Item 14.1 - Responses to Letters Old Coach Golf Estates TPM 92-04 &GEND& REPORT SUM1VL4~Y
: Honorable Hayor and Hembers the City Council
FROM: ~ames L. Bowersox, City H
INITIATEO BY: gohn D. Fitch, Assistant City Ma~ag~a~P~i~
Reba Nrtght-Quastler, Director o P g Servtces~
DATE: March 14, 1995
SUBJECT: Responses to Le ters from Sim Setfert, Green Valley Civic Association (GVCA)
nd Charles L. arrick ab ut Revision to the Matrix Concerning the Timing
or Implementat on of Con tttons of Approval for Old Coach Golf Estates,
entattve Parce Map 92-0 , E :al Development, Ltd., Applicant and
oundary Line A justment B/A) No. 94-08.
ABSTRACT
On February 28, 1995 Jim Seifert representing the Green Valley Civic Association spoke
under Public Oral C and submitted two letters a Old Coach Golf
Estates, one lett r being from Charles L. Larrick. This report provides responses to
issues raised in he two letters a last month's action by the City Council
approving a revis on to the matrix for implementation of conditions of approval for
Parcel 1 of Tenta ive Parcel Map 92-04 as well as the approval by the Engineering
Services Department of a Boundary Line Adjustment affecting Parcel 1 and the remainder.
AL REVIEW
Not applicable.
ACT
None.
Jim Seifert of the Green Valley Civic A and Mr. Larrick.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.
ACTION
~ of ~ MAR141995 l'lEbl 14.1
/ · AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POWAY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Ma~ t~
INITIATED BY: ohn D. Fitch, A sistant City~14anager'~ - ~
eba Wright-Quas ler, Dire tot f Plan~d~ng Services
ark S. Weston, irector o Eng neering~ervices~
tephen A. Stree er, Princ pal lanner~ ~
avid Siminou, Senior Civi Eng neet ~d~
DATE: March 14, 1995
SUBJECT: esponses to Letters from Jim Seifert Green Valley Civic
ssociation GVCA) and Charle L. Lar ick about Revision to
he Matrix C n erning the Tim ng for mplementation of
onditions o pproval for O1 Coach olf Estates, Tentative
arcel Map 9 - 4, E 1 Deve opment, Ltd.,
pplicant an oundary Line A justmen (B/A) No. 94-08.
BACKGROUND:
n ovember 27, 1990 a Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit, revised
en ative Tract Map and Development Agreement were approved for the Old Coach
ol Estates. On November 10, 1992 a Tentative Parcel Map was approved which
iv ded the property into four parcels and a remainder to facilitate financing
nd potential sale of the various portions of the pr ject for compl tion.
his approval incorporated a matrix of conditions in icating at wha point in
he project each of the conditions were to be met. reparation of he matrix
nvolved some assumptions about the order in which t e parcels woul be
eveloped. Recent events suggest that the development ma' occur in a somewhat
ifferent order and the matrix has been revised to reflec these changes. The
ity Council approved the revision to the matrix of condi ions affecting
arcel 1 of the tentative map on the consent agenda of Fe ruary 7, 1995.
Further refinement f grading plans and development proposals has also
resulted in the nee to revise the boundaries between the various parcels
somewhat. The Eng neering Services Department approved Boundary Line
Adjustment No. 94-0 on February 15, 1995 subject to conditions.
ACTION:
,
2 of ~3 ~AR ].4 1995 III:M 14.1-~
Agenda Report
March 14, 1995
Page 2
The letters from GVCA and from Mr. Larrick address similar concerns about the
outcomes of these two actions.
FINDINGS:
In proposed modificat ons to the pr ject, for d as to
whether the were consistent wi h the origina approvals, staff has kept a
number of c nsiderations in min. Most impor antly, all changes were reviewed
to ensure: hat there were no a ditional dwel ing units proposed; that there
was no increase in the amount o gradin roposed: and, that there were no
neg rive impacts to views of ex sting h m s. The proposed alterations to the
pro ect result in reduced grading, no a d tional view impacts and an improved
art ngement of golf course holes and bu 1 lng pads. No additional dwelling
uni s, golf course holes or uses are proposed.
Responses to the specific questions raised in the Green Valley Civic
A (GVCA} letter are as follows:
1. "Where will the two golf holes, which are proposed to be eliminated from
Parcel ], be relocated?"
e: The two golf oles will be relocated to the "remain er" parcel, at
the southeast corner of he roject, wher four residential lo s were
previously proposed. Th s r location wil place the two golf oles closer to
the balance of seven gol ho e proposed or Parcel 2. When t e development
review application is su mit e for the 7 residences on Parce, 1, a
modification of the cond tiona use permi will be processed tly to
review the design and layout o the two golf holes on the remainder.
2. "The new tentative map indicates the "remainder parcel" no longer has four
residential lots. If this is correct, what is being proposed for that
parcel?"
Refer to response to the previous question about the two golf
course holes replacing the four residential lots.
3. "The roposed ap indicates an increase in the number of residential lots
on Parce 1 from 4 to 78. Does this represent an increase in the total
number o residen ial lots or is this increase offset by the elimination of
four res dential ots on the 'remainder parcel'?"
S e the response to the first ques ion. The total number of
residential ots on the property remains at 1 6 with one lot for the golf
clubhouse, eventy eight of the residential ots were on Parcel 1 and the
remainder (w th 74 lots specifically on Parce 1 at the time of tentative map
approval).
4. "How could these substantive changes in the map be made administratively
without Council approval? How could they be categorized as simple 'boundary
adjustments'?"
~AR 1~ 1995 rrEM 14.1,.
3 of 13
Agenda Report
March 14, 1995
Page 3
The changes are not vi wed as substantive in that the total n, mber
of residential lots (156), golf c ubhouse lot (1) and olf course holes 27)
remains the same. The Specific P an allows some of the propos d
uses and improvements to occur wi hout requiring t e ty Council to con uct
new public hearings to revise the map. C' modification wil be
processed for the changes to the golf course and cub ouse prior to
construction.
5. "Why were the changes in land use not shown in the information provided the
residents who were noticed of the 'boundary adjustments'?" Shouldn't all
affected residents be renoticed with complete information?"
The notice was for the boundary adju tment. Other changes were
either within the scope of authority granted wi hin the Specific Plan and the
State Subdivision Map Act or will be the subjec of subsequent council
consideration of the Development Review and mod fication to the conditional
Use Permit.
Three specific issues were raised by Mr. Larrick, as follows:
"TM 89-13 provides for two golf course holes ... The B/A No. 94-08 removes
these golf holes completely from Lot 2 and transfers the land they would
occupy to Lot 1 which would then divide the area of the two golf holes into
residential lots."
As explained in the prior respons s, the boundary line adjustment
moves e two golf course h les from the sou hwest part of Parcel 2 near
Espola oad and relocates t e golf course ho es t the remain er lot. In
disc,ss ng the matter with ,r. Larrick, he d d no seem to ob ect to the
resu t so long as he could e assured that the go f course ho es would be
cons ructed. The he is looking for is he deed res fiction for the
rema nder to avoid the ot becoming "any form of ' l, usiness,
professional, industria or multi-family use except for home occupations or
those uses currently al owed under residential zoning".
"Parcel 2 of the PC Development Plan would lose two golf holes and remain with
only 7 holes from what was originally proposed as a g hole golf None
of these major modifications in the approved Development Plan caused by the
Boundary Line and approved by the City Staff, are addressed."
Pa cel 2 on the development plan originally had nine golf course
holes. The c ubhouse and 18 holes of the golf course were planned for Parcel
3. Parcel 4 s for the northerly 78 residential lots. The CUP modification
will address he scope of the total golf course for the site.
"The Old Coach Estates Preliminary Phasing Plan dated August 15, 1994 was
definitely the basis of not only B/A 94-08, but also Resolution P-95-09.
...What could be a more major change than this? One that requires City-wide
voter approval."
4 of 13 MAR 14 1995 ~EM 14.1
Agenda Report
March 14, 1995
Page 4
se: There is no increased density proposed. As discussed above, the
changes involve the location of two golf holes with four dwelling
units.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE:
Jim Seifert of the Green Valley Civic Association and Mr. Larrick.
FISCAL ]MPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.
Attachments:
et er from Jim Seifert, Green Valley Civic A - February 27, 1995
et er from Charles L. Larrick - February 27, 1995
en ative Parcel Map 92-04
- en ative Tract Map 89-]3R - Parcel 1: Existing and Current Proposal
MAR 1 4 1995 ITEM 14.1
5 of 13
G] , :,, ,y C'tvlc Zmsm..': llo,
February 27, 1995
Ms. Reba Wright-Quasler
Director of Planning Services :: '.~ ~ iV ~ ~
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive F[[~ ~ 8 199,~
Poway, CA 92064 r~.,~i~NING DEPT.
RE: Old Coach Golf Estates Project
Dear Reba:
As you know, the GVCA has received ~ers over tl~ :
· 3 to th : t project. The purpose of this I few questions that
need to be addressed.
Specifically, we would appreciate it if the Planning Services Deg d provide the
GVCA with ae following questions.
1. Where will the two golf holes, which are proposed to I: ' ' t fi.om Parcel 1, be
relocated.
2. Tl~ ~ indicates the "remainder parcel" no longer has four residential lots.
If th/ ' what is being proposed for that parcel?
3. The proposed map ind' ,e number of residential lots on Parcel I fi.om
74 to 78. Does this tel: n : >er &residential lots or is this
by the eL' four res~dentml lots on the rem~under parcel .
4. How could these substantive changes in the map be made ad y without Council
approval? How could they be categorized as simple "boundary adjustments"?
5. Why were the changes in land use not shown in the information provided the residents
who ~ of the "boundary adjustments"? Shouldn't all affected residents be
renoticed with complete information?
We I: ~lete understanding of the changes being proposed is needed ~ ~
the residents directly affected can respond positively or negatively, and, before the proposed
changes can be approved for impl'
A
6 of 13
Ms. Reba Wright-Quasler
February 28, 1995
Page 2
Given the hi :'~ ~ in this important project and in view of the careful
scrutiny devoted to the original plan by the Council and the pub] ~propriate
that changes of this magnitude should be mad y. W gy interested in
fully understanding what changes are being proposed at this time but, also, l
about the procedures which will be followed in the future in the event additional changes are
proposed.
I would apF ' ' ~ :~onse to these q, t Thank you for
) t cool: t please feel flee to call with any questions:
Sin c~er~el~
Vice Presi~ff
16344 Martincoit Road
Poway, CA 92064
(619) 546-4635
cc: Jerry Harganen, GVCA President
Bob Hessler, GVCA Community Protection Chairman
/. RECEIVED,%,
ACRES
27, 1995
CUYCL£RK~ OFF;C£
City Council
City of Poway
P.O. Box 789
Poway, 92064
City Clerk
Re: B/A 94-08 to Parcels 1, 2,
and Parcel of Tenative Map 92-04;
and, No. P-95-09
Dear Madam City Clerk:
Please bring my to the
of the Mayor and each and on or
before the 27, 1995 Council For your
I have you with five copies.
B/A 94/08, I receipt of
notice of the boundary ad Y,
I did not respond promptly as perh ps I shoul have,
partly because the data was as deta led
survey courses and notes, -Id Coach
Road curve data and one very small scale
map (8%x11"), titled
y, the Parcels 1, 2, a~d Parcel
as per Map 92-04 are shown on the Exhibit and
to B/A 94-08 as Parcels A, B and C
y. The only reason for this, I assume, is to
and
It is not at all surprisin there was little or no
to this otice, y since it
was as only a change n lot lines between
p very 1 tle change in lot
areas. It was further stated hat per City the -
City had y to make such changes.
this is because suc minor matters need not be
by the How wrong this is!
After the February 7th meeting it was brought to my
by Mr. Jerry that there may be more to this
matter than meets the eye. He asked if I would check into
it. I did this last week with the
The me with a
new development plan for Parcel 1, dated August 15, 1994,
which major changes to the Planned
Plan as shown on Map 89-13. Fo~
14 1995 ITEM
8 o~ 13
· TM 89-13 provides for two golf course holes, one
running adjacent to and parallel with Espola Road
and another next in line also running with
E$9ola Road but from t e first by a tier of
lots. Tenative Map 2-04 has these two golf
course holes as part of Lot 2. he B/A 94-08 removes
these two golf holes rom Lot 2 and
the land they would occupy to Lot i which would then
divide the area of the two golf holes into ial
lots.
· · Parcel 2 on the PC Plan would lose two
golf holes 'and remain with only 7 holes from what was
as a 9 hole golf course. Now I
know Mr. Tabb is a golf course expert, he told me so
once, but I have never heard of a 7 hole golf course
o~if you would like to combine Lots 2 and 3, you would
have a 25 hole golf course. When this anomaly was
pointed out to the Department ~ it was
stated that, · the two holes lost would be
onto the Parcel". The with this is
that the Parcel is occupied as per the
the C Plan, TM 89-13, with 4
1 ts. None of these major modi in
the Plan caused by the
and by the City Staff, are addressed.
®·. The Old Coach Estates Preliminary Phasing Plan dated
August 15, 1994 was y the basis of Got only
B/A 94-08 but also This later is
a not only the changes
but the consequences thereof. Attachments D, E and F ~
P-95-09, Pages 21, 22, 23 respectively/show the intended
changes to the PC Plan by the
new plans. The most i of the changes thus
is that the total overall number of residential
lots as on TM 89-13 will be i from 156
to 160. This is an density which is
by 283 requiring voter of ~uch changes.
What could be a more major change than this? One that
voter approval.
On 6, 1992, I opposed the of
Parcel Map 92-04. My opposition was based upon the obvious
ity of the very that now present them-
selves to the Council. Only one agreed with my
and voted against TPM 92-04. What a pity. It does
not do any good to say, "I told you so" but I think
Emery and I have the right.
Please listen to me now. What you have is a
of 13 MAR 14 1995 r EM 14,3.
-3-
with a City Staff attempting to commit
the City to courses of action for which there is little or
no public little or no Council
and major
I think I have pointed out enough serious with
these (B/A 94-08 and Resolution P 95-09) to
justify a Council review. , you would be
kind enough to inform me and other i citizens of
the results thereof.
Very truly yours~
cc: Five Poway Council Members
cc: Mr. Jerry
G.¥.C.A.
10 of 13 ~AR 14 1995 14.1
OLD COACH GOLF ESTATES
RCE MAP FOR
o~ co~ ~o
611Y OF POWAY ,TE~ :T~ 92-o,
DE EL
~ TITLE:
~' ~* ~ '.SCALE: .. N,T.S. ~AR 1~ ~5 ITE~ 14,1
13 of 13 ~AR 14 1995 n'~M 14,1
Ii