In a turn of events, Blakespear — who previously voted against the plan — joined Kranz, Mosca and Muir on Wednesday in their support of the document. Blakespear said while she disagreed with certain zoned sites on the housing element, she wanted residents to be able to vote on the matter.The Clark Avenue site is a huge development in an area with extremely narrow streets and very few ways in and out, miles from amenities like grocery stores, and with the air quality concerns of being right on the freeway.
[...] several residents argued against the proposal and said properties like the "Cannon Property" on Piraeus and the "Meyer Proposal" on Clark Avenue were unsuitable for development due to concerns such as potential traffic, overcrowdedness at nearby schools and health concerns.
Residents advocated for removing the Meyer site and replacing it with the "L-7" property, which is owned by the city and was removed from the plan in April when hundreds of neighbors in the Quail Gardens area spoke in opposition. HCD had recommended L-7 as an ideal site for affordable housing.
City staff advised that revising the list of sites was not an option at this time due to the need for a public hearing and the deadline to file for the November election quickly approaching.
As many residents pointed out, calling "shame" on the council, the process has been awful, with backroom negotiations between staff and developers, and sites being added and dropped like hot potatoes. The residents of eastern Leucadia got stuck holding the hot potato when the clock ran out.
Why Encinitas city council remains the most laughable. We all know how underhanded and in violation of the Brown Act at every turn.
ReplyDeleteMiles away from Grocery stores? No further than the other houses in that area....
ReplyDeleteThat was one of the reasons for taking L-7 off the map. Apparently walkability is an important criterion for site selection, or at least it is when you're trying to get high density out of Encinitas Ranch.
DeleteL-7 is closer to Walmart, Target, etc.
Question - What would it mean to Council and staff if the measure gets LESS than Measure T?
ReplyDeleteLess what?
DeleteLess votes.
DeleteIt should mean they've also been replaced.
DeleteIf not, it will mean nothing. The council was apparently unfazed by Measure T's defeat, giving us T2 and Blakespear's "professional staff" still running the show. I expect nothing to change.
Can y’all give up the charade that the public could have done any better? Disabuse yourself of the notion that most voters are well intentioned and would support housing if it were mandated as affordable and located near transit and blah blah blah and face facts: the council could advance anything and it’s gonna get voted down because 1) some part of town will be pissed that the housing is zoned in their neck of the woods and 2) this town is full of voters that think if they kill the housing element there won’t be affordable housing in Encinitas. For those reasons, ANY housing element plan that goes to the public won’t stand a chance at the ballot. Enjoy your court-ordered housing element.
ReplyDeleteBullshit..The problem most of us have is the back room deals with the council defined stakeholders which don't include homeowners. Why does Mr. Meyer get preferential treatment? The other problem is that we have been lied to on this subject time after time. A court ordered HE would be preferable to anything council and their donors come up with.
DeleteThe current plan basically includes market rate stuff with ways to get out of building affordable stuff. If what you said is true then, this plan will pass. You don’t get it. This is about developer giveaways and back room deals. This is about letting developers go three stories and ignore zoning rules that you and I have to follow/bought into. And In the end, hardly any affordable units will be built adding a further burden to Encinitas to upzone more properties, for Meyer to get rich off at your expense, in the next round.
DeleteWe can’t win playing catch up. We can call out this fraud of a law that resulted in a housing crisis and elect people that agree. The pending lawsuits can be crushed and will set a precedent that screws all developers. We just have to elect people who will stand up to developers rather than take trips to Israel on their dime. The current crop on council will happily approve a nice fat settlement and the cycle of upzoning and fearmongerimg continues.
Marcos suit is so dumb it should be over in a few hours in front of a judge. Just have open up craigslist and show all the cheap stuff available around here, going back to a few month before he filed, Those thousands of units are technically illegal and not counted but are available to anyone seeking something affordable around here.
Horse Shit. What makes you think that a Judge will invent a solution. All we will get is that he accepts the demands of the winning party in order to close the case.
DeleteI will say it again for the slow ones in the room: You people who comment here and post on EU (all 15 of you) DONT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF ENCINITAS. You're concerned about developer giveaways and back room deals. That's great. If you go to your average Joe, they don't know - and frankly, don't care - about that. They don't want affordable housing in Encinitas - period. Nor do they want apartments or anything else. They want the Encinitas the way it was when they moved there.
DeleteIf you people have such problems with the way state law is written (using density and increased height as proxies for affordability, even though it works everywhere else but the coast), then maybe you should be getting elected officials in state office that will CHANGE THE STATE LAW and mandate affordable housing as part of housing elements. Again, and I'll say it slowly so you all can get it: most people who will vote in November on the housing element aren't as engaged as you guys, and know nothing about those deals. They just think a vote against the measure will ensure nothing changes.
Here's why David Meyer gets preferential treatment:
Delete$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
12:40 is correct. 95% of the populace isn't paying attention and will vote against the measure.
Someone is veddy nervous.
DeleteCat's out of the bag, horse left the barn, word's out, 12:40, and our beef stays with the council who brought this mess on themselves. They now want us to ignore all the sleazy deals that built this plan and love nothing better than to send us to the state. That's their job, not ours.
Ours is to say no until they get it right - or get out.
Vote NO.
12:40 "You people."
DeleteFuck you.
I second that! Sounds like Tony, if you ask me. Or at least someone who shares his "I'm not getting my way," stupid foot-stamp anger management issue.
Delete11:52: Hahahahaha, again, you represent a very small minority of the population in Encinitas that is tired of the backroom deals. Most of the public who will vote on this have no idea of these deals. All they hear is "affordable housing plan" in their precious Encinitas and want no part of it. You don't believe me? Go ask some voters as they're leaving the polls in November.
ReplyDeleteAnd most "homeowners" in Encinitas would automatically object to living near affordable housing because they automatically think you're gonna build Marcy projects next door. The "stakeholders" are typically the people who own the land, which is why they get preferential treatment, because they're the ones that will have to apply for the project, not you the neighbor. Neighbors will have their chance to object to that project when it comes before the council.
ReplyDelete12:31 tell that to the majority who voted no on Measure T. All they heard was "affordable" from the city then, and they still voted no.
ReplyDeleteHow do you explain your prediction when, thanks to the L7/Clark St./Meyer business, more people than ever before know the score?
Methinks the Andreen propaganda machine has started up. Question the speaker asked last night: how will they funnel payment to him? Care to hazard a guess, 12:31?
Tasha claims she voted against the housing element because of the Clark property, which is in Leucadia but is in Tasha's district...the one she gerrymandered for herself. Sure, moving to districts hasn't changed anything...
ReplyDeleteHousing Plan - DOA.
ReplyDeleteOh goody. No longer can people say the state can't sue us for being out of compliance with the housing laws. HCD has a webpage outlining how they will implement AB 72. The page is titled "Accountability and Enforcement". It states:
ReplyDelete'AB 72 grants HCD authority to review any action or failure to act by a local government that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or housing element law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the housing element. HCD may revoke housing element compliance if the local government’s actions do not comply with state law.
'In addition, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that the local jurisdiction is in violation of state law for non-compliance with housing element law, the Housing Accountability Act, “no net loss” law, density bonus law or anti-discrimination law.'
The HCD webpage is here: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/accountability-enforcement.shtml
Nobody said they can't sue. "Oh goody"? WTF
DeletePlenty of speakers have said the state wouldn't sue and I was being sarcastic with "oh goody".
DeleteThe deputy director of HCD stated publicly that "the state" wouldn't sue - that they don't work at that level. Guessing they delegate unofficially to the developers, not that the BIA needs any encouragement.
DeleteKind of like how Encinitas will delegate the HEU propaganda campaign to Andreen - "unofficially." Word is Andreen's running Mosca's campaign, so the cozier, the better - right, kids?
11:48 AM
DeleteThat changed with AB 72 which became effective Jan. 1
12:15 PM
DeleteI should have added that it's not HCD that will sue. They will refer it to the AG that will have the discretion to sue.
They can sue all they want, probably the only way to actually make this area affordable is if the city goes broke. Rather be a broke city than a haven for developer bribes and shoulder to shoulder 3 three story McMansions hovering over. It’s coming, still have thousands and thousands of market rate houses to build according to the states illegal law. If the players in all this have to go under oath, our councils tune will change real fast. The mayor and Tasha will have to come clean about what they knew and when, opening up a whole can of illegal mingling between city, staff, and developers. Kranz will be looked into for his trip to Israel and favors granted as a result. It’s a crap show for sure. Quacks like a duck, waddle likes a duck, it’s a duck. Call their bluff and don’t elect anyone who wants to settle. My question is which one of the five will be the first to make a deal, cause that is where it is going.
DeleteThank you prop A people.
If the state thinks they can run over prop A then they will start a war. Anything rammed down out throats for more market rate housing that just further adds to our future burden should be voted down via prop a.
Perfectly put, 2:13!
Delete2:18 - the "discretion to sue" is the accurate language that the city and developers love to stretch into "taking over our town immediately."
Delete2:13 PM
DeleteThe state supreme court has already ruled that a local initiative like Prop A can't overrule a state law.
12:02
DeleteDuuuuuh. Are you a staff member or just dumb? Try re-reading my comment and come back with your head out of your ass.
1. State law mandates affordable housing, not market rate housing. The city end rounded the residents and if they get their way we will be packing in marketrate housing for the next several decades. All that affordable housing we are not building will then be added to the next round. All the lots that are upzoned now will then expand to the neighboring lots in the next round. With or without a plan we are screwed.
2. The affordable housing law is a proven failure, it should be eliminated through the democratic process. It is bound to happen, only three cities in the state have complied and people are tired of wasting tax dollars on it. We need to hang on until that happens and only elect people not in developers pockets. Don’t elect Tasha to anything, she will push stack,and pack at every level for any developer who donates to her. Blakespear is a lying developers cheat. They all are.
3. Like I said in the earlier post, the first line, which completely escaped you. They can sue all they want but if the city does not get a vote on any zoning changes then They will start a electorate war, court cases, and every citizen and city will be watching. Court cases bring out the truth. One truth that will need to be explained in court before any judgement will be why don’t we have a plan. Prop a will get blamed but when looking at prop T and all other attempts the evidence strongly points to corruption and NO affordable housing. See the letters HEU people at the state send back. Will a judge or jury punish a city for routing out corruption and actually demanding affordable housing, like the law mandates. How will the lies, in print, from the prop t council look to a jury? Think there is enough eveidence to open a criminal investigation? Like the one in San Diego where a developer gave a committee member 100k?
4. There will be a feedback loop of sorts concerning the BIA. They make Weinstein look like an alter boy. Every move against Encinitas will result exposing them for the womanizing cheaters most the member are. If that is not enough to make them go away they will be destroyed, and many ,embers may end up in jail. They have been getting away with giving illegal perks to those in charge and I personally will expose them for it. I don’t want to go down that road but just let one lower level goon know on the golf course the other day, don’t shit in my yard. This was before is called the golfer I front of us a N word. Will will ad racists to the womanizing and bribing.
See how your comment makes no sense. We want to go to court and I have now spelled it out for you in two posts. You may have well just replied ‘banana’ because neither makes sense. Unless you are just trying to muddy the waters Unless you think people will read that comment and vote yes out of fear. This will be the third attempt at trying the same thing by the city, it has not worked yet but the idiots keep trying. Again thank you prop A people.
2:29 PM
Delete“Duuuuuh. Are you a staff member or just dumb? Try re-reading my comment and come back with your head out of your ass.”
Such eloquence.
First, state law doesn’t mandate affordable housing but it is the stated goal. What it does mandate is that cities and counties provide zoning dense enough to enable it to be built. The law depends on the market, whether private or non-profit to provide it. Unless Encinitas can prove otherwise, the lowest it can go is 30 units per acre. That’s the current law and I’m not here to defend it. I agree it isn’t getting the results that they hoped for and there has been talk of even more draconian measures. Nor do I disagree that most of the units that will be built in Encinitas, and in any high value area, will probably be market rate. If you want to get the law overturned, either by the legislature or by popular vote, be my guest.
Second, there were initially two lawsuits, one by David Meyer and one by the BIA, that had to do with density bonus and the housing element. The city settled both with one of the conditions in the agreements being that it would pass a housing element. When measure T failed, Meyer claimed that the city failed to fulfill their agreement. The BIA filed a new suit and a third suit was filed by San Diego Tenants, from an affordable housing perspective. The judge ruled against Meyer that since the city council did adopt a housing element (measure T) they fulfilled the agreement. The other two are still active.
Third, you presume I support the recently adopted housing element to be put on the November ballot. I don’t like it and I’m not sure right now how I will vote. What a defeat in November means regarding the lawsuits isn’t going to influence how I will vote.
Fourth, I’m not staff and claiming that I am only shows the weakness of your argument.
Finally, I don’t have the time to answer your rambling and confusing rant.
Wrong, 2:08. The BIA lawsuit said the city had to put a housing element on the ballot, not pass it. Big difference.
DeleteThis was a settlement worked out between the city and the BIA so the city didn't have the power to wave the Prop A voter requirement. So the council adopted the HEU and placed it on the ballot for voter approval. Neither the Meyer or BIA
Deletesettlement required voter passage of the HEU. Meyer tried to get the judge to rule that failure of the voters to pass the HEU meant the city was in breach of the settlement agreement. The judge disagreed. The BIA filed a new lawsuit instead.
On rereading my text I see how a reader might think I was referring to an election when I said "pass a housing element". I was referring to the council adopting the HEU to be placed on the ballot.
If it doesn't pass in November, a judge will put a moratorium on new development and development services staffing will be cut in half. Then the judge will preempt the voter requirement and give the city 120 days to adopt a HEU.
DeleteThen in three years, the city will have to adopt a new housing element for the next round. That process will require more rezonings. If you think the council's action last week solved anything in the short term or long term, you are very wrong.
I don't think anyone thinks the council is capable of solving anything. They're so busy trying to keep their handlers happy, they can't tell s*^t from shinola. And they don't care that they don't.
DeleteThe bit about Dev Services getting cut in half sounds good to me, though. That will give us half the number of "staff" available to service developers ;)
Predictions with that level of certainty sound very Marco-like. It's all about sweeping statements intended to intimidate, but with nada to back them up.
We do not know what remedy the Judge will decide. One of the lawsuits seeks immediate adoption of Measure T, arguing that Proposition A should not apply. What we do know is that the Judge would like to get this over and if Encinitas does not pass a Housing Element he could rule in favor of whatever the plantiff asks for.
Delete"If" and "could." How do you know how the judge wants "to get this over?" What circle do you run with that makes you privy to such inside information? Or are you just in intimidation mode?
DeleteIf you are 9:20 you now back off your absolute statements, but still make it sound like you know something. Funny.
So you think a judge will force us to build more above market rate McMansions that don’t conform to other McMansion zoning laws? You think the judge will end run prop a, a law we passed to end developer rule of our council? You think a judge will let the developers off the hook and be as generous as our council has?
DeleteThis needs to get in front of a judge, doesn’t scare me one bit. It scares the crap out of all the unsavory characters that will be outed and have to answer questions under oath. Why do you think so many jumped ship right before the last vote. Problem is Sabine, residents are going to have to pony up for our own lawyer and probably have to file our own lawsuit.
Every single current council member has lied, in writing, to the benefit of one developer or another. Every single staff “mistake” has benefitted the large developer. Not hard to prove any of this. A judge will sympathize with the residents. Any judge that took a donation from the BIA or a developer cannot hear the case.
Judge wont force building anything.
DeleteJudge will force adoption or impose plan.
I'm new to this section of comments, so clearly other seem to think that is plausible too. I think it would be a good thing. I think a moratorium and letting some of the staff go would be ideal as well.
If the judge imposed a building moratorium that just means the city can't approve anything, not that they have to stop processing applications. Since the judge can give the city 120 days to comply, the moratorium wouldn't be that long and no staff would need to be let go. There is a status meeting with the judge this Friday.
DeleteI bet some staff is let go for this epic failure.
DeleteI also heard that Andreen is running Joe Mosa's campaign against Tony Brandenberg.
ReplyDeleteReally? Where did you hear this? Andreen was vocal in his opposition to Mosca's appointment.
DeleteAndreen is always available for a price.
DeleteOMG- is mosca really aren’t that much of the evil side ?
ReplyDeleteGet the word out super bad news for Encinitas !!!!!!
Brandenburg all the way and get out your wallet in support Brandenburg for better Encinitas.
Otherwise Mosca and clan are all going to push in Huntington Beach . TONY loves the perks of being a councilmember and popular pursuit by the developers.
9:08 It sounds like moose and squirrel must be eleeminated or fearless leader to be upset.
DeleteAndreen is out supporting Mosca. I know this because he told me!
ReplyDeleteLike campaign manager, like candidate.
ReplyDeleteMosca - a carpetbagger up for sale. Developers have him bought and paid for.
ReplyDeleteNot why someone above thinks that the judge would put a 120 day moratorium on the city and that staff will be spared. By law, weakness of any element in a general plan, will invalidate the whole thing. Furthermore, any update to the housing element requires amendment to the public safety element.
ReplyDeleteI expect a judge to rule that an immediate moratorium will be in place and stay in place until a plan is approved. But maybe the others are right and a set amount of time is needed. Maybe also voter approval is required, or not. Whatever the decision, it will be appealable.
At any rate, it will take more than 120 days. It will also cost the city millions of dollars since the court case has been building and plaintiff fees have been building over the course of the past two years.
It doesn't look good no matter how you cut it.
Nothing to worry about if you are on staff or council.. Meyer and BIA will sue again! So what! What do they care. Us tax payers are paying the legal bills.
DeleteMayor Blakespear's continued bleating on avoiding lawsuits is false. For her, she will spend as much money as it takes to stop residents when they get in her way. Streetscape is a $30 million dollar debt project that has been forced on the taxpayers of Encinitas. Residents have filed suit against the city. Sabine has been told to fight the lawsuit. Vote her out of office.
ReplyDelete