Saturday, November 23, 2013

Strawberry Fields paved over?

Encinitas Guerrilla raises the specter of the Manchester strawberry fields being paved over for a Park & Ride (hat tip: Dr. Lorri).

Funny, we had heard the city's Smart Growth politicians and developers were eyeing that land for high-density housing.  Rumor is that the council is working on one or more mass-upzoning ballot initiatives, to include the strawberry fields.

Which will it be?  A Park & Ride or high-density housing?  Maybe a little of both?

How are we supposed to "Buy Local" food when all the local agriculture land is being turned into parking lots, apartment buildings, and offices?

114 comments:

  1. "They paved Paradise and put up a parking lot"....

    Joni Mitchell

    ReplyDelete
  2. Caltrans wants to put in the Park & Ride as part of the I-5 upgrade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They often put in infrastructure first to pave the way (to use a bad metaphor) for future development.

      With the current backup at that exit, it would be hard to build more high density there. They are trying to improve the road first so that they can build later. This is a similar thing they attempted to do on Manchester last year.

      Delete
    2. Hard doesn't mean the council won't enable developers to do their worst, both for the money and "sustainable" ideologies that none of the council were elected to push.

      Can't you just hear Barth crowing about her Millennials and how they'd line up to live there? She can barely go a week without her newsletter linking to some tedious tidbit about them...she did it again just yesterday.

      Delete
    3. Millennials are turning against social engineering and Obamacare. Turns out adults in their 20'2 don't want to be called kids and on their parents health plans, they want to be called adults and earn money for themselves.....except there are few jobs. Also turns out young people don't want to pay 400% more for health coverage to make up the difference with illegal immigrants using ER rooms as free health coverage.

      Delete
    4. Barth's entire argument that Millennials want to have 600 square foot cells in complexes and don't want to own cars sounds like she is projecting her values on others. The other aspect is that many young adults have no choice. Most are shackled with huge student loan debts and can't earn good livings. Those who are able to like having cars and owning properties with yards as much as the rest of us.

      Look at the younger generation of developers! Most of them live in Olivenhain and drive luxury cars! At they same time they team up with Teresa Barth, Peder Norby and others to decide what young people want and need.

      If this is true, they should have research to back it up since we have spent over 7 figures to find out what Encinitas residents want for our city. Why do they have these findings hidden away?

      Delete
  3. UN Agenda 21 is a globalist efforts by elites to stifle freedom by forcing citizens to live in high density housing where freedom of movement is limited, controlled and monitored to control frredom. UN Agenda 21 also seeks to control local food sources to control freedom. But it's probably a bunch of hooey. Nothing but conspiracy theory, or is it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like life in the old FSU. Naaa, no Commies in DC.

      Delete
    2. The new art center should go here. Not Pacific Zview School. City has no business buying PV.

      Delete
    3. The art commission went to Santa ana 2 weeks ago to look at high density around an art center. This is the plan for The Ecke property that Leictag bought, Ithink that might be why NORBY went to work for Leictag, just my opinion

      Delete
    4. I go with conspiracy theory. We can't even pave the streets or build a park, let alone implement controlling local food sources.

      Delete
    5. Aha, but isn't that the design? Local leaders flounder creating opening behind the scenes for monied global elites to pilfer from the hard working mindlle class

      Delete
    6. 6:34 Now you see how it works, thanks for explaining. Once the Strawberry Fields are made a high density transport center then what comes next.................high density housing. The latest apparent ruse by a developer is claiming this is "Conscious Capitalism" look for Vina, Medford, and the social engineers Barth and Shaffer along Kronies Muir, Gaspar and 'Phony Tony' to use this word within the next month- "Conscious Capitalism" = rewriting zoning laws to reduce our quality of life and line the pockets of developers and special interests. UN Agenda 21?

      Delete
    7. Yeah, except that's what's always been going on, the rich people score big, with the exception of that period after WWII when the U.S. has a competitive advantage. There's no conspiracy or "design", this isn't new. When you start saying "look for the term conscious capitalism", you're indicating a conspiracy by all 5 council members, who BTW don't all like one another. It's horse puckey. Developers won't be happy until they maximize building on whatever space is left in this town. It's been that way and will continue until full buildout. Beach property = big $. No conspiracy needed. Should we hold the council's feet to the fire? Hell yes! That's the disconnect. People don't care, don't vote, and the pols know it and won't be held accountable...

      Delete
    8. 11:19 I disagree. Go by the Patagonia building owned by a developer who also built that mixed use building behind 7-11 that exceed height and got a parking easement. There are posters promoting an art show and "Concious Capitalism" what a crock of crap. It's propaganda intended to go along with the Barth/Schaffer UN Agenda 21 Hooy of 'Sustainable' 'Green" 'Pedestrian Friendly' 'Conscious Captialism'

      What the developer rally wants is a complicit city council willing to sell out today's citizens by rewriting zoning laws the increase density for profits...............calling it conscious capitalism is a way of not saying our plan is to rob you of your small town and force you by rewriting laws to become Pacific Beach North with bars.......

      Kind of like rewriting health care laws to force a single man with no wife or kids to buy maternity coverage and pediatric medial, dental, vision even though he has no kids that leads him to get lose his current policy, lose his current doctor and increasing his premiums by 40%.

      If you like your community character you can keep your community character. Not with Barth, Shaffer, Muir, Gaspar and 'Phony Tony' working with 'Conscious Capital' developers to rewrite laws to increase density.

      Delete
    9. I agree with your take on the developer, I know right where you're talking about. Just don't agree on the conspiracy angle. Developers develop, take an old building, piece of land, whatever, maximize density, take the money, go to the next town. That's what these guys do. A lot of people like myself have been fighting the overdevelopment angle for years. Most of the last 10\-15 years have been spent trying to keep the Stocks-Bonds crew from rubber stamping every development in town. Remember the clown and Maggie? They wanted her off the council so they'd have an absolute majority and could ram through whatever they wanted.

      If this guy behind the 7-11 is promoting this "conscious capitalism", it does sound like some kind of smokescreen. I haven't seen it, I'll check it out next time I'm down in Cardiff.

      Bottom line, whether you think it's Agenda 21 or not, Developer's don't need something like that to try and pave over every inch of town, they just do it, the way they've been doing it for the last 30 years.

      As for the affordable housing thing, I think it's a crock. Will our council have the will to fight it or get creative and count existing inventory? All we have right now is hope, and our voices in protest...

      Delete
    10. 12:28, You make a lot of sense. The one development issue Jerome didn't rubber stamp was the most important one, however. Redevelopment. I forget how James voted that night but my memory is that it was unanimous. I do remember seeing a chart on eveyrone's history regarding their votes and James DID rubber stamp every one, but that was before the big R came back.
      Don't know if you've checked out Rosa Koire's rants. I like her. She makes a lot sense to me too. 20 years ago when the catch phrase "Pedestrian Friendly" surfaced at the city, what could sound better? That goes for "Green", "Sustainable" and the other catch phrases pioneered in the UN Agenda 21 document. And of course all those things have their great points - especially in Leucadia. When Downtown E was asking permission to have one day a year for chalk art on sidewalks, Leucadia's businesses just wanted sidewalks. We got some. They're great. They healthily fit the bill for PF. But closing ECR off to make it a mall does not. Rosa did property assessments for Redevelopment areas for over 30 years and got a behind the scenes look at corruption and the implementations of UNA 21. "Mixed Use" can work sometimes but not everytime. Rosa warned "What will you get? A three story structure with no parking; empty retail on the bottom and empty condos on the top going bankrupt". She couldn't have hit the head on the nail much better than the places built next to me 5 years ago.
      I liked that our strip on 101 was all zoned "mixed use" in the specific plan. But I had no idea it was an ultimate plan somewhere for a Frankenstein monster of wall to wall stack and pack. Just thought it was "Green" in that it would create less traffic/gas/waste of someone having to drive to work and back. Problem is, no one who's ever lived in these places has ever worked below, and that creates twice the car trips intended with the design and twice the parking problems. It's not sustainable. But it does seem to be the intent of UNA 21 to cram eveyrone in cities, remove cars, etc etc.
      I still stand by slower speed limits. Like it or not, when Nixon lowered the national speed limit to 55 mph, suddenly, for the next two decades, 10,000 people per year weren't being killed on the road. I like it. But back to the point...
      "We don't have to build all this affordable housing - we just have to show the state we've changed the zoning to make it possible." Is the current excuse some at the city give for "meeting our requirements". Yeah, right. Once again, I'll remind everyone in 1995 Encinitas was deficient 500 affordable homes with a population around 53,000. Since then our population has only increased 12%, but the requirements for affordable housing have risen over 400% (or the deficiency of 2300 affordable homes). Somebody's not playing fair with us.

      Delete
    11. Encinitas' affordable housing requirements are not generated on a city basis but on the regional level. HCD takes the regional forecast and generates the number of affordable units required based on the total growth. Then SANDAG, in unison with the cities and county, allocate a portion of the total to each entity. Encinitas exists in a region, an urban region at that, and the legislation is written that each entity must do its fair share. Disagree with it if you want but that is the legislation.

      Also, most people here don't realize that development proposals are often made by the owner of a property not a developer alone. The owner, who may have owned the property for years, decides that for whatever reason, they want to cash in on their property. While the development is then often either sold directly to a developer to develop or done in partnership with one, the process starts with the current owner.

      That is the case with Desert Rose. I doubt the owner will be the actual developer of the property. Sometimes an investor/developer will buy a property they consider "underutilized" but often the developments everyone complains about is initiated by your neighbors.

      Delete
    12. 9:05 AM
      Not true that Encinitas' affordable housing requirements are not generated on a city basis. SANDAG representatives and the city staff have stated that they give the projections to the state. The planning director and city manager are also responsible for the inflated RHNA housing numbers.

      Delete
    13. What staff gives to SANDAG is current land capacity based on the General Plan and specific plans and any likely future changes. SANDAG takes this information from all local agencies to combine them into a regional forecast.

      The official regional forecast is with the State's Department of Finance (DOF). However, the legislation allows HCD to use the local generated forecast if it is within three percent of DOF's number which was the case for San Diego. HCD then uses a formula to derive the total affordable units required for the San Diego region.

      This total is then allocated to each city and the county by a SANDAG committee which is composed of SANDAG staff and staff from each city and the county. So they all agree to the full distribution. The regional number has to be fully allocated, so if you change the allocation in one place you have to make a corresponding change in another. If you reduce Encinitas' allocation you have to put it somewhere else.

      No one at Encinitas makes population/housing forecasts. They do review and comment on SANDAG's projections.

      And remember, Encinitas' allocation is made, in part, with the idea that Encinitas should do its fair share from a state/regional perspective not what Encinitas residents think they should do. That's the intent of the legislation. I'm not trying to defend it. It's reality. And if it's any comfort, most every other small city like Encinitas feels the same way as we do.

      Delete
    14. 10:18 AM
      What a bunch of cow chips.

      Delete
    15. 10:18
      And just what is the formula that justifies SANDAG's or the state's 400% increase in our low cost housing requirements in the last 18 years, when our population has only increased 12%?

      Delete
    16. I'm not here to justify what the legislature comes up with. Encinitas has never had a Housing Element certified by HCD. The only certified one was way back when the city could self-certify. That option is long gone.

      I will say to look around the region. Population has been growing faster than Encinitas (though cool of late). Our General Plan only allowed a certain kind of growth, although there were a few exceptions. The jobs being created in Encinitas are mostly of the low paying kind. Most Encinitans work elsewhere.

      The criteria applied to Encinitas was the same for all cities in San Diego. Del Mar, Solana Beach and Coronado (if I remember correctly) because of their small size got a break of minimum acceptable density.

      Bottom line is it's not just us who are pissed off about the process. Most cities are but, as reflected in Encinitas being the outlier here in San Diego, the other cities have found a way to deal with it.

      Delete
    17. 1:06 PM
      More cow chips.

      Delete
    18. 3:50 PM

      Is that the best you've got? Pretty pathetic but then you don't actually have to think. Wouldn't want reality to intrude into your little world.

      Delete
    19. 4:57 PM

      How about a $430,851 fine by the Regional Water Quality Control Board against the city?

      Delete
    20. And what does that have to do with the Housing Element?

      Delete
    21. 1:06
      I thought we were the legislature. My bad.

      Delete
  4. The more I read, the more real it sounds.

    At last year 's ERAC meetings, the developer-heavy "advisory" committee was fairly salivating over Strawberry Fields. I believe the quote was "I envision a hillside of condos where Strawberry Fields are now." No doubt the dude was also envisioning an early retirement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who currently owns those fields, does anyone know?

      Delete
    2. The slope consists of two parcels that are close to equal in size. The eastern parcel is a little bigger than the western. Tom Alvin of San Diego owns the western parcel, which includes the ground the gas station is on. The Yasuda Family LLC of Cypress, CA, owns the eastern parcel.

      Delete
  5. Hi density would be perfect there. It's close to everything. The gas station, the rug store and the slough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yep yep where be tha Geritol!

      Delete
  6. Opps, I mean HIGH density. Although hi or hello density is more apt.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Party! Party!
    Commission for the Arts is having a Holiday Party, Sunday, December 8 from 3-7pm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where?? And since it's public monies being spent, the public is invited.

      Delete
    2. Slough's rug store?

      Delete
    3. Where's the art commissioners party? No one knows. The art commission hasn't posted the minutes of the commission meetings on the city website since 2010. No staff reports are posted. No prior agendas are posted.

      Delete
  8. Fred, assume you're joking, but how about no density? That's a choice too, you know. And if the city would simply make the amnesty permit 20 years instead of in perpetuity, folks would participate at a higher rate (according to planning director Murphy), we could count those units, and housing problem mitigated.

    Oh, but that's right: covering Strawberry Fields with stack n' pack won't help cover our Council-inflicted pension problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Make that NOT covering....

      I don't type well when highly annoyed over the crap our city tries to force on us in the name of "progress" and "inevitable change."

      Delete
    2. No. Density is ok for things like the Durango that totaled a car, destroyed the planter at Leucadia Beach Inn then went through the front wall of the clock shop. (It didn't even get a flat tire.) But not when it comes to the congestion, crime and other things it has a negative effect on forever. As far as Strawberry Fields goes, Gil Forrester once said that because that slope area faces south, it is the best parcel of agricultural property in Encinitas by getting the most sunshine.
      Agree with the amnesty points, but I'd also add into that equation people who already own their home here. They're being counted in the total of people here too and should be counted as people who can afford to live here in the total mix.

      Delete
  9. Yes, believe it or not there are a few low income homeowners. And some of them would be willing to add their homes to the "rolls," to be counted as affordable housing, with a twenty year covenant, say. It seems as though the City could give some kind of incentive for their doing this, to bring them forward. One thing the City could do is forgive the $900 fee charged to homeowners for bringing pre-existing accessory units onto the books, for SANDAG, and the State.

    Ironically, with new, high density development, even with the in-lieu fees, the City actually loses more affordable housing than it gains. Most of the affordable housing in this city is NOT being counted . . . It sure seems like that is a plan, yes, a kind of conspiracy between the City and building industry interests, to push more and denser development.

    Remember, when it comes time to vote on upzoning, we DON"T have to pick between building up and building out. We can vote NO on both alternatives!

    Lisa Shaffer's latest newsletter states we are the only City in San Diego without a certified housing element? Last I read, Del Mar doesn't have one either? When did that change? I believe Del Mar has been creative in being able to use temporary housing at the Racetrack, to count in the affordable housing element?

    Anyway, I don't think Encinitas should kowtow to SANDAG. Many of those appointees are not elected. Lisa Shaffer publicly admitted at her lecture at Mira Costa College, on Ethics, that SANDAG is an "old boys club," during the question and answer period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Del Mar + affordable housing= zero. Agree that we could vote no on building up and out. We definitely need a new, tougher approach on density and affordable housing. Again, there doesn't need to be a conspiracy between the builders and city, building is what they do and getting the taxes and permit fees in is what the city does. And yes, there's been a close relationship there for the last 10+ years while team Stocks and Bonds was in charge.

      I wouldn't look to Del Mar as an example. They're so small and so wealthy, it's a totally different deal. Solana beach maybe, they're mostly built out as well.

      Delete
    2. Getting the city to approve your garage conversion will solve your problem won't it?? Yes it will, not to mention the extra CASH it will put in your pocket.....

      Delete
    3. Carlsbad is the only other city in San Diego without a current certified Housing Element but that's only because they recently were certified for the prior cycle and are close to finishing the update for this cycle. Del Mar was certified last Spring. Encinitas isn't even close.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for that info, 2:51. I hadn't realized that.

      I do not have and never have had a "garage conversion," but allowing people with pre-existing accessory units an amnesty would solve many problems. A citywide amnesty absolutely could enable the City to have a certified housing element.

      The Encinitas Preservation Association bought, in 2008, the Boathouses property with admittedly pre-existing garage conversions. EPA was not only allowed to permit them (which was not done until last year, 2012), but Peder Norby and Paul Ecke III, as Directors of this non-profit association, which also lobbied against Prop A this year, were paid $631,000 PLUS from Encinitas in lieu affordable housing fees to bring the affordable units onto the "rolls," The EPA only paid about 44% of the purchase price of the entire Boathouses property; the City and developer's in lieu fees, paid the majority of that cost.

      Point is, four units at the Boathouses were ALREADY existing as actual affordable units, but were not being counted. I'm not saying the City should pay everyone hundreds of thousands of dollars to "legalize."

      I place "leglaize" in quotes since pre-existing units, particularly those existing before the City incorporated, because permitting info was not retained by the City or County, ARE legal, non-conforming, as pre-existing three story structures now are, in Encinitas, after passage of Prop A. But Encinitas Municipal Code and Government Code encourage affordable housing both for students and professionals with low incomes, AND for retired seniors, etc., who wish to rent out these types of accessory units. In fact, part of EMC states, unequivocally, that an accessory unit is allowed by RIGHT in single family residential zones. Government code states that where accessory units are permitted in a public agencies jurisdiction, setback requirements, etc, of pre-existing units are to be relaxed. No jurisdiction has forced anyone to tear down a pre-existing residential accessory unit in a residential zone, unless there were serious health and safety concerns that could not be addressed through rehabilitation.

      Delete
    5. Hey I don't mind about garage conversions legal or not. Everyone breaks the law at some point in time, hell I'm going to break the law everyday by giving my customers plastic bags. Denying you or me a plastic bag is restricting our freedoms.

      Delete
    6. True, it's your right, but why would you want to..

      Delete
    7. The units behind the boathouses are apartments, per se. I don't know city code, but to me there's a difference between obvious, separate dwelling units in a block like that, whether conversions or not, and people who have an accessory unit within or attached to their main dwelling. I don't want to pry, or be disrespectful, but would the poster above mind disclosing what exactly happened to the unit at their residence? Let's try and get that out of the way so we can get back to the question of the housing element, which then may or may not affect that poster. Right now, we're getting a lot of discussion on one specific, personal issue...

      Delete
    8. There is also the problem that people claim that people council members own illegal conversions, and that the staff ignores these cases. If the same thing happens with a homeowner that is just an everyday residents, the staff can go after them. Why do council members get treated differently?

      Delete
    9. Which council member has an illegal unit?

      Delete
    10. Former council members Dan Dalager, Rick Shea, and also Tony Kranz, to name a few.

      Delete
    11. Where's the illegal unit at Tony's? I've been in his house, and I didn't see any extra units...

      Dalager's was the rental unit downtown. Rick Shea hasn't been in office in over 20 years.

      Delete
  10. Yeah, what are the low cost housing requirements mandated on other California cities like Rancho Santa Fe, Bel Air and Beverly Hills?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rancho Santa Fe is not a city. It's under county jurisdiction, so the affordable housing is put in other areas. There's too much money and influence there.

      Beverly Hills puts it down on the flats, where housing prices are much lower and housing denser.

      Isn't Bel Air part of the city of Los Angeles? If so, the affordable housing is simply put elsewhere.

      Delete
    2. Yes, Bel Air is in the city of LA, so guess where that housing is, not next to the country club, I assure you. What about Carlsbad?

      Delete
  11. Get the facts right on the housing element submittal.
    SANDAG (SD county and 18 cities) was required to be the first regional agency to have a filing deadline before any other regional agency in the state.
    Over 400 cities get to file housing elements later than Encinitas.
    SANDAG (San Diego) files April 15, 2013
    SCAG (southern California) files Oct. 15, 2013
    SACOG (Sacramento) files Oct. 31, 2013
    ABAG (Bay area) files June 31, 2015
    Kings County files Jan. 31, 2016

    SANDAG skunked us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe we can get the toll road from them for cheap....SANDAG should be abolished...

      Delete
    2. BTW, Stocks was our sandag rep...

      Delete
    3. SANDAG was first for this latest cycle of Housing Element updates. I believe the current cycle is number five. The Housing Element lawsuits around the Bay area was for the previous cycle. So it's not like there is anything new, although recent past legislation has added the requirement to carry over unmet needs from the previous cycle and loosened the requirements of who can file suit on a deficient Housing Element.

      Over 400 cities have filed previous cycle Housing Elements with HCD and been certified prior to the deadline that Encinitas missed (yet again). So please don't say "woe is us".

      Delete
    4. 10:00 AM
      You are incorrect.
      The deadlines quoted for Encinitas and the other regional agencies is for the fifth (5) cycle.
      So please don't try to fool residents. It is "woe is us" because of the Council's lack of representation.

      Delete
    5. Right, but 10am is correct, Stocks, Bonds et al were our reps, and they blew it. FYI, here's the link to the 5th cycle documentation...

      http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/plan/he/web_he_duedate.pdf

      4th cycle:

      http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/plan/he/sb491m.pdf

      Sandag brief:

      http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/plan/he/sandag_5rhna112310.pdf

      Delete
    6. One more piece of relevant info:

      http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/09/24/112684/marin-approves-housing-plan

      Delete
    7. 11:25 AM
      The city's biggest problem is the council troika - Barth, Shaffer, and Kranz. They are determined to increase housing density in Encinitas. They aren't friends of the environment nor of the quality of life for residents.

      Delete
    8. And it doesn't matter that the deadline has long passed. Last month the City of Albany (2010 Census Pop 18,539) had a suit filed against it as they haven't updated, and had certified, their Housing Element since 1992, although they are now scrambling to get it done. If you're wondering, Albany borders the city of Berkeley.

      Delete
    9. So why has no work been done on the housing element until now? Laziness, stupidity, or did it just not have to be done...

      Delete
    10. Work has been done on the Housing Element but the Council postponed it when they put the whole General Plan update on hold when the draft was released. The Council has recently given the go ahead to restart it.

      Delete
    11. The City has spent several million dollars on this effort when the wages of the Advanced Planning team are taken into account. Hundreds of citizens showed up to say that they did not want to change Encinitas from how it is. Because the city didn't like what we had to say, they decided not to process the surveys and hired Peder Norby and set up different commissions to try to take the voice from residents.

      We did our jobs, and we paid for the consultants. Why not place the blame on the people who wasted our money and fire some people at the City? Why are these people still in their jobs?

      What they don't want anyone to know is that all that was required by the State was to read it and make a few minor changes. The reason that we don't have a certified plan is because they can't do their jobs.

      Delete
    12. The decision to put the General Plan update on hold was made by the previous Council.

      Delete
  12. BLOG PAVED OVER
    So,do the people who own the property have some rights? can they sell to
    Who ever they want with out government controlling that decision or are you a fake say one thing do another .It appears to me you are no different then the people you so often criticize .DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahaha that Mikey or $tock$ ranting without making a coherent point? Pathetic how easy it is to tell it's one of them.

      Delete
    2. I think Mike and Jerome know the difference between than and then.

      Delete
    3. Only when they're on the wagon.

      Delete
    4. Just to clarify, the strawberry fields and all the other agriculture type uses like greenhouses throughout the City are in standard zones like residential. Only the Ecke Ranch and a couple of other parcels located in the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan are zoned agriculture. That means the owners of the strawberry fields could decide tomorrow to build houses there.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the clarification.

      Delete
    6. The Strawberry Fields are zoned Rural Residential RR-2. I just checked ezoning on the city website. That's 2 homes per acre and with density bonus about 2.35. Anything else will require a zoning change. Changing it to a non-residential zoning would take away potential housing stock from the city. It would have to be made up somewhere else. Nice how the RHNA numbers work.

      Delete
    7. Rural Residential RR-2 mid-range is 1.5 houses per acre. The city has many nonresidential uses on residential zoned land.

      Delete
  13. Shaffer minus ethics = $haffer!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A number of people refused to attend the presentation that Shaffer gave at Mira Costa College last Friday because it was titled, "Confessions of an Ethical Politician." Is it good form for an ethics teacher to give a presentation about herself and use herself as an example of ethical behavior, when she breaks codes of ethics and explains them away as mistakes?

      It seems like Shaffer is missing the basic rule of ethics. It does not matter what people say about themselves. It is behavior that demonstrates if they are ethical or not.

      People who are held up as models of ethics like Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela did not have to tell people that they were ethical. The recognition of an ethical person is something that people with ethics hear from others—not something that they say about themselves.

      Delete
    2. I did not attend this presentation. It's not that I refused - I just wasn't interested............

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    3. Detail her specific ethical lapses if you would. Not saying your wrong, but if you're going to throw it out there, back it up. And, if you didn't attend the presentation, how do you know what she said. Maybe she didn't even talk about herself. Not liking someone because of their stand is one thing, calling them out for an ethical lapse is another. An example of a lack of ethics is Dalager taking a discounted appliance and then some of his alleged trading of favors at the bank. Or Jerome and Mark putting up campaign signs early. Not liking some of Lisa's stands on certain issues can be attributed to ethical lapses, at least not without specifics..

      Delete
    4. One was when she broke confidentiality of closed sessions and revealed the appraisal numbers for Pacific View.

      Delete
    5. That's a real stretch to call that unethical. She thought the appraisals were already public. It was a simple mistake. And there's no realistically conceivable nefarious motive she could have had.

      Now, signing off on blatantly dishonest ballot arguments against Prop A on the other hand...

      WCV

      Delete
    6. Yup, that would be a stretch. And as most of those ballot arguments are truth stretchers, you aren't going to get me to go with that one either. It's a difference of opinion to me. Vote her out if you don't like her. That's the way of the world...

      Delete
    7. Blatantly dishonest is only your opinion ,biased it appears.You're such a poor winner.

      Delete
    8. The Prop A issue and how she used it to her benefit demonstrated dishonesty. Dishonesty is an ethical issue. She signed Prop A and pandered to the signature gatherers. After they helped to campaign for her, she switched sides and turned he back on those who helped her get elected.

      I think that the biggest aux passé is that she defines herself as 'ethical.' If she could have titled her presentation something like, "What the Ethics Teacher Learned in Her First Year on Council," she would not be so divisive and lacking in credibility.

      Being ethical is an aspirational value, and to hear someone define herself as "ethical," and the supporters she used and discarded as "critics," is not a wise position.

      Delete
    9. If 11:46AM is the same person as 4:01 PM, then you really should not have missed her talk. You would have been able to ask questions and perhaps have gotten some closure......

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    10. Yup, or get on her agenda down at the city and meet with her. I'm sure it's an eye-opening event once you actually get on the council, some of your points are probably valid. She did teach ethics at UCSD, so that's definitely part of her identity. Not sure she touts that, I never was within earshot other than once when someone asked her what she taught. Bottom line: go talk to her if you care to. Honestly, if she's really turning that many people off, she won't get re-elected. That's the way it works. Just look out for who comes in the door from the pro-development side, because you know they're waiting in the wings. Don't like Dennis Holtz? Maybe you'd rather have a majority of Stocks, Bonds and Guerin, followed by Dallager:

      http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/sep/21/history-of-encinitas-city-council/all/?print

      Delete
    11. "Gotten some closure", Sculpin? Have you ever tried to get a straight answer from the woman? She consistently responds to any tough questions "they didn't tell me about that" (catching city in a lie, her fave developer making up crap), and tries to hide behind weird buried head in the sand excuses.

      When asked about Norby - whom she thinks is a great guy - lying about the Cardiff Specific Plan, her response was: "I can't say, I was't there." The video was readily available and offered to her so she could believe her own ears and eyes, but she preferred sticking to her absurd "I wasn't there, I can"t say" defense. I guess in her world, we never went to the moon, fought two world wars, or built the pyramids.

      Delete
    12. How did we build those pyramids again?

      Delete
    13. LOL yes, the pyramids she could go see with her own eyes.

      The point of course is that her go-to excuses are not worthy of someone we elected to that position. We deserve more than "No one told me," "That is what the City attorney said was true," and so on. Anyone who's tried corresponding or talking with her will recognize these strangely passive responses. Either that's her personality, Vina has coached her to be a better "team player," or Sabine has frightened her into silence.

      For someone who advertised her educational qualifications ad nauseum while campaigning, she now seems oddly lacking in intellectual curiosity about city matters.

      Delete
    14. Sounds like you're trying to score a point where there isn't one to be scored. Lisa wasn't there when Norby was hired, and now he's gone. I think Norby did some good things in this town. Obviously you probably live in Cardiff and don't agree with his work on that plan. Let's move on. There's always a game to be played at city hall, and I don't like a lot of the bogus rules and moves that goes on down there. Not sure you're ever going to get the tireless, flag waving crusader you want down there. Again, be careful what you ask for, Stocks and his ilk are out there ready to jump in during the next election...

      Delete
    15. so 8:24 - why bother? If you have already spoken to the woman and have written her off, why the criticism? Move on - there 'aint no mo blood in that rock......

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    16. 3:59 your talking hooey. Shaffer stated there will never be 5 story builings in Encinitas AND wrote that untruth on a ballot. Please show us all the city codified ordinance that FOREVER bans 5 story buildings?

      Delete
    17. And while she wasn't here to hire Norby, she will tell you what a great guy he is, history be damned.

      Delete
  14. Wasn't she going to stand up for desert rose, new city attorney, prop A, look into city finances?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lisa did ask for a motion to look at other City Attorneys. However, she did not get a second.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That proposal to investigate other city attorney options was probably a predesigned act - Shaffer proposes, the others sit looking dumbfounded and silent - case closed. Sabine cruises on easy street for a few more years.....

    ReplyDelete
  17. 4:21- You are probably right that Sabine will remain with the City. Why, I couldn't tell you, except what has been told to me, which is "institutional history". Every Council member I spoke with, and I spoke with Teresa, Tony, and Mark, gave me that answer. I never spoke to Lisa or Kristin so I don't know. I only know that she when Lisa asked for a second to her motion, no one did it. She looked at me and I think she was genuinely surprised that no one gave her a second. However, I could be wrong, as I often am.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It means he knows where the bodies are buried. Wonder who came up with that line they were all obviously told to toe.

      Delete
    2. Those words "institutional history" don't make sense with Sabine. Here's the definition - now where's the relationship? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_institutionalism

      Delete
    3. That's a boilerplate answer that could mean a lot of things. I'm sure he does know where the bodies are buried, but if you're a new council person, that shouldn't matter. Lisa at least brought the issue up. She has some good background, whether you agree or not, in her last 2 newsletters. Whether you agree with her or not, the newsletters are a good overview of what's going on at the city, and you sure aren't going to get that from Kristin....

      Delete
    4. Lisa's problem is she brings things up, then lets them drop. Her newsletters are full of words, but if you know the backstory on the items, you'll see that they are weasel words...waste of time for the writer and the reader.

      On top of that, she's slyly pushing her and the city's pro-development agenda. She once wrote an item on a "need" to up zone. When asked why she didn't add "upon approval of voters," she responded "Oh, everyone already knows that, it didn't need to be said." I find her communications to be a sneaky front for half-truths designed to mis-lead.

      Delete
  18. This city will never have credibility until their legal counsel is changed. Pretty obvious and it's time.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Institutional history" is like "too big to fail" - it isn't legitimate. These council people have been coerced or intimidated, or just plain hoodwinked. So much for the 'reformist' majority - status quo prevails!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Does anyone know if he has received his review and gotten his contract renewed?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dr. Lorri, the CM and CA received their evaluations on July 10, in a Special Meeting closed session, the same day that Prop A was certified, at the regular CC Meeting.

    Illegally, according to the Brown Act, Council discussed compensation of these two "executive officers" in the special meeting, and reported out that the contracts would be renewed without change. Council also directed the CM and CA to to come back with draft performance plans, which work plans were just reviewed on November 13 in another special meeting closed session.

    I have repeatedly asked to see copies of the draft performance plans. Initially, I was told there are "no such documents." I am still waiting for a reply on subsequent CPRA requests, resubmitted after I sent Council relevant precedent through Terry Francke, General Counsel for Calaware.

    Evaluations of public employees MAY be in closed session according to the Brown Act. There is no law that requires these evaluations MUST be done in secret meetings. Case law, which is legal precedent, demonstrates the opposite. No public agency has ever been successfully sued for defamation of character or any kind of Constitutional violations of privacy, as quoted by Mayor Barth, by public employees.

    Public servants have a higher duty of transparency and less expectation of privacy of their employment records, according to the law, which balances the public's needs against public employees individual rights.

    If public employees want greater privacy with respect to their evaluations, they have the option of seeking employment in the private sector.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, it sounds like it's justified, see #5 and D #1 in the link:

      http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/open-meetings-3/facs-brown-act-primer/brown-act-primer-closed-sessions/

      Delete
    2. You are not understanding my point, 12:17. Council MAY have a closed session meeting for evaluations. It is NOT required to have closed session meetings related to evaluations, and NO executive officer has EVER successfully sued a public agency for having a public evaluation. Hence, there is no legitimate "threat of liability" in releasing the performance plans or, before in going through with what Lisa Shaffer and Kristin Gaspar had initially promised in their subcommittee re the CA and CM evaluations: the public was going to be allowed to submit online comments about the performance of or our satisfaction with our legal services and our City Manager. That was "derailed" because of hearsay references to their "Constitutional rights of privacy," repeated by Mayor Barth on November 13.

      Because something is allowed, does not mean that it is mandated. So whether or not secret meetings are "justified," should also be up to the public, when we are talking about executive officers' evaluations.

      What is IMPERMISSIBLE and illegal is for compensation of public executive officers to be discussed in a special meeting closed session, as was done on July 10.

      Delete
    3. Er, that wasn't my point, but I get what you're saying. My point is simple. Under the Brown act, as per the link above, Council can meet in close session to discuss employee evaluations. It sounds like this may be somewhat of a grey area, but it sounds like it's perfectly permissible.

      Let's be honest, I don't think the council is interested in making the public's comments on employee performance in these cases part of the review.

      I understand that's something that was brought up, but even if they did take the public's comments, I can't see those comments really being used.

      Are Gus and Sabine Executive Officers? All I have to go on is the link above, which without mentioning Exec. Officers, says that Council can meet in closed session on these kind of matters.

      Would I like it to be out in the open? Yes, are we or any other city going to get that? No, unless there's a city out there doing this that I'm not aware of.

      Delete
  22. There is precedent that School Districts, as California public agencies, have done evaluations, publicly. I supplied some of this case law to the City, after Terry Francke, General Counsel for Californians Aware, kindly sent it to me, and forwarded it to Tony Kranz, as well.

    Yes, it is permissible for the City to have closed sessions of Executive Officers (those public officers, such as Heads of Departments, unrepresented by employee unions; those in unions also can have closed sessions for labor negotiations).

    But I have asked that the workplans, themselves, could be released, through a California Public Records Act request. The evaluations could be done in private, but the performance plans (work product), even in draft form, should be made public. It is a "gray area;" you're right. That is why we need a Sunshine ordinance, to spell out these details, which are important. They show the balance between the public's desire for transparency, which insures greater accountability and honesty, and our public servants' needs for confidential files. Courts have ruled that public servants have a lower threshold of privacy, and the public a greater right to know the machinations of our public agencies and public officials. We are not asking for their home addressees and phone numbers, only their performance plans and goals!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, but as of now, they can review the employee contracts and evals in closed session, period, end of story. I agree, in future, it would be great to have more transparency, but we need a legal change there to make that happen.

      Delete
    2. We don't need a legal change to make it happen, only a change in City policy. Because the evaluations can be in closed session, doesn't mean they HAVE to be done secretly. Council has DISCRETION. According to their campaign promises, Barth, Shaffer and Kranz are abusing their discretion.

      A Sunshine Ordinance could create a legal change, which would REQUIRE evaluations of our Encinitas executive officers to be public, period.

      Delete
  23. Odd Lynn used the word hearsay and only Lynn tells the truth,hummmmmm

    ReplyDelete