General Plan Update Data Dump

At least for now that's all . . .  Last night was the last of the reports from the cobbled together business / developer arm of the community, ERAC. The Element Advisory Committee was the majority council invention to fix what was perceived by some as the broken General Plan Update process.

For an expanded background of video clips see this General Plan summary list at Our Mayor Stocks blog. And another summary list from EYNU here for a real data dump.

In the spring last year the staff was directed to take over the GPU and orchestrate town halls, open houses, workshops with Q&A, tool boxes, surveys and the much derided mapping exercise to place dots connoting low income housing throughout the city.

The first report was last fall, Sept. 2012. The 500 of the community's maps and surveys were analyzed and presented to the council by Peder Norby, named facilitator of all the community gatherings, GPAC (General Plan Advisory Committee formed in 2010) and ERAC.  The following clips begin with that community overview, with an introduction by then Councilwoman Teresa Barth.  Also included is a video of New Encinitas resident Duff Pickering as it is representative of the many New Encinitas people who became involved the previous year when the GPU process was ripped apart. His observations regarding the summary language, maps and the statistics analysis are all of interest.





Then the last 3 weeks of reports from the Planning Commission, GPAC and ERAC are presented. Feb. 13th was the Planning Commission, Feb. 20th the GPAC group and yesterday, Feb. 27th, was the ERAC group in two parts here.









The next step will be for the city staff to compile a report for the council that includes all of these reports.  For the complete context to these last reports, including Peder Norby's facilitator introductions, public speakers, council questions and comments, go to the webcast log at the city website and find the applicable meeting date for the full meeting video.

Future Vision Missing

Community chatter about the General Plan Update and the Right to Vote Initiative are too often reminiscent of those predictions of the future we used to see years ago.

Without a clue of what was coming in technology, ecology, politics, economics, culture or social dynamics; the vision of the future was simply a tricked out version of the status quo. And it is funny.

Here is a 1967 short minute and a half of Walter Cronkite visiting a home office in the 21st century. The obsession with gadgets (albeit clunky and huge) and the failure to acknowledge women hasn't really changed much at its essence in almost 50 years.

Tonight at the Encinitas City Council meeting we will hear the realtors, developers and other business interests version of the future land use for housing in Encinitas via the ERAC report. The Planning Commission report and the GPAC report were given in the previous to weeks. Neither of these reports or the speakers gave much of a clue to what the future might hold for our community beyond more of the same. Maybe the agendas were kept really narrow for some reason.

Innovative thinking has yet to be encountered since the so-called start up or in community reaction that followed. Lots of passion and effort, but envisioning the future or innovation - not so much. Besides ignoring completely the known challenges of our new century's climate change, fossil fuel depletion/pollution, economic breakdown; there was no strategy to address how our community might address shortages in our currently strong supplies in water, food or energy as current systems change. 

Oh wait, Mayor Barth has suggested rethinking the density bonus to fit our community and its resources, asked that certification for existing market low income housing be explored, recommended dozens of articles on housing and land use trends, challenges, alternatives and patterns in her weekly "Thought You Might Like to Know" newsletter's Food for Thought. Imagine if the new city council members and some city residents follow through and support some of this direction? Maybe something that recognizes a changing world could be incorporated into the news coverage of Encinitas' housing, land use, transportation, environment and economy.  

Tonight is also going to be about basics in our City Budget.  This is welcome if we are to acknowledge that we are immersed in change and the economy is not just going through a little bump. Citizens have been begging for open government and a clear picture of the City Budget.  As we have been seeing since this new council began, we are getting what we requested and this is good. My first questions . . . Have we a range of revenue sources for our city? If not, will this be explored? 

video source

Small Spaces etc. - Micro Minimal

This week the most minimal of small spaces to date. The first is called One-Sqm-House. This one square meter (10 square feet) dwelling is an architect's prototype. This clip is via Alex at Tiny House Talk, whose tag line is "small spaces more freedom."

When I first saw this I thought of past competitions for architects and designers to produce temporary, emergency and homeless shelter.

The examples below are from one of these competitions 5 years ago. I've since lost the proper links to the source. Whoops.

There is a kind of hierarchy within the homeless population.  There are those who have found temporary shelter within homes of family or friends, those who have an RV or car, those who have vouchers for temporary shelter and those simply fending for themselves on the street.  Despite the most common picture of a homeless person being like the Banksy illustration at the beginning of this post or the guy above, it is women with children who are in fact the most vulnerable of homeless population. 

The Babes of Wrath are two women, Diane Nilan and Pat LaMarche, who travel around the country and work with homeless children and families. You can follow their EPIC Journey (Everyday People In Crisis) here. They are interviewed here on the Young Turks.

Recently the homeless were counted in San Diego County, a local girl mounted a blanket distribution project for the homeless in memory of her uncle and housing strategies for lowest income has presumably been the subject of several years of General Planning Update citizen participation. 

Aternet is currently running a series on the poor. Part 1's recent article, 2 Years in Jail for Sitting on a Milk Crate? The Shocking Ways America Punishes Poor People Living on the Street (Hard Times, USA) haunted me. I know from experience how few places there are to sit while walking in Encinitas. We aren't alone. Laws all over the country are designed solely to target the homeless. There are better solutions. 

Part 2 is titled Hard Times, USA: Would You Consider Thinking Differently About Poverty and Poor and Homeless People? A huge number of Americans feel vulnerable every day of every week, their future unknown. What are you going to do about it? Both of these are really excellent articles and are recommended. The rest of this powerful series Hard Times USA is at Alternet this month.

There is one simple response (as the video illustrated) for what is the most important thing one could spend money on for the homeless? Houses. Simple but not easy to incorporate in our community dialog.

Small Spaces etc. - One by One by One

In a beach community accessory units are no surprise.  And, it is important to survival for many that these homes remain a part of the shadow economy because local, state and national laws emphatically impose constraints that do more harm than good for actual people, especially the most vulnerable of the working class and middle class.  This is a look at the great need that these small spaces satisfy and leave the legal constraints for another day. From Grist a quick peek at a couple of options, but the original post shows a whole range for living large in small houses.

Jon and Ryah Dietzen moved from their 1,500-square-foot home to a 400-square-foot cottage with two toddlers. They made the move for its financial freedom, but the benefits didn’t stop there. “We realized after a few months how much time, freedom, and peace we were gaining by not collecting and spending our time taking care of more ‘stuff,’” Jon Dietzen told me. By choosing a smaller house, they found a better balance between work and home life.

Here is the “before” shot.

A lot in a small space: kitchen island, living room, and a bedroom behind a curtain.

Small homes combat neighborhood decline brought on by shrinking household sizes. Adding people can revitalize a neighborhood, allowing schools to stay open, giving neighborhood businesses more customers, making transit service cost-effective, and saving on infrastructure costs. Infilling neighborhoods with backyard cottages helps add more people to a neighborhood, without altering its character. 

As homeowners build small dwellings, they provide lower-cost housing within the existing fabric of their neighborhood, with no government support necessary. Vancouver’s planning director, Brent Toderian, sees this as the essential value of the trend towards small homes: “[It’s] about ordinary people. Thousands of individual homeowners can do it, one by one by one. It’s publicly propelled, not corporate-propelled, densification. It’s gradual. It’s discreet. It’s green.” [ed.emphasis]

Now that many cities have figured out backyard cottage rules, they face a new challenge: dealing with homes even tinier than the typical accessory dwelling. Some cities’ regulations set minimum size requirements for dwellings. Others say a recreational vehicle can’t count as an accessory dwelling unit, which means “you can camp in your little house, but not live in it,” writes Dee Williams. Tiny houser Lina Menard suggests that “people should have the right to a tiny house as long as it accommodates their needs and desires.” But for people to exercise that right, cities will have to rethink the zoning rules that stand in the way of tiny homes.

Dee Williams is well known to many since the uploading of the following video clip in 2008 and shown in the corporate media many times since.

Dee Williams decided to rethink her American Dream after building a school in Guatemala and having a close friend get cancer made her reevaluate her priorities. “He was getting sicker and sicker, and I didn’t have the time or the money to really throw myself into helping him. I was spending a lot of time and money on my house. So the house was the easiest thing to try to get rid of,” Williams told Yes! magazine. So she sold her 1,500-square-foot Portland home and built an 84-square-foot tiny home for $10,000. Now she lives without a mortgage, giving her the time and money to invest in her friends and community.

Via Grist

Whoops! this became a 2 for 1 post day by accident. Accidentally got some posting dates wrong. Enjoy.

Guest Post: Olivier Canler

The official series at EYNU, Tuesday is Dues-Day is over but the habit lingers.  This still feels like a good day to dig into an issue with some depth and we've chosen to let this increasingly well known New Encinitas neighbor share his point of view.  So, today there is a guest post from Olivier Canler reprinted in it's entirety from the Patch.  Do go to the original article for the additional images posted there.

Encinitas General Plan Update and Council Election

Much has happened since the March 7 reboot of the General Plan Update. The Element Review Advisory Committee (ERAC), the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), the planning commission and the public workshop have been working on alternative plans. The public workshop results were presented in front of City Council. 

What we can expect from all these exercises is that the growth of high-density units will be more spread out with some "hot zones" for growth such as El Camino Real (yes it's back), Encinitas Blvd, the four corners area in Olivenhain, the strawberry fields off the I-5 Manchester Exit, various empty lots in Old Encinitas and Leucadia and what the planners call "underutilized lots" meaning agricultural or low density residential areas currently occupied by our dying agriculture and flower industry in Encinitas. One of the recommendation from the ERAC should be of concerns to all of us: This committee reached a concensus to allow zoning up to 45 units per acre (read 5 story tall buildings in Encinitas). They do add that such development would have to be context-sensitive -meaning fitting with their immediate environment—but it hard to believe that such density could not affect our community characters. 

Residents from all areas of Encinitas have started the Encinitas-Right-To-Vote Initiative which, if successful, will close a loophole in our current General Plan. This flaw allows a 4/5th majority of our council to approve density increases, and you the residents and voters of Encinitas, can't vote on this. We think that the voters in Encinitas should be allowed to vote on major up-zoning changes, typically dictated by the General plan Update. More about this initiative can be found at www.EncinitasRightToVote.com. There you'll find information about when and where you can sign this initiative. If you had enough with traffic, pollution and are concerned about the stress that added density brings to our daily lives, you need to sign the initiative. Would you rather live in Encinitas or UTC or Newport Beach? In fact 98 percent of residents according to a recent city survey like Encinitas just the way it is. 

With our council elections right around the corner, we strongly urge all residents to consider the candidates very carefully and pay attention to their views on future development in Encinitas. This is critical for the future of our town and probably the most important issue during this election. 

I attended all three forums for council candidates, and here are my recommendations: 

-Lisa Shaffer and Tony Kranz are the preferred candidates. They will listen to the residents, are concerned how the General Plan Update can change our communities, and are supporting the idea of having the community being engaged in a meaningful way in future land-use changes. They both want to maintain our beach-town character, and want to preserve open spaces and our precious natural resources. Beyond the General Plan they are very familiar with issues facing our city. They will bring fiscal responsibility to our council. 

In contrast, Jerome Stocks and Kevin Forrester are pro-growth and are backed by special interests made of developers (most are out-of-town). They have very little regards for what residents want when it comes to growth. Mr. Stocks has been quoted saying things like, "This is just a planning exercise, none of these units have to be built", or "I'll try to respect community character". Mr. Forrester, a realtor and attorney, specialized in mitigating land-use disputes, is more blunt: He does not believe the public should be involved in zoning exercises adding that these exercises are best left to the "professional planners". He wants to expedite the planning process. Here is what Mr. Forrester said to the Union-Tribune: "The biggest challenge facing the city of Encinitas is re-establishing the policy-setting role of the City Council in land-use planning, and avoiding the takeover of planning by a vocal minority of Encinitas citizens". Characterizing the people behind the Right-To-Vote Initiative as a vocal minority is offensive and a gross distorsion of the facts. In reality, most Encinitans are deeply concerned about further developments in our town. 

Both Mr. Stocks and Mr. Forrester strongly oppose the Right-To-vote initiative.
Mark Muir is all over the map when it comes to zoning changes. He takes credit for the reboot of the GPU (when the vote was unanimous and it did not take a genius to understand that this plan was vastly unpopular). He is not in favor of density bonus but does not support the Right-To-Vote Initiative. He is also aligned politically with Jerome Stocks and Kevin Forrester. We can't trust Mark Muir. 

The other candidates, Barb Yost, Brian Ziegler, Thomas Brophy, are all concerned about zoning changes. Their hearts are in the right places. All three support the Right-To-Vote initiative but are newcomers on the Encinitas public scene. I would encourage everybody to visit each of these 3 candidates website and decide for yourself. 

Peter Schuh, the ninth candidate, is a complete unknown and has not shown up to any of the candidate's forum. 

Vote for Shaffer and Kranz for sure! Pick your third wisely. It's time to change our council so that a meaningful dialogue can take place between the residents of Encinitas and their representatives.

Tuesday is Dues-day: Gen. Plan Woes A Lifetime Ago

Tuesday is Dues-day. The dues are schooling yourself on how our local governance is organized, who are the players, what are the screw-ups, where is the money and what things get reported? 

You’re a citizen, an advocate for democracy with this first step, paying attention. 

General Plan Update - Just a Reminder

"General plans are often called a city’s constitution…a statement of who we are and what we value as a community.

The State of California requires all cities to adopt a general plan that includes required elements – Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Resource Management, Noise and Public Safety. The city also included an optional element – Recreation and Public Health is also proposed. The plan also states community goals for how the city should grow (or not grow) in the future.

There’s not been a comprehensive review and update of the General Plan since it was written over 25 years ago. A variety of state laws, court rulings and new issues such as sustainability and climate change have made it difficult to simply “tweak” sections and maintain internally consistent policies throughout the plan."

Twenty-four years ago when the first General Plan for Encinitas was written, a local news source, The Beach News, precursor to The Coast News published an article with the local citizen's key concern in the title, "Will high-priced housing run residents out of town?" Twenty-five people showed up for the meeting organized to by city officials to question the future of the new city of Encinitas.

When the question and answer session opened, a resident stood up and said he makes $25,000 a year at Scripps and felt he doesn't make enough money to continue living here in the new city of Encinitas. "Are we outpricing ourselves out of living here?" he asked on the discussion of new developments planned for the city. 

"I think this is a potential problem, he added.  "The character of he community comes from those non-classical types of people who live here.  I want to keep these people here."

Another resident agreed, explaining that she had spent the last several weeks apartment hunting for a friend.  "A two-bedroom apartment costs from at least $600 to $1,000," she said. "People who are just starting out are being forced to move to San Marcos because they can't find reasonable housing here."

Twenty-four years later it seems that particular strategy, if it was one, worked.  Wish we had the figures on the numbers of people who were forced to move due to an inflated housing bubble, rising costs, upzoning or low paying jobs, especially for young people starting out.  

A couple of years ago the city website had a demographics section for visitors to see Encinitas at a Glance. (Click to make larger) Activists have asked (with little success all year) where the city statistics come from and have gotten a mix of answers when the question is addressed - creating an almost continuous cycle of number crunching challenges.  Density, density, density - building height and El Camino Real being unacceptable for more density seem to be the constant themes despite affordable housing being the ostensible theme.  

The original community group would have understood the line I read this week. 

"The economy’s only valid purpose is to serve life," David Korten Yes! Magazine.

Conversely, one from the ERAC gang was quoted as saying, "The General Plan purpose is to drive profits."

What is the overall mission?  These two statements couldn't be more opposite. What is community character without talk of the diversity of populations, incomes and outlooks? Where do the teachers, bank clerks, dental hygienists, nurses, tree trimmers, Scripps worker and line cooks live?

You can see in the chart above that the glut of jobs available are low wage jobs.  How many of in this labor force can even live in this city? Everywhere I go I ask the food server, grocery clerk and store clerk, "Do you live in Encinitas?"  Very few answer yes.  

The city worker jobs aren't even listed.  How many of those are in the range of former fire chief Muir, Patrick Murphy or other Department Heads?  Truth is, most Encinitas city staff can't afford to live in Encinitas.  And given how out of date, one can only surmise from published facts nationwide, the numbers of low income, unemployed, underemployed and falling incomes for the middle class mean more Encinitas jobs and homes and travel requirements are under deep stress. The anticipated stress in the next twenty-four years with climate change, overwhelmed resources and economic decline haven't even been touched!

Yet, the city council and the workshops focused on density and building height.  Why can't we challenge the city council majority, city staff, ERAC, GPAC, Encinitas Right to Vote group and all City Council Candidates regarding our mismatched labor market and housing market.  We can ask, as some have been doing continuously, for the most current and accurate population statistics, housing statistics and labor statistics. 

A city of millionaires is not what most Encinitas voters want. You don't have to be a liberal to know that outcome is a dead community. 

Dedicated to Labor Day weekend. It used to celebrate so much more than meat on a grill and sales. Something vital is missing.

We Write Letters: Zoning Ballot Initiative

Let Encinitas Voters Decide What Sort of Development We Can Live With
A new community group is pushing for a ballot initiative that would let voters have a say when it comes to major development projects that impact quality of life.
July 27, 2012 Patch
Dear Editor,

For most participants, the process of updating the housing and land-use elements of the Encinitas General Plan has been frustrating and difficult. These elements must be resolved before the City Council can consider the overall General Plan Update. To engage the public in re-drafting the housing element, the city administered a dot-mapping exercise that pitted the five Encinitas communities against each other. We have yet to see the results of that exercise.

Consequently, the General Plan Update is stalled after two years of work, and there’s still no red-line version of the current general plan. These circumstances should produce local political drama in the run-up to the November election.
Some residents who were concerned with the potential outcome of the dot-mapping exercise have formed a committee called the Encinitas Project. The committee’s goal is simple: a ballot initiative that would let registered voters in Encinitas decide on major density increases in the city.

At issue are up-zoning decisions meant to increase the density set by the present General Plan. A four of five member majority of the Encinitas City Council is required to approve certain up-zoning in the five communities—New Encinitas, Old Encinitas, Cardiff, Leucadia, Olivenhain—that make up the city.
Because the General Plan Update won’t go before the current Council before November’s election, the next City Council will eventually vote on it, should the present procedure remain in place. However, if the Encinitas Right-to-Vote Initiative reaches the ballot and voters approve it, residents will decide if major density increases should be allowed in the city.
With the Encinitas Right-to-Vote Initiative in place, voters would have the opportunity to decide if proposed changes respect community character, and maintain or improve their quality of life. Poorly planned projects that would increase traffic and the carbon footprint, degrade infrastructure, force density or height changes, or just fit badly with our community character would have little chance of approval.

The initiative is not no-growth, but it would mean growth most people can abide. The City of Escondido adopted a similar initiative, and that community has since approved two development projects because voters felt they were a good fit.
The Encinitas Right-to-Vote Initiative would take the trickery out of land speculation. Developers would have to work within current zoning. Pushing city council members to up-zone would stop. Similarly, city planners would have to submit proposed up-zoning to a vote of the people. The initiative would subject the General Plan Update to a voters’ referendum.
The Encinitas Right-to-Vote Initiative would govern major housing and land-use amendments. The initiative defines a major amendment as any that:

• Increases the number of permitted dwelling units on a residential lot
• Increases the number of separate parcels that might be created from an existing parcel

• Changes zone type for a parcel from Agricultural, Public/Semi-Public, Ecological Resource/Open Space/Parks or Open Space to a different zone type
• Changes zone type for a parcel from a non-mixed-use zone to a mixed-use zone
• Changes a parcel from any residential land use to any non-residential land use
• Increases the allowed maximum height of development or how height is measured
• Increases the maximum allowable commercial or retail square footage for a parcel
• Repeals any planning-policy document 

Most Encinitas residents want to maintain our small beach-town atmosphere. We’re concerned about environmental issues, traffic, adequate resources, proper infrastructure and overall quality of life. We love our town and want to continue loving it. As Encinitas approaches built-out status, growth can only go two ways: denser and taller. A look at community history reveals that local control of growth motivated Encinitas to incorporate as a city in 1986. Passing the Encinitas Right-to-Vote Initiative is in keeping with that precedent. 

Volunteers are starting to walk neighborhoods to gather the number of signatures needed to get the initiative on a future ballot. Volunteers will also be in front of stores with forms for registered voters to sign. You can also find out more about the initiative by visiting the committee’s website at http://www.EncinitasRightToVote.com. 

The Encinitas Project Committee is encouraged by the very positive response it’s received so far. The committee’s website will soon list dates and locations where registered voters can sign the ballot initiative petition.

Thank You,
Encinitas Project
Editor’s Note: You can also follow the group on Twitter at @EncinitasRTV.

Encinitas City Council's "Hire" Power

Lisa Shaffer submitted this to Encinitas Patch, AOL's online paper and we decided to keep a copy here at Encinitas You Need Us. Love the title!

On June 20, the Encinitas City Council used its "hire power" to extend and amend a contract for Peder Norby as a consultant to the City. Unfortunately this move will not fix the problems with the General Plan Update (GPU) process, nor is it an example of responsible administration.

Mr. Norby has been employed as the Highway 101 Coordinator, and this move formalizes the role he has been playing for the last several months as facilitator of the General Plan Update process. I had planned to speak at the Council meeting, but I realized that my comments were unlikely to impact the vote, so I offer them here instead.

The agenda item at City Hall mixed together two issues that each deserves a separate discussion. One is how the GPU process is handled, particularly the housing element; the other is how and when the City hires consultants.

The GPU Process: The decision on June 20 formalizes Mr. Norby’s role in facilitating several concurrent groups that are reviewing each element of the General Plan and making recommendations to the City Council. This process is a “restart” after the City spent over $1million on a consultant whose work product was rejected by the Council. No explanation has been offered of how that contract got so far off track. Who was responsible for oversight? Where is the accountability? Until the Council provides some leadership and lays out a vision, hiring more consultants won’t fix the problem.

The initial focus of the restarted GPU process is the housing element. There is a state mandate to show high density zoning that would, in theory, allow for 1300 affordable housing units to be developed in Encinitas. Mr. Norby has taken each group through a mapping exercise that is supposed to show which locations should be given highest priority for such upzoning. When all is debated and tabulated, we still won’t know what are community preferences. We won’t know which maps were dotted by Encinitas residents and which by non-residents. We don’t know which were dotted by people with business interests in development and which by people who might actually want to live in affordable housing if any were to be built. And we don't know which areas have the infrastructure to make affordable housing practical.

The question remains: what is our strategy? Is our goal to do whatever it takes to get our housing element approved? Is our goal to provide as much opportunity as possible for property owners and real estate developers to make money? Or is our goal to honestly and creatively meet real needs for affordable housing while preserving community character? Should we try to work with the League of Cities, state elected officials, and other groups to seek changes to the population projections and associated mandates?

I want to maintain a diverse community where business owners and their workers can all find housing here; where we provide for the housing needs of young families, seniors, and others who cannot afford or don’t want big single family homes in this community. I think we need to take a holistic look at traffic, land use and supporting infrastructure and decide where such capacity makes sense.

The mapping exercise I observed the ERAC, GPAC, and community workshops will not improve the quality of Council decision-making. I would like to see the Council provide some leadership. Give direction to the City Manager and let the Planning Department take responsibility for developing a GPU draft we can discuss. That doesn’t require taking Peder Norby away from this Highway 101 duties, where, by all accounts, he has been very effective. It does require accountability from public employees and the Council.

Hiring Process: The second issue is one of process. How and when does the City hire consultants? We have a Planning Department. I don’t understand why the Planning staff can’t facilitate meetings. But if we need a new facilitator beyond existing city staff capacity, issue an RFP and choose one competitively. If Mr. Norby wants to apply, and he is deemed most qualified, fine. But what if there is someone else who might have a better idea. We won't know if we don't ask.

The issue before the Council should not have been about Peder Norby’s character or competence. The issue is how the City Council and City Manager act as stewards of Encinitas. They have a responsibility to spend our money well, to enhance our quality of life, and to plan for our future. The General Plan Update process is a mess and putting Peder Norby in charge of it through a non-competitive contract with no clear deliverables won’t fix that.

Any expenditure on outside consultants should be made in accordance with established procurement policies, on a competitive basis, with clear deliverables and accountability. And when the whole Council votes to hire someone, whether it was the original GPU contractor, Mr. Norby, or someone else, let the whole Council be accountable for that decision. Everyone wants Encinitas to stay wonderful. We all want clean beaches, great schools, safe streets, a healthy economy, environmental stewardship, and neighborhood communities. Let’s work together in an open and honest dialog and move forward. We’re all on the same team.

Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:07 pm

SB 375 Explained

As a public service this article by Darrell Steinberg is reproduced its entirty from the February 2008 issue of Western City, a publication of the League California Cities. 

I want to thank the League of California Cities for this opportunity to write about my bill, SB 375, and what I think is the biggest environmental issue of our time: the relationship between how California grows and our efforts to combat global warming.

A pundit once said that the three biggest issues in California are growth, growth and growth. California’s constant growth affects nearly everything around us, from our schools to our water supply to our roads. According to projections, this won’t change anytime soon. California is expected to grow by another 20 million people by 2050.

The big question is this: How can California continue to grow and at the same time maintain the quality of life to which we are accustomed?

While that question is usually at the heart of California’s thorniest policy debates, this year there’s a new wrinkle to the conversation because of landmark environmental legislation passed in 2006. AB 32 says that the state must reduce greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020.

To reach the goals of AB 32, California governments (both state and local) must find ways big and small to reduce their carbon footprints. Many, of course, are already doing this, and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) is also developing a program to reduce carbon emissions from a variety of sources.

Cars and light trucks are the single greatest source of carbon emissions -- generating about 40 percent. But AB 32 does not specifically speak to land use or transportation. This is where my bill, SB 375, comes in.

Everybody talks about the high-profile solutions to global warming: hybrid cars, solar panels and wind-generated energy. Of course, these solutions are important and necessary. But by far, the hardest decisions we will have to make are about land use and transportation.

Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled

The question before us is: How do we maintain local land use authority while at the same time creating incentives for cities and developers to build housing closer to job and retail centers? By moving housing closer to urban cores, we can reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California.

Why is this important? In the past 16 years, California VMT has increased more than 30 percent, growing faster than even our rapid population growth. The implications of this increase in VMT are dire; 50 percent of air pollution comes from highway vehicles, and California consumes more than 1 million barrels of oil per day. One can only imagine what these figures will be when the state grows to 60 million people in 2050.

In human terms, the implications of doing nothing are just as dire -- more Californians spending more time in traffic and less time with their families. The longer driving times will poison our air and increase health problems for the most vulnerable among us. And California farmland, a main economic driver for our state, will disappear as we continue to locate housing farther away from cities and job centers.

By signing AB 32 in 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger showed that he’s serious about the threat automobile emissions pose to California. California’s cities are also showing that they’re ready to take on this challenge, taking steps that include switching city auto and bus fleets from dirty diesel and gasoline to cleaner burning fuels, and passing green building ordinances. California cities recognize that they must be at the front lines in our continued battle against global warming.

Cities should also be at the forefront of any effort to reduce VMT, and they can do this best by working collaboratively with other cities to come up with regional solutions. This is already happening successfully through councils of governments, with the idea that traffic or bad air doesn’t begin or end at a city or county border. It’s a regional problem.

Take the example of a resident of City A who works in City B. This very typical individual deserves more than the independent efforts of two cities to reduce emissions in his or her community. Such a resident would surely benefit from a multijurisdictional, regional transportation plan in which land use, transporta tion funding and reductions in green house gases are linked, precisely as they are in the real world.

California’s best regional transportation models not only prove that growth can be accommodated, but that the foot print can be more compact and necessary expenditures for transportation can be tailored to a region’s housing needs. A key part of SB 375 is that these pioneering regional blueprints should be emulated and adopted into a cohesive state strategy .

Crafting the Bill

I have wrestled with how to craft a bill that relies entirely on incentives to strengthen the existing regional transportation planning model while respecting local governments’ land use permitting authority. The bill requires a commitment to housing all of our future residents in such a way that homes are located closer to jobs, thus ensuring that we can meet our climate-related objectives.

I don’t pretend that this is easy, but I believe it is essential. The major incentives in the bill come from reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that expedite review of projects located within what the bill calls a "sustainable communities strategy." This is basically a beefed-up version of the existing regional transportation plan with the addition of a regional emissions target, criteria for prioritizing development away from agricultural and resource lands, and adding several CEQA incentives.

The bill calls on ARB to establish greenhouse gas reduction targets (on the same timeline as AB 32) for every region of the state. The regions would adapt their housing and transportation plans accordingly to take advantage of the CEQA reforms the bill offers. If a region is unable to achieve the ARB target, it would submit a "supplement" that contains the steps it would need to achieve the target. Rural counties are exempt from the bill.

It is important to note that the bill does not prohibit development on agriculture lands or other resource lands. In fact, the most successful regional blueprints plan for about half of the new growth in their respective regions on "greenfields" and not as infill projects.

Proposed Changes to CEQA Provide Incentives

Rather than mandating specific land use or transportation planning results, I have insisted that the bill proceed with the use of incentives. For years, local governments and developers have asked for changes to CEQA to spur development in urban centers, and that is what the bill contains.

The bill proposes four CEQA changes for primarily residential projects:

1. Projects that can mitigate their impacts may use a new "sustainable communities environmental assessment" that would be reviewed under the substantial evidence standard and would not be subject to legal challenges in the same way as mitigated negative declarations;
2. Projects that need an EIR because the impacts cannot be fully mitigated are only required to review the "project-specific" impacts;
3. Projects can be relieved from the imposition of additional traffic mitigations under CEQA if they comply with traffic mitigation policies adopted in advance by the local jurisdiction; and
4. Projects that are consistent with the sustainable communities strategy will not be required to do a separate environmental analysis of the greenhouse gas impacts of traffic associated with the project.

Again, these CEQA incentives are designed specifically to accommodate developments that will reduce the miles that Californians drive every day. If only the four major metropolitan areas in California adopted plans that reduced VMT by 10 percent, 250 tons of pollution would be eradicated from our air -- the equivalent of eliminating all air pollution from electric utilities, petroleum refining, oil and gas production and all waste disposal combined.

Working with the League and other key stakeholders, my objective is to craft legislation that is practical, efficient, cost effective and, most importantly, will help California meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction goals contained in AB 32, the Governor’s Climate Change Action Plan and elsewhere. I have amended the bill to alleviate many concerns already, and I will continue to be responsive to all responsible parties. Climate change is the environmental issue of this and the next generation, and it is incumbent on all of us to get it right.

Fundamentally, growth is a positive thing for California. We must ensure that the state grows in a sustainable way to maintain our quality of life for the generations to come.

Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), state senator for California’s 6th District, which includes the City of Sacramento and parts of Elk Grove and Citrus Heights wrote this in 2008. Previously, he served as a member of the state Assembly and the Sacramento City Council.

Planning Humor

Reminder, Tonight is the last City Planning Housing Needs and Growth Workshop to be held from 6-8 pm at the Community and Senior Center. 

Participation seems to primarily position neighbor against neighbor - you get a map and 10 dots representing 1,300 new living units, each representing a concentration of 130 units - to place on a map. The packet also includes a survey they allows a bit more citizen expression regarding options.  After several years involvement, it's difficult to not feel the cynicism and infectious distrust of the duplicitous officials and still largely uninformed population.

If you miss out tonight, city planners did extend the opportunity to participate at City Hall from May 21st to May 24th from the hours of 8am until 5pm. During these times community members can come to city hall and complete the mapping exercise They must turn it in at the end of the exercise.

Update:  Failed to mention the obvious, when you go to an event like this and see hundreds of your fellow citizens, it is invigorating.  There is absolutely no comparison to visible crowds of people showing by their very presence that community matters.  Please help fight the malaise and distrust by showing up - and bring a friend.  Whatever you mark on your survey, wherever you place a dot or if you choose neither, experience the REAL authority in Encinitas, the voters.

Tell-A-Vision

Here is a vision (overheard) for tonight's pit neighbor against neighbor Public Workshop 1 - Housing Element Edition - for participants to place 10 dots each, representing a total of 1,300 multifamily units, on a map.  This typical election year bread and circuses exercise is for the pretense of community input.  It is a rigged game that finds low income Encinitans who'd love a well designed, affordable housing approach close enough to employers, shopping and transportation to eliminate the cost of an automobile or the high cost of gas (and carbon dioxide emissions) for commuting.  Even the predominantly single family home owners aren't happy with this rigidly defined housing element's future scenario.

So, rebel.  In this vision you place your dots in the Pacific Ocean. This particular slant on the dumb map exercise says several things, including the message that we aren't stupid.  Many citizens have watched bread and circus exercises again and again and know the hours of general plan update workshops, council meeting statements, ERAC and open house sessions are essentially just for show.

Now there is a 21st century vision with a community extension on the water, with specially designed floating housing. Can you picture diving and working to preserve kelp beds and sea life?  Cultivating nearly extinct fish stock, maintaining deep water wind turbines, wave turbines and solar panels all working to produce alternate energy.  Yes, decades to develop but worth the effort of engaged work.  Gone the day of SDG&E central plants.  Some may talk doomsday, some wail about a changing status quo, but there is a place for the visionary notions of simply looking at our problems differently and coloring outside the lines.

Oh, and people who want to remain in their single family homes in a suburban setting a drive away from separate commercial centers or their respective work places can do that too.

This week's Tell-A-vision edition brought to you without advertisements of any kind.

SANDAG Housing Element Presentation 2012

In response to public requests, especially Tony Kranz of late and Councilwoman Barth on behalf of her own questions and the public outcry about housing forecast high numbers, the SANDAG panel presented an explanation of the 2050 Forecast numbers and methods, especially the 2009 numbers presented to Encinitas City Council.  So this was a welcome agenda item.

I didn't say it was a captivating, entertaining agenda item.  But, like so many other responsibilities in life, you've got to do what you've got to do. Know this information. It may come in handy for us all as we tackle the gigantic civic task of the General Plan Update.  There are clarifications about why some of the numbers being quotes are simply wrong.  And we can see how the information we sought about El Camino Real was hidden in plain sight. So, here it is in bite size chunks.

Note: Sound quality is poor in these clips.  Original source here.

Encinitas Specifics

 

 

Council Questions

Teresa Barth Questions

Booga, Booga – The Poor Are Going to Get Ya

This is about housing in Encinitas and some pretty hysterical accusations, reactions and forecasts of doom. Eavesdropping, talking, listening, fishin' and observing over the last several years of the General Plan Update (GPU) has been instructive.

To be fair, well off individuals are pretty low priorities on my anxiety index. All that comes along with institutionalized privilege is at the fingertips of these people to help them cope.  I don’t wish it on people, but I don’t worry either. I have compassion for the struggles that are life itself.  Losing some money becomes a relative measure.

Entitlement, in my observation, means all the businesses and commercial owners who believe profits need to be guaranteed. The “newest arm” of the GPU, ERAC (erase) was concocted by the council majority to give the El Camino corridor business, developer, construction, real estate group along with several residents and others input into the process. A recent meeting speaking about affordable house brought these “dog whistle’ phrases; "that kind of zoning," "those people," not "them" in areas that already have nice houses” and similar.

“The ONE representative of affordable housing at this housing element meeting tried to say that there are benefits to "that kind of zoning" and that diversity adds value, and the senior commission representative pointed out that we do have a lot of seniors and more expected, and they need to live somewhere.”

Bootstraps Boys, the Ownership crowd can stop this kind of input in a flash and they did. All the thinking is short-term, status quo without a whiff the next 20-40 years where reboot gets real. Everything becomes a goal of economic return and rewarding current property owners to enable them to maximize their return when they sell their holdings. Recall at the Sept. 19, 2011 orchestrated General Plan outrage parade when amongst so much hyperbole; Dan Ukkestad claimed the whole purpose of the General Plan was to drive profits. Really?

That’s completely backwards. If you have a city like Encinitas where nobody earned the year round moderate temperatures or the ocean or the sunshine or the beauty of nature the Bootstraps Boys can’t claim any of those things. A community that provides adequate housing and work opportunities and a safe healthy way to live and get around with ease to a wide swath of people with a wide swath of skills and interests is a bonanza for business and a council doesn’t have to bargain away tax money, land or zoning changes to woo them from the outside. And healthy towns encourage local over national businesses. Business will spring up because business goes where there is a healthy workforce AND market because owners want to live here too. Employees are customers and taxpayers, as these three aren’t mutually exclusive labels. With a livable wage, employees are the market and so much more.

But, to go further with what a General Plan entails, Melissa McEwen explains,

“My present concern is with the working poor, and the way they are regarded by the architects of the Ownership Society. Those men—and they are indeed almost all men, most of whose lives have been dictated by inherent privilege and family connections, which we're not meant to note while admiring their shiny bootstraps—believe quite firmly, and without seemingly a trace of irony or compunction, that one gets what one deserves in life.

[. . . ] If you want to live in a capitalist society that gives you the opportunity to get nasty rich, then we can't all be wealthy. And if you want to be the kind of person who doesn't pump your own gas, or make your own sandwiches, or clean your own house, or manicure your own fingernails, or drain your own dog's anal glands, or build your own car elevator, then there are going to have to be people who fill all those jobs.

[ . . . ] People who honorably dedicate their time, energy, and talents to jobs that might not pay well are indeed entitled to something—to not work their whole lives only to find themselves poverty-stricken, or hungry, or homeless after one small (or not small) medical crisis. And if we're not going to ensure that every job comes with a livable wage, access to affordable health care, and retirement benefits, then we've got to provide a robust and well-funded social safety net.

I don't think that's asking for much, in exchange for a lifetime of providing service to their chosen vocation.

Though I grant it's certainly easier to scream BOOTSTRAPS! and carelessly assert that people who don't have everything they need just aren't trying hard enough.

Funny how the Grand Advocates of Hard Work are always the ones making the easy arguments.

The poor are simply people without enough money. A great deal of energy in planning and working around the obstacle of limited funds means more money and time must be spent at tasks, travel and adaptation for survival. Unlike the people of privilege, every single day is fraught with potential disaster. One disease or medical emergency can plunge a person, a family into utter destitution – on top of the emotional devastation that comes with such an ordeal. Even so, the poor are blamed for their own condition, accused falsely and punished for a system they have not created. I know because I’m poor. I also know because I know privilege. This last is so much easier.

Images: Mobile homes were not a real thing in the real world. This was a set for a play in Europe some years ago, but a popular image on the Internet. McMansion from Canadian magazine Ad Busters.

Tuesday is Dues-day: GPU Foundation

Tuesday is Dues-day. The dues are simply schooling yourself on how our local governance is organized, who are the players, what are the screw-ups, where is the money and what things get reported?

You’re a citizen, an advocate for democracy with this first step, paying attention.

This is a pretty easy one.  Pour a cup of coffee or if it's late, pop some popcorn and watch old footage.  That's it.  The next few weeks are really important for citizen engagement in the biggest project in town, the General Plan Update (GPU) with informational open house sessions and workshops on Housing Needs and Growth scheduled from now until May 14th.

But first, become familiar with or, if you participated in the last two years, re-acquaint yourself with some of the key aspects of the GPU.  What did our council members say to the consultant, the staff, SANDAG demographer, each other and the public?

Yesterday's post is a starting place for an overview of the entire GPU as presented last year, months before releasing the first draft when Stocks and Gaspar acted out a whole series of  offensive moves.  Today, council comments from Councilwomen Barth and Gaspar from that meeting are included below.

 

For the entire meeting, go to the city video archves and select May 11, 2011.

One Year Ago - General Plan Update

The following three part series of clips captures the presentation to the City Council just under one year ago this week.  Despite the last several months of a great mixture of scapegoating, exaggerations, study sessions, propaganda, neighborhood organizing, straw man arguments, research and fear mongering; Encinitas is still filled with thousands upon thousands of people who have no idea of this momentous task.  Anyone who pretends it is a simple task is lying.  This is always a huge task, like when this city was incorporated over 25 years ago.  But, now the paradigms have shifted with radically different ecology and economy realities and projections for our futures.

These clips (edited to approximately 10 minutes each) are provided for an idea within easy reach of the Encinitas General Plan Elements as presented last year.

We are now going through what should have been review and revision process, but now is called starting over - with a volunteer facilitator and with a majority council picked group heavily invested in real estate, development and commercial special interests.

Bigger is Not Better

Has anyone else noticed when homeowners get together to talk about housing and development, many presume to speak of homes in a monolithic way?  But, if you listen to what a diverse group of people might describe as ideal shelter, an ideal place to call home; what constitutes the best might not be the size described by real estate professionals or homeowners.  In fact, home ownership might not even be what the young, the mobile or the retired even want.  Who can blame anyone for not wanting a vulnerability of any kind to a banker in these times?

Point is, the status quo is being challenged.  Let's not assume too much.

Here is one offering on bigger is not better regarding home size, a personal story offered to EYNU. This isn't to be confused with the urban planning book recently given to the city council members by New Encinitas resident Oliver Canler, "Better not Bigger" by Eben Fodor.

 I have this re-occurring thought about all the McMansions and what might be done with them post oil and post mortgage bust and post economic implosion? Maybe in 2035, when people start realizing the excessive acquisition of constructed square footage is not sustainable, how will these buildings be re-purposed? In the meantime, I found these graphics when I followed a link to a Margot Adler piece for NPR.

The average American house size has more than doubled since the 1950s; it now stands at 2,349 square feet. Whether it's a McMansion in a wealthy neighborhood, or a bigger, cheaper house in the exurbs, the move toward ever large homes has been accelerating for years.

Another critic is John Halsey, president of the Peconic Land Trust, an organization that tries to protect open spaces and agricultural land. For Halsey, the "Big House" is all about the American lifestyle: how we live, what we drive, and how we fail to appreciate the finite nature of land and energy resources. “Who needs 15,000-square-foot houses?" Halsey says. "I worry about the future of a culture and a society that has this extent of excess in it. I think there is a disconnect, and we are in a bubble. Somehow, we are just not experiencing the realities that the rest of the world is.

Ya think? I’ll own up to my snarkiness. I just find the justifications a real stretch. My first notions of home when I was a little kid were shaped by my Grandma’s home. I found out as an adult that the familial bungalow was bought by her husband from a Sears Catalog. At the time I thought it sounded like a joke. But it’s not according to Wikipedia.

Sears Catalog Homes (sold as Sears Modern Homes) were ready-to-assemble houses sold through mail order by Sears Roebuck and Company, an American retailer. Over 70,000 of these were sold in North America between 1908 and 1940. Shipped via railroad boxcars, these kits included all the materials needed to build an exceptionally sturdy and well designed house. Many were assembled by the new homeowner and friends, relatives, and neighbors, in a fashion similar to the traditional barn-raisings of farming families. [snip] Aladdin Homes (of Bay City) was the first to offer kit homes (in 1906), and Sears joined the fray in 1908. However, Sears mail-order catalogs were already in millions of homes, enabling large numbers of potential homeowners simply to open a catalog, select and visualize their new home, dream, save, and then purchase it. Sears offered financing, assembly instructions, and guarantees. Early mortgage loans were typically for 5–15 years at 6%- 7% interest. [snip] Sears expanded production, shipping and sales offices to regional sites all across the United States, hitting its all-time peak in 1929, just before the Great Depression. By then, the least expensive model was still under US$1,000; the highest priced was under US$4,400 ($10,300 and $45,300 in 2003 dollars respectively).

I am just tickled to death to place Grandma’s home beside the Sears plan from which it was built, sans fireplace and arched front door. The roof looks like it has a minor profile modification too. I am writing my 84 year old mom this week with these images and many more of her childhood and mine at this home. This collage really pleases me.

I close with a great example of my favorite theme of small homes. This video is a hoot. This woman lives in less than 90 square foot home, where she explains she has different choices for her money and time. That is 1/10 the size of even the standard from fifty years ago and 1/100 the size of the Sears Home Makeover buildings. The tiny house movement is a transition movement for a country undergoing changing expectations.  It is probaly not going to be the norm by any means.  A very real challenge for Encinitas is to get our Planning Department to recognize small and tiny homes, alternative building materials and other 21st century housing ideas into the city codes.  The city is the greatest obstacle to housing for all but the most wealthy and the most tied to conventional building, financing, real estate and insurance instittutions.

 

Encinitas . . . Housing .. . Where should it go? This is the heading for the city postcards now being received all over town. The informational open house sessions and workshops on housing needs and growth are all happening from Monday, April 16 to Monday, May 14. 

In less than 30 days the city, without any contracted expertise on board will be racing towards a General Plan Update resolution to the Housing Element.  Remember there are many definitions of what makes a great home.

Saturday Morning Update: From Councilwoman Barth's newsletter, "Thought You Might Like to Know", a wonderful article regarding changing housing types with  a pro-active thrust titled, "Missing Middle Housing" is well worth a read.