Voice of San Diego:
A San Diego County Superior Court judge on Wednesday temporarily suspended an Encinitas law that gave voters final say over land-use decisions and prevented the city from putting a state-mandated plan in place for affordable housing.
[...]
Attorneys for Encinitas had asked the court to order Measure U, the housing plan that failed at the ballot box in November, into law, but Frazier declined. He also declined to provide any specific guidance on the scope of the city’s plan and where the new units should go.
And from the
comments on last night's council meeting:
Lawyer wants to submit Measure U with some adjustments to HCD. Council votes to do that.
Well, this sets an interesting precedent for the next housing cycle. All the City has to do is keep submitting developer friendly HEUs to be rejected by the voters, and eventually a judge will just let them impose the HEU anyway.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is dead in Encinitas.
Long live the dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteBlakespear no doubt it gathering input from her "stakeholders" to make the plan even less attractive to voters. But what do we matter, anyway?
ReplyDeleteBlakespear, like her hero Shaffer before her, knows what's best for residents.
What 9:28 said about democracy.
From what I understand, the City has one chance to get it right with HCD due to court imposed deadline of status at day 90. You would think the City would be a little more thoughtful and make sure they get it right.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I heard that zoning standards have to be included or HCD will reject it.
This is a very big failure. Instead a trophy of glory, the city has become an example of what not to do with civic government. How is there no fall out from this?
ReplyDeleteWhat! Is El Presidente Mayor Blakespear and her generalissimos Kranz, Mosca, Hubbard, and Horvath changing the Encinitas sign to Welcome to the dictatorship of Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteHere's a response to one of my posts on an earlier thread - I thought that it correctly describes the current situation and how we got here - thank you December 12, 9:19:
ReplyDeleteRemember the brouhaha over Measure T's language about Prop A not applying to the city meeting state mandates.
People 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 consequences depend on who's in power. True representatives would not demand the judge impose Measure U against electorate wishes. True representatives would not look the other way as city workers meet behind closed doors to create the plan together with developers. I could go on, but you get the idea.
DeleteOut next time: Blakespear, Kranz, lap-dog appointee TBD.
@ 10:09 AM You don't have the Prop. A history quite right. The group that wrote, gathered signatures, and ran the campaign knew exactly what the were doing. There had been willy-nilly upzoning going on in the city not related to generating affordable housing. I was at the original meeting attended by many people at Tony Kranz's house to begin what became Prop. A. Later after getting on the council Kranz flipped and said he wanted to kill Prop. A. Laws were changed in Sacramento because no cities were building much affordable housing. Sadly this is still the case. No cities are meeting their RHNA requirements.
Delete12:15 PM
Delete"There had been willy-nilly upzoning going on in the city not related to generating affordable housing." That is categorically false. I know because at the time signatures were being collected for what became Prop A I went through all the amendments and found only one that might be considered questionable but the new zoning didn't stand out from the surrounding properties. Prop A was proactive not reactive.
I agree with 7:55. 12:15 has no idea what she/he is talking about.
DeleteThere were no rezonings occurring at the time, expect for the city's general plan update. One application.
In retrospect, all the NIMBYs in New Encinitas are no better than the NIMBY L-7 group. So don't throw stones at only them.
Also, the General Plan update made a whole lot more sense than Measure T and U.
Precedent has now been set.
ReplyDeleteBy including the upzoning of L7 from RR1 to R3 in this HEU, City Council has established a legal path to do any kitchen sink upzoning they want without voter approval simply by bundling it into an HEU and asking a judge to cram the whole package through.
Prop A is effectively dead now.
Tony's dream come true.
DeleteIf this judge ever comes up for a vote, DUMP him!
DeleteThe L7 upzoning to R-3 was not part of the housing element even though it was included in Measure U. Unless it is put back in as one of the housing element sites it will have to go back for a vote as the judge's Prop A injunction only applies to the housing element.
Delete8:02, wrong.
DeleteThe upzoning of L7 is getting crammed through even though it has zero to do with state law.
9:47 AM
DeleteUnless the city incorporates L7 back in to the housing element at R30, it is in violation of Prop A. They can't try to upzone it to R3 as that would have no impact on meeting the city's affordability need. The only reason it was on Measure U was to mollify the surrounding neighborhood. Since R3 would do nothing towards getting a certified housing element, the judge's ruling has no effect on it. To try to sneak it through would invite a successful lawsuit.
This is a perfect example of why voting means nothing when someone in a dirty black robe can ignore the will of the people. And yes L7 upzone from RR1 to R3????
ReplyDeleteThe gloves are off.
Dirty is the council who cozy up to developers and turn a cold shoulder to residents.
DeleteTasha even had the gall to call us "those people" in a meeting. We were nervy enough to ask for greater affordability, lower heights, and the omission of the city's Prop A-killer clause. You know, everything the developer community was whining they just had to have.
From the comments on the Coast News article about the Roberta Walker bicycle accident:
DeleteEli 2 hours ago
I was one of the first people to stop on the scene of this accident, yes it is tragic but the bike in question had no lights or reflectors on it and the rider was not wearing a Reflective vest. We need to improve safety for bike riding no question but this accident was at dawns light and bikers need to play their part in the work of safety on the 101. I wish Miss Walker a Swift recovery.
Well, now that we've heard it third hand anonymously via the internet, I guess it must be true.
DeleteSo there you have it, assuming Eli was one of the first on the scene and is telling the truth.
DeleteNo lights or reflectors on the bike or rider, pre-dawn darkness. Previous news reports said the tragic accident happened in front of the Leucadia post office, and the rider was heading south. The post office is at the corner of Phoebe, the rider lives on Phoebe.
So all the folks who have used the tragedy to push their agenda have something to think about. The finger-pointing and shameful blood-on-your-hands accusations don't apply.
Riders have to take responsibility for their own safety: Lights, reflectors, helmets, alternate routes away from traffic. Stop blaming drivers for your own negligence.
Cars and trucks make up more than 90 percent of the road use. Bicyclists are vulnerable due to their inherent disadvantage. They're outnumbered, outweighed and not encased in steel. They should be safety aware for their own protection and stop self-righteously demonizing drivers.
So much for the will of the people. I guess residents can't make the determination of how their community should look. A clear victory for the developers. Follow the money.
DeleteFailure,Failure,Failure. The city of Encinitas is a FAILURE!!
ReplyDeleteFailed leadership.
Failed councilmembers.
Failed Mayors.
Failed staff.
FAILURE.
How do you spell FAILURE?? You spell it CITY OF ENCINITAS.
You should move. That way you can live out the rest of your life happy. Who wants to live in FAILURE?
Delete2:33pm-
ReplyDeleteBetter Idea. I will campaign big time to vote out these sellouts on City Council. What a sad farce. They support a City Manager that is going against the City Populist and does nothing to get needed projects done.
The City would have much less people in the ICU and recovery if the city manager and staff would get the 10 year old project done. Where is the accountability?
Roberta's and the others run over on Hwy101 over the last 2 years were not necessary. Someone should be accountable lack of progress to address a known hazard. How many more will be mowed over before the City addresses the issue?
The City screwed the pouch on this one and we all will pay out big time for its incompetence. I'm so pissed that the Mayor supports this total incompetent team. She is clearly the head of the problem. Vote out the status quo - Impeach Fakespear.
Four of the five councilmembers signed the last two developer paydays: Measure T and Measure U.
DeleteNot sure about Roberta, that may have been unavoidable with or without streetscape. Waiting for the official word from the sheriff.
Agree the buck stops with Blakespear.
Guess what? The same crappy situation that the City produced on Hwy 101 exists right now even thought we know it is deadly for users. What is the City doing about it beside setting up more sad incidents and payouts to those impacted by the incompetence?
ReplyDeleteWhat a great Mayor and City Council right?
Great Job Fakespear- Welcome section 8 to our City, put a police station on the beach, don't do shit about quiet zones, completely fuck up the streetscape, give the worst City Manager praise and raise, and set the City up for big millions in losses for the refusal to address a noticed for decades and known hazard. WTF?
ReplyDeleteBlood all over the your hands.
The judge will get extra caviar at the Ecke Christmas party.
ReplyDeletePersonally, the judge let the city off pretty easy. Could have overturned Prop A in its entirety and could have imposed a moratorium.
DeleteMmmm if he could have, he would have. Why do you think he stopped short of doing as you seem to think he could (and should) have, 8:45?
DeleteDont expect the judge to impose a plan that isn't specifically tied to what was enjoined. There is no legal precedent for carte blanch overwrite of Prop A, thereby allowing the city to rezone lands not tied to State Housing Element law implementation. Such as rezoning Site L-7, just because.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that this will be the biggest failure of the city. The EIR work was trash, and the public process with Measure U was trash, Council trading sites at the last minute was trash, etc. But this will be the undoing of City management and leaders. I saw earlier that the city has essentially one shot with HCD and reporting to the judge. And still, what they are working on doesn't comply. They deliberately blew it.
As a result the City will be issued a stop order on all building permit processing and approvals and the judge will actually impose a plan, without city contact. I think the judicial grace and patience will be gone.
And so will City management.
8:49 - that's too logical. I bet L-7 will be in the final plan.
DeleteAlthough I can't provide comment on process issues - I do think management salary should be reduced. Especially now we are hitting another recession. They don't deserve to be in the "middle of the pack" of salaries in the region. And I know a couple of people working at the city that feel the same way. That should tell you something.
Agree they deliberately blew it, although another part of me thinks about how inept and developer-loving "staff" is. That's a bad combo.
DeleteThis will be the council's undoing, for sure. Anyone up in two years will be out. Plans afoot already so get ready Blakespear, Kranz, Blakespear2.
The judge did not give the city enough time. HCD takes so much time, and the city needs time to respond with changes. It's a slow process. So we are stuck with Measure U. I would have loved to add L-7 and remove Avocado Acres. I think a majority of council would favor that too. I feel bad for Avocado Acres. I hope L-7 is added in the next cycle. It will be very hard to trade that site for another site to build 130(?) 100% affordable units. That Bolger fellow is a total liar. He does not care about affordable housing, nor do his neighbors. I would respect him more if had said we want you to support Measure U because L-7 is not on it. The pretense that he cares makes me want L-7 to have 60 units/acre!
ReplyDeleteThere'll be no next time. Meyer gets to build McMansions on the L7 lot that will be upzoned to R3. It will not be on the map next time. Bolger (sp?) will get just what he and his neighbors want.
DeleteThe woman who owns the plant shop on QGD calls Meyer a "hero" over on Encinitas Votes.
The one time I went in her shop, she told me her life story and started sobbing and I had to hug her 3 times. What a kook!! And a NIMBY to boot.
DeleteBlakespear has NO control over the staff other than giving them what they want in pay raises. Maybe, they should get paid for performance. What a concept!!!
ReplyDeleteThe council influences the staff through the city manager and the city attorney. They are the only two city employees the council hires directly.
DeleteDon't you have control if you control pay scale?
DeleteMayor and the City Council hire and fire the City Manager. She just gave the worst City Manager in the region praise and a raise. Blakespear should be recalled and the City Council should fire the City Manager that staff hates and can not seem to get anything done that benefits the residents.
ReplyDeleteIf your a developer or a bar owner, your sitting pretty. She is working hard for your interests. The rest of us are screwed.
10:25
ReplyDeleteFigure out the difference between your and you're.
Either way, residents are screwed.
DeleteIts a blog, dumbass. Not a masters thesis.
DeleteWith this bad leadership the residents are screwed!
Staff is pushing and the City Council is blessing the stack and pack and bar city style Enginitas like Huntington Beach and Pacific Beach.
Next election vote against all incumbents and vote in the responsible / slow growth candidates.
The difference between your and you’re isn’t masters thesis-level English, it’s third grade.
DeleteIf you want your ideas to be taken seriously, demonstrate that you successfully completed elementary school.
Either way, residents are screwed.
DeleteWhen you have nothing, you can always comment on grammar.
DeleteEither way the residents are screwed and the developers and bar owners own the City Council and staff.
When the quality of your thinking is shit, you can always express your ideas in bad English.
Deleteor just don't care because its only a blog. Go out and enjoy our beautiful town today before it becomes HB.
Delete-Grammar Mom is a depressed old bag
So what if it's a blog, 10:03?
DeleteThat gives you permission to show your shit thinking?
Yes. Its better then your old hag nagging about something that doesn't matter.
Delete*some people are clueless
10:17 — OK, you've admitted there's dog poop where your brain should be. That explains why you don't know third-grade English. It also sets the quality level of your thinking.
DeleteOK- You've admitted you do not understand shit. Good luck with the rest of your hag life.
DeleteIf one doesn’t like being treated like an ignorant dumbass, one can choose to become and act like something other than an ignorant dumbass.
DeleteIf special interests are waylayed in their financial ambitions by a contrary vote of the collective, just buy off a black robe to override it. So much for the democratic principle.
ReplyDeleteJust commenting from the sidelines - someone above said that 120 days wasn't enough time to develop a compliant HE. And the commenter blames the judge. First of all, from what I was told, the city has spent 6 years working on this. Also we have essentially waited 45 days since the election to do anything. We all knew it didn't pass on November 7.
ReplyDeleteI blame the CM for not being proactive. Also the Council. So sad. So sad that the failure of few is going to change this city forever.
120 days is just enough time to push the measure U that the citizens rejected through HCD and add whatever sites they demand.
DeleteSpeaking of not being proactive, take a trip to the Beacon's
ReplyDeleteparking lot and observe the new 8 ft. strip of asphalt that sunk down about 1 inch in the last 48 hours. It's right where the guardrail is bent and ready to slide down the hill. Message to City Council: you're going to need more black outfits if something isn't done soon.
I'm still waiting for Peter Stern, a retired attorney, to admit that he was wrong when he wrote several years ago in the Coast News, right before the Measure T election, that a judge would never do what Judge Frazier just did. And if you think that was two years ago so why bring it up now, it's because Peter lead the No on U effort.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for Peder Norby to admit he lied when he claimed he didn't suggest 5 story buildings in this town, yet there it is for all to see on You Tube. One man is trying to help this city, the other is trying to help developers.
ReplyDeleteThank you 1:15, well said.
DeleteAny attorney you asked two years ago gave the same answer Peter did: no judge will ever overturn an election result.
I'm still waiting for the council to admit it caused the No on T and U results by putting bloated development plans in front of voters. I'm not holding my breath though, they'll rationalize till the cows come home.