I am writing to express concern once again about the Desert Rose Project and how residents have not been properly notified of when this action would take place. Furthermore, placing an item on the consent calendar is not a transparent way to "consider" the map.
My neighbor Becky Sheets, a long-time resident and former Assistant City Clerk from Oceanside, visited me on on Saturday and communicated that she had been to the city to check about the upcoming Desert Rose map approval, and was told that the item had been pulled. I only found our this morning from another neighbor that the project was going to be in front of Council tonight, but as a Consent Item.
Our neighbors who have had continuous contact with Roy Sapau were originally told that the council would hear this item in April. As Mr. Sapau admits, his communication is very short notice.
When I found out that this item had been placed on the Consent Calendar, I spoke with a member of the City Clerk's Office who stated that in order for me to pull the item, I would have to leave work early and be there between 5:30 and 6:00 when I offered to drop by at 3:00 to pull this item. Please provide the written legal citation of where this rule is documented.
Also, while I am sure that the developers are anxious to get the map approved, the reason for many delays was on account of their letting their LLC elapse with the state, both before the first Planning Commission hearing that neighbors won, and when the 2016 Council approved the plan that is on the Consent Calendar tonight. I had to inform Mr. Sapau that they had lost their corporate status the first time, and embarrassingly, the 2016 Council approved a plan for a corporation that had elapsed a second time. They also had a number of lawsuits from various contractors over a number of years.
In addition, there were a number of wetland and grading violations committed by the owners that stopped the project for several years. We had to write several letters to make sure that the Planning Department returned these reports with the official records.
Since I only found out today that the meeting was indeed going forward, and I have not been able to directly communicate with Mrs. Sheets beyond a voice mail, I would like to ask that you reschedule the meeting for next month on account of the pattern of misinformation and omission that we have experienced with the Planning Department from the beginning of this project. As part owners of the private part of Desert Rose Way with the other neighbors, we still have issues to resolve concerning the road, our fully mature trees next to the road, and a number of other issues that need to be cleared before the plan is finalized.
On May 8, 2018, at 5:14 PM, Roy Sapau wrote:
Hi,
Hope all is well. I want to let you know that the City Council is considering the Final Map for the Desert Rose project tomorrow night. This is to authorize the final map for recordation. I apologize for the late notice.
The original developer who filed the paperwork, who Marco Gonzalez has identified as a "great guy" was disciplined by the Board of Accountancy on more than one occasion. Given the record of the developers, why have staff and council members bent over backwards to push this project through with multiple violations and lapses in their LLC? How do we know they have the funds to finish the project and do it right?
Disciplinary Action D1-2000-20 - California Board of Accountancy
The fight and decision happens (and did happen) at tentative map approval. This step only confirms whether the final map is consistent with the approved tentative map. It's not a re-consideration of the tentative approval.
SOP. The only question is how far up the chain of command the "policy" of keeping the public in the dark goes. So far, Wisneski at least is in on the bad behavior.
Mistakes and oversights are random events. Therefore, when staff makes a mistake, 50% of the time, their mistakes should favor citizens. In every case, their mistakes benefit their side. The only way that they seem to get things passed through is by "mistakes." Letting people like this get rewarded for dishonesty and poor work encourages the wrong message. Look at how many lawsuits the city is involved in for the closed session. It is getting worse and worse.
The City Council failed last night. They had an opportunity to assure affordability on 2 sites but instead voted for "market rate" housing on all sites. Still to come is acceptance of the developer-friendly design standards plan.
This will cause massive traffic problems at both the Olivenhain end of Encinitas Blvd and the intersection with I5. Voters will be asked to approve this crazy plan in November.
This will result in another "no" come November. Let's see how this copy flies with voters:
"The city capitulated to whiner NIMBYs on Quail Gardens Dr., removing a parcel that would have provided 100% affordability and replacing it with last-minute sites citywide that will deliver just 10% affordability."
Considering lack of affordability is largely what killed this plan last vote, why doe Kranz/Muir/Mosca think this will sell well with voters in November?
It will cost $11 million to destroy the bluffs and coastal sage scrub next to San Elijo Avenue and rebuild it with a 10 ft. wide bicycle path, which Mayor Blakespear and her family will use to ride their bikes. Mayor Blakespear pushed hard for the path, but when she encountered stiff opposition from residents, she backed the 101 route and let the Coastal Commission staff push for San Elijo Ave.
The mayor changed her mind in the face of community opposition. Do we want city government that is responsive or not? Once the plans were developed for 101, the mayor spoke at CCC for the 101 alignment. The CCC vote was close, and went the wrong way. The mayor is not at fault for that.
You'll all recall Shaffer leading the SANDAG witness.... Blakespear got to go on record as having flipped on the rail trail placement, but it's doubtful she really saw the light. More likely she saw the votes slipping away next election. The way our city operates there we're phone calls made for which no notes are taken.
Witness "staff" back at it with HCD phone calls, but no trail in writing to record the discussion. Nope, can't have that.
Speaking of "staff" and no records, they claimed they had none on the agreement with Starlight residents regarding a promised gate closure next to the Hall park. No shame on their faces whatsoever when a Starlight resident produced said agreement that - whoops - was left in the file.
Start on one topic, it invariably leads to other. Common thread? "Staff" running the show. At this point, you have to think the Council is in full agreement.
9:42 - Selective fact picking. The vote was 5-7 for the 101 placement. The following motion to proceed with San Elijo was 12-0 as you state. If 12 people want to go out for dinner and vote 5-7 for Mexican vs. Italian, and then go out for Italian, it's fair to say the vote between Mexican and Italian was close. But, you know this.
The second vote was minutes after the first vote, to go ahead and proceed with something, in this case San Elijo. There were two votes on the same day. The first determined the location and the second was the go-ahead to proceed.
City staff worked on the 101 alignment. 9:42's comment is more like Shaffer. Not happy with just a win, twists facts to make her win seem bigger. Why can't she just leave us alone?
Part of the staff report for the planning commission meeting - May 17. "On December 14, 2017, the Housing Task Force, staff and the consultant team met with staff from state Housing and Community Development (HCD) to discuss the Housing Element. HCD staff suggested the City’s two story limit was a constraint in achieving the required density and requested examples of developments to demonstrate it was feasible. After research and analysis by the consultant and staff, it was concluded that the feasibility of constructing a project within two stories at the required density of 25 to 30 dwelling units was not feasible, therefore a third story would be required." Pacific Station, Iris apartments, Encinitas villas, all examples of two story high density properties. BUT, the staff couldn't find these examples. Time for Brenda and her staff to be fired.
Liar Lisa was influencing the coastal commission to reject the railtrail on the 101 to remain on San Elijo the whole time. Too bad they listened to her and not the majority of our community. By the time Catherine got on board with the residents it was too late. Lisa cannot butt out and continues to interfere where she is not wanted.
Council should have listened to the locals from the beginning instead of listening to Lisa and a small handful of others. The well organized neighbors on San Elijo educated the mayor. That was unfortunate and Catherine got the brunt of criticism, even after aligning with those pissed off neighbors.
That she realized her error and tried to get the trail where it belonged all along shows she can do the right thing. Her mistake was ever letting Lisa have a say.
99% of cyclists on our 101 will stay on the 101. That is why they ride there. Monumentally stupid applies to putting a county wide trail anywhere but on the 101.
It is all history now. One thing is clear. If our city had supported the county wide coastal trail from the beginning on the 101, it would have been there where it belongs. The CCC would have stopped listening to LIsa lobbying them from the beginning. There are others to blame of course, and we know who they are.
They are a vocal minority, which seems to be a common occurrence around here. Majorities seem to have little say on too many issues.
Voting would settle many of these, if it were allowed, which doesn't happen near enough. One of these days............
The CCC decision had nothing to do with Shaffer, Blakespear or anybody else. The staff's justification for its recommendation to the commission to put the trail along San Elijo is about 35 pages long. You could Google and read it.
Or you could have been there in person to watch the telling dynamics between Shaffer and Commission reps. There's plenty that goes on that doesn't make it onto a piece of paper, but you kind of had to be there. You just stick with your Google search, 6:30.
Cox, who was a county supervisor and coastal commissioner at the time, made the motion for the 101 placement. Blakespear, who was mayor at the time, spoke for the 101 placement. THB and Mosca, who were council members at the time, spoke for the 101 placement. Yet 7:48 says Shaffer, who was a private citizen at the time, somehow influenced seven commissioners to vote against the 101 placement.
Take a look at the recently placed pink survey flags along San Elijo. They show where the rail trail will run except at the two staging areas. There's a long stretch very close to the bluff edge and road edge. Lots of parking will be lost. Users will be right at the edge of the road. It's easy to see now.
Also the the trail will cut a wide swath through the old Cardiff Botanical Garden. Many plants will be lost. Again easy to see now.
Lisa Shaffer was the city's rep on SANDAG for 4 years. She definitely has responsibility for the east-of-the-tracks location. Blakespear inherited it, stumbled, then corrected herself.
Shaffer wanted the San Elijo location. The Coastal Commission made the decision to put it there about a year and a half after Shaffer left the City Council. Read the staff report here:
The rail decision was made back in 2000. It has been in the circulation element since it was first adopted. It was in that location in the 2005 Bikeway Master Plan. It was in the 2012 Pedestrian Plan too.
And most recently, it was in the North County Public Works Plan, which was shown to the public and council many of times through informational meetings and public hearings.
The current full council, and all previous, could have provided direction to move it. It isn't just Shaffer. It is all of them.
I think you should have a rail trail on both sides.
If you are concerned about how Encinitas will look, take a look around you. The double tracking and direct access ramp has already destroyed the coastal hillside character.
No matter how you spin it, the CRT was to be along San Elijo, but the council majority flipped it to 101 under public pressure. Then the Coastal Commission put it back on San Elijo even though Commissioner Cox, Mayor Blakespear and Council Members Horvath and Mosca spoke at the CCC meeting for 101.
As wrong as Shaffer was, you can't blame only her for the CCC decision. You haven't even mentioned Kranz. But still, it was a CCC decision, not a City Council decision.
Dear Council Members,
ReplyDeleteI am writing to express concern once again about the Desert Rose Project and how residents have not been properly notified of when this action would take place. Furthermore, placing an item on the consent calendar is not a transparent way to "consider" the map.
My neighbor Becky Sheets, a long-time resident and former Assistant City Clerk from Oceanside, visited me on on Saturday and communicated that she had been to the city to check about the upcoming Desert Rose map approval, and was told that the item had been pulled. I only found our this morning from another neighbor that the project was going to be in front of Council tonight, but as a Consent Item.
Our neighbors who have had continuous contact with Roy Sapau were originally told that the council would hear this item in April. As Mr. Sapau admits, his communication is very short notice.
When I found out that this item had been placed on the Consent Calendar, I spoke with a member of the City Clerk's Office who stated that in order for me to pull the item, I would have to leave work early and be there between 5:30 and 6:00 when I offered to drop by at 3:00 to pull this item. Please provide the written legal citation of where this rule is documented.
Also, while I am sure that the developers are anxious to get the map approved, the reason for many delays was on account of their letting their LLC elapse with the state, both before the first Planning Commission hearing that neighbors won, and when the 2016 Council approved the plan that is on the Consent Calendar tonight. I had to inform Mr. Sapau that they had lost their corporate status the first time, and embarrassingly, the 2016 Council approved a plan for a corporation that had elapsed a second time. They also had a number of lawsuits from various contractors over a number of years.
In addition, there were a number of wetland and grading violations committed by the owners that stopped the project for several years. We had to write several letters to make sure that the Planning Department returned these reports with the official records.
Since I only found out today that the meeting was indeed going forward, and I have not been able to directly communicate with Mrs. Sheets beyond a voice mail, I would like to ask that you reschedule the meeting for next month on account of the pattern of misinformation and omission that we have experienced with the Planning Department from the beginning of this project. As part owners of the private part of Desert Rose Way with the other neighbors, we still have issues to resolve concerning the road, our fully mature trees next to the road, and a number of other issues that need to be cleared before the plan is finalized.
On May 8, 2018, at 5:14 PM, Roy Sapau wrote:
Hi,
Hope all is well. I want to let you know that the City Council is considering the Final Map for the Desert Rose project tomorrow night. This is to authorize the final map for recordation. I apologize for the late notice.
Thanks,
Roy
SOP from Roy. Clearly all is not "well" or he would not have received the letter.
DeleteHis apology carries no sincerity, he's not really apologizing, and he's going to do all he can to screw the Desert Rise residents. SOP.
Desert "Rose."
DeletePlanning has developer $%&# so far their ass the poop has no where to go but out their mouth.
DeleteKeep documenting everything then get in sue que. donate some money to council and you might get a fat settlement.
The original developer who filed the paperwork, who Marco Gonzalez has identified as a "great guy" was disciplined by the Board of Accountancy on more than one occasion. Given the record of the developers, why have staff and council members bent over backwards to push this project through with multiple violations and lapses in their LLC? How do we know they have the funds to finish the project and do it right?
DeleteDisciplinary Action D1-2000-20 - California Board of Accountancy
The fight and decision happens (and did happen) at tentative map approval. This step only confirms whether the final map is consistent with the approved tentative map. It's not a re-consideration of the tentative approval.
Deletelittle to no notice. wow
ReplyDeleteSOP. The only question is how far up the chain of command the "policy" of keeping the public in the dark goes. So far, Wisneski at least is in on the bad behavior.
DeleteMistakes and oversights are random events. Therefore, when staff makes a mistake, 50% of the time, their mistakes should favor citizens. In every case, their mistakes benefit their side. The only way that they seem to get things passed through is by "mistakes." Letting people like this get rewarded for dishonesty and poor work encourages the wrong message. Look at how many lawsuits the city is involved in for the closed session. It is getting worse and worse.
ReplyDeleteThe City Council failed last night. They had an opportunity to assure affordability on 2 sites but instead voted for "market rate" housing on all sites. Still to come is acceptance of the developer-friendly design standards plan.
ReplyDeleteThis will cause massive traffic problems at both the Olivenhain end of Encinitas Blvd and the intersection with I5. Voters will be asked to approve this crazy plan in November.
This will result in another "no" come November. Let's see how this copy flies with voters:
Delete"The city capitulated to whiner NIMBYs on Quail Gardens Dr., removing a parcel that would have provided 100% affordability and replacing it with last-minute sites citywide that will deliver just 10% affordability."
Considering lack of affordability is largely what killed this plan last vote, why doe Kranz/Muir/Mosca think this will sell well with voters in November?
It will cost $11 million to destroy the bluffs and coastal sage scrub next to San Elijo Avenue and rebuild it with a 10 ft. wide bicycle path, which Mayor Blakespear and her family will use to ride their bikes. Mayor Blakespear pushed hard for the path, but when she encountered stiff opposition from residents, she backed the 101 route and let the Coastal Commission staff push for San Elijo Ave.
ReplyDeleteShe “let” coastal commission staff?
DeleteSo she has a hidden remote control in her pocket?
What about Mark Muir and the self-proclaimed “mayor” of the 101 rail trail? What pursuasive case did they make to the CCC?
Answer: they didn’t even show up.
The mayor changed her mind in the face of community opposition. Do we want city government that is responsive or not? Once the plans were developed for 101, the mayor spoke at CCC for the 101 alignment. The CCC vote was close, and went the wrong way. The mayor is not at fault for that.
DeleteThe CCC vote was 12-0 for the San Elijo alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail. That's hardly close.
DeleteYou'll all recall Shaffer leading the SANDAG witness.... Blakespear got to go on record as having flipped on the rail trail placement, but it's doubtful she really saw the light. More likely she saw the votes slipping away next election. The way our city operates there we're phone calls made for which no notes are taken.
DeleteWitness "staff" back at it with HCD phone calls, but no trail in writing to record the discussion. Nope, can't have that.
Speaking of "staff" and no records, they claimed they had none on the agreement with Starlight residents regarding a promised gate closure next to the Hall park. No shame on their faces whatsoever when a Starlight resident produced said agreement that - whoops - was left in the file.
Start on one topic, it invariably leads to other. Common thread? "Staff" running the show. At this point, you have to think the Council is in full agreement.
9:42 - Selective fact picking. The vote was 5-7 for the 101 placement. The following motion to proceed with San Elijo was 12-0 as you state. If 12 people want to go out for dinner and vote 5-7 for Mexican vs. Italian, and then go out for Italian, it's fair to say the vote between Mexican and Italian was close. But, you know this.
DeleteFive for San Elijo, seven for 101 or the other way around?
DeleteOther way around. The vote was 5 to go with 101, and 7 not to go with 101 (implying San Elijo). This vote is why it's being built on San Elijo now.
DeleteAnd the question is why the 5 that wanted 101 changed their vote to go with San Elijo.
DeleteWith a 7-5 vote against 101, why the second vote?
DeleteThe second vote was minutes after the first vote, to go ahead and proceed with something, in this case San Elijo. There were two votes on the same day. The first determined the location and the second was the go-ahead to proceed.
DeleteWait, so 9:42 LIED? Shocking! Lol which department at the city do we think 9:42 "works" in? Classic.
DeleteCity staff worked on the 101 alignment. 9:42's comment is more like Shaffer. Not happy with just a win, twists facts to make her win seem bigger. Why can't she just leave us alone?
Delete9:42's error happened because the source document gave only the 12-0 vote.
DeleteYou do know that the 12-0 vote is what counts.
DeleteThe fact that the commission voted differently along the way is about as relevant as saying the mayor switched votes back and forth.
The only thing that matters is what is going to be built, now. Everything else is noise.
Part of the staff report for the planning commission meeting - May 17.
ReplyDelete"On December 14, 2017, the Housing Task Force, staff and the consultant team met with staff from state Housing and Community Development (HCD) to discuss the Housing Element. HCD staff suggested the City’s two story limit was a constraint in achieving the required density and
requested examples of developments to demonstrate it was feasible. After research and analysis by the consultant and staff, it was concluded that the feasibility of constructing a project within two stories at the required density of 25 to 30 dwelling units was not feasible, therefore a third story would be required."
Pacific Station, Iris apartments, Encinitas villas, all examples of two story high density properties. BUT, the staff couldn't find these examples. Time for Brenda and her staff to be fired.
none of those are two stories and 30 units per acre.
DeleteBut it can be done.
DeleteLiar Lisa was influencing the coastal commission to reject the railtrail on the 101 to remain on San Elijo the whole time. Too bad they listened to her and not the majority of our community. By the time Catherine got on board with the residents it was too late. Lisa cannot butt out and continues to interfere where she is not wanted.
ReplyDeleteCouncil should have listened to the locals from the beginning instead of listening to Lisa and a small handful of others. The well organized neighbors on San Elijo educated the mayor. That was unfortunate and Catherine got the brunt of criticism, even after aligning with those pissed off neighbors.
That she realized her error and tried to get the trail where it belonged all along shows she can do the right thing. Her mistake was ever letting Lisa have a say.
99% of cyclists on our 101 will stay on the 101. That is why they ride there. Monumentally stupid applies to putting a county wide trail anywhere but on the 101.
It is all history now. One thing is clear. If our city had supported the county wide coastal trail from the beginning on the 101, it would have been there where it belongs. The CCC would have stopped listening to LIsa lobbying them from the beginning. There are others to blame of course, and we know who they are.
They are a vocal minority, which seems to be a common occurrence around here. Majorities seem to have little say on too many issues.
Voting would settle many of these, if it were allowed, which doesn't happen near enough. One of these days............
Happy mothers day to all of the moms out there.
The CCC decision had nothing to do with Shaffer, Blakespear or anybody else. The staff's justification for its recommendation to the commission to put the trail along San Elijo is about 35 pages long. You could Google and read it.
DeleteOr you could have been there in person to watch the telling dynamics between Shaffer and Commission reps. There's plenty that goes on that doesn't make it onto a piece of paper, but you kind of had to be there. You just stick with your Google search, 6:30.
Delete7:48 The CCC staff report preceded the meeting. Read it and see what you think determined the outcome.
DeleteForget it 8:00.
DeleteThe Barstow Thunderhole never loses an argument.
It just gets louder and louder.
Cox, who was a county supervisor and coastal commissioner at the time, made the motion for the 101 placement. Blakespear, who was mayor at the time, spoke for the 101 placement. THB and Mosca, who were council members at the time, spoke for the 101 placement. Yet 7:48 says Shaffer, who was a private citizen at the time, somehow influenced seven commissioners to vote against the 101 placement.
DeleteTake a look at the recently placed pink survey flags along San Elijo. They show where the rail trail will run except at the two staging areas. There's a long stretch very close to the bluff edge and road edge. Lots of parking will be lost. Users will be right at the edge of the road. It's easy to see now.
DeleteAlso the the trail will cut a wide swath through the old Cardiff Botanical Garden. Many plants will be lost. Again easy to see now.
Lisa Shaffer was the city's rep on SANDAG for 4 years. She definitely has responsibility for the east-of-the-tracks location. Blakespear inherited it, stumbled, then corrected herself.
Shaffer wanted the San Elijo location. The Coastal Commission made the decision to put it there about a year and a half after Shaffer left the City Council. Read the staff report here:
Deletehttps://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2017/5/th18a/th18a-5-2017-report.pdf
Make that about six months after Shaffer left the council.
DeleteShaffer was one of 18 votes on the SANDAG board. The rail trail decision was the CA Coastal Commission.
DeleteThe rail decision was made back in 2000. It has been in the circulation element since it was first adopted. It was in that location in the 2005 Bikeway Master Plan. It was in the 2012 Pedestrian Plan too.
DeleteAnd most recently, it was in the North County Public Works Plan, which was shown to the public and council many of times through informational meetings and public hearings.
The current full council, and all previous, could have provided direction to move it. It isn't just Shaffer. It is all of them.
I think you should have a rail trail on both sides.
If you are concerned about how Encinitas will look, take a look around you. The double tracking and direct access ramp has already destroyed the coastal hillside character.
No 9.54. I blame Shaffer
Delete@5.04. The majority of the community is not the people that live on San Elijo.
DeleteDon't be mad because now you'll have to park your car in your garage. The rest of us will appreciate the sidewalks.
No matter how you spin it, the CRT was to be along San Elijo, but the council majority flipped it to 101 under public pressure. Then the Coastal Commission put it back on San Elijo even though Commissioner Cox, Mayor Blakespear and Council Members Horvath and Mosca spoke at the CCC meeting for 101.
DeleteAs wrong as Shaffer was, you can't blame only her for the CCC decision. You haven't even mentioned Kranz. But still, it was a CCC decision, not a City Council decision.
So what's the word on Tasha taking campaign donations from the Lincoln Club? Now she owes them favors? Who is she, really?
ReplyDelete