Former Mayor Sheila Cameron:
Encinitas residents have no problem with conforming to state law guidelines. It is what the City Council itself has voted to include that made Measure U untenable. As one citizen stated to the Council, "We trust the state more than we trust you." That was a clear signal to the council that they were proceeding in the wrong direction. Here are the main issues voters had with Measure U:
1. Height: Our City Council requires 33- to 42-foot-tall buildings. The Housing & Community Development Department (HCD), the state agency, has no height recommendation. Proposition A -- the Right to Vote Initiative that allows us to vote on density and height of projects, requires 30 feet. Presentations were given at City Council meetings, to the mayor and council members showing buildings that were build locally, demonstrating that three stories can be built within the 30-foot height limit with the required 30 units per acre. Otis builds elevators at 28.5 feet that fit into a 30-foot structure. Despite repeated speeches and demonstrations by the public, the mayor and council proceeded with this huge height increase that only catered to developers wishes.
Current Mayor Catherine Blakespear:
Now that I've been re-elected with nearly 84 percent of the vote, I'm happy to continue letting you know in this column what we are working on at city hall. I'm honored by your overwhelming support!Pick up a hard copy of the Coast News to read the whole thing.
[...]
My feeling remans that, in our two attempts, the city worked in good faith with tremendous dedication of time and resources to develop a housing plan that both met the state requirements and addressed community concerns about design standards and site selections.
Of course Blakespear has to make people know she won by 84%. She sounds defensive. Her skin is as thin as it comes.
ReplyDeleteShe is truly living on another planet if she thinks the city worked in good faith with residents, which is what she's trying to imply. She'll never admit that 53% of the voters disagree with her statement on their behalf.
And considering her disagreement over L7 with the three male stooges, she cannot claim she addressed community concerns over site selection. Design standards is an equally loud laugh.
Good on Cameron for providing reality as a counterpoint to Blakespear's fantasy.
Blakespear should not reference her margin of victory - her opponent was a nutty guy with his dog. The fact he got any votes at all show that Blakespear was a default candidate. She is in the pockets of the developers, maintaining a long standing tradition of bought and paid off council people and Mayors.
ReplyDeleteAnd she's consolidating power, no doubt about that. Needs to be broken next round.
DeleteAgree on that margin of victory and mentioning it. Given her opponent, it should have been very close to 100%.
DeleteBlakespear always comes off as insecure. She can't stop boasting and overloads her newsletters with photos of herself. It's overkill.
DeleteCoastNews is a TOOL for Blakespear by giving her an article in their paper. I'm so disappointed in a paper I once loved! Maybe it's time to boycott CoastNews!
ReplyDeleteWrite the owners. They are listening. While somewhat reluctant to interfere with the editor (who no doubt is lobbied and threatened nonstop by the city), the owners are getting concerned.
DeleteAlso watch the reporting. Some reporters are less biased than others.
I'm not a fan or supporter of Cameron, but I would vote and support her by walking my neighborhood over Fakespear! This last election, my only option for Mayor was between two people who had bad ideas, one was crazy and the other was bat-ass crazy. The crazy one with bad ideas was elected. The other is mammalizing!
ReplyDeleteAs a mammal, I resemble that remark!
ReplyDeleteThey're not editorials. An editorial would be an opinion piece the Coast News publisher or managing editor wrote and put his byline on.
ReplyDeleteIn other newspapers, the Cameron and Blakespear pieces would be called op-eds. That term was coined because the pieces first appeared on the page opposite the editorials page.
In the Coast News, the opinion pieces are called Community Commentaries. Anybody who can write a series of cogent sentences can submit a Community Commentary once a month. That's what Blakespear does.
In the dueling Commentaries on Measure U, Cameron is right and Blakespear is wrong. Blakespear is almost always wrong. Her crowing about her win in the election is ridiculous and pathetic. If she had had a real opponent, she would have lost. That would have been good for Encinitas.
Thanks. Headline corrected.
DeleteWhy would you boycott the CoastNews, just boycott their advertisers. Hit the biggest one first! I'm watching!!! Just be fair and balanced Mr. Kydd, it's not that difficult.
ReplyDelete9:22 The City of Encinitas is CoastNews biggest advertiser - look at the back. They are the only thing keeping this paper in business. They have to be nice and provide that article space to the Mayor or they could lose their paper. The city should split up their notification/advertisers needs to others. THIS JUST LOOKS BAD FOR THE CITY AND COASTNEWS!
ReplyDeleteYell much, 10:10?
DeleteBlakespear's piece is a Community Commentary just like anybody else's. Even 10:10 could write one and submit it if he/she has anything valuable to say.
DeleteStocks threatened to pull the city's legal notices from the Coast News and got nowhere.
Cameron’s statement that HCD doesn’t have a height recommendation is disingenuous. The state legislation depends on the market to build the housing which you may not agree with but that is how its structured. While HCD doesn’t formally specify many development standards such as height, they do evaluate housing elements for feasibility. Since land and construction costs vary across the state one size doesn’t fit all. In Encinitas’ case, being a coastal city, land prices are high. So HCD will evaluate our housing element to see if the locations and development standards are realistic. And they hear from the development community about the feasibility of those standards. Like it or not, that goes into HCD’s review and decision whether or not to certify.
ReplyDeleteHCD will evaluate our height limit, that is true. In task force meetings HCD expert consulting attorney Kautz suggested we could try 33' with HCD. Kautz is always straightforward if she thinks something won't fly with HCD, but in this case she said give it a try. That would have given virtually no Prop A supporters any heartburn.
DeleteInstead, in an attempt to appease the city, Bruce Ehlers threw out 35'. That is the number the Planning Commission ultimately recommended. Most Prop A defenders would not have opposed 35'. Again, Kautz encouraged Blakespear to go to HCD with that number.
But after developers cried, whined, and stood on their heads at the subsequent Council hearing, Blakespear went with 37', 42' with a peaked roof. HCD did not have a gun to her head.
Unless you can do what Development Services director Wisneski can't - produce a written opinion from HCD - then all our suppositions are worth zilch.
Point being: the city knew what it wanted which was the same as what its developer handlers wanted. That was made clear when for no good reason, Blakespear sailed past what our own Planning Commission and consulting attorney said we should do and went with what developers demanded. Kautz's recommendations to try a lower height with HCD went ignored.
So between the developers' greed and the city's greed, we're in this terrible place. And Blakespear will swear to the end that residents who shot down T and U are to blame. And we will never know what HCD would or would not have accepted.
One of the reasons for HCD's subsequent July 5 memo was its concern for the development standards being proposed, including height. They were hearing from developers that the proposed height limit was unrealistic. I think the council went ahead and raised it to allay HCD's concern given the little time left to get it on the November ballot. I'm not saying I agree with their decision. However, I don't agree with the "its developer handlers wanted" characterization.
DeleteWas HCD hearing equally hard from our city that we could put together an acceptable plan that was not dictated by developers?
Delete"The council went ahead and raised it to allay..." is the problem right there. Zero will to fight for our residents and city, 100% will to back down and appease.
The council had plenty of time to get its act together, but instead it dragged its feet even as Kautz was encouraging them to go for it. The short time left at the end was council-created.
You can disagree all you like, but the proof is in our council's lack of leadership and lack of determination to protect our town. There is no evidence to the contrary.
We'll find out this Wednesday the result of the "will to fight for our residents and city" including the cost.
ReplyDeleteOh, it'll go against us (residents) to be sure. There is no will at city hall to represent us, which means the city, BIA, and TU are all lined up squarely against us.
DeleteAll three asked the judge to step over Prop A and impose Measure U (T, in the BIA's case - they liked the reduced design standards better in T). No one was there to speak for residents.
Any cost is on the council members. They simply cannot run an honest update to save their lives. I mean, really: what did they think would happen??
1:19 PM
Delete"There is no will at city hall to represent us" So what legal arguments should the city have made? Be specific, no generalities. The city originally argued to let the HE go to a second vote which the judge did. It was clear after Measure U lost that the judge wasn't going to wait for a third election. It was only then that the city asked the judge to impose Measure U because they didn't want the judge to impose any harsher conditions that was being recommended by the plaintiffs.
Old ground, already asked and answered. If you really are this clueless, let us refer you to the many threads on the topic.
DeleteAre you Marco? If not, let me commend you on a good imitation of his aggressive, goading style.
And the short answer? The representation should have started before Measure T, at the very least when the task farce began.
Delete4:30 PM
Delete"Old ground, already asked and answered" So you've got nothing and the best you can do is say if I'm not Marco, which I'm not, I'm trying to imitate him. How lame.
You have your answers in the threads on this topic. Don't be so lazy. The rest of us are not going to cut up your food for you by reiterating months of debate.
DeleteDo your homework and report back on any legal arguments YOU think the city should have made.
7:54 AM
DeleteSame old lame excuse. I see you can't formulate a legal argument. I have been following the threads and nobody has proposed a realistic argument.
Where is Bruce Ehlers on this Measure? I understand that he agrees with the city. If not, why hasn't he fought with us?
ReplyDeleteHe voted no. He's also hoping against hope the city will not violate Prop A. Figure that one out.
DeleteCameron is tilting at windmills, and Blakespear is playing the cards she's dealt. Cameron is an idealist, and Blakespear is a pragmatist. Cameron is looking short term, Blakespear is looking long term. Cameron wants things to stay as they are, Blakespear is looking for a solution. Cameron's appeal and message is very seductive - who doesn't want change?!?!? But change is here, it's at the door, it's been waiting patiently to come in, but no more. Folks, Encinitas is cornered.
ReplyDeleteI was looking at some old pictures of Lone Jack, back in the '70's - who remembers that area? Hunt, fish, ride horses and motorcycles, star gazing - you know - all that community character stuff we all enjoy. Well, we certainly can't go back to that, can we..........
Previous propaganda comments brought to you thru DCM and friends.
DeleteBlakespear is playing the cards she stacked, let's be clear on that.
DeleteThis "people fear change" argument that Shaffer, Blakespear, and now Hubbard use makes no point whatsoever. It doesn't address real and compelling concerns and is the cheapest and least valid way to get out of addressing an issue.
I disagree 12:04. This mess was started and probably reached its point of no return long before Blakespear showed up. When you take into consideration all the articles, commentaries, blog comments, testimony, polling, cocktail chatter and banter while waiting for the next set there is no unifying reason why we don't have a housing element. Height, parking, "I have no problem with affordable housing", "It doesn't include any affordable housing", L7, congestion, traffic, stack & pack, "why are we subsidizing what we all worked so hard to achieve", and greedy developers have all been used to defeat HEU's. The only "real and compelling" concern here is change. There's no consensus! There simply is no public buy-in.....and that's why we're in court. And it's certainly not the cheapest way to get there. As for valid, like I said before - that concept disappeared a long time ago.
DeleteThis was exacerbated by Prop A which, despite was the proponents say about past abuses, was really a preemptive attempt to constrain the housing element. Now you may be a supporter of Prop A and don't trust the council but Prop A is what got us to this point and cost us all these legal fees (both ours and the plaintiffs) not to mention the cost of preparing multiple unsuccessful housing elements. So the onus isn't just on the council.
DeleteYou got that dead wrong, 1:55. Prop A never anticipated the mass upzones from affordable housing law. If it had, it would not have allowed any upzones other than for affordable to be slipped in. The way things work now, any developer will just wait until the next cycle, schmooze the council, and get an upzone included under the guise of "affordable housing law," just as Meyer or whomever is doing with L7.
DeleteProp A was in reaction to a runaway, rubber-stamping city hall. Prior councils created Prop A. Prior councils ensured it would pass.
Prop A only requires a vote. A bad plan is what ensures it fails. And Blakespear was there for T and U and both times sided with developer wishes.
Anti-U folks could have pushed for all the were worth and U would still have passed had the council not failed us on the percent affordability, L7, secretive behavior that made people think something was wrong, and the height that exceeded the Planning Commission's recommendation - a height that Blakespear admitted to a task force member she voted for in anger at what public speakers were saying about the plan.
5:50 PM
Delete"Prop A never anticipated the mass upzones from affordable housing law" The hell it didn't.
Believe what you like, 9:01. You obviously weren't there when Prop A first came about. I can tell you with certainty that the topic never came up as a goal or was even recognized at the time as applying. It was the overblown, code-breaking projects popping up citywide that brought about Prop A.
DeleteEven Tony, who now hates A but in whose living room it was born, will tell you affordable housing law was never discussed.
I won't say its application to HEUs did not come as a pleasant surprise. Those we've been presented with so far are such scam it's been nice not to have them forced on us without choice.
10:04 AM
Delete"You obviously weren't there when Prop A first came about." Oh please. I frequently debated with those signature gatherers about Prop A (I didn't sign). If you go thru all the general plan amendments you'd be hard pressed to identify any that could be considered abuses. Prop A came on the heels of the full general plan draft update in 2011 with its proposed increased density along the ECR, Encinitas Blvd & Santa Fe. I'm not saying I support the 2011 draft, I'm just saying that's what spurred Prop A which is the reason why we're in the current predicament. While you may believe it was the right thing to do you also own where we are today. At least have the courage to own up to it.
10:04 - Your "pleasant surprise" is really a rather Pyrrhic victory, isn't it? After all, now a judge gets to decide. If affordable housing were truly the noble goal that many have stated it is you would think someone would have proffered an exclusion for zoning changes related solely to said housing?
DeleteAgree with you on the victory.
DeleteAffordable housing was never part of Prop A's goals. Prop A merely sought to restore our original General Plan right to vote on increases in density and height. Prop A doesn't care about the type of housing.
Prop A supporters as a rule are much more concerned about overdevelopment from McMansions than affordable housing. But you are confusing Prop A's goals and what should have been the HEU's goals.
This is what happens when you're late to the discussion and jump to conclusions: you get everything jumbled up.
11:10 - I'm not late to the discussion.....I agree that A supporters didn't have affordable housing in mind when they drafted the legislation, but the issue was there. Perhaps call it an unintended consequence of A that it now is one of the barriers to building affordable housing. So can A be tweaked to to allow an exception for rezoning to accommodate affordable housing? In the instant, the question is moot since a judge is at the helm. But what about next time?
DeleteRemember the brouhaha over Measure T's language about Prop A not applying to the city meeting state mandates.
DeletePeople forget the original general plan was adopted by council not a vote of the people. The council subsequently added the language to allow amendments by a 4/5 council vote. The threat of Prop A caused the council to remove that provision but the impetus of Prop A was the draft general plan update which included the housing element and upzoning along the corridors to meet state affordability requirements. I know because I have talked with Prop A proponents. You may not have been conscious of why the higher density was being proposed but that was the reason and Prop A wanted to stop that believing (correctly) that it would never be approved if had to be subjected to a popular vote. You got what you wanted and now you have to live with the consequences.
The judge wont' implement just measure U as that action would also be contrary to the written law, as well as the intent.
ReplyDeleteThe judge will send it back tot he city to adopt something that is HCD-reviewed and compliant with law. The judge will give the city 120 days to do it. No CEQA or voter approval needed.
The City meanwhile will be under a moratorium to the fullest extent. During this time, no electrical permits, AC units, etc will be permitted. This means all of the re-roofs needed to repair leaks will not be issued.
As the city learns of these hardships, the general population will start to ask how did this happen. I expect heads to turn to internal leadership as well as council, wondering why Measure U never complied and why it was even submitted to voters in the first place.
Remember, Encinitas will be made an example. And the process has to be consistent with law. I don't think 2018 will end peachy for a few.
"The City meanwhile will be under a moratorium to the fullest extent" while this and my comment are speculation, neither plaintiff recommended a full moratorium with the BIA recommending none.
DeleteTenants United recommended a moratorium on all building except affordable. In this town that is in reality a full moratorium.
DeleteAlso, Planning and Zoning Laws require a adequate GP to issue permits.
DeleteI don't see how a judge would just partially implement laws.
You need a legal GP to do work in any city in the state of CA. Just because the plaintiff wants partial, buffet law serving, doesn't mean that he/she will get it.
It's simple, just add L-7 back and go from there! Catherine and Jody is already there, we just 1 more to join them.
ReplyDeleteFirst remove the 7 ways to get out of building affordable that would apply to L7 and THEN go from there. But that is too easy and though it would be the right thing, Catherine will never go against her developers. She runs too scared and in addition, is waaayyy too tight with Marco and Harrison, to name just two. Way too tight.
DeleteJudgement is out: Prop A is enjoined for this cycle only, must get HCD certification, no moratorium at this time and complete in 120 days.
ReplyDelete