As Cardiff-by-the-Sea turns 100 it’s worth remembering that the Cardiff that is, almost wasn’t.
Cardiff is the result of “small town zoning.” Commercial buildings in the six-block district can only cover 30 to 40 percent of the lot and have a two-story height limit. Setbacks keep the streets wide and views protected. The zoning prevents high density, mixed use development and preserves a small “beach town” identity.
From 1999 to 2010, Encinitas wrote a new zoning document called “The Cardiff Specific Plan.” During this time Cardiff came under pressure from developers who wanted City Council to give them new property rights to increase building size by 200 percent and mixed use zoning. Cardiff would have tripled in size. Residents wanted zoning that would protect the Cardiff they loved.
During the writing of the Cardiff Specific Plan, City Council told citizens they wanted public input, but to many residents it didn’t seem that way. City staff did the opposite of what residents said they wanted. Some claimed city council members who had election campaigns financed by developers worked against the citizens.
For instance, 131 residents attending a city conference led by the Rick Planning group in 2001 produced a report titled “A Vision for Cardiff,” that said, “The conference did not favor increasing height limits,” and “current limitations should be strictly enforced, as should limitations on total square footage, lot coverage and setbacks.”
But, after the city had paid them $100,000, the Steele Consulting group presented a draft of the Cardiff Specific Plan in 2007 that proposed rezoning Cardiff to the benefit of developers, allowing three-story buildings, 200 percent increases to density, mixed use, and zero setbacks that would create ocean view blocking street walls — the very things residents did not want.
When the Steele draft met with resident disapproval, the council appointed the Cardiff Citizens Specific Plan Area Review Committee (CSPARC) to rewrite the Steele Draft. The council paid Mr. Peder Norby to lead the meetings and three city planners took notes.
City staff prepared an analysis showing how the single story VG Donuts center would become a three-story mixed use building that would cover the lot with building and have underground parking. The owner of the Post Office promoted his site as suitable for a three-story Walgreens. Residents fought back with presentations on the negative impact of mixed use on community identity.
On Sept. 11, Sept. 18 and Oct. 2, 2007, the CSPARC committee held five votes on mixed use in the Cardiff Specific Plan and reached a consensus that mixed use would be limited to lots of 5,000 square feet and only on the east side of Newcastle Avenue. The votes were filmed by residents.
One year later, Sept. 17, 2008, Mr. Norby told the Encinitas Planning Commission that the Citizens Committee did not reach consensus on mixed use, ignoring the five committee votes he had led. High density mixed use was put back in the plan and the hard work of the volunteer committee was almost undone. Later, the city staff that took notes told the City Council that, “Staff would like to emphasize the committee did not reach consensus on mixed use in the plan area.” Many said the fix was in.
The Cardiff Specific Plan finally came before the council in 2010 for a vote. Some 20 speakers spoke. An Air Force Academy graduate told the council that the Constitution he swore to defend was a “Government of, for and by the people, not a government of, for and by the developers.”
One resident presented a film showing the five votes of the Citizens Committee.
The council voted to approve the Citizens Cardiff Specific Plan removing new mixed use zoning in Cardiff. The plan is now awaiting approval from the Coastal Commission.
This decision means, that for the time being, Cardiff will keep its unique community character.
Many fear that given developer funding of the election campaigns in Encinitas, it won’t be long before Cardiff again comes under attack.
Last Saturday, many people gathered at the Cardiff Post Office for a parade to celebrate its 100th birthday. Floats and revelers marched down Newcastle Avenue, a wide street with small buildings on small lots past wide open spaces with views to the sea. They passed Cardiff residents who lined the avenue. They don’t make small towns like this anymore. Let’s hope we get to keep this one.
For those wanting more information on this topic, visit savecardiff.com.
previous post
30 comments
Farrow claims Norby told the truth when Norby did not tell the truth. I saw the video at http://www.savecardiff.com . Farrow claimed ‘Peder was right’ when Norby is wrong.
Mr. Farrow ignores the 131 citizens who went to the 2001 conference saying they wanted to keep current zoning, I geuss they don’t matter in Mr. Farrows so called ‘community’. He ignores the video and citizens who went to the meetings and spoke, I guess they don’t matter either.
He does support Norby and city staff who lied. It is scary that city staff, consultants, Mr. Farrow and a few property owenrs were willing to support an untruth to make more money. Do we want to raise our kids to tell the truth and do the right thing, or to lie?
Brett,this is not about my house or the houses of the ‘selfish’ Cardiff residents who don’t like what you offer. Among other issues, you are insulting them and appear to be using false pretenses in promoting your artistic sensibilities, when it is obvious that you are out to make the most money possible off of the ‘selfish’ citizens of Cardiff.
Professionals don’t have to compliment themselves and insult others who might compare some of your Little Italy units to prison cells.
Take a hint from the Surfing Madonna artist, who created an almost universally beloved work that people embraced immediately. He was motivated to express a message of "Save the Ocean," in a manner that touches many who see his work.
Real artists don’t have to convince others that their work is good. Aesthic excellence is defined through the feedback from others who do not stand to make money, and I don’t see a single person here who doesn’t see that you are simply upset that you can’t increase your profits at the expense of Cardiff residents, as you had planned!
To be fair, your work is not as ugly as the horrible output from the laundromat-like office of Bart Smith at DNZ. He also likes to tell people that his work is beautiful.
Okay, last one. I did not maximize the size of the houses neither in terms of FAR, coverage, etc. Nor did I pursue any variances. The site is zoned R-11. The usual plan would be a multi-unit condo, or twin homes with garage doors facing the street. I went with detached houses where people are first and the car is secondary. I also retained the original house which after a perfunctory historical review could have been relocated or demolished. The average lot size in my project is 4,627 square feet. In Cardiff, on the edge of a commercial district that’s pretty good.
I bet I wouldn’t like the last commentators house either. What the address?
I think this kind of nasty remark, made anonymously, doesn’t elevate the conversation.
I’m proud of my work, I stand behind it and live in it. And I use my real name.
It is this kind of hostility, misinformation and intimidation, that has controlled the debate. Which is why I’m speaking up about it.
I did a Google image search on Brett Farrow and his projects in Little Italy and the transformation of the Victor Kremer home that was shown in a Reader article, to what it is now.
What is he so proud of? I understand that he has optimized how much money he could pull out of this, and neighboring Cardiff properties and put into his pocket, but to have artistic pride in this is insulting. How credible does he think it is to take the role of artist, when his real ambition is to pocket money and he has left neighbors with the parking mess and other problems from his project?
The classic craftsman details of the Kremer house have been lost in the Farrow complex. Surround it with a 15′ wall with a barbed wire top and you have Osama Bin Laden headquarters!
Let’s have some authenticity here. I liked Cardiff better when the Victor Kremer house was the Victor Kremer house!
Norby and city staff manipulate the facts. I just watched the video at http://www.savecardiff.com site Norby says the "votes will be recorded and passed along’ but he doesn’t do it. Staff wrote down what the votes were, but didn’t tell the council about the votes.
The movie is about 8 minutes, it shows the votes and tells the story. I thought the end of the movie was shocking. IF this is how we are represented we all should be afraid.
Also, city staff did prepare an anlysis of Pacific Station and 3 story buildings for Cardiff.
I think maybe some commenting here might read the column again, it clearly says what the committee voted on.
City staff made a powerpoint of 3 story mixed use in Cardiff using Pacific station Audet didn’t make that up. The city wanted it.
Mr. Norby is on video saying the committee consensus was mixed use. He says consensus on the video many times. He then told the Planning Commission and the City Council the Committee did not reach consensus. Audet didn’t make that up. Thank goodness for the video, it shows the truth.
It is unfortunate that the committee was not represented accurately by Mr. Norby or city staff.
Lastly, State Density Bonus laws give a developer 3 incentives for mixed use, that can not be regulated by the city. These are incetives to exceed height, square footage, FAR, setbacks, and more. THe only way to ensure a 2 story height limit was to limit mixed use which was why the citizens committee voted that way.
Brett Farrow seems to have a burr under his saddle when he didn’t get his mixed use. The city planning department and their cohorts used heavy-handed manipulation to try and push mixed use and taller buildings on the community. Those are the facts. The community said NO.
The comparisons to Moonlight and Pacific Station are incorrect. And that’s been my problem with "Save Cardiff". There has been a manipulation of facts and fear mongering.
It’s one thing to say that you want a building moratorium, but how you get that does not mean it is okay to use deceptive sound bytes, (the heavily edited film used by Audet), false claims, intimidation and tactics to create hysteria.
Here is the link to the initial proposed plan;
http://www.cityofencinitas.org/NR/rdonlyres/8071806C-EE73-4285-9C0F-57FFED1A0E1C/0/cspdraftpresentation.pdf
It was 2 stories and 30 ft height limit, 3 stories and 33′ in the C-CM-1 zone. And, I’ll say it again, it was a consensus that 3 stories not be allowed, but, it was not a consensus that mixed-use not be allowed.
Try walking or riding a bike down Birmingham, along Manchester or San Elijo. How about the dysfunctional crossing at Chesterfield & 101?
A war on cars is more like a war on being able to get around otherwise.
If new buildings come into Cardiff they should contribute to making things better, not just continuing mistakes. Cars in the back, less driveways, more bike lanes, paths and less of 1950’s mentality.
"The initial concept was to provide a future where people did not need their car and could walk to goods and services from their homes."
Propaganda-jedi-mind trick on the weak minded!!!
How would the initial concept have made the walking distance or walking time between the homes of those evil drivers shorter?
Stop it with the smart growth propaganda that fuels the fake war on cars and profits for real estate speculators.
A specific plan is simply a document to change zoning. The city planned to upzone in the Cardiff Specific Plan area to allow more density through mixed-use, larger lot coverage, three stories, and reduced setbacks. The city saw increased income through property taxes, and some commercial property owners saw an opportunity to sell out at big profit.
Audet has it right. The Cardiff small town scale that we all love was saved from becoming something like Moonlight Lofts and Pacific Station. No, it wouldn’t have happened overnight, but certain developers were licking their chops. Now they are unhappy because they lost a chance to personally enrich themselves.
The movie showing the citizens votes is up at http://www.savecardiff.com website. During the meetings the citizens vote and reach consensus. Then Mr. Norby and city staff tell the planning commission and city council they didn’t. Watch it for yourself and decide. I was at the meetings in the Pointsettia room when it happened live.
Elected officials and hired consultants, and city staff who are paid to lead meetings In Encinitas and North County need to represent the citizens not themselves. They have to be held accountable.
Well said Cardiff Dad! We are one of the few places in the world that has this spectacular combination of beautiful weather, views and the Pacific Ocean, and we are supposed to let others come in and steal it? I think not!
The comments by the city employees and their supporters (or is it the other way around) show a markedly "this goes to eleven" attitude about the development. Kind of reminds me of how the Clintons approached their healthcare plan when Bill was first elected: "we know better than you poor people, be glad to have our enlightened guidance". I guess when your premise is mistaken, then it’s hard for anything that follows to be on track.
I’m watching the Tour de France on TV these days, and wondering what the idyllic villages these cyclist pass through would look like if Encinitas Council (and staff) had their way. Those villages are so old. Not at all modern. Two story buildings, except for the seemingly obligatory church – which clearly must have had a variance, so that’s a precedent, right? Certainly these villages could benefit from a Monoprix with underground parking, no?
The residents of Cardiff don’t want our town to turn into an Orange County city, or Carlsbad, or LA, or ANYTHING but Cardiff. Those of us that live here may have slightly different ideas of what’s perfect about Cardiff and what needs protecting most, but by-and-large, the folks that call this home (not the folks that call it Business) want it to stay a home. And that’s the purest, simplest explanation of our resistance to further commercialization of our town. The City Council, et. al., never seemed to understand that, nor could they fathom why we wouldn’t accept a "we know better" change to our town’s very soul.
I applaud Mr Audet for taking the lead on this, along with the heat. If not for his calls to arms — alerting the residents of Cardiff of the intent of the Council and then documenting and challenging the disingenuity of the leadership and their staff — Cardiff would be getting prepped for slaughter now.
So let’s be glad that we can live in this wonderful town. Let’s be glad that it’s soul is intact. It’s beautiful as it is, and I hope that in years to come, when the Tour of California comes through town, Cardiff can inspire the watchers the way 1000-year-old French villages do. If we defend our town — as Mr Audet has done — we’ll preserve the treasure of Cardiff. And our jewel will hold it’s worth and continue to shine.
Respectively submitted from Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California, United States of America
The last comment demonstrates how corrupt this city has become with its City Hall employee unions, its developer-run campaigns for Stocks, Bond, and Gaspar, and its preferential sweetheart deals between the City and developers, that nobody can believe that there are many of us who just want honest and competent leadership.
Instead of asking who is paying Audet, ask the editor of the Coast News how much people are paid. Many people write pieces for FREE, because they think it is important to communicate community information that is kept under wraps at City Hall or they feel passionately about a particular cause like animal rights.
This is a great community full of 60,000 residents. Get the majority council members, City Employee Unions and the developers, to serve the community and not drain the value from taxpayers, and it would be perfect.
speaking of making money, who is paying andrew audet? suspicious.
I supported a height limit at 2 stories no matter the case. I also supported incentives for 1 story development. And, I contributed the idea of making 10,000 sf the maximum lot size to promote small scale and not allow larger projects like Pacific Station. Downtown Encinitas allows 3 story or 33′ in height, the boogie man of affordable housing has nothing to do with it. We could have put a cap at 26′ in here in Cardiff. There were ways to make positive changes.
What I opposed was automobile parking in the front and curb cuts.
I live in the Specific Plan area with my family, in one of my projects. My house was Victor Kremer’s house who put "by-the-sea" in Cardiff’s name. And yes, he was a developer too. Anyone in the Composer District can thank him for what he did.
I very much support the current business development plan for Cardiff. Thank goodness for people like Andrew Audet who saw the bigger picture. If you want to see what happens when you allow for 3 story buildings – look at Pacific Station in downtown Encinitas. I do not consider this 3 story building with no setbacks to be acceptable. This 3 story building was allowed because it included "low income housing". An legal variance that would have been the back door approach used in Cardiff also. If you allow 3 story buildings with no setbacks it WILL change the character of our wonderfull community known as Cardiff or Cardiff by the Sea (take your pick).
With Regard to Mr. Farrow,
I appreciate that you are a surfer and therefore must love our natural beauty in Encinitas. At least we have some shared values on some matters.
Your vision of how you see your projects is admirable, but it is not how those who live there experience what you have created, or I think that you yourself might still be there.
I think that people should look up your name and view examples of your work since people who evaluate their own work are not always objective, so if you are going to say that people who don’t want what you sell are ‘selfish,’ I think that you should go somewhere else where your style is appreciated.
The pattern that we have observed in Encinitas is that developers place projects like your Little Italy projects in desirable neighborhoods and extract the value from exisiting property owners who are left to deal with ongoing safety issues and a degraded quality of life.
I personally think that the ‘selfish’ ones are not those who have created the original beauty and value, but those who come in to extract it from others. And in terms of using our real names, we are not the ones who have licenses and claim to be experts as you are. We are the people who live here already and want to keep it nice.
Andrew Audet has been bashed repeatedly for sharing documented public information in an opinion column, so we would invite you and others in your field to uphold the standards of your profession and create projects that we like–not what you can make the most money from.
A comment on the building that houses wine steals –
There was community opposition to that building that received VARIANCES and other special previleges that included not having a loading zone. It is not what is currently allowed or planned.
Yes, I am a developer and an architect. The reason I develop my own projects is to not have to do the typical junk we see built. My projects are low scale, humanistic and in walkable areas. I focus on owner occupant buildings as well whether commercial or residential.
When I lived in Little Italy it was a less intensive urbanism. It was eclectic, all kinds of people and low scale. India Street still has a majority of 1 & 2 story buildings. It has changed also, some things better, some worse.
I left Little Italy because I am also a life long surfer and wanted to get back to the beach. Cardiff is great because it is walkable unlike most other areas and I like the people and subculture.
I would again state that what was proposed in Cardiff was good, but, fear and lies took over the process. Take a look at the Mercantile Building at Chesterfield and San Elijo where Patagonia is now. That building is what was proposed by the Specific Plan. Take a look at where wine steals is, that is what is allowed under the current and proposed planning.
I’d also invite Old Man or anybody else to use their real name in these discussions which usually get nasty when people can hide who they are.
Audet continues to mislead the public.
He only showed up in town (recently) after two-thirds of the process was finished; and then he acted in a very heavy-handed manner that literally frightened the private property owners of downtown CBTS into staying away from the meetings; local folks whom have been paying taxes on the downtown Cardiff-By-The-Sea properties since the 50’s.
Ask to see his disturbing video written and produced by Audet about the Specific Plan Process that was shown the evening the city council voted on the Cardiff-By-The-Sea Specific Plan.
Creepy.
At a minimum, if Audet knew what he was talking about, and he doesn’t, he’d know that the correct name for the little jewel is ‘Cardiff-By-The-Sea; ask Irene K.
She does know what she’s talking about.
I do not live in Cardiff, but I am familiar with Brett Farrow’s mixed use buildings in the Little Italy area and the dissatisfaction of area residents with the lack of parking and other issues related to these types of high-density projects.
If this type of environment of living over a businesses in what some have described as "cinder block chic," is what Cardiff rejects, I am sympathetic that residents want to preserve what they have instead. It is true that Cardiff has strip malls, but I actually like them better than many of the new unfinished, gray, cinder block structures that I have seen in Little Italy.
I don’t think that the types of cinder block dwellings under 1,000 square feet (some under 500′) really work with the Cardiff community, and if Mr. Farrow liked the look and feel of these projects so much and didn’t mind the traffic and parking problems that these developments made worse, why did he leave the Little Italy area and move here?
I agree with Andrew Audet and other Cardiff residents who want to keep Cardiff the way that it is. Overwhelmingly, Encinitas residents love this City and see no need for out of town developers, or Encinitas developers for that matter, to come in and change what we value so that they can make money and we can be stuck with the consequences.
Brett Farrow is a developer. Need I say more?
Brett Farrow should discuss his experiences of wonderful living in mixed use apartments in the Little Italy area of San Diego. Wonder why he decided to leave mixed use and come to Cardiff? Could the reason be because of the high density, the lack of parking, the constant noise from living in mixed use?
After sitting through several hearings I concluded the land use change came from inside city hall from the staff with a push from some local activists. This idea was a huge character change in both the scale of Cardiff and the demographics of Cardiff. We all want Cardiff not Venice West.
Peder is right, I was at the meetings.
The people who worked to "Save Cardiff" were usually those who drive in cars to our local businesses. The initial concept was to provide a future where people did not need their car and could walk to goods and services from their homes.
The modest plans initially proposed 2 story buildings with, as an option, people living on the second floor or having live-work spaces. We have this above Pipes, next to Besta Wan and in a few other locations. As our town becomes increasingly expensive, mixed-use was an opportunity for more housing options for young and old. This was opposed by those who wanted to protect and promote strip mall development and large areas of of asphalt parking lots, (ever wonder why the sand above high tide is black?).
What happened as a result of the efforts by "Save Cardiff" was a profound, and selfish mistake.
The reason why Encinitas sought to become a city in the first place was to prevent the type of high density, mixed use abuses that Audet describes in his piece.
All of the Encinitas communities wish to keep their community character just like Cardiff does. Why should developers keep receiving favors at the expense of the majority of Encinitas citizens who like our city just the way that it is?
Thanks for sharing this Cardiff story that is really about every community in the City of Encinitas!
As my name was used in this article, I want to clarify my actions attributed herein
The group worked in a consensus fomat. When consensus was reached no formal votes were taken and the consensus of the group was recorded.
On tho issue of mixed use, no consensus was achieved after several meetings, lacking a consensus a vote was held, I recall that vote to be 6 to 5 in favor of some mixed use.
That vote was challenged a week later with a another and the results held.
After that had been established three vitas as to lot size were taken and the group only cavorts mix use on lots of 5000 ft or less.
I hope this clarifies the actions of the group and pardon grammar and spelling, I am typing this on an I phone
Cheers
peder
…."Setbacks keep the streets wide….."
Uh…last time I checked, most Cardiff streets were narrow, and we fought to keep them that way.
Comments are closed.