The Hall property park may be under construction—again.
The closed session meeting on October 14 at 4 p.m. had, in addition to the usual items, a regular City Council item to discuss the sale of parts of 8 parcels comprising the park on its eastern edge to Caltrans for the I-5 widening and realignment of the MacKinnon Bridge.
What was so unusual about this item was the fact that there was no agenda report, no map, and no discussion. The Council really has no choice about selling because the property can be condemned by the state.
What are the possible consequences of this sale?
* Reconstruction of the eastern portion of the park
* Rerouting of parking and roadways
* Freeway pollution brought even closer to the playing fields
* Additional costs to an already very expensive park
The City knew in 2010 that Caltrans was going to be taking land from the park, back when they could have designed for it. But Jerome Stocks was in such a hurry to get the thing built in time for his council run in 2012 and avoid reopening the EIR to analyze the changes, that he ignored what he knew at the time and got the rest of the Council to go along with him.
It appears that the reason for the oddly-timed agenda item that should have been on a regular 6 p.m. Council meeting agenda was to obscure it from public view. This screw up comes on the heels of overspending on the illegal Rossini Creek discharge fines, the multi-million dollar Moonlight Beach lifeguard tower, and the over-priced Pacific View property. Was the Council trying to hide this latest from the wider public?
If an EIR is required because of the significant changes, especially bringing the freeway lanes closer to the playing field and exposing children to the toxic fine particle pollution, we can tack on several hundred thousand dollars in addition to reconstruction costs. At minimum, air monitoring equipment needs to be installed, as this equipment is now being required along freeways in Southern California.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Encinitas Community Park closed session
From the Inbox:
We knew they were widening the freeway when they built the park, and that the bridge would have to come down and the freeway move closer to the park.
ReplyDeleteThey don't have a choice on whether to sell the parcels, but it would have been nice if this could have been in open session. Not sure why the current council would want to hide this, but staff is probably involved....
So, the park is too expensive, the realignment is too expensive, lots of other unrelated things are too expensive, but we need to install expensive air monitoring equipment?
ReplyDeleteEven though the wind blows from the West 95% of the time?
Even though the Ecke Sports Park doesn't have any monitoring, and it has had fields downwind and closer to the freeway for many many years?
Even though CARB already has a Local Air Monitoring Network Plan for San Diego County as part of a comprehensive state-wide system, and the plan doesn't include this location? http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/netrpt/sd.pdf
Most of the road is way back from the current freeway fence; look on Google Earth. Just the entrance will need to be redone with the bridge alignment.
I just have to respond to the continued misconceptions and deceptions coming from former members of City staff and Council. The public were told repeatedly at Council meetings that the City would not need to cede any land to CalTrans; that the additional lanes planned for I-5 could be accommodated within the I-5 right-of-way. Now the lies have been exposed, and Council has to hide the facts in secret meetings, fearing to show the egg on their faces.
DeleteThe air pollution issue and serious harm to athletes playing on the park are real. The SW breezes from the ocean occur only during mid-day hours. Extended calm periods and easterly winds are common during evenings, at night, and early morning hours. And even when we have west winds, they blow mostly at less than 10 mph. How can they compete with the turbulent winds created by 80 mph truck traffic on the truck lanes closest to the park? The high speed traffic creates high speed rivers of highly polluted air on both sides of the freeway, no matter which way the wind blows.
This has been confirmed by particulate measurements along I-5 just 2 miles south of the park by SDSU scientists (2007) that showed equal amounts of high particulate concentrations on both sides of the freeway day and night, but significantly higher on the west side during evenings and night times. Newer measurement done at the edge of the park confirm the SDSU results.
The remarks made by "Anonymous 6:26 PM" are uninformed and incorrect.
10:14,
DeleteNever been elected or appointed to any public role, paid or not.
I don't have a religious objection to air monitoring at the park, I just don't think it's necessary, or a priority for spending lots of local money on.
But if you find it important, I stumbled on something interesting. EPA has a pilot program for exactly what you want. They have test sites running, but none on the west coast. They may be interested in a west coast partner.
If federal grant money is going to pay for most or all of it, then I'd support it. Consider bring this to council:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/village-green-project-fact-sheet.pdf
When a potential solution is proposed, and everyone suddenly clams up, it leaves the impression that you don't actually want a solution.
DeleteAt some point, you have to choose what you really want. Is it to help the poor little children with asthma, or is it to beat up on council for not having air quality monitoring?
So which is more important: helping the little children, or throwing mud at politicians?
As politicians are more dangerous than children, I vote for the mud slinging at politicians. At least children (most of them) know how to act and behave like human beings. We just need to keep them away from the crooked politicos so they don't become corrupted.
DeleteThank you for being so honest, 1:20.
DeleteI respect that kind of transparency.
Virtual fist bump.
City insider monitoring the blog, ready to dismiss yet another fine example of purposeful mismanagement at the taxpayers' expense. The fact that the item was reviewed in closed session says everything about the City's hope that no one would notice.
ReplyDeleteThis latest isn't an example of "too expensive," it's something that, like the Rossini Creek fiasco, could have been prevented.
Care to show details of the plans you're obviously privy to? You're a new voice here, making the City's excuses as fast as your taxpayer-funded fingers can fly. Being that this latest is not a one off, you're fighting a losing battle.
I'll take it as a compliment that you think I know too much.
DeleteHaving knowledge before taking a position is something every citizen should aspire to, including you.
Here's what I know: the hospital is in the middle of a major multi-phase expansion. Before they made plans and investments in a new entrance road, parking garage, and medical office building, they got Caltrans to commit that the property line wouldn't move.
Now go to Google Earth, and look at the current buffer between the freeway and the hospital. Now look at the same buffer between the freeway and the park road.
If Caltrans planned to condemn enough land to affect the park road, then they'd also be knocking corners off buildings at the hospital.
In fact, you could nearly fit a whole other freeway between the current 5 and the park road.
I would bet my first born that the park road will be unaffected, other than the entrance.
Sorry if this comes as a disappointment.
I can't tell you if this was good planning or dumb luck, but given that the 5 widening has been in the works for years, it's likely the former.
Which will also be a terrible disappointment. Sorry.
Bad day to be a hater.
Well put. Sounds like this has all been coming for awhile, ie they will have to cede some of the property on the east side to Caltrans. i think today we have a headline in search of a true story......
DeleteGuess you folks should have been at the meeting, then. What you describe is not what was discussed.
DeleteThe city knew it had to cede property before it built the park, so why not design for ceding rather than spend money after the fact to adjust? Why is that ok with you, 7:15 and 7:46? You don't see that as an issue? Odd.
7:15 PM -- For all your prattling you haven't addressed the critical questions. If everything is so innocent and hunky-dory, why wasn't this item put on the agenda of a regular meeting, why wasn't there a staff report, and why wasn't there a map showing the exact boundaries of the areas Caltrans wants?
DeleteIf you check back on the history you will find that Planning Director Patrick Murphy made an administrative decision of Substantial Conformance that selling the land would not require reopening the EIR. This violated the Municipal Code, a lawyer was hired, and the decision was appealed. During the hearing Jerome Stocks had a hissy fit and cancelled the hearing. He know the city would lose. It was probably the most egregious action of many actions that Stocks ever did.
Like the illegal discharges into Rossini Creek this has Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Rudloff's and Public Works Director Glenn Pruim's fingerprints all over it. What ever work that will need to be done will cost over $100,000, so it will have to come before the council for approval. That 30 feet of fill next to the last house on Somerset should be removed. That homeowner was caught unaware and was shocked when the contractor started piling up all that dirt for the entrance. Somehow the owner had never been notified.
7:31,
DeleteI guess we just see things differently.
You see the "critical questions" as the issues of procedure, old grudges, and issues of ancient history.
I'm much more interested in critical questions like: will this materially affect the footprint or design of the park? Will the road need to be moved, as claimed above? If so, at what cost? If there is to be a significant change to the park, was it something we should have planned better for?
Closed vs. open session is a curiosity, but nothing more at this point. I'd want to hear from Council on that decision before drawing any conclusions. I expect we will hear an explanation, and I predict the explanation will be more boring than bombshell.
Don't decide for others that a closed session is merely "a curiosity."
DeleteWhy do you "expect" an explanation?" what do you know? Typical Shaffer-ism to "stay tuned," then have her expect folks to go along with "staff's" spin.
When the city recently evaluated and renewed the contract of the City Attorney, the main reason for doing so was his "institutional history." You are dismissive of history, use the red herring of grudges, and want to ignore procedure. Why do you think we have a General Plan and a Municipal Code? It's not to be ignored on a whim when it's convenient. Violations of the GP and the MC are just the kind of things that can win lawsuits, not differences over design or construction costs.
DeleteSANDAG and Caltrans have been sued over their Regional Transportation Plan that included the proposed I-5 freeway widening. The Cleveland National Forest Foundation won their lawsuit in the Superior Court and recently prevailed at the Fourth District California Court of Appeal. It doesn't look good for SANDAG and Caltrans. The city shouldn't sell the property until it is completely sure the freeway expansion will take place, although Caltrans is acting like it is. There may be a bigger bombshell here than you ever imagined.
Public input should be at the beginning, not after its a done deal. It can often prevent embarrassing mistakes.
Since you are claiming this is a legal issue, perhaps you should post your name.
DeleteI have no idea who you might be, but it sure would be helpful, so we can lookup your win/loss record in court proceedings. That way, we an give the proper weight to your legal opinions.
It's not 5:29 "claiming" it's a legal issue, it's something that the media have been covering for awhile. The judge's opinion is the "proper weight." You don't have to be an attorney to get the news and understand what's being reported.
Delete9:09, your attempts to defend the Council are starting to sound desperate. Why don't you tell us who you are so we can verify your employment at the City?
So you are saying the city has done something illegal in holding a closed session meeting to discuss possible sale of a slice of land to Caltrans pursuant to freeway widening (if that's what actually happened)?
DeleteWhat law was broken, exactly? Quote the law, tell us what you think it means in plain English, and why the city's actions violate the law.
Finally, tell us when you'll be putting your money where your mouth is to bring suit on behalf of the citizens. If you are so sure about your legal opinion, you'll win your legal fees, too, so there really isn't any risk.
Without action, you are just running your mouth, right?
You are misreading statements above and conflating a complaint about the City hiding another embarrassment behind closed doors with SANDAG and Caltrans' legal issues. But I suspect you know that.
DeleteNothing illegal about reviewing the park's reconstruction needs and associated expenses in closed session, but it sure as hell looks like the Council is trying to hide the situation from the public by doing so out of view.
Just another day at city hall to screw the taxpayers and keep us uninformed. This is a just another sad day in the life of Encinitas politics.
ReplyDeleteNoticed how vacant the park is? The skate area and dog park get used and the playing fields are a ghost town the majority of the time. Explain that.
ReplyDelete10:14 is correct. The city deliberately misled the public. Sadly, this is just the tip of the iceberg of all the lies told to the public.
ReplyDeleteIt calls for a Grand Jury investigation of this city, its policies, its creative financing, and misuse of taxpayer money.
The culprits need to be held responsible.
This city needs an official audit!
Ask Ga$par for an audit - she's a CFO!
DeleteGA$par is running away from the problems like the ill informed, self appointed CFO she proclaims to be. She has no degree in finance except the one her husband handed to her while answering phones in his office.
DeleteRight on! Ga$par's credentials are hyperbole and puffery; her title as CFO is like calling the janitor a "sanitation engineer". The title "doctor" ascribed to chiropractors or physical therapists is similar - an over-used generic. Bottom line - the Ga$ has some theatric ability, but needs a script - which is provided by her "sponsors". She is a shill for special interests.
DeleteJim Gilliam, Art Administrator for the city of Encinitas has planned a special event for the cultural celebration of Day of the Dead, Sunday Nov. 1, 2015 at the community center. The event is expected to draw more than 3500 from all over North County.
ReplyDeleteThis year a low rider car exhibit will be added in the parking lot featuring
individual Ofrendas on view in the trunks of the cars, additional workshops and an outdoor food court.
The event will move to the Encinitas Community Center, a venue
that is prepared to support the anticipated increased attendance of 3,000 attendees.
This event is brought to you by the city, and the Friends of the Arts group an offshoot of the city art commission.
And for this he gets a 6 figure salary??? Encinitas is suddenly reflecting the ethics of Washington D.C.! Money for nothing...
DeleteHow fitting - "The Day of the Dead".
ReplyDeleteDress up stocks and Barth. They are dead to encinitas so fitting as señor and señorita.
DeleteJim Gilliam will be there with his homies.
DeleteCan't wait for the low rider car exhibit. Do we have to wear colors?
ReplyDeleteGilliam knows how to advertise events in Encinitas.
Why don't you just say you hate latinos 12:42....Look out, your bigotry is showing.....
ReplyDelete5:10 PM - PC Police Chief trying to inpute attitudes and utilizes the usual exaggerations.
DeleteThat's right, and you're under arrest for poor grammar and bad lowrider reference. Please turn yourself in for a week of goat thorn removal...
ReplyDelete7:09 AM Self righteous guardian of the social mores. Using typical avoidance of issues by diversion, as you th8ink you are judge and jury on peoples' opinions.
DeleteI am, and I sentence you to 5 days of service at Lord Muir's table. Chop chop, knave!
ReplyDelete5 days of straight eating will do the job Gobble,Gobble, Gobble.
DeleteAnyway, back to the point of the thread and the question of where the much-advertised transparency is in all this?
ReplyDeleteTaking bets on whether the Council decide to clue in residents,providing all associated screw-up costs, or if they'll continue to hide and hope no one notices. Kind off too late there, though.
Government is failing on all levels due to incompetence, greed and self interest. Encinitas is a microcosm.
DeleteStandard, the city continues to overspend on this park. I'm surprised they haven't tried to put a couple bars in the park. (Downtown downy have enough)
ReplyDeleteSee Bryant Park in New York, or the Loeb Boathouse in Central Park, or the cafes in Vondelpark in Amsterdam. Closer to home, look at the Prado in Balboa Park.
DeleteHaving a beer on a patio under the trees can be a great thing. And it can pay for park maintenance, too.
Sure, enjoy the particulates spewing from passing vehicles, while you're at it. I hear they add a tangy, metallic taste.
DeleteThe parks you cite above are hardly situated on major freeways, as ours is.
Google Maps shows The Prado is ~400 ft from the 163. Also, while not freeways, Fifth Ave and 42nd St. are closer to the concessions at Bryant Park. Combined, those two roads probably carry more cars daily than I-5.
Delete