Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Gee, thanks.

This item has made a few local news stories, so obviously someone on the city council thinks it's a meaningful concession they got in surrendering to developers.
As part of its settlement, the city will require appliants to provide information that will show that any incentive or concession will reduce the cost of a housing development.
What is the point of that? Obviously, if the city waives parking requirements, setbacks, height limits, etc., it's going to reduce the cost to the developer. This is supposed to be considered a win that the developer has to state in writing that the giveaways helped lower his costs?

72 comments:

  1. OK, so the developers have to open their books and show several years of tax returns. Fat chance, not even all Presidential candidates do this!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Check out the language of Meyer's rewriting of the EMC density bonus rules. The existing code uses the word "evidence", and Meyer replaces it with "information". I think "information" is less specific than "evidence" and thus makes the developer's job much simpler.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This council turned tail long ago. They don't represent us, they represent Meyer and a handful of other developers.

    They GUARANTEED the outcome of the November election when they settled with the BIA last year. When are they going to let us in on their little secret: our votes won't count.

    Kranz, Shaffer, Blakespear all signed the agreement. Write them and ask them when they were planning on telling you your vote, whether yes or no, was handed to the BIA last summer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The day of reckoning is near for all you “elitist” activist opposed to a simple housing element update.

    You have opposed every effort for 20 years; you have defamed and harassed every single past and current council person, city managers, planning directors, planning staff, consultants and state law. Your game is predictable in it’s repetition, the outcome is assured.

    You ridicule, you lampoon, you distort the facts, you pound the drum of incompetence, your attempt to destroy people. What you don’t do is look in the mirror and apply the same effort to the person looking at you, for you are the righteous one and the cause is worth tearing apart pretty much everyone else.

    The HEU is such a low hurdle to get over, so low that every other city except ours has done it without much trouble.

    At the end of the day, in spite of all your acidic words placing blame elsewhere, if a no vote prevails, it will be you that decides the HEU issue, and you that deserves what consequences await. They will be strong and will be harmful to Encinitas for decades.

    Your day of reckoning nears.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Butthurt much?

      Delete
    2. 9:13 Go play in the traffic.

      Delete
    3. HEU will fail in the fall and you know it already. The mirror is waiting for you, take a look and reflect what you have done and become.

      Delete
    4. 9:13 must be Jimmy Swaggart on the pulpit reading from the Old Testament. Repent you sinners! Look in the mirror! Your day of reckoning nears!

      A "simple housing element"? It it were simple, and the city had approached it genuinely in the residents' best interests, it would have been done many years ago and at much less cost.

      Delete
  5. 9:13 AM about 30 other cities haven't done it, either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a small percentage of cities in CA. Is Encinitas willing to hire the lawyers to fight the state and get rid of the HEU requirement? The requirements may suck, but so does non-compliance.

      Delete
    2. 9:31,

      Most of those cities already had Housing Elements approved by HCD, then fell out of compliance briefly by missing refresh dates, and are now actively working to complete their update to restore compliance with state law.

      That's very different from a city which has never been in compliance, and is attempting to permanently ignore its legal obligations without consequences.

      It's like the difference between a citizen who misses the April 15 deadline to file taxes, but actively works to remedy the problem, vs. a citizen who declares they are immune from all form of taxation forever.

      Different scenarios that lead to very different legal consequences.

      Delete
    3. Our city screwed up this one by lying and slipping all manner of developer gimmes and resident takeaways into this plan. Better luck next time, the thing's going down in flames.

      And anyway: the city already signed with the BIA to guarantee the HEU's passage. What will the "legal consequences" be when the thing fails? What will voters think come November when they've been schooled that Kranz, not running from a safe Council seat, signed away their right to vote last year?

      Delete
    4. Our city has NOT always been out of "compliance." When we incorporated, we were not out of compliance. State Legislators, probably in bed with special interests, make new rules that create a "solution" that doesn't solve the alleged problems of population growth.

      The growth rate has been exaggerated. Drought and crumbling infrastructure must be weighed in the balance. Consequences of densification, with increases in traffic and more rapidly deteriorating roads, would be addressed in any court hearing.

      All existing accessory units should be counted, and the potential for such units. R-15 should "by proxy" be considered R-30, because in Encinitas, one accessory unit is PERMITTED BY RIGHT in all residential zones.

      We don't need more housing; we need more integrity of public officials, and conflicted consultants/contractors.

      9:13 sounds obsessed and deranged, to me. What is it that you are reflecting, oh bitter one.

      Delete
  6. 9:13am. Well, aren't you a real piece of work. If you and your fellow staff members or the Meyer types are feeling so threatened by the upcoming failure, there is no one to blame but yourselves. You have lied and lied trying to hide what the plan will bring to this community.

    Anyone who loves our town will be fighting to preserve the character that this stinker will destroy. Bringing only urban solutions to our precious city has been your downfall.

    The tide is rising and you will be swept aside as every neighborhood will be learning what is really at stake. This plan had a chance to be acceptable on several fronts but you chose to obfuscate rather than produce something that this community made clear years ago through Prop A would be acceptable.

    Mandating a reasonable 25% of density projects include low income housing was defeated by council and by Tasha on the Planning commission. The shame on the Planning Commission was that they had a majority in support of passing this on to council and one lone commissioner Tasha, swayed the majority to buckle, except for Drakos. Thank you for that lone vote.

    Finally, sewing our city is the result of every council member, planning commission member, planning dept staff from high to low, selling us out. We are not going to take their whoring out any longer to developers interest. Bless our civic heroes. Too bad none of our elected reps fall into the same category. Shame on all of them. They had choices that could have been palatable but chose otherwise. Fire them all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 9:13.... You are too funny. Thanks for the laugh .

    Voting no on any increase in density is good for Encinitas .


    Let other towns become like Huntington Beach, not Encinitas .

    HugS

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hate any mandate for affordable housing. And I hate for increased density by state. I love the current character of Encinitas and do not want to come like Huntington Beach I will be voting against any increase in density

    I would also vote against any increase in affordable housing subsidies for affordable housing programs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. I want the character and zoning to remain as is. But, we are told that this is unwinnable in court. Do you know of legal experts who say this is winnable?

      Delete
    2. Do you know if any legal experts who can tell you it isn't?

      HCD says the State will never she a City. That leaves low-income "advocates " like Meyer to potentially sue. IF we were to lose, per HCD a judge would call a building moratorium until we pass an HEU.

      To which I say a big "UM, OKAY!"

      Delete
    3. The State will never "sue" a city....

      Delete
    4. 1:37 - Do you think the city can win against Meyer? Is there a legal theory that works?

      UM, OKAY! is great if there is a way to win.

      As a voter, I want to know if this is winnable. Our elected representatives and city staff, say no, not winnable. All of them. They could be wrong, but it would be great for a lawyer to explain why in the argument against on the ballot measure.

      Delete
    5. The city turns tail when Meyer shows his face. I don't know what to tell you. City counsel seems to roll over for the Ecke name.

      Ask independent counsel and they'll say rolling over for Meyer is absurd.

      Don't be cheap and lazy. Go pay for an opinion instead of asking s bunch of anonymous posters with whom I have s feeling you won't agree anyway.

      Clearly the Hymettus attorney doesn't agree with the city's counsel, but something tells me you wouldn't believe him, either.

      Delete
    6. 1:37, the moratorium is on city-issued permits. The court would take over that authority and issue permits on behalf of the city.

      In what fantasy land do you live that the penalty for obstructing development is a construction moratorium?

      Delete
    7. That is what the deputy director of HCD said. In what fantasy land do you think you know better?

      Delete
    8. You misunderstood. I was there.

      Think about it.

      Can you name another example where a consequence of violating a law is the violator getting exactly what they want?

      You are hearing what you want to hear.

      Maybe you should just let the grown ups talk for a while.

      Delete
    9. 6:35

      You are excatly right, there are consequences for breaking the law. Staff and council are why we are out of complinace and are the ones responsible, not the residents. They will be the ones suffering the consequences, hopefully jail time. A judge will not punish residents when it is proven that the process has been corupted. A stoppage of building would be put in place while the coruption mess is unraveled.

      Delete
    10. You wee there - up on the dais or sitting with "staff?" Those opinions don't count, too many lies.



      Delete
  9. The council has everyone so petrified of lawsuits if the HEU doesn't pass in November. I say, let's find out and deal with it then.

    All this gloom and doom coming from council doesn't give me much confidence in their decision making. They all rely upon the city attorney and we all know he is out to make money for himself.

    The city manager is another story. She seems like a weak link and doesn't appear to show much leadership. The only thing so far that I've seen her get really excited about is handing out an award for "employee of the year".

    The citizens need to stand their ground and fight this ill conceived plan.

    Vote NO on the HEU.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Study her demeanor at meetings - she is a milk toast and sublimates herself to the council. Don't expect any reforms or changes coming from her - she will acquiesce to the power brokers and their minions.

      Delete
    2. Sublimates?

      Delete
    3. 1:26 PM Look it up, Webster.

      Delete
  10. Hell no on increasing density .

    The city should be focused on purchasing more open space not turning our city into Huntington Beach .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Vote hell no on increased density or section 8.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Section 8 would actually provide affordable housing, something the council has shown they're not willing to do by not conditioning any of the upzoning affordable.

      They're all about giving market-rate units to carpetbaggers and Meyer. One hand washes the other, don't you know.

      Delete
    2. Okay, I guess I agree with you.

      If they are using tax money to provide subsidized housing to fish, then I think they have gone too far.

      I'll just take your word for it.

      Delete
  12. 8:04- Unfortunately, and I know you will disagree, I don't think we have enough Section 8 housing anywhere in San Diego. There is a 10 year wait just to get something. Section 8 is truly affordable housing, but the State has some pretty stringent rules for landlords who would like to provide Section 8 housing. I check into it ans was not willing to spend thousands of dollars to meet the requirements set by the State. Some of these requirements are just plain crazy if you ask me. In Encinitas, from what I can gather, only people who live in Encinitas can get Section 8 housing in Encinitas. How is that for a double bind? Please correct if I am wrong, but that is my understanding of Section 8 as told to me by a city staffer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you think and depend on the Government, you lose all freedom. Do you want to be a drone?

      Vote no to any Government Program. Let America remain free!!

      Delete
    2. Section 8 is a Federal Program, with the monies administered through our local Housing Authority.

      Delete
  13. You know what I haven't seen?

    Encinitas staffers trying to address the blight caused by all Oside, LA, and Carsbds commuters hauling ass though our town instead of using I5.

    Why would Staff look out for our interests?

    Could it be they live in Carlsbad and San Marcos and don't give a shit about Encinitas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reality is that when I-5 is slowed, or stopped up, people will use Highway 101. It's a major arterial.

      Leucadia is not blighted. The same people who were pushing for Leucadia to be declared blighted so that they could be on or strongly influence, a local redevelopment agency (RDAs have since been abolished by Jerry Brown), now want to force permanent obstructions on our State Highway (currently maintained by the City, but belonging to the general public).

      These "blight-heads" are the real obstructionists, those who want to declare narrowing our highway from four lanes to two lanes, to be "traffic calming," so they can get negative environmental impact declarations, further encouraging and subidizing development through unwanted densification.

      Delete
    2. 1:12am - You have one twisted mind, and no common sense.

      Delete
    3. Actually, 1:12 is exactly right.

      Delete
    4. hardly. Cut through traffic is greatly lowering the quality of life in this town, lowering property values, causing more pollution in our neighborhoods, and making more stress for Encinitas home owners.

      Delete
    5. 10:08

      You're gonna prohibit citizens from driving on public roads?

      I use Leucadia Blvd. to cut through to El Camino Real. Is that OK with you?

      Delete
    6. Fine w me. Cut thru traffic is traffic that should be on I5 if it had capacity.

      Delete
    7. 4 lanes planned for Leucadia Blvd. between ECR and the 101. It's to accommodate the 1,000s of daily trips from the prison blocks the city wants us to approve along Leucadia Blvd.

      So 4 lanes hit the 101 and then what?

      Delete
    8. Leucadia Blvd is at least four lanes from El Cam Real to Orpheus. At Orpheus it narrows to two lanes toward Hymettus, then it's a mix of two or three to 101. There are no plans to change that configuration.

      During the years it will take to widen the freeway, plug-ups there will be worse than now, pushing more traffic onto Leucadia 101, which will make it worse than now. If Leucadia 101 is made two lanes throughout, the jams will be worse still.

      If more freeway lanes provide relief, it will last only a few years. That's what's happened everywhere freeways have been widened.

      People drive 101 for local access, because it's more pleasant than the freeway even when that's flowing, but more so when the freeway plugs. Freeway jams will still happen when it's wider, and drivers will still divert to 101. If 101 is then two lanes, its jams will back up single file twice as far as they do now.

      Southbound 101 now regularly jams from the light at Leucadia Blvd. six blocks to Jupiter, often 10 blocks to Grandview and sometimes 1.2 miles to La Costa Ave. If southbound 101 becomes one lane, those jams will double in length.

      8:54 above mentioned common sense. There is none in what's proposed for the freeway and Leucadia 101.

      Delete
    9. When they narrowed the northbound side from two lanes to one, there was no difference.

      Traffic flow and road capacity aren't as simple as you seem to think.

      Delete
    10. 1:12 Agreed. First step is for everyone to stop calling Leucadia "funky". Just stop. If WE Leucadians want to do so, then so be it, but for it to appear in a LEGAL DOCUMENT is all kinds of wrong.

      Delete
    11. 10:23 city worker busy on the weekend. You people get paid extra for that?

      The plans I saw open up four lanes from Orpheus all the way to the 101. When are residents going to be informed that eminent domain''s taking their land?

      Delete
    12. Do 5:45 and 1:47 actually live around here?

      5:45 Total nonsense. There are no plans to widen Leucadia Blvd. from Orpheus to 101. You're making shit up.

      1:47 The big problem on Leucadia 101 is southbound north of the light at Leucadia Blvd. It backs up whenever the southbound freeway slows to a crawl for whatever reason.

      One-laning northbound north of Leucadia Blvd. made a left turn out of side streets from Diana north harder and more dangerous than before. And, incidentally, one-laning a major arterial in the Coastal Zone without the Coastal Commission's approval is illegal.

      Delete
    13. The results of traffic surveys taken during peak periods, including peak holiday periods, when school is out, are not yet in. There was never an accurate "before" done, to compare before one lane was deleted for motorists northbound on 101, to after. And again, this does not factor in the southbound back-ups that already exist on 101, through Leucadia.

      You can't say there hasn't been an increase in back-up. That's just speculation, because you don't have accurate traffic readings.

      One can look at the roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd, which have a stop sign between them and traffic signals on either side, one at Vulcan and Leucadia Blvd, and one at Leucadia Blvd and Orpheus. DAILY, I see traffic backed up, and stopped WITHIN the roundabouts. I also see motorists not letting cars in, autos completely stopped at Hymettus and Leucadia Blvd., and Hermes and Leucadia Blvd.

      We should have more studies on our existing roundabouts before forcing more on unwilling locals. Those who favor them keep mouthing the words, "they've been thoroughly vetted," when the surveys have been inaccurate, with data tweaked and massaged by roundabout lobbyists.

      When someone spells out why something doesn't make sense, and gives the details of why the five, now six roundabout plan WASN'T well vetted, in that the general public was never independently assessed through a scientific, objective sampling, then the one or two on this blog who want to profit from roundabouts throw in red herrings about cut through traffic. You don't have "cut through" traffic on a major arterial. It was and is supposed to remain public access for commuters, as well as to provide beach access, and destination access for businesses and the many residences west of 101 in Leucadia.

      The cut through traffic locals are concerned about is the residential street traffic from people trying to get away from endless snarls on 101. Many wouldn't have the choice to drive east to I-5, because we live west of 101. Also, people, including tourists, enjoy touring on the highway, but would want to stay away from coastal Leucadia if they kept getting caught up in reoccurring gridlock/traffic jams.

      Delete
    14. The driver in the roundabout has right of way, and is expected to continue moving through the circle to the appropriate exit.

      Drivers joining the roundabout do not have right of way, and are expected to wait for a gap in traffic to join.

      What you seem to be suggesting ("not letting cars in"), is that cars in the circle should stop to allow others to enter. That's completely wrong, against the rules of the road, and will get you rear ended, as no one behind is expecting a driver to stop once established in the roundabout.

      Please, stop commenting until you educate yourself. Just go watch a traffic camera from the UK, and count how many drivers stop until he roundabout to "let cars in."

      Doesn't happen.

      And everyone who drives Leucadia knows it's the lights and stop signs causing the backups--the circles are way better.

      Delete
    15. Long live roundabouts and YES, Leucadia is blighted!! The north end of 101 is as ugly today as 50 years ago. A combination of obstructionist crap lovers and do nothing councils that think buying a shitty school will make the city nicer are idiots.

      Delete
    16. Marvy's baaaack! Anyone beside Marvy who actually lives in Leucadia takes offense at the blighted name calling. If you want it to look like the OC, 9:37, move there. Don't bring it to us.

      Delete
    17. Lowering property values? Apparently you haven't been checking the listings. Traffic is an issue, and will remain an issue. The keys to improving traffic in Leucadia are A.) Somehow removing the train from the at grade position at the 101 and Leucadia and B.) adding traffic calming to 101 and Leucadia (roundabouts)....

      Delete
    18. P.S., I'm a leucadia local and I like roundabouts. You could never make a left on Hymettus because of the traffic going 50+ down the hill. Now you can. Traffic can and will back up at the roundabouts, but this is do to unavoidable volume and the passing of the train, which re-sets the light sequence on 101...

      Roundabouts work, but they're not magic.

      Delete
    19. And five of them in less than a mile is stupid.

      Delete
    20. Yes, and it's fiction that roundabouts would eliminate stops for the "cross-streets," that don't really cross 101. Because, as you say, drivers in the roundabout have the right of way, and when traffic is heavy, most people don't stop before entering the roundabout to let the side street traffic through.

      Traffic is backed up, daily, from the traffic light at Orpheus so close to the roundabout at Hymettus. Traffic is already backing up on 101 around the signal at Leucadia Blvd. That is why it was recommended that the first part of the phasing in of the Streetscape, the lane diet, not start until north of Leucadia Blvd. So why is the first roundabout to be at El Portal, now? There is already a no left hand turn sign for southbound motorists during peak morning rush hour. Why have a roundabout when traffic is already backing up, and there is basically only north/south traffic flow? For those turning onto the highway from west of 101, or turning west, to residences or beaches, there is already a median merge lane at El Portal. There are always breaks in traffic because of the traffic light at Leucadia and 101.

      The roundabout at La Costa is being postponed to coincide with future development planned there. Any "traffic calming devices" at El Portal and 101 should be postponed until either the train is buried or the underpass for pedestrians and bicyclists is installed. That would require a signalized crosswalk, just as there is at underpass in Cardiff, closer to Swami's.

      Six roundabouts on 101 is overkill. At the workshop in February of 2008, the only roundabout with "enthusiastic" support was one for Grandview. Other roundabouts got lukewarm support from just a few individuals.

      Business property owners would be receiving an unconstitutional gift of public funds to have more parking, that the City would have to lease from NCTD, without these special interests having to pay special tax assessments, as was done in Solana Beach for their railtrail corridor improvements.

      Roundabouts definitely aren't magic, and one-lane, T intersection roundabouts, with no through-way cross-streets, five in a row, would definitely not work for the majority of locals, including local commuters.

      Roundabouts may work in some localities, but they wouldn't work here for the greatest common good. Leucadia Blvd. is a traffic nightmare with 10 out-of-sequence traffic signals, a stop sign and two roundabouts, which are backed up to a dead stop, daily.

      City traffic engineers should look at their own three and ten year traffic collission studies, and further study the collisions reported at existing roundabouts in this city before forcing more on a largely unwilling public. If roundabouts are so desireable, then why are the special interests groups, including LTC, with incestuous ties to L101MA, not in favor of putting the question on the ballot?

      Delete
    21. The real obstructionists are those who would place five obstructions on our public highway, in the form of one-lane roundabouts, which would reduce our major arterial to a two lane road, one lane northbound and one lane southbound, which is NOT what the general public wants.

      Delete
    22. I'm "general public," and I regularly rent cars in countries with many more roundabouts than we are contemplating. From experience, I can assure you, your fears and predictions are not founded. I enthusiastically support roundabouts on 101.

      I would encourage others to travel and gain first-hand experience and observe how roundabouts dramatically improve traffic flow.

      If you can't travel, just heighten your awareness of what's happening on Leucadia Blvd by thinking about the following questions as you drive:

      1.) If your car comes to a stop on LB between I-5 and 101, is the first stopped car in line at a roundabout, or is it one of the traditional signs or signals causing the backup?

      2.) During periods of heavy traffic, you might have to wait a minute to join the circle from a cross street. Is the average wait time longer or shorter than what you normally experience at the lights on LB?

      3.) At a stop sign, you need to stop 100% of the time; as you enter a circle, you only need to stop if there's a car in the circle blocking your path. What percentage of the time do you avoid stopping? Is it greater than zero?

      4.) Would you rather see plants and palm trees in silhouette against the ocean horizon, or metal poles and signal lights?

      5.) The dumbest person in France has learned how to safely navigate roundabouts. Do you think you are smarter than the dumbest person in France?

      Delete
    23. What about the dumbest person in Indiana?

      http://www.carmel.in.gov/index.aspx?page=123

      - The Sculpin


      Delete
    24. What do five roundabouts in 8/10 mile from La Costa Ave. to Jupiter St. achieve?

      Delete
    25. 3:31 They achieve gridlock. What, you're against that?

      Note that the Carmel, IN, roundabouts shown in the still photos, the diagrams and the animation (I can't get the videos to play) are large, four directions, and most are two lanes every way. None are the dinky, wheel-wiggle obstructions like those on Leucadia Blvd and Santa Fe.

      Roundabouts can be good road features if properly done. Those we already have and those proposed for Leucadia 101 aren't properly done. In fact, they're incredibly stupid.

      Tony Kranz should move to Carmel, IN, after he loses his council seat in November.

      Delete
  14. Back to the topic, "require appliants to provide information that will show that any incentive or concession will reduce the cost of a housing development" seems to say that a self-serving lie about profits is not acceptable. They should be required to open their books to prove this. Wild cost estimates are now subject to scrutiny. Do I read this wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  15. What is an "appliant"?

    Do I have one or more in my kitchen or laundry room?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12:01 Oh c'mon. It was a typo and you know it.

      Delete
    2. It's only a dropped letter, which is easy enough to do. Sometimes is makes a near pun. But just smile and move on.

      Delete
  16. Not to the blog english editor. They beleive U need to write like an English pro with no grammar mistakes period. If fact, you should re-write draft responses at least 10 times before a possible submittal.

    When you have no original thoughts, edit and complain...... thats all you have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you just grunt, 9:50? We'll still understand what you mean.

      Delete
    2. 10:46-

      Your english edits are a negative on this blog likely like you are to those around you.

      Delete
    3. If the English is standard, the meaning is clear. Otherwise, no.

      Delete
  17. Julie Thunder for mayor, or if not that, even a council seat. Come on down. We need you. We need your group. Our community needs citizens to run that will defend us.

    Ask any candidate if they will fight to defend Prop A.

    Ask any candidate if they will be voting no on the UP Yours Encinitas housing element plan.

    Ask any candidate if they will be voting no on renaming OUR library and selling out our public treasures for the sake of some deep pocketed self aggrandizing move.

    Ask any candidate if they will fight to keep the rail trail where it belongs on the 101.

    That should narrow the field dramatically, if not totally.

    I have a problem with the definition of stakeholders. We, this community, are the ultimate stakeholders. The mainstream organizations are funded by the city and every one of them are on board with the city's Up Yours Encinitas urban density plan. The LTC included. They use to have some independence but now they are in favor of whatever the city is seeking with the housing element. William Morission dropped out of the 101 Leucadia Mainstreet
    group to join the LTC and now he gets to be on the stakeholder group along with Carris.

    Stakeholders should consist of unencumbered citizens. It looks like there might be a couple of them that hardly anybody knows. Where did they come from? Do they show up at council meetings and Planning commission meetings to earn their spot on this ?stakeholder? list.

    This community is the stakeholder, not development and real estate interests and city funded groups.

    ReplyDelete