Because one of the council majority has privately expressed desires to avoid a public vote on specific prospective upzones to multiple people, it is a good idea to see the council's version locked up before the special election.
More importantly, it will force the real issues with Prop A to be clarified. The big question seems to be how many items of the vague list of unintended consequences brought up by many of those objecting would also apply to the council's initiative.
The only council member that I'm aware of that has openly communicated widely with the public about her specific concerns, other than the somewhat dubious statements in the ballot arguments, is Lisa Schaeffer. Lisa scores some points for trying to bridge the understanding gap. Most people think that she believes what she has stated. When confronted with contradicting information she seems to actively attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies. More on this later. She seems primarily concerned about the height provisions.
A week after inquiring, Barth has responded to the question of what she sees as negative consequences of Prop A. A week later, Barth simply pointed me to the ballot arguments (to be posted later) without anymore explanation. Many, if not most, of the negative consequences in the ballot statement are questionable. I've requested a meeting with the Mayor to discuss the validity of the objections in the ballot argument. I'm hoping that meeting will be an open meeting that the public could attend.
Barth was already good enough to share the timeline for the council's right to vote initiative. That is found below:
Here is the process to amend the General Plan...as explained to me:Would that be silly?
1. Receive direction from city council relative to initiate the amendment. Done at April 10 meeting.
2. City staff creates a Planning Case file and formal analysis. Staff then prepares a report with a recommendation. Because the amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment, it is exempt from environmental review.
3. A Planning Commission public hearing is noticed (10 days) and held. After reviewing the proposal, staff report & public testimony the PC makes a recommendation to city council. Tentative date: May 16 regular PC meeting.
4. A city council public hearing is noticed (10 days) and held. The council reviews all items received by the PC, receives public testimony and makes a determination to approve or deny the proposal. No date set yet.
5. The GP amendment is not a component of the Local Coastal Program. Therefore, Council's action is not subject to subsequent Coastal Commission approval.
6. If approved, the proposal becomes immediately effective.
The City Attorney submitted an analysis which is not impartial as required by State Law.
ReplyDelete'The Initiative would take effect within the coastal zone portions of Encinitas following both voter approval and certification by the California Coastal Commission. As a result, if approved by the voters, this Initiative might apply to only a portion of Encinitas for a period of time.'
How does that relate to 5. and 6., above? Why can't Council THINK FOR THEMSELVES and get the inconsistency? Why would the initiative, if passed, be the same as 5, such that the General Plan amendment is NOT subject to subsequent Coastal Commission approval?
"The height limit would also increase the allowable height for the construction of most residential and accessory structures." That is an outright LIE, from the City Attorney's FALSE "impartial analysis," which is also clearly not accurate, impartial or fact based. That is a conclusion, not supported by any facts whatsoever.