Wednesday, January 20, 2016

1/20/15 City Council meeting open thread

The current city council has continued prior councils' practice of not providing written summary minutes of council discussion, but only "action minutes" which state the outcomes. Encinitas Undercover will provide a forum for observers to record what occurs at each council meeting.

Please use the comments to record your observations.

122 comments:

  1. Desert Rose News - No surprise but the California Supreme Court has declined to consider the appeal filed by Everett Delano. The court of appeal ruling stands.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Desert Rose. From meadow to ghetto.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice rhyme but Desert Rose is currently a stables and it won't become a ghetto.

      Delete
    2. From cow in a stable to tower of Babel.

      Delete
    3. From stable to hack attorney fable.

      Delete
  3. Sabine had a brief moment of imagined victory when he prematurely and gleefully half rose out of his seat to tell someone trying to speak on behalf of an out-of-country project appellant "You can't speak! You are not the appellant!!! Must've been a sad, sad moment for Sabine when the applicant said he had no problem with stand ins for the appellant. Hehehe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Catch his freudian slip at end of last council meeting, guy obviously thinks he runs the councils show.

      Delete
  4. Omg Shaffer talking without coming up for air when will it stop???

    ReplyDelete
  5. When you turn off your reception. That was easy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shaffer, unfamiliar with the term "precedent," doesn't see an issue with code-violating project approved, of course, by "staff."

    Developer advised, of course, by "staff." Any chance the project the developer's "been working on for two years" fell under the imaginative oversight of Jeff Murphy, then-Planning Director? You betcha.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer approved an illegal code violating building permit making the illegal encroachment into side yard setbacks a by right situation for all property owners in the city of Encinitas.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Call the Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer and tell them thank you. You can't wait to have the house next door build more onto their house closer to your property line.

    ReplyDelete
  9. These appeals are time consuming and take away from what council needs to be dealing with. There has to be a better way to deal with these. Maybe an appeals commission solely for this purpose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We agree. Let's have a Planning Department that follows its own rules.

      Delete
    2. 10:06 PM
      Blakespear would like that. First, she would have you go to her mediation class. If that didn't work, you would be required to go to an appeals commission. If the appeals commission loved the developer and voted to deny the appeal - guess what Blakespear - it can be appealed to the council.

      Delete
    3. 12:21 Some of the council love developers. So, what's the difference?

      Delete
  10. These appeals would be greatly reduced in number if staff would just play it straight and follow the code.

    Don't make the mistake of blaming the messenger (appellant), demand the Planning Dept. clean house instead. You could start with Murphy's right-hand rubber stamper, Manjeet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, give Manjeet a two week vacation and tell him don't come back. The stench given off by the council, Manjeet and his planners won't go away.

      Delete
  11. 10:06 PM
    Appeals is part of the job of couoncilperson. Shaffer doesn't understand the municipal code and couldn't care less if she wrecks Encinitas. Blakespear is a Scaredy–cat in making decisions that would protect the community and not allow builders to violate the code. Kranz - who knows how he thinks or if he thinks.
    Vote out Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer, that's the better way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. All five of them need to be replaced. They are a clueless bunch. Par for Encinitas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harumph. Harumph harumph.

      Delete
  13. The pop out problem is very old. The precedent was set a long time ago. There are pop outs all over old Encinitas and Cardiff. I don't know how you change the interpretation of the rules without taking away "property rights". I wonder if you could explicitly change the code to ban pop outs, and offer a transition period. People with 25' and 50' wide lots count on pop outs and decks in their setbacks, but these come very close to the neighbors property line. How to change this interpretation without lawsuits?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pop out "problem" was new to the planning dept and council.

      If there had been precedent on which to sue - gosh, which developer with an itchy trigger finger wrote that? - the planners would have whipped out example after example. They did not.

      Delete
    2. I'm not a developer! Just a resident who sees popouts everywhere. In Cardiff the setback is 5'. All you have to do is drive around and see pop outs that come close to the property line. You see the same thing with front setbacks. These are often in the form of bay windows that pop out (vs. go all the way to the ground). I've seen entire kitchen counters in pop outs. The planners are lazy and not on top of things. They don't want to go to the trouble of finding evidence. I'm against this form of cheating, just noting that it's an old problem.

      Delete
    3. 10:46 AM
      Legally, these are encroachments into the side yard setbacks.
      The planning director literally allowed the developer to build another house wall outside the main wall for kitchen cabinets, 12 and 14 feet long window seats, a wet bar, and other encroachments. Have you seen five window seats, some 12 to 14 feet long covering the house? Have you seen a 12 foot wet bar encroach into the side yard setback? This was all called by right by the planning director. Any property owner in the city can do it now with only a building permit. Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer approved it.

      Delete
    4. And Tony stupid enough to have voted to set the precedent, then says he wants an agenda item to discuss whether encroachments should be allowed in future. Sabine had to tell him in so many words: too late, dude. You screwed up that vote.

      Shaffer guaranteed we would not start to see these everywhere (didn't know she was clairvoyant) and Blakespear,frightened as usual of voting outside the pack, went along.

      Delete
  14. Josh Addison designed homes all through Cardiff with pop-outs and cantilevered patios. It's a signature of his design work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His "signature" has been done and anyway violates code.

      Delete
  15. 9:33 AM

    These are encroachments into side yard setbacks. The municipal code has restrictions on encroachments. Using the words "pop outs" suggest a legal use which it isn't. Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer legalized an open season of illegal encroachments for every property owner in Encinitas. The builder wanted to live with his family and attorney wife on this nonconforming lot with illegal encroachments. The builder threatened a lawsuit and had contacted the attorneys that represented the BIA against the city if he didn't get his building permit. The builder also wanted the council to give him special treatment. Read his letter.
    This isn't a case of decks encroaching into side yard setbacks. The developer pushed out the house sidewalls to put in kitchen cabinets, a wet bar, 12 feet long "window seating" extending out from the house and other encroachments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read the code (cut and pasted below). I suppose the issue is how you define livable space. I don't understand why they don't count seats as livable space. Perhaps they think of anything without a floor underneath as not livable space? If so seats, bars, and cabinets would not create livable space.

      Here's what the code says:
      Architectural features of the primary structure, such as porches, steps, eaves, awnings, chimneys, decks, balconies, stairways, wing walls, or bay windows, window seats, fireplaces, planters, roof overhangs and other architectural projections which do not create additional livable area may project into any front or rear yard not more than four feet. Such projections are permitted to project into any side yard area no more than that identified below:

      Delete
    2. 12:23 PM
      Examine the use of the architectural features -

      porches, steps, decks, balconies, attached outside to the house are open and not enclosed - although they could be used as sleeping areas

      bay windows - instead of a flat window as part of the wall the window is curved out

      window seats - what is the size of the standard window seat - 6-7 feet the length of a stand-alone couch from the furniture store? This builder has a 12 feet long "window seat" on the first floor.
      On the second floor on one side of the house are two "window seats" with one being almost 14 feet in length and the other 15 feet in length. In between on the second floor is a third "window seat" of 8 feet long with a 4 feet long desk area.
      If the developer "decides" not to build-in a window seat until later he had more room for couches, chairs, tables because of more floor space. All encroaching into the side yard setbacks. The planning director approved this. Now Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer have approved it.

      Delete
    3. What specific language in the code limits the number and/or length of window seats?

      I'm all for changing the code to limit the dimensions of projections objectively, but I would not support arbitrary interpretations like "length of a stand-alone couch from the furniture store."

      Which couch? Which furniture store? Who gets to determine the imaginary dimensions of a theoretical prototypical couch?

      The code may suck, but this application has to be measured against the code in force at the time of application.

      The citation above seems pretty clear. As relates to (hee hee) the window seats, I'm not sure council had any choice but to approve.

      Delete
    4. The projections will also included kitchen cabinets/cooktop, laundry, bath 1 and bath 2 & tub. Already mentioned are wet bar, desk, and closets. Quite a list which staff does not consider habitable area.

      Delete
    5. 3:24 PM
      Those were examples. The code doesn't suck. The planning director sucks. Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer suck. Kranz, Blakespear, and Shaffer totally ignored the appeal issue of the planning director making discretionary decisions and calling them ministerial to avoid any public notification or involvement. That sucks.

      Delete
    6. The other uses for popouts other than window seats sound bogus, but the window seats are clearly allowed in the code with no restriction on number or length.

      Here's a little thought experiment: in your house, think about your desk(s). Think about your cabinets, wet bar, cooktop, etc., and ask yourself if those things would be included in a calculation of your "habitable" square footage. Of course they are. So how can it be that the same desk occupies habitable square footage at one house, but does not at another.

      Delete
    7. Here's the City of Encinitas definition of habitable space, "HABITABLE SPACE shall mean a space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas, are not considered habitable space."

      Delete
    8. And Kranz, Shaffer, Blakespear voted in favor of the developer why?

      Delete
  16. 1:49 PM
    Forgot the "window seats" on the other side of the second floor. One is almost 7 feet in length and the other is almost 8 feet in length..

    ReplyDelete
  17. So how about less trophy projects and more infrastructure projects.

    How about getting Quiet zones 10 years after San Diego and San Clemente.

    How about quite getting distracted with trophy projects live PV and the life guard fun house.

    F'k this chatter about 2 or 3 feet for one property.

    How about starting to focus? GEEZE!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. 10:50 you might think about calling it a day and get some sleep before you end up with an unnecessary coronary.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Once again this council ignores our current zoning because the appellants garnered sympathy by bringing their much too young children with them. What an obvious ploy and it worked. Simpletons one and all.

    We now, once again, have a precedent set that violates zoning without public say.

    By the way, this particular project allows the roof line to extend to within three feet of the property line. Why have any set backs at all? I suppose now we will be dealing with many more of the same.

    Shame on you Kranz, Shaffer, and Blakespere. Look at what your lack of courage to do the right thing has wrought. The blame, as usual goes back to Planning for even considering this a viable project. Council bends over and thanks staff for greasing the way.

    The property owners knew full well what they were buying into with a 30' wide lot and 10' set backs, leaving a 10' wide ground floor. I am reminded of the shotgun houses back east but none of those were ever 10' wide. Narrow and deep, but 10' wide, never. Only here in Encinitas would this be considered developable. Bump outs my ###.

    We will not see the last of this, thanks to Tony, Lisa and Catherine. It is going to be a long year ahead with you guys.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. Read the code citiation above, anf the official definition of "habitable space." Whoever designed this house knew the code, and took maximum advantage of it.

      The code should change.

      Delete
    2. I agree with 7:12. The code is not tightly worded, which allowed this. Council had no choice. Going the other way would have led to a lawsuit.

      Regarding "un-buildable lots" the CA Supreme Court has ruled the city must allow variances to setbacks to allow a lot to be built upon. There is tiny triangle shaped house in Del Mar (on 101 by one of the stop signs) that was allowed to be built based on this ruling. Basically, Del Mar was forced to give variances on set backs. This does not relate to this case, but just wanted to note this regarding the comment above.

      Delete
    3. 8:34 AM
      You are missing the point. The planning director make a discretionary decision. He made an interpretation on what was livable space and that there can be unlimited projections encroaching into the side yard setbacks.

      Delete
    4. Let's be clear here. The definitions of "livable space" and "habitable space" are not in the Encinitas Municipal Code. Staff pulled the definition of "habitable space" out of state documents. You can find the reference buried in the Agenda Report near the end. Staff misled the council by implying is was in the Municipal Code. "Livable space" and "habitable space" mean the same thing in plain English.

      Deputy Planning Director Manjeet Ranu made a discretionary decision on how to interpret what is in and not in the Municipal Code. He pushed his discretion to an absurd extent.

      A designed house could easily have been built on the small lot in Olivenhain without projections. It would only have been smaller. The owner/builder wanted more, and the council gave it to him.

      Staff didn't want the project to go before the Planning Commission knowing that it would have been modified. Staff called it a ministerial decision to try to sneak it through.

      Delete
    5. Huh? The code above is pretty clear--there is no limit on the number of projections in the code. And the definition of "habitable space" is also pretty clear. I don't think he made any subjective judgement calls, he simply read the code and the permit application, and found no conflict between the two.

      Just because we don't like the result (and I don't either) it doesn't automatically mean that someone did something wrong.

      In my humble opinion, this code on setback encroachments should cap the total allowable number of encroachments at three, and also cap the total volume of all encroachments at x cubic feet.

      But the code doesn't say that, and you can't go making shit up ad hoc that isn't in the code because you don't like a specific project.

      This clown found a loophole, and went nuts with it. Lucky him. Now we should close the loophole before others start designing houses brisling with warts and tumors because of a poorly written code.

      Delete
    6. EMC, Encinitas Municipal Code, includes 30.04.010 Definitions, which lists habitable space as quoted above:

      "HABITABLE SPACE shall mean a space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas, are not considered habitable space."

      There may also be similar language in statutory law, but this definition is straight out of our municipal code, as well.

      Delete
    7. 2:39 AM
      In the Encinitas municipal code is this definition that the planning director should have used:

      "LIVING UNIT means a unit that provides the basic amenities for everyday living and includes but is not limited to a sleeping area, closet space, restroom, sitting/entertainment area, incidental kitchen facilities and/or common dining and recreational facilities."

      Which definition did the planning director use?
      The one where he could justify his decision to allow all the encroachments into the side yard setbacks.

      Delete
  20. Alert Alert. Encinitas Library renamer is racist supporter of apartheid Israel and just paid to have a library built in his name in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories thus further expanding the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians off their own land.
    See the You Tube video https://youtu.be/bYJZS0n6LVk titled
    The Steven & Patricia Mizel Library- dedication

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6:26 - There is someone else in town with no spelling errors who harbors more hatred?

      Delete
    2. So the council thinks that for $375,000 a year for four years from Mizel we should put our library into the international political area. The council already commented that the naming rights are for Mr. Mizel to do something nice for Mrs. Mizel.

      Delete
  21. 7:12 AM

    You are missing the point. The planning director made a discretionary decision. He made an interpretation on what was not livable space but habitable space (two different definitions) with a definition that isn't in the Encinitas Municipal code. The planning director also decided that there can be unlimited projections encroaching into the side yard setbacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "interpretation" BS needs to stop. The council needs to direct the City Manager to get her departments under control, but I don't see that happening under any of the five. It's all working just a little too conveniently for all concerned, excepting residents.

      Delete
  22. I have no dog in this fight, but I have to say: "Holy Smokes"!!! That is going to be a hell of a difficult project to build, and to live next to while it's under construction! When did these people buy the property? Too bad the Quirk's didn't get a chance to buy that parcel - all of this could have been avoided. Looks like the first block party is on the new owners!!

    - The Sculpin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Quirks tried on several occasions over the years to buy, but phone calls were not returned.

      The property owners were going for the gold, so held out. An "interpretive" planning department came through yet again for the developer.

      Too bad your assumption was wrong, Sculp.

      Delete
    2. Sorry 1:53, but which assumption was wrong? If phone calls were never returned, they never had the chance to buy the parcel, did they?

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    3. Your meaning was obvious, Sculp. Take a break.

      Delete
    4. Sculp...Full of it's self....

      Delete
  23. What does the following mean?

    Encinitas Municipal Code Chapter 30.01.020.A (Interpretation Provisions) indicates that if necessary, the Director of Planning and Building may render an administrative interpretation through a noticed public hearing of the Planning Commission. However, the Director found that a Planning Commission interpretation was not necessary based upon the provisions outlined in Section 30.16.010.E.8 (Architectural Projections) of the Municipal Code and the Building Code. The Director properly determined that sufficient direction has been provided by the zoning and Building Code language to interpret that the project is consistent with the Municipal Code and Building Code.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It means if there is ambiguity in the code, the Planning Director can declare a specific interpretation that shall be applied uniformly in all subsequent cases. The public process used to craft, deliberate, and formalize an interpretation is through an agenda item of a public Planning Comission meeting.

      In this case, what folks wanted him to do was to find a limits to the number, size, and purpose of setback encroachments where none exist in the code.

      This isn't the Planning Director making a subjective decision to allow unlimited pop outs. It's a Planning Director who simply observed that the code does not provide any support for such a limit. If he decided to reject the permit application based on an imagined limit to projections that doesn't exist in code, it's instant victory for the builder with legal costs in court.

      Delete
    2. 1:10 PM
      No, that wasn't what folks wanted the planning director to do. They wanted him to send the project to the planning commission for the interpretation. The planning director ignored the public process. That was the appeal.

      Delete
    3. Exactly. Folks want transparency in city affairs, but sadly, to a person, every councilmember forgot their campaign promise.

      Delete
    4. Dude, there is no ambiguity. The code doesn't have any limit, expressed or implied. The Planning Director, Planning Commission, or City Council cannot "interpret" what simply ain't there. There was no reason for the Planning Commission (or the public, for that matter) to weigh in, because there was quite literally nothing to interpret.

      Again, I'm on your side in this one. The plans for this house are a problem, and we don't want this kind of porcupine house distorting architecture to exploit a code loophole. The answer to the problem is to stop bitching about the ONE example that made it through the loophole, and plug the hole before 20 others follow.

      Delete
  24. 2:09 PM
    Dude, the planning director, planning commission, and council do interpreting all the time. Writers of the municipal code didn't take into account that crooks would be using it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, just to clarify:

      You think that if only the Planning Director had brought this before the Planning Commission, that the Planning Commission would have found a limit to the number or size of setback encroachments (perhaps in invisible ink)? And that they would use the newly discovered limits as grounds to reject the permit application? And that, on appeal, the City Council would also locate the same invisible limit language (the same City Council that failed to find such language last night), and uphold the Planning Commission. Then, when the applicant sues, of course, the Judge will find the same elusive limit language, and find in favor of the City?

      Have I got all that right?

      Delete
    2. Nope! As usual, you don't.

      Delete
    3. Unfortunately, I just realized I've been arguing with Michael Palin's character in the Dead Parrot sketch.

      http://youtu.be/4vuW6tQ0218

      Delete
  25. Keith Harrison just had to weigh in on promoting this abomination. Speaking of abominations Keith, we have had more than enough of your tasteless constructions in this town.

    Everybody check out the latest Encinitas Guerrilla and you can see some of his designs and not in a good light, but so well deserved. Thank you Guerrilla for being spot on every week.

    Hey Keith, please think about getting a new architect and spare this community anymore of your cold, sterile buildings. We deserve better and you need to expand your consciousness. Consider the neighborhood you build in and stop with the soulless homes and buildings that seem to be your M O.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cold, sterile buildings. Agreed.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps the Encinitas Guerrilla would tell us what his/her designs for housing look like, then we can compare the two.

      Delete
    3. Considering so many are in agreement that Harrison's designs suck, perhaps G doesn't need to.

      Delete
  26. Agreed this guy only knows ugly. His projects offer less than zero value to our community.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Post modern or Soviet Block style is popular among the development crowd because it is CHEAP! It does not have to be ugly, but notice that the materials that developers in this town select are the cheapest option available.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not only that, Encinitas' tradesmen, with some exceptions, are do-it-yourself hacks... apprentice quality, at best. .
      At artisan prices.

      Delete
    2. Don't blame the builder. Blame the people who move in. Most homes with that style are not built on spec, because the market for that stuff is limited. Spec home builders want to appeal to a larger pool of buyers to hopefully spark a bidding war.

      These cold Bauhaus-inspired designs are usually dictated by the owner, who hires an architect to do his or her bidding.

      Delete
    3. Bauhaus can be cool. Harrison just doesn't know how to do it that way.

      Delete
  28. So next week. Council will ask should we move forward with Life guard fun house.


    My recommendation is to build it up higher, better view, less impact to natural beach. Basically what Solana Beach did.

    Where is Surfrider and CCC on this issue? Lets keep our beaches, beaches. lets keep buildings off the beach!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's not build it at all and save ourselves millions of dollars....

      Delete
    2. Keep with the portables.

      Delete
  29. At the meeting, Lisa was yapping with Harrison during the break.

    She remains a big fan in spite of his freaky "30 foot trellis" anti-Prop A speech of a few years ago. Remains a fan despite the interim planning director basically calling Harrison a liar for his "interpretation" of what Prop A would do.

    Or perhaps she remains a fan because of his erroneous reading of Prop A. Considering he's in the biz, one would have thought he could understand the initiative. Some might even draw the conclusion that he lied.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lisa's legacy will be......?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Already is: confusion, deflection of responsibility, arrogance, an inability to learn from her mistakes (or admit to them), and those annoying "With gratitude" monologues.

      Delete
    2. It should be embarrassment for ever have run for office - she exposed her complete incompetence to translate her academic abstractions into civil action.

      Delete
    3. Lisa Shaffer is Encinitas's version of Sarah Palin.

      Delete
    4. Except the part where she's a liberal, east coast academic, lol...

      Delete
    5. 7:41, you mean they are exactly the same, except in every single way that matters?

      Delete
  31. Plain and simple, she is a liar.
    Who, apparently, cannot stop herself. The whining she did in her weekly mean culpa yesterday is enough to turn Tony K. into Caitlin Jenner.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Lets not forget Liar Lisa's fibs she told to Francine Busby about Julie in order to sway the gullible Busby into not supporting her candidacy. Lisa and Ethics? Really? Two disparate notions that do not meld with the ice queen Liar Lisa.

    She seems to be sticking to her promise to not run again. Thank you Lisa. Please enjoy your life after council and realize what you have sown.

    I thought I heard that Muir was not going to run again either. Can this be true? Anyone know for certain? If so, these type of gifts to our community need to keep on coming.

    Lets see. No more Lisa. No more Mark. No more Kristen. Who is next to vacate? Tony, come on and join the outgoing crew.

    Catherine, the glimpses of hope for a better community representative you have provided are far too few with all the other wrong headed decisions you have rendered. Come on girl, you can do it. Show us your worth. You have two years more than the others to stand up for this community. I feel you just need the right compatriots on the dais. In the meantime, grow a spine and help us preserve that which we all love about Encinitas.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The Rotary Club might not let Muir retire. The developers need a stooge on the panel to protect their interests. Jabba serve them good!

    ReplyDelete
  34. We all know Mark was an obliging seat filler for 'his lowness' from the get go. That this despicable former council member has any positive contribution to our current situation is beyond consideration, even if it is through the Rotary Club.

    By the way, why does the Rotary Club hang onto this abject loser in any way? It is to their disadvantage that they hold on to any relationship with $tock$. He is a has-been, that will forever be associated with abuse of power that he exhibited without any sense of remorse and self inflated ego.

    If there is any finer example of where our former council members should not go after they check out, it is this bully of a council member. This dos not portend well for the legitimacy of the Rotary Club.

    Has anyone gone into this relationship with the Rotary Club. Just who is pulling the strings there?

    That the Rotary Club would let themselves be diminished by this despicable character, is beyond comprehension. Wake the f' up Rotary Club. Why are you letting the good deeds you aspire to in your charter, be stained by associating with such a disreputable character? If this is allowed to continue, it is to your everlasting shame.

    It is still not addressed whether or not Mark is seeking another term. He would be well advised to take the money and run away to his well funded retirement and enjoy all the fruits of 'his lowness's' action on his behalf.

    Rotary Club, wake the f' up. You are squandering any sense of value to this community by associating in any way with this character. His imagined importance is just that and nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 2:39 AM
    In the Encinitas municipal code is this definition that the planning director should have used:

    "LIVING UNIT means a unit that provides the basic amenities for everyday living and includes but is not limited to a sleeping area, closet space, restroom, sitting/entertainment area, incidental kitchen facilities and/or common dining and recreational facilities."

    Which definition did the planning director use?
    The one where he could justify his decision to allow all the illegal encroachments into the side yard setbacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do bay windows and window seats count as part of a living unit?

      If so, that cannot be the definition to use for habitable space, because the code on architectural projections specifically contradicts your definition.

      Delete
    2. I agree. There are different zoning code definitions for habitable space and living unit because they are not interchangeable. A living unit does not equal habitable space, although habitable space is always part of a living unit.

      Delete
    3. In other words, a living unit must contain, by definition, both habitable space and non habitable space. A living unit must contain both a bathroom and a closet, for example, although a bathroom and a closet are not considered habitable space, according to the code definitions.

      Delete
    4. Jeff signed a policy "THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING WHEN NON-HABITABLE SPACE QUALIFIES AS HABITABLE SPACE" in 2007 when he was with the County to prevent possible illegal units.
      Among the requirements that turn non-habitable
      space into habitable space -
      1. full bathroom
      2. stubbing out of plumbing and/or sewer.
      3. a fireplace
      4. electrical outlets
      Jeff Murphy knew about non-habitable turning into habitable spaces.

      Delete
    5. Jeff Murphy knew a lot about twisting and sneaking and working against us from behind closed doors. He was the perfect partner for Vina and now Faulconer. He is the perfect yes man.

      Delete
    6. The conflicting definitions of living unit, livable space, and habitable space indicate one thing very clearly: it is NOT a ministerial decision leading to a building permit. It is clearly a discretionary decision. The neighbors (3 lawyers) argued this in the appeal. The project should have gone before the Planning Commission. The appeal should have been upheld.

      Delete
    7. Just because you are confused, doesn't mean it's confusing.

      Delete
    8. Who said anything about confusing? Approval of the project clearly involved discretionary decisions and should have gone before the Planning Commission.

      Just because you are confused, doesn't mean it's confusing.

      Delete
    9. Who said anything about confusing? Approval of the project clearly involved discretionary decisions and should have gone before the Planning Commission.

      Just because you are confused, doesn't mean it's confusing.

      Delete
  36. Come on city manager Karen. Get rid of the deadwood now starting with Manjeet, followed closely by Masih the community destroyer and show you are of any value. What are you waiting for? Don't even consider appointing Manjeet to Jeffs' directorship. That would only show you have become compromised. Please don't go there Karen.

    Week after week, we are subjected the same old incompetence of the sitting planning director and his minions while they get thanked for their substandard performance by council every week.

    It is about time to send some staff onto greener pastures. Perhaps Jeff can welcome them into his realm and good riddance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We've seen in the past that you can't just start holding a firesale on people's jobs. Yup, there are some bad apples at the city, especially in planning.

      I agree that there has to be a concerted effort to reforming some of the departments at city hall. But calling for people to be straight up jettisoned, probably not going to happen...

      Delete
    2. Call her Status Quo Karen.

      Delete
  37. It should. Management positions are at will employees. If they are not worth their salary fire them today. If they made big mistakes and have bad judgement. Fire them yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 6:32- Yes management are at will employees and in California, one can be fired for no cause (unless you are union). One of the things to check is if all directors have Masters Degrees in the area they are directing. That is one of the qualifications for being a Director in this CIty. When I did a CPRA request many years ago, several of the Directors did not have the qualifications. However, the Council at the time, as well as the City Manager before Vina did nothing about it, even though it was brought to their attention. It seems as if in this City rules only count sometimes. If you are liked by the present Council you get to do all sorts of things others cannot do without getting fined. All one has to do is look at what Barth has been able to get away with at Glen Park to understand what I am talking about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you ever managed a hiring process? The "requirements" add up to a profile of an ideal candidate. Rarely if ever does one find a candidate that is perfect in every way. The goal in evaluating candidates is to measure them against the ideal, and figure out who comes closest. If the candidate that comes closest still isn't good enough, then reboot and start over.

      I'm pretty sure I didn't meet some facet of the requirements for every job I've ever been offered.

      Delete
    2. 11:34 AM You are expecting 9:34 AM to have any expertise. That disqualifies most people here. If you have two candidates for a management position, one having years of experience with progressive responsibility in a large city department versus another candidate who only has some experience in small cities but has a Masters Degree who are you going to choose? The more experienced candidate of course. The MS/MA is a nice to have, not a requirement besides Masters degrees are not that hard to get these days although that's not to say there still aren't traditional Masters degrees that are worth something.

      Here is the required qualifications paragraph for Planning Director:

      "The required background for this position includes a combination of education and experience that provides the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary for a Planning & Building Director. A typical way to obtain the knowledge, skills, and abilities would include seven years of responsible community planning experience, including three years of management and supervisory experience, and the equivalent to a Master’s degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in urban planning, environmental planning, community design, and public administration or a related field. Public sector management experience and certification from the American Institute of Certified Planners is highly desirable."

      Notice how it doesn't require a Masters Degree just the equivalence which can be obtained through experience.

      9:34 AM obviously hasn't hired professionals.

      Delete
    3. That qualifications paragraph was changed after the fact of a few concerned citizens' complaining to previous council that the former more straightforward Mater's Degree requirement had been disregarded.

      Delete
    4. 2:30 PM

      Yea, sure. I've been in local government (not Encinitas) for many years and saying "Bachelor/Masters degree or equivalent" is standard.

      Delete
    5. I guess that they have jointly lowered the standards everywhere so that they can keep their jobs!

      Delete
    6. Gotta love these exchanges....on one hand Shaffer is vilified as elitist, and intellectual, and academic completely out of touch with the real world, and on the other planning is vilified for not having enough education and degrees. Go figure.....

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    7. No,vilified for having zero common sense. Her degrees mean nothing.

      Delete
  39. Glen Park. It's stolen space children ounces played in. It's a very small park, not the legacy I'd want.... stealing from children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come on. You can do a better job with hyperbole. There must be some angle suggesting they are directly torturing and killing children.

      Try again.

      Delete
    2. 11:36, I agree that Barth, Shaffer, Kranz and Blakespear ( along with Mims and the other hange-ons) took public land away from kids, families and dog owners. The park was supposed to benefit families, now a large part of the park benefits Barth, Shaffer, Kranz and Blakespear. If the area they took for one or two trees was smaller I'do say no big deal. Sadly there me first egos took way too much public land

      Delete
    3. A fruit orchard? Nice symbolism maybe, but not practical for a park. It's first come , first served on the harvest? Probably the crows will like it.

      Delete
    4. And the possums, skunks, raccoons, and rats.

      Delete
    5. plus the squirrels

      Delete
    6. Don't forget the homeless - Scumie, Scalie and Scabby!

      Delete