Presentation by Ed Anderson of the San Diego Country Estates (SDCE), ECC Committee, to inform the RCPG and express SDCE concerns relative to the Ward Project (AD 07-027), Tennis Court Fencing/Lighting Project, 24524 Tesaro Way. Proposal for a 10-foot chain link fence for a 55 foot by 100 foot tennis court and 6 light poles.
Dave Chamberlin of the SDCE Environmental Control Committee (ECC) presented the perspective of that group. Mr. Ward had been cited by the SDCE and the SDCE Board denied his request for the tennis court proposal. Mr. Ward appealed the decision to the SDCE Board who heard the matter again, and then upheld the original decision. Currently, the tennis court is a moot point. An examination of the construction and drainage is questionable. The RCPG had been provided with a packet of information that includes photographs of the site. Mr. Chamberlin handed out the most current letter addressed to Mr. Ward on the tennis court project.
The Chair asked the RCPG members if there were any questions for the speakers?
Ms. Osborn asked about the grading. Were there permits issued for that?
Mr. Chamberlin said that no permits of any kind have been issued for the work that has been done.
Ms. Dorroh asked about stormwater management?
Mr. Chamberlin said that stormwater management is a concern as are drainage issues. There is a horse trail easement below the wall, and any drainage from the site will go onto the trail.
Ms. Osborn said the item had been on the agenda previously and should be put on again for next month.
The Chair said that Gary McKee, Jack Campbell, Jess Mull and Donna Mull wished to register support for the project, but did not wish to speak.
Speaker: John Ward, Ramona Resident
Mr. Ward coaches softball and donates signs, among other community oriented activities. He is a family man. He wants to build a tennis court on land he has purchased. He has been harassed, spied on and petitioned against. A renter in the neighborhood has incited people. He added a room addition to his home. He bought his house in 1997 for $200,000. It is now worth over 1 million dollars.
Speaker: Jan Vleck, Ramona Resident
Mr. Vleck represents 25 property owners. The work done by Mr. Ward encroaches into a trail – may be a trespass. There are many concerns about the work that has been done and the impacts the work will have on the residents who live below the project. There are concerns over the tennis court that has been proposed and the noise and light that will be the result of that proposal should it be built. Mr. Vleck wanted to see the work done brought into compliance.
Speaker: Emily Lovci, Ramona Resident
Ms. Lovci is a resident 1 lot removed from the Ward properties. This has been an emotional topic for her and her family. They have to look at it – the Wards don’t. She has enjoyed a north view for 20 years. There is no view now. The HOA doesn’t guarantee views. Mr. Ward bought a single family lot – not a playground for him and his family. The lot that has had the vegetation removed had lilac before. All the animals and plants on the property have been killed. There has been lots of noise. Work has been done on Sunday. Mr. Ward has put money into the wall. He will lose everything because he didn’t follow the rules and didn’t get a building permit.
Ms. Radzik said that this issue is a difficult and much of it is beyond the RCPG purview, which is the Administrative Permit.
Ms. Mansolf said that the County planner had said that the chain link fence – because it was requested to be 10 feet rather than the allowable 6 – is part of the Administrative Permit, as is the lighting. The planner said that the lighting was also part of the Administrative Permit. She had requested the applicant submit a replacement map with more detail. The original map did not provide enough detail. There is no way to tell what height the proposed lights will be. The resubmittal date for the map was in June. No map had been submitted the last time Ms. Mansolf had spoken to the planner.
Ms. Dorroh had the following concerns: lack of stormwater management; use of biodegradable material in the block wall construction; soil compaction; lack of landscaping to soften the view; the structure is incompatible with the neighbor’s structures; visual impacts; lack of landscaping and irrigation; in conflict with the SDCE HOA CC&R’s. Can the County approve this project without the SDCE HOA approval?
Ms. Anderson said that the SDCE HOA CC&R’s are more stringent than the County rules. The stricter rules take precedence. For example, second dwelling units are allowed by the County but not by the SDCE HOA CC&R’s, so the stricter rules apply.
MOTION: TO PUT THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH.
Upon motion made by Vivian Osborn and seconded by Kathy S. Finley, the Motion passed 10-0-0-0-5, with Matt Deskovick, Katherine L. Finley, Andrew Simmons and Luauna Stines absent, and Bill Jenkin resigned.
MOTION: TO SEND A LIST OF COMMENTS BROUGHT FORWARD TONIGHT TO THE COUNTY AND ASK THAT EACH ONE BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO THE END OF AUGUST.
Upon motion made by Carolyn Dorroh and seconded by Chris Anderson, the Motion passed 10-0-0-0-5, with Matt Deskovick, Katherine L. Finley, Andrew Simmons and Luauna Stines absent, and Bill Jenkin resigned.
At this point, Mr. Ward became upset with the Acting Chair, Helene Radzik. He called her some colrful names, and then Charlene Ayers (see Groupies) spoke out from the floor in support of Helene Radzik. That in itself was interesting, since Helene rules the floor with an iron fist and no one shall speak out from the floor - unless you're friends with the perpetrator.
Comments