There could be fireworks at tonight's housing forum at the library. Some of the Prop A folks are on the panel, while the council's current plans would remove Prop A's public right to vote on upzoning.
Please post observations in the comments from your smartphone if you're there.
no comments… must mean developers got scared and no high density bonus low income government bullshit housing is planned for encinitas. Right? Oh forgot to mention welfare and Section 8…. oh yeah - fuck free enterprise and believing in Free Markets and freedom. No we must try and manage the systems and make money off of them.
ReplyDeleteNaw, but everyone agreed, including the state, that high rent (and sales) districts like ours, affordable housing is nearly impossible.
ReplyDeleteMost absurd moments were when the Shea Homes guy kept trying to shift the conversation back to "we don't build enough moderate homes" (read "market rate"). At least he didn't try to mask his greed.
We were not assigned moderate and above units because we have enough in our current inventory. Why he was part of a discussion on affordable housing when that is clearly not his gig was a mystery. It also explains why he had such trouble explaining himself and making sense. He was trying to fit his square peg into a round hole.
DeleteShea guy was scary and out of touch. Sounded like he found out about the housing element two months ago. Huge praises for Planning Dept. You could feel the blood pressure rise in the audience when he said that.
DeleteHe was salivating to develop El Camino Real into mixed-use. And ready to build moderate income housing, not that we need any more. He was a great example of the core problem that the RNHA initiative does not deliver on its goal to increase availability of affordable housing. The upzoning that results from the RNHA process only opens the door to clueless and greedy developers like the man from Shea Homes.
Affordable housing is in Encinitas. I used to live in PB until I could afford to move the Encinitas. Its called free Enterprise. If you don't make that much money you can not afford to live in really nice areas. Sorry, it the way its always been. Otherwise the other 99% of the worlds population will want to be your neighbor if you subsidize their rent. Pfffff. So many Humans are so fricken dumb.
ReplyDeleteI live in MORENO VALLEY, where can I sign up to get gov freebie to live near the BEACH?!!! HUGGGHGHH?!!
ReplyDeletemy brothers on disability and my sister just had her 3rd income baby on crack. I want to play this game… PLEASE GIVE ME LOW RENT AND A GOOD FREEBY JOB LIKE A FIREFIGHTER OR LIFEGUARD.
Its not a freeby job, it a work fair job. Fireprincesses and life guardians have the sweet job like border patrol. Pays well, no end valuable gain, and you don't do shit. perfect slacker job. Everybody want the easy job…...
DeleteAt least we were spared from having to listen to Meyer, who I would have prominently walked out on from my seat near the front. Kudos to Lisa and Mark for limiting that side of the equation to the one Shea Homes guy, even though he couldn't have come off more disingenuous if he had tried. What he was selling was not being bought by anyone in attendance except for a couple of his fellow developer shills. The faint applause for him was registered by two or three people out of the whole crowd that was there.
ReplyDeleteAnd in addition, every time I drive by his development on Saxony, north of the Leichstag property, I curse those ridiculously raised pads for those homes. A travesty that was allowed by 'his lowness' selling out our community to the developers, once again.
Here's hoping El Nino washes them all away and Shea will have to pay huge sums for cleaning up their crappy mess of overly raised building pads. Now that would be some justice.
I agree. The shit shea built on Vulcan is appalling!!
ReplyDeleteShea must mean shit in Russian or some other language.
Whatch liar VP who claims to live in Leucadia. He is a newby moved here when the goal was to profit of the existing qulait of life in Leucadia.
Shea is bad like most profit over everything developers. I hope the go BK like most developers over the last five years!!
I remember from a planning/building meeting years ago, when several developers, as was/is still their practice, violated their granted building permits by not including the low income units within their projects, and piled all of these required low income requirements onto a single North Vulcan location.
ReplyDeleteAt this meeting, several builders, including Shea, acted like they were doing this city a favor by providing these very units at all and in this single location on Vulcan.
The nerve of these permit violators was/is still galling. Never a price was to be paid for them not living up to that for which they were granted their original permits to build.
This past Thursday, I was reminded once again of Shea's and others like them, the freedom they continue to have to not include these within their projects. Just as slimy, is allowing them to pay an in lieu fee and not have that violate the original intent of them agreeing to supply some low income housing in their projects confines. They get away with anything they want, thanks to an always and ever obliging Planning Dept.
Oh, if only we could fire and hire these staffers ourselves, through a public referendum of some sort. Maybe then they would not let these permit violations occur with no penalties assessed.
Democracy seems to be missing down there. More like a kleptocracy, me thinks.
You are right. What, if anything, can be done about it?
DeleteYou can vote "no" come next year. That may (may) send a serious message to the City that it cannot seem to get, despite all the faux workshops and outreaches. Residents overwhelmingly asked for two-story structures and were shown overwhelmingly three-story ones. Their supposed wish for resident input is just that: supposed.
DeleteThat as part of its HCD submission, the City has planned annual meetings with developers to identify new parcels to upzone and discuss more ways to fast-track permitting tells you who they're really listening to. You won't find non-developer resident "stakeholders" represented anywhere in their plans.
"Please post observations in the comments from your smartphone if you're there. Or just rant, question motives, and generally decry the downfall of civilization without offing anything informative or substantive about the meeting or its contents."
ReplyDeleteThere. Fixed it.
What are you talking about?? Residents have offered plenty of substantive information about how to do this update.
DeleteThe city's problem is it doesn't get to reap $$$$ from resident suggestions to cover its crazy spending habits. Only massive development and associated fees will the provide the relief the city coffers need. The city's problem is, it decide to burn our tax dollars: no residents asked to pay 2X the valuation of Pac View, we didn't ask to raise pensions 35% in one night, and we didn't ask to spend millions on a single lifeguard tower. We certainly didn't ask to pay north of $2M in consultant fees for serial update plans that anyone with half a brain could have predicted would never be approved by the public. The city thinks fancy brochures and an artistic logo are going to sell this sellout of a plan in 2016, but it won't.
Just because what residents have offered over the years don't fit the greed-driven motives of the BIA that our city so embraces doesn't mean we haven't made offers. The city didn't like said offers and declined them, but don't confuse that with thinking that residents have not offered solutions.
". . . about the meeting . . ."
DeleteThe lavish praise of Encinitas Planning Department by developer spokesmen says it all. The planners were too scared to show their faces at the meeting since they have bungled this project for over 5 years and have hired out millions of dollars in consultants for work that they should have been able to do in-house. I am voting NO against any that these self-serving planners recommend. When they speak of sustainability, they are talking about sustaining a job title while spending our tax dollars to on consultants to manufacture reports that reflect their interests but not ours.
DeleteThank you 10:03am, for your succinct enlightening of how our city caters to the monied interests over the community's wishes for preserving what we all love and what brought us here in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of preserving this character is beyond Plannings staff and certainly some of our current and past council members apparent comprehension.
With the dedicated citizens we have paying close attention, next years election will not be as free a ride as have some been in the past.
Transparency may be coming at last.
The Encinitas City Council -
ReplyDeleteThe 12 days of Christmas
https://www.facebook.com/Encinitas-Goat-Buster-907693409323199/
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to make it, and I haven't seen any news reports of the meeting.
ReplyDeleteI'd appreciate an objective report on what happened, how many people were there, what role was played by Shaffer and Muir, what the various speakers said, etc. Just the facts, please.
Hopefully someone was there who is capable of stepping outside their simplistic subjective narrative of good and evil.
You probably wouldn't like an objective report because it won't fit your simplistic subjective agenda. Aaron Burgin from The Coast News was there, but needs to make a public records request to the city. Cool your heels until Aaron's report is posted on the internet.
DeleteIn answer to some questions from 12:06:
DeleteThe room was packed and some people were standing. Shaffer and Muir introduced the invited speakers and kept the discussion civil. The speakers each clearly stated their positions. Questions were asked and answered until the library closed.
In the closing comments one speaker stated that she would vote "no" on this, and most of the andience applauded.
Thank you.
DeleteWas there any new or surprising or new information?
12:06 and 4:35:
DeleteVideo was made of the meeting, Shaffer or Muir will know where to view it. I went away from the meeting than I know before, and my opinion may have been affected, so yes there was new (to me) information. However, everything had been public before, so there was no surprise.
I hope Aaron and our fifth estate will publish a summary.
Not everything had been made public before and some juicy tidbits came out about information "staff" and the council have been hiding from residents. Lying by omission is the appropriate phrase.
DeleteResidents made the video recording, not Shaffer and Muir. They decided it wasn't going to be in their best interests to do so.
Aaron and the fifth estate at "The Coast Developers News"? Please. It is my opnion Aaron is a good reporter, and also my opinion that since Tony Cagala took over the paper has decidely move to support the position of developers similar to Meyers, realtors siimilar to Harwood, stack and pack elected officials Blakespear and Shaffer and hihg density city staff like Gus Vina. There was was a time when "The Coast News" was a reliable source to inform the citizenry. Since Cagala took over it looks more like "Sponsored Content" for builders and city staff. Maybe the 101 association threatned to puill ads if The Coast News did not go along with the machine and plan.
DeleteThe best reporting in America today is citizen reporting. For those who take the time, like WCV- we are all indebted.
In answer to December 12, 2015 at 9:26 PM
ReplyDeleteAh, the infamous Iris apartments’ sleight-of-hand deal. Shea Homes combined a bunch of affordable units from 4 different projects and ghettoized them on North Vulcan. The deal included affordable units from the Shea project on Saxony. When putting the deal together Shea assured the public of the deal’s merits by saying that there would be ESL classes and that they would “control those people.”
It was the two unbuilt affordable units on the twin Nantucket projects on Sheridan and Andrew in Leucadia that set off the questionable deal. Barratt American had gone bankrupt and David Meyer slipped away from his promise to build the two affordable units. The city council had approved everything and found for the developers in an appeal by the neighbors.
There was a big question about the legality of what the city did in bundling all the affordable units in one location. It certainly violated the spirit of the law. It brought to mind the comment of our longest serving council member James Bond: “If you don’t like what we do, sue us.” Anyone got an extra $50,000-$100,000?
The Shea project on Saxony was put through the Planning Department by the same David Meyer. When asked to make some changes by the Planning Commission, he fused to continue the project and the PC did not approve it. Meyer appealed to the council and won. The project was approved before Prop. A, so Meyer got away with putting houses on raised pads for better ocean views, worth about another $200,000 per house. Prop. A now requires measuring structure height from the natural grade, not the raised final grade. And getting the affordable units transferred to another location earned more money for Shea because they got rid of “those people.”
Lots of reasons to vote No on the Housing Element Update in November 2016 to send a clear message to council that we're not going to take it anymore.
It must be great to be able to make up your mind before the proposed HEU or ballot proposition have been written.
DeleteIt would save a lot of time if 12:09 was a judge.
Delete"I don't need your briefs or witnesses. I'm ready to render my verdict."
Very efficient.
The ballot statement is based on the plan that was not based on resident input; the city's own materials make that perfectly clear. Said plan was submitted to HCD and accepted by HCD. It would be ridiculous to think we'll be asked to vote on anything but the accepted plan.
DeleteNo one has to have a crystal ball to know if they value this town - not the profits that can be made off it - they need to vote "no" in 2016.
12:41 PM
DeleteDidn't you see the draft? It's been released. Want to make a bet there will next to no changes made in it before the November 2016 election unless a ton or pressure is put on the council?
12:41 PM and 12:44 PM brought to you by David Meyer and his developer buddies.
ReplyDeleteAre you honestly suggesting that anyone who hasn't made up their mind a year beiges the vote--and months before we have an EIR or even a proposed HEU--is automatically an ENEMY?
DeleteNice.
Maybe we should have two questions on the ballot. The second question would ask when the voter decided. If they vote no, but decided after today, then their vote is excluded because they fail the thought purity test.
Good luck at the polls.
12:41pm. If you had attended any of the five HEU sham presentations, you too would have been able to read the written document produced by Planning for yourself. No one could take copies of this home but were welcome to review it there sitting at the tables provided.
ReplyDeleteI say produced because, they, as usual, continue to farm out work that they are highly paid to do themselves, but do not. What a cushy position they have with hiring outside consultants to do what they should be doing themselves. Easy street resides at Planning.
Actually they had copies, you just had to ask. And you should be able to get a copy at the City Hall desk. Also those docs are posted online...
DeleteYes, nothing like making the public work for what they paid for. Some of us work and now you suggest we find time to stop by the City Hall desk? You don't happen to work for the city, do you?
DeleteTry telling staff or the council you learned well after the fact that something you needed was posted 10 layers deep. They'll claim in the name of "transparency" that "the information is there if you need it." Puh-leese.
Oh come now, 8:14. 5:40 said the docs are online.
ReplyDeleteIf true, then it would take less time than writing your post to get a copy.
You have been nominated for a 2015 Eyeroll Award in the category of False Indignation.
And you are making the city's excuses either as an insider or someone who has never tried finding anything online.
DeleteTry this simple test: type "@home" in the search bar. The fourth hit is a doc titled "Informational flyer," the HEU doc. Not exactly front and center or clearly labeled. Now imaging trying to find something challenging. No can do, but it'll still be your fault for not finding it.
An interesting thought experiment (does not apply to Encinitas).
ReplyDeleteCould a City theoretically pass an HEU that passes muster with HCD, and includes enough R30 to satisfy the city RHNA allocation, but. . .
The R-30 upzoning is located within the boundaries of HOAs that have private contractual prohibitions on dense development. In other words, the public entity zones the land for R30, but the owners of those parcels are enjoined from developing at that density by private agreements with the HOA. Assuming the R30 represented a small portion of the total HOA, the majority of people in the HOA would never elect board members in favor of changing the rules.
In effect, might a city be able to comply with state law without substantive risk of denser development becoming a reality by putting it in HOAs?
I don't think we have enough HOA territory in Encinitas to do this, but could they do it up in Hidden Hills?
Only problem is developers don't get their money and that won't do.
Deletehttp://www.athomeinencinitas.info/documents/
ReplyDeleteDraft Design Standards and Draft Zoning Standards
How nicely you make 9:02's point, 7:27!
ReplyDeleteWho would know that you needed to type in that URL to find the info and that you would not be able to link to it off the city website? It says "@" on all the fliers, yet you have to know to type "at" instead in the URL bar.
Nowhere in your "at" home link is the "Floating Zones" document, nor is it to be found in the "Informational flyer," nor is it to be found if you type it into the city website search bar. It is in the Floating Zones" doc where one of two Prop A reversals is buried. Most people would consider that important information to have, but obviously the city doesn't want anyone finding it.
No, no one would even think of posting information in such random fashion without it being done on purpose. No one would be this bent on hiding information from the general public unless there was something to hide.
Now wait for 7:27 to come back and tell me how the nice clerk at the front desk would get me everything I needed if I would just drive down to city hall....
It's buried nicely near the flashy graphics... Satisfies the letter of disclosure at least...
DeleteReally? On which link?
ReplyDeleteSide note: write a planning dept contact and you will get a neat note back, inviting you to come on down and meet privately at city hall. Not "let us organize the info so you can what you need, all posted in the light of day," but an offer to meet. In private. With no record, paper trail, or - gawd forbid - others learning what the hell's going on. It's all about divide and try to conquer.
You've figured it out, so your safety has been put at risk. They are coming for you. Turn out the lights. Don't use the phone. Don't use your credit cards. Trust no one.
DeleteYou are the last remaining hope. Don the aluminum hat with pride, and know that you have the respect of the oppressed masses.
Good luck, my friend. And Godspeed.
The jig is up, 7:48. There are too many "last remainings" out here for the city to be successful painting the messengers as fringe.
DeleteWord is out. You will not be able to sell this in 2016.
Default No Vote in 2016, and fire all Planning Staff remaining managers in 2016 for Fing this up so bad.
ReplyDeleteStill haven't caught the Floating Zones in the "flashy graphics." Can 3:59 point out where the "letter of disclosure" is satisfied? Still not finding it.
ReplyDeleteIn the name of transparency, the spirit of disclosure sure isn't satisfied.
YES... The first gallon of reclaimed water from the ocean began to flow from the desal plant, YES!!!! Now we need 50 of these plants up and down the coast line!!!!
ReplyDeleteSadly. There will be no more.
DeleteSan Diego County has actually done a pretty good job of diversifying our sources of water. We have secured rights to Colorado river water independent of MWD. We helped Imperial county line irrigation canals with concrete in exchange for a share of the water that was being lost into the ground. We built a desal plant.
These steps are important, but they don't come cheap. We spent a lot of money improving our access to clean water.
Unfortunately, the fact that we now have reliable supplies has been ignored in Sacramento. The water use restrictions we are living under are state-wide, and they restrict how much water we are allowed to consume, irrespective of our supply. We could have infinite water flowing from desal plants, and it would not matter. We'd still be under the threat of monetary or criminal sanctions for using more water than we are allowed.
In short, we'd have been better off without the desal plant. We'd have a ton more money available for other projects, and our water restrictions would be exactly the same. Every drop produced by the desal plant adds to your taxes and water bills, without giving us access to more water. Think of it this way. We are paying for expensive water from that desal plant, and our neighbors to the north get all of the benefit, because it offsets water that we would have otherwise imported from reservoirs to the north. Since we are importing less from up north with desal, the reservoirs to the north keep more water, which improves the supply available to LA and the inland empire.
Desal will mean all of baja can now be developed. More useful there than in Carlsbad.
ReplyDeleteDesal is expensive water. No more development in the deserts. let people live where there is water.
ReplyDeleteSo you will lead by example and move away from SoCal?? I didn't think so....Another do as I say not as I do.
DeleteI can afford to live here. You can not…. bye.
DeleteCoast News article on the Housing Forum:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thecoastnews.com/2015/12/15/affordable-housing-guarantee-unfeasible-experts-say/
From the mouths of the developers and state agencies themselves: "no can do." No affordable housing without subsidies.
DeleteThat forum probably did not go quite as Shaffer anticipated.
Parking software condominium
ReplyDeleteFree Parking Software for Town Houses, Condominiums, and Businesses Solves Parking Problems
Searching for a parking space is such as frustrating routine activity for lots of people in cities all over the world. This search is burning over a million barrels of oil of the world each day. There are also 4-parking spaces every vehicle in the US and almost all streets are most of the time, empty, which leads to urban environments that are ironically doing far more to accommodate the vehicles than people. As the global population continuously urbanize, without a convenience-driven and well-planned retreat from cars, these sort of parking problems will worsen.
http://webparkingsoftware.com software is the first step in the right decision. It involves using low-cost sensors, mobile phone-enabled, and real time data collection automated payment systems enabling people to reserve parking in advance or predict accurately where they can find a spot. When deployed as a system, free parking software thereby reduces car emissions in the urban centers by means of reducing the necessity for the people to circle the city blocks needlessly searching for parking. Furthermore, it permits the cities to manage their parking supply carefully.
This free parking software is now being developed in many different states and cities around the United States and some other countries. For instance, in LA, smart meters and low-power sensors are tracking the occupancy of parking spaces across the Hollywood district, one of the most congested areas. The users will be able to access this occupancy data in order to determine the availability of the spots and then pay for them with their mobile phones. Other than the environmental benefits and lending convenience, free parking software is improving the utilization of the current parking, which lead to greater revenue for parking owners.
These programs will be able to make great differences on a neighborhood level, but more widespread development and deployment is necessary for free parking software to change the cities and to contribute to the transportation sector pollution reductions greenhouse gas. One problem is that there are no citywide solutions all over the fragmented private and public parking providers. The occupancy data has a tendency to have many owners and is not accessible or standardized in a way that may enable software developers to turn into user-friendly applications. Thereby, individual smart parking efforts are so far successful locally, but uncoordinated, and operates in their own entrepreneurial or bureaucratic vacuums without a need to take gap between current free parking software and more widespread transportation system planning is an enormous missed opportunity for the cities to reduce the transportation related emissions.
Moreover, free parking software has been hindered by a lack of insight into the complete benefits of this software, specifically when compared to the cost of building extra parking spaces. Lack of collaboration between communities with the parking software programs, as well as lack of coordination between hardware providers, municipalities, and developers is also contributing to the slower adoption of smart parking. Nevertheless, it is possible to overcome all these issues. Cities will be able further accelerate these advantages by means of updating the land use and building codes policies to reflect the reduced need for parking.