Encinitas city planners have selected Costa Mesa law firm Rutan & Tucker to conduct a report on possible effects of the Right to Vote Initiative, as asked for by the City Council on Feb.13, the planning department confirmed.More background on Rutan & Tucker's Jeff Oderman here at Friends for Fullerton's Future, a sort of Leucadia Blog Norte, a blog that was instrumental in a successful recall election against Fullerton City Council over the cover-up of the police beating death of homeless man Kelly Thomas.
Here's Oderman's bio. You'll note he's got a long history of representing developers.
Obviously, the Rutan & Tucker report will warn of dire consequences of allowing the public to vote on up-zoning. Those warnings will then be used as cover by Encinitas City Council to avoid taking a position, and then will again be used in a fear campaign by developers to sway the public at election time.
Lisa Shaffer and Tony Kranz turned their backs on us when they signed the petition and told us it was a good initiative, only to get elected and now tell us that they have some serious concerns about it.
ReplyDeleteSome candidates will say anything to get elected!!!
By not approving this initiative, the council cost the taxpayers about a half a million dollars for a special election. UNBELIEVABLE!
ReplyDeleteWho picked this firm: the developers, the city manager and mayor, Peder Norby, the council or staff?
ReplyDeleteI don't ever recall this being discussed at a council meeting.
Gus Vina and the Planning Director. Vina didn't have to ask the Council because of a June 2011 change in the Municipal Code. Phil Cotton was City Manager in 2011. At that time the Code set a $25,000 limit on City Manager spending without Council approval. At a June 2011 Council meeting the Council changed that limit to $100,000.
DeleteI won't vote for anything that taxes me, restricts my freedoms .
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame this law firm was selected because now the paranoid club won't believe anything in the impact study.
ReplyDeleteThe Iniative is an interesting idea but it's hugely flawed and will backfire in the faces of its supporters within 2 decades.
What are the flaws?
DeleteHey JP
DeleteTry this out for size "DUMP SURFY SURFY"
From the Keep Luecadia's Community Character group. aka KLCC.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe flaw in the Initiative is glaringly obvious, but I will post it online soon enough.
DeleteTrust me, I don't want to see 5 story high buildings on the 101.
Dear KLCC,
DeleteI created the Leucadia Blog in 2005 to fight the Redevelopment plan.
Kevin and I have put a lot of work into that thing the past 7 years.
Kevin as far as I can tell supports the Initiative.
I don't think it's the best thing for Leucadia in the long run.
Oh no JP, this is not an attempt to sh__ on you. This is plane and simple calling you out.
DeleteSo while surfers are spending several extra minutes trying to exit Grand View and contemplating where to buy the next rash guard. They are going to know why they are waiting in a ridicules Q.
As far as the Leucadia Blog, stick to your fluff pieces. They suite you better.
Don't assume the next generation of voters don't want 5 stories.
DeleteThe Initiative basically guarantees a major rezone of Leucadia in 20 years.
According to one of the comments following the North Coast Current article, Vina retained Rutan & Tucker 10 days before the council publicly decided to order the report. If correct, that would say the council made its decision long before the Feb. 13 meeting. It's doubtful Vina acted without authorization.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the "paranoid club" actually consists of those people, such as Mike Andreen, and apparently now including JP, who are so afraid of the right to vote on upzoning initiative. Andreen is worried all the development would be plunked in New Encinitas, as was the intent of the "rebooted" General Plan Update. That's not going to happen, now. JP is completely unclear about what alleged flaws he fears. These alarmists will scream, "BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID!" But they can't explain WHY we should be afraid of having more self-determination. How can we leave these important decisions up to government officers who are so easily corrupted by the power they hold?
ReplyDeleteThe bogus Orange County, pro-development law firm, Rutan and Tucker, which was selected by our "vote of no confidence in Sacramento city manager" again shows Gus Vina's true colors. Our Council should "revisit" some of the previous Council's poor decisions.
It's also bogus for Lisa Shaffer to say, "We are where we are now." She should know that we elected her to MAKE CHANGES. Again, Council NEEDS TO REVISIT some of the poor former decisions, including allowing the City Manager to make these kinds of choices, without any checks. The decision should come before Council, at a public hearing. Vina said the lawfirm was "already in the works." He could have given Council an overview on who was being considered, and their qualifications. That contract amount needs to be changed back to what it was pre 2011.
It should be obvious to Tony, LIsa and Teresa, especially, that citizens of Encinitas do overwhelming support the right to vote on upzoning initiative. If they have any doubts, they could do as Tony suggested. Adopt the initiative outright. That would give 18 months for our City to "try out" the initiative. Council could do this with the promise of putting the initiative on the ballot. So people could still vote to dissolve it, through a type of repeal/recall. Sure the opponents, development interests, would mount a big campaign, but the populist "amendment" to our City code, would still prevail, I feel sure. Despite all the money spent through development interests, we were finally able to dump Stocks! And before that, we voted out Mayor Dalager.
I wish there were some way for these unnecessary expenses to come out of Council and staff's own wallets. Then they wouldn't be so blithe about spending taxpayer and ratepayer dollars!
Rutan and Tucker are just "paid henchmen." They'll do whatever they're told. Lawyers are expert at finding ways to twist the facts. Encinitas should look to Escondido, where a similar initiative was passed, to see, specifically, how that worked out, there . . . All of the so-called "flaws" that are used as scare tactics, can be easily discounted, once someone actually reads the initiative and our General and Specific Plans . . . People living in Encinitas want to retain what's left of our laid back, beachtown community character. We are nearly built out, and upzoning is already allowed to be voted upon by the public, as Mark Muir insists.
The problem with the current wording in our GP is that Council has the absolute discretion (which it frequently abuses, as we all know) to interpret what "community benefit" means. Anything that gives "community benefit," including, according to the Supreme Court, more development fees, sales taxes and property taxes, would allow, instead of a public vote, a vote by four out of five Council Members.
Hey, Council could simply decide that holding an election is costly, so the public benefit could always be saving the cost of ANY election re upzoning. Without the right to vote on upzoning being adopted, we are at the mercy of confused and conflicted minds, who are busy feeding the machine, with its ever rising operating expenses, at the expense of our community character and quality of life.
Is that why you guys wanted the council to adopt the Initiative without a public vote?
DeleteI'm not going to spend a bunch of time on this cause, but I'm calling my shot now-the Initiative will backfire majorly in 20 years.
Vote no.
ReplyDeleteI'm voting yes for sure. I like my beach town 1,2 and max 3 stories. Leave 4 and 5 stories for LA, San Diego,
ReplyDeleteDon't forget Anaheim, and Santa Anna.
ReplyDeleteVote yes
Surfy Surfy:
ReplyDeleteYou seem confused. If you don't want 5 stories in Leucadia, you should vote yes for the Right to Vote Initiative. Right now 3 stories are permitted along 101 and Vulcan and a 4/5 super majority of the council could increase that to 5 or even 10 stories. The initiative will require a public vote for such a change. Do you really think the voters of this city will vote for condo towers like in Oceanside?
The folks in Cardiff have an approved Specific Plan that limits heights to two stories. They worked hard for over ten years, fighting the city and its consultants the whole time, to maintain community character.
Gus Vina will be working hard behind the scenes to defeat the initiative. He doesn't want his hands tied in order to push hard for big increases in density and height to increase city property and sales tax revenues.
Don't assume future generations of voters don't want 5 stories.
DeleteIf future generations of voters want 5 stories, they'll get it with or without the initiative.
DeleteHow does the initiative make anything any worse?
Very eager to hear JP's reasoning.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is it's that state housing mandates will create some sort of Frankenstein.
We've already got net internal migration OUT of California, and low birth rates, so I don't know where all this alleged housing necessity is coming from.
By SANDAG'S own admission, the "gold standard" is the US Census, which in 2010 forecast a flat population growth.
DeleteThis alleged housing necessity comes from the development community that insists on quoting SANDAG's own admittedly inflated numbers.
Very prescient comment WC !!!
DeleteJust to play devil's advocate, we might have net internal migration out of California as a whole. But I'm guessing that's explained by inland areas, not out of coastal cities, especially Encinitas. Just look at how much the population has increased here.
ReplyDeleteEven without fancy statistics, use your eyes — have you seen any kind of mass migration out of Encinitas in the last 10 years?
I'm not defending the housing mandates, just saying.
But then moving from inland to Encinitas is a lifestyle choice, not a humanitarian crisis. There's no statewide housing shortage and thus no reason for state density mandates.
DeleteThe population of Encinitas is very questionable. SANDAG'S figures don't always jive with what the city has told us in the past. In 1995 however when the housing market tanked and people couldn't rent enough U-Hauls to get out of California, I decided to call the office where I worked at the San Dieguito UHSD just to compare enrollements. Sure enough, that year had a reduction of 75 students - a 4% DECREASE in the total of students. The lady in the office said that hadn't happened for 20 years. But it was contrary to SANDAG figures but in line with the LOW level of homes being built in this city then. At that time Encinitas was supposed to have a population of 54,000. No idea what it is now. Does anyone?
DeleteAccording to the information included in the recent bond proposal for building the Hall property park, the city had a population of 48,558 in 1986 at incorporation.
DeleteHere are the figures for the last six years;
2007 59,378
2008 59,411
2009 59,453
2010 59,628
2011 59,910
2012 60,346
Interestingly in the General Plan Update prepared by the consultant MIG, two figures were stated: around 59,000 and 65,000. The consultant couldn't reconcile the two numbers. All the housing element recommendations were based on the higher SANDAG number. Go figure.
I think you're right W.C.. SB1818 is the elephant in the room and he's got big Nazi arm bands on. Our Leucadia Specific Plan states that a three story building cannot go next to a one story building. Guess what? Our house and business are 1 story and the Planning Commission let developers built a 3 story "work / live loft" next door, no matter how many times I brought it to their attention at PC meetings. And what a fallacy work/live turned out to be. No one who's ever lived there works there and visa versa, creating twice the parking problems (not to mention the loophole "tandem" two car garages that have never been used for cars). I've also gone to PC meetings on behalf of both Jenny Burns in Leucadia and artist Barbara Mille in Cardiff. Both ladies had neighbors planning to rob their ocean view building to the legal limits in front of them. Both ladies lost and spent a ton of time and money in the process. Jenny's neighbor went to the microphone with tears in her eyes sobbing and implored: "But we just want to build our dream home!". Build it they did. Reside there they did. For six months; sold it and moved on to build their next lovely dream home. More recently, a young couple in Cardiff who wanted to add on a small room to their house that wouldn't affect their neighbor at all, and their wealthy neighbor is fighting them tooth and nail. Both sides having to hire lawyers to represent them. Guess which neighbor gets the one in the nicer suit? We'll see how that plays out if it already hasn't. But has anyone yet seen one person win a case for losing their view? THAT should be on the front page of our Specific Plans. "Warning. If you plan on spending a dime to preserve your ocean view in Encinitas, save your money."
ReplyDeleteI like I hope most locals in Leucadia like to keep things human scale and less like industrial complexes. But when you have a PC that could care less, there is no recourse. Especially now that the Density Bonus added a layer of loopholes for those having illusions of grandeur. (The trend for these local 3 story complexes are sharing is bankruptcy). I don't at all believe the current council majority favors 4 and 5 story buildings, but that might not be it's complexion here in 2 years. If we've learned one thing, it's that out of town developers have deep pockets for local City Council campaigns. And a habit of being foul as well. Just ran across that hit piece on Tony again. Someone I've known since the 60's. Few people care more about this town. Glad he swam through that quagmire so well. We can thank the majority of people who could see right through it.
Good point Fred. Why do we even had General Plans and Specific Plans? They certainly had no weight in the Hwy 101 lane elimination. Dose our council or staff even read them? Go Figure!!!
DeleteThere have been several lane eliminations in Encinitas. This is the only one met with opposition that I've heard about.
DeleteNo lane elimination- just using one of the traffic lanes for bicycles. Nothing more.
DeleteThe difference re the other lane deletions for motorists is that those roadways were not, or should not have been part of the General and Specific Plans in those locations where they were eliminated; they weren't deemed to be part of a primary circulation element, as North Hwy 101 is.
DeleteWhen a Major 4 lane roadway, for motorists, which is part of the primary circulation element for a specific plan and our General Plan is reconfigured to 3 lanes for motorists, and one eight foot lane for bicyclists, then amendments to the General and Specific Plans are required.
In the case of North 101, because it's in the Coastal Zone, then an amendment is also required to our Local Coastal Program, according to staff reports for City Council Meetings on 1/13/10, 12/15/10 and 6/27/12.
Again, our City does not honor the integrity of our General or Specific Plans, or our Local Coastal Program; Encinitas doesn't follow it's own rules. That's a huge reason I will be voting YES, and why so many people solicited signatures, and signed petitions, which overwhelmingly qualified this initiative for a Special Election!
Fred, what you don't seem to realize is that the planned roundabouts would be used by development interests, who would claim they are "traffic calming," to enable higher density because developers would be enabled to go higher through "mitigated negative environmental impact declarations!" Intersections with roundabouts could never receive a projected "F." People, including some you've mentioned, like JB, realize the roundabouts would actually be chokepoints, not traffic calming.
DeleteLane elimination for motorists is a preliminary phasing of the Leucadia 101 Streetscape. L101MA and city staff freely admit this.
Hello Anonda,
DeleteSurely the new paint on 101 is a preliminary phase of Streetscape's aim and a good way to test its efficiency prior to the coming improvements over the next few years. But roundabouts are not "choke points". Mandatory stops at intersections are. The intersection at La Costa Ave will continue to be a choke point until a roundabout is installed there and ideally, it will be the first one we get. There's 5 intersections that became roundabouts in La Jolla 5 years ago. Not one of them has fallen prey to a 3 to 5 story developer's dream. One structure is 3 stories tall and its been there for decades. The rest of the commercial district is smaller. Can you find any samples specifically from among all of other roundabouts here in CA where a mitigated negative environmental impact declaration has permitted a developer to increase density? If so please share them.
When a motorist has to slow down from 35 MPH to 15 to 20 mph at each roundabout, it does calm traffic and creates more safety. Roundabouts decrease fatalities, collisions and the severity of collisions wherever they are placed. 101 history here is riddled with pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
To cross El Portal St. for example one must walk 40 feet. Its hard to do so without being met by someone turning onto it westward from either the north or south. A roundabout at that intersection greatly diminishes the walking distance for pedestrians.
When you add up the total hours daily that cars will be completely stopped and idling at the 20 stops (that Streetscape removes), you start to realize what a chokepoint really is. In some cities their roundabouts save 300,000 hours annually. That's around 40 years of being choked by mandatory stops. If you can grasp that, only then can you realize how more cars can go from point A to point B in less time than it used to take when speeds were higher, but you had to stop and wait. Not unlike what we learned of efficiency in The Tortoise and the Hare. Same priciple applys.
Ron May, from La Jolla, who came to the last Pelz & Associates' workshop at the Community Center said, at the end, when the public was allowed two minutes each, only, to speak, that mixed use development, did come to Birdrock, replacing some older apartments there, that had provided more affordable (for La Jolla) housing. One of these new mixed use developments went into foreclosure, just as Moonlight Lofts has here, along the 101 Corridor, but in Old Encinitas, where the Artists' Colony was taken away, demolished.
DeleteRon May said that he found it more challenging to watch out for pedestrians and bicyclists, as they could be hard to see, when he was focusing on cars entering or exiting the roundabouts. However, because those Birdrock roundabouts are NOT along a railroad corridor, they are WIDER, and have more safety features, and are "true" roundabouts, even if they are only one lane roundabouts. The roundabout at La Costa could be of benefit; it would be a two lane roundabout, however, and the train is ALREADY TRENCHED at La Costa, which makes a huge difference.
A roundabout at El Portal would be crazy, for the very reasons cited in the 7/18/12 staff report for the Council Meeting on the date, with Mayor Stocks absent. The report stated there is already back up from the signal at Leucadia Blvd and North 101, all the way to Marchetta, the stop sign. NO ONE has shown any official documentation indicating that stop sign (which you, Fred count as 5 stop signs!) will be removed. El Portal is between Marchetta and Leucadia Blvd. at North 101. The drawings provided by Peltz and Associates are "cartoons" according to city engineers. They are not "engineered" schematics, and their dimensions are not accurate.
As there are no businesses on the east side of the highway, there are few, if any pedestrians crossing there. Rather than doing three more pedestiran undercrossings, at $5.5 Million each, and spending $20 million for roundabouts and angled parking that most people don't want, and which would be more dangerous for cyclists, we should focus on working with SANDAG and NCTD to trench the train as Solana Beach, with a much smaller operating budget and General Fund was able to do.
Solana Beach did put in angled parking, but not until it gave the community a beautiful linear park along the east side of the Coast Highway, there. Solana Beach decided AGAINST roundabouts and lane elimination on Coast Highway, because of pubic outcry by adjacent residents, and because of cost concerns. Del Mar voted DOWN roundabouts, as did the City of Cotati, in Northern California. Santa Rosa took out the roundabouts they had installed.
The roundabouts in La Jolla are NOT near a railway corridor, and are NOT at three way intersections, as El Portal is. There is NO cross traffic there. The U.S. Dept. of transportation recommends AGAINST roundabouts along railway corridors, AND against roundabouts where the cross traffic is significantly less than that of the main thoroughfare.
Fred, you're being naive to think that roundabouts wouldn't be used as a development tool for mitigated negative impact declarations.
The right to vote on upzoning initiative would help to keep Leucadia Funky, because although we may be zoned for three stories already, at least Leucadia's 101 corridor's allowed 30 units per acre couldn't be increased to 45 through increasing to 4 and 5 stories, and each high density mixed use development would have to either do an EIR or get a mitigated negative impact declaration through our Local Coastal Program, appealable to the Coastal Commission re traffic impact, ABSENT roundabouts, which, as I've said, are "exempt" from grading.
Yo Anonda,
DeleteThere's a rumor being spread that "4 and 5 story buildings would be permitted at roundabout intersections should Leucadia get Streetscape Plan 4a." Sure, Birdrock has built some 3 story places that weren't there before, like on empty lots and buildings that had been closed for a long time. Maybe even on some property that was "more affordable (for La Jolla) housing" as you mentioned, but where are the 4 and 5 story buildings that roundabouts usher in? The roundabouts have been in Birdrock for 5 years. Don't developers know their missing the boat?
Like it or not, (and I don't either), every lot on 101 in Leucadia/Old Encinitas right now has the option of building 3 stories tall. THAT'S what threatens the character of Leucadia's corridor all by its lonesome with not a speck of help from the coming infrastructure, safety and aesthetic improvements to 101. And of course you can't plant enough trees to cover two miles of a 3 story wall. The less we can look like Birdrock at their 3 story locations the better in my opinion. It's the Leucadia Specific Plan that permits 3 story buildings here AND the loophole of SB 1818 that exacerbates that problem. Neither of those two things have ANYTHING to do with the infrastructure improvements we're getting with Streetscape and should be addressed separately. The only cartoons I've seen of sky-scrapers coming to town are on the Right to Vote posters. They are nowhere to be found on "Streetscape cartoons" nor were such lofty ideas presented in slide shows at Streetscape meetings and workshops.
It's you who's being naive thinking roundabouts would allow 3 story buildings on 101. It's not only already allowed, but endorsed by the Specific Plan, Planning Commissioners and the State. Your group should wake up and focus their energy on the real culprits of over development.
That being said, I would like to borrow your hilarious line for the title of my next postcard if I may. "Be sure to visit the Grifter Room at the Charlatan Inn - where upstairs you'll also enjoy more affordable (for La Jolla) housing." I love that disclaimer! The Right to Vote cartoons of buildings would look good on it too.
City needs to focus on supporting state legislation that repeals the Density Bonus Law.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to preserve your ocean view, you better buy the property below you that could potentially block your view. Its done all the time, so quite your whining.
2 and 3 stories are tall enough for our beach town.
Vote yes on the initiative and against developers raping quality of life of existing residents for pure profit. Its that simple.
Gee, it's kinda quiet in here...still no explanations from anyone what these "Unintended Consequences" are. I know what they are for the building industry-that's obvious.
ReplyDeleteAt the Council Meeting on Wednesday night, the greatest number of "dots" in the mapping exercise were placed in Leucadia, along North 101, with 27% of the total, from FIVE communities, including Old Encinitas, New Encinitas, Cardiff and Olivenhain. I find it disturbing that Mayor Barth seems reluctant to endorse the right to vote initiative, when she has claimed repeatedly that "Cardiff already has its fair share." Leucadia already has more than its fair share! If the required density was equally split, each community should have 20%!
DeleteA study should be done to make a finding of how many people that live in mixed use developments don't drive to work, how many car trips per day they make. It's ironic that our biggest source of City revenue through sales tax is from Gas Stations and Transnet Taxes through gas sales, from SANDAG, yet supposedly this high density mixed use will lead to less people driving? That is illogical, a pretense used to push growth that doesn't mandate affordable housing, housing for seniors or students.
Hi Anonda,
Delete"A study should be done to make a finding of how many people that live in mixed use developments don't drive to work".
I'll save you the time and money. 5 including me. But if you want more accuracy, and don't want the city to spend $25K for outsourcing a study, get on the phone anc call them all yourself. There aren't that many active live/work situations to choose from and I believe they're all on the coast. You can start with me and four friends. There are a TON of home based businesses in Encinitas though. The city has those figures. When you're done let me know. Live/work lofts sounded great on paper. But more often than not no one who lives there works there and visa versa creating twice the parking and traffic problem. Am I repeating myself? Good.
Fred, ok, you're splitting hairs; but failing to prove your point, against anonda.
Deleteanonda was stating that studies should be made, a simple survey would suffice, to see how many people live where they work in the new build high density mixed use developments. Your business/residence don't count, because you are comparing apples to oranges. You are not "high density." You do qualify as mixed use, as you are residential and retail.
You are repeating yourself, badly. Because anonda's point was that this high density mixed use is being promoted in the name of sustainable growth, that it will get people out of their cars, as they will shop and work where they live. Obviously, anonda was asking that the City or some independent researcher could do a survey to check out how often that actually happens, NOT determine how many home based businesses there are in our city. Home based businesses are good. No one's arguing that.
The question remains, is what is being pushed as "sustainable growth" actually creating less car trips per day, in the name of high density mixed use development? Or, is what's being forced on us as being required for "affordable housing" going to actually provide 1300 affordable housing units? We all know there are NO guarantees. It's all based on speculation, data manipulation, and greed.
JP, if the flaw in the Initiative is "glaringly obvious", why not just say what it is?
ReplyDeleteKinda saving the bullet points for a future blog post.
DeleteI do believe the Initiative will pass voter approval in the election so everyone can dial back the stress level.
I'm tired of those village park idiots controlling what happens along the coast .
ReplyDeleteMe to so lets make sure it happens. Vote Yes for the initiative. Let the developers sell out Oceanside, Carlsbad, and San Diego.
ReplyDeletethe funniest part is all the Developers live in Rancho Santa Fe, Del Mar, and La Jolla which all have strict development standards and harsh development review process.
See the nicest area come from residents who give a shit and don't let developers sell out there land.
See post above as a reply to FRED on the city's population numbers.
ReplyDeleteYou're AWESOME 6:34! Thanks. I'm saving those tallys forever. They look the most believable to me. It is interesting that the totals are so vastly undeterminable with some outfits, but predictable that SANDAG's figures are always the highest. That makes me think it's an old Chamber of Commerce trick to show how "vibrant" an area is. Makes you wonder who's in charge of counting though, and just how they gather their info. One would assume the numbers would be based on real people with names that are tracable. But there's always the reality that the figures have to change daily with people moving from, moving to, being born and that pesky habit of dying. (Not to mention the 20,000 temporary guests for special events and the permanent live in visitors! Oh well, they're probably more accurate that trying to count the homeless. Did I mention 9 million cyclists?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDid Jerome Stocks get hired on at Surfy Surfy?? Rename it Coppy Coppy Out!
ReplyDeleteI dont get it. What is Coppy Coppy?
ReplyDeletecop-out also cop·out (kpout) KEY
ReplyDeleteNOUN:
Slang
1. A failure to fulfill a commitment or responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely.
2. A person who fails to fulfill a commitment or responsibility.
3. An excuse for inaction or evasion.
You KLCC are twisted. Maybe we should deem your phase:
ReplyDeleteSycho Sycho.
The Rutan and Tucker impact report can be found with the special meeting notice of March 12, 2013 on the city website.
ReplyDelete