Thursday, August 18, 2016

Encinitas Residents Allege City Council Violations of CEQA and Prop A Municipal Code

From the Inbox:
On August 17th the Encinitas City Council plans to adopt a new land use ordinance designed to maximize the number of density bonus units allowed on a parcel, in violation of its own Municipal Code and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), and in spite of pending, related litigation.

By increasing the number of houses permitted under the “base density” calculation the City is attempting to increase density without the public vote required by “Prop A,” passed in June 2013 and now part of the city’s Municipal Code. The City violates CEQA law when it claims that an effective citywide upzone would not have a significant environmental impact.
Full press release here.

UPDATE: City Council delays action on density bonus in response to Encinitas Residents Alliance's challeng..

31 comments:

  1. The real environmental impact to affect the city is Kranz announcement that double tracking and even TRIPLE tracking is coming to Encinitas. There's your environmental impact. More noise, more smog, more traffic impact, more traffic delays, more dust. Kranz said trains every 20 minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Replies
    1. The train will never get moved, at least not in this century. What the city NEEDS to do is dig the tracks down, like Solana Beach did. It's basically inevitable that digging down will happen someday anyway, so it'd be smarter to save money for it instead of spending millions building pedestrian underpasses.

      Delete
    2. The train is not moving, period. Double tracking is coming. Solana Beach lowered the tracks with federal money. No federal money, no lowering of the tracks, period.

      Delete
    3. Trains move. It's kind of fundamental to their purpose.

      Tracks don't.

      Delete
  3. While individual projects aren't exempted from requiring an EIR if necessary, the city adopting a density bonus ordinance, as required by law, doesn't trigger CEQA since the statute states that any density bonus project doesn't require a general plan amendment or zoning ordinance update. Prop A doesn't apply.

    From the statute:

    "(5) All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval."

    "(j) (1) The granting of a concession or incentive shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval. This provision is declaratory of existing law."

    Pointing this out doesn't mean I'm for it just that I think it's a dead end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:32,

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but that language hasn't been signed by the governor yet.

      Unless a stadium-sized asteroid hits Sacremento, it will pass by end of September, but it hasn't yet.

      Council is kicking the can down the road until they can claim the law forced their hand. But it's all theater. We all know where this is going. We're wasting energy and time so that Council has political cover for a decision that's already made.

      Delete
    2. 10:45 AM

      That's from the existing statute and doesn't include any changes from AB 2501 or other bills.

      Delete
    3. Council could only work with the reality of the law as of last night.

      Developers will want to pace their drooling until the actual vote.

      Delete
    4. 11:32, Thanks. You are right.

      Delete
  4. While most Encinitas citizens agree with the ERA's goals, the legal grounds of the group's suit sound far fetched.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The legal stand is grounded in California State code.

      Hilarious how Sabine "wouldn't get into it" when asked his opinion. The real answer is he "couldn't get into it." The man is just not up to the task.

      The BIA and DCM (David Meyer) are not suing other cities over the same statutes we had until the city abdicated its power to govern our land use. How is the City of Los Angeles, for example, is not in their sites?

      Delete
    2. Make that "sights!"

      Delete
    3. The density bonus ordinance implements state statute which requires cities and counties to adopt. They have to follow the provisions even if they don't adopt it. Since the statute explicitly states that the density bonus statute doesn't trigger a GP land use amendment, CDP amendment, or zoning amendment, there is no new project under CEQA.

      I don't think the ERA lawyer really understands CEQA but I'm sure he understands lawyer fees.

      Delete
    4. 12:12 You mean grounded in the lawyer's far-fetched interpretation of the CA code.

      Delete
    5. No 1:41, I mean grounded in the plainly-stated California Constitution statute against turning
      a city's land use authority over to an outside agency.

      Inviting the BIA and DCM in to rewrite whatever they don't like in our Municipal Code is a clear violation of the state Constitution. Go read the ERA lawsuit and you'll see the Stste statute referenced there. Then come back and tell us why it doesn't mean what it says.

      Delete
    6. 2:31 PM

      When both sides of a lawsuit voluntarily agree to a settlement, I can't see how that is turning over the city's land use authority to a third party. If the city is sued over a contract and agrees to settle they aren't turning over their contracting authority. That cause of action seems like a big stretch to me.

      Delete
    7. Let's face it: when has the City ever stood up to developers? Our Council rolling over doesn't really mean much.

      Delete
    8. 2:36 is on point, 2:31 is off point.

      Delete
    9. So if the city passes a change to local code banning home sales to Rastafarians, and they get sued because the change is blatantly unconstitutional, and the city gets legal advice that they can't win the case, then . . .

      "I'm sorry, we'd really like to settle with you because we now know you are right, but unfortunately, we can't settle, because that would be turning over our housing policy to you as prohibited by state law. I guess we'll have to spend taxpayer money to fight you in court, even though we both know it's a waste of money, because we're going to lose."

      Delete
    10. Home sales to Rastafarians are already banned in Encinitas, and there have been no lawsuits so your hypothetical is inoperative.

      Delete
  5. Why can't this libtard socialist/Marxist 'affordable housing' edict be recalled by the voters of California? Why is there never a mention of the people saying no thanks to the hyper-liberal legislators that created this edict back in the early 1970's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think if you take a closer look you'll see the big money in favor of this sham law comes from developers. David Meyer has made it very clear that he "knows this law better than almost anyone else because I helped write it."

      However it read in the 70s, it is now firmly directed, loopholed to the max, by developers.

      Delete
    2. He used to speak about a "letter" written by convicted felon Rodrick Wright. If you are going to quote someone, it is best not to use a defrocked state senator who was convicted of taking bribes.

      Maybe developers have found someone else to bribe in Saco.

      Delete
    3. Whenever someone uses a pointlessly inflammatory word like 'libtard,' it only serves to unfortunately highlight their own intellectual capacity.

      Delete
  6. If you want a list of things wrong with the density bonus law changes in AB 2501 read the letter by the American Planning Association.
    http://www.apacalifornia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AB-2501-FINAL-Oppose-Letter-DB-4-6-16.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now we know where to send complaints about Manjeet Ranu! He is actually a member of this organization and there are discipline officers to address his conduct.

      https://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode.htm


      Notice that Ranu did not present the plan last night. It is good to hear that there are still ethical planners--they just can't work in the City of Encinitas!

      Delete
    2. 1:01 PM

      "Notice that Ranu did not present the plan last night." I think he's on vacation.

      Delete
    3. He has some nerve to take his own vacation after he caused Council members to lose theirs by having a meeting during their traditional time off--due to his own ineptitude!

      This is documented by posts by Lisa Shaffer. I read about it on this site.

      Let's hope that Ranu is using his time off to look for another job. If he sticks around here, I can think of several people who would like to file complaints with the Ethics Committee at APA.

      Got a complaint about the Planning Department? Take a number and get in line!

      Delete
  7. Lets all pray that Manjeet will use this time off to find another job and come back to us with his resignation in hand. There will be rejoicing in the chambers next week as we usher and cheer him out the door, one last time. I can dream.

    Oh, and don't forget to take Masih the community destroyer with you. Now there is a pair. Some senior planners should join them for all the lies they have been using to sell this stinker of an Up Yours Encinitas Hosing Plan.

    As for council, if only they had the courage to defend us against this mass urbanization scheme, they would be heralded and forever honored by this community.

    Heck, they might even worth dedicating some monument to their selfless act down the road. What a novel idea. One of our electeds actually earning an honored place in our city's short history. Maggie did. You can too. Step up.

    I can dream.

    ReplyDelete