We believe this is the current iteration of the map, but don't quote us on that.
Union-Trib:
After months of study, hand-wringing and public debate, a plan that spells out how and where the city could accommodate nearly 1,200 new homes in the coming years could soon be headed for the November ballot.1,987 market-rate units instead of 1,200? That's a heck of a "buffer!"
The city’s Planning Commission wrapped up work this week on the so-called Sustainable Mixed Use Places map, acknowledging there is no easy way to achieve state-mandated housing goals, but saying the map was the best of four possible options.
[...]
The latest plan that commissioners backed Thursday night would allow the city to accommodate 1,987 housing "units" in the 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre range.
Let's get real and add density bonus to the zoning:
ReplyDeleteR20 = R27
R30 = R41
Let's get real some more and admit - as HCD did and city is finally kinda sorta doing - that most of these units will be a market-rate windfall for developers.
Another reality: the standard calculation per household is 10 ADTs (Average Daily Trips). Doing the math, that's over 20,000 more cars running around town every day on our crummy roads. Nothing "sustainable" there.
All the cars on the roads is a little problem but they will have to be parked. This scheme allows developers to not provide enough parking spaces so the cars will overflow into surrounding neighborhoods. This is a blight on the communities.
ReplyDeleteYes, that too. Our city simply cannot do enough for developers, so high-density onsite parking requirements are reduced. Market-rate units will be built where parking should have gone.
DeleteNow folks will be parking in front of my house and yours. All to line the pockets of developers.
This is not a State requirement, this is our city lovin' on its developers. Who are the developers lovin' on in return?
We already have developers not providing enough parking in Leucadia. Try parking at the Leucadia post office or anywhere in that neighborhood. With the French place, Haggo's and the Gym, there is now literally nowwhere to park.
DeleteGet your council to stop encouraging "staff" to bending and breaking the rules for business.
DeleteNo surprises here.
ReplyDeleteThey needed HCD to preapprove a superset of parcels from which to draw a final map. But if they sent the entire superset to Sacramento as one map, then there would be much arm flapping, shouting, and conspiracy theories about an HEU that includes the whole superset. So they broke the superset into three chunks, and asked HCD to provide feedback on three maps. Once HCD weighed in, it was pretty clear that a final map would be drawn from the superset that wasn't one of the original three chunks sent to Sacto.
Important to note that this isn't final. Planning Commission will send this as a recommendation to Council, but Council will likely make modifications.
I'm expecting a lot of debate about the size of the buffer. Whether admitted publicly or not, a large buffer is probably a direct consequence of leaving Prop A intact. In order to avoid expensive, slow and divisive elections after final HCD and Coastal Commission reviews, Council will need additional site inventory that has been preapproved by the voters to make any required swaps.
Sounds straight out of Shaffer's playbook: name-calling concerned residents as having "conspiracy theories" and blaming Prop A for the "large buffer."
Delete10:40 is clearly after damage control and attempting to calm concerns with the city spin. Enjoy your Memorial Day off, you're too late.
Lies, lies from the council and the staff. It started as an update of the existing housing element. HCD literature states use your existing element and add any new requirements. In March, 2015 Jeff Murphy presented the secret done behind closed doors draft housing element. Little did any resident know that they have been duped by the staff and the council that approved the sending the "3 maps" to HCD with a small addition of the "draft" housing element update. Council approved it.
ReplyDeleteGaspar - you are a liar.
Muir - you are a liar.
Blakespear -you are a liar.
Kranz - you are a liar.
Shaffer - you are a liar.
All five of them followed staff's directions.
The At Home in Encinitas junk now being pushed isn't required by state law.
Throw the five council bums out now.
You forgot that Kranz is a bully as well. So who is pushing this thing no one wants? Oh yeah developers who don't live here.
DeleteNotice how the city can't even call the thing by its proper name "Housing Element Update?" No, it's "At Home Encinitas." Sounds kinda cozy, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteAnd the "Floating Zones" document is now the weirdly-worded "At Home Zones Encinitas." What the F is that supposed to mean?
Every step the city takes to pass this thing is instead a misstep. That's how it works when you're trying to something cover up.
Vote NO on this ill conceived plan that will only benefit the developers. Density bonus is a farce.
ReplyDeleteWhat's not clear to me, is if the buffer represents a preapproved reserve of parcels so Council can make changes required by HCD or CCC, then how does the ballot prop distinguish between active parcels and ones approved but held in reserve?
ReplyDeleteIf that's the purpose, then you don't want to automatically upzone all parcels--just enough of them to hit the RHNA target. Assuming a yes vote, the rest of the parcels would be pre-approved by voters, which satisfies Prop A. Those parcels would not be upzoned unless HCD or CCC disqualifies one or more of the active sites.
It will be interesting to see how they structure it.
It's pretty clear how this draft housing element arranges it. The owner of any of these properties applies to float the "at home in Encinitas" zone and the application must be approved. So it's just a matter for a developer to take control of enough contiguous lots, then he has the right to build at full R-30 density as many expensive units as he thinks he can sell. There's no affordability requirement.
DeleteIf the owner goes for "density bonus" he can build even more but a few of them will have to be affordable. There's no way to reduce the number of units and the density bonus allows even smaller setbacks and less parking.
The borg as run by Manjeet Ranu and Michael Strong -
ReplyDeleteThe new draft ordinances of May 2 called At Home in Encinitas replace the Floating Zone ordinances that have been on the city website since September, 2015.
The new ordinances provide for a generation 1 (gen 1) and a generation 2 (gen 2) of ordinances and changes.
Generation 1 are the current ordinances that will be rapidly replaced by Generation 2 ordinances by 2020.
These changes are frightening. Take the time to read through them and be truly informed. Then tell your neighbors.
DeleteThe vote must be NO.
Vote NO.
ReplyDeleteAll of this up zoning is being pushed to continue the salary and pension increases that are required to pay and keep the staff. Nothing more, nothing less.
ReplyDeleteWhen the City was first formed there were 118 staff members, including managers. Now there are over 200 employees of the City of Encinitas. And that does not include fire or the sheriff. Why do we need so many new employees?
ReplyDeleteA lot of density bonus plans to process!
DeleteAnd push!
DeleteOver $30 million in unfunded pension liabilities - probably more by now. For a town of under 100,000, this is highway robbery.
DeletePension reform will only be accomplished by an initiative referendum.
Yeah, a 70% increase in city 'workers' vs. a 10% increase in population seems about right for dystopian, parasitic city government.
DeleteCode Enforcement is full of maggots that ride the backs of the citizenry and businesses to extort fines under threat and intimidation. They are the unfair tax leviers, the most despised stooges of any oppressive type of government.
DeleteNotice how many administrative heads there are? - layer upon layer of redundant bureaucracy. When the citizenry are asleep, the inefficiency of city government increases proportionally.
DeleteIt is known as a multi=tiered ass-covering operation. They keep hiring more and more layers of flunkies so that the actual decision-makers are buffered. What do the people on the bottom do? They hire consultants!!
DeleteWould be interesting to know if on the whole, SANDAG has met its allocation. Some cities I visit are going sky-high and, according to SANDAG, are doing more than their allocation.
ReplyDeleteSomeone should check out the total and what these other cities have rezoned and see if there's a remainder. If less than our allocation, our council SHOULD tell SANDAG "take it or leave it, that's our number." That would require leadership and guts, though.
The SANDAG Regional Housing Progress Report 2003-2013 showed that in the January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2013 4-year period "...achieved 5 percent of the very low income, 8 percent of the low income, 4 percent of the moderate income, and 31 percent of the above moderate income regional housing needs established for the 11 year RHNA projection period."
DeleteThe report goes on to say that "...the percentages of the units produced for very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income households are fairly low." THAT'S A POSITIVE SPIN! The report continues "...only nominal progress has been made in meeting the housing needs for very low, low, and moderate income households."
All of this information was presented at Lisa Shaffer's forum in the library. It clearly shows that the Housing Element Update/RNNA number process is a complete failure.
Vote NO on the Housing Element Update in November. It will not accomplish what it claims to do.
7:47 is right on the money. The only words I would change are "complete failure" to "abysmal failure" for the RHNA/HEU numbers.
DeleteSANDAG's numbers reveal the scam that is "affordable housing." Vote NO.
'SANDAG's numbers reveal the scam that is "affordable housing."'
DeleteI'm sure you know Sacramento is. The scam, as you call it, is coming from the legislature. You need to convince them that it's a scam.
Norby doesn't get a pension.
ReplyDeleteUhhhh ok. He was paid to work against residents, though. You do realize that.
DeleteA federal judge Tuesday sentenced the former head of the California Public Employees' Retirement System to 4 1/2 years in prison after the former chief executive acknowledged accepting more than $200,000 in bribes and trying to steer investments to help an associate.
ReplyDeletestory - LA Times
Entitled self interest. Sounds like all of the public sector in America these days.
DeleteHow is Rancho Santa Fe satisfying affordable housing mandates?
ReplyDeleteRancho Santa Fe is not a city it's a county they put them affordable housing and other areas of the county like Lakeside ....
ReplyDeleteMaybe Encinitas should dis encorporate
A better question is how is Delmar and solana beach addressing it ??
Maybe Encinitas should get some decent council members who have a healthy dose of skepticism and staff who work for resident taxpayers, not developers.
DeleteNo need to unincorporate and no mystery on how to improve things. Too bad our council is spineless with a fully-aware staff.
Del Mar and Solana Beach have smaller population bases, plus their Planning Staffs, in cooperation with SANDAG actually counted more of their existing affordable housing.
DeleteAnd maybe their planning staffs are aware they work for residents, not developers. Just maybe.
DeleteWhen Karen fires Manjeet, Mike and Scott, watch the others spring to life!!
DeleteKaren, if you do this, you will rise in popularity among residents. Who cares what out of town developers think?
Karen's hands are tied by a council that likes things just the way they are. Jeff Murphy served their interests well and they want more of the same, which is what they get with Manjeet & Co. Nothing will change until the Council lets it.
Delete