You don't need an art jury to know it's out of place, but I suspect you know that, 9:36.
And the problem with our city planning dept, commission, and council is they will rubber stamp this crap down the entire length of the 101. Say goodbye to a distinctive and classic downtown that residents love and tourists flock to.
We have rules. Building codes, zoning, height limits, setbacks, footprint limits--tons of rules.
This builder built within the rules. Period.
It's not possible or wise to try to codify what you or I consider aesthetically pleasing into the rules, because we probably don't agree on something so subjective anyway.
It would be really really dumb for commissions or council to start denying permits to projects that fit squarely inside the rules, based on a subjective touchy-feely impression.
That said, I also hate this building. It has no soul. I wish the designer had more talent.
But unless you can propose an objective standard that codifies taste, we're all just whistling in the wind on this one.
Design review is common many places so these pathetic designs don't have a chance. Look at city hall, super tasteless and ugly, had more soul as the rat infested Mayfair market. No wonder designs like these get ok'd, city staff works inside of uglyville.
These designs should not have a chance, yet they do. It's because City staff work for developers. Staff figures out how to push through what's requested, not put the hand up to projects that don't fit our design guidelines.
Have you ever seen staff not put "Approve" in the Recommended Action on an item?
11:47, no idea where you get your "within the rules, period" nonsense from.
Look up our design guidelines and ask yourself whether this thing meets them, not your opinion. It's not about ugly/beautiful, it simply does not meet them.
Unfortunately it's a generic design that could be anywhere. The design hangs over Highway 101. Contrast it with the Christian Science Reading Room just a short distance north:
The Reading Room is a tasteful modern style that doesn't dominate its location, but then the owners weren't trying to wring the maximum profit from the project.
We should have a Profit Review Commission that decides how much profit is enough. All citizens will have mandatory audits. If it is determined that your 401k is unreasonably large, a penalty may be in order. If you are 65 without any savings, but still surf six days a week, you'll get a trophy.
The residential part of the mixed-use doesn't comply with the municipal code. Residential property heights are set at a maximum of 26 feet. if the residential is 30 feet it violates the municipal code require of 26 feet or less.
If that's the corner of I St. and 101, the parcel owner is Mayfair Group Holdings, according to the city's website. The owner's address given there is a La Jolla PO box.
Here's the owner's website, including the building shown above in the middle photo as an architectural rendering.
http://mayfaircommunities.com/executive-team/
The city planning department, then the planning commission must have approved it, and if nobody appealed the approvals, it wouldn't have gone to the council for approval, denial or changes.
I don't know how many times I must post this comment but I'll keep doing it until you yahoos get the message... go and buy up ever parcel of land in Encinitas and either keep it fallow or maintain what is there...that way this stupid argument about what is right or wrong doesn't have to be discussed. But nooooooooooo rather than put your money where your mouth is you complain about a property owner maximizing the value of their property. Morons.
We have zoning and Municipal Code we for a reason. If we can't or won't follow it, we have a problem.
Sounds like the law is not of interest to 2:24. Sounds like 2:24 has come more than slightly unhinged at those of us who care about how this town develops.
No reason to keep posting your developers' rights blather, 2:24. You won't change the majority's view. You're in the minority and only Meyer, Harrison, and Gonzalez are listening.
2:36-your ability to comprehend is shallow at best. If you want no development then buy up all of Encinitas and keep it the way it is.....I'm no friend of developer any more than you are, I simply offer the ultimate solution while you only complain, poorly.
2:24, 3:33 — You can keep posting your blind, dumb comment as long as you keep missing the point.
The municipal code mentions preservation of community character many, many times. There are also design and mass guidelines that developers are supposed to meet and that the planning staff and commission are supposed to uphold.
Buildings that violate community character and don't meet the guidelines should not be permitted.
The municipal building code's intention is not to instruct or allow commercial property owners to maximize the profit from their land and developments. The code is supposed to be a control device, not an open permission slip.
There are many cities in Calif. that will only let you build a certain way so as to blend in with the existing community. Some even go so far as to way what paint colors you must use. So, if cities can do that, why cant we?
Aesthetic architectural tastes are hopelessly subjective and individual. How in the world do you fairly codify those tastes? Whose tastes become law, and whose tastes are outlawed? Maybe things you hate become mandatory design elements. Don't be so sure that the people making the rules will always be working for what you want - look at Trump.
9:46 PM Prop A limit is 30 feet for commercial. Residential is 26 feet limit. The planning department has illegally been giving developments an addition 4 feet.
I'm not 9:14, but I took a tour of the rooms to see if I should recommend it for extended family coming in for a reunion a few years back.
Being honest, it was a total dump. I didn't have anyone stay there. I think the owners stopped investing/maintaining the property years ago in anticipation of cashing in. There were water stains down the wall; the room smelled like smoke and mold.
Exactly, it should be obvious that the place could have been renovated. Putting a monstrosity in place of a modest and in-character building was not the only answer, but we all know that.
Now you all are starting to understand economics. This is what is called opportunity cost. The property owner cashed out and sold the property to someone that was willing to make improvements; and seize a higher return for the property. The market dictates what to build and not what to build. A small two story, 16 unit motel was not financially solvent at that location.
9:07 Nonsense. And your condescending attitude sucks. If what you contend were true, there would be no commercially successful buildings in Encinitas except new ones like the gross monstrosity on the corner of I and 101.
I disagree with 1227, and agree with 90t (after working through the condensation). There has been a proliferation of old businesses leaving downtown ever since streetscape and improved local economics. If you have been around for the last 20 years you would know that. Encinitas is simply not the same it was before early 2000s. Good schools, some funk/soul, and the beach has made this community into something that others want.
What is the point of urbanizing a sleepy beach town? Why don't these developers go find a city that is actually blighted and make it great again with actual affordable housing? Because they have another agenda that has nothing to do with bettering this community. The past 4 years in Encinitas have been the worst years of life because of all the corruption and sellouts in power here.
Sadly, the same can be said about the should be preserved building that booted Kealani's out, while breaking their existing lease by years. She should have been paid handsomely, but choose to go quietly. She deserves defending and ample compensation for walking away.
Try to imagine what will go up in its place. Crap.
Lets just hope it is not another Keith Harrison Soviet chic monstrosity completely out of character for the neighborhood.
If the new owners want any appreciation from this community, it would a breath of fresh air if they would replace that in a similar style. The would leave Keith out, unless he gets a different architect.
I have overheard Keith at a forum at the library being told to get a new architect, but I doubt he could hear any of it or appreciate the sentiment. A prime example is that out of character lot line to lot line gross structure opposite the upper Moonlight Beach parking lot.
This sentiment has been expressed many times before in this forum, and I don't understand it. Is this meant to be a good thing? That said, RSF does not have the most restrictive rules by far - they have an architectural committee that can be quite the pain, but Park Place has far more restrictive rules than RSF.........
My prediction Trump and his republican controlled congress will not accomplish shit while in power. Just like GW Bush did in his poor showing. Bush was in my opinion in the top 10 worse presidents group.
Thank your Planning Commission for this one folks. This could have been appealed to City Council, but evidently nobody did. Meets the Municipal Code standards - but agree, not very pleasing to the eye and certainly could have had more scrutiny - especially since the Downtown 101 Specific Plan has more stringent design guidelines and recommendations. We should all pay closer attention to posted signs, legals in Coast News, etc.
10:03PM In the specific plans it is 26 feet residential and 30 feet for most commercial. The 33 feet was voided with the passage of Prop A. Jeff Murphy never changed the north 101 specific plan of 33 feet to the 26 feet and 30 feet max.
This is the city's "vision" for our future - is it residents'? Is it distinguishable from any OC strip mall design?
ReplyDeleteAnyone know who owns this property??
Was this the old motel that was below street level? Where are the many trees that were promised? The building should be no higher than 26 feet.
DeleteThat slab-top building complies with Proposition A's 30' limit. Now imagine it under the 48' limit that Measure T would have allowed.
ReplyDeleteNot advocating for height, but usually additional height can translate into better architecture. Sometimes.
DeleteAh, like Lisa's "interesting parapets" comment? If the city allows this under 30', there is no chance we'd get "better architecture" under 48'.
DeleteWe don't have an Art Jury like RSF that determines if your proposed building is pretty enough.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need an art jury to know it's out of place, but I suspect you know that, 9:36.
DeleteAnd the problem with our city planning dept, commission, and council is they will rubber stamp this crap down the entire length of the 101. Say goodbye to a distinctive and classic downtown that residents love and tourists flock to.
My point is:
DeleteWe have rules. Building codes, zoning, height limits, setbacks, footprint limits--tons of rules.
This builder built within the rules. Period.
It's not possible or wise to try to codify what you or I consider aesthetically pleasing into the rules, because we probably don't agree on something so subjective anyway.
It would be really really dumb for commissions or council to start denying permits to projects that fit squarely inside the rules, based on a subjective touchy-feely impression.
That said, I also hate this building. It has no soul. I wish the designer had more talent.
But unless you can propose an objective standard that codifies taste, we're all just whistling in the wind on this one.
Design review is common many places so these pathetic designs don't have a chance. Look at city hall, super tasteless and ugly, had more soul as the rat infested Mayfair market. No wonder designs like these get ok'd, city staff works inside of uglyville.
DeleteThese designs should not have a chance, yet they do. It's because City staff work for developers. Staff figures out how to push through what's requested, not put the hand up to projects that don't fit our design guidelines.
DeleteHave you ever seen staff not put "Approve" in the Recommended Action on an item?
11:47, no idea where you get your "within the rules, period" nonsense from.
DeleteLook up our design guidelines and ask yourself whether this thing meets them, not your opinion. It's not about ugly/beautiful, it simply does not meet them.
JULIE G ACTUALLY HAS A POINT... THANKS DOLL.
DeleteYou're welcome, but I'm not Julie, Jerome.
DeleteBut it gives ugly a whole new meaning.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately it's a generic design that could be anywhere. The design hangs over Highway 101. Contrast it with the Christian Science Reading Room just a short distance north:
ReplyDeletehttp://hubbellandhubbell.com/portfolio-items/christian-science-reading-room-coastal-modern/
The Reading Room is a tasteful modern style that doesn't dominate its location, but then the owners weren't trying to wring the maximum profit from the project.
We should have a Profit Review Commission that decides how much profit is enough. All citizens will have mandatory audits. If it is determined that your 401k is unreasonably large, a penalty may be in order. If you are 65 without any savings, but still surf six days a week, you'll get a trophy.
ReplyDeleteProfit considerations do not equal ruination of community character, if that's what 10:38 is getting at. Hard to tell, though.
DeleteSomeone 65's surfing six days a week is amazing, regardless.
DeleteThe residential part of the mixed-use doesn't comply with the municipal code. Residential property heights are set at a maximum of 26 feet. if the residential is 30 feet it violates the municipal code require of 26 feet or less.
ReplyDeleteIf that's the corner of I St. and 101, the parcel owner is Mayfair Group Holdings, according to the city's website. The owner's address given there is a La Jolla PO box.
ReplyDeleteHere's the owner's website, including the building shown above in the middle photo as an architectural rendering.
http://mayfaircommunities.com/executive-team/
The city planning department, then the planning commission must have approved it, and if nobody appealed the approvals, it wouldn't have gone to the council for approval, denial or changes.
Appeals would not have made a difference. Opposing residents would have to sue to stop it/slow it down. That's how this town works for residents.
DeleteI don't know how many times I must post this comment but I'll keep doing it until you yahoos get the message... go and buy up ever parcel of land in Encinitas and either keep it fallow or maintain what is there...that way this stupid argument about what is right or wrong doesn't have to be discussed. But nooooooooooo rather than put your money where your mouth is you complain about a property owner maximizing the value of their property. Morons.
ReplyDeleteWe have zoning and Municipal Code we for a reason. If we can't or won't follow it, we have a problem.
DeleteSounds like the law is not of interest to 2:24. Sounds like 2:24 has come more than slightly unhinged at those of us who care about how this town develops.
No reason to keep posting your developers' rights blather, 2:24. You won't change the majority's view. You're in the minority and only Meyer, Harrison, and Gonzalez are listening.
2:36-your ability to comprehend is shallow at best. If you want no development then buy up all of Encinitas and keep it the way it is.....I'm no friend of developer any more than you are, I simply offer the ultimate solution while you only complain, poorly.
Delete3:33, no one said "no development," but you know that.
Delete2:24, 3:33 — You can keep posting your blind, dumb comment as long as you keep missing the point.
DeleteThe municipal code mentions preservation of community character many, many times. There are also design and mass guidelines that developers are supposed to meet and that the planning staff and commission are supposed to uphold.
Buildings that violate community character and don't meet the guidelines should not be permitted.
The municipal building code's intention is not to instruct or allow commercial property owners to maximize the profit from their land and developments. The code is supposed to be a control device, not an open permission slip.
There are many cities in Calif. that will only let you build a certain way so as to blend in with the existing community. Some even go so far as to way what paint colors you must use. So, if cities can do that, why cant we?
ReplyDeleteWe can, but "staff" won't, and it's clear from Measure T that "staff" is solidly in charge.
DeleteWe are down 2 or 3 staff members. How many more should go or, better, which ones should stay?
DeleteAesthetic architectural tastes are hopelessly subjective and individual. How in the world do you fairly codify those tastes? Whose tastes become law, and whose tastes are outlawed? Maybe things you hate become mandatory design elements. Don't be so sure that the people making the rules will always be working for what you want - look at Trump.
Delete...and the new one next to the Leucadia Donut Shoppe is shaping up to be just as ugly.
ReplyDeleteThat building sure looks taller than 30 feet, which is the Prop A limit.
DeleteNo. The prop A limit is actual 30 feet, not "sure looks taller than" 30 feet.
Delete9:17 4:31's post says 30 feet is the Prop A limit. The building at the south corner of Avocado and 101 looks taller than 30 feet.
Delete9:46 PM
DeleteProp A limit is 30 feet for commercial. Residential is 26 feet limit. The planning department has illegally been giving developments an addition 4 feet.
So you prefer a ratty rundown shithole of a motel?? Of course you do, because it fits the character of the community.
ReplyDeleteShithole of a motel? Were you ever in it before it was torn down?
DeleteIf you don't like the character of the community, leave.
I'm not 9:14, but I took a tour of the rooms to see if I should recommend it for extended family coming in for a reunion a few years back.
DeleteBeing honest, it was a total dump. I didn't have anyone stay there. I think the owners stopped investing/maintaining the property years ago in anticipation of cashing in. There were water stains down the wall; the room smelled like smoke and mold.
I'd rather have an updated motel than the building that's taking its place.
DeleteExactly, it should be obvious that the place could have been renovated. Putting a monstrosity in place of a modest and in-character building was not the only answer, but we all know that.
DeleteI'd rather have a yurt and a zen garden on your property.
DeleteBut my opinion doesn't matter, because it's your property.
Now you all are starting to understand economics. This is what is called opportunity cost. The property owner cashed out and sold the property to someone that was willing to make improvements; and seize a higher return for the property. The market dictates what to build and not what to build. A small two story, 16 unit motel was not financially solvent at that location.
Delete9:07 Nonsense. And your condescending attitude sucks. If what you contend were true, there would be no commercially successful buildings in Encinitas except new ones like the gross monstrosity on the corner of I and 101.
DeleteI disagree with 1227, and agree with 90t (after working through the condensation). There has been a proliferation of old businesses leaving downtown ever since streetscape and improved local economics. If you have been around for the last 20 years you would know that. Encinitas is simply not the same it was before early 2000s. Good schools, some funk/soul, and the beach has made this community into something that others want.
DeleteWhat is the point of urbanizing a sleepy beach town? Why don't these developers go find a city that is actually blighted and make it great again with actual affordable housing? Because they have another agenda that has nothing to do with bettering this community. The past 4 years in Encinitas have been the worst years of life because of all the corruption and sellouts in power here.
DeleteSadly, the same can be said about the should be preserved building that booted Kealani's out, while breaking their existing lease by years. She should have been paid handsomely, but choose to go quietly. She deserves defending and ample compensation for walking away.
ReplyDeleteTry to imagine what will go up in its place. Crap.
Lets just hope it is not another Keith Harrison Soviet chic monstrosity completely out of character for the neighborhood.
If the new owners want any appreciation from this community, it would a breath of fresh air if they would replace that in a similar style. The would leave Keith out, unless he gets a different architect.
I have overheard Keith at a forum at the library being told to get a new architect, but I doubt he could hear any of it or appreciate the sentiment. A prime example is that out of character lot line to lot line gross structure opposite the upper Moonlight Beach parking lot.
Gawd spare us anymore of anything like that.
Government control will dwindle under trump. Less bureaucrats and more property rights. This means people will do what they want on their property.
ReplyDelete9:14- Then the developer(s) can reach their ultimate goal of living where the most restrictive land use rules exist (Rancho Santa Fe)
DeleteThis sentiment has been expressed many times before in this forum, and I don't understand it. Is this meant to be a good thing? That said, RSF does not have the most restrictive rules by far - they have an architectural committee that can be quite the pain, but Park Place has far more restrictive rules than RSF.........
Delete- The Sculpin
My prediction Trump and his republican controlled congress will not accomplish shit while in power. Just like GW Bush did in his poor showing. Bush was in my opinion in the top 10 worse presidents group.
Delete- Long time GOP
Thank your Planning Commission for this one folks. This could have been appealed to City Council, but evidently nobody did. Meets the Municipal Code standards - but agree, not very pleasing to the eye and certainly could have had more scrutiny - especially since the Downtown 101 Specific Plan has more stringent design guidelines and recommendations. We should all pay closer attention to posted signs, legals in Coast News, etc.
ReplyDelete11:44 AM
ReplyDeleteUnless the building is a max of 26 feet, it doesn't meet the municipal code requirements.
Why not 30 feet?
Delete12:30PM
ReplyDeleteThe municipal code is more restrictive for residential.
Residential is a max of 26 feet.
horrid architecture.
ReplyDeletelooks like something you would see in Oside. cold and cheap looking. Yuck.
26' for residentially zoned properties.
ReplyDelete30' for most commercially zoned properties.
33' North 101 Specific Plan commercial/mixed zone.
Prop A made 30 feet the max. It replaced the specific plans' heights. Measure T tried to restore and go beyond the specific plans' heights. It failed.
Delete10:03PM
DeleteIn the specific plans it is 26 feet residential and 30 feet for most commercial. The 33 feet was voided with the passage of Prop A. Jeff Murphy never changed the north 101 specific plan of 33 feet to the 26 feet and 30 feet max.
Murphy's lapse doesn't allow any height, including in any specific plan, above 30'.
Delete