Serenity in Stonebridge, OVERPRICED????

[bearishgurl]

Just noticed the above two ??’s I responded to were from 3+ mos. ago even tho thread was recently reactivated . . . answers are still relevant.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I haven’t looked inside new developments but from what I’ve heard from people who have bought into them in South County, they are NOT very well insulated and DO NOT have triple-paned windows. [/quote]

I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.
If the permit to build was 2007 or later then it had to meet the title24 standards of 2005. This means it had to meet specific energy calculations that are most easily achieved with decent insulation and double pane (or better) windows. (Not to mention efficient lighting, etc.)

Once a permit is pulled there is a clock started on completing construction… If you take too long to break ground or get occupancy, the permit expires and you have to bring the project/plans up to the latest code…..

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I haven’t looked inside new developments but from what I’ve heard from people who have bought into them in South County, they are NOT very well insulated and DO NOT have triple-paned windows. [/quote]

I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.
If the permit to build was 2007 or later then it had to meet the title24 standards of 2005. This means it had to meet specific energy calculations that are most easily achieved with decent insulation and double pane (or better) windows. (Not to mention efficient lighting, etc.)

Once a permit is pulled there is a clock started on completing construction… If you take too long to break ground or get occupancy, the permit expires and you have to bring the project/plans up to the latest code…..

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I haven’t looked inside new developments but from what I’ve heard from people who have bought into them in South County, they are NOT very well insulated and DO NOT have triple-paned windows. [/quote]

I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.
If the permit to build was 2007 or later then it had to meet the title24 standards of 2005. This means it had to meet specific energy calculations that are most easily achieved with decent insulation and double pane (or better) windows. (Not to mention efficient lighting, etc.)

Once a permit is pulled there is a clock started on completing construction… If you take too long to break ground or get occupancy, the permit expires and you have to bring the project/plans up to the latest code…..

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I haven’t looked inside new developments but from what I’ve heard from people who have bought into them in South County, they are NOT very well insulated and DO NOT have triple-paned windows. [/quote]

I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.
If the permit to build was 2007 or later then it had to meet the title24 standards of 2005. This means it had to meet specific energy calculations that are most easily achieved with decent insulation and double pane (or better) windows. (Not to mention efficient lighting, etc.)

Once a permit is pulled there is a clock started on completing construction… If you take too long to break ground or get occupancy, the permit expires and you have to bring the project/plans up to the latest code…..

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I haven’t looked inside new developments but from what I’ve heard from people who have bought into them in South County, they are NOT very well insulated and DO NOT have triple-paned windows. [/quote]

I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.
If the permit to build was 2007 or later then it had to meet the title24 standards of 2005. This means it had to meet specific energy calculations that are most easily achieved with decent insulation and double pane (or better) windows. (Not to mention efficient lighting, etc.)

Once a permit is pulled there is a clock started on completing construction… If you take too long to break ground or get occupancy, the permit expires and you have to bring the project/plans up to the latest code…..

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.[/quote]

91914 (RHR) was built between approx. 1998 and 2003 and 91915 (ALL) was built between approx. 2000 and 2006 – maybe one or two straggling projects east of the new mall finished after that.

The rest of 91914 (primarily Eastlake Greens) is as old as 19 yrs. Much of that stock has very narrow backyards facing into the golf course.

IMO, most of the developments in Otay Ranch are comprised of cheap crackerboxes, many with ticky-tacky “shutters” and little or no driveways/backyards. The vast majority of SFR’s are situated on lots =< 4,000 sf., even if the house itself is 3,000 sf. - LOL. UCGal, I don't see any of this "newer" Chula stock as having been built under "new codes."

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.[/quote]

91914 (RHR) was built between approx. 1998 and 2003 and 91915 (ALL) was built between approx. 2000 and 2006 – maybe one or two straggling projects east of the new mall finished after that.

The rest of 91914 (primarily Eastlake Greens) is as old as 19 yrs. Much of that stock has very narrow backyards facing into the golf course.

IMO, most of the developments in Otay Ranch are comprised of cheap crackerboxes, many with ticky-tacky “shutters” and little or no driveways/backyards. The vast majority of SFR’s are situated on lots =< 4,000 sf., even if the house itself is 3,000 sf. - LOL. UCGal, I don't see any of this "newer" Chula stock as having been built under "new codes."

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.[/quote]

91914 (RHR) was built between approx. 1998 and 2003 and 91915 (ALL) was built between approx. 2000 and 2006 – maybe one or two straggling projects east of the new mall finished after that.

The rest of 91914 (primarily Eastlake Greens) is as old as 19 yrs. Much of that stock has very narrow backyards facing into the golf course.

IMO, most of the developments in Otay Ranch are comprised of cheap crackerboxes, many with ticky-tacky “shutters” and little or no driveways/backyards. The vast majority of SFR’s are situated on lots =< 4,000 sf., even if the house itself is 3,000 sf. - LOL. UCGal, I don't see any of this "newer" Chula stock as having been built under "new codes."

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.[/quote]

91914 (RHR) was built between approx. 1998 and 2003 and 91915 (ALL) was built between approx. 2000 and 2006 – maybe one or two straggling projects east of the new mall finished after that.

The rest of 91914 (primarily Eastlake Greens) is as old as 19 yrs. Much of that stock has very narrow backyards facing into the golf course.

IMO, most of the developments in Otay Ranch are comprised of cheap crackerboxes, many with ticky-tacky “shutters” and little or no driveways/backyards. The vast majority of SFR’s are situated on lots =< 4,000 sf., even if the house itself is 3,000 sf. - LOL. UCGal, I don't see any of this "newer" Chula stock as having been built under "new codes."

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.[/quote]

91914 (RHR) was built between approx. 1998 and 2003 and 91915 (ALL) was built between approx. 2000 and 2006 – maybe one or two straggling projects east of the new mall finished after that.

The rest of 91914 (primarily Eastlake Greens) is as old as 19 yrs. Much of that stock has very narrow backyards facing into the golf course.

IMO, most of the developments in Otay Ranch are comprised of cheap crackerboxes, many with ticky-tacky “shutters” and little or no driveways/backyards. The vast majority of SFR’s are situated on lots =< 4,000 sf., even if the house itself is 3,000 sf. - LOL. UCGal, I don't see any of this "newer" Chula stock as having been built under "new codes."

[Dcsteele7]

Hello
Does anyone have information about the Poway Vulcan Materials mine and the permit that was open for questions in 2013? See link below. It looks like Beeler creek residents put up a fight in 2004. I’m wondering if Stonebridge residents are able to put up a tougher fight to stop future mining since there are more homes in Stonebridge. Do you think we are likely to see the mining company win or do you think there is a good chance the people will be able to stop mining for good?

Does anyone know what kind of impact mining operations may have on homes in Stonebridge, and specifically the homes that back up to Beeler creek. Noise, eyesore, dust, pollution, etc.? Are the homes at an elevation such that noise would have minimal impact on the homes above the mine? How did the Mira Mesa Vulcan mine affect homes on the rim of the mine? Does anyone have experience with Mira Mesa homes near the mine or Beeler creek homes and the poway mine?

http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/docs/publicnotices/2013_0102_Public%20Notice%20with%20Attachments_Poway%20Mine%20Vulcan%20Materials_100%20%20%20.pdf

[Author]

Posts