Council throws "Spirit of Prop A" and "right to vote" under the bus

"Meep. Meep."

In the council's early opposition to Proposition A, they focused on "unintended consequences" and legal flaws while insisting that they supported the "spirit of Prop A," and promising to provide an alternative that would achieve the spirit.

If that were honestly the case, the council could have proposed a simplified, alternative ballot measure for the November 2014 ballot with the alleged "flaws" stripped out. As we have pointed out before, a ballot initiative passed by voters is the only way to prevent future councils from upzoning without a public vote. The council's theatrics over the 4/5 exemption last week aren't worth the paper they are printed on unless they add a provision that prohibits NEW exceptions being added and this is protected by a ballot initiative. Without a ballot initiative, any future council can give itself any similar exemptions it wants. Without a provision prohibiting new exceptions, they can nullify the Spirit of Prop A with new exceptions so large you can drive a 5 story building through it.

So why does the council refuse to propose a clean, no-loopholes ballot initiative that fixes whatever flaws they see in Prop A? Indeed, both Mayor Barth and Councilmember Shaffer wrote in their latest newsletters that they were committed to a vote on the General Plan Update (which would be completely toothless), but did not even mention sponsoring a better "right to vote" initiative. Other council members have made clear in private conversations that there will be no "right to vote" initiative if Prop A fails.

If it is not clear to you by now, let us spell it out: Your council does not just oppose the details of Prop A. Your council is, apparently unanimously, opposed to the very principle of a public right to vote on upzoning.

UPDATE: Since publication of this post, Council Members Shaffer and Kranz have indicated support for a legitimate, alternative right-to-vote initiative. However, this still leaves them in a 2-3 minority on the Council, meaning for the public, it's Prop A or no right to vote on upzoning at all.

Say, this sounds pretty good...

... but we'd like to know our choices.

What's the council's alternative proposal?

Mayor Teresa Barth: seniors and young people want high-density development

KPBS:

But Encinitas Mayor Teresa Barth believes the Pacific Station development represents a new kind of community.

“All of the units there have sold, so obviously, people like to live in that environment,” she said. “Whole Foods is busy all the time and people are sitting there, having lunch.”

She thinks the new development represents changing trends in the way people want to live.

“Our demographics are changing,” she explained. “The fastest growing group in our region is the seniors, people who already live here, people who are going to get out of the suburban house because the kids have all gone and they’re moving into a smaller apartment or townhouse, and they all want to live downtown. They and the millennials all want the same thing.”

Barth said both the older and the younger generations want to be able to go out their door and walk or bike to a grocery store, a restaurant, the library or the beach.

Well, we now know why Barth never signed the Right to Vote petition. And we know what to expect from her vaporware alternative ballot initiative.

UPDATE: No, just because people bought them doesn't mean people want to live there. They are speculations and party pads for the out-of-town rich. How does that help stop global warming?

Planetary conjunction visible NOW

We interrupt your regularly scheduled Council Cluster*&^% Coverage to bring you this bulletin.

Go look in the Western sky right now, just above where the sun set. You'll see three planets in rare proximity in a triangle formation: Jupiter, Venus, and Mercury.

Monday UPDATE: That was last night about an hour after sunset. We'd guess it will be visible again about the same time tonight.

Former Coastal Commission Chair debunks council claim about Prop A

One of the many dubious claims thrown out there by the No on A forces is that Proposition A would require Coastal Commission review and could create havoc while waiting for approval or even worse if the Coastal Commission rejected Prop A.

This claim was made first by the Rutan & Tucker report, then included by the entire city council in their ballot argument, and most recently by Mayor Barth in her e-mail newsletter just yesterday:

For example, the Initiative will amend components of the city's Local Coastal Plan, these provisions must be certified by the California Coastal Commission before they can go into effect in the coastal zone, which is approximately 2/3rd of the city.

This creates two different zoning regulations in the city during the lengthy Commission review process. Nor is there any clear answer as to what the impacts would be if the Coastal Commission does not approve the changes. All of this uncertainty opens the door for legal challenges.

Today brings news of an e-mail response from former Coastal Commission Chair Sarah Wan:

Based on my 15 years as a Coastal Commissioner, and twice its Chair, there is no basis for the claim that the Coastal Commission will need to certify or delay the effective date of Proposition A. The Proposition is concerned primarily with how future changes to zoning are made and capping building heights and clarifying how building height is measured. None of these would trigger Commission review. Choosing to lower height and be more restrictive than what is currently allowed is not inconsistent with current Encinitas Local Coastal Plan.

The balance of the Proposition merely sets out a process for who and how future zoning changes are approved, requiring public votes and increasing notification requirements. I am not aware of any case law requiring Commission review. More importantly, in my over 30 years of affiliation with the Commission I cannot recall a single case where a Proposition was ever brought to the Commission for review.

Changes to a General Plan approved by voters that require a zoning change would not trigger review of the Proposition and would only trigger the need for a Local Coastal Plan Amendment if and only if a specific zoning change were approved by the voters that was less restrictive than what the current Plan allows.

Sara Wan
Former Chair
California Coastal Commission

Hall Park Construction destroying Cardiff wetlands?

Newbies to Encinitas may not even be aware of the strip of lush, dense vegetation that runs along Rossini Creek through Cardiff's Composer District. You can't see it from any major thoroughfares, and you're unlikely to stumble across it unless you're walking, running, or biking through some out-of-the-way residential neighborhoods. Its vibrant life is an oasis hidden among Cardiff's new and old housing developments.



From the inbox:

The idiots constructing the park on the Hall property have totally blocked water flow into the protected wetland that runs the length of the canyon. Months ago, they permitted tons of red silt to flow into the wetland requiring legal restraint. Now they have blocked it up. I wonder what the penalty is for destroying a protected wetland.

I have lived on the canyon for nine years and have never seen the creek dry...until today.

Abe Ordover

Residents of the Composer District are known to be agitated by the regional sports park with 90-foot stadium lights being forced upon their quiet, residential neighborhood. Still, this issue merits immediate investigation.

Council members drop-kick Murphy

The knives were out for new Planning Director Jeff Murphy, who drafted the attempt to change the 4/5 loophole to a 3/5 loophole. Union-Trib:

The council said last month that it wanted to change the code to eliminate a controversial exemption used by developers on big projects that can allow the projects to move forward without a public vote.

However, in a recent staff report, the city’s new planning director downplayed that request and instead recommended the city keep the exemption and even make it easier for developers to qualify for it.

[...]

“This is, in my mind, a very unfortunate situation because it puts us all in a bad place,” Mayor Teresa Barth told new Planning Director Jeff Murphy during the meeting.

[...]

Council members unanimously voted to go with their original proposal to eliminate the exemption, and said they found it hard to argue against the initiative proponents’ statements that the situation makes them look bad.

“I have to say I agree with much of what the speakers have said,” Councilwoman Lisa Shaffer said.

The new policy, however, is entirely symbolic. It can be overturned by a 3/5 majority of any future council until it is protected by the passage of either Proposition A or the council's vaporware alternative ballot initiative.