Local wrote on Sep 15, 2008 7:51 PM:This part of town is under constant demands for more to be put in along Santa Fe Dr., but there is NO plan to improve Santa Fe Dr. infrastructure. There's not even the money budgeted to do a study on what needs to be done to upgrade the street, sidewalks and bike lanes. At a minimum the developers (or the city) should have to pay for such a study before there is any change to the general plan.
Santa Fe Dr. is a crummy two lane road that is insufficient for it's current levels of usage, much less an expanded Scripps campus, the Hall property park and a growing SDA.It's listed as part of the city trails and bikeays system; I challenge any city council member to walk or ride a bike from El Camino Real to San Elijo along Santa Fe Dr.

can_I_get_A_witness wrote on Sep 15, 2008 9:29 PM:Yet another attempt for the Brown family to try to develop their property into something it isn't zoned for. I agree with Peter Stern, what is the point of zoning it we're going to modify the plans every time some develper asks?
The city is spending all it's money spinning it's wheels on these unpopular projects and nothing ever gets accomplished.
Too bad there is no money left to build 'the park' scaled back or not. The Brown's support that big development project too!

Also local wrote on Sep 15, 2008 9:38 PM:I agree with you, Local. If they want to increase the density of the area, particularly with a commercial-like development as proposed (don't forget, in addition to the residents, there are caregivers and other staff that will be commuting to the facility), they need to fund improvements to the local area, especially sidewalks!

The sidewalk should be extended from where it ends at Balour all the way to El Camino Real. This stretch of Santa Fe is very dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. In exchange for the city code amendment the Council should insist on these infrastructure improvements.

Here you go again wrote on Sep 15, 2008 10:13 PM:Senior Housing etc is just a game. Racing traffic/limited parking and Developers and Management who do not have a clue as to "what is needed" for the Seniors, etc they are supposed to serve.

Larry wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:09 AM:Will the city require that only cloth diapers and not disposable plastic diapers be used?

Scott wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:38 AM:The problem with developing this property is that the city will only upgrade Santa Fe one piece at a time. When property owners got to city hall planning and engineering to ask for permits to do work on their properties they are socked with enormous financial burdens to widen Santa fe one piece at a time.

The original owners of the property, back several generations got their agricultural use out of the property, but now several generations down the line, the Browns want to cash in on the realestate value of the residentially-zone property so everyone gets a big pay day. That ended with Paul Ecke's Prop A defeat. Too little too late.

Mary wrote on Sep 16, 2008 7:44 AM:The city council has to grab the bull by the horns and construct the improvements which Santa Fe should have.....it should be a four lane road from ECR to San Vulcan with sidewalks and a median. They need to do it right.....with the developer paying for those improvements from ECR to Balour (and the necessary improvements on Lake Drive) and the city should pay for the rest from Balour to Vulcan.
Whatever project happens at that corner these improvement must be done.
Do something right (the first time) for once!

Zephon wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:34 AM:Santa Fe and Birmingham desperately need improvements.

Until the citizens stand up and demand this before new development occurs the City will just let these developers do as they wish.

Hall property and the Brown property, both zoned agriculture for use should not be changed in zoning until after the infrastructure improvements on these dangerous streets are made!

John E wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:41 AM:Santa Fe Drive does not need to be widened all the way from El Camino Real to Vulcan/San Elijo. When a street is widened and straightened, traffic speeds increase, and safe speed limits cannot be enforced. Since the street has schools, private driveways, a hospital, and commercial frontage, we need to be very careful about "improvements."

High-intensity uses need to be limited. This has implications for the Hall ball park, the hospital's grandiose expansion plans, and this latest senior housing proposal.

Nick wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:30 AM:You people are so whacked in the head it's not even funny!
How about some quality care for our elderly?
I know, the majority of you NIMBY whiners don't care about them, that is obvious.
In Europe, they don't have facilites like these, because the elderly LIVE AT HOME with their family.
I know, it's a hard concept for the spoiled me, me America crowd.
Your parents spent almost 20 years of their lives wiping your butts and raising you, but when they are in need, your folks thrown them in a home because you don't want to be burdened.
And now, when somone wants to build a facility for the elderly that you losers don't want to take care of, you whine and complain about traffic and density.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves!

Jane wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:47 AM:While I feel that more Senior Care Facilities are needed probably in every city, with the aging population, I do not feel this is a good location.

I do not think it's right for a developer to be able to "go around" the General Plan the way this one is proposing to do.

With the Scripps Hospital expansion and the proposed park where the Hall Property was, this would put too much pressure on Santa Fe Road, I agree. The residential neighborhoods are being adversely affected by all of the development, in my opinion.

Why Another Senior Facility wrote on Sep 16, 2008 10:26 AM:What about the noise of cars constantly coming and going, ambulances, etc? A commercial Senior Facility has no place on a corner that is entirely residential or parks. This is a business, and should be built in an area that is zoned for commercial use. That's why we have separate zoning, so greedy developers don't stick a business, with its added cars, traffic, noise, etc. to ruin a quiet residential neighborhood. If you make an exception for one business to infiltrate a residential zone, others will have a precedent to do the same.

We already have two senior facilities less than a mile away, on the (business zoned) corner of Santa Fe and El Camino Real, another less than a mile south on El Camino Real, and another being built less than a mile south of that. What is so pressing a need to have to rezone and ruin a neighborhood and destroy the already tight traffic there that backs up to ECR every rush hour?

Please get involved wrote on Sep 16, 2008 10:42 AM:and attend the meeting tomorrow night to voice your opposition to this development! The increased traffic on Santa Fe Drive will be a nightmare. Has anyone thought about how we will be able to travel down this road if the Brown Developmnet, the Scripps expansion, and the Hall Property are all approved? Widen the road???? Would you want to lose your home? If you widen the road they will just build more!

bonddi wrote on Sep 16, 2008 10:58 AM:Santa Fe needs improvements east of I5, but we don't need 4 lanes. What the City will do, if it approves the zoning change, is get the Browns to foot the bill for a large portion of the upgrade of Santa Fe. Zoning should be put to a vote. We don't need another senior care facility on Santa Fe -- there are already three -- Manor Care, Enc. Nursing and Rehab and the one on El Camino Real.

Nemo wrote on Sep 16, 2008 11:06 AM:Encinitas... No City for Old People.

This has nothing to do with zoning but everything to do with "Not Near Me!" They won't be happy until it's a park here in the "People's Republic of Encinitas"

spot zoning wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:10 PM:This proposal is about spot zoning and getting around the zoning law. The proposal is about campaign contributions to some Councilmembers.

resident wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:30 PM:Santa Fe Dr from ECR to Lake has got to be one of the worst stretches for cyclists and pedestrians. And the intersection at Crest is a major accident waiting to happen. How about building a roundabout there, similar to the one at the west end of Santa Fe? Something needs to be done to slow down the cars coming up the hill in both directions.

To Nick wrote on Sep 16, 2008 12:30 PM:Nice try, but this project is about greed and poor planning, not about addressing old people's needs. There are 4 senior facilities within a mile, and another being built. If someone's mom can't get to the hospital because the road there is too narrow to get through traffic, then you'll hear outrage.

Where do you get the idea people against rezoning a residential area to accommodate a greedy developer ipso facto don't want to take care of our aged relatives? If taking care of them at home is your preference, why would you support a 5th senior facility there? Wouldn't you be AGAINST another opportunity to "throw them into a home"?

Local wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:07 PM:Actually, a retirement facility may not be bad. I live nearby, and it would be great if we could just move down the street when we're crumblies (as my kids say). It's a stone's throw from the hospital, and if there were sidewalks on Santa Fe Dr., the residents could walk to the Hall park and the grocery store.

The problem isn't the type of facility, but the fact that the infrastructure in this area is deficient to support everything that's trying to get stuffed into the area. We desperately need sidewalks on the eastern half of Santa Fe Dr. The city paid for very nice sidewalks/landscaping west of the I-5. Why can't this project be extended the length of Santa Fe Dr.? Santa Fe Dr. is a hodgepodge of different road styles and widths. With all the stuff going in along Santa Fe Dr., why doesn't the city FIRST put in the needed infrastructure and upgrade the street/sidewalks/bike paths to accomodate these projects (it's called planning)? It's silly that we have to have the same discussions with the city over and over again on a case-by-case basis for every project that's planned for Santa Fe Dr.. It's a waste of residents' time, and just increases our frustration with the status quo.

Nemo wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:07 PM:Yes it the same issues over and over because so many want and want and want but are not willing to pay for it. They want to pass all the costs on to someone else.

Facilities to care for the elderly will need to double in the next 20 years. To deny a reasonable change in zoning to accommodate this is acceptable to most reasonable people. But these days there seems to be fewer of us along the coast.

Nick wrote on Sep 16, 2008 4:41 PM:To "To Nick": Why you ask?
Because the MAJORITY of Americans are to spoiled and lazy to actually care for the elderly in their families, so outside care is a must in America.
Just another one of the many problems here in America.
I can't help but laugh everytime someone cries "Greedy Developer".
It'a care facility, which means it is a commercial project.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but developers are the ones who build commercial projects.
They are the ones who go to the banks and get multi-million dollar loans and take the risk.
Would you rather have Billy Bob's Custom Homes building it?
I seriously doubt it.
If I had my way, we would take everyone who wasn't born and raised in North County and send them back where they came from so I could have the nice, friendly and uncrowded place I was raised back, but we all know that will never happen.
The adult care facilities we have are full and a 5th one is necesarry, for the very reasons I have stated.
Sorry, your dog won't hunt, and it smells like NIMBYism to the highest degree.
Just like the ones who don't want the new park in their backyard.
It's the typical attitude of all the Johnny-come-latelys. I have mine, so beat it.

Spot zoning wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:16 PM:It is a business from Washington state. The business wants the Council to approve a change in the zoning. Employees of the business have already contributed a total of $1000 to Jerome Stocks reelection campaign. Look it up on the city website.

bonddi wrote on Sep 16, 2008 10:13 PM:My mother-in-law (82) lives with my family, she receives $700 a month social security -- married 50 years and was a homemaker. She cannot afford to pay for any of the assisted care places in the whole San Diego county. These places are for profit. The only assisted care would be in a private home for $2,000 per month, where the residents are usually drugged up. Should you have aged parents or are getting up in years, you need to have long term care insurance unless you are independently wealthy. The government will not pay for it. A decent long term care facility costs $5,000 per month. The proposed facility on the Brown property is not, to my knowledge, a non-profit entity. Sure, there will be a need for assisted care living places as the public ages, but only the wealthy will be able to take advantage of that option.

Why we have zoning laws wrote on Sep 16, 2008 11:59 PM:Why do we have zones? So residential neighborhoods don't have commercial building with its noise, traffic and disruption to the peace. If someone wants to build a senior facility, they are free to do so--in a commercially zoned area.

Whenever you hear the red-herring accusation of NIMBYism, you can be sure a developer is lurking nearby--trying to force his venture on OTHER PEOPLE'S NEIGHBORHOODS, while he can go home to his huge house in a quiet, private neighborhood somewhere far away from the noise, bright lights, and constant traffic.