A Vista Superior Court judge will hear arguments Monday on three lawsuits filed against Encinitas, the only city in the county that has not complied with state law to develop a housing plan.
From the Inbox:
[...] on the three lawsuits against Encinitas from the BIA/Tenants United and DCM [David Meyer]: the two from the building industry to force immediate adoption of Measure T were denied, with the judge instructing Encinitas to wait for the November election results and the DCM suit was just plain old dismissed.
[...]
The direct quote from the judge on the DCM was a question to Meyers' attorney: "Are there cases out there that say you get one vote and I can then ignore the initiative process?" No response, so obviously not.
Sabine was in the audience, not at the table arguing for Encinitas with Barbara Kautz (who apparently was quite strong). Meyer was there, as was Andreen.
It’s not like they can’t build, they just have to have it approved by the voters instead of shitty council.
ReplyDeleteAll the city has to do is show a couple grannyflats for rent to shut down Marcos lame ass lawsuit.
Just shows that developers and developer lawyers expect a hand out in return for campaign donations and god knows what else. Can’t build what they want, settle a lawsuit. They are still getting a great return either way.
I have a question. The city recently approved the building of "grannyflats". Do they intend to apply these potential dwellings to the 1,600 they need to satisfy the state?
DeleteCan't, at least not yet.
DeleteThe city will tell you that there is no precedent so unless they are actually built legally with the city, they will not count. Interesting that they tell us that we just have to have zoning for the HEU but that standard does not apply to Grannyflats. Now, call an affordable housing person at the state, it’s easy to get ahold of one of them and they tell you something different.
DeleteThe law is a failure and every city In The state would love to get out from under it. Three, that’s it, just 3 cities are in compliance and those cities are slow growth. Those cities are also extremely wealthy with silly low numbers to build.
Repeal the law that has resulted in the housing crisis we are in now. Since it was enacted a negative number of affordable housing has actually been built. There is no more a precedent for affordable being built in upzoned parcels than there is with Grannyflats. These are facts that the BIA and their bitches don’t want you do realize. Written by developers for developers which has resulted in virtually no affordable housing and now a “crisis.”
Granny flats would have to meet one of two objective standards to satisfy our affordable housing obligations:
Delete(1) We would have to prove through a study that the granny flat rule has historically resulted in a rate of documented unit construction that is both sufficient to satisfy our unit quota and affordable. Rent calculations that qualify are defined in the law. Our permitted rate of unit construction is no where near enough to satisfy our unit quota, and property owners don’t want to report how much rent they are collecting, so there is no way to prove affordability.
(2) The “by right” granny flat rule would have to result in enough acerage of R30 density to satisfy our unit quota. If we had enough splinter lots zoned at R15 with the potential for a granny flat, we may be able to claim that acerage is in effect R30. But it’s a hypothetical idea, because we don’t have any meaningful amount of land that fits the description.
8:03 doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
DeleteIf you want to know, go read HCD website.
8:03 has read the law itself, HCD guidance, as well as independent third-party legal analysis.
DeleteCan you be specific as to how you think the law applies to granny flats, citing relevant sections of the law, and specific sources and quotes of HCD guidance on the issue?
8;03 is kinda of correct but HCD has grannyflats baked into it much more so than r30. Problem is that cities, like Encinitas, have discouraged them because developers want all the upzoning for themselves. Encinitas really made it difficult. Now, the state law is new so no precedent has been set. If you apply the same standard mentioned by 8;03 you will find that, Even after decades of being a law, no affordable housing is being built either. Everything about HCD is hypothetical and it is clear;y a disproved hypothesis at this point. Our mayor is very proud of the new Encinitas granny flat program which is silly, it’s state law, she had nothing to do with it.
DeleteRead the first 30 pages of the draft housing element. Then come back and talk about granny flats.
DeleteSo what happens now that the council can't point to the lawsuits to get us to vote yes on whatever crap they put in front of us next, hmmm?
ReplyDelete"Staff" will have to come up with a new bogus threat.
Two of the lawsuits are simply delayed until after the election. If we pass the HEU, then they are moot. If we don’t, then they proceed.
DeleteCouncil and Staff have been correct to point to the lawsuits. We have not lost a court case yet because the judicial system is slow and because it looks like there will be something on the ballot in November. If this were not the case, the judge would have proceeded with the court case, and we would have lost.
DeleteThe good news is that whatever will be on the ballot should be better than Measure T - let's hope so! The developers and landowners were pushing the court because the prefer T over what is coming. Now they will try to morph the current plan into something developer friendly (with 37 feet height and worse).
We don't know if it will be better or worse than Measure T. HCD will request some changes and who knows just how much extra the City Staff will slip in at the midnight hour.
DeleteCity staff are already busy as bees stuffing the new plan full of input from "stakeholder" developers.
DeleteThe judge essentially said that every city can block state law and have an unlimited number of attempts to update their local HEs. This is good news for all Californians. Ballot initiative or not, city's can be constantly find themselves "in the process" of updating an element and win the same argument basis. Congrats all!
DeleteAt 12:54 - yep.
Delete"Are there cases out there that say you get one vote and I can then ignore the initiative process?"
Soon to be "are there any cases out there that say you get two votes?" "Three?"
The judge rocks!
I'm sure it will be appealed. That line of thinking is clearly something that should be avoided, but yet, that's where the gavel landed. The appeal would likely not be heard until after November. So this was a big win.
DeleteUnfortunately, I expect a negative HCD tune.
Those who say (10:33) that whatever is on the ballot will be better then Measure T is ABSOLUTELY FALSE! The 15 new laws that were adopted this year will clearly FORCE the city to built MORE HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. We would've been better off passing Measure T as it is - simple read the 15 new laws and compare number of potential sites.
ReplyDeleteNoooo, the state will require the city to actually BUILD affordable housing and not just wink and nod as market-rate high density is built instead. Finally, the law has teeth.
DeleteFunny how outraged folks get when the law has to work as advertised!
If you believe that the State (fed by the building industry lobbyists) will require building more affordable units I have a bridge to sell you
DeleteThe state has finally recognized the sham that is affordable housing law. By requiring units be built, not just planned for (at which point developers happily hop in and build market rate), the state has now presented cities with a truly impossible task. Fingers crossed this breaks the game of "let's pretend."
DeleteHow does the state require a city to build anything? The state wants to,require cities to allow upzoning so developers can build market housing. Market rates housing is what pays the bloated pensions. Our local zoning should be restrictive. We are keepers of three Marine parks that line three of our borders. California has invested a lot into these reserves. We should be designated slow growth for the sake of our coastline. Too bad when they were selling restricted growth we didn’t put up the bribes to,get it done like the other Uber rich communities. The law is a sham and should have been repealed along time ago.
DeleteRepeal and replace. I’ll even vote republican for that one. No gas tax and no more holding cities hostage and wasting their resources. Dont even care about the replace part. The next generation can’t seem to afford anything so prices have to come down when we start dying off.
The real problem is that with the new laws we will only get credit against our RHNA numbers for low and very low affordable housing if the units are actually built. With the 85%-90% market rate units that will result from the upzoning, the unbuilt low and very low affordable units will roll over for the next cycle and be added to the new allotment.
ReplyDeleteIt will be impossible to ever satisfy the requirements. Our city, along with all cities in the high land-cost coastal strip will be caught on a treadmill running in place and never catching up.
Something's gotta give. The one parcel that would have yielded 100% affordable housing, the city-owned L-7 parcel on Quail Gardens Drive was taken off the list for potential high density zoning.
The fact that Measure T failed doesn't really make any difference in the long. ALL CITIES will eventually face the identical problem.
HCD was sent a list with L-7. Then asked to take L-7 off. I bet they will say approved with L-7 included.
DeleteWould that be interesting?
DeleteThe city is negotiating with Habitat for two houses off of Leucadia Blvd, probably with accessory units. Will this be much help?
ReplyDeleteThe city paid DCM's legal fees on his last lawsuit. If this repetitive lawsuit had no merit, why did the city acquiesce to that previous suit and pay the fee?
ReplyDeleteSabine is to Meyers like Cohen is to Trump.
Of course we did. It’s part of the consultion prize that they get after the citizens took away their zoning toy with prop a.
DeleteHere comes the typical boogyman arguments from the city sellouts...https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/north-county-report-encinitas-is-running-out-of-time-to-adopt-new-housing-plan/
ReplyDeleteSorry, won’t work. I think everyone in the city rather the city go broke than sellout like a weak little tax dollar whore.
Interesting how the author calls prop A slow growth.
Sexual assault BIA big wigs better watch your herpe selves with these shakedowns. Remember Marco, it’s not slander if its true. Meyer is a loser, again. Marcos case will get shot down in the first five minutes in court, if not, I’m moving oceanfront or into a big ol spread in rancho Santa Fe. How can we be punished when only THREE cities in the entire state are in compliance. So what if we don’t have a unenforceable plan in place. Every city that does have a plan in place is also out of compliance.
Repeal this crap law, it has served nobody it was intended help.
City Staff screwed this one up bigtime and the Mayor will again let them slide. Tony and other others except Tasha are sellouts and will upzone Eninitas to 3 stories all over the place.
ReplyDeleteThe City already is allowing granny flats in all the single family dwelling units. That alone will likely increase the density in Encinitas by 30%. Don't like the crowded traffic conditions on the road today. Well get ready, you have a City Council this is pumping high density for the developers profit.
I am voting in favor of existing residents quality of life - I will be voting no on the upcoming upzoning 3 story housing element. Do you want 3 stories next to your home?
PS- I don't want Encinitas to become HB or Pacific Beach.
Not sure that I agree with you about Tasha. When I met her, she stated that she wanted to put extra stories on the house that she and her family occupy, which I think belonged to her uncle. It seems like 3 of our Dems want to become developers. Blakespear's mom has a lot of property that she tried unsuccessfully to develop previously, and Kranz wants to develop his mother-in-law's property with a density bonus project. Maybe those of us who bought own own homes would feel differently if we were in their shoes.
DeleteWhats worse..... 25,000 homes becoming 50,000 because every SFR has a second unit; or rezoning 1,300 units to high density.
DeleteIts like drinking poison, and then hoping it kills your enemies.
Good point. But I'm guessing it would be 35,000 over 100 years.
Delete