Friday, July 11, 2014

Staff really doesn't want Council to change density bonus

From the Inbox:

Hi WC,

Outrageous, but not unexpected: staff returned an 83-page report to Council that merely repeats their old "arguments" as to why Encinitas should continue to show the love for developers, specifically the density bonus kind.  Included in the report are such gems as this one on why we should not require that the affordable unit be of similar size as a market rate unit:

Constructing a "market rate unit" and expecting a "very-low" income household to maintain such unit is counterproductive given the cost associated with the long-term maintenance of a larger home. The cost to maintain the affordable unit and lot should be proportionate to the income of the household. Otherwise, the unit would no longer be 'affordable.'


In other words: them poor folks don't have the means to keep up a larger house and property, so why bother treating them equally and giving them one?  Council specifically directed "staff" to come back next week with an agenda item written in such as way as to be voted on.  "Staff" came back with 83 pages of "How about we 'discuss' instead?"  Disgusting.

Here's the link to the agenda item report for next week: http://encinitas.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&event_id=289&meta_id=40526

102 comments:

  1. EVERYONE, rally the troops. We need to fill up the overload seating and the extra rooms!

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's a pretty "poor" argument.

    I hope WC didn't return that tar and feathers yet.

    -The Badger

    ReplyDelete
  3. Get an extra tar/feather kit for Murphy!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Need extra tar and feathers kits for the planners on each density bonus.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Does Costco sell them bulk??

    ReplyDelete
  6. Settle down.

    Put down your pitchforks. Extinguish your torches.

    When an agenda topic is crafted, it is the responsibility of staff to provide a report providing context and considerations for council to consider.

    Providing a staff report is far from "blatant disregard of council direction," even if the staff report includes information that runs counter to what council wants to do.

    Council is in no way bound by staff reports--they are just a required package.

    If any of us were on council, we'd probably welcome the opinion of staff, even if we decide they are wrong. Trust me, you don't want a staff of limp noodles that try to predict the council votes, and simply give them political cover that agrees.

    In this case, council was pretty strong in signaling intent. It would be pretty tough to back away from the statements made this week.

    If they try, I'll be the first to help light the torches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. City spin docter blogging again...

      What a total waste of tax payer money....

      Delete
    2. Why would a leopard change its spots. Staff isn't going to come out and say they were wrong on Density Bonus....

      Delete
  7. 7:03 PM
    Are you city staff or developer? The staff report IS a blatant disregard of council direction. Council were put in their place by Murphy and Vina.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Agreed! 7:03 says that we don't want a staff who are a bunch of limp noodles, but Vina is Chef Boyardee!

    ReplyDelete
  9. 7:03 needs to read the report. There are at least three areas where staff gets all sneaky. All these years of being rewarded for scheming and they don't know when to quit. So the assumption that a person of lower income won't maintain their home and yard as well as a person of greater means is pretty damned outrageous.

    Don't agree? Let's move on. The impact of deducting a retention basin you can't physically ever build on is "unknown?" Really?? The impact is, quite obviously, on the "poor" developer. The developer gets less land to play with, too bad. Why would staff write that? And Murphy still includes as "proof" of his position on base density rounding the defrocked Roderick Wright quote...the quote that, if memory serves, David Meyer served up to the city a few years ago to have handy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wright is the author of the bill. He, more than anybody, would know the intent of the bill. Whether the legislators who voted on the final version of the bill had a similar understanding is open to question but absent any counter evidence, the weight goes to the bill's author. What else Wright did is irrelevant, defrocking or not.

      Delete
    2. Wright's entire election to the legislature was fraudulent, so his opinion and intent is irrelevant.

      Delete
    3. Oh please! 9:16 PM. A bill is submitted by a legislator for a particular purpose. It is amended and then voted on by both Houses and signed by the Governor. They are all in on it and hopefully, they understand what the bill is about. This "Wright's entire election to the legislature was fraudulent, so his opinion and intent is irrelevant" is just so lame and tortured logic. I don't like it but it is what it is.

      Delete
    4. The Fulvia St. attorney disagrees with you, 10:19. Wright was opening on what HE thought the bill's intent was and thus carries no weight.

      Delete
    5. Murphy can trot it out all he likes...let him try it in court, no go.

      Delete
    6. 11:09 PM

      Did you mean to write "opining"? Judges may or may not use legislative intent to interpret a statute. Legislative intent may be discerned from the bill's author(s), legislative analysis, speeches. Legislative intent may also get changed if the bill is amended prior to adoption. So the bill author's statement is only one piece of the puzzle but can't be rejected outright. Then again, a judge may decide to ignore legislative intent and strictly go with trying to decide what the plain language of the bill means.

      Gee, a lawyer who doesn't agree. What a surprise.

      11:10 PM. If the council does direct staff to round down it probably will end up in court. If they don't maybe it will still go to court. Who knows but I expect this will ultimately be decided by a judge.

      And no, I don't like the SDBL.

      Delete
    7. If the council directs staff to round down to a whole number, who will sue to take this into court? Other jurisdictions round down. Didn't you read the staff report? Unlikely anyone will risk losing in court. The Density Bonus law is included in the staff report. Try reading it and then tell us where it says that base density must be rounded up. Clearly the density bonus calculation must be rounded up.

      Roderick Wright is a convicted felon now serving time for voter fraud and perjury. Google his name if you have any doubt. Can he be trusted to tell the truth on anything, especially on a law that was heavily financed and lobbied by the building industry.

      Delete
  10. 7:03- Interesting. I wonder any of you know how in just 2 days the staff came up with 83 pages, and Sabine had written something? It seems such a short time, since what appeared to be a spontaneous motion, on Council's part, to do it themselves. Why did staff have so much in such a short time? Didn't Murphy say it would take up to 18 months for staff to get it to them? What am I missing because this doesn't feel right. However, I may also be having a "senior moment"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of the 83 pages is in the 10+ pages of the density bonus law itself and some in attachments. That said, staff spit this one out fast, resurrecting all of their past arguments (I guess that saved time).

      A tidbit the above post omits is the claim that excluding retention/detention basins you cannot put so much as a stick on may be a "property right" issue. Same as any other reduction the City now takes off the buildable lot size? Ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. Actually, there appears to be only five pages that are new. People here bash the staff for being slow now they're bashing the staff for being too fast?

      Delete
    3. Bashing the staff for producing F work.

      Delete
    4. Don't forget that there are a bunch of developers who write stuff for staff all the time. Allegedly, there are developers in this town who BOAST that THEY wrote the density bonus laws. Don't forget that Patrick Murphy worked as a consultant to push through the development of New Encinitas then was put back into place as the Director of Planning when that work was done. There is more than a dotted line connecting Encinitas Planning and developers in this town.

      Delete
    5. Didn't P. Murphy receive much of his "training" under Carltas (Eckes)?

      Delete
    6. 6:16 AM

      I believe you're referring to Encinitas Ranch.

      Delete
    7. Patrick Murphy left the city to help Carltas (Ecke) write the Development Agreement that brought the Ecke land into the city. The result is the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan. It was a very profitable deal for the Eckes, less so for the city.

      Afterwards Murphy returned to the city as Planning Director and set in place the questionable interpretations of the Municipal Code that are causing so much trouble now. He built in unfettered discretion so he could favor certain people and punish others. It's time to close all the loopholes.

      Delete
  11. Staff included much of what was used by staff in previous reports. As they say - If staff can't dazzle them with misinformation - staff dazzles them with paper work.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As I understand it, the deadline for producing a staff report is today, so most of the content was probably cut and paste from other pre-existing work.

    8:07, the 12 to 18 month process is to completely assess, rewrite, and approve the DB ordinance. What will happen next week does not rewrite the existing ordinance, but rather gives specific policy guidance to the planning commission and staff on how to interpret and calculate DB under the existing ordinance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or, as several speakers pointed out, uphold existing Municipal Code on rounding down base density and excluding retention basins where environmental constraints exist. A retention basin required for reasons of extreme flooding is an environmental constraint in everyone's book except Murphy's.

      Delete
    2. A retention basin is required for stormwater control not as an environmental constrain like a slope or wetlands. There is flexibility in the size, shape, placement and number of retention basins which is not the case generally with an environmental constraint. If you do make retention basins reduce net acreage then that applies to every residential parcel whether or not it's density bonus.

      Delete
    3. A retention basin is a constraint because it is not buildable. The state requires it now for environmental reasons. Since January 2014 the Water Quality Boards across the state must enforce zero runoff from any new development. The best way to do that is with a retention basin, but it entails a sacrifice of gross acreage on any project.

      Delete
  13. Council, do you agree that them poor folk shouldn't have a similar size house as the market rate? Do you agree that the city should give them poor people crumbs cause Vina, Murphy, and the developers just know that poor people can't work to make enough money to take of a big house like their next door neighbors?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Can't you already here the "we need more time" line coming. Count on it. And they can point to 83 pages to augment council's need to review. Encinitas residents you have been played again. At most they will ok rounding down. Pack city hall again, that will eventually work. If Vina can buy two more years the developer carnage will be complete, we must stop this now! My instincts say trust Shaffer on this one but not the rest, hope I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not only can I hear it, I'll go you one better: anyone else find it "interesting" that Barth (supposedly) wrote the agenda item in such a way that council unable to vote on it this past week? That it had to be pushed out to next week, with Vina/Murphy getting another crack at taking back control?

      Delete
    2. 10:00 what you have to keep in mind is that during the Lew Edwards tax hike scheme Barth and Vina listed it on the agenda as information - but then Barth and Vina went out of there was to say "And the council can give direction tonight?

      Barth and Vina played Shaffer and Kranz and hoped to bully Muir and Gaspar-

      When Kranz made a mote to direct the city manager to get some firm numbers

      Barth changed Kranz's motion to "direct the city manager to take action"

      When Shaffer said what does this cost and Kranz said we only got a napkin estimate- Vina, Barth and Lew Edwards sat quiet- said nothing about the true cost

      Barth is a skunk and can't be trusted. Can't believe I voted for her

      Delete
    3. Agree she has nothing that can be trusted and never did. Shaffer might rise up after all, I'm going to give her a second chance but the others need to find the exit.

      Delete
  15. On what grounds did Dave Meyer beat the city on Density Bonus legally?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who knows? The case was settled and sealed.

      "Dave" Meyer? Friends much?

      Delete
    2. I don't think it was "sealed" as much as the city's paperwork for it was eliminated, as litigation can be, after five years. The Court would still have a copy, in its archives, that one could look at, by going down to the Courthouse, personally.

      Delete
    3. Meyer - the snake in the grass, still slithering around after all these years. And still poisoning Encinitas politics.

      Delete
  16. I'll be watching whether or not Shaffer stands up to vina and Murphy at the next meeting. Moment of truth for her. Will she cave in again?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Much better headline. Thanks WC.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Blah blah rounding down, blah developers, blah Density Bonus.

    Yawn.

    You people are blathering on like anyone cares. Density Bonus doesn't affect anyone one wit. This is all just a big distraction orchestrated by political insiders, city staff, the lame stream media, and bloggers. You sheep just blindly follow along, playing into their hands.

    Meanwhile, the most important issue facing community character and public safety goes completely ignored. There is a local epidemic of children chowing down on dog turds, and no one seems to care. Just this morning I have personally had to give the fecal Heimlich maneuver to seven kids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sad and obvious try, 9:02. Density bonus is the #1 threat to community character and public safety (traffic, pollution). We all know that, developer troll. Go try your nonsense in the Seaside Courier. Bet they'll pick up the poop story and run it to the end of the election.

      Your Heimlich was no doubt administered to the little dearies as the result of them trying to choke down your BS.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and in case it escaped you: density bonus was raised in three separate communities by RESIDENTS fighting DEVELOPERS...sounds like Mikey's on the blog.

      Delete
    3. 9:12 & 14, if that's even your real name.

      Got it.

      I'll try to lay the sarcasm on a little thicker next time, so you'll get the joke. (Although, I'm at a loss for how exactly to do that).

      Delete
    4. 9:12 & 14, if that's even your real name.

      Got it.

      I'll try to lay the sarcasm on a little thicker next time, so you'll get the joke. (Although, I'm at a loss for how exactly to do that).

      Delete
    5. 9:48
      Great set up and great joke. And do you know why dates are like dog turds? The older they are, the easier they are to pick up.

      Delete
  19. David Meyer of DCM Properties - his density bonus development at 645 Saxony Road and his appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the same development -
    Council meeting date - November 12, 2008
    Staff names on the agenda staff report -
    Patrick Murphy
    Tom Curriden
    Kerry Kusiak


    The planning staff had all the paperwork ready for a planning commission approval.

    In that paperwork was the following -

    a. The inclusionary affordable unit shall be a minimum of 1,500 square feet of living space with a minimum of three (3)bedrooms and two (2)baths; plus a two- (2) car garage. Based upon a significant reason, the affordable unit sizes may be reduced through approval of a Design Review Permit.

    Was it ever mentioned to the council that the minimum 1500 square foot house could be even smaller?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boy howdy would I love to see that "significant reason." Bet the Planning Dept. would help Meyer come up with a goody.

      Delete
  20. Bonus we have a dense council.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am totally confused. For those who know me, that is no surprise. I was at home watching the meeting so maybe I missed something when I took a few breaks? If I understood the intention of the CIty Council last week, they didn't ask staff to get involved at all. Teresa originally thought the Planning Commission should get involved, not staff. I understand a staff report is supposed to be given for Council, but 83 pages of mostly things they had read before. All 5 council members stated they wanted it brought back next week and they could vote on at least 3 things, as they were already in the General Plan. And, to the best of my knowledge they didn't ask staff to give them anything. So what changed? There is something wrong with this picture and I sure don't know what it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For any agenda item, there is a staff report. Council doesn't have to ask for it. It's just standard practice.

      Staff report gives council background and implications to consider. Staff may also provide explanation and justification of the existing policy if a policy change is being considered.

      None of this is binding on council. It's provided only to inform council before a vote.

      I'm pretty sure council will follow through this time. They sent a pretty strong signal of intent this week.

      Delete
    2. Why did parts seem rehearsed? My bs meter went on red alert so if no action takes place next week we all need to rally. What confuses me is Shaffer looked and acted great. I saw her in a new light.

      Delete
    3. 12:21 Good thing your profession isn't politics.

      Delete
    4. Did anyone else get Teresa's newsletter? She's characterizing next week's density bonus agenda item as something the council will "discuss." Not vote on, discuss. She's a sly one, that Teresa.

      Delete
    5. Barth = Skunk and to think Jerome Stocks was right about that

      Delete
  22. Like many I was disappointed with Shaffer due to prop A etc. but if she comes through with council we should support her more as she may now become the candidate we wanted. Not sure but time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She sold the citizens down the river with her dreams of having her name on a brass plaque forever at PV. Notice she hasn't explained how to pay for it yet.

      Delete
    2. 12:41

      "IF she comes thru" ? really-

      Shaffer has proven to be a loser when it comes to representing taxpayers- see PRop A, desert Rose, PV, Lew Edwards, parking meters, tax increases the list goes on-

      Voting in favor of residents on this issue isn't just common sense it is the only way to go- I for an an not givign her any pats on her back for doing her job-

      Delete
  23. 12:33 PM
    Only partially true. Council has buried may agenda items that should have had staff reports under the heading of presentations. Staff reports can be one sentence, such as Receive the report.
    The spin doctor should check out more agendas.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Read the staff report...only govt bureaucrats can write like that ...and lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If folks really feel that way, why not organize a volunteer group of locals to crowdsource an alternate report on certain agenda topics?

      Seriously. I'm sure we have enough experts in various subject matter areas who would contribute.

      To be taken seriously, the shadow staff report would have to be high quality, unbiased, and backed by reliable sources.

      Someone would have to establish a network of volunteers, some open process to select the topics that matter, and endorse standards of objectivity and quality.

      I bet council would welcome a high quality shadow staff report on some issues. Muir's frustration with staff selectively ignoring requests was clear this week.

      Thoughts?

      Delete
    2. Let's see: council ignored and allowed staff to mock Desert Rose residents who put hours into compiling data to support their arguments against the developer. In March of this year, residents citywide presented information that represented hours of research into the various areas under consideration on the density bonus topic. Council would not welcome anything from residents - they haven't listened before, they won't start now.

      I don't know a single one of Gus' 28 Activists (list has to be tripled by now, gosh how can he keep up?) who are willing to continue to do the city's work, only to be mocked and disregarded. No wonder the city is seeing legal action from residents. Desert Rose is no the only density bonus project that has lawyered up.

      Agree Muir sounded done with staff foot dragging.

      Delete
    3. Make that "not the only density bonus project that has lawyered up."

      Let's remember: Jim Bond once told residents "you don't like it? Sue us." Sadly, that is the only thing the council hears.

      Delete
    4. 1:38 residents and taxpayers have been crowd sourcing Encinitas city hall since I started going in 2007

      I worked to elect Barth and turns out she is a skunk, a liar, she lied on A, she withheld information on Lew Edwards, she works in the back room, she is rude to those who have suggestions other then hers, she is insecure, whiny and a baby- turns our Jerome Stocks was right about one thing

      I also worked to elect Phony TOny Baloney who as soon as he got elected went to the developers side of the table-

      Then there is the self proclaimed ethics teacher who has none- see lying on Prop A, opposing desert Rose, pushing stack and pack, add rutan and tucker and the list goes on and on.

      Superstars like Donna Westbrook, the Turley's, Bob Bonde, the late Bob Nanniga, Jerry Sodomka, Bernard Minster, CJ Minster, Julie Graboi, Dietmar Rothe, Marie Dardarian and many others have been giving insightful factual information in opposition to staff for years- only to have the councils ignore them and then screw taxpayers- Dalager, stocks, Bonds- all wasted money and increased city debt

      Yes, we all thought electing Kranz and Shaffer to join Barth might bring about an honest government but it hasn't

      If you are new to city hall know that there already is a functioning honest broker of information at city hall that has no profit motive- and know that Gus Vina and Teresa Barth are actively working to suppress, misrepresent and distort the truth from taxpayers

      Delete
    5. Actually 2:02,

      Pounding the lectern and calling people names isn't quite what I had in mind. Some of the folks you mentioned do a good job, with relevant analysis and objective sources--most of them don't. Take Bob Bonde as an example. I know Bob, and like him personally. But his recent ambulance presentation was pretty shoddy work. He never explained exactly how he estimated his financial benefits, and he riddled his presentation with wise cracks designed to incite Muir.

      It may feel good to showboat for the crowd, and go for adolescent giggles, but in the real world of people who make decisions and accomplish things, it's counter-productive to stick your thumb in the eye of the people you are attempting to influence (duh).

      You probably wouldn't like what I have in mind. It's dull. It's boring. But if done right, it would be much more effective.

      Delete
    6. Lead the way, dude, lead the way. If "most" of the folks from the group listed above have it wrong, I'd hate to hear your version of the truth.

      That said, step right on up. Can't wait.

      Delete
    7. 2:20 Bob Bonde as a leader incorporated the city. You are envious and jealous.

      As for his presentation it was full of facts, statistics and indisuptable numbers.

      Under Muir's failed leadership as chief response and service times to residents increased and got worse. The fire union gestapo is too slow too respond and often the lack of ambulances cost lives- perhaps you missed that riveting and tearful testimony of a resident who had a son die because of the lack of ambulance response time- that is shoddy.

      Bonde and the Encinitas taxpayers presented a plan that would save Encinitas taxpayers millions but upset MUuir's firehouse apple cart- HEy- fat cat Muir gets a $172,000 a year pension- check out the Encinitas Guerilla on the left side of the Encinitas Undercover website. Muir also built firehouses all over the city to reward his crony friends while sucking taxpayer dry- then there is Muir and his little POlitical action committee of 1 called the Golden State Firefighters or something that backed Stocks- soon after Muir got his payand pension raise- see how it works

      So facts- do you have any? Didn't think so.

      Delete
    8. hey 2:20 guess you missed all the residents who presented facts at city hall to out Dan Dalager and Jerome Stocks who soon after got run out of office on a rail-

      Also seems you missed the residents who spoke on the Nichols road report- turns out after trying to hide it the city knew it was millions behind and did jack crap to take care of taxpayers

      You also missed the residents speaking out againt the MIG effort as crooked and corrupt- oh yea, and the PROP A debates at city hall

      So what you got- anything?

      Delete
    9. 2:20 go watch the march meeting of residents from Fulvia- the Anger on the video towards city staff and the council is increasing. Stick your thumb in their eye - you bet.

      I was at the meeting and when the video played it was apparent that 10 years of shafting residents was coming to an end. Corrupt and Complicit Patrick Murphy worked with self serving weasles like Peder Norby to actively misrepresent and misinterept codes and feedback- not now.

      A ground swell of backlash at this and future councils sits of shore and is cresting. During the Fulvia Hearing Barth leaned into her boyfriend Vina with real fear in her eyes- she too could hear the anger in the voices of residents-

      The council is scared, it is no longer a group of 50 people watching city hall but more like 200-300, and in all 5 communities. That is the only reason Muir has changed his tune- Muir realizes that backing the status quo is a losing proposition

      Delete
    10. 200-300? How many elections in this town have been won by that vote tally.

      Unsurprisingly, the other 38,500 registered voters see this wacky behavior and don't want to be counted in that number.

      It comes down to priorities. Is it more important to flap your arms and vent your spleen, or to influence council and win votes?

      Your call.

      Delete
    11. Way more than 300.

      Delete
    12. 4:02, if by influence you mean give any credence to Peak Democracy/E-TOWN HALL or whatever they'll have to re-brand it as in an effort to win voter confidence, no thanks.

      Delete
    13. 4:02 Dalager- gone
      Stocks- gone
      Barth- run out of office as she knows she can not win
      Kranz- will be one and done
      Norby- run out of town

      As they say, you can spin and fry your nonsense up in a pan- but the truth will set you free.

      Delete
    14. don't forget to add

      Phil Cotton- got out after he'd been exposed
      Patrick Murphy- got out after he'd been exposed

      Delete
    15. 2:48 What does Pension Plus Muir have to lose? He's buddies with $tock$ - that alone makes me suspicious of his motives.

      Delete
    16. Muir is a young guy and wants a career- he likes being in charge. He could never find another job and let's face it, retirement for him with out a chance to be a big man about town, water district, sandag etc would be a horrible existence-

      he does not want to lose his job and become a non name unsuccessful hack posting on SD Rostra in an attempt to try and be relevent like Jerome "Midnight" Stocks

      Delete
    17. Muir follows $tock$. Unfortunately, too many people know this and that is why he will never become more than a chair sitter. He should really be concerned with his health if he wants to continue collecting a pension.

      Delete
  25. Someone honest at city hall? Encouraging and amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 2:20 PM
    You want brown nosing.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Communications Director = Propaganda Minister. It is "spin", as you suggested. The idea is that the knowledgeable citizen is in the minority; the majority remainder can be conditioned to believe whatever suits the needs of the Oligarchy.

      Delete
    2. DrL- you can't post then remove your post, it's not fair. If it's worth taking the time and energy to think construct type and then post , it's worth leaving for us to read, digest then think about.... You remind me of an old gf, when you do this....just a tease.

      Delete
    3. Don't tell me the shrink is doing this crap yet again. How about just not posting otherwise you look like a complete fruitcake?

      Delete
    4. Running scared? Well, at least she identifies herself - ephemeral commentary that it is....

      Delete
    5. Where's Phantom Fred?

      Delete
    6. 11:36 ephemeral with big teases, i.e., I know something you don't know, but I can't tell you.

      Not impressed.

      Delete
    7. Yes, the implications of sinister underpinnings is always implied, but never revealed. Maybe afraid of getting sued for slander? The "free speech" of the Internet is being redefined daily. The thought police are already here!

      Delete
  28. Jeff Murphy - you are a screw up. Environmental constraints include retention basins.
    This is from the Encinitas Ranch specific plan:
    5.4 STORM DRAINAGE
    The Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan proposes a comprehensive system of water detention basins and conveyance systems which are intended to improve the quality of water runoff prior to being discharged off-site, to provide adequate measures against exceeding the capacities of existing storm drain facilities, and to ensure that urban runoff does not flow over agricultural land. The drainage concepts for Encinitas Ranch call for the development of an integrated system of detention ponds, grassed swales,
    and catchment basins which filter storm water runoff before discharging it into the City's storm drainage system (see Figure 23, Drainage Plan). Urban runoff in the Green Valley area will be filtered before flowing into Encinitas Creek. Paragraph amended 3118198 (Reso. 98-17)
    Drainage from the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan Area will not adversely impact downstream drainage facilities.

    The actual sizing of open space areas to detain storm water runoff will be determined by a hydrologic analysis acceptable to the City engineer. The results of this hydrologic analysis may reduce the size of developable areas adjacent to the drainage open space.

    To repeat -
    The results of this hydrologic analysis may reduce the size of developable areas adjacent to the drainage open space.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ya Vole! Goose step to ze orders of der Fuerher Vina!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Vina is like Encinitas worse Fuerher nightmare. If Council gave a shit about anything in Encinitas they would rid us of this incompetent City Manager.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I will not vote for Kranz or Gaspar unless they publicly say or take action to fire Vina.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't vote for any of them until they take action to fire Vina, Sabine, and half of the over paid and over pensioned staff. That's the candidate(s) I'll vote for... Again and again.

      Delete
    2. The waste at city hall knows no end. Most liberal in density bonus, free paychecks to retire with, workers for grass that doesn't need mowing..... I need a drink to manage all this, hey look! Lots of bars!

      Delete
  32. Punt Vina. He is bad for Encinitas.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well, Encinitas isn't that bad.

    http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/03/the-last-best-american-beach-towns/

    ReplyDelete
  34. Where it's headed is what's bad!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Exactly. they used to say the same thing about Huntington Beach, before the City Councils let the developers ruin it.

    Then many of the people that used to like Hungtington Beach moved down to slower less crowded Encinitas.

    Will City Council let them ruin our nice beach town as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It currently is in "progress"......

      Delete
  36. Anyone write Shaffer about all this and receive an evasive response? Answers from any of the other four? The fix is in. Vina, Murphy, and Sabine fully in charge. If ever there was a time to freaking storm City Hall, next Wednesday at 6 p.m. is it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Princess Gaspar is asking everyone on her FB page if he should run for mayor or a council seat. Consensus seems to be to run for mayor.

    I like that idea because she will only be around two years vs four more years.

    Go for it princess. Your children need you.

    ReplyDelete