The City kicks off its next HEU round with a task force meeting at 5 p.m. this Monday, February 13, at City Hall. The agenda says simply "Continued discussion toward a legally compliant housing element."
The task force deck is stacked against lone Measure T "No" representative Bruce Ehlers; on the "Yes" side we have: Blakespear, Kranz, Groseclose, and assuredly a passel of staff members.
Likely we'll also have Barbara Kautz, the city's consulting attorney, in attendance.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Housing task force meeting Monday night
From the Inbox:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bruce is all we need, that and a closely observing public of the process.
ReplyDeleteWe will not be fooled again, as the song says.
Lets hope council has learned something, anything, from the past.
If Bruce thought the task force was not open to his ideas, then an honorable person would resign in protest.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that he accepted tells me either he thinks the group is fine, or he's not an honorable person. I believe the former.
If the group doesn't produce a housing element the voters are likely to approve, they and the city are in even deeper doo-doo. That makes it highly likely they'll do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteThat's assuming that they know what the right thing is. I certainly don't know.
DeleteI know what it is, but the council can't see past their agenda to know up from down.
DeleteYou got something written on stone tablets you want to share with us? All I can say is that even presidents still have to follow the law. To do otherwise will result in anarchy.
DeleteIronic that you say that, 3:37, since we now have a president who is some instances is not only not following the law but is also not abiding by the Constitution.
Delete3:37, you're that same tedious voice who has nothing to add - unless you think defending the city adds anything.
DeleteSave your breath, it doesn't.
As a long-time city watcher whether or not Bruce feels fine, the city will still be up to its old tricks.
ReplyDeleteNotice how aggressive Tony was toward a speaker last week when discussing accessory units and parking. He hasn't learned anything from T's failure. Catherine's latest newsletter hinted that she's going to push for two cycles' worth of units into this one. Her memory seems to be very short term, so expect her to pretend next cycle we're not covered already.
It's going to take a lot of oversight on the public's part to help Ehlers have the 56% truly represented.
Tony couldn't have come off less disingenuous in his shortsighted response to the sell out parking regs.
ReplyDeleteHe took an issue with larger scale development reduced parking giveaways that has been damaging wherever they have been approved, to a single home situation with an accessory unit, who has done all they could to park on the property and not affect their neighbors.
This neighbor should have been congratulated on their efforts to reduce on street parking.
Instead, Tony went after her. Can he be so dense as to not recognize the disastrous policy of approving larger scale developments with reduced parking and not mandating that these projects have some measure of requiring their tenants or buyers to not own a vehicle, if they want live there?
Give me a break. Give this homeowner serious consideration for her efforts to be a responsible citizen. If only the city could act like she has, we would all be better off.
She should have been given kudos for doing what the city has not. Nancy, you are not alone. Thanks for stepping up.
Tony was heard dis-respecting Nancy later that evening and he has told people in the past that he doesn't like Bruce. We need to make sure we show up on Monday and show Bruce our support. This meeting will obvioiusly be open to the public. PLEASE SHOW UP!
ReplyDeletePack the halls. It seems like that is the only thing that they will listen to.
ReplyDeleteApart from each member's personal agenda and the collective city agenda, the council listens to three things: lawsuits, ballot initiatives and mass uprisings.
DeleteHundreds of people showing up at the Community Center meeting and virtually nobody in the audience giving the city carte blanche was a mass uprising.
We've came to far not to participate! Be there: HEU round with a task force meeting at 5 p.m. this Monday, February 13, at City Hall.
ReplyDeleteStart anew ... the problem with T was it was flawed from the start.
ReplyDeleteThe City needs to take serious consideration to new ways to solve the problem of State Compliance to the Housing Plan. And not base new efforts upon Prop T foundations!
SO (Start Over) Encinitas! No part of Measure T can be kept!
ReplyDeleteDon't worry Bruce won't turn his back on us and use any part of T. That would be total betrayal!
ReplyDeleteBetrayal is the city's game. Tony and Lisa come immediately to mind.
DeleteI hate to break it to you, but No on T isn't going to get everything they want.
ReplyDeleteWe need six percent, and that's it.
1.) Add more real affordable housing to the plan, by increasing the inclusionary percentage from 10% to 15%-25% (the highest we can find in other HCD approved HEs.
2.) Reduce building heights.
3.) Eliminate the attic bonus floor
4.) Study a group of peer cities to understand the acceptable range of housing unit buffer in approved plans. Make sure our plan is in the bottom 30% of the range.
5.) Clarify a strong role for the Planning Commission and City Council, and a weak role for staff in the permit approval process.
6.) Eliminate the changes to how things are measured.
That's it. Dust hands - and call it good. If each of those six changes is viewed as a positive by one percent of the electorate, then it will pass.
And require reasonable parking?
DeleteI'd be fine with one to 1.5 spaces per unit, but the spaces should always be tradeable to maximize usefulness of the parking. Some units will want 3 spaces. Others may need zero. Find an easy way to allow owners to buy, sell or rent the parking they need. Could even change on a daily basis. If you'll be out of town for a week with your car at the airport, there should be an app that flips a light on your space to green and a kiosk to collect payment for the owner on an hourly or daily basis.
DeleteYou could even use the app to see what spaces will be available tomorrow, and reserve them in advance.
So I make money from my neighbors when I don't need my parking. Then when I have visitors, I give some of that money back to other neighbors.
The point is, we wouldn't need as much parking if we had smarter ways to manage the resource.
The City needs to consider new options for placement of low income housing. From the decline of box stores on El Camino Real and failing Encinitas Ranch public Golf Course are possible locations for low income housing...
ReplyDeleteKeeping these low income residents in one place is a great way to provide services from public transportation, food, health care, child care etc... besides the public support for housing.
Second this. El Camino Real -- aging structures built on an aging model. Turn this corridor into a modern mix of reasonably dense housing (not high rises) and newer/vibrant commercial and eating establishments. Could even kill two city problems with one stone -- liven this area up and encourage new seekers of liquor licenses to be a part of the process rather than oversaturate 101. What would happen if Pacific Station, for instance, was placed on the corner of El Camino Real and Encinitas Blvd? 1) The condos may actually fit the definition of low cost housing; 2) The "Whole Foods" would succeed due to easier access and better parking; 3) The restaurants and bars would fill a niche in that is underserved in the area as opposed to over-served in other parts of town.
Deletep.s. Call it the "El Camino Corridor Revitalization Plan" -- will pass 70/30 as developers eye easy wins and Encinitas Soccer Moms envision new places to brunch with the cool kids (anyone see the weekend line at Breakfast Republic?)
DeleteCurrent traffic jam issues on ECR enter your little plan?
DeleteConcentrate this units on El Camino Real and the New Encinitas residents will rise up again to defeat it. It is a non-starter.
DeleteJust try this and watch it all collapse. Guaranteed.
100% agree - been there, done that, not that the city can ever learn from history and past mistakes.
DeleteIf the taxpayers weren't footing the bill it would actually be rather awe-inspiring to consider just how many times the same staff, pushed by the same developers, try the same run at a HE.
I don't understand! The city tells us were meeting our affordable housing numbers. If that's the case, why do we need more low income housing units? Is this a social engineering thing?
ReplyDeleteThe city never said we're meeting our affordable housing numbers. If we were and the city had said that, we wouldn't have had Measure T on the ballot, and we wouldn't still be going through the years-long process, with the object of zoning for affordable housing.
DeleteWe are meeting our moderate and above numbers, which makes it all the more devious that the Council shifted the vote to "accommodating all levels of housing" in Measure T.
DeleteYet another reason it crashed and burned. If the City can play it straight this time, it has a very good chance of passing the next HEU vote. If it falls back on past behavior, it won't.
Really no mystery as to how to get this thing passed.
More bad government....
ReplyDeleteYou cannot change zoning piecemeal on the coast. Letting some build higher up than others just because they have lawyers and connections as developers that bend the rules in their favor is wrong.
ReplyDeleteEither give everyone the higher heights or nobody.
The only viable form of "low income" housing in this town is apartments. They will still charge market rate. Why don't all of the principles in this exercise admit this and plan accordingly?
Delete"Affordable by design" means a way has to be found to make up the difference between market rate and what very low- and low-income people can afford to pay.
DeleteZoning is already piecemeal on the coast and elsewhere in the city.
DeleteProp A limits heights to 30 feet, and the HEU has to keep that limit.
Placing all or most units along El Camino Real was what stopped a prior housing element from ever getting off the ground - that and it coming to light that our Planning Dept. had signed off on "moderate" heights up to 7 stories.
ReplyDeleteWhen you over-concentrate units, you get a traffic nightmare on/off the property and on area streets, not to mention burdening residential neighborhoods with associated overflow parking.
“Heights up to 7 stories" is a pretty big "and..." which everybody is against (“Irvine Splendor in Encinitas!” — brilliant). An El Camino Corridor Revitalization plan could be done well within the guidelines provided by Prop A given the amount of aging retail in the area (which also creates traffic by the way -- people are going into the El Camino Real area for shopping and services either way -- wouldn't you rather have some of these people live there?)
ReplyDeletePublic sentiment against an El Camino Real plan was prior to people taking a fair look at the alternative (let’s call that Measure T) — we may find that feelings have changed. Also, do arguments against mixed-use (I know that’s a bad word around here) hold water if the project is replacing something that’s worse?
Big Question! If you're willing to subsidize low income housing (city funds; taxes, delayed road repair, etc.), then which neighborhood would you place them?
ReplyDeleteNo one's taking your bait, Mr. Big.
DeleteThe EIR, with already-approved sites, is not up for discussion. Some sites may fall off the map but there is no decision available to residents on placing the housing in neighborhoods.
The appeal of accessory units to provide low-income housing is that they fulfill the spirit of the law while having the lowest impact possible by sprinkling the units citywide in already-established neighborhoods.
The reason the city pushes back so hard on accessory units is that they don't bring in nearly the revenue new, high-density construction does.