THE LOW-DOWN ON THE TOWN Impudent, uncensored account By C. Castle

Where was Kelly Olsen on the night of November 23?

When Planning Commissioner Kelly Olsen failed to show up at the City Council meeting last Tuesday night, his absence triggered speculation and heated debate.

After all, it was Olsen who had appealed his own commission's 6 to 1 decision to approve the expansion of the W.I. Simonson Mercedes dealership, which was to be heard that night by the council he once sat on.

Not only that, but Olsen already had stirred up charges of conspiracy when he failed to show up at a Planning Commission hearing a month earlier. His absence had contributed to the lack of a quorum which critics charged had delayed a vote that would have assured the development of a project Olsen opposed. (Olsen later explained that he had had a job interview and had notified the planning department of his absence.)

So it was no surprise that when Olsen's appeal - he had found a technicality in the law he contended would kill the expansion of the auto dealership-- was set to be heard and the commissioner was nowhere to be found, charges of conspiracy once again swirled through the chamber.

Councilman Paul Rosensetein questioned Olsen's absence. "It is an abuse of the City's sense of fairness," Rosenstein said. "We're talking about someone who's very experienced. I find it very hard to believe" that he didn't know.

Councilman Ken Genser shot back that Rosenstein was out of order, and the two former mayors - who once played poker together before a major falling out - went at it, drowning out each other's words.

The specter of Olsen's absence spilled out into the hallway, where an angry Chris Harding (the dealership's attorney) stormed past a hallway and lobby filled with auto repair shop owners awaiting the next item. Harding also had been the attorney on the planning commission vote that was delayed, so this was the second time he felt spurned by Olsen in a matter of weeks.

Out on the front lawn of City Hall, Herb Katz, the architect who had designed the environmentally friendly structure Simonson had proposed, also was incredulous Olsen didn't know his own appeal was being heard. After all, Katz said, after a meeting to try to talk Olsen out of the appeal, he had informed him of the date.

"We met," Katz said. "It was useless. I said, 'I'll see you' and gave him the date. He knew when it was."

So what happened?

"I think it's one of two reasons," Katz speculated. "Either he was chickening out, or he was giving himself more time to figure out what to do."

Planning Commissioner Eric Parlee also couldn't believe Olsen didn't know his item was scheduled. "The commissioners get the council agenda," he said. "It is incumbent on the appellant to keep abreast and not engage in this silly hide and seek."

So where was Kelly Olsen on the night of Nov. 23?

"I worked," said Olsen, when he was contacted the following evening.

Didn't he know what was on the agenda? we asked.

Yeah, Olsen responded. The auto repair shop ordinance.

Oh come on, you know what we mean.

That sent Olsen off. Why were we questioning his answer? What were we insinuating, anyway?

We explained that his appeal had been on the agenda and that his absence had sparked questions and speculations.

"I found out over the weekend," Olsen said. "I had never been informed of the appeal. Ken (Genser) told me over the weekend, which really got me upset."

Olsen said that on Friday morning, Genser (who is a close friend) informed him the item had been scheduled. Olsen said he was shocked, because he had been keeping tabs on the item.

"I was asking what was going on with the appeal. There was no date set. I asked Suzanne (Frick, the city's planning director) a week ago, so I assumed the last thing I had heard from them was that no date had been set."

In fact, on Friday, Nov. 19, at 10:36 a.m., (before Genser had called him with the news), Olsen had sent Frick and her second in command, Jay Trevino, an email, which he faxed to us.

"I haven't heard any answers as of yet to my questions about my appeal and the issues that I have raised (and nothing was said to me by Jay or yourself Wednesday at the Planning Commission meeting)," Olsen wrote. "Since I haven't heard anything, I assume that this is still on the back burner and that you or Jay will let me know your position and give me a couple of weeks notice as to when you anticipate the appeal will be heard." (Olsen noted that his new work schedule - he is tracking down real-life heroes for a television show -- required advanced notice.)

On the Tuesday the appeal was to be heard, Olsen sent another email to Frick, this one at 3:19 p.m.

"I heard over the weekend that my appeal for W.I. Simonson is on the agenda for (sic)tomorrow night. To say I'm shocked would be an understatement. I have had no notice at all."

Olsen said that both Frick and Trevino apologized, and he played the phone message Trevino had left on his answering machine. "Obviously we screwed up," Trevino's voice said, "and I need to talk to you about scheduling."

Frick's email read, "...I'm sorry we did not notify and keep you informed about the hearing date."

On the day of the meeting, Olsen also sent an email to architect Herb Katz. "The facts as you have stated them are incorrect," he wrote. "I only wish that you had spoken with me or Suzanne before you made your accusations."

Olsen seemed particularly disturbed that the dealership knew about the appeal (the attorneys, architect and two of the owners were there) and that he didn't.

"I hope it was just something that fell through the cracks," Olsen said.

What else could it be? we asked.

"There's not the mindset in City Hall that we have to pay attention to the other half of the equation," Olsen said. "For 15 years more attention has been paid to the details and the needs of the developer.

"Now, as somebody said, there's a new sheriff in town, and it takes staff to shift gears. I would hope that on this one somebody just forgot. It was unfair to me and to anyone interested in the issue."

As far as fellow commissioner Parlee's contention that the planning commission gets the council agendas, Olsen said, "They don't send me any agendas."

All that cleared up, we wondered why Olsen was going through all the trouble of appealing a 6 to 1 decision. After all, not one member of the public had shown up to oppose the dealership's expansion, and appealing was an extraordinarily rare thing for a commissioner to do, even if they don't have to pay the $100 fee other members of the public do. (City officials could only remember one commissioner having filed an appeal in the last 10 years.)

Wasn't it a waste of the planning staff's time, as well as our tax money, to draft and print the 66-page staff report? And weren't you simply helping to line the pockets of the very attorney whose projects you so avidly oppose? And why should you care, anyway? No one else opposed it.

"It's totally irrelevant that there's no opposition," Olsen said. "It's the code."

But didn't the commission follow staff's recommendations?

"Staff had misinformed the commission," Olsen said.

But isn't staff still recommending that the City Council turn down your appeal and uphold the commission's approval?

"Staff has changed its position on 50 percent of this," Olsen said.

Olsen then went into a long history of the zoning code that dictates what can be done with the piece of property he walked by nearly every day as a kid. According to Olsen, the residential property was originally purchased as a parking lot for employees, but after a fire, the lot was used to run the business out of a trailer and to store parts. After the dealership was rebuilt, Olsen said, part of the parking lot was still used to store parts. That, he said, is a violation.

The commission, Olsen said, had allowed the dealership to expand because it was using part of the parking for storage. "If you can't use it for storage," Olsen reasoned, "it doesn't fall under the storage exemption."

We must admit, we were a little confused (And that doesn't include the controversy over what can be done on the lot if you have a fence as opposed to a concrete wall). All this talk of allowing the dealership to store some parts on its employee parking lot seemed a whole lot of nit picking, a big tempest in a teapot.

Even if Olsen was right, the technicality would never bring the lot back as a residential property, we argued. And there sure was a big parking shortage that had pitted neighbors and businesses over the thorny issue of preferential parking. So why appeal an environmentally sound building that provides parking in addition to the parking on the existing lot?