| Your City Council Report - Jan 8, 2008 |
|
|
YCCR - January 8, 2008Article Launched: 01/11/2008
Big Fishes in a Small Pond First the public comment: John Osborne: Item 6.A: He complained that of the minutes to be approved, one set was from April, 2006 and that the City Council "lacks expectations" from staff when allowing this. If it happens constantly then maybe there's a problem, but this seems so minor. The City does get credit for identifying the oversight and getting the old minutes approved. Osborne also criticized the notes about the Marina in the old minutes. Item 6.E: In plain terms, the City had to move funds from several projects to cover unanticipated increased costs related to water main replacements. These projects are: Wilson Avenue losing 75K or 11% of the funding; Pump Station Upgrade losing $125K or 42% of funding; Grid Pump Station Retrofits, losing $100K or an eight of the funding; and Meter Replacements losing $150K or ½ of the funding. Osborne asked that any negative impacts to the projects losing some of their funding be identified, which was a reasonable request. Item 6.F: Osborne wanted to know what investments were generating the $150,000 in interest being put into the Blue Rocks Springs Golf Course, which are proceeds from bonds. The more interesting part of this item is the background: In 2001, the City sold bonds to raise funds to improve the Blue Rock Springs Golf Facilities. In 2002, they hired ARC Inc , the firm Council Member Michael Wilson works for, with a $519,000 contract to design a clubhouse. In 2006, the City amended that contract by $54,000 to cover additional costs. The City sold bonds-incurred debt-and then used some of the proceeds to hire ARC Inc, and their CFO is now a Council member. ARC Inc (as you can see from Wilson's comments below) gets a lot of business around town...including the Empress Theatre. More comments about this under Admin Item 10A below. Wilson: Abstained from 6.B (development of 1700 block of El Dorado Street because I assume ARC Inc has been hired-don't think he lives THERE) & 6.F (allocation of the Blue Rock Springs bond interest as you can see from prior comments). That's seven abstentions in three meetings-have to check my notes. I am keeping track of all this stuff, including voting records. Someone has to do it, and it might as well be me. Some discussions of mistakes in the minutes, and abstaining from minutes that related to meetings taking place before new council members seated. The mistakes-just wondering if these could be discussed offline since the discussion was not informative to the public and just makes the meeting longer and more tedious. The abstention discussion: City Attorney pointed out that if every new member abstained from approving minutes for meetings they did not attend (not on council yet) there would be no required majority to approve them. Soley suggested some declaration be made that the minutes were accurate, to take responsibility away from the council members. Davis said that this was not necessary since City Clerk Mary Ellsworth looks honest... There were no public hearings-well, actually there was one but it was listed under admin item 10A. No policy items. The Council recessed to a joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting to discuss the administrative items. Administrative Item 10A & Redevelopment Authority Item 2.A The recusals: Michael Wilson because he has connections with the development (ARC Inc was hired to do some of the Empress work) and ARC Inc also has an office downtown, Tom Bartee because he has real estate interests in the project area and Stephanie Gomes because her house is in the project area. This item was to consider amending the Development and Disposition Agreement between Triad, the downtown developers, and the City. A little background: Triad was invited by former Mayor Intintoli to consider redeveloping our downtown. In 2003, Intintoli was in Seattle to look at new ferries and was impressed by Triad's work in Seattle, and thought that because they already were in Vallejo-Hiddenbrooke-they might be interested in our downtown. And they were. They hosted a series of workshops with the Downtown Advisory Group (DAG), a group created to assist with the creation of the Downtown Specific Plan and Design Guidelines. The City also agreed to invest in the downtown, using funds that were earmarked for an Arts and Entertainment Center- restricted funds that were not being used-for the renovation of the Empress Theatre. Fast forward a few years with a weak housing market: Triad's builders bailed out, construction costs going up, housing prices going down. Apparently Triad is still interested in going forward. However, they want to adjust the project to make it feasible to build. Here are the changes they are requesting: They are requesting the City vacant (or give up) 3 feet of City owned right-of-ways (the side walks) adjacent to Sacramento, Virginia and Indian Alley, and that this property be added to "Parcel A" (the property across the street from the Empress where Triad is to build their first condo project). When the project is done, Triad will "dedicate" back to the City public right of way easements across these portions of the property. Hmmm. What I believe they want is to have the edges of the buildings not set back as much, in order to increase the building's overall square footage. This allows then to add more units so they can sell more and increase sales revenue. No clear explanation was given by the City or Triad. Triad wants the option to choose the parcels they'd like to develop from Parcels A through G. In the original phase one of the development, Triad was to develop parcels A, B & C. This amendment would allow them to choose which parcel to develop (the others are for Phase II) rather than being obligated to develop A, B & C first. Parcel A is by the Empress; Parcels B & C are across the street from City Hall (the parking lots); E & F are along the north side of York Street between Sacramento & Sonoma; G is to the south of York Street sort of wedged between the Car Museum and Dunphies Tavern. No explanation as to why they want this change; most likely to stage by affordability? It was not explained at the meeting. They want the Parcel A Home Owners Association to pay for maintenance of the Paseo-the walkway between the buildings-instead of them. They want to remove the inclusionary housing (for-sale workforce housing) obligation from Parcel A, as it was determined by the City that there is so much affordable housing already in and around downtown that they don't need anymore. Removing the affordable component makes all the units market rate, thus increasing sales revenue. They want to extend the close of escrow by one year, to February 28, 2009. In order to do so, the City is requiring a $200,000 non-refundable deposit from Triad. And although this wasn't discussed, I thought that Triad wanted the investment they have made in the Empress to be applied to the City's required "one-percent for the arts" program. Also not specifically discussed but I had heard this before is that Triad wanted the entire structure on Parcel A to be seven stories (one section was to be six) in order to add square footage, and to remove the terracing from that project, also to increase square footage. There were also some changes to the City's funding of public improvements due to a loss of a grant that had expired but some new funding had been identified (although not for the same costs). There is a difference of opinion among folks about whether these changes are reasonable/significant or not, and that is certainly an appropriate conversation. Most of the discussion however was more focused on whether Triad could even complete the project and should the City simply walk away from them and find another developer. And that brings me to my biggest concern about this whole issue: Vallejo's lack of ability to follow-through (Regional Park becomes LNG, White Slough becomes a Big Box, etc). No sense of continuity from one council to the next. These new members (including some who have been on for a few years) apparently based on their comments, don't really have a clue about the Downtown Plan. No wonder good major businesses show very little interest in locating here. And this amendment is a classic example: Three years ago (not 6 years as Sunga thinks), Triad, the Downtown Developer, and the City hosted a series of public workshops, including two world class architectural firms, KenKay and Associates and GGLO Architects . A great plan was created to revitalize the heart of Vallejo. Now the vultures are circling represented by some speakers at the podium who never even came to the workshops, never voiced any complaints prior. Council members scrutinizing Triad for their delays when the same demands are not made of other developers, some who have been around since 1997. Read this from the SF Chronicle in 2006 : In reference to being invited by former Mayor Intintoli to "look at our downtown", Triad's executive vice president Curt Johansen indicated he "liked what he saw" and went on to say "It has a lot of what we call good DNA." Or from the East bay Business Times : "When Vallejo's mayor asked Curt Johansen to stroll through his city's downtown in 2002, the developer was impressed by its ‘bones' - namely the wide streets, nearby waterfront and historical architecture." "The goal of the project is to attract the asset that every downtown needs and Vallejo is sorely lacking: people. But it's just the beginning of an ambitious 15-year plan to turn downtown Vallejo into a destination filled with restaurants, shops and entertainment venues, beginning with the renovation of the historic Empress Theatre." Yes sometimes this town can dream... Unfortunately, Triad and the City did not make any effort to do outreach in the community, except for ads in the legal classified section, both on major holidays, Christmas and New Years Day. And both were placed in the wrong section, the foreclosure section (is that a Freudian slip by the Times Herald?) so very difficult to find. Hey you know ADQ reads the legal notices, I saw the one on New Years, didn't spot the one on Xmas. Triad was simply lucky that several concerned members of the community came forward to support them. Mark Ruebsamen, Triad's new project manager, was their only representative, which was very odd compared to the heyday of the planning stages. Not that much has changed from their original proposal, and we now have our astute Design Review Board along with the Planning Commission, each who will study the design and assist in ensuring a good product. But since there was no outreach, how are the community-and a brand new council-to understand this? Unfortunately though, the brand new council-the ones not required to recuse themselves-(and some longer term council members) seem to not be familiar with the project in general. I didn't even run for council and I know all about this project. They should have been more prepared to serve on council. Or maybe Triad wants the City to walk? Then Triad isn't responsible for bailing. Well, though, who can blame them? I would have cold feet seeing a looming $22.6 million dollar deficit with council members nitpicking over $100K here, $100K there. And anyone with half a brain can see we are headed towards bankruptcy. I wouldn't be surprised if more developers in town bail on us. The council needs to focus on keeping developers here (and I don't mean by caving in), not scaring them off. I am of a strong belief that there are interests in Vallejo who make bucks from Vallejo staying the way it is and don't want it to change, want Vallejo to remain the Podunk town it is. They can remain the big fishes in a small pond: get city projects with not much competition; get favors like city owned hotels sold to them on the cheap; downtown business owners who think they can lay claim to public property. Can you imagine these shenanigans taking place with our neighbors to the east or north, Benicia (where some of these folks live, even though they own property in Vallejo) & Napa? Well I guess it can happen in those places too but at least they have things happening in their towns. Other Comments from the Public: Burky Worel asked why the HIP grant lost (expired) and what is the "Grow Vallejo" fund was (new market tax credit program from the Empress Theatre; loans for small businesses in the downtown area). Mustafa Abdul Ghanee did not think this item was properly noticed. He did not want to see the affordable housing removed and thinks we are in for another "Buchongo Settlement"-the city was sued years ago for not developing affordable housing that they were requirement to create (not clear why, redevelopment?). Whatever the exact reason for the lawsuit, the City was forced to settle by developing 450 units of affordable housing, which created the lovely and crime ridden Sereno Projects and the new and maybe not so crime ridden Avian Glen, and others. Iris Yang, an attorney for the City said this type of lawsuit couldn't happen in the downtown because we have the reverse situation; lots of affordable housing and no market rate housing. John Osborne believes what Abdul Ghanee stated. He also disagreed with staff's explanation of the Buchongo Settlement. He also agreed that the meeting wasn't properly noticed and thought it should have had a study session. (Soley and Yang stated that the notices in the paper were technically OK, although this item should have been agendized under item 7 and not 10). He then complained that recused council members must not go in the back room but must leave the chambers completely. Concerned about staff comments in the paper indicating the project won't happen, should revisit development fees forgiven in light of this. Dismayed that the Redevelopment Agency considered buying back units at market rate to sell for affordable housing (one of the alternatives for the affordable housing suggested by staff that council will consider). Sam Kurshan was concerned that the first building in the downtown would be luxury housing. He supported an equal mix of low/moderate/high income in one building to achieve true integration in a neighborhood that is being reborn, and spoke of his experience as a native New Yorker and Urban Renewal there, and how successful New York was in revitalizing their neighborhoods by including a mix of incomes. He also suggested that the arts should be the foundation for the downtown to be reborn. Buck Kamphausen (owner of the car museum and other downtown properties and I believe a citizen of Benicia although he greeted the audience as fellow Vallejoans) wants to sue the City because he apparently believes that he, as a major owner of Downtown properties-has some sort of right to ownership to Downtown's city-owned properties. He says it's because these were "paid for" with tax-increments created by Downtown property owners' property taxes from the last round of redevelopment. I can't imagine he even has a chance to lay claim to public property. He should remember a recent Supreme Court decision about this topic and eminent domain. Me thinks he has no rights here. Kamphausen also complained about parking and that he is ready to sue the City for the parking situation including the use of new lift technology in the private condo development. He said he was never in favor of the project- but Mr. Kamphausen never raised any concerns at the Downtown Advisory Group a few years ago. Maybe he sees the sea-change on council as a window of opportunity? He called the Empress Theatre a boondoggle (what does he think of his "Car Museum"?). He said that people would never come from SF and ride the ferry boats to work: I wonder if he sees the hoards that do now? And if the Touro Project goes forward, we'll have lots of jobs in town and people who could be interested in the downtown. Mark Ruebsamen, the Triad rep, unfortunately had to follow Kamphausen. Said the project was the right project at the right time and that it would bring the downtown back to what it once was in its heyday. I reminded the Council that in 2005 when the DAG wrapped up, the community (well at least those who participated) was 99.9% in favor (and this included the chamber of commerce). I also asked how the City was to meet the affordable housing requirement obligation now that it would be removed from Parcel A development. Diana Lang reminded the Council of the situation: a failing downtown and 57% affordable housing. Asked where are we going as a community and how can we truly economically integrate the downtown. Truly excited about someone outside of Vallejo investing their money into the downtown-our heart. She supported the removal of the affordable housing component because there is too much downtown already. She strongly disagreed with Kampausen's assessment of the Empress and that as a community we have to get behind the Empress to make it work. Reminded folks that they are just now finishing the renovation and just hosted a wonderful and successful New Years Eve event. Marti Brown reminded the council that if we want to revitalize the downtown we need people living there. Thought the proposals were modest and not a handout as someone else described it. Stated that from her job experience as a planner in another city, this type of situation is taking place everywhere. We are not the "victims". In her place of work, attempts are being made to make it easier for developers in this market instead of what Vallejo seems to be doing: nickling and diming Triad for more fees and more hoops to jump through. Thought it would be a shame to scrap all the good work on the downtown because if Triad leaves we will be in a bad situation and it will probably be years to find someone else. Robert Brekke thought that the City had chosen the wrong parcel to develop (like State Farm on the Waterfront) for the first condo development and that the current changes would cheapen up the project. Bill Neads, owner of Vallejo Antiques thinks that the City should find another developer that would put something more in demand, such as office buildings (like the demand for antiques?). Council Comments Council Member Hannigan asked how the $200K was determined. Staff's response: attempt to balance the reality of the housing market with the likelihood that the Developer won't be able to close on 2/28/08. Added $200K to balance the housing market issues with a firm extension date to 2/28/09. Hannigan got a report that stated with the downtown build-out, the downtown parking would be deficient by 500 spaces. Development Analyst Annette Taylor indicated that there is a plan-reviewed on January 10-that addresses parking. Mark Ruebsamen said questions about financing are somewhat difficult to answer as they are working with the lenders. Green light from lender means start: best guess a few months. Mayor Davis asked about commercial space. He also had several concerns about the project-concerns about delays (same thing was said in January 2007), and whether it will ever be built. But in the end he indicated that he knows that there is no one beating down Vallejo's doors to take over this development-so should we tie it up for another 3-4 years? (That is the big question. Maybe in 3-4 years the market will turn, just in time for us to sell condos to all those folks flocking to Vallejo for the Touro project...maybe!) Getting info on Friday for a Monday meeting was not enough time to make a decision and the history of amendments was not clearly shown. Concerned that parking will be lost across the street from the Empress. Concerned about the termination clause (didn't specify). Thinks the removal of affordable housing is OK since there is much in the Downtown already. The city should take Triad's $200,000 and spend it on whatever the city wants. Wants commercial space downtown (hey, but we do need people 24-7). Council member Sunga thinks the project should be opened up to other developers (the ones beating down our doors?) and Triad could apply again...he thinks that no one is beating down the doors since Triad has a hold on the property-"landbanking" the property (Council Member Schivley's description). Isn't everyone else doing that downtown???? But if they only have one month left if the City doesn't approve, wouldn't that bring in developers to beat the doors? Sunga said he couldn't approve the project if it was voted on tonight. I'll bet you he won't be voting on it on Jan 29th). Council member Schivley reminded the audience that Triad has invested $8 million dollars into Vallejo's downtown. And that if Vallejo's downtown had a parking problem, which would be a good problem to have in the downtown, and that the City has been trying to redevelop the downtown for 40 years. Agreed that affordable housing is concentrated in the downtown and OK to remove it. Indicated that what we are putting Triad through is why we don't get good developers. Mayor Davis made it clear he disagrees with the last statement-he thinks we are being put through it... Item continued until January 29th - see you then! Administrative Item 10B Was a discussion about if and how to create an opportunity for community forum at the beginning of the meeting. After much discussion by the audience & council, it was decided to bring back to council a consideration of adding 15 minutes to the beginning of the meeting, which would accommodate 5 speakers at 3 minutes each. Most Council members and audience members seemed satisfied with that, but it was only a discussion, no votes. Davis discussed wanting to control the agenda so that they aren't in meetings until 11 or 12 o'clock. Indicated he wanted to get agendas sooner. Schivley asked what process Davis wanted Council members to use for requesting items be agendized. He stated that if the council as a whole wants it on the agenda to request it. Soley reminded them that the ordinance allows a member of the council to request an item to be placed on the agenda if there is time allowed. There were no appointments There was no written communications No City Manager report No City Attorney report Community forum comments came from: Dave West reminded the Council of the history of Community Forum-we shouldn't have to worry about getting on a soap box and then getting beheaded. John Singleton urged the Council to add a forum at the beginning of the meeting and that council members have a lot to learn from speakers at the podium John Osborne was very disappointed that the City Manager did not provide a report on how the City weathered the recent storm. He again asked that the Council create a goal setting session ASAP as required by the municipal code. Requested a study session on how council meetings should be conducted and complained of several instances of the meeting getting too familiar. City Attorney Soley indicated that he was setting up the goal session. Reports from Council Members: Mayor Davis indicated that he was already in the process of setting up goal sessions, one for the council and one for how the council conducts itself. Also spoke of creating a "Mayor's Positive Image Award" to honor those who create a positive image of Vallejo, outside of Vallejo. Great idea, I think! Triad might have delays now and hasn't managed communication regarding them very well, but as I pointed out, for several years Triad and the City have promoted our downtown development plans regionally. Articles in the Chron and other papers (not including the "Thymes Horrid", thanks to a friend for that moniker!); the plan has been cited as an example in conferences and studies, etc, etc. Maybe Triad could get an award? Council Member Sunga reported that the third session of the Disaster Preparedness Program was completed and a fourth will start. Also requested the status of the other projects in the pipeline that have stagnated (kudos for being fair, wonder if he wants to take back the Wal-Mart project?). Davis reminded Sunga that he wanted Council to use this time to report out instead of seven different council members asking staff to do something. Council member Schivley dedicated the meeting to the Fighting Back's Director Al Fleming who passed away suddenly and suggested that the Positive Image Award by given posthumously. Council member Gomes requested that clarity around changes in the way the Council operates be done soon, since Council members who were on the council prior to the election are used to a different way of operating. Davis closed the meeting in honor of Al Fleming. The Council had to go back into closed session-they were in closed session before the start of the meeting with the Firefighters Union, the Police Union, the Electricians Union and the Management Professionals Union and apparently the discussion didn't end. Wonder what the four Henkettes are cooking up? ADQ is watching very carefully... The public portion of the meeting was adjourned...that's all folks! That wraps number 5 of YOUR City Council report! Welcome back to the New Year-and to the New Council/Henkette Order. HOWDY HO! |