Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda Del Mar Town Hall 1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
September 9, 2019 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA WAS DISTRIBUTED (“Red Dots”) 1 September 9, 2019 Item 07 2 September 9, 2019 Item 07 3 September 9, 2019 Item 07 4 September 9, 2019 Item 07 5 September 9, 2019 Item 07 6 September 9, 2019 Item 07 7 September 9, 2019 Item 07 8 September 9, 2019 Item 07 9 September 9, 2019 Item 07 10 September 9, 2019 Item 07 11 September 9, 2019 Item 07 12 September 9, 2019 Item 07 13 September 9, 2019 Item 07 14 September 9, 2019 Item 07 15 September 9, 2019 Item 07 16 September 9, 2019 Item 07 17 September 9, 2019 Item 07 18 September 9, 2019 Item 07 19 September 9, 2019 Item 07 20 September 9, 2019 Item 07 21 September 9, 2019 Item 07 22 September 9, 2019 Item 07 23 September 9, 2019 Item 07 24 September 9, 2019 Item 07 25 September 9, 2019 Item 07 26 September 9, 2019 Item 07 27 September 9, 2019 Item 07 28 September 9, 2019 Item 07 29 September 9, 2019 Item 07 30 September 9, 2019 Item 07 31 September 9, 2019 Item 07 32 September 9, 2019 Item 07 33 September 9, 2019 Item 07 34 September 9, 2019 Item 07 35 September 9, 2019 Item 07 36 September 9, 2019 Item 07 37 September 9, 2019 Item 07 38 September 9, 2019 Item 07 39 September 9, 2019 Item 07 40 September 9, 2019 Item 07 41 September 9, 2019 Item 07 42 September 9, 2019 Item 07 43 September 9, 2019 Item 07 44 September 9, 2019 Item 07 45 September 9, 2019 Item 07 46 September 9, 2019 Item 07 47 September 9, 2019 Item 07 48 September 9, 2019 Item 07 49 September 9, 2019 Item 07 50 September 9, 2019 Item 07 51 September 9, 2019 Item 07 52 September 9, 2019 Item 07 From: Dolores Jamison
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
September 6, 2019
Del Mar City Council Item #14, September 9 Agenda
Dear Mayor Druker and Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my concern with the Del Mar Plaza (Brixton Capital LLC) request for an encroachment permit (EP19-025) for the installation of a decomposed granite pathway and assorted succulent landscaping in lieu of replacing five Kolreuteria Bipinnata (Chinese Flame) trees on Luneta Drive, just east of their property.
While I truly appreciate the many efforts the owners have made and are promising to make to revitalize and enhance the Plaza via their new Specific Plan, I have to question why these trees are not being replaced, especially considering that they were on City property and therefore were considered to be protected trees.
As a member of the City of Del Mar’s Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB), I know that the preservation and enhancement of our dwindling urban forest is a critical component of our Climate Action Plan (CAP). In fact, SAB is now in the process of finalizing a series of recommendations to the Council aimed at preserving and enhancing our tree canopy to enable Del Mar to reach the goals of its CAP. Scientists estimate that a single mature tree can absorb 48 lbs. of carbon per year, which provides enough clean air to sustain four people. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) touts tree planting as one of our most effective and painlessly implemented tools for mitigating the effects of global warming. While trees are known to absorb large amounts of CO2, if they are chopped down all the carbon they have sequestered is released back into the atmosphere, and the significant cooling and health benefits vanish along with the trees.
I would urge you to approve this encroachment permit only if the replanting of these trees is part of the landscaping.
Sincerely,
Dolores Davies Jamison 1209 Crest Road Del Mar
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 14 From: Ann Feeney
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Council members,
I hope that you will not allow the Plaza owners to install a DG pathway and some succulents and small plants instead of the 5 trees that they removed on Luneta Drive uphill of the Plaza. Increasing our tree canopy is one of the goals of our Climate Action Plan that was adopted in 2016 by the Council, yet Del Mar’s tree canopy has decreased, not increased. Trees sequester carbon (thus reducing green house gas emissions) and they provide shade which significantly cools the streets or sidewalks below them. In addition, they beautify the streets, and this will increase the beauty and value of property in Del Mar. The location of these trees on Luneta Drive will not block anyone’s views so I see no reason why trees should not be re-planted there. The Plaza owners agreed to replace the removed trees with other trees, but now have decided to ask for this encroachment permit instead. These trees are in the public right of way, not on private property, and thus are protected trees.
I hope that you will support the original agreement with the Plaza owners that they should replace the removed trees with the other recommended trees, and not grant this encroachment permit to plant small plants instead of the 5 removed trees. Please support our CAP goal of increasing the tree canopy in Del Mar.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best wishes, Ann Feeney
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 14 From: John Graybill
Del Mar City Council: I disagree with Del Mar Plaza's request for an encroachment permit to install a decomposed granite path and succulents instead of replacing the five Chinese Flame trees on Luneta Drive that they removed and agreed to replace. I understand that these trees were on City property and therefore are protected. Succulents are not trees. Trees are good for the environment and good for the character of Del Mar. We're supposed to be increasing our canopy, not chopping down trees and adding succulents. Trees on a residential street on the back side of The Plaza will not detract from the center's success. Let's stick with the deal and replace the trees. Thanks, John Graybill 15th Street Del Mar
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 14 From: Hannah Carson
Council,
I am writing in response to agenda item 14. Encroachment Permit EP19-025 – Installation of a Decomposed Granite Pathway and Associated Landscaping (APN: 300-030-86). Trees should not be considered ornamental items. An urban tree canopy is essential for combating the urban head island effect and sequestering carbon. Brixton Capital LLC (Del Mar Plaza) should remain responsible for planting five trees.
Hannah Carson 201 4th St Del Mar
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 14 1 September 9, 2019 Item 15 2 September 9, 2019 Item 15 3 September 9, 2019 Item 15 4 September 9, 2019 Item 15 5 September 9, 2019 Item 15 6 September 9, 2019 Item 15 7 September 9, 2019 Item 15 8 September 9, 2019 Item 15 9 September 9, 2019 Item 15 September 4, 2019
To: Del Mar City Council members
Re: Agenda item #15/MOD 19-005, Paul Cyr property improvements, 240 Dolphin Cove Ct, Del Mar 92014
Dear Mayor Druker and Council members:
I have been informed of Paul Cyr’s request to install a “mini-split” air conditioning unit in his condominium in the Del Mar Woods where I have had a home for more than ten years, and I would like to voice my opinion on the matter.
Air conditioning is unfortunately becoming more of a necessity due to our rapidly warming climate, as last week’s intense heat wave clearly demonstrates. We all understand that heat poses serious health risks to people of all ages, especially children, the elderly and pregnant women. In light of our new reality, it benefits us to thoughtfully consider the alternatives to managing this problem since all residents deserve to live in as comfortable and safe a home environment as possible.
Mini-splits are known to be the most efficient in terms of energy usage because they are typically used to cool isolated “zones” of a home- often just a single room- and therefor don’t require a large outdoor condenser. This inherently results in much quieter operation compared to standard air conditioners or window- mount units, a benefit to those living nearby. For these reasons and others, mini-splits are used widely in multi-family dwellings in Asia and Europe and increasingly, here in America.
As a doctor and past chair of the Sustainability Advisory Board, I would really like to see the Council vote to approve Mr. Cyr’s request and also consider supporting this type of unit for installation whenever air conditioning is requested throughout the city. Decisions of this kind show leadership that benefits our health, our community, and the need to stand up to the urgent threat of climate change.
Thank you.
Bruce Bekkar Spinnaker Court Del Mar
1 September 9, 2019 Item 15 Subject: FW: 9/9/19 De Novo Hearing re Air Conditioner for 240 Dolphin Cove Court, Del Mar
From: Spencer Emtage
Dear Sir/Madame: This message is to lend my support to the opposition to this Application. Please forward to City Council in time for this Meeting I completely endorse the comments from Linda Judd. As an owner/resident at 232 Dolphin Cove court I live in the same condo block as the Applicant and, as a result, will be subject to the extra noise and vibrations the compressor will cause. Maybe the Applicant should request a small air conditioner, especially as we live in very moderate temperatures here, even in the summer?
Yours Sincerely, Spencer Emtage (232 Dolphin Cove Court).
1
2 September 9, 2019 Item 15 3 September 9, 2019 Item 15 4 September 9, 2019 Item 15 5 September 9, 2019 Item 15 6 September 9, 2019 Item 15 7 September 9, 2019 Item 15 8 September 9, 2019 Item 15 9 September 9, 2019 Item 15 10 September 9, 2019 Item 15 From: Ann Feeney
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Council members,
The Sustainability Advisory Board strongly and unanimously supports Del Mar entering into a CCE and filing for it by December 31, 2019 so that we can launch the CCE by January 1, 2021. Joining a CCE is essential to help Del Mar achieve the greenhouse gas reductions that we have in our Climate Action Plan.
Sincerely, Ann Feeney Chair, Sustainability Advisory Board
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 17
9-8-19
Dear Del Mar Mayor and City Council members:
I am a 36 year resident of Del Mar and a member of the Executive Committee of Surfrider Foundation San Diego.
I am writing to inform you of our support for The City of Del Mar moving ahead in entering into a JPA for Community Choice Energy. We hope that many other cities will also join this movement to 100% renewable energy.
We feel this is an import step for The City of Del Mar in reaching the goals of its Climate Action Plan. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is of critical importance to the health of our planet.
Greenhouse gases have been having profound negative effects on our oceans. Moving toward 100% renewable energy sources is of the utmost important.
Thank you,
Udo Wahn M.D. Executive Committee
Surfrider Foundation San Diego 3295 Meade Ave Suite 221 San Diego, CA 92116
Phone: 858.622.9661 | [email protected] | sandiego.surfrider.org
1 September 9, 2019 Item 17 From: Terry Sinnott
I have discussed my concerns regarding Del Mar implementation of CCE with Ellie and Dwight. But since I have plenty of time (I finished painting my house), I want the entire Council to have the same set of inputs. I hope you will not make an emotional decision and carefully consider some real obstacles in what is being proposed.
What concerns me are the following:
1. Purchasing energy is a risky business. Many things can spoil a well-intended contract... including price, availability, and competition. Does Del Mar want to assume those risks? Purchasing energy has risks that Del Mar does not need to assume ... even for a good cause.
2. The fact that everyone in Del Mar is automatically enrolled in the CCE and must opt out if they do not want to participate tells me that you are forcing people into a situation to artificially capture as many participants as possible. That does not seem transparent or fair to me.
3. This is a brand new enterprise being proposed. If you want to encourage renewable energy without the early risks, wait three years and then join the CCE. The addition of Del Mar to the purchasing power of the CCE is ridiculously small and will not determine whether or not the CCE is successful. We are too small.
4. SDG&E already has a program that allows customers to receive renewable energy. How about Del Mar working with SDG&E to promote renewable energy in Del Mar to reach our CAP goals. It could energize our community and be less risky.
5. The cost savings of a CCE (vs SDG&E) are not big enough to justify the risks and effort.
6. In reading the consultants' reports, I do not see an unbiased presentation. The consultants who recommend Del Mar join a CCE are the same consultants who will profit from helping the CCE operate in the years ahead. So they overlook or minimize the downsides.
7. Del Mar has many issues that Council and Staff have to manage. The City has enough on its plate. Adding more expenditures and effort to a limited set of resources seems unwise.
Here are some recommendations:
A. If you join the JPA, require that Del Mar's participation in the CCE be based on the achievement of specific, yearly renewable energy goals for each year from now until 2035. If the goals are not met, require the participation of Del Mar in the CCE be re-examined in a public hearing.
B. Require that energy rates delivered to Del Mar customers by the CCE be greater than 2% below SDG&E equivalent rates. If not, require the participation of Del Mar in the CCE be re-examined in a public hearing.
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 17 C. On page 10 of the report, Staff states the following: "There is considerable amount of speculative public information on this issue. The analysis of this report is based on those items that Staff could support with facts and direct experience." That does not give me a lot of confidence. Staff is not experienced and even the consultants are sailing into "un- charted waters". I would ask Staff to detail the speculative issues, and make sure that the speculation does not over- come common sense.
D. Page 11 of the Staff report shows that Del Mar's financial costs will be $300k-400k of the $1.2 million start-up costs. That is 30% of the costs. Del Mar will have 3% of the electric customers if the CCE is implemented. I would ask that Del Mar's costs be proportionate to the benefits received from the CCE .... not 30% of the costs.
E. It would be appropriated for the Finance Committee to review the financial obligations of the proposed CCE and make sure that the financial obligations can be met.
F. The Solana Energy Alliance would be a JPA. On page 40 of the consultants report it says that the terms and conditions for leaving the JPA have not been specified. I would hope that before Del Mar agrees to any CCE, that there is an agreement on the costs and process for leaving the JPA.
We all want to encourage green energy for Del Mar. We should be very thoughtful in that decision.
Hope this helps.
Terry
--
Terry Sinnott 858 449 0846 www.terrysinnott.com
2
2 September 9, 2019 Item 17 Members of the City Council: This will serve as a follow up red dot letter from my initial submission of Aug. 5. 2019, as well as my brief three- minute presentation that evening.
I think the current situation vis a vis the Marisol Bluff Project has become increasingly chaotic from several perspectives; Environmental/geologic, Traffic/congestion, and most importantly, procedural; the latter of which I am most concerned.
In my opinion, the Council with the abetment of Staff, has failed the electorate of Del Mar by allowing a clearly predatory violation of our established residential low- density zoning ordinance to move forward toward a ballot initiative without proper regulatory oversight. The procedural protocols are supposed to precede a final ballot initiative; not the other way around. We voted for you to do the right thing, to protect us from the invader; instead you found a way to open the gates and allow them to now circumvent all the protections we thought we had in place to prevent just this scenario. There is significant push back from the community for a variety of reasons, [alluded to above]. A tremendous amount of effort has already been mobilized to combat what appears to be inevitable.
I would ask you at this time to rethink what you have inadvisably set in motion; We are all on record for our opinions and we will all be accountable for our actions. Whether Marisol prevails or not, I believe it’s a lose/lose for those council members who have allowed this condition to get this far. I believe I speak for the residents of Del Mar and Solana Beach as well; as they will likely suffer most of the negative impact if this project goes forward. We will hold you accountable for the time, effort and potential $$$ required to protect our constitutional rights. Perhaps it’s time for all to revisit our options.
Respectfully,
John R Morse
1 September 9, 2019 Item 19 September 9,2019 City Council agenda Item #19 To the Del Mar City Council RE: Questions about the Ballot Initiative Plan for the Mirasol Resort These questions were compiled from input from 10 Del Mar Citizens. Thank you for this opportunity to ask questions and gain information.
DENSITY: From the Marisol Specific Plan Initiative text, the resort will have 65 hotel rooms, 31 villas, 27 of which will have 3 independently, rentable units to be added to hotel stock for 146 hotel guest rooms, 22 affordable housing units, 10 family friendly, low cost visitor serving accommodations and 408 off street parking spaces, 27 which can serve the general public. This is a total of 181 units that are rentable. Are these figures correct? 1. Including hotel rooms, condo and villa rooms, what is the potential maximum number of total rooms that can be in an inventory of rentals? 2. If every available room were rented to two persons per room, how many guests would potentially be at the resort at any one time? 3. How many service people would be required to run the resort if the resort was at full capacity? 4. Are there 22 affordable housing units? Will these be used for resort employees? Can they help Del Mar achieve the state required number of affordable housing units? 5. What is the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the entire development? 6. What is the existing zoning limitation for FAR?
DESIGN: 1. Citizens are anxious to see the story poles. When will they be erected? 2. When will Citizens receive and be able to comment on the Environmental Impact Report? 3. Will the resort be designed to contain light and noise within the development or will light and noise impact surrounding properties, neighborhoods and streets? 4. It was stated that Marisol would be a LEED Gold Project. The question was asked, “Why not Platinum?” The response was the development is not dense enough to obtain the number of US Green Building Council points to achieve Platinum. Is this true? 5. STEPS TO DOG BEACH FROM THE RESORT: Who is requiring stairs and ADA Ramps down to the new bathrooms that will be built and maintained by the developer? Does the resort want them or has the city requested them? Why is this necessary? Why can’t people access the resort from the intersection of Border Avenue and Highway 101? 6. NEW TRAILS: What are the total miles of trails that will be added on the Resort property? Are these actual designated trails or does this include walkways through the resort? Who will maintain these trails? When can we see a map of the trails? 7. BUILDING HEIGHT: • The maximum height is still 46 feet, with elevator overrides, mechanical equipment, screening, stair projections, ventilation pipes placed on the roofs, how high will the buildings really be? • Solana Beach residents are very concerned about the obstruction of their views. What is being done to solve this problem? • What are the heights of the proposed buildings adjacent to the Scripps Bluff Preserve? • The Parks and Recreation Committee requested that the Preserve be physically separated from the Resort. How will this be accomplished?
TRAFFIC: 1. According to the San Diego Trip Manual (2003), Traffic for each of the 3 restaurants is 100 per day x 3+ 300-car trips per day.
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 19 2. Are there any more than 1,448-car trips per day (Based on City of San Diego Trip Manual 2003 for Resort Hotel.)? So 1,448 + 300= 1,748 car trips per day added to the intersection of Via del La Valle and 101/ Camino del mar. This does NOT count the spa traffic. 3. Based on total potential inventory of room rentals, how many additional vehicle trips will be generated by the resort at full build out? Please explain how you arrived at these figures. 4. If the above housing figure is correct, what is the projected traffic for the intersection Via de La Valle and Camino Del Mar for 181 rental units/ home, spa, 2 restaurants and a café? 5. If you have different numbers, please provide your calculations. Will this number be incuded in the Environmental Impact Report? 6. Will there be an exit onto Sierra from the Marisol project? What are the improvements promised for the area to mitigate the significant increase in traffic? 7. There was mention of adding a left hand turn lane, but where would that be located?
PRESERVING THE PRESERVE: 1. How are your plans going to honor the Parks and Recreation Committee’s recommendations that were accepted by the City Council to preserve the preserve? 2. How will they conflict with these recommendations? 3. Who is in charge of the screening, planting and maintenance of trees/shrubs so that the reserve is isolated, separated and shielded from any view of the resort as was requested by the Parks and Rec Committee? 4. Is that screening to be on the reserve property or the resort property or straddling both? 5. Is it part of the specific plan or will the developers or city be responsible to do that separately? 6. Will the Deed Restriction between the Woodward heirs and the City regarding viewsheds and limiting the number of houses be abandoned? How will this occur?
HOTEL OPERATION: 1. How many people will work at the 3 restaurants, the spa and the hotel//condos? 2. Will they live in the affordable housing?
COMMUNITY BENEFITS: You have stated that TOT taxes to the City of Del Mar will be $4 or $4.5 million, how do you arrive at these figures? How much revenue do you project will be gained by each rentable room? Please share your calculations. Will the Environmental Impact Report include amounts for the TOT taxes to be received by the City?
MAINTENANCE FOR TRAILS, SAND REPLENISHMENT, BATHROOMS, SHUTTLE SERVICE: Will you pay money for separate endowments to purchase separate annuities to pay for the annual expenses for beach replenishment, the upkeep of the bathrooms that you build at dog beach, trails maintenance and a shuttle service around Del Mar to link the Downtown area, the beach, the Track and Fairgrounds and the Solana Beach Train station?
BALLOT INITIATIVE PROCESS: 1. Why do you want to get the property approved for rezoning in March? 2. Why not wait until it could go through the Environmental Impact Report Process, the DRB and Planning Commission and allow citizens to vote in November of 2020? 3. In July, you said you would have the plans and models available for viewing at your office in downtown Del Mar. Is this office open? Do you have 3D models and maps? 4. In order for voters to fully understand the visual impact of the Marisol Resort, we would like to see the story poles. When would this happen? 5. If the public rubber-stamps this at the polls how much clout or weight will the DRB and the Planning Commission have to change or alter their development plans? 6. If voters at the polls approve the rezoning plan, many people in the Del Mar Community are worried that they will be cut out of the process of public meetings if it’s approved at the polls?
2
2 September 9, 2019 Item 19 7. What public input opportunities for design changes will there be after it could be approved at the ballot box? 8. Are the plans written in stone, if voters approve this initiative? Would there be legal recourse by the developers if the DRB and Planning Commission change these plans?
CONSTRUCTION: 1. How long will it take to construct the proposed resort, villas/ condos, spa and 3 restaurants? 2. What is the type of material for the exterior of the buildings? 3. How many feet deep will the bluff property be excavated for support walls and parking? 4. Can the sand excavated for the 400 underground parking spaces be used for sand replenishment? This would be the most sustainable solution to use the sand close on the beach close by, reducing truck trips and damage to the roads, snarling traffic and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 5. In adding the acreage for the assemblage of parcels we get 15.87 (see green APN list below). We have heard 16.5 acres and up to 17.5 acres. Do you include the Shoreline Access that extends west from Border? Is the property across 101 south of the Brigantine included in the qualifying acreage? Is APN 299-030-016 park of the Preserve but you listed it on your acreage. The 3rd photo down is from the City of Del Mar filing for the Specific Plan and lists the APN numbers we have included. Please explain these discrepancies
3
3 September 9, 2019 Item 19 6.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Hecht 27th Street, Del Mar, CA (808) 989-3222
4
4 September 9, 2019 Item 19 From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 9:59 AM To: City Clerk Mail Box Subject: Zepher signature collection process
I can not make the meeting tonight at 4:30. It seems like the young guys collecting signatures for the Zepher project were wearing official looking blue shirts with "Del Mar Community Services" written on the shirt. I asked the young man at my door were did you get that shirt and he replied Zepher. I oppose the project in it's current state. When I expressed this I was told that if I signed I could have a chance to vote it down. Now I find out that others experienced the same sales pitch as I. I feel that the signature collection process for the Zepher project was not done properly and should be reviewed. I feel that no vote should occur tonight until we get to the bottom of this.
1
5 September 9, 2019 Item 19 Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: General Comments, Questions, or Concerns
From: [email protected]
If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.
General Comments, Questions, or Concerns
Please describe your Zepher signature collection process. I can not make the meeting tonight at 4:30. It seems like the young question, comment, guys collecting signatures for the Zepher project were wearing official looking blue shirts with "Del Mar or concern:* Community Services" written on the shirt. I asked the young man at my door were did you get that shirt and he replied Zepher. I oppose the project in it's current state. When I expressed this I was told that if I signed I could have a chance to vote it down. Now I find out that others experienced the same sales pitch as I. I feel that the signature collection process for the Zepher project was not done properly and should be reviewed. I feel that no vote should occur tonight until we get to the bottom of this. Requestor Name:* Eugene Michael Swiech Requestor email:* [email protected] Requestor Phone 8583953297 number:
* indicates required fields.
View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below: http://www.delmar.ca.us/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=1465
The following form was submitted via your website: General Comments, Questions, or Concerns
Please describe your question, comment, or concern:: Zepher signature collection process.
I can not make the meeting tonight at 4:30. It seems like the young guys collecting signatures for the Zepher project were wearing official looking blue shirts with "Del Mar Community Services" written on the shirt. I asked the young man at my door were did you get that shirt and he replied Zepher. I oppose the project in it's current state. When I expressed this I was told that if I signed I could have a chance to vote it down. Now I find out that others experienced the same sales pitch as I. I feel that the signature collection process for the Zepher project was not done properly and should be reviewed. I feel that no vote should occur tonight until we get to the bottom of this.
Requestor Name:: Eugene Michael Swiech
Requestor email:: [email protected]
Requestor Phone number:: 8583953297
1
6 September 9, 2019 Item 19 Additional Information: Form submitted on: 9/9/2019 8:32:34 AM Submitted from IP Address: 99.21.194.65 Referrer Page: https://www.delmar.ca.us/546/Report-a-Concern Form Address: http://www.delmar.ca.us/Forms.aspx?FID=80
2
7 September 9, 2019 Item 19 From: Laura DeMarco
Dear City Council Members and staff,
As you review the parking needs for Shores Park, please be aware that the Planning Commission concluded that the 12-20 spaces needed for the proposed Shores Park masterplan were already available given the following:
1) Over 50 off-street parking spaces that are currently shared with the Winston School; 2) Increased on-street parking capacity on 9th Street that is more accessible and ADA compliant to seniors and the disabled by covering the existing hazard of deep drainage ditches that currently line that street; 3) Increased potential parking capacity on Stratford Court with angled parking; and 4) Availability of over 100+ parking spaces at the nearby Civic Center.
The planning commission reached their conclusion after hearing the testimony of several long-term neighbors who all commended Winston School for serving as a valued neighbor with its low-impact, shared-use parking and school facilities over the last 30 years. For example, while they were appearing before the Planning Commission at City Hall, 40 other community members were holding their regularly scheduled weekly meeting in Winston's auditorium. Those who traveled by car to that meeting used off-street parking in Winston's parking lot.
As you know, the 5.3 acre Del Mar Shores property contains the only grassy playing field, softball/baseball field, basketball court and school in the City of Del Mar. The Friends of Del Mar Parks and the non-profit Winston School together raised $5.5 million to fund the City of Del Mar's purchase of the property. In recognition of Winston's $3 million contribution, the largest in our historic fundraising campaign, the Shores Park fields and courts are used by Winston during school hours under the terms of its 55-year lease with the City.
In addition to maximizing the recreational open space of Shores Park, shared parking with Winston effectively preserves the existing Shores Park neighborhood. This conforms to Del Mar's Municipal Code Section 30.80.030 "Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces" whose purpose is "to establish a unified set of regulations, standards, and procedures pertaining to the provision of off-street parking spaces in a manner that preserves the community character and effectively addresses the peak parking needs of allowed uses."
According to 30.80.030 (Subsection C: Non-residential, Institutional), the Winston School is required to provide "1 space per employee plus 5 additional parking spaces". Thus, Winston's 50+ space parking lot is sufficient to accommodate its current staff of 40 and shared public use for Shores Park, especially after school hours, on weekends and holidays.
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 20 Unlike the Shores Park masterplan which could take another 10+ years to complete and even longer to fund, the Winston School is on an accelerated timeline as their existing lease requires submittal of redevelopment plans for their school facilities by the end of this year. The Planning Commission's affirmation of the availability of plentiful parking, both on-street and off-street, especially with continued shared public use with Winston meets the "preserve the community character" provision of 30.80.030.
Shared parking with Winston also provides enough space for a separate 1-acre dog park from the grassy playing fields in the Park's master plan as required by the Shores Advisory Committee and the Winston School. In addition to more active use by Del Mar's children and their families, this will enable the Shores Cinema Series to resume on the grassy playing field and the return of Del Mar Little League which previously paid $10,000/year to lease the baseball field and fund its ongoing maintenance.
Dr. Dena Harris, head of the Winston School, confirmed in her testimony at the Planning Commission of Winston's continued commitment to the school's neighbors, our community and shared public use of their upgraded facilities with the modification of their existing lease to a ground lease of $147,000/year. Winston will be investing $7M+ on their school facilities that would serve as a beautiful community center for Del Mar residents at no cost to the City, a substantial public benefit. At that lease rate, Winston will not have expand its school buildings to over 47,000 sq. ft. (almost 4x the size of the 12,000 sq. ft. Del Mar Civic Center). That mammoth size would negatively effect the community character of the Shores neighborhood as it would be an incompatible, high-impact commercial use in a residential neighborhood.
This lease modification enables the school to stay small which is the expressed preference of over 200 petitioners and every Shores neighbor who participated in Winston's two recent CPP meetings. Otherwise, Winston will be forced to maximize revenue to meet the City's lease obligations that will grow to over $500,000/year by suspending shared use of its facility (including parking) and more than doubling its existing enrollment, faculty and buildings to a massive 47,000 square feet, which is completely out of scale with neighboring homes averaging 2,000 square feet.
In conclusion, shared use off-street parking with Winston will be low impact to the neighborhood, preserve the community character of the adjacent residential area, and maximize the recreational open space of Shores Park.
Thanks for your consideration,
Laura DeMarco Vice President, Friends of Del Mar Parks
P. S. Please note that instead of the proposed "sport court" in the staff report, Winston requested another basketball court in addition to the existing one at Shores Park which is actively used by Winston's championship basketball team. This will also be a healthier venue for community pick-up games and our children than the only other public basketball court in Del Mar, a half court adjacent to the sometimes foul-smelling sewage lift station in the Beach Colony.
2
2 September 9, 2019 Item 20 September 11, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Re: City Council Meeting – September 11, 2019 Item 20: Discussion of Shores Park Parking
Please find below our comments regarding the parking spaces proposal for Shores Park.
The Community Building currently has a fenced parking area to the rear of the building with eleven marked stalls including one handicapped stall. In addition to the eleven stalls, we maintain two DMCC vehicles in the “No Parking” areas inside the fenced lot. These two vehicles require a total of three stalls since the larger vehicle cannot fit within one stall. In summary, we are currently using the equivalent of 14 stalls. These 14 spaces are insufficient at the present time to meet the day to day needs of the Community Building.
DMF and DMCC, without any coordination, independently projected a doubling of parking needs by the time Shores Park is redeveloped. These may seem like subjective estimates to some. To develop objective data, DMCC suggested to staff to consider a separate analysis of other similar Community/Activity Buildings with a senior use component to derive an objective measure of parking needs
It’s a difficult challenge to meet essential parking needs while maximizing green space. Off site street parking is a good solution for most of our population, but not for our more advanced seniors or those with mobility issues. Town Hall parking is a good solution for those who are able to go to and from the Community Building on their own. But from an operational standpoint, it’s not feasible for any of the organizations at the Community Building to shuttle people back and forth from Town Hall on a daily basis.
We certainly share the goal of creating maximum green space and it's not our goal to substitute parking stalls for green space, but to simply bring the issue to your attention to encourage a balanced approach to both essential parking needs and green space.
Thanks for your consideration of our comments.
Terry Kopanski President, DMCC
1 September 9, 2019 Item 20
September 9, 2019
VIA EMAIL to the City Clerk @ [email protected]
TO: Del Mar City Council City of Del Mar 1050 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014
FROM: Dr. Dena E. Harris Head of School and Executive Director
SUBJECT: Open Session - Parking
At the recent August 13, 2019, planning commission meeting, the Shores parking was discussed. I decided to pay closer attention to the parking situation around the school particularly at the corner of 9th Street and Stratford Court. I see a need for community parking as the current lot is well utilized. The following are examples of current parking uses.
Recently, a resident on 13th Street was hosting a private party for 150 people. My staff was surprised to find a valet positioned at the front steps of the school who was directing traffic. When the front lot became full, the overflow traffic was directed to the back of the school where a shuttle service had been set up to transport guests to and from the event without any notice given to the school. Since the start of school, we have hosted two school events that have required the use of the entire front and back parking lots. This would have represented a serious conflict had this private event been scheduled on the same evening as ours.
Additionally, community-based groups utilize the parking lot regularly every to hold their meetings at Winston.
On a daily basis, we consistently have between 3 and 6 non-school-related cars parked in the Winston front parking lot.
With the increased nearby construction, it appears to be an everyday occurrence in Del Mar with home remodeling projects, the Del Mar Downtown Streetscape project, including installation of underground irrigation, draining and electrical lines, and the upcoming plans to begin the planned undergrounding project, Stratford Court has
The Winston School 215 Ninth Street Del Mar California 92014 (858) 259-8155
1 September 9, 2019 Item 20
become a staging area for parked cars. As evidenced by the pictures I have taken over the past month, bulldozers, waste management service vehicles, and construction workers park in our neighborhood. In addition to apartment residents and local surfers, there is not a day that goes by where Stratford Court is not overcrowded or congested to the point that it is no longer a two-way street.
These lots are used. The Winston School strongly believes that there is a significant community need for parking at the Shores side.
2 2 September 9, 2019 Item 20 From: Heather Lindsey
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Council Members:
The job of City Manager is one of the most important roles in Del Mar. He or she must be able to effectively represent the best interests of the citizens of Del Mar and protect their rights. Among the myriad of skills and expertise needed, the job description and interview process should ensure that qualification for a City Manager include:
a demonstrable record with effectively interacting with the Coastal Commission while also prioritizing the views, voices and best interest of its citizens. a demonstrable record with sand replenishment and nourishment. a demonstrable record of successful region transportation collaboration and accomplishment. experience with downtown redevelopment. a record of interacting responsively to energized and activist citizens who is concerned about safeguarding their rights.
Additionally, I am hopeful that the process will include a City Council meting where the candidate’s qualifications can be discussed and that this meeting will be in advance of the final vote to hire the candidate.
Thank you once again for your consideration.
Heather
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 21 RED DOT - ITEM 21 FROM: WAYNE DERNETZ
1 September 9, 2019 Item 21 From: City Clerk Mail Box Subject: FW: Red Dot- Streetscape agenda item 22
-----Original Message----- From: Tommcg
Council Members, I am writing on behalf of the Measure Q Oversight Committee. > At the Aug 5 Council meeting, Council approved $489,000 for the paving of CDM between 4th and 9th streets. I noticed that Staff is now recommending that the budget be increased by $552,000. > Staff is recommending Measure Q funding for both the Aug 5th proposal and this additional increase. > As discussed during the budget workshop, Council’s intent was to use Measure Q funding for “Downtown Streetscape”, which did not include streetscape costs for the segment between 4th and 9th streets. > The combined budget request for this work now exceeds $1 million, which is material to the Measure Q budget. > If Council decides to go forward with this segment of streetscape, I strongly recommend that the City use normal CIP funding for these costs to preserve the Measure Q funds in accordance with the original intent.
> Tom McGreal, Stratford Ct. > > Sent from my iPhone
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 22 From: Nancy Stoke
Dear Council Members,
I write to echo Laura’s well researched and presented comments below. Measure Q funds were not approved by the voters to be used at a whim to fill funding gaps. They were approved and confirmed by your actions to be used for very specific identified community priorities. Please don’t divert Measure Q funds.
Thank you, Nancy Stoke
Dear City Council members and staff,
The proposed street improvements on Camino del Mar south of 9th Street should be funded by General Fund revenues and not by Measure Q funds.
Although the ballot language of Measure Q allows these funds to be used for any general fund expenditure, the clear intent expressed to voters by the City Council and proponents of the sales tax measure when it was approved for the ballot at the August 1, 2016 Council meeting was to fund three high priority projects:
1) Streetscape to improve the primary pedestrian retail corridor on Camino del Mar (CDM) between 15th Street and 9th Street; 2) Undergrounding to improve public safety, and 3) Del Mar Shores Park master plan to improve the only playing fields and recreational open space in the City of Del Mar.
Your fiscal restraint on the use of Measure Q funds is needed as Streetscape cost overruns of $1M+ are eroding into the funding of the $32M-$42M Undergrounding project which is our residents' highest priority since it directly impacts their health and safety with the dangerous combination of overhead power lines and sparking transformers, corrosive ocean air, steep canyons filled with brush, and heavily forested neighborhoods with narrow roads leaving little room for 10 foot wide fire engines and evacuating residents in their vehicles.
In summary, Measure Q funds cannot be used for any other projects until Streetscape, Undergrounding and the Shores Park masterplan are completed.
Thanks for your consideration,
Laura
P.S. I have applied for and would be honored to serve on the Measure Q oversight committee. 1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 22 From: Hershell Price
Ellie Haviland vs. the City of Del Mar
Council Member Ellen Haviland Votes Against Her Own City of Del Mar.
Hard to believe, but true. This past Friday, Del Mar Councilwoman and our representative to SANDAG, Ellie Haviland, provided the critical swing vote against reducing the number of housing units assigned to Del Mar by SANDAG from 163 down to 73, a reduction of 90 housing units. If she had cast her vote YES instead of NO, the housing burden would have been 90 housing units less. What was she thinking? Who would vote against their own city? Especially since we are completely built out. Where will these 163 new houses go? Does she really care? Oh, I know where? In the North Commercial Zone near the round-about, that’s where. She is anxious to complete the REZONE of that area to accommodate NEW HOUSING. Why not 163 more houses? 73 sure sounds much better than 163 to me. At the Friday meeting, she sat right next to San Diego Mayor Faulconer and voted with San Diego instead. What could have been her motivation? Solana Beach Mayor David Zito made the motion to reduce the SANDAG allocation to all of the small cities, but Haviland voted NO, against all the small cities too. They must hate us, wouldn’t you? Lesson learned: When it comes to the interests of Del Mar at SANDAG, we cannot count on Ellie Haviland to protect us from the overreaching city of San Diego, especially when it comes to forcing more housing onto our built-out Del Mar neighborhoods.
Hershell Price
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 24 From: Debbie Church
Councilwoman Ellen Haviland,
I am flabbergasted by your vote Friday at the SANDAG meeting. Literally, dumbfounded that you would vote AGAINST the City of Del Mar.
You voted NO to reducing the number of housing units allotted to Del Mar from 163 down to 73. How can it possibly be that you did not jump at the opportunity to do what is best for Del Mar? Instead, your vote was the critical swing vote that made the motion fail (9-10). Had you voted YES, we would be looking at 73, not 163. Even if a weighted vote was then called, your voting record should have reflected only what would have been best for Del Mar.
The Mayor of Solana Beach made a brilliant argument for a small-city adjustment for built-out, dense small towns like ours, Solana Beach, Coronado, etc. Additionally, Councilwoman Terry Gaasterland and citizen Laura DeMarco brought new information and exposed the errors and miscalculations in the housing allocations which should have given you even more reason to vote WITH Solana Beach and FOR Del Mar as you have taken an oath to do. You should have been able to think on your feet with this new information and voting opportunity, but instead you sided with the City of San Diego.
I'm left with many questions. Why did you stand with San Diego over Del Mar? Could your owning 22 properties in San Diego County of which only 1 is in Del Mar have swayed you? Could you have political aspirations in San Diego rather than Del Mar? Did your personal ideologies override your duty to Del Mar?
Our town is really struggling with where to squeeze in affordable housing and now that struggle is exponentially worse. Here is an example of a sobering reality of what may be ahead for Del Mar because of votes like this. At a block party on 20th street yesterday, one woman said something along the lines of "these elites live in single-family homes...they need to be torn down and turned into multi-family buildings." Scary.
Disappointed citizen
Debbie Church 27th St.
1
2 September 9, 2019 Item 24 From: Laura DeMarco
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
I already sent this to the Council and Kathy Garcia and Scott Huth. Forgot to include you again
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2019, at 9:07 AM, Laura DeMarco
Dear Council members and staff,
The regional housing needs assessment calculation and methodology approved by the SANDAG board on Friday, Sept. 6, was flawed and unfair to Del Mar and many other smaller cities in the San Diego region.
Council Member Gaasterland provided the SANDAG board with written and oral public comment that exposed these flaws and the fact that HCD's 171,685 housing unit allocation for the San Diego region was inflated by over 55,000 jobs as was originally pointed out by SANDAG's own staff. I also provided testimony (see attached).
Solana Beach Mayor and SANDAG board member David Zito made a motion to rectify this but his motion failed by one vote since Del Mar's SANDAG representative voted against his motion. This shocked me and Terry Gaasterland as well as the standing-room-only audience packed with former SANDAG board members, public officials and activists from Solana Beach, Coronado, Imperial Beach and Lemon Grove who had all previously exposed its flaws during public testimony and provided over 1,000 pages of public comment. Instead Del Mar voted for San Diego Mayor Kevin Falcouner's motion to approve the flawed RHNA numbers that inflated Del Mar's housing allocation to 163 instead of the 73 from Zito's motion.
It would be helpful for the City of Del Mar to send a follow up letter to HCD that exposes the flaws in SANDAG's methodology and/or use these flaws to lobby the legislature to count in Del Mar's Housing Element the 664 housing units at the Fairgrounds that house over 1,300 workers whose jobs are counted in our RHNA number.
We can work together with Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City, San Diego City and San Diego County to lobby the legislature to pass a law which allows housing provided to RHNA job holders to be counted in the Housing Element of the jurisdiction in which the housing is located.
1
3 September 9, 2019 Item 24 Currently, state law only counts housing units that are permitted by cities or counties. Since housing on federal and state land does not require these permits, it is not counted in the jurisdiction's Housing Element. This is unfair, especially if their jobs are counted in the RHNA total.
Bottom line, we can make a very compelling case that SANDAG's unfairness needs to be rectified by the legislature. The bonus would be that most of these units would be counted as low to moderate income so, with the swipe of a pen, all our cities will meet or exceed the required number of affordable housing units in our Housing Elements.
Thanks for your consideration,
Laura
PUBLIC COMMENT PROVIDED TO SANDAG:
Dear Honorable SANDAG Board Members,
As you review the proposed Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) methodology, please consider the following major issues and potential solutions to improve its accuracy and efficacy for the 6th housing cycle and future housing cycles:
1) Seasonal jobs should not be given the same weight as full-time jobs
Surprisingly, the 4,400 jobs allocated to the City of Del Mar exceeds the city’s total population of 4,200. How can this be when the city’s small commercial corridor is stagnant and the population has shrunk since the last census? This led to the discovery that most of the jobs allocated to Del Mar (and likely other cities) are part-time (PT) and/or seasonal.
For example, the City of Del Mar’s summer lifeguards are counted in the RHNA jobs allocation despite the fact that these employees are local high school and college students who live with their families and need no additional housing.
The majority of Del Mar’s RHNA jobs allocation are part-time and seasonal jobs at the Fairgrounds (comprising 20% of the city’s land area) which attracts millions of visitors during the summer at the annual San Diego County Fair, the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club’s horse racing meet, and other events. Like Del Mar’s summer lifeguards, many of these seasonal and part-time workers do not need additional housing since they are students living at home, retirees and locals with FT jobs tied to the academic year.
Even more significantly, counting PT or seasonal jobs inflates the number of jobs and corresponding RHNA allocation because of potential double counting in multiple jurisdictions. This would be the case for the high school vice principal from Pasadena who has worked at the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club for every summer over the last 20 years and stayed in short-term rentals or the homes of local friends. The current RHNA methodology would count both his FT job in Pasadena and his summer job in Del Mar and falsely assume he needs permanent housing in each city. Thus, seasonal jobs should not be given the same weight as full-time jobs for determining the needs for housing stock. 2
4 September 9, 2019 Item 24 2) Employer-provided housing for RHNA jobs should be counted as housing stock
If the jobs provided by employers are counted in the RHNA calculation, then the housing provided to their employees should also be counted in the housing stock of the city in which it is located. For example, if the seasonal jobs at the state-owned Fairgrounds are included (and not excluded) in Del Mar’s RHNA allocation, then the housing provided to these workers must be counted in Del Mar’s housing stock. This includes the 664 units at the Fairgrounds in Del Mar that accommodate over 1,300 mostly low- to moderate-income backstretch workers.
In addition, if the RHNA jobs allocation includes (and does not exclude) the military jobs where housing is provided on bases occupying over 241.6 square miles of land in San Diego county and on over 40 ships comprising the Pacific Fleet (especially the two Coronado-based aircraft carriers which each house 6,000 for 6-10 months at sea), this military housing should be included in the housing stock of the jurisdictions in which they are located: Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City, San Diego City and San Diego County. For example, Camp Pendleton in San Diego County has over 35,000 military jobs and provides 7,550 family housing units and barracks for 29,000 single soldiers.
3) RHNA allocation should better reflect dual-earner majority of households
Why does RHNA’s methodology allocate only one job for each housing unit? This does not reflect the economic and social reality that most of San Diego County’s housing is occupied by two-earner households. San Diego County’s housing stock is designed to accommodate two or more adults with jobs, including many who work from home offices. To reflect this reality and the more efficient use of our current housing stock, it would be more accurate to assume 1.25 to 2.0 jobs per housing unit so the RHNA allocation would be cut by 25% to 50%.
Thanks for your consideration,
Laura DeMarco 32-year Del Mar resident who grew up on naval bases
3
5 September 9, 2019 Item 24 City of Del Mar Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Ellie Haviland, Deputy Mayor, SANDAG Representative
DATE: September 9, 2019
SUBJECT: Item 24 – Affordable Housing: RHNA Methodology Adoption
On Friday, September 6, 2019 the SANDAG Board of Directors met to consider the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Draft Methodology for the 6th Cycle (Attachment A). The methodology proposed allocating the 171,682 housing units assigned by the State and accepted by the SANDAG Board on June 8, 2018 in the following formula: • 65% of the total housing units will be allocated to jurisdictions with access to transit, including rail stations, rapid bus stations and major transit stops; • 35% of the total housing units will be allocated to jurisdictions based on the total number of jobs in their jurisdiction; and • an equity adjustment is applied to the number of housing units, allocating more housing units of an income category to jurisdictions with a percentage of households in that category that is lower than the regional percentage.
The Draft RHNA allocation, as outlined in the staff recommendation, was approved on the third vote, after testimony and discussion on other options. This Draft Methodology will now go forward to the State of California Department Housing and Community Development (HCD) for confirmation and back to the SANDAG Board of Directors in October for final acceptance.
This allocation will allow the jurisdictions to begin the required Housing Element Update and associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which must be completed and adopted by the end of 2020 in order to be certified by HCD no later than April, 2021.
Below are the three options that were considered by the Board of Directors. Attachment B shows the SANDAG vote.
1. Amendment proposed by National City would shift the allocation of units to high- frequency transit stops – did not pass
This option was rejected by both the RHNA subcommittee and TWG This change would have no impact on Del Mar
______City Council Action:
1 September 9, 2019 Item 24 City Council Report - RHNA September 9, 2019 Page 2 of 3
2. Amendment proposed by Solana Beach to give small cities a 55% reduction in required housing units – did not pass
This option had a much lower housing allocation for Del Mar but had several fatal flaws.
2 September 9, 2019 Item 24 City Council Report - RHNA September 9, 2019 Page 3 of 3
• The housing units taken from the small cities were not reallocated by the methodology that had been supported by the Del Mar City Council. • SANDAG staff had already spoken with HCD staff and was told that it was unlikely to gain approval from HCD. A denial from HCD would further delay getting final approval needed to begin the planning process for cities • There was no justification to show how this proposal would provide the same or a further reduction in GHG emissions for our County. Given that over 1500 units would be added to the allocation for the unincorporated area of the County, this would likely put more housing in areas farthest from jobs and transit.
3. Original motion made by City of San Diego to approve the staff recommendation – passed on a weighted vote called by City of San Diego
This option was supported by the RHNA subcommittee, TWG, SANDAG staff and the Del Mar City Council
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Draft RHNA Methodology Attachment B: SANDAG vote
3 September 9, 2019 Item 24
DRAFT September 6, 2019 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology
4 September 9, 2019 Item 24
5 September 9, 2019 Item 24 Table of Contents
Overview ...... 2 Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology ...... 3 Underlying Data and Assumptions...... 3 Transit ...... 3 Jobs ...... 5 Equity Adjustment ...... 6 Local Government Conditions ...... 9 Board of Directors ...... 9 Regional Housing Needs Assessment Subcommittee ...... 9 Regional Planning Technical Working Group ...... 10 Regional Planning Committee ...... 10 Regional Housing Needs Assessment Objectives and Factors ...... 11 Objectives...... 11 Factors ...... 13
6 September 9, 2019 Item 24 Overview On July 5, 2018, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determined the San Diego region would need to plan for 171,685 housing units (Regional Housing Needs Assessment [RHNA] Determination) during the 6th Housing Element Cycle (2021-2029). As the council of governments for the San Diego region, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is responsible for developing a methodology for allocating the regional housing need among the region’s 19 jurisdictions. The methodology must distribute each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among the four income categories – low, very-low, moderate, and above moderate – and further the objectives set forth in state law. State housing element law requires SANDAG to provide a discussion of the draft methodology that includes the data and assumptions relied upon, and an explanation of how information about local government conditions and how each of the factors required by law was used to develop the draft methodology. (See Government Code Section 65584.04.) SANDAG must also describe how the draft methodology would further the five objectives in Government Code Section 65584. This document is meant to provide the information required by statute to assist the public in understanding the basis for the draft methodology. State law also prohibits consideration of certain criteria. The following justifications have not been used in development of the draft methodology and cannot be the basis for a determination of a jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need: 1. Any ordinance, policy, voter-approved measure, or standard of a city or county that directly or indirectly limits the number of residential building permits issued by a city or county. 2. Prior underproduction of housing in a city or county from the previous regional housing need allocation. 3. Stable population numbers in a city or county from the previous regional housing needs cycle. In addition to state housing element law, state law associated with development of Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) requires that there be consistency between transportation planning, development of housing, and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. (Government Code Sections 65080 and 65584.) Increased use of public transportation leads to reduced GHG emissions compared to driving alone. This is why the draft methodology was developed with an eye toward maximizing access between public transportation and all housing types. On July 26, 2019, the SANDAG Board of Directors released this draft methodology for public review. The Board held a public hearing and concluded the public review period on September 6, 2019. SANDAG received over 2,000 comments on the draft methodology from jurisdictions, organizations, and members of the public. SANDAG posted all public comments, a series of frequently asked questions, and responses to comments online. After consideration of the comments received, the Board authorized staff to submit the Draft 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology to HCD for review. Within 60 days, HCD will review the draft methodology and provide any findings to SANDAG. The Board will be asked to adopt a final methodology in late 2019. At that time, a draft allocation showing the number and types of housing units allocated to each jurisdiction based on the final adopted methodology will be posted on SANDAG’s website. The draft allocation will be distributed to the local jurisdictions and HCD for an additional 45-day review by those entities. After the RHNA Plan, including both the methodology and the allocation, is adopted it will be incorporated in the RTP for the region (2021 Regional Plan) and in the housing elements in each local jurisdiction’s general plan.
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 2
7 September 9, 2019 Item 24 Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology
The draft methodology released for public review includes the following components.
1. Of the total housing units, 65% will be allocated to jurisdictions with access to transit, including rail stations, Rapid bus stations, and major transit stops. Significant investments in transit have been made throughout the region, and the draft methodology prioritizes housing growth in those areas with access to transit. Encouraging housing growth near transit can promote infill development (developing vacant or under-used land within existing urban areas that are already largely developed) and preserve open space, as most transit is located in urbanized areas. Improved access to transit also can lower the vehicle miles traveled in a car and reduce GHG gas emissions. 2. Within the housing units allocated for jurisdictions with access to transit, 75% of the units will be allocated to jurisdictions with rail stations and Rapid bus stations and 25% will be allocated to jurisdictions with major transit stops. To ensure future growth is located near transit, the draft methodology prioritizes 75% of the housing units in areas with rail and Rapid bus stations. Rail stations and Rapid bus stations usually are located along fixed routes that require significant capital investment to construct. Unlike bus stops or routes, rail and Rapid stations and routes are not amended or eliminated on a regular basis. The remaining 25% of the housing units will be allocated in jurisdictions with major transit stops. Major transit stops, as defined in state law, have two intersecting bus routes that arrive at 15-minute intervals during peak commute hours. 3. Of the total housing units, 35% will be allocated to jurisdictions based on the total number of jobs in their jurisdiction. Jurisdictions should plan for housing to provide opportunities for more residents to live near their place of employment, promoting infill development, and improving the intraregional relationship between jobs and housing. 4. The allocation applies an equity adjustment. The RHNA Determination divided the number of housing units needed in the region into four income categories based on the region’s current percentages of households in each income category. The equity adjustment includes a calculation of the existing households in each jurisdiction in each income category. To promote equity and fair housing, the draft methodology will allocate more housing units within each income category to jurisdictions with a percentage of households in that same category that is lower than the regional percentage.
Underlying Data and Assumptions The draft methodology consists of a transit component, jobs component, and equity adjustment. The underlying data and assumptions used in each component and the equity adjustment are discussed below.
Transit Of the total housing units, 65% (111,595 housing units) will be allocated based on each jurisdiction’s share of regional transit services. Because most transit infrastructure is located in the urbanized areas of the San Diego region, heavily weighting the transit component will promote infill development, preserve open space, lower-vehicle miles traveled, and reduce GHG emissions. The transit component measures each jurisdiction’s share of rail & Rapid Stations and major transit stops, which are defined below.
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 3
8 September 9, 2019 Item 24 ▪ Rail & Rapid (R&R) Stations: Stations served by rail (North County Transit District [NCTD] COASTER; NCTD SPRINTER; and Metropolitan Transit System [MTS] Trolley, including planned Mid-Coast stations) and Rapid bus routes (NCTD BREEZE Route 350; MTS Rapid Routes 215, 225, and 235; and MTS Rapid Express Routes 280 and 290). ▪ Major Transit Stops: The intersection of two or more major local bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Of the units allocated based on the transit component, 75% (83,696 housing units) will be allocated based on each jurisdiction’s share of R&R Stations, while 25% (27,899 housing units) will be allocated based on each jurisdiction’s share of major transit stops. This reflects the significant investment the region has made to build and improve rail lines and Rapid routes as well as the permanency of rail lines relative to local bus service. Additionally, rail and Rapid routes have higher capacities and are among the more popular transportation services in the region. Therefore, the draft methodology assumes these services can have a larger impact on changing commute behavior and achieving mode shift goals. Data Source The data source for the transit component is the SANDAG Activity Based Model (ABM). For R&R stations, SANDAG ABM Forecast Year 2025 No Build was used in order to capture the Mid-Coast Trolley stations currently under construction and anticipated to be open for service to the public by 2021. For major transit stops, SANDAG ABM Forecast Year 2020 was used as the specific data source to align with the start of the 6th Housing Element Cycle planning period. For Rapid stations and major transit stops that have stops on either side of the road, which correspond to northbound/southbound or eastbound/westbound travel, stop pairs were counted as one station or stop. Stations that serve more than one rail and/or Rapid route were counted once in the R&R data. For example, the Oceanside Transit Center, which is served by two rail lines (NCTD COASTER and NCTD SPRINTER), accounts for only one of the seven R&R stations in Oceanside. Some R&R stations are also considered major transit stops because they are also served by two or more bus lines with 15-minute frequencies during peak commute. The Old Town Transit Center in the City of San Diego, for example, is both a R&R station (served by the NCTD COASTER and MTS Trolley) and major transit stop (served by MTS Bus routes 10, 30, 35, and 44, which have 15-minute peak period frequencies). The data underlying the proximity to transit component is included in Table 1.
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 4
9 September 9, 2019 Item 24 Table 1: Transit Data
Rail & Rapid Stations Major Transit Stops Jurisdiction Count Regional Share (%) Count Regional Share (%) Carlsbad 2 1.3% 0 0.0% Chula Vista 9 5.8% 18 12.9% Coronado 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Del Mar 0 0.0% 0 0.0% El Cajon 3 1.9% 0 0.0% Encinitas 1 0.6% 0 0.0% Escondido 14 9.1% 0 0.0% Imperial Beach 0 0.0% 6 4.3% La Mesa 5 3.2% 0 0.0% Lemon Grove 2 1.3% 0 0.0% National City 2 1.3% 15 10.7% Oceanside 7 4.5% 0 0.0% Poway 0 0.0% 0 0.0% San Diego 100 64.9% 101 72.1% San Marcos 3 1.9% 0 0.0% Santee 1 0.6% 0 0.0% Solana Beach 1 0.6% 0 0.0% Unincorporated County 2 1.3% 0 0.0% Vista 2 1.3% 0 0.0% Region 154 100.0% 140 100.0% Sources: R&R Stations - SANDAG ABM, Forecast Year 2025 No Build1; Major Transit Stops - SANDAG ABM, Forecast Year 20202
Jobs Of the total housing units, 35% (60,090 units) will be allocated based on each jurisdiction’s share of jobs in the region. Data Source The data source for the jobs component is the SANDAG Employment Estimates, which are also being used to develop the latest Regional Growth Forecast. SANDAG Employment Estimates are derived from Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data from the Economic Development Department (EDD) and the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data from the Center for Economic Studies at the U.S. Census Bureau. The LODES data combines federal, state, and Census Bureau survey data on employers and employees and SANDAG uses the QCEW dataset for its detailed geographic information on businesses to geolocate “job spaces” throughout the region. Then LODES data (average of the last five years), which are available at the census block level, are used to fill the job spaces to determine total jobs within various geographies. SANDAG Employment Estimates are also supplemented by other data sources including the San Diego Military Advisory Council (SDMAC) and Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC). Of note, SDMAC and DMDC assign jobs associated with a Navy ship to the installation that is the ship’s homeport. Finally, the jobs data are validated against published job totals for the County from the EDD Labor Market Information’s yearly data.
1 SANDAG ABM, Forecast Year 2025 No Build, Release v14.0.1, Reference Scenario #242, January 2019. 2 SANDAG ABM, Forecast Year 2020, Release v14.0.1, Reference Scenario #243, January 2019.
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 5
10 September 9, 2019 Item 24 The jobs data consists of all job types and includes jobs that are classified as a primary source of income, which can be part-time or full-time, year-round or seasonal. The data underlying the jobs component is included in Table 2.
Table 2: Jobs Data
Regional Share Jurisdiction Total Jobs (%) Carlsbad 76,779 4.6% Chula Vista 72,403 4.4% Coronado 27,594 1.7% Del Mar 4,484 0.3% El Cajon 45,468 2.7% Encinitas 27,871 1.7% Escondido 55,059 3.3% Imperial Beach 4,936 0.3% La Mesa 29,773 1.8% Lemon Grove 7,492 0.5% National City 37,497 2.3% Oceanside 45,178 2.7% Poway 36,349 2.2% San Diego 921,054 55.6% San Marcos 40,964 2.5% Santee 18,634 1.1% Solana Beach 9,151 0.6% Unincorporated County 154,686 9.3% Vista 40,629 2.5% Region 1,656,001 100.0% Source: SANDAG Employment Estimates and/or SANDAG 2019 Regional Growth Forecast; U.S. Department of Defense
Equity Adjustment In addition to distributing the RHNA Determination among jurisdictions, SANDAG must distribute units for each jurisdiction among the four income categories defined by HCD. Each income category is defined as a range of household incomes that represents a percentage of the area median income (AMI). The AMI for the San Diego region is $66,529, as provided by HCD. Table 3 provides the definition for each income category and the income ranges for San Diego region households per category.
Table 3: Income Categories
Percent of Regional Households Income Category Definition Income Range* (RHNA Determination) Very Low Less than 50% of AMI $33,259 or less 24.7% Low 50-80% of AMI $33,260 - $53,219 15.5% Moderate 80-120% of AMI $53,220 - $79,829 17.3% Above Moderate Over 120% of AMI $79,830 or more 42.5% Source: HCD Determination Letter; 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year, DP03
Household income data was used to determine the number of households per category in each jurisdiction and subsequently each jurisdiction’s percentage breakdown of households per category, which is included in Table 4. The jurisdictional percentages were then compared to the regional percentages for each income category to determine a multiplier, which is an “adjustment” toward the regional percentages.
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 6
11 September 9, 2019 Item 24 Table 4: Households per Income Category
Existing Households by Income Category Total Jurisdiction Above Households Very Low % Low % Moderate % % Moderate Carlsbad 42,926 6,981 16.3% 4,644 10.8% 5,940 13.8% 25,360 59.1% Chula Vista 77,804 19,459 25.0% 11,987 15.4% 13,643 17.5% 32,715 42.0% Coronado 8,986 1,506 16.8% 1,109 12.3% 1,442 16.1% 4,929 54.9% Del Mar 2,258 430 19.0% 102 4.5% 248 11.0% 1,478 65.5% El Cajon 32,937 12,434 37.8% 5,754 17.5% 5,615 17.0% 9,135 27.7% Encinitas 23,695 4,287 18.1% 2,168 9.2% 3,182 13.4% 14,058 59.3% Escondido 45,217 13,880 30.7% 8,239 18.2% 8,245 18.2% 14,853 32.8% Imperial Beach 9,044 2,888 31.9% 2,105 23.3% 1,726 19.1% 2,325 25.7% La Mesa 23,767 6,368 26.8% 4,468 18.8% 4,609 19.4% 8,322 35.0% Lemon Grove 8,465 2,316 27.4% 1,643 19.4% 1,730 20.4% 2,776 32.8% National City 15,870 6,436 40.6% 3,271 20.6% 2,848 17.9% 3,315 20.9% Oceanside 61,480 16,148 26.3% 11,348 18.5% 11,297 18.4% 22,687 36.9% Poway 15,797 2,418 15.3% 1,675 10.6% 2,281 14.4% 9,422 59.6% San Diego 490,219 119,014 24.3% 75,283 15.4% 82,616 16.9% 213,305 43.5% San Marcos 29,125 7,707 26.5% 4,212 14.5% 5,043 17.3% 12,163 41.8% Santee 19,517 3,493 17.9% 2,812 14.4% 3,683 18.9% 9,528 48.8% Solana Beach 5,750 883 15.4% 698 12.1% 854 14.9% 3,315 57.7% Unincorporated County 159,642 35,996 22.5% 26,493 16.6% 27,598 17.3% 69,555 43.6% Vista 30,629 9,016 29.4% 5,746 18.8% 6,112 20.0% 9,754 31.8%
Region 1,103,128 271,661 24.6% 173,760 15.8% 188,713 17.1% 468,995 42.5% Source: 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year, B19001 “Household Income In The Past 12 Months (In 2016 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)”
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 7
12 September 9, 2019 Item 24 A jurisdiction’s multiplier for a given income category is applied to the total RHNA units allocated to the jurisdiction to determine how many of its total RHNA units are allocated to that income category. Jurisdictions that have a higher percentage of existing households in a given income category than the region receive a downward adjustment toward the regional percentage, which results in a smaller share of the allocated housing units within that income category than if no adjustment were applied. Jurisdictions that have a lower percentage of households in a given income category than the region receive an upward adjustment toward the regional percentage, which results in a greater share of the allocated housing units within that income category than if no adjustment were applied. Table 5 below shows this inverse relationship by using plus (+) and minus (-) signs in the Adjustment (Adjust.) column. The regional percentages of household per income category are included in the first row and shaded in blue. The jurisdictions’ percentages of household per income category are included in the “Percent of Households” (% of HH) and shaded in grey.
Table 5: Determining an Equity Adjustment
Above Region Very Low 24.7% Low 15.5% Moderate 17.3% 42.5% Mod. Jurisdiction % of HH Adjust. % of HH Adjust. % of HH Adjust. % of HH Adjust. Carlsbad 16.3% + 10.8% + 13.8% + 59.1% - Chula Vista 25.0% - 15.4% + 17.5% - 42.0% + Coronado 16.8% + 12.3% + 16.1% + 54.9% - Del Mar 19.0% + 4.5% + 11.0% + 65.5% - El Cajon 37.8% - 17.5% - 17.0% + 27.7% + Encinitas 18.1% + 9.2% + 13.4% + 59.3% - Escondido 30.7% - 18.2% - 18.2% - 32.8% + Imperial Beach 31.9% - 23.3% - 19.1% - 25.7% + La Mesa 26.8% - 18.8% - 19.4% - 35.0% + Lemon Grove 27.4% - 19.4% - 20.4% - 32.8% + National City 40.6% - 20.6% - 17.9% - 20.9% + Oceanside 26.3% - 18.5% - 18.4% - 36.9% + Poway 15.3% + 10.6% + 14.4% + 59.6% - San Diego 24.3% + 15.4% + 16.9% + 43.5% - San Marcos 26.5% - 14.5% + 17.3% + 41.8% + Santee 17.9% + 14.4% + 18.9% - 48.8% - Solana Beach 15.4% + 12.1% + 14.9% + 57.7% - Unincorporated 22.5% + 16.6% - 17.3% + 43.6% - Vista 29.4% - 18.8% - 20.0% - 31.8% + Source: 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year, B19001 Data Source SANDAG used data from the 2012-2016 ACS 5-Year, Table B19001 “Household Income In The Past 12 Months (In 2016 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)” to determine the jurisdictions’ household breakdown among income categories. This dataset was also used by HCD to calculate the unit distribution across income category for the San Diego region’s RHNA Determination.
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 8
13 September 9, 2019 Item 24 Local Government Conditions The draft methodology was developed with input and recommendation from the Board of Directors, RHNA Subcommittee (a subcommittee of the SANDAG Board), the TWG (including planning directors from each jurisdiction and housing stakeholders), the SANDAG Regional Planning Committee (a policy advisory committee of the Board), and public stakeholders. Several meetings were held with each stakeholder group and meetings were open to the public. Attendees at each meeting provided information regarding the types of data SANDAG should use, assumptions that should be made, as well as information regarding conditions in their individual jurisdictions that should be taken into consideration. Jurisdictions and stakeholders also provided written comments during the process. There was general consensus at the meetings that the approach chosen should keep the draft methodology simple and easy to explain to the public. Nuanced adjustments that may have modified the methodology in marginal ways in relation to the overall objectives and factors were discussed and considered. Factors and adjustments that would have created a complicated formula, however, ultimately were not pursued since the draft methodology was developed with the intent to keep it transparent and understandable. A discussion of each stakeholder group and their major contributions to the development of the draft methodology is included below.
Board of Directors At its September 14, 2018, meeting, the Board was surveyed to determine each member jurisdiction’s priorities for the upcoming RHNA cycle, including which RHNA objectives and factors would be most important when determining the distribution of housing units in the region. The member jurisdictions requested that their initial set of priorities be further discussed by the TWG, which consists of the planning or community development director from each jurisdiction, among other members. The Board also directed the formation of a RHNA Subcommittee to review and provide input and guidance on potential policy and technical options for developing the RHNA methodology for allocation of housing units to each jurisdiction in the RHNA Plan. The Board received an update on the preliminary methodology in May 2019 and approved the release of this draft methodology for public comment at its July 26, 2019, meeting.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment Subcommittee In December 2018, the Board formed the RHNA Subcommittee, which was comprised of Board members from each SANDAG subregion to reflect the diversity of geography, jurisdiction size, and other attributes of member jurisdictions. To develop its recommendation, the RHNA Subcommittee explored options for how to build consensus around a RHNA methodology that complies with state law while best achieving the goals of the Board. The RHNA Subcommittee held six meetings prior to the Board release of the draft methodology. All meetings were open to the public. Critical direction provided by the RHNA Subcommittee included the following: ▪ Create a narrative around housing that promotes regional unity in addressing the housing need; ▪ Establish a framework that incorporates transit and jobs to further the objective of increasing transit use, reducing vehicle miles traveled and GHG emissions, and relieving traffic congestion ▪ Include an equity adjustment to ensure the allocation furthered fair housing and increased affordability in all cities and the County of San Diego ▪ Evaluate opportunities for the military installations within the region to provide housing for military and their families
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 9
14 September 9, 2019 Item 24 Regional Planning Technical Working Group The TWG is a SANDAG working group that consists of the planning or community development director from each jurisdiction and representatives from other single-purpose regional agencies, such as the transit operators. The TWG advises the Regional Planning Committee and Board on the development and implementation of San Diego Forward: The 2021Regional Plan, which includes, and must be consistent with, the RHNA plan. The TWG discussed and provided input on the development of the draft methodology at 11 meetings, including two workshops specifically focused on RHNA. Information on local government conditions provided by TWG members included: ▪ Preserved open space, agricultural lands, and airports and associated safety zones ▪ Universities and community colleges ▪ Military installations ▪ Low-wage jobs ▪ Voter requirements Feedback provided by TWG members for which there was general consensus that was incorporated into the draft methodology included: ▪ Prioritizing transit, with greater weight given to major transit investments (R&R stations) over local bus service ▪ Improving the job-housing relationship ▪ Encouraging the development of a mix of housing types across the region and addressing historical patterns of inequity in housing development
Regional Planning Committee The Regional Planning Committee (RPC) is one of the SANDAG policy advisory committees, which provides oversight for the preparation and implementation of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. The RPC discussed the RHNA process at two of their meetings. Information on local government conditions provided by RPC members included: ▪ Airport safety zones ▪ Housing development opportunities at major employment centers ▪ Sea level rise Feedback received from the RPC that informed the development of the draft methodology included: ▪ Aligning priorities for the RHNA methodology with priorities adopted by jurisdictions through other planning efforts such as climate action plans
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 10
15 September 9, 2019 Item 24 Regional Housing Needs Assessment Objectives and Factors
Objectives The draft methodology and allocation furthers the five objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584. 1. Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low-income households. Per state law, the draft methodology allocates units in all four income categories to each of the region’s 19 jurisdictions. The draft methodology does so equitably, ensuring each jurisdiction receives an allocation for low- and very low-income units, and further, allocating a higher share of low- and very-low units to jurisdictions that currently have a smaller share of low- and very low-income households than the regional share. State law requires jurisdictions to zone at higher densities to accommodate its low- and very low-income housing allocation. As jurisdictions plan for and build housing, the mix of housing types will increase. 2. Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient development patterns, and the achievement of the region’s GHG gas reductions targets provided by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 65080. The draft methodology prioritizes transit and jobs to encourage efficient development patterns and reduce GHG emissions. By allocating housing units based on these two factors, SANDAG sets a guiding principle for local jurisdictions to zone and build housing near transit and jobs. Transit and job centers are located in the urbanized areas of the region. Therefore, an allocation based on transit and jobs will lead to more infill development while protecting natural resources and open space. Because infill development does not rely on available space and can occur in areas that already have a dense population, the draft methodology supports provision of housing even in areas that are currently considered built-out. SANDAG’s GHG reduction target, as set by the California Air Resources Board, is to reduce the region’s per capita emissions of GHG from cars and light trucks by 15 percent by 2020, compared with a 2005 baseline. By 2035, the target is to reduce GHG emissions by 19 percent per capita. The draft methodology encourages the development of housing near jobs and transit, which will provide the region’s residents with opportunities to live where they work and/or readily access transit, which can facilitate shorter commutes, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and increase trip-taking by transit or alternative modes. 3. Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including an improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction. SANDAG conducted an analysis of the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction. The analysis shows that the number of low-wage jobs far exceeds the number of existing housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction. The draft methodology allocates 35 percent of the 171,685-unit regional housing need based on each jurisdiction’s share of existing regional total jobs to encourage development of housing near job centers so that jurisdictions can improve the jobs-housing relationship. The draft methodology’s Equity Adjustment (see Objective 4) also improves the balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 11
16 September 9, 2019 Item 24 jurisdiction by allocating a higher share of low- and very low-income housing units to jurisdictions that currently have a smaller share of low-and very low-income households than the regional share. 4. Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the countywide distribution of households in that category from the most recent ACS. This objective guided the development of the Equity Adjustment used to ensure the draft methodology will result in allocation of housing units to each of the income categories. This adjustment results in a jurisdiction receiving a lower proportion of its total housing units within an income category when it has a higher share of households within that income category compared to the region. This method shifts units across income categories, rather than adding units to a jurisdiction’s total housing unit allocation, allowing for a mix of housing types and affordability near transit and jobs. 5. Affirmatively furthering fair housing. For purposes of this section, “affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. During development of the draft methodology, SANDAG reviewed the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) 2019 Opportunity Map for the San Diego region. The TCAC map demonstrates how public and private resources are spatially distributed within the region. The map is part of a larger study that shows how communities with better air quality, higher educational attainment, and better economic indicators are communities that have higher “opportunity”, or pathways that offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement. The study finds that historically communities with higher opportunity – through plans, policies, and practices – may have systematically denied equal opportunity to low socioeconomic and minority populations. Areas of “low resource” and “high segregation & poverty” on the TCAC maps are also many of the same areas with a high concentration of low-income households in the San Diego region. The Equity Adjustment within the draft methodology addresses the disparities in access to resource-rich areas by providing housing opportunities for people in all income levels to reside in any given community. This is meant to foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The Equity Adjustment in the draft methodology assists in overcoming patterns of discrimination and transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity by allocating a higher proportion of low-income housing units to jurisdictions with a lower share of low-income households, which tend to be jurisdictions with a high concentration of resource-rich areas.
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 12
17 September 9, 2019 Item 24 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Opportunity Map
Factors In addition to furthering the objectives outlined above, state law requires that SANDAG consider several factors in the development of the draft methodology, to the extent sufficient data is available pertaining to each factor. See Government Code Section 65584.04(e). The RHNA factors and how each were considered in the development of the draft methodology are described below. 1. Each jurisdiction’s existing and projected jobs and housing relationship. This shall include an estimate based on readily available data on the number of low-wage jobs within the jurisdiction and how many housing units within the jurisdiction are affordable to low-wage workers as well as an estimate based on readily available data, of projected job growth and projected household growth by income level within each member jurisdiction during the planning period. The draft methodology prioritizes jobs as a factor in allocating the regional housing need. The jobs factor seeks to encourage development of housing near job centers so that jurisdictions can achieve greater jobs-housing balance. The jobs factor uses current data on existing jobs instead of a projection. Given the housing shortage within the region, it is critical that housing is built where existing jobs are located to begin to address the current jobs-housing imbalance. Although data for projected job and household growth by income level for the next Regional Plan update is not yet available, SANDAG used the most recent readily available data for projected job growth and projected household growth by income level within each member jurisdiction to conduct its analysis.
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 13
18 September 9, 2019 Item 24 SANDAG analyzed the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units affordable to low- wage workers in each jurisdiction. The analysis showed that the number of low-wage jobs far exceeds the number of existing housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction. The draft methodology is expected to increase the supply of affordable housing by allocating each jurisdiction low- and very low-income housing units. The draft methodology’s Equity Adjustment (see Objective 4) should also improve the balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction by allocating a higher share of low- and very low- income housing units to jurisdictions that currently have a smaller share of low- and very low-income households than the regional share. 2. The opportunities and constraints to development of additional housing in each member jurisdiction, including all of the following: a. Lack of capacity for sewer or water service due to federal or state laws, regulations or regulatory actions, or supply and distribution decisions made by a sewer or water service provider other than the local jurisdiction that preclude the jurisdiction from providing necessary infrastructure for additional development during the planning period. SANDAG notes that general plans for some jurisdictions may account for constraints to housing development arising from lack of capacity for sewer or water service. For example, rural areas may rely more heavily on well water and septic systems, which constrains housing development due to lack of sufficient infrastructure. For the draft methodology, however, the transit factor allocates housing units based on each jurisdiction’s share of regional rail and Rapid bus stations as well as major transit stops. Rail and Rapid bus stations are located in the region’s more developed areas where land uses generate enough ridership to support the investment to the transit infrastructure. Major transit stops also are located in the region’s urbanized areas and surrounded by land uses that support higher service frequencies. By prioritizing transit connectivity, the draft methodology encourages infill development in urban areas that are likely to have existing capacity for sewer or water service. b. The availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use, the availability of underutilized land, and opportunities for infill development and increased residential densities. The council of governments may not limit its consideration of suitable housing sites or land suitable for urban development to existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions of a locality but shall consider the potential for increased residential development under alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions. The determination of available land suitable for urban development may exclude lands where the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Department of Water Resources has determined that the flood management infrastructure designed to protect that land is not adequate to avoid the risk of flooding. The draft methodology is not constrained by existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions. Instead the draft methodology prioritizes transit and jobs, which aligns with several beneficial land use planning principles, such as promoting infill and increasing residential densities. The availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use, the availability of underutilized land, and opportunities for infill development and increased residential densities are accounted for due to the draft methodology’s use of the jobs and transit factors. When development of housing is promoted near transit and jobs in areas that are already more densely populated and developed than other areas of each jurisdiction, it allows the jurisdictions to focus on infill development that can occur without reliance on the availability of additional land, but instead on underutilized land that can be converted to uses that allow for increased residential density.
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 14
19 September 9, 2019 Item 24 The transit factor allocates housing units based on each jurisdiction’s share of regional rail and Rapid bus stations as well as major transit stops. Rail and Rapid bus stations are located in the region’s urbanized areas where land uses generate enough ridership to support the investment to the transit infrastructure. Major transit stops are also located in the region’s urbanized areas and surrounded by land uses that support higher service frequencies. By prioritizing transit, the draft methodology encourages infill development in areas that are suitable for urban development. A transit-focused methodology also promotes increased densities as jurisdictions must plan for housing in urban areas already served by high quality transit. The draft methodology aligns with the region’s priorities for growth. As shown in Figure 3.1, general plans in the San Diego region have focused growth and development in existing urban areas, preserved more land for habitat and open space, and looked to accommodate more housing near transit and key destinations.
Figure 3.1: Priorities for Growth Then and Now
c. Lands preserved or protected from urban development under existing federal or state programs, or both, designed to protect open space, farmland, environmental habitats, and natural resources on a long-term basis, including land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation that is subject to a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction that prohibits or restricts conversion to non-agricultural uses. General plans for individual jurisdictions may account for constraints to housing development arising from lands preserved or protected from urban development under existing federal or state programs. As shown in the figures below though, preserved land, farmland, and habitats are primarily in the eastern portion of San Diego County. The draft methodology focuses housing units in areas with access to transit and jobs, which are located in existing urbanized areas. Therefore, the draft methodology will not encourage encroachment upon open space areas.
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 15
20 September 9, 2019 Item 24
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 16
21 September 9, 2019 Item 24 d. County policies to preserve prime agricultural land, as defined pursuant to Section 56064, within an unincorporated and land within an unincorporated area zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation that is subject to a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction that prohibits or restricts its conversion to non-agricultural uses. The County of San Diego General Plan accounts for some constraints to housing development arising from policies to preserve prime agricultural land and incorporates local ballot measure provisions prohibiting or restricting the conversion of agricultural to non-agricultural uses. The draft methodology allocates housing units based on access to jobs and transit, which are located in existing urbanized areas. Therefore, this constraint is not expected to impact the draft methodology’s capacity to allow for development of additional housing. 3. The distribution of household growth assumed for purposes of a comparable period of regional transportation plans and opportunities to maximize the use of public transportation and existing transportation infrastructure. As shown in Figure 3.1, plans for growth are focused on the urbanized areas of the region. The draft methodology prioritizes transit as a factor – specifically high-quality transit, which is located in the urbanized area. The emphasis on transit allows local jurisdictions that have invested in transit the opportunity to maximize the use of existing transportation infrastructure. 4. Agreements between a county and cities in a county to direct growth toward incorporated areas of the county, and land within an unincorporated area zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation that is subject to a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of the jurisdiction that prohibits or restricts conversion to non-agricultural uses. Regional planning undertaken by SANDAG and its member agencies during the past 15 to 20 years, has focused the region’s growth in the western third of the region, primarily in its incorporated cities and near transit service (Figure 3.1). SANDAG has funded “smart growth” grants to encourage growth in incorporated areas of the county with sufficient density to support transit-oriented development. Consistent with this, the draft methodology prioritizes transit and jobs. High-quality transit service and a high concentration of the region’s jobs are located in the urbanized, incorporated areas of the region. Thus, the draft methodology is consistent with agreements between SANDAG, the County of San Diego, and the cities to develop public transportation infrastructure and supporting land uses away from areas that are zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation. Interjurisdictional agreements may account for some development constraints; however, those agreements are not expected to be in conflict with the draft methodology due to the prioritization of transit and jobs. 5. The loss of units contained in assisted housing developments, as defined in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, that changed to non-low-income use through mortgage prepayment, subsidy contract expirations, or termination of use restrictions. The data for these units is not readily available and varies by jurisdiction. The loss of assisted housing developments for lower income households is an issue that should be addressed by the jurisdictions when preparing their housing elements. 6. The percentage of existing households at each of the income levels listed in subdivision (e) of Section 65584 that are paying more than 30 percent and more than 50 percent of their income in rent. This factor was not included in state law at the time the HCD was making its determination on the regional housing need of the San Diego region, and sufficient data for this factor is not readily available. The San Diego region received its largest RHNA Determination this cycle, however, and it is expected that an influx of housing units in each income category will help alleviate the rent burden in the region.
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 17
22 September 9, 2019 Item 24 7. The rate of overcrowding. HCD used the 2012-2016 ACS to determine the rate of overcrowding in the San Diego region when making its RHNA Determination. HCD then compared the San Diego region’s overcrowding rate (6.43% of all households) to the national rate (3.34% of all households). To address the needs of overcrowding in the region, HCD’s RHNA Determination included an overcrowding adjustment of 3.09 percent, which added 38,700 housing units to the regional housing need to alleviate overcrowding in the region. Thus, this factor has already been accounted for in the draft methodology. 8. The housing needs of farmworkers. The draft methodology prioritizes jobs as a factor in allocating the regional housing need. Farmworkers are included in the data on existing jobs. Therefore, their housing needs along with the housing needs of all the region’s workers are considered. The draft methodology increases the supply of affordable housing by allocating each jurisdiction low- and very low-income housing units. The draft methodology’s Equity Adjustment (see Objective 4) also improves the balance between the number of low-wage jobs, including farming jobs, and the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction by allocating a higher share of low- and very low-income housing units to jurisdictions that currently have a smaller share of low-and very low-income households than the regional share. Although the low-income housing needs of farmworkers are unique given their low wages and job locations, the allocation expected from the draft methodology is expected to provide more low-income housing in every jurisdiction and accordingly should provide farmworkers the ability to live in more areas of the region and commute shorter distances to their seasonal jobs. 9. The housing needs generated by the presence of a private university or a campus of the California State University or the University of California within any member jurisdiction. The major universities and community colleges in the San Diego region are located in urban areas served by the existing transportation network. The City of San Diego is home to San Diego State University; University of California San Diego; University of San Diego; Point Loma Nazarene University; various smaller, private universities; and three community colleges: San Diego City College, San Diego Mesa College, and San Diego Miramar College. It also has the greatest share of the region’s transportation system in part because of transportation investments near universities and colleges located within its jurisdiction. Similarly, the cities of Chula Vista (Southwestern Community College), El Cajon (Cuyamaca College), Oceanside (Mira Costa College), and San Marcos (California State University San Marcos and Palomar College) have made transportation investments to improve access to transit near colleges and universities. By prioritizing transit, the draft methodology encourages housing development near existing transit and the key destinations that transit links, including the region’s universities and colleges. The draft methodology will result in additional housing units being allocated based on transit. This will help these jurisdictions address the housing needs of students, faculty, and staff beyond what these colleges or universities may provide. 10. The loss of units during a state of emergency that was declared by the Governor pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2), during the planning period immediately preceding the relevant revision pursuant to Section 65588 that have yet to be rebuilt or replaced at the time of the analysis. Jurisdictions report demolished units to the Department of Finance on an annual basis. Demolished units include those lost during a state of emergency. Between 2011 and 2018, states of emergency in the
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 18
23 September 9, 2019 Item 24 San Diego region declared by the Governor pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act, and in which homes were lost, include the following wildfires: the 2014 wildfires (Cocos Fire and Poinsettia Fire), 2017 Lilac Fire, and 2018 West Fire. HCD analyzed the most recent ten-year average rate of demolition within the San Diego region based on jurisdictions’ annual reports to the Department of Finance. The ten-year average rate of demolition in the San Diego region is 0.32 percent of the total housing stock. The RHNA Determination included HCD’s minimum replacement adjustment of 0.5 percent, which exceeds the region’s demolition rate. This adjustment added 6,255 housing units to the RHNA Determination. SANDAG does not have readily available data broken down by jurisdiction to use for this factor and has therefore relied on HCD’s data and adjustment to address this factor at a regional level. 11. The region’s GHG emissions targets provided by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 65080. SANDAG’s GHG reduction target, as set by the California Air Resources Board, is to reduce the region’s per capita emissions of GHG from cars and light trucks by 15 percent by 2020, compared with a 2005 baseline. By 2035, the target is to reduce GHG emissions by 19 percent per capita. The draft methodology encourages the development of housing near jobs and transit, which will provide the region’s residents with opportunities to live where they work and/or readily access transit, which can facilitate shorter commutes, reduce GHG emissions, and increase trip-taking by transit or alternative modes. 12. Any other factors adopted by the council of governments, that further the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584, provided that the council of governments specifies which of the objectives each additional factor is necessary to further. The council of governments may include additional factors unrelated to furthering the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584 so long as the additional factors do not undermine the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584 and are applied equally across all household income levels as described in subdivision (f) of Section 65584 and the council of governments makes a finding that the factor is necessary to address significant health and safety conditions. No other factors were included in the draft methodology. To the extent additional proposed factors are provided to the Board of Directors during the public comment period or public hearing that would lead to adjustments to the draft methodology, such proposals must not interfere with the achievement of any of the objectives or factors required in the RHNA statutes cited in this document. In addition, it must be shown that such factors are necessary to address significant health and safety concerns. Persons proposing that adjustments be made to the draft methodology based on new factors should include information establishing that the requirements in Section 65584.04(e)(12) will be met.
DRAFT 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Methodology | 19
24 September 9, 2019 Item 24 Attachment B
25 September 9, 2019 Item 24 From: City Clerk Mail Box Subject: FW: Red dot RHNA
Begin forwarded message:
From: james emerson
Please understand new SANDAG weighted voting rules: what San Diego wants San Diego gets. Scapegoating Ellie Haviland is pure political theater. It is time for Del Mar to stop mewling about what a burden it is to do our share in solving the middle class housing crisis in the state. In two cycles we have created ZERO affordable housing units—clearly that results in zero credibility in challenging state RHNA calculations. It is time for us to come together and actually achieve the practical strategies outlined in our Housing Element and the 22/5 plan. Let’s stop playing political games and start making things happen. Bud Emerson Sent from my iPad
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item 24 1 September 9, 2019 Item 24 2 September 9, 2019 Item 24 3 September 9, 2019 Item 24 4 September 9, 2019 Item 24 5 September 9, 2019 Item 24 6 September 9, 2019 Item 24 7 September 9, 2019 Item 24 8 September 9, 2019 Item 24 9 September 9, 2019 Item 24 10 September 9, 2019 Item 24 11 September 9, 2019 Item 24 12 September 9, 2019 Item 24 13 September 9, 2019 Item 24 14 September 9, 2019 Item 24 15 September 9, 2019 Item 24 16 September 9, 2019 Item 24 17 September 9, 2019 Item 24 18 September 9, 2019 Item 24 19 September 9, 2019 Item 24 20 September 9, 2019 Item 24 1 September 9, 2019 Item 24 2 September 9, 2019 Item 24 3 September 9, 2019 Item 24 4 September 9, 2019 Item 24 5 September 9, 2019 Item 24 6 September 9, 2019 Item 24 From: Camilla Rang
Dear City Council,
Only recently I have found out that there are discussions about Winston´s school´s rent and them being able to stay at Del Mar Shores at the size they are now. I hear that you want them to pay a rent of $250,000, while in reality they can only pay $125,000 to stay at the same student body and size they are now. If we charge them $250,000 they would either have to move or build out to a much larger size.
Please do not do this. We all love the Winston school and the chance they give these kids. You might say - well, wouldn't it be good to give more kids that same chance? You do not understand - the reason why they are so successful is because of its small size (and of course the amazing teachers and principal). Kids who have difficulties in focusing benefit from small classes and small schools with less distraction and no drama. We who live around Del Mar Shores love Winston school and would hate for it to have to move. We are proud of the Winston school and all that it does and stands for. They are us. Please, these kids are just regular kids, they do not have super rich parents so increasing their tuition is not an option. And building out the school is not really an option either because then they will lose all what their success is built upon - a small school with less distraction, no bullying, and enough time from the teachers for each kid.
Another loose rumor out there is that the City Council would want to build affordable housing at the site if Winston moves out. I know we need affordable housing and I am all for that, but not to the price to kick out kids who already need us by making sure Winston can stay. If Del Mar has to pay a fee because we do not have enough affordable housing, why don't we instead use those money to pay the difference between affordable housing rent and market rent at some willing land lords for the units needed to meet the quota? Perhaps Los Arboles or other landlords would be willing to make a deal with Del Mar?
I would love to come to the meeting but of some reason the meeting is during regular work hours so I cannot. Please consider my letter.
Sincerely,
Camilla Rang 159 10th street, Del Mar, CA 92014 858 353 1948
1
1 September 9, 2019 Item III-D Closed Session
September 9, 2019
VIA EMAIL to the City Clerk @ [email protected]
TO: Del Mar City Council City of Del Mar 1050 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014
FROM: Dr. Dena E. Harris Head of School and Executive Director
SUBJECT: Closed Session - Timeline Request
Over the last two years, The Winston School has invested multiple agency planning resources working with the community, the Del Mar City Council and the Shores Advisory Committee members. We have entered into several Memorandums of Understanding regarding joint-use planning and shared assets to mutually benefit all parties including the neighborhood, the community, and donors. Lastly, we have expended over $127,000 in plans which have remained in limbo.
For a small school, that represents a sizeable investment. We have received concerning feedback from the community regarding the future direction of the school if we are unable to reach an agreement. I have made it clear throughout this process that I do not want to build a larger school nearly doubling our current enrollment. I would like to keep a similar footprint.
Therefore, The Winston School is requesting additional time to continue working with the Del Mar City Council and community members to resolve the lease.
The Winston School 215 Ninth Street Del Mar California 92014 (858) 259-8155 1 September 9, 2019 Item III-D Closed Session