The Albany City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to rescind an ordinance approving the University Village Mixed Use Project Development Agreement.
The repeal allows the city to avoid calling a special election to put the agreement to a vote. It "will have no effect on the other City Council actions" connected to the project, according to a staff report.
U.C. representatives at the council meeting said the project to develop a grocery store and senior housing complex at University Village will move forward as planned.
*See here for more Albany Patch University Village development coverage.
The agreement was added late in the process as a result of the Council's insistence in October 2011 that project approval include a permanent resolution of the Albany Little League fields status. UC had already made a side deal with Albany Little League to keep the fields in place for ten years if the project was approved. In response to the City's insistence for more, the development agreement was negotiated as a vehicle for UC to commit to pay for moving the fields in the future if necessary (the Village master plan calls for housing where the fields are now). At a million dollars or more for the move, this was a valuable commitment. I thought the agreement was a remarkable achievement by the City, particularly because UC's first response to the insistence was to send a threatening letter citing case law regarding why the City's request was likely illegal. I'm baffled the Council rescinded the agreement. My understanding is that this gives up the hard won guarantee for the fields. Perhaps the same commitment was made by other means?
I was amazed the item Patch led with from Monday night's meeting was commemoration of the City Engineer's tenure. Not that this was not also important, just that I think the history of the UC project demonstrates more community interest in its trajectory.
The petition for a referendum basically suceeded in the loss of the agreement by UC to relocate Albany Little League fields at their expense if necessary in the future and to remove the stipulation that priority be given to Albany seniors for 10% of the senior housing units. So the referendum, far from stopping the project, hurt Albany kids and seniors. I hope this will be a cautionary tale. Hopefully after 1 year the City can enter into a "substantially similar" agreement as permitted by law and the people responsible for the petition will stand down.
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2012/11/20/officials-push-uc-berkeley-mixed-use-project-forward/
Lesson learned. Final approval of the project requires a vote of the electorate as part of the process, which can be scheduled with other matters on the ballot to reduce costs. In the meantime, UC apparently took steps to take the Gill Tract out of the hands of the real estate developers and put it back in an academic department where it belongs. You won. Declare victory. Vindication. But negotiate dropping the law suit(s).
That paints the threatened referendum far more charitably than it deserves. Based on the results of this past election (e.g., the single digit voting percentages for the "pro-OTF" candidates), it seems likely that the referendum would also have failed, at the cost of boring a $60K or so larger hole in the City finances. But getting on the ballot merely requires snookering a small minority with scary phrases like "mega mall."
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2012/11/21/whole-foods-likely-to-open-second-store-in-berkeley