Here is a letter to the coastal commission from the City of Encinitas (click link). Prop A people say this doesn't make the council look good.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1wJWJxfrtmTZUtZOGNmc3YzQ0k/edit?usp=sharing
I don't really have time to digest this, but here is my immediate reaction (besides... that's no surprise).
Does the letter mean the city won't be broken into 2 planning regions, as we were warned about? I think it means the city WON'T be bifurcated. Hum...
And what does this mean?
As suggested, in cases where existing codes specify a different maximum height standard, the more restrictive standard will be applied. For example, certain structures are limited to a maximum height of 22 and 26 feet in our Zoning Ordinance and certain specific plans. These more restrictive standards shall apply.
Does that mean I can't build a 30 foot accessory unit? The council wrote to every voter in Encinitas, "Imagine a 30-foot structure five feet from your property line [if Prop A passes.]"
Doug Long wrote that heights limits
would be raised in residential neighborhoods if it passed. Of course, this sort of statement was an obvious and predicted result of the way the council proceeded with THEIR "independent" analysis and public statements they made about the negative parts of Prop A. To their discredit, the council wrote a signed statement that the heights
could be raised. They did not say how that could happen, nor did their "independent" report. ALL FIVE signed on.
Did the council want the public to be misinformed? When Doug wrote his commentary in Coast News I emailed the mayor letting her know about how her statements had predictably evolved in the public debate. I had hoped she would make a statement that addressed this, as the council clearly was responsible for promoting this thinking. She emailed back saying she would not even comment on the issue (an issue she facilitated). She comments on lots of stuff all the time, but not on this.
If the council made a false statement in the ballot argument they could be sued, but wishy washy
"coulds" can be spread without support (the public has to rely on their
trust of the council). Had the council explained their statement or said it "would" increase heights then they would have been sued, and they would have
lost. In that case they would have had to fight Prop A with legitimate
concerns about Prop A (which were less scary to a majority and so would make
winning less likely for the council).
More on addressing legitimate concerns later.
The council avoided resolving contrived or real ambiguities, prior to the election. The did not want to put in the effort. Why? It turned out that it was better for their campaign now that there can be no more "coulds", assuming this letter is real. Prop A doesn't do all those scary things, apparently.
Several council members directly resisted having these issues clarified PRIOR to the vote (
more later, I'll have to review emails). Some of the resistance was based on "the issue being too complex" and a court would have to decide explanation. I made the point that first the city would have to decide, BEFORE a court would ever hear it, so why not resolve things PRIOR to the vote, so the people would have good facts to work with? No good answers came for that, other than it will take some time, from one council member. Well, how much effort was put into making the decision to support the paragraph above (were there really any viable options)?
If it were so convoluted and difficult to figure out (was it?) why wasn't that deliberation and decision made in the public, especially if it took some judgement or put the city at risk?
Barth was recently asked via email why they didn't resolve these "issues" prior to the vote. She has not responded.
It appears to have been "decided" easily by staff without new legal assistance or review by the city council!
This is all assuming I am reading the paragraph from the letter correctly (gotta work).
The (genuine) worst parts of Prop A didn't get pumped up by the council because a lot of people would have actually said, heck I like that! Or said, "if that is the worst part, I'm all in!"
Most of the council's statement could not withstand scrutiny and that might explain why the Mayor Barth wanted to avoid discussing her reasons for opposing "The Right to Vote Initiative". She went so far as to imply that she was afraid it would be illegal for her to exercise her free speech rights (which she knows), as an obvious and terrible weak way to deflect questions about her reasoning behind her opposition.
It is one thing to disagree. Its another to thing when our leaders don't play fair.
Was this the fair play that the Mayor promised?
Sure, lets all move forward (like there is any alternative), but lets take stock of what has happened and figure out how not to make the mistakes were made during Prop A. What went down during Prop A needs to be reconciled and behaviors changed if the current council majority doesn't want to end up Guerinating.
Later, a discussion of the statements Pro A made about property rights.