OC Register:
Saying the influx of big housing projects is too much for its city, the Huntington Beach City Council voted to halt new development along Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue on Tuesday night.
[...]
Since 2010, the area has seen high-density developments constructed along those major thoroughfares, and Peterson said in his proposal that many residents worry that such development is changing the composition of their suburban beach city into an urban environment. The Register wrote about the conflict on Monday.
“The idea that this is the future – I just don’t think it is,” [Councilman Erik] Peterson said Tuesday. He received a standing ovation from a handful of members in the audience. “I can drive down Beach (Boulevard) and see Saddleback; I can see the mountains. It’s a community. Not just a big city.”
Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue are Huntington Beach's intersecting north-south and east-west thoroughfares, equivalent to our El Camino Real and Encinitas Boulevard.
Pack them in like rats - the developers' dream!
ReplyDeleteHeard at virtually every project meeting with these over-developers: "this is the future and there's nothing you can do about it." That's their attitude and sincere belief, and it's up to residents who don't share the high profit-driven developer vision to correct them.
ReplyDeleteDevelopers will stack and pack to make mega profit and then live in Rancho Santa Fe and Delmar and a rural environment.
ReplyDeleteThe BIA will surely be suing them. Maybe slimey marco can move up there and continue his life representing the dark side. Stack and Pack 'em marco. Follow your bliss. Surely they deserve the same threats you proposed before our council recently. Please go and leave us. You could make so much more money up there. Just consider all the opportunities you would have. Coast Move Group, please.
ReplyDeleteI'm not Marco or in any way connected to him or his firm but this "slimey" BS needs to stop. Was he slimey when arguing against coastal bluff retaining walls? I don't care if you don't like him or agree with him but constantly referring to him and anyone you think agrees with him as slimey says more about you than him.
DeleteI see Marco more as a tragic figure. He did some good things in the beginning of his career and has sold out for money. He used to have the respect of many people who live here, and the people who he now represents have been trashing him for years and no doubt continue when his back is turned.
DeleteStep back into the light, Marco! It is not too late!
The moral of the Marco story is: Builders really really hated him in the early days, as he was very good at representing his clients and winning. Instead of wallowing in hate and vilifying him, they hired him. If you really really hate any lawyer, hire them. The same reasons you hate them are the reasons you will love them when they are representing your interests.
DeleteMarco isn't in the business of making friends.
From Councilman Peterson's memo, "...the continuing transformation of our city from a suburban beach side community into an urban environment." Sorry councilman but as someone who worked in Orange County for many years that happened long ago.
ReplyDeleteWe can all agree Marco deserved our respect in his early environmental pursuits. He has squandered that reputation and seems to revel in his current mode of representing the dark side. At one of the recent council meetings he was costumed/dressed in black from head to toe with a black fedora to top it off and that is when when he threatened everyone in the room that if we fight all the infill and densification, he and others of his kind will surely be suing the city. He addressed this threat more to the audience than the council.
ReplyDeleteIf the shoe fits wear it. Crawl out from under that rock whenever this community tries to preserve what brought us all and him here in the first place. Coast Move Group please move on. You have done more than enough damage here and other opportunities abound elsewhere.
He has managed to unite this community in opposition and seems to be happy enough with his new persona and his well heeled clients of developer money. That is his niche these days What a waste of talent.
No talent wasted there. No talent period.
DeleteWhether you like him or not, Marco is talented.
DeleteWhat cases has Marco won?
DeleteThe bottom line is: We do not want to look like Huntington Beach and that is what we are fighting for. Period.
ReplyDelete12:05,
DeleteHoly crap!
You mean if we pass a housing element that Metis the RHNA requirements we will be similar to HB?
That claim is either very alarming, or very alarmist. To find out which, let's do some simple math:
Encinitas has a current population of about 59,518, and a total area of 19.99 square miles. That means our population density is 2,977 people per square mile.
If we pass a compliant housing element to change zoning to allow an additional 1,282 units, AND if every single one of those units gets built (unlikely), AND a family of four moves into each of those units (unlikely), then our population would rise by 5,128 or 8.6%. Our area doesn't change, so our population density increases to 3,234 people per square mile.
In contrast, Huntington Beach has a population of 197,575, and a total area of 31.88 square miles. Which means their population density is 6,197 people per square mile--almost double the density of Encinitas under crazy worst-case assumptions.
So the answer is: alarmist.
This would be a foot in the door. They always come back for more!
DeleteThat's seems to be the position here. If it happens once it's going to happen a thousand times more because the council (no matter who is elected) just wants to see rows and rows of high density. Maybe they're using Little Italy as their template. Just come to city hall and get their checks from the developers.
DeleteWheeee!
By your calculation this is roughly a 10% population growth, something that has not happened in Encinitas in a long time. 10% does not seem that much but try to add 10% more cars to the traffic on El Camino Real and what do you get: Gridlock, freaking F LOS.
DeleteAdd to that the growth of the surrounding communities (growing at a faster clip than Encinitas) and what to you get: Cluster f... traffic along our main corridors.
No mixed-use or housing overlay zone in the housing element update.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
DeleteOverlay or none: it ALL gets voted on, period.
Deletehttp://la.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/downtown_las_new_mixedusers_are_full_of_empty_storefronts.php
Delete2:09 PM
DeleteIf you're 12:08 PM you said "No mixed-use or housing overlay zone". So is an overlay okay now? The none option won't cut it.
Maybe we should hire Marco as the City Attorney. Then he wouldn't keep screwing with us.
ReplyDeleteEven Marco would be better than Sabine. Anyone to replace this piece of bad history.
DeleteTar and feather him and Sabine - parasites!
DeleteI hate HB, and like Encinitas when it was less dence. I support no upzoning.
ReplyDeleteI would wager that just about all of us liked Encinitas when it was less dense but times have changed and for me it's how to accommodate that change and preserve as much of the original ambiance as possible.
Delete1:30 PM
DeleteMove to Huntington Beach. You will be much happier since you want to accommodate the state.
1:37 PM
DeleteYou do know cities and counties derive their power from the state. They are in effect extensions of the state. Yes state mandates can suck and I certainly wouldn't have structured the housing element requirements anything like they are now but it is what it is. And like it or not, state law trumps local law.
So you go on living in fantasy land. I'm trying to make the best of a bad situation.
Cities, Counties and the State derive their powers from the People.
DeleteDevelopers and lawyers suck !!!
ReplyDeleteNo one is an alarmist here. You open the door for the developers just a tiny crack and word travels fast. They will all be showing up in Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteWe have a right to preserve as much as we can without any help from over development. If those who don't mind stack and pack, more congested traffic, more stop lights and stop signs, then maybe you should move to where that happens.
The rest of us just want to get around our area without having to take a half day trip to the grocery store.
The truth is, nobody wants more traffic, more people, more density. But there is a reason California leaks jobs to Arizona, Nevada, and Texas. Employers have to pay people here a crap ton of money because our housing cost is high and getting higher.
DeleteState legislators have come up with an imperfect solution to the problem. Some may even claim that the cure is worse than the disease, and they have a point.
But the reality is that the doctrine of preemption clearly gives the state authority to impose its will.
If we don't come up with a plan that satisfies the requirements of HCD with the least negative impacts, then our future is a very expensive and ultimately futile legal battle ending with some bureaucrat or remote judge imposing a solution with far less care and consideration for local impacts than we here have.
Sometimes when someone hands you a turd, your best option is two slices of bread and lots of ketchup.
So there it is.
5"59 You may like your answer, but it is ridiculous. So there it is.
DeleteSee you in court then. I suppose it has to come to this. starting with scare tactics like those presumed by 5:59. I say the "State" has to prove why we need to Densify and Monetize our community.
Delete9:09,
DeleteThere are several people here who want to fight the state. But not one who can articulate a winning legal strategy.
If you want to convince others to follow, please, reveal your brilliant legal strategy to reverse the doctrine of preemption.
The floor is yours.
We pay a lobbyist something like $100K a year. What is he/she doing to fight the State?
DeleteI don't see how 2-3 story Mixed Use, restricted to a couple corners near El Camino Real, and possibly a few other parcels, leads to the the 5-6 story developments pictures above. There is a very reasonable community character saving way to meet state mandates and also keep our community intact.
ReplyDeleteAsk Norby...he was ready to guide the council's hand to pull the switch not that long ago..
DeleteAsk Bruce Ehlers, he is the premier prevaricator on this subject: Passed Prop A, but never proved it. It'll be Armeggedon according to him and Pam Slater price.
ReplyDeleteCitizens, stop fighting among yourselves, let Marco Gonzalez sue the city and turn our future over to a judge in Sacramento and fill Olivenhain with low-income housing: then, finally they'll have the 'infrastructure' they are always bereft of, that also continues to be their constant ruse for driving all traffic and affordable housing into all the other 4 communities.
Hey 4:48 aka Mikey, whatever happened to Prop A's threatened "unintended consequences?". Talk about prevarication....
ReplyDeleteNotice the new tack that Mikey and his minders are taking......Let us do what we want because the state alternatives will be much worse because "IT'S THE LAW". The state of California is waking up.
DeleteI recently looked up these business owners of mikeys that is his claim to legitimacy with the New Encinitas Business Network. Some are no big surprise [Gaspar Medical, Harwood Properties, et al.] There were a couple listed along the coast that are surprising and a disappointment that they would associate themselves, their names, and their businesses with such a person as mikey. What were they thinking? What could they possibly hope to gain by aligning themselves with such a cretin?
ReplyDeleteHB used to be a community like Encinitas. The developers made there money off and ruined it… and the people let them.
ReplyDeleteElect people that will not let this happen.
The land holders and developers run (buy) their own candidates - they own the "system" due to the apathy of the electorate.
DeleteThe Hotel Villa Mar at 960 S. Coast Hwy has been sold and rumour has it that the plans are for residential and commercial space. That means high intensity high-rise development, since the lot isn't that large. It could be a mini-Pacific Station at the end of town, where there is nothing comparable.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the pattern for conforming to an architectural style of consistency will be challenged. Tackine$$ will be the new norm...
The Encinitas Municipal Code limits building heights to two stories/30 feet. The zoning for that parcel is Downtown Commercial Mixed 1.
ReplyDeleteVilla Mar Motel -
ReplyDeletePlanning Commission approved a 4 condo subdivision with commercial space below April 3, 2014. No more visitor serving motel. All the trees will be removed. Planning Commissioners are strip and scrap advocates. Whatever the developer wants, the developer gets.
The jam packed blight begins - sad. How do you fit 4 condos on that lot and have commercial space to boot? Living in a high-priced closet is the Barth dream coming true.
DeleteAnd Shaffer's model of "sustainability." Not that she walks the talk.
DeleteShaffer is the epitome of academic double talk. She taught "ethics" ??- I thought that came from the family, not a wind bag with pompous hyperbole.
DeleteHmmmmm....looks like "stack 'n pack" is nothing new.......
ReplyDeletehttp://www.livescience.com/49886-ancient-cities-urban-scaling.html
- The Sculpin
The lot at 960 SCH 101 is 3,200 square feet. It's now 90 percent covered by a two-story building. The only trees of any size are between the sidewalks and the curbs. Whatever is built there will be a two-story building with commercial below and residences above. Off street parking will be required.
ReplyDeleteConclusion: The new building essentially won't be much different from what's already there as far as lot coverage and height are concerned. Considering the tragedy that is Pacific Station, the developer might be forced to build something that actually looks good.
Closet condos.
DeleteYou all know full well that the City will never require decent design or construction and the developers are only too happy to maximize profits with the City's blessing.
DeleteOff street parking? That area is already over impacted with off street parking. Parking wars are eminent. Some electric bicycle store in the commercial center opposite the Potato Shack is already towing - 24/7.
DeleteWhere's the diagonal parking on I St ? Hope it returns. Aggressive towing is bad PR for that bike store. I'll shop elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteSounds like the bike shop protects its customers, which - let's face it - you are not.
DeleteSounds like someone is crying because they got towed after illegally parking on someone's private property.
ReplyDeleteTough S---.
Nope. Didn't get towed. But I know the mentality of the aggressive towers, your business won't last given your electrifying start.
ReplyDeleteThe tow companies are akin to predatory carnies - they rip you off. A business can find less abusive ways to enforce their parking spaces - maybe those sign twirlers can become parking attendants? The Lumber Yard has a major problem with non-customer parking and doesn't tow - attendants may be the solution.
DeleteTowing is the solution, and it doesn't cost the property owner like hiring staff to manage a parking lot.
DeleteTow enough cars and word gets around. People stop the behavior. Anyone who boycotts a store because the owner enforces a logical policy that is clearly posted on signs is a fool.
Don't be a d---. If the sign says it's private parking for a business and violators will be towed, and you park there anyway, you deserve to get towed.
Pay to get your car back; accept responsibility; warn your friends; don't make that mistake again.
I have never been towed.
We are talking about a new business coming in and aggressively towing in a lot that has in the past, like the lumberyard, not been so hostile and aggressive in towing. If you don't want to be moderate with your customers we will just choose to not give you business. Follow the Lumberyard, Hansens, and other good retailers example and you may have a better go of things.
ReplyDeleteThe previous owner of your home was moderate whenever I broke in and ate his food. Other homeowners are also moderate.
DeleteI don't know why you have to be such a hardass.
Ticket offenders - it'd be cheaper for them and give revenue to the city. It would make the point without gouging them in the process.
ReplyDeleteLast time I checked, the purchase of an automobile did not come with a right to park it at will on private property. If I missed it somewhere in the sales contract, please let me know where to find it.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I do agree that towing companies are usurious businesses that disproportionately target and harm the working poor. I've never seen a tow truck at Harvest Ranch Market.....
- The Sculpin
For all the johnny come lately's to Encinitas try to be a good neighbor how bout? Certain lots downtown have allowed for shopping near by as well as in stores of intended lot. To come along and just decide you are king of the world and you will tow with little or no warning is just flat out rude. And yes this town talks and we know the appropriate response to the business' that tow after parking a short time. You lose patrons in the end, it's called neighborly and common sense to customers.
ReplyDelete"common sense to customers"
DeleteThat phrase is what it's all about. If you are parking in a private lot attached to a business or businesses, and you are not patronizing said businesses, then you are NOT a customer.
In fact, you aren't just not spending money at those businesses, you are blocking a space that a legitimate customer might want to use.
It's not just that you are taking a parking place, you are potentially taking away business. The policies of previous owners and other owners is not relevant. Risking loss of business for your convenience goes well beyond my definition of neighborly.
I'm not familiar at all with that town. But I can smell Redevelopment Agency 80 miles away.
ReplyDelete