The Ecke family donated the land to the YMCA for the benefit of Encinitas youth back in the 1980s, and in 1989 the then-nascent city of Encinitas entered into a 25-year lease with the YMCA.That last part, if true, is a stunner. The fiasco was bad enough when the city council rubber-stamped the 30-day termination clause without discussion. But that was assuming that the Y had bargaining leverage and wouldn't have agreed to an extension without such a clause. If the city actually had the option to renew the lease cleanly for 10 years and didn't, something extremely nefarious appears to be afoot. That would mean the city's negotiators actively worked with the YMCA to steal an asset from Encinitas and its kids right under the noses of an oblivious city council.
The YMCA didn’t have the money to build the facilities, and the city didn’t have the money to buy the land, so a deal was struck. The city agreed to build three or four baseball fields which could also accommodate at least two soccer fields, plus a snack shack, and equipment storage areas.
In return for constructing and maintaining those amenities, the city would have the right to program those fields to suit public demand including Encinitas Little League, Encinitas Soccer League, and what became up to seven other user groups.
The lease payments for the five acres of prime real estate less than a mile from the beach was a whopping $25 for 25 years. Yep, a buck a year for 25 years. Do the math, the 25 years was up in 2014.
But the lease also had a ten-year option that the city could exercise at its discretion at the end of the original 25-year lease. But for some reason that no one will fess up to, they threw that away.
Do you think those folks up north who are about to hire Gus Vina know about this whole episode?
The Ecke YMCA is a respected community organization. Perhaps the public blowback they've gotten will persuade them to do the right thing and amend the agreement to take out the termination clause.
UPDATE: It's true! The city had an absolute option for a 10-year clean renewal, which Parks Director Lisa Rudloff and City Manager Gus Vina amended away with the council's apparently unwitting approval.
Both Encinitas Undercover and the Union-Tribune's Logan Jenkins had completely missed this bombshell. Jenkins wrote, "The conventional wisdom appears to be that the YMCA held the trump card. No sudden-death clause, no extension. The city had to agree to Draconian terms." Which is now clearly not the case.
If this city council truly believes in "transparency" and "open government," there will be a full, public investigation into who was involved in adding the termination clause added and why, and how City Manager Vina and Mayor Barth agreed that this should go on the consent calendar and avoid public discussion.
What are the intentions of the YMCA for the land? They cannot sell it to outside developers, can they? Do they intend to expand upon their own facilities now? Why would Vina sell out the city's options; was he promised something? The Council is left holding the bag and it is pretty stinky! The forthcoming explanations (if any) should be interesting indeed.
ReplyDelete$tock$ taking a shot at Barth's incompetence. Is this a veiled come back attempt to resurrect his political career in Encinitas? The "hero" of the kids approach? Whenever $tock$ is involved, look for ulterior self-serving motives.
ReplyDeleteHe's right.
ReplyDeleteI don't say that often, but there you go.
If a clean 10 year extension was called for in the original agreement, then someone needs to explain what exactly we got in return for this clause.
I don't think the Y has specific plans for the land, and I think it's likely the fields will stay through 2024, but we traded a guarantee for "likely," and that's a downgrade.
Stocks may have submitted that piece, but there's no way he wrote it. He's not that clear thinking or well reasoned, and he certainly does not have words like "nascent" at his disposal. The only thing that smells of Stocks is the "do the math" remark, which is impossible not to hear in his nasty tone.
ReplyDeleteJoke's on the taxpayers who are left holding the bag thanks to Vina and his adoring Council.
Anonymous, What you've done is spout personal bias you have of an individual that is on the right side of this terrible action taken by a very greedy and misled YMCA. This is a terrible action for the citizens of Encinitas. The YMCA has valued their importance above that of this community and the history of our 57 year old Little League. And you have diluted the importance of this forum with your own personal vendetta and without an ounce of character to sign your name to it. This community does not want to lose our historic Ecke Fields nor do we want less open space. All you Anonymous signers are simply whiners. We need to unite against the YMCA! And stop your diatribe of insults that don't have anything to do with stopping this greedy power play by the YMCA.
DeleteThis is very simple: last year, Vina decided that the million dollars per year the city was paying for the YMCA playing fields maintenance was too much with the fields coming on line at Encinitas Community Park: so, he, Vina, instructed his Parks and Rec director to take a shot off the bow of the YMCA and change the agreement: hoping the 'Y' would pick up the financial slack: no fools, the YMCA board voted to agree to a new agreement and Vina, foolishly in hindsight, agreed to change the contract and notice requirements: now, Vina and the City aren't fessing up to the truth about their culpability and the YMCA ends up looking like the bad guy with Corder accusing everyone and their brother before the Council without any facts; as usual.
ReplyDeleteThe facts are that this is a Vina Special, trying to save money to pay for the big park and in doing so, with Corder's help, making the YMCA look like the bad guys: with Tony and Lisa trying to point towards the YMCA/Muir and Gaspar as the bad guys while they are doing backroom deals with Farley and Baird and Duval.
Something wicked this way comes, but it ain't the 'Y''s doing. Lights at ECP anyone?
As for Stocks: he's over, ignore him.
This is very simple. If you start your post with an order of magnitude error on maintenance cost, then only a fool would continue reading your opinion.
DeleteI guess it just feels good to say "the million dollars per year the city was paying for the YMCA playing fields maintenance" even if it has no basis in reality. The staff report last December on the contract renewal placed the maintenance ($98,196) and utilities ($30,454) at $128,650 in 2012. Much easier to pull it out of your butt than to actually look it up. The "facts are" that you are making things up.
Delete$tock$ needs to communicate better with his buddies on council, Muir and Gaspar. They are part of the oblivious council.
ReplyDeleteThe main points of his comments are right on, no matter if you dumped him or not.
ReplyDeleteGo away $tock$. Some of us are not interested in your opinions. Why did you waste so much money on the Community Park? Who is going to pay the monthly bills to maintain it? Thanks for socking it to the taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteGive us a Christmas present and stay gone.
$tock$ and Vina were the two most terrible things for Encinitas
ReplyDelete$tock$ brought us the two biggest burdens that sink Encinitas financial future- Regional $port$ Comple$ and the huge Pen$ion$ brought to you by $tock$ 2006 vote for a whopping $36% pensions increase for all city employees pensions forever in one evenings vote. No real public notice and the press didn't even really report on the inpact. Total criminal behavior.
Vina will leave town shortly. I wish $tock$ would be escorted out of town as well. He was a travesty for Encinitas.
Got to laugh because $tock$ still thinks he's important. Go ahead $tock$, run again, but this time we will show you the way out of town.
DeleteSanta is so good that he'll let you lead the way.
Ho, Ho, Ho, Merry Christmas.
No grading permit needed according to the planning and engineering departments. The new way to get around paying for a grading permit.
ReplyDeleteNew Point Communites LLC and the non-standard method of grading -------
The applicant' s geotechnical consultant has recommended non-standard means of compacting soil recompacting the top 18 to 24 inches of weathered and eroded building pad. This method was chosen over traditional overexcavation and recompaction to avoid needing a grading permit from the City. The method includes ripping the top 18 inches to 24 inches of soil in place, mixing, moisture conditioning, and recompacting with heavy equipment, all in place. Adequate compaction equipment shall be used to
penetrate the 24 inches of loosened soil.
Planning is also eliminating Design Review of houses. Every new house is called a custom house and exempt from any city review.
What my house looks like is none of your damn fucking bidness....
DeleteWithin reason, you should be able to build to your own standards of taste. Live and let live.
DeleteBut if you want to do something ugly and stupid that will negatively affect the value of the neighborhood, like, say, build your house in the shape of two boats, well. . .
Never mind.
What project are you talking about? The only project for New Pointe Communities, LLC that I see is on Union Street, just east of the I-5. Is that the one you are referring to?
DeleteDesign Review as codified in Encinitas does not mean review of each and every house. It is targeted to subdivisions to ensure they aren't built in a uniform manor. That there is variation in structure placement, colors, materials, floorplans, building mass, driveways, etc. Of course, in a design review the quality of the design comes into play but that is secondary to the rest.
One thing for sure. Stocks didn't write the article. He simply put his name on it.
ReplyDeleteAnd at least one council member knew the details of the original consent item, then kept quiet and let the item get approved.
My conclusion: Vina ran amuck in the city and was helped along the way by the council. Let's remember he got an "excellent" rating a year ago unanimously by the council.
Who tipped off $tock$?
DeleteAsk Muir and GASpar.
DeleteMuir would only say "As it pertains to..." Gaspar "Awesome!"
DeleteGaspar is now saying "wonderful". The little girl learned a new word this past week.
DeleteSo if Rudloff's also to blame, when is she packing her bags?
ReplyDeleteProbably giving her a raise.
DeleteI hear Rudloff is moving to Brentwood to be closer to family - and she is getting a cabinet position and a raise
DeleteThat would be awesome!
DeleteIf she doesn't go voluntarily. Go to plan B
Rudloff and Vina also spent $70,000 for Colorado consultant GreenPlay to put on 5 workshops that had about 100 attendees show up. Several were paid staff, at each workshop, but the purpose of these consultants is to investigate how to raise fees in the Parks and Rec Department. It is a variation of the Lew Edwards plan. I love how they talk about our EXCELLENT financial shape at the city. Barth did more to enable and encourage these abuses than anyone.
ReplyDeleteBarth running neck and neck with $tock$ as worst council persons ever!
ReplyDeleteVina slinks out of town to cause devastation elsewhere.
Nope. Barth wins.
DeleteFire Rudloff.
ReplyDeleteMr. Vina has known for months, propbably 6 or more, that he was leaving Encinitas. Now he's in the how much damage can I do before I go mode....
ReplyDeleteHe needs to be locked out of city hall ASAP.
I agree with that!
DeleteThis cheerful acceptance of his resignation shows me a council that does not want to take responsibility for letting this con man guide their decisions. Who is going to take responsibility when the bills come due?
ReplyDeleteStop with the dollar signs in Stocks' name. It was lame the first time, now it's gotten old, tired and annoying.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it annoying to you? He spent dollars the city didn't have or were you not aware of that. He gave a 35% increase in staff pensions. Were you not aware of that? He's full of crap. Were you not aware of that?
DeleteGo have yourself a nice day now. $tock$ is not worthy for you to worry about.
Do you, 1:41, think you're being oh-so-clever by putting dollar signs in Stocks' name? It's lame, which in this case is the same as trite.
DeleteYes, I know Stocks' background, and I'm very glad to see him gone. Bond was the only council member to vote against the 35% pension increase. Stocks, Houlihan and two others voted for it, so you're wrong to blame it solely on him.
5:23 $tock$ didn't get re-elected, did he? So much for his saga. I love putting the dollar signs as a symbol of his incompetence on council, and so do many, many others. I'm not the only one that uses it. Don't have a stroke.
Delete$$$tock$$$$$$ con man and $tooge!
DeleteLame, trite, unimaginative, no creativity.
DeleteI'm very glad he didn't get re-elected. Neither did the congressional and supervisorial candidates he supported. Their defeat has nothing to do with your juvenile practice of putting dollar signs in his name.
7:40 I don't think you need to repeat. We get it, but just because you don't like it, we will do it even more.
Delete$tock$ $tock$ $tock$ was BAD for Encinitas. He gave away our money. Bad boy $tock$.
The congressional candidates and staff were as bad as $tock$.
I don't have a problem with the dollar signs. It helps me sort the middle-schoolers from the adults.
DeleteOh, and if you think that makes us feel bad, you are so wrong. Go back to school and learn something more than dollar signs idiot.
DeleteFrom a middle schooler ------ $tock$. I feel so much better now.
Delete$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Deletelol $$$$$$
DeleteCity of Brentwood Council agenda for Tuesday, December 23:
ReplyDeleteC. NEW BUSINESS
C.1 A Resolution approving an Employment Agreement between the City of Brentwood and Gus Vina.
Oh those poor saps!
DeleteHere's the link to the Brentwood Council agenda:
ReplyDeletehttp://brentwood.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=38&event_id=335
Click on the agenda item C1 to see his contract. He will be starting on February 17, 2015 at an annual salary of $234,387.
Amazing ---Peter Principle gone wild!
DeleteOnly govmint allows someone to fail once-Stocktom , twice-Sacramento, three times-Encinitas get a better job and a pay raise.
DeleteAren't we taxpayers lucky ???
Obviously, you don't follow CEO hirings in the private sector.
DeleteVina got himself a nice package and more pay. I hope the council learns a lesson from Vina's time here. He obviously was not looking out for our city and our best interests.
DeleteWe need a council that is not afraid to question the city manager. This council was way too timid.
There is something familiar about this sneaky manipulation of our YMCA and trying to hide it from the publics and councils notice that vina has done and that council allowed him to get away with.
ReplyDeleteOn the sales contract for PV there is a provision that allows some future council to sell PV in ten years if they have a mind to. After directly asking Tony and Scott why this was allowed, their only answer was it was required as part of the sale. Required by who? It was not EUSD. Just who inserted this provision if not some outside [inside?] influential entity? Inquiring minds want to know.
Now we have our YMCA, with its long history here of being one of our best neighbors, is being compromised. Who is responsible? Anyone?
Council is ultimately responsible. If they can't read or negotiate a contract, they shouldn't be on council. Some of them are too busy raising their families, other jobs, with no time to do the business they were elected to do.
DeleteRecall time, if necessary.
"something familiar about this sneaky manipulation of our YMCA"
DeleteYour YMCA? You know it's a private org, right?
And as for the PV conspiracy, EUSD simply wanted assurance that they wouldn't be made to look bad by a council who buys, rezones, and flips the property for a profit. EUSD simply negotiated for a 10 year handcuff on resale of the property without offering it back to EUSD at the same sale price.
Teresa Barth, in one of her "honest" moments, said during a council meeting that the school district insisted that there was the 10 year clause in the deal. Then when she was interviewed by Scott Chatfield in his news letter about Pacific View, she said that SHE had put that clause in to prevent anyone from doing anything with it for 10 years. She was boastful and proud in the Pacific View newsletter, but her stories don't match.
DeleteIn case you missed it, she has her 3rd story in about a month about her glorious achievements on the council in the Coast News.
Is the city planning to rezone at least part of the property in 10 years? The city could have put in a no rezoning clause in perpetuity, which should have satisfied the school district. I asked Kranz about this, and his answer left open the possibility of a rezone in 10 years. Many think that Vina stuck this 10-year clause in to augment city income in the future. After all he is a financial guy.
DeleteI think that we need to give credit to the crackerjack team of Barth, Shaffer, Kranz and since they all claim credit on various points. Certainly to come up with something like this it took more than one person! It was also very classy of Barth to blame the school district.
DeleteSome thoughts:
Delete1. At best, without the new clause there would only be an additional 10 years after which the Y could refuse to renew at all. So 10 years is good but in perpetuity would be better.
2. The northern half of the parking lot is part of the lease. It's not just the ball fields.
3. The 30 day termination notice doesn't mean the Y would want to close all the ball fields. They may want the flexibility to change the terms and boundaries. As in number 2 above, if the Y wants to expand its facility, it may need to change the parking arrangement.
4. Since the Y is now only beginning to develop a plan for the future, the city should become an active participant with them. After all, the Y provides summer and holiday youth programs that the city recreation department might be expected to provide in the Y's absence. City Rec currently provides a lot fewer programs then other city rec departments.
5, Finally, I can't personally believe that the Y is oblivious to the long standing fixture of these fields. But if they have forgotten then they need to be reminded. I'm sure any Y expansion can be accommodated with the existing arrangement. It's probably only a matter of money.
Remember that the Ecke YMCA is part of the YMCA of San Diego County. It is the regional rule that decides.
DeleteI heard from an insider that is it staff at the YMCA that is driving all of this. The two Eckes on the board do not object to anything in fear of adverse publicity. It's all public now, so perhaps the Y will be more sensitive.to community sentiment.
Delete3:00,
DeleteThat's certainly the most logical explanation. The YMCA had the most to gain by far; the city had only $130,000 in cost savings from killing the deal. That's a trivial amount of money compared to the Hall Park costs or to the costs of Vina's "cabinet" expansion.
But how did the YMCA or other interested parties persuade Vina and Rudloff to sneak this past the council? What was in it for them?
Paul Ecke III is quoted as saying "can't we all get along" (in essence.). Is he on the board? How'd did they figure that this wouldn't eventually become public knowledge? All of Vina's appointees need to be reevaluated for pertinence and dumped - this city government is way too top heavy.
DeleteStack and Pack and something associated with the Leichtag Property
Deletewho knows, maybe the Y hyopes to sell the land back to the Ecke's for chump change so Farley and Carltas and develop another transit village
3:27 PM
Delete"But how did the YMCA or other interested parties persuade Vina and Rudloff to sneak this past the council?"
You may not think that the lease renewal with the clearly indicated new 30 day termination clause is the type of routine business that is often put on the consent agenda but sneak this past past the council? Please. The council is expected to read and fully understand all agenda items. If they have questions they can ask staff prior to the meeting. If they have doubts they can pull the item for discussion. So it's on the council, all of them, whether or not Vina wanted to keep it a low profile. And some of the regulars spoke at the meeting even pulling an item off consent but it wasn't this one.
3:00 PM "I heard from an insider that is it staff at the YMCA that is driving all of this." Now it's the evil Y staff having their way. I guess you stay with what seems to work at this blog.
Even got to throw in a "Stack and Pack" shot. So are the Ecke's still evil or have they been supplanted by the Leichtag Foundation?
8:54 it is unfortunate you blame the residents for Vina and Rudloff's Little League strike out - the clause with the Y
Deletecould the Y look to strike a deal with Leichtag,Farley and his conie Kranz? is Norby alinged with Leichtag?
What this is all about is the hall park fiasco, Stocks over paid, there is little money to maintain the Hall Park, near $700,000 is needed each year. In 2013 Vina looked to raise fees on rec and parks - see how it works?
By having the Y kick the LL out Vina saves money, $130,000 a year maybe, and puts that to the hall park
jeez - even today the waterboy Logan Jenkins began laying the groundwork for lights at the hall park and moving ELL to the hall park
all this ecke nonsense is saving face - the fix was in a long time ago
9:05,
DeleteLet's suppose you are right:
• The city is about to open a new park.
• The maintenance of the new park will be expensive.
• There is much more room, and nicer facilities at the new park.
• Someone(s) in the city, looked at the finances, and decided that eventually giving back the leased land to the YMCA, lighting the new park, and moving little league there would save money, and result in a better venue for the little leaguers and their families.
I have some very specific questions, and I'd like honest and direct answers to each:
• At this point, the city is committed to the new park and its costs. Unless you have a time machine, we are financially committed. If you believe that the new park is unaffordable, then today all the city can do is look for opportunities to consolidate and offset costs. Can you really argue with a straight face that the city is financially irresponsible for building the new park, and then criticize them for exploring an agreement that would offset 19% of the maintenance cost of the new park, while giving the kids a better facility?
• if the city had not bought Hall, we would have less debt. We would have lower maintenance cost obligations. And the little league would have their historical home. You may think all of this is preferred to what we are dealing with now. But without the park, a developer certainly would have purchased that land. Not only would the city have lower costs, it would have a sizable bump to property taxes and sales taxes generated by hundreds of additional houses where the park now sits. I often hear criticism of the city here that they universally pursue growth and development to generate tax money to support their fat salaries and pensions. In this case, the opposite happened. So, question: In your opinion, would Encinitas be a better place with the the old park secured, and several hundred new stucco boxes behind Von's?
While the city tells you to save water they planted acre after acre of grass that needs water and chemicals to stay green and healthy. Hypocrites.
Delete6:58 here.
DeleteShould have mentioned that in any case, all of this should have been discussed in broad daylight. There is no defending the process that led to the result.
I understand that conspiracy is the stock in trade here. The conspirators are diabolical yet incompetent (kind of like KAOS in Get Smart). However, if the Y is intent on taking over the sports field land, all they have to do is wait 10 years and say goodbye. After the 10 years of this lease extention, the Y can just refuse to negotiate another renewal. So without that clause we would be guaranteed 10 years, being inflexible in the near future could jeopardize the years beyond that. I know it's speculation but I do know that the Y would like to improve its facility.
Delete"8:54 it is unfortunate you blame the residents for Vina and Rudloff's Little League strike out - the clause with the Y". Sorry but I didn't blame the residents. If anyone is to blame it's the council.
7:23 AM "While the city tells you to save water they planted acre after acre of grass that needs water and chemicals to stay green and healthy. Hypocrites." It's a little hard to play baseball/soccer/football on anything else unless you want them to put in artificial turf which is expensive. Since it's still closed off I can't say for sure, but I'll bet it's using grey water for irrigation.
9:04,
DeleteYour comment makes no sense. How does giving the Y an option to terminate that they supposedly didn't ask for show "flexibility?"
The city could have extended the lease and then shown flexibility if the Y later wanted to do something with part of the land. The contract can always be amended if both parties agree.
And if the Y does want to build there, giving them an option to terminate early in no way encourages them to extend beyond 10 years. That's absurd.
Giving the Y a termination clause accomplished nothing for the city and everything for the Y.
Cui bono?
9:04,
DeleteThe new park is 100% recycled purple pipe water, except for the bathroom sinks and water fountains. We don't have enough distribution or buyers for recycled water, so the water the park will use was previously dumped in the ocean.
This has been pointed out many times here, but people like 7:23 continue to pump misinformation while accusing others of bad acts. 7:23 uses the word hypocracy without understanding the irony.
San Diego has refused to incorporate the grey water into the domestic water supply due to public resistance, but the drought could eventually change that. There isn't the piping to transport the water inland to the agricultural areas, and no municipality will come forward with the money to implement transport. The result has been to dump. Pray for rain or get ready to drink reclaimed water (which is perfectly safe - supposedly).
Delete9:19 AM
DeleteWhere is it stated by reliable reporting, not assertion, that the city asked for the clause?
Yes the city could be flexible in the future with the same terms in the 10 year extension but then again residents could exert pressure on the council not to be flexible. My only point is that the 30 day notification clause would give the Y (and the city) more flexibility to renegotiate the terms of the lease during those 10 years. And saying they can renegotiate doesn't mean kicking out the baseball and soccer fields but maybe changing the configuration and/or parking. The Y may have a constraint on expansion by being able to provide enough parking.
Of course, if the Y wants to actually use the sports field lands to build new facilities then past flexibility on the lease has limited influence but I suspect, and there are no firm plans for the future yet, the Y may want some flexibility on the parking and maybe the southern baseball diamond.
But you and I (and everyone else) are all speculating.
That's the problem with secrecy in government: the public can only speculate as to what the Hell is going on.
DeleteI call on our elected officials to get some answers.
10:20- Teresa Barth added the 10 year clause because she thought it would not be fair to future councils to have it in perpetuity. Others then agreed, somewhat reluctantly.I would have to go back into my archives to find when and where she said it, and if I have time I will do that. From what I can remember Glen Sabine told her that would be better that way. Not sure what he meant, but I will do my best to find the information in my files.
Delete12:29 PM
DeleteSorry, but you're not making sense. The option for the city (lessee) to renew the agreement for 10 years was in the original agreement. Barth couldn't have added it but she could have recommended invoking it. The discussion here has been about the added (new) 30 day termination clause. You must be thinking of something else.
12:29 is confusing two issues.
DeleteWe are talking about the 10 year lease extension for the city to program and maintain the YMCA Ecke fields, with the new 30-day escape clause.
12:29 is thinking about the clause in the PV sale contract that restricts the city from a rezone flip sale within 10 years.
1:12- You are so right. So sorry I was mixing the two. So many things to keep track of in this City, but yes it was Teresa talking about P.V.
DeleteTime for the Council to eliminate the communications specialist position. Council put it on the first agenda in January.
ReplyDeleteI agree. They should get rid of several useless positions and people.
ReplyDeleteGet rid of Vina's cabinet - time to clean house.
DeleteYes, clean house. Oxnard brought in a new city manager, from Fresno, to help clean house, there. Cleaning house is the only way our council can take back control. They have put their trust, and the public trust in untrustworthy hands, in terms of the City Manager and our City Attorney, the latter CA here in Encinitas since 2000.
DeleteCouncil doesn't have time, or the ability, to micro-manage. It's imperative that the new city manager can be someone who is familiar with the Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, who is willing to work for the citizens, as well as for whomever is controlling, on council. Political winds blow hot and cold. I'll be glad when Vina blows out of town, the sooner the better. No one he hired, none of Vina's cabinet, should be the interim city manager. That would be absurd.
RIP Floyd.
ReplyDeleteConsider adding a dog bone, note, or an old skateboard to the tribute at the Santa Fe ped underpass.
http://youtu.be/9U_SPXlGyoc
Laughing $TOCK$.
ReplyDeleteSo who is going to be the next City Manager to try and pull together a real financial plan for addressing the Shit conditions Vina and City Council left us with?
ReplyDeleteWho run Barter Town? Developers run Barter Town!
ReplyDeleteStill no answers to my questions at 6:58?
ReplyDeleteSummarizing:
1.) If the city is indeed going broke (as many here claim), AND the current council (none of whom voted to buy Hall) has inherited a white elephant sports park that we don't need and cannot afford (as many here claim), then wouldn't it be fiscally prudent to insert the 30-day escape clause on the YMCA fields? If we are overspending on unneeded park land, then why shouldn't we look for park spend reductions elsewhere?
2.) If we had not purchased a new park, we would have less debt obligation; lower maintenance cost obligations; we could also afford a ten-year commitment to the maintenance costs of the YMCA fields, so the kids would get to keep their current fields. But we would also have increased real estate and sales taxes from the several hundred homes that would now be behind Vons. We'd also have more traffic from those homes, and more demand for imported water. Question: Is that really a better outcome?
The point I'm trying to make is that every decision has pros and cons. It's simplistic and lazy to be always against something, without ever weighing that the alternative also has drawbacks. My guess is that many of the perpetually negative people who regularly post here would have complained and shouted if the Hall property was sold to a developer--perhaps even louder than they complain and shout about the new park.
We complain when a developer buys property. We complain when the city buys property. We complain when a non-profit buys property (Leichtag). What's the alternative? Prohibit all sales or use changes in real estate, period?. Let's throw the clear plastic slip covers on the sofas and create a time capsule.
Isn't a new park (including debt, flawed design, maintenance) a better outcome than another 43-acre housing development? I'm betting most current and future residents would answer yes.
1) No. First, we still have a shortage of sports fields for our local leagues. Second, $130,000 is a bargain for year-round use of four lighted fields. Third, $130,000 is a drop in the bucket of the budget and cutting it doesn't fix anything.
Delete2) Most people would probably prefer a park purchased for a fair, transparently appraised price, with the seller responsible for environmental clean-up.
Fair enough.
Delete1.) If we are drowning in debt, Inwould think all cost reductions in the budget should be considered, if not welcomed.
2.). If you had two bidders for your house, and one of them insisted on a low sale price and onerous conditions in his favor, and the other did not, who would you sell to?
No doubt the city could have done a little better in recent negotiations, but not as much as some dreamers think.
$80 million + how much for annual maintenance? You neglected to factor those in. Plus, it's not much of a park. Ball fields, skaters, dogs, restrooms, roads, parking, that's it.
DeleteCity should sell of a big chunk of the Regional Sports Park to Costco. We would cut our DEBT big time and get a great revenue source for Encinitas. The whole service area of Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encintas, and Rancho Santa fe would leave Carlsbad and shop at the Encinitas Costco.
ReplyDeleteOur City Council is the furtherest thing from forward thinkers.
I don't think most people would support Costco--too big, too much traffic, too much space.
DeleteIn New York, the major parks have full service restaurant concessions, which pay a healthy chunk of the maintenance bill for parks. Dining in a park atmosphere is something special in a developed area.
Come to think of it, Vondelpark in Amsterdam does the same thing.
I would support two restaurants in the park if concession and sales tax revenues were dedicated to offset park maintenance.
The Costco idea never dies, even though it was an unrealistic proposal from the beginning. It was never a feasible project.
DeleteFirst the park property has poor access from the freeway with only the narrow alley from Santa Fe Drive and the awkward entrance off Mackinnon. Caltrans has repeatly said it will not build ramps at Mackinnon because of the closeness of the Santa Fe and Birmingham ramps.
Second the Coastal Commission would never approve a Costco west of I-5. The attempt failed in Solana Beach.
Third soil contamination was already documented when the city bought the property in 2001. No private business would want to hassle with dealing with mitigation.
7:55 AM
DeleteAnd yet private developers are building subdivisions on former greenhouse sites all over Encinitas with the same contamination issues. Apparently, private developers do want to hassle with dealing with mitigation.
I also can't find any mention on the Coastal Comm. website on turning down a Costco in Solana Beach. Where and when was that project?
The city got sued by Citizens for Quality of Life for attempting to not do an EIR and lost in 2004. Up to that time every developer had simply done a negative declaration, skipped an EIR, and built on greenhouse land without knowing whether it was contaminated or not. This includes the land where Mayor Gaspar and Council Member Muir live.
ReplyDeleteSince the city's loss in court, developers have been forced to test the soil of former agricultural land for toxic pesticides and mitigate if necessary., either burying or removing the contaminated soil. This is what the city eventually did on the Hall property. Other properties that faced the same problem include the Ades and Gish property on Balour and the Brown property on Lake and Santa Fe. And there was the property on north Hymettus where the developer failed to responsibly control dust when burying contaminated soil and neighbors got sick. All projects were after 2004.
The Costco proposal in Solana Beach never got to the Commission itself. Staff nixed it in the early stages of discussion. One of the prime mandates of the Coastal Commission is to preserve access to the beach for everyone. Locating a high-traffic Costco west of I-5 only makes access more difficult.
So you are saying that the new community park is out safest park, because it is the only one that was tested and mitigated. Also, you are saying that it's safer than any home built before 2004.
DeleteHmmm.
That seems different from what I've been hearing around here.
Hardly.
DeleteIt was only the diligent work of concerned citizens over 10 years that got the soil contamination mitigated. The city was insisting up until the very end that there wasn't any toxic soil there.
Yet the city ignored all the valid criticism about bad air quality in a park so close to a major freeway, ignoring state recommendations to not place schools or parks within 1000 feet of a freeway. The most current research indicates that fine particle contamination from vehicles is especially harmful to children because it enters developing lungs and never comes out. The city has refused a request to install air monitoring equipment to give parents a warning on especially bad days.
Hmmm.
The Hall property park is not the safest park in Encinitas, And most homes in Encinitas weren't built on contaminated agricultural land before or after 2004.
Sonyoubare saying it's a good thing the YMCA may close the Ecke fields, because those fields are even closer to the freeway, and down wind, right?
DeleteClose the freeway! ;)
DeleteBest Paraphrased Memory of the 13 Years of Park Development:
DeleteIn the Memory of Sadomka, G.
Circa 2009 An Encinitas Planning Commission Meeting Item on an EIR on the Hall property: Commissioner and Chair Virginia Felker asks Masih,"Isn't it true that the Hall property has been inundated with pesticides for over 30 years and that it might prove a hazard and dangerous to children playing there?"
Masih,"No, State law allows 1 part to 100,000 parts per million per square-acre billion per year per anum per fortnight...so, no children could be harmed..."
An Hour Later, Felker asked Masih,"Shouldn't we just dig down three feet and scrape up all the soil and truck it off to another location to be buried?"
Masih,"No ma'am, if we did that, we would open the City up to all kinds of litigation..."
Felker-"Litigation? On what grounds?"
Masih,"Well, all the poison in the dirt, of course..."
Felker,"Who's on First?"
Masih,"I don' know is on Second..."
Gee,
DeleteMy favorite Sadomka speech was when he told the City Council nothing would grow on the Hall property (Encinitas Community Park) because it had been coveed with weed killing poison's for decades and that's why the city's ground cover stuff wasn't growing.
Oops... Lots growing there now! Sorry Mr. Soodomka, you were VERY WRONG.
Masih,"No, State law allows 1 part to 100,000 parts per million per square-acre billion per year per anum per fortnight...so, no children could be harmed..."
DeleteTranslation of G. Sodomka's "quote:"
"I'm too ignorant or stupid to understand the science. It all sounds like word soup gooedygoop to me. I think the standards of safety ought to be based on the homespun, folksy theories of neighbors who oppose the park."
8:53 and 8:46 both = the two-headed Andreen/Stocks brain trust. Ignore it and it may, if we're lucky, crawl back under its rock.
DeleteYerright! Put Dadla in charge of the city!
DeleteThis from the Coastal Watchdog on SDReader.com:
ReplyDelete"Maybe the Y needs to restrict their membership sales to coinside with available parking! I wonder if the city has any ability to review that aspect of the Y's practices???"
Restricted Special Use Permit anyone? Why isn't Sheila Cameron on this!!!
Can of worms - what is the appropriate ratio of parking to membership? This could then apply to churches or other groups. For permanent housing, it is appropriate.
DeleteHow many people over the age of 16 should be allowed to live at or visit your house?
Delete12:14 PM Ask Code Enforcement,,, Visit or living therein is the question.
DeleteAt the end the County Department of Environmental Health required the city to bury the toxic soil, costing around $500,000. Contaminated water was spilled down Rossini Creek during the burying, and the County Water Quality Board fined the city nearly another $500,000. A one-million-buck tab picked up by the citizens of Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteAnd Muir says "Just so long as I get my $179k/yr for life, I'm content"....BBBBUUUURRRPPPP!
DeleteThe spills occurred after the toxic soil was buried. Look at the project site photos where you see them digging the burial pit in November. The first spill was mid December when preliminary (rough) grading was already done.
DeletePlease show where the additional $500,000 number came from. The city knew about the pesticides in the soil as the property was for many years a greenhouse operation. All greenhouse sites have some degree of pesticide infiltration in the soil, although the pesticides usually used aren't as toxic or migrate that much through the soil which is why they can be safely buried. These are county health guidelines not just Encinitas.
The court case was about completing an EIR prior to demolition to analyze any possible environmental impacts from the demolition itself. The city always knew it had to deal with the contaminated soil as part of construction.
The first $500,000 is the added cost of burying the toxic soil, as itemized in the construction contract. It cost extra to scrape up the soil, keep it watered down to prevent dust, dig the large hole, and bury and properly cover the toxic soil.
DeleteThe second $500,000 is the fine for the illegal discharges into Rossini Creek. The city is still holding up the final agreement with the San Diego County Water Quality Board.
The city may have known about the toxic soil, but never admitted it until the park construction went out to bid and the city had to inform the bidders of the contamination and the requirement for a qualified, on site inspector.
The lawsuit was about the city doing a Negative Declaration (no EIR). State law requires an EIR for major public works. The judge ordered the city to do one. It had nothing to do with the demolition, which continued and was finished when the city lost the law suit and paid the plaintiffs' legal fees.
5:29 PM
DeleteThe Citizens for Quality of Life lawsuit concerned the city proceeding with demolition prior to completion of an EIR which they contend should include an environmental analysis of the demolition. See here from the opinion:
“In this case, Petitioner objects to the City's failure to prepare an Intial Study or an EIR prior to proceeding with a 'demolition and deconstruction' project on a 46-acre site that formerly housed greenhouses and agricultural materials ('the site'). ...
As far as an EIR is concerned, the city always intended to do an EIR but it was initially just on the construction of the park not the demolition of the existing structures. The lawsuit changed that.
The initial EIR contract award to EDAW was October 8, 2003. In the scope of services there are sections detailing the requirement to analyze the soils due to long term pesticide use during the many previous years of agricultural use. So the presence of pesticides in the soil was no surprise. Whether the city had any idea of the quantity of soil effected, I can't say.
On the burying of contaminated soil, the county health department allows a developer to bury the soil if the toxicity of the contaminant is at a low enough level and is stable enough to remain in place. The developer also has the option of trucking it off-site which is the required method for contaminated soils of higher toxicity and/or instability.
Since there was major grading being done, I have to believe that most, if not all, equipment required to accomplish the contaminated soil burial was already on site. I also have to believe it was cheaper to bury the soil than truck it off-site especially if any replacement soil was needed. However, the digging and reburying of contaminated soils follows a specified protocol and may be why it's shown as a separate line item.
So I would disagree with your contention that all the $500,000 was an added cost. It may have been higher than originally estimated but the city was aware that there was pesticides in the soil.
Your timeline of events and chronicle of details are wrong. Dudek & Associates, Inc. submitted an Environmental Site Assessment of 100+ pages to the city on March 15, 2001. The city closed escrow in May 2001. The city was aware there was contamination on the property, but didn't make it public and minimized the contamination levels. Most of the chemicals sampled for were industrial, not agricultural chemicals. The soil sampling was incomplete.
DeleteThe city started demolition, which included plans to remove greenhouse support footings buried to a depth of 2 feet, remove water lines buried to a depth of 3 feet, remove walls of 4-6 feet supporting terraces, and clear fertilizer and pesticide storage buildings. Citizens for Quality of Life sued in February 2003 to stop the work, which was in violation of CEQA law. I repeat, CEQA requires an EIR for major public works of $200,000 or more. CEQA also does not allow piecemealing or segmenting a project to do an end run around the law. It requires the EIR be done at the beginning. Soil cannot be disturbed to a depth of more than one foot without a grading permit. The city had no permit. The Writ of Mandate from the court stopped the work, but the plaintiffs later allowed the demolition to continue without major disturbance of the soil.
The plaintiffs won the lawsuit in May 2004 and were later awarded legal fees. The city appealed both court court decisions, but later withdrew both appeals. It wasn't until December 2004 that the city began preparation of the EIR. It was completed in January 2007, revised because of inadequacies, and the final EIR completed in August 2008. In September 2008 the Panning Commission denied the project application and recommended changes.
All of this history is documented. At NO time was there ever a public admission of toxic contamination on the Hall property. Where is the evidence that there was an admission in council minutes and recordings or in newspaper articles?
It's absurd to say that there wasn't an added cost to bury the soil. The RFP made it clear that the toxic soil had to be scraped up, kept watered down to prevent dust, then buried and capped correctly. Without all this added work, bids would have been reduced by the mentioned $500,000. Anyone who watched the work being done saw the huge mound of soil that had to be buried, the length of time it took, and the depth of hole that was dug. It was something like 46,000 cubic yards. And the presence of a certified inspector only added to the cost. Clean soil would not have required any of these additional cost.
Someone down at the city has done sloppy research and has spent too much time trying to spin the facts and not enough time getting them correct.
Girls, girls, you're both pretty.
DeleteThe question is what is an "added cost". Is it an added cost if the RFP specified the soil needs to be dealt with? Reasonable people would say no, it is not "added" since it was part of the original bid and thus part of the total cost.
DeleteYes, but doesn't the total cost come out higher than if the city had bought a property without contamination? Many have commented in that past that the cost of mitigation should have been borne by the seller.
Delete8:56 PM
DeleteSo it sounds like you have changed your argument from the city didn't know to the city didn't tell us. I haven't seen the Dudek report you mentioned but if it did indicate the presence of contaminated soils then the city did know at the time of purchase and would have been aware to factor that in to the construction cost. Whether they knew the extent of the contaminated soil at the time of bidding I don't know.
Checking for industrial chemical type contaminants is prudent as they tend to be more toxic and unstable than modern pesticides. If they were found they would probably have to be removed and taken off-site. I can assure you that if all the soil had to be removed it would have been a lot more expensive.
If you have participated in large site engineering as I have, depending on the extent of reconfiguration, there will be temporary graded hills of dirt in the process. Of course, as I mentioned above, handling contaminated soils must follow a specific protocol approve by the county health department.
Would it have been a little cheaper if there were no contaminated soils? Sure, but this is Encinitas, Flower Capital (still?). I'm pretty sure it's no secret how greenhouse operations work and that they use pesticides. I think the crux of your argument is that had the public known the added cost of handling the contaminated soils that they wouldn't have been in favor of purchasing the Hall Property. I would disagree, as the additional cost wasn't that much given that the city was allowed to bury it on site. Although there are people who weren't in favor of building a park there whatever the cost, I'm confident that those who are in favor wouldn't change their mind based on the additional cost of handling the contaminated soils.
I was (am) in favor of the park. Were you? If you were and changed your mind was it because of the contaminated soils?
Lisa Rudloff needs to be "let go" like Vina….
ReplyDelete