Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Pacific Station development on agenda for Thurs. Feb 1st meeting



The downtown mixed-use development dubbed Pacific Station, is on the Feb 1st Planning Commission agenda (item #3)

Agenda pdf

Previous blog post: Leucadia!: Density Destiny



This project will really change downtown Encinitas, including another stop light on the coast highway 101 at F St, so you might want to check out the meeting. Maybe even fill out on those speaker slips and give the Planning Commission your thoughts, impressions and ideas.

(Someone once told me that the coast highway was a highway and that stop signs and stop lights don't belong on highways, so keep that in mind).

*UPDATE--Pacific Station was approved by the Planning Commission.

Encinitas panel approves downtown project

37 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Beware of teenagers driving pick up trucks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lynn thanks for making a fresh start. We look forward to your presence being less domineering. We also look forward to an increase in constructive dialogue instead of repetitive rant. It will be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  4. annonymous, we look forward to your sticking to the issues, commenting on the posts, and leaving personalities out of it.

    Why don't you treat yourself to a nice cup of shut the fuck up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As I see it, Pacific Station, as planned, creates too much density.

    This project further reduces our quality of life, peaceable dwelling, peaceable driving, all of which have been diminished already by the traffic congestion and lack of parking on Hwy. 101, particularly, near the train station.

    In a related context, the old Pacific View school site could become a place for overflow parking from Second St., and a pocket park.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like the idea of improving encinitas downtown and adding more housing units. I just wish they could forgo the new traffic light and put in a state of the art traffic circle.

    I think the city should hold up this development until they can develop the corner property at the same time. It will be out of place and ugly until that is done.

    At this stage "stop the development".

    ReplyDelete
  7. As suggested by previous poster, anonymous, traffic circles and roundabouts drive higher density development.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Go to the Planning Commission meeting and say NO to this development.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I like urban mixed-use concepts but I think this project is overkill and should be scaled back. Sometimes less is more. It doesn't look that fun to live there as is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lynn Braun-

    Welcome to our club. You may want to curb your behavior a little so you do not scare our other club members.

    I'm sure you'll love our little Coo Coo Nest. We never improve anything.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I strongly opposed the Ecke upzone and I strongly oppose the Brown upzone but I'm not so sure that this one is a bad idea. If we can limit the growth (overgrowth) to an urban core that is served by rail, bus and services, then maybe we can yet save some of the outlying open space.

    The development downtown around the gaslamp and little Italy districs has created an area that people can live and work. Not a bad concept.

    I would like to see the hard line no-growth folks think about a comprimise. Pick a few spots for density and fight the rural upzones.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Every property in Encinitas is a potential for high density projects. It's whatever the developer can push through with the help of the Planning Commission and Stocks, Dalager, and Bond. A current 25 DU per acre on the resident side streets in Encinitas is beyond the capacity of livability. Now the Pacific Station wants 47 DU per acre? Does anyone really think that a renter in one of those condos will never leave downtown Encinitas? Put them on welfare and take away their car, and then there will be a capitive residential area.

    Little Italy is no longer an enjoyable trip for sightseeing. Parking is difficult and the large multistory buildings tower over the stores and restaurants.

    ReplyDelete
  13. bingo! great comments!

    If we were ever to have density this is the perfect location next to rail.

    I also agree, pick you issues carefully as to not look like you're just against everything, unless, you really are just against everything.

    After the meeting, drop by the poetry slam!

    Imagined if you lived at Pacific Station, you could walk to the planning commision meeting, walk to the poetry slam, walk to a resturant for a late dinner and walk home.

    really you could do that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pacific Station units will mostly be short term rentals. Remember how hard you fought to keep that right?

    That site is a great location. I would even buy one if the actual project was better. As is, it's a missed opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maybe the developer's campaign contributions has helped move his project forward.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree with JPs comments. Decrease the density a bit and increase the openspace for some nice open mall setting including spaces for art and fountains and call it good. I also agree that the location is prime for being the highest density in the City right next to the train station, bus stops, beach and bling bling Library.

    ReplyDelete
  17. you didn't last long lynn. Take a vacation for a while because you are about to get voted off the island. It does not have to be that way.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If the density is reduced, it becomes a new project.

    ReplyDelete
  19. JP,
    Can you ban certain people from posting on this blog?
    At first it was funny...now it's getting really old.

    Lynn, The guy attacking you is nuts. A few posts back, I think he threatened you with physical harm when he said "sweet dreams Lynn". Call the Cops on him for harassment. Not that they will do anything.

    And... what buildings are they going to destroy to build this new mall we don't need?
    Hopefully not the old Encinitas Lumber building.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks jon p; I sure appreciate the encouragement.

    That anonymous nutcase wrongly assumes everyone posting, except him/her, is me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Lynn, The guy attacking you is nuts. A few posts back, I think he threatened you with physical harm when he said "sweet dreams Lynn". Call the Cops on him for harassment. Not that they will do anything."

    lol.

    Uh, I'm pretty sure this is the INTERNET.

    Calm down.

    ReplyDelete
  22. now that certainly didn't take long. Calling someone a nutcase. Does that mean you want to crack their head?

    That sounds like a threat to me. Call the internet police. I've been violated.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yeah JP. Thats a great idea.

    Can you please ban Lynn and Jon P's comments. We are tired of their one sided rambling.

    Waaaa-Don't call anybody by their name or nickname....Charlie, RSPB, Aceti, Charlie Marvin, Barrett, and "Every Council Member" on and on, Etc.....

    Oh- thats right, it doesn't apply to us.Right?

    I'll see you two tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Molly will be missedFebruary 01, 2007 4:25 PM

    As Molly once wrote, "Politics is not a picture on a wall or a television sitcom that you can decide you don't much care for."

    www.freepress.org

    ReplyDelete
  25. FYI Bro...

    Computer Security and U.S. Law.

    "In the world of paper and telephones, there are legal remedies to harassing and demeaning communication. Some of those remedies are already being applied to the online world. We have seen cases of people being arrested for harassment and stalking online, and sued (successfully) for slander in posted articles. There have also been cases filed for violation of EEOC laws because of repeated postings that are sexually, racially, or religiously demeaning.
    Often, words are a prelude or indicator of other potential harm, including physical harm."

    ReplyDelete
  26. Lynn, calm down. Your blowing it for everyone. We all know you think this blog is the greatest thing since incorporation. So stop putting this blog's readership at risk.

    You have been completely asking for it and apparently have no sense of how much fuel you add to the fire. You should appreciate how accommodating bloggers have been until now.

    Anon 4:25’s point is sharp. Anon 4:17 is responding to your OFF TOPIC responses. Eric brings up an equally important point that you are pro at what you are telling people not to do. You spun out and I second that motion that it is for you to take a break for a while. Please be considerate.

    Everyone else, lets give Lynn a couple days to adjust and appreciate those adjustments when they come.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Those of you who apparantly feel the need to attack Lynn should probably look at your own lives. Have you lost ALL tolerance for others and the way they express their ideas? Are you so sure it is always Lynn who is posting? Instead of attacking a really decent person, perhaps you could add some orgiginal ideas to keep ourcommunity from getting even more like Newport Beach. Lynn is NOT the crazy one. Give it some thought at least.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Come onnn Dr. Lorri. Are you kidding me?

    Have you heard of the old saying, Treat others as you would like to be treated.

    I thnk Lynn needs to heed that lesson and quite the rambling and mutliple posts before people begin to respect her again.

    It gos both ways. Once she respects the blog, we will respect her. I for one will give her another chance and lets see how it goes.

    Good luck Lynn, We mean you no harm, we just would like to get the blog back to its former glory.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dr Lorri,

    Why wouldn't you want to have a community like Newport Beach? It is a vibrant community where property values are out of sight.

    It's clean, has great restaurants, supports a major research university, even though the university is on the border. It has beautiful beaches. It is very crime free. It has a starbucks everyplace you would stop. It is easy to get into and out of.

    I think it would a bonus if we could even approach Newport Beach.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I love this place... Lynn I too will forgive you so long as you chill out on the multiple posts. It gets old.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Newport Beach has a harbor, we don't.

    Newport is called Zooport for a reason, it's crowded.

    Encinitas blows doors on Newport any day of the week. Newport is overrated and the local population has a serious drug problem, among other vices.

    Basically, Newport sucks dog balls and Encinitas rules.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Newport Beach is under the departure end of the John Wayne airport.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Warts and all, or perhaps because we have warts....

    Encinitas blows doors!

    I like that JP.

    As a dog owner the whole dog balls thing is a little over the top for me.....

    Oh tohell with it...shit, they do it because they can.....just like greedy developers that own council persons.

    ReplyDelete
  34. or wanna be council personsFebruary 02, 2007 6:15 AM

    Doug Long, "Pablo-Hater," babbler about babble, dirty trickster, did you see Lynn at the Planning Commission meeting?

    Were you parked in the 15 minute zone, as usual? You were?

    I hear you've been a bully since your school days, with Dan. Many know you are bitter about the votes Paul Martens got. You think if only you'd gotten them instead, you could've beat out Teresa. We know you took her signs, and you'll probably try the same thing with Maggie.

    Be happy for your spot on the Park and Rec Commission.

    Be a man and post under your own name. You are the one attempting to dominate this blog, trying to push people away, exposing yourself as a coward.

    ReplyDelete
  35. lynn this has got to end. Your 615 post has your fingerprints all over it. That post does nothing to improve the dialogue.

    Why don't YOU post under your real name?

    I don't see anyone other than you trying to push people away. Seems like at least a few people are only asking that you to abide by some manners.

    ReplyDelete
  36. JP please delete all this nonsense and give us a fresh start.

    ReplyDelete
  37. It seems the cyberbullies have issued a Fatwa to start a Holy Jihad against Lynn. Why the personal attack against her? I'm not asking J.P. to remove any posts. I simply skip the posts I don't want to read. Other can do the same.

    I do know that many posts attributed to Lynn have been made by others. For example, I have made posts pointing out the negative aspects of roundabouts from the time the Santa Fe roundabout was under construction. I'm the one who originally stated that the turning radius was too small on Santa Fe and that the yield signs make it unsafer for pedestrians. The pro-roundabout bloggers think every opinion against roundabouts is Lynn speaking. That is hardly true.

    Since Barratt American and its supporters have been exposed as relentless posters in favor of roundabouts, now all we get is personal attacks and attempts to shut down free speech. This is not Saudi Arabia or Iran. Let's respect our constitutional values and try to keep the discussion about the issues. Lynn's questions (at least I think they are hers) are not being answered. Nor are mine. It's endless repetition of the same opinions that have now morphed into personal attacks. It's the attackers of Lynn who are trying to take over the blog.

    Thursday morning was a perfect time to see how the Santa Fe roundabout functions under heavy traffic. There was an accident on I-5. Traffic was streaming down Santa Fe to cut through my neighborhood to get to Highway 101. This seems to be almost a weekly occurrence now. A young person was killed this week only a block east of the roundabout. This is already a dangerous area, and roundabouts will not mitigate the traffic increases that will results from Scripps expansion, the Hall property development, San Dieguito Academy expansion, and the Brown property upzoning. In fact I believe a good argument can be made that roundabouts will actually exacerbate the already existing problems. Certainly with "modern" roundabouts it will be less safe for pedestrians. Of course we could always expand Santa Fe to 4-6 lanes. Is that what we want? Not me.

    Again I have a question. Why don't we study the Santa Fe roundabout before we rush into the construction of more? I think the fact that proponents are against a study is an indication of the weakness of their position and shows an unwillingness of open discussion.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed, after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.