More than a decade of Cabral. Two years (and counting) of Tang. It now may become legal in California.

Thomas Peele and Josh Richman report:

Legislation tucked into the state budget bill would “eviscerate” the public’s ability to track tax dollars and hold local officials accountable, open government advocates charged Friday. [...]

Language inserted into a budget bill on Wednesday would allow local governments to turn down requests for records without citing a legal reason. It would no longer require government officials to respond to to records requests within 10 days or force them to help the public by describing what records exist. [...]

The proposed changes suggest local governments follow current law as a “best practice” but also allows them the option of ignoring transparency provisions by announcing annually that they will not follow them.

It also changes a major provision of the law about electronic records, stripping a requirement that governments release things like data bases and spreadsheets in the form they are kept, instead giving them the option of picking their own format, such as paper copies. [...]

Terry Francke, general counsel of the good government group Californian’s Aware, said the changes “cannot be justified by fiscal necessity; no one has provided any evidence of savings.” He accused Brown and legislative leaders of trying to sneak through a gutting of transparency requirements that would never pass otherwise.

The ACLU of Northern California also ripped the changes Friday. “Interfering with public access to public records will only shroud elected officials in more secrecy at a time when transparency is more crucial than ever before,” said its spokesman, Will Matthews.

Request your records while it’s still legal.

Some Bayside residents are fed up with the Bayside HOA’s legal stance on Sycamore North, which, in short, is demanding the removal of the upper story in order to receive temporary easements required for construction. The growing clamor is much more clear and in unison on the neighborhood’s southern side — closest to Sycamore North.

One resident, Stefanie, says that she would like to see construction commenced and completed, as designed, as soon as possible. She says her neighbors agree with her and that they are the most affected living immediately adjacent to the structure.

“When I talk to my neighbors and friends, they hate seeing it like this; they would rather it be done,” Stefanie said. She characterized the detractors of the proposed project as “a small group of people acting like they speak for all of us.”

Bayside residents recently received the following letter from UC/BNB Partners, who plan to finish the building as rebranded Town Centrale:

The city sent in Mayor John Delgado in April (along with city manager Steve Duran) to resolve the dispute with the HOA. It didn’t work.

The council recently extended the PSA deadline to July to close the deal.

UC/BNB Partners is hosting a community meeting to discuss the project at 10am on Saturday, June 22, at city hall.

Breaking news. The city is nearing completion of a deal with Lewis Group to purchase the Parcel C property. Lewis Group had been the owner of the property prior to selling the land to Walmart. Lewis had also been the developer of Bayside — selling building rights to John Laing Homes and William Lyon Homes.

Lewis Group is reportedly proposing a residential-only apartment complex that would be managed under their apartment division. Language in the deal may include a portion of retail but only if found feasible. It would be a developer option that could reduce the sale price.

This advanced stage of negotiations comes under the guise of the recent council action to negotiate with a TBD party in closed session last month. The legality of the closed door discussion has been broached, but “legal” is not something this city does well, if at all. (But they do write checks.)

In an email thread with a resident that was made available to news organizations, city attorney Patrick Tang wrote the following with respect to recent council actions made on the Parcel C property:

It has been the City’s practice for some time now to identify on the closed session agendas, and to read into the record before each closed session meeting, the names of the parties with which the City is negotiating. The only exception has been a recent case when there were no formal negotiations underway with any party concerning the acquisition or development of a particular parcel (see May 14, 2013 agenda, closed session item 1, Parcel C). In that case, the City did not identify who it was negotiating with, because the City had not commenced formal negotiations with anyone. The agenda thus read, “Other party to be determined.” I believe the notice requirements were met in this case, as the parcel in question was identified on the published agenda, the City’s negotiators were identified, and the fact that there was as yet no developer with which the city was formally negotiating, was indicated on the agenda with the statement, “Other party to be determined.”

Following the closed session proceedings on May 14, the city attorney announced that the council had provided direction to staff on the item, but did not disclose any further what that direction was — with whom, for what use, etc.

The property is zoned as General Commercial, required information that was included in the sales/marketing effort.¹ A PSA that includes a predominant majority of residential (and likely all residential) is in direct conflict with the General Plan. Therefore, the closed session meetings with council must have included discussion of land use (if even briefly).

In the same email thread, Tang wrote:

I must also disagree with your suggestion that the Council is convening in closed session to discuss land use and zoning issues. The City Council does of course meet in closed session with its real estate negotiators on occasion. [...] It is the Council’s practice, when discussing real estate negotiations with the City’s negotiators in closed session, to limit the discussion to items that are essential to arriving at the authorized price and payment terms. The Council does not convene in closed session for the purpose of discussing land use and zoning issues.

The council is treading on thin ice on this specific item. Attorney fees await — and abound.

The city filed for $24.7m in grants under the TIGER program last week for the ITC project, thanks to the city’s consultant (William Silva) and continued “support, advocacy, and resources provided by the Contra Costa Transportation Agency (CCTA), East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Gray Bowen, and Hercules Bayfront, LLC,” according to the most recent city manager’s report.

The grant application also included letters of support from an impressive number of local agencies and government officials:

• Congressman Mike Thompson
• Congressman George Miller
• Department of Housing and Community Development
• Union Pacific Railroad
• Senator Loni Hancock
• Senator Mark DeSaulnier
• Senator Lois Wolk
• Assemblymember Nancy Skinner
• Assemblymember Susan Bonilla
• Contra Costa County, Board of Supervisors
• Caltrans
• San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority
• West Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT)
• Contra Costa Transportation Authority
• West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
• East Bay Regional Park District
• East Bay Leadership Council (formerly Contra Costa Council)

Even the railroad. Momentum.

Alyssa Morrisey reports:

Council member Dan Romero defended the freeway sign, adding that it could help generate between $200,000 and $250,000 for the city each year in much needed revenue.

“I’m just asking than when you’re deciding on something like this with a trivial vote, without hearing anything about it, that you come back and say okay ‘I have this new idea, this is how we’re going to replace that $200,000 to $300,000 income loss,” Romero said.

It’s not income loss since it never existed. Unless you also consider casino revenue as losses too.

The past several city manager reports have included no updates — substantive or otherwise — on the status of Sycamore North, Sycamore Crossing, Victoria Crescent, and Parcel C.

The weekly report was introduced in autumn of 2012 by then-interim city manager Charlie Long as a means to relay information to the public as he unearthed the ghastly horror that was city’s management and operations. Since that time, the report has devolved into a political piece — advocating for tax increases, highlighting or even embellishing successes, while suppressing challenges and key information for the public to know, specifically with respect to land deals.

This week’s report is no different. The report includes the following summary of the AMBAC lawsuit¹:

Ambac and the City have extended the performance date on the court approved stipulation to July 30, 2013 and are negotiating an amended stipulation to further extend for time and to provide for the requirements of AB 1484. The property attachment that is part of the current stipulation is set at $6.5 million, but the amount due at closer to $5.5 million. Staff and Ambac met with the Department of Finance staff in Sacramento on April 15 to discuss the disposition of properties owned by the City as Successor Agency and expediting the approval of real estate to meet the requirements of the court approved stipulation that former Redevelopment Agency properties are sold expeditiously.

The properties in question include Sycamore Crossing, which is in contract with Property Development Centers/Safeway to build a Safeway anchored Shopping Center, Victoria Crescent, which is in contract with City Ventures to build single family detached homes for sale, and Parcel C, which is out of contract and under negotiations. Any proceeds of these sales will go toward financial obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency. Although no sales proceeds will go to the City, the fees, sales tax and utility user tax that will be created by the development of these properties will go a long way toward stabilizing the City’s finances over time.

There is one piece of new information in the excerpt above — the first sentence. Everything else is either dated or political, especially the reference that the “requirements of the court approved stipulation that former Redevelopment Agency properties are sold expeditiously.”

Of course, what the council is trying to do, is not sell the properties expeditiously, but rezone the parcels (land use changes in conflict with the General Plan outside of the planning process) and sell the properties in one fell swoop — in closed session. This is illegal.

The report has no detailed discussion on action items for the parcels or challenges. (It is not a true status report.) But it does mention that the taxes “created by the development of these properties will go a long way toward stabilizing the City’s finances over time,” which is, again, a purely political statement — the end justifies the means (perhaps even a casino).

The illegal PSA with Safeway mentioned in the report includes a 16-plus pump gas complex. Not 16. Sixteen plus. In addition to never being analyzed for environmental impact (CEQA), the land use is in direct conflict with the General Plan, Central Hercules Plan, and site-specific IPDP. However, the gas complex is hard-wired into the deal so that if Safeway’s plans do not succeed in the future (through CEQA and the public planning process), it will fail. And the city will be back to where it started.

Selling these parcels expeditiously meant selling them as-is. The council was told this. They didn’t listen.

Two years of failure, and counting.

What is the cost of a good lawyer? What is the cost of a lawyer that is mediocre at best? What is the cost of a lawyer that is not even in the room?

The city council discussed the latest budget numbers at tonight’s meeting in the wake of Measure A being approved last week. Details remain murky; several items lacked necessary annotation to understand the purpose. While the council labored over numerous small ticket items — in the $1-8k range — one number loomed large: $866k for attorney fees (including the city attorney).

Of the 866k¹, 290k is allocated to various city departments. The remaining 576k is discretionary legal services based on city activities and needs (mostly determined by the council).

Councilwoman Myrna de Vera questioned why this number could not be reduced. The finance director advised not to lower the budgeted amount — “because HMU is still here” — but did agree that the number could be revisited for the 2014-2015 budget next year.

Mayor John Delgado made a couple light-hearted references to reducing legal fees throughout the course of the discussion.

The 2013-2014 budget, which begins July 1, is expected to be approved at the next city council meeting on June 25.

While discussing means to raise future revenues, the council unanimously threw out parcel taxes and taxes on marijuana dispensaries as considerations in the budget. Councilman Dan Romero was the lone supporter for LED signage (which purportedly would bring $200-300k in annual revenue) as a consideration and argued that if items will be “trivially” dismissed (despite not supporting either tax on their face), other items must be identified to replace that potential revenue. Even though discussion continued on the issue, no new items were identified. Delgado said the LED sign was only removed from the budget, not from future consideration.

Revenue from a potential successor to Sala Restaurant at the Civic Arts Building was not included in next year’s budget. The city manager said he does not expect a tenant paying rent before the end of the calendar year (in the worst case) — despite considerable interest. The item will be reevaluated at the mid-year budget review.