Monday, April 24, 2006

Barratt Springs Into Action



After months of doing nothing on the building site (eastern project) suddenly Barratt American decided to restart work two days after Leucadia Cares announced their lawsuit
It kinda sucks for Leucadia Cares, but it turns out that if Barratt begins construction on the houses it gets even harder for a judge to make them follow the law. That is why they are now in a rush to get construction underway. Their action might be taken as a sign that they know they are going to lose the lawsuit.

Remember, in life it is always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

In other news Barratt American's CEO Michael D. Pattinson was named Business Person of the Year by the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce. link

31 comments:

  1. JP,

    As usual you haven't done your homework. Have you even taken the time to go down to the City to review the project file on this project. Personally reviewed the City ordinances and policies governing the project and met with City staff to make sure you understand the facts. I think not...based upon your uneducated, biased comments on this whole matter. You simply take the word of the side you are on without independent effort on your part to find the real truth. If you want this forum to be anything other than a crying towel for those who want to spin the facts you might want to get more involved and do your homework. Only then can you as a host of this forum be credible.

    A seeker of the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous, a seeker of truth, who provided nothing in facts, chose to insult instead of enlighten.

    What are the facts?

    Meow, meow, anonyomous, a seeker of truth, cat got your tongue?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm on my own side. I am not part of the Leucadia Cares group. I think the Nantucket project is stupid and ugly. The Leucadia Cares people seem to think they have a case. Pattinson has already publically admitted he loathes the grading permit process so maybe they are right. Do I think Leucadia Cares will win? NO.

    Feel free to post the facts yourself Seeker. You sound a little nervous.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Seeker do you know what a blog is? A blogger reacts to things in the news. Most bloggers do not do journalism they are opinion forums. Blogs are fun because kooks get called out on their bullshit. Thats right seeker I am calling you a kook. A crying towel for spinning the facts??? Like that kook Steve Aceti and his prop c bullshit? It's obvious that Barrat trucked in dirt to raise the site for ocean views. A ocean view is the diference between a 600,000 house and a million dollar house. C-ya.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Seeker of truth, who has obviously done the homework, please enlighten this group. What are the facts? Are you credible?

    ReplyDelete
  6. EMC 30.04 states, "BUILDING HEIGHT shall mean the vertical distance from the lower of the natural or finished exterior grade adjacent to the structure, to the highest portion of the structure immediately above."

    Barratt doesn't want to follow 30.04, is that what the lawsuit is about Seeker?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can anyone please tell me exactly how many lawsuits the City of Encinitas NOW has against it? I am doing research on our our City Attorney and it would be nice to know how inept he really is.Thanks for the info.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Seeker sounds an awful lot like Aceti. Is he back again with claims that have no facts attached?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Adding to the last question, how many lawsuits has the City of Encinitas had in the last year? Anyone that knows, please blog on and if you can be specific that would be great. For example Prop C, and A would be examples. Now we can add Barratt.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The real question is how many times has Barrat sued the city of Encinitas?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good point johnny taco. That would be another interesting question to add to the list. Do you happen to how many times they have sued. Wouldn't mind "nailing" a few more to the list.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hall property neighbors sued the city and won over the need for the city to do an EIR.
    Residents sued the city over Mark Bobo and easement at house on Summit.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dalager, Christy, and Houlihan didn't want to follow the law and the City got sued over the illegal tax. They just don't listen when people tell them what they are doing is illegal.

    They should not be in charge of our City's resources.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Who are you, seeker of the truth? Is your real name Pattinson? Or Stocks? Why are you calling the plain fact that Barratt Construction has skirted the height limit biased? Do you agree with the raised pads that the homes are being built on?

    I would like to know who benefits from this other than the buyers of these Mac Mansions and Barratt themselves.

    What is the real truth, other than that all of the residents near the development get burned for the views of a few rich, soul less people.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear Seeker of Truth: I have gone down to the city and looked at all the files of the Nantucket Project II. I have have also looked at the relevant sections of the code. Have you done this? I don't think so. You are full of bluster and hot air. I agree that you sound like Steve Aceti, the city's shill.

    The city approved this project in violation of the Municipal Code. The city also overlooked the phony numbers on the slope calculations used to justify raising the pad heights to give gravity flow on the sewers, but really to give the ocean views.

    Seeker of Truth: Go to the city and pull the files. You will find the tentative and final maps with natural grades, distances, and sewer line depths. Some simple high school math will give you the slope. It was not necessary to raise pad heights. And why did the city schedule a proposed change in the code last week concerning the very same code section that the lawsuit is based on? And why did the city suddenly pull the agenda item when the lawsuit was filled? You have some explaining to do.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Seeker here...

    Thanks for the set-up, I have gone to the City, reviewed the file, read the relevant codes, asked questions of staff and am satisfied that you are simple wrong. No offense. It would appear that the City, since its incorporation has measured building heights from the pad grades established by the subdivision maps. In fact, if you look at the other recent maps right in your own neighborhood, which I did, you will see that the houses now there were handled just that way. If you yourself live on a lot that was subdivided since the City incorporated, you will find that the height of your own home was also measured this way. So after looking at the file and not seeing any meaningful objection to the subdivision map for this project, I can only assume that the people objecting just missed the process and are now trying to back-door their objections. I live in another part of Leucadia and our neighborhood did intervene on a subdivision map a few years ago and did have input on pad heights/building heights. We got the developer to work with us during that time to hear our concerns and he made some changes. I am sorry that you guys just missed the appropriate time to speak up, but I don't think it is now fair to anyone to simply change the rules that have been followed in this town for many years to accomodate your group's tardiness in participating in the process. Next time, I am sure you guys will not miss it.

    The Seeker

    ReplyDelete
  17. Offense taken "truth" seeker. You are seeking to justify your BS, not the truth.

    Chapter 30.04 of Encinitas Municipal Code says height is measured from the lower of natural grade or the elevated pad. Because other developments went through, in the past, using other criteria, does not mean that Barratt is following the rules in the Nantucket mess.

    The City staff and Council cannot pick and choose what codes it will follow and which it will not follow. A variance should have been sought if this was to be an exception. Many people were not timely notified who are concerned about the views they will lose. Story poles should have been erected.

    Not everyone can read plans. Again, not everyone was notified. It's hard to prove negatives. Of course the City's "word" (not verified under penalty of perjury) is usually just "taken" at face value. This leads to appeals in the Court. The court has not always been so favorable to the outright abuse of process currently practiced by the City of Encinitas.

    Who will defend this lawsuit? Will an expensive outside attorney have to be hired again? Or will Sabine & Morrison have to hire more staff; they are so litigious, both as plaintiffs and defendants.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear Seeker: You missed the point and are seeking to divert the argument. The whole justification for the increase in pad height was to give gravity flow on sewers. The slope numbers were manipulated. In your visit to city hall didn't you check this? Take your pocket calculator next time. The whole project is based on fraud.

    I concede that the neighbors got into the process too late on Project I, but not on Project II. The code is clear. If the building height is to be measured from the elevated pad height, it needs to be discussed and approved. It wasn't, as was admitted by the city. The city is trying to say that this approval is automatic and is the way they have always done it. Not true. There are recent example in the city where the measurement from elevated pad height was not approved, but only because some very savvy neighbors knew the code. The whole process is very foggy and designed to sneak things through. Wayne Pascoe on the Ades and Gish greenhouse property on Balour is trying to do the same thing right now, saying in public that the measurement is taken from the pad height. But the city knows it is in big trouble. That is why they tried to slip through the code change on April 19, but pulled Agenda Item #5 at the last minute. Or was this just a coincidence? I have the staff report on the code change printed out, so don't try to spin this. You are a shill for a corrupt city.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Seeker,

    If all is good and well with the "way we have always done it," then why did the planning staff change their ways just weeks after the last appeal to City Council. If it wasn't broke why did they fix it?

    Why did Dalager suggest that the EMC be changed at the appeal?

    Why didn't staff recommend that the language be updated to fit what they thought SHOULD be the practice a few years ago when the EMC was reviewed and updated?

    Why do you believe the b.s. about the City always giving 26' from the pad? Staff themselves gave examples at the appeal where they said that building envelopes were not allowed to go to 26’. That must mean that a landowner cannot build 26' up from a raised pad by right.

    As for "it is the way it has always been done", this is NOT CORRECT nor particularly relevant. Just because people (sometimes) don’t follow the law the law doesn’t go away.

    Amazed at Seeker's blindness.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Seeker here again...

    I have sought and in the land of the selectively blind, look what my one good eye has found...

    CHAPTER 30.16
    RESIDENTIAL ZONES
    Development Standards.

    30.16.010B(6)(d).
    "Finished pad elevation shall be determined as follows:
    An approved subdivision map may establish the finished building pad elevation from which building height is measured..."

    As the project file indicates, the pad heights are clearly called out on each lot on the approved Map and then the PC approved the houses as measured from the approved pad elevations. Looks like everything was done in accordance with the WHOLE code, not just what some NIMBY's who missed the process have decided to distort the facts over to support their own self-interested position.

    I also looked at the sewer line and the math seems pretty simple. My figures came out to be about a 1% rise from the City's sewer main in Andrew up to the end of the new private street. The Engineering counter says the MINIMUM required is 1% to get the sewer to work. So I'm not sure what you are coming up with, but this seems to check out as well.

    NEXT TIME, please read the whole code, so I don't have to make two trips to the City to get to the truth. Not my idea of fun...

    The Seeker

    P.S. JP is right, this is a silly little blog. And as I will add, for silly little bitter people...

    The Seeker has left the building................................

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dear Seeker: Let me quote the complete line from the code.

    "An approved subdivision map may establish the finished building pad elevation from which building height is measured with consideration given to on-site and surrounding uses and terrain." (30.16.010B)

    You very conveniently left out the last part of the sentence. The Planning Commission gave no consideration to the surrounding uses and terrain. It was never discussed. And the key word here is "may" and not "shall." It is not automatic with the approval of the tentative and final map. Even Commissioner McCabe admitted this. But the fix was in.

    Check your calculations again. I think you flunked math. The average depth of the sewer line along Sheridan and Andrew is 8 feet. A 1% slope allows a run of 800 feet to connect to the sewer from natural slope. The raised pads give another 3-5 feet of elevation. The necessary run lines are all much shorter. The pads were raised to get ocean views.

    My dear Seeker: You can only be David Meyer. No one else would make two trips to city hall, as you claim. You have much to lose if Leucadia Cares prevails. You will face legal liability with Barratt because you did not deliver. You stand to lose the low income housing unit that will be put in your wife's trust. Jeez, I feel really sorry for you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Truth is not spinApril 29, 2006 9:43 AM

    Seeker, you should be called "Spinner." The only thing you are seeking is approval of your bs false claims. You twist everything so that you can justify your wrongheaded, wronghearted actions.

    Yes, according to state law there is a big difference between may and shall. The zoning definitions of 30.14 says the building height shall be measured from the lower of the natural terrain, or the elevated pad. The code you cite, Spinner, is incomplete, and misleading. It says may be measured from elevated pad with consideration for the surrounding terrain. This was not discussed.

    No one has answered my question of why story poles are not required so that those affected can see the finished height, after grading changes. That would have given indisputable notice to the neighbors. You are trying to sneak someting through. This is obvious to everyone.

    Yes, I am beginning to think you are either David Myer or Michael Pattinson.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Seeker here...

    Ok, let's see... I've been Pattinson, Stocks, Aceti and now Meyer. Sorry guess again... What next, I'm ET? Do you really think I would have needed two trips to the City to get my information if I was any of the guys above. I may not even be a guy.

    I am actually a neighbor who thinks what you are doing is simply wrong -- making things up to get your way. We don't let our kids do this, so why should we let the grown-ups. Set a better example and stop embarrassing our lovely community. Your divisiveness is poisoning our neighborhood, so just move out if you can't stand it. I think the majority of us would rather the new houses over those rotting greenhouses anyway. And now you are going to pick on someone providing affordable housing. I for one am concerned that my kids will ever be able to afford to live here. Shame, Shame on you!

    What have you personally ever done for our community, other than subject us to your anger and resentment?

    From your rants, it is clear you are one of the people involved in the group tearing our neighborhood apart. By the way, I am looking at the article that started this whole mess and I believe if you are in that picture, you are trespassing. I hope Barratt sends this to the police and has you all arrested. Although, it is clear you all have no respect for private property anyway.

    As to your reading of the code, that you so conveniently missed before I did the research you either didn't do or chose to ignore, as I recall the map was approved 5-0 and the design review for the houses was either approved 5-0 or 4-1. So, the PC and Council clearly considered the surrounding uses and terrain since the two story houses, I assume, go to 26' from the new pads. My omission of the rest of the sentence was not intentional, since the record shows this was considered or not seen as an issue.

    As to the sewer, you obviously haven't gone to the engineering department for any explanation, as I have, of the way the sewer line must be designed. The picture they drew me also included the need for the sewer to have minimum earth coverage and be at minimum depths as it connects to both the city system and the houses. This does not allow for your simple analysis, so don't speak on this topic again until you've done your homework. Also, the guy I spoke with at the counter, said there were also stormwater drainage issues on the project that influenced the final grades. I guess the water eventually has to find its way offsite, so the back of the site had to be raised to make this happen. I didn't do any more research on this, so maybe you could when you go back to the city for your sewer line design 101 class.

    Ok, I am now really exhausted with debating people who will not change their minds, will not research the complete FACTS and really need to get a life. I'm going back to kiss my kids and go out and enjoy our lovely community. Do us all a favor and put a For Sale sign on your house today, if you just can't stand our neighborhood for what it is -- a great place.

    The Seeker will not return..................

    ReplyDelete
  24. Seeker you shouldn't refer to yourself in the third person. It sounds fruity bro.
    I don't know much about this lawsuit but I agree that Encinitas is slowly losing it's independence by the anywhere USA style subdivisions.
    I am BITTER about the city and Kerry Miller trying to steal my mom's 'blighted' house in coastal Leucadia. Hell yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Seeker: Your frustration and irrationality are very apparent. Why aren't your comments directed at yourself? They fit.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The worst part about this Nantucket project is the bad blood it has created.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Seeker,

    Did you do your homework on how and why the roadway was NARROWED on Andrew and Sheridan?

    ReplyDelete
  28. "making things up to get your way."

    What way is that? What does that mean? What do you think people want?

    As for making things up, what facts regarding the building height do you disagree with?

    ReplyDelete
  29. This will be settled in court by a jury of 12 of your peers. The final anaylisis will be had in the courtroom. That is why America is a great place to live, disputes can be settled civilly. I suspect, after dealing with the city on buildining many issues, that the city messed up again and the plantiffs will prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Will it be a jury trial?

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed, after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.