VWG: Evaluating Options for Club Area – Part 1

Some members of Silver-Bronze’s board of directors are looking to sell the Coto Valley Club property. Stonefield Development owns the office building and tennis courts adjacent to Coto Valley Club and has expressed interest in redeveloping its property. As a result, a large area within the Village soon will be changing. This presents a unique opportunity to enhance the Village, provided we are able to collaborate with Silver-Bronze and Stonefield.

The reality is that Silver-Bronze, Stonfield and the Village are like a three-legged stool. Silver-Bronze and Stonefield cannot re-zone their properties without getting 50% +1 of Village residents to agree to it. And, the Village wants its area to thrive so that home values stay high and the community remains vibrant. 

There are many possible uses for the club area. The Village Working Group is trying to determine what options are potentially best for the community and has developed an objective methodology for evaluating scenarios for the club area.

Part 1 of the working group’s presentation (see link below) explains the opportunity before the Village, shows the property in question, and provides the evaluation criteria.

Part 2 of the presentation, to be released soon, uses the evaluation criteria to rate each scenario.

This information is being shared with the Village board of directors and residents (here via the blog) to begin a dialogue on which options are in the Village’s best interest and the ones we, as a community, want to support.

Evaluation Presentation – Part 1

 Related Information:
Survey Results 
What SBC’s Changes Mean for the Village 

9 thoughts on “VWG: Evaluating Options for Club Area – Part 1”

  1. How many people responded to the mentioned survey and is that percentage enough to build your premise around. It sounds like you are supporting the hostile takeover attempt by Oak Grove, something a majority of SBC equity members do not support.

  2. Appears a great deal of thought went into the point scale, maybe too much. Criteria sliced so thin are likely to yeild small differentiation between alternatives. Seems the things we should really care about fall into 2 buckets, financial including home values, and village aesthetics and encompassing many of the other items. Feels a bit like all of these criteria are setting up a shell game bias evaluation. So far as long and short term viability, that seems not to be our issue as we have been living with a failing property and id assume anything anyone would put money in that attains zoning changes will be better than what we have.

    1. Jeff,
      Thanks for your comment. You’re right – a lot of thought has gone in to the evaluation. You mention several specific criteria. The recent survey shows the Village members have desires beyond home values and aesthetics and those desires are reflected in the evaluation criteria. As we are completing the evaluation, we are finding a large spread among point totals. Please wait to judge the system until you review the scenarios that will be in Part 2.


  3. What are the chances of making the pool/gym/tennis courts accessible to all Village members by adding a small increase to HOAs? With over 400 homes/lots in this area a small increase should be able to make it a community pool rather than a pay to play only scenario.

    1. A good idea which I know has been brought up in the past. A response from a board member as to the merits of this idea would be greatly appreciated.


      2. If we spread the costs to each lot in the community by raising the HOA, what would be the monthly increase per lot?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s