This meeting will make the contract of sale of this property binding. I had an exchange of emails with council member Tony Kranz, that I am copying here: (ignore the variation of type face and size)
The conversation was initiated by this email I sent on Monday July 14
City Officials
As of the time of this email, the 700 plus page document of the above is
not linked to the Agenda. Other such links are active so the defect or
removal I conclude is by the city. I did get to start to study the
report on Friday when it was released and noticed
it did not have an executive summary or a contents page, which makes it
impossible to evaluate even if it were now available.
I request a response to several questions:
While the studies appeared to be for generic improvements, please
indicate specific analyses that were performed for underground parking
of various levels, with geologic findings and cost estimates. Such
parking would be required if any sizable performance
space were to be part of the arts center. Also describe any traffic
and parking studies that were done concomitant to this issue, described
further in next paragraph.
Every property in Southern California has a wide array of limitations of
usage that are defined by history codified into law. Discovery of
religious artifacts of indigenous peoples is one that could preclude a
wide array of improvements The consensus that
enjoyment of the beach is a common right of the people has been
codified by state law that is enforced by the California Coastal
Commission. This is reflected by the principle and requirement that no
facility that substantively detracts from available near
beachfront parking would be permitted.
From my earlier reading, limited by the lack of a contents page or
index, there is no evidence that your due diligence investigation
evaluated the above. Thus ignoring the clause in the sales contract (4.1.b)
that allowed for our abrogation if the land was not "suitable
for our use."
.....but is not limited to, a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Geo-technical
reconnaissance,
Hydrology Study,
and/or other inspections or studies deemed necessary
by
Buyer for determining the condition and suitability of the Property.
Suitability" of the property implies suitable for a given specified use, as every property is inherently suitable for something; so without specificity of use the clause is meaningless.
Unless the following elements that limit or preclude use are included in
the above document, and identified specifically with location, (section
and page number), I will propose the following to the council at the
meeting of 7/16.
A: This due diligence document is not approved.
B: The issues raised above be investigated before July 28th when relevant clause expires per exiting contract of sale
C: If these investigations, along with cost estimates for selected
structures are not completed for a special meeting to be evaluated
before this clause expires, then the city lawyer be instructed to either
receive a 60 day extension of above clause 4.1.b or
abrogate said contract. Al Rodbell
Tony wrote back, offering to provide a copy of the 700+ page document to me, which I responded with my detailed suggestions:
Dear Tony,
I
appreciate your offer, however, my central point is that if there is
the evaluation of the elements that I describe, let's call it legal
limitation rather than geologic due diligence, it is not appropriate
that an involved resident has to search through each of a 700 page
report. There should be a contents, executive summary or index. The
person who wrote this document could give you an answer to my query
immediately, since he knows what's included.
If,
as I believe, the elements that I described were not considered, then
the taxpayers are taking a risk that this property may not be suitable,
even if done in the future, for any contemplated improvements. This is
not an attempt to "sabotage" but to exert pressure on the elected
officials to do what any public or private entity would do in a purchase
such as this.
As
far as your position that there is no need to delay acquisition, an
extension of the single clause would not have to result in such a delay.
I would prefer that we push the closing back the two months, so if we
do discover something like the underground pool of water that the
speaker before me on the May 28th meeting referred to (seeing it as an
asset!) then we would realize that we could not reasonably have the
multi level underground parking that a performance space would require.
Under such an unexpected discovery I trust even a fair minded enthusiast
would realize that this property's value is sharply lowered.
On
the other hand with some investigation of traffic and parking
constraints we may find out that the concern that I have is over stated.
This could be done by research of Coastal Commission decisions on
other similar proposals. Such research would not be definitive but it
would reduce uncertainty, and we can determine pretty well how much of a
limit to future development this represents. At the very least, the
city Manager should be clearly instructed, not a vague suggestion that
he can sidestep, but instructed to research and report on this within
ten days. This may require advance instructions or a meeting of council
at this time to evaluate such a "legal limitation due diligence
report."
Our
city manager is shameless in pulling the wool over the eyes of elected
officials. He never told you when you had doubts about Peak Democracy
that the years contract could have been canceled at any time at will,
and we could have suspended payment while doing further investigation,
and then afterwards if members wanted to go forward the contract could
have been re- instituted. We were not obligated for a year, which was the
mis-impression he allowed to exist.
Let's
move ahead on this purchase if
this is the decision of the majority of our elected city officials;
but we can do this responsibly, which is the purpose of my
suggestions.
I appreciate your responding, and hope that you follow through.
Regards
Al
