Monday, July 1, 2013

Coastal Commission weighs in on Prop A

Coastal Commission says they have veto power on Prop A.

In general, the letter has the tone of a legal formality: there may be nothing wrong with Prop A, but we still have to give it our stamp of approval:
Without commenting on the merits of the proposed 30 ft. height limit, to be effective in the coastal zone under the authority of the Coastal Act, that provision in the initiative would need to be incorporated into the LCP, thus an LCP amendment would be needed.
Nowhere are substantive objections raised; the CCC just has to flex its muscle and show everyone who's boss.

The Coastal Commission has always seemed to be coastal (and anything within a couple miles of the coast) conservation extremists, not "smart growth" fanatics or developer cronies, so we'd expect them to eventually rule Prop A is copacetic. But this is politics, and politics is dirty, so you never know...

189 comments:

  1. WC ,that's some sad shit on you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. I'm grateful WC offered this forum for debate on Prop A, and shared his support of the initiative, in the process.

      If anyone objects to my interest in this post, and my remarks made here regarding the initial post, and other posters' comments which follow, you are free to skip any or all of my comments. I've decided to "own" my comments, because I get criticized and targeted even when I'm not posting, as I wasn't, for several days.

      I share because I care.

      Delete
  2. Considering two current commission employees - one a commissioner - saying the opposite, even aside from Sara Wan's opinion...I'd say some serious influence-peddling went down here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This (Prop A) will cost the city one million dollars at least .THANK YOU SHEILA! BRUCE ! KEVIN and WC. Oh I forgot PAM AND HERSHELL.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought the Prop.A people assured us that Sara Wan was correct. This is no bueno!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is no bueno, but don't assume Wan was wrong. Someone else from the same office told a different story. Still too early to know.

      Delete
  5. Thank the rotten in Denmark influence as9:09 says. And where did you get $1M from?

    ReplyDelete
  6. WAN WAS WRONG ! AT LEAST ONE MILLION legal challenges ,staff time,court cost ON AND ON sad very sad a waste of tax payers dollars

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about cutting back on staff--starting with the Planning and Engineering Departments?

      Delete
    2. Also the parks and rec department.

      Delete
    3. I don't find City management, staff, or Council to be credible on this issue. There are obvious conflicts of interest since jobs are at risk with the passage of Prop A.

      The Planning and Engineering Departments seem to have been working for developers for years now--and haven't appeared to represent the interests of individual homeowners in this town. The developers also have a lot to lose since they have been able to pull strings at the City for a very long time.

      City staff and seemingly our Council have been biased and hostile towards the citizens that they are supposed to represent when their recommendations and voting records are taken into account.

      It is sad that they are once again claiming to be victims. They look like they are incapable of doing their jobs. They are the reason that so many people voted 'Yes' on Prop A.

      Delete
  7. You people who believed KEVIN and BRUCE got hustled BOO! BOO! BOO!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Someone's a little overexcited.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Someone thinks you were lied to.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Perhaps, perhaps not. Many developers with a whole lot of influence figure there's more than one way to skin a cat. Why not wait and see how this plays out before drawing conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A real estate company, Teramar, in Carlsbad, bought the Trader Joe's complex for $78 million. The CEO was then appointed to ERAC by Stocks, Gaspar, Muir and Barth. Erac and Norby then proposed 5 story buildings.

      Let's assume hypothetically that Trader Joe's today has 78 million square feet (it does not not) at 1$ a square foot. If Trader Joe's was upzoned for 5 story buildings then the square footage would increase from 78 million to 78x5 = 390 million, the purchase price would then increase from $78 million to $390 million. See how it works?

      The Coastal Commission is a political entity. I put forth that there are backroom special deals that go down in all political organizations. There are literally hundreds of millions riding on Prop A in Encinitas. For developers up and down the state of California there are literally billions of dollars at stake as other community look to implement their own Prop A-

      Let's hope nothing is untold. The Prop A folks need to get organized and begin applying political pressure to the Coastal Commission. We have all seen how political influence works behind the scenes.

      In Encinitas self proclaimed lawyer Marco Gonzalez puts forth that he is an environmentalist at the 'Coast Law Group' then he works behind the scenes with Barth, Shaffer and Kranz to clear cut trees and destroy wetlands at Desert Rose.............

      It's all about the dollars

      Delete
  11. Prop A was largely driven by the notion that voting yes would prevent the State and SanDag from forcing high density housing on us. That's a nice emotion, but be ready to grab your ankles.

    You're going to soon shit bricks when you find out that what Sheila, Bruce and Pam did was remove previously approved units from the trid story in Leucadia and Downtown thereby INCREASING our regional housing needs number by 400!

    yes, second verse just got worse, our problem is now 400 units worse as oppossed to done away with by voting yes.

    ...and you think ADA and Clean Water lawyers are having fun. Just wait.

    years of quagmires and legal fees.....you all voted for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Time for the city to come clean on how planning handles regional housing needs. Moonlight lofts at 2 million plus dollars doesn't fit into the "poor me" city fiction picture 10:01 is fashioning.

      Delete
    2. Welcome to day 14 of no Prop A problems.

      Delete
    3. "Prop A was largely driven by the notion that voting yes would prevent the State and SanDag from forcing high density housing on us."

      Prop A guaranteed no such thing. Sandag comes up with their willy nilly figures from a hat that make no logical sense whatsoever. In 1995 we were deficient 500 affordable units. Today, with only an 8% population increase, the number has risen to 2300. (or perhaps 2700 needed affordable units if your new number of 400 is correct). Someone else is accountable for these cavalier numbers randomly imposed on us. And THAT is what should make us all angry.

      Delete
    4. Not all of us voted for it, and that is a huge problem for many of us, who are not pro development, but feared just this kind of thing might happen.

      Delete
    5. I continue to be grateful the majority did not shrink, in fear, from being PRO-ACTIVE, and voting YES, because of nefarious, speculative, conjecture, as in "this kind of thing MIGHT happen," promulgated by those who would profit from unchecked development. Our City was incorporated by the VOTERS to slow growth. I'm glad we voted to keep our neighborhood charm and community character by continuing to have the opportunity to decide for ourselves.

      Don't lose any sleep over the Coastal Commission. You attract that which you focus your attention upon. If you are focused on fear, doubt, and worry created by conjecture and speculation, then you are in for a lifetime of misery. Buck up. Be happy, and accept your losses, with grace.

      Delete
  12. The Developers who sue the City to challenge Prop A are the devils to Encinitas and will cost the tax payers millions.

    The first developer to sign on to any law suit against Encinitas will go down as the devil in history of tax payers right next to Jerome Stocks.

    Will it be David Meyer, Harwood, or someone else?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 10:03,
    do some yoga and relax. it's not religious and the devil will not make you do it :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's the screamer in all caps who needs the yoga and a chill pill to boot.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Everett DeLano, the lawyer who wrote the initiative, has Sections with the California Bar in Real Property Law, including land use, zoning, and initiatives, and Environmental Law. Joel Kuperberg, who wrote the slanted impact report for the City, through Rutan and Tucker, an Orange County law firm known to be pro-development, has no such sections, or specialities in law.

    In DeLano's 3/11 letter to Council, which is part of the 3/12 Agenda Report regarding the "impact report," and to which DeLano referred at the 3/12 Council Meeting, he clearly and unequivocally states:


    I. The Initiative’s Effective Date is Not “Complicated”

    The Report asserts that the effective date of the Initiative “is complicated by the fact that portions of the Encinitas General Plan and Zoning Code comprise the City’s ‘Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan’ under the California Coastal Act of 1976.” Report at 7. “The fact that the City has a certified LCP does not “complicate” the Initiative’s effective date. As the [Impact] Report notes, pursuant to Election Code Section 9217, initiative measures take effect 10 days after the election results are declared by the City Council. That fact that the Initiative may amend portions of land use planning documents that constitute the City’s LCP may lead to Coastal Commission review of those changes, but that review does not “complicate” the Initiative’s effective date.”

    Some of you sore losers would like to heap blame on the victors, Prop A proponets, who are the residents of Encinitas who demonstrated, by our vote, that we want to preserve our small beach town charm. I am not going to live in fear of lawsuits, nor in fear of those threatening them, when Sara Wan and others who are Environmental Law experts have assured us there will be no problem. Just because the Coastal Commission has asserted its jurisdiction with regard to review, does not mean that developers are going to sue. You are basing your arguments on hysterical presumptions, making decisions on fear. What would the grounds of the lawsuit be? That the Coastal Commission can review?

    Sara Wan and Everett DeLano are both experts in the Coastal Commission and Coastal Act Law. They are not worried, and neither need we be.

    Don't worry, Chicken Little. The sky is not falling anytime soon.

    You lost. Learn how to accept it without trying to blame those who worked so hard to bring this to the public, to decide. Our city will be a better place for all the efforts of those who developed the initiative, gathered signatures, and did our best to debunk the lies and twisted arguments of those who turned out to be losers. The developers allegedly so interested in suing would have to sue the City and the Coastal Commission. Good luck with that! Initiatives, and the voters majority choice are given every preference in Court. Cities have the right to set, and to change zoning standards. The Coastal Commission can review the Local Coastal Program. Meanwhile, the Initiative's standards are still effective, BEFORE CCC review, as I understand this. If developers want to sue, pending review, they would still have to wait for their cases to be decided in court, until CCC review is complete.

    As Jerome Stocks, the hero of some posting here, said, the City shouldn't "make decisions with a shotgun to our head" (fear of lawsuits). Honor the will of the people, and get over your sense of entitlement.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is Lynn, that Sara Wan was kicked off the Coastal Commission. Googler her if you haven't already done it. The CURRENT Coastal Commission is the one who wrote this letter.

      Delete
    2. NO current Coastal Commissioner wrote "this letter." Eric Stevens, at this point in time, is "low man on the totem pole;" that is, on hierarchy of CCC staff, at the San Diego Office of the Coastal Commission, he is our North County representative.

      Deborah Lee, who wrote the January 23 letter to the City is the Director of the San Diego office of the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Lee McEachern is a well-respected lawyer at the San Diego office. I would like to see a letter to the City from either of them, addressing the same issues, belatedly addressed by Eric Stevens, also addressing whether or not Encinitas accomplished required LCP Amendments for the N101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans.

      A review of our already certified LCP should show that the initiative is entirely consistent with our Local Coastal Program as contained within our General Plan.

      Delete
  16. Nicely said Lynn!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! I meant Prop A proponents, in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. Understanding the law can be "complicated," but we don't have to live in fear of the"complications" of allowing the public to decide our own community character and our quality of life! I'm very grateful we have a well established initiative process in California, and I'm so glad the Prop A Proponents were able to harness the power of the public.

      I'm grateful that we, the voters, were more hopeful than fearful. Fear paralyzes into inaction, through doubt and confusion. Hope and faith in human nature and our ability to make good decisions is empowering, not defeating . . .

      Delete
  17. If you have read the 4 page opinion from the Coastal Commission office, several items stand out. If the city wants the maximum height limit of 30 feet to be under the authority of the Coastal Commission, the LCP should be amended.
    For the majority of 25 years the city has used the 30 feet maximum building height for its policy and had no want to amend the LCP to include it under Coastal Commission jurisdiction. The policy has been in effect in the coastal zone for those 25 years without being under Coastal Commission authority.
    In those 25 years did the Coastal Commission object, file suit, or otherwise pursue the city's lack of including the maximum building height as part of the Coastal Commission's authority? No is the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm not sure that I completely agree with Eric Stevens, who is not an attorney, although he may have been quoting an attorney at the Coastal Commission.

    Our City has had a General Plan that contains our Local Coastal Program, although the opposite is not true. The entire GP is not contained in the LCP. The initiative is based on the pre-existing GP and zoning code ordinance definitions, which spell out that building height be measured from finished or natural grade, whichever is lower. The subsequent zoning ordinance, which conflicted with the original definitions and the original GP, allowed building heights to be measured from an approved tentative map, showing elevated pads.

    That subsequent provision was enacted AFTER a lawsuit filed by Leucadia Cares, I believe. That elevated pad ordinance IS in conflict with the initiative, and so would be repealed. So the four page "report" or letter by Eric Stevens of the Coastal Commission does not take into account that the initiative's language "reverts" back to what the public wanted, and still wants, the original language of the GP and the supporting zoning ordinances. So there is no "new way" that building height is being measured, as the letter incorrectly assumes.

    This "going back to the original methods of measuring" could be determined during any necessary "review." My feeling is that the Coastal Commission is probably disappointed (ticked off) at the City for ignoring Coastal Act Law re elimination of a lane on what the City and the CCC classify as a Major Roadway, N101. My feeling is also that any required review should not take long, because the change is going back to what was originally approved as part of our initial LCP.

    Again, what is happening, is that some amendments to the LCP that were made by Specific Plans, allowing for heights in excess of 30 ft, and for measuring height from elevated pads (if those ordinances were reviewed with respect to any LCP amendments), would have to "revert," back to that which we have always desired. Therefore, review of the subsequent LCP amendments, reverting back to the ORIGINAL GP and Zoning Code Definitions, could be required, but should not be problematic!

    By the way, the letter from Eric Stevens of the CCC speaks to the view corridor along 101 not being obstructed as a requirement of our existing LCP. Moonlight Lofts DOES infringe on the mandated view corridor! The initiative should not repeal or change any language with respect to the view corridor, because such language is NOT in conflict with the initiative, just as the initiative, as a GP Amendment and LCP Amendment (if such is required) is NOT in conflict with lower set building heights, in certain residential zones. Thirty feet, two stories is a maximum, which is not to be exceeded, and does not affect non conflicting lower set height limits, just as the 30 ft., two story maximum in the original GP did not affect those same lower set height limits.

    Again, don't be swayed by doubt and fear. Respectfully, Eric Stevens' letter came long after it was promised, which was to be by June 6th? When it was finally delivered, after the fact of the election, it appears to create more questions than it answers. CCC review is required when the City amends its LCP.

    However, such review should not "complicate" the effective date of the initiative, according to Election Code, particularly if we do not change the requirements to honor our current LCP's mandates to protect the view corridor, which violation of the view corridor the initiative would NOT enable! On the contrary, restricting height to 30 ft., as measured from finished or natural grade, whichever is lower, would help to further protect the view corridor.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Reading further, what doesn't make sense, in the CCC letter, is that apparently the LCP was NOT amended with respect to maximum height limit changes made through the Specific Plans? According to the clear language of the letter, there should have been Amendments to the LCP predicated on zoning ordinance changes, and changes to Zoning standards that resulted from increasing height limits. Yet the letter states that our certified Local Coastal Progaram currently has no such height limit restrictions?

    I believe the Cardiff Specific Plan did go through Coastal Commission review, but Cardiff didn't raise the height limits above 30 ft. and two stories, did it?

    This is all confusing, I admit; but it appears that perhaps that part of the General Plan which contains the LCP should have been amended, with respect to the N101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans? I have been suggesting, for months, that our current GP (and therefore our LCP) is NOT consistent with subsequent ordinances that support N101 and DE Specific Plans, which allow elevated pads and exceeding 30 ft. The initiative is consistent with the LCP, as I understand this, and with those few height limit exceptions specifically delineated in our GP .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lynn-

    think brevity in all that you write.

    Brevity Lynn, Brevity!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes complex issues require more study, and more analysis. Go Twitter if you want to be brief. Anyone is free to skip any posts that are too long for shortened attention spans.

      Delete
    2. I do every time. I bet most people do.

      Delete
    3. lol! Obviously, you didn't skip my previous post, or you wouldn't have replied to it. Funny!

      Delete
    4. Love Lynn - She knows A LOT. Read her posts and learn something. She won't lie or sugar coat things either.

      Delete
  21. Basically what L-word is saying is that A is a cluster fuck of a law and lawyers and judges will have to figure it out in court.
    Oh yeah, L- word- if it takes you more than 3 minutes to type your comment..your comment is too long.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would rather read Lynn's comments any day than your short, profane, and lacking information post of yours. Stop being so crass and low-life.

      Delete
  22. From the L-word "Sara Wan and Everett DeLano are both experts in the Coastal Commission and Coastal Act Law. They are not worried, and neither need we be."

    OK,

    Does the fact that Sara Wan was booted off the Coastal Commission bother you? Or that Mr. Delano in his testimony to council during the Rutan Tucker report hearing, was proud to cite two case to the city council in which he LOST both court cases bother you? Watch the council meeting tapes where he weirdly mentions only two case that he was involved with housing law and then admits he lost both cases.

    Blind faith in a loosing attorney can get costly very very fast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Coastal Commissioners are political appointees. Politics change with new elections and new elected representatives. So no, it doesn't bother me that Sara Wan, after more than twenty years was not reappointed.

      I feel Everett DeLano is well qualified. He prevailed against the City of Encinitas, on behalf of the Citizens for Quality of Life in their lawsuit that prevented further development of the Hall Property until an EIR had been completed for that public works development project, as a whole. He specializes in land use, zoning and initiatives in North County, as well as Environmental Law. Many judges in North County, or most judges, do NOT have these law Sections with the California Bar. Judges, too, are political appointees. Many of their rulings, as we all know, are prejudiced by their politics. This is unfortunate, but true.

      I don't recommend blind faith in anyone, but Justice is to be "blind" to prejudice. That is why Lady Justice is pictured, blindfolded, holding the scales of equity.

      Delete
  23. Where in the Coastal Commission staff letter does it specifically state that Prop A must be submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Does anyone know how much of Encinitas lies within the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction? Is Olevenhein in it and New Encinitas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.coastal.ca.gov/sd/Th6a-1-mm3.pdf

      Looks like it is everything west of El Camino Real plus everything south of the east end of Encinitas Blvd.

      i.e. everything except Village Park and Olivenhain.

      WCV

      Delete
  25. Eric Stevens initially wrote me that that the Coastal Commission had no jurisdiction over the lane elimination on N101 or "re-striping," because it was under the amount of money, required for CCC purview. Later, his superior, the Director of the San Diego Office of the CCC, Deborah Lee, contradicted Eric Stevens' e-mail letter to me in her letter of January 23 to the City.

    Piecemeal development is not allowed, and was the reason that Trestles was again saved. Breaking the Toll Rd. into sections, in order to avoid review of the project, as a whole, is not allowed. The same is true of development within the City according to Coastal Act Law and our General Plan.

    According to Eric Stevens' letter:

    "Sections 30514(a) and (e) of the Coastal Act state “[a] certified local coastal program and all local implementing ordinances, regulations, and other actions may be amended by the appropriate local government, but no such amendment shall take effect until it has been certified by the commission” and “[f]or purposes of this section, ‘amendment of a certified local coastal program’ includes, but is not limited to, any action by a local government that authorizes the use of a parcel of land other than a use that is designated in the certified local coastal program as a permitted use of the parcel.” (Emphasis added)

    An ordinance that would affect the use of land in the coastal zone in a manner that is not permitted in a certified LCP or one that would potentially prohibit a use that is otherwise allowed in a certified LCP or Land Use Plan must be submitted to the Coastal Commission, regardless of whether it was adopted by the legislative body or by the electorate. Such local actions that affect the regulation of land use in the coastal zone must be submitted to the Coastal Commission as LCP amendments; and, unless and until the Commission certifies the initiative as an LCP amendment, the initiative measure has no legal force or effect in the coastal zone for purposes of the Coastal Act."

    2. . . . [W]hat portions need to be certified, what is the process, and how long will it
    take to complete? [question from Jeff Murphy]

    "It appears that multiple portions of the initiative may directly modify or indirectly impact
    the LCP. First, Land Use Policy 6.6 of the City’s certified Land Use Plan states:

    “The construction of very large buildings shall be discouraged where such structures are incompatible with surrounding development. The building height of both residential and non-residential structures shall be compatible with surrounding development, given topographic and other considerations, and shall protect public views of regional or statewide significance.”

    Unlike most other certified land use plans, there was no specific height limit adopted for development in the Encinitas LCP. The proposed initiative states “[o]n and after the date
    this initiative measure becomes effective no building or structure shall exceed a maximum height of two stories or 30 feet.”

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wording becomes all important in defining Coastal Commission jurisdiction, appeals to the Commission, and the coastal zone.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ***************
    So reading the text I quoted, above, from Eric Stevens CCC letter to the City, what is notable, besides Stevens' not answering the question of "how long would it take?" is that the language of the initiative is the same with respect to the height of two stories and 30 feet, as a maximum, as the language in the original General Plan. Same for the point from which height is measured, at the lower of finished or natural grade. Because there is no change from the General Plan and the initiative, we can see what was changed were the height limits that were INCREASED by the N101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans.

    Did those Specific Plans ever get LCP amendments, as required, according to Mr. Stevens? Just because LCP amendments to increase height limits, and with a subsequent zoning ordinance, to change the measuring point to that of elevated pads, WERE required, does not mean that they were accomplished.

    As was noted in Director Deborah Lee's letter to the City on Jan. 23, CEQA exemptions are to be filed with the CCC by the Planning director. That means, mitigated negative impact declarations should have been filed, all these years. Because that part of Coastal Act law was not enforced, and the City got away with not doing it, does not mean that the CCC "changed the rules mid-game," as charged by Councilwoman Kristin Gaspar at the 1/30 Council Meeting.

    Similarly, because GP and related LCP amendments were required for the N101SP and the DESP, does not mean that the City of Encinitas followed the correct Coastal Act protocol. From my reading of Eric Stevens letter, and our General Plan, which contains our LCP, I feel that the initiative is entirely consistent with the GP and the LCP.

    Everett DeLano wrote the initiative to be consistent. DeLano prevailed for the Citizens for Quality of Life lawsuit against the City of Encinitas with respect to piecemeal development of the Hall Property with premature demolition before the Environmental Impact Report for the park, as a whole, had been completed.

    What is and has been inconsistent, from my understanding of this, are the 101 Specific Plans in Leucadia and Downtown Encinitas. Because the initiative is consistent with our General Plan and our certified LCP, there should be no "re-certification required, as no LCP amendments should be required. An LCP amendment IS required for eliminating a lane for motorists on a Major Roadway, primary circulation element, on N101, which is within the Coastal Zone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. L-word, the road diet is working just fine. As someone wrote on this blog to the No on A people...you lost time to move on.
      PS- you imply the width of the road was narrowed. It's the same as always, if the fire dept needs to bypass the painted lines, they will. No problems for them they are big boys driving a big truck. Etc etc .

      Has Marco decided to shut down the fireworks this year??

      Delete
    2. The lane ELIMINATION for motorists on a Major Roadway, primary circulation element within the Coastal Zone is what triggers the requirement for environmental review, according to Coastal Act Law, including GP, N101SP, and LCP amendments, NOT the width of the lanes.

      This issue is being appealed to the Coastal Commission, by two Coastal Commissioners, and the public, probably in October. Your opinion that it's "working fine," is contrary to the opinion of locals, adjacent residents.

      Delete
    3. Not true. You are a liar Lynn!

      All of my neighbors that live along the corridor love the road diet.

      Lynn-

      You have no common sense. A complete moron!

      Delete
  28. Prop A people said we were safe, this issue would not have to go before the CCC
    And here we are ------ what is the next lie ------- the check is in the mail to cover
    The cost of the special election -----$350000

    ReplyDelete
  29. This is off topic but someone has to say it: OK, I've had enough, Lynn. It is obvious that you are intelligent and can comprehend facts and arrange them in an orderly manner. You are a good writer. However, must you go to evey friggin city council meeting, and speak on every friggin subject and dominate the way you are doing on this very blog? Right now you are rehashing old issues, like the Lane Diet,and I am beginning to wonder if you really care about our community or just like hearing the sound of your own voice. One poster asked for "brevity". I agree. Don't you see your message and intent is DILUTED by non stop participation? Also, you crossed the line when you defended your husband in regard to an altercation at the Environment Day Fair. I was there, and I saw the whole thing. Your husband was loud, confrontational and didn't deal well with the request that he put his political sign elsewhere. Yes, he had a right to have the sign, and maybe the man who approached him could've just looked the other way, but he didn't and asked him in a quiet manner and was respectful. Your husband was not, and you could hear his yelling and angry comments from 100 feet away. Both of you need to GROW UP. You are making the rest of us LOOK BAD. I suppose this will offer you ammo for a long winded rant, so rant away. It just seems a shame to me that so much talent and energy is being polluted by your ego, and a needy complusion for attention. I would think you'd get a clue after you were almost thrown out of the Leucadia Town Council Prop A debate at the Library.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you say your name, as you use mine, and also speak against my husband, Russell? If you were a witness, who was the man who came up and got in Russell's face and demanded that he leave? You and that man hide behind your cowardice and anonymity, making unsubstantiated accusations against and demands to me and Russell.

      I wasn't there, but Russell had every right to be upset that someone would verbally accost him, get in his face. He definitely didn't feel that the initial man was being "polite" or "respectful" of his Civil Liberties, and his right of free expression. If you were 100 ft. away, then you probably have no idea what was said to Russell, and you have not stated what Russell said back to him. He asked the man to show him by what authority he was saying he had to leave. The man brought back the "bylaws," which were for exhibitors, only, NOT the General Public. Russell went there to enjoy Environmental Day, not to be hassled because he had a Yes on A sign attached to the front basket on his bicycle. He's a Vietnam Vet and deserves your respect, not your callous disregard of his liberties.

      Although he didn't have to, Russell did compromise, did move his bicycle, with the sign on the basket, from where the other bikes were parked, after he spoke to John Gjata. Please don't badmouth me or my husband behind your shield of cowardice. If you've had enough, then SKIP reading or sharing here. You can chose not to participate. No one is forcing you to read anything here. But you know that.

      Delete
    2. At least when I share, I am doing so under my own name. Your rants are cowardly diatribes.

      I wasn't "almost thrown out" of the forum at the library. Why don't you substantiate your incorrect assumptions. You could begin by sharing who you are, instead of making accusations behind s shield of cowardice. I guess this forum is perfect for you, because you can hide behind your anonymity, while you attack those with whom you have some kind of obsessive "personality conflict."

      I will continue to go to and speak at every Council Meeting on every Agenda Item which concerns me. Agenda Items are set for public hearing, to gather public input. The City is to be by and for the people. Three minutes per topic, which is usually my max, is not too much, in my opinion. I don't respect your opinion, since I feel, by your actions, and your "hidden agenda," that you are being a bully, a hypocrite, and a coward.

      Delete
    3. Touch a nerve, have we?

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    4. The Lword is walking a very fine line.

      Good luck Lword.

      Delete
    5. Lynn, I was there. The gentleman asked him very politely not to bring politics to the event and your husband acted like a five year old a-hole.BTW I am a big prop A supporter.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, it does "touch a nerve," when cowards make false accusations and try to degrade the importance of our First Amendment rights.

      Frig you, 10:49 . . . You make yourself look bad.

      Russ

      Delete
    7. "Your husband acted like a five year old a-hole." First of all, I wouldn't call a five year old an a-hole. Secondly, why do you have to try to make this conversation personal with aggressive personal remarks made against children or family members? I won't believe you were there unless you provide me with your name and the "gentleman's" name who accosted Russell. The accoster wasn't polite. YOUR civil liberties were not being threatened. No one got up close and personal, "in your face."

      Please stop trying to hijack this thread by derailing the CCC conversation. The lane elimination for motorists on N101 is relevant only because it shows Council's hypocrisy with respect to actions that, regardless of one "flamer's" opinion, DO require a Local Coastal Program amendment and a Coastal Development Permit. On the otherhand, a LCP amendment probably is NOT mandated by the passage of Prop A, contrary to Eric Stevens' implications in his letter to Jeff Murphy and the City.

      Does anyone know whether or not the N101SP and the Downtown Encinitas SP resulted in LCP amendments due to the change in building heights allowed through them? Please, let's get back on topic! Thank you.

      Delete
    8. Thanks, WC!

      "b. Encinitas LCP Amendment No. 1-97 (North Highway 101 Corridor Specific Plan). Public hearing and action on request by City of Encinitas to amend certified Land Use Plan to redesignate 15 areas affecting numerous lots and amend implementation plan to adopt the North Highway 101 Corridor Specific Plan as the implementing document for the City’s North Highway 101 corridor. (LJM-SD) [APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS]"

      Since this was approved through the CCC in 1997, it looks as though another LCP amendment would be required. Thanks for looking it up!

      Delete
    9. 11:40 AM

      The city's environmental day on June 9 was political.

      About the United Nations World Environment Day •

      World Environment Day was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1972. It is celebrated every year on 5th June to raise global awareness of the need to take positive environmental action and is run by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP

      Delete
    10. Thanks, 12:38!

      Also, WC, although I did see where the Coastal Commission approved Encinitas LCP Amendment for the "North Highway 101 Corridor Specific Plan," I don't see anything about a LCP amendment approved by the CCC for the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan increases in height limit? Can you find anything on those changes? Was there another LCP amendment with respect to the DESP?

      Delete
  30. Council could have avoided that cost, by taking Tony Kranz up on his suggestion, which City Attorney Glenn Sabine said he would study, and report back, that it was a "novel idea," that the initiative could be adopted outright, only UNTIL the November 2014 General Election, when the City would put the verbatim initiative on the ballot, at a cost of only about $30,000, and possibly another similar measure, for about $17,000 to $23,000 more, if Council wanted another "alternative measure." That way, the ballot measure with the most YES votes would have succeeded, and the City could have "tweaked" the language of the initiative, if it felt that was necessary.

    But the City Attorney never came back with any such report. Tony Kranz said he "changed his mind," just as Deputy Mayor Lisa Shaffer changed hers, after they both had signed the initiative, and they were both elected to office on the strength of Prop A proponents.

    What they could do now, to regain some trust, is to eliminate Glenn Sabine who consistently gives bad advice, to NOT hire a PR Communications Specialist, and to give all unrepresented employees making over $100,000 per year a 20% pay reduction, to cut costs, and help free up some money for more Community Grants to true charities, more Capital Improvement Projects, including purchasing and refurbishing Pacific View, and more funding toward UNFUNDED pension liabilities, which will count much more heavily, beginning next year, toward overall City debt, according to the State General Accounting Office.

    ReplyDelete
  31. On May 29th, the Coastal Commission wrote to Planning Director Jeff Murphy regarding Prop A: "We find that because these changes impacted process only and do not advance or interfere with the policies of the Coastal Act, the changes do not require Coastal Commission approval."

    Something happened between then and now: what was it? Whether pro or con Prop A, all should wonder and be concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, the May 29 letter was written by Jeff Murphy, and was e-mailed, as an attachment by Planner Mike Strong to North County staff representative at the California Coastal Commission, Eric Stevens.

      Planning Director Murphy. in his May 29 letter, asked questions, some, or most of which Eric Stevens has answered in his July 1, belated response to the City. In Mr. Stevens July 1 response, he puts Murphy's May 29 questions in italics.

      On rereading his July 1 letter to the City, Mr. Stevens does try to address Murphy's question re the length of time needed to certify an LCP amendment through the CCC.

      " Understanding the time sensitivity for the City, Commission staff would work with the City to expedite review of any resulting LCP amendments and target a hearing before the Commission in San Diego County, Orange County or Los Angeles County to maximize public participation."

      Implementation apparently requires a hearing on the proposed LCP amendment within 60 days, but extensions are routine, according to Stevens, taking up to one year. I get the impression that the CCC would try to expedite the hearing re the LCP, so that the matter could be settled ASAP.

      Democracy can be "messy." Coastal Commission review can be "cumbersome," but it's designed to protect our Coastal resources. The initiative process in California is very much appreciated, by many, as is the Coastal Commission. I still say, relax. The sky isn't falling . . .

      We can work our way through this, together. But required Coastal Commission review isn't going to pull apart the initiative, or the majority of the voters who supported Prop A.

      Delete
  32. Could you post that letter of May 29th. Who wrote to the Planning Director from the Coastal Commission. This indeed, is getting curiouser and curiouser.

    ReplyDelete
  33. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B67_DGYxCPhudGFGMi1wQVkxS0k/preview?pli=1

    ReplyDelete
  34. 11:41, you have it backwards. That letter is from Murphy to Stevens of the CCC, stating that Murphy and other City staffers don't think provisions of the initiative have to be reviewed by the CCC and asking Stevens if he agrees. Plus, when Stevens writes on CCC letterhead, you can bet he's not stating his personal position. He represents the CCC's view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't appear that way. Others in his office (unfortunately) by phone, in higher capacities, contradict Stevens' statements.

      We'll just have to wait and see...but either way, something very strange and not above-board seems to be at work here.

      Delete
    2. I'm glad that others, in higher capacities, have contradicted Stevens' statements.

      That happened with respect to the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction re the lane elimination on N101, too, but in that case, Planning Commission Deborah Lee's letter to the city was in writing.

      Thanks for staying on topic, 1:46. I don't blame anyone for wishing to remain anonymous, because I know that many "private individuals" have been targeted, including myself, by the City and by commenters, here.

      To me, there's a big difference with respect to making anonymous comments about public officials due to concerns about "retribution," and making cowardly attacks against private individuals just to bully them into no longer posting, or to hijack the thread of the discussion.

      Delete
    3. 1:46, have you ever worked in a hierarchical bureaucracy? Underlings do not state the organization's position on anything without approval by higher-ups. My bet is Stevens' reply to Murphy was heavily vetted. While you're at it, why not give us the specifics about the contradictions you mentioned?

      Delete
  35. 1:15 PM
    What a Coastal Commission staffer writes on CCC letterhead represents the office view whether locally or headquarters. When it is in a CCC staff report it becomes the recommendation. The Commissioners can accept or reject that report.

    ReplyDelete
  36. L-word for Communications Director!

    She writes well, can confuse anyone and we know she is always on top of her facts. She is alve very good at not smearing anyone or spreading rumors. She is always searching for the best in people when she comments.

    I think L-Word could save Encinitas and bridge all of our differences with her voluminous writings.
    Peace out-

    ReplyDelete
  37. Pretty funny with two points

    She writes like shit and lies 90% of the time.

    Other than that she may be qualified.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2:14, you're probably the same C-Word poster as 1:59, lol! You sure know all about liars and twisting the truth. Whether you're the same poster or not, you're an anonymous bully and a coward!

      Delete
  38. What's your "word," 1:59? Maybe C-word, for Coward?

    I'm "owning" all my posts now, whatever anyone wants to call me. Because I'm targeted anyway, whether it's actually me posting or not, lol!

    Are you Anton, perhaps? If it's you, you wrote a terribly "voluminous" commentary, mainly about yourself, stroking your own ego, in the Coast News. If it's not Anton, my apologies.

    Anyhow, if you find my writing voluminous, then why don't you try skipping reading my posts; why don't you try not overreacting by responding to my comments?

    I have repeatedly asked the City NOT to hire a PR Communications Specialist, and if you were paying attention, you'd realize that.

    The only time I mentioned the word "rumor," was publicly, at a City Council Meeting, not anonymously, here, or anywhere else. I openly and publicly addressed the rumor so that Peder Norby, personally, could clear it up. I later apologized to Norby and to Council for even repeating the word "rumor," as that raised so many hackles, and didn't result in the requested clarification. Actually the defensiveness that resulted indicated to those already suspicious that there could, indeed, be something to hide. Immediately after this all "went down," Peder Norby dropped out of his race for County Supervisor, for "family reasons."

    Norby has refused to publicly clarify, although he did send a "crying" e-mail to all of Council, complaining about my comments during the April 17 CIP Agenda Item, which Boathouses comments were for less than 40 seconds, total, with far less time being about any alleged "rumor."

    I did say Russell and I didn't know if the rumor was true! Instead of clearing up word on the streets, which rumor I didn't start, but was honest enough to ask about, publicly, under my own name, Norby made it worse by sending in his "minions" to attack me, through Encinitas Preservation ASsociation Director (Norby, Doug Long and Paul Ecke III are also on the Board of Directors) Beverly Goodman and Norby's pal, Mayor Teresa Barth, who posed and again referred to a "baseless rumor," without stating what I had actually asked, or specifically said!

    Norby has since refused to cooperate by fulfilling a California Public Records Act forwarded to him by the City through the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

    Again, you are attempting to derail the topic of WC's initiating post with your personal attacks and derogatory remarks against me. Sarcasm is not your forte', C-word.

    ReplyDelete
  39. WC, It appears someone has stolen your blog.Let's call it lynns blog now

    ReplyDelete
  40. Why don't we call it anonymous' blog? WC is secure enough to know that this is his blog, and to allow me to answer snide remarks directed towards me, if I choose to do so. He can always delete whatever comments he feels like deleting, too.

    I don't think you can manipulate WC through your ego based tactics, C-Word.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Lynn
    You ask a question and then you answer it I am sorry that is not called a
    Conversation. That is called a speech,are you runnig for something .If so
    what

    ReplyDelete
  42. I can't answer the questions I put to you, C-Word, and neither can you, anonymously.

    What are you running from?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Lynn has done plenty of good in keeping the council accountable. She has far more people rooting for her than might be imagined.

    ReplyDelete
  44. funny stuff,

    Lynn as the $135K spin meister for the city. Poetry in so many ways. I actually think she would do just as good of a job as anyone else!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Reading the above posts, a few things come to mind:
    1) Not every question requires an answer,
    2) Let sleeping dogs lie,
    3) Sticks and stones.........,
    4) Don't sweat the petty stuff, and don't pet the sweaty stuff,
    5) If you want to be understood, never use jargon.

    Lynn's comments might be interesting, they sound interesting, but I have no idea what she's talking about. Her comments are heavy on the detail but they leave out the big picture. I don't go to council meetings. I watch them on video rarely. I know who the central characters are but beyond that? All the knowledge I have comes from the public domain. Regardless, when the discussion breaks down to playground taunts it makes everyone look silly and petty. I do agree with the whole Anon thing. You can still be Anon and own your views - right Cabezon?

    - The Sculpin

    ReplyDelete
  46. 4) Don't sweat the petty stuff, and don't pet the sweaty stuff,

    Well said Sculpin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Scuplin perhaps you should go to council meetings. It might explain why Lynn has a deeper understaning of the issue facing the city then you do. She is well informed, the type of resident those in power would prefer be quiet or better yet be discredited in the eyes of the public, ya know, one of those alinsky rules thingy.

      I am curious what you think of Lynn's revelation that downtown bar czar and uptown high density czar Pedr Norby signed on with Doug Long and David Meyer on the oppose no board? Norby of course lives in carlsbad and is not a resident, he also gets paid an obscene amount of money to push upzoning and is on videonrecommending 5 story buildings. Can Norby be considered an honest brokdr to represent residents of fellow out of town builders? what do you think?

      Delete
    2. 4:06 - You're 1st paragraph alludes to a conspiracy theory - conspiracy theories are great fun in a Dan Brown novel but rarely exist in reality. Clearly Lynn is a royal pain to the council, but I doubt poison darts will result in her untimely demise. I really don't care that Norby, Long and Meyer are "in bed together". I don't know who they are and in my line of work we probably won't cross paths. So in my world, this is not a "revelation". There are alot of people and groups who influence Encinitas life, and I pay no mind to where they live. Their actions are more relevant to their residency. Obscene is a relative term - I have no idea if what he makes is market, but I bet it's pretty close. It was a negotiated salary, unless you subscribe to conspiracy theories. % story buildings in and of themselves don't bother me either - depending on where they are. How tall is the WalMart building? Want to know the real shocker? My neighbors think I'm informed!!!! What does that tell you about the rest of the neighborhood?

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    3. The facts may sond like dan brown to you, sculpin, but they're still the facts.

      Delete
    4. I never mentioned anything about "Meyer," Sculpin. Where'd you pull that name out of, if you don't know who the characters involved are "in your line of work?" Because I state a fact, who is or has been on the Board of Directors for the Encinitas Preservation Association, the EPA, which was actively used in failed attempts to denounce Prop A as bad for historical character, in misleading posters, flyers and mailers, as well as newspaper ads, doesn't mean I am insinuating a conspiracy theory. One person's "conspiracy," could be another's tax exempt business association, or foundation.

      One could ask, what is the difference between a "conspiracy" and an organization, anyway? In the case of non-profits, it could be that foundations and tax exempt business groups are PUBLICLY associated, with DISCLOSABLE IRS Form 990's, while a conspiracy operates, AGAINST public interest, in the interests of a self-interested, secretive minority, behind closed doors, to consolidate their power and influence through manipulation, deceit, and often, "intrigue."

      According to my Wiki Dictionary, intrigue is:

      verb: make secret plans to do something illicit or detrimental to someone : the delegates were intriguing for their own gains.
      or
      noun: the secret planning of something illicit or detrimental to someone : the cabinet was a nest of intrigue: the intrigues of local government officials.

      Non-profits are required to report lobbying activities, even if someone allegedly uses their names and logos "without permission."

      Delete
    5. Sculpin you reveal that you know very little about encinitas government. Norby is not city staff but a hired gun to carry the water of the pro development council. He is paid 105,000 dollars annually for part time work. He has not set hours, reports to no one and has never had a job review. As the facilitator ofCardiff specific plan norby led multiple votes where citizens votedend and reached consensus to limit density. The official minutes state a consensus was reached, then NORBYwent and told the planning commission no consensus was reached................hmmm, conspiracy to upzone against the will of the people? a few weeks later city planning staff Diane lanager and lori tremor , the same city staff that wrote the official minutes stating the citizens reached consensus, told the council the citizens did not.................hmmm, conspiracy? the council then ordered Norby and staff to hold an open house and they put all the density back in...................hmm conspiracy to upzone? after the open house the opposition comments to the upzoning outnumbered the out of town developers who wrote to support upzoning, but staff filed the opposition incorrectly in the folder................hmmm conspiracy? in the end it took a video of the votes to show what happened, this is old history.

      Delete
    6. Lynn at 9:28 - I was responding to Anon 4:06's query; "I am curious what you think of Lynn's revelation that downtown bar czar and uptown high density czar Pedr Norby signed on with Doug Long and David Meyer on the oppose no board?"
      Care to revisit your statement "I never mentioned anything about "Meyer,".

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    7. scuplin- dude, I caught you on this blog doing the same thing last week, taking one post/comment and then applying it to someone else-

      Meyer, Norby, Long are all part of the Preservation group- The PReservation goup opposed A.

      This whole Coastal Commission thing is being directed by Norby, Meyers, hardwood baldie and big REIT's like Terramar

      Our complicit spineless pro-development council being led about like 3 blind mice by gus vina are now mucking up the process like Barth saying implementation will be slow-

      Here's the fact Barth- once the election is certified Prop A takes effect, (there certainly could be a so called moratorium as the coastal commission takes a look) but A supercedes-

      Also what is Barth's comment about the Cardiff specific plan where Barth did absolutely nothing to stand with the community? Barth says A will effect Cardiff, no it won't. Cardiff has height limits of 22-26ft, this is below the maximum of Prop A-

      Is Barth suggesting we now void the Cardiff Plan raise height limits to 30 feet? IT would explain Barth's close ties to high density bar czar Norby.

      Delete
    8. 9:45 - I'm sorry, but you really lost me on this one. I was responding to a question from an Anon, and then Lynn, under the impression that I was responding to her post, which I wasn't, responded with "Where'd you pull that name out of". I tried to clarify with my 8:47 post, and now you're saying I made the whole thing up! I'm sorry but please, please tell me where I got this wrong.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
  47. Lynn is miss informed and attacks those who disagree with her. Along with her are contributors like the above.
    Norby is not "signd"on w Meyers, Ecke or Long and did not ever "push upzoning" and Never "recommended 5 story buildings.
    Please stop spreading this bullshit. One Lynn is more than enough. Lynn does not have an UNDERSTANDING of anything. The closest analogy would be the blind squirrel that every once and a while gets a nut. Or in this case gets a nut to believe her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not true. There is proof that Norby pushed for 4-5 stories. The ERAC meetings were videotaped. He clearly states it on tape. The prop A "losers" are so immature and childish. One thing for certain is that the proponents of Prop A will never back down and never let the developers turn our precious city into another Huntington Beach. More people than you know are behind Prop A's success and they will NEVER stop until the builders move on to another place. Save yourself some time and money and move now while you can. There are other cities that want development. The lies and bullying don't work with the majority of us. Too bad for you that we can't be intimidated.

      Delete
    2. 10:04:

      You are a liar like Lynn.

      Peder Norby has great visions and logical common sense for implementing healthy main streets that are the opposite of PB and Hungtington Beach.

      The KLCC vision is to keep Leucadia looking like Oxnard and no one visits there and therefore rents are kept low and parking is not a problem.

      I think we can do much better.

      The crappy KLCC vision is lowing the quality of life for all Leucadians. You can tell, Leucadians are screaming for a vibrant downtown by the way they all clammer to any new business that opens in Leucadia.

      Build the streetscape and all will enjoy the benefits except for the KLCC goals.

      Delete
    3. 6:49 you are entitled to opinion of Nor by but you can't spin the facts, you can only ignore the,. NNor by misrepresented residents in Cardiff athto promote 'stack and pack' high density that would benefit his developer friends. In ERAC Norby recommended 5. Story stack and pack density to benefit his developer friends. Both osis these facts, the misrepresentation in cardiCardiff and the stack and pack ERAC were caught on videotape. Nor by can not and should need be trusted. His contract should be terminated. Add to this that as Bar Czar Norby is responsible for the iincrease in bars and destruction of community character downtown.

      Delete
  48. Everyone knows Lword is a nut case.

    Probably 2 to 3 people support her. One being Bob Ahole and the other the removed Mayor.

    If the Lword thinks she is has a following, run for Council. That will be fun!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It isn't cool to attack Lynn, Bob, or Sheila! Whether I agree with their view on an issue or not, I appreciate what they have to say. If you notice, they discuss issues and try to make the City accountable. They don't attack other citizens.

      Anon 6:18, why don't you follow suit and discuss issues instead of flaming citizens?? I am interested in issues not your endless list of insults towards community members.

      Delete
    2. Every time I see a post with that moronic "L Word" included, I skip the post. Not because I'm a Lynn fan, but because it's so worn out and really just dumb.

      Delete
  49. Great look like anything to do with the Lword causes people to skip reading posts

    ReplyDelete
  50. I can not wait fOr the next election

    ReplyDelete
  51. Sculpin must live in a pathetic neighborhood.
    Lynn has to be the most informed private citizen on most issues with the cities. She has devoted her life to unveiling inconvenient truths about our city affairs. I don't always agree with her bit I marvel how much passion she has. If everyone could be just 1% as involved as she is this it would make things much better, though council meeting could be 24 hours long!

    Go Lynn, don't let the Sculpin and all the bashers get you down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:39 - What does my neighborhood have to do with any of this? I live in Encinitas - are you saying that some areas of our great city are "pathetic"? That's quite some community pride, there! And I never "bashed" Lynn - I just made the observation that her posts have so much detail that it's difficult to follow. Basically, they're for "insiders" around the council, and Lynn is clearly an "insider". Council and staff probably know exactly what she's taking about, I don't. All I can do is take her comments at face value and consider what it all could mean.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
  52. Yeah Lynn. Go.

    You write forever and talk even more, yet no one hears anything you say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not true. There are plenty of listeners. Ones who want to actually learn something from a knowledgeable person. People using bad words and insults need to move on. We don't want to read your angry outbursts.

      Delete
    2. There we go again.

      Lynn posting anon.

      Most be tough to keep it so short.

      Delete
  53. Nope, I am "owning my posts," because I am not afraid of the anonymous cowards who attack me. I am doing this so I don't get blamed for posts I don't make, which has been happening, for years, and because I'm willing to accept the consequences of sharing publicly.

    Believe what you want 9:16. I guess it makes you feel better that I would praise myself, lol. Thanks to those who have supported me and/or open, honest, and relevant conversations, here.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Lynn:

    You are such a Liar!

    You post anon all the time. Everyone knows it.

    So what? You post this thread with your name. You post anon probably 50% of the time.

    Other people are smarter than you and can easily identify your anon posts that ramble on and on about all the same old past crap that you bring up all the time.

    The rambling, repeating, crappy post is your signature.

    So we have established:

    1. Your not very smart.
    2. Your writing sucks.
    3. People don't read your posts
    4. No one listens to you at Council Meetings.
    5. You do not care about others
    6. You like to hear yourself speak

    Keep up the great work Lynn. Your going great in your own mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Instead of finding flaws in her arguments, you attack her personally and attempt to the other side.

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't waste my time.

      She will not or possibly can not listen.

      Delete
    3. Hmm, let's see, there's "your" and then there's "you're." Does 6:39 know the difference between the two?

      Delete
    4. Yes. But it's a blog comment, not a formal writing assignment. Do u understand ? :)

      Delete
    5. When u have nothing valuable to add, attack the grammar.

      The fact is- the Lword is a complete waste of time.

      Delete
    6. When someone writes "your" when it should be "you're" it is usually Jerome. Just say'in.

      Delete
    7. OK, 9:44, we undrstind, so well jest skip de fundimentalls of writting Engglish to mak shure evrybodie stays totully confussed.

      Delete
    8. I understand your loud and clear. Do you have any substance or just grammar correction crap?

      Delete
  55. Regarding pro A
    It will take city staff about a year to process all the changes that will include public hearing Planning Commission review, etc,it will then go on to coastal comm. They
    are under staffed and have serious backlog.Maybe 2 or 3 years at coastal comm.
    So let's see that could be 4 years.WC LYNN I think you owe this council an
    Apology.You were told this was going to happen but you believed BRUCE --KEVIN
    LYNN --SHEILA oh ya and WC -----GOOD WORK GUYS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look at the quality of people we have on staff! They can't even keep track of their own files.

      Delete
    2. Once the election is certified Prop is the law. If the CCC wants to over turn it down the road that is another issue

      Delete
    3. I agree, once the election is certified, by the City, which is happening July 10, from what I can understand, by reading the Agenda, then I believe the initiative is effective within 10 days, according to Election Code, detailed by the writer of the initiative, Everett DeLano. I have asked, here, but didn't get an answer, yet, whether or not the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan (DESP) ever resulted in an amendment to our Local Coastal Program (LCP)?

      WC was able to "dig up" a 1997 Coastal Commission Agenda Minutes, which he linked here (Thank you, again!) that shows where the North 101 Specific Plan( N101SP) was approved by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), through a LCP Amendment.

      I'm taking the time to put in the acronyms, to help out those who say they don't understand what I'm talking about. It does take more time to make oneself clear. Sculpin, thanks for explaining where you got the word, Meyer. David Meyer is well known to be part of the pro-development Agenda mentality in this town, but In the limited paperwork I could find, online, (Peder Norby failed to answer my California Public Records Act request, which was forwarded him through the City Clerk's Office), I don't recall seeing David Meyer on the Board of Directors for the Encinitas Preservation Association (EPA).

      Of course Everett DeLano should be able to answer this question, about when the initiative will become officially effective, and perhaps the City could ask him, as he has specialties (Sections listed on his California Bar page) in Real Property Law, which includes (but is not limited to) zoning, land use and initiatives, as well Environmental Law, which the contracted attorney, Joel Kuperberg, did not have. The City paid $55,000 to Kuperberg, through his Orange County law firm, Rutan & Tucker, to write a slanted, pro-development impact report, full of conjecture, speculation, and twisted reasoning, that misled Council and led to their writing untrue ballot arguments against the initiative, and led to the City Attorney's writing a NOT impartial impact report that twisted the conjecture and supposition into untruthsl

      From Eric Stevens' letter to the City, the CCC will do its best to expedite its review of any LCP amendments the City finds it necessary to submit. I would think the process of revising the currently approved N101SP should be quick and easy, as the only thing that would need to be changed would be to reduce the height limits back to the 30 feet and two stories originally specified in the General Plan. Same for the DESP, if that ever officially went through a process of an LCP Amendment. If it didn't, then it should be OK, as is, with the development standards reverting to how they should have been, all along, with 30 ft., two story maximum. Other than the height limit, nothing else about the Specific Plans needs to be adjusted. The view corridor protections, which Eric Stevens mentions, should still be in effect, although they were not honored with respect to the construction of Moonlight Lofts.

      I truly feel that the Planning Commission and the Planning Dept. should be able to make these changes to the LCP Amendment(s) for the 101 Corridor Specific Plans within a month. The City was able to quickly push through a General Plan Amendment with respect to eliminating the 4/5 Majority Vote by Council exception.

      The Coastal Commission could review the changes within 60 days, or at least by October, when there is to be another CCC meeting in San Diego, at which time we feel the Appeal of the premature lane elimination for motorists on North 101 may also be heard.

      Delete
    4. I am curious about the development on Vulcan which has not been substantially built, but immediately had its pads elevated. My feeling is that there should be a "moratorium" on that development, because the original General Plan and Zoning Code definitions supporting the GP, specify that building height is to be measured from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. Elevated pads are NOT necessary for sewer flow. If there has not been "substantial development" on that project, but only a tentative map approval with elevated pads, then there should be a "stop work order," until this is sorted out, in my opinion.

      Again, I'm not a lawyer, but the initiative was partly written with the intent to repeal the subsequent zoning ordinance that is conflict with the zoning definitions in Encinitas Municipal Code (EMC) Chapter 30.04, defining structures, maximum heights for structures, and defining how the height is measured.

      Delete
    5. " I am not a lawyer", finally the truth comes out.

      Delete
  56. It is time to eliminate the CCC. They do more to stop progress in this state than any other govt agency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's your definition of "progress"?

      Delete
  57. Back in the mid nineties, Dan Trifone was leaving DEMA as Exec. Director and Peder was to take his place. Not knowing Peder, I thought "good luck". Dan quadrupled the size of DEMA's membership in one month. How could anyone surpass that? But as time went on, Peder proved to be the perfect person for DEMA.
    Downtown was in shambles. The sidewalk sucked - what there was of it. (6" to 12" dirt paths climbed both sides of B St. on 101). DEMA, LMA and the Cardiff Chamber would have "clean and green" events volunteering to clean up each community to make them presentable. But you can't polish a turd. Some sidewalks were cleaned, a few hanging plants were installed on the galvanized interrogation style lamp posts, but overall it was a lot of public sweat and money for little gain.
    Then Peder came aboard and promoted the first Streetscape. Knowing intimately that the people of Encinitas were fond of their past, he promoted the resurrection of the neon ENCINITAS sign that used to hang near the La Paloma in the 20's. Boom, the ambiance of old Encinitas began. Later when Peder was on vacation, he found the company that made the original design of lampposts for the downtown. He promoted those and they too were restored to 101 - beautiful lamps from the same molds. He helped me when I came before the city to resurrect the hwy 101 shield that had been missing for 50 years. He also worked with John Daley of Oceanside helping to make hwy 101 a Historic Route throughout all California and succeeded at the state level. When he first took the DEMA position, it was clear downtown was dying. The post office left forcing everyone inland. Banks when inland. Markets like Community Market and Cassidy's closed, Cassidy's went to New Encinitas. Then, a group desiring to make Quail Gardens Drive a brand new commercial corridor through Encinitas (which would have been the hinge of the downtown coffin), wanted to get their foot in the door with rezoning QGD by building our new library there. I was on a committee with Peder, Sheila, Bob Bonde, Jack Orr and Ida Lou Coley who joined efforts to KEEP the Encinitas Library downtown - as sending the library elsewhere was yet another public service that would continue the trend of downtown drying up, blowing away, and becoming a bedroom community. Another reason why Peder is into preservation of our local icons (La Paloma, Boat Houses etc). And by the way, I don't get the suggestion earlier that Peder had lied about having a Bakery downtown. He did. It was in the middle of the west side of 101 in the 500 block.
    The Downtown Streetscape for 5 blocks was completed and today still looks great. It definitely achieved the goals of making downtown more beautiful, pedestrian friendly, a nicer and safer road, attractive street lamps, new sidewalks, artistic mosaic tile medallions in the new sidewalks depicting local themes, and a place people wanted to go and shop, eat and as we all know now, drink and be
    "merry". But Peder's aim was never to over saturate drinking establishments. That's just what occurred as a biproduct. And as Ross Perot once said "I see a problem, I fix it".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the past is the past- today Norby failed to accurately represent residents in Cardiff and resident with the GPU. Maybe Norby got to close to the machine and got sucked inside but he is now looking out for himself and the masters that pay his bills. If he has been getting that 100K salary for 15 years then he has sucked up 1.5 million dollars of our tax money. It's time the council send him on his way

      Delete
    2. The downtown Encinitas streetscape didn't include roundabouts, and originally, didn't include Pacific Station, which dramatically reduced parking on the street, and didn't include all the extra drinking establishments that were encouraged to come in, apparently, by the 101 Coordinator.

      Delete
    3. PAC station didn't reduce any parking downtown, in fact it's added over 100 spots under the building. I park there all the time. I enjoy parking in the compact car spots or the low emissions spots but my favorite place to park under whole foods is the USPS designated location.
      More nonsense From L-word, better known as BULLSHIT. And PAC Station had nothing to do with more drinking establishments. Sniff sniff yup that's bullshit.
      And while the 101 coordinator has his flaws, has he seen the north end of 101, telling strangers to Invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars into a bar isn't one of them.
      Lynn that bullshit you spew will be better on your lawn and garden not on this blog.

      Delete
    4. Wow, this sounds like Jerome Stocks. So low class. Stop with the insults and nasty comments.

      Delete
    5. 10:07 that is hilarious. Pacific station we were told would be good for the environment, sustainable, now you tell us 100 parking stalls and adding more idling cars and drwaing destination shoppers to whole foods is sustainable for the environment and good for our roads?

      of course the upzoning of the 101 to allow high density stack and pack everywhere has led to a proliferation of bars. You want us to think all these bars magically appeared


      Yes Norby is responsible, this is what happenes when you destroy existing community character for new community character................old character sleepy town with the martini ranch, new character promoted by norby, stack and pack with bars on every corner

      Delete
    6. Pacific Station took seven parking spots off the street, and didn't create enough parking for the restaurants, retail outlets, including Whole Foods, offices, and residential units that are stacked there, if nearly full "occupation," is achieved. As more of the units sell, are leased, and are occupied, it becomes more and more of a challenge. I know that parking anywhere, for lunch, downtown, is exponentially more challenging, now.

      Gill Forester tried to Appeal the Pac-Stack development, asking for a better parking system, and better traffic light controls. I don't know if he got what he asked for, but I also heard that Pacific Station almost went down too, like Moonlight lofts, and was given a lot of "tax increment forgiveness," (not sure exactly how that worked, or what that means, so I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows more than I do about this; I'm definitely not an "expert," never claimed to be.) It was a great relief to Pacific Station for Whole Foods to come in, as that bailed it out, and made it financially viable. I don't care for the architecture, the structure seen from the train is not "ideal."

      I don't see that the Condos there are "high end," either. I was searching online for fiberglass shower repair, and under fiberglass showers stalls, I was treated to a tour of a condo unit in Pacific Station, during the "grand opening."

      Delete
    7. Lynn your lack of understanding regarding financing of real estate projects couldn't be more obvious. I suggest you take a basic business course at mira costa college. The project know as Pacific StAtion would not have ever been built if Whole Foods hadn't agreed to occupy the ground floor ahead of the ground breaking. Jeez. WF did not " bail out" PAC Station. If you dislike the Pac Station comple. Blame WF. Such nonsense. And what do fiberglass showers have to do with the condos at PAC Station??? Please.... Please.

      Anon11:12- Russell you still cant post without everyone knowing can you??

      Delete
    8. I wasn't aware that Whole Foods agreed to occupy the ground floor before the ground-breaking? Whole Foods wasn't signed on, to my knowledge, when the City approved the plans. There were economic issues, and Whole Foods coming in was a "life-saver" to the developers, and helped attract many more to buy and lease at Pacific Station. Sorry if you don't like my words "bail out." That's what it felt like, to me. The project wouldn't have been financially viable without Whole Foods. I wasn't blaming Whole Foods! Can you read and respond to anything without being so negative to me about it?

      According to the YouTube video I saw, about the Grand Opening for Pacific Station, which included a tour of one of the condo units, it had a fiberglass shower stall. My point was that the Condos, which are directly adjacent to the railroad tracks, and do not have appealing architectural design, in my opinion, but which are very expensive units, do not have high end finishings, or the one shown didn't. I happened to come across it, when I was searching on fiberglass tub or shower stall repair. Higher end units would have tile shower enclosures.

      If you read my posts for context, instead of just looking for opportunities to attack and bully, you should be able to figure this out for yourself. And please leave my husband, Russell out of this. He never blogs; I posted ONE comment for him, under Anonymous, typing out what he told me to say, and signing his name, because he was (justifiably) upset over being verbally accosted and told to leave Environmental Day at Cottonwood Creek Park for having a YES on A sign on the basket of his bike. I didn't bring that subject up, here, someone else did, who was not courageous or honest enough to sign her or his name, just as the man who accosted Russell won't reveal his name.

      You are so paranoid that you think every poster is me or my husband. Really, after years of this, all I can suggest is that you get some therapy, or get a new hobby. You only reveal your own negativity and mean spirited nature, through your constant flaming of me, your wrong assumptions that anyone you disagree with is me. This is the last time I will answer your questions, or respond to you, as I know you get off on any attention, any feedback at all.

      Delete
  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With all respect Pedr Norby must go if the council is to re establish credibility with the public. Norby was caught on videotape in Cardiff claiming the citizens did not reach a consensus, when the official minutes at city hall documented they did. Make of this what you will. Nordy was also caught on videotape recommending 5 story 'stack and pack' housing after he knew 90% of residents who went to the workshops reported they did not want it. Then there is Norby's support of Prop A and association with DEMA who we know not only opposed A but also benefitted by getting public tax money. How much tax money was used to oppose those same taxpayers on A.

      Norby at one time may have served a purpose but that purpose has passed. It is time for the council to cut him loose, the sooner the better.

      Delete
    2. Fred :

      U R the man! You know all the shit in the City. You are the Historian now baby..... like it or not... join the old golden folks and learn their stories.

      You Sir. Are priceless. Thanks for all that you do.

      You are always there for the people. I know you could get more money for your property if you "up zoned"', but you don't pursue that.

      You are the man.... and I love you for it!!!! Hugs !!!

      Anon

      Delete
    3. As long as there is carrot juice and Just For Men, I'm not joining the golden folks....

      Delete
  59. 100% agree with Fred on this. I have lived through all of it, and I know Peder to be one of the "good guys". I think he is worth every penny we pay him and more. I also don't think we need a PR person. Instead, let the people at City Hall do their jobs, get another City Attorney; and get rid of Vina. Then, we can proceed, as e have since 1986 when we incorporated.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I also agree 100% w the above 2 posts. Spot on!

    Good job Fred!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Peder is a good guy and has accomplished much inspite of dysfunctional councils. He will be cheered more by helping end the bar scene that is way more out of control than people know. If you don't believe it just try living on second street!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I call BS ! Norby created that nightmare downtown and has been a useless tool to improve the neighborhood. My facts to substantiate my argument are that Norby ignored residents in Encinitas, Cardiff and Olivenhain to push increased densities to benefit Harwood and Meyers his compatriots. Afterall Norby has admitted at city hall he has a monied interest in the bar and brewery business-

      The upzoning of downtown to the benefit of developers and out of town business people has destroyed the neighborhood in Old Encinitas 101 for long time residents. That is why they were out in mass last week- important to note that this was more than one year after voicing their concerns with Norby's efforts one year ago-

      Norby may meet with the 101 neighbors thinking this time he will come out smelling like a rose but we all know Norby is the high density bar czar and the odious stench surround him lingers. It's time to terminate Norby's contract and start fresh.

      Delete
    2. Yes Peder has a responsibility of putting the bar genie back in the bottle. Extremely short sighted to allow the whole downtown to be a pub crawl.

      Delete
    3. Bologna- Peder Norby can't be that great of a guy. Anyone who purposefully goes against citizen wishes and pushes and supports high density (when he doesn't even live in the city) DOES NOT deserve respect. His behavior with the ERAC committee in suggesting high density is atrocious. No Respect should go to him and he needs to leave Encinitas.

      Delete
  62. Lynn hates him so he must be good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point .

      The Lword only knows hate and jabber.

      Delete
  63. 11:54
    Sad to say your wrong,this may take up to FOUR years to become law.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Does anyone here have a real job, or are you all just professional curmudgeons?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You having a late lunch or something?

      Delete
    2. Nope. We r all insurance salesman and realtors and developers and fire fighters. We have all the time in the world.

      Delete
  65. Norby had nothing to do with the mess in the downtown strip.Blame Patrick Murphy
    the Director of the planning dept at the time and Jerome Stocks the Mayor those are the guys who screwed this up .Norby has no power Zero.Everything Norby per poses has to go to planning first and then council.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Running political cover for Mr. Norby won't work. The public is well informed of Mr. Norby's failures in representing the residents.

    He has done a good job of representing merchants - in the past - but that time is gone. Norby promoted the 'stack and pac' high density upzoning on the 101, he promoted 'stack and pack' in Cardiff and he recommended 'stack and pack' in all of Encinitas.

    The people who benefit from the 'stack and pack' density our out of town developers like doug hardwood and others, not the residents.

    If one is to blame Murphy and Stocks then they must also blame the waterboy and the man who delivered on what Stocks and Muprhy wanted.............that man is Pedr Norby. I agree with the others and it is time the council cut ties with Mr. Norby.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Where did Norby represent the "stack and pac" in Cardiff? I don't see any high density projects and I live in Cardiff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the Cardiff Specific Plan area, which is bounded on the north by the Cardiff Elementary School, on the south by Glen Park, on west by San Elijo, and the east by Newcastle. Norby was aiming for 3-story mixed use with no setbacks. This would have resulted in "stack and pack."

      Delete
  68. Then thank your lucky stars he was caught on video and the planning commission and council were forced to honor Cardiff community wishes, because Norby most certainly would have (and tried to make it seem) otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  69. stack and pac was planned throughout the 6 block cardiff commerical district in 2007. The people pushing the stack and pac included harwood, meyers, stocks, curry, paeske, dalager and bond, their community facilitator pushing it was norby who led the citizens meetings. The citizens voted and consensus to limit stack and pack, the official minutes say a consensus was reached, they Norby said no consensus was reached. alot of cardiff residents went to city hall and showed a movie of the votes.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Money. It all comes down to money. Put your. Money where your mouth is, go buy some influence at city hall and watch all your dreams come true. That's what Olivenhain does, works for them, it'll work for you also.

    ReplyDelete
  71. As a cardiff specific plan member, I can tell you on the first day the group decided with Mr. Norby facilitating that they only wanted two stories. Done end of story.

    A few months later we got to the subject of mixed use and that discussion was within the already agreed upon two story limit. the Q was do we want to do mixed use on the second story? The vote was 5-4.

    What is going on here is nothing short of a rewrite of history and the intentional smearing of a very good man.

    Look it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes, look it up. The official city minutes state the citizens coomittee "reached a consensus" one year later Norby told the planning commission "The committe did not reach a consensus" How can that be? after Norby misrepresented the committee "consensus" and the record his masters Stocks Dalager and Bond ordered an open house and city staff loaded the cardidd commercial district with stack and pack.

      oh yea, Norby showed up at one meeting with an example of high density for cardiff at the vg donut lot, his example.............the 3 story, or is it 5 story, Pacific Station building. Why did Norby and staff show up with a 3 story example if as you claim 2 stories was decided on the first night? hmmmm

      ps....once any site in cardiff was rezoned by norby and the city for residential use cardiff residents would lose control of zoning to the state that could then grant a developer 3 incentives to increase density including an incentive to........wait for it..........exceed the 2 story height limit. It's time for the council to cut ties with the bar czar and high density king Norby

      Delete
    2. Your points all may be true.

      The bottom line is Peder was re-acting to the consensus.


      granted I don't agree with it, but it was the call.



      that being said, Peder is worth his weight in gold. Put it to an agenda item and you will see a huge support for Peder because:

      1. He cares about establishing a holistic well balanced down town.
      2. He has the experience, fortitude,and no other self interest to make this anything but good for encinitas.

      Delete
    3. they put it to the agenda and 20 speakers opposed Norby, all residents. The next week stocks and norby stacked the room with a few for profit merchants and out of town developers and real estate people showing support. Watch to video from last year and hear and see the facts. The only people now supporting norby are thos seeking profits and inside deals. the truth is the truth.

      Delete
    4. 8:55 with all respect you would be well served to know about state density bonus laws, I assure you Mr. Norby does. I too attended a few of the meetings and I saw the 3 story stack and pack examples of high density mixed use Mr. Norby uses as examples for Cardiff and the VG lot. To help provide you a better understanding once any commercial property is rezoned for residential use the city loses control of height limits and the state can grant developers incentives to exceed height. This is a fact and is why the committee and the record states "the committee reached a consensus" Norby later told the planning commission "the committee did not reach a consensus". Make of this what you will, but it can not be two things.

      12:01 you agree that the facts of Norby misinforming the council and commission might be true but then go on to say that he is holistic and wants a balanced town- if this was true why did he misrepresent the citizens committee consensus? If he wants holistic balance why did he let the open house put all the stack and pack back in?

      Norby may or may not be a good dude, I don't know him. I do know he failed in Cardiff, his compatriots are the developers and for profit merchants, and he has failed citizens in Cardiff and throughout the city. It is time for the council to terminate Mr. Norby's contract and get us a fresh start.

      Delete
    5. If you don't want to see changes in that ratty mall in Cardiff housing the office and VG's... Buy it and keep it a shit hole. That way no 3,5, or 10 story up zoning. All it will cost you is several million dollars. Do it , then shut up about it.

      Delete
    6. so your answer to an absentee landlord who lets his property fall into disreapir, and to a council who fails to provide positive solutions to enahnce and imprve community charcter, is to give the out of town landowner new property rights to residential zoning allowing absentee owner to bypass local laws and apply to the state for density increases build a lot line to lot line 5 story stack and pack bee hive that takes away the ocean views of residents and reduced the property values of landowners on the hill. How nice of you. The residents lose views, property values and quality of life while the absentee landowner sells his new rights to teramar or shea homes.....................we know how it works

      with prop a passing the out of town landowner is out of luck, now he can sell the property for at the current market rate and owners seeking to add value can take over.

      Delete
    7. So a local buyer should buy it and keep it a " local " shitty mall. Put up or shut up.

      Delete
    8. you lean like the local people who bought the building on the southeast corner of newcastle and fixed it up? maybe you mean like the people who bought headline graphics and fixed it up? or maybe you mean the people who bought the little building east of newcastle and fixed it up? there are lots of examples in the past two years of property in cardiff commercial turning over and new owners fixing them up. maybe you don't live here.

      Delete
    9. 4:37 take a walk through Cardiff and you will great new resident serving businesses that worked within current zoning to add value to the community- Zenbu, Rimmel's, 20 Lounge, Fowler's

      Then there was the face lift and new businesses over at Iron Cross/ Sunny skies, and Lourdes and Dirty Dogs, let's not forger the make over at the New Balance Store, and Bruno and Mickey's make over of the building on Newcastle-

      Your argument doesn't pass the smell test. Lot's of local owners have fixed up their Cardiff Commercial properties and did not need new zoning to spend the money. Your argument is the same old tired scared argument that is untrue.

      Delete
    10. 10:12 pm, 8:34 am. You make my argument for me. Locals that buy property and fix it up or not. The complaint was out of towers that buy up local land and run old businesses out.

      SMART owners local or not buy and fix up their properties. Many on this blog resent improvements to property of city land. Pig headed thinking by morons wallowing in swill.

      Delete
    11. if this is 4:37 then you are simply trying to hide behind your comment after being exposed by 10:12 and 8:34-

      You assume a local buyer will not improve the land, and that only an upzoning will lead an owner to improve the property. 10:12 blew your argument out of the water by listing all the improvements done to buildings in Cardiff without the need for upzoning.

      Delete
  72. Sara, say it ain't so. I'd hate to think you, Pam, Bruce, Shelia,Lynn, lied to us. Why the no comment?

    http://thecoastnews.com/?p=63624

    The coastal commission ruled that it has legal jurisdiction over Prop A because it establishes a 30-foot height limit in the coastal zone.

    Also, the initiative changes how building heights are measured when it comes to pad heights.

    Stevens said the coastal commission’s legal department, as well as three coastal commission staff members, analyzed Prop A. He noted the ruling is subject to a legal challenge.

    The city sent the coastal commission a letter in May asking if Prop A requires any coastal commission action. Previously, the coastal commission said it would weigh in on Prop A by June 11, prior to the June 18 election. Stevens said the delay could be attributed to coastal commission staff dealing with a heavy workload.

    Before Monday’s decision, there was uncertainty over whether Prop A demanded coastal commission ratification.

    A city-ordered report from the law firm Rutan and Tucker at the beginning of the year stated Prop A would result in different zoning rules for Encinitas. The City Council cited the reasoning in its argument against Prop A that appeared with the ballot.

    However, Sara Wan, former chair of the coastal commission, previously said the coastal commission has never certified an initiative, and doesn’t have the authority to do so. She declined to comment for the article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the real estate company teramar in carlsbad bought trader joes just as erac was being formed for 78 million. Stocks then appointed the CEO to ERAC where Norby recommended 5 story buildings. Literally billions od dollars are at stake along the coast of california because of Prop A passage. I smell a rat, Dougie Manchester and others like dave meyers and mike paeske along with norby are i think working behind the scenes..................prop a folks need to lobby the coastal commission and begin looking at filing a lawsuit?

      Delete
    2. This is all old news, on this blog, 9:26, including your calling Prop A supporters liars. We all worked hard, are still striving, unselfishly, for the benefit of our WHOLE community, NOT to line our pockets, NOT to achieve political ambition, not to gain influence, and power at the expense of the neighborhoods.

      The fact that Coastal Commission staff is now recommending LCP amendment(s), didn't stop the City, before, from eliminating a lane on North Hwy. 101 without getting one!

      The City needs to follow election code with respect to the effective date of Prop A. The Planning Director, very well paid, and the City Attorney, also well paid, can deal with the legal ramifications with the Coastal Commission, and can push through LCP Amendments, if they think they're necessary. If they don't feel they are necessary, it's THEIR JOB to present a case to the Coastal Commission as to why they're NOT necessary, not the job of Prop A proponents.

      It is the duty of Council and staff to honor the public trust and to respect the will of the majority of the voters.

      I'm grateful Sara Wan "weighed in." Perhaps Council can use her letter as evidence to the Coastal Commission. There have been MANY times when the Coastal Commissioners did NOT act on Coastal Commission's staff's recommendations, by the way. Sara Wan was a Coastal Commissioner for over 20 years.

      One of those times when CCC staff and the Commissioners did not agree was the CONTEL Development near Ponto Beach, on La Costa, for which Christy Guerin and Patrick Murphy flew to Monterey for the CCC Meeting, to lobby FOR the developers, and against Encinitas residents, like Gil Forrester, who drove up to Monterey, to testify.

      Christy Guerin and Patrick Murphy used the "significant public benefit" excuse for the CONTEL development, saying that beach access would be provided (there's already beach access) and more parking. Parking would be provided for CONTEL visitors and residents. The rooms, if they are ever completed, will be at least $400 per night, according to Gil's testimony at CC meetings.

      Delete
  73. Yawn.

    Next another rant from Lword.

    Next another tawnting from some Prop A opponent about law suite.

    Next another rant from Lword.

    Etc...

    ReplyDelete
  74. The only people who read this blog are the informed people of Encinitas and believe me when I say that they know what is going on. So, all the attempts to write in and make it look like the Prop A people were not telling the truth is falling on deaf ears. We all know the truth. Prop A is the best thing that has happened in this city for a long time. Granted getting rid of Stocks was pretty cool too.

    ReplyDelete
  75. The only thing missing here is for Nurse Ratched to enter the room...

    ReplyDelete
  76. Happy Fourth of July, everyone.

    I do love being able to live here, in our city, my neighborhood. I celebrate all our freedoms, including freedom of expression and freedom to enjoy quality of life, through the pursuit of happiness, for everyone, not just privileged, "connected," insiders.

    I celebrate kindness and compassion, generosity and good neighbors. I appreciate diversity and inclusivity. I'm still celebrating passage of Prop A, also that the Toll Road was not approved, again. . . I'm grateful that we have a process that allows the voters to decide, ultimately, as we have.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Packnstacky. Because the new term is starting to hurt my head. Somehow it also sounds more forebodingly foreign.

    ReplyDelete
  78. 'Packnstacky' sounds like the sequel to 'Irvine Splendor'.

    ReplyDelete
  79. As a matter of fact it is. Irvine Splendor had a very sad ending. After Mr. Splendor built his 15 story affordable lofts next to the La Paloma, right across 101, The Damien Family Foundation razed the tear downs from Raul's Shack to the Community Resource Center and built their 20 story Pearl of the Pacific Estates. All 2300 of the Splendor's affordable ocean views were lost. There wasn't a dry eye in the audience.

    ReplyDelete
  80. In Irvine Splendor Part 3, The La Paloma Theater is converted to a 28 multi-room theater name the Encinitas Spectrum! Because no additional parking was built, people parked on El Camino Real and used a shuttle to get to see a flick.
    The most popular movie was the "Encinitas Horror Picture Show"

    ReplyDelete
  81. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Only a few NIMBYS will want to do the Time Warp Again then. In Splendor 4, there's still a convincing hologram of what appears to still be the La Paloma theatre with a changable bar in it's original location when you ride your bicycle by it. Cars of course are off limits in the DMZ (Downtown Mainstreet Zone). But when the actual theatre was razed due to black mold from the 2035 tsunami, the Spectrum brothers found a way to pack 2300 people comfortably in the same condomaximum with their popular catastrophe proof V-Theatre - an oxygenated 3D surround sound sphere that lowers over your head while you sit in a cozy chair that requires seat belts and what feels to be a floatation device. (The most relaxed locals will feel there since the 1970 mattresses - unless you're watching the Titanic. It will be the first time Odorama will be enjoyed since the scratch n sniff movie Polyester). You'll be able to view with your friends and family, any form of entertainment in the known universe. Ted Turner will even come out with a device that makes Harpo speak. Sure, it will be expensive, but survivors reading this who are seniors can get in for only $250. Unfortunately, student rates will not exist when learning will become so "20th century". Unruly guests will be escorted outside by virtual Alan and his holodog. Ads will say "worth every dime" (because nickels and pennies will be available as re-purposed hardware exclusively at the new "green" sections in Home Depots around the world). The coolest part is they will be open 24/7 and bring back their classic slogan "Almost always a good show!"

    ReplyDelete