At the final Council meeting of 2013 we showed that there is a different set of priorities and values on the Council and it makes a difference for the community. Specifically, I am pleased that we used our authority to increase the fees that a developer must pay in lieu of building affordable housing units. Our fee now more accurately reflects the cost of actually providing that housing somewhere else. In the past, staff used the price of condominium sales to calculate the "in lieu" fee. However, the City's inclusionary housing ordinance says a developer must build a 3-bedroom, 1500 square foot home or pay the in lieu fee. The City was using a composite of condo sales of all sizes, including studios and one-bedroom units. When they looked at more recent sales of units of equivalent size to the mandated homes, the fee went from about $178,000 to $319,000. If we used past sales of actual detached homes, which is what the fee is in lieu of, the calculation results in a fee of over $400,000. While I hope we will move to the higher calculation, or perhaps eliminate the in lieu option altogether, I thought it was unfair to make that change all in one leap, and proposed a middle ground. The Council supported my motion to set the fee at $319,000 by a vote of 4-1 with Councilmember Gaspar voting no.So it sounds as if the "in lieu" fees are purely at the discretion of the council, and their existence as a cheap option for developers is a deliberate incentive that past councils have created to encourage maximum use of the density bonus. How many recent bad developments would have been different if developers had to give up valuable real estate to get the density bonus rather than paying a token fee? If this council wants to demonstrate a difference from the Stocks/Bond/Dalager council, this looks like an excellent opportunity to do so.
Friday, December 20, 2013
A first step on density bonus
From Lisa Shaffer's latest newsletter:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Message to Shaffer- your children, your grandchildren will never be able to afford to live here. Not in a single detached home. Never. No matter how high you raise the in lieu fee. They will never be able to afford to live here. That's life, suck it up.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you say that. they your kids to get a good job and make good money. They could live here. My will. They are smart. Many young people live here.
DeleteYou sound clueless.
Clueless like a sour grapes developer might sound?
DeleteLiving here and buying a nice home are two different things. 90-95% of children that graduate from SDA will never afford to buy a home in Enc.
DeleteSour grapes developer??? Do you live in a trailer?? Every piece of property was " developed" even yours. Someone with balls took a chance and yet the ball less such as yourself now own it. I suggest you go buy some vacant land and go place a structure on it, no paying in lieu fees either.
If you live in this country, you know how it works. Study and work hard, and you get a shot (no guarantee) of making your own luck. No idea where you got the 90-96% figure from, but whatever. Do you propose arbitrarily lowering home values to lower your percentages? That's not the system we live under, as you seem to have forgotten.
DeleteThe density bonus law gives folks who, under regular market conditions, the opportunity to live here. Nice concept, right?
Well, now introduce the unabashed greed of some developers and what you get is a blatantly immoral, but legal twisting of the intent of the law. BTW, the developers, through lobbyists, wrote these mean-spirited and greed-driven loopholes into density bonus law language
No one disputes that we all live on developed land. There is, however, a difference between packing homes in like sardines to make projects "pencil out" and disrespecting community character, while screwing low income folks out of the affordable housing that enabled the sardine-packing in the first place.
Not sure what the overall point is, but yes, with home prices topping one million in Leucadia right now, you have to be making super big bank or have a big inheritance to live here. We live by the beach. It's nice here. It's amazing it lasted this long.
DeleteDoesn't mean we shouldn't have a decent set of rules for development that accurately reflect the costs of building. Quit giving developers a hand out...
Since the purpose of the inclusionary housing ordinance is to provide "affordable" housing, then the developers should be required to actually build the houses rather than pay a token fee. The fee shouldn't be raised. It should be eliminated altogether.
ReplyDeleteWhen an ordinance is created that leaves the application of in lieu fees completely up to Council, that creates the opportunity for abuse of discretion and application of selective enforcement.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know the wording of the ordinance that describes in lieu fees for units. The density bonus units are to be built; two affordable housing units will be built for 28 units? The in lieu fees for two additional units is for inclusionary housing, not the density bonus qualification requirements.
It does seem to me that raising the in lieu fees for additional affordable housing through inclusionary fees would make our city less attractive to density bonus developers? Another thing that would help as has been pointed out many times by numerous public speakers at Council Meetings, is a General Amnesty that would allow for more actual affordable housing to be counted on the books, for State mandates.
Building industry interests, including Council, would rather achieve a certified housing element by upzoning, instead of doing the work and giving the incentives to count all existing affordable housing.
Many density bonus projects that have been approved have eliminated much more affordable housing than they have created, through affordable units built, or "in lieu fees" applied. Those in lieu fees can then be schlepped over to other development interests that sit as Board Members of non profit, tax exempt foundations, that get credit for pre-existing affordable units, "legalized" through an insider deal process of wink wink, nudge nudging.
On another topic, at the final CC Meeting for the year, and in her latest newsletter, Lisa Shaffer seemed amazed that the EHA is set up as a tax exempt 501(c)(3), just as is L101MA. Hey getting a non-profit status is not that difficult these days. Being a non-profit is no guarantee that taxpayers are not being fleeced by City subsidies to business association non-profits that also act as sponsors/lobbyists/electioneers. These 501(c)(3) non-profits are to report all lobbying activities, although they can engage in some, but not campaign for specific candidates, if I understand the rules. . .
L101MA and the Encinitas Preservation Association have many real estate/development/building industry ties. Their Federal Tax forms are publicly disclosable. Peder Norby lied and said he was not forwarded my California Public Records Act request. Although he resigned his City contractor job, isn't he still part of the EPA Foundation?
For the EPA, not only is their property tax exempt, but also tax deductible are any contributions given to the organization by its own Board of Directors, or anyone else.
This tax exempt status was adroitly used to purchase the Boathouses property, with the help of over $800,000 of in lieu fees from the City and from Moonlight Loft Developers along with some tax deductible contributions from the same ML developers, who later went bankrupt.
Strange coincidence that when questioned about it, Norby told me he wasn't going to respond to a "fishing expedition." This was after he decided, seemingly "mid stream" to change his mind and not run for the Board of Supervisors. Norby soon thereafter decided to leave his contractor position with Encinitas, for a position with the City of Carlsbad. Strange timing.
I do think the City should look at the laws we have on the books, our ordinances, and State code, define and tighten the wording of EMC, and enforce it, before creating new regulations. There should not be "unfettered discretion" by public officers, including elected officials. This invites pay-offs and more and more influence peddling. If most of the complaints are from downtown Encinitas, then perhaps there should be some kind of overlay there, for area specific heightened regulations? If it's not broken, don't fix it. If it is broken, then fix it carefully. with precision.
Lady- that horse is dead. You can kick it all you want, it's not going to get up and take you anywhere.
DeletePS- I like the fact that Norby gave you the finger and told you to fuck off. If only more people in this town did the same perhaps you'd get the message. Let me be one of those.....Fuck off!!
Norby didn't give me the finger. He stated that he didn't receive the forwarded California Public Records Act Request. The Clerk, Kathy Hollywood, and Deputy Clerk, Claudia Bingham then confirmed for me, that same night, that my request had been forwarded. Norby also didn't tell me to F off. As usual, he was polite, and I was polite with him. 5:41, you only expose your own bitterness and ignorance of the facts.
DeleteYeah, that didn't sound like Peder.
DeleteLady, you are too dense to understand his blowing you off IS giving you the finger. I'd give you the finger but your too dense to understand.
DeleteI believe the term is "The Proverbial finger". But yes, the ship has sailed (no pun intended) on the boathouses. Let's move on. Norby is gone, nothing is going to happen there.
DeleteLet me summarize Lword comments.--- bla, blah, blah…..
ReplyDeleteThat's all that you care to pretend you can understand. So be it ☮
Delete5:41AM You are an idiot.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the new culture of civility among council and staff hasn't rubbed off on the public.
DeleteWCV
7:54- jealous aren't you?? Of course you are. You've never known anything less.
DeleteWCV has a good point. If we are ever going to make a difference in our community, we cannot keep trashing each other. We are better than that. Now let's see who trashes me, so I can have a good laugh. Happy Holidays all. I do really mean that.
DeleteThe vast majority of readers and persons commenting are civil. There are a few very reactive people, perhaps only one, who gets up early in the morning to spew vindictive venom, and to try to drive anyone away that would question certain ingrained special interests. Obviously, I'm striking a nerve, lol!
DeleteBut one or two anonymous expletive excreters aren't going to stop the truth from coming out.
I wish everyone reading and commenting, posting here, a Merry Christmas, happy holidays, and happy New Year, too. Dr. Lorri, great to see you posting again ♥
When Paula was with L-101, she asked me to design the Light Up Leucadia street light banners. Laying out the idea, she said "Put this here, and that there, then at the bottom just put...happy... whatever". I LOVED it "Happy Whatever!" It took the religi-politico correct "Happy Holidays" to a new level of indifference that could have been pioneered here in Leucadia. But I was overruled with what I would call the milktoast "Happy Everything" that was printed.
DeleteDespite that, Light Up Leucadia is catching on more this year than previously. Lookin' good at night! Here's a link to vote for your favorite...
http://www.leucadia101.com/events/light-leucadia/
Oh yeah, and Merry Christmas everyone!
Happy Hanukkah!,
and Whatever!
I don't mind happy holidays, because holidays = holy days.
DeleteReligious scholars agree that Christmas does not mark the birth of Christ. ❅ ❄ ❆
Happy Winter Solstice everyone! Every day is holy when it is filled with good cheer and the spirit of compassion, giving. ❅
Look at the messenger and you can really read the message.
DeleteKLCC loves weeds, unsafe conditions for our children, and blight low rent conditions over nice anyway.
They call nice Disneyland. I call nice the homes 1 block away from the blighted Hwy101.
KLCC = Keep Leucadia's Community Character! Yes, we'll look at YOU, messenger(s) of expletives and insults. We can see through your cover of anonymity. When you point your finger of condemnation at someone else, three fingers are pointing right back at you, lol! ☝
DeleteCommunity character is not composed of those things you unilateraly define as blight.
Leucadians do not define our character as blight. Those same anonymous finger pointers, who don't want to keep Leucadia Funky, wanted to declare Leucadia blighted.
Fortunately, they were foiled, and will continue to be foiled by true Leucadians, thoughtful citizens who want to enhance our canopy, get rid of the weeds, who want to improve our streets, while protecting and preserving quality of life,
This blog is about more than supporting the economic development plans of a few directors on boards of local business associations; it's about more than the character of Leucadia. I think it's about our entire City, preserving our quality of life within our neighborhoods.
If you think a property is blighted, buy it, then, and bring it up to your standards of "nice." You don't own the public streets or the public parks anymore than any other member of the public does.
You forgot to tell us how bad roundabouts are for 101. You are slipping.
Delete"true Leucadians, thoughtful citizens who want to enhance our canopy, get rid of the weeds, who want to improve our streets, while protecting and preserving quality of life,"
DeleteSounds like the same page to me.
That said, two more Eucalyptus trees on Vulcan went the way of the dodo this week.
DeleteYep. Eucalyptus are designed to live 400 years. But not in this town. Arborabortion.
DeleteAnybody who wants to live in uniform suburbia is free to stay there or move there. But it's not OK to impose suburbia on a community where it's not wanted by the majority of residents.
DeleteOnce they start leaning, someone with a chainsaw starts salivating...
DeleteEveryone head on over to Surfy Surfy to pick up some holiday cheer. Keep up the good work JP.
ReplyDeleteI hope she trips on a rock in park.
DeleteIncluded in today's mail (stuffed illegally in the mailbox w/out a stamp) was a "Real Living Lifestyles" flier that advertised Stan McNiel's services.
ReplyDelete"Specializing in nursery real estate and infill lots & land," it sure sounds like he'll be gunning for overdevelopment on ag lots city-wide. Oh, boy!
This guy?:
Deletehttp://www.realliving.com/Stan.McNiel
Lisa's piece on the fees exposes the truth. Density bonus has nothing to do with affordable housing, period. It is about developers and municipalities maxing out what they can get while screwing the neighbors.
ReplyDeleteThe Cabezon
There seems to be willful ignorance among the commenters to continue to conflate Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing. Maybe it's just too much fun. Inclusionary Housing/Zoning is a requirement that for every 10 homes in a subdivision, one must be set aside for below market rate or optionally, if approved by the city council, in-lieu fees paid. There is state legislation that allows cities/counties to adopt these kinds of ordinances but doesn't require them.
ReplyDeleteDensity Bonus on the other hand, is state legislation that requires all cities/counties to adopt and provides the formula to follow which doesn't include the option of in-lieu fees. It's not clear whether the legislation requires the below market rate units to be built on the same site or can be off site but they are to be built.
So the discussion at council was about the two Inclusionary units that would have to be built if the council didn't accept an in-lieu fee. The two additional Density Bonus units were not part of the discussion and will be built.
Thanks for the clarification.
DeleteStill sounds like a better idea to require building the units rather than allowing in-lieu fees.
WCV