Sincere woman brings up parking point. Kranz challenges her with hostile question. Hypothetical: If accessory unit can't provide parking, should unit be allowed?
Kranz isn't looking for a solution. He just wants to lay his stupid trip on everybody.
Council happily reduced onsite parking requirements for high density in Measure T, but all of a sudden the odd granny flat is going to create neighborhood parking issues?
Kranz is managed by his developer handlers and anything that won't guarantee them max profits, Kranz will fight. He does not represent residents and has no business being on a subcommittee that's tasked with finding common ground.
If the homeowner can prove that the habitable space, the residential building, itself, existed before when the off street parking law was enacted, in 2003, then no new offstreet parking. Our local ordinance clearly states that structures existing prior to the (then) newly enacted off-street parking requirement law, are NOT NON-CONFORMING by virtue of lack of off street parking.
Businesses use this "grandfathering" of the off-street parking requirements all the time, which does put more commercial parking in residential neighborhoods. However, parking requirements cannot be so strict as to prevent creation of more affordable housing.
Tasha BH has admitted that accessory units are considered to be de facto affordable housing, without covenants being required. If this were publicized, along with a citywide voluntary survey, with incentives, more people would come forward to put existing affordable units on the rolls, or to create more units.
Did Muir just blantanly lie or was confused and misspoke? No one it seems is against granny flats, residents are against more Pacific Station messes that are as anti- character as it comes. Granny flats blend end seamlessly for the most part.
BH said the SMUP map was well-vetted. No. In some ways, it's a gift to certain property owners. In others, it's impractical because several of the sites are owned by multiple incompatible parties.
Rather than in lieu fees, require the developers to actually build affordable units.
Want to know the progress of all cities in meeting their RHNA numbers. HCD has the list on their website. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/annual-progress-reports/index.php
The idea is to put residential in commercial areas instead of adding density to existing residential areas which are already built out. Perhaps it makes sense to allow full residential in commercial areas (thinking out loud), but that has not been suggested.
If we rezone a bunch of our commercial space to pure residential, then we'll have more population, and less places to get a haircut, buy a book, or eat a meal.
Mixed use allows the existing amount of storefront to stay, while adding residential upstairs. Most residential traffic and parking needs are 6pm to 7 am. Most business traffic/parking demand is 8am to 5 pm.
Why does Krautz go to the HCD website for her information? Why not phone HCD for whatever information she needs? That would assure the info is up to date.
The motion they just passed did not specify that the task force will come back with a Housing Element proposal. It just said come back with a proposal.
The proposal could be to power-wash the sidewalks downtown.
There was some movement by the city toward the Measure T opponents.
1. Tasha BT, led by Joe M, admitted that the infamous Section J should be removed from the failed HEU, and this after her ugly denial at the Senior Center that it wasn't a giant loophole taking decision making power from the Planning Commission and giving it to the Planning Director.
2. Barbara Kautz, the outside counsel, admitted that Bruce E from the No on T group was correct that a buffer is not required by statue, and this after both Tasha BH and Catherine B embarrassed themselves by insisting it was.
3. Tasha BH got a big around of applause when she finally said that all the extraneous changes of building codes be eliminated from the failed HEU, and this after she voted to approve them when on the Planning Commission.
4. Mark M asked with conviction why underutilized properties couldn't be counted as potential affordable accessory unit sites exactly like the R-30 proxy zoning. He added that the state doesn't require units to be actually built, only the by right to do it.
5. A speaker asked why the council was relying on outside counsel who wasn't able to answer many questions because of three new laws and not talking directly with HCD. Council agreed to invite someone from HCD to answer questions directly.
6. Tony K bullied a woman speaking on reduced parking. Gene Chapo, former Planning Commissioner, suggested the city count on street parking for accessory units as it does for commercial building. The council seemed to react favorably.
Not a bad night for the Measure T opponents, who read the measure with more comprehension than the council. It remains to be seen if a "better plan" comes out of the subcommittee and task force.
With no buffer, the City will be rezoning again in two years after we can't show continued sites inventory. Just saying'. I suggest some buffer, may 10 percent. Maybe 20 percent.
With no buffer, the city will be rezoning at the next cycle for whatever our allocation is then.
In addition to no buffer required by HCD, which the No side has in writing - HCD also said:
"Future housing production may or may not fully meet all of the housing need and there’s no carry over as long as you, the community, have done all you can to plan for all of that need. There’s no harm or foul if the private market doesn’t produce as much as you planned for."
Put those two together and it = no buffer.
In that case, Kranz' claim that we can't accommodate our RHNA number using the existing identified parcels is moot, as we'd be planning for 1,093 units and not the buffered 2,989 (Measure T number).
There's no "maybe" about it, EU! That's exactly what they're doing and they've even hinted at "so we don't have to come back to the voters" in the past few months. It was either Shaffer or Blakespear who said it.
Measure T relied on the existing inclusionary housing policy to get a disappointing 10% of units to be actually affordable. But even if the council takes Bruce Ehler's suggested 25%, that still means 75% of units constructed would be at market rate.
So, how do you make market rate units affordable? Answer: make the units smaller. So, how do you make the units smaller? Answer: go back to the 30ft, two story height limit.
Zoning at a certain density doesn't necessarily correlate to affordability. It's entirely possible to construct a building at R-30 that doesn't produce any affordable housing. In fact, it's possible to construct a building at R-300 + that's extremely unaffordable. In fact, it exists, and it's called Trump Tower. Trump Tower is a mixed use project standing on less than 1 acre, with 238 residential units averaging about $3000 / sq. ft. (http://streeteasy.com/building/trump-tower)
Height is the key variable. Trump Tower is 58 stories tall, which means the total square footage of floor space can be very large relative to the lot size.
Taking our next housing element from three stories plus a habitable attic (essentially four stories) back down to two stories should cut the floor space available per unit in half. All things being equal, lower building height will produce smaller units, which will be more affordable.
Moving the inclusionary from 10% to 25% makes some difference in the affordable housing equation. But restoring the building height limit actually does more.
Good idea, but you are constraining the market. Therefore HCD won't like it.
Put it this way, lets say you actually owned land in this city. Now we are telling you can add a air conditioner, but it only will reach 90 degrees in temperature, now lower. Not 80 or 70 or 60.
Do you want to put in an air conditioner?
HCD's job is to make sure that cities follow the rules, and then don't constrain it so much that housing will never happen. If you want to play the smokes and mirrors with HCD, that's fine, but unfortunately they are used to magic shows and will see the act for what it is worth.
There is a market for small units. In fact, I bet the price per square ft would be higher for small units than for large ones. Construction and sales costs might be higher, but I bet the financials would generally work out for the builder better than the Moonlight Lofts did.
Cool. Tear down your house and build a smaller one.
I think you will see the idiocy in that statement match your own.
Show me where in coastal cities we have small lot subdivisions that chose that small size over a smaller size.
The bottom line is that anyone can build a small unit anywhere in the city as long as it meets density. No one is building it because that market is occupied by mobilehomes and accessory units.
You also disregarded my point in 1:31 post. It doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters what HCD thinks. This blog does not supersede years of industry experience that HCD looks to.
The mayor called out the Detour building as an example of R-30 in two stories. If that building has a low vacancy rate on the residential units, then there is an existing market with a track record here, which is what HCD looks for.
Find a few more similar buildings, and we can demonstrate that low height and small units represent a viable market.
Your analogy is bunk. I can't find a 90 degree air conditioner in the free market, but we sure can find small units for rent doing just fine.
If I build 4 homes on my lot, instead of the one, all four are now more affordable and my lot is more valuable. If I add a second story to those four, they are less affordable but my lot is worth even more.
The affordable housing law mentions owner-occupied development much more then large developments or even mixed use. There are many benefits. That said, I think that sort of upzoning would bring us closer to Pacific Beach with apartments in every yard and no street parking. The other way to go is the Orange County approach with steets shaded on both sides with massive but revenue generating boxes. Some mixture of the two should satisfy but aimthink we should be suing SANDAG for their admittedly bogus numbers.
While in the subject of bogus numbers. Technology has made sprawl much more environmentally friendly just as Amazon.com has made small store fronts in low demand. This infill experiment is starting to make as much sense as mixed-use.
Detour was built at like 40 units per acre, years and years ago....before the city was a city and before parking was an issue. It has no onsite parking, really.
Not a good example of micro-units that exceed density and provide no parking.
But it is rather ironic that the example is something out that is way more dense that 30 units per acre and has no parking. Are you arguing for Measure T or not? I am confused.
If you are looking for a solution, how about let property owners decide within a set of rules what works and what doesn't. If the market is there to support micro-units, then they will build them.
If we have to zone R-30, then do it in two stories and 30 ft. The city doesn't need to specify unit sizes. The building envelope will naturally do that.
Since Detour is actually R-40, which is more density than we need to comply, it follows that the same unit sizes at R-30 would create space for parking.
The Danforth Building is R-40? Are there actually 40 residential units per acre there? How many apartments are on the second floor, and how big are they?
10 units on quarter of an acre = about 40 units per acre. Doesn't matter what new plans say. That's what was built. Kinda like Pacific Station and three stories.
People can build the exact same thing elsewhere along the 101 in downtown because D-CM-1 has no maximum density.
The categories called "affordable" are those below the median. If you use 30 percent of income for rent, then compare that to typical studio, 1BR and 2BR rents in Encinitas, you'll see there's a big gap between the two figures.
So the question is, where does the money to fill or effectively fill the gap come from?
The money is not there - yet another data point showing the emperor has no clothes.
The Council knows state subsidies were cut a few years ago and chooses to ignore that reality.
It's the reason affordable housing now cannot be achieved in any meaningful numbers in high land cost areas. The HCD rep admitted that when he was last here in December 2015.
Which is even more reason to keep kicking the HEU can down the road. It is very flawed and there are enough case studies to show it simply does not work as currently implemented.
Problem is finding a politician that is not just a step-and-fetch-it for their developer donors. We need leaders, not the followers we have now. That high school kid showed more leadership than this group we have now.
Since state and fed subsidies have dried up and county and city subsidies are unlikely, that leaves charities and other nonprofits as candidates to fill the dollar gap. Seems if that had happened elsewhere in CA, we'd know it.
So "effectively fill the gap" becomes the task. Seems a way, maybe the only way, to do that is to pack tiny-to-small apartments on land upzoned to a density that would allow the required number of affordable units as well as enough profit for the developers.
This is for the "idiot" who runs the blog Encinitas Votes. You were not aware that council members get paid for every meeting they attend over and above the regular council meetings, i.e., Sandag, water board, NCTD?? Where in the hell of you been? You really have your head up your ass!
The EV administrator provides a place to exchange information and opinions.
She never presented herself as someone who has the answers. Why don't you post there using your real name, or better yet, give us the link to your blog? We want to marvel at your vast knowledge!
Wait. Forget the administrator of Encinitas Votes for a minute. The City Council just gave themselves a raise. But they did not include how much they got extra for going to meetings, putting their salaries a lot higher than they said. Whether Lori knew this or not, isn't anyone a but concerned that the council who voted themselves a raise didn't tell us how much they really make. Word had it one year Jim Bond made $70,000 in one yer for being on the different committee meetings he attended. Maybe 12:43 knew, but I didn't. So how much does a City Council member really make in this city?
They just gave themselves a raise but forgot to mention that they get paid for these meetings? I didn't know that either. I went over to Encinitas Votes and asked to join. Good information and you have to post your name. That kind of leaves some of you out I realize.
Council member makes forty thousand dollars including the benefits. A small amount compared to what they could make in the real world. They need a living wage.
1:39- Actually they make more than that. But it is still rather sneaky of the council to say they make $1200 a month when it is a lot higher. It is not supposed to be a full time job. And they all say they are doing it because they love Encinitas.
This is the idiot speaking. Thanks 12:43. You not only reinforced my point, but we now have 2 new members. As far as whether I knew the information or not, doesn't really matter. I posted your comment on Encinitas Votes, and now everyone knows what I was trying to point out. Appreciate the information.
Since state and fed subsidies have dried up and county and city subsidies are unlikely, that leaves charities and other nonprofits as candidates to fill the dollar gap. Seems if that had happened elsewhere in CA, we'd know it.
So "effectively fill the gap" becomes the task. Seems a way, maybe the only way, to do that is to pack tiny-to-small apartments on land upzoned to a density that would allow the required number of affordable units as well as enough profit for the developers.
3:47- Why don't we ask W.c. to be sure? I do know you cannot post on Encinitas Votes unless you are a member. But you can look. I think the moderator, or "idiot" as some would say, can see everyone who even looks.
You don't want to see sausage made or a Housing Element crafted. In the end, something palatable will result. But the city has had to have been dragged kicking and screaming to that result because what they really want is to maximize sales and property tax revenues, and permit fees. They also want to appease developers so they'll keep developing, thereby producing more revenue for the city.
When that's been brought up, people who live near the prospective high-density-zoned parcels have raised hell. It's the NIMBY thing. Yes I want dense low-income housing but not near me.
A few of the parcels in question are owned by the city (e.g. Vulcan).
The city doesn't own enough property for 1100 units. Even if it did, it would smack of self-dealing for the city to upzone their own property exclusively, as it increases the value of the property.
If the city did own enough property, and self-dealing wasn't an issue, it would still be important to think about traffic flow, access to public transportation, infrastructure, etc.
Why do you even care who owns the properties? If your point is that the city could upzone owned properties, then refuse to make them available for development, that would be shortsighted. If we don't demonstrate some track record of unit construction we'd be screwed royally in the next cycle.
2:16 The City Hall parcel including the parking lot was one of the upzoned properties in Measure T. That tosses your point out the window.
The city owns open-land properties. If they were zoned high density residential and a required percentage of units were designated low income, that would put a big dent in the 1,093.
3:53pm I hope you are not a Whole Foods employee that just lost your job and, if so, that you find another asap.
The crap comment rings familiar for some reason, but really has no standing.
I am not associated with Lazy Acres in any way, and have had nothing but excellent service when I needed it.
If something was out of stock, I can't imagine that they would not do what they could for you. Your post raises suspicion.
I have no idea what staples you have looked for and that 'they are always out of stock'. Hmmmmmm?
I don't have a clue what you are seeking to gain by your post. For my once a week stop, I have been nothing but happy with their service and attitude to assist whenever they can.
Perhaps your attitude may be clouding your perception. Give them a go and try again and report back here with more than they are crap.
Inquiring minds may want to know that you have been treated as you believe you should have been. Keep us in the loop.
WC, time to take the trash out again. Thomas Roger Ogden, the hate monger, appears to have some latent tendencies of his own he is dealing with.
Why he posts here at all, from his San Diego neighborhood, is questionable. Are their other local city blogs that he targets? Roger go away. There is nothing for you here in our tolerant town.
Sincere woman brings up parking point. Kranz challenges her with hostile question. Hypothetical: If accessory unit can't provide parking, should unit be allowed?
ReplyDeleteKranz isn't looking for a solution. He just wants to lay his stupid trip on everybody.
Disagree. It was a reasonable question.
DeleteNope. He put her on the spot and smacked her. She responded civilly, saying she made extra parking spaces on her property.
DeleteCouncil happily reduced onsite parking requirements for high density in Measure T, but all of a sudden the odd granny flat is going to create neighborhood parking issues?
DeleteKranz is managed by his developer handlers and anything that won't guarantee them max profits, Kranz will fight. He does not represent residents and has no business being on a subcommittee that's tasked with finding common ground.
Spot on. Kranz not to be trusted in any form, it's obvious what he is up to, not a good actor at all. The Mayor has an agenda as well.
DeleteIf the homeowner can prove that the habitable space, the residential building, itself, existed before when the off street parking law was enacted, in 2003, then no new offstreet parking. Our local ordinance clearly states that structures existing prior to the (then) newly enacted off-street parking requirement law, are NOT NON-CONFORMING by virtue of lack of off street parking.
DeleteBusinesses use this "grandfathering" of the off-street parking requirements all the time, which does put more commercial parking in residential neighborhoods. However, parking requirements cannot be so strict as to prevent creation of more affordable housing.
Tasha BH has admitted that accessory units are considered to be de facto affordable housing, without covenants being required. If this were publicized, along with a citywide voluntary survey, with incentives, more people would come forward to put existing affordable units on the rolls, or to create more units.
Did Muir just blantanly lie or was confused and misspoke? No one it seems is against granny flats, residents are against more Pacific Station messes that are as anti- character as it comes. Granny flats blend end seamlessly for the most part.
ReplyDeleteMosca is a carpetbagger and has no place on the council.
ReplyDeleteBH made some very good suggestions. She has done her homework and put a lot of thought into solving the problem.
Tasha BH wants Measure T again.
ReplyDeleteBH said the SMUP map was well-vetted. No. In some ways, it's a gift to certain property owners. In others, it's impractical because several of the sites are owned by multiple incompatible parties.
DeleteRather than in lieu fees, require the developers to actually build affordable units.
Want to know the progress of all cities in meeting their RHNA numbers.
ReplyDeleteHCD has the list on their website.
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/annual-progress-reports/index.php
If the requirement is affordable housing, what's the point of specifying mixed use? It provides commercial space and residential space.
ReplyDeleteThe idea is to put residential in commercial areas instead of adding density to existing residential areas which are already built out. Perhaps it makes sense to allow full residential in commercial areas (thinking out loud), but that has not been suggested.
DeleteIs residency prohibited in commercial zones? I know people who live in a storage unit.
DeleteIf we rezone a bunch of our commercial space to pure residential, then we'll have more population, and less places to get a haircut, buy a book, or eat a meal.
DeleteMixed use allows the existing amount of storefront to stay, while adding residential upstairs. Most residential traffic and parking needs are 6pm to 7 am. Most business traffic/parking demand is 8am to 5 pm.
Bruce is terrific.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Krautz go to the HCD website for her information? Why not phone HCD for whatever information she needs? That would assure the info is up to date.
Mosca gibberish. He hasn't said anything pertinent.
ReplyDeleteThe motion they just passed did not specify that the task force will come back with a Housing Element proposal. It just said come back with a proposal.
ReplyDeleteThe proposal could be to power-wash the sidewalks downtown.
The Council meeting was cut off at 8:45PM.
ReplyDeleteAnother night of BAD govt.
ReplyDeleteThere was some movement by the city toward the Measure T opponents.
ReplyDelete1. Tasha BT, led by Joe M, admitted that the infamous Section J should be removed from the failed HEU, and this after her ugly denial at the Senior Center that it wasn't a giant loophole taking decision making power from the Planning Commission and giving it to the Planning Director.
2. Barbara Kautz, the outside counsel, admitted that Bruce E from the No on T group was correct that a buffer is not required by statue, and this after both Tasha BH and Catherine B embarrassed themselves by insisting it was.
3. Tasha BH got a big around of applause when she finally said that all the extraneous changes of building codes be eliminated from the failed HEU, and this after she voted to approve them when on the Planning Commission.
4. Mark M asked with conviction why underutilized properties couldn't be counted as potential affordable accessory unit sites exactly like the R-30 proxy zoning. He added that the state doesn't require units to be actually built, only the by right to do it.
5. A speaker asked why the council was relying on outside counsel who wasn't able to answer many questions because of three new laws and not talking directly with HCD. Council agreed to invite someone from HCD to answer questions directly.
6. Tony K bullied a woman speaking on reduced parking. Gene Chapo, former Planning Commissioner, suggested the city count on street parking for accessory units as it does for commercial building. The council seemed to react favorably.
Not a bad night for the Measure T opponents, who read the measure with more comprehension than the council. It remains to be seen if a "better plan" comes out of the subcommittee and task force.
With no buffer, the City will be rezoning again in two years after we can't show continued sites inventory. Just saying'. I suggest some buffer, may 10 percent. Maybe 20 percent.
DeleteHow about a buffer and a cap? Include a buffer but cap the number actually built after re-zoning at 1,093.
DeleteWith no buffer, the city will be rezoning at the next cycle for whatever our allocation is then.
DeleteIn addition to no buffer required by HCD, which the No side has in writing - HCD also said:
"Future housing production may or may not fully meet all of the housing need and there’s no carry over as long as you, the community, have done all you can to plan for all of that need. There’s no harm or foul if the private market doesn’t produce as much as you planned for."
Put those two together and it = no buffer.
In that case, Kranz' claim that we can't accommodate our RHNA number using the existing identified parcels is moot, as we'd be planning for 1,093 units and not the buffered 2,989 (Measure T number).
Maybe they're trying to upzone enough for a few cycles so they don't have to have a public vote next time?
DeleteThere's no "maybe" about it, EU! That's exactly what they're doing and they've even hinted at "so we don't have to come back to the voters" in the past few months. It was either Shaffer or Blakespear who said it.
DeleteMeasure T relied on the existing inclusionary housing policy to get a disappointing 10% of units to be actually affordable. But even if the council takes Bruce Ehler's suggested 25%, that still means 75% of units constructed would be at market rate.
ReplyDeleteSo, how do you make market rate units affordable? Answer: make the units smaller. So, how do you make the units smaller? Answer: go back to the 30ft, two story height limit.
Zoning at a certain density doesn't necessarily correlate to affordability. It's entirely possible to construct a building at R-30 that doesn't produce any affordable housing. In fact, it's possible to construct a building at R-300 + that's extremely unaffordable. In fact, it exists, and it's called Trump Tower. Trump Tower is a mixed use project standing on less than 1 acre, with 238 residential units averaging about $3000 / sq. ft. (http://streeteasy.com/building/trump-tower)
Height is the key variable. Trump Tower is 58 stories tall, which means the total square footage of floor space can be very large relative to the lot size.
Taking our next housing element from three stories plus a habitable attic (essentially four stories) back down to two stories should cut the floor space available per unit in half. All things being equal, lower building height will produce smaller units, which will be more affordable.
Moving the inclusionary from 10% to 25% makes some difference in the affordable housing equation. But restoring the building height limit actually does more.
Good idea, but you are constraining the market. Therefore HCD won't like it.
DeletePut it this way, lets say you actually owned land in this city. Now we are telling you can add a air conditioner, but it only will reach 90 degrees in temperature, now lower. Not 80 or 70 or 60.
Do you want to put in an air conditioner?
HCD's job is to make sure that cities follow the rules, and then don't constrain it so much that housing will never happen. If you want to play the smokes and mirrors with HCD, that's fine, but unfortunately they are used to magic shows and will see the act for what it is worth.
No magic show.
DeleteThere is a market for small units. In fact, I bet the price per square ft would be higher for small units than for large ones. Construction and sales costs might be higher, but I bet the financials would generally work out for the builder better than the Moonlight Lofts did.
Cool. Tear down your house and build a smaller one.
DeleteI think you will see the idiocy in that statement match your own.
Show me where in coastal cities we have small lot subdivisions that chose that small size over a smaller size.
The bottom line is that anyone can build a small unit anywhere in the city as long as it meets density. No one is building it because that market is occupied by mobilehomes and accessory units.
You also disregarded my point in 1:31 post. It doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters what HCD thinks. This blog does not supersede years of industry experience that HCD looks to.
I think a case could be made to HCD.
DeleteThe mayor called out the Detour building as an example of R-30 in two stories. If that building has a low vacancy rate on the residential units, then there is an existing market with a track record here, which is what HCD looks for.
Find a few more similar buildings, and we can demonstrate that low height and small units represent a viable market.
Your analogy is bunk. I can't find a 90 degree air conditioner in the free market, but we sure can find small units for rent doing just fine.
If I build 4 homes on my lot, instead of the one, all four are now more affordable and my lot is more valuable. If I add a second story to those four, they are less affordable but my lot is worth even more.
DeleteThe affordable housing law mentions owner-occupied development much more then large developments or even mixed use. There are many benefits. That said, I think that sort of upzoning would bring us closer to Pacific Beach with apartments in every yard and no street parking. The other way to go is the Orange County approach with steets shaded on both sides with massive but revenue generating boxes. Some mixture of the two should satisfy but aimthink we should be suing SANDAG for their admittedly bogus numbers.
While in the subject of bogus numbers. Technology has made sprawl much more environmentally friendly just as Amazon.com has made small store fronts in low demand. This infill experiment is starting to make as much sense as mixed-use.
Sideline interposing -
DeleteDetour was built at like 40 units per acre, years and years ago....before the city was a city and before parking was an issue. It has no onsite parking, really.
Not a good example of micro-units that exceed density and provide no parking.
But it is rather ironic that the example is something out that is way more dense that 30 units per acre and has no parking. Are you arguing for Measure T or not? I am confused.
If you are looking for a solution, how about let property owners decide within a set of rules what works and what doesn't. If the market is there to support micro-units, then they will build them.
Let property owners decide building height?
DeleteI don't think so.
If we have to zone R-30, then do it in two stories and 30 ft. The city doesn't need to specify unit sizes. The building envelope will naturally do that.
Since Detour is actually R-40, which is more density than we need to comply, it follows that the same unit sizes at R-30 would create space for parking.
The Danforth Building is R-40? Are there actually 40 residential units per acre there? How many apartments are on the second floor, and how big are they?
DeleteBlakespear's the one who used it as an example. Write her or go look at the building plans on file at the city.
DeleteDon't be so lazy - come back and report what you learned, 11:05.
12:01 You look really stupid up on your high horse.
DeletePer the city's website, the Danforth building is zoned D-CM-1 = Commercial Mixed 1 (DESP) = Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan.
DeleteHardly R-40.
It was built long before current zoning.
Delete10 units on quarter of an acre = about 40 units per acre. Doesn't matter what new plans say. That's what was built. Kinda like Pacific Station and three stories.
DeletePeople can build the exact same thing elsewhere along the 101 in downtown because D-CM-1 has no maximum density.
Why aren't they?
Because they care more about lining their pockets than community character.
DeleteThe whole reason zoning exists in the first place.
Dollar figures are consistently missing from council and other discussions. The figures for San Diego County are on page 10 here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits/docs/inc2k16.pdf
The categories called "affordable" are those below the median. If you use 30 percent of income for rent, then compare that to typical studio, 1BR and 2BR rents in Encinitas, you'll see there's a big gap between the two figures.
So the question is, where does the money to fill or effectively fill the gap come from?
Santa Claus!
DeleteThe money is not there - yet another data point showing the emperor has no clothes.
DeleteThe Council knows state subsidies were cut a few years ago and chooses to ignore that reality.
It's the reason affordable housing now cannot be achieved in any meaningful numbers in high land cost areas. The HCD rep admitted that when he was last here in December 2015.
Which is even more reason to keep kicking the HEU can down the road. It is very flawed and there are enough case studies to show it simply does not work as currently implemented.
DeleteProblem is finding a politician that is not just a step-and-fetch-it for their developer donors. We need leaders, not the followers we have now. That high school kid showed more leadership than this group we have now.
Since state and fed subsidies have dried up and county and city subsidies are unlikely,
Deletethat leaves charities and other nonprofits as candidates to fill the dollar gap. Seems if that had happened elsewhere in CA, we'd know it.
So "effectively fill the gap" becomes the task. Seems a way, maybe the only way, to do that is to pack tiny-to-small apartments on land upzoned to a density that would allow the required number of affordable units as well as enough profit for the developers.
This is for the "idiot" who runs the blog Encinitas Votes. You were not aware that council members get paid for every meeting they attend over and above the regular council meetings, i.e., Sandag, water board, NCTD?? Where in the hell of you been? You really have your head up your ass!
ReplyDeleteThe EV administrator provides a place to exchange information and opinions.
DeleteShe never presented herself as someone who has the answers. Why don't you post there using your real name, or better yet, give us the link to your blog? We want to marvel at your vast knowledge!
Uh, Encinitas Votes is a Facebook group.
DeleteLorri sings Kumbaya very well.
Sounds like 12:43 is the "idiot."
Delete12:43, why post here?
DeleteCould it be that you are a coward in real life, where your identity can't be hidden?
Wait. Forget the administrator of Encinitas Votes for a minute. The City Council just gave themselves a raise. But they did not include how much they got extra for going to meetings, putting their salaries a lot higher than they said. Whether Lori knew this or not, isn't anyone a but concerned that the council who voted themselves a raise didn't tell us how much they really make. Word had it one year Jim Bond made $70,000 in one yer for being on the different committee meetings he attended. Maybe 12:43 knew, but I didn't. So how much does a City Council member really make in this city?
ReplyDeleteConsidering they go against citizens and waste money left and right, way too much!
ReplyDeleteThey just gave themselves a raise but forgot to mention that they get paid for these meetings? I didn't know that either. I went over to Encinitas Votes and asked to join. Good information and you have to post your name. That kind of leaves some of you out I realize.
ReplyDeleteHell, even W.c. is a member of the group. Thanks for letting us know about it 12:43. I'm joining too. Some good stuff on that FB group.
ReplyDeleteCouncil member makes forty thousand dollars including the benefits. A small amount compared to what they could make in the real world. They need a living wage.
ReplyDelete1:39- Actually they make more than that. But it is still rather sneaky of the council to say they make $1200 a month when it is a lot higher. It is not supposed to be a full time job. And they all say they are doing it because they love Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteThis is the idiot speaking. Thanks 12:43. You not only reinforced my point, but we now have 2 new members. As far as whether I knew the information or not, doesn't really matter. I posted your comment on Encinitas Votes, and now everyone knows what I was trying to point out. Appreciate the information.
ReplyDeleteSince state and fed subsidies have dried up and county and city subsidies are unlikely, that leaves charities and other nonprofits as candidates to fill the dollar gap. Seems if that had happened elsewhere in CA, we'd know it.
ReplyDeleteSo "effectively fill the gap" becomes the task. Seems a way, maybe the only way, to do that is to pack tiny-to-small apartments on land upzoned to a density that would allow the required number of affordable units as well as enough profit for the developers.
1:36- W.c. is not a member of Encinitas Votes. Where did you get that info. He's much to cool to join that ragtag group.
ReplyDeleteW.c. posts on EV so unless somebody hacked his Facebook account he's a member.
ReplyDelete3:47- Why don't we ask W.c. to be sure? I do know you cannot post on Encinitas Votes unless you are a member. But you can look. I think the moderator, or "idiot" as some would say, can see everyone who even looks.
ReplyDeleteWhy does it matter at all? The poster above is Jerome and that's all I need to know to walk away.
ReplyDeleteYou don't want to see sausage made or a Housing Element crafted. In the end, something palatable will result. But the city has had to have been dragged kicking and screaming to that result because what they really want is to maximize sales and property tax revenues, and permit fees. They also want to appease developers so they'll keep developing, thereby producing more revenue for the city.
ReplyDeleteBingo, 7:04.
DeleteI still don't understand why the City just doesn't take some of the land it already owns and use that for the HEU. Can someone explain?
ReplyDeleteWhen that's been brought up, people who live near the prospective high-density-zoned parcels have raised hell. It's the NIMBY thing. Yes I want dense low-income housing but not near me.
DeleteA few of the parcels in question are owned by the city (e.g. Vulcan).
DeleteThe city doesn't own enough property for 1100 units. Even if it did, it would smack of self-dealing for the city to upzone their own property exclusively, as it increases the value of the property.
If the city did own enough property, and self-dealing wasn't an issue, it would still be important to think about traffic flow, access to public transportation, infrastructure, etc.
Why do you even care who owns the properties? If your point is that the city could upzone owned properties, then refuse to make them available for development, that would be shortsighted. If we don't demonstrate some track record of unit construction we'd be screwed royally in the next cycle.
2:16 The City Hall parcel including the parking lot was one of the upzoned properties in Measure T. That tosses your point out the window.
DeleteThe city owns open-land properties. If they were zoned high density residential and a required percentage of units were designated low income, that would put a big dent in the 1,093.
2:25,
DeleteI mentioned Vulcan, which is the city hall property. Not sure what you mean.
Sure, City Hall is on Vulcan, but is that what 2:16 meant?
DeleteMeasure T proposed upzoning the City Hall property to AHE-X30-M (At Home in Encinitas-Mixed Use 30 Units Per Acre-Main Street).
WHOLE FOODS IS CLOSING:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thecoastnews.com/2017/02/08/whole-foods-to-close-encinitas-market/
Great news.
DeleteNow we can put in a real craft brewery, not just a wimpy tasting room.
Put 100 small low cost housing there. They will have close access to liquor and the train.
ReplyDeleteMaybe a soup kitchen to replace whole foods.
DeleteThat is a shame. All the great folks I have come across there will be looking for a job and the downtown will not have a grocery store close by.
ReplyDeleteHopefully another market will come in, which won't be an easy sell [lease] with the bar right outside of their front door.
God forbid some bar comes in and claims they are not a bar , but just acts like one [Union].
Sorry to see this go from our downtown. It is needed.
That lazy acres place is crap. "Lazy" is right - just try getting an employee to help you, not to mention they're always out of stock on mainstays.
ReplyDeleteHow much value will the condos lose after the closing of Whole Foods?
ReplyDelete3:53pm I hope you are not a Whole Foods employee that just lost your job and, if so, that you find another asap.
ReplyDeleteThe crap comment rings familiar for some reason, but really has no standing.
I am not associated with Lazy Acres in any way, and have had nothing but excellent service when I needed it.
If something was out of stock, I can't imagine that they would not do what they could for you. Your post raises suspicion.
I have no idea what staples you have looked for and that 'they are always out of stock'. Hmmmmmm?
I don't have a clue what you are seeking to gain by your post. For my once a week stop, I have been nothing but happy with their service and attitude to assist whenever they can.
Perhaps your attitude may be clouding your perception. Give them a go and try again and report back here with more than they are crap.
Inquiring minds may want to know that you have been treated as you believe you should have been. Keep us in the loop.
Out of 2% milk, it seemed. Had to break up two employees deep in convo over some shared adventure out side work.
DeleteBroke up the little party to ask about the milk, was told they'd put more out "in awhile." I have not returned.
WC, time to take the trash out again. Thomas Roger Ogden, the hate monger, appears to have some latent tendencies of his own he is dealing with.
ReplyDeleteWhy he posts here at all, from his San Diego neighborhood, is questionable. Are their other local city blogs that he targets? Roger go away. There is nothing for you here in our tolerant town.