Our council discussion brought agreement to eliminate the 4/5th super majority exemption, a change we felt should be implemented regardless of the June ballot results. Also, support for my suggestion to add General Plan Updates to our existing voter approval requirements, changed my initial reluctance to take a council position on the Right-to-Vote initiative. I agreed to be on the subcommittee with Councilwoman Gaspar to write the statement against. It is my intention to include the council's commitment to these changes, including placing those changes on the Nov. 2014 ballot for voter approval (which would prohibit future councils from changing the codes) in the council's statement.Councilman Tony Kranz has also indicated support of a cleaned-up, substitute right-to-vote ballot measure on the November 2014 ballot. It's a welcome signal from the council. If the supposed flaws in the current initiative are real, let's have the option to vote on an improved version.
Any replacement right-to-vote initiative would obviously have to be finalized and approved by the council before the June special election. Otherwise, they'd be selling us a pig in a poke.
UPDATE: Councilwoman Lisa Shaffer is up with similar supportive thoughts.
At least two current specific plans have no consistency with the General Plan in regards to height.
ReplyDeleteDowntown Encinitas Specific Plan does not state that all buildings can be built to 33 feet. For the Specific Plan the building height is 30 feet with a very, very limited exception in the commercial mixed-use area if an affordable housing unit is included. This is the excerpt from the plan:
i. Building Height maximum: 30 feet or two stories, whichever is less See Section 30. 20. 01006 of the Encinitas Municipal Code); except that, if a development project includes one or more dwelling units guaranteed affordable to low or very low income households as defined in the Encinitas Housing Element, the maximum building height is 33 feet or three stories, whichever is less. (page 3-36)
However, inclusion of a residential unit violates the existing General Plan of 20+ years, Policy 7.10 which states:
Both residential and non-residential development shall be limited to a maximum height of two stories and 30 feet. Limited exceptions for non-residential may be allowed, but only for designated specific sites as developed and adopted through area specific plans. ...(LU-18)
Mixed-use includes residential and residential isn't included under the limited exception of General Plan Policy 7.10. Therefore, the current existing Specific Plan is inconsistent with the General Plan and violates state law.
The Right to Vote on Upzoning Initiative was specifically written, by an attorney, to be consistent with the General Plan and Encinitas Muncipal Code. Zoning definitions are part of EMC. It is the Specific Plans that are inconsistent with EMC and our General Plan, not the initiative and the ordinance that will be enacted with populist support.
Deletehttp://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=653959&dbid=0
TITLE 30 - ZONING
Chapter 30.01 - General Provision
Chapter 30.04 - Definitions - Zoning
Chapter 30.08 - Zones
[I converted this to plain text, so I could copy and paste so the diagrams provided on the following link are missing:]
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/weblink8/DocView.aspx?id=13551
10. Building Height
Chapter 30.04 - Definitions
BASEMENT shall mean a level of a building partly or wholly underground where more than one-half (1/2) of its perimeter is less than or equal to 4' above the lower of natural or finished grade as defined in Section 30.16.010 B7 of the Municipal Code.
BUILDING shall mean any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls.
BUILDING HEIGHT shall mean the vertical distance from the lower of the natural or finished exterior grade adjacent to the structure, to the highest portion of the structure immediately above. When a basement element or underground structure exists or is proposed, height is measured from the finished grade (above the underground parking or basement element) provided the finished grade is at or below the previous natural grade, to the highest portion of the structure immediately above. (See section 30.16.010B7) [in another place, in parentheses, we are told] (See Section 30.16.010136). (Ord. 2003-10).
Chapter 30.16 - Residential Development Standards
30.16.010B7. The following standards shall apply to building height limits for residential buildings.
a. The standard height limit for residential buildings shall be the lesser of two stories or the following height, all as measured to the top of a fiat roof (or in the case of a pitched roof to the top of the roof immediately above the exterior plane of the wall below, including roofing material):
· 26 feet - RR to RR-1 zones citywide, RR through RR-2 in the Olivenhain Community.
· 22 feet- RR-2 (except Olivenhain Community) and higher zones, and substandard lots in the Olivenhain Community.
This height standard is subject to the following exceptions:
30" CHIMNEY WIDTH
2' PITCHED ROOF
4' TOP OF ROOF FINISH
ABOVE EXTERIOR
WALL
(SEE INSET BELOW)
22'
PITCHED ROOF
TOP OF ROOF ABOVE EXTERIOR WALL
(1) On lots in R-3 to R-25 zones with greater than ten (10) percent slope, the building height at the uphill side of the lot shall not exceed twelve (12) feet above the crown of the right of way. Where a street does not abut the uphill side of the sloped lot or a panhandle portion ora lot exists, this measurement shall be made at the property line located at the uphill side of the lot (excluding the panhandle of a lot except as provided below. In no ease shall the building exceed the applicable standard height limit at any point unless provided by the Code. . .
Under the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan in the mixed-use area:
ReplyDeleteIf a builder decides not to include an affordable residential unit, the building height is a maximum of 30 feet.
This Counci is no different from previous Councils. It is more of the same.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but I feel current council is more "passive aggressive." The mayor and deputy mayor have a kind of cold arrogance, a sort of "superior attitude," whereas Stocks was more of a "hot tempered" bully, in the eyes of many.
DeleteHumility is being able to learn from mistakes. We need council members that can read and think for themselves, not leave everything "up to staff."
Barth and Shaffer are trying to do "damage control" through their newsletters. Good for them, but they let us down, again and again.
I will be voting YES on the right to vote on upzoning initiative. If an alternative is put on the ballot by Council in 2014, that is DEMONSTRABLY preferable, then we can vote for that one, too! Meanwhile, don't trust all the pie in the sky promises.
Just like Tony Kranz said he supported adopting outright, then allowing a vote on the initiative, to affirm or repeal, in Nov of 2014, but then "changed his mind," when the promised report on his "out-of the box" proposal was not ever forthcoming. No, the "fix" was in.
Barth and Gaspar should never have each met privately with Marco Gonzalez when the public hearing was still open, in the Desert Rose case. That whole "public hearing" was a one-sided farce. Council lets the public speak, but it seems to only listen to staff and its paid henchmen contractors.
Correction, Mayor Barth said she had "spoken" with Marco Gonzalez; Kristin Gaspar only disclosed she had received numerous e-mails, which she had read, but had not had time to respond to them.
DeleteIt sure looks like the existing specific plans are in conflict with the current General Plan and Municipal Code. This would make a very interesting lawsuit, something the council was trying to avoid when it voted to write an opposition statement for the ballot initiative.
ReplyDeleteWhether the initiative passes or not, the council still has a big problem on its hands. Too bad there is no one on the council who understands the GP and MC. And too bad the council got a biased report from Rutan and Tucker, all orchestrated by City Manager Gus Vina.
Fears about building a "trellis" are unfounded in fact. The 30 ft. height LIMIT is an upper cap, and would consistent with our current General Plan and Encinitas Muncipal Code.
DeleteThe General Plan is inconsistent with some of the Specific Plans regarding building height and how it is measured. Zoning definitions are part of Encinitas Municipal Code. So some of the specific plans are also inconsistent with EMC.
Unfortunately, when Leucadia Cares sued re the Barrett American Development, off of La Costa, for which developers lied and said pad heights had to be elevated for sewer flow, a judge found in the City's favor. Many of the Judges in Superior Court appear to be prejudiced in favor of the governmental hierarchy, including cities in their jurisdiction. Barrett went bankrupt. The new pad elevations enabled buildings (a ghostown for years) to block the view of pre-existing residents.
The City was incorrectly allowed, by the Court's ruling against Leucadia Cares, to measure height from the tentative map elevations, not the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower . . . All the problems that were being complained about re the right to vote on upzoning initiative re measuring building height ALREADY EXIST in the inconsistencies in EMC and city "policy" re developers' maps.
City Clerk Kathy Hollywood has already stated that there isn't time for the city to get a second measure on the ballot for the special election. That means nothing until 2014. That's a long wait.
ReplyDeleteNo way would our city manager allow another special election. He's already boxed himself in financially when he kowtowed to Jerome Stocks and pushed the bonds through last July for the Moonlight Beach and Hall property construction. The new council could have looked at the alternative of phased construction.
Pension cost will be going up when the state pension funds ask for increased contributions. These have been inching up every years because of poor rates of return on investments. The financial squeeze continues at city hall.
I'm OK with a 2014 vote as long as the details are finalized by this June so we know what we're getting before we have to decide on the original Right to Vote.
DeleteI don't want council to bait-and-switch us, promising a good initiative only to get us to vote down Right to Vote, then giving us something worthless in 2014.
Vina won't let them do it before the June vote, and then they will demure until 2014 by saying they need time to get it right.
DeleteAnd given Council's performance thus far, you cat bet on a bait and switch.
DeleteI agree with WC
DeleteI changed my mind. I've had an epiphany. We should vote YES on the initiative, and then council can put a "tweaked" ballot measure on the ballot for November of 2014, to see if the public will repeal the simple language of the right to vote on upzoning initiative, which supports our current General Plan and our municipal code, as well as our Local Coastal Program.
DeleteThe council's decisions of opposing the initiative and then approving the detrimental Desert Rose development leaves the thought that this council doesn't care about our communities. What next will the council do to us?
ReplyDeleteFOOL ME ONCE (INITIATIVE), SHAME ON YOU, FOOL ME TWICE (DESERT ROSE) SHAME ON ME. FOOL ME A THIRD TIME - YOU GOT TO BE SHITTING ME, I'M PRETTY STUPID.
ReplyDeletePLEASE SAVE YOUR POLITICAL EXCUSES FOR SOMEONE ELSE. I'LL NEVER VOTE FOR YOU AGAIN!
Blah, blah, blah. Save it, Mayor! You told us all that the Developer did a great job with this project.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, many of us can no longer trust our new Council, which has been inconsistent, and in the eyes of many, has not kept campaign promises. We should vote for the right to vote on upzoning initiative this June. Then, we can "try it out" and see, as Escondido did, that there were no lawsuits as a result of a similar initiative! We shouldn't make decisions out of fear!
ReplyDeleteIf the City wants to put another measure on the ballot in November of 2014, then it can do so. If the majority of voters supported that alternative, it would effectively repeal the right to vote initiative. People would vote for it if it provided a better alternative. Otherwise, we would keep the one we have.
Everett Delano explained that if any part of the initiative, as an ordinance is found to be invalid, then that is severable from the rest. In other words, we don't have to "throw the baby out with the bath water," should there be a legal challenge, which is unlikely.
So we should all rally, continuing to support the initiative, as written. Council can put its "alternative" on the ballot in November of 2014, if it wants to spend an extra $30,000, or an amount much less than the Special Election cost of more than 10 times as much at $350,000+. But I'll believe that when I see it!
The impact report should have included other options for low income housing, a comparison of the Yorba Linda and Escondido measures, that passed, and are working, and also a study AS PROMISED of Tony Kranz' original request that Council could adopt "outright" then put the measure on the ballot in Nov. of 2014, which they are still talking about doing, but writing "soft" arguments against the initiative for the June ballot.
Some of these promises by Council ring hollow to me. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor wouldn't be where they are without us. Now they are trying to do "damage control." But Council doesn't trust the public, and now we can't trust Council.
Council is smart to NOT listen to all past councilmembers on this issue. They are Councilmembers because we the people voted for them.
ReplyDeleteWe didn't vote for some whacked out lady, who rants on an on like the Lword, got booted as Mayor, and has NO clue how to keep Leucadia Funky, Not Junky. In her mind, letting it rot and wishing she was back in the 70s is better than any other option.
Keep moving forward Council, and don't mind the chatter from the KLCC. As you know, they will oppose nearly everything. The 98% of your support base still has your back.
Anyone who supposedly "got booted as Mayor" was obviously elected by the people. SC made many positive changes. Christy Guerin who had voted for SC as mayor, and whom would not have been elected, along with Dennis Holz, had they not been endorsed by SC, became a "turncoat," voting with Dalager, Stocks and Bond, when Jim Bond wanted to be mayor immediately before he ran for Assembly, promising he would, after the election,"step down" from Council.
DeleteJim Bond changed his mind, after he lost that election, and ran again, just as he changed his mind, again, when he ran for Council for his fourth term in 2008, after falsely claiming he was going to step down, then.
So, yes, Council would be smart NOT to listen to or be negatively influenced by past councilmembers, such as Jerome Stocks, Jim Bond and disgraced Dan Dalager, who pleaded guilty to conflict of interest. Vote YES.
Don't trust them. That is the idea of the initative, we don't trust you council to do the right thing. Vote yes.
ReplyDeleteDump Kranz and Dump Schaffer. The actions of the newly elected council members are very similar to the "Hope and Change" that we were sold in 2008. Stocks is probably laughing about as hard as GW was in 2009.
ReplyDeleteCafe Ipe sits on property picked by the city for increased density by changing the zoning.
ReplyDelete5 story coffee shop?
DeleteA 5 story surfing Madonna?? Mr Patterson must be licking his chops over that idea.
DeleteThe property owner may be licking his chops.
DeleteThe North 101 Corridor Specific Plan through Leucadia violates state law.
ReplyDeleteThe existing North 101 Corridor Specific Plan through Leucadia violates state law.
ReplyDeleteMany of the properties along the 101 in Leucadia have been picked by the city for increased density by changing the zoning. The council knows this. It's in the General Plan update.
ReplyDeleteActually, the truth is, since 2007 the State requires every City to identify areas for increased density. The General Plan Update asked the Planning Commission, the GPAC and the ERAC to look at a map of the city and to i.d. areas for the State report: which came about because of State laws written in 2006/7 to help decrease green-house gases by building affordable housing in high density housing apartments on or near freeway interchanges to reduce travel to and from work, AB 32 and SB 375, at least that was Sacramento's working theory: along with the ICLEI.
ReplyDeleteIf the Initiative passes, then out-of-town developers will be able to use density bonus to make the coastline infill armageddon; because the R-15 and above is downtown and in Leucadia. Creating an Initiative to change that would be helpful. As it is, almost every action that Initiative would force Encinitas to make will result in the loss of local control and because it will violate housing agreements, affordable housing units increase from the stated 1300.
While the 3 groups of volunteers independently identified areas throughout all five communities out of fairness: the Initiatives passing will force the city to use the R-15 and R-25 zoned areas along the Coast Highway 101 corridor for the Report.
Most of the properties along 101 are currently allowed to build a mixed-use project with retail/commercial/residential in 3 stories. This goes back at least a decade and is tied to both housing laws and visitor service agreements that the Initiative purposely violates.
The Initiative was written to stop the R-30 Report the State demands, but the R-30 is unaffected by it and if passed it will cede local control of the coastline to the Coastal Commission: because the Initiative is in conflict with so many state laws and agreements, new business and new residences along the coastal corridor will be in limbo for 3 to 4 years and as the Coastal Commission needs to certify the complete Initiative, not just parts, after 3 to 4 years of everything going thru Sacramento, the Coastal Commission will likely reject the measure and only the parts of Encinitas that are east of El Camino Real will be affected by the Initiative.
So, its the Initiative combined with the State requirement to i.d. areas for an increased density report that has located the affordable housing within the only areas in the city that were zoned R-15 and above in 1989.
And as the R-30 report for the city has never been completed, neither the council, the city nor anyone has completed anything.The Council will restart the process perhaps this summer. with plenty of opportunity for more public input and understanding of what the state wants and perhaps discover 'How' to fight the State?
Anon 8:44pm -
ReplyDeleteNone of your comments are true.
I agree, Anon 8:44 pm is inaccurate, unsupported by facts, full of untruths about Coastal Commission jurisdiction, and other misleading assumptions, trying to twist public perception with fear. This won't work. We;ll be voting YES, and were more than happy to sign the initiative.
DeleteNorth 101 corridor specific plan - is in violation of state law
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt was taken from the 101 specific plan:
The primary goal of the specific plan is to maintain the unique and desirable characteristics of the specific plan area, while providing continued private land use and public improvements.
The specific plan provides custom-tailored zoning to replace the standard citywide zoning
regulations. Use allowances and development standards have been created to fit the particular
circumstances of the area which are consistent with the above goal and policies (see Chapter
3.0).
Design recommendations have been established which address streetscape, landscape, commercial and residential development (see Chapter 4.0).
The specific plan has established a building height limit of 33 feet or three stories, whichever is less, to allow additional design flexibility for commercial, mixed use, and residential development projects.
========================================================================
Notice the last sentence. The specific plan established a building height, but this building height is different from the General Plan and allows a taller building. This is the building height law from the General Plan:
POLICY 7.10: Both residential and non-residential development shall be limited to a maximum height
of two stories and 30 feet. Limited exceptions for non-residential development may be allowed, but only for designated specific sites as developed and adopted through area specific plans. Exceptions may also be made for Medical Complex development projects at the discretion of the City pursuant to conditional use permit applications as provided by the Zoning Code, to allow building heights up to a maximum height of three stories.
=========================================================================
Notice the limited exceptions for non-residential (commercial, office, etc.) may be allowed but only for designated specific sites...
The North 101 corridor specific plan allows all property (both residential and non-residential) to exceed the General Plan maximum height of 30 feet. The exception in the General Plan isn't for residential.
Specific plans must follow the General Plan. The Leucadia north 101 corridor specifc plan doesn't. The specific plan violates state law.
The Leucadia north 101 corridor specific plan was passed without a vote of the people. The council used the 4/5 majority vote of the council exemption to keep it from a public vote.
ReplyDeleteWhat the council isn't telling residents.
ReplyDeleteBuilding height can be measured two different ways - from the natural grade, what is there or the finished grade after dirt has been brought in to build up a higher foundation. Some builders bring in enough dirt to make the lot 3 feet higher than the neighboring lots. Then the house or condos are build. But the building is measured from the finished grade which is the top of the dirt. Using the Leucadia north 101 specific plan as an example, while the building itself may be 33 feet high, there is the additional 3 feet more from increasing the height of the dirt foundation for a total 36 feet high. One developer of property in Leucadia brought in dirt to build up the lot foundations to 9 feet high before building.
The council knows this.
Of course, planning staff knows this too. The Barratt American Nantucket projects on Sheridan and Andrew is the perfect example of abuse by using finished grade to measure the building heights. Pads were built up 4-5 feet to give better ocean views in order to make more money for the builder. No matter that surrounding homes lost their views.
DeleteThe same thing was done on Balour at the the old Ades and Gish greenhouses north of the Lutheran Church. Check the houses that front on Balour. The original grade at the street used to be curb height and then sloped up gradually to the east. Now the homes are perched high above the the street.
Encinitas doesn't have a view ordinance. The only way to protect views of older homes is to measure from the natural grade. A developer can build up the pad, but then the height of the house is reduced by how much was added to the grade.
Govt is by and for the thieves, ask the Cypriots, so it doesn't matter what the general plan says.
ReplyDeleteThe state cannot force developers to develop. Making the limit 2 stories in Encinitas does not violate State law. Violet has it right, if the city had another amnesty and counted the granny flats in use in the city, the number of affordable housing requirements would go WAY down. Can amyone show proof of ANY other California city ever fined for not reaching their housing requirement? Three stories is a developer's tool for making more money. That's the bottom line.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Fred you're wrong. First, cities aren't fined, they're sued by private parties for failure to meet state affordable housing requirements. See Menlo Park (pop 32,026) which had to pay $114,000 in plaintiff legal fees. Here's a link: http://almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=11251
DeleteCity of Pleasanton that had a voter initiative housing cap was sued. They were out almost 2 million to the plaintiffs and the housing cap was nullified.
Thanks for the links. All I can say is DAMN, I hate it when I'm wrong! In light of what I just learned however, I still maintain that
DeleteStreetscape measures facilitate commuters getting to work in LESS time than currently with stop lights and stop signs greatly inhibiting traffic flow. (Something Menlo Park may have not have planned. Brown claims a building moratorium exasserbates pollution by making people drive further to work. At least Encinitas is making that consession). Former Mayor Chuck Duvivier once told me if SOME effort is shown to meet housing requirements by a city, that counts big with the state.
Meanwhile, I'm regrouping and working on Plan B.
I agree with Fred. He has it down and he would profit higher from higher density.
ReplyDeletethat is why Fred is a man known for his integrity. That is why people love Fred!
that is why we will have a statue of "Fred dressed as Neptune" as the centerpiece art piece of the roundabout at La Costa and Hwy 101"
Fred, Fred, Hes our man..........
10:15, Please remain seated. But I hope you meant "wouldn't profit from higher density", not "would". I don't see anyone profitting from higher density here on or near 101 - and from their track record, especially developers. Thanks for the kudos, but the bronze statue of Neptune at the La Costa roundabout I'd like to sculpt will have more hair and less fat than me. Majoring in ceramics at San Dieguito might pay off some day. If only it could be this big! http://www.neptunefestival.com/neptune-statue
DeleteAnd if anyone dresses it as food for an extinct bird, I'll just make another calendar.
OK Fred.... that would be a close second. Super cool like you!
DeleteI meant increasing the density would make your property more valuable to developers so if and when you sold it, you would make more money.
You mean upzoning will make me more money if the proposition fails? I'll have to rethink this now. Um, naw.
DeleteReminds me of that commercial with a couple sunning on a San Diego beach. The woman says something like: "Mike and Sherry went to the Bahamas". and the man says "Why?"
I'm VOTING YES in June! And will do everything I can to help it pass.
ReplyDeleteScrew these guys and their developer sponsors!
Strange things are happening at city hall. Mayor Barth and Councilwoman Gaspar, the council chosen subcommittee to write the ballot argument against the Right to Vote initiative, decided to send the task back to the full Council without an argument. Why? One reason was that they didn't want to reveal their strategy (too early?).
ReplyDeleteMike Andreen wants to write the ballot argument against the Right to Vote initiative. He's formed a political action committee, a PAC, and filed with the city clerk.
ReplyDeleteSo let him. The more he squawks, the better for the Right To Vote. Anything Mike likes, is developer influenced. He's never had an original thought in his life. Here's the guy who was part of a cabal that hire a clown to harass Maggie Houlihan. 'Nuff said.
DeleteMike Assreem is always on the wrong side of issues. Its a good bellwether. If Assreem is against it, you know to be for it. Its that simple. If the developers dislike it that much, you know it must be good for Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteThe Leucadia blog has been hijacked.....
ReplyDeleteI think it is an indictmement of Mayor Barth that Jerome Stocks is praising her for her vote on Desert Rose. When has that ever happened before? I am worried about the direction that this Council is taking.
ReplyDeleteThis council is just as corrupt as every other council, small minded and idiotic in their thinking and results. They reflect the voters of Mayberry by the Sea. Bucket heads one and all.
Delete