Tuesday, February 07, 2006

You Can't Build in Cardiff with Fractions Man



I laughed and thought of crazy Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now when I read this story in the NCT about a Cardiff man's complaint with the city.

NCT story


Computing the so-called "density bonus" is a matter of simple mathematics. Staley's appeal stems from fractions of whole numbers and whether they should be rounded up or down.

City zoning allows for eight dwellings to the acre on the 0.8-acre site, which translates as 6.1 dwellings . Planners originally rounded that number ---- called the "base density" ---- up to 7.

The "density bonus" entitles Staley to build three additional homes, as long as one of them is sold or rented to a low-income household.

An unsigned, Sept. 20 memo from the planning department to all planners states that base densities should be rounded down to the next whole number.


"no fractions"

10 comments:

  1. vote no on fractions now!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Keeping TAB on city hallFebruary 08, 2006 9:46 AM

    Let me start by saying that the bonus density issue (SB1818) is just another BIA scam to override local planning efforts.

    However, here is another example of Encinitas planning departments incompetence.

    Basic math rules hold that when a fraction is 5 or less you round down 6 or more round up.

    City staff wanting to benefit developers suspended that rule and made up the new math of rounding up all fractions.

    But that didn't work and they got caught and then changed the rules in mid-stream.

    Now once again the city is looking at a lawsuit because of the staff's lack of basic math skills and total lack of intergity.

    Keep TAB on city hall

    ReplyDelete
  3. there is a yes on c letter in the north county times today that can be added to the yes on c website under editorials (they are really just letters to the editor but it sounds better to call them editorials).
    that will make 4 total, but just 3 from people that can vote. hey, you gotta take what you can get.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is this the same Jed Staley that commissioned, paid for original paintings with monetary help from others, and then gave the paintings to the city to be hung in the planning and building department?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve Aceti can't vote unless he owns property in Encinitas.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, seems like they could just put an accessory unit, a studio, say, on one of the homes.

    There are many ways to skin a cat, to get low income housing.

    City Council, including their go-fer-boy, Patrick Murphy are arrogant micro-managers who lack common courtesy and common sense.

    Fractions should be rounded up or down according to the fraction, as suggested before.

    Aceti should be rounded up and booted out of town. Vote No on C. In November, let's boot Guerin and Dalager, our Keystone Cop, and Lawnmower Man. We can't afford 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is the same Jed Staley who convinced the Planning Deparment and the Planning Commission to use a new way to calculate slope in order that it would be a hair below 10% and he could build three houses to the 26-foot maximum height. This was on Summit Avenue in Cardiff. The neighbors, who have now lost all or part of their ocean view, appealed to the council and lost, even though the normal way to calculate slope put it over 10%. Jed Staley used sleazebag lawyer Charlie Marvin to win. Steve Aceti seems to be similarly ethically challenged. Anything for a buck. It will be interesting to see how the council votes here. The appeal of the Barratt project on Sheridan/Andrew seems to have shaken the council a bit. It's time to turn the screws a little tighter on the council, especially on Guerin and Dalager. Both know their chances of re-election are dimishing by the week.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The State laws literally do trump the City of Encinitas' ordinances. That is a good thing, we think. It is true, our city is not providing for an equitable housing element. Originally, on our street, duplexes were allowed. Many accessory units were built, as allowed, by right, according to state and city law.

    However, many of the older homeowners (older homes and older owners) are being given a hard time about maintaining "units" that should be grandfathered. Permits were not needed in 1953 for accessory structures of 400 sq. ft. or less. There was no such thing, back then, as a "conversion" permit. Except for condos, no such thing now exists, either.

    The City should not be encouraged to kiss up to developers and only provide housing opportunities for millionaires. That is what's available now. And it seems much harder to remodel than to do a new build, for an individual owner/builder. Also, there are some sleazy in-fill developers that take full advantage of declaring themselves "owner/builder" when they clearly are building spec homes, to resell, with no courtesy for the pre-existing neighborhoods.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You are an errand boy sent by grocery clerks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Angry monkey seeks crooked politicianFebruary 22, 2006 10:06 AM

    Remember when the Barbie that would say "math is hard" came out?

    Mattel is now releasing "Leucadia Politician Ken (born and raised in LA)" that has the following catch phrases:

    "Rounding decimals is hard."
    "Immininent Domain!"
    "Must learn how to relate to surf culture. (repeats 6 times)"
    "Paying for parking at your own house is cool, Barbie!"
    "Stupid surf rats"
    "$170,000 a year? I can't live here on that!"
    "Which way to banana republic?"

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on our blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.