The future of Leucadia was determined by four Council members last night.www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/11/15/news/coastal/2_02_4211_15_07.txt
Last night four Council members voted for the condominium conversion of the Sands mobile home park in Leucadia.One of the council members calculated what the owner-subdivider is asking for the land. For the 1.9 acres of bare land the selling price is 15 million dollars. The residents have only two options. They can buy 400 square feet of land for $200,000 or they can rent. For those renters who don't meet the low income requirements, it is only during the first four years that the rent increased by the CPI. After four years the owner-subdivider can charge market rates. Everyone in the park will be paying HOA fees. It is also possible that the HOA will have to bring the park up to the state standards. The infrastructure in the park is 60 years old. If the HOA must bring the park up to state standards, the costs, which may run into the tens of millions would be transfered to the HOA and paid for by the mobile home condo owners and renters.
Hi J.P., yes I'll send you a picture of the twin towers being built next to me on 101. Here's the skinny: 3 years ago, four 50'x80' lots on that corner sold for only $250,000 each. Two years later the corner guy flipped his (two) lots for 1,250,000. The realtor wasted no time letting the owners know all the loopholes to maximize anything they wanted to build there and mentored them at Planning meetings etc. The first design (for the entire 200' frontage) was completely out of sync with Leucadia and looked like three story reqtangular ice-cube trays, that would go unnoticed next to Sharp hospital in San Diego but, stand out like a sore trauma center in Leucadia. Many locals met with the developers seeking to change and reduce the size and conform better to our Specific Plan. What we ended up with design-wise is by far better than the cubes, utilizing more articulation, angled rooflines and varied materials. But congestion-wise, there wasn't a whole lot of improvement. There are still FOUR 3 bedroom condos over 8 businesses on HALF of that 200' frontage on 101. There are only FOUR parking spaces for the complex on 101 (with 12 in the alley, including four "tandem" garages that inconveniently park cars two deep). Consequently, where will all the people who live and work there park? Neptune? Neighboring residents and businesses will have lost parking forever. WHY the Encinitas Planning Commission thought that was a good idea is beyond me. At least Commissioner Gene Chapo was the desenting vote saying "Is THIS the kind of development we want to see on every lot on 101?" Evidently the four others thought so. You connect the dots. But that's not all. The owners of the two lots on the corner want to duplicate this kind of bulk and mass there too. And just for this blog's record, -no Gene, it's not what most of us want on 101. I think even our neighbors to be would agree.
Dear Anaon 10:44; The one council member who calculated that the owner-subdivider is asking a price of 15 million dollars was Houlihan, and she voted with the majority to approve the conversion. The residents previously had NO protection from any rent increases, but now they do. They previously had no ability for ownership, but now they do. Houlihan and the guys made the corrrect vote. It was Barth who voted against the resident's interests in my opinion.
The owners of the mobile homes can now own the lots, or continue to rent them, at higher prices (since the Arizona owner bought the Sands Park). This will be adjusted upwards for four years at inflation/cost of living increases. After four years, the rent will go to "market value."Teresa Barth was the only one who stood with the residents, who DID NOT WANT the development/conversion. Maggie Houlihan raised good concerns, then caved.Many residents of mobile home parks throughout Encinitas also supported the residents of Sands on this issue. The vote, disregarding the fixed income residents will be remembered come next November.Council can't think for itself and is always willing to go along with the developers' or Glenn Sabine's interpretation of the law. Council tried to say they had to act this way because of the "Map Act." They did have a choice, and made the wrong one, as usual.Kudos, again, to Teresa Barth.
Thank you for posting on our blog. Your contribution to the discussion is important. Your comment will carry more weight if you use your real name. Comments on blog post older than 30 days require moderator approval.