Council Also Agendizes Future Discussion on Timing of Agenda Items
With Mayor Joe Krovoza leaving early due to illness, the council briefly discussed the possibility of delaying the discussion of the Davis Diamonds Conditional Use Permit. Ultimately, they decided to go forward with it, with some slight modifications, by a 3-1 vote with Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson dissenting.
According to the staff report that the Vanguard only received at noon on Tuesday, “staff has been working with the applicant to evaluate the feasibility of an alternative site.”
Davis Diamonds Owner James Major expressed the strong desire to move forward with the project, despite the late staff report.
He also did not understand why there seemed to be so much suspicion surrounding this deal, necessitating very specific requirements to the conditional use permit.
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson, speaking to Mr. Major said, “I want to address what you had said about suspicions.”
“The concern isn’t specifically about Davis Diamonds,” Ms. Swanson said. “There has been frustration raised about complying with the spirit of the Brown Act which while we had noticed it, the actual meeting of the staff report and conditions were not posted until 11 today. Then the changes from this evening came out tonight.”
“It has nothing to do with you specifically, it has to do with a level of frustration about last minute items coming to the dais,” she said.
She added, “It has been a conversation we’ve been having for a while now and it’s been a frustration that we have had members of the public raise with us on numerous occasions.”
Mr. Major responded that his frustration was more directed toward the conditions for use.
“It seems like they really want to put the finger on us, especially the original language. I really did not understand the reason for the original language,” he said.
“The reason for the tight conditions,” Mayor Pro Tem Swanson responded, “is we’re already making exceptions for this parcel and already potentially losing revenue that could be there. There’s still an alternative potentially out there.”
“We have been diligently pursuing alternatives,” Mr. Major responded, “because that was the desire, expressed desire, of the minority of council as well as staff. We’re still working on those.”
Councilmember Greenwald expressed concerns about losing ten percent of the automall and the loss of continuity in it.
She said that she was very concerned about council direction on loss of business park land in the changing of ConAgra from high tech to residential uses while at the same time banking on 100 acres of peripheral land.
At the same time, she expressed that if this were not Davis Diamonds she would not be supporting this endeavor and she had grave reservations about doing it, even then.
However, other than Mayor Pro Tem Swanson, the council seemed unconcerned about the lateness of the agenda.
Councilmember Stephen Souza said that he read the staff report – only six pages – three times. However, he and others forgot it was not merely about the council, but also about the public, having the opportunity to scrutinize the report.
Nevertheless, the council was at least supportive of addressing the late agenda issue separately, at a later time.
Mayor Pro Tem Swanson would later push for agendizing a discussion on council policies to set “a firm policy so that this type of thing does not happen.”
Sue Greenwald said, during long range calendar discussion: “The situation tonight that resulted in the late item, that was because staff was trying to negotiate until the last minute for an alternative thing – I don’t see how we can change that occasionally.”
But she later added, “I don’t think we need a rigid policy but we definitely need the big reports much earlier.”
Stephen Souza noted, “At the beginning of the meeting – in fact the first comments from participants at our round table came from the Chamber a desire – in fact I’ve heard this many times – that agendas be ten days prior. That’s the position I’ve heard from many folks.”
“I don’t necessarily hold the position,” he added.
The council has agreed to take up the measure, but the lack of concern about the process here, by the majority on council, was disappointing.
Councilmember Stephen Souza, in particular, misses the point when he argues that he had sufficient time to read the staff report.
The preamble to the Brown Act reads “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
This is a point that Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson seemed to get when she argued that, while the city staff and council followed the letter of the law, they violated its spirit.
For years, Councilmember Sue Greenwald has angrily complained about receiving complex staff reports at the last minute. However, on this night, given the fact that she – albeit reluctantly – supported the item, she was willing to accept that it was valid for staff to be negotiating until the last minute.
As we noted on this evening, other cities have agendas and staff reports available a week in advance. We believe that the public at least should be aware well in advance of the content of staff reports, and if that means they have to have a cut off for changes – then so be it. If that means that sometimes they have to postpone the item because of changes – again, so be it.
Can it be flexible? Sure. But this has been an ongoing problem. The Vanguard is pleased that the council will be considering the timing of staff reports and agenda items, but disappointed that process concerns did not lead to the postponing of the Davis Diamonds issue.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Interesting result… thought I saw Ms Greenwald’s post yesterday indicating her concerns about this item Did she cast a “courtesy vote” for Mr Krovoza?
‘Slippery slope’ comes to mind in regards to the CUP/re-zone.
In addition to Brown act issues I find it disturbing that we are making land use decisions, one of the most important decisions a City Council makes, on an[i] ad hoc[/i] basis.
I suggested yesterday that perhaps we ought to zone for non-profits. If they benefit the community (I believe they do) it may make sense. We have limited non-auto commercial property (except for smaller spaces in older malls and centers) in Davis leading to higher rents. Much (though not all) of the commercial space is also inappropriate for a non-profit. But that makes it hard for an outfit like Davis Diamonds to operate.
San Francisco and other cities zone for non-profits. We should consider it.
I watched last night and felt the agent was directing the process, not the CC. I wish Joe had been there to cast some reality to the situation.
I had not realized MarketTek was to build a new building on the site. So if I had gone to CC and asked to build a be office building there, what would be my chances other than 0? Why are DDiamonds and MarketTek linked? It seems very strange to me.
And now what are the chances for the ‘good’ alternative? Again, if I couldn’t swing the alternative site for my building, do you think the CC w.ould accomodate me?
“Councilmember Stephen Souza, in particular, misses the point when he argues that he had sufficient time to read the staff report.”
…all so predictable from the self-proclaimed “Decider” who sees citizen scrutiny and input as something to be curtailed rather than encouraged.
davisite…. had the staff report been out to the public four weeks before the meeting, do you believe there would have been a different “outcome”?
On this particular issue, the pros and cons had been laid out to the public well in advance. I received more e-mail on this issue than on other issues, so citizens did know about it. We had already voted to let Davis Diamonds proceed, and we were not changing course.
The hard choices had already been laid out and had been made. It wasn’t an easy decision. Again, to me the disappointing thing is that only one meeting after having been forced to make a decision with no good alternatives, the council voted to rezone virtually the entire Hunt-Wesson from neighborhood compatible high/tech and community-serving uses to housing.
I voted against the Hunt-Wesson decision, and I am terribly disappointed by it. I offered to support any compromise solution for the Hunt-Wesson that would have maintained a significant portion of these neighborhood-compatible non-residential uses. I see no end to Davis Diamond-type dilemmas.
[quote]”The reason for the tight conditions,” Mayor Pro Tem Swanson responded, “is we’re already making exceptions for this parcel and already potentially losing revenue that could be there. There’s still an alternative potentially out there.”
“We have been diligently pursuing alternatives,” Mr. Major responded, “because that was the desire, expressed desire, of the minority of council as well as staff. We’re still working on those.”[/quote]
Let’s hope both city staff and Davis Diamonds keep working on an alternative.
[quote]I find it disturbing that we are making land use decisions, one of the most important decisions a City Council makes, on an ad hoc basis. [/quote]
AMEN!
Councilmembers Stephen and Sue said they gave the staff a pass because negotiations hadn’t been completed until the last minute. The fact that the council had signaled the way this was headed anyway probably made them more tolerant.
However, this seems to be the common practice. There’s always some reason to give the public and the council the shortest amount of consideration time possible. The only reason I can come up with is the staff just doesn’t care to get on the reports far enough in advance. Why not prepare and provide the report the week ahead, and do a revision if the situation changes the night of the meeting?
To JustSaying: It is my understanding from what city staff said that negotiations were occurring right up until the CC meeting…
I understand. My point is that a staff report can be provided in the packet indicating the current status as of that time. If conditions change, amend the report at the last minute. This would be an improvement over the current practice of providing just a 10-word title, but allows for staff to update while the public and council get as much background as possible for advance consideration.
“Ongoing discussions” could be used to avoid getting a report developed until the last minute on many items vs. “let’s get as much out as early as we can.” it’s just a difference in attitude about whether last-minute disclosure should be the normal practice for good municipal management.
I think all of the last-minute stuff that gets dumped on the council contributes to the pressure act quickly without adequate consideration by all council members, let alone the public, plus lengthy Q&A sessions that take the council into “midnight fog” decision-making.
Two points I would like to add.
First, why not have the report ready and then revise as Just Saying suggests above.
Second, when you do papers and research there are times when the paper is due and whether it is perfect or not you simply turn it in or present. IT’s the same here. There’s always the option if the report is not ready to postpone until the next meeting. It seems that is better than crafting policy on the dais anyway.
To JustSaying and DGM: In this extent situation, no staff report could have covered last minute negotiations. The fault, IMO, lay with the CC members, who should have tabled the decision until the public and they had full time to digest the ramifications of what was unavoidably placed in front of them at the last minute. But bc the proponents of Davis Diamonds were in the audience putting pressure on CC members to act that night, the CC caved to that pressure and should not have. That is how I assess the situation…
Elaine: “The fault, IMO, lay with the CC members, who should have tabled the decision until the public and they had full time to digest the ramifications of what was unavoidably placed in front of them at the last minute.”
I completely agree.