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.Today brings news of an e-mail response from former Coastal Commission Chair Sarah Wan:
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.
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
Great response; thanks for posting it, WC!
ReplyDeleteWith respect to Mayor Barth's reasoning, in her Saturday newsletter, on more projects invoking Density Bonus allowances if Prop A passes, I don't understand her logic (she isn't using logic, but operating, through conjecture, in misunderstanding and fear, in my opinion). Any developer who wants to invoke Density Bonus law to relax setbacks and increase density, does, and has, as in Desert Rose.
Those developers who want to develop within current zoning restraints, do. It seems to me that the only time this would be an issue is for projects within the Encinitas Downtown Specific Plan or the N101SP. In the N101SP, for example, heights are now set at 33 feet, 3 stories, in contradiction to the overriding 30 ft, 2 story maximums in our General Plan.
Only those parts of the EDSP and the N101SP, or Encinitas Municipal Code (EMC) that are in CONFLICT with the 30 ft., two story maximums described in the General Plan, and the method of measuring height limits, also described through the GP and in Zoning Code Definitions (EMC), from the lower of finished or natural grade, would be repealed if and when Prop A passes.
Pre-existing development, including existing structures, homes, on elevated pads, would be grandfathered, with vested property rights, with rights to remodel and make improvements, for example, within an already built subdivision.
While typing out this comment, I was pleased to get a Robo-Call from Pam Slater-Price, in support of Prop A. I thought I'd never say I was pleased to receive a Robo-Call, but in this case, I'm delightedl!
Vote YES = Citizens
ReplyDeleteVote No = Developers
I have to say, too, that I agree, there ARE some good developers, too, who also will be voting YES! These "good guys" have no desire to turn Encinitas into a high rise haven, and can build within the constraints of our existing General Plan, within zoning with maximums not to exceed (but allowed at limits less than) two stories and thirty feet.
For a worthy project, in an appropriate location, for which they want to relax this "gold standard," good developers would be willing to pay the extra money, during a General Election year, to gain the residents' "go-ahead," and stamp of approval, through a public vote, which would also give some wonderful publicity to their potential projects, lessening the likelihood they would ever go bankrupt, as Moonlight Loft developers did, and Barratt American did!
I spoke with many people this pm at the artist colony art banner auction. Half said they had no idea what A was and many others said they would vote no. You yes on A people aren't getting your message out.
DeleteOh, right, The Banner Auction. The same group that caved to jerome's censorship of Maggie's image on the reverse side. They are real Movers and Shakers, them.
DeleteYawn and double yawn.
I don't believe you, Anon 7:38 PM. Prop A proponents are doing our best to get the word out. You "no on A people" are using lies, conjecture, and fabrications to confuse, twist the truth, and discourage those who support people's right to make up our minds for ourselves.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo no bifurcation! One city under one General Plan.
ReplyDeleteThe city planning department should do its homework before giving bias information to City Council. And city council should check up on what Staff is feeding them. A little bit of research would have avoided this embarrassing situation.
The Planning Department has people who are liars. Not only that, but they do not have the skills to have their jobs in the first place.
DeleteThere are good planners like there are good developers. Don't be surprised if Rancho Santa Fe, the City of Solana Beach and the City of Del Mar try to find a way to do their planning elsewhere than Encinitas the way that the RSF Fire Department ended their agreement with Encinitas. People in our City seem stuck with these bozos, but people in other cities can pull out of working with them. I wish that we could too, and I wish that other cities could cover their pensions.
“ . . . 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.” No, but our downtown Specific Plan, and all its amendments, had to be approved by the Coastal Commission. Prop A’s intention is to supercede the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan and therefore overturn what the Commission had already reviewed and approved. What are the chances the Coastal Commission will abandon their previous decisions?
ReplyDeleteMs. Crawford.....I noticed DEMA gets money from the city. Mayor Barth and the council wrote in the rebuttal that no change in land use has happened without a vote of the people. as you liley know the 101 speciofic plan was that increased height and density and destroyed community charachter was passed by a super majority, without a vote of the people. do you condone Mayor Barth and the council promoting a falsehood? do you think it is in the city's best interest that the city is misrepresenting facts?
DeleteLaslty , did you attend the meeting of 101 neighbors that packed city hall to complain of fearing for their safety, of finding condoms in their driveways and objecting to the proliferation of bars? Bet those people wish they had a vote..
Good points, Anon 8:16 p.m. Yes, the Coastal Commission approved the Specific Plans, and, apparently, an amendment to the LCP. But the former Coastal Commissioner makes several points as to why the General Plan amendment created by the initiative would likely NOT have to be approved through the Coastal Commission.
DeleteThe Specific Plans for Downtown Encinitas and North 101 were approved, but the City, according to my understanding of this, didn't go the extra mile and actually amend the General Plan with respect to changing from two stories and thirty feet. That is why some of us, who've read the actual text of the GP think those Specific Plans, although approved by the Coastal Commission, are not now consistent with our General Plan. I know that when it comes to eliminating a lane on a major roadway, primary circulation element, within the Coastal Zone, what has been spelled out by the City and verified by the Coastal Commission is that a GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT is required in addition to amendments to the N101SP and our Local Coastal Program.
So, the process for creating and conditioning the Encinitas Downtown and N101 Specific Plans on an overlay which references the General Plan, is not legally sufficient. Most of these kind of legal flaws are caught by the public. For instance, the Coastal Commission wasn't aware, until recently, that the City hadn't been filing, as required, Negative Impact Declaration exemptions with them, until citizens brought that fact to their attention. Just because a public entity has "gotten away" with doing something incorrectly, perhaps because it didn't understand proper procedure, doesn't make it legal!
When Prop A passes, the only thing that would be repealed are those sections of the Specific Plans or the Municipal Code THAT ARE IN CONFLICT with the existing General Plan's restrictions of 30 ft., two stories, and how height is measured, as supported by Encinitas Municipal Code zoning definitions, Chapter 30.04.
DeleteThe Coastal Commission won't be "abandoning" anything. They would be unlikely to review. They would NOT force higher limitations. The Coastal Commission is primarily concerned with Coastal Access and Egress, for everyone, including issues of public health and safety as affected by traffic impact, pollution, etc.
Ms. Crawford, can you READ with an OPEN MIND? "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."
No effect. Prop A will become effective citywide the day it passes (June 18th). Future permits in Downtown specific plans will have to comply with General Plan (30 ft tall structure max). Everything will be fine: Downtown 101 will continue to be a "vibrant area" but 3 story high structures won't be able to be permitted unless approved by a public vote.
ReplyDeleteNot only did former Mayors Dennis Holz and Sheila Cameron sign the arguments in favor of the proposition, but also, Ian Thompson, husband of former Mayor Maggie Houlihan, upon whose deathbed endorsement, Lisa Shaffer relied. It was that endorsement and Shaffer's signing of the petition, that got her elected.
ReplyDeleteShe can defend herself all she wants; she betrayed us with her "turnaround."
Yes, Shaffer has been horrible. Kranz too. They have messed up big time in such little time!
ReplyDeleteI think Barth always was horrible. Gaspar and Muir, well we all know who they speak for.
I hope Shaffer and Kranz are agonizing over their missteps. They deserve it.
I have seen Teresa Barth do very good things and represent our position when no other member would. However, I have also seen her vote with the pack when she had stated a different view before the vote.
DeleteBy now, I am really disappointed in Barth. It seems that she is now working for the staff and not the citizens who she represents.
The staff will say and do anything to assure that money keeps rolling in in the short term so that they can coast to their retirements. None of them are unbiased since they are paid today, tomorrow, and until they die to say and do things to benefit themselves personally at the expense of taxpayers.
Yes on A!
ReplyDeleteTo not vote this way is to sell our beloved community to the highest bidder.
Dody C: try reading Wan's statement again. Less restrictive (bigger, not better) needs Coastal Commission review. More restrictive (lower heights) do not.
ReplyDeleteEverett DeLano, who wrote the Initiative, now known as Prop A, is a North County Attorney with Sections, according to his Cal Bar webpage in Real Property Law (including land use, zoning and initiatives, and more) and Environmental Law. The author of the slanted, pro-development report, Joel Kuperberg, is from an Orange County lawfirm, and has neither of those sections.
ReplyDeleteDeLano is an EXPERT in Environmental Law and dealing with "complications" created by Coastal Commission review. Council should be well aware of this!
According to Everett DeLano's 3/12/13 letter to Council, which is part of the Agenda Report for the Special City Council Meeting on that same date, linked on the City's Municipal Election webpage:
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=697346&dbid=0
“The fact that the City has a certified LCP does not “complicate” the Initiative’s effective date. As the [Impact] Report notes, pursuant to Election Code Section 9217, initiative measures take effect 10 days after the election results are declared by the City Council. That fact that the Initiative may amend portions of land use planning documents that constitute the City’s LCP may lead to Coastal Commission review of those changes, but that review does not “complicate” the Initiative’s effective date.”
So, whether or not the Coastal Commission elects to review any changes, which is highly unlikely, that review would NOT complicate the Initiative's effective date. That was just more speculation and conjecture postulated by Joel Kuperberg in his bogus "impact report," which was designed to dissuade and discourage Council and the public from doing the right thing, Voting YES on Prop A, which has been overwhelmingly supported by the public, to give us the right to decide for ourselves, to give back LOCAL control.
All the 101 Mainstreet Associations, including what was formerly known as DEMA, before the "rebranding," pushed by Peder Norby, are highly subsidized by the City. They are all tax exempt, and don't have to pay taxes that you or I would. They are mostly wanting to encourage development, because that is to their advantage, and to the City's, due to greater revenues to the City through more and higher development fees, more property taxes, and more sales taxes.
Operating and Maintenance Costs, Capital Improvement Project expenditures, are all rising at a much faster rate than inflation. People's earnings are flat, often fixed, as for non governmental retirees, at low amounts, usually tied to volatile Stock Market earnings.
Of course some members of the 101 Mainstreet Associations are in lock step to kiss up to the City. I'm glad that Fred Caldwell, on the Board of L101MA knows better, and endorses Prop A. Fred's also on the Board of Leucadia-Encinitas Town Council, along with Rachelle Collier, a former Council Candidate, who also endorses Prop A!
Everyone I know in Leucadia, Encinitas and Cardiff Neighbors, also endorses Prop A. Barb Yost and Bob Aronin gathered signatures for Prop A, as did many friends and neighbors we know through various dog parks, including Burt Swain. Rachelle, Burt and Fred have all publicly endorsed Prop A at City Council Meetings.
Those of us who have been around, and who aren't tied to building industry/development interests do support voting YES on Prop A!
Recall Barth
DeleteProp.A is a lawyer dream come true.If it is passed we are going to get our butt sued off
ReplyDeleteThanks Bruce and Kevin ,you have created more problems than stocks and bonds ever did
That is probably the biggest lie being spread since this thing got started.
DeleteCheck with the State: ZERO lawsuits filed against a city for non-compliance with their zoning element.
Ask a former Coastal Commission Chair: ZERO lawsuits from growth restriction measures.
Ask Jerry Harmon, long-time council member and ex-Mayor of Escondido: ZERO lawsuits in Escondido after 14 years under their Prop A.
You keep repeating your empty, developer-backed threats, Yes folks will keep repeating the facts.
Ha, too annoyed to type right! Make that:
DeleteZERO lawsuits from the State to any city over non-compliance with the housing element.
News flash....the KLCC has changed it's name to KECC.
ReplyDeleteNo on A, no to blight!!
So you assume Encinitas is crappy right now? I assume KECC means Keep Encinitas Crappy Club? Personally I think Encinitas is a pretty nice place and can't think how up-zoning along traffic corridors will make it better.
ReplyDeleteBlight is allowing high density zoning to spread throughout Encinitas. We ca have a vibrant Encinitas without 3 story buildings. It has been done elsewhere!
ReplyDeleteMaybe the people of encinitas will want 5 story buildings in 40 years. Perhaps they'll NEED 5 story buildings in 40 years.
DeleteMost likely I will be dead by then, then they shall have it. Until then, 2 story buildings sounds better.
DeleteKeep Encinitas small and livable!
I think all the yes onA people need to get jobs, work!!
ReplyDeleteLess free time to fill your minds with nonsense.
I work more than full time. I am one if those Yes on A people.
ReplyDeleteSame here. If anyone thinks the past year has been easy, think again. Scores of Yes volunteers put aside vacations, parties, family time, t.v. watching, book reading, you name it, to put their noses to the collective grindstone for the love of Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteCan't say it enough. RECALL Barth.
ReplyDeleteRECAL Gaspar she and stocks created ERAC if you remember.This prop A
DeleteBacklash is the result.Divided and conquer it's working.
Barth voted folks onto the ERAC along with the others. Anyone who witnessed this sham will recall how many council votes matchef up with one anothet. Almost comical how at one point Muir got his vote mixed up. Almost. But none of them discussed in advance, noooooo.
ReplyDeleteWith neither personal interest of my own nor clients with an interest in the subject matter of the proposition, I find Ms. Wan's advice curious, inasmuch as Monterey County and the Cities of Imperial Beach and Half Moon Bay, to name a few, all had ballot measures affecting the Coastal Zone (at least one of which occurred during Ms. Wan's tenure) whose implementation was blocked pending Coastal Commission certification prior to implementation. Past Commission practice underscores the reality that if legislation (whether enacted by Council OR the voters) alters certified LCP standards, the law requires certification by the Coastal Commission before it can take effect in the coastal zone. If backers want the Proposition they should understand that the process does not end when the votes are counted.
ReplyDeleteThey were all upzoning in one form or another that superceded existing zoning according to my review.Prop a on the other hand maintains existing standards according to the general plan.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is the key point: only where UPzoning takes place do they get involved; lower limits do not concern them.
ReplyDeleteRecall Gaspar TODAY
ReplyDeleteWTF did Gaspar do besides sit there and look pretty?
DeleteBarth and Vina are the ones running the show.
She made up ERAC with FAT BOY STOCKS
DeleteWhy are muir and gasper getting a pass on this. Makes one think.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows Muir and Gaspar are on the developers' side. Their campaigns were supported by developers.
DeleteThe other three ran on "community character" and were opposed by developers.
And still are ,because they don't think as you do all of sudden they've sold out, how convinet for your position. Sticks and stones!
ReplyDeleteIt's not sticks and stones. It's an intervention. You only have interventions for people you care about.
DeleteI believe I hear a shrill whiney noise and very little substance.
ReplyDeleteThat would be Gaspar at council, lovin' the sound of her own voice as she launches into a Bond-worthy monologue...but I deviate.
DeleteSome truth at last
ReplyDeleteRECALL GASPAR
ReplyDeleteWe don't need to recall Barth or Gaspar. We can simply vote against them (if they both run; some say Barth won't) at the next General Election, November of next year . . .
ReplyDelete