Ventura City Council Meeting
September 26, 2011
Ventura City Hall - 501 Poli Street
On June 28 2011, Governor Brown signed into law AB 1X 26 (“Dissolution Act”) and the companion AB 1X 27 (“Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program”). Then on July 18th 2011, the League of Cities and California Redevelopment Association filed suit in California Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the bills. Before the council was the Remittance Agreement, only part of a much more complex item considering the California Supreme Court case which is pending. The law does allow the city to use its low income redevelopment funds to make those payments to the state, and with the city’s funds not being sufficient, a set of findings must be approved to show why those funds are not sufficient. However, the city must find a way to maintain its obligations to 3 low-income redevelopment projects already in progress, with Council having previously directed Staff to maintain an updated status on the impact this is having on affordable housing projects already in progress.
Deputy Mayor Tracy brought the meeting to order with a call of the roll – Council Member Monahan and Mayor Fulton were not present. The deputy mayor then asked all to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Special Presentations and Announcements – Mr. Tracy honored Linda Goldstone and Chris Lopez. Chris was a member of the Golf Advisory Committee and is involved in youth sports. Linda was a member of the Design Review Committee for eight years. Both individuals will be leaving their posts.
Jim Rivera of the Cultural Affairs Commission, Mark Schneider of the Construction Appeals Board, John Hecht from the Planning Commission were asked to come forward for special recognition as they leave their posts. Jim Rivera served on the Cultural Affairs Commission from 2004 to 2011. Mark Schneider served as a member of the Construction Appeals Board from March 2002 to April 2011. John Hecht as a member of the Design Review Committee since April of 1999 was honored for his perspective as Planning Commission Chair. Dawn Fouts Cushing served as a Planning Commission member.
Dawn spoke saying that after two terms in the post the opportunity was rewarding. The other recipients spoke briefly thanking the council and other co-workers on city staff.
Closed Session Report – the city attorney said that Council conducted issues in litigation with Stokes vs. City of Ventura.
Council Communications – Council Member Morehouse congratulated the Hillside Conservancy Committee for the large turnout. And another, the Agriculture Museum in Santa Paula opened with the councilman saying that the display on agricultural equipment was wonderful.
Council Member Andrews said that the Seaside Highland Games are coming to town on the second weekend in October – the eighth and ninth, with events of Scottish heritage. Events begin at 10 AM lasting until 5 PM. The Black and White Ball is being held in Oxnard On the 15th of October at the auditorium, with funds used to support the winter warming shelter. On October 22nd at the Ventura Harbor starting at 9:30 in the morning, the Kinetic Sculpture Race will be featured. Vehicles are human powered and will be required to traverse a wide variety of ‘scapes, both wet and dry.
Council Member Weir noted a new Panera Bread and Bakery store where Applebee’s was formerly. On October 5th there will be a grand opening for the store. The councilwoman offered a plea to the community to stop handing cash to panhandlers, saying that donations to organizations such as Project Understanding and Turning Point will help to alleviate the “transient problem,” so termed.
[Comment] Let's speak to that –“the transient problem.” It might not be too late to reveal to the councilwoman that The Sarah Center – inarguably the heart and soul of Project Understanding – has closed its doors, but only to the destitute “transient” population it was originally set up to serve. It has now become a refurbished daytime retreat and spa, assumedly for new management’s legion of volunteers and paid staff members. {Hold it … hold it … it’s just coming in … I’ve just received the message, Dave, that Project Understanding will fail within the next 48 hours. Furthermore, this prediction is 100% reliable.} “Well in that case, HAL, don’t you think someone should tell Ms. Weir?”
And actually, just as the HAL-9000 computer was wrong in "2001: A Space Odyssey," Ms. Weir is just as wrong to equate “donations to organizations” as the antidote to the transient problem. The Sarah Center was flush with donations and just as strong as ever, so it didn’t close by being starved for cash. Instead, it closed by being starved for 21st Century ideas and competent management skills. See, just like the councilwoman, Rob Orth was of the opinion that the city was encouraging the homeless lifestyle through “the way we give.” And of course the obvious conclusion is that the harder, hungrier and more miserable we can make them, the sooner they (the transients) will become gainfully employed and live happily ever after. This of course is fantasy, which is why fairy stories sell so well – like HAL’s. So If an infallible computer could be wrong, how likely is it that Ms. Weir wouldn't be? [Ed.]
Council Member Brennan congratulated the Hillside Conservancy also, thanking Lynn Bartosh “and her legion of volunteers.” The councilman also mentioned “Pier Under the Stars,” with the fund-raising event benefiting maintenance in and around the pier. The Visitors and Convention Bureau can be contacted for tickets and further information.A new restaurant called Himalaya on the corner of Ventura Avenue and Main Street in the Vons shopping Plaza has opened recently, featuring cuisine from India and Tibet.
Regional Boards Commissions and Committees – Council Member Morehouse reported that the annual League of California Cities Conference in San Francisco dealt with the election of officers, and that Mr. Morehouse’s term will be finishing up at the end of the year. The current Mayor of Santa Barbara will be taking over the reins as President. Changes in the bylaws were brought forward and passed unanimously. The state board will be welcoming the presence of Council Member Andrews, while City Attorney Calonne will be relinquishing his position. Resolutions that were approved included support for alternative methods of posting official notification (alternatives to newspapers). The league voted to call upon the governor and the legislature to fully fund and constitutionally support realignment fees in the wake of the early release of prisoners program, which is expected to release substantial numbers of felons into local communities all across state. The fear is over the consequences of losing local agency funding, originally set at two years of support, and what is now being reduced to just six months.
Community Development Director’s Report – Jeff Lambert took up Staff’s position joined by Nancy Maxwell from the Ventura Chamber of Commerce. It was suggested that a community development night should be used to recognize some local companies that are having great success. The company Ventura Lemon Cello, formed in 2007, was introduced as maker of America’s premier Lemon Cello lemon liqueur. Company representatives were invited forward to receive special recognition by the deputy mayor and to say a few words.
CONSENT ITEMS – Advance Consent Agenda Item No. 1. The Redevelopment Agency Land Transfer to City (public hearing) was moved to a date as yet uncertain, but which will be announced, according to the deputy mayor. A point of order was brought up by Brian Lee Rencher, who stated his intention to speak on the item, but not before the deputy mayor had moved the meeting ahead to Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Rencher then proceeded to speak on Consent Agenda Item No. 1.
Speaking to commission members of the redevelopment agency, Mr. Rencher expressed surprise over Council’s intention to advance the redevelopment agency land transfer issue to some future date and time. The first part of his complaint was the apparent lack of intent to discuss postponing the issue, then asking if an appraiser would be asked to determine the value of the property to be brought into the city, asking further if it would be the city’s intention to have that value transferred as a line of credit balance to the general fund. It was asked “How will the state respond to this gift from the agency to the city?” It was felt that these items are significant and would warrant discussion on whether or not to remove or advance the agenda item.
Agenda Item No. 2 [Back] - Pacific View Mall Update. Jeff Lambert was asked to conduct the presentation, saying that it was really an opportunity to update the council regarding a few of the recent openings at the mall.
Pacific View Mall Update, showing: (“What does $1.4 million [building permit] valuation in tenant improvement investment get us?”) It was noted that the north end of the mall with its many run-down storefronts has been an eyesore of late to the midtown and college districts. Ensuing slides were dedicated to the introduction of Ventura’s newest mall occupants – (1) Trader Joe’s – (2) Massage Envy – (3) Staples
Community Benefits, showing: (1) Delivery of desired businesses – (2) Increased sales tax revenue – (3) Enhanced façade design – (4) Enhanced community access from Telegraph and Mills – (5) Improved connectivity to the Pacific View Mall
East Midtown Vision, showing: (1) Better connections to the surrounding communities; place-making – (2) Reflect the latest trends in delivering the retail experience – (3) Community vision to inform the 2015/16 General Plan update – (4) Scenarios developed – (5) Public discussions to start in November
The East Midtown Vision Exercise, a collaborative effort with the Macerich company, made a commitment of $75,000 toward consultant work while also agreeing to position the city as the lead agency in the project. The balance of the project funds were also handed over to the city, bringing in discussions with community councils in the area. Also under consideration would be the addition of bike lanes along Mills Road and additional landscaping at the north end of the mall, according to Mr. Lambert. Further into the future the vision was said to be a 'reimagining' of the entire area, with extensions that would include portions of the college district as well.
City manager Cole noted that this project involves one of the two largest taxpaying entities in the city, the other being the auto center. Private partners were given almost equal credit along with city efforts for the completion of these important commercial centers. Mr. Cole noted that the business environment has changed since the inception of these centers, and that there have been failures between the city and business stakeholders even in the best of economic times including negotiations with the existing anchor facilities and their management teams. Mr. Cole thought it unusual that Pacific View Mall has managed to forge ahead even in times of financial stress, saying that the mall is in better shape today than it was back in 2006. It was said that “private sector thinking” would be a key factor in moving these economic generators forward into the future, and while the River Park Project was touted as something of an atomic bomb on the business success scale, it has turned out to be far less, according to the city manager who also found it necessary to sideswipe, to some extent, Ventura’s “friends across the way.”
“Pure bread-and-butter retail is currently going off in two directions,” said the city manager. One of these directions would be toward the utilitarian big box outlets with be other being a retail experience that is coupled with entertainment. It was Mr. Coles feeling that regional malls fall squarely in between these two models. It was also said that this was long-range visioning with the intent of involving the community in these important planning efforts.
Public Communications – Carroll Dean Williams asked for recognition of the fact that there are closed and otherwise failed retail spaces within Pacific View Mall. It was the speaker’s feeling that the North end extension with a few large retailers fails to live up to the level of success being presented.
Brian Rencher spoke, saying that he favored the idea of an “East Ventura Vision,” involving two community councils in the area, noting that in the planning stages for the original mall it was thought than that there should be pedestrian and bicycling amenities built in. it was said that bicycling down Mills Road today can be hazardous, and that serious consideration should be given to improving safety in the circulation patterns around the mall.
Agenda Item No. 3 [Back] - Focus Area One (Auto Center and Olivas Park Drive) Workshop. Jeff Lambert and Rick Raives took up positions in preparation for their presentation.
Focus Area No. 1, showing: (1) Strengthen partnership with auto dealers – (2) Beautification projects – (3) Facilitate land use entitlements – (4) Improve transportation network [Focus area designated No. 1 out of a list of priority projects was first identified in the 2005-2010 Economic Development Strategy]
Players Club, showing: (1) Phase 1; June 17, 2011 – (2) Daily tables use; Average of 13-14 tables – (3) Daily attendance; 1500-2000 – (4) Phase 2; Restaurant and expanded tables pending
Proposed Olivas Park Drive Road Extension and Levee, showing: (The levee alignment was shown in a land Platte map detailing EIR issues with the levee hydraulics involving the Ventura and the Oxnard portions overall levee system [Levee in light blue]. The roadway alignment was shown [Roadway in gray], along with the equipment/construction zone [shown in red]. It was said that partnership talks have been in progress with both the county and the City of Oxnard to ensure that both sides of the levee function cooperatively without favoring or disfavoring either side.
Remaining Issues, showing: (1) Who pays what share for road and levee – (2) Potential EIR issues – (3) Approval from FEMA for SC River flood plain changes – (4) Levee construction and maintenance
Schedule, showing: (Staff said that we are in the draft EIR stage and hope to meet the March 2010 target date for completion of that portion of the schedule.)
Deputy Mayor Tracy commented on the presentation by saying that as Council’s liaison to the Auto Center, a large “thank you” would be in order to participants for their hours of meeting time that has gone into the effort so far. It was further noted that because of the importance of the Auto Center as related to Ventura’s financial future, a lot of care has gone into the planning for expanded opportunity and development in ways that would bring traffic into the area on an extended-visit basis, including finding ways to incorporate permanent amenities like the harbor area or other centers within the city.
Council Communications – Council Member Andrews wished to review the land Platte map, asking for Staff to identify the red area shown. It was said that the red line area includes construction impacts to the sensitive habitat areas, as well as delineating the edge of the construction area. It was asked whether or not Ventura and Oxnard have maintained communications as was done he past with a program called “Hands Across the River.” The deputy mayor responded saying “I don’t think so.”
Council Member Brennan said that the “Hands” program has never been abandoned, but that with the framework in place it is something that could be restarted, acknowledging that the levee situation remains a bigger problem for the City of Oxnard than for other partners in the impacted area.
Council Member Weir asked for a review of the Beautification slide, seeming to suggest that the visualization could bring greater “beauty” to the area with the addition of some measure of professional landscaping. It was said that large retailers pay a great deal of attention to traffic counts and with Johnson Drive in Ventura having the highest traffic count in the county, it was questioned as to whether the timetable schedule presented by Staff was in any way realistic when it comes to promising interested retailers any dates certain for their projected occupancy plans. Staff replied that better information will be had upon completion of the environmental report.
Council Member Morehouse agreed that working with other agencies has the potential to alter schedules and time frames in some very unanticipated ways, noting also that working with levees can be an even more frightening proposition. It was wondered whether or not the city was being restricted in any way by the Army Corps of Engineers, and that with Santa Clara River being one of the last un-channelized rivers, it was wondered, then, whether or not we are avoiding the concrete-basin, L.A. River model. Staff replied that the Corps advises on environmental factors such as storm patterns and the expected severity or impacts that may be experienced with storm water runoff or flooding potential. The county is in the process of revising its 100-year frequency flow criteria, and that along with FEMA revisions to its mapping, properties end up being in floodplain areas where they may not have been previously. It was pointed out that this is reflective of some of Oxnard’s problems.
The councilman continued the line of questioning by asking whether or not the modeling is sophisticated enough to project any future disasters such as was experienced when a mobile home park was taken out due to fast-moving and perhaps “channelized” construction. Staff replied that with the slowing down effects obtained by natural curves and embankments inherent in the delta area, extremes in hydraulic movement are not expected.
Public Communications – Carroll Dean Williams took to the podium to ask whether the council would be using an oral or a written report. The speaker also warned that to take action on an item that has not been agendized, would be to commit an illegal act.
Brian Rencher spoke, saying that it doesn’t matter where you buy your car – sales tax money is returned to the city in which you live. Council Member Weir interjected, saying that the law has been changed in this regard. Mr. Rencher went on to say with regard to the 2005-2010 Economic Development Strategy, that the area has been targeted for additional retail, with the idea being that expansion will draw in additional retail. When the redevelopment agency paid the city $5 million toward a line of credit for the bond it had issued back in 2007, the city should have put that money toward the Olivas extension. Had we done that, according to the speaker, funds would have been sitting there waiting for the opportunity we are now gearing up for … giving us the jobs and moving forward on a policy that had already been approved.
John Hofer spoke, saying that he accepted the report brought forward. The Auto Center and its dealers are anxious to be working with the city, said the speaker.
Bill Craft spoke as the newest member of the auto center retail establishment, commended the staff for the work performed. The improvements will attract visibility and customers.
Jeff Sukay, representing Kirby Auto Group, called the project “exciting.” A round of thank-you’s ensued directed toward the staff, along with praise for the beautification effort. “There are a lot of layers on this onion,” said the speaker, but that the project will have a huge impact on the Auto Center as well as the city of Ventura.
Cheryl Heitmann said that she was fully in support of this, noting that the economic plan from ‘05-‘10 seemed to have become less visible lately, but that seeing its return to the forefront represents progress. The speaker expressed her full support for moving the project forward.
Council Communications – Council Member Weir wanted to clarify the tax issue on the purchase of an automobile, saying that the sales tax rate established by your city is the rate you pay no matter where you buy the car. The city in which you buy the car, however, still does receive the tax money, but at the rate established by your home city.
Agenda Item No. 4 [Back] - Community Remittance Agreement, Reduction In Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Housing Set-Aside Deposit, and Housing Projects Loan Agreement. Jeff Lambert and Dori Boyer from the redevelopment staff went forward with a presentation.
Redevelopment Agency Up to Now, showing: (1) June 28 2011; Gov. Brown signed into law AB 1X 26 (“Dissolution Act”) and the companion AB 1X 27 (“Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program”) – (2) June 29 2011; Effective date of both bills – (3) July 18th 2011; League of Cities and California Redevelopment Association filed suit in California Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) challenging the constitutionality of the bills
Before the council is the remittance agreement, which is only part of a much more complex item considering the Supreme Court case which is pending. The city’s State of Indebtedness submission to the county is due by the end of the month, according to Mr. Lambert. Secondly, the law also allows the city to use its low income redevelopment funds to make those payments to the state, and with the city’s funds not being sufficient, A set of findings must be approved to show why those funds are not sufficient. And thirdly, allow the city to maintain its obligations to 3 low-income redevelopment projects already in progress, with Council having previously directed the staff to maintain an updated status and the current impact of affordable housing projects. Each of the three developers having been contacted, all have indicated a somewhat uneasy approval with waiting until January, saying further that it will be “difficult if not disastrous for us.” Staff will also be bringing forward a plan to replenish the redevelopment fund using the city’s General Fund. It was said that “as future increment comes in,” the General will be replenished.
Redevelopment Agency Up to Now (cont’d), showing: (4) July 25th 2011; Introduction and waiver of first reading of an uncodified ordinance by the city council determining that it will comply with AB 1X 27 (“Voluntary payments” now being referred to as “Community Remittances”) – (5) August 1st 2011; Second reading and adoption of the uncodified ordinance – (6) Supreme Court agreed to take case and issued an immediate stay of enforcement of AB 1X 26 in part, and a stay of AB 1X 27 in its entirety
Redevelopment Agency Up to Now (cont’d), showing: (7) Aug. 15th 2011; RDA staff filed an appeal with Department of Finance (“DOF”) of the amount calculated for its “Community Remittances” – (8) August 17th 2011; Supreme Court modified the stay to clarify that Health and Safety Codes 34161 through 34169.5 were not subject to the stay and remain in effect – (9) August 22nd 2011; Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule (“EOPS”) approved and adopted
Redevelopment Agency Up to Now (cont’d), showing: (10) August 22nd 2011; CRA and League of Cities requested the state Supreme Court to modify its stay of AB 1X 26 and 27 in order to clarify – (1.1) That stay did not undo the effect of continuation ordinances enacted prior issuance of the stay – (1.2) That communities that did not an act a continuation ordinance prior to the stay should be permitted to do so while the case is pending – (2) September 14th 2011; State Supreme Court issued an order denying this request. Latest order still leaves some issues ambiguous
Resolutions and Conditional Agreements, showing: City and agency are being asked to take a few actions, all of which must be conditional at this time due to the state Supreme Court’s stay, until the CRA lawsuit is resolved.
Resolutions and Conditional Agreements (cont’d), showing: (1) First, both the city and agency are each asked to adopt a resolution and to conditionally approve a remittance agreement, so that the agency may include its transfer of tax increment revenues as a debt on the Statement of Indebtedness due October 1st 2011. The transfer of tax increment revenues would be in the amount of what the agency would reimburse the city for the Community Remittances – (2) Under the Remittance Agreement conditions, the city will reserve the right, whether any Community Remittance has been paid, to challenge the legality of AB 1X 26 and AB 1X 27
Remittance Agreement, showing: Allows agency to pledge a portion of the fiscal year tax increment revenues as an obligation of the agency – (2) If approved by October 1st 2011, obligation would appear on the agencies Statement of Indebtedness (“SOI”) – (3) Under AB 1X 27, if upheld, the Community Remittance is increased by the new debt issued after October 1st 2011; effectively equal to 80 percent of the local education agencies’ share of taxes – (4) Significant burden on future discretionary agency dollars – (5) Essential that agencies document all existing debts on October 1st 2011 and have in place all necessary documentation to support its inclusion on the SOI
Resolutions and Conditional Agreements, showing: (1) Second, the court’s stay also stayed Health and Safety Code Section 34914.3, which provides that for FY 2011-12 only, the agency may reduce its allocation of tax increment revenues to its Housing Fund set-aside in order to transfer tax increment revenues to the city to allow the city to make the Community Remittance payment – (2) In order to do so, the agency must find that there are insufficient other monies to meet its debt and other obligations, current priority program needs, or its obligations under the Remittance Agreement
Resolutions and Conditional Agreements, showing: (1) Third, the agency has three Affordable Housing Development Agreements in place with $400,550 in final payments (two developments) due FY 2011-12 and one final payment of $28,500 in FY 2011-13 – (2) Staff contacted the three developers to determine what effect a payment delay would have on their projects – (3) Two in critical phases of instruction funding; one completed construction but relying on final payments to meet its obligations [“We do have RDA affordable housing funds owed to all three of those projects, so if council acts on this (last) decision tonight, we will go ahead and remit those payments to those three affordable housing projects to maintain their ability to complete their financing … complete their construction and get them occupied”]
Housing Projects Loan Agreement, showing: (1) Following approval and execution of the Housing Development Agreements, the California Legislature enacted AB X4 26 to, among other things, require redevelopment agencies to make certain payment to the County Supplmental Educational Review Augmentation Fund (SERAF) in FY 2009-10 and 2010-2011 ~$1,152,029 and $236,182 respectively – (2) Agency did not have other funding available and, as authorized under AB X4 26, was required use a portion of its Housing Fund monies to make its required SERAF payment
Housing Projects Loan Agreement (cont’d), showing: (1) As a result of the SERAF payment, in addition to the transfer of funds to the city under the Remittance Agreement to make the Community Remittance payments, the agency currently does not have sufficient funds in its Housing Fund to make the payments required under the three Housing Development Agreements – (2) The Housing Projects Loan Agreement will be entered into solely to enable the agency meet its legally binding and enforceable obligations and as such is not considered “new debt.”
Redevelopment Agency Forward, showing: (1) September 30th 2011; Filing date for Statement of Indebtedness for FY 2011-12 [Oct. 1st 2011 is on a Saturday] – (2) September 30th 2011; Prepare and submit preliminary draft of the initially recognized EOPS – (3) October 15th 2011; DOF to notify agencies of its determination of appeals [original date was September 15th 2011 but could be October 15th 2011 if extended by DOF]. No determination received yet as of this date
Redevelopment Agency Forward (cont’d), showing: (1) December 31st 2011; Filing date for Annual State Controllers Report of FY 2010-11 – (2) January 15th 2012; Supreme Court decision has stated it will issue its decision on constitutionality of bills by this date – (3) January 15th 2012; First installment of “Voluntary Payments” due if AB 1X 27 is allowed to continue
Redevelopment Agency Forward (cont’d), showing: (1) May 15th 2012; Second installment of “Voluntary Payments” due if AB 1X 27 is allowed to continue – (2) Take additional actions as necessary to preserve rights and meet obligations
Mr. Lambert said that “We are monitoring our cash flow quite closely,” and “Dori has spreadsheet after spreadsheet” to make sure that we are monitoring our Redevelopment Agency as best we can. It was also said that in this window of time we will continue the RDA barring negative changes in the Supreme Court’s decision. The council could be asked to rethink its decision, as Staff may return to Council in January in response to changing developments in Sacramento, according to Jeff.
Council Communications – Council Member Morehouse indicated that in his private group and professional committee positions, this topic dominates. Using the city of Santa Barbara as a model, a session at the APA conference illustrated for the participant what happens when RDA money winds down. The League conference was also mentioned as the councilman along with Council Members Andrews and Monahan, where the message was “loud and clear” coming from the League of California Cities that the voters in Prop 22 said “hands off” our RDA money. The councilman expressed his appreciation for Staff’s “gearing up for the worst-case scenario,” and for helping to channel a pathway toward maintaining a Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program in the City of Ventura.The councilman acknowledged the necessity to reach into the General Fund, asking what the full impact on the GF might look like. Dori responded saying that because this is the “low mod” housing fund, and due to the fact that we won’t receive our tax increment until after tax day in the spring, along with the fact that the development cannot be put on extended hold, this becomes a timing issue for this year only.
Mr. Morehouse also wished to have clarification on the alternatives, including a delay until the October 1st 2011 date in which the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling. Also No. 5 – Council could choose to lend the agency sufficient funds to cover the minimum amount ($429,000 plus). It was desired to know what was the downside of extending the date plus the problem of coming up short.
Dori said that a delay in payments to the developers causes their project payments to slip, and with regard to the lower loan amount, this is the amount the city had originally requested, which is also the amount due in the El Patio project for their final payment. Jeff said that Part of what the city owes El Patio ($28,000) will be deferred until next year.
City Manager Cole indicated a few cautions and disclaimers concerning Dori’s answers, and while correct, there is an inherent assumption being made that the state will not come after us again. A State of California win at the Supreme Court would establish precedent for the state to raid cities’ redevelopment agency funds, notwithstanding the voters’ will. At worst, according to Mr. Cole, the city would be forced to terminate redevelopment efforts. Were the city not to be able to repay the $429,000 advance from the state low/moderate housing fund, the portion due the county would also not be available due to total depletion on our end. The funds stem not from a legal situation but from a set-aside by previous city councils for housing preservation and affordability. The implication is that not being able to repay the state, the city could no longer use the set-aside money for other uses such as housing preservation. Council still would have the option of unwinding the previous policy had it not lent out the $429,000 and applied that to another capital purpose, according to the city manager. It was noted that councils in the past have consistently refrained from doing this, and Staff is [now] recommending adherence to this policy. However, should the state change its policy as Dori had outlined earlier, this would end up putting a clamp on the city’s ability to use that $429,000 for other affordable housing purposes anyway
[Comment] So now the city manager chastises the city council for following Staff’s recommendations. Isn’t this interesting? Now that the $429,000 has been earmarked from Housing Preservation – Christy Weir’s favorite – lo and behold, the piper wants his due. This is precisely why the state did not want redevelopment money distributed about in “piggy bank” fashion in the first place, is it not? The “learning moment” in all of this is for citizens to realize one thing – this City Council, now sitting in power for far too long, has done little else in its long tenure besides rubber-stamping policy directions given out by the unelected and the unaccountable sitting in offices behind the white marble façade at 501 Poli Street ( “… and they had fun, fun, fun until their daddy took the T-Bird away”). [Ed.]
Public Communications – Brian Rencher launched into his “Give ‘em hell, Harry” routine by saying that he supported Staff’s recommendations A, B and D, while being adamantly opposed to recommendation C. Noting that the city does not have the funds available to make upcoming payments in the amount of $429,000, while proposing that the Housing Preservation fund, which is General Fund money, be used as the lending source for these payments, the speaker said further that Council is “gambling with our money.” The Housing Preservation fund has a balance designation of $528,956 (August 31, 2011) of which $37,400 is held in reserve for pending housing preservation deferred loans and property assessment payments. In addition, the City Council on January 20th 2011 approved use of the funds to repay a $200,000 commitment to the Housing Trust fund, which, after lending distribution to various entities, the Housing Preservation fund will sit at $22,500. The more prudent use for this money, according to the speaker, would be to support second unit owners with their building code legalization problems rather than handing the money over to nameless corporations who build buildings and expect to sell ”affordable housing” units at $466,000 each. It was the speakers claim that many more units could be serving a much wider segment of the population and almost risk free, which is not the case currently, as pointed to by the city manager, if the California Supreme Court does not rule in our favor. The public needs to know that “They’re gambling with our money to help a politically connected crony finish a project at the expense of poor citizens who are being crushed by our new Second Unit Amnesty program.”
Carroll Dean Williams expressed the opinion that the Supreme Court will rule against the plaintiffs and retract its earlier stay of enforcement of AB 1X 26 in part, and a stay of AB 1X 27, insisting that the issue before the council was little more than an exercise in futility.
Karen Flock, Real Estate Development Director with Cabrillo Economic Development, said that their firm appreciated the city’s support for its development projects, with current construction on Azahar as they create homes for “people who need them.”
Council Communications – The deputy mayor asked for any other comments from the council and solicited a motion from anyone who would care to advance one. Council Member Morehouse felt that the League and the CRA would prevail in court. The councilman advanced a motion to approve Staff’s recommendations A, B, C, and D. With a second received and no further discussion forthcoming, the city clerk was asked to call for a vote. All members voted yes.
Jeff Lambert offered his final thoughts by saying that this is a challenge and that “things are changing.” The issue would be revisited before Counsel before any remittance payments are made, according to the community development director.
Council Member Brennan wished to inform Community Development Director Jeff Lambert that the BMR housing project now under construction at Oak Street and Thompson Boulevard [Encanto Del Mar] while progressing with entitlements according to Council-approved ordinances, there remains an interesting side note over an alleyway and another short roadway which join at one corner of the building, prompting speculation over naming these as “Mike Jones Way” and “Curtis Styles Way.” It was said that the “coming together” of Styles and Jones would pay hommage to two legendary home-town public servants who in life were never known to have agreed on anything. Apparently, once the alley dedication is brought to the city in either October or November, according to Mr. Lambert, Council will be presented with that naming opportunity.
Public Communications – Brian Rencher, whose name is to appear on the November ballot, used his public speaking time before the camera to critique the campaign promo material put out by Councilman Morehouse, whose name is also to be placed before the public in November.
Council Member Morehouse said that in honoring last week the memory of Tom Berg, a former Management Research Agency member and County director, the councilman had attended services for Mr. Berg this week, also mentioning the birthday of Mayor Bill Fulton on this day in his absence from the dais. Council Member Brennan in plugging the next candidate’s forum event at the WAV on October 4th also plugged Councilman Morehouse’s supposed championship for “economy, environment, and social justice,” again the supposed “three legs of the stool” for sustainability in growing and nurturing our community.
Deputy Mayor Tracy announced the fact that with no further comment from either the council or the public, the meeting would stand adjourned.