Thursday, February 2, 2017

Housing meeting summary

UPDATE: Video now available.

Thanks to Anonymous for the summary:
All in all, it was a pretty good meeting. Bruce E did a good job of outlining 11 constructive points about how to build a housing element that may be acceptable to both HCD and voters. I don't think he'll get everything, but the majority of it was pretty reasonable stuff.

Blakespear didn't have her best night, but she got a B grade. Not sure if it was planned, but she seemed to do most of the talking for the City. Some technical issues came up around RHNA numbers and accessory units that she should have had our lawyer answer, and instead engaged in a back and forth with citizens explaining why their ideas wouldn't work. It created a little bit of citizens vs. city atmosphere when she was clearly trying to create a sense of unity.

We learned that the strategy is to get a new housing element in front of voters this fall, if at all possible. The terms of the settlements are in breach, so we should expect those cases to restart. Right now, we don't have a viable defense. If we can show a judge potential to have the matter resolved this Fall without court intervention, they likely would give us time and space to make it happen.

This is going to upset some folks, because we are back in hurry up mode. We'd need to put another draft in to HCD for review this Spring. It means there isn't time to go back to square one. I'm expecting to see them start with Measure T, and make revisions to lower building height, create actual affordable housing, shrink the "buffer," benchmark against other cities, restore how heights are measured, remove the attic bonus floor--that sort of thing.

There's a constituency that will never be satisfied, and that's okay. They aren't winnable, so the city should focus on the most important changes that would affect voters who were on the fence last time.

After last night, I now think it's possible to get this done. I'm not sure if the time pressure is a good thing or a bad thing. There will be errors; the process won't be perfect. But having more time encourages a bloated document with more targets for misinterpretation or confusion.

I'd like to see CC develop a list of guiding principles and goals for the refresh, and stay laser focused on them. I think half or more of those principles should come verbatim from Bruce H's list.

Before sending anything to HCD or the voters, measure the draft against those goals.
UPDATE: Articles on the forum from Aaron Burgin in the Coast News and Barbara Henry in the U-T.

127 comments:

  1. The first question is whether the restarted HE is going to be (1) a rehash of the failed "T" phone book or (2) an amendment to our original General Plan. Alternative (1) looks like a false shortcut. Alternative (2) can benefit from the EIR and site selection of AHE but is, IMO, better suited to our population.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not sure who the author of the above is, but he/she certainly whitewashed Catherine's performance that included accusing Bob Bonde of using "alternative facts." No matter what she thought of his ideas, that was beyond out of line. She did that a couple of times, then figured out she was not winning any points. Her comments to Bob and another speaker were weirdly aggressive and many in the audience sat with raised eyebrows.

    The author also ignores HCD's statement that if a developer does prevail in court and "sends in the judge," all the judge does is declare a building moratorium until a housing element update is passed. We don't need a "viable defense" - bring on the judge! HCD also says if we are showing active work on coming up with a plan, they will give us the time. However, showing an effort won't make David Meyer happy - he wants Measure T, not some bare-bones plan that has developer favors stripped from it.

    And finally: claiming "some people will never be satisfied" sets the expectation that the 56% had better be happy with whatever the city comes up with next. If it's Measure T.2, "some people" will be an even greater percentage. The city can't seem to figure out that it can no longer pull the wool over residents' eyes. Too many are watching and are far more knowledgeable than the city cares them to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the added detail on Catherine and the "alternative facts" comment. I'm supportive of her, but even I cringed on that one. Yeah, like I said, it wasn't her best performance.

      I think your HCD quote on a permit freeze is (wildly) misinterpreted.

      A judge would not impose a building moratorium. He would suspend the city's power to issue permits. What was unsaid but implied in the HCD quote was that the power to issue permits would be handed to the state or a judge, who would favor development.

      It makes no sense that the penalty for resisting development is a freeze on development. That's like punishing your kid for throwing a tantrum about candy by giving him candy.

      Delete
    2. The HCD quote was direct, so not sure how else it could be interpreted.

      Delete
    3. 9:10,

      You may be right about what HCD meant, but not necessarily.

      A permit freeze would be very painful for the city and residents as city revenues would dry up and residents couldn't do remodel projects.

      It's a big threat and would spur the city to get moving.

      Delete
    4. I found his email. I will contact him and ask him to publicly clarify his comments. We should know with certainty what HCD's position is.

      Delete
    5. Yes, and you know we will believe what an anonymous poster who is clearly hopeful developers prevail, will say.

      Delete
    6. 4:16,

      I was thinking more of asking him to send a note or letter to council, that would be entered into the public record.

      You don't sound so confident.

      Delete
    7. I know what I heard HCD say in 2015 and I know what I saw replayed the other night.

      I'm perfectly confident.

      Delete
  3. Was Marco there? Did he go on his usual rant if he was. His mantra is racism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Three pretty good posts discussing the issues at hand, then this genius has to offer his 2 cents........

      Sigh.........

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    2. Inclusionary housing requirements will just encourage density bonus applications. Density bonus applications will just reverse all of these ideas on reducing building height from 38 feet to 30, no attics, etc. You need to be smarter.

      Density bonus law now provides concessions to commercial developers if they have a partnership with a housing developer. Say goodbye to your views over Seaside Market.

      I think that any work effort coming out of this should spend an equal amount of time on density bonus law changes. Here is is a perfect remedy "Density Bonus law is not applicable in any jurisdiction that mandates 25% inclusionary housing for lower income households to any development more than five units. To be eligible, the jurisdiction must have successfully removed all of the governmental constraints identified in an adopted Housing Element that considered up to date in accordance with all applicable law.

      I am here in the corner, eager to help.

      Delete
    3. That was Tony's point and it's false. Here's why: developers will not forego extra profits anywhere, anytime. They will always go for the max and this notion that we have to fear waking the bear is nonsense. It's no secret Tony's best friends are now developers and he's no doubt parroting their BS for...fill in the blank.

      I agree the DB law needs a major overhaul. Developers penned much of that law; David Meyer always boasts about knowing it better than anyone else "because I helped write it."

      Time to take the pen from the grasping developer clutches.

      Delete
    4. Marco was there and he did play the race card. He got some groans from the audience. He backed off suing the city for the time being. If he has a slam dunk of a lawsuit, why doesn't he push ahead and get his lucrative legal fees paid by the city?

      Delete
    5. I did not hear him use the race card.

      What I heard him say was that during public hearings on an affordable housing project in Solana Beach, people from the expensive condos across the street asked if "those kids" would be going to the same school as "our kids."

      His point seemed to be that the audience last night seemed to favor truly affordable housing, but to expect a different kind of objection to emerge if we go in that direction.

      Delete
    6. Then I'd hie ye to the doctor for a checkup, 2:04. Marco used the words "racial" and "race" several times.

      He was vastly outnumbered last night and not his usual histrionic self.

      Delete
    7. Marco did make the comment about "those kids." However, he prefaced that remark by saying his father was from Mexico. He was clearly playing the race card. He has done it various times usually saying "brown people." Not sure if he is aware of the blatant discrimination against brown indigenous people in Mexico. All one has to do is look at television or magazine ads which always feature "white people." Or look at the current president of Mexico Peña Nieto.

      Delete
    8. I had never seen Marco until last night. He looks like an overweight white guy. Hispanic white is completely different from non white. For him to imply that he speaks as a victim is wrong.

      Delete
    9. It's the only argument he ever makes.

      At least this time he wore his baseball cap facing forward.

      Delete
  4. Why don't we have a special vote, per prop A, for Meyer to pitch his development? If it passes the city pays the cost of the election, from the unused money developers pay not to build anything affordable.

    Without a plan we have built more affordable housing then our neighbors, including Oceanside. I really dont understand what he is sueing for and what damages he is suffering? I feel it is a made up game that either way our tax dollars go to welfare case Meyer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong. We have not produce more affordable housing that Oceanside.

      That includes both market rate affordable AND deed-restricted.

      We have not produced more affordable housing than Carlsbad.

      We have produced more than Del Mar and Solana Beach. But we should since they are more built out than we are and they are 1/5 of the size.

      I am here in the corner, eager to help.

      Delete
    2. And the more we settle, the more they'll come at us for every little thing they don't like about our vote, our code, you name it.

      Delete
    3. https://kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2017/01/17/North_County_Housing_Tables-FS_3_t700.jpg?f40c0e74b997dbb01ce524758e0d04a31382c8af

      This charts shows the past three years as reported by each city. We have built more than Oceanside in the last three years. Without a plan.
      http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/jan/18/new-affordable-housing-north-county/

      Are Oceanside and Carlsbad not much bigger?

      My point is that there is nothing stopping anyone from building affordable housing here. If the city wants to help developers then the city should eat the extra cost of prop A., that's it, until we have a certified plan.

      Delete
    4. Besides the Iris Apartments, the City of Encinitas has done squat, dude.

      The Oceanside statistic is wrong. Go call their staff. There was an affordable housing project constructed near the freeway. Also, the City of Carlsbad has produced 100s of units prior to those years, if that statistic is even right. I don't think it is....isn't there a quarry creek project with dozens of affordable units? Maybe they are pending(?).

      Your point is right, there is nothing stopping anyone from building affordable housing in any community. That's the nature of DB law.

      How many affordable MF units do you see here without DB? I think that is the point. We don't have any land zoned for standalone MF construction, ergo not MF affordable units.

      Would you rather have affordable units come from DB applications or just stand alone project that comply with code. Big difference to you, me, and everyone that despises DB implementation.

      Delete
  5. I wonder what the low income housing plan looks like for our neighbor cities like Rancho Santa Fe, Solana Beach and Del Mar...

    How come they can meet the state requirements for a housing plan and we cannot?

    ReplyDelete
  6. 10:21 AM
    Perhaps the language in their housing plan isn't written to be accusatory of the residents.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A lot of housing is planned as affordable housing. It doesn't go to market that way. Once it is put on sale it goes for the market price. In California if you want to sell something you tell people it is designed to help save the world. Stack & Pack development is supposed to do many wonderful world saving things. House the needy, reduce driving miles, stop air pollution, get people to walk, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All nonsense, of course. It is just a way of convincing people there is a need for development. It's nothing but a sales pitch. Those who believe it are silly fools.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Got examples with dollar figures?

      Delete
    2. So where does one find affordable Wiener housing in San Diego county?

      Delete
    3. El Cajon Blvd

      Delete
    4. Affordable? Like poor people affordable?

      Delete
    5. Like by the book affordable. There's an official chart an' everthang that the city should be using. The council allowed Measure T's charter to morph from "low- and very-low income," which are the only category for which we were assigned units where we haven't satisfied demand, to "housing for all income levels."

      Several council members have said they want their kids to be able to live here. They and developers viewed this plan as their personal sandbox.

      Delete
    6. Nice. A cheap place to house their dumbass kids so they don't have to stash them in the attic.

      Delete
  8. The only way to guarantee low income housing here is to provide price controls.

    Developers will always sell to the highest bidder. Who will not be low income persons just because of the fact of market conditions here.

    Density bonus was never really meant to help the low income housing ... it was always a gift to developers to get higher density and profits.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What was really highlighted Tuesday night was how little the council knows about the plan they signed off on - and fought to pass.

    Blakespear has always said that no one wants to sign up for the section 8 (low income) housing program, because the flats are deed restricted "in perpetuity, and who wants to do that?"

    Consulting attorney Kautz had to correct her, saying while she hated contradicting the mayor, the statement was false.

    This is what you get when you have a council who take "staff's" word for everything, then go around repeating it like it's actually fact.

    No matter how many times "staff" has been exposed as liars, council keeps believing what they say. Astounding.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Can someone please post a link to the video of the housing element meeting?

    I can't find it anywhere on the city website.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think they usually video-record meetings at the Senior Center.

      They may be afraid that with the interactive format, one of them will have a Mosca Moment and they wouldn't want it on video.

      Delete
    2. They don't usually record there, but Ehlers pressed the subcommittee to do so if they're really serious about transparency. Apparently, "staff" balked at first, are we surprised?

      They recorded the meeting but will likely delay posting it until they've edited out Blakespear's outbursts and Kranz's aggressive blabbing.

      Delete
  11. Free housing, no borders.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ALERT! City Council Special Meeting on Monday, Feb. 6, 2017.

    AGENDA ITEMS

    1. City Council discussion on next steps regarding the development of a legally compliant Housing Element Update.

    Recommended Action: Provide direction to the Council subcommittee of Mayor Blakespear and Deputy Mayor Kranz regarding next steps for developing a legally compliant Housing Element Update.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just read SB 35, seems better than anything our city has come up with, and this is a punishment. Actually, we are a coastal and enviromental area so we maybe better off going to default state guidelines.

    Local zoning heights and set backs are respected but parking requirements are waived.
    https://futuretravel.today/housing-for-a-growing-california-details-on-my-housing-reform-bill-e22dfff855e0#.2awxy41i1

    ReplyDelete
  14. Careful before you developer hounds get too excited.

    This bill says:

    "SB 35 will create a streamlined approval process for housing when cities are not meeting the housing creation goals required by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which will expedite the construction of affordable housing."

    Our RHNA-required units are low- and very-low only, which are the bands the 1,093 fall under. So developers had better get busy figuring out how to make it pencil out, because market-rate units will not be "streamlined" under this bill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, there's nothing in that description that would preclude the state from cutting deals with developers who plan to throw in a handful of affordable units into a larger project.

      It could be Density Bonus on steroids.

      You'd have to read the actual bill.

      Delete
    2. Looks like the bill hasn't been written yet. SB-35 is just a placeholder of 2-3 paragraphs saying they plan to write a bill to override local control.

      I'm pretty sure when it's written by the BIA it will allow the state to wheel and deal with our future.

      Delete
    3. So you're saying you're pretty sure the BIA has already paid off Wiener to change the intent and language of the bill?

      Delete
  15. 3:07, I'll take my objective reading of Wiener's bill along with my attorney's over your hopeful interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You had your lawyer read the bill, you say?

      Here's the entire text of the bill, which is clearly a placeholder:

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

      SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to streamline and incentivize the creation of affordable housing projects, to remove local barriers to creating affordable housing in all communities, to streamline, incentivize, and remove local barriers to housing creation in jurisdictions failing to meet their regional housing needs contained in their housing element, and to ensure the payment of prevailing rate of wages in the creation of this housing.

      That's it.

      Noteworthy that this section didn't have the word "affordable" in it:

      ". . . remove local barriers to housing creation in jurisdictions failing to meet their regional housing needs..."

      So it would seem that the objective reading is that his intent is to fast track housing, both affordable and otherwise.

      Believe what you want to believe. Time will tell.

      http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB35

      Delete
    2. You sound hysterical, 4:31. Take a break and calm yourself.

      Delete
    3. I'm still sitting in the corner, ready to help.

      I'm wondering, 4:31: what side are you on? Hoping the legislation has plenty of loopholes for developers, or are you planning to lobby for a strict plan?

      It's not clear to me why you're showing us all this research on something that's not yet finalized.

      Delete
    4. I'm on the side of clarifying actual facts and reality to get to a Housing Element that can be approved by HCD and voters.

      I'm not a lawyer, a builder, a banker, a broker, a city staffer, or elected official. Nor do I pal around with or draw income from any of the above. I am a husband, a daddy, a home owner, a local, and a voter.

      I just don't want people getting their hopes up that SB 35 is going to be better than having a housing element. We can't possibly know that, because it hasn't been written yet. But clearly Weiner's intent is to screw us, if you read his interviews on the matter. It's probably not going to be a good thing.

      Delete
    5. I think we should work with what is in front of us now, not a bunch of what-ifs. The city has called a special council meeting for Monday - not sure why they didn't leave it on its regular Wednesday nights, folks can speculate on that.

      We have to deal with what we have: a council that has let staff run the show and produce a failed HEU and a concerned electorate who proposed many ideas that sounded workable.

      One thing is for certain: residents will not accept staff's reassurance that they're doing all they can to create a palatable plan without documentation, documentation, documentation.

      Tony is stands alone on the council as being oddly protective of developers. He needs to get that the city screwed up by letting staff influence a compliant council. The city is no longer considered a trusted source of information by at least 56% of the electorate.

      The council has its work cut out for it and then some, but then again, it made its bed.

      Delete
    6. I was the original author of the comment that suggested a legislative fix to db law. And I think it needs to be fixed to protect every community. Not just Encinitas.

      At the same time, you will need to offer common ground. If the spirit of density bonus law is to produce affordable housing and remove governmental constraints to their development, then it should be ok if a city removes similar constraints as monitored and analyzed through a Housing Element; and then separately asks for inclusionary housing.

      This accomplishes the goal of actual production. It also produces new housing so that it doesn't destroy the look of existing neighborhoods.

      Seriously think about it. Who is with me?

      Delete
    7. Not me. The spirit of the density bonus law is to wedge extremely profitable high density development into cities and settings where the people don't want it. All gussied up with the bogus claim that it will somehow help low income and homeless people. I suspect they laugh loud and long at BIA meetings about that one. Again, if you want to peddle objectionable crap to Californians, tell them it is being done to save the world. The chuckleheads fall for it every time.

      Delete
    8. I'm on the opposite side of 11:01. I'd like DB to stay out of Encinitas!

      Delete
  16. In California "affordable housing" is an oxymoron. And that includes Wiener housing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Some of you'all are ridiculous.

    You don't think you need to do a Housing Element because you produce affordable housing. However, the affordable housing comes from density bonus projects.

    The same cluster hates density bonus because it produces projects that are not in line with character.

    Ironic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't hear a single voice saying don't do a housing element. I also don't hear a single voice pretending db projects produce anything even approaching meaningful in the way of affordable housing, unless you count Marco and his clients. Their only goal is killer profits, so let's set them aside as outliers.

      There's no "cluster" that hates db because of the out-of-character results. There are haters, though. You can easily recognize them: they're the ones with eyes in their heads.

      Delete
    2. Ummm.... I live in Leucadia. I don't like DB because it looks ugly. Speak for yourself.

      DB projects here reduce lot coverage and sandwich in "out of character" housing.

      Delete
    3. Changes to DB law is good!

      Delete
  18. Lets back off Marco. Although a little snarky, he is trying to help now and knows this stuff better than most.

    I would like to see the finally version of SB 35 before forming any opinion or even moving ahead with an HEU.

    My personal opinion is that an HEU would pass if set backs and height restrictions are kept the same, which draft SB 35 suggests. Give up parking requirements if runoff, water recycling, and solar are included. Granny flats get the exact same restrictions and incentives developers receive, to scale obviously.

    DB counts towards the HE but would SB 35 just result in developers invoking DB and not messing wiith Affordable stuff? Is that what I am reading here? I'm a couple hits deep now, everything is so fuzzy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you want SB-35 to become law before doing anything about it?

      Delete
    2. Hahaha, "lay off Marco?" He chose to make himself the peoples' enemy. Labeling anyone "racist" for daring to question the HEU, his days here with the common folk are over. He created that, not us, so there will be no laying off.

      Delete
    3. Two replies, one with reading comprehension issues and the other can not even quote correctly.

      This is why we cannot have nice things....

      Delete
    4. "I would like to see the finally version of SB 35 before forming any opinion or even moving ahead with an HEU."

      Finally version indeed. I am beginning to think you're an idiot. Or at least dishonest.

      Delete
    5. Nice things like the eyesore that is pacific station? The thing that Blakespear's so in love with?

      Delete
    6. So you can find typos and hate Marco... care to add anything of substance or are logical fallacies all you have to offer?

      And I'm the idiot?

      Marco is offering his assistance for free now. Would you rather hate him and give him your tax dollars in court? He knows what the developers are thinking and has even offered that insight here. You may hate the message but crying about it only gets marco that much closer to your tax dollars.

      Let me try putting another way for you. One way to go would be fight Marco and others in court, hope to win, or pay up. The other way to go would be to listen to what he has to say, create a HEU that will satisfy all stake holders, and we can all move on with our lives and we avoid throwing away money.


      This is why participation awards should not be given to everyone.

      Delete
    7. Marco is offering "take my help or I'll sue." You may be interested in what he has to say, but he has insulted too many residents for too many years. His political capital account is in the red.

      He can skip his participation award and go straight to hell.

      Delete
  19. I wasn't there. But it's too bad that CB was disrespectful to Bob Bonde. BB's plan was good in several respects, but went too far by suggesting aggressive raid-like inspections of those not cooperating with his proposed city wide accessory unit survey.

    Tasha BH talked about, at the last regular council meeting, that accessory units are considered de-facto affordable housing by the State, WITHOUT covenants being required. She learned this at the League of Cities Conference she attended.

    More must be done to incentivize people with accessory units to come forward. A real amnesty would only require health and safety inspections, and would not require that the unit actually be rented, or that a covenant be recorded. Many more people would create units, or come forward to have existing units inspected, if covenants were not required. Because being able to rent out an accessory unit, makes the primary unit more affordable. State law also references this fact. These accessory units could be rented to family members, or not rented at all, and could still be counted by the State.

    Another disincentive for the City's counting more accessory units, so that we don't need over-densification, has been fire sprinkler requirements. State Fire Code is clear that fire sprinklers SHALL NOT be required for additions or remodels to existing one or two family homes, except in high fire zones.

    Encinitas code says that our Fire Marshal MAY require fire sprinklers. That MAY makes our local law discretionary. State law forbids discretionary permitting for accessory units; these permits are to be administrative, only. Legally, the City should not be requiring fire sprinklers, which, again, is a further disincentive for people to come forward to count their units toward our updated housing element.

    In addition, new State Law forbids cities and other public agencies from requiring "sewer hook-up fees" when no new sewer line is installed for an accessory unit. This is simply another tax put on accessory units, through our Engineering Dept, which tax/fee is also illegal. Planning and Building permitting fees are to pay for the cost of permitting and inspection. They are not to be used as taxes, according to State Law.

    Also, it is unclear why potential affordable units can be counted toward State mandates in R-30 density, but potential accessory units cannot be counted in R-11, R-15, or less. Del Mar and Rancho Santa Fe count, per capita, many more accessory units for their Housing Elements. Our city officials are obviously predisposed toward densification because of budgetary needs for more property tax, sales tax and, importantly, inflated development fees.

    How can the City keep pushing for so much more density in Leucadia, mixed use, along our "transportation corridor," in the name of affordability, while at the same time, pushing a plan to take away our highway, degrading our major arterial/circulation element to only one lane northbound and one lane southbound for what would be a significantly increased number of motor vehicles, should these densities be enacted?

    Adding to stop and go traffic, back-ups, and gridlock when the freeway is clogged, or during peak seasonal periods would not be traffic calming, but would increase greenhouse gases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For as much writing as you do, you should do little more reading. The City did include a program for new accessory dwelling units.

      Delete
    2. A bit if a lie of omission there, 7:05, as the plan provided no more affordable units than are currently required under our inclusionary law: 10%.

      It was Tasha who cut off Planning Commissioner O'Grady for pressing for 25% affordability in the plan. She, like so many at city hall, is oddly biased in favor of developers and not constituents.

      Delete
    3. Go back to sleep 7:31. Maybe you should be a better "reader" too, as 7:05 gets at. 7:05 is talking about accessory dwelling units. Not inclusionary housing.

      FYI - more inclusionary housing is good. I'm here on that too. But get some sleep, yeah?

      Delete
    4. 7:05 The city's "amnesty" for accessory units was so burdensome that few owners went for it. It's hard to escape the conclusion that the city deliberately made the "amnesty" disadvantageous because they don't really want to count accessory units toward RHNA fulfillment. New construction yields more tax revenue than counting accessory units and pleases monied developers, so that's what the city promotes.

      Delete
    5. 10.42 has no clue. omg.

      Legalizing and new ADUs yield the same tax revenue. Improvement value on property is reassessed regardless.

      Gosh. Act like you know what you are talking about much?

      There is no rush to legalize units because there is no incentive to do so. No whip. Small baby carrots maybe. Notwithstanding, there are not thousands of them out there.

      I'm guessing....75-150. You can't say that I'm wrong, anymore than I can say that I am right.

      Delete
    6. It is well over 500.

      Delete
    7. A new, legal accessory unit will cause an increase in assessment and yield more tax revenue for the city. But nothing like brand new luxury condos with ocean view or 3000-5000 sq. ft. McMansions. City council knows where the money is.

      Delete
    8. 11:46 needs remedial reading help. 1:23 got 10:42's point: There's far more revenue for the city in new condo and house construction than in legalizing existing accessory units.

      Delete
    9. This is a residential city. A place where people live and pay. Please don't turn it into a money making business where the elected officials job is to spend all the profits.

      Delete
    10. Live and pay or live and play. Maybe both, eh?

      Delete
    11. Existing accessory units, where there is no new construction after the homeowner purchased the property, should not have to be reassessed. Because the original purchase price reflected the additional habitable space. Originally, under the County, permits were not required for structures under 500 sq. ft., or new interior walls, separating smaller dwelling units.

      It's true, the City would get much more money from upzoning citywide, than in really trying a survey and an incentivizing amnesty. The City's plan doesn't include enough incentives if it doesn't streamline permitting, making it administrative, and low cost. There should be no ADU permitting fee, other than a processing fee, through Planning and Building.

      Delete
  20. To find what income levels qualify for subsidies to enable renting or buying affordable housing, see this doc:

    http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits/docs/inc2k16.pdf

    For a four-person household in San Diego County, the median income is $75,900. Below that amount qualifies a four-person household for a subsidy.

    To qualify for a subsidy, households of other than four people must have incomes below commensurate medians.

    The subsidies are federal money. They're called Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers.

    Effectively, there are few if any subsidies available. This quote is from the county Housing and Community Development website: "It may take 10 or more years to receive a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher."

    How many households that qualify now will still be in those circumstances 10 or more years from now?

    ReplyDelete
  21. There's a disconnect. The state requires cities to build affordable housing. Land values, construction and permitting costs, and developer profit needs make it impossible to build housing that people with incomes substantially below the median can afford. So there have to be subsidies. HUD isn't providing them. Where are the needed subsidies going to come from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:40 describes exactly the emperor's new clothes sham that is affordable housing law. State subsidies were cut off several years ago, yet the state - fueled by palm-greasing developers - pretends it's a law that fulfills its charter.

      Delete
    2. Maybe not literally a subsidy, but somehow the gap between total cost and what below-median income people can afford to pay has to be filled. If other coastal cities with high land values have provided affordable housing, how have they filled the gap?

      Delete
    3. 30 units per acre in two stories and 30 feet would result in very small units that are affordable.

      No one is going to pay huge money for 500 sq ft.

      Delete
    4. LITC....

      Need 25 units per acre to get 9% funded pool.

      Delete
  22. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that there was some kind of Court ruling (State Supreme Court?) that unfunded mandates couldn't be forced on cities and other public agencies?

    SANDAG appears to be forcing mandates on us, forcing us to densify at a rate actually predetermined by "alternative/unfactual" incorrect population projections and improper counting of existing affordable housing.

    This push to build up, to cram us closer together, with deteriorating roads, and less open space per capita, is driven by cravings for corporate profit and tax/fee/development revenues for public agencies, with ever rising unfunded pension liabilities and accelerating operating expenses, including constant outsourcing to well-compensated govt. contractors.

    ReplyDelete
  23. " Mandates and Proposition 1A

    California voters approved Proposition 1A in November 2004. Among its other provisions, Prop. 1A strengthened protections for local governments against unfunded mandates by requiring the state, for the first time, to suspend any mandate it did not fund during any given budget cycle."

    http://www.westerncity.com/Western-City/March-2014/Feature-Understanding-State-Mandates/

    Some mandates have been suspended. When challenged, mandates are judged by the Commission on State Mandates and the Court, to be either reimbursable, or not reimbursable.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Very interesting 3:50 am. One carpool lane a couple trains to nowhere don't count either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be in unfunded mandate, the financial analysis would have to show that implementing a housing element results in quantifiable costs that exceed the expected revenues from permits, fees, property taxes, sales taxes from new residents, etc.

      On the cost side of the analysis, maybe cost to develop the plan, Prop A election cost, any additional city cost to modernize roads, utilities, infrastructure--also any additional city costs to deliver services to new residents: police, fire, parks and rec, etc.

      I don't know for sure, but I'd wager that a complete financial analysis over the period of a housing cycle would not show an unfunded mandate.

      But it is worth looking into, if someone out there has a background in public sector finance.

      Delete
    2. Most of these laws were promulgated after 2004. So, not worth the time.

      Delete
  25. Put 1100 low income housing apartments at the north end of El Camino Real in one development.

    Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6,600 cars on/off that property daily, using the city's low estimate.

      Problem solved or created? Keep in mind any traffic circulation plans have been shelved indefinitely.

      Delete
    2. 6 cars going in and out per low income studio apartment tenant daily?

      Sounds like they are not low income.

      Delete
    3. Bingo. Back to the fact that most "affordable " housing will be market rate.

      Delete
  26. Put the 1093 housing units on the south portion of the Encinitas Ranch Golf course. Gee, does David Meyer live there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much better than Prop T proposal!

      Delete
  27. Encinitas Ranch Golf Course condos for sale -
    At least 75 acres of land. Four hundred housing units.
    At least 100 units will be 400 square feet. Another 150 units will be 500 square feet. The other 150 units will be 600-700 square feet. No short term rentals. All units will be mainly one story. Property is close to a bus stop and a short distance to shopping and the freeway. The balance of the 1093 housing units will come from identifying accessory units.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lets do it. Why do we have a golf course anyway? If we insist on having a golf course surround it with low cost housing. It seems like there is a lot of empty land on Quail Gardens. Lets load it up.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The city would still have a 9 hole golf course on the north side of Leucadia Blvd. Carltas (Ecke company) still owe the city/taxpayers money (sales tax) that Carltas borrowed to help build the infrastructure of the Encinitas Ranch development.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Low income condos for sale on the golf course -
    David Meyer would be happy to see that the housing element rezone included his view of the golf course.

    ReplyDelete
  31. There is a reason why most local big developers live in Rancho SantaFe. There is a reason there is a golf course below the Meyer mansion. The word smithing from these goons is very impressive.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sell the useless golf course!!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't drink, so Encinitas should get rid of bars.

    I don't play golf, so we shouldn't have a golf course.

    In fact, the city should only have stuff that suits my personal tastes and hobbies. If you reply to this with a negative comment, then you should be kicked out of Encinitas. Only people I like and agree with can stay.

    Me. Me. Me. 24/7/365. 1000000%. Me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome to EnciMEtas, Population: me.

      Delete
    2. I'm not elderly, so we should definitely turn the Senior Center into something useful, like a surf shop. No wait. I forgot. I don't surf. I am into curling, so it should be converted into an ice sheet.

      Delete
    3. I make my money in development, so residents should turn their town over to me to upzone the crap out of it.

      Delete
    4. I don't like sushi. We should definitely stop those places.

      Also, I've never ridden a horse in Olivenhain. Sorry horses; you have to go. We can find another use for those trails.

      Delete
    5. Most of us don't attend the Jehovah's Witness church near the botanical gardens.

      Why won't the city honor the majority of citizens and turn that into a gluten-free organic frozen yogurt joint?

      Delete
    6. Does a majority of citizens eat gluten-free organic frozen yogurt? Does the city sell that stuff?

      Delete
    7. The city has stubbornly refused to conduct a scientifically valid peer reviewed double-blind study, but everyone knows the vast majority of citizens want more gluten-free organic frozen yogurt.

      You should just leave Encinitas for asking a rude question like that, Jerome.

      Delete
    8. With the exception of 5:18, y'all sound like a bunch of whiny planning dept workers.

      Delete
    9. 10:54, we don't need your kind here.

      Delete
    10. 8:25 is Julie G!

      Delete
  34. Get the golf course now. In ten years or less it will be turned into multi-million dollar houses. Read up on all the shenanigans that have been approved by the various Councils since 1996. The golf course hasn't made money for the city in the last 20 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The golf course has actually been slightly profitable the last few years (though a lot less profitable than if the land were used for housing or motocross).

      Delete
    2. Profitable before the City subsidizes? or after?

      Golf is yesteryear. Whole industry is spooked.

      Delete
    3. I don't know if there are still ongoing subsidies or failures of ERGA to pay its share of CFD costs.

      But if we keep developing Encinitas with more luxury condos, it will bring in more rich people to boost demand for local golf. At least until the golfing generation dies off.

      Delete
    4. The golf course is slightly profitable. That doesn't mean that ERGA is paying its share of the CFD bonds. These non-payments go off the books after 5 years. ERGA never owes more than 5 years worth.

      City council suspended the Sales Tax Advance repayments by Carltas (Ecke). Carltas still owes over $600,000 to the city. The suspension expires in 2018. Look for Carltas to return to city council to ask for an extension.

      There is still the vexing question of who actually owns the golf course. Carltas deeded it to the city in fee simple, but there is an additional amount called the Ceiling Value Payment. This is based on the assessed valuation of the property. No one at the city or Carltas was ever forthcoming about what this actually is. Is the city buying the property?

      If the city has clear title to the property, a portion of the property could be developed with 100% affordable housing and go a long way to satisfying the RHNA numbers with small square footage units. There were participants in the map exercise who put their dots on the golf course. The city didn't count these as locations for affordable housing.

      But don't look for the golf course agreement to be untangled very easily. Carltas will fight it tooth and nail.

      Delete
  35. "As George Orwell taught us, how people talk offers a clue about how they think and what they value. Our language, he wrote, 'becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.'"

    ReplyDelete
  36. If not affordable housing at the golf course how about affordable golf at the golf course? Put in a frisbee golf course and lights for night golf. That would bring in a bunch of money for the city and a certain developer could have a front row seat.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 9:54am Mikey get some help. Your cognizant abilities are continuing to decline. Your obsessive compulsion to focus on several respected women in our community, not yours, only reflects back upon what a piece of work you are.

    Your claim to fame with a 30 member business network does not mean a thing to anyone who knows anything about you, as your reputation always precedes you. Grow up.

    Anyone associating with you is stained. Live these respected citizens alone and out of your envious fascination. Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Cognizant abilities? Don't you mean cognitive abilities?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Cognizant abilities? Don't you mean cognitive abilities?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yes. Thanks mikey.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I clearly see that your capabilities are being severely diminished by posting repeatedly the same offering a minute apart.

    Yes, cognitive abilities was the intention. I am glad that you have a few brain cells left.

    ReplyDelete