-
Arii Takendo Asla & Clca
Distance: 0.1 MiPo Box 927375
92192 San Diego -
Carddine Home Resort Products
Distance: 0.1 Mi
92111 San Diego -
Graphic Solutions
Distance: 0.6 Mi1750 Kettner Blvd.
92101-2524 San Diego -
Balboa Park
Distance: 1.3 Mi1549 El Prado
92101 San Diego -
Greater Golden Hill CDC
Distance: 1.7 Mi1235 28th St
92101 San Diego
Description
Another development planned for Elfin Forest!! 99 virgin acres of rare coastal sage west of Paint Mountain Road and north of Escondido Creek has been targeted for suburban development. Estates Seven,LLC has proposed 36, 1 ac lot homes w/ 46.52 ac of open space. This project calls for clustering of homes on smaller lots than currently allowed with a section of deeded open space. This is somewhat misleading as much of the land has already been placed in open space easements and can not be built on. The project area is currently zoned a mix of ECA (environmental constrained area), EDA (estate development area ) and open space. According to County Planner Jeff Murphy (858-694-3691) clustering is only allowed in EDA zoned areas. Access is via Calle Point Bella off of Seven Bridges Rd. The County of San Diego is currently "scoping" the proposed project, a cling on to the massive Bridges development of Rancho Santa Fe. (Many of us Foresters are currently in litigation w/ The Bridges regarding access rights to Surete Del Este, the dirt road to school.) Scoping involves preliminary review with an eye for further studies that can include an EIR (environmental impact report), wildlife/bird counts, traffic, and mitigation issues, etc. Please note this is preliminary information and is subject to change. Please write to Jeff Murphy stating your views on this development at The County of Sand Diego, Dept. of Planning and Land Use, 5201 Ruffin Road, San Diego, CA 92123, reference TM 5239. It is my personal belief this proposed development is not consistent with the general plan, nor is it consistent with the objectives of GP 2020, the county's draft of the general plan update. Further this proposed plan is an excellent example of what is not appropriate in a rural area and represents the worst of urban sprawl, poor planning and land use. It is a vomit of suburbia in one of the last areas of pristine and almost extinct coastal sage scrub. A tributary to Escondido Creek would be destroyed and the water quality of Escondido creek could be further impacted. Their are also no services near the site, i.e. grocery stores, gas stations, public transportation, etc. It would generate more traffic in an area that suffers level of service F on a daily basis on all of it's major roads. Finally, for the sake of brevity, this represents stupid growth, serves no useful purpose except to line some developers pocket with blood money, blood money of innocents, human and otherwise. Oh, I almost forgot, this development would take out miles of existing trails with no plan to replace them. Please write Jeff Murphy at the county today!! Thank you, Nancy Reed The coastal sage is shrinking faster than we realize... more What a day it was @ the Board of Supervisors! The old foes were out in mass with the developers v. environmental soldiers dukin' it out. Some things never change. I ran into Jack Orr who fought against the incorporation of Encinitas. He is now championing the "property rights" cause. I am not fooled by his talk-- he is a developer, plain and simple. Onto the news. Supervisor Jacobs make the following motion which was added to by Horn and others: -Population Goals (numbers) are not set in stone. I took that to mean they can be raised. -Standards, density targets, policies, goals ,etc. continue as per current plan. This was not well explained, but I think it means the ground work done re ground rule, mission statements will be kept and not tossed. -Direct the CAO (Chief Administrative Officer) to dump alt 3 map and generate 3 new maps. The head county planner, who's name I didn't write down , kept stating alt 3 was only a starting point and not an end point. -The CAO is to establish a NEW interest group consisting of 7 totalmembers, 2 environmental, 2 development, 1 architect, 1 planner, 1 farmer.The exact numbers may not be correct as they were changed several times. This is in response to developer out cry that they had been left out of theplanning process. Farmers and downzoned land owners claimed the same thing.