Thursday, August 7, 2014

Another victory for Desert Rose

The court's final ruling is that the city violated the Environmental Quality Act, and must completely void its approval of the density bonus project and go back to the start.

From the Inbox:
More good news for Save Desert Rose!

On July 22nd, the Honorable Judith Hayes, Judge of the Superior Court, issued her Judgment in the case of Save Desert Rose vs. The City of Encinitas.  In her ruling it was ordered that:

1.      Judgment be entered in favor of Petitioner (SDR) that Respondent City of Encinitas’ approval of the Desert Rose Project (“Project”) and the related approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, violated the California Environmental Quality Act, as identified in the Court’s Minute Order dated April 24, 2014, and the Court’s subsequent Statement of Decision.
2.      A Writ of Mandate directed to Respondent issue under seal of the Court (1) ordering the Respondent City of Encinitas to set aside and void its approval of the Project, (2) enjoining and prohibiting Real Party (developer), and any agents, servants, assigns and anyone acting in concert from taking any steps to further the project that could result in an adverse change to the physical environment until lawful approval of the Project is obtained from the City of Encinitas. (Note:  a copy of the Writ is attached)
3.      Petitioner is awarded its cost of suit.
4.      Petitioner is found to be the prevailing party and the Court will retain jurisdiction over further proceedings in this case including any motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 or other applicable law.

The fact that the judge has directed that the City’s approval of the Desert Rose project be vacated means that it is now not an “approved” project and may be viewed through the lens of the newly-adopted Encinitas guidelines for density bonus projects.  As you know, from previous emails, this means that the calculation for density will be rounded down, rather than up, when determining the number of units permissible.  It may also mean that environmental factors such as detention basins, wetland buffers and easements will have to be deducted from the “buildable” area.  The new building guidelines will also require that the “affordable” units have to meet minimum requirements for size and design.  The unit would have to be the larger of 1,500 square feet or the average size of the market-rate units.

While this is indeed good news and very favorable to our cause and the cause of many other neighborhoods within Encinitas, the battle is far from over.  On June 27, 2014 Woodridge Farms Estates, LLC (the developer) initiated an appeal of the ruling.  There are two interesting aspects of the appeal.  First, the developer filed for the appeal prior to the Court publishing the final documents that defined the actions required of the City of Encinitas.  The second interesting point is that the City has not joined in the appeal.   Based on the current backlog in the appeals process it could be a year or longer before an appeal is heard by the Court.

Our tremendous success would not been possible without the financial support of YOU and your neighbors.  The Judge did award the costs of the suit but this is limited to the actual filing fees and other direct court costs.  We will file an petition to seek reimbursement of all of our legal and expert testimony fees but granting of actual fees and other costs would not happen until after the appeal is heard.

We continue to fight on your behalf and we are very aware of and appreciative of the financial backing of our friends and neighbors. Unfortunately, our legal costs continue throughout this process and it is imperative that we receive additional financial support.  This process affects not only Olivenhain, but all of the five cities of  Encinitas and the State of California.  Please forward this email to all of your friends and neighbors in the area and ask them to help out.

Please consider sending a generous donation to:

            Save Desert Rose
            2240 Encinitas Bl., D-107
            Encinitas, CA 92024

Thank you!

Bill Butler
Mark Bramson
for SDR and Encinitas

27 comments:

  1. Sabine must be fired!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is a symbol of the corruption rampant in this city government.

      Delete
    2. Barth is impressed by this moron.

      Delete
  2. It looks like Julie G. has accomplished more than this council without being elected yet .
    Cabezon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A candidate that can actually fulfill her promises!

      Delete
    2. Take note! Julie Graboi is extremely capable and please vote for her!

      Delete
  3. Both Sabine and Marco must be fired !!
    In shaffer's last newsletter she says council must rely more on the commissions.... Hello Lisa , your planning commission rejected Desert Rose, you think they did this willy nilly?? Pay attention you idiot. You could have saved the citizens of this city plenty of money by FOLLOWING the recommendation of the planning commission.
    Shaffer, you are a true village idiot, along with all the others on the council. Pathetic fools.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is tremendously fantastic news!

    - The Sculpin

    ReplyDelete
  5. Marco has appealed. So far the city hasn't joined in. The city would be wise to let the developer carry the cost and not have have another embarrassing loss in court. It's very unlikely that the appeals court will reverse the lower court's decision. Marco could then appeal to the State Supreme Court. A win is even less likely.

    All of this could take a year or more. What will the developer do? Time is money. The best choice would be to revise the project under the new rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The developer will cut his/her loses. Marco will get the boot and the developer will revise the project bases on new projections. ORRRRR sell the land to someone with deeper pockets.

      Delete
    2. It would be surprising if the City joined the appeal, but stranger things have happened.

      The developer must have a plan B already in mind since the prelim ruling. They can either make Marco rich with legal appeals, or cut their losses with a less dense design or sell out (probably at a loss, since the rules have changed, and the revenue potential of the property has been reduced).

      Delete
    3. Marco the Maggot.

      Delete
    4. Marco seems to be losing all his cases since he went from suing city and towns on supposed 'environmental' issues to trying actual business cases-

      Looks like he might have had success getting counties and city to capitulate and write a check- after all, it was only taxpayer money, like the $250,000 he got for suing san diego over the la jolla fireworks- where the ocean seemed to get zip, residents look like they got hosed and Marco apparently got paid

      Maybe they will be changing the name on the sign to "The Coast Lose Group"

      Delete
    5. Coast lose Group....that's hysterical!

      Delete
  6. Great news for the citizens of Desert Rose and Encinitas.

    Shame on you city council.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Council show some courage and fire Sabine.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good job Desert Rose people!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sack Sabine. He is worthless and corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks to Julie and her neighbors and Everett of course, Fulvia, Jason St, Balour, and who knows how many more now have a precedence to demand accountability from our corrupted planning dept hacks. Jeff Murphy take note and stop pushing DB on every project to come before you. This DB is a threat to every part of our town and if we all join together we can have a strong voice.
    If developers would build to our current zoning we would all welcome you but know when you go for the max density you will have a costly battle ahead of you.
    Way to go Desert Rose.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Great news. Thank you to all of the hard working people in Olevenhein who fought this. It gives me hope that it can be done in other communities within our city.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Where the hell is "Olevenhein"?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Must be shrink spelling.

    ReplyDelete
  14. From Dr. Lorri-My account was hacked so whoever posted at 11:29 was not me, I have not posted on this blog for a while, as to be honest, it has become a hate rag. I would rather spend my time campaigning for Julie Graboi.

    ReplyDelete