Our choices for council are dismal. Muir or Hubbard?? That's like saying would you rather be staked to the ground in the desert in 135F heat or freeze to death in Alaska. Either way Encinitas is doomed with their leadership, both big spenders.
PS- The streetscape will never be built, no money.
Muir is not a big spender in the vein of Blakespear and cronies. He voted against $30M on Streetscape. I'm not always a fan, but let's at least keep it real.
Hubbard is a Blakespear clone with even less ability to grasp facts and listen to residents, if such a thing is possible.
She already claimed that she supports forcing projects on residents, because afterward they say "hey, this is great!" She routinely sides with developers as a planning commissioner, where she needs constant reminders that she has to follow code.
You may not like Muir, but Hubbard is dangerous. I vote Muir.
I just read the minutes of the meeting. It was a 4-1 vote with Muir voting against Streetscape. Muir believes that the streetscape needs to be done, but not by eliminating 2 lanes and spending $30 million. There's are other projects also need to be funded, under grounding railroad, under grounding utilities, fix roads, flooding, etc....
You'll have to search for the video or minutes. I don't think the funding vote was at the same meeting as the yes-no vote. You can find it by looking at the agendas of the meetings shortly following the yes-no vote.
Can someone explain about funding Leucadia streetscape? My understanding is the project itself has not been funded. The council discussed selling bonds of $30 million to build the project. The city council can authorize the sale of Lease Revenue Bonds with a simple majority. No super majority or public vote is needed. As far as I know the council hasn't done this. I think there was a vote to "investigate" this, not actually do it. Selling bonds is a long, complicated process. Until interest costs and repayment schedules are presented, it's not a done deal.
Is Streetscape a done deal? I've been seeing anti-Streetscape signs, as tho it is still undecided. This should be a public vote, not a Council decision. To burden the citizens with $30 million in bond debt should not be left to 5 people to decide.
The city can't sell bonds for a project that has undecided co$ts. Where are the bids?? Each roundabout will come in at $3-4M. The city is both naïve and stupid as to the final costs. Muir will want to money spent on his fire princesses. Hubbard and her crony Blakespear will want to spend the money on the homeless or the invading hordes from Central America. But we can feel good because we've banned plastic straws. ( I walk the beach all the time, never seen plastic straws on the beach.
The plastic straw council - or the last straw council. I recall Shaffer wanted to stop ocean rise - she was inspired by the Ten Commandments. They tackle them all - except for the practical matters.
Okay Sr. Undercover, what are the bids?? Who made them and at what cost?? Typical miss direction... Apples and Oranges. Get with the program... And I'm outraged that you proclaim the lifeguard tower at $3M, when you know good and well it came in at over $10M. Join the pack of liars and thieves...
The lifeguard station cost $3.9 million. The bond issue was $3 million. With interest, that will become about $6 million.
The garage cost $1.1 million, so without considering the bond interest, the two buildings cost $5 million. With interest, the total will be about $8 million.
Mosca is a carpet-bagger. He knows who the power brokers are in the city and he's their man. How convenient that he voted to remove the city property off the rezone map, under pressure from affluent residents in that area. Send him packing - vote against Mosca!
I like Mosca, very nice guy. But....he is a leftist and as everyone knows, what ever the left does, fails. He supported Hillary Clinton, he is recommended on the democratic party flyer. And there it is.
"Yes......tax cuts do pay for themselves". To think otherwise is to admit that Econ 101 class was skipped that semester. Numbers don't lie, people do. Focus
From the May 16, 2018 meeting minutes, signed by the City Clerk and the Mayor:
Blakespear moved, Boerner Horvath seconded to direct staff to return to Council with an appropriate financing instrument to fund the priority Capital Projects including Leucadia Streetscape completed in one phase.
Muir voted for the new fire engine, the personnel to man it and the trailer station on the Cabo Grill parking lot. The two-year cost started at more than $900K but later dropped to more than $700K. Response times in north Leucadia are supposed to get quicker. Without that, Streetscape can't go forward.
No they weren't, 6:37. A condition of approval was that the response times would get faster. Because going from four lanes to two and adding roundabouts would further slow response times, something had to be done to speed them up. That something is the new engine, personnel to man it, and the auxiliary station trailer in the Cabo Grill parking lot.
I thought it was supposed to be "mobile" and set up different places, different times?
The whole idea is such a bandaid. The cost will go up every 1-2 years and let me guess, is not included in the supposed $30M? Is it coming out of the general slush fund so we can expect our potholes to remain as is?
This city is all about trophy projects that turn into jokes.
8:28 you seem to be an expert on streetscape, so we can assume you think you're helping out the cycling crowd. Any idea why the city is allowing the new overpass work to do to cyclists what it does at Lomas Santa Fe? There they have a dedicated lane that protects them under the overpass behind pillars that then...wait for it...drops them onto the freeway onramp.
The way our city does things I have a feeling we will follow suit.
Then when some poor soul gets messed up because of the ridiculous design and pleads his/her case in front of Blakespear, she'll exclaim in her inappropriately giddy way "you'll be glad to know we're thinking about doing something about it!" You know, like she does when the fellow in the wheelchair shows her photos from his hospital bed after falling in the street. He falls because some up and coming city employee put the crosswalk button on the far side of an electrical box that blocks his access to said crosswalk button. She never does catch on that her promised fix is not on his route.
8:04 You would be wrong in your assumption about 8:28 and the cycling crowd. 8:28 opposes Streetscape.
The new engine and its personnel will be stationed about 12 hours per day at a trailer in the Cabo Grill parking lot. That puts the apparatus and people in the area where response times have been too long for many years. That fact was ignored by the city and fire department before the Streetscape EIR brought it to light and forced the city to address it.
Wait - so not 24 hours/day? Half that to "mitigate?" Better not have an emergency between which hours, then?
Typical. Kind of like the Swell property guys who promised to mitigate the Portofino overflow neighborhood parking threat by stationing a valet out back - for four hours. Took some tooth pulling by an awake Planning Commissioner to drag that out of the developer. Swell, my butt.
There were two time frames considered. Each was about 12 hours long. I don't know which, if either, has been chosen. Each choice was basically daytime hours adjusted earlier or later a little.
"After analyzing the above alternatives, the Fire Department concluded that adding an additional FRV at peak hour times (8am-8pm; may be adjusted due to operational need) is the best choice to improve Fire Department response times in these underserved areas. This unit will be placed under Fire Department control and can respond to all calls for service, whereas an ambulance would only be effective on medical aid calls. It will be staffed by existing personnel (one Captain and one Firefighter/Paramedic) on overtime as part of a one-year pilot program."
And estimated cost for annual support? What if the "pilot" is found not to be making a difference? No one should be shocked to find the city pulls the promised "mitigation."
After all, Blakespear is already all ears for developers who want to reduce the promised 15% affordable housing in Measure U.
Our choices for council are dismal. Muir or Hubbard?? That's like saying would you rather be staked to the ground in the desert in 135F heat or freeze to death in Alaska. Either way Encinitas is doomed with their leadership, both big spenders.
ReplyDeletePS- The streetscape will never be built, no money.
Muir is not a big spender in the vein of Blakespear and cronies. He voted against $30M on Streetscape. I'm not always a fan, but let's at least keep it real.
DeleteHubbard is a Blakespear clone with even less ability to grasp facts and listen to residents, if such a thing is possible.
She already claimed that she supports forcing projects on residents, because afterward they say "hey, this is great!" She routinely sides with developers as a planning commissioner, where she needs constant reminders that she has to follow code.
You may not like Muir, but Hubbard is dangerous. I vote Muir.
10:09 — Muir voted against Streetscape, but he voted to fund it.
DeleteNot according to the record from the city clerk he keeps showing to correct the claim.
DeleteWatch the video of the meeting. He voted to fund Streetscape. I don't think he can take his vote back after it's cast.
DeleteI just read the minutes of the meeting. It was a 4-1 vote with Muir voting against Streetscape. Muir believes that the streetscape needs to be done, but not by eliminating 2 lanes and spending $30 million. There's are other projects also need to be funded, under grounding railroad, under grounding utilities, fix roads, flooding, etc....
DeleteAs 10:24 posted, Muir voted against Streetscape, but he voted for funding it. There were two votes. His first was against, his second was for.
DeleteMmmm can you provide a link, 9:49?
DeleteYou'll have to search for the video or minutes. I don't think the funding vote was at the same meeting as the yes-no vote. You can find it by looking at the agendas of the meetings shortly following the yes-no vote.
DeleteCan someone explain about funding Leucadia streetscape? My understanding is the project itself has not been funded. The council discussed selling bonds of $30 million to build the project. The city council can authorize the sale of Lease Revenue Bonds with a simple majority. No super majority or public vote is needed. As far as I know the council hasn't done this. I think there was a vote to "investigate" this, not actually do it. Selling bonds is a long, complicated process. Until interest costs and repayment schedules are presented, it's not a done deal.
DeleteIs Streetscape a done deal? I've been seeing anti-Streetscape signs, as tho it is still undecided. This should be a public vote, not a Council decision. To burden the citizens with $30 million in bond debt should not be left to 5 people to decide.
DeleteDon't lease revenue bonds need a source of o cone as repayment? What's the city going to do - put in a toll booth at La Costa?
DeleteLesse revenue bonds are a sneaky way for cities not to put an otherwise-required vote in front of residents.
The city can't sell bonds for a project that has undecided co$ts. Where are the bids?? Each roundabout will come in at $3-4M. The city is both naïve and stupid as to the final costs. Muir will want to money spent on his fire princesses. Hubbard and her crony Blakespear will want to spend
Deletethe money on the homeless or the invading hordes from Central America. But we can feel good because we've banned plastic straws. ( I walk the beach all the time, never seen plastic straws on the beach.
10:18,
DeleteSo far, the courts have allowed lease revenue bonds for lots of projects with no leases and no revenues.
I believe the city used them for the still-vacant Pacific View, and the $3 million lifeguard tower.
The plastic straw council - or the last straw council. I recall Shaffer wanted to stop ocean rise - she was inspired by the Ten Commandments. They tackle them all - except for the practical matters.
DeleteOkay Sr. Undercover, what are the bids?? Who made them and at what cost?? Typical miss direction...
DeleteApples and Oranges. Get with the program... And I'm outraged that you proclaim the lifeguard tower at $3M, when you know good and well it came in at over $10M. Join the pack of liars and thieves...
The lifeguard station cost $3.9 million. The bond issue was $3 million. With interest, that will become about $6 million.
DeleteThe garage cost $1.1 million, so without considering the bond interest, the two buildings cost $5 million. With interest, the total will be about $8 million.
But, hey, who's counting?
5:50 PM
DeleteAdd in the snack bar restroom building.
Word is the handful of Hubbard supporters are losing it. Anyone hear from Catherine's right-hand man Mosca?
ReplyDeleteMosca is a carpet-bagger. He knows who the power brokers are in the city and he's their man. How convenient that he voted to remove the city property off the rezone map, under pressure from affluent residents in that area. Send him packing - vote against Mosca!
ReplyDeleteI found out why Jody Hubbard wants high-density development in Cardiff. She worked for a big-time developer!
ReplyDeleteRabble, rabble, rabble!
ReplyDeleteThose flyers are vibrant.
ReplyDeleteI like Mosca, very nice guy. But....he is a leftist and as everyone knows, what ever the left does, fails.
ReplyDeleteHe supported Hillary Clinton, he is recommended on the democratic party flyer. And there it is.
6:48- You mean like the "tax cuts will pay for themselves".
DeleteMosca is very civil. Unless you disagree with him.
Delete7:43........I have no idea what you are writing about. Tax cuts?? Mr. Mosca has nothing to do with tax cuts.
DeleteI was just pointing out one of the Right Wing's great ideas.
DeleteTaxes are vibrant.
Delete"Yes......tax cuts do pay for themselves". To think otherwise is to admit that Econ 101 class was skipped that semester.
DeleteNumbers don't lie, people do. Focus
From the May 16, 2018 meeting minutes, signed by the City Clerk and the Mayor:
ReplyDeleteBlakespear moved, Boerner Horvath seconded to direct staff to return to Council with an appropriate financing instrument to fund the priority Capital Projects including Leucadia Streetscape completed in one phase.
Motion carried. Ayes: Blakespear, Boerner Horvath, Kranz, Mosca. Nays: Muir. Abstain: None.
From the meetings page on the city's website:
DeleteCanceled - Regular City Council - 6:00 p.m. May 16, 2018
I can't help it if the sloppy city work shows the date for a canceled meeting at the top of an official document.
DeleteSOP.
June 20, 2018:
ReplyDeletehttp://encinitas.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1758&meta_id=88053
Muir was the only NO vote.
Muir voted for the new fire engine, the personnel to man it and the trailer station on the Cabo Grill parking lot. The two-year cost started at more than $900K but later dropped to more than $700K. Response times in north Leucadia are supposed to get quicker. Without that, Streetscape can't go forward.
ReplyDeletethe other four were ready to have it go forward with slower emergency response times. chew on that, 9:36.
DeleteNo they weren't, 6:37. A condition of approval was that the response times would get faster. Because going from four lanes to two and adding roundabouts would further slow response times, something had to be done to speed them up. That something is the new engine, personnel to man it, and the auxiliary station trailer in the Cabo Grill parking lot.
DeleteI thought it was supposed to be "mobile" and set up different places, different times?
DeleteThe whole idea is such a bandaid. The cost will go up every 1-2 years and let me guess, is not included in the supposed $30M? Is it coming out of the general slush fund so we can expect our potholes to remain as is?
This city is all about trophy projects that turn into jokes.
8:28 you seem to be an expert on streetscape, so we can assume you think you're helping out the cycling crowd. Any idea why the city is allowing the new overpass work to do to cyclists what it does at Lomas Santa Fe? There they have a dedicated lane that protects them under the overpass behind pillars that then...wait for it...drops them onto the freeway onramp.
The way our city does things I have a feeling we will follow suit.
Then when some poor soul gets messed up because of the ridiculous design and pleads his/her case in front of Blakespear, she'll exclaim in her inappropriately giddy way "you'll be glad to know we're thinking about doing something about it!" You know, like she does when the fellow in the wheelchair shows her photos from his hospital bed after falling in the street. He falls because some up and coming city employee put the crosswalk button on the far side of an electrical box that blocks his access to said crosswalk button. She never does catch on that her promised fix is not on his route.
8:04 You would be wrong in your assumption about 8:28 and the cycling crowd. 8:28 opposes Streetscape.
DeleteThe new engine and its personnel will be stationed about 12 hours per day at a trailer in the Cabo Grill parking lot. That puts the apparatus and people in the area where response times have been too long for many years. That fact was ignored by the city and fire department before the Streetscape EIR brought it to light and forced the city to address it.
Wait - so not 24 hours/day? Half that to "mitigate?" Better not have an emergency between which hours, then?
DeleteTypical. Kind of like the Swell property guys who promised to mitigate the Portofino overflow neighborhood parking threat by stationing a valet out back - for four hours. Took some tooth pulling by an awake Planning Commissioner to drag that out of the developer. Swell, my butt.
There were two time frames considered. Each was about 12 hours long. I don't know which, if either, has been chosen. Each choice was basically daytime hours adjusted earlier or later a little.
Delete"After analyzing the above alternatives, the Fire Department concluded that adding an additional FRV at peak hour times (8am-8pm; may be adjusted due to operational need) is the best choice
Deleteto improve Fire Department response times in these underserved areas. This unit will be placed under Fire Department control and can respond to all calls for service, whereas an ambulance would only be effective on medical aid calls. It will be staffed by existing personnel (one Captain and one Firefighter/Paramedic) on overtime as part of a one-year pilot program."
Cost of the one year pilot program: $712,000
And estimated cost for annual support? What if the "pilot" is found not to be making a difference? No one should be shocked to find the city pulls the promised "mitigation."
DeleteAfter all, Blakespear is already all ears for developers who want to reduce the promised 15% affordable housing in Measure U.
No on U.