Council Member Tony Kranz has heard those concerns and is hosting a public forum to discuss the Housing Element Update.
Friday, November 28, 2014
Kranz offers open dialogue on Housing Element Update
Residents have expressed concern about many aspects of the city's public outreach on the Housing Element Update: staff's pre-determined upzoning sites, the invite-only Upzoning for Fun and Profit party, the poorly-attended city workshops, the extremely dubious Peak Democracy survey site.
Council Member Tony Kranz has heard those concerns and is hosting a public forum to discuss the Housing Element Update.
Council Member Tony Kranz has heard those concerns and is hosting a public forum to discuss the Housing Element Update.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are they serving Kool Aid, too?
ReplyDeleteA"conversation?" Classic Gus-speak. Kranz still pissed off over Prop A, this will be a one-way "conversation.". Guess he drew the short straw.
DeleteIs this guy even capable of a two way conversation? He is all about bullying and badgering and is not capable of listening. I'll pass.
DeleteWe will all have an opportunity to tell Mr Kranz our concerns in in the flesh ANONYMOUS, will you be there?
DeleteWhat part of "the city is built out" doesn't Kranz understand? Kranz doesn't understand that he and the other councilpersons should be writing all other cities and join together to get the state representatives to immediately rescind, revoke, and make null and void the damn anti-community and anti-quality of life statutes that are harming the lower and middle class.
ReplyDeleteKranz and the others understand perfectly, but standing with residents doesn't repay developer contributions in some cases. In others, councilmembers simply think that they know what's best for residents.
DeleteSounds like Kranz is wanting to keep up with Gaspar since she already spoke about the Housing Element issue at a "very selective" meeting of a group of people set up by her good friend Andreen.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't believe a word that comes out of Kranz's mouth. He has changed his mind and looked the other way on certain issues, including Prop. A.
I hope he is the only one in attendance. He can bring his bottle of booze and enjoy the evening by himself.
We don't need more building in this city. What we need is a council of five and a city manager that is willing to represent what the taxpayers want.
Hmmm...., interesting. If Kranz had just invited the people on this blog would that be a "very selective" meeting?
DeleteAlso, "represent what the taxpayers want". Does that include all non resident property owners and business owners?
Finally, "He can bring his bottle of booze" definitely staying classy.
12:49 PM Since Encinitas is one of the very few, if not the only, city to have a certified housing element approved in recent memory, how much sympathy do you imagine other cities will have for us? Also, at a recent council meeting the city's Sacramento lobbyist mentioned that Encinitas' situation is well know up there and legislators have very little sympathy for us.
The lack of an approved and certified housing element (not since 1992) is included as part of the BIA's lawsuit. The state legislation gives a judge the discretion to require the city to approve an update in as little as 120 days. What's to worry?
Darn it, I meant Encinitas is one of the very few, if not the only, city to not have a certified housing element approved in recent memory.
Delete2:26 please stop lying the city has an apporovedapproved housing element that is good until 2020 -
DeleteWhat we need is a city council that's says enough is enough, no more spending.
Delete2:26 = developer or shill. They all sound the same entitlement alarm wrapped in "it's the law.". Sorry dude, you fool no one.
DeleteYep, Kranz has all the answers. He hasn't got a brain so he is trying to pick some other person's brain in order to look smart. Won't happen.
Delete3:02 PM Sorry, wish it all you want but the city hasn't had an approved and certified Housing Element since 1992 and there is some doubt about whether that 1992 edition was certified. In any case, the rules have changed and gotten stricter requiring any housing element to be formally certified by the state's department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Encinitas missed the last two update cycles, with the current cycle's due date being April 30, 2013 (with an August 31, 2013 grace period). We are lucky that the local affordable housing advocates aren't as aggressive as they are in the Bay area where several lawsuits have been won over cities' outdated housing elements.
Delete3:37 PM Sorry, attempt to tar me all you want but I am neither a developer or their shill. I just don't drink the kool-aid that appears to required here. I think for myself. Sorry dude, you are a fool.
Major correction to 9:29: we HAVE an approved housing element. What we do not have is an update to our approved, certified housing element.
DeleteAnd calling the "local" (oftentimes not) and very aggressive developers "affordable housing advocates" is laughable. Low income folks would do far better without these "advocates." Had you attended an ERAC meeting, you would not be so defensive of these "advocates."
And Encinitas "missed" the last two update cycles thanks to City Hall's sneaky shenanigans that residents saw right through. Any questions as to missing updates, turn that mirror on City Hall and stop blaming the resident messengers.
Delete10:58 AM
DeleteThrough the looking glass, I guess up becomes down. State legislation requires the Housing Element (HE) to be updated periodically and each update be certified by the Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD has never certified our HE but that wasn't as important in past years as it is now. The legislation requires HCD certification. So as far as the state is concerned, Encinitas does not have an approved HE. So you are dead wrong and spreading misinformation. That doesn't help anyone.
When I referred to local affordable housing advocates, I didn't mean developers, I meant groups like the San Diego Housing Federation. It was similar groups up in the Bay area that successfully sued cities over their HE.
10:59 AM it doesn't matter who is to blame. Encinitas is way out of compliance.
11:21
DeleteTry again- Encinitas has an approved housing plan thru 2020 -
Kindly stop spreading misinformation
Interesting to know- Carlsbad is also going thru an update- contrary to your deceptions to paint Encinitas as a loner, C-bad is updating theirs as well-
THere is no difference between local "affordable housing" advocates and developers - they both want one thing
1. to trample on the quality of life, property values, and existing zoning of residents
2. TO increase stack and pack housing throughout Encinitas
the city plan is going to lose in a big way at the ballot box- but Vina will be gone by then
Our council is letting us down
11:29 right on the money. The influence at work to frighten cities into stack n'pack is the same that lined up against Prop A.
Delete11:21 AM
DeleteGet off your merry-go-round. The other California regions are just putting together their 4th cycle updates. But for some reason, SANDAG is the goat leading the 5th cycle for all the cities in SD county. Why are the SD cities required to write up a 5th cycle report when the rest of the state isn't required yet to complete a 5th cycle update? Why did SANDAG screw the 18 cities here and agree that SD cities must go first in submitting the updates?
11:29 AM
DeleteI guess you just have to say it to make it so. Repeat it over an over like a spell.
While the council has adopted a housing element in past cycles, none have been certified by HCD. In the last cycle the council didn't even adopt an update let alone get HCD certification. So from a legal perspective, Encinitas does not have an approved HE.
Carlsbad was in legal proceedings over their last HE. The appellate court sided with Carlsbad which is now in the process of updating their whole general plan. If I understand HCD's last review letter to Carlsbad, their current (2013-2021) HE has been certified. I believe Carlsbad, to fulfill programs outlined in their certified HE, needs to make some land use changes which requires updating the Land Use portion of the General Plan. The lawsuit, in part, dealt with the discrepancy between the HE and Land Use portions of the general plan. The court allowed that if it was only temporary while the city worked on the update. In short, Carlsbad is way ahead of Encinitas.
So I'll "kindly" continue to spread correct information.
Whether local affordable housing advocates and developers want the same thing, I'll let them do their own explaining.
Carlsbad is way of ahead of Encinitas is many things. They had an extremely capable and smart mayor for years, plus a council that was professional and worked together well.
DeleteOur council could certainly learn from Carlsbad and how things need to be done with an outcome that makes citizens happy.
The Encinitas City Council looks and acts like they don't have a clue and they don't.
Carlsbad is way ahead in covering every available inch in cement and stucco. If you call that "way ahead...."
DeleteAnd their citizens no doubt are happy. They moved there for the cookie-cutter, sterile environment. No so Encinitans.
Delete11:50 AM
DeleteMerry-go-round?? As a matter of fact, the SANDAG region was first on this fifth update cycle but other regions have been going through the 5th cycle as well like SCAG (LA-Orange-Riverside-San Ber.) and ABAG (Bay Area). I imagine that the staggered approach gives HCD adequate time to review and comment each HE.
And while many people here keep blaming SANDAG, it did provide direction and staff but all the cities and County were involved provided input into the process and agreed to the final methodology.
12:45 PM & 12:47 PM
DeleteYou'll have to ask them. I made no comparisons to the respective built environments but I live in Encinitas and have no desire to live in Carlsbad.
12:50 PM
DeleteAren't you the little bureaucrat. Encinitas needs to withdraw from SANDAG.
1:38 PM
DeleteYeah. that's the answer. Maybe we can get them to take back the undercrossing at Santa Fe. You know how all that money can be corrupting. If you can close your eyes, cover your ears, and continually say "la, la, la" loudly, then it must not be happening.
1:53 PM
DeleteSANDAG - $1.196 billion program budget for FY 2015 beginning July 1, 2014
Exactly right - all that money can be corrupting.
10:33 PM
DeleteSANDAG does a lot more than regional planning. Most of that $1.196 Billion are project expenditures like the undercrossing at Santa Fe.
I forgot to mention, Encinitas would still be responsible for their RHNA allocation even if it wasn't a member of SANDAG. What might happen though is as a non member we might not be involved in the process with potentially worst results.
This can be a good thing for council to hear what we really think about Plannings bs ideas for our future. Plus, none of Peak Democracy's bs E-town Hall bs to manipulate the publics true feelings about what we all saw at those presentations. Pack the hall and show him and his cronies how off base they are. This Is ERAC all over again. They will never learn but they sure can hear us wednesday at the enc. library from 6pm to 8pm. Come on down. This community needs all who can to show up and give them our two cents. Who knows? Maybe this opportunity without Peaks E-town Hall interference can make a difference.
ReplyDeleteAre we morally deficient as citizens because we haven't passed a Housing Element? If a City Council and staff would produce a plan that achieved the law's true purpose without further ruining our city, we would have passed an HE long ago.
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, how about if the City Council and staff produced a plan that got around SANDAG's and the state's mandates while giving the appearance of complying and whose legality was unchallengeable?
Scams can cut both ways. Why comply and collude with the BIA? That's what SANDAG and the state are doing.
I guess this is why the state legislation requires all housing elements to be approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development to discourage the scenario you've suggested.
DeleteAre we morally deficient as citizens if we scam the housing element?
No one is buying what you and your buddies are selling.
Delete10:33 AM
DeleteSuch a shame that you are unable to believe that someone just doesn't swallow your spiel and not be one of "them". I guess you'd rather just talk to yourselves. It sure showed in the last election.
10:43, then why argue the developer/BIA's case for them, using their lame platitudes? Sorry, but they are lame.
Delete10:50 AM
DeleteSo referring to state law requirements is just "lame platitudes"? I'm not arguing the BIA case. Encinitas is required, as are all California cities and counties, to have an adopted and HCD certified housing element. Encinitas isn't even close.
While the BIA lawsuit was filed in reaction to the council decisions made in July related to the density bonus process, the lawsuit includes the failure of Encinitas to have a certified housing element. It is the housing element portion of the lawsuit that I refer to. I've made no comment on the density bonus aspects of the lawsuit and don't intend to. I'll leave the "lame platitudes" to the BIA.
Very largely, local, county, state and federal governments' role is to promote development. That's why business and industry buy off legislators and pay lobbyists tons of money to influence legislation. To regard a state agency as some watchdog looking after taxpayers' interests is silly. The state agencies are there to execute the bought-off, lobbyist-influenced legislature's laws.
DeleteYou don't think density bonus is really about affordable housing, do you?
Citizens' scamming HCD and SANDAG is not morally deficient. It's tit for tat. It's citizen advocacy. It's citizens looking out for themselves because their elected representatives don't.
Thank you, very well explained.
Delete6:05 PM
DeleteWhen will you start circulating the succession papers?
Actually, I do believe the fundamental justification of the affordable housing is genuine but I also believe that developers have skewed the legislation in their favor. In addition, developers have gotten the affordable housing advocates on their side. So to get changes made you're probably going to have to appeal to one side or the other to get legislators to listen to you.
But as our Sacramento lobbyist told the council a few weeks ago, Encinitas' intractability is well known in the legislature and there is very little sympathy for us.
10:13 AM
DeleteWhat exactly does "our" Sacramento lobbyist do for us? What has the council paid so far for a bad review from the council's lobbyist - $750,000? More taxpayer money down a rat hole.
Excellent points all, 7:08.
ReplyDelete2:25 - council/the city knows what residents think. They're just too busy tripping over themselves to serve the developers to even give the appearance of caring.
What "residents" think, or what people on this blog think?
DeleteWe just found out in recent elections that the two are often not the same.
Look at the 1,000s of survey results then over the years and buried at city hall because public opinion did not support the city's development-driven preferences. Consider that the ERAC was formed and packed with developers in order to counter the inconvenient findings that the GPAC was generating.
DeleteThis blog aside, the city knows exactly what residents think. It knows, or it wouldn't be trying so hard to shove the HEU down our throats.
Don't play their game. Find a way to undermine it or get around it. Their game works only because they trap people in it.
ReplyDeleteThe UT has an article on the BIA lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteRemember when Gaspar reported out of closed session and said that the council had directed Sabine to seek legal council. Not true.
From the UT article -
Gaspar said Tuesday that the council is contemplating hiring an outside an attorney to represent the city in this legal matter, but has not yet reached a decision on that issue. The city’s initial court paperwork — a response to the lawsuit — was handled by City Attorney Glenn Sabine.
Council, council. You are liars, liars pants on fire.
This city is all about fattening the wallets of lawyers. Shame .
DeleteDoes Sabine (or his partner) suddenly become the private attorney representing the city? Double dipping at its max if so.
DeleteBusiness as usual, then.
DeleteIf he handles it then it's lost. Please hire someone capable for CA.
DeleteSomeone capable goes against City's plan to lose and throw dough to developers and increase revenues to cover poor management. No mystery here.
Delete12:05 AM
Delete"Someone capable goes against City's plan to lose and throw dough to developers and increase revenues to cover poor management."
The BIA suit is in reaction to the council's revising the density bonus procedures which will make it harder and thus less attractive to developers. How is this a plan to lose and throw dough to developers?
The city's decision for Sabine to defend is the plan to lose. But you knew that.
DeleteSo who did the very professional flier? Why was a professional flier needed?
ReplyDeleteKranz couldn't have banged one out in black and white on his computer?
Love the sky view that doesn't show the increased traffic and density.
The flier will make good propaganda at the state level.
Kranz's problem is his propaganda won't fly here. Just say no and the only thing Kranz will get to show the state is another failed housing element update.
DeleteOn a slightly different topic but definitely involving a "popular" figure here, I see EUSD extended Tim Baird's contract another 4 years. Maybe the PV sale, which is now final, had something to do with it. Even Mo voted for it.
ReplyDeleteFrom the U-T/Encinitas Advocate:
The Encinitas Union School District board unanimously adopted a four-year contract for Superintendent Tim Baird on Nov. 24.
The board praised Baird for showing strong leadership and helping the district weather the economic downturn.
“Tim has always received an outstanding evaluation from this board,” Trustee Carol Skiljan said.
The same board that partied in the desert on the taxpayers' dime?
ReplyDeleteEverybody has their price.
What is even more infuriating is that those three dinosaurs Strich, Andrade, and Songen said after the election that they have a mandate for their past behaviors. Really? The only reason any of them survived was due to 30% turnout.
ReplyDeleteTheir hundreds of campaign signs illegally plastered all over town on the public right of way clearly shows they have no respect for their positions and the example they have set with their attitudes toward the public that even bothered to attend their purposefully scheduled meetings when most of the public cannot attend, is all to transparent. Hopefully, in two years there will be more interest in our electorate taking part in what is left of our democracy.
Until that time we are stuck with what we have. Rest assured, when a majority of our voters engage themselves in this most american right we have at our disposal, the result will be much different.
The next time baird and his compliant tools on the EUSD board ask for any school bonds, it will be a rough ride. They shortsightedly screwed this town over on PV, spent $20,000 of our tax dollars on their getaway at the La Quinta weekend of frivolity and their dismissive attitude toward any public speakers who pleaded with them to do the right thing will not soon be forgotten.
Where do you get 30% turnout, 4:56? The mayoral election turnout was 47%. Was the school board election turnout 17% less?
DeleteHey. way to go Mo Muir for voting to give Baird another contract and raise. I suggest you take your campaign signs down as soon as possible or the city may throw a heavy fine on you for non compliance of rules.
DeleteYes, they are still there as of today.
The mayor received 47% of the votes cast. The votes cast were made by only about 30% of those actually registered to vote.
DeleteI didn't read anywhere that the vote to give Baird a raise was unanimous? It seems as though it was a done deal, and was (wrongly) rolled into a 2.5% raise for teachers.
DeleteExecutive officers' contracts should be addressed separately, in separate negotiations. All staff, including administrators, in addition to teachers were given the 2.5% raise. But last year, Mo Muir voted no on increasing Baird's contract to include a $6000 convertible insurance policy. Greg Sonken did, as well, initially, but caved in, and went along with the others, when a second special meeting was called, because one trustee was absent before, so no action could be taken. With Sonken and Muir voting no, it was initially a two to two vote, with one absent.
8:42 By amazing coincidence, the turnout for the mayoral election was 47% of registered voters in Encinitas, and Gaspar got a plurality of 47% of the votes cast. Go to the registrar's website and see for yourself.
DeleteMaybe the number of votes cast for the EUSD school board election was fewer than for mayor, but it's doubtful it was 17% fewer.
Those numbers are also on the registrar's website.
8:49 You should be asking the Encinitas Advocate that published the article, which said the Board UNANIMOUSLY approved Baird's new 4- year contract with a 2.5 per cent increase in salary. In addition, they gave him a glowing evaluation of work well done.
DeleteThere were four candidates for EUSD board, and voters voted for up to three. I don't see how you can calculate the turnout of discrete voters because there are lots of duplicates in the tallies.
Delete9:37 There were 9,659 combined votes cast for the other mayoral candidates. Gaspar only received 8,611 votes. You do the math. Not a great landslide by any means. Stay tuned for the princess in Disneyland.
Delete10:11 so here you again with this interpretation of the mayoral election. Still in your little world? "Only" 8611 votes for Gaspar? She practically beat the other four candidates combined total. No one said landslide. But it was a strong showing in a multi-candidate race.
DeleteVoters put these rubber stamping, desert partying stooges back in office after an apparent tax spending scandal and one wonders why they toss around the word "mandate"? I'd say you can get pretty cocky after such an electorate blunder of not holding them accountable.
DeleteThere were more votes cast for the other candidates that exceeded the amount of votes Gaspar received. That can't be denied, and the figures don't lie. Stay in your own little world 11:57 and believe that your queen will actually care about the residents of Encinitas rather than her developer friends. Have a wonderful two years of her childishness.
Delete11:27 AM
DeleteI'm not 11:57 but you're talking just like a loser. You got your head handed to you and now you're trying to regain some self respect. Instead you resort to "childishness" with your comments. Grow up.
11:54 I haven't lost a thing and have everything to gain. I can not help that the mayor that was elected is a wanna be magician, queen, developer's lover, and a juvenile acting individual.
DeleteAgain, the numbers don't lie. More voted against her or for another candidate. How's your head now?
12:39 (who is also 11:27)
DeleteI can do the math and see how many votes Gaspar and her opponents got. I don't deny anything about that math.
What needs to be denied is that your perspective on the results has any value. You are making useless comments that Gaspar did not get a majority of the votes cast. So what? She destroyed the combined efforts of four other candidates, two of whom were not fringe candidates. You can not deny that. It was a convincing victory, even if it is not the outcome you wanted. Get used to it, and move on.
1:03 I suggest you stop trying to change the numbers and declare a slam dunk for your little friend Gaspar. You sound like a spoiled child and I'm sure you two have much in common.
DeleteNow, let's move on. Talk to you in two years and let's see how you feel about all this at that time. Ta dah!
1:51 I am not trying to change the numbers. I acknowledge she didn't get 50% of the votes. But so what? It was an extremely convincing win for her to get 47% of the votes in a five person race, especially against a standing council member and former member of council. You need to get out of your losing little world and look at those same numbers like most other people do.
DeleteShe'll win again handily in two years. She was the top vote getter when she first ran for council four years ago and now just won a huge victory for mayor in a five person race. Get used to it, even if you don't like her. It is the political reality in Encinitas. And I did not vote for her.
1,048 as the margin between those who didn't vote for Gaspar and those who did is not trouncing all the other candidates. I seriously doubt she'll be reelected as mayor in 2016, if in fact she runs.
DeleteWhen the true Gaspar shows her colors over the next two years, I guarantee she will NEVER be reelected as mayor or a council person again. Politics is way over this dummy's head. She doesn't get it and her four years on council proves it. As mayor, she will be a "lame duck" and you all may as well get used to it.
DeleteWhen she goes, she can take her friend Muir with her. He is useless.
2:05 She had an easy win this time considering the other four who were running. Not impressive.
Delete1:51 PM (and your other posts)
DeleteWhatever gets you through the day, I guess. "Spoiled child"?? It wasn't me you were referring to but it's you that appears to be acting more like a spoiled child. Tell you what, hold your breath until you get your way. That'll teach us.
To repeat myself, you are acting like a loser who won't come to grips with the results. Very immature.
8:56 You'll be singing a different tune in two years. Trust me. I never lose. Say goodnight now.
Delete9:07 PM
DeleteOh please. "You'll be singing a different tune in two years". Are you going to get your big brother to pound me/us? You sound more and more juvenile with each post. Will you be attending Oak Crest or Diegueno next year?
I'd rather talk to a wall than have a "conversation" with Kranz about the HEU.
ReplyDeleteWe had an approved housing element. Has that one expired? How often must a housing element be updated to be re-certified by the State?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I hope everyone is enjoying this holiday weekend, and counting our blessings.
Housing elements need to be updated and re certified every 5-8 years. (There is an optional extension).
Delete9:21 AM
DeleteCorrect. Eight years is the new norm but since Encinitas missed the deadline (15 months and counting) it will have a four year cycle.
I'm going to be fair and admit that Andreen was right about Tony.
Delete10:18 AM
DeleteCarlsbad also has a four year cycle.
I'm going to be fair and admit Tony was right about Andreen.
DeleteAt this point, they deserve one another.
DeleteThe law is the law.
ReplyDeleteDon't like it? Work to get it changed.
Until that day, we have a legal obligation to craft and submit a compliant HE.
The units being proposed would not significantly change things here. Also, the existence of an approved HE does not mean all units will be built. We have many places in town zoned for more units than they currently hold.
A handful of zealots want to grab the wheel and drive us off a cliff, legally, to gratify their own egos.
That is all.
11:47 AM
DeleteYou are wrong. It is a micro teacup of zealots on the city council that want to destroy quality of life in Encinitas.
11:47 You probably believed the doom and gloom Rutan and Tucker report about the consequences of Prop A, too.
DeleteHE regulation= bought and paid for by the building industry and the trial lawyers association. Guv culture loves it: more houses=more money. If the city would at least admit that, then we can have a conversation about "compliance". I for one will not participate in a complete charade. Perhaps Tony can enlighten us all with some examples of density bonus providing affordable homes to the poor people here......................
Delete11:47 I was wondering when the pejoratives would start, so you're right on schedule.
DeleteLegality is not morality, especially when legality is established by perverting the democratic system.
Delete"A handful of zealots"? You'll see when the upzoning prop gets defeated in Nov. 2016 that it is more than a handful of people who like Encinitas the way it is and don't want to hand its future over to developers who are the true "handful".
ReplyDeleteTrue dat. Prop A signatures came in at over 50% more than required to qualify for an election, hardly a handful of zealots.
DeletePoint being, that same majority if zealots will be back to put down the sham of an Update.
DeleteList of other cities who cannot/will not certify a housing element:
Delete1.____________
End of list.
2:04 PM
DeleteWrong.
The list is 450 for the 5th cycle.
Differences between 2013 Prop A vote and 2016 Housing Element vote:
Delete2013 was off cycle election with no local, statewide, or national races to vote for--very low turnout. Only motivated issue voters or insiders showed up. 2016 will be a Presidential election year, with much different, more representative, and larger turnout.
The Prop A vote enshrined some modest reforms to local General Plan only. The stakes and consequences riding on the 2016 vote are very different. A no vote would thumb our noses at state law. We would be alone in the fight, as other cities would have completed the process of certification by the 2016 vote. It's hard to ask voters to take a big legal risk without other cities joining the fight.
I voted for Prop A, but I will likely vote to comply with state law.
Well, 2:29, aren't you an obedient little troll!
Delete2:29PM If this post isn't a paid adversarial response, as in "fictitious persona"), then I'll stand on my head until my ears are turnin' red.
DeleteIs Kranz going to discuss the required HCD housing element annual progress reports required? Does he even know about them? The housing element has several components. In addition to the rezoning, policies in the housing element will also change Encinitas. Vina, Murphy, and Manjeet Ranu won't release the revised housing element to the council until Feb. with no public input.
ReplyDeletePlease explain why Murphy declared at the last council meeting that even if we included every accessory unit there is, it would not affect SANDAG's requirement of 1200 something units being forced upon us. Thanks ahead of time for the answer.
ReplyDeleteSince SANDAG got slapped down by the court this past week over the I-5 widening, it would seem a good time to challenge them on their projected population numbers they are requiring of us.
What will Tony say wednesday at the library? Stay tuned.
Murphy said legalized accessory units will not affect the number required to be added this cycle. They would affect the next cycle. I don't know how long the cycles are or when one stops and the next starts.
DeleteMurphy sez a lot of things.
DeleteCity pension liabilities are stated to be between $27 - $39 million! Probably the higher figure. This is for a city that has been in existence for only 25 years, with a population of under 100,000. This figure constantly expands, so tax revenue appears to be mainly the retirement plunder for over-compensated employees. No reforms on the horizon either. Sacramento, here we come.
ReplyDeleteGus is a Huge problem for Encinitas. Kranz supports Gus, therefore, Kranz is a problem for Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteYou know how to vote in 2 years. Lets address our real problems. Not buy more future trophy projects.
SANDAG and our own city council want to redistribute the "wealth" in Encinitas. Look at what is happening in the Bay area with their regional program of One Bay area. Their RHNA allocations are based on a social equity solution.
ReplyDeleteThis is how the social equity is explained -
3. Comment: Allocate to cities with disproportionately low numbers of lower-income residents a proportionately higher percentage of lower income housing.
Response: RHNA is required by law to allocate housing among all income sectors. Staff proposes to use key elements of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology to inform the housing distribution in the alternative scenarios. This primarily includes the 175 percent income redistribution that adjusts jurisdictions’ initial proportion of households in each
income category by 175 percent of the difference between their proportion and the regional distribution.
For homeowners in Encinitas it means that the government bureaucrats don't think you are poor enough. For them the median income in Encinitas is too high.
HCD assigns only a total number broken down by income category to each region. It is up to each region to decide the methodology on how to distribute that total to each city and county in their region. The methodology used in the Bay area may be different then the one SANDAG used. I'll have to read ABAG's methodology before commenting further.
DeleteTime to consider disincorporating and becoming a community of the County. Like La Jolla is to the City of San Diego.
ReplyDeleteLow income social programs should not be implemented on prime oceanfront property. Its all just so wrong. Like so many things from CA government.
Cut the parasitic cord of city government that is sucking the tax coffers dry.
DeleteDe-incorporating is absolutely the answer. Should have ended this circus of bad management long ago.
DeleteMove some migrants into Shaffer's house. Teach by example.
ReplyDeleteWhat planning director Jeff Murphy and deputy planning director Manjeet Ranu are not telling residents.
ReplyDeleteThe city has already identified the parcels that would be changed to 30 or more housing units per acre. Low income housing advocates can sue to have those parcels rezoned.
Murphy and Ranu will not tell you that the increase in apartment density will be 4300 new apartments.
If Malibu can meet the statutory requirements, so can we.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.malibucity.org/index.aspx?nid=370
I would like to know why the council didn't adhere to the deadline(s) of the state requirements. They are supposed to be doing their job, but it appears they are too busy buying trophy projects and getting the city more in debt.
ReplyDeleteGet with it council and do the job you were hired to do.
12:00 PM and 12:15 PM
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you want to talk about the wealth redistribution by the regional agencies?
SANDAG and our own city council want to redistribute the "wealth" in Encinitas. Look at what is happening in the Bay area with their regional program of One Bay area. Their RHNA allocations are based on a social equity solution.
It's probably because you've reached an incorrect conclusion and as such, not worth debating.
Delete- The Sculpin
You can't compare the Bay area with Encinitas. Concentrate on our own little town. What we do here matters the most.
DeleteAnd you can't ignore that our little town's issues with these sham allocations are state-wide, with more and more towns rebelling. Bummer for the developers, whose greed will be their undoing.
Delete3:55,
Deletere: "more and more towns rebelling"
Please provide a link to news stories about specific cities who have decided not to submit a compliant HE.
I didn't say that other towns decided not to submit a compliant HE. I said more and more are beginning to rebel.
DeleteAh, got it. So they are "rebelling" while complying with the law.
DeleteI do not think that word means what you think it means.
I believe it does: http://calwatchdog.com/2012/04/13/bay-area-rebellion-attacks-housing-mandate/
DeleteOkay.
DeleteCalifornia population: 38,330,000
Corte Madera population: 9,200
0.00024% of the state is rebelling. That's not a movement.
Durrrrr 1:10, that was one example. Go do your own homework. Don't be so lazy. You'll be shocked at how many hits you get, although I wasn't.
DeleteLet's talk about the total 4300 apartments Murphy and Ranu aren't revealing to the residents.
ReplyDeleteWhere are these 4300 apartments going to be built?
DeleteBased on the representation by 7:49 AM that "Murphy and Ranu will not tell us" I have a feeling this is an extrapolation of what could potentially be built on the "pre-selected" parcels after the worst case scenario zoning changes are implemented.
Delete1:44 - am I right?
- The Sculpin
2:27 PM
DeleteThere is no extrapolation. It is what it is - 4300 apartments.
I'm not 1:44, but can tell you that Lisa has let slip that the City is "building a buffer" into the numbers we'll be voting on in 2016. The real number the City is herding us toward approving is something of a moving target with evasive responses from City staff on the actual number that apparently will be significantly higher than the 1,285 first presented to residents.
ReplyDeleteAh, another question for Tony wed. evening, adding to many others. I hope he is studying up so he will have all the answers at hand. This is his chance to prove his worth and I hope he does not bring along all the city stooges that are trying to pass this stinker over on this community.
ReplyDeleteTony, this is your gig. We appreciate you putting yourself in the line of fire but please don't stack the room with whoever you can and allow the public to have a real say for a change.
Leave Peak Democracy's E-Town Hall behind for your event. Many know it is a tool to manipulate public input no matter what side one may be one.
Wake up!
At least he's taking the initiative. No one will have all the answers, but this is a start.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Kranz is doing the right thing by holding such an event.
ReplyDeleteAnd watch Shaffer somehow take credit for it.
Watch her be there to hold his hand.
DeleteTent city at the Hall Park - that'll take care of some of the numbers.
ReplyDeleteRobot, robot - no one thinks.
ReplyDeleteLook what happened in Corte Madera.
The mayor has a website to justify her votes. She also has some information on the site that mirrors what Encinitas is fighting.
An excerpt from her site explaining away 180 unit apartment development that should never have been built. Some of the information is from the city manager.
The area of the Town is approximately 4.5 sq. mi. However approximately 1.1 sq. mi. of this is under water (San Francisco Bay) and 0.7 sq. mi. is marshland (marshes east of Hwy. 101). This leaves approximately 2.7 sq. mi. of buildable land, and approximately 0.6 sq. mi. of this is in the FEMA flood plain, which severely limits what can and can’t be built within that 0.6 sq. mi. area.
Now, how do you fit 165 units into 2.7 square miles that is, at a minimum, 98% built-out? We didn't have a lot of choices, obviously. So we took that old WinCup site, 4.5 acres zoned Industrial that used to employ about 150 people, and we created a high-deinsity housing with minimal commercial overlay district to allow for 180 units, 10% of which are affordable. That site could have remained zoned Industrial, creating a bio-tech or green-tech campus in central Marin right by the freeway, if not for the need of our built-out town to meet the RHNA housing quota set by ABAG, which was later revealed to have been incorrectly calculated. And remember, Plan Bay Area also has quotas for jobs, too, but we eliminated the potential for many good-paying jobs at this location in order to meet that target for housing (which we now know was erroneous).
This issue really gets to the crux of why Corte Madera is pushing back against ABAG and unreasonable housing quotas. We are uniquely built-out; no other city in Marin (except perhaps Belvedere) has so little land available for housing, including infill. The result is that we can't accommodate our RHNA numbers without rezoning infill parcels at a higher density. This is a perfect example of how quotas, per se, may not demand increased densities, but in a defacto manner do just that. And remember, that inflated mandate for '07-'14 of 244 units was especially onerous for a built-out town of 2.7 square miles.
What the above doesn't mention, but which you acknowledge in your email, is that Corte Madera subsequently terminated its membership in ABAG. We are the only Bay Area city not currently an ABAG member. This is due to many reasons, not the least of which is that the lack of responsiveness from ABAG coupled with their lack of transparency resulted in their making a very serious error in our RHNA mandates, which then resulted in Corte Madera zoning the Wincup site for 180 units of high-density housing. This withdrawal does not absolve us of our responsibilities under RHNA, but the good news is that for the next RHNA cycle CM's housing mandate has been "corrected" according to ABAG. Our total is down to 72 housing units that we must zone for during the period 2014-2022, which is much more reasonable for a town our size.
Something else to consider, if you're unfamiliar with housing policy, is that those "housing units" must meet HCD and HUD (federal Housing and Urban Development) standards, which includes the need for a full kitchen. This means that many alternative types of housing don't count toward RHNA mandates, such as senior assisted living, co-housing, etc. In Marin, this is especially damaging because of our aging population which indicates we should be building more senior assisted or co-living types of housing, not less.
But do HUD and HCD ever check back on the supposed affordable units? No.
DeleteSoylent Green!
DeleteIt's inspiring that CM quit ABAG over the RHNA, HCD and HUD issue.
ReplyDeletespeak English
ReplyDelete1:53 speaks acronym. That's the joke.
DeleteSorry...it's difficult to have a sense of humor anymore, especially when city hall is pimping all of us to the BIA ASAP for their Do Ri Me.
DeleteAny updates on the Housing Element forum tonight?
ReplyDelete