My friend Al is a structural engineer who lives in Leucadia. He is very political and has been a huge supporter of the "Right to Vote" Initiative and got a lot of people to sign the petition.
I encouraged him to re-read The Initiative top to bottom. He spotted the same fatal flaw many of us did. The Initiative raises the residential height to 30'.
Al's comments are below the graph.
"The Right -to- Vote Initiative is extremely flawed when it comes to the height restrictions... My analysis shows that the allowable heights of almost all homes in Encinitas would be increased based on this initiative, and the bulk and mass would be even more view blocking... Currently the max height of a house with a ridge is 26 ft and the max height of a house with a flat roof is 22 ft. Especially effected are homes on hillsides on the uphill side!!!! Currently for hillsides 12ft to a max 16ft above the street, would be increased to 30 ft... The devil is in the wording of this initiative which is a major let down for me... Wording that supersedes the existing zoning height laws may have been unintentionally included in the initiative, but the fact is the result is a height increase....It is unfortunate for the people of Encinitas that the group responsible for this initiative made this terrible mistake. Unfortunately we will need to vote this initiative down and go back to the drawing board with a new and improved version...It was the initial intent to vote on zoning changes, which is how this initiative was pitched on the street corner, and I think that the Right -to- Vote initiative should address only that moving forward. Attached is a portion of the analysis of the impacts of the initiative, as well as some portions of the existing code. There are a lot of impacts of this initiative, but I feel this blanket height increase for residential zones is the most obvious problem with the initiative."
Remember, height was a huge battle during the Cardiff Specific Plan.
Revisit
www.savecardiff.com
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
ReplyDeleteHow do you read the 30 feet as repealing existing code, and not setting a city-wide maximum while preserving existing more restrictive rules?
Continuing to allow 3 stories on 101 in Leucadia is continuing to suffocate and kill commerce here. There simply can't be enough parking provided for more of these obese structures here on our 2 mile, single sided skinny stretch of hwy. Anyone encouraging a developer to do so is not acting in the builder's best interest as the last 5 years have shown. None of the giants next to me have sold since they were built 4 years ago, and few have been occupied for any length of time. They also went back to the bank. The "live/work" Lofts at Moonlight Beach recently sold for many millions less than they cost the builder to construct. Not a real good track record, and hardly something the group L-101 (of which I'm a board member), should promote any further for our area. The city recently asked L-101 to take a stand on Prop A - like DEMA supposedly did. (I keep hearing different stories about their unanimous decision to oppose Prop A.) I happen to like Pacific Station. Don't know if they've all sold yet, but I thought they went for a lot more money before a friend of mine bought 3 condos there recently. A guy came in my shop the other day who bought one too. He likes it. I forgot to ask him how he likes the parking, as occasionally I've had trouble finding a spot beneath the place. GREAT store above too, and high time real food was available and convenient downtown for its neighbors. Downtown Encinitas is getting a lot harder to find a place to park for sure. And I don't see Downtown needing more Pacific Stations. But I'm glad the one we got replaced that enormous dysfunctional tin barn that used to be there. Also happy the "Small Mall" did not get gobbled up with the project (and kudos to Judy Cunningham for her recent remodel of the corner there - looks great!)
ReplyDeleteDifferent areas of Encinitas have different needs. Prop A doesn't ban large developments (as the rumor goes), just that such be voted on by the public. But zoning on our portion of hwy between Enc. Blvd and La Costa Ave (whether you prefer your area call Encinitas, Leucadia, Merle or Bufford), at least needs to return to the 2 story maximum like it used to be.
Losing a view because of Prop A if it passes appears it could occur for some and that would be one bad aspect of it if that is so. One consolation being that the new structure nearby would have less of a negative impact of density for their neighborhood (being 2 stories instead of 3) and Cardiff is getting pretty intense with density in the residential areas on the coast. At least uptown Cardiff at Vons and Value Fair and downtown Cardiff at Good Morning and VG's are about the same size they've always been. (I think Darryl at GM named them uptown and downtown because there are more high heels across the street.)
The "fatal flaw" is in your friend, Al's logic, JP. The height limit CAP is not to exceed 30 ft. Nothing is said, or would be changed, re existing height limits that are less than 26 ft.
ReplyDeleteAlso, re "imagining" a 30 ft. structure 5 ft. from our property lines, ask Fred about that too! Right now, 33 ft. buildings are crammed next to him!
Accessory structures would continue to have their current lower height limit restrictions. People opposing the initiative are trying to CONFUSE the public with this kind of false logic and obfuscation.
I don't really believe that "Al" convinced his buddies to sign the initiative. Why wouldn't he be willing to come out publicly? This stuff is pure hearsay. The initiative supports the existing GP and EMC. The N101SP is inconsistent with the GP re the GP's citywide 30 ft. height limit and our Zoning Code which says the height CAP is to be measured from the lower of finished or natural grade on undeveloped properties without a tentative map.
The initiative would eliminate loopholes. The City can write an ordinance to eliminate the 4/5 majority loophole, and then Council can, by a simple majority, change the definition of what constitutes "upzoning," requiring that at least 5 acres most be rezoned for an "amendment to be required" also redefining "increased intensity" with a new "chart." The initiative locks it down and makes it easy. What's hard to follow is that Tentative Map Policy does not match EMC, and the 33 ft. height limit for the N101SP does NOT match the GP. Passing the initiative would bring consistency and compliance with State Law.
W.C Varones is correct. The 22ft(flat roof)/26ft (max) max in height our residential areas is preserved through our municipal codes. All the initiative does is make sure that no building can be higher than 30 ft without a vote of the people. The fact that people opposing the initiatives are trying to make it a case that now your neighbor can build a 30 ft structures is very disingenuous.
ReplyDelete5:58 & 8;12
ReplyDeleteThe subject does have an air of good cop/ bad cop. Thanks for the details.
But as far as recommending someone to ask me about having a 33' structure next to a 1 story, they must first be warned about my elaborations.
I'm voting for it. It's better than What we currently have.
ReplyDeleteThis may clear things up somewhat. The general plan takes precedence. After reviewing the general plan I do find partial reference of the present municipal code residential heights. It's in the housing element analysis of potential constraints to density increase, page H-46, which finds the current heights not a constraint. It's not a complete re-state of the current height regulations, and is a reference back to the municipal code. So we would have yet another scenario of inconsistency with the MC and the General Plan. Possible RTV is banking on the reference in the Gen Plan to hold, but the wording in the initiative clearly changes the muni code. I guess the question is, does that wording in the Gen Plan hold. If so great, it's not as bad as I thought, though there are a bunch of other type of issues that I'm not prepared to tackle that I'm sure will cause even more controversy if approved...And that is why I'm siding with Barth and Kranz on this one...It's going to get even more confusing... Lol.
ReplyDelete