The county may soon bring golf back to the San Geronimo golf course, which has been open to the public but closed for the sport since last month.
Next week, the parks department will interview three potential candidates from across the country that have submitted proposals to operate the course for the next two years, during which time the county plans to secure funding to complete its purchase of the 157-acre property and initiate a community process to determine its future uses.
The county’s partner, the nonprofit Trust for Public Land that took interest in the property’s conservation potential, bought the course for $8.85 million in mid-January. The county plans to purchase the course by the end of this year if it can secure the necessary funds; supervisors already committed to use $1.41 million from the general fund and $2.5 million from the Measure A acquisition fund. The parks department will manage the property until that time.
The county has offered to pay up to $140,000 to an interim operator to run the golf course, which is what it estimates it would pay per year to maintain the property on its own. The county received four proposals by its Feb. 7 deadline.
Steve Petterle, the principal landscape architect for the parks department, said that staff will meet with just three qualifying candidates next week and hopes to have the finalist begin leasing the property by April. The fourth candidate proposed a longer-range plan than the two-year timeframe.
The county will not release the full proposals to the public until it selects one of them.
Among the applicants is Greenway Golf, a golf course maintenance and management company based in Alameda that provides services to courses worldwide. Touchstone Golf out of Austin, Texas, which manages the Presidio Golf Course in San Francisco and other courses across the country, is another.
William Hudson, a lifelong Marin resident who worked at the course for the past six years, submitted a proposal that includes organizing a volunteer management group and rehiring all of the 20 former employees. As start-up capital, he has pledges from 150 golfers to pay $1,000 each for a year’s worth of golf.
Lastly, the Colorado-based limited liability company EXPLOR Ventures submitted five-year plans, which resulted in the county’s decision not to offer an interview at this time.
“Two years is what we can commit to at this point,” Mr. Petterle said. “The county is embarking on a process to explore what the community would like to occur at the property. Perhaps there will be an additional opportunity for a golf course operator in two years, but we can’t say at this time.”
The parks department is currently meeting informally with individuals and community members to discuss the range of ideas being put forth—from community gardens and farming to the construction of a fire station and the continuation of golf.
To field questions about the property, parks director Max Korten, project manager Tara McIntire and parks superintendent Ari Golan will host coffee at the clubhouse on Wednesday, March 7, from noon to 3 p.m. (They held another coffee there yesterday.) No advance registration is required.
The Coastal Conservancy is donating $150,000 toward initial community planning activities and the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy plans to provide staff support for the planning process.
County counsel Brian Washington said the current lawsuit against the parks department does not impact the planning process, though that process itself is the main subject of the suit.
A group of residents, banded together as the San Geronimo Advocates, filed the lawsuit in December, contending that the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act on numerous counts, but primarily in its decision to purchase the property before conducting an environmental review and accompanying public process.
The county had cited its ultimate intention to convert the course into a park or open space when it filed an exemption from CEQA that applies to “transfers of interest in land to preserve open space,” and the group is concerned that this will preclude other uses that residents might prefer.
“From the beginning, it’s been clear that we’re acquiring the golf course as a park, though there have been tons of ideas that have been suggested and we are open to hearing all of them,” Mr. Korten said. “As far as the categorical exemption, that doesn’t preclude us from, in the future, considering a variety of ideas. If we settled on a use that isn’t just a park, or even some uses within a park, we will do a CEQA analysis beyond that categorical exemption.”
Last week, the San Geronimo Advocates added two new causes of action to their suit, arguing that the purchase violates the San Geronimo Valley Community Plan, which is part of the county’s general plan. (Mr. Washington asserts that the purchase complies with the community plan, which he said contains broad concepts subject to the board of supervisors’ ultimate discretion.)
The attorney for the San Geronimo Advocates, Riley F. Hurd, and the county have agreed that the county will not close on the property before a judge rules on the request for a preliminary injunction. That will likely take place at the first hearing on March 15, but, Mr. Washington said, the county still plans to move forward with its purchase of the property later this year, even if the litigation is still pending.
“The course closing broke my heart,” Mr. Hudson said. “My proposal is for a community effort with public access—I want to stay away from having it be a club, requiring a membership, and everything that gives golf an elitist connotation.”