The showdown on finalization of the sales contract by ignoring a full due diligence evaluation is on for tomorrow night's council meeting. I have come to accept the realty of the three members who want this to go through as is, including full capitulation to Superintendent Baird's imperious demands. Far from attempting to stop the purchase, in my exchange of emails with Council Member Kranz, I pointed how we could assert reasonable rights without triggering cancellation, described in this article, Pacific View- responsible evaluation while moving forward on purchase. My concern is that they will dig in their heels and refuse to do even this.
This movement is too far gone to try to rethink this decision. The rational approach, confirmed by a conversation with WolfBrown, consultants on such projects, would have been to first decide that an arts center is wanted, then explore possible locations for feasibility and symbiotic benefits with the locality. If we had done this we would have considered locations such as two existing sites that the city already owns. The first is in Encinitas Ranch Town Center, where the art center would enhance the shopping center and increase city sales tax revenues. The other possibility that I have just started to investigate is the fifteen acres behind the Senior and Community Center at Encinitas Blvd. & Balour Drive that would be a magnificent location for a larger performance space with none of the limits of Pacific View.
It is unfortunate that this impulse purchase will mean no major arts center for this city for a generation.
Al Rodbell
Encinitas
[note: edited to add name of consultants and correct location of Senior and Community Center]
Good post.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Excellent post. It shows the majority especially Kranz has no idea what they are doing and lack any positive City Vision. Dalager/Kranz whats the difference?
ReplyDeleteObviously it is a total crap shoot when you elect council people. The odds for any competence for the job appears low, as there are no requirement for the job other than for someone (special interests) to fund a campaign. That is why the City Manger is often the shot caller - he overtly or subtly lets the council know that they are stupid and that they don't want to expose it.. Barth, Shaffer and Kranz can be the see, hear or speak no evil monkeys
DeleteDifference between Kranz and Dalager - a better kitchen range?
Delete9:20pm- excellent point. Muir should know better and should be playing a bigger role in leading the City in the right direction. Why is Vina still around?
DeleteWhere is the Baylor Senior and Community Center in Encinitas?
ReplyDeleteExcellent Post Al!
ReplyDeleteGreat post, and puts continued attention on the way the troika overpaid for a parcel for which there is no deliberated plan on how to use.
ReplyDeleteAl,
ReplyDeleteYour post is well said.
Your newest fan.
Now the developers can salivate again over turning PV into residential homes for the benefit of Dewald, Harwood, Meyer et al. The vultures can circle again behind Al. Now if Mayor Al can get us all a better deal from baird all the more power to him and us. I would jump at the chance to put baird in his place in that case. Those other sites the city owns should be sold to keep PV for us. None of them have the location, location, location of the PV site and what it could mean to have our own Power House Park here in Encinitas. If this gift ends up in the hands of developers that would be the worst outcome imaginable. Think pacific station on the bluff. OMG. Yes, our council should have gone after bairds extortion tactics with everything they had within their grasp as repeatedly brought out by many community members who wanted them to play hardball. This in getting interesting folks. Everybody running has finally declared except our current short term mayor. Hmmmmm. I wonder what her handlers are up to. Stay tuned. Thanks WC. I wouldn't want to imagine going through all this without you here and this forum.
ReplyDeleteHer handlers are busy penciling out the density bonus infill opportunity on PV. They got distracted by a really huge shiny object.
DeleteWhat a stretch- powerhouse Park- No…. 3 acre parcel not coast front but separated by a row of beachfront property. There are plenty of parcels in Encinitas to convert to City Property. Why doesn't the City just buy all the existing greenhouse property to get them off the market for conversion to homes.
DeleteThe council's actions were a major shortsighted action.
It has been my opinion that Scott Chadwick and save PV have been played. At first I wanted to cut Scott a break, but then I learned more. Some residents had hired an attorney and it turns out an injunction could have been filed that could have compelled EUSD to comply with the Naylor Act, sell at a lower price to the city or go to court and face being forced to sell for even less. I heard someone asked Scott to send an email to the PV list after teh city offered the $10M seeking donations to hire an attorney to file an injunction- the request was denied.
DeleteSoon after, Kranz showed up on the PV website in a political fluff piece complete with a photo op and Barth and Shaffer used their weekly newsletter propaganda to promote Kranz- their choice for Mayor- Blakespear was riding along with them and spoke at the council meeting to buy at any price. No doubt Scott and Save PV will use their email tree to endorse the big spenders Kranz and Blakespear- .
Who knows- if an email had been sent to the save PV signee's maybe money could have been raised an attorney-
Yes, it is my opinion that PV will become stack and pack with a small arts center and the school. I heard Jim Giilian took the arts committee up to Santa Ana to look at their city sponsored stack and pack residential / art community street. Some well intended people probably think that is what the city wants at PV but it isn't- it is high density. DeWald will probably get an even better deal then he got with Art Pulse.
Lets think about Pacific View's "Location , Location, Location."
DeleteWhile it certainly would be a premium spot for a residence, there are different criteria for public spaces, especially when that of a municipality of our dimensions. A major consideration should be access to those in the non-contiguous communities.
Once we get past the idealistic generalities, we must think of exactly what will be built, the compatibility with the residential area in which it is located. We have never even had a rudimentary discussion of this, much less a serious analysis such as the company I referenced has done for many cities.
Compare Pacific View with a portion of Oakcrest park, just behind the Senior and Community center,(see link to video appended) This is centrally located, on appropriate main feeder streets that could be an attraction to the larger north coast area.
The city has enough zoning discretion to make any developer leery of any purchase without an extra long contingency, so the ugly monstrosity of a development is not the realistic alternative to going though with this one sided contract as it now stands.
Video of Oakcrest Park
http://youtu.be/amYc2QrQVwE
It can't happen at Oakcrest Park Al. That open space between the Center and the park is mitigated habitat. As far as know it can't be used for any type of development and must be open space habitat.
DeleteNo part of PV can be sold and developed as "stack and pack" without a public vote, thanks to Prop A.
DeleteCatherine Blakespear said the City could do a better job negotiating with Baird. Her mother was the one who said it was worth the $9.5 minimum bid Baird was pushing. No one said anything about paying $10 Million. That seems to be the brainchild of non-transparent subcommittee members Kranz/Barth.
I agree with Al that it would have been better to create a consensus demand for a use first (e.g. Arts Center), then compare a variety of options and costs to realize the goal. Such a process likely would have proved that building on owned property would have achieved the goal at a lower cost.
ReplyDeleteHowever . . .
The council failed to create that consensus, and EUSD created time pressure with the auction process.
Water under the bridge. We need to move on. Unless there are serious hazards or deed issues exposed in the due diligence, the city is now legally bound to purchase the property at the agreed price. We may not like it, but our emotions don't change the facts.
We, all of us, are now the proud new owners of 3.65 acres of Public Semi-Public zoned coastal real estate with old school buildings and pavement on it. The sale price of the property has been determined. The property will be financed by floating bonds. The zoning likely cannot change (Prop A), and the city cannot flip the property (per the sales terms with EUSD).
We own it.
It's time for the conversation to shift from whether and how to purchase PV, to what we are going to do with it, and how best to pay for any project costs.
You can tilt at windmills if that's your thing, but the productive adults in town are moving forward. Al's last statement, that nothing will be done on the site, is completely wrong and he offers no argument or facts to support it.
For those not inclined to move forward, enjoy your harumphing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M
Man of Pacific View- the windmills you reference are the heights of the stack and pack density buildings that will one day be built upon land so generously given citizens and so despicably given away by the bad actors of the council and EUSD- responsible adults know difference-
Deleteas for paying for it- you, Kranz,Shaffer, Barth and Blakespear have only one solution- Raise our taxes and take from our families. When is a tax a theft? Who does it benefit?
10:07- You ask an interesting and very profound question. When is a tax theft? I never thought of it quite that way, and when it comes to roads, and things like that, I think we all need to pay our fair share. However, your point is a good one. We are the ones that are going to have to pay for Pacific View. And, unlike the Hall Park, there won't be a lot of people that can use it, for parking reasons alone. So, maybe you have stated what the tipping point is. Also interesting is Al's comment about the City not using PV as their first question, as it is much more timely than the dog park issue. I was also wondering about why Scott wouldn't let Al add anything to his blog. Scott helped us save the 760 area code we still have and he helped with Pacific View. I don't know him, so if anyone does, maybe they could ask him why Al's comments could not be posted?
Delete11:02 nice attempt to cover up for the Hall Park- the truth is very few people will use that $80 million revenue drain. THe population of kids in encinitas is shrinking not growing.
DeleteAll of this was pointed out to Gaspar, Muir and Barth when they voted to follow Vina's lead and raid $7M from funded projects with no plan to pay it back and increase city debt and city debt service. THe alternative was to build a pay as you go park- but it was an election year and Gaspar Muir and Stocks felt they needed the little league vote so they increased debt while robbing road and sewer repair money. None other than TOny Baloney Kranz spoke at the July meeting suggesting general obligation bonds that be voted on by the public-
Now you have an election year and Kranz and Blakespear are hoping to get the "art vote" by paying any price for PV. Scott and PV did the political propaganda piece on Tony Baloney and PV will soon email its 700 members to support Kranz and Blakespear. THere is alos a newly formed 'Friends of the Arts" that like the "friends of the park" that backed Gaspar and Stocks, look for friends of the Park to back Kranz and Blakespear-
The tipping point in Encinitas my friend was the Hall Park- the debt, the failed construction, the $400,000 fine for shoddy work-
PV is simply sinking the USS Encinitas Titanic more quickly
10:07, huh?
DeleteCan't make any sense of what you are trying to say about high density development of the PV parcel.
There were three scenarios for PV:
Scenario 1: EUSD sells the parcel to a private party, probably a developer. EUSD claims that state education code grants them an automatic rezone to same zone as the surrounding properties. I couldn't find that part of the code or case law, but I'm not a lawyer. Barth and Kranz admitted after the purchase agreement that EUSD probably had the law on their side, and state law trumps Prop A. So, under scenario 1, it was highly likely that the development you fear would have happened.
Scenario 2: The city forces EUSD to trigger Naylor, which entitles the city to 30% (~1 acre) of the parcel at a discount to the market price. The parcel is subdivided, and EUSD would sell the remaining 70% to the highest bidder--again, likely a developer. Scenario 2 results in a 1 acre pocket park, and the rest of the property developed, similar to Scenario 1.
Scenario 3: The City buys the property. This is what actually happened. As a condition of sale, the City has agreed to not resell the property for many years. For so called stack and pack development to occur under scenario 3, (1.) the property would have to be rezoned under a Prop A vote, and (2.) the city would have to retain ownership of the development, or (3.) the city would have to wait many years before selling the parcel to a third party.
Of the three scenarios, the one that actually happened is the least likely to result in the type of development you fear.
In summary, what the hell are you talking about?
11:11-You are right. I guess I was so focused on PV that I forgot to add that I, too, didn't want to buy that property. And it has been a fiasco from day 1. I feel sorry for the residents in Cardiff when all of the traffic into that park will be coming off of 2 residential streets. The Cardiff Town Council tried to stop it, but there were too many vested interests I guess.
Delete12:04
Delete1. Barth and Kranz lied to the public on Prop A regarding increasing housing densitites- why would a reasonable person believe anything they say.
2. THE Naylor act required EUSD to offer THE ETNIRE property to the city, with part of the property offered ata discount. Try again.
3. THE deal is not closed, it is my opinion the fix is in. THe only way the city could potentially affrod this is to sweet talk the public 2 years from now that to build and arts center part of teh property needs to be set aside for stack and pack- wait for it.
12:27,
DeleteI'm sorry, but I have to call BS on you.
Have you read Naylor, and researched how it has been applied in real transactions? Because I have. Naylor is for buying 30% of a school property to preserve playground and open space. Please post a link to news about any instance where Naylor was used to reduce the price of a whole property. You made a statement (in all caps, no less)--now it's time to back it up or look like a fool.
Good luck.
To your point 3, read the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Starting with the part that reads "The City shall not sell the Property for ten (10) years from the date of the close of escrow" You can find it here: http://savepacificview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014-05-28_Item_10B_-_Consideration_of_Pacific_View_Purchase_Agreement
12:43 no statement was made that EUSD had to offer the entire site at a discount.
DeleteEUSD could have offered the PV property with the Naylor act discount for that part of the property that was open space, playground, etc.
Also, the city could have used the Naylor act to negotiate a better deal as in the city might offer to pay 50% of the value of the full value of the playground space (rather than 30%) if EUSD negotiated on the remaining non-Naylor act affected property.
as for point three- I too heard of the trip up to Santa Ana the arts commission took with Jim Gillian. They have stack and pack housing surrounding art. It is not inconcievable giving the socilists leanings fo this council the the city might partner with a developer wherein the city retains rights for housing for a number of years- say 10- and the housing then reverts back to the developer- after all that happens with density bonus low income units all the time. It would be away around the escrow provision and reward Kranz's backers. Also, the city might simply be saying in 10 years they will sell it- look how long it took to build the hall park- ahhhh 12 years
The losers in this deal are taxpayers
Thank you Al for your insightful piece. I was not in favor at purchasing Pacific View at ANY price. 10 million is a number, from what I understand, that Kranz gave to Baird, and as Kranz put it, it was to stop the auction. That did happen. Now, what about this 10 million. From what I have heard, there will be a lease revenue bond to pay for it. And, no, citizens don't vote on Lease Revenue Bonds.
ReplyDelete10:54- Good point. I would also like to comment, once again, that there were no sealed bids, and perhaps had some people shown a little more due dilegence, we could have purchased the property under the Nayor Act. All under the bridge now. However, I am not certain we are still obliged to buy it, as one poster stated. I read that Baird gave the City a "drop dead" to figure out how to pay for it. And if we don't it goes back to auction. So much for our highly paid City Attorney who could have pushed for the Naylor Act and didn't.
ReplyDeleteLet it go back to be auctioned.
ReplyDeleteThe city needs $13 million for other projects. Not more land.
At the council meeting where the LOI was approved, both Kranz and Shaffer stated that while $10 million might be more than the property is worth, both said "in 50 years nobody will care what we paid for this property, they'll just be glad we secured it for the community". I cannot think of a more foolish, moronic rationale for an impulse purchase. Ask the people of Detroit, Stockton, San Bernardino, and Vallejo whether they care about the financial decision made by their governments 50 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThere were 15 sealed bids yes 15
ReplyDeleteIf the city was told there were 15 sealed bids, was that a fabrication to get them to cave and pay top dollar?
ReplyDeleteOne has to wonder. If there were15 sealed bids, more people would know about it.
So we have at least one poster that states that there were no sealed bids, and another that says there were 15. Since Baird called off the auction, I wonder where those 15 came from-or perhaps they allegedly came before the 10 million was offered. I personally don't know who is correct. However, if I were a developer I would not bid 9.5 million (which was the minimum offer allowed) on a property that I did not have complete assurance that I could develop it to recoup my money. Since that property is not zoned residential, and since any change would have to go before the citizens, it seems unlikely to me that a developer would take that kind of risk. Unless, of course, someone assured them that they could get it rezoned. I have no idea if that happened either, it just makes the most sense if there were 15 bids.
ReplyDeleteAh ha! Eureka. There may have been bids after all, because the rezoning may be automatic as Baird suggested. Prop A may have been trumped by state law. I just found this LA Times article from 1985, with the following quote:
Delete"Another new law, introduced by state Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim), that takes affect Jan. 1 will require cities to rezone closed school sites that they are not interested in purchasing so that the zoning is compatible with the surrounding area. In the past, cities have rezoned closed school sites for open space, virtually eliminating all potential buyers except municipalities, Seymour said."
Developers could have valued the property above $9.5M, and bid without worry of a Prop A vote. Anyone know how to locate the language of the law referenced above?
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-10-20/news/cb-13880_1_torrance-unified-school-district
Prop A is not "trumped" by Educational Code. The Education Code upon which Baird's bogus lawsuit relied, calls for school district's recognitions of local jurisdictions' (the City's) General Plans and Municipal Codes. Prop A is now part of EMC and updates the General Plan.
Deletemust have been Marco making that argument? Does he and the "Upzone the Coast Law Group" make their living by holding cities and taxpayers hostage to force 6 figre settlements? What did San Diego residents or the ocean get from Marco's fireworks fiasco? Marco got $250,000 what did taxpayers get?
DeleteAl, if you really want to represent this community by running for mayor you should realize PV holds a special place to many here and consider selling those other city properties to help pay for preserving this gift. Those other sites don't hold a candle to what PV could become. You don't seem to have a clue about how dear we hold that place and especially with past and ongoing attempts to rezone it for the profit making venture the developers are hoping for, we are more committed to keeping it out of their greedy mitts. Yes location location location does have meaning and those other city owned sites can't hold a candle to PV. I hope you are able to come around enough to consider this and so we can join you in your run for mayor. If you stick to this railing against preserving this gift it is to your own demise as a viable candidate. Just a thought my fellow citizen. See you tonight at city hall.
ReplyDeleteIf PV means so much too you and others you should have bought it with your own monies and maintained it as is. It will be 10-20 years before any thing is done on that nightmare and the city could be using those funds to repair sorely needed streets, to mention but one needed project.
Delete3:10 spoken like a true city insider- yes, let's liquidate all of the taxpayes assetts are bargain basement prices (show me a city real estate deal where we didn't get screwed) and throw it all into a piece of property we could have largely bought at a 30% discount. That's the ticket
Delete3:10- I have to agree with 3:45. Perhaps you and many others think it should have sold for exactly what the City is offering. However, that property has been sitting there empty for quite some time. Why didn't you and others who feel the way you do, but it? I am not a wealthy person and I live on a fixed income. My kids went to school at Ada Harris, Oakcrest, and San Dieguito High. When I asked them if they thought we should purchase it as a "legacy property" they said absolutely not. So who exactly are we leaving this wonderful legacy to. And who is paying for it NOW? Inquiring minds really would love to know. It would have been worth it at say 4.5 million. But come on, 10 million-plus whatever the God awful park is costing us, adding to it the lawsuit over the Rossini Creek, and I'm not sure I can keep on paying and paying taxes when the road in front of my house is full of potholes, and when I asked the City to fix it, the answer was "there is no money". Personally I think some people have their priorities mixed up.
ReplyDeleteCity overpaid. Done deal; we should move on. The existing classrooms can be rehabbed. The property doesn't have to sit vacant. Community gardens can be planted, after the blacktop that was installed at City expense, for a temporary public works yard, is removed.
ReplyDeletePacific View is the perfect spot for a true community art center, not an interregional complex, as proposed by Art Pulse, or an interregional sports complex, which is what we have at the mis-named "Community Park," former Hall Property.
Every time I hear the Hall Park called community I can't help but cringe. It at one time was a community park. It was featured at one of our street fairs asking for public input on what it should include. That is a far cry from what it has become. A regional sports complex is not a community park is any way shape or form. Hey, I know, lets let the developers dump their db's on part of it and pay off PV in one fell swoop. Surely I jest and yes I surely am so don't get all rabid about this swipe but this has gone far beyond what a community park is. Call it for what it is. A regional sports complex says it all.
ReplyDeleteAnd every time you say "regional sports complex" on this blog i want to vomit. It has been shown what a true regional sports park is (see Oceanside's El Corazon). The ECP is not a regional sports park. It has a playground, skate park, dog park, and open space (that unfortunately won't be an aquatic center or teen center because we can't afford it). It has walkways and landscaping befitting a community park. It is a community park, a rather large one, and i can't wait for it to open.
DeleteI agree. Go up to O-side and you can see what a real sports complex looks like.
Delete9:31 AM
DeleteStart saving your nickels and dimes so you can pay for the $1.5 million yearly maintenance on the sports park. The city can install parking meters.
9:31 AM
ReplyDeleteThe Hall property was turned into a regional sports complex. It doesn't meeting the General Plan definition of a community park. You can't spin away the fact that it is a regional sports park.
Neither does it meet the definition of a "regional sports complex"! Been to Arco lately? That's a regional sports complex.
Delete11:49, It doesn't meet the general plan definition because it is too large. That is the only reason. It has all the characteristics of a community park. Stick to your principled argument, as for all practical purposes, it is a community park.
DeleteThere is no spin. Dog park, check. Playground, check. Skate park, check. Walkways, check. Open space, check.
4:43 your propaganda won't fly on the board- we are informed
Delete"It doesn't meet the general plan definition"
Right- so it is not a community park-
when is an apple and orange? never
informed, more like delusional
Deletebecause of its size, it could NEVER be a community park per the general plan even if it had no sports fields
the general plan should be amended to remove a limit on the size of a community park
as it is, we will have a super-sized community park
haters stay away
Regional sports complex, check.
ReplyDeleteIt's going to be one suck-ass regional sports complex. All the regional sports business will be in Oceanside.
DeleteIt's going to be a great park for Encinitas kids and families.
Start saving your nickels and dimes so you can pay for the $1.5 million yearly maintenance on the sports park. The city can install parking meters.
ReplyDelete