The current city council has continued prior councils' practice of not providing written summary minutes of council discussion, but only "action minutes" which state the outcomes. Encinitas Undercover will provide a forum for observers to record what occurs at each council meeting.
Please use the comments to record your observations.
NEWS ALERT!!!!!
ReplyDeleteClosed session report out - Gaspar, Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer directed attorney to make a settlement with BIA. Muir voted no.
Interesting...Sabine chose the attorney, which doesn't bode well from the start.
ReplyDeleteWe're terms of the settlement offer disclosed? Probably not, right?
ReplyDeleteNo...but we can imagine, can't we. The relatively small amount that the city was spending to defend this suit pales next to Pacific Station...with so much more at stake...other projects like the (Hall) regional sports park with the true cost always so under-reported by a council willing to look the other way and lie while they're at it.
DeleteSickening.
Why did Muir vote NO? Doesn't seem consistent with his usual views.
DeleteMaybe he found a moral compass.
DeleteOr maybe his conscience is clear, having voted "no" on Pacific View.
DeleteMuir thought the no vote was for mayo on the burgers.
DeleteNo it was perfect. They all knew they could not win the lawsuit, so Gaspar said to Muir, why don't you vote NO and look like a good guy in case you want to run again? I didn't hear this, but it looks like it could be the case.
DeleteThey coukd win if they had the will. They don't. It's impossible to ignore the fact that many other cities and counties, including some of the largest, play by the same rules our council instituted last summer. The BIA is not going after them, are they? Encinitas is perfectly happy keeping the BIA happy.
DeleteWhat does Blakespear have against man?
ReplyDeleteman or Manjeet?
DeleteThat settlement news alert can't be right because later in the meeting staff and council members said the suit is still pending. A "settlement" sounds fishy too cause that implies financial, and the suit is about the city's having changed the rounding standards when density bonus is invoked.
ReplyDeleteBigger news is ACE approved dredging and dumping megatons of sand on our beaches. That will kill marine plant and animal life and screw up the surf.
7:14 must mean Pacific View, not Pacific Station, and 7:48 must mean men, not "man." Both commenters probably tipped too many.
ReplyDelete10:51- Blakespear made a big deal of changing the word "man" in describing mankind, to a "gender neutral" term-
DeleteI wish she would spend as much time reading the fine print of the city's budget documents
Whoops yes 7:14 here and I did mean Pacific View but sorry to disappoint - I was not sipping.
ReplyDeleteThe report out of closed session was to "direct legal counsel to move forward with settlement negotiations." Negotiations could take weeks or months, or could even fail. The lawsuit is still ongoing until settlement terms are reached. Terms could include financial considerations, but more likely would be settlement of the causes of action with each accepting their own financial costs.
ReplyDeleteThe surprise was not that Muir voted NO, but that Gaspar, Shaffer, Kranz, and Blakespear voted YES. The four are going back on the original 5 to 0 vote to change the interpretation of the Density Bonus law and then to defend the lawsuit filed by the BIA.
Short attention span? Remember AB 744 that was discussed just a few days ago that would overrule the city's round down of net acreage? Could the council have seen the handwriting on the wall and decided that even if they won the suit it would be for naught if AB 744 passes? Maybe the city's lobbyist told them there was a good chance of AB 744 passing.
ReplyDeleteI'm only speculating but it wouldn't surprise me if the above were true.
The bill isn't even out of committee yet. Then it has to go to a vote in the Assembly. From there it goes to the Senate, and finally to the Governor's signature. It could be a long time.
DeleteMuch more likely it has to do with the plaintiff's request for discovery. A common way for the plaintiff to put pressure on the defendant. The BIA certainly knows how to play the legal game and has very deep pockets.
Handwriting they were happy to see. BIA once again fighting the good fight on behalf of affordable housing - not.
ReplyDeleteSick of our mayor trying to make amusing comments during serious meeting issues. Step it up mayor and act your age. This is not a pep rally or cheer leading practice. This is government business and needs to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteThe extra comments by the mayor to those who address council is out of line. A simple thank you is all that is necessary.
Also, the extra comments to her council peers are out of line. A meeting or so ago, she threatened them with how tough she can be. Not appropriate.
To Muir....can you make a vote of your own without checking with GASpar?
Let's see some adult leadership from now on.
Muir is lost the majority of the time.
DeleteCmon, be honest 1:53 pm... you're jes sick of living!
DeleteLoser!
4:56 Sick of our childish mayor. Maybe you are just like her. I wouldn't doubt it.
DeleteDouble loser!
5:11 PM
Delete"Double loser!" Is that like Double Dare or even Double Dog Dare?
What is the protocol here?
Loser
Double Loser
Double Dog Loser
Triple Loser
Triple Dog Loser
Just asking so I can play along.
from the BIA site:
ReplyDeleteThe BIA PAC is comprised of an outstanding group of industry leaders selected to make decisions on how and when to spend the industry’s political dollars to ensure a favorable business and political environment for San Diego’s building industry. PAC members carefully review the political landscape and thoughtfully allocate resources to influence key races or issues.
They certainly don't hide that they exist to "carefully" strongarm those who get in the way of profits.
And (boo-hoo) meet "roadblocks" - that'd be concerned residents who dare question the appropriateness of their plans for "underutilized" sections of our city - basically any lot not covered in high density:
DeleteOur industry needs all hands on deck. We have so much to offer to San Diego's communities and yet are frequently met with legislative road blocks, burdened by disproportionate fees, and pushed out of business by large special interests.
They buy their stooges on city councils - like Gaspar and Muir. Kranz sold out too and Shaffer is a train wreck. Don't expect much from Blakespear either. 2016 - try again.
Delete2:58 PM
DeleteListening to many of the comments here, it's clear they don't have a very good track record in selecting council members. They quickly fall in and out of love. Tragic really.
11:09 We don't and haven't had many exceptional people to run for office. That's the problem. Slim pickings.
Delete2:09 PM
DeleteAnd yet so many here talk as if they know what to do. Why aren't they running?
I'm surprised no one commented on the storm water or waste water agenda item. Tony Kranz questioned the new ordinance as it relates to the flooding of Leucadia Roadside Park, over the bluff, at Neptune. Glenn Pruim, Public Works Director, said, "that's not something I think we should discuss in this [public] forum. Catherine Blakespear said, "What say you Mr. City Attorney?" Glenn Sabine said, "I'd take his word for it; I can brief you later."
ReplyDeleteAny briefing of an already heard agenda item should be done publicly. Or a closed session should be scheduled. The public has a right to give input, and to hear the City Attorney's input. There is a question of liability, of course, because of the run-off from the former Hall Property, so-called "community park," which resulted in a very hefty fine, still being "negotiated."
So much for transparency. Since Tony brought this up, he should have asked for a future agenda item, at least at a closed session, not through behind the doors briefings or, as is now being called, "staff/council review."
No one is calling Council and the City Attorney out on Brown Act violations. They too often seem to prefer the wink-wink/nudge-nudge style of conducting business.
Send them an email and complain about it, Lynn.
Delete10:34 PM
DeleteWith the phrase "as it relates to" in 3:02 PM's comment how do you know it's not Mark Muir?
11:06 Lynn stuck it in to get us off track. Didn't work.
Delete3:02 and 2:10 apparently have no cogent argument to make here. Claiming that a poster is Lynn/whomever does not a point make...unless you want to show that you have no point.
Delete6:38 I see you like to play games also!
Delete