The question of whether to bump up Encinitas' low-income inclusionary housing requirement needs more research to make sure the change won't adversely impact new housing development in town, the City Council decided Wednesday night.
[...]
Measure U supporters say it could increase the city's supply of low-income housing, while opponents say there's no guarantee that the proposed zoning changes actually will result in more housing for low-income families. They contend the upzoning will increase the town's housing density, but those new homes will be higher-cost units.
Friday, October 26, 2018
Council punts, sends Measure U to voters with very little low-income housing
Union-Trib:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Moving these to relevant discussion:
ReplyDeleteAnonymousOctober 26, 2018 at 6:01 AM
Anyone happen to catch the three public speakers from the development industry the other night? They told an attentive council that Measure U's 10% very low affordable and 15% affordable are too great a burden to bear.
Keith Harrison said 5-7% might be ok, but suggested even that much would be a burden and zero would be better. He's a favorite down at city hall.
Brenda has the building industry advising on Blakespear's feasibility studies. Fox guarding the henhouse, anyone? Council knew exactly what they were doing and getting when they hired Brenda.
AnonymousOctober 26, 2018 at 7:59 AM
Measure U - a sham and a fraud. It is a gift to the developers to maximize profits by jamming in more crowded and cramped development. There is nothing affordable about it.
Vote NO.
AnonymousOctober 26, 2018 at 7:13 AM
Here is another bs action by planning, and apparently approved of by council.
The in lieu fees that were supposed to only apply to those designated up zoned properties in Measure U, are back again for all qualifying developments.
What a stinker of a move. Surprised? Not after all the things that have been done to get us where we are now. Screw Measure FU. Vote it down.
AnonymousOctober 26, 2018 at 8:13 AM
The few things the city promised residents: 15% affordability, no in-lieu fees, who knows what else? are back on the table for developers to demand their way and our council to grant.
This is called a bait and switch in business. It's also fraudulent advertising.
Council treats us as stupid sheep and get Karen and Brenda to do their dirty work. If U passes they'll tell us it's what we wanted. DISGUSTING.
Send Blakespear a message and vote for JP Elliott. He may be an odd duck, but Blakespear is dangerous.
Tony Kranz, it's known you read the blog - likely others do too, but you even post on it. How about putting your big boy pants on and explaining yourself to the voters?
NO ON MEASURE U.
Supporters of Measure U actually buy the developer party line that if only we didn't require them to build affordable, they would do it voluntarily. Huh?
ReplyDeleteThey could build it now, but they don't, so... their cockamamie reasoning is just that. They want to be free to build market rate and the city is complicit in the scheme.
Look at the Municipal Code references to affordable housing: the most-used word is "encourage." "Encourage" developers to build a greater percent of affordable housing. Really?? No teeth, the only meaning is the wink and nod to developers and claim to residents that the city is serious about addressing the issue.
Special Super PAC money from the Realtors and Building Associations endorse Horvath - she says let 'er rip when it comes to over-development!
ReplyDeleteThe Horvath mailers have gone on the smear tactic attack now. They wait until the midterms are near, as not to expose their vitriol too soon. I guess just grinning like the Cheshire Cat and citing generic character attributes isn't enough to sustain an empty candidate like "high road" Horvath. Horvath is a shill - Vote Warren!
DeleteYes, please vote NO on Measure U. Getting a few affordable housing units in exchange for 85% more McMansions with each project is not a good plan for Encinitas, still some want to turn this into Crampsville. I am confident the same majority who voted for Prop A will help defeat Measure U. But definitely get out and VOTE NO!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Fred!! If this Wednesday night's meeting was any indication, the McMansion % could go to 100%. How the council could sit there and nod sympathetically as developers pled their case is beyond words.
DeleteEckes and Meyer won't invite you to their Christmas party this year.
DeleteDayam! And the spam dip was exceptional last year.
DeleteOh well, at least I won't have to run in to council members and pretend.
Fred, please send us your substitute Housing Element plan. I understand Bruce Ehlers is supporting Measure U or he's really being quite on the matter.
Delete11:39 - Neither Fred nor any other taxpayer owes the city an alternate plan if they oppose this one. Rather, they are owed a plan that complies with state law and does the minimum amount of damage. They are owed a plan that does its best to accommodate resident wishes, not developers'.
DeleteBruce is being very quiet. Write him and he may tell you his vote. That's what I did :)
Not one neighbor voting yes on this. All NO’s!! What a waste of taxpayer $.
DeleteMore research?!?! Haven't they been working on this for 10+ years?
ReplyDeleteYes, but pesky residents have been debunking their "research" for years. Sends 'em back to the drawing board every time. Talk about can't learn. Or won't. Greed is a powerful motivator.
DeleteDo I have it right? The current number is 15%. The city was doing research, as required, to make it 25%. The developers came back and said even 15% is too high and it should be 5-7%. Sounds like negotiation. Of course the developers want it as low as possible. Make it 25% as the state allows with the research that has been done and see what happens.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like a plan. The research is needed to show that the 25% is justified. Of course the developers will fight anything and use the courts so solid justification is vital.
DeleteThat sounds like a plan that will never come to fruition.
DeleteThe Council will never go for anything the developers don't agree to. Seriously, please take off the rose-colored glasses and watch the council a couple of meetings ago. Catherine stated if the developers didn't want to go above 15%, "The City could always lower that number later." The other four sat mum.
Earlier this week the developers and BIA crying for less than 10% down to 0% were not shut down. There was not even a whiff of pushback from any of the five.
When staff put back in-lieu fees Tasha made a weak protest and the other four sat mum. They PROMISED us in-lieu fees would not apply to Measure U parcels and now they're back in.
Folks over on Encinitas Votes are tagging council members personally, asking for answers and hearing a deafening silence.
Those of you who still believe this council will negotiate anything on behalf of affordable housing and keeping their promises are simply not facing reality. Sorry, but that's the unvarnished truth.
Look at what the council is doing and saying, not what theoretically should happen.
3:24 - the current number is 10% very low, 15% low. However, the city is poised to lower both those numbers if, as 4:21 says, the council continues down the path they're on.
DeleteThe discussion on Wednesday night was about inclusionary, which had been set by ordinance at 15%, whether in-lieu fees could be paid instead of meeting the inclusionary requirement, and whether about $100K more should be spent to study the possible effect raising the 15% would have on developers' actions.
ReplyDeleteDo I have that right?
It was evident that the council is in bed with Harrison and the BIA guy.
100% evident and goes back before this council. Shaffer used to refer to Harrison as "one of the good guys." Riiiiiight.
DeleteThere was also discussion about lowering the percentage of affordable housing from 15% back to 10% or even lower. I was left with the impression that after the election the council could lower it back to 10%. It seemed they didn't want to do it right away before the election as it might jeopardize the passage of Measure U. Voting for additional funding was a devious way to postpone a vote that would guarantee even less affordable housing from the Housing Element Update. And all the gullible voters could do afterward would be sit and fume if they supported Measure U.
DeleteKranz and Boerner-Horvath (if she doesn't go to the Assembly) are up for reelection in 2020. The Mayor Blakespear too. Will voters remember? The council may be counting on short memories.
The biggest discrepancy is us Citizens don't want any low income housing in our City!!!
ReplyDeletePut it in Vista or Escondido where it belongs. Not at the the high priced Beach!!!
I had to skimp for years to save money for a down payment and learn to save enough money to make a mortgage payment every month to buy at the beach. If you want to rent at the beach be prepared to pay more than renting in land. Its the way it should be.... don't try and force free enterprise. it works just fine without interference.
ReplyDeleteYep.... it costs more to rent on Neptune than it does on Encinitas Blvd or El Cajon Blvd. And thats the way it should work. Why would the City Council support 3 stories after the voters already strongly decided they didn't support it with Prop A? and,
DeleteWhy would the City Council support low income homes along Hwy101 near Ponto and downtown beach areas? This makes no sense. Low income "affordable" low cost housing should be built on lower cost property. In Encinitas that would be inland or just east of the freeway with all that noise/exhaust pollution.
I can not understand anyone but developers and their toads supporting such a bad plan for Encinitas. It felt good to place my NO vote on measure FU. Tell 5 of your freinds to to do the same please. NO to Hungtington beach development, crowded streets and mobbed beaches.
If you like that style move to HB or PB. No on FU.
I say before any upzoning, Lets say that every council member gets R-25 to 35 with 3 stories next to their house as a condition to any upzoning of the housing element.
ReplyDeleteBuild a couple of high rise low income units next door to Meyer and Eckes.
DeleteLets get the facts straight. All Employees and at least two City Council members and the Mayor read the blog regularly. Many post.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-encinitas-housing-20181025-story.html
ReplyDeleteAbove is summary of inclusionary and Wednesday's meeting discussion.
The current inclusionary housing ordinance has required that subdivision developers build one “affordable housing unit” per each ten market rate units. One of the reasons for the State law was to integrate lower income families into a neighborhood of more affluence – the social equity factor. The City Council recently voted a new ordinance that would negate the requirement of building low income housing with the market rate subdivisions. This is what the new ordinance offers to the developer instead of the required building on site:
ReplyDeleteEncinitas Municipal Code 30.41.080 offers choices:
a) 5 accessory units will satisfy low & moderate housing requirement;
b) rental units: 15 percent low income or 10 percent very low will satisfy;
c) offsite construction of affordable housing will satisfy;
d) preservation or conservation of existing units;
e) in lieu fee instead of building (NOT ALLOWED IN R-30);
f) dedication of land in lieu of building affordable housing;
g) affordable housing credits from a developer with surplus affordable housing may be used instead of building; and,
h) “a developer may propose an alternative compliance method of providing affordable housing through other means.”
With this ordinance the Council has set up the basis of a lawsuit by the building industry.
Whether the required low income housing units are 10% or more created by a new ordinance the requirement for the subdivision is negated in another section of the municipal code when the developer can choose not to build the low income housing in the project. It is a shell game. The Iris apartments represent a previous City Council decision to allow a developer/developers to consolidate all the required low income housing from other market rate developments into the Iris Apartments.
Lower income residents/ families are clumped together in one building. More affluent buyers are clumped together in their own enclave. Where is the social equity?
It would come as no surprise to learn that the council is setting up bases for lawsuits by agreement with the BIA. No surprise whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteThat's how bad things have gotten under Blakespear, and that extends to the rest of the council.
9:48 is SPOT ON.
ReplyDeleteCouncil talk of raising the percent affordable was timed for the election, period. What they didn't count on was the BIA and local favorite Keith Harrison showing up and screaming before the vote.
Now the Council is back kowtowing to the developers with Blakespear stating "we can always reduce the percent required later" and already putting that plan in place by asking for further study. The consultant was dumb enough to tell the Council publicly "I'll do whatever you want."
No on U.
There was council discussion about lowering the percentage of affordable housing from 15% back to 10% or even lower. I was left with the impression that after the election the council would lower it back to 10%. It seemed they didn't want to do it right away before the election as it might jeopardize the passage of Measure U. Voting for additional funding was a devious way to postpone a vote that would guarantee even less affordable housing from the Housing Element Update. And all the gullible voters could do afterward would be sit and fume if they supported Measure U.
ReplyDeleteKranz and Boerner-Horvath (if she doesn't go to the Assembly) are up for reelection in 2020. The Mayor Blakespear too. Will voters remember? The council may be counting on short memories.
Vote NO on Measure U.
Council should not count on short memories. Many people have had it up to their eyeballs this time. It's not just Measure U: it's so many wrongheaded decisions that steamroll over residents in favor of developers, contracts promised, and a tiny handful of bullying business owners: Streetscape, Beacons, and a host of neighborhood projects are unwanted, yet forced on residents.
DeleteThere will be folks citywide ready to remind themselves and their neighbors why a new regime will be called for in the next election. Too much behind the scenes conniving and strong-arming to be forgotten.
Horvath is backed by realtors and trade unions, among others. They've spent alot of money to put their shill in power - she will serve them well. Vote Warren.
DeleteWe will see. Kranz trip to holy land and Catherine's trip to Japan.... and all the give aways as mentioned in 10:28pm.....
ReplyDeletesmells like past leaders.... but the public does elect idiots.... look at our president.
Hate crowded beaches, crowded streets and Huntington Beach style development. Vote NO on U.
ReplyDeleteFU for City Hall for even developing this piece of shit give away to developers while approving 3 stories all over town.
Staff should have put in the minimum no of units needed instead of the maximum that the developers want. The City can always upzone in the future if and when desired.
Excellent piece calling out Measure U for what it is: https://www.thecoastnews.com/opinion-measure-u-money-for-nothing-and-your-city-for-free/
ReplyDeleteMayor "more cement" Blakespear is gushing about cementing in a part of Rossini Creek.
ReplyDeleteDid she gush while she was at it about how she can't wait to nullify prop A so when her family's property gets upzoned in the coming 2020 plan we don't get to vote on it? Cha-ching for our "transparent government" mayor. She's transparent, all right.
ReplyDeleteWhen were the 1,710 pages of the environment documents for Measure U noticed to the public for public comments? It is a required document.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a good question for Sabine, Brust, and Blakespear! And the newspaper.
DeleteSabine has been in the pockets of local developers/big money interests since day one. He knows where his proverbial bread is buttered. Why is he still City Attorney?
Delete7/12/2018
Delete7/12/2018? The significance of this date is...?
Delete10:09 - thanks for posting the link. Gotta love this final comment:
ReplyDelete"Measure U is such a scam, that even Goldman Sachs would blush, but it is right there in black and white for you to vote on. Send a very clear message to interloping developers, Mayor Blakespear, and her comrades in the City council that our town is never ever going to be for sale by voting No on Measure U in overwhelming numbers. Make this one really hurt so the interloping special interests go away for good."
My guess is that it will have a 40/60 Yes/No vote.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that about the same as Measure T?
DeleteMeasure U seems to be shrouded in more deceit and bait and switch. I think less than 40/60. Lower voter turnout also, but likely more aware. 35/65
Voter turnout should be higher - the Trump effect is in play.
DeleteVotes for T were 56% against.
DeleteThe city manager and the development services director have not released the Measure U EIR (EA) for public comments. But no surprise in the detrimental effects on the environment. The superior project is NO project.
ReplyDeleteI'll write about the property behind the 7/11 in Olivenhain. They want stupid people to vote yes on upzoning RR2 land to 30 units per acre from 2 houses per acre. And over 30 feet in height.
ReplyDeleteThese hack land owners tried this same thing 10 years ago.
Greed ruins everything.......the hack land owners couldn't care less. Vote no U..........
yea..........wait until you become a hack land owner. I'm sure when the time comes to sell your home you'll take 20% less just to sell it to a deserving young family? Clearly your greed in accepting a full price offer just contributes to the overall unaffordability index, right? Or do you own a home?
DeleteI am a land owner for over 20 years and I will not sell out the character of Encinitas for Developer profit.
DeleteMe and at least 10 of my friends have voted no on the shitty developed Measure U. FU City Managers and City Council for even putting this shit on on the ballot. Its a developers wish list.
10:14 - thank you, and same here!
Delete8:24..........and once again, someone else writing off topic. Try and focus on the subject.
DeleteLet me help you. Measure U is fraud and failure to residents of Encinitas. Apparently you think it just fine to construct 37ft high buildings in some residential neighborhoods. Section 8 (a percentage low to very low income housing).
Does that help you understand? Does that wake you up to the fact that someone pays 1 million dollars for a home then a three story building can be built next door?........DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
If not......then there is no hope.
OK - I'll focus on the subject - Owning real estate always comes with risk. However, where there's risk there's opportunity. Remember that little lot on 8th street in Olivenhain? The neighbors took on the risk that no one would build, thus preserving their "open space" at the expense of the tiny lot owner. The lot owner saw opportunity and built a house that fits within the guidelines. I understand that a lot of shady things have and are happening between "developers" and the City. But at the end of the day there's really no good reason to deny someone their property rights - and that's on a personal, local, regional and state level. If you want to go macro on me, blame Wall Street for this mess. What they did in 2008 sucked the life out of the housing industry. In 2008, on a national level builders were just keeping up with housing demand. By 2011 they were so far behind that it will take a generation to make it up. So the state tries to spur supply legislatively, and on a local level Encinitas balks. So the guy on 8th street wants to build a house on his lot - what's wrong with that? In Encinitas, Plenty! So yes, I think it's perfectly fine if someone wants to build a 37ft structure (42 with AC & elevators) in a residential neighborhood. It's perfectly fine that they go through the permit process and hearings and EIR's. I think it's perfectly fine that concerned folks comment and be heard. The end result may suck for some and be an opportunity for others but I'm perfectly fine with the process. You can only play the hand you're dealt. If U fails, which it probably will, it will be interesting to see what cards the court has in their hand.
DeleteSo let's confirm here: you'd be fine if someone built a 42' structure (all in with equipment), without adequate onsite parking (so you'd have a permanent parking lot in front of your house), and with reduced setbacks (so the high density would be too close to your fence for sun to reach inside the rooms where it once did).
DeleteYou'd be fine with this thing that just ruined your community character and personal quality of life, KNOWING that the "permit process" included closed-door meetings with developers where they were promised their requested bells and whistles. You'd be fine KNOWING that the city's own consulting attorney, an expert in affordable housing law, told your council that a 35' max height building could be acceptable to HCD and to submit the plan at that height.
We assume you know Measure U includes the opportunity to pad up before measuring building (so btw your 42' just got a lot higher - and that staff approves the padding up and you trust staff).
And you are well aware of the farce that is our city's permitting process, hearings, and EIRs (Scott Vurbeff, the city's Environmental Manager stated publicly that an EIR has never stopped a project in Encinitas - the city always claims it can "mitigate" issues). Yet you trust the permitting process.
You indicate you do know all this and the "end result may suck for some." Let's just hope if it does somehow pass, it sucks for you.
Or, just going out on a limb here, it's an opportunity for you. Or you're some kind of armchair market theorist who doesn't own property - or, if you do, no Measure U parcels are anywhere near you. Perhaps you're identified on the 2020 map and want Prop A out of the way so no one can vote against your opportunity.
Your final threat is classic city fearmongering, so I guess we have a few choices as to why you're trying to make a point no one's buying.
So here's my problem with your soliloquy..you automatically assume that every project is horrible and every projects gets built. Talk about fear mongering! While I agree that there are several, many?, bad actors in the development circles in Encinitas I don't think the solution is a knee jerk and visceral no to everything. The reality for Encinitas is that the city's inability and inaction in getting ahead of this housing issue has put itself in a box, to the point that there are now no good choices left. Is U an opportunity for me? No, nor is it a detriment. But you're right that none of my properties are near U parcels. Regardless of its passage rents will continue to rise, as will home values. It has to because demand is so strong and will continue for some time. Another certain thing is community character will change, it will evolve, it will accept new neighbors and their proclivities, and will say goodbye to those who leave for whatever reason. Today's character is different than when you moved here (or were born here) and is different from before you came here. You can't stop the march of time. Not even Santa Barbara or Hollister Ranch could do that! So your soliloquy does a fine job of impugning and casting aspersions on my my character but does little to find a way forward - other than abject denial of reality. U sucks, but U is the card your dealt. Do you want to trade that for cards the court holds? At least with U you're still holding cards - you're still at the table. Whatever you do - VOTE!!
DeleteAnd I can refuse the card I'm supposedly dealt by developers working in the dark with the city to push this joke of an "affordable housing plan."
DeleteI don't accept the notion of rolling over, bending over, whatever you want to call it, for your "march of time." Things can be done right or wrong, and Measure U is wrong.
Developers have already stated publicly that they'll continue to sue whether U passes or not. Let that sink in. So much for being at the table and persuading developers not to return to the trough.
You have "properties" with an "s." Maybe you'll hit the jackpot next time, eh? Make your neighbors real happy.
Not to worry, I already voted.
First off, you can't refuse a card - to do so means you're out of the game. Second, you don't have to roll or bend over. Community activism stalled the The Hall property development 10+ years, so I'm curious why a similar strategy would not be as successful within the constraints of U. Under a court ordered plan that same strategy would be far more difficult to pursue. I love to do things right, but I'm not sure what "right" is in this situation. I always though the "right" plan was to have the affordable housing along El Camino Real. Made the most sense since there are tons of services close by and public transportation could easily be beefed up to accommodate new residents. Honestly - how much community character is there on El Camino Real? Imagine an affordable La Costa Glen or Belmont type community. Another location that seemed to make sense is the Strawberry Fields on Manchester. Perfect place for a mixed use development. Now those opportunities are gone. But to some those weren't opportunities at all. They were a direct infringement on their current lifestyle and their sense of place, and no alternative would be acceptable. So now we're here - voting on a bad measure that we all know has unforeseen, negative consequences....
DeleteAs for hitting the jackpot - naw. There's really no hitting the jackpot in real estate because it's such a long term hold. If you look at transactions by themselves it sure looks like a jackpot - just ask 10:14 - the land owner for 20 years...if he had instead invested in something other than real estate would his returns be any different? Would his cash flow have been the same?
I'm glad you voted - so did I.
Right is doing things in the light of day. The minute I heard that the Director of Development services met not only twice in secret at city hall, but also offsite in the back room of a restaurant, I knew I was voting "No."
DeleteYou can talk viable parcels and rates of return till the cows come home, but any plan done behind closed doors with last-minute switcheroos of parcels and the name David Meyer being thrown around as the possible recipient of the L7 upzone from R1 to R3 instead of affordable housing has my No vote. Any plan that removes my right to vote has my No vote.
We can fall in line with the city's repeated treachery or we can demand honest and accountability from our representatives. Those are the choices.
OK - got it.
DeleteThanks for the discussion...
8;24........more babblings. What does it say when someone defends hacks? Hmmmm? Does that make the babbler a hack themselves? Why yes...it does. Next time you respond, make an attempt to make sense. Plus, only a fool defends the potential of 37 ft high buildings in a RR2 zone. Hack.
ReplyDelete37 plus 5 feet for "equipment." That comes to 42 at 25% coverage for the final 5 feet. Or as the esteemed mayor says "however you want to interpret that." Uhhh how it's written?
DeleteNo. It would be a potential height of 37 feet max/total. That includes equipment. If I have me facts correct. If I am wrong then please correct me.
Delete5:29, you are wrong. Whoever told you 37' total is wrong. Read the ballot measure. Page 91 of the online version states:
ReplyDeleteiii. In addition to the allowed projections specified in Section 30.16.010B.6.a.ii above, buildings in the R-30 Overlay zone may exceed the 33-foot or 37-foot height limit, as applicable, a maximum of five feet to accommodate necessary equipment (such as elevator shafts and other mechanical equipment) and screening, as long as any projections do not occupy more than 25% of the roof area and are set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the wall plane on all sides.
You seem to know it all concerning the issue. So provide the maximum allowable height to include all equipment.
ReplyDeleteThat way, we will all know
Huh? Read above, it's laid out in the 7:23 post. To make it crystal clear, here are the key phrases:
Delete"In addition to allowed projections...a maximum of five feet to accommodate necessary equipment...."
Allowed is up to 37'. Add 5' and you have 42'.
Read the ballot measure and you, too, will know all.
No on U.