HCD said in its letter that it has continued to find that two of the 15 sites on the proposed housing element update, the Armstrong Parcels, are not adequate for proposed development because the owners have not expressed interest.
The elimination of those sites places Encinitas in an approximately 50-unit shortfall of the 1,141 state-mandated units for zoning.
Damien Mavis, a resident whose family has owned a property on the southeast corner of Manchester Avenue and El Camino Real for 30 years, once again recommended his property to the city council as a solution to make up the lost numbers. He said he could offer 50 percent affordable units through a partnership with Community Housing Works. His proposal, however, has been met with threatened litigation from the adjacent San Elijo Lagoon and potential environmental impacts. The city has, so far, not considered his offer.
Another resident suggested the council reconsider a city-owned parcel -- known as L-7, at 634 Quail Gardens Lane -- as an option for affordable housing. The council voted to remove the site in April following concerns from residents living near the property that it wasn't appropriate for high-density housing and not ideal for access to mass transit or retail.
HCD also advised a number of changes to development standards, including increasing allowable three-story heights to a minimum of 35 feet for a flat roof and 39 feet for a pitched roof.
Thursday, February 7, 2019
City housing plan still doesn't pass HCD
Del Mar Times:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We still don't know the content of the side meetings Mosca, Muir, and Kranz had with the L7 folks that led Mosca to make the motion to remove L7.
ReplyDeleteIf these talks were on the up and up, why do the three stooges remain silent when asked? The L7 neighbors aren't talking, but they are not elected officials and not beholden to residents. Mosca and now Kranz are the two stooges left holding down the fort.
The city knew in advance of the measure U vote that the plan was not acceptable to HCD. Blakespear had us vote on it anyway. What a s*@t show our council puts on.
ReplyDeleteWE NOW HAVE A PRO-GROWTH COUNCIL FOLKS! KELLIE TALKED ABOUT NEEDING MUCH MORE HOUSING FOR THE MILLENNIIALS THAT SHE SAID SHE REPRESENTS. JODY TALKED ABOUT HOW BAD PROP A IS FOR OUR COMMUNITY. APPARENTLY, SHE SUPPORTED IT AT THE TIME, BUT NEVER READ IT, AND NOW REGRETS SUPPORTING IT. WHAT OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS HAS SHE MADE THAT SHE HASN'T READ. THE OTHER THREE SUPPORT MORE HOUSING PROJECTS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
ReplyDeleteJody ran on her support of Prop A. Another turncoat, and so soon into her time on council.
DeleteKellie's mommy dearest bought her a $600,000 'starter' home in Village Park. Imagine not having to work or toil for half of your life before saving enough for a downpayment on a home. These Cultural Marxist's ALWAYS give their kids everything they need, their spoiled elitists that have no shame.
DeleteIsn't Kellie unemployed now that she resigned from the city subsidized organization. Perhaps the other four employed on the council can help her out.
Delete8:54 I think everyone here is sick of hearing your shit. You're such a racist asshole. Please stay out of our local discussions. You don't even live in Encinitas.
DeleteSo, we (the taxpayers) shelled out $3,500,000 to lawyers and consultants who produced an HEU that was rejected by HCD. How much more was spent for the pro-U campaign? I think the County DA should look into this.
ReplyDelete7:06 PM
DeleteThe city council took taxpayers money to pay for a fraudulent document. The taxpayers had no say in the matter. The council settled one lawsuit so 5 or was it 6 density bonus developments could be declared "in the pipeline" to avoid any opposition. Besides the county DA someone in the federal government should investigate the deal.
Since the city will be forced to change the roster of parcels, we should take the opportunity to reboot entirely to spread the impacts of density more equitably across the city.
ReplyDeleteVoters in Leucadia expect Tony Kranz to lead the charge, since his district is getting screwed in the current plan. Will Tony stop Leucadia from becoming the defacto dumping ground for high density construction, or has he already given up on reelection in 2020?
Feels like the 70s and early 80s when the County Board of Supervisors tried to condoize all of Leucadia. Almost succeeded back then.
DeleteOr in the early 2000s when developer shill peder norby tried to have Leucadia declared "blighted."
DeletePeder Norby was recently hired as the consultant on the Leucadia Streetscape?
DeleteLeucadia is a gem of CA. The Freeway, Hwy101, PCH, is a blighted nightmare, and pulling the property values down all around it.
DeleteIts a speedway and a shithole. The Streetscape will help. Its too bad we have the F'd up City folks responsible for managing the effort. They fuck everthing up.
ENCINITAS — In order for Encinitas to comply with a court order to adopt a legally compliant Housing Element by April 11, the city must meet new demands from the state’s housing authority.
ReplyDeleteIn its Feb. 4 letter, the California Department of Housing and Community Development stated that Encinitas has to increase allowable building heights, modify other development standards, and “invalidate” the citizens’ right to vote (see DESTROY their voices. This is what you libtards get, your fellow libtards know best and are going to force taller stack-and-pack "equality" housing near you. The liberal elites on the coast in Cardiff and Encinitas should absorb ALL of these Section 8 boxes as EVERYONE should have a right to live near the beach. Keep the change you socialists...jah jah jah jaaaaah!
For the umpteenth time you 8:24 idiot, affordable housing is not Section 8.
ReplyDeleteSection 8 is applied for by the owner of multi units. So, when the owner gets the place built, they can apply for government (tax payer) funds paid to the owner to let the blood sucking leaches live in the units. Oh' it starts out with the public not knowing then BAM....section 8. Of course you don't read Section 8 in write ups....it is private property owners that apply for approval. I hope this gets things more clear. Smart people see the bigger picture and know well what is on the horizon.
DeleteWho cares. They both are bad.
ReplyDeleteThere is plenty of affordable housing in Encinitas. Like 25,000 structures. People chose to buy them when they could afford them. Its called free market.
Start asking the questions. San Clemente required (the RHNA) very low and low income housing units for the 5th cycle - 229. Encinitas required (the RHNA) very low income and low income housing units for the 5th cycle - 1033. And the state agency, HCD is threatening Encinitas for not meeting an outrageous quota while HCD approves the San Clemente housing element.
ReplyDeleteKeep voting for leftists state and local and this is the result.
ReplyDeleteFor you leftists.........you voted for them now live with it and stop complaining. You did it to yourselves. Fools
L-7. Put it back and HCD will accept. Simple.
ReplyDeleteNot so simple for tony and joe who bent over for those nimby neighbors and spokesperson who promised they would help pass Measure U.
Not even close Richard.
Catherine, I hope you and your and new majority will do the right thing and restore the only 100% affordable city owned site. This would go along way to approving some lost support of your mayorship.
10:55 AM
ReplyDeleteL-7 is a minor issue. The entire housing element includes policies and programs to benefit the developers. Rewrite the housing element to eliminate the goodies given to the developers. HCD's tyrannical dictate that many sections of the municipal code shall be changed to give the developers more favors must be challenged by the city council.
Most importantly, there is no equality under the law when a coastal town with about the same population as Encinitas, San Clemente is given an HCD mandated quota (the RHNA) for low income housing of 229 housing units and Encinitas is given a mandated quota for low income housing of 1,033 housing units.
L-7 is not a minor issue. It was one of the reasons HCD was not impressed with our city's feeble attempt.
ReplyDeleteI have a feeling the city wanted this to fail so Prop A could be blamed.
Residents presented plans that would have been successfully voted on and stayed within 30'.
Developers incestuous relationship with Planning and council knew this all along.
The lack of Council to play listen to us, was all part of the plan to ultimately subvert the will of the people. This stinks. The stench is nothing new.
The residents have never been against truly helping provide low income housing. A recent exception is those Quail Garden nimbys, but generally it the market rate builders that rule the day. Nothing new there, but it stinks and all of our council members are on board and have been onboard.
6:20 PM
ReplyDeleteThe RHNA number for low income housing for the 5th cycle, in other words up-zoning for the city of San Clemente is 229 housing units. The RHNA number for low income housing for Encinitas which required up-zoning is 1,033 housing units.
Why is Encinitas required to up-zone for 4 times as much housing than San Clemente? San Clemente and Encinitas have about the same population. Both are coastal cities.
The required 5th cycle RHNA low income housing units for some other cities:
Beverly Hills - 2 housing units
El Segundo - 29 housing units
Malibu - 2 housing units
Manhattan Beach - 16 housing units
Newport Beach - 2 housing units
Palos Verdes Estates - 7 housing units
Rancho Palos Verdes - 13 housing units
Sierra Madre - 23 housing units
Costa Mesa - 2 housing units
Laguna Beach - 2 housing units
Dana Point - 129 housing units
Huntington Beach - 533 housing units
Hermosa Beach - 2 housing units
The San Diego region is being screwed by HCD and the cities that are part of SANDAG.
San Clemente and Encinitas are hardly comparable. I don't know why the requirements differ, but I do know that the Encinitas economy is very different than San Clemente's. Could it also be the fact that Encinitas has no housing plan? What are their respective cumulative numbers? Does San Clemente have more low income housing then Encinitas?
DeleteJust some thoughts.....
7:33 AM
ReplyDeleteWhy do so many other cities have only 2 housing units? Is that their fair share as Gov. Newsom likes to say? Newport Beach with a population of over 85,000 has a total of 5 housing units. There are other cities that have lower quotas for low income housing for the 5th cycle.
OC and LA County found other (non coastal, non built out) places to new allocate housing. SD County could do the same, and stick in in Santee and El Cajon and other areas that are not built out, or areas in need of redevelopment. Solana Beach and Del Mar were not stuck with a lot of new housing either. Encinitas had agriculture land, so we were stuck, but no longer has much left. I hope SANDAG will treat Encinitas like other built out cites in the future.
ReplyDelete8:57 AM
DeleteNon Coastal no built out places in OC and LA County still have much lower RHNA than Encinitas. The Encinitas ag land was zoned residential. The actions of the SANDAG agency and the Encinitas City Council didn't discuss what was happening in OC and LA County. SANDAG didn't want the San Diego residents to know how they were being cheated and forced to take more housing than other cities. This isn't a "better luck next time" situation. Start protesting that the current housing allocation is unfair and unjust. HCD should rescind the numbers.
Blakespear should locate her backbone and start representing. She's so proud to have her position on SANDAG - can't stop boasting about it. Actual leadership? Not so much.
Delete