City of DavisAs we reported on Saturday, the City Attorney Harriet Steiner suggested that she erred in her assessment that Councilmember Sue Greenwald was not conflicted out of a vote cast on November 4, 2008 against a redesign of the 233 B Street property. Therefore the city staff determined that the applicant could request a rehearing without going through the normal reconsideration process.
The council will meet at a later point to modify and correct conflict of interest policies. We have discussed this at length already. Despite applicant Marie Ogrydziak and her chief advocate on the council, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor attempting to couch this in terms of procedural fairness, the vote really came down to whether or not a rehearing would change the outcome. Ms. Ogrydziak would argue that it would–that councilmember Sue Greenwald had a large affect on the vote and therefore it was only fair to rehear without prejudice.
Marie Ogrydziak read a statement before council. She explained the background of why she believed Councilmember Sue Greenwald’s house was within 500 feet. She pointed out that the Councilmember had to recuse herself for a 2004 project at the same location.
“Sue Greenwald should have been recused from the November 4 votes for the 233 B St project. Her votes had two major effects. One was essential for the rejection of a motion to include green considerations in the project approval process. And the other was essential for the appeal of our planning commission vote.”
She then snarkly suggested:
“Jokingly we considered plate tectonics as a possible explanation for why four years later Sue Greenwald’s property was now more than 500 feet from the 233 B St property.”
She then accused the city of engaging in a “creative approach” to “attempt to prove that no mistake was made because there is no conflict of interest.”
She continued:
“We believe such an approach starts the city of Davis down a slippery slope.”
Ms. Ogrydziak then suggests it might be possible to find a realtor who would finds no impact on Sue Greenwald’s property value, but suggests that would be contrived.
Amazingly she then argues for recussal on the basis of Sue Greenwald disagreeing with her vision for B St and that neighborhood:
“For many years Sue Greenwald and a small group developed and advocated a vision for what she sees as her neighborhood including B St. Several of our proposals and our actions run counter to her vision. As a private citizen she spoke against our first project at the 2004 council meeting and twice against our current 233 B project at planning commission meetings this summer… We believe in many ways Sue Greenwald is too close to this project and that she should recuse herself as it seems impossible that she can be impartial on this matter.”
She then appealed to the council on the basis of fairness:
“In reality this vote is not about the project but about fairness and support for sound city policy.”
Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor advocated for the staff recommendation:
“I think this is a procedural matter strictly, this is a matter of whether in due process and fairness the earlier hearing we had was proper.”
Mayor Asmundson initially went along with the process believing that is what the council unanimously supported.
“To be fair we erred in terms of distance, regardless of whether there will be change, we need to rehear the item.”
Don Saylor moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Lamar Heystek seconded the motion with the friendly amendment that we “respectfully ask the applicant to work further with neighbors to further modify the design.”
This was not acceptable to Mayor Pro Tem Saylor because “it prejudges the outcome of that conversation.”
As a result Councilmember Heystek withdrew his second and Mayor Ruth Asmundson seconded the motion instead.
Katherine Hess suggested that if there was a different proposal submitted, it would be appropriate to send it back to the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Management Commission.
Councilmember Stephen Souza pushed for a substitute motion requesting the applicant work with the neighborhood for changes within the design that came forward and to take that through the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Management Commission. Councilmember Heystek seconded it.
Mayor Pro Tem Saylor then said he would vote against this on procedural issues and suggested that the
“applicant would have a course of action against the city if they didn’t allow a resubmittal with no fees.”
City Attorney Harriet Steiner shot that suggestion down:
“I do not believe that the applicant has a legal cause of action against the city by reason of what happened and Sue’s participation at the last meeting.”
The council danced around for a bit, it appeared that no motion would gain more than two votes. Finally, Councilmember Stephen Souza put his foot down.
“I’m going to be straight out, I’m going to vote against the project if it comes back to us exactly as it was. So we’re putting her through the process without any change in the outcome. So what I’m saying in my motion is that if you want to see me vote in the affirmative, you have to change the project. The project has to meet the guidelines as I see them in order for me to affirmatively vote for it. I think it is the best thing for this process to go through a process of neighborhood discussion.”
He continued:
“I’ll vote against bringing it back for a rehearing because I think it’s a waste of time. I don’t want our time to be wasted and I would prefer we give direction that’s positive.”
Councilmember Souza’s plea was so strong he pulled Mayor Asmundson with him and the council voted 3-1 to reject the rehearing with Councilmember Saylor dissenting.
Commentary
I had a problem with the way in which this issue came about. Let us forget for a moment the procedural mess that city staff and the city attorney made of this issue and let us focus for a moment on the applicant.
I will start out by saying on a technical level, I understand her plea for procedural fairness. The issue of whether or not Sue Greenwald was actually conflicted out has not been resolved satisfactorily however from my standpoint and I think the council has taken a good step in getting clarification on this. Based on that uncertainty, I think the council should have deferred the decision if they were inclined to grant a rehearing on that basis.
But frankly Councilmember Souza was right here–and quite forceful about it. The fact is that the reason he voted to abstain and kill the project in November remains just as relevant today. Ms. Ogrydziak in her letter seemed to assume that Councilmember Souza would continue to abstain. That ignores statements he made both before and after his initial vote. Namely that he didn’t think this project was appropriate for that site.
More appallingly to me is the fact that Ms. Ogrydziak seems far more concerned about procedural fairness towards her project rather than the feelings of her neighbors. At that November 4, 2008 meeting, former Mayor Maynard Skinner presented a letter signed by all but one of the neighbors in opposition to the project. Mr. Skinner generously came back last night to offer to meet with the applicant to produce a more suitable project but was essentially rebuffed.
To me this entire appeal was a slap in the face to Ms. Ogrydziak’s neighbors. How does it further the process of reconciliation if she attempts to essentially do an end-run around the initial decision without addressing a single neighbor’s concern? That does not seem like a good faith gesture to me. In fact just the opposite. She was far more concerned about getting her process a new hearing that dealing and mitigating the concerns of those most affected by her project.
Fortunately, thanks to Councilmember Heystek’s persistence and Councilmember Souza’s forceful and needed bluntness, Mayor Asmundson recognized that any effort to rehear without major revisions to the project would be a waste of the council’s time.
Sadly Councilmember Saylor was dogged in his advocacy for Ms. Ogrydziak’s project. While at one point he suggested to her that the council had made it clear that they wanted changes, nevertheless, he voted in the end to waste the council’s time with a rehearing that would change nothing. Moreover since the city would have waived applicant fees, the city would be eating money in addition to the time to resolve this issue.
At one point, Mr. Saylor suggested irresponsibly that the city might face a cause of action if they did not grant a rehearing–why would he bring this up in open session? If this was truly his concern, why would he not have discussed it with the City Attorney in advance? In fact, the City Attorney had already written in the staff report that she did not think the city was obliged for a rehearing and she was forced to reiterate this point in open council. This was tantamount to a not-so-subtle threat that was made by Ms. Ogrydziak and carried by Mr. Saylor.
In the end, the council acted responsibly by suggesting yet again that Ms. Ogrydziak needs to go back to the drawing board, redesign the project, and for crying out loud, work with the neighbors.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good for Souza! It’s typical – Maria’s way or the highway…the neighbors have said clearly that they do not want this project as presented; can’t she get a clue? I find this sneaking around appalling….and she will blame and badmouth the city and the council members who didn’t agree with her!
Ms. Ogrydziak’s approach to dealing with the neighborhood matches her architectural style. It may make perfect sense as a stand-alone project, but makes no sense when placed in context of the neighborhood. Plainly she doesn’t care when she builds, so why should she care when she plans?
…I had a problem with the way in which this issue came about. Let us forget for a moment the procedural mess that city staff and the city attorney made of this issue and let us focus for a moment on the applicant….No, let’s not forget for a moment the procedural mess city staff and the city attorney made of this. It is typical, and has to do with backroom deals. Obviously Ms. O got to Don Saylor, and thought she could muscle her way to approval. And Emlen/Steiner/city staff seem to be in the back pocket of Saylor.Problem is Souza is reinventing himself, realizing serious mistakes in the past of 1) not listening to the public; 2) using strong-arm tactics (as noted in the Sac Bee prior to his re-election). Lamar is finally developing a backbone, altho not necessarily good judgment, but he is starting to find his way. Asmundson is now afraid of the public’s censure – people have grown pretty disgusted w some of her antics in the past.But will this counsel make the tough decisions necessary??? We’ll see. Ms. O went down in ignominy, as she should have, for an awful project concept. To make this an issue about Sue Greenwald was the height of hypocrisy. The concept put forward by Ms. O was awful, the neighbors said so, and divine Ms. O just didn’t want to listen – which is typical of a lot of developers, if you catch my drift!
I did watch this on the streaming feed last night. I don’t think anyone came off well. I don’t think Maria came at this the right way – she was way too aggressive. The city staff looks like fools for getting the procedure wrong in the first place. The city council looked like they couldn’t decide for a while what they wanted. I did agree with what Souza was saying and the ultimate outcome but at the same time, it’s like now he suddenly has an opinion when he abstained last time.
Also, Maria’s buildings are ugly and don’t match the surrounding buildings and I don’t know why any of them got through historical or planning commissions to begin with.
…the neighbors have said clearly that they do not want this project as presented; can’t she get a clue?…While I don’t discount the value of getting support from the neighborhood — especially those who live closest to 233 B (unlike Sue, whose house, if not property, is more than 500 feet away) — the basis for the rejection is not because the neighbors don’t like Maria’s project. The basis is that this rendition violates the standards set forth in the design guidelines. (By contrast, the Aiken project at 311-315 B, which is the only other one to come forward since the new guidelines for that area came into force, sailed through the HRMC and the Planning Commission, because its design fits the criteria set forth in the guidelines.)…No, let’s not forget for a moment the procedural mess city staff and the city attorney made of this. It is typical, and has to do with backroom deals….I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but I don’t think anything nefarious was done in finding first that Sue’s property was outside the 500 foot radius and later found inside it. People make mistakes. Sh** happens.Obviously, because in 2004 Sue’s land was deemed too close for her to participate and that finding was changed last year, Maria had reason to be curious. (Put yourself in her position for a moment. Wouldn’t you wonder?) I don’t see how anyone can hold Maria requesting a relook at the measurement against Don Saylor? He may be wrong when it comes to enforcing the adopted guidelines. He may be wrong when it comes to preserving and protecting a traditional neighborhood. He may be wrong in voting to bring this same project back for a rehearing. But it wasn’t Don’s fault that the maps were misread or misinterpreted or even that they were given a relook….Ms. O went down in ignominy, as she should have, for an awful project concept….Yours is a matter of opinion and you have every right to call it …an awful project concept…. I don’t think that’s correct, though. While it is not my prefered style — to her face in a meeting of the HRMC, before she had done some colored renderings which made it appear a bit better, I said to Maria the units look like ugly concrete industrial boxes, the kind you’d find in a warehouse district — I don’t think it is without merit. I think this concept has a lot to offer.Keep in mind, for new construction (which almost never is as …green… as rehabbing) Maria’s design is very good on the …green… scale. It would provide insulation factors way beyond any other housing projects in Davis, and would have a very low carbon footprint; and its green roof plan, something I’m mostly ignorant about, is quite interesting, in terms of its CO2 effects. This kind of project might set a new …green… standard for other projects in Davis.Also, Maria’s idea is to introduce live/work housing to the core area. That is not without merit. Professional architects, attorneys, engineers, maybe doctors, etc., could set up shop on the ground floor of a live/work unit and reside above. In two respects, that adds vitality to the core: it brings people from outside into the downtown area; and it gentrifies the core, providing more of a 24-hour customer base for other downtown businesses.
I live on B Street and I am NOT happy with any of Maria O’s projects. Sore thumb ought to be the name of her firm.
Rich writes:…Also, Maria’s idea is to introduce live/work housing to the core area….There already is living work places downtown, they’re called houses and businesses…tear these down and throw up slapped-together …live/work… housing designed by Mrs. O and you get shoebox. Look at the old Cafe Roma building at 3rd and University…shoebox with measles (oh, is that a paint job? I thought maybe Mrs. O ran out of one color of paint and switched to polka-dotting with another even uglier shade…ugh)
I don’t know too much about this project on B Street, but I do think Davis could use live-work housing, perhaps on another street.My husband is a commercial artist and we looked for loft space in town but could not find anything. We wanted an open first floor with lots of natural light to use as a studio and gallery space, and then we wanted to live on a second floor above. In San Francisco and Berkeley they have that type of housing, but not in Davis. The only thing I’ve seen here are some older houses which have been converted to retail businesses or offices. That’s great, if that’s what you need. We wanted loft-style live-work. (We ended up buying an apartment here and renting a gallery/studio in Del Paso, which means a lot of gas and car time.)
…She then snarkly suggested:…David, what exactly does snarkly mean? Are you trying to become the new lexicon artist by devising your own language, or was this just poor spelling/editing?
I love it, a lexicon artiste!In the midst of such grimness as always obtains when Mrs. O builds her lexicographical walls……snarky… originated with Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) in his poem the …Voyage of the Snark,… concerning various nasty creatures. With regard to utterances, meaning of …Smarky… has evolved to something akin to …a snide bark…. A term eminently suited to the political arena. Mr. Greenwald’s creativity comes in with adding to the versatility of the root adjective form, …snarky… by using the adverbial form, …snarkily….(I’m adding the …i… for him, in the interests of lexicographical convention.)
Think about it: if Souza had voted …no… the first go-around instead of abstained, we wouldn’t have had to go through this. Better late than never, I suppose. FWIW, I think Lamar has been helpful in influencing Souza’s recent voting pattern for the better. Does anyone notice that Souza has seemed to echo Lamar more instead of Saylor lately?
Actually, I’m concerned that the outcome looks like favoritism for a council memeber over an davis individual. The rest is a strawman.I don’t know why anyone in Davis is surprised. If it’s growth, it’s dead in the water. Only ting that changes is who starts flapping their gums first.
It’s not growth. It’s a design modification on an existing and approved project. A building exists there currently. If Ogrydziak follows the current design specifications for the approved project it will be approved without council action.
…Mr. Greenwald’s creativity comes in with adding to the versatility of the root adjective form, …snarky… by using the adverbial form, …snarkily….Merriam-Webster’s on-line dictionary listing for snark includes the adverb snarkily as an accepted word.Main Entry: snarkyPronunciation: ??sn??r-k
Let’s stick to the topic at hand, and avoid diarreah of the keyboard…Just because something is supposedly good for the problem of global warming does not mean it is good for living in…or good for aesthetics. The Divine Ms. O is full of herself, and needs to rethink this one – as the City Council rightly decided, albeit in a roundabout way.
…Let’s stick to the topic at hand, and avoid diarreah of the keyboard……Diarrhea?
Be Succinct said… Let’s stick to the topic at hand, and avoid diarreah of the keyboard……Feeling a bit snarky tonight, are we Be Succinct?
…Feeling a bit snarky tonight, are we Be Succinct?…Yes, I am feeling a bit snarky tonight, very, very snarky. Snarky is such a great word! DPD, wherever did you learn that word?
I don’t know. I was up watching the council meeting until after midnight then was up at 4 am writing this article, transcribing from the council meeting. Maybe I was feeling a little snarky at the time myself 😉
…DPD, wherever did you learn that word?…I agree that snarky is a good term. But it’s not unusual in the mainstream media. Just yesterday I read an obituary for James Brady, and snarky was used there: …Brady began in 1974 a long affiliation with Rupert Murdoch and his tabloid the Star. Brady edited the Star and went on to develop the snarky …Page Six… gossip column for the New York Post in the mid-1970s….The day before, tech reviewer Mike Wendland complained about Apple’s misleading iPhone ads: …There was even a very snarky YouTube video posted that exposed the sham….New Yorker film critic David Denby has even come out with a new book called …Snark,… where he decries bloggers for spewing …an explosion of pent-up rage, social anguish, resentment, bilious, other-annihilating nastiness, prejudice and all the rest of the dark side. If that stuff is destroying conversation threads, screwing up people
…Councilmember Souza’s plea was so strong he pulled Mayor Asmundson with him and the council voted 3-1 to reject the rehearing with Councilmember Saylor dissenting….In the end, this is not what happened. (I was confused about what happened, watching it, so I researched the matter.) The 3-1 vote gives M. Ogrydziak the right to resubmit her exact same proposal without fees, which would then be heard by the city council.However, the motion the council passed urges M. Ogrydziak to submit a new proposal, one which meets the guidelines and satisfies her neighbors. She can submit that without fees. If the resubmittal is substantially different from the current proposal, it will not go back to council, unless the Planning Commission determines it too fails to meet the guidelines, and M.O. appeals that decision. Chances are, then, that the council will not rehear 233 B at all, because M.O. does not have the votes to get her current proposal passed; and if she wants to get a project through, she will have to change it to meet the guidelines, and if it does, council will not have to consider it.