These should never have been kept from the public in the first place. The only legitimate purpose of hiding documents like this from the public in real estate transactions is so you don't tip your hand in negotiations. But given that these documents were apparently openly shared with EUSD, the negotiation counterparty, there was absolutely no legitimate reason to keep hiding them from the public.
But you all know Glenn Sabine's position on government secrecy.
Nevertheless, thanks to some selective insider disclosure and some persistent pestering by watchful members of the public, here are the appraisals at last.
They come in at $3.3 million and $7.3 million, while EUSD's Tim Baird has almost doubled last year's asking price to $13.5 million.
Given that the land value depends largely on land use zoning, could it be that Proposition A has saved the community millions of dollars already?
WCV
ReplyDeleteThis is very sad every one knew this EXCEPT you are you
hiding in a dark room come out come out WCV
F work YOU CAN DO BETTER !
Buzz off; 8:46; WCV is doing a great job.
DeleteThe City has NOT been. Read the appraisal reports; I've only glanced through the first one, so far. This is a legitimate appraisal for a property with run down structures that EUSD has purposefully allowed to deteriorate, for $3,287,000, which rounds up to $3.3 Million, not $3.2 Million as Gus Vina misstated Wednesday night, at the Council Meeting. Maybe a "minor" misstatement, but major when you consider that Gus Vina was a Financial Director, and is our City Manager, with a "background in finance." He certainly should be able to accurately report figures, without a $87,000 discrepancy!
EUSD could have continued to lease out the property to the Artists' Colony, for example, for an arts and learning center, for $1 per year. The Artists' Colony would have maintained the property, and made monthly payments.
The public ALREADY owns the donated land. Only bureaucratic fat cats and insider power brokers profit, or get their resumes and salaries enhanced when public land is "flipped" from one public entity to another. We could and should cut out the middlemen.
The county leases the land under the library for one dollar per year. EUSD formerly leased Pacific View to the City of Encinitas for $1 per year, allowing the City to pave over the playing fields without abiding by the Naylor Act, offering 30% of the 2.8 acre site, or .852 acre at 25% of the appraised value. Baird claims an appraisal was done in 2003, although it was never publicly released. His $13.5 Million figure is entirely BOGUS!
San Dieguito Water District rented out and shared our (ratepayers') headquarters and public works yard for $10,000 per year, to the City, and was ultimately given only $1 credit for the non-appraised, ocean view land, which is now used for the library's parking lot. That minimal credit was used, with an additional $3.4 Million in SDWD reserves, for rights of use, only at the new "high end" Mossy Public Works Yard, purchased at tremendous expense, without a publicly released appraisal, adding an extra Million $ to the purchase price, through taxpayers, for structures that were NOT ADA compliant and required another $2.5 Million to bring into compliance. So instead of the bogus $8.5 Million that the property was claimed to be worth by Dalager and Stocks, as "turnkey," we ended up paying about $12 million.
So yeah, the City can afford to put pressure on greedy Superintendent Baird to do a "lease to own" deal, either to the City or directly through a foundation set up through the Artist's Colony and the Historical Society, whereby the existing classrooms could be refurbished by volunteers, and we could create a wonderful, highly used, community arts and learning center. As Fred has shared, the Artist's Colony off of A Street looked great and was well maintained by the artists till it was razed to build Moonlight Lofts, which cut off the view corridor (from the train, for instance) and which went bankrupt.
As you can verify from reading the first appraisal report, we, the people, incorporated our City to SLOW GROWTH. We started out with a moratorium on growth. There was also a drive to limit growth, by initiative, but that didn't happen. The City too badly needed more development for developer fees (including, now affordable housing fees, used to boost up the Encinitas Preservation Association, which added no NEW affordable housing, only counted "on the books" pre-existing affordable housing, including "illegal units."
We can afford Pacific View with a public/private partnership with the Artists' Colony and the Historical Society: Envision the View.
I think anon 9:10 has an excellent plan. It's easy to tear any plan apart, awithout coming up with a solution of your own, Sculpin. And it's easy for a few buzkills to try to throw a damper on every victory.
From the JWW appraisal report by James W. Waldon, MAI, page 15:
Delete"Encinitas incorporated in October 1986. The primary reason for incorporation was the uncontrolled growth allowed by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors between 1969 and 1986. City residents were concerned about a reduction in the quality of life as a result of the rapid growth being caused by new developments . . .
"In the eight years prior to city incorporation, residential growth was steadily increasing. As soon as the city incorporated (October of 1986), a two-year building moratorium went into effect."
Really, 8:46? The public had the appraisals long before August 29? When and where?
DeleteBitter much?
WCV
Lynn, Lynn, Lyn, Lynn - you are a smart person - please think this through! The plan put forth by 9:10 (for those late to the party it's in a different topic)is not feasable because it is all stick and no carrot. Some of the recommendations you make are in a similar vein. Believe me - you can't affect institutional changes without carrots - lots of them given at strategic points. Interestingly, the more carrots you use over here, the harder you can wield the stick over there. In my experience, whenever a heavy handed, top down centralized approach is used to affect institutional change it results in very low moral, loss of institutional knowledge and a generally dysfunctional organization for quite some time. Now, if that is your desired outcome, go for it, but as Colin Powel famously said: "you break it, you own it".
DeleteOh, and I did offer up a different plan. Did you read it?
- The Sculpin
I meant to say that only $1 MILLION credit was given to SDWD ratepayers for our ocean view land, public works yard, and NO credit was given for the headquarters' structures.
DeleteInstead of $1 Million, I said $1, sorry. Talk about a big discrepancy! But we can't edit our comments without deleting and reposting, so I'm glad I caught my mistake, belatedly.
Sculpin, tell your plan to Tony and Teresa, who are on the secret negotiating subcommittee that they both voted to approve last Wednesday night, despite objections from me, during the open part of the Special Meeting, re Pacific View and two other closed session agenda items.
The public also DID NOT get our promised 72 hour notice for the Special Meeting(s) Otherwise, I feel certain more people would have attended, and spoke re PV. Barth, Shaffer and Kranz are NOT keeping their promises to promote transparency and to encourage MORE public participation!
The city is broke. They have no business buying land that will sit fallow for years while the use works it's way through the courts, because we know someone will sue someone. Can you say Hall property???
ReplyDeleteCOE, fix the roads, streetlights, sidewalks, streetscape, infrastructure, water the plants etc etc. Leave the "arts" to the artists, if they want a place to paint, sculpt or whatever, let them buy PV. The city has no business owning more unusable buildings. Whatever the sales price there will be an equal amount of money spent to bring it up to speed and use. PV is an giant hole in the ground in which the city will throw unlimited amounts of money. Say no to Pacific View.
I would rather get rid of Gus and his "cabinet" and use the funds to benefit actual citizens' needs. Who need these overpaid losers in the first place. They are there because of Gus and not because of us.
DeleteIf they cut the staff in half, starting at the top, we could afford Pacific View!
Envision the View. We can make it happen. Through some tough, no-nonsense negotiations, the City can afford to purchase PV, over time, through a "lease to own" plan. We can find many ways to create efficiencies, to cut operating expenses. To begin, I feel any City executive officer making over $100,000 per year should take a 20% pay cut. If they want to leave, let them. Their positions can be filled with more qualified candidates.
DeleteWe also need to require that sports leagues pay for use of the sports fields at the Hall Property Park, just as Yoga instructors holding classes at public parks or surf instructors at public beaches, must pay $5 per student, per day, for using public property. The Leagues do pay the various school districts, now, for use of their fields.
Councilmembers already receiving high pensions, or several government pensions, when counting one's spouse, should volunteer to forfeit their Council salary and benefits. If they don't want to do the job as a public service, they don't need to run for office. Likewise, they don't need car allowances and airline tickets to New Orleans on the City's dime, which Mayor Barth received.
I believe only Tony Kranz and Kristin Gaspar are not receiving public pensions, but I'm not sure. If it's publicly disclosable, I would like to know how much Lisa Shaffer and her husband are making, now in public pensions, and how much, Teresa Barth is making in a public pension, if anything? Did she retire from the Agricultural District which operates the Del Mar Fairgrounds? As I said, I'm not sure. They are all entitled to their pensions, but they could do as other politicians have; they could voluntarily donate their City elected official salary, which is small compared to their executive officers', i.e., Vina and his cabinet.
Being a Council person is not normally a full time job. An elected official gets many "perks" including free play at the golf course. One has to be in office for at least five years to receive another government pension, through the City, as an elected official, so elected and re-elected at least once. Barth would qualify. The "jury's out" on whether or not Lisa and Tony will be reelected, after they "changed their minds" on Prop A, after signing the petition which qualified the initiative for a Special Election ballot measure.
They also "changed their minds," apparently, on their promise to immediately pass a Sunshine Ordinance, with Teresa Barth's support, if they were elected. Also, it was promised that Glenn Sabine, our "non-excellent," dishonest City Attorney, would be "out." All broken promises.
Teresa Barth tried to "duck out " to deny the fact of her "posturing" for Yes on A , while not signing the petition, but stating, publicly: "I support the people's right to vote!" She knew what that meant to us. Pam-Slater Price's husband blasted Teresa, when he publicly told her at the Council Meeting when the Prop A election was certified: "You know what you said in our many private conversations."
Make no mistake about it, Barth, and Shaffer and Kranz, once Lisa and Tony were elected, "changed their stripes." They could do some "damage control" of their reputations, now, by using their imaginations and the City's leverage to find a creative way to create a true community arts and learning center, keeping it simple, allowing the Artists' Colony to refurbish and maintain the existing structures, perhaps allowing some artists' studios, living quarters with a minor or major use permit, as caretakers.
These caretakers' quarters could qualify for additional affordable housing in-lieu fees, as the Boathouses property did, to the tune of about $841,000 dollars. There are so many great plans out there; the City can help raise funds by soliciting them, personally, through Council Members from high paid pensioners, and possibly from Pacific View Alumni.
DeleteLynn: Lisa told me before the election that she would not be taking a salary from being on the Encinitas City Council, as she and her husband together have 4 pensions, all funded by taxpayers. I don't have any idea if she kept this promise, but this is what shed told me when I asked her on her FB political page before the election. I pointed out, on her page, that she and her husband had 4 pensions. She took if off of her page at the time, and sent me an email about it. If I can find it, I will send it to you. She also told me it was irrelevant how many pensions they had. She was defensive before the elections on many things.
DeleteOh wonderful Lynn and Russ sucking at the govt teat not once but 4 times. How nice, I've just increased my plans by 5 years to get out of this God forsaken land. Thanks for ruining my weekend Dr. Lorri.
DeleteOn my apologies to everyone. I miss read dr. Lorri's posting. Again apologies all around.
DeleteThank you, Dr. Lorri! I'd love to see her e-mail, if you can find it.
DeleteClearly, is not irrelevant how much bureaucrats or administrators are making in public pensions. The taxpayers, fee payers and rate payers care!
Lisa Shaffer continues to be defensive. She seems to be so busy thinking up self-justifications and defenses, that she's not really listening with an open mind.
For instance, at the last Council Meeting, when I asked, as I had notified the Clerk and Council, ahead of time, that there could be a few one sentence corrections to the minutes, Lisa came back with another lame excuse, which apparently confused Mark Muir and Tony Kranz. Only Kristin Gaspar supported my request to make minor changes to the minutes.
For one correction, referring to incorrect minutes from June 19, the Clerk had written that Lynn Marr and Audrew Audet spoke (during oral communications) about hiring of a communications specialist. I wrote the following to Council and the Clerk, and repeated it when I pulled the minutes last Wednesday night, August 28:
On Page 1 of the July 17 Staff Report for the June 19 minutes, I request that the minutes could be corrected to say that both Andrew Audet and I spoke in opposition to the City's hiring a Communications Specialist. I asked for reconsideration of this decision as a Future Agenda Item. (I have made this specific request during Oral Communications on several occasions, including June 12 and June 19.)
[Lynn Marr asked that a future agenda item could be set to reconsider hiring a Communications Specialist]
This correction would only involve changing a few words, and is only one sentence, as protocol suggests. When someone specifically requests a future agenda item to be set, as part of oral communications, that should be recorded in the minutes. I hope all of Council will consider this, and make the requested corrections.
Well, when Kristin Gaspar said she didn't see any harm in recording public speakers' future agenda requests in the minutes, and the Clerk's noting the June 19 speakers' OPPOSITION to hiring a FTE Communications Specialist, Deputy Mayor Shaffer asked the Clerk, "If a Councilmember requests a future agenda item, and that is not supported by another Councilmember, is that recorded? The Clerk said, "No."
So despite Kristin Gaspar's then again trying to urge that BOTH Councilmembers' and public speakers' requests for future agenda items could be noted in action minutes, without the minutes "becoming a novel," Lisa Shaffer and Teresa Barth got their petty, vindictive way.
Teresa Barth had said, do I hear a motion to approve the minutes? She simply IGNORES my requests, in a dismissive, arrogant manner. The Clerk reminded the Mayor that Lisa Shaffer had also also requested a minor change. The Mayor immediately queried, do I hear a motion to approve the minutes with only the changes made requested by Deputy Mayor Shaffer? With Kristin Gaspar voting no, this passed, four to one.
Kristin Gaspar later wrote me, in reply to my questions: "I had hoped for support to amend the minutes and do the most we can with our minutes in general. I agree that action minutes could include simple statements about agenda requests. Since 2011, I cannot recall a single agenda item request by a council member that failed. I have however seen multiple requests by members of the public go without council support to be agendized. Why make it harder for the public to access information unnecessarily?"
I had made the point, publicly in the past, and Kristin Gaspar made it at last Wednesday's CC Meeting, the minutes would be more searchable and accessible if we could search on key words, such as future agenda items, in conjunction with a public speaker's name. Lisa Shaffer, relative "newbie" to Encinitas, too, made the point that we have webcasts; we have action minutes; we don't need to correct the minutes, because someone could go view the webcasts.
DeleteTHAT was EXACTLY what Jerome Stocks used to say, when the public, and Maggie Houlihan would ask for corrections to the minutes to make them more searchable and publicly accessible. The Clerk is well compensated to do her job. Adding one extra sentence is not going to create any problems in "efficiency."
It's all about balance, balancing integrity with efficiency, balancing open government with political officers' need to feel they are "in control."
We could afford a lot more than Pacific View. We would have nice roads again instead of crumbling roads, we would have money to save our beach assess points, we would have money to maintain our existing landscaping, but no;
ReplyDeleteGus and our Council hire 4 people all over $100K a year.
For a town of 60,000 Encinitas is staff obese. Most comparable Cities operate with less that 1/2 the staff of Encinitas and they don't pay 1/2 as much. Our tax dollars are being flushed down the toilet and wasted on a obese staff count and huge pensions.
Our City Government needs an enema, and our Council must like the plugged up pipes because they say Sad Sac is doing a great job. Now that is pathetic.
9:33 Correct we need to get rid of employees at city hall. Sabine and Gus top the list.
DeletePurge City Hall and slash pensions - these hogs at the trough are spending your tax dollars on themselves. It is the era of "get all you can while no one is looking",,,,
DeleteBarth and Shaffer are traitors.
The Strategic Plan is a disgrace. It is amazing how many ways Gus can think of to spend our money to empower himself towards retirement. As some have said before, it seems like a stategic plan for one person--Gus!
DeleteI am disappointed in this council. I have to face friends and neighbors who I convinced to vote for them.
Dump the council.
ReplyDeleteMy car fell into a giant pothole the other day. It was so deep it amazed me. Gotta love what our tax dollars aren't fixing, but from my pothole i could gaze up in awe at a five million dollar fire station before me.
ReplyDeleteWhere? Let's start a pothole alert blog. What do you say WCV? All these complaints about crappy roads. Let's shine a light on the specific problems.
DeleteSend 'em in. Include photos and location.
DeleteWCV
Giant pothole under I-5 overpass west bound on Santa Fe Dr.
Delete9:12
DeleteOr you can contact the city with the location and they will fix it.
Leucadia Blvd East of I5 is about to become dust, Pension Debt is huge, the City has no money for tons of other needed projects, and the City is contemplating buying yet another piece of property.
ReplyDeleteHere is an idea. Don't buy PV and sell Quail Gardens to pay for all the other fricken debt the City incurred.
Just because Stockton and Sacramento let Vina bankrupt their Cities, doesn't mean we have to let him bankrupt ours.
Wake up City Council. You are acting like your hanging out at to many downtown bars doing shots all night.
Buying property? What if they actually develop the property?
ReplyDeleteWe are talking at a minimum 10 million to $15,000.000.00.....Not to mention the huge ongoing maintenance costs.
Why is it City Council members always want to build facilities that cost so much to run?
Remember we bought homes hear and raise our children here because of the cool BEACH community- we don't need big City facilities. These are all the doings of idiot councilmembers trying to leave moments with their name on it.
We have a huge community center and "Library" (meaning free internet and meeting rooms).... Let the "Artists" meet there and get their art on.
Council is acting as stupid as our state and federal governments. Becoming a politician must make you stupid or something? WTF?
There sure are alot of developer trolls on this blog.Consider this: some family generously donated this land for the PUBLIC good many years ago.We ought to honor thier good will.The city is in great financial shape because the developers best buddy (Jerome) told us so.Prop A kinda throws a monkey wrench into your plans don't it.Any poster that uses the term KPVCC is nothing more than a developer troll.Why don't y'all STFU.
DeleteThe Cabezon
The City WOULD NOT have to develop the property. The lessor of the property, which I hope could be a foundation set up through the Artist's Colony and the Historical Society, could repair and maintain the property, subleasing it out, using the existing structures, to provide an actual REVENUE STREAM.
DeleteIn the appraisal report I read, there was no mention of asbestos. One modular classroom was said by someone at the school district to have some mold. This was not verified; it could be mitigated.
For once, Council would be well justified to get another lease revenue bond, to purchase the property. Development and maintenance would be done by the lessor(s). This would be a "land lease," with any improvements becoming part of the City's domain.
Past lease revenue bonds have NOT had required lease revenue streams. Lease revenue bonds aren't supposed to be set up like a homeowner's mortgage, with other properties being used as "collateral." That's why they are CALLED LEASE REVENUE BONDS, in anticipation of actual LEASE REVENUE!
People bringing up "gi-normous" development costs in addition to an inflated, speculative purchase price, are simply attempting to obstruct the public's will to keep this a true COMMUNITY art center. We don't need a monolithic structure, with tremendous added parking issues, and which must be supported by packing in more unwanted residential or mixed use development.
Before this could ever go to court, the public would have to be able to vote on the upzoning issue. Otherwise any such "threatened" case is not ripe for adjudication. The previous poster is absolutely correct on that. That bogus lawsuit is just a "chip" being used for leverage, and our Council and City Manager should be savvy enough to realize that it is bogus; the dismissed lawsuit is now MOOT!
Sorry Cabezon....not even close..... local surfing Leucadian.
ReplyDeleteyour last rant, makes you sound like a Kook.... go submerge yourself in the ocean, it will settle your nerves and maybe awaken your mind.
--Orca
I've probably surfed as many waves in Leucadia as anyone in history.........The Cabezon
DeleteOne last thing: Thanks for the advise JP !
DeleteOrca perhaps you are the great whale known for dropping in on local surfers? Oh wait, that is Marco (me first)Gonzalez
DeleteNever the less, yes the 'Crappy' crabs are developers, their arguments do ring hollow, they most always are me first. Live with it, own it.
Wipe the dollar signs from your eyes, Leucadia surfer. Here's an inconvenient truth for all you developer trolls and flunkies: unless the people say so, no up zoning allowed. Amazing how often you have to be reminded of this...guess it hasn't quite sunk in yet.
ReplyDeleteCabezon- the KPVCC welcomes you with open arms. We are having a gathering Monday at 3 pm to review our basic rules and regs. In a nut shell here they are: We oppose roundabouts and like things crappy. But come by anyway, I'm sure you'll fit in wonderfully. You sound like a crappy kinda guy. We like crappy. About 5 pm we will join with KLCC to walk the 101 and ooh and aah at all it's crappiness.
ReplyDeleteLong live crappy.
11:37 you sound like you part of city manager Gus Vina's Minister of Misinformation department. You reveal yourself to be a troll. Nothing to add to the argument and unable to present facts you attempt to deflect, misinform and mislead.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you call them a troll.
ReplyDeleteThey are just trying to keep Leucadia the way it is and continuing to decay. Just like the KLCC cloths.
Why are you jumping so hard against the KPVCC its everything you ever believed in right?
thank god Leucadia has people like Lynn and others that love weeds and dust, and dying minds.
ReplyDeleteLong live chain saw massacre and people that love the street look and not showering.
Let have a goal of having Leucadia the west virginia of CA. thats way the KLCC is all about.
There sure is a lot of CHUM in these waters, WCV!!!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, love the blog. I'm glad you're not falling for everything city hall CASTS out, and not accepting it HOOK, LINE, and SINKER!!
yuk yuk
Both appraisals are based on the value of Pacific View remaining Public/Semi-Public zoning and not the highest and best use, which would reflect an R-15 zoning as the school district previously requested based on state statutes.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, Prop A wouldn't overrule the state statute, although it would be an interesting situation if Prop A does require an election only to be ignored if the rezoning is defeated.
The State Giveth and the State Taketh away.
Perhaps Mr. d work or Mr. kpvcc can voice thier plan(s) to make Leucadia uncrappy.
DeleteThe School District attorneys and our "non-excellent" city attorney have purposefully misread the statute, twisting it's meaning. There is no precedent re law being litigated and appealed, because most school districts would NOT be so pro-development, using taxpayer dollars to try to upzone donated land:
DeleteWith respect to the following Government Code you, attorneys and the Board of Trustees are misinterpreting it, and leaving out important parts. You cannot "pick and choose," but must read a statute, as a whole. The following is the Government Code Section upon which they are relying and by which you before incorrectly sued the City of Encinitas for a Write of Mandate. I have inserted parenthetical remarks, in brackets:
65852.9. (a) The Legislature recognizes that unused schoolsites represent a potentially major source of revenue for school districts and that current law reserves a percentage of unused schoolsites for park and recreational purposes. It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to ensure that unused schoolsites not leased or purchased for park or recreational purposes pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 17485) of Chapter 4 of Part 10.5 of the Education Code [which includes the Naylor Act] CAN BE [not shall be or must be] developed to the same extent as is permitted on adjacent property. It is further the intent of the Legislature to expedite the process of zoning the property to avoid unnecessary costs and delays to the school district. However, school districts shall be charged for the administrative costs of this rezoning.
(b) If all of the public entities enumerated in Section 17489 of the Education Code decline a school district’s offer to sell or lease school property pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 17485 of Chapter 4 of Part 10.5 of the Education Code) [EUSD did NOT comply with the explicit requirements of the Naylor Act. When the land was initially leased, and the playgrounds were paved over by the City to be used as a public works yard, that is the time when 30% of the property, or .84 acre should have been offered to various public entities, including the City of Encinitas at 25% of the appraised value. Since the school district did not meet the requirements to offer 30% of the property for sale, and did not release the appraised value at the time of the lease in 2003, then the requirements of the Naylor Act toll back to that time. Eight years prior to 2003, the school site was used for playing fields. The school district cannot simply "stall" and insist the property is going to be traded, then, after it decides "eight years are up," change its mind, and say, "it's too late! A judge with integrity would not allow that kind of avoidance. The property was offered for sale, but 30% of it was not ever offered for sale at 25 cents on the dollar of the appraised value. The time should toll from when it was initially offered for lease or sale] the city or county having zoning jurisdiction over the property shall, upon request of the school district, zone the schoolsite as defined in Section 39392 of the Education Code, CONSISTENT with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and COMPATIBLE with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite. [emphasis added: the public/semi-public zoning is already compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite, which includes public/semi-public zoning. Public/semi-public zoning is consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and is compatible with the uses of the property surrounding the schoolsite. EUSD and the City and their inexpert lawyers appear to be intent on misreading this section of the code, and have cost the district tax payers a great deal of unnecessary time and money] The school site SHALL be given the same land use control treatment as if it were privately owned.[It has been. In no case would the zoning be changed, now, after Prop A, on June 18, without a public vote] In no event shall the city or county, prior to the school district’s sale or lease of the schoolsite, rezone the site to open-space, park or recreation, or similar designation unless the adjacent property is so zoned, or if so requested or agreed to by the school district. [This is where Dr. Baird, and his attorneys are misinformed, perhaps purposefully so. Where "adjacent" property is discussed, it is with respect to the City or County's not being allowed to rezone property to open-space, park or recreation IF the Education Code, including the Naylor Act has been complied with and a portion of the property was offered at a discounted price to public entities, for open space. There has never been any discussion of or intent to rezone the property to open-space, park or recreation. The community can and should be able to benefit from 30% of the property being open space, according to the terms of the Naylor Act, within the public/semi public zoning, which is compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite]
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLynn. If you think the school district did not follow the Naylor Act then sue them. You seem to be the only one who believes it. If you are so positive then get an attorney to sue EUSD and when you win you'll be able to recoup those legal fees. Otherwise, those who don't agree with you believe that 65852.9 applies, which means the City can't deny EUSD the same zoning as that which surrounds Pacific View which is R-15. It's up the EUSD to determine whether the fact that the Pacific View site was once donated determines what they do with the property.
DeleteIt's not my responsibility to sue the school district. Baird doesn't have to pay for his attorneys, we taxpayers do! But the City could and should threaten to sue, if Baird will not negotiate, realistically, using the LOWER of the two, now publicly released, INDEPENDENT appraisal report figures.
DeleteI have put in California Public Record's Act requests to the School District, some of them directly relevant to the Naylor Act. I'm still waiting for a response.
You know, former Mayor and Councilmember Jim Bond used to say the same thing, with respect to the Brown Act and the CPRA: "If the City were doing something wrong, I'm sure we would be sued!"
Well, the City and the School District were BOTH violating the Brown Act, which is part of Government Code, as is the CPRA. Kevin Cummins successfully sued the City for violating the CPRA, with the help of Calaware associated attorney Dennis Winston, RIP.
The School District continues to violate State Education Code because it will not recognize that it didn't offer the land in accordance with the Naylor Act, at the time the school was closed, and when the school site was INITIALLY offered for lease or sale.
EUSD regularly violates the Brown Act in the way it notices and posts its closed session Agendas re Pacific View, and the manner in which EUSD disallows public speakers on these real property negotiation agenda items, which are to have an OPEN MEETING component.
ONLY discussion of price and terms and directly related matters are to be discussed in any Real Property Negotiations, according to the Brown Act. Both the City and EUSD have overstepped this narrowly construed allowance for topics permitted to be discussed in closed sessions re Pacific View "negotiations."
READ THE STATUTE, anon 6:04! I just printed it out for you, above.
DeleteGovernment Code Section 65852.9 DOES NOT MEAN the City can't deny EUSD the same zoning as that which surrounds Pacific View which is R-15! WHERE are you coming up with that lie? Do you WANT to believe the lies of lawyers, fat cat bureaucrats and self-interested politicians?
It is NOT TRUE, that the statute says, including sections (which follow, which I did not print up, but another public speaker at the open part of the Special Pacific View Meeting addressed to Council, subsections C and D), that "the City can't deny EUSD the same zoning as that which surrounds Pacific View which is R-15." You are DEAD WRONG on that. But that's what Baird, his attorneys, and Sabine would like us all to believe. Even Jerome Stocks said, "we are not going to make decisions with a shotgun to our head!"
That lawsuit by EUSD v City of Encinitas was BOGUS to begin with, if you can bring yourself to actually READ the relevant statute, in its entirety.
That "open" special PV meeting was before most people could be present, starting at 4:30, before the regular council meeting, at 6:30. After an hour and 45 minutes, an exhausted Mayor Barth had to call a 15 minute break, so the regular Council Meeting began half an hour late.
According to section a, in part: the city or county having zoning jurisdiction over the property shall, upon request of the school district, zone the schoolsite as defined in Section 39392 of the Education Code, CONSISTENT with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and COMPATIBLE with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite.
This is part of an "if and then" scenario. If the school district complied with the education code, including offering the site for sale WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE, according to the terms of the Naylor Act, THEN, the City shall rezone the surplus school site property "CONSISTENT with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and COMPATIBLE with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite."
The City could prove, in any court of law, that any such rezoning is unnecessary, because the property is ALREADY "CONSISTENT with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and COMPATIBLE with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite." Therefore rezoning to bring it into consistency and compatibility is unnecessary, and impossible, without a vote of the public, due to passage of Prop A.
Another broken promise made by the "team" of Barth, Shaffer and Kranz, that upon election of our new council "majority," a sunshine ordinance would be drafted and passed. Several people, including Kevin, had worked hard on putting together a draft sunshine ordinance, for Council to "tweak" and to pass. That didn't happen either. Why not?
At last Wednesday night's Council Meeting, August 28, Gaspar and Muir voted to support more open government, when it came to opposing starting in again with secret subcommittee meetings. They were "overruled" by our broken promises Council Majority of Barth, Shaffer and Kranz.
I may have missed it above but just to be clear, the Naylor Act only applies to the playground/open space part of a school site not the whole site. It also allows some flexibility for the school district in partitioning the site. So if the City wants to purchase the whole site, only part of it would fall under the Naylor Act. As I read it, that would mean the school district could still appraise part of the site using the highest and best use criteria (i.e. R-15). The City appraisals used a continuation of Public/Semi-Public zoning for their criteria.
DeleteThe highest and best use criteria is public/semi-public. You have obviously not read the now posted appraisal reports.
DeleteEven if we didn't have Prop A to protect us, the highest and best use is WITHIN the current zoning. Only if the school had been zoned as "school," or "public open space" could a rezoning be "forced." If 30% of property HAD been offered for sale to public entities as open space, and they all turned that offer down, then the City (or County) could not rezone the ENTIRE parcel as open space, or park, and take the land by eminent domain for those purposes.
And yes, the Naylor Act does apply to open space. As I keep repeating, .852 acre, which is 30% of the school site, should have been offered for lease or sale as open space, BEFORE the playing fields were paved over, when the city began leasing the property for an "interim" public works yard.
At the time of that lease, WHEN THE NAYLOR ACT WAS APPLICABLE, AND 30% OF THE SITE SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED AT 25% OF ITS APPRAISED VALUE, AT THAT TIME, IN THE THEN AND NOW STILL CURRENT PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC ZONING, "secret deals," were made by the City and EUSD re properties all over our fair city:
Lease Between the Encinitas Union School District and the City of Encinitas
On Page 5 of EUSD’s (partial) response to my initial CPRA request, under 2. Recitals,
"It is the intention of District and City to assist each other in the process of using District and City resources efficiently, without the exchange of funds. The District desires to obtain future building permits based on alternate zoning and landuse for Pacific View Site, portions of Ocean Knoll Elementary School Site and the Encinitas Ranch School Site. The City of Encinitas needs a site to serve as an interim corporate yard for the City of Encinitas and the City of Encinitas shall cooperate in facilitating the processing of future building permits based on alternate zoning and landuse for Pacific View Site, portions of Ocean Knoll Elementary School Site and the Encinitas Ranch School Site."
This lease was signed by Phil Cotton. Thank God Prop A passed, or "surplus" school district land all over the City could be redeveloped in a manner that is UNSUPPORTED by our current infrastructure, including parking. We don't have enough parking, downtown, as it is, for all the residences and businesses that we have. This was known when Pacific Station went in. PRE-EXISTING residents in pre-existing neighborhoods bear the brunt of the burden of lack of parking, as we know.
It's almost impossible to find a parking space, downtown, if one wants to go have lunch, there. This may be bringing more business to outlying areas, as people just give up, and go somewhere else to eat.
Actually, 30% of 2.8 acres is .852 acre, which could and should be set aside for open space. Tony Kranz has already told me, personally, at City Hall, after a recent PV closed session meeting, that he thinks the City can purchase the property and ensure that amount of open space, without telling EUSD that it must, belatedly, allow the City to invoke the terms of that act created by the legislature to preserve more open space, offering it to public entities, for that portion of a surplus school site, at a deeply discounted price.
ReplyDeleteNow Tony Kranz has appointed himself and Mayor Barth to be on more secret subcommittee meetings to "negotiate" with newbie to Encinitas, Gus Vina with the other newbie, here since only 2009, Dr. Tim Baird. Mark Muir and Kristin Gaspar opposed this motion to appoint a secret subcommittee, which is blatant back-peddling on our new open subcommittee policy. Councilmember ad hoc subcommittees according to policy changes unanimously adopted on July 17, are to be noticed and open to the public, unless there is a COMPELLING REASON for them to be held secretly.
What IS the compelling reason? There should have been a finding, by Council, that there IS any such compelling reason for the public to once again be shut out. Real estate negotiations whereby one public entity is purchasing public property from another public entity, should be open, that is PUBLIC. There is no advantage, on "either end" (buyer or seller) for negotiations between two public entities to be behind closed doors, where secret deals can be made, that benefit fat cat bureaucrats looking to enhance their resumes, and power brokers, leveraging influence in their "symbiotic partnerships" for their short term profit.
Mark Muir and Kristin Gaspar opposed Tony's motion for more secret subcommittee meetings, and tried to pass two substitute motions for an open subcommittee, or an open meeting with all of Council and the entire Board of Trustees to negotiate "price and terms" for Pacific View. The later would have been best, and would have allowed for the public to weigh in on what would be best for US!
Glenn Sabine opined that Council doesn't have to follow Robert's Rules of order with respect to an immediate vote on substitute motions, without discussion, as Kristin Gaspar pointed out, because Robert's Rules is a guide, ONLY. That is NOT true. The word ONLY was removed in the most recent protocol and policy update. According to one our founding documents, Resolution 86-08(A) (from 1986, shortly after we first incorporated) which should NEVER have been rescinded, only amended:
2. Procedural Rules. Except as otherwise provided by resolution, all questions of parliamentary procedure shall be resolved according to Robert's Rules of Order.
All meetings of the City council shall be conducted in an orderly manner designed to expedite the business of the City Council.
Instead of T & T (Teresa and Tony) standing for Trust and Transparency (as touted in their 2010 campaigns for council, it can now stand for traitors and tag-alongs) The L in Lisa Shaffer could stand for either liar or lame excuses, take your pick.
Regrettably Lynn is right. Regrettable in respect to how our city is being run and the fact that the legal help the city presently has is wrong at every turn and council won't get this fixed by hiring someone capable.
ReplyDeleteLynn
ReplyDeleteGaspar and Muir want Pacific view for there developer friends. and in your case
L is fo loser.The school board will not meet at a public meeting You have become so
negative Your poor attitude and abrasive manor would only sabotage this process playing into the hands of Muir and Gaspar who do not want this property
Here are (c) and (d) from the California Government Code Section 65852.9:
ReplyDelete(c) A rezoning effected pursuant to this section shall be subject to any applicable procedural requirements of state law or of the city or county.
(d) A school district that requests a zoning change pursuant to this section shall, in the fiscal year in which the city or county incurs costs in effecting the requested zoning change, reimburse the city or county for the actual costs incurred by it.
Section (c) can certainly be read to indicate that Prop. A would apply, and Section (d) that the school district would need to reimburse the city for any costs of rezoning.
Both city attorney Glenn Sabine and land use attorney Felix Tinkov testified that application of Prop. A would need to be adjudicated. The school district would have no standing to sue until injured with a rejection under Prop. A.
In the meantime will our city be bold enough to push Baird hard to get an affordable price for Pacific View and keep the property in public hands? It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Once the property is sold to developers, it is gone forever.
Lynn is being used by Kristin and Muir as a pawn to submarine this negotiation and
ReplyDeleteshe is to self centered to realize it.A supposed PROP A supporter on the side of developer Intrests
6:04 - Lynn is far, FAR from being the "only one" who believes as she does. While city insiders and developer trolls may try hard as they can to marginalize her, it doesn't change the fact that a large number think as she does and a growing number are becoming aware of city hall/developer-spread BS on this topic.
ReplyDeletepfff. let her run... lets see the support.
DeleteProp A doesn't apply to schools. I would think that green light would be appealing to architects and developers. Build a multi-use (not mixed use) learning center. But start with a good plan first that won't make it a dud. If it wasn't for that nagging seed money needed!
ReplyDeleteYou mean the height limit doesn't apply, right?
DeleteSeems like the public vote requirement for upzoning part probably does apply.
WCV
What is unclear regarding the Prop A vote requirement is whether the City Council would be able to waive it based on the State Statute saying, in effect, that it's superfluous as the statute requires granting the surrounding zoning designation, which is R-15 for Pacific View. The statute doesn't grant any waiver of the R-15 standards so height would be the same. However, don't forget Density Bonus, a different statute, that could come into play and then height could be one of relaxation of standards requested.
DeleteWhat I don't think is clear is whether it's the school district that has to be in possession of the property to be granted the rezoning under the statute or would a private party purchaser of the school site get the same consideration if the site wasn't rezoned prior to the purchase.
Prop A DOES APPLY TO ALL SITES WITHIN THE CITY, including school sites. Where do you get your incorrect conclusion, Fred?
DeleteThe Government Code re school sites only states that IF (and it's a big if) the school has abided by the relevant Education Code, INCLUDING the Naylor Act, and the City did not offer to by 30% of a surplus school site, offered at as low as 25 cents on the dollar of its appraised value, THEN, upon request of the school district, the site shall be rezoned compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the general and specific plans.
So the Government Code, as written, PRESUPPOSES, that the school district is asking for a rezone because the current zoning is incompatible and inconsistent, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE. We do not have a "public school zoning," which would make it impossible to develop that land as anything but a school. We are NOT attempting to rezone the parcel as park/open space. Even if we utilized the Naylor Act, and the City bought the entire parcel, with .85 acres being bought at a steep discount, which would be deducted from the total, that open space would be fine within the current public/semi-public zoning.
The reason City Attorney Glenn Sabine could find no precedent on a school district suing a City with respect to Government Code Section 65852.9, is because school districts are not in the habit of suing cities in which they have schools over a government code that is INAPPLICABLE!
Prop A does apply to schools. See what it exempts regarding high schools here, as is consistent with the existing Encinitas Zoning Code:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/voters/Eng/election/A.pdf
As Sabine explained, the reason for the stand-off between the City and the school district is that nobody knows whether the state Gov Code or Prop A prevails because it's never been tested in a court case. Neither side wants to risk losing a court case and the expense and consequences that would produce. So the two sides are negotiating a sale price. The City got the two assessments so they would have a realistic starting point rather than the $13.5 million the school district projected based on the rezoned value.
Yes, there hasn't been a court case on this specific section but the statute uses terms like "surrounding" and "adjacent" to determine the zoning. Pacific View has R-15 zoning on three sides with the zoning across 3rd Street being OM (Office Mixed) which is just a combination of office and R-15. So the surrounding zoning for Pacific View is R-15.
DeleteSince Prop A requires any rezoning to be a public vote, it would appear that a Pacific View rezoning would be required to follow that procedure. The problem is if the vote proved negative, a judge could still invalidate it based on the fact that the State Statute is the superior law and can't be overridden by local law.
It's only money. Ours unfortunately.
The problem is that "adjacent" and "surrounding" don't mean the same thing. When the city sends out notices to surrounding property owners, the distance is defined. What's the area surrounding Pacific View? It could be argued that it goes from north of Moonlight Beach south to Swami's and east past city hall and the library. After all it's all the downtown area, which includes some public/semi-public zoning. So keeping public/semi-public would be compatible under this argument.
DeleteThe language of the state government code is uncertain enough to deter most from suing. What might Baird persuade the school board to do? Any judicial determination is years away. It would only come after an election to change the zoning and the injured party sued. Baird needs to bite the bullet and enter reasonable negotiations based on the present zoning. The city needs to stand up to his threatening tactics.
Judges try to use the common understanding of terms. I assume that the legislature used both terms because not all sites may have as uniform a surrounding zoning as does Pacific View. Using your examples, the school district can pick and choose what's close by. Why not ask for commercial, after all Office Mixed is across 3rd Street and general commercial is one street away. Basically, Pacific View is surrounded by R-15. The property line abuts the coastal bluff properties to the west, R-15 is across E & F streets, with Office Mixed/R-15 across 3rd. There's even higher density just south of Pacific View, why not pick that. I believe the legislation was written just for a case like this to prevent the local jurisdiction from arbitrarily picking the zoning.
DeleteSo I flatly disagree that the language is uncertain.
Sorry, but the language is not certain. Legislation is written to give local jurisdictions wiggle room The Section say "...compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite." When surrounding uses are not uniform, common interpretation of language implies discretion in choosing which zoning is selected. It doesn't mean the school district can arbitrarily pick the zoning. I don't believe the legislation was written just for a case like this. The city has wiggle room here and should do a lot of wiggling.
DeleteI'm sorry too but you're thinking with your heart not your brain. Surrounding uses could only be more uniform if the east side of 3rd street was all R-15 instead of the office/R-15 mix and these are all adjacent. This legislation wasn't written for the local jurisdictions, it was written for the school districts so they couldn't get jerked around by the local jurisdiction. It wasn't written to give the locals wiggle room. It was written so a local jurisdiction couldn't attempt to rezone a school site open space when it's sitting in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Again, this legislation was written for the school districts. I and others are amazed EUSD didn't ask for a summary judgement in their lawsuit. Everyone I talked to thought they would get it. Your position just boils down to wishful thinking.
DeleteI would like to see some public/quasi-public use continue at Pacific View but the solution has to be based on reality. No matter what you think of Superintendent Baird (I have no opinion one way or the other) the EUSD Board will not evaluate his performance based on whether the City of Encinitas has an art center at Pacific View. They will evaluate him based on how well he has performed for the school district. That doesn't mean he and the EUSD Board can't work with the City. It just means that they answer to different constituencies even if they are often the same people. Crazy isn't it.
I'm sorry that you are thinking with a strong bias toward the school district. You are equating "adjacent" with "surrounding." Look the words up in dictionary and then take a look at the zoning map of the whole downtown area, i.e. the surrounding area. Looking across the street doesn't fly according to the language.
DeleteBaird came to Encinitas as a newbie with a history from Ojai. He faces both a legal reality and a political reality. He made a misstep at the last council meeting where I saw him. His aggressive demeanor even caused ex-councilman Jerome Stock to make the comment of "holding a gun" to the heads of the council. Not surprising that EUSD didn't ask for a summary judgement. It would have been a political disaster.
Different constituencies? Crazy? Not really. Most people with a brain realize that selling public property for a short-tern gain that will quickly disappear into the General Fund is not a good long-term public benefit for any constituency. With a lucrative upzone the real profit will go to a developer with a stack and pack, density bonus project. At least Prop. A prevents raising the grade to get an ocean view over the "adjacent" properties to the west--a view that puts at least $150,000 per unit into the pocket of the developer. A nice private benefit at the expense of the public!
First off, I wasn't trying to be insulting with the heart versus brain comparison. I'm as guilty of that as anyone.
DeleteSecond, I didn't equate "adjacent" with "surrounding". They are both used in the statute. Unlike Pacific View, a school site may be situated in an area without one distinct land use surrounding it so how would the appropriate zoning be determined? You start with the adjacent land use and work your way out. Just because Office Mixed is adjacent to Pacific View across 3rd Street doesn't mean it gets that zoning because everything else around it (surrounding) is R-15.
Third, I'm not trying here to evaluate whether Baird and the EUSD are doing the right thing. They may not be and that's not to say they won't eventually do the right thing. I'm only arguing that as the statute is written, to protect school districts, R-15 is the reasonable designation for the property.
Fourth, the issue of selling property for a short term gain is properly taken up with the EUSD Board not the City Council. And I wouldn't worry about height standards except as they may be impacted by Density Bonus. What I would worry about is the elevated pad along 3rd Street put in place to accommodate the current school buildings back in the fifties. Is that now the natural grade?
Finally, given how you interpret the statute, what would be the reasonable zoning for Pacific View other than Public/Semi-Public? And you have to state your evidence.
With respect to the appraisals, and with respect to any person or entity selling or purchasing Pacific View, there is NO OTHER "reasonable zoning" (to use your words) other than Public/Semi Public.
DeleteI've stated all the my evidence, repeatedly. That zoning designation cannot be changed, without a vote of the people. Baird, on behalf of EUSD, could only sue after a public vote, if the public refused to upzone, or raise the height limits.
When she was fighting to Save Pacific View for an art center, Maggie Houlihan had researched the law. Even adjacent does not have to mean "contiguous" properties. The surrounding area of the Specific Plan absolutely has and is compatible with the public/semi-public zoning, according to Maggie, and according to the FACTS!
DeleteUnfortunately, in this case Maggie was wrong.
DeleteThe statute, anon 7:35 was NOT written for school districts or "local jurisdictions." It was written to protect THE PUBLIC. That is what most of Government Code is about, attempting to protect the public by regulating public entities.
DeleteWhen the State Legislature enacted the Government Code, which includes the Brown Act, California Public Records Act and conflict of interest laws and sets up a Fair Political Practices Commission, as well as enacting the Education Code, including the Naylor Act, all statutory laws, the intent was, as it should be, to provide rules that school administrators, school Boards of Trustees, and all political officers and city bureaucrats MUST follow.
Just like the Density Bonus statute was written to protect existing homeowners and their neighborhoods.
DeleteAnyway, since the best anyone could come up with is leaving Pacific View Public/Semi-Public, the adjacent/surrounding interpretation of trying to look beyond the neighborhood doesn't work.
Legal Definition:
Adjacent
Lying near or close to; neighboring.
Adjacent means that objects or parcels of land are not widely separated, though perhaps they are not actually touching; but adjoining implies that they are united so closely that no other object comes between them.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Getting picky and speculative about the statute language is pointless because that's not the direction the thing is going. The City got two assessments and picked a negotiating team for the price of the purchase because that is the direction the thing is going. Indications are now that it's not going to court. The City is going to buy the property, and let's hope Barth, Kranz and Vina are savvy, hardcore negotiators.
ReplyDeleteThe City should hire a broker or an attorney specializing (with Sections) in Real Property Law to negotiate.
DeleteIt was the WRONG thing to do for Tony, Lisa and Teresa, to decide, in another secret meeting, that Tony and Teresa would be negotiators with Gus Vina. As Felix Tinkov said at the open part of the closed session Pacific View meeting, after Council came back into open session, at 6 p.m., on Wednesday, it's NOT a good idea for several people to be negotiating. One on one is better, he said. And he's an expert, our City Council and City attorney, are NOT.
Mark Muir and Kristin Gaspar didn't agree that there should be another secret subcommittee, with unnoticed meetings, not open to the public. There WAS NO COMPELLING REASON stated by Council or the City Attorney why the City was going to disregard the new open subcommittee protocol and policy, just UPDATED and UPGRADED on July 17, unanimously.
JEROME STOCKS, used to do the same thing. He would suddenly appoint a secret subcommittee, when that possibility wasn't on the agenda, and there would be consensus, including the two people on Council he appointed to be on the secret subcommittee. Two plus one = three! The only difference in this case was that the decision to appoint a secret subcommittee was made in secret session. And that secret session was NOT properly noticed, as promised. We did NOT get our promised 72 hour notice!
If we can't trust Teresa and Tony to keep their promises about open subcommittees and 72 hour notice for ALL special meetings, including closed sessions, if we can't trust them to tell us what their "compelling reasons" for secrecy are, or to realize that if the reason is COMPELLING, that at least 4 out of 5 Councilmembers should agree, then how can we trust them to be good negotiators?
All I can "trust" them to do is to keep trying to gratify their own egos, their unrealized need to posture and to be "in control," to put what they may see as "efficiency" before their duty to uphold the public trust.
I don't care WHO the personalities are. To me, OPEN GOVERNMENT is non partisan. In this case, Kristin Gaspar and Mark Muir supported more open government. Teresa, Tony and Lisa voted to obstruct a more public process.
I feel the PUBLIC could bring pressure to bear on the school district, especially if the entire Council met publicly with Baird AND the Board of Trustees. If they were unwilling to meet publicly, this would reflect very badly on the Board of Trustees, and would negatively impact their chances for reelection. I feel that when one public entity is selling public, donated land, to another public entity, or leasing it, that process should be public.
A sunshine ordinance in this city would help to protect us in these kinds of situations, where a few fat cat bureaucrats and self-interested politicians with big egos, often swayed by insider interests, "leveraging their symbiotic partnerships" can decide "what's best" for all of us, backed up by cloying lawyers willing to twist the law and flaunt their "authority" to do so, for the right price.