ENCINITAS: Pacific View Commons goes to Planning Commission
By RUTH MARVIN WEBSTER - Staff Writer | ∞
Pacific View Elementary School in Encinitas has not been open since 2003. A plan to change it a new multi-use project with office space, single family homes, condos and townhouses will come before the city's planning commission on Thursday. (Photo by Jamie Scott Lytle - staff photographer) ENCINITAS --- The question of what to do with the old Pacific View Elementary School property will come before the Planning Commission on Thursday, as officials consider whether to change the site's land-use designation to make way for a project that includes offices and homes.
The project, known as Pacific View Commons, calls for 12,000 square feet of office space, 14 townhomes and seven condominiums, as well as five single-family homes. Planners say the units would blend with the surrounding community and not hinder the neighbors' ocean views, with less than half of the 2.8 acre site covered by buildings.
As presented, the old 1883 schoolhouse would remain on the property as a museum and become the centerpiece of the new development.
The property is owned by the Encinitas Union School District, which has kept the title in order to shepherd the development plans through the city planning process, district officials said.
Once the rezoning has been approved, the district plans to exchange the entire parcel ---- with restrictions on its development in place ---- with developer John DeWald and Associates, for other office property.
The income from the rent of that office space would then go to fund existing and future programs within the district.
Since the Pacific View campus closed in 2003, the city has leased a portion of the property for a public works yard facility and offices. But the land-use restriction ---- which limits the property's use to public or semipublic buildings such as churches, medical buildings or government offices ---- remains in full force.
In 2005, after a vain stab at working within the land-use restrictions, district superintendent Lean King formed an advisory group to come up with a plan the neighbors and merchants would accept. That process included exploring other land-use options such as mixed residential and office uses.
King said the district worked closely with the business community and residents because "there was such fear that we would leave the property to the developers to do what they pleased."
"... We made a commitment to the community to stay with them and make sure that the property was used in their best interest," he said.
Some residents dislike the new plan for the former campus.
Nearby property owner Don McPherson, who said he plans to speak at Thursday's public hearing, has filed numerous documents protesting the proposed development. He has contended that the parking provided is insufficient and that proposed grading at the northern edge may result in a bluff collapse.
"I support development of Pacific View, but only if it is in compliance with city and state law," he wrote in a letter to the Planning Commission, adding that he considers the Planning Commission meeting premature with four weeks still left for public review of the proposal.
In its present version, the project requires amendments not only to the city's general plan, but the local coastal program and the Downtown Encinitas specific plan. If those amendments and zoning changes are approved by the Planning Commission, the proposal would then be presented to the City Council and the Coastal Commission before heading back to the beginning of the process again for design review.
The Planning Commission will meet at 6 p.m. Thursday in the Poinsettia Room in the Civic Center.
Contact staff writer Ruth Marvin Webster at (760) 901-4074 or rwebster@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Did EUSD Goof wrote on Jul 23, 2008 4:11 PM:California EDUCATION Code 17457 states that school districts can sell or lease real estate they are not using or needing, but that the proceeds from such transactions MUST go into the district capital improvements accounts. EUSD has repeatedly said, as a means of gaining support for their development plans that the real estate deals will support educational programs, such as music and PE. Something is not right here...
Can anyone explain this...?
Perhaps rezoning ought to be postponed until after this is checked out?
Here is the section of CA ED CODE:
17457. Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, in
connection with a sale, sale back, lease, or leaseback of school
district property, no proceeds obtained by the school district from
the sale of the sale back or leaseback agreement, or interests
therein, or a debt instrument payable from payments under the sale
back or leaseback agreement shall be used for general operating
purposes of the school district.
GFN wrote on Jul 23, 2008 5:38 PM:There is no way you can expect more homes to built when we are in the worst drought situation in over 30 years! NO WAY! Do not ask me to conserve one drop so we can add more people to our already over extended water and electricity grids, traffic, and schools. Backlash will stike you down.
Bob wrote on Jul 23, 2008 11:15 PM:This project is wrong for Encinitas.
to dideudgoof wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:42 AM:hey buddy,
it's as legal as revoking the charter. perhaps you should ... move on to sign your kid at one of those hated eusd school! time is running out!
Ann wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:20 AM:Bob is right. The Pacific View school grounds should be used as a school not uneeded and unwelcome mixed use commercial.
Most important is preserving the historic school house from encroachment.
It's time for a new school board
Questionable wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:42 AM:What is EUSD getting in return for a piece of property that is proably worth 10 million dollars?
Who is this Dewald developer and what kind of property is he going to give us in exchange for some of the best real estate in Encinitas?
The proposed plan of development is just a PROPOSAL folks. I truly wonder what will get built...how about giving something back to our Encinitas community. It belongs to Encinitas Residents...there should be a wonderful park...something that has meaning to all of us not just people who can afford a piece of ocean property.
TO Questionable wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:44 AM:I couldn't agree more...a PUBLIC PARK...now that's a novel idea...a sign of our times...a closed school should be turned into a park that has the old schoolhouse as the center focus...that's the legacy this property deserves...that is what the residents of Encinitas should enjoy for the next 100 years...I'm sure the people who originally donated the property would be proud that the right thing was done for so many.
This should be an inclusive proposal for ALL...not an exclusive project for a select few...
EUSD what are you doing???
The Big Picture wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:24 AM:When EUSD was looking for input on this project from the community they only went to the immediate neighbors. Why didn't they reach out to the whole community. It belongs to all of us. We should VOTE as a community on what is to be built on this 2.8 acres.
Look as the Proposed development...there's nothing for us regular folks who contibute to the taxpayer coffers too! The school house is put to the back of the project...there really isn't green space!
There are lots of options that could benefit us ALL! Someone needs to step in and take over this cluster...! Give the community and our kids some real $$$ to actaully benefit their facilities and create something that is more inkeeping with our little beach community. Somewhere for all of us to hang out and enjoy! Maybe a place we could bring our children...
Look behind it wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:26 AM:Why are some so opposed to EUSD having a financial cushion to vouchsafe Encinitas' children's education?
Could it be that they are retaliating against the school district for its recent action against the administration of TIP (charges of misuse of taxpayers money, conflict of interest, nepotism and violation of state corporate and open meeting laws)?
Could this be driven by vengeance?
"No man can think clearly when his fists are clenched." —George Jean Nathan
Something to think about wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:29 AM:CA Ed Code 17464 [Amended for brevity]
The sale or lease with an option to purchase of real property by a school district shall be in accordance with the following priorities and procedures:
(a) First, the property shall be offered for park or recreational purposes
(b) Second, the property shall be offered for sale, at fair market value in each of the following ways:
(1) In writing, to the Director of General Services, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University, the county and city in which the property is situated, to any public housing authority in the county in which the property is situated, and to any entity referenced in paragraph (2) that has submitted a written request to the school district to be directly notified of the offer for sale by the district.
(2) By public notice to any public district, public authority, public agency, public corporation, or any other political subdivision in this state, to the federal government, and to nonprofit charitable corporations. Public notice shall consist of at least publishing its intention to dispose of the real property in a newspaper. The notice shall specify that the property is being made available to all public districts, public authorities, public agencies, and other political subdivisions or public corporations in this state, and to other nonprofit charitable or nonprofit public benefit corporations. Publication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once each week for three successive weeks.
(c) Third, the property may be disposed of in any other manner authorized by law.
CAN SOMEONE CONFIRM EUSD DID ALL THIS?
Transparency issues wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:59 AM:What has EUSD and the Superintendent spent so far on this POTENTIAL rezoning?
Private developers wouldn't spend their money on this RISKY business venture because they knew they might come up with a big fat zero.
How many consultants have they hired or and/or is it being funded through the one consultant so the taxpayers don't know how much EUSD has spent?
Transparency is the issue...and we deserve to know how much $$$ is being spent and where/whom we are spending the money????
And by the way how come this project is in front of the Planning Commission only one year later? If you know anything about development this would have taken a private developer 2-3 years! That's why most developers don't risk $$$ on major zone changes...because there is no guarantee and it takes years to get through. This still has to make it through to the California Coastal Commission!
Something Better Should be Offered wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:03 PM:Let's VOTE on this as a community. Don't just ask the immediate neighbors...it belongs to the whole community! Let's rethink our options and get something that really benefits us all and truly gives money to the students and their facilities.
John E wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:06 PM:Does anyone remember the first proposal for redevelopment of this parcel? At least the current set of plans is a huge improvement over that.
To Look Behind it wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:15 PM:You should do your homework or do you work for the district trying to deflect the attention somewhere else?
Show me how this POTENTIAL development deal provides a financial cushion to vouchsafe Encinitas' children's education. Do you really understand how and when the district will actaully get any money? I sure don't.
I do know there's been a lot of money spent so far but I'm not clear on the true benfit for our kids. Look into it we could all use some answers.
Transparency wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:25 PM:What has EUSD and the Superintendent spent so far on this POTENTIAL rezoning?
Private developers wouldn't spend their money on this RISKY business venture because they knew they might come up with a big fat zero.
How many consultants have they hired or and/or is it being funded through the one consultant...transparency? Do the taxpayers of our community know how much EUSD has spent?
Transparency is the issue...and we deserve to know how much $$$ is being spent and where/whom we are spending the money????
To John E wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:31 PM:So... you are willing to settle just becuase the second is better than the first? Our community owns this property and we should ALL be given the opportunity to have input...VOTERS UNITE.
I know we have some people living in this community who could come up with something more beneficial to all of us. Maybe start asking some other beach communities...try spending some more time developing a project that has a profound prpose for ALL taxpayers not just it's immediate neighbors.
Do the immediate neighbors love this plan or are they like you...at least it's better than the first one. EXPECT more from our district!
Right its TIPs fault... wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:00 PM:You EUSD boosters, hmm, perhaps development boosters, are really funny. Do you think that you can convince people that the arguments against the Pacific View development is motivated by TIP people? What are you smokin'? The TIP charter only got into trouble this May, and hose TIP believers likely have their hands full.
More parks please wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:32 PM:What my children, who are in EUSD schools, need is more parks/open spaces around town, not more condos.
I'm tired of the overdevelopment in Encinitas. It is/has ruined our quaint community.
Seems like EUSD can't even use the $$ they will make from this deal for the PE & music programs they promised us.
More Interesting Laws wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:34 PM:CA Ed Code 17464 [Amended for brevity]
The sale or lease with an option to purchase of real property by a school district shall be in accordance with the following priorities and procedures:
(a) First, the property shall be offered for park or recreational purposes
(b) Second, the property shall be offered for sale, at fair market value in each of the following ways:
(1) In writing, to the Director of General Services, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University, the county and city in which the property is situated, to any public housing authority in the county in which the property is situated, and to any entity referenced in paragraph (2) that has submitted a written request to the school district to be directly notified of the offer for sale by the district.
(2) By public notice to any public district, public authority, public agency, public corporation, or any other political subdivision in this state, to the federal government, and to nonprofit charitable corporations. Public notice shall consist of at least publishing its intention to dispose of the real property in a newspaper. The notice shall specify that the property is being made available to all public districts, public authorities, public agencies, and other political subdivisions or public corporations in this state, and to other nonprofit charitable or nonprofit public benefit corporations. Publication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once each week for three successive weeks.
(c) Third, the property may be disposed of in any other manner authorized by law.
Transparency wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:58 PM:What has EUSD and the Superintendent spent so far on this POTENTIAL rezoning?
Private developers wouldn't spend their money on this RISKY business venture because they knew they might come up with a big fat zero.
How many consultants have they hired or and/or is it being funded through the one consultant so the taxpayers don't know how much EUSD has spent?
Please print this...don't squash my First Ammendment Rights!
Transparency is the issue...and we deserve to know how much $$$ is being spent by EUSD and where/whom they are spending our money????
And by the way how come this project is in front of the Planning Commission only one year later? If you know anything about development this would have taken a private developer 2-3 years! That's why most developers don't risk $$$ on major zone changes...because there is no guarantee.
I wonder wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:42 PM:Remember when the city rented PV from the school district for $1 a year. If EUSD wanted to use this property to generate revenue for the school district, why did they only ask for a dollar from the city? I wonder if there were any deals made behind closed doors?
To Transparency wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:36 PM:Ms.( name rhymes with low) is paying all of the consultants for this project. That's how EUSD is avioding transparency...something isn't right here. If EUSD is the developer shouldn't they be paying the consultants to avoid accusations of self dealings and misleading the taxpayers.
Doesnt Look Good wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:56 PM:Well Superspender doesn't look good after the Planning Commission hearing tonight. How much money have you wasted on this mess? Where's your transparency? Does the EUSD Board know how much you have spent? Well us taxpayers are going to find out all the details of your transactions because the end result is no where in sight. Maybe it's time put up a " FOR SALE" sign instead of trying to USURP the LAW...
To John E wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:30 PM:Didn't you hear commissioner Chapo say last night that the Medical Building proposal was all just a big smoke screen and would NEVER have passed.
This was EUSD scare tacticts to do just what you're doing - accepting this plan (the one they wanted from the beginning) simply because it's not the awful one they first proposed.
Don't let McLean bully us. He may be the King but that doesn't give him the right to scare Encinitas into something it does not want.
EUSD goes to Vegas wrote on Jul 26, 2008 8:57 AM:EUSD has already spent $500,000 of taxpayer money gambling on zoning and redevelopment changes. You wasted our money. Find somewhere in the budget to cut. We want it BACK!!
EUSD wrote on Jul 26, 2008 9:46 AM:Does this all ring a bell? Wonder how it feels.
Ann J wrote on Jul 28, 2008 6:42 AM:Question: What did Houlihan know and when did she know it?
Advertisement
Videos
Advertisement