-180-005) - (Continued from 10/10/94) (DC) - (RHD)
(The following dialogue picks up with the Zoning Administrator talking after the
applicant gives his rebuttal)
MR. DRAKE: I have two concerns with this project. One is that the applicant
apparently realized early on that in order to establish this project there would have to
be major provision for extension of water to the site and is only now beginning to
engage a potential water district about providing that water and I think these things
ought to be identified early on in the process rather than after the application is filed
with the County.
My other concern is that the sheer scope of extending a water line eight (8) miles to
the site, costing $2,000,000. with the sole purpose of serving this site is---I'm not
sure that it's realistic given today's planning considerations in terms of annexations
and decisions that would have to involve other properties and may raise a number of
planning issues beyond the scope of this project.
I'm also concerned that there hasn't, until the day of the hearing that we seem to get
any response from the applicant from the previous identification on the necessary
information that we need to pursue this thing and I don't want to trouble the
neighbors further on this matter. That's not to say that ultimately down the line it
may be possible to demonstrate the feasibility of establishing a golf course on this site
and we would be willing to consider that; but, based on the existing circumstances
for that area, I'm not prepared today to come to the conclusion that there is a
reasonable possibility that the County.is likely to be able to approve this project.
So, based on those matters, I am going to go along with the staff recommendation
and deny the application. At the same time, I would ask staff to advise the applicant
of his appeal rights if he chooses to appeal this decision to the next higher body.
-1-
MRS. CHAMBERLAIN: To clarify your decision, briefly, that is denial with prejudice?
MR. DRAKE: Yes. Basically, what that means is that we would not accept an
application within a year's time frame unless it addresses the issues that have been
raised to date in terms of level of information. We would have to have a substantially
changed application. It would have to address the water provision issues, the
reclaimed water issues to the site---you would need to demonstrate to us that there
is a feasible program from a planning, engineering and financial perspective to provide
for reclaimed water from D.S.R.S.D., or some other water source to the site. In the
absence of that within a one-year time frame, we would not accept an application,
unless you file an appeal within ten days.
MRS. CHAMBERLAIN: The appeal must be filed within a ten-day period which expires
on January 19, 1995 at 5:00 P.M. The appeal must state the grounds for the appeal
and .be accompanied by the appropriate fee and noticing envelopes. An appeal
instruction hand-out is on the railing. This item, if appealed, would then be heard by
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission at a date to be specified later
and notification would be mailed to anyone who testified at the numerous hearings
that have been held or is within 300-ft., of the subject property.
MR. DRAKE: And, to anyone who submitted green sign-in slips.
There was no further discussion on this item.
_2_
C
Community Contra Harvey E.of Commuommu ragdon
Director of nity Development
Development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 945530095 z
Phone: 646-2031 January 30, 1995
a court
John L. Baker
New Golf Enterprises
P.O. Box 381
Lafayette, CA 94549
Dear Mr. Baker:
This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter of appeal dated January 19, 1995 for application
#2017-92, which was denied by the Zoning Administrator, on January 9, 1995.
Your appeal will be heard by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals.
This office will notify you, by letter, when the appeal has been scheduled for hearing before the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. You should be aware that you or your representative
should be present at the hearing.
Also, please note that in order to proceed promptly with the scheduling of this appeal, you should
submit 9 full sized maps for the Board of Appeals, a list of names and addresses for all properties
within 300 feet of your property along with stamped (NOT METERED), self-addressed envelopes to
each individual property owner, but do not include a return address, no later than Monday, February
5, 1995. Please direct the maps, envelopes and list to: Community Development Department,
Attention: Debbie Chamberlain, 651 Pine Street, North Wing - 4th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553-0095.
If you.have any questions regarding this matter, please call Debbie Chamberlain at 646-2031.
Sincerely yours,
01,
Robert Drake
Senior Planner
RD/df
L3:2017-92.apl
cc: File/aa
West/Flanagan
Public Works
Attn: Mitch Avalon
New Golf Enterprises �v-"` "; 1
PO Box 381 CONTRA COSTA
Lafayette, CA 94549
NEW CZ) FAX
284-7100
FAX 284 7112 95 JAN 19 PM 5: 08
GOLF
CZ) ENTERPR I SEScK4
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Appeal ICO Use Permit Application, County File No. 2017-92 (Golf
Course: Fox Creek Country Club, in the vicinity of Tassajara)
1. This letter appeals the January 9, 1995 decision of the Zoning
Administrator to deny referenced application with prejudice.
2 . The reasons for denial stated by the hearing officer:
a. The scope of a project to pipe reclaimed water to the project
site from a Dublin San Ramon Services District treatment plant, approx-
imately 8 miles at a cost of about $2 , 000, 000 "seemed unrealistic. ,,
b. Nobody at the hearing made statements for the project.
c. Since staff had not received a letter from applicant advising
staff of water route study and clubhouse potable water matters until
the day of the hearing, staff had recommended denial by reason of the
applicant taking too long to complete the requested work.
3 . The reason for appeal: (From the "Appeal Instructions" sheet made
available by the Community Development Department, Item 3 . , under Land
Use Permits, et al, "Specified findings of the planning division
appealed from are not supported by the evidence before it. " )
a. The scope of the pipeline is realistic. The applicant notes
that this reason given by the hearing officer is a new issue, with
which. the county does not normally interest itself: economics of this
project has not been a concern in the past. However, this is _what an
8 mile long pipeline, estimated to cost about $2, 000, 000, enables :
1. ) The construction of a course and clubhouse; the
reclaimed water pipeline costs about one tenth of the total project.
2 . ) Once constructed, and on a per annum basis, the golf
course facility will generate about 35 full time jobs with a payroll of
slightly over $1, 000, 000 , it will add real estate taxes' of about
$750, 000, sales taxes of over $250, 000 and improve surrounding property
values, which would greatly improve real estate tax returns to the
county over time. When it is mature, the club facility will generate
in excess of a 20% return, which it must do to attract the investment
capital necessary. Most of the jobs and material used in construction
of the course and clubhouse will .come from within the county, adding
even more jobs, income and taxes .
3 . ) It does this at no "cost" to the county. Because there
is no housing associated with this project, there is no impact on
2
traffic, schools or other public services . The golf course. is able to
stand on its own economically precisely because of where it is located:
if it were in an area where sewer, potable and reclaimed water were
already available, the land would be too expensive, requiring some
housing as part of the project. The project is completely self-
contained, requiring no outside source of potable water or sewer.
4 . ) Because the course is not limited by residential
considerations, it is a "golfers course, " by design. This will make it
one of the better golf facilities in the state, adding to the stature
of the county and area. At baseline the project provides recreation
for 400 families . Economics, mostly land costs, dictate that the
facility must be private. Very few public courses are being built in
California these days unless on publicly owned land. And few munici-
palities are willing to risk their credit ratings to get one built.
5 . ) It is an environmentally sensitive project: due to the
natural suitability of the site for a golf course, it requires sub-
stantially less grading than what is typical in the West. It also does.
not effect wetlands, fish or wildlife, or endangered species of any
kind, nor is there drainage off of the project onto adjacent prop-
erties . . Indeed, the use of Title 22 Tertiary reclaimed water for
course irrigation will recharge the surrounding aquifer over time,
improving the well capacities of adjacent properties. Essentially, the
project continues to do what the land is currently doing: grow grass.
b. No one appeared at the hearing to speak for the project.
1. ) Staff indicated to applicant that the hearing was
basically for the purpose of obtaining- a continuance in order to
complete the reclaimed water routing study. Therefore, the applicant
1 instructed the many interested neighbors and other parties to save time
(their' s and staff) by testifying at a future hearing, when the water
studies were complete.
2 . ) The relatively late notice to the applicant by staff of
the actual meeting date: notice of the meeting (a copy of - the staff
report) was mailed on Wednesday, January 4, and received on Friday,
January 6, the workday before the Monday hearing date, January 9 , 1995 .
i
C. Staff had not received a letter or other communication from
applicant advising staff on progress of water routing study and club-
house potable water matters by the time she generated her staff report
for the hearing schedule; therefore, staff had recommended denial by
reason of the applicant not proceeding with the requested work:
1. ) At the meeting with county staff and DSRSD on October
27, 1994, a "process" was agreed to for "ensuring the project has a
verifiable source of reclaimed water. " This "process" included
approximate times for each "step. " Staff clearly understood that these
steps would most likely take more than the 2 working months remaining
to complete before either January hearing date. When asked by
applicant at the conclusion of. that meeting whether she required, or
would like, a letter about the "process, " she indicated to applicant
that would not be necessary - to proceed with the work and indicate how
it was progressing for the January continuation hearing, whenever that
was, - would suffice . It should be noted that once in receipt of our
progress letter on January 9 , staff recommended continuance.
. „ 3
2 . ) The late receipt of notification of the meeting date
(Friday before a Monday meeting) and staff busy schedule prevented a
status letter from being relayed to staff prior to the meeting. Staff
was told by applicant in a phone conversation on Friday, 1/6/95, that
the work was proceeding: an engineering firm had been hired to study
and negotiate the conversion of reclaimed to potable water issue with
state and county health services departments; funding of the routing
study was to be forthcoming in January.. Staff was communicated with
prior to the hearing, but not before she wrote her staff report
recommending denial due lack of progress.
3 . ) The applicant was never notified, technically, of the
date of the hearing until the receipt of the staff report, on Friday,
1/6/95.. At the Zoning Administrator hearing on October 10, staff had
recommended a continuation of one year to resolve the reclaimed water
routing and potable water conversion matters. The applicant requested
continuation, instead, to a date certain about three months hence: a
joint meeting between county staff and DSRSD. personnel would indicate
a much more specific process which should take three to six months .
The hearing officer granted a three month continuation to a date
certain in January. The date, itself was not available in the meeting
room (nobody had a calendar) , but the applicant was told by the hearing
officer and staff that it would be one of the two Zoning Administrator
meeting dates in January (second or fourth Monday) ; that he would be
informed of which date in a timely fashion. That did not really happen.
4. On the subject of processing delays, this project and application
have not been particularly well served by the process. Initial
inquiries with the county and the appropriate suitability studies were
commenced in the early fall of 1991 and the application was made in
March 1992 . Issues which were not deemed significant by the county by
the fall of 1992 were then brought forward by the planning division one
at time, each requiring another study or further action by the county.
Some of these issues: a determination of status under the Williamson
Act (project "tolled" for months) , amendment to the zoning code to
permit recreational use of some types of agricultural lands (it was
left out of the previous revision of the County General Plan, and
determined to be an oversight - took months to staff), reassignment of
staff due to other large project staffing requirements (project waited
months for new staff) , Clubhouse design (a time consuming process) , and
now reclaimed water routing. Over two years, now, have been consumed
by these additional studies or events, not only at major expense to the
applicant for the work required, but also for ongoing land option pay-
ments and processing administration costs to keep the project alive.
S. Regarding the specific issue/study around_ which this project is
currently denied, the reclaimed water routing study could easily be
determined by the Zoning Administrator to be a condition of approval.
a. As a practical matter of great economic impact to the project,
construction of a course could not commence until the availability of
water was assured. As soon as the grading is complete (about 6 months
into a typical construction cycle) , the irrigation source must be in
place to start turf growth and minimize dust and soil erosion. Early
turf development requires higher rates of irrigation. Therefore, the
project is absolutely reclaimed water dependent from the start - the
underlying aquifer is inadequate to support the adjacent homes and
ranches in the area, much less a golf course .
• -4 ,4 ,
b. One of the reasons mentioned by staff for the pre-approval
requirement for the reclaimed water routing study was a recent court
case in which it was determined that counties must have verifiable
sources of potable water for planned unit developments. Underlying
that decision was a judgement that sources of potable water may be
scarce in California and that there might be a need to consciously
determine specific priorities for potentially competing potable water
uses. In this specific application, the issue is not potable water, it
is reclaimed water. It is a resource in abundant supply in Northern
California. Most citizens think it should be utilized more for
irrigation, instead of pumping it into the Bay or Ocean at ratepayer
and taxpayer expense. What this project is requesting is to utilize
that resource in a most positive way at private expense. Also it would
use the appropriate utility which is already in the reclaimed water
delivery business over existing utility rights. of way and easements .
6. The baseline question which this application asks: is this project
bad for the. county? On every level considered, a golf course at this
location is most positive - for the county, its coffers, the welfare of
its citizens and the general and specific environment:
a. The facility is needed: Contra Costa County is included in an
area which is eighth off the bottom among some 300 U.S. geographical
population centers. Studies by the National Golf Foundation and others
indicate that we live in one of theworst areas in the country in terms
of courses/golf holes available per unit of the population and known
golfers in the area. Due to lack of facilities, the county is
exporting its golfers and their recreation money.
b. This project will be completed at minimal infrastructure costs ,
to the public: new schools and roads . simply are not needed because it
does not generate additional residential properties to foot the bill .
c. It has the added benefit of assisting with the recharge of the
aquifer of surrounding homes and ranches: their well water situation
will be greatly improved shortly after irrigation is commenced. This
project has no toxic impact on the surrounding properties. There is no
runoff of pesticides or fungicides to adjacent properties, the level
and- types of chemical used are greatly restricted by county, state and
federal regulation, and none would make it into the ground water for
the depth of adjacent wells/aquifer and soil types 'in the project area.
d. Indeed, most adjacent residents who are familiar with the
project think it will be good for them. Most think it will help retain
many of their views and is very compatible with the general spacious
layout of properties in the area. They also tend to like the provision
of local recreation and the probable improvement in property values.
7 . Therefore, the applicant requests that this golf course application
be approved, as is, with a condition of approval specifying utilization
of reclaimed water, or at least continued to another Zoning Admini-
strator Hearing to a time when the water studies would be complete.
i Mn er
SAM
0
DUBLIN 4 7' 7051 Dublin Boulevard
SAN RAMON • Dublin,Califomia 94568
SERVICES C�Ap, G FAX:510 829 1180
DISTRICT `?�,ES DI5�4~ 510 828 0515
May 21, 1992
Fox Creek Country Club, Inc.
c/o New Golf Enterprises
Attn: Mr. John Baker
3466 Mt. Diablo Blvd., C-205
Lafayette, CA 94549
Dear Mr. Baker:
Enclosed is the letter agreement between Fox Creek Country Club and the Dublin San
Ramon Services District regarding utility planning services for recycled water. A certified
copy of Resolution 23-92, adopted by the Board of Directors on May 19, 1992 is enclosed
for your records. .
Please sign and return a copy of this letter agreement to my.attention at your earliest
convenience. Thank you.
Sincerely,
NANCY GAMBLE
District Secretary
Enclosures
cc: Bob Beebe
Bert Michalczyk
n,.Inmlu,
DES:df- t 5/15/92 (008/31-J. '
5/18/92R
R E S O L- U ,T I O N N O. 23-92
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND . AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF LETTER
AGREEMENT RELATING TO RECYCLED WATER USE PLANNING SERVICES
(FOX CREEK COUNTRY CLUB)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DUBLIN SAN
RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT, A PUBLIC AGENCY IN THE COUNTIES OF
ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
That certain letter agreement by and between the Dublin San
Ramon. Services District, a public agency in the Counties of
Alameda and Contra Costa, California, and Fox Creek Country Club,
Inc. , pursuant to which this District shall perform certain
recycled water use planning services relating to a proposed
project of Fox Creek Country. Club, Inc. , in the form of Exhibit
"A" hereof, attached hereto, and by this reference incorporated
herein, is hereby approved, and the General Manager is hereby
authorized and directed to execute said letter agreement for and
on behalf of the District.
Adopted by the Board of Directors of the Dublin San. Ramon
Services District at a regular meeting held on the 19th of
May, 1992 , and passed by the following vote
Ayes - 5 Directors Donald M. Schinnerer, G.T. (Tom) McCormick,
Noes Q
Georgean M. Vonheed r, Joseph Covello, Jeffrey G. Hansen
-
Absent - Q /
Jeffry/G. Hansen,] President
Attest:
rERTIFIED'AS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF
THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF.
Nancy Gamble , Secretary DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERv�ES DISTRICT
Secretary
I IA y 2 1 1992 v ^
. 1
SAN_,t,�
DUBLIN 4 x 7051 Dublin Boulevard
.SAN RAMON N Dublin,California 94568
SERVICESG FAX: 510 829 1180
DISTRICT �CE 15�¢~ 510 828 0515
SD
May 21, 1992
Fox Creek Country Club, Inc.
c/o New Golf Enterprises
Attn: Mr. John Baker
3466 Mt. Diablo Blvd., C-205
Lafayette, CA 94549
Subject: Fox Creek Country Club Recycled Water
Dear Mr. Baker:
This letter will serve as the agreement between the Dublin San Ramon Services District
("DSRSD") and Fox Creek Country Club for utility planning services to be provided by DSRSD
relating to the provision of recycled water by DSRSD to the Fox Creek Country Club. The
project is generally described in the letters of February 12, 1992 and March 24, 1992 from New
Golf Enterprises (attached). This agreement is entered into pursuant to Resolution No. 23-92,
adopted by DSRSD's Board of Directors on May 19, 1992.
Fox Creek has requested that DSRSD conduct, or cause to be conducted, activities and studies
to determine the feasibility and requirements for providing recycled water services and facilities
to the project. Such studies and activities will generally include, but are not limited to, attending
meetings and conferring with engineers and other experts, representatives of Contra Costa and
Alameda Counties and other governmental agencies which do or may have approval.authority
over the project, and other persons or agencies serving as sources of information or providing
other services regarding the proposed project; contracting or subcontracting the performance of
professional services (including, but not limited to, engineering consulting services) necessary
or appropriate to ascertain the above-mentioned services; collecting information, data, and
conducting any other planning activities as may be necessary or appropriate in pursuance of the
proposed project. Fox Creek shall furnish DSRSD current factual information regarding the
project necessary for utilities planning purposes, including without limitation recycled water
demands, project location and other information as requested.
At the time that DSRSD requests the remittance of any but the first installment amounts
described below, a scope of work describing the anticipated activities to be funded from the
installment shall be agreed to by DSRSD and Fox Creek.
In accordance with the foregoing, upon signing a copy of this letter in the place provided
hereinbelow, New Golf Enterprises shall deposit with DSRSD the sum of $1,000 as the first
n, n„ne::
Mr. Baker
May 21, 1992
Page 2
installment. These funds shall be credited to the project and retained by DSRSD to be used for
services rendered under future scopes of work or for reimbursement of costs to be incurred by
DSRSD, including costs and expenses of staff time, and contracted or subcontracted work. As
scopes of work are agreed to DSRSD shall bill Fox Creek Country Club for additional deposits,
likewise in installments as required by timing of work performed for said purposes; provided,
further, that the sum on deposit with DSRSD at any given time shall not exceed an amount
sufficient to cover all such scopes of work. - All funds, if any, remaining on deposit upon
completion of furnishing services by or for DSRSD hereunder shall be returned to Fox Creek.
Kindly acknowledge your agreement with the foregoing by signing the copy of this letter in the
space provided below and returning the signed copy.
For purposes of administering this agreement, kindly contact Mr. Bert Michalczyk, Technical
Services Manager, DSRSD. Meanwhile if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT D. BEEBE
General Manager
ACCEPTANCE
The undersigned, for and on behalf of fer�•Q�c�m��aY hereby accepts and a s to the above
terms and conditions.
DATED:
BY:
• New Golf Enterprises
3466 Mt. Diablo Blvd.. C-205
Lafayette. CA 94549-3952 - J
NEW (510) 284-7100 r
FAX 284-7112 C
GOLF _ __ "_ . •._ .; :_. ..
(�D ENTERPRISES
May 26, 1993
Catherine Kutsuris
Senior Project Planner
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Use Permit Application, County File No. 2017-92 (Golf Course:
Fox Creek Country Club vic Tassajara).
Dear Ms . Kutsuris:
1. Attached please find the additional information requested in
our February meeting:
Map of the Silva ranch with neighbor names and mailing
labels .
- Map of proposed golf course showing golf boundaries.
2 . I've also included a copy of the letter from our attorney to
Harvey Bragdon on the subject Golf Courses in Agricultural Zones
(also Williamson Act considerations) , for your information. It is
our understanding that the Assistant County Counsel is in the
process of reviewing it. You may recall that the approval process
is awaiting a decision on the issues therein discussed.
3 . Also, for your information it is our understanding that there
are no renters living within 300 feet of the Silva, West, or
Flanagan ranches (all properties subject to our request) .
Sincerely,
ohn er
President