Fourth of July fireworks displays at La Jolla Cove and Lake Murray have been traditions for years. But a new tradition has sprung up: environmentalist challenges to the annual shows. Encinitas lawyer Marco Gonzalez has given notice that he may continue pressing his case to halt these shows, even with the legal matter on hold. (And the Lake Murray fireworks have been canceled for 2012, says organizer John Pilch.) Should CEQA, the state environmental protection law, apply to once-a-year shows like these? Or should exceptions be made for displays beloved by many?
Poll: Should It Be Lights Out for July 4th Fireworks Displays Over Water?
Encinitas lawyer Marco Gonzalez has been driving force behind environmental challenges.
Boards
All Boards »
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you read…Read More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. Yet…Read More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth about…Read More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it is…Read More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction or…Read More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get to…Read More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits or…Read More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan.
David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences."
Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit."
Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:37 am
An initiative to Prop A has worked in Escondido, without any lawsuits.
"In the 26-year…Read More history of Encinitas, no council has ever used this provision to approve a major project without first a vote of the people." That's completely untrue. The North 101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans were pushed through by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and a supermajority of past Council AGAINST the wishes of citizens, against years of feedback from Specific Action Review Committees (Sparc)s and Community Advisory Boards (CABs), who wanted to stay with the limits of the General Plan of two stories, 30 ft, MAX, with certain exceptions, consistent with the Initiative!
Just posting your opinion without any supporting evidence, Mr. Stocks, is only hurting your "cause."
We and everyone we know, all our friends and neighbors, are voting YES on A! Voting YES is best if you want to take back your ability to help slow growth and to take back local control. Yes on A is a vote for Democracy and against insider influence and spinmaster jive promoted by marketing masters of misinformation, attempting to manipulate the uninformed masses with distortions of the truth. We don't need to be spoon-fed our opinions, but can think for ourselves, and act to protect and preserve our community character and our quality of life.
So, again, I don't know where you're getting your information, but it simply isn't correct.
You are well aware of the number of that issues boil down to " the war on American culture". Forty years of promoting "white guilt" has resulted in this huge group of people who blame/hate America first and abhor anything intrinsically American, all the while praising, condoning and coveting anything " progressively Euro". It makes me sick. PS:Don't worry the Soledad cross article will get going, give it some time.
This makes me not like you hans.
You: dumping large amounts of Chinese ballistic chemicals into a protected marine sanctuary that houses one of the most diverse underwater canyon.......... The study: leaned toward proving there could be problems ........... BTW are Chinese perchlorates more hazardous than domestic, just wondering?
If it wasn't for this Constitutional argument you might be forced to mind your own damned business! Ooops, wrong article......on this one it's " environmental law" , please replace and move the "Constitutional argument" to the Mt. Soledad article. But it's no less applicable.
Here's an analogical clue: Just because you think fireworks shows are juvenile doesn't mean everyone does or that those disagreeing with you are inferior.
I happily set fireworks off over my own house each year, so no, my true motivation is not subjugation of nature. I just want to have some fun and celebrate the freedoms we all have that you're all too happy to crush beneath your PC, undoubtedly vegan shoe-clad feet.
Well there you have it.
Now you're just being,"juvenile" :-)
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/19/421.html Ask the San Diego city attorney for proof that the city is on title to APN: 674-010-04-00 & 674-010-09-00. It's simply a title fraud scam. A city can not over turn a superior court judge's ruling and acquire private property via fraud.