The last-minute addition of 21 more sites to he agenda for tonight's City Council meeting might be worthy of discussion on your site.City Council meeting on this is tonight. Here are the new sites.
The last-minute addition of 21 more sites to he agenda for tonight's City Council meeting might be worthy of discussion on your site.City Council meeting on this is tonight. Here are the new sites.
Does anyone know what the two recently filed lawsuits against the city are about? One is by the Encinitas Residence Alliance filed April 26 and the other by the Encinitas Residence Coalition filed April 30. They were both filed by Everett Delano and are classified as Civil Toxic Tort/Environmental. Both are part of today's closed session cases for discussion.
ReplyDeleteOops. That's Encinitas Residents Alliance and Encinitas Residents Coalition. My bad.
Deletehttp://wavestoride.blogspot.com/
DeleteThis is exactly what the developers want. The Quail people made a pack with Muir/Krantz/Mosca and the developers. The developers did not want L-7 since the city could force affordable housing on that site by deed restriction. On these 21 sites they can built market rate condos. Follow the money - I bet Mosca will be getting a lot of donations from people outside his Olivenhain district.
ReplyDeleteWith the new list added yesterday the number of possible units has increased to 3,759.
ReplyDeleteThe total acreage has increased from 84.56 acres for the 1,431 units to 234.48 acres for the 3,759 units.
To put this in perspective in regards to the Land Use Element (page LU-58) - Cardiff-by-the-Sea -table shows 2,267 total gross acres of all zoning and 563 acres of that zoning is ecological Resource/open space/parks. The number of dwelling units is 5,064.
The Leucadia table (page LU-63) is 2,251 gross acres (without the addition of Encinitas Ranch) and the dwelling units is 5,610.
To put that into perspective, the list is only of the sites to choose from not all the sites to be added. Whether or not you agreed with removing the L-7 site, tonight they are trying to replace units lost by removing L-7.
DeleteId rather have measure T. No thanks.
DeleteJust add 20% inclusionary to measure T and it passes.
They won't go up to 20%, which is why T failed and so will the next vote. Developers run staff, staff runs city hall. Get it now?
Delete12:33 PM
ReplyDeleteThe ballot wording on Measure T was vague enough to allow the inclusion of every parcel discussed by the Council. Tonight isn't just a replacement discussion. The additional sites are now part of future 30 units per acre upzoning if this new housing element update is approved by the voters. The city can send those parcel numbers to HCD
at any time.
Only if the ballot measure includes wording allowing that to happen. Without seeing that wording, because it hasn't been written yet, it's all idle speculation. If you are really that concerned, show up tonight and speak of your concern.
Delete1:21 PM
DeleteThe wording was in the resolution. No, it isn't idle speculation.
1:24 PM
DeleteMaybe I wasn't clear. I'm referring to the upcoming ballot measure not Measure T.
And to your comment about it being in the resolution, if the sites weren't included in the ballot measure for upzoning then it doesn't matter whether words to that effect are in the resolution. Prop A took care of that.
The resolutions were included in the ballot measure. The vote was also on the housing element wording.
DeleteDoes anyone else shop or work at the businesses that will be closed if these sites are included?
ReplyDeleteI feel like this is really last minute. I can't go tonight. This is important. Shouldn't there be more time for advanced notice?
ReplyDeletePosting info at the last minute hoping nobody will notice is standard procedure for the Planning Dept.
DeleteBTW, there's no way 47 units are going to work at the Orpheus site (between Shell and the Fire Station). The traffic there is already a nightmare.
Reason won't get "staff" and the council not to do it.
DeleteDoesn't the City need to analyze the environmental effects of all this BEFORE we get too committed to new sites?
ReplyDeletePerhaps not. This from the new law SB 166:
Deleteg) Provides that an action that obligates a local government to identify and make available additional adequate sites for residential development pursuant to this section creates no obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to identify, analyze, or mitigate the environmental impacts of that subsequent action to identify and make available additional adequate sites as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as a determination as to whether or not the subsequent action by a local government to identify and make available additional adequate sites is a “project” for purposes of CEQA.
A lawyer is needed to interpret this.
Considering California created three marine conservation areas on three of our four borders we should probably look at what impact increase density would have on these sensitive and ecological important lagoons and coastline.
DeleteFrom the General Plan - Land Use Element -
ReplyDeleteIntensity of development for residential land use is
expressed in units per net acre. For each of the
single- family residential categories, the maximum
density allowed is in agreement with the minimum lot
size for the corresponding zone. For the multi- family
categories, maximum density corresponds to a
requirement of a minimum increment of lot area per
dwelling unit.
There may be additional restrictions applied to future
development that will further reduce permitted density
or intensity of development beyond that indicated in
the Land Use Element. Mechanisms such as FARs, volume
limitations and other measures may be used for
development to control building mass and bulk.
Properties located within hillside areas, flood
plains, or in environmentally sensitive areas may be
required to comply with additional standards beyond
those identified in the individual land use
designations.
Site L-7 is zoned RR-1.
ReplyDeleteRural Residential 1
The purpose of this land use designation is also to
ensure that the rural character of certain areas of
the City are maintained even with new residential
development. This category is also useful in reducing
the potential impacts of future development of
sensitive areas in the City that would otherwise be
affected by development at greater densities. Under
this designation, up to 1 dwelling unit per acre is
possible. Single family units may be attached to
other single family units provided each unit is
located on a separate legal lot with approval of a
PRD. The estimated population density for this
category would be approximately 3 person per acre
assuming an average household size of 2.6 persons.
The actual density of development will depend on the
presence of any development constraints present.
All sites being discussed as part of the housing element update will have zoning changes, hence the need for a vote. L-7 is owned by the city, and could actually have an affordability deed restrictions put on it in addition to more density. For the other sites the increased density is a gift to the landowner/developer, and will yield very little affordable housing.
Delete3:17 PM
DeletePlanning is talking about subdividing the upzoned properties for more market rate units. Also letting the developers fill in streams and ravines.
I love how we went from years of outreach to dart throwing and pinning the tail on the donkey. This place is messed up.
DeleteThe city is now pinning the tail on the donkey because residents discovered and rejected what was really being proposed in the "outreach."
DeleteThe city is now scrambling because the curtain was pulled aside....
Eleven to 12 properties that are approved or to be approved for upzoning to 30 units per acre by the Council are zoned RR-1 and RR-2.
ReplyDeleteRural Residential 2
The aim of this category of residential land use is to
encourage the development of lower density
single- family detached homes. Rural Residential 2
will permit the construction of between 1 to 2 units
per acre with a minimum lot size of one- half acre per
unit (21, 500 square feet) . Development constructed at
this density will also permit the rural character of a
number of existing neighborhoods to be maintained.
Single family units may be attached to other single
family units provided each unit is located on a
separate legal lot with approval of a PRD. The estimated population density possible with this density of development is likely to range between 3 and 5 persons per acre. The actual density of development will also depend on any environmental constraints present.
I hope they pick the Olivenhain sites. Mosca will have to decide whether to put back L-7 or ruin his chances for election.
ReplyDeleteMosca just voted down all but one site in Olivenhain. He wants it in everyone else's back yard. Head NIMBY.
DeleteWhat a joke. Dispersal of seeds by wind.
DeleteThey have to get over putting apartment buildings in residential hoods, never going to pass, not falling for the just need the zoning bs either. Also need to not put them on Vulcan like giant view and breeze blockers.
ReplyDeleteI’m just going to vote no and wait to elect someone who run on repealing this failed law. Is there a law about laws that no one has or can follow? It will take a lifetime to build the infrastructure to support their developers fantasy.
"Vote no on this vomit"
ReplyDeleteMeasure V?
DeleteThat might stick.
This is all a bad joke. It would be nice if at least one council critter would admit that this charade has nothing to do with affordable housing. It is all about increasing property tax revenue. Granny flats are affordable housing BUT don't count for the state requirement. I rest my case.
DeleteDistricting has added a new wrinkle to the politics of this. Just watch.
It would count if the city pushed the issue. It doesn't. No revenue from granny flats, only from sky's-the-limit overdevelopment.
DeleteLots of money for campaign contributions, trips to Israel, mountain bikes from that kind of construction.
There will be a minuscule amount of affordable units after the developers apply "density bonus". Look for for an effective R45 on top of the up-zoned lots.
DeleteAnd the "affordable" units will be reserved for cronys and relatives. Show me one example of this actually working for regular people.
DeleteIt will cost $11 million to destroy the bluffs and coastal sage scrub next to San Elijo Avenue and rebuild it with a 10 ft. wide bicycle path, which Mayor Blakespear and her family will use to ride their bikes. Mayor Blakespear pushed hard for the path, but when she encountered stiff opposition from residents, she backed the 101 route and let the Coastal Commission staff push for San Elijo Ave.
ReplyDeletePart of the staff report for the planning commission meeting - May 17.
ReplyDelete"On December 14, 2017, the Housing Task Force, staff and the consultant team met with staff from state Housing and Community Development (HCD) to discuss the Housing Element. HCD staff suggested the City’s two story limit was a constraint in achieving the required density and
requested examples of developments to demonstrate it was feasible. After research and analysis by the consultant and staff, it was concluded that the feasibility of constructing a project within two stories at the required density of 25 to 30 dwelling units was not feasible, therefore a third story would be required."
Pacific Station, Iris apartments, Encinitas villas, all examples of two story high density properties. BUT, the staff couldn't find these examples. Time for Brenda and her gang to be fired.
Pacific Station is three stories.
ReplyDeletePacific Station is two stories residential and one story commercial.
Delete2 plus 1 equals 3.
DeleteThe discussion is only about the residential portion of Pacific Station.
DeleteTwo stories of residential at Pacific Station wouldn't pencil out. That's why there's commercial on the first story, making it a three-story building.
DeleteThe discussion isn't about penciling out. Pacific Station is two story residential. It is a commercial zone, but the city allowed the residential for John DeWald and his investors.
DeleteThat's not what this says: "Pacific Station, Iris apartments, Encinitas villas, all examples of two story high density properties." Residential can be built in commercial, but commercial can't be built in residential.
Delete8:18 AM
DeletePacific Station was built with the two story residential units separate from the Commercial. Aside from the residential sitting on top of the commercial, the commercial and residential act as two separate projects.
It's one mixed-use project and three stories. If it were two stories of residential, the economics wouldn't work. It's not an example of a high-density, two-story residential property.
DeleteThe city could have giving two examples of failed three stories with the Lofts and Pacific Station. One went bankrupt the other is still struggling with vacancies.
DeleteTurn the former Whole Foods site into 'residential' - affordable one room accommodations. Count them off on the 1600 required units.
Deletegood idea 2:41. but its too late. council already provided direction without much public discussion. no workshops. no forums. nothing.
DeletePacific Station was approved before Prop A. It would not fly now. It is one ugly stain on our downtown, but it is only the beginning of what is to come if we let it.
ReplyDeleteEvery image that has been presented by the housing element consultants is at least three stories. Will they ever learn?
This current attempt is more of the same and deserves the same result. The Planning Dept. has not changed their operating behavior one iota.
If it takes a judge to settle this, then so be it. At least Meyer has been told by a judge where he can stick his lawsuit, even if this goes down in flames again.
One would think the city would have learned from their failures in the past. Not so. Holding a meeting with the potential profiteers was and not the only true stakeholders, the residents, was a bone headed move and head should roll. They will not.
They will not roll because the council approves. Blakespear did not have the decency to look even vaguely surprised when the secret meetings were revealed. None of them did. Don't tell me she and the other four weren't in the know.
Delete
ReplyDeleteOur land use policies (all inclusive) are put on the books by citizens, period. Any outside pressure to change this must be defended. This is a long established point under home rule, in not only for our city but nation wide. Yes i very much agree with protecting and preserving our life style and way of life. I try to support this by saying improvement but get push back by some. So all i would like to add is that we should model necessary and needed changes using other cities or areas that are like what we as citizens would like to see our city become . Take Solana Beach 101 corridor as an example. Use Pacific Beach as an example as to why we must not allow the on going party atmosphere to continue alone our 101 business corridor (liquor license ). Take 1061 Neptune Ave residence as an example of too much, as they have applied for a liquor license and has been given support by our city. This is over the top. 1061 Neptune Ave is surrounded by residents, period.
We as citizens have the right to choose how we wish to live, by majority at the voting booth. To allow outside influence to dictate our style and quality of life contradicts the fact we are an incorporated city. Energy should be spent fighting these outside demands rather then fighting among our self's. In other words our direction to our city staff etc... is established by how we vote and they are entrusted to protect and preserve our city for its citizens directed by the majority vote. Me i want to see our city grow and not with smoke and mirrors on subjects such as affordable housing, Streetscape, Housing Element Update. The funds and time used to promote these concepts, driven by outside influences, should be spent defending and preserving our chosen way of life and the life style we choose by majority.
Yes our fight is with the State and Outside area profiteers dictating to us how we wish to live. And must defend the voting majority.
Pay to play, example is when a owner builds affordable housing on one of their properties they are given exceptions or credit on other properties that may not fall under the affordable housing umbrella ie commercial property to exceed its current and normal guidelines or densities.
How does a city get away with all of this last minute action? Follow the MONEY! Even the sites listed identify individuals and beneficiaries of this effort. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!
ReplyDeleteThis plan is way worse than anything put forward yet. It puts high density (non-affordable) housing in neighborhoods.
Remember all of this come election time. It is not a suggestion, view or action that tells the truth it is the result of the action and its affects that speaks the truth. You can see all the newer properties built in the last 4 or 5 years and how they affect the neighborhoods. Drive down Old Encinitas and now Leucadia and see 3 stories commercial properties built, being built and are in the process of being built. What ever happen to citizens proposed and approved Prop A? Our elected officials actions or the results of their actions show they do not care.
ReplyDelete