Encinitas council denies appeal, affirms Planning Commission approval for San Angelio residence project

The Encinitas City Council on Feb. 20 voted unanimously to deny an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for the San Angelio Residence Project, a proposal to build two detached primary dwelling units and two accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on a vacant parcel east of San Elijo Avenue.

The appeal, filed by Michael Seskin, argued the proposal was being mischaracterized as "two single‑family dwellings" while being sited on a single parcel and contended the driveway did not meet the 16‑foot minimum width cited in a local code section governing fire apparatus access. Staff and the project applicant countered that the site is zoned R‑11 (a multifamily zone), that the zone allows two residential units on the lot, and that the project’s configuration complies with the municipal code and with fire‑safety standards because the buildings will be equipped with approved automatic sprinkler systems.

The case matters because R‑11 is not a single‑family zone and allows multiple dwelling configurations; the dispute centered on whether the project layout and the narrower driveway would create an unsafe condition or otherwise violate the Encinitas Municipal Code. Christina Bustamante, the staff presenter, told the council staff’s recommendation was to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission decision of Dec. 5, 2024.

Appellant Michael Seskin told council members he and nearby homeowners had repeatedly raised concerns about code compliance, the project’s labeling and the driveway width. “This process is severely broken,” Seskin said, arguing the change in how the project was described during review merited further scrutiny.

Tyler Van Scribe, the applicant’s architect, said the project was reviewed by city departments, including the fire department, and that the design incorporates measures the fire code allows. “There is no way that we would have proceeded with the project that’s currently configured without the full and clear support of the Encinitas Fire Department throughout the review process,” Van Scribe said, adding the 200‑foot hose‑pull allowance is being used in this case only because the structures will include upgraded sprinkler systems.

Neighbors who spoke at the hearing expressed frustration about the change in how the project had been labeled and about the driveway width; one adjacent resident told the council the reduced driveway made the buildings’ massing feel “like ten pounds of potatoes in a five‑pound sack.” The council discussed zoning, fire access rules and the municipal limit on height for lots with greater than 10 percent slope — a provision staff said had helped limit bulk at the top of the property.

After deliberation, council members agreed staff and the applicant had shown the project met the applicable numeric development standards (lot coverage, floor‑area ratio, height limits) and that the driveway configuration had been reviewed and approved by the city’s fire officials under the applicable fire‑access exceptions tied to sprinkler protection. The council motion to deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission decision carried unanimously.

The council’s action affirms the Planning Commission approval; the applicant may proceed to the permit stages required to begin building, subject to the conditions included in the approved decision and any standard permit reviews.

Votes at a glance • Motion: Deny the appeal (affirm Planning Commission approval of the San Angelio Residence Project). Outcome: Denied (appeal denied; Planning Commission approval affirmed). Vote: unanimous (San Antonio, Schafer, O’Hara, Lyons, Ehlers).

What the council decided not to do • The council did not remand the project for additional study or require the applicant to reconfigure the driveway to a 16‑foot width; instead it accepted the fire‑safety mitigation (automated sprinklers and the longer hose‑pull allowance) the fire department relied on.

Context and what’s next • The project sits in the R‑11 zone, where multiple dwelling types are permitted by right and ADUs are governed by state law. Staff characterized the dispute as one of labeling and technical compliance rather than a density or General Plan conflict. The appellant requested further scrutiny; the council concluded the project met local zoning and fire safety standards as reviewed.

Speakers quoted in this article are from the meeting record and include only people who spoke at the hearing: Christina Bustamante (staff), Michael Seskin (appellant), Tyler Van Scribe (applicant architect) and adjacent residents who spoke during the appeal hearing.