Thursday, February 5, 2015

2/5/15 Special City Council meeting open thread - Housing Element outreach

Please use the comments to record your observations.

UPDATE: Seaside Courier wrap-up here.

69 comments:

  1. Shaffer already pissed that "the process" is "going forward," no matter what. Grilling Gaspar and demanding a "yes" or "no" response...if only she questioned staff that closely.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow. If they put multiple maps on the ballot, does Prop A require a majority or a plurality?

    What a train wreck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like a tip of the hand that there won't be a "no" option on the ballot. Whoops, City didn't mean to let that out of the bag till election day.

      Delete
    2. As I understand this, from past ballot measures, Council can pay per question put on the ballot. So it could put three different maps on the ballot, as three different yes or no questions.

      For ballot measures, there is automatically a "none of the above" choice, as each question (or map) can be voted upon by a yes or no vote. If more than one map passes, that is, gets more yes votes than no votes, then the map which receives the most yes votes will be the map that is enacted.

      Personally, I'm hoping that the voters reject ALL of the maps put on the ballot. I feel the maps are disingenuous, because there has never been an accurate count of existing affordable housing, or of our current population. SANDAG has favored development in its interpretations and analyses, NOT affordability.

      Until there is an accurate accounting of our existing housing stock, then any numbers forced on us through SANDAG are suspect. Council and staff are attempting to verify false numbers under the color of their authority, and SANDAG's overreaching pretext. The State by stating that density is a proxy for affordability is giving credence, and the color of its authority, to a lie.

      Delete
  3. Full moon planning, here we go!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shaffer is giving Murphy an aneurysm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. About time. Now Gaspar is. Murphy very oddly resistant. It's almost like he's working for someone else. Weird.

      Delete
  5. Jeff Murphy and Manjeet Ranu are making fools out of the council. Murphy is just now starting on the Housing Eliement update. Council - wake up! Don't let Murphy and Ranu make fools out of you. Fire Murphy and Ranu now.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gaspar has had plenty of time to stop Peak Democracy. Remember how speakers long ago showed what a sham it was. Obviously after Tuesday's meeting her developer buddies got to her and told her to stop and change direction. We all know who she answers to. My guess is that they want the Ralph's mall and other El Camino Real spots and were not happy at all with Kranz's suggestion that Sprouts be done instead of Ralphs. Wow. She is so transparent. Also, Muir with his stupid attempts at trying to slow things down. I also think they are not happy with the property owners coming forward and offering their property up for re-zoning. This would go far into cutting down the numbers and the developers do not want this. Who is running this site? The developers through their figure heads Muir and Gaspar. Absolutely disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They didn't renew the contract with Peak Democracy.

      Delete
  7. Marco Gonzalez is a sneaky fox. Need more parcels. Doe the council understand that if they put more parcels for evaluation in the EIR then the city can be sued by any group.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gaspar and Muir do not care about what the citizens want. They care about their developer friends.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Marco is a bully. It is hard to take someone like that too seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one takes him seriously.

      Delete
  10. Why are people falling for this? Bonde just got up and thanked everyone for being so honest and upfront. There is no honesty here with Gaspar and Muir. maybe for Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespear, but not the other two.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is really clear that the city does not plan to put a NO on the ballot. This will bring on more lawsuits.

    ReplyDelete
  12. oh Gaspar giggle giggle you are working it

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thought experiment:

    • if the city puts one map on the ballot, the vote becomes up or down. There is a possibility that the measure fails, and the city is unable to comply with state law.

    • If the city places three or more maps on the ballot, there is a high probability that the winning map will not attract a majority of votes, and the rezoning would fail under Prop A.

    • if the city places two maps on the ballot (and ONLY two), there is a 100% chance of passing a Housing Element that will satisfy the state.

    Why?

    With two maps, there is no "NO" vote on tha ballot, and the winning map is assured to have a majority of the vote, by definition.

    If you are a conspiracy theorist, look for Gaspar's proposal for multiple maps to evolve into exactly two options on the ballot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty sure 2 options would be 2 separate yes or no choices, and both could fail.

      Delete
    2. EU,

      I respectfully disagree. Think it through. If they put three or more on the ballot, they can't be yes/no, or you could have multiple maps pass, which would be a mess.

      I think once you put more than one on the ballot, it's likely to become a menu selection. Pick your favorite map.

      Delete
    3. Clarifying: EU, under your structure, what happens of both maps get a majority yes vote?

      Delete
    4. They explained that. If more than one pass, the one with the most yes votes prevails. Just like the 2 year vs 4 year option for the elected mayor.

      Delete
    5. Understand, but that has problems in this context.

      If people feel the most critical outcome is compliance with state law, they may be inclined to vote yes on both. But if they also prefer one map over the other, then two yes votes cancels out their expression of preference.

      That hypothetical voter would halve to choose between expressing a map preference, and giving the city the best chance to comply with state law.

      That's a lot of strategy and gamesmanship in the voting process.

      Delete
    6. The way that makes sense is:
      1. Update the housing element to accommodate state mandates? Yes or No?
      2. Which is your preferred plan? A or B?
      IIRC, elected mayor was done this way.

      Delete
    7. 7:52,

      Thank you. Problem solved.

      Delete
    8. The city attorney explained it. Each map would be a separate proposition with a YES or No vote. If more than one proposition gets a majority of YES votes, the one with the highest number of votes is the winner. This is how we voted on a 2-year or 4-year term for an elected mayor. All of the map alternatives could be voted down with a majority of NO votes.

      I don't think it will come to this. All the maps will be analyzed in the EIR. The city council will then choose one to put on the ballot with a Yes or NO vote.

      Delete
    9. The good thing about our voting yes or no for an elected mayor, was that even if we voted no, we got to vote on whether we would favor a two year or a four year term if an elected mayor was approved by a majority of the voters.

      In that case there were three questions on the ballot, should we have an elected mayor? if we do have an elected mayor, should it be for a term of two years? Or (question 3) should the term for an elected mayor be for four years?

      Fortunately, many who voted no on having an elected mayor also voted YES on the two year term, for greater accountability.

      Delete
  14. Don't they have to put a no due to prop A?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think legally they would have to include an option for a law suite.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Looks like a ballot for 2016 is hopeful thinking. The freigh train is barely moving.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Gaspar wants to shitcan Peak Democracy. Great!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why did Gaspar wait so long to do anything about Peak Democracy. Gotta wonder who she is getting her advise from.

      Delete
  18. Assreem sounds like a total idiot. Any commercial property owner that lets him speak on their behalf, is a total idiot. 22 properties loosely. Big deal. go home to Escondido loser. Get out of Encinitas Assreem.

    ReplyDelete
  19. New speaker summed it up nicely: the Council needs to decide whether it wants to comply with the law, as it is sooooo very fond of saying, upzone at market rate, and lose at the polls, or come up with a way to enforce affordability. She's been here five minute and gets it. Too bad the council's not so quick.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey Kranz, Encinitas Blvd. is the most impacted road in Encinitas! To put dense housing anywhere along Enc Blvd. is madness. You WILL be voted out next round, can be soon enough.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 1300 units are NOT required! Wake up here everyone, it is not even 600 required, we are getting a snow job folks!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Murphy never has been held accountable for the wildly-varying numbers. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh-- Shaffer picking fight with Catherine. WTF? Petty or what. Catherine - you are doing fine. Keep us the good work. Stay neutral.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Murphy and Manjeet need to be driven out. Their talk of "need" is about a need to justify their overpaid salaries and their future pensions, and not any actual need for more housing. That entire department is full of six-diget-salary ticks.

    Let them find another host than the CIty of Encinitas!

    ReplyDelete
  25. I personally think that Michael Strong is doing a good job. Honest and transparent. Well done Michael. Hold your head high!

    Encinitas Resident.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael always been very straightforward and transparent. He is also hard working. I know there is a "fire them all" attitude towards city staff on the part of some. But, I have to say there are a number of them that are hard working and dedicated.

      Delete
  26. Is NE-4 still on their "consensus" map? This would be a major clusterf...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many years did Shaffer study Nurse Ratchett?

      Delete
  27. What the?

    I fell asleep after Gaspar won her vote that in part called for no deliberation on specific parcels or maps, only strategies. Later I woke up to turn off the TV and it sounded like they were deliberating on specific maps and parcels, with Gaspar right in the mix.

    WTF happened? Did they vote again to remind the earlier vote? Did they forget? Does Gaspar just like needless drama?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Blakespear starting off her tenure strong.

    She starts off the night with an olive branch, then crosses the isle to vote with Gaspar and Muir on procedural issues. This action broke down the polarization of the council that had them spinning their wheels.

    Without Blakespear, I don't see how they get to three maps unanimously approved to proceed to The EIR phase.

    If you are rooting for chaos, confusion and delay, Blakespear is your nightmare.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree Blakespear was good and so was Gaspar. Both of them worked to make progress, standing strong on their positions but also looking for ways to move forward. It is a complex issues there are dealing with. Shaffer is nothing but a sourpuss. Can't imagine the process they went through last night if Barth and/or Stocks had been involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. Blakespear and Gaspar did a good job.

      Delete
  30. 10:54
    Mike Strong answers to Jeff Murphy.

    For Mike it is simply a question of Job or No Job!.

    ReplyDelete
  31. City of Encinitas website down. Probably too many people streaming last nights meeting crashed the site. I heard the first hour was a wild ride. I can't wait to watch the video.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Why are we even doing maps at this point when there is no linkage or analysis between what citizens have been saying over these past years and what they are producing as maps. Where are the criteria for even identifying the sites in the first place?

    Clean house in Planning!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > Where are the criteria for even identifying the sites in the first place?

      If it looks like Graft it is so!!

      Delete
  33. Most, over 85% of all the low income housing, will be put in Leucadia....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't wait to see what truthy stuff comes out of your posterior next.

      Delete
    2. You get a tingle up AND down your leg when I post don't you??

      Delete
  34. Years ago," reassignment" of valuable coastal corridor land was going to be done by code enforcement. A particular standard for building appearances would have been arbitrarily imposed and the people without cash assets to make the 'improvements' would have been forced to sell and move out (that would include many of the older residents). A lot of the residents had been in their homes for decades and preceded the land value escalation as the population numbers dramatically increased. Sort of similar to the eminent domain theory where the "best use" owner is entitled to the land. The whole deal collapsed because of its transparency - a blatant land grab for profit. The Housing Element is just its reincarnation in a different form.

    ReplyDelete
  35. So does council get under the guise of low income housing they are being elitist, or are they just playing into the hands of developers?

    ReplyDelete
  36. 2:51,

    I don't think I was here, as I don't recall any proposal remotely similar to what you describe. But assuming your version of history is correct, please explain how the HEU is similar.

    How exactly will current land owners be forcibly removed? I happen to live on a parcel that can be subdivided according to zoning. As yet, I have received no knock on my door from the density enforcement police. Also, I'm pretty sure my property tax assessment from the county does not reflect the potential value of the land of it was subdivided (99% sure), so a huge tax bill will not be forcing land owners to develop or sell involuntarily.

    There's legit reasons to object to HEU--but this isn't one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4:39 +1. There are legit reasons to object but when you come off as a nutjob, it makes it harder to make the legit case.

      Delete
    2. 4:39 PM Land transfers that change the density/appearance of the community is the commonality. Instead of forced removal, it has been incentivized by a profit motivation.

      Delete
    3. Point taken, but the difference between voluntary and involuntary is not insignificant.

      It's the difference between the Peace Corps and Guantanamo Bay.

      Delete
  37. So if I understand, the developers have the option of paying an "in lieu of" fee which then let's them off the hook for having to build any low income housing, but they still get the DB? Is that still going on? If so, then I think that the "in lieu of" fee, which is very low in Encintis (something like $150.00) should be raised to whatever the price of one of their homes they build might be. Is that possible or does anyone know? Sorry I was not as articulate, but I am having difficulty explaining what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The way our policy and code is set up, now: when developers want to invoke the density bonus law, which allows setbacks to be relaxed, and parking requirements, etc., they must build a certain amount of affordable units per total of units that are planned to be built in the DB development. In ADDITION to that requirement, for actual affordability, with a covenant, from 30 years to 55 years, developers are required to provide more affordable housing, even if they are not invoking DB state law.

      These additional affordable unit "concessions" can be in the form of actual on-site units, or, through a pre-set formula, can be through in-lieu affordable housing fees paid into the City's coffers.

      Delete
  38. 6:10pm - Come back when you collect your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think what 6:10 is trying to say is that there is a policy in place that a developer, even though he gets the DB, doesn't have to build low income. He can just pay an "in lieu of" fee to the City. This means that the developer can get DB and not build low income if they pay the City a pittance of what should be paid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the policy is that DB projects have mandatory, on site requirements for affordable housing, with covenants for 30-55 years. But for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers, covenants are NOT required.

      The City has an additional, but separate development policy, a requirement that developers of ALL new-build or significant redevelopment, whether the plan allows for DB concessions, or not, are to provide a certain amount of affordable housing, either through on site affordable housing, or through in-lieu affordable housing fees,paid into a fund for off-site affordable housing.

      Again, that affordable housing or in-lieu requirement for funding toward affordability is in addition to, not instead of any Density Bonus requirements.

      Delete
    2. The city has an inclusionary housing policy. Any subdivision of 10 units or more must have 10% affordable units. The builder can pay in lieu funds instead of building the units. Density bonus units are allowed on any subdivision of 5 or more units. The density bonus affordable units must be built. No in lieu funds.

      The Fiore project on Normandy in Leucadia is an example. It has two density bonus affordable being built. The builder paid in lieu funds for the two required inclusionary units.

      Delete
    3. While the Council voted to raise the in lieu fee, that did not go far enough. They need to dismantle that choice of paying an in lieu fee totally.

      Delete
    4. And they can, 7:23. But they won't; that would be removing a tool (read "toy") currently in the developer "toolbox." It's gotta pencil out, dontcha know.

      Delete