Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Last night's Planning Commission meeting on HEU

What happened last night?

Summary here and here from EU commenters:
People were freaking out about the zoning change proposals next to their spacious neighborhoods. Suddenly, 30 - 2 storied cracker boxes/acre rising like toadstools next door, forever changing the nature of the atmosphere of these areas. Also, the non-addressed issue of further congestion arose - cars lined up for 3/4 mile to get onto the freeway on Manchester, people seeing their streets turned into the Indy 500, people afraid to walk or ride bikes for fear of their lives - only the developers and their shills gave credence to the housing plans. One commissioner said the clause in the fine print that allows the council to overrule Prop A by majority will be removed - they got slammed on that sneaky attempt to override public rule, and realized it'd be used against them in the election. And many did not buy into the implied threat that if one of these city proposals isn't accepted, a judge will make the decision for the city by State mandate.

More on Thursday, but public input is over.
And here from Commissioner Tasha Boerner Horvath:
Thank you to all the people who came out to speak tonight at the Planning Commission Meeting! Over 40 speakers expressed a variety of opinions.

Staff clarified at the beginning (and again at the end) that they are recommending the supermajority clause be removed.

The Commission heard public testimony tonight. On Thursday we will deliberate and make any recommendations to Council.

25 comments:

  1. As someone pointed out, there concept of "affordable" housing being addressed by these proposals is a joke. How many peoples' housing needs will it accommodate - essentially none. Affordable housing is anything under a million - that is the reality of the market. What it does is open a lot of areas up for straight redevelopment or the concept of the highest economic use (the most money one can get out of a property for whatever use), which is not good long term planning. If it was ever intended for affordable housing, it is a dismal failure. Developers are licking their chops at the fast profits to be made. Leucadia is all zoned for "up-scale"; you think it is a mess now, just wait if this boondoggle is actualized. Someone mentioned that the commercial traffic is already being forced into the adjacent neighborhoods - this will intensify. These proposals are not the answer to the high cost of housing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One older woman mentioned the confusion trying to navigate the voluminous amount of material on the city's website. The paper material sent out to homeowners is a thumbnail sketch and makes references to provisions buried deep in the cyber data base. She said she is no stranger to web based databases, but this one is extremely difficult to cross reference. In addition, terminology is changed and terms have new definitions. These cleverly hidden gems might just be the thing that a lawyer might later use to reinterpret the meaning of some clause. It sound like the old shell game - watch it if you can. This is either bad communication or a subtle deception - you decide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or neither.

      This isn't the Grassy Knoll. Or lead in Flint Michigan's water. It's a Housing Update by which there is absolutely NO NEXUS to building anything!

      None!

      Every other city is the state has succeeded in this operation; except Encinitas!

      Encinitas' Ground Hog Day! The same mental health recipients/Shaman/Charlatans were out in full force last night. Will the last one in charge turn the keys to the City/asylum over to the inmates, please.

      Their arms are restrained in straight-jackets and a full-moon is coming...

      There is no satisfying them. And they already easily co-opted a weak city manager...

      Delete
    2. What the hell is a nexus in this context?

      Sounds like government-speak.

      Delete
    3. 9:10 is obviously a city employee trying to sway public opinion. You wonder why they would care unless they are getting something for their trouble from developers. Anyone that thinks is just an exercise for the state is mad. This is an exercise to thwart the will of the people. We must throw the bums out.

      Delete
    4. Indeed it does, EU.

      This is Groundhog Day with yet another failing HEU as residents figure out the scam the city's trying to put over on us. Again.

      It's staff and the council who need the straitjackets for thinking it'll pass this time.

      Delete
    5. Perhaps 9:10 thought nexus (or NEXUS) was a fancy word for consensus.

      I have heard that mistake made in a business context.

      Delete
    6. I think what 9:10 was trying to suggest is that upzoning to increase density to 30 units per acre satisfies "by proxy" regional housing requirements, set up by the State but "administered" by SANDAG, and that the units don't actually have to be constructed.

      However, if affordable units aren't constructed on the upzoned sites within a certain amount of time, the unrealized affordable unit numbers are added to future mandated requirements. It's a vicious circle that benefits development special interests at the expense of the greater common good.

      Trying to imply there's no nexus between upzoning and actually increasing density is disengenous and duplicitous. This is another reason why so many, here, and nationwide, don't trust government officials or their paid henchmen/consultants/for-profit private contractors.

      Delete
  3. The issue is that our roads and infrastructure and neighborhoods were grown before Encinitas was incorporated. The General Plan was written to deal with what was there rather than what could be there.

    If we were starting from bare ground the design would include some broad avenues with parkways and transit. In such a city these roads could support buildings even taller than 3-story. Winding streets could have exploited the topography rather than being a rectangular grid.

    But we can't remake the history that today's neighborhoods inherited. Things like sewer and water also limit growth. Our parks and public amenities and beachside location act like a growth magnet. There is not the money to even pave the streets and run sewer pipes throughout.

    Sorry, the Inn is full.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 9:10 AM Damage control shill monitoring the situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certainly is. They should all be fired for wasting our time and money and sued so we can get these corupt tit suckers under oath.

      Delete
  5. Well, if this HEU has no nexus, then why the hell are we doing it? A shell game, indeed, and a sneaky one , at that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 9:10 AM Probably the Planning Commissioner. They act all cheery at the meeting - you can imagine their demeanor when out of sight of the audience. Sheila Cameron was right - this process is a fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Last night at the Planning commission meeting, Manjeet was seen grabbing the arm of Glen O'Grady under the counter top trying to get him to cut a speaker off after she ran over for a few seconds.

    Thank you Glen for allowing her to finish up in those few extra seconds it took.

    As for Manjeet, sorry not, that you were made uncomfortable with the truth, but you have made this bed of nails, so enjoy the comfort you have earned while you are still here. Please look for another job asap. I bet Jeff Murphy might have something for you. We would rejoice at your departing and you wouldn't have to listen to our voices calling you out and your dept. out, until that day comes, and it surely will. Don't wait to be fired, Do us all a favor and leave us in peace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When we vote down the Housing Element, can we also vote to fire Manjeet, and all of the planners as a package deal?

      All of this whining about how we have no Housing Element places the blame on Gus' 28 Obstructions who are volunteers. Don't forget that we have many City staff who have been working on this failure for years and have never missed a paycheck. That needs to end. Vote down the Housing Element and cut back City staff.

      Delete
    2. Incorporation was a mistake - it has become a gravy train for a minority of city "workers".

      Delete
  8. In Lisa Shaffer's latest missive she says that in HEU report from City Planning failed to take out the 4/5 over ride of Prop. A. Hard to believe they just so conveniently forgot.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Incorporation was a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What happened at the meeting last night, May 26?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Planning staff and planning commission had a love-in. A slightly modified version of all the documents was approved and sent on for the city council to mess with next month. All the stuff overriding Proposition A was removed from all documents or maybe it was just hidden further in.

      Delete
    2. "Maybe?" Read for yourself, 3:01. Not even close.

      Delete
  11. The giveaway to developers continues. No mandating of low income units thanks to tasha and manjeet. All we are left with are density projects with a token low income unit and sometimes not even that. Other cities have mandated a reasonable % of these go with every project in the 25% and more range.

    Here in Encinitas, not a chance. With these people keeping their jobs or seeking higher office we will only have more of the same.

    We need people who will defend us and stand for the residents. There was little if any evidence of any of this from our reps.this week.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The city is a pack of parasites and schemers.

      Delete
  12. I live in Cardiff and when they are including prime ocean view property as a disguise as affordable housing it is definitely a give away to the developer. 90% sells at market rate for $1.2M to $2M with 10% as affordable housing. The locations need to be located in affordable areas, not ocean view properties. The developers are salivating the build there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is the definition of "affordable"? 1950's prices? It isn't going to happen; even if one or two units are underpriced, it will be like lottery odds for anyone to acquire it. This is just a scheme to overdevelop the area and maximize developer profits - it does not and cannot serve the housing needs as supposedly intended. Vote NO.

      Delete