Monday, January 26, 2015

Subcommittee needs more time for Pacific View plan

Like the proverbial dog that catches the car, the council faction that purchased Pacific View faces the question, "Now what?"

Residents were expecting an answer January 28, but it turns out that rehabilitating dilapidated buildings with limited resources is a bit more complicated than the Pacific View subcommittee expected.
The subcommittee said it favored rehabbing the site’s dilapidated buildings, a former elementary school, over tearing them down and starting anew, at least for the interim museum. Glenn Pruim, director of public works, said so far due diligence hasn’t found “significant flaws” in the buildings that would rule out restoration.

But bringing the buildings up to code will likely require new plumbing, electrical work, ridding the structures of asbestos and other improvements, city staff noted.
From Council Member Lisa Shaffer's most recent newsletter:
Council member Kranz and I have postponed the report on Pacific View site activation until Feb. 11. After our last subcommittee meeting and subsequent discussions with staff, we realized that we needed a bit more time to put together a clear proposal that we could all get behind. We're still moving forward, but want to make sure we understand the options and tradeoffs.
We hope the subcommittee's next report will be as entertaining as its last report.

29 comments:

  1. If I were buying a house, I'd first get a home inspection. That way I would know the condition of the roof, plumbing, etc., and a termite report would give an estimate on remediation.

    I have to assume that the city did proper diligence before they sealed the deal, but they haven't released this information yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They were told the same thing over and over again by different members of the public and even some lawyers. LS later said that the huge easement along the east side of the property that reduced the buildable area by 10%, and the unstable soil that made it sound like the school would fall off into the ocean, were conditions that they knew about and accepted.

      Would they have been so eager to go forward if they were using THIER money instead of OUR money?

      Delete
  2. Maybe Barth's lobbying group can go spruce up the grounds !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there are hazards on the property, they need to be handled by trained professionals.

      Delete
    2. If there are hazards on the property, Paul Ecke Central, Ocean Knoll, Oak Crest and San Dieguito are in big trouble.

      Delete
  3. Pacific Phew a trashy building for barth-baggers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The sub-committees ultimate goal is to convert PV into the new city hall. The current CH is too small and the staff is cramped and unable to work at the best of their ability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't place City Hall in the middle of a neighborhood. There is conflict of use, no parking and the property isn't geologically suited for intense use (traffic). Some adjacent bluff property owners claimed the city's previous use of the property negatively impacted their parcels; I don't know if this was ever verified. Turn it into a park.

      Delete
    2. When did any of those considerations ever stop the city from imposing on a community??

      Delete
    3. 8:38 PM

      Did you just wake up one morning and this popped into your head? I love it when I read posts like this that have no basis in reality but act as if it's written in stone. Now that I think of it, maybe 8:38 PM is a city employee hoping to get a new city hall.

      Delete
    4. 12:52- don't think it can happen ?? Not many thought the idiot council would over spend $6M for a tear down bunch of old buildings....but they did. Just watch and see what happens.

      Delete
    5. 10:02 PM

      It's not a question of whether or not it could happen. As the saying goes, anything can happen. The question is, is that happening right now? 8:38 PM makes the statement, "[t]he sub-committees ultimate goal is to convert PV into the new city hall" as if it were fact without providing any evidence. Not that that is unusual for this blog.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, 1:57, anything can happen. But it disturbs me just a little that their first idea is to move the historic schoolhouse to the side that is furthest away from a Pacific view. That's what that RSF guy would have done first for obvious reasons. But I appreciate the purchase and the goal of the place creating jobs, revenue and education instead of another money pit park.

      Delete
  5. Some of the council were so hell bent on buying this property that I don't think they took into consideration all of the ramifications and extra expenditures to get this property up to snuff.

    Great idea -- let Barth and her band of merry followers get their behinds over to this property and start cleaning it up. The professionals can tell them what they could do that would not be dangerous to their health. Could save the city a ton of money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They'll probably have to hire a consultant to figure out what to do, without actually doing it. This City has spent like there is a bottomless well of money...

      Delete
  6. Let's build a temporary jail to house all the loud drunks from downtown. That would satisfy the left leaning museum artists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When does the de-incorporation movement begin?

      Delete
    2. I hope you're *not* serious about that comment ... Do you honestly think County government is going to be any better than self governance as a city? Even with all its flaws, I would pick city governance any day after what the County started doing to this region in the 1970s and early '80s.

      Delete
    3. Me too. Think One Paseo and that's all you need to know.

      Delete
    4. One Paseo is a city project too. :)

      Delete
    5. Hey, let's unincorporate and then claim we are the affordable housing for Rancho Santa Fe. As someone who has watched several counties operate over the years, anyone who thinks development would be more sensitive under the county is delusional. Those Supervisorial campaigns cost a lot more than Encinitas city campaigns and we aren't RSF.

      Delete
    6. We could do just like RSF did and make our own covenant, rules and regulations and let that govern our city. It has worked well for them. No reason why it can't work here. Also, the county has treated RSF very well.

      Delete
    7. "the county has treated RSF very well" Gee, I wonder why? It couldn't have anything to do with money, could it?

      Delete
  7. This sub committee thing is the perfect excuse for Shaffer and Kranz to not work on the affordable housing problem. Both PV and the housing update will never be finished, someone will always be getting their ox gored.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Shaffer and Kranz did not want additional imput to the Housing Element Plan. Much to their credit, Gaspar, Muir and Blakespear want a citizen group to contribute their views to the overall plan. Shaffer has proven herself to be one arrogant, conceited quasi-intellectual, who thinks her opinions are sacrosanct. Good thing she isn't running again - she'd realize how disasterous her term has been by getting trounced. Kranz can exit also - he is one huge disappointment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kranz is worse than Shaffer by far.

    ReplyDelete
  10. They are both up for reelection in 2016. And that is also a Presidential Year so the voting should be high. We need some viable candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The author of this blog site should run - (s)he appears to be very well informed. They don't need to reveal their association with this site.

    ReplyDelete