WC it might be time for new thread on the housing element update that is taking place in our five distinct communities. After seeing the one at the Enc. library, it is not so strange to see the exact 95 parcels that mikey somehow? had access to for his meeting recently that gaspar attended.Who has been? Anything new from the city or the same old same old? There are three more meetings this week in case you think your opinion will matter.
If there is a difference between what is now being proposed by Planning and what we were presented with the norby run ERAC debacle of a couple of years, I would love to hear about it.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Housing Element Update meetings open thread
By request:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Governments at all levels worldwide have it wrong. Rather than encouraging and accommodating population growth, they should be instituting policies that reduce population by attrition and falling birth rates.
ReplyDeleteThere's a fear that prosperity without growth is impossible. Continued population growth is suicidal for our species and ensures the extinction of hundreds of thousands if not millions of other species.
And you'll lead by example?? Thereby freeing the world of a mouth to feed and house and use limited supplies of water, air, energy, etc etc etc. oh I forgot nonsense spooing from your key board..... Yes please show us.
DeleteProsperity leads to declining birth rates. Much of the developed world is happy with declining (but positive) rates of economic growth while having lower birth rates. It is a fallacy to equate birth rate with growth rate. While employable headcount does affect growth, this is labor intensive growth. Growth also comes from innovation. The Japanese understood this early on when they saw declining population growth rates, and invested heavily in robotics.
DeleteJapan is in multi-decade stagnation and its currency and GDP are currently imploding. Maybe not the best example to follow.
DeleteThe problem is debt and unfunded liabilities, which are essentially a Ponzi scheme. You need more and more people coming in to support it.
In the absence of excessive debt and unfunded liabilities, a society (or a city) can indeed have quite stable and happy economic growth and prosperity even without population growth.
Is your city council running up excessive debt and unfunded liabilities?
9:19 AM
DeleteWhile population growth can induce economic growth the later doesn't depend on the former. How many things do we buy now and can't seem to live without that weren't in existence only a few decades ago. It's not a simple one-for-one equation in an advanced economy (I think we still are). I'm reminded of this each month when I pay my cable and cell phone bills.
Yes, our city council is running up excessive debt and unfunded liabilities, and must therefore keep pushing growth and expansion.
DeleteWe could lead by example by adhering to ZPG. We could decide to have no more than two children per couple, and encouraging our children and grandchildren to practice zero population growth. And yes, population growth is affected by economic prosperity of a nation. But this concept should be encouraged worldwide, as much of the population expansion is now coming from immigrants rather than child birth.
Economic prosperity in our nation and economic hardships in other nations also drives population growth. Our nation is long past the point of being able to be isolationist.
Fear mongering by the City reaches a new high with this latest attempt.
ReplyDeleteThis City Manager needs to be fired before the next high tide roles in.
ReplyDeleteThanks WC for opening this timely thread. The multiple full color poster boards proposed 3 stories all over city at the very same 95 locations that mikey was promoting. How familiarly convenient.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the option of two that is within our current zoning? It was not present and I looked at all of the presented infill opportunities in every one of our five communities. I doubt the ballot proposal in 2016 will include a 'none of the above' choice even though I was assured by Planning that it will.
I will not be taking that bet and hope I am incorrect when the ballot is finally written. Some options did state 2 to 3 stories but really, come on, if they intended to build two stories it would have been somewhere in any of those 30 or so poster boards. Three stories is all we are being offered folks, as if there were no Prop A preventing such without a vote of the public.
I look forward to others feedback on what they found for themselves after looking at this latest exercise by Planning to conform to the false population projections handed down to us by SANDAG and the other agencies for the benefit of developer and real estate interests.
It is all so reminiscent of the ERAC workshops and I would love to hear others opinion of what they find on their own. There is another 'show' being held all day long in Leucadia tomorrow on the 101 for any who have the time to discover for themselves.
Will the 3rd time be the charm for the city planners and the city? After the failed attempts at the MIG plan and the blue dot community exercises in 2012, the city seems to be doomed to another round with low participation. Their latest flier provide little substance and does not to do much to entice people to participate. Instead of concentrating its efforts on the usual stack-n-pack approach along already crowded traffic corridors, the city should think outside the box. This start with an incentive to residents to come forward and convert as many as possible illegal units. The city should also look into having specific zoning for smaller one-story houses (bungalows, cottages, tiny houses). There is a new trend in the US of people who want to simplify things and downsize. I can see myself doing this later on. This would be a good option for seniors, college students, singles, and minimalists. It seems that nowadays new houses being built are getting bigger and bigger on smaller and smaller lots. Maybe HCD should think differently and allow cities more flexibility in zoning models that could really make owning a house more attainable to less affluent people. Having mixed-used offered at market rates will do little to help lower income families.
ReplyDeleteI recommend people on this blog to go on the Peak Mediocrity e-town forum (http://www.peakdemocracy.com/portals/171/forum_home) and fill-in comments .You do have to register but do not have to put your e-dots on the pre-chosen sites to write and post your comments. It will make public some of the tough questions that are on EU about this poorly planned housing element update.
ReplyDeleteThe Housing Element show in Leucadia on Monday is at the white church at 367 La Veta between El Portal and Marcheta.
ReplyDeleteIf you boycott this presentation YOUR DUMMY'S,Encinitas will not stay the same because you want it to.There are some very big players in this game and this blog is not one of them.Let your voices be heard attend the presentation vote your preferences .It will not go away change is coming.
ReplyDeleteGotta love people who use all caps to insult the intelligence of others while butchering the language.
DeleteThe contraction for "you are" is you're.
Dummy's is possessive. I think you want dummies.
There should be periods and spaces where most of the commas are.
I'm not out resident grammar hawk, but when you insult the intelligence of others using all caps, get your s#1t together, man!
Attend and vote all you like, the City has predetermined "either up or out.". Your only meaningful vote is "no" in 2016. The City's only pretending to care between now and the election.
DeleteThe results of this survey will be exactly what Vina and his city staff want. No matter how much we voice our opinions and opposition, the city manager will convince council that this is the way to go --- build, build, build -- more money for the city.
ReplyDelete11:17 AM
Delete"No matter how much we voice our opinions and opposition, the city manager will convince council that this is the way to go ..."
So the State legislation mandating that every city and county in California have a housing element certified by the state Housing and Community Development department plays no role in this. Not to mention that just about every city and county have complied except us.
And if you want to throw out the "legalize the accessory units" meme, please come up with some hard numbers, not guesses, of how many are out there and would be likely to apply. Since bringing these units into compliance usually means the owners will need to bring them up to code and therefore will require spending money, that estimate is going to be hard to come up with. This is a separate issue from the below market rate covenant required although that place a role as well.
12:16 PM
DeleteI meant "although that plays a role as well"
Aren't these units illegal for a reason? Would Doyle's old tree house count as an accessory unit?
Delete- The Sculpin
That's the crux of the matter. How much would it cost to bring them into compliance from a strictly physical standpoint?
Delete12:16 How out of compliance are we? Is the city over stating that fact? Someone should be checking that issue.
Delete12:53 PM
DeleteWe are way out of compliance. The housing element has to be approved by HCD and the legislation loosely outlines the criteria that HCD is to use. And just to remind everyone that the city only has to make it possible for affordable housing to be built (i.e. compatible zoning) not make sure that the housing is built.
I'm not trying to defend the methodology here, but it is what it is and most other jurisdictions have dealt with it.
Yeah. Also, many of the owners of non-permitted accessory units don't want any paperwork on the unit. Property taxes could be affected, and the City doesn't control this. Also, the rent on some of these units is paid under the table, and the owner does not declare it as income to the IRS. Having public records showing ownership of a rental unit would essentially result in half the rental income going bye bye. This is on top of the low-income covenant, which also lowers in the income potential of the unit.
DeleteSo the calculus is:
--Pay a lot of money to bring the unit up to code (There could be some room for compromise here, but not much. The city would get sued if someone died in a fire in a substandard rental unit).
-Have a covenant placed on the unit that limits rental income (without this, the unit doesn't count toward our state requirements, so why bother?)
-Create public records of a rental unit that would result in rental income to be taxed by federal and state (both beyond the control of Encinitas gov't). If the homeowner finds out that bringing the unit up to code is too expensive, and they withdraw the application, the public record of the application doesn't disappear. The IRS might still find rental unit income even if the owner doesn't finish the process.
The city doesn't have the authority to waive all these risks for the property owner. I'm just not sure there is a magic bullet that will bring these units out into daylight to be counted, although I agree that would be desirable.
My question would be if we have or had such hot city managers, why was Encinitas not in compliance? Who is supposed to be in charge of this and who is to blame for not being in compliance?
Delete1:17 PM
DeleteI believe the people you are looking for is called the city council. The buck stops there.
More money for salaries and pensions. That's all that's important....
DeleteWhat about our Planning Department? When they lie and waste our money to get results that don't represent the will of the people but results to support their own agenda, you have a problem. They should be serving us since they are paid and we are the customer.
Delete2:42 PM
Delete"What about our Planning Department?"
Last time I checked they worked for the city council. Of course, that's directly, as all employees ultimately work for the citizens of Encinitas as do the council.
Some accessory unit owners would not come forward. But many could be incentivized to do so. What the City needs is an accurate count of existing affordable housing, including primary units. There could be some kind of recognition of those who are willing to document their units as being affordable.
DeleteA deed restriction or covenant is not mandatory to do so, as Jeff Murphy told Lisa Shaffer at a council meeting this year. Also "current compliance," with code includes that part of our ordinances which specifically allow for legal non-conformities. State law and municipal code are not retroactive unless that is written into the law.
What is written into EMC is that structures that pre-existed 2003 when off street parking allowances were codified, are not nonconforming due to lack of off-street parking. This is how the six units on the Boathouses property were legalized with no off-street parking whatsoever.
One accessory unit is allowed "by right" in single family residential zones. That means that if the unit pre-existed the City's incorporation, it is not illegal. If it was built after 1986, without a permit on record, then owners should be encouraged to come forward to document their units. Take away the stigma of "illegality." Owners of undocumented, pre-existing units, should be allowed, through a true amnesty, to come forward. They should be incentivized to do so by lowering the $900 application fee. And the ADU permit, according to state law, is not discretionary when applied for in zones that allow for accessory dwelling units. Giving Planning unfettered discretion makes the process of documentation daunting. Owners are discouraged because they don't want to get bogged down in red tape and the bureaucratic maze.
People could register and fill in comments, but not choose any of the bogus alternatives being offered. They are bogus because they are all trying to upzone the entire city through appealing to our desire to preserve community character in our neighborhoods. What would work best is to "leave us alone," as that lady at city hall demanded at the last Council Meeting. She was great.
The city staff and council will spend two years trying to convince voters to approve whatever housing element proposal winds up on the 2016 ballot. If voters don't approve it, what will the city do then?
ReplyDeleteIs it possible for ANYONE to get fired at the City? They are the ones who have been driving this project for years.
Delete"The city staff and council will spend two years trying to convince voters to approve whatever housing element proposal winds up on the 2016 ballot. If voters don't approve it, what will the city do then?"
DeleteTo the first point, it will be the planning commission and then ultimately the council, with public input along the way, that will decide what the housing element proposal looks like that winds up on the 2016 ballot. So I would imagine the council will try to convince voters to approve it.
To the second point, the city has already been sued for not having an up to date (and certified) housing element. That is part of the building industry's lawsuit over the council's recently adopted changes regarding processing density bonus projects. The lawsuit is in the early stages but if you look to the north, the city of Pleasanton just spent $2 million unsuccessfully defending a lawsuit on their housing element. In the process, the court threw out Pleasanton's voter approved initiative which placed a limit on housing units in the city.
So basically, it's possible that a judge would be in control of land use decision making in Encinitas until the city has a certified housing element. And the law allows the judge to order it done in as little as 120 days.
The city wasn't sued for an out-of-compliance housing element. The BIA lawsuit is about the changes the city made in its interpretation of the Density Bonus law, which included rounding down of base density, size and design of affordable units, and calculation of net acreage. The changes include things that other cities and counties are already doing.
DeleteThe BIA wants to get the highest density of market rate units, not affordable units, to sell at the highest possible prices.
5:49 PM
DeleteIt's both. Read it. I have.
Either way, the BIA is not suing other cities for the identical interpretations we just enacted.
Delete9:11 PM
DeleteThe BIA doesn't need to sue all cities, just one to set a precedent. Usually, it takes being affirmed at the appellate level before other cities will consider it binding. Even then cities may push back so that there are conflicting appellate opinions and the state Supreme court must weigh in.
That's the normal process. Pick on one to sue. This is especially true when the various cities are in different judicial jurisdictions.
I call city-style BS fear mongering at 1:03 pm. Other cities run amnesty programs that are not punitive, don't create IRS records or go after folks if a permit is not pursued, and don't run permits costs up to a small fortune. Like the density bonus interpretations the city was handing out like candy to developers before public pressure got the council to call a halt to the interpretations, there is no reason for Encinitas not to do what other cities do.
ReplyDeleteUnless, that is, if it's not in the city coffer/developers' profit interests. Planning Director Murphy has no idea as to how many might come forward and get permitted, yet he's on a mission to put the cart before the horse and build "up or out, your 'choice,'" before even trying an amnesty program.
"Planning Director Murphy has no idea as to how many might come forward and get permitted"
DeleteThat's the point. Who knows? I see this bandied about here on this blog but I haven't seen any numbers, especially credible numbers. There is only the implicit assumption that there are enough illegal units out there with willing owners that will jump at the chance to make the units legal.
So why doesn't someone come up with a credible number. I realize it will require making an assumption about what it will take to units legal (i.e. what code requirements must they meet). For this exercise I would ignore processing fees.
Who knows? The city should know. It's their job to know, but Murphy keeps getting a pass on having to know. "I have no idea" is an acceptable answer to the council.
DeleteOther cities waive fees, lower the covenant period, do every thing they can to get their units permitted and counted, but not here.
Planning Director Murphy said that he had gotten the required number of "affordable" units down to 800 from 1300. Then it went back up to 1300. Poof. Five hundred units disappeared in a flash.
DeleteMurphy needs to stop playing games with the numbers, which are based on inflated populations figures and forecasts. And extra allotments of units were accepted under Jerome Stocks when he was on the SANDAG board. Murphy has also admitted that none of the "affordable" units built in Encinitas will be affordable, but will be sold or rented at market rate. Only with public subsidy will the units be affordable.
So we gain nothing except more congestion in our traffic corridors. There is no infrastructure improvement planned to handle the increased demand for public services because there simply isn't any money for it.
How out of compliance are we? Twenty years and counting and wow, the sky hasn't fallen in yet.
ReplyDeleteThe city is lining up a good case for the voters:
ReplyDeleteWe have a legal requirement from the state to zone a certain number of units at higher density (true).
We have already lost opportunities for state and regional grant money because we are out of compliance (true).
It's also possible an out-of-town judge could take over local land use decisions (not sure).
We are one of the only cities out of compliance (true).
We crafted a proposal based on years of study and community input through Commissions, online feedback, planning meetings, and all-day open public sessions in each community that were noticed online, through flyers, and electronic billboards (true).
We have done everything reasonably possible to solicit community input to craft the best possible housing element that complies with state law (we'll see).
Like it or not, the city is being smart about this. They have built a process that is designed to support their case to voters. The no crowd is going to lose if the city owns the role of mature adults. If the no crowd raises their voices and flaps their arms, the average voter will write them off as kooks.
The no crowd had better come up with an organized and rational plan, and align behind one or two damned good mature adult spokespeople who can balance reason and passion.
Take it or leave it--this advice is worth what you paid for it.
City party line top to bottom. How many residents are coming out of the current workshops buying the city sell?
DeleteVery few so far. Max 100 according to Planning.
Delete5:01 PM
DeleteYeah, yeah, thanks for the city party line.
From this weeks city council agenda:
ReplyDelete10A. Consideration of possible options to amend the City’s Affordable Unit Policy in an effort to incentivize participation; consideration of possible options to address the expiration date currently set for units permitted under the City’s Housing Certification Program; and, consideration of options for a public mailer that will be sent to residents in an effort to gauge interest in program participation. Contact Person: Principal Planner Langager
Recommended Action: Discuss and consider available options, along with associated benefits and drawbacks, to revise the Affordable Unit Policy, Housing Certification Program and public mailer and provide staff direction, as deemed appropriate.
2014-11-19 Item 10A - City Affordable Unit Policy
Interesting timing, isn't it? Yet another back burner item forced to the fore by resident pressure. Hehehe.
DeleteIn a city that is almost built out, with no where else to build except UP, why has this housing element not been addressed in the past?
DeleteWhy doesn't the city have any idea how many units are out there that should be counted and included in the housing figures?
The city also doesn't seem to know the mix of the kind of businesses located and doing business here. That should be part of a city staffer's job to know these things.
Maybe they all spend too much time at the downtown bars?
5:01 Are you volunteering?
Delete8:16,
DeleteI am not volunteering, but I do believe the city would benefit from a strong opposition. I want to see both sides represented well, and then let the voters decide.
I'm concerned that at the moment, the city has the upper hand. The opposition isn't organized or prepared.
A strong challenge needs funding, planning, and clear roles: passionate populists who yell a little, lawyers who keep the city in check, "reasonable" negotiators, who work for concessions and compromise, and leadership who can keep the different roles from fighting against each other.
So far, all I see is the bomb-throwers--the shouting populists. Alone, they will achieve nothing.
You volunteering, or trying to belittle the oppositional efforts made so far? Something's ringing a little false here...something about protesting overmuch.
DeleteThere is lopsided logic at the state level that comes close to equating high density with affordable. If the voters approve upzoning to achieve the 1,283 low-income units/density equivalency mandated by the state, and if those units are built but then sell at market rate, how does that actually provide more low-income housing?
ReplyDeleteOf course it doesn't...but it does provide windfall profits for the developers who helped write the law.
DeleteGood point that the developers helped write the law. That tells it all and it is now clear to me that this will enrich the builders and the city will reap their rewards. Again, we the taxpayers get screwed.
DeleteThe City admits the upzones may well all go for market rate. Next cycle the City will be back, telling us "it's the law" and that we must approve more developer profits...let's be real and call it what it is, after all.
DeleteNo more development in Encinitas. No more up zoning. We do not want to be another Redondo Beach!
ReplyDeleteDevelopers are scum making their profits on others quality of life. Just as bad as attorneys.
I agree. Let us know which naturally occurring depression in the ground you are sleeping in, ( to move any soil other than by Mother Nature is a form of development ) so I can drive by and point my finger at you and laugh.
Delete6:21 I hope you are laughing when you're stuck in the traffic congestion and need to get home. Raise your hand so when we drive by we can point our "middle" finger at you.
Delete6:09 - In the last 4 years alone from my house I have seen 9 new homes built from the ground up - about 60,000 sq. ft. I have also seen several structural additions and amenities built. So development is alive and well in Encinitas, and is here to stay. Up zoning is an entirely different issue, and at this point in time requires a vote of the people, so I'm not sure what you're worrying about. Developers, like attorneys, are not scum. They're just doing their job - just like you and me. Some push the envelope, but what else is new? So, do you have any other ideas? Maybe a bit more practical?
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
Scum eating bottom feeder, thanks once again for your [un]valuable contribution to the discussion. Where would we be without you? Oh, yea, we would be just where we are and looking for a way forward that you never address. Ever the apologist with nothing constructive to add, your M O is secure. Thanks for nothing, absolutely nothing of value for helping our community survive the onslaught of character destroying development.
ReplyDeleteIt is just your type of distortion/distraction/obstruction that builders have used to promote their 'infill' at all costs. Some day there will be a project next door that will dwarf your home, look down on what used to be your private yard and create just the minimum of parking spaces so you will have to thread your way to your own driveway. Some day may come sooner than you think and then and only then will you open your mind to what many here are trying to prevent from happening.
When that time comes, we will welcome you back to the fold and try to find ways to support your cause for mitigating the impact that we saw coming.
Until that time, you can rest assured that you have done your part to help the scum builders destroy part of what we all settled here for in the first place. This community is special and we all should support efforts to hold onto this specialness. If you are not part of the solution, that only leaves you being part of the problem. Nothing new there as your history here amply proves.
Maybe the current HEU maps need to put some large blue dots next door to you and all around you before you sing a different song. This is happening at 95 sites around town and someday one or more of these might make an impact on your quality of life that you thought was safe and secure.
Waaaa waaa waaaaas
DeleteAs someone who has been to 4 of these Housing Elements gatherings, (not to mention all the dot exercise and other stuff from 3 years ago), I have talked to exactly ONE person who likes the idea. The dozens of people I have talked to who are not so convinced, remind me of the faithful wife who has been married for 30 years, and suddenly her husband has announced he is taking on a lover, no just one, but many, and the wife can do nothing but grit her teeth and hope for the best. That is what our city hall is offering us, and to me, this is the Ultimate Betrayal.
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to the hapless wife, though, we do have a choice: say "no" at the ballot box.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure?
ReplyDelete