After making significant progress earlier this month toward creating a state-certified Housing Element, the Housing Element Update Task Force had to take a few steps backward Sept. 26 to accommodate new state legislation.
[...]
At the Sept. 5 meeting, the task force — consisting of Mayor Catherine Blakespear; Deputy Mayor Tony Kranz; Planning Commissioner and former No on T spokesman Bruce Ehlers; and former Planning Commissioner Kurt Groseclose — had planned to winnow down the list of properties mentioned in the failed Measure T to reduce public outcry and increase the chance of voter approval.
However, as a result of the pending legislation, the task force must now find more vacant land to hit at least a 51 percent threshold, or between 550 to 650 units of high density housing on currently vacant land. The group will likely have to look outside Measure T's sites, as most of the sites designated on the failed Measure T map had existing development, either residential or commercial, already on them.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
New legislation makes Housing Task Force change course
Del Mar Times:
Blanket the golf course with three story high rise low income density bonus shanties. Enjoy the new view.
ReplyDeleteOh. I get it. Cities were nominating parcels with high value improvements already on them as a way to avoid actual redevelopment.
ReplyDeleteThe business case for development is dependent on the difference between the current value and the value after redevelopment. The wider that gap, the better the business case becomes, and the more likely a developer will pursue a project.
If a property has a brand new high value building on it, then the current value is too high to make a business case for redevelopment. You could put Scripps hospital into an overlay zone, but the current owner would not sell unless the sale price reflected the value of the new parking garage, ER, urgent care building, etc. The sale price would be so high that no developer could build a project at R30 that would make money.
The new state law requires the prioritization of vacant land to improve the chances that housing will actually get built.
The issue is that commercial properties generate more revenue than apartments. This is compounded by the facts that landowners lease the property to businesses, long-term leases are common, and emptying a site for a few years cuts off the revenue stream. Many of the landowners are mutual funds that are managed to generate regular dividends.
ReplyDeleteWhatever they propose I'm voting no.
ReplyDeleteAssembly Bill 72 gives the state housing department more authority to investigate cities that don’t follow through with their housing plans and refer cases to California’s attorney general for possible legal action.
ReplyDeleteThat's a positive - cut down on look-the-other-way favors flipped to developers, not that "staff" knows as how to keep City Hall out of trouble. Think Pruim and the $430K violation he handed taxpayers.
DeletePlanning staff will be no different, they're all under one roof, after all.