According to Mr. Jeff Murphy, the Director of Planning for Encinitas, in response to a Public Records Request, there are currently six projects considered “active density bonus projects” in the City. They would have a combined total of 74 units if the rules the BIA believes state law dictates were applied, but 66 units under the new rules adopted by the Encinitas City Council. That’s a difference of 8 units. This in a city of about 24,000 existing homes. Wow.
[...]
So, bottom line is that the City Council, bowing to some local pressure applied by folks that some would probably label as “NIMBY” (not in my back yard), is risking the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, and is at risk of paying to reimburse the attorney fees accrued by the BIA legal team over what amounts to 8 housing units? Wow wow.
That’s our tax dollars not available to fix Encinitas potholes and maintain the parks, or even fix up the recently acquired but very dilapidated Pacific View School site.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Stocks on density bonus: what's the big deal?
SD Rostra:
Like a bad wind blowing in off the wasteland. This sell out still thinks he is relevant and always aligned himself with those that could line his pockets. Go away carpetbagger - there is a discernible stench of corruption when you open that trap of yours.
ReplyDeleteAren't we kinda reaching here? Posting a month old Stocks' post. Trying to keep fueling the rage of many of your readers? There isn't really anything new or unexpected in Stocks' post. He thinks it dumb that the city changed the rules for calculating net acreage, with a few other minor tweaks, and is vigorously defending it (or was, as we now know the council recently decided to begin negotiations). Are we surprised by this?
ReplyDeleteCity council never changed the way net acreage is calculated. Planning Director Jeff Murphy said an ordinance was needed. When he brought it to the council, they failed to adopt it.
DeleteThe council did establish rounding down on base density, a larger size for an affordable unit, and a financial pro forma for concessions or waivers. It was enough to make the BIA sue, even though it's a SLAPP lawsuit.
The fact that AB 744 clearly states that ALL density calculations will be rounded up shows that the council was not wrong in making the change in rounding. The aim of AB 744 as a proposed modification of the Density Bonus law is to "clarify" the law.
The council reestablished rounding down the initial net acreage for density bonus projects to conform to the zoning code. The planning department had previously determined that, partially based on a letter from the sponsor of the most recent density bonus legislation, all density calculations involving a density bonus project would be rounded up. The current legislation's language is a bit murky on this and AB 744 is intended to clear it up.
DeleteWhether or not a judge would side with the city or BIA on the current language interpretation won't be put to the test if the city follows through on negotiating a settlement with the BIA. It doesn't help that the city has failed to update its density bonus ordinance as required by the legislation.
You've got it exactly backward, 2:26. Patrick Murphy's memo of 2003? 2005? stated that base density rounds DOWN. That later P,naming Dept employees ignored that until detected last year does not support your erroneous claim.
DeleteA) our zoning code says round down
DeleteB) the referenced "sponsor" was convicted of housing law fraud
C) the uncertified HEU has nothing to do with the city's written policy to round down
D) the BIA is a developer-backed, greed-driven attack on Encinitas. Let's see 'em take on LA for their round down on base density policy. Ah, I thought not.
3:18 PM
DeleteThis does get tedious. In a March 24, 2009 "Method of Calculating Density" memo, based on interpretations in AB 2280, the department revised its procedure when calculating the initial net acreage to round up when the project was a density bonus development. It replaced a September 26, 2005 memo which directed staff to round down all initial net acreage density calculations including density bonus projects. Once the initial net density was calculated, the 2005 memo directed density bonus project calculations to round up. Planning staff did not ignore policy.
7:42 PM From the LA Times:
"Democratic State Sen. Roderick D. Wright said Monday that he will resign from office effective Sept. 22-- bowing to pressure three days after a judge sentenced him to 90 days in jail on felony perjury and voting fraud charges for lying about living in his Senate district when he ran for office in 2008."
Not housing law fraud unless you count lying about where you live housing fraud. Besides, what does the fact that the AB 1866 sponsor was convicted for something totally unrelated to the legislation have to do with whether to believe him when he describes the intent of his legislation? You're grasping a straws.
11:41,
DeleteThe commentary was also in the April print edition of the widely distributed Seaside Courier.
Hence, relevant.
12:38 PM
DeleteThe April print edition? When is it published? The beginning of the month I would imagine and this was posted on April 25. Besides, who cares what Stocks thinks these days. He's been out of office for several years. This is just throwing out some red meat to sustain the rage.
If you want to have fun, go rip him on Rostra. He always responds. It's a good time...
DeleteJerome is playing numbers games. Here's how it works:
ReplyDeleteHe starts with the conclusion, that the density bonus code changes result in changes that are immaterial, and not worth fighting in court.
To support the confusion, he knows he needs to come up with a small number that represents the difference between the old rules and the new. So the first thing he does is ignore time. The code changes do not apply just today, but also tomorrow and potentially for many years to come. He excludes the cumulative effect over time by focusing only on the current project pipeline. This decision, of course, yields a smaller number, which is exactly what he is looking for to support the conclusion he started with.
Next, he compares the eight unit difference with the entire inventory of housing built over a hundred years. So the effect of time on unit construction only counts in the context of making the difference look small.
In fact, he buries the headline. By his own math, the new code rules reduce unit construction in the current pipeline by 11%. Carried forward into the future, reducing the unit capacity of development in Encinitas by 11% is huge. If we had 11% less units constructed over the last hundred years, then we wouldn't have 24,000 housing units. We would have 21,600, or 2,640 fewer than we have today.
It makes a big difference. You know how you can tell? Because Stocks friends at the BIA don't think it's immaterial, do they?
--FP.
Go away $tock$. You are history and no one cares about what you have to say.
ReplyDeleteHow many here would have been aware of what Stocks wrote a month ago if this Blog didn't bring it up. Basically, Stocks has gone away and his month old post at SD Rostra is irrelevant. Who cares.
DeleteWhy it's featured here is beyond me.
2:17,
DeleteThe commentary was also in the April print edition of the widely distributed Seaside Courier.
Hence, relevant.
The SC published the Stocks article three weeks ago, which is long before the City Council had decided to settle the BIA lawsuit if that, in fact, is what happened in closed session.
ReplyDeleteThe point is Stocks could have had no way to know the outcome of the case or what costs the city might incur. His financial outrage is based purely on his assumption.
$tock$ is an outrage. A now-irrelevant outrage.
Delete$tock$- the ultimate RINO.
ReplyDeleteNo true republican would vote to increase huge pensions for all the City Workers killing a city's financial future.
$tock$ is the worst thing that ever happened to Encinitas. So glad the public was educated on what a tool this fool really is…..
Total sell out!
Now he's probably milking everyone on their insurance. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
Delete$tock$ would have been reelected had not the power trust decided to run Muir as an alternative backup. $tock$ still came in 4th place, which is incredible considering his pathetic record on the council. I think the Encinitas electorate would put a seagull on the council, given the lack of discrimination evidenced to date. Come to think of it, a seagull might be a better choice!
DeleteThat 'his lowness' continues to believe he has anything positive to contribute to our community is completely delusional on his part. His value these days only shows his vision has caused years of damage to progress beyond what he has fomented upon our town.
ReplyDeleteThat he shows up in the Courier along with other similar interests like Gaspar Medical, Harwood Properties, Assreams New Encintias Network is no mistake. Someone suggested boycotting these listed partners and that would be a good thing but lets let these business owners know why and give them a chance to cut their ties with this sleaziest of operators in our midst.
There are some business owners on our 101 who surprisingly are listed as his supporters and I cannot believe they are a part of his organization. If they are open today during the street faire I hope to ask them directly for some clarification.
I guess I am hoping for a response that they were on board at one time when he represented the chamber of commerce but those days are long gone when Andreen had any relevance.
Gaspar "medical"??? That is an abuse of the term - more like University of Phoenix drop outs. Maybe they should have worked the street faire with the other hawkers.
ReplyDeleteThe Courier is owned by Stocks Crony and former perennial candidate Alice Jacobson....
Delete