The Encinitas City Council should take another look at the 19 sites it is proposing to rezone for high-density housing and reconsider some of them before putting the list on the ballot in November, the city's Planning Commission unanimously agreed Thursday.
After hearing hours of testimony from 50 public speakers, commissioners said the speakers had made some very convincing points about the unsuitability of some of the sites. The commission didn't vote on which ones ought to be pulled from the controversial list, saying that highly politicized decision was the council's to make.
But, several commissioners said, at least three sites added late in the review process were prime removal candidates and one new site mentioned Thursday night should be added to the list. Both audience members and commissioners forecasted gloomy prospects for the ballot measure if the list remains as it is.
"If these three to four (sites) remain on here, there's really no shot it's going to pass," Commissioner Al Apuzzo said, referring to several sites that faced intense opposition from neighboring homeowners that night.
Friday, June 8, 2018
Planning Commission meeting gets contentious
U-T:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
They scraped the bottom of the bucket to find these 20 sites. One down, 19 more to go. None of the sites are suitable. Time to punt!
ReplyDeleteMeeting opened with O'Grady taking staff to task for not accurately reporting to council on Commission directives. Apparently staff thought the Planning Commission was just making suggestions. A bad night for staff all around, as Ehlers and Hubbard both backed up O'Grady's complaint.
ReplyDeleteThe Barquist guy lies about what HCD requires, then gets tripped up by the truth when commissioners and residents alike challenge his claims. Same goes for Wisneski and her crew.
Lots of folks in the overflow room to the point where they were sitting on the floor. Keith Harrison's name came up repeatedly as being behind the push for 37' - is there a parcel pie he doesn't have his greedy developer's finger in??
Am already planning my "Measure Frankenstein goes down in flames" election night party outfit.
The city screwed this up worse than Measure T and they're out of time to recover and reset - not that they would even if given the opportunity.
It's looking more and more like Measure T Version 2.0. And Brenda Wisneski is Jeff Murphy in a shirt with the same disingenuous answers. Nothing much has changed except for the rejiggering of the parcels. And Joe Mosca gets credit for removing the L-7 parcel which has done more than anything to motivate wide-spread opposition to the whole thing.
DeleteThat asinine L-7 move has sealed the city's fate. The NIMBY creeps there can promise all the "yes" votes they like, the reality is they just woke up the entire city to revolt.
DeleteLULU = Locally Unwanted Land Usage. The acronym that counters the assholes who throw around NIMBY like it makes them authorities on what is in reality neighborhood destruction.
DeleteYou are right, 6:58. The group that opposed L7 though are not squeaky-clean protectors of their street. They have in fact made some pretty ugly statements along the lines of "we all know what happens when those types of people move in."
DeleteCity Hall is not carrying out HCD's mandate to create the least amount of damage; no, they are working in close partnership with developers to maximize the opportunity they have to claim "it's the law" while grabbing much, much more than is required. And that will again be their undoing.
There are 2 parcels on Quail Gardens Drive.
Delete3 is too many.
Put it in your neighborhood. We’re already doing our share.
It's already completely dead. Council has lost any trust of citizens and it is another example of isolated myopic vision shared by none.
ReplyDeleteYOU haven't figured out the they're all NIMBY CREEPS. I find it dispicable that those who want affordable housing are the first to say "not next to me".
ReplyDeleteWhen someone says NO, they should be required to say where in their community do they want it to be built!!!!!!
Only because the only way $taff and Council know how to do affordable is over the top developer dream, Prop A-busting, non HCD-required crap!
DeleteLangager and Wisneski clearly in over their inept heads and bobble-headed Blakespear who refers to corrupt city employees as "our professional staff" only makes things worse.
Folks would not be nimbys if they felt this was done right. Instead, it stinks to high heaven of Harrison and Meyer leaning on a receptive city hall.
Let me guess, 10:31: there's none planned next door to you.
DeleteL-7, please.
Deleteis It even legal for the state for force this burden on us when no other city in the state has satisfied this law in 50 years? Updated HEU or not the results are the same in every single city in California. Can we sue the state for the damages the BIA money city council will be handing to them?
ReplyDeleteDump the law and replace it with incentives for homeowners to add an affordable unit. That can done without changing much zoning, makes owning a home a little more affordable, and could enable all the illegal grannyflat people to come out. Of course all our overpaid staff and city council are developer groupies and not capable of doing anything unless told so by their sugar daddy.
Blakespear told me that it's our responsibility to provide housing for those who can afford it.
ReplyDelete11:00 PM
ReplyDeleteLess then 20 out of 500 plus cities are being judged by the Jan. 2018 laws. All the other cities will not be judged by the 2018 laws until after 2023.
So 480 cities will be blowing tax dollars on a plan that won’t produce anything but profits for developers in 5 years?
DeleteCorrect. You're slow on the uptake, but you got it.
Deleteslow on the uptake? That comment is dumber than the HEU.
DeleteCarlsbad is an example of what happened when affordable housing went in near La Costa off El Camino. The crime calls to that area speak loud and clear. Encinitas already created a homeless shelter (Library) and has been more welcoming of bikers, drunks, and down and outers than most cities. Before we become Huntington Beach let's actually do some planning for once, it is sorely lacking in Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't use our planning department.
DeleteAny truth to the rumor that the land north of Keno's has been sold to the owners of the hotel north of Keno's?? If so, what's the sales price??
ReplyDeletePS- I'll be voting no regardless of what the city puts on the ballot.
I want to thank all the residents who showed up Thursday night.
ReplyDeleteIt was glorious.
Not for the city, but for the only true stakeholders, the non-profiteering caring residents. I hope they will all and more be back June 20th for the council meeting.
The Planning commissioners certainly heard us.
Council, what the heck are you going to do in such a short time to change the course you have set which follows the same as the last time and the time before that? You never learn.
Planning is doing what they always do. We know it. You know it, and yet here we are again with a dead on arrival plan that you have allowed again and again and again.
There is no one to blame but you, each and every one of you. You let Planning lead you by the nose again and again and again.
The one avenue left for each one of you was offered Thursday night, and it received the most applause and cheers of the whole evening.
Band together with other cities and sue the state for not providing any funding for what they are asking of us. There have to be many other municipalities that would relish joining such a fight.
This would delay the suits, literally and figuratively, until after the November elections failure to come until that was resolved.
The malfeasance of repeating past failures again and again and again, has to stop. We know it. How can you not know it?
What cities want to sue the state over this issue?
DeleteOnly three cities in the whole state are compliant. Those three cities only had to build a couple affordable units, Beverly Hills is one of them.
DeleteWho cares if we have an updated plan or not, results are still the same across the state. As for the lawsuits, no one says they can’t build here, they just have to follow local laws. The city has affordable housing money that could be used for a prop A vote.
Only reason this failed law is still on the books is because the developers who wrote and donate to campaigns say they want it. That’s the problem, oir politicians won’t bite the hand that feeds them. See Tasha and and the rest who sign onto the lies. Why would they lie on mailers and what not? They are paid by their developer handlers, that’s why.
DeleteWhy is our city wasting time and money on this stillborn plan? We have seen it before and we know how the ballot count will come out. This time the Judge could throw out Proposition A and order enacting Measure T but regardless there will be appeals and lawsuits from one side or another, and no affordable housing for years.
ReplyDeleteOperative word is "could." The judge threat has lost its power. David Meyer got thrown out hard on his ass and the judge couldn't say what he would do for certain next time on the "affordable advocates" suits.
DeleteBlakespear's claim that she'd deliver a mutually-agreed upon plan is a lie. She and staff seem to have planned from day one they'd whip out Measure T2 at the last minute.
The failed Measure T was the basis the hired guns used all along.
ReplyDeleteBlame that on Planning.
Blame the council for allowing Planning to run a failed strategy that was all too familiar of the past failed plans.
Let's not forget that each and every council member was for Measure T.
Those who have been there long enough were all fighting Prop A.
The lack of representing residents over 'insider interests' was made all the more clear at this past weeks Planning Commission meeting.
Now it is all focused on council for the June 20th meeting/debate.
What will they do at such a late stage in the process? They set their course by choosing to hire consultants that used Measure T as examples for structures that would not be allowed without our votes. Every photo of possible units in their presentations was at least three stories and more.
The intent all along was to defy our communities clearly stated position. It does not have to be, if council would listen to their constituents, and not to Planning and their monied influencers.
June 20th will be a showdown, like few others in our city's 30 plus years.
Now is the time for all caring citizens to be heard. I cannot imagine any of the council members will be looking forward to June 20th, after the hours of testimony this past week.
They set "the curse" all right.
DeleteThe planners like to speak of sustainability--which may sound like an evirnmental term and a good thing. When they talk about it, they are really thinking of the sustainability of their own jobs and pensions. The only way that they can see that happening is to whore out our city with bars and high density building. Most of them don't live here and are simply the same as developers or others who want to cash in our our city's appeal at the expense of people who already live here. Vote NO in November!
ReplyDeleteIf council is not observed squirming in their seats on June 20th, they are better actors than most observers thought.
ReplyDeleteImagining what they will come up with to justify the current state of their dead on arrival plan again, will take some creative thought.
Anyone expect that?
They made their choices and will have to live with the consequences.
It will take more than bringing bacK L7 to pass this plan. This is city wide in condemnation.
Those L7 neighbors can be thanked for poking the bear and waking up the whole city. They won for the time being, but the cost of that victory has resounded throughout the whole community.
Thanks L7 neighbors. You fostered a citywide awakening.
Special thanks to the Council Member representing Olivenhain. Who would have thought it so easy to make enemies and forever lose friends. Does he have any friends left in Sierra Madre?
Delete464 cities in compliance, which is 96%.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/status.pdf
We would also be in compliance if not for Teresa Barth pushing to do a complete General Plan. All that was needed was to read the Housing Element by 2010, make a few minor changes, and send it to the state. Several million dollars later, after hiring a string of consultants and paying a full planning staff their complete salaries, we still have a plan that is designed and guided by developers to optimize their own earning potential. Residents are sent the bills and risk having our life styles ruined.
DeleteCan you show us one of the 464 who were able to become compliant with “a few minor changes?”
DeleteSurely if it’s that easy, there must be plenty of examples.
SANDAG recently took two votes. The first to ask the state to reduce San Diego County's assigned future housing allotment. It was done under the old voting system of essentially equally weighted voting. However, a bill sponsored by Lorena Gonzalez reforming SANDAG giving a weighted vote to the biggest cities was passed by Sacramento. A second vote was taken to ask the state to maintain the higher allotment. The new reformed super majority was invoked and the decision reversed. Our benighted city council had voted to support the new super majority in Sacramento, even though our city isn't part of it.
DeleteThe profiteering builders got what they wanted -- more mandatory market rate housing and very little affordable housing. Now the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista control how much housing will be built in Encinitas.
Still looking for those examples?
DeleteThat 96% is cities with a plan. Only 12 cities have built required RHNA numbers. Those 12 cities have crazy low required RHNA numbers.
ReplyDeleteLike the law, you are misleading.
Repeal this law like the gas tax, just about every city in the state is burden by this corrupt failure. It should be illegal for tax dollars to be wasted in an effort to get developers rich in CA. There is 50 year track record and housing crisis that proves it is a failure. Why throw good money at bad, axe it.
The significant problems arising form a scarcity of affordable housing have not been solved over the past three decades. Rather these problems have become more severe and have reached what might be described as of epic proportions in many of the state's localities.
ReplyDeleteMunicipalities used to have broad discretion to regulate the use of real properties to serve the legitimate interest of the general pubic. Not anymore. Pockets of resistance to state mandates are arising in the denser areas of the state. In 2020 many cities will have to update their housing element for the next cycle. Resistance will only increase.
Resistance is not futile. [Star Trekkies anyone?]
ReplyDeleteIf the state will not fund, we should not bend over, until they do.
Sue the state, thereby delaying any lawsuits by the BIA, until that is ruled on, even when this latest dead on arrival plan is defeated in November.
Many cities would relish joining a class action effort to demand funding these community character destroying unfunded demands.
That is about the least our council should look into as June 20th approaches.
The state won't fund what? If you mean the city's out of pocket cost to put together the plan then you're saying any planning that the state requires a city to do should be reimbursed by the state. Good luck with that. Because that's all the city is doing with the housing element. It's us who say the city has to put any upzoning to a vote not the state. The cost of an election is what comes with Prop A.
DeleteThe state used to provide subsidies to cities to make up developer deficits when creating affordable housing. They cut subsidies sometime during the past ten years. Sounds like you're unaware of this, 4:02.
DeleteIt is why mandating affordable housing without subsidies to actually make it possible is such s scam.
Control over runaway development is the protection we enjoy ftom Prop A.
4:42 PM
DeleteThe state isn't mandating the city provide affordable housing just providing the zoning to accommodate it. I don't like it either
I think we can all agree it's a scam, including the people perpetrating it.
DeleteVote NO.
ReplyDeleteI’m no lawyer, but I don’t think ab35 requirements are avoided or delayed by not having an approved housing element.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong, but I’m not.
Correction: SB35
Delete*wrong*
DeleteWhy doesn’t the city just cover the prop a special election costs for any developer if their affordable project is approved by voters? They can even sweeten it by throwing in the fees other developers paid to not build affordable housing.
ReplyDeleteare you serious? That would take intelligent planning...
Delete11:24 a.m. - compliance is one metric, but the abysmal record of actually providing affordable housing is quite another. And isn't that the point of the law in the first place - to provide affordable housing?
ReplyDeleteSANDAG can "boast" single-digit success in San Diego vs. goal (RHNA numbers assigned) and reveal just how cynical its application of the law is. Together with the BIA, SANDAG is all about "compliance," not affordable housing construction.
Most of us are more concerned with building real affordable housing than being in compliance with a scam law. Aren't you?