Encinitas will go before a judge on November 13 in a status hearing for lawsuits against the city related to our non-compliant Housing Element. These cases were delayed pending the outcome of Measure U, which if passed would have mooted the basis for the suits. Measure U was defeated, and so the cases will somehow proceed.
This is the second time voters have rejected a ballot measure. Judges are notoriously deferential to voters, and rarely issue sweeping rulings that invalidate the will of the electorate. I expect the judge to look for ways to avoid or minimize the scope of judicial intervention. I would expect the judge to ask our city leaders if they feel voter approval of a compliant housing element is impossible in Encinitas.
I think it’s important for our elected leaders to answer carefully. After watching voters reject months or years of work by our city council, there will be a temptation to say that council did everything possible, and that blame for the failure rests with voters—that there is no hope for a voter approved plan. This would be factually incorrect, and an insult to voters that we will never forget.
The difficult truth is that there is a voting bloc who will never vote yes on a compliant housing element, but they are a minority. There are others in the middle who voted no on this specific plan because of mistakes and poor decisions made by our leaders in the crafting of this plan. When the judge asks, we expect and deserve leadership that accepts responsibility for the flaws that caused Measure U to fail. I realize this is a difficult and painful thing to do, but it’s the truth, and it’s what is best for the City legally.
I ask each council member to spend real quiet think time over the next few days to write down a list of specific decisions and elements of the process and the plan that you think cost votes. Go to court prepared, and when asked by the judge, do the hard right thing.
Friday, November 9, 2018
Will the city be honest with the court about why Measure U failed?
Open letter from Luke Dion to the city council on Encinitas Votes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not sure the council members will do "the hard right thing." Will the third time be a charm? It seems unlikely that Mayor Blakespear will push hard on the rudder and turn the ship of state around.
ReplyDeleteBoy this is rich. The "Federal lawing breaking state of California" suing us with our own tax money.
ReplyDeleteI guess everyone has forgotten about sanctuary state. Breaking Federal law.
Here's the problem - at trial there are only 2 seats. The City and the BIA folks. There is no 3rd seat for the residents/voters. The judge will infer the will, direction and sentiment of the voters through the vote tally and through the City. In a nutshell, we're screwed.
ReplyDeleteLuke, what do you think the city should do? If the city takes the position that they have been working with BIA all along to meet the standards set by the state and it's only the voters that are preventing a resolution how do you think the judge will rule? The task of the judge is not to decide between the voters and the BIA. Its to reconcile the differences between state and local law. I'm afraid by voting U down we have given away the ability to influence the outcome. I hope I'm wrong.
Luke here.
DeleteGood questions. And no one really knows what’s going to happen. Also consider that HCD has signaled that they are unlikely to back Measure U as compliant with state law. So the judge can’t simply impose Measure U, nor suspend Prop A and ask city council to vote in Measure U, because that’s unlikely to solve the compliance problem.
Measure T was ruled compliant, but it’s now out of date, and the availability of some of the upzone targets has probably changed. The law has also changed—50% of the upzone now has to be undeveloped and T didn’t have that.
I think we may be looking at another reboot, with or without Prop A, and maybe an interim judicial process for case-by-case R30 upzoning approvals until the city has a compliant HE.
Remember, starting January 1 HCD has the power to refer out of compliant jurisdictions to the Attorney General for legal action. Not only did the voters turn down the last two housing element updates but the city has been out of compliance for years. The earliest we could have a third, and special election, election is June and that's really pushing it not to mention quite expensive. I doubt this will turn out well.
DeleteDo you really think the AG is going to focus his office's efforts on Encinitas? Attorneys some of us have spoken with find this notion laughable. You sound ever so hopeful, 12:21 and remarkably like another person posting the same "out of compliance" blather elsewhere on this thread.
DeleteIf a special election is expensive, too bad - go collect from Catherine and her merry band of thieves.
12:40 PM
DeleteSince this is a new law, it's hard to know what HCD and the AG will do but the city is definitely a prime candidate. While the AG didn't initiate the lawsuit against Pleasanton, they joined the lawsuit and this was in 2010. By the way, Pleasanton lost.
I sound hopeful? Really? Speaking of blather.
And sorry to disappoint you but it wasn't me elsewhere.
So you go from the AG taking legal action to "didn't initiate." Big difference that you admit only when pressed. Hm.
Delete7:56 AM
DeleteI guess you didn't read very closely. I noted that the AG didn't initiate the lawsuit in 2010 (it was actually filed earlier) for a reason. It was only this year (2018) that legislation became effective that allows HCD to refer non-compliant jurisdictions to the AG. My point was to point out the AG's willingness to get involved even before this new legislation. Now the AG can initiate the lawsuit themselves. Big difference.
If you think the AG is has nothing better to do than poke his head into our local politics, continue on.
DeleteMy sky isn't falling based on your apparent eager anticipation of "the state" stepping in.
2:29 PM
DeleteIt's really rather sad that you interpret someone who provides factual information as being eager. I guess you would rather be ignorant. Local politics only comes in to play if it means Encinitas is out of compliance, which it is. However, it sounds like the judge is going to step in and remove the need for AG involvement. My sky isn't falling either.
I still don't understand how a City can be sued because of a decision made by voters.
ReplyDeleteIt's called "train the developers to sue and we'll cave AND pay them to go away so they come back again" syndrome.
DeleteThe BIA is not suing any other city. They're not suing other cities that have their own Prop As. They know our council will never take a stand against them. We are their cash cow.
Yet our electeds will self-righteously blame the residents every time.
There is nothing in the legislation requiring housing elements that distinguishes between adoption by the juridiction's legislative body and a vote of the citizens. From a legal perspective the results are the same.
DeleteThanks, Marco. Back under yer rock.
Delete1:29 PM
DeleteHow fitting. You just assume I'm Marco, who I'm not. If you don't like the truth then try to discredit the messenger. You're a perfect example of why we are in the mess we're in.
Hahaha you funny, 1:29. You sound just a tad too hopeful that some kind of plan will be imposed on us and, for good measure, Prop A destroyed. Just a tad too hopeful. You folks always push it :D Dead giveaway every time!
Delete3:58 PM
DeleteSo just stating that from a legal perspective there is no difference between legislation that was passed by the city council from that which was passed by initiative is sounding hopeful? Yes, the court will give greater weight to an initiative but not if it tries to overrule state law. While Prop A doesn't do this explicitly, the effect may be the same. The judge will have to decide if Encinitas can just keep trying. And while we do the state requirements keep changing, not in our favor.
"hahaha you funny". Thanks but I'm not trying to be.
Just FYI - I never participate anonymously. You'll know when it's me chiming in.
DeleteNot sure why that last post didn't include my name. - Marco
DeleteWe're shaking now.
DeleteOur council knows only one way to do a housing element: huddle with developers and threaten residents.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of breaking from developer influence to submit the most no-frills (devoid of developer candy) plan acceptable to HCD is foreign to the council. Blakespear's quote in the Coast News shows how clueless she is as to why U failed:
“I’m disappointed that we couldn’t figure this out locally. I think we’re better served making our own land-use decisions. But apparently it’s not possible to create a housing plan in Encinitas that satisfies the majority of residents...."
What's shocking is she probably, sincerely does not know what went wrong.
So we just reelected this bimbo mayor who's too tight with the developer community, her yes-woman "let's all hop on our electric bikes" Hubbard, and Mosca, who thought nothing of striking a side deal with the L7 opposition.
There is no one on our council willing or able to do the right thing so yeah, it's the BIA and our city vs. residents.
This quote from Blakespeare says it all. Her plan is to try and hand off the HEU to a judge and get the council off the hook:
Delete“I’m disappointed that we couldn’t figure this out locally. I think we’re better served making our own land-use decisions. But apparently it’s not possible to create a housing plan in Encinitas that satisfies the majority of residents...."
She is clueless or corrupt, take your pick.
A combination of both.
DeleteCarpetbagger Mosca made it back onto the council??? The electorate is clueless. And Horvath prevailed - money DOES buy elections.
ReplyDeleteGoodbye Muir - the Council room ceiling will miss your hypnotic fascination with it.
I may be wrong here, but my understanding is that the Housing Element required by the state is simply a plan that shows a local strategy for achieving certain housing goals.
ReplyDeleteIf that is true, then our representatives have failed us. They should have focused on coming up with a plan that would please the state (to comply with the law), the court (because of the lawsuit), and a majority of Encinitas voters (because of Proposition A).
Instead, they came up with a plan that pleased developers, did not please the voters (as witnessed by the failure of Measure U), and may or may not (probably "not," from what I am hearing) please the court. And there is no plan, so we are still out of compliance with state law.
Two years of effort after a failed Measure T.... And this is the best they can do.
Though perhaps farfetched, one could argue that the developers do not even need a seat at the table to come up with a plan. Once we have an approved plan, the developers can submit their proposed projects to city hall.
Shaking my head....
Shaking along with the rest of us, 11:13.
DeleteHCD does not accept the plan with L7 off and wrote the city back in July to tell them that. Didn't slow our five "representatives," they doubled down on vague threats to residents in the hopes of passing their piece of crap plan.
Developers don't need a seat at the table, nor should they be given one. Residents made this point strongly at city meetings but the council decided instead that developers were their best path to a passing plan.
Isn't it more than a strategy? Doesn't the city have to guarantee HCD the housing will be built?
DeleteTo achieve the requirements, the city's approach has been to gift the developers with market rate units enough that they will effectively subsidize the affordable.
The city took the land cost out of the equation for the Habitat for Humanity units on the corner of Urania and Leucadia Blvd. The city could have done that with L7.
Unless a real estate angel donates enough land or the construction costs, the city has to directly subsidize the affordable units or indirectly have the developers do that.
Except the developers still cry poor and say the 85% market rate they've been gifted is not enough.
DeleteThey showed up twice in the last month to present their sad sack faces before a sympathetic council. The percent affordable is likely to drop below 10% if Blakespear's reaction to the crybabies was any indication.
So much for guaranteeing affordable housing will be built.
This could be so simple, but the council is making it complicated and hard.
I don't mean to sound insensitive, but can someone here very clearly lay out what would be a good Housing Element plan? In other words, what does this group dislike about Measure U (specifically), and how would you re-package that into a new-and-improved Housing Element that many of us could get behind?
DeleteI ask this because most people respond with "there wasn't enough affordable" or "it benefited the developers." I have a feeling that no matter what the plan, someone is going to feel that there STILL isn't enough affordable, and the developers are STILL benefiting.
So how do we arrive at something that is largely supported and can get us in compliance, ASAP?
Not to be rude, but you don't sound insensitive, you sound either impossibly ill-informed or very much like a city-sent troll.
DeleteThe good plan is one that satisfies HCD, barely. No extras. The developer goodies, reversal of Prop A, and lack of affordability is what 53% of voters - not "this group" disliked.
If you somehow missed the months of posting here, flyers on your doorstep, both recent debates, endless meetings and speakers on the topic, and the task force meeting - all of which dug into the details - then you've got your work cut out for you.
Start by reading Measure U beginning to end and see what you think of it. Watch the council videos for all housing items.
Make that task force "meetings" - lots of them. Write the city and ask for the minutes of those.
DeleteThanks for being specific.
DeleteAny time.
Delete1:15 - it's difficult to say what would be a good plan but here are some things that should be in it:
Delete1. Support by all members of the City Council and Planning Commission.
2. Up-front HCD compliance.
3. It has to offer to do something for our voting citizens, not do something to them. Potential traffic congestion is a big issue and view obstruction is another.
4. The new housing must have convenient access to public transit.
5. The Measure U plan smacks of influence by special interests. A good plan would identify the beneficaries and charge them for the fair value of their zoning upgrade.
6. The Measure U plan has been characterized as putting most of the burden in two districts. A good plan would be fair to all districts.
There must be other provisions that would make a plan more acceptable but these small suggestions are offered as starters.
Sorry, but this council would never agree to your terms. Too restrictive to developers.
Delete4:29 What would pay for the affordable housing?
DeleteDevelopers would have to give up their windfall profits and just make really good money instead.
DeleteThey cry poor, but who really knows what their pro formas look like?
And asking them to provide the data for a feasibility study is the very definition of the fox guarding the henhouse.
Expecting developers to pay for the affordable units is a non-starter.
DeleteYep, no matter how many market-rate units they get out of the deal, they're still a non-starter.
DeleteDevelopers don't prey on other cities the way they do on Encinitas. They've definitely found a willing and highly-profitable victim.
What the whole thing comes down to is the city has to fill the gap between what the units cost and what HUD says low and very low income people can afford to pay.
ReplyDeleteThe city-owned land at L7 could have gone a long way toward doing that, but Mosca nixed it after a majority had approved that site.
As long as the city tries to force high-density three stories citywide as gifts to developers so they might grudgingly fill in a few affordable units, the voters won't approve an HEU.
The city has to do something like the Habitat for Humanity deal at Urania and Leucadia Blvd but on a wider scale.
1:15 PM Why do YOU like the Housing Element and Prop U?
ReplyDeleteCrickets indicating a troll.
Delete1:15 here. Not a troll, I'm just not sitting on this blog monitoring every response all day. Sorry about that. I think that many of you are disillusioned and ill-informed. Go watch how every other city in the State of CA updates its Housing Element, how developers get involved from day one, and how the NIMBY residents come out in opposition. This process is not unique to Encinitas. What many of you are not realizing is that the benefit comes for people who don't have a home in Encinitas, not those who already live here. And yes, it is at the expense of existing residents in that you will experience increased traffic and more congestion. The State requires that we accommodate growth, though, so suck it up. We have been non-compliant for over 25 years. And its because of people like you who thought Prop A would save our City.
DeleteActually, Prop A did not anticipate mass upzones via HEUs. Waaah waaah noncompliant waah waaah only ones waaaah waah. So far, Prop A is saving our city. Sounds like that might suck for you, 10:19?
DeleteThe voters must've gotten between you and a big payday, otherwise why so disturbed? "Developers get involved" we know all too well.
You want to know the real NIMBYs who killed Measure U for you? Not the people who really are offended by the lack of required affordable housing, but the Quail Gardens Dr. bigots who complained that low-income earners would sully their fancy neighborhood.
By the time the QGD petitioners figured out they had to shut up the very un-PC commentary from some of their finest and instead switch their complaint to "too much traffic," it was too late.
The associated side deal on L7 to upzone free of charge from R1 to R3 for, among other hopefuls, David Meyer, sealed the NO deal. There's a QGD dweller posting on EV that Meyer is "considered a hero" by her neighborhood. Guess they thought he was saving them from the great unwashed. No one counted on the Clark St. people revealing their side of the story and that had a nice ripple affect of pissing people off citywide. No one likes a scam. Humans are funny that way.
I think management should be accountable for this one. WHY ON EARTH would a non-compliant housing element be forwarded to the voters. Even if it prevailed, we would still be sued.
ReplyDeleteGOOOD LORD.
This was negligent waste of $100,000. and more.
GET ME OUT OF ENCINITAS.
you mean get bad management - both elected and hire out of Encinitas.
Deletethis thing is going to take months to solve while the city (through judge) puts a hold on all building permits.
I would say the mistake cost $100 k to draft and submit the ballot measure. Certainly more to post notice to every resident. Now we have to deal with plaintiff fees and new planning to identify new plan.
DeleteNew planning is right. Start with Brenda and work your way down to Langager, all need to be shown the door.
DeleteYou have twenty years on non-compliance. If you think you are going to do the minimum, think again. You're entering a new RHNA cycle with significant penalty.You've demonstrated over the years of having no interest in complying, both through failed attempts (2011-current) and non-starters (1990-2010). A judge will certainly see that.
ReplyDeleteThank you, city shill. Or developer.
DeleteWhat the judge is unfortunately not seeing is that we've been out of compliance for years because of the developer-corrupted plans the city has put before a savvy voting populace.
You are the one obviously part of the problem, 4:11, not the voters who refuse to bend over.
Citizens are not at fault! All we have done is to pay millions of dollars to staff, consultants and others to repeatedly come up with unworkable plans over the years.
DeleteI don't believe that any planner has ever missed a single pay check over the past 20 years. There are a fair share who have made millions to stretch out their jobs over the years. It seems the wrong set of rewards when most in the department are paid over six-figures annually, yet they blame us for the unacceptable plans that they come up with.
If you substitute "you" with "the City" 4:11 is correct. 4:05 is also correct in that the citizens are largely innocent. The citizens can only vote on what's presented. Unfortunately, the citizens have no say with the Judge. The citizen's intent will be inferred through the actions of the city. 4:46 is incorrect - the judge doesn't care why the city has gotten into this mess. The judge only cares about moving compliance forward, and will do so unilaterally. Let's all keep our fingers crossed........
DeleteWhat are you crossing your fingers for and hoping will happen, 3:29?
DeleteWhat I would like to see is the city be given 60 days to formulate a plan that meets HCD requirements and that the judge can accept. It will be ugly, it will please no one, but it will move us forward. I don't want any kind of moratorium on building - too many innocent folks wanting to do remodels, tenant build-outs and other stuff get trapped by that. But I'm not holding my breath....
Delete6:20 such a plan would please residents who want only to meet HCD requirements and not an inch more. The unhappy ones would be the hamstrung council members shut out of keeping their developers happy. And the L7 NIMBYs, we can't forget them.
Delete120-day moratorium, and unless a plan is filed with HCD concurrence, then Measure T and U combined will be imposed.
DeleteYou may not like it, but that's exactly what will happen
Measure T AND U? My, but you do drool.
DeleteOverheard at this morning coming out of Kranz's satisfied mouth: "Prop A is dead in the water."
ReplyDeleteThe city will no doubt join Tenants United and the BIA in their requests to invalidate Prop A on housing element updates.
Nice to have our electeds respect our wishes, isn't it.
When you abuse Prop A to this extent, it very well should be dead in the water. It was developed as a NIMBY tool and remains one today. And now a judge is going to unravel it. Your electeds don't respect your wishes, because your wishes are not for the good of the people or our community. Even though you think they are.
DeleteThe city abused it us and you know it, 10:43. Prop A was never a NIMBY tool, it was a "what the heck is being approved left and right in our fair city?" check and balance.
DeleteHad developers not pushed the greed limits with Norby recommending 4-5 stories in 2012 and our city not agreeing back in 2010 with SANDAG that 5-7 stories on El Camino Real was a great idea, Prop A never would have come about.
But you know all that.
If you're not Tony posting and are instead a city worker or shill, just know that your "local boy" Tony is going to be out next election. He'd better start planning ahead as to how he'll earn his money come 2020.
10:43 here. All I know is that you've got two weeks to come up with a SOLUTION rather than just whining about every single plan you're presented with. And if you can't come up with one, the judge will render his decision. Good luck appealing a court-ordered housing element that is mandated by California State Law. At a certain point, you can't just keep saying NO to everything, without proposing something that you would say YES to.
DeleteAgain, you have two weeks. I suggest you start thinking about what is most important to you.
Oh, I don't have two weeks to come up with anything. The voters who just said NO to U are shut out of the process. You clearly don't understand how hearings work, so excuse me if I tune you out.
DeleteAnd to reiterate something you're probably aware of, but refuse to acknowledge: we had come up with a plan together with the city until the city started hearing from its developers and holding secret meetings with them and doing a 180 to resurrect measure T. The city pulled the rug out from under trusting residents with Measure U.
12:55, You really need to calm yourself down. No one wants or needs your half-baked advice. Stop threatening the No voters and foaming at the mouth. Don't worry about what others do or don't do, worry about yourself.
commenting from the sidelines....
DeleteWhat happened before Measures T and U? Certainly complaining about the most recent attempts is warranted, but there is another 30 years of history here that you are neglecting to own.
The City has never wanted to comply.
The city has always wanted to comply, but by screwing the voters. The city has always wanted to help its developer friends at the expense of residents. That's why the city faces opposition every time.
DeleteWhy the city doesn't want to put a passing housing element update in front of voters is for them to answer.
The city didn't even have a draft document from mid 90s to 2012. How can you say that the City WANTED to comply. There wasn't even any effort.
DeleteYou're off by two years, 8:35. The wanted to comply by screwing voters at least since 2010 when they had the stupid "visioning exercise" where the surveys were shelved when it was found they didn't match what the developers were screaming for.
DeletePre-2010 - anyone, anyone?
"You want to know the real NIMBYs who killed Measure U for you? Not the people who really are offended by the lack of required affordable housing, but the Quail Gardens Dr. bigots who complained that low-income earners would sully their fancy neighborhood."
ReplyDeleteI am a homeowner near Quail Gardens, in an older non-high-end neighborhood, where the little people live. The one where the people in the 3,000 sq. ft two-story homes behind us sued my neighbor for trying to add a second story to their 800 sq. ft. home. I have no doubts that there is a "not in my neighborhood" element, but I voted against measure U because:
1. It concentrated the development in a few small areas, especially Quail Gardens. I'm not against the development, it's inevitable, but a few hundred units in such a small area seems unreasonable. I noticed that part of the plan for Quail Gardens area was to add gates to the adjacent high-end communities. Not mine of course, which already has a serious parking issue due to overflow from the apartment complexes down the street.
2. Does not have any real requirements to include affordable or low income housing. Developers have the option to pay a fee in lieu of including the required 1 low income unit per every 10 units. And the developer gets to set the price for those low income units, and controls who the unit is marketed too. Measure U would have given developers carte blanche to do whatever they want.
3. The parking requirements for "low income" units is 1 space for a 1.5 bedroom unit. 1.5 spaces for a 2 bedroom unit, assuming low income folks will walk, bike, or take the city bus. I am all for public transportation, but it's not reasonable to impose that limitation on small subset of the population. I dare anyone on city council to take the city bus to work for a week and see how that goes. Or try riding a bike down the length of Encinitas Blvd during commute times and see how that goes. The reality is that everyone has a car, and a 2 bedroom home will have at least 2 cars. Where is the parking overflow going to spill over to? And no guest parking? really?
That is not what your upstanding neighbors said when opposing L7 at city hall.
DeleteWhen they arrived at city hall in droves, publicly promising the three helpful councilmen with whom they met privately to help pass Measure U in exchange for removing L7, they gave everyone on your street a bad name.
Good for you for voting against Measure U for all the right reasons.
I agree with 3:02 pm regarding folks who spoke out against L-7 at city hall; they gave everyone on that street a bad name.
ReplyDeleteI watched as each of these folks (some hid their NIMBY sentiments better than others) stood up to speak in turn. Disappointing. But I can understand why they did what they did and spoke how they spoke. I don't have to like it, but I get it.
But even more disappointing was the lack of leadership and transparency that led to the removal of L-7 from the Housing Element. Once that happened, there was no way I was going to vote for Measure U (I was also turned off from Measure U by the developer-friendly provisions and the broadside against Prop A).
I hope that the court puts the heaviest burden of the Housing Element on L-7, in part because it is city owned land that can be controlled more than other parcels by the city but also to make a point to all of those whiners on Quail Garden: you are not solely in charge of L-7 (all of us have a say in its use).
Perhaps Measure U would have passed if L-7 had stayed on and if Prop A had not been threatened....
The Measure U opposition sure would have had a reason to stay home had L7 stayed on and Prop A not been included.
DeleteThe trend on the gap between the "Yes" and "No" vote keeps increasing. As of today, Tuesday, Nov. 20, it's up to 1,498. No = 14,643 Yes = 13,145 with 112,000 outstanding ballots countywide still to be counted.
ReplyDeleteThe trend on the gap between the "Yes" and "No" vote still keeps increasing. As of today, Thursday, Nov. 22, it's up to 1,560. No = 14,897 Yes = 13,337 with 84,000 outstanding ballots countywide still to be counted.
ReplyDelete