WSJ:
As the full moon passes through the shadow of the Earth, a number of factors will combine to create a so-called “super blood wolf moon.” The eclipse will be visible from anywhere in the U.S. for 62 minutes on Sunday night, as well as South America and parts of Europe and Africa.
Sunday’s eclipse is also a “super moon” because the moon will be at the closest point to Earth in its orbit, making it appear larger than usual. This combination happens roughly 20 times in a century.
The event will also create what some call a “blood moon,” a moon with a reddish tint. Because particles in the Earth’s atmosphere scatter blue light, only the remaining red light will reach the moon when the Earth blocks the sun. That red light will bounce off the moon, resulting in a coppery hue.
The name “wolf moon” just means a full moon in January, according to The Old Farmer’s Almanac. Combining the terms together, some skygazers are calling the event a “super blood wolf moon,” though scientists still refer to the event as a total lunar eclipse.
It's a sight to behold. Yes!!!
ReplyDeleteBatshit cray cray old lady from Leucadia to turn this into a thread on traffic in
ReplyDelete3
2
1
Blast off by Marvy Charles, who not only gets first place but is the only one who tried to turn this thread's topic into traffic.
DeleteBack to the wolf moon, super cool. It didn't quite have the bright red tone I was hoping for, but really amazing and interesting nonetheless.
I read some info about the new hotel and it violating some Prop A and nonconformity regulations. We should be flushing that out more, rather than pumping new, irrelevant threads.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a good topic, why push it down and out?
Naw - the new hotel issue is pretty settled..it's vested and getting built.
DeleteIt can’t violate Prop A, because it was approved before Prop A, and ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.
DeleteWhat are “nonconformity regulations?”
If you are trying to fight the hotel project, your only hope is challenging the ruling that there was never a period where the permit should have expired. Permits do expire, but the owners have to be making financial commitments to the project. They can’t get a permit and do nothing. The builder argues that construction of stairs, investments in plans, and legal work constitute enough ongoing investment to justify keeping the permit alive.
There may be case law that suggests otherwise.
The two story / 30 feet height restriction was leveled by the CCC long before Prop A. Now the question seems to be 30 feet from what? Can the developer dig a hole and build up 30 feet from the bottom, or is the measurement from the natural grade? With Prop A, it's from the natural or fill grade, not the bottom of a hole. It would make sense if the CCC's standards are the same.
ReplyDelete“It would make sense if the CCC's standards are the same.”
DeleteExplain.
I don’t think it makes sense at all.
Think about it. CCC is a state body, with jurisdiction over probably 100+ different local cities and unincorporated coastal areas. Each of those 100+ local jurisdictions makes its own rules about how building height should be measured, for permitting purposes.
But you think it makes the most sense if the CCC would just ignore every other city and align to what Encinitas does?
That seems like a very localized perspective of how the world should work.
There are standards. Many of them apply broadly. A standard that building height is from natural or fill grade makes sense. Prop A just didn't make that up out of thin air. Measuring building height from the bottom of a hole you dig doesn't make sense.
DeleteSo you just think it makes the most sense for the CCC to endorse what you like.
DeleteWouldn’t it be just as reasonable for the CCC to accept whatever measurement standard the city uses at the time of the CCC review and approval, rather than for a state body to have their own standard?
6:35, you're obviously a shill for the developer.
DeleteIt has nothing to do with 6:23's preference.
Since the approval the developer is going by is from the CCC, whatever their standard is would apply. In their decision, they specified 30 feet, two stories. They didn't say what grade the height should be measured from.
Googling the topic, I find many mentions of "natural grade" and "average natural grade." I find nothing that says a builder can dig a hole and measure building height from its bottom.
So it doesn't make sense to assume the CCC will allow measuring from the bottom of a hole.
Great. You sound very confident in your legal opinions.
DeleteGood for you.
I must admit, I’m not as certain. I don’t have enough legal expertise to say for sure what should happen with the hotel project.
Good luck with your lawsuit.
I guess in 2022, if there isn’t a hotel there, you will be proved right.
What lawsuit? All it takes is an enforcement action by the CCC. A violation of their approval and standards would generate that.
DeleteAh. Okay. When does the enforcement action happen?
DeleteYou sound so confident, I’m sure you are right—there will be no hotel built.
Best of luck.
The enforcement action happens as soon as the CCC sees the developer is violating the approved height. If the CCC standard is natural grade or average natural grade, the developer is in violation. The process is already in motion. If the developer builds within the height limit approved, there's no problem — at least in that respect.
DeleteWe need the hotel to follow Prop A, period!
ReplyDeleteI understand your passion, but that’s not how the law works.
DeleteThe project was vested to build what the CCC approved. No more no less. THAT is how the law works and how the courts will receive it. Not to mention how CCC staff will address it in a few months.
DeleteI suggest getting CCC involved now. Can you imagine them building and then getting a stop work order. It would make sense to get all the ducks in a row. And until there is a letter from CCC stating substantial compliance, the City should not be issuing any "revised" or "amended" permits.
All this would be easy if they just would build what was approved. But because they hired a lawyer, then you know something aint good.
Just what makes you think they don't have their ducks in a row? What are you looking at that the builder or the city or the CCC missed? If what you're seeing is already in the public record, good luck!! Make good on our suggestion!!
Delete“Hey Bob, I got an idea. How about we risk $100M dollars by building something different from our approved permit, and see if anyone notices. In fact, we should publish renderings online for all to see, because that’s what people normally do when they are trying to hide something.”
Delete“Great idea, Tommy. Let’s do it.”
Why get an attorney if things are so black and white?
DeleteFYI - The project is different. The builder must be in the exact envelop that was previous approved to keep CCC off their backs.
Our City Council has already rolled over.
I hired an attorney to establish a family trust.
DeleteAm I shady too?
No, but your trust is. How many developer shills are you harboring in that trust? Or spandex laden peloton persons? Perhaps a liquor license maven? A double dipping public pension person?
Delete@9:19. Yes you are shady. But not for reason of good estate planning.
DeleteAt the end of the day, the hotel builder must do exactly what was approved by CCC or they will get sued. Small architectural changes (color or material changes) or maybe even floor plan adjustments are certainly expected. But not for bluff placement, grading, or height.
If you fired a chapter 11 attorney to do your family trust, then I would say you are up to something, yes. Point being, the type of attorney matters and the intent matters.
DeleteAn experienced builder should have no need for attorneys to pull building permits. How many people do you know get attorney's to process building permits? There obviously is a legal line that the City is crossing here. Why not discuss it here? No one at the City is.
Excellent segue. I see what you did there. It’s brilliant and subtle.
DeleteYou didn’t really have any cogent argument to make, so you took the mention of a trust, which is a legal construct for transitioning assets to the next generation without going through probate court. And you ignored what a trust is, and then just vomited a bunch of archetypal local villain categories to deflect attention from your lack of substance.
We’re all very impressed.
Well done, sir or madame.
Jeeze 10:05 - I'm 9:34 and it was meant to be tongue in cheek - oh well, you know what they say if you have to explain your joke........
DeleteIf there’s no hotel on that parcel in two years, then I will publicly apologize and admit you are right.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a hotel on that site in two years, then you should publicly apologize to the builder for questioning their business practices.
Deal?
Put up or shut up.
I don't think it will be built because no one will stay there at $400 a night and we are on the precipice of a deep recession.
DeleteBut if they finish it, it doesn't mean that it is legal. Check out all of those illegal granny flats that the City has to now legalize. What does making it have anything to do with what's right and what's wrong.
Not a very smart argument.
You don’t think there’s a big difference between a high profile $100M hotel construction project that has permits, CCC approvals, a website, and news articles written about it, and an under the radar $5K garage converted to living space?
Delete[eyeroll]
If a hotel gets built, it’s legal. Period. We live in a litigious society. If it’s not legal, it will be challenged.
The fact that you don’t want to put your time and money into a legal challenge tells me you know it’s actually legal, and are just spouting verbal diarrhea.
Duuuuuude. Just giving an example. You want others? How about sign projecting above the roof at Lazy Acres. Illegal striping on 101 for 4 years. How about no fence line on NCTD right-of-way? The latter dwarfs your 100 M project. And no I'm not impressed that you have a 100 M project. It will be sold for 80M in five years.
DeleteDo you want me to continue, or do you get the point? Just because its happening doesn't mean that it is legal.
We can argue what is legal or not. But the project is DIFFERENT. That is the whole point of this. Absent any sound coming from City Hall, we have to discuss it ourselves.
Point being, there is tons of illegal stuff happening all the time.
Measure U was illegal from a CEQA standpoint.
DeletePffffft.
DeleteBlame the refs.
We have laws. We have courts to interpret the laws.
Things aren’t illegal because anonymous random dude with zero legal knowledge says so on the Internet.
You think you have a case? Go to court and prove it.
City clowns were on-site this pm in their ill-fitting hardhats. The earthmovers and dirt-hosers were working as the bluff is forever ruined.
DeleteWhere else in CA are the spoilers given free rein as they are in Encinitas? Truly sad...
I agree. And in Encinitas, you definately need to sue the City to make things right. The current City Hall fucks things up way more then they get it right.
ReplyDeleteThis combine with the poor risk analysis cost the tax payers dearly. The L101 streetscape price tage just went from $30 million to likely $70 million for not completing the project sooner and keeping down the crappy striping conditions. Now after law suites the project will be $30 mil. for improvements and an estimated $40 million for all the settlements. Hugg.
This City Management Sucks!!!!
Maybe we should just commence action for having an inadequate General Plan and shut down city hall for good. No permits for anything. Most of the staff can leave. Shutdown is a good thing, right?
Delete8:58 AM I have news for you. We already have a shutdown. It's an ongoing thing, don't you know. Go to Planning,or Code. No one knows much, no one really has a definitive answer and if you are lucky, you get a card. Follow up visits or calls are patronized, at best.
DeleteI fully agree with 8:31.
ReplyDeleteThe General Plan is not inadequate. The City Management is inadequate and needs to be shut down. No staff is better than bad staff. Building continues just fine without permits as we can see with all the non permitted units.
Shutdown the bad staff, and hire good City Management.
The current City Council supports this bad management and needs to be replaced. Vote out all incumbents.
Press release from the Govenor's Office:
ReplyDelete"SACRAMENTO — Governor Gavin Newsom announced today that the state is taking first-of-its-kind legal action against a city for standing in the way of affordable housing production and refusing to meet regional housing needs — local actions that harm California families’ ability to find affordable places to live and drive up housing costs for everyone. The Governor approved legal action against the City of Huntington Beach for willfully refusing to comply with state housing law, even after extensive attempts to offer partnership and support from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The Attorney General will file suit against the city today. ..."
So much for the position that the state won't sue cities.
Newsom is a socialist idiot. Huntington Beach is already a clap trap mass...
DeleteOops - Make that "mess"...
ReplyDelete