While Prop A got most of the attention last year, Desert Rose was another case where the new city council sided with staff and developers against residents. They overturned a Planning Commission decision and decided to impose high-density development on the quiet Olivenhain neighborhood of Desert Rose.
But the residents are fighting back. San Diego Reader has the update.
Our City needs to focus on getting the state law changed. Until then, our City should reduce all density on vacant lots 30% to offset the density bonuses allowed by state law. Until the state law is change, we need to be one step ahead of the state to keep control of our own city's zoning and density.
ReplyDeleteNow you're talking, we have to make a change locally. Some people suggested this change many years ago, but it was never followed up on...
DeleteFYI,. the photo in the article is on Daphne behind La Especial Norte.
DeleteOur City has no interest in representing residents as you suggest by reducing densities as an offset. Our City does have an interest in creating revenue by selling Encinitas off to the highest bidders, which is why our quality of life will continue to degrade while the developers line their pockets.
ReplyDelete8:16 EXCELLENT suggestion. You obviously don't work for city hall!!
ReplyDeleteWow, so all this noise about "saving" Desert Rose and the bonus density law is because there will be just two additional homes on a nearly 8 acre parcel? If so, then then project opponents seem disingenuous with their concerns. C'mon, it's not really those two extra families they are concerned about, or the extra traffic they will create. It seems the project opponents just don't want any development on this site, which appears to be a buildable parcel zoned for residential. These are single family homes ( not apartments as the article suggests) which will be on large lots, right? What is the big deal here?
ReplyDeleteMarco and David Peck should try not take over this blog since they are as biased as many developers who have posted in the past and similarly have a financial stake in this project and potentially other issues like the downtown bar scene. The blogger in the SD Reader article had a good understanding of Marco Gonzalez.
DeleteIt is not about 2 extra houses! There were wetland and grading violations on top of the many problems with the Encinitas Planning Department. They are trying to maximize easements for personal gain with out the agreement of others who have a say in the easements. Their design will have negative impacts on houses all around the neighborhood, and their proposal to clear cut over 30 mature trees will have a lasting impact on the birds and animals that live there. There are many rippling impacts and they are only zoned for 7 or 8 houses--not 16.
Typical of the 28 whiners: someone starts to use the same tactics used every day here on this blog and you guys cry foul: only you guys get to use this blog to influence public opinion.
DeleteYour opponents are biased! Thanks we needed a laugh.
Typical of the 28 whiners: someone starts to use the same tactics used every day here on this blog and you guys cry foul: only you guys get to use this blog to influence public opinion.
DeleteYour opponents are biased! Thanks we needed a laugh.
It is not the "same tactics" since the moderator of this blog steps in when there is misinformation posted. In contrast, a previous story about how the owners of the newly rebuilt McDonalds would NOT have to spend half a million on an election because of Prop A was a correction to misinformation posted on a different blog and was a story that was repeated in a number of places.
DeleteThere is a difference between people who are fighting to protect their community and carpetbagger developers and their lawyer, and City employees working toward pensions, who are trying to invade neighborhoods in order to make money off of density bonus at the expense of people who already live here!
The big deal is density bonus.
ReplyDeleteIt would not be a big deal if development followed our general plan and current zoning.
The rest of your comments are chatter not worth addressing.
How many of those Desert Rose neighbors were overly concerned when density bonus projects were being approved in Leucadia which is where I think the article's photo is from. Density bonus is available to all developments no matter what part of town. It effects everyone. The city already uses the zoning midrange but density bonus requires using the high end for calculations. To down zone even further would reduce some property values which you may be ok with but I'm sure those owners would object.
DeleteMany people who signed the Prop A petition thought that it would provide a guard against density bonus. It doesn't. It's state law which cannot be superseded by a local initiative.
And while the Reader article does accurately describe the current development as an equestrian facility (stables) in the third paragraph the initial description in the first paragraph is "raze 7.87 acres of parkland at Desert Rose Way for a high-density apartment complex" which is highly misleading. A stables is not parkland.
And no, I'm not Marco or anyone else involved with the project.
I think that Leucadia residents have a legitimate criticism that Olivenhain residents were not there to support them in the past. Most of us become aware of this terrible process when our own neighborhoods are invaded. However, you will notice that Olivenhain neighbors are starting to become involved in city-wide issues, and there is no denying that the developments like the one pictured in the article are a scar in our entire community--whether they are in Leucadia or elsewhere.
DeleteIn terms of the misidentification of the houses as apartments, that would be an easy mistake for anyone to make if they saw the houses in the pictures. There are a couple of feet between many of the buildings, so for all intents and purposes, they could be either condos or apartments. The reason that they are stand alone houses must be to benefit developers. That is what drives most decisions in this town.
In terms of the parkland definition, drive out and look at the property. In its present state is is beautiful. They want to replace it with what is shown in the picture. This image was provided to a Desert Rose member by Gus Vina, Scott Vurbeff and Roy Sapau. If you want to know the city's vision for Encinitas, here it is!
1:48 PM
DeleteYou had me until the last sentence which is not to say I stopped agreeing with everything else. Why did you lose me? Because it's the owner who wants to make the changes not the city. The current owner has been there for over five years and now wants to cash out. I find the comments on this blog often attribute these kinds of developments to developers when in fact they are often initiated by the owners themselves who then sell the property to a developer once the subdivision has been approved. Sometimes the application is done by a developer for the owner but bottom line it's often your neighbors who submit density bonus applications.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOne reason few Olivenhain residents show up for Leucadia issues (and visa versa) is because its usually only residents within a few hundred feet of a project that are notified of coming changes. The right hand doesn't know what the left one is doing. I think Prop A passed because of more information available and more cooperative involvment city-wide. But it shouldn't be the city's job to notify the entire city every time one parcel of land seeks a permit. That would create a HUGE new expenditure at taxpayers expense for mailings alone. If our 5 communities care enough to watch each other's back, action should come from better communication between our communities. But I would guess there is still a lot of apathy for something happening way across town and like others have pointed out before, most residents here don't even vote and the majority of the ones that do don't have time and or interest to become involved with issues across town.
DeleteThen this site can serve for communication. Almost no one I know in Encinitas misses checking here at least once every couple weeks but very few will comment for various reasons, mostly because of business dealings in and around the city. But the voters displeasure at present council is expressed in no uncertain terms so the awareness is spreading.
Delete2:20 PM
DeleteReally it is the city that is rigging the calculations and giving more density bonus percentage than is required by the law.
7:00
DeleteIf there are 300 different Encinitas IP addresses logging onto this blog daily, that's about half of 1% of our residents. But only WC knows. Well, and the snoops.
And 5 of those are me from every library in between Oceanside and Solana Beach, lol!
Delete2:20, great point. For the Fulvia property in Encinitas, I think there's an out of town owner there who's selling out. I don't know about Desert Rose, but presumably, somebody local owned that property as well.
DeleteAlmost all property owners will go for the maximum build, whether developer or not, it's a one chance thing to cash in and retire, or distribute the money.
Interesting article yesterday on tear downs in wealthy neighborhoods in So Cal as property is already scarce..
http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-housing-tear-downs-20140104,0,5252206.story#axzz2pdPujzGQ
Another great article about the changes in actual politics in Sacto, and/or perception..
Deletehttp://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-cap-times-20140106,0,172223.column#axzz2pb3BDMjc
7:57
DeleteThen WC will have to factor in the pattern of dedicated drive bys at library IP's. Happy motoring!
There is the density bonus law. There is also a procedure that the planning department is not following. In 2005 the planning director set a policy on calculating the baseline of number of houses on a property. The baseline is calculated by a rounding down of any fraction per the Municipal Code. In the case of the Fulvia property the baseline would be 6 houses for the 2 acres.
ReplyDeleteBut, the developer's map calculation of the property shows a 2.15 net acres. Multiply 2.15 acres by 3 houses per acre gives 6.45 houses. The city municipal code requires a rounding down in determining the number of houses on a property. Which in the Fulvia case would be 6 houses rounded down. That would be the baseline for determining the number of extra houses. Instead the city lets the developer round up to 7 houses. Already, the city has given the developer an additional house before any calculations are done on the density bonus houses allowed.
The density bonus law was amended to require all calculations to be rounded up, for example see section 65915(f):
Delete(5) All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
11:18 AM
DeleteAre you a planner or a developer?
The baseline is determined by the municipal code which is a rounding down. Once the baseline is established the density calculations are rounded up.
So Encinitas just almost won for water conservation efforts??? Really??? We have no gray water recycling required for new construction and is only too evident when I asked the designers of Harwoods Fulvia plans. What the heck are we doing and how could we be recognized for being water conscious? Sounds like some more propaganda from our cm and his crew trying to make some good news for their despicable behavior toward us, their citizens. Get real city hall and require every development to provide this system if you want to generate some positive reactions from us who put you up there. I am not holding my breath.
Delete11:25 AM Sorry state law trumps city code. They have to round up.
Delete11.59 AM
DeleteYou are wrong. HCD (the state) agreed with the rounding down.
12:23 PM
DeleteThe current city density bonus ordinance is not in compliance with current state density bonus legislation. The direction to round up was explicitly put into the legislation to remove any ambiguity. Density bonus is calculated using the zoning maximum not the midrange. The city has been following the state legislation and rounding up whether or not HCD agreed with it at one time. Read the legislation. It's in the Government Code Title 7 Div 1 CHAPTER 4.3. Density Bonuses and Other Incentives Sections 65915 - 65918.
12:23 PM
DeleteYou are wrong. This discussion isn't about the midrange. The city has been rigging the calculations since 2009 to increase the number of houses given to the developers. Perhaps it is time for a grand jury investigation.
As the City Council has been told by competent lawyers, they have great latitude on how they interpret Density Bonus when environmental and safety factors are taken into account. The old threat, "we will get sued" actually means that Marco and developers will sue the city! If this were to happen, they would lose, but because Vina is only interested in extracting money from every possible source, he likes to play the victim card.
Delete1:34 PM
DeleteLook, all you have to do is do a Google search on all the California cities that are updating their density bonus ordinances to comply with the changes made in Senate Bill 1818 passed in 2004. That bill made several changes including using the maximum units allowed in the zone as the base calculations and rounding up. The chaptered version of the bill, on page 5 (g)(1), states: "All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number".
The city has been following state law unless you can prove that it has exceeded state law. Whether the fraction is .01 or .99, rounding up to the next whole number is state law.
2:02 PM
DeleteThe passage of SB 1818 was in 2004. HCD (state) agreed with the city in 2005 on using the municipal code of rounding down. Round down to get the baseline - round up to determine the number of density bonus, the extra houses, for the developer.
The city has been rigging the calculations.
1:54 PM
DeleteWith all due respect, over the years the city council has been told many things by many competent lawyers on various issues and often at odds with one another. That's not to say these lawyers don't honestly hold opposing viewpoints and interpretations. It means the city has to weigh various legal opinions, especially when there are vested interests by those giving the opinion.
The courts are filled with opposing opinions by competent lawyers.
The city council should realize that the city has been giving the developers more houses than required under the density bonus law. The city has been rigging the calculations.
DeleteThe law does not apply where safety issues are present. How do they get around safety issues? They claim that there are none and planner Scott Vurbeff provides Negative Declarations on environmental impact because that is what he is paid to do.
DeleteIf Encinitas planners are going to claim expertise that would allow them to make such determinations, I would like to see transcripts from colleges where they earned diplomas to qualify for these 6-figure jobs. There are hundreds of people who would like to work in the Planning Department who hold master's degrees in planning, yet our last director, Patrick Murphy only had an undergraduate degree in planning, and Jeff Murphy also has an undergraduate degree in planning and a master's in public administration.
For what they are paid, and for their claim that they are experts, the department director and every planner should have a master's in the field.
2:10 PM
DeleteProve it! HCD can't wave state law. I'm not sure but I heard that during hearings on SB 1818 one or two local developers testified about the use of midrange instead of the specified maximum. In their eyes, zone R-11 should mean 11 units per acre not 9.5. I can't confirm this story but it doesn't matter. The city's current density bonus ordinance is not in compliance with existing state law.
2:22 PM
DeleteHCD didn't waive state law. HCD agreed with the city on establishing the baseline using the municipal code. What part of establishing baseline don't you understand?
2:27 PM
DeleteIf I understand what you're saying. You believe that the density bonus legislative language "All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number" should apply only to the allowable bonus units calculation and should not be applied to the normal allowable units in the code, the baseline as you call it.
You are saying that ordinance 30.16.010B:
B. ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES. The following development standards shall apply to all residential zones.:
1. In determining the mid-range or maximum number of dwelling units allowed for a property, multiply net acreage by the mid-range density or maximum density given in 30.16.010A. Any fraction of a dwelling unit shall be reduced to the next lower whole unit not less than one.
Is this correct?
Whoops. Forgot to include that 30.16.010B should determine the "baseline" for then calculating the density bonus units.
DeleteFulvia density bonus calculations have been rigged by the city. The developer will build one very low income house of the six allowed on the property. Per the density bonus law the developer is only entitled to a density bonus of 20% more houses or one more house if the density bonus is calculated on the allowed number of houses without the very low income. If the density bonus is calculated on the total number of houses on the property including the very low income house (6) would be 1.2 houses rounded up to 2. The total maximum number of houses on the property would be 7 or 8. The city is giving the developer at least 2 more houses than is required under the density bonus law.
ReplyDelete9:05 above went straight to the crucial point: The City Council, staff and any commissions involved know the City needs revenue and must continue growing that revenue. That's what almost every decision is about — generating revenue. The powers that be will sacrifice everything dear about Encinitas for the sake of making money. Who benefits? The developers, other commercial interests and the decision-makers themselves. If the powers were otherwise inclined, they would mount legal challenges. The fact that they don't and hide behind state law, the local inclusionary ordinance, and cower at the threat of lawsuits tells the true tale. We need people with cajones on the council, not the current group of go-alongs to get-alongs.
ReplyDeleteThere is another approach to revenue shortage that the rest of us support, which is cutting back on Encinitas City employees dramatically--starting with Gus Vina!
ReplyDeleteIf they had the ethical background and the right personality to their jobs, they would see that killing the goose that lays the golden egg is bad for everyone--including their ability to collect pensions. They don't care because they are in a position to raid the coffers and they are doing it.
Our relatively "new" city did not have the pension burden it has now. Development fees have always filled in the gaps and NO long term vision has ever been in place. To think a sports park is being built and nothing to sustain it YET pay attention as this is an integral part of the SCHEME to cry "encinitas needs more revenue" when the REAL revenue is what they (Vina Muir etc.) need for outrageous pensions, some of the highest anywhere!
DeleteHere's what Carlsbad is doing on pensions:
Deletehttp://news.carlsbadca.gov/news/city-council-tracking-pension-246305
All cities in SD:
http://www.sdcta.org/Uploads/Documents/Phase%20I%20Update,%209-15-2010.pdf
Hoodlink:
http://civics-101.com/hoodlink/pdfs/CharlieMcDermottActuarialStudy.pdf
True. First step elect a council that will fire vina.
ReplyDeleteThe city rigged the density bonus calculations on the Fulvia subdivision. By state law if the developer builds 5% very low income housing a 20% density bonus is given. The Fulvia property will have one house very low income and the other five plus the density bonus will be at market rate. Five percent of the 5 market rate would be 0.25. Round that up and it would be 1. The developer would get 1 extra house by using density bonus. State law allows an 2.5% increase in density bonus for every one percent increase in very low income housing. The usual examples are a 100 unit apartment building where the developer is dedicating 5% of the 100 apartments as very low income. The developer would be entitled to a 20% increase over the 100 apartments. The developer could decided to increase the number of very low income apartments from 5% to 20% where 20 of the 100 apartments will be very low income. In that case the development could get a 35% density bonus increase over the 100 apartments.
ReplyDeleteIn the Fulvia case it is one very low income house, period. No additional very low income housing. Yet the developer and the city agree that the density bonus should be 35% of additional market rate houses.
Murphy is playing with the numbers to benefit the developer
ReplyDeleteThis is the way they've been doing it for years, it's not new, ask anyone in Leucadia over on Hermes, or behind LA Especial Norte, or over on Andrew. Each one of those developments benefited from the density bonus during the last 5-10 years.
DeleteThat's only a few of the developments in Leucadia, there are more. Developers are always going to try and maximize the number of homes on a parcel.
Is anyone aware of the city handling Fulvia different than any of the other Leucadia Density Bonus projects?
I can tell you this, it would be very hard to run on a straight "No Density Bonus" ticket, because the big money will come in from the other side. It's always been a balancing act.
If that's what people want, the Olivenhain and all the other communities should get together and try and make it happen...
The bonus density developments benefited because of the crookedness going on in the city government. The city rigged the calculations to increase the number of houses for the developer.
DeleteTime for a grand jury investigation.
Agree on the grand jury.
DeleteAnd remember the big money came in against Prop A and it prevailed. Not by a wide margin, but the lies from the big money were seen through by enough of the voters for it to pass. Folks woke up over the past year and the phrase "consider the source" meant that the voters questioned authority.
That awakened genie will not go back in the bottle, an ever-growing problem for developers and city hall.
Meant Prop A prevailed...!
DeleteYou're not going to get a grand jury investigation on the calculations, it's been out there for years.
DeleteAnd I don't agree that people have woken up. A small group in Leucadia and elsewhere around town have been fighting this garbage for 15-20 years.
What we need is for everyone in town to wake up so we can gain some critical mass on change. The next election will be in an "off year" and there will be the usual huge challenge to get people active and interested enough to even vote...
I was surprised to see Muir take the bull by the horns and make a motion to "direct" our SANDAG representative (Shaffer) to request that SANDAG (all San Diego County Cities) support legislation to protect local land use authority, by eliminating Density Bonus, along with contacting the city's lobbist to do the same. It's about time!
ReplyDeleteWhat Muir does pre-election will tell a lot. Remember this is an election year and Muir, if nothing else, is a political animal.
DeleteI think we'd all love to see some authentic leadership here, but taking him at his word only come November would be a colossal error on the part of the voters.
Thank you Mark Muir!
ReplyDeleteI hope the other Council Members wake up and get on board.
The council can direct Vina to stop giving the developers more houses than is required under the density bonus laws.
DeleteMuir is more willing to address the density bonus issue than to have anyone touch his pension. He would throw his best friend under the bus to make sure that that is never touched. Keep in mind, he has the same pay out as a Publishers Clearing House winner, and he isn't going to let go of it if he can help it.
DeletePensions and density bonus are both linked and they should be done away with.
Council could but they are not smart enough to know they can direct the City Manager to do things.
DeleteThey think its the other way around. Like the City Manager directs "suggests" they waste a year and a half on Strategic Planning when we all know what the City is fat on employee costs and cuts should be made to employee costs to allow money to be spent on projects and not slackers receiving pensions.
Encinitas should be the leanest City in California, we are only 20 years old. Yet we are super fat. A real City Manager would address this issue.
We need a real City Manager.
Unless he runs for mayor in 2014, Muir isn't up for election till 2016.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the density bonus comments above, are some people confusing or conflating inclusionary units with density bonus?
Correct, even people on this blog aren't sure what the terms and election cycles are for their elected representatives. Kristin and Teresa will have their seats up this time, along with the mayor's slot.
DeleteI was not aware that there would be 2 seats open and an elected mayor. I thought that there would be 1 seat open and 1 elected mayor. Could you provide a source, 7:41?
Delete10:35,
DeleteBarth and Gaspar were both elected to 4-year terms in 2010. So those seats have to be up for election.
WCV
We will be electing a mayor for the first time starting in 2014 on a 2-year cycle. Two slots open in 2014, one council member and a mayor, who is also a council member. Three slots open in 2016, two council members and a mayor.
DeleteA council member not up for reelection can run for mayor, lose, and still retain a council seat. A council member up for reelection who loses will be out.
Good explanation, 12:47. Both Kristin's and Teresa's seats are open, but one seat is open for mayor, and one seat is open for a Council Member. This will "even out" in 2016, at that General Election, because although then three Council seats will be open, and one for the two year mayor term, on of the three Council seats will be, for one time only, for a two year term.
DeleteBeginning in 2018, if we continue to elect our mayor for two year terms (I hope we do; in fact I feel commissioners should have continued on that cycle, by two year appointments), then there will be, in even numbered years, General Elections in which two Council Members have "open seats," and the Mayor will also be running for election or re-election.
Personally, I feel that all elected officials and all commissioners should be for two year terms. Then if they mess up, we can boot them out. Also, this would provide for a more direct democracy and more citizen participation. Lisa Shaffer, Barth and Kranz, by their changing the terms of Commissioners, are actually making it so we have a LESS direct democracy.
This tendency for the City through Gus Vina and Lisa Shaffer, Teresa Barth and Glenn Sabine to limit citizens participation also goes along with Shaffer and Barth's attempting to limit time donations through their ad hoc subcommittee's recommendations re Council Policy and Protocol.
This tendency toward LESS open government, and LESS transparency is also apparent in the sediment discharge coverup and subsequent secret closed sessions relating to Rossini Creek on the former Hall Property.
All of our mayor's photo ops and her smiling face at ceremonial functions are not reassuring.
We can already boot them out, every four years. You have to give people time to get something done. With a two year term, by the time a seat gets warm, that personal would be out. You would have no chance to accomplish anything.
DeleteWe can't let our disappointment with this or any other council cloud our judgement on a good democratic system.
As it is, term limits have been a failure at the state level. People just jump to a different level. Attorney Generals run for Lt. Governor, and so on.
What's over looked is, a lot of good relationships that got things done are destroyed when you have term limits. People learn to work together, instead of the gridlock we have now.
What we need are seats that aren't gerrymandered, so you always have the threat of a competitive race. This will hopefully lead to more moderates getting elected, and take out some of the extremism we have now.
But the bottom line is, people have to vote. Jerome et al were able to stay in because a lot of people didn't vote, and if they did, they just checked incumbent.
People are lazy, it will take work to keep voters in this town or any other on their toes on a permanent basis.
One change I might support is making it a law that you have to vote. In Australia, it's mandatory. Not really the way I'd like to see us go, but people need to vote..
Your same argument, that people can vote out incumbents, so we don't need term limits, should work as far as incumbents being able to "get something done." If they have BEGUN to get something done in two years, then they already have a huge advantage, as incumbents, in being re-elected in TWO years, instead of FOUR.
DeleteSounds like 2:18 is a developer. They like to muddy the water and say we don't understand. All I see is that they do everything possible to increase the numbers and THEY are the ones that confuse and take double or triple the number of benefits to get extra multipliers to get as many houses as they can squeeze onto a poperty. This is just business as usual to claim that they are experts and we are confused. Just take a look at the results of these horrible projects. Enough is enough!
ReplyDeleteRight, but the law is the law and there is a way it works, you need to have that baseline to understand how everything's being manipulated.
Delete2:18 is not a developer, and 7:12 doesn't seem to know there are two things in play regarding density. One is a local ordinance having to do with inclusionary units, while the other is the state density bonus law.
Delete5:43 PM
DeleteInclusionary units don't increase the number of houses. If a developer wants to build a 10 house subdivision, one of the houses must be a low income house. To avoid the inclusionary housing requirement, the developer reduces the number of houses to 9.
Sounds OK, 6:05, but there's a wrinkle:
Delete"Inclusionary Housing: Encinitas has a policy that requires new developments to include one unit for every 10 units permitted to be sold or rented to occupants eligible for housing assistance. This is called an "inclusionary housing" policy. Our policy allows for developers to pay a fee "in lieu of" building the affordable units, and the amount of the "in lieu" fee is set by the Council."
How the in lieu fee is calculated was recently changed, and more change is pending.
8:32 PM
DeleteInclusionary housing is not the same as density bonus. You don't seem to understand the difference.
8:32 did not equate inclusionary housing and density bonus. He or she explained the difference by defining inclusionary housing with a quote from Lisa Shaffer's newsletter that also explains the in-lieu wrinkle.
DeleteThe issue is not that people are not aware that there is both the inclusionary unit issue and the desnity bonus issue. Developers and their lawyers like to try to bring up details that are not the main issues. For example, I have been to a number of so-called Citizen Participation meetings, and developers do everything possible to avoid a conversation about the end number of units and what rules they had to break or combine to get them. Instead, they talk about how there is a difference of opionion and how neighbors will have a chance to weigh in on the color schemem of the units instead of talking about the number of units and the impact that those units will have on neighbors for the benefit of the developers.
DeleteJust to clarify. The Inclusionary housing requirement is not an option. For every 10 units, one must be an affordable unit or the developer can pay an in-lieu fee. The choice of build or pay is the only option. State legislation was passed to allow local governments to have this rule but doesn't require them to do so.
DeleteDensity bonus is both a requirement and an option. It's an option in the sense that choosing it is entirely up to the developer. It's a requirement because the state mandates that the local government acquiesce to the developer request and provides the guidelines on how to do so.
Any subdivision of 10 or more units often combines inclusionary and density bonus aspects. Many developers opt to pay the in-lieu fees on the inclusionary units but are required to build the density bonus affordable units.
If neighbors and others in the community want to fight hyper-development, they better know all the details of inclusionary units, in-lieu fees, density bonus, negative declarations, EIRs, traffic studies and anything else that affects the proposed development. The developers know all that stuff, have money and lawyers, and manipulate everything they can to their advantage. The City Council and staff are on the developers' side because the City needs the property and sales tax revenue. All that puts opponents at a big disadvantage. If they don't know the ropes, they automatically lose.
DeleteThere you go, folks. 12:20 and 12:24 actually know what they're talking about. That's too rare among commenters on this blog.
DeleteFurther clarification needed: What do "very low income," "low income" and "affordable" mean?
DeleteTrue. Muir is a pension pig at $180,000 a year forever. He knows the City needs to sell out to developers to get more revenue for the City to keep paying the outrageous PERS costs.
ReplyDeleteVote in all new City Council and put term limits in place.
No to term limits, we already have them, it's called your vote. If we don't like someone, we organize to tell the story and get people to vote them out...
DeleteMuir's pension is $175,682, a fact revealed on this blog by somebody who did his homework.
DeleteHere's the list. The dude who replaced muir at fire chief also retired, and is now on this list...
Deletehttp://encinitasundercover.blogspot.com/2013/08/mark-muir-tops-pension-list.html
Retiree
Last employer Retired Monthly allowance Annualized benefit
MARK MUIR
CITY OF ENCINITAS 11/9/2011 $14,640.20 $175,682.40
DONALD G HEISER CITY OF ENCINITAS 7/1/2006 $12,757.56 $153,090.72
JOSEPH W BUNN CITY OF ENCINITAS 7/1/2010 $12,402.05 $148,824.60
TALMADGE F TUFTS CITY OF ENCINITAS 12/31/2005 $10,194.02 $122,328.24
DARLENE R HILL CITY OF ENCINITAS 12/31/2009 $8,937.04 $107,244.48
ROBERT M ROMERO CITY OF ENCINITAS 12/31/2009 $8,766.36 $105,196.32
GARY A REEVE CITY OF ENCINITAS 1/2/2002 $8,677.20 $104,126.40
DAVID L MOORE CITY OF ENCINITAS 7/1/2007 $8,419.92 $101,039.04
Aching because you didn't choose your career opportunities correctly?
DeleteYup, I'm really sorry I didn't decide to become a leech in '86.
DeleteI don't agree.
ReplyDeleteWe need to stop those that try and make a career out of politics.
It supposed to be about serving your community.
There are plenty of worthy citizens that would be great council members.
Much better than this crew of feel good do nothing council
That is a pretty accurate description of our current council. They like to compliment themselves on “being nice,” as some sort of a milestone, yet their actual accomplishments are questionable since they have allowed for Gus Vina to run the show and hide information from the public and more than likely, from the council themselves. They look terrible up there, and being civil is a basic skill that we expect anyway!
Delete8:00. It's still the same mechanism. If you don't want career politicians, vote them out after one term if you want.
DeleteIt's OUR choice. The problem you fail to recognize is people don't vote. For our next election, we're probably looking at 50% of the people in this city voting. Not even sure what the eligible list of voters would be.
And believe me, there will be one or two people running from team heavy development, aka team Stocks, Bonds, Dalager.
So be careful what you wish for. It's all dreams and wished until people put their names down in July..
How true - different faces, but same alliances. That bonehead Gaspar will probably get re-elected, as the majority of the 50% that might vote are influenced by mailers. The developers own Barter Town.
DeleteWe need Sheila and Fred!
DeleteUnder density bonus law the Fulvia developer is only entitled to a 20% density bonus. That means 1 or 2 extra houses for a total of 7 or 8 on the property. The developers want 35% or 10 houses. Under density bonus law the developers aren't entitled to 10 houses. City planning has put nothing in writing that they agree with the developer on using the 35% calculation.
ReplyDeleteHow many very low income houses is the developer building on the Desert Rose property?
ReplyDeleteThere will be 1 very low income unit, and there is already a legtitimate low income family who has lived there for more than 20 years who live in the grooms quarters. Therefore, there is a zero gain in this project in terms of the "public good" that they are claiming to provide.
ReplyDeleteWait until the developers get the rights to the Pacific View school site - jam packed with condos for the yup set. Barth can call it Pacific Station II by the sea. Get the right camera angle for her.....
ReplyDeleteUnder density bonus law the Desert Rose developers are only entitled to a 20% density bonus increase.
ReplyDeleteYesterday as I drove down or rather up Vulcan and looked over to the west at Pacific Station I couldn't help think wtf! Who could find this ugly monstrosity attractive in any way. Gee thanks, John Dewald for your gift to our town in perpetuity. Here is hoping this kind of travesty will not be permitted again. The view from the 101 is slightly better but at what the cost to our overall future's. Surely this is as plain a reason to not repeat in any way what was allowed to go down there. And our selected representatives came out in favor of this for future projects? Anyone with half a sense can see these as an abomination and a failure and that an affordable unit was included to justify this type of density in our midst is so wrong on so many levels. The Pacific View site should remain entirely non residential for Dewald or any others who have designs on developing this gift to our community. That the school district has so much sway in this and is holding this gift as ransom is despicable and yes I am speaking to you Tim Baird. Your history speaks volumes and should have eliminated you for consideration of ever being hired here. Then again look at our cm we are stuck with and the inability of our council to see past the facade and bubble he has built around you to insulate you council members from the public that put you up there. This travesty of violating the publics trust has to come home to roost hopefully sooner than later and none too soon. Now everybody have a beautiful wonderful day in this beloved corner of the planet and hope it can remain so with the help of caring citizens and the awakening of our sleeping representatives. Wake up council members and stop being led by this historically failure of a city manager. They seem to be the only ones who don't see this happening and claim they are not being led but leading. If so why are so many seeing this when they don't realize they are being manipulated while the valueless good feelings between them mean nothing to those paying attention.
ReplyDeleteWithout question this is THE UGLIEST project to ever land in Encinitas.
DeleteVina's vision for all of downtown for Encinitas, Cardiff, and Leucadia.
DeleteIts a way to pump up density/property taxes on multiple units to help pay his big fat pension DEBT.
Retire this major pro-development densification platform and focus on sustainable existence. We don't have the water, electricity, and any more capacity for our natural resources for a huntington beach style Encinitas. Nor do we want it.
Can Sad Sac Now.
Community character being sold out by the money changers in the Temple! Barth, Shaffer and Kranz are part of this unholy alliance!
Delete(It's a given with Muir and Gaspar).
Careful with those types of analogies. It's going a bad direction...
DeletePacific Station was approved and built long before Vina came to Encinitas.
DeleteThanks for reminding us Gus at 12:22, but that does not excuse your other list of unspeakable actions that are documented on this blog in other places. You should be fired!
Delete5:55 PM
DeleteReally? You believe I'm (12:22 PM) Vina? That's the best you got?
Pretty pathetic.
On the Jan. 8 council agenda item 10A -
ReplyDeleteGus Vina and his cabinet want the city council to abandon residents rights to city public workshops on the Caltrans I-5 widening through Encinitas.
From the agenda report on the Catrans and SANDAG proposed projects in Encinitas-
The existing landscape of the Manchester Interchange is rural in nature, primarily comprised of the lagoon system, coastal upland habitats, etc. Although there have been significant efforts to minimize the visual massing
of the retaining walls and proposed DAR, there stil will result in a significant change to the semi~ri:ral character of this area that currently affords wide and favorable views.
The use of retaining walls will limit facility encroachment into adjacent areas. Adding a number of retaining structures would introduce additional urban highway components. As identified in previous City comments, City
staff is concerned about the project and its resulting "hardened" and "tunnel" landscape appearance.
City staff is recommending no Encinitas local coastal program amendment. That means no resident input on what effects the Caltrans and SANDAG projects will have on Encinitas. Talk about the council keeping the residents in the dark.
Write the council and demand they not remove resident input. It's good to post the info here for those of us who didn't know about this silencing of residents, now the powers that be need to hear our opposition.
DeleteDictatorship in action...
DeleteI am a bit confused with regards to the Mayoral election. Teresa has said she isn't going to run for Council but she might run for Mayor. Are we going to have a 5 member Council and a Mayor, or is the Mayor position part of the Council. I have heard it both ways. Does anyone know what is true? And, is the new Mayor getting more salary than a Council member, or is it the same?
ReplyDeleteIt will still be a five member council. The voters approved an elected mayor in 2012. The mayor will be a voting council member, same as before when the was mayor was appointed. The salary stays the same until the council votes to raise it.
ReplyDeleteWednesday Jan. 8 council meeting - agenda item 10A -
ReplyDeleteVina and his cabinet (via Mike Strong, planning) want the council to approve a local coastal program amendment written by SANDAG/Caltrans that will override and take precedence over the Encinitas city General Plan (which includes the local coastal program) any of the General Plan elements, zoning or any other ordinance.
Write the council and demand that they reject this SANDAG produced local coastal program amendment (LCPA) and reject Vina's and cabinet recommendations. Tell them the city should initiate and hold hearings on any LCPA.
Well I took the time to read through this thing and I think Mike did a good job here. At the end of the day, it appears the city's concerns were heard and addressed. Simply put, if we do undertake our own LCPA, we'll just get run over by the proverbial train and be left with nothing. Unless, of course, the real reason to do this is to re-trade the city on streetscape and make sure that roundabouts don't happen - but as I've said before - that horse left the barn along time ago. So maybe I missed it, but where exactly does it mention that the "local coastal program amendment written by SANDAG/Caltrans that will override and take precedence over the Encinitas city General Plan (which includes the local coastal program) any of the General Plan elements, zoning or any other ordinance." I thought it said that this whole process was to make sure it doesn't do that.
Delete- The Sculpin
Page 50 of the PDF Agenda Report for the item
DeletePrecedential Effect of Overlay
Where there are~:between the policies set forth in the NCC PWP/TREP, as may be
amended by Caltrans, SANDAG and the Coastal Commission from time-to-time, and those set
forth in any other element of the City's certified Local Coastal Program, General Plan, zoning or
any other ordinance, the policies of the NCC Project Overlay and the policies, design/development
strategies, and implementation measures of the NCC PWP/TREP shall take precedence for any
project and/or use included in the NCC PWP/TREP as approved by the Coastal Commission for
the North Coast Corridor except in cases where an amendment to the NCC Project Overlay would
be required as previously described above in NCC Overlay Policy 2.5
2:13 PM
DeleteI'm sorry but you approached this rationally. Don't you know that a number of people here believe the reports are just smokescreens for what's been going on behind the scenes.
Sculpin, 2:13, I don't understand why you state: " if we do undertake our own LCPA, we'll just get run over by the proverbial train and be left with nothing." And 2:24, are you another sockpuppet, posting anonymously when you are actually the same person as "Sculpin?"
DeleteIt is NOT irrational for the public to feel that many reports emanating from staff are not designed to reveal the actual FACTS. For instance, I submitted a public info request for traffic reports for before and after the lane elimination on North Highway 101 after the Dec. 5 Transit Workshop Part 2, when Glenn Pruim claimed that according to reports from October 2012 and October 2013, before and after lane elimination for motorists, there was no significant increase of cut through traffic on Neptune and Vulcan.
But NO traffic metering was done on North 101, Vulcan or Neptune during PEAK summer (during racetrack and fair season) periods, or peak winter holiday periods, or during Srping Break, either BEFORE OR AFTER LANE ELIMINATION. Traffic going northbound on 101 was horrendous this morning, and we took pictures to document it.
When peak traffic seasons are intentionally left out of the data provided, and relied upon by Lisa Shaffer, in her newsletter, when she wrongly concluded, "neighborhood concerns don't appear to have been realized," then that amounts to purposefully manipulating data to create a SMOKESCREEN. For the data to be significant, there should have been a BEFORE lane elimination monitoring of traffic on North 101, northbound, on Neptune and Vulcan, as well as east/west streets, such as Diana, leading to beach access/egress, west of 101. during peak seasonal periods, BEFORE and after the lane-diet.
Why WOULDN"T we want to allow more citizen input, by taking the question of whether or not we should undertake a Local Coastal Program Amendment for widening of the I-5 freeway, to our Environmental, Traffic and Safety and Planning Commissions? Why instead is another ad-hoc subcommittee being recommended?
Council is less expert in most of these details than many of our volunteer Commissioners. Council has said it wants to INCREASE citizen participation, including through the Commissions.
Setting up another ad-hoc Council Subcommittee would LIMIT, not increase public participation. We have more of these ad hoc subcommittees than ever before, and they meet more times than past subcommittees did. Meetings are not as well noticed as Council Meetings, and they are held at times when the vast majority of the public cannot attend. They are a way to put more control into Council's hands, and the City Manager's, and take away the public's ability to give input and feedback.
Lynn, 2:24 is not me, but in your eyes I'm a sockpuppet.......nice......my understanding is that if the city were to do it's own LCPA, it would have to do it within the timeframe already established under the amendment, which would be impossible. So for whatever reason, the city has a small time window in which to address concerns, and is willing to work through the comment process, of which we're just one of many stakeholders. I have no problem with public participation, but if the public is to be involved in everything, then that's no different than shutting down the government.
DeleteAs for your other comment, I disagree. I feel I it is a bit irrational to think that many reports emanating from staff are not designed to reveal the actual facts. If that's your fundamental view then any decision made by the city is circumspect regardless of who's in charge. Why vote? Why run? Why do anything? Alternatively, if you truly believe this to be the case then get an army of lawyers and go after them. You're not going to be very successful showing up at council meetings and posting on blogs.
- The Sculpin
Sculpin, I didn't mean to imply you are a sockpuppet, although you are still anonymous. If you were 2:24, then 2:24 would be your sockpuppet, in my eyes. But I'll take your anonymous word for it.
DeleteAnyway, who establishes the timeframe "deadline" to which you refer, "under the amendment." Why should the regional LCP amendment override our city Local Coastal Program?
I am not abiding by timeframes imposed upon me by unknown entities or hierarchies.
Also, the average citizen certainly cannot afford teams of lawyers as public agencies can employ. But you know that.
Lynn, I'm 2:24 PM and I'm not Sculpin but if I can't compliment a comment in a humorous way without being dismissed as a "sockpuppet" then you have a problem. Not to mention, as Sculpin does, your immediate dismissal of staff reports as fundamentally dishonest. I know you aren't the only one.
DeleteDo staff make mistakes? Sure. But in a representative form of government we elect people to represent us and perform duties. We provide input and hold them accountable but it's not a town hall meeting. We provide input, they decide. If we don't like it we find others.
Your response reminded me of some of the comments that poor guy got a few weeks back when his ideas on El Camino Real were published here. Personally, I thought it was a bad idea but many just attacked him personally. The guy takes the time and makes a good faith effort to present ideas and gets torn to shreds. Nice.
More information on council agenda item 10A - Caltrans/SANDAG destruction of Encinitas General Plan and zoning ordinances:
ReplyDelete5.10 COASTAL ACT POLICY CONFLICT RESOLUTION
PWP/TREP Conflicts with Existing Local Coastal Program Policies
The PWP/TREP includes multiple projects, each of which includes multiple project elements. Some of the PWP/TREP project elements conflict with one (or more) of three recurring types of local coastal program (LCP) policies that govern development in the areas where those elements are proposed to
occur. This is true within each of the five cities where the PWP/TREP projects would occur. As detailed in Chapter 5 (Sections 5.4, 5.5, and 5.9), the PWP/TREP improvements would result in fill of wetlands, impacts to Environmental Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), and impacts to agricultural resources potentially inconsistent with LCP policies requiring protection of such resources, and would also conflict with Coastal Act Sections 30233, 30240, and 30242.1
Why didn't Council woman Lisa Shaffer alert residents on the Caltrans/SANDAG proposed hijacking of our city's constitution?
Write to the Council and tell them to object to the Coastal Commission on this proposed LCPA.
Council: Fire Vina and his cabinet.
Probably because it's not a hijacking? Clearly this whole process is meant to be a mechanism that allows large, cross jurisdictional projects to get built while at the same time making sure that the myriad of conflicting local, regional, state and federal laws are somehow reconciled. Folks, this is tough stuff, and if this is typical of what the folks at the city have to deal with, I'm beginning to understand the salaries they get!
Delete- The Sculpin
Sculpin, both Teresa Barth and Lisa Shaffer campaigned on the environment, Teresa's campaign card states:
Delete"Vote for Teresa
Let the voters decide on upzoing
Live within our means
Sound environmental policies
Honesty, Optimism and Fair Play."
To me, it's not honest to campaign on preserving and protecting our environment, and then to hand over the decision making process to do so to regional concerns, which have tended to be pro-development, such as SANDAG and CALTRANS.
We incorporated Encinitas for more local control. We established our LOCAL Coastal Program to further create more LOCAL control. Regional oversight is not the same. Most SANDAG and CALTRANS bureaucrats are NOT elected officials.
We can and should do our own Local Coastal Program Amendment. We are NOT PRECLUDED from doing so. We should do the MOST WE CAN NOT THE LEAST. I am quoting Glenn Sabine and Teresa Barth. They should serve the public, and either send the question to the Commissions, NOT another ad hoc Council subcommittee, or they should JUST SAY YES, to our own City beginning the process of an LCP for this project of widening I-5, which will have tremendous impact on our city. The city should maintain and uphold our LOCAL jurisdiction.
Lynn, I have to admire your ability to go from standstill to full blown panic in less than .26 seconds! This amendment is a process that every jurisdiction has to through. Some do their own amendment, some don't, all for differing reasons. The city is not ceding control here, it wants to move this process along.
Delete- The Sculpin
You are using exaggeration, hyperbole and rhetoric, Sculpin, when you falsely charge that I am going "from standstill to full blown panic in less than .26 seconds!"
DeleteNot true. The city is attempting to cede control in order to move the process along, with less opportunity for public participation.
4:21 PM
ReplyDeleteIt is a hijacking and destruction of our General Plan and zoning by crookedness. It is NOT tough stuff. It is illegal stuff. Caltrans/SANDAG admit that their projects are in "conflict" , in other words, violate the city's General Plan and zoning in filling in of wetlands, impacts to Environmental Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), and impacts to agricultural resources. Vina and his cabinet are snake oil salesmen.
Oh jeeze......Pollyana's bubble just burst.....just because they say it conflicts doesn't mean it's illegal. It just means that the conflict needs to be resolved between the parties. This is exactly the concern Mr. Strong expressed in his comments.
Delete- The Sculpin
5:04 PM
DeleteClever of you. Using the old Enron excuses.
Enron? Really? Here you have Mr. Strong reaching the same conclusion as the anon poster, and raising the issue in his comments back to Sandag, and you're calling this Enron?? The city is doing it's job, and you're blithely pointing to Enron? well, you're far too clever for me since I have no clue what your point is.....
Delete- The Sculpin
This is the freeway widening, right? Clearly that will conflict with city zoning or wetlands protection if the extra lanes have to go through sensitive areas.
DeleteAny time you're near the coast in this state, there will be conflicts on jurisdiction...
7:02 PM
DeleteNo, this not just the freeway widening. This includes SANDAG, the regional agency that voted to increase the RHNA housing numbers for Encinitas. SANDAG has adopted the stack and pack housing to increase the housing all over the county.
Project Description
SANDAG is a regional planning agency governed by a board of directors comprising 19 member agency governments. Caltrans is responsible for building and managing state highway and freeway projects. Together, SANDAG and Caltrans have prepared a North
Coast Corridor Public Works Plan (PWP) & Transportation and Resource Enhancement Program (TREP) to implement a phased, 30-year program of regionally significant public works projects to meet the mobility vision of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.
A lawsuit was filed against SANDAG for the 2050 Plan.
Please understand that the state, SANDAG, and any other agency that wants to build in Encinitas know that they must follow the city's General Plan. Caltrans and SANDAG want the Council to lie down and play dead and approve the changes to our General Plan that take away protection for the environment and for residents.
Mayor Barth and the other Council members promised that any changes to the General Plan would have to go to a vote of the people.
Write to the Council and demand that they honor their pledge to let the residents decide on any changes to our General Plan. Ask them to vote no on the Caltrans/SANDAG local coastal plan amendment and that the Council write a letter to the Coastal Commission objecting to the Caltrans/SANDAG's submittal of the amendment to the Commission.
You're going from A to Z rather quickly. You need to pass through B, C, D, etc., first. This is about the freeway widening and nothing more. It's pretty explicit in the document. If you want to interpolate this to Armageddon and the end of Encinitas as we know it, fine, but's it's your gedankenexperiment...hope you enjoy it!
Delete- The Sculpin
Sculpin,
DeleteYou are wrong. It is also about SANDAG's plans. It is also explicit that Caltrans/SANDAG don't want to follow our General Plan and protect the city environment and residents quality of life.
No it's not! (sticks out tongue and shakes head). OK - all kidding aside - yes SANDAG has plans, and yes, each locality's zoning plans (not just Encinitas) do not fit perfectly with what SANDAG wants to do, but that doesn't mean this is the document that gets you to SANDAG world domination. From my perspective, the system is working. The city was able to respond to the plan and voice their concerns, as do other stakeholders, and SANDAG has to listen - to everyone's concerns......or they end up in court and nothing gets built.
Delete- The Sculpin
Sculpin, your perspective wants to hand over local control to regional agencies.
DeleteWe should do our own Local Coastal Program amendment to resolve the conflicts, not rely on SANDAG and Caltrans to do so.
We should not make it easier for developers, whether the developers are public agencies, private corporations, or "public/private partnerships," to forever alter our community character and collectively overbuild in a manner not supported by our ability to provide water or maintain our roads. These questions need to be addressed locally, regionally, statewide, and nationwide. We can't give up our local jurisdiction. We need and want an Encinitas LCP Amendment for widening I-5.
Otherwise, why have a process, which we don't use, when it comes to one of the most, or the most impacting projects ever proposed?
Honestly, I see nowhere where the city is letting SANDAG/Caltrans make all the decisions. If that were so, why would Mr. Strong have bothered to spend any time to develop a response?
Delete- The Sculpin
Fire Vina and his cabinet.
ReplyDeleteReally this guy has my vote TO BE FIRED! He is trying to manipulate council, we will be manhatten beach if he gets his way.
ReplyDeleteAs if mansionization hasn't already been happening. Take a stroll down Neptune and check out the large concrete bunker on the ocean side north of El Portal. That was 3-4 years of building, check with the neighbors on how much fun it was to live there.
DeleteLuckily we don't have quite the density of lots as in Manhattan Beach. Which isn't to say we don't need zoning and size limits with increased vigilance on community character.
The point is, if you're just noticing these issues now, you're either new to town or live next to a develop able property...It's the old divide and conquer, the people of this town have to get all 5 communities together and get some consensus.
For the Encinitas City Council election in November 2012, the turnout was 88%.
ReplyDeleteFor the Prop A special election in June 2013, the turnout was 32.3%.
For the presidential election in November 2012, the turnout countywide was 77%.
Guess: The turnout for the 2014 Encinitas City Council/mayoral election won't be as high as for the CC election in November 2012, nor as low as for the Prop A election in June 2013.
Here's the differences in turnout between off and on year elections:
DeleteOFF 2010:
##Kristin D. Gaspar .......... 11,056 votes 28.6%
##Teresa Barth .......... 10,167 votes 26.3%
•Tony Kranz .......... 8,870 votes 23.0%
•Dan Dalager .......... 8,549 votes 22.1%
On 2012
##Lisa R. Shaffer .......... 15,606 votes 23.4%
##Tony Kranz .......... 12,262 votes 18.4%
##Mark Muir .......... 9,521 votes 14.3%
•Jerome Stocks .......... 8,442 votes 12.6%
•Barb Yost .......... 6,840 votes 10.2%
•Kevin Forrester .......... 6,033 votes 9.0%
•Bryan M. Ziegler .......... 3,833 votes 5.7%
•Thomas Brophy .......... 2,687 votes 4.0%
•Peter Allen Schuh .......... 1,539 votes 2.3%
That's not it at all. We have been around and encinitas for the most part was "built out". NOW we have density bogus ..... I mean bonus and a city manager who wants to build up with the idea of revenue as a motivator. When quality of life goes down it is not just the residents that lose out but visitors as well. Like the people avoiding saturday nights here that used to compliment our peaceful surf town feel. They now see a drunken scene with the police and their flashing lights everywhere trying to handle.
ReplyDeleteDensity Bonus has been on the books longer than the last few years. Encinitas will never be built out as long as there are any greenhouses, vacant lots, or lots that can hold more than 2-3 houses, like the one on Fulvia.
DeleteRight now there are two major projects off of Vulcan and one slated to start on Fulvia.
These projects have been in process a lot longer than Vina has been here. People are starting to twist everything to fit the "Can Vina" narrative".
Developers develop. That's not really the issue. It's the density, community character, working with the community. That really is one of the big issues in our town, slow growth vs. complete density.
That's why the big developer money always went to Stocks, Bonds etc. Let's get the narrative straight. Gaspar will run with developer $ if she runs for mayor...
In Encinitas, the city manager and city attorney are hired by and report to the City Council. It's not legitimate to demonize Vina and blame everything on him. He's not independent. He works for successive City Councils. Spread the blame.
ReplyDelete8:15-You are correct that things went on way before Vina. However, I cannot help thinking he has taken his position a new level. Come on-Who needs a Cabinet, except perhaps the President of the United States. And who is on this Cabinet? I have an FOI request on that question. As far as the Council, let's just say, it was easy for Teresa when she always voted against the 3 man majority. Now that she has the reigns it is not much different than any other developer Council. I expect it from Muir and Gaspar. I am very disappointed that the 2 new Council members, as well as Teresa, have given the reigns over to Vina and Sabine. I clearly remember Teresa suggesting that if she ever got the majority, at least Sabine would be gone. Or, at the verity minimum, there would be an independent audit for the City's financials. None have happened, and I doubt if it will. When Dr. Lori spoke to the Council about Sabine a couple of months ago, no one, except Lisa, suggested to even look at another firm. The question I would like to know is "why?" However it won't be answered. Teresa spends a lot of time at Coast Law, which is Marco Gonzalez and company. Again, "why". Marco has even solicited 2 council members, asking that HE be the City's attorney. I trust him even less than Sabine, especially after the Desert Rose business. But, we need new candidates that can win. Who is going to step forward?
ReplyDeleteThe repeated mentions of Vina's "cabinet" on the EU blog seem like playing with vocabulary to me. Everybody except Sabine and the elected people work for Vina. Any manager, whether private or public, is going to surround him/herself with people who march in step. People who don't, get axed, marginalized or moved. That's how it works in organizations. Vina has assembled his team and consolidated his power. Any experienced manager would do the same thing. The problem is what he's done with the power, not how he achieved it.
DeleteI know nothing about Barth's promises or what she's doing with Gonzalez, but I do know that one of Shaffer's goals was to sack Sabine. Sabine must know where the bodies are stashed, and that's why he still has the gig.
I say convince Dennis Holz to run for mayor or at least for the council seat.
8:36, you mean "reins" not "reigns."
Agreed, there's always some seat moving when someone new takes over. Cotton and Miller no doubt did the same thing.
DeleteHolz isn't going to run, he's been asked to come back other times, and I don't blame him for passing, he did his bit.
People on this blog are going a little crazy with the Vina narrative.
Not really. Takes closer look.
DeleteI heard Marco wanted to be a consultant for the City. Maybe that would be a good idea. He wouldn't be able to sue us if he was our consultant.
DeleteThe unruly crowed banged their pots to get rid of Stocks, and they did, and looked what happened.......total anarchy where the solution to everything is to dump 'em!!
DeleteI agree with 8:36 and put blame of Vina and all of Council. Vina's lack of leadership and selling out Encinitas is obvious, and council supports it. Failures.
ReplyDelete8:36 - what is the source for your ridiculous allegation that Marco G. has solicited council members to be City attorney? That is absolutely laughable. I don't always agree with Marco but I know him well enough to state with certainty that he has, and has never had, any interest in serving as City attorney. There would be innumerable conflicts there. Please at least make an effort to get your facts straight before posting garbage.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention he's worked hard to build his practice and probably makes more money there.
Delete10:33-I heard the allegation from 2 council members. Are they lying?You know Marco because you probably work for him. But it is beside the point really. He wouldn't be able to sue the City if he worked for the City as a consultant-at least that is what I heated. He does't want to be the City Attorney, he just wants to have we citizens pay for him to be on call. Different story.
DeleteWell, which council members did you hear that from? So you're saying he wants to be on call as a consultant to the city, probably on development and the environment.
DeleteI could see him potentially making a pitch on the park runoff situation, that's an area of expertise. Hey, if that's the case, the guy has the right to try and get work for his firm...
I personally think we have enough consultants...
I don't care what you call Vina's managers- Cabal, Cabinet, Managers, Department Heads, the bottom line is Sad Sac is a terrible performing City Manager and needs to be fired.
ReplyDeleteHis Mode of Operation is to overdevelop Encinitas out of its current financial problems versus cutting operating expenses with the largest expense by far is staff costs.
City Council needs to do something positive for Encinitas and hire a real City Manager. Not one with a history of sinking the agency in which he works. What kind of leadership is that?
I agree- I say convince Dennis Holz to run for mayor or at least for the council seat. He'd have my vote for either.
ReplyDeleteGood idea, but supposedly that's been brought up to him before, and he's said no chance. Someone else has to step up.
ReplyDeleteI think there are several dynamics going on here at this blog. One is the disbelief that the politicians they voted for, Shaffer and Kranz, along with their support for Barth has been betrayed. That sense of betrayal has been manifested in two ways. The first is the belief that what Shaffer and Kranz said as candidates was a bunch of falsehoods and second that once assuming office, Shaffer and Kranz did a 180 and not only didn't follow through on their campaign positions but actually are acting contrary to those positions. Two, that this has been facilitated by an “all powerful” city manager who is pulling the strings and has a personal interest (i.e. pension) in the outcome. This second dynamic even has some commenters claiming actions by the city manager prior to his hiring in Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteI'm not here to try to defend the city council, either collectively or individually. I'm trying to put a little rationality into the discussion. It takes only three votes to dismiss the city manager or city attorney with or without cause. Without cause usually involves a severance which might influence the decision. To think that the city manager can sit there pulling strings like some kind of evil puppet master is just beyond comprehension. And lets not get carried away with this whole “cabinet” thing. The cabinet is basically the department heads and several divisional managers who would have a whole department in a larger city. They are the city's key executives and calling them a cabinet in no way changes their duties or reporting responsibilities. I suspect with the popularity of Doris Kearns Goodwin's book on Lincoln's Team of Rivals, that cabinet is a trendy term these days.
New council members often will rely on staff to a heavier degree at the beginning until they get more experience. Once they get the hang of it, they will become more independent and forceful. What I think is happening here is that after being in office awhile, learning what the laws are, their legal responsibilities, and how to conduct themselves, the council just doesn't agree with all the positions taken here even if they themselves held similar views when campaigning. And I don't think it's a change from white to black, more that once you get inside and see how things work, you get a better understanding and see shades of gray.
And lets grow up a little here. Politicians acting contrary or not fulfilling campaign promises and positions is nothing new. Thomas Jefferson was against independent executive initiative until he thought the Louisiana Purchase was a good deal and the country has survived. Every four years city residents get to decide whether a council person has done the job they expected. Which is not to say don't stay involved. Continue to contribute and give your opinions. Show up and get involved in council and commission meeting. Just don't go the conspiracy route if they don't agree with you.
"Team of Rivals" came out in 2005, so is hardly trend-making news today. Good try, sort of.
DeleteThat both Tony and Lisa were on the other side of the dais on many occasions both speaking and shaking their heads in disapproval of then-council decisions, means they did not just fall off the turnip truck. Tony especially knows of long-term city staff scheming.
Neither gets a pass.
Whether the book had any impact on the use of cabinet is secondary. It was only a guess. I don't care for using it in this context personally, as there have been many cabinets throughout history that were totally dysfunctional.
DeleteHowever, you hit the nail on the head by saying that they were previously on the other side of the dais. Open government or not, things change when you sit in one of those five seats. Often what appears so simple from the public side isn't in reality. On the public side you have the luxury of all sorts of positions and solutions. Not so much on the council side.
Given that, you may still disagree with their actions. I'm not trying to dissuade you. I'm trying to put it into context so the discussions here are on substance. And there have been some good comments along those lines in many of the discussions. Lets just refrain from the evil empire/conspiracy talk.
12:56 PM
DeleteCry us a river for the poor council members.
Is the conspiracy talk hitting too close to home?
Sorry if you think I'm a council member. I'm not. I'm not even worried about them. I guess it's just easier to have a simplistic conspiracy answer for everything.
Delete1:03 PM
DeleteOr a simplistic denial of a conspiracy answer for everything.
Banish Barth....
DeleteDump Gaspar.
10:51 AM
ReplyDeleteWhat an apologist you are. It's all a shade of grey. Cabinet is trendy. Council is learning. What you espouse is BS.
What an apologist you are.
ReplyDeleteAh, just what I expected unfortunately.
DeleteTHere was no apology for the council in there anywhere, just a rational discussion of how things work.
DeleteWhat I expected for the city's spin doctor.
ReplyDeleteI wish the money spent on writing that blog comments actually went to achieving a project instead of pure waste.
Sorry, I'm not the city's spin doctor either.
DeleteOh excuse me "communications manager"
DeleteEither way a huge waste if tax payers money.
You can call it whatever you want but I'm not that person.
DeleteI don't think Marlena Medford is spending time responding to comments on this blog.
DeleteThere's actually a case to me made for not allowing anonymous posting for just this reason. Half the posts on here are "You're a developer" or "You're Jerome" when I'm sure none of those people have ever posted on here.
It appears that a few city workers or friends and relatives may have posted, but that's about it.
12:56 - other side of the dais point being don't believe what staff tells you. Not "things were different" once they were elected. They had caught staff in lies before, but suddenly didn't think staff needed to be questioned?? I call BS.
DeleteI've seen this council question staff a number of times and disagree with their recommendations.
DeleteQuestion, make small noises, then back down. No leadership here.
Delete12:01 PM
ReplyDeleteThe General Plan is the city's constitution. The city ordinances and amendments to the General Plan are enacted by the city, not Caltrans or SANDAG. The amendments go through public review and then to the planning commission. Projects proposed in Encinitas can't violate the General Plan. All state or local agencies know that they must build according to the rules and policies of the Encinitas General Plan/local coastal program. Caltrans/SANDAG want the council to pass an amendment that will supersede any General Plan/local coastal program rule and policy.
For discussion purposes only, what if the general plan said that I-5 couldn't be any wider than 4 lanes in each direction for a total of 8 or that the track running through the city is limited to being a single track.
DeleteWould Caltrans or NCTD have to get a general plan amendment to respectively widen I-5 or double track?
I realize this isn't the best analogy but I present it in the hope of discussing the issues involving multi-jurisdictional concerns as it can be complex.
Probably, and it would be put to a vote, and if they lost they would try and prevail in court and make the claim that the "general good" was being thwarted. Just look at how the Orange County Toll Road expansion is being managed and you'll see how difficult it is to get large projects like this built, and how strong each stakeholders voice can be.
Delete- The Sculpin
You may be right. There are certain hierarchies in state legislation. For instance Caltrans controls all the stop lights in intersections around a freeway interchange, so the city has to convince them to make a change if they want one. Caltrans or NCTD might argue that they can do whatever they want within their right-of-way even if doing so has external repercussions like impacts to city surface streets.
DeleteIn the case of the north county corridor, I believe Caltrans/SANDAG/NCTD think they are working with local jurisdictions but I don't know what the balance of power is in the relationship. I do have my suspicions though.
And don't forget the power of the coastal commission who doesn't appear to be hesitant to overrule local jurisdictions if they feel the need to.
1:15- I beg to differ. The General Plan is violated all of the time. For example, height limits on homes, before Prop. A. The GP says 26' for a pitched roof, and 22' for a flat roof. I cannot tell you how many times, when appealed to Council the person or persons who wanted to build higher got their way. That was one of the reasons for Prop A. If the City follow the GP, a lot of things that are being done, would not happen in the first place. There would have been no need for Prop. A.
ReplyDeleteThe General Plan is violated because of crookedness in city government.
DeleteImmaturity can last a lifetime.
ReplyDeleteIt's really easy to throw bombs from outside when you don't see or understand what's going on on the inside. Once you get inside, you see all the nooks and crannies that were invisible before, your views and approach change, and you set a course to get good stuff done. We hope. "Good" meaning the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Alternatively, once you get inside you see the personal benefits of going along to get along.
DeleteOne man's "discovering nuance" is another man's "selling out."
I think there's some of each.
WCV
I understand selling out but many of the comments appear to have a very short line between nuance and selling out. As in black and white and there is no in-between. No shades of gray. It's all too easy to accuse someone of selling out. And there is a certain arrogance in believing that one's own position is the only possible one as if it were handed down on stone tablets.
DeleteLike more than one Ecke.
Delete2:21, that's where integrity comes into play.
DeleteCaltrans/SANDAG's bogus claims to Encinitas Council, and the lawsuit filed last month by the Cleveland National Forest Foundation against Caltrans. UT reports on the lawsuit.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/dec/05/cleveland-national-forest-caltrans-I-5-expansion/all/?print
excerpts from the article -
The foundation’s attorneys include the San Francisco-based firm Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger; Los Angeles-based Daniel Selmi; and Marco Gonzalez of Coast Law Group in Encinitas.
Jack Shu, the foundation’s president, said the attorneys aren’t working for free, but are ensuring the small nonprofit can afford their services.
No matter how the lawsuit filed this week turns out, Caltrans can’t pour any concrete for the I-5 project until it receives approval from the California Coastal Commission. Hearings at that panel are expected to start in late spring or summer 2014.
Thanks for the comments Marco. You bet you're not working for free. You have to make money to afford all of your toys and trips. How much did it cost you to get the little park in front of your offices? what council members did you "sway" to make it happen?
ReplyDeleteSometimes this blog feels sooo much like high school.........
DeleteI think you're being too generous. More like junior high.
DeleteDump the blog.
Delete3:27
DeleteYou're really close to becoming the King of all idiots on this blog!
That pocket park was on the books to be built way before Marco moved into that building. It's way more likely that the Self Realization folks had more to do with having that built. The own most of the land in that area.
Marco pays a lot of $$$$$ for that building.....
Delete3:27 - you are an idiot. The "little park" in front of the Coast Law Group office has been in the works for nearly a decade. (go to City Hall to confirm.) That's about 5 years longer than CLG has been at that location. If you smell a conspiracy, why not blame ETV, the former occupant. Such silliness. And No, this is not Marco nor one of his employees. I've asked Marco if he follows this blog and he adamantly denies it (probably a wise decision). He made clear, however, that if he ever did post he wouldn't do so anonymously... A claim backed up by the fact he posted a few times on the Leucadia Blog under his own name. Also, anyone who knows Marco recognizes that he is not the type to anonymously "blog and run" like most folks on here. Marco and his firm also do a ton of pro bono work.... How often do YOU work for free? If you want to start bashing someone for being a money-focused lawyer you'll need to choose a different target. There are plenty out there
DeleteWe all work free of charge when we have to correct city hall errors, work to expose and put the light of day on city scheming, lying, and rule-bending. WE work for free all the time when we spend hours pawing through city records, looking for "misplaced" documentation.
DeleteMany who blog here work what can sometimes feel like a second job to keep the city honest, although surely we're working only the tip of the iceberg.
Don't apologize for Marco. He makes his own bed, willingly.
Blog is great. Dump the city scoundrels.
ReplyDeleteThe answers simple- Dump Sad Sac!
ReplyDeleteHey, simpleton, Vina works for the City Council!
DeleteThanks for the compliment. Dump City Council if they don't dump Vina. Do not vote for any of the current incumbents.
ReplyDeleteTheir only real achievement is being civil to one another and banning plastic bags. Big Deal.