Go Leucadia! We are unique, still relatively unspoiled.Hey, we are noticing Yes on C signs in right of way. Maybe leprechauns will remove them.
Again, sad to see Council Meeting this past Wednesday. Appellants from LeucadiaCares got bullied re Barratt development project on Andrews St. First, LeucadiaCares reps were told they could not give their Powerpoint presentation, because it had not submitted it by 5:00 P.M. seven days before hearing this past Wed. By ordinance, City staff now gets to make later additions, as did Barratt's Attorney, contrary to regulations. Attorney for developer said the Tentative and final parcel maps were already part of the record, so they must be admitted, right then! More BS. He claimed it was not necessary for him to pre-submit. These should have been certified copies, and they should have held to the 7 day rule for submission by the Appellant or Applicant.Barratt's attorney gave copies to Council and the City Clerk of this last minute submission of ledger size documents. When LeucadiaCares spokesman went over to get one of the packets for Everett Delano, attorney for Appellant (Barratt is Applicant), Barratt Attorney went over to Everett and took back the documents! Someone from the audience asked why the opposition didn't get to see the evidence submitted against them. Barratt Attorney said, "I could have prepared copies for you, if I had known you wanted them. You didn't ask." Of course, no one knew these would be submitted!Jerome Stocks did say, "We’ll share," and LeucadiaCares attorney, Everett, was finally allowed to have a copy. Again, very rude, and improper attitude and actions by Barratt attorney.In this instance, Maggie finally showed some courage. She was the only Council Member who dissented from approving the Coastal Development Permit. By 4-1 vote, including Guerin and Dalager, who should be tossed out at next election, Barratt was allowed to reset the height limit from the "re-established grade," rather than from the pre-existing grade, as required by law. People are concerned, justifiably, that their views are being affected adversely.The truth is, even if someone else thinks you have nothing to look at, such as an ocean view, we all do have skyline views, views of trees, etc., which are impacted, significantly, by the cheesy McMansions towering over so many of the older, quaint homes here, now. The ones by us are not selling. Spikes to keep the birds away might be one of the many reasons why.Fugly!
Yes, and a very nice lady, during oral communications, gave a great presentation re conflict of interest, asking the Council Members, individually, to recuse themselves if they had any conflicts of interest, such as accepting campaign funding through developers, etc.She asked that they take notice of specifically enumerated, Govt. Code Sections, concerning conflict of interest prohibitions, and answer her questions of possible conflicts, then. "Please answer now."No one did answer, or said a word about this, that we heard, then, or later, although, as usual, Council's remarks dragged on, for some time. Also, when Barratt's lawyer had some difficulty helping Council to locate something in his record, bogus Mayor Christy Guerin said, "Stop the clock!" LeucadiaCares was not given this same courtesy. Nor was their lawyer, Everett Delano, allowed to stop the clock. Citizens in Encinitas are not being given equal protection under the law, plain and simple.
Hey guys and gals, the last comment on the previous post sounds as though it comes out of the side of the mouth of Steve Aceti, or one of his spinmaster "hit men" lobbyists. Aceti admits he doesn't live in Encinitas, and won't be subject to this tax/fee he's pushing.Here's JP's comment he must be referring to: "If the beaches alone generate $50 million then coughing up $3.5 million to maintain them is a no brainer. No need for a new tax, the beaches are paying for themselves.""Anonymous" retorts, "The local businesses who actually enjoy tax revenue are the ones who are making the 30-40 million in business sales. Not the city."Of course, this doesn't make any sense, at all. City enjoys sales tax revenues from those business interests. Also, if the businesses are making so much, shouldn't the assessment be weighted so that the businesses pay their fair share, and it isn't stuck on the little guy, often fixed income homeowner?Double standards abound. Better check your integrity, Mr. Aceti. We don't buy your bull.
"allowed to reset the height limit from the "re-established grade," rather than from the pre-existing grade"No the council did not reset the reference point from which to measure. The law says only the planning commission can do that at the time the tentative map was approved. That was a long time ago. It was too late to reset. What the council did was say, uhm, we don't care if the law says to measure heights from prexisting grade. We wont enforce the law.
If Adidas was serious about naming a product after Leucadia it should have been referred to as a beach sandal. Then they could have named a flip-flop "The Council".It could be designed to fit either foot depending on the political climate and campaign funding, had adjustable sole height for viewing grade basis, had parts of it full of hot air, had developer logos on it, been convertible to a dress shoe for runs at higher office, and been overpriced.
Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog. Anonymous comments are allowed, after moderator review.The moderator works at his leisure.