Pets are increasingly important to us in contemporary society for diverse reasons, yet with common inspiration of a seemingly ancient, primitive nature.

We are blessed and reassured by their presence, better understanding ourselves in context with them. They are our special companions sharing with us whatever life’s paths offer.

Sometimes life becomes an intense struggle where balancing of basic interests and needs of ourselves and our pets becomes economically conflicted, especially during persistent and desperate hard-times, upon which the sun lately rises.

Woodland is at root a working-class city, where already chronically stern   conditions drastically devolve within prolonged periods of fiscal calamity and high unemployment rates.

Sensing these difficult situations and grasping the serious consequences for its people and pets, four women of Woodland have created a crusade of kindness to best preserve greatly valued pet companionships, even more keenly important to folks when times are tough and stress pervasive.

Woodland Pet Food Pantry (WPFP) was established in May of 2010, “with an idea of helping people who are having trouble feeding their pets due to financial hardship,” explains Polly Nelson, one of these four women. “With families struggling to pay for the necessities, a consequence of this upheaval is what has happened to the family pet(s).”

Taking turns operating the WPFP on every other Saturday morning from 8:30 to 10:30 at the parking lot behind the Christian Church (Larry Love, Pastor) at College and Lincoln Streets, Nelson is joined in this quest by Debbie Hoppin, Karen Richardson and Gaye Nakken.

This group is busy between these alternating Saturdays, with collecting as much donated dog and cat food as they are able, as well as other useful pet supplies occasionally contributed by local pet grooming parlors or other likely sources.

Benefactors of WPFP include: Yolo County Animal Shelter, True Value Hardware, Pet Factory, Woodland Small Animal Care Clinic, Woodland Veterinary Hospital, Costco, and private individuals, some of whom bestow pet supplies through WPFP’s “Bag A Month Club,” with members “simply leaving their donation on their porch and we pick it up,” describes Nelson.

“On our first Saturday,” recalls Nelson, “we had 10 families with 10 dogs and 23 cats. We’re now averaging 40 families with 100 cats and 50 dogs.” The mission of WPFP is: “Keeping pets in their homes, off the streets and out of the shelter.”

Word is spreading on local streets that desperate pet owners have a helping hand from WPFP, which fervently hopes that new donations will match increasing needs for its services.

Cat food is scarce enough for the group, that it must be carefully metered out to ensure every anticipated request obtains some level of supply.

“Cat food is a persistent challenge in terms of really having enough to cover our needs,” says Nelson, alongside briefly apologizing to one of WPFP’s clients for not being able to better help their cats, who received a medium-sized bag of kibble.

About every fourth visit, WPFP now manages to offer some canned food for cats and dogs. Perhaps a “Case A Month Club” might foster improved donations, so these needy pets might have some every two weeks or so.

The stream of local folks finding help for their pets displays a genuinely hometown flavor, from a granny for whom the bags must be loaded in her vehicle, to a young girl carrying a large bag of dog food on the handlebars of her bicycle, while declaring: “I’d do anything for my dog!”

WPFP becomes familiar with its regular clients, growing in number, both sources of satisfaction for this group of empathetic women attempting to accomplish important help for retaining pets’ homes and basic welfare, rather than allowing them to suffer distress or harm because of economic disasters outside their understanding.

Please become a member. WPFP can be contacted at: pollyonelson@hotmail.com

Woodland City Council and Paul Petrovich have a very big court date.

During the planning process leading up to municipal approval for Petrovich’s latest proposed development project, several allegations and objections were raised about unlawful city council conduct concerning this approval.

Two days after city council approval of Petrovich’s project in September, Davis-based California Clean Energy Committee, through its attorney Eugene Wilson, filed a dense and detailed legal challenge to this project alleging various forms of failure to comply with state environmental law.

Thus, Paul Petrovich’s biggest-yet development project, 60+ acres of wide open, general commercial (C-2) zoning set to be annexed into Woodland, adjacent to his Gateway 1 development, alongside another 90+ acres of farmland Petrovich also owns (which because of this (Gateway 2) project would become inclined toward eventual development) — as well as political credibility of a majority of Woodland City Council — is now set for a key judicial hearing on a Petition for Peremptory Writ Of Mandate in Yolo County Superior Court on March 29, 2012.

It’s well worth noticing that this hugely significant lawsuit will be proceeding toward its conclusion (absent appeal) during a period of time coinciding with the political campaign for Woodland’s next city council election (June 5, 2012).

____  SEVERAL SETTLEMENT EFFORTS FAILED  ____

On October 11, Wilson by law served formal notices to “all responsible and trustee agencies,” the identities of which the city was legally obligated to provide to him, informing these public agencies that a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate had been filed against the Gateway 2 project. These agencies included: Yolo County Local Agency Formation Commission (which must approve project annexation), State Department of Transportation, State Department of Fish and Game, and relevant air and water quality boards.

When a public agency is sued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it must within 20 days initiate a legal process for potential settlement. City of Woodland, acting on October 12 — at edge of that time limit — initially set such a conference to occur on October 24, 2011, but this date was cancelled — likely for the reason that the City suddenly decided to employ the very best attorneys money can buy for this legal action.

Petrovich is supposed to pay such a legal bill for the city, but it’s unclear whether he has to pay up-front or later reimburse the city.

Experienced observers declare that — if the city was going to hire such a top-shelf, specialized law firm to defend against (potential) litigation, this move clearly should have been done — prior to city council action approving the Gateway 2 project — not following an already scheduled settlement conference defending such approval from a writ of mandate.

____  BEST ATTORNEYS MONEY CAN BUY  ____

On November 3, 2011, attorneys for City of Woodland in defense of Petrovich’s Gateway 2 project became Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley — a relevantly famous law firm, which has for decades published the ultimate litigation (reference) guide involving CEQA.

Whitman Manley, the firm member handling this matter for City of Woodland, actually lives within it.

Manley then renewed the city’s legal obligation to convene a settlement conference, which was set to occur on December 2.

Wilson by law had only 90 days (from Sept. 22) within which to request a judicial hearing on his petition.

For reasons which aren’t yet entirely clear — Wilson actually filed a request — on November 30 — for the court to set a hearing date on his petition for a peremptory writ of mandate — two days prior to the scheduled settlement conference on December 2.

Perhaps, Wilson simply filed his request early (anticipating a failure to settle this case) and there still occurred this scheduled settlement conference — at which apparently no settlement was reached.

Anyway, Yolo County Superior Court Judge, Daniel P. Maguire, issued his order setting this (March 29, 2012) hearing date — on the very same day the settlement conference was scheduled to occur: December 2.

____  NATURE OF PETITION  ____

Wilson has petitioned the court for a peremptory writ of mandate directing City of Woodland to vacate and set aside: its certification of the (CEQA-based) Environmental Impact Report (EIR), its approval of the project and the related approvals of the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, its statement of overriding considerations and findings of fact for the project, because of numerous and significant failures to comply with CEQA.

Sections of this petition concern: urban decay and conversion of prime farmland (both “significant and unavoidable” and “irreversible”), elevated greenhouse-gas emissions, failure to follow regional (governmental association) planning imperatives, failure to recirculate the project EIR, inadequate mitigation and monitoring of adverse environmental impacts, and more.

____  RESULTS OF FURTHER YOLO SUN INVESTIGATION  ____

Yolo Sun investigation of various matters centrally involved in Gateway 2 project approval has revealed an enormously startling series of very serious legal problems for City of Woodland.

Wilson has included in this petition by California Clean Energy Committee, some of these specific matters, but also raised numerous additional items of alleged CEQA noncompliance. These added matters will be the topic of a future Yolo Sun news article.

Below are the currently available, detailed results of this Yolo Sun investigation.

____  PROJECT OBJECTIVES VIOLATE CITY POLICIES  ____

Several “Project Objectives” plainly violate key City policies contained within its General Plan (GP) and Downtown Specific Plan (DSP): “The City shall ensure that Downtown remains the sole central business district for Woodland.” (DSP: 1.F.2.) “The City shall intensify Downtown Woodland as the principal retail, cultural restaurant and commercial district of the city and region.” (DSP: 9.C. 1.) “[R]evitalize the downtown district as the heart of the city[,] to retain and enhance Woodland’s quality of life, its separate identity, and small-town characteristics.” (Woodland General Plan: 2 – 2.)

By quite distinct contrast, the initial Gateway 2 project “Objective” is:

“To facilitate the development of a regional commercial center [at the municipal periphery] to better capture leakage of sales from uses not already served within the community;” while, another Objective is: “Ensure that the downtown remains the primary focus in the City for entertainment and specialty retail uses.” A third Project Objective related to this subject is vague and nonsensical: “Ensure that existing commercial centers within the City are not significantly negatively harmed through completion [sic] from neighborhood based retail uses.”

“[R]egional commercial center” is undefined, as is “commercial center” and “neighborhood based retail uses.” “[L]eakage of sales” related to such a development proposal is undefined, unanalyzed and not supported by any substantial evidence in this project (planning) record.

“[E]ntertainment and specialty retail uses” is totally undefined, yet obviously in direct conflict with city policies (above) which clearly guarantee a much broader scope of commerce within Woodland’s downtown district, as: “principal retail [and] commercial district of the city.”

Presently, downtown merchants engage commerce in: clothing, shoes, furniture, appliances, food, motor vehicles, drugs, pet-supplies, and other mainstream (non-”specialty”) aspects of retail business.

Nowhere in the Gateway 2 project Final EIR is this  — currently broad spectrum — of downtown commerce duly recognized and included within the scope of planning process for this project. .

Project mitigation for admittedly: “significant and unavoidable,” “irreversible,” “urban decay impacts,” vaguely and loosely states — only — that eventual city planning processes should — “primarily” — disallow “entertainment and other uses,” which would compete with businesses in Woodland’s downtown district (Final EIR: 2 -124.); while in contrast, a more generalized portion (#9) of the lawfully required Statement of Overriding Considerations generally states: “The Project will provide competition between retail tenants in Woodland.”

Apparently, there exists no viable mitigation mechanism attaching to the Gateway 2 project, to ensure crucial municipal planning policies regarding Woodland’s downtown area (above) are obeyed.

Project mitigation elements (Master Conditional Use Permit processes, Market Feasibility Study, etc.) will require an extraordinary amount of city staff time and effort to implement, as well as only partially fund various (vaguely defined) studies of the admittedly unmitigated, adverse commercial / community planning consequences of this project.

____  FLAWED ANALYSIS OF OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES  ____

Findings of Fact for the Gateway 2 project (at p. 76) state that: “the Off-Site Alternative is dismissed from further analysis” (Draft EIR: 6 – 5,6), based upon the quantity of acreage proposed by the — unrevised — project (“150 acres”), rather than the actual quantity of acreage of the revised Project (“61.3 acres”).

Predicating the above decision is only Woodland City Council’s assertion / opinion that such: “Off-Site locations that would achieve a majority of the stated project objectives and still reduce environmental impacts do not exist in the Woodland vicinity.”

To the contrary, it would seem that all valid and relevant Project Objectives and Overriding Considerations obviously may be achieved by potentially feasible and environmentally superior, Off-Site Alternatives within an accurate and lawful process of EIR recirculation considering a suitably reconceived and disaggregated project.

Off-Site Alternatives for locating certain (non-regionally, but locally oriented) components / elements of the initially proposed Project were promptly “dismissed” by Woodland City Council at the outset of its project EIR processes and were (prejudicially) never reconsidered upon the proper basis of the — hugely reduced acreage — of the revised project.

“Findings of Fact” in the Gateway 2 EIR by Woodland City Council that Off-Site Alternatives appear infeasible and/or would not achieve most of the Project Objectives are not supported by any (much less, substantial) evidence, just the plain claim of City Hall.

These fatal legal flaws — if state law was followed — should have clearly required EIR recirculation of the revised project (please see CEQA Guidelines, sections 15126.6 and 15088.5).

But — the majority of the Woodland City Council was against it and the City is now in court.

____  PHONY AUTO-ZONING OF GATEWAY 2 PROJECT  ____

Acreage of the revised Project, at 61.3 acres, includes — 20 acres — pre-zoned for the automobile dealers which city hall is already assisting with a reduction of developmental impact fees and (so-far) informal consultation — to locate elsewhere: on 12 acres of beautifully freeway-exposed property at the end of Freeway Drive — directly across the freeway from Petrovich’s existing Gateway development.

These automobile dealers have for several years flatly stated that they would never locate at a Gateway 2 project.

Their inclusion as relocating to roughly a third of total project acreage is seemingly designed for purposes of eventually converting the considerable dimension of zoning of this acreage to completely generalized commercial uses.

This planning result is a clear benefit to Paul Petrovich, to the (obvious, eventual yet irreversible) detriment of Woodland’s downtown area.

Why is this phony auto-zoning happening?

Because these 20 acres may later be flipped from its designation for “auto uses,” to general commercial uses, substantially increasing the presently stated limitation of 340,000 square feet of new commercial development.

Petrovich, himself, may never even develop this project; he may simply sell it to another developer. Such phony “auto uses” zoning could possibly be some sort of ‘wild-card’ playing into project implementation and eventual build-out by another developer.

____  BOGUS “BIG-BOX” GLOSS  ____

The Statement of Overriding Considerations within the project EIR contains an assertion that: “The Project will provide large acreage parcels demanded by modern retail tenants that require large buildings and sites that cannot locate in the Downtown or in other commercial areas due to the limitation of parcel sizes in those areas.”

While this situation may exist with regard to “big-box” businesses (Costco, Target, etc.), many smaller retail / commercial tenants also clearly intended to occupy this project are not inherently adhered to it, for this reason — but rather — for Petrovich’s plain benefit — expanding his project dimensions.

Already, there exist many such smaller tenants — which directly compete with downtown merchants — within the Gateway I development.

Experienced observers have noted that the existing Gateway development project already has (undeveloped) room enough to locate another big-box retail store.

____  DISMISSING ALTERNATIVES VIOLATED STATE LAW  ____

One possible project option was locating a few “big-box” regionally oriented businesses on (for example) 20 acres at the project site, adjacent to the existing Gateway I development, while examining within EIR recirculation the feasibility of Off-Site Alternatives for smaller, more locally oriented retail tenants.

“[L]eakage of sales,” to whatever unknown extent it may exist is not best or only to be plugged — on the municipal periphery.

Woodland City Council (by its declining of project EIR recirculation) in its official records and process has fraudulently and prejudicially mischaracterized the actually valid size of the project (61 acres, contrasted with 154 acres), apparently attempting to best avoid any and all public review of and consideration and comment upon Off-Site Alternatives.

Potentially feasible (Off-Site) options for locating certain relevant components / elements of the revised project, legitimately sized at 41.3 acres — were thus never identified or evaluated by Woodland City Council within its EIR processes nor made available by it for any form of public review and comment.

This situation is clearly a violation of state law.

Woodland City Council has, therefore, deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantive environmental effect of Petrovich’s project and a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, by “dismiss[ing]” from this EIR process — at its very outset — any and all consideration of potentially feasible, environmentally superior (Off-Site) alternatives which are by this means unlawfully circumvented and declined adoption.

Several citizen requests that a suitable remedy be provided for this fatal legal and civic flaw were totally disregarded. No opportunity to identify and evaluate such project options was made available to the public.

Woodland City Council has thus clearly and intentionally violated key requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, sections 15126. 6 and 15088.5.

____  INVALID STATEMENTS ABOUT PROPERTY OPTIONS ____

At page 76 of the EIR Findings of Fact, Woodland City Council asserts that: “[T]he applicant does not own a comparable property within the City of Woodland.” The City Council is directly aware that “the applicant” owns several parcels of key property within the City’s downtown area, as well as being very familiar with his development of various other commercial properties within the City (Rite-Aid, Burger-King).

CEQA does not require applicants to already own property being considered as options to relevant projects. Woodland City Council has thus (perhaps intentionally) invalidly interpreted state law with this statement, to insulate Petrovich from such legitimate consideration of project options.

The project applicant (Petrovich) has formidable access to a surfeit of vacant and available commercial zoning within the CIty (276 vacant acres / 250,000 square feet of vacant buildings; this data was included in the associated staff report at personal request of the chairperson of Woodland Planning Commission, who voted against the project).

Woodland City Council has thus unlawfully “dismissed” relevant Off-Site Alternatives on the (improper) basis of prejudicially and fraudulently inflating Project acreage, as well as by refusing to create any form of EIR recirculation process for public review, consideration and comment upon the community planning prospect of reasonably disaggregating this project.

___  MISREPRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON  ___

At page 78 of the EIR Findings of Fact, Woodland City Council asserts that “[I]t should be noted that the revised project description would result in even fewer impacts as compared to the Reduced Intensity Alternative because the revised project would develop commercial uses only 61.3 acres and would retain 92.7 acres of agricultural uses.”

However, the Project anticipates — 340,000 square feet — of commercial uses, as compared with only 295.000 square feet proposed by the Reduced Intensity Alternative.

Increasing dimension and intensity of commercial uses in this way, even on somewhat smaller acreage (realistically, on 41.3 acres instead of 92.7 acres), usually results in more and different environmental impacts, not: “even fewer impacts,” as is stated in Woodland City Council’s Final EIR.

____  IMPROPER CONNECTION TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT  ____

Project Objectives (at p. 75 of relevant Findings of Fact) and Overriding Considerations (#3) list: “Facilitate completion of Gateway I” as inherently bound / essential to occur through the development of a “Gateway II.”

No substantial evidence in the record or any other public form conceptual support is provided for such a sly postulation — there is only the bare assertion of Woodland City Council that: “[T]he uses at Gateway I and Gateway II are intended to support one another. The goal is to provide a comprehensive retail/commercial experience[,]” which is totally undefined and directly at odds with key municipal policies (above).

Undefined, as well, are the actual commercial uses which would occupy the Gateway 2 project, indicating that the purportedly tangible concept of a “comprehensive retail/commercial experience” is — in legal reality — only a loose and serviceable slogan — seemingly inspired to help actualize Petrovich’s interests, above / against the public interest.

____  FARMLAND CONVERSION PARADOX  ____

The (revised) Gateway 2 project leaves an adjacent 92.7 acres of the original project in agricultural use; however, because Woodland City Council will afford no EIR recirculation process, its Final EIR possesses — in principle — possess no capacity for the public to review, analyze and offer comment on the subject of reasonable mitigation of undeniably significant and unavoidable environmental consequences of this potentially conflictive land use relationship, unreasonably increasing certain developmental pressures for conversion of this agricultural land to commercial uses.

Buffer zones to help maintain agricultural uses in the original project have been eliminated or greatly modified in the revised project.

Petrovich owns this 92.7 acres and clearly would receive a significant yet tacit benefit involving its potential development value from the project, whether he keeps it or sells it to another developer.

Yolo County’s bus chief, for almost 30 years the brilliant, visionary, driving force behind its public transportation system, desires it to have carried the equivalent of the current population of California (now ~37 million) before he retires. At the present time, YoloBus is fast approaching 30 million passengers (since 1982), far surpassing the population of Texas.

While those figures are immense, consider the fact that YoloBus has already provided almost 300 million passenger miles, 11,495 times around the world riding separately.

Terry Bassett, when he finally achieves this goal of matching the whole state population in total YoloBus rides and attempts to retire, will be impossible to replace. His presence is synonymous with this county transit system, spending his career for its building. YoloBus was recently selected as one of the very best systems in the entire United States.

Basset manages such exemplary progress of YoloBus under the motto: “Improved Service Equals Increased Ridership” – engaging matters from Capay Valley and Cache Creek Casino to an accessory street-car system in West Sacramento, from Dunnigan and Knights Landing throughout Woodland and Davis, as well as diverse Sacramento and Metro-Airport services.

On every subject of importance for optimization of YoloBus services, Bassett conceives / orchestrates and implements upon the leading edge of transit system design and performance, the reason YoloBus attains so superior a ranking in national evaluations.

Basset indicates YoloBus has no knowledge of the source(s) of its latest successful nomination for a nationally distinguished award.

YoloBus is one of the only transit systems to be renovating its own buses, which saves money and actually facilitates key operational customization. After a dozen years and 500,000 miles of use, buses require replacement or renovation. For Bassett, this basic challenge produces an opportunity for conversion to optimized performance, practically doubling the use-life of its buses while improving various aspects of public services.

YoloBus is regional leader in use of natural-gas powered buses, although Bassett comments that the newest diesel technology is greatly improved. YoloBus’ natural gas fueling facility is also used by natural-gas powered vehicles operated by the local affiliate of Waste Management. Work now underway will install a bio-diesel fueling station at expanded bus facilities.

YoloBus functions 21 hours per day (~5 am to 2 am) and possesses 60 buses, some seating 57 persons; yet, it has a total staff of only 126, 115 related to Veolia (a huge, multi-national company). In this regard, our transit system is a model of successful contracting with private business. Bassett describes that Veolia is contending for participation in the new Davis-Woodland Surface Water Project. Water and transportation systems are two specialties of this enormous international corporation.

Bassett expresses serious concern regarding an impending congressional proposal to slash federal transportation funding by 30% to 35%, which could reduce revenue within YoloBus’ annual operating budget of $11 million, by almost half a million dollars. Bassett doesn’t see any happy way to implement such a drastic cut.

Solarization of YoloBus facilities is one of Bassett’s plans, including now expending state grant funding for solar-lighting at bus shelters, and he is hoping to soon receive federal grant money for placing solar panels on top of garage shelters for its buses.

Bus shelters are big with Bassett, as is their lighting. YoloBus will soon be creating brand new bus shelters in the county, about half of them installed in Woodland, with upgraded (solar) lighting for its transit connection hub at County Faire Mall.

Another innovative funding program used by Bassett supports reduced-fares for youth during summer months. Only $15 per month permits unlimited ridership for local juveniles; or, they may pay only 35 cents per ride (contrasted with regular $2 – $3 bus fares).

Bassett is investigating ways to offer similar deep youth-discounts throughout the school year, recognizing that habituating adolescents toward using public transportation will reap very important cultural and environmental dividends into the (somewhat uncertain) future.

YoloBus recently embarked upon a considerable expansion of its facilities, greatly delighting Bassett, because YoloBus drivers, mechanics, dispatchers, clerks and other staff will finally have access to the level of employee services they deserve, like convenient group / lunch rooms, restrooms and locker rooms.

New facilities will also offer improved amenities to riders conducting business at the facility, provide YoloBus room to park and maintain more buses and greatly enhance public information through a more sophisticated server (computer) room.

Whatever is needed for optimization of YoloBus services, has been and will be Terry Bassett’s devoted focus, for another eight (or so) million bus rides. Happy retirement for Bassett will then in part consist of our ensuring that his successor is his equal.

Hudson Sangree is a fabulous reporter covering Yolo County affairs for SacBee. His (front page, 10/6/11) article: “Big-box development on outskirts of Woodland leaves downtown in decline,” is a marvelous and timely piece of work. We in this city are fortunate Sangree is on our beat.

Painting broad-brush contours of these circumstances, Sangree easily exposes a vastly troubled landscape: previous and potential consequences of Woodland’s (half-century long) juggernaut of sprawl and “downtown [ ] decline.” His incisive news report opens numerous questions and crucial challenges about which some further version of news analysis may be beneficial.

____  Historical Scope Of Downtown Decline  ____

Woodland’s downtown began a constant spiral of slow decline beginning with the Purity Plaza development at West and Main Streets, city ‘outskirts” of a half-century ago.

An early and modest challenge to Woodland’s core downtown occurred during the mid-1930s, when Safeway constructed and opened a modern grocery store on its periphery (now the auto parts shop on Elm Street between Court and Main Streets, its two major thoroughfares).

Woodland’s history of civic action in the latter half of the twentieth century was prominently injurious to its downtown area. Demolitions and improper makeovers expressed ignorance and disdain for its history. During the 1960s and 1970s, demolition / defacing of several historical buildings (somehow) falsely implied an advent of progressive planning.

Beginning in the 1980s, individual capital investments by Gary Wirth, Tom Stallard, Mark Ulrich and others converged with emerging community awareness and concern about the fate of downtown, creating in 1993 a Downtown Specific Plan to best preserve and enhance Woodland’s core. This community now operates on an outdated (2003) version of this Plan.

Initially, general development drift was westerly, most commercial zoning kept along Main and Court Streets. Much of this earlier “strip-mall” type of development (in Sangree’s words), “proliferated and deteriorated.”

Significantly adverse community blight currently exists related to this (in Petrovich’s words): “obsolete retail — four-and-five-decade-old stuff when there were a lot of shop tenants in the world before the advent of big-box,” as Sangree’s story starkly confirms.

A quarter-century ago, County Faire Mall was suddenly our gleaming new engine of commercial viability, now morphing into unwieldy anachronism.

Woodland presently has ~276 acres of vacant / undeveloped commercial property, with about a quarter-million square feet of vacant retail space. Blight is a major ingredient in the present experience of our downtown.

Excitement by city hall, chamber of commerce, etc., with the recent big-box phenomenon, meanwhile, led to a lavishly one-sided development agreement regarding the existing Gateway project. Petrovich was given six and a half years to create environmental mitigation in the form of his own building’s presence — anywhere at all — within the downtown area.

This city council approved development agreement allows — 78 months — of adverse impacts to occur before requiring any form of balance related to such an undermining of downtown commerce. Frosting on mistake, (purported) mitigation of this type is unusually shallow and inadequate.

Plus, Petrovich seems intent on using all of this very long and lavish rope, perhaps politically hanging-up his brash plans for doubling the size of this Gateway shopping center, already badly designed as a strip-mall on steroids, where most shoppers are forced to drive from store to store.

____  Yesterday’s Developmental Dynamics  ____

Excitement with County Faire Mall developers (a Petrovich of those days) led to a totally unnecessary selling-out of our downtown’s entertainment function, with Mall inclusion of a new movie-theater complex, for decades undermining any possibility of supporting renovation and expansion of historic State Theatre (oddly, a prime goal of our original Downtown Specific Plan adopted shortly after the Mall opened — but now seemingly buried forever by the recent, perverse and non-transparent city council decision to permit Chase Bank to occupy a needed, adjacent parcel).

Countering an argument by downtown merchants that free-parking at this new shopping mall would unfairly imbalance shoppers’ inclinations, its parking-meters were removed with a spritely fund-raising program, slyly distracting from blunt realization about dire consequences of the mall-era. But, Mervyns and the like demanded to develop upon our green-fields and Penny’s, like Target of today, leaped at such a chance to upgrade its site.

Now, Penny’s is about all that remains out at the listless County Faire Mall.

Revitalization efforts during the mall-era supposedly caused city hall to also remove the historically hewn, granite street-works of our downtown, insisting upon installing an aggregate-concrete component which is distinctly non-historical. Today, such a move would be hugely questioned.

Curiously, a strong current of local community planning has historically included heedlessly, recklessly eroding / collapsing our valuable civic heritage, at glimpsing of an initial shimmer of added municipal revenue.

____  Today’s Developmental Dynamics  ____

Of course, there is no escaping big-box fever, as Sangree’s article vividly displays. Consumers demand big-boxes and Woodland should be willing and able to fruitfully participate in reasonably satisfying this demand.

However, as usual: “the (developmental) devil is in the details,” from which developers like Petrovich are usually determined to distract us.

Big-box inertia may now reign, but most of our downtown’s problems arise from all of the many — little-boxes — in its train.

Downtown businesses depend on their splendid consumer service to compete against big-box allure; however, including in wake a wide spectrum of specialty retailers which are in — direct competition — with downtown (and other existing) merchants selling: furniture, clothing, appliances, groceries, drugs, pet supplies, food, etc., is a reckless recipe for downtown disaster.

Stallard expresses the plain truth that a sort of — “second city” — has sprung up along our eastern edge. Sangree refers to it as a “commuter and shopping mecca,” highlighting its focused ambiance as an affordable and convenient “bedroom” / commercial alternative for (western) metropolitan Sacramento and Davis.

“Prosperity” (to a degree) is properly associated with this planning scenario, since capturing leaking sales-tax revenue and attracting new revenue from outside the city (as well portrayed in Sangree’s story) are key elements of municipal growth.

Sangree indicates city hall sources relating that $1.2 million of sales tax revenue (one seventh of total municipal sources) is now being derived from Gateway center, not yet completed. Some of this is new money, but much of it simply reflect sales being – redistributed – within this community.

Only estimates exist regarding the actual figure for new sales-tax money, but that amount is clearly less than $1 million (likely about $750,000). At least half of such shoppers are Woodlanders, though some were leaking sales tax.

Gateway is making money for the city, but let’s not overstate this situation, with an inertia toward allowing this developer more influence than is due.

Unbelievably declaring to the planning commission on July 7 that Gateway has had — no adverse impacts — upon Woodland’s downtown (despite detailed admission of such within (inadequate) environmental mitigation of his new project), Petrovich is clearly willing to say whatever it takes to whomever is so charmed.

This style, working quite well for Petrovich with Gateway, is now under intense scrutiny and suspicion in its sequel.

Deriding our long heritage as being perhaps a hindrance to modern progress, Petrovich exclaims that as a big-shot, big-box outsider — he: “is making things happen.”

These are typical bullying tactics, attempting to instill a sense of deep inferiority within one’s subjects, intimidating them into submission.

Obviously, many developers made “things happen” quite a lot during the historical course of Woodland’s long swoon with sprawl. Petrovich is simply the spawn and spectacle of this particular era – late in its course.

____  Harnessing Petrovich’s Chrome Horsies  ____

Mayor Art Pimentel correctly observes that most Woodlanders surely adore having a Costco and new Target store, adding to the WalMart and our town’s various other big-box-ish enterprises.

Petrovich deserves adequate credit, but certainly not the nature of hero worship which leads to relevant denigration of our civic interests and values.

Pimentel says Woodlanders want more of the same.

Question is: How much more will be well balanced for this community?

A clear litmus test of utter nonsense regarding the newly proposed, double-breasted Gateway is that one-third of the commercial zoning (20 of 60 acres) is being designated for motor vehicle dealerships, allegedly vacating Main Street; while at the same time, the city is beginning to assist these very same dealerships with locating at another site in eastern Woodland.

There are no motor vehicle dealerships on Main Street that will relocate into Petrovich’s commercial crypt at a new Gateway. Bad-faith thus flows from its basic developmental documents, staining our civic processes, while a majority of our city council members appear oblivious.

Here is a case of double-talk turning out a double-barreled Gateway and a double-cross of our downtown.

Here is the optimum formula relevant to future civic “prosperity” (considered commercially):  Petrovich may install a few more – big-boxes – determined by the city council to be regionally oriented, complementary to existing municipal commerce. However accessory / associated retail uses should be largely denied, since to a reasonable extent these already exist within the primary Gateway development and intensely conflict with our redevelopment efforts.

Since the city council has by a 3 – 2 majority already approved this doubling of the size of Gateway, it’s up to litigation to obtain this just (or perhaps another potentially just) result. One lawsuit is already moving and another one is planned.

Chase Bank is now erecting its architectural Frankenstein building on the southeast corner of Walnut and Main Streets, 21 months after it first approached the city and 12 months after the public was made aware of its project.

For eight months (Jan. – Aug., 2010) Woodland City Hall was quietly working with Chase Bank to concoct a subversion of the City’s Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), permitting this bank to build in the general way that it desired: a small bank with a glorified drive-thru and a vast parking lot.

Chase Bank’s building plan is distinctly suburban, rather than urban and historically valid. Historically, parking lots did not exist within such Main Street frontage and the DSP flatly forbids their location along Main Street.

Such serious problems were supposedly cured by installing unhistorical framing a few feet wide along the forbidden sidewalk frontage, so that city hall might claim that this parking lot would thus be technically separated from prohibited proximity to the sidewalk; while, totally ignoring the clear and basic reason for this DSP policy, to protect the historical integrity of downtown land uses.

No formal building construction application was submitted by the bank and it paid no application fees, until its detailed business of eight months within city hall was made public in September of 2010.

____  Frankenstein Bank Now Squats On Downtown Gateway  ____

This bank is a Frankenstein building for reason of combining various architectural styles into a phony historical format, appearing (pseudo) historical, but without integrity of actually representing any valid, actually historical, architectural style. Call it: “Modern Woodland Pretense.”

Glaring violations of the DSP include evisceration of its ability to produce a proper manner of “Western Gateway” for the downtown area and placement of an enormous parking lot along sidewalk frontage on both Main and Walnut Streets.

Core downtown land is utterly precious and irreplaceable. Using 87% of this key downtown parcel for a parking lot is a completely ridiculous waste of key civic (zoning / planning) resources, and the city council spent eight long months and considerable staff resources working under-the-table to make sure it happened. And that’s not all that’s been skewed awry.

____  Key Redevelopment Program Preempted  ____

During these same eight months of confidential negotiations between city hall and Chase Bank, the city’s redevelopment agency created a program to consider proposals for a downtown cineplex based upon inclusion of State Theatre renovation and expansion within that process. This State Theatre proposal was (per DSP) virtually dependent upon use of this very parcel upon which Chase Bank was intending, with city hall’s graciously covert assistance, to construct its small building and its huge parking lot.

State Theatre renovation and expansion (per DSP) became a pretty popular idea during 2010, via this city redevelopment program of choosing the best proposal for a downtown cinema (destroyed by Paul Petrovich suddenly dropping out of it, while still claiming his project was the best, and with a majority of the city council unwilling to continue this program).

Unpopularity is a regular reaction of Woodlanders to news of Chase Bank locating in this adverse manner within the core of our downtown.

Popularity of State Theatre renovation and expansion, confronted by such crossed and conflicted city hall behavior, seemingly required a political remedy created by means of a lucky convergence between plans of Woodland Opera House for expansion and this clearly palpable and surging political imperative to somehow rescue State Theatre from impending, blight-ridden oblivion.

Woodland Council Member Bill Marble deserves abundantly legitimate credit for salvaging this emerging disaster by actively merging these matters. Plus, he voted to continue the redevelopment program after Petrovich quit and the council majority falsely declared municipal processes related to his project, a hoax for dissolving this program.

While a performing arts venue for ~200 persons designed and managed by the opera house board will hopefully become a valuable (renovated but contracted) re-use for this historic theatre, such plans are clearly a big change from the (per 1993 – 2003 DSP) original, more attractive, exciting and appropriate plan of redeveloping State Theatre as an expanded cineplex, thus also satisfying the related goal of best establishing our downtown’s: “Western Gateway.”

Community consensus existed about State Theatre being the basic site of a new downtown cineplex, until the 2003 DSP; at which time, Petrovich’s plan to instead develop his (former) Electric Garage parcel as the new downtown cineplex site somehow, without any explanation or justification within the DSP, became both a suddenly competing proposal and highly (emphatically) prioritized.

____  Council Dances With Petrovich & Chase Bank, Not Public  ____

Why was it necessary to abandon this original and brilliant DSP goal of expanding and renovating State Theatre as a cineplex?

Because a majority of the city council decided that it would rather have Chase Bank absurdly shoe-horned into this key downtown corner and let Paul Petrovich develop his Electric Garage property as a cineplex.

It’s that pure and simple.

These three council memebers may desire you to believe that there was some (phony) kind of inevitability involved with such an
adverse outcome.

But the plain truth is: Sheer policy decisions of these council members were the pure cause. Things would be entirely different upon any desire by them to eliminate serviceable confusions and abide original DSP goals and a native and genuinely enthusiastic display of community interest and concern.

It was how this city hall action was accomplished which causes even more serious political concern. This easily challengeable decision of DSP compliance for the Chase Bank building was made in full secrecy, behind closed doors, even to this day not being formally acknowledged in detail.

During literally dozens of various public requests / comments regarding the basic substance of this secretly made DSP-compliance determination, before public sessions of both Woodland Planning Commission and City Council, no properly informative response was ever provided by the City.

And why not?

Because such information about the salient details of (somewhat arcane and confusing) public processes may tend to give rise to valid public challenges, which are to be keenly avoided even at the heavy price of abridging key civic obligations of transparency and accountability.

Existing as well, is the perpetually paid price of bad community planning and bad-faith political deceptions, of which this Chase Bank will long become a stern monument.

The basic dynamic of such democratic devolution is the fact that city hall and our elected officials / representatives refused to fairly inform / advise the public about its ability / legal right to appeal a pivotal decision (Chase Bank’s DSP compliance) — made wholly in secret, on an unknown date, without any public notice, whatsoever.

Apparently, Chase Bank was too big to not bamboozle the public about.

Within secret chambers and by collusive (mis)conduct of city hall, our city council has thus provided us:  A small Frankenstein building, without much hope of creating downtown foot-traffic, swimming in a vast sea of asphalt on a key downtown parcel, beside (per original DSP) a truly second-choice, afterthought, re-use of a genuinely historical building, a civic landmark — all of this accomplished by means of an obvious and disturbing pattern of intentionally using devious, un-transparent processes contrived to quell public scrutiny, understanding and challenges.

Politically, can Woodland do better than this?

Woodland’s latest attempt to install and foster a viable, local farmers’ market, this time using significant redevelopment money, began last Saturday with a small group of participants easily managing to express and register with attending municipal staff (taking copious notes) most of the salient issues relevant for establishing Freeman Park as a valid venue for such a market, as well as a prominent fixture of the historical downtown area.

This surprisingly effective effort was conducted by two consultants retained by the city redevelopment agency, Farmers’ Markets America (reviving farms and communities), represented by Vance Corum of Vancouver, Washington, and Indigo Architects LLP of Davis (art, architecture, ecology), represented by its principal, Jonathan Hammond.

____  Huge Task Ahead  ____

Enormity of this vital task became immediately apparent through voicing of experienced observations and judgments by these few seasoned participants, quickly revealing a broad spectrum of challenging civic issues, foremost being the (on occasion well-deserved) reputation of Freeman Park, as: “Wino Park.”

Freeman Park is not yet a keystone of community function; forging it as such must become a compelling exercise of civic transition.

Participants variously described conditions of Freeman Park as sometimes outside the comfort zone of confident, family oriented recreation.

A local farmer and market vendor asked whether there are places downtown other than this park’s public restrooms, wherein persons in some need might clean themselves, since it’s routine to find therein, folks improvising baths.

Another person described alerting local police to strange behavior by park occupants, with apprehensions about public safety.

General consensus arose that enough vibrant and balanced community occupation of this space (with knowledgeable, focused policing) would eventually resolve a wide selection of conduct adverse to civic security.

Investment by the city appears imperative for purposes of creating a suitable environment at Freeman Park, attracting consistent strength and breadth of community support, activities and events to become galvanized and flourish.

Corum and Hammond seem to comprehend both the immensity and gravity of this mission. Corum well illustrates it with an ironic comparison. He notes that another of his client cities contains only one thousand (1.000) residents, yet within just a few years it has produced a sustainable farmers’ market boasting 50+ vendors.

Surely, Corum believes, a proportionally similar result could be accomplished here, at an historical county seat of 60,000 residents within the valley heartland of California agriculture.

____  Comments Illuminate Values, Issues, Ideas & Opportunities  ____

Participant Danielle Thomas, Director of YoloArts (county arts council), adroitly indicates that this park is named for our city’s founder, whose wife (Gertrude) actually named the city, strongly implying that it’s likely worth the municipal dime to finally and carefully, with appropriate vision and resolve, upgrade and integrate it within the core of the downtown area.

Thomas describes using Dead Cat Alley to develop a key link across the several blocks from Freeman Park to Woodland Opera House. She also importantly builds upon other participatory comments regarding both design and operation of such a new facility, by suggesting basic and immediate collaboration between relevant community interests: the farmers’ market, downtown merchants and YoloArts.

Consensus clearly exists that some nature of full-time personnel will become essential for success of such an endeavor, to coordinate and develop its diverse aspects; thus, funding of such services will best emerge and optimize upon collaboration, cooperation and action among these key civic interest groups and the city.

Ray Ressler, longtime local business consultant, conceives a ‘downtown district;’ for which Freeman Park would become an anchoring feature on its eastern boundary.

Ressler envisions a large, discernable (downtown historical) district, bounded by East and Elm Streets (“Nugget Market”), as well as including neighborhoods from Gibson Mansion to Beamer Park. He believes that a spectacular renovation of Freeman Park is a fundamental ingredient for establishing the identity and function of such a dynamic district.

Ressler believes eventual existence of the new Yolo County Courthouse, directly across Main Street from Freeman Park, will become a constructive influence upon such a transitionary project for the Park.

Participant Daniel Mora deftly emphasizes the keen importance of serving relevant needs and desires of the informal and diverse group of Latinos who have occupied several of this park’s picnic tables during many days for many decades, clearly an aspect of the modern heritage of this urban park.

Several participants comment about the key interface between the park and Main Street, stating serious concerns related to the too brisk pace of vehicular traffic and the obvious need for pedestrian crosswalks, with one person stating that only an adjacent red-light or stop-sign would persuade them to cross over this often (too) busy thoroughfare.

Consensus is also apparent regarding the basic design structure for the major portion of this proposed new park – market facility: a solid roof protecting from direct sun, rain / wind, while complementing the park’s ambiance / presence, and including convenient sources of electricity and water.

The spurting-water fountain beside Davis’ bicycle museum was mentioned as a reasonable example of such a feature, which helps tame summertime. Further discussion then elevated the notion of providing heat relief toward installing an effective system of water-misters within the market structure.

Other general agreement exists in terms of an understanding of the need to (more or less) dynamically “re-brand” this urban space, as the: “Freeman Park and Farmers’ Market,” for example, including art installations within / around it which both announce and inspire.

Precise orientation within the park, of the specific farmers’ market space, remains an unresolved matter, with several basic models / formats being examined and considered.

Also, the local “Toy Library,” a volunteer effort currently housed within a ~500 square foot space at the one-story (brick) former city parks & recreation building, adjacent to this park, was deemed to be within the (family oriented) goals intended for this revitalization effort and will be considered for inclusion.

Both reuse and demolition of this outdated city building were mentioned.

Another topic of discussion focused on opportunities to activate local food / crafts vendors within some portion of or as adjunct to this facility.

Further municipal meetings on this topic will be forthcoming, with an eye to laying political groundwork for eventual approval of this important civic project.

Biggest current news is that city council consideration of Paul Petrovich’s Gateway 2 proposal to annex 154 acres directly south of Gateway Center, of which 62 acres would commercially develop as a “program EIR” (Environmental Impact Report, required by state Environmental Quality Act, CEQA), extending specific reviews / approvals within a time-phased build-out of this project — has suddenly been delayed — likely at least until September, as the council will recess during August.

This delay is quite interesting, since planning commission consideration (at a special meeting on July 7) was seemingly correlated with city council consideration on July 19, to potentially approve this project prior to its summer recess.

City hall has moved forward this matter, upon the bare minimum of public notice allowed by state law: 10 days prior to relevant hearings — on this occasion surrounding a national holiday (July 4).

Several complaints about this severely cramped timeline (along with other key issues) were registered during planning commission consideration, yet this panel voted to recommend approval of Gateway 2 with a split vote and an abstention.

But, things have lately gotten off-track, despite the clear intentions and plans of city hall. Until the agenda for this July 19 city council meeting was released on July 15, city hall’s word was: The Gateway 2 item will surely be included.

Indeed, the decision to suddenly inactivate this agenda item was apparently made so very late as to use a strike-over upon the official paperwork, rather than simply omitting this item.

____  Reason(s) For Delay  ____

Officially, the reason for this sudden delay is said (by city manager) to be an inability to prepare the related Development Agreement (DA) between the city and Petrovich, in time for this July 19 council meeting. Of course, at some — barely — earlier time, it obviously was assumed that this DA would be ready to sign.

Saying that this DA isn’t ready to proceed appears similar, in this instance, to admitting that there may not be a council majority in favor of project approval on specific terms presently advanced by Petrovich.

The fact of the suddenness of this delay is the remarkable thing. Why so trouble to move forward, with especially arranged planning commission venue toward a project approval by city council on July 19, unless once fairly supposing such approval by a council majority?

This DA is now unavailable, probably not because it could not be typed-up in sufficient time to make the agenda release deadline of July 15.

At the planning commission meeting of July 7, when confronted with the prospect of a continuance until September (chairperson Dave Sanders expressed this position and it could have garnered at least three votes), Petrovich arose to state that he would much rather the planning commission immediately vote up or down on Gateway 2 – so he could take whatever recommendation was made before the July 19 city council meeting.

Clearly, Petrovich didn’t desire any form of continuance of municipal consideration of Gateway 2 until September, perhaps because the longer the public is aware of what’s impending, the more time to constructively react and organize civic involvement.

To obtain such a result is undoubtedly part of the reason for moving final approval of this project upon the minimum legal timeline around the national independence holiday.

Obstacles of a political nature have apparently arisen, however, related to the basic terms of this DA — once believed to be meaningfully, at least generally secured.

Another durable obstacle has also suddenly appeared, in the form of a CEQA-based demand for a public recirculation of this project proposal: arguing that added analysis and evaluation of “project alternatives” are legally essential, raising various questions about project details and advocating the civic value of properly conducted community planning processes.

Recirculation of the Gateway 2 EIR under CEQA processes would take about 4 months to complete. Litigation may easily take several years.

____  Relevant Political Landscape  ____

Let’s briefly examine the political landscape relevant to upcoming city council action.

Quite likely, Pimentel and Davies are most inclined to approve Gateway 2, which is the basis for Petrovich’s decision to now move ahead in 2011, prior to the 2012 city council election campaign, wherein civic scrutiny and political turbulence regarding this situation will surely increase.

And of course, it’s also important to keep in mind that Gateway 2 is — purely speculative — with no prospective commercial tenants, at all.

Its actual development prior to 2014 is very unlikely; so, why is it now being jammed-through planning commission on a legally minimum timeline, wrapped around a national holiday?

Someone in authority on city council must have directly influenced such conduct. Pimentel and Davies (mayor and vice-mayor) are the likely suspects for so arranging municipal affairs to boost Gateway 2.

The key element of vote-counting in this situation is that interim council member, Tom Stallard, will probably recuse himself from considering the Gateway 2 project on the basis of his extensive real-estate holdings in the downtown area, impacts to which are a prominent bone-of-contention. Stallard and his wife, Meg, have earlier written a response within the project’s EIR process, expressing various relevant concerns.

Stallard’s recusal would compel the council to function with only four voting members. Assuming Pimentel and Davies will eventually support this project, any action to officially approve Gateway 2 will fully depend upon support by either Marble or Dote.

Those two pivotal votes are huge question marks; although, both of these council members have potential reasons for snagging Petrovich’s and city hall’s swiftly moving plans.

Marble has expressed opposition to (and voted to oppose) previous city council actions which have unreasonably favored Petrovich, related to involvement of Woodland Redevelopment Agency with proposals for a downtown cineplex.

So, we know Marble is (at least) independently minded and capable of confronting Petrovich and whatever adverse machinations by city hall are here in sway.

Dote’s previous presence on city council was interrupted in 2004 by the advent of Pimentel — who was strongly supported by Petrovich — who was duly perturbed by uncertainties about Dote’s attitudes toward his plans.

Thus, it’s marvelously ironic that Dote may now ultimately wield the key vote regarding progress for Petrovich’s Gateway 2 project.

____  Options Exist For City Council Action On Gateway 2  ____

Votes by Dote and Marble on this topic may well become directed toward recirculation of this EIR, since there is no imperative for approving this project as a sole / lone course of action. It purely depends upon how relevant (member) motions regarding city council action are made and processed, as well as understood.

Votes by Marble and Dote to demand an EIR recirculation, for example, would not necessarily be made in opposition to a proposed project, per se, but rather in an effort to optimize various conditions for improved city council consideration and action.

There is no compelling reason / justification for simply voting the present project — up or down — at this juncture, with EIR recirculation being easily available (and required) to swiftly serve the civic interest.

As noted in a “memorandum of objections” to municipal approval of Gateway 2, received by city hall related to July 7 planning commission consideration, this significantly revised Gateway 2 proposal has legally triggered CEQA recirculation requirements (state Public Resources Code, section 21092.1, implemented by California Code of Regulations, sections 15088.5 and 15126.6, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court in Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, and Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167).

This legal claim regarding recirculation of the Gateway 2 proposal is based upon the fact that this revised project has disclosed: “a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that clearly would lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but which the project proponents decline to adopt.”

“Feasible project alternatives” plainly exist through identifying, examining and evaluating development options, including separating and relocating various project components.

For example, carefully selected, regionally oriented big-box stores may be peripherally sited, yet separated from the project’s other contemplated commercial uses, which would become trans-located to environmentally superior areas, usually municipal in-fill prospects (which abound around this city).

Indeed, Petrovich already owns one quite key parcel within the downtown area (NW corner of Main and East Sts.), which has long been planned to join the Wiseman Building in creating an eastern “Downtown Gateway.”

An example of exploring “feasible project alternatives” within a CEQA recirculation process, would be to direct / incline efforts toward eventually (trans)locating supplemental / accessory commercial uses being contemplated for the Gateway 2 proposal — upon this long-vacant (Petrovich-razed) downtown lot, and/or other commercially zoned property owned by him in the downtown area .

Also, Petrovich indicates that he will delay development of a 40-foot wide sidewalk-adjacent strip between Third and Fourth Streets (alongside the proposed CinemaWest development) – while he attracts relevant retail uses within a Gateway 2?

____  Interim Political Endgame  ____

Thus, according to this political scenario, the city council would become locked in a 2 – 2 voting position, preventing the Gateway 2 project from gaining municipal approval.

In order to move this project forward — at all — Pimentel or Davies (or both) would then be forced to vote in favor of EIR recirculation.

Gravity of a political nature will certainly compel this beneficial result — on the basis of both Dote and Marble holding firm for EIR recirculation.

Other potential twists would be for Petrovich to either decide (himself) to recirculate this EIR, prior to such a city council vote, or to simply relinquish / reshuffle his development plans.

Once a proper EIR recirculation is successfully accomplished, it will then become time for the city council to properly vote on Gateway 2: up or down.

Arts have apparently inherited another historical venue in Woodland, as State Theatre will eventually become combined with the Opera House to display various cultural and entertainment opportunities on both sides of downtown, as a result of a June 21 Woodland Redevelopment Agency allocation of about $1.9 million and later emergence of an acceptable arrangement to attempt raising at least another $0.5 to $0.8 million dollars to meet current cost estimates ($2.4 – $2.7 million) for properly restoring and renovating State Theatre.

Yolo County Arts Council (YoloArts) on the same agenda submitted a thoughtful and valuable proposal (elicited by city hall staff) for an Art in Public Places demonstration project(s), a “pilot program” to be united with a recent series of redevelopment fund allocations totally $4.75 million.

This proposal would have collected 1.5% of this redevelopment expenditure — about $70,000 — combining it with $25,000 of municipal funds for a portion of management costs, to set up: “A proper framework for soliciting / selecting qualified artists, establishing criteria, engaging the public [and] arts to create livable, sustainable neighborhoods and downtown areas[, by] provid[ing] an opportunity to install notable public art that could be a significant landmark for [Woodland] and its residents,” according to an associated staff report.

This YoloArts proposal, however, was quite rudely punted into virtual oblivion by Vice-mayor Skip Davies — with city council cooperation and acquiescence.

____  Kean Persuaded About Project Fundraising Effort  ____

Initial apprehensions regarding the vague nature of fundraising efforts intended by an unusually divided (3-2 majority) Woodland City Council, to be required to supplement this sudden dedication of redevelopment funds for preservation of State Theatre, have been substantially alleviated through a recent meeting between Davies and Opera House Director Jeff Kean, who now believes his foundation directors will support this project.

Not being advised of the actual details of Davies’ various plans prior to the June 21 city council meeting where the project funding level was decided, Kean quickly expressed concerns about the capability of the Opera House Foundation to successfully manage the extensions of effort needed to expeditiously garner $500,000 to $800,000 or more, to complete this project.

Kean has since been satisfied by Davies’ explanations of an independently organized effort: (a) which will primarily rely on an expansion of the present base of Opera House donors and benefactors, (b) which will obtain various contractor contributions / efficiencies, and (c) which will not in any manner adversely intrude upon or impact regular Opera House programs and endeavors.

Plans include a full restoration of the theatre marquee and ceiling.

Kean describes that he and Davies discussed a program of expanding benefactor participation, by a sponsoring of: its individual seats, the adjacent dance studios planned for its previously retail storefronts and even the performing arts center itself.

Although always to “be known as State Theatre,” explains Kean, as other venues have in such a manner recognized significant underwriters, “the theatre could be named,” in reference to its use as a performing arts center.

Kean relates the importance of having this new project become completed and accessible at the proper time of the year, September (2012, hopefully); so that various plans can be made and kept involving its initial season of use.

____ Not Just For Kids Anymore  ____

As a pertinent matter of public clarification, Kean wants it disseminated that newly renovated State Theatre will be a: “performing arts center.”

“I wish people would quit referring to it as a ‘children’s performing arts center, or as a performing arts center for youth,’” exclaims Kean.

“It will simply be a performing arts center,” housed at State Theatre, “with a flexible and multi-functional design.”

In basic, existing seating (in troubled condition) will be removed and the main portion of the theatre floor leveled to remove the incline toward the former screen (also to be removed).

The former balcony area will become a storage area and the former retail storefronts (now smaller, side-theaters) will become dance studios.

Various fabrications and installations will create efficiently flexible performance and spectator spaces within the main body of the theatre.

Kean anticipates additional civically oriented uses, as well as digitally adapted movies and even private (leased) uses such as weddings or conferences.

“We can also arrange it to have big dances and celebrations,” suggests Kean, as well as it availing conventionally theatrical and artistic formats.

Expected seating capacity is relatively small, at 200. However, such a scale of venue is often attractive and successful, as it often provides more intimacy and audience value than larger performance houses.

Also, extreme flexibilities within its various arrangements may create an otherwise impossible and unique diversity of use and experience.

____  Stunted City Policy Politely Reaffirmed  ____

“All development projects in the city are required to install some kind of public art as a means of embracing the sense of place within the Woodland community. The City’s current design standard provides little guidance or assistance for businesses in determining and securing quality and place making public art that benefits their properties and the community,” explains the associated staff report.

Having tardily concluded that civic values exists with public art in general, the city hasn’t yet been able to develop any facilitative structure to realize them.

A previous multi-year effort to forge city policy on this subject was unsuccessful, according to comments by Davies and Woodland City Council Member, Martie Dote, and is described in the staff report as confronting its end when the economy slumped and municipal priorities were shifted.

Thus, instant opportunity to fasten a temporary and limited “pilot program” onto state-budget induced, redevelopment agency expenditures seemed to present a very fortunate chance to partially overcome the failure of previous efforts, producing a timely and
useful demonstration, a prototype addressing potential city-wide policy.

YoloArts, recognized as having requisite expertise in this area, currently helps to accomplish such (Art in Public Places) programs in Davis, West Sacramento and the unincorporated county.

“The City of Woodland in an effort to further art and art activies for the benefit of [its] residents is dedicated to expanding experiences with art in the public realm. Such art has enabled people in all societies to better understand their communities[,]” optimistically relates an explanatory document prepared by Danielle Thomas, Executive Director of Yolo Arts, to accompany this agenda item.

Thomas’ quite detailed document (proposal) describes that: “[relevant] projects will work to develop a vision for collaboration and economic progress through community-based partnerships that incorporate the arts and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) livability principles; highlights the diverse cultural characteristics of our communities and recommend art engagement concepts for the future.”

This document sets forth a thoughtful, multi-phase process for optimizing production of either one or two relevant art projects within the downtown area, by aggregating 1.5% (~$70,000) of redevelopment fund allocations awarded to various developmental proposals and combining it with $25,000 of municipal (management, implementation) money.

The city would have an art project(s), as well as an experienced template and demonstrated process with pertinent criteria to help orient potential adoption of a suitable municipal ordinance on this subject.

That’s a wise, pragmatic and economical approach toward accomplishing genuine civic (policymaking) progress within tough, recessionary economic times.

____  Davies Squelches YoloArts Proposal  ____

However, Vice-mayor Skip Davies swiftly announced his determination that such action demands additional staff and council study / understanding. He claimed application of such funding is not clear, clouded by previous problems enacting such policy.

Davies said that: “we do not have a solution to the whole policy, so I will not be supportive.”

Also, Davies declared that recipients of redevelopment funds shouldn’t be so burdened — saying something of the effect that these development projects — pivotally assisted through this spending of public money — need absolutely — all of that money — and cannot be bothered by accepting a small tithing toward public art which importantly enhances the civic setting of everyone’s (common) affairs.

Davies also questioned whether – improper – “leverage” — was being applied to these projects, by their being the focus of this YoloArts program.

Council member Dote briefly spoke about previously unsuccessful attempts to enact a suitable ordinance, and expressed some confusion regarding aggregating funds in a way different from past actions, which tie art requirements to specific projects.

“I can’t see putting a public art project up for somebody hooking up to sewer and water,” said a disoriented Dote; since, the whole idea of aggregating these funds would be to overcome that precise obstacle.

Dote wondered where these projects would be installed, although that was clear from the staff report and Thomas’ proposal document.

The city manager advised Dote that one potential use of aggregated funding would be to install public art in conjunction with an enhanced farmer’s market (a project receiving $350,000 of agency money).

The council provided no solid form of contention against Davies’ determination to squelch this proposal.

Perhaps, such an adverse reaction is related to previous failures to enact suitable public policy.

Initially, Mayor Art Pimentel stated an interest in revisiting this matter in two weeks (July 5), to at least provide some chance for its approval, since this program depends upon agreed stipulations within the relevant funding documents now being prepared related to redevelopment fund allocation.

In addition, Pimentel in passing objected in part, saying that private funds should play some role in such proposals.

This YoloArts proposal is rendered inconsequential, it’s killed, by the eventual city council decision to delay further consideration until September.

Davies insisted, however, that city staff and council have ample time to review and study this subject, “to sort this thing out.”

His basic position, though, utterly extinguishes this proposal.

Of course, an important part of the value of this timely proposal was its use as a guide for such staff / city council analysis, council consensus and the eventual adoption of a city-wide ordinance.

Plus, downtown Woodland would gain some good public art.

Vividly demonstrated on this occasion is an inability / unwillingness by remaining city council members to robustly contend with Davies on the merits of various key matters; quite ironic, because of related dissention with perceived underfunding of the State Theatre – Opera House project.

Clearly, this YoloArts proposal was: (a) in the right place, (b) at the right time, (c) with the right approach, (d) questing to pull Woodland out its deep ditch of unsuccessful policymaking on this topic, which currently frustrates its own implementation.

Instead, Davies thoughtlessly hurled away this valuable proposal, with some help from Dote and Pimentel.

Why?

Perhaps, because Jeff Morgan (recipient of $2 million for three separate projects) was not really in favor of such action / result; although, such clarity and accountability is sorely lacking within our basic civic process, as well as our relevant arts policy.

Why didn’t our city council members properly articulate an instant resolution of this issue in the obvious civic interest?

Davies shouldn’t have prevailed.

Once enthusiastically embraced as potentially resolving the civic quandry created by Sacramento developer Paul Petrovich’s plans — based on an unwise and damagingly divisive (2002-03) amendment of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) to prioritize a cineplex to replace historic Electric Garage, rather than renovating and expanding State Theatre per the original DSP — the prospect of Woodland Opera House Foundation now acquiring, renovating and operating it as a performing arts center has suffered a relatively unexpected blow, with uncertain consequences.

This strange blow occurred during the agency meeting of June, 21, 2011, after several months of various efforts, led by agency member Bill Marble, to swiftly knit together such a proposal for redevelopment agency allocation.

___  With Cash Aplenty, Agency Underfunds State Theatre Project  ___

Bent on requiring the Woodland Opera House Foundation (WOHF) to eventually fund-raise perhaps as much as $1 million to supplement a stingy Woodland Redevelopment Agency allocation of $1,887,500 for State Theatre transformation to a performing arts center (presently estimated to cost $2.4 to $2.7 million), perhaps also significantly delaying this project — Vice-mayor Skip Davies seemingly prearranged to obtain the vote of interim Agency / Council Member Tom Stallard, combining with Mayor Art Pimentel to make a majority.

Agency / Council Members Bill Marble and Martie Dote dissented, Marble strongly and repeatedly, advancing allocations of $2.7 million and $2.3 million, respectively.

Later in the meeting, Dote voiced quite serious concerns regarding the majority-adopted funding level of $1.8 million.

“I understand the belief in [ ] wanting to have the Opera House participate in fund-raising [ ], but I’m really concerned that we’re under-capitalizing a project that I think needs to be completed sooner rather than later,” exclaimed Dote.

“And I frankly don’t understand the allocation to Adams Grain. That’s come in very late and I don’t understand the support there.”

“I think we’re underfunding a capital project, [ ] and I don’t think that’s a formula for success,” she concluded.

Marble followed with similar objection, describing this situation as raising: “A huge disadvantage in terms of the viability of this project.”

Prearrangement of Stallard’s vote was apparent by the way he directly reflected relevant allocations and views of Davies, specifically: only $1.8 million for WOHF transformation of State Theatre, $300,000, etc., for Farmers Market expansion, as well as pitching extremely similar admonitions and encouragements about the fund-raising expedition they’ve arranged for WOHF.

Davies specifically noted that the grassroots organization, Friends Of State Theatre, doesn’t include what he asserts as essential, a fund-raising program, extending his remarks to demand that grant-funding activities, etc., be pursued by WOHF.

Stallard later quipped: “I can’t stand this defeatism about fundraising. [ ] There’s plenty of money in our community,” to gild Davies’ political line.

____  Unallocated Funds Underscore Stallard’s Motivation  ____

Revealingly, Stallard refused to allocate $1.7 million of the $4.75 million available, seemingly intending to hold fast to the precise amounts allocated by Davies.

When briefly challenged about this tactic, however, by an increasingly agitated State Theatre supporter, Stallard insisted that his need to recuse himself on a couple of projects was the reason for his refusal to allocate the remaining $1.7 million.

Apparently, of course, his real reason was a strategic intention to best duplicate relevant aspects of Davies’ allocations and reflect (actually: create) the majority trend along with Pimentel.

Stallard was clearly the swing vote for this pivotal situation, with the basic funding format of WOHF to utilize State Theatre plainly being at stake.

Nothing stopped Stallard from instead, — aligning with Marble and Dote through allocating some of his remaining $1.7 million to WOHF — except for his obvious desire to hold the political line at Davies’ (pre-expressed) limit.

The problem wasn’t that Stallard lacked allocation capacity to serve these interests of WOHF, because of having to consider too many competing proposals. His stated need to recuse himself from a couple of proposals actually made him — more — not less — able to deliver a fully funded allocation to WOHF.

Thus, Stallard’s instant excuse for not expending more of his allocation ability rings quite hollow, also revealing his inclination to dodge the sudden political heat raised by his joining with Davies and Pimentel to claim such a stark WOHF challenge / distress as somehow a joyful burden.

____  $1.8 Million Limit Imposed  ____

Pimentel, too, was clearly aware of and endorsed Davies’ previously stated, precise limitation on State Theatre (WOHF) allocation: $1.8 million.

Davies defended such a limit by saying that the building will likely cost $300,000 and simply a fundamental level of its improvement should cost $1.5 million.

Neither disputed, however, the estimated overall cost for this entire project being perhaps $2.7 million (with potential cost increases due to delay in construction).

____  BlackPine Does Fine  ____

Stallard’s (slightly adjusted) vote was in the end also available for un-tempered support of Jeff Morgan’s BlackPine Holdings projects involving multiple downtown restaurants — visibly stunning Opera House / State Theatre supporters — since Morgan walked away to pursue his various restaurant projects, with more money ($2 million in extremely favorable loans) than WOHF.

This occurred, despite a specific and direct plea from WOHF Executive Director, Jeff Kean, for the agency board / city council to please understand / comprehend that the genuine foundation for downtown revitalization is: Events and Entertainment Venues, not restaurants, which he referred to as accessory to this purpose.

Kean mentioned in testimony numerous examples of successful downtown renaissance being predicated upon such a basic, event-oriented priority, attempting to persuade the board / council toward fully funding WOHF’s acquisition and reformation of State Theatre.

Kean (and presumably the WOHF) desires full completion of this project by September, 2012, prior to opening of that edition of the Opera House production season. Kean also worries about the various complications and uncertainties connected with grant-based funding approaches.

While there was some acknowledgement of the obviously vast value of Morgan’s plans, most relevant public comment was directed toward advocating for agency tempering of his $2 million allocation, on grounds of over-stimulating restaurant creation in an inequitable manner and/or in conflict with conceptual priorities for successful development outlined by Kean.

Fat Cat Cafe co-owner, Jim Bohon, exemplified this nature of public comment to the agency, requesting that Morgan’s allocation be reduced to $1.5 million, with the other half million going to WOHF for the new State Theatre project.

Downtown resident Chris Holt also spoke repeatedly in favor of this general perspective.

____  Uncertainty Arises About WOHF Approval  ____

Dismayed by having WOHF suddenly presented with an underfunded, grant-requiring project, which also represents a key civic compromise (fig-leaf) attempting to politically mitigate the undermining of State Theatre restoration (/ expansion) by combined influences of Petrovich, certain council members and an unreasonably conflicted and outdated DSP — Kean is uncertain whether the WHOF will approve such an extreme fiscal expedition.

If WOHF were to disapprove this plan, $1.887,500 would return to the redevelopment agency fund for potential re-allocation.

Sacramento real-estate developer Paul Petrovich may have helped bring a Costco to Woodland, but he’s also brought a mess fest of civic planning chaos.

Currently playing at this ongoing theater of undesirable drama is the spectacle of Petrovich – who last July doubled the rent ($5500 to $10,000) paid by Hoblit Motors for occupancy of Electric Garage — now suing to evict.

Hoblit Motors is being compelled by a court-ordered stipulation settlement of this unlawful detainer action, to temporarily relocate at 333 Main Street, former home of Woodland Motors, across Main Street from Elm Ford.

Woodland Redevelopment Agency has (formally since April 5) proposed expending $200,000 to assist relocation of Hoblit Motors, in blatant violation of state law; whereas, such assistance should be paid by Paul Petrovich as a condition of approval of any related development project.

Historically, Petrovich has had quite an undesirable influence on community planning within the downtown area.

____ Petrovich Sues To Evict Hoblit  ____

Dave Hoblit told Yolo Sun last September that although he viewed this sudden rent increase (to $10,000 per month) as quite excessive, he would have to pay it to Petrovich — but he would do so only until January of 2011.

“I want to keep my Woodland dealership, but Petrovich has a gun to my head,” reiterated Hoblit, exasperated by this predicament not of his making and wondering if and where another home for his dealership may eventually be found.

Court documents from the now settled legal battle between them reveal that Hoblit kept his pledge. In February 2011, he began paying Petrovich $6500 per month, apparently Hoblit’s offer within lease negotiations which collapsed in 2007.

At the outset of March, Petrovich initiated preliminary legal action to oust Hoblit for non-payment of established rent. Hoblit continued to pay $6500 for both March and April.

On April 28, Petrovich’s attorney filed with the superior court a trial brief, the trial on a charge of unlawful detainer being (re)set to May 13.

At this court appearance, a settlement of this dispute was reached and a trial avoided. Petrovich’s counsel was ordered by the court to: “prepare a formal stipulation settlement [to] put on the record.”

The specific details of this settlement stipulation remain undisclosed as of June 8, but it clearly involves Hoblit relocating with all due haste.

Hoblit initially leased Electric Garage in April, 1999, from then owner Lonny Pritchard, on terms of $5500 per month for five years, with four annual one-year options for renewal. When this lease arrangement finally expired in 2007, Paul Petrovich was the new landlord upon the prospect of demolishing Electric Garage and constructing a downtown cineplex.

“In 2007,” assert court documents, “the parties initiated negotiations for a [new] five year lease in connection with a purchase agreement for a separate property. However, the parties never executed the lease because they could not agree on material terms of the lease. Petrovich then revoked all outstanding offers. Hoblit’s occupancy continued on a month to month basis.”

____  Hoblit Motors Forced Into Month To Month Tenancy  ____

This – “purchase agreement for a separate property” — refers to Petrovich’s efforts to relocate Hoblit Motors to his Gateway Center development(s). Dave Hoblit has indicated to Yolo Sun his extreme displeasure with Petrovich’s ever-shifting style of relocation proposals.

Likely, Hoblit’s perspective has directly affected these negotiations for any new lease from Petrovich for him at Electric Garage.

In other words — having in 2007 spurned Petrovich’s proposal and terms for his eventual relocation at Gateway Center, to be somehow in phase with demolition of Electric Garage, Hoblit has since 2008 been set adrift within a month to month tenancy.

Conflicting (not so oddly) with this unsettled situation, Petrovich in 2010 (all too believably) announced to Woodland City Council, responding to inquiry by Council Member Bill Marble, that Hoblit Motors was indeed expected to relocate into an expansion of Gateway Center.

Hoblit simultaneously confirmed to Yolo Sun the complete lunacy of Petrovich’s announced expectation.

Hoblit Motors is one of Woodland’s largest sources of sales tax revenue and employs more than 40 persons. Its downtown presence is often viewed as very beneficial by many nearby merchants, expressing that the activity-magnet of this dealership constantly brings customers in their doors.

What really stands in the way of Hoblit Motors continuing to occupy Electric Garage, pending an actual need to move, thus avoiding temporary relocation until its permanent facility (now being planned) is available?

Apparently, only Petrovich’s enigmatic petulance.

____  Petrovich Loses Money On Hoblit Motors Eviction, . . . Why Do It?  ____

The optimum outcome for all involved regarding these relocation matters appears vividly clear.

Hoblit Motors should have had some reasonable (cooperative) arrangement option for remaining at Electric Garage, until its relocation becomes truly imperative due to (presently, only potential) issuance of municipal approval for a building demolition permit connected with Petrovich’s cineplex project.

It appears obvious that no such demolition permit would be lawful to issue until sometime in 2012.

Municipal records indicate that three basic planning phases must be accomplished by Petrovich’s project: (a) a “focused” environmental impact report, (b) a conditional use permit process and (c) a demolition permit process.

Demolition action, of course, trails these other matters.

Petrovich is presently stalling his own project, by so far failing to fund these several aspects of developmental process. City staff now describe this project as at least 6 months behind schedule, and if approved, not expected to be completed until January, 2013.

Petrovich is for some reason choosing to lose at least $65,000 (Hoblit’s demonstrated, tangible offer of $6500 per month as rent until any relevance of building demolition genuinely arises – likely 10 months); while, his continuing demand for essentially a rent-doubling that would only last until his project moves forward, (unnecessarily) compels Hoblit’s ouster.

Injuries to Hoblit Motors caused by Petrovich’s surly petulance, is surely grist for establishing suitable contours of any — conditional — project approval he will confront.

It’s difficult to see how developers make money with such strange strategies. Something else must factor into Petrovich’s motivations and action.

Whatever his clever motivations, for prematurely expelling Hoblit Motors — Petrovich has succeeded in further alienating himself from Woodlanders.

____  Redevelopment Agency Inclines Toward Unlawful Action?  ____

State law (Health & Safety Code, section 33426.5) forbids redevelopment agency funds from being provided to auto dealerships which locate on a land parcel “which has not previously been developed for urban use,” such as the parcel indicated by the city for permanent relocation of Hoblit Motors, approximately 12 acres with marvelous freeway exposure at the eastern edge of town.

Hoblit and Scott Vanderbeek of Woodland Motors have already acted to obtain developmental control over this undeveloped parcel, anticipating planning and construction of a permanent facility for both franchise (Chrysler – GM) dealerships.

Another (closely related) provision of state law plainly forbids redevelopment agency funds from being provided to any development “of five acres or more which has not previously been developed for urban use,” if the nature of such development will create retail sales tax generation in the manner of an automobile dealership.

State law — with obviously sound policy considerations — generally forbids spending redevelopment money for further primary development, often on the community periphery; whereas, the basic purpose of redevelopment is to cure blight upon already developed land.

This is common sense, isn’t it?

Thus, Woodland Redevelopment Agency is doubly barred by state law from assisting such a relocation of Hoblit Motors.

____  Recent Legal Challenge To Proposed Agency Action  ____

Likely, this unlawful condition being expressed to the redevelopment agency – in a (written) form capable of legal consequences — caused an item approving $200,000 for such relocation to be removed from a recent agency meeting agenda (June 7).

Had there been no submission of such an inherently legal document, suitably challenging this agency action, the action would have upon adoption become immune to legal contest.

This legal memorandum filed with the agency, opposing such agency action – advises that: “Proper avenue / source of relocation assistance for the Hoblit auto dealership exists through conditional approval process related to this (movie theater multiplex) project; as, using agency funds for this purpose is clearly unjustifiable and unlawful.”

Agency staff have casually mentioned a belief that such state law is intended to prevent inter-jurisdictional competition for extending redevelopment funding to attract sales-tax generators (big-box retail, auto dealers, etc.).

However, this specific policy problem is clearly addressed otherwise within redevelopment law.

The agency director (Woodland City Manager, Mark Deven) claims in a recent press account that he intends to soon (June 21) bring forward — “a legal workaround” — purported to satisfy state law; although — no specific details are yet provided.

Certainly, it would seem that if any – valid — “legal workaround” — truly existed, this approach would have been initially presented, long before the time that such key relocation funding would be forced to compete with myriad other causes in a sudden race to encumber all loose redevelopment money prior to July 1; since, Hoblit Motors is currently a very important source of sales-tax revenue for the city.

____  State Law Protections Unavailable  ____

State relocation law (California Relocation Assistance Act, Gov. Code section 7260, et seq) has been cited within a pertinent staff report, as one possible source of legitimacy for agency assistance to Hoblit; although, these provisions only apply to “projects or programs undertaken by a public entity.”

Petrovich’s cineplex project is not so situated; indeed, it has been explicitly deemed to be fully independent of redevelopment agency (“public entity”) control.

Health & Safety Code section 33622 offers another, yet equally legally implausible, avenue for providing redevelopment money for relocation of Hoblit Motors.

It states that: “By resolution of the [agency board of directors, its] money may be expended from time to time for: (a) The acquisition of real property in the project area. (b) The clearance, aiding in relocation of site occupants, and preparation of any project site for redevelopment.”

This provision speaks to “any project site for redevelopment” by such an agency, within agency control, by legally cobbling together the rough outlines of ordinarily lawful agency action — which is imperative for its acquiring and developing property.

Attempting to apply subsection (b) alone, to Petrovich’s private project, primarily moving outside of agency involvement, is legally suspect and would likely be challenged.

____  Other Planning Messes Related To Petrovich  ____

In 2002-03, Petrovich managed to skew Woodland’s Downtown Specific Plan toward his desired cineplex location, undermining the Plan’s original goal of renovating and expanding the Art Deco era (1937) State Theatre. This key goal of the Plan, establishing a major (entertainment oriented) anchoring edifice at the downtown’s western gateway, had already been gravely undermined at the Plan’s inception by astonishing municipal misjudgment allowing a cineplex to locate at the new County Fair Mall.

Reserved zoning of entertainment uses such as movie theaters, to within the downtown area, was viewed by Woodland’s city council of those days (circa 1990) as somehow a violation of private property rights. If shopping-mall developers and owners (such as Petrovich) wanted a cineplex, their desires trumped civic interest in the merits of a sensible zoning system.

Petrovich’s precious impulse to locate a cineplex upon the site of (thus, demolished) historic Electric Garage, the initial motor-vehicle dealership in Yolo County, continuously operated as such for more than a century, was sparked and driven by purely speculative, since evaporated expectation of a contiguous parking structure related to a new County courthouse.

Initially, Petrovich wanted to develop a new theater complex within his Gateway Center(s). Under pressure from city planning staff, recognizing a potential repeat of the enormous fiasco of allowing a cineplex at the mall, his desire was directed toward a downtown location.

Inexplicably, Petrovich’s desired cineplex location / project was strongly prioritized; as well as, grounded in a bizarre and reckless notion of dividing the six block long downtown area by designating a three block long “entertainment district” within its eastern portion.

On its very face, such an approach clearly and directly subverts the Downtown Specific Plan’s more congruent goals related to the potential function of State Theatre; however, such an obvious contradiction / inconsistency within the Plan has never been addressed.

Very recent attention to the precarious fate of State Theatre, certainly does not serve to erase its being placed in severe jeopardy through the adverse influence of Petrovich upon evolution of Woodland’s downtown.

Petrovich (often with city hall’s help) makes a big mess, eventually causing a municipal / civic scramble attempting to clean it up.

Justifiable, accountable and timely mitigation for severe consequences to downtown Woodland (not to mention County Fair Mall) from the vast retail sprawl of Petrovich’s Gateway Center, was imprudently bargained away by a previous city council, which gave Petrovich six and a half years to do pretty much whatever he wants, unbridled by civic interest / judgment / discretion.

Another persistent mess is this, requiring constant vigilance to launder.

Petrovich obtained (2008) municipal approval to construct a single-story, strip-mall Rite Aid store upon the eastern gateway of Woodland’s downtown, effectively destroying the nature of such a gateway, a key element of the Downtown Specific Plan.

The Wiseman building would meet the Stupidman building.

Fortunately, advent of the Great Recession dissolved this absurd plan, a huge and irreversible mess only barely dodged.

Woodland has suffered a veritable mess storm related to Petrovich.

What’s up next on the emerging horizon of this constant mess fest?

Petrovich has recently sold to the city, for one dollar ($1), land along the Sacramento River to be used for an easement to facilitate the city’s new surface water project, causing rampant speculation over what he now expects to obtain from the city in return for this benefit.

Petrovich’s Gateway 2 project was announced this week (June 9), to be soon moving forward at Woodland Planning Commission.

What new messes will soon arise in connection with these situations?