Last week a much smaller, but equally ill-conceived and eyebrow-raising, land deal was on the council agenda. An oddly-shaped, city-owned 0.2 acre parcel near Santa Fe and Lake Drive is surrounded by a developer property. The developer wants to buy the property and merge it with the larger adjacent property.
The city's appraisal came in at $16,000, about $2 / sq. ft., reflecting its odd shape, lack of access, and unsuitability for building as a stand-alone lot. Staff recommended, and the council appeared ready to go along with, selling the lot at this price... until Council Member Tony Kranz pointed out that it was ridiculous to sell for $2 / sq. ft. a property that would be worth $50 / sq. ft. when merged with the larger property.
Kranz having raised the uncomfortable question, the rest of the council agreed to ask staff to go back to the appraiser (side note: who pays a $2000 appraisal fee, more than 12% of the alleged value, to value an empty lot? Homeowners get appraisals valuing both land and structures for a few hundred bucks!). No vote was taken on the land sale.
After a year when the city council's decisions consisted primarily of unanimously rubber-stamping City Manager Gus Vina's plans, it's nice to see somebody finally asking some questions and tapping the brakes.
I agree. Good job Tony. Now when will councili start the discussion that Gus vina is the opposite type of person we need as city manager and start the process to hire a good city manager?
ReplyDeleteNicely done Tony, as mentioned on the play by play from the meeting the other night. Yes, please, let's get full value for that property.
ReplyDelete-Mr Green Slice
Why didn't vina or Murphy question vauation of that city asset? Seems both leaders failed our community.
ReplyDeleteIf you watched the meeting you would know that the planning dept. looked like idiots, both of them. The developer who wants this to go through is very shady in San Diego and thought it was a slam dunk. When the representative of the developer got the "surprise" by Tony, he got a little "attitude" with the Council. To many, it was a no brainer that the property was worth a lot more because the developer has the property on each side, zoned R11. They, of course, wanted the land to build out even more. So, this $2.00 per square foot piece of land may be worth about $50.00 per square foot. The City paid $2000.00 for the appraisal. The Council was trying to decide how to get it reappraised for the least amount of money. I think it was Sabine who practically yelled at Council to get the appraiser on the phone, along with the Mayor and Vina, and ask them how much it would be worth if it was going to be developed by the developer? Guess the City never asked that question to begin with. Seemed like a no brainer to me that they didn't so that before, but with this council, who knows. The developer has strong ties to Doug Manchester who now owns the Union Tribune and has sued many a city for not getting his way. Council should have known this as well and had all their information exact and accurate before this meeting. As I watched I just thought unbelievable. I'm not a genius, but this was a no brainer.
ReplyDeleteHow did the city end up owning such a shitty piece of land??
ReplyDeleteIt ain't so shitty for City Ventures when they build their "north of $1M" homes there. And don't forget the sham low-income housing that will qualify CV for a density bonus; why, just thinking of all the yummy revenue Vina looks forward to lapping up from property taxes has him salivating already.
DeleteToo bad for Vina, City Ventures, and who knows who all else, Tony had his eyes open and opened his mouth.
Nothing is ever as it appears on the surface in this town.
I'll take land like that any day.
DeleteShitty. Not... Try 30,000 to $50,000 not shitty to me...
What will you do with this land once you own it. You have NO easement to your property!!!
DeleteIt is right up agains City Venture's other property, as you can see - so sure sell it to them, but not at some backroom door price. And put it out to bid...maybe someone wants it for open space?
DeleteCity Ventures, the same guys who created the toxic dust storm over on Hymettus when they built there due to a lack of H20 trucks. No wonder..
Delete-Mr Green Storm
There is access to the property, or it cannot be considered a separate, legal parcel; there is no PUBLIC easement at this time.
DeleteThe appraisal does seem overpriced, and the property undervalued. The appraisal report should be publicly released, since the amount of the appraisal was released.
Tony Kranz did the right thing. I believe most everyone had left after the break, and what I thought to be an exhausting "Economic Development" presentation, including a long report by speakers from Chula Vista. Honestly, I feel Gus Vina would be better suited as City Manager for Chula Vista. Again, as I told Council, you should have been speaking about economic sustainability, NOT development. They just as well could have crossed out the word "Economic" and just billed the presentation as "Development."
But re the property; it is obviously undervalued. It was confusedly, listed on both the Consent Calendar and as a closed session topic at the preceding Special Meeting, a few weeks ago. Public speakers did address it, then, saying the appraisal of $16,000 is far too low. We COULD address the appraisal, because the agenda item was heard at the BEGINNING of the meeting, as part of the pulled Consent Calendar.
At that time, mostly because of the objections of public speakers, the City Manager was directed to look into this further, and bring it back as a regular agenda item. Of course it was placed nearly at the end of the meeting's agenda on February 26. The City Manager could figure out that most people in the audience, other than staff, would leave, either after the Commissioners were voted upon, or after the Economic Development report. In fact, the Commissioners' appointments could have come LAST, so they could sit through an entire Council Meeting, and get an idea of what Council deals with at regular meetings.
What was especially concerning to me is that Lisa Shaffer asked that this could go back to a closed session. No reason was given why that was advisable, but Teresa Barth agreed. They appear to LOVE the feeling of control and exclusivity, camaraderie with their "colleagues" (Teresa's word) that they get from closed sessions, which usually work against the public's best interests.
Here's the other part of the Vina shitty deal - the property wasn't put out to bid.
ReplyDeleteHow about the city keeping the property and really upsetting the developers? This sounds like the best bet. OR perhaps some of the citizens would want to buy the land just to mess with their plans.
ReplyDeleteIt would not be just the developers upset...folks at city hall are in on the fix...otherwise why try so very hard to make this sale happen? Stinky business.
DeleteI'll give the CIty $17,000 plus the appraisal for the property. And I am not City Vultures, as a lot of people call them.
ReplyDeleteHey maybe this land can be used for an " arts center"??
ReplyDeleteHow about a soccer park complete with 100 foot lights and loud speakers. We can condemn the adjacent property for a 25 foot easement into the property.
ReplyDeleteTurnabout's fair play!
DeleteOr the City could do "eminent domain" saying that their land needs to be public land for a park for children.
Delete
ReplyDeleteSabine's Rolex got frosted.....
Nothing like a frosty Rolex I always say. Make us know he is actually listening and not dozing as he often does. His head bobbles, I swear not.
DeleteReposted from previous thread.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous February 27, 2014 at 6:46 AM
Yes, Tony gets credit for his comments on selling the piece of land to City Ventures for $16,000. He simply asked why our we selling land at $2 per square foot to combine it with land worth $50 per square foot. The guy from City Ventures was playing dumb, but they know exactly what they are doing and almost fooled the city. Thank you, Tony, even though the discussion degenerated into confusion with comments from the city attorney and staff.
City Ventures portrayed themselves as the good guys for down zoning the property. No one mentioned that it is perfectly legal to build to RR-1 density on an R-11 parcel. A zoning change isn't necessary to do that. The down zone would prevent the house from being torn down in the future and higher density housing put in its place.
There was a disconnect here. The same council that opposed Prop. A requiring a public vote on up zoning was freely talking about wanting a down zoning. Go figure!
Curiouser and curiouser as Alice said. One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small. So perhaps CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER is the name of this particular Council, or C and C. Or perhaps they are just not too smart? Beginning to draw that conclusion since it was really stupid not to have planning check to see what the value would be if it was combined. The new planners at the meeting were embarrassing and it was pitiful to watch them have no answers. And what are there salaries again?
ReplyDeleteName one competent thing our city attorney has ever done. You can't.
ReplyDeleteWell, he did persuade the council to continue his contract.
DeleteThat was impressive.
WCV
Good one.
DeleteHe is very good at saying "I need to look that up," then disappearing into the back room to consult with Stocks/fill in the blank, then returning to council with a bogus opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis piece of land has no easement it's land locked Explain to me what you would build and how you would build.
ReplyDeleteCityVentures has the adjacent property...don't worry, they'll figure it out, with the city's blessing at $2/sf. Thank you, Tony.
DeleteAll parcels, by right, have a right to access to them. Because there is no PUBLIC easement, does not mean that there is not legal access by a private easement. This happens all the time on outlying properties, such as in Olivenhain. Apparently Council doesn't understand this, either, but it was mentioned at the Feb. 26 meeting. There IS access, so the no easement argument is another red herring.
DeleteWhere is the easement on the map??
DeleteLynn, you may have stumbled on to something. There is no easement on the map, therefore there is no easement. Basically, the city may have screwed up. As part of the lot split of the Brown property, there should have been some recognition that this parcel was land locked, and an easement provided for. City Ventures may have recognized this, but is under no obligation to do the city's job for them. I wouldn't! So now the city truly has a worthless piece of land that can only be sold to owners adjacent to the land - City Ventures and Park Place HOA. If neither one wants it, its the city's in perpetuity, and they can't access it! So $2.00 per sq. ft. to get rid of something you can't sell to anyone else sounds pretty good! What's funny is that I doubt the assessor is going to go along with the $2 purchase price - they'll probably assess it much higher!!!
Delete- The Sculpin
That piece of property was to be part of a road. City Ventures knew that. City Ventures also acquired the larger parcel next to it. It was to line up with Balour. It wasn't landlocked before the tentative map.
DeleteLynn has not stumbled onto anything regarding the easement. I told you there is no easement on the map.
DeleteThere is some kind of access to the property, by right, even if it doesn't show on the map, and is not recorded with the official tentative map. Apparently, the City messed up, if it didn't record the access when the tentative map was drawn up.
DeleteMaps can and have been inaccurate, in the past. The reality is, people, including the appraiser, and perhaps people walking their dogs, can access the property. Public land, which this is, since it is city owned, should have public access. But my understanding is, any legal parcel must have some kind of access, whether a public or private right of way.
Actually, Lynn, if there is no access recorded on the map, then it's called trespassing. I realize there may be a difference between plat maps, recorded documents, etc., and what is happening on a day to day basis, but I assure you if the neighboring properties wish to enforce their access rights, that property is inaccessible to anyone without permission to pass from the adjacent owners. It doesn't mean that there are no remedies - there are - but they're all expensive!
Delete- The Sculpin
The land was to be down zoned to R1 from R11 a very big part of this deal,I think that's what you all won't down zoning right
ReplyDeleteBut hasn't the city been telling us that we already don't have dense enough zoning and already have to upzone to meet housing mandates?
DeleteSo wouldn't downzoning this property mean even more upzoning would be needed somewhere else?
WCV
that would be up zoning from R1 to R11.
DeleteBut, as I understood the discussion, the downzoning was not necessarily to be PERMANENT? Future development could have gone to R-11, and perhaps higher, with a density bonus, to R-15? I admit, I was confused about this.
DeleteAnother thing, too, I don't understand why TREES could not be planted in the open space that was going to be required as part of the City's deal, to sell the land. Only "low lying shrubs and grasses?" There is no ocean view from this property, but it seems absurd to me that the City would be dictating that there could be no trees in land designated through some agreement, as "open space?"
My understanding is that the land would be designated open space and City Ventures would "volunatarily" downzone to R1 for one side of the property? But another side could go much higher in density? When asked about this by Council, the City Ventures guy was ambiguous, and said he couldn't comment on the corporation's future development plans, as that would affect the price they were going to have to pay, something to that effect, but not straightforward. Watch the webcast, to hear for yourselves, if you are interested.
I am grateful that Tony did the right thing, and didn't go along. It bothers me how Teresa and LIsa seem so glad when the audience leaves. Teresa even tells people in the audience, "you can go now," once their issue has been heard. We know that, Teresa. You don't have to push us out the door! However, most members of the public are eager to leave, at the earliest opportunity. Lisa Shaffer is used to being part of an administrative hierarchy that does not normally involve public participation in bureaucratic decisions. I suppose no one on Council is used to that, but Lisa and Tony, as well as Teresa campaigned on more open government.
Again, Tony did the right thing, and we're grateful.
Sorry, some people do have jobs, that's why they're eager to leave. I'm not trying to make a personal attack, but when you're up at 6 or earlier, the late CC Meetings don't exactly make you jump for joy...
DeleteWell Barth seemed excited to know that CV has 2 pm cou cip meetings according to the CV staff that was present last weds night. Imagine at 2 pm Enc council meeting... Even fewer public comments and LESS openness. Gotta be a few at city hall jumping for joy over those thoughts.
DeleteShe doesn't work, she'd go for it in a heartbeat...no more pesky residents looking over her shoulder.
DeleteOn the downside, no audience for her proclamations.
ALL ANONYMOUS BLOGGER SHOULD WATCH THIS!!!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtm6ZGUOJXM
It's already been yanked by the user...
DeleteSaw it before it was yanked. Very appropriate.
DeleteIt's very simple folks,if you had a run down shack next to a million dollar home would they be worth the same.?
ReplyDeleteYes. It's called a million dollar run down shack.
Deletethe land price would be worth the same…. always. Catch a clue… the tax assessors even value property based on land and structures.
ReplyDeleteI say, bid the property out, with a minimum low bid equal to 20% of average face value and see what happens. The City should be in no rush no this subject and has many other serious high priorities to address beside some developers request.
If the City sells it for that low, require it be section 8 like they did in Leucadia.
A key tip-off here that things aren't on the up-and-up is that this feel-good downzone is not permanent.
ReplyDeleteLYNN
ReplyDeleteYour personal attacks do little to support your comments. Shame on you
7:26
ReplyDeleteOH, seriously!! You and your ilk are the poster children for 'dissing'.
You disparage but cannot discredit Lynn.
Must be exhausting coming up with creative ways to do this. All fall short.
Anger is a poison do not drink the poison and expect me to die
DeleteThe reason for the developer to ask that no trees and only low-growing shrubs be allowed to be planted is to preserve the ocean view of the million dollar houses to be built by the same developer to the east. The land slopes to the west, and there is a good sunset view of the ocean, especially from the second story.
ReplyDeleteThe land sliver was originally owned by the county and ended up with the city after incorporation. The adjacent land to the east was owned by the Brown family and had greenhouse. The Browns originally asked for an upzone to R-45, then dropped to R-15, and finally agreed to abide by the RR-1 because of strong opposition from the neighbors and the lack of a super majority on the council. Now Prop. A is in place to prevent this kind of backroom dealing without a public vote.
This whole thing stinks. Sadly the council was ready to go along with it until Tony spoke up. In the background was Gus Vina, Jeff Murphy, and Glenn Sabine trying to manipulate the council.
What if a group of citizens asked to purchase the property for $16,500. Would the City sell it to us? Anyone care to find out?
DeleteThanks for the update, and thanks again Tony!
ReplyDelete-Mr Green Jeans
Here is the staff report for the Leucadia Club. Sounds different than what Charlie said.
ReplyDeletehttp://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/weblink8/0/doc/712706/Page1.aspx
Doesn't sound bad to me… .they sound like healthy smart guys. I'd say they'd likely make much better neighbors than some other restaurant or may other businesses.
ReplyDeleteHeck a what is really to fear about these guys? Most are married with family's and successful careers. Oh that's it, people get nerves around smart successful people.
Hey with your grammar and punctuation, you kind of remind me of Stockssssss.
DeleteNope… don't spend much time editing blog comments. Rather be doing something more productive. I'm just a local Leucadian that didn't support the Stocks regime along with his left over Sad Sac and gets tired of the freaky Leucadians that fear any positive change.
DeleteLuckily, they are on their way out and good times for Leucadia ahead!!!
Uh-huh.
DeleteI'm just a freaky leucadian, but I don't fear change, unless it's the burrito list at Juanita's.
Delete-Mr Green burrito.
It just seems that what Charlie said and what the President of this club said are different. One says no more than 20 people, and another says 100 people. Is this going to be a mens cigar smoking club or what? I cannot help but wonder why they cannot just go to their homes since they are probably all really rich and they mostly live in Leucadia according to Charlie.
ReplyDeleteOf the 10 Board Members, 5 live in Encinitas. Yup, seems old school and retro to me, what with the mostly, white male membership, but it's still a free country.
Deletewhat do you care if they rent that spot. If you want it sooo bad out bid them?
ReplyDelete5:13-Didn't know that is was out to bid. I really don't care to be honest if a bunch of rich, white, cigar smoking men sit around and kibbitz about the rest of us. Just make sure there is NO alcohol at all, nothing but talking among your peers. Since I already know Carlsbad, Rancho and Del Mar wouldn't let your elite group in, I guess you had to settle for Leucadia. Yes, that IS where all the rich people live-not!
ReplyDeleteRight... Ur clueless freaky queludian.
Delete9:57-
DeleteAre you a bit paranoid? What are you doing that is worth Kibbitzing about?
Are you afraid having the smart club members in your neighborhood will reveal some weird operations on your property?
Who said they were going to be all white cigar smoking men sitting around and Kibitzing?….. You sound delusional.
I don't think you achieve what the board member have achieve by sitting around cigar smoking and kibitzing…. just sayin….
The pesticide contamination on this property was rated at 4.1, which represents an excess potential health risk to future residents. The planning department was able to get the county let the developer bury the 19,200 cu. yds of contaminated soil under 7 of the houses.
ReplyDeleteAny easement to this property needs to be a min of 20 foot wide with a circular turn around for emergency vehicles. That's county code. No exceptions.
ReplyDeleteSell this land, let it be rolled into the adjacent property.
not much advantage to the City to sell the land for pennies on the dollar…. keep it openspace…. I thought we were trying to preserve openspace?
ReplyDeletePlant some native nat chatter plants on it and let the birds and others have a little space. Humans are consuming way to much of Encinitas.
Not so much advantage is right, which is what makes this deal, as pushed by staff, so suspect. Whether undervaluing the affordable housing buy-out cost or agreeing to an insanely low selling price for this property, the city always bows down to the developer.
DeleteThere is something behind this deal that we're not seeing. It's not a matter of disagreeing on a slight price difference. This is a 25x deference, if my math serves.
*difference, although deference may be the better word in this case.
DeleteIf the city wanted to preserve open space why did they take $850.00.00 that was in the open space/park acquisition funds and put it all into the sport park. that could have been used to help with the Pacific View situation, too.
ReplyDeleteBecause Vina can't balance a budget; he can only cook the books.
DeleteIt would not have helped with Pacific View. The minimum bid is $9mil. The city owns the current parcel in question, to keep it as open space requires no expenditure.
Deleteactually 9.5 mil and a $200,000 non refundable deposit!
DeleteIf you want this property to remain in the hands of the City, please write to the City Council and tell them why. My personal thinking is I simply don't trust the developer. They have burned a lot of people in San Diego, not literally, as this is not Burning Man, but the word I really want to say, I won't. Check them out, as I think the Council should have done. They are, in my opinion, wolves in she eps clothing. I have already made my thoughts known to the Council but one person isn't enough. I don't live in that area, but if I did, I would be making sure my voice was heard. Tony gave us a breather, but that's all. This developer is not going away. They want that property for a good reason. Fortunately, Tony convinced the Council to wait a bit. Let's help him out.
ReplyDeleteShould have been "sheep's" clothing
ReplyDeleteAdding to what Dr. L already said, anyone that knows this group calls them "City Vultures" and for good reason.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are 43 560 sq ft in an acre. Let's say Pacific View has 2.8 acres (although 2.6 acres has also been in print). Using math skills I learned at Pacific View, it has 121,968 total sq ft. Let's say the city recently offered EUSD $4,500,000 for the PV property (yet it wasn't enough). $4.5 million divided by 121,968 sq ft means that each square foot would cost $36.90 OR over 18 times as much as the $2 per sq ft some at the city suggested the Santa Fe Property is worth. If the total of the offer was $16,000 for the SFP like I heard, I believe that means the property on Santa Fe is about 8,000 sq ft. Tony's right. $2 per sq ft is ridiculously low. And if they cut down all 20 trees on it, there's probably an ocean view from that property as well.
ReplyDeleteSTOP commenting Fred. YOU are being watched by Peak Democracy.
ReplyDelete