The development is clearly unwelcome and completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. The neighborhood is zoned Rural Residential - 2, meaning a maximum of 2 lots per acre, or a minimum of 1/2 acre per lot. Most properties in the neighborhood, however, are an acre or more. The developer is using the density bonus law to try to force 17 lots (one street lot, 16 dwelling lots) into a 7+ acre area that would normally be zoned for 15 lots. Even at 15 lots, this would be much denser than the surrounding neighborhood, and a burden on traffic and street parking in the narrow, rural street.
The question is whether the state density bonus law, written by developers for developers, mandates the city approve this development regardless of the impact on the community. There seem (to this lay reader) to be enough outs in the law to allow the city council to reject the appeal on a number of community impact grounds if they so choose.
That's just this week's hot council action. Next week: will the new green city council overturn the 101 bike lane approved by the old gray city council?
UPDATE: No decision on Desert Rose. Can kicked until March.
UPDATE: Correction from a Desert Rose neighbor:
One correction that I would request is that this property is zoned for either 7 units (identified in the GPU Update on pg. B-97, line 1. Project planner Roy Sapau also figured it in an email to Maggie Houlihan in January 2011. That that time, he figured that the actual zoning for this property was 8 houses without the application of any up zoning.Not sure why this differs from the RR-2 max zoning, but we'll take your word for it.
The misinformation that they are only asking for 4 more units than they are entitled came from the appeal that Marco Gonzalez placed. As you see, 16 units with 1 low income house and 1 fee paid to the City for the 17th is much more than 7 or 8 houses. In fact, there is currently a low income family who have tended the horses for over 20 years who are living there who will lose their home, so it is hard to understand what benefit to the community this project will provide.
"will the new green city council overturn the 101 bike lane approved by the old gray city council?"
ReplyDeleteW.C., can you weigh in on why the NCTD easement can't be used for the bike lane? Why does the city have no control over this -- does Encinitas have any say about the extent & blight of that space?
Good question. I have no idea.
DeleteIt may be that the city is too broke to build and maintain a bike path. They haven't been able to even clear the goat head puncture vine from the sections where there is an existing path.
The reason is that NCTD will not allow an easement on their easement.
ReplyDeletethe reason is we had Jerome Stocks who was our representative of NCTD who focus on no improvements along the corridor for the 12 years he was in office. He sucked and Tony will be much more effective at getting NCTD to improve the conditions or that blighted, bike hating and goat head filled area.
ReplyDeleteJerome did worse than nothing. Remember his deceit over installing a smaller than recommended pipe to ease flooding along the tracks? He repeatedly lied ans stated that the coastal commission would not allow a larger pipe. The truth is the city never asked for a larger pipe from the coastal commission.
ReplyDeleteYea, I agree that Tony will do better.
The Desert Rose appeal will be a test of the new council majority. I agree with W.C, that there are enough grounds to nix the project in its present form based on safety issues, community character, and encroachment on the riparian habit. It depends on whether the council has the courage to risk a lawsuit and wants to spend the money to defend itself. I think community sentiment is pretty clear about the inappropriateness of the project as now designed.
ReplyDeleteI was flabbergasted by some of the answers given by staff, especially the fire marshal, who thought it was acceptable for a family to evacuate on foot on a dirt trail through tall brush during a fire storm. He said the wind only averages abut 10 miles per hour in the area and he has the data. Not during a Santa Ana wind!!
There's also the question of the pie-shaped piece of the property needed for the road easement. My sources tell me it has not been dedicated. If true, that would make the planner untruthful.
Council members were asking some good questions. Marco Gonzalez, an excellent lawyer, wants to make this a black and white issue by saying the density bonus law trumps everything, yet he read the law and there is an escape clause for the city, if it chooses to use it.
I went to bed before 10 o'clock, knowing that there were too many unanswered questions. Staff definitely rambled a lot. Anytime staff members talk too long, it's because they don't have the answers or don't want to give straight forward answers.
Cardiffian, why don't you update your blog page??
DeleteNot my blog. It's my doppelgänger.
DeleteWhere is Desert Rose located?
ReplyDeleteOff Rancho Santa Fe Road and 13th, backing up to Carlsbad.
ReplyDeletePut "Desert Rose Way" into Google Maps.
CARDIFFIANS ? It is our blog.
ReplyDeleteThis was to battle the city when they wanted to spot zone 44 acres of Cardiff. We believe that recording the shenanigans of the city held off this middle of the summer power-play. There was an attempt to change the general plan, height limits, install lights and speakers with the lights with half the output of the Rose Bowl and block established ocean and sunset views.
It never made it to planning. So we halted the updating. This issue will return.
Let's not transform Encinitas into Irvine.
Please give up on that rediculous claim!
ReplyDeleteGo up to Lake drive and take a look at the lights that they have there. They are similar in hieght to what is proposed for ECP. They do not block bluewater views or sunsets. Lights are off at 10:45 at the latest and are not on every night.
Stop the scare tactics!
You lost so get over it and let's move forward.
Lights were never approved for the Hall property park. It requires amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. The city planned to do this in 2010, but ran into a buzz saw of opposition, including from the Coastal Commission, and stopped the process.
DeleteThe construction plans for the Hall property park do include laying conduit for the light standards, but there won't be lights any time soon and maybe never. There's the fiscal burden of $1.4 million yearly bond payments, additional borrowing to finish the park, and yearly maintenance costs of $0.5-$1 million that make installations of lights seem only a dream.
Loser. They didn't lose yet. The lights are not up and the City is broke paying for fat pensions and an ongoing maintenance cost for a huge new regional sports park. I say knock off all the high density / high energy using lights/ and massive crowd events. Lets let Irvine and Carlsbad have that kindof town. I like Encinitas as a small coastal surf town- with no need to subsitize Carslsbad private sports leagues CEOs salary.
ReplyDeleteLets let Olivenhain put in some 100 space deluxe trailor parks, some apartments, and some low income "town homes" and then we can take them seriously about charactor and density issues. I think Olivenhain needs to start pulling its weight in the whole low income housing and increased housing unit discussion. The density bonus law is a perfect reason why encinitas should not increase any of its zoning ..... the state already has by 25%- 30%
ReplyDeleteIt's on the record that the attorney for the Sierra Club stated earlier that Marco Gonzales was a wolf in sheep's clothing. I didn't belief it until last night. Marco has SOLD OUT TO THE DEVELOPERS!
ReplyDeleteMARCO GONZALES IS A COMPLETE LOSER! He's about as much an enviro, as a trash compactor. He stated that he wouldn't fix the creek if required to expand the development's buffer - so much for protecting the environment.
ReplyDeleteHomes on 1/4 acres R-4 are very common in Encinitas and are still very big lots relative to the average lot. I don't see the big deal. Look at the size of the homes in that area. Do families really need a house larger than 5,000 to 8,000 SF?
ReplyDeleteTalk about waste of natural resources and not worrying about your impact on the environment.
I am glad I am not in this argument. Its all about whether the developer can build 12 or 16 homes. Big deal.... Ether way the property will be developed and paved....The difference of 4 homes will not make that much more profit for the developer or difference in the environmental impacts. After all this lawyer time, the only winners are the lawyers. Think of all the wasted hours spent on this subject. I guess it is a precedence of challenging the density bonus law in Olivenhain. I think if the City denies the claim, the developers will win the appeal to a state court and Encinitas will end up owing all the attorney's costs on this one which will be Millions.
The Council should not be so reactionary and waste the City's time and money challenging this developer on this small project. I should spend it time and money addressing the root problem- the density bonus law. Otherwise every development in Encinitas will have the same issues. Look at the recent shit they build in Leucadia. Council should build a coalition to adopt a state bill eliminating the Density Bonus Law.
Focus Council Focus.
Could not agree more and perfectly stated. Touche'
DeleteThe area is RR2 and is zoned for horses. A horse is the image that represents Olivenhain on our City seal. The actual number of houses that this is zoned for is 8--we have an email addressed to a Council member from Project Manager Roy Sapua. If it were actually 4 more units than what they were asking for, it would be 12--not 17 for a property zoned for 8.
DeleteSpeaking of paving.... Anyone else notice that the brand new pavement on 101 I like driving on a wash board?
ReplyDeleteYes! I drove from La Costa down to the post office & couldn't believe how bumpy it was. They better not be finished, because that surface is unacceptable.
DeleteAaahahahaha Leucadians get suckered again. Ahh jeez it's getting to be an old story. The city tosses Leucadia a bone and you guys snap it up as if it's filet mignon. Of course the road sucks, what were you expecting?? The first work done on that highway in 50 years and it's a SLURRY. IT should be a all jack hammered out and replaced with 6-8 inches of asphalt. Put down a real road. A road that we can all be proud of but nooooooo. It's a slurry....hahahahaha. Suckers!!
DeleteThe road is a reflection of how the city views Leucadia. The city doesn't respect the community therefore everything Leucadia gets is secondhand or "washboard". My advice is suck it up, that's the best you're gonna get. (and you thought with the new council things would change, hahahaha. They hate your guts as much as every other council.) Until you find a way for the city to respect and admire Leucadia, don't expect anything but to be tossed an occasional bone.
It's not done yet people!
DeleteLet the work finish before we start complaining about the condition of the highway. The slurry work is just to buy time until the streetscape begins construction.
Would you like them to tear up the highway and pave it twice?
I don't think so.
Check the Council agenda for next Wednesday - item #5.
DeleteThe parking lot at Walmart, that's a smooth road.
DeleteItem #5 was a fun read. What a convoluted agenda item to follow. No wonder we are all scratching our heads.
DeletePiece-meal was brought up by the CC and I completely agree that you must view this 101 corridor with Vulcan collectively from Cardiff to La Costa Blvd.
The bicycle master plan must be part of this if there is a plan for the NCTD easment to allow a bike/walk lane.
If we really care about safety we should get bikes and people off the highway if there is a viable way to do so. Why take a lane away if you don't really have to?
And I am sorry but sharrows are just too confusing for the stupid ADD drivers to follow in this city. You're just asking to get run over if you want to ride in a sharrowed portion of the highway.
We should not change a highway just so a few road bikers can ride five wide on weekends.
WTF Loser?
DeleteWhy do you call our mainstreet a highway?
Its not a highway is a local corridor.
I5 was built in the 1060 to serve the highway traffic. At that time, Hwy 101 became a local roadway, and our local mainstreet should be serving local residents and vistors, not commutors and interstate traffic.
I guess you will never get it and don't want to see any successful businesses along our Mainstreet.
I'll have to tell you. You speak with fork tongue. On one hand you talk of caring for local businesses, but then you speak about keeping the blight that puts them out of business.
Because of your comments, I think you have a low IQ and I don't resect you. You just will never understand.
Pull your head out of that little bubble you live in and try to see the bigger picture. The blight lies in that easement. That easment divides this community in so many ways. If you truly want our businesses to succeed we need to be able to get there. We need sidewalks and bike lines on each side of the easemnt with at grade crossings and cross walks. Then we will have a true walkable corridor for all of Leucadia.
DeleteAnd it is a highway and will always be one It is named HWY 101 for a reason. People will always cruise 101 to get destinations other than our little funky burough.
Agree, 100%. Add proper landscaping to that list & the corridor would be so vibrant and attractive. It's a mystery to me why the city doesn't do at least *something* along those lines.
DeleteRegarding the NCTD easement: if the city can build a tunnel under the tracks, surely it can at least landscape the ridiculous blight.
Just checked the agenda for next week. Proposed bike lane and lane diet have been removed from the Pavement Rehabilitation Project on 101. It seems certain persons, the whiners as Dan Dalager used say, turned out to right about the city not following the process correctly. The Coastal Commission sent the city a letter dated Jan. 23 stating so. Now the city has to go back and redo a lot of things. Staff is out of control. Heads should roll.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder the e-alert for the posting of the agenda was delayed a day. Staff must have been hustling to make the changes in order to meet the 72-hour posting requirement.
ReplyDeleteOlivenhain originally joined Encinitas in order to stop this kind of development. I would much prefer to end this experiment that we call "Encinitas" and go back to the county with no density requirements, low income requirements, or fat pensions to pay for.
ReplyDeleteIf the county was going to let it happen back then... What would stop them from allowing the development now?
DeleteThe City has no money for needed improvements to Hwy101. All the money is going to increased pension payments and the future maintenance for the new Regional Sports Park. We are broke!!!
Delete@LL: There are a lot more state mandated requirements placed upon incorporated cities in California. Unincorporated areas do not have state mandated density or low income requirements. RSF looks at incorporating every few years, but always concludes that incorporation is a bad idea.
DeleteOne major improvement for Encinitas, would be to fire Sacramento Gus before he sinks Encinitas in DEBT like he has did to Sacramento and has already begun in Encinitas.
DeleteSadly, the bike lane won't be implemented as needed, more sad is that a bunch of citizens know more about the laws of the city and state than our highly paid staff.
ReplyDeleteQ- Who get's fired for not doing their job??
A- No one, in fact they will get a pay and pension increase soon. In which case every council member should be recalled.
It's time for pitch forks and flaming torches at city hall to demand accountability for the COE failure.
ReplyDeleteGus Vina is a master manipulator. When we confront him with the pattern of poor staff performance, he whines that we are beating up on him. He needs to go, and he should take staff with him.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that Muir has recused himself from this. How does it work if the vote is 2-2? I am guessing that since this is an appeal from the planning commission's decision to reject, that the rejection would stand? Can someone clarify?
ReplyDelete