UPDATE: Here's the 2005 staff report. While the 2013 City Council required modest home remodels far from the coast to be subject to Coastal Development Permits, some people in the comments are saying that the reversal of this policy doesn't just apply to single-family remodels but also to new development.
More background here in the 2014 staff report explaining the history and the 2013 changes.
So all this was done in the backroom without any public hearing.
ReplyDeleteBy the Commission, AND ONLY IF the project doesn't exceed the original footprint by ten percent. What's the problem?
ReplyDeleteNo, I think the 2013-15 rules were the 10% requirement. I think you can do single family additions now without the Coastal Commission regardless of whether it's more or less than 10%
DeleteJeff Murphy is making his own municipal code.
DeleteYawn.
ReplyDeleteNext.
Our understanding was that Coastal Commission permits were costly and cumbersome, and didn't affect building design at all.
DeleteIf that's the case, Council should be applauded by homeowners for removing a costly and wasteful hurdle to remodeling.
And the 2013 Council should be booed for having required Coastal Commission permits for non-coastal properties in the first place.
There is more to a Coastal Development Permit besides cost. The municipal code contains reasons why a CDP can be denied. The 2005 resolution request contains other exemptions beside remodeling. Custom homes would be exempt. Many of the developers of subdivision maps are now declaring their housing to be custom and not fall under the design review requirement.
DeleteThis 2005 resolution isn't harmless.
Approximately 60% of Encinitas lies in the coastal zone.
As for remodeling, Olivenhain has the perfect example of why CDPs should stay in place - a proposed 10 foot wide house with pop outs into the set backs. Without public notice these new RVs without wheels will soon take over neighborhoods.
I agree that for remodels, if 50% of the walls remain, then a CDP shouldn't be required, according to our city's own laws. There has to be a balance between cost, individual homeowners' rights, and the need to take into account community character. The problem was as EU suggests, the 2013 Council and staff was misinterpreting and misapplying our laws and policies.
DeleteAgree 9:00. Its not like this puts Prop A at risk.
ReplyDeleteMurphy and the other developers/architects that suddenly found the resolution 2005-52 are apparently illegally and fraudulently using the 10 year old resolution request that is required to go before the Coastal Commission in a public hearing. The city's municipal code would also need amending. If the Coastal Commission agreed with a 2/3 majority to remove from the municipal code developer favored exemptions then it might or might not be legal depending on lawsuits filed against Murphy, the council and the city.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason to "retire" Murphy.
Step 1: renovate an older 2000 sq ft home, keeping 50% of the old walls, and expanding the total sq ft to 3000 ft. Two years later, perform a second renovation, knocking down the remaining original walls and further expanding the home to 4000 sq ft.
ReplyDeleteHow to knock down an old home and build a McMansion without the costs and permits required for a new house.
Guess what? It's still an "old" house.
Delete9:08, As if that's ever happened or would be cost effective.
ReplyDelete"Without public notice these new RVs without wheels will soon take over neighborhoods."
ReplyDeleteYou sound like you still believe that real estate "value" around here has something to do with "community character," rather than supply and demand. The world isn't your HOA.
I just traveled into town from the Northeast, coming down the 215. If you haven't noticed, the Demon Developers are at it everywhere, creating hideous stacks of gaudy housing anywhere that can be graded. Closer to home, people are squeezing in coastal shelter wherever they can.
I'll take ten of your RVs Without Wheels over one of these houses: http://www.richmondamerican.com/California/San-Diego-new-homes/San-Marcos/Sanctuary-at-San-Elijo-Hills/
The place is an abortion.
5:51 PM
ReplyDeleteComplain to Steven Mizel the brother of Larry Mizel, the president of Richmondamerican homes. Mr. Mizel gives the city, with the council blessing, $70,000 a year for those community requests from different organizations.
6:49- Can you explain your post in a little more detail? My brain isn't working as well as it might due to the heat, and whatever else I can think of. I don't understand what the 70K he gives to the city does for us? Thanks.
ReplyDelete5:51 hit it.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds to me like the Mizel Foundation might provide a tax-deductible gift of matching mini-grant funds for the city to look the other way on building projects?
ReplyDeleteMaybe a different foundation could pull strings to provide a council member and his spouse a free trip to Israel in exchange for a favorable vote on a zoning change that saves the thousands of dollars every month.
Wouldn't that be illegal?
It's the "too many rats in the too little space" theory. They eat each other eventually.
ReplyDelete