A recent letter criticized the Solana Beach City Council’s indifferent treatment of the Lounsbery November Report on Prop. B. It should be noted that this 11-page report was preceded by an August, 78-page report that covered the same issues.
Consider noise control. The August report concluded that noise could be a problem and FCCC-specific measures to control it were defined. These were incorporated into the current FCCC usage rules, but are absent from Prop B. The November report did not deny noise to be a potential problem. It proposed alternative approaches.
One alternative suggested that the City Manager guess in advance if a proposed event was likely to cause problems and, if so, selectively apply the current FCCC noise rules to just that application. The existing uniform approach has the advantage of avoiding the problems this could cause.
A second letter claimed that Prop B is sensible. Apart from questions about individual items, such as the above, is it sensible to establish a policy on something like FCCC usage by a method that makes it unchangeable except by another city vote? I think that this kind of constitutional permanence belongs to things like the City Plan.
- NIMBYs and the Fletcher Cove Community Center
- The bell has already rung
- Council-commissioned report comes to the rescue of Fletcher Cove
- Fletcher Cove redux
- Solana Beach does not need a costly election to establish a private party policy for FCCC
Short URL: http://www.delmartimes.net/?p=62083