Planning Commission meeting Tuesday night on housing ballot initiative
Encinitas Votes:
Please don't forget that Tuesday, May 24, 2016 the Planning Commission will be taking comments from the public about the City of Encinitas's Housing Element. You all should have received a large packet in the mail about what the City wants to do. If you are content with it, you can come and show your support. If you do not like what is attempting to be done, NOW is the time to let your voice be heard. If you don't feel comfortable speaking in public, you can also give your 3 minute time allotment to another person. However, you do have to be there to do that. It starts at 6PM and is at City Hall in the Council Chambers. If you are happy, or unhappy with the Housing Element and don't show up, you can also write to the Planning Commission. This is our community. If you don't participate others will. It is up to the citizens to make their thoughts and feelings known. Join me there.
Also:
Prop A reversal language still in updated housing element plan:
link
Last section, last page, where no one will look.
Indeed.
If amendments to any part of its planning policy documents, including but not limited to the General Plan, specific plans, Encinitas Municipal Code or its Local Coastal Program, are required to secure or maintain certification that may otherwise invoke the requirements of Chapter 30.00, the City Council is authorized to make any and all necessary amendments with a four-fifths super majority vote or any other lesser super majority vote should less than five Council Members be eligible to vote
In perpetuity, no less!
I thought Prop. A took away that 4/5 vote of the Council. This is B.S. I will be there. Don't let them get away with this. They are all sellouts.
ReplyDeleteShould we bring pitchforks or torches?
ReplyDelete7:45- You can if you like. I think that whoever reads this blog is missing a huge issue. That is the City of Encinitas is trying to get rid of Prop.A. If you don't care, no problem. But, if you do, you had better start suiting up and showing up or this city will turn into another Pacific Beach, or worse. Just sayin'
ReplyDeleteVote NO on the housing element.
ReplyDeleteOne thing for everyone to consider is the writing of the ballot statement by staff. We must insist that there be a 'none of the above' choice as staff will likely provide several choices, none of them acceptable. As we see every week, they care not about community character and only serve their masters of developer and real estate interests.
ReplyDeleteDemand the ballot statement include a 'none of the above' choice. If we don't, we will have no true choice and they will win. We will lose, our community will lose, and our future as a suburban enclave will become urbanized. This all staff knows how to do. They are there for us.
Demand a 'none of the above' choice on the ballot statement be included.
They [staff] are NOT there for us.
DeleteAs long as council continues to thank them every week for their substandard performance, council is not there for us either.
As long as every council member continues to support the HEU, they are not there for us.
Council needs to hear this loud and clear.
Demand a 'none of the above' choice on the ballot. That will be our only choice.
If you are the same person who keeps bringing this up, it's been asked and answered many times. It's not an issue.
DeleteNot been answered, which is why it's been asked so many times. It's an issue, which is why the City hired a consultant to advise on ballot statement wording.
DeleteBut you knew that.
What 8:13 is fear mongering is called a forced choice.
DeleteExample of forced choice: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
If the response is "no," then the respondent is admitting to the ongoing physical abuse. If the response is "yes," then the inference is an admission that the abuse did happen in the past. There is no way to answer the question without admitting to being a wife beater. It's a forced choice.
8:13 imagines that the City is going to put a forced choice framing on the ballot: "Would you rather have density housing option A or B?" No matter how you answer, you are voting for a housing element that contains R30. Thus the demand that a "none of the above" option be available.
However, the willfully ignorant fear mongers already know that state law prohibits such framing. It requires that ballot propositions be framed as a simple yes or no on a specific proposal.
Thus "no" is equivalent to "none of the above."
But then you already knew that.
We have plenty of substantive things to discuss and decide as citizens. Let's not go creating controversy where none exists.
But at the workshops on roundabouts as part of the Leucadia 101 Streetscape, there WAS a forced choice on the surveys. That is why those surveys are statistically invalid as measuring public opinion, our wants and needs.
DeleteOver the years, the staff has had complete control over the Housing Element Update. They have spent 4 million dollars on various consultants, outreach events and several dedicated full-time employees. Shoot this sucker down and cut the Planning Department by at least half since they have been working on this project for at least six years and using OUR money to pay themselves and their cronies for this failure.
ReplyDeleteGaspar lost my vote. This tarp sized mailer
ReplyDeletearrived in the mail and shows zero sense of ecology.
I am in old Encinitas and haven't seen one of these mailers yet - I wonder if her group has done staggered or selected mailings? It's getting late, as absentee ballots are being sent in. I predict she'll be knocked out in the primary and will have to struggle to maintain herself in local politics. Her ambitions may have finished her career.
DeleteWithout the backing of the party, it's likely about building name recognition for future campaigns at this point.
DeleteI'm voting no on the housing element for sure.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't put it past these operators to select areas of our town where residents may not be paying as close attention as some other neighborhoods to all that is going on around here. They know where the activists are and will get no where with them. Selecting other areas makes sense, strategically speaking.
ReplyDeleteThe uninformed know no better, as was witnessed by the hard sell at the five community presentations of the HEU put on by the Planning Dept. trying to sell this stinker. Every planner there was overheard misrepresenting what accepting this plan will actually bring.
There were many corrections asked for from these planners and their canned response was, this is not a finished product. Right!!!!!!!!!!!!
The most egregious of the hidden items were never removed. Actually they were not hidden. Buried is the more appropriate term, in a voluminous output by the planning dept. to obscure their true intentions.
They are seeking an urban solution to our precious suburban community. Don't buy their lies. It is shameful.
Planning operates by the will of the council. Oops. It appears Planning has has no controlled oversight. Oops. Can it be the councils fault? Oops. Oh crap.
We are doomed until we get council persons who choose to defend us and our community character. Urban solutions do not apply here and never should. I guess that is a difficult idea to get. It explains why we don't have an accepted plan yet after twenty years.
For all those planners that want urban solutions here, please get the freak out of our town. You are traitors to this community and its future. We will fight this urbanization scheme with every breath we take while the air is still breathable.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to what's going on at the state level. Even Gov. Brown is getting on the bandwagon.
DeleteFrom the California League of Cities take on the governor's May revised budget:
Public Engagement and Local Approval Process Blamed for Housing Shortage
Gov. Brown proposes a ministerial, “by-right” land-use entitlement provision for multifamily infill housing developments, which include affordable housing. Under the plan, a local government could not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit or other discretionary local government review or approval for qualifying developments that include affordable housing, provided they are consistent with general plan and zoning standards.
While not made clear in the May Revise document, removing local discretion on these decisions and making them “ministerial” also avoids project-level environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), since CEQA is only triggered for discretionary governmental decisions.
The budget further indicates the Governor’s support for other proposals intended to increase the availability of accessory dwelling units and greater clarity and increased use of the Density Bonus Law. These include SB 1069 (Wieckowski), AB 2299 (Bloom) and AB 2501 (Bloom) — all bills that League opposes because they reduce public engagement and local discretion over housing.
Despite a lengthy description of the alleged problems created by community input in the local development approval process, the May Revise calculates a savings of only 5 percent (page 49) in project costs. Such a low number actually supports a counter argument that the concern may be overblown. Changes caused by design review were assigned 7 percent of project costs, yet having good design (as opposed to taking short cuts on quality) has long been maintained by affordable housing developers as the key to community acceptance of higher density and affordable housing projects.
See more at: http://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2016/May/Governor-s-Revised-FY-2016-17-Budget-Holds-Line-on#sthash.t5toTTYp.dpuf
Our city should figure out a way to COUNT more existing accessory units. They are by right entitlement in Encinitas, since 1993. The current amnesty is actually bogus, because accessory units, IF COUNTED, are considered to be defacto affordable housing, according to the state. Covenants are not required. The problem is, there are so many "underground" units, that aren't counted, because our City has NOT wanted to count them.
DeleteOur "strategic planners" want increased development, not to verify and validate the actual numbers we already have, to satisfy regional requirements.
Poway City Council and MIG Inc. studying a makeover of Poway Road for increased density. Poway, the city in the country wants a more robust commercial area. MIG has suggestions of mixed use and increased density.
ReplyDeleteIf the city would agree to allow up to 30 units per acre and three-story developments, more than 1,100 smaller homes could be built along the road, which would in turn attract new businesses.
Article in the San Diego Union Tribune -
Poway Road study: dense housing needed
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/may/21/poway-road-study-housing-development/?#article-copy
Good for poway increase density should happen inland. Not the coast. Vote no on any increased density on the coast. PRESERVE THE COAST!!!
DeleteIt depends on what counts as the coast. The originally proposed plan, put most of the additional density on El Camino Real (not the coast in my book), on 5 or so large parcels, where some improved traffic control could have made it all work out. El Camino could have been something really special, rather than big box stores which are not viable.
DeleteToo late, of course. So now vote no.
DeleteI agree. Preserve the coast. No more Huntington beach. No more high density at the beach. El Cajon maybe. Encinitas NOT.
ReplyDeleteI guess we are too special. Make sure that all the retail workers live in Poway and El Cajon. They should feel privileged to just work here.
DeletePut your money where your mouth is, 8:30. Show us how to make housing here truly affordable and the retail workers could actually live here.
DeleteAs it is, they can't. The City won't put a single restriction on developers to guarantee affordability. Until we do, stop selling the lie that we are elitists. You sound like you're in the biz.
11:40 AM
DeleteHow about the Inclusionary Housing ordinance which requires 1 in 10 home built to be affordable or pay an in-lieu fee which goes to the construction of affordable housing.
I'm not in the biz by the way.
Get rid of the in-lieu fee that gains the developer more profits and puts the low-income earner into a ghetto like Iris.
DeleteYou sure sound like you're in the biz. Or perhaps a city worker sliding a little job security in on the side.
7:42 PM
Delete"...puts the low-income earner into a ghetto like Iris."
If you think Iris is a ghetto, then you don't get out much. I think it's your prejudice talking and from the sound of it, it's heavy prejudice. I'm not in the biz or a city worker but that doesn't really matter, does it, because your mind is pretty well made up and facts just won't make a difference.
Ah, it is you who is prejudiced, 10:42. The folks in Iris should have had standalone homes integrated into the high-density projects the developer profited from big time.
DeleteOr do you agree with Gaspar who thinks "they" can't maintain a yard or buy enough furniture to fill a house and that they're actually being done a favor by putting them in tight quarters?
You think they belong packed together like sardines where everyone else can point to the apartments with pride and say "look what we did for them?"
The attitude was clear with the Chelsea guy that night at council: "We keep those people under control."
How many times do you need to hear the real story before you stop repeating the Shea/David Meyer version?
The only reason to insist on 3000 sq. ft. homes for low income people is to make the project financially not viable.
DeleteThat's why the City lost in court, and recinded the requirement.
7:07 AM
DeleteI see you keep repeating this canard. For one thing the Iris apartments was previously approved with only two units as affordable and the rest market rate. So twenty people, who would presumably not be one of "those people", would be paying market rates to be "packed together like sardines". Your argument is laughable. While the Chelsea guy did say that they made sure that their tenants were well behaved, he never said "those people". You obviously know nothing about affordable housing and you ooze with prejudice. I know the real story.
Let me guess: as told to you by David Meyer?
Delete8:15 - where did you get the 3,000sf number from - your tail area?
DeleteThe city didn't lose, it settled - with 3/5 council vote. Let me ask you this: why is what's legal in many cities up and down the coast somehow illegal here? Why isn't the BIA suing those cities, too? Answer: the BUA knows Encinitas will roll over for them.
Quickest to roll: the three "preservationists" Kranz, Shaffer, Blakespear.
2:51,
DeleteIn answer to your question. . .
7:07 said "Or do you agree with Gaspar who thinks "they" can't maintain a yard or buy enough furniture to fill a house. . ."
The context of that comment was a discussion about a proposed change to the inclusionary housing policy to require that the low income units be a similar square footage relative to the market rate units.
In Encinitas today, most new developments are building homes at 3000 sq ft or more.
Again, the only reason to require construction of a "low income" 3000 sq ft home is to make the footprint bigger, the construction cost higher, and the financial viability of the whole project questionable.
In this case, the city settled, because it was clear they would lose. Would you rather they fight it, rack up huge legal bills, and still lose?
Correction:
DeleteDensity Bonus affordable units, not inclusionary housing.
Is the hole being dug at the end of E St. affordable?
DeleteCity's definition of "affordable" is - and I quote: "up to 120% of the median income."
DeleteY'all still good with that as a reason to ruin our town?
8:39AM I don't feel guilty that I can live here and others can not. We saved our money and went without. We left LA because it is UGLY and crowded, and we don't want that to happen here. What part of that don't you understand?
ReplyDeleteThis is a free country, your selfish view does not mean that other folks can't move to Encinitas. If you don't want crowded move to Salton City. If you don't want ugly go to Portland.
Delete9:04,
DeleteWhen you moved here, was Encinitas 100% homogeneous white SUV-driving yuppies who lived in faux Tuscan brown stucco boxes?
Are you a white SUV-driving yuppie in a Tuscan box?
Maybe you do support changing Encinitas--just to some other vision. The fact is, our zoning hasn't changed much, but boy howdy has the town: demographically, economically, physically--in every way.
The question is not whether or not to change, but rather into what? And how best to manage and mitigate change.
10:35 AM I did not say others cannot move here.The idea of "affordable housing is a damn myth and you know it. If you enjoy high density and traffic so much, why don't YOU move someplace like LA or Huntington Beach?
Delete9:04 When I moved here in the early 80s' there were plenty of yuppies living here. I am not in favor of how our city wants to change things, like going from R-3 to R-30 for example. What I drive or live in is beside the point.Please give up trying to be a psychic and don't quit your day job.
I am not in favor of going along with the myth and others I talk to aren't, either.
DeleteThis thing is going down in flames.
When you moved here in the 80s, you were part of the largest construction/population growth/urbanization cycle Encinitas has ever seen.
DeleteThat population growth cycle changed this town far more profoundly than anything proposed in the HEU.
YOU changed Encinitas.
Now you want to "preserve" it?
8:07 AM "YOU changed Encinitas". Hilarious. You aren't a psychic but you sure have a future in stand up comedy! Still, don't change your day job being a troll for the HEU boosters.
Delete10:41, what you did is called a "non-denial denial."
Delete7:09 doesn't change the fact you're a HEU troll,
Delete1:52 PM
DeleteMaybe 7:09 doesn't drink the kool-aid. How pathetic it is that someone who disagrees with you has to be a troll. God forbid that someone who thinks for themselves comments on this blog.
There are two types of posters here: those who are on to the city BS, and those who defend it. Never the twain shall meet.
DeleteCorrection. It is all of us on one side and Mikey, Marco, and City staff on the other side. We are the volunteers trying to protect our neighborhoods, and the others are paid by developers or are posting during work time.
DeleteThe county of SD gets its allotments from the state. It then falls into the SANDAG and other bottomless pits for passing these onto other communities in the county.
ReplyDeleteEquating Encinitas with downtown will never fly. They can have their urban solutions. We will not and should not go easily into the same.
Our Planning Dept should recognize this difference, if they weren't so easily bought off. That council allows this after securing our votes, well...........????
We should expect our elected reps to actually represent us. What a novel thought! Defending our community is the least we should expect from them. It appears even that is too much to expect.
Without candidates who will stand up for the residents, we have what we have.
One of these days..........
Yea, Kranz and Shaffer were heralded as advocates of the people - look what happened when they got in. $tock$ was so repugnant, that anything looked better. The developers will always have their shills running for office - that's were the money is.
DeleteStocks took the max allocation and then some and Shaffer has not once tried to get it reduced.
DeleteSomeone tell me the difference between them...because I can't see it.
The staff report basically strips Prop.A. Citizens voted for Prop. A and won. Part of Prop A. was the removal of what the staff has now put back into the HEU. It is on the last page so it begs the question "How many people will see it"? If you are so inclined there is a new Facebook group called Encinitas Votes that the EU took the information from and passed it along. Thanks EU. If you don't want to see Prop A completely gutted, you might consider making your voices heard loud and clear. One of the people running for Council is on the Planning Commission. Her name is Tasha Horvath and she is in favor of overturning Prop. A. She is taking her lead from Lisa Shaffer and Teresa Barth. Just sayin'
ReplyDeleteThanks 2:31pm. Just when I was beginning to believe Tasha might be the one to defend the residents from her council seat. She has ruled in favor of residents a few times but also against us a few times. She is a sharp cookie and keeps herself informed but that doesn't excuse some of her positions. I knew she was close to barth and a couple of others whom she would be better off not emulating, so we don't have a continuation of what we need to root out of city hall.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who isn't completely clear about their support for Prop A cannot be trusted. Simple as can be. What say you Tasha? Will you commit to defending us and preserving the intent of Prop A? Anyone think they can get a definitive answer out of her on this one question.? Yea or nay couldn't be clearer. Any reaching for a non answer when asked will be the answer.
5:02- One can sometimes tell things about a person or politician by the company they keep. Tasha had her kick off campaign yesterday. Among those attending were Shaffer, Kranz, and Barth. Take it from there.
ReplyDeleteBarth still trying to influence city policy... Barth go away and take Shaffer with you. Fools.
DeleteTake Tasha the would-be successor while you're at it.
Deletesorry to hear this about Tasha. Thanks for keeping us informed.
DeleteThree blind mice.
ReplyDeleteJust received Gaspar giant 4 color ad sponsored by Lincoln Club of San Diego. Shows a traffic cone sitting in a 2" pot hole....LOLOLOLOLLLLLLL. Most potholes in Encinitas are at least 4 inches and one near my home is 6". The pothole near my mothers home is filled by the neighborhood not the city, the city is too lazy to fix it.
ReplyDeleteGaspar the fixer of POTHOLES...NOT!!!
Some developer named Mavis (sp?) wants all the housing jammed into his family's 4 acre site near Manchester and El Camino. His buddy, Mike Andreen, gave him his speaking time so that developer boy could drone on for about 10 minutes. I'm surprised Gaspar wasn't there as a cheerleader! The lagoon be damned - let those herons move to the dump. Mavis's motivation?? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
ReplyDeleteOh, they've been coming out of the woodwork for awhile now - "take me, take me!"
DeleteMikey did not donate time free of charge, that much you can count on. He's going to cash in if this thing passes.
Vote NO.
Some young guy said his generation appreciates "small" - more hamster cages for the kiddies a'coming up - Pacific Station II, also known as the Mausoleum Crypts!
DeleteYoung guy = a plant. Read the latest stories on millennials wanting sardine cans a lie.
Deletewho cares about the HEU?
ReplyDeleteI just want my sidewalk steam cleaned.
#important
old news that never was, 9:23. aren't you off the clock now?
Delete9:23pm. Not only has Mikey crawled out from under his slimy rock and showed up at the Planning Commission meeting, he chimes in on an idiotic slam that was worth less than he is could ever ascribe to be. Real classy Mikey. Surprising? Not a bit.
ReplyDeleteWhere he goes, you can bet something only worth lining bird cages will soon follow. His reputation always precedes him and anybody who associates with him will not be able to wipe the stench off. We have long memories and it does no good to see him slither back into our environs.
11:02- I couldn't make the meeting. What did Mikey do or say this time?
ReplyDeletePeople 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.
ReplyDeleteMore on Thursday, but public input is over.
Public input isn't over, it never was. All the "workshops" were for show. The Planning Commission ones are for show. "Staff" has had the Council's full blessing from the beginning. Will be interesting to see if they support the Commission's recommendation - remember, that's all it is - and remove the clause raised last night.
DeleteThere is more than one Prop A killer clause in the policy docs we'll be voting on and staff/Council are no doubt feeling satisfied that unhappy residents raised only one.
Here's a request for all you HEU boosters: where are all the people who bought "affordable units"? Do you know any?
ReplyDeleteThere is a homeless guy sleeping in Cottonwood Creek - he said that is almost affordable. He can't get the raccoon to ante up his share tho....
DeleteSame guy parked on the internet at the library all day? Notice there is a rent a cop on duty at library now, how many libraries need this? We are a homeless magnet and mismanaged.
ReplyDeleteThe ashram at the south end of town has a rent-a-cop on duty. This is the price you pay if you let the general public have access. Occasionally the crazies get in and create a commotion. The library is open to all, so it is a crap shoot on who enters the door.
ReplyDeleteAnyone remember the last time they heard a meadowlark or killdeer bird call? They were the requiem songs of the open space, now silent. This plan intends to further deafen the sounds of Nature and acquiesce to greed.
ReplyDeleteNice
ReplyDelete