Gilbert Foerster said,
It just seems like a mistake, in my opinion, to shrink or diminish the areas in greater Encinitas that will require a coastal development permit as well as the exclusion of some of the types of projects that the city staff, with no input or discussion from the citizens and only five quick minutes of council discussion brought forward and got passed October 26 as Resolution No. 2005-52. (Case 05-215) Every action that is taken by the city staff and/or the city council that has the potential to pose an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources, should remain under the eye of the Coastal Commission. The maintenance of an element of affordable housing and preservation of historical buildings not designated as historical by the State but historical to the residents of the City is an important part of the character of our coastal zone.
Please write to the Coastal Commission and request that the areas considered for categorical exclusions not be expanded west of Interstate 5. Please request that the changes of use of non-residential structures(#1), and demolition of existing buildings and reconstruction of ??? (#3) be removed from the request for types of exclusion.
This will not guarantee that a Starbucks won’t go in the La Paloma, nor will it save every building that someone thinks might have historical significance, BUT at least it will give the citizens of Encinitas the ability to appeal if there is a ground-swell of opposition to council or city staff decisions.
Please address correspondence to: California Coastal Commission
c/o Gary Cannon - San Diego District Office
7575 Metropolitan Dr., Suite 103
San Diego, Ca 92108
City of Encinitas Resolution #2005-52(Case 05-215)