Linda Eskin Home News Work Writing Photography Music Friends & Family Critters Gardening Adventures Government Good Causes Et Cetera Links Contact		< Return to Writing Page Thoughts on Development... Development has good and bad aspects. As a Planning Group member, I try to take all sides into account. We all work hard to make well-informed recommendations to the County, so we are always grateful to hear from community members, who often bring up important points we had not considered. Those who don't care enough to stay informed, and can't be bothered to work toward the result they want, don't get to fuss when it doesn't turn out the way they had hoped. A development of 200-300 homes has been proposed, off and on, for the area between the south end of Crest, the east side of Granite Hills, and Dehesa Road. Joel Faucetta has been the spokesperson for the landowners, and the project has been known for years as "The Faucetta Project", but lately the official name has become "The Villas at Singing Hills" If you feel strongly one way or the other, I urge you to attend any Planning Group meetings where this project is discussed. I am not "for" or "against" the proposal - just trying to consider the best options for the community as a whole. My comments, below, are not meant to sway anyone to a particular point of view. Options - Pros & Cons The Villas at Singing Hills Project My Brainstorming, For Discussion Linda Eskin Granite Hills Resident 7 October, 2002 Disclaimer: Everything included here is my view alone, based on my understanding of the currently proposed project and other local conditions. Nothing here should be taken as fact. Nothing has been committed to by any parties. Nothing I say here represents the view of the Planning Group or the Villas subcommittee, or other residents. My mind is not made up one way or another, and I invite you to share your thoughts on the issue. Are there points I've overlooked? Alternatives I have not thought of? This is just my personal brainstorming, which I am sharing for the purpose of encouraging discussion. Linda Eskin, Granite Hills resident, Planning Group member, and Villas Subcommittee member. eskin@granitehillsdesign.com My Comments? Please remember that everything here is just "what I say", and that my views may change as new information is presented, or after listening to the comments of others. This is not an adversarial process. Not us versus them. I am happy to share my thoughts with all the involved parties. It seems to me that for the most part, either we all win by making something positive work out for everyone, or we all lose. Better to work together. My initial reaction was "No way! We can't allow a huge development in the hills, that's absurd. It will ruin the area." And this is what I have heard from my neighbors, when we've discussed the proposed project. I have no quarrel with the owners' desire to make money - more power to them. I understand the enthusiasm of the architecture and planning team for working with such an interesting landscape - I agree it looks like a fun and challenging project. But I didn't like the idea. I did not, and still don't, like the idea of bringing in a lot of residents who will probably not appreciate or participate in our communities, and who may attempt to purposefully change the character of surrounding areas to suit their own tastes. Gated communities are an insult to the surrounding area. "We don't want to be part of this neighborhood." That one leaves a knot in my gut. But? In spite of that major concern, and after considering the alternatives (see table, below), the proposed development looks to me like the best option. At first glance, the question appears to be "Should we let these developers and investors take a big chunk of our community and stick an out-of-place, higher-than-usual-density, gated, "upscale" development there, or should we leave it like it is, so we can go on enjoying our local hills. That's really a false choice. Asking them to "go away, and take their nearly 300 homes with them" does not leave the hills safely alone, for us to hike and ride for years to come. It leaves the hills at risk, along with our access to them, and to neighboring communities. Those hills, which many think of as public open space, are actually private parcels owned by about a dozen individuals. Just like our own properties, the public has no given rights to hike and ride there, unless the owners have given permission. What "not letting them build there" would do is leave the future of the parcels in question up to each of the owners, who are free to develop their properties, according to County zoning, in an unplanned way, without providing any benefit to the community - no trails, no wildlife corridor - and giving us minimal (if any) control over the look of the homes, landscaping, lighting, etc.. Over the next 10 years we would likely see an unattractive mess of "suburban sprawl" there. Big stucco houses with red tile roofs and stark white driveways. The proposed development offers emergency access to Crest from the south, dedicated public trails connecting the surrounding communities, a 1,000' wide wildlife corridor through the area, and some control over the character of the development. The only way to keep the hills in their current more-or-less natural state would be to purchase them (assuming all the owners want to sell), and put them in some kind of trust. As we have seen with Crestridge, this does not assure public access - in fact, it may result in users being excluded entirely, or other unforeseen uses being introduced (such as the educational facility being created at Crestridge). The proposed development will be very unpopular with local residents, who may not understand the above alternatives. Education will be important for acceptance. If there are people who are adamantly opposed to development, we should invite them to take the lead in offering a workable alternative. I am not opposed to such a project, but am not convinced it is the best option for the area, and am not interested in taking it on myself. Anyone who "wishes" the area would remain unchanged will need to decide if they are ready to work hard to achieve that, or not - it will not "just happen", and "someone else" won't do it. The residents of the proposed development may not understand what it means to live in a committed rural / semi-rural area, and will also need some educating / socialization. My current thought is that we should support the project, at, within reason, a density that makes it financially attractive for the developers to proceed (or else, of course, they won't bother, and we'll be back to unplanned sprawl), on the conditions of the project including construction of dedicated public trails, and reasonable lighting, landscaping, and design guidelines. I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on this issue. Are there points I've overlooked? Alternatives I have not thought of? Places where I'm just plain wrong? This is just my personal brainstorming, which I am sharing for the purpose of encouraging discussion. Please let me know what you think, and any ideas you have. Linda Eskin eskin@granitehillsdesign.com Questions: Who would own the roughly 1,000 acres of "designated open space", including the trails? An undivided interest among the homeowners? The County? A third party? If the developers design a network of trails that we support, and offers to dedicate them as public, non-motorized, recreational trails (and benefit from the County's indemnity, according to SEC. 812.103.), will the County accept them, or could we find them being turned down? POINTS TO CONSIDER: Description Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open 1200 acres of minimally disturbed open space - very rocky and steep, some riparian areas in valleys, with informal trails throughout. Located between Dehesa Road (along Singing Hills area), and La Cresta Road. Bordering the west and south edges of Crest, and to the east of Granite Hills. Inaccessible from Granite Hills. Regularly used by hikers and equestrians. Option 2 Individual Owners Build Zoned for 1 dwelling unit per 4 acres - less in steeper areas - maybe 100-200 homes. By rights, owners may build homes, and may subdivide for developments. Some properties are roughly (?) 200 acres. A wildlife corridor and coherent trails system would be nearly impossible. Unplanned sprawl, eyesore homes, intrusive lighting, poor ingress/egress. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Nearly 300 homes. A mix of developer-built homes and custom homes (following design guidelines?). Possibly some attached homes. Development bunched into best areas for building and views, leaving the majority (80%?) of land as open space. Dedicated public non-motorized recreational trails. 1,000' wildlife corridor. Gated. How to Achieve Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open Find organizations, agencies, or individuals willing to purchase 1200 acres of land to put in trust as open space. Hope that all owners will want to sell. Option 2 Individual Owners Build Block proposed project and let individual owners build what they are allowed to by rights. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Support Faucetta, Fleetwood, Stedt, and partners in making project fly, so they can get investors to fund it ASAP. Number of Homes Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open One existing ranch. Option 2 Individual Owners Build 100-200 (just my own wild guess - please do not take this as an "official" number) Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills 250-300. We can try to keep the number down, but it must be profitable, or they won't build it, and we're back to Option 2. Open Space Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open 1200 acres, including several riparian areas, grasslands, and rocky cliff faces. Option 2 Individual Owners Build Some preserved, but in disconnected chunks. No wildlife corridor. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Majority preserved. Continuous corridor for wildlife. Fire Considerations Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open 1200 acres of contiguous fuel, with poor access, boarding semi-rural areas (1 du/acre). No hydrants. Option 2 Individual Owners Build Patches of fuel, broken by developed properties. Possible water sources - pools, tanks, hydrants. Mixed access to developed areas. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Easier access. Roads and cleared areas would act as fire breaks. Possibly more starts, due to more people in the area. Easier to fight. Trails (Non-Motorized, Recreational) Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open Possible, depending on agency/ownership. Possibly informal ("OK to use as long as you don't get caught.") Built and maintained by volunteers. Existing trails are poorly designed and maintained, promoting erosion. Some parts too steep/slippery for cautious people or horses. "Challenging" trails promote irresponsible mountain bike use. Option 2 Individual Owners Build Very little trail access - possibly some small developments with trails through them. Probably no links between neighboring communities. Little or no resources for trail development. Majority of area closed to public use. County trails plan may help encourage link trails and trails in the area, but I would not count on it to assure any access. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Required (from my point of view). Designated public non-motorized recreational trails on permanent easements. Alignments designed to work with new plan, and connect Dehesa, Crest (and Crestridge), and Granite Hills. Well-planned design would increase use by desirable (responsible) users, and reduce erosion and maintenance Dark Sky Preservation Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open Excellent Option 2 Individual Owners Build Poor. Security lights, Home Depot type "decorative" lights, bad fixtures, no controls on design. No consequences for intrusive lighting or glare. (Ordinances exist, but County does not enforce.) Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Good - potential to be a model for other communities, if done well. Design guidelines (enforced by whom?). Social pressure from neighbors, who paid darned good money to live where trashy, poorly designed lighting is not allowed. Dark skies & starry nights as a possible selling point. Character of Area in Question Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open Open space Option 2 Individual Owners Build Similar to surrounding areas. Probable unattractive design, poorly (not) planned sprawl. Not a walkable community. No planning for social aspects. Most of the land will not support small-scale ag or horsekeeping. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Expensive, gated community. Most likely well-designed and attractive. Possible "hillside village" character. Possible showpiece. Different from surrounding communities. Mostly not equestrian or small ag, but land is not well-suited to those uses in any case. Affect on Character of Surrounding Community Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open Reinforces rural, "out-in-the-country" feeling. Supports wildlife. Option 2 Individual Owners Build Unpredictable, but almost certainly not positive. Look of homes, landscaping, and lighting not controlled. Even if only 1 of 4 new homes is badly designed the overall look would be unattractive, and possibly interfere with enjoyment of surrounding properties. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Keeps hillsides attractive, some lights, headlights (mitigate by plantings or berms). More dangerous drivers. Another community of outsiders in our midst (like Singing Hills, and Sycuan customers and employees). May reduce rural character by increasing population, or enhance, by providing public access to the nearby hills. "Ownership" (as in stakeholder, and taking responsibility) can be enhanced by allowing legal public access. Kind of People Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open None. May bring in visitors from other areas, and good press, increasing our visibility and reputation as a nice place to live. We may see trail use by ATVs and dirt bikes (as is the case in Crestridge) because of the area's remoteness and inaccessibility to law enforcement. Option 2 Individual Owners Build Mixed. Continuation of current development pattern. Some who love the area, some who will come and want to change it. Many are likely to start out as, or become, "part of the community". Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Suburban, wealthy. Not from, or committed to, rural culture / lifestyle. Not wanting to be seen as part of, or participate in, the surrounding community. May not understand local ethics/norms, and will need socialization / education. Trails may provide a "common ground" where the old and new residents can intermingle. Roads Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open None. Poor (impassable / dangerous) fire road from Dehesa Rd. to Suncrest / South Lane. Several other old ranch roads throughout. Option 2 Individual Owners Build Unplanned private roads to small developments. No connectivity. More load on roads in Crest. No/poor emergency access to/from Crest. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Good connection with South Crest for fire/emergency. Gated at all three entries? Increased load on roads in Crest & Dehesa. Sewer Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open None. Option 2 Individual Owners Build Development somewhat limited by availability of sewer / ability to pass perc tests. Future developments could use package sewer systems where septic is not possible. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Combination of sewer (Dehesa side), septic, holding tanks, and package sewer. Bringing in sewer could promote growth in the Dehesa Valley. Water - In / Out Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open None. Watershed drains to Sweetwater river. (How does it get to the river?) Option 2 Individual Owners Build Development somewhat limited by availability / expense of bringing water to home sites. Possible degradation of water quality in Sweetwater river from construction, roads, pesticides, herbicides, etc., but less likely and less concentrated than one big development. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills New water service may encourage development in nearby areas of Crest and Dehesa. Possible degradation of water quality in Sweetwater river from construction, roads, pesticides, herbicides, etc. Could be partially mitigated through education of new residents. Water Tank in Crest Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open No change Option 2 Individual Owners Build No change Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Possible new tank. Could benefit Crest residents. Could encourage more development. Amenities That Could Benefit Nearby Residents Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open 1200 Acres for wildlife, hiking, riding, birdwatching, quiet, views. A nearby place to get away from it all. Preserves scenic hillside views. Option 2 Individual Owners Build None. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Designated public trails. Possible equestrian center. Possible water tank. Possible improvements to South Lane Park. PLDO funds (Park Land Dedication Ordinance)? Property Values and Desirability of Nearby Properties Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open Enhanced. Designated open space would be attractive to desirable buyers while serving existing residents. Option 2 Individual Owners Build Diminished. Lack of trails diminishes desirability of properties in surrounding communities for equestrians and walkers or hikers. Individual homes and small developments would almost certainly diminish quality of views. Property values will rise with market, but will not be enhanced by sprawling development. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Could be enhanced by ensuring continuous availability of public trails and views of rocky hillsides and ridgelines. Could be diminished by harming rural character and views of hillsides, and increasing traffic. Property values may increase due to prices of these new homes, but that does not benefit current residents unless they sell and move away, and makes nearby rural properties less affordable to equestrians, small-scale farmers, and others who desire a rural lifestyle . Thoughts about Sycuan Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open None. Option 2 Individual Owners Build None. Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Developer may be able to work with Sycuan to reduce light pollution. Loss of Farmland, or Potential Farmland No impact. Other Ideas Option 1 Leave Land As-Is, Open Could end up being controlled by BLM or F&G, who often close lands to public use, especially equestrians. Option 2 Individual Owners Build Option 3 Villas at Singing Hills Community telescope area (like SDAA) area (hosted community star parties?), or individual observatory pads (with power), or build backyard observatories. (Another potential market.)
	All contents Copyright © 2004, Linda Eskin