Save the San Elijo Lagoon Scenic Corridor

Property Transferred to State of California

2012-01-28T09:37:00.000-08:00

The property was transferred to the State of California on January 5, 2012. Grantor: Laser to Grantee: State of California.

2011-05-30T19:14:00.001-07:00

View Larger Map

Project Location Map

2010-07-20T10:33:00.000-07:00

You can use this map to navigate around the area where this project was proposed. The California Coastal Commission still has this project under review. Last year they found substantial issue with the project on more than four areas.

View Larger Map

Coastal Commission Hearing Not Yet Scheduled

2010-02-09T12:12:00.001-08:00

This item was planned to be on the February CCC meeting in Oceanside this week, however it has not yet been scheduled.

Substantial Issue Found

2009-07-10T10:44:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, July 9, 2009 at 5:40pm pacific time, the California Coastal Commission found that a "Substantial Issue" exists on this project. No Commissioner's objected, therefore, no public testimony was allowed. This has moved to a de novo (start all over again) hearing to be scheduled, perhaps in February 2010 in San Diego.

The staff report recommended that substantial issue exists on the items we raised previously with the City. Their staff report and the Commissioner's appeals can be found HERE. It is worth reading the first 14 pages.

The following is the conclusion from the staff report:
Conclusion:
Based on the information that has been provided by the appellants,
it appears the City approval of the boundary adjustment and construction of a home on
each lot is inconsistent with RM Policies 10.1, 10.6, 10.10, PS Policy 1.2 of the City’s
certified LUP and Section 30.34.030B of the certified IP. Therefore, the Commission
finds that a substantial issue exists with respect to the consistency of the local
government action with the City's certified Local Coastal Program.

Substantial Issue Factors
As discussed above, there is inadequate factual and legal support for the City’s determination that the proposed development is consistent with the certified LCP. The other factors that the Commission normally considers when evaluating whether a local government’s action raises a substantial issue also support a finding of substantial issue. The objections to the project suggested by the appellants raise substantial issues of regional or statewide significance, the coastal resources affected by the decision are significant, and this decision may create a poor precedent with respect to the local government's future interpretations of its LCP.

California Coastal Commission Appeals

2009-07-06T20:25:00.001-07:00

Two commissioners appealed this project. The appeal hearing is on July 9, 2009 in San Luis Obispo. Their appeal raised similar issues described here and expanded on a few. Very good work on their part. The staff report states that the findings for "substantial issue" exist. The staff report recommends the commission find substantial issue and move to a de novo hearing (start all over again).

Appeal to the Coastal Commission

2009-05-29T16:44:00.000-07:00

We gave the City Council five very good reasons to reduce slope encroachment and impact to wetlands. However, they voted 4 to 1 to approve the project. We are appealing to the Coastal Commission and hope for better results.

The City violated the Hillside Inland Bluff Overlay Zoning Ordinance. This has serious consequences to steep slope areas. We will work to stop this from happening again.

Anytime a project is proposed on steep slope areas the driveways and access roads are being excluded from slope encroachment. This is happening when they do not lead to areas where the slope is less than 25%. In other words, the bigger a developer makes their driveway, the less impact they have. This was not the intent of the Hillside Inland Bluff Overlay Zone.

This must stop or we will lose more and more of our hillsides to development. What is the penality for violating zoning law? Let us know.

Appeal Hearing Set for May 27, 2009

2009-05-14T02:53:00.000-07:00

An appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commissions determination to approve Case 03-101 has been submitted. The City Council hearing is set for May 27, 2009 at city hall.

Planning Commission Approval (5 to 0)

2009-04-16T21:03:00.000-07:00

The Planning Commission approved the project tonight with a 5 to 0 vote. They approved a project that has 23% impact to steep slopes when only 20% is allowed with Design Review. They allowed the driveway to be subtracted from slope impact. According to the Hillside/Inland Bluff Overlay Zone of the Municipal Code 30.34.030B2b3, driveways cannot not be subtracted when they do not lead to an area where slopes are less than 25%. The applicants drawings show the driveway does not lead to an area where slopes are less than 25%. The City Staff admitted in an email to us the driveway does not lead to an area where the slope is less than 25%. The staff stated in the staff report the driveway was being subtracted due to 30.34.030B2b3. We will appeal to the City Council.

Consent Calandar to Postpone to April 16, 2009

2009-02-17T17:15:00.000-08:00

This item has been placed on the Consent Calendar. The recommendation from staff is to continue Case No. 03-101 DR/BA/EIA/CDP to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 16, 2009.

The City has estimated encroachment into slopes greater than 25% to be .73 acres or 15% on Case 101. This project allows 14% and up to 20% with design review. They did not include .55 acres of encroachment from the driveway in the above 14% estimate. If the driveway was included, encroachment into steep slopes will be 26%. This is well beyond what is allowed and the City needs to do more to reduce the size and mass of this project and keep encroachment to the allowed 14%.

The City of Encinitas Municipal Code (30.34.030B2b3) states: The following uses and/or development features shall be exempt from the encroachment limitations described above: Where it is determined during the Design Review process that no less environmentally damaging alternative exists, local public or private streets and driveways which are necessary for access to the more developable portions of a site on slopes of less than 25 percent grade. (Ord. 91-19)

The proposed driveway does not provided access to a more developable portion of the site where slopes are less than 25% grade. In this case, the driveway is being used to get the homes placed higher on the property to gain a better view as well as build larger homes. This is a violation of the intent of the City code. Also, on December 4, 2008 the Planning Commission passed a motion and continued the hearing on the applicant’s agreement to submit a plan reducing the size of the homes and the driveway. So far the applicant has not submitted and alternative.

Allowing 26% encroachment is beyond what is necessary to provide a minimal development right. This project proposes two 5600 square foot homes, with large swimming pools and 1000 foot garages. Two 2200 square foot homes would fit where the lower home is now and maintain the 14% slope encroachment allowance.

The City needs to explain why the driveway is necessary and is being subtracted from encroachment calculations.

No Decision Yet - Project Continued

2008-12-11T16:30:00.001-08:00

The City of Encinitas Planning Commission on December 4, 2008 after many discussions about slope and visual impact continued the hearing until February 19, 2009. They asked the applicant to submit a proposal with additional reductions to slope and visual impacts.

Attend the December 4, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting

2008-11-26T14:46:00.001-08:00

Deny Case 03-101

This proposal should be denied because too many conditions of approval are needed. Here are arguments against 9 conditions required to win approval. We are not against a person being able to build, just against this proposal. The applicant developed 9 alternatives. They can be reviewed in the Case File. However, none significantly reduced the size of the homes. More can be done to reduce impacts to slope, habitat, sensitive species, wetlands and the scenic corridor as viewed from the San Elijo Lagoon and Manchester Avenue.

This property contains sensitive habitat. This is a very steep slope property. Also, there are two wetlands on the property.

The applicant is proposing to construct two 5,600 square foot homes. This does not include the large swimming pools or the 900 and 600 square foot garages. The driveway is not necessary. They placed the garages in the rear of the homes. If the garages were placed in the front of the homes, and the homes were smaller the long driveway is not necessary.

In order for these large homes to fit, the applicant is requesting the following conditions for approval:

1. A request to adjust an interior lot line

a. The Coastal Commission cited potential inconsistencies with RM Policy 10.6 which states that lot line adjustments shall not be approved if it increases impact to wetlands. The lot line adjustment allows one of the homes to be built close to the wetland. The adjustment makes the lower parcel so small that the standard 100 foot wetland buffer has to be reduced to 25 feet in order for this large home to fit. Therefore, the lot line adjustment increases impact to the wetland.
b. The City and the wildlife agencies state the lot line adjustment helps to reduce impact to other habitat because it keeps the owner from building on top of the hill. So, they felt the increased wetland impact was not as bad as the increased impact to the other habitat. However, RM Policy 10.6 is clear, and does not allow this type of reasoning. If the lot line adjustment increases impact to the wetland, it shall not be approved. The lot line adjustment increases impact to the wetland.
c. Another condition of approval is that a filter be placed to clean up the runoff. This is discussed below in item 7.
d. This lot line adjustment will set a precedent for other development near wetlands and should not be approved.

2. A request to reduce the wetland buffer from the standard 100 feet to 25 feet.
a. This is requested because the lot line adjustment makes the lower lot smaller and as a result this large home cannot fit without the standard 100 foot buffer reduced to 25 feet.
b. The applicant’s biologist says they will clean up the runoff so it won’t affect the wetland. Another condition of approval is that a filter be placed to clean up the runoff. This is discussed below in item 7.
c. I do not think this is something the City approves but is an example of another reduction in standard codes.

3. A request to increase the allowable 14% encroachment into steep slopes greater than 25% gradient to 15%.
a. The City can only approve up to 20% with Design Review.
i. Municipal code (30.34.030 B.2.a) states: Within the Coastal Zone and for purposes of this section, encroachment shall be defined as any area of greater than 25 percent slope in which the natural landform is altered by grading, construction, placement of structures or materials, removal of native vegetation, including clear-cutting for brush management purposes, or other operations which would render the area incapable of supporting native vegetation or being used as wildlife habitat due to the displacement required for the proposed building, accessory structures, paving or native vegetation clearance.
ii. Section 30.34.030B2b3 of the Municipal Code states: driveway’s necessary for access and associated grading are exempt from encroachment limitations. The majority of the proposed driveway is inside the required 50 foot fuel modification zone. So, the applicant was able to subtract this area from their calculations. If this was not allowed the slope encroachment would be 22%. The intent of this code is to allow someone to get to a buildable portion of their property. It is not to benefit an applicant in this manner. Also this driveway is not necessary. There are other alternatives. (Alternative I, which places smaller homes with garage access in the front vs. the back)
iii. If the 100 foot fuel modification buffer was required the slope impact would be 25% excluding the driveway. It would be 30% if the driveway was included.

4. A request to reduce the fire buffer (defensible space) from the standard 100 feet to 50 feet.
a. This has been requested to mitigate habitat impact and slope impact.
b. The Fire Marshall stated a 50 foot fire buffer is OK for this project.
c. CALFIRE in their Draft Fire Risk Assessment Program (FRAP) designated this property as a Very High Fire Severity Zone. Granting a reduction to the standard 100 foot buffer, in a Very High Risk Area is not prudent.

d. Without the reduction in the fire buffer the wildlife agencies do not favor the project.

5. A condition of approval for Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub mitigation offsets.
a. This has been questioned by the coastal commission in their letter submitted in December in response to the Draft NEGDEC.
b. SCBS cannot be mitigated.

6. A condition of approval to install a filtration system to filter runoff from the site prior to entering the wetland.
a. There is no process or policy in the City to ensure this system is maintained. Therefore, this filtration system cannot be counted on to protect the wetland.
7. A condition of approval for hand trenching a sewer ditch
a. This one was actually changed. They will now go from the street.

8. The glass construction is not appropriate near natural habitat and the proposed biological corridor.
9. Exiting from Manchester into their driveway should require a deceleration area.
a. Traffic travels at high speed along Manchester.
b. Additional No U-turn signs will be needed.

Any single one of these conditions of approval should not be allowed in this sensitive area, all of them combined, make this a proposal that absolutely should not be approved. If you have any questions please contact me at

2008-11-17T12:49:00.000-08:00

I walked the San Elijo Lagoon trials last Saturday and came across an artist painting the landscape. She shared this image of her work to support maintaining the last remaining open space along Manchester. This painting captures the feeling of the San Elijo Lagoon Scenic Cooridor. Thank you Christina Thurston http://www.christinathurston.com/ for allowing us to post a copy of this image.

2008-10-28T17:31:00.000-07:00

Above is a map showing the location of the project. The red areas on the project site show steep slopes that are greater than 25%.

2008-10-26T14:52:00.000-07:00

This is a before and after depiction of the project as viewed from the San Elijo Lagoon. The proposed homes on the image on the bottom are shown in red. The grey area around the homes is the 50' planting area. The light grey shows the proposed driveway.

Manchester Mansion Project

2008-10-18T20:06:00.001-07:00

A group of 17 concerned residents from Cardiff opposed a proposal to build two 5600 square foot homes near the San Elijo Lagoon at the City of Encinitas Planning Commission meeting on October 16, 2008. We have named it "The Manchester Mansion Project". After some deliberation over various issues, the Planning Commission extended the hearing until December 4, 2008. We need your help at the December 4, 2008 planning commission meeting if you are against this development.

The property contains significant biological resources that will be negatively impacted. Also, the property is in a designated scenic corridor and provides open space that enhances the San Elijo Lagoon trails. Eight residents provided testimony against this proposal at the meeting. Some of the issues raised were:

· The project requires the reduction of the standard 100 foot wetland buffer down to 25 feet. Allowing this may set a precedent in California that will impact other wetlands.
· The project cuts excessively into steep slopes and requires an approval to increase the allowable slope cuts from 10% to 15%.
· The project will negatively impact the scenic corridor.
· The homes are too large for this site.
· The proposed large glass windows are not appropriate near a bird sanctuary.
· The project will cause traffic safety issues as cars will be pulling into a very long driveway off Manchester Avenue that will be highly visible from the lagoon trails. Cars travel at high speeds along Manchester. Also, many cars will make a u-turn at the driveway. So, additional no-u-turn signs will need to be placed.
· A proposed lot line adjustment will cause additional impacts to a wetland on this property and therefore according to RM Policy 10.6 the City shall not approve it.
· The standard 100 foot fire buffer is being reduced to 50’ and may increase fire risk to these homes as well as neighboring properties.
· Habitat mitigation efforts were questioned by the Coastal Commission