The district believes the property could be rezoned to accommodate housing, making it even more valuable. With Proposition A passing this summer, some residents have argued a rezone request would have to go to a public vote. Baird said district attorneys believe a rezone request couldn’t be denied; the state’s education code overrules Proposition A, a local ordinance. He added that the education code guarantees school districts the right to develop unused property based on the zoning of the adjacent area. In the case of Pacific View, that’s R-15 residential zoning, he said. “We think the code is pretty clear,” Baird said. At its special meeting on Jan. 15, the City Council asked for a report back Jan. 22 with an opinion from the city attorney on whether the property could indeed be rezoned for residential housing.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Pacific View
Latest at the Coast News.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Pretty depressing that the fate of this project rests on the shoulders of Sabine's report! He has a conflict of interests since both he and Vina would also like to see it densified to fund their own pensions. Pensions from school administrators and city bloodsuckers are what is guiding these opinions.
ReplyDeleteYup, you're making an assumption there. Legally, that is not a conflict...
DeleteI'm not sure that Glenn Sabine gets a pension from the City, as he is a Contract City Attorney, just as Peder Norby was contracted as 101 Coordinator, before he was hired as a Carlsbad employee.
ReplyDelete"From the beginning, the district has expressed its intent to exchange, not sell, the property at its highest potential value for another property within the boundaries of the Encinitas Union School District that produces a new revenue stream to support the cost of maintaining schools throughout the district. The exchange was pursued under the explicit authorization in the California Education Code . . ."
The quotation above is from PACIFIC VIEW PROPERTY EXCHANGE Frequently Asked Questions provided by EUSD as dated Sept. 2, 2008, and again provided attached to a EUSD press release from October 7, 2011.
Also included in the October 2011 press release is the following timeline:
Pacific View Timelines
• Deeded to the Encinitas Union School District 1883
• Site of Old School House through 1927 / School House was returned to site in 1983
• Pacific View opened in 1953 (present school)
• EUSD purchased additional lots in 1965 to expand school campus
• Closure Approved March 2003
• Closed June 2003
Not mentioned is:
• February 16, 2010, District’s Governing Board made finding that property was surplus
• Letter dated March 10, 2010, sent to City of Encinitas and other public agencies as required by California Education Code RE: Encinitas Union School District – Notice of Disposal of Surplus Property
The District did not do due diligence. Instead of maintaing, through its October 2011 press release, that the property was to be exchanged, and not leased or sold, so that the Naylor Act did not apply, EUSD should have, after permanently closing Pacific View in June of 2003, declared the property surplus, then offered it to various public agencies for sale according to the Government Code upon which the District has relied in its lawsuit and ongoing letters to the City. At the time the property was no longer used as a school by the District, it should have THEN been declared surplus; in accordance with California Education Code and Government Code; thereafter, when it was initially offered for lease or sale, and before the City paved over the playing fields, the District should have offered 30% of the surplus site for 25% of its APPRAISED value, with respect to the donated land, and structures thereon.
The District waited almost 7 years from the time the school was permanently closed in June of 2003, until it sent out notification to public agencies of the District's intention to "dispose" of our irreplaceable public asset. The City and all other agencies were only given 60 days from receipt of the March 10, 2010 letter, to respond.
DeleteIn a Sept. 26, 2012 response by the District to a CPRA request I had submitted, I asked, and was informed:
Q: With respect to the subsequent lease of the property by Encinitas Glass, after the initial term from February 1, 2008 to August 1, 2008, for how many additional months did Encinitas Glass lease the Pacific View site, on a month to month basis?
A: The contract with Encinitas Gas has been ongoing month-to-month continuously. (I believe that answer was a typo, and should read Encinitas Glass, not Gas).
Page 14 of the Staff Report for Agenda Item 11C for the January 22 CC Meeting is an attachment which consists of another letter from the District, Lean King, to the City, Phil Cotton, dated May 7, 2009. This letter is way off the mark, because former Superintendent King is misconstruing and confusing potential value with an actual appraised value. Again, a certified appraisal by an independent appraiser, according to Best Management Practices, should be for the current timeframe, using local comps, also within the current zoning, and taking into account the current usage and condition of the property.
It was and is disingenuous for District public servants, both appointed, as Superintendents, and elected, as the Board of Trustees, to claim the Naylor Act doesn't apply because the property is to be exchanged, not leased or sold, when it WAS and has been continuously leasing the property.
It was disingenuous for the District NOT to declare the property surplus and notify public agencies, including the City, that the property was to be disposed of and 30% of it could be purchased at as low as 25 cents on the dollar of an ACCURATE, publicly released appraisal. The School District has spent its money mentioned in the fact sheet on legal fees, and spent taxpayer money and staff and contractor time on consultations with Realtors or Developers re POTENTIAL value, were the property to be rezoned. Projected value in a new zoning is not an APPRAISED VALUE, as required by the Naylor Act.
Thus the Government Code upon which the District has relied in its bogus threats of lawsuit(s) is not applicable.
City Attorney Glenn Sabine, on Page 1 of the Agenda report for 11C for the January 22, 2014 meeting, which Sabine misdates as January 22, 2013, states:
"Essentially, Government Code Section 65852.9 requires a city to rezone a school site upon request of a school district, consistent with the provisions of the applicable general plan and specific plans and compatible with the uses of the property surrounding the school site; provided, however, that the district has first offered the school site for sale or lease to other public entities, as specified (including the city where the school site is situated), pursuant to the Naylor Act, and all the entities have declined. To date, the District does not have an active application for such a rezoning on file with the City. In the event the District should attempt another request to rezone Pacific View pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.9, the District would be required to comply with the prerequisites of that section, including offering Pacific View for sale pursuant to the Naylor Act."
Finally, per Encinitas City Council Resolution No. 2011-01:
Conclusion: The City Council finds that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the purposes of the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan, the Encinitas General Plan and the Local Coastal Pogram based on General Plan/Local Coastal Program/Specific Plan inconsistencies, an inadequate CEQA review, and a lack of demonstrated compliance with Government Code Section 65852.9 (Unused school sites: zoning).
Why the comment about Norby?? He has nothing to do with PV.
DeleteSo he stiffed you on your request for info, is that reason to bring his name into the PV debate?? I doubt it but I use reason and logic in my thinking....
Check the wording of the deed. From memory, I'm close to sure it wasn't deeded to the "Encinitas Union School District." I doubt such a thing existed in 1883. Might not matter, but I think the property was deeded to the "Encinitas School District." The historical society has the deed in the old schoolhouse on the PV property.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Elizabeth Wallace, Secretary for Superintendent Tim Bair in her August 30, 2013 e-mail, with attachments, described as:
DeleteRESPONSE TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST / AUGUST, 2013
Original grant (and transcription) of property to Encinitas School District from J. L. Pitcher 1883.
[Note Encinitas is NOT the same as EUSD. It is not clear, from EUSD’s response, when Encinitas UNION School District was formed. What is clear is that the original grant of property was to ESD, NOT EUSD.]
History of boundary transfers and formation of Encinitas Union School District.
ENCINITAS HISTORY OF BOUNDARY TRANSFERS [This response is confusing and misleading because there is no differntiation between Encinitas Union's and Encinitas' history of boundary transfers.]
7/1/71—transfer of territory from Rich‐Mar Union* to Encinitas (one parcel, 141 acres)
7/1/71—transfer of territory from Encinitas to Rich‐Mar Union* (two parcels @ 183 acres and 21acres—La Costa Development)
7/1/78—transfer of territory from San Marcos Unified to Encinitas (portion of lots 381, 382, 383 abutting the La Cost Golf Course and consisting of approximately 1‐1/3 acres)
7/1/90—transfer of territory from Encinitas to Solana Beach (approx. 27 lots west of El Camino Real)
7/1/06—transfer of territory from San Marcos Unified to Encinitas (2 parcels—La Costa Oaks North)
*became San Marcos Unified
From my understanding, and limited research, the Encinitas School District was formed to ACCEPT the land donation by J.L. Pitcher of the land, on which local volunteers built the Old Schoolhouse in 1883, after a school bond of $600 had been passed.
"With the arrival of English immigrants, Edward and Jane Hammond and their seven children in 1883, the town's population soared to twenty two. Encinitas still lacked a school at that time, but since the $600 bond had already been approved, Edward Hammond and his son Ted immediately set about building a schoolhouse large enough to accommodate eight grades and one teacher."
http://encinitashistoricalsociety.org/About_EHS.php
Last year, the Old Schoolhouse celebrated its 130 year anniversary. I was pleased to be able to attend. Sorry that I misstated 135 years in a previous comment.
The Old Schoolhouse structure, and the land donated by early immigrants to Encinitas is part of our history, our heritage and community character. All of this history of public donation, public volunteers, and public use would be taken into account through an Eminent Domain hearing, as well as the fact that EUSD did not exist when the land was donated, but acquired property rights by transfer, at some future time, when Encinitas School District became EUSD, expanding into Carlsbad.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTypo alert; I meant Superintendent Tim Baird, above.
DeleteAlso, in further examining the record from the District's response to my CPRA request, I now see that on August 31, 1943, "Green Valley and Encinitas vote to form Encinitas Union.
So Encinitas Union School District was formed sixty years after the land was generously donated to the children of Encinitas and future generations for educational purposes.
How long is the Oceanside Pier?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt's complicated, but so is the option of Eminent Domain.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Felix Tinkov's public comments at previous Council Meetings, and according to Linda D. Bartz, Special Condemnation Counsel, who prepared a report for the City, as quoted, below, for one public agency to take property from another, the condemning agency must prove that the proposed PUBLIC use is a better use, more advantageous to the community, than the property owner public agency's current use, or PUBLIC use anticipated in the future. We feel that a judge or a jury in a Eminent Domain case would find that a true community arts and learning center would be a better public use than privatizing the land for a densification of use, when our infrastructure cannot support the additional traffic, parking and drought conditions that are occurring now, which would be exacerbated by upzoning.
"TAKING PROPERTY OWNED BY ANOTHER PUBLIC AGENCY
The ED Code at Sections1240.510-1240.700, addresses condemnation by one public agency of a property appropriated to public use by another public or quasi-public agency. When this is the case, additional factors are required to be addressed at the Public Hearing, in the Resolution of Necessity and in the Complaint in Eminent Domain, regarding Condemnation for Compatible Use and/or Condemnation for More Necessary Public Use. Some public uses are deemed by the ED Code to be more necessary public uses, and some public uses enjoy presumptions of more necessary use. The burden to prove Compatible Use, and/or More Necessary Public use is on the condemning agency.
1240.510. Any person authorized to acquire property for a particular use by eminent domain may exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire for that use property appropriated to public use if the proposed use will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the PUBLIC USE as it then exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future. Where property is sought to be acquired pursuant to this section, the complaint, and the resolution of necessity if one is required, shall refer specifically to this section.
1240.610. Any person authorized to acquire property for a particular use by eminent domain may exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire for that use property appropriated to public use if the use for which the property is sought to be taken is a more necessary public use than the use to which the property is appropriated. Where property is sought to be acquired pursuant to this section, the complaint, and the resolution of necessity if one is required, shall refer specifically to this section.
Pages 67-68 01/22/2014 Item #11C
http://encinitas.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&event_id=272&meta_id=36463
For those of you playing along, the "ED Code" referred to above is not the Education Code of the state statutes but a chapter in the Code of Civil Procedure titled "The Right to Take". ED refers to Eminent Domain.
DeleteAlso, in weighing public uses, a judge would have to balance the ultimate use of the property against the value to EUSD of the money from the sale and it's application to the schools. It shouldn't be limited to artist colony vs R-15 but to the additional funds received from the sale of PV.
The court would balance money from the sale of an irreplaceable public asset going to pay for a "one-time injection into the district's general fund," (quoted from 1/17 Coast News PV article) which possibility is being investigated. More likely, money would go into capital facility improvements; Baird said, according to the Coast News, "It could go to some of our infrastructure needs - there's a lot of need this could go toward on a one-time basis."
DeleteSo the balance is between a one-time basis "injection" of money, probably for facility improvements, as money made from sale of facilities is normally restricted to facility improvement, or preserving and enhancing part of our local heritage, preserving more open space in the process, for our children, grandchildren and future generations for a true art and community center, for the ENTIRE community, and, importantly, keeping public land in the public domain, as the donors of the land and the volunteers who built the Old Schoolhouse intended.
Remember EUSD appears not to have existed prior to 1943. Encinitas School District (no "Union" as not yet "unified" with other schools, now including about 40% of students being from Carlsbad or out of district transfers) was formed when the land was donated, to accept that gift "on behalf of the children of the locals. The land was dedicated by locals to the local community. That's why a judge would find that best public purpose would be to retain this asset in the public domain, not to auction it off under the speculation that it could be rezoned, with a public vote, in accordance with Encinitas General and Specific Plans, and in accordance with CEQA and Coastal Act law.
Carlsbad children would be welcome at an art and learning center; but the land was donated by local community members to the community of Encinitas, 103 years before Encinitas was incorporated.
There also was no city of Encinitas prior to 1943 just a community. Nor was there a city of Carlsbad until 1952. Cardiff has its own school district. You go on these tangents trying to make a larger argument but it just makes things more tenuous.
DeleteI know schools seem like they should be there forever but things change. Past generations I'm sure have fond memories of PV but we also must make sure that the current and future generations are taken care of as well. I say this as someone who would like to keep PV as some kind of public use but I doubt it will happen unless a white knight is found bearing gifts (money).
One more thing, the way you blithely dismiss others in your reasoning doesn't put you in the most favorable light, to put it mildly.
There was no incorporated, self-administered city of Encinitas until 1986. Before that it was an unincorporated area under the administration of San Diego County, just as any unincorporated area in the county is now.
DeleteThe School Bonds that EUSD taxpayers passed, O, and then P (for $44 Million) in 2010, are both raking in $25 per $100K of a property owner''s assessed valuation. These Bonds are going to be paid by us for 25 or 30 years.
DeleteEven if one purchased his or her property when prices were lower, these School taxes are quite significant. An assessed value of only $300K adds $150 extra dollars to one's property tax bill for EUSD. On top of that we are paying another $25 per $100K for San Dieguito High School District, which passed by a fraction of 1% margin. So that would be another $75, on a $300K assessed value. Voters also passed Prop 30, to help public schools. EUSD is getting nearly $4 Million from the Yoga foundation formerly known as the Jois Foundation. EUSD is in MUCH better financial shape, now. School Bonds must be for facility improvements, which has been interpreted to include purchasing I-Pads.
Baird has consistently put out misleading information to the public, through the press, and to Encinitas City Council through the subcommittee meetings held jointly with City Manager Gus Vina, Superintendent Baird, and Trustees Marla Strich and Carol Skiljan and Mayor Barth and Councilmember Tony Kranz.
For example at Joint Subcommittee Meetings and Closed Sessions on 9/25/13, 9/30, 10/9 (Closed Session) EUSD stated that Exclusive Rights to Negotiate - 6 months with an opportunity to extend is preferred., 10/18 9 months with renewals as needed,; 11/20 CC Closed Session, EUSD ok with 6 months exclusive rights to negotiate.
As is apparent from the staff report, there was vacillation back and forth between the length of time, but since the first Joint Subcommittee Meeting was 9/16, and the first time exclusive rights of negotiation was discussed, on 9/25, EUSD has always said that it was ok with a minimum of 6 months with opportunity to renew, with respect to rights of exclusive negotiation between the City and the District. But it's only been four months, and the City was not given the promised opportunity to renew exclusive negotiations.
In fact, with insufficient cause, Baird, on behalf of his team of gullible Trustees, violated the Brown Act by getting the Trustees, excluding Maureen Muir, who has been required by Baird and his district lawyer to recuse herself, to agree in CLOSED SESSION, to sell the property at an auction, which also violated the good faith agreement between the City and EUSD re exclusive negotiation rights and right of first refusal.
Importantly, closed sessions re real property negotiations are to be very narrowly construed as a discussion re price and/or terms of payment, ONLY. Nothing else whether directly or indirectly related is to be discussed.
In fact, there is to be an EUSD Board of Trustees Meeting this Coming Tuesday, January 21, when a Resolution for an auction for the sale of Pacific View will be voted upon, after a PUBLIC hearing, as required by statutory law, but with Mo Muir absent because she is required by Baird and his counsel to recuse herself. Baird stifles dissent and disenfranchises those who voted for Mo because of her Save Pacific View platform.
EUSD's decision to vote on a resolution for an auction was improperly made in closed session at 9:00 A.M. yesterday, Friday, January 17.
I was not at Friday's early morning meeting, which only required 24 hour notice, but I plan on attending on Tuesday, at 6:30. Tuesday's meeting will also be preceded by a closed session, but it's about labor negotiations, not real property negotiations.
Lynn,
ReplyDeleteDid you go on a walk or get out of the house yesterday?
It was gorgeous outside and its the reason we live here. Plus exercise clears your mind and improves your thinking process. Its like rebooting your brain. It make everything work better.
Sounds like can't challenge Lynn on any of her legal research. Instead you make comments meant to demean her. Try again. Concentrate on the message and not the messager.
DeleteI commend Lynn for all the work she has done, work which should be done by the city attorney and city council.
Baird is a brazen bully who blatantly bluffs. Dump Tim Baird.
Encinitas needs more informed citizens like Lynn - only in this way will control by the few elitists be questioned. She obviously strikes fear in the uninformed that can't refute her facts. More power to her!
DeleteMean? Really?
DeleteSuggestions of how to I enjoy life is being mean?
I actually had no problem w Lynn's post.
Man you people are negative. What up? Go enjoy the outside today. It doesn't get much better than this!!!
EUSD Superintendent Tim Baird has only been in North County since 2009. He doesn't understand or appreciate the historical and cultural significance of this beautiful property, which has been in the public domain for 130 years, and should remain that way, for the highest and best use.
DeleteBefore coming to EUSD, less than five years ago, Baird had been Superintendent for Ojai Unified School District. There, in conjunction with developers, he attempted to thwart that city's and that community's plans to have volunteers build and lease a surplus school site for a skatepark, promised to them by the City of Ojai.
According to local Ojai blogs and publications Baird was given an increase in salary of approximately $60,000 per year, when he was hired from OUSD by EUSD in 2009, at $200,000 per year, when teachers were getting pink slips, here. Baird has refused to divulge to me his salary in Ojai, although I could send OUSD a California Public Records Request to obtain it.
Selling Pacific View appears to be a vanity project for Tim Baird. He doesn't have the best interests of locals at heart. In Ojai, the skaters and their parents and friends, were so grateful when Baird left the district. But now we are stuck with him, and a Board of Trustees who don't think independently. Baird's school district attorney has told the ONE Trustee, Maureen Muir, who doesn't go along with Baird's bluffing and bullying that she must recuse herself. He is stifling dissent and disenfranchising those of us who voted for Mo Muir because of her platform on Saving Pacific View.
Ojai community members and volunteers were able to build their skatepark on the surplus OUSD school site, instead of that becoming a "strip mall" development, as Baird planned, claiming that would be an "art center." Ojai locals were not fooled. Neither should we be.
According to “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave, When First We Practice to Deceive” an article published in an Ojai, publication, “The View,” in July 2009, shortly after Baird was "recruited" (probably because of his pro-development leanings):
"Tim Baird, Ojai Unified’s former Superintendent, recently ducked out of Ojai for a higher paying superintendent job with Encinitas Union School District (EUSD) near San Diego, educating elementary aged youth. Reportedly he now takes home a salary of over $200,000 annually there, at least $65,000 above what he had been making in Ojai.
Baird showed his true Ojai “community” spirit when he abandoned his sleepy little stepping stone of Ojai. Under Baird’s self-promoting tutelage, the Ojai district has already spent well over $60,000 in scarce educational (and public) funds, on attorney fees toward his unrealized pet strip/mall development project."
7:04 and 10:41 These comments seem passive- aggressive. If not intended, then be more careful with your writing. To suggest rebooting one's brain indicates something is wrong with the brain. No one reboots a computer if it's working fine. So you think your comment was nice?
DeleteLynn,
DeleteI appreciate your research and your generous sharing of information. There are some who are trying to silence you because they have a vested interest in trying to benefit from the development of this property. You are doing the right thing. Trolls--go to another site where your brand of intimidation is appreciated.
The District has botched this whole thing in regard to the Naylor Act from day one...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2008/jul/30/encinitas-questions-about-state-law-emerge-in/all/?print
http://theranchosantafenews.com/2011/09/pacific-view-elementary-school-needs-an-appraisal/
Excellent links. Everyone should read the two articles. Superintendent Baird is again trying to control the public conversation to cover the fact that the school district didn't follow the Naylor Act.
DeletePlease take the time to read Lynn's comments above. She is presenting a stronger legal case than the school district.
Baird has undoubtedly promised this land to some developer and is trying to bully his way thru. Trying to neutralize the edict of the people as evidenced by their passage of Prop A is his height of his personal arrogance. The city needs independent council - Sabine is not qualified to rule in this case.
ReplyDeleteBottom line, Baird is not going to get around the Naylor act, try as he might...
ReplyDeleteRemember that the Naylor Act only applies at most to 30% of surplus school properties within the City of Encinitas. The act was crafted to target playgrounds and fields that the city would purchase and maintain for recreational purposes. Since I believe PV is EUSD's only current surplus school site within Encinitas, that means only 30% of PV would be applicable to the 25% of fair market value requirement. There are other hoops the city would have to jump through as well. This assumes the Naylor Act is still in play which EUSD contends it isn't. Also, since the reason for the act is to preserve community playgrounds and open space, would proposing an artist colony type use fall under that umbrella? It's often associated with recreation but I'm not sure it applies here. Please note I say this only as food for thought not to get in an argument about it as I already know what the counter arguments will be.
ReplyDeleteSabine has been assigned to analyze and report. It's probably safe to conclude his report will not be objective. Is there somebody with good credentials who can provide a succinct, unbiased report?
ReplyDeleteIs part of this game that both sides are trying to intimidate the other and to avoid going to court because it would be time consuming and ridiculously expensive?
Tell Sabine to pull his legal briefs up - to his waist.
Delete12:20, the O'side Pier is 1,954 feet long. What does that have to do with this topic?
ReplyDeleteOK, thanks, now I get it!
DeleteGood one 2:22. Thanks for the help. Appreciated.
DeleteStill wont answer my question will you?? What does Norby have to do with PV?? Why do you needlessly drag him into your postings?? There is a reason, just tell us.
ReplyDeleteI was simply replying to a previous commentator's question, the initial comment on this thread, that is 6:29's assertion, that Sabine has a conflict of interest because of his pension interests, comparing City Attorney Glenn Sabine to City Manager, Gus Vina.
DeleteI stated that Glenn Sabine, like Peder Norby, before, is a contractor, and may not get any pension benefits, like the City Manager and other staff employees.
That was the only thing I said in reference to Norby on this thread; it wasn't critical, only explanatory.
Why are you so defensive and accusatory?
Thanks, Lorri. This issue has been important to me for over 10 years, since PV was closed, based on false numbers, according to this Coast News comment, which follows Bairds response to DEMA:
https://thecoastnews.com/2011/11/in-response-to-dema/
Ed Code expert? says:
November 28, 2011 at 3:54 pm
"Dr. Baird’s comments regarding income from the sale of Pacific View, and its possible use are VERY misleading. He quotes recent ed code additions, saying: "the proceeds from the sale … may be deposited in the general fund of the district IF the school district … has no anticipated need for building construction for the ten-year period following the sale, and the district has no major deferred maintenance requirements."
Is Dr. Baird trying to say that the district has no need for building construction or deferred maintenance requirements FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS?
This is very surprising. Just a quick review of recent school-board agendas shows that in November, construction of 8 classrooms, 4 sets of restrooms and 1 storage room at Mission Estancia and La Costa Heights was completed, while in August, The District initiated renovation of the media center at Flora Vista (for $92K). There’s obviously lots of construction & maintenance going on. Many of the Encinitas school sites still use temporary classrooms that will soon need to be replaced with permanent ones, yet the school district apparently has no anticipated need for building construction for the next ten years.
Additionally, didn’t Encinitas approve a school bond just 12 months ago that highlighted leaky roofs and outdated buildings that all needed replacing, yet now, a year later, they imply that the school district has no major deferred maintenance requirements for the next ten years?
Shame on you Baird for trying to make Dody Crawford & DEMA look as if they don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s YOU that either doesn’t know what you’re talking about or are trying to mislead everyone; I’m not sure which is worse?
And one more thing … It is SO ANNOYING to hear Baird, (and King before him) refer to the MILLIONS that the Pacific View renovations MIGHT cost. No one has ever done a thorough review and presented any kind of quote. Baird once used the bee infestation at Pacific View as an example of how much the place had fallen into disrepair. It won’t take millions to remove the bees. Until there is a real dollar amount, Baird should not be making inflated GUESSES as to how much the renovations might cost, especially when others believe the costs would be much lower."
Here's another comment on that same Coast News article, as linked above:
DeleteIn response to DEMA
By dr..timothy.baird,.eusd.superintendent
Nov 22, 2011 • 136 views
Cory Gellen says:
November 26, 2011 at 7:44 am
"This appears to be a two-track fraud by the EUSD trustees;
A) Did they purposely change boundaries attendance areas to ‘present’ a declining overall attendance? Looks like ‘Yes’;
B) Did they hire a Superintendent based solely on his ability to transform Ojai real estate into dollars for a school district> Again, it appears a definite ‘Yes’.
Tar and feathers is too good for this apparent fraud that answers to no one but a 4-to-1 board of trustees that over 20 years have not only made decisions that have bankrupted the district but also overseen the armageddon of grade point averages. If EUSD didn’t have ‘friends’ from C’Bad on the County Board of Education would this district STILL be in such bad shape?
No one knows, but this bullying joke of a leader continues to apparently misspend the district’s dollars and apparently continues to mislead the public.We always laugh when the trustees claim that "teachers are my heroes". How was that last out-of-state convention, trustees?"
You frequently drag Norby into your postings for no reason. So now that you've been called about it can we expect you to cease and desist?? Doubtful. How many others have worked for the city without benefit of a pension?? Will you mention them in your next posting?? Doubtful.
DeleteYou are distracting from the conversation about PV for no reason. What you, as an anonymous "agitator" expect of me or don't expect of me is irrelevant.
DeleteSo anyone that axed a question of your postings is an agitator?? Very condescending of you and much of a conspiratorial complex. You are the one that drags citizens into your posting which have nothing to do with the topic.
DeletePerhaps Dr.Lorri can fill us in on the OCD complex. Regarding the constant need to post on ever subject regardless of your nature of expertice .
You are not "axing" questions about the facts I'm presenting, or the message I'm sharing. You are attempting to attack me, personally and distracting the conversation from the topic of Pacific View, in this case, unsuccessfully attempting to distract to your amateur assumptions and self-projections about psychological conditions, about which you have shown no evidence you have any expertise, yourself. You don't even go so far as to share who you are, so that we can know if you have any expertise, or qualifications to judge.
DeleteI quote the law. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I share who I am, and I share my sources. You can look this all up for yourself.
You are attempting to distract the conversation from PV- I did no such thing. You brought Norby into the conversation not me.
DeleteAnd yes I " axed " a question, Ebonics for asked. I know this to be true, I've heard the Rev Jackson and Sharpton speak this way.
Ohh btw, neither of them receive pensions from the COE. But you already know that.
Thank you so much Lynn for doing all of that homework for us. It helps me, that's for sure.
ReplyDeletePlease Dr. Lorri, don't mistake quantity for quality. From reading Lynn's own words here on this blog, it's always black and white. Good guys versus bad guys and many of those bad guys are evil. Lynn interprets legislation only how she wants it to mean. While she may mean well, she just misinforms. You need to take it all with a grain of salt. Pity.
DeleteLynn is smart and well informed. If council cared to be as informed we would have a great city. Sabine & Vina need to be let go, council needs to prioritize this!
DeleteThanks, 11:20. The actual wording of any law is in black and white. Interpretations may vary.
DeleteI try to present facts, the background, and let readers draw their own conclusions. I don't believe I've used the word evil. I have spoken about the black and white fallacy, which is commonly used in illogical arguments. Many arguments here have been based upon hyperbole, rhetoric and attempted character assassination of the messengers.
Ad hominem attacks only distract from the topic of discussion.
And you would never stoop to an ad hominem attack, especially the school board or Tim Baird, not to mention city council and staff. You routinely denigrate their character, truthfulness, and ethics in your arguments, although I will say you're not as bad as some here.
DeleteYour comment about the school board in a previous thread:
"Baird is too busy paying his consulting lawyer hot-to-trot buddies, with taxpayer monies, as he bullies, blusters, and bluffs his way through his secret meetings, where he's the reigning bull in the china shop of mostly elderly, easily led trustees."
Is not an ad hominem attack on the school board not to mention highly condescending? The school board, none of whom I know, although I was introduced to one, have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to the school district and it's students, employees and parents to act in their best interest toward education. Whether Encinitas has an artist colony or other non EUSD function is secondary. I'm sure as residents they would like to do what's best for the city as well but their legal obligations lie with what's best for EUSD. Just because you disagree with their decisions doesn't mean they are "easily led trustees".
That is a criticism of a public figure, Tim Baird, and his unnamed School District lawyers who have misinterpreted the law and tried to twist it for his own means, not respecting the desires of our community, and the generous locals who originally donated the land for our children and future generations, long before Encinitas School District became unified with Carlsbad, long before EUSD existed, long before the City of Encinitas was incorporated.
DeletePacific View is part of our local heritage; it is environmentally sensitive land. We are now entering another drought. We don't need another density bonus project which would add to infrastructure challenges, included as environmental factors, such as traffic, parking, water availability, and community character. A zoning change could not be processed without a full EIR and a public vote.
The Board of Trustees, with the exception of Maureen Muir has seemed to be easily led, and manipulated, never standing up to Baird and asking the hard questions. I would never vote for ANY of them again, with the exception of Mo Muir. Freedom of speech gives us the right to comment on the governing ability of our elected officials. I wouldn't doubt that you could be connected to the Board of Trustees, yourself, but since you only post under the cover of anonymity, we cannot know.
I guess you just can't help yourself. You have to attack the school board personally, as I guess you can't accept the fact that they disagree with you and see things differently. It's arrogant to support your argument by saying "The Board of Trustees, with the exception of Maureen Muir has seemed to be easily led, and manipulated, never standing up to Baird and asking the hard questions".
DeleteThe fact that they are public figures only has legal implications not whether you are using an ad hominem attack against them. I guess in your mind you can't accept the fact that someone could fairly hold a contrary opinion. Mind you, I'm saying you shouldn't present facts here as you see them. I'm just saying, based on previous discussions, leave the personal out of it.
And by the way, I'm not even remotely connected to the EUSD board or administration.
Have you ever been elected/appointed to a board? I don't mean an informal group, even if they have bylaws, but a group that is legally chartered and the board has legal responsibilities? Those responsibilities include acting in the best interest of the organization or face legal liability. You might then understand the school board's perspective. I don't mean agree with it. Just being able to relate where they're coming from.
3:56 PM
DeleteSorry, I mistyped this line in the second paragraph:
Mind you, I'm not saying you shouldn't present facts here as you see them.
The difference is the word "not" was missing in the original post. In other words continue presenting the facts as you see it.
OK, I won't say that Randy Duke Cunningham was a crook, Brian Bilbray was a carpetbagger, that Darrell Issa's purpose in bankrolling Gray Davis's recall was so that he could become governor, that Jerome Stocks is despicable or that Mark Muir is as fat as his pension because those would be ad hominem attacks.
DeleteSez who? :)
DeleteYou can write "ad hominem" until the cows come home. But the compliant Board of Trustees, with the exception of Maureen Muir, has violated the Brown Act and misled the public by going along with Tim Baird's misconstruing Government Code and Education Code.
DeleteThe vote to auction Pacific View WAS done in closed session, despite Tim Baird's lies tonight at the EUSD Board Meeting. The vote should have been reported out of closed session, according to how each member voted at the January 9 Board Meeting. It should have been reported that Maureen Muir was absent because she was wrongly being told she must recuse herself because her husband is an elected local official, Councilmember Mark Muir.
"The January 9 meeting was Called to Order by President Maria Strich at 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Members Present: Mrs. Skiljan, Mrs. Strich, Mr. Sonken, Mrs. Andrade
Members Absent: Mrs. Muir [Maureen Muir was absent because she was still being forced to recuse herself]
The flag salute was led by Board President Maria Strich.
The Board of Trustees convened to Closed Session at 6:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION
Property Negotiations (Pacific View APN 258-1 5-1 22), Conference with Property Negotiators , Agency Negotiator: Dr. Timothy Baird, Legal Counsel Tyree Dorward, Best, Best & Kreiger, Government Code § 54956(a).
REPORT OF ACTION IN CLOSED SESSION
At 8:00 p.m. Board President Maria Strich reported that the Board of Trustees directed the Superintendent to proceed with the sale of Pacific View according to Education Code. [That direction to Baird REQUIRES a tally of the Trustees participating. Secret ballots, even in closed session are illegal. I said tonight that there was an unreported, illegal vote. Baird and the Trustees denied it.
I said, the headline for the Coast News front page story is "EUSD votes to auction Pacific View property." Baird said, oh well, that's just what the newspaper said; shows you can't trust what you read in the paper." He is being unaccountable and untruthful.
At 8:05 p.m. (on Jan. 9) the meeting adjourned. [In a two hour and five minute special meeting closed session, the meeting was called to order and convened into closed session at exactly the same minute, 6:00 p.m. I'm not buying it. The public is not made aware, by the agenda, as required by the Brown Act, that we can address agenda items before the Trustees convene into closed session, or that there is to be a SEPARATE open meeting BEFORE closed sessions re real property negotiations, according to the Brown Act.
Again, Tim Baird made numerous false statements tonight, 1/21. That January 9 closed session was NOT preceded by required announcements of specific Agenda items before the Trustees adjourned; there was no time! It should have taken at least a couple of minutes for the flag salute, alone. The Board, again with the exception of Maureen Muir, ate up the posturing, pretense and outright lies.
Mo said she thought the way the Board was handling the issue of PV was and has been wrong. She did a good job, when she was finally allowed to participate again. Baird had been stifling dissent and disenfranchising those of us who voted for Mo because of her Save Pacific View platform, when he directed his also compliant legal counsel, fortunately absent tonight, to tell Mo she must recuse herself. Wrong.
When substitute Counsel was asked by Baird, the Naylor Act or Eminent Domain won't apply, do they? Legal counsel clearly stated, that was not on the agenda and it wouldn't be prudent to discuss it. In other words, Baird was also lying when he stated the City had agreed that the Naylor Act wouldn't apply and that Eminent Domain wasn't going to be an issue, either. More twisting of the truth.
You don't know what ad hominem attacks are, if you think criticizing public officials for their actions, or lack of action, or lack of independent thinking, or rudeness to public speakers, or falsehoods, and twisting of the truth, is an ad hominem attack.
ad hominem attack
DeleteWeb definitions
An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attack
How Baird and the Board of Trustees conduct themselves at public and secret closed session meetings, and in publicly disclosable communications is not irrelevant. Dishonesty, lack of transparency and lack of compliance with statutory law is not irrelevant.
Baird also twists the law when he falsely proclaim, as documented in the January 17 Coast News article, Pg. 15, "Baird said district attorneys believe a rezone request couldn't be denied; the state's education code overrules Proposition A, a local ordinance."
DeleteFirst of all, the law he relied upon in his lawsuit, and which he quotes to the City in his most recent letter is California Government Code NOT Education Code. He has taken statutory law out of context, quoting only part of California Government Code - Section 65852.9.
But Section 65852.9 was not directly quoted in the Writ of Mandate for which EUSD had applied to the Superior Court, nor are any part of Section 65852.9 (b) and (c) included in Baird's most recent letter to Gus Vina. This code has an “if, and then,” scenario, providing that “b)If all of the public entities enumerated in Section 17489 of the Education Code decline a school district's offer to sell or lease school property pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 17485 of Chapter 4 of Part 10.5 of the Education Code), the city or county having zoning jurisdiction over the property shall, upon request of the school district, zone the schoolsite as defined in Section 39392 of the Education Code, consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite.”
Nowhere is it specified that the zoning must be identical to contiguous properties. Further, although I submitted CPRA requests for appraisals before this became a closed session agenda item, the District apparently never performed an independent appraisal of the property, and so never complied by the clear requirements of the Educational Code At the EUSD meeting tonight Baird falsely claimed there had been an appraisal, that has been available on the EUSD website. After diligent searching, I am unable to find it.
The Education Code, referenced by Baird is the Naylor Act, which provides that if eight years prior to a surplus school property’s being offered for lease or sale, the site was used, in part, for playing fields, then the Act does apply, and 30% of surplus property should be offered according to it’s original cost, adjusted for inflation (Pacific View’s site was donated), for as little as 25% on the dollar of the appraised value. Superintendents Devoir, King and now Baird have all attempted to skirt this requirement, refusing to honor the intent of the State Legislature when it wisely enacted the Naylor Act to help preserve communities' open space.
DeleteBut since Govt. Code 65852.9 b) requires that the rezoning requested must be "consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite," then the District or a would be developer would have to comply with our GP and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan, and EMC, which have all been updated by Prop A. The public would have an opportunity to vote. Education Code is not "in play" except through the requirements of the Naylor Act, by which the District has also failed to timely abide, first saying the property was to be exchanged, not leased or sold, lagging nearly seven years on declaring the property to be surplus, and now saying "it's too late" for the Naylor Act to be applicable. NOT! The time tolls from when the property was initially offered for lease or sale, in December 2003, six months from when the school was permanently closed.
The District never offered 30% of the property to the City and other public agencies for 25% of the APPRAISED value. An appraised value is in the current zoning and the current timeframe, using local comps.
Baird also lied and said the Waldorf proposal used Escondido comps. Two were Oceanside, one was Escondido, and one was Carlsbad. Comps have to be for recent sales in the same public/semi-public zoning. L.A. comps are irrelevant. So is an outdated "appraisal for mixed use or residential" which cannot be found on EUSD's website.
Ya'll can't buy the damn thing, you don't have any money. Get that thru your thick skulls. You are so laughable. You really have NO IDEA what the City is doing. Well maybe a couple do, but there to cowardly to say something.
ReplyDeleteDoctor Lorri. How does Ls comments help you?
ReplyDeleteI would bet that Gus would actually prefer the property get rezoned to higher use/tax base. Which would bring in more money to secure the huge pensions promised to all the crappy managers in the city.
Don't let his smiles and chatter from a few council members about buying yet another unnecessary facility when the city can even pay for its current DEBT.
He is all about getting more taxes through selling out the existing residents to super uber density. This is evident by the city's non actions to address or change zoning to density bonus or any other pro development scheme.
Anonymous 7:24 - Your a complete idiot!
Delete7:24 has it 100% right. Too bad his inconvenient truth that reveals the city's prejudice toward our local "hero" developers interferes with your rose-colored glass view. Or perhaps you have friends in the biz...or are in the biz...
Delete10:19, Jerome, it's you're not your.Thank you.
DeleteWTF is going on the with Regional park? it looks like work has stalled on the project which usually means higher costs. Who is in charge of delivering that project and what is the status?
ReplyDeleteDead time in a project isn't always about delay which then might affect project costs. Projects often schedule in slack as a buffer against unforeseen delays. It might be some parts have finished early. Who knows. If there are delays, depending on how the contract is written, the general contractor may have to eat those. My point is to not jump to conclusions which always seem to be negative here.
DeleteConclusions "always seem to be negative here" because residents have been burned badly by the city, by folks whose paychecks/pensions are supported by us, and by leaders elected by us to supposedly represent us.
DeleteThe history of backroom deals in this town is pretty bad and if folks do jump to conclusions, it's because the city has trained us to. Don't be so hard on the messengers, 10:53; 9 times out of 10, they're trying to watch out for us all and are terribly frustrated and disappointed.
There has not been a new announced delay. The Hall property park was originally scheduled to open in April, then changed to September. This even raised eyebrows of the council members.
DeleteMore honesty and transparency would contribute to less suspicion and negativity. There have already been a number of change orders on the park project, but no details have been released of what they are. The attempt to hide the illegal discharges into Rossini Creek added to the negativity. The Parks & Recreation Department has a Facebook page which can be checked, but it's mostly fluff.
The reason stated for the delay is that they have to put down the grass or whatever they are using. Then it has to grow. At least that is what P@R told the Council.
DeleteThat's the reason stated, but the coincidence in timing of the water violation is a bit too much of, well, a coincidence.
DeleteIsn't this under Parks and Rec?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ci.encinitas.ca.us/index.aspx?page=49
Yes, the Encinitas Community Park is under the direct supervision of the Parks and Recreation Dept. The Parks and Recreation Commission was not consulted on anything about this park, except the name, which the Council, at the time, changed to fit what they wanted, not what the citizens wanted.
ReplyDelete"the citizens" as if you speak for them?
Deletethey ended up with a great name
The grass for the fields will not be ready for sports play in the spring is the actual reason for the delay. It makes more sense to delay the full opening until the entire park is ready for public use. It looks like it's already open for skate boarding as I saw at least 25-30 kids skating it this weekend.
ReplyDeleteAnd your source for this info would be...?
DeleteThis is the reason announced by Lisa Rudloff, Director of Parks & Rec. I'm not buying it. In Southern California sod can be put down anytime. It just grows slower in the winter time. Of course, the necessary sod would have to be preordered because the producers would need time to seed and grow such a large amount. And the sod needs time to establish roots in the new location. But why weren't these details taken care of when setting the time line? It's a no brainer.
DeleteIt seems much more likely that this is a convenient excuse for delays in construction, possibly related to the illegal runoff. I know that the neighbors along the alley entrance off of Santa Fe have had problems with the construction of the wall being done correctly. It's likely we're not getting the truth from city hall.
Maybe the sod company screwed up and the grass died in the heat because they couldn't secure their long term water contracts?
Delete- The Sculpin
Remember grass for ball fields have to hold up under the stress of cleats being worn which is a little different dynamic then your average lawn. The grass on athletic fields need to have deep roots or they will just get torn up.
DeletePut who knows, it's just more fun to speculate and imagine the worst.
No imagination, just no belief in city spin. The sod schedule should have been a no-brainer as the poster above said.
DeleteAnd still no word from council/city manager about who knew what and when re: the violation. If city hall wasn't so busy scheming, they'd have far fewer problems.
DeleteI think the kids are getting in some trial runs. If skaters see concrete, nothing can stop them...
Delete18 million! What a waste of taxpayer $!
ReplyDelete$19.3 million is the tab.
DeleteThat's not counting interest on the debt, or "debt service."
DeleteWhich is never done when talking about costs such as this, unless you are a park hater and want to spin it your way.
DeleteHow much was your house? Hint: The answer doesn't include the debt servicing.
It seems like the sod should have been factored in when the time deadlines were put in place. Yes, the official version by 7:35 is correct. Me thinks it may be a bit different but I don't really know.
ReplyDeleteToday's my birthday, and recently a classmate I had at Pacific View posted a picture taken of our PV 6th grade class at a Taffy Pull party up on Neptune one night. My birthday gift from her. Then, a 6th grade pic of our whole class on the front lawn at PV was posted. As I was checking it out last night, so were 4 other surviving classmates and it was fun chewing the fat with them all. Wasn't fun telling them PV is on the chopping block right now though - about to be drawn and quartered.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202167711226568&set=a.10200866913347434.1073741825.1602480489&type=1&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201531156509882&set=a.1218917122165.2031112.1506012895&type=1&theater
Sliced and diced...
DeleteHappy Birthday Fred! Have a great day.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSure did, thanks! Even got a job at Hooters! (No, not wearing orange shorts.)
DeleteWith Fred's deep roots, he should be leading the charge against Streetscape, a project that would destroy community character, pit residents against each other, restrict beach access and gridlock traffic on 101 through what the City calls "Leucadia."
Delete11:14- what character of the community do you want to keep?? The weeds and dirt?? The bums?? The trains??
DeletePit neighbor vs neighbor?? Like you know who vs ....,
Restrict beach access??? Hmmm that baffles me, there are 3 points of access, stone steps, beacons and grand view ... Adding sidewalks and flowers and trees won't change the access. Gridlock traffic? You mean when the race track is open and cars are backed up southbound at the red light and stop signs??? Sure you do, nice to know you Crappy lovers are still around, we haven't heard from you for awhile being sidetracked by the debacle known as Pacific View.
C ya, so glad I don't have to be ya.
Residents don't can only be pitted against one another if they let it happen. Fred doesn't walk that walk. He works with people and has spend most of his life making Leucadia a better place.
DeleteDon't be sucked into that kind of thinking, if you don't like the Streetscape, then propose how it could be made better.
Fred is the King of Leucadia. A genius. Everyone loves Fred. We should all love Leucadia. But not everyone does. Some love the crap. Yes to Fred. Yes to Leucadia. No to crap.
DeleteSurely there's something between weeds and bums and Carmel Valley-style fake "village" cookie cutter. I've not seen plans yet that consider bridging the two and that cleans up the grime without slamming stucco on every surface available.
DeleteWhy does it have to be all or nothing either way? I've seen the city streetscape plans with their repeating pressed-cement faux rock and am horrified, not impressed. Is that the only thing designers and builders know how to do these days?
And for the men on this blog, and I am one, thing about this the next time you make a remark about any of the ladies who post with their own name on this blog..
Deletehttp://www.laobserved.com/archive/2014/01/the_next_civil_rights_iss.php
3:49
DeleteGrandma?
12:51, until you've studied the proposal, know the facts and can relate them accurately, don't post. You don't know what you're talking about, so you're just displaying your ignorance.
Delete11:44
DeleteOne easy question. Which do you prefer:
1. Making a left turn onto 101 and waiting for 3 lanes of 35 mph traffic to be clear, or
2. Making a left turn onto 101 waiting for one lane of 15 mph traffic to be clear?
And sell to the highest bidder, the American way.. Yeah baby!
ReplyDeleteWhich country sells to the lowest bidder?
ReplyDeleteAmerica. Land of sell outs.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least we get it both ways.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn 1993, Leucadia Merchants Association formed. We were dedicated to
ReplyDelete"Preserving the past, Enjoying the present and Planning for the future." A lot of people joined through the years, a few good lasting deeds were done and one thing we did was survery merchants and residents to find out what their concerns for Leucadia were. There were and still are shortcomings.
I have the list somewhere of the results but they are AMAZINGLY close to the results we got at the Streetscape workshops addressing 101 and echo:
* Restoring the canopy (like it used to be)
* Sidewalks (only some businesses had)
* Bike paths (we never had but just got - and yes they'd be even better by the tracks)
* Classic street lamps (the kind we used to have)
* landscaping (we've always needed)
* Slower speed limit (we just got! hooray.)
and the granddaddy of concerns at the time: storm drainage.
Since 93, 5 million dollars has helped the storm drain. (Thanks Sheila!) 5 blocks of 101 used to be a foot under water sometimes. Canoes can no longer use 101.
What the 93 survey was missing of course are roundabouts. No one knew their benefits at the time. Now we have the Internet and there are no excuses.
Streetscape will do none of the negative things you cite, but are in line with what we've always wanted and what residents and merchants alike deserve. That is why I am vehemently for it and against the wishes of others who would rather spend the money somewhere else in town than enhance Leucadia making it more beautiful and safer for all. I've heard all the arguments against Streetscape and they're cloaked with ulterior motives; a "Leucadia isn't worth it" attitude, and/or just good old fashioned stubbornness. Some people fear change to the degree of not going to the doctor when they should. Not good either.
Fred, you're delusional. Have you lost your marbles? Is it senility settling in? Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see. If you and other Streetscape imposers think it's such a great idea, hire a pollster to do an objective survey of the community and find out what the majority wants. You haven't done that and probably won't cause you're afraid you'll find out you've been wrong all along.
Delete11:38 - for you to boldly assert that "you'll find out you've been wrong all along." implies that you have already commissioned a pollster and have received the results. Or alternatively, you're basing your assertions on the same info Fred is, and arriving at a different conclusion. So which is it?
Delete- The Sculpin
This thread is about Pacific View. I don't know why you would want to hijack it, but happy belated birthday, anyway.
ReplyDeleteJust because something is new and trendy, and good in some locations, nationwide, doesn't mean it's good for Highway 101 from A St. to La Costa. Just because we now have the internet, doesn't mean that including roundabouts in the Streetscape is advisable HERE, or that it will ever actually be funded. TransNet taxes are needed for other priorities, including the railtrail bicycle corridor and mitigation for the I-5 expansion that seems to be bearing down on us. . .
Why don't you get back to discussing PV, or start your own blog, Fred?
I do agree with all the goals of the Merchants' Association, in 93, that you listed. By the way, according to Superintendent Tim Baird, the proceeds from vendor rents at the PEC Sunday Farmers' markets are split three ways, one third going to the Market Manager, one third to the PTA, and one third to L101MA? How much do you net, monthly and yearly on that deal, Fred? You should be able to find out, as one of the Directors. Do you know who the "Market Manager" is?
The question came up because previously DEMA was proposing a different downtown Farmers Market with money going to the Foundation to Save Pacific View. Baird shot the Envision the View proposal down, of course. He was awful at the Board Meeting last night. Extremely misleading.
"start your own blog"? Really? Pot meet kettle. Unbelievable.
Delete5:58, I was merely responding to 11:14 and 4:35 who are the times that hijacked this thread, it wasn't me. But you can hollar at me for not putting their identies down as I should have.
DeleteGood thing more safety, beauty and efficiency is "new and trendy" for roads in America. Bring it!
Glad you agree with most of the goals of LMA and L-101 anyway.
I did charge the LFM manager $90 for 1000 custom full color glossy 14pt business cards twice and so far it's the only money I've received personally from anything associated with the Farmer's Market. I was happy they liked the logo I made them for free.
Stop by the L-101 office and ask any questions you like about finances, or come to our annual membership meeting and see the pie charts for where all money comes from and goes to. Does it make you feel better now that you were told L-101 makes less less money from the LFM than you previously thought?
Now who hijacked this thread with questiong about Leucadia Farmer's Market?
I'm happy LFM makes many thousands of dollars per year for not only its main recipients, but all the other money it makes for many vendors every week. Not to mention the throngs who appreciate it's delicious food. Try it!
Now get back to PV.
I tied in that question to the other Farmer's Market proposal, through the Envision the View plan, Fred. I'm happy LFM makes money for the vendors; I feel a larger portion of vendor rents should go to Paul Ecke Central, aka PEC. I would also like to know who the who the manager is? Is that a person from L-101?
DeleteNo. The manager of LFM is independant and has no conflicts of interest. He is not on the board of L-101 nor ever has been. Neither is he a teacher or student at PEC. His name is Ron LaChance and if you ask him nicely he may give you his beautiful business card. ;) (And if he's out, do let me know!)
DeleteHelp me out here, Lynn...............you've done an admirable job in digging out the technical aspects of the PV deal, the legal foot faults, transgressions and perhaps nefarious behavior, provided much discussion and possible alternatives........but at the end of the day does it really matter? To play a gedanken experiment - had Mr. Baird followed the letter of the law every step of the way, wouldn't we be in the same place we are today? So if I understand this correctly, your beef is not necessarily where we are in the process, but that "the public" never had a chance to participate in the process. Is that right? Or do you believe that had the public been involved, the PV deal would be at a different spot?
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
Sculpin,
DeleteI believe the argument is that the district's legal right to upzoning is void because they didn't follow the law.
WCV
Thanks - it's so easy to get lost in the details and lose the big picture....
Delete- The Sculpin
Fans or detractors aside, Lynn is doing a fantastic job. Council take note.
DeleteThings get confusing because the Naylor Act only refers to acquiring part of the site for open space. Borrowing from Huntington Beach:
Delete"The disposition of surplus property owned by any public entity in California is governed by the surplus property statutes codified in Government Code Sections 54220, et seq. The Education Code provides supplemental regulations that govern the disposition of surplus school sites (Ed. Code Sections 17230, et seq., 17385, et seq.) In addition, the disposal of surplus school property that also qualifies as park or recreational open space is regulated by the Naylor Act, which is codified in Education Code Sections 17485, et seq."
So I'm sure it all clear now.
Question for you old timers. Just kidding. I know the current PV configuration show the site to be primarily asphalt when you look at it on Google Maps. Was it always that way or did they add asphalt after they closed the school and leased it to the city public works? in other words, were there any grass play areas before the school closed?
Delete2:49
DeleteThey added most of the asphalt after the school closed. There was about 50 x 250 ft of it skirting the front of the classrooms with a basketball court and 4 square / dodge ball areas painted. The larger scorched earth part was for softball, jungle gyms etc. Oh yeah, when they enlarged the playground and removed a few houses on the south end in 1964 flattening the field, they found a lot of large bones. And embarrasingly for the largest kid in school, a sink hole opened up underneath him one morning as he was walking across the playground.
2:49, as far as grass areas, the Kindergarten area had a grass yard, but it wasn't until 1966 Mr. Iufer has us plant grass west of the basketball court.
DeleteWhen the school was still open, the playing fields were dirt. They were dirt at Cardiff Elementary for decades until grant money was used to make a "park." The city came in with some money later and did a joint use agreement with the school district to use the fields after hours and on the weekend.
DeleteAll the schools I went to in the San Diego area had dirt playing fields, and that's K - 12. At the high school only the footfall used for league games had grass. The city paved the fields at Pacific View for parking after leasing it. Lynn is correct.
However, the devil IS in the details.
ReplyDeleteHa!! Personally, I have found the devil wherever I look.......he's always there....just depends on whether he can be useful or not!
Delete- The Sculpin
When the City of Encinitas initially leased the PV site, in December of 2003, the playing fields were paved over, at City taxpayers' expense, for something over $60,000, as I recall.
ReplyDeleteEUSD did not do due diligence. PV was closed in June of 2003. Before it leased the property, after determining that school was permanently closed, it should have followed the terms of the Naylor Act, offering 30% of the property at 25% of the APPRAISED value, at the time, using local comps, in the current zoning. An certified appraisal, for purposes of the Naylor Act, or any other purpose, is not the same as some realtor's or consultant's projected value if the property were to be rezoned.
So, yes, the Naylor Act only applies to 30% of the property, but that was never offered, as an actual appraisal was not done by EUSD, that I have been able to find. I have submitted another CPRA request, but what Tim Baird said last night was the District had an appraisal done for mixed use zoning; so that's a non-starter. He didn't comply with the law.
It took nearly seven years from the time that PV was permanently closed in June of 2003, for the District to get around to declaring it surplus, and to notify public agencies, including the City, that it was going to "dispose" of the property. These agencies were given 60 days to respond to the District's bogus letter.
Baird tries to claim that the $10 Million price offered at some point by Lean King, in May of 2009, I believe, took into account the Naylor Act, but the alleged value of the property was being highly exaggerated, again, because the current zoning was not being used as a basis for an accurate appraisal.
The Government Code which Baird is still relying upon in trying to push through upzoning states that Education Code, including the Naylor Act must be addressed, and if public agencies decline, then the land can be upzoned, consistent with local General and Specific Plans and compatible with adjacent zoning. So our GP and SP for Downtown, have been updated by Prop A. The public would get to vote. It would not be "consistent" with our local law if the voters said, no, we don't want to rezone, and Baird said, well, you are going to, anyway, because Education Code overrules local law. NOT!
From the beginning, various Superintendents have been pulling baits and switches. Among them, through an October 2011 press release, when Baird filed a bogus lawsuit against the City, EUSD was alleging the Naylor Act didn't apply because the property was to be exchanged, not leased or sold. But the property has been leased out to the City and to Encinitas Glass, continuously, according to an August CPRA request I submitted to Baird's executive secretary, Elizabeth Wallace. The time should toll from when the land was INITIALLY offered for lease or sale.
The District can't wiggle out of it. It can't claim, for seven or eight years that the property is to be exchanged, not declaring it surplus, not doing an appraisal so it can offer 30% of it according to the terms of the Naylor Act, and now say, "it's too late, anyway," because eight years prior to the decision to sell, the property was not used for playing fields." Again, bogus!
Public involvement is always great. I feel that public agencies must follow the letter and intent of the law. Public involvement helps to insure that they do.
DeleteSave Pacific View! I'd like the public to be involved in a true community arts and learning center, there.
How will it pay for itself without my tax dollars???
Delete5:55
DeleteEasy. We put a rich artist opportunity ad on the front page of the Coast News and find a bunch of rich artists to buy, build, adorn and facilitate it.
You mean like all those rich artists that show up for Artwalk ???
DeleteOr just one art lover willing to part with their Van Gogh
DeleteI have a velvet Elvis that might fetch a pretty penny...
Delete3:17, I'm likin' it! Let's put it on ebay for a starting bid of $10 million then explain where all the proceeds go. They won't just be buying a painting, but funding talent for the future. (Not to mention make one velvet painter famous).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo one cares about PV….
ReplyDeleteWhen will the streetscape get built? Its been one year with nothing accomplished. What progress was made by the City in 2013?
No progress was made on streetscape. Sadly the city is listening to those that hate Leucadia and want to keep it crappy. A council member that shall remain nameless has told me the crappy ones donate money and vote.
DeleteThe streetscape will never be built.... Sad but true.
Enjoy the CRAP!!
7:55,
DeleteI find this hard to believe. Who are these influential anti-Streetscape people? The two most vocal opponents don't seem to me to have much influence with the Council.
I suspect the bigger factor is that the city is broke after the Hall Park and pension costs.
WCV
WC- people spend money on what they want, not what they need. The city NEEDS to improve H101, the don't want to improve 101. The city doesn't NEED to own PV, they want to own PV. The city would rather take on more debt and own PV and all it's toxic obligations that fix 101 and make it a destination vs a thoroughfare to SB, DM, SD.
DeleteCouncil's pursuit of PV may have started with good intentions but it's kind of like the dog chasing a car. What are you going to do when you catch it? And by that I mean money.
DeleteAs the eminent domain attorney said last night, an eminent domain proceeding will use fair market value as it's benchmark to judge the adequacy of any city offer. I seriously doubt that would be anywhere near the city's last offer. Plus the city was counting on borrowing for that amount. And that's just to buy the damn thing.
So as the council continues its strategic planning exercise, they're going to blow the wad on PV? If so why bother with any more strategic planning.
We need to think with our heads (budget) not with our hearts.
Were you there last night? For private individuals, fair market value is the benchmark. For one public agency using eminent domain against another, there is ALSO a balancing of the best PUBLIC use before and after sale of a publicly owned property.
DeletePV is NOT being used for any public use currently. IF the surplus school site could get a rezoning, it could only do so after a public vote. So the Court would balance the likelihood that there could be a rezoning, and the value of a one-time injection of money into EUSD's facility improvement funds, against the City's enabling a non-profit foundation to lease the site in order to rehabilitate and maintain the classrooms, to preserve an irreplaceable public asset, in the public domain, as a true community art and learning center, WITH a revenue stream . . .
So "fair market value," and a one time injection of funds into facility improvement would be balanced with greatest LONG TERM public benefit.
Who has established that the City NEEDS to build five roundabouts as part of the Streetscape?
DeleteWho has demonstrated the the citizens WANT five roundabouts, which would bottleneck our highway down to one lane in each direction, causing gridlock during peak periods? If you are so certain that the public WANTS those "improvements," then you should advocate for a public vote at the General Election in November.
My god Lynn, you're going off the rails. Talk about being in denial. The eminent domain attorney said the court will use the highest and best use, fair market value. It doesn't matter that EUSD is a public entity. It's what is a reasonable use of the property and R-15 is a reasonable use. PV could become a medical center or elderly care without a rezoning but I don't know if that makes economic sense given the asking price.
DeleteOf course she is only a long time expert in eminent domain but she was asked to make a presentation by the city attorney so that must mean that she is incompetent.
I guess you hear only what you want to hear.
The special eminent domain counsel, Bartz, said there are two standards used, one for a taking of land through emeinent domain, from a private party, and another with respect to one public agency acquiring land through another public agency, although they do overlap. Did you read her report for Agenda Item 11C?
DeleteThere would be a BALANCING, between the greatest PUBLIC benefit re one public agency and another, that is, in this case, a ONE TIME injection of monies into EUSD facilities improvement fund (according to whatever would be determined by the court as fair market value, taking all factors, including the likelihood of rezoning, into consideration) vs. the benefit of keeping historical, donated land in the public domain with an ONGOING benefit of more open space and a true community arts and learning center, preserving an irreplaceable public asset, part of our heritage, for our children and future generations.
Whomever buys pacific view is buying a giant white elephant. 50 years of mold, leaded paint, asbestos and God only knows what else on that property. The city can't bury the toxicity under 12 feet of soil this time.
ReplyDeleteIt's been inspected. Claims of asbestos removal required are false. Claims of mold are highly exaggerated.
DeleteI'm hoping the City doesn't buy the property, as it was a gift to begin with. When Baird tries to sell it, I also hope the Council will remember Prop. A and let the citizens vote if they want it up zoned. If they do any less than that, I say recall them all. This is not the will of the people, or if it is, let's vote.
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping the City does buy the property, as it was a gift to begin with, and should remain in the public domain.
DeleteYou will get to vote, if the Planning Commission and the City Council were to approve any upzoning.
I am hoping the City does buy the property for a reasonable price. $4.3 million, offered, was $1 million over the appraised value, which used North County comps.
Here's the latest from the UT on the whole shebang..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jan/23/encinitas-has-few-options-on-pacific-view-site/
If the City hadn't spend about $40 million to buy the Hall property and build the park there, and if it hadn't spent about another $6 million to renovate Moonlight Beach — both astronomical sums that few people seem concerned about — there would be no problem coming to an agreement with EUSD on a fair price for Pacific View. As the proverb goes, waste not, want not.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, those of us that don't subscribe to the UT cannot read 3:21's link. Any way you can post the story?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Jan/23/encinitas-has-few-options-on-pacific-view-site/?#article-copy
DeleteI have copied the article in several posted comments, in quotation marks, below, from the UT:
Encinitas has few options on Pacific View site
No eminent domain seen for Pacific View
By Barbara HenrySpecial to the U-T 9:07 A.M.JAN. 23, 2014
"ENCINITAS — The Encinitas City Council may be frustrated over the Encinitas Union School District’s plan to auction off its coveted Pacific View campus, but it seems there is little the city can do about it.
ReplyDeleteLinda Bartz, an attorney specializing in property condemnation issues, told the council Wednesday night that using eminent domain to force the school district to sell the property to the city isn’t an option. Beyond that, City Attorney Glen Sabine said the city may be limited in what it can do to keep the land in its current public/semi-public zoning status.
Simply to begin an eminent domain process, Encinitas would need to have a written plan spelling out how it will use the property, Bartz said."
Of course we all know UT has a pro-development bias. The City does have two written proposals, one from Envision the View, and one from Robert Bonde, through ETA.
Delete"The city doesn’t have such a plan right now — there’s only been talk about turning the 2.8-acre downtown property into an arts center, she said. And Encinitas doesn’t have time to produce a plan, she added.
ReplyDeleteThat’s because the school district’s board voted Tuesday night to hold its property auction in March.
“It sounds to me like you’re not actually where you could condemn yet,” Bartz told the council twice during her short presentation.
And, she warned, the city could face some serious financial risks even if eminent domain was an option. Encinitas could end up owing far more than the $4.3 million it recently offered to pay for the property, she said.
For the auction, the school district set its minimum bid at $9.5 million — a figure that Councilman Tony Kranz said Tuesday would be hard for the city and any nonprofit group to come up with.
State law regarding eminent domain declares that a government agency wanting to force a sale of a property must pay a price that reflects the property’s highest value and best use, Bartz said. In the Pacific View case, the courts could consider that the land could be rezoned from public/semi-public use to housing, and thus be much more valuable."
The city has time to produce a plan. It shouldn't be that complicated, The law does not say that the plan has to have been approved. The project as anticipated, rehabilitating existing classrooms, could probably get a mitigated negative environmental impact declaration.
Delete"Delmar Williams, the school district’s attorney in real estate matters, gave the school board a similar message Tuesday night.
ReplyDelete“This is not a tool that is used between public entities, except in very rare cases,” he told the board members when they asked whether they could be forced to sell the land to the city.
Hugely controversial, the eminent domain process has been used by redevelopment agencies in some cities to forcefully acquire privately owned land that has been deemed “blighted” by city officials.
Private-property rights organizations have celebrated as those redevelopment agencies have been dissolved by the state, saying that they abused their land-purchasing power.
Encinitas has never had a redevelopment agency. It has faced financial issues in its quest to preserve the school property.
Last month, the school board turned down the city’s offer to pay $4.3 million for the land. Early this month, the school board announced it was going to try an auction. One stipulation of the sale will be that any purchaser must agree to preserve a historic schoolhouse museum on the property, board members said."
Private property rights groups were not protesting Eminent Domain cases between PUBLIC agencies. This argument is a distraction. Baird and EUSD would ALSO have to show a balance of benefit, which would provide the greatest PUBLIC benefit, a one time injection of monies into EUSD's facility improvement funds. Local taxpayers are already supporting facility improvements, and EUSD, as a whole, through School Bonds O and P, and now, Prop 30, passed statewide.
DeleteDelmar Williams was a substitute attorney. I don't remember his saying anything publicly, during the Board Meeting on Tuesday night, except that it would not be prudent to discuss Eminent Domain or the Naylor Act, because they were not on the Agenda. Baird went right ahead and discussed them, claiming the City had said in his secret subcommittee meetings with them that "they wouldn't be an issue."
DeleteIt's not usually used against public entities, because it doesn't HAVE to be used. Except in very rare cases, an interloper Superintendent of a local elementary school district would NEVER be so greedy and uncaring about the desires of the community. No one else has ever tried to twist the law. And Baird is in a unique position of having four elderly, compliant Board of Trustees, lapping up his every desire. We would NEVER vote for any of them again, with the exception of Maureen Muiir. In fact, as has been suggested to me, they are a wonderful argument for TERM LIMITS.
The County leases the land under our Downtown library for $1 per year. What if the County had determined to sell that land for the "highest and best use" of profits, or a "one time injection into either its General Fund OR facility improvements?
"Sealed bids must be received by 4 p.m. on March 24. The bids will be opened, and then the district will conduct an open auction.
ReplyDelete“I think this is the logical thing to do,” board member Emily Andrade said before the vote Tuesday.
School board member Maureen Muir voted against putting the property up for auction, saying the district should preserve the land as a public space for its children.
Her husband, Mark Muir, is an Encinitas councilman.
District Superintendent Tim Baird said the district’s latest proposal must succeed or the district will lose a great deal of financial flexibility. If the land is not sold by January 2016, the district won’t be able to put the proceeds into its general fund, but will have to limit its use to construction-related expenditures, he said.
Encinitas Union closed Pacific View in 2003. In the years since then, everything from housing projects to a community art center have been suggested for the land.
Barbara Henry is a freelance writer."
I didn't remember that being said, openly, at the meeting, about the January 2016 "deadline." The money could just go into the next cycle, could it not? The Tax Allocation Board would have to decide that no facility improvements are needed for 10 YEARS before ANY money could go into EUSD's General Fund.
DeleteBaird is presenting like a salesman, trying to close the deal, ACT NOW, before it's too late!
Now there is another Coast News article: Pg A5, "School district asking at least $9.5 million for Pacific View."
DeleteI hope that the District will get no offers, if there's "no time," to proceed with Eminent Domain, before the auction date, set for March 25. EUSD will already be accepting sealed bids, prior to the auction.
It seems, as part of due diligence, any seller should have to disclose the possibility of eminent domain, and the necessity for a public vote.
Glenn Sabine has been prejudiced against Prop A, from the start, as we could see from his NOT impartial analysis, which was based on a lie. Lower set residential height limits were NOT raised as a result of Prop A's passage. The City was NOT bifurcated by enactment of Prop A with respect to those parts of the City in the Coastal Zone, and those, such as Olivenhain, outside the zone.
I don't think that there would be too many so foolish as to overpay for the property. Anyone reading the UT or the Coast News should be familiar with the history of zoning challenges. The School District is asking for aa $200,000 NON REFUNDABLE deposit, if a would-be developer wants EUSD to push through the zoning change. Who would be so foolish as to bet $200K? DeWald wasn't. He got his $100K deposit back when the zoning change didn't go through quickly enough, because Baird lagged in dropping his bogus lawsuit against the City.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy prediction is that PV will sit as it is for years to come. Any private buyer will make the purchase contingent on an inspection and after finding a multitude of toxic waste they'll walk away.
ReplyDeleteThere is no toxic waste; you're thinking about the former Hall Property.
ReplyDeleteNo toxic waste?? In a 50 year old building?? Prior to asbestos and lead paint laws?? Really ?? Really?? So you are willi g to go there and demolish the structure without a hazmat suit ??? And mask?? No you'll be the first in line of the volunteers to grab those items.
DeleteIt doesn't need to be demolished. The existed classrooms can be rehabilitated and maintained. Many homes in Encinitas are 50 years old. There has been an inspection. There is no issue with asbestos or mold, and the roof is in good shape.
DeleteObviously the rain gutters need to be replaced. And the paving, which the City installed, covering over the playing fields, needs to be removed.
I meant "the existing classrooms can be rehabilitated and maintained."
DeletePlease provide the documentation that shows no asbestos nor lead nor toxic contamination.
Delete3:02 I think your past-tense version fits better.
DeleteYou can do a public information request and try to get that documentation 5:27. PV has had preliminary inspections by the City, as attended by private parties, including a member of ETA, and I believe, DEMA.
DeleteNo asbestos has to be removed. The roof is in good shape. Any building so near the coast generally will have small amounts of mold, from time to time, without that requiring significant remediation.
Do your own homework, instead of just relying on exaggerations made by Baird, in his trying to assert that the existing buildings cannot be rehabilitated and maintained at a reasonable cost; He wants you to believe the "best use" is high density development.
The toxic waste at the PV site is from all the Crayolas dropped on the grounds by children since the school opened.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the January 24 Coast News Article, I feel the "deadline" Baird is talking about re the District MUST ACT NOW, or an opportunity for a one time injection of funds from the sale of PV going into the General Fund, is just more high pressure spin, sale's pressure.
ReplyDeleteThat deadline is when current law may or may not be renewed; it may not be renewed, because of Prop 30, but who knows?
Still, even if the alleged 2016 deadline WERE to be met, any money's going into the General Fund for EUSD would require a finding by the State Allocation Board that no more money is needed for facilities improvement (interpreted to include I-Pads and associated technology) for TEN YEARS! That is NOT going to happen. I-Pads have a life expectancy of only about five years . . .
Baird is twisting the law and the facts. He's got dollar signs in his eyes, and can't seem to locate his heart.
There are some on this blog that take an expansive understanding as to how to interpret “adjacent” when reading Gov. Code Statutes 65852.9 concerning the rezoning of surplus school sites. They believe that the meaning of “adjacent” is not limited to “next to” but within the area. I would like to play devil's advocate on the meaning of “vicinity” used in the Naylor Act. I believe “adjacent” is a more restrictive term than “vicinity”. So if people can include Moonlight Beach and City Hall as being adjacent to PV, can they not also be considered in the vicinity of PV?
ReplyDeleteAs detailed in the two sections of the Naylor Act (Educ. Code Sections 17485-17500) below, the city council must make a determination that the 30% of PV is required because of inadequate recreational facilities in the vicinity. Yet Moonlight Beach has volleyball courts, a play area, and a tennis court; Viewpoint Park, just to the east of city hall, has a play area; Cottonwood Creek Park has a play area, tennis courts and basketball court; and finally, MacPherson Park has a play area and basketball court. I am purposely not including beaches. So on a strictly need basis, can the city council, by a two-thirds vote, justify using the Naylor Act to acquire a part of PV?
Just to summarize, I'm not addressing whether the city should acquire PV due to its heritage, etc. I'm only following the admonishment to read the whole statute. The Naylor Act's purpose is to fill a need for open space and recreation when a school that has provided those facilities closes and is surplused. Thirty percent of PV would create a park about the size of MacPherson, maybe a little smaller.
For comparison, there is only Leucadia Oaks Park available for those Leucadia residents who live north of Leucadia Blvd, west of I-5, east of the ocean, and south of La Costa Ave. The Roadside Park doesn't count. It's a postage stamp. And yes there are parks and a school south of Leucadia Blvd but I'm using this as a proximity (vicinity) comparison for PV.
Sections of the Naylor Act:
17486.
This article shall apply to any schoolsite owned by a school district, which the governing board determines to sell or lease, and with respect to which the following conditions exist:
(a) Either the whole or a portion of the schoolsite consists of land which is used for school playground, playing field, or other outdoor recreational purposes and open-space land particularly suited for recreational purposes.
(b) The land described in subdivision (a) has been used for one or more of the purposes specified therein for at least eight years immediately preceding the date of the governing board’s determination to sell or lease the schoolsite.
(c) No other available publicly owned land in the vicinity of the schoolsite is adequate to meet the existing and foreseeable needs of the community for playground, playing field, or other outdoor recreational and open-space purposes, as determined by the governing body of the public agency which proposes to purchase or lease land from the school district, pursuant to Section 17492.
17492.
The governing body of a public agency which proposes to purchase or lease land from a school district pursuant to this article shall first make a finding, approved by a vote of two-thirds of its members, that public lands in the vicinity of the schoolsite are inadequate to meet the existing and foreseeable needs of the community for playground, playing field, or other outdoor recreational and open-space purposes.
PV is 2.82 acres. Multiply that by .3, and one arrives at .846 acre, which would have to be preserved as open space, were the Naylor Act to be invoked, which .85 acre (rounded up) could include community gardens or fields.
DeleteMoonlight beach park is not that close. There is a need for more open space in this part of the community, and no, the beaches wouldn't have to be counted. It could be shown that the City has less than the recommended amount of parks, according to the density of housing, particularly, in the Downtown Specific Plan. There are several adjacent properties to PV that are in public/semi-public zoning. The CURRENT appraisal, using local, North County Comps, took all of this into account.
In researching some old records, I notice that the Integra contractor that did a PV appraisal using Los Angeles Comps, was the same appraisal firm, with City development ties, that was used for the artificially high appraisal, never publicly released (I was told there were "no such documents." But I got the name Integra from an article by Adam Kaye, formerly of the NCT, in an article he wrote re the former Mossy Property, now our overpriced public works yard.
The Waldorf appraisal was done through a professional yet seemingly humble gentlemen who had spoken during Oral Communications, in the past, suggesting that Encinitas should work with appraisers to have independent appraisal reports done, which could save the City millions. I am grateful he was selected. Integra should NOT have been used, and its numbers should be thrown out, because out-of-area comps were used to artificially spike the curve. That was probably done to justify the $9.5 million price of the Mossy Property, which had no private parties bidding on it, and which property was wrongly claimed to be "turnkey" at $8.5 Million by Dan Dalager and Jerome Stocks. Then another $1 million was tacked on for the structures on the property, which needed at least another $1.5 Million to be ADA compliant, after purchase.
Conversely, when the SDWD headquarters was taken from ratepayers, with no Eminent Domain necessary, because City Council also acts, in whole, as the Board of Directors for SDWD, we were given NO credit for the pre-existing structures, and only $1 Million credit for our ocean view land. Worse, we had an ADDITIONAL $3.4 Million taken from our SDWD reserves, with no rights on title for the new public works yard. Now our water rates are going up, up and up, with a minimum of a 30% increase, across the board, over the next five years.
Before the Water District had been getting about $10,000 per year rent from the City for use of SDWD's public works Yard. So we had to spend at least $11 Million for a new public works yard, lost millions in reserves, and tore down perfectly serviceable headquarters so that our land could be part of the library parking lot. I support the library, but not the fact that SDWD ratepayers are being asked to pay more and more, when our reserves were depleted, and the new public works yard, without a revenue stream, was falsely used to acquire more debt through another bogus Lease Revenue Bond, upon which the public was disallowed to vote.
The City's purchasing Pacific View for a reasonable amount would go a long way towards benefitting the greatest public good, and to help redeem past financial/political finagling, misdeeds, and indiscretions. Baird seems stubborn and entirely unreasonable; the Board of Trustees seems compliant and unable to think for themselves, so this may have to go to an Eminent Domain case between two public agencies.
Although it's rare, there is precedent, and the City would have a very good case of the greater public good vs a one time injection of more monies into facilities improvements, when the public, local taxpayers, are already paying for facilities improvements through EUSD School Bonds O and P, as well as Prop 30.
.85 acre( rounded up) of open space. Could include a community garden, or it could just be weeds and dirt much like H101. But definitely no flowers, trees or any sort of landscaping. Keep it crappy!!
DeleteMoonlight Beach not that close? It's two blocks away from PV. Cottonwood Creek Park is a little over four blocks. How many Encinitas residents have parks that close to them? So are you setting a new standard here in Encinitas? Everyone should be within a block or two of a park.
DeleteSo if the city wants to pursue at least the Naylor Act's 30% of PV then it "shall first make a finding ... that public lands in the vicinity of the schoolsite are inadequate to meet the existing and foreseeable needs of the community for playground, playing field, or other outdoor recreational and open-space purposes."
So according to your logic, Moonlight, Viewpoint, Cottonwood Creek and MacPherson Parks aren't enough park land for the residents in the downtown area. They need more. And when does this criteria get applied to the city as a whole?
Pacific View is near F St. Moonlight Beach is directly off of B St, aka Encinitas Blvd. That's more than two blocks. The City could justifiably make a finding that more open space is needed in the portion of the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan that includes PV.
DeleteGo ask your leading questions to the State Legislators, who passed the Naylor Act, because preserving more open space is for the greater common good. But you already have your mind made up, anyway, don't you?
What an nonsensical thing to say. You've stood before the city council and challenged them to read the whole statue (65852.9) yet you refuse to do so with the Naylor Act. You willfully choose to read statutes only in a way that satisfies what you want to happen not how they were written.
DeleteI read the statutes both how they were intended and how they are written, not how I would like them to be written. My statements here about what I think the statutes say and require do not reflect what I would like to happen.
I have narrowed the discussion to the requirements of the Naylor Act, assuming it could be invoked. I've tried to understand whether under the act the city council could make the case that the neighborhood around PV (the vicinity) is under served for open space and recreation because that could be challenged by EUSD.
Moonlight Beach is two blocks from PV. The play area and volleyball courts are on the north side. Thirty percent of PV isn't big enough to build anything bigger than a neighborhood park with limited facilities. So just from a Naylor Act perspective, the only people that would get much benefit from a neighborhood park at PV would be the residents in the immediate area.
If you're going the eminent domain route for the whole property, one of the things the city has to establish is why they want this particular property. An artist colony type development could go anywhere. Again, I'm ignoring the historical aspect of PV. But as the ED attorney said in her presentation at the city council meeting, the jury will use fair market value of the property's highest and best use which won't be public/semi-public. And as far as having a price benchmark for the property, nothing is better than the $7.5 million actually agreed to by EUSD and Art Pulse which was an arm's length transaction.
I know what you want to have happen. All your arguments show that. It's clear that it's your mind that has already been made up.
IMHO, using the applicable local and state statutes, a sharp lawyer representing the City could portray the situation to the City's advantage and convince a judge or jury to decide in the City's favor. The fact that Baird and EUSD have been manipulative and disingenuous all along would work in the City's favor.
ReplyDeleteThe Naylor Act is part of Education Code; 11:37, above quoted "(a) has been used for one or more of the purposes specified therein for at least eight years immediately preceding the date of the governing board’s determination to sell or lease the schoolsite."
ReplyDeleteThe Trustees, under Superintendent Devoir, voted to LEASE the property six months after the school was permanently closed in June of 2003, in December 2003, to the City of Encinitas. Eight years prior to that time, the school site was used for playing fields. The Naylor Act would apply.
Adjacent does not have to mean contiguous. More than that, the law, Govt. Code, quoted in Lisa Shaffer's latest newsletter, states:
Government Code Section 65852.9
(b) If all of the public entities enumerated [in the Naylor Act] decline a school district's offer to sell or lease the school property ...the city or county having zoning jurisdiction over the property shall, upon request of the school district, zone the schoolsite ... consistent with the provisions of the applicable general and specific plans and compatible with the uses of property surrounding the schoolsite. The schoolsite shall be given the same land use control treatment as if it were privately owned.
(c) a rezoning effected pursuant to this section shall be subject to any applicable procedural requirements of state law or of the city or county.
Lisa also made these points at the January 22 CC Meeting. To be consistent with our General Plan, our Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan and updated EMC, any upzoning from public/semi-public of the PV site would require approval of the Planning Commission, Council, environmental review with appeal to the Coastal Commission, AND a public vote, period.
Public/semi-public IS compatible with adjacent properties. There is NOTHING in the law that would force a City to rezone to identical zoning to that of some of the contiguous properties. The Govt. Code presupposes that some jurisdictions have school zones. If a property were zoned as "Public or Private School," and the Naylor Act had been complied with, then a school district could go to court to force a rezoning, if a City were not cooperative. That has NEVER happened. Hence, there is NO precedent. Judges are extremely leery of setting new precedent. Most Superintendents do not have such a compliant Board of Trustees who are acting for short term gain, at the expense of the public good.
EUSD never had a legitimate, publicly released appraisal, nor an appraisal that was released concurrent to the surplus school site's being offered for sale to public agencies, as required by the Naylor Act, and by the Govt. Code, upon which Baird relied when he got the Trustees to agree to sue the City, in October of 2011.
DeleteThe only appraisal that was done, and which has only now been released, after a CPRA request, was for a valuation from June 6, 2007, before the housing bubble burst. That appraisal was based upon EXTRAORDINARY assumptions that the property was to be rezoned mixed use/residential, and that the site was to be EXCHANGED, not sold.
But the property was not voted upon, by the Trustees, so that it was declared surplus, until February of 2010. The property was not offered for sale, NOT according to the terms of the Naylor Act and related Government Code, until March of 2010.
The preceding request for rezoning, initiated under Superintendent Lean King, was to be for an exhange, NOT for a sale. The District insisted, "from the very beginning" according to its own FAQ sheet and October 2011 press release, that the Naylor Act didn't apply, because the property was to be exchanged, not leased or sold, so that it was exempt from the Naylor Act.
Now Baird and his compliant legal counsel and the Board of Trustees(with the exception of Maureen Muir) wrongly claim, "it's too late." But the letter of the law reads that it applies if eight years prior to the LEASE (or sale) of the property, it was used for playing fields.
The 2007 appraisal is not timely, and was not timely in 2010, when the surplus school site was again offered for sale, allegedly, "according to the terms of the Naylor Act."
Baird has been trying to twist the facts and the law. The fact that the City wants to keep donated land in the public domain for a true community art and learning center would weigh heavily with the Court in any Eminent Domain proceeding.
There would be no "one time injection" into the District's General Fund. Only if the State Board of Allocation made a finding that no more monies could possibly be needed within ten years for facilities' improvement (interpreted to include IPad purchase and replacement), could any monies from the sale of a surplus school site go into the District's General Fund.
Lynn. All those WORDS and you NEVER answered my question. Read the WHOLE statute.
DeleteI have read the whole statute, but we are talking about more than one statute, here, both Education Code and Government Code, as they interrelate. Your specific questions were not clear to me.
DeleteFor an Eminent Domain proceeding, the fact that the School District in October of 2011 sued under a section of Government Code that says the property must have been offered according to the terms of the Naylor Act, and declined by public agencies, required to be notified per Education Code, would be taken into account.
DeleteAn Eminent Domain proceeding BETWEEN PUBLIC AGENCIES would balance the greatest public good, a one time injection of funds into facilities improvements for the District, vs. keeping donated land, an irreplaceable part of our heritage and local character, in the public domain for a true community arts and learning center. Included in the public benefit would be the public open space on the PV site, when the pavement that the city put in for a temporary public works yard is removed.
Remember, Pacific View was closed more than six years before Tim Baird came to EUSD from Ojai, where he tried, but ultimately failed, when he was recruited to EUSD, to develop a surplus schoolsite there, in conjunction with developer associates.
But while Superintendent at OUSD Baird attempted to develop a surplus school site in Ojai as what has been characterized as a "strip mall," against the will of the community, volunteers, and the City of Ojai, the promised skatepark was built, finally, after Baird left. Baird came here at a significant increase in pay, to become Superintendent for EUSD, no doubt because of his pro-development agenda.
Oh no Lynn, you've lost Logan Jenkins! He thinks you're Eminently Demented. Okay, so he gave that to the whole city as he awarded us a raspberry for "even considering eminent domain" and "actually discuss condemning the property and forcing the district to sell it to the city was, is and will always be a breathtaking overreach of government".
DeleteJenkins further wrote, "Earth to Encinitas: Either pay market value for the land ... or stop whining".
Last week Jenkins had chided the city for it's "lowball offer".
Oh well.
Let me return to the legal definition of "adjacent" as opposed to the statute using "adjoin". Except to the west where the PV property actually adjoins with the properties along the bluff, the other three sides have streets separating the properties. I'm sure the legislators chose the term "adjacent" for that very reason.
DeleteAdjacent:
Lying near or close to; neighboring.
Adjacent means that objects or parcels of land are not widely separated, though perhaps they are not actually touching; but adjoining implies that they are united so closely that no other object comes between them.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Exactly. There are adjacent properties, which are close to, and neighboring Pacific View, which are in the public/semi-public zoning.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the Government Code statute spells out that the rezoning, which is applicable IF all the Education Code requirements have been met (an offering to sale according to the Naylor Act, which has been declined by all public agencies; there was never a legitimate Naylor Act offer to sale made) THEN any rezoning must be COMPATIBLE (NOT identical) with zoning of adjacent properties.
You need not focus on your interpretation of adjacent. That's a red herring, as is Logan Jenkins. I could care less about his opinion re Pacific View. He doesn't live here and doesn't understand the historical and community character context. He doesn't understand Tim Baird's pro-development proclivities, or if he does, he is in sympathy with them, as is UT, in general.
California Education Code Section 17585:
ReplyDelete"The Legislature is concerned that school playgrounds, playing fields, and recreational real property will be lost for those uses by the surrounding communities even if those communities in their planning process have assumed that the properties would be permanently available for recreational purposes. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this article to allow school districts to recover their investment in surplus property while making it possible for other agencies of government to acquire the property and keep it available for playground, playing field or other outdoor recreational and open-space purposes."
(Added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 277, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1997. Operative January 1, 1998.)
Correction, should be Education Code Section 17485, sorry for typo.
DeleteAccording to Education Code Section 17486 (c), one of the conditions is, for applicability of the Naylor Act: No other available publicly owned land in the vicinity of the schoolsite is adequate to meet the existing and foreseeable needs of the community for playground, playing field, or other outdoor recreational and open-space purposes, as determined by the governing body of the public agency which proposes to purchase or lease land from the school district.
DeleteCottonwood Creek is not in the immediate "vicinity" of Pacific View. Neither is the Tot Lot at Moonlight Beach. Cottonwood Creek is very crowded, especially on weekends. The parking lot there is insufficient. The Tot Lot at Moonlight Beach is also not in the "vicinity." It is also crowded, and parking is an issue during peak periods. Because of the bluffs, there are hills, and with traffic, it's challenging for families to walk to that Moonlight Beach "pocket park." Moreover, with Moonlight Lofts and Pacific Station, the density has substantially increased, with the DESP upzoning that was allowed before Prop A passed. The City could easily make a showing that keeping pre-existing open space is part of the public benefit that would be served by preserving Pacific View in the public domain, as opposed to a "one time injection" of monies into EUSD's facility improvement funds.
Sites can be adjacent but not in the vicinity? Yeah, that makes sense.
DeleteAnother red herring, another illogical argument. We are speaking of open space, for recreational use being in the vicinity, as described by the Naylor Act. There are no adjacent recreational areas.
DeleteThe law (Government Code) refers to adjacent when it speaks to changing the zoning to that which is compatible with adjacent zoning, and CONSISTENT with the General and Specific Plans of local jurisdictions, as well as our procedures, which includes the right to vote on changing public/semi-public (upzoing, by definition of the initiative) to mixed-use and/or residential.
You are confusing language pertaining to potential upzoning with different language enacted to provide public agencies with the ability to preserve pre-existing open space.
I guess I'm not clear or you are just refusing to acknowledge my point. Yes, I know they are used in different code sections as I pointed out. What I am challenging is your (and others) inconsistencies in interpreting terms. Adjacent means next to, although they don't have to touch. Adjoin means they are touching. Since most schools have streets along at least one or two sides, were the statute to use "adjoin" then that would eliminate any zoning across the street. So the next best term is "adjacent" which means close or next to. You however want to expand the meaning of "adjacent" to skip over the zoning that is next to PV and go blocks away to find similar zoning.
DeleteIt is this expansive interpretation of "adjacent" that I am comparing to your more restrictive interpretation of the term "vicinity" in the Naylor Act. Even in the non legal meaning of the terms "adjacent" is more restrictive than "vicinity" but not in your mind. You've used the public/semi-public designation of Moonlight Beach to show similar zoning adjacent to PV but won't accept it as being in the vicinity when it comes to showing adequate recreational facilities around PV. Moonlight is the same two blocks away whether it's adjacent or in the vicinity.
I'm just showing that you obviously approach this with your mind already made up and try to fit your facts to that end. I, on the other hand, interpret the statutes, as best as anyone can, how they are written and what was the intent on writing them in the first place. I do this even though I often don't care for the result and it goes against what I would like.
The alley behind the Pacific View property appears to actually be part of the parcel. Look at the original Pitcher deed transfer at the historical society in the old schoolhouse and see what you think.
ReplyDeleteThe alley behind PV is an easement. The residents now have prescriptive right of use. Felix Tincov, the land use attorney who spoke at city hall, gave the city an easy solution. The city can require any private buyer to bring Fourth Street (the alley) up to downtown street standards, which would be an 80-ft. right-of-way with curbs and sidewalks. That would take a big chunk off the western edge of the property and drop the value considerably.
DeleteIt's an easy solution except for the fact that those property owners along the buff don't want to see Fourth street extended as they've made very clear. Who are you going to please?
DeleteJust for info, but Fourth Street south of PV does not have gutters and curbs for almost its whole length. North of PV, it does have gutters and curbs. If Fourth were to continue with the alignment on the north side of PV, it would take out the west end of the newer school building and force the old schoolhouse to move east. The alley, or easement, jogs west of the Fourth alignment on both the north and south sides.
DeletePay full price for all of PV or quit 'ur bitchin'.
ReplyDeleteWould you like to buy my '85 Ford Ranger for $20,000? It has 207,000 miles on it, bald tires and runs occasionally.
DeleteAgreed. Get a none profit from all the art supporters and buy the property or shut up. The City doesn't need any more trophy facility projects.
ReplyDeleteIt's not up to you to determine what the City needs or what the citizens want. This public land should remain in the public domain. It's also not up to you to decide what "full price" is. Stay away from this thread and quit your complaining about what or how people are posting here, mostly in favor of preserving Pacific View as an irreplaceable public asset.
ReplyDeleteThe same person is posting over and over his negativity, anonymously, of course . . . You aren't convincing anyone.
Land that was donated for the children and for future generations should be utilized for the greatest common good. It shouldn't be privatized. EUSD is only a steward of this public land.
8:47 has a great idea, as presented by Felix Tinkov. As a true community arts and learning center, leased out to a non-profit, there would be a revenue stream to the City.
Save Pacific View!
Is this blog call Encinitas Undercover or Encinitas UnderLynn?
DeleteI have as much right to express my opinion on this blog as you do, your opinion counts for nothing more than a room full of farts.
DeleteJust because your kiddies went to PV doesn't mean all the taxpayers of this town need to support you're preservationist cause.
Fuck you!!
Bob Bonde's/ETA's sensible plan for PV does not burden taxpayers.
Delete