Saturday, March 24, 2007

Gil questions the "Beautiful Sardine Can"


Downtown Encinitas project faces challenge




By: ADAM KAYE - Staff Writer

ENCINITAS ---- An activist said Friday that he supports a proposed commercial and residential center in downtown Encinitas, but will challenge the developer's plans for handling parking and occupancy.

Gilbert Foerster of Elfin Forest is appealing the Planning Commission's approval last month of Pacific Station, a planned three-story complex of condominiums, stores, offices and a restaurant on 1.4 acres on South Coast Highway 101 between E and F streets.

The City Council will consider Foerster's appeal when it meets at 6 p.m. Wednesday at 505 S. Vulcan Ave.

If the council upholds Foerster's appeal, developer John DeWald must apply the changes that Foerster has requested. If the appeal is rejected, construction on the project can proceed.

With 51,600 square feet of floor area, Pacific Station would be the largest development in downtown Encinitas since 1980, when the 80,000-square-foot Lumberyard shopping center opened on the Coast Highway.

DeWald expects to break ground on the $20 million project in six months. Construction would last 18 months, he said.

Last month, Foerster told the Planning Commission the project was one that he "hated to love," and that, "It's a sardine can, but a beautiful sardine can."

On Friday, Foerster said he wants the project to move forward, but also wants the City Council to restrict parking in its two-level, underground garage and to forbid renting of the condos to short-term vacationers. read the rest at NCT.com

Previous: Leucadia!: Pacifc Station, "a beautiful sardine can", Approved

60 comments:

  1. At best, Pacific Station will be like the Cardiff Seaside Market area with housing. At worst, it's a claustrophobic mess.

    The multi curved roofs say "Hey, look at me I'm totally modern!" but unfortunately the curved roof line was plenty played out by 1998, let alone 2006. Maybe in 25 years the many curved roof lines in the Encinitas area will give us a retro look?

    The living units, sure to be mostly short term summer rentals, are packed in close with no common area for residents to meet and greet, and offers views of the coast highway restaurants backsides and dumpsters.

    The main metal building won't be any great loss but the other small quaint/cool metal barn building on F St will be missed.

    The lifestyle of Pacific Station living, wedged between the busy coast Hwy101 and the constant blaring horns of passing and stopping trains, will mostly appeal to the younger hipster 20's and 30's crowd. Downtown Encinitas can provide them with some of the culture they crave; coffee shops, art films at the historic La Paloma theater, plenty of taco stands and Thai food and the Daily Double Saloon. But will the current Stepford-ish vibe that all residents of Encinitas must be in bed by 10 o'clock; no loud music, no parties, no DJ's or dancing allowed and the anti-skateboarding rules, spoil all the new fun?

    Pacific Station means yet another stoplight on the coast at F st. Hooray.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A couple years ago when Dalager became Mayor he made it a priority to raise the fee for appealing the ruling of the decision of the unelected members of the planning commission.

    We should thank Gil for watching out for our hometown by giving him some cash to offset these increased costs of the appeal. Gil must know that the chances of him being successful are really low, unless he is counting on the presence of Barth to change the tide. She is only one vote.

    The last appeal of this magnitude was the Walker appeal. The traffic part of that EIR was terribly flawed. Walker also brought up questions regarding natural resources impacts. At the meeting walker stated, that planners' responses to his appeal were "an insult." "I looked at the detailed responses to my appeal and this is an insult," Walker said. "There is not an effort at dialogue here. When they get to something they can't handle, they say, 'Walker doesn't know what he's talking about.' "

    Jerome, Maggie, Bond, Christy, and Danny voted against the request for a real EIR.

    The project was put through by none other than David Meyer, an Ecke family member. He was able to finagle a huge backdoor shady upzone on that property. Walker put that on the Council's doorstep and they didn't even flinch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought the coast highway was just that, a highway. Why are we so eager to add another stoplight?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The stoplight is mitigation for the extra traffic generated by the new development. The development affects everyone who lives by the coast because now you have one more light to stop to force you to waste gas.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Check the campaign contributions for contributions by DeWald to the council members.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The only part of this project that is bad is the stop light addition to hwy 101. I say, can that and move forward. Who cares if Gil F. doesn't like it? Heck, he doesn't even live here. Why is he interferring? I hope the city couincil ignores him like they should and pays attention to those people that live in Encinitas.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The density on this parcel is about an R45. Where in our general plan does it show an R45 zone? Precedent, precedent.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The project won't fly without the stoplight. It is needed to handle the ingress and egress of the substantial traffic that the project will generate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There a lot of people that are part of the scene that have a financial investment in pacific station.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Who have financial stakes in this project?

    ReplyDelete
  11. OK folks take your best shots. I’ll answer when i can as i prepare for the appeal. The zoning we end up with is about R-26, R-32 with the six low income density bonus. It is the lack of
    substantial common areas and the inclusion of the low income density bonus that makes me want
    to restrict the short term rentals in the project. The density is so high that swinging door short
    term rentals can not help but impact the livability of the permanent residents and seems very
    unfair to the low income buyers who will not be short term rental landlords. The cool metal
    building on E St. is being dismantled and parts used for the restaurant that will be located in that location.

    The addition of the stoplight is required to handle the projected traffic flow. The up-side of that
    light is it makes the desirability of using 101 as an alternative to I-5 for commute less.

    I interfere because I spend 11 hours each day in this city. For 16 of the last 32 years I lived and
    voted in the city. I spend as much money as I can with merchants in this city. I fish and swim in
    the ocean that touches this city. I attended the CAB meetings prior to formation of the GP for the
    city. I care about the city, always have, and am active on city issues that seem to demand it. It is interesting to note the lack of non business interest members of the community at the planning
    commission concerning this project.

    I could care less about the folks with a financial interest in this project. I am concerned because I
    want this project’s function to follow it’s design. I am concerned because I want the new parking facility to relieve the current parking problem not add to it. Objecting only to the stop light only means that you have not studied the traffic/parking problems associated with the project. I understand that. Most citizens are concerned with the kids and the mortgage. I don’t have any kids and I don’t have a mortgage so I have the time to be concerned. I hope but don’t expect the council to change anything. As I said in my letter to council on this project it is about accountability. If the project is a claustrophobic mess, I don’t want the council members to say they did not know or that there was nothing they could do about it. My appeal lets them know
    my concerns so they do know about it and let's each of them decide if they want to require a parking/traffic management plan before the project is occupied. It allows the council to decide if allowing short term rentals decreases the chance of success for the low income units and if the low income units presence make restriction of short term rentals the right thing to do... at least initially.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Parking management is a real challenge for this project and any other project that provides underground parking. Generally this parking doesn't work well because there may be vacant spaces, but no one wants to drive around 2 levels below ground in search of them.

    Gil, I would suggest a real time monitoring system with indicators in every space of the garage. This info is shown on a display at the street that indicates how many stalls are available for public parking. The system is in place in many parking garages and it works well.

    The system does nothing of course for those people who would never consider parking below ground. Some people just consider it a hassle and would continue to cruise looking for that last available streetside stall.

    The ultimate solution for adequate parking is to charge for it. Paid parking insures adequate parking at all times. If there isn't enough parking available at certain times, the rate is adjusted up. It is adjusted up until vacant spots remain available. This paid parking system sounds draconian, but it has been successful in numerous cities. The thing that made it acceptable in other cities was that 100% of the profits were earmarked for specific civic projects like streetscape improvements, not dumped into the General Fund to be spent as the politicians choose.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Left coast you are in left field.

    Gil it is obvious that your nose is still tweaked from the coastal commission shutting your ideas down on short term rentals.

    Get a life and stay in Questhaven.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually the coastal commission sided with myself and staff and voted to not allow the ban on short term rentals at this time. The city presented numbers showed that there were only 162 short term rentals in the city at the time of the hearing. So I was quite happy with the decision, no nose tweaking there.

    As to leftcoast and paid parking. The project has taken away seven streetside spaces to facilitate the project. I do not support residents having to pay for parking that was ripped off for this project nor do I support tokens or validated parking vouchers from the business in this project for the same reason. Access to those seven spaces in the underground facility belong to the residents of this city.

    I have quite a nice life and working for a livable city is part of it. What have you done lately for the community?

    ReplyDelete
  15. People are cutting through town now to avoid I5, so we would have to make things more miserable in town to stop cutthrough traffic. The side effect is that we would have to live in a place where it is miserable. The bummer is that I5 is going to be so backed up by all the densification in Carlsdbad, San Marcos, and Oceanside that, even with the expansion, I5 is going to be so clogged that we will not be able to deter people from cutting through town unless we put up road blocks.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gil, thanks for taking this on. I think this is too dense, and should be considered in light of the recent objections to a similar high density project which Council did not endorse: the Cardiff Specific Plan.

    The developer could still make money without having a project that is going to negatively impact traffic and parking, and set a bad precedent for high density, to boot.

    Everyone who is involved here knows that Gil and others, like me, were very happy with the Coastal Commission's decision re short term rentals. The City can regulate them, but it cannot ban future short term rentals, because they provide access to the beach for out-of-towners.

    I think the only solution is to reduce the density and then we won't need the stoplight. How will the low income units work? How many will there be?

    I think there should be common areas, too. This needs to go back to the Planning Commission, which will have a new member, for more "tweaking."

    Don't let "insiders," that is developers and those with pull on Council push us all around and make it miserable to go downtown. I can't find a parking space, now, and the traffic on Hwy 101 already gets backed up, as it does on Encinitas Blvd.

    This project has to include some underground parking for the spaces it is taking away on the street, and for people that will be going to the new businesses.

    Proper planning prevents piss-poor performance . . .

    ReplyDelete
  17. There's a underground gas line running between the tracks and this project, and the parking is two levels underground.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Everyone-

    Since I5 was built in the 1960's HW101 is not a Highway, its a local roadway that needs to be made safer for pedestrians, bikes and cars as proven by the recent slaughterhouse along HW101. Until the public right-of-way is redesign to accommodate pedestrians, bikes and lower speed limits, the slaughter will continue.

    HW101 as alternate for I5 traffic is called cut through traffic. All the City; Leucadia, Downtown Encinitas, and Cardiff, Olivenhain, and New Encinitas are experiencing and suffering from it. Making our streets fast moving highways for Carlsbad’s crappy development is good for Carlsbad residents and bad for Encinitas Businesses and Residents. If you buy a box in Carlsbad,san marcos, vista, or oceanside, be ready to sit in I5 gridlock if you commute south in the morning. Don’t cut through my neighborhood and try and kill my kids.

    HW101 is a local street. Make HW101 more walkable and encourage the cut through drivers to stay and waite on I5.

    A more walkable HW101 benefits all the Encinitas businesses, residents, and the City Revenue. The only one who will lose by a more walkable HW101 is the commuter trying to haul ass through town trying to save 5 seconds off his daily grinding commute south.

    I say Encinitas resident and business customers lives are worth more than 5 seconds of someone’s chosen commute. Make HW101 more walkable and revise the plans for a signal at F Street with a 4 way stop. 4 way stops are more cost effective and safer than signals anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Who have financial stakes in this project?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Justadriver - It is because of freeway logjam that i am not against controlled densification in urban corridors. Especially when a transit system is within walking distance.

    thanks, gil - the cardiff specific plan is different. The authors have looked to the DESP for
    guidance and that was a mistake. Cardiff is different than old encinitas and is not right on 101.
    The community input on the cardiff specific plan is not reflected in that plan. It was a bad job.

    The site for this project is a difficult one because of the rail and this project has done the best it can to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. The DESP is relatively clear about the development parameters for 101. The builder has spent considerable $ and a great deal of effort to design a project that meets those restrictions. It is a beautiful sardine can and now i want to know that as many guidelines are in place so that it is successful. The developer spent valuable time discussing with me the project and his solutions to my concerns. It is only because i am a worry-wart that i need all parties involved including the council to recognize the warts and to worry with me. I am not against the density or the low income density bonus and am not appealing that part of the
    project. I support the project but hope that something more concrete than developer verbal
    promises can be attached. As I said in my letter that is part of the appeal “I trust my mother but i
    still cut the cards.” The developer might be offered a kizillion dollars before the project is finished and sell out. No fault in that but i want to know that the function of the project follows the design no matter who owns it.

    In a similar vein, i am concerned that we not rely entirely on city planning staff and the developer
    to establish those guidelines. I would like the guidelines reviewed by the planning commission.
    Many of the city staff do not reside in encinitas, only work here. This is understandable. The
    planning commission is composed of members of the community, citizens who live here and drive
    our neighborhoods for reasons other than they have to get to work. These are the folks who know
    what may work in the community. I have a great deal of respect for the task they undertake and
    their abilities to recognize warts. If you were at the planning commission meeting then you understand.

    Planning commissioner are appointed by the city council. It is not in the best interests of the city to have the positions continually turning over. You loose cohesiveness. So commissioners have to tweak projects in a manner that allows for development within the DESP guidelines without pissing off the developers who have played by the rules, the staff that has guided the developer in interrupting those rules, and the city council that appoints those commissioners Tough Job!

    With 158 public underground spaces and 50,000 sqft of commercial/restaurant space as a draw a traffic light was required for the project to work. I want the project to work. I hope the light is like a favorite pair of pants, uncomfortable when you first wear them but over time you wonder why you didn’t buy a second pair.

    a 4 way stop will not provide the safety or operational functions required by this project.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Ohio transplant extremist who is head of the chamber of commerce shouldn't bark that Pacific Station will "transform" Encinitas and except be people to be all happy about it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Who have financial stakes in this project?

    ReplyDelete
  23. If cutthrough traffic is the problem, then lets put in three barackades on 101/vulcan during rush hours. At La Costa, Encinitas Blvd, and Birminham. Let's make it so you CAN NOT go south in the morning and north in the afternoon.

    Force people onto the train or I5! Leave the stay-in-encinitas locals to a less miserable trip to the grocery store or to their favorite lunch resturant during the noncommute hours.

    You bloggers are not talking about a 5 second delay to get across town. A short delay is not going to deter cutthrough traffic and that is your objective. The delay will have to be so extreme that it is obnoxious. The locals will have to deal with that every time they go to the store, go to lunch, or go to school.

    I think some people are confused about whether it the congestion that makes things dangerous, or is it that roads are just dangerous?

    ReplyDelete
  24. The increase in traffic will make the delay obnoxious. Instead of traffic studies, the city should look at the effects of crowding more people into smaller places. The experiments with rats showed that crowding increases hostility.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Financial interests? - You have to do the sleuthing if you want to now those who have a stake. The permit was submitted by John Dewald & Associates. I met whith Mr Dewald about the project and I like him, that doesn't make him a saint but he seems to be honest and sincere about wanting the project to work.

    Of course the roads are more dangerous. Instead of one car in every garage it's now two, an RV and maybe a motorcycle or two. Some of the new SUV, "hummers" and the like are the size of small tanks. Get hit by one of them at any real speed and you might as well kiss your ass good-by.

    Can't force people to use routes that stay out of the residential neighborhoods. I used to tell folks we need to put in toll booths to support our road infrastructure with residents each issued transponders like the toll roads. Residents would pay nothing as they traverse the City streets others pay a quarter when they get off the designated commute corridors. I say this only half jokingly.

    We aren't rats. I look around the world and dense development thrives everywhere. As a youth I went to many summer camps where eight, ten, twelve kids were all living together in one cabin or tent in a cluster ten or twenty other similar structures. Very little hostility. Hostility has more to do with child rearing, electronic media and family values then close quarters. Shoot your television!!

    Until "the big one", more and more people are going to want to live in all parts of California. You better get used to it. You can't close the borders and my other half jokingly idea that if you are not a direct decendent of those settling here in the 1800s you have to leave isn't going to work.

    So if you can't stand the increase in humans here in California better consider moving to Montana or the Dakotas. Be forwarned though, you will be leaving paradise.

    ReplyDelete
  26. LA has similar climate to SD. People hate LA because of overpopulation's impacts. Overpopulation here will not improve things. If you want density, you can move to LA. They are using the mantra of "smart growth" to pack more people into areas already overpopulated.

    No one is saying that we should kick everyone out. The cat is out of the bag. The question is how many more bags should we open? If we were going to kick people out, say with a lottery. That would be fine with me even if I had to pack up and go. What is happening here is not what anybody wants.

    Montana has a few places considered paradise by some. I don't own there now and I sure hope they don't deplete their resources through overdevelopment. I might want to move there someday, but not if they screw it up. If that means it reduces my chances of finding a place there, that is the way it goes. Paradise cannot coincide with overpopulation.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I agree, too dense, not enough parking, traffic mitigation through additional signal will further reduce RESIDENT'S quality of life by making it more difficult, less pleasant to go downtown, or to take the coast to Solana Beach, say.

    ReplyDelete
  28. FYI: Aceti just made an appearence on the "Aceti Lies to NCT" thread, about 6 threads back.

    ReplyDelete
  29. paraside lost - LA climate is only similar along the coast. The rest is a basin and the temperature inversion traps the smog many many days of the year. It is not so much overpopulation but lack of a reliable transit system that makes density so difficult to deal with. That and the fact that we have not designed communities so that people can work where they live. The alternative to packing more people into urban corridors is allowing more urban sprawl at the expense of agriculture and open space. The day will come, fortunately i'll be dead, when we can no longer produce enough food to feed california much less the nation and we will become a food dependent country. It's one thing to not be able to afford enuff gas to take a drive down the coast, quite another if you can't afford to eat. Or worse yet the countries decide not to sell to us for political reasons. Half the stone fruits you see in the market are coming in from Chile. What if Chile decides they don't like us. The year 2050 on is going to be a very scary time in this country.

    The traffic signal is not going to so reduce the quality of life you won't go downtown. The urban corridor needs people living on it to keep it safe and give it life. The downtown must become more walkable and more resident oriented. This project tries to do that and is five minute walk to the sprinter. The project provides 252 parking spaces for residents and visitors. Traveling from Leucadia to Solana Beach will take, what, 5 more minutes. Just start to the belly-up five minutes earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Smart Growth is Just ThatMarch 25, 2007 3:59 PM

    Do you kids have something to say about everything? This is smart growth, dudes. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Gil is dealing with it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. orwellian growthMarch 25, 2007 4:43 PM

    If smart growth is smart, when isn't more growth smart?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Know a Poser When I See OneMarch 25, 2007 4:47 PM

    Gil's granddady founded one of the world's biggest law firms, Morrison & Foerster(1,000+ attorneys). See http://www.mofo.com/. Gil probably wishes he had followed in his family's footsteps, but instead he plays lawyer down here in the small pond and he has all of you bloggers wowed with his fake takes on the law. Are you that easily

    ReplyDelete
  34. Know a Poser When I see OneMarch 25, 2007 4:49 PM

    Gil's granddady founded one of the world's biggest law firms, Morrison & Foerster(1,000+ attorneys). See http://www.mofo.com/. Gil probably wishes he had followed in his family's footsteps, but instead he plays lawyer down here in the small pond and he has all of you bloggers wowed with his fake takes on the law. Are you that easily fooled?

    ReplyDelete
  35. IS “SMART GROWTH” THE ANSWER?
    “Smart growth” is an updated version of urban planning, newly repackaged for trendy modern sensibilities that require a catchy name.

    Smart growth is a compendium of strategies that is pro-growth while maintaining a bit of open space. It recommends increased public transit, green zones around cities and infill of the urban underused space. People are urged to embrace highly increased housing densities.

    But is smart growth a genuine policy or merely a marketing gimmick? It is championed by groups as apparently diverse as the Sierra Club and the National Association of Home Builders. Ted Turner, founder of CNN and an environmentalist, said in 1998, “I maintain that there is no such thing as smart growth. Further growth is a catastrophe. We're going to live in a 'Road Warriors' (future),” referring to the movie about a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

    from www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/unliveable-california.html

    ReplyDelete
  36. An excellent example of smarth growth and work where you live can be found in the feudal ages. Overpopulation in LA is the problem. Take a trip to the westside east of the freeway.

    ReplyDelete
  37. knowaposer - Actually it was great granddady, Constintine. It is not one of the world’s largest law firms. It is one of the world’s most honorable. The firm is a leader in encouraging advancements in standards of corporate legal practice. The firm conceived, drafted and implemented the
    American Bar Association’s Law Firm Pro Bono challenge, and was named San Diego Pro Bono
    Law Firm in 2003 & 2005. The firm supports the arts and San Diego county artists. The Morrison & Foerster Foundation supports organizations serving legal aid, children, fellowships
    & scholarships, food & shelter, health, and the arts in the San Diego area. Am I proud of the firm
    and my lineage? So very, very much.

    Do I wish I had followed the male line into the legal profession? No. Every male in that line
    passed at a very early age. Strokes and heart attacks in situations where medical miracles were not possible the last two generations. My ancestors were strong, honest, caring, passionate
    MEN. Lawyers are gladiators, sent into the arenas to battle for our ideals and principles. This
    can be a burden that takes a toll, even on honest men.

    I cry at sad movies. I am not strong enough to bear the burdens of the legal profession on a daily
    basis but I can grow the hell out of seed, outlive my forefathers, and live and work in paradise. It
    doesn’t get any better than that and really only wish I could lose a little weight. I don’t know that I have any fake takes on the law. When I have a legal question I ask an attorney.

    ReplyDelete
  38. so-o-o-o. The choice the previous posters provide us with is either the feudal ages or "road warriors".

    we may actually get both but i for one refuse to give up and so deal with growth control issues locally in real time.

    if the pacific station is going in then i want to do everything i can to make it livable for the sardines and safe and functional in the current scheme of things for the community.

    isn't that what it's all about?

    ReplyDelete
  39. All this arguing about Pacific Station is a joke because face it people Pacific Station IS LAME!!!

    ReplyDelete
  40. I am confused. Is Gil for or against short term rentals?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I am for eliminating the cut through traffic problem in Encinitas.

    95% of our traffic is cut through traffic. Curb the flow and you solve our traffic gridlock. Widen the roads and you increase the problem.

    Solve the problem along HW101 like Carlsbad, Oceanside, Del Mar, and La Jolla have done-Neck down the south bound lanes to one through lane going south for a short stretch at La Costa with double eastbound left turn arrows to get commuters pointing towards the freeway. We could also place stop signs in the neighborhoods east of HW101 and west of I5 to improve their cut through problems. Like Encinitas did in neighborhood just east of City Hall.

    HW101 would have reasonable traffic and not gridlock. Access to businesses, bike and pedestrians would improve. Get it done.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Gil, go back to Questhaven and stop mucking up our town or move here and run for city council. Then we could see how much support your hairbrained concepts really have.

    ReplyDelete
  43. reality check - your absence at the planning commission meeting on pacific station is what was
    LAME.

    on short term rentals - at the present time i support short term rentals in the city. why am i
    against short term rentals at pacific station? the density of the project and lack of significant
    open space in the residential areas will make a mix of short term rentals and permanent residents difficult at best, a nightmare at worse. in addition, the inclusion of 6 low income density bonus units and the impact of short term rentals on those units seems unreasonable to me.

    i sleep in elfin forest not questhaven. which part of the town am i mucking up? are you a
    developer seeking unrestricted growth at any cost or an unrealistic zero growth advocate seeking some sort of magical return to yesteryear and the return of the lone ranger?

    do i believe i could run and get elected to council? yes. do i believe that is in the best interests of the city? no. do i believe that what i currently do and say about the city contributes to progress and understanding within the city. yes. do i expect to continue as i have for the past 31 years. yes.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Escalating parking problemsMarch 26, 2007 1:40 PM

    Gil, I think you have a reasonable approach, and there is a developer in the works, here, "flaming" against you for an agenda of high profit, making us taxpayers/residents pay the ultimate consequences.

    I hope City/Developer/concerned citizens can incorporate more common area by making PS less dense. How many residential units? How many residential spaces are allocated out of the 250 total, how many for visitors of the residents? How many for the businesses that will open? I don't see how the proposed parking can support the increased need.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I keep forseeing parking meters, downtown, something residents do not want.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Where have all the flowers goneMarch 26, 2007 1:44 PM

    Right, sardines. I don't see why cities further north in California can put a moratorium on development, due to water shortages, and the desire to limit growth to preserve the character of the pre-existing communities, including the desire to preserve agricultural concerns.

    This only happens when no-growth or slow growth candidates get elected. That seems rare in Southern Calif, including LA County, Orange County, and SD County, along the coast. Maybe because of slick campaign ads and spinmasters galore . . .

    Oceanside is going insane. Are we going down that road? I think DeWald could make a profit on less dense development at Pacific Station.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I don't see how the City could restrict short term rental at Pacific Station and not at the Condel "residential units" now being developed in northern Leucadia.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Savepacificview@aol.comMarch 26, 2007 1:51 PM

    If Council is dead set on Pacific Station, they should work for a pocket park where Pacific View is. Perhaps this could be "open space" mitigation?

    Keep the classrooms as a teen center, instead of building another one at the Hall Property 15 years down the road.

    The City can have great influence with Encinitas Union School District on developing this as more parking, and a pocket park. Downtown desperately needs parking. This would make downtown more walkable, too.

    Council and EUSD do NOT have to cater to developers, whether they are high-paid government "consultants," or not.

    ReplyDelete
  49. escalating - there are 47 residential units of which 6 are designated low income. The entire second (bottom) level of parking is 139 spaces, about 90 for the residents and 49 for commercial occupant's employees.

    the upper level consists of 115 spaces available to the public for the commercial customers/public which includes the seven spaces to replace the lost spaces on the street.

    parking meters - my position on parking meters is known. It is very similar to that of paul newman in cool hand luke.

    flowers gone - the cities that have a development moratorium for the most part do not have water coming from the River or delta. This includes cities like cambria, areas around carmel. Areas trying to preserve community character have re-written zoning and down zoned, lowered the FAR (which i support and any good (bad) developer hates) or have found someone very very rich to buy large blocks of land and dedicate some of that land to ag and open space (as in marin county). It is very difficult to get slow/no growth candidates elected anywhere because the developers are willing to back the development interests to the hilt.

    i think that the 2 levels of underground parking are going to be very expensive to construct and that the project has been scaled to make a profit and i do not think it is a monster profit. this is a very difficult and risky development for the developer.

    the contel development at the foot of leucadia is structured completely differently and sat vacant so long and that is why we ended up with short term rentals.

    on pacific view - i think the district is set on developing this property and from a money standpoint, we are struggling to find $$ for the hall property. i support your efforts but am skeptical that the support is there to pull this off. Good luck!!

    ReplyDelete
  50. I posted here once before regarding Pacific Station in which I strongly doubted that it would ever be built.

    Developers live on financing, and this is a very difficult project to get funded. That is one reason there is so much housing in the mix. Housing is one element that will be easy to fund. The other parts of the mix are deadly.

    Best of luck, but I think there are just too many moving parts to be successful. Even if funding were found, it still becomes a very marginal project.

    Regarding Pacific View as a parking structure for downtown...let's see, the most expensive land, closest to the water...I want what you're smokin.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Gil, you're right, 2 levels of parking below grade is very expensive. Just ask the developer of the office building in Cardiff where Miracles used to be. 3 levels down, groundwater encountered, bleeding money. His rents for that finished project have got to be way above market.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Pacific View is zoned for public use. Is the highest and best use always profit for developers, whether it be through a school district or anyone else? Encinitas Union School District should not be in the business of selling valuable land to developers or leasing it out, either.

    If enought citizens and someone on Council would support more parking at Pacific View, with a pocket park, then it could happen. Too many just give up before they even start; this shows a lack of imagination.

    That previous e-mail address should be savepv@aol.com. Sorry for the confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 90 spots is not enough for 47 units. To me, it seems that every household would need at least two parking spots. The one bedroom places I've seen there are a minimum of two cars per household, sometimes three.

    Also 49 parking spaces is doesn't seem like enough parking spots for employees, either. How many businesses do they envision?

    These residents will have visitors. There will not be enough parking for their visitors and people visiting the shops and the general public who want to park in the parking garage to go to some other local business, whose parking spots have been taken by the development. Seven parking spots is a lot to lose. As it is, one has to circle and circle to find a parking spot if one tries to go to a restaurant or to La Paloma, for example.

    This is risky development where what is being speculated upon is our quality of life. We don't need double underground garages with groundwater problems, etc.

    I don't think the banks should loan on this kind of development, personally.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The EUSD has decided that this is a piece of surplus land. As surplus land the EUSD has
    decided that the best possible use is development of that parcel. This creates income for the
    EUSD either as lease income or an outright sale.

    If savpv comes up with the correct amount of $$ for the district then MAYBE something other
    than development could happen. Parking on that piece of property per space would pencil out at
    a very high cost. It is not a lack of imagination but a lack of funding that makes people give up.
    The city doesn’t have the $$ to put in parking and a park at the site. If your group comes up with
    the $$ then people will get on board. There’s really no free lunch. As Steve Martin says in the
    jerk, “Ahhh, it’s a profit deal.” That’s the reality of land as close to the Coast as that parcel.

    88 parking spots really is enough for 47 units. That is two units for each one of the regular
    residential units and one space for each low income unit. Eight small offices, six small shops, a market and a 4700 sqft restaurant. The project provides 51 spaces for those employees on the lower
    level. The upper level provides 115 spaces. Seven to make up for the lost streetside spaces and
    an additional 108 spaces of public parking.

    There is some quality of life risk in this development and great risk for the developer. The
    ground water problems, etc. are the developers problem, and the developer will have to deal with
    them. Banks and other funding entities are in the $$ business. The developer will have to
    convince them that the project is doable and profitable.

    ReplyDelete
  55. If you add up the employees for the small businesses, the small shops, the restaurant and the store, you are going to have too little parking at 51. A restaurant that size could have at least 10 person "shifts," often much more. I mean Potato Shack, a much smaller place, has 10 people working at a time on weekends, at least.

    A community market could have another 10, perhaps more. This adds up fast in terms of cars for employees.

    The restaraunt could have 60 cars there for people eating dinner, more if there is a bar. The community market could have twenty people, easily, parking. There are not a realistic number of parking spots for the people dining or the public going to the businesses and shops. It will be a tangled up mess. In downtown SD, one has to drive around and around just to find an open meter, so meters and paid parking are not a workable solution.

    Are all the condo units going to be one or two bedroom? Because a three bedroom needs to have parking for three cars. It is unrealistic to think that the low income units would have only space for one car.

    There is not going to be enough parking for the density of this project. We live near Lou's Records. We like Lou, but the nearby homes are impacted by parking every single day. With Pacific Station and Pacific View both going in, as well as the Chamber of Commerce headquarters, residents and visitors alike will be negatively impacted by lack of parking.

    ReplyDelete
  56. We don't want meters. We do want someone with vision and courage.

    Thanks for your help, Gil, but money doesn't make right. Not everyone can afford to buy the PV land, as in Marin. Don't forget though, this is PUBLIC LAND, not surplus.

    Also, the City could have negotiated to buy that "surplus" land for less than the $10 million it is spending on the Mossy property public works yard. The public works people were already there, using the classrooms as their offices. It was working just fine. Never heard a peep of complaint from the neighbors, either.

    I think that Pacific View should have to have a zoning change, and the public should get to vote before that project goes through.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Gil lost his appeal last night. According to the NCT article the vote was 5-0 against the appeal. The city residents are in deep trouble when all the council members approve such a high density project.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Approval of this project was not in the hands of the council. They had no legal right to stop it.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed, after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.