The developers of a controversial housing project planned for a horse property in Olivenhain must conduct an extensive environmental study before the development can move forward, a Superior Court judge ruled on Friday.The Planning Commission had correctly rejected the development, but the City Council, bowing to pressure from city staff, had ignored the environmental impacts and attempted to force the unwelcome development on the rural community.
Woodridge Farms Estates LLC wants to build 16 homes on what is now a horse boarding facility on Desert Rose Way on the eastern edge of Encinitas. But neighbors sued the city and Woodridge, saying the project should have been subjected to a full environmental review before it was approved by the City Council last year.
Friday’s ruling by Superior Court Judge Judith F. Hayes reinforced a tentative ruling she made last week that found there was substantial evidence “to make a fair argument that the project may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.”
As the article notes, high-density developer attorney Marco Gonzalez will be back trying to force the development on the neighborhood, but he'll have a lot more work to do with an environmental impact report required.
UPDATE: Final ruling here.
This ought to be interesting, Marco will now have to come back and see if he can get this development in there for the development interests. Good for the neighbors out there in Olivenhain...
ReplyDeleteGreat news for the residents in Desert Rose. One smart judge, five not so smart council members, smart planning commission, not so smart city staff, and one so called slick lawyer. Should be interesting to watch.
ReplyDeleteWould someone mind cutting and pasting the article to this blog, as when I tried to open it, it wouldn't do it. I don't subscribe to the UT, so the links takes me to subscriptions. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete9:2- Thanks. I've had it up to the tideline with Gonzales, and his antics. He professes one thing, but often does exactly the opposite of what he says he stands for. Desert ROSE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS. So I see 2 victories here. One for the citizens, and one for exposing Marco for the hypocrite he is.
DeleteGonzales is a slick talker and friends with most of the council members. Go figure.
DeleteActually he is friends with Teresa, and maybe Lisa. I doubt very much if he is friends with Kranz, Muir or Gaspar. In fact I think I once heard him say that Tony was a complete idiot.
DeleteHe is Facebook friends with Barth, Kranz, and Gaspar. Not sure about Shaffer, but that's three out of five. Muir is still building his friend's list so he may show up there some day.
DeleteMarco is also a FB friend of Catherine Blakespear. He does get around.
DeleteIts not cool to take a paper's content and repost.
DeleteHad to remove comment due to copyright infringement.
DeletePlease pick up a copy of the U-T if you want the story.
I wouldn't buy anything that ha Doug Manchester's name on it. Even the Washington Post and the Sacramento Bee don't lead you to a subscription page. So whoever posted the article that is now down, thank you. And to KC-FU
DeleteChina Undercover
DeleteI don't pay for the UT, but each week you can get about a half dozen free stories. All you have to do is click on the ones you are interested in and read them. I wouldn't pay a nickel for the paper otherwise.
Delete12:02- Thanks, for the information. I didn't know that you could do it with the UT. When Teresa does her weekly newsletter she often has links to the UT. I can never open them. I also hear Manchester is trying to sell the paper. That could be a good thing, or perhaps it would be worse, who knows. And, personally, I think it's fine if someone posts something from another source. Just change a few words, and then there will be no copyright infringement the KC is so worried about.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLet's hope that all of the density bonus projects in the pipeline can be derailed in a similar way. You still have the same planning and engineering staff making the same bad judgments and misplacing or destroying evidence that supports residents rights so that developers can run roughshod over neighbors in every community.
ReplyDeleteEncinitas is at a tipping point. Hopefully, this victory will raise the awareness that residents have to fight to protect their properties from developer interests.
They seem to be in such a hurry to get rid of documents so there is no history.
Deletei suspect you have ZERO evidence of this...god bless america...where you can make completely baseless accusations and hide behind an "anonymous" post.
DeleteFire vina.... He's a nightmare for Encinitas
ReplyDeleteTony Kranz is the Developer's friend.
ReplyDeleteThe developer donated to Kranz's campaign.
ReplyDeleteStaff doesn't exercise poor judgment, staff does as directed. Years of back room deals and developer-friendly practice make staff willing puppets for the new masters Vina and council.
ReplyDeleteNot true. We've seen time and time bad Judgement from Staff on interpreting policy. We pay staff to represent our best interests, not cause us pain and focus on milking the system. We need to turn our City Hall around and Vina is the problem not part of the solution.
DeleteFire Vina, hire a real City Manager and let the cleaning begin. Once a real city manager is hired they should fire six to 10 managers to clean some deadwood and show the others they better tow the line.
Its that simple. Come on City Council lets start doing something positive for Encinitas today. Quit with the useless "strategic planning" exercise and lets get focused on real plans including budgets and schedules.
Judges can make mistakes and even if they are right we should see why. I'd like to read the judgement.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone post a link to the judgement or send to WC?
I have had interactions with Judge Hayes in previous litigation. Unfortunately, she isn't terribly sharp. I sincerely hope that she got the Desert Rose ruling right so that it won't be overturned on appeal...
DeleteSomehow you don't sound sincere. The planning commission and the judge agreed...and we all know it's the council that's not "terribly sharp."
Delete6:32 sounds more like sour grapes....
DeleteI believe 6:32 is sincere. Supporting Desert Rose and having had a prior bad experience with Judge Hayes are not mutually exclusive.
Delete6:32's comment about Hayes not being sharp leads one to think he/she doubts the thinking behind the judgment. It's a public document and worth reading. The opinion to those I know who have read it think it's sound. That the DR folks got screwed by a council swayed by a histrionic and threatening Marco was the decision that was not logical.
DeleteThe argument Marco offered and the council bought about the supposed fire escape route up a trail bordered by flammable material and a locked gate at the end that no vehicle could pass (as just one example) was what was not "terribly sharp."
Judge Hayes cited several lawsuits and over 80 pages of evidence from Desert Rose neighbors and their experts. Marco's position that the Desert Rose neighbors were rude to him and his assertion that the developers were great guys, along with his threats to sue the City on account of how developers couldn't make the project pencil out with fewer than 16 units seems to not have worked on this judge.
DeleteWhenever staff and council talk about their fear of being sued, this means that the developers are threatening to sue them if they don't pass bad projects that threaten the safety, environmental resources, and community character of the neighborhoods they are trying to develop.
6:32, If Hayes is not competent to be a judge what have you done to get Hayes off the bench?
DeleteYou can find the case online here.
DeleteIt's case number 37-2013-00044139.
Unfortunately, they don't appear to have posted the ruling yet.
Sure, 8:51, aside from whether Hayes is competent or not, an individual citizen has a lot of power to unseat a judge. Are you kidding?
DeleteWhen Desert Rose was argued before the council, the time allotted to Marco and Everett was unequally and unfairly distributed. Marco got much more time than Everett.
That appeared to have worked in Marco's favor then, but in the end, the SDR people prevailed, as they should have because they were correct from the start.
Not only did Marco get more time, he was given greater status, as attorney for both applicant and appellant, who were one and the same.
DeleteWhen Council is considering an appeal of a Planning Commission decision, that particular case should NOT be considered de nouveau; that is, the lower body's (PC's) decision should be given deference, absent a showing of some kind of abuse of discretion or a factually inaccurate record.
But what happens, in this City, is development interests are given the advantage of any doubt, instilled in Council and staff by slick salesmen, consultants, and development interest attorneys, whether the PC has approved or denied a particular development project.
Staff, after a Planning Commission ruling, which is appealed, should be entirely neutral, and should not make biased recommendations on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant. That was an abuse of discretion, by the City, in the Desert Rose case.
Another abuse of discretion was that attorney for the SDR neighbors, Everett DeLano should have been named "Respondent," because Desert Rose was also the PREVAILING party before the Planning Commission. That way there would have been equity between "Plaintiff" of the appeal, who was the developer applicant, represented by Gonzalez, and the defender of the Planning Commission's decision, which should have been Respondent, represented by DeLano.
A third abuse of discretion on behalf of the City was that not only did Marco Gonzalez get greater status and more time before Council, as in 10 minutes, then five minutes rebuttal, when expert public speakers and concerned citizens/neighbors were given no opportunity for rebuttal, and Everett DeLano, with time donations, could only speak for 9 minutes, total, but also Marco was given more time than is allowed to file the developer's appeal, because the Planning Commission did not submit its resolution of finding, whereby the project was denied, until 14 calendar days after their vote to deny the development project. Government Code mandates that there is to be a resolution of findings with respect to appeals that involve subdivision maps, within 10 days of the vote of the judicial body, in this case, the Planning Commission.
Planning Commissions have special legal status, according to Government Code. There is to be one commissioner for each district or distinct community within a City. Otherwise, Councilmember Lisa Shaffer would have added some "at large members" no doubt, to the PC, as she did to the Traffic Commission, when it became the Traffic and Safety Commission. Adding extra Commissioners to these two Commissions, within our city, would throw or has thrown off their balance. Council Members are all at large. When Planning and Traffic issues come up, individual Council Members have to recuse themselves when one of these issues affects property they own in the nearby vicinity.
DeleteLisa Shaffer should have advocated for an Ethics and Safety Commission, as I had repeatedly asked of her. The Traffic Commission would have been better remaining at five Commissioners.
But I certainly wouldn't want former Traffic and Safety Commission Chair, Peter Kohl, to be on an ethics commission, nor would I want Gus Vina to be the liaison on staff for an Ethics and Safety Commission, after their further abuse of discretion at the April 14, 2014 Traffic and Safety Commission Meeting, when Kohl was informed by Vina that neither the public nor the Commissioners could discuss, or take action on the agenda item, which was Robert Bonde's proposal to save money and increase safety, through changes within our City Fire Department.
Kohl, in an interview with the Coast News, published this Friday, tried to do belated damage control, but the lies and abuses of discretion remain out there. He said, two or three times at the 4/14 T&S Commission meeting that there would be NO discussion by Commissioners or the public, because that is what he was told to say and do by Vina. Even after Vina came into the room and whispered in Kohl's ear, Kohl still insisted there would be no discussion by Commissioners, because Vina had only said he could let the public make comments, NOT the commissioners.
It is a fact residents are steering clear of using certain lawyers because of their positions in local matters. People notice this stuff.
ReplyDeleteMore misdirection from Vina and Crew. Fire Vina and Sabine Now.
ReplyDeleteFire Barth! This is her spin,"This ruling does not over turn the approval for the project but will require an Environmental Review. If this tentatively ruling stands, I believe it will help clarify this aspect of the Density Bonus law."
DeleteBarth has on blinders with regard to Guss and Marco.
DeleteBarth doesn't seem to understand that the Desert Rose approval was based on the insufficient negative declaration.
DeleteMarco told me personally that he made sure that all environmental impact issues had been addressed and that this project in no way had any negative impact on the wetlands or other environmental concerns. He felt it was a good project and that the developer was great.
ReplyDeleteAnd your point is? You believed him over the facts.
Delete10:48-What I used to believe was that Marco was an ethical attorney. What I now believe is just the opposite. That was my only point, and obviously it didn't come across that way, so no matter.
DeleteMarco used some of he same arguments when he was an environmental attorney protecting citizens that the Desert Rose citizens used in their evidence. Despite this radical change of positions, he told a group of Desert Rose neighbors and also the council that the bonus density law "sucks," but that it is "indefensible" since he had lost the case for his clients on Urania. It looks like he decided to switch teams and lost this one, too.
ReplyDeleteAs another poster pointed out, Marco goes beyond the scope of trying to do the best for his client when he contradicts his own statements and attacks others while claiming to be a victim. To many who have watched him over the years, he appears to be the perpetrator of abuse and not the victim.
Guess what. Marco is an opportunistic lawyer. He goes with which way the fees winds blow.
DeleteTypical lawyer - money grubbing stooge.
DeleteActually, I disagree that Marco is a typical lawyer. Because he can be such a bully, and thinks he is ALWAYS right, it makes him more dangerous and therefore more despicable. I don't see DeLano that way one bit. I know that attorneys have gotten a bad rap, but in Marco's case, he deserves it and more. Coast Law Group joined DEMA for one reason, and one reason only. And, it wasn't because they love our city. Altogether different reasons. And, I will leave it at that, as I don't want to be threatened by him ever again.
DeleteI propose the city purchase desert rose and turn it into East Encinitas community arts center. It's part of our legacy ....
ReplyDeletethat is funny- it`s got to be worth $12m without the density upzone- i hear the "Upzone The Coast Law Group" is handling the auction in front of the Union- drinks provided free of charge
DeleteIs Coast Law Group applying for an alcohol license?
DeleteThey don't need to. The Union is right next door to them, as well as a few other alcohol related bars and restaurants.
DeleteThe city should refuse a change in zoning , thereby rendering the land to be 30% of its current value, then buy DR and offer the current owners a 30 year 0% interest payment plan.
DeleteIt's part of our legacy ...
Thats an awesome idea… I heard the asking price was $12.3 million so the City offered $13 million to make it a nice round number. Makes sense. Its not like its their money anyway. They don't worry about whether they can afford it, they will just borrow the money and pay lease revenue bonds for it…. sigh….
Delete"Nobody in the future will care how much we paid" - Shaffer
Delete"Nobody in the future will care how much we paid" will be over each soup kitchen door.
Delete4:21 PM
ReplyDeleteAre you saying Coast Law Group is using the Union alcohol permit? Don't think that is legal.
4:30-No, sorry if I gave that impression. I don't know if CLG is actually trying to get the ABC to give them an alcohol permit. I don't think they would qualify for an actual permit to sell. They may be trying to get a one day permit, sort of like the beer stands when we have a street faire. Where did you hear they were even looking into getting a permit? They aren't that easy to get and quite expensive is you don't get one in the lottery, or buy an already existing business that has one. I thought you meant that some of them drank a lot. And that would be at the Union or Beer Garden.
ReplyDeleteI think the comment that set off talks about the "Upzone The Coast Law Group" with Marco, Livia and Peck selling drinks was a tongue and cheek satirical reference to Marco holding an Auction of the Save Desert Rose site in front of the Union with a minimum bid of $12M and the council paying $13M.
DeleteI don't think the "Upzone The Coast Law Group" and their high density developer lawyers are actually seeking a booze license- but I could be wrong as the "Upzone The Coast Law Group" also represents the Bar Owners.
A little something from marco Gonzales regarding the Desert Rose project. The "she" is the judge. Can he be more arrogant? The answer is YES!
ReplyDelete“Today our goal was to make sure she fully understands what’s going on here,” Gonzalez said. “We still believe it’s a really good project and that the benefits to the environment far outweigh the NIMBY-istic concerns of the residents.”
During Prop A where Barth and the council lied on the ballot statement Marco wrote an email claiming Encinitas needed to upzone the city becuase it was the only way to save the Cleveland national forest-
DeleteWhen somone asked Marco to produce a map or to show the formula of how many acres in the Cleveland National Forest will be saved by upzoning Encinitas and destroying our quality of life and community charachter Marco went radio silent.
I saw the emails on the subject above- true story
Marco's firm got paid lots of money from taxpayers suing county, state, city and federal type agency's -
Now that he represents high density developers he seems to denigrate people concerned with wetlands and the clear cutting of mature tree's in Olivenhain as Nimby's-
see how it works? Who is buttering who's muffin?
"“Today our goal was to make sure she fully understands what’s going on here,” Gonzalez said. “We still believe it’s a really good project and that the benefits to the environment far outweigh the NIMBY-istic concerns of the residents.”
DeleteThat quote is from the April 19 UT article, 'Tentative Victory for Neighbors." http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/19/tp-tentative-victory-for-neighbors-in-olivenhain/
Also quoting from the same previous UT piece, "In signing off on the project, the council said its hands were essentially tied because of a state affordable housing law that gives developers special privileges — including permission to put extra homes on their lots — if they agree to set aside part of those homes for low-income residents."
"NIMBY-istic concerns of the residents.” That language from Marco Gonzalez, who represents the developer, is typical "BIS" (building-industry-speak). Council's hands were NOT tied.
Staff is purposefully MISCALCULATING the base density bonus calculation, relying on a State Senator, who has been convicted, now of several felony counts . . . Council, unfortunately, either purposefully misunderstands the law, or allows itself to be manipulated by the fear of litigation. The City should never have settled a previous complaint by a developer, because that same Senator wrote a letter, which Planning Director Jeff Murphy quoted.
As I said, before, quoting Mayor Barth, she did get this correct:
"If this tentatively [sic] ruling stands [it has and will], I believe it will help clarify this aspect of the Density Bonus law."
Gonzalez is pathetic.
DeleteHot English tip for 8:40 — The plural of a word is not formed by adding an apostrophe and an "s" to the singular form. Did you make it past third grade?
Deleteagencies
trees
NIMBYs because the singular an acronym
It's simple. The ambulance turned right down Desert Rose way.
ReplyDeleteDo you mean East City Art Way now.
ReplyDeleteIts now called East City Art Center Drive after the City purchased the property for $13,000,000 last night.
ReplyDelete8:53 PM
ReplyDeleteCorrection - The city council decide that Marco was so traumatized that $13,000,000 wasn't enough. The council took out lease revenue bonds on everything in the city that wasn't bolted down to pay $500,000,000. Vina told the council not to worry - there was still $500 left in the reserved fund that could be used for other projects.
I think VIna's exact words to the council on news there was only $500 dollars remaining in the reserve fund was "because of yopur prudent leadership the city is in good fiscal shape and has weathered the recession that has affected so many." He then said "stay tuned" for more on this subject
DeleteHe also said "Don't forget to fund my pension".
Delete9:38 I think he said that just after he said
Delete"the wise council's judgement on pension reform has left the city in good financial shape with increased debt service, unfunded road liabilities and projects we can no longer afford, and $500.00 dollars in reserve funds"
Breaking news from the city communications director -
DeleteThe elated council on hearing that $500 still remained in the city's reserved fund decided to host drinks all around at the vibrant bars in downtown Encinitas.
Can we boycott the Coast Law Group?
ReplyDeleteAnother victory for the Save Desert Rose neighbors, and for all the neighborhoods in Encinitas; we want to preserve our community character and quality of life. I hope Encinitas Mayor Teresa Barth, and all of Council and staff, can learn from their repeated mistakes.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate this has to play out at taxpayers' expense. We had respectfully requested and pointed out, from the beginning of City Council's involvement, that because the Planning Commission made findings to deny the Desert Rose Project, based on evidence of significant environmental impacts, there were really no logical reasons why an EIR wouldn't be required. Absent a full EIR, Council cannot make an educated decision to approve the project. Hence, the project effectively HAS been overturned, without another hearing before Council AFTER the EIR.
In her newsletter, which came out this Saturday morning, and which linked a UT Article from a week ago about the SDR neighbors victory re their positive tentative ruling, Mayor Barth got it wrong when she posted: "This ruling does not over turn the approval for the project but will require an Environmental Review."
ReplyDeleteBecause Council overturned the Planning Commission's ruling, and approved the project WITHOUT a full environmental impact report, then Council should have to have another hearing after the EIR. An EIR, whether the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction is not to just be a rubber stamp. Council should have to reconsider in light of the options and alternatives that must be part of any EIR.
This is excerpted, minus citations, from the Honorable Judith Hayes final ruling, which is a public document, so no worries about copyright infringement: "The Planning Commission denied the project based on significant environmental impacts. Additionally, the court found that the administrative record demonstrates the existence of other substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the project may have significant environmental impact on (a) biological resources; (b) community character and aesthetics; (c) water quality and drainage; and (d) traffic, parking and safety.
DeleteAccordingly the Court finds the record establishes substantial evidence existed to make a fair argument that the project may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment such that the City Council should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report instead of issuing a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, the Court grants the petition for writ of mandate."
Meant to say, at 11:43: An EIR, whether or not the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction, is not just to be a rubber stamp. Council should have to reconsider the project, not just staff, in light of the options and alternatives that must be part of any Environmental Impact Report.
DeleteGood morning Lynn! more Rambling today I see……
ReplyDeleteIn other words, it appears the final ruling DOES overturn approval of the project, because the project should not have been approved by Council, absent an EIR. If Mayor Barth and Council are operating under the fiction that the project approval has not been overturned, then the City should be disabused of this incorrect notion by SDR's legal counsel, Everett DeLano, who now has been directed to submit a proposed Statement of Decision, and appropriate proposed writ documents for the Court’s consideration." DeLano should also be submitting a request for the City to have to pay his attorney fees, as the prevailing party.
DeleteWell I see you have your coffee this evening… problem is I'm helping to bed. I am planning to:
DeleteThank the lord for how blessed I am.
go on a 10 mile bike ride tomorrow early morning.
Walk with my family to little moore breakfast.
Surf with my son and grandsons tomorrow.
either surf or play basketball with my youngest.
My gosh I am truly blessed!! Thank you all.
Anon
Lynn, not true. the project will look identical in the end. all this does is slow it down. the posters on this blog are about as an smart as a rock.
DeleteHow about just SKIP….
ReplyDeleteMayor Barth, once again, is "behind the eight ball," in that,the UT has a more recent article, as shared by WCV here, last night, with the expected good news that the tentative ruling was affirmed, and becomes the final ruling. But our outgoing mayor seems to misunderstand the effect of the Court's final ruling that an EIR is required.
DeleteSince Council approved the project, by granting the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, and since an EIR wasn't done, then once an EIR is completed, Council should automatically grant a new hearing, based on the results of the EIR.
It seems, once again, our "new mayor," same as the old mayor, is trying, but failing, to do damage control for Council's and staff's poor decisions.
Our outgoing mayor is stubborn, and refuses to admit her mistakes, or staff's errors, especially Gus Vina's mistakes and mismanagement of our city.
12:02 - That was beautiful. Lynn is about to give in her license because she realizes that she can not control the sit.
DeleteBarth is screaming "I'm melting! 'I'm melting!"
DeleteThrow more water on her and speed up the process.
Again,the final ruling should overturn approval of the project, because the project should not have been approved by Council, absent an EIR. If the mayor and council are operating under the fiction that the project approval Hasn't been overturned, then they are not going to be objective in considering the EIR, when it is finally completed.
ReplyDeleteApparently, Mayor Barth is still buying into development "lawyer speak" and double-talk." The SDR lawyer should disabuse the Mayor of her incorrect assumptions, when he prepares the Writ of Mandate, as ordered by the Court. The Save Desert Rose neighbors, thankfully, should also be entitled to their attorney fees, as the prevailing party.
If the City appeals, I predict the same thing could happen that happened in the Kevin Cummins case, when Kevin prevailed. The Court of Appeal, realizing what a waste of public monies a frivolous appeal would be, declined to even review the City's opening appeal brief. Review by the Court of Appeal on the Desert Rose case would likely be similarly denied.
Teresa Barth's newsletter is correct about one thing: "If this tentatively ruling stands [which it already had; when Teresa posted that comment, the tentative ruling had become the final ruling], I believe it will help clarify this aspect of the Density Bonus law." That's a wonderful outcome!
Attention all CRAP LOVERS....
ReplyDeleteDead oleander bush across from the Pavific Surf Inn along the rr right a way . Crap lovers are torn between the loss of this crap and the fact this crap is more crappy than before.
KLCC is united in their desire to maintain extreme crap along the 101. Meeting today at 2 pm at the location of the dead bush to pay their respects to the crap and pledge more crap for the 101.
Keep Leucadia Funky.
DeleteKeep Leucadia's Creative Charge
Keep Leucadia's Community Character
Keep Leucadia's Cooperative Consensus
Keep Leucadia's Cool Chops
Keep Lynn's Crap Confined... To her own mind.
Delete☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Caring Concern~♥~☚
Delete☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Capable Control~♥~☚
LOL; thought you said ALL CAP LOVERS ☛~♥~❤~♥~☚
ReplyDeleteUp early today??? Wow, isn't sunshine wonderful !!
DeleteKeep Leucadia's constant conversations . . .
DeleteGee you thought of that all by yourself?? No no that's not possible, to early in the day for you.
DeleteKeep Leucadia's courage credible.
DeleteKeep Leucadia's consumers compassionate.
From the lead KLCC no less...
ReplyDelete☛~♥~❤~♥~☚
Delete☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Community Character ~♥~☚
Delete☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Creative Character ~♥~☚
or the original and true meaning.
DeleteKeep Leucadia Crappy Club
Job well done. Stop all that Disneyland shit like the rocks in the park and that crappy Surfy Surfy and Cafe Ipe redevelopment project.
Let the weeds and litter prevail. Welcome diversity. We welcome everyone including crack whores, tweekers, drunks, bums, sex criminals and perverts. The more problems the better. We guarantee low property values and rent forever.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Contemporary Casualness ~♥~☚
Delete☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Calm Centeredness ~♥~☚
KLCC= crappy
DeleteA rose is a rose no matter what u call it.
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Common Cohesiveness ~♥~☚
Delete☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Colorful Charm ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Collective Consciousness ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Copacetic Comfort ~♥~☚
Keep Leucadia freaky!
Delete☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Contours Congruent ~♥~☚
Delete☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Communication Considerate ~♥~☚
Mayor Barth wrote in her newsletter, "This ruling does not over turn the approval for the project but will require an Environmental Review. If this tentatively ruling stands, I believe it will help clarify this aspect of the Density Bonus law."
ReplyDeleteThe Writ of Mandate given by the court to the Desert Rose group prevents the approved project from moving forward until the EIR is done. The council is required to have another hearing to reapprove the project with the EIR, to reject it upholding the Planning Commission decision, or to send it back to the Planning Department for modification.
Then a lot will depend on what the developer does. Walk away from the project because it no longer pencils out? Downsize the project to deal with the issues raised by the court? Or fight tooth and nail for the original project?
The court decision does clarify the Density Bonus law. It shows that CEQA and public safety issues can trump DB law. If the council had carefully read the DB law and not relied on the scare tactics of the city manager and city attorney, along with the developer's attorney, the council members would have had the courage to require an EIR and also would have avoided the public embarrassment of losing another lawsuit.
From the beginning there were serious issues raised about fire evacuation routes and encroachment on riparian habitat. The developer's attorney had said the project would enhance the wetlands. Really? That's was like say during the Vietnam war that it was necessary to destroy a village in order to save it. Tsk-tsk.
Barth didn't lose. She actually wasn't sure about the law and needed clarification.
Delete11:20 - what on earth does your comment mean?? If Barth was "unsure," why did she vote at all?
DeleteThe most face saving act would be for council to uphold the Planning Commission's/Judge Hayes' decisions. They should strike down this project.
DeleteI think I remember Agent Orange being sprayed, both in Vietnam and Desert Rose. If Barth was unsure, she went to Marco, as that is her go to person. Marco has asked a couple of Council members over the years to be on retainer. I think he was implying that he would not sue us, but it was an indirect implication. See how it works with Marco? Always remember that what comes out of his mouth is to suit Marco and Marco only. As far as the Cleveland National Forest, some of his staff are on their preservation board. Perhaps that is why he was lobbying for that. Lots of drama at CLG, and yet somehow Teresa and many others seem to think Marco, Peck and company are great. Go figure. They won't hire a decent attorney for our City, but they take advice from Marco, who's intentions are?
DeleteThanks, 10:06. Yes, this ruling does prove that CEQA and public safety issues are NOT IN CONFLICT with Density Bonus Law. I don't like to use the word "trump," but that word may have been in the tentative ruling, itself?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a game of Bridge, but if it were, then we should be playing a "No Trump" hand. Our Statutory Law is supposed to be written in context with different codes, and different sections. When there is a conflict, then the Court of Appeal or the State Supreme Court are to iron out these conflicts so that the laws support one another and are harmonious.
Similarly, Supertintendent Tim Baird, through EUSD attorney Tyree Dorward, tried to claim that Government Code regarding sales of surplus public school sites "trumps," Education Code, including the Naylor Act. But that is false. Government Code makes many references to Education Code. They are not in conflict, so there is no "trumping" involved.
Council just gets that phrase in their collective "numbskulls," this law trumps that law. That's more BIS (building industry speak). The law is literally "written in code." Too many people think it is beyond their understanding. So they rely on lawyers, who craft the laws, to tell them what it means.
I'm so grateful that the SDR neighbors questioned authority and prevailed.
You know what does trump man made laws? Our inalienable rights, to think, to question, to express ourselves, including our doubts and criticisms, as long as we cause no harm. We can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but we have inalienable rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.
True liberty is in our minds and in our hearts. It is guaranteed by our Constitution and proclaimed by our Declaration of Independence, but no "authority" gives it to us.
One thing, though, Court is lawyers' playground, their venue. Lawyers are officers of the Court. Cities are part of a governmental hierarchy. So for a group such as the Save Desert Rose Neighbors to prevail, is a huge victory. However, a case brought or defended by an attorney will "trump" an in pro se litigant nearly every time . . . but that's another story . . .
Also, Government Code, which Baird cited in his frivolous lawsuit against the City, which he dropped, as he had no legitimate case, does NOT TRUMP Prop A, which created the Right to Vote on Upzoning and Height Limits ordinance.
DeleteThe Education Code upon which Baird's bogus lawsuit relied, plainly stated, in the subsection following the subsection under which Baird sued, that any rezoning must be compatible and in compliance with all local jurisdictions general plans and municipal codes. This was pointed out to Council, repeatedly. They choose, so far, to believe in the boogeyman theory that Prop A exposes the City to more threats of litigation, although that NEVER happened in Escondido or Solana Beach, which have similar ordinances.
I knew about Escondido's initiative, designed to give citizens there the right to vote on upzoning. But I wasn't aware of Prop T in Solana Beach, until Supervisor Dave Roberts told me about it, personally.
One of the great charms of Solana Beach is that our neighboring city has managed to remain small, and has been able to control growth in a manner that has been beneficial, and even-handed, for residents, businesses, and visitors. That's why it incorporated, one year before Encinitas did. We incorporated for similar reasons, and modeled our efforts upon those of Solana Beach incorporation activists.
Too bad Enc doesn't model the city after SB , they have a rail trail , streetscape and lowered train . Enc has the big scadoosh. Not one of those three, but SB doesn't have obstructionista crap lovers either .
DeleteHas anyone checked to see who Marco or his associates donated too? I understand that they donated to Teresa and Tony.
ReplyDeleteCity Hall stinks worse all the time.
DeleteThey may have given things to everyone but Gaspar and Muir.
ReplyDeleteI would bet Gaspar is on their donation list, or at least will be in her upcoming campaign.
DeleteIf they can keep a Barthist majority with Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespear, they have no need for Gaspar or Muir.
Delete3L27 And that's the way it will be. Gaspar and Muir will be lonely up there in their big seats.
DeleteI have to laugh that you are assuming Catherine is a Barthist? Haven't you spoken to her?
DeleteIn addition to the fact that Barth is publicly pushing her campaign, we have heard from multiple sources that Blakespear opposes Prop A, respects Vina, and doesn't have a clue about city finances.
DeleteIf there are issues on which she differs from Barth, please enlighten us.
Oops forgot Blakespear is also trumpeting the purchase of Pacific View.
Delete2:28-That would be interesting.
ReplyDeleteAhhhh its a beautiful Sunny Sunday afternoon…. I think I'll go out side and relax and listen to the birds sing and the children play….
ReplyDeleteOh wait, I forgot its Encinitas…. Sunday afternoon is when Hwy101 becomes a drag strip for every drunk cigarette ficking ear plug wearing fat leather vest wearing wannabe to haul ass up and down the stretch as fast as they can…..
Screw (with an F) the residents, screw the business owners, and screw the patrons of the restaurants. If they don't like it they can go F themselves. After all, everyone knows there is zero law enforcement on Hwy101 on a sleepy Sunday Afternoon right?
Yea, it is outrageous. The motorcycle din is deafening - morons think the louder it is, the more macho they are.
DeleteI don't even live near 101 and I hear this all day every day for the past 2 years, high decibel cars, trucks, and motorcycles. All are glaring noise code violations in a residential neighborhood. Multiple complaints to the Sheriff's dept. and they do nothing.
DeleteWhy do our Sheriffs let vehicles scream around our City with only straight pipes?
ReplyDeleteI never see our Sheriffs giving tickets like the Carlsbad police do. Does our City Manager tell the Sheriffs to not issue tickets?
Whats the deal?
3:31 While you are out enjoying the day, try to clean up your language or at least write like you have a brain.
ReplyDeleteThe police in Encinitas are too fat and lazy to get out of their car or out of their chair. They are not interested in screaming vehicles. Why should they do anything because they get paid for doing nothing anyway. The city has to hire yet another employee because the police won't do their damn job. Maybe the retards should retire and join their fellow fat retirees and collect their big pensions.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is we contract with the sheriff, and Carlsbad has a regular police force. The sheriff's don't really care too much about the stuff that might be noise pollution, or breaking up bar fights. They care about busting little old ladies that stay too long at Orpheous Park-sorry about the spelling. They are guaranteed a $490.00 ticket for busting the little old ladies and don't have to worry about having to run to catch someone.
ReplyDeleteThey seem almost as worthless as our fire princesses
ReplyDeleteHave you heard the good news: Julie Graboi, the Olivehain resident who fought so hard to defeat Desert Rose and was one of the major sponsors of Prop A, is making moves toward running for Encinitas City Council. Let's all cheer her on. Julie can be reached at serjgraboi@hotmail.com
ReplyDelete