City Manager Sage Sangiacomo cut off public discussion at a City Council meeting on Wednesday night about a highly anticipated permit application that will determine the fate of the downtown landmark Palace Hotel.
When Sangiacomo seemingly cut off discussion of the Palace, he told the Ukiah City Council that the agenda called for the “city manager’s report” noting the Palace Hotel discussion was “not agendized for the evening”, which he said could run afoul of the Brown Act. He specifically said, “I don’t want to cut off discussion.” But, it was clear his evocation of procedure had chilled further discussion.
The application, a matter of intense public interest, has been shrouded in secrecy for two days at City Hall following current Palace owner Jitu Ishwar’s submission on Monday. The contents of Ishwar’s application are still publicly unknown, but it will lead to the demolition, restoration, or a combination of both.
Sangiacomo and Deputy Manager Shannon Riley insisted Wednesday night that city staff needs more time to study the Ishwar application because its ‘regular workload’ over the past two days has prevented a thorough review.
Whatever Ishwar is seeking does not currently need public review by the City Council.
If Ishwar has chosen demolition, the only thing standing in the way is authorization from Matt Keiser, the city’s chief building official.
Ishwar has been in escrow with the Guidiville Rancheria and a group of local investors who attempted to secure $6.6 million in public money to tear down the Palace under the guise of ground contamination studies, clear the site, and prepare it for new development.
Since then, however, a state oversight agency nixed the need to demolish the Palace for any contamination studies. In addition, Gov. Newsom’s administration recently announced that because of budgetary issues, it was trimming the millions of dollars earmarked for tribes, nonprofits, and poor municipalities under the unique state program the Guidiville group had targeted.
Sangiacomo acknowledged Wednesday night the keen public interest in what Ishwar is seeking under the pressure of a city public safety order. City officials quietly waived a demand for Ishwar to produce a structural analysis before meeting a permit deadline set for this past Monday.
The city manager, however, shut down a brief exchange of questions and answers among council members Mari Rodin and Doug Crane, and Tom Carter, a contractor interested in buying and saving the Palace.
Sangiacomo contended that publicly discussing the contents of the Ishwar permit application Wednesday night would violate the state’s anti-secrecy law because the Palace was not officially listed on the agenda. The application, however, is public business and not subject to the secrecy typically surrounding private property transactions.
Rodin questioned Carter after he stepped up to the podium and attempted to explain that he believed the Palace could still be shored up and converted into new commercial uses, including a boutique hotel and retail complex.
Carter, who recently inspected the Palace interior, said the public safety issue stems from the deterioration of the interior of the oldest 1891 section. If the roof collapses along with interior support, the old brick walls could come tumbling down, said Carter.
“It is not the big, scary job that it has been presented to be,” said Carter. He has restored old buildings in Sonoma County, Berkeley, and San Francisco.
Council member Crane suggested that the permit application be brought to the City Council for a public discussion at its next meeting, as Carter and other preservation advocates had urged.
Whether that will happen is unclear after Sangiacomo’s intervention, however.
“We need more time to review the application,” said Sangiacomo before ending the discussion.
Carter, a noted contractor with experience restoring the acclaimed Tallman Hotel and Blue Wing Saloon in Lake County, among other Northern California projects, has been attempting to strike a Palace purchase deal with Ishwar for more than two years.
Ishwar rejected his offers, and another from Ukiah investor Minal Shankar, in favor of striking a deal last year with the Guidiville group, which includes downtown restaurant owner Matt Talbert and three local cannabis entrepreneurs. They promised, said Talbert, to make Ishwar ‘whole’ for his investment in the Palace five years ago.
When Ishwar purchased the Palace and property, the city approved plans for retrofitting the historic building to meet current seismic standards. The plans lapsed, however, and nothing has been done to stop the building’s decline under Ishwar’s ownership.
The Guidiville group’s push for demolition reignited a local controversy about the Palace’s fate, drawing the attention of national preservation advocates who see Ukiah’s handling of the contentious issue as an example.
Ishwar’s permit application is seen as bringing the local debate to a head.
Preservation advocate Pinky Kushner said Wednesday night the City Council needs to review the permit application and make the decision instead of relying on staff.
Why in the world did the Ukiah City Council decide NOT to include discussion of the Palace on the agenda? Do they think that public interest in the Palace, or even the Palace itself will
go away if they do not talk about it? Maybe they forgot that they had drawn a line in the sand?
Maybe they have an agenda that they are not disclosing to the public.
This piece doesn’t have any semblance of journalistic neutrality. The opinions of the author are just straight up written down as if they are fact.
There are possible reasons why the City Manager decided to interject. The public comment period are for items not listed on the agenda and are supposed to not turn into a “back and forth” between the hearing body and the speaker…as then it basically just turned it into an agenda item, which is not allowed as all agenda items must be properly noticed before the meeting….and if public comment occurs under an agenda item, the comments can only be about that agenda item in particular.
I’m sure if the hearing body didn’t abide by the Brown Act in another circumstance, the same author would have an issue about it then.
Remember, journalists are supposed to just report the facts to the public.
This looks to me like straightforward reporting by a seasoned journalist. You don’t cite anything specific as opinion in your blanket statement, nor do you support your comments on what is “supposed” to happen in such a meeting.
When I was in journalism school I was taught that journalists investigate and report on “who, what, when, why and how.” Mr. Geniella is doing a good job with that mandate.
As far as the meeting is concerned it looks to me like the City Council is using the Brown Act to silence public comment and public participation while they proceed in secret with whatever
plan they have.
Calm down Tom. You and your buddy Mike will hear the outcome soon enough. Let’s not throw up conjecture.
Bureaucracy is so fun. Let’s just shelf this whole thing for a few more decades.
The item at last night’s Council Meeting was brought to the meeting by Shannon Riley, as requested by Sage Sangiacomo during his general manager’s report. While it was announced that an application had been submitted, no information was forthcoming as to—by whom, Ishwar or Talbert or the Guideville representatives. Nor for what, deconstruction, reconstruction, or a combination. What need is there for secrecy about these fundamental facts. Since the application was reported as submitted, the public has a right to know by whom and for what. The public has been waiting long enough. This shroud of secrecy is the opposite of open government. Hopefully the basics will be announced by the City as a public service, and the topic will be put on the agenda for the very next Council meeting.