May 2014
Letter to Encinitas City Council
BCC: Senator Mark Wyland, Assemblyperson Rocky Chavez, Supervisor Dave Roberts, The People of Encinitas
In a Franz Kafka short story whose name I am forgetting, the State passed a law allowing real estate developers to invoke a special law allowing them to tell communities how and where they were going to build on land they had bought. And the cities that try to protect its citizens from these real estate builders can be pretty much assured of being sued in court, in this case by City Mark Development group. Does this sound upside down? Shame on Sacramento for voting this law in, taking advantage of communities and allowing real estate developers to force citys’ hands. This is the very definition of insanity.
Here's the Developers' formula, in a nutshell: Buy property. Invoke Density Bonus Law (DBL). Build mini-neighborhood within a neighborhood. Make substantial profit. Get out. That’s the template.
(See California Government Code Sections 65915 – 65918.)
This stinks. The State of California has made a huge error against the citizenry it is sworn to the betterment and protection of. And we, the neighborhoods forever changed, will have it crammed down our throats and live with the results in perpetuity. It is crystal clear that this is wrong for so many reasons. Our jewel City of Encinitas has become one of those areas Developers are focusing on as particularly desirous, and vulnerable, and seemingly not inclined to contest.
Nonetheless there is still some degree latitude in the interpretation of this terribly-written state law, which should and will hopefully be overturned. Until that time though, it behooves city governments and their Planning Commission staffs (Encinitas, say) to not fast-track this particular kind of carpet baggery or to lie down for it — but to seek ways, when the outrage is clear that a neighborhood will be radically shrunk, forcefully imposed upon, and changed forever, to not lie down in the face of these profit-machine businessmen builders — to endeavor to guard the people from that negative change that will become permanent. And lest you be too quick to dismiss this as simply a NIMBY letter, in fact it is more a cry of outrage against unfair legal bullying. The enactment of this law here will help destroy the very heart of the neighborhood it purports to help, regardless of the vitriolic opposition of the neighborhood. This is so twisted.
It is lately being whispered more and more that the Encinitas Planning Commission staff is laying low in the face of these DBL projects now abounding in Encinitas. At the helm here is Mr. Jeff Murphy, Planning and Building Director, hired less than a year ago, who at the packed March 26th Encinitas City Council meeting seemed to evince little interest in researching ways to defend Encinitas neighborhoods from this City Mark Development group, helplessly citing only state legalities of why this was pretty much already a fait acompli. Meanwhile the building industry (read: City Mark) is being highly creative and investigating any and all loopholes and details of this law to force the Encinitas Planning Commission to its knees. So far it’s working.
That is not the spirit that the citizens of Encinitas need from these unelected city staffers, whose salary is paid with resident tax dollars. (For this we have to pay?) This undermining behavior and attitude might need to become part of the conversation with our elected City Council members. There is a growing feeling in the air that there may possibly be some degree of complicity between the Developers and commission staffing at City Hall. This is a disturbing perception, to say the least, and yet to be proven wrong. Nothing is challenged, all resistance is passive from our Encinitas Planning Commission. This bodes poorly for our neighborhoods, and for Encinitas citizens.
Below are a few pulled quotes from the building industry relating to the California Density Bonus Law.,” instructing them how to overwhelm those communities where Developers "encounter hostility from local jurisdictions” and “ regardless of what the locality wants." This should be required reading for California communities wherever builders are muscling their way into our lives. And this is only a taste of what this industry is sharing with its members. If you're smart, you'll be worried about this seemingly well-intentioned law; it is actually a specious and cynical law. I have no idea how this was passed or whose palms were greased or arms were twisted in Sacramento, but it is probably safe to say "follow the money" here.
Keep reading … This from "A Developer's Guide to the California Density Bonus Law" —; it tells you exactly how the California Building industry perceives its role:
"A developer who meets the law’s requirements for affordable or senior units is entitled to the density bonus and other assistance as of right, regardless of what the locality wants. ... The density bonus statute can be used to achieve reductions in development standards or the granting of concessions or incentives from jurisdictions that otherwise would not be inclined to grant those items. ... Developers who nonetheless encounter hostility from local jurisdictions are provided several tools to ensure that a required density bonus is actually granted. ... If a developer successfully sues the locality to enforce the density bonus requirements, it is entitled to an award of its attorneys’ fees. The obligation to pay a developer’s attorneys’ fees is a powerful incentive for local jurisdictions to voluntarily comply with the state law density bonus requirements, even when the jurisdiction is not in favor of its effects on the project. ... The density bonus provides one method for developers to improve the economics of their project while still complying with the inclusionary housing requirements. While there are some local agencies which believe that inclusionary units do not qualify for density bonuses, it is generally understood that the density bonus is intended by state law to be a powerful financial tool to help developers achieve the inclusionary housing requirements. ... Obtaining greater density can help the developer of any type of project bring costs and financing sources into line by putting more homes on the land. ... The incentives and concessions to be provided by the local government can provide a helpful way to modify development requirements which may stand in the way of a successful project. ... the Density Bonus Law is unquestionably a useful option for housing developers trying to make financial sense of their projects in today’s economy.”
And there's plenty more outrageous material where these quotes came from. Who are these people? This gross manipulation of the law is unconscionable and even skirts the lines of morality. It is complete self-interest being barely disguised as altruism. This can not and should not stand. Where are the representatives looking out for our neighborhoods? This is beyond bizarre. It is Kakfa-esque. Orwellian, even.
The City Mark Development builders are ready to come in to Fulvia and Hymettus in Encinitas and change our world, whether we like it or not. Their barely-contained smirks at the March 26th City Council meet were more than mildly discernible as Planning and Building Director Murphy shot down every attempt that the City Council proposed at ameliorating this travesty about to be committed. This was my first time attending a council meeting.
I think we all know that this “affordable housing” law, heavily influenced by developers, in reality is something of a sham. Its repeal really must occur. When you examine the loopholes that allow the one token affordable unit in this shoe-horned overdeveloped cluster to be traded, bought out of this loop, rented for a period, then later sold at full market value – well, then it’s hard to find any benefit to the community and the supposed recipients of the affordable dwelling. The building industry has found new life with this Density Bonus Law! The people protecting this law are not our friends.
How bizarre, twisted, absurd laws such as become voted into law starts out benignly enough, I imagine, until the real measure of it begins slowly to reveal its terrible wrongness. And then it is usually too late. It is right now not too late for Encinitas, though City Mark Development is hunched and waiting for legal approval to insert their nine houses onto a two-acre lot. And they will have built without regard to neighborhood reaction or feeling, holding a few “due diligence informational meetings” with neighbors, just for the record. The opposition has only grown; there are no converts.
This ham-fisted intrusive State of California law is not serving its constituents in this case — we in the neighborhood it implodes, nor the low-income people in whose name it purports to be representing. It is the opposite. In other words, there is no one being served by this DBL except the Developmental (builders’) community, who have been given carte blanche by the State of California, in this instance City Mark Development.
What is wrong with this picture? There is trouble in Mudville, folks, and it’s about to start slinging. Franz Kafka wouldn't have blinked an eye. The wealthy manipulate the laws; it has ever been thus. Follow that money!
Please voice your voice. They (below) are waiting to hear from you.
May the Force be with us.
Stephen Keyes
Encinitas
(Fulvia Street resident since 1992)
Encinitas City Council member emails:
tbarth@encinitasca.gov
lshaffer@encinitasca.gov
tkranz@encinitasca.gov
mmuir@encinitasca.gov
State/County representatives:
* State Senator Mark Wyland: senator.wyland@sen.ca.gov
* Assemblyman Rocky Chavez (via Senior Field Rep. Tom Garcia): tom.garcia@asm.ca.gov
Here are a few websites from your friendly California building industry and friends:
"A Developer's Guide to the California Density Bonus Law": (http://www.kmtg.com/sites/default/files/publications/density_bonus_law_2012.pdf)
http://www.allenmatkins.com/~/media/FC9373A64F31442191011C9BC7D027A2.ashx
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/252414/real+estate/Good+News+for+Developers+and+Affordable+Housing+Advocates+California+Court+Of+Appeal+Rejects+Significant+Challenge+To+States+Density+Bonus+Law
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Density Bonus
Letter in this week's Coast News:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Notice that our council people have never penned a public letter like this. The Encinitas city council is happy to have the state law in place so they can pass the blame.
ReplyDeleteThe council just throws their hands in the air, insincerely.
Didn't a court recently rule that the Encinitas city council wrongly used the bonus law to ignore wetland impacts?
ReplyDeleteYes, it did. It seems the lawsuits may come from residents, if the city continues to throw extras to developers that are not required by density bonus law.
DeleteRelated to the Turney's or the Kranz's?
DeleteWhich are those? More than desert rose?
Deletenot according to Shaffer and Barth who again LIED to the public saying the courts ruled against the developer
Deletethe courst ruled against the city and Barth-Shaffer-Kranz-Muir and Gaspar
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Losing is winning" or "Time is money"
ReplyDeleteBuilders are businesses, they are in business primarily for profit. I don't blame them any more than I would blame a shark for an attack. That's just a shark, being a shark. To fight DB, you first have to accept and understand what motivates builders: profit. Look at the numbers that affect builder profit, and you'll find most of them are fixed, and mostly out of the control of the builder: the purchase price of the land is set by market forces. The cost of capital is set by current interest rates. The cost of construction materials and labor are set by the market. The selling price of the finished housing units is determined by the market. In fact, one of the only variables the builder can affect is time. If a normal project cycle takes 18 months, then the builder is effectively getting paid every 18 months. If the builder can find a way to do the same project, with the same units, same profit in 12 months, then the builder is getting the same paycheck every 12 months instead of every 18 months. Imagine if you could get your current paycheck for the same amount, only instead of every two weeks, you get it every 10 days--it's the same thing. Time really is money.
This also works in the opposite direction. Projects that tie up working capital for longer periods reduce the profitability of the firm. Why does all this matter?
If the City wanted to, it could stop the over-density projects by fighting them in court and dragging out the time it takes to complete a project in Encinitas. Even if the outcome of the court cases is a certain loss, it still takes time. Builders may even recover their legal fees, but they cannot recover time, or the money that time represents.
If the City consistently fought density bonus, it would not take long before every developer learned to factor in a longer project cycle on every potential density project in Encinitas. They would have to compare the potential profitability of long-cycle projects in Encinitas relative to short-cycle projects in places that do not fight. Before long, we wouldn't have to fight. Developers would self-regulate by either reducing proposed densities to avoid the fight, or they would opt to take high density projects where they will be faster and more profitable.
cities and people should not take people to court if they know they will lose in the end. It is not ethical.
DeleteThere are grounds for the city stepping up and stop rolling out the DB Red Carpet, but that won't happen as long as we have ideologues opposed to stopping DB in office.
Encinitas would not have to take the developers to court. The City could change the way that the base calculations are done, for density bonus, to the same method used by Los Angeles, which city hasn't been sued. We don't need to be rounding up.
DeletePlus, developers cannot sue if there are a lot of regulations in the Planning process. What our City has done is make it harder for the little guy to do a remodel, while making it easier for a developer of multiple units.
Solana Beach and Del Mar do not get stuck with density bonus projects, because their design review process is more challenging. The Covenant in Rancho Santa Fe has a really complex "art jury" that developers must go through. Yet expensive homes are still being built, and bought, in RSF.
Encinitas doesn't have to take developers to court. But Council and staff shouldn't make decisions out of fear of being sued by developers. Let the developers sue. If the City carefully crafts its ordinances, and the way it calculates density bonus, a developer wouldn't win.
The truth is, courts generally rule in favor of public agencies, and rarely are attorney fees awarded to a party who is not part of the governmental hierarchies, even when the City has been plaintiff, and the defendant has prevailed.
But the Save Desert Rose lawsuit should be a welcome exception. Because SDR prevailed, as Plaintiff, seeking a Writ of Mandate, and because that case concerns environmental issues, with the Court ordering a mandatory EIR, the City should have to pay the SDR neighbors' attorney fees, by a factor of at least two-fold.
11:38
DeleteI am probably wrong, but I think you are conflating Density Bonus (a state law), with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (local).
As I understand it, the local Inclusionary laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the state DB does not.
The local inclusionary ord. forces developers of larger projects to include more affordable units or pay an in lieu fee--neither of which changes the zoning density.
The state DB law allows an automatic upzoning.
The way the base calculations for density bonus projects are measured varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Encinitas rounds up the base calculation, which favors the developer. Other jurisdictions do not, which makes the density bonus projects more palatable to existing homeowners in the neighborhoods.
DeleteAlthough DB law allows an automatic upzoning, the way the law is applied, varies. That is why some jurisdictions have had little or no DB projects and Encinitas has had a plethora of them.
Planning staff, the City Manager, and Council, make it easier than they have to for developers, because the City wants developer fees, and property taxes, as well as sales taxes from mixed use projects, to feed the machine of expansion, expanding operating costs, expansion in development at the expense of community character and quality of life.
1:01 Well said. We do not have to round up.
Delete11:38 and 1:01, who are probably the same person, hit the nail squarely on the head in all respects.
DeleteThe City Council wimps hiding behind the state density bonus law are disgraceful. As with many other issues, they are not acting in the best interests of the majority of Encinitas residents.
TNG, there are plenty of businesses in Encinitas that do not expect the public to finance their businesses. Developers are placing the burden of the ability to "make it pencil out" onto others.
DeleteWhy should citizens be willing to sacrifice their community character, safety, parking, and environmental concerns at the expense of builders who want the greatest financial gain at the expense of those who live here? They could instead do high-quality projects that conform to our local codes.
They're not interested in doing high quality projects that conform to local standards, they're interested in financing it, building it, and moving on, all while paying homage to their master, Time is Money.
DeleteDevelopers are not going to adjust their game plan without first fighting in the best way they know how, by giving money and time to candidates like Stocks, Bonds, Muir and Gaspar. That's how the game is played.
They will never self regulate while they can increase the density via existing laws. They've been doing this the last 15-20 years, why would they change now? They only thing that slows down builders is lack of buyers, which only happens in a recession. The Shea development on Vulcan was only delayed by Shea's lack of resources due to so many unsold units in Arizona and Chula Vista.
once things picked up, they bought the unfinished Barrett American property and finished that as well as the Vulcan Property.
Good article in the LA times the other day, 1/3 of all sales in So Cal right now are cash, with buyers breaking down into investors, 2nd home buyers and offshore buyers from China. That's why you have so much interest in condos prices at $450k and up in the new Vulcan development. It's supply and demand.
Fighting density bonus has been a continued battle for those of us not aligned with Stocks and Bond. I think we're now seeing a wave of awareness from those who've arrived in the last 5-10 years, but the city is so tied to development fees, it will be hard to wean them off that spigot while the salaries down there are floated by that engine...
8:03 AM
ReplyDeleteReputable builders don't use the density bonus law to build houses because -
density bonus law allows violations all zoning requirements which includes how close houses can be to the property line.
I think what you are speaking of is the issue of setbacks. The new development on Olivenhain Road is a travesty. There are virtually no setbacks.
DeleteSetbacks is one item in a laundry list of items the city gives developers that are NOT required under db law.
Delete9:09 AM
ReplyDeleteYour comment is just nonsensical. Density Bonus is state law pure and simple that explicitly allows developers to request relaxation of the zoning requirements in exchange for including housing units which are offered at below market rates. In the scheme of things, a city derives their authority from the state so the state can overrule it if it so desires. While charter cities have more independence, density bonus applies to them as well. To claim that only a disreputable builder would use the density bonus law is flat out wrong.
By the way, in the case of Desert Rose it's the property owner who is seeking the density bonus not a developer. This is frequently the case although the property owners then usually sell to a developer with an approved subdivision.
Finally, it's nice to see everyone start to become concerned now about density bonus and maybe it's come full circle with the development in Leucadia but where were the desert rose folks when previous density bonus developments were being decided in Leucadia? I'm pretty sure some of the supporters of density bonus law live in the Olivenhain/Ranch Santa Fe area so be careful of what you ask for.
Believe me, folks in Olivenhain (except developers) were not aware of density bonus until it came to us.
DeleteEncintias needs to take a stance and fight it everywhere!
10:24 AM
DeleteYou are wrong. There is no such thing as a "relaxation" of the zoning ordinances. The developer and the city either follows or doesn't follow the zoning regulations. The "relaxation" of the ordinances was called getting a backroom deal. The state legislature put the backroom deals method on the books for their supporters.
In the case of Desert Rose the property owner is the developer. Developers use a little thing called "in escrow" so the developer's name doesn't show up until the subdivision is approved by the planning commission. Sometimes the developer sells the parcel map approval to another developer.
"Relaxation of the zoning requirements"? The proposed Fulvia DB project went from five houses allowed by prevailing zoning to 10. That's a helluva relaxation. The 10 was then cut to 9 because of drainage problems.
DeleteTo take even greater advantage, developers don't sell the "affordable" unit(s) but rent them for 30 years then sell them at market rates. And the rents can hardly be called "affordable."
1:52 PM
DeleteSo state law has codified "backroom deals"? Hardly. The density bonus legislation states clearly that if a developer meets eligibility requirements the city must grant them concessions which in your characterization means relaxation, such as reduced setbacks. I don't state this because I support it. I state it because it's reality. Also, whether a property owner has a developer in escrow is immaterial. The point is that they are able to sell their property for more than the value that existing zoning would warrant. This is especially true in Encinitas as the general plan mandates medium density in residential zones but density bonus projects start at the maximum density so they're already ahead.
2:12 PM Yes, the developer is only required to keep the unit affordable for 30 years.
Well, yes, in effect the state codified backroom deals. The DB law was written by the building industry and cronies in the legislature to benefit themselves. To give it an aroma of community benefit, they portray it as helping people of lesser means and promoting diversity. What it's really about is maxing profits for developers and land owners. And some municipalities are more permissive with it than others because they need the added property and sales tax revenues. Then there are slimy lawyers who instruct developers on how to milk it for all it's worth. Similarly, there are slimy lawyers who artificially impoverish old people so they can live on state and federal benefits. They actually conduct seminars on how to do that.
Delete3:50 PM
DeleteThe density bonus legislation was backed by affordable housing advocates as well as developers, which is why repeal or lessening its requirements have met with little enthusiasm in the legislature.
"slimy lawyers"?? Please, and the "impoverish old people" slur doesn't help your case either. Nobody seemed to care when density bonus was screwing up other people's neighborhood.
4:20
DeleteWell, it's not creating affordable housing, is it? It's being manipulated by land owners, developers and slimy lawyers to max profits while destroying community character and screwing the neighbors.
"Impoverish old people" was meant to slur the predatory lawyers, not the old people. Don't misconstrue to suit your nefarious purpose.
If people didn't care when density bonus was screwing other people's neighborhoods, they do now. Everybody's in the same pot, so your comment is outdated and irrelevant.
8:14 PM
Delete"[N]efarious purpose"?? I knew you meant to slur the lawyers not the old people. Speaking as a non lawyer and non developer, I get tired of seeing commenters here paint broad brushes slurring whole professions in the hope of bolstering their arguements. There are slimy lawyers just as there are slimy residents. No segment of society is devoid of good and bad.
Actually, density bonus does create some affordable housing just not very much and, in my estimation, in a very clumsy and impactful way. There has to be better ways to do it without ruining neighborhood character.
And it is still relevant if desert rose gets resolved and the olivenhain crowd loses interest in what happens in Leucadia.
9:55
DeleteSlimy lawyers are a subset. The characterization is not a broad brush. You just read it that way because you're predisposed.
Your last paragraph depends on "if." At least some Desert Rose people have said, written and demonstrated that we're all in the same boat. They've even acknowledged that before Desert Rose, they disregarded DB projects elsewhere, but they no longer do.
Rather than being negative and belittling, why don't you join the good guys?
11:02 AM
DeleteYes, I'll grant that your "slimy lawyers" could be read as a subset, but as a subset of what. All lawyers, those lawyers who advise developers on density bonus, or those lawyers who advise developers to somehow contort (my interpretation) the density bonus law not as it was envisioned? When does said lawyer attain "slimy" status? Would you put the lawyer for desert rose in the "slimy" category?
If demonizing whole segments of professionals and misinterpreting state laws is the price of joining "the good guys" then no thanks. My characterizations and explanations here don't necessarily mean I agree with it. Many times I don't but that doesn't mean I'm going to engage in exaggeration and denigration. I think I am one of the good guys but I'm sure many here would disagree. I just won't drink the kool-aid.
Good commentary by Stephen Keyes in the Coast News. One thing he seems to be confused about is calling Encinitas Planning staff "planning commission staff." That's a small correction, but we do have Planning Commissioners, who, in the case of Desert Rose, made the correct decision.
ReplyDeletePlanning Commissioners also made a good decision in the case of approving the former Hall Park Property as a sports park. They called for at least one less 100 yard multi use field, and also for more specific planning to mitigate access and egress problems for the park. The issue of motorists coming and going to tournaments will especially impact nearby residents and businesses.
Unfortunately, previous Council had planning department staff appeal the Planning Commission's decision. That happened because the City is the developer on all public works projects.
I think city planning staff should be neutral on appeals involving decisions made by the Planning Commission. As it stands now, planning staff seems to always favor the developer, whether that developer is the City, or a private entity. Council, including Stocks, Bond and Dalager, voted to grant the appeal, with Teresa and Maggie dissenting re the sports park. Unfortunately, all of Council voted to grant the appeal, by the developer, of the Desert Rose development, with Lisa Shaffer abstaining. Marco Gonzalez represented the developer. the SDR neighbors were disallowed legal counsel, as respondent, to be given equal status in the developer/applicant's appeal to Council.
That won't happen again. Should Council rubber stamp the EIR, it would still have to have a hearing to approve the project, after the EIR, considering all the alternatives that must be offered, as part of the report. In that public hearing, counsel for the developer and counsel for the SDR neighbors, must be given equal status. It shouldn't be heard as an "appeal," but as a normal public hearing, after the EIR process. Any appeal would then be to the Court, should Council again make the wrong decision, despite substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, including to the wetlands, to traffic, to public health and safety, and to community character, all of which must be addressed in the EIR.
Happy Mothers' Day!
Factually, the City of Encinitas Planning commission 'rejected' the Hall Property Sports Park EIR. They recommended the fields be reduced "by one or two" and deemed the traffic mitigation to be inadequate. The traffic concerns identified unmitigated traffic issues during non tournament use, also.
Delete1:46 PM
DeleteCheck the planning commission minutes. The commission "rejected" the project not the EIR. The EIR was certified.
From the Sept. 9, 2008 minutes -
On MOTION by Chapo, SECONDED by Steyaert, CERTIFICATION OF EIR WITH
INCLUSION OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT AMENDMENTS AS SUGGESTED BY STAFF
VOTE: 410- -
AYES: Chapo, Felker, Steyaert, Van Slyke
NOES: None
ABSENT: McCabe
My present to you is not reading your post and clarifying all your mistruths.
DeleteThanks WC for this update. If we had a caring ca, we would fight this abomination at every instance. We are not alone. Many communities would join us if we had a backbone to represent us. We do not, thanks to sabine and slimy gus and our amenable sell out council members. A little leadership is called for but with this bunch not one has stepped up for us who believed in them enough to vote them in. Now, lets vote them out at the earliest opportunity. Julie will make a difference. Catherine, with her allegiances already known, will be more of the same. A clear choice is now available. For mayor, we are still waiting for a viable candidate. A little wishful dreaming for one of the usual suspects to join I am sure, but why not? Thanks WC for providing this outlet for the truth to come out on so many issues important to us all. Happy Mothers Day.
ReplyDeleteI think this council is confused what Density Bonus means. They think it means that they will receive a bonus if they stay dense.
ReplyDeleteCity Council then gets the prize!
DeleteI can't afford to own in Rancho Santa Fe or on the bluff in Encinitas. Hell, I can't even afford to own a real house in Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteIs it then government's responsibility to make it possible for me to own any of those three? I don't think so.
So why is it government's responsibility to make it possible for people who can't afford to own or rent in Encinitas to do so?
Isn't there an economic hierarchy? Don't people live where they can afford to live? Hasn't it always been that way?
Ah, thanks for the moment of levity and a good laugh 1:23pm. Let it be repeated and become a mantra for saving our community from the greed masters taking advantage of bad governing policies enacted by corrupt legislators who allowed this to become law. With true incorruptible council members being on our side we would not be such a target for DB. That is what is coming and any who fight against this rising tide will be left by the wayside and relegated to the trash heap of our own little bit of history here. Dear council members what do you want to be known for? You still have time to prove our trust in you was not misguided if that moment in time hasn't already passed. Ever hopeful and against the odds but change is possible if you can see through the misguided policies that slimy gus has drawn you into. Wake the heck up! You can be the answer or continue to be led by misguided directions foisted on us by outside monied interests by our own puppet master in residence. Dump vina now if only to show you really care for this city's welfare. And show our ca the same door. The thought that hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars have gone to his La Mesa law firm is an abomination. This manipulation must come to an end. The stench of influence has not abated since the last election when hope was alive.Too bad for us and shame on you council members.
ReplyDelete3:16-
ReplyDeleteThats not what the City and the State believe. They want to cramp the density down existing residents throat as a way of increasing tax revenue.
The developers and bankers are glad to play along. Its Mo and Mo Money!!!!
Your current elected officials what to subsidize home prices buy building lower quality jabbed developments to pay for the high staff costs at city hall. All brought to you buy Gus Vina. A government raised know nothing but increased government spending and taxing.
ReplyDeleteNice grammar .....
DeleteI hate it when my throat cramps. The original poster is right, density bonus is a bad law, and it's the root of a lot of our issues with density and development. Write to one of the people listed, I am...
DeleteI've been told that the vote was 3-1-1 on the Desert Rose Bonus Density Project and that Barth, Gaspar and Kranz voted for it. Is this correct?
ReplyDeleteCorrect. Muir recused, Shaffer abstained.
DeleteKranz voted for it after waxing nostalgic about how he used to play there as a kid.
DeleteShaffer abstained after being told by Sabine that her abstention would count as a "yes" vote. That = Shaffer voted for it.
DeleteShaffer abstained before Sabine told her it counted as a yes under the circumstances. She abstained because she didn't think the staff have provided enough and good enough information to permit an informed vote. Then Sabine told her an abstention would count as a yes. For her to change her vote would have contradicted her reason for abstaining, so she stuck with it.
DeleteShaffer could simply have said "if my abstention counted as a 'yes,' based on staff's lack of information, I'm changing my vote to a 'no'." Would that really have been so hard?
DeleteHer character flaw is that she cannot admit a mistake, and that trips her up every time. For Lisa, pride comes before ethics.
Sorry 2:42, whatever you're selling, I'm not buying.
Shaffer could simply have voted "NO" after Sabine's explanation. I didn't vote for her from the get go because I knew she was a "ditz". She has come through just like I thought. Vote out all incumbents.
DeleteHer reason for abstaining was because the staff hadn't provided enough information for her to vote yes or no. If she had changed from abstention to yes or no, that would have contradicted her reason for abstaining. Her action was consistent and reasonable.
DeleteEven if she had voted no, the result would have been three yes, one no and one recused, so the outcome wouldn't have changed. Plus, it's water under the bridge, so why keep harping on it?
Why keep trying to spin her vote? Why keep making her excuses for her?
DeleteNo spin, no excuses. Watch the video.
DeleteWe are harping on Shaffer because she never has enough information to make an educated and informed decision. Maybe if she would spend more time doing council work rather than doing whatever else she does, she might get a clue as to how government works. Her arms wave all over the place when she talks, which looks like that is how her brain does or does not work. She shouldn't have quit her day job. This woman is in the wrong profession along with all the others. Like her if you wish. She loves to spend our money and that will be her "legacy".
DeleteShaffer should have laid low - she has proved that her "academic" credentials are a farse when it comes to common sense. She hasn't a clue what the real issues are facing the city and dances around commitment to anything. Academics and government - both worthless parasites on the working persons' back.
DeleteOlivenhain residents sued the City for the council's not accepting the planning commission's judgment that the Desert Rose density bonus project required an EIR. The property owner joined the suit on the City's side.
DeleteThe court ruled in favor of the residents. Yay!
So, first, why beat a dead horse? Second, why blame Shaffer for the council's decision? Kranz made the motion, Barth seconded it, Gaspar voted yes, Shaffer abstained and explained why.
Sabine said an abstention would count as a yes only if there was a tie. There wasn't a tie. The vote was three ayes, one abstention that remained an abstention and one recusal.
At the beginning of the first public meeting session on Jan 23, 2013 when council members made disclosures, Shaffer said she hadn't met with any of the involved parties since the election. She said her responsibility was to make a decision based on the facts, that is, if the proposed development was within the law. That sounded to me as if she wanted to make an objective rather than an emotional decision.
When all was said and done, Shaffer said she was dissatisfied with the process and the staff input. She added that the case had a long history, but the council was new and it seemed presumptuous for it to weigh in, especially given what she saw as faults in the process and input. She abstained and that held. If she had voted no, the three yes votes would have prevailed anyway.
In one of her newsletters some time back, Shaffer said the newish council had made mistakes, although she didn't specify what they were.
Maybe you Shaffer opponents should grind your ax on somebody else's head.
Naw. Her constant shifting of responsibility to others means she'll continue to be on the receiving end of criticism. I've lost count of how many times she's tried excusing herself with "nobody told me." Follow-up questioning reveals she "never asked." Lame, lame, lame.
DeleteShe's making real decisions that permanently impact real people and doesn't seem yet to be able to appreciate the gravity of that situation.
We are not only talking about the Density Rose project, but Shaffer's time on council as a whole. She has made some bad decisions that do not benefit the citizens. That is why we want her gone when the time comes. She hasn't a clue and is always in a state of bewilderment. I wonder what planet this woman came from.
DeleteOK, you've acknowledged you lost the Desert Rose argument because you had your facts wrong, had a prejudicial view and assigned blame where it wasn't due.
DeleteNow you're shifting the playing field so you can grind your predisposed ax. I'm no blind fan of Shaffer's, but she has not earned indiscriminate condemnation.
If you think she has, cite evidence rather than prejudicial generalities.
Here's one to start you off: She made the motion to one-lane 101 between Leucadia Blvd. and La Costa Ave. The motion passed, but I don't remember if it split or was unanimous. That decision disregarded the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction. The one-laning is literally illegal.
Incidentally, she will be gone when the time comes because as a candidate she said she would be a one-termer. She will stick to that. Her term expires near the end of 2016.
She's gonna have to stick to that...her base has vanished.
DeleteRe: admitting "losing" on DR? Not for a minute...but there is you know so much to choose from, it's impossible not to broaden the discussion. DR was not a one-off for her, it was the first in a line of votes virtually indistinguishable from what Stocks would have done.
She has decided she is a one-term council person because she knows she couldn't get reelected. Not a chance in this life time. She should not have been elected in the first place. She has told untruths from the beginning of her campaign and it continues to this day. Fake, fake and more fake. Someone come and take her away before she does more damage. Oh, GASbag also. Fake, fake, fake.
DeleteSabine has since corrected himself and said that an abstention, according to case law, goes with the majority. If there is a tie, and there is no majority, then no action can be taken on that motion. This was also our policy, by a 1986 resolution, soon after we incorporated. We have now gone back to our original policy re abstentions, because of legal precedent, which Sabine later cited, when his pronouncement about an abstention being a yes vote was questioned. If Shaffer had voted no, and one other Council member had voted no, voted not to overturn the Planning Commission's decision to deny approval for Desert Rose, then no action could have been taken, and the PC's decision would have not been overturned, by Council.
DeleteThere were three ayes, so all the rest is irrelevant in the DR case.
DeleteShaffer said all through her campaign that she would be a one-termer. She will keep her word.
More generalities and supposition from 12:55. Cite specifics like the one 12:26 cited. A lot of residents wanted to buy the PV property. Shaffer did too. Big mistake to pay so much though.
OK, specifics: She was against Prop A after first saying she was for it.
DeleteMeanwhile our streets are falling apart....
ReplyDeleteI heard there is a historic piece of property right south of Ponto within the City of Encinitas that is currently open land but is looking at developing.
ReplyDeleteI think the City Buy it!@! And build an Art and Green Center on it. Submit an offer of $9 million dollars and we get secure the legacy property.
Come on City Council, who cares if our roads are falling apart. We need another Trophy Project!
The line is at La Costa, with the exception of the spot on the Northeast Corner of La Costa at 101. That's Encinitas. A timeshare was planned there, but nothing ever came from it....
DeleteNope. The vacant bluff south of Ponto is all Encinitas and needs another City Trophy Project!
DeleteWhere the hotel was going to go where the trailer park used to be? Nothing doing..
Deletehttp://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2006_2nd/May06_KSLEncinitas.html
http://hotelguru.com/hotel-construction-in-county-to-remain-dry-until-2012/
Tony Kranz is the new Dan Dalager - duh!
ReplyDeleteI recently watched the tape of the Desert Rose meeting. Shaffer abstained because she said that she didn't have enough information to make a decision, while also saying that she didn't and wouldn't meet with either side and listen to their perspectives. THIS IS A COP OUT! Before the election, she was more than able to listen to our concerns. After the election, not so much! She betrayed the residents of Olivenhain! I will not be fooled again.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile she lets our streets fall apart...
DeleteShaffer is too busy adjusting her ethics.
DeleteShaffer and GASbag are denser than density bonus. They will never change.
ReplyDeleteBuy all the greenhouses in town and make neighborhood parks and community Growthing areas. Come On City, these are historical sites.
ReplyDeleteWe need more Trophy Projects. The $20,000,000 library, $30,000,000 new fire stations, $80,000,000 Regional Sports Complex, and $10,000,000 Moonlight Beach, and $15,000,000 Pacific View are not enough, WE NEED MORE TROPHY PROJECTS. After all, The city council members all want their name on a plaque right?
Growthing areas? Sounds like Soylent Green....
DeleteThe library was $24 Million, not counting debt service on lease revenue bonds, when the library, in part, sits on County owned land, which the City rents for $1 per year.
DeleteLibraries are no trophy project, that sucker is full most every day, from 2 year old story time to jazz concerts, it's a winner for everyone. We need libraries now more than ever, they're the bedrock of a free society, period...
DeleteLibraries are the new homeless low income crazy fucker hang out.
DeleteOurs has so many stinky scitzos in it my wife and kids refuse to go.
Its really only a place for the homeless to go use the internet. Watch were you sit and don't use the public earphones, you will for certain get lice. Its running ramped in that place.
Library- Dinosaur Trophy Project. Internet wiped out their need.
4:14 You got it. That sucker (library) is rampant with people off the street that have no place to call home. Nice job council....you have created another monster. Or should I say, "Good job, Brownie!"
DeleteIt's the second busiest county library branch in San Diego County.
Delete9:17 You have to ask yourself why. Lot of homeless up in this area and more coming all the time. The bars attract them.
DeleteThe county library is setting up a homeless community counseling section similar to the San Jose city/Cal state joint use library. Expect more homeless in the library.
Delete8:19 my wife & kid won't get near the library either. It is a homeless shelter and what a stupid move to put such a "showpiece" a block from public transportation! My friend had his wallet stolen there recently, it is a vagrant magnet.
DeleteSychzos, perverts, lice, diseased minds and bodies--
DeleteYeah that is somewhere I want to bring my grandkids. Geeze- I might as well bring them to Prison.
Thats just great. The City built a $20 million dollar oceanview homeless shelter. Great Thinking!!!
The people downgrading our state-of-art library are paranoid. It is one of the most wonderful libraries I've ever been inside of. Really, folks. You are quite a bit over the top. I realize we have many conservative thinkers in our town, but fortunately you are way smaller in numbers. Yes, I think those complainers should stay away from the Encinitas Library. Try the Cardiff Library instead. But stop taking up space here in this dialogue. We had been talking about the Density Bonus Law. Pull yourselves out of bile-laden tunnel you've gone down.
DeleteConservative? Just what are they conserving? It's certainly not clear thinking! Seems to me it's more like the right to be willfully ignorant and unjustifiably biased.
DeleteAnd still no toilet facilities at Leucadian beaches....
ReplyDelete10:28 AM
ReplyDeleteEnjoy the beach now. Plans by the city will make the Leucadia beaches more than crowded.
It's called "smart growth" and "vibrancy." What we all want - right?
DeleteI want my children to use a toilet and not the ocean when they have to go.... Know what I mean??
DeleteGo to those beaches where they have facilities - I do.
DeleteSounds like I should rent a porta potty and park it at Beacon's. Five bucks per use...lol
DeleteWe the people of Leucadia do not want restrooms at Beacons! Go to Moonlight if you want that type of beach experience. We prefer a feral beach.
DeleteAuthentic Leucadians know the original and true name of the beach is Beacon. Read it in the Coast News.
DeleteTrue… but a common nickname for Beacon Beach is "Beacons".
DeleteBeacons?? I thought it was known as " Unsafe trail to beach without a toilet beach ". Typical Encinitas failure.
DeleteThere was one beacon at the overlook at the north end of the parking lot. Hence, the singular name Beacon. Any conversion of that name is an error.
DeleteOther "nicknames": Moonlights, Grandviews, Pontoes.
DeleteUm, hellooooo - there is no "e" in Pontos.
DeleteYup. heard the all…. especially Pontos
ReplyDeleteSimilar to--
there is a group of about 6 people that call themselves "Leucadia Neighbors". Everyone else calls them KLCC.
Nicknames are common.
And you, 4:38, are an asshole!
Delete4:38am, since you are so well informed on the numbers of Leucadia Neighbors group go ahead and list them. Leucadia Neighbors are not the KLCC. They are trying to give this community a voice, where as the source for KLCC is, as it has always been, a construct of crappy and his handful of vested interests. I am not a member of Leucadia Neighbors but know of them and they number much more than those handful of KLCC that have been trying to force unwanted traffic calming measures on OUR 101.
ReplyDeleteLeucadia Neighbors are the same people that arm and operate the KLCC.
DeleteYou can try to foist that lie on this community as much as you want crappy but it just shows you are delusional and won't own up to your own creation. Leucadia Neighbors has nothing to do with your club of like minded misguided vocal bully's that have promoted KLCC for the last couple of years. Leucadia Neighbors would never descend to your depths of misinformation. We have known who you were from the beginning and you have not fooled anyone. Sad, sad, sad.
ReplyDelete