[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6668002,"mediaKeyId","2247179-5d59111b436e3c863941b3978d14d458","parentId",2247179,"title","Planning commissioners review RHNA progress, urge proactive strategies and ask subcommittee to refine recommendations","audioSeconds",10324,"startMs",1289000,"endMs",11613000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2247179-5d59111b436e3c863941b3978d14d458&start=1289&end=11613","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2247179-5d59111b436e3c863941b3978d14d458/thumbnail_1289000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6668002/Encinitas/San-Diego-County/California/Planning-commissioners-review-RHNA-progress-urge-proactive-strategies-and-ask-subcommittee-to-refine-recommendations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668002-a46886e90bdd3ef4dee7e39fd521af8f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174082&Signature=SJC9xzd-KwuMNRihvuxxnIi96q98TO1fZNNoY~7I6IK0tdmNjDl27NCFTsEi34SCQjEnZme598yTuG-YvCa6bdS1bl1K5MSOPGtfMipvYjrZBD4A50SNa36VucbryF40AEFd13exTcOT2vKWkk07QjmaofxwJsGqBPfchiPffuNFB~~tB1epRITb14ekhqXgZrh5lBLCu0QSHDL24-bQOz3RQD3g4P65VF76kMqehUe2m7LOMMFBKmRY6A9aAm88U9sog5Vh2wZGbj9zzENpCDvzFjkLYc8ZWRw0dGHKIX5IPNQQcK3hpQJvrJnNaB~TXWgQPqju68lIieNPbB~afA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Encinitas, CA","date","2025-02-07T06:15:03.257Z","article","The Planning Commission on Feb. 6 reviewed a subcommittee report on the city’s progress toward meeting RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) affordable‑housing targets and discussed recommended next steps, including issuing targeted requests for proposals (RFPs) on public parcels, pursuing public‑private partnerships (P3s), and exploring community land trusts and smaller unit types. Commissioners asked the subcommittee to refine the report and return with a shorter, prioritized draft to forward to the City Council.

Commissioners Susan (subcommittee co‑lead) and Bob (subcommittee co‑lead) presented the draft review and said staff produce a RHNA “tracker” but the subcommittee had compiled an independent spreadsheet to clarify which approved projects provide below‑market units and which do not. The presenters told the commission the city’s current mix of projects yields what one presenter called an “80/20” pattern—many market‑rate units and relatively few deed‑restricted low‑ or very‑low‑income units—and they urged the commission to consider alternative approaches to generate a higher share of affordable units without large‑scale upzoning of vacant residential land.

“Is there a basis? Would there really be 2,016 of these above moderate?” one presenter asked while discussing projected above‑moderate units shown on the spreadsheet. The presenters proposed several approaches: issue RFPs for city‑ or agency‑owned parcels (for example, North County Transit District properties or city lots); consider public‑private partnerships and community land trusts that retain land ownership while selling or leasing housing; pursue smaller unit types or “micro” units; and pilot on‑demand transit or ride‑share services to reduce required parking and lower construction cost.

Public comment reflected a range of views. Scott Campbell, who said he reviewed HCD’s public dashboard, argued the city is performing well against state averages and urged caution before aggressive actions: “As a city, we're … doing really well. Let's stop stressing out.” Bob Kent, a public speaker who cited local market data, said rent and displacement pressures are real and urged the commission to pursue proactive solutions and to present the Affordable Housing Task Force report to council. Ellen Burr asked commissioners to clarify whether proposed projects could apply income or occupation set‑asides, saying financing arrangements sometimes require tailored occupant criteria. Rachel Graves said she worried the scope of the ad hoc work risked duplicating the Affordable Housing Task Force and asked for greater transparency about the committee’s role.

During deliberations commissioners emphasized several practical constraints: rezoning certain public parcels could trigger a vote under the city’s initiative (Prop A) or require long timelines; funding and financing for deed‑restricted projects typically require complex capital stacks (tax credits, grants and subordinated loans); and state laws (for example, density bonus and recent ADU/land‑use changes) shape what the city can and cannot require of private developers. Staff clarified that existing naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), such as mobile‑home parks and privately held small units, cannot be counted forward toward RHNA targets; RHNA counting requires permitted/new units or deed‑restricted affordable units, and the city’s annual progress reports and no‑net‑loss tracking are the official records used for state reporting.

Outcome and next steps
Commissioners did not forward a final package to the City Council. Instead, by consensus the commission directed the ad hoc subcommittee (Commissioners Susan and Bob) to revise and substantially shorten the draft, prioritize recommended actions, and return with a refined version for further commission consideration and possible transmission to the City Council. Staff confirmed the city already files the annual progress report with HCD and maintains no‑net‑loss tracking; commissioners asked staff to help verify project lists and data used by the subcommittee.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Encinitas Planning Commission Meeting Live Stream 02/06/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Encinitas Planning Commission reviewed a subcommittee report on the city’s progress toward RHNA affordable‑housing goals and asked the subcommittee to refine and prioritize recommendations before sending them to the City Council.","taxTitle","Encinitas, San Diego County, California","taxId",3828,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6668006,"Planning commission approves facade changes for 777 Second Street mixed‑use project",953,348000,1301000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2247179-5d59111b436e3c863941b3978d14d458&start=348&end=1301","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2247179-5d59111b436e3c863941b3978d14d458/thumbnail_348000.jpg","/articles/6668006/Encinitas/San-Diego-County/California/Planning-commission-approves-facade-changes-for-777-Second-Street-mixeduse-project","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668006-ac39f5b9cbd310d3eb64c3593cf4dba2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174082&Signature=ixpSSgTGuppXf-ISi25-uffM39RnhkPHGOJeK5BpecP8Ahw~OqHM5bYYqK0rua9jnMUtFFTB4-0HePRGdHujhui2FZCLCVShk4tw9Ps2MlLYxDVnFDJQITQActdOgl273b-XPfsuOPttH8veV50nFxLDAKZCvpbfc2XgVOwXXvi40esttGnCYhCaZBw5MEnZl5pzNu3CoZOfok1C98gdpOH3Um-anZoWQiOtCaOBrq0MdB-ryw1B1abFvkT2VOR9tgWVYANC4MFJF1wSgckLJ-XJADo70hfJON05K3wpa-zVDh2cnlODo5QhI33aS112bmGLNjPKnMzeOTbHH5zt5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Encinitas Planning Commission on Feb. 6 approved a design review permit and associated coastal development permit for the 777 Second Street Mixed‑Use Complex, a previously permitted project in the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan area. Staff told commissioners the changes before the commission are primarily façade and storefront modifications and courtyard landscaping adjustments; staff recommended the commission adopt the draft resolution of approval.

Takoma Eastland, an associate planner for the city, said the project site is at 771–795 Second Street at the corner of Second and West G Street and lies within the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan. The original discretionary approval (Planning Commission resolution PC 2021‑146) authorized construction of a mixed‑use building with nine residential units and about 2,400 square feet of commercial space; later building permit BLDM0191042022 authorized construction and the conversion of two interior storage spaces to ADUs. Eastland told the commission staff had determined the proposed exterior alterations are exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (existing facilities) and section 15061(b)(3) (no significant effect) and that the revised design met the city’s current objective design standards and the minimum score on the objective design standards scorecard.

Under the proposed changes, Eastland said the project’s landscaping area increases by 5 square feet (from 971 to 976 square feet) and decorative paving increases by 309 square feet (from 252 to 561 square feet), raising the site’s landscape percentage from 12.2% to 15.2%. Facade changes include modified storefronts and entries, new trellises and canopies, and material changes (wood, brick, stucco and masonry). The applicant held a citizen participation meeting on Oct. 7, 2024; staff said no members of the public attended and no written concerns were received during the noticed public hearing period.

Commissioners’ remarks during deliberations described the changes as largely cosmetic and consistent with the site. Commissioners noted the project had previously received a density bonus and related waivers tied to inclusion of an affordable unit. Commissioners also clarified that the building permit conversion of two storage spaces to ADUs brings the project total to 11 dwelling units (nine originally approved plus two ADUs), and several commissioners said they would prefer that change to be more prominently called out in future staff reports for transparency.

A motion to approve the staff‑recommended resolution passed by a 5–0 vote. The formal action approved the design review permit and coastal development permit for the proposed façade and site changes as described in the staff report.

What the commission approved: the revised elevations, storefront and entry modifications, trellises/canopies, courtyard landscaping adjustments and related site elements; staff concluded the project satisfies the city’s objective design standards and recommended approval.

Votes at a glance
- Consent calendar (items 6A and 6B: Beachside Bar & Grill resolution; Dec. 5 meeting minutes): approved by voice vote, 5–0.
- 777 Second Street Mixed‑Use Complex (Multi‑75612024): design review permit and coastal development permit approved, 5–0.

Next steps
The approval allows the applicant to proceed with the approved façade revisions, subject to the conditions in the adopted resolution and any required building permits. Staff and several commissioners recommended clearer disclosure in future staff reports of any post‑approval changes (for example, ADU conversions) so members of the public can readily see a project’s current unit count and permit history.","The Encinitas Planning Commission unanimously approved a design review permit and associated coastal development permit for changes to the previously approved 777 Second Street mixed‑use building, including façade alterations and conversion of two storage rooms to accessory dwelling units (ADUs).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commissioners review RHNA progress, urge proactive strategies and ask subcommittee to refine recommendations

Planning commission approves facade changes for 777 Second Street mixed‑use project