Myers is a problem for the city. Why do they embrace him rather than kick him to the kerb as he deserves?? We know he's got his hooks in Kranz, that much is clear.
You'd think they'd distance themselves from Myers, but the opposite seems to be true.
Watch this video. At the end of the item Catherine and Tony both admit they support the States housing objectives to increase high density housing, 3 stories plus and section 8.
Thats BS. With their support for bars and bringing in the homeless. Their plan is definitely to turn Encinitas into PB and Huntington Beach. I hate it.
This should be the major issue for the next election. Both Kranz and Flakespear have to go. For sure.
Good job crazy eyes. Way to represent the KLCC last night. NIce T shirt.
6:13 is brain dead. No matter how many times he's told there's no new Section 8 housing because the waiting list is about 10 years long, he still insists on calling affordable housing Section 8.
Rock and a hard place; the will of the voters and a writ; the council has to find a way out of this mess and for the most part is getting there. But it sure is messy as all get out....For the short term the strategy outlined by the attorney is the correct one - the court was very generous in allowing the City to work with HCD to get an approved plan within 120 days. At this point no one else matters - that's job 1. Once the court is out of the picture the city can go back to being a city.
7:41 - Blakespear did no such thing. All she did was coax out of the attorney the "worst case", not the most probable case. She also wanted to point out how much discretion the court actually had - it's ridiculously broad!
I think the city and Blakespear are on the right track - let's hope they pull it off....
Council put itself between the rock and hard place by putting crooked plans in front of a suspicious public. What did they think would happen? Warning signs from residents flashing the entire way leading up to the vote and yet they continued their lovefest with developers.
I'm not 7:41 but will comment Blakespear is hardly gifted using the old tried-and-true trick of "coaxing" a prearranged response. She hardly invented the fake Q&A, but does use it more often than many I've seen. Likely Marco had a hand in prepping her scare tactic. Her mentor Shaffer was shameless in using it.
The city isn't on the right track, they're on track to pull off the next public screw you.
I'd be crawling on my belly to HCD and fessing up to them and ccing the judge that I put a crooked, greed-driven plan in front of sniffer-dog residents and that that's how we got into this fine mess in the first place. I'd admit that it was not the voters or Prop A that were the problem in the two previous rounds - and cycles before that where they didn't even get to a vote. I'd put my foot down and say the shenanigans stop now and I'd roll up my sleeves and dig in. I would not rely on my "professional staff" who contributed mightily to the fine mess.
I would not hold an election, but instead show good faith with voters by transparently putting together a stripped-down plan devoid of developer goodies with L7 back on the map and those poor Clark St. folks off - you know, the plan that would have gotten a Yes vote. I would follow the real definition of transparency, not Blakespear's fake one.
HCD expert and consultant Barquist, to whom we paid a small fortune, told Blakespear over a year ago that she could pass a plan by stripping all the extras out. He was the one originally negotiating with HCD, so clearly at some point such a plan was acceptable to them. This was advice Blakespear ignored.
I'd be putting up the hand to developers trying to break down my door and telling them to go terrorize another city. I'd tell them they were not, in fact, "stakeholders."
I'd be working around the clock with HCD giving regular updates on progress and keeping *GASP* written records so the public remained calm and I had a paper trail for myself of negotiations. I would be looking over Wisneski's shoulder the entire time. I might even start to regain public trust as an added bonus.
I would stop talking about removing Prop A as an "obstacle" and pledge publicly never again to lay blame, where it did not belong, on Prop A.
That is what I would do. Of course, none of that is going to happen on Planet Blakespear.
"I'd be putting up the hand to developers trying to break down my door and telling them to go terrorize another city. I'd tell them they were not, in fact, "stakeholders.""
Yea, but unfortunately the ARE stakeholders in the short term because they're on the other side of the lawsuit! In addition it's HCD that says Prop A is in the way....
You seem to be big on contrition - is that more important than moving forward?
HCD was certainly lobbied by the city in a "help us with our out of control residents" move. Classic Barth/Shaffer/now Blakespear sneaky behind the scenes move. If you don't think it's happening, you're wearing rose-colored glasses AND smoking something. Been there, seen it.
Developers are stakeholders in the suit but not the plan details. Time to shut them out of writing the plan.
Confession - not contrition - could potentially move HCD to work generously with us. That's the point there. But that's not gonna happen.
"Moving forward?" City mantra when things go south.
10:55 you may not like what you hear but 10:02 did outline how to move forward as you aggressively favor. guess you are paid to have selective hearing.
10:55 here - yes 2:58 I heard 10:02 just fine - I just don't know how you accomplish that in less than 120 days. After all, the clock continues to click. HCD has no skin in the game other than compliance. They don't care about confession, and they've been put in the role of deciding what is a compliant plan. HCD doesn't even care if we meet the deadline!
120 days = 4 months. I don't know what bureaucracy you've been trained up in, but in the private sector you'd better believe it's entirely doable - and without a pension plan.
You have no idea what you're talking about.....this effort is not being done by the private sector so why bring that up? And I fail to see how the existence of a pension plan affects the ability of those involved to come up with a plan. When dealing with government and NGO's you have to plan for formal approvals from committees that may only meet once a month. So 120 days could effectively turn into 60 days when looking at the various board calendars. Even in the private sector, especially with a public company you may be required to obtain board approval - that's another calendar to manage. And we're assuming here that thee boards will not have any comments that would require revisions. I dunno - you must be a special kind of stupid, son......
Private sector = work at the pace required, with a high level of quality and accuracy, to get the job done.
City bureaucrat = complain about being overworked while sauntering back to the office from an over-long break at Starbucks. Or returning to city hall after your "special arrangement" surf time is finally up.
Pensions I assume are just a poke at the icing on the cake after taxpayers foot the bill for "staff" not knowing how to get the job done in a short, finite period.
And before you accuse me of being 3:34 (I'm not) or not understanding how things work in reality, I do. I've worked at corporations with sales in the billions and guess what? When something needs to get done, it gets done.
Working super-late nights for weeks at a time are not unheard of. Board meetings are called on the fly and with enough in attendance, votes are taken. Required number not available? Couriers are sent to collect votes from those who cannot be there in person. Escalations for signatures from the very top are normal when the crunch is on.
Bureaucratic excuses are not looked on favorably in the private sector and instead will put you on the fast track to redundancy.
We're not talking multiple levels of sign-off as you portray, but simply HCD and the city, period. What other NGOs do you think are involved? I have to say the roadblocks and worst-case scenarios you throw up sound like those of a typical bureaucrat, just surmising.
I'll refrain from responding with an insult to you because gosh, I know how to act professional.
This new housing element update 2019 contains new changes and additions that weren't in Measure U. It is the wish list of the developers come true. The citywide midrange density ordinance will be removed and every property will be build out to the maximum density. The Council approval last night increased density on every property in Encinitas without a prop A vote. There were no community workshops that would involve the public on this change or the other changes that weren't in Measure U. No public participation on any of these changes. The city has violated state law and city ordinances. What a crooked council.
Actually a court order trumps, oh wait, bad pun, supersedes state law and city ordinances when it conflicts with other state law. Just for grins check out California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland - a 2017 CA Supreme Court case.
The loss of the midrange density means that MANY more lots will qualify for DENSITY BONUS. That results, for example, in R3 lots going from 2.5 DU/ac to effectively 6.0 DU/ac.
Gee, how many "affordable housing advocates" do we think leaned on a willing council to get that little tidbit in? I have several local gems in mind, both developers and attorney.
1:54 is correct on the minimum units for density bonus. The problem is that the "original zoning" now will use the top end rather than the midrange, so for some lots the allowed units now meet the requirement for DB. It also looks like the definition of "net acreage" has changed. Unbuildable areas (steep slopes , internal roads, etc.) used to be excluded from the gross acreage, but apparently no longer. This increases the net acreage to allow more units and more lots that meet the minimum DB requirements.
R3 means three dwelling units per acre. If a one-acre lot is flat, has no roads or retention basins or other restrictions, three DUs can be built on it. That's not enough to invoke density bonus. The lot would have to be big enough to allow five DU to invoke density bonus. The trigger combines the size of the lot and the existing zoning.
This is from the Meyer/Weston EIR:
“The Weston Subdivision Project (the proposed project) proposes the subdivision of an approximately 13.9-acre site in Encinitas, California, into 48 single-family residential lots, two open space lots, and one private street lot. Two existing occupied single-family residential units are present in the northern portion of the subject site and are proposed to remain in their current state with project implementation (as part of the planned 48 single-family residential units).”
“Without the density bonus, and with consideration for existing on-site conditions (e.g., steep slope restrictions), 28 single-family residential DUs would be allowed on the subject property.”
From a Coast News article on Carlsbad housing element: ..."reported to the City Council on March 12 the city has achieved 67 percent of its Housing Element as required by the state. However, the percentage appears a bit skewed as the above-moderate-income housing is at 122 percent of its goal, while no new very-low-income housing was produced in 2018. The RHNA numbers "he city’s goals for the RHNA target 912 units for very low income, 693 for low, 1,062 for moderate and 2,332 for above moderate." "Over the 10-year RHNA period, very-low-income housing totals just 42 units (5 percent) followed by low at 223 (32 percent), moderate at 257 (24 percent) and 2,844 for above-moderate. The city’s total target is 4,999 units." Why isn't the BIA and the low income people suing Carlsbad? Why isn't Newsom suing Carlsbad?
Loathsome..the big mouth punk governor has proclaimed he will hold back State Funds from any city that doesn't cave to the ghetto housing. Leftism at it's finest.
With the Council's elimination of the midrange density, residential property can be built with another house which is an instant increase in value for the property owners. The Mayor and the Council with the yes vote have enriched themselves or their families. Their actions were more than a conflict of interest.
Why not appeal the judge's ruling? Most of the legal preparation is already done. It might delay and force some of these developers to build less now, instead of waiting and building more later. We should also team up with other similar cities who want local control. Can't we get our state legislatures to fight for what their voters want - LOCAL CONTROL! If not, we should start a campaign to remove them for office. Affordable Housing is an excuse for more and more building. If you don't believe me, look at the results of building these units.
The City (council) does not want to appeal. They are getting everything they want from the judge's decision: increased density everywhere, an effective suspension of Prop A, and very happy developers. Measures T and U were deliberately designed to fail at the ballot box so that a judge would eventually overturn Prop A.
Remember, it's the State, City gov., and the BIA on one side, and residents on the other. We would need a few hundred thousand dollars just to get started on an appeal.
That wasn't an issue that the judge ruled on, so it's not a basis for appeal. It could be a separate lawsuit challenging the legality of the RHNA allocation process, but not an appeal. It would have no bearing on the current case, and it would take many years to resolve. It would also probably lose. I'm not saying you are wrong about the unfairness of the system. I'm just saying that whats fair and what's legal are sometimes different things.
OMG marco leave it be, will you? No one is interested in engaging with your gasbag "arguments." Seriously, half of what you say is to see if anyone challenges you...if not, the lie lies.
The Housing Element Update 2019 wasn’t presented to the residents of Encinitas at public workshops as the city did with Measures T and U. There were no workshops and no public conversation on the new changes in the Housing Element Update 2019. The Council violated the state law and local ordinances by not providing full public participation.
Public participation is required under State housing law Section 65583. Section 65585(b)(2) requires that: “The planning agency staff shall collect and compile the public comments regarding the housing element received by the city, county, or city and county, and provide these comments to each member of the legislative body before it adopts the housing element.”
One Councilman stated that this change “came out of the blue” as he questioned the city’s consultant attorney on who wanted the elimination of the midrange density. It was revealed that letters to HCD prompted that agency to demand the removal of the city wide ordinance. The Mayor quickly made a motion to approve the Housing Element Update 2019 which passed with a 5-0 vote. The residents were cut out of any future discussion of the new Housing Element Update 2019.
The midrange density ordinance has been part of the Encinitas Code for about 30 years. The municipal code lists the midrange and maximum density for property in each zone in response to subdividing. For an R-5 zone the midrange density is 4 houses per acre and maximum density is 5 houses per acre. That would mean a 10,890 sq.ft. lot for midrange density as opposed to an 8,712 sq.ft. lot for maximum density. A developer could use maximum density if the following was shown: The project shows high sensitivity to the neighboring properties and area to ensure compatibility with land uses and community character; and The project design significantly exceeds the minimum standards for development (lot size, setbacks, lot width and depth, landscape standards and design standards); and The project either: (A) Provides needed public improvements that are significantly beyond the requirements for the project, or (B) Provides private or public recreational facilities that significantly exceed the project’s requirements, or provides other significant benefits. The removal of the midrange ordinance and policy in the General Plan is one of many changes in the developer driven HCD approval demands. The Council has abandoned protecting the city ordinances and General Plan.
I find it hard to believe that HCD demanded this change. More likely the city requested it, and HCD agreed. Why wouldn't they? We have no record of the city's negotiation with HCD, all done on the phone with no notes or recordings. Blakespear promised transparency. Betrayed again by her lies. The city has long used the phone technique so there is no paper trail. And this on top of no notice of stakeholder meetings with builders.
The demand is in the Feb. 4, 2019 letter from HCD to the city. Remember, this new Housing Element Update 2019 that was presented at the Feb. 21, 2019 Planning Commission meeting is very different in the policies that were in Measure U. There haven't been public workshops in the 5 communities for residents to understand the ramifications of these housing element changes. The city has provided to HCD a 148 page document titled "Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary" that gives the false impression that the new Housing Element Update 2019 has been vetted in community workshops as was done with Measure T and U. Not true. The Mayor and Council are responsible for the lie and voted for the lie by approving the March 13, 2019 Resolution. Go to the city homepage - click on Housing Element Update 2019 on the lower right side and read the Exhibit 2019-19-D to City Council Resolution No. 2019-19. It is an act of a dictatorial Mayor Blakespear and Council members Kranz, Mosca, Hubbard, and Hinze turning their backs on the residents who live here.
If you think the 2019 Housing Element is illegal, then are you going to take out a home equity loan and hire lawyers, or are you just wasting everyone’s time with your legal theories?
11:16 The size of the lot is fixed. Do you want to restate what you mean?
Are you saying the Municipal Code states a midrange and maximum density for every zoning category designation in the city? And what shows on the MyEncinitas parcels map and text alongside it is the max density?
4:52 PM The size of the lot is fixed after the land is subdivided. The MyEncinitas parcels map has a line that also shows midrange density. The actual square footage of the parcel must be taken from the subdivision map. Acreage subdivided to the midrange density provides the buyer with a larger lot than if divided to the maximum density. Developers want that property built out to the maximum density. Of course, everyone wants to buy a smaller lot to help out a developer. Another problem - Density bonus subdivisions are still showed to be in R-3 to R-8 zones although the subdivision lot sizes are many times smaller than the minimum lot size listed in the municipal code. For all the new residents who bought into density bonus developments, check the original plans to find the exact size of your lot. Planning staff will tell you the zoning designation such as R-3 zoning and not tell you the square footage of you lot.
The result of losing midrange zoning is that the developer gets to develop more market rate housing to the max of the zone with smaller lots. This midrange density elimination was one of the items the Mayor and Council approved on March 13, 2019.
kranz talking about accountability rules pretending for the audience that he thinks they apply to him. We all know better!
ReplyDeleteOne hour into the meeting and "everyone's invited to stand up and stretch." Weirder and weirder.
ReplyDeleteGotta love how blakesmear broadens "not issuing building permits" to stopping the functioning of the city.
ReplyDeleteSounds like vintage marco. Is that an earpiece I see behind her ear? Is he dictating her commentary?
Myers is a problem for the city. Why do they embrace him rather than kick him to the kerb as he deserves?? We know he's got his hooks in Kranz, that much is clear.
ReplyDeleteYou'd think they'd distance themselves from Myers, but the opposite seems to be true.
His name is Meyer.
DeleteI stand corrected on spelling, remarks still stand.
DeleteTK buying the "state has us over a barrel" BS. Too bad he can't locate his spine. None of them can.
ReplyDeleteKathy making zero sense. The faster she talks, the crazier she sounds.
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHA Kranz just reversed going to the voters in favor of asking a judge to step over Prop A.
ReplyDeleteDavey must've gotten him on the horn, but good. That how it went down?
That's ok, we won't have Tony to kick around much longer.
Watch this video. At the end of the item Catherine and Tony both admit they support the States housing objectives to increase high density housing, 3 stories plus and section 8.
ReplyDeleteThats BS. With their support for bars and bringing in the homeless. Their plan is definitely to turn Encinitas into PB and Huntington Beach. I hate it.
This should be the major issue for the next election. Both Kranz and Flakespear have to go. For sure.
Good job crazy eyes. Way to represent the KLCC last night. NIce T shirt.
Snore.
Delete6:13 is brain dead. No matter how many times he's told there's no new Section 8 housing because the waiting list is about 10 years long, he still insists on calling affordable housing Section 8.
Delete6:13 is likely Mikey doing his handlers' dirty work. And yes, brain dead applies.
DeleteRock and a hard place; the will of the voters and a writ; the council has to find a way out of this mess and for the most part is getting there. But it sure is messy as all get out....For the short term the strategy outlined by the attorney is the correct one - the court was very generous in allowing the City to work with HCD to get an approved plan within 120 days. At this point no one else matters - that's job 1. Once the court is out of the picture the city can go back to being a city.
ReplyDelete7:41 - Blakespear did no such thing. All she did was coax out of the attorney the "worst case", not the most probable case. She also wanted to point out how much discretion the court actually had - it's ridiculously broad!
I think the city and Blakespear are on the right track - let's hope they pull it off....
Council put itself between the rock and hard place by putting crooked plans in front of a suspicious public. What did they think would happen? Warning signs from residents flashing the entire way leading up to the vote and yet they continued their lovefest with developers.
ReplyDeleteI'm not 7:41 but will comment Blakespear is hardly gifted using the old tried-and-true trick of "coaxing" a prearranged response. She hardly invented the fake Q&A, but does use it more often than many I've seen. Likely Marco had a hand in prepping her scare tactic. Her mentor Shaffer was shameless in using it.
The city isn't on the right track, they're on track to pull off the next public screw you.
So 9:03 - what is the right track for the short term? How do you propose getting a plan through HCD? What would you do if you were Mayor?
DeleteI'd be crawling on my belly to HCD and fessing up to them and ccing the judge that I put a crooked, greed-driven plan in front of sniffer-dog residents and that that's how we got into this fine mess in the first place. I'd admit that it was not the voters or Prop A that were the problem in the two previous rounds - and cycles before that where they didn't even get to a vote. I'd put my foot down and say the shenanigans stop now and I'd roll up my sleeves and dig in. I would not rely on my "professional staff" who contributed mightily to the fine mess.
DeleteI would not hold an election, but instead show good faith with voters by transparently putting together a stripped-down plan devoid of developer goodies with L7 back on the map and those poor Clark St. folks off - you know, the plan that would have gotten a Yes vote. I would follow the real definition of transparency, not Blakespear's fake one.
HCD expert and consultant Barquist, to whom we paid a small fortune, told Blakespear over a year ago that she could pass a plan by stripping all the extras out. He was the one originally negotiating with HCD, so clearly at some point such a plan was acceptable to them. This was advice Blakespear ignored.
I'd be putting up the hand to developers trying to break down my door and telling them to go terrorize another city. I'd tell them they were not, in fact, "stakeholders."
I'd be working around the clock with HCD giving regular updates on progress and keeping *GASP* written records so the public remained calm and I had a paper trail for myself of negotiations. I would be looking over Wisneski's shoulder the entire time. I might even start to regain public trust as an added bonus.
I would stop talking about removing Prop A as an "obstacle" and pledge publicly never again to lay blame, where it did not belong, on Prop A.
That is what I would do. Of course, none of that is going to happen on Planet Blakespear.
Uh, I dunno - opposite of the current mayor and council, that's what I'd do. Yeah.
Delete"I'd be putting up the hand to developers trying to break down my door and telling them to go terrorize another city. I'd tell them they were not, in fact, "stakeholders.""
DeleteYea, but unfortunately the ARE stakeholders in the short term because they're on the other side of the lawsuit! In addition it's HCD that says Prop A is in the way....
You seem to be big on contrition - is that more important than moving forward?
HCD was certainly lobbied by the city in a "help us with our out of control residents" move. Classic Barth/Shaffer/now Blakespear sneaky behind the scenes move. If you don't think it's happening, you're wearing rose-colored glasses AND smoking something. Been there, seen it.
DeleteDevelopers are stakeholders in the suit but not the plan details. Time to shut them out of writing the plan.
Confession - not contrition - could potentially move HCD to work generously with us. That's the point there. But that's not gonna happen.
"Moving forward?" City mantra when things go south.
10:55 you may not like what you hear but 10:02 did outline how to move forward as you aggressively favor. guess you are paid to have selective hearing.
Delete10:55 here - yes 2:58 I heard 10:02 just fine - I just don't know how you accomplish that in less than 120 days. After all, the clock continues to click. HCD has no skin in the game other than compliance. They don't care about confession, and they've been put in the role of deciding what is a compliant plan. HCD doesn't even care if we meet the deadline!
Delete120 days = 4 months. I don't know what bureaucracy you've been trained up in, but in the private sector you'd better believe it's entirely doable - and without a pension plan.
DeleteYou have no idea what you're talking about.....this effort is not being done by the private sector so why bring that up? And I fail to see how the existence of a pension plan affects the ability of those involved to come up with a plan. When dealing with government and NGO's you have to plan for formal approvals from committees that may only meet once a month. So 120 days could effectively turn into 60 days when looking at the various board calendars. Even in the private sector, especially with a public company you may be required to obtain board approval - that's another calendar to manage. And we're assuming here that thee boards will not have any comments that would require revisions. I dunno - you must be a special kind of stupid, son......
DeleteCome on, 7:46, you know better.
DeletePrivate sector = work at the pace required, with a high level of quality and accuracy, to get the job done.
City bureaucrat = complain about being overworked while sauntering back to the office from an over-long break at Starbucks. Or returning to city hall after your "special arrangement" surf time is finally up.
Pensions I assume are just a poke at the icing on the cake after taxpayers foot the bill for "staff" not knowing how to get the job done in a short, finite period.
And before you accuse me of being 3:34 (I'm not) or not understanding how things work in reality, I do. I've worked at corporations with sales in the billions and guess what? When something needs to get done, it gets done.
Working super-late nights for weeks at a time are not unheard of. Board meetings are called on the fly and with enough in attendance, votes are taken. Required number not available? Couriers are sent to collect votes from those who cannot be there in person. Escalations for signatures from the very top are normal when the crunch is on.
Bureaucratic excuses are not looked on favorably in the private sector and instead will put you on the fast track to redundancy.
We're not talking multiple levels of sign-off as you portray, but simply HCD and the city, period. What other NGOs do you think are involved? I have to say the roadblocks and worst-case scenarios you throw up sound like those of a typical bureaucrat, just surmising.
I'll refrain from responding with an insult to you because gosh, I know how to act professional.
believe what 3:26 is saying is "get 'er done." The city is committed to moving like molasses, but fools no one.
DeleteMaybe a mountain bike would sweeten the deal and put a spring in staff's step.
This new housing element update 2019 contains new changes and additions that weren't in Measure U. It is the wish list of the developers come true. The citywide midrange density ordinance will be removed and every property will be build out to the maximum density. The Council approval last night increased density on every property in Encinitas without a prop A vote. There were no community workshops that would involve the public on this change or the other changes that weren't in Measure U. No public participation on any of these changes. The city has violated state law and city ordinances. What a crooked council.
ReplyDeleteActually a court order trumps, oh wait, bad pun, supersedes state law and city ordinances when it conflicts with other state law. Just for grins check out California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland - a 2017 CA Supreme Court case.
DeleteState law is not requiring what 9:28 writes about.
DeleteThe loss of the midrange density means that MANY more lots will qualify for DENSITY BONUS. That results, for example, in R3 lots going from 2.5 DU/ac to effectively 6.0 DU/ac.
DeleteGee, how many "affordable housing advocates" do we think leaned on a willing council to get that little tidbit in? I have several local gems in mind, both developers and attorney.
DeleteMinimum to qualify for density bonus is five units at original zoning.
Delete1:54 is correct on the minimum units for density bonus. The problem is that the "original zoning" now will use the top end rather than the midrange, so for some lots the allowed units now meet the requirement for DB. It also looks like the definition of "net acreage" has changed. Unbuildable areas (steep slopes , internal roads, etc.) used to be excluded from the gross acreage, but apparently no longer. This increases the net acreage to allow more units and more lots that meet the minimum DB requirements.
DeleteBut the R3 lot given as an example by 12:42 wouldn't qualify for density bonus, would it?
DeleteDoesn't density bonus require at least an R5 lot?
7:47,
DeleteAre you for real or playing dumb?
Total housing units isn’t the same thing as units per acre. Just like miles isn’t the same thing as miles per hour.
Density bonus depends on a trigger threshold of total units, not units per acre.
This project is 16 acres at R-3–way more than the trigger.
C’mon.
R3 means three dwelling units per acre. If a one-acre lot is flat, has no roads or retention basins or other restrictions, three DUs can be built on it. That's not enough to invoke density bonus. The lot would have to be big enough to allow five DU to invoke density bonus. The trigger combines the size of the lot and the existing zoning.
DeleteThis is from the Meyer/Weston EIR:
“The Weston Subdivision Project (the proposed project) proposes the subdivision of an approximately 13.9-acre site in Encinitas, California, into 48 single-family residential lots, two open space lots, and one private street lot. Two existing occupied single-family residential units are present in the northern portion of the subject site and are proposed to remain in their current state with project implementation (as part of the planned 48 single-family residential units).”
“Without the density bonus, and with consideration for existing on-site conditions (e.g., steep slope restrictions), 28 single-family residential DUs would be allowed on the subject property.”
From a Coast News article on Carlsbad housing element:
ReplyDelete..."reported to the City Council on March 12 the city has achieved 67 percent of its Housing Element as required by the state.
However, the percentage appears a bit skewed as the above-moderate-income housing is at 122 percent of its goal, while no new very-low-income housing was produced in 2018.
The RHNA numbers "he city’s goals for the RHNA target 912 units for very low income, 693 for low, 1,062 for moderate and 2,332 for above moderate."
"Over the 10-year RHNA period, very-low-income housing totals just 42 units (5 percent) followed by low at 223 (32 percent), moderate at 257 (24 percent) and 2,844 for above-moderate. The city’s total target is 4,999 units."
Why isn't the BIA and the low income people suing Carlsbad?
Why isn't Newsom suing Carlsbad?
Loathsome..the big mouth punk governor has proclaimed he will hold back State Funds from any city that doesn't cave to the ghetto housing. Leftism at it's finest.
DeleteActually he's starting to reverse himself on that, 6:14. Do try to keep up.
DeleteWith the Council's elimination of the midrange density, residential property can be built with another house which is an instant increase in value for the property owners. The Mayor and the Council with the yes vote have enriched themselves or their families. Their actions were more than a conflict of interest.
ReplyDeleteWhy not appeal the judge's ruling? Most of the legal preparation is already done. It might delay and force some of these developers to build less now, instead of waiting and building more later. We should also team up with other similar cities who want local control. Can't we get our state legislatures to fight for what their voters want - LOCAL CONTROL! If not, we should start a campaign to remove them for office. Affordable Housing is an excuse for more and more building. If you don't believe me, look at the results of building these units.
ReplyDeleteAppeal on what grounds?
DeleteThe judge misinterpreted the law?
The law is unconstitutional?
You not liking the law isn’t legal grounds for an appeal.
The City (council) does not want to appeal. They are getting everything they want from the judge's decision: increased density everywhere, an effective suspension of Prop A, and very happy developers. Measures T and U were deliberately designed to fail at the ballot box so that a judge would eventually overturn Prop A.
DeleteRemember, it's the State, City gov., and the BIA on one side, and residents on the other. We would need a few hundred thousand dollars just to get started on an appeal.
Again, if you were going to appeal, on what grounds?
Deleteappeal that the numbers assigned to Encinitas are much higher than any similar municipality. check its true.
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't an issue that the judge ruled on, so it's not a basis for appeal. It could be a separate lawsuit challenging the legality of the RHNA allocation process, but not an appeal. It would have no bearing on the current case, and it would take many years to resolve. It would also probably lose. I'm not saying you are wrong about the unfairness of the system. I'm just saying that whats fair and what's legal are sometimes different things.
Delete2:23 PM
DeleteReally? Fraud isn't a basis for appeal? The City didn't provide that information to the court. This isn't an allocation question.
Now we’re getting somewhere.
DeleteWhat fraud was perpetrated upon the court, exactly?
Was evidence deliberately falsified?
Did the court rely on testimony that was provable perjury?
What documentary or sworn testimony do you offer to prove the fraud?
OMG marco leave it be, will you? No one is interested in engaging with your gasbag "arguments." Seriously, half of what you say is to see if anyone challenges you...if not, the lie lies.
DeleteNo need to get upset.
DeleteYou can just say there’s no valid grounds for an appeal, but you wish there was.
There’s no shame in that.
But don’t slam the city for not appealing, but then refuse to discuss or answer questions about the nature of the appeal.
ha no one is slamming the city for not appealing. the city is getting exactly what it wants and no on is surprised.
Deleteno slam and no surprise when a rabid dog bites
The Housing Element Update 2019 wasn’t presented to the residents of Encinitas at public workshops as the city did with Measures T and U. There were no workshops and no public conversation on the new changes in the Housing Element Update 2019. The Council violated the state law and local ordinances by not providing full public participation.
ReplyDeletePublic participation is required under State housing law Section 65583. Section 65585(b)(2) requires that: “The planning agency staff shall collect and compile the public comments regarding the housing element received by the city, county, or city and county, and provide these comments to each member of the legislative body before it adopts the housing element.”
One Councilman stated that this change “came out of the blue” as he questioned the city’s consultant attorney on who wanted the elimination of the midrange density. It was revealed that letters to HCD prompted that agency to demand the removal of the city wide ordinance. The Mayor quickly made a motion to approve the Housing Element Update 2019 which passed with a 5-0 vote. The residents were cut out of any future discussion of the new Housing Element Update 2019.
The midrange density ordinance has been part of the Encinitas Code for about 30 years. The municipal code lists the midrange and maximum density for property in each zone in response to subdividing. For an R-5 zone the midrange density is 4 houses per acre and maximum density is 5 houses per acre. That would mean a 10,890 sq.ft. lot for midrange density as opposed to an 8,712 sq.ft. lot for maximum density. A developer could use maximum density if the following was shown:
The project shows high sensitivity to the neighboring properties and area to ensure compatibility with land uses and community character; and
The project design significantly exceeds the minimum standards for development (lot size, setbacks, lot width and depth, landscape standards and design standards); and
The project either:
(A) Provides needed public improvements that are significantly beyond the requirements for the project, or
(B) Provides private or public recreational facilities that significantly exceed the project’s requirements, or provides other significant benefits.
The removal of the midrange ordinance and policy in the General Plan is one of many changes in the developer driven HCD approval demands. The Council has abandoned protecting the city ordinances and General Plan.
I find it hard to believe that HCD demanded this change. More likely the city requested it, and HCD agreed. Why wouldn't they? We have no record of the city's negotiation with HCD, all done on the phone with no notes or recordings. Blakespear promised transparency. Betrayed again by her lies. The city has long used the phone technique so there is no paper trail. And this on top of no notice of stakeholder meetings with builders.
DeleteThe demand is in the Feb. 4, 2019 letter from HCD to the city. Remember, this new Housing Element Update 2019 that was presented at the Feb. 21, 2019 Planning Commission meeting is very different in the policies that were in Measure U. There haven't been public workshops in the 5 communities for residents to understand the ramifications of these housing element changes. The city has provided to HCD a 148 page document titled
Delete"Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary" that gives the false impression that the new Housing Element Update 2019 has been vetted in community workshops as was done with Measure T and U. Not true.
The Mayor and Council are responsible for the lie and voted for the lie by approving the March 13, 2019 Resolution. Go to the city homepage - click on Housing Element Update 2019 on the lower right side and read the Exhibit 2019-19-D to City Council Resolution No. 2019-19. It is an act of a dictatorial Mayor Blakespear and Council members Kranz, Mosca, Hubbard, and Hinze turning their backs on the residents who live here.
If you think the 2019 Housing Element is illegal, then are you going to take out a home equity loan and hire lawyers, or are you just wasting everyone’s time with your legal theories?
Delete11:16 The size of the lot is fixed. Do you want to restate what you mean?
DeleteAre you saying the Municipal Code states a midrange and maximum density for every zoning category designation in the city? And what shows on the MyEncinitas parcels map and text alongside it is the max density?
The text boxes alongside the map show both the midrange and the max density. For a max R3 lot, the midrange density is 2.5.
DeleteHas a developer ever been denied max density?
4:52 PM
DeleteThe size of the lot is fixed after the land is subdivided. The MyEncinitas parcels map has a line that also shows midrange density. The actual square footage of the parcel must be taken from the subdivision map. Acreage subdivided to the midrange density provides the buyer with a larger lot than if divided to the maximum density. Developers want that property built out to the maximum density. Of course, everyone wants to buy a smaller lot to help out a developer. Another problem - Density bonus subdivisions are still showed to be in R-3 to R-8 zones although the subdivision lot sizes are many times smaller than the minimum lot size listed in the municipal code. For all the new residents who bought into density bonus developments, check the original plans to find the exact size of your lot. Planning staff will tell you the zoning designation such as R-3 zoning and not tell you the square footage of you lot.
The result of losing midrange zoning is that the developer gets to develop more market rate housing to the max of the zone with smaller lots. This midrange density elimination was one of the items the Mayor and Council approved on March 13, 2019.
OK, the size of the *parcel* is fixed. When the parcel is divided into DU lots, then lot size varies according to max or midrange density.
DeleteHas a developer ever been denied max density?
Why did SDG&E fire Mosca?
ReplyDeleteWhy did Degher quit the Traffic & Public Safety Commission?