From the Inbox:
_______________________________________________________There's a new Density Bonus project in town! The Weston family is developing approximately 14 acres off La Costa, west of the I-5. Last night's CPP (Citizen Participation Plan) meeting was fronted by none other than David Meyer, the self-described "Entitlement Consultant" for the Weston family.
Meyer's "I always get my way from this city" attitude was evident as residents raised concerns about:
Testy when asked about previous attempts to get out from under affordable housing requirements, Meyer attempted to rewrite history to a skeptical crowd. Many present knew that the real story on the affordable units on Meyer's Saxony project is that they were traded away, but done under the builder's name, Shea Homes. This was a typically slick move by Meyer, similar to his returning the two affordable lots at Nantucket to Barratt American before BA went bankrupt. Meyer walked away from that one without building the two affordable units he'd promised.
His stock answer to everything was "it's the law," to which audience members responded "it's a sham."
What remains to be seen is how far backward the City will continue to bend for Meyer, given the departures of Vina and Murphy.
Meyer has certainly threatened to sue the city if told to round down on base density. He did it both orally at Planning Commission and City Council meetings and in a letter to the city. In fact, Mayor Gaspar reported out of closed session on Sept. 23 that the mayor was to contact Senator Bates to ask the Attorney General for an opinion on the round up/round down question. No doubt that the city thinks Meyer will definitely sue if he doesn't get what he wants.
ReplyDeleteWill all five council members change their previous votes on rounding down and cave in to Meyer?
You can bet your bottom dollar they will.
DeleteTry and forget about David Myer for a moment. He is only a representative for The Westons: they bought their property a lifetime ago and worked it, profited by it, paid taxes on it and their only 'crime' is being nearly 'last' to translate the 'use' of the property from flower-growing into housing units. The City Staff and you observers in the 'peanut' gallery jerking-your-own-chains are once again hiding behind your phones and laptops to criticize a family from securing its own financial future. What's the saying,"Patriotism' is the last refuge of a scoundrel"? Me thinks this issue qualifies.
DeleteWhen you add up the 'good', meaning financial donations of the Ecke Family, they put-to-shame every other family's output, not just in Encinitas but North County: and this entire subject or issue is completely suffused with the poster's gutteral jealousy and wave-after-wave of unspoken ENVY by these posters. As to the Nantucket Project: its in the City Minutes and its a fact; Meyer promised the families up above East of the project that the 'affordable' home would NOT be 2 story and then Planning Director Patrick Murphy, the real villain, if there is any; changed the requirements mid-construction to try and force Meyer to break his word to those living East of the affordable home-site.
This case is famous among the staff and hastened Patrick's career demise later after his 'keeper' on the council passed-away. Again, Carltas sold the Andrew's Avenue project to Mick Pattinson and Pattison took down the old houses and Voila! suddenly some of those folks that had lived on Andrews Avenue had a small slice of a 'new' view from their upstairs bedroom and freaked-out when Pattison came back in to heighten the pads. As was his legal right to do. Much of the time when the usual suspects cry that the city is pro-developer, they really mean that the city isn't violating your neighbor's property-rights to the degree you would prefer.
Trying to stop other citizens from profiting from their own property, paid for by their own hard work from the comfort of your own living room is wrong and leads to uninformed zealotry and zealots; Sheila, Donna, Bruce, Julie for example; that someday might bend or break the laws to take your property-rights away. Then all you unhappy home-owners are the 'new' developer. Careful what you wish for. It sounds like Myers offered to make alterations to the project to a degree that might comfort some reasonable neighbors, but you know its the big boy from Olivenhain, the Godfather from Cardiff and the Mad Woman from Leucadia that will never be satisfied. The Walking Dead?
Why not leave the Westons alone, they have been your good-neighbors, why not try and behave similarly? And as to the Eckes, take a look at their taxes, they had floated many a non-profit, school, needy family in the last 30 years, much more than anyone else can claim. Especially the gallery on this site.
Look Homeward, Angels: and if you are that obsessed with 'Open Space' then scrape your own homes from their pads and live in your own autos; but projecting your own weaknesses and worries onto one man, or one family or families, like The Westons, who deserve to continue to earn a living from their land is a kind of moral laziness and at its base-level, shameful.
Perhaps Mr. Myer can post the video of this 'bitch-fest' or 'circle-jerk', excuse the language, please: on You-Tube so we can all see what 'good' neighbors (some attendees from other cities, perhaps?) attended, what 'good' questions they asked and what 'good' manners they all presented. This CCP meeting not being held at Ada Harris in Cardiff, so, perhaps everyone in the audience was actually sober?
Please do post the CCP video Mr. Myers; then everyone's Mother can see what 'good' citizens are carrying their torches and pitchforks down to city hall. Otherwise, please continue carrying on your Witch Hunt.
7:48 AM
DeleteHow's it going Mike?
9:41, you beat me to it!
DeleteAndreen was not at the meeting and despite no mention of it above, knew it had been videotaped.
You think Mike was already on retainer or called in a panic after Meyer realized he's the subject of an EU thread?
10:01 AM
DeleteI'm 9:41 AM but I doubt "... Mike was ... called in a panic after Meyer realized he's the subject of an EU thread".
I assume Andreen regularly patrols this blog and jumped in on his own, although he is definitely simpatico with Meyer.
I'm 10:23: not "clownish," he HIRED A CLOWN to follow a sick woman around. There is something distinctly warped about that.
DeleteYou are posting left and right trying to shift blame to the property owners, but it's not working. Meyer has too much history to cover up - no one is buying your story.
7:48 AM -- Of course, it's important to continue to comment about David Meyer. He has left a long trail of sleazy deals in the city of Encinitas. To point the finger of blame at Patrick Murphy is a joke. Murphy only followed orders from the council majority of Stocks, Bond, and Dalager. Meyer knew he could win any appeal to the council, whether it was the Nantucket appeal or the Saxony/Quail Gardens appeal, because he always had the assurance of three votes.
DeleteAll of your comments sound like the ramblings of someone who has indulged a bit too much. There isn't even a consistent spelling of Meyer's name. The true details of the affordable unit on Nantucket II, which Meyer agreed to build, is that he discovered he couldn't do it with the factory home he had planned at a cost he was willing to pay. The two affordable lots had been put in the Ecke Family Trust. When Meyer got insider information of the impending Barratt American bankruptcy, he quickly transferred the two lots back to Barratt American and walked away "clean." Or as Meyer likes to say, "My name's not on it." There was also the encroachment of the project onto Sheridan Road. The neighbors complained, Meyer said he was right, and the neighbors turned out to correct. This was all pure Meyer, backed by the council. Stocks wrote his famous email that the 2-story houses on 4-6 ft. raised pads "would enhance the ocean views of the neighbors." How does building a higher house enhance the view of anybody except the buyer of the new, higher house?
Density Bonus Developments with Substandard Lot Sizes and Variances
ReplyDeleteAre new home buyers in Encinitas told that their house may be part of a density bonus development?
Are new home buyers in Encinitas told that the big house that sits on a tiny lot may not meet municipal code standards?
Developers who use density bonus law can reduce the size of each lot below the midrange density lot size required in the city code so more houses can be crammed into a subdivision.
What is the legal responsibility of the seller of the density bonus homes to inform the new buyers?
What is the legal responsibility of the realtor to reveal density bonus information?
No, buyers are not informed, but it doesn't matter.
DeleteThe only person who has standing to sue over this might be the buyer. To show material damage, the buyer would have to demonstrate that material information affecting the property value was withheld.
Since the lot size and square footage of the house are most certainly provided, and the zoning is public record, they could hardly argue that they were misled. Also, they'd have a hard time convincing a judge that they sustained a capital loss attributable to material faults in disclosure.
3:30 PM
ReplyDeleteMisrepresentation by the seller and realtor if the buyer isn't told of the reduced lot sizes. The buyer will be cheated out of property rightly required if the developer had followed the municipal code. A buyer pays a million dollars for a property that is substandard but is advertised as meeting code.
That is misrepresentation and fraud. Wait until the first lawsuit is filed. Meyer will be on the receiving end.
3:47- And Marco will be right there to defend Meyer.
DeleteNo doubt both will be out in full force, waving their arms and talking "entitlement."
DeleteMuch of what Meyer threatens is "the law" is actually opinion. Time for the city to step up and have our day in court before a judge. Enough of this little tyrant running our town. We spend millions on projects, yet shrink from protecting our most valuable asset: the town itself.
The day has come for the Council to do the right thing and stand up to this bully.
You people are hallucinating. Density Bonus is part of the zoning imposed by state statute that explicitly states general plan and zoning code amendments aren't required to implement DB. You're simply grasping at straws. Since the city approves a DB project, there is no deception regarding lot size, set backs, etc. This whole idea that a DB lot is substandard isn't going anywhere. By definition of the DB statute it meets code.
DeleteFolks at Meyer's dog and pony show were not there to dispute density bonus, they were there to hear just how far he planned to push the envelope.
DeleteThe only thing missing from the scene was Mike Andreen. You usually don't see one without the other!
Developers and Lawyers SUCK.
DeleteEcke 1 would be turning in his grave to see the sellouts that his grandkids have become.
They don't give one shit about Encinitas beyond squeezing the maximum profit out of the community even if it means looking like Manhattan Beach to do so.
Ecke/Meyer focus on profit above all = Shallow person. When is enough enough sellouts?
Start reporting realtors that don't reveal that the house they are selling is part of a density bonus subdivision and doesn't meet code, if applicable. No more misrepresentation or fraud when selling the density bonus market rate houses.
ReplyDeleteI apologize upfront for being thick as a brick, but why are these properties not up to municipal code?
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
Yeah, I'm not sure that any of the density bonus stuff does conflict with the municipal code or not.
ReplyDeleteIf you know more about the city and state rules, please chime in.
As far as David Meyers goes, aka Mr. Carltas, he's no friend to Encinitas. His moves on the Nantucket projects were as slimy as it gets...
-MGJ
The same moves he claimed to have no knowledge of last night.
DeleteSomeone please explain the theory:
ReplyDeleteI buy a house that's advertised as 1500 square ft. on 0.16 acres. I work with my realtor to understand comps and base my offer price on market data. My offer is accepted. My bank hires a property assessor to determine the value of the property. They come to a similar value to my offer, and the loan is consummated.
After the purchase, I come to understand that other properties in my surrounding area have 0.2 acre lots.
How does this revelation change the value both I and the assessor reached independently?
When looking at comps, larger lot is one of the characteristics you notice, and you deduct some value from your offer.
At the CPP Meyer offered to change the project to mixed use; neglecting to mention that Prop A would trigger a citywide vote. He even tried taking a poll of the audience and when one audience member called out "fewer houses," Meyer threatened proposing even higher density to the Westons..
ReplyDeleteClearly, Encinitas is his playground and he counts on the Ecke connection to pave his way. Are the arches even relevant any longer?
Lol auto correct:are the ECKES relevant today? Answer: no.
DeleteThey are burning every bit of good will to profit every chance they get. They don't give one shit about Encinitas except to overdevelop it like any other developer. Shame!
ReplyDeleteFrom this site:
ReplyDeleteAnonymousDecember 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Meyers works for Carltas, whether on or off the books. He has been seen with Jerome Stocks many times. Nothing wrong with that, people can do what they want. But development is what he does, and sympathetic candidates are what he's looking for. Follow the money.
A little light reading on Meyer:
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2008/09/23/in-leucadia-a-subdivision-half-built/
http://www.theleucadiablog.com/2008/06/nantucket-leucadia-plot-thickens.html
While it's fun to pick on David Meyer, you people consistently miss the point that it's the property owners, many who have been there a long time, who hire people like Meyer to maximize the development potential of their property. I imagine they view this as either their reward or their retirement or both. Often they are nurseries who for whatever reason, declining profitability and/or retirement, decide to call it quits. Desert Rose is a horse stables.
ReplyDeleteI know it's SOP here to blame the evil developers but they are only taking advantage of eager sellers who happen in many cases to be your neighbors.
9:37AM I have no problem "picking on" a person who hired a clown to follow and mock a woman on our council who'd already been diagnosed with cancer. Meyer is evil.
ReplyDelete10:07 AM
DeleteYou sound like the man looking for his cars keys under the street light even though that isn't where he lost them. When asked why, he replied because the light is better. Old joke but a valid point. Sure Meyer deserves scorn for his "clownish" behavior but the more fundamental problem lies with the property owners and the density bonus statute.
10:23: not "clownish," he HIRED A CLOWN to follow a sick woman around. There is something distinctly warped about that.
DeleteYou are posting left and right trying to shift blame to the property owners, but it's not working. Meyer has too much history to cover up - no one is buying your story.
10:23 you support thugs. Got it.
Delete11:03 AM
Delete'... not "clownish," he HIRED A CLOWN ...'. Did you notice I put it in quotes? I know he hired a clown to dog Maggie and I think he was an asshole for doing it.
So did Meyer put a gun to the property owners head and force them to go the density bonus route? I'm not absolving Meyer of anything. I'm saying the property owners play a big role in this but so many here want to fix their rage at someone they have deemed evil, as if it was all so simplistic.
5:20 PM I don't support thugs just as I don't support idiots.
Absolute horse-shit and if you knew anything Kathleen, you'd know that Houlihan didn't expire from Cancer.
DeleteIt was cancer related. Let's not beat on that one, try to have a little class and respect for the departed....
DeleteStop bringing it up then; and NO it wasn't cancer-related. You are still wrong and not classy.
DeleteAnd the hiring of the clown was still wrong and not classy and super demented.
Delete9:37: "we people" know that property owners who are not in the real estate business rarely, if ever, know how to bend rules at city hall. They don't have the access that Meyer enjoys, for starters. Meyer boasts publicly and regularly that he helped write the density bonus law; he knows how to exploit the loopholes because he put them there. It's an insult to injury what he claims to be an "affordable housing advocate."
ReplyDeleteAll developers are not lumped in with Meyer as evil. He is definitely in a (low) class of his own.
10:49 PM
Delete"... know that property owners who are not in the real estate business rarely, if ever, know how to bend rules at city hall".
Boy, I hope you're not a defense attorney. Your defense is that because a property owner isn't in real estate they have to hire someone like Meyer to help them bend the rules. The implication is that they want to bend the rules, they just need help doing it. And by the way, density bonus is not bending the rules. It's in the rules.
There is no 'bending of rules', there are rules; sorry you cannot work in the realm of reality like most working people.
DeleteThere is bending of the rules to at City Hall. Sorry you can't accept that reality.
DeleteThere is "bending of the rules" at City Hall. Another recent example is that the before established policy and protocol for naming public places was overlooked when Council, without adequate public vetting, voted to name the new Glen Park Fruit Grove after Teresa Barth.
DeleteHow dare anyone make a profit. Shouldn't all builders be required to be non-profits? We should all be living in Habitat for Humanity homes.
ReplyDeleteDon't hate the playa, hate the game.
IOW. . .
When property owners decide to sell, they nearly always take the highest bid. So how do you become the high bidder? You create the most clever plan to drive the highest revenue and profit from development of the property. That means knowing more than the other bidders about how to maximize the potential yield of the developed property, using every advantage and every legal option available.
Don't blame a shark for eating a surfer--that's just a shark being a shark.
If you want change, work to close loopholes and change the rules. How many of you have requested a meeting with our representative in the State Assembly or Senate? How many of you even know who those legislators are?
You can continue to bitch about a shark being a shark, or you can go do something useful.
The shark is now in the council's court. Whether they decide to continue to pander to Meyer is yet to be seen.
DeleteCan Gaspar and Kranz afford to support Meyer with the election coming up? Will Shaffer make his excuses because she's too afraid to stand up to him and will Blakespear follow suit? Muir...who knows? He only seems to have an opinion when personally affected. "Stay tuned," as Vina would say.
I'm not sure the council has discression to "stand up to him."
DeleteThis isn't a schoolyard scuffle, it's a legal matter, and I'm not sure the Council has a winning hand to play. By Meyer's behavior, he seems to think he's got the winning hand. Is he bluffing? We'll see. But like in poker, it isn't brave to overplay a weak hand, it's stupid. If Council knows they are likely to lose, better to fold now and take a small hit politically, than to act tough and run up big legal bills on both sides.
So says Meyer. Excuse me if I don't take his word for his odds of winning.
DeleteMeyer did sue the city previously over the density bonus interpretation. The suit was settled with the city rounding base density up. Council reversed the policy last year which resulted in the BIA suit. That suit was also settled, although the city hasn't reversed its rounding policy. The settlement did not address the rounding issue directly merely stating that, in effect, it's an unsettled issue.
DeleteSince we know that Meyer previously sued the city over this issue, the council has to take the threat seriously. However, since both suits were settled, there wasn't a judicial opinion on the merits in either case so who knows how a judge will rule in a future case if it goes that far. I imagine any ruling would be appealed although the density bonus statute allows the plaintiff to be reimbursed their legal expenses so the city has the greater financial exposure.
10:23 AM
DeleteI should have included that the plaintiff will be reimbursed their legal expenses only if they are successful.
No one thinks Meyer shouldn't turn a profit, but you know that, 1:39. What they do not think he should not be able to do, though, is get the council to look the other way while he destroys communities.
ReplyDeleteWhy aren't we talking this way about all developers? Oh, that's right: because they don't have his creepy, crappy reputation. They certainly turn profits, but with honesty and decency.
Meyer is trying for a mitigated negative declaration?
ReplyDeleteIt didn't seem this guy could sink any lower. He admits that the soil is contaminated with Toxaphene. Everyone should google it. It's the toxic pesticide that forced the city to either export or bury the contaminated soil on the Hall property, another old time greenhouse operation. The city elected to bury the toxic soil after years of denying there was any contamination, even after being sued and losing the lawsuit over the EIR.
If the city refuses to require an EIR on the Weston property, and like the Desert Rose folks, the neighbors will likely sue and the city will lose.again. It's all about public safety. I hope the council and city manager understand this. It has nothing to do with Meyer making a profit. Meyer's been around long enough to know the history of the Hall property. He took a risk when he took on the Weston property. The city has no obligation to guarantee his profit.
This has everything to do with public safely.
I'm 1:39.
DeleteOn the EIR, I agree with you. I don't blame him for trying to avoid it, as it would lower his costs, and accelerate his time to revenue if he can get away with it.
On this, I think the neighbors and council are on strong ground, and Meyer probably knows it.
My comments above were more about density bonus, and the rounding issue.
Did Meyer buy the property to develop it, or is he managing the development for the Westons?
ReplyDeleteManaging it.
DeleteSo what about this density bonus on Sheridan or Andrew where Meyer divided up a parcel of land so he didn't have to provide a low income inclusionary house?
ReplyDeleteBarbara Kautz, the city's hired counsel for the BIA lawsuit, said the city has a 50-50 chance in winning a lawsuit on rounding down. This was in public session. If that seems a small chance for the city, then it's equally a small chance for David Meyer. If Meyer sues, the city should defend, and not settle. Meyer is not an Ecke. He's only married to one. He is known in a family that prides itself on effective public relations as a renegade and has been told to cool it. Too bad he can't do that.
ReplyDeleteApparently the eckes' condone it… he's been a big part of Carltas and now his destroying Encinitas quality of life. Eckes are sellouts. Control your Hore.
ReplyDeleteOMG-
ReplyDeleteWhere are the cops when you want them? Checking out babes in Downtown or what?
There are fricken drag races going on on PCH north of Leucadia and the contestants have straight pipes. I live on Hymettus and they sound like their in by back yard.
POLICE CHIEF- ENFORCE THE VEHICLE CODE ON EXHAUST PIPE TAMPORING AND RUNNING VEHICLES WITHOUT MUFFLERS OR BE FIRED.
CITY MANAGER- YOU ARE BEING WATCHED TO MAKE SURE THE POLICE LT. DOES HER JOB. --OR YOU WILL BE FIRED.
Wrong thread, speed racer. You can find the sheriff by phone, not here.
DeleteI can hear it as well. They're racing at night.....
DeleteThe noise from the straight pipe motorcycle action at midnight is out of control. City Council you were elected to oversee this stuff that has steadily grown since the Union opened its shop of horrors. Drunks, Taxi stand inebriated shouting hang out, and now ear shattering bike scene!
DeleteI'm not speed racer- Jackass. I am trying to gain public support to wake up the City Council to direct the City Manager to demand the Sheriffs to enforce our City Ordinances and the states vehicle code.
ReplyDeleteThis shit needs to stop. Noise pollution is just a big of a problem as air or water pollution. Peace is good - reckless noisy people that crave attention are bad. Enforce and ticket bad behavior!
Maybe they're Volkswagen Diesels with stock exhaust.
DeleteThe best place to enforce this is at emissions testing, where there is already a knowledgeable tech inspecting the exhaust system. Unfortunately, every speed shop that sells illegal mods knows a guy who will do the sniffer test and look the other way on mods affecting sound and power.
DeleteWrong. The best place to stop this is on the streets. As soon as cops start enforcing the muffler laws, the problem will stop. The problem is with complacent City Managers, Cop chiefs and cops.
DeleteLol, call the cops. Go outside and make s video. Get license plate numbers. Show your video at the next council meeting. Don't be so lazy.
ReplyDeleteSo what about this density bonus on Sheridan or Andrew where Meyer divided up a parcel of land so he didn't have to provide a low income inclusionary house?
ReplyDeleteThe development was divided into two subdivisions of 9 lots each. That was 1 under the number (10) that the inclusionary housing ordinance took effect. I'm sure it was just a coincidence.
DeleteMeyer also had the house pads built up 8-9 feet above street level?
Delete12:01, that's because Meyer also incorporates Mounding Up.
DeleteMeyer's just trying to build SodoSopa.
ReplyDeleteMeyer and some of the other builders quote "the law" with greater assurance than lawyers. Where did they get their law degrees and their right to practice law?
ReplyDelete9:24- They may not have law degrees but they have Sabine and Marco. Need I say more?
DeleteA lawyer may have a better general understanding of laws, contracts, and court rules. But clients can become very knowledgeable on narrow issues, especially if those issues directly affect their ability to make a living. I'm not suggesting Meyer is right. He's not objective. But I'd bet he's spent more time reading about Density Bonus than the average non-lawyer
DeleteThere is a difference between a legal opinion of a layperson and a judge. It seems that Mr. Meyer often interprets laws and always to his own benefit at the expense of residents. Why does our our council put up with it?
DeleteNever trust the legal opinion of anyone who cares deeply about the outcome.
DeleteThat goes equally for Meyer and most of the commenters on this blog.
Hey Leucadians -- Remember the flapping tyvek on the second project of Nantucket? About 2 years worth of blowing in the breeze thanks to the Barratt American bankruptcy. Of course, David Meyer never built his promised affordable unit that he weaseled out of.
ReplyDeleteAnd there was the scandal of the certificate of occupancy denied the last house of the first project of Nantucket because Meyer never completed the affordable unit that he also weaseled out of.
As a favor to Meyer the city tried a switcheroo by moving the lack of a certificate of occupancy to another house. But the house was already occupied by a buyer, so the city had to leave it on the model home, which had been bought on speculation not knowing it lacked a certificate of occupancy.
The city was embarrassed to be caught with so much favoritism to Meyer. Finally a deal was made to combine affordable units from 4 projects, including from Meyer's Saxony/Quail Gardens project, and move them to become the Iris Apartments on North Vulcan. Not exactly a kosher way to do this. Meyer came out smelling like a rose. Leucadians smelled a rat. Of course, Meyer's name wasn't on anything, but his fingerprints were all over everything.
7:50 PM
DeleteTotal fiction. This was explained more than once in previous postings.
Sorry, total truth.
DeleteEven Meyer admitted that clustering the affordable units on North Vulcan was not correct. There is absolutely nothing in the Density Bonus Act that justifies doing this. Meyer likes to claim he wrote the act. It was a scheme concocted to solve the problem of the affordable units on Nantucket that Meyer didn't provide.
For starters watch Meyer's public testimony at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings when both bodies were considering the Draft Density Bonus Ordinance. The videos are available on the city website.
512, 514, 516 La Costa Ave. North side. A hair under 14 acres. R3. All owned by Weston. Without density bonus, 42 houses.
ReplyDeleteIts sooo fucking loud out tonight. Where are the cops???
ReplyDeleteevery jackass with a mini scooter, harley and civic wants to run straight pipes. Why?
ReplyDeletethe cops don't do shit about it.
Stop the madness. Tell the City Manager to stop this shit. We are not Oxnard.
9:58: without density bonus, 32-34 houses, can't recall which Meyer said at the Weston meeting.
ReplyDeleteThe Weston family is holding back approximately 2.25 acres and there's an internal road that has to be subtracted from the total before you calculate the number of houses allowed.
Delete3:24 is up late – sounds like someone can’t get to sleep. It also sounds exactly like David Meyer at the meeting the other night with the “Total fiction” remark. With his single-word and half sentence responses at the CPP, Meyer would have been better off not holding the meeting at all. Residents walked away smelling a rat – possibly more than one – and more determined than ever to keep this development honest.
ReplyDeleteWhen asked about the purpose of the CPP, Meyer said merely “Because the city requires it.” None of the niceties you get with other developers, who at least pretend they hear your concerns. The message, loud and clear: I’m getting my way in the end and (yawn), this explaining myself is really getting tedious. Why should I have to explain myself to you people, anyway?
Someone here suggested Meyer provide the video so everyone could see what was discussed. Excellent idea, but it ain’t gonna happen. When asked by residents for a copy, Meyer responded with “Sometimes I keep them, sometimes I don’t, I can’t say what I’ll do with this one.” End of story.
Three significant hazmat findings should require an EIR? No problem for Meyer: “We’ll see what the City comes back with.” That the city has moved quickly to make an EIR determination without letting neighbors know says Meyer thinks it’s in the bag.
Canned answers to questions were variations of “because I can/because the City/State allow it/because that’s what we’re doing.” Some of the time he just smiled. And smiled. And smiled.
Meyer throws out lies and half-truths without blinking. Someone asked whether this was the final map or whether another developer could come in with a different map. Meyer claimed there could be no further maps submitted, his was it for good. Lie.
His “the city is wrong” on the base density rounding down calculation was another lie. Unless, of course, the city caves when he threatens to sue and given his attitude, that caving is something he is clearly counting on.
Questions about his other projects yielded “You heard wrong, you are wrong, that’s total fiction”...more lies from Meyer’s limited pool of responses.
Meyer’s snarkiness and disdain for the audience was palpable from beginning to end, so let’s hope the video does surface. It will make evident Meyer's combination of previous “successes” with city knowledge and agreement, and threatening to sue have made him the overconfident little bully we saw last week.
He is one arrogant SOB!
DeleteWho can blame Meyer from having contempt for those in attendance?
DeleteUncouth, ill-mannered and uninformed!
I hope he posts the video so everyone can see what an entitled snotty group of mis-directed miscreants fleeing from so many misspent youths...crawling over each other in a frustrated effort to ask the most damning unfounded and ridiculous question.
PLEEZE!! Mr. Meyer, puh-leezz post the video!
Does anyone know WHY Meyer had the meeting recorded? Because he has been drunkenly and ignorantly threatened by half-wits living off their parent's inheritances at a meeting like this.
You are the arrogant SOB 11:32 AM. I can just see you and the Weird Sisters, Kathleen, Kathleen, CJ and Sheila all howling at the moon in concert... If only Arthur Miller were around to update The Crucible.
Alas...
Does Meyer pay you by the word or idiotic insult, Mike? Just curious.
DeleteNice tirade, 12:48 PM.
DeleteThat's right. Shoot the messengers with an ad hominem attack in order to avoid any argument about facts. Obviously you don't have any facts.
I'm 3:24 AM. I was up early. I'm not Meyer. The whole Nantucket-Barrett bankruptcy story has been explained a number of times in past blog articles and it gets real old when people either refuse to accept it or are ignorant of it. Bottom line the consolidation of density bonus units at the Iris Apts. was a one time solution that the Barrett bankruptcy created and not because of any favoritism.
DeleteOr maybe you'd like the Nantucket neighborhood to still be looking at half-built houses next to them. If the solution helped anybody, it was that neighborhood. Isn't that what everyone wants here? Or is bending the rules to help the neighborhood wrong too?
Whatever the neighbors hope to achieve at these community input meetings, you have failed.
ReplyDeleteLook, I wasn't there, but by the descriptions of Meyer's behavior, you have lost any potential for compromise from him, and both parties likely share some measure of responsibility for the toxic atmosphere that has been created.
Council cannot force neighbors and developers to truly listen to each other and compromise. All they can do is require that a meeting takes place.
If your goal is to get into that room and throw verbal jabs and make a scene, then congratulations, you succeeded; I hope that feels good, because you didn't achieve one iota of substantive change otherwise.
If, on the other hand, your goal is to persuade Meyer to consider alternatives and make some compromise changes, then you have completely failed. If you want that result, then might I suggest approaching these meetings with calmness and respect (deserved or not)? Sit together as a group and come up with a number of reasonable changes you'd like the developer to consider, and make a reasoned and objective argument for why these changes might be in the best interests of the developer, as well as the community.
Bottom line, you have only screwed yourselves if you think the most obnoxious cheap shot scores any points in these meetings.
2:29 AM -- You obviously have never followed a David Meyer project. The man never compromises. On the Saxony project the Planning Commission asked him to table the agenda item so he could make some changes. He went to the podium and it took him one second to say NO. The Planning Commission rejected the project.
DeleteHe filed an appeal to the city council the next day. And what happened? The council supported his appeal. He knew he had the votes on the council. Meyer is Mr. No Compromise.
So you weren't there, 2:29? As someone who was, I can tell you that you make a lot of faulty assumptions as to how the meeting went down. Where are you getting your information?
DeleteNo one threw any "verbal jabs" and no one "made a scene." People raised their hands to ask questions and did not talk over one another. No one raised their voice and not a single "obnoxious, cheap shot" was made by anyone. Ask Meyer himself or better yet, get him to post his video and you'll see for yourself.
People did make suggestions: they asked for greater consideration of the neighborhood by not reducing setbacks, taking extra precautions to avoid runoff into the lagoon, finding a way not to funnel 450 cars a day in and out of one street. His response boiled down every time to "I can do it and I will." It was horribly evident was that there was no compromise to be found.
You are right in that this group is screwed, but that's simply because it is a David Meyer project. What remains to be seen is whether the Planning Commission and Council unscrew residents by electing to protect community safety over Meyer's profits.
2:29 here. Again, I wasn't there, so I am reading between the lines, based on some of the first-hand accounts posted here. I'm also going by the fact that Meyer was the one recording, and not the neighbors. Usually, the peraon who decides to record is the one who thinks it will help them, because they are being reasonable and the other side isn't.
DeleteIf what you say is true--if the reason and respect of the crowd was met with arrogance and disrespect, then I'd suggest in the future that the neighbors record the meeting, and post it unedited on YouTube. That way Councul and more residents will join the cause.
If you act reasonable, and the developer is unreasonable, then prove it, and let populism be your friend.
Populism already is our friend. You may be new here, 7:52, but Meyer's reputation has been out there for years. Many who read and post here have observed his misdeeds and don't need to be convinced that his stripes are unchanged.
DeleteGood idea about having residents record. I wonder if Meyer will kick about that? When someone last week objected to being videotaped - why wouldn't audio work just as well? - Meyer responded "I find that it works for me." Video vs. audio (the city uses audio in similar situations) carries a much higher intimidation factor, so right out of the chute he thinks he has the upper hand.
1:08:
Delete"Populism is a doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general population, especially when contrasting any new collective consciousness push against the prevailing status quo interests of any predominant political sector."
--Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism"
20 people on a blog do not make a populist movement.
The "general population" of Encinitas has never heard of David Meyer.
Like I said, you may be new here. The dude's name has been in the news for years. Anyone even half watching the city has at least heard his name, and not in a positive way.
DeleteYour hope that 20 people on this blog constitute the entire universe of Meyer awareness is just that - a hope (sounds like you're hoping, anyway).
His very public threats to sue the city won't help his attempts to continue to fly under the radar. Them days are over.
"sounds like you're hoping, anyway"
DeleteThat's an interesting comment for someone who claims to want a populist movement.
It sounds like you are more predisposed to finding reasons to reject people than welcome them. If you carefully read the substance and tone of my posts, you'll find I'm not a supporter of Mr. Meyer, although I may be more willing to compromise if it achieves some result. Maybe for that reason, I don't pass your purity test, so you count me as an enemy.
That's a recipe for an ineffective and marginalized group of radicals, not a populist group that seeks to welcome a large number with some divergence of perspective.
Just something to think about.
10:36 AM -- Do some research on Meyer's previous projects and then come back and tell us when and on what Meyer has ever compromised. Good luck on achieving some result. It's wishful thinking on your part. Meyer has demonstrated his unwillingness to compromise over the last decade.
DeleteAnd attend the next CPP meeting and see him for yourself.
One last suggestion:
DeleteSomeone needs to figure out how Meyer gets paid in this and other deals.
Could be hourly.
Could be a fixed fee up front.
Could be a fixed fee on completion.
Could be progress payments based on milestones (e.g. Permitting complete, ground breaking, first unit sold, certificate of occupancy, etc.).
It also could be some flavor of gain sharing (e.g. A percentage of net profit).
You can't know what your leverage is until you understand how he gets paid. For instance, if he's paid hourly like a lawyer, then making this a long drown out and confrontational process results in more money, and a steady income over a longer period--just what he wants. Whereas, if he's paid a lump sum at the end, a slow process hurts his income.
Once you understand how he's paid, you can also understand where DM's interests diverge from those of his client. You might be able to find a strategy that would exploit that divergence, and drive a wedge between DM and his client, resulting in stress or dissolution on the partnership.
Also, you'd have a better picture of how strong your leverage might be, which would allow you to understand what goals are realistic and achievable.
Just my $0.02.
11:08, if you are suggesting nothing can be achieved, then why would anyone want to go to a CPP?
DeleteI would never go if it's a waste of my time. But I'm an optimist by nature. A better result is always possible, even if a perfect one isn't.
You're a troll by nature. I never suggested that nothing can be achieved or to not attend the CCP. I suggested that you attend the CCP to learn something. It seems you're not interested in Meyer's previous history or what he is like. Afraid of what you might learn?
DeletePerhaps I misunderstood.
DeleteIf you did not suggest that nothing can be achieved, then please explain what you meant by this:
"Good luck on achieving some result. It's wishful thinking on your part."
It meant that you could not achieve the things you were suggesting, namely compromising with Meyer. As was stated he doesn't compromise. He demands everything he wants. However there are other ways to accomplish things, mainly to make sure no special favors are given and the letter of the law is applied. That hasn't happened in the past.
DeleteThe suggestion still stands that you attend the next CPP. If you are not a Mayer supporter, see where you can exert pressure. Make sure all regulations of the Coastal Commission, the San Diego County Water Quality Board, the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, and the City of Encinitas.
Compromise is a two way street.
DeleteDM will not and should not compromise unless he can in return secure assurance that neighbors and others won't sue or continue to fight the project.
You mention that on past projects DM has refused to compromise. So tell us, what compromise did you offer, and what were you willing to give up in trade?
Following the law and not getting special favors is a one-way street. There is nothing to compromise on. There's enough information in the 100 posts above to start googling and researching previous projects. Do your own research. Don't be lazy.
DeleteEven better. Contact DCM Properties and ask David Meyer himself. Or would you be talking to yourself or a good friend?
"There is nothing to compromise on."
DeleteGot it.
But Meyer is the one who is rigid and uncompromising, right?
2:57 finally gets it! Oh, happy day.
DeleteIf Weston owns the property, he's the guy to implore, not Meyer. Meyer's just a hired gun.
ReplyDeleteAnd actually, 2:29, yours is just a thinly veiled suggestion to make a deal with the devil.
Meyer told residents that they were not to make contact directly with the Westons under any circumstances. And um you might ask around about this family...there's no imploring going to work anyway.
DeleteThe pesticide and petroleum contamination on the Weston property will require that the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health do a SAM program. This is a Site Assessment and Mitigation Program. It will mandate burial or removal of the contaminated soil. This process will demand careful monitoring by the city in order that the fiasco of the air borne toxic dust on the North Hymettus project isn't repeated. Surrounding neighbors got sick and some had to move out during grading, and some of the contaminated soil had to be reburied deeper.
ReplyDeleteLet's hope city staff backed by the City Council do the job correctly this time. It shouldn't take a lawsuit and a ten-year fight, as occurred on the Hall property, to protect the public. This also means an EIR must be done.
Full EIR and full road improvement (sidewalks, bike lanes, and roundabouts) all along La Costa Ave.
ReplyDeleteSounds like someone is angling for the City to pay for road improvements to make way for builders. No Way!
DeleteSince when are roundabouts "improvements"?
ReplyDeleteThey're road hazards and impediments to traffic flow.
Bird Rock roundabout update....
Deletehttp://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/06/bird-rock-runs-circles/
If you haven't noticed, the builder is getting his way long before improvements will be in place. But nice try blaming road improvements. Now go back to complaining that road improvements are taking too long.
DeleteWhat about the great hazard to pedestrians and bikers!
ReplyDeleteI have seen several near misses of walkers/bikers trying to "safely"cross the street at a roundabout.
How much does the city get paid to put them in? Which grants are they receiving for putting in these disasters?
Get rid of Roundabouts!
1:49 - Your eyes and mind must not work. The rest of us now the truth.
DeleteAnother way to say "near miss":
DeleteMiss.
If you are looking for the type of intersection where a near miss cannot occur, then good luck on your unicorn hunt.
The rest of us will rely on overwhelming statistical evidence supporting roundabouts as a safer alternative to traditional intersections.
6:52 & 1:49, Get a clue. Your stubboeness is only matched by your ignorance.
ReplyDelete"Since when are roundabouts "improvements"?"
ReplyDeleteSince 9000 peds were killed in the US at your damned signals in the last 2 years, whilen no peds at all were killed in US roundabouts. Get your safety priorities straight.
There you have it. The Keep Leucadia Crappy crowd that are afraid of yield signs should give up their licenses and take public transportation or Uber.
ReplyDeleteTempers sure flare on the roundabout topic.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to know that developers will always advocate hard for them, as roundabouts allow for dense development beyond what could otherwise be built.
True that the Federal transportation manual has no guidance for measuring traffic (street Level of Service - LOS) around them. This means there are none of the density constraints that you would see with a non-roundabout situated project enforced when roundabouts are adjacent.
Developers stand to gain financially where roundabouts are concerned. Marvy Charles' repetitive "Leucadia crappy" plaint has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with overly-dense development.
12:08 PM
DeleteYou might want to check these things before you make a blanket statement about roundabouts like "True that the Federal transportation manual has no guidance for measuring traffic (street Level of Service - LOS) around them." When the reality is:
The fifth edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), recently [late 2010] released by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), incorporates results from more than $5 million of research completed since the publication of the HCM 2000. This latest edition significantly updates the methodologies that engineers and planners use to assess the traffic and environmental effects of highway projects.
HCM 2010 introduces several firsts, including ...
Unsignalized intersections, previously a single chapter, now are described in three chapters, covering two-way STOP-controlled (TWSC) intersections, all-way STOP-controlled (AWSC) intersections, and roundabouts. The TWSC method in the HCM 2010 can analyze intersections along six-lane streets, and the AWSC method now includes a queue-estimation procedure. The roundabout material is completely updated, based on the work of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 3-65, which developed a comprehensive database of U.S. roundabout operations and established new methodologies for evaluating roundabout performance. The chapter adds a level-of-service (LOS) table for roundabouts.
No wonder many people on this blog are confused.
5:18, Sorry you find no ped deaths vs 9000 ped deaths confusing.
Delete5:18, can you point to the section that tells how to measure roundabout LOS?
Delete8:15,
DeleteDon't be lazy. 5:18 gave plenty of information about the source
Get thee to the Google Machine.
6:00 PM
Delete"5:18, Sorry you find no ped deaths vs 9000 ped deaths confusing."
WTF does that have to do with my post about the Highway Capacity Manual? People frequently make blanket statements on this blog that are wildly inaccurate and often untrue. 12:08 PM said there were no guidelines for roundabout LOS and I showed that to be wrong. Nothing was said about Ped deaths.
That's part of your problem. Nothing ever is said about ped deaths.
Delete4:43 PM
DeleteSpeaking of Ped deaths, I've tried to find the statistic about 9,000 pedestrian deaths but none within a roundabout to no avail. Where does that come from? And before anyone gets all bent out of shape, I know that roundabouts greatly reduce serious injuries and deaths for both vehicle and pedestrian accidents.
So please point us to where you got that statistic.
4:43 PM
DeleteAnother thing I failed to mention. According to the U. S. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the year 2012 (which was the latest I could find), 4,743 pedestrians were killed which was a slight increase from 2011. In fact the number of pedestrians killed between 2003 and 2012 ranged from a low of 4,109 (2009) to a high of 4,892 (2005). So I assume your 9,000 number is over multiple years.
If there is no link at least provide the source of your statistic.
2:13, Here's my conservative guesstimate of 9000 deaths at traditional US intersections for the last 2 years. Vile inventions, huh?
Deletehttp://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811888.pdf
OK 9000 looks like total fatalities. Looks closer to 2000 deaths and 60,000 injuries at US Intersections. My bad. Still unacceptable though IMHO - someone either killed or injured at an intersection every 16 minutes.
Delete6:21 & 6:32 PM
DeleteThanks for your response. The NHTSA publication (811888) is the one I used for my 2:13 PM post. Let me quote from it:
"In 2012, almost three-fourths (73%) of pedestrian fatalities occurred in an urban setting versus a rural setting. Over two-thirds (70%) of pedestrian fatalities occurred at non-intersections versus at intersections. Eighty-nine percent of pedestrian fatalities occurred during normal weather conditions (clear/cloudy), compared to rain, snow and foggy conditions. A majority of the pedestrian fatalities, 70 percent, occurred during the nighttime (6 p.m. – 5:59 a.m). Between 2011 and 2012 all these percentages stayed relatively level ..."
The reason that I quoted it is that it states 70% of pedestrian fatalities occurred at non-intersections and a roundabout is considered an intersection. However, nowhere in the document does it distinguish roundabouts from traditional intersections so there is no easy way to compare them.
That said I repeat what I said above that roundabouts do greatly reduce the incidence and severity of accidents for both vehicles and pedestrians. I just don't want to overstate the situation and risk it being perceived as hyperbole and easily dismissed as some do here.
Good points, 11:17.
DeleteHad there been any pedestrians killed at any of our 3000 plus (and growing) number of roundabouts in the last 2 years, a few here would be all over it with links. Their silence is telling.
12:18 PM
DeleteThanks.
I don't believe a pedestrian fatality is impossible at a roundabout. You still have a large metal object impacting a human body which could be very young or very old. And you occasionally hear of someone dying during a fight because their head struck the pavement or the curb. A fatality is possible just not very likely.
Pedestrian fatalities can and do happen at any type of intersection or roadway.
DeleteThe realistic goal isn't elimination of risk, it should be reduction and mitigation of risk.
As with most decisions, perfection isn't an achievable goal. We should be embracing any change that represents an improvement over the status quo.
Roundabouts are better than traditional intersections. That's good enough for a rational person.
12:08, Someone needs their nap.
ReplyDeleteSomeone's been found out.
DeleteI know you are, but what am I?
Delete12:08pm I, too, have thought that roundabouts allowed denser numbers and when I have said that, most people doubted it. I can't recall the official source for that allowance to get around current zoning, so any clarity would be greatly appreciated.
ReplyDeleteThat might explain why some of these roundabouts are located where they are and not evenly distributed along the whole corridor, if their true intention is really too calm the traffic, which they won't do anyway.
Just how can reducing our 101 to single lanes north and south lessen what 4 lanes gets bogged down with presently? This does not compute. This plan is not ready for primetime and never was.
If this were ever allowed to be voted on, it would die on the ballot. It will never be allowed to go to a vote. Those meetings years ago should not have the final say now, so many years later.
Some people have claimed that there are no Level of Service trafflic flow standards for roundabouts, while there are for stop lights.
DeleteSounds plausible, but I'd like to see the source.
7:55 AM
DeleteI guess you don't read your own blog. I referenced (5:18 PM 10/8) the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 published by the Transportation Research Board which is one of the bibles for transportation planners and engineers. I believe you'll find the information in Chapter 21 Roundabouts: (Volume 3). Since I don't have $220 for the paperback version, I'll just quote the chapter description from the web page:
"Chapter 21, Roundabouts, presents concepts and procedures for analyzing these intersections. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 3- 65 (1) provided a comprehensive database of roundabout operations for U.S. conditions on the basis of a study of 31 sites. The procedures that follow are largely founded on that study’s recommendations. These procedures allow the analyst to assess the operational performance of an existing or planned one-lane or two-lane roundabout given traffic demand levels."
Nice to see that someone who publishes a "fact based" blog is willing to consider that it "Sounds plausible".
As for 8:23 PM, any increase in an intersection's throughput, whether by adjusting signal timing, geometry, roundabouts, etc. makes it feasible to increase density which would, in turn, add to the traffic count and decrease the throughput. It's a vicious cycle just like adding freeway lanes. At some point the system is overloaded. However, to get increased throughput along a stretch of roadway, say the North 101 corridor, requires all the intersections be balanced so that none of them become choke points. The corridor flow is also affected by turnouts, curbcuts, number of lanes, crosswalks, etc. According to the North 101 Streetscape, there will be only one one stop light in the whole corridor and that will be at Leucadia Blvd where because of the rail crossing a roundabout is unfeasible.
Oh that darn span filter!
DeleteThanks. I rescued your comment from the spam filter.
DeleteSo you are definitively saying the city will measure and grade LOS at roundabouts with a methodology that makes them comparable to traffic lights?
2:38 PM
DeleteThanks for the rescue.
"So you are definitively saying the city will measure and grade LOS at roundabouts with a methodology that makes them comparable to traffic lights". No I didn't say that. The post I was responding to claimed there were no LOS measures for roundabouts and I showed that there were. You added that it sounded plausible. I never claimed, definitively or not, that the city would use them. That doesn't mean they won't as they are getting ready to do a citywide street analysis which may dovetail to an update of the General Plan Circulation Element. There appears to be a sliding scale from no LOS measurements for roundabouts to whether the city will use them. And remember, the post that claimed there were no measurements had more to do with developers unless you believe that city staff are merely tools for developors.
Sounds like a lot of bikers making comments on this issue including perhaps one of our commissioners, bikers from all over southern California, and non residents wanting to dictate what our city does for its own citizens who just happen to be footing the bill for yet another waste of our tax dollar.
ReplyDeleteYeah right. Bikers from out of town determined our Streetscape. Not. The northbound lane will be gridlocked when they draw in the bike path. Not. All of our 3 legged roundabouts would work better if there was more traffic going east and west with a 4 legger. Not. The USDT doesn't recommend 3 legged roundabouts. Not. The train proximity interferes with our 3 legged roundabouts. Not. The business district in Leucadia isn't worth improving. Not. Streetscape will remove all of our old growth trees. Not. Roundabouts will make maximum density possible. Not. Roundabouts will make N 101 more dangerous. Not. Streetscape will be bad for businesses and residents. Not. Everyone will have to stop at roundabouts anyway. Not most of the time.
ReplyDeleteGood summary 11:33.
DeleteEvery time someone uses data and references to shoot one of these down, some burned out old crank just rotates to the next discredited argument.
Hi so my family and I were about to put an offer in on one of those houses! We are new to the area and thought they were nice homes. I found your blog in my due diligence research and so thankful.
ReplyDeleteWith 3 little kids I do not want them on contaminated dirt! Can anyone provide more detail on the toxin found at Sheridan/ Andrew?
Virtually all of the former greenhouse properties had some level of contaminated soil. Many if not most of the Encinitas homes built in the last 15 years are on former greenhouse properties.
DeleteThe city requires developers to remove the contaminated dirt or bury it deep.
If the cleanup is done correctly, it should be safe. I would ask for the environmental consultant's report.