HEIGHT EXPLANATION
(italics are quoted directly from Proposition or code)
Proposition A’s wording says “6.1 Maximum Height … no building or structure shall exceed (emphasis added) a maximum height of two stories or 30 feet.” It does not delete or reset the definitions of the other lower height limits whether for residential, accessory structures or steep slop lots. It only supersedes sections of code it is in conflict with. The initiative wording does not conflict with those other sections defining lower height limits for residential units, accessory units or residences in >10% sloped lots. It therefore does not supersede them.
The current General Plan height policy is POLICY 7.10. It reads “Both residential and non-residential development shall be limited to a maximum height of two stories and 30 feet.” The wording of the existing General Plan and Proposition A intentionally have very similar wording limiting height to a maximum height of two stories and/or 30 feet.
The claim by our opponents that the initiative’s wording is ambiguous yet the General Plan’s similar wording is not ambiguous or conflicting does not make sense. We believe the wording is clear that “no building or structure shall exceed a maximum height of two stories or 30 feet.” How much clearer could it be?
Opponents claim Proposition A’s definition conflicts with the lower height definitions in the residential, accessory and >10% sloped lot code sections and therefore supersedes them. Each of the height definitions from these sections is quoted below. Decide for yourself if they are in conflict. We believe it is clear and doesn’t conflict with either the General Plan or Proposition A definitions.
Residential height is defined in section 30.16.010B6. It reads “B. ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES … The standard height limit shall be the lesser of two stories or the following height … 26 ft … 22 ft … ” This wording is not in conflict with the existing GP height policy and it does not exceed the initiative’s maximum height. It therefore is not in conflict and is not superseded by the initiative.
Accessory unit height is defined in section 30.16.010E3. “Said accessory unit structure shall be limited to one story and 12 feet in height.” Again this does not conflict with the initiative wording and therefore stands.
Residential units on greater than 10% slope lots are defined in section 30.16.010B6a(1). It reads “On lots in R-3 to R-25 zones with greater than ten (10) percent slope, the building height on the uphill side of the lot shall not exceed twelve (12) feet above the crown of the right of way.” This too does not conflict with the initiative’s wording. Since it does not conflict, it stands and the lower limit stays in force.
The current General Plan and zoning code treats each of these height limits separately and distinctly. By state law, the Municipal Code (which includes the zoning and height code) cannot be in conflict and must be consistent with the General Plan (our City’s “constitution.”) Therefore today, the General Plan and zoning code height definitions are not in conflict. Today no one is saying the General Plan limit should be applied everywhere. The initiative wording does not change this treatment and leaves each unique lower height definition unchanged.
The initiative only puts a maximum height above which no building or structure can exceed. To exceed 30 feet / two stories would require a further vote of the people to modify both the initiative’s maximum and other zoning provisions defining other currently applicable height limits.
It was also dumb to include a provision in Prop A that directly impacts the specific plan areas by FUNCTIONALLY lowering some sites' max height, because it allows for the issue to be muddied. More on that later.
The council allowed for ambiguity on height to expand during their review of Prop A. They say heights "could" be raised in residential zones. Some council members say a judge has to decide. That is incomplete. First, the city has to decide how the statute will be constructed, distinctly before any judge could weight in. Why didn't they decide that before the election so that the public would know how it will be interpreted by the city? They should have. It was not fair play to not have done so. A judge couldn't be involved until AFTER the city implements Prop A. Importantly, if it did go to court after passing and if it was ambiguous then how is the court going to decide what the voters wanted?
I had to get a crash course in statutory construction when I was on the SANDAG transnet oversight board, with the help of a couple local attorneys. Based on what I learned then, a judge is certainly going to look at what is in the sample ballot & voter information pamphlet, if she is going to decide what prop a means.
By having to work though the TransNet ordinance I learned how important it is for the goals of each section to be specified in the ordinance itself. The drafters of the RtV initiative did not do that enough. Their response on this particular situation is that the plain language is obvious to anyone familiar with planning law. Well, the voters are voting on this, not planners.
The council also holds a big share of responsibility for any ambiguity if the plain language is not enough. How is that? If the council had wanted to work on clarifying the interpretation they could have, by stating how they would execute Prop A upon its passage. They could have worked on that more but it probably did not occur to them (a majority) because they were not in favor of the spirit of prop A anyways and staff had procured a report that kicked up dust rather than being illuminating on this subject. Instead, they helped crack the door open on the ambiguity. I believe that was done as part of the effort to defeat Prop A, and its genesis was not impartial.
It was a good cover for the Mayor. It helped the Mayor avoid having to tell the public that she really doesn't support giving the people the right to vote on upzoning, protected with voter approval and locking out new exceptions (I'lll be publishing her direct statement in the next day or so).
The right to vote people teed this up and the council swung at it. It is a sideshow compared to the meat of the important public policy judgements that the Mayor had tried to hide from. Should the council have the last vote on upzoning or should the voters?
oh thanks KEVIN and and BRUCE for spending 350000 of our tax money for nothing.This council with your input would have done most of all you wanted but big egos got in the way.YOURS hey thanks for nothing. Did I mention the 350000 of wasted tax money? GOOD JOB BOYS
ReplyDeleteThe city chose to spend the $350,000 for the special election. The council could have done what Tony Kranz proposed, which was to accept the initiative into law and then have a nullification initiative on the ballot in 2014, which then would only cost $35,000.
DeleteNeither Kevin or Bruce spent the money. And the council has already shown that they won't adopt all of Prop. A. We are left with only a promise of the "spirit" of Prop. A. What the heck does that means?
How am I responsible for the special election costs? I strongly opposed the special election and pleaded my case against it to the RTV people late in the game when I discovered their plan. It was one of the reasons I did not gather signatures for Prop A. I've been pretty out of the loop.
DeleteOn the other hand Barth was in close contact with the Prop A people. Prop A was on the agenda for many of her community activist meetings. She could have ended the whole movement by telling people she was against it. It is reported to me that she told a select few she was against it. It turned out that she didn't sign the petition even though she knew a large number of campaign supporters for Tony and Lisa (her new majority) were walking streets gathering the necessary signatures for the election.
BTW: Have I comprehensively specified what I think would have made a good proposition? I will state this now. I want the voters to have the right to vote on upzoning, and that right protected against council whims. I believe unearned windfall developer profits are less likely to be subsidized by the taxpayer when upzones (not "major developments") have to be vetted by both the council and the voters. I am against downzoning without compensation.
Barth and Lisa are willing to say what they are willing to put to the voters. Barth is not willing to commit any of what I and others consider important. Zero percent (0%) is far from "most".
There are things I don't like about Prop A. More important than what I don't like is what the council doesn't like. Still working on something to report on that.
What the Council and DEMA don't want you to know:
DeleteBefore the Downtown Encinitas specific plan was approved without a public vote, the build-out potential number of dwelling units (houses/apartments) was 971 for the area if the city followed the General Plan. The specific plan, which wasn't consistent with the General Plan changed that build-out potential and increased it to 1500 dwelling units.
More than a 50% increase in the number of houses/apartments in the downtown area future.
I should point out some history.
DeleteThe first encinitas project meetings was wide open for people to voice any proposals on any issue. The meeting was not about Prop A.
Here is our announcement http://www.encinitasproject.org/
I worked on open government and financial issues after that.
Upzoning was a lower priority for many of the organizers for that first meeting. Dealing with the long-term stability of the pension system was. Well, in the end that was left to the council. Did they do or even discuss most or any of the key things that Ed Wagner or other pension watchdogs recommend? There is only reason to believe that issue is dead in the water.
The long-term liability issue is bigger than all others because it impacts them all. In Stockon, Gus' old romping grounds, the solution was to go go go on residential development. They then borrowed more. Upzoning will be the unstated solution to the city's financial problem. Don't think so? Ask the city how it plans to pay its debts?
The council could have accepted the initiative, then put it on the ballot in 2014. The council chose to spend the 350000. The council then chose to spend another $55,000 for the bogus Rutan report.
ReplyDeleteThe council then chose to allot another $200,000 for their extra expenses in opposing Prop A.
The council is standing shoulder to shoulder with Jerome Stocks, Mike Andreen, Christy Guerin, James Bond, Doug Long, Zelman Development - Los Angeles, National Association of Realtors - Chicago,Illinois among others.
I already voted Yes on A by absentee ballot. But if I hadn't and had to rely on the height explanation in the post above for clarification, I'd be lost. It's clear as mud. The initiative's writers and core proponents can't expect many voters to dig deeply into the minute details of the initiative. To sell well, the initiative's key provisions must be simply, clearly and, therefore, powerfully put. They're not. That opens the initiative to easy attack and misrepresentation by opponents. The result is that many voters are confused.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this opened the door. The council could have closed the door. THeir handlers help them wedge it wide open. There are only two possible outcomes for Prop A. Only two contingencies needed to be resolved by the council. They did not. It benefits the No on Prop A to keep it muddy.
DeleteIf prop A is defeated Barth Shaffer and KRANZ will move quickly to push their regional high density agenda on all of Encinitas this summer. They will pay Pear Nor by 135 as minister misinformation to separate the council from the people, then Barth will blame SANDAG and state HCD and Shaffer will claim we need to take away rights of residents to get affordablw housing. By August the deceactive ideological high density council will have up zoned the whole city calling it a housing element.......watch for it
DeleteHey Andreen, I notice how you don't include the evil Muir and Gaspar!
DeleteIf the city had been involved in the initiative, it would have never been written. The history of the origin of the initiative process in California was to bypass governmental agencies that were controlled by powerful outside interests. In the early 1900s it was the strangle hold the Southern Pacific Railroad had on the state legislature. The initiative process gave the public the power to "initiate" law and get it passed by a vote of the people. An admirable goal, even if it has been abused at the state level in recent years.
ReplyDeleteIt's clear the City of Encinitas would have fought tooth and nail to have prevented the initiative if it had had a participatory role. City Manager Gus Vina would have seen to that. He is a powerful player in the background in the current NO on Prop. A campaign. The city got blindsided because it thought the signature gatherers would not be successful. It's not easy to pull off an initiative campaign, especially to get 15% valid signatures. The same holds true for powerful outside interests.
I don't know why a judge would have difficulty interpreting what Prop. A means. City Council, City Manager, and staff didn't. They immediately mounted a full bore campaign to defeat it. Same with developers and real estate people. The language of the initiative is technical because it has to be. The meaning is simple:
If you vote YES, you get to approve or reject increases in density and height.
If you vote NO, you don't. City manager, council and staff do.
Who do you trust more?
I think we can guess where it would have gone by looking at Barth is willing to commit to.
DeleteLast week Barth wrote"
"The City Council agrees with this intent and at the May 22nd meeting voted unanimously to eliminate the 4/5 super majority exception and added a requirement for voter approval of the comprehensive General Plan update. Council will submit these changes for voter ratification on the November 4, 2014 General Election ballot."
Eliminating the 4/5th means that a future council can just add a new exception without a vote of the people. I can be a 3/5ths exception, just like the one already proposed staff! Barth's version purposeful leaves out adding language prohibiting more exemptions being slipped in at later dates. An (advisory?) vote on the GPU is also weak. It can be improved if several alternatives are posed to the public rather than a single thumbs up or down. GP amendments happen all the time and serious intensification can happen then later, when the voters are not watching. This approach is hollow. It gives ZERO % of what is at the core of Prop A.
It's Mayor Barth's fault Prop A is confusing. Classic.
ReplyDeleteBy design. She is against Prop A. The height issue could have been clarified. The effort was not made. It benefits the opponents from having to have the voters make a value judgement to having to analyze the Prop. I suspect the council and their handlers know they would loose if the voters were asked to make a value judgement. People love Encinitas. That is why they move here and stay here.
DeleteMaking Barth the new Jerome style Boogieman will lead you to one road, Mayor Gaspar.
DeleteIt's not Barth's fault Bruce and Sheila wrote a confusing proposition. If Right to Vote had been publicly vetted during the process all of this could have been avoided.
Duh, Bruce and Sheila didn't write the initiative. A professional land use attorney who specializes in this stuff wrote it!
DeleteBarth Gaspar Muir Kranz SHAFFER are all one in the same and equally bad for Encinitas. Gaspar is backed by developers and she is fiscally loose with our money. Muir is getting paid 170K pension and is out for himself, KRanz is enjoying new power being friends with Doug Manchester, Shaffer wants affordable housing acommunity expense and Barth thinks high density is what Encinitas needs according to her KPBS interview
DeleteWho opposes Prop A?
ReplyDelete1. The City Council
2. DEMA101 - City Council gives them $20,000 a year
3. LEUCADIA101 - City Council give them $30,000 a year
4. CHAMBER OF CHAMBER - City Council just voted to
give them $20,000 a year
5. Zelman Development, Los Angeles (owns Encinitas Town
Center)
6. National Association of Realtors, Chicago, Illinois
DEMA's revenues are much more deeply tied to the city than $20,000.
DeleteDEMA 2011 990 tax return showed a loss of $5000. Not make money there. But DEMA salaries -compensation was almost $137,000 for the year. Who's getting paid? And the city council is pumping in taxpayers' money to keep DEMA running?
DeleteCouncilman Mark Muir asked the chamber of commerce representative the chamber's position on Prop A. Muir was told that the chamber doesn't get involved in politics. Several weeks later the chamber votes to join with the council and officially oppose Prop A. Some weeks after that the council votes to give $20,000 to the chamber.
I thought the vote on subsidizing the business associations and the chamber(s?) was delayed?
DeleteAll of the these associations should have to compete, as non-profits, only, for money given out by the City for Community Grants, including Norby's contractor fees, and housing authority funds funneled through developers to a non-profit foundation with Peder Norby, Paul Ecke III and Doug Long, all proponents of redevelopment, and opponents of the people's right to choose what we want, "on Board."
correction: The council did delay the vote on the $20,000 to the Chamber of Commerce. Will they include Mike Andreen's El Camino Real association in the next discussion?
DeleteWho opposes Prop A?
1. The City Council
2. DEMA101 - City Council gives them $20,000 a year
3. LEUCADIA101 - City Council give them $30,000 a year
4. CHAMBER OF CHAMBER - City Council delayed vote to
give them $20,000 a year
5. Zelman Development, Los Angeles (owns Encinitas Town
Center)
6. National Association of Realtors, Chicago, Illinois
Something has to be done, and if Prop A is "flawed", so what? Take a look at the crap behind El Norte Especial and the other crappy units on Hermes. You want MORE of this? I do not.
ReplyDeleteProp A would have ABSOLUTELY ZERO EFFECT ON EITHER OF THESE.
DeleteI totally agree with the first comment.
Exactly. Prop A does not prevent either of those projects. People believe they are voting for an end of all development. Can't wait for Prop A to pass and have reality hit.
DeleteNot to shake everybody's tree, but, if Prop A passes, like Yorba Linda the City Prop A is so poorly based on: every time the State of California adjusts Encinitas' regional housing numbers yet another Special Election is triggered. Sure, it might not be $350,000 a pop, but it IS a waste of taxpayer's dollars and it will happen over and over again. Good writing, Susan!
ReplyDeleteElections would be paid for by the developers, not the taxpayers.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhy do you use Yorba Linda, as an example? Big differences there, between initiatives.
DeleteProp A opponents DO rely on muddying the waters, to confuse, obfuscate, create doubt, and by "mob psychology," fear.
Why not look to Escondido's initiative, in effect for over 10 years, and much more similar to ours, with nary a lawsuit .
There should be public votes during even numbered years in order to enact new Specific Plans or General Plans, including those changes that allegedly could be required through Density Bonus mandates.
The initiative was written by North County Attorney Everett Delano with Sections (specialties) in Real Property Law (including land-use, zoning and initiatives) and Environmental Law.
DeleteJoel Kuperberg, Orange County attorney working for a pro-development lawfirm, has neither of these sections; he wrote the slanted impact report, full of conjecture and speculation, which as designed, gave Council an excuse to oppose the people's right to vote on whether or not we want to raise the height limits and number of stories, above the parameters originally envisioned for our General Plan, with certain exceptions for SPECIFIED SITES, not the entire 101 Corridor.
Cardiff's SP is the most protective, because more neighbors did get involved, and their years of work was not disregarded, or discounted, as in Leucadia and Old Encinitas.
Teresa, ultimately, seems unconcerned because, as she has said, since Cardiff already has its share of high density, none of the necessary upzoning would be sited there. If and when Prop A passes, I doubt she'll run for re-election. Anything's possible, I guess, but she has changed more than anyone. We didn't know Lisa long enough to realize how she'd be, once in office. But many people are hugely disappointed, and because many were gullible, including myself, very surprised. Some say only one's friends can truly betray you, because we know not to trust our opponents.
I thank Kevin for his thousands of hours of work, compelled to look for the truth, so we can all "do the right thing." I don't get his issues with the height limit, or anyone's issue with someone's trying to explain how the GP and the right to vote initiative are consistent, but that some city code and resolutions are inconsistent. Teresa just admitted at the last subcommittee how resolutions are inconsistent that our new Clerk had researched and brought forward, re Council policy and protocol review.
Some people do want to dig deeper, to understand, so that we can decide for ourselves, using logic and an open mind. Kevin is one of those people, and I'm glad. But same goes for so many others, the little guy and gal, driving, biking and walking on our streets, going to the beach, taking our kids and dogs to our parks, working toward fair play, good deals, with commons sense and common kindness.
Don't delay, vote YES on A!
DEMA 2011 990 tax return showed a loss of $5000. Not make money there. But DEMA salaries -compensation was almost $137,000 for the year. Who's getting paid? And the city council is pumping in taxpayers' money to keep DEMA running?
ReplyDeleteCouncilman Mark Muir asked the chamber of commerce representative the chamber's position on Prop A. Muir was told that the chamber doesn't get involved in politics. Several weeks later the chamber votes to join with the council and officially oppose Prop A. Some weeks after that the council votes to give $20,000 to the chamber.
A little Quid pro quo action is always nice. It kind of reminds me of Cummingham and Dalagar! I wish we could send some currently running the City to jail!
Deletecorrection:
DeleteThe council delayed the vote on the $20,000 to the chamber until they get more information on the chamber's economic development plan and El Camino Real economic plan. Will Mike Andreen get his $20,000 for his "new" chamber of the El Camino Real corridor?
If Whole Foods and Pacific Station had gone to a public vote it would have passed by a landslide and probably would have been 45 feet.
ReplyDeleteWhich is fine...and the point of Prop A. Some things pass, others don't.
ReplyDeletebut it's the people who decide, not developers, not the Building Industry Assoc, not some national assoc of realtors, and not council members financed by all of the above. actual residents decide. what a concept.
ReplyDeleteRecall Barth
ReplyDeleteI agree with anon 6:30 - We should recall Barth.
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea, whatsoever, what you are talking about, if you believe that Barth should be recalled.
DeleteIs it because you are andreen?
I do not want uninformed or delusional people like you to vote on important issues.
Andreen can't vote in Encinitas because he doesn't even live here. Too pricey for him. The developers aren't paying him enough.
DeletePROP A has totally fractured this town,lie after lie Stocks and Bond could not be happier.Thanks to our PROP A committee who ever they may be (crafted behind closed doors ) it appears to me nameless faceless to be announced at a later date.Such a waste of time and tax money.THANKS AGIAN BRUCE AND KEVIN.
ReplyDeleteThe council under Mayor Barth must be held accountable for spreading untruths. The council rebuttal statement says no up-zoning has happened without a vote of the people - the truth is the 101 height and density limits were increased by the council without a vote of the people.
DeleteBarth claims the council voted out the 4/5th loophole- the fact is the council had delayed drafting final ballot language AND approving the ballot amendment until after the election- why? What are they hiding?
Thanks Encinitas residents for voting yes on A and taking the power to decide our future out of the hands of untrustworthy politicians.
Not true
DeleteWhat does it say about the character of Barth, Kranz and Shaffer that they have abandoned their campaign promises to protect community character and their voter base who put them into office? Instead, they are now aligning themselves with the development interests that spent money to work against their elections. Why do they continue to support these No on A people and Gus Vina? We know that Gus is purely motivated by his lifetime payout. How can Barth, Shaffer and Kranz support something that makes them look like they are tossing their ethics aside for so little?
Delete9:46 please post for everyone the final approved ballot language amendment by the council that does away with the 4/5th loophole and also guarantee's the right to vote? Oh- they don't have one. Right- they are waiting until after the election to write one- if they ever write one at all. What are they hiding? Prop A hides nothing while city hall is hiding everything. Looks like Sacramento Gus is driving that bus of secrecy.
DeleteTeresa Barth led residents to believe that she was for protecting our small town community character. Many residents voted for her thinking she would stand up for them.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is Teresa Barth believes the future of Encinitas is high density buildings fitting a regional agenda, not a small Encinitas serving today's residents.
This fact became known to the public in an interview Ms. Barth gave to KPBS.
Ms. Barth believes in the ideology of Regionalism. This ideology takes power away from local people and puts it in the hands of un-elected regional governing bodies like SANDAG. SANDAG will now spend $40 million of taxpayer money to promote their ideology calling it San Diego Forward. San Diego Forward wants to do away with local government and create high density zoning from San Diego to Pendleton, this is like LA where when driving from LAX to Irvine every city looks the same.
Barth wants Encinitas to become a Regional High density urban center. Residents want Encinitas to be a 2 story beach town. We were duped. Barth wants to force a new community on us and she should be opposed. How disappointing. That we find these facts distasteful only means they should not be ignored.
Not true
DeleteBarth always complained about the way she was treated by the past council majority. Maybe there was a justifiable reason after all.
Delete10:30 do you have any facts to dispute the fact that Barth has voted the same as Gaspar and Muir to increase density and oppose the citizens right to vote.
DeleteReceived a robo-call from Ian Thompson yesterday stating that he knew if Maggie was still here, she would vote YES. Since Shaffer ran on the basis of Maggie's endorsement, it seems a bit strange that she is voting NO. Hard to trust someone like that, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteShaffer let it slip in her last email newsletter that she believes it is the job of government to provide affordable housing in Encinitas. This ideology means Shaffer supports taking rights from one person and giving them to another under the guise of affordable housing and at the expense of existing community character. Had Shaffer let it be know to anyone during the campaign that she supported high density housing at the expense of existing community character she might not have been elected and Maggie might not have given her an endorsement. We are only now learning what high density supporters Gaspar, Muir and the others are.......each with a different reason to support their votes.
DeleteSorry, but Shaffer is clueless. Her ego won't let her admit it though. Lots of people have PHDs and in way harder subjects. Why does she think so highly of herself? Surely she must understand she isn't that special?
DeleteWell mike, she and maggie were horribly treated by the past majority. That was because stocks and the boys did not want open government. Barth and Houlihan did.
ReplyDeleteIf Barth wants open government why has she failed to hold city manager Vina accountable for failing to disclose that he had already signed a contract with the firm Rutan and Tucker before being directed to do so from the council? If Barth wants openness why did she allow the ballot council rebuttal statement to read Encinitas has never had an upzoning without a vote of the people when the truth is the council upzoned the 101 with a vote of the people? We are just now learning that Barth, Gaspar and Muir are one in the same. Appointing PEdr Norby to the new PR position as minister of misinformation will confirm this.
DeleteMore miss information.
DeleteThe city has hired someone for that position and it is NOT Norby.
I guess that confirs that.
Doubt that the city has hired someone to be the council's spin doctor. No fanfare or special announcements from Gus' office.
DeletePerhaps the public pre-hire vocal opposition to Norby being made 'Minister of Misinformation' is causing the council to think twice before finalizing his hire. This would be a good thing.
DeleteBringing on this new person to try to remake their images will only make voters more distrustful and angry.
DeleteWhen Gus joined the City, he spoke about how happy he was to get a chance to be hands on and interact with the public since it was so much smaller city than the others where he worked. If this is the case, why does he keep hiring more people that we have to pay for? We don't want more staff--he does!
10:30 I suggest you read Mayor Barth's KPBS interview. Barth states Senior and young people all want high density buildings. Barth states high density buildings fit regional trends. These are the facts. Mayor Barth's vision is a new Regional Encinitas with higher density and bigger buildings that serve a regional growth agenda not an Encinitas community preservation agenda.
ReplyDeleteThese are the facts and they are true. Can you offer any facts to contradict my facts?
Here is a perfect example of your fullofshittity, mike.
DeleteYour comments I'm no way indicate that Barth does ..."not have an Encinitas community preservation agenda.", or hate kittens.
1:49 do you have any facts?
DeleteBarth being interviewed by KPBS is a fact. Barth saying people want high density is a fact. Barth saying high density is the regional trend is a fact. Barth saying Seniors ALL want it is a fact. Barth opposing the citizens right to vote is a fact. Barth ignoring that city manager Gus Vina retained a high density developer law firm for 40K prior to being told to do so by the council is a fact. Mayor Barth is entitled to her high density opinion. She believes in a regional urban dense Encinitas that serves a regional agenda. If you want the right to vote to keep Encinitas a 2 story town serving residents vote yes on A.
If you have any facts 1:49 please share them. Name calling helps no one, facts help everyone.
Taik about openness,prop was crafted behind closed doors by a few select people il you didn't agree with them you were exclude from the conversation. I think your all just hypocritical. 8500 signed this prop a thing ONLY 15 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS.In my book that is not a majority. GET OVER IT.
ReplyDeleteMayor Barth and the council have spread the following misinformation-
Delete1. They have done away with the 4-5th loophole. The fact is the council has delayed drafting the final ballot language - AND - approving the final ballot language, despite having 5 months to do so. What are they hiding and why? What do they really propose?
2. No up-zoning has happened without a vote of the people- the fact is the 101 was upzoned without a vote of the people.
3. Gus Vina signed a 40,000 dollar contract with the high density law firm before ever being directed to do so by the council AND when the council directed Vina weeks later to retain a firm Vina withheld disclosing to the public and the council he already had. These are facts.
It is also a fact that the Prop A initiative was announced to the public for all to attend, the Prop A initiative was posted online for all to read for 5 months, and Prop was widely distributed at shopping centers- that is open and transparent - cutting back room deals to hire law firms is not.
I'm not sure how many registered voters there are, but assuming approximately 35,000, then 8,5000 is over 23% of voters signed, which is phenomenal. The initiative wasn't crafted "behind closed doors," but at the request of community members. Jerome Stocks sure couldn't get that number of registered voters to vote for him!
DeleteThe Right to vote on upzoning initiative is simple, only 4 1/2 pages on the City's website, compared to the 37 page, complicated, hard to follow, full of speculation and conjecture, biased impact report, which was created after the attorney who wrote it was selected without input from Council or the public, without even admitting the law firm had already been selected, when public inquiries were made (supposedly) beforehand, at Council Meetings.
The law firm had already been selected. City Manager Gus Vina fed, is feeding, Council and the public lies of omission.
The Registrar of Voters stops counting at 15%. Anon 12:18, I hope you can GET OVER IT after Prop A passes, despite all your propaganda and distortions of the truth.
The 15% may not be an overwhelming number in and of itself, but the fact that it was collected EASILY in 3 months' time with a crew who for the most part had full-time jobs and were doing it in their spare time speaks volumes.
DeleteYes, it was "crafted 'behind closed doors'": it was February, it was cold out, the door was shut. Note the first meeting was held at Tony's house. This was not a "select" group - anyone was welcome and contributors came from all 5 communities.
Teresa Barth is one of five votes on our city council,oh by the way voted 5 to 0 to oppese this poorly written document called prop A. She is not the queen or dictator this is a democracy that last time I checked.let the people vote,majority still rules.
ReplyDeleteTeresa Barth and the council oppose letting the people vote on land-use changes. The council wrote in their rebuttal that Encinitas has never had an upzone without a vote of the people, the fact is the 101 was upzoned without a vote of the people. Why is the council spreading misinformation?
DeleteIn my view, the council is already on public record as supporting the public's right to vote on upzoning. Watch the video of the council meeting on 3/27 from 4:49:00 to 4:50:30, in which Kristin Gaspar reads the "Commitment to Protect" section. It mentions both the right to vote on GP amendments and the right to vote on zoning changes. The council voted unanimously to support this wording. If you want to see the whole context, watch from the 4:35:00 point.
ReplyDeleteThe council HAS NOT done away with the 4/5th loophole or given residents the right to vote. Despite having 5 months to prepare AND approve a final ballot statement before the Peop A election they have not. What are they hiding? Why did they delay? The fact is residents don't have the right to vote and the council could decided or not agree on final language for the November 2014 ballot.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, if Prop A fails to pass I fear Mayor Barth, City Manager Vina and the new PR spin master likely Pedr Norby will move to approve a housing element this summer that will upzone the whole city including Cardiff and El Camino Real with a vote. IF this happens the three will blame SANDAG and HCD. That is why they are hiring a PR firm.
The only way to stop this and preserve our current small town character is to vote yes on A.
The new "PR spin doctor", as you call the position is likely NOT Norby, as you speculate.
DeleteThe job has been filled and you are wrong. And wrong again, no one is hiring a PR firm.
How do you know the "job has been filled?" The person taking the job is not, or will not be a "PR firm," but he or she is a Public Relations "specialist."
DeleteAnonymous 2:36 PM
DeleteYou have the scope on the new spin doctor? Who, who is it? Naw, don't think you know.
3:03 Rutan and Tucker- $40,000 in taxpayer money to write a report called an 'independent study'- right, there a law firm- yeah. What kind of analysis does 40K buy? Now there is some serious spin - sounds like a no on A PR firm to me. You might be for wasting taxpayer money I am not.
DeleteSounds like the council is rethinking hiring Norby as the new PR guy at city hall............that would be a good thing.
The above note is that Norby, Vina, Barth and the council will uzpone the whole city this summer if Prop A fails to pass WITHOUT a vote of the people.
ReplyDelete....which is totally implausible and unsupported.
DeleteWhat in the world are you people smoking ! Want some of that stuff
ReplyDeleteAt earlier council meetings this year Mayor Barth and the city manager have discussed a state housing element mandate due this summer/fall. It is my FEAR- that if Prop A is defeated and council retains all power over zoning that the council and Vina will push to approve a housing element this summer without a vote of the people and that this housing element will include upzoning. This is not implausible nor is it unsupported. The council has already discussed this and the mayor is bringing in HCD and SANDAG representatives to talk to the council.........this could be the political cover the council uses to pass a new housing element without a vote of the people. The best way to prevent this is to vote yes on A.
DeletePlease refer to 2:40.
ReplyDeleteThat is crazy talk.
You people are so so wrong YOU STINK OF FEAR
ReplyDeleteCan you offer any facts or are you capable only of derogatory comments? The facts are Vina told the council the city needs a housing element this summer/fall. The facts are the council could approve a new housing element that might include upzoning to increase density before the General Plan update is ever finished. IF this were to happen the council could blame SANDAG or HCD or the State to justify their actions. These are factual possibilities. Voting YES on A would take the power from the council and put it in the hands of voters. If you have any facts please share. The could has not done away with the supermajority loophole as they have not drafted or approved the final ballot language- why? What are they hiding?
DeleteIt is a fact that earlier this year the City Manager Gus Vina told the council the city needed an approved housing element this summer/fall. It is a fact that the city council COULD act unilaterally this summer to approve a housing element that includes upzoning parts of the city without a vote of the people while continuing to work on the General Plan.
ReplyDeleteThis is not crazy talk it is a distinct possibility based on facts. Is this why Vina and the council want to hire a PR spin doctor? The best way to avoid this from happening is to vote yes on A
BRUCE AND KEVIN have sold you PROP A people out. They've sold you for there own fat EGO' S and you don't have a clue
ReplyDeleteAgain, more name calling and derogatory comments but no facts 4:24 If you have facts please share them. Name calling helps nobody.
DeleteActually I believe 4:24 is right on. I have seen it before.
Delete7:50 DO you have any facts to support your opinion?"
DeleteTo the residents who live in the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan which encompasses the area between Encinitas Blvd. south to Swami's and Cornish west to the bluffs:
ReplyDeleteDid you know that the General Plan assumed a build-out number of dwelling units, houses/apartments, of 971 units. Did you know that when the specific plan was written with all the special loopholes, the build-out number of houses/apartments would be 1500 units. Many of the properties aren't build-out yet.
Dody Crawford, director of DEMA, wants you to believe that reducing the number of parking spaces in the commercial area is good for you. Where do the employees park? On your street? Where do the customers park? On your street?
Do you want to see multilevel parking garages or below ground parking?
How much more traffic can the streets in the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan take?
There has been a citywide process, the General Plan Update, that has been going on for close to three years.
ReplyDeleteThe city has a draft. The housing element has been identified as to needing refinement. All along this process has been driven by citizen input. Although it is only in a draft form, I suppose it is possible that could go before planning and them approved by council. There is probably a ten million to one chance that this will happen this summer,maybe less. To say this is a distinct possibility is near impossible to justify.
This is Not why the city wants to hire a spin doctor, as you put it. And, by the way, that job has been filled.
I can easily see the reason to hire someone to inform the public that there is a new majority council that is not planning to hijack the update, sleep with developers, change our city into Irvine and kick squirrels.
Oh, and please share your concepts of accomadating hypothetical locations of our city that would most appropriately accomadate the required housing needs identified by the state.
This has been done, but I am sure your ideas are much better than what the public and GPAC suggested.
Probably better that what Stocks and the boy's group, ERAC offered.
Who was hired as the spin doctor? Is it a secret?
DeleteI am glad to hear you agree with me that the city council could approve a housing element this summer without a vote of the people. I disagree with your opinion that it is a far fetched possibility.
DeleteIn case you did not make the last council meeting on the budget a few highlights-
1. Fact- the city debt service increased by 600K this year.
2. Fact- the cost of cops is up 7%, fireman 3%
3. Fact-To start the Hall park the city manager and council raided fully funded capital improvement projects of needed money- where is the money for those projects?
4. Fact-The city has unfunded pension liabilities of $39-80 million depending on who you believe.
5. Fact- the city will have to pay $2million a year more to Calpers in a few years-
6. Fact- at the last council meeting the council discussed finding ways to raise more fees on residents
7. Fact- Hiring a PR spin doctor creates a layer of government.
Fact- the 135K going to the PR specialist should have gone to pay for one of the capital projects the city council raided or to pay down debt.
If the job has been filled why no announcement from city hall? Right- just more secrecy.
The answer is pavers of course. Gus put up a banner for pavers the way that Swap Meet Venders put up signs to sell their goods.
DeleteEvery City Council Chamber should have a sign advertising items for sale. But that is just Gus. He is a classy kind of guy!
"Driven by citizen input??" You mean the insulting dots mapping, where "none of the above" was not an option? Look up "Hobson's Choice," that's what you had there.
DeleteBarth even admitted in a private meeting that the whole dots thing was a sham, designed so that at the end the city to throw back in peoples' faces "this is the result of citizen input, we're just giving you what you said you wanted." Right.
Watch for Barth Shaffer and Kranz will use the bogus dot map exercise this summer to approve a high density housing element if Prop A is defeated and the council retains land use powers.
DeleteGus Vina will tell the council they must follow bogus SANDAG numbers, Barth and Shaffer will bring I the social engineers from HCD who believe it is ok to take the property rights of one family and give them to another.
Pedr Norby will spin this as fitting Regional Trends and Regional Demographics
If you want to keep Encinitas a 2 story town and control your own quality of life vote yes on A.
DEMA gets money from the city. The city and the developers and council oppose the right to vote. Barth is on record she wants a regional high density urban center. Shaffer is on record she wants the council to decide where affordable housing should go- even if that means taking views and quality of life from others.
ReplyDeleteThe council rebuttal statement says no up-zoning happened with a vote of the people- Ms, Crawford and the council no this is an untruth. Why does DEMA and Ms. Crawford support the council telling untruths? Could it because they stand to make money at the expense of residents?
101 residents have gone to council and complained of bars, fights, crimes, stabbings and finding used condoms in their driveway- gee, sounds like a dense urban city right. That is their vision for Encinitas- in the name of profits.
Vote yes on A and know the facts. DEMA is for making profits for merchants, not protecting your quality of life or our small two story zoning.
I can't believe Council is spending $130k on a spin doctor. This is bullshit. If Sac Gus cant listen or communicate, fire him. Dont hire unneeded positions.
ReplyDeleteCouncil is failing us!
$136,000 this year on the spin doctor. As Gus tells the council, I will tell you a little bit about it and more later because it is so complicated, as the council's heads bobble in agreement.
ReplyDeleteEverything is just so complicated for the braintrust City staff to explain to the unwashed masses of ignorant, Encinitas citizens.
DeleteHiring a PR person in a city of 60,000 is ludicrous. Vina does not even answer his e-mails. He is consistently hiding.
ReplyDeleteI think they should pick Mike Andreen for disinformation public relation rep. It would be like the information minister in Iraq declaring "Everything is fine, we have the upper hand and Saddam is in great spirit, we will prevail", as bomb as whistling right in front of the camera and Saddam is crawling into a hole.
On Prop A: Who will stand up to SANDAG regional plan, and the HCD mandate to high-density growth?. The council is certainly not making waves. Gus Vina told me he wanted to get things done fast and get this housing element sooner than later. The new Murphy had a major mishap by insulting the intelligence of Encinitas residents by trying to sneak through a loophole big enough to fit a "potential" 5 story building.
Norby will will force us into a growth consensus most people reject.
What's left? Prop A is where the developer bucks stop.
Vote YES.
Your excactly right. Suggesting hiring a PR person for a town of 60k is stupidity.
DeleteThis guy is a moron and on track to bankrupt Encinitas like Sacramento and Stocken.
Tell your City Council to fire Sacramento Gus or be fired in the next election and continue with the complete non-support from the public. We know we are getting fleeced.
You are wasting our taxdollars!
In our neighborhood PROP A is called THE LAND USE ATTORNY FULL EMPLOMRNT ACT.
ReplyDeleteThat's not what they call their similar successful policy in Escondido.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePR person for a small town of 60k - Ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteIt shows Sacramento Gus does not have a clue on successfully managing a town.
Fire him now. Or you all will be fired next election. He is wasting our tax dollars.
There are plenty of competent people who can serve as our City Manger that are not the highest paid in the County. Plus they can communicate so you would save an extra $130k per year.
Wake up City Council!!! You are being snowed!!!!!!!
Escondido is not in the coastal zone ,I think a totally different can of worms
ReplyDeleteLet me say again, this prop was written behind closed doors by a select group of people.If you didn't agree with them you were not ask to participate and I disagree,they hard Time getting people to sign.they worked three weeks past the election to gather signatures BRUCE OR KEVIN I never so either with a clip board.I think you're being schemed
ReplyDelete10:00 am-
DeleteFact Prop A was written over many months by a local land use attorney named Everett Delano.
Fact- Prop A was posted on the right to vote website for all to read for many months.
Fact- Prop A got 8,000 signatures.
Fact- Encinitas City Manager Gus Vina hired the law firm Rutan and Tucker behind closed doors without informing the public.
Fact- When the Encinitas council directed Vina to retain a law firm he failed to tell the public he already had.
Fact- Kristin Gaspar and Mark Muir are backed by developers.
Fact- Teresa Barth told KPBS Encinitas should fit Regional Trends and seniors all wanted high density
Fact-Lisa Shaffer wrote it is the councils job to make housing affordable- even if that means upzoning to benefit one person over another
Fact- Tony Kranz seems more open to the regional high density agenda since attending Developer and UT owner Doug Manchester's invite only party in Del Mar for North County officials.
Do you have any facts to support your claims?
Everything the Prop A people did was legal and open. This jokester is just trying anything he can to paint a bad picture...even if it means he is telling lies. It must be either Jerome Stocks, or Mike Andreen. If for no other reason, people should Vote yes on A just to shut those two up and get rid of them. I imagine they will follow their developer buddies to another town when prop A passes.
DeleteDIVIDE AND CONQUER YOU HAVE AND THEY WILL
ReplyDeleteThe No on A are OK people because they get their money from out of town developers like Zelman Development, Los Angeles and the National Association of Realtors out of Chicago, Illinois.
ReplyDeletethe No on A financial backers are developers, building industry, and real estate people.
Deletewhereas the Yes on A people are residents who live here and want to have a say in their community.
It is really a no brainer who I will side with. Not the slimy, creepy developers who would build a ghastly building over their mother's home if it meant they good make money.
For God's sake people - YES on A
Factfactfactfactfactfact AND I SO BELIVE YOU ANON but you lack the most important word of all PROOF and I say to you CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP. EVEN MORE CRAP
ReplyDeleteLooks like someone needs to stop drinking.
Delete3:05 name calling and derogatory comments help no one. Can you offer the readers any factual information to rebut that the big spenders behind the No on A mailers are developers? Can you offer any facts to rebut that Ms. Barth told KPBS people want high density? Can you offer any facts that city manager Vina did not sign the contract with Rutan and Tucker before being directed to do so?
ReplyDeleteCan you offer any facts that the subcommittee of Mayor Barth and Lisa Shaffer plan to propose limiting public participation by limiting time during discussions on agenda items? Barth ran on a campaign of protecting community character and public participation..............now she is hiring spin doctors, siding with developers on Prop A and proposing to limit free speech at city hall.....wow.
DEAR WOW get over yourself you have know PROOF GET IT PROOF just a big mouth and ANON aligations. BLAH BLAH BLAH.Any one can say those things I chose to believe your a liar.
ReplyDeleteHow about some coffee to sober up a bit?
DeleteMayor Barth and Lisa Shaffer as a sub committee passed out handouts that would change the time limit for speakers at city hall on agenda items. This is a fact. I do not know if the mayor is or is not a nice person. I do know she told KPBS she supports high density and thinks Encinitas should fit regional trends. I also know she made suggestions to limit time and in so doing limit participation. These are facts.
Deleteyes I agree with 4 55 I have Known Teresa for many years and I can tell you in all honesty she as fine a person I've had the pleasure to meet what your saying about her is totally untrue go back to oceanside mike
ReplyDeleteI agree.
DeleteTeresa is an honest caring individual.
I know that.
Well, let's not start calling her a saint just yet. However, there are a lot of people way worse than her for sure. Like Gaspar, Muir, Stocks.
DeleteI agree. Teresa is a fine person, and I like her. Unfortunately, she is listening to staff, and I wonder what I would do if I were in her shoes. Ya'll should think about that for a bit. Still I am voting Yes on A.
DeleteI don't know if Barth is or is not a nice person. I do know she led voters to believed she wanted to protect the Encinitas of today and be open. She told KPBS she wants high ddensity, it is good, it fits regional trends, seniors want it. This mean she wants to change encinitas to fit regional zoning. On openness the allowed her name to be on the council rebuttal that states the untruth the no up zoning ever happened with a vote of the people. She is like Gaspar, both need to be voted out next year.
DeleteOMG, the WORST no on A liar-flyer YET came in today's mail.
ReplyDeleteI feel like ripping it up, but will save as evidence against EPA, and the "rebranded" 101 Associations and Chamber of Commerce. Because they are all subsidized by taxpayer monies, and have been subsidized by the City, directly, they should only use Prop A funds for "educational outreach." They should receive no more city subsidies, after this fiasco of falsehoods!
Our Supreme Court has muddied the waters with its allowing for-profit corps. to form PACs, Political Action Committees, as "non-profits." That's crossing the line, and leads to checkbook justice, checkbook morality. No matter how much one spins it, truth is truth and lies are lies.
We are being governed by a machine, with a machine's refined intelligence, fabricating lies, constructing falsehoods, "redeveloping" the truth, spinning webs, mazes of deceit.
The spinmasters are counting on gullible, uninformed and/or apathetic "masses." We can set a fire of awareness with Prop A. Just SAY YES, is best.
We can wake up and take back the power to decide for ourselves what we have, what we want, what we need. We don't have to be spoon-fed the marketing masters' jive; we don't have to take deceivers by their politically prejudiced word, or the phony justifications of under-qualified public technocrats.
We won't take freedom to choose for granted! We can take back our personal power to vote on our quality of life, our neighborhood's, our community's character. We can choose not to be manipulated with fear, doubt and confusion, created by outright lies.
Why wouldn't EVERYONE want to have the power to vote whether we want to go above 30 ft. and two stories, as originally envisioned by our founders and our General Plan?
Voting YES is best, all deceit to the contrary.
You know when the Anti-A-ites have spent so much, they must be "running scared." They are projecting their own fear . . .
I hope to God people will think for themselves. I don't mind being a lamb, now and then, but the City and Big-Redevelopment are NOT my shepherds.
Intuition tells me teenage sons and/or daughters of some current or previously elected officials are posting here; hence, the immaturity and often poor grammar and syntax, the focus on getting high. More projections of their own predispositions.
DeleteWhatever Jackass. My intuition tells me your a fag, and need to focus on the message and not the grammar. Its a fricken blog Jackass.
DeleteOMG, what a freaken cry baby smoke a big fat one and go to bed you take yourself way way to seriously .
ReplyDeleteWhat an immature response. I am embarrasses for you. Good thing you are anonymous.
DeleteI votes YES. My neighbors are doing the same.
ReplyDeleteTime to stop the growth machine (HCD, SANDAG. Planning staff, compromised and naive council) and save Encinitas from more traffic, more density, more stress.
Make our town better, not bigger. Tome to push back.
I do believe that the developers (NO on A supporters) are getting so negative, and nasty that it will backfire on them. They are so desperate. In the end we should compare how much the Nos and YES have spent. It will be funny to see the developers waste so much money and then still lose. Ha ha.
DeletePeople of Encinitas are smart and know what they want. YES on A!
I wish.
DeleteThe clown backfired big time on the same camp.
DeleteDo you think good honest people like Teresa,Lisa or Tony will run for office again after all your personal attacks.You will be very lucky if they do
ReplyDeleteThat would be good for Encinitas.
DeleteGaspar, Muir, Barth, Shaffer and Kranz were elected to protect community character, quality of life, and be fiscally responsible.
DeleteThe gang of 5 increased density in Olivenhain, sided with developers over residents on Prop A and voted to hire a PR specialist making 135K annually while the city has more debt by 600K, more expenses, unfunded road and pension obligations and raided accounts to build the hall park.
The gang of 5 also allowed their names to be on a rebuttal statement that claims no upzoning has happened without a vote of the people............an untruth.
I don't know if they are or are not nice people, I do know their leadership is failing residents
Density is covered by state law the city or it's people have very litte say.State law rules!.We are a costal city therefore we are required to follow costal commission rules again we have very little say.I feel like I am talking to children.We have to follow the rules like everyone else Prop A will not help.iIt matters little what we want.the law rules.If you want change CHANGE THE STATE LAW
ReplyDeleteEncinitas current has COMMERCIAL zoning to serve residents. The 101 was zoned for commercial only use before the council UPZONED the 101 to increase residential density without a vote of the people. Now with the new residential zoning Whole Foods, Moonlight Lofts and eventually all of the 101 will look like PB, Irvine and Long Beach-
DeleteThe new council wants to change existing commercial to residential use. When that happens the council will have given away our local control to the state. The council and Gus Vina and Peder Nroby are pushing this new zoning change to benefit developers, increase density and fit a Regional Agenda for zoning-
The only way Encinitas can remain a 2 story beach town is to not allow the council to change Commercially zoned buildings to residential.
The council can't be trusted, vote yes on A
Change the state law? Yes, real leaders on the council would take action like Corta mMadera and drop out of SANDAG. Real leaders would call the league of cities and bring a joint action against the state for using bogus population numbers. Real leaders would refuse to re-zone existing commercial properties in Encinitas located in Cardiff, El Camino Real, 101 and Leucadia for residential use so as to protect local control
DeleteThe current council is doing none of these things..........instead they are working behind the scenes with Peder Norby and Gus Vina to upzone the city and change commercial to residential use
City Council,
ReplyDeletePlease do something good for Encinitas today by Firing Sacramento Gus. Its the one thing you truly have in your power and Gus is terrible for Encinitas future.
Before you approve this years budget, remove money for the PR position its pure fat. And while your at it, dump the Director of Arts. That position is no more than a glorified administrative secretarial position that should be paid in the $40k range not $100k.
Please do not wast of our tax dollars.
Gus's Definition of the objective of Strategic Goal Setting = One year closer my retirement at over $200k per year.
ReplyDeleteIs this what he meant when he claimed that strategic planning is his 'passion?'
ReplyDeleteWe get to pay for his retirement plan, and he directs all City resources under his control to make sure that he keeps his job and his plan keeps growing, regardless of the harm it does taxpayers and the City.
This city is out of control - these slack bureaucrats are busily lining their own pockets at the taxpayers' expense and why not? Only a few activists are paying attention and no one listens to them anyway. Looks like the City Council is all on board the gravy train - if you can't beat them, join them! Right - Barth, Shaffer and Kranz???
ReplyDeleteIt's always sumthin'. Either the redevelopment folks coming to town twice to conquer, the folks who tried to turn agriculture to residential on Saxony, a lot of those same people who sought to make Quail Gardens Drive a new commercial corridor by getting their foot in the door there with the new library, and now wealthy development interests pitching in to fight Prop A. Oh well, at least it doesn't happen every year, yet.
ReplyDeleteFred, I don't know that a library on Quail Gardens drive would have changed that to commercial. Where it is, our library cost a TON because at least an extra $10 million had to be spent for the GREAT WALL OF ENCINITAS. I do think it's got a beautiful view, but when I went there, recently, there was only one LIBRARIAN stuck out on the ocean viewing deck. We opened the door for her, and she explained the doors weren't supposed to be locked. She went and opened one door, only. But if the public tried to walk out, unless they chose that particular door, they would have though the outside "deck" was locked.
ReplyDeleteBy expanding that library so much, we did lose our old SDWD Headquarters, paid in full, plus SDWD's public works yard, which had been rented out to the City for only $10,000 per year. So the ratepayers of SDWD only got $1 million credit for our land and the structures, the public works yard, and we had another $3.4 Million taken from our SDWD reserves to help pay for the Mossy Public Works Yard, later. But meanwhile, the City leased Pacific View for $1.00 per year, and without abiding by the Naylor Act, PAVED OVER THE PLAYING FIELDS, THERE.
The Mossy Public Works Yard, which was represented by both Stocks and Dalager as "turn-key" (Stocks in the UT, Dalager in the Coast News) was raised in purchase price from $8.5 Million to $8.5 Million, but cost at least $2 Million more to become ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. None of these costs were disclosed when the public was allowed to vote on the location of the library. Getting the new library also costs us in requiring an Art Director for the exhibits held there, as Christy Guerin wasn't comfortable with the Art Commission appointing an "Art Jury" composed of Artists. She wanted all the power in Council's hands.
The push for the Library 10 years ago to be placed on Quail Gardens Drive was a ruse to a large change in zoning that the new library could break the ice with. Wal Mart wanted to come to Encinitas and wanted to build there as well. Other local developers were pushing for QGD. The existing Library downtown needed to STAY where it was. Banks, grocerie stores, the post office were all closing and/or moving inland. Downtown did not want to dry up and blow away with such exodus. The library in the middle of QGD was also inconviently located with absolutely no public transportation to it. The current one is basically across the street from mass transit.
ReplyDeleteThe loss of the barbed wire cyclone fence that surrounded the parking lot of large trucks for the Public Works yard was no loss of aesthetics for one of the best pieces of property in town with an ocean view. The Mossy deal was not a good choice, costing over 9 million bucks for their "turn-key" location. And at the same time it removed a successful car dealership that added $150,000 in tax revenues each year. About 1.5 million total if that was 10 years ago. No, Mossy was not a good choice, but that's not the Library's fault.
Good explanation, Fred, but SDWD ratepayers were NOT treated fairly, when our headquarters was taken, without going through imminent domain, which would have assured, at least, market value would be paid for our previous headquarters. Because the beach is do desirable, and ocean views, I don't believe that Downtown would have EVER "dried up and blown away."
ReplyDeleteAlso, have you tried walking up the hill to the library from the bus stop, or riding a bike to the library? That hill is EXCRUCIATING! The fact that the library is near the train and bus stop, does NOT mean it is easily accessible by taking mass transit, on the contrary! When we rode our bikes to the park across the street from the library, I had to walk my bike up the hill, which was a strain (I have a heavy, big wheeled beach cruiser), but not as hard as coming back DOWN the hill, when we left. I could barely hold my bike back, walking, keep it from plowing into people on D ST. and 101. It was a joke. I vowed, I'd NEVER ride my bike to the library or "library park" again.
The barbed wire fence could have been replaced with something more aesthetically pleasing. By the way, I meant to say in my previous post that the price was increased, without an independent appraisal report, that we were ever provided, and yes, we did ask for one through a public info request through the City, from $8.5 Million to $9.5 Million, to account for the "structures" on the property. Another $2.5 million, or so, was spent on upgrading to meet ADA compliance requirements.
The ratepayers SHOULD BE ON TITLE for the new "Mossy Public Works Yard." The City and SDWD ratepayers overpaid for that property, which had been on the market, and was NOT getting offers. I understand it was BOUGHT by Mossy for about $3.5 Million in approximately 2002? The public got the shaft. Mossy got a piece of the Goose that lays golden eggs.