Julie Hedman, who lives uphill, noted that everyone in Encinitas has paid a premium for ocean views. "My husband and I would not have bought our home if we had known that homes would be allowed to build up second stories in front of us," she said. "It will block ocean views from homes in our neighborhood."
If it looks like Hedman's gated-community house sits about 30 feet higher than Merchant's, that's because it does.
Zoning in this neighborhood, as in all of Encinitas, has always allowed for two stories.
But if the rich folks on the hill can lawyer the commoners to death, first at the Planning Commission, then at City Council, then at Superior Court....
"I've got mine" should be the official city slogan.ReplyDelete
I think John Hine has that sewn up.Delete
When the renovation is complete, this home will be 1500 sq ft.ReplyDelete
Laughable for the uphill neighbors to claim the renovation is out of scale with the neighborhood unless their house is under that number. I bet the uphill homes are taller too.
So, she buys a two story home and assumes the people downhill can not remodel to two stories?? That seems pretty naive.ReplyDelete
Our Council COULD write a view ordinance--but that would not make developers happy.ReplyDelete
And we can't have that.Delete
There is precedent, in court, that views are not normally protected. Any ordinance would not be retroactive, in any case.Delete
There is a view corridor policy detailed in the Leucadia and Encinitas 101 Specific Plans. But that view corridor policy was not honored with Moonlight Lofts, which has blocked the view, from the street, of the ocean.
The City has a history of cheating on its own policies and regulations. Del Mar has a view ordinance, which has become problematic. These kinds of disagreements tend to enrich the attorneys, and have historically led to the conclusion that one can't actually "own" a view, so as to prevent others from expanding their homes in a manner allowed by right within that zoning, and according to the relevant General and Specific Plan policies.
This couple bought a duplex in a neighborhood with primarily single story homes. What about their neighbors on north side that share the adjoining wall? They will be shaded for most of the year with this addition.ReplyDelete
Their property value has to be decreased with this selfish move. Will the owners try to mitigate this effect or just plow ahead, neighbors be damned. Who would not be pissed off if their home were suddenly to be in the shade for most of the year?
It is quite clear that people who have this inclination to expand their homes should have bought elsewhere if they want to be good neighbors. Existing community character should take precedence but thanks to our corrupted and traitorous Planning Dept., this not the case. Infill at all costs, is Manjeets mantra. He learned his lessons well from vina and jeff murphy. Until he and his senior planners are gone we will have more the same. Fire them now.
It looks like they will be allowed to continue squandering our limited funds on a futile HEU attempt to sell this turd to an unknowing public. Why will it take this guaranteed to fail proposition to ultimately show their sellout behavior? Send them packing now.
Since we have a couple of convenient weeks without a council meeting, I hope our council does not use this time to push through the library renaming without our say so. I would sign a petition in a minute to take this option out of councils hands. This should not be in their hands to do with as they please anyway. This does belong to council. It is OURS.
Adjoining neighbor is supportive of the remodel, as are most of the many neighbors who showed up at council.Delete
In a condo duplex, the adjoining neighbor would have much more legal standing to challenge an addition because of the common ownership.
But apparently these people are good neighbors and their design is not disruptive.
Adjoining neighbor has to be supportive as they give away their right to add square footage. This is the third or fourth house in Pacific Serena with a second story. The crybaby up above in a 3000 plus sq ft house was not diligent and wants to blame someone. F you and the high horse and hill you sit upon and go back to wherever you came from please.Delete
3000? More like 4300!Delete
This does NOT belong to council, whoops. It is OURS.ReplyDelete
Is the lawsuit fearing the whole neighborhood will build up? This doesn't seem like a significant view blocker.ReplyDelete
Almost every home on this street has had some type of interior/ exterior remodeling done over the past 4 years including the whole apartment complex on the southwest corner of Rosebay Dr. and Encinitas Blvd. Multiple residences were completely gutted. What's interesting is how this remodeling boom kicked off with a horrific neighborhood bullying campaign against at least 2 residents on this street in 2012.ReplyDelete
Please send details:Delete
One guy purchased seven or eight houses and remodeled them all and rents them out. He lives in the neighborhood as well. He's a nice guy but not well liked.Delete
10:57 PM A nice guy, but not well liked? Seems contradictory - is it because he is the landlord and people are jealous of his possessions?Delete
Yeah you nailed it. All the houses he bought look great, but some people like the neighborhood looking quaint(shitty).Delete
I live here, make no mistake about it, they're view is not blocked at all by this house but could be slightly affected by others doing the same thing a few blocks west. Litigious Whiners!
10:32 if you think quaint = shitty then for the life of me I cannot fathom why you chose to live in Encinitas.Delete
A few miles north of here you'll find hog heaven in a little Stepford Wife part of SoCal called "Orange County." You sound like you'll fit right in. All no doubt come with HOAs to avoid the shitty factor. Really, you'll be very happy there.
I grew up in this neighborhood when my grandma lived here and was raised on the sunshine garden property below. I like quaint and shitty and realize they're not the same. I was explaining why people didn't like the neighbor up here who renovated all the houses to rent in Pacific Serena. I chose to live here because I love Encinitas. Condescending transplants such as yourself need to go back from where you came.Delete
Beginner's guide to quaint and shitty:Delete
-Taco Auctioneer was quaint
-The blue steel Coast Dispatch building was shitty.
-O-hain Meeting Hall is quaint.
-The VFW hall on Second is shitty.
-Panikin is quaint
-7-11 for coffee is shitty
-101 is quaint
-El Camino Real? shitty.
- Besta Wan is quaint.
- Angelo's is shitty.
- a 1000 sq ft composer district bungalow is quaint.
- a 1000 sq ft 70s Brady Bunch duplex is shitty.
Not everything old is quaint. Not everything old is shitty. The key is to know the difference, and work together to protect what matters. We won't always agree, but sometimes we will.
2;16 - I too am an old timer. You might think about taking care how you express yourself so you're better understood.Delete
Retro evaluation of the former Artists' Colony on B St. and the Coast Hwy - quaint or shitty?Delete
Lofts - tacky.Delete
Prediction for Roxy's remodel - ETOH intensive.Delete
Speaking of quaint vs shitty anyone notice that all the old businesses in downtown are going out....with new ones going in. We are losing our Encinitas funckyness for OC conformity. What about the Cardiff re model on San Elijo out with the old in with the new...and the big ugly monster house being built on San Elijo...what happened to our little Beach town! It's a sad decline...Delete
>Prediction for Roxy's remodel - ETOH intensive.Delete
I think you may have been reaching for EtOH. Never too late to lift yourself out of stupidity. Whatever. Grow the fuck up.
Why don't we send all of the FAB-U-LOUS developers to Detroit where they can gentrify to their heart on's content? I feel like I am in that episode of "Little Rascals" where the girl's invaded the clubhouse and put up curtains and doilies. Everything was fine they way it was. Rapid growth like this feels hostile.Delete
Angelo's has the best Onion Rings on the planet, and I dig the VFW Hall...Delete
Mulholland's disaster - Collapse of the St. Francis dam.ReplyDelete
Any dams around here?
Of course the people suing could have bought the houses in front of them to stop any potential view obstruction but nooooooo.ReplyDelete
Mar the approach was to buy it, put in a perpetual Deed Restriction, and then sell it. Of course the plaintiff could just buy the air rights from the defendant and have them put in the deed restriction. Or better, the plaintiff could move to a bluff top site and then pick a fight with the Coastal Commission.
The rich people could build a minaret on their home and tower over the peasants. Call it religious expression if the permit police protest.ReplyDelete
Press on. this is a fight you will win. As a builder in san clementeReplyDelete
One of the most difficult city councils to get these view issues passed
A few good letters from your attorney......fight on... RPG
There's no view ordinance, this is not Del Mar. The people up the street are out of luck...ReplyDelete
Doesn't Mark Muir city councilman live in Sandalwood development?? and neighbor to Julie Hedman??ReplyDelete
Muir recused himself at the City Council Hearing but yes, he lives up there.ReplyDelete
Dump Muir in the next election.Delete
Fed State and Local govt have underfunded their pensuions by...........wait for it......WAIT FOR IT.....$3.4 Trillion bucks. LOLOLOLOLLLLLLOOOOOOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLOOOOOOO...Muir will get nothing soon!!!ReplyDelete
I'm pretty sure the government will keep borrowing, printing, raising taxes, and cutting services long enough to take care of Muir's generation of pension grandees.Delete
Chicago and Illinois are probably a decade or more ahead of California in terms of pension disaster, and even they haven't cut benefits yet.
After the recent rains, started noticing some mosquitoes. There is a storm water catch basin nearby that doesn't drain fully. The last few inches of water just have to dry up. Given Zika and West Nile, I considered just going to Home Depot and dropping larvicide in there, but that might not be leagal or cool for the downstream critters.
So I called the City, and used the County Vector Control page to report it (http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/deh/pests/wnv/general_information/chd_wnv_mosquito.html) Took less than 24 hours for the basin to be cleared of muck and debris (city), and have a non-toxic larvicide applied (County).
Pretty efficient and painless. If you notice a similar problem, don't suffer through. Getting rid of the mosquitoes is easy.
So if I report mosquitoes at Lake Fulvia, do you think they'd finally fix that drain in 24 hours?ReplyDelete
Are the houses in Pacific Serena duplexes as in one only one property and one owner? Or have they been converted to condominium ownership? What a lose lose situation for the home owner that must give up the right to expand to a second story for the neighbor.ReplyDelete
I don't think one owner building up takes away the right of the other owner to go up too. Why would that be?
I think Pacific Serena was built around 1970 under county rule as a community of twinhomes. The custom then was that each home was on a separate lot and they shared a common wall. There was 25-year deed restriction, now expored, that limited ownership of these small homes to senior citizens. Each home was maintained separately, thus today you see various roofing materials and most of the original owners are gone. Most of the new owners show pride of ownership and are free to paint and remodel. The MLS reports that HOA fees are 0.Delete
Not sure if it is condo ownership. A condo should be on its own piece of land. The Rosebay ownership is a 1/2 interest in the lot.
Sorry, may used the term incorrectly. Only meant that it was separate ownership of the two halves, in response to the question.Delete
But I don't think condos require separate land ownership. Some condos are on top of each other!
A condominium typically involves the exclusive right to airspace, and an undivided right to the use of common areas. Think of it this way. In a 400 unit condo complex my exclusive right starts with the paint on the walls and ceilings and the floor coverings and extends inward. I then have a 1/400th undivided right in all the property in the complex that is not held exclusively by me and others.Delete
In Pacific Serena, the residents own fee title to the land and building, share a wall with the attached neighbor, and possibly would have a 1/xth interest in any common areas. Very similar to the twin homes in Park Place.
- The Sculpin
I agree except for the airspace part. Condos are often multi-story buildings (i.e. essentially individually owned apartments). I think Pacific Station is technically condos for example.
In multi-unit, multi-story condos, I believe the exterior walls and roof are part of the common ownership. When its time to replace a roof, windows, or stucco, it can't be done piecemeal depending on which unit it touches.Delete
Duplexes are not condos, as the exterior walls other than the common wall are the respective property of each owner.
I'm probably wrong on all of this.
Yup your wrong. Try and google the two meanings. Condo has to do with the type of ownership on the final map.Delete
Bigger issue is the blocking of sunlight on the neighbors property and blocking of the breezes or air circulation around the homes.ReplyDelete
The rights to the dirt beneath and the air above comes with the fee ownership of land. Government agencies, homeowners associations or simple restrictions placed on the deed can restrict those rights. While the blocking of sunlight could be an issue, it has to be specifically identified and described by at least one of the above to make it enforceable. One of my neighbors cut all the trees down on his property in order to get more direct sunlight. We were horrified, but it was within his rights. But it wasn't enough so he wanted to cut down our trees as well! Sorry pal, but your desire for sunlight does not outweigh my right to have trees. Same holds true for remodels, addiitons, and rebuilds. If it fits within the parameters, and everyone's rights under the law have been exercised, then have at it!Delete
- The Sculpin
The good news is, the 67th Amendment to the US Constitution protects our individual right to a breeze.Delete
The bad news is, we will all be dead by the time it passes.
Julie Heldman should have done her research. City of Encinitas did not restrict adding a second story when she bought the home. Otherwise her home would not have a second story. Perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit. I look forward to suing Julie Heldman. When I bought my home on Rosebay in Pacifica Serena, there were (and are) no restrictions on building a second story. I would not have purchased the house if I knew I would be unable to add a second story. And looking at the photo, a second story does not obstruct the view. The photo also neglects to include the hill that further west that obstructs everyone's view.ReplyDelete
You look forward to suing her? Now, THAT is frivolous.Delete
How is suing someone who is trying to restrict what I can build any less frivolous than suing someone to preserve your view. It's all completely frivolous, and people who are actively spending time and money to sue others to preserve something as insignificant as a tiny portion of their view need to get some perspective. Imagine if they spent their large supply of resources doing something to make the world a better place, instead of picking legal fights with your neighbors.Delete