A controversial housing development planned for a horse property in Olivenhain hit a hurdle this week when a San Diego Superior Court judge tentatively ruled it can’t move forward without further environmental review.More background here.
The ruling was a setback for Woodridge Farms Estates LLC, which plans to build 16 homes on what is now a horse boarding facility on Desert Rose Way, east of Rancho Santa Fe’s intersection with 13th Street on the very edge of the Encinitas city limits.
[...]
In early 2013, the Planning Commission agreed with neighbors and voted to reject the Desert Rose proposal. That decision was later reversed by the Encinitas City Council, which OK’d the plans in March of that year.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Court rules city council was wrong to ignore environmental impacts at Desert Rose
A tentative victory for Desert Rose neighbors against the city council and developers:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Another waste of tax payer $ due to city attorney Sabine. He needs to be replaced.
ReplyDeleteEveryone on the council needs to go, a pathetic bunch of losers. Poor Encinitas, thank God I'll be gone when the city can no longer pay its bills nor borrow more monies. Yet somehow I'm sure they pay those pensions....
DeleteDon't worry about waste of tax dollars. In 20 years nobody will care and they will just be happy that we saved Pacific View.
Delete6:20,
DeleteYou know the scary thing is for a moment there I actually couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic. Some people actually say those things with a straight face.
Well, its been 13 years and, pretty much, no one seems to care what the city paid and is and will be paying for the Hall Park. the city is telling the press that the cost of the park is $20 million. That's not true, but no one much cares.
DeleteIf that is true of the Hall $80 million dollar cost, it seems that the PV cost would be ignored in time also.
Do you really think that people on this blog will let anyone forget how much these things cost? Lisa underestimates us.
DeleteAnd it's not just those on the blog who continue to be appalled...explain what happened with the Hall and PV to anyone who doesn't know and they are horrified.
DeleteWe are living now and have to deal with these mistakes now, not sit on our hands for 20 years and wait to forget. That's about as absurd a comment as I've seen on here.
Hall was about $20 million to buy and about $20 million to build. That makes it $40 million, which is way too much, but where do you get $80 million?
Delete8:43- please stop trying to misinform and mislead the public=-
DeleteHall Park Cost of sale price: 21M + 2 smaller parcels
Hall Park cost to finance: $25M (could be slightly lower due to refiance, original bond terms $1.$ annually for 20 years)
Associated early design, EIR
costs: $3M
Cost to USS Cal Builders
to build $20M + (they are not yet finished)
New Bond debt servicing
on second $8M bond is
$500,000 x 20 $10M
Cost to acquire, finance, build Hall park = $79 million
the original Hall park Bond debt service was $1.4M annually for 20 years.
DeleteHall property cost 14.5 million amortization over 30 years almost 46 million improvements 20 million = 66 million .Unfunded matinance of 1 million a year . Oh ya Lynn your BFF Kristin Gaspar love love loved it, fiscally conservative my ass
Delete9:06 The budget in 2011 reflected the annual debt service of the first Hall Park bond was $1.4M annually that is much more than $14.5M -
DeleteYou have left out the $430,000 water board violation created by the contractor that the city selected--Cal Builders.
DeleteWhat were Engineering and City inspectors doing during the 2 spillage events? Why did they select this unqualified contractor in the first place?
KG was wrong on this. All of Council has been.
DeleteOur City needs a mayor and council members who can learn from past mistakes, live in the present within our means, and plan for the future.
None of that is possible without the honesty which comes from public transparency.
Also, Council can't learn from past mistakes without admitting them. We all make mistakes. On this issue, Desert Rose, Lisa Shaffer came closest to saying no to development pressure and bogus threats of lawsuits. However, her abstention counted with the majority, so that was a mistake, as well, that she should now admit.
9:02, 8:43 asked a question. You answered it. Your answer would be easier to follow and believe if your presentation wasn't so sloppy. How can anybody be sure that what you presented is accurate?
DeleteCouncil cant blame sabine on this one. Tony most certainly can't. He voted for it because his buddy is the developer and said so. Tony is the new Dan Dalager. Dan might have been more honest. Dan didn't lie on his Prop C ballot arguments, unlike what our current council did on their Prop A ballot arguments.
ReplyDeleteWho's Tony's buddy who's the developer? No, but Dan did try to trade favors down at the bank, which is actually a crime...
ReplyDeleteTony Cassolato is the "A" in AJ Pacific Homes. Tony Kranz said that he was a great guy and was his son's football coach. He might be a "great guy," and a good coach, but this should be irrespective of whether his project is appropriate for this location or if they were following the General Plan or the rules for density bonus.
DeleteI don't think he's a heavy hitter in the development world..
Deletehttp://ajpacific.com/pages/1/index.htm
If we elect Catherine Blakespear, she'll put a stop to all this nonsense. Yeah.
ReplyDeleteCatherine Blakespear brags that her father is a local developer. More of the same with Blakespear. We need someone different to step up and run for council.
ReplyDeleteHe is, which company?
DeleteBlakespear also vote AGAINST Prop A. Don't believe me, ask her.
ReplyDeleteWas she fooled by the council's misinformation, or did she study it independently and objectively?
DeleteSeems like an important question for voters to ask.
She has said that she never read the initiative.
DeleteTrue, I heard her myself.
ReplyDeleteQuoted from the U-T article:
ReplyDeleteIn her tentative ruling, Judge Hayes noted that the Planning Commission’s findings were “relevant and sufficient to establish a fair argument that the project may have an adverse environmental impact requiring an EIR.”
Just because there is a fair argument to requiring a full EIR doesn't mean it will demonstrate environmental harm. It just means the judge believes the situation warrants a more detailed and systematic review.
This isn't over.
9:09 The council sided with developers and wasted taxpayers money on unecessary legal fees -YET AGAIN-
Delete9:09- You sound like Marco Gonzales. Didn't you represent the developer and say that ALL environmental impacts were mitigated and there was no room for any court interpretation otherwise? Hmm I thought I could swear I heard you say that.
DeleteOur infrastructure, including water, traffic, parking, and roads, also cannot support unchecked growth and unwise expansion when we are in a state declared drought emergency and we have $25 Million+ of deferred road maintenance.
DeleteRevenues the City would like to see in terms of developer fees and property taxes are outweighed by loss of quality of life for our neighborhoods. This is a citywide issue, NOT restricted to one group in one neighborhood. Developers are attempting to use "density bonus" as a tool to force unnecessary expansion on us at any cost. The City does not have to interpret density bonus laws, by rounding the base density bonus calculations up, when other jurisdictions do not do so, including Los Angeles, which cities have never been sued for that reason.
I've read the tentative ruling, which is a public document. Marco cannot manipulate with fear and boss Honorable Judith Hayes around as he has been able to do with Encinitas City Council.
It's over. The word is out on who supports diminishing the quality of life in Encinitas. 1. Desert Rose, 2. Bar scene ..... a third strike isn't needed to see who is batting for the wrong team!
Deleteby the way how's that shoulder to shoulder thing working out?
DeleteSabine wins by soaking the encinitas taxpayers once again. The longer this plays out the more he makes. Aren't we all tired of this?
Delete120:06-There is a third thing. SO three strikes and your out applies exact to who?
Delete11:08 AM.
DeleteIs groupthink so strong here that any dose of reality has to mean that the author is either "one of them" or is one of their stooges.
And no, I'm not one of them.
any word if Marco was sporting his earrings and side turned hat tying to bully the judge on Desert rose or does he only wear that outfit when he's representing the bar owners in town that Tony Kranz frequents and bullying the city council?
DeleteWhen are you people going to get over Prop A , it won by 400 + votes not a land slide.
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to continue bringing up the margin of victory, I must remind you that the council lied to voters in the ballot statement.
DeleteNot to mention Gus Vina's hiring of a notorious pro-developer law firm to write a horribly biased analysis.
How big would the margin of victory have been if our elected and appointed official had not tried to steal the election?
Hello WCV-
DeleteThose are excellent points and go to the characther and decision making of all 5 council members, the city attorney and the city manager. Thank you for making them
I went to a city council meeting during Prop A and asked Mayor Barth, Deputy Mayor Shaffer, City Manager Vina, City attorney Sabine and the council member to produce the code that supported the lies they assigned their names to. They couldn't.
I was told by Mayor Barth that she was unable to respond due to my question being asked during Oral communications. As we saw from last week's discussion- the council and Mayor can respond during Oral communications.
Thank you for all you do WCV.
Andrew Audet
Stop posting the same thing over and over again. Prop. A won by a slightly higher percentage than President Obama won his re-election in 2012. Both were approximately 52% to 48%. Check the election results. You seem to be saying that the people who opposed Prop. A didn't bother to vote, in spite of of the huge amount of money spent to defeat it.
DeleteAre you the same person who keeps posting that the Hall property park will only cost $40 million? Get real.
It won - that's what counts.
Delete9:58- bang your pots.
DeleteBig Yellow Taxi
Deleteby Joni Mitchell
"They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel *, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum *
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Hey farmer farmer
Put away that DDT * now
Give me spots on my apples
But leave me the birds and the bees
Please!
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Late last night
I heard the screen door slam
And a big yellow taxi
Took away my old man
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr__rRGWVgI
Bandaid on a broken arm...
ReplyDeleteA great big joyous THANK YOU to the council and staff for painting lines and crosswalks on Santa Fe Dr. I mean how nice can a city get for it's citizens?? I'll ignore the fact that this road is one of the worst in town, that's it's been falling apart for 2 decades, we peons know our place... And that's to worship the ground you walk on and never complain. After all we know you have bigger fish to fry than little old SF dr.
Of course repainting SF dr is like putting a band aid on a broken arm......
( hint to Gaspar, I'm mocking the council and city).
As Maggie says in Caddyshack- tanks fur nottin'.
Sant Fe will be repaired when all of the construction is done around it. The undergrounding of the utility poles is complicated and must be done in concert with all of the devolopment going on from Scripps to the project on Lake Dr. New sidewalks will require taking some private property from older homes to realign the road.
Delete8:34 AM
DeleteNow the city is going to take private property to widen Santa Fe Dr. No and no. How exactly does the city plan to widen the bottleneck from the high school to the I-5? Take out all the houses or just cut out what little yard is left? If the San Elijo Hills residents want to get home faster try another route other than Santa Fe Dr. No widening of Santa Fe Dr.
Fix my road ....
DeleteAll I can say is... Look at the new curb and gutter that being poured when new devolpment is done. Try drawing a straight line from Lake Dr to Scripps. That is what it will look like in the future. How they ge to that I have no idea. Perhaps zoning changes, a little taking of front yards by eminent domain or easements, buying out what they can and when the land becomes so valuable those little TJ homes get torn down by developers. One way or another it's going to happen.
DeleteFrom Teresa's newsletter:
ReplyDeleteReally - I Am NOT Running For Re-Election
I was recently contacted by a friend who had heard that I was running and had formed a campaign committee which included a city employee.
I have no idea why anyone would spread such a ridiculous lie but let me state as clearly as possible...that is absolutely NOT true.
As we move into the campaign season I urge you to check your facts, not perpetuate rumors and feel free to contact me directly if you have questions. Teresa@barthforencinitas.com
Good riddance.
DeleteMayor Barth signed her name to the ballot statement untruth that 5 story buildings were forever banned in Encinitas and that no upzoning has happened without a vote of the people. I went to the council meeting and asked Mayor Barth during Oral communications if she, the city manager or attorney, or the council could show me the citywide supporting her statement- she could not.
DeleteIn a recent newsletter Mayor Barth said the cost of a TUT survey would be far less than the $100,000 Ms. Lew told the council and more like $20,000 . The actual estimate Ms. lew provided city manager Vina was near $180,000.00 and Mayor Barth never provided any estimate to support her $20,000 newsletter claim.
I urge everyone to check their facts. Not trusting the office of the Mayor might be a good place to start.
Andrew Audet
Barth reminds me of a strict school teacher trying to keep all of the students in her classroom marching to her drum beat. Happy to hear she is marching right along. Don't let the door hit ya too hard Barth.
DeleteAndrew, I am your friend and support you, but the word "untruth" is like fingernails on a blackboard. She lied, they lied, period. No softening the offense, please.
DeleteYup, but lies are some rampant in our society, I would agree with Andrew that you have to have several shades. If you repeat something somebody told you and it's not true, is that the same as knowing the truth but covering it up?
DeleteSorry guys, Barth is over her head as mayor, Stocks and Bond were probably right about that one, and it sucks that they were right, because that's the dark side talking, but let's face it, she is not up to the task of being mayor as far as the intellectual level.
She is totally outclassed as mayor, as Gaspar would be. The sad fact is we don't have the right caliber of people on our council that we need at this time...
-Mr Green Jeans
I can see it now, Gaspar handing out free massages for all city employees, including the beloved city manager and city attorney. O MA GOD!
Deletegreen jeans- stocks and bond were in over their heads to be mayor as well-
Deleteincreased debt, unfunded roads and - according to the state of the city where we are spending about $58M and only taking in $56M they appear to have bankrupted the city
Dump the City of Encinitas - unincorporate!
ReplyDeleteDump all of them. 50 years from now no one will know who they are or even care that they were on council.
ReplyDeleteI'll ask Vina if Marlena's using City time for helping any campaign. However, I can hear his answer now. "Well, if I may add, I let Marlena go to Teresa or Lisa's house so she could work on putting together a cohesive public dissemination plan of all city events. And, it is sometimes easier to do this out of City Hall. I have no idea if she is working on the City's dime to get anyone elected." Anyone want to place bets?
ReplyDeleteOr Vina might say " I'll get back to you on that, I would encourage you to stay tuned"
DeleteGus would also remind us that the City of Bell has caused unwarranted distrust of his staff. "You have got to trust me." he would say.
DeleteLet me, let me! Gus would say,"We do not use the word FORENSIC."
DeleteAs I've said to Council, it seems like a no brainer that when the Planning Commission had denied a project, based on certain findings of environmental impact, Council cannot legitimately deny there is substantial evidence a full EIR should be prepared. Council could have so easily required a full EIR. Apparently the City is only concerned about the threats of lawsuits by developers, or on behalf of developers, such as the before filed, and then DISMISSED (with good cause), bogus lawsuit against the City by EUSD to force rezoning of Pacific View.
ReplyDeleteCouncil relies on its misassumptions, that State law for density bonus, "trumps" environmental law, or in the case of Pacific View, that Government Code "trumps" Education Code, including the Naylor Act. However, in the case of Pacific View, Government Code and Education Code are not in conflict.
In the case of Desert Rose, the California Environmental Quality Act and Government Code, which includes density bonus law, are also not in conflict. Council doesn't have the capacity to use logic and common sense. Their perceptions have been clouded by special interests, misunderstanding and fear of "higher authority," based on threats of litigation.
Thanks for the Youtube link, WC. "My city was gone," by the Pretenders.
Delete"I went back to Ohio
But my city was gone
There was no train station
There was no downtown
Southtown, it disappeared
All my favorite places
My city had been pulled down
Reduced to parking spaces
Ay, oh, where did you go, Ohio?
I went back to Ohio
But my family was gone
I stood on the back porch
There was nobody home
I was stunned and amazed
My childhood memories
Saw this world past
Like the wind through the trees
Ay, oh, where did you go, Ohio?
I went back to Ohio
But my pretty countryside
It had been paved down the middle
By a government that had no pride
The farms of Ohio
Had been replaced by shopping malls
And Muzak filled the air
From Seneca to Cuyahoga Falls
Ay, oh, where did you go, Ohio?"
Pretenders - My City Was Gone Lyrics | MetroLyrics
Odd that's been Rush Limbaugh's theme for over 20 years....
DeleteIt should be "My brain is gone" when Rush plays it.
DeleteUse by Rush Limbaugh[edit]
DeleteThe opening bass riff from this song "was something that Tony Butler used to play just as a warm-up," said Steve Churchyard, the engineer for the record.[3] It has been used as the opening theme 'bumper' for Rush Limbaugh's popular American talk radio program since 1984 during his days at KFBK in Sacramento, California. Even though he didn't use the lyrics, Limbaugh said in 2011 he chose it because of the irony of a conservative using such an anti-conservative song, though he mainly liked its "unmistakable, totally recognizable bass line."[4] In 1999, Rolling Stone magazine reported that, according to Hynde's manager, Limbaugh had neither licensed the song nor asked permission to use it. According to Rolling Stone, EMI took action after Limbaugh told a pair of reporters in 1997 that "it was icing on the cake that it was [written by] an environmentalist, animal rights wacko and was an anti-conservative song. It is anti-development, anti-capitalist and here I am going to take a liberal song and make fun of [liberals] at the same time."[5] EMI issued a cease and desist request that Limbaugh stop using the song, which he did. When Hynde found out during a radio interview, she said her parents loved and listened to Limbaugh and she did not mind its use. A usage payment was agreed upon which she donates to PETA.[4][5] She later wrote to the organization saying, "In light of Rush Limbaugh's vocal support of PETA's campaign against the Environmental Protection Agency's foolish plan to test some 3,000 chemicals on animals, I have decided to allow him to keep my song, "My City Was Gone", as his signature tune..."[
8:15, Interesting stuff and quite a comprimise, thanks. Surprised Rush didn't use something from Ted Nugent.
DeleteFrom Gandhi:
ReplyDelete"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
The entire policy of how Density Bonus is used in Encinitas should be called into question. They have been giving developers goodies at the expense of Encinitas residents for years. We need to hold the line and stop this wholesale gift of our safety, community character, and quality of life to developers who may not even live here.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy that the city has been taken to task on this issue. The city needs to look out for the well being of its citizens, not the developers. We need a city manager that actually will do that.
ReplyDeleteWe need a council that will actually tell the city manager and staff to do that. As Gus says, he only "serves at the pleasure" of council.
Delete7:34,
DeleteI had a dream last night that I was talking to Gus and it became clear to me that absolutely everything Gus had ever done: Rutan & Tucker, Desert Rose, etc., was done exactly as the council wanted it.
Gus was merely a front man to take the heat for the fact that the council actively opposes community character, transparency, and fiscal responsibility.
I obviously need to get a life.
In the judge's ruling on Desert Rose, she mentions that one of the concerns the planning commission had in denying the project was community character. If you read the density bonus legislation it's very clear that it doesn't give a sh*t about community character and that that can't be used to deny a density bonus project. If this gets appealed, the ruling could be on shaky ground. However, from what little comment by Marco in the U-T article, they may just go ahead and do the EIR anyway.
Delete7:54 - Awesome! Something tells me your dream may, in large part, be reality. If not direction, collaboration.
DeleteThe threshold for an EIR is very low. The judge named many, many concerns. Community character is only one factor, and the judge quoted a case that said that community character COULD be used with a change in environment.
DeleteCity mangagers' compensation:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Apr/18/for-city-managers-in-county-a-slew-of-pay-perks/?#article-copy
See below
DeleteCity managers' compensation:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Apr/18/for-city-managers-in-county-a-slew-of-pay-perks/?#article-copy
UT should have put each city's population in the chart.
DeleteAdd all the perks on to that and you have a whopping income. Nice gig!
ReplyDelete