Encinitas can develop an affordable housing plan that limits buildings to two stories and less than 30 feet in height and satisfy its regional housing mandates — but they’ll have to make some concessions to get there.How badly do you really have to mess with the setbacks? One acre at two stories is 87,120 square feet. That's enough for thirty 1000-sqft apartments plus with almost two thirds of the land left over for setbacks, parking, and green space. Make the units more affordable at 800 or 900 square feet on average and you have even more room.
This was the word from a report authored by a city-hired consultant who unveiled his findings at a recent housing element task force meeting.
[...]
Former Councilwoman Teresa Barth in a recent newsletter questioned the trade-off.
“Will more crowded-in two story buildings be better than limited three story buildings with setbacks?” Barth said in the newsletter.
Blakespear acknowledged that the city would have to make some concessions to satisfy voters’ concerns about building heights.
Friday, August 18, 2017
Blakespear supportive, Barth skeptical of 2-story housing plan
Coast News:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No matter what is eventually approved, the new units will sell at MARKET RATE. "Affordable housing" is a scam perpetrated by the gov. culture to keep their gravy train rolling. Jobs that pay 30-100% more than the private sector with benefits that have no comparison to the private sector. As a liberal I am supremely astonished and pissed off at the Democratic leadership in this state.
ReplyDeleteCabezon
Smaller units jammed closer together will be of less value is what market rate will give us. There is only so much coastal land and as long as population increases so will market rate pricing.
ReplyDeleteYes.
DeleteI'll be voting no at whatever scam the city proposes.
ReplyDeleteVOTE NO.
So, you don't know what it is, but you're against it.
DeleteSounds intelligent.
Whatever it is if it's promoted by the city it will be a scam against the citizens.
DeleteVOTE NO.
Voting no on the social re-engineering of our hard-earned neighborhoods.
DeleteA closed mind is not a good idea. Encinitas is legally required to identify locations for some 1193 residences more than provided by our existing zoning. Without a certified housing element a developer can sue and probably win and Encinitas will have to pay his legal costs as well as the cost of defending a losing lawsuit. Additionally, the developer can provide plans and persuade the judge to force approval. So 4:52, how would you like some 10-story condos or apartments in Cardiff?
ReplyDeleteIt's 1,093.
DeleteAnd who created this 'State-mandated edicts?' And why exactly can't they be repealed? Someone isnt telling us something. These social rezengineering edicts need to be repealed!
Delete
DeleteHUD/HCD
Barth, like her buddy Shaffer, cannot move off a position once decided. It's simply not in their DNA.
ReplyDeleteIf they can't change their minds, they could at least have the decency to sit back and shut up. Their votes no longer count.
I hope CB can distance herself from TAB and LS. The latter are no longer legislating policy. They could be a positive influence, but they are going against community concerns on this issue.
DeleteTAB determined she couldn't be re-elected. We are counting on our mayor to think independently, not be pressured or compromised by "special interests" whispering and lobbying in her ears.
Neither Barth nor Shaffer could have been reelected. Both made themselves unpopular with the majority of voters. Both should shut up and go away.
DeleteI would have voted to reelect both of them, and I think you may be wrong.
Delete2:17 is in a tiny minority. The majority of voters would have nixed both.
DeleteProve it.
DeleteIncumbency is a powerful predictor of outcome. The average voter doesn't follow local politics. It's a no confidence vote. If they like their life here in Encinitas, we'll then something must be going right down at Council chambers. They pull the lever for incumbents.
Barth didn't run for mayor because she knew she'd lose. Shaffer considered a run for mayor but realized she'd lose. There's your proof, 5:46.
DeleteTo demonstrate your mind reading powers, tell me what I am thinking right now.
Delete(hint: it's about you)
Direct contact.
Delete"The proof is in the pudding." The fact that neither Barth nor Shaffer ran again is an indication that they determined they would likely not be successful. Barth did talk to former supporters about it, and had some open houses; then determined her chances were not good to be elected as mayor. I believe Shaffer determined that Blakespear had a much better chance than she.
DeleteIt's all speculation, but they probably would have run again considering "the power of the incumbency," if they hadn't gotten so much negative feedback after their actions to limit public comments at Council Meetings, and to defeat Prop A, through false propaganda. As you know, Prop A was placed on the ballot by the public's efforts at gathering enough signatures for a Special Election.
Many of Barth, Shaffer and Kranz' former supporters felt betrayed by those three, who underestimated our intelligence and relied upon faulty data from outside consultants, not activist local citizens who had made themselves expert through vigorous research and community concern.
7:01 The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Otherwise, you corrupt the axiom, and it makes no sense.
DeleteShaffer said from the start that she was a one term council member. She tested the waters for a mayoral run and found she had engendered so much animosity there was no chance she could win.
Pretty much the same for Barth.
Barth's Saturday newsletter:
ReplyDeleteSettlement on I-5 expansion calls for new look at underground UTC transit center
Reality check: Federal, State & local money will go to projects like this before the tracks are lowered in Encinitas.
Only because that's her attitude, shared with every other spineless City Council member, past and present.
It's time for the L101 mainstreet association to reject city money for its funding and SUE the city of Encinitas for purposefully keeping Leucadia crapped and ugly. Marco where are you??
DeleteThe good part of 3:28's suggestion is that L101 should reject being on the dole. If the org represented and was supported by the majority of the merchants and property owners, it wouldn't have to beg for taxpayer money.
DeleteMarco is still settling some cities for their use of fireworks on the 4th of July. After he is through bilking and fleecing those businesses and individuals he can redidicate himself to suing our City. How about his sister....yikes...talk about a scary psycho politician...but recently married to another narcissist sociopath Nathan Fletcher...like two rotten peas in a pod. What happened to Fletcher's wife and adopted kids?
DeleteBarth should have attended the last Task Force HEU meeting. She would have heard that both consultant David Barquist and hired counsel Barbara Kautz agreed that with Density Bonus a developer can ask and get concessions and waivers. These could include going to three stories, reducing setbacks, increasing FAR for more lot coverage, and reducing parking requirements. It would makes sense to discretely change building standards on the designated upzoned parcels to make it more difficult for developers to get greedy. Barth is simply wrong with her thinking.
ReplyDeleteOf course, these concessions and waivers have to be economically justified, but our city has never pushed for developers to do this. The fear of lawsuits prevents them from doing it. Encinitas has always been known as a "density bonus magnet."
Makes sense in a way, but if developers could also request a height waiver in a density bonus proposal, then why couldn't the same argument be used to endorse baking in a higher height allowance as a way to dissuade developers? Perhaps more explanation would be useful
DeleteBecause a higher height allowance is open ended. If building standards were changed to allow developers to go to 3 stories and above 30 feet, the developer in a Density Bonus project could ask to go to 4 stories. Setbacks and lot coverage are not open ended.
DeleteProp. A was passed and Measure T was defeated because there is strong community sentiment to maintain the city's character of lower profile and current density. Whatever the council comes up with will have to be approved by the voters. Three stories (or possibly higher) will guarantee a No vote victory. It would be a fool's errand. At the same time the council has to craft a Housing Element Update that complies with state law. That's why the consultant was hired.
Thanks for the clarification. It seems to come down to a question of aesthetics. TB seems to feel that 3 stories with larger setbacks is preferable to 2 stories tightly packed. I personally disagree, and as you point out, the open-endedness of the height limit leaves open an even worse impact on the skyline. I'd like to hear backers of TB's aesthetic position's response.
DeleteUse Google street view to take the following quiz.
DeleteWhich would you rather live near / next to:
A.) 1002 Saxony Ave.
B.) 369 3rd St.
correction: Saxony ROAD.
Delete369 3rd is the grossest house in Encinitas. It's been under construction for about three years. It takes a very long time to create such ugliness.
DeleteAgree on 369 3rd, but don't think if you raise the limit to 3 stories developers will build modest A-frames like 1002 Saxony.
DeleteReality check: out of all the 3-story permits filed in the 10 years before Prop A, how many didn't push the third story to the maximum square footage?
What was Keith Harrison thinking with that monstrosity at 369 3rd?
DeleteI agree, 8:05. I posed the quiz above.
DeleteMy point is that the myopic focus on height as a proxy for community character is simplistic in the extreme.
How do we encourage our elected leaders to take a more comprehensive view of a future HEU proposal?
Most of us would rather see 1002 Saxony going up next door than 369 3rd. And yet, the former doesnt fit inside the Prop A box, and the latter does.
Simplistic thinking is the problem.
Careful and thoughtful codes about allowable construction can create any result we want.
"...the myopic focus on height as a proxy for community character is simplistic in the extreme."
DeleteReally? Height has a lot to do with community character. When ex-Councilman Jerome Stocks and ex-Planning Director Patrick Murphy accepted the high RHNA numbers from SANDAG in the mid-2000s, the El Camino Real corridor and the Highway 101 corridor were designated for "medium height" buildings. At a SANDAG open house in the Encinitas Library this was explained as 4 to 7 stories. If these plans had been carried out, the community character of both corridors would have been changed forever. Thinking otherwise is simplistic and perhaps intentionally deceptive.
Similarly having a 3+ story built next door will cast a shadow, if to the south, and if to the west in the coastal zone, will possibly block an ocean view that a developer knows adds a quarter of a million dollars to the value of a new structure. And aesthetics have nothing to do with it. It's all about the height of the buildings.
BTW The Saxony and Third Street properties have two different zones. One is RR-2 and the other is DESP (D-VCM). It's a skewed comparison. The Keith Harrison building is in the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan with a Mixed Visitor Commercial zoning. Hardly comparable to where the majority of residents live.
The house at 369 3rd St. is just plain ugly! Someone called it the Oreo House. So much for architectural taste.
DeleteIs 369 the house that will never get finished and occupied?
Delete11:04,
DeleteLots of jargon, but you didn't answer.
Which house would you rather have next door to yours?
So it's OK for 369 3rd to be massive and ugly because it's a hotel?
DeleteSo, not one person is willing to stand up for Prop A and declare that they'd rather have 369 3rd next door than 1002 Saxony?
DeleteAside from the locations, which would you rather live in?
DeleteThe Third Street Harrison building is commercial, not residential. As far as I know it's unoccupied. It looks finished if you walk by it.
DeleteTo the east is the barn of a building that for many years was Thornton Blue Pacific Wholesale Florist. There was truck traffic in and out all day long. To the west is the Moonlight Beach Parking Lot. Not a very desirable residential area. Harrison owns the parcel where the smog check station is located across from Pacific Station. He's holding off the bulldozing of the old gas station, probably because he can't sell, rent, or lease the Third Street building.
Harrison owns everything north of C between 3rd and 101 except the middle two houses on 3rd between the corner of C and the one on the edge of the bluff over the creek.
DeleteThere was talk before Prop A that that whole area was going to be his boutique hotel. The zoning is visitor-serving commercial.
There are plenty of residences in that neighborhood.
It's revealing that Barth presumes to advise the City Council. She could make unheeded suggestions like everybody else.
ReplyDeleteBarth still thinks she's a council member. Now w district elections coming up she'll most likely runnin the heaviest Latino district and exploit her Latino heritage...
DeleteSe habla español??
Staff and council have a history of spreading lies and half-truths on this subject since the run up to prop A. A knee-jerk NO response to any of their new ideas is well deserved.
ReplyDeleteScrew the city, VOTE NO.
DeleteKnee-jerk, you say?
DeleteSo, your best strategy to win is to encourage voters to not research the issues, not read the proposal, not talk to their neighbors, and basically not think.
Interesting.
5:41, The best strategy is to view any and all info coming from the city with a grain of salt. The city needs to admit their history of lying to the public. That would be a great start.
DeleteI know Bruce Ehlers and he won't accept this new plan coming out of the working group!
ReplyDeleteBruce is a reasonable person. If the plan is as close to what we can get within state mandates, he will support it.
DeleteBruce is one of the four members of the Task Force and keeping it to 30 feet/2 story is his position. For him to then not accept a plan that he has helped shape would be extreme bad faith.
ReplyDeleteLexus SUV on its roof in front of Leucadia Blvd Starbucks.
ReplyDeleteToo much caffenine?
DeleteWHAT ABOUT "SETBACKS"? DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE ABLE TO REACH OUT THE WINDOW AND BORROW A CUP OF SUGAR FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR? THIS EXTREME DENSITY IS NOT WHAT ENCINITAS WANTS!!!
ReplyDeleteDCM says it's good . . . as he sits in his mansion on the hill, counting his money...
Delete5:07, why are you yelling? Too much caffeine?
DeleteThe consultant was discussing a stretch of 101 where businesses were set to the sidewalk while the adjacent residential zoning required big yards. If this is to be a dense R25/R30 residential area there is no reason to have such side, front, and back yard setbacks and it looks more regular to have all buildings side-by-side.
DeleteOne reason to have such yards is to allow sun to hit the earth so plants can grow, wind can blow, and rain can be absorbed into the ground. Or we can create a concrete jungle and let everything runoff into one of the lagoons. Downtown will be nice and warm with fresh aroma of stagnant car funk and biker spandex.
DeleteI like the way you think 2:22, but one reason to have a city is to have people live within easy walking distance. A nearby park is the yard space and residents don't need to do yardwork and waste money on a showplace front yard. When adjacent businesses are built to the front sidewalk and the side lot line the apartment owner should be able to do likewise.
DeleteMany people have gardens.
DeleteNo one is coming to take away your garden. You know that, right?
DeleteMy guns, my stash and my cash are buried in my garden.
DeleteGood point 3:21. My beef is really with infill. Sprawl can be done nowadays in harmony with the environment but CA decided to go full infill, which I get, just don't like.
Delete9:49- if you don't like infill, buy all the land and leave it fallow.
DeleteFallow doesn't mean the land couldn't be planted; open space is essential. The best and highest use shouldn't be driven by speculative monetary profit for the few.
Delete5:51- if you want to buy all the infill and leave it fallow with flowers or trees fine. But you can't sell anything that grows or generates a profit on the land. Nothing! ( Let's see how Long you can go like that...)
DeleteInfill with the least upzoning required by the state, ok.
DeleteInfill when developers cozy up to city hall and numbers are fudged to nearly 4x legally required, not ok. There is a distinction, you know.
adjective: fallow
Delete1.(of farmland) plowed and harrowed but left unsown for a period in order to restore its fertility as part of a crop rotation or to avoid surplus production.
"incentives for farmers to let the land lie fallow in order to reduce grain surpluses"
synonyms: uncultivated, unplowed, untilled, unplanted, unsown
Fallow is not the right word in this context. There should be a way to balance profit for a few with greater common value. Might, in terms of who has the greatest buying power, does not make right.
"Sprawl can be done nowadays in harmony with the environment"
ReplyDeleteFalse.