These provisions will introduce uncertainty into the land-use planning process, in addition to undoing key provisions of previously approved Specific Plans for the Highway 101 corridor.Like Lisa Shaffer, the only other Council Member who has been willing to state her reasoning for opposing Prop A, Kranz avoids repeating or defending the claims made in the council's unanimously-approved ballot arguments.
[...]
In my opinion, it is this little-known “nullification” of decisions made years ago that makes Prop. A bad for our city. Whether you like or dislike the specific plans for the 101 corridor, they were adopted following an extensive public planning process.
For the other side, see Sheila Cameron and Olivier Canler, also in the North Coast Current.
Sheila Cameron, what a maroon!!!
ReplyDeleteI saw Sheila Cameron a few days ago, and she did not look maroon to me. Has she undergone color-change surgery since then?
DeleteCameron is a moron... If she's for it, it has to has some cracks in it.
ReplyDeleteThe strongest argument I've heard to vote against it is Cameron and Lword are for it.
Jerome Stocks is against Prop A. That's good enough for me to vote for Prop A.
DeleteThe City Council is against Prop A. That's good enough for me to vote for Prop A.
DeleteCameron is an intelligent and sweet woman who truly cares about Encinitas. She has a lot of information to tell. Maybe that is why people are so scared of her. She will say it like it is and not play politics.
DeleteI say... Go Cameron!
"intelligent"--- Haaaa haaa haaaaa haaa. Worms are more intelligent than Cameron!
DeleteGood One!
Go chew on some more turds Cameron- thats what your good at.
Councilman Kranz constantly uses his faulty logic of "Whether you like or dislike the specific plans for the 101 corridor, they were adopted following an extensive public planning process." Councilman Kranz will not admit that the specific plans were changed by the 5 members of the Planning Commission to what they wanted, not what the residents wanted.
ReplyDeleteWell, the Planning Commission meetings dragged on for 2 years to mold the previous long process of 20 locals compiling their draft for Leucadia's Specific Plan. The PC meetings were definately not well attended by the public. Not even the die hards could attend. Mostly because the meetings were dry and had all the attraction of one 2 year long regular agenda item at city hall. Consequently, 2 stories magically became became 3 for the North Corridor. Sheila was the only one on council concerned about the increase at that time. Everyone else was worn out and wanted to just approve the damn thing. Have any 2 story buildings went bankrupt on N. 101 since then? Or is just the dysfunctional 3 story work/live lofts that keep doing that?
DeleteFred has it right- they slammed the 3 stories in with no true public input.
DeleteBut Councilman Kranz thinks that is OK. For him, as long as the Council holds the public meetings, the Council is allowed to ignore the residents and vote in opposition. His thinking is infectious, all the other Councilmembers have the same disease - they are a team.
DeleteShaffer and Kranz have said repeatedly during the campaign they supported the initiative. What a quick turnaround for these two. Very disappointing!
ReplyDeleteSchaffer was very open that she wanted the flexibility to have higher buildings in Encinitas.
DeleteAsk Deputy Mayor Shaffer if she wants high density and taller buildings built next door to her. She doesn't mind imposing it on other neighborhoods.
DeleteActually, there are locations near my home that could make sense for higher density. The key is to make sure we have the infrastructure, especially transportation, to accommodate any new development. We need to update the General Plan in a thoughtful way with legitimate public input. This Council hasn't had a chance yet to do that. For the record, I did not say repeatedly during the campaign that I supported the initiative. I said that I supported the need to eliminate the 4/5 majority loophole, and I'm working to make sure we do that. Prop A has good intentions and some of it I agree with; other parts I don't think are such a good idea. Unfortunately, our only choices are to adopt it in full exactly as is, or reject the whole thing. Voting no on Prop. A doesn't preclude us from making the changes that are needed, and fine tune some of the rest.
DeleteMs. Shaffer - let's get this out in the open, okay?
DeleteWhile you are trying to take credit for initiating the removal of the 4/5 majority loophole, it is nothing more than a sham. It was brought to your attention and the other council members attention at a council meeting where a citizen walked up to the podium and said that by removing the 4/5 loophole, you are in effect only taking the loophole away for density. NOT building height. This is misleading to the public because when Council states that their removal will accomplish the same thing as Prop A, it doesn't. Prop A covers DENSITY AND HEIGHT. Also, it is factual that any future council can reverse what you are proposing with just a 3 to 2 vote; Prop A may be reversed ONLY through another public vote.
So, please stop tooting your horn and making it appear that you are trying to help the citizens. This strategy is shameful and terribly misleading. Not very ethical.
If you like high density across from your house, then let's make sure they go there. Being near transportation is not a reason for high density IF it puts our level of service to failure and creates such sickening pollution and traffic jams. EL CAMINO REAL and other major arteries do NOT need more traffic. End of story!
Actually, what is said above is accurate. Lisa Shaffer knows it and I bet that is why she hasn't responded. She usually always has to have the last word, but not this time, I guess. People who are in the "know" have a laundry list of dirty things the new council members have done since getting in office. Top on the list is going against the people who put them in office and being as green as grass (and I don't mean in a sustainable way). They need to smarten up and listen to the wishes of the people of Encinitas - not special interests or a rogue city manager. Citizens want the right to vote. Vote yes on A.
DeleteWhatever KLCC- The three of you twisted birds better start your campaigning for the next election. So you can increase your voter share to 5 votes.
DeleteThe intelligent voters of Encinitas love and support the new majority of Barth, Krantz, Shaffer. We also love the fact that the special interest candidates are now in the background of the decision making process.
I'm sure well hear your repeated spewing at every City Council Meeting on every topic. You all sure was our taxdollars and time, and I can not stand you for that. Because of you, I may have to start a movement to limit the total number of minutes the public can speak to City Council during the year. I think we should give a maximum of 30 minutes per year, or maybe 6 minutes per City Council meeting. It would force people to use there time concisely and wisely. And it would save our tax dollars big time. Think if it, Lword and Cameron would be limited and way passed their alotted time.
I'll bet my money that the person who keeps bashing the KLCC would somehow benefit from high density. Let's see... a developer, friends with Stocks, or a 101 business owner? It has got to be one of these. Oh, and all the people voting yes on A are citizens of Encinitas who want a say in their community. Personally, I side with the citizens, which is the majority. Follow the money trail and it will go back to people who have something to gain from up zoning. Sick and twisted.
DeleteSounds like it. It should be an interesting race in 2 years. Can't wait for all those that think they can do better to step up.
ReplyDeleteI hope Lynn Marr runs so she can gauge how well her rants are welcome. She sure wastes taxpayers dollars with her long winded comments on every public hearing comment opportunity. Like with every public process, you always have the negatives. Its like ying and yang. I guess we have to put up with the long winded yang. Lynn Yawn is soooo tiring......... Yawnnnnnnn.
I signed the RTV initiative in a very toxic political environment.
ReplyDeleteI did so because I witnessed the general plan update take an unusual turn when a new committee, ERAC, was formed. The members were hand picked by the super majority council and the committee that had been meeting for about two years, GPAC was disbanded. I was apprehensive of what a super majority council could hypothetically do. I also understood that the new ERAC committee seemed to have the the most density allowed. I did not trust our previous council, unfortunately.
It is important to acknowledge that the RTV inititative has no effect on state housing requirements or state density bonus allowances, more crowds or mixed use building plans. Do not vote for it for these reasons.
We have a new council majority after twelve years. I have faith in them.
The best possible resolution to the RTV initiative would probably be to have a city council committed to resolve issues that are addressed and not be forced to accept any negative repercussions and costs by voting yes. I believe we have that council.
Vote no.
Adopting Prop A protects the public beyond the current council majority, which is not going to last long. The current council has already shown we can't believe in them.
DeleteWhat have they done?
DeleteI agree wholeheartedly 7:03. It makes no sense to punish a new council for the sins of the old council. Give the new council time to think this through completely, as they are already starting to do.
Delete- The Sculpin
The new council is continuing the sins of the old council.
DeleteThe City Council is against Prop A. That's good enough for me to vote for Prop A. YES on Prop A.
DeleteThink beyond the current council to who may be in office a very few years from now; that's one of the major selling points for me of Prop A: voters are guaranteed a voice in upzoning no matter who's in office. No one is being punished here, but voters will most certainly gain some much-needed protection.
DeleteAnd re: state mandates, puh-leese. Encinitas has been out of compliance with its housing element for 20 years and gosh, the sky hasn't fallen on us yet. Enough with the council hiding behind the mandate "threat." Let the people who live in this town have some self-determination, for a change.
Never mind whether Sheila or Lynn are for it: take step back and look at what it would do for Encinitas as a community and vote Yes.
what negative repercussions?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 7:03 AM
ReplyDeleteWhat negative repercussions?
I am voting yes on Prop A because the no side is pushed by BIA, Jerome Stocks, Mike Andreen, Christy Guerin and an assortment of developers with deep pockets. The Yes on Prop a are just residents with a legitimate concern for growth and quality of life. I am sick of the traffic in Encinitas, sick of not being to park in the week-end. Things have gotten progressively worse over the years and we have had only modest population growth. Think about adding another 1300 dwellings, allowing 3 or 4 story buildings here and there and everywhere. Whatever can slow down growth, even with "unintended consequences" I will vote for.
ReplyDeleteme too
DeleteGo look at council videos. As soon as Lisa Shaffer's neighborhood was mentioned for high density, her facial expressions changed and she became much more interested. Such a hypocrite. If she is for it, then I say put them all across the street from her. Tony is just a buffoon. And don't forget Barth who wants high rises, Gaspar who will do as she is told by developers (sad, but no real backbone here) and Muir who is fed by developers and evil people.
ReplyDeleteI don't care what anyone is telling you. If you want to let the voters decide on up-zoning, then YES on A.
ReplyDeleteAll the people saying no are developers, building industry, and stupid uninformed people. Trace the money.
I plan to vote YES on Prop A for the following reasons:
ReplyDelete-I don't want the State and SANDAG to tell us how much and in what fashion Encinitas needs to grow.
-I don't trust council members that during campaign support an initiative and then, once elected, take a different stand on the issue.
-I don't trust a council that panics and say they are working on removing the right-to-vote loophole present in our current General Plan, after they clearly warned us about the unintended consequences of what would happen if we had the right to vote (even if they tweak it most of the unintended consequences will remain).
-I want the city to be fiscally responsible and stop thinking that future growth and the resulting increased property tax and sales tax bases will help bridge the gap in future fiscal woes resulting from pension overruns.
-I care about Encinitas and don't want it to progressively look like Newport Beach, Manhattan Beach, or UTC. I want my kids to be able to enjoy what we have.
-We need to do something about growth control now, not when it's too late.
-It does talk story buildings to make a neighborhood vibrant. Most of downtown Encinitas is 2 story high and it is vibrant all right. State street in Santa Barbara is vibrant and the max height is 2 story.
I like the underdog and will vote Yes to stop Politics/special interests as usual.
ReplyDeleteDon't care for 3 story buildings or more.
High density does not belong in his town. I want good growth, not "smart" growth.
Voting yes because the NO group used the 101 association logos without their approvals. I don't support cheaters.
ReplyDeleteOk Sheila we all heard you at the L101 meeting last Tuesday. Blah blah blah, you are the expert( I know because you told everyone at the meeting) blah blah blah.
DeleteWrong Guess. I am not Sheila.
DeleteYou are not Sheila ?? Be thankful.
DeleteAnon 11.11, you should be so lucky to be Sheila!
DeleteVoting Yes because the NO campaign in run by the San Diego Group (http://www.thesandiegogroup.com/), a political consulting firm that specialize in squelching neighborhood rights and slow-growth movements.
ReplyDeleteReceived the NO on A flier at my door step today. They must have spent a lot money on that on, but hey what a few thousands dollars when it can protect millions in the future. Probably a good investment. Just bank on people's stupidity to get what you really want to protect: You right to extract every single penny out of land speculation.
ReplyDeleteGot a little nauseated by all the lies. The worst one was probably "Jeopardizes our historical preservation efforts". It was at par with the "Allow developers to exceed our height limits". Pretty twisted coming from a development friendly bunch.
Go to the Prop A page here: http://encinitasrighttovote.webs.com/myths-of-the-no-on-prop-a for a point-by-point myth-busting of that No flier. Compare it to the initiative itself in its entirely (just 9 pages, posted on the same site) to verify for yourself that the Prop A folks are telling it like it is.
DeleteThese people who paid a fortune for the NO on A flier are the same people who spent a fortune to attack Kranz during the campaign.
DeleteNow he has become their mouthpiece.
Is it ok for DEMA to have a stand on Prop A? I thought thAt since they receive money from the city they can not engage in political initiative such as Prop A.
ReplyDeleteDEMA has limited ability to engage in political activity.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to note that the first time DEMA head Dody Crawford appeared in front of city council to deliver DEMA's unasked-for position on Prop A, she said the DEMA board vote was unanimous.
She appeared at a second council meeting to again speak for DEMA on Prop A and was forced to admit that the first time she'd spoken, she had "misspoken." Apparently, the vote the first time had taken place in her head....
Ask any business owner downtown whether they know that the DEMA board has taken this position on their behalf. I did, and of the three larger businesses I asked, none had any idea.
Ask anyone you might know on the DEMA board if their vote was indeed unanimous and they will tell you in private that it was not. Several board members are less than pleased at this supposed show of solidarity against A.
The KLCC better start your campaigning for the next election. So you can increase your voter share to 5 votes.
ReplyDeleteThe intelligent voters of Encinitas love and support the new majority of Barth, Krantz, Shaffer. We also love the fact that the special interest candidates are now in the background of the decision making process.
I'm sure we willl hear your repeated spewing at every City Council Meeting on every topic for the next two years. You waste our taxdollars and time, and I can not stand you for that. Because of you, I may have to start a movement to limit the total number of minutes the public can speak to City Council during the year. I think we should give a maximum of 30 minutes per year, or maybe 6 minutes per City Council meeting. It would force people to use there time concisely and wisely. And it would save our tax dollars big time. Think if it, Lword and Cameron would be limited and way passed their alotted time.
Time for another lamictal.
DeleteWhat conceit. The only "movement" you're gonna start is....uh, well...use your imagination...
DeleteHere here, brilliant idea/ concept. Limiting the crazies to 30 min per year!!
DeleteI endorse this.
Vote YES on Prop A.
ReplyDeleteYes for sure
ReplyDeleteIt’s mind boggling to think that people actually base their voting decisions on being contrarian! So what if Stocks is voting no. Much as “you” hate to admit it, Stocks did get a lot of things right, and he’s right on this one; just as Shaffer and Kranz are right. My No vote on A is based on my belief that you do not zone through the ballot box, and as a show of support for the new council. Many Yes on A voters voted for the B/S/K, and I have to believe that their Yes vote, among other things, is a nullification of their council vote – sorry, but I’m just not that cynical.
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
This is not zoning through the ballot box. The city is already zoned. It's not like we're starting from scratch. Prop. A only requires a public vote for UPZONING. I would like a voice in that.
ReplyDeleteI voted for Barth, Kranz, and Shaffer. City Manager Vina is pushing hard for revenue enhancement. This means increasing density as fast as possible. The new Planning Director Jeff Murphy is working hand in hand with Vina for that end.
But I'm worried about 2014 and beyond. There will be a major push to reelect Gaspar and a replacement for Barth. We need to lock in voter approval of upzoning. This is not being cynical, only smart.
Vote YES on Prop. A.
OK 10:12AM – I’ll bite. Explain to me how Prop A protects your interests (as undefined) after 2014. What will your recourse be if a future Prop A up-zoning vote doesn’t go your way? Elect a new council to rescind it? Then you’re back to square one having to trust the council. Save yourself the heartache, as well as hamstringing the current council and vote No. Then make sure you work hard to get your candidates elected next cycle. You’re going to do that anyway, right? But here’s another way to look at it. Since you’ve set up Vina to be a boogeyman, have you considered that Prop A will actually strengthen his ability to do what you perceive him of doing?
Delete- The Sculpin
I'm not a developer, real estate agent, or anyone who works in an area that would benefit financially from an upzone in Encinitas. A change in 2014 to a solidly pro-development council could impact traffic and infrastructure in my neighborhood. I do live in an area that has greenhouse property that could be upzoned with a 4/5 vote of the council. Remember the Brown property on Santa Fe and Lake? The owners/developers wanted an upzone from RR-1 to R-45. That's a 4500% increase in density! The only thing that stopped it was a lack of a super majority.
DeleteIf Prop. A passes, Gus Vina will not be able to talk the council into bypassing a required public vote by using the super majority loophole. Prop. A closes the loophole making a public vote mandatory. It will be citizens who make the decision. If a majority wants wants the upzone, I'm fine with that. I think the citizens of Encinitas will vote their interests, not those of developers or real estate agents.
It sounds like you don't understand what the initiative actually does. Why not start by attending the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday? Or you can look at the agenda report on the city website. You will see the promised "fix" of the loophole is a sham.
Vote Yes on Prop. A.
Oh yea – the Brown property. Not exactly greedy out of town developers but rather a local family that contributed to the area with a good business. They wanted an out from a dying business and put in a development that closely mirrored Park Place. I wonder how much of the state mandate would have been covered under that project? So instead of putting higher density housing next to high density housing, you’ll have low density housing next to high density housing – go figure. That’s where they should have put Desert Rose! Developers, local or foreign, are a fairly savvy bunch, and if they have to go to the trouble of a public vote, they will with a high degree of certainty they will prevail. If Gus is as you describe, he will be more than happy to help them, thus bypassing the council entirely. Regardless, I don’t want citizens making these types of decisions – I want the Planning Commission (the experts) to review the project, and the council (our representatives) to look at the bigger picture, weigh in and vote. In other words, do their jobs. Prop A is just a big F-U to the council. What a wonderful way to get this city back on track……..
Delete- The Sculpin
The Planning commissioners are the experts? You gotta be kidding. They are political appointments and only stay on the commission if they gave the city what its wants. They are the people who gave us the Starbucks project at Orpheus and Leucadia Blvd. It has created such a traffic and parking problem that the only thing the Traffic Commission could do was send it back to the council to see if there is any way to abate the nuisance that has been created. And the PC decision was appealed to the council.
DeleteI will put my faith in the collective wisdom of the public. Vote YES on Prop. A.
read: http://encinitasrighttovote.webs.com/myths-of-the-no-on-prop-a
DeleteSculpin, the experts on the Planning Commission voted AGAINST Desert Rose, and the Council overturned it on an appeal. Then they rewrote the resolution and took out the fact that it was an appeal so that the owners with a long history of lawsuits for breach of contract and nonpayment could get financed. Gus justified rewriting the resolution since he claimed that there were 'mistakes.'
DeleteIf this case had been presented with full information--including the fact that the Council overturned the Planning Commission's decision, they would have trouble finding a lender.
Vote yes to keep salaries and pensions flowing.
ReplyDeleteI love reverse psychology once in a while.
DeleteInteresting to note: Doug Long, Christy Guerin, Rick Shea, and Alice Jacobson have formed an opposition party. Then there is Jerome Stocks and the Council - Muir, Gaspar, Barth, Kranz, and Shaffer forming their opposition party.
ReplyDeleteWhat's most sad is that Sheila and the Lword think they speak for all of Encinitnas when in reality they speak only for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThat probably why over 8000 people signed the initiative.
DeleteDoubtful these 8000 would sign the Declaration of Independence.....
DeleteDoubtful anyone on City Council would sign the Declaration of Independence... or even ratify the Bill of Rights.
DeleteAll or most of the council would probably sign on to destructive, dunderheaded projects like the EU and the UN, however. We are, after all, still spending Encinitas tax money to be members of ICLEI, the UN global warming project (which loves high-density development, by the way).
Good point W.C.. Recently a representative from ICLEI showed up at council and pleaded for the city to renew its membership to ICLEI. There was no question or discussion about why we need to pay this. There were just too happy to get advice about smart growth. I watched on TV fuming.
DeleteInteresting to note: Doug Long, Christy Guerin, Rick Shea, and Alice Jacobson have formed an opposition party. Then there is Jerome Stocks and the Council - Muir, Gaspar, Barth, Kranz, and Shaffer forming their opposition party.
ReplyDeleteSome very strange alliances have formed to oppose Prop. A.
ReplyDeleteVote YES on Prop. A
If Prop does not pass and the Council is committed to remove the right-to-vote loophole (which I would questioned), watch these "alliances" go at each other for the November 2014 general election. The developer friendly bunch will come down swinging against the concept of people voting on zoning.
ReplyDeleteBetter grab that opportunity now. Vote Yes on PROP A.
Alert! City Councils could put bus terminals in residential neighborhoods if the Council passes their new amendment to the General Plan.
ReplyDeleteWE already have bus terminals in neighborhoods, now if you were to say that the city might install streetlights, sidewalks and repave the roads that would be a measure of concern.
Delete11:51 AM - Not bus stops - big, noisy bus terminals with the lights and traffic.
DeleteStill believe the Council cares about our community and our neighborhoods?
ReplyDeleteOn the Planning Commission agenda is a General Plan amendment that would increase the Council power to approve high density and taller buildings. This is not the Council ignoring voter approval requirements with a 4/5 Council majority vote loophole. That is being replaced with words that are so general the loophole is bigger than a Mack truck, AND the Council vote needed is a simple majority - 3-2.
Hey WC, what happened to the mural on the 7-11 in Leucadia??
ReplyDeleteJeez, so confusink! Cut to the essentials, NO on Prop A is a green light to the kind of twist-the-rules development we've seen for years. YES on Prop A puts more power in the hands of the voters. YES is a check on the dark forces of development. Look at the list of people and orgs against Prop A. It's a rogues gallery. That's all you need to know to vote YES on Prop A!
ReplyDeleteYES on Prop A!
ReplyDeleteTake back our town from the local and out of town developers!
Developers are kind of like the witches of Oz. There's good ones and wicked ones. So we have to be especially careful here in the West.
ReplyDeleteYes, one size does not fit all. There are good developers.
ReplyDeletePLEASE VOTE!
DeleteThankfully, for the first time in years, we have a City Council that is acting like adults and can agree on important city issues..
It is strange that this almost overnight change has been brought about by one of the most recessive propositions ever to make it to the ballot. Proposition A is simply - ":bad law". Perrhaps its intentions are good; but its results will end Encinitas as we know it.
Although its framers would have us believe it creates a more democratic environment for the progress of the city, it is, in reality, a sure impediment to intelligent, well-planned, carefully considered growth. If we fail to keep pace with improvements in the other surrounding cities, Encinitas will become a slum neighborhood for the entire North County with ever decreasing property values and ever increasing attractions for low wage workers. I am very much for thoughtful planning and progress within the guide lines already established but, as written, Proposation B, if passed, will begin an era of zero growth, zero progress and zero improvement within ALL areas of our city. PLEASE consider carefully and VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B. Join the Council, unanimously agreed, and all intelligent citizens to rid ourselves of this attempt by a group of malcontents who fail to see the error of their thinking and have already cost the City way too much in time and funds
Most important - PLEASE VOTE ... this is NOT an issue to be dismissed lightly .. and please VOITE "NO"