City insiders have dismissed concerned residents on development issues as "criticizers and complainers," and suggested that they are just a vocal minority.
Where does the true majority actually stand?
The Waves to Ride blog points to five significant evidentiary indicators as to what the majority clearly wants.
On many issues the city insiders don't want to go along with the true majority. Lisa Shaffer is redefining community character with a clear goal in mind. She wants to get the Housing Element passed in 2016 as her legacy. This, of course, will include upzoning and densification of areas around the city. The strawberry fields, prime agricultural land, will be slated for high density. Already the city has started meetings for selected areas, not publicly noticed, with only a few "stakeholders" invited. This lack of openness and transparency makes a mockery of her election promises. The fact that these meetings are being held in "secret" indicate that she and her cohorts at the city know what public sentiment is.
ReplyDeleteThe only people more stupid than Shaffer are those that voted for her.... A complete socialist elitist failure. But things will get better if we only raise taxes ..... And parking meters.
DeleteCity definition of a "Stakeholder": those who stand to profit from plunder (and contribute to election coffers) . Sadly, the "majority" only care about what impacts them directly. When that happens is when individuals become active and aware. Social media is changing that. Prop A proved it. The lie machine didn't quite work as expected. It's still astounding to me that not one council member has even expressed regret that their names were associated with mailers that had blatant lies on them. You won't be able to re-model your friggen kitchen? To top that off is that some of them were so butt-hurt at the reaction of their now extinct bases that they resorted to applying purgorative monikers to the very people who supported them. BTW- one error in the Waves article: Teresa never supported prop A . The "mind changers" were Tony and Lisa. Tony and Lisa just don't realize that the main reason they got elected is because they weren't Stocks.
DeleteCabezon
Spot on, Cabezon. Teresa actually expected Prop A proponents to stop the initiative campaign once Lisa and Tony got in. She's still pissed about that.
DeleteImagine if the campaigners had pulled the plug...we'd be reduced - again - to hanging out in Council offices, begging for mercy.
9:50, Don't forget "(The burned down) McDonalds on Encinitas Blvd. won't be able to be rebuilt without a public vote if Prop A passes".
DeleteIt matters not what the people want, govt needs money to keep intruding into our lives. Govt will do what it wants, when it want, how it wants to suck money from out pockets.
ReplyDeleteVina and staff are part of the greatest criminal organization in the world.
A++++++ to The Waves To Ride blog article!!!
ReplyDeleteWe have long ago lost our claim to being a "Flower Capital." Now we are a McMansion Capital.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the majority think about development.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that some growth in population is inevitable. The population of Encinitas has never stopped or declined in over a hundred years.
My view of development centers on three questions:
(1.) What can we do to control and limit population growth in the short and long term?
(2,) If we accept that limiting growth probably won't mean zero growth, where and how can we best accommodate additional people? Even with 1% growth, we'll need to accommodate over 600 new people every year.
(3.) How do we mitigate the negative impacts of even limited growth? What decisions can we make on transportation, water, infrastructure to maintain the high standard of living we all enjoy?
9:30-
DeleteWe have a general plan that defines and answers each and everyone of your questions.
The majority of Encinitas residents do not want to change the current zoning defined in the General Plan.
End of story-
now, let's talk about the important issues like-
]
1. the elected leaders who lie to the public in hopes of changing the general plan zoning
2. The consultants who lie to the public in hopes of chaing zoning
3. Sandag and the state housing bureacrats who lie to the public in hopes of changing zoning
with all respect 9:30 you are creating a problem where a solution already exists- it is called our General Plan.
If you would prefer to live in a town taht has stack and pack and a different General Plan god bless you, you are free to do so. Youy are nto free to force and push your self appointed social justice housing engineering on the rest of us
9:45,
DeleteYou are absolutely right. The General Plan constitutes our plan to manage and mitigate the effects of growth.
I support the General Plan, and it's required update cycle. The 1986 version probably wouldn't serve us very well today.
10:40 you support uzponing and changing our current zoning laws to the benefit of outside developers and taking control away from local residents and putting that oversight for growth into thye hands of the state to push their housing engineering projects
DeleteWhen a current property zoned commerical in Encinitas is rezoned to commerical / residential mixed local residents lose control and the state takes over-
You support not an update but a give away, you are too cowardly to state that.
"The population of Encinitas has never stopped or declined in over a hundred years."
DeleteIn 1995 there was a mass exodus of people leaving CA. You were lucky to find a U-Haul truck. Realtors were hating life. realtor Ron Eddy (and president of the Enc Chamber) moved to Kansas. Only 4 homes were approved by planning in this city. San Dieguito HS for the first time in 20 years had a decrease in enrollment: 75 students (4%). My few observations.
And while only 4 homes were approved the planning dept grew in staff. How does that work Fred??
Delete10:55,
DeleteJust to clarify, is it your position that:
--We should not update our General Plan. Is that just now, or forever? Should we have locked it in 1986?
--There are two categories of people in town: those who want to lock the door completely to new comers, and those who want to give total control to out of town developers and state bureaucrats. Am I accurately representing your segmentation, or do I have a third middle-ground option of reasonable people who may disagree with you a little?
11:22-
DeleteThe reasonable people are the one who passed Prop A- now citizens have the right to vote on zoning changes.
Do you support the liars on Prop A who opposed the residents and are now working on bogus overlay zones to take the power away from residents? I don't
I do support responsible leaders who bring good projects forward for consideration- to be voted on by the public. That is common ground. DO you support public control of governnment control?
On the other side of the coin, it took all the way from when there were only 6 people on the planet up until 1830 to make the first billion people on earth. (I was going to go back to when there were only 2 people here - but that's too controversial). The next billion took only 100 years (1930). Then next, 30 years (1960). The next, 15 years (1975). I stopped counting in 1976.
DeleteWhen the general plan was adopted in 1989, not one of the greenhouse sites was zoned for agriculture. That is why so many are now subdivisions. Agricultural zoning only happened with the Ecke (Encinitas Ranch) annexation and it still is the only area with agricultural zoning, the majority of which is the Ecke ranch. The strawberry fields at the southern end of Encinitas are zoned residential and could be houses without any rezoning unless they wanted higher density, although Caltrans wants to acquire some of the land.
DeleteIts all starting with two people is absurd, fantasyland non-thinking. Some dreamer made it up before people knew better. If it were true, everybody since would be hemophiliacs, morons or both. Oh, wait.
Delete9:30am
ReplyDeleteWhy do we always have to make the assumption that population growth is inevitable? No one questions the wisdom of non-stop growth. Do we keep going until we look like Coruscant (Stars Wars city-planet. Sorry if that's nerdy). Some places in the world are steady or even declining in population pressure (e.g., Italy, Japan).
The paradigm for all our thinking doesn't have to be more more! MORE! all the time.
9:35,
DeleteTrue. But economically, Japan and Italy (and add Detroit) are a mess. Population and economy are linked. Not sure that's the quality of life answer.
Also, even if we agreed that it was desirable, I can't come up with a single successful example of a US municipality that successfully locked the door to new comers. Call me a pessimist, or a pragmatist, but I think it's unlikely. If there is likely to be any growth at all, I'd rather have a wise plan for dealing with it.
A reduction in population could be good for the economy.
DeleteCommon use your common sense.
10:16: This is part of the problem of this paradigmatic thinking. The only thing people seem to care about is economy and growth. Like money and material expansion are the most important factors to consider. Quality of life is not determined by these things alone. I would be happy with less money in exchange for less crowds at the beach and and freeways, less pollution, less stress on our water supply, etc.
DeleteTO DATE: The only up zoning (Eckes old property) was done by Lisa, Tony and Teresa.
ReplyDeleteThe good news is that more and more neighbors finding out about stack and pack going into their neighborhoods are showing up at citizen participation meetings to voice their opposition. We're older and wiser now and have seen plenty examples for the effects of bad planning.. CPP meetings are a good invention. If a developer has something great to offer the community they are welcomed. But if they're only around to grab all they can, its hard for them to veil their intent and they get unanimous opposition. Why? Because we're getting more hip to how obese results from skinny blueprints destroy what we love about here and becoming more knowledgeable with WHO these projects actually benefit: a few wanting to make a quick buck on our paradise. "Stakeholders"! HA. THAT'S the kind of transient we might rather see as undesirable. Of course you can't tell people to move here because they love it and want to stay. The more overcrowding you permit, the less functional it becomes and the less anyone wants to stay.
ReplyDeleteThe bad news is that the majority of residents are apathetic. Most eligible citizens do not vote. And most of the ones that do never get involved or show up at city meetings, trusting the suits to do the right thing. In a perfect world, we'd elect someone and never have to bother going to city hall. But in Encinitas, we have to go there weekly to hold their feet to the fire - in case they forget why we put them there. Unfortunately, elections aren't won usually because of someone's integrity, but because of the volume of advertising they do proceeding an election, or the worship most Americans have for imaginary heroes like 007 or Wonder Woman. Maggie being one exception. Her elections were not won with mega-bucks or gimmicks, but with making choices that pleased most voters most of the time and having the amazing ability of being everywhere at once while in office. (Not to mention her naturally being a positive and eloquent communicator.) When anyone rained on her she stayed the parade.
I think "What the real majority of voters......" would be a more accurate question for this thread. WTR did on OK job on the subject this time. You know, for his usual one-sided argument.
- Mr. Squarepants
Mr.SQ it's easy to be everywhere doing everything when you have a giant govt financed pension letting you skate through life.....
DeleteYo, Squarepants! If you have a different point of view you want to express and think you can do a great job of it, launch a blog!
DeleteI bet every person posting on here railing against developers lives in a house that was built by, gasp, a DEVELOPER! All of our homes added traffic, density, occupy what was formerly pristine native habitat, and moved this city one step further away from being a small town. Why do we get to live here and no one else? Is this not greed too, just like those greedy developers?
ReplyDelete11:06 Britches are a good thing too. But not when you're too big for them.
DeleteWhen people use the word "developer" negatively, they don't mean contractors who build single houses or scrape lots of old houses and build new ones, they mean developers — usually not locals — who build huge tracts, density bonus projects, things like Pacific Station, or other densifying, community-character-destroying monstrosities. You must know that, 11:06, so stop misconstruing!
DeleteSo you think community character and open space isn't important.
Delete12;17- ask Lynn, she hates all developers. Even the ones that build single family homes next to hers.
DeleteThe developer next to Lynn robbed his community members, investors and vendors of $7 million when he went bankrupt, after spending all the money for his high living. Then, after his wife left him, he stole his own son's social security number, opened up a bogus line of credit, and robbed him of $40,000. The son pressed charges.
DeleteYou don't speak for anyone but your bitter self, Crap Master.
There was an article that came out not too long ago that stated CA is losing the population (ages around 37-45) because they simply can not afford to live here any more. They have been priced out of the housing market. Even if they have a double income from husband and wife working, they are still unable to afford the price of today's homes. They are packing up, leaving this state, and moving east to where they can afford to live. It's a shame, but it's the truth.
ReplyDeleteWe have not made it easy for this younger generation to exist in this very expensive state. Only the developers have become rich while the rest of us have to struggle to keep up. To keep building more homes is ridiculous when we already know the prices are reaching $1 million plus for a simple home.
9:30 says "where and how can we best accommodate additional people? Even with 1% growth, we'll need to accommodate over 600 new people every year."
ReplyDeleteWe don't "need" to accommodate anyone. We don't have to figure out how to "best" find spots for all who want to live here.
Where is it written that anyone has to sacrifice the quality of life they worked to attain or what's left of the soul of a town to line developer pockets in the name of "accommodating" anyone?
You can try your reasonable-sounding soft sell, 9:30, but we're onto you and no one's buying.
11:54,
DeleteNo one on this blog is buying anything that sounds reasonable.
Roger that.
We are destroying Earth's ability to sustain life as we know it. The evidence is overwhelming and everywhere. The survival of our species and the diversity of life on the only planet we have depend on radically reducing the human population. If we can do that by attrition and cutting the birth rate, we might save our species and millions of others.
ReplyDeleteBlah, blah, blah. And of course you have an answer don't you....depopulate the planet. You get to live and everyone else has to die...I don't think so. Lead by example, you kill yourself off and then we'll study you idea for 75-80 years then make our own decisions.
DeleteNot this again!
ReplyDeleteOnly a hair under one-third of registered Encinitas voters (32.33%) participated in the election. Of those voters, 51.85% voted for Prop A. To put it another way, only 16.75% of registered voters approved of Prop A. Unless I ditched that day in stats class, 16.75% isn't a majority. And any political wonk will tell you that special elections favor the activists as they are already motivated. While a win with a low turnout is still a win and counts in the record books, to call it the will of the majority is quite a stretch but then there are a number of myopic views here.
You have forgotten that the opponents of Prop. A spent five times the money according to the amounts reported. Probably even more in unreported spending. The city spent $50,000 for an assessment by Rutan & Tucker that turned out to be untrue. All five city council members used the Rutan & Tucker lies for ballot arguments against Prop. A. It was a grossly unequal fight, yet the Prop. A supporters won. The margin of victory would have been much, much larger if the playing field had been level.
DeleteYou think the opponents didn't bust their butts to get like-thinking voters to cast their ballots? The failed because there was strong community support to approve Prop.A.
12:29, regarding your blindness:
DeleteWell, you know if there weren't four other citations that indicated the same thing, you might have a point.
You neglected to factor in the $100K the opposition spent on misinformation about Prop A, the whole damn council coming out against it, $50K of public money spent to undermine it, and Encinitas Main Street violating their charter by going public against it.
In other words, Jack, you don't have a valid point.
1:04 PM & 1:26 PM
DeleteI figured all that in and it still comes to 16.75%. You live in a bubble. Sorry to have popped it.
AND the countless folk - and I do mean countless - who went to their Prop A campaign worker friends to wail "I got confused and voted 'No' by mistake!!"
DeleteMike Andreen ran around "helping" people understand Prop A by telling them that a "No" vote was a vote to say "No" to developers. He ran around a lot...and in spite of his garbage, Prop A prevailed.
2:04 PM
DeleteOh yeah, I'm sure there were thousands. One, it doesn't look very good when they can't understand a simple ballot initiative and two, I doubt there were that many and how many voted "Yes" when they meant to vote "No".
You can stretch the claim that the majority of engaged registered voters voted for Prop A. Whether that's true or not is debatable but certainly within reason. To say that the vote represents the will of the majority is just a flight of fancy.
It's pretty sad when you can't even be satisfied with winning and know that Prop A is now on the books. No, you have to try to stretch it into something it's not.
This blog is the fountain of lame excuses.
2:01 pm
DeleteYou're a sore loser. Sorry to burst your bubble. You didn't get the NO vote because it wasn't there. All the shuffle and jive to scare and confuse the voter didn't work in the final count. You lost.
Right, but you can't use the fact that people DIDN'T vote to say the majority didn't support Prop. A. Not voting is the whole problem. If everyone voted, there would be a lot more heat on pols to do what the electorate wanted.
DeleteThat's part of the reason Stocks, Bond, Muir Danny D etc were able to stay in. They have an active electorate behind them, while everyone else stayed home....
Then everyone vote. If Prop A passed, especially with the odds stacked against it, why did it win. Well, first, the people opposing it did not necessarily live in Encinitas, so they couldn't vote one way or the other. Second, if people don't exercise their right to vote, they don't get to complain later (although they really do), and lastly, it was what the citizens who did vote wanted. Kind of a no brainer if you ask me. Vote or shut up.
Delete3:48 PM
DeleteSore loser?? How do you know I didn't vote for Prop A. How do you know if I even voted.
What I do know is 16.75 doesn't equal 51%. Maybe you believed that Bush had a mandate in 2000. Prop A won. Fine. But it wasn't because a majority of Encinitas voters voted for it. Not even close.
Why not tell us then how you voted? Your repetitive recitation of the percentages indicate you opposed Prop. A. Wanna come clean? Probably not.
DeleteThere has never been or never will be an election with 100% participation, or anything close to it We have the freedom to vote or not vote. Obviously the NO vote on Prop. A didn't have the numbers. The city council through town councils and main street associations twisted a lot of arms with both Vina and Barth working the vote behind the scenes. The last minute mailer from Doug Harwood appeared to be a desperation move motivated by poor polling results. It backfired. The money from out of town was not able to buy the election. Support for Prop.A was deeper than the opponents imagined.
Sure sounds like sour grapes on your part.
I guess you can't decide how to think until you know, or think you know, which side I'm on. To simply evaluate the truth or falsehood of my statement simply on its merits is too much to ask. If you believe I'm on the other side then you can just dismiss my statement (i.e. "sour grapes"). That's what is know as living in the bubble.
DeleteEither way 16.75% still isn't 51% (or 50.01%)
I'm sure everyone on here hand-wringing about population has adhered to a strict one-child policy in your personal household, right?
ReplyDeleteright?
(crickets chirping)
The "replacement rate" needed to stabilize the population is 2.1 (because some children will die before having kids of their own), not 1 child per couple.
DeleteWe are at or below that rate now.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/12/us-births-decline/1880231/
Globally, to reduce the population by half, which might ensure our species' survival, humans must get the birth rate below 2.0.
DeleteWatch the whole thing:
http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60191122
My household and several others I can think of off the top of my head: No children.
Delete1:31 someone should've told your Mom.
DeleteStep 1: attack anyone who suggests we might want a thoughtful plan to mitigate the effects of limited growth. Call them "social engineers."
DeleteStep 2: suggest we need a plan to cut the global population by half.
Can anyone spot the inconsistency?
Bueller?
Bueller?
I could not speculate As to what the majority believes,I would say that the people who post on this blog are not the majority
ReplyDeleteI've said this before,all of you who's parents were born here please raise your hands thie rest of you will have to go back to where you came from.Thank you and GOOD BYE!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteHow about grandparents, 2:03? Or if we made that the qualifier, would you have to leave?
ReplyDelete2:33
ReplyDeleteYes I would have to leave,my point is We all moved here for one reason our another and then we say Thats it you, you and you can't move here.A very simplistic thought process not at all realistic.
That's an absurd statement. We all moved into houses or apartments that conformed with zoning and community standards.
DeleteNo one is saying future arrivals can't do the same.
Read craigslist or Redfin. Plenty of places for rent or sale.
There can't be that many places for sale, or the prices wouldn't be so high. I assume supply and demand is still in play. Same goes for rentals, show me a place to rent in a month other than December.
Delete-MGJ
Sure, there are plenty of places for rent or sale, but the average person can not afford them. Some of the rents are as high as $4,000 per month. Unless you move into a little square box, that is about all that is affordable and most people need more space than 700 sq. feet.
DeleteIn terms of home sales, you are lucky to find a decent place in Encinitas for less than $650,000. With a 20% down payment, that is a crap load of money to shell out.
Not everyone can afford to live in Beverly Hills or Hawaii either.
DeleteThat's why some people live in Omaha and Lancaster.
It's not our job to provide infinite housing at minimum-wage affordability.
EU,
DeleteWe don't support affordable housing and a diverse community as a gift to the less fortunate. We do it because it keeps Encinitas a diverse and interesting place for us.
Not altruistic, selfish. I want my kids to grow up with other kids who think differently, have different backgrounds and different problems.
Letting the town gentrify unchecked turns it into a place where old white people go to visit their parents.
4:43,
DeleteI sympathize with your sentiment. But we live in paradise. We live in an extremely constrained area where most of the population of the entire world would love to live.
So given the supply-demand imbalance, we have three choices:
1) Allow massive high-density development. This would destroy community character, without improving affordability. See Manhattan Beach.
2) Ration via price: those who earn and save their money can buy or rent here, and those who already own here have a windfall gain in home equity that they can use to help their children buy here.
3) Ration via government decision. Those who have political connections or win by lottery or favored group status get to live here; everyone else is out of luck.
So what will it be?
4:43 You need to find an urban city to live in that fits the culture and lifestyle you want-
Deletewhat you are trying to do instead is tell the rest of us to live, judge us, and thyen try to take from us to create a culture youy think we need- how arrogant, you must be a Shaffer/Busby supporters-
Encinitas is diverse with all colors, families, religions and lifestyles represented- we don't need your zoning changes, your arrogance or your bullying that somehow we are racists-
everybody is welcome in Encintas, come, pray, don't pray, enjoy
what's not welcome are arrogant social engineers seekingt or raise our taxes and change our zoning so they can feel superior to the rest and feel 'good' about how enlightned they are
EU,
DeleteI don't have all the answers. I also don't think every possibility fits neatly into your three buckets (although I'm certain you'd force a fit).
My point is simply that I think the problem is tough, and isn't quite as simple as the prescriptions I see repeated here.
Even the decision to make no changes is a decision--a decision that has negative consequences all its own that should be considered.
I'm for solutions that protect a broad definition of community character. Physical building envelopes and zoning are an important piece of a larger puzzle.
Hard to imagine any solutions, short of repealing the laws of supply and demand, that wouldn't fall into buckets 1, 2, or 3.
DeleteIf you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them.
4:43
DeleteIf those are your values, move to City Heights.
Societies have been socioeconomically stratified since the origin of societies. That's the nature of things.
I can't afford to live in Rancho Santa Fe or on the bluff in Encinitas, and I don't expect government programs to enable that.
It's not government's role to enable everybody to live anywhere.
Off topic, I thought this was interesting. Alan Lerchbacker was CEO of Austal USA. What are they known for? Building a new combat ship for the Navy, the USS Independence. From Wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteNavy leaders said that the fixed price competition offered the Austal design an equal shot, in spite of its excess size and cost and limited service.[25] In June 2009, the development and construction of Independence was 220% over-budget. The total projected cost for the ship was $704 million. The Navy had originally projected the cost at $220 million.[26] Independence began builder's trials near Mobile, Alabama on 2 July 2009, three days behind schedule because of maintenance issues.[27]
. . .
On 9 December 2009, the Navy announced that the ship had completed its first INSURV inspection. The inspection found 2,080 discrepancies, including 39 high-priority deficiencies,
. . .
In 2011 the corrosion problem was found to be even worse than expected and repair would require time in a drydock to completely remove the water jets.[39] In response, Austal blamed the U.S. Navy for not properly maintaining the ship.[40][41] However the Navy replied that the electrical insulation had been improperly installed during construction.
A lot of people, including myself, have worked for the defense industry in San Diego. Most stuff goes over budget, it's part of a bigger issue with the military-industrial complex and government rules and regulations.
DeleteBogus to try and slander this guy from something like that....
-MGJ
Go read the whole thing MGJ. Would like to hear your opinion after that.
DeleteThe boat started leaking during trials. After the Navy accepted the ship, they deemed parts of it to be incomplete, and turned it back to Austal, and the ship had to go through trials a second time.
This doesn't sound normal to me.
Sounds like a disaster.
In reality, much of Prop A would have been rendered illegal, except Bruce Ehlers and Everett Delano brought in Pam Slater Price to literally scare the Coastal Commission Staff into doing a 180 degree turnaround on the initiative: ask for the July 1 and 9 2013 letters to the Council from the regional head of the Coastal Commission if you doubt this fact. The Council wanted to pursue overturning it, but Mayor Barth was too terrified.
Delete5:08 PM
DeleteThat's not true.
5:08, Forget big money and developers. That Bruce Ehlers, an Italian and a blonde always frighten groups into getting what they want when they show up together. Do you have the video of Barth terrified? I didn't thinks so.
DeleteWhat does that have to do with his ability to run for office, was he the main PM on the project? Was he brought up on charges, was the company?
DeleteThis guy is not going to a factor in the election, so I think going there on this stuff right now is a bit much, unless there's backup.
7:07AM, it is not only true, but verifiable. Ask the City Clerk for a copy of the letters from the CCC to the City of Encinitas on July 1 and July 9, 2013. A reminder is the City Council meeting where Pam Slater Price's husband confronted Teresa Barth during a council meeting at which time Teresa claimed innocence because she had never signed the Prop A petition (typical pol's move), after spending 6 months promoting Prop A. Ask Marlena, she was Barth's constant companion the day before the 2012 Council election vote where Barth was telling everyone who entered Starbucks that they should sign the petition hosted by Starbucks for Prop A. Barth and Marlena were joined at the hip that day. She knows that it was Ehlers and Slater Price who stopped the CCC from having a public hearing on the legality of Prop A. Ask Marlena. Ask Barth. Ask Pam. You won't ask, because you are afraid its true... which it is.
DeleteThose letters were from Eric Stevens. He is not the regional manager; he's low guy on the totem pole. His letters to Council were incorrect. He was overruled by the truth, and by his higher-ups, on the Coastal Commission.
DeleteThe Coastal Commissioners are not the same as Coastal Commission staff. There was no need for a Coastal Commission hearing on the "legality" of Prop A, and if there was such a hearing, it would have happened at least six months out . . . A local coastal program amendment wasn't required, although one would be, as admitted by the City, for the N101 Streetscape plans to go through . . .
You can't change a plan approved by the coastal commission without the commission's concurrence. Prop A changed the downtown and north 101 plans which where approved by the coastal commission when they approved the city LCP. So the commission gets upset if the city puts a stripe of paint down 101 (bike lane) but suddenly seems uninterested in the amended plans? Something isn't right.
DeleteThere calling us lily white encicitas!
ReplyDeleteAnd, gee whiz, they're saying we don't know English usage or even how to spell the name of our town. Could that be true?
ReplyDelete