House cleaning begins: Planning Director Jeff Murphy out!

This from an EU source who has been consistently solid in the past.

Murphy is reportedly gone as of October 2, and will be taking a job with the City of San Diego.

Murphy was hired by former City Manager Gus Vina, and had a rocky relationship from the start with both the council and the public. The perpetually failed Housing Element Update was the responsibility of his department, and residents say Murphy's Planning Department often encouraged property owners to build denser developments out of character with their neighborhoods. The City Council famously ripped into Murphy in 2013 when he tried to replace the 4/5 majority rule for upzoning with a 3/5 simple majority.

Murphy was most recently responsible for the new full-time, pensioned code enforcement officer who did almost nothing to address the downtown problems but instead harassed a Cardiff bar that wasn't bothering anybody.

A longer, but surely incomplete, history of Murphy's travails can be found here.

U-T on Prop A

By Barbara Henry, formerly of the North County Times. Despite last week's clarifying letter from the Coastal Commission that they have no problem with Prop A, Planning Director Jeff Murphy continues to push the story that we might not be able to implement Prop A in the Coastal Commission portion of the city:

New development restrictions approved by Encinitas voters in a June special election will start to take effect July 21, city officials said last week.

The changes could have ramifications for projects both large and small, city Planning and Building Director Jeff Murphy said Friday.

Whether the rules will initially cover all of the city, or just the northeastern region — well away from the coast — remains in doubt, he added.

The state Coastal Commission has review power over development proposals in about two-thirds of the city, but a roughly pie-shaped wedge of Encinitas — an area north of Encinitas Boulevard and east of El Camino Real — falls outside the state coastal review zone.

Murphy also brings up the density bonus issue as a red herring without mentioning that density bonuses would be even worse without Prop A because they are a multiplier of the underlying zoning. If the council doubled the zoning density of an area, the density bonus would be a multiplier of the new, higher-density zoning.

Council members drop-kick Murphy

The knives were out for new Planning Director Jeff Murphy, who drafted the attempt to change the 4/5 loophole to a 3/5 loophole. Union-Trib:

The council said last month that it wanted to change the code to eliminate a controversial exemption used by developers on big projects that can allow the projects to move forward without a public vote.

However, in a recent staff report, the city’s new planning director downplayed that request and instead recommended the city keep the exemption and even make it easier for developers to qualify for it.

[...]

“This is, in my mind, a very unfortunate situation because it puts us all in a bad place,” Mayor Teresa Barth told new Planning Director Jeff Murphy during the meeting.

[...]

Council members unanimously voted to go with their original proposal to eliminate the exemption, and said they found it hard to argue against the initiative proponents’ statements that the situation makes them look bad.

“I have to say I agree with much of what the speakers have said,” Councilwoman Lisa Shaffer said.

The new policy, however, is entirely symbolic. It can be overturned by a 3/5 majority of any future council until it is protected by the passage of either Proposition A or the council's vaporware alternative ballot initiative.

Ugly Baby is back!

When the city paid out-of-town consultants MIG more than $1 million to run a series of workshops and create a high-density development plan, the result was so widely reviled that former mayor Jerome Stocks famously called it an "ugly baby" and the entire plan was scrapped.

Until now, apparently.

From the Inbox:

The Council meeting this Wed. will have new information that wasn't revealed by Jeff Murphy.

1. The housing element draft contains much of the rejected MIG housing element update material.

2. The old MIG sites inventory is now part of the housing element draft that will be included in the packet going to HCD.

Here is the link:

http://encinitas.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&event_id=593&meta_id=46558

Jeff Murphy, Manjeet Ranu, and Mike Strong provide no reason why they have included the old MIG work.

Open letter on density bonus

From the Inbox (and suggesting that anyone else having an opinion on density bonus should send a brief note to council@encinitasca.gov before tomorrow evening):

Dear Mayor Gaspar and City Council:

As I watched the City Council meeting last Weds, July 9, 2014, I was excited for our City and its citizens. Councilwoman Barth put Density Bonus on the Calendar, and a robust discussion, of both citizens and Council, occurred. Councilman Shaffer, along with others, suggested that three of the items Councilwoman Barth put on the agenda could be voted on at this coming Weds., July 16, 2014, council Meeting. I did not hear anyone asking for Staff's opinion. Originally Ms. Barth said it might go to the Planning Commission. As the conversation ensued, the general consensus was that it would be appealed to the City Council, so for expediency, I understood that the Council would vote on three items that were in Ms. Barth's proposal.

As I look at the agenda for the July 16, 2014 meeting I see a lot of information from Staff. Perhaps I didn't hear correctly, but I didn't get the impression that Council had asked Staff to give them direction at all. Since I do realize Staff is supposed to give direction, I expected to see a one page document stating something to the effect that you had all the information that you needed. I did not expect, especially in such short time, 83 pages of Staff input.

I would therefore like to make two points.

1) Please vote on the three items that you stated you would do, this coming Weds. I am sure you could not help notice the crowd's pleasure that Staff was being overridden. There is a reason for that, as I am sure you all know. More on that if any of you would ever like me to share my experiences being on the Parks and Rec. Commission, as well as with Mr. Kerry Kusiak.

2) I cannot help but wonder how Staff could get the information to the Council on such short notice, given that Jeff Murphy had stated it would take about 15-18 months for him to get the information to you. Perhaps there is more to this than I am aware of, and in that case, please consider that I don't know what Mr. Murphy was exactly alluding to when he said gave his answer.

I think you all understand the community's desire to not end up like another Huntington Beach. We are an amazing small coastal community that was written up in National Geographic as being just that. We get a lot of tourist dollars for being just that. There is Density Bonus, and then there is Density Bonus-developer style. It would appear as if the Staff likes the second of these. I moved here in 1983, and it was very different then. I voted to incorporate, as I could clearly see the argument of what would happen to us under the County? Our Community Character has changed, there is no doubt about it. But, do we have to continue down this road of more, and more, people, cars, density, and other poor quality of life issues?
Unless you want a bigger Encinitas, you are in a perfect position to say NO more. If the argument is "We're going to get sued", may I respectfully suggest that many citizens would rather spend taxpayer dollars on a lawsuit, than continue to give developers pretty much everything that they want?

Thank you for doing the right thing this Weds. by voting on the three items. I personally hope that you vote to round down, make the DB house the same size as the other houses and do not let the developers be able to put the "low income" housing into one area. We, as citizens can lobby Sacramento to rethink the Density Bonus law, especially in a drought stricken State, but that will take time. In the meantime, let's take a risk, if indeed there is one? Please vote to say No More to whatever a developer wants. I have respect for developers. It's their job to get every cent they can out of property they have purchased. So, I don't blame them for coming here, as indeed we are known to be very developer friendly. If I were a developer, I would do the same thing. But please, say NO! And if we are sued, I will personally give the City $500.00 to fight it. I expect there are a lot more citizens that would also do it, if needed. Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Warm regards,

Lorri Greene, Ph.D.
Psychologist

Coast News: What's the beef between Encinitas and brewing industry?

Aaron Burgin reporting:

When a representative from the Encinitas 101 Main Street Association asked Tom Nickel to donate a few barrels of his popular beer for a local beer festival, Nickel said he was taken aback.

[...]

“While I appreciate the invite, I can’t in good faith do anything to support Encinitas when the city is so hostile to the brewing industry. Encinitas is the last major city in the county without a brewery — and that is because of the city government. It feels very disingenuous to not have any breweries and then reach out to the brewing community for donations. And I know that breweries have tried to open there and been turned down.”

The Coast News spoke to several major stakeholders in the region’s craft brewing industry, all who confirmed that Encinitas has an unfavorable reputation within its circles. Many point to at least one instance in which a high-profile brewer attempted to open a “brew pub” in town only to abandon the plans and instead wind up in Oceanside. They also point to the well-documented struggle between downtown’s alcohol serving establishments and residents as a potential reason for the perceived indifference toward breweries.

That brewery that tried to open in Encinitas and ended up in Oceanside is Bagby Beer, founded by award-winning brewer Jeff Bagby, who opened his beautiful new brewpub and restaurant last year on South Coast Highway in Oceanside.

“What I can say is that this is news that I have never heard that we are ‘anti-brewery,'” Encinitas Planning Director Jeff Murphy said. “I was surprised to hear the word ‘hostile’ to describe our stance against breweries. It is not that we prohibit them, we limit them to certain areas of town.”

Never heard? Maybe that's part of the problem.

Density Bonus

Letter in this week's Coast News:

May 2014

Letter to Encinitas City Council
BCC: Senator Mark Wyland, Assemblyperson Rocky Chavez, Supervisor Dave Roberts, The People of Encinitas

In a Franz Kafka short story whose name I am forgetting, the State passed a law allowing real estate developers to invoke a special law allowing them to tell communities how and where they were going to build on land they had bought. And the cities that try to protect its citizens from these real estate builders can be pretty much assured of being sued in court, in this case by City Mark Development group. Does this sound upside down? Shame on Sacramento for voting this law in, taking advantage of communities and allowing real estate developers to force citys’ hands. This is the very definition of insanity.

Here's the Developers' formula, in a nutshell: Buy property. Invoke Density Bonus Law (DBL). Build mini-neighborhood within a neighborhood. Make substantial profit. Get out. That’s the template.
(See California Government Code Sections 65915 – 65918.)
This stinks. The State of California has made a huge error against the citizenry it is sworn to the betterment and protection of. And we, the neighborhoods forever changed, will have it crammed down our throats and live with the results in perpetuity. It is crystal clear that this is wrong for so many reasons. Our jewel City of Encinitas has become one of those areas Developers are focusing on as particularly desirous, and vulnerable, and seemingly not inclined to contest.

Nonetheless there is still some degree latitude in the interpretation of this terribly-written state law, which should and will hopefully be overturned. Until that time though, it behooves city governments and their Planning Commission staffs (Encinitas, say) to not fast-track this particular kind of carpet baggery or to lie down for it — but to seek ways, when the outrage is clear that a neighborhood will be radically shrunk, forcefully imposed upon, and changed forever, to not lie down in the face of these profit-machine businessmen builders — to endeavor to guard the people from that negative change that will become permanent. And lest you be too quick to dismiss this as simply a NIMBY letter, in fact it is more a cry of outrage against unfair legal bullying. The enactment of this law here will help destroy the very heart of the neighborhood it purports to help, regardless of the vitriolic opposition of the neighborhood. This is so twisted.

It is lately being whispered more and more that the Encinitas Planning Commission staff is laying low in the face of these DBL projects now abounding in Encinitas. At the helm here is Mr. Jeff Murphy, Planning and Building Director, hired less than a year ago, who at the packed March 26th Encinitas City Council meeting seemed to evince little interest in researching ways to defend Encinitas neighborhoods from this City Mark Development group, helplessly citing only state legalities of why this was pretty much already a fait acompli. Meanwhile the building industry (read: City Mark) is being highly creative and investigating any and all loopholes and details of this law to force the Encinitas Planning Commission to its knees. So far it’s working.

That is not the spirit that the citizens of Encinitas need from these unelected city staffers, whose salary is paid with resident tax dollars. (For this we have to pay?) This undermining behavior and attitude might need to become part of the conversation with our elected City Council members. There is a growing feeling in the air that there may possibly be some degree of complicity between the Developers and commission staffing at City Hall. This is a disturbing perception, to say the least, and yet to be proven wrong. Nothing is challenged, all resistance is passive from our Encinitas Planning Commission. This bodes poorly for our neighborhoods, and for Encinitas citizens.

Below are a few pulled quotes from the building industry relating to the California Density Bonus Law.,” instructing them how to overwhelm those communities where Developers "encounter hostility from local jurisdictions” and “ regardless of what the locality wants." This should be required reading for California communities wherever builders are muscling their way into our lives. And this is only a taste of what this industry is sharing with its members. If you're smart, you'll be worried about this seemingly well-intentioned law; it is actually a specious and cynical law. I have no idea how this was passed or whose palms were greased or arms were twisted in Sacramento, but it is probably safe to say "follow the money" here.

Keep reading … This from "A Developer's Guide to the California Density Bonus Law" —; it tells you exactly how the California Building industry perceives its role:

"A developer who meets the law’s requirements for affordable or senior units is entitled to the density bonus and other assistance as of right, regardless of what the locality wants. ... The density bonus statute can be used to achieve reductions in development standards or the granting of concessions or incentives from jurisdictions that otherwise would not be inclined to grant those items. ... Developers who nonetheless encounter hostility from local jurisdictions are provided several tools to ensure that a required density bonus is actually granted. ... If a developer successfully sues the locality to enforce the density bonus requirements, it is entitled to an award of its attorneys’ fees. The obligation to pay a developer’s attorneys’ fees is a powerful incentive for local jurisdictions to voluntarily comply with the state law density bonus requirements, even when the jurisdiction is not in favor of its effects on the project. ... The density bonus provides one method for developers to improve the economics of their project while still complying with the inclusionary housing requirements. While there are some local agencies which believe that inclusionary units do not qualify for density bonuses, it is generally understood that the density bonus is intended by state law to be a powerful financial tool to help developers achieve the inclusionary housing requirements. ... Obtaining greater density can help the developer of any type of project bring costs and financing sources into line by putting more homes on the land. ... The incentives and concessions to be provided by the local government can provide a helpful way to modify development requirements which may stand in the way of a successful project. ... the Density Bonus Law is unquestionably a useful option for housing developers trying to make financial sense of their projects in today’s economy.”

And there's plenty more outrageous material where these quotes came from. Who are these people? This gross manipulation of the law is unconscionable and even skirts the lines of morality. It is complete self-interest being barely disguised as altruism. This can not and should not stand. Where are the representatives looking out for our neighborhoods? This is beyond bizarre. It is Kakfa-esque. Orwellian, even.

The City Mark Development builders are ready to come in to Fulvia and Hymettus in Encinitas and change our world, whether we like it or not. Their barely-contained smirks at the March 26th City Council meet were more than mildly discernible as Planning and Building Director Murphy shot down every attempt that the City Council proposed at ameliorating this travesty about to be committed. This was my first time attending a council meeting.

I think we all know that this “affordable housing” law, heavily influenced by developers, in reality is something of a sham. Its repeal really must occur. When you examine the loopholes that allow the one token affordable unit in this shoe-horned overdeveloped cluster to be traded, bought out of this loop, rented for a period, then later sold at full market value – well, then it’s hard to find any benefit to the community and the supposed recipients of the affordable dwelling. The building industry has found new life with this Density Bonus Law! The people protecting this law are not our friends.

How bizarre, twisted, absurd laws such as become voted into law starts out benignly enough, I imagine, until the real measure of it begins slowly to reveal its terrible wrongness. And then it is usually too late. It is right now not too late for Encinitas, though City Mark Development is hunched and waiting for legal approval to insert their nine houses onto a two-acre lot. And they will have built without regard to neighborhood reaction or feeling, holding a few “due diligence informational meetings” with neighbors, just for the record. The opposition has only grown; there are no converts.

This ham-fisted intrusive State of California law is not serving its constituents in this case — we in the neighborhood it implodes, nor the low-income people in whose name it purports to be representing. It is the opposite. In other words, there is no one being served by this DBL except the Developmental (builders’) community, who have been given carte blanche by the State of California, in this instance City Mark Development.

What is wrong with this picture? There is trouble in Mudville, folks, and it’s about to start slinging. Franz Kafka wouldn't have blinked an eye. The wealthy manipulate the laws; it has ever been thus. Follow that money!

Please voice your voice. They (below) are waiting to hear from you.

May the Force be with us.

Stephen Keyes
Encinitas
(Fulvia Street resident since 1992)


Encinitas City Council member emails:
tbarth@encinitasca.gov
lshaffer@encinitasca.gov
tkranz@encinitasca.gov
mmuir@encinitasca.gov


State/County representatives:

* State Senator Mark Wyland: senator.wyland@sen.ca.gov

* Assemblyman Rocky Chavez (via Senior Field Rep. Tom Garcia): tom.garcia@asm.ca.gov

Here are a few websites from your friendly California building industry and friends:

"A Developer's Guide to the California Density Bonus Law": (http://www.kmtg.com/sites/default/files/publications/density_bonus_law_2012.pdf)

http://www.allenmatkins.com/~/media/FC9373A64F31442191011C9BC7D027A2.ashx

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/252414/real+estate/Good+News+for+Developers+and+Affordable+Housing+Advocates+California+Court+Of+Appeal+Rejects+Significant+Challenge+To+States+Density+Bonus+Law

Stocks on density bonus: what's the big deal?

SD Rostra:

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.

Downtown residents not getting any relief from bar problems

From the Inbox:

To: Encinitas City Council, Jeff Murphy, Joan Kling, Mario Morales
From: Encinitas Citizens Committee

As was stated in prior messages to Code Enforcement, the Encinitas Citizens Committee chooses not to have monthly meetings with Mario Morales. In our previous meetings he had nothing to report to us about inspecting the offending alcohol serving establishments. We also expressed frustration that the bars are only going to be inspected 2 days a month during warm weather. This is not appropriate given that the summer nights, especially during the weekends, are the historical times for disruptive behavior by the bars and bar patrons. As to Mario's question about whether he can use an email response as a meeting, we would not call an exchange of emails a meeting at this time.

We consider it good news that the City Council has recently approved an ordinance that will raise fines. With the new ordinance, the third citation will go from $500 to $1,000. The Shelter/Saloon and Union have two offenses each. So this means, no doubt, that if there is a third citation it will cost them $1,000. Or, were the first two offenses let go without fines? Shameful if that was the case!

We think it is essential that this Ordinance go into effect before the summer. This would put the City of Encinitas in a stronger position to curb disturbances as establishments would be more diligent about obeying the law. Waiting until part or all of the summer has past would be an extreme waste of a very necessary ordinance!

Finally and of utmost importance, is the need to increase Code Enforcement's visits to problematic places that serve alcohol. The ECC still asserts that frequent and timely monitoring -- as well as appropriate fines -- are vital to a healthy downtown environment and to provide a safe and disturbance-free life for residents and local businesses.

Last year the council created another full-time code enforcement position at the request of Gus Vina, using the downtown drunkfest scene as an excuse. Sounds like that new officer is focused on other things.

Dueling density meetings open thread

Tony Kranz's meeting on the Housing Element Update and the Olivenhain Town Council meeting were both held last night. Olivenhain had a presentation from Jeff Murphy on the HEU, and residents did not seem receptive.

Logan Jenkins on Encinitas' new "proactive" code enforcement fiasco

Last year, at staff's request, the City Council changed the rules for code enforcement, so that code enforcement officers would not just respond to public complaints, but would go out "proactively" looking for reasons to issue citations to residents and businesses.

This led directly to last week's news of repeated harassment of the Kraken.

Jenkins:

In a wild roller-coaster ride, bar owner Ron Crilley canceled all concerts following a spate of Encinitas noise citations that reportedly were not based on citizen complaints. (The nearest residences are hundreds of yards from the bar.)

The citations stem from a weird regulation that no sound at all should be emitted from a bar with an entertainment license. (Does that mean that no doors should open because, God forbid, music from a jukebox might spring out? Can windows not be open? Are we talking about bars or bordellos?)

[...]

Go ahead, Encinitas. Enforce noise standards, but put the onus on responsible, reasonable citizens, not drive-by inspectors under orders to keep the absolute peace and quiet.

Time to re-think those new "proactive" enforcement powers the council gave to Planning Director Jeff Murphy and his staff?

Al Rodbell reviews Tony Kranz's Housing Element meeting

At Focus on Encinitas:

This is a report on Tony Kranz' meeting last night on this issue at the libray. Tony was honest, beginning by saying he didn't have all the answers. Unfortunately, as his goal was to provide information, his lack of a fundamental understanding of the key issue, whether the "affordable" housing that is the promise of the entire project is real or a fraud, was something he admitted not knowing.

Several members of the audience stated that the planning director Jeff Murphy had said that the chance of these higher density apartments going to the poor* is zero. With any research at all Tony would have discovered this article The Multi-Family Myth, that explains that however the state has defined terms, and then dictated new zoning, they will not increase availability of housing for low income people at all in wealthy cities such as Encinitas.

Tony got caught up by the word "affordable," and said the premise of this law could be true depending on what it means. The word happens to be euphemism for poor, those with little income - yet the actual word is ambiguous by intent. In a free market, which these high density residences will be, everything that is purchased is by definition affordable -that is to those who purchase it such as every multimillion home in Rancho Santa Fe. The term has evolved, along with other euphemisms, under the guise of being kind to those who are destitute without any appreciation how such imprecision of language leads not only an elected city official, but the voters, to be universally confused about a major redefinition of their city. Worse, it allows those developers who are among the wealthy to get richer under the cruel illusion that they are helping the poor. And our friend Tony seems oblivious to this!

What's the rush? Planning staff short-circuit Planning Commission in order to push through fuzzy "5 Hearts" plan

Last week a correspondent noted the odd goings on at the Planning Commission:

The document that they released for Planning Commission consideration last night spoke about 5 communities and "5 hearts." Naturally, they want to inflict their definition of what the 5 community hearts are without asking the residents. The Planning Commission decided to cut it back to an outline without reviewing what will be sent on to the Council. According to [friends in the know], this is not legal, but they are doing it anyway.

A speaker at Wednesday night's council meeting added that Planning Director Jeff Murphy had insisted that there wasn't time to bring another draft to the Planning Commission.  What's the rush?  What timeline could possibly be so urgent that the Planning Commission doesn't have time to review an important planning policy document?

Then yesterday, a couple of blog comments speculated as to what's going on:

They originally said that the Housing Element would happen in 2016, and that residents would get to vote on it. I see another lie!!

This is they way they work. They give a fake date then push it through under the radar.

Then:

1:14

I believe you are correct! I had not thought about it. Gaspar and the council of cronies is planning to put the housing element overlay zone on the ballot this year to defeat Prop A

I can not believe I was actually resting easy- it is Barth's legacy destroying our community character-

They know if they puyt it on in 2016 a presidential election more people will vote.

They are cunning!

Bruce Ehlers and others please begin preparing. This is going to happen this year. Vina is a political snake-

Is the council planning on a last minute 2014 ballot initiative to gut Prop A after telling residents nothing would be on the ballot until 2016? It's pure speculation at this point, but the theory is consistent both with what happened at the Planning Commission and with a long-standing pattern of behavior by both this council and staff.