The return of Gravenstein Commons
In an acrimonious vote, the city council revived Gravenstein Commons, the very-low low-income housing development for the former Horizon Shine site
All members of the city council were present for the June 18 city council meeting, including Mayor Diana Rich, Vice Mayor Stephen Zollman, Councilmember Sandra Maurer, Councilmember Jill McLewis, and Councilmember Neysa Hinton.
It's baaaack. The very-low low-income housing development by St. Vincent de Paul is back from the dead, revived by Mayor Diana Rich and Councilmember Sandra Maurer, who brought it back to the council for reconsideration last night.
After a bitter debate, the council voted 3 to 2 to resuscitate the development and re-establish the city’s partnership with St. Vincent de Paul (SVdP). Mayor Rich and councilmembers Neysa Hinton and Sandra Maurer voted to approve the resolution and the contract with SVdP for the construction and operation of Gravenstein Commons. Vice Mayor Stephen Zollman and Councilmember Jill McLewis voted against it.
The council’s approval, narrow as it was, will unlock roughly $9.5 million to build out the project, including $6.5 million from the state’s Project Homekey program, plus a promised $3 million from the county.
Withdrawal and reconsideration
At their April 2 meeting, the city council decided to withdraw from an agreement to partner with SVdP to develop a 22-unit low-low-income housing project at 845 Gravenstein Highway. It was also a close vote, with McLewis, Zollman and Maurer voting to withdraw from the deal, and Hinton and Rich voting for it. In late May, the city received word that SVdP was considering litigation based on that decision, arguing that it had spent roughly $1 million on the project already.
That threat was just one of several pieces of new information that allowed the item to be reconsidered. Other new information included the increase in RV camping around the site; the fact that the $6.5 million in state funding for the project remains available; a recent change in policy that would allow eight or more of the units to go to former Horizon Shine residents or other homeless people in Sebastopol; and the fact that SVdP’s offer of five temporary RV spots in Santa Rosa for former residents of Horizon Shine is no longer available.
A bruising line of questioning
Jill McLewis, who has been adamant in her opposition to Gravenstein Commons, came out swinging. She asked City Attorney Larry McLaughlin if it was wise to partner with someone who was threatening to sue you.
“I’m just wondering, from just a professional attorney’s opinion, is it good to hitch your wagon to someone who’s already threatening to sue you?” she asked. “I mean, it just seems like really poor form in general. Like in life, that's a general rule for me: If someone’s threatening me or wanting to sue me, I don’t hitch my wagon to them.”
McLaughlin said he’d handled a number of cases where partners had fallen out with each other and there were different responses, from trying to resolve the problem together to going to court.
When it became known that two councilmembers, Rich and Maurer, had both talked to Jack Tibbetts of SVdP since the group had threatened to sue the city, McLewis insinuated that this was a conflict of interest. McLaughlin said it wasn’t. Rich mentioned that she had asked McLaughlin’s advice before she and Maurer reached out to Tibbetts.
“I did check in with our city attorney to determine whether it was acceptable for me as a city council member to reach out to Jack Tibbetts of St. Vincent de Paul in order to collect information and whether there was a conflict of interest involved there. I was assured that there was not,” Rich said. “So I did my due diligence and met my obligations as a council member.”
Next Vice Mayor Zollman jumped into the fray with a series of questions. First he asked Jack Tibbetts why SVdP needed to partner with anyone—if it had so much money—and also why SVDP couldn’t partner with the county rather than the city on this project.
Tibbetts responded that the California Department of Housing and Community Development requires that nonprofits partner with a “jurisdictional entity with entitlement powers,” and suggested that Sebastopol was the only entity that qualified within the borders of the town. Schwartz pointed out that the county actually has another Project Homekey site in Sebastopol—Elderberry Commons (the former Sebastopol Inn)—so that couldn’t be right. Schwartz did say, however, that he had talked to the county about this several months ago and had been told that the county wasn’t interested in taking this on.
“Essentially, they had their hands full with their own Homekey projects,” Schwartz said.
This led to a discussion of SVdP’s offer to pay for a specialized Project Homekey expert to run the project for the city of Sebastopol. Tibbetts reaffirmed that offer. Schwartz and McLaughlin stipulated that the city should hire and contract with the Homekey expert, and be reimbursed by SVdP, which Tibbetts agreed to. (This was added to the final motion.) McLaughlin said this arrangement was similar to the city contracting for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), even though the cost of the EIR was born by the developer.
McLewis then asked outright if SVdP would drop the threat of litigation and withdraw their public records requests (which have been taking a lot of city staff time) if the city agreed to go forward with Gravenstein Commons.
Tibbetts answered, “Absolutely.”
McLewis then questioned the integrity of the process, seemingly suggesting that there had been some kind of quid pro quo agreement, wherein a councilmember had asked SVdP privately what McLewis had just asked publicly. She suggested that somehow promises had been made in the context of bringing this project back for reconsideration.
Rich said that no promises had been made and that she had been clear that she was just one vote on a council of five people.
Tibbetts confirmed this and said the councilmembers had acted with integrity.
Public comment
Public comment was lacerating.
Oliver Dick said, “I’m fed up with being bullied by these supposed nonprofits, who are swimming in money. We have no money, and we keep swimming into these uncharted territories and idiotic agreements with people you just can’t trust.” He finished his comments with a swipe at Tibbetts. “Jack, I think you’re an absolute disgrace.”
Kate Haug called SVdP “unreliable,” “seemingly dishonest” and “a known slumlord.” Michael Carnacchi suggested that Tibbetts, who resigned early from a seat on the Santa Rosa City Council, was therefore an unreliable partner.
Adrienne Lauby of SAVS (the organization that ran Horizon Shine) rose to Tibbetts’ defense.
“I gotta start by saying I can’t believe this kind of character assassination,” Lauby said. “Nobody here is perfect. I’m sure that Jack has made mistakes in his life, but to suggest that he does not have integrity, that he’s not hard working, that he’s not to be trusted is just ridiculous. He’s spent his life trying to help people who are arguably the poorest and the most vulnerable in our county. He’s extremely dedicated.”
“I’ve watched his work at the Gold Coin,” she said, referring to an SVdP project in Santa Rosa, “and I’ve seen what he’s been able to accomplish there—him and St. Vincent de Paul. He’s got a very good team. So I think that his capacity to do this project is very, very high.”
“For my part, that the city would turn down $9.5 million in a state grant…” she trailed off in disbelief. “These grants are not easy to get,” Lauby said. “They are very, very hard to get. And it is a gift to Sebastopol and to Sebastopol’s poor people.”
Kathleen Roppiano, a nurse and a Sebastopol resident who volunteers for SVdP, also defended Tibbetts and emphasized “The bottom line here is people need housing,” though her advice that the project put security and mental health services in place early on probably didn’t do much to comfort the project’s opponents.
All in all, nine members of the public spoke against the project, while three spoke in its favor.
Council comment
Jill McLewis kicked off council comment. She argued that Sebastopol was already doing its fair share to house the poor and homeless and that asking it to do more was unfair.
“Two Homekey sites in a small city. This is unheard of anywhere else,” she said. “And to partner with someone who is strongarming us and twisting our arms to make us do this, threatening litigation, I think it’s unconscionable that anyone here—especially anyone running for election this fall [editor’s note: meaning Neysa Hinton]—would cave to that.”
When Mayor Rich tried to interrupt her to remind her that they were running out of time—the council has to take a vote to continue after 10:30 pm, and one “no” vote ends the meeting—McLewis snapped at her, “Please don’t interrupt me.” She said it angrily twice more, before agreeing that yes, she’d be willing to continue the meeting long enough to finish this issue.
“I just don’t think that this is right for Sebastopol,” McLewis continued. “And the fact that people are talking about, “Well, we have a right to come back and come back because you agreed to it. Well, we have a right to say no when we weren’t informed properly in the first place. I watched the meeting again, and I remember asking over and over again, ‘Is there any liability to the city?’ And Jack Tibbets said over and over again, ‘No, there isn’t.’..The question I have is, did they either not know what they were talking about, or did they willingly withhold information to force our hand? And now here they are forcing our hand again with attorneys, because knowing that Sebastopol is already being sued and has financial problems, that’s the Achilles heel here. They’ll just come in and threaten a lawsuit and know that some council member is going to cave because we have financial problems. I just think it's ridiculous and lacks integrity, and I will never trust St Vincent de Paul.”
Hinton said she was supporting the project. She was also upset about the personal attack on her character. “I have to say to my colleague [McLewis], I’m running for office again, and I feel very insulted by that comment. I’ve raised my kids here. I’m from here. I’m fourth generation. Whether I’m elected or not, I’m going to be here. I don’t make decisions based on today. I make decisions for this community based on the people that elected me and the future. So let’s be clear about that. I also don’t make decisions based on litigation threats. I supported this issue before, and my position has not changed.”
Vice Mayor Zollman, who said he objected to being schooled about housing-first (something he’s very familiar with), said he would also be voting against the project because of the financial risks involved.
“This is my fiduciary duty to the city to be sure that it does not go bankrupt,” he said, noting “I want to make it clear that I am not doing this because I hate the homeless, and I don’t have empathy. That is the furthest thing from the truth.”
Councilmember Maurer said she had pushed to bring this issue back before the council because she had changed her mind.
“I voted against it, and at the time, I felt like that was the best decision, but the information has changed now,” she said. “And there are, in my view, a lot of merits to this project…I remember when I voted against it the last time I thought ‘You just rejected a six and a half million dollar state grant. And I didn't feel good about that.”
“I've seen the plans and this is a really good looking project—22 extremely-low affordable housing units. It’ll help our RHNA numbers [a state housing quota] to have these built. It’s a good project. I’m actually grateful to bring it back, and I’m really sad about all the negativity toward this project. I think it’s going to be a great project and a good-looking one as well.”
She thanked Mayor Rich for helping to bring it back for reconsideration.
For her part, Rich said, “ I’ve always thought this was a fabulous project from the get go. I thought it had great merit to offer to the community. I thought it served individuals in the community. I continue to feel that way. I have great respect for St Vincent de Paul. I found them to be competent, to be trustworthy, to be ethical, certainly not slum lords.”
After praising the merits of the project, she went on to defend her own integrity.
“I have no apologies in terms of my conduct on this project,” she said. “This project was denied by the city council, and then there were changed circumstances. I've always believed in this project, and I approached it in a good faith, ethical manner…there were no promises made. Anyone who knows me knows that I always say I am one individual city council member. No decisions are made until it comes to the full city council. I do not make promises, and I don’t represent this city council individually. I never have.”
There was some last minute wordsmithing on the motion—they added the stipulation that the city hire and manage the Project Homekey expert, to be reimbursed by SVdP. Then the advocates of Gravenstein Commons won the day, and that was that.
It seems none of the Council discussion centered around the most important isuue: the financing of the project and the City's liability if the financing falls short. While I was never clear as to the City's responsibility if the capital funding falls short (City Manager Schwartz said the City bears the responsibility if the capital funding falls short). There is (may be?) about a $5 million difference between the cost of the project and what SVdP has on hand - to be made up from several different potential sources). The shortfall and financial responsibility are still issues that were not addressed Tuesday night. It would have been nice if the Council - specifically the swing vote, Sandra Maurer, had focused on them.
Second, even though one of the new City Manager's concerns seems to have been addressed, at least partially, by the promised hiring of a dedicated new City staffer, the Council's approval still seems to be a slap in the face for our brand new City Manager (@$245,000 per annum) and his first really major recommendation to the Council (to drop the project).
Just to be clear, I am in favor of the project and think that, if the funding falls short, somehow, somewhere, the City won't be stuck with the shortfal.
Fantastic writing Laura, as always. I read your write-up of a recent council I attended and you accurately communicated both the key facts and atmosphere.