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.
Showing posts with label Desert Rose. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Desert Rose. Show all posts
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:
Saturday, January 4, 2014
San Diego Reader on Desert Rose
While Prop A got most of the attention last year, Desert Rose was another case where the new city council sided with staff and developers against residents. They overturned a Planning Commission decision and decided to impose high-density development on the quiet Olivenhain neighborhood of Desert Rose.
But the residents are fighting back. San Diego Reader has the update.
But the residents are fighting back. San Diego Reader has the update.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Council votes to pave Desert Rose
3-0 with Shaffer abstaining and Muir absent. After Shaffer's abstention, city attorney Glenn Sabine clarified that her abstention would count as a Yes vote.
At 3:53:40 of the video, Kranz asks about whether they can have further discussion about the type of firewall to be used in the project. Sabine immediately shows him who's in charge:
At 3:53:40 of the video, Kranz asks about whether they can have further discussion about the type of firewall to be used in the project. Sabine immediately shows him who's in charge:
The communication has to take place within the context of this proceeding, and we want the proceeding to end tonight, and you're going to have to make a decision on that.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Dirty tricks & happy endings
Logan Jenkins recently compared the Encinitas city council to deer in the headlights, afraid to make a decision.
Wednesday night's decision to go forward with the 101 bike lane in the face of Coastal Commission opposition will certainly help alleviate that image. They are going to start striping now and work it out with the Coastal Commission later: it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. Will Planning staff take a similarly tolerant view with unpermitted minor remodels?
While we (and the public, it seems) are pleased with the outcome, it appears that staff cut corners and deceived the public and the council on the law. One neutral observer thought David Smith's oral communication Wednesday night caught staff red-handed.
This time, the public's interests aligned with city staff. But what happens next time, when the public's interests conflict with staff's interests? Desert Rose, for example? Many council watchers believe the staff has a pro-development agenda, and presented the city council with partial facts and a biased interpretation of the law in order to push the council toward the staff's desired outcome.
Who's in charge here?
Wednesday night's decision to go forward with the 101 bike lane in the face of Coastal Commission opposition will certainly help alleviate that image. They are going to start striping now and work it out with the Coastal Commission later: it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. Will Planning staff take a similarly tolerant view with unpermitted minor remodels?
While we (and the public, it seems) are pleased with the outcome, it appears that staff cut corners and deceived the public and the council on the law. One neutral observer thought David Smith's oral communication Wednesday night caught staff red-handed.
This time, the public's interests aligned with city staff. But what happens next time, when the public's interests conflict with staff's interests? Desert Rose, for example? Many council watchers believe the staff has a pro-development agenda, and presented the city council with partial facts and a biased interpretation of the law in order to push the council toward the staff's desired outcome.
Who's in charge here?
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Save Desert Rose or Pave Desert Rose?
The council is right now considering the Desert Rose developer appeal. The Planning Commission rejected the development, but the developer is coming back claiming the rejection was illegal.
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:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)