Waves to Ride Blog:
If amendments to any part of its planning policy documents, including but not limited to the General Plan, specific plans, Encinitas Municipal Code or its Local Coastal Program, are required to secure or maintain certification that may otherwise invoke the requirements of Chapter 30.00, the City Council is authorized to make any and all necessary amendments with a four-fifths super majority vote or any other lesser super majority vote should less than five Council Members be eligible to vote while maintaining a quorum.
Comments: Chapter 30.00 referenced above is the Encinitas Right to Vote Amendment. In other words, Proposition A. It was passed by the voters through a special election ballot on June 18, 2013 and subsequently incorporated within the Encinitas Municipal Code.
K2 above guts Proposition A. It takes from the people the right to vote on any amendments that might invoke Proposition A and are needed to certify the Housing Element or Local Coastal Program. It gives that vote to the City Council.
What constitutes a super majority? The zoning standards (ordinances) above also state: ...the City Council is authorized to make any and all necessary amendments with a four-fifths super majority vote or any other lesser super majority vote should less than five Council Members be eligible to vote while maintaining a quorum.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens if there are only three council members present at the meeting. Is that a quorum? Does that mean it will take only 2 council members to be a super majority as stated above?
What a horrible city council we have and a terrible planning department to pull such a trick on the residents of Encinitas.
The trick is by Staff, and they must think we fell off a pumpkin cart. This proposal is a rehash of the plan that spawned Prop A. None of this Council were in office then.
DeleteOff topic but this story is not being covered on this Blog site: if you are concerned about the Coastal Rail Trail that will fence off Cardiff and eradicate parking, visit www.norailtrail.com and opt in. News 5 SD covered our story today because we've had hundreds sign up.
DeleteThe comment that starts "K2 above . . ." is carefully worded to agree with the careful wording of the city document.
ReplyDeleteIf the proposed HEU is passed by voters in November 2016, Prop A requirements would be fulfilled. From then on, "amendments . . . required to secure or maintain certification" of the Housing Element or Local Coastal Program would be voted upon by the City Council rather than the public. The Nov '16 vote would have gotten Prop A out of the way.
That's a big IF. Were this PROPOSED DRAFT to be on the ballot the Citizens would vote it down. Better to take it to court on a case-by-case basis.
DeleteThe point: If concerned residents hadn't dug through tens of thousands of thick words and found the offensive passages, they would be on the ballot, and the huge majority of voters wouldn't know about them. At the council's urging, they would vote yes to comply with state law.
DeleteUnless you're a developer and/or high-density development advocate, you're a fool to trust the council or staff. They do not have your best interests in heart or mind,
2:22 PM
Delete"you're a fool to trust the council or staff. They do not have your best interests in heart or mind,"
So a council person on assuming office swears to uphold the U. S. and State Constitutions which includes adopted laws. Those five are the only ones who by law represent the city. Everyone else, including staff, are granted responsibilities by the council but in the end it is the council alone that the State grants the power.
Is there a handy reference that the council can use to decide which laws they will uphold and which ones they will ignore? Why just ignore planning statutes. There must be other we can ignore. Sustainability, Smart Streets, Climate Change, etc. Those are such a hassle. Think outside the box.
Who's suggesting not following the law? It's how to follow it that's the question.
Delete10:33 PM
ReplyDeleteCarefully worded by rats, rats, rats.
This should shout out loud and clear what this council is about. Underhanded to the core. Tell everyone so it cannot happen, clearly residents are against this arrogant abuse of power by the city council.
ReplyDeleteBad start to the General Plan.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow about enforcing the noise ordinance and ticketing straight pipes.
ReplyDeleteHuge rate of return on low dollars of investment.
there is a better more peaceful way.
ReplyDeleteStart ticketing straight pipes. The wake me up all hours of the night.
ReplyDeleteIf they did not I would take less illegal drugs and be a better person the next day!
I swear!!!
Late night reading: EU's opening statement sounds too broad. The city doc proposes to gut Prop A by giving the vote to the council in the instances it specifies, not across the board. Still, it's sneaky and it stinks.
ReplyDeleteThanks to the blogger and EU for making the city's hidden move known.
I don't think there's a practical difference.
DeleteDoes anyone doubt that when the council wants to upzone something, it will find a way to claim it's necessary to maintain certification?
Here's the problem:
DeleteA Housing Element does not change zoning by itself. Even if the Housing Element passes at the ballot box, there need to be a bunch of other actions to implement the programs and changes documented in the Housing Element.
If you read Del Mar's HE, it's clear the HE is a plan with commitments. Here's an example from page 81:
"Within 12 months of City Council adoption of the 2013-2021 Housing Element, the City will amend the Condominium Conversion Ordinance to modify the affordable unit set-aside requirement to a . . ."
(http://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/257)
So the document lays out what the city WILL DO in the future to implement the plan--it doesn't automatically make those changes at the moment it takes effect.
In fact, Del Mar's HE makes dozens of promises about future actions the city will take, and in what time frame it will take them.
If Prop A as currently understood would require dozens of public votes or individual ballot measures on wonky detailed issues, then I'm not sure it makes sense in this context.
On the other hand, the current proposed language is probably too broad, and gives too much power to the council.
I'd be happy if the language in the Waves to Ride post was amended to limit council supermajority to the specific parcels, programs, and commitments enumerated in the (to be) voter-approved Housing Element.
--FP.
The city always planned to bundle all the properties to be upzoned in the Housing Element Update as a single vote in November 2016. This was the reason for the map exercises and the three maps submitted to HCD. Bringing back a super majority loophole would eliminate any votes for future upzones for HEU compliance. A HEU does make zoning changes in order to comply with HCD mandates. Of course, it's the first step, but a super majority approval by the council is also a first step. It's how the process works.
DeleteWC is correct. If in the future a David Meyer or Doug Harwood wants a property upzoned, all the city council would need to do is claim it's for future compliance with the next HEU cycle. The only option left for the public would be a lawsuit against the city, and it would be difficult to prove city motivation and win the lawsuit. We would be back to 4 or 5 stories and R-45 zoning on El Camino Real as originally discussed in the ERAC meetings. Or even higher and denser because Prop. A controls both zoning and height.
The public would be left out in the cold.
9:05:
DeleteThen would you agree that restricting the super majority to parcels, densities, programs and ordinances specifically detailed in the HEU would solve the problem?
Clarify and limit the scope to only what the voters have already approved (assuming the HEU passes). Exclude any authority to make changes relating to future HEUs unless and until voters approve those HEUs.
I think this is what council has in mind anyway, but I agree that the current proposed language says something else. Too broad.
--FP.
9:19 AM
DeleteThere is no compromising on the wording.
9:32,
DeleteSounds like you are saying it would fix the problem, and take away a talking point you want to use to convince people to vote against the HEU.
Isn't that the only reason you wouldn't support changing the language to clarify and limit the scope of council authority?
--FP.
FP,
DeleteWhat possible conflicts with Prop A could there be that couldn't be included in the public vote?
Prop A is about upzoning and height limits. Any necessary upzoning or height increases could be included in the 2016 public vote.
I see no reason for the council to take back the 4/5 option other than to remove Prop A's protections for future upzoning.
Murphy, Ranu, and Strong presented new programs that weren't required under the state statue. This is from the March 11, 2015 staff report:
Delete"A total of 21 programs (three are existing programs requiring no change, seven are existing programs requiring update, and 11 are new programs) are proposed in the Implementation Program. The summary spreadsheet in Attachment E will identify whether the program is required, recommended or something to be considered."
This is from the spreadsheet of programs:
Delete" State law requires findings when a site on the inventory is
not developed with the number of housing units shown in
the inventory to ensure that adequate sites remain to
accommodate the City’s RHNA; City must rezone another
site(s) if inadequate sites remain
Continually update the adequate sites inventory as
projects are approved"
This program in the housing element provides the justification for the council to constantly up zone without a vote of the people.
9:50 AM
DeleteCorrection - statute
EU,
DeleteRead Del Mar's HE.
I'm not an expert, and have not read any others, so I'm making an assumption here that Del Mar's HE is the normal way this works.
It's clear to me that Del Mar's HE, which was found to comply with state law by HCD, is a high level plan for what the city plans (commits) to do over a period of a few years.
They make commitments that certain parcels will be rezoned by a certain date. They make commitments that certain programs will be updated to encourage affordable unit production within the next two years. They make commitments that certain building codes will be amended to take down barriers to affordability.
But they do not spell out the specific detailed language of each of those commitments.
As I understand it now, the HEU is the high level plan, that commits the city to a list of actions, and a schedule for those actions. Then the city has to take up each one of those individual actions as a subsequent agenda item, and figure out the best way to meet the commitment that was made in the HEU.
Our compliant status with state law is not a once and done exercise. It looks to me like HCD, or some state body performs progress checks to assure that the actions and schedule align to the committed plan. We can fall out of compliance if we we don't execute the plan as described.
The process kind of makes sense to me now, and the HEU is only the first step.
Personally, I wouldn't want all of the detail embedded in the HEU vote. Very few people would be able to process on that level, and it would represent a huge amount of effort without knowing whether the voters will even approve it. Better to take a stepwise approach.
But to say that over the next few years we are going to have dozens of propositions for the voters is madness.
Still, I think it's wise to handcuff the council with restrictive language on what the supermajority can and cannot decide.
--FP.
FP,
DeleteI still don't see it. Whatever upzoning and height changes are necessary can be in the 2016 vote.
What other actions/programs/updates are you concerned about needing a Prop A vote? I don't believe Prop A requires a vote to amend building codes to promote affordability, for example. Nor to make a list of actions and follow through on a schedule for those actions.
EU,
DeleteAgain, I'm not an expert, but I think Prop A is broader than you suggest. According to the city, it applies to any change that may "increase the currently allowed intensity or density of development." (http://www.ci.encinitas.ca.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3018)
That's more than just height and DU.
To me, it might make sense to have a vote on an HEU that spells out actions and schedule. Some of those commitments have no conflict with Prop A, as you point out. But others will. The HEU might list a number of properties to be rezoned to 30 DU. But we might want to have a subsequent public debate on how to implement 30 DU on those specific parcels. Do we want them all to be done the same way, or does it make sense to have larger setbacks and more landscaped area in exchange for more height on some of those parcels, given the surrounding geography and uses? We might want to develop a couple of different zones for 30 DU with different restrictions and allowances.
In my mind, we can have a public vote on the HEU to establish the will of voters broadly on the plan, then have public debate and council votes on some of the details.
Again, as long as the council scope is clear and limited.
Analogy: Before you start making decisions on engine, steering system, and seats, the team needs to decide if they are building a boat or a truck. The HEU is that first level of decision-making.
11:19 AM
DeleteThrow the damn thing out. You do realize that up zoning gives the property owner by right to do whatever on the property without any review by council. Murphy and Ranu submitted a completed HEU to HCD without public review. The floating zone standards (ordinances) will affect every property in Encinitas. The floating zone isn't required by law.
All planning had to do was a few updates to the existing housing element. Instead, they took the old rejected MIG housing element, added even more programs that aren't required by law, didn't provide truthful information to HCD, and still didn't tell the residents. Don't believe for one minute that the council wasn't updated about Murphy's and Ranu's actions in private memos.
Council scope is clear and UNLIMITED and their scope and power will extend to Meyer and Harwood and their ilk. We should all be very afraid. This is a power grab at a whole new level.
DeleteIndividual council members, or two at a time, are given "briefings" by the City Attorney and staff. Memos could be requested through the Public Records Act. When it's all done verbally, unrecorded, then there are "no documents available," for the public to see.
DeleteThis briefing system defeats the Brown Act's prohibition against serial meetings of Council Members, outside public scrutiny. Staff and the city attorney get away with this because they state "no consensus is sought."
But everything is more or less worked out in advance, not under the public eye. Council meetings are mainly for council to "go through the motions," of a public hearing, when most of the decisions have been made in advance.
11:23 PM
DeleteAll council members receive briefings, if they so choose, on agenda items or topical areas such as public safety, etc. The purpose is to help them understand agenda reports and the major issues they involve. They can ask questions. Some of these briefings involve two council persons as that is the Brown act limit and it saves time for staff. However, the Brown act is clear that these briefings can't be a form of serial discussion where staff reveals any discussion in a previous meeting to any council member in a subsequent meeting. These meetings are for information and clarification only.
By comparison, two council members could pick up the phone and discuss an agenda item. That's the Brown act limit. They can't individually or collectively further discuss the item with other council members. So having two council members attend an informational session with staff does not violate the Brown act.
Now I know some of you believe on its face that this is an attempt to decide things in private (the infamous backroom deal) but it's not. It's a way to prepare council members as well as possible for their discussions and decisions at the council meeting.
Some of you can't seem to accept that the council decisions are based of what they believe are the right decisions. Because you don't agree with a particular council decision, it must have been arrived at by either a backroom deal or coercion. I'm not saying that council makes the right decision. Just that there is no major behind the scenes dealmaking.
So saying "But everything is more or less worked out in advance, not under the public eye" is flat wrong.
By the way, in larger government organizations like the city and county of San Diego elected officials have staffs that do discuss items between themselves and department staff. They just can't discuss how their elected official will vote on a matter or at least they aren't suppose to.
The usual caveat, I'm not a council person or staff.
Members of Council come and go every few years, but Staff stays on. And the information presented by Staff to members of Council is pretty much taken as true (sometimes it actually is). So again, who is running the city?
Delete1:16 PM
Delete"And the information presented by Staff to members of Council is pretty much taken as true (sometimes it actually is)."
We all know you think staff is just a bunch of lying bastards. Pity you give council members no credit for being able to detect this. Only you alone, or with a few cohorts, know this to be true. I'm surprised you gave staff credit for sometimes being honest.
2:30 PM
DeleteCouncil will spend 5 to 10 minutes praising staff for anything on the agenda. Council is given credit all right.
3:15 PM
DeleteBut of course you know better. How arrogant.
5:32 PM
DeleteHitting too close to home for you?
6:33 PM
DeleteSorry, you're swinging at pitches in the dirt. You are nowhere near close to home. You're in your own paranoid little world.
Again, these are 'first world' problems; when the HEU Initiative isn't approved by the voters, a judge in Sacramento will be appointed to begin making land-use decisions for Encinitas and its doubtful that he or she will A) Try and squeeze everything possible in future housing into just New Encinitas and B) Won't be hampered by Prop A height limitations and C) Won't be responsible for creating something new and energetic for all the politicos in Encinitas to fight about.
ReplyDeleteQuick, let's vote on it early while advocates are busy trying to save the strawberry fields and screwing the Ukegawa Brothers in Carlsbad.
Then perhaps Nordstroms will replace TJ Maxx and Cineopolis will take the CVS space behind Encinitas Ford?
Does this make Encinitas the same as carlsbad as it pertains to the Agua hedionda project?
ReplyDeleteOh goodie! I was worried this blog might have been going soft but no, the evil Empire is back. The Force Awakens! The Empire's minions continue their quest to have the remote colony of Encinitas buckle under to the Empire's rule. They even go so far as to put their intentions into documents that anyone could read, those bastards. But the rebels will have none of this for they alone are independent of State, er Empire, decrees. May the force (and courts) be with us.
ReplyDelete10:41 AM What's the matter? Getting a little too close to home?
DeletePretty weak satire.
"Anyone can read?" Yeah, anyone who knows they need to dig into details of documents posted randomly on the city site. Give me break: the 4/5 item is on page 62 (or 60 or 64, depending how the doc pops up on your computer) in the floating zones" document. "Anyone can read," my ass. But thanks for blaming concerned residents, city shill.
Delete2:25 PM
Delete"But thanks for blaming concerned residents ..." Thanks for blaming them for what? I want concerned citizens. I want them to read the whole document. I want them to understand what is being proposed. But you want them mistrustful and scared. I want them vigilant not mistrustful.
There is a little less than a year before we vote on this and probably seven or eight months before the council has to decide on what goes on the ballot which includes a final draft of the HE. I'm confident that this will be a very high profile part of the discussion.
'"Anyone can read," my ass' Nice that you think so little of your fellow citizens.
" Getting a little too close to home?" (12:37 PM) Not really. I want this debated and voters understanding what they are voting on. It's you that want to scared them. Unlike you I don't shrink from debate (actual debate instead of a bunch of scare tactics).
Tell you what. Next November is a Presidential election. Since Prop A only won with less than 17% of registered Encinitas voters in a special election, let's put a confirming ballot measure, separate from the HE one, that either confirms or repeals Prop A. The last Presidential election had a turnout of around 70%. Then we would know for sure that a majority of Encinitas voters supported Prop A. Or are you scared it might lose?
Now, now. If the city wanted residents to be able to easily lay their hands on the HEU documents - all of them - they would be on the homepage with a nice big fat link. But no. The docs are buried because the city knows no one has the time or knowledge to search for something that they don't even know in the first place is there.
DeleteThis is not about underestimating fellow residents. This is about them being purposefully kept unaware. The only message the city cares to wave in front of us is "it's the law!!!!!" Please.
As 6:27 noted, the city's home page does not contain a single link to the HEU process (http://www.athomeinencinitas.info/). Even the search box turns up nothing. I complained about this via the feedback page a couple of weeks ago. No response so far. Typical city staff obfuscation.
DeleteThis has been brought to council's attention, with no corrective action taken. The intent to hide the info is coming from the top down.
DeleteGetting deep into the weeds of the city documents on the blog can create confusion. The language sounds as if it was written by lawyers, albeit lawyers whose English usage is less than perfect.
ReplyDeleteIt's instructive to look at the intent behind the language. The City Council sitting when Prop A passed was unanimously against it. At least a super-majority of the current City Council is against Prop A. The fifth member is confused. One member openly announced his intention to kill it.
The language in the city docs didn't come from staff without the council's direction. The council is using the HEU to carry out its intention to gut or kill Prop A.
The irony is the council is shooting itself in the foot or, more accurately, the head. By including the Prop A gut or kill (according to the individual's view) language in the HEU, the council is giving opponents ammunition and ensuring the HEU's defeat in November 2016.
The state law isn't going to change or yield. It's doubtful that putting the city's fate in a judge's hands would produce a better result than what we devise ourselves. What looks to be best is for the City Council to come up with a way to meet the law's requirements while doing the least damage possible to our town and our collective well-being.
But, so far and as many times in the past, the council has set out to ignore the majority of residents, serve the special interests, and keep the revenue stream flowing and growing. Residents be damned, screw them, the council is saying. This time, the way the council is doing that is to gut or kill the residents' darling, Prop A.
..."flowing and growing" to facilitate THEIR security, not yours.
ReplyDeleteAs they kill prop A, they simultaneously usher in developers in as "stakeholders." In the HCD submission is a section that discusses the plan to meet every summer with developers to discuss "small parcel infill opportunities." Those are the city's real stakeholders. Residents who?
ReplyDeleteYeah watch for your neighbor exercising his "property rights" to infill his property up to R45. Thought you were safe? Naw. It's called a floating zone and it might just decide to float on over to your neighborhood. You never know what the council will next decide is in the public interest!
ReplyDeleteThe council quakes as it is when Meyer and Harwood so much as blink in their direction. Just wait till these goons are handed blank checks. Let the threats begin!
2:46 PM
DeleteR45 is not being proposed anywhere.
R30 plus density bonus plus the 4/5 loophole most certainly does take you to R45 and beyond.
DeleteShill.
4:02 PM
Delete"R30 plus density bonus plus the 4/5 loophole most certainly does take you to R45 and beyond."
Nice to see you're making shit up. Why not R80 and 10 stories?
Oh and I'm deeply hurt that you called me "Shill". I guess that's your substitute for thinking and you wouldn't want to do that.
Let's say you have R30. Now let's say you make that R30 density bonus. With a 35% uplift - you know, the one the developers usually go for? - you get 41 units.
DeleteNow relax the setbacks and other development standards as the HEU policy documents state. You can pack even more on the site.
You're hardly stuck at R30. But you knew that.
The proposed density bonus project at Hymettus and Fulvia was originally requesting a 100% density increase (from 5 to 10 houses). They settled for ONLY an 80% increase (9 houses). So R30 can get to an effective R45 very easily.
DeleteSay you live on a one-acre R-2 lot. Your house takes up half the lot, and the other half is your backyard. You want to build a three-story single-family million-dollar residence there. That would invoke Prop A, would require a public vote and would have nothing to do with the council or the HEU.
ReplyDeleteWrong.
DeleteThere has been plenty of lot-splitting within existing zoning since Prop A passed, and we haven't had to vote on it. The one by the Leucadia fire station recently, for example.
3:27 said three-story, EU. That's the vote trigger.
Delete3:53 PM
DeleteA lot split doesn't change the zoning requirements and currently the city won't let anybody create a lot that is less than the zone requirements. The recent subdivision on Orpheus by the fire station was a four lot with remainder but the zoning didn't change. The new lots had to meet minimum zoning standards. And yes the remainder lot also met minimum standards.
Three stories, that's three (3), you know, between two and four. Prop A's limit is two stories or 30 feet. Three invokes a Prop A vote. The example at 3:27 would not concern the council or HEU certification.
DeleteThanks for correction. Yes, three stories would require a vote.
DeleteUnless the council gets its way bringing back the 4/5 rule.
It's not "just" 4/5: the new language reduces the requirement to 3/5 or 2/3. Oh, the infill opportunities!
Delete4:50 PM
DeleteIn October the council approved dividing R-8 lots into R-15. The city does and will let anyone create a lot that is less than the zone requirements.
6:40 PM
DeleteIf you're talking about the Manzanita Cove project, that is a Planned Residential Development (PRD) which allows flexibility but doesn't allow a density increase over the whole development.
By the way, PRD goes all the way back to the original general plan adopted in March 1989. You know, the one that is sacred.
10:18 AM
DeletePlanned residential developments are normally condos. Allows flexibility is a crock of poop. PRDs concentrate density because the builder is prohibited by slopes or easements from building on other parts of the property. If the developer had built at mid-range density and wasn't allowed to count the unbuildable areas on the property, the number of houses or duplexes as the city staff labeled them would have been greatly reduced.
At one time PRDs were prohibited in single family zones. Somewhere in the 90s the ordinance was changed to allow PRDs in single family zones. The excuse was that it might encourage affordable housing. The Manzanita Cove is an example of the city and council looking out for the welfare of the developer and damn the rest of the town.
The PRD ordinances should be removed from the municipal code.
10:47 PM
Delete"At one time PRDs were prohibited in single family zones. Somewhere in the 90s the ordinance was changed to allow PRDs in single family zones."
Where do you get these ideas?
From the sacred text itself:
General Plan Land Use Element (March 29, 1989)
"POLICY 8.4: Within single family residential areas, lot
averaging and PRD's may be allowed ...
"For PRD's under single-family detached residential
categories, every dwelling unit shall be established
on its own private lot (no one-lot, "air space"
ownership projects);"
Sounds like no condos to me.
10:59 AM
DeleteGoal 8 and the policies under Goal 8 in the General Plan refer to Environmental Sensitivity:
"A number of areas within the City either contain resources that are sensitive to development or there are constraints present that will affect future development. The following goals and policies establish guidelines in how development is to proceed in those areas subject to any limitations that might be present.
The following policies are also important in implementing
Coastal Commission directives concerned with the management or preservation of significant resources in the Coastal Zone. (Coastal Act 30240)"
You didn't quote Policy 8.4 from the Land Use Element found on the city website:
"POLICY 8.4: Within residentially designated areas, lot averaging and PRDs may be allowed to preserve areas of unique topographic features, riparian woodlands, and other significant
open space areas of importance to the community based on the
following criteria:
Lot averaging and PRDs shall only be used to create a quality development, but shall not increase the overall density of the subdivision; the areas of open space shall be determined and preserved in perpetuity"
The municipal code on the city website has a definition of Planned Residential Development:
"PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT shall mean two or more dwelling units, including dwelling units in developments commonly known as town or rowhousing, condominiums and cluster housing, together with related land, buildings and structures, planned and developed as a whole in a single development operation or a programmed series of operations in accordance with detailed, comprehensive plans encompassing such elements as the circulation pattern and parking facilities, open space, utilities, and lots or building sites, together with a program for provision, operation and maintenance of all areas, improvements, facilities and services provided for common use of the residents thereof."
You wrote:
"For PRD's under single-family detached residential
categories, every dwelling unit shall be established
on its own private lot (no one-lot, "air space"
ownership projects);"
That sentence isn't under Policy 8.4.
12:08 PM
Delete"That sentence isn't under Policy 8.4" It is in the original general plan land use element which is why I noted the date (3/29/1989). I was responding to someone who claimed PRD was originally for condos but showed that originally it was the opposite. I actually cut and pasted it from the PDF that you can find by looking up the council resolution 1989-17. (Actually, you need to create the PDF in Laserfiche)
Actually, anything over 30 feet total including the chimney.
ReplyDeleteask the candidates specifically in next years election. Any candidate looking to increase density above current level and heights limits does not have my vote.
ReplyDeleteDensity Bonus laws already to a 30% increase which is too much.
Vote out all incumbents, except Blakespear.
DB actually allow up to 35%.
Delete6:50 AM
DeleteSince Blakespear isn't running for reelection, although she may run for mayor, I'd say her seat is safe.
One thing people forget is any density bonus development starts at the max density instead of the mid-range so they already are ahead of the game even before calculating the density bonus.
10:23 AM
DeleteJust to clarify, Blakespear isn't running for reelection because her term isn't up until 2018. Every other council seat and mayor are up in 2016 with Shaffer saying she wasn't going to run for reelection.
10:19, not for height.
ReplyDeleteRemember this little gem? Makes you wonder now if Council wasn't in on it at the time and only feigned surprise when Murphy presented: http://encinitasundercover.blogspot.com/2013/05/council-drop-kicks-murphy.html?m=1
ReplyDeleteThat dude is definitely the gift that keeps giving....
10:18 has a problem with the original plan. Not enough flexibility for more vibrancy, perhaps??
ReplyDelete10:59 AM
DeleteDo you mean the original general plan or the original Manzanita Cove plan?
I don't have a problem with the general plan and how you inferred from my comments ("Not enough flexibility for more vibrancy, perhaps?") that I really want more just shows your bias. I was simply responding to the claim that PRD's were something new. They aren't, just aren't used very much.
I also don't have a problem with people not knowing something. Nobody knows everything. I do however, have a problem with someone strongly claiming what was in the general plan when they are ignorant of it. Perhaps their intent is to mislead.
You made a snarky comment about the original plan being "sacred." I took that to mean the original general plan that did not offer up our city for developers to have their way with it. You know, the one where folks got to vote on upzoning? Before one of the council's voted themselves the 4/5 supermajority behind closed doors.
DeleteIf that was not the plan to which you refer, then which one?
4:29 PM
DeleteYes, I was referring to the original general plan and my "sacred" modifier was targeted to those who think we shouldn't change a word in it although it's woefully out of date. That doesn't mean I don't support its intentions, I strongly do but any general plan needs to be refreshed periodically if only because conditions and requirements change. To say this, of course, opens me up to charges of being in the developers pockets, etc. which is preposterously false.
Also, I did wonder when the council changed the wording to land use element policy 8.4 so I did a little research and found the changes were made in 1993.
10:59 AM
ReplyDeletePart of what you quoted isn't in Policy 8.4 on the city website. The policies of goal 8 deal with environmental sensitivity. You are misleading when you didn't provide that information.
The definition of planned residential development is in the municipal code:
"PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT shall mean two or more dwelling units, including dwelling units in developments commonly known as town or rowhousing, condominiums and cluster housing, together with related land, buildings and structures, planned and developed as a whole in a single development operation or a programmed series of operations in accordance with detailed, comprehensive plans encompassing such elements as the circulation pattern and parking facilities, open space, utilities, and lots or building sites, together with a program for provision, operation and maintenance of all areas, improvements, facilities and services provided for common use of the residents thereof."
Yes, PRDs have been around for years. It is how PRDs are used that is the problem. If you are going to quote from the General Plan use the current version. Part of what you quoted is no longer there.
12:33 PM
DeleteYes, I left that part off which is why I put in the "...". I'm not misleading but I didn't want to get into a discussion of interpretation which wasn't the original statement I was responding to. It was a flat out statement that PRD wasn't originally allowed in single-family residential zones. That PRD's were originally for condos. It was a demonstratively false statement.
It is a separate debate whether PRD projects have followed the original general plan guidelines. The current land use element that is online doesn't contain the criteria phrase about no condos that I quoted. The opposite of what 10:47 PM stated happened. The original land use element Policy 8.4 said no condos but was changed to allow them in the 90's, possibly when the city adopted its Local Coastal Program in 94.
Finally, the general plan is the ultimate determination. Municipal code has to follow the general plan. Definitions don't necessarily include limitations that may also be in the specific code section which is:
Zoning - Special Provisions: 30.16.020 (B). Planned Residential Development.
The planned residential development (PRD) regulations are intended to facilitate development of areas zoned for residential use by permitting greater flexibility and, consequently, more creative and imaginative designs for the development of such residential areas than is generally possible under conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. These regulations are further intended to promote more economical and efficient use of land while providing a harmonious variety of housing choices, a higher level of residential amenities, and preservation of natural resources and open space. Affordable housing opportunities are encouraged through the application of this section, the density bonus provisions pursuant to Section 30.16.020C, and the accessory apartment provisions pursuant to Section 30.48.040W. A PRD may be approved for any residentially zoned property. Attached unit development within a PRD is permitted in a single-family zone provided that the Planning Commission finds that such development is compatible with, and will not adversely affect neighboring properties. ... (yes there is a lot more)
Prop A was a ruse to stop the Housing Element from approval. Get your eyes checked.
ReplyDeleteIdiotic comment, 3:27.
DeleteI just read in the Nov. 13th Coast News that Cardiff Seaside Market is going as high as 38 feet. If Prop A says 30 feet, how did they do this? I don't remember seeing anything on the Planning Commission agenda about it, but I could have missed it.
ReplyDeleteWhat, you didn't read the entire Floating Zones document? Check section 30.06.70 D 3 on Height Encroacments (near the back of the document that you could get at the Community Dialog Session if you knew to ask for it).
DeleteThey get 6 feet for chimneys, skylights, solar panels, etc, and they get 10 feet for elevator or stairway, or mechanical equipment. They can get even more without limit for spires, belfries, cupolas, water tanks, etc.That's in addition to the 26' or 38' that granted by section 30.36.050.
And according to Section 30.36.010 B proposition A does not apply to Floating Zones.
5:36 PM
Delete"What, you didn't read the entire Floating Zones document?"
That document is online here:
http://www.athomeinencinitas.info/wp-content/uploads/Attachment_1_Zoning_Standards_WEB.pdf
The companion Design Guidelines is here:
http://www.athomeinencinitas.info/wp-content/uploads/00_Encinitas-DGs-Book_10-30-15_low.pdf
Read to your heart's content. Remember there are open house sessions tomorrow (Monday) at Paul Ecke Central 6-8PM & Tuesday at Park Dale Lane School 6-8PM. Olivenhain is on Thursday. Go, see for yourself, talk to the planners and tell them what you think. By the way, if you want to take a look at the poster boards beforehand, they can be found at http://www.athomeinencinitas.info/documents/. Scroll down to Community Dialogue Session - Phase II Poster Boards.
Jeff Murphy approved many things behind closed doors. Manjeet Ranu is doing the same thing. Fire Ranu now.
ReplyDeleteSince Planning has no intentions to do other than present this plan as an absolute all or nothing, they have assured this will go down as a failure. They are operating in a bubble of incomprehension to the wishes of this community who they are supposed to represent. We all know that is not who they listen to.
ReplyDeleteHeads should roll and the sooner the better. Karen??????
The misrepresentations by Planning of this turd of a plan was heard repeatedly by some of our observers at the meetings last week and rest assured, we will be back to monitor them, as this weeks community meetings resume.
Plannings only response was that this current written plan is in flux and does not represent a finished or completed version. Yea right. Their intentions are only too clear. Head should roll.
Any future public say over development is at stake. Prop A is on the line. Plannings motives are to gut Prop A and our right to decide for ourselves what is important to our community's character. Vote this down next year or suffer the consequences of uncontrolled infill serving developers every wish without public say.
Je Suis Paris!!!!!!
10:59 AM
DeleteI thought Halloween was over.
10:59 has it right. If you don't like the post, 11:11, why not counter it instead of throwing out nonsense as a response?
DeleteThe only mask that is being presented is proffered by Planning. It is up to the citizenry to be aware of the implications that accepting such plans as the HEU and Railtrail that is being sold will bring to this community.
ReplyDeleteThe truth has not and won't be coming from Planning. They are the ones masking the truth to a gullible public. This will not fly. Heads should roll asap.
I'm looking forward to voting no on any map and the proposed housing element update, which would, in essence, result in citywide upzoning in the name of affordability, when the proposed numbers of affordable units would not be realized, only greater profits for a few at the expense of the quality of life of current residents, and commuters.
ReplyDelete2:54 AM
Delete"I'm looking forward to voting no on any map and the proposed housing element update, ...".
I'm sorry to see that not only have you made up your mind a year ahead of time but that you are looking forward to it. Whether or not you think this is a scare tactic, the bottom line is the HE will get updated one way or another.
This "Sinking Zone" plan is a draft that, if put on the ballot as is, would probably be beaten down. The issue is whether we, the Citizens of Encinitas, can get it changed into something that could pass or do we prefer to let lawyers and judges decide its fate...
DeleteGiven the city's sneakiness on the HEU to date I can just imagine how they'd implement the thing.
DeleteI'll take my chances with a judge over already-demonstrated deceit.
8:50's tone and comments sound just like the typically arrogant bully Kranz.
Sorry, make that 8:50!
Delete11:14 AM
Delete"8:50's tone and comments sound just like the typically arrogant bully Kranz." Really?
One, I'm not Kranz. Two, how fragile are you? Three, it's highly unlikely a judge would actually get involved with the content of the HE. Most likely the judge would set a timeline to get it done and remove any obstacles that might prevent that from happening, like Prop A.
One: I didn't say you were Tony. I said you "sound like" him. Touchy touchy.
DeleteTwo: huh?
Three: your idea of a judge removing Prop A as an obstacle scenario is pure fiction and one not threatened even by the fearmongering council. If it were a possibility, they'd have whipped it out by now.
Interesting that you call Prop A an "obstacle." That's a developer's point of view. The rest of us call it a "right" (as in its name, the Right to Vote" initiative). It is the only reason the council has to put the HEU to a public vote.
12:08 PM
DeleteOne, I was more interested in the "typically arrogant bully" aspect that reveals how you react to discussion. You appear to be very prickly and unable to discuss the issues on their merits. You simply wilt and descend into name calling. As far as Three:
From the Superior Court ruling:
Urban Habitat et. al. v. City of Pleasanton
BACKGROUND
This lawsuit concerns allegations relating to Respondent’s city planning process, and the adequacy or inadequacy of its planning documents. Policy 15 of the Land Use Element of the City’s 1996 General Plan and Policies 24 et seq. of the Land Use Element of the City’s 2005 general plan codify measure GG, a housing cap. Measure GG was an initiative measure passed by the voters in 1996. It (and the Land Use Element’s policy codifications) restrict and place limits on the Pleasanton City. Council and City government, prohibiting them from permitting the construction of more than 29,000 housing units from 1996 until the end of time. The only exception permitted by the Measure is that it may be amended, but only by a vote of the people.’ It is the continuing validity of this housing cap that is one of the subjects of this action.
Footnote 1: The measure was amended by Measures PP and QQ in 2008 by public vote. Those measures reaffirmed the 29,000 units housing cap, reaffirmed that the City Council had no discretion to allow any waiver to the housing cap, and excluded in-law units and extended-stay motel rooms from the housing cap.
...
The Housing Gap
There is a difference of opinion regarding the number of housing units built since the imposition of the housing cap, but the difference is not material. The parties do not disagree that the number of units allowable under the Measure GG housing cap is less than the City’s RHNA obligation.
It is self-evident that the City cannot comply with the State statue requiring the City to accommodate its RHNA when the city is not permitted by its local law, Measure GG, to allow the number of housing units to be built that would satisfy the RHNA.
The question of which law prevails is elementary. State law preempts whenever local laws contradict state law. (See Cal. Const. article XI, § 7.)
The Supreme Court has stated it succinctly:
"The general principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled." ...
Here Measure GG, with the passage of time and the promulgation of a RHNA obligation that is contradicted by the provisions of Measured GG, has become pre-empted by the Housing Element Law, rendering it void .2 (See also Building Industry Association of San Diego v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 Cal.App.4 th 744).
...
Footnote 2: This lawsuit is about the City’s obligation to plan and to accommodate its RHNA in its plans. It matters not that the City planners have a belief that the State’s RHNA requirements are unlikely to be satisfied because of the current economic climate. .First and foremost, the City does not have the discretion to ignore the specific mandates of State law and second, the City planners’ current beliefs are subject to change based on economic events beyond the control of either the City or the State.
Oh Lordy it's not Tony, it's Marco! You state with arrogance: "...the bottom line is the HE will get updated one way or another." Hm, what do you (think you) know that the rest of us don't? There's that arrogance and you can't even hear yourself.
DeleteYour lengthy explanation can be summarized by the city's three-word mantra: "It's the law." To which I respond: "I'll take the judge."
After attending the first "@home" workshop, I am even more convinced that I'll take the judge. That's assuming, of course, that that's what will actually happen. It hasn't in 20 years, why would it now?
The city's problem is that time and again they have rubber stamped the crappiest of crappy projects. They now they want us to think they are suddenly capable of managing the upzone projects with integrity. No thanks, I'll take the judge.
8:27 PM
DeleteStill trying to argue by slinging insults. I'm supposedly worse than Krans, I'm Marco, who is a lawyer. And what does Marco know? Oh wait, didn't he just win on the Desert Rose appeal? Well I'm not Tony and I'm not Marco.
"I am even more convinced that I'll take the judge." This statement proves you have no idea what you're talking about. Totally clueless.
I'm under no illusion that I will ever get you to understand. I just hope no one else buys into your nonsense.
The @home workshops were billed as "Community Dialog Sessions", but these were one-way dialogs, more a sales pitch for a new variety of snake oil. We were given little "passport" forms to comment on the quality of the presentation, not enough space to comment on the quality of the content.
Delete12:10, you can hope till you turn blue, but people are onto the load of horseshit the city is trying to sell. Too bad for your side.
ReplyDelete9:27 PM
DeleteSpeaking of horseshit. I see great quantities of it from "your" side.
While the vote is just under a year away, there is reasonably about 8 months to shape an acceptable HE that HCD will accept as significantly compliant and is acceptable to the majority of city residents. The HE is still a draft and can be altered, especially when the draft EIR is released.
I can only assume that you fear that a HE in some compliant form will be approved and that is unacceptable to you. You would rather risk further lawsuits and other repercussions with having the city non compliant with State law. Just have the courage to come right out and say it instead of all this subterfuge about the council being in the tank for developers.
Because if you're successful, it's too bad for all our sides.
Prop A is different than Measures GG, PP and QQ in Pleasanton in many respects. Importantly, Encinitas Prop A does not set a finite limit on the number of new developments, as Pleasanton did. You are comparing apples and oranges, still trying to manipulate people with fear.
ReplyDeleteMany have made up their minds a year in advance of the vote, including staff and Council. They are marketing and pushing upzoning on unwilling locals, who do support affordability, but not as a ruse for greater profits for a few.
12:33 AM
Delete"Prop A is different than Measures GG, PP and QQ in Pleasanton in many respects"
I suspected you would try to argue this. Yes, there are differences. But the key similarity is both required a vote for the city to fulfill its State mandated obligation. Pleasanton could have put a cap increase on the ballot but it didn't. Encinitas will put approval on the ballot as per Prop A. If it wins then no problem. If it loses then there is a big problem. A special election could be ordered by a judge to take a second crack at approval but that's around $400,000 and no guarantee of success. Or the judge could rule Prop A is void because it interferes with complying with State statutes.
Your arguments are all over the place. My point above refutes your argument that a judge would not void a local ordinance even if it was created by a local initiative. The Pleasanton case shows that it does happen.
You continually grasp at straws. Encinitas is required by State law to have a housing element that substantially complies with State requirements. HCD is the usual arbiter of whether a HE complies. To reach that designation will require some higher density. Does the current HE draft accomplish that in the most effective way possible? That's up for debate. But trying to torpedo the whole process, as you are attempting to do, is counterproductive.
It is you that is using fear tactics.
Counter productive if you're a developer foaming at the mouth over all the infill opportunities. With its plan, the city is handing BIA members a blank check. Torpedoing this horror is the best thing residents could to protect themselves. You may not like it, but the city has put itself in this position. Don't blame the messenger saying "no."
DeleteThe city and developers have already demonstrated their complete lack of respect for our communities by choosing to push density and incompatible design to the max. If they can't be trusted with single projects, why should they be handed multiples?
And let's not forget: embedded in this land grab is resident forfeiture of their right to vote on all future updates. Ask anyone at the city if this will be made clear on the ballot statement and the response is "we don't know yet." Right there you have your answer. The city has not been transparent so far and have no plans to change their opaque operation..
Good luck to them selling this dog.
11:38 AM
Delete"... foaming at the mouth ..." I think this perfectly describes you because the usual descriptive term is "drooling" as in "drooling over all the infill opportunities" not foaming.
I'd agree with you except the developers we usually see around these parts are rabid, not merely greedy. I stand by "foaming."
DeleteDid you want to comment on any of the arguments I made, or is a dislike of "foaming" as the appropriate word all you've got?
No more Pathetic Station developments in Encinitas. That one has the honor of being known as the densest most ill fitting, ill conceived project in all of San Diego. A real wake up call.
ReplyDeleteA judge can set aside an initiative, but it's rare, and, again, Encinitas voters, through Prop A, have not put a finite cap on new housing developments. You continue to compare apples to oranges.
ReplyDeleteA judge should also have to consider that California is in a state of emergency, as declared by the Governor, due to the extended drought. A state of emergency can put a wrench in developers' lawsuits, as public health and safety, in an emergency, trumps state and local laws and regulations.
Also, I notice that granny flats or "in law units" were not precluded in Pleasanton's housing cap, which the judge threw out. The City of Encinitas could work harder on encouraging these units, that type of affordable housing, and counting them toward regional housing numbers. There has been no accurate count, to date, here, and staff knows this. So does Council.
The effort of actually encouraging participation in bringing in accessory units to help reduce the required demand, granny flats, whatever you want to to call them, by staff is nonexistent. I believe 5 or so have come forward out of the thousand plus that could.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the hoops to jump through that are put on property owners, it is no wonder this has been an abject failure and that failure rests solely on Plannings mindset to build, build, build, instead of to make a genuine effort to bring the majority of these hidden gems into the light.
We would hardly need any of these prison compound looking three story apartment building complexes, minus the high walls and gun turrets, that the HEU is calling for.
One other avenue that has been ignored and never pursued by Council or Planning is to go after all these false future population figures handed down to us from various agencies in the pocket of the building industry. These are well known to be off the mark and should be questioned in defense of our community to not become another urban setting that we are not and shouldn't be forced into becoming.
The HEU as presented will bring Irvine and the OC here unless it is stopped. Planning is only too happy to go along with anything no matter the relevancy of any truth to the actual future population numbers. The story board drawings of these 'Uncinitas' projects do not belong here and if all the voters take the time to see them, they too. will vote this down.
Council has done zilch to defend this community from becoming another typical urban enclave. We are not urban, we don't want to become urban. Many things were heard professed by Planning that were not accurate at these so called workshops. Ha. These were not workshops. It was all about the big sell to the uninformed at all costs. Vote this disaster in the making down next year. Expecting anything to change from Planning will be happening.They have presented their plan and will be sticking to it. If anything of relevance changes over the next year from Planning, it will come as a surprise. Here's to hopefully being surprised that any public moderation will be incorporated over the next year.
9:29 PM
ReplyDeleteAnother Pacific Station clone remodel of the shopping area on Encinitas Blvd that contained the 7-11. Owners want more restaurants but needs more parking spaces. Planning is allowing the narrowing of the travel aisle to put in more parking. Gridlock will ensue. The remodel will include an upscale clock tower.
Redoing our downtown areas into mixed use will drive out local businesses and replace them with national chains at higher rent. The franchises will generate more revenue for wall street and reduce our shop workers to minimum wage slaves. What cost this "progress"?
DeleteOne member of "staff" overheard at the Olivenhain workshop told everyone "eh don't worry, it won't get built for another 15-20 years."
ReplyDeleteHe cheerfully announced to one and all "it'll be built long after I'm gone." Um, ok: one, he offered nothing in the way of information on the HEU and two, this is not about him. Typical city worker confused about the point, flat-out lying, and/or 100% inept.