With Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger offering a strong undercurrent of criticism in the background, the City Council unanimously agreed last night to extend the oft-interrupted public hearing on a planned mixed-use building at 4043 Irving Pl., for still another six weeks.
To build, not to build or to modify the condo-retail project — this conundrum now is scheduled to be settled at the Council meeting of Tuesday, Jan. 20, the day after the Martin Luther King holiday. a
City Manager Jerry Fulwood, who has been in charge of negotiations, asked the Council for a continuance on the grounds that the protesting neighbors — generally referred to as the Downtown Neighborhood Assn. — and the builders were inching toward a still-elusive compromise.
Of greatest interest currently is whether protesting residents still have the momentum they are believed to have held for most of this year. Sources told the newspaper that the residents only agreed to an extension upon learning that they did not have the vote of one key Council member, Mehaul O’Leary.
Residents had (mis)calculated that Mr. O’Leary would vote with Mr. Silbiger and member Chris Armenta to return the thorny matter to the advisory Planning Commission. Neighbors were confident they had a better chance of prevailing with the Commission.
The residents’ terms have been a moving target. At various times this year, neighbors surrounding the proposed 24- or 26- or 28-condo building on Irving Place, across from the School District headquarters, have changed their terms. Most recently they have shrunk their demand on the acceptable number of condos from 24 to 19.
On Which Side?
Last week the residents were disappointed to learn that Mr. O’Leary was not in their camp. He informed them that he did not favor going back to the Planning Commission. He emphasized that he never had said so from the dais, although some neighbors believed he had.
Then came yesterday’s summit meeting.
In a rare face-to-face session, the highly secretive parties huddled for five hours at City Hall, breaking two hours before the start of the Council meeting. Slight progress was reported, sparking a decision to postpone what likely would have been another long, raucous, broken-glass-style call-out session in Council Chambers. In different words, a potential rerun of Nov. 17. Previously, Mr. Fulwood had met separately with the parties.
To indicate ostensible urgency and seriousness, negotiating sessions were scheduled for today and tomorrow.
With the Council reduced from five voting members to four following the recusal of member Andy Weissman, three Councilmen were prepared to immediately support Mr. Fulwood’s request for delay.
But the Vice Mayor spoke up.
Pointedly rebuking the City Manager, with whom he frequently disagrees, Mr. Silbiger stridently criticized Mr. Fulwood for inserting himself into the helm of negotiations instead of hiring a professional mediator.
What Chief Executive Did ‘Wrong’
Glaring at his nemesis, Mr. Silbiger began:
“Mr. Fulwood, when I voted three weeks ago today to postpone a decision… And in my mind, I was hoping we would have the most effective process for doing that. And we know that to bring two parties together, there needs to be face-to-face communication. I am happy the two sides were able to do that. I think it leads to potentially a good resolution of the situation as well as ones in the future. It should be our model for how we work together and get things done.
“ But I don’t think it is proper, ever, to wait until the final moment to have that face-to-face discussion. In fact when I found out about it, around Wednesday or so of last week, I immediately sent a couple emails to you and suggested that you hold the (face-to-face) discussion last Thursday or Friday.
“You wrote back saying you wouldn’t do that.
“I hope in the future that, in addition to what we talked about on the meetings, I hope that you help facilitate the discussions in a neutral way and make sure the parties do get together. That was the intention of what we were doing.”
After noting that the City Attorney rejected his suggestion that he and another Council member intervene, the often cost-conscious Mr. Silbiger said that “if it takes a mediator” to settle the differences, “I think it is worthwhile. You should look seriously at finding a professional mediator who has the skills, not to take a position, but to facilitate that discussion that only a trained mediator might be able to do.
“You also need to have better communication with the Council members, in terms of what’s going on, what is transpiring, so we can keep on top of the situation and be informed of it, and perhaps lend some information to that.
“I am happy that everything seems to be working out well, and hopefully we will be able to conclude this in a very meaningful way.”
In Response
Mr. Fulwood, almost never argumentative, responded with quietude and dignity. Without employing the exact words, his message was clear: It is not necessary to bring in a mediator.
After saying that he appreciated the Vice Mayor’s observations in the form of a dressing-down, Mr. Fulwood said that Mr. Silbiger should know the contending parties “are not shy. They have no problem in speaking their minds, in sharing their thoughts and comments.”
Whether meeting separately or together, Mr. Fulwood said the two sides conducted themselves the same way, candidly, “with a commitment to addressing the core issues.
Away back last spring, the Planning Commission endorsed the Sal Gonzales-George Mitsanis proposal for 4043 Irving, prompting two couples, Judy and Michael Miller, Jim and Michelle Benke, to file appeals.
After Mr. Fulwood and Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld updated the Council last night, the neighbors’ combativeness of three weeks ago was replaced by a brief, tepid announcement that the two sides would keep trying.
“In view of the progress made,” Mrs. Miller said in a prepared statement, “all parties agreed to a series of future meetings through December and into January, toward the goal of finding meaningful compromise.”
After commending Mr. Fulwood “for his invaluable help,” Mrs. Miller said that the formerly loquacious protestors were taking a vow of silence.
“To support the good-faith effort to resolve differences,” she said, “the Downtown Neighborhood Assn. has agreed not to disseminate on its website, or through any other form of communication, anything which might negatively impact negotiations. This has been a long and challenging process. Our hope is that we will end in a satisfactory conclusion for all of us.”
Everybody Concurs
Closely following Mrs. Miller, another appellant, Mr. Benke, said, “We feel there is a ray of light.”
Mr. Gonzales said he seconded the sentiments of the people across the table. The lengthy afternoon meeting “went extremely well. We are moving in the right direction.”
Through the summer, the autumn and soon the winter, a series of postponements and Council indecision have plagued the path to a final result. Meanwhile, the project has been bandied about rhetorically across Culver City neighborhoods without a solution ever hovering into view.
Here is the email the Downtown Neighborhood Assn. sent out at the end of yesterday’s negotiating meeting:
From: Culver City DNA info@CulverCityDNA.org
Date: December 8, 2008 6:23:19 PM PST
To: Culver City DNA info@CulverCityDNA.org
Subject: CCDNA NEGOTIATIONS: BREAKING NEWS 12/08/08 6:20PM
Reply-To: Culver City DNA info@CulverCityDNA.org
NEGOTIATIONS: BREAKING NEWS
Four members of the DNA met today for 5 hours with the City Staff and the developers. We identified several critical issues which require resolution. We have agreed to enter into an intense period of negotiation from now until Jan. 19th.
At tonight's Council meeting, we are requesting a further continuance of the appeal hearing, which will in all likelihood be granted. The DNA and Jerry Fullwood, the City Manager, will tell the Council that negotiations have been productive, and that we need more time to negotiate in this vein.
We expect that the Council will be supportive of the jointly-held goals of seeking compromise.
In order to demonstrate that this is a good-faith effort on the part of DNA, we have agreed not to dissiminate any material which might be percieved as damaging to the negotiation process until it is complete.
We very much appreciate your support, but we do not anticipate the need for extended speechmaking tonight. We hope that the meeting will be brief, and that our request for a further continuance be granted.
We will keep you posted about the outcome. Thank you for your ongoing support, participation, and encouragement.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Judy Miller (until Sunday, Dec. 14).
Thank you!
Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association (Culver City DNA)
info@CulverCityDNA.org
http://www.CulverCityDNA.org
P.O. Box 223
Culver City, CA 90232
COUNCIL NOTES — With barely a feather ruffled, the Council agreed to lowered the application fees for preferential permit parking…Past President Tom Camarella said the Culver City Democratic Club will discuss desirable qualifications for the successor to retiring City Manager Jerry Fulwood at Wednesday’s meeting — 7 p.m. in the Rotunda Room at the Vets Auditorium…It will be another hot evening next Monday in Council Chambers when Rethink Development’s Hayden Tract business condo project will be up for approval…
