The document that they released for Planning Commission consideration last night spoke about 5 communities and "5 hearts." Naturally, they want to inflict their definition of what the 5 community hearts are without asking the residents. The Planning Commission decided to cut it back to an outline without reviewing what will be sent on to the Council. According to [friends in the know], this is not legal, but they are doing it anyway.A speaker at Wednesday night's council meeting added that Planning Director Jeff Murphy had insisted that there wasn't time to bring another draft to the Planning Commission. What's the rush? What timeline could possibly be so urgent that the Planning Commission doesn't have time to review an important planning policy document?
Then yesterday, a couple of blog comments speculated as to what's going on:
They originally said that the Housing Element would happen in 2016, and that residents would get to vote on it. I see another lie!!Then:
This is they way they work. They give a fake date then push it through under the radar.
1:14Is the council planning on a last minute 2014 ballot initiative to gut Prop A after telling residents nothing would be on the ballot until 2016? It's pure speculation at this point, but the theory is consistent both with what happened at the Planning Commission and with a long-standing pattern of behavior by both this council and staff.
I believe you are correct! I had not thought about it. Gaspar and the council of cronies is planning to put the housing element overlay zone on the ballot this year to defeat Prop A
I can not believe I was actually resting easy- it is Barth's legacy destroying our community character-
They know if they puyt it on in 2016 a presidential election more people will vote.
They are cunning!
Bruce Ehlers and others please begin preparing. This is going to happen this year. Vina is a political snake-
Vina needs more density at your expense to pay for the ever increasing pensions and staff costs. This City is not about you- Fool!
ReplyDeleteIts about a revenue source for developer cronies and blowhards like Vina to play work and tax your every movement, so they can retire at $220k per year forever. Just think in 5 years of retirement, he will collect another $1,000,000 of tax payers money. And you wonder why the state and city's can not afford any projects without selling out their future and going into serious DEBT.
Sigh….. such a big let down. I know- lets talk about Strategic Planning and intent motions! that will get your mind off of looking at the City's serious problems for awhile.
Yeah and not to mention the city hasn't fixed my street!!!!
DeleteHave you tried calling them? Seriously, no more street comments until you go down to the city and try resolving the issue. This isn't the dept of redundancies dept....
DeleteYeah! And it's not your street. It's our street. So what is it? Do you think you live on your own private street? No wonder they won't fix it.
Delete1:06 PM
DeleteActually, some of the streets are actually their street. Private streets are not maintained by the city.
There are a lot of roads in this city in need of repair, but the city likes to spend money on other things first.
Delete12:47 At least we don't hear the "bang your pots" sloganist anymore. Akin to holding one's breath until they turn blue . . .
Delete2:01
DeleteI'm aware of that perhaps fix my street is not. If your street sign is white with green letters then it's a private street. City streets are green with white letters. Ok?
12:47, 3:26- the function of govt isn't to buy trophy projects for their friends, the function of govt is to provide infrastructure for the community. Streets, storm drains, sewer, street lights not to mention render assistance to the citizens in times of dire emergency.
DeleteThe function of govt is NOT to provide a place where hack artists can meet, drink coffee, chit chat about this and that and every now and then produce some crap painting, ceramic coffee cup or banner that is so awful no one bids on at auction.
The function of govt IS to fix MY street and YOUR street. Sorry you don't understand the basics...
Btw- has the city told you how they plan to pay for their most recent trophy project?? No they haven't but I'm sure Vina will announce it about 30 minutes before the vote.. Enjoy your coffee mug.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteLet's keep personal appearance out of this.
DeleteVina's incessant whispering in council members' ears to bring in revenue "or else" has reduced them to quivering yes-men. Vina could not control without their acquiescence. No matter how often residents expose Vina's machinations, council still remain steadfast in his service. It's actually quite weird.
ReplyDeleteI call tt disgusting. Our council are a bunch of weak minded ignorant morons...
ReplyDeleteWell, it's going to take more than the 28 identified activists to start going down to council and speaking up, to write letters and get others to do the same, to meet with council members individually, before the needle starts to move.
DeleteSame for those worried about the 2014 suspected end run around Prop A: do not count on "the Prop A" people to get the word out. It will take a lot more of us pitching in this time to put up the hand.
These "civil servants" realize that the majority of citizens are clueless about the disasterous state of affairs of this city. The council is worthless and in the pockets of the special interests. The millions already obligated for lavish and excessive pensions is highway robbery, but they can get away with it, as there is no one opposing them. Vina was a failure at his previous positions and now destroys this city - he hasn't changed his spots.
ReplyDeleteMaybe us "cesspool" dwellers need to organize beyond the virtual world of EU.
Delete8:47- Yea that's going to happen. No one even puts their name on posts, so how are you going to organize a group of people that won't even do that? The 3 stooges are to blame for this one. They have robbed the funds for roads for things like Moonlight Beach, P.V., and the Grand Park. There is no money for roads. Get it in your head. KC knew that when he had to sue to get the road report. They didn't want to let it out. Plain and simple. And planning, well that is a whole other situation that God only knows what is going on. Even the Council can't get that one figured out. As far as putting community Citizen Participation meetings on another day but Weds, Murphy keeps saying its the schedulers fault. One time maybe, but 3, I don't think so. Everyone is turfing it to someone else at City Hall and Vina keeps telling Council everything is handled. Hang int here for a ride. I mentioned some time ago they would try to do an end run around Prop. A and most of you said they can't. Well, the three we put in can and will sure try it, and it is an off year election. They are counting on Catherine Blakespear to win, and it will still be a 3-2 vote. Not a happy camper now, you will be less happy after you see what the troika is up to next. Stay tuned.
ReplyDeleteYou win a kewpie doll for having "mentioned" the Prop A end run and predicting the future.
DeleteAside from making predictions, I hope you do something of concrete impact to make a difference. Not sure what your "stay tuned" is, but I've heard it come out of the mouths of City employees far too often.
Stay tuned means there is more to come. And yes, I am someone who is trying to help, but I have to remain anonymous. Didn't mean to sound arrogant about the Prop A thing, and I can see how that would be seen that way. I was just mentioning it because I knew it was coming, and I cannot tell you my source. Please keep the kiwi doll and I will refrain from sounding so arrogant. I hate it when others do it, so I really mean my apology.
DeleteThank you, appreciate that. The more you can tell us, the better prepared we can be.
Deletewoop woop woop
DeleteProtest.
ReplyDeleteProtest.
Protest.
Drive them out.
Protest is the new black .
Until the city manager is placed "under control" by this council, these things will continue. Vina is smiling all the way to the bank while this city falls apart.
ReplyDeleteVote NO on all incumbents.
Why is it a bad thing that MORE PEOPLE GET TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE???
ReplyDeletePLEASE EXPLAIN!!!
Did some people not get to vote? Idiotic statement.
DeleteThe Cabezon
They would want to have it on this year's ballot so LESS people overall vote, not in 2016 when MORE people vote...
ReplyDeleteMy My My... all the clues are there but you still cannot get it right.
ReplyDeleteHello WCV- Any truth to what's over on the Encinitas Guerilla this week? I wanted to submit a few thoughts. Thank you for allowing me a platform to practice my free speech-
ReplyDelete- I have wondered what is in a sign and can a sign be a sign of things to come?
When I moved to Encinitas and the neighborhood of Cardiff by the Sea I did so because I wanted to live in a coastal community that had a small town surfing and beach culture.
I visited and appreciated the trees and trails of Olivenhain. I loved Leucadia and the then trees and unique culture, I thought the manicured lawns, new houses and walking trails of Encinitas Ranch were suburbia - with suburbia being a good thing- I mean 2,600-3,300 sq feet, granite tubs, hardwood floors, baby strollers - what's not to like.
But there was something about Cardiff by the Sea and the entrance to the city of Encinitas that spoke to me- you know the sign on the 101 as you enter Encinitas - it's a sign of a wave, a person, a board, the sea, the sky, the sun and the words "Cardiff by the Sea'
The sign told me the town knew who it was, what it was, and what it wanted to be- The sign didn't have to say artists live here- it was understood. The sign didn't say soulful spirits welcomed- it was implied. The sign didn't say success is living peacefully because it didn't have to.
I thought of a tale of two signs as I dove into Encinitas last week and observed the new sign welcoming visitors on the 101.
Does the sign crowd too much into a single space? Does the sign like Encinitas have a density problem?
For those who have not seen the sign it has just about everything under the sun on it- if it were on the menu over at Lecuadia Pizza it might be named "The Kitchen sink'. Is the sign like Encinitas having an identity crisis?
It has the 101 business District prominetly displayed- I wonder if they granted the equivalent of an uzpone?
The boathouses are on it, as is the over priced Vulcan underpass, I thought I saw the surfing Madonna, the La Paloma, there is a cyclist and a dog walker, I might have seen a rail system -there are a few waves and a surfer from Hanson's-
In the backdrop I am glad to that the council that talks so often about saving the environment managed to sustain a single lone tree for visitors to enjoy but I fear it is a sign to come as high density developers and their for profit lawyers continue to support candidates who do their bidding at the expense of the community.
As I drive by the new 101 sign I wonder will therebe a future sign for Cardiff be? WIll city hall or the city manager claim it needs to be 'updated'. Part of some state mandated signing element?
For now the Encinitas sleeps under the assumed protection of Prop A but behind the scenes big monied interests and the candidates representing them are actively working to destroy our existing community characther. They seek not to protect the quality of life of residents today but to profit by upzoning for unnamed special interests of tommorrow.
Today as I pulled into my sleepy little town coming back from the fair I passed the Cardiff By The Sea sign with the surfer and sea- simple and humble.
Under the assumed protection of Prop A sleep well my friend - for now.
Andrew Audet
The new sign was designed and installed by DEMA. They paid for it as well. The city did not have anything to do with that sign as far as know..
Delete"Any truth to what's over on the Encinitas Guerilla this week?"
DeleteLOL.
I thought it was Ye Olde Strange Thing Shoppe....
DeleteTranslator for Fred required......
DeleteThat means `Laughing Out Loud`, 9:31
DeleteLOL at what? Truth? You can't handle the truth!
DeleteI also felt what the Planning Commission did on June 5 wasn't right. Randal Morrison, acting City Attorney through Sabine and Morrison, and Tony Brandenburg, both lawyers, said that the objectives and vision statement of the Housing Element re-start should come back to the PC, after Planning staff revised it. But three commissioners, with one absent, voted to go ahead, because of the alleged "time crunch." Commissioner Tony Brandenburg did question, why it took so long for this to come before the PC if it was to go to Council on June 18.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Gus Vina purposefully designed this so that there wouldn't be time to go back to the PC.
Sent Gus Vina an e-mail and got an auto reply that he will be "out of office" until July 1. So did he know he would be on vacation when this came back to Council? There was no need to put pressure on the Planning Commission that it had to go forward to Council by next Wednesday. It seems as though the City Manager is acting like a high pressure salesman, selling density, for added city revenues.
DeleteThe June 18 Agenda item re the Housing Element restart could be should be pulled and postponed. I hope it will be pulled from the Agenda, so that the PC can do its job, and review staff's revisions.
Why does the community garden issue and the parking lot expansion issue off of Camino Real have to go back to the PC, but not something as important as the foundation, the objectives, goals and vision statement of the Housing Element restart?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The council will take the rap for this one and claim that it was high on their priority list. They take turns passing the hot potato so that they can cover for one another.
DeleteThe council is doing what Vina's telling them to do. Housing Element too important for him to sneak past residents to give it any more visibility than the absolute minimum.
DeleteWith respect to the "land giveaway," linked before by WC, referring to another item on the agenda, there should have been many conditions on giving Quail Botanical Gardens, or SD Botanical Gardens, public land. Was that actually on the agenda for June 11? I don't see it.
ReplyDeleteBut should Encinitas give Quail Gardens public land, that portion of the land should be open to the general public, without charge. Also, the Heritage Museum should be allowed, in perpetuity at the Quail Gardens site. There is talk that Julian Duval may be kicking the Museum off the property, at some point.
When Glenn Sabine reported out of closed session on June 11, to the public, he said the only thing that was on the agenda was the "administrative liability" hearings related to the Rossini Creek discharge and the citations by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board. First of all, "administrative liability" is not the same as significant exposure to litigation, in Court.
These discussions should be in open session. The City continues to try to stretch the Brown Act for its loopholes, instead of interpreting it to mean maximum transparency by legislative bodies, including our City Council's discussions with legal counsel, and staff. They don't want the public to know the scope of the city's errors.
Second of all, when he reported out of closed session, Sabine said that Council discussed setting up an SEP, with respect to the liability of the City and U.S.S. Cal Builders. SEP = Supplemental Environmental Project. The public deserves to know, ahead of time, about what type of mitigation is planned, if that is the plan. We should not be kept in the dark.
Absolutely the liability of the illegal Rossini Creek discharges should be discussed in open session. Of course, it won't be. Vina will not allow it. The responsibility is on him. After all he was tardy in informing the council of the discharges because he said the problem had been corrected.
DeleteOh, sorry. Shaffer said any discussion of Vina's performance in public would be "inappropriate." This is part of the council's new transparency.
I was surprised there was another closed meeting. It may mean the negotiations failed and the city will be forced to pay a fine, up to the maximum threatened by the Water Board. Or perhaps the SEP will be in place of the fine, if the Board accepts it. We need to know what it will cost. A SEP will be a face saving maneuver for Vina.
Whatever happens, it's clearly time for the council to give Vina the six-month notice of termination to begin the process of his removal.
Great outline of the Rossini Creek shenanigans. I hope the board nails the city, or at least makes a big enough stink so someone has to issue a mea culpa.
DeleteI agree, all the creek discussion should be in public, we have a right to know. Lots of hide and seek right now...
6:59 PM
Delete"First of all, "administrative liability" is not the same as significant exposure to litigation, in Court."
These are legal proceedings that can wind up in court, therefore should be discussed in closed session.
12:58, ever notice the city attorney uses semantics to justify closed sessions? Unfortunately, we can't trust any designation that comes out of his mouth, although the council has no problem following him off a cliff.
DeleteHow exactly would these administrative proceedings wind up in court? It's very unlikely that either party would sue the other. A third party could sue. Who would that be?
DeleteEither Cal Builders or the City could sue the other, but again it's unlikely because each shares blame. Any other party would have to prove standing. The city isn't stupid enough to challenge legally the Water Board. The question remains of how this would end up it court. And then all court proceedings become public record.
California Water Code Sections 13330-13331.2
Delete13330. (a) Not later than 30 days from the date of service of a copy of a decision or order issued by the state board under this division, other than a decision or order issued pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 13550) of Chapter 7, any aggrieved party may file with the superior court a petition for writ of mandate for review thereof. An aggrieved party must file a petition for reconsideration with the state board to exhaust that party's administrative remedies only if the initial decision or order is issued under authority delegated to an officer or employee of the state board and the state board by regulation has authorized a petition for reconsideration.
(b) A party aggrieved by a final decision or order of a regional board subject to review under Section 13320 may obtain review of the decision or order of the regional board in the superior court by filing in the court a petition for writ of mandate not later than 30 days from the date on which the state board denies review.
...
This week's Online Mean Culpa Lisa Shaffer: Lisa is okay spending $24 million dollars over 30 years for a toxic school site: but she chooses to pinch pennies on public safety?
DeleteParaphrasing,"If it will leave me a legacy of being loved by the residents, no price is too much: after all, its their money I am spending: OPM! But if it is an expenditure that is not tied to adulation, then let's cut the bastards up! Just call me, Jim Bond. Besides, if I show any weakness on this item, Bonde will invite me to another Taxpayer's Meeting and you remember what happened last time."
This bulletin just in: Lisa still believes she is smarter than all of us: but after Reconsider-gate only Barth is thick enough to try and sell allowing the 'Community' gardens to open without an environmental public hearings. What? Cameron is willing to take the Library Coffee Cart before the City Council and Westbrook three feet of curb by Taco Bell, but acres and acres of land with hundreds if ADTs (And decades of DDT) every week and the fix is in on this item?
Lisa told the City Clerk to refer it to the Planning Commission and to tell them to come to a decision to change the usage to 'Agricultural' and then send it back.
"Why can't they make-do with a step-ladder and some red/blue 3-D Glasses?"
Guess she doesn't appreciate 'independent' thinking.
Fascinating.
Perhaps you could be a bit more opaque.
Delete2:56 pm:
DeleteWouldn't it be great if the aggrieved party sued for a writ of mandate in superior court? We can then see the filed briefs on the court website and then go to the court hearing and hear the arguments. That would be a hoot.
All would be revealed to the public and press and not hidden in closed sessions. That would be the best of all outcomes. I hope that Vina and Sabine, along with Rudloff, agree to do this.
5:16, look, no love lost, here, for LS, but you've got this all wrong: "Lisa told the City Clerk to refer it to the Planning Commission and to tell them to come to a decision to change the usage to 'Agricultural' and then send it back."
DeleteThe Quail Gardens site is already zoned Agricultural, according to the July 11 City Council Meeting. I don't know that there are greenhouse toxins on that lot. If EUSD is getting a Coastal Development Permit to allow the modular temporary structures on their property, that would be the time to require soil testing.
Agricultural use includes property owners' being able to garden, by right.
All zones should allow gardening, by right, in Encinitas. When subdivisions are created, or interregional spots parks are planned and constructed, that's when Coastal Development Permits are required.
Also, 2:56, the City can go to Court to try to get a Writ of Mandate relative to any public agency's decisions and/or fines against it. There doesn't have to be a law for that to be the case.
However, the possibility of the City taking the Regional Water Control Board to Court doesn't technically constitute "significant exposure to litigation," according to the meaning intended by the Brown Act.
Also, because a closed session can be held, does not mean that a closed session must or should be held. The public deserves to know what is going on. This is a cover-up, and the public knows it. So does the media.
7:30 PM
DeleteYes, if there was a suit for writ of mandate, you would be able to read the briefs. What you wouldn't be able to see (or hear) is the discussion about what to put into those briefs. That's why discussion of legal options and strategies is done in closed session where discussion of strengths, weaknesses and options can be done openly and honestly.
10:05 PM
DeleteStating the law merely served to highlight that further litigation was possible and does occur. Whether you trust the current council or not they are the legal entity for the city. I, for one, don't want the council to have legal discussions in open session. The public can choose to speak when the city attorney reports the results of open session. Also, the public can vote them out of office if they're unhappy with their performance.
Also, it could be the RWQCB that takes the city to court so "significant exposure" is definitely a possibility. But of course since you characterize this as a coverup, we know where you're coming from.
And since you're so quick to defend the city, we know where you're coming from, too.
Delete9:04 AM
DeleteNice to know it's us versus them. I'll let you decide who is "us" and who is "them" but I can guess your answer.
Whether I think the city council is competent or incompetent is irrelevant. Holding legal strategy discussions in open session would only make things worse. It's not a matter of defending the city, quick or otherwise. It's a matter of the correct way forward.
9:22
Deleteright- why should we talk about giving phil coitton an extra paycheck in public when we can hide be hide behidn closed doors and screw the taxpayer
right- why should we talk about keeping the public from seeing the road maintenance report when we can hide behind closed doors
right- why should we talk about toxic leaks and threats the public in front of taxpayers when we can hide behind closed doors
right- why should we talk about PV- (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014) in front of the pubclic when we can screw taxpayers behind closed doors
THE correct way forward is open government serving taxpayers- that you prefer a government that serves itself is your choice- don't ask us to join you
9:22 gigantic agree.
DeleteMeant 10:38 gigantic agree. 9:22 fail.
Delete10:38 AM
DeletePlease! Let's just take PV for example. The public has had numerous opportunities to weigh in on the PV purchase and many have. Council purchase deliberations in closed session could not be finalized without taking action in open session. It appears unfortunate for you that many people spoke in support of this action even though only 3 of the five council members were in favor of it. While some people spoke against the final PV purchase arrangement, I guess there weren't enough to sway those three council members. I say this as someone who isn't in favor of the deal.
And I'm still waiting for the startling revelations from that road maintenance draft report.
There is no "attorney/client privilege" regarding public agencies, such as the city, and their taxpayer funded attorneys, such as Encinitas City Attorney Glenn Sabine and his law firm Sabine and Morrison, or other contracted attorneys hired by the City OUTSIDE OF THE SPECIFIC OPEN MEETING EXCEPTIONS DETAILED IN THE BROWN ACT.
DeleteDon't mean to shout, but the emphasize. What part can't you understand.? There is no exception to open meeting law for "legal strategizing," period, outside of the pending litigation exception, or the real property negotiations, evaluations of public officers, labor negotiations, and "significant exposure to litigation."
Council, and the city attorney are not allowed to deny the public access to Council Meetings re City error because the City could sue the Regional Water Quality Control Board; that law quoted above is not relevant. The Rossini Creek discharge scenario doesn't constitute "significant exposure to litigation."
The significant exposure to litigation exemption is related to when a public entity could be sued, as the City often has been, for personal injury cases, property damage cases, breech of contract, etc. It is not applicable in a case between public agencies for "administrative liability," when the City could conceivably sue the administrative agency levying a fine.
The City is engaging in a cover up and violating the intent of open government law by holding the Rossini Creek Council Meetings in closed session. Once again, Council is allowing our corrupt city attorney unfettered discretion in interpreting the Brown Act, as he has misinterpreted, in the past, the California Public Records Act, resulting in great loss of money for the taxpayers, and loss of trust, for Council and the City Attorney, by the citizens of Encinitas.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBecoming like second thought Fred.
DeleteFascinating how some posting on this blog just disappear......
ReplyDeleteCensorship in action...
DeleteWhy are the Garden Folks trying to by-pass the Planning Commission and Community Participation Process? This is all part of public participation and transparency.
ReplyDeleteNot really. Trust and transparency are just words that mean no more to the city than do shyster and scheming.
DeleteWhy is Council delaying this by not simply using common sense? Teresa Barth brought forward a Council Member initiated item. Council had the ability to give staff direction, to come back with a new policy re Community Gardens.
DeleteThis "process" has been ongoing since April of 2009, so for five years. No one is trying to bypass the Planning Commission, except Planning, who has been acting with unfettered discretion to push the City Manager's agenda on Council, and the public.
Someone with pre-existing and ongoing Agricultural uses should not have to go through an expensive, time consuming process of going through Planning, the Planning Commission and Council, simply to continue to work her land, as a service to our community.
It's kind of a conundrum for Coral Gardens. They have not submitted the money for a permit, because they don't have it, and they can't get a permit until they do, or until the COuncil decides to grandfather them in. A lot of Garden groups are in the same predicament. Anyone ever see Catch 22?
ReplyDeleteThis is one case where I predict that the council will do the right thing for the Coral Tree Gardens group. Teresa Barth has highlighted this farm for many years, and I think that the council majority will vote in their favor since the majority is a voting block. The decisions has already been made by the council.
ReplyDeletePlus they need this politically...the egg's so thick though on all their faces it won't make a diff in the scheme of things.
DeleteIf they shut down Coral Tree Gardens you would probably see the first soccer mom riot in Encinitas! Boy would the parents around here be mad as hornets!
ReplyDeleteThe way that the council SHOULD work is to make decisions based on what is best for the majority of people who already live here. They should make decisions based on what residents want and need, and not be swayed by city staff who have their own bias--the strongest ones known--money and self-preservation. They will recommend decisions that benefit themselves over citizens every time!
ReplyDeleteTheir decisions should also be based on statutory law, case law, the General Plan, our Specific Plans, and Encinitas Municipal Code, not on the unfettered discretion of Planning officials, being directed by the City Manager.
DeleteThere are many projects that deal with 2 acres, 5 acres, or 6 or 7 acres that are receiving a lot of attention. They Housing Element will determine the future fate of the ENTIRE city--over 12,000 acres!!
ReplyDeleteIf this council and the Planning Department are able to push through their vision, EVERY Encinitas community and neighborhood is at risk.
Supposedly, every community, all 5 get to vote on where in their community potential R-25 can be located: the council will then supposedly use the data to follow the wishes of each community: plus it all goes thru the Planning Commission. That's why the city got Peak Democracy: this is common knowledge and is supposed to begin in July: so, get ready to get registered so you can register your opinion: otherwise, its like voting: you don't vote, then its on you. No matter what, you and others will complain. The city will follow state law and create a Housing Element because it is the law.
DeleteProp A folks never share the point about there being nothing about the Housing Element that is mandatory. No nexus, period. But go ahead and keep following Lynn and Donna and Sheila. They'll be around their cauldron tonight, waiting for MacBeth to ride by.
Don't wanna register your opinion? Feel free to follow the Prop A people down to Neptune where they can all take a flying leap.
I forget, which side of this argument Marco is on? Argument? Yes, whether to follow the law or not?
"all 5 get to vote on where in their community potential R-25 can be located:"
DeleteReminds me of the multiple choice poll at a city held meeting a few years back during a slide show: 'Which style of 3 story building do you like best?" ("None of the above" was not a choice. Now it is.)
The city should GRANDFATHER, NOT ONLY CORAL FARM, but any other similar request. THE CITY NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT! I know 3 others who are watching and also want to be treated the same. This will be interesting to watch.
ReplyDeleteThe city should follow their own rules and regulations. No favoritism should be shown for any group. PERIOD.
ReplyDeleteI agree! If not, this will definitely come back to bite them.
ReplyDeleteSome of Coral Farms neighbors are not happy - too much traffic to their neighborhood (sounds familiar). Shouldn't they be listened too?
ReplyDelete2:33
DeleteDepends. What's your definition of "listened to?" Does it mean that a handful of neighbors should get their way automatically? If there was an open public dialog, and "listening," after which a decision was made to grandfather Coral Tree Farms, would you claim that people didn't "listen?"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have been able to understand from the folks at City Hall is that Coral Farms, even though it was purchased by the current owner's parents in 1956, did not operate as a farm for many years. It has not been an ongoing situation, so grandfathering it in is, in their eyes, not feasible. If Coral Farms had been doing why they do now since 1956, they would be grandfathered in. I also understand that they need about $1700.00. I suggest that those who want this to stay in place, each contribute so much so that they can reach their goal and then head on down the City Hall, take out the permit, and go from there. Whether this is how it went down, I have no idea, just reporting what I have hear. So, please don't kill the messenger.
ReplyDeleteIf what you have heard was inside city hall, be very, very wary of the "facts."
DeleteCoral Tree farm was operated as a farm continuously, with no interruption, since 1956. The owner has submitted evidence of this, and the City has no evidence, otherwise.
DeleteA portion of the original farm was sold off when the current owner's parents broke up. The mother and daughter operated Coral Tree Farm continuously. The portion of the property that was subdivided had been sold by the father to a speculator, who sold it to a developer. The developer failed to check off the box, under "former use" as agricultural. But that part of the land may have no longer been operated as a farm, when the speculator sold it to the developer. That is not relevant to the original farm, which has existed without interruption, since 1956.
The City should not try to coerce $1700 out of an owner who has maintained a pre-existing Ag use, without interruption.
The neighbors who are complaining have no soul. 3 people as opposed to an entire community that adores Coral Tree Farms? You do the math.
ReplyDeletecoral tree farms looks great…. I say lets adopt an ordinance for all the remaining large greenhouses and open lots and zone it for similar farm use. We have too many houses as it is…..
ReplyDeleteWe do not want more houses. We down have the water and we are crowded enough. Let the masses move to the big cities or some wear else. Encinitas should be considered full!!
The City should be focused on reducing staff costs. But the current direction is the opposite. The next good City Council needs to reverse this unsustainable trend and fire Vina immediately.
Lets do something healthy for Encinitas this year- Fire Vina.
God speed Tony Gwynn.
ReplyDelete4:29 I really don't even know where the Coral Tree is located. But, one thing for sure is that you DON"T represent me. In the future please quit saying things like "entire community, we, the residents, etc.". Speak for yourself, unless your carrying a signed petition, then you can say we the (number signed) believe...
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like Vina is posting again.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou don't speak for anyone but yourself, 9:06. I don't mind when people say "we," because they are often referring to their family members and themselves, or their neighbors, who agree with them, and themselves.
DeleteAnyone can use the pronoun "we," without your criticism. But if you want to complain, go ahead and vent. No one is going to take it to heart.
9:06 excuse me, I meant entire community minus 4 residents. I stand corrected!
Delete9:12- No, it's called democracy. Not everyone thinks the same way on lots of city issues. Not everything is Vina's fault. Although I would say a lot of things are his fault!
ReplyDeleteGood point Dr. L. It is the city who tried to simplify issues since they leave out the entire range of opinion and try to make all issues black and white with dot studies and Peak Democracy. They want to take out the great numbers in the center and push a growth at any cost mentality while most of us love Encinitas exactly as it is.
ReplyDeleteDoubtful anyone with kids would be opposing Coral Tree Farms. So neat they can play and enjoy the atmosphere there, something that those complaining could discover perhaps. And to think they live next to a noisy freeway and are complaining about open space and tranquility next to them! I'd give anything to have Coral Tree Farms next to my house with smiling happy children going by.
ReplyDeleteI thought that way before the city built the community park.
DeletePesticide Park?
DeleteIf so many people love Coral Tree my simple question is : Why don't you all put your money where your mouths are, and donate enough so that they can pay the $1700.00 the City is requesting. Do we really need to have a war about this too? That is not a great deal of money if everyone contributes. So, as many have said before me, put up or shut up.
ReplyDeleteYou're going to see more and more "wars," 1:50, as residents wake up to the abuse the taxpayer-paid city heaps on them. It's the price of going too far....
DeleteAs I wrote, here before in answer to your previous suggestion, Coral Tree farm was operated as a farm continuously, with no interruption, since 1956. The owner has submitted evidence of this, and the City has no evidence, to the contrary.
DeleteA portion of the original farm was sold off when the current owner's parents broke up. The mother and daughter operated Coral Tree Farm continuously. The portion of the property that was subdivided had been sold by the father to a speculator, who sold it to a developer. The developer failed to check off the box, under "former use" as agricultural. But that part of the land may have no longer been operated as a farm, when the speculator sold it to the developer. That is not relevant to the original farm, which has existed without interruption, since 1956.
The City should not try to coerce $1700 out of an owner who has maintained a pre-existing Ag use, without interruption.
Vina needs the $1700 to buy cuff-links for his retirement outfit. He'll join Muir in the perpetual 6 figure fat-cat club!
DeleteThat money is extortion that is why!
ReplyDeleteExactly, 1:51. That $1700 fee is not only extortion, it's also a hidden tax; imposing it, and Coral Tree Farm paying it would serve to continue the City's abhorrent precedent of treating pre-existing residents/property owners shabbily and shamefully.
Delete1:51- Then I guess Coral Tree will not be able to operate unless the City grandfathers it in, which leaves the door open to others feeling that it's not fair. I agree the City should have figured this out a long time ago, but it doesn't seem to matter who is on the COuncil, this all is the same shit we have been hearing about for years on different items.
ReplyDeletePrecedent and our city's code mandates that it is grandfathered in. If someone feels that's not fair, they can hire a lawyer, and figure it out.
DeleteWhat's not fair is that a few exploit the system, but especially that City staff uses unfettered discretion to determine what constitutes legal, non-conforming, or what constitutes agricultural use, or that base density bonus calculations are rounded up, without Council setting the policy, without Council changing the General Plan, or adopting new Encinitas Municipal Codes.
Staff's using unfettered discretion to create shadow policy, without Council approval, is an abuse of discretion, and an abuse of their authority. You're correct, 2:23, we've been hearing about and feeling the consequences of the City's abuse, for years.
My big question about Coral Tree is why would people choose to buy new homes next to an established agricultural parcel, no matter its size, and then proceed to harass it because they don't like it being there? That's bullying, as far as I am concerned.
ReplyDeleteIt's all about bringing revenue into the city to cover for years of mismanagement, period. Any excuse and Vina is on it like flies on poo with the council following meekly behind. No mystery here.
ReplyDeleteIf Coral Tree is shut down Vina is a gonner.
ReplyDeleteNot as long as this council's sitting.
DeleteVina should be a gonner regardless…..
ReplyDelete9:49-Any ideas on how to get rid of Vina? Let's do it if possible, without the Council. This and other Councils won't get rid of Sabine or Vina.
ReplyDeleteRun for office!
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to withhold judgement until a full and fair airing of facts on Coral Tree, but the neighbors should know that they have hill to climb. There is an inherent bias in favor of a small, local organic farm. If the farm is forced to pay fees and legal costs they cannot afford, what's the alternative? Answer: Sell the parcel to a developer who will exploit rules to the max to shoehorn in as many stucco boxes as possible. Don't say it can't happen--it happens all the time.
ReplyDeleteFor the community as a whole, it's a tough sell that the negative traffic impacts on a handful of neighbors outweighs the community benefit of having a small, local, organic farm. For the neighbors, it's a tough sell that the negative traffic impact of a small farm open to the public for limited hours two days per week is worse than the alternative--construction and sale of another stucco box cluster.
As I said, I'll withhold judgement, but the neighbors have a hill to climb. Who knows, maybe Coral is secretly processing U235--short of that, the neighbors will have a hard time winning support. By the way, I live about 1/4 mile from CTF.
Yeah, by the sound of it, you don't sound at all bias - My ass!
Delete9:42, Did you read this part: "There is an inherent bias in favor of a small, local organic farm."
DeleteI clearly have a bias. I believe the community as a whole has a bias. My whole point was that the neighbors have a difficult task to overcome that bias to win support.
Do you think those of us east of the downtown bars care about the downtown neighbors complaints about the downtown businesses? It doesn't mean we shouldn't care!
Delete5:54, are you actually equating bars which expel loud, potentially violent, drunk drivers into a residential neighborhood every night of the week at 2am with a small organic farm that is open to the public Saturdays 10am - 2pm, and Thursdays 10am - 3pm?
DeleteI just want to make sure I understand your argument before I respond. Is that the comparison you are making?
The first challenge with coral tree is the property is zoned residential.The second is they have been having events that are not AG related such as weddings , art classes ,yoga classes and other events that are not consistent with AG use and this has all been documented.Every one would like to see the AG continue ,Everything else is the problem ,they need to change there business model to survive as farm.
ReplyDeleteCoral Tree Farms represents everything that is great about Encinitas. To shut it down shows that this council has no pulse on what Encinitas is about. We already know Vina has no clue.
Delete12:46 said "Everything else is the problem."
DeleteNo. An ag business supplementing their income with weddings, cooking classes, and yoga is not a problem. It's changing their business model to survive as a farm--exactly what you suggest.
Google the vinyards in Napa, Sonoma, Solvang, Temecula, then tell me how "not consistient" these activities are with ag use.
Pull your head out before you shut this great little place down and a developer stuffs it with stucco.
It is NOT a problem that Coral Tree Farm is zoned residential. With the exception of the former Ecke property, now belonging to Leichtag, all the AG properties in our City, or almost all of them, were zoned residential upon our city's incorporation, or shortly thereafter. This was done so that property owners would have a choice of someday selling their land at a higher cost per acre, but also because all the property owners were assured they could continue their pre-existing AG use, even through they were zoned residential. That is why the Hall Property, which had long been used for agricultural uses, was already zoned residential, when the city purchased it, for much more than it could have were it still zoned agricultural. A big advantage to the City in rezoning almost all of the agricultural land is that the City (and County) would be collecting higher property taxes per parcel zoned residential. But if the land was undeveloped, the property taxes would still relate to the purchase price of the land, after the Jarvis-Gann Initiative, Prop 13 of 1978.
DeleteCouncil did determine that accessory uses incidental to the main use are allowable; Council should be consistent with smaller pre-existing farms, as Council Members were with Leichtag.
Also, people can hold weddings at their own residences; Lou's records and Ducky Waddles have special events all the time. Usually, they are not required to get a special event permit, but if there is likely to be a great deal of traffic, they are supposed to do so, as when Jack Johnson played at Lou's, years ago. It's fairly easy and inexpensive to get special event permits, but that shouldn't be necessary to opening the farm to school children, at no charge, a couple of days a week, during certain times of the year.
We are being over-regulated and under-served by city staff, the city manager, and our city council.
The only land actually zoned agriculture is in the Encinitas Ranch which is the Ecke Ranch and two other properties. You'll recall that the Encinitas Ranch was annexed after incorporation. When the city incorporated it initially used the county zoning for the area until it could adopt a general plan. While the general plan did make changes to the county zoning, I don't believe it made major changes and I don't remember if the county zoning included agriculture zones. If they did, they must have been changed when the general plan was adopted.
DeleteI sort of find it sad that even though it may NOW be zoned residential, we didn't incorporate until 1986. Was Coral Tree doing these things before incorporation, like weddings, etc? If so, why can't that be grandfathered in. I thought the purpose of incorporation was to keep community character, not lose it.
ReplyDeleteWell, the troika already ruled that their buddies are allowed to have general office use as an "accessory" to agriculture zoning.
DeleteSo maybe they'll rule that weddings and art classes can be an "accessory" to residential zoning.
Incorporation was adding an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to tax and regulate the citizens excessively, so that these employees could have fat salaries and outrageously lavish pensions. Value added? - Very little.
DeleteThey make new rules up as they go.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to WC's initiating post on this thread, check out all the redlining on Agenda Item 10E for tomorrow night's Council Meeting: http://encinitas.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&event_id=286&meta_id=39806
ReplyDeleteThis agenda item is "not ready for prime time," and should have gone back to the Planning Commission for the Commissioners to review and approve the changes that were made.
Also, the Commissioners had specifically asked for a glossary, explaining what constitutes "sustainable growth," for example. No glossary is provided that I can see.
What was the rush in getting this to Council? Council sent back to the PC both the parking lot expansion issue on El Camino Real last Wednesday and the Community Gardens issue, which Planning Director Murphy wrongly limited to only one community garden in Encinitas Ranch on the site belonging to EUSD, and ex mayor Barth didn't give her own agenda report, for her own council member initiated item.
Council should now send this agenda item back to the PC. In fact, it should be pulled from the Council Agenda under Item #7. "CHANGES TO THE AGENDA: Announcements of administrative changes to the agenda, in compliance with the Brown Act."
I was out of town, but does anyone know why Teresa didn't give her agenda report?
DeleteAnyone interested in reading Scott Chatfield's interview with TOny Kranz about the purchase of PV for 10 million, go to www.savepacificview.org, or Kranz's FB page. I would really like to play poker with him. Baird got a deal on this one.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLet's keep personal habits out of this.
DeleteIf council members have habits that affect their ability to govern it seems like a fair topic.
ReplyDeleteYes, but I don't think that's the main factor in this one's decision-making.
Delete