Printer-friendly version
By Miriam RafteryJuly 17, 2024 (Lakeside) – After San Diego County Supervisors unanimously approved the Greenhills Ranch housing development in Lakeside near Lake Jennings, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against the County and Atlas Real Estate seeking to block the project.
“Greenhills Ranch is textbook wasteful urban sprawl development on open space in a fire prone area,” says David Hogan, legal committee chair for Sierra Club’s San Diego chapter. “Sierra Club supports real infill projects that are close to transportation services and include affordable housing. This project does neither.”
The environmental group contends that the county erred in calling the project “infill” in order to justify approval. Instead, the suit contends the project will add to traffic congestion and air pollution, also putting residents at increased risk of wildfires.
California courts have recently blocked several other sprawling housing developments in rural areas, citing heightened fire danger, most recently land in Proctor Valley slated for Otay Ranch Housing that has since been protected as open space through a land swap.
Sierra Club’s suit argues that the Greenhills Ranch project would also endanger the coastal cactus wren, gnatcatchers and other rare species within the Lake Jennings/Wildcat Canyon Biological Resources Core Area.
Noting that San Diego County is a biodiversity hotspot and that the county has established conservation goals, Sierra Club chapter president Lisa Ross said,”Greenhills Ranch would violate not just the spirit, but the law protecting San Diego’s unique habitat.”
Greenfield Ranch, proposed by Atlas Real Estate, would include 63 single-family homes built on 17 acres of the 36-acre site, with 9 acres dedicated as open space and the rest reserved for slopes, detention basins and limited building zones.
Atlas issued this statement: “The unanimous vote by the planning commission and Board of Supervisors supports that we’ve addressed all the concerns that the Sierra Club raised,” 10 News reports.
The County does not comment on pending litigation. A planning commission report found that the project would not significantly impact residents evacuating the area in the event of a fire, and concluded that the site has adequate fire evacuation routes, water access and emergency services.
Comments
What the hell is he talking about?
Santee/Lakeside comment
Our Lakeside and Santee sections are merged so I misspoke on location. However, Charles do you disagree about hooking this up only to the electric and water grids and in ground temperature storage that prevents traditional A.C. from being used and frying the electric grid? Surely you can gleam at least one sentence the Sierra Club would agree with? I'm speaking of the accomodations at Paris for the Olympians that some are insisting on bringing in traditional AC, undercutting Paris Olympics 2024 Environmental Goals but rewarding the cause with non confrontational publicity for sustainable technology?
Do you disagree on the way to encourage both front and back yard congregations with fourplexes and porch front/back? Because I'm not married to that one. To answer your question I don't believe in medical marijuana, just recreational.
Do you disagree with divvying it up sustainably to enhance revenue with sustainable predictable development over x number of years? I have a degree in Technical Management with an emphasis in Sustainable Management though; maybe that's what you're rudely and snidely referring to, Charles? Oh why not make sure you reserve 1/5 of it for Californians decended from Rogers County, Oklahoma who domiciled there and left there during the KKK (a religious white nationalist hate group) expulsion a decade following the Tulsa race riot main year and a decade prior for prudent measure for those current or former Californians and/or their progeney who within those twenty years re-domiciled in California, whether or not they have subsequently been driven out of California since then?
We need more housing
But since Santee gets part of its operating deficit from Developer Impact fees if they plan on continuing this for a long time make it dense so there's enough acreage to do it for 100 more years and build as dense as possible with sufficient sized streets and parking - two car garages or two one and a third car garages per unit. They can get subsidies if 30% is marked affordable- talk to County about permanent vouchers they're issuing that are most expensive and need to be rolled into something cheaper and fire harden them so much that they warrant a 30% homeowners insurance discount with a wider zone zero than required and duplexes with two shared plots in a courtyard that are irrigated and no lawns to save water nor flammable material, but permeable for better groundwater and to prevent flooding. Charge developer impact fees in an amount of not less than $125,000 for the general fund per unit developer impact fee that goes towards the general fund and make this quiet arrangement official sustainable for 100 years with plenty of room to scale with dense luxury two story quads with courtyards and a porch with a swing on one side and cubbies and table on the other in front and back and electric heat/cool that is patterned after heat/air where the Olympic teams aren't supposed to need AC but they dunno for sure in Paris, France, so it's electric but still affordable and efficient and won't overload the electric grid on hot/cold days.