Sunday, April 19, 2015

California legislature introduces "FU, Encinitas" density bonus law

All the good work of our city council last year in modifying Encinitas' implementation of state density bonus law is at risk of being thrown out the window. Among other tweaks, the council changed city law to allow rounding down, not up, on the number of density bonus units where allowed under existing state law. Current law has multiple stages where rounding is involved, only some of which explicitly require rounding up.

Meet AB 744, by Assemblyman Ed Chau, chairman of the Housing and Community Development committee. It not only mandates rounding up to higher density at every stage, but also greatly reduces parking requirements for high-density developers.

The bill is obviously heavily backed by the developer lobby and stands a very good chance of passing unless there is a large, public uprising against it.

62 comments:

  1. Gee, I wonder why. Encinitas is held in such high esteem in Sacramento. The legislators know that Encinitas does its damndest to fulfill its affordable housing obligations and all state requirements. I'm sure all Mayor Gaspar needs to do is get on the phone with Assemblyman Chau and let him know we don't like his bill.

    And you wonder why developers and affordable housing advocates have legislator's ear. Whether or not this bill goes anywhere or even in its present form is unknown. It's still early but the legislators listened to local developers before. They may do it again.

    I don't know why you sound surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 5:09 PM
    Such a smarmy comment..

    ReplyDelete
  3. 5:09 PM
    Do you feel better now knowing that the community character will be destroyed and high density market rate apartments will be built.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Which council member or members voted to let Shea homes out of their statutory requirement to build the low income houses within the market rate houses in the Saxony development. Instead the council members allowed the Shea homes condos to be converted to the Shea homes ghetto apartments. Shea homes representative wanted to pack in all those low income people in a small area to control them. Or was that the low income management company reciting its philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it was about Shea wanting to have as many units to sell at full market rates in their big developments across the city. They bought that Vulcan property from another project that went bust and converted it to low income. I can't remember if the council ever voted on that one, but I recall being at a community meeting where a former planning commisioner called them out on making this move...

      Delete
    2. More info available on the blog...

      http://encinitasundercover.blogspot.com/2013/07/shea-homes-packs-high-density-on-quail.html

      Delete
  5. 5:52 PM

    "Do I feel better now knowing that the community character will be destroyed"

    No. Density bonus sucks. Density bonus legislation doesn't give a damn about community character. But we are stuck with state mandates or should we ignore all the reduced water use mandates as well. You know brown lawns ruin the neighborhood as well.

    My point is that if we keep ignoring the affordable housing requirements through not having a housing element, don't expect any sympathy from Sacramento. I don't like what we have to do to get our housing element approved but let's try to make the best of a bad situation.

    One principle is clear in judicial decisions, state law trumps local. Yes, my comment was purposely smarmy not because I like what's happening but because many people here think Encinitas can just ignore state requirements without any consequences. While I don't know if AB 744 is influenced by anything Encinitas has done, our ability to get a sympathetic ear in Sacramento is greatly diminished.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 6:44 "But we are stuck with state mandates" BS reveals an insider/council member's perspective.

    Who is our Sacramento lobbyist , and what is this highly-paid person working on, exactly? Will he/she be dispatched to the State to voice Encinitas' heavy opposition? No one at the city answers this repeated question. That's the council's brand of transparency for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part of a lobbiests job is to tell the client when lobbying might be effective, and when it is a waste of time and money.

      Last time our lobbiests was in front of council, he said the alliance of left-wing affordable housing advocates and right wing developers was strong. He basically said it was a waste of time and money.

      He's probably right. Since most cities are in compliance, there isn't a lot of sympathy or support for changing the rules.

      Delete
    2. Stupid spell checker. WTF?

      Delete
    3. 7:13 PM
      No, the lobbyist job is to do what he is told to do. If the council tells him/her to get in their and lobby for the city of Encinitas, that's what is done. The council is getting bad advice from the city's current lobbyist.

      Delete
    4. "voice Encinitas' heavy opposition"

      Is that what you think lobbyists do? Voice opposition to laws that passed years ago?

      In reality, they might create and propose changes to the law, or a wholesale replacement. They would make a case for why the alternative is better for legislators, constituents, and interest groups that control campaign contributions. They might conduct polls to show populist support for the alternative. Finally, they need to create urgency. They make a case for why the legislature should make this effort a priority, and act on it ahead of all the other competing priorities.

      So, if you want the lobbyist to act, what's the alternative you want him to promote? What's the legislative strategy? What voting blocks should he target and why? What's the persuasive argument for change?

      Think about the goals of a lawmaker (get reflected, seek higher office, deliver on the wants and needs of constituents), and the goals of the law (avoid sprawl, assure future housing for a growing population at all income levels in every city, closer to jobs, transportation, infrastructure, services). Then position your alternative bill as a better path to achieve all those goals through a side by side comparison with the existing law.

      Just trying to show that lobbying done well is slow, expensive, hard work.

      "voice Encinitas' heavy opposition" isn't a strategy.

      Delete
    5. How much influence do you think a lobbyist has? Oh sure, there are occasional examples of an all powerful lobbyist who "owns" certain legislators but I doubt, if one currently exists, that the city could afford them. Developers and affordable housing advocates have there own lobbyists and are more likely to use their ability to influence voters as leverage.

      So how do you expect the city's lobbyist to influence legislators? In a legislator's mind, what has Encinitas done to warrant their sympathy? Don't you think the cities that have been successfully sued, costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars, didn't ask their lobbyists to talk to the legislators? Especially since being in the bay area, they could easily drive to Sacramento.

      This is merely an example of denying reality. Closing your eyes, holding your hands over your ears, and yelling la-la-la.

      Delete
    6. We don't even know what our lobbyist has or hasn't said on thIs topic, As the council refuses to show what the lobbyist is working on, it's fairly safe to say that pushing back on state requirements has never been done, or the council woukd have shown thus to residents. Silence in the face of repeated requests for a report on how OUR tax dollars are spent tells a lot.

      Delete
    7. 11:54 AM

      Please. I guess you'll believe and/or say anything so as not to upset your cozy little world. There was a bill introduced several years ago to give local governments housing elements a little flexibility and it went exactly nowhere. Didn't even make it to a committee hearing. There is currently no chance of getting the legislature to make it a little easier on Encinitas. The fact that the only new legislation is making it harder should tell you something.

      Tell you what. Take a day, drive up to Sacramento, interview as many legislators as you can and then report back. Let us know how sympathetic they were (other than commiserating).

      Don't tell us that that is our lobbyist's job. Do some recon.

      Delete
    8. My world is far from cozy. Sadly, this city has opened my eyes to a level of scheming that I could not have imagined. Why isn't pushing back on a clear sham of a "mandate" the lobbyist's job? What is this "recon" you refer to? Why should I take an unpaid day off work to investigate what our lobbyist does?? I'm asking an honest question here as a taxpayer and you are oddly protective of the status quo.

      Delete
    9. There's a snarky quality to 11:54 that screams protecting special interests. Misplaced sarcasm rings oddly.

      Delete
    10. Actually, we do know what our lobbyist has said when he made his annual presentation to council last Fall. Go watch the video. Shaffer has the first question and she asks about density bonus. The lobbyist responded that Encinitas is well known among legislators and that, to paraphrase, our pleas would fall on deaf ears.

      Again, how much influence does one lobbyist have? I'm sure it varies by who they represent and how many personal connections they've established with legislators but I've got to believe that Encinitas' lobbyist is just one of many and only represents, at most, 40,000 voters all in one location. That's one assembly district and one state senate district, Do the math.

      Scheming?? Hardly. Would I like to see the density bonus legislation altered, or better yet, revoked? You bet I would. Not because I'm against affordable housing but because density bonus is a ham-handed way of doing it.

      Finally, I'm not 11:54 but facing reality doesn't mean protecting the status quo or protecting special interests. And if you think cities across the state, including Encinitas, and the League of California Cities haven't pushed back on density bonus then you're sadly mistaken. What have cities gotten for those efforts? The legislature has only made density bonus tougher.

      Delete
    11. 10:33 PM
      Your words are that of a defeatist. It isn't how much influence the lobbyist may have. The lobbyist is to take the city message to state government. Obviously, the lobbyist isn't doing the job. The council majority isn't standing strong against density bonus.

      Delete
    12. 11:51 AM

      Your words are that of someone suffering delusions. "The lobbyist is to take the city message to state government". Oh right, the legislature hasn't hear from cities. Or maybe you think they just haven't heard from Encinitas and once they do they will perform backflips to fix density bonus to our liking.

      Your delusions and those of your fellow travelers only give sustenance to others still clinging to the belief that Encinitas can just hunker down until the law gets changed. It's not going to get changed anytime soon. Not density bonus and not housing element requirements, although there may be some tweaks to the housing element statute. The sooner we comply the better off we'll be as far as the State is concerned. Then maybe they'll start listening to us.

      I say this as someone who would be a happy camper if they either drastically modified density bonus to allow local flexibility or threw it out altogether. Same with the housing element. I'm just not holding my breath and engaging in wishful thinking.

      Delete
    13. Our council has no political will to fight or even just minimize the destructive effects of density bonus. How many times to need to review this? We have: Gaspar and now Kranz loyal to developers, Muir afraid to rock the boat, Shaffer believing in the bizarre notion that folks living like sardines will accomplish sustainability, and the green-behind-the-ears Blakespear hanging on Shaffer's every word.

      No wonder the lobbyist gave up. Question: does anyone else pay our lobbyist for services, and if so, of what nature?

      Delete
  7. 6:44 PM
    Get your head out of the sand. Developers are the ones ignoring state law. Why did the council agree to let Shea homes to completely ignore the density bonus law requirement of building the low income housing in the subdivision? Blame the previous council and the current council for the Shea homes apartment ghetto. Residents said no to the crooked deal the council make with Shea homes. The council ignored the law. Get off of this affordable housing requirements crap, especially after the crooked council/Shea homes ghetto deal. Five people sitting on the council created the problems. And there are at least 2, perhaps 3 on the current council that are continuing the problems by not tell the developers that they must build the low income housing in their subdivision. No more Shea homes ghettos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not that simple, you have to have the narrative of how Shea aquired the Vulcan Property and The Barratt American Property in Leucadia...

      http://encinitasundercover.blogspot.com/2013/07/shea-homes-packs-high-density-on-quail.html

      Delete
  8. We've been over this ground several times: it was Maggie and Teresa that cut this deal with Shea to group the bonus housing where it is presently located.

    Watch the video. So, there is no one to punish that is still on the council, as if sitting on the council isn't punishment enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Shea Homes ghetto apartments have a long, complicated history. It started with the Nantucket projects on Sheridan and Andrew in Leucadia -- two side by side density bonus projects put through the Planning Department by Ecke brother-in-law David Meyer. The former greenhouse property was split into two projects of 8 homes each to avoid having to build any inclusionary housing required for projects of ten homes or more. Meyer sold the plans to Barratt American, keeping the two affordable housing lots in the Ecke Family Trust. Barratt American went bankrupt, with Meyer returning the two lots to Barratt American and walking away free of any responsibility.

      The city was stuck with an ugly situation -- unfinished houses on the second project and no affordable housing units. The surrounding neighbors had appealed the project to council and lost. It was Council Members Stocks, Bond, Dalager, Guerin, and Houlihan who rejected the appeal. The neighbors sued the city and lost with the judge saying the city made mistakes, but giving deference to the city.

      It was a big embarrassment for the city that went on for several year, with flapping tyvek at Nantucket as a constant reminder of the city's screw up. Shea Homes came up with the solution to the city's dillemma -- combine the unbuilt Nantucket affordable units with affordable units on other projects and put them on Vulcan Avenue. It was a winner for both. Shea Homes got rid of affordable units on other projects in order to sell the remaining homes at a higher price, and the city got rid of the eyesore on Sheridan and Andrew.

      But most of all it removed any accountability for the parties involved, and the city celebrated the solution with an open house at the ghetto apartments and patted themselves on the back for the wonderful affordable housing project.

      Delete
    2. Great recap 8:19, and BTW, those ghetto apartments were designed as condos and are very nice. Let's be real, there are no ghettos left in our town, property is too valuable.

      -MGJ

      Delete
    3. Ghetto apartments?? You really need to get out more and actually see a ghetto. The ghetto apartments meme is pure bullshit. Other than a name change, there were no changes to the apartment building plans. It would look pretty much the same whether or not it became all affordable. There are still affordable units at Shea's Coral Cove on north Vulcan.

      So you complain about density bonus squeezing in affordable units but also complain when they are grouped together. As noted above, this was a unique situation due to the Nantucket developments. Density bonus requires that the units are built unlike inclusionary requirements that allows a developer to pay an in lieu fee.

      While the city made the mistake of allowing the Nantucket development to delay building the affordable unit until the end which created the problem when Barratt went bankrupt before completion, it didn't allow a subsequent developer to avoid building the affordable unit. It was only when Shea stepped in that allowed a solution. The difference is that to make it work, many of the affordable unit are now in the Iris apartments which had already been approved as a regular apartment development with several affordable units.

      Why people direct their ire at Shea is surprising. Initially, Shea only owned Coral Cove on Vulcan. They stepped in to help solve the Nantucket fiasco. Ask the Nantucket homeowners and neighbors what they think of Shea stepping in. I'm sure they are grateful as many were pretty pissed with the existing situation.

      Did Shea make any more money on this solution? I don't know but they were required to complete the Iris apartments before proceeding on their other developments. To a developer, time is money but Shea may have held back anyway due to the slow economic recovery. Also, this didn't set a precedent for other density bonus projects.

      And no, I don't work for Shea or any developer.

      Delete
    4. Agreed that Shea solved the Nantucket fiasco by buying those uncompleted homes. Going after Shea on that and the Vulcan apartments is a misguided byproduct of people being frustrated with density bonus and some of the horrific developments in Leucadia, ie the Hermes project, the one behind La Especial and potentially the upcoming Fulvia project.

      Delete
    5. From the beginning the Shea Homes apartments were called a "ghetto," whether appropriate or not. What is true is that the apartments were designed for a certain low income group, in this case Hispanics. Provision was even made for English language instruction, as the apartments are close to Paul Ecke Central School. This gives the appearance of segregated housing, which
      may or may not have been intended. Certainly it would have been better for everyone to have had this housing more dispersed.

      Delete
    6. 12:39 PM

      I know some people referred to them from the beginning as a "ghetto", at least when it was first proposed to make it all affordable. Whether or not the apartments were originally designed for Hispanics, I have no idea and would be careful about making that kind of assertion without providing evidence. And so what.

      Also, there is no magic in having lower income groups widely dispersed. While I wouldn't want high concentrations anywhere, Iris apartments only has 22 units. Hardly a high concentration.

      Delete
    7. 1:11 PM
      Density bonus law requires the lower income groups to be dispersed to avoid the ghetto massing.

      Delete
    8. 1:51 PM

      Density bonus law doesn't say they have to be dispersed. It merely assumes it as the units are included with each development. From a social science perspective, widespread dispersal may actually be a hindrance as people like to associate with those they share common attributes and interests. By saying that I don't mean to imply that we should return to the good old days of urban renewal and warehousing the poor. Far from it.

      Besides, affordable housing projects are often over 22 units.

      Delete
    9. The folks living in the Iris apartments should have had individual, standalone hones with garages and yards, not uncovered parking and a ridiculously small play area that a dog would feel constrained in.

      What happened to the favorite City chant "It's the law!" when Iris was approved as an acceptable swap out for detached housing? Yes, the Council then was different, but Barth not that long ago made excuses for Iris and how tbe shell game went down.

      Delete
    10. Councilwoman Lisa Shaffer is still making excuses.

      Delete
    11. 2:05 PM

      Density bonus law requires dispersion.
      (b) (1) A city, county, or city and county shall grant one density bonus, the amount of which shall be as specified in subdivision (f), and incentives or concessions, as described in subdivision (d), when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to this section, that will contain at least any one of the following:

      (A) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

      (B) Five percent of the total units of a housing development for very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code.

      Delete
    12. You're beating a dead horse on the Iris Apartments. They were designed as condos, so they are bigger than your average apartment. Either way, they now count as Low Income housing in our town.

      It was not a perfect outcome for Low Income Housing, but considering the mess that Nantucket created, it wasn't too bad. As we know, the problem with the law has to be addressed at the state level. Calling it a Ghetto and demonizing certain folks doesn't get us anywhere....

      Delete
    13. 2:59 PM -- Well said.

      Delete
    14. 2:59 - the only folks demonized here are those who looked the other way to hand David Meyers and associated developers a big, fat gimme.

      This horse will continue to be beat until the City figures out how to stop the abuses. Sorry if this inconvenient situation exposes too much for your comfort level. It will continue to serve as the poster child of mean-spirited, greed-driven "affordable housing" fir a very long time. Get used to it.

      Delete
    15. "For" - not "fir."

      Delete
  9. How can Sacramento tell cities they need to cut their water usage drastically, but at the same time cramming development mandates down their throats? Don;t they talk to each other?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The housing cycle is 8 years. Who can say how long the drought will last. Zoning doesn't assure approval of any project. If a water meter moratorium goes into effect, it doesn't matter what the zoning is, All construction stops until the conditions change.

      But what if this isn't a drought? Some science is pointing to the 20th century as an unusually wet period for the Southwest. What we assume to be "normal" may be the anomaly.

      "Woodhouse and her colleagues recently presented an alarming picture of the ancient history of the Colorado River. They sampled the oldest trees they could find — dead and alive — and used them to estimate stream flows all the way back to the year 762. Their results show that the droughts over the last hundred years weren't as severe or as long as earlier droughts. And in fact, the first part of the 20th century was unusually wet.

      'Not only was it wet in the context of 100 years, but there was not a wet period like that for at least 400 years,' Woodhouse says.

      That has major ramifications for modern people who rely on the Colorado River for water. The laws that are used to divvy up the river assume that the extremely wet period was normal."

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12313268

      Delete
    2. Due to imported water and extensive irrigation, it's easy to forget that San Diego has a semi-arid climate. While the coastal marine layer may help native plants survive the minimal rainfall, it's irrigation that allows thirstier imported plants to survive. Climate does go in cycles, both short and long. Climate change worries have to do with the rapid rate of change and its direction.

      Delete
    3. We live in a desert, and the question as to where the water is coming from to support any new project is 100% valid and needs to start being asked.

      Delete
    4. With this planning commission and council, zoning does actually equal project approval...let's be honest here.

      Delete
    5. 12:12, "Let them drink dirt."

      Delete
  10. Land use in the United States has been haphazard and mainly utilized for short term concepts. The State should have been left largely agrarian and been used for food production. Populations should have been placed in the least fertile areas, and kept limited. Of course that goes against the capitalist mandate that everything has its price. In some future decade or century, large urban tracts may have to be torn out and returned to food production. We can eventually do without cars and shopping centers, but food is indispensable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The State should have been left largely agrarian and been used for food production."

      With due respect, that's absurd. Farming uses 80% of our potable water currently, and generates ~1% of our state GDP (http://bit.ly/1GdxT7Q).

      Many of the thirsty crops grown here do not feed people, and are exported overseas. China is basically exporting their drought to us. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989

      Delete
    2. I agree with 11:57 AM. Agriculture is a huge water user. Without water storage and transmission projects, there would be little water available for farming. How much agriculture would there be in the Imperial valley without the aqueduct?

      Delete
    3. 11:57 AM Maintain order when you're in the food line. We're talking sustainable enterprise - o yea, you won't be around anymore.

      Delete
    4. 12:20 PM Where do you think your Twinkies come from - Stater Bros?

      Delete
    5. 4:46 PM

      Are there any natural ingredients in Twinkies? Twinkies almost didn't come from anywhere when Hostess went bankrupt but now they're back, However, Twinkies aren't made in California, they're imported.

      I confess to having no idea what point you're trying to make. While I see different shades of meaning, none make any sense. I could give you my various takes of what you're trying to convey but it would be a waste of my time. Instead I'll just head over to Stater Bros. to get some Twinkies and maybe some Ho Hos and Ding Dongs.

      Delete
    6. 5:26 PM You take food production for granted and minimize it because of its relative placement in the GNP; typical short term thinking. Agriculture will still be around when the freeways are weed festooned remnants and abandoned in ruins. The grocery stores may not exist in the forms presently taken for granted. The techno/industrial jobs that are so highly touted today, may be worthless tomorrow. Your short term thinking doesn't allow for the changes that lay ahead for human civilization - but you will be bones by then. The Chinese are buying up American agricultural land - they plan for the future. Those who know how to farm the land will be they who persist.

      Delete
    7. 4:43,

      Yes. Because we will all starve if we stop growing hay for Asia, and crops for the rest of the country.

      If more produce were grown locally across the U.S., there would be fewer truck trips, less waste, fresher food, varieties selected for their nutrition and taste, rather than travel toughness. Also, food would be more nutritious and tasty, because it would be picked closer to ripe.

      And we'd have plenty of water for growing food for in-state consumption and deliveries to our cities.

      Delete
    8. The exporting of crops to China is an issue indeed.
      But the Chinese can pay the highest prices because they have all of our money. Growers that export crops should pay a higher premium for their water; domestic producers should get first priority and pay the least. Make it a sliding scale depending on the sales ratios.

      Delete
    9. 6:40 PM

      I don't know about you but I worked on a farm when I was young. I'm talking about a large farm not a few acres. I know what it takes and how much water is needed when you can't depend on mother nature. This dystopian future you refer to won't have the resources to shift large amounts of water around the state so the scale of farming will be drastically reduced. And in your scenario it will all be for local consumption. Needless to say, the population it can support will be drastically reduced.

      I think most of us would like to try to avoid the future you predict. How well we do is anybody's guess but I'm the last person to minimize agriculture.

      Delete
  11. The only desert in San Diego County is Anza Borrego. Unless you live there, you don't live in a desert. You live in a semi-arid region.

    Developers build houses, condos and apartments, not homes. Anybody who uses "homes" is buying into the industry's highly effective, decades-long PR campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1:08, ok, have it your way. a "simi-arid region" starved for water. But go look at old pics of Cardiff. Its a vast wasteland, not a jungle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not 1:08's way. Our climate is classified as semi-arid. That term has a specific definition.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-arid_climate

      Ignorance doesn't pay. There is actual science involved here.

      Delete
    2. A rose by any other name would die here if not next to a creek.

      Delete
  13. Someone needs to start a state-wide petition against this bill. Prop NO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Step right up. Anyone can do it.

      Delete
  14. kick out all transplants

    ReplyDelete