Friday, April 8, 2016

View Wars!

San Diego Reader:
Some Encinitas residents are suing their downhill neighbors who won city approval to build a second story onto their Pacific Serena home, saying it will partially block their views.

The neighbors — known as Friends to Preserve Encinitas Beauty — filed the suit in San Diego Superior Court a week after the March 16th city-council meeting where the council voted unanimously to deny their appeal of the permit granted to Gina Merchant and Derek Bradley to build a 643-square-foot second floor onto their 863-square-foot home.

[...]

People in houses up the hill, to the east, believe the addition will affect their view of the ocean. They raised their issues with the Encinitas Planning Commission, where the addition won approval on a 3-2 vote, and appealed the decision to the city council, which also supported the addition.

33 comments:

  1. Encinitas does not have any ordinance to protect any private views. Maybe it should, maybe not. So that neighborhood of mostly small 1-story twin homes can be upgraded to larger 2-story homes as part of the normal evolution of a neighborhood. This lawsuit looks to be baseless, a countersuit could win damages and costs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2:40 PM
    No, it isn't baseless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is going to be a good one to follow. The City of Encinitas will also be a target, deep pockets and all, and it was their decision to approve. I think the "Friends" will want to back down because other homes in that tract have already been upgraded. If this project had not been subject to the Coastal Commission then approval would have been granted "by right" by the Planning department.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps the judge will punch their Tough $#1+ cards for them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is the unfortunate aspect of the natural evolution of neighborhoods. If the overall square footage they were dealing with was larger, accommodations could be made to preserve view corridors, but 643 sf on 863 sf?? There's no wiggle room! They're even building well within their envelope. As for the neighbors claims that they paid a premium for the view - not likely - if the pictures in the Reader article are accurate. Sorry but peek a boo views are worth bragging rights at best. That said, I love one neighbors alternative argument - that the Encinitas Ranch homes blockers her view of the moon! Aaaahhhhhwwwwooooooooo........

    - The Sculpin

    ReplyDelete
  6. As I learned many years ago, there are no view ordinances in Encinitas. Therefore this suit would seem to be baseless. When a neighbor on the next street from ours got an approval for turning a 1 story into a 2 story going up to 29'6" from the City Council, 7 of my neighbors, including us, lost a significant portion of our views. The value of our house dropped by $50,000. Even then the City codes said 26' high if it is a slopped roof, and 22' if is flat. However, the person, who mainly lives in Los Angeles, brought an attorney to the City Council meeting, as the Planning Commission said NO, and won at the City Council level. I will be curious to see how this goes. As the Sculpin says "there's no wiggle room". And, in this case it doesn't appear that this particular project is going higher than the City allegedly allows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No wiggle room? For developers there is always wiggle room. In our case, we neighbors watched first be brought in to elevate the pad, when we had the smarts to request the grading plan Planning Director Pat Murphy and planner Diane Lannanger told us the city lost the original plans. See how it works in Encinitas? Crooked self-serving party bosses Wasserman Shutlz and Reince Priebus have nothing on the Encinitas planning department when it comes to bait and switch.

      Delete
  7. "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.

    Caveat Emptor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, buyer beware. There is no right-to-a-view in the Bill of Rights. New Yorkers?

      Delete
    2. Gotta be New Yorkers, who else likes to sue people more than New Yorkers?

      Delete
  8. View wars have been going on for a long time in this region. There were stories of people poisoning trees or chopping them down; the new McMansions have towered over the landscapes near the beaches, as the cottage style homes were torn down - people behind them saw only walls then. When the hamsters jam in the cage, they go bezerk.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This growing family knew what they were buying into and now they want to dramatically change the neighborhood community character from what they had when they bought in. A little foresight coupled with personal responsibility, please folks.

    This sounds like the same thing we dealt with a couple of months ago with that family that bought an extremely small lot in Olivenhain and wanted full exterior 'bump outs' on their exterior walls. This resulted in a 3' set back of their roof eaves from the property line. 3'!!!!! This couple also knew what they were buying into. Sadly, council approved these set backs if they can even still be called such. 7' walls from the property line and 3' from the overhanging roof eaves to the property line! wtf.

    Thanks go out again to Manjeet and his minions as the source of so many woes in our town. Fire Manjeet and his senior planners or we will continue to get this type of getting around our current zoning.

    Enough Karen! Clean your house while you still have some legitimacy left. Prove your worth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you are buying into includes the zoning that allows you make changes and the zoning that allows someone to take your view. I know it sucks to lose your view. This is why there is a premium on "forever" views, either because you are on the bluffs, or on a hill where no one can obstruct your view.

      The land here is worth a lot, and people who spend that kind of money don't want to be stuck in a 800 square foot house.

      Delete
    2. 8:08,

      If you have not filed a deed restriction on your own property to restrict any future owners from expanding the building envelope, then you are a hypocrite. Of course, when your home is sold in the future, the money it brings to you or your heirs will be a fraction of what it might otherwise be without a deed restriction, but you don't care about that, right?

      So tell us, have you put a deed restriction on your property?

      Delete
    3. 808,
      You are an idiot. Nothing has been changed in this neighborhood by the city . They bought it knowing they could add on a paltry 700 sq. feet or so. Obviously a recent transplant or " new local" whining about change with no clue as to how much their own presence is ruining community character. OC LA or wherever you came from wants you back.

      Delete
    4. We bought recently on Rosebay and did our due diligence. We bought knowing the house is very small, but that there are no restrictions by the city on building a second story. There are already other homes in the same community with a second story. There is a plot of land directly west of Pacifica Serena that is slotted for development that will most certainly be two stories, possibly even three according the "At home in Encinitas" effort. Adding 600 square feet doesn't "dramatically" change the character of the community.
      There is no guarantee to a view when buying a home. Trees grow taller, neighborhoods change, new homes are built. It's absurd to think that your thumbnail view of water will remain constant when you buy a house two miles from the water.

      Delete
    5. Also this: "This growing family knew what they were buying into and now they want to dramatically change the neighborhood community character from what they had when they bought in. A little foresight coupled with personal responsibility, please folks. " The homeowners who bought inland should have had a little foresight as well. Not a good argument. They should have researched what the height folks west of them are allowed to build, and planned accordingly.

      Delete
    6. This lawsuit is adversely affecting "neighborhood community character". The lawsuit has nothing to do with community character, as it's in poor character.

      Delete
  10. This is the reason for Prop. A .... every property can and will likely eventually be developed to the fullest 2nd story. Without Prop A, You would be looking at 3 story buildings looking down on you.

    No Growth is good for life, good for property values, good for the environment and good for City Coffers.

    Current Managers are just too stupid to know how important property values are in relation to small grant opportunities from SANDAG ( SGAG).

    --Pro No Growth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slight correction on the reason for Prop A: the only thing it did was restore the original General Plan right to vote on zoning increases and height.

      Somewhere along the line one of the Councils decided they knew best (shades of Shaffer) and took the power from the people.

      It is not a no growth initiative, it is a "who decides" initiative.

      Its reversal is buried in the HEU language, so remember to vote "no" in November.

      Delete
  11. SANDAG monitors social media sites like this and interjects opposing opinions that run contrary to their agenda. They are spending $500 million to publicize/push/propagandize their transportation agenda, which is taxpayers' money being used for political purposes.
    Check out the NPR radio logs for the full story.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Vina hired a company to do the same thing against Prop A, remember?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vina hired Rutan & Tucker to deliver a pre-planned propaganda "analysis." R&T still had to cover their asses and tell the truth, so buried in the report was the admission that Prop A would work as planned once implemented.

      All the "unintended consequences" R&T and Council members warned against were hot air. The worst part? They knew it.

      Delete
    2. The city is doing it again.

      Delete
  13. I just checked my Grant Deed, no where does it say I have the right to a view......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2:48 PM opinion compliments of your Planning Dept. web-watcher.

      Delete
  14. Our planning commission discussed views with their legal advisor last week. The discussion starts at 1:56:30 on:
    http://encinitas.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1297

    This should settle the issue, the lawsuit has no merit.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There is no right to a view. Promote trees they are more beautiful.

    I have a view of the trees. protect the heritage trees. Especially from the City hackers. They are the worse offenders.

    ReplyDelete
  16. When we have the likes of Masih the destroyer, rampaging through our neighborhoods, every tree should be shaking to its roots. A Tree City designation is a lie when Masih is in control. One size fits all for him, no mater the neighborhood. He has been told directly for years to stop and yet, he continues unabated. Firing him is crucial along with his benefactor Manjeet, if there is anything positive ever to come out of our bought off Planning Dept.

    ReplyDelete
  17. While there is no view ordinance in Encinitas... the City has allowed infill and variances to create bigger and higher homes and more profits for developers.

    Unfortunately this has happened so much that the only way to right this wrong is to allow those whose views have been blocked by infill and variances a recognition of this fact when they rebuild to regain the views they once had before being blocked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And then it becomes your new community character and BAM! comes out the rubber stamp.

      Delete
    2. So the family that built a second story to get a better view will be able to add a third story because the house in front also built a second story blocking their view?

      Delete
    3. No, because there are height restrictions. 269 Rosebay is going to 22' of the maximum allowable 26'.

      Delete