Saturday, October 13, 2018

Coastal Commission approves Leucadia Streetscape

Coast News:
A proposed overhaul of Leucadia’s stretch of Coast Highway 101 received the California Coastal Commission’s unanimous blessing.

The commission’s board, which is hosting its monthly roving three-day meeting in downtown San Diego, rendered its decision after two hours of testimony on a project that has polarized the community for more than a decade.

The commission also denied an appeal of the city’s approval of the project filed by a group known as the Encinitas Residents Coalition.

The project will dramatically transform the stretch of 101 into a bicycle-, pedestrian- and transit-friendly enclave complete with six roundabout intersections.

95 comments:

  1. Yep, Encinitas firepower out in full force including Blakespear, Horvath, and Kranz, who intoned "suicide alley" over and over and over (never mind the 101 hasn't been called that in decades).

    The fix was in with City manager and L101 Kellie Shay hugging it out in the hallway crowing "we make a good team" after the decision. Even the two Coastal Commissioners who themselves had appealed Streetscape were dead silent. Clearly they'd gotten the gag memo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Watch it Kellie, she's known for sinking a shiv deep in your back when your walking away and least expect it. It starts with, "Oh Hi, How are you!!!!?!!!!"

      Delete
    2. Hard to tell her apart from the one before her, also in attendance in the same "look at me" uniform.

      Delete
    3. Once Prop FU is voted down, the City Manager should be shown the door immediately. The main reason is for recommending the City Council support a Measure that would kill the PROP A which was very popular and a priority for the Encintas voter.

      She is clearly bad for the quality of life in Encinitas and must go. We don't want to live in Pacific Beach or Huntington Beach. We like the quaint beach town made up by Leucadia, Cardiff, Encinitas and Olivenhain communities.

      Delete
  2. What is the Streetscape? Six roundabouts in a mile and a half that will be dominated by large groups of bicyclists passing through Leucadia. A new median that is designed as a zigzag and planted with small trees. The Council will take private property for the Streetscape. Highway 101 is classified as a major arterial 4 lanes road. The Council in 2013 illegally removed the northbound lane. Now this Council can remove the southbound lane. With the approval of the LCP amendment, the Council can remove any lane in any part of the city. All of this for the small fortune of $30 million for the Streetscape.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Vote for Elizabeth Warren.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 11:06pm. A slight correction on the number of roundabouts. Streetscam reduced that to four. I would take the bet that the current four will be added onto later.

    That is about the only changes that have been made to satisfy the CCC demands for approval. What a sham.

    Then again, the sham, or shame, as it has now become, shows how weak the CCC has become in defending access to our coastline.

    Welcome to single lanes north and south. I hope the vocal minority pushers can rejoice in breathing in deeply with all backed up traffic, bumper to bumper back to La Costa Ave. with single lanes north and south.

    We will all know who to blame for this travesty. You now own it. Reducing this once divided four lane major arterial into single lanes each direction, will not be fun.

    Parking? What a complete scam. The planned three parking bays on the railroad right of way can be removed by the transit district anytime they choose. They will never give that up on any kind of a permanent basis. That is a fact.

    The fix was in. The CCC neglected their primary stated purpose of defending access to the coastline. Shame on them for approving this sham.

    The CCC has opened the door that cannot be closed.



    ReplyDelete
  5. 7:05am. Go Elizabeth Warren. She has the heart needed for the job.

    Tasha has always been about Tasha. Blind ambition personified.

    ReplyDelete
  6. NCTD hasn't given up their property on the east side of 101, and the private property owners haven't given up theirs on the west side. How will the city get all that land?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its called an easement process. The same they used for all the crossings and the train stations. Its no big deal.

      Delete
    2. "It's a process."

      Delete
    3. NCTD: "Use of District property by third parties shall not interfere with current or future transit use by the District."

      Delete
    4. 3:12 PM

      NCTD and the city are negotiating to avoid any interference. One issue is the two track alignment (yes it's coming). There is enough room to fit parking. They're just working out the details.

      Delete
    5. 12:16 PM
      Where is the documentation on the negotiating. Minutes? Recordings? Staff reports?

      Delete
  7. hey good buddies,
    I ain't got nothing against streetscape but, tell you what, I'll be rolling several sets of tandems over the rinky-dink hamster wheels being stuck onto the 101.
    clearly, y'all got some some bulbs in Encinitas.
    10-4 ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anyone know Mike or Paula Verdu? Apparently, they've self funded ($10K) a PAC to push for their candidates who support streetscape. He works for Electronic Art, I'm checking out his employment activity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They've got financial self interests in it obviously.

      Delete
    2. What financial interests? Be specific.

      It’s not obvious.

      Delete
    3. Wow, we made Encinitas Undercover due to our massive financial interests in Leucadia! Well, we do love Fish 101, Pandora's Pizza, and Bird's Eye Kitchen... so I guess you got us cold!

      Delete
  9. Lots of contract $$$ no doubt already promised.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1:15pm The city will take however much footage is needed for the roundabouts from private property owners.

    Grandview is one.

    Leucadia Glass on El Portal is another.

    Bishops Gate can spare the loss since there no structures on their property where the roundabout will need to go.

    That leaves the fourth roundabout which I will leave to others to fill in the situation there.

    The process that gives the city the right to take footage from property owners is called Eminent Domain. It is based upon the notion of the greater good. Yea right. Just wonderful.

    $30 million is just a starting point. I will take that bet. When does any public project around here not go over budget?

    The CCC has abrogated its duty to protect access to the coastline.

    Shameful.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The city has not said it will use eminent domain to take the private property. The word used in the documents is "dedication."

      Does anybody think the private property owners will say, oh, sure, I'll dedicate my valuable land on Highway 101 to the city?

      Delete
    2. So, 12:02, if the city wanted to take your property by declaring it an easement, what would you do?

      Delete
    3. Stomp my feet and cry?

      Nah.

      That’s what you do.

      Delete
    4. 5:20 That's not an answer, dipshit.

      Delete
  11. And Streetscape is supposed to accomplish what??? $30 mil for roundabouts and a landscaped center medium? If access to the area is further constricted, businesses will die off. Yhen they will urbanize - is that the plan?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The important thing to remember about Streetscape is that Lynn lost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charlie...go west and keep walking. You won't be missed,

      Delete
    2. Marvin is quoted in the Coast News article. He is a master gaslighter. We all know he has self interests with his owining commercial properties on Highway 101. Commercial property owners should have to pay special property tax assessments, or they would be receiving an Unconstitutional Gifting of public funds enrichment.

      Delete
  13. Mike Verdu and his crazy eyed wife are wolfs in sheeps clothing. They've own Blakespear and her minions. Very bad people!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike’s a good guy.

      Delete
    2. Read Mike on EV. He and Paula both drink of the kool aid.

      Delete
  14. Well, charley boy/man child, even Kool aid is better than what you imbibe to make you what you are and how you treat others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? I'm not Marvy, but I do note what the Verdus support on EV and see they're in lockstep with Blakespear, spouting the city party line on virtually every issue.

      Delete
  15. Have any of you been through Del Mar? They use to have 4 lanes and people speeding through their city. No one speeds there now and it is a pleasant drive. People go to the freeway. What a concept, use the freeway to commute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Del Mar 101 is four lanes from Jimmy Durante Boulevard to Del Mar Heights Road. It's also four lanes north of the river bridge. That's about 3/4 of the city.

      Delete
    2. The best part is where its 2 lanes through north beach .

      The four lane sections suck.

      Delete
    3. 4:24 accurately explains why commercial property owner and businesses don't want streetscape.

      I haven't driven through Del Mar in years. Too slow and too much traffic.

      Delete
    4. The. How do you explain Charlie Marvin, Fred Caldwell, Morgan Mallory?? All Leucadia 101 businessmen, all rabidly pushing streetscam.

      Delete
    5. Explanation: stupidity!

      Delete
  16. On this Wednesday's council agenda - Get set for homeless shelters in your neighborhoods. The council is going after grants.
    A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING A SHELTER CRISIS PURSUANT TO SB 850 (CHAPTER 48, STATUTES OF 2018 AND GOVERNMENT CODE §8698.2) IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Encinitas, California that:
    1. A shelter crisis pursuant to Government Code §8698.2 exists in the City of Encinitas;
    2. The relaxation of rules pursuant to Government §8698.1(b) apply only to programs and structures receiving the written approval of the City Council which will be present on public facilities in Encinitas and which can operate without interference with administration of the City or adversely impacting the Encinitas community;
    3. Authorize the City’s participation in the Homeless Emergency Aid Program; and
    4. The declaration authorized by this Resolution shall remain in place until the expiration of the Homeless Emergency Aid Program on June 30, 2021.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Put it next door to the Council members and Meyers.

      Delete
  17. Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!!!!

    WTF- Are they nuts! We want less bums and the problems and crime they bring. If this passes, let put the shelters right next door to each of the crazies who vote for this insanity.

    If you feed the rats, pigeons, cockroaches and bums, they will come and the population explodes. Don't be a co-dependent- help them to pursue a better life. Vote no on this shit!!!!

    And don't give the bums any food or money, you are enabling them to continue being drug addicts and drunks. Help them by pointing them toward the closest church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A local church suggested not to give the "homeless" money, but to direct them to an organization specifically oriented to their issues. Some were becoming too "assertive" in their begging and were beginning to scare people.

      Delete
  18. Mike Verdu is a NUT!!! Maybe, we can create a website focused on his craziness and behind the scene actions? Blakespear's Puppet Master!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Voted against overdevepment of Encinitas and voted to keep it from looking like Huntington Beach or Pacific Beach. I Voted NO on fricken U.

    The only ones for it are profiteering developers, sell out land owners, and pawns (our politicians who supported FU, and bad City Manager and Staff).

    I noticed Tasha didn't sign her name to the arguments for FU. Smart Tasha. This one is probably as bad or worse than the last.

    If you love Encinitas and hate Huntington Beach's overdevelopment , vote NO on U! Spread the word to 5 of your voting friends. Thx.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And vote for Elizabeth Warren.

      Delete
    2. Tasha didn't sign her name because she's playing to her district constituents who will be affected by development of the Clark property. Literally HER constituents since she drew the district maps. As a former planning commissioner who helped draft measure T, she should have voted for measure U. Don't promote her to Assembly and vote her out of office for good in 2020.

      Delete
  20. I got here in the early 70's when most of what you see today didn't even exist. Back then "residents" were still complaining about how the I-5 ruined Encinitas and it was the fault of the greedy developers. Then the state wanted to build 680 - bang - we're now our own city. Since we've been a city countless developments have been built - all by greedy developers - and here we are today. Guess what? You can't go back, you can never go back. All you can do is try to make it better. One thing I can guarantee - voting no on U won't make anything better; it just kicks the can down the road. The only way to make things better is put this whole HEU issue behind us and vote yes on U and then start working within that framework to keep the city vibrant and fresh. It's time to move on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This "put it behind us," "move past this" language is classic city talk when faced with public outrage. And "vibrant?" Classic developer code to justify overdevelopment. Yes, we're still here but worse for the countless developments.

      A No vote forces the council to acknowledge that treachery will get them nowhere. From Blakespear taking a photo of the Prop A killer clause to Mosca trying to insert into the rebuttal language fearmongering claims the city couldn't back up, staff plus a complicit, look-the-other-way council have brought us yet another product of greed and back-room shenanigans.

      7:41 may think that level of conspiring against residents should be rewarded, but those of us against U do not.

      Voting No has the potential to finally force the city to bring voters an honest plan.

      Delete
    2. 9:31 - if you really believe that the council is "conspiring against residents" then your only option is to replace the entire council, and that just won't happen. Voting No only kicks the can down the road and makes any compromise more and more difficult. The honest plan you refer to doesn't exist - if it did we would be talking about it.

      Delete
    3. 10:38 - I think Council has no clue what they are doing. They let staff fly through the process.

      I do believe last minute changes had nothing to do with broader community interests, and rather helped out a few property owners.

      Voting no doesn't continue to kick the can down the road. The rejection of Measure T did that. Now we are at a place where we are being told that this is the last option? Come on. There is a better plan out there. Measure T was even better. It just had a couple too many sites. So don't project out things that aren't true.

      Delete
    4. 7:41 AM After reading your slanted diatribe, i will vote NO on U.

      Delete
    5. 7:41 - we were talking about an honest plan back in February when the city consultant told Blakespear and Kranz at a task force meeting "The way to pass a plan is to put a barebones one in front of voters. That means you strip out all the extras you had in Measure T. The state doesn't require them and it will only make people want to vote against the plan."

      So yeah, there was an honest plan. A few weeks later the same dude had clearly gotten the BIA memo and stopped talking about barebones and began referring instead to using material from Measure T. Blakespear and Kranz never questioned the 180 turn.

      But I have a feeling you already know all this.

      Delete
    6. 1:01 - Yes, I knew that and that's my point exactly. The HEU is a compromise between all stakeholders of the city. Yes, greedy developers are stakeholders - especially now that we've allowed this issue to go to the courts. A bare bones plan will not pass because too much has taken place since the 90's. A bare bones plan would have worked back then. So now we're between a rock and a hard place - time to take our lumps and move on.

      Delete
    7. There's that city word - "stakeholder." The only time it's used is in place of "developer," by the city - when the city doesn't want to raise red flags. Well, too late. They're up and they're waving.

      HCD is the only stakeholder Encinitas needs to answer to. The so-called compromise was our city wanting to keep the BIA fat and happy. But that is not what we elected the council to do. Like I said, the consultant to HCD recommended bare bones for this plan. Sounds like you think you know better. More likely, you've got a lot to lo$e when Measure U fails.

      Delete
    8. 2:29 - I have nothing to lose - I'm just a voter. And a realist, and practical. By the way, the term stakeholder is prevalent in many business and investment circles - not just the city. Clearly what you elected the council to do they haven't done. What's worse is they've painted themselves into a box that they can't get out of. So forget about what you wanted them to do originally and focus on moving forward. The only way to fix this is through compromise - something you're clearly not interested in. Please vote your conscience, but at some point the debate moves beyond you and you're left with nothing. So how about you run for office?

      Delete
    9. You're a city apologist using city jargon.

      You want to pass U to "move forward." I want to reject it so as not to reward a council that designed a plan behind closed doors.

      You're able to look the other way while developers have their way with us. I'm not.

      Delete
    10. I guess all you see is nails........

      Delete
    11. You want to move forward. I want an honest plan. That's where we diverge. Peace out.

      Delete
    12. "Low to very Low incoe" housing.........equals Section 8
      This means your property values go down and you have the honor of paying taxes so the government can subsidize the Section 8 leaches. The same Section 8 housing that brought your property vales down.

      Delete
    13. 6:41 - 7:53 is not me....thank you for a somewhat civil discussion - not much of that going on around here. Peace out.

      Delete
    14. 7:53 no doubt one of the Quail Gardens Dr. NIMBY bigots. It's actually YOUR sort that isn't wanted. I'll take a supposedly-lower property value any day over having you as a neighbor.

      Delete
    15. 8:16 - 6:41 here - thanks.

      Delete
    16. 7:53 Rather than displaying your ignorance, why not do the research and find the facts? Ignorance and bigotry don't help you, and they hurt others.

      Delete
    17. 8:53 and 11:48.......written like true leftists......as the name calling surfaces.
      Typical of the America hating left.
      Only a fool wants their property values gong down.

      Delete
    18. LOL your garden-variety leftist has nothing on the unhinged trump rager. You funny, 3:36.

      Delete
    19. 7:53's knee-jerk position requires ignorance and an absence of thinking.

      Delete
  21. Measure U, the Housing Element is great for developers. Vote NO on Measure U.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The supplemental "information" Measure U catalog came today - it is a waste of paper. Easy enough - vote NO.

      Delete
  22. The streetscape hasn't been built yet and probably won't when the bids come in at $75-80 million dollars. The city will decide that money would be better spent on a new city hall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bids will be 25% higher because of taxes/tariffs.

      The city will incur ruin when Measure FU fails and is sued.

      All incumbents will be out of office in 2020.

      New leadership will redo the design of 101. Maybe by then we will know what NCTD wants and we will be able to replan to make things the community wants.

      Delete
    2. "Ruin?" The only ruin will come if Measure FU passes and developers have their way with what's left of any charm in our town.

      Delete
    3. 10:19-What NCTD wants is to not lose 1" of their land. What the community wants is anyone guess. I've never lived where people are so confused and delusional. Our choices for govt leadership are abysmal. Muir- Claims to be for the little guy, little taxpayer...never met a spending program for fire princesses he can't get behind. Can't seem to separate himself from the govt teat. That goes for his wife also. His opponent in this election is for big govt, big spending, no walls, no borders-is it okay to separate ourselves from Solana Beach??, no ICE, no plastic straws. I wonder if processed toilet paper is okay or does she prefer we go back to the Sears catalog?? Opps, Sears went bust gotta find something else. Ideas?? She's for sanctuary cities and state, and a whole lotta other nonsense. God help us. Oh wait, can't mention God unless its Allah. But I don't mean Allah.

      Delete
    4. Or..........the city can go out and spend another 10 million dollars on a defunct elementary school.
      Let it sit for years just to have finger painting classes for ten year olds. Gawd.......

      Delete
  23. 2:14 - I hope your writing Diarrhea gos away soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5:35 - did you have an intelligent point to make, or was that it for you?

      Delete
    2. 5:35-You are one of the delusional people that I mentioned. Of all the points I made which are inaccurate? NONE!! Now have a pleasant day. Wait, you are delusional, every day is a pleasant day when you don't deal in reality.

      Delete
    3. 5:35 More gaslighting by Marvin

      Delete
  24. I felt good to vote in support of Encinitas character and not selling out to Huntington Beach style development . I Voted NO on U and encourage you to tell 5 of your voting friends to vote no on U

    FU to those that put this crappy measure even on the ballet. Heads should role following this election!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea, it has been a very expensive endeavor. The supplemental "telephone book" explaining the intricacies of the measure arrived - guaranteed the vast majority of voters won't even give this a precursory glance. This measure is so cloaked in backroom accomodations and Trojan Horse booby traps, that it is doomed. Vote NO on U.

      Delete
  25. No doubt Prop U will fail but an interesting development is Stet Bill 1226 that will require cities to count granny flats into the housing equation. Oops, that sounds like it might eat into the profits of local developers. Will be interesting to see if our city drags it's heels on this one since they go to bed with the developers on the regular basis.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Senate Bill 1226 signed by Jerry Brown Sept 20 2018.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The streetscam project was fueled by lobbying and pressure by special interests. It never will accomplish what Council claims in its resolution of "overriding considerations." The CCC decision was more about political appearances than reality and commonsense. Bicycle and pedestrian, alternative transit benefits were not proven. Advocates tried to take credit for planned RR crossings, which are not part of Streetscape. Advocates tried to say the benefits would outweigh the significant, unavoidable negative environmental impact which the City's EIR proved to our circulation element.

    What has been accomplished, so far, is a loss of trust in self-interested, deluded, authorities, and the betrayal of the public trust.

    There would be no potential source of lease revenue for this project. The public must be allowed to vote for General Obligation Bonds. If the City is so sure this is what the public wants and needs, then allow us to vote. Stop gaslighting and disenfranchising us.

    ReplyDelete
  28. PROGRAM 2C: Utilize Section 8 housing choice vouchers

    This program provides rental assistance to eligible very low income households (with incomes not exceeding 50 percent of the area median). The subsidy represents the difference between the rent that exceeds 30 percent of a household’s monthly income and the actual rent charged. To cover the
    cost of the program, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to allow the City of Encinitas Housing Authority to make housing assistance payments on behalf of the families.

    HUD also pays the Housing Authority a fee for the costs of administering the program. HUD has not issued any new vouchers to the City of Encinitas for the past five years.

    In January 2004 and January 2005, HUD capped the Section 8 budget, which required the City to reduce program operating costs. The City responded in part by increasing the payment standards and enhancing occupancy standards which provides for more rental unit opportunity.

    On March 1, 2013, around $85 billion in federal budget cuts, known as sequestration, took effect. The cuts are part of a 10-year plan of catastrophic funding reductions to our nation’s discretionary domestic programs, including the HUD and the military. The impact of sequestration on the City’s Housing Authority has resulted in the loss of annual funding for rental subsidy payments and program administration.

    Although the City will continue to administer its 136 housing vouchers, due to high market rents, especially considering the recent implementation of Small Area Fair Market Rents it currently has funding to subsidize only 104 households, and the City has allocated general fund dollars to pay for
    administrative costs to replace in part declining federal support. The City’s ability to expand or even maintain this program at its current level is derived from the annual Federal budget process. Recent indications from HUD are that Federal support for Section 8 will not be expanded. However, when
    additional funds become available to assist new families, the City will provide additional housing vouchers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, if Measure U passes, the affordable units built won't be Section 8 housing? Is that correct?

      Delete
    2. Measure U really doesn't have anything to do with Section 8. They City could terminate, modify, or expand Section 8 at any point without the need to have a public vote.

      The fact that it is included in what you received is an utter waste of taxpayer money and is deliberately used to frustrate or confuse the reader.

      The only thing that needed to be included, from my understanding, was the land use portion (rezoning). That could have been accomplished in about 4 pages.

      I voted no

      Delete
    3. 7:48's understanding is correct. Prop A requires a vote on increased density above current zoning and height above 30 feet, period. Don't believe it? Read the five pages that is Prop A.

      Measure U also changes how height is Measure to allow padding up. And by the way, changing how height is measured is not required by "the state," instead is just another bit of city finagling to make developers happy under the guise of "state law."

      The city has proven it will say anything to get this plan passed - SOP for staff and the complicit council.

      Delete
    4. Measure U also changes how height is measured....

      Delete
    5. 7:48 is right. However, you could also say Measure FU has NOTHING to with affordable housing. The City could help finance and build affordable housing anywhere. What is being submitted to voters is an increase in density on some properties, only.

      Delete
  29. Market rate projects remain the impetus for any sold out efforts by our council.

    So simple. It is all there buried in the city's production of a biased tax payer supported publication that we all received this week in the mail.

    Don't believe anything coming from the city, or from any of their associated mouthpieces who have signed on in support.

    The truth is out there. It does not come from our elected supposedly representatives on our council.

    The real and only truth comes from a few dedicated residents who find the city's hidden gems of deception in the city's written proposal.

    Our council was repeatedly offered a plan that would be successful and ignored them every time.

    The fix was in from the beginning, and shame on all of them for taking the same proven to fail process of listening to developers instead of the only real stakeholders, the residents who look not to profit, but to preserve what we all love about our community.

    Hey COE, maybe next time you will learn not to repeat the same old sell out to developers way forward. You had a chance this time and blew it again.

    As some have said, we are better off having a judge pave the way forward. Council has proven to be unreliable again and again in their refusal to take on the inside developer interests.

    We could have been successful this time if council had the balls to actually represent their constituents. Shame on all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 2:48- Diddo. The City Hall blew this one big time. Shows the level of incompetence working at our City. Major housecleaning needed from the Top down.

    They could even get the faulty ballot measure pamphlet out in time which is full of developer giveaways, allows 3 stories throughout our City, and creates much more traffic gridlock and overcrowded beaches. Its an easy NO vote and deserves the name Measure FU.

    Unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete