Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Blakespear forgiven by Cardiffians after change of heart on Rail Trail

74 comments:

  1. So one sign has, I presume, Blakespear's name covered over and this means all of Cardiff has forgiven her? Are there more signs like this? No text accompanies this post. Are you saying you forgive her and are using the photo as a way to symbolize this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for asking. Yes, there are many more signs like this. In fact, I haven't seen any around that didn't have Blakespear's name taped over.

      Delete
    2. 6:55 AM

      Thanks. It would have been helpful if there was brief text accompanying the photo that said it was an example of the many signs now scattered around Cardiff or words to that effect. Just saying.

      Delete
  2. New city council scandal. Council vote on Wednesday will buy them at least 2000 votes for the November election.
    Council has promised the Encinitas Soccer Express (1500 members) artificial turf and 60-70 feet tall stadium lights on Leo Mullen sports park. City's not requiring any environmental review.
    Cost will be over a million dollars and taxpayers are footing the bill because the promised grants have disappeared.
    Turfgate and Stadium lights gate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not true! Stop spreading lies. The soccer club has NEVER asked for more than 30' lights. They have said so many times and in public, and if you are so aware of things then you know it to be true. Liar.

      Delete
    2. 10:51 AM
      Yes! It is true! Council has promised 60-70 feet tall lights! Why is the Encinitas Soccer Express asking for lights when they know that lights are prohibited at Leo Mullen sports park. Spread your lies some other place.

      Delete
    3. Lights are allowed:

      Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan, p. 3-17:
      "Lighting of Green Valley park shall be at the City's discretion.."

      Note that Green Valley Park is what is now knows as Leo Mullen.

      http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/weblink8/browse.aspx?startid=665627

      This issue has been before the Council three times since last April. Parks and Rec was pushing for 60-70' lights, the soccer club never wanted them.

      This is a field next to a large retail shopping complex with lighted parking lot. This is not the same as trying to light ECP. And, btw, temporary lights have been there for 10 years!

      Delete
    4. 12:08 PM
      You didn't add the rest of the sentence about the development agreement and prohibition.
      The temporary lights have been there illegally for ten years. Even Sabine acknowledged the illegal lights.

      Delete
    5. Here is the entire statement:

      "Lighting of Green Valley park shall be at the City's discretion, unless the Owner elects to form a maintenance district for Green Valley Park facilities, in which event the Owner may restrict lighting and after hours use of park facilities within such maintenance district.
      ( See Development Agreement, Section13.02.Para graph amended 3118198 (Reso. 98-17)"

      Note that the owner (Carltas) did NOT create a maintenance district. The existing maintenance district is used for the park area (and has over $1M in reserves that can be used for Leo Mullen).

      Delete
    6. Also note that the ersp statement references the Development Agreement, which also states that lights are allowed at the park at the city's discretion.

      Delete
    7. 12:24 PM
      Carltas did create a maintenance district - Zone H. The $1 million CANNOT be used for Leo Mullen.

      Delete
    8. They didn't create it. The city did. The $1M is specifically targeted for Zone H which includes Mullen.

      Delete
    9. 12:33 PM
      Lawsuit time. Encinitas Landscape and Lighting District - Zone H. Carltas agreed to it. The city didn't create Zone H. The residents living on the Encinitas Ranch zone voted to form Zone H.

      Delete
    10. If Carltas is ok with lights, then no lawsuit and no problem at all. Lights have been there for 10 years without complaint.

      Delete
    11. 1:04 PM
      Yes, lawsuit. It isn't Carltas that decides. The property owners in the ranch who pay a $100 a year assessment for zone H have to agree to allow their money to be used by the council for the Encinitas Soccer Express want of artificial turf and lighted fields.

      Delete
    12. The council isn't using the Zone H funds (though they could -- its explicitly stated in the lighting district docs). The council agreed to use Capital Improvement Plan funds (in multiple meetings since last April).

      Delete
  3. Kudos to the No on the Rail Trail group for so effectively getting their message across. We need their type of activism on many other issues around here. It is good see the public has the power to insist that our elected reps actually represent us. The No on the Rail Trail effort gives the rest of hope and we welcome them to the fight to preserve our special community. Many, many thanks are due to them beyond just the Rail Trail plan. We all should look forward this year with them joining us in reclaiming our town from the influences that have had their way for too long. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Kudos to those who raise their voices, and let our Council know what our wishes and needs actually are.

      Delete
  4. Here is something from the City on Leo Mullen:

    MetaViewer.php Contract offer from US Soccer re 200,000 donation over 10 years. Read conditions of this contract

    http://encinitas.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1230&meta_id=54896

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A more recent document from the city. Note that only 30' lights are now specified:

      http://encinitas.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1281&meta_id=58746

      Delete
    2. 12:20 PM
      You don't seem to understand that there should be NO field lights. Zippo, NO field lights. Not even 30 feet, not even 10 feet, NO field lights. What part of NO don't you understand?

      Delete
    3. YOU don't understand. Light are allowed in the ERSP zoning. It is written in the specific plan and the development agreement. Lights are allowed at the city's discretion.

      Delete
  5. 11:43 AM
    Thanks for the report. The council is one sneaky bunch. They started out directing staff to put in illegal lights at 30 feet tall. Then the council went along with preparing the field for 60-70 feet tall lights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The lights are not illegal. And it wasn't the council pushing for tall lights..

      Delete
  6. Yoo-hoo everyone discussing light height: Prop A requires a public vote for any "structure" - that includes lights - over 30'.

    Any discussion of "intensification of use" is applied only by those confused by the five pages of Prop A. Sabine's "confusion" means he never read the thing or is willing to lie to help out the sports folks.

    There is zero ambiguity in the Prop A language.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Explain how its "intensification of use" if it is already zoned to allow lights and has had lights for the past 10 years.

      Delete
    2. It's not an intensification, 12:43 explained that that is a term used only by the confused.

      However, any structure proposed after the June 2013 Prop A effective date, that goes above 30', is decided by a vote of the people.

      Delete
    3. How tall are the "temporary" lights?

      Delete
    4. Less than 30'

      Delete
    5. They are about 15' and spew diesel fumes for all the kids to breathe.

      Delete
  7. The existing definition of day use park should be all that is needed. If Express wants to change that permitted use, there are many hoops to jump through before any lighting permits of any ht should be granted. How can this be any clearer?

    When is a day use park not a day use park? When a select few feel they are more deserving than others to have the city pay their way.

    Soccer Express, start coughing up some serious dough and stop relying on the 99 per cent of the citizens to pay for what you want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because its not zoned as a day use park. Its zoned to allow lights, and lights have been there for 10 years (albeit temporary).

      Delete
    2. $200K is serious dough. The soccer club never wanted over 30' lights because the club recognizes that they are a community club and that it would go against the community wishes to have tall lights. They are the largest sports club serving more Encinitas kids than any other club.

      Delete
    3. Doesn't matter what they "want," they can't have it without agreement from approximately 40,000 voters.

      Delete
    4. 12:58 PM
      Wrong! It is zoned as open space. The city signs specifically state park hours 8 AM to Sunset. That is a day use park. Allowing street parking doesn't meet the zoning requirement of onsite parking. Many things illegal happenings with this park. Council is approving to get their 2000 election votes.

      Delete
    5. It is NOT zoned that way. The ESRP is the zoning doc for this area. It IS open space with a park overlay. It is zoned explicitly to have a park that CAN be lighted.

      Delete
    6. Forget Leo Mullen, on to the Encinitas Community Park!!!

      Delete
    7. Green Valley Park (aka Leo Mullen) was envisioned from day one to include lights at the city's discretion. Both in the specific plan and the development agreement. That it's stated plainly in the language of both documents is unassailable. The specific plan was reviewed and approved by the coastal commission several times with that language included and they never appeared to have a problem with it. They did recommend some changes which the city incorporated but not about the lights.

      Any talk about this park always being a day park is simply attempting to rewrite history. Whether or not lights do get installed, after all it's at the city's discretion, the discussion shouldn't come to anyone's surprise.

      Delete
    8. 10:30 AM
      Talk to the developer. You are wrong. If the city wants the park they will have to take over the maintenance expenses that come out of Zone H. No rewriting history. It is a day use park. Another lawsuit waiting to happen.

      Delete
    9. 11:20 AM
      Read the documents yourself. It is clear. Lights are allowed. Where do you go for your zoning information, the actual plan documents, or a street sign?

      Delete
    10. 11:20 AM

      I guess this is why so many Encinitas residents are misinformed. Even when something is spelled out in print, some people don't want to believe it. They believe only what they want and spread this misinformation to others.

      The words you don't want to believe in are included in the text of the specific plan and development agreements written under the direction of Carltas. The maintenance is a red herring.

      Delete
    11. 11:20 AM

      Oh and another thing, the city owns the park.

      Delete
  8. Blakespear is garnering votes for her Mayoral run - she can't be trusted.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Do not re-elect any INCUMBENTS!!! That means Shaffer, Muir, Blakespear or Gaspar must goooo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blakespear is safe for the moment; the rest should go! Gaspar should be finished - the run for Supervisor was too ambitious for someone so clueless as she. When she tries for the Mayoral position again, her attempted defection will be used against her by Blakespear. Bye Wonder Woman.

      Delete
    2. Blakespear is a financial train wreck - a year ago she fabricated city finances were in good shape- just like Stocks and Dalager did. Blakespear also backed the Pacific View purchase at any price. Vote her out

      Delete
    3. Again, Blakespear was not on Council when the secret negotiations took place to purchase at $10 Million. That was Kranz, Shaffer, with Barth sitting as Mayor.

      Again, CB never stated publicly, before Council or the EUSD Board of Trustees, that she backed the purchase of Pacific View at any price.

      Again, you are misrepresenting the facts.

      Delete
    4. While she may not have spoken about it on video, if you ask Catherine, she'll tell you she was for the $10 expenditure, that is now rounding $30 mil if you count the payments out. You are wrong in your defense.

      Delete
    5. Gee, $10 seems reasonable.

      Delete
  10. I have always thought that the park was not in a good location. Parking is a problem and it's too close to busy retail shops. It should be used as it was intended, but someone has bent the rules on this one. Why don't these kids use the big wonderful park that cost us millions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do. There are lots of kids, not enough fields.

      Delete
  11. Anything that takes kids away from a glowing screen and puts them on a field to think, to communicate with actual people, to exercise their bodies, and to learn how to win, how to lose with grace, and how to co-operate as part of a team--anything that brings our community more of that--I'm for it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 7:30= I agree. However there are a lot of places kids can play that do not violate city ordinances. The citizens gave 5 fields to the kids. The city has several sports parks. Now that it is light later, they are opportunities to play. However, the citizens were pretty emphatic that they did not want the Encinitas Community Park to become a mecca for competitions with other cities. It is for the children of Encinitas, not people from Orange County, or other places. We, the citizens payed a hell of a lot of money for that park, including hiring a sub-level contractor. What exactly did we get? A dog park, 5 sports fields, a fancy playground, did I leave anything out? Hell of a lot of money that could have been spent on other things the City so desperately needs. The City will tell you how wonderful and magnamious they were by purchasing this property for the people. They say they could have build houses to meet out housing requirements. They soccer leagues weighed in big time when this was going down. Again citizens, like the No Rail Trail people did this time, attempted to tone it down a bit. The answer was NO. Hard to believe anything the City says these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meanwhile, Carlsbad builds another kick ass sports park off Calle Barcelona - that's what the hall property should look like! I really don't understand this comment: "It is for the children of Encinitas, not people from Orange County, or other places." What's the inference here - that you can only have Encinitas kids on Encinitas teams, and they can only play against other Encinitas teams on Encinitas fields? There have been non-Encinitas teams that are comprised of a majority of Encinitas kids - would they be prohibited from playing on Encinitas fields? Encinitas kids end up on all of these teams, and these teams have to play against somebody, and these somebody's come from all over the place.

      As for this: '..the citizens were pretty emphatic that they did not want the Encinitas Community Park..." - FALSE! There were some citizens that felt this way, but most definitely not all. The real shame here is that no one group of citizens got what they wanted in the park.....sad....

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
  13. Sculpin: Are you aware that the Parks and Rec. Commission had several ideas that might have helped design this park a little better? Did you know that the City Council had made up its mind and had no intention of changing it? So many things that could be told about this Park, that it boggles the mind. However, you will never know what really happened because it is buried in who knows how many reams of paper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was involved in this effort (on the sports park side) since before day one....yes, I know all about the shenanigans on all sides...there's plenty of blame for all to wallow in....yet, when I'm at the park sitting on a bench, eyes closed, listening to the sounds around me..it's OK - at least we have a park.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    2. Ah yes, the sounds of the Encinitas Community Park.
      Constant rolling waves of trucks and cars whooshing by on the I-5 from above. So relaxing.

      Delete
    3. 9:40 AM

      Remember there was a slight revision to the park before the council when members of the public spoke about having to the revise the EIR which would have delayed construction and was really an attempt to kill it altogether.

      Since there was already an approved EIR to the original plans, the council killed the revision even though some of the changes were at the behest of the surrounding neighbors.

      Delete
    4. The "slight revision" was a plan to sell park land to Caltrans for the I-5 expansion, pushing the playing field even closer to the exhaust contamination from the freeway cars. The city had to find substantial compliance to avoid reopening the EIR. The city couldn't do it without violating its own Municipal Code. Too much acreage and redesign involved. An angry Jerome Stocks abruptly cancelled the agenda item, and the "slight revision" died.

      Delete
    5. 10:46 AM

      "Constant rolling waves of trucks and cars whooshing by on the I-5 from above. So relaxing."

      I guess you've never been on the Ecke field at the Y especially western field, where the I-5 noise can sometimes be deafening.

      Delete
    6. Yes, I have and it's bad there, too.

      Delete
    7. Here is a map, created and paid for by the city, that clearly indicated what the majority wished for.
      And then the city ignored the public input, added the "maximize sports fields" direction and hid evidence that it happened.
      It is a nice park. Not a community park, but very nice. Adding other facilities that the citizens wished for can still happen.
      Www.encinitascommunitypark.blogspot.com

      Delete
  14. Does anyone even care that tonight the City Council might, in fact, grant 30 foot lighting to the Leo Mullen Park? Check the agenda and see for yourself. Hopefully the Encinitas Votes FB page will have something about it. What a mess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I care.

      I think it's awesome.

      Instead of finding ways to say no, why don't you try to help our kids get more fresh air and exercise?

      They've cut PE from schools, and we have an epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

      Childhood should be muddy, messy, noisy, exhausting, crazy, stupid, crowded, disruptive, and fun. And the rest of us should give kids every opportunity to make the most of it, just as previous generations did for us.

      Put in the lights and play ball.

      Delete
    2. This field sits between a retail shopping center and a "drainage swale" next to El Camino Real. It is zoned for lights, has had temporary lights for 10 years without complaint, and the soccer club is generously offering to donate $200K if the 30' lights are installed. What's the holdup again? Anybody who is against this action should take a long hard look.

      Delete
    3. 4;48 PM
      Wrong. It isn't zoned for lights. It has wetlands and open space. The Encinitas Express will only "donate" $20,000 a year for ten years, not the $200,000 all at once. Four of the council voting to spend $1.2 million of taxpayer money to replace grass with artificial turf on one field for the use of the Encinitas Soccer Express is a gross mismanagement of taxpayer money. Welcome to the council incumbents buying election votes for November.

      Delete
    4. Wow and my road crumbles. I won't vote for any of them, what a waste.

      Delete
    5. Some may wish to reconsider whether their hatred of local government should be stronger than their impulse to help our kids.

      Delete
    6. 11:30 PM
      What "open space" will be impacted by replacing the turf and putting in permanent lights? And the existing field has more runoff than the turf ever will. The last large rains created a surreal pattern of runoff debris throughout the field. If you were truly concerned about the wetlands, you'd be demanding that the turf be installed to prevent future runoff similar to what just happened. This field is used primarily by Express but also by other members of the community, including the YMCA pee-wee program and adult men's soccer on Sunday morning. Btw, Express isn't some huge mega corp, it is a 501c3 non-profit that serves more Encinitas kids than any other youth sports organization. They have been responsible community members for years and are committed to donating a large amount of money. Money that they didn't have to donate.
      I agree with 6:43 AM.

      Delete
    7. Funny how so many citizens now are concerned about wetlands and storm runoff but I don't hear about current homeowners getting permits to retrofit their properties so that any storm runoff stays on their property especially if there are no storm drains nearby. All new development is required to contain it.

      It appears all this concern is primarily motivated to stop projects they don't like not any real concern for wetlands or water quality. Have people looked at that creek lately and the crap that gets thrown in. We say we want to keep things natural but where is Cottonwood Creek under all the concrete and development east of the park? Let's bring it back.

      Too many people are all concerned when it's somebody else but things are just fine with their properties.

      Delete
    8. All pre-Jan 2014 properties grandfathered in for runoff. 12:45, is your point those grandfathered in should not care about new project runoff?

      Delete
    9. 9:10 PM

      So you're okay as long as you can say "hey, I'm legal". Doesn't matter how much your property may contribute to the known "lakes" around town when it rains. It's not your problem, it's the city's. And it's just not new development that is required to contain the storm water but any major remodels. Any money spent on new storm drains, especially in those areas that originally skimped on storm drains in the county days, will come from all home owners even those whose new properties don't contribute to the problem as required. But everyone is so concerned about the effect of the new development.

      Delete
    10. Existing development put in the roads and utilities. Now the new developers try to profit from this infrastructure. The developer leaches should fund additional infrastructure such as storm drains instead of sucking on the old blood.

      Delete