If anyone believes anything coming out of Manjeet and his whole lying dept., or the council, for that matter while every one our council members who whole [whore] heartedly support this urbanization of our precious suburbia, you are much too gullible and need to wake the frack up.
Fortunately for us all, we have an indefatigable group of citizens who bring to light every mistruth that the city tries to get by with, using every dirty trick in the book, attempting to bamboozle the public. Don't believe the fear mongering for a second, that the state will take over our town when we vote this stinker down, no matter what they call it. HEU, @At Home Encinitas.
Catherine has tried to remove any reference to mixed use in the ballot statement.
Right............ Call it whatever you want. We will send this plan packing and hopefully will have a new majority in place that will lead the way forward into a new day come election time.
The council did remove the language about mixed use in the ballot statement. Here's the official wording:
"Shall City Council Resolution No. 2016-52 and Ordinance No. 2016-04, which collectively update the City’s General Plan Housing Element, amend related General Plan provisions, and amend Specific Plans, Zoning Code, Zoning Map, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Program, in an effort to comply with State law, incentivize greater housing affordability, implement rules to protect the character of existing neighborhoods, maintain local control of Encinitas zoning, and resolve existing lawsuits, be adopted?"
Catherine thought the mixed use wording was "too negative." I love the use of the word "incentivize." All the council knows that to suggest that the HEU will actually produce any significant amount of affordable housing would be a lie.
2) Downtown 101 next to Nitro bikes, apparently built within the Prop A 2-story height limits but maxed out with a basement and roof deck
3) Leucadia 101 next to Caldwell's Antiques, three stories under the council's previous upzoning without a public vote (which they lied about on the Prop A ballot argument)
4) Behind La Especial Norte off Leucadia 101, 10 density bonus McMansions on one acre.
The CityMark DB project on Daphne behind Mozy and Peace Pies is 10 big houses on 0.75 acres. The cul-de-sac takes up the other 0.25 acres. The lot was a hair more than one acre total. The houses are crammed together with tiny setbacks between each other, the street and the rear property lines
CityMark is the destructive developer that wants to cram nine houses on 2.1 buildable acres in the DB project at Fulvia and Hymettus.
2 and 4 are under 30 ft, and built under current zoning rules. These projects, and ones similar to them will continue to happen irrespective of the HEU vote.
First-hand knowledge. I read the Resolution and policy change docs. Did you? Apparently not, or you'd be agreeing with me. You might like what's in there, but you'd be agreeing with me on what it says.
There are hundreds of pages and I'm not going to pull out citations and do your work for you. Don't be so lazy. Go read for yourself.
If you're talking about allowing future upzones, to remain consistent with our RHNA obligation, by a 4/5 council vote only that language is gone. Otherwise, Prop A doesn't mandate separate votes on each parcel, just a vote which the city is doing in November.
To all Leucadia - About 70% of the 101 commercial zone from Leucadia Blvd. to La Costa could be converted to residential use. The council unanimously approved putting residential, read that as condos, on 101 in the commercial zone on the first floor. Developers can decide to build all residential or mixed use. If you don't want your commercial area turned into residential complain loud to the council to immediately remove the wording from the North 101 specific plan.
The high-density three-story housing will surely be Density Bonus. Planning staff will see to that. This means concessions to reduce parking requirements and 35% more ADTs from the added DB units.
Under the HEU the commercial zoning is being replaced with mixed use zoning. This means both residential and commercial traffic to create even greater congestion.
The council approved changing the North 101 specific plan wording to let a developer build residential condos in the commercial zone. But, neither the council nor Ranu or Strong discussed what will happen to Leucadia once the commercial zone is replaced with condos. The council can't just wipe out a community's commercial zone. This isn't about the requirements of the HEU.
10:41 AM The council approved residential condos on the first floor. Obfuscating councilwoman Blakespear removed the wording mixed-use from the ballot statement when 90% of the "new" zoning on the map is mixed-use. This is the woman running for Mayor of Encinitas.
She's a lawyer. Above all else, she thinks we have to follow the law regardless of what it says or the fact that it doesn't produce affordable housing, which is its purpose.
In 1773 when American colonists dumped tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxation without representation, Blakespear would have sided with the British because the tea tax was the law.
Regardless of Councilwoman Blakespear being a lawyer, she is unethical as a councilperson. To deliberately remove the wording mixed use from a ballot statement is a glaring reminder that she should be recalled from the council.
Parking problems rule with these kinds of developments. Yesterday as I walked in between one business which has converted their parking and garage to serve their business, a man from an apartment complex next door yelled at me "Is that your van?" pointing to his private parking space. "No, man".
10:41, There has always been residents with commercial along 101. When council approved mixed-use to "live / work" style lofts, the concept was fine. But in reality few who live there, work there and that works contrary to the concept and twice the commuting to both work and home. Then there's that zowie outta place architecture; impossible tandem loophole garages mostly used for storage, not cars; and the usual array of problems that arise from cramming people closely together.
11:12 AM This isn't residents with commercial. The new wording give the developers by right to build condos on the first floor. That means no commercial on the first floor. That means the building will be all residential.
11:33, That's the way its always been. Pacifica Condos for example were built right on the highway prior to incorporation. I agree though. A business district should not be infiltrated with homes. Its not good for businesses or residents unless its done right and few are interested in doing it right as most of our examples prove. Developers want to maximize their projects to "pencil out". They're not in sync with the majority of voters here who want to create and maintain a sense of place. But that's just a developer's M.O. so they can live in a more exclusive community by sacrificing our history and quality of life. And of course they're in the city's back pockets, luring them with more revenue from their projects And that's probably why the city was and is still so against Prop A. Follow the money. The trouble is, a lot of these projects fail. Even Kerry Miller's resort in South Lake Tahoe failed - after using eminent domain to "relocate" mom n pop shops to build it. But I look at our city's large, slick and doubtless expensive "plans" for our future with their visions of 3 story cell block H style clusters and its as if Prop A never happened and their marching forward to the beat of a different drummer in spite of Prop A - as if a BIA brainstorm brochure will make it go away. Time will tell.
check this out: ENCINITAS— San Francisco based coffee shop Philz Coffee will open an Encinitas location sometime in the very near future, likely at this location. Construction has started, but no official opening date yet. [Eaterwire]
In the now gone Black Sheep location, that has been there forever! DT Encinitas does not need yet another trendy over priced coffee shop...
There are always announcements of new businesses, but a surprising number of businesses fail in Encinitas and nobody says a word.
I would say that increased density will more than likely cause more failures since the traffic in our city is already at a standstill on most days. I personally am not likely to stop and visit a new business for relaxing bout of shopping when most of the time I want to get the hell out of Encinitas traffic.
However, it could be that coffee for Encinitas weekend drunks actually fills a need.
Before Black Sheep, it was a Circle K convenience store. Before that, there was an empty shell of a building on the lot for years. It looked as if it was a gas station and auto repair shop way back.
It was the dirt from the Scripps Hospital site that turned out to be contaminated. The dumping at Ponto Beach had to be stopped. However, dirt from the Pacific Station and Scripps sites both created a plume of mud that extended as far south as Swami's. The mud damaged the kelp beds.
Before we lined all the seasonal creek beds with concrete and dammed them up, natural floods brought mud and sediment by the ton to the ocean after rains.
The native littoral flora and fauna thrived under those conditions for millions of years.
57 homes on 12 acres on quail gardens meeting next week July 11th 6 pm in the carnation room. Many concessions are needed to move forward. This is my family's old property... Watch the council bend over for this project in the next few months
It's a density bonus project. Calculated at 5 homes (maximum) per gross acre that's 60 homes. Midrange would be 4 homes per gross acre for 48 homes. I don't know what the net acreage is.
Go look at the sight. It has steep slopes, a stream (Cottonwood Creek) running through it, it is a canyon lower than the sewer main on Encinitas Blvd. Oh yes, they want the planning department to waive Proposition A so they can fill the canyon. The place should not be developed at that density, it's better to use it for farming or a park.
When will you learn. Density bonus is state law which trumps Prop A. Unfortunately, many supporters of Prop A didn't understand that and I'm sure a number of them voted for it thinking it would stop density bonus projects. It won't.
Folks, can't we let a judge decide this rather than accepting the opinion of 9:53? There are other state laws including coastal and environmental, and conflicts between different laws are usually resolved in court. Encinitas Closed Session people have been taking the easy route for way too long and the developers keep coming back for more.
Ohhh there goes that "nullify" language again. Thanks, phony Tony, but no thanks.
9:53 sounds worried. Lots at stake, eh? Plenty to lose when HEU goes down in flames.
Wait for crybaby developers hiding behind the BIA's skirts come in then and try to force adoption of the HEU despite the "no" vote. Good luck finding a judge who will cross an entire town's vote, no matter what rights Kranz/Shaffer/Blakespear signed away last year.
'Ohhh there goes that "nullify" language again.' ... 'Good luck finding a judge who will cross an entire town's vote ...'.
Am I worried? No, but you appear to be in denial. A judge won't care how many votes a local proposition received. It can't override a state statute.
An entire town's vote? Please. The turnout for Prop A was around a third of registered voters and Prop A won with 52% of the votes cast. At 17% it's hardly an entire town's vote.
As a follow up to my 9:58 AM post here is the California Supreme Court in Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) about state law preemption:
'III. Express Preemption
'[4] The general principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled. "The Legislature has specified certain minimum standards for local zoning regulations (Gov. Code, § 65850 et seq.)" even though it also "has carefully expressed its intent to retain the maximum degree of local control (see, e.g., id., §§ 65800, 65802)." (IT Corp. v. Solano County Bd. of Supervisors (1991) 1 Cal. 4th 81, 89 [2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513, 820 P.2d 1023].) "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7, italics added.) " 'Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates [citations], contradicts [citation], or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication [citations].' " (People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino (1986) ...'
Prop A does not nullify any state law. The fact that we are now out of compliance is not because of Prop A. We were out of compliance BEFORE Prop A.
The City could come into compliance not by upzoning citywide, but by using the potential that already exists for all locations zoned R-15. One accessory unit is allowed BY RIGHT, so the R-30 zoning potential is already there to establish a "by proxy" compliance.
Also the City should re-establish actual population growth, as SANDAG, working with staff favoring developers, have exaggerated population growth since the last Census.
More incentives should be given for people with existing accessory units to be counted. They are NOT all counted with the previous census. That was an untruth by former Planning Director Jeff Murphy.
Blakespear says in her newsletter that the City "doesn't have a leg to stand on" with regard to lawsuits complaining we are out of compliance.
However, that would be for a judge to decide. A judge could take into consideration that other cities round down for the base density bonus calculation. The law is presently unclear on rounding up or rounding down.
Also, when Barratt American sued the City of Encinitas, our city allowed that to go to court. The City lost, because it was giving unfettered discretion to Planning Officials to set fees. Part of the lawsuit was thrown out because the statue of limitations for challenging fee increases is only six months.
Importantly, that case set precedent, went to the Court of Appeal, where the opinion was published. Each side was responsible for its own fees. So because Barratt American prevailed did not mean in that case that the City had to pay its attorney fees. Eventually, Barratt went bankrupt. Point being, it's not a "done deal," and its presumptuous for anyone to suggest, "we don't have a leg to stand on."
First, you are correct that we were out of compliance before Prop A but if the city can't get a HEU approved by popular vote a judge may override Prop A and allow the city to simply adopt it. Or the judge could require the city to try again and call a special election which would cost at least $300-$400K.
Second, the city already tried to get HCD to accept the lower density and they said no. Thirty units per acre is in the legislation.
Third, the fact that no city who rounds down net acreage hasn't been sued doesn't mean they would prevail if they were. Since this issue hasn't reached the appellate level yet, there are no precedents set.
Finally, AB 2501 which appears very likely to pass includes the stipulation that all rounding in a density bonus project, including initial net acreage calculations, be rounded up.
I had Roy Sapau tell me the opposite of what the ironic title of this post indicates. He told me that once something is zoned at a particular level that it would be "illegal" for Planning to require them to build at a lower denisity. I have heard Shaffer and Kranz mumble similar comments during meetings.
So Planning and their tool who championed this plan, Teresa Barth have tried to push higher density on us and failed for 6 years. Therefore, their last resort is to trick voters into passing the Housing Element and ruin our own city along with our quality of life so that planners and engineers can "keep busy" as Teresa Barth suggested, and so that developers can make their projects "pencil out" at the expense of everyone else.
If someone buys a property rezoned R30, and they propose a project within the rules, neither Planning nor Council can deny the permit legally.
However, we've got lots of parcels in Encinitas that are zoned for more intense uses than they are currently used for. Many of those properties have had the right to higher density development for decades. And yet, they persist in their current form.
Just because you have the right as a land owner to do something, does not mean you are compelled to do it.
Some land owners, if rezoned, will sell out to a developer or redevelop the land themselves. Others will decide not to.
Interestingly this study found that over a ten-year period, cities that adopted a compliant housing element DID NOT produce housing units at a greater rate than cities that were out of compliance.
Compliant cities did produce more multi-family units and less single family detached than non-compliant cities, but the total unit production was the same across both groups.
Generally, multi-family units are smaller and less expensive to buy or rent than single family detached homes.
9:15 AM is correct. The city cannot force a developer to build at a lower density that they are entitled to do. The zoning is by right, however that zone's density is calculated for the net acreage and usually for the zones's midrange.
While I do not doubt the study's findings I think Encinitas is too much of an outlier being a coastal city with all,the old farms. More housing housing will be built here without a doubt.
I live in a single family home that is zoned R2. Only zoning needs to be available. Is there a reason that a permanent granny flat program that incents r2 residents to build a second low income untit could not count towards the HEU? Make the residents mini-developers. And when I say granny flat program I do not mean the BS the city designed to fail. Actually, why doesn't the current granny flat program count?
The city does have such a program. Every home site by right can have an inclusionary unit, this is a granny flat or guest house. However there's no law that require these to be registered as affordable or even occupied. They could be used for storage, family, or a home office. In some developments the city has required 10% of the homes to be built with inclusionary units. These often are not rented out.
The challenge with the granny flats is that we've had them by right for a long time. HCD is willing to give credit for future affordable unit potential, but only at the historical rate of documented affordable housing created by them. The documented rate of granny flat construction is very low. This could be because the actual rate of construction is very low, or people are doing it under the radar to avoid the cost of building to code, increasing their property tax assessment, or creating a paper trail to the cash rental income they aren't telling the IRS about.
If you really want an accurate count, offer a $1000 reward for neighbors to anonymously snitch on illegal units, and fund code enforcement to crack down. Pretty quickly we'd know how many we've got, and all future construction of granny faults will be counted.
Thanks for those replies about the granny flat, makes sense. the snitch program could be interesting. I could buy a bunch of old campers and park it in front of their houses with the snitch cash. How rad would that be.
The article that 9:16 quotes is 13 years old. Give me a break!! A lot of the references about affordable housing that the Planning Department use are over 16 years old. This is just plain stupid!! We aren't buying what developers are selling.
9:15 has a link entitled "this study" in blue. Scroll up and look at it yourself. Just because there is "a study" does not mean that it was executed by competent people or that it is current or applied to Encinitas. Remember that Manjeet claimed that the Housing Element was based on 60 studies. When a Public Infomation Request was made for the 60 studies, Acting Director Ranu said that no such studies existed. Huh??
HCD should NOT limit counting affordable housing to only those with recorded affordability covenants. That is unfair because upzoning to R-30 offers no guarantees, and only provides for "by proxy" affordability, not ACTUAL affordable housing.
Parts of state law, Government Code, provide that accessory units provide a source of affordable housing. Accessory units are already considered "by proxy" affordable housing. All of them should be counted.
The City should offer incentives to homeowners to build or to come forward to declare existing habitable space as accessory units. If they can prove they existed before the City's incorporation, they need no covenant.
A huge incentive would be to allow health and safety inspections in lieu of going through a formal, very expensive permitting process. Since 1993 one accessory unit has been allowed by right in all residential zones. They were also legal prior to the City's incorporation.
A good start would be to stop declaring undocumented accessory units to be "illegal units." They are NOT illegal by virtue of being in violation of single family residential zoning regulations.
You share a similar confusion with others here. An accessory unit is permitted by right. It must be accompanied by a building permit. Most of the existing illegal units aren't up to code and require some work to comply which means it will cost those owners money to comply and many are not eager to do it. Also, some accessory units are converted garages and neighbors aren't crazy about all the on-street parking.
By right means, typically, that no separate building permit is required. The City and the County have not maintained all the records; in other words, the residential building record is incomplete. If there is a building permit for the primary residence, then an existing accessory unit, providing it meets health and safety standards, should be allowed by right. Previously existing construction does not have to comply with current code. That has never been the case, because the codes change. Health and safety should be checked, as it was during the initial amnesty.
Prior to 2003, there was no city law preventing a garage from being used as habitable space. So garage conversions done before that time should be grandfathered in. The City allowed the Boathouses to have a total of six units in a single family residential zone, when both of the existing garages had been converted to studio apartments.
Downzoning does not trigger a Prop A vote, but I bet a downzone request will trigger a planning dept employee to throw up as many barriers to the downzone as possible.
So what's in it for residents to approve the Housing Element??
Absolutely nothing!! The threats that we will get sued are bogus. Apparently, we get sued continuously by David Meyer and our Council is happy to settle with him. In fact, their willingness to settle with builders seems to encourage lawsuits.
Truth be told, this is all about planners and other staff keeping their jobs. We need to flush out City Hall!
David Meyer could continue on his usual course of suing the city. He gets money from the city and doesn't have to spend money on building any thing. What a racket!
Let him sue. They are already hated throughout Encinitas. Next time I see any of the lot, I will have my dog pee on them for that is what they deserve.
They are total sell outs to Encinitas. Liz Ecke should leave that tool over what he has done. Why not, she like the $$$$..... so does Tony.... he like being friends with the $$$$.
Perhaps we should be realistic here everyone. What we know is this: 1. The State is requiring this 2. We don't have much wiggle room 3. David Meyer is a snake and will sure us for anything he is sure of winning, and he will win on this 4. Do we really want to give him all that money out of our taxpayer dollars? 5. There has to be a way to conform, with the least impact on the citizens and keep the likes of Meyer away from us, as he is NOT going away. We are a cash cow to him. 6. The State is not going away or changing its laws, which sucks, but is true. 7. In conclusion, I cannot help but wonder how we can get into compliance, not affect too many lives, and tell Meyer to take a hike. All of the cities mentioned that are not in compliance don't have someone like Meyer always suing them. Of course, if it's not Meyer, it will be Marco. i say lets figure this out rationally, intelligently, and screw Meyer and company.
It's stupid to put ourselves in a losing position legally. Everybody wants to point out that developers are going to make more money if the HEU passes. In fact, the way they make the most money is of it doesn't pass. They'll sue. They'll build the R30 units under a court order, AND they'll also collect damages and legal costs directly from our tax coffers.
I think developers make the most money when they can build their projects efficiently and timely. Time is money - and time spent in court is time that makes no money. So what if he gets reimbursed? He's lost out on investing that cash elsewhere, he's taken on more risk for materials and labor costs as well as the timing of the market and for what - he gets to do what he planned to do anyway!!
While it double sucks for the taxpayer, being reimbursed your legal costs in no way is double bonus.
10:37 AM Meyer scared you, eh? Del Mar is voting on a massive apartment project near the Fairgrounds - more citizens taking back the decision of how their community evolves. Vote NO on the HEU.
How can people KNOW that Meyer will win?? The Council has folded with him each time and done out of court settlements. The CEQA attorney that the council hired said that we had a 50/50 chance of winning, but Shaffer, Blakespear and Kranz settled with the BIA before we could test it in court. I hate to say this, but Muir and Gaspar voted against this.
These are all stupid reasons to vote for an HEU that will not benefit our community. If you like stack and pack, by all means vote YES. The HEU will not help low income housing. PERIOD.
1:13 The regular NO votes for Muir and GASbag are to make their campaign talking points look golden. Again, their NO votes meant zilch. They were outvoted and lost as usual.
They were outvoted by the turncoats. Unlike you, 1:18, I judge people by their actions, not their yapping. Among the three of them, Blakespear, Kranz, and especially Shaffer can out yap them all. Talk is cheap.
I don't particularly trust Gaspar or Muir, just know they voted the right way that time: against threats from the BIA.
5:47 I would like to hear your explanation of how beneficial those two NO votes were. How did they benefit you as a taxpayer? How did they benefit the city? Will those two NO votes stop any future lawsuits from the BIA?
They benefit me by revealing who's who. I then use that information when I vote in the next election so that I don't elect the wrong ones next time.
But this is a dumb point to argue over. What are you doing to ensure the HEU dies with an overwhelming majority? I know what I'm doing, and that's plenty.
If nothing else, tell your neighbors that the affordable housing law is made a mockery of in Encinitas, with developers running the show. Tell them their town will become unrecognizable and that there will be no good time of day they can drive the streets and not encounter gridlock.
Tell them our council has handed the keys of the city to the BIA and David Meyer, and that you can see their wish list in the fine print of the HEU documents.
Tell them to tell their friends to vote no to send the message (again) that we won't vote for a scam plan.
This is a problem in many cities in this country and elsewhere. The real problem is too much population and not enough water and other resources. It can end by having a big war or epidemic or other depopulation event or by a financial collapse so that there are no more buyers.
10:33 is getting at the core problem, but the way to solve it isn't to depopulate by catastrophe. Rather, the way to address it is for governments at all levels to encourage low birth rates so population declines over time. It's a finite world. We can't continue to overpopulate it. That's the suicidal course.
Waiting for a series of catastrophes to reduce world population by half and keep it there does not sound like a good way to go. Lowering the birth rate to ~1:2 and keeping it there would be humane, sane and effective.
Back to our current council members voting as they do, sometimes with the three to two margins. I have often thought they get together in the private chambers beforehand and take turns being the bad guys on certain particular issues.
After observing this ongoing self created drama for years, that impression seems to hold water. Of course, this would violate the Brown Act with collusion, but as we have all witnessed too many times, they have no respect for that supposed limiting factor.
Our only hope is a new council majority that will be OUR representatives and not turn their backs to those who worked to put them in their positions. I truly believe this can be achieved with enough public awareness.
My faith in this assumption has been reaffirmed repeatedly, when I speak to people who don't have the time to show up at council meetings and yet still know what is going on. There is a somewhat silent majority out there who cannot spare the time to show up at meetings, but know full well that a drastic change is needed and will be voting the urban density plan being pushed by every council member down along with those council members and declared candidates who will bring this down upon us if we don't stop them this time.
A simple majority, nothing is simple around here except these sell outs thinking, would be a game changer. Mental midgets . Our dedicated civic heroes have done a commendable job of showing us what a bunch of liars we currently have representing us and that they support the Planning Dept. hacks every week is only to their everlasting discredit. History rules in the end. All the obfuscation will become their legacy. They have so earned this.
If anyone believes anything coming out of Manjeet and his whole lying dept., or the council, for that matter while every one our council members who whole [whore] heartedly support this urbanization of our precious suburbia, you are much too gullible and need to wake the frack up.
ReplyDeleteFortunately for us all, we have an indefatigable group of citizens who bring to light every mistruth that the city tries to get by with, using every dirty trick in the book, attempting to bamboozle the public. Don't believe the fear mongering for a second, that the state will take over our town when we vote this stinker down, no matter what they call it. HEU, @At Home Encinitas.
Catherine has tried to remove any reference to mixed use in the ballot statement.
Right............ Call it whatever you want. We will send this plan packing and hopefully will have a new majority in place that will lead the way forward into a new day come election time.
Yea, this blog is the most informative site for exposing the insider deals that go down in this town.
DeleteWhere are these five projects? Are they from the HEU?
DeleteThe council did remove the language about mixed use in the ballot statement. Here's the official wording:
Delete"Shall City Council Resolution No. 2016-52 and Ordinance No. 2016-04, which collectively update the City’s General Plan Housing Element, amend related General Plan provisions, and amend Specific Plans, Zoning Code, Zoning Map, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Program, in an effort to comply with State law, incentivize greater housing affordability, implement rules to protect the character of existing neighborhoods, maintain local control of Encinitas zoning, and resolve existing lawsuits, be adopted?"
Catherine thought the mixed use wording was "too negative." I love the use of the word "incentivize." All the council knows that to suggest that the HEU will actually produce any significant amount of affordable housing would be a lie.
Vote NO in NOvember.
7:28,
Delete1) Pacific Station, three stories under the council's previous upzoning without a public vote (which they lied about on the Prop A ballot argument)
2) Downtown 101 next to Nitro bikes, apparently built within the Prop A 2-story height limits but maxed out with a basement and roof deck
3) Leucadia 101 next to Caldwell's Antiques, three stories under the council's previous upzoning without a public vote (which they lied about on the Prop A ballot argument)
4) Behind La Especial Norte off Leucadia 101, 10 density bonus McMansions on one acre.
5) Moonlight Lofts, three stories under the council's previous upzoning without a public vote (which they lied about on the Prop A ballot argument)
So two of your five examples would happen irrespective of how the vote goes, because they are built under existing code?
DeleteExisting code now under Prop A maxes out at 30'. The two I assume you're referring to could not be built today unless approved by a public vote.
DeleteSo the point I assume you're trying to make is not a point at all ;)
The CityMark DB project on Daphne behind Mozy and Peace Pies is 10 big houses on 0.75 acres. The cul-de-sac takes up the other 0.25 acres. The lot was a hair more than one acre total. The houses are crammed together with tiny setbacks between each other, the street and the rear property lines
DeleteCityMark is the destructive developer that wants to cram nine houses on 2.1 buildable acres in the DB project at Fulvia and Hymettus.
If the HEU passes in November, it nixes the height and public vote requirements of Prop A in the upzoned areas.
DeleteThat's the point of this and other HEU posts by the blog owner.
11:33,
DeleteHow many votes does Prop A require, in your view?
If we vote to approve the HEU, then the Prop A vote requirement for the rezoning has been satisfied.
10:06,
Delete2 and 4 are under 30 ft, and built under current zoning rules. These projects, and ones similar to them will continue to happen irrespective of the HEU vote.
2:25, do you not realize that in the Prop A-required HEU vote is language that does away with future votes put to residents?? Wake up!
DeleteChapter and verse?
DeleteLink?
Quote?
Are you making this claim because you have firsthand knowledge, or because someone told you, and you believe them?
First-hand knowledge. I read the Resolution and policy change docs. Did you? Apparently not, or you'd be agreeing with me. You might like what's in there, but you'd be agreeing with me on what it says.
DeleteThere are hundreds of pages and I'm not going to pull out citations and do your work for you. Don't be so lazy. Go read for yourself.
Oh.
DeleteYou know for sure, but refuse to share.
Riiiiiiiiiight.
5:48 PM
DeleteIf you're talking about allowing future upzones, to remain consistent with our RHNA obligation, by a 4/5 council vote only that language is gone. Otherwise, Prop A doesn't mandate separate votes on each parcel, just a vote which the city is doing in November.
If you come, they will build it.
ReplyDeleteIf you permit it, they will come and build it. Market rate, not one doubt.
ReplyDeleteSimply vote no on HEU and be sure to get rid of Kranz.
ReplyDeleteDump Muir too - he'll be asleep when they roll him out, so he won't even notice that he's been deposed.
DeleteTo all Leucadia -
ReplyDeleteAbout 70% of the 101 commercial zone from Leucadia Blvd. to La Costa could be converted to residential use. The council unanimously approved putting residential, read that as condos, on 101 in the commercial zone on the first floor. Developers can decide to build all residential or mixed use.
If you don't want your commercial area turned into residential complain loud to the council to immediately remove the wording from the North 101 specific plan.
They can construct ramps on top of the bumper to bumper grid-locked cars, as they won't be moving.
Deleteany housing that replaces commercial will have less cars.
Delete7:21,
DeleteNot high-density three-story housing.
There will be gridlock.
The high-density three-story housing will surely be Density Bonus. Planning staff will see to that. This means concessions to reduce parking requirements and 35% more ADTs from the added DB units.
DeleteUnder the HEU the commercial zoning is being replaced with mixed use zoning. This means both residential and commercial traffic to create even greater congestion.
The council approved changing the North 101 specific plan wording to let a developer build residential condos in the commercial zone. But, neither the council nor Ranu or Strong discussed what will happen to Leucadia once the commercial zone is replaced with condos.
DeleteThe council can't just wipe out a community's commercial zone. This isn't about the requirements of the HEU.
It's important to remember that Density Bonus is applied on top of the base zoning, so all of these R30 upzones in the HEU will become R45.
Delete10:41 AM
DeleteThe council approved residential condos on the first floor. Obfuscating councilwoman Blakespear removed the wording mixed-use from the ballot statement when 90% of the "new" zoning on the map is mixed-use. This is the woman running for Mayor of Encinitas.
She's a lawyer. Above all else, she thinks we have to follow the law regardless of what it says or the fact that it doesn't produce affordable housing, which is its purpose.
DeleteIn 1773 when American colonists dumped tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxation without representation, Blakespear would have sided with the British because the tea tax was the law.
"When in the course of human events . . ."
DeleteRegardless of Councilwoman Blakespear being a lawyer, she is unethical as a councilperson. To deliberately remove the wording mixed use from a ballot statement is a glaring reminder that she should be recalled from the council.
DeleteGreat analogy 11:44
Delete11:44,
DeleteAnd that position may have been the right one.
Canada managed to remove the yoke of the empire without firing a shot (or being shot at).
"Don't worry..." that sounds like Sculpin's refrain!
ReplyDeleteParking problems rule with these kinds of developments. Yesterday as I walked in between one business which has converted their parking and garage to serve their business, a man from an apartment complex next door yelled at me "Is that your van?" pointing to his private parking space. "No, man".
ReplyDelete10:41, There has always been residents with commercial along 101. When council approved mixed-use to "live / work" style lofts, the concept was fine. But in reality few who live there, work there and that works contrary to the concept and twice the commuting to both work and home. Then there's that zowie outta place architecture; impossible tandem loophole garages mostly used for storage, not cars; and the usual array of problems that arise from cramming people closely together.
ReplyDelete11:12 AM
ReplyDeleteThis isn't residents with commercial. The new wording give the developers by right to build condos on the first floor. That means no commercial on the first floor. That means the building will be all residential.
11:33, That's the way its always been. Pacifica Condos for example were built right on the highway prior to incorporation. I agree though. A business district should not be infiltrated with homes. Its not good for businesses or residents unless its done right and few are interested in doing it right as most of our examples prove. Developers want to maximize their projects to "pencil out". They're not in sync with the majority of voters here who want to create and maintain a sense of place. But that's just a developer's M.O. so they can live in a more exclusive community by sacrificing our history and quality of life. And of course they're in the city's back pockets, luring them with more revenue from their projects And that's probably why the city was and is still so against Prop A. Follow the money. The trouble is, a lot of these projects fail. Even Kerry Miller's resort in South Lake Tahoe failed - after using eminent domain to "relocate" mom n pop shops to build it. But I look at our city's large, slick and doubtless expensive "plans" for our future with their visions of 3 story cell block H style clusters and its as if Prop A never happened and their marching forward to the beat of a different drummer in spite of Prop A - as if a BIA brainstorm brochure will make it go away. Time will tell.
Deletecheck this out:
ReplyDeleteENCINITAS— San Francisco based coffee shop Philz Coffee will open an Encinitas location sometime in the very near future, likely at this location. Construction has started, but no official opening date yet. [Eaterwire]
In the now gone Black Sheep location, that has been there forever! DT Encinitas does not need yet another trendy over priced coffee shop...
There are always announcements of new businesses, but a surprising number of businesses fail in Encinitas and nobody says a word.
DeleteI would say that increased density will more than likely cause more failures since the traffic in our city is already at a standstill on most days. I personally am not likely to stop and visit a new business for relaxing bout of shopping when most of the time I want to get the hell out of Encinitas traffic.
However, it could be that coffee for Encinitas weekend drunks actually fills a need.
Before Black Sheep, it was a Circle K convenience store. Before that, there was an empty shell of a building on the lot for years. It looked as if it was a gas station and auto repair shop way back.
ReplyDeleteCoffee shop better than another bar!!!
ReplyDeleteAnother reminder: Remember when the city permitted the Pacific View folks to dump contaminated soil from the project on the beach in Leucadia?
ReplyDeleteI think you mean Pacific Station and it wasn't contaminated.
DeleteIt was the dirt from the Scripps Hospital site that turned out to be contaminated. The dumping at Ponto Beach had to be stopped. However, dirt from the Pacific Station and Scripps sites both created a plume of mud that extended as far south as Swami's. The mud damaged the kelp beds.
DeleteI doubt the kelp beds had a problem.
DeleteBefore we lined all the seasonal creek beds with concrete and dammed them up, natural floods brought mud and sediment by the ton to the ocean after rains.
The native littoral flora and fauna thrived under those conditions for millions of years.
They dump everything in Leucadia .
ReplyDeletePlease vote in Nov......but... Do not vote for anyone for mayor or council. That will open some eyes at all levels of influence.
ReplyDeleteA few hundred abstainers is not likely to be noticed. If you wanted more impact, you might vote against all incumbents.
Delete57 homes on 12 acres on quail gardens meeting next week July 11th 6 pm in the carnation room. Many concessions are needed to move forward. This is my family's old property... Watch the council bend over for this project in the next few months
ReplyDeleteBend over again you mean.
DeleteWhat is this zoned for? 5 homes per acre does not seem bad.
DeleteIt's a density bonus project. Calculated at 5 homes (maximum) per gross acre that's 60 homes. Midrange would be 4 homes per gross acre for 48 homes. I don't know what the net acreage is.
DeleteGo look at the sight. It has steep slopes, a stream (Cottonwood Creek) running through it, it is a canyon lower than the sewer main on Encinitas Blvd. Oh yes, they want the planning department to waive Proposition A so they can fill the canyon. The place should not be developed at that density, it's better to use it for farming or a park.
DeleteWhen will you learn. Density bonus is state law which trumps Prop A. Unfortunately, many supporters of Prop A didn't understand that and I'm sure a number of them voted for it thinking it would stop density bonus projects. It won't.
DeleteFolks, can't we let a judge decide this rather than accepting the opinion of 9:53? There are other state laws including coastal and environmental, and conflicts between different laws are usually resolved in court. Encinitas Closed Session people have been taking the easy route for way too long and the developers keep coming back for more.
Delete2:41 PM
DeleteThe courts have already ruled that a local proposition cannot nullify a state law. State law trumps local ordinance. This isn't my opinion.
2::41 said very clearly other "state laws." You are right, it is not an opinion, it's just a dumb reply.
DeleteCan't believe my taxes pay for these DFs.
Ohhh there goes that "nullify" language again. Thanks, phony Tony, but no thanks.
Delete9:53 sounds worried. Lots at stake, eh? Plenty to lose when HEU goes down in flames.
Wait for crybaby developers hiding behind the BIA's skirts come in then and try to force adoption of the HEU despite the "no" vote. Good luck finding a judge who will cross an entire town's vote, no matter what rights Kranz/Shaffer/Blakespear signed away last year.
8:17 PM
Delete'Ohhh there goes that "nullify" language again.' ... 'Good luck finding a judge who will cross an entire town's vote ...'.
Am I worried? No, but you appear to be in denial. A judge won't care how many votes a local proposition received. It can't override a state statute.
An entire town's vote? Please. The turnout for Prop A was around a third of registered voters and Prop A won with 52% of the votes cast. At 17% it's hardly an entire town's vote.
As a follow up to my 9:58 AM post here is the California Supreme Court in Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) about state law preemption:
Delete'III. Express Preemption
'[4] The general principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled. "The Legislature has specified certain minimum standards for local zoning regulations (Gov. Code, § 65850 et seq.)" even though it also "has carefully expressed its intent to retain the maximum degree of local control (see, e.g., id., §§ 65800, 65802)." (IT Corp. v. Solano County Bd. of Supervisors (1991) 1 Cal. 4th 81, 89 [2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513, 820 P.2d 1023].) "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7, italics added.) " 'Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates [citations], contradicts [citation], or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication [citations].' " (People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino (1986) ...'
Prop A does not nullify any state law. The fact that we are now out of compliance is not because of Prop A. We were out of compliance BEFORE Prop A.
DeleteThe City could come into compliance not by upzoning citywide, but by using the potential that already exists for all locations zoned R-15. One accessory unit is allowed BY RIGHT, so the R-30 zoning potential is already there to establish a "by proxy" compliance.
Also the City should re-establish actual population growth, as SANDAG, working with staff favoring developers, have exaggerated population growth since the last Census.
More incentives should be given for people with existing accessory units to be counted. They are NOT all counted with the previous census. That was an untruth by former Planning Director Jeff Murphy.
Blakespear says in her newsletter that the City "doesn't have a leg to stand on" with regard to lawsuits complaining we are out of compliance.
However, that would be for a judge to decide. A judge could take into consideration that other cities round down for the base density bonus calculation. The law is presently unclear on rounding up or rounding down.
Also, when Barratt American sued the City of Encinitas, our city allowed that to go to court. The City lost, because it was giving unfettered discretion to Planning Officials to set fees. Part of the lawsuit was thrown out because the statue of limitations for challenging fee increases is only six months.
Importantly, that case set precedent, went to the Court of Appeal, where the opinion was published. Each side was responsible for its own fees. So because Barratt American prevailed did not mean in that case that the City had to pay its attorney fees. Eventually, Barratt went bankrupt. Point being, it's not a "done deal," and its presumptuous for anyone to suggest, "we don't have a leg to stand on."
6:46 PM
DeleteFirst, you are correct that we were out of compliance before Prop A but if the city can't get a HEU approved by popular vote a judge may override Prop A and allow the city to simply adopt it. Or the judge could require the city to try again and call a special election which would cost at least $300-$400K.
Second, the city already tried to get HCD to accept the lower density and they said no. Thirty units per acre is in the legislation.
Third, the fact that no city who rounds down net acreage hasn't been sued doesn't mean they would prevail if they were. Since this issue hasn't reached the appellate level yet, there are no precedents set.
Finally, AB 2501 which appears very likely to pass includes the stipulation that all rounding in a density bonus project, including initial net acreage calculations, be rounded up.
I had Roy Sapau tell me the opposite of what the ironic title of this post indicates. He told me that once something is zoned at a particular level that it would be "illegal" for Planning to require them to build at a lower denisity. I have heard Shaffer and Kranz mumble similar comments during meetings.
ReplyDeleteSo Planning and their tool who championed this plan, Teresa Barth have tried to push higher density on us and failed for 6 years. Therefore, their last resort is to trick voters into passing the Housing Element and ruin our own city along with our quality of life so that planners and engineers can "keep busy" as Teresa Barth suggested, and so that developers can make their projects "pencil out" at the expense of everyone else.
Both are true.
DeleteIf someone buys a property rezoned R30, and they propose a project within the rules, neither Planning nor Council can deny the permit legally.
However, we've got lots of parcels in Encinitas that are zoned for more intense uses than they are currently used for. Many of those properties have had the right to higher density development for decades. And yet, they persist in their current form.
Just because you have the right as a land owner to do something, does not mean you are compelled to do it.
Some land owners, if rezoned, will sell out to a developer or redevelop the land themselves. Others will decide not to.
Interestingly this study found that over a ten-year period, cities that adopted a compliant housing element DID NOT produce housing units at a greater rate than cities that were out of compliance.
Compliant cities did produce more multi-family units and less single family detached than non-compliant cities, but the total unit production was the same across both groups.
Generally, multi-family units are smaller and less expensive to buy or rent than single family detached homes.
6:01 AM
Delete9:15 AM is correct. The city cannot force a developer to build at a lower density that they are entitled to do. The zoning is by right, however that zone's density is calculated for the net acreage and usually for the zones's midrange.
9:15
DeleteWhile I do not doubt the study's findings I think Encinitas is too much of an outlier being a coastal city with all,the old farms. More housing housing will be built here without a doubt.
I live in a single family home that is zoned R2. Only zoning needs to be available. Is there a reason that a permanent granny flat program that incents r2 residents to build a second low income untit could not count towards the HEU? Make the residents mini-developers. And when I say granny flat program I do not mean the BS the city designed to fail. Actually, why doesn't the current granny flat program count?
The city does have such a program. Every home site by right can have an inclusionary unit, this is a granny flat or guest house. However there's no law that require these to be registered as affordable or even occupied. They could be used for storage, family, or a home office. In some developments the city has required 10% of the homes to be built with inclusionary units. These often are not rented out.
DeleteThe challenge with the granny flats is that we've had them by right for a long time. HCD is willing to give credit for future affordable unit potential, but only at the historical rate of documented affordable housing created by them. The documented rate of granny flat construction is very low. This could be because the actual rate of construction is very low, or people are doing it under the radar to avoid the cost of building to code, increasing their property tax assessment, or creating a paper trail to the cash rental income they aren't telling the IRS about.
DeleteIf you really want an accurate count, offer a $1000 reward for neighbors to anonymously snitch on illegal units, and fund code enforcement to crack down. Pretty quickly we'd know how many we've got, and all future construction of granny faults will be counted.
Thanks for those replies about the granny flat, makes sense. the snitch program could be interesting. I could buy a bunch of old campers and park it in front of their houses with the snitch cash. How rad would that be.
DeleteThe article that 9:16 quotes is 13 years old. Give me a break!! A lot of the references about affordable housing that the Planning Department use are over 16 years old. This is just plain stupid!! We aren't buying what developers are selling.
Delete6:53,
DeleteYou are welcome to counter with a reference to a more recent regression analysis that refutes the study.
Old data beats no data.
9:15 AM
DeleteWhat study? Do you have a link?
9:15 has a link entitled "this study" in blue. Scroll up and look at it yourself. Just because there is "a study" does not mean that it was executed by competent people or that it is current or applied to Encinitas. Remember that Manjeet claimed that the Housing Element was based on 60 studies. When a Public Infomation Request was made for the 60 studies, Acting Director Ranu said that no such studies existed. Huh??
Delete11:09 AM
DeleteThanks. I didn't notice the embedded link. Got it.
HCD should NOT limit counting affordable housing to only those with recorded affordability covenants. That is unfair because upzoning to R-30 offers no guarantees, and only provides for "by proxy" affordability, not ACTUAL affordable housing.
DeleteParts of state law, Government Code, provide that accessory units provide a source of affordable housing. Accessory units are already considered "by proxy" affordable housing. All of them should be counted.
The City should offer incentives to homeowners to build or to come forward to declare existing habitable space as accessory units. If they can prove they existed before the City's incorporation, they need no covenant.
A huge incentive would be to allow health and safety inspections in lieu of going through a formal, very expensive permitting process. Since 1993 one accessory unit has been allowed by right in all residential zones. They were also legal prior to the City's incorporation.
A good start would be to stop declaring undocumented accessory units to be "illegal units." They are NOT illegal by virtue of being in violation of single family residential zoning regulations.
I thought that about 20 years ago 10% of accessory units were required in new tract builds. Is this no longer the case?
Delete6:58 PM
DeleteYou share a similar confusion with others here. An accessory unit is permitted by right. It must be accompanied by a building permit. Most of the existing illegal units aren't up to code and require some work to comply which means it will cost those owners money to comply and many are not eager to do it. Also, some accessory units are converted garages and neighbors aren't crazy about all the on-street parking.
By right means, typically, that no separate building permit is required. The City and the County have not maintained all the records; in other words, the residential building record is incomplete. If there is a building permit for the primary residence, then an existing accessory unit, providing it meets health and safety standards, should be allowed by right. Previously existing construction does not have to comply with current code. That has never been the case, because the codes change. Health and safety should be checked, as it was during the initial amnesty.
DeletePrior to 2003, there was no city law preventing a garage from being used as habitable space. So garage conversions done before that time should be grandfathered in. The City allowed the Boathouses to have a total of six units in a single family residential zone, when both of the existing garages had been converted to studio apartments.
Downzoning does not trigger a Prop A vote, but I bet a downzone request will trigger a planning dept employee to throw up as many barriers to the downzone as possible.
ReplyDeleteSo what's in it for residents to approve the Housing Element??
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely nothing!! The threats that we will get sued are bogus. Apparently, we get sued continuously by David Meyer and our Council is happy to settle with him. In fact, their willingness to settle with builders seems to encourage lawsuits.
Truth be told, this is all about planners and other staff keeping their jobs. We need to flush out City Hall!
David Meyer could continue on his usual course of suing the city. He gets money from the city and doesn't have to spend money on building any thing. What a racket!
DeleteWe do have a very ignorant council.
Let him sue. They are already hated throughout Encinitas. Next time I see any of the lot, I will have my dog pee on them for that is what they deserve.
ReplyDeleteThey are total sell outs to Encinitas. Liz Ecke should leave that tool over what he has done. Why not, she like the $$$$..... so does Tony.... he like being friends with the $$$$.
and that is why developers win.
Perhaps we should be realistic here everyone. What we know is this:
ReplyDelete1. The State is requiring this
2. We don't have much wiggle room
3. David Meyer is a snake and will sure us for anything he is sure of winning, and he will win on this
4. Do we really want to give him all that money out of our taxpayer dollars?
5. There has to be a way to conform, with the least impact on the citizens and keep the likes of Meyer away from us, as he is NOT going away. We are a cash cow to him.
6. The State is not going away or changing its laws, which sucks, but is true.
7. In conclusion, I cannot help but wonder how we can get into compliance, not affect too many lives, and tell Meyer to take a hike. All of the cities mentioned that are not in compliance don't have someone like Meyer always suing them. Of course, if it's not Meyer, it will be Marco. i say lets figure this out rationally, intelligently, and screw Meyer and company.
I agree with 9:55.
DeleteIt's stupid to put ourselves in a losing position legally. Everybody wants to point out that developers are going to make more money if the HEU passes. In fact, the way they make the most money is of it doesn't pass. They'll sue. They'll build the R30 units under a court order, AND they'll also collect damages and legal costs directly from our tax coffers.
Double bonus.
It's just stupid to let that happen.
I think developers make the most money when they can build their projects efficiently and timely. Time is money - and time spent in court is time that makes no money. So what if he gets reimbursed? He's lost out on investing that cash elsewhere, he's taken on more risk for materials and labor costs as well as the timing of the market and for what - he gets to do what he planned to do anyway!!
DeleteWhile it double sucks for the taxpayer, being reimbursed your legal costs in no way is double bonus.
- The Sculpin
10:37 AM Meyer scared you, eh? Del Mar is voting on a massive apartment project near the Fairgrounds - more citizens taking back the decision of how their community evolves. Vote NO on the HEU.
DeleteHow can people KNOW that Meyer will win?? The Council has folded with him each time and done out of court settlements. The CEQA attorney that the council hired said that we had a 50/50 chance of winning, but Shaffer, Blakespear and Kranz settled with the BIA before we could test it in court. I hate to say this, but Muir and Gaspar voted against this.
DeleteThese are all stupid reasons to vote for an HEU that will not benefit our community. If you like stack and pack, by all means vote YES. The HEU will not help low income housing. PERIOD.
DeleteDon't be a dummy! Vote NO on the HEU.
1:13 The regular NO votes for Muir and GASbag are to make their campaign talking points look golden. Again, their NO votes meant zilch. They were outvoted and lost as usual.
DeleteThey were outvoted by the turncoats. Unlike you, 1:18, I judge people by their actions, not their yapping. Among the three of them, Blakespear, Kranz, and especially Shaffer can out yap them all. Talk is cheap.
DeleteI don't particularly trust Gaspar or Muir, just know they voted the right way that time: against threats from the BIA.
5:47 I would like to hear your explanation of how beneficial those two NO votes were. How did they benefit you as a taxpayer? How did they benefit the city? Will those two NO votes stop any future lawsuits from the BIA?
DeleteThis is exactly why the wrong people get elected.
They benefit me by revealing who's who. I then use that information when I vote in the next election so that I don't elect the wrong ones next time.
DeleteBut this is a dumb point to argue over. What are you doing to ensure the HEU dies with an overwhelming majority? I know what I'm doing, and that's plenty.
If nothing else, tell your neighbors that the affordable housing law is made a mockery of in Encinitas, with developers running the show. Tell them their town will become unrecognizable and that there will be no good time of day they can drive the streets and not encounter gridlock.
Tell them our council has handed the keys of the city to the BIA and David Meyer, and that you can see their wish list in the fine print of the HEU documents.
Tell them to tell their friends to vote no to send the message (again) that we won't vote for a scam plan.
9:01 Pretty shallow.
DeleteThis is a problem in many cities in this country and elsewhere. The real problem is too much population and not enough water and other resources. It can end by having a big war or epidemic or other depopulation event or by a financial collapse so that there are no more buyers.
ReplyDelete80% of the water is going to agriculture, not population centers. Agriculture takes 80% of the water, and produces 1% of our state GDP.
DeleteWe are growing alfalfa hay, which is a very thirsty crop, for export to cows in China.
There is no drought if we just stopped shipping a low value, high water consumption crop to cows half-way around the world.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989
DeleteAlmonds are the same - high water usage, but then exported to China. Raise water rates on exported crops.
Delete10:33 is getting at the core problem, but the way to solve it isn't to depopulate by catastrophe. Rather, the way to address it is for governments at all levels to encourage low birth rates so population declines over time. It's a finite world. We can't continue to overpopulate it. That's the suicidal course.
ReplyDeleteCatastrophe is the standard method throughout human history. Why do you think the future will be different from the recorded past?
ReplyDeleteHumans finally learned their history lesson??? Yea - not likely.....
DeleteWaiting for a series of catastrophes to reduce world population by half and keep it there does not sound like a good way to go. Lowering the birth rate to ~1:2 and keeping it there would be humane, sane and effective.
DeleteBack to our current council members voting as they do, sometimes with the three to two margins. I have often thought they get together in the private chambers beforehand and take turns being the bad guys on certain particular issues.
ReplyDeleteAfter observing this ongoing self created drama for years, that impression seems to hold water. Of course, this would violate the Brown Act with collusion, but as we have all witnessed too many times, they have no respect for that supposed limiting factor.
Our only hope is a new council majority that will be OUR representatives and not turn their backs to those who worked to put them in their positions. I truly believe this can be achieved with enough public awareness.
My faith in this assumption has been reaffirmed repeatedly, when I speak to people who don't have the time to show up at council meetings and yet still know what is going on. There is a somewhat silent majority out there who cannot spare the time to show up at meetings, but know full well that a drastic change is needed and will be voting the urban density plan being pushed by every council member down along with those council members and declared candidates who will bring this down upon us if we don't stop them this time.
A simple majority, nothing is simple around here except these sell outs thinking, would be a game changer. Mental midgets . Our dedicated civic heroes have done a commendable job of showing us what a bunch of liars we currently have representing us and that they support the Planning Dept. hacks every week is only to their everlasting discredit. History rules in the end. All the obfuscation will become their legacy. They have so earned this.
One of these days..................
There is no water shortage vote against any income bent that raises water rates ....
ReplyDeleteThey keep building more and more houses in the desert and they keep raising pensions and salaries for water district employees that have cake jobs .