Thursday, December 3, 2015

BMW dealer stacking car inventory all over town

Back in October, Encinitas Undercover received the following e-mail:
BMW Dealer is using Fitness Evolution Gym Parking Lot @ 720 Garden View Court, Encinitas (former Frog's gym) to store its stock.

Filed a complaint with the City on Sept 18, given the run around...

Code Enforcement says its been bumped up to Planning. Its been over a month. Planning is unresponsive.
There was indeed a number of new BMWs filling the east side of the parking lot.   720 Garden View is reportedly owned by a well-known, politically connected developer, which could account for the lack of city action.

Investigating further, we found another surreptitious stockyard: the old Re/Max office parking lot east of Brett's BBQ on Encinitas Boulevard had been converted into BMW storage.

Is it against city code to use retail and office parking lots to store dealer inventory? We don't know, but as the city seems to have a rule and require a permit for just about everything businesses or residents want to do, we suspect there's a code against this.

Now this in the Coast News:
The city of Encinitas has come down hard on a local car dealership that constructed an overflow inventory lot on a vacant lot in New Encinitas over the Thanksgiving weekend without city permission.

The city issued a stop-work order and seven citations this week to Encinitas BMW, which put up the parking lot over Thanksgiving weekend, prompting residents along Quail Gardens Drive, who questioned whether a car lot could legally be constructed on the land, to complain to local officials.

City staff quickly validated neighbors concerns: the dealership constructed the lot without any city permits.

“Doing so was in violation of a lot of regulations,” acting planning director Manjeet Ranu wrote in an email to city officials. “What BMW of Encinitas did is unacceptable. Staff’s approach will be very strong to compel compliance and remediation.”

As of Thursday morning, Encinitas BMW had removed the cars from the property.

60 comments:

  1. So what is your point?

    ReplyDelete
  2. City retirees are buying their luxury Beemers...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some retire so young they're still having midlife crises and buy Mustangs!

      Delete
  3. I saw them clearing that land over the weekend. I couldn't believe it when I drove by on Sunday and saw all those cars parked there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It was Shaffer who raised the alarm throughout city hall on this one. Why? Because it's across the street from her house, natch!

    Kinda like her "I'm not saying this because I live across the street from the parcel, but that HEU up zone should go elsewhere in Encinitas." Nothing like a little NIMBY threat to get Shaffer to spring into action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mikey, How much did you get from your developer "friend" for your post?

      Delete
    2. Lol I am not Mikey, but I am a Mikey hater! I am also not a fan of La Shaffer. She has disappointed her base beyond belief and her bureaucratic approach to just about everything - except those subjects close to her home - means that she has "served" us no differently than Jerome did. Just look at her voting record.

      I can see where you might have thought I was Mikey (sort of), but instead what I am is just another very disillusioned former Lisa fan.

      Delete
    3. Boo hoo, she dissapointed her base. That should read "She didn't do what the prop. A people wanted".

      This was blatant, the fact that even the owner wasn't notified tells you something. For once the city got it right. Can't we just be happy about that?

      Delete
    4. Noooo, she didn't stick by what she ran on. That's not boo-hoo, that's unethical behavior from the self-described "ethics professor." No one'so crying, but they're not cutting her any slack, either - see how it works?

      Go throw a "city got it right" party if you're so moved, but to the average person getting it right should be SOP, not cause to celebrate. That's just sad.

      Delete
    5. Shaffer failed. and would lose in a re-election.

      Maggie is pissed in her grave.

      Delete
    6. Hey- if Shaffer, Blakespear and Barth want us all to believe millenials want to ride bikes- then why is BMW making room for mroe cars??? Becuase people bike for recreation, unless they are peasants in the third world- which is where Blakespear (Trust fund baby) and Shaffer (tax-payer funded pension baby) want to take us.

      Delete
  5. Excuse me, but this was a serious crime: Grading in the Coastal Zone, without a permit, without engineering, without compacting, and without supervision from City Staff.

    Any rain could cause serious silting and runoff onto Moonlight Beach. The problem still needs to be fixed, getting rid of the tin can beemers is just the first step.

    This is an instance where swift and decisive action was needed and our City Staff came through for us!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bigger possibility was that city staff had to cover their ass. Grading is flat out in the public eye and the planning staff can't hide that in private memos to the council. The permits required may have taken months to obtain. By grading first and "getting caught" just eliminated that permit wait.
      You should see what the dealer has done to the big lot between the dealership and the B of A property. Did the dealer have permits for all the changes?

      Delete
    2. So the fact that property owner is claiming they didn't know is an ass-covering move as well? I mean, it's one thing to put the cars all over their property and near the BBQ place, but it's pretty blatant when you take a dirt lot on a crowded intersection and slap new Beamers there with a huge RV....

      Delete
    3. first world problem… yawn.

      Delete
  6. "Swift"? First complaint was filed 10 weeks ago. Against a beloved developer. Investigated only after Shaffer hopped on her broomstick.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OMG, what if they were VWs with fake emissions stats on their EPA window stickers?!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Who is the beloved developer?

    ReplyDelete
  9. What will the moron author of this blog bitch about next? Lady. Get a life. You respond to
    your comments. If you want to solve the BMW inventory issue go buy one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you read this blog? Clearly to torture yourself; you really need to get a life.

      Delete
  10. They could store them in my neighborhood, it's just a 1/2 mile East of the illegal QGV lot and nobody notices, reports, or responds to crime in my neighborhood, most especially the vehicular kind. Come on in BMW, after market mufflers are welcome! Stay vibrant Encinitas, it help the surveillance drones see you more clearly!

    ReplyDelete
  11. How is Quail Gardens "New Encinitas" ? Union Tribune retread needs a history lesson and a map. Oh and I saw no grading done. Brush was scraped but no earth was moved. I think their issues are zoning and native plant removal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Earth was moved, that's what those 2 big yellow machines were doing. And it was left loose. Right this morning some workers are up on the hill working to cover up the mess, doing stuff that would have been required by the permit that wasn't. BMW Encinitas is in big trouble.

      Delete
    2. Let's hope so...money talks, they may yet squirm out of this one.

      Delete
  12. News -
    Councilwoman Blakespear, an attorney, has her proposed ordinance to require mediation for land use and development projects on next week's council agenda.
    The ordinance is a nasty way to make it harder for residents to appeal planning director or planning commission approval of development projects.
    This ordinance has a section that gives the power to the planning director or the planning commission or the council to refer the appealing party to mediation at any time, in any manner and by whatever means the director, planning commission, or city council and parties deem appropriate or necessary.
    The council agenda item is 10A.
    It's time to stop councilwoman Blakespear's power grab. Write to the councilmembers and let them know that this mediation ordinance and any mediation ordinance should be shredded and never brought back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the fix is in- Blakespear and Shaffer both support un-elected government domination superceding resident rights. Be it stack adn pack housing, commuinity destroying rail trails or taking zoning out of the hands of clearly defiend law protecting residents and putting power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and cronies.

      Can't see Muir or Gaspar backing this though thye might like to, Kranz is teh swing vote- and well he's phony TOny, and it's an election year, so he will fold like a cheap suit

      Delete
    2. Remember all five are in on the Prop A take back buried in a couple of HEU sections.

      Blakespear's propisal removes any due process to which residents now are entitled. Given Murphy 1 & 2 and now Ranu's penchant for lying, it would be an awful thing to give that position greater powers.

      Delete
    3. Shaffer's newsletter claims the mediation is purely voluntary.

      Is it is, or is it ain't?

      Delete
    4. Yes, the mediation is voluntary so everybody can take a deep breath. It also is two parts, one a service like Carlsbad to help settle neighbor disputes and two, a voluntary alternative for development projects.

      But hey at least 9:47 AM got to use "stack and pack housing" one more time and 9:56 AM got to take another shot at staff lying. And isn't that what this blog is all about.

      Whether or not it's a good idea I'll leave to others.

      Delete
    5. 11:19 AM
      Not true that the mediation is voluntary. Staff is lying. Council is lying.

      This is Section 1.10.070 City Council -Referral to Mediation from the proposed ordinance:

      "A. Nothing in the Chapter is intended to prevent or restrict the Director, Planning Commission or City Council from referring parties to mediation at any time, in any manner and by whatever means the Director, Planning Commission or City Council and parties deem appropriate or necessary."

      Delete
    6. 11:34 AM

      You are lying. See 11:38 AM below.

      Delete
  13. 10:16 AM
    No, the mediation ordinance isn't purely voluntary

    This is Section 1.10.070 City Council -Referral to Mediation from the proposed ordinance:

    "A. Nothing in the Chapter is intended to prevent or restrict the Director, Planning Commission or City Council from referring parties to mediation at any time, in any manner and by whatever means the Director, Planning Commission or City Council and parties deem appropriate or necessary."

    The planning director "can refer parties to mediation at any time" and usually since the appealing parties are residents, this would stop any land use appeal from going forward to the city council. If a subdivision is appealed, the state has specific time limitations for appeal hearings. The planning commission has the same authority to refer parties to mediation at any time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It means that they don't have to have one or both of the parties ask for mediation. They can at any time refer the parties to mediation. Entering mediation stops any (city) clocks until complete so an appeal can still continue if the appellant is unsatisfied with the outcome.

      Besides in Definitions, Section 1.10.020(B):

      “Mediation” shall mean a voluntary confidential meeting, conducted within a three-day timeframe, between or among Disputing Parties and stakeholders with an impartial mediator to clarify their differences and discuss the possibility of a mutually acceptable outcome to resolve their differences. Mediation in this context is not intended to result in a decision or to be legally binding upon the disputing parties and stakeholders; instead, it is intended to facilitate dialogue regarding a dispute in a respectful, positive and productive manner.

      Delete
    2. 11:38 AM
      You just confirmed that the mediation isn't voluntary if the city can mandate that the parties go to mediation.
      The city can't stop "the clock" on subdivision appeals.

      Delete
    3. Mediation by definition is voluntary.

      If it wasn't, it would be called "binding arbitration."

      Even then, there are loopholes to exit arbitration and pursue remedy in court.

      Delete
    4. 11:57 AM
      How is it voluntary if the city can mandate, push, or require that the party goes to mediation.
      What you have is a city council and planning department playing a word game to fool the public.
      What happens when the planning director or planning commission require that the party goes to mediation and the party says no to the city's required mediation. Nothing about that event is discussed in the ordinance.

      Delete
    5. And why should average citizens who don't have the backing of the BIA to bankroll them have to come up with the money to sue?

      It seems to me that the city is angling here to cut down on the number of appeals, no matter how valid. Murphy was all about "streamlining the permitting processes" - you can see that very language buried in the HEU materials - and you can see Blakespear's intent to enable this effort to streamline with her mediation scheme.

      Delete
    6. Blakespear and Kranz initially wanted to make mediation mandatory.

      But when they brought it up at council on January 21, it immediately became clear to everybody what an idiotic idea that was.

      See comments here.

      Delete
    7. Yes, and now the mandatory mediation of January 21 comes back again hidden in plain sight.

      Delete
    8. 12:49 PM

      Yes, Blakespear initially wanted to require mediation prior to appealing to council but as you noted above it isn't binding on the parties and the appeal process could continue if one or more parties weren't happy with the outcome or no outcome could be reached. I don't think it should be mandatory.

      12:48 PM

      If the appellants (most likely residents) get the results they want or at least most of what the want, how is mediation a bad thing? Does it matter whether the results are from mediation or council action. Either way it will be enforceable.

      12:16 PM

      "What happens when the planning director or planning commission require that the party goes to mediation and the party says no to the city's required mediation. Nothing about that event is discussed in the ordinance." A referral doesn't mean it's mandatory. Voluntary means it can be declined.

      Delete
    9. 1:09 PM
      Wow, you do a great 1984 big brother commentary.

      Delete
    10. 1:16 PM

      "... you do a great 1984 big brother commentary" Really? Your reference point is Orwell's 1984. You have bigger problems than I thought.

      Delete
  14. Go ahead COE kick a major tax producer in the balls, BMW of Encinitas will become BMW of Carlsbad in a heart beat.

    On a lighter note...
    Carlabad is working to trench the train though out the city. Encinitas is putting and underpass at Portal. Soooo, Encinitas will remain the train suicide capital of North county, nice work council. Why not provide the despondent with a pistol and a location at the library where they can off themselves. Much easier to clean up and all in one location for the county morgue folks.

    Idiots, absolute fucking idiots that run this town.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, let's all step aside while big revenue producers run amok. Because producing revenue is the only thing that matters.

      Carlsbad would not stand for BMW's antics any more than we do.

      Delete
    2. 10:49,

      Are you honestly suggesting that the city should consider the tax contributions of a law breaker before deciding whether or how to react?

      Did you fail fourth grade civics?

      Delete
  15. According to written news reports, BMW graded the Quail Gardens Dr/Encinitas Blvd. land and laid down gravel without the owners' knowledge or consent. That doesn't make sense - it is akin to squatting and hoping that nobody notices. The gaggle of cars there made it an obvious eyesore. The owner is supposedly taking legal action against BMW, as they have accrued violation notices from the city. Something doesn't smell right here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plus, this land is seen as a potential site for "low cost" housing - a dump location to fulfill the 'low cost" obligations, but not to have to actually build it elsewhere in a more exclusive development. Bait and switch.

      Delete
  16. Didn't the Planning Commission decide another one of their interpretations of slope and fill on this property? Developer won big time on that commission ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Encinitas street parade. Came home to car blocking driveway, driver relieving himself in my driveway. Seems he had too much to drink yet he drove away. Stay classy Encinitas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you have your camera with you? Post the picture on the art wall at City Hall...

      Delete
  18. So much wasted chatter on a tiny issue. People need problems to make them feel important. First world issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the moron who keeps making the same stupid comment about first world problems: Guess what. We live in the first world, and we have real problems we have to solve. Would you have us let our first world problems go unsolved and devote our lives to solving the second and third worlds' problems? How about the drought? Should we ignore that because it's in first world California?

      Delete
    2. Ohhh struck a nerve. Must hate to think that possibly its really not that big of a deal in the big picture. Go ahead tool, keep on thinking you are the center of the universe. Haa.

      Delete
    3. 10:07 You've confirmed you're a moron!

      Delete
  19. Not as tiny as you think!

    ReplyDelete
  20. American problems? Lack of national identity, corporate wars around the planet, lack of leadership/vision, fractioning population divides (esp. with ethnic identification), stagnant economy and lack of jobs - shall I go on?

    ReplyDelete