From the Inbox, forwarded from Housing Task Force member Bruce Ehlers:
SITE 03: L-7 PARCEL
SITE 10: STRAWBERRY FIELDS PARCEL
SITE AD10: Orpheus Avenue Sites 2
Attachments: Group 1 Housing Sites Group 2 Housing Sites
| Subject: | Information and Weblinks with information on Encinitas upzoning to meet State-mandated House Element Update |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sun, 13 May 2018 |
| From: | Bruce Ehlers |
May 13, 2018
Encinitas Resident
In order to fulfill state-mandated housing requirements as part of the Housing Element Update (HEU), Encinitas will be upzoning select parcels throughout the City. The zoning on these parcels will be increased to a range of 25 to 30 dwelling units per acre.
An initial set of 12 properties were submitted to the Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department. 2 properties were subsequently removed.
To backfill the removed properties, the City Council selected new parcels at their May 9th, 2018 meeting. The zoning on these parcels, like the previous set, would be increased to 25 to 30 dwelling units per acre. Since many of these parcels were placed on the list in the last week, it is important that this information is publicized throughout the City.
All parcels being upzoned will be the subject of a vote of the people in November 2018. This vote is a direct requirement of the Encinitas Right to Vote Citizen Initiative passed by Encinitas Residents in 2013. The City is quickly moving towards defining the properties and will be submitting the final list to the Registrar of Voters in August 2018. As a result, it is important that all residents be familiar with the changes, additions and deletions of properties subject to this increased zoning.
I have compiled the latest list below and also attached direct weblinks so residents can track the latest information as it develops. Please forward this information to your neighbors, friends and any other Encinitas residents.
Bruce Ehlers
CURRENT LIST OF PROPERTIES slated for upzoning are:
1. The original group with Site 3 and Site 10 Strawberry Fields. The City Council removed Site 03 and HCD recommended removal of Site 10. Details of each property location, size and attribute are available on weblink 2 below and in attachment 1.
Vacant
SITE 01: GREEK CHURCH PARCEL
SITE 02: CANNON PROPERTY (PIRAEUS)
SITE 05: ENCINITAS BLVD & QUAIL GARDENS PARCELS
SITE 07: JACKEL PROPERTIES
SITE AD1: SAGE CANYON
SITE AD2: BALDWIN & SONS PROPERTIES
Non-vacant
SITE 08: RANCHO SANTA FE PARCELS (GAFFNEY/GOODSEN)
SITE 09: ECHTER PROPERTY
SITE 12: SUNSHINE GARDENS PARCELS
SITE AD8: VULCAN & LA COSTA
This will result in adding 1,185 dwelling units. The City goal was to rezone for 1,600 units to provide the necessary buffer above the minimum required by HCD.
2. Additional sites were considered at the May 9th City Council joint meeting with the HEU Task Force. The following sites were added to the list. Site AD10 Orpheus was removed. Details of these sites are in the attachment 2.
SITE 06: Armstrong Parcels
SITE 11: El Camino Real South Parcel
SITE AD7: Dewitt Property
SITE AD9: Seacoast Church 1
SITE AD11: Manchester Avenue West Sites 2
SITE AD12: Rancho Santa Fe East 2
SITE AD14: Harrison 3
NEW SITE: Meyer Property 2
NEW SITE: Garden View Court (previously Frog's Gym)
This second group will add 500 dwelling units bring the total to 1,685 total units exceeding the City's goal of 1,600 units.
WEBLINKS to make it easier for residents to find the latest postings on the City website:
1. Housing Plan Update Webpage
2. Housing Element submission history to HCD
3. History and timeline of past meetings (including audio recordings)
4. My presentation of a real world, Encinitas example of a 33 du/acre, 3 story, 33 foot tall Pacific Station is also on this City webpage at: https://www.encinitasca.gov/Po
Bruce
Attachments: Group 1 Housing Sites Group 2 Housing Sites
This research sets a lie to the assertion that 37 feet plus rooftop equipment and parapets is necessary for the Housing Element. Does anyone at City Hall follow this Web Site? Staff, Commissioners, or City Council?
ReplyDeleteSurprised that B Ehlers is on board with all of this. He isn't the person I thought he was.
DeleteHe's not. He has spoken against it publicly. Where habe you been, 9:23? Out trolling?
DeleteGreat info but we are voting against it this fall. Doesn't have a prayer of passing.
ReplyDeleteMuch much information than we'll ever get out of our taxpayer-funded city staff and elected "representatives." And Ehlers is a volunteer!
ReplyDeleteYes, that was a lot of work.
DeleteBring back the 2012 plan that put everything on El Camino. Starting to look better and better.
ReplyDeletebetter to do it right than not at all. this is rushed and too many things being thrown in at last minute. we went off course about a month ago.
ReplyDeleteWrite a letter to HCD saying the first submission (with L-7) should stand, that it addressed the real housing problem.
DeleteSeems like we have some mission creep here. Affordable housing does not have to be deed restricted or below market rate. It just needs to be smaller units with less amenities located on major thoroughfares. Then they will sell at a much more affordable price than single family homes on large lots in desirable neighborhoods. So why don't you just stop trying to force L7 because of the deed restriction option? I can't help think of the young woman who spoke at the last council meeting complaining that she had to drive all the way from Oceanside to work in Encinitas. Is anyone else out there forced to commute for their job? Is this something we need to destroy our existing neighborhoods for?
DeleteThis neighborhood faces a greater threat from the prospect of only the ultra rich being able to afford living here (pretty much already the case) than it does from the downsides of adding ANY amount or type or location of housing.
DeleteThe 1600 housing units planning push through will only give up 160 low income. The other 1540 units will be million dollar market rate condos.
DeleteThere will be more than 1540 market rate units once density bonus is applied to the projects.
DeleteThank you, Bruce. I was at Wednesday’s meeting. Very confusing. This helps
ReplyDeleteI was at the meeting, too. I've been to enough of these "workshops" to know that they are confusing by design.
ReplyDeleteWhat else explains a flip chart with properties identified and a supposedly-corresponding map placed flat on the table below, but with no way to tell where the properties were located?
Poor-quality work by the city - AGAIN.
It seems very important to have high-paying jobs for unskilled workers such as the city planners.
ReplyDeleteyes, vote NO on this. Do not be mislead with the fact that voting yes or for it, is better than voting no or against it. As those that favor it are using the law suit from the BIA as justification of voting for it. As they feel that if it passes then the Judge will "most likely" rule in favor of Prop A. That is pure and simple speculation. Who knows how the Judge will rule other than the Judge and the decision will be shared when the ruling comes out. And yes there is always the appeal process.
ReplyDeleteAffordable housing is a white elephant. Many an intellectual has studied and suggested remedies. To date none have fully worked. Lots of failed projects and blighted neighborhoods left in the wake of this subject from the intellectual(s) suggestions or models. Let the market dictate price or value and let the supply and demand model preform. Interference will do nothing but establish bad will and performance. Not to mention create opportunity for those who wish to exploit intellectual rhetoric. Lets stick to our citizen long established land use policies as we grow. Keep our city the way we want it not the way outsiders perceive it or wish to benefit from its growth or change. Our city our rules.
Joe Mosca just threw his district under the housing bus! They can't be happy with him, unless he changes his mind again.
ReplyDeleteI suspect he got a pile of campaign donation promises from the L-7 group. Is he running for something or running from it?
ReplyDeleteL-7 folks have been perfectly up front and public in their threats to Mosca that they "know lots of voters" in his district. Thugs in suits, a real classy bunch they are.
DeleteMosca should have stayed the course. He could have explained to his district voters that L-7 is what it took to save community character in his district.
DeleteNow back to the topic under discussion in this thread. WC?
ReplyDelete12:23pm Spineless Joe fits him like a glove for tanking the one property the city owns that could have provided affordable housing in numbers that could have made a difference.
ReplyDeleteEverything else comes with a minimum low income and a large majority of market rate profiteering. Losing this site will come back to bite any attempts to pass a housing element this year and justifiably so. Along with mandatory three stories and higher, good damn riddance.
Learning from the past seems to be a concept beyond our city's ability to grasp.
Yes on Prop A and yes no three or four story high buildings. How hard can this be to understand and implement!
ReplyDeleteMr. Prop A Bruce, is now supporting raising the building heights over 30' which will inevitably lead to three stories and more. wtf?
ReplyDeleteBruce was fully supportive of removing L7 from consideration. wtf?
That was the one and only city owned site that could have provided exclusively low income units with no market rate sell outs. Go figure.
Disappointed, you bet. Inexcusable, count on it.
If the city has any chance to pass a housing element, restoring L7 will be the least they could do. As it stands now, this is doomed to fail.
Again.
Holding exclusive meetings with developers that they consider stakeholders is the same old, same old, that will result in the same old, same old, rejection by the only true stakeholders , the non profiteering and caring residents.
The city has gotten nowhere and fallen into the same old pile of .......stuff. They are doomed to repeat past failures and be denied.
Will they ever learn? It does not appear to be so. Putting lipstick on this pig will not persuade anyone who has been paying attention to the
manipulations that our city continues to pursue. Vote them all out.
It will not pass in the fall. Assured so sleep well.
ReplyDeleteNo, do not let your guard down and stay frosty and aware. It will take lots of effort to preserve and protect our wishes and going to sleep should wait until after November. Either way, sleep without regrets of being involved and putting your opinions out there.
ReplyDeleteVote NO.
ReplyDelete