Pacific View- resposible evaluation while moving forward on purchase

Pacific View-  council meeting 7/ 16 on suitability contingency

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