The city council faces a deadline tonight to come up with a housing plan to put on the November ballot.
The most recent iteration has Leucadia residents up in arms over a massive new development on Clark Avenue near I-5 and Leucadia Boulevard, which, rumors have, was added as part of a land swap to give developer David Meyer the city's prime real estate on Quail Gardens Drive.
According to the council's plans, the majority of high-density development would fall on Leucadia and Old Encinitas, while Cardiff and Olivenhain would be largely unscathed.
The council appears determined to push forward with this plan even though it has already been ruled inadequate by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Please use the comments to record your observations.
I did not see the land swap on the agenda. Is this another secret deal? BTW, if the members of the city council know about this have they violated the Brown Act?
ReplyDeleteIf someone has been following this more closely, please chime in.
DeleteBut I believe the idea is to upzone the Clark property first to make it worth a fortune. Then it could be traded/sold for the more desirable Quail Gardens property at a later date.
The Clark property has been in play since May, with residents speaking against it at the last few council meetings. I don't think anything has changed in the plan since late June - any changes would have to be noticed and there wouldn't be time to get it on the ballot. The yes/no vote at the July meeting was deadlocked because Muir was on vacation. Tonight's their last chance to get it on the ballot.
ReplyDeleteAnswer me this about tonights meeting.
ReplyDeleteHCD announced the latest attempt on a housing element update was being denied because of, and they named directly who is the reason why, Mark, Tony, and Joe, for the denial.
What exactly can these three HCD named bumblers do, if anything, to approve a plan that has already be denied by HCD?
These three should resign tonight for all their backroom deals with Meyer and Harrison and who knows who else. Stakeholders, my keister.
The residents are the only true stakeholders that should be listened to. Council was offered the chance to pass a housing element several times by the residents, but the fix was in.
HCD saw this and made their denial. Tonight, I hope these three sell outs are squirming in their seats. They certainly should be. It is their sheet show after all.
Approval will put the measure on the ballot, where it will fail miserably. No approval will underscore the incapability of this council and their "task force" to ONCE AGAIN not be able to come up with a decent plan. Meanwhile, Tony and Tasha keep their seats, Mosca is still unopposed, nobody knows who Blakespear's opponents are, and Muir is running against Tasha jr. Business as usual.
ReplyDeleteThen all is fine in the city of greed and corruption....
DeleteA fish rots from the head first, council is a rotten failure.
Chime: Ding-dong, the witch is dead in November.
ReplyDeleteAt least Tony, Mark and Joe are willing to fight back with the state. Catherine and Tasha wanted ALL the site now being consider, plus 4 more housing developments.
ReplyDeleteNot entirely true. Catherine and Tasha wanted L-7 instead of some of the sites on the current plan. When L-7 was removed, they agreed to other sites to be HCD compliant. The L-7 flip flop messed up what was a reasonable and compliant plan. Some of the new sites added will help developers and hurt community character, while not adding affordable housing.
DeleteCatherine and Tasha also pushed to keep their favorite Keith Harrison's EOS property on the map even after it was revealed by a resident that it would not be accepted by the state.
DeleteLangager had to admit "staff" never bothered to check whether developer darling Harrison's parcel was compliant. It wasn't.
Really? It was those three who tanked the HEU with HCD.
ReplyDeleteIt was those three who removed the one site that could have provided low cost housing without market rate greed being a part of the equation.
It was those three, that with that L7 removal, awoke every neighborhood in the city to see how compromised the process is.
Yes, we do have something to thank these three bozos for, and it is a great awakening across the whole of our city.
I could go on, after years of watching them, but what is the use? Nothing will fix our current situation but for all of them to be gone.
Fact of the matter is that this plan will result in a negative number of affordable houses built. Way more market rate and a couple cheap units, several decades of this law prove this. Next round will require even more upzoning, lawsuits, and a burden on our local government/tax dollars. We should be putting our resources into fighting the law but our developers paid a lot of money for our council.
ReplyDeleteTasha jr. good one. I hope it is not true but can’t keep voting for the same people and expect different results. Courts won’t have any sympathy for us if we do. Not that council won’t just approve some ridiculous settlement or actually want it to fail so they can claim it is out of their hands. They will just hand it over to the eco-terrorist/developers tool Marco over dinner one night.
You want affordable housing. Let all the grannyflat folks come out from under their tax free rock and give them tax incentives. Why would anyone want an extra unit when your property tax could triple and what’s left after taxes would hardly be worth the effort. As it stands now, if you want to legally help someone out with a small affordable unit, it would cost you more than you would make, by design.
Never lose sight of the fact that this state mandated scam is all about increasing tax revenue. If it was truly about affordable housing they would not allow things like "in leu fees". "Affordable Housing" was just a bullshit sales pitch intended to get compassionate people on board of which I am one. Please show me one example in the whole state where this scam has actually created significant affordable housing. Show me one example in Encinitas where density bonus resulted in housing for a income challenged family that wasn't connected to the developer.
DeleteCabezon
According to the city website, Tony Brandenburg has pulled papers to run against Mosca. Zack Gaven Mair, John Paul Elliot, and Scott Graydon Carter have pulled to run against Blakespear - who are they?
ReplyDeleteZack is the 21yo...Check him out on Facebook, better than what we have now and would be a good FU to our current sell outs.
DeleteElliott is a real estate guy, all you need to know there.
Carter is also a real estate guy.
So you have to plants from the BIA who are all for selling out Encinitas, literally. You have our current failed leadership. Then, you have a 21yo talking about compromise. Even if the kid is a complete shart show we will be better off.
I don’t like Muir but don’t hate him either. I worry about Tasha jr who was pro prop t, would go lock step with the majority, and is really just more of the same. It would be nice to have at least one republican around. We don’t need more taxes , parking meters, feel good projects, or handouts, we need to get this HEU monkey off our backs once and for all.
The state also needs to know sooner rather than later that when this HEU fails we will be challenging the legality of the law and recruiting other cities to join us in the effort to get it off the books. If we can’t win in the courts we win at the ballot box. Either way, smart money fights now to save much more later. Gas tax will be a goner, so will the affordable housing sham.
How much has the HEU process cost us? By us I mean you and me, the taxpayers who are funding this sham.
This is way out of Marco and Sabine league, waaaaay out. Throw them to the curb and stop letting those two muddy the waters.
Carter you have dead wrong. Do a records request at the city and you'll see years' worth of his complaints filed against the city regarding staff and council ignoring residents in favor of developers.
DeleteMany real estate folks are against what our city pulls. Several big names that would shock you to hear worked to pass Prop A and against Measure T.
You clearly don't know Carter, who is up for fighting the state for real - not the weak attempt Blakespear makes. I notice you don't go after the head of the snake Blakespear, so have to wonder about your rush to snap judgement. Do your homework, check back later.
“Current failed leadership” was directed at Blakespear. Carter has until November to change my mind. His job is to sell houses, he has financial incentives to pass a developer friendly HEU. The 21yo kid does not. If he is indeed fighting the state I would like to see what he is doing exactly, even help. I don’t know him, most people in this city don’t know him, that is what campaigns are for. Tell carter to do his homework by November and maybe he can get a vote.
DeleteNames some big names in real estate that have put in an effort? I know a few real estate big wigs that say one thing then give money to the BIA. I’ve done coke off hookers butts with some of these guys. Real estate guys know how to party. Wouldn’t trust them with my stray cat let alone Encinitas.
Real Estate brokers kiss developer butt to be the one to sell the new homes. More commission and less paperwork. Pretty much everyone we have elected has done a 180 once in office. Why would a real estate guy be any different? Getting an exclusive on L7 is worth a lot of money, don’t want that sort of temptation hanging over our mayor. He can convince me otherwise and has some time to do so. I don’t want to vote for a 21yo, just not enough real world experience, but better than more special interest BS.
The L7 swap is a deal the city made with David Meyer: under the guise of the state-mandated affordable housing plan, the city is including an upzone from R1 to R3 on the L7 property, thus making it much more valuable to Meyer; he is trading an inferior property for it.
ReplyDeleteWhile in keeping with Prop A's technical requirement that upzones go before voters, it's trickery on the city's part to combine it with parcels upzoned specifically to comply with state affordable housing parcels and sell it as such to voters.
The city counts on most residents not reading or understanding this gift to Meyer and, should they complain later, will crow if the HEU passes that "this is what you approved."
This is nothing less than a gift of city-owned property to Meyer. The question is: are all five council members in on the favor? Promised something in return for sneaking it into the purportedly affordable housing plan?
Cue Tony K explaining why it's all good, nothing to see here, move along.
A real city leader, aka not sold out to Meyer, would not even allow Meyer in the building until he drops his lawsuit and agrees not to sue for 10 years. Then you have a conversation with him, and only a conversation. Oh wait, his suit was thrown out. So don’t let him in the building until he pays the city back for sabines worthless time.
DeleteEver wonder how someone can crap all over the city and still get special favors? If you don’t, you should and so should the law. Watch, the city will lie cheat and steal to keep this out of court for a reason.
This needs to be front and center for every voter even thinking about voting "yes." It speaks volumes about the plan as a whole.
DeleteLord knows it won't be the city fessing up, so tell your neighbors. This gift to Meyer is in black and white in the ballot measure to show those blind, loyal few left who can't believe that their wonderful council and staff could do such a thing.
The HEU Prop should contain nothing but what’s required to comply with state Housing Element law. Period. The L7 zoning to R3 should be voted on separately. I will be voting no unless it’s a clean prop.
DeleteBlakespear back to jazz hands. She cuts speaker time down by a third, but takes the first eight minutes schooling us on how to create a "positive microcosm of democracy."
ReplyDeleteA microcosm is the opposite of a macrogasm.
DeleteThe crazy cat ladies are out in full force tonight.
ReplyDeleteAnd where are you, Mikey? Hiding under the dais at the feet of a certain council member?
DeleteC'mon do the right thing L-7 instead of 19!
ReplyDeleteBack in yer hole Mikey. Your name has come up a lot tonight, hasn't it.
DeletePeople that are for the HEU seem really uniformed and vague or just about the money. Against folk seem to be specific and on point with the matter at hand.
ReplyDeleteBlakespear pretended waaaay to hard not to know about the Meyer deal. She knows, they all do.
ReplyDeleteA normal reaction would have been to ask staff what it's about, since they have all the paperwork.
Instead, she just sat there and made weirdly vague remarks like "I don't know...I haven't heard...no one told me...." Just like her mentor Shaffer used to do when caught.
Has anyone seen any documents, or is this just a rumor? Has anyone done a FOIA request?
DeleteFolks have shown the highly-redacted docs filed with the city over several council meetings. This situation was first brought to the council's attention in public a couple of months ago. This is not news to any of the five, no matter how big Blakespear makes her eyes in fake surprise.
DeleteTASHA GOT CAUGHT ON TAPE LYING TO THE PUBLIC. SHE STATED THAT SHE DIDN'T VOTE FOR THESE SITES - WHEN IN FACT SHE SECONDED THE MOTION!
ReplyDeleteNo surprise there. She's proven to be deceitful before - may we never forget her gerrymandering of the district maps that wouldn't have been discovered without investigative reporting. She is ineffective, stubborn, and self-important. Do NOT vote for her for assembly.
DeleteThe Meyer site on Clark showed up at (almost literally)the last minute at the May 9 council meeting. It didn't even make either agenda report, original and additional (which was posted May 8). Tasha did make a motion to remove the Meyer site but it died. The council was voting to add additional sites to make up for removing L-7 and the strawberry fields site. There were other motions about sites but the final motion and vote was adding the Highly Visible Sites minus site AD10 to the HE. The Meyer site wasn't part of that list according to the Minutes. There was no final vote on the complete revised list so it seems strange how the Meyer site was included as there doesn't appear to be a formal vote including it unless the Minutes are in error.
Delete