Coast News:
Council was due to finalize the language for a mailer containing frequently asked questions about Prop A, and for a postcard reminding residents that there’s a special election set for June 18. But at Wednesday night’s meeting, council unanimously voted not to send either one.Really? It took massive public blowback for them to realize this was a bad idea?
Prop A reaffirms the city’s 30-foot height limit and would eliminate council’s power to “up-zone” beyond height and density limits with a fourth-fifths vote.
Councilwoman Kristin Gaspar said she initially backed the mailers, but changed her mind after hearing concerns from the public.
[...]
Councilman Mark Muir also said he received quite a bit of feedback from residents about the mailers.
“I have some reservations after listening to public input,” Muir said before the vote to scrap the mailers.
If we care about Encinitas, we're going to have to watch this council like a hawk.
Idiots. Mayberry by the sea.
ReplyDeleteGaspar made the motion and Muir seconded it to not do the mailer or FAQs. It looked like a setup. The rest followed like sheep. Kranz thought they needed the mailer to counter the low voter turnout, but could go either way. Shaffer was concerned about the cost and the effectiveness. Barth didn't say much until the vote was over 5 to 0. The FAQs were already posted on the website, but will be taken down. They can be seen on the website under the Agenda posting.
ReplyDeleteGaspar and Muir looked very satisfied, as they should be. The city doesn't need to spend any money because the deep-pocket developers, builders, and real estate people will fund the effort to kill the initiative entirely. Barth, Kranz, and Shaffer didn't seem to realize this.
Smart citizens will vote YES on Prop. A.
You've got to be kidding. R U that twisted? You complain that the council does the mailer, now you complain that they don't. Make up your mind and be consistent. You sound like an idiot! Except for voting Yes on A.
DeleteWe don't need people like you on our side!
This is the best council we've ever had!
ReplyDeleteThey can cutthroat with the best of them.
ReplyDeleteIf council would listen the intelligent public, they would fire Sacramento Gus, He is a crappy City Manager.
ReplyDeleteFact: Start with Crap at the top and the whole organization is Crap.
Lets see whos in charge- Council or Gus.
My bet is Gus limps by for the next 2 years, does more harm to our City during that time, and then retires at 200k + a year forever.
I say fire him within a few months. We deserve and can do much better.
Remember. Gus is a Stocks man. You don't change your principals or integrity overnight now do you?
ReplyDeleteGus has outdone Jerome by a long shot in his dishonesty and thirst for power. He was fighting to hold on to his job under Stocks and seemingly bonded with Barth over their shared beef of being mistreated by Stocks.
DeleteMany people approached Barth and asked when he was going to catch on, but she always has said that he needed to have a chance. For what?
He only gets worse and worse, and hires more and more people for his 'cabinet,' who will be loyal to him at the expense of the voters. His insecurity and willingness to spend our money only to stay in power, knows no bounds.
Fire Vina! Let him find another City to bankrupt, and he should take Sabine with him.
Muir and Gaspar made the right choice, and the rest of Council followed along. The Frequently asked questions were made up by staff; they weren't impartial, but were based on a slanted, pro-development impact report from an Orange County lawfirm and a lawyer not expert in real property law, including zoning, land-use and initiatives, as Everett Delano is.
DeleteAttorney Everett Delano wrote the initiative; he's from North County. Mark Muir and Kristin Gaspar have been thought to be pro-development, but the point is, they were told the law, re "educational outreach" not advocating for or against, and that it must be accurate, impartial and fact based. Muir and Gaspar THOUGHT FOR THEMSELVES on this issue.
The City was not legally allowed to send mailers that were not completely impartial, fact, NOT OPINION based, or that referred recipients to a webpage or website that advocates against the initiative through a prejudiced "impact report," and a NOT impartial analysis by our City Attorney, with FALSE CONCLUSIONS (lies). Sabine made the conjecture and speculation, the non-expert opinion of the biased impact report even worse. He twisted the phrase "It could be construed" that height limits could be raised, into his false statement, "lower height limits WOULD be raised." He's already in violation of Government Code.
Barth, Shaffer and Kranz cannot think, clearly, for themselves. Tony makes up his mind, and isn't open to hearing the perspectives of others. Shaffer gets defensive. Barth gets huffy. They've all three betrayed their base.
Do you mean to say that Lisa actually *voted* on this issue? I figured that she would use the old "don't have enough information excuse again". I guess that it is nice to stay off the record while knowing that Sabine counts the vote as a "yes".
ReplyDeleteI don't get this. If the criteria for a decision can't be assessed through the material presented, they should just guess or go with their feelings? At SANDAG I abstained from a number of votes because we did not have enough information in the record to justify what we were voting on... either way. Most of my colleagues had no problem just accepting "staff recommends" this as the justification for a vote.
DeleteWe should support better decision making. If that means telling staff and the rest of the council that more information and analysis are still needed, then I will support that as long it is not a delay tactic. That means someone is accountable for the incomplete presentation of info.
What the Council won't tell you. Back in 1993 the citizen committee (SPArC) that worked on the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan didn't want 3 stories buildings.
ReplyDeleteThis from the Dec. 15, 1993 staff report:
Concern was expressed during public testimony about the effect of allowing three stories along First and Second streets.
Staff Response: The specific plan as originally proposed would allow development to exceed two stories under the D-VCM zone (the "Cozen's Site Subdistrict"), where development is intended and encouraged to be a visual and functional "anchor" for the Downtown area. Under other zones building heights were to continue to be limited to two stories/30ft. The Planning Commission has recommended that building heights along the First and Second streets be allowed to increase to three stories/33 ft., when a development includes at least one guaranteed-affordable dwelling unit. Without an affordable dwelling height would continue to be limited to two stories/30ft.
The issue of building heights on First and Second streets relates to the perception of the character of the Downtown Encinitas area. The SPArC felt that retaining the two-story limit is important for maintaining a desirable element of existing character of the commercial district, and that allowing a third story is not needed to encourage the rehabilitation of the area.
Fortunately, there was a subsequent public vote where the public approved the change to three stories, right?
DeleteBecause that's what the council unanimously voted to put in the ballot argument in BOLD CAPS:
"Major land use changes HAVE ALWAYS happened with a vote of the people and the Council is committed to codifying this practice."
They wouldn't lie to us, would they?
Kranz has become the mouth piece for developers. The more that he supports it, the more that 'Yes on A' will gain strength.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteW.C. My memory of this is that after the SPArC committee finalized their draft, the Planning Commission took it over for 2 years tweaking it and increasing heights and laying out the colored maps for "improved zoning". As the process was beginning to take nearly two decades, the public grew restless and encouraged the council to "Just do it!" As Sheila was the only one on council not liking the PC's changes, she begged to differ with their embellishments and became the sole dissenting vote. And so the 4/5ths majority approved the Leucadia Specific Plan.
DeleteBack then I and many others were sold on idea of live/work lofts as was Rachelle Collier who grew up over a family ran grocery store. It all looked great on paper and already works well for several merchants presently here on old 101 (in one and two story buildings, that is). But in the real 21st century on our skinny one sided stretch of N. 101 at least, 3 story w/l lofts don't pay off for either the investors (usually going bankrupt); the neighbors (with increased parking problems); the small town atmosphere (with skyscrapers replacing trees for shade); and the community (with out of town developers who usually could care less what the local's collective vision of home is). Oh yeah. These places also have the inherent problem that no one who lives in them works in them - their touted green selling point to the city! Consequently they create at least two extra round trips per day per every tenant and merchant who has a car and a job. Not to mention a host of other loopholes and shenanigans builders practice to make end runs around the Specific Plan. Like building low cost housing portions on distant lots for their density bonuses, or like the guy at Surfer's Point who told me something like "We're asking for 52 units because we know they'll settle for the 34 we really want". (Opps, I just gave away two of their trade secrets so nuff said about that.) The only bright side (and this is probably only the luck of the draw) is that I've never had a bad neighbor living next door. Come to think of it, the new business next door has been empty now for 2 years. (I knew there was a reason!) But through the years, we've been blesses with great neighbors, including the brave ones who try out running a mini business in one of the $1420 mo. single room next door - they've always been considerate people. So I don't look forward to the wear and tear on everyone's patience prosperity if ever the places next door reach full capacity and parking for customers, tenants and merchants is strained for everyone. Undoubtedly if they ever do all fill up, it only serves to exacerbate parking problems for not only it's own residents, merchants and customers, but all neighboring ones as well. Cars equal wallets to businesses. Nowhere to park, no business. "Are 3 story work/lofts what we want to see on every block in Leucadia?" No Gene. So let's let the people decide if or not a larger development is beautiful and beneficial for our community instead of 5 Planning Commissioners - 4 of which who do not live in Leucadia. Vote YES on A and have a nice day! (Smiley face here)
You elect the good people to lead after years of abuse and then you don't trust them.
ReplyDeleteDumb very dumb. This council is going to make the important changes you want with
out Prop. A. $350000 dollars of dumb !!!.go back to sleep please or do you want
the old council back?
Read their fine print: changes do not apply to height.
DeleteThe ones responsible for spending the $350,000 are the Council and Gus Vina. It might have been a different story if they would have had to pay for it themselves instead of sticking the taxpayer with the bill.
DeleteWe don't trust the "new council" because they can't think straight and make clear decisions, based on good judgment. They just trust the same old staff and contractors that were yes-men and women for the "old" council, and not the public, their constituents.
DeleteOur only choice isn't to "get the old council back," or be happy with the disastrous decisions of the new council. Hopefully, we can toss out some of the people on there when their re-elections come up. If council members could only serve for one term, perhaps they would not become blinded by influence pushers, including those acting as lobbyists, without registering, flaunting their "insider influence," that they "leverage" as STAKEHOLDERS. The city partners with the STAKEHOLDERS, and not the general public.
Tony is an angry person. Sometimes I've admired him, but he knows that he was elected, in part, because the initiative proponents supported him, and opposed Jerome Stocks.
They are just trying to hide to protect their positions. They need their retirements, with lifetime health care paid by you. You don't really think any of them are looking after your best interests?
ReplyDeleteVote yes on prop a
12:52 I know you're not .
ReplyDeleteVote NO!! Because I'm not going to pay for a special election so I can paint my house....FUCK YOU LOSERS.
ReplyDeleteDID YOU KNOW....?
DeleteProp A will give you a tiny todger.
BEWARE!!!!
You already paid for it. So go take a lamictal.
ReplyDeleteyes, it appears that Gaspar and Muir had a change of heart on the mailer because, once again, they were afraid by potential litigation from an impossible neutral flier. I am sure the EncinitasHope No on Prop A re-assured them they have plenty of money to do the No on Prop A campaign. They will 'educate" the public with lies and threats, like "you won't be able to do any remodeling in you house" or "it will threaten historuical preservation efforts". Just look who is behind the No on Prop A campaign and decide for yourself: http://www.thesandiegogroup.com/.
ReplyDeleteI can't support anything that's endorsed by Sheila or the L word. Crazy. Nuts. Wacko. If they feel its good for enc then it must be bad.
ReplyDeleteVote No.
Too bad you don't make your decisions based on logic, but on knee-jerk reactions, on prejudice that you mistakenly think will influence others? Quite the opposite. Your kind of belligerent personal attacks have the exact opposite effect of that which you intend. But it seems what you really are seeking is attention, not validation. You can't think that anyone goes along with your twisted sense of judgment through defamation?
DeleteDon't vote based on authority or personalities involved. Jerome Stocks and Andreen are against Prop A. That's not a good reason to vote for Prop A, is it? Good... and I've supported Andreen on stuff because we agreed on substance. Vote for or against Prop A based on substance and beware of those who try to horde and cloud the substance of Prop A.
Deletethats a pretty good argument.
ReplyDeleteIf Sheila and the L word want it, it must be nuts.
If Jerry Stocks and Mike Asswipe don't want it, Most of it must be good.
What a quandary!
I'll take Council's substitute initiative and actions.
This is nothing but the KLCC wanting to impose their ideas as city policy. If they can't control the council they will ram down the throat of all citizens laws that restrict personal freedoms.
DeleteFuck them!!
No on A.
Time for another lamictal.
DeleteNever heard of lamictal. Good for recreational use?
DeleteThe "substitute" GP amendment by Council won't get rid of the loopholes for less than 5 acre developments, or for Council getting to decide, according to their discretion, which they've abused, what constitutes an increase of intensity of use. Also the height limit "loopholes" won't be addressed. So there are three loopholes, that the initiative eliminates, that would still exist under Council's pre-emptive postulated, but not passed plan. It's broken promises before.
DeleteLaws could be simple. Less loopholes that way, less opportunity to confuse and obfuscate. The initiative, which is working great for the CITIZENS of Escondido (a similar initiative was successfully passed and enacted, there) would be in compliance with our existing General Plan and our zoning ordinance definitions. More and more stuff kept getting added on, to benefit the few, at the expense of community character and the neighborhoods' wishes and desires.
10:11 restrict personal freedoms? Voting yes on A provides all the personal freedom to vote on protecting their property values and preserving their quality of life.
ReplyDeleteVoting no on A keeps the power in the hands of developers, lobbyists and special interests and the city council- that is why the council and the building and merchants are saying vote no- becuae they want to restrict personal freedom, reduce quality of life, reduce property values of residents by re-zoning commerical to residentials and trample on local laws that protect current property rights.
Right on, Anon 10:44. I'll be voting YES right along with you!
DeleteThe Bottom Line is if the Developers, Unions, Sacramento Gus, Jerry Stocks, and Mike Asswipe are for it; Prop. A must be good for Encinitas Citizens.
ReplyDeleteI am definitely voting for it.
Woops. I haven't had my coffee this morning.
DeleteThe Bottom Line is if the Developers, Unions, Sacramento Gus, Jerry Stocks, and Mike Asswipe are AGAINST it; Prop. A must be good for Encinitas Citizens.
I am definitely voting for Prop. A
your blog page is screwed up
ReplyDeleteThanks, I'm not seeing any problems. Anyone else having issues? What browser?
Deleteworks fine for me.
ReplyDeleteThe KLCC is screwed up.