Coast News:
Encinitas Mayor Catherine Blakespear said, “I can’t think of anything more the city could have done to craft a plan that both housing regulators and voters would accept. We really did try our best, both in terms of effort expended and compromises to gain consensus. So we find ourselves here,” meaning in court and at a judge’s discretion.
Frazier’s ruling will wait until the county and city have officially certified the ballot results of Measure U. The controversial housing initiative failed, with 53 percent of voters opposed, which makes the judge’s decision to wait a mere formality. Measure U sought to allow increased housing density up to three stories high at 15 potential sites in Encinitas. A similar ballot initiative, Measure T, was soundly defeated in 2016.
Encinitas’ legal counsel argued that the city should be made to adopt Measure U. Attorney Dolores Bastian Dalton of Goldfarb & Lipman described that plan as “a workable and practical solution that gets all three parties out of the impasse that we’re in.” She said other potential options that require more community feedback and political consensus would “only embolden the anti-housing group.”
Hernandez v. City of Encinitas. (1994)
ReplyDeleteEncinitas legal counsel argued that the city should be forced to adopt Measure U... isn't any city counsel supposed to represent the wishes of the citizens? Obviously not - the developers own this city and its city council/Mayor.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to represent the "wishes" of the citizens when those wishes are in conflict with State law. And when those citizens have failed to pass a Housing Element - twice. This exercise should teach you that saying "no" to everything eventually backfires. Good luck trying to overturn a court order.
Delete4:40 PM Goose step to compliance - it is the "LAW"! The best law that money can buy.
Delete"No to everything?" Do you even live here, 4:40? Be honest.
DeleteWhat should the lawyer have said? The lawyer has to state a position that is legally viable/defensible. There had to be some offer to remedy the non compliance. I think city should have tried to determine what was most troublesome to voters and said Measure U with whatever small changes. I would suggest remove Avocado Acres and add L-7. All sites 25% affordable, except L-7, which would be 100%.
ReplyDeleteThat's a reasonable suggestion but probably the Judge doesn't have your insight so we will get worse. The RSF East site is a tempting add-in for a Judge who does not live here.
DeleteThe judge did get that insight in an amicus brief delivered by the deadline. Whether he uses the information to inform his decision is another story. Point being, he did get the info.
DeleteSorry not sorry, Marco!
Recall the entire city council. They should be defending the electorate's decision not trying to circumvent their stated will.
ReplyDeleteThat might be fine but who will take their place? We just had an election and voted to keep the mayor and replace one of the council members.
ReplyDeleteSerious legal question:
ReplyDeleteCan a judge use compliance with state law to compel a Measure that includes elements that have absolutely nothing to do with state law?
I’m thinking specifically of the upzoning of L7 from RR1 to R3.
Can a judge use state law as a pretext to override Prop A to upzone a parcel that in no way has anything remotely to do with state housing law?
Maybe think about it this way...the judge has to start somewhere and the only plan that's on the table is Measure U. Even though the voters turned it down it's the city's last effort to put something on paper. So to move things forward he may rule to submit U to the HCD and let them comment on it. Once HCD comments, it's no longer U, it's now something else entirely. If, within that process parcels are added or removed in order to meet HCD compliance then so be it - but it's all done within the authority of the judge's order. So it's not a pretext but rather a mechanism to move towards compliance. Once all is said and done, the actions taken towards conformity should not be precedent - in other words, Prop A would remain intact.
DeleteThe judge doesn't have to wait for the bunch of HCD bureaucrats to rule on "substantially compliant". He has the power to rule a plan "fully compliant". There is also the possibility that he will upzone L-7 to R-30 as requested by Tenants United.
DeleteThose L7 creeps would turn apoplectic and I would be glad to be there to see that.
DeleteThey were out in force at the hearing, making sure everything went according to plan.
And hugging on Blakespear's mom.
DeleteThe replaced councilmember was the only one on our side. The entire council with the new addition will only favor what the developers want. Next move by this council will be to go against the voters and align with the developers. Jody is Catherine best friend and campaigned for her. We now have all 5 against us.
ReplyDeleteI understand that this judge is close with city staff, we need another judge.
ReplyDeletethat Sucks when the Mayor, City Council, and City Manager blatantly fuck the citizens of Encinitas right after the citizens just squashed their latest upzoning scheme for developer profits.
ReplyDeleteIt shows that the next election, We the people need to get two solid candidates to replace the sellouts Mayor Fakespear and Phony Kranz!!
All need to go considering the ridiculous praise and raises of the failing Management of this City. Its sickening to see the elected officials and staff shitting on this town.
I will vote for anyone supporting local control and not the current sellout status. Fight for the citizens and quality of life in Encinitas, Don't fricken sell out. There will be endless rounds of state pressured upzoning in the future housing elements. Don't support more support less.
How did that go for you during this last election. YOUR CANDIDATE GOT 15% OF THE VOTE! THE PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG REPRESENT 15% OF THE POPULATION!
DeleteWhat was that, 9:49? I didn't hear you.
DeleteThis has nothing to do about "affordable" housing. It is merely rezoning for maximum density and profits.
ReplyDeleteI live in a 50 unit condo complex one mile east of the 5. The property manager here is owned by a multi-million dollar commercial investment company. You can just imagine what they want to do to this place once upzoning is allowed. They are already ruining this place and need to be fired but the board has sold out to them. Same thing as CC just on a smaller scale. And it's not just California, it's happening in smaller cities on the East coast too.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Blakespear's position that they have done everything they can to comply. They have done everything they can to help developers make money, even going to the length of having secret meetings with "stakeholders" that excluded voters. Each time they have brought this forward, they do what Teresa Barth called "fake reseach" by hiring consultants at great expense to do gather information using unscientific methods that supported what the developers want. She did not see anything wrong with this and encouraged it! There is a more accurate name for fake research, which is fraud.
ReplyDeleteAnother appropriate term that could be applied is violating the publics trust.
ReplyDeleteSadly, nothing new there.
The judge can't impose anything that doesn't meet state law.
ReplyDeleteBank on it.
The judge will mandate that the city work with HCD to develop a plan that is fully compliant. This will take months to develop, all the while under a building moratorium.
This is America where MONEY always wins.
DeleteThink the California coastal commission unanimous decision on streetscape. Two commissioners who had appealed approval of streetscape, oddly silenced. The city gets to whomever it wants to get to and the judge will be no exception.
DeleteThat's how Blakespear rolls. Like her hero Shaffer, she knows what's best for the rest of us. Any means to her goal she'll justify.
Wow!
DeleteSo two coastal commissioners were “silenced,” after the city ‘got to them,’ just like they will get to the judge?
This sounds like a great conspiracy theory. But you are leaving out the good parts. Was it a horse head in the bed? Was it Mayor Blakespear threatening to expose unnatural acts with barnyard animals? Was it a Bitcoin bribe? Or were the commissioners killed and secretly replaced with cosmetic surgery look alikes?
If you are going to spin a web, don’t hold back on the details, you tease.
I can’t wait for next season when we learn what happens to the judge!
The fact remains that the two coastal commissioners who had appealed in opposition to Streetscape flipped to support it. The staff did too. The whole commission went along.
ReplyDeleteNone of them did that on their own. The city somehow got to them.
And the city didn't hold back at the hearing, either. It brought in all the big guns including Ecke #? and other city bigwigs to cry, erm, I mean testify before the CC. The city rounded them all up and called in favors.
ReplyDeleteNo stretch of the imagination there, 1:55. How much are they paying you to spin your little web? Just a little protesting overmuch on your part, though. You need to learn how to walk that fine line. That's when you really make the big bucks.
Something went down during the very long intermission. After that break, the chair, who sounds like a ditz, couldn't hide her impatience. She showed impatience because the decision had been made unanimously during the break. Listening to the post-break speakers became unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteThe question remains: How did the city turn the appellants and staff, and why did the whole commission follow?
The city manager hugged it out with the L101 exec and said "we make a good team, don't we?" and the city reps themselves attested to a lot, a whole lot, of constant back and forth with the CCC.
DeleteWhat was said were the Neptune folks who didn't know the SOP at city hall. They got a shock, but they're also now clued in. And they have money.
Tony, you hear dat? Kind of like the Trump motto "not my president," there's plenty of "not my representative" now directed your way. Next election's gonna be fuuuun.
There were years of collusion between the city staff and the San Diego Coastal Commission staff. But the first CCC staff report in late July put conditions so heavy on the city, they were next to impossible to meet.
ReplyDeleteThen the CCC staff report that came out about two weeks before the hearing cancelled the conditions. The question: How did that happen?
Well, it's not like you're going to get an explanation out of "we keep no records" COE "staff."
DeleteNot according to the Public Records Act.
DeleteHa, good one.
DeleteIt is, according to "staff" when they can't find any records to turn over. Try it sometime. SOP at COE.
I have, several times.
DeleteThere are other sources.
Do share with us non insiders.
DeleteI agree that the judge won't impose something arbitrability. The judge would only accept something that met the intent of the law, or was proven (by an expert - like HCD) that it does. Since neither of the two criteria above apply, then the judge will send it back to the city.
ReplyDeleteYes. More housing discussions for our delight in 2019.
DeleteBoth measures would have passed (T and U) if there was a higher inclusionary requirement.
DeleteSeems to me that the city would have been sued still with the latter, because of no HCD finding. The City must consider HCD comments before taking action. And there is a presumption of validity with a positive finding from HCD. The City received neither.
So I believe the City is at fault procedurally as well as for not meeting rezone inventory requirements. Given this, the judge will send it back to the City.
I'm not sure why anyone would have even asked for raises during this time. But the CM did. It pads her Calpers so her exit after this goes down helps soften her landing in retirement.
She didn't ask for a raise. She gets an annual review, and the council decides to raise her pay or not.
DeleteIf there are any remaining holdouts that Measure U will somehow pass, the final nail has been hammered into the coffin. The Registrar of Voters, with only 1,500 ballots countywide yet to be counted, shows Measure U "No" votes at 15,854 and "Yes votes at 14,095. A gap of 1,759 that slowly grew since election day.
ReplyDeleteWhy does this matter? It's all in the court's hands now.....
DeleteJust a fun fact to make it that much harder for the city to spin the results.
DeleteSpeaking of spin, Blakespear's newsletters are shining examples. Now that she's on SANDAG it's only going to get deeper.
the gap is three times as large as the 600 gap of measure t. lots more votes though to explain it. and certainly a closer percentage.
DeleteIt's official:
DeleteMeasure U
No = 15,882
Yes = 14,120
A margin of 1,762
Listen, a flawed element is a flawed General Plan. With the adequacy of the General Plan in question, the BIA could essential shut down operations. Think about, not only building moratoriums, but CIP expenses as well.
ReplyDeleteThis could get very dark in the first part of 2019.
Building moratoriums? Never! The BIA said no, and our city will hop to. The last thing we will ever do is say no to that crew. They will find a way to issue and "streamline" projects, not to worry.
DeleteMaybe the trophy projects unwanted by anyone but the five council members and a handful of "staff" need to be deep sixed. Tighten our belts and put the trophies in a place as deep and forgotten as ignored resident surveys.
While the city did agree with the BIA that no moratorium be applied, the other plaintiff, San Diego Tenants wanted at least a partial moratorium. The decision is up to the judge whether or not the city doesn't want it. The code allows the judge to impose one.
Delete