Pacific View- resposible evaluation while moving forward on purchase

Pacific View-  council meeting 7/ 16 on suitability contingency

This meeting will make the contract of sale of this property binding.  I had an exchange of emails with council member Tony Kranz, that I am copying here:  (ignore the variation of type face and size)

The conversation was initiated by this email I sent on Monday July 14

City Officials

As of the time of this email, the 700 plus page document of the above is not linked to the Agenda.  Other such links are active so the defect or removal I conclude is by the city.  I did get to start to study the report on Friday when it was released and noticed it did not have an executive summary or a contents page, which makes it impossible to evaluate even if it were now available.

I request a response to several questions:
While the studies appeared to be for generic improvements, please indicate specific analyses that were performed for underground parking of various levels, with geologic findings and cost estimates.  Such parking would be required if any sizable performance space were to be part of the arts center.  Also describe any traffic and parking studies that were done concomitant to this issue, described  further in next paragraph.
 
Every property in Southern California has a wide array of limitations of usage that are defined by history codified into law.  Discovery of religious artifacts of indigenous peoples is one that could preclude a wide array of improvements  The consensus that enjoyment of the beach is a common right of the people has been codified by state law that is enforced by the California Coastal Commission. This is reflected by the principle and requirement that no facility that substantively detracts from available near beachfront parking would be permitted.
 
From my earlier reading, limited by the lack of a contents page or index,  there is no evidence that your due diligence investigation evaluated the above.  Thus ignoring the clause in the sales contract (4.1.b) that allowed for our abrogation if the land was not "suitable for our use."

.....but is not limited to, a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Geo-technical reconnaissance,
Hydrology Study, and/or other inspections or studies deemed necessary 
by Buyer for determining the condition and suitability of the Property.

Suitability" of the property implies suitable for a given specified use, as every property is inherently suitable for something; so without specificity of use the clause is meaningless.

Unless the following elements that limit or preclude use are included in the above document, and identified specifically with location, (section and page number),  I will propose the following to the council at the meeting of 7/16.

A: This due diligence document is not approved.
B:  The issues raised above be investigated before July 28th when relevant clause expires per exiting contract of sale
C:  If these investigations, along with cost estimates for selected structures are not completed for a special meeting to be evaluated before this clause expires, then the city lawyer be instructed to either receive a 60 day extension of above clause 4.1.b or abrogate said contract.

Al Rodbell
Tony wrote back, offering to provide a copy of the 700+ page document to me, which I responded with my detailed suggestions:

Dear Tony,

I appreciate your offer, however, my central point is that if there is the evaluation of the elements that I describe, let's call it legal limitation rather than geologic due diligence, it is not appropriate that an involved resident has to search through each of a 700 page report.  There should be a contents, executive summary or index. The person who wrote this document could give you an answer to my query immediately, since he knows what's included. 

If, as I believe, the elements that I described were not considered, then the taxpayers are taking a risk that this property may not be suitable, even if done in the future, for any contemplated improvements.  This is not an attempt to "sabotage" but to exert pressure on the elected officials to do what any public or private entity would do in a purchase such as this. 

As far as your position that there is no need to delay acquisition, an extension of the single clause would not have to result in such a delay.  I would prefer that we push the closing back the two months, so if we do discover something like the underground pool of water that the speaker before me on the May 28th meeting referred to (seeing it as an asset!) then we would realize that we could not reasonably have the multi level underground parking that a performance space would require. Under such an unexpected discovery I trust even a fair minded enthusiast would realize that this property's value is sharply lowered.   

On the other hand with some investigation of traffic and parking constraints we may find out that the concern that I have is over stated.  This could be done by research of Coastal Commission decisions on other similar proposals.  Such research would not be definitive but it would reduce uncertainty, and we can determine pretty well how much of a limit to future development this represents.  At the very least, the city Manager should be clearly instructed, not a vague suggestion that he can sidestep, but instructed to research and report on this within ten days. This may require advance instructions or a meeting of council at this time to evaluate such a "legal limitation due diligence report."
  
Our city manager is shameless in pulling the wool over the eyes of elected officials.  He never told you when you had doubts about Peak Democracy that the years contract could have been canceled at any time at will, and we could have suspended payment while doing further investigation, and then afterwards if members wanted to go forward the contract could have been re- instituted.  We were not obligated for a year, which was the mis-impression he allowed to exist. 

Let's move ahead on this purchase if this is the decision of the majority of our elected city officials;  but we can do this responsibly, which is the purpose of my suggestions. 

I appreciate your responding, and hope that you follow through. 

Regards


Al

Open town hall meeting on Pacific View purchase

July 9, 2014

The city of Encinitas signed a purchase contract after the May 28th council meeting that has a 60 day contingency period for due diligence, which means the systematic evaluation a major purchase.  While buying this property has been discussed for years, up until the last few months it was always going to be under a special State law that would have allowed a sharply discounted price for abandoned schools such as this, which would have made it a classic "no brainer."

But since it was determined that this would not apply, the city ended up buying this at market value, calculated on it being used in the most lucrative configuration, a mix of residences and offices that very likely would have included a public amenity component.  The purchase price of 10 million dollars is just the beginning of the city's expense, as there will be design costs, infrastructure and building construction and then legal challenges at the Coastal Commission level that may refuse any use that impacts traffic and parking availability for beach use.  The operating cost of this purchase, including lost tax revenue for a mixed private and public use, which is precluded by the contract of sale, would be well over a million a year, how much over never having been calculated by the city.

The city council has purchased and just launched an internet utility called "Open Town Hall" that promises to rectify the distortion of public input that drove this expenditure of limited tax generated resources.  While these taxes will be paid by every resident of the city, only about 600 people were part of a concerted campaign to purchase this property -- at any cost without any specification of what would be done with it -- under the banner of "Save Pacific View."  The company that sold us the "Open Town Hall" utility promoted its allowing those who do not attend council meetings and send emails to council members to have a voice in city affairs.  While I have many objections to policies of this company, what it claims to do is important, allowing the city to send out a survey that will reach sizable proportion of Encinitas residents to get their views of this purchase, one that still could be canceled or re-negotiated to allow the city complete discretion of use which they have now relinquished. 

The survey should have an introduction that conveys the two sides, one by the organizer of "save pacific" beach Scott Chatworth, and the other that incorporates my opposing viewpoint, expressed in the following essays: This one on the process, and this one presenting the case for the alternate city owned site. Both points of view being fairly presented in the text of the survey will also be a litmus test of the the Open Town Hall product. 

The survey questions should include:

Community location (Leucadia, New Encinitas etc)
Activity with "Save Pacific View" (allow all answers)
       On mailing list
       Sent email to city council of support
       Sent email to city council in opposition
       Attended city council meeting
5 point scale of approval of purchase based on existing contract (with link to details and council discussion)
5 point scale of approval of whether the existing city owned property at Encinitas Ranch Town Center should be used for an Arts Center, as a substitute for the Pacific View site.
A list of specific uses (performance space, galleries etc) that are supported by those in favor of purchase of property.
Open comment field

The staff person who is the contact with the "Open Town Hall" company has been advised of this suggestion by that company, indicating such a survey is consistent with their goals and functionality.

It's only a matter of whether the city council truly desires such widespread input on major issues. 
------------
City Hall refused to run this, so I made up my own survey that you can take at this link






Saving Pacific View- A Morality Play

June 17, 2014  - updated July 12

Addendum for those doing the survey:  This is to links of Peak Democracy's Open Town Hall critiques. The following is my argument against going forward with the current contract to purchase this property.  Contact me at alvrdb.brt, for specific questions and further details

Reason rarely has a chance against group emotion,  as it feels good to be part of a movement for something that everyone agrees is to be desired, such as "supporting the arts" or from a different realm, "spreading democracy."  The two realms have been conflated just a bit when the creator of the "Save Pacific View" movement posted on one of his emails that there is still a chance of someone "sabotaging" the goal.  That was a strong word, drawing from hatred of the "enemy," defined in this case as someone making the case such as I'm doing in this article.

I happen to believe that it's when a movement has gathered group momentum that its exactly the time to interject reason into the mix.  Reason implies presenting propositions, not to be embraced, but to be evaluated; first checked for veracity of the facts,  and then to be considered fairly looking at all possible outcomes.  In other words, exactly like the political culture is in our country--as the kids used to say for emphasis....NOT!  We no longer work that way in our democracy,  as spelled out in the recent report by the Pew Research Foundation on political polarization in America.

Just as the time before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to spread democracy to the middle east,  very few of either party had the courage to challenge the premise, to state that rather than democracy we could unleash chaos once the established order was upended.  Oh, this was discussed in think tanks with no media coverage, but few in public life other than old Senator Robert Byrd were willing to stand and publicly state the obvious.

Now in a tiny microcosm of this dynamic, we are about to "Save Pacific View" something I put in quotes as it was part of a brilliant campaign by the organizer Scott Chatfield that began with the name, which implies salvation rather than transformation of the site which would have raised the question of "to what?"  When we are asked to save something, or someone, we don't ask what will happen latter; we pull out all stops to keep it from dying, or in this case a fate worse than death which would be turned over to "developers."  These are the bad guys, even if like in other cities they create developments that provide public spaces that are more secure and widely used than those of surrounding public parks.

We happen to have such a park that does provide for enjoyment of grassy landscape and even running natural water called, "cottonwood creek" which is maybe a half mile away.  And for gazing at the ocean, which will not be possible from Pacific View,  it can be at an area overlooking the coast about a five minute stroll away, from which you can even walk right down to the beach.   And just as the unspoken dark side of our Iraq invasion, (O.K., "liberation" if you like,) finally has come to pass at this very moment in time, so too city ownership of Pacific View could be a millstone around the neck of a future Encinitas.

This article  "Taboo Subject: Homeless in the Park"  from the journal of the National Recreation and Park Association dares bring this subject into the light.  Although now there is only a small chance that this will occur, it should not completely be ignored:  Will this space with a large open parklike area increase the probability of thrusting Encinitas  into the most searing issue of our times, the vast difference between those with the least living among those of us lucky enough to reside here?  Will there still be funds to build a homeless residence for those who may flock to this city once we are known as "friendly" to the indigent, or will we be be included in the category of "mean cities," those who by various methods, legal or otherwise, keep such people away.

Right now we are not engaging in any dialogue on actual palpable choices when we own this land.  We have identified the good guys, "lovers of the arts," and the bad guys, other than myself probably a majority of residents who don't follow local issues at all.   Somehow included in the contract that was signed last month we still have about forty days (until July 28)  to identify actual, rather than ethereal, uses of this three acre parcel, and first decide whether it's even possible.  Any sizable performance space, the most common suggested use, will probably be ruled out based on the authority of the Coastal Commission to reject any structure that will decrease availability of parking for beach goers.  

There is a parcel (Link to Video Below) that is available to us at Encinitas Town Center, Leucadia and El Camino Real,  that including available public parking has as much useful area as Pacific View.  Rather than a cost for the the land of ten million dollars this is owned by the city, and actually could legally realize the ideal of performance spaces along with teaching facilities.  This would be both a benefit for this broad area called New Encinitas which would be in closer proximity to more moderate priced housing for undiscovered artistic talent.

Our city has a long list of approved unfunded capital projects, some designed to prevent pedestrian and driver casualties, others with different benefits.  Yet, in the course of a few months, this purchase was elevated to the front of the list, with plenty of generated emotion and impassioned emails from perhaps one percent of the citizens of this city.

While at times analysis can lead to paralysis, as stated by one member of the council who will no longer be there when we close on this property next year; usually analysis is valuable.  It would have been useful when a handful of people in Washington were fomenting public thirst for a war that now, a decade later, is unleashing the homicidal rage of a billion people in that part of the world.    And on an infinitely smaller scale, this deserves the appropriate analysis of real choices and consequences that is still possible in the five weeks left to actually consider all aspects of this purchase.

Video of Performance parcel at Encinitas Town Center

Article on details of pacific view sales contract with link to council discussion