Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1985/09/24 Item 4a y.r COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 4a Meeting Date 9/k?185 ITEM TITLE: Consideration of site plan for 77-unit San Diego Country Club Condominium Project located north of Naples Street between Dixon Avenue and Tobias Drive--Calmark Development Corp. a) Resolution /6.1/4 7 Approving site plan for San Diego Country Club Condominium Project SUBMITTED BY: Planning Director (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) REVIEWED BY: City Manager 1 H When the property in question was rezoned in the latter part of 1984, the City Council directed that the site plan and landscaping be automatically appealed to Council for review. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Certify that EIR-84-7 and the addendum have been prepared in accordance with the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act 1970) and that the Council has reviewed the information contained in both the EIR and the addendum in making the decision on the project. 2. That the City Council concur with the decision of the Design Review Committee and adopt a resolution approving the site plan for the San Diego Country Club Condominium Project. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On September 5, 1985, the Design Review Committee unanimously approved the project subject to the conditions contained in Summary Staff Report P-86-3 attached hereto. DISCUSSION: Project Setting The property is a vacant 6.02 acre site located at the southeast corner of the San Diego Country Club property situated on the north side of Naples Street. The site drops in elevation from approximately 170 ft. near the northeast corner to about a 140 ft. elevation at the southwest corner adjacent to Naples. The site abuts several single family lots on the easterly property line as well as a commercial parking lot near the southwest corner of the site. The entire westerly side of the project abuts the San Diego Country Club golf course and the southerly property line runs parallel to Naples Street. _ / te by the City Council of by the City Council of Chula Vista, California Chula Vista, California Dated _ 7" 7 "5 Dated �� Page 2, Item 4a Meeting Date 9/171-05 Project Description The project involves the proposed construction of 77 condominium units with a wide range of floor plans and square footages. Twenty-three of the units are proposed at a little over a 1 ,000 sq. ft. in area consisting of a single story two-bedroom plan. Six motor court areas are designed to accommodate a total of 24 stacked units which are also two-bedroom in nature ranging in size from 1 ,100 to 1 ,200 sq. ft. The remaining 30 units are townhouse-type structures, two-story in design, 1/3rd of which are a two-bedroom, 1 ,500 sq. ft. design with the remaining 2/3rds being three-bedroom and approximately 1 ,600 sq. ft. in area. The project has a single point of access from Naples Street with a security gate located at that point and a private road system set in a loop design to provide access to all the parking within the development. A trellis design and pool area will serve as the focal point upon entering the project. Precise Plan Guidelines The site was rezoned and prezoned to R-3-P-14 (multiple family designation allowing a maximum 14 units per acre) in the latter part of 1984. The establishment of the P zone on this property by the Chula Vista Planning Commission set forth five specific conditions of approval for Precise Plan development: 1. That the front yard setback along Naples Street for any residential structure would be a minimum 20 feet and 15 for parking areas. Guest parking was to be identified on the site subject to Design Review Committee approval . 2. The proposed zoning wall and fencing along the easterly property line was to be coordinated with the adjoining property owners as subject to Zoning Administrator approval . There was a notation that chain link fencing is not approved. 3. Any structure located 50 feet or less from the adjacent R-1 zone to the east shall not exceed one story in height and a minimum landscaping area of 10 ft. in width shall occur along the easterly property line. 4. That no residential structure shall exceed two stories in height. 5. That the removal of existing trees on the site shall be evaluated by the City's Landscape Architect for replacement with specimen size material in accordance with an approved landscaping plan. Said analysis shall include any trees removed after January 1 , 1983. In the City Council ' s action that followed, Condition #5 was modified to add the language that an effort shall be made to retain the existing trees and that any trees removed after January 1 , 1983, are to be replaced with specimen size material in accordance with the approved plans. The Council also noted that detailed landscaping plans of the area between the residence to the east and the proposed structures to the west were to be coordinated with the property owners as well as the staff. I ', / s? Page 3, Item 4a Meeting Date X85 ANALYSIS: Landscaping With the exception of two of the single family dwellings located adjacent to the easterly property line and just north of the existing commercial development, the applicant has provided a 10 ft. wide landscaping area adjacent to the property line. In an attempt to satisfy staff' s concern over guest parking as to numbers and distribution, the applicant has also provided additional guest parking along that easterly property line. In order to ensure that the 10 ft. wide landscaping strip extends along the full length of the residential area abutting this project, it is necessary to modify the landscaping plan to eliminate the most northerly four guest spaces adjacent to the two single family dwellings. This modification has been so stipulated in the conditions of approval set forth by the DRC. The applicant has submitted a large scale preliminary landscaping plan outlining a specific plant palette in conjunction with an enriched paving program to identify both the entry as well as pedestrian walkways through the project. The plan works relatively well in a conceptual fashion. However, the plant palette will require significant changes to satisfy the City' s Landscape Architect. In addition, the DRC recommend that additional retaining walls be provided and a further evaluation by the applicant's landscape architect of the submitted grading plan an attempt to soften and blend some of the slope conditions. Grading and landscaping on to the San Diego Country Club property will be necessary to accomplish the design of this project. The condition of tree replacement outlined in the City Council ' s approval of the rezoning of the property relates to a rather massive tree removal that was previously undertaken on this property without any City input. It has been estimated that some 50 or 60 trees were removed at that time. In addition, there are approximately 65 trees remaining on the site. Therefore, under the plan as proposed by the applicant, it would be necessary for the new landscaping plan to provide between 110 and 120 specimen trees to replace those trees already removed and those trees proposed to be removed by the applicant. The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the existing trees remaining on the site and has determined that while the trees offer a relatively pleasing backdrop as viewed from a distance, they pose a safety hazard and do not mix well with houses and residents. The trees have a tendency to drop limbs after wind conditions or changes in temperature and thus, are hazardous to someone who might be residing in the area. The City' s Landscape Architect has indicated that under the circumstances it would be preferable to remove all of the existing trees and develop a new tree form using a high percentage of specimen plant materials to create an immediate pleasing landscaping appearance for this project. As noted above, the landscape plan in question is preliminary. If the Council so desires, the final landscape plan can be returned to Council for review and approval . Page 4, Item 4a Meeting Date 9/t '/85 Open Space The total open space within the project amounts to a little over 41% of the site. The common open area is broken into rather small areas with the exception of the main pool area. Approximately 1/3rd of the common open space is devoted to slope banks and therefore offers some visual relief but very little functional use. For that reason, the DRC has recommended that the applicant' s landscape architect review the proposed grading plan with an idea of providing additional retaining walls and regrading to create more usable areas. Grading As noted in the description, the property drops approximately 30 feet from the north corner to the southwest corner. The applicant is proposing to lower the north end of the property by approximately 7-1/2 feet and utilize single story units in that area. This combination of single story units and the lowering of the property should enhance the view corridors of those residents abutting the easterly property line in that area. Single story units will also be featured along a portion of the golf course property and the most westerly units adjacent to Naples Street to provide some architectural relief and views within the project towards the golf course. One additional single story unit is featured near the northerly portion of the loop road to provide an additional view corridor for the residents to the east. It should be pointed out that even the two-story units closest to the easterly property line in the existing single family residences are of a motor court design which offer view corridors through to the golf course. Since the property will be elevated, for the most part, above Naples Street, the wall design shown paralleling Naples will actually be at the toe of the slope. Thus, the rear elevations and the rear patio areas will be exposed to Naples Street with landscaping providing the primary screening. As mentioned previously, grading will occur on the golf course property with slopes varying from 3:1 to 4:1 feathering out into the golf course. Parking The applicant is providing a two car garage for each of the units proposed with an additional 34 guest spaces shown on site. The modification to the landscaping plan suggested by the staff would reduce the number of guest spaces to 30, however, the requirements in the R-3 zone would require only 25 guest spaces wherein a portion of those could be accommodated off-site along Naples Street. Thus, the applicant exceeds both the resident and the guest requirements as set forth in the R-3 zone. As noted previously, the applicant is providing a security gate near the entrance, thus guest parking will be allowed only by a requested entry. Page 5, Item 4a Meeting Date 9fttf85 Fencing The applicant has met with a number of the homeowners abutting the property on the east and is proposing an open wrought iron rail design fence 6 feet in height which would be combined with landscaping and retaining walls to accomplish the necessary buffering between properties. The fence could be modified to provide a solid stucco design on all or a portion of this fence depending on the input received from adjacent residences. At this point, staff is satisfied that the combination of grading, landscaping, and fencing as proposed offers a workable solution. Walks The landscaping plan identifies a hardscape design following a general road alignment to identify a pedestrian path. In addition, a pedestrian system will be used through the center of the project tying the units with the proposed pool area. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. WPC 2159P ADDENDUM A EIR-84-7 SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB VILLAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15164 OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1 . INTRODUCTION This addendum to the environmental impact report for San Diego Country Club Villas (EIR-84-7) is intended to determine if the revised development plan could result in any significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the previously certified EIR. SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property is a vacant 6.02 acre site located at the southeast corner of the San Diego Country Club. The site drops in elevation from 170 feet MSL at the northeast corner to 140 feet MSL at the southwest corner (adjacent to Naples Street). The applicant is proposing to redesign the proposed condominium project, reducing the total number of residential units from 80 to 77. The internal circulation pattern will be revised to provide a private loop street system serving the units. An attached two-car garage is proposed for each unit in addition to adequate off-street guest parking. A centralized common recreation area complete with swimming pool is proposed near the entry to the project. The applicant proposes no change to the access drive location from Naples Street. The remaining on-site mature eucalyptus trees are to be removed with the revised site plan proposal. SECTION 3. ANALYSIS The proposed project revisions will result in the same or less severe impact in the following areas which were discussed in EIR-84-7: Soils (3.1 ), Drainage (3.2), Air Quality (3.3) , Transportation/Access (3.7) and Public Facilities and Services (3.8). The following impacts discussed in EIR-84-7, will be incrementally affected by the revised project: Noise (3.4) The traffic generated from the revised 77 unit project will have an incrementally less noise impact on land uses adjacent to the area streets. The revised project will place the access drive and 9 guest parking spaces adjacent but below the existing single family lots to the east. Proposed units are now located within 10 feet of the easterly property line at the northern end of the site and approximately 8 feet below the adjacent single family lots. Other units are approximately 40 feet from the east property line with living areas oriented to the west. Noises associated with the common recreation area could be anticipated to be heard at adjacent single family residences with the previous development plan. The revised location for the recreation area will have little or not impact on adjacent residences. Noises associated with construction activities will occur as discussed in the EIR. Mitigation discussed in EIR-84-7 will be applicable to the revised project and noise impacts associated with project implementation are not anticipated to increase to a level of significance. Land Use/Open Space (3.5) The revised project proposal emphasizes the orientation of the units toward the adjacent 145-acre golf course. The on-site private and common open space will be reduced from 42% to 33% from the conceptual plan discussed in the EIR. The City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 12% (based on 77 units at 400 sq. ft. per unit) of the site to be permanent, private and common open space. The revised plan and open space will be subject to review by the City's Design Review Committee. The proposed open space total is not considered to be a significant environmental impact. Suggested mitigation measures listed in EIR-84-7 and review of the project by the Design Review Committee are still valid recommendations which will reduce land use impacts to a level of insignificance. Aesthetics (3.6) The previous design proposal discussed in the EIR involve two-story condominiums and a need to provide view corridors. The revised proposal consists of a combination of one and two story structures with one-story structures to be located at the northern end of the project. An effort has been made by the designer to provide corridors through the motor courts along the easterly side of the property by dropping a portion of each building to a single story. The drop in elevation from the existing single family dwellings to the project site amounts to approximately 5 to 8 feet in height. The precise plan, which will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee will address the issue of view shed. As noted in Section 3.6 of the EIR, "view blockage from private property is not considered a significant environmental issue as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. " SECTION 4. CONCLUSION If mitigation measures identified in EIR-84-7 are incorporated into the revised project, the proposal will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact. at.tyok /les- 0 LAS AD RED DATES ENVIRON NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 2117P - 2 - August 8, 1985 Environmental Review Coordinator P. 0. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 Dear Sir: Re: IS-86-4 I have reviewed the above application at the Planning Department, Chula Vista, and believe that the proposed plan to build condominiums behind our property on Corte Maria Avenue will have definite negative effects on the environment, The construction of 77 condominiums in open area will mean that buildings and hardtop will absorb the space. Rainfall cannot be absorbed into the ground and atmosphere, affecting the atmosphere. Drainage will be a problem. The inhabitants of 77 condominiums create garbage and refuse, which will be in dumpsters behind our residences. This will be a breeding place for gnats, mosquitoes and even rats, I realize there will be restrictions, but judging from other housing units I have seen, enforcement is very lax. Trees will be cut down. Lack of trees and wildlife has a negative impact on the atmosphere. - As I understand the plan, an access road to and from the garages will be immediately behind our houses. There will be continuous in and out traffic, not merely of the condominium residents but of trash trucks and service vehicles, This will create pollutants, exhaust fumes and noise behind us all day and most of the night. The estimate of four trips per day for each of ?7 condomiums is unrealistic. Dogs, cats, children, loud music and visitors will be not more than six feet behind us. This will create noise pollution, as well as debris and more exhaust fumes. Chula Vista is in dire need of additional open space. Too many projects have been built without taking this into consideration. Why spoil an open area with birds, trees, etc. that is in existence? Very truly yours, ya Brooke H. Lawrence 1042 Corte Maria Chula Vista, Ca. 92011 RECEIVED BY AUG 9 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 1020 Corte Maria Ave. Chula Vista, Ca. 92011 August 12, 1985 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator ( f City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca. 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: Reference Case #1S-86-4. As I have previously stated in correspondence with your office, I am very much opposed to the develop- ment of 70 condominiums at the Naples Street site. I am very concerned about the air quality with so many more vehicles in the area. Traffic is a problem on Hilltop now, what will it be with 70 more families in the area? Houses east and south of this project will be subjected to additional noise, smoke and odors due to prevailing westerly breezes from the ocean. Outdoor activities at the Country Club and the Chula Vista High School now create objectional noise due to these breezes. The high school is over one mile from this area. - This project, if allowed, may be the first step in developing the entire golf course with the loss of one of the few remaining open and green areas in this neighborhood. Sincerely, L-72") 4-741/1/ Mrs. Malora Sandroff REcF , vED sy AUQ 19 � PI.A�Vr�'It�'C DFPT1�9E1Vr CHULq V�STq, CALIFORN1q August 0$, 19$5 Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator P. 0. Box 110$7 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Dear Mr. Reid: This letter is in responseTathe Initial Study, San Diego Country Club Villas. The precise plan is not consistant with the EIFL with respect to noise, air quality, and aesthetics. The driveway and parking is placed almost directly adjacent to property lines of existing homes. Some of the condos are placed a few feet from the property line. These facts were not dealt with in the EIR with respects to noise and air quality. We were led to believe that the proposed project would incorporate a number of design features which would minimize the area of contact between our residential area and the condominuim area, thereby contributing to the compatability of the proposed project. The precise plan eliminates that compatability. In the initial EIR it was pointed out that westward views from eight existing residences will be at least partially blocked. That impacts could be partially reduced by designing view corridors, along with adequate setbacks, replacement of mature vegetation with specimen trees, extensive landscaping, and clustering of housing units on southern and western portions of the site. All of the above thitegation measures have been ignored by the precise plan. This makes the plan unacceptable from the standpoint that the proposed project is now a degrading influence on the existing residences. The most serious shortcoming of the precise plan is the virtual elimination of the promised extensive landscaping to replace the now standing mature trees. Instead we will now be looking at a site that is virtually unlandscaped. These changes invalidate the previously proposed mitigation measures for impacts such as noise, aesthetics, and air quality. Therefore, these broad impact categories should go through re analysis for effects on the enviorment. We would also suggest that public hearings on the new enviornmental impacts be held. RECEIVED Sincerely, 411A-0-ervil-cw(-- BY omald M. Thompson 1052 Cortt Maria Ave. PUG 9 1983 Chula Vista, CA 92011 426-0536 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA_ . . , ` - (--- 7) /y9 ° _._l E r9 L L L' ��'>t �.� . 4� e A 1 iv A G �• � ; �',��' '/..__./gym../ S E , ... 0 is A y 1 .C)e p z-)./ s z _.-o /'i-y f' f ' P R 4 tn/ 5 9/76.4 L ______0:_, ...._± 7 .� W 1:1- H A. A IT T Q,4 i /5"-e), - ^"R _ k,, (4 i . P o ,4, - 4 / T ; _! s D A )\'/ (S%- I'1'a c1 S 7`0 Al A l e - --f?4-_,p 4 - .F e:4!..�'-_ E_?. _ % C o P T€_12,._S 1. ° . 3 4--A4155 / A/ 5! f2 E // Z r4 v V S 7- '� r� i 1 , *4-I , .--- � �//�/ frt G t ._r .5 f� v � z :_ � .� ;t o v _5: _�t�'c v 8 � ,�' Q Ulf 4_2� E N / �__._1'� �--/A/_S_ , _ -_.Ta ! % .S -D. TL1 t/ �. - L -� _ -- + i--I{ L N D ;_W A- 7 k__1 _.E c c y -"7'/ M -4 T rte` E -CO k d*;E - _. d___ �__�__�__-.�- S� _.(�G-�-.�__2•Er _. _(?�o� _Lc.7' _ 0_ _v � _.� y'�,t} 1 F.- t I �} S - t-1/4, _� _ T g E E 5 : t f 7 Lt-ii 4 U e_ c_,� L ij A ' i _ C, u T .y i-f T `� £ _ �o� o A.A. _'__W C`?✓ _t•,C.r/_; •._Vt/ ti !'�-�, __- !7 ,tJ � � - �-C7 --__ T. G � vomit/ {: c ei A e ?' {z E. r ; 11 tit - T r-/ , t< w° - , . , _c../�.4-�s_t:.�_--1--�4 A, --�-T��_ �f_��4�_v-E fir_ G°�T_;. -2 ,5` r /t/1 6 t - %.0 L? - A - E. 19' v, -- yi ?- _7-e61 --- • w Ai 6!Al _ 1-C eo ';v i1! G t--L 1,%1/D 44 ,1• 1/y - 41e-: ntiv> L/ ,5_ _A.5/L _6 j T, a - T1 '. y /3 _15-4 d E b . 7` k.._,-/4 /1 - t _ yj .tit, gG R S i V 1‘. ,A/ 1"5 e _ A_ 1Z .� )14- r-/.o _�'�'t- x/R,i - a —6 i 4. ./_;v s'uam __,) _.s/Vt4 `: LL___ )4_it._s A ___./_. 14 ,171'...97/4_ U i i _ IN rill A tz E yo U _.Fps T / A/ C: _ _77 Une/ TS 1 /J�/ . D v If 1 / / r A f-/ - ./ y d v ;,,v o d L o _ A L L a t-4 ' V - / $ -- 'Z o v r %/T $ /,ti /} D T,�1. / ... 1 AE-£ "4-' v / 6 G/ z /. _ I//v_G-___.P 1. s__C_R./ M /A/A TT_D_19 GA/NS; yAl '_ wN y 4 RE y av; RA ; i a 4. �9-� r3 t5 /z s . G o ? o v t TZ 2 u o . S i G• � '7" v .2 �5 �! CY , ,v S E -_ d __ C 17 _f-0 ie'-•.4!c w. _bRf'► S _4 . 0'�. ?-5;- -_._ . `Lry R /1/l T.��" TAB ,�.9 y� 2 T-,= : j E L S %1/ Y 1032 0t; t a Maria Chula Vista, CA92011 August 12, 1985 Mr. Douglas D. Reid RECEBLED Enviornmental Review Coordinator sy P. 0. Box 1087 Chula. Vista, CA92012 AUG 12 9E.'3 Dear r. Raid: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA This letter is a, response to your request for comments on the enviornmentsl impact of the latest design for the San Diego Country Club condominium project. Reference is made to Case No. IS-88-4. A veer ago, during June ' 1984, when you issued your Tnviornmentel Imrract Report for Sen Diego Country Club Villas, ETR84-7, even a biased observer, Fuch as I am, had to recognize that it 7PS a commendable, as well as a professional report. The mitigation measures stipulated went a long way toward making the project as compatible as practicable with the existing residences; one of which is mine. In fact, my opinion was that your EIR84-7 properly proscribed the project in A manner which most likely would have resulted in a long term beneficial impact on the neighborhood. However, a review of the latest design, which was submitted as the precise plan, shows me that many of the mitigation measures promulgated in EIR84-7 have been ignored. Certain specific ones which are the most apparent and most flagrant will comprise my recommendations for your analyses in the forthcoming Initial Study, IS-88-4. Basic changes in the proposed design, vis-a-vis the design evaluated for EIR84-7, include: An increase in building coverage from 334 of the site' s area to 454 (This is almost a 404 increase. ) A decrease of open space from 42% of the site to 324. (You will recall that EIR84-7 specifically required that 205 acres, or 424 of the site be included in the precise plan. ) Clustering of units on the easterly boundry of the site close to the existing residences. The initial design proposed clustering the condominiums on the southern and western boundries to soften visual impacts and reduce visual conflicts. A significant reduction in the landscaping required to replace the mature trees which will be removed. The above factors represent such significant changes from the - 2 - previous site design that the original analyses for noise, air ounlity, and aesthetics are severely compromised; if not inval- idated A11 together. More specifically, let me direct Your attention to the enclosed letter from San Diego Country Club to the affected residents. This letter, among other things, assured us that the setback from the eastern boundry would be a minimum of 120 feet; and that at only one point. You will also recall that adequate setbacks are . a requirement of EIRS4-7. The new design reduces the setback to only 60 feet; a full half of the distance. Not only hes San Diego Country Club reneged on its promise to the residents, but the EIR requirement been ignored. Other mitigation measures eliminated by the precise plan in regard to visual impacts are: View corridors have not been included in the design as proposed by the E,IR84-7 . The shorter setbacks preclude the ability to contour the site' s topography such that the building pads can be the required 15-20 feet below the existing homes. The reduction of the extensive landscaping provision by the new design. Especially important to the residents was the extension of the landscaped buffer along the eastern edge of the driveway and parking area which the EIR said should be incorporated into the design. Cutting the setback in half from the eastern boundry certainly will cause the current residents to experience significant noise increases. Noise will also be aggravated by the larger volume And area of the building structures along with the reduction of site � . open space and landscaping. These should be reevaluated. One of the irreversible enviornmental changes recognized by the EIR was the incremental contribution of air pollutants to the region sir basin. These were deemed to be significant . Further, the mitigation measures prescribed were undoubtedly the weakest tart of the EIR. The new design makes this problem even worse by eliminating One-quarter of the open space and reducing the landscaping. These can only have more of a deleterious effect on future local air quality. All in all, I can only conclude that the project applicant has, for whatever reasons, chosen to ignore a large number of the best and most significant provisions that EIR84-7 stated should be incorporated into the precise plan. If his design were to be aporoved as proposed, the fine work that you previously accomp- lished will be for naught. The compatibility between the project E - 3 - , (_ ' ( and the existing neighborhood that you had apparently achieved will be mostly destroyed. I fear that the current design for the . project would have an adverse, rather than beneficial, impact over the long term. After all is said and done, we who presently live next to the proposed project are citizens of the community who have been here for many years and intend to stay for many more. We have neither the organization nor the financial resources to influ- ence the outcome of the matter. Therefore, we have to look to the community, through representatives such as yourself, ' to imnose reasonable restrictions to protect its citizens from harmful ' actions.; EIR84-7, ' --for all practical purposes; -defined reasonable ,.'��" restrictions. The project applicant should be required to comply. As in the past, your efforts are sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, Richard D. Nielsen • • • 'r (: ,. r OFFICERS –- —CHA LES R.TALBOTT.MANACEH 42"-2395 THOMAS M.RUST.GOLF PROFESSIONAL 422 r/1 OU WALTER HAASE 29'-294} MICHAEL VIDETTA,COURSE SUPERINTENDENT 422-84,4 PRESICENT _ CAN:EL LARSEN 232-3Cc6 SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB - - --.- -- VICE-PRESICENT 88 L STREET A.SPE`CE E ANT;NCNE 292-13 9 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92011 _ : V - SECRETARY DONALD BURGESS 232-6501 — - TREASUPER DIRECTORS KEN W BAIRD B,LL NELSCN - CR WALTER SHAW - _- - AIIGLST.NE SILVEVRA ---— _ P7 9ER'L SWINGLE Dear Neighbor: -As you know, the San Diego Country Club is requesting the City of Chula Vista to change the general plan and rezone 6 surplus acres (currently used for refuse) of the total 150 acre club property. Apparently, some of our neighbors oppose our plan to ultimately construct 80 high quality luxury condominium homes fronting the golf course. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of what the Country Club is proposing. The project involves the ultimate construction of 80 high quality condominium homes. These homes are designed as ownership homes and not apartment or rental units. The prices would range from $98,000 to $139,000 +. The individual. homes would range in size from 1000 to 1500 square feet. There would be no buildings over 2 stories in height and the first floor will be about 15 feet below the elevation of the existing :homes . , on Corte Maria Further,`the nearest condominium to one of the existing homes would be 120 feet,. away.; This distance is farther away than your neighbor across the street. , The project is designed for -retirees. The marketing of the homes will be for retirees. It is antjcipated that 30-40% of the buyers would be existing country club members. - There is no planned vehicular access to either Corte Maria Avenue or Moss Street. The project has been designed to take all of its access from Naples Street. This access will be private and gated for security. We hope this letter clarifies the type of project that the San Diego Country Club is proposing which we believe will be a benefit to the community. Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact me at 422-8895 or our consultant Tony Ambrose at 278-5750. Sincerely, SAN DIEGO COUNTRY CLUB ,L4/:4? 4, Charles R. Talbott "-'anger 7nclosure • I224,1d, 9 -17-g( rn sty*34 The CITY OF CHULA VISTA, San Diego County, CALIFORNIA IN RE: Case No. IS-86-4 ff (et. al.) - RESERVATION OF RIGHTS TO: The Hon. Greg Cox, Mayor and Members of the City Council In the Matter Of: Proposed Site Plan Naples St/Dixon & Tobias Drs Proposed construction of residential condominium units Public Hearing scheduled 17 September, 1985 (Chula Vista) Your Honor, and Members of the Council : While we have not been officially advised of previous hearing(s) in the above- entitled matter(s) , we have now had an opportunity to review some of the case materials presented to the Council through its review bodies and Environmental Review Coordinator. It has been brought to our attention by other interested parties that signifi- cant changes to the proposed site plan have been made subsequent to earlier Environmental Review, or may have been made since that time. While we have no intrinsic objection to the upgrading and development of presently unused or undeveloped property anywhere within the City limits that does not impinge upon the rights of current householders within the community or denigrate or depreciate the value of their property, we wish to express our concern that any such changes be limited by Council action to those which will not adversely affect the property rights of those pre- sently residing in the area. To paraphrase a former Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, "the right of Mr. Jones to swing his arm stops at the limit of Mr. Smith's nose;" We trust that the Council , in moving on the proposed site development, will take all necessary safeguards to ensure that the property values of present householders along Corte Maria Avenue will not be reduced in any way by the proposed development. We trust that the Council is aware of its potential liability and that of the City in the event that such safeguards were not to be enacted. We reserve the right, among others, to take whatever action we may subse- quently deem necessary and lawful in the event that there should be any adverse effect upon our property values due in whatever manner to the failure to properly take into account such potential environmental impact in whatever action the Council may take in moving on the proposed site development. --J'Ae7/1) 4/ A /Ve(/Po e- • /0,2 Or ee.9-->e--re (9` 1Y-