Sunday, June 19, 2016

Lying by omission

Seaside Courier on Encinitas residents supporting the city council's high-density development plan:
Other residents supported the update to foster diversity in Encinitas.

“There are some mega trends that are going to change our community character no matter what we do about the housing element,” said resident Greg Shannon. “Those are basically income inequality, climate change, public health, racism, and housing affordability.”
Could that be this Greg Shannon?
Cedros Crossing, the mixed-used train station project approved in concept in 1991, is brain-dead. The plug will be pulled at a City Council meeting tomorrow evening.

[...]

Greg Shannon, Shea's representative, will say that he has gone as low as he can go on the number of apartments. It's all about the money.

The council will say it has acted in good faith but it cannot accept 120-plus apartments. It's all about the mass.
A little context makes a big difference, eh?

119 comments:

  1. From Blakespear's newsletter:

    "High density is supposed to be more 'affordable' because the units are smaller and more compact. So the state gives us credit for 'affordable housing,' even though in reality what is more likely to get built in Encinitas is high-density, high-income housing."

    . . .

    "I hope we can find a better solution for the next housing cycle, likely in about eight years. With political will and leadership we can find a solution that provides actual affordable housing in Encinitas without having to upzone."

    In this housing cycle instead of meekly following a state law that doesn't achieve its purpose, why not have the courage to defy it and get it changed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disappointing language of "hope" and "supposed to be" from a so-called leader on the council.

      What we all have to remember is: this is what the council wants. This is what Manjeet & Crew want. It is what Blakespear wants.

      It is up to residents to send the message that what we want is not this plan. Just say "no."

      The city has declared war on residents with secretive contact with a handful of property owners, phony polls, and an ever-moving and ever-higher target of what is now called "attainable" housing.

      Fight back: say no and get your neighbors to do the same.

      Delete
    2. The next housing cycle for Encinitas will be in 4 years. If the HEU passes it will not be accepted until early 2017, too late for this cycle. The city will be put on a 4-year cycle. It really makes no difference in providing real affordable housing, as it will be just as difficult, or even more so, in four years. More luxury condos.

      BTW, Greg Shannon is the husband of former Planning Commissioner JoAnn Shannon from Cardiff. Google Greg Shannon and you will find he's involved in affordable housing projects in Tijuana.

      Delete
  2. Nice job with the dishonest quoting of Logan Jenkins column. People should read the whole column. By the way, I thought many of your readers distrusted him. Oh well, whatever is convenient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Shannon quote is about the project not penciling out after the city council reduced the size of the project. But I guess you believe developers should lose money on their projects.

      Delete
    2. No, you're missing the whole point.

      The guy portrayed by the Courier only as concerned "resident" is actually an executive in the business of high-density development.

      No one said anything about losing money on their projects.

      Delete
    3. Seems like a reach here guys. NIMBYs in panic mode is not an excuse to attack one of the 40+ speakers. Poor form. Half of which endorsed plan, anyway. Let the voters decide and leave it at that.

      Delete
    4. Disagree. If the dude has a major financial interest in high-density development but is presented as just another well-meaning neighbor, it's extremely relevant.

      Delete
    5. It's fair to look at who is making the comments; in this case, it's particularly relevant. Shannon's wife Joanne was a pro-development Planning Commissioner. Both of them stand to profit from the HEU's passage.

      "Consider the source" is a relevant phrase to keep in mind and the voters deserve to have all the facts. That includes understanding who's making the claims and where they're coming from.

      Disturbed residents are not going to "leave it at that." The city has a problem.

      Delete
    6. Shannon, as he stated, has lived in Cardiff for many years. So you're saying someone who is a developer, although Shannon doesn't work for Shea anymore, can't comment on plans affecting their community? If they do they are lying by default? How many other professions are automatically excluded from commenting because there is a potential for a conflict of interest?

      Bottom line you pejoratively dismiss his comments because he's a developer but you are pure in intent. How many commenters here live in a house built by a developer? If they really are true to their belief that all developers are bad they shouldn't buy a house built by a developer. It only encourages them to build more.

      I'm confident that you, EU, built your own place and are therefore free of any hypocrisy. And no, I'm not a developer or work in any related profession.

      Delete
    7. Let's use a little bit of nuance 12:06. There are some good developers, but Shea Homes works closely with David Meyer. Your claim that we can't expect some level of professionalism since every lives in a house built by a developer is really lame.

      Delete
  3. Blakespear and the rest of the council have resorted to using scare tactics in order to get the HEU passed in November.

    We are told by them that Encinitas is the only city in the entire state of CA not compliant with the state housing law. I beg to differ.

    We are told by them that if the HEU doesn't get approved that we will lose control to a judge who will decide what our city will look like. This is more BS.

    The council will continue to use this scare method, but do not be fooled by it.

    They need to say NO to the developers who want to ruin our city with their stack and pack designs and forever change our community character.

    We will make our voices heard in November.

    Vote NO on the HEU.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, I've got an open mind but would like to have some facts. Which other cities in Calif. don't have a certified HEU and has anything bad happened to any of them as a consequence?

      Granted, the lawyer hired by city staff described the bad things that could happen. Do we have a lawyer who can offer a better outcome and can he prove this by citing relevant statutes and case law?

      These facts need to be part of the ballot arguments opposing this thing. If there are no facts then there is no chance.

      Loud voices are nice but there is a need to convince the voters who are not yet very aware.

      Delete
    2. A google search will answer all your questions.

      Delete
    3. I believe Huntington Beach is not in compliance.

      Delete
    4. Pleasanton was brought up by the lawyer.

      Delete
    5. Pleasanton is not a comparable situation, although "staff" and now the lawyer love raising it as though it were.

      Delete
    6. 10:45 AM

      Pleasanton had a housing cap that prevented the city from allowing enough development to satisfy their RHNA requirement. The initial cap and subsequent updates were passed by initiatives. Since the cap prevented the city from complying with state law the judge declared the initiatives invalid. Pleasanton spent nearly $4M (not including staff time) to find that out.

      The point is although Prop A allows the city to meet state requirements through a vote, a negative vote may cause a judge to invalidate all or part of Prop A if the judge believes it is preventing Encinitas from complying with state law. Since there was already a suit by the BIA to compel Encinitas to satisfy state law, the settlement agreement includes the city's agreement to do so but is still under the jurisdiction of the judge. Failure to pass the HEU goes right back to court.

      Delete
    7. I'll take the judge, thank you.

      Delete
    8. 12:18 PM
      Existing housing element sees no constraint on housing and that includes the existing land use element requirement that up zones must be voted on by the people which was a requirement before Prop A.
      The MIG housing element in 2011 which used the existing housing element as its base saw no constraints by the land use element.
      However, the MIG housing element was loaded with mixed-use and the destruction of our commercial areas.
      Prop A is a restatement of our existing land use element that the people vote on up zoning.

      In comes Vina, Jeff Murphy, and Manjeet Ranu, and they declare that everything in our existing land use element is a constraint on housing. They make a big production that residents are "oh, so bad" to deflect from Murphy and Ranu's lies and council follows along.

      Delete
    9. 12:37 PM

      A judge isn't going to care how the HEU satisfies state law. Just that it does. This fantasy that a judge is going to be personally weighing the various options and picking the most "enlightened" one just doesn't have a basis in reality.

      Delete
    10. 1:09 PM

      Prior to Prop A, four-fifths of the council majority could approve a rezoning under certain conditions. They removed that a month before the June vote on Prop A.

      Delete
  4. Compliance status 5/25/16:

    http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-resource-center/plan/he/status.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  5. 5:20 Thanks for info. Clearly, there are CA cities that are not yet in compliance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its a moment in time, remember. Go ahead and ask HCD staff how many cities have never been in compliance.

      Delete
    2. City worker taking time out to be helpful.

      Delete
  6. Housing Element is a vote against Prop A and a vote for Developer Profits for Pacific Beach style development. Lets all vote no. Spread the word.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Seems as if there a lot of cities not in compliance. So, why did the attorney hired to write the ballot measure tell us there would be "sever consequences" for Encinitas if we don't vote YES on the HEU? Something is amiss.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The developer attorney hired by the council sues cities over their housing elements. The council wasn't smart enough to understand that.

      Delete
    2. Oh, they're smart enough. They hired the lawyer to back up what they want.

      It is we who need this penny to drop; the council knows exactly what it's doing. The city is paying for a predetermined opinion that they can then point to as support for why we supposedly must pass the HEU. It's the same story with the magically clean EIR.

      It doesn't matter what issues come to light, the city always has a ready answer for why it's hands are tied/this is the best we can do/we'll get sued if we don't pass the monstrosity.

      The council/city manager/staff are fully aware of what they're doing and are not going to do or say anything that doesn't support their plan.

      Vote "no" in November and get your neighbors to do the same.

      Delete
  8. My lord.

    A freight train just came blaring through town about 20 long horn strikes full throttle. What the hell ever happened to the quiet zones promised 6 years ago by gaspar and barth?

    More empty promises. We need leaders who can actually get things done.

    The one thing that happens in Encinitas is the City Manager makes more and more, retires earlier and earlier, and they sell out the citizens quicker and quicker.

    Our City Hall needs an anima.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's already animus at city hall. I'm here all week.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It seems pretty clear that many bloggers are opposed to the HEU. It would be beneficial (to me) to have 4 or 5 key "factual" talking points of why an uninformed resident should vote NO. These key points could be used in emails and neighborly conversations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:03 AM
      Here is a action the council approved that will start widening all the 2 lane roads in Encinitas.

      "TRF-7: Leucadia Blvd - Between Hymettus Avenue and Orpheus Avenue Improvement - Provide additional right-of-way and widen Leucadia Boulevard, between Hymettus Avenue and Orpheus Avenue, to a 4-Lane Collector."

      Delete
    2. There goes the neighborhood!!

      Delete
    3. 11:34 AM
      TRF-7 Leucadia Blvd requires additional right-of-way which means the city must condemn property to acquire enough land to widen the road. The city council is required within a short time frame to widen Leucadia Blvd. to conform to the mitigation staff suggested in their report.
      Council knew that approving promises in the HEU and EIR would change completely the character of each community and add more crowding and traffic to an already burdened infrastructure.

      Delete
  11. Where have you been, so called concerned resident? Any truly concerned residents knows that this process has been a sham and a shame from the get go.

    Empowering the planning dept. without oversight, while spending over 4 million bucks and counting to try to sell this stinker, all the while lying about how we will all be disenfranchised from any oversight by Manjeet and his senior planners, is on each and everyone of the councils heads and ours too if we allow this to become law.

    The fear mongering of what happens when this is dumped is just that. Don't buy into anything Planning is selling.

    Don't buy into anything our incumbent and declared candidates are selling about this HEU. How cozy that it is being called @At Home Encinitas. Not.

    If you want to protect our precious community from becoming an urban nightmare, there is one effective thing you can do. Vote this down!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. 11:28: I asked for 4-5 key factual talking points, not some emotionally charged lecture about how corrupt the Planning Dept and City Council are. That may be the case, but no uninformed voter will listen to your tirade. Thank you 11:34. More factual statements like that are helpful.

      Delete
    3. Don't be so lazy, 12:58. Read the resolution and watch the presentations of past planning commission and council meetings and take your points from the various speakers who punch holes in the city's stories.

      If you need "talking points" spoon fed to you, it is unlikely you'll actually make the effort of telling others about the sham.

      Go on, don't be so lazy.

      Delete
    4. 12:58 Something tells me that you are already aware of 4-5 key factual talking points and that it is your intent to try to engage conversation so that you can pick it all to death. Right???

      Delete
    5. Wow 2:41!! So let's see if I have this straight: you're opposed to the HEU, but you won't say why because just asking that question is an indication of intellectual laziness and not to be tolerated or condoned. OK, so let me take a stab at it - the residents need to vote against this because:
      1) a No vote prevents greedy developers from making a profit,
      2) a No vote will reduce bloated pension costs,
      3) a No vote will stop the corruption at the Planning Dept.
      4) a No vote will ensure that my neighbor can't build a 50 unit apartment complex on his 4,000 sf lot,
      5) a No vote will "throw it back to the courts" wherein a judge will rightly smack it to the city council for going against resident wishes for so long,
      6) A No vote will force SANDAG to get their numbers right", and
      7) a No vote will preserve community character.

      OK - this is satirical - but I understand concerned resident's point. I've been reading this blog for awhile and I still don't really understand the issue! My gut tells me the city has so poisoned the well that there's absolutely nothing they can do to make it right. Mass resignations wouldn't even do it - so vote No! I understand that this document is a way to identify areas with the potential for increases in residential density. For the most part, many of these areas are a no brainer. But for those areas to actually be built out involves a drawn out and complex process with multiple interested parties. It's just not going to happen overnight. But the well has been so poisoned that some have no confidence in any process, let alone what could happen in the future. So what do I tell my neighbors when this comes up? Nothing, because it never comes up.......

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    6. I am not 12:58 but will answer for him/her:

      Yes, I want your most salient points so I can respond with something just slightly enough off the mark so that I can keep the discussion shifting constantly. I will throw red herrings and I am one if the following: city worker, city council person (yes, they post here), or I stand to profit from the HEU's passage. Or a combination of these. I am sufficiently freaked out about the HEU's failure to try engaging folks here in the hope that I can dazzle everyone with my smoke and mirrors.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Such negativity!!! I thought this blog would be helpful, but I guess I should try another location to be able to concisely state factual opposition. If all of you people saying vote NO can't effectively communicate why, this resolution will pass.
      12:41-I don't consider my self lazy. I understand the concerns of Cardiff, but not the problems in other areas. I believe all communities need to work together to defeat this.
      3:33- No I don't plan to pick apart what the key issues are. I believe there needs to be "consistent thoughtful messaging" that is relayed to the uninformed public
      3:46-Wrong.


      Delete
    10. What's with all the comment removals, "concerned?"

      Go inform yourself by doing your own research. Something is very off about you and no one's interesting in helping to inform you. Very off.

      Delete
    11. no one's "interested"...I can't type when annoyed ;)

      Delete
    12. 5:40 Wrong again. The reason for the deletions...my computer is duplicating them. I figured you didn't want to read my comments twice!

      Delete
    13. Still go do your own research. Report back. Join the conversation and contribute something.

      Delete
  12. There are 34 cities in the State of California that are not in compliance with the HEU. I cannot help but wonder if they are all getting sued. There is some good information on the Facebook group "Encinitas Undercover". This topic is trending right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12:55 PM
      Thank you for that information.

      Also, The HCD goes by cycles of required updating. Except for San Diego/SANDAG most counties and cities have just finished their fourth cycle of reporting updating if needed and will be starting their fifth cycle.
      SANDAG (San Diego) cities finished its fifth cycle of updating (if needed) because they volunteered to "go first" before the other cities and counties in the state.

      Delete
    2. The Encinitas Planning Department has failed for the past six years. As far as I know, none of them have missed a single paycheck. Why is it our fault when they lie and erode the citizen trust through their poor performance week after week? Vote no!

      Delete
    3. 12:55 PM

      The state doesn't initiate a lawsuit, that's done by private parties. The Bay Area has very active affordable housing advocates that aren't hesitant about suing. Just because Encinitas has skated for all these years without being sued over the housing element doesn't mean it won't be as the BIA lawsuit demonstrates. That lawsuit isn't over. The city must comply with the settlement by adopting the HEU (council, then voters) or it's back to court.

      Delete
    4. 1:59 PM Then onto court it is.

      Delete
    5. Yep, back to court it is.

      And let's be clear about who these "advocates " are, shall we? They are cynical for-profit developers. Case in point: David Meyer.

      Delete
  13. So now it is revealed that Leucadia Blvd will become a four lane roadway, or just in parts? Boy, the news just keeps getting better and better, depending on one's perspective, and yes, I surely jest.

    We have the Planning Dept and the council to thank, once again. If this has just been revealed, who knows what else is lurking there in the thousand page over production that council has allowed Planning free reign with.

    I have to hand it them however, for uniting the populace, just not in the way they may have hoped for. Heads better be rolling when this goes down in flames.

    In the meantime, they will continue to spend hundreds of thousands of our dollars on a not ready for prime time plan, 4 million and counting by every week that passes.

    The trolls here really need to do a better job. You are so transparent and we are not fooled for a second. If you don't want to be called out, the answer is, Pay Attention. We all do, every week.

    Now is the time to come to the aid of our precious community by voting this stinker down! The sneaky way this has been brought out all along predetermined the coming no vote.

    There are many things Manjeet and his minions could have done to make this more palatable and instead they chose the path of subterfuge. For that alone, they should all be fired. As for the all too obliging council, well, none of them seems to have learned a thing.

    Just as every one of them turned their backs on their former supporters and tried to defeat Prop A, we now have a plan that attempts to do just that and so much more in the attempt to disenfranchise any future public vetting of whatever developers desire. Sickening. Shameful. Traitorous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey,hey, are you forgetting to thank the staff for doing the job for which they are over paid and over pensioned?? Damn right you are....

      Delete
    2. The massive upzoning as part of the HEU is driving this widening. There's a clue right there as to the huge increase in expected traffic that the city is NOT telling us about.

      Funny how this didn't come to light sooner. Add it to the list of reasons for saying no to the HEU.

      Delete
    3. When the council approved the HEU and the EIR suggested mitigation actions, they committed the city government and future councils to fulfill everything mentioned in the staff report of June 15 if the HEU passes in November. Every developer and non-profit could then sue on any of the promised actions and have the court force the changes on city government and ultimately all neighborhoods.

      Another reason to vote no on the HEU. Tell your friends and neighbors vote no.

      Delete
  14. 4:43- Wow, just Wow. I know you speak for me. I cannot articulate or write as well as what you just wrote. adding a bit more fuel, when this city incorporated it had 116 employees, after it was all said and done. That was in 1986. Now, here we are 30 years later, with a population of about 4000 more than there was then, and we now have over 200 employees.Fire and Sheriff are not included in either years. So, the only answer I can think of is "who wants to lost their job at the city?" The only person I can think of to get fired from Encinitas in recent years is Lisa Rudloff, the parks and rec. director.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4:51 here. I should have said "who wants to lose their job?'

      Delete
    2. Um, people with ethics? I would not do what the planners and engineers do when they twist facts and lie outright. And yes, I can tell you I know I would not do that. These folks are hired for their willingness to bend the truth to the breaking point.

      Notice Barth/Gaspar brought in Vina, Vina brought in Rudloff and Murphy, Murphy brought in Manjeet...they are hired for a reason. The reason is their ethics are malleable and this is known up front.

      Delete
    3. I think that 5:46 is being charitable on defining some of these people with malleable ethics. Those mentioned above have no professional standards and no consideration beyond what is in it for them. That position is not an ethical position at all.

      Delete
  15. Do you want to live in Huntington Beach or do you want to live in Encinitas?

    If you want to live in Encinitas, then don't vote for the housing element. It will quickly turn in Encinitas into Huntington Beach

    Vote no on the housing element update .

    People questioning this point are idiots and trying to promote the developers profit .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Take a look at the new construction next to the Potato Shack on 101, It is a huge, three-story mess that it in the Downtown Specific Plan that will allows for three-stories. Anyone who is on the fence should look on the map and imagine three-stories where identified. Contrary to the BS that Planning is telling everyone, once they are zoned at three-story, THEY WILL BE BUILT AT THREE-STORY.

      This is not just about views. Everyone in Encinitas will suffer the impact of increased parking, traffic, noise, tree assassination and other environmental abuses.

      What a small price to pay so that Encinitas planners can keep their six-figure jobs and their pensions and so that developers can make it "Pencil out," HOT!

      Delete
    2. The Downtown and Leucadia Specific Plans should have never allowed 3 stories. One thing I don't understand is once this was allowed, how come Prop A's 2 story limit was not considered taking of property rights. We are always told that once something is allowed, we can not undo it because it's taking of property rights. But there has been no lawsuit from property owners wanting to keep their property rights.

      Delete
    3. I thought the thing next to the Potato Shack was 2 above-ground stories plus a basement.

      If it's 3 above-ground stories, I would guess it was permitted before Prop A and thus grandfathered.

      Delete
    4. Two story with crowsnest. http://mayfaircommunities.com/capri/

      Delete
    5. We need to keep all high rise development along the coast. This is where the poor single moms will want to live and this is where the rich people are already stacked up high like in Cardiff. Leucadia with it's endless barrio apartment buildings (most disgusting curb appeal in all of Encinitas should be razed and then rebuilt to four stories...just cleanup that ghetto and bring in some racial groups to kick the trustfund surfers out of there.

      Delete
    6. It's precisely this that confuses this issue - 6:11 wrote:

      "Take a look at the new construction next to the Potato Shack on 101, It is a huge, three-story mess that it in the Downtown Specific Plan that will allows for three-stories."

      The posts below clearly show that this statement is not accurate - untrue - perhaps it could even be considered a lie.

      Prop A is working as it should - but is it 6:11's contention that in spite of this project conforming to Prop A, it's still representative of the "Huntington Beach-ing" of Encinitas? If that's the case, then in ^:11's opinion, it really doesn't matter how you vote on the HEU - Encinitas is already "turning into Huntington Beach"........

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    7. Sculpin strikes me as one of the developers who lives in Olivenhain.

      Delete
  16. There is discussion about the City Manager adding a new position to assist her. I recommend a different approach of scaling back the number of city employees and firing people so that we are down to the original number of 116. That would cut the number of employees in half and would make her job easier--even more so when the dead wood and the liars and abusers like Manjeet et al are taken out. Adding to the problem by bringing in more employees does not address the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wasn't there an assistant City Manager? And this position probably has a bevy of flunkies below it. The city is over staffed - clean out city hall.

      Delete
  17. The ballot proposal is not on the city council agenda for this Weds. It is a Yes or No vote. Given that I cannot find out what "affordable housing" really means, and i have done research, I will vote NO in November.Funny thing, the Council screwed this up big time, in my opinion. They did not send the right message to the people, and they continue to deceive us. The message could have been 'No more "in lieu of" fees for developers; set a dollar amount on what qualifies for low income housing; make sure they what is built as "affordable" is not built and then sold for a higher price the following year; and not built and then sold the following year; and become fully transparent in how this is working.
    There is also on the Council agenda this week a closed session to discuss David Meyers lawsuit against us. It will be interesting to see how they report out from it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should have said "IS on the agenda in this weeks meeting" sorry

      Delete
    2. As GASpar states each week: "The council met in closed session today at 4 p.m. regarding the lawsuit by DCM. The report from the meeting is there is no report."

      Piss or get off the pot council. This is more than ridiculous.

      Delete
  18. The housing element update removes affordable housing units and resplaces them with high priced 3 story dense condos.

    In November, vote to save our beach town from developers. Vote no on Encinitas becoming Huntington Beach vote No on the upcoming housing element.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The single best explanation of what is intended with 'affordable housing' can be outlined in this book title "Slaughter Of Cities: Urban Renewal As Ethnic Cleansing" https://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Cities-Renewal-Ethnic-Cleansing/dp/1587317702/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466528447&sr=8-1&keywords=slaughter+of+cities

    ReplyDelete
  20. Another city lie by omission -
    Legal notice in paper says public hearings on the HEU and EIR would be held by the Planning Commission on May 24, 2016 and May 26, 2016.

    At the beginning of the May 24th meeting PC chairman announces that public comment will only be taken that day. No public comment on Thursday, May 26th.
    Acting Director Manjeet Ranu prohibited public comment on Thursday.

    For residents who showed up on Thursday to make public comments, it was a surprise. Public hearings on the most important issue of the housing element update and the Director prohibits public comment at the May 26, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.

    Did the Council approve Director Ranu's action of prohibiting public comment at a public hearing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is lying? From the public notice mailer (second paragraph):

      "It is hereby given notice that Public Hearings with the Planning Commission (Commission) will be held on Tuesday, May 24,
      2016 and Thursday, May 26, 2016, and any additional hearings continued to a date specific the Commission determines
      necessary to discuss the project as described in this notice. The Commission meeting on May 24th will be devoted to receiving
      written and oral public input. The meeting on May 26th (and any additional hearings continued to a date specific the Commission
      determines necessary) will be devoted to deliberations so that the Commission can forward a recommendation to City Council."

      You either can't read (or didn't bother) or are being purposefully misleading.

      Delete
    2. Yeah.

      An excellent example of the behavior of this group.

      If we are generous, they lack understanding or intelligence. A more likely judgement is that they really don't care about the truth. If it creates an impression that the city is bad--even a false impression--that's all that matters.

      Ends justifying the means on steroids.

      Let's see if the response to this is to (a.) admit they were wrong and retract the accusations made at 10:07, or (b.) double down, change the subject, and/or attack me personally.

      Delete
    3. 12:44 PM
      Do you see anything in that notice that alerts the residents that public comment would be prohibited on May 26? Is "devoted" the city's new weasel word for prohibited?
      Devoted as in you are out of luck, public comment as required by law is prohibited at this May 26 meeting, and staff knew they could fool the residents by using the word devoted?

      Mike Strong told the residents who were at the May 26 meeting to speak that they could do it at the Council meeting June 15.

      Obviously, Council knew about Ranu prohibiting public comment at a public hearing.

      Delete
    4. 2:22 Has pulled out their judgment seat. Get a grip.

      Delete
    5. 2:54,

      Just to clarify:

      The notice clearly says that one meeting was dedicated to public input, and the other to deliberations.

      But based on that notice, you expected both meetings to be about public input.

      Have I got that right?

      Do you see the problem yet?

      Delete
    6. 3:44 chose option (b.). What a surprise.

      Delete
    7. The "tell" is the statement "Another city lie by omission", not saying the notice was confusing or poorly worded. The statement has an agenda, which is pretty common here, that citizens can't trust the city because it's always lying.

      Funny that there were only a few people at the May 26th planning commission meeting who thought that they would be able to speak. It appears most people understood the notice.

      If you're wondering, the notice in the Coast News said the same thing.

      Delete
    8. 4:51 PM
      If the May 26 Commission meeting was truly a public hearing, the PC chair would have opened that Thursday meeting for public comment. He didn't. Ranu had already given him his marching orders on Tuesday, May 24. NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENTS on Thursday!

      Delete
    9. 3:52 Gee, how did you figure that out so quickly?

      Delete
    10. Acting Director Ranu is really afraid of public comments.

      Delete
    11. I read the agendas. My interpretation was that this was going to be a very long meeting and that is why it was divided into two sessions, with one for public comment and one for deliberations. This seemed reasonable to me. What difference would it have made to have more comments on the 26th? I don't disagree that the acting director disrespects public comments. That is pretty clear. If I recall, this two session approach was used for the Hall Property (now the the Encinitas Community Park).

      Delete
    12. 7:38 PM
      The legal notice was worded in such a way as to give the impression that public comment would be received on both days.
      HCD wants to see a record that the residents were involved in giving their input on the housing element update. That's why Mike Strong begins his presentations with the number of workshops and sessions along with the number of attendees. It is an HCD requirement that public comments and involvement are essential. If none of the residents complaint about Ranu prohibiting public comments at a meeting that was noticed as a public hearing, Ranu can then tell HCD the city had two days of public comments at the Planning Commission level.

      Delete
    13. I will say the notice should have said that there would actually be only one hearing stretched over the two days. I went back and watched some of the video of both days. At the end of the first day (Tuesday) the chair closed the public comment portion and continued the hearing to Thursday to begin commission discussion.

      Delete
    14. 9:17 PM
      Actually, the public hearing is the public comment. When the public comments are finished, the chair closes the public hearing.
      Not always are there deliberations after the close of a public hearing. The chair can open the public hearing again for more public comments.

      Delete
    15. 9:50 PM

      "Actually, the public hearing is the public comment." Not true. The public hearing is the agenda report, staff presentation, public comment, deliberation and vote. It's all of these but you are correct that the chair can reopen public comment. Deliberations aren't required but the opportunity to do so still exists. They could simply vote without deliberations. I've seen both the planning commission and the city council vote without any deliberation.

      Delete
    16. 8:57 AM
      It is true. Depending on the public hearing as in land use and appeals the agenda reports, staff presentation, deliberation and vote aren't required. Sometimes there is no vote because the public hearing is fact gathering. A public hearing is noticed and placed on an agenda. Sometimes there are no staff reports. However, public comment is required in all cases.

      Delete
  21. The building under construction on the corner of 101 and I Street is two stories. Its height was limited by Prop A, which negated the height aspects of the Specific Plans. The ugly Pacific Station and the grossly imposing buildings between Phoebe and Caldwell's were built or permitted before Prop A. Nothing above two stories or 30 feet has been built post Prop A but will be if the HEU passes in November.

    The summary language for the HEU on the November ballot is in the agenda report for this week's council meeting.

    The definition of "affordable" is here in excruciating detail:

    http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-resource-center/reports/state/inc2k16.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So "ugly" is not addressed by Prop A, and if the Housing Element passes, what will be built could be like this property only a story higher???

      I'm voting NO against the Housing Element!

      Delete
    2. At a planning commission hearing last year, Manjeet made the claim "you can't really define community character." The HEU's fine print reflects that attitude throughout with a slew of policy changes designed to remove impediments to developers putting in anything, anywhere, with no regard to surroundings.

      It's interesting to note that Manjeet lives in Carmel Valle, where ther is only one community character. He has no respect for how we live. Either that, or he really is that blind.

      Delete
    3. Geez I missed typing a bunch of letters. You guys know what I mean.

      Delete
    4. Manjeet lives on the east side of Carmel Valley in the densest part. He often has been heard lamenting that he can't afford to live in Encinitas. It is also a rumor that he worked designing prisons. If we had found someone who had experience working in quality cities instead of penal cololony inspired dwellings, maybe the Housing Element would not be the way it is.

      The dude may have a background in prison design but it shouldn't apply here in Encinitas. Why does he have to ruin it for the rest of us just because he says that he can't afford to live here? If not paying for housing, what is he spending his $150,000 plus salary on??

      Delete
    5. Has Manjeet started to sit through all of the Planning Commission meetings? The last one I attended he was gone somewhere more than he was sitting up front. If he's pulling in more than $150,000, at the very least he should be able to sit through Planning Commission meetings since he is supposed to be running them!

      Delete
  22. Message for Lorri Greene: The HEU is supposed to provide affordable housing but it doesn't. It provides high density market rate housing. That's why people who care about Encinitas are against it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:16 You are wasting your time trying to explain to the shrink. She doesn't understand a lot of things. Just saying.

      Delete
  23. Thanks 11:16. I was very confused about that and I cannot help but wonder if I am the only one? If you would be so kind as to direct me to where in the PdF file at the city does it say this. For those who wonder why this comment was directed toward me, it is because I am the Encinitas moderator of the Facebook group "Encinitas Votes". Wc has kindly provided a link on his main page. There has been quite a lively discussion about all of this. You are all welcome to check it out and if you would like to post something, feel free. Anonymous comments are not accepted, so if you don't want your name on a post, you can just read and not post.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 11:16- Thanks. For another discussion, Wc has kindly posted the "Encinitas Votes" Facebook page. If you are not on Facebook, he, or she, has given you a link. Thanks Wc.There is a lot of discussion on all of this on that group page.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The EU blog is much better than Encinitas Votes. I don't care for the name of it either. It is, as they say, BORING.

      Delete
    2. 1:24- If EV is boring to you, maybe it's because you have to actually post your name? Or maybe it's because it is only supposed to be about Encinitas politics. But whatever, the site will do just fine without you.

      Delete
    3. 2:29 I looked at Encinitas Votes a couple of times and I didn't care how the person who set it up invokes her comments. She seems ill informed on many issues and gives out incorrect information. By the way, she comments anonymously on EU. Go figure.

      Delete
    4. Agree 5:11.

      I gave it a try. But as I was sitting in council chambers last week, I was also reading as the moderator posted misquotes, incorrect facts, and opinion not supported by facts.

      Nothing personal. I'm sure the moderator is doing her best. But this isn't her strong suit.

      Delete
    5. The "moderator?" who was that?

      Delete
    6. 6:18 The shrink calls herself the moderator.

      Delete
    7. 5:27- I am one of the people who like Encinitas Votes. I was at the city council meeting you are speaking of. Can you share with me the misquotes, incorrect facts, and opinions not based on facts? I am serious, as I really do want to know.

      Delete
  25. The new building near Potato Shack on Highway 101 could easily be mistaken for being over 30 ft. I knew it wasn't because I followed the approval. But the height is pushed right up to the limit. Here 2 stories equates to 15 feet for each story. Normal is around 12 feet per story with perhaps 2-4 feet for the roof above the eave. No question it's an oversized building.

    Under the HEU three stories will be 35 ft. for residential and 38 ft. for mixed use. Plus an additional 6-10 feet for certain other features. Maximum height could then be 48 feet.

    These will be real monstrosities. Vote NO in November.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So everything that goes in if the Housing Element passed would actually be taller???

      I'm voting NO! I'm voting HELL NO!

      Delete
  26. 4:11 PM
    Yes, taller could be 48 feet tall. With waivers for density bonus, who knows - sky's the limit. Mixed-use, which is condos over commercial, is planned for Sprouts shopping area, the Encinitas Town Center, Von's center on Santa Fe, the old Target center at Encinitas and El Camino, the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Rd and Encinitas/Manchester, and Cardiff town Center. Most of Leucadia 101 south of Leucadia Blvd. Most of downtown Encinitas will be mixed-use. All voted by the council to be mixed-use. The council voted to reduce the parking requirements.
    No place for parking on some of the sites - look for the city to require underground parking. City council wants residents to ride bikes or walk everywhere. Condos will be market rate that was emphasized by the previous planning director.
    No, the city isn't guaranteeing that the condos will be for low income families. This is the whole reason for the up zoning for increased density - for low income.
    Vote NO on the housing element update November. Tell your friends and neighbors to vote NO.
    At the same time vote those fools of a council out of office.

    ReplyDelete