Thursday, March 14, 2013

Council votes to pave Desert Rose

3-0 with Shaffer abstaining and Muir absent. After Shaffer's abstention, city attorney Glenn Sabine clarified that her abstention would count as a Yes vote.

At 3:53:40 of the video, Kranz asks about whether they can have further discussion about the type of firewall to be used in the project. Sabine immediately shows him who's in charge:
The communication has to take place within the context of this proceeding, and we want the proceeding to end tonight, and you're going to have to make a decision on that.





35 comments:

  1. So the vote last night was good for Encinitas. Desert Rose would have won in court and we would have lost $.5 million fighting it at least. The lawyers all win, and the taxpayers lose. Thank you Tony and Teresa for making the hard but necessary choice.

    Things that need to happen for Encinitas to improve:

    1. Fire Gus.- He's the dip shit leader that let this development process get so screwed up, and has been spending all his time here figuring out how to get us in more DEBT to build a Regional Sports Park which will not only consume all the Capital Improvement General Fund Budget for the next 10 years, but will also sink our future finances when looking at the $1.5 million dollar annual operations budget needed to keep that mammoth Regional operation functioning. He could have also included in the staff report an analysis of having an alternate proposal to the right to vote initiative that had the voter responsible for upzoning and dropped the controversial sections such as 30 foot building hight.

    2. Council needs to reign in that mammoth liability called the Regional Sports Park and figure out a way to reduce the budget and the ongoing operations liability. When will that open discussion occur?

    3. When is the Council going to discuss the issue of Encinitas having some of the highest retirement benefits in the County? This is a huge problem left over from that idiot Jerome Stocks. Employee costs are way to expensive for our town on 60k and are robbing the citizens of tax dollars that should be spent on needed projects. Along with this item, the City needs to fire some serious deadwood in Parks, Planning and Engineering that have made very bad decisions over the last 10 years. Its not only wasting money, they consistently make bad decisions which severely costs Encinitas. We all know who they are... they've been at the City for over 10 years and have done things like cut down a totally heathy tree instead of the dead one right next to it.

    4.Have a goal to build a coalition of similar cities throughout the state through the League of CA Cities and repeal the Density Bonus Law or put in a place a new law that returns full control of land use decisions to the Cities.

    5. Look at areas of Capital expenditure that are good returns on investment. The Streetscapes will provide a positive business environment that will increase business and quality of life for the residents. As a result business sales tax, TOT, and property taxes would increase, The positives would end up paying for the costs of the project within 10 years.

    4. Focus on getting numerous at grade crossing in leu of the stupid $6 million dollar grade separated crossings. Same argument as above.

    Council needs to focus on the highest priority and get a staff that can focus on the highest priorities. Quite focusing on spending money on non-essentials and lets fix this town.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All "streetscapes" are not equal. The one planned for N101 is ill conceived. The City would not make back $20 Million + for the expense to build 5 roundabouts from sales tax and higher property taxes, without significantly increasing density, at a rate that our infrastructure, our quality of life, cannot afford.

      The roundabouts will be used by developers as supposedly "traffic calming," to allow ever greater density through "mitigated" negative environmental impact declarations.

      Expansion of sales tax and property tax is exactly what developers promise to the city with increasing operating expenses, increasing need for revenues for bond debt and expanding capital improvement projects, including the N101 Streetscape, firestations, a $24 Million library for a town with less than 60,000 people, and on and on.

      It would be a good idea to support a statewide initiative to repeal the density bonus law, if a court would not declare it Unconstitutional, because they find it to be economically discriminatory. Our City should look into ways to bring more affordable housing onto its "rolls," through an amnesty period, putting more accessory units under a covenant, for 30 years.

      We all know there is no guarantee with increased density that there is a net increase in ACTUAL affordable housing. Just as the Artists' Colony gave artists a venue and place to be, which was replaced by Moonlight Lofts, that went bankrupt, so did a mixed use high density project in La Jolla, near Birdrock, go bankrupt, there, after more affordable, older apartments were eliminated.

      Many affordable properties on Hermes have been replaced by higher density and much higher cost housing. Higher density does not insure a net gain in affordable units, but actually almost guarantees the opposite.

      Delete
    2. I thought the TOT taxes were "earmarked" for sand replenishment? The staff report for the budget presentation is confusing in this regard, because it shows TOT taxes as being a component of the General Fund?

      I hope some of the pension reform advocates speak at tonight's Council Meeting re the last item on the agenda, a budget discussion.

      As many see it, Council is giving itself black eyes and bruises by its recent unwise decisions, including the disappointing Desert Rose vote. Council is showing a lack of ability to think, as council members, for themselves, not to be swayed by special interests.

      Mayor Barth disclosed she had "spoken" privately with Marco Gonzales about "procedure." She shouldn't have done so while the public hearing was still open and she was sitting, with the rest of Council, in a judiciary capacity. At least there can be an official record of al written communications, including e-mails.

      But the Planning Commission's previous decision, which was being appealed by the "applicant," through Marco Gonzalez, should have had its findings represented by counsel, Attorney Everett Delano. Staff's "report" should have been less lengthy, limited to briefly answering questions Council still had. Then, after Gonzalez made his 10 minute statement, Delano should have been allowed an opening statement.

      It was obvious that although Council allowed public speakers to "vent," they didn't trust the speakers' facts and opinions, which were discounted.

      Council should have, after hearing the public speakers, asked follow up questions of THEM and staff, and then should have allowed a final 5 minute rebuttal by Gonzalez, followed by 5 minutes for rebuttal by Delano.

      The way the hearing was conducted was one-sided, unbalanced, and inequitable. Our commissions are one of the few separations of power, one of the only checks and balances we have, because Council sits as judge, jury and executioner.

      Council should have allowed the Planning Commission, or Everett Delano on behalf of the Desert Rose community, to defend the PC's previous decision and specific findings. That would have been more fair, and would have shown respect for the public and the public process. As it stands, citizens, including those outside the Desert Rose community, feel that Council has again violated the public trust.

      Delete
  2. The vote last night was the worst possible thing to happen to Encinitas residents. A council that WON'T protect its residents and the environment is worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The dip shit leaders are the council. Don't put the blame on Gus. He may be a puppet master, but the council has a collective brain to say no.
    The council set the standard last night on land use appeals. Violations of code - council will ignore it. Follow the General Plan - what plan says the council. Safety of citizens during fires - run through the brush. No thanks to Tony, Teresa, and Kristen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How chickensh** is Schaffer? Is she gonna abstain from pension reform because she wasn't involved in the original process to grant pensions to city employees? Kranz replaces Bond as the village idiot. Why did we even have an election?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's all about the money to pay salaries and pensions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't know what's worst, Tony "the Village Idiot" Kranz or Lisa "I can't make up my mind after 2 nights and 12 hours of testimony" Shaffer, so I'll blame someone else.

    BOTH ARE LIARS AND NEED TO BE RECALLED!!!



    ReplyDelete
  7. A Olivenhain neighbor of mine told me that Tony Kranz decided to support Marco Gonzales early in the hearing process (is that legal?). MADE THE MOTION

    Mayor Teresa Barth has received campaign funds from Marco Gonzales and his staff at Coast Law Group (is that legal?). SECONDED THE MOTION

    Either way it STINKS!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget Kristen Gaspar. She was the lead cheerleader on the council team.
      Give me an r a s p b e r r y to the Olivenhain neighbors.

      Delete
  8. Advice to the current city council: I strongly suggest you hold a press conference and explain just why you voted the way you did. Set the record straight before the rumor mill implodes, and stand by your convictions, and you may regain the respect that put you in office. If you do not, then you may be doomed. I think the citizens of Encinitas realize you have many more tough decisions before you, but you gots some 'splainin' to do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, please hold a press conference and explain why when you could have denied the project according to state law, you instead didn't use that state law. Now you have made baaad local law.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Replies
    1. The message is:

      "Encinitas citizens, let us liquidate your quality of life, property values, and privacy so that we can convert it into staff pay and city pensions. Along the way, we will hire consultants, using your money, to make sure that you always lose and we always win."

      Hiring actual qualified people to work at the City instead of the present collection of cries would result in 'unintended consequences!'

      Delete
    2. I mean cronies!

      Delete
  11. What is with that Chicksh8t Shaffer anyway? Is that leadership? When a tough one comes along that has all kinds of grey issues, you pull a turtle and pull your vote and essential give it to the others. What a weak ass move that was.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think she knew how bad staff blew it and was going to vote against the appeal, but she knew the City would loose the suite. She knows Gus needs to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The least she could have done then was to have voted what you say she knows is so and stayed true to the residents. A "no" vote would have cost her nothing but respect from the folks who put her in office, if that is indeed how she really felt.

      Delete
  13. The council changed the city's laws when they approved the Desert Rose project. The issues involved were city wide and will affect everyone city wide. This wasn't just a density bonus issue. Not one of the council members advocated for the environment or public safety during that hearing. Not one advocated for an EIR.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It was disheartening to hear Mayor Barth praise the Desert Rose density bonus development.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The next step for the Desert Rose developers is to ask to pay an in-lieu fee for not building the one affordable low income house. Calculate 15 houses x $35,000 = $525,000 that will go to the city fund to build a low income house in another part of the city.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The council's repeated message was that they were upholding the law. Did they forget that the General Plan in Encinitas is part of that law they were to uphold. The counciled failed miserably in upholding the policies of protecting the environment and the public safety.
    The council violated the city's law. The council violated the public trust.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yup, the Nuremberg Defence! Is this council evil, or just Under the influence of one who is evil?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Council brings back for future discussion using policies from the rejected MIG General Plan update in regard to density bonus projects.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Did you know that Encinitas code requires a builder of subdivisions to build to the mid-range density in zoning? If the zoning code states R-5, which is 5 houses per acre, that is the maximum per acre. But the code requires that the builder can only build to the mid-range density which would be 4 houses per acre. In an R-11 zone 11 houses or dwelling units would be the maximum. But the mid-range density is 9.5 houses. Every residential zone has a mid-range density. Some builders don't like this city law.
    At the end of the March 13 meeting council discussed eliminating the mid-range density city law. The effect would be increased density throughout the city.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you don't like these housing developments then elect council that will GUT the salaries and pensions of the staff, all this money goes for salaries and pensions.

      Delete
    2. Don't forget the various consultants that they hire, who we end up paying for to counteract the work of citizens and actual experts that they hire, who do the job of inept Planning Department and Engineer Department staff.

      The names of these departments should be changed to the 'Bimbo Department' and the 'Bozo Department!'

      Since when have the new council majority decided that the staff is competent to serve as experts? In Planning, do we actually even have anyone with a degree in planning? Do they actually all HAVE degrees at all?

      Delete
  20. THE DENSITY BONUS DISCLOSURE SHEET

    House buyers need to know they are being cheated by the state law and developers who use the law. The state has real estate disclosure laws but nothing that reveals to the buyer that the house may be substandard in the lot size, setbacks, etc.

    The developer sells the houses at or above market rate. What is needed is a written disclosure law.
    Such as:

    The house you are buying doesn't meet the standards in the city's Municipal Code. The lot size could be smaller than lots in this zone (fill in the zone). The house could be closer to the property line than allowed in the standards in the Code. There could be reduced parking. Here is a list of the reduced standards this developer received from the city:


    For you information: Density bonus properties are priced the same or more than properties that meet the city Code.

    We know you want to do your part in providing more low income housing for the city. Because we as the developer only had to promise one low income house, we were able to bypass the zoning and double (fill in amount) the number of houses allowed per acre.

    Also, we as developers, were very considerate of you the buyer. The city let us pay an in lieu fee instead of building the low income house.

    Have a nice day and remember: We are building more density bonus houses everyday!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent idea, but nobody reads disclosures.

      How bout requiring it on a big banner at the development?

      Delete
  21. City Attorney Glenn Sabine never explained how he arrived at his opinion that Deputy Mayor Shaffer's abstaining would count as a YES vote in the event of a tie? Where is that spelled out in Government Code? It's not in Robert's Rules of Order, which the City uses as a guide for parliamentary procedure.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Seems like there is a lack of spinal fortitude in this new group. The euphoria over thir election is now being seen for what it was - false hope.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Time for new density bonus laws that will get the law makers involved.
    To be proposed for the 2013 state assembly session:

    A revision of the density bonus law to include in every development an 800 sq feet house; or in the case of apartments 400 sq. feet apartment to be dedicated as their housing to the state or local lawmakers who vote to approve the density bonus developments. The dedicated housing will be purchased by the city, county or state as the permanent living quarters for the the lawmaker(s) who approved density bonus projects. For a city it is the council member. Within two weeks of the aye vote, the council member must sign a contract to move his/her family to a density bonus project. If the aye vote was for a future development, the city must purchase a house in another completed density bonus development. If the house is larger than 800 feet, the city must reduce the square footage to 800 and reduce the size of the lot accordingly. In addition, the city must purchase houses on either side of the council member's house. These houses will be leased for drug and alcohol abuse group homes.

    If the council member refuses the terms of the contract, the council member will be immediately removed from office and banned from holding any public office including appointed or agency jobs.

    ReplyDelete