E A R LY

M AY

2 0 1 3

The CLOCK IS RUNNING

Welcome to the first post-2012-election edition of Hoodlink. This also happens to be the first Prop A: Citizens-Right-to-Vote special-election edition. What is it about this unintendedconsequences boogie man, purported to be hiding in the shadows, ready to ruin our fair city if PropA passes? According to the report by the Citys consultant, progress is bad and lower is really higher. The consultant should have received a big fat F for their clearly partial hit piece. That Council accepted it at face value, and it is now being called an impartial report, is flat out embarrassing. The biased imaginations of this study, rather than the actual words of the Right to Vote initiative, are being used as the basis for most of the anti-Prop A arguments. The Leucadia Blog has an excellent examination of the reality of what the initiative does, or does not, change from what we have today. Many people are feeling that the initial unintended consequence of having successfully replaced the previous Council majority is the eerie persistence of overdevelopment proponents running roughshod over the truth and our citys future. We hope Council starts thinking beyond blatantly false dogma and acts accordingly. Soon. Please! Rather than worrying about unintended BS, Herb has two essays in this Hoodlink. Both pieces involve City Staff ignoring rational concerns, about the troubles caused by over-development, when they act against the public good in favor of developers. We all need to be more concerned with the foreseeable (and, by some people, likely intended) negative effects on our neighborhoods when a project needs to pencil out for yet another developer. Please read on and stay involved.

When is a Restaurant not a Restaurant?

The short answer is whenever the Encinitas City Staff says so.
When the relatively new Starbucks at Leucadia Boulevard and Orpheus was in the planning stage, a Community Participation meeting was held. A question was asked of the developer regarding any additional restaurants going in the two 900+ square feet units not used by Starbucks and the developers agent said it would not be allowed under the Citys parkingrequirements. The Starbucks was built with 26 parking spaces (including one handicapped spot). This was (and is) the legal minimum under City code. The two additional units parking requirements were figured at four spaces each (one space per 250 square feet of floor space -- the retail rate under code) and the rest of the spaces for the Starbucks were figured at the restaurant rate of one space per 100 square foot of floor space. To make even that work, the City had to give the project use of City right of way. The City code does not define restaurant, but I believe everyone would agree the term covers most any facility selling food at retail to the public. It would certainly include a Subway, so I was surprised to see a Subway sign going up at the Starbuckslocation. I wrote a letter to the City Manager which was eventually answered by staff. I called the City Manager but could not reach him until a chance meeting much later. I did receive a call from City Staff and an email indicating that the City was characterizing the Subway as retail because they were not going to allow any tables and chairs and their business was only to be take out. This is apparently common practice and (of course) the City always does it this way. The problem is that the parking provision reads Individual retail uses and other individual commercial services EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED HEREIN: (emphasis mine). The restaurant parking requirements are specifically in the code and the retail designation can only be read in that context. The City Staff also ignored the code requirements for a loading zone. The code does allow the planning director leeway to not include a loading zone, but there is no document, or discussion anywhere regarding this issue in the file, the Planning Commission hearing, or the appeal. So City Staff has decided that cramming another restaurant into a minimum space is necessary for the City revenue which is due for a sharp hit in two years when the pension accounting changes. The same type of decision was made when the Walgreens was stuffed into the Bank of America plaza. So who is letting Staff bend or break code whenever they so decide? Does our new City Manager really have any control over the Staff? Does the Council majority require the Staff to do this creative thinking at the publics expense? How many of similar decisions have been made and how many more will be made? It is your City -- please let our City Council know what you think about this issue.

~ Herb Patterson
THIS JUST IN: Traffic Commission to consider establishing a No Parking Zone on the west side of Orpheus Ave, North of Leucadia Blvd. The meeting is Monday May 13, 2013 at 5:30pm in the Council Chambers. This is a public meeting and your input is important. On public appeal, our City Council rubber stamped Starbucks developers taking of public right of way for their parking lot. The foreseeable traffic problems have come to pass. The City is considering taking parking away from small businesses across street. Act now!

To receive Hoodlink via email, send a message with the subject subscribe to

stoprezoning@yahoo.com

E A R LY

M AY

2 0 1 3

Back issues can be found at civics-101.com/hoodlink/

THE COLD WAR STARTS

For years the Encinitas Council and staff have attempted to at least look like they were complying with State and SANDAG requirements, while telling the citizens of Encinitas that the requirements were actually not going to be put in place. For years we have had representation that was afraid to rock the boat or just say no and a staff that seemed to value the developer over the City code. The basic idea of local control was only brought up sporadically and no full analysis of leaving SANDAG, or not getting State grants or aid, was ever done. (This was even proposed by Christy Guerin at the end of her term in 2006 and subsequently by others). The fact is, we have never met our housing goals. Ever. We never will unless we only build low income housing and stop building middle and upper income housing. The fact is that the goals set by the State are not realistic, based on erroneous population assumptions, and encased in rules that prevent changes even in the face of obvious error. The density of Encinitas should be determined by the city of Encinitas, not by a bureaucrat in Sacramento. The current City Council is now trapped by their pledge to uphold the law and the obvious necessity to break it or change it. Desert Rose is the issue that was the final culmination of projects that the citizens of Encinitas have been opposed to but were built anyway. The possibility of slowly changing the system has been thrown away by previous Councils. The Cold War begins. The first step in this war should be by our new (and I believe very competent) representative to SANDAG, to let SANDAG know we are considering leaving SANDAG if changes more conducive to local self determination arent made. The second step is to cease work on the new general plan until such time as the State modifies its stance on low income housing and enforced density. Our old General Plan is a better document than the proposals I have seen for the new plan, so no harm donethere. The third step is to purge those in the City Staff who are working for the developers rather than the City. City Staff should not be an advocate for the developers -- they should be an even handed interpreter of the City code and bound by the code. The fourth step is to fire the current City Attorney and find a more activist oriented individual to help spearhead the changes we need to survive as a City we can be proud of. If the new, thoughtful, and intelligent majority of the City Council cant leave their carefully considered ways and get forcefully involved RIGHT NOW, then the citizens of Encinitas will vote for more radical representation in the future. I believe we would be better served by the current Council doing what needs to be done now -the skills are there, lets see the commitment. ~ Herb Patterson

Good Things to know and Do...

Thursday, May 16, 2013 58pm Sunday, May 26,2013 1:30pm

IMPORTANT DATES
Thursday May 16, 2013 6:308:30 pm

Taste of Cardiff
Tickets $25.00 in advance A major informational meeting on Prop A is happening at this same time. If you know all you need to know about Prop A, then click for information about the Taste of Cardiff! Saturday, May 18, begins at noon

2013 Arts Alive Banner Auction at Cardiff Town Center

The openingreception starts at 1:30. The auction starts at 2:00. All are welcome to attend. The online auction guide can be seen atartsaliveencinitas.com. Bids can be placed prior tothe event by calling Leucadia 101 at (760) 436-2320.

Informational meeting about PropA Encinitas Right to Vote

Pros and Cons with speakers BruceEhlers, spokesperson for Prop A and a former planning commissioner, vs Steve Shakelton. Thisshould be a good opportunity to hear a debate between two thoughtful local citizens. Sponsored by Leucadia Town Council. Location: Community Room at the Encinitas Library, 540 Cornish Drive. June 18, Ballot election for Prop A Encinitas Right to Vote.

Young Musicians Battle of the Bands at Paul Ecke Central School

Tickets -$10.00, seniors, students, and small children $5.00 Winning band will play at the 2013 Leucadia Music Festival June 28 and 29th

Check out the good eats at:

Dos Palmas Bakery and Grill 1302 N. Coast Hwy. Transit: Hwy 101 & Jupiter Hours 8:00 am to 4:00 pm daily Not only will you like the bakery prices, many will appreciate the small portion sizes.

Mail In Ballots will be mailed on or about May 18, 2013