Sunday, August 7, 2016

High-density opposition launches Facebook group

Save Our City:
“At Home in Encinitas” - Good for developers, bad for residents.

Here's what the City of Encinitas is NOT telling you about what the Housing Element Update - aka "At Home Encinitas" - will bring:

• Up to 4,000 high-density housing units
• Gridlock from 25,000 more cars per day
• Building height increases from 30’ to 48’
• Crammed construction – up to 41 units/acre
• No guarantee of affordable housing
• Lack of onsite parking requirements forces cars onto adjacent streets
• 90% of all development approved by one city staff member


  1. The region is bought and sold by developers - Gaspars, Muir, $tock$, Kranz, Shaffer, Blakespear, Barth, and a host of others are their willing minions.
    Vote NO and spread the word!

  2. Barbara Henry writing in the Encinitas Advocate regarding the new glass mosaic from the folks at the Surfing Modonna at will be placed on the new Marine safety center says " no city money will be used for the project".....except the $3M needed to build the center!! What an idiot .

  3. Ask Any Candidate if they will defend our community. Sadly, there is not a one that will do so.

    Ask if any of them if they will defend Prop A.

    Ask if any of them will stop bending over for Meyer and his type from urbanizing our community.

    Ask any of them how they can support a disastrous hosing plan while ignoring the impact of traffic that is already a disaster.

    Ask any candidate what their vision is for maintaining our community character that has become such an easy target in town with Meyer and the BIA, and out of town, Irvine style vultures.

    Ask Any Candidate and it will become clear that we have not a one that will truly be our defenders against the urbanization of our town.

    At this point with our limited choices, about the only thing our vote can do is to possibly deny a candidate, or hopefully two, from ascending to the dais.

    This election has become a choice of who will cause the least amount of damage rather than a positive way forward to a new day. Cleaning that house will not be happening. Manjeet is still here. Masih is still here. The city's incompetence rules the day and will only continue with the choices we have in this last week of the declaration time period.

    Go ahead and ask any of them for yourselves. The debates will show the truth, but it will be too late for anything to change. The future is here now.

    Our city has forged a unique position throughout our state for its resistance but it may be too late even for us. I relish the day when we can be shown that this is not the truth.

    If this most recent Facebook attempt can provide some of the transparency that is so needed, bring it on.

    1. NOvember: Vote for NOBODY for council or mayor. They are all either in bed with developers or the local Democratic party whose agenda requires that the pension machine is fed.I'm saying this as a pretty hard core liberal.

    2. Put the NO in NOvember: vote NO to incumbents and NO to the Housing Element Update.

      You'll recognize the Housing Element Update on the ballot by its cutesy name "At Home in Encinitas."

    3. 10:07 AM

      "Our city has forged a unique position throughout our state for its resistance but it may be too late even for us. I relish the day when we can be shown that this is not the truth."

      I don't think this reputation is a good thing. While I strongly want to preserve the character of Encinitas, this unyielding attitude to any accommodation is wining Encinitas few sympathizers in the state legislature who now listen more to affordable housing advocates and developers. The city has to follow state statutes and no number of local initiatives will change that. The state has the last word. This "give not an inch" attitude is counterproductive.

    4. I find David Meyer to be a surprising affordable housing advocate since he lives on a villa over Encinitas Golf Course. We have other affordable housing advocates who live in Rancho Santa Fe.

      They have got theirs and will make more millions at the expense of other Encinitas residents who will lose their quality of life through increased traffic, decreased parking and building standards, increased noise and loss of privacy.

      They argue for social benefit, but there is no social benefit in this plan since it only has inclusionary affordable housing--the same standard that has been on the books for years?

      Why should Encinitas residents give up their own enjoyment and property values only to make people like this more money and to keep the lazy and incompetent planning staff in jobs that they can't perform?

      Vote No and clean out City Hall!

    5. City statutes do not require we gift developers with:

      Changing how height is measured to enable taller buildings.

      Reducing onsite parking requirements so developers can use space that should go for parking instead go to build market-rate units.

      Reductions in setbacks, again to allow more market-rate units on a parcel.

      The state requires none of this developer-biased nonsense. The state has no such statutes.

      This is where the resistance comes in, 1:51. This is a dishonest plan that is chock full of developer giveaways. And voters will simply not go for it.

      Honest an, no problem. Dishonest one? Big problem.

    6. Meant to write; "And voters will simply not go for it" and "Honest plan, no problem."

      I need a new keyboard.

    7. 1:51 PM
      Stop with the affordable housing garbage wording. What the state legislature wants is low income housing financed by local governments. Let the state "legislature" start telling the truth. Local governments don't have the money nor the land. What local areas do have is still housing that is rentable at lower than market rate without the government subsidies.
      BUT, that supply is rapidly being removed with these so-called affordable housing laws from the state.
      The theory is that massive condo buildings will lower the cost to the developer, and the reduced cost will not go into the developer's bank account. Instead the developer will forgo extra profit and lower the market rate cost to buyers.
      The state legislature is bought and sold by developers.
      Local cities' dwindling supply of below market rate living units which are not really affordable under the state definition are being torn down replaced and with $500,000 and above condos. Yes, condos because the ownership of an apartment doesn't give the increased value of selling each apartment as a condo.

    8. 2:35 PM

      Actually, the state does have these statutes. The housing element statute specifies the minimum density the city can use to provide zoning that "theoretically" provides for affordable housing. That density requires more than two stories. Whether that requirement works in a high-priced city like Encinitas is a different matter.

      2:38 PM

      "Stop with the affordable housing garbage wording. What the state legislature wants is low income housing financed by local governments."

      The statute depends on a market solution. Whether that solution is realistic is another matter. If it depended on a local government financed solution they wouldn't have dissolved the redevelopment agencies.

      "The state legislature is bought and sold by developers." You may be right but I'm just pointing out the current law. Be my guest in suing the state or lobbying the legislature to change it. So far, based on the recent history of legislative changes, it's going against your position. I'm not saying I support the current law, I'm just dealing with the reality.

  4. Shaffer, Blakespear and Barth all said that there was a need for affordable housing. Recently, both Shaffer and Blakespear have admitted that there WILL be no affordable housing beyond the inclusionary 10% which has been on the books for years. Therefore, the entire reason for doing this plan was a fraud and a lie. This plan is about maximizing developer profits and creating super-density at the expense of community character, quality of life, and property values for those who already live here.

    If Shaffer and Blakespear actually HAD ethics, they would fight to make sure that there is much more affordable housing. What they are fighting for is to pass this high-density disaster even though they are both documented liars. Very poor form!

  5. The one person who will make zoning determinations is not even a vetted, permanent employee but is an Acting Planning Director called Manjeet Ranu. After wasting 10's of thousands of our tax dollars to publish 30 pages of information in the Coast News and mailing it out every Encinitas household, he admitted that whoops, he made a mistake. He came back with a different map with swapped out parcel for 4,000 additional units when his predecessor Jeff Murphy publish that there was a need for as few as 669 units. Ranu has complained that he himself can't afford to live in Encinitas. This person is the one who has been in charge and will be given greater powers if the Housing Element passes. Vote NO!

    1. 2:56 PM

      Wrong. The mistake was the final council agenda report not the previous mailers.

      "Ranu has complained that he himself can't afford to live in Encinitas." And your point is? Maybe we should pay him more.

    2. Encinitas citizens received 2 sets of mailers. Whose fault was that?

      He is already being paid more than $100,000 and often gets up in the middle of the Planning Commission meetings and disappears for long stretches of time. He is supposed to be the advisor and he can't even sit through the meetings. What is he doing while he should be in the meeting and why can't he afford to live here with the amount of money he gets paid?

    3. Never pay him more. The guy instead needs to go.

      He once told a handful at a workshop that Prop A was never meant to be permanent.

      Look at his record. He never met a project he and his department did not push hard to approve.

      He's bad news...unless your last name happens to be Meyer.

    4. The Deputy Director made $120,000 last year plus
      $39,000 in benefits

      If he can't afford to live in Encinitas he's not very good with all that money we give him.

    5. 3:40 PM

      The two mailers were one for the planning commission meeting and one for the city council meeting.

      "Whose fault was that?" Prop A.

    6. At least they spent some money to inform residents instead of wasting it on consultants and push polls. After the Council voted down the "Ugly Baby" plan, they directed the Planning Department to do the Housing Element internally using staff. Apparently, Ranu didn't get the message since he has already spent over $1.4 million on At Home Encinitas on consultants and other services. How many people do you know who get to pull in $150,000, make mistakes every step of the way, and then outsource the work to others.

      I know! Let's give this guy a promotion and more responsibility to decide all planning issues for the City of Encinitas!

    7. Wrong! Not Prop. A's fault. Prop. A requires public notice within 500 ft. instead of the former 300 ft. But it's the Brown Act that requires notice of public meetings. Two mailers were required for two public meetings: the Planning Commission and the City Council. It's wasn't necessary that the two mailers go to to every household. The city choose to do that. There are household that are more than 500 ft. from the parcels selected for upzoning.

      You can blame Prop. A for requiring a public vote on the upzoing. That it does, but a public vote is a good thing. Otherwise, council would have approved the housing update with a super majority, and the citizens would have had no say in it. Manjeet would have given the developers everything thing they had wanted.

    8. 4:43 PM

      Since the housing element affects the whole city, to follow Prop A they had to mail it to everybody. And before you claim that only the properties being rezoned were affected, there was no guarantee that the originally identified properties would ultimately be the ones selected so it was just easier to do the whole city. If the city hadn't I'm sure someone would be suing them right now.

    9. And there's no guarantee that the final map shows the final properties to be upzoned, either.

      There's a reason the City put four maps' worth of upzones in the EIR: they don't have to do further environmental impact reviews and don't have to come back to the people to ask permission to upzone any of other maps' parcels.

      Shown already to be untrustworthy, there's every reason to believe the City will pull a bait and switch. Who knows how much they'll upzone in the end?

      No to the HEU.

    10. 10:02 AM

      "And there's no guarantee that the final map shows the final properties to be upzoned, either." That is incorrect.

      The Sustainable Mixed Use Places map is the definitive set of parcels that will be given the option of the higher density. I state it that way because the higher density zoning has to be invoked by the property owner. The practical effect is upzoning. Any further upzoning will require a new popular vote. No language remains to allow the council to upzone without a popular vote.

    11. Why did the City take "mixed use" out of the ballot language for the measure pushing "the sustainable mixed use places map?"

      People can't trust a measure that is not straightforward, but appears to attempt to prey on public gullibility, misunderstanding and lack of attention.

      We can't afford to be apathetic. Perhaps there are no decent candidates running, but this is something we can do: vote no on the disingenuous housing element update.

  6. Manjeet Ranu should have left with Jeff Murphy. Ranu's many mistakes will come back to haunt the city Manager.

  7. Ranu claimed that Fire Station 6 in Olivenhain was not a fire station at all. After a citizen and former City staff member showed him the sign that said Fire Station 6 on her cell Phone, Ranu said that it was not in the city of Encinitas. Besides being an a-hole to his staff and to Encinitas citizens, he is incompetent. If I knew nothing else about the Housing Element except that he has been in charge for the past 2 years I would vote against it. Enhancing his authority and any suggestion to increase his pay given his terrible performance is out of the question.

  8. The following was from Lisa Shaffer's 7/21/16 news letter. What mistakes did Ranu and his department make that she discusses in this newsletter?

    Even Lisa Shaffer is talking about his mistakes, and someone here (Ranu? Developers?) is denying it. What gives?

    We all make mistakes ... View this email in your browser

    Sometimes life's a bear ... [this is one we saw in Alaska]

    And sometimes it's the little things that matter. So when staff discovered that a few parcels had been inadvertently omitted on one of the maps deep within the package of housing element materials, they recognized that the mistake had to be fixed. Publicly. Quickly. So two Council meetings that had been cancelled for summer recess were reinstated. The meeting was brief, and the four Council members who were present (Mark Muir was out of town on a long-planned vacation) voted unanimously to approve the corrected documents. We will go through the same process next week at the second reading of the housing/zoning ordinance.

    1. "A few parcels"???? Wasn't it 40 in Ranu's so-called "clerical error?"

      The way City Hall plays with language is outrageous.

      Like affordable housing: now called "attainable." Right.

    2. 5:11 PM

      The map omitted the west side of 101 in downtown Encinitas even though the list of parcels was correct.

    3. Oh so no biggie huh - just the west side omitted. Is this kind of mistake cool with you? With so much at stake and the last thing the city can afford is looking sneakier than it already does ok in your book? Do you agree with the term "clerical error" clearly cooked up to minimize the mistake a good description in your book?

      I can't believe we're paying for this low level of performance. Throw in the underhanded moves and it's really unacceptable.

    4. 11:43 AM

      The parcels were shown on the maps prior to this agenda report. There was no surprise, it was just an error. As I said above, all those parcels were included on the tabular list. There is nothing sneaky about it just an old fashion screw up.

      I doubt you will accept that.

    5. Are you mad that they made an error, or mad that they were able to correct it in time to make the ballot deadlines?

      You realize that if you are opposed to the HEU, that such errors are in your favor?

  9. Any other place except for the City of Encinitas, Ranu would be toast for forcing Council members to change their vacation plans. Have they no standards at all??

  10. What are the possible negative consequences if we vote no?

    1. Per HCD ("the State"), they will never sue a city for non compliance. Per lawyers consulted, a judge will never cross the vote of the electorate and at worst, Encinitas could (in extreme cases) may have to take another crack at an HEU.

      Better luck next time, Council.

    2. 5:06 PM

      "a judge will never cross the vote of the electorate ..."

      Why do you people persist when this is demonstrably false. Better luck next time.

    3. 5:06 PM

      While affordable housing advocates filed the original lawsuit against the city of Pleasanton for not meeting their RHNA obligation, the Attorney General joined the case in support of the plaintiffs so maybe the state would sue a city.

    4. Pleasanton placed a firm cap on housing to be built. That's not the case in Encinitas. Any lot can be built on according to the General Plan and Municipal code. Prop. A only requires a public vote if the council upzones--very different from a cap. Any parcel can be built or rebuilt on according to present zoning. Don't compare apples and oranges.

    5. Still haven't heard any possible negative consequences.



    6. 6:56 PM

      Still holding on to that small distinction. Yes, Pleasanton had a cap but it could be increased by a vote. There wasn't anything preventing the city from putting it to a vote just like Prop A. If the HEU vote is unsuccessful, Encinitas can't use Prop A as an excuse. The city will have failed to have fulfilled state requirements and also the BIA settlement. Either way a judge is going to require Encinitas to fulfill the state requirements and the statute allows as little as 120 days to get it done.

      No one knows what any particular judge will do but suspending Prop A's popular vote requirement is one option, rendering Prop A void is another or ordering a special election to the tune of some +300K is a third. The judge may suspend the city's land use approval authority until a HEU is adopted and who knows if coastal commission approval will play a factor. All the while the city will be on the hook for lawyer fees on both sides. And please don't believe that a judge is going to be deciding on what is in the HEU. They have better things to do.

      But those aren't negative consequences.

    7. Annnnd you just exposed yourself as a developer or developer shill. And that extends far into City Hall.

      "No one knows..." Love that threatening intonation of doom. Whatever, 8:00. Whatever.

    8. 9:54 PM

      Sorry to disappoint you but I'm neither. I don't say these things because that's what I want. I say these things because I'm afraid that is what's going to happen. You on the other hand would appear to prefer to have your head in the sand.

    9. 8:00PM and 12:45AM --

      You obviously have a horse in this race, and it's on the side of developers who stand to make a huge profit or the city who stands to reap huge gains in tax revenue. No one believes that you are on neither side.

      You say no one knows. You minimize the difference that the single case law decision has with the situation in Encinitas. Then why don't we just flip a coin to know what a judge will decide? That would be as good as your fear mongering.

    10. 9:18 AM

      You obviously want to remain in denial. The state supreme court has stated that "Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication" Prop A is considered local law even though it was passed by initiative as was the measure in Pleasanton.

      But who knows, maybe the HEU passes in November and we'll never get to find out how a judge will rule. Then again, maybe it doesn't pass and we will find out.

      If I'm wrong I'll admit it, will you?

    11. 4:44 here (also, not 10:50/12:45/8:00).

      I ask the question not to spark a shouting match, but rather to highlight an appalling lack of reason and common sense. We've become so emotional, so binary and simplistic (good vs. evil), so reflexive. It's not just a criticism of this blog (which it is), but of our whole political scene.

      The point is, EVERY decision that matters in life has potential positive and negative consequences, including this housing element update. To look at the problem from all sides and discuss the balance of risks in the two vote outcomes isn't showing weakness, it's what serious adults in a democracy should do.

      To pretend there are no risks in either vote option is just silly.

    12. I'll take the NO vote risks. The stakes are too high if the vote goes through. Before long we won't recognize the town we know and love. The balance of power will have firmly shifted to City staff. Those known prospects are far scarier than any unknown for me.

    13. 9:47 AM

      While I want to preserve the town's character, at what point in time do we use as the gold standard for preserving? How many old timers recognize the town they grew up in.

    14. 9:47,

      What risks? Be specific.

    15. This plan is full of lies about the awful effects of upzoning on traffic and our infrastructure, neither of which will be dealt with by the time the prison blocks are built.

      The policy portion of the vote - which the City pretends isn't happening - shifts power away from the planning commission, council, and the public to a single City staff member for final project approval.

      This plan is not just about the "max cap" of nearly 2,800 high-density units: not just below the 2,000 high-density units (bad enough), as advertised by the city. And that's before density bonus of another 35% is added on.

      This plan provides no more affordable housing than is already required by city code: a paltry 10% that the City refuses to increase, claiming HCD won't accept restrictions -- despite HCD saying it will.

      This is not about no growth vs. growth. This is about not voting for a devious marketing ploy by the City to slip one by the voters under the soothing name "At Home in Encinitas."

      I don't appreciate being lied to. I call bullshit and I'll vote NO.

    16. Community character went out the window when the lumberyard ceased being a lumberyard and became a retail mall. About the only place you can go to today to get the old vibe is VG's.

      - The Sculpin

    17. That's all you got out of 11:35's post, Sculpin?

    18. Pretty much, yea. I drive around all parts of Encinitas, and it's just such a hodgepodge of stuff. First off, I don't agree that power is being shifted to one city staff member. If that's what it looks like, then that's what the council wants. And we all know how to change that - vote! Oh, and put up some credible candidates, with ideas, who can compromise (give a little / get a little) and get things done. To me, the vote in November is a non-issue. It doesn't matter if it passes or not - growth of some kind will continue. And until a credible candidate is put forth to tackle these issues, there will only be more of the same. So stamp your feet, draw a line in the sand, hold your breath until your face turns blue, vote NO in November, write scathing posts on blogs to your hearts content. When you've got all that out of your system, put your big boy pants on and groom a candidate - one we can all vote for.

      - The Sculpin

    19. You don't agree on the power grab because you haven't read the HEU documents.

      Get off your (high) horse and figure it out. The HEU will not bring normal growth, but exponential growth with 'ol Manjeet making final decisions.

      It's astounding how little you've looked into the details, yet are so quick to brush aside the concerns of those who actually have bothered to find out what the city's really up to.

    20. 6:06 PM

      Exactly where in the HEU does it indicate a power grab?

  11. Read the paper - communities all over San Diego county are facing the same dilemma. Huge developments crowding into the remaining open space, with the political apparatus going along with the agenda. There is little consideration of the problems associated with these projects - traffic, resources, community character, excessive density, etc. Can you imagine Gaspar as Supervisor!? This pro-development shill could do more damage to the region with her blanket approval of every proposal to slam the open space. No wonder Manchester and his ilk buy off the yokel politicans of the region - it is worth mega $$$$$!

  12. Bring in a Judge and watch planning and council squirm.

    Judge: How do we fix this....?
    City Person: We .......
    Judge: Remember, you are under oath.
    City person:
    Judge: hello?
    City,person: I need a lawyer.
    Judge: why? Nevemimd we will let the criminal courts sort it out.

    1. Love it, 9:18. There's your real scenario, 10:50.

    2. 11:11 AM

      In your dreams.

    3. Awww so done going to get between you and your profits, 12:38?

      Try a different tack, your fearmongering was old the first time you folks tried it out.

    4. 2:36 PM

      "so done going to get between you and your profits" I wish. I have no monetary interest in all this. But then you'd have to come up with a reasoned argument instead of these pitiful attempts to paint me as some kind of villain.

      So pointing out a likely scenario is fear mongering? We all know how the BIA, DCM and Desert Rose court cases turned out. Pretty poor batting average of late.

    5. The City fought Desert Rose residents and pursued the fight after losing the first round in court. And the City waved the white flag immediately for DCM and the BIA both, despite the City's own special attorney Kautz saying rounding down base density for density bonus calculations was "defensible."

      So if by "batting average" you mean fighting its own residents after a loss and rolling over for developers despite the attorney's opinion, then yes, it's an abysmal record.

      An abysmal record of standing up to special interests, butit didn't have to be that way. You do know that.

    6. 7:23
      Hopefully a Judge will want a look into that scam. Donate to a campaign then fleece the tax payers. Have they ever settled with a resident? How much has been payed out to their donors? Sabine in on it? Eitherway, the last thing the shitty employees and bought reps. want is an outsider asking hard questions that have to be answered truthfully.

    7. 7:23 AM

      "The City fought Desert Rose residents and pursued the fight after losing the first round in court." While the city was a defendant, Desert Rose was mainly handled by the applicant and his attorney (you know who).

      'despite the City's own special attorney Kautz saying rounding down base density for density bonus calculations was "defensible."' It's true that she said in open session that rounding down was defensible but who knows what advice was given in closed session. Attorney advice is often given as what they think is possible or probable. I'm sure the attorney in Desert Rose thought the case against the city was strong. They prevailed in Superior Court only to get blown out in Appellate Court. There are rarely absolutes.

      The same can be said in the BIA and DCM suits. What is the likelihood of prevailing and if you lose what is the worst that can happen. If you think your chances of prevailing are slim, you settle under the most favorable terms possible.

      "fighting its own residents after a loss and rolling over for developers despite the attorney's opinion" It's what the law says which doesn't always favor residents' wishes, again look at Desert Rose.

      Finally, I know the law. That doesn't mean I agree with the law. As far as rounding down the initial calculation of net acreage in a density bonus project, assembly bill 2501, already supported by the governor, will clarify that. All calculations will round up. So you see even the legislature doesn't agree with you.

      That I do know.

    8. All calculations will NOT round up. The formula for the number of low-income units still rounds down.

    9. Uh...where'd you get that from, 5:47? The city's been hard at work pleasing developers and changing our existing code to round down.

    10. Assembly Bill 2501 will make it quite clear that any rounding done, at any stage, in a density bonus project will be to round up. That includes the initial net acreage calculation. AB 2501 already has the governor's support. Come September it will be a settled issue.

    11. Here's the link to AB 2501:

      It appears the language to clarify the rounding issues hasn't been changed. Go down to section 65915(f) where the density bonus calculation tables are. In subsection 65915(f)(5) it mentions rounding up all fractional density calculations. This appears to only refer to the calculations made in this section, and not to calculations made to determine the base density that the density bonus calculation is based on.

      This is the ambiguity of the law. This section hasn't been changed to clarify the rounding calculations. The legislature doesn't change sections of law that are under litigation. This year it is the Hymettus Estates vs. City of Encinitas, and last year it was BIA vs. City of Encinitas. It sure looks like the DB law will roll over another year before the rounding issue is definitively stated unambiguously.

    12. 6:39 PM

      Look at the bottom of the text:

      "(q) Each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall by separately rounded up to the next whole number. The Legislature finds and declares that this provision is declaratory of existing law."

    13. 6:43 PM
      And the text below what you quoted -
      "(r) This chapter shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units."
      So density bonus isn't about "affordable" it is to increase density for market rate units.

    14. As David Meyer can't stop boasting: he helped write the law!

    15. 8:21 PM

      I'm not a fan of the density bonus law. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the legislature isn't showing any sympathy to going easier on its requirements.

      8:48 PM

      You can watch David Meyer testify as a supporter for AB 2501 before two Assembly committees. So I do think he has helped write the density bonus law both now and in the past.

    16. David Meyers = GREED

    17. I learned "rounding" in grade school. The developers have redefined how to round. It must be the new monetized math. 3.1 rounds to 3.0, not 4.0.

    18. Meyer has been posting throughout this thread. Maybe Mikey raised his rates and now Davey has to write his own BS.

    19. 5:09,

      You hurt my feelings.

      --David C. Meyer

      (or not)

  13. Not sure if EU meant it, but the title of this thread has a double meaning.

    Some members of the opposition are pretty dense, though.

  14. The Up Yours Encinitas Hosing Plan is Meyers key to massive density increases for our community. It may as well as had been written by him. Hmmmm. I wonder.

    Aren't we all so lucky to have him here profiting immensely from the demise of our quality of life? With his mansion on the hill, he can look down on what he has wrought upon the rest of us.

    Traffic impacts, no worries. Increase in pollution, doesn't bother him a bit from his on high viewpoint. Quite a piece of work, you truly are David.

  15. Looks like a handful of other cities are creating better versions of our prop A. Also sounds like these cities are ready for a united front against Brown's over reach on this matter. The pendulum shift has begun, the push back has legs, and the bad developers will be getting desperate and more pathetic. Ultimately, Meyer and the like will be failures having missed out on another real estate boom. Must suck to be hated in your community and suck at your job. That is what greed gets you though. Vote no and kick this gross can down the road a little longer.

  16. At Home in Densinitas. A report said that Brown's affordable housing ideas are meeting more opposition in Sacramento. The developers and their council shills are trying to make unfounded dire predictions of calamity if this HEU isn't passed - all lies. Vote No and watch it stall. Communities should decide their own fates.

    1. "A report said that Brown's affordable housing ideas are meeting more opposition in Sacramento."

      What report?

    2. 12:30,

      If you feel that the risks of a no vote on the HEU are being exaggerated, then what do you think the risks are, exactly?

    3. While everyone refers to the BIA & DCM lawsuits as settled, there are settlements in place but the city still has to fulfill its obligations under the settlements. One of those obligations is to pass a HEU. If the HEU doesn't pass the city goes back to court. No new lawsuit is required.

      The people who claim the risks are being exaggerated don't understand how it works. There have been two lawsuits who both claim that the city hasn't fulfilled its legal obligation to have a qualified housing element. The statute gives judges the ability to rectify the situation. While there is no proscribed way to correct the situation judges have the latitude to direct how and when it will be done. Judges aren't planners and don't want to be. Their only concern is that Encinitas complies with the law.

    4. Who would make such a ridiculous settlement? Nice little hustle or redistribution of tax payer money. Think about all the parties involved. Who is making the decisions on where your tax dollars go? Who is getting the money? Think about what special interest has cost this town, from the contractor that got us fined for the hall property to consultants hired to spin a developers agenda, the shady pension raise.

      There is the law then there is what is going on in this town.


  17. The city has had those awful electric signs telling us that an overlay of asphalt would be placed on
    Santa Fe Dr. for 10 days prior to the date to begin... this past Monday the 8th of August. Here we are the 13th and still no asphalt. Now the signs tell us the work will begin on Monday the 15 of August.. will it or won't it?? As a city employee once told me, "We never give a starting date, finish date nor cost estimate, we don't want to be accountable". And they are NOT.

    1. First, it's a contractor who is responsible. Second, "We never give a starting date, finish date nor cost estimate, we don't want to be accountable" they were yanking your chain. Finally, you have to bitch about an electric sign?

    2. Now, why would a city employee, paid by resident taxes, yank a resident's chain?

      SOP at City Hall.

    3. 5:02 PM

      "Now, why would a city employee, paid by resident taxes, yank a resident's chain?"

      Because people like you take themselves too seriously.

  18. Back to the topic of the Housing Element and its many forms of the past six years. Our Council are sell outs!

    In particular, Shaffer and Kranz both stated in many campaign speeches that they supported affordable housing. Both also explicitly explained that they supported it because "they wanted to get their own children places to live in Encinitas!" Hah, hah!!

    Now that they find out that their own families (or maybe in the case of Tony, he himself since he lives in his mother-in-law's house) don't qualify for affordable housing, our council members are announcing that there will be no affordable housing in this plan.

    If they had a shred of ethics, they would fight to make sure affordable housing happens like they indicated when they wanted our votes. Now it looks like they only support programs for which they and their families can benefit financially.

    We need leadership and especially City staff members who do not make decisions predicated on how they will benefit themselves and their families personally. It seems like everyone supporting this plan has an angle on how to benefit personally at the expense of residents who already live here.

    Our staff could not work any place else but the City of Encinitas.

    Vote No, Hell No!

    1. "... our council members are announcing that there will be no affordable housing in this plan."

      If you had a shred of ethics you wouldn't make that statement. All new potential projects in the new HEU zones still must follow the current inclusionary requirements of any new development. The HEU may not produce the number of affordable units I would like (i.e. more) but to say none is incorrect.

    2. Inclusionary requires one affordable unit for every 10 market rate units or payment of an in lieu fee instead of building the affordable unit. The accumulated in lieu fees then go toward building affordable units elsewhere in the city.

    3. Hey developer or staff member, the 10% inclusionary is what we already have!! If you had a shred of ethics, you would admit that this plan that was marketed as a mandate to provide for affordable housing does nothing more than what has been in place already!!

      This is a simple bait and switch to benefit developers and others who will make big money at the expense of the quality of life for those of us who live here.

      Vote no, and take Manjeet with you when it gets voted down.

    4. The city's pitch is that if voters allow upzoning in the At Home in Encinitas areas so up to 1,987 housing units can be built, some of the developers will invoke density bonus and others will invoke inclusionary, thereby producing affordable units along with the market rate units. Without the upzoning and high density, they say, those affordable units wouldn't be built.

    5. Bottom line - this is not about affordable housing - it is about developers profiteering off a lame State concept that doesn't work. Solve transportation, infrastructure and resources issues FIRST, or forget overloading the development aspect.

    6. 7:06,

      DB is invoked by a developer who trades more unit potential for construction of affordable units. It is optional.

      Inclusionary is not optional. Developers do not invoke or opt in. It is automatic. If you are building ten units or more, you are going to either build affordable units, or pay a fee that's used to subsidize rents for lower income tenants.

      Inclusionary happens with it whithout DB.

    7. Almost right, 2:18:

      24.21.020 Requirement.

      As a condition of approval of any tentative subdivision map for residential dwellings, condominiums, community apartments, stock cooperatives or conversions comprising 10 or more lots or 10 or more dwelling units, the subdivider shall reserve a unit or units for rental or for sale to tenants qualified by the Encinitas Housing Authority or shall alternatively rent the inclusionary unit subject to the applicable Encinitas Affordable Housing Policy adopted by City Council resolution or pay a fee in-lieu thereof, at the option of the subdivider, for the purpose of providing affordable housing assistance. (Ord. 2010-08)

    8. More for clarity:

      24.21.040 Amount of Reservation/In-Lieu Fee Required.

      A. Unit Reservation. If the subdivider elects to reserve units, the number of units required shall be equal to one unit for every 10 lots or 10 dwelling units in the proposed development. Said unit or units shall be sold or rented to persons qualified by the Encinitas Housing Authority.

      B. In-Lieu Fee. If the subdivider elects to make payment in-lieu of unit reservation, the amount of the fee shall be fixed by a schedule adopted, from time to time, by resolution of the City Council. Said amount shall be reasonably calculated to provide the subdivider’s fair share contribution towards meeting the City’s affordable housing objective without placing an unreasonable financial burden on any applicant. (Ord. 2010-08)

  19. The Up Yours Hosing Plan cannot be perfumed for the stinker that it is. It is a shame and quite shameful that there is not a single candidate that will defend our community from this urbanization scheme and that is what is, a scheme, a scam, an outright lie. The main feature is supposed to be based on mixed use and just where is that description in the ballot statement.

    Oh, thats right, now I remember, Catherine had that term removed. A thought just came to me recalling the gang that couldn't shoot straight. In our case, it is our gang that can't be straight with us.

    How can they not realize that the truth is always an easier path and that the lies have their own costs in the end?