Wednesday, May 11, 2016

5/11/16 City Council meeting open thread

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.

46 comments:

  1. Urban Ag ordinance - a chicken in every pot and a "veggie stand" in every front yard. Unintended consequences - grading, etc. Next, garage sales every weekend. Can only sell what you grow? Ha! What if you grow in Escondido or Orange County? Is Food DNA needed to verify city of "birth" before selling?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blakespear will represent pro bono all cases involving her ag ordinance. Kranz and Shaffer will provide money for applicants.

      Delete
  2. Motion on adopting the Urban Ag ordinance - Kranz, Blakespear, Shaffer - yes. Muir and Gaspar - No.
    Goody, another we don't know what we are doing ordinance by Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Muir sounds so much better with his mike turned off.

    GASpar needs to freshen up on good grammar. Saying "I want to appreciate......" is not proper phrasing. These dumb blondes drive me crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer drive everyone crazy, and they're not blond.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Vote no for Gaspar as supervisor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vote yes on Gaspar. Get her ass out of town.

      Delete
    2. Vote no on Gaspar. End her career here.

      Delete
    3. You don't vote 'no' or 'yes'; you vote for another candidate.

      Delete
  6. What our council approved over the denial by the Planning Commission tonight sets another precedent for lowering our community standards.

    Where else would 10' set backs from the street be acceptable. If anyone thinks these future homeowners won't be parking their cars in front of their garages is in denial. The fact is, any future homeowner who parks in front of their garage will be subject to a citation. Thanks for this goes back to tonights council decision to override the Planning commissions denial.

    Where else are 4' set backs from the neighbors property line deemed acceptable? Who wants their windows 8' from their neighbors? I guess here in Encinitas we do.

    We are so special here that this is considered acceptable. ?????

    The denial that a project that sits on the edge of the 5 doesn't generate a damaging level of decibels is obvious, except to our council.

    One of the neighbors that is even farther away from the 5 said she had wanted to build a west facing deck on her home but due to decibel level would never be able to enjoy it.

    For some reason this project is ok where the damaging levels would be even worse. Go figure, if anyone can, how something like this can be deemed acceptable.

    Once again, a little foresight would have been appreciated, for all those to come in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hope someone can answer this for me. Every time a developer goes for an increase in density they always special allowances to make their designs fit.

    Our council always says they have no choice but to accept the density increases. What they do have is a choice over whether to deny these variances and make them work within the framework of what they, the developers, have chosen to game the system with.

    If our council chose to defend this community and deserve the votes that put them up there to begin with, they would deny all variances. Yes, we do not the power to overrule Sacramento, but we do have the power to deny any additional bending over that only serves the profit margins of those developers who chose to work outside of our current zoning.

    We should all expect nothing less from those whose trust we put on them with our votes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9:54,

      This is new to me, but I just looked it up. Here's what I found:

      Unfortunately, section 65915 of the DB law requires cities to grant variances and incentives.

      This was upheld and clarified in several court cases, including this one in 2010:

      ". . .issuance of variances, or other concessions, is mandatory, depending upon the percentage and type of affordable housing that is to be provided."

      http://www.allenmatkins.com/Publications/Legal-Alerts/2010/01/12_01_2010_Court-Provides-Further-Clarity-on-State-Density-Bonus-Law.aspx

      Don't shoot the messenger.

      What's not clear to me is what limits there are on this. What if a developer asks for a variance from fire or earthquake standards? Surely the city isn't required to grant those requests. So where is the line between requests the city is compelled to grant under state law, and requests where the city has discretion to deny? Not clear to me. I wonder if council or city attorney are clear on this. They better be, because developers will always claim that every request must be granted. It's up to the city council to understand when that's true, and when it isn't.

      Delete
    2. There are safety limits, there are thresholds for increased traffic, there is community character code to follow, none of which may be override by density bonus.

      Staff-induced confusion drive bad Council decisions. Why the Council continue to rely on staff no matter how exposed their lies is a complete mystery.

      Delete
    3. 12:59 PM
      Perhaps council are crooks too.

      Delete
    4. You used that word, not me. The point is too many residents observe too much staff ineptitude to brush it off.

      Delete
    5. If you had really been watching in an objective and dispassionate manner, you would know that the Council does not listen to the staff, period.

      Delete
  8. I sure wish the City would focus on bigger issues, the agg ordinance. Focus please.

    ReplyDelete
  9. To answer the above posts, the magic here is the waiver allowance in the density bonus statute. There are no limits, unlike concessions, to how many waivers are allowed nor what kinds of waivers as long as they are related to the development standards. And the legislature wants to further restrict local control, such as it is, over density bonus.

    While there are several density bonus bills now being considered, the main one is AB 2501 cosponsored by everyone's favorite developer David Meyer. He thinks local government, primarily Encinitas, takes too long to approve density bonus projects. He is so concerned about providing affordable housing (sarcasm), that he wants a firm timeline on density bonus project approval. So if you watched the council meeting last night and heard how the developer had to redesign his project to make it better (whether or not you agree with the results), AB 2501 would greatly constrict the city's hand in shaping a DB project. I guess David Meyer wants to be free to build crap as long as he can throw a few bones to the affordable housing folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Council is in bed with David Meyer. No council letter in opposition to AB 2501 is posted on state website.

      Delete
    2. 12:03 PM

      The council approved an opposition letter at their April 27th meeting.

      Delete
    3. 12:32 PM
      A little late. The bill has been through 4 committees so far and is heading for a vote in the assembly.

      Delete
    4. A little late on purpose or ignorance? Either way, residents lose.

      Delete
    5. There is a whole lot of time left. It has to get through the Senate as well where there will be committee hearings it.

      Delete
    6. And Encinitas will be taking a way back seat, if any. The opposition letter was sent only to quell resident upset. No real intent or care behind it from any of the Council. Their vote last night proved it.

      Delete
  10. Gaspar wants to be elected county supervisor to end "county corruption". This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. This is a mayor that can't get her streets repaired, her street lights working properly, yet somehow if elected county supervisor she going to tackle "county corruption". Again, so pathetic if it wasn't so fucking funny!!! She will finish 4th on this 3 candidate race.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As expected, she uses vague generics as her campaign platform. Capitalizing on Robert's ethical missteps is an obvious ploy to fill Gaspar's credentials void. She claims to have spearheaded the city park and other improvements, but that is puffery. The primary should end her Supervisorial ambitions. Let the general election end her political career altogether.

      Delete
  11. Vote no for Gaspar as supervisor. If she runs for council or mayor vote no. End her political career here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have seen quite a few Abed signs and Roberts signs, but no Gaspar signs. Ballots will be coming in a few days. I wonder if Gaspar knows that she won't come in first or second, and has decided not to run aggressively and to run for mayor again.

      Delete
    2. Republican party didn't endorse her. And don't vote for Sage Naumann. She endorses him.

      Delete
    3. 11:38 Agreed. Get this woman out of politics.

      Delete
    4. 11:58 AM Gaspar doesn't make those decisions - it's her trainers. The signs should show up soon; the more expensive mailers will come later. Since absentee ballots feature prominently these days, delaying too long could have a negative impact. It is a possibility that the bulk of the money will be shifted to keep her in local politics; if she is defeated, her career is over.

      Delete
  12. Where are the Council letters opposing AB 2501? Torrance wrote one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the Inbox:

      Contrary to what one person posted on the Council Member thread, Encinitas has sent a letter opposing AB 2501, as listed under Current Council Legislative Positions 2016: http://www.ci.encinitas.ca.us/index.aspx?page=169

      It's signed by Lisa Shaffer rather than Kristin Gaspar: http://www.ci.encinitas.ca.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7336

      The California League of Cities is also opposed: http://ctweb.capitoltrack.com/public/publish.aspx?id=CE399026-C55C-49CA-863D-B546000FEE56

      Delete
  13. Dear Kristen,

    Corruption is trading your powers of elected office for personal or financial gain, not playing grab ass with the driver or printing silly business cards.

    The best recent local example actually comes from your team. His name was Cunningham.

    The fact that you think we're stupid enough to buy the corruption non-sense is reason enough not to vote for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep - Gaspar is a one-trick pony. The corruption ploy as her main focus shows desperation - better break out another Super Hero costume quick! Her huge street signs have shown up - spaghetti head in full profile. Can anyone say "make-over"?

      Delete
    2. 10;17 AM I think the allegations included bribery and campaigning on company time with county employees. Maybe Roberts can whip out his rainbow shield! Captain Swish!

      Delete
    3. Don't forget her over-sized buck teeth.

      Delete
    4. 4:46,

      Bribery of a public official is a crime for both the giver and the receiver of the bribe under state law.

      Can you provide any news article or charging document that shows a criminal investigation or prosecution of a bribery charge?

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=67-77

      Delete
    5. Dumanis decided not to prosecute - it's the Insiders' Club. Roberts was supposedly making offers for silence - quid pro quo. Call it what you want. Check out Seaside Courier.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, the Seaside Courier. A real source of honest reporting, our very own Fox News.

      Delete
    7. I use the Seaside Courier to line my garbage cans.

      Delete
    8. 8:44,

      Another conspiracy theory?

      Delete
  14. 3:04 PM I guess the $300K the county shelled out to Robert's accusers was a conspiracy too, eh? I suppose corruption is normal politics in your book...

    ReplyDelete
  15. You mean the $300K albatross the Republican supervisors voted to hang on his neck? The one Roberts voted no on and wanted to fight, because he said it was BS?

    You do understand that the County didn't have to shell out, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea, Roberts wanted to fight it (wink wink) - that was the relief posturing that he had to do to try to minimize the damage. It was a plot against him, wasn't it? Roberts could slip your wallet out of your pocket and you'd think he was returning it to you. Some people never learn - Roberts needs to go - he is not suitable for the office anymore.

      Delete
    2. It would have cost the County more to fight it - they assess the potential strengths and weakness of a case and take the cheapest route to settle. If there was no evidence to support the allegations, one would think they would have fought it and counter-sued for libel.

      Delete