Council pauses action on Clark Avenue apartments after fire-access, legal eligibility questions raised

The Encinitas City Council moved late Tuesday to pause further ministerial processing of the Clark Avenue Apartments project and to seek outside legal advice after residents and Council Member Jim O’Hara argued the project relies on discretionary departures from the city’s fire‑access standards and therefore should not have received by‑right treatment.

The action—approved 4‑1—directed staff to schedule a closed‑session briefing on the threat of litigation, invite outside counsel and report back to council at a public meeting on September 10. It also asked staff to evaluate whether the project meets state law criteria for by‑right processing and to compile documents related to the city’s fire‑access findings.

Why it matters: Residents and several council members said the project’s proposed four‑story buildings exceed 30 feet in height, that nearby streets measure roughly 19–21 feet of unobstructed width and that the developer’s plans call for an Alternative Methods and Materials Request (AMMR) from the fire department. O’Hara and speakers argued those facts make the project discretionary — requiring environmental review — rather than ministerial, which would have allowed expedited processing.

Council member Jim O’Hara framed the concern directly: “We are not here to stop building. We just want to make sure that this project is safe and it’s legal. Safe and legal.” He asked the council to suspend ministerial actions until legal and technical questions about fire‑access findings and the project’s eligibility under Government Code 65583.2 were answered.

Developer representatives disputed the legal theory. Marco Gonzalez, speaking for the property owner and Western National Group, told council that the project had been processed and vested under the applicable rules at the time, that the AMMR was approved by the fire marshal on Aug. 15, 2024, and that statutory challenge windows had passed. Gonzalez cautioned that reopening approvals now could expose the city to costly litigation and uncertainty.

Fire department staff explained the operational rationale that had led to the AMMR conditions: standpipes, higher‑density sprinkler systems and two‑hour fire‑rated barriers between units to mitigate a narrower access lane. The chief said those measures are intended to provide an “equivalent level of safety” when full 26‑foot unobstructed access is not achievable.

Residents pressed safety, traffic and emergency‑response concerns. Philip Senesay and others described Clark Avenue and adjacent streets as narrow, already congested and used daily for school and community access; several speakers urged the council to require roadway improvements before allowing dense development to proceed.

What council did: By a 4‑1 vote (Deputy Mayor Joy Lyons dissenting) the council directed the city manager and city attorney to seek outside legal counsel and scheduled a closed‑session briefing to review litigation risk and legal strategy. Staff was asked to return Sept. 10 with a factual and legal report and to bring back any recommended corrective steps. Council Member O’Hara additionally submitted a public‑records request seeking correspondence, plan checks and the fire department’s written findings related to apparatus access.

What’s next: Staff will pursue outside counsel, complete the records request, and present a closed‑session briefing to the council as soon as counsel is available. Council will receive a public report and may vote on whether to formally suspend ministerial permit activity for the project or to require further environmental review.

The decision to pause does not cancel the project; it directs the city to confirm whether prior approvals and any fire‑code equivalency findings were legally sufficient and whether further discretionary review, including CEQA, is required.