With all the talk of community character, development, and preservation generally, I started to think this weekend about how to protect our most important landmarks specifically.
I was surprised (shocked might be a better word) to learn the following:
The National Register of Historic Places lists 140 different parcels, structures, and districts in San Diego County. This status bestows considerable protection of these cultural assets from modifications or redevelopment.
Of the 140 protected places, only ONE is in Encinitas--the Olivenhain Meeting House.
Beyond the federal list, the City of San Diego has established a local Historical Resourses Board, which has created another local level of protection to over 1000 "Historic Landmarks" inside their city limits.
I know the HEU is about zoning and development rules that apply generally, but wow. We can't even protect the Lotus Tower, La Paloma Theater, the Encinitas sign over 101, SF Rail Depot (Panakin), the old schoolhouse on PV, the Derby House, the Cardiff Merchantile Building, the Boathouses, etc.
NO. Nothing you listed is historic. Go to Europe and you'll see real history, homes and building that are HUNDREDS of years old, not just several decades. Why would you want to preserve the ENCINITAS sign over the 101?? It's at most 12 years old. ( nor is it historic )
You little people need to grow up. If you want your quality of life protected do what I did. Become a multi-millionaire and move to Rancho Santa Fe. In the mean time you faux elitists nimby crybabies need to have a big cup of STFU. Money rules you losers.
Here's the problem. Most of what could be considered historic in Encinitas has already been demolished over the last 15 to 20 years. As for 9:48's comment ... those historic buildings in Europe had to come from somewhere ... built by people who didn't have a throwaway mentality like we do. How can you have anything historic if you're not willing to preserve anything in the first place?
9:48, The Encinitas sign is not a symbol of our town, worthy of historic preservation? Really? Here's what you get when you plug "Encinitas" into Google images: http://bit.ly/1zCtlmT About half of the images are of that sign.
And Europe wouldn't have those historic buildings if they didn't protect them through time. At one point, all of the great buildings and monuments were 20-30-40 years old. The key is not to wait 200 years to protect things, but to decide today what is worthy to preserve for future generations.
I would also add to the list: the Botanic Gardens, and the SRF meditation gardens.
Something 12 years old is NOT in need of historic preservation, certainly something as ugly as that sign.... If there is something you want preserved then I suggest you buy it and maintain it as is. I don't want my money spend on nonsense like a tear down school full of asbestos and lead.
Lead in paint and window putty, solder, and plumbing (hint: Pb is lead, in Latin it was Plumbium), asbestos in flooring, wallboard, and plaster was usual through about the 1970s.These materials improve durability and workability, but are now known to be moderately toxic and are shunned.
I went to the walk through before the 2nd bidder's meeting at EUSD and the groundskeeper said the only asbestos was in the glue used in the floor tile. I don't think he was lying.
It's a thread about historic landmarks. Obviously we're talking about the one room schoolhouse on the back of the property, not the concrete crap built in the 50s.
The schoolhouse was built in 1883. The widespread use of asbestos didn't take hold in US construction materials until the turn of the century.
Not sure about lead, but there is no asbestos in the schoolhouse.
" A community should be affordable to all who wish to live in it." Pure drivel....simply because you were born here or grew up here doesn't mean you have the right to live here. Too bad, life sucks, get used to it.
Ahh the ol' NAzi comparison, nice.... Nice to know when you don't have an argument worth consideration you can fall back on insults. PS- never sell your house, your children might want to live there someday. Or after they inherit it they"ll sell it and take the monies and go somewhere they can afford.
hey, in that passage you quoted, the writer did not say he had a RIGHT to live here; not even he went that far. all I see that he did was use his own experience for an example of the challenges in this city.
a wish is not a right. please tell me exactly where he said he had a "right" to live here.
reading something and being able to comprehend it are 2 different things. given your mean spirited trolling, you appear to be able to read but not comprehend.
There is a story going around that our own Encinitas Planning Department went to SANDAG before they even started the defunct General Plan Update and requested to get all of the surplus low-income units that they could.
I have heard that this was the direction of former Director Patrick Murphy, and that he refused to go back to negotiate for a lower number. Murphy was a fraud and a cheat and was not qualified to have the job that he did. Now we are paying the price.
You're still not getting what 11:58 is telling you. I reread what the author wrote, too, and I don't see where he said he was "entitled" to live in Encinitas, either. Like 11:58 said, you started this thread by trolling, so answer the question put to you: How is a wish or desire a right or entitlement? I think what he gave was a strong opinion, a personal frustration, while also seeing it realistically. You're trying to make this into the cliche "liberal entitlement crybaby" argument. Sorry, it doesn't wash.
"There is a story going around ..." at least you are trying to start one. "... requested to get all of the surplus low-income units that they could." Total bullshit.
"I have heard that this was the direction of former Director Patrick Murphy, and that he refused to go back to negotiate for a lower number". Whether Murphy represented Encinitas well can be open to criticism but the idea that he simply refused to go back to negotiate for a lower number is because the RHNA numbers distributed to all cities and the county were jointly agreed to by all. Everyone else was able to get their housing elements updated in time. Trying to lower Encinitas' allocation meant that those numbers had to go somewhere else and it was too late. Don't forget the current target number includes the prior allocation which the city didn't act on so we are planning for 2 RHNA cycles.
We are paying the price for not having an adequate housing element in prior years not because of Patrick Murphy. I had problems with Murphy but this wasn't one of them.
When will you people realize, as the City of Pleasanton found out after spending 2 million dollars, state law trumps local law even if it was the result of a local initiative. If a judge determines that Prop A frustrates the city meeting its obligations to the state housing element statute, the judge can void it.
When will you realize that standing up to this injustice of low income units being required in a city awash in them, is ludicrous. There are so many unaccounted low income units it is startling. The council just needs to create a trustworthy environment where people can come forward, trust is almost non existent. Also once again we have a divided council so council needs to take a maturity pill and quit vibing each other and act like grown ups to accomplish getting those units on the books. Start with no processing fee as the benefit to citizens far outweighs the $900 stumbling block to submittal.
Isn't this HEU process about plans for future units? You are probably right about uncounted units today. But as I understand it, the state law doesn't care about the baseline, just how you plan to accommodate projected growth (new units) with specific proportions spread across income teirs.
1:28 PM, Patrick Murphy chose a number for the regional housing needs assessment: but he didn't ask for additional low income units: he was corrupt, not insane.
Not only is there a $900 "application fee," there is currently a requirement for sprinklers to be retrofitted on pre-existing construction, plan check fees, and much more associated with the so-called affordable dwelling unit amnesty policy. There is no end to the new Planning Director's discretion to set unfair fees, that would be daunting to anyone possibly considering coming forward, voluntarily.
They could waive all fees. I'm not sure it would make any difference.
Once you apply, you have created a public record that you have a rental unit on your property already. What happens when the city finds faulty wiring that will cost a fortune to remedy? You're screwed. At that point, the city can't leave a dangerous situation alone, so you can't just withdraw your application and ask them to forget. Also, if someone later gets hurt in a fire, you are screwed. You can't rightly claim you didn't know the wiring was faulty--there is a public record.
Further, even if you abandon the process and don't complete it, you have created a public record the county can use to expand your square footage and bedrooms to increase your tax assessment. Also, if the IRS finds the public records, they may start asking questions about that cash rent you've been collecting for how long, exactly?
And your reward for assuming all this risk? You get a covenant that limits how much rent you can collect for many years.
Most folks look at their in permitted granny flat, and notice that for 30 years, no one from code endorsement has ever found the unit, so there is little risk in continuing on under the radar.
There is little the city can do to overcome these problems. I think they should use the in lieu fees to pay all application fees for applicants, but I doubt it would make much difference.
Other counties in California use a rehab permit process where what is already built can stay but any new additions must be up to current code. There is plenty of old wiring in many buildings in encinitas and they are doing just fine, the rehab method could make this easy and workable, just takes a council with imagination.
6:10 - Would you honestly allow your rental unit to continue to be occupied if you knew the wiring was faulty? Does it really matter in any way how you found out about it?
As for the assessor's office - they're not going to get to this. They've had Google Earth for years and they haven't caught you yet - so don't worry.
Also, the IRS doesn't comb public records for this kind of stuff. They are understaffed and heavily backlogged. Besides, it's much more lucrative to go after offshore bank accounts than illegal dwelling units in Leucadia. So relax - big brother may be out there, but its got bigger fish to fry.
That was a good article! It makes you (or at least me) question if the concept of having each community share in the burden is making the entire process more difficult than it has to be? That said, I'm not sure I entirely agree with his assessment of the uniqueness of Olivenhain. 192 homes in Olivenhain is rather daunting, especially at a 1 acre minimum lot size!! There is a large project in the works at the end of Fortuna Ranch Rd., under the water tower, but I seriously doubt any of it will be "affordable". That said, I still believe Olivenhain's best contribution for a "stack n' pack" would be the Encinitas/RSF Rd intersection. Another is the Manchester/El Camino intersection - the guy on the NE corner will NEVER sell - and there's a similar project across the street. I believe that neither of these locations would have a material effect on the "community character" of Olivenhain since for the most part Olivenhain is pretty much subdivided and built out. I also love how the council decided to exempt the fire station lease peoprty on RSF/Lone Jack from the discussion. Why? That would be an awesome place for a small retail/office/residential project that could also improve that intersection and maybe RSF in general! All that said, could those areas allow for 192 units - even if they never get built?
1:28 I totally disagree with your assessment that putting stack and pack near the intersection of Encinitas Blvd. and RSF Rd. would be viable. It is not a good idea as the traffic on both of those roads is at capacity and every day it is backed up for long periods of time.
Common sense must prevail, not more traffic gridlock.
Just put in roundabouts, which count as "traffic calming," so traffic impact is supposedly mitigated. That's the plan for North Leucadia: fake calming with the real purpose of eliminating grading for those intersections with roundabouts installed. Who cares if it goes from D to F?
Please fix our erroding roads, do deferred road maintenance; don't drain the budget with endless planning for a scheme to benefit a few in the building industry, make-work public work projects at the expense of pre-existing residents, the voting public, not given the opportunity to say yeah or nay through a public vote. Why couldn't we vote, at a general election, yes or no, on public work projects predicted to cost over five million, or over 7 million?
Our city is practicing checkbook planning; if you have the funds, you're on easy street. It's not about affordability: it's about profit and political influence.
7:39 - this exercise is to identify areas where there is a potential for higher density. It's not to plan the project out from shovel to occupancy. Besides, every major intersection in Encinitas is at capacity, so any project would have to address that issue. I don't know what is more common sense than that.
11:41 - I love roundabouts, but not so much to put them at THAT intersection. I would favor putting them along RSF Rd. north of Encinitas Blvd. That would help the morning commute tremendously.
11:58 As long as it is not in your backyard, what do you care? I say your little town of Olivenhain needs to step up to the plate and share some of the burden. There is more to build back there behind the hidden Lone Jack Road. Time to get rid of some horse property.
yea.........that's just not going to happen.............
I don't live near a gas station, a bus stop, a train station, a restaurant, a library, a freeway, a grocery store, a school, a crosswalk, a traffic light......capiche?
The Housing Element is a complicated process and most of the voters will not understand it, especially the language they use on the ballots. No telling if it will get approved. I think this city is built out enough. Any more crunching and squishing on top of each other doesn't sound very appealing to me. But, I know the developer's have their tongues hanging out of their mouths.
Attorneys and lawyers have their tongues hang out of the their mouths. Both ticks on society making their profit of your quality of life and tax money.
In reality Sculpin, 20 to 30 units max is more realistic: not once have the total RHNA numbers allotted the city been mandated for construction. In fact, no where has that happened. Besides, that kind of smaller project (20 to 30 apartments) could give Olivenhain the kind of infrastructure everyone out their desires; right? Developer pays.
Put vague mandates on the books and the wealthy with their lawyers will flesh out the definitions; generally for their own benefit.
ReplyDeleteWith all the talk of community character, development, and preservation generally, I started to think this weekend about how to protect our most important landmarks specifically.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised (shocked might be a better word) to learn the following:
The National Register of Historic Places lists 140 different parcels, structures, and districts in San Diego County. This status bestows considerable protection of these cultural assets from modifications or redevelopment.
Of the 140 protected places, only ONE is in Encinitas--the Olivenhain Meeting House.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_San_Diego_County,_California
Beyond the federal list, the City of San Diego has established a local Historical Resourses Board, which has created another local level of protection to over 1000 "Historic Landmarks" inside their city limits.
I know the HEU is about zoning and development rules that apply generally, but wow. We can't even protect the Lotus Tower, La Paloma Theater, the Encinitas sign over 101, SF Rail Depot (Panakin), the old schoolhouse on PV, the Derby House, the Cardiff Merchantile Building, the Boathouses, etc.
It's not either/or. Should we be working on both?
NO. Nothing you listed is historic. Go to Europe and you'll see real history, homes and building that are HUNDREDS of years old, not just several decades. Why would you want to preserve the ENCINITAS sign over the 101?? It's at most 12 years old. ( nor is it historic )
DeleteYou little people need to grow up. If you want your quality of life protected do what I did. Become a multi-millionaire and move to Rancho Santa Fe. In the mean time you faux elitists nimby crybabies need to have a big cup of STFU. Money rules you losers.
Deleteha ha ha...true dat! Look at Doug Harwood!
DeleteHere's the problem. Most of what could be considered historic in Encinitas has already been demolished over the last 15 to 20 years. As for 9:48's comment ... those historic buildings in Europe had to come from somewhere ... built by people who didn't have a throwaway mentality like we do. How can you have anything historic if you're not willing to preserve anything in the first place?
Delete9:48, The Encinitas sign is not a symbol of our town, worthy of historic preservation? Really? Here's what you get when you plug "Encinitas" into Google images: http://bit.ly/1zCtlmT About half of the images are of that sign.
ReplyDeleteAnd Europe wouldn't have those historic buildings if they didn't protect them through time. At one point, all of the great buildings and monuments were 20-30-40 years old. The key is not to wait 200 years to protect things, but to decide today what is worthy to preserve for future generations.
I would also add to the list: the Botanic Gardens, and the SRF meditation gardens.
Something 12 years old is NOT in need of historic preservation, certainly something as ugly as that sign....
DeleteIf there is something you want preserved then I suggest you buy it and maintain it as is. I don't want my money spend on nonsense like a tear down school full of asbestos and lead.
11:52,
DeleteThere was asbestos and lead used in the construction of the original one-room schoolhouse? You sure about that?
Here's a link to San Diego's criteria for historical designations (see page 1):
DeleteThere is no mention of an age requirement.
http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/historical/pdf/201102criteriaguidelines.pdf
Lead in paint and window putty, solder, and plumbing (hint: Pb is lead, in Latin it was Plumbium), asbestos in flooring, wallboard, and plaster was usual through about the 1970s.These materials improve durability and workability, but are now known to be moderately toxic and are shunned.
DeleteI went to the walk through before the 2nd bidder's meeting at EUSD and the groundskeeper said the only asbestos was in the glue used in the floor tile. I don't think he was lying.
DeleteOh, come on people.
DeleteIt's a thread about historic landmarks. Obviously we're talking about the one room schoolhouse on the back of the property, not the concrete crap built in the 50s.
The schoolhouse was built in 1883. The widespread use of asbestos didn't take hold in US construction materials until the turn of the century.
Not sure about lead, but there is no asbestos in the schoolhouse.
" A community should be affordable to all who wish to live in it." Pure drivel....simply because you were born here or grew up here doesn't mean you have the right to live here. Too bad, life sucks, get used to it.
ReplyDeletesomething I'm certain you tell your native american indian friends.
DeleteI'm sure Hitler was saying the same thing as he invaded Poland. You're in good company.
DeleteAhh the ol' NAzi comparison, nice....
DeleteNice to know when you don't have an argument worth consideration you can fall back on insults.
PS- never sell your house, your children might want to live there someday. Or after they inherit it they"ll sell it and take the monies and go somewhere they can afford.
hey, in that passage you quoted, the writer did not say he had a RIGHT to live here; not even he went that far. all I see that he did was use his own experience for an example of the challenges in this city.
Deletea wish is not a right. please tell me exactly where he said he had a "right" to live here.
reading something and being able to comprehend it are 2 different things. given your mean spirited trolling, you appear to be able to read but not comprehend.
There is a story going around that our own Encinitas Planning Department went to SANDAG before they even started the defunct General Plan Update and requested to get all of the surplus low-income units that they could.
DeleteI have heard that this was the direction of former Director Patrick Murphy, and that he refused to go back to negotiate for a lower number. Murphy was a fraud and a cheat and was not qualified to have the job that he did. Now we are paying the price.
11:58- change "right to "entitlement". Happy now??
DeleteYou're still not getting what 11:58 is telling you. I reread what the author wrote, too, and I don't see where he said he was "entitled" to live in Encinitas, either. Like 11:58 said, you started this thread by trolling, so answer the question put to you: How is a wish or desire a right or entitlement? I think what he gave was a strong opinion, a personal frustration, while also seeing it realistically. You're trying to make this into the cliche "liberal entitlement crybaby" argument. Sorry, it doesn't wash.
Delete1:28 PM
Delete"There is a story going around ..." at least you are trying to start one. "... requested to get all of the surplus low-income units that they could." Total bullshit.
"I have heard that this was the direction of former Director Patrick Murphy, and that he refused to go back to negotiate for a lower number". Whether Murphy represented Encinitas well can be open to criticism but the idea that he simply refused to go back to negotiate for a lower number is because the RHNA numbers distributed to all cities and the county were jointly agreed to by all. Everyone else was able to get their housing elements updated in time. Trying to lower Encinitas' allocation meant that those numbers had to go somewhere else and it was too late. Don't forget the current target number includes the prior allocation which the city didn't act on so we are planning for 2 RHNA cycles.
We are paying the price for not having an adequate housing element in prior years not because of Patrick Murphy. I had problems with Murphy but this wasn't one of them.
When will you people realize, as the City of Pleasanton found out after spending 2 million dollars, state law trumps local law even if it was the result of a local initiative. If a judge determines that Prop A frustrates the city meeting its obligations to the state housing element statute, the judge can void it.
When will you realize that standing up to this injustice of low income units being required in a city awash in them, is ludicrous. There are so many unaccounted low income units it is startling. The council just needs to create a trustworthy environment where people can come forward, trust is almost non existent. Also once again we have a divided council so council needs to take a maturity pill and quit vibing each other and act like grown ups to accomplish getting those units on the books. Start with no processing fee as the benefit to citizens far outweighs the $900 stumbling block to submittal.
Delete4:18,
DeleteIsn't this HEU process about plans for future units? You are probably right about uncounted units today. But as I understand it, the state law doesn't care about the baseline, just how you plan to accommodate projected growth (new units) with specific proportions spread across income teirs.
True?
1:28 PM, Patrick Murphy chose a number for the regional housing needs assessment: but he didn't ask for additional low income units: he was corrupt, not insane.
DeleteNot only is there a $900 "application fee," there is currently a requirement for sprinklers to be retrofitted on pre-existing construction, plan check fees, and much more associated with the so-called affordable dwelling unit amnesty policy. There is no end to the new Planning Director's discretion to set unfair fees, that would be daunting to anyone possibly considering coming forward, voluntarily.
DeleteThey could waive all fees. I'm not sure it would make any difference.
DeleteOnce you apply, you have created a public record that you have a rental unit on your property already. What happens when the city finds faulty wiring that will cost a fortune to remedy? You're screwed. At that point, the city can't leave a dangerous situation alone, so you can't just withdraw your application and ask them to forget. Also, if someone later gets hurt in a fire, you are screwed. You can't rightly claim you didn't know the wiring was faulty--there is a public record.
Further, even if you abandon the process and don't complete it, you have created a public record the county can use to expand your square footage and bedrooms to increase your tax assessment. Also, if the IRS finds the public records, they may start asking questions about that cash rent you've been collecting for how long, exactly?
And your reward for assuming all this risk? You get a covenant that limits how much rent you can collect for many years.
Most folks look at their in permitted granny flat, and notice that for 30 years, no one from code endorsement has ever found the unit, so there is little risk in continuing on under the radar.
There is little the city can do to overcome these problems. I think they should use the in lieu fees to pay all application fees for applicants, but I doubt it would make much difference.
Other counties in California use a rehab permit process where what is already built can stay but any new additions must be up to current code. There is plenty of old wiring in many buildings in encinitas and they are doing just fine, the rehab method could make this easy and workable, just takes a council with imagination.
Delete6:10 - Would you honestly allow your rental unit to continue to be occupied if you knew the wiring was faulty? Does it really matter in any way how you found out about it?
DeleteAs for the assessor's office - they're not going to get to this. They've had Google Earth for years and they haven't caught you yet - so don't worry.
Also, the IRS doesn't comb public records for this kind of stuff. They are understaffed and heavily backlogged. Besides, it's much more lucrative to go after offshore bank accounts than illegal dwelling units in Leucadia. So relax - big brother may be out there, but its got bigger fish to fry.
- The Sculpin
That was a good article! It makes you (or at least me) question if the concept of having each community share in the burden is making the entire process more difficult than it has to be? That said, I'm not sure I entirely agree with his assessment of the uniqueness of Olivenhain. 192 homes in Olivenhain is rather daunting, especially at a 1 acre minimum lot size!! There is a large project in the works at the end of Fortuna Ranch Rd., under the water tower, but I seriously doubt any of it will be "affordable". That said, I still believe Olivenhain's best contribution for a "stack n' pack" would be the Encinitas/RSF Rd intersection. Another is the Manchester/El Camino intersection - the guy on the NE corner will NEVER sell - and there's a similar project across the street. I believe that neither of these locations would have a material effect on the "community character" of Olivenhain since for the most part Olivenhain is pretty much subdivided and built out. I also love how the council decided to exempt the fire station lease peoprty on RSF/Lone Jack from the discussion. Why? That would be an awesome place for a small retail/office/residential project that could also improve that intersection and maybe RSF in general! All that said, could those areas allow for 192 units - even if they never get built?
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
Sculpin you have nothing to worry about. All, if not most of the LIH will be in Leucadia.
DeletePut them all on Ecke's Ranch - - the Housing Plan would be scrapped.
Delete1:28 I totally disagree with your assessment that putting stack and pack near the intersection of Encinitas Blvd. and RSF Rd. would be viable. It is not a good idea as the traffic on both of those roads is at capacity and every day it is backed up for long periods of time.
DeleteCommon sense must prevail, not more traffic gridlock.
Just put in roundabouts, which count as "traffic calming," so traffic impact is supposedly mitigated. That's the plan for North Leucadia: fake calming with the real purpose of eliminating grading for those intersections with roundabouts installed. Who cares if it goes from D to F?
DeletePlease fix our erroding roads, do deferred road maintenance; don't drain the budget with endless planning for a scheme to benefit a few in the building industry, make-work public work projects at the expense of pre-existing residents, the voting public, not given the opportunity to say yeah or nay through a public vote. Why couldn't we vote, at a general election, yes or no, on public work projects predicted to cost over five million, or over 7 million?
Our city is practicing checkbook planning; if you have the funds, you're on easy street. It's not about affordability: it's about profit and political influence.
7:39 - this exercise is to identify areas where there is a potential for higher density. It's not to plan the project out from shovel to occupancy. Besides, every major intersection in Encinitas is at capacity, so any project would have to address that issue. I don't know what is more common sense than that.
Delete11:41 - I love roundabouts, but not so much to put them at THAT intersection. I would favor putting them along RSF Rd. north of Encinitas Blvd. That would help the morning commute tremendously.
- The Sculpin
11:58 As long as it is not in your backyard, what do you care? I say your little town of Olivenhain needs to step up to the plate and share some of the burden. There is more to build back there behind the hidden Lone Jack Road. Time to get rid of some horse property.
Deleteyea.........that's just not going to happen.............
DeleteI don't live near a gas station, a bus stop, a train station, a restaurant, a library, a freeway, a grocery store, a school, a crosswalk, a traffic light......capiche?
- The Sculpin
4:38 Then you must sit in traffic a long time.
Deletethe housing element is off to a bad start and will likely be scrapped by the voters if City Council pushing this current accelerated flawed program.
ReplyDeleteThe Housing Element is a complicated process and most of the voters will not understand it, especially the language they use on the ballots. No telling if it will get approved. I think this city is built out enough. Any more crunching and squishing on top of each other doesn't sound very appealing to me. But, I know the developer's have their tongues hanging out of their mouths.
ReplyDeleteAttorneys and lawyers have their tongues hang out of the their mouths. Both ticks on society making their profit of your quality of life and tax money.
ReplyDeleteIn reality Sculpin, 20 to 30 units max is more realistic: not once have the total RHNA numbers allotted the city been mandated for construction. In fact, no where has that happened. Besides, that kind of smaller project (20 to 30 apartments) could give Olivenhain the kind of infrastructure everyone out their desires; right? Developer pays.
ReplyDeleteGood article.
ReplyDeleteThe HEU is about as far a cry from simply an "exercise" as you can get. Puh-leese.
ReplyDelete