|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 16, 2011 8:08:54 GMT -8
Horn scored several property-right victories in his district, including a change that benefits the Castle Creek Condos project near Valley Center.
Well Pooh, looks like you'll be losing your golf course parking lot and putting up with more folks using the course. Looks like your boy Horn did you the dirty. When I had a pre-application meeting with the owners about 7 or 8 years ago I told them there was no chance in Hell they could have that many units but I guess they went the campaign contribution route.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 16, 2011 9:53:02 GMT -8
If this is done, it will benefit the golf course. There is now more than enough parking and there would be positive changes to the course as well. There are a good 80 or 90 parking spots that are never filled as is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 16, 2011 11:19:41 GMT -8
If this is done, it will benefit the golf course. There is now more than enough parking and there would be positive changes to the course as well. There are a good 80 or 90 parking spots that are never filled as is. At least when I met with them, their use permit required that number of parking spaces. If they haven't modified it they'll have to do so. At the time they were hoping to have senior reduced parking but the County doesn't allow it or at least didn't back then. So it will be interesting to see what their condo map shows for parking. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 17, 2011 7:13:24 GMT -8
If this is done, it will benefit the golf course. There is now more than enough parking and there would be positive changes to the course as well. There are a good 80 or 90 parking spots that are never filled as is. At least when I met with them, their use permit required that number of parking spaces. If they haven't modified it they'll have to do so. At the time they were hoping to have senior reduced parking but the County doesn't allow it or at least didn't back then. So it will be interesting to see what their condo map shows for parking. =Bob There are bigger problems for them than that. They were going to try to use the exisitng entrance to The Treasures and an adjacent project but that is not going to be allowed. Don't know what they would do. At any rate, this project appears to be dead for now. I would also expect opposition from that the Valley Center Planning Group so opposed to logical and responsible development in favor of a develpment plan away from I15 where the existing roads can not handle traffic. Their real goal is no development at all, but that is another story. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 17, 2011 12:01:30 GMT -8
At least when I met with them, their use permit required that number of parking spaces. If they haven't modified it they'll have to do so. At the time they were hoping to have senior reduced parking but the County doesn't allow it or at least didn't back then. So it will be interesting to see what their condo map shows for parking. =Bob There are bigger problems for them than that. They were going to try to use the exisitng entrance to The Treasures and an adjacent project but that is not going to be allowed. Don't know what they would do. At any rate, this project appears to be dead for now. I would also expect opposition from that the Valley Center Planning Group so opposed to logical and responsible development in favor of a develpment plan away from I15 where the existing roads can not handle traffic. Their real goal is no development at all, but that is another story. Well, the history of development has been pretty haphazard, especially back in the days when an engineer could submit a minor subdivision map, pay 25 bucks and have it approved by a DPW engineer in two days. There are a ton of those all over the back Country - not to mention all the lots that were created by deeds before the Subdivision Map Act. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 17, 2011 17:51:17 GMT -8
At least when I met with them, their use permit required that number of parking spaces. If they haven't modified it they'll have to do so. At the time they were hoping to have senior reduced parking but the County doesn't allow it or at least didn't back then. So it will be interesting to see what their condo map shows for parking. =Bob There are bigger problems for them than that. They were going to try to use the exisitng entrance to The Treasures and an adjacent project but that is not going to be allowed. Don't know what they would do. At any rate, this project appears to be dead for now. I would also expect opposition from that the Valley Center Planning Group so opposed to logical and responsible development in favor of a develpment plan away from I15 where the existing roads can not handle traffic. Their real goal is no development at all, but that is another story. Duke, another thing to consider is that just because a development is next to a freeway it doesn't mean that it's logical or responsible. 15 is already massively impacted by the huge growth in the Inland Empire and at some point planners have to take that into consideration. It would be nice if some of these guys would take a look at opportunities down here. When we amended to Mid-City plan we set some densities as high as 75 DUs/acre. It's an RDA so 20 percent of the housing would theoretically be affordable and it's not the best area of town, but there are opportunities. I don't think the land is all that expensive and Bus Rapid Transit will go in soon, but these bozos just keep claiming that development on a freeway reaching at least level of service E at peak hours (worst is F) is somehow smart growth. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 17, 2011 19:56:22 GMT -8
There are bigger problems for them than that. They were going to try to use the existing entrance to The Treasures and an adjacent project but that is not going to be allowed. Don't know what they would do. At any rate, this project appears to be dead for now. I would also expect opposition from that the Valley Center Planning Group so opposed to logical and responsible development in favor of a development plan away from I15 where the existing roads can not handle traffic. Their real goal is no development at all, but that is another story. Duke, another thing to consider is that just because a development is next to a freeway it doesn't mean that it's logical or responsible. 15 is already massively impacted by the huge growth in the Inland Empire and at some point planners have to take that into consideration. It would be nice if some of these guys would take a look at opportunities down here. When we amended to Mid-City plan we set some densities as high as 75 DUs/acre. It's an RDA so 20 percent of the housing would theoretically be affordable and it's not the best area of town, but there are opportunities. I don't think the land is all that expensive and Bus Rapid Transit will go in soon, but these bozos just keep claiming that development on a freeway reaching at least level of service E at peak hours (worst is F) is somehow smart growth. Bob I won't argue that, only that the Valley Center Group has the mind set of pretending to favor growth in the Cole Grade/Valley Center Road area knowing that no plan can be approved without transportation improvements that make it near impossible. They live here, but don't want any new neighbors. I can see the wisdom for many reasons of development near City Center. It makes sense, just I would never live there. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 18, 2011 16:54:47 GMT -8
Duke, another thing to consider is that just because a development is next to a freeway it doesn't mean that it's logical or responsible. 15 is already massively impacted by the huge growth in the Inland Empire and at some point planners have to take that into consideration. It would be nice if some of these guys would take a look at opportunities down here. When we amended to Mid-City plan we set some densities as high as 75 DUs/acre. It's an RDA so 20 percent of the housing would theoretically be affordable and it's not the best area of town, but there are opportunities. I don't think the land is all that expensive and Bus Rapid Transit will go in soon, but these bozos just keep claiming that development on a freeway reaching at least level of service E at peak hours (worst is F) is somehow smart growth. Bob I won't argue that, only that the Valley Center Group has the mind set of pretending to favor growth in the Cole Grade/Valley Center Road area knowing that no plan can be approved without transportation improvements that make it near impossible. They live here, but don't want any new neighbors. I can see the wisdom for many reasons of development near City Center. It makes sense, just I would never live there. It's been a bit more than 5 years since I retired so I'm not up on the current make-up of the VC planning group, but it was my experience that it wasn't all that liberal. Lael Montgomery is certainly liberal and the papers often go to her for comments but I'm not sure she reflects the entire board. Back around 2001 or so those of us in the Special Projects section were tasked with creating a survey for VC revitalization. Because of the class I took in quantitative methods I argued for an open-ended poll. We did that and basically we got told that outside of a couple of commercial concerns they wanted to leave them the fark alone. And that's what we did. VC is too large - there is a design review committee for the I-15 Corridor that shouldn't exist, always BS. But I would suggest that an I-1 corridor planning group, separate from VC's planning group might be in order. There's really no reason that VCPG should have any authority over the I-15 corridor. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 19, 2011 12:31:51 GMT -8
I won't argue that, only that the Valley Center Group has the mind set of pretending to favor growth in the Cole Grade/Valley Center Road area knowing that no plan can be approved without transportation improvements that make it near impossible. They live here, but don't want any new neighbors. I can see the wisdom for many reasons of development near City Center. It makes sense, just I would never live there. It's been a bit more than 5 years since I retired so I'm not up on the current make-up of the VC planning group, but it was my experience that it wasn't all that liberal. Lael Montgomery is certainly liberal and the papers often go to her for comments but I'm not sure she reflects the entire board. Back around 2001 or so those of us in the Special Projects section were tasked with creating a survey for VC revitalization. Because of the class I took in quantitative methods I argued for an open-ended poll. We did that and basically we got told that outside of a couple of commercial concerns they wanted to leave them the fark alone. And that's what we did. VC is too large - there is a design review committee for the I-15 Corridor that shouldn't exist, always BS. But I would suggest that an I-1 corridor planning group, separate from VC's planning group might be in order. There's really no reason that VCPG should have any authority over the I-15 corridor. =Bob I am not sure it has much to do with being liberal, but just not wanting any more development anywhere in VC. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 19, 2011 14:13:58 GMT -8
It's been a bit more than 5 years since I retired so I'm not up on the current make-up of the VC planning group, but it was my experience that it wasn't all that liberal. Lael Montgomery is certainly liberal and the papers often go to her for comments but I'm not sure she reflects the entire board. Back around 2001 or so those of us in the Special Projects section were tasked with creating a survey for VC revitalization. Because of the class I took in quantitative methods I argued for an open-ended poll. We did that and basically we got told that outside of a couple of commercial concerns they wanted to leave them the fark alone. And that's what we did. VC is too large - there is a design review committee for the I-15 Corridor that shouldn't exist, always BS. But I would suggest that an I-1 corridor planning group, separate from VC's planning group might be in order. There's really no reason that VCPG should have any authority over the I-15 corridor. =Bob I am not sure it has much to do with being liberal, but just not wanting any more development anywhere in VC. Good point. And I should clarify my previous post. The main problem with the I-15 DRB is they get to review new residential development and that shouldn't happen. No other DRB in the County gets to do that. =Bob |
|
