The Coastal Commission sent a last-minute letter to the City Council yesterday clarifying earlier correspondence and making clear that the Coastal Commission had no problem with Prop A.
The City Council unanimously certified Prop A.
Coastal Commission letter here.
An Encinitas Council watcher recommends watching the video to see Sara Wan and Everett DeLano explain the law, and Dietmar Rothe, Pam Slater-Price, Hershell Price, and Sheila Cameron speak about the new Council members and mayor honoring their campaign promises and their supporters.
Yes,intresting to see people speaking on prop A and keeping us
ReplyDeleteA sleepy little beach town and only one spoke up on the bar problem
OMG, and it was Sheila . Ha ha ha what clowns.
The vitriol spewing forth from the prop A supporters was entertaining. Not that I was surprised given the sky is falling, my way or the highway, progress is the devil crowd that resides on this blog.
ReplyDeleteVitriol?? More like frustration and disbelief over the Council's obstructionist maneuverings and too-quick drawing of conclusions to try to "kill this thing," as Kranz said just a few months ago.
Delete4:10, were you similarly not surprised by the lengths the anti-A, "HOPE" crew went to to lie its way to (non) victory? You want to talk about vitriol, look at the "HOPE" folks who waged war against a town that just wanted some degree of protection against shameless profiteers.
4:10 Sounds like Jerome...he was always talking about his opposition being "entertaining...."
Sheila Cameron has proven to care about Encinitas. She has HUGE support in the community and it is growing daily. Sheila is owed a collective thanks for standing up against what amounts to the will of a few petty egos.
ReplyDeleteI hope that Sheila runs for council again. We need to have someone who has standards of performance for the City Manager. She is passionate and is prepared to address issues that others ignore.
DeleteBefore any of you get too thrilled with having Sheila back on the City Council, you may want to google why she was thrown off of it the first, and only time she was on it. She would scare me as a Councilwoman.
DeleteSheila would not be afraid to get rid of the incompetence in city hall.
DeleteShe rocks. She will not give in to outside influences. She really and truly cares for this city.
Sheila for Mayor.
I can't wait to NOT vote for Sheila. She is political poison. Notice no one has sought her endorsement as they run for council ???
DeleteSheila was never thrown off of council and that cannot be googled as such. She remained on council for 4 years but at one point was removed as mayor in a political plot by other council members who's aim was to have James Bond's name on the ballot as "mayor of Encinitas" when he ran for Assemlyman. 50 speakers spoke on her behalf when the untelevised "special meeting" to cut her off came. All 50 were ignored by a council majortiy and Bond took her place.
DeleteNo one has sought her endorsement? I like her even more! Go Sheila, you are the star everyone was hoping Lisa would be. Who cares about personality quirks, this city needs real leadership and right now Sheila is it! Get Holz in there as well, he is a quality resident.
DeleteYes very bad behavior,she would not be my first choice.Does not play will
ReplyDeleteWith others.
Regardless of whether she has a formal title or remains an active citizen, I support her and appreciate her willingness to protect Encinitas and its citizens. Our current council is only concerned about protecting Gus Vina at the expense of the rest of us.
DeleteLike
DeleteAnyway...interesting 180 on the part of the CCC. Now the question is: now many side deals can the city make with developers in the next 10 days?
ReplyDeleteSheila is low hanging fruit we need to pick from higher on the tree
ReplyDeleteLeave Sheila alone. She has done so much for this city it isn't even funny. She is smart, sweet, and tough. That counts for a lot in my book.
DeleteDont forget sycho and MD
DeleteBut she has no common sense.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead Sheila run.... I would vote for you over that Jerome side show act of Gaspar.
Sheila-
ReplyDeleteBefore I can take you as a serious City voice,
Please post your opinions about the proposed North Coast Hwy 101 Streetscape.....
Thanks,
Anon
Better yet, ask Sheila about the dozen-plus foul-mouthed threats she left for former Encinitas City Manager Lauren Wasserman's phone call recorder that ended up being used as leverage against the City to cost the City an additional 30,000 per year ad infinitum on Wasserman's PERS retirement, as long as he lives: or setting off sprinklers throughout City Hall after Sheila set fire to a smudge to cleanse the city offices of evil spirits, costing a fortune in repairs: or the Sharon Brossman induced attack on a city vendor (tsk, tsk, shouldn't use our hands, should we?) or the hundreds of thousands of dollars in city money she 're-imbursed' friends and relatives while seated as Mayor.
ReplyDeleteWe could go on about her verbal attack and threats on Sheriff Kolendar and many more, but hundreds of residents are praying she runs because anyone else will appear electable in comparison. Even better, hopefully, Bruce Ehlers will run for Mayor: carrying Lynn on his back like an albatross. Can it get any better?
Probably not..... Can't wait!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the memories. Classic drama!
Bruce Ehlers has cost the city $350000 for nothing ----------- it's called PROP A
ReplyDeleteThis council was doing all that and more,What an terrible waste of tax payer
Money BRUCE EHLERS over my dead body.
RIP Jackass.
DeleteThe city wasted $350k not Bruce.
Yep, it was Tony Kranz alone who suggested "adopt prop A now and save $350K by letting it later go to a regular elections". It fell on deaf ears.
DeleteBruce didn't cost the city anything. The city council elected to spend the money. Get your facts straight.
DeleteIf you vote for Sheila, whatever you do don't wear the color red in her presence. She will"go off" on you.
ReplyDeleteIf that's true, Gene Roddenberry must have been the same way.
DeleteMy point is, this council was planning to do all the things that PROP A mandates
ReplyDeleteWith out this terrible waste of tax money .There fore it is incumbent on the PROP A
People and Bruce to explain way they forced this issue.Don't you get it no vote no
Loss of the 350000KIt .It seems simple enough to me.
I believe you've been misinformed.
DeleteThe council did away with the 4/5 loophole, but did nothing to prevent future councils from adding it back -- or making even worse loopholes -- with a simple majority.
The only way to permanently protect the public right to vote on upzoning was through an initiative. The council could have adopted it outright and saved the $350,000. They didn't.
If they were concerned about technical flaws in the initiative (a claim that looks more dubious by the day), they could have adopted it outright and then put a follow-up initiative to make technical corrections on the 2014 general election ballot at minimal cost. They didn't.
The council just wanted to kill Prop A, and they blew a lot of political capital trying.
2:24 you are favtually incorrect. The council never drafted and approved a ballot statement............ever. And if Prop A had not passed who knows what they may or may not have written and placed or not placed on the ballot. Now becuase of Bruce and Sheila Encinitas controls ther future while Oceanside and Carlsbad lose control to the state. Facyts are facts.
DeleteI think that this Council's plan to address the same issues as Prop A is like Gus Vina's 'strategic planning' and other myths. I see no evidence that they can do anything but roll over to Vina and Norby.
DeleteThey have divided this city.
2:24 PM
ReplyDeleteCome out of the fog. This council had No repeat NO intention of implementing anything in Prop A. It is state law that an initiative with so many signatures go to a special election. Other city councils have adopted initiatives without the Encinitas' council chicanery. The cost of the election is placed squarely on the heads of Gaspar, Muir, Kranz, Shaffer, and Barth.
Want to talk about the council wasting money by their own decisions.
Who in their right mind would sit through a consultant speech's pouring out hype about how the council is like a big corporation that has customers. And the council eats it up.
You 2:24 PM are just a customer to them, not a taxpayer. Read #8 on the council's agenda for next week.
Sheila & Bruce. Doing good for the city, applause. Everyone who fights for a noble cause will find naysayers.
ReplyDeleteLooking back is so perfect, hind sight they call it.Yes PROP A did win by about 2
ReplyDeletePercent. Would you call that a mandate? I don't. Yes I do support
This council they are doing many important things. WC your hind sight is even better
than perfect you could have shared your scheme with us sooner pompous at best
and certainly self serving. You can do so much better YOU GET A C.
PROP A people had enough signatures to qualify for the regular election in 2014 at a Cost of only $35K yet continued to pursue more after the 2012 election forcing this
special election. What a waste of taxpayers money.
Of $35000 one tenth the cost and yet continued to collect more signatures to this election
Stop with the "hindsight" B.S.
DeleteThe fact that Prop A had widespread appeal and a good chance of passing despite council opposition and a huge developer advertising campaign was perfectly obvious to anyone who wasn't completely oblivious.
Plenty of people asked the council to adopt the initiative outright and save the $350,000. The council ignored them and obeyed Vina and his hack Rutan & Tucker report. Even after Vina led them into this debacle, they still say he's doing an "excellent job."
Even after council went down the stupid path in opposing Prop A, I posted that Prop A looked pretty darn good and if council had a better idea, they ought to show it to us. They refused.
There is nothing "hindsight" about it. This council completely botched the handling of Prop A, both from the perspective of protecting taxpayer dollars and from protecting their own political careers.
Hindsight, my ass.
Their response to Prop A is only 1 of a list of anti-taxpayer/pro-developer decisions that they have made. We can't look at single issues. We have to look at the pattern!
DeleteTheir voting record is not different that the record of those who they have replaced.
4:24 want some whine to go with that cheese? The council could have approved the initiative and placed an alternative 2014 , Sabine called the idea novel then they dropped it.
DeleteThe initiative passed with a 3.7% margin, nearly 4%, not 2%. The margin would have been much greater in favor of Prop A's passage, but not for the well-funded campaign of deception and disinformation carried on by the City and its sponsors/subsidiaries.
DeleteIf you get AC it will keep you cool.
ReplyDelete4:24 PM
ReplyDeleteWeren't you at the council meeting where the council decided to act like Diamond Jim Brady and voted to add an additional $200,000 into the pot to make sure there was enough money to defeat Prop A.
Why aren't you complaining about the recklessness of the council to spend more than $500,000 to stop Prop A.
You should read about an appeal in Cardiff where the architect took away the views of neighbors by changing the way building height was measured on a slope.
Tell us more about cardiff and slope change? Also what is this 200K you talk about, thanks
Delete4:50: Are you talking about the appeal of the Marion Ross home? If so, I was one of the 7 neighbors who appealed. I know that story well, but you may be speaking of a different one.
DeleteTwo percent is wide spread appeal? My ass, you are a self serving hypocrite
ReplyDeleteI think D work is more appropriate WC that is sad thinking small minded OLD
I dig the ad hominem attacks but I would be interested in your thoughts on the substance of my comment: Vina and Rutan & Tucker, "hindsight" being the exact same thing many people were saying before the election, etc.
DeleteTwo percent spread? It was 51.85% YES to 48.15% NO. Rounded off that's a four point spread. Anonymous at 7:02 pm, you're off by half. Check the San Diego Registrar of Voters website.
DeleteIndeed. And that 3.7% spread is even more impressive considering the overwhelming onslaught of developer-funded propaganda and the unanimous antagonism of a recently elected council.
DeleteMore disinformation. Again, the margin in favor of Prop A was 3.7%, NOT 2%.
DeleteWe could have managed this better,we wasted time ,money and good will for nothing.This was the first progressive council we have ever had and we killed them for something that would been have done in open session .Killed by the tea party.
ReplyDeleteCouncil refused to do it in open session. They had that option.
DeleteAnd there is no tea party to speak of in Encinitas. The leaders of Prop A are in no way teabaggers. If I had to guess, I would guess the majority of them are Democrats, Greens, and independents.
Why does everything had to be politizied?i can tell you that volunteers and proponents of Prop A are from all the political spectrum. It is not about leaning to the right or to the left. It is about defending our quality if life and putting control on high density projects.
Delete8:54 please! This council is as pro development as the majority of the last 10 years. They did not write or approve final ballot language assuring us the right to vote. They sided with developers on A an DR, they have kept NORBY and Vina on the payroll, they suggested limiting free speech,, they approved hiring a pr flak for 135K, they have wasted money on rutan and these are all facts. They should own it and so should you Flamethrower
DeleteTea Party? What?
DeleteTea party is good. Signifies freedom, liberty and small government. All good things.
None tea party is more towards socialism and communism. Doesn't work. Read the book Animal Farm.
Its that simple.
The spread was 3.7 percent, not 2 percent. Turnout was 32.3 percent, which is high for a one-issue special election.
ReplyDeleteEven they killed themselves by choosing sides, and not just any old side, but the one that happened to go against constituent wishes. To this day, it is not apparent that all even read the initiative. Lame.
ReplyDeleteEven more pathetic is their blind following of Vina and Sabine, and that's just pure laziness. Ask Shaffer if she read the initiative and all she'll say is "I consulted three attorneys." The others don't have much more to say for themselves. Disappointing doesn't begin to describe this council some say are receiving unfairly critical treatment. Unfair, my butt.
I doubt Sad Sac has read the whole thing. He is just watching the clock until retirement.
DeleteLisa Shaffer told me she "heard from" four attorneys. Three attorneys are Glenn Sabine, Joel Kuperberg, author of the slanted, pro-development impact report, through Rutan and Tucker, and Everett DeLano, author of the initiative. The fourth likely could have been Marco Gonzalez, but I don't know. Another "associated" attorney who is also on the Board of Directors of City subsidiary/sponsor, Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association, is Charles Marvin.
DeleteCouncil has decided to discount and disregard the opinions of Everett DeLano and many community experts, that are not city employees, public officials, or city sponsors/subsidiaries. This denial, disregard and discounting of the public has become a pattern that feels like a betrayal to those of us who campaigned for Teresa Barth, Lisa Shaffer and/or Tony Kranz.
Like!
ReplyDeleteDouble Like!!
DeleteTriple Like!!!
DeleteQuadruple Like!!!!
DeleteJeez. It looks like a lot of opponents to Prop. A have realized that they spent a ton of money and wasted it. Now they are expressing their anger.
ReplyDeleteI have no sympathy for the council. They could have easily stayed neutral and saved themselves from the barrage of criticism that has resulted. They should have known better, but succumbed to the pressure from Vina, who is only interested in maximizing city revenues at any cost.
Well, the voters have spoken.
I don't even give Vina credit for maximizing city revenue. If he is out for maximizing his pension payout, he has done a fantastic job.
DeleteOur CC has turned over every aspect of running this city of 59,000 to 1 person, who sees all of the resources in terms of his personal piggy bank.
He keeps going back to council and telling them that he can't do his job without more people...and they give him what he wants, and he hires more with OUR money.
Like!!
DeleteI feel a great deal of that pressure, to which Council "succumbed," was applied through council member "briefings" that are illegal according to the Brown Act and relevant Case law.
DeleteFrom the 2003 pamphlet, "The Brown Act," published through the Office of the State Attorney General, Pages 12 & 13:
"Problems arise when systematic communications begin to occur which involve members of the board acquiring substantive information for an upcoming meeting or engaging in debate, discussion, lobbying or any other aspect of the deliberative process either among themselves or with staff. For example, executive officers may wish to brief their members on policy decisions and background events concerning proposed agenda items. This office believes that a court could determine that such communications violate the Act, because such discussions are part of the deliberative process. If these communications are permitted to occur in private, a large part of the process by which members reach their decisions may have occurred outside the public eye. Under these circumstances, the public would be able only to witness a shorthand version of the deliberative process, and its ability to monitor and contribute to the decision-making process would be curtailed , , ,
The express language of the statute concerning serial meetings largely codifies case law developed by the courts and the opinions issued by this office in the past. In Frazer v. Dixon Unified School District (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 781, 796-798, the court concluded that the Act applies equally to the deliberations of a body and its decision to take action. If a collective commitment were a necessary component of every meeting, the body could conduct most or all of its deliberation behind closed doors so long as the body did not actually reach agreement prior to consideration in public session. Accordingly, the court concluded that the collective acquisition of information constituted a meeting . . ."
I am not impressed with 3.7. % as I said not a mandate .Calling me names is weak and Rutan & Tucker that's all you have , as I said weak .Narrow minded and very
ReplyDeleteOld thinking.
9:45 AM
DeleteAre you sure you haven't stayed too late at the downtown bars?
The definition of the work mandate:
Delete1. Command or authorization to act in a particular way given by the electorate to its representative.
2. Any authoritative order or command.
The results of the 2010 US presidential election:
Obama: 62,611,250 popular votes 51.43%
Romney: 59,134,475 popular votes 48.57%
That's a 2.86% difference. Nobody is claiming that President Obama doesn't have a mandate to lead, not even Romney. Prop. A did better by almost a full point. It makes no difference if you're not impressed. It's still a mandate.
Perhaps you're whining because it wasn't a landslide. But when one side spends five times what the other side spends, a 3.7% difference is an impressive victory. Go have a couple of beers downtown. The Encinitas Hospitality Committee will appreciate your business. And you can relax and unwhined.
No one's claiming "mandate" except opponents, trying to discredit the majority win.
DeleteAnd since Rutan is the only thing the city had to try to use against residents, it's the logical point of contention for supporters. Anything else would be deviating from the conversation.
If the developers and politicians behind the opposition to A were honest, they'd have used their true and only real argument: they wanted to profit off Encinitas and damn what they turned it into.
If they'd used their true arguments, then you'd be seeing a mandate in the high 90 percentages.... Instead, they used the factually baseless Rutan report that ripped off taxpayers to the tune of $55K, and resorted to outright lies.
I think its amazing that after the hundreds of thousand of dollars spent fighting Prop A, residents were awake enough to vote for it.
DeleteHorray! Encinitas is finally woken up.
Gaspar- You might want to update your resume. Maybe Mr. Stocks needs a receptionist or something?
OK then, based on 11:15's post: Prop A IS a mandate!
ReplyDeleteThe most recent presidential election was in 2012, not 2010.
ReplyDeleteIn a democracy, the majority rules regardless of how thin the win is. If the spread is wide, it increases the winners' authority to pursue their agenda.
It works to perceive the Prop A win as a mandate because the opponents spent about 90 grand to deceive and confuse the voters. If they had campaigned honestly, the spread would have been much wider.
City government is in cahoots with developers and other business interests. That's how city government perpetuates and increases revenue. It's how the system operates.
Prop A is a people's wrench thrown in the gears. It will slow Encinitas's descent into the character of LA County's South Bay cities.
I am... Its a mandate!
ReplyDeleteA MANDATE BASED COMPLETELY ON A LIE CREATED BY BRUCE EHLERS. WHO IS A DOCUMENTED CHEAT AND LIAR. JUST ASK THE NCT AND FPPC. EHLERS GOT HIS ASS KICKED AT THE PANEL DISCUSSION LAST TUESDAY!
ReplyDeleteIt must be opposite day.
DeleteSadie Hawkins sexually harassed Bruce Ehlers!
DeleteNah just the two-headed Stocks/Andreen creature coming out from under its rock again.
DeleteYA and he's all ass to me.
ReplyDelete