If we can't go, can we e-mail our objections?I think people should question the negative impact declaration of changing the overlay for the entire city. That just doesn't make any sense. Seems like the State mandate for low income housing is in conflict, here, with the State mandate for environmental review. And I don't see any guarantees that the developers would actually develop low income units. Look at the new development going in where the Artists Colony over by A St. is, now, with the story poles. Those condos are going for $1 million each. Why don't all the developers have to do some kind of mitigation for low income.These developers are entitled to a profit, but not at the continuing expense of our quality of life, and the greatest common good of the citizens.
Why wasn't the city council concerned with affordable housing when they allowed the Eckes to over develop Encinitas Ranch? There was no concern that most of Encinitas Ranch homeowners would send their elementary kids to Capri...now our neighborhood is inundated with SUVs every morning and afternoon...and the school is becoming plastic. They allowed Standard Pacific to build "granny flats" in Maravu that qualify as "affordable housing"...believe me, there are no low income residents living there!
We can't go, but I thought I'd share the e-mail I just sent to our City Clerk, Deborah Cervonedcervone@ci.encinitas.ca.usSubject: 8/29/06 Council Meeting, Agenda Item #9, Consider Resolution 2006-48Attn: City Council MembersWe are taking this opportunity to e-mail you, as we are not able to attend tonight's meeting. Please understand that we, and many more citizens of Encinitas are very concerned about the new plans for upzoning many sections of our city through the low income affordable housing element overlay, as proposed. Having worked with the North Coast Coalition to Incorporate Encinitas in 1985-1986, I am well aware that a primary impetus to incorporate was to give more local control to the citizens, to stop unchecked development, and to prevent the County from "upzoning," at its discretion and against the best interests of the majority of citizens in Encinitas, Leucadia, Olivenhein, and Cardiff. From what we have seen of the overlay map published on leucadia.blogspot.com, we indeed have reason to be very concerned, and, yes, upset. If it is true that the yellow areas will be up to R-25, and that this will not require a public vote, and also will not require a super majority of Council, then we are not being well represented, again. It certainly appears, from the map, that this is a case of obvious spot zoning, as well. We have a lot of compassion for low income individuals, and presently, semi-retired, we fall into that category. However, this "solution" certainly seems like overkill, and is not taking into account the traffic implications and the infrastructure concerns, including water availability in years to come. Our understanding is that there is a range within which the State mandates this housing element, and we are going to 50%, the top end of the range, when as low as 35% could be acceptable? We are also concerned that Planning has given this a negative environmental impact declaration? This seems foolhardy, actually, as there has to be immense traffic and natural resource impact from allowing this huge increase of density citywide. To us, it does seem as though the State mandate to increase the housing element for affordable housing in Encinitas is in conflict with the State mandate for legal environmental review of the entire "project," not breaking it down into phases, which are "passed off" as having a negative environmental impact, as was incorrectly attempted at the Hall Property. Finally, we are concerned that a question of this magnitude, which has aroused the emotions and inflamed the passions of so many of our fine citizens, was not addressed either before the elections, so that we could ask questions of candidates at the forums, or now, why it is not put off until the New Council is seated, specifically, until after our new Council Member, Teresa Barth is sworn in on December 6th. Christy Guerin is leaving, and it does not seem fair or equitable that this matter must be rushed through during a time when many have other plans due to the holiday season, and the lack of longterm notice. Many citizens feel that these types of items are purposely scheduled during a time when less people are likely to be able to attend. Again, this is Agenda Item #9, which will likely be heard past the time many who would want to speak would be able to stay, due to having young children at home, etc. We ask that City Council would vote no on the resolution, or at the very least, trail this item until after Teresa Barth is sworn in, and more people can have notice so as to write letters, send e-mails, or attend, personally. Very truly yours
Please some one ask council or staff about the negative declaration on Envirnmental Impact. This seems ridiculous. With that many more residence and density, traffic will be even more of a nightmare, and all the infrastructure will be overwhelmed. How can the City claim a negative declaration on the Envirnmental Review process?
Lynn, why can't you come off as polished in person? Honestly it is horrible listening to you mumble your way through 3 minutes at the council meetings but your e-mail was great.
Regarding the Encinitas Ranch comment, I am disappointed by the comment that the City Council allowed the Ecke's to "over develop" the Encinitas Ranch. My memory of that development was that the entire Ranch was almost 900 acres, and they allowed about 1,000 homes. That is about 1 home per acre, and that is prety good in today's standards. In the deal, we got an amazing trail system, a public golf course, and a ton of open space. That sounds like the City made a pretty good deal to me.
If you live in the Encinitas Ranch area, you have a pretty good deal of all the trails. If you can afford to play the golf course, you have a pretty good deal. If you live in the Encinitas Ranch, you have tons of open space. If you live in the other parts of Encinitas, you have all the traffic congestion, higher density housing, and little open space.
Such a deal.
Sounds like the encinitas ranch project did it right and the other areas were piece mealed.
Please tell me our choices are not limited to R-1 and R-25. There has to be a happy medium.
So Open space is only good if you live next to it? I am confused. I thought open space is good for the entire community, not just the housing development that "provided" it?
Before you get all warm and fuzzy about the Ecke Ranch project you must remember how many good honest hard working people were forced out of their homes to widen Leucadia Blvd. All for the mighty Eckes.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well, I don't think I mumble, but at least I make my best effort to "speak my piece," or is it peace?Practice makes perfect. Guess I'll continue to "write out" my comments. That worked out well at the planning commission re opposing the seawall.You're pretty bogus, "casual observer," when you hide behind your anonymity, and criticize others, like me, who dare to post under our names, trying to share our concerns and understanding, when you mainly share insults, and mean spirited criticism.Thanks, anyway, for the left-handed compliment. I'd rather mumble, according to you, because you don't listen, than deceive, or hide behind cowardice and an over-inflated ego.
I say "casual observer" could be Jerome Stocks, or maybe Christy Guerin? "Dirty tricks" aren't going to ruin anyone's self esteem who posts here. That's been tried, over and over. Doesn't work. In fact, you only spark debate where people dig in their heels more and more.
Yes, we know you are posting, Jerome. Sorry your "baby," the proposed Cadmus crossing isn't going to work out. Thanks for trying, but we think it was for publicity more than an effective "cure."It would definitely cost far less to upgrade the Leucadia crossing to a "safe zone," so it could someday be a quiet zone, than to create a whole new crossing, as a temporary fix, at Cadmus. And the fix would create more problems of traffic on double lane Vulcan, rather than four lane North Coast Hwy. Plus Central School would be affected, negatively, as well.Some are more interested in being bigshots in press releases, or sitting on high at Council Meetings, criticizing others, than in being honest, and addressing us here under their real names. You don't have to, of course, goes with the territory. Just know, we realize who you are.
Ok, now I understand. The Open Space that the Encinitas Ranch project was only for the benefit of the Encinitas Ranch homeowners. And Leucadia Boulevard is also only for the Encintas Ranch population. So, that means no one else uses that vital connection?
Lynn, sorry I insulted you. It is for your own good. You make excellent points but you should take a speech and debate class if you want the council to listen to you. You post as anonymous all the time. I need to stay anonymous for personal reasons.
Extending Leucadia blvd into the back country obviously was a bad idea for the coastal traffic so please don't be smug. Ecke Ranch is decent for shopping but the next door neighbor Forum in Carlsbad had better planning. I play golf at the Ecke course twice a month.
I still like the idea of Closing Leucadia Bvld. crossing. It will never be safe. Look for a better location or grade seperation. The sooner it closes, the less people will die!Thanks Jerome and other council members for the creative thinking and for reading and posting on this blog.
Last night there was an overflowing crowd at the council meeting. I have never seen so many people there. Around 30 spoke against ammending the Housing Element of the General Plan. All were very eloquent. Mayor Guerin announced beforehand that Agenda Item #9 was being continued until Dec. 13 because the state had not responded yet. Only one person decided not to speak. If you weren't at the meeting last night, be sure to watch it on cable. It doesn't get much better than this. Many thanks to J.P., Hometown Alliance, and all the other groups that helped to make such a successful turnout and effective presentation against the plan.And yet Mayor Guerin couldn't resist a long monologue, complete with crocodile tears, after the public spoke. I almost gagged on the phoniness of her comments. This is her last council meeting, although she said she may be back on Dec. 13 as part of the public.Stocks was speaking by phone from Hawaii and couldn't be easily heard. Maggie was beaming with a very big smile and looked great. Dalager scowled through the whole meeting and hardly said a word. Bond talked too much about the increase in water rates and the city financial status. The others finally shut him up. Had he indulged a little too much at the catered dinner beforehand? When is this man going to retire? Increasingly he is an embarrassment.
Casual observer, your "personal reasons" for remaining anonymous, are just like the rest of us.You don't want to be attacked by the likes of you.How do you know who has had speech and debate? I have. Who are you to say, "if you want the council to listen to you?" Guess you ARE ADMITTING you are someone on Council. That's fine, but better to empower those citizens who have the courage to give their names and speak out, than to give blatant or sometimes subtle, but insidious personal attacks.
Positively the council reads these comments thanks JB. Thanks Lynne for your info.The Hometown Alliance has the potential to be a political force that the council cannot ignore on a level with the chambers of commerce and the service clubs. Comments any one???
Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog. Anonymous comments are allowed, after moderator review.The moderator works at his leisure.