Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Backroom deal upzoning for fun and profit!

Well, lookie here. After all that open government and transparency we were promised last election, it looks like we're exactly back to backroom business as usual.

While the city is pretending to just now begin the Housing Element Update (selecting sites for high-density development to meet dubious SANDAG mandates), and will go to great lengths pretending to incorporate public input, it turns out that way back in March, city staff had secretly already selected 95 properties they wanted to upzone.

From the Inbox:
"Staff" applied some fancy math and identified 95 proposed upzones around town to identify the allocation. The approval of these upzones would not invoke Prop A because they'd be rolled into resident approval of the Housing Element Update (HEU). The upzones take some properties, for example, from R3 to R30, and that doesn't include the certain application of density bonus.

The City notified these 95 parcel owners of their upzone status in a mailer that went only to them back in March. You'll see from the attached that the potential "options" that these identified parcel owners could enjoy, should they decide to redevelop their property. Suffice to say, there's a message in there.

The City's current problem is, they kicked off this Update in the dark. They approached the identified parcel owners alone, as they considered them first-line "stakeholders." The City did not notify adjacent homeowners. Six months after notifying these 95 stakeholders, the City still did not notify adjacent homeowners or residents in general. So much for "transparency." Only Lisa is saying that she had no prior knowledge of this outreach, although has said she is ok with staff not telling her about it. Tony MAY have said the same, but I'd have to go back and look at the tape from this past Wednesday to see.

Residents learned of this contact to the 95 when an uphappy one of them came forward to tell her story at oral communications.

Funny how the Housing Element Update was quickly placed as an agenda item a week after the oral comms speaker made her revelation. The City could not afford to sit on it a minute longer.

Here's the city flyer that went out only to the chosen few.

But it gets worse.  Controversial political operative Mike Andreen was let in on the secret 95-property plan, and organized an event with Mayor Kristin Gaspar to get property owners behind the mass-upzoning campaign.  Titled "Encinitas Up-Zoning Can Mean Increased Property Values," the flyer for that event is here.  The purpose is clearly to get the property owners to see dollar signs and help fund a mass-upzoning vote in 2016.

More from the Inbox:
In addition to the 95 city staff-identified property owners, representatives from the development industry were at the Andreen meeting, including Pasco Engineering. Word from others who attended was that Andreen, with Gaspar nodding in agreement, blamed this "need to upzone" on Prop A.

So residents are just now finding out about the underhanded approach that the City took in starting the HEU six months ago with not a peep. Residents are not and will not be told that they may vote "no" on the HEU and what the consequences of a "no" vote would be (a few $100K in lost revenue from the State and some extra assigned low-income units), so that they may truly weigh options. They're merely being asked to decide "go up or go out," and will find out about the "no" option at the polling booth in 2016. Council is ok with that approach. By 2016, voters' heads will be so filled with "must comply with State mandates," they'll feel that they must vote yes; I assume that's part of the City's strategy to push the update through this time.

Best for last: we learned from the oral comms speaker, who is a real estate agent, that if you are a homeowner in the vicinity of a proposed upzone property, you must disclose that on when selling your home. It's an item on the list of disclosures alongside things such as cracked slabs, deaths in the home, freeway widening, etc. This puts the selling price up in the air, as the seller will have to say "there MAY be an upzoning" down the street, I have no idea." You can imagine that the home price will go down. There is no threshold for distance from the upzone; the only test is whether the seller knew about the possible rezone (per real estate/State law). If you fail to disclose, you could be sued later by your buyer who was not counting on 40 low-income apartments down the street.
What's the point of the upcoming Housing Element "public input" sessions? The decisions were made in secret six momths ago!

UPDATE: Here's the map of the proposed mass upzonings.

127 comments:

  1. I thought that spot zoning was supposed to be illegal!

    What were the protocols that were used to identify these properties? It looks to me that they tried to find greenhouse properties and identified surrounding lots that could be added in to create enough area for Density Bonus projects.

    There needs to be a full scale investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Question: does Prop A require a second vote? If the HEU includes zoning changes, and we put it to a vote, then isn't the vote requirement of Prop A satisfied?

    Not saying we should do that, but trying to anticipate the legal implications and strategy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the idea is that the vote on HEU would satisfy the Prop A requirement.

      They are apparently going to run a scare campaign and tell residents they have choose one of two options ("up" or "out") when the reality is we can say no to both.

      Delete
    2. It does not satisfy Prop A: IT MAKES AN END RUN AROUND IT. True that we can say no, but the City will do everything in its power to keep that option under wraps. By the time the HEU vote comes, residents will have been too frightened by the. City not to vote the thing through.

      Delete
    3. Prop A guarantees a vote on a single project, where merits may be weighed by the public. In contrast, the HEU would push through tens of projects, none of which would be subject to public review.

      The Council, with Vina's, Sabine's, and Murphy's determination, have finally seen their way around Prop A. I can just hear them promising Meyer: "don't worry, we'll have you back in business in no time."

      Delete
    4. Any questions remaining about Gaspar, Andreen and their interests, or the need to vote for Tony?

      Delete
  3. What a corrupt bunch of council members we have with Gaspar leading the pack. You notice how she smiles at everything? What a sneaky, sneaky, person she truly has shown herself to be.

    NO to Gaspar as mayor. She is a sneak and liar.

    The rest of the bunch should be shown the door as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps it is time to show them all the door. Recall the ones that are still left after the elections. Seems as if there are some laws broken here. Anyone an attorney on this blog? Of course, we can't take it to our City Attorney, but I am pretty sure a bunch of people would be quite happy to pony up some money for a gal investigation. What say you? I'm in for $500.00.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Encinitas Beacon also has some more of the story. Unfortunately, Andrew doesn't chose to let us comment, and I understand why. However, if you read this Andrew, is there a way to get information to you that you can you? Maybe a gmail account or something?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anybody still voting for Gaspar or Kranz?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9:46 Not me and hope others will follow.

      Delete
    2. Yup, voting for Tony. Sheila has burned too many bridges in town, she wouldn't be effective at this point. She did a lot for us, and that can't be taken away, but the time has clearly passed.

      Delete
    3. Yep, that time is NOW. You have Tony "my vote's for sale" Kranz and "I'm going underground" Gaspar. No choices there.

      + Sheila

      Delete
    4. A vote for Tony is a vote for more "gift" trips of $5,400 for a local politician.

      Delete
    5. It's Tony or Kristin, who's your pick? Still Gaspar after this revelation? The tony trip thing you may not like, but it's above board, he declared it. It's politics, get over it.

      Delete
    6. Sheila can't win this election guys, unless everyone one of you plans on donating the max amount and going door to door until November. The momentum, the money, the will is not there.

      Delete
  7. I folded that hand some time ago. It's now Sheila and Graboi for me. I still think we should recall the others, especially if Kristin did something illegal and Council went along with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9:31- I'll also pony up $500.00 if this proves to be illegal. We need one attorney on this blog to let us know. We can then hire you, and backchannel our names and you get the money.

      Delete
  8. It should be public information now where the 95 select properties are (especially since no neighbors were notified). I'd like to find out WHO chose them; WHERE they are and WHAT their average size is. But I'll bet ten bucks the lion's share is in Leucadia.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gaspar not going to tomorrow night's mayoral debate. Had a "prior engagement." More likely fears comments on her Andreen team private meeting to "educate" the so-called stakeholders on his to upzone their properties for fun and money. Doesn't want to answer annoying questions that hold her accountable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On "how to upzone their properties..." She sure has trouble with her schedule, what with all those "mislabeled" bogus addresses fir meet n' greets. Guess she's counting on cruising into office through the use of slick fliers.

      Delete
    2. A "prior engagement" vs a debate for a position she is running for? Yes, it is obviously avoidance - it is damage control time now. Her handlers hope this scandal can be localized to activist blogs like this one and go no further. Gaspar's group will now crank up the slick mailer campaign and pray no one else notices the insider deals being made. She is unfit for office.

      Delete
    3. How can you not go to one of only two debates in an election cycle? Good grief, what a waste of our time. Vote for Tony...

      Delete
    4. 8:49 AM
      A vote for Tony is a vote for more "gift" trips of $5,400 for a local politician.

      Delete
    5. Don't forget Tony's recent trip to Minneapolis on the City's dime. Check his FB page for details.

      Delete
    6. What is Tony doing in Minneapolis?

      Delete
    7. Like a city pol has never taken one of these trips? I'd be more surprised if a city pol HAD NOT taken a trip. Maggie did it, Jerome did, they've all done it. Get over it.

      Delete
  10. It's not just Gaspar, the entire City Council from Bond/Houlihan through Gaspar/Shaffer has been hearing updates on this Housing Element exercise for 5 years; the week before last being the latest. It's an exercise for crissakes.

    95 sites: where did they come from?

    There's a map for candidate sites on the city's website. The Candidate site map has been made up of a distillation the GPAC map, ERAC map site, the Planning Commission map and the Citywide map: combined with the areas that qualify for California State Tax Incentives.

    The developers and property owners didn't invent this: the environmentalists did.

    2007. The State requires a Housing Element Map that shows zoning for R-30, as part of the AB32 and SB375 tying transportation dollars to the zoning for multiple-family housing centers a mile or less from the freeways: it was designed by environmentalists to allow housing for the working class that reduces greenhouse gasses by reducing the amount of drive-time.

    GPAC, under Patrick Murphy attempted to cram 90% of the potential R-30 atop the shopping centers in the east of the city. Kristin Gaspar personally stopped that from happening. The Council then formed the ERAC, that contrary to Cameron and Shaffer never once discussed up-zoning their own properties, but produced a series of potential alternatives, one out of two dozen was going up not out, which Bruce Ehlers then foisted the Big 5 Story Lie on the Encinitas populace and passed Prop A.

    Instead of everything in New Encinitas, all 5 communities share in the Regional Housing Assessment allotments. The first thing Jeff Murphy did when hired was contact the state and get the RHNA numbers reduced by 600. When Prop A passed, outlawing third story potential construction, the RHNA number increased back up 600 units.

    Every 4 years a new RHNA # is allotted to Encinitas and has been for 20 years. On average, the private sector has built only roughly 10% or less. The law requires a map, not the building of 1000's of units. The growth is NOT mandated, no matter what Donna tells you.

    Prop A doesn't say anything over 30 feet is forbidden, it says that anything over 30 feet must pass design review from the Planning Commission, Coastal Commission and the City Council before being allowed on the ballot at the tune of $350,000.

    There is no nexus between the Housing Element Report on R-30 and actually building anything: neither the city nor state can mandate it: this is again much ado about nothing: a Bruce Ehlers/Pam Slater Price Scary Story to stop all renovation of properties in Encinitas as Bruce has admitted time and again.

    Unless your overall plan is to violate all property owner's property rights and devastate the land values of the city, there isn't too much to fear here: the Density Bonus lawsuits are circling and while you might think Gaspar is guilty of lunching with Andreen, the council has been working on this in public, with most everything listed here publicly for 5 years.

    Tony and Catherine are under siege by Pam Slater Price and Bruce Ehlers, abandoned as candidates because they refused to say they'd violate state law and Prop A to allow a vote, any vote on any R-30 project. That's HOW Julie and Sheila got into the race at the last minute. Duh.

    Let it go to a vote: what are you afraid of? The economy coming back and having to go back to work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6:10 put down the crack pipe-

      it's ok you are a Gaspar supporter, it's not ok to tell lies and claim Gaspar stopped anything- when she didn't

      THe city has been trying to upzone EL Camino Real since Sandag met Pat Murphy in 2008 at a meeting where residents attended- Murphy said El Camino need mid to hihg -rise buildings

      If as you claim Gaspar stopped upzoning of EL Camino real why is it back? and why did Gaspar meet with a few developers?

      Gaspar is a developer stoolie, and a liar on Prop A- thems the facts Jack

      Delete
    2. Yeah, you can't spin this one as a plus for Gaspar, and the economy isn't coming back for most of us, captain fantasy. The gaspar lie machine is keeping Andreen employed, that's about it.

      Delete
    3. Tony's under siege regarding Prop A because he campaigned on it, then (in his words) "want to kill" it. Catherine's under siege because she can't remember what she did regarding A; take your pick:

      1) went into the booth, but didn't vote
      2) got confused and didn't vote at all
      3) got confused and voted no
      4) voted no because the council voted that way

      Their feet are rightly held to the fire because they cannot bring themselves to be honest. This R30 thing is a red herring.

      Delete
    4. 6:10, You lost everyone at "Ehler's Big 5 Story Lie". We're not deaf.

      Delete
    5. Just ignorant. And probably lazy too.

      Delete
    6. Yup, lay off Bruce Ehlers. Good dude and a plus for our city, unlike Andreen and Gaspar.

      Delete
  11. 6:10
    Bullshit,bullshit,bull shit.

    "GPAC, under Patrick Murphy attempted to cram 90% of the potential R-30 atop the shopping centers in the east of the city. Kristin Gaspar personally stopped that from happening."
    Bull shit. There was Never a moment that "90% of the potential...." Andreen said this repeatedly on his blog but it was never true. You will not find any GPAC member to validate this or see it on any map.

    "Instead of everything in New Encinitas, all 5 communities share in the Regional Housing Assessment allotments."
    Bull shit. Never was "everything in New Encinitas."

    "Kristin Gaspar personally stopped that from happening. The Council then formed the ERAC..."
    Bull Shit, again. It was personally Stocks&Friends that shut down GPAC, called the draft "an ugly baby", had Andreen parrot in his newsletters and blog and formed the hand selected ERAC committee that was loaded with developers and no individuals who had been informed by the years of meetings on GPAC were allowed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only B.S. here is yours. There was an 800 page first draft written by Patrick Murphy, Diane Langager and Mike Strong posted online September 1, 2012. It was presented to the Encinitas City Council on Wednesday, September 14th, 2011: it was posted online on the City website the same night the McDonald's burned down. The council didn't like it and started over:

      Langager and Strong were caught by the new City Manager arbitrarily canceling presentations of the Comprehensive General Plan Update and attempting to 'share' it with all 5 communities before the city council could see it formally.

      In that report, there were several maps of the two commercial corridors that clearly showed ALL of the future R-30 proposed on ECR, Enc. Blvd. and a spec on Santa Fe.

      Kristin personally stopped it from happening while Lisa, Teresa and Ehlers snuck around Encinitas lying about 5 stories and the cherry on top of the lie was Denise Martin who continues to mislead the public every chance she gets. The 800 page report is probably still on the city website under Encinitas 2035. The irony is all the hard work Kristin did to stop the Leucadians from shafting New Encinitas is today maligned by the likes of Rachelle and Kathleen1 and Kathleen 2. Two of whom signed off on the 'Ugly baby'. If the 'Ugly baby' didn't exist, then what was posted on Sept. 1, 2012?

      Patrick Murphy, Diane and Mike S. all tried to pull a fast one under the leadership of Teresa Barth when instead of starting over, they tried to keep the same plan 'Ugly Baby' Plan without following council directions. When Kristin reported it in public, Teresa Barth claimed that Kristin was violating the Brown Act. November of 2012. Look it up, potty mouth.

      This election isn't about 'back room' deals, its about folks who enjoy being victims and blaming others for their own missteps. Its about a retired supervisor who lusts for power and control and with tana leaves or something like them, has tried to bring misery back to the Mayor's seat again in the form of Sheila. Shame on Pam Slater Price.

      Electing Sheila to Mayor again is like electing Sirhan Sirhan to Bobby Kennedy's 'empty' Senate 'empty'.

      Ehler's chickens are coming home to roost. Poor Julie.

      Delete
  12. There was never, as gaspars flyer states, "a plan to up zone ElCamino Real"

    ReplyDelete
  13. I call more BS on 6:10:

    "Unless your overall plan is to violate all property owner's property rights and devastate the land values of the city, there isn't too much to fear here: the Density Bonus lawsuits are circling and while you might think Gaspar is guilty of lunching with Andreen, the council has been working on this in public, with most everything listed here publicly for 5 years."

    It's the City's plan to violate all non-95-parcel owner rights by shoving this plan down our throats with its "state mandate, can't help ourselves" claims. If the City was so proud of this plan and the non-95s have so little to fear, why did the City sit on it for six months? They'd still be sitting on it if not for the initial speaker, one of the 95 who happens to think it stinks.

    And Density Bonus lawsuits are circling, all right: heard of Desert Rose, Fulvia St., Balour, Jason St.? Every single one from circling RESIDENTS.

    There's no "thinking" Gaspar was guilty of her ain't upzoning grand? "lunching," it happened: only not just with Andreen, but with many of the 95 in and developers in attendance. Not just "lunch with Andreen," please.

    Finally: no one cares what may have happened out in the open. The problem now is this sneak attack on our town, by our own elected representatives.

    ReplyDelete
  14. True to her colors GASpar is now avoiding the mayor's forum in fear that she will be asked questions about the Andreen meeting which she attended amd spoke at illegally IMHO.

    I suggest she cancel her so called prior commitment (I honestly believe there isn't one) and bring her mommy, her son and her husband to help her out to answer questions.

    She is trying to hide what a liar and phony she really is. No piece of slick campaign literature will change my mind about her.

    GASpar is bad for Encinitas and will continue to be a lousy mayor. She has already shown she is not up to the task. Take your magic tricks and your little toys and go home to "mommy".

    Vote NO for GASpar as mayor. Liar, phony, sneak, developer's friend, Andreen's friend, puppet of $tock$.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gaspar is a shill for special interests - always has been, always will be. NO to Gaspar for any office.
    Now she has to hide from appearances, as she can't handle the heat. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sheila Cameron is the only real choice.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Voting for cameron is like voting for Rand Paul. You do so to make some kind of statement. There is zero chance either will win.
    The only way to get gaspar out is voting for Kranz.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 8:17, Sheila can't win this election!! Are all you people new to Encinitas, and unfamiliar with all the bridges Sheila has burned? It's Tony vs. Kristin. Sheila was last in office 14 years ago. There are no 2nd acts in politics. Come on guys, figure it out. Voting for Sheila is a vote for Kristin...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no second acts in politics - BS

      Jerry Brown, Richard Nixon - just 2 examples

      Delete
    2. 8:24: you keep repeating that to yourself. You sound scared and desperate. What do you have to lose from Cameron getting elected? Some juicy land deals? You sound like it.

      Delete
    3. Everything. That's what we all have to lose. Sheila is not a consensus builder now, she doesn't have the support of the old crowd she did in the past, the door to door get out to vote people. All those people are voting for Tony. I've gone door to door for Sheila, 14 years ago. Since then she's done some behind the scenes work, but has mostly been invisible. That's not a recipe for a win. Tony is the guy now, there's no room for the darkhorse or vote splitters. Now is the time to dump Gaspar once and for all!

      Delete
    4. Not in Encinitas 9:02. It didn't work for Lou Aspell when she tried to come back, and it won't work for Sheila. Her support has gone elsewhere.

      Delete
    5. 9:41 AM
      You like the fact that Tony gets a $5,400 gift trip to Israel as a local politician? That doesn't bother you?

      Delete
    6. And then votes to approve a very controversial deal that an affiliate needs support on to sneak past Prop A?

      Kranz smells.

      Delete
    7. Tony's the best we've got. I don't have a problem with the trip as long as he declares it. We have bigger things to worry about. It's Tony vs. Kristin, who's your pick?

      Delete
    8. If Tony is the best we've got, we need to start calling our city Bell, California.

      Delete
  19. Obviously you are concerned. Nobody wants Gaspar or Kranz so thank goodness Sheila will get in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've got $1000 in an escrow account that says she doesn't get in. Here's 2000. Any questions?

      James Bond .......... 9,946 votes 15.90%
      Maggie Houlihan .......... 9,414 votes 15.05%
      Jerome Stocks .......... 8,881 votes 14.20%
      Heidi Prola .......... 7,235 votes 11.57%
      Robert T. Nanninga .......... 6,976 votes 11.15%
      Sheila Cameron .......... 6,741 votes 10.78%
      Lou Aspell .......... 5,519 votes 8.83%
      Donn K. Harms .......... 2,817 votes 4.50%
      Cris Hicks .......... 2,173 votes 3.47%
      Frank M. "Rusty" Wells .......... 1,483 votes 2.37%
      Sally Corral Cowen .......... 1,353 votes 2.16%

      Delete
    2. Again: you sound scared for your gal Gaspar. 14-year-old election results convince no one in light of today's news.

      Delete
    3. I'm not a Gaspar supporter chief, I'm voting for Tony. You're way off base. This is for Sheila supporters who think she's going to pull off some kind of magic trick by throwing her hat in the ring at the last minute with no backing, no money, no website and no plan. It doesn't happen that way. Sheila does not play well with others on the council. We don't need to see that movie again.

      Delete
    4. 9:39 AM
      Tony is a bully. He doesn't have to play well. He has an undertone of not caring for women's opinions. A vote for Tony is a vote for more of Tony's "gift" trips from his "friends" seeking favor.

      Delete
    5. It's Tony or Kristin 10:10, who's your pick?

      Delete
  20. Oh goodie. EU is out to scare the populous again.

    The California department of housing and community development (HCD) requires that any housing element identify an adequate supply of land available to meet the housing needs of all income groups. For below market rate housing HCD requires the housing element to do an inventory of land by parcel and list them in the document.

    A year ago, planning told council they were going to take the results of the map exercise and try to identify potential parcels that would be candidates. What everyone is getting so out of joint about is the results of that effort. This first pass, having identified individual parcels, planning notified the owners.

    But of course most of you think this is some kind of backroom deal which is EU's stock and trade. They all have to be backroom deals. I'm sure if planning never notified the owners of the identified potential parcels, planning would be criticized for trying to go behind their backs.

    You see, at this blog planning and the city can do nothing right - ever. EU keeps goading you back to rant and misinform. Suckers!!

    But then I must be a city toady.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This "planning notified the owners" as an excuse that nothing's wrong here is bizarre. The notification by the City to less than 1% of property owners is 6 MONTHS OLD and it took a resident to bring it into the light of day.

      If that's not setting up the public at large for a fall, I don't know what its. 9:13, I'd venture to say you are not going to get much support that the City was doing anything right here.

      Delete
    2. 9:13 the city and Andreen let the cat out of the bag "Profits for upzoning"

      see how it works? We do.

      This is about money for the cronies of the council- who?

      High density lawyer Gonzalez gets rewarded by Barth Shaffer and Kranz

      Leichtag- gets rewarded by Kranz

      Social justice bullies- get rewarded by Shaffer

      Harwood and Meyers- get rewarded by Muir and Gaspar

      Vina- gets rewarded by council members

      staff- get rewarded by Vina

      Residents- get the shaft

      only two candidates with the balls to stand up for residents and their names are Kranz and Shaffer

      Delete
    3. 9:22 AM

      So tell us what the city (planning) should have done. Not notified the owners and let them find out at the public workshops? The notification "to less than 1% of property owners" is because the city is only trying to come up with enough land to satisfy its RHNA numbers. Does anyone even know whether those identified property owners are even pleased that they've been selected? EU makes it sound like they've all hit pay dirt.

      But of course I'm asking to think this through and not just blindly assume that the city is trying to backdoor the process, is totally corrupt, yada yada, yada.

      Delete
    4. There have been "back room" deals with the city and council members past and present. It is nothing new, but I can tell you the people here in this city are getting sick and tired of it.

      We expect and pay for the council to represent our best interests and so far they all get a big "F" for failure.

      It is time for change and we the voters can make it happen.

      Delete
    5. The "secret" meetings should have been open to the public. The meetings should have been noticed to all surrounding properties within 500 ft., as is normally done. Some owners will surely hit pay dirt. Both the Sprouts and Trader Joe's centers are on the map. The owners are jumping for joy. But they already knew.

      Delete
    6. And that, 9:36, is what city planning should have done. It's pretty obvious. Not noticing at the very least within 500 feet was pure sneakiness.

      Let's talk RHNA numbers AFTER a good amnesty program has been offered. A good one. Not the current one. Then you can sing state mandates from the rooftops, but not till then.

      Delete
    7. 10:34 AM

      If any property is actually selected for rezoning then standard procedures should be followed which includes notification of surrounding properties. I wouldn't doubt some properties would be in favor. The question is how many are in favor and how many aren't.

      Also, the properties currently selected aren't necessarily the ones that will be ultimately included in the housing element update. It's only a first pass. Whichever properties get included in the housing element will be listed with parcel number so everyone will know (or can easily find out) who the owners are.

      This process has a ways to go so ease up on the hyperventilating. And it will be put up for a vote in 2016. Or are you worried that more Encinitas voters will turn out in a national election than did for Prop A? And how would they vote?

      Delete
    8. 11:21 AM

      Any amnesty program, even a good one, will include verifying that the units are up to the building code. That will cost the owners some amount of money. How many owners are willing to pay if the only benefit is to the city since there is no active enforcement program. Maybe we can institute a rat out your neighbors program to increase compliance.

      Delete
    9. Make if voluntary, but make it attractive (no fees, no penalties, no in perpetuity requirement). It is in the city's hands to make it hard or easy.

      No need to sniff folks under a good program any more than we do now. Bad argument on your part, 11:33.

      Delete
    10. 11:21, you either work for the city or are spouting its jargon. This may be a "first pass," but it's also a test to see how many people are watching.

      And we are watching. And the city is screwing this up already so badly that there is no retrieving it without major headrolling and major transparency, both of which the city's incapable of doing.

      Delete
    11. 11:42 AM

      Oh yes, the city is testing you to see if you're watching. And you are watching, thank god. Why have all those workshops and council meetings because "we are watching"?

      Unfortunately, this overreaction here is getting comical.

      Delete
    12. You sound nervous.

      Delete
    13. Prop A finished off any 'new' accessory units because Donna and Bruce hid the 'natural' grade nugget in Prop A. Go ahead, try and build an add-on anywhere east of Westlake Avenue. Sheila's opponents are waiting until the forums are over before they release the docs on WHY she was removed as Mayor. Can't Wait!

      Delete
    14. 1:11, you sound on the verge of hysteria. Prop A's natural grade rule eliminated the huge pads that developers were allowed to measure as a starting point. Prop A says you can't go beyond 30' when measured from the lower of the natural grade, thus no towering "only two story houses."

      Delete
    15. And continue, 1:11, Prop A does not interfere in any way with the building of an accessory unit, unless you want to build said unit on top of an 8' pad and then start measuring your 30' from there. Accessory units are perfectly allowed under Prop A...sorry to burst your bubble of misinformation.

      As for your "can't wait" threats, well you've pretty much outed yourself as mikey andreen. You just can't ever manage to express yourself without embedding threats, lies, and histrionics in your words, can you. In case you're wondering, that was not a question ;)

      Delete
    16. 1:11 PM
      What happened to the Grand Jury report on Mike Andreen and Tucker?

      Delete
    17. What did happen to that $40K that went missing from the Chamber? Lots of unexplained coincidences around that puppy.

      Delete
    18. I think we have enough reasons even without this latest revelation to not vote for Gaspar. If there was still a "Do Nothing" party, she'd be perfect.

      Delete
    19. 3:39 PM
      What did happen to that $40,000 that went missing from the chamber? It was only $40,000?

      Delete
    20. What happened to the Grand Jury report on Mike Andreen and Tucker?

      Delete
    21. We don't have a "current amnesty." The affordable unit policy has been "tweaked" by Gus Vina and Jeff Murphy so that it is not an amnesty at all.

      Former Planning Community Development Director Patrick Murphy and Planning and Building Director Bill Weedman, both retired, knew that the real amnesty was in 1991. What came after were various affordable unit policies; they were NOT considered amnesties.

      The City Manager and his yes man, Planning Director Jeff Murphy are using perception management and marketing jive to twist the truth, and to discourage people from coming forward to document pre-existing affordable housing.

      Whether people want to come forward, or not, Jeff Murphy could count the POTENTIAL for affordable units because all residential zones allow for one accessory dwelling unit BY RIGHT, according to EMC and California Government Code.

      Delete
  21. The Pacific View School property is on the Candidates Rezone Sites map. How did that happen? I know the escrow agreement says no rezone for ten years. But what happens after that? Probably R-45 with market rate "affordable" housing. Why wasn't no zoning change in perpetuity put into the agreement?

    ReplyDelete
  22. 10:25- The answer the Council gave was they didn't want to hamper future councils. If anyone believes that, I have a lovely bridge in Arizona to sell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean the same bridge those Arizona developers bought from London? Can we move it here? After all, they moved it to Arizona. I drove under it.

      Delete
    2. You must have been driving a boat because the bridge is over water. The road is the top of the bridge.

      Delete
  23. One fact destroys the claim that the city has been above board about the upzoning: Andreen. He was informed and conspired with Gaspar to take advantage. The scheme went public only because one of the people who got the mailer spilled the beans.

    Now the scheme is a scandal. If voters know what's going on, Gaspar's career in politics is over. Has she really bowed out of Thursday's mayoral forum? If so, that confirms her guilt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of Course Andreen was informed, what do you think he does for a living? The man represents certain interests. If Gaspar won't show up to the Forum, that tells you all you need to know. Dump her this time and you know what, if you don't like Tony, dump him next time. But this is the opening we need to dump Gaspar.

      Delete
    2. Cameron cannot be elected and Tony doesn't have any apron strings to hold on to. Too bad Teresa couldn't take the heat. Face it, she ain't no Maggie. Catherine appears to have peaked early... the hand-picked mini-me for Barth. '.Zat what you really want Encinitas?

      Delete
  24. Put a high heel shoe on the table where she's supposed to sit and a tape playing over and over "I love Encinitas!" Add some Rotary thugs to applaud occasionally, and that'll pretty much cover her platform. Hell, it worked last time!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to see you think so little of your fellow citizens. When can we start the revolution? Don't let the Middle East corner the market on bloodshed.

      "The revolution will be televised"

      Delete
    2. Cue Gil Scot Heron

      Delete
    3. T hat 's David Rose, Gil Scot Heron did "The Revolution will not be Televised"...

      Delete
    4. Yes, I appreciated that song and tried to play off it's title. Gil Scott-Heron also penned "Home Is Where the Hatred Is" but I'll just let it slide.

      And who didn't like David Rose's "The Stripper". Rose wrote music for many TV series including "Highway to Heaven", "Little House on the Prairie", "It's a Great Life" to name a few, which shows he wasn't a one trick pony.

      Delete
  25. Someone earlier said Sheila's been invisible since last on council. Let me correct that revisionist history. Sheila has been:

    - Actively campaigning for Prop A from the beginning
    - At Fulvia St. rally nearly two years ago, speaking up to protect the property from overdevelopment
    - Integral to the ERGA investigation of the City's seriously questionable accounting methods that favored Carltas for the past three years
    - Filed the appeal that gave Leichtag a change in use that violated Prop A (the very same that Tony voted to approve over Sheila's appeal)
    - Spoken at Council on a regular basis for many years
    - Active with the Batiquitos Lagoon and north Leucadia group to preserve the Leucadia bluffs from environmentally destructive development, past two years

    My carpal tunnel prevents me from going on...but y'all get the picture. The "invisible" poster is a liar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:38, you forgot she successfully campaigned to keep the library downtown - instead of the boonies of Quail Gardens Rd. (the latter being a ploy by a few to change zoning - a thinly veiled effort to create another commercial corridor through town. Not hard to figure out after large chain corporations were interested in property on QGD).

      Delete
    2. Why, so I did - thanks!

      Delete
    3. She did do those things, but 14 years is a long time. I don't discredit Sheila for her past wins and all the work she's done since. That's her best role, holding councils accountable with her knowledge of how things work. What she does not do best is to maintain an even keel, work well with staff and the rest of council. It was a problem last time and would probably be a problem again. Those last two years she was on council were not a good time for anyone.

      I once went to a meeting to bring together groups from all areas in Encinitas. Sheila showed up unannounced and dropped the F-Bomb for a solid 10-15 minutes, and this is while she was on council. Sorry, but that and some of her other actions have lost her my support.

      If I could have the Sheila of 20-25 years ago, I might go for it, but the reality is, that's not who were working with here. Sorry to have to say it, but I don't think her temperament would take her through another 4 years on council.

      Delete
    4. She's running for mayor. It's two years.

      Delete
  26. City and Gaspar still silent on a) how did Andreen even know about the list of 95 and b) who gave him the list? The City has not produced a FOIA request from him, so it had to have been slipped to him through the back door. If Gaspar's fingerprints aren't on the list, she knows whose are. Chances are the city does, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is too funny. First, because there is a map with which to generate a list, there are about five different ways to generate the owner's and addresses for 95 sites: secondly, why does it have to be Andreen who requested it? There are 95 people who got the first flyer according to staff: how many commercial brokers were contacted? You folks are so willing to believe that Gaspar and the city are conspiring that the real reason for the outrage is that the Housing Element has been moving forward for over a year and none of you saw it or recognized it even though the council has voted to approve it 5 times in 18 months.

      Repeat, it's state law. The H.E. must be produced and forwarded.

      Gaspar was reportedly a guest, whether she's a friend of Andreen or not. How many Guest Speakers does the Rotary have, or DEMA's Board? It's all the same thing, Are those also 'secret'? No, like this April thing, apparently it was 'private', Sherlock: Andrew.

      Andreen's group is made up of 30 commercial property owners: do you really think they aren't capable of generating a list without involving Staff? Looking at a map of the sites? Ha!

      You're so desperate and so sad.

      Delete
    2. "Reportedly a guest?" I don't know where your reports come from, but eyewitnesses said Gaspar sat and nodded in complete agreement with all of Andreen's very predictable whoppers. She was not a "guest," she was a guest speaker.

      You're the one sounding desperate...your gal and her pal were revealed for the conniving creeps they are and they weren't counting on that.

      Delete
  27. The Map! EU has the Map! How dastardly sneaky planning is. Now we have the map to prove it.

    Except all EU had to do is go to page 6 of the staff report for September 25, 2013 council meeting for it. (Maybe he did) Yes, those sneaky planners had the gall to actually hide it in a staff report.

    It's been online for a year. Wouldn't be very hard to figure out many of the parcels just by looking at this map and comparing it to a parcel map.

    Oh the outrage!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The map itself is not the outrage, nor is its age, nor when it was first shown to the public.

      The outrage is the fact that the City sat on its contact with these 95 and withheld the upzone contact from neighbors within 500 feet and the rest of the city.

      The outrage is Gaspar/Andreen's own little educational program there and the content that was an extension of the city's real intent: hold the money-money-money upzone carrot in front of a very few and screw the rest of the city. If you don't think that the city and Gaspar gave one another a wink and a nudge, then that Arizona bridge may be just the thing for you.

      And that, 1:16, is dastardly and sneaky planning by Planning.

      Delete
    2. The city contacted these property owners only because the city was considering them as candidate sites. I assume it was as a courtesy and also to judge their reaction. Nothing official has happened and when it finally does, whichever properties are included as candidates for rezoning the surrounding properties will be notified.

      There will be plenty of time for all residents to evaluate these sites and any others that may be thrown into the mix. Since it's very early in the process, why you think the city "sat" on these sites is a mystery.

      Yes, the city and Gaspar are always winking and nudging.

      The Andreen meeting does sound sleazy as it jumped the gun on the process. I'm certainly no fan of his.

      For better or worse, we need to come up with a certified housing element, which means some properties will be rezoned, or a judge will be making land use decisions for us. And the law allows the judge to make us finish the job in a 120 days.

      There is the Republic of Encinitas alternative however.

      Delete
    3. 2:25 PM
      Let's start with councilwoman Lisa Shaffer's house. She probably regrets missing the Andreen show and tell to make more money with Gaspar.

      Delete
    4. Straight out of Murphy's playbook:

      "For better or worse, we need to come up with a certified housing element, which means some properties will be rezoned, or a judge will be making land use decisions for us."

      Two words for you: amnesty program. Start there.

      "Some properties will be rezoned." Oddly passive language...redolent of Shaffer...party line.

      Delete
    5. Over the years, Andreen has done many public info requests. He could have gotten the potential candidate sites for upzoning that way.

      Delete
    6. But he didn't this time.

      Delete
  28. This all started half a year ago, and the first we learn is from an unhappy test case? Not good for transparency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like you ran Shaffer off with the "T" word: transparency.

      Delete
  29. So the question goes unanswered: who informed Andreen of the existence of the list, and how did he get his greasy paws on it?

    Lisa, if you're still reading, you care to explain why the city is not forthcoming with this info? If this was Gaspar's doing alone, will the council/city tell residents? Was slipping Andreen this letter illegal? One would think that Sabine should have been consulted by now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the longer you ignore this thing, the worse it looks, bigger it grows. Bad for everyone's rep, not just Gaspar's.

      Delete
    2. How did Andreen get the list, are you kidding me? Andreen is an operative with David Meyer, Doug Harwood and the rest of that crew. He's the bag man for Gaspar, the same way he was for Jerome....

      Delete
    3. Yes, how did he get the list? It resided on the city's computers. Meyer, Harwood, the rest of that crew do not have access to the city's computers. I want to know how Andreen got the list. If Gaspar spirited it out of there, voters deserve to know. If another city worker made handoff, taxpayers deserve to know.

      Delete
    4. See 5:46 above, it's not that hard....

      Delete
    5. Over the years, Andreen has done many public info requests. He could have gotten the potential candidate sites for upzoning that way.

      Delete
    6. Someone asked if he'd done an FOIA request. He did not.

      Back to whodunit.

      Delete
  30. Cuz Mikey knows how to Boogaloo!

    ReplyDelete
  31. 4:13 PM, the only thing that taxpayer's deserve to know is you are trying to manufacture a 'crisis' for Gaspar because your candidates, Cameron and Graboi apparently cannot compete with her in any manner but character assassination: just like the old days, huh, Sheila?

    Let's move on to the checks Mr. Graboi wrote to Bruce Ehler's Non-Profit and inappropriately for Prop A last year: that's something the Taxpayer's deserve to know about. Or whether Jim Kydd is actually charging Sheila and Julie for their advertising this campaign year?

    Surely the taxpayer's need to have those questions answered: they are real questions, not hysterical accusations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where is the grand jury report on Mike Andreen and Tucker?

      Delete
    2. Where is the fine that the City was forced to pay the County Grand Jury after Andreen and Tucker were exonerated? $90K!!!

      How soon before Lindemann is arrested for stealing Catherine's signs?

      Delete
    3. 6:24 AM
      Where is County Grand Jury report? Bunch of bull that Andreen and Tucker were exonerated if you can't produce the Grand Jury report.
      There was no $90k fine. That is another BS comment.

      Delete
  32. There's enough to question with this whole affair that you're not going to be able to divert attention 5:51 by pulling the reverse attack on people who have nothing to do with this zoning/flyer debacle. There are legitimate questions to be asked and answered, but as usual Gaspar won't oblige.

    This has nothing to do with Sheila, Tony, Julie or Blakespeare. This is a question Gaspar will have to answer, either now or at the polls.

    Why she was at this meeting, what was said, the propriety of being there, even the legality of being there are all legit questions to be asked a city council person.

    Your response?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Andreen sent his letter out with a copy of the city flier that only the 95 received. You can defend your girl Gaspar all you like, but this whole thing does not pass the smell test. Spin away Mikey, you're being paid by the word.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Fess up Gaspar about that list or you have lost a ton of votes.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 6:24 if those catherine signs are posted off the private property and on the public right of way like so many of hers were and are, it is not illegal to remove them.

    I have seen so many posted illegally but have not removed even one so don't blame me. Why are you blaming Kathleen?

    I have noticed a couple that are no longer where I saw them but figure the city must be doing their duty as they well should be doing for a change.

    I have told all I can to please post them within your own private property and off the public roadway. We all do what we can for our chosen candidates and I hope others follow the simple rules as I have described.

    ReplyDelete