Silence overtook the crowded Council Chambers on a recent Monday when, rather than moving into of a major mixed-use project in , a councilwoman made a motion to move to closed session due to a letter that, to some, threatened the city of Albany with a lawsuit by the University of California.
The project involves plans for a and in the lots just north and south of Monroe Street. Aspects of it were in September after months of talks regarding zoning change requests in exchange for significant community amenities.
One major element of the project is a senior housing development designed to reach 62 feet tall; only heights of 38 feet are allowed in this area under existing city code. (.)
In the Oct. 17 City Council meeting, city staff recommended that the approve , which had been discussed at length by planning commissioners in numerous lengthy meetings. But staff also suggested adding new conditions of approval related to improving cycling access, as well as a guarantee about continued operation of nearby Little League fields.
City staff suggested adding language to require the university to "enter into an agreement with to allow the continued use" of two Little League playing fields, and one practice field, in the Village just west of the project site.
This change, according to the staff report, would be in line with council policy about the fields, and also would help balance the massing of the senior housing complex.
STRONG UNIVERSITY RESPONSE CHILLS COUNCIL
The university replied with a letter to Albany's city attorney arguing that this condition would violate state and federal law. According to the letter, this is because the fields are not part of the mixed-use project site, and also because the proposed Little League agreement has no direct connection to the project height.
The council spent nearly 45 minutes in closed session, then returned to the dais at 9:30 p.m. Following a PowerPoint presentation by the university, which is attached to this story as a PDF, Kevin Hufferd, the university's project manager for the endeavor, addressed the Little League disagreement head-on.
"Now the issue of Little League is, obviously, a hot topic for tonight," he said. "We were a bit surprised by this issue, frankly, to see the way it was included in the staff report."
Hufferd said the university had learned of the proposed new conditions just days earlier, when the staff report for the council meeting was released.
He spoke about the 55-year partnership between Little League and the university, and also explained that, six months earlier, the university had reached an agreement with the league to ensure that the fields would remain in place for at least 10 years.
(Little League representatives have said they were satisfied with this agreement.)
Any agreement beyond this timeframe, Hufferd said, could become an issue for the Office of the President as well as the university regents. It would set a precedent, he said, by imposing a condition of approval on university property that "is not connected with the (project) application."
"And I think the regents would not look highly on that," he told the council. "It pains us to be at this point, because ... frankly, we cherish our relationship with the Little League. And we cherish our collaborative relationship with the city of Albany. Unfortunately, we not only feel that this issue is beyond the authority of the city of Albany, we feel we cannot accept the imposition of this condition on our property."
HEIGHT AND TRAFFIC STILL CONCERNS FOR MANY
Twenty-three people spoke during public comment, which took the discussion to 11 p.m. Many were concerned about building height, local business, sustainability and traffic. Others said it was time to move the project forward and revitalize San Pablo Avenue, as well as provide a healthy boost to public art and the local economy and job market. (The project has been in the works for four years.)
Council members said they were not prepared to approve the project that night, given concerns about height, and whether the project actually offered enough public amenities to justify zoning changes.
Several also said they were unhappy with the university's response to the suggestion that the Little League fields be part of the written agreement, and that the fate of the fields was, in part, holding up the project.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
said last week that she still hopes the university will consider committing to an official agreement with Albany Little League.
"We're looking for something that is an extraordinary amenity," she said. "They threatened to sue us because... it's outside the project. We're hoping that the university will think a little further and will choose on its own to enter into that agreement."
She said the fields, however, probably could not be a condition of approval.
"We don't want to be sued," she said. She credited several aspects of the project, including improvements at the Dartmouth Street crossing, and additional open space near Codornices Creek, but added "we've got a missing piece here. The university's been doing a good thing. But they need to put it in writing. A gentleman's agreement can be fairly nebulous, and it can change."
Jack Miller, Little League president, said the league "was as surprised as anybody" to see the suggestion regarding a formalized agreement with the university in the Oct. 17 staff report. He said the league was "satisfied" with the prior understanding it had with the university, allowing for 10 years of continued use of the fields.
"We were dismayed that the city and the university came so close to an agreement and couldn't come to one," he said, adding that he appreciated the council's attempts to protect the fields. "We just want to see that, whatever happens, that Little League fields in Albany are assured for the foreseeable future."
The league, which is 55 years old, included about 600 youth as of last year, both boys and girls, ages 5-18.
Hufferd said, last week, that the university had not been trying to threaten a lawsuit.
"We don't intend to sue the city over this issue," he said. "Essentially we were trying to make sure the city was informed... about the potential limits to the city's authority to make such conditions on our project."
He continued: "We thought we were, based on the planning commission's approval, closer to having city approval based on the merits of our project. We went into Monday's hearing hopeful that we were there. It didn't turn out that way."
Hufferd said the university plans to meet with city staff to continue discussing what will come next. In the Oct. 17 meeting, city staff said the council could discuss the project again on Nov. 21.
THE BACKGROUND
In September, that the project did meet the conditions necessary for the requested zoning changes based on several aspects of the project, including improved bicycle access; additional open space along the creeks; and clear commitments from the university about when it would fund improvements to public spaces.
One piece of the project planning commissioners said would still need to be addressed in the future involved a possible cycle track from Dartmouth to Monroe Street, to complete access to the grocery store.
Some officials have said they're not sure a cycle track would work safely in the space. Numerous cycling advocates in the city have said the project will not receive their support without it.
Want updates when we write about development plans for University Village? Click the green "Keep me posted!" button below the story.
. You can watch an archived video of the meeting on KALB here. Use the "Jump To..." menu below the video and select item 8-1 on the agenda to skip directly to the Whole Foods discussion.
Everybody makes mistakes ... ! If there's something in this article you think should be corrected, or if something else is amiss, call editor Emilie Raguso at 510-459-8325 or email her at emilier@patch.com.
Meanwhile, roads, storm drains, sidewalks, and so on, continue to crumble. ...
Within Albany's 2-square miles are: Safeway, The Junket, Happy Produce and Ranch 99 Market - not to mention several other small, locally-owned food businesses. Go just outside Albany's borders to find Lucky Supermarket, Trader Joe's, Andronico's and Monterey Market, and other small, locally-owned markets. What do you think will happen to some of those small businesses if Whole Foods comes in? Think about it, people...
The store in El Cerrito pays no taxes to the City of Albany or Albany Schools. Andronico's, Monterey Market, Berkeley Bowl, El Cerrito/Berkeley natural grocery, Luckys, and Ranch 99 all ZERO property, sales, and parcel taxes to the City of Albany or our cash strapped schools. Shopping at "small, locally owned" stores, outside of Albany, may make us feel warm and fuzzy inside but it does very little to help our community. However I'm sure the students at Berkeley and El Cerrito schools are thankful for your tax dollars, I just wish that Albany children could have that same opportunity.
There are many small groceries in Albany, and they WILL be affected by a Whole Foods Market - which overcharges for food, and under-pays employees. Also, I'm as concerned about Berkeley and El Cerrito as I am about Albany - I think keeping it local is the way to go. I'd rather spend my money at Monterey Market or Berkeley Bowl West or El Cerrito Natural than at Whole Foods Market. And, of course, that is my choice. I just hope that some of those stores are still an option after Whole Foods comes in. p.s. I strongly suspect that Trader Joe's is a much better employer than Whole Foods - so perhaps their workers don't feel the need to unionize. That's why they don't have the employee turnover that Whole Foods does. And do you think that Whole Foods is not a corporate chain?? At least Trader Joe's is based in California, instead of Texas.
"There are many small groceries in Albany, and they WILL be affected by a Whole Foods Market - which overcharges for food, and under-pays employees." What are the many small groceries in Albany? What documentation can you cite that Whole Foods under pays it's employees?
I've lived here for over 15 years and I would LOVE to see that empty area on San Pablo be put to such a use.
If/when corporations "do good", I'm all in favor of acknowledging those things - remembering, as Robert Reich points out in Supercapitalism, that those actions have NO IMPACT on Target's bottom line. Target is not here to do community service; it exists to make business decisions that will enhance its bottom line and keep its stockholders happy, period. (And yes, I am a Target shopper - can't afford not to be, in this crappy economy.) I have no documentation, but worked with several Whole Foods stores from 1993 to 2003, and at that time, they were paying just above minimum wage, and had a high rate of turnover. Per Sarajane's comment, perhaps they've changed their business model.
Regardless, I do believe that WFM overcharges for food, particularly their organic produce - which is why many people refer to the store as "Whole Paycheck". Personally, I can't afford their prices; however, sounds like your BIL is having a good experience, and I'm glad to hear it. As I said in my original post, I do the best I can to support local stores (and, by extension, local growers) by shopping at Monterey Market, Berkeley Bowl, El Cerrito Natural, and the local farmer's markets - I try to spread it around. I buy very little meat or produce at Trader Joe's. And as long as I shop Albany, El Cerrito and Berkeley, I feel I AM keeping it local - though perhaps not as local as you would like. I would like to donate to the Albany Education Foundation, but as a self-employed person in a very challenging economy, I'm my own favorite charity. Speaking of charity, you might consider extending some - or at least some courtesy - to your neighbors here in Albany. Meaning me. I did not attack you - but as a local business owner who has seen what big chain stores can do to locally-owned business (i.e., kill them), I do have serious concerns about Whole Foods Market coming in to Albany. And I would prefer to have a dialogue about those concerns without getting nasty about it.
What I'd love to see is for the City to take some of the increased revenue from a Whole Foods, or expanded Safeway, or whatnot, and focus on promotion of the sorts of businesses that would be ideal for Albany, e.g., "knowledge work," where telecommuting is possible, where there aren't the sort of nasty byproducts some manufacturing generates, where you get a local ecosystem supporting those sorts of workers. I have a (very small) company of that sort, and when (crossing fingers) it grows, I'd love to keep it here. And I'd love to be joined by other such businesses... give me more people to talk with.
; )
To me, the real question is why should UC be granted a zoning variance to add 80,000 sf of retail (55,000 Whole Foods & 30,000 other?) Their lobbyist shows pictures of graffiti covered fences as the before shot (ignoring that UC is not cleaning up the blight,) and drawings of a beautiful gateway to Albany as the after image. But one thing is glaringly absent in the after drawing - TRAFFIC CONGESTION. The traffic will be much worse than the flawed EIR predicts and nobody seems to mind that there isn't going to be adequate parking. Really, what does the city gain? And, food purchases do not have sales taxes attached to them. Under current zoning, UC can still build a 15,000 sf grocery store and senior housing. My understanding is that those 2 pieces are what everyone wants to see.
I am baffled how the proposed Little League condition of approval came up at the 11th hour, threatening to torpedo this project. Having attended, watched, or at least been familiar with the outcome of almost all the previous Planning and Zoning, Council, Traffic and Safety, and Sustainability meetings, I had never seen this put forward before. Could Patch interview City staff and the Council and let its readership know how and why this happened? Beyond the question timing, I have been informed by staff over the years that conditions of approval can only regard the project property or off site features that are demonstrably impacted by a project. The FEIR does not indicate any impacts to the Little League Fields, again raising question regarding the City's last minute effort. As to Whole Foods, one of the last chapters of Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" suggests that opponents could do more to positively change the corporation by demonstrating at an Albany location than by keeping it out of town. Sunk investment is much more painful to walk away from.
Frankly, I'm more concerned about height restrictions being enforced for one project (Verizon Wireless) but basically ignored for a huge complex of Senior Housing/mixed use buildings. We're not talking about a few feet. We're talking about buildings that are taller than most of the trees that have been cut down in the Village.