You gotta admit, he didn't say not to sell the thing off to developers and use the cash for routine maintenance and operating expenses. Perhaps it didn't occur to him that future trustees would be so rapacious?
Pacific View is on the agenda again at next Wednesday's council meeting, but at this point the ball is in the school district's court. And the developers... will the zoning issues raised by Prop A keep the developers away from the district's auction?
Who thought there' d ever be worries?
ReplyDeleteA man deeds land with love and care
Without a posse of attorneys.
Hello WCV
ReplyDeleteI am curious if the past council's ignored the protections afforded the public on this issue under the Naylor Act? My curiosity stems from wondering if the past council's and current council's intentionally ignored protection and benefits the Naylor Act provides citizens? Could the current council direct the city to file a lawsuit under the Naylor act and order an injuction to protect the public?
I have also wondered if citizens could file a lawsuit and seek an injunction to prevent a sale?
If you have any thoughts WCV I would welcome hearing them.
Kind regards
Andrew Audet
No idea but I too would be very interested to hear a legal opinion.
Delete- Did the district waive any of its rights by failing to make the discount sale offer to the city required under Naylor?
- Did the Dalager/Stocks/Bond council waive any of the city's rights by failing to invoke Naylor?
Inquiring minds want to know!
The Prop A folks' attorney was a good land-use guy. Somebody ask him?
WCV
Either way it's a shame at how these money grubbing shit balls don't care about the fact that this was a gift to the people. Our council and school district only care about keeping an unsustainable pension/pay system afloat for as long as they can.Resorting to theft doesn't even cross their minds.
DeleteThe Cabezon
Nobody ever mentions that Pitcher was a developer trying to sell lots. He may have also been public spirited and the school land donation may have been genuinely in that vain but it couldn't hurt land sales either. These days we sometimes require developers to set aside land for schools.
DeleteMy how things have changed. Developer in 1883, good. Developer in 2014, bad.
The City entered into a faux-agreement to park city vehicles on the school playing fields for one dollar a year: as no agreement in writing was ever executed: this agreement between the two entities, designed specifically to foil The Naylor Act (See Cathy Regan's Opinion Piece in the NCT on behalf of EUSD) should not be invoked and the city might be able to but the site for 25 cents on the dollar. And Yes, this did happen when Danny/Jerome were directing Cotton. Ask Jim Farley, he was on the district committee that determined that Pacific View was not necessary to the operation of the school district financially.
DeleteAs long as you are looking: the property was appraised just under 2 mil four years ago: How in this economy does it quadruple in value?
It doesn't.
So, is there a connection between EUSD and whatever individual recently appraised the property to a value that leads one to believe it's worth $10 mil? If no connection, then the appraiser's competence should be certainly questioned...
Hard to compare developers in 1883 to now. There was plenty of land back then, and no rail!
DeleteDidn't the city at the time when Bob Naninga brought it up say they were unaware of the Naylor act?
Good questions by Mr. Audet...
Thank you for posting, Andrew. According to 2014-01-22 Item #11C City Attorney Information Report regarding Pacific View http://archive.encinitasca.gov/weblink8/0/doc/711328/Page1.aspx
Delete"Naylor Act.
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 [underlined in text] 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 685852.9, the District would be required to comply with the prerequisites of that section, including offering Pacific View for sale pursuant to the Naylor Act."
Both Patrick Murphy and Peder Norby were on the 2008 ad hoc committee and both claimed The Naylor Act didn't apply.
Delete2:29 PM (2/7)
DeleteActually, the rail preceded Encinitas town development. It was initially a water stop. In 1882 E. G. Hammond and family arrived in Encinitas from St. Louis expecting to find "... a beautiful small village of 500 inhabitants, the Cottonwood River flowing through town, studded with richly growing orange trees and grape vines" or so an advertisement in a St. Louis paper claimed. When the Hammond family of 11 detrained they doubled the town's population.
So even back then developers were prone to exaggeration. Actually, many were out-in-out charlatans. E. G. Hammond, by the way, is the one who built the schoolhouse and other local structures.
Don't forget, the Naylor Act only applies to a portion of PV. Thirty percent if I remember correctly. It gets you at best an acre and that has to be for recreation/park not artist colony.
DeleteSome developers are good. No need to continually engage in you black or white fallacy delusions.
ReplyDeleteDevelopers, now, are required to donate land for schools. That is why there is also surplus school land on Quail Gardens, near the golf course.
Where are your sources re J.S. Pitcher? Please provide a link showing his background as a developer. Selling lots is not the same as developing them, especially attempting to take donated land out of the public domain for private profit and a one time injection into the school district's facility improvement funds, which could be not that much greater than what the City has offered, especially considering the costs of litigation . . .
Perhaps City Attorney Sabine is craving more lawsuits? He is paid by the hour. I can hardly wait for Dr. Lorri to put together the results of her public info request, so we can determine how much the firm of Sabine and Morrison has been paid the last few years, by the City. But that's another subject. . .
Encinitas School District didn't exist when the land was donated, in 1883. Neither did Superintendent Tim Baird, or any of the Trustees.
Del Mar Shores Trustees could work out a REASONABLE PURCHASE PRICE to charge taxpayers, through the City of Del Mar, and so did Ocean Beach Trustees, with a surplus school site there also sold to that City. EUSD should be eager to facilitate something to benefit the local community, children from outside the original school district would be welcome at the arts and learning center . . . That is something tangible, and irreplaceable, not just numbers of dollars for more I-Pads and quickly obsolescent technology.
The thing is Baird and his band of trusty Trustees (with the exception of Mo) should not quiver and shake about the thought of sharing with the community; they would still get Fair Market Price, as determined by an appraisal, factoring in the Naylor Act, and including potential cost of a general election and a lawsuit, re any futile rezoning attempts.
Yes this cities citizens are very curious to see what Sabine has been paid. We already know it is too much considering the track record.
DeleteSo the developer that developed your house is good but the developer that developed next to your house is bad??
DeleteCome on Lynn - selling lots IS developing! Are you suggesting that he bought a bunch of lots to resell them? No, he bought a large parcel of land and subdivided it into smaller lots so that each buyer would have comfort in the boundaries that they were purchasing. He probably put in a road or 2 or 3, too! That's development!
Delete- The Sculpin
Sculpin @ 3:51 PM
DeleteExactly! There are good developers and bad ones. Just like in any profession. A lot of homes that their current owners feel are the essence of Encinitas were built by developers. I get tired of those commenters who automatically equate developer = bad.
Sculpin, that's exactly what my comment, above, to which you replied, said. Some developers are good; not all developers are "bad."
DeletePlease learn how to read with comprehension.
Lynn, did you not write this on Feb 7th, at 2:07pm? "Where are your sources re J.S. Pitcher? Please provide a link showing his background as a developer. Selling lots is not the same as developing them..."
DeleteAre these not your words? Is not my response addressing your question? I'm somewhat disappointed in you, Lynn. There's no reason to be snarky.......
- The Sculpin
She is quick to claim victim of personal attacks when none are there and almost as quick to make them. "Please learn how to read with comprehension." Nice.
DeleteFrom Encinitas History & Heritage by Mac Hartley:
Delete[begin quote]
Until 1881 the coastline of Encinitas was barren and its cliffs and valleys were considered to be uninhabitable. When California became a state in 1848 most of the coastal land was government owned and was available to anyone with vision and courage.
...
[caption below a picture of a deed page 61] J. S. Pitcher acquired the bulk of the Encinitas land from the coast inland to the rancho areas.
...
The California Southern Railroad sent Thomas Rattan, a native of Missouri, to locate a site for the railroad station and to lay out the town of Encinitas. ...
A year later John S. Pitcher joined with Rattan in the development of the area. They are considered to be the founders of Encinitas. They gave two hundred feet of land along the tracks to the railroad company with a promise to keep a station there ...
[End quote]
What people are reacting to here, and it's not just Lynn, is always using some derogatory adjective when you refer to developer(s), like "greedy developers". I've known good developers and bad developers just like I've known good people and bad people.
J. S. Pitcher was not only a developer but he was a booster as well, looking to grow Encintas. That doesn't mean he wasn't a good person. Besides it's often the current property owner that looks to maximize the development on their property.
I have said several times that "some developers are good." I do not automatically put down developers, or paint them all as villains.
DeletePeople have said that Herschel Price is or was a developer. He's a good guy, in my opinion, as I've said.
J.S. Pitcher was also a good guy, as I've repeated. He donated land for a beautiful school site for the children of the early settlers of Encinitas, when that was not yet required by law. He was selling lots, to be improved, but if you would like to call him a developer, that makes no difference to me.
I don't appreciate building industry special interests who put short term capital gain before the long term public assets of the community.
We all need to understand what our priorities are. I don't know what question you are talking about, Sculpin. Just let it go, ok? I'm not going to quibble, or mince words. I am not one who says all developers are evil, and I never have been.
Roundabouts are tools in developers tool boxes, because they enable mitigated negative environmental declarations with respect to traffic impact and reduced Level of Service at intersections where they have been installed.
Let it go? Interesting comment. I call you out on one of your "facts" and you respond by wishing I would just let it go......
DeleteHowever, you have never responded to my gedanken.........You state "Roundabouts are tools in developers tool boxes..........." - if roundabouts were not tools of developers, would you think differently about them?
- The Sculpin
7:21
Delete"Roundabouts are tools in developers tool boxes, because they enable mitigated negative environmental declarations with respect to traffic impact and reduced Level of Service at intersections where they have been installed."
Nothing in Birdrock I can see that shows roundabouts ushered in high density. If you think there is, lets' have an address. A sample proving roundabouts were a developer's tool somewhere else would be appropriate. If were true, imagine Carlsbad's grief installing their first one flanked by a marsh.
The City should not hesitate to begin Eminent Domain. Other Cities have, and then the School Districts settled, because that was far less expensive to the public, and more rewarding to the community, as opposed to rewarding to bureaucrats, building industry special interests, and bombastic Baird. He's bluffing with our land as a prize, for which he's artificially inflating the value in terms of dollars, and by which rezoning locals would only lose, not profit.
ReplyDeleteBaird attempts to devalue the community's ture values of quality of life and our irreplaceable historical assets, in order to boost his resume and stick another feather in his hat, call it macaroni. . .
Baird's first feather was getting us citizens to pass Prop P in 2010, for a $44 Million School Bond, which will not be paid back for 20-30 years, and for which we must each pay $25 per $100K of our real properties' values. Remember, he's been Superintendent and located here, in North County, somewhere, could be Carlsbad, for less than five years. He came from Ojai Unified School District, where he "stirred the development pot," there with a surplus school site he wanted developed strip mall style.
Fortunately for Ojaians, with the cooperation the Ojai Police Dept. and the City of Ojai, a skatepark was built at a surplus school site there, with the help of community volunteers, after Baird was recruited by EUSD, probably in large part, to develop, instead, Pacific View.
EUSD and City "executive officers" making over $100,000 per year, should take a 20% pay reduction, to set a good example for the Public Employee Unions, and to help with unfunded public pension liabilities. Any represented employees making over $100,000 should also have to take a 20% pay cut. Then there would be more money for CIP facility improvements and operating expenses . . .
Baird would rather play Monopoly with our taxpayer money, like it's his special script, to which he is entitled by virtue of his "office," than work with the City and the citizens for the greatest common good, to maintain publicly donated land in the public domain, as a true community art and learning center.
I know the city put in an offer of some $4 million for PV but I haven't seen anything about what the city will have to defer to afford PV. What opportunity costs are we incurring if we buy PV? Not just the land purchase but what are the development costs? In essence, what is the business plan? Who benefits and who loses? What are the trade-offs? And don't give me the generic "the city". As a park, at best PV is a neighborhood park which benefits only those residents in the immediate area. As an artist colony, what are the alternative locations?
DeleteInquiring minds want to know.
A neighborhood park that benefits only those residents in the immediate area? Moonlight Beach is a neighborhood park. Encinitas Library is a neighborhood library. Benefits extends to residents throughout the city, and even residents in adjacent cities and visitors from out of town.. You sound like a shill for Baird and the EUSD board.
Delete7:10 AM
DeleteYou're comparing Moonlight Beach and the Library to whatever park might be constructed at PV? Give me a break. Moonlight attracts visitors from through the city and region. The library attracts patrons from all over the city and is one of the busiest in the county network. Sure any city resident (or non resident for that matter) could use any city park but the primary benefit of a small park at PV would be the surrounding neighborhood.
And please, disagree we me if you want but don't try to impeach my comments by trying to associate me with the EUSD. I'm not in anyway connected.
The costs to rehabilitate PV could be kept to a minimum if the City leases out the property to a non-profit foundation, which could use volunteers, and some paid contractors, City inspectors, to help make the classrooms leasable.
DeleteFor instance, the Artists' Colony had rehabilitated and maintained classrooms and studios at its previous location, off of A St., where Moonlight lofts was built after the Artists' Colony was razed.
Moonlight Loft developers subsequently went bankrupt. True affordable housing was destroyed. Pre-existing affordable housing at the Boathouses Properties was subsidized by the City, for over $800K, so that the Encinitas Preservation Association only had to pay about 44% of the entire purchase price.
Then the Boathouses affordable housing, already being rented out at affordable rates, was "counted, on the books." However, there was a net LOSS in affordable housing. We are grateful that the Boathouses weren't razed, too, for more high density development. They, like Pacific View, are part of our heritage, and community character.
Whatever else Pitcher did is irrelevant. The point is that he donated a 320-foot X 320-foot piece of land as a school site.
ReplyDeleteFor a moment please everyone just imagine Del Mars' Powerhouse Park sold out and developed instead as serving as the shining gift to the city that it is. Just think of all the occasions for various events that take place there on that beautiful overlook for their community to enjoy safely and securely. Our community's gift is PV and could become the center of numerous like events and celebrations for all to enjoy in a safe and secure surrounding with a killer view protected for all time. This is our Powerhouse to do with for the greater good of our community and not to squander it like what is being pursued by this interloper Baird who cares not a bit about a greater good. He could be such a positive influence if he choose to follow the original intention of this irreplaceable gift to this community and gift it back to the city. As generous as we have all been when EUSD has asked for funding we have stood up and supported the past ed. bonds that now seems could have been better spent elsewhere. Baird, just think for a moment about further on down the line and how we will respond when you [EUSD] need assistance if this gift is lost by your scheming and attempted hijacking of a piece of land that could bring so much opportunity to our town. Del Mar has its Powerhouse Park. We have Pacific View. The possibilities are endless for what we could have going on there and it would all be for us as was its original intention. Have a heart Baird and show you have one and care about city. cha ching
ReplyDeleteExcellent points, well put!
DeleteYes, excellent points. Let's remember that Baird is not acting alone. He has support form the school board. Everything said above applies to Skiljan, Strich, Sonken, and Andrade.
DeleteMark Muir pension is know posted on transparentcaliforina.com under calpers $175,682.40 per year.Thank you Jerome Stocks, Jim Bond and Christy Guerin. I'm sure he earned every penny. OH YA Mark is Lynn's new BFF.
ReplyDeleteExactly 7:04! The rest of the elected by us school board will not survive the next vote excepting Mo, thanks Mo. Come on, step up, grow a pair and align with the community who trusted you all enough to vote for you. Put baird in his place if he won't concede he is on the wrong tact. Don't be dragged down to his level. This is your town, not his. We are your people, not his. Stand for us, not him. This is your responsibility, not his. What do you want to become known for when this all comes down? You live here body and soul and care about this community enough to want to serve this community. Your community is pleading with you to do the right thing. The ball is in your court and there is no ducking out from who will be held accountable if you allow this precious resource to be squandered for a one time infusion. This town has been generous when you have asked for funding. Now return that generosity in kind by gifting this back for a true and reasonable amount showing you appreciate all the support you have received in the past. cha ching
ReplyDeleteYeah Tim, don't forget we all rallied at your last board meeting. We can do that again, if we need too. I think the "3" of us are available!
Delete8:59 who is this WE you and this blog continues to talking about!
If Baird's interpertation is that the property ,by law, will automatically be up-zoned as to the adjacent properties,why did the school district sue the city?
DeleteThe Cabezon
9:42 AM
DeleteBecause the city turned down EUSD's initial rezoning request. So EUSD filed suit but they continued to negotiate on and off with the city. When the city refused to revisit the rezoning request while the lawsuit was active, EUSD withdrew the suit. The city then declined the rezoning request a second time.
Then why did EUSD request rezoning if it theoretically is automatically re-zoned to the adjacent property per Bairds understanding of the law?
DeleteThanks, 8:59! The School Board counts on the fact that the vast majority of citizens do not attend school board meetings. Most people don't attend Council Meetings, either, but there have been many more community watchdogs observing the City over the years, from my experience, than EUSD Board Meetings. EUSD, because it doesn't understand the Brown Act, has been improperly holding and agendizing Closed Session Meetings.
DeleteI had asked Elizabeth Wallace, Baird's executive secretary to forward to EUSD legal counsel, my concerns about Brown Act violations by the District. She refused to do so, so I contacted the two attorneys who had been present at different meeting I had attended. I notice that for the agenda that followed, the closed session was appropriately noticed; I could not attend, but it appears that there was an effort to correct repeated errors, only after I contacted the lawyers.
Mary Fleener did another wonderful Cartoon for the Coast News, "The New Encinitas Alphabet, Part Two" about Saving Pacific View. People rally in many ways, BESIDES attending district board meetings.
My experience there has been that I have been treated rudely. Even when there were only two public speakers present, and there is no visible timer, I was rudely interrupted, and not given a few seconds, beyond my three minutes, to complete my "non-agenda item" public comments at one meeting. I had timed my written comments at home, so I feel the timing could have been off, when I spoke about the improper Art Pulse/DeWald/Baird/Trustees closed session scheming. April Game and John DeWald should not have been present in closed session EUSD meetings.
The next time I went, I had a friend time it for me, as well, and I finished on time, as practiced, within my three minutes. Tim Baird made many mistatements of fact, as noted by Tony Kranz, when he spoke. In other words, Tim Baird was not truthful.
12:18, EUSD withdrew the lawsuit, as you said. But the rezoning application was from DeWald/ArtPulse, a private application. Because DeWald was unsure that the City would rezone before his October 31 deadline to decide whether to go ahead or not to continue in Escrow, adding $200K to his $100K refundable deposit, making, after 11/31, that entire $300K NONREFUNDABLE, DeWald withdrew from Escrow and the private application was no longer in effect. There is no application "on file" for rezoning, through EUSD, as noted in the agenda report, for the February 12 CC Meeting, as documented in a letter to the District, addressed from Gus Vina to Tim Baird.
2:07 PM
DeleteA school district wishing to rezone a surplus school site has to follow the regular procedures of a city/county to rezone any property. The state law requires that the city grant them a rezoning request to a zone classification similar to adjacent properties which in this case would be R-15 Residential. So they have to jump through the hoops like anyone.
2:20 PM
DeleteThe past practice of the city has been to annually review general plan change requests and decide which ones merit being processed. The Art Pulse rezoning/general plan amendment was a request to council to accept the application for further processing. The council declined to accept it. So they didn't do a full analysis on the application which would have been done if they had accepted it. And yes, the application was officially by DeWald/Art Pulse for Art Center/Mixed Use but everyone knew it wasn't an arm's length application.
It was a private rezoning application. The City was prepared to consider, again, out of cycle, the rezoning request after the lawsuit was dropped, but DeWald/Art Pulse dropped out of escrow, thereby withdrawing their request.
Delete"The state law requires that the city grant them a rezoning request to a zone classification similar to adjacent properties which in this case would be R-15 Residential. So they have to jump through the hoops like anyone." This is not technically accurate. State Law, Government Code, requires the City shall grant a zoning as follows, as quoted in Lisa Shaffer's newsletter, dated January 24, which followed the 1/22 CC Meeting:
Government Code Section 65852.9 describes how surplus school property can be rezoned. It says, among other things,
(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.
Public/semi public is already compatible with the surrounding properties and consistent with our General and Specific Plans. There is no reason to upzone so that the donated public land would be privatized, for short term gain, and loss of an irreplaceable part of our community's heritage.
DeleteA judge could have to decide. But should anyone sue to force upzoning, it would be easy for the City to counter-sue for eminent domain. A judge would decide with eminent domain what the likelihood would be that the property would be rezoned after a public vote, as required, now, by our General and Specific Plan, through Prop A, and the ordinances which support the citizens right to vote on upzoning.
I had an e-mail conversation with Pam Slater-Price. We were communicating about the surplus land near the Sheriff's Substation, where Solana Center is now located, the subject of a front page article in the Coast News, on January 31, "Land sale could uproot nonprofit."
According to former Mayor and Supervisor Pam Slater-Price, as verbally also attested to by current Supervisor Dave Roberts:
"It may be county owned but it's subject to land use rules of city. Just as County owned land in city of SD is subject to their rules."
The same is applicable for surplus land owned by the Encinitas Union School District. Further, whatever Gus Vina or Peder Norby may have said in the past, and we know they both are promoting growth through upzoning to feed the machine of the City's operating expenses, a judge would also decide if the Naylor Act applied.
According to Glenn Sabine, as I previously quoted, in answer to Andrew Audet's question, and according to the Government Code under which EUSD formerly sued, and under which it was alleged that DeWald and associates were requesting a rezoning, the Naylor Act WOULD come into play.
DeleteThe Naylor Act requires, in part, that eight years before a school site is LEASED or offered for sale, it was used for playing fields and open space, then 30% of the school district's surplus land must be offered to various public agencies, including the local city of jurisdiction, for as low as 25% of its appraised values. Appraisal reports are normally considered using local comps, in the current time frame, and in the current zoning.
Apparently, the School District had an appraisal done in 2007, before the bottom dropped out of the real estate market, but with the extraordinary assumptions that the property was to be TRADED, not leased or sold, and that prior to the trade, the property was to be rezoned to mixed use/residential. Unitl October of 2011, the District was still insisting the Naylor Act wouldn't apply because the property was to be traded, not leased or sold, when it was already being leased, since December of 2003, to the City and to Encinitas Glass.
Those kind of "extraordinary assumptions" are NOT what a Court would find constitute an "appraisal" according to the Naylor Act language. Also the School District failed to officially declare the property surplus until February of 2010, and to send out an offer to "dispose of the property" to various public agencies until March of 2010. That should have been made before the City paved over the playing fields when it leased out Pacific View, after it was permanently closed, as a school, in June of 2003. The City's lease dates from December of 2003. So the Naylor Act SHOULD be applicable, as the time would toll from when the site was permanently closed as a school and initially leased.
Interesting perspective Lynn. Is it your opinion a suit could be filed on behalf of citizens to stop the sale and compell the council to openly discuss buying part of the site at a discount?
DeleteYes, I feel a lawsuit could be filed by the City on behalf of the citizens, re Eminent Domain, in which the Naylor Act could be considered with respect to 30% of the surplus school site, along with Fair Market Value as that is affected by the $3.3 Million appraisal in the current time frame, with current zoning, using local comps, as well as citizens' rights to vote on upzoning and the likelihood that the Planning Dept., the Planning Commission, Council, and the public would endorse upzoning.
DeleteRemember, our right to vote on upzoning is CONSISTENT with our General and Specific Plans. Any upzoning would have to be consistent with our GP an the Downtown Encinitas SP.
Dump PV. It's not affordable.
ReplyDeleteYou are not the arbiter of what is affordable, or what actual value to the community is.
DeleteAnd you are?
DeleteIf its affordable and valuable to the community, buy it and pay ALL the bills. Put up...
DeleteIn a case for Eminent Domain, there would be several balancing questions the Court would decide. First, what is the better public use, how the site is currently being used by the public agency, or the proposed public use by the other public agency, wishing to take the property?
DeleteThat first question would be simple matter upon which the City could prevail. The District has intentionally allowed the site to fall into disrepair. It could have leased the property and the tenants could have maintained it, as other school districts have their surplus school sites. The City's intended use is far better than the District's current use.
The second question would pertain to Fair Market Value AFTER it was determined that the City offered a superior use plan, as a longterm public asset, a true community arts and learning center.
Fair market value could take into account the appraised value of the site as a whole, minus the discount which should be afforded through the Naylor Act. Also FMV would take into account the likelihood that the property would be rezoned, after rezoning approval through the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, City Council, and public voters. That is extremely unlikely, and a judge would be able to realize that, with a sharp attorney presenting the City's case.
Moreover, the question of Eminent domain came up with School Districts in the cities of Del Mar and Ocean Beach re surplus school properties in those locations. After negotiations in good faith, both school districts accepted reasonable offers from their respective cities, to benefit their districts, the General Public, and the Councilmembers, representing their constituents, in good faith.
An eminent domain taking, at fair market value, was not necessary for Del Mar or Ocean Beach. The transfer of public assets was done, instead, after good faith negotiations between the public agencies involved.
With the exception of Mo Muir, the Board of Trustees of EUSD and Superintendent Tim Baird have thus far NOT shown good faith. They have violated the Brown Act, and violated agreements made in their ad hoc subcommittee, meeting with the City's subcommitee, in closed sessions, promising that the City would have exclusive negotiation rights for six months, with a right to renew, and right of first refusal.
Instead, the District incorrectly voted in closed session to have an auction, at the time disallowing Mo Muir from participating. Closed session real estate negotiations are to be narrowly construed to ONLY discuss price and terms of payment, NOTHING else.
Also, the District improperly released the confidential first offer made by the City of Encinitas to purchase PV for one million over the appraisal using local comps, in the current zoning, and the current timeframe. It is a violation of the Brown Act to release closed session confidential information, without the agreement of the members (Trustees and Councilmembers) of the respective Legislative bodies. Because these were joint subcommittee closed session negotiations, ALL of the Trustees and Councilmembers should have been allowed to vote on releasing the City's opening bid.
As it is, the District basically released a SEALED bid. It has NOT disclosed all of the mitigating factors to would be purchasers/developers of the PV site re the current sealed bids being accepted and the auction upcoming on March 25.
If the District cannot negotiate in good faith with the City, then the Court must be the final arbiter. In the case of surplus school sites in California, it is not a case of "law of the jungle" marketplace values of short-term profit, with bureaucrats and would-be developers as the "Deciders."
DeleteHighest and best value is not always to be decided in terms of short term profit, and greatest monetary gain.
Taxpayers and fee payers pay for the entire operating expenses and all of the capital improvements of both Encinitas Union School District and the City of Encinitas. Local citizens already own the land that was donated to our community for a PUBLIC school for the children of early settlers.
ReplyDeleteVolunteers helped build the Old Schoolhouse, and paid for a local school bond, through Encinitas School District, which was formed to accept the land donation, and to process the school bond for $600, which was comparable to about $6 Million, probably, back in 1883.
None of us were alive back then. EUSD did not exist; it was formed 60 years later, and the City of Encinitas did not exist. Encinitas was incorporated 11/1/86. But the COMMUNITY of Encinitas did exist, and the person selling lots DONATED THE LAND TO THE CHILDREN FOR A PUBLIC SCHOOL.
The land should not be privatized for short term gain, but should remain in the public domain, as an irreplaceable part of our heritage, part of our quality of life, and our local character, as a true community arts and learning center.
Correction, sorry, Encinitas was incorporated on 10/1/86, more than 103 years after the land was donated for a PUBLIC school for COMMUNITY school children.
ReplyDeleteThat site would make the best community park. And to think of the money pit park being built by the freeway. Bad decisions of the past decade are coming to roost.
ReplyDeleteSorry but 2.8 acres doesn't come close to being a community park even assuming you used it all for a park.
DeleteYou're wrong. Leucadia Roadside park is far less than 2.8 acres, and it's a community park. A community park is under 20 acres. There is no minimum size designated in our General Plan, but there is a maximum size designated for a community park. That is why the former Hall Property Park is not designated a community park through our GP, but is a sports specialty park. It is 44 acres, correct?
DeleteAccording to the general plan recreation element, there is a table of park size hierarchy on page RE-13. Leucadia Roadside Park is, at best, is a mini park (more like a glorified median). Even if all of PV were used as a park it falls just short of the neighborhood park size of 3-5 acres. A community park is 10-20 acres. So you're looking at most only a neighborhood park at PV.
DeleteRemember, this is the general plan we all voted on. Oh, wait a minute, we didn't vote on its adoption. I hope they didn't just have workshops on it. Probably didn't even do a survey.
I am not suggesting all of the 2.82 acres would be open space/park. At least 30% of it should be open space, in keeping with the intent of the Naylor Act. Whether something is designated as a pocket park, a community garden, playing fields, is irrelevant.
DeleteThe PUBLIC school site was used for playing fields before it was permanently closed in June of 2003 and leased to the City of Encinitas, which paved over the fileds, after the lease date of December of 2003.
The Naylor Act applies if 8 years before the school site was permanently closed, and offered for LEASE or for sale, it was used for playing fields. It was.
Other than the beaches, we have little public open space in the vicinity. Kids often play ball in the street, which is dangerous, but also, the lens covers to cars parked on the street get smashed.
My point, before, was in reply to someone who brought up the former Hall Property Park. The point was that park was misnamed, according to our local law, which includes designations in our General Plan. In my opinion, Pacific View should keep its name when it becomes the Pacific View Arts and Learning Center. There will be room for some open fields, and/or a small community garden, where weddings could possibly be held, on weekends.
There could also possibly be a modest amphitheater built, for small productions, not sure if there would be enough parking for anything very big. Parking lots and paved ground don't count as open space in terms of the Naylor Act. Also, the downtown infrastructure lacks parking, as we all know.
Lynn, why do you ASSUME that those of us that can't attend the meetings support your position? My random neighborly polling states your completely off base - who right, you or I?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you assume that I'm assuming you support my position?
DeleteSeveral neighbors and friends that I have spoken to who are unable to attend meetings because of other obligations, mostly family and work commitments, support saving Pacific View for a true community arts and learning center, keeping our irreplaceable asset of donated land in the public domain, to protect and preserve our heritage, our local character, and our quality of life.
In the public domain..... That's where you are wrong. It's in the hands of the EUSD. To be done with as the board thinks is best. If you don't like their plans, buy it at auction and do with it what you think is best. Personally I think it should've bought by a private school and kept as a PRIVATE school. An elite private campus for only the most privileged students from around the world .
DeleteThe land IS in the public domain. EUSD is a PUBLIC agency. The land was donated for a PUBLIC school for the children of the early settlers.
DeleteHave Muir eat the deed - quick!
ReplyDeleteWhat is the purpose of the pocket park in front of Coast Law Group and the SRF store? It appears to be utterly useless. To get into it from points south on K Street, there's one short concrete walkway, and it has a trash can bolted into the concrete blocking pedestrian passage. Otherwise, walkers have to stomp through the wood chips.
ReplyDeleteA gift to DEMA by bought politicians.
DeleteWell, all those roundish small boulders are kinda cool. And there's a bench now. Wasn't that area formerly a bus stop? If so, where does the bus stop now?
DeleteThat pocket park along with the Downtown Streetscape was on the radar over 20 years ago when I regularly attended the Tourism Marketing Committee meetings. Like it or not it's another example of people asking the city to put it in for a long time and the city ultimately bringing it to fruition. And it looks a hell of a lot better than the dirty large pie of vacant black asphalt it replaced. Haven't walked through it yet to see how tretcherously or well it works.
DeleteBut on another positive note, I'm glad a former City Council didn't approve Redevelopment when an agency came to town to rob 12 acres of SRF ocean frontage for their ambitious brainstorm of a glitzy "can do" hotel there instead. Part of a $750 million dollar debt to our children and razing an histoic icon for Encinitas in the process. Some people never heard that story, but THAT was a close one that only needed a nod from the 1990 council.
Fred, Fred, Fred. You're not following the script. There must be some underhanded deal made. There just must! By the way, when do you sleep?
Delete4:39, 4:39, 4,39,
DeleteYeah, come to think of it, there must have been a sinister reason for the pocket park. And what exactly is your sleep number?
lol, Fred!
Delete$-end of story.
ReplyDeleteWe all just need the elected school board members to stand up to the selected baird and do the right thing for the greater good. Who should wield more power? The elected or the selected? School board members you have the opportunity to represent the voters who put you there. You volunteered to serve the public and thanks for stepping up. It is to your giving back that we all appreciate you for choosing to serve. Now prove your worth by joining in the effort to preserve this irreplaceable gift to us all. We have gifted you generously by supporting school bonds in the past that make this relatively small in comparison gift back by saving PV for all to benefit from. You owe us for our support. Now prove you appreciate the support we have given to you by our votes by gifting such a relatively small in comparison dollar wise back to the community that believed in you enough to vote you in and end the need to even consider eminent domain proceedings which will only add to an already ugly unneeded situation solely created by this interloper baird. You are the holders to end this unneeded controversy. It is in your hands to end this with the most positive result for the community that believed in you enough to vote for you. cha ching
ReplyDeleteDear school board members, who should wield more power? You who were elected or baird who was selected? You chose to stand up and serve this community and thanks for doing so. Now prove your worth and our faith in you by aligning with those who supported you in the past and gifting this irreplaceable resource back to those who have given so generously when you have asked for funding. Dollar wise in comparison is a fraction of what we have given to you. Now do the same for us when we are asking. Give and take. You can stop the take here and now and become known for the giving. How do you want to be known as this process moves along? You can easily avoid an ugly to be sure eminent domain process from even needing to be pursued. It is in your hands. cha chng
ReplyDeleteThanks, 12:51 and 12:37! :)
DeletePocket park? More like useless space....
ReplyDeleteForget about PV. We don't want another trophy project.
ReplyDeleteYou are not the arbiter of what constitutes a trophy project. Or what has value to the community and what does not.
ReplyDeleteI doubt anyone on this blog could be the arbiter of the PV situation because none of us know what the majority of Encinitans believe. At best, that is the council's job since they are elected by the whole city.
DeletePlease save your energy on trashing the council. I know the drill.
This council doesn't have a clue what the majority of Encinitans believe. If that logic held, this council would have voted to pass Prop A, if only by a 3-2 vote. Instead, they stuck their heads in the ground and voted 5-0 against Prop A, which the majority of voters in Encinitas supported.
Delete9:21 PM
DeleteThe majority of the votes cast in the June election favored Prop A but only about a third of Encinitas registered voters participated. How the other two thirds felt is unknown.
That's why you have to vote, no vote=no say.
DeleteThe other two thirds didn't care enough to vote either way.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of voters supported Prop A. The unamity of council opposed it. The council is out of touch with or doesn't care what Encinitans want.
DeleteIf you don't count all the other times they agree with you.
DeleteOr if you discount or ignore the fact that Ehlers/Turney/Canler completely and knowingly misled the public and Lynn abetted them.
DeleteOf course, our favorite part was Barth asking people to sign the Prop A petition at Starbucks downtown the day before the election and then telling Price Slater from the dais that she never signed the petition herself believing it to be clever. Typical politician, talking out of both sides of her mouth. But Herschell put her in her place. Didn't he Pam?
2:44, you are making stuff up about me and the other folks you mention in your first paragraph. If you really imagine that what you say is true, why are you afraid to share your name? You have no problems putting others' names out, inaccurately. You don't say HOW anyone misled the public, or HOW I "abetted anyone. We didn't.
DeleteI don't know about your second paragraph, but I believe that could be accurate. I thought Teresa Barth was "put in her place" by Herschell Price, when he spoke at the Council Meeting on July 10, 2013.
Yeah 2:44, HOW? You probably still insist 5 stories was never on the radar for Encinitas too.
DeleteHerschell? Nothing like a Del Mar resident to come here and trash the council with innuendo. If he is so concerned why doesn't he and Pam move here? Stick to your own city.
Delete2:44 the misinformation,or lies as I call them came from the council. Phony Tony said no upzone had ever happened without a vote of the people, of course we all know 101 Encinitas was upzoned without a vote. Then there is the council telling the untruth on the ballot that there will never be 5 story buildings in Encinitas. When residents asked Mayor Barth to produce or cite the EMC banning 5 story buildings Barth couldn't. Thank you for posting on the board but please get your facts straight.
DeleteOur former mayor, Pam Slater-Price, who has many close ties, here, in Encinitas, was also our County Supervisor. Herschell is her husband. He's a good guy, in my books. He supports Pam's causes, and he supports slowing down growth in North County, by allowing the public to vote.
DeleteCurrent Supervisor Dave Roberts told me on January 31, personally, that Solana Beach and Del Mar have had similar laws on the books as the one that was created by Prop A, the right to vote on upzoning ordinance.
Dave said that Solana Beach has had Prop T in effect for nearly 20 years! And remember, Del Mar residents got to vote on upzoning when they voted down Prop B in the last General Election, which also voted down roundabouts and lane elimination for motorists. There are Sharrows, now in Solana Beach, and pop outs, Highway art, and many more "installments," which I would support for the North 101 Corridor.
Personally, I was aware that Escondido had passed an initiative that gave its citizens the right to vote on upzoning, or raising height limits, but I wasn't aware of Prop T in Solana Beach! I knew that in Del Mar citizens got to vote on densifying zoning and putting in roundabouts, but I didn't know it also had an initiative.
We should model ourself more on Solana Beach. That City incorporated the year before we did. They have been successful at staying small, but still having a vibrant business and design districts.
I know that when we incorporated, the North Coast Coalition had to prepare a financial report. We used Solana Beach's from the year before as a template, but I typed in our city's numbers, on an old KayPro Computer that Bob Bonde brought over to my home.
So many people have put in untold hours, as volunteers, on behalf of our neighborhoods and our community. What was misleading were the ballot arguments, written by Council and City Attorney Glenn Sabine's NOT impartial analysis, published in the voters pamphlets.
The Mainstreet Associations and Council have admitted that their images and logos were used without permission in the propaganda distributed though anti-Prop A Political Action Committees. So that was misleading.
Besides the lie about five story buildings never being considered, there was the lie that our city would be bifurcated, or divided, between the Coastal Zone and the non Coastal Zone because the California Coastal Commission would have to review a mandatory Local Coastal Program amendment. No such amendment was ever needed. No commissioners ever said it was needed.
One staff member of the San Diego CCC office, Eric Stevens, who seems to go along with Encinitas staff, whenever a question comes up, was the only one who thought, temporarily, that could be the case, until his superior, District Manager Deborah Lee, wrote the City a letter of correction.
Eric Stevens and a few members of City staff seem to enjoy these non public discussions of matters of great importance to the public, through which "off-the-record" conversations and agreements, unelected bureaucrats attempt to sway public opinion.
Another lie was that lower set height limits would be raised by passage of Prop A. That also was nonsense, and City Planners could have understood that. One Planner told me he had to read the Rutan and Tucker report over and over, to try to understand how that (speculation about lower set height limits being raised) could apply.
A FAQ sheet was officially posted on the City's website on July 29, 2013, which revealed that no LCP amendment would be necessary; the ordinance created by Prop A was effective CITYWIDE by that date. And secondly, lower-set residential height limits would NOT be raised by the initiative, contrary to the lies in Glenn Sabine's NOT impartial analysis published in the ballot pamphlets at taxpayers' expense.
Sorry, I misspelled Hershell Price, before. I should not have copied the previous poster's spelling. Anon got it wrong.
DeletePam Slater-Price, who back when she was on the council made the motion to approve the 4/5 vote on GP amendments, which caused the city she no longer lives in to spend several hundred thousand dollars to correct (that is if you're a supporter of Prop A). Then she and her husband get up in front of the council, not the bad old council but the new and improve council, telling them what to do and (her husband) trashing the council with innuendo of unethical behavior. Did I mention they don't live here. We don't go to Del Mar and tell them how to run their city. If they love it so much then move back here other wise shut up.
DeleteThe coastal commission plays politics pure and simple. Gee, Eric Stevens was the only light of reason back on the Hwy 101 restriping. I guess if you're not in lockstep with all the positions, then adios. Please show a little consistency for those of us scoring at home.
Phony Tony Kranz and Gaspar, Muir, Barth and Shaffer all told untruths to mislead the public on Prop A. I think that Price fellow outed Tony. If I undersatnd correcty Phony Tony went to some invitation only Party In Del Mar with the UT editorial Board,, the developer's waterboy Logan Jenkins and Papa Manchester and Lynch. There is no denying that after that meeting in Del Mar Tony has voted agianst citizens and for developers. What was Kranz doing in Del Mar? Trolling for special interests?
DeletePam and Hershell used to live here. They are our Del Mar neighbors. Del Mar is also on the coast, and also is part of North County. Pam was our supervisor for many years. They have many ties here.
DeleteHershell was simply being honest. He didn't state any innuendo whatsoever. He said that in their previous private discussions, Teresa had supported the Right to Vote on Upzoning initiative.
Many out of town bicyclists came to the 1/30/13 CC Meeting to speak about the lane elimination for motorists. The Bike and Ped Committee, formed with the help of L101MA, had gone to the Traffic Commission and the Environmental Commission on behalf of Sharrows, not a "lane diet." At the 7/18/12 CC Meeting, the bicyclists who attended supported Sharrows. Only Elena Thompson, a realtor, and Director of the L101MA Board, supported the lane diet.
Eric Stevens, North County Rep at the Coastal Commission, has many times worked with City staff to sway Council and public opinion, putting out misinformation. He wrongly stated that the line restriping didn't meet the minimum dollar amount to have CCC jurisdiction re an appeal. But Deborah Lee, CCC SD District Manager, wrote a subsequent letter correcting him. Piecemeal development is disallowed by Coastal Act Law. Whether the line striping was considered part of the $1.5 Million slurry overlay project or the $20 Million plus N101 Streetscape project, a Coastal Development Permit is required. The City was denied a CDP exemption.
Stevens also gave out incorrect information that an LCP amendment would be required by Prop A. Deborah Lee subsequently also corrected Stevens on that misguided letter to the City.
My experience has been that Eric Stevens is overly "cozy" with City staff. The CCC should show consistency and demand that the lines be redrawn with two narrower lanes for motorists and one narrower lane for bicyclists, northbound, on N101, pending the CDP appeal, and so that traffic during peak seasonal periods can be correctly monitored BEFORE lane elimination, for a valid basis for statistical comparison with after lane elimination during comparable peak seasonal periods.
And yet is works.... How unfortunate for you.
DeleteAdjacent residents and local commuters don't think it's working. How unfortunate for us that the city is in open violation of the Coastal Act, and is disregarding due process and valid monitoring protocol to establish whether or not the lane elimination IS working.
Delete5:48
DeleteFrom the front row of the peanut gallery, something we've always asked for is working well. And I'm glad the city didn't do it all at once so we can all see if it worked well or not. What didn't work well was a faster speed limit and the fact there were NO bike lanes at all on N 101 (save the lumpy tricycle lane from what was Jamroc (and soon to be Bull Taco) to Marcheta St). I was in Keno's one night when a cyclist came in bloody from a rut on that winner at night.
Yes, I read the Carlsbad ladie's letter to the city against roundabouts. She's afraid they'll slow her commute to Sorento Valley, little realizing it will make it quicker by not having to stop as much. Bet she didn't complain about Solana Beach's new stop lights for her daily journey either.
Yes, I'm at odds with a few old friends here in town about roundabouts. But it's a disaggreement with no enmity on my side or either side for most of us. And I can't blame them completely because it's what is to be expected in many other places prior to this sort of infrastructural change. At the same time those particular friends of mine who are usually environmentalists can't see the value or benefits of cars not idling for 9000 minutes every day here; saving gas; etc etc. Hardly the "green", efficient or safe approach I've always expected of them in my opinion. But then again, some of them are unknowingly influenced by certain developers planting seeds of doubt who want money allotted for Leucadia to go elsewhere. "Leucadia's not worth it" and improvements are "Junk" better suited for Disneyland.
Another hit and run on 101 where the speed limit is 50 mph.
Deletehttp://www.10news.com/news/carlsbad-teen-accused-in-hit-and-run-that-killed-skateboarder-021314
Speed limit on N101 is 35 MPH, through Leucadia.
DeleteIf the lane elimination is "working well," then why weren't pre lane elimination months during peak seasonal periods monitored by Traffic Engineering? Why were only before/after months of October 2012 and October 2013 monitored?
And you are front row peanut gallery only on your little stretch of highway. You apparently don't see the back-up, both directions, at the stop light at Leucadia Blvd and 101. Traffic Engineers did, and in the 7/18/12 staff report, recommended no lane diet south of Leucadia Blvd.
So why would the initial roundabout be planned for El Portal and 101, which will bottleneck traffic there? And there's already a no right hand turn lane, south, to control cut through traffic. This is a three way intersection, WITHOUT a median, so we have an "island" to turn into, in order to merge. We don't NEED or want a roundabout at El Portal.
This El Portal roundabout received no more support at the 2/23/08 design charrette discussions at City Hall, then did roundabouts at A St. and 101 and Marcheta and 101. It seems almost every intersection on 101 was discussed, re roundabouts and received some mysterious, unquantified amount of support.
Again, ONLY the roundabout at Grandview received strong support. And that's the same place for which the Board of Directors of L101MA had before petitioned the City to install a stop sign, at Grandview and 101, in 2007.
El Portal and 101 is between a stop light and a stop sign, at Marcheta. There is NO GUARANTEE the stop sign would be removed. The planned removal of the stop sign at Hygeia NEVER happened when roundabouts were installed at Hymettus and Hermes and Leucadia Blvd. Neither did the landscaping and sidewalks promised get installed. If Phase II of the Downtown streetscape was never completed, and Phase II of the Leucadia Blvd streetscape was never completed, what makes you think that Phase II of the N101 Streetscape would ever be accomplished?
Fred, it's not that we don't see the benefits of cars not idling, it's that we feel the roundabouts, during peak seasons, in particular, will cause more back-up, more stops and more idling.
DeleteThere is not that much idling, now, because there are no stop signs north of Marcheta to La Costa, on 101, and only an intervening stop signal at Leucadia Blvd., which will NOT be removed.
Correction, only the roundabout at Grandview received what was labeled as "enthusiastic" support at the 2/23/08 design charrette discussion, after the "walking audit." But the data for "enthusiastic support" was never quantified, and was thus neither verified, nor statistically significant.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSecond thoughts?
DeleteNope. Replied too low.
DeleteThe Prop A turnout was about 35 percent. Not bad for a one-issue special election in June. That turnout was close to yesterday's mayoral election in San Diego after tons of publicity going back to when Filner was first accused.
ReplyDeleteAfter a huge misinformation campaign costing almost $100,000, united opposition by the City Council, members of the council themselves giving misinformation about the proposition, and quasi-legal opposition by NGOs close to local government, it passed. If the campaign had been honest, the winning margin would have been much wider.
End of story. And any effort to weaken Prop A will fail. We concerned Encinitas citizens have wised up. Part of that wising up is we know not to trust our City Council members.
Actually, it was 32.33% (12,888 out of 39,858)
DeleteSolana Beach had a better turnout for Prop B, 37.78% (3,314 out of 8,772)
32.33% qualifies as "about 35%"
DeleteNormally, I would agree but "just under a third registered voters turned out" sounds more accurate than "just over a third registered voters turned out". I know 4:55 PM didn't use this terminology and may have just been ballparking it. Either way it was a poor turnout for an important vote.
DeleteI think many people were confused by the anti-prop A propaganda put out by PACS, business associations and public officials, and so didn't bother going to the polls. Had all the people who signed the petitions gone to the polls, there would have been a greater turn-out and a greater margin of victory for Prop A.
DeleteAll it takes is one more vote than the opposition, what in hell would s greater turnout accomplish. Prop A passed, get over it . This is a dead issue. Unless you are obsessed with seeing your comments posted......
DeleteDid the city council just punt on fourth down regarding PV?
ReplyDeleteCould you explain the football analogy? I feel Council should have been more aggressive in continuing a PUBLIC discussion of Eminent Domain. Gus Vina and Glenn Sabine briefed the special counsel, attorney Linda Bartz, for a couple of hours before the January 22 meeting, and Council got discouraged by her "negative spin." Her written report in the agenda packet was far more neutral, pre-briefing. Vina and Sabine, are setting up contractors to do their bidding, not necessarily what Council and the public want.
ReplyDeleteThere will be a Bidder's walk through on the PV site Thursday, Feb 27th at 2pm, in case anyone out there has a spare 9.5 milly laying around.
ReplyDeleteSavePacificView.org
ReplyDelete