County officials have told the city they are shocked and
dismayed about comments made related to the building of a new
courthouse.
County officials have told the city they are shocked and dismayed about comments made related to the building of a new courthouse.
Kevin Carruth, county general services agency director, sent a seven-page, strongly worded letter to City Manager Ed Tewes stating that it appears the redevelopment agency “is operating under assumptions based, for the most part, on inaccurate information.”
The issue surfaced at the Feb. 19 meeting where the city council acted in its role as Redevelopment Agency. Carruth said the county’s courthouse project manager was “barraged with issues and placed in an untenable situation. It greatly concerns the county that your agency would choose to publicly chastise an invited speaker, our project manager, on policy issues and decisions more appropriately addressed to me, or other county officials.”
Mayor Dennis Kennedy and City Manager Ed Tewes met last Thursday with Carruth, Supervisor Don Gage and Richard Wittenberg, county administrator, and Pete Kutras, interim county administrator, to attempt to smooth things over.
“We decided it would be best to lower the rhetoric and try to work this out more on an individual basis,” Kennedy said. “We’ve been solving problems in the press rather than one-on-one.”
Instead of continued accusations, city staff will work with county staff to see if they can resolve the issues.
Kennedy said he would review the treatment of Alicia Flynn, the project manager.
“I agreed to look at the tape of the (Feb. 19) meeting,” Kennedy said, “to see if we treated the county’s project manager incourteously. If we did anything wrong we will certainly apologize.”
The county is planning to build what has grown to be a $40 million, 80,000 square-foot South County Justice Center on city-owned land on Butterfield Boulevard, just south of the Caltrain parking lot, to replace unusable, mold-infested county facilities in San Martin.
This is not the first time the city and county have been at odds over the courthouse. In fact, colored by an early public outcry against locating the justice center near schools and neighborhoods, the two governments have sparred over details virtually since the project’s beginning.
In the letter, Carruth demanded to present his facts to the Morgan Hill public at a prime time spot on a future regularly scheduled council agenda.
The latest trouble started at the Feb. 19 meeting when the city challenged the county’s moving ahead with schematic drawings for the courthouse complex without sufficiently consulting the city as had been stipulated in the agreement between the two government bodies.
Neither city staff nor officials were part of the site planning as was stipulated in the original Acquisition, Disposition and Development Agreement, according to Kennedy. He was backed up by City Attorney Helene Leichter who read from the agreement.
“The Agency and the County wish to plan and develop the courthouse improvements in coordinated, cooperative and mutually agreeable and timely manner” the agreement states.
Flynn took the brunt of the council’s polite but distinct unhappiness that night; she tried to explain that the schematic drawings and the draft Environmental Impact Report had only been received in late January.
“We should be part of the design meetings,” Kennedy said. “Has the schematic design been presented to the city staff?”
“No,” said Flynn.
“I was embarrassed at how they treated her,” said Councilwoman Hedy Chang later.
Carruth expressed the county’s puzzlement in the letter.
“The county is at a loss to understand how the agency can represent that it has been excluded from the design process and also publicly accuse the county of not working cooperatively with the agency.
Carruth addressed three major issues raised by the city “that best demonstrate these erroneous assumptions.”
• The city claimed they were not included in the development of courthouse design.
Carruth said that city staff was invited and included in project and design meetings since April 2001 and, when not in attendance, has been provided with copies of meeting summaries and minutes. City representatives have, Carruth said, attended only 11 of 17 meetings. He asserted that the city’s preferred architect was chosen – with active city staff participation – but that the city is now questioning the firm’s qualifications.
“At no time has the county disregarded comments or concerns brought to our attention by the Agency or your representatives.” Agency comments suggest otherwise, Carruth said.
The city was invited to participate in the “Partnering Process for the courthouse project” and is a voting member of the design steering committee – neither required by the agreement, Carruth’s letter said. However, he stressed that representatives attended only two of the six schematic design meetings.
On the matter of a one-story vs. two-story building, Carruth said the county was able to accommodate the city on one building but not on a second.
• The city asserted the county is not conforming with the requirements of the agreement nor working within the spirit of the agreement.
Carruth stressed that the county had forwarded the schematic designs of exterior elevations – required by the agreement – and the site plan, floor plans and building sections – not required – as well.
He commented that the courthouse taking up most of the available acreage leaving too little space for the city to use for a planned fire station or police department is also consistent with the agreement.
“I have previously offered to explore different configurations of the parking lot to best accommodate the agency’s … interest in any potential surplus acreage. The county has yet to receive a response to this offer,” Carruth said.
• The city statement that the county is ignoring city design guidelines.
Carruth said the county was indeed working within the city’s guidelines on primary vehicular access/egress, parking, locating structures adjacent to public streets, enclosing or screening utility equipment and secured parking and by incorporating wall elevations, planes and alternating finish materials to avoid presenting a “big-box” appearance.
County plans, Carruth said, coordinate pedestrian access to downtown and public transit via the back of the site – as specified by city guidelines. And, finally, the buildings were designed to have “no back side” to the development.
Considering the fears of neighbors, who have voiced problems with prisoner transfers, the point of entry for in-custody prisoners will occur within the building.
Storm-water requirements and parking issues raised in the draft environmental impact report and by the Morgan Hill community, Carruth said, were respected.
“Surprisingly, the city attorney suggested we consider overriding these parking issues in our staff recommendation to the board of supervisors regarding certification of the final EIR,” Carruth’s letter said.
City and county staffs will be meeting in upcoming weeks to separate facts from assumptions. Both sides said they hope to forge a better future relationship.
