Congressman Mike Thompson for Secretary of Interior?

The Associated Press is reporting that two California Democratic Congressional leaders, George Miller and Anna Eshoo, sent a letter to President-elect Obama urging them to consider Congressman Mike Thompson for the Secretary of Interior.

Miller's chief of staff, Danny Weiss said:

"They believe that he would make an excellent secretary, has a broad base of support and knows the issues very well, both from the environmental side and the natural resources side, and they encouraged the transition team to consider him strongly."

According to the Associated Press:

"Nearly three dozen sportsmen's groups, including Ducks Unlimited and Wildlife Forever, also sent a letter to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team supporting Thompson.

Thompson backers are heartened by comments Obama made in an interview with Field & Stream magazine in September. He said his Interior secretary probably would be a sportsman or sportswoman.

"I think that having a head of the Department of Interior who doesn't understand hunting and fishing would be a problem," the magazine quoted Obama as saying."

It continues:

Thompson, 57, won re-election in November and will start his sixth term in January. He serves on the Ways and Means and Intelligence committees, and co-founded the Wine Caucus when he arrived in Congress in 1999.

He is an avid hunter and has pushed legislation and disaster relief on behalf of salmon fishermen in Northern California.

In a statement Thursday, Thompson said, "It's an honor to be recognized by the many groups I've worked with over the years, but no one associated with President-elect Obama has contacted me."

This has opened the speculation already on places such as Matt Rexroad's blog, as to who possible replacements would be in a district that includes seven counties stretch from Yolo in the Southeast each through Napa and Sonoma all the way to Humboldt and Del Norte counties up at the Oregon border.

Some possibilities include former State Senator Wes Chesbro, current State Senator Pat Wiggins, both of whom serve(d) the 2nd Senate District which covers the northern coastal portion of the 1st Congressional District.

Among locals names such as Senator-elect Lois Wolk, Supervisors Helen Thomson and Mike McGowan, Assemblywoman-elect Mariko Yamada, and West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon.

As Rexroad points out, Yolo County does have more people and more Democrats in the 1st Congressional District than any other county. On the other hand, it is in the southeastern extreme portion of the county and there are members of the legislature better situation. Both Yamada and Wolk were just now elected. I think this is Chesbro or Wiggins' to lose if they want it, but of course, Mike Thompson would have to be offered and accept the job.

Mike Thompson somewhat fits the profile, although usually you see a Western Senator or Governor get the offer. The Democrats find themselves with a number of pretty good candidates with some of the more populist western governorships they now hold. Of course, do they want to give up those positions? Already, we have seen Obama offer Arizona Governor Napolitano the Secretary of Homeland Security, a position she has reportedly accepted. Would he dip into that well for a Brian Schweitzer (Governor of Montana) or a Bill Ritter (Governor of Colorado)? Thompson has the advantage of being from a safe seat which is nearly three-quarters Democrat.

This pick does give a bit of local intrigue to the race for the second time this week, as UC Davis law professor emeritus and former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso was named as part of a search team.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

County Goes with Madison Site and Eliminates Davis and Esparto

Before all of this began it seemed the word I had gotten from several points was that the Madison site was the best of the three sites picked by the County Board of Supervisors. It is not that the Madison site is perfect, in fact there will have to be improvements made to that site as well particularly with regards to waste water, power, and gas line issues. However, Madison appeared to have the least problems of the three sites.

For all of the talk of NIMBYISM it is plain old land use policies that saved the residents of Plainfield from having a Prison Re-Entry Facility in their backyard. Their research efforts were exactly correct with regards to the issues of that site.

I figured this was a done deal around the time Supervisor Helen Thomson pressed the representative from CDCR about the infrastructure and how CDCR evaluates the process.

According to the representative CDCR does its own site assessment, it determines the costs of what needs to be done which includes the feasibility of the location given the budget that they have. Some sites could be ruled out because they are too costly to build on. And that is really what it came down to for the airport site. Sure they could deal with issues of flooding, roads, electricity, and water. Sure they could figure out how to deal with the issue of emergency service when the firefighter from West Plainfield indicated how taxing it would be to have a facility of this size on their property.

But at the end of the day, these issues all had to be resolved which meant more money would be needed. And the representative made it clear to all that if the CDCR chose the site and if they were going to be the only one building on that site, then they were going to have to pay the entire bill.

Right then I knew that the airport site was out. Of course it took hours of discussions and public comment for the decisions to be made.

Some very general comments that I think are important to make. First, I understand people's frustration about these issues and the way they arose seemingly at the last minute. But there were a number of people at this meeting that were downright rude and made unfounded accusations. Supervisor Rexroad posted a few of the more rude and threatening comments on his blog. A number of those people were from the actual city of Davis. That kind of conduct does not reflect well on this city. We all have strong views and strong concerns, but frankly that is counterproductive. I know when I get rude posts on the blog or rude comments in emails to me, it completely discounts the point that the individual is trying to make.

Second, I agree with many about concerns about the process. Richard Livingston made these comments well during public comment yesterday. I think Supervisor Mike McGowan handled it well. He initially interrupted Mr. Livingston, but then apologized for doing so. He acknowledged that there were concerns about the process and communication and I think handled it pretty well.

That leads me to my next point, Supervisor Duane Chamberlain. I respect this man on a number of fronts. He is one of the most passionate protectors of farmland and county open space there is. However, he did not serve his constituents well yesterday. First, he had to recuse himself because he farms land around the airport. He did this very reluctantly and unnecessarily, in my opinion, pushed this issue to the brink of legality with his refusal to step aside.

Several of his constituents complained that their representative was not involved in the process. They felt disenfranchised. I do not blame them. But frankly I think it is his own fault. He could have handled this situation much better and perhaps should have given up working on that land in order to be a more effective spokesperson for his constituents on such an important issue. The county is still apparently dealing with legality with regards to these matters, but he did eventually turn over the gavel to his colleague Mr. McGowan.

Supervisor Mike McGowan who represents West Sacramento had no real stake in this battle, which made him the perfect Supervisor to chair the meeting. I thought he did an outstanding job. He was a calming influence during a turbulent meeting. He was able to really diffuse tensions rather than ratchet them up. I thought he was outstanding.

In fact, I was impressed as a whole with the Board of Supervisors I thought they asked a number of very good questions. They really pressed CDCR on points about retaining control of this process. I think there is a legitimate concern that this could morph into something else.

There are still discussions to have in fact on these points. One of the key provisions is the future use of the re-entry facility. Can this be converted into a prison down the line and what recourse does the county have to prevent that from occurring? I already mentioned the development agreement mitigations that are needed included waste water management, power, and gas lines issues. Finally, the question of how many people might be served by this facility and which people.

From the CDCR's perspective this has to be 500 people. Five hundred (500) people means it serves people from outside of Yolo County.

Serious questions arose about the type of people who would be housed by such a facility. For instance, according to CDCR level four offenders could be housed there. Of course, they would have to meet specific criteria such as not being problematic inmates, eligibility for parole, and other criteria, but they could under those conditions wind up there. CDCR did however say that this was not meant to serve mentally ill prisoner populations.

Supervisor Helen Thomson was concerned that there not be sexual predators or pedophiles housed at this facility but CDCR could make no such promises.

A common refrain from the public was that the county sold out the public for $30 million. Many in the public questioned the usefulness of such a facility. Some called it basically an experiment.

I am supportive of the concept of the re-entry facility. I think that the current system has failed us. We have basically created a prisoner factory that turns inmates into career criminals. And I think we need to look for ways to avoid that.

Yet the more I think about it I have to agree with Davis City Councilmember Sue Greenwald's comments. First, having rehabilitation in the last year of a prison term probably does not make the most sense. If we want rehabilitation, why not work on it throughout the term?

Second, as others have suggested, this is basically a tool by which to relieve overcrowding. Instead of releasing prisoners directly to the population, they prop up those releases with a year of training. Do not get me wrong, training is important and the ideals here are good, but at the end of the day, this is indeed an experiment. We do not know that this will work. And yet somehow the state has been convinced to put billions into this project under the guise of rehabilitation--a guise that amounts to largely untested assumptions.

Third, many of the people who are supporting these re-entry facilities are opposed to Proposition 5 and efforts of that sort. This is where we can make a huge difference in the prison system. Not everyone who breaks the law needs to be thrown in prison. It is not clear that doing so helps make us safer as a society, nor is it clear that it helps those people thrown in prison become better people.

What is clear is that we are locking up a lot people who are not especially dangerous to the population in jail. It's clear that the system from the courts to the jail cells are clogged with these cases, and we would probably have plenty of room in the system if we just dealt with these kinds of cases differently.

In other words, during the course of listening to the testimony from the public, questions from the County Board of Supervisors, and answers from CDCR, I changed my mind on this issue. I think there is a real concern that once we sign this over, we lose control and an amorphous state agency gets its hands on a facility in our county. At the end of the day, I don't think $30 million is worth handing over control to the state. More to the point, I question using further resources to back up what I see as a broken corrections system.

Madison is indeed the least bad location of the three selected by the county here, but the people of Madison have in a way been sold out for expediency and for $30 million. I hope in a few years we do not look back on this and regret it.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

2007 Year in Review--10 Biggest Vanguard Stories of 2007

As the first full year of the People's Vanguard of Davis comes to completion, we will countdown the top 10 stories from year. This is the second year we have done this.

Last year we counted down the 10 Biggest Stories in Davis.

This year we countdown the 10 biggest stories that we followed on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

We conclude with the top story of 2007: The County General Plan Process.

In late January, residents of Davis and indeed members of the Davis city council were blindsided with proposals that would throw the city-county pass-through agreement and land use policies on their heads. The county was proposing studying development on the Davis periphery, despite long-standing and lucrative agreements in place that gave the city of Davis landuse authority on the city edges.

Three places in particular were at stake. First a large area in NW Davis where senior housing was being examined--the Northwest Quadrant on the Bidding property. They were looking at perhaps a 2000 unit senior housing development. They were also looking at possible developments at Covell, where Davis voters had recently overwhelmingly voted against development. Finally, late in the process there was suggestion of a large housing development along the I-80 corridor abutting the Yolo Causeway.

The process began in early February, where the County Staff recommended against developing on the Northwest Quadrant.

The County is doing its update to the County General Plan. Only in the last week has there begun to be attention to this very important process. Talking to a few of the County Supervisors they have expressed alarm and dismay that the public is not more involved in this process. However, Tuesday February 6, 2007 the County Supervisors will meet and receive the General Plan recommendations from their steering committee (much as in a year and a half, the Davis City Council will likewise receive their recommendations).

There are two key issues of concern to Davis residents. First there is a proposal by the committee for a development of 2100 units, for senior housing, over 20 years to the Northwest Quadrant of Davis. This is the area west of Highway 113 and North of Sutter Hospital.

A summary of the report reads:

"The urban limit lines for each of the existing cities are respected as providing for a fair share of future growth, with the exception of the “northwest” quadrant at the edge of Davis where the Planning Commission felt additional growth would be appropriate if it could be shown to be to the county’s benefit."

There is a perception that this is going to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. This seems highly unlikely.

The staff report strongly recommends against this development:

"For the most part the staff is in agreement with and fully supports the recommendations of the Planning Commission. However, the staff has made a few supplemental land use recommendations that differ from the actions of the Planning Commission.

On the residential side, staff is recommending against the addition of 2,100 residences within the unincorporated area near the northwest quadrant of Davis, as these units are not likely to have fiscal benefits for the county that would justify the growth given concerns regarding inconsistency with long-standing growth policies, provision of infrastructure and services, and effects on the city/county pass-through agreement."

However, despite staff recommendations that recommended against this project, the board of supervisors continued to push for study areas.

The February 6, 2007 meeting was packed and the city of Davis presented a united front against county proposals.

The Yolo County staff's recommendation was to oppose the Northwest Quadrant development proposal as they did not see it as a source of revenue for the county. Instead they recommended a joint special study area with city and county for this development.

The City of Davis came and delivered a united front.

First, Mayor Sue Greenwald spoke. She strongly favored a continuation of the pass-through agreement giving Davis and Davis' City Council control over edge development. She considered a joint study session a violation of this pass-through agreement and this trust. The joint study group was not appropriate.

Greenwald did not oppose senior housing or special needs housing, however, she believes that the best plan should be determined by the City Council. She appreciated that county had financial problems as county services outpaces development proceeds, but argued that housing is not a good source of revenue (something that the staff recommendation by the county agreed) and argued that even retail development has diminishing returns.

Davis City Staffer Katherine Hess delivered a letter from City Manager Bill Emlen. She simply stated that development on the Davis periphery should be made by the city through a city process and she asked that the Board of Supervisors would concur with that.

Councilmember Don Saylor was in full agreement with Mayor Greenwald. He said that he appreciated that the county has real issues that need to be addressed and that the destinies of the county and city are intertwined. Davis has a process for dealing with its development and will be undergoing its own general plan update. He saw that as the appropriate agency and forum to address development issues. Moreover, while Davis does have a history of peripheral development it does not have a process for the Northwest Quadrant. He believes there are issues with housing for seniors and this may not be the most appropriate location or the best use of site given the distance from the core downtown area. Moreover he suggested that commercial development at Mace and I-80 are not "obvious" for us and mentioned that there are several commercial projects already in the works and does not want a new development area outside of the Mace Curve that could be detrimental to this development.

In general, the two members of the Davis City Council and one city staffer were united on this issue that the city and not the county should be the agency involved in determining where, when, and how peripheral development occurs. There were concerns about process and also specifics in this development.

However, the meeting was marked with contentiousness and tensions rose between the city and county.

Statements made by Supervisor Mike McGowan should have raised a red flag:

"I don't care where (Davis) puts their additional units, but from any standpoint they have to absorb their fair share. I'm not telling them where to grow."

He added:

"One of the reasons we are embarking on the General Plan update is that we can't maintain the old way of doing business; we aren't generating the revenues we need."

More concerning to Davis residents should have been the statements made by their own representative, Supervisor Helen Thomson:

The Davis Enterprise writes:

"But Thomson later suggested there was much to talk to Davis about in addition to new housing.

In exchange for the county's policy of directing commercial and residential projects to the cities instead of building them on agricultural land, the cities pay the county a fee in what's called a pass-through agreement.

In 2005-06, Davis paid nearly $2 million to the county in its pass-through agreement, Thomson said. But that agreement is nearly 15 years old and there are other issues to discuss. Thomson cited her own example of "poor planning" by the city of Davis — allowing homes to be built on seven 20-acre parcels at Binning Ranch north of Davis."

By late March, discussions continued between city and county, without much common ground sought.

On Monday, the City of Davis-County of Yolo two-by-two committee met. This body is composed of two members from each body--Sue Greenwald and Don Saylor from the city council and the two Davis County Supervisors--Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada.

There were moments of relief such as when both Thomson and Yamada indicated their support for the current pass-through agreement indicating that there would not be any move to renegotiate it.

The pass-through agreement is an agreement by the county not to develop within the sphere of influence of the city of Davis, in exchange, the city agrees to give the county a share of the redevelopment money they would have been entitled to had they developed. In this case, Davis gives the county roughly $2.7 million (the figure was somewhat in contention with the county suggesting it might be $2.1 million).

This is a much larger number than the county likely would get if they tried to develop the land. Moreover, it is considerably larger than the pass-through agreements between the county and Woodland and West Sacramento. So when the county talks about not having enough revenue, it seems like Davis ought to be the last place that the county is looking towards.

The City of Davis made clear their position.

Councilmember Saylor was very clear that the City of Davis through the pass-through agreement, maintained the land-use authority on the periphery. He also strongly maintained his opposition to the specific projects mentioned. The county was adamant however that this has not been a project-based plan so far but rather that they are looking at concepts and philosophies. However, specific sites have been identified as possible study areas by the county.

...

The issue of the joint study sessions at this point seems to be the sticking point. The county is looking at the change of designations of very land areas. This seemed strongly opposed by both Greenwald and Saylor. Greenwald viewed this as the first step toward development process.

Greenwald in speaking of lands on the Davis city-edge: “I would expect the county to keep its agricultural designation... It would be a somewhat hostile act that would impede cooperation.”

Yamada took exception to the use of the term hostile, but Greenwald's point here was dead-on: the county should not be changing the land-use designation here. At this point, the joint study session is viewed by Davis council as a means by which to try to force a change and that is not supported, at least from what I have seen, by the council. In the end, I think this proposal will be dropped, but as of now it is THE point on contention.

The county continued to press for joint study areas despite the concerns of the city of Davis.

On Tuesday, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors voted to approve three areas in the Davis sphere of influence as "Joint Study Areas." These areas include the Oeste Ranch area in the Northwest Quadrant and an area in the Covell Village west of Poleline both of which would be designated for residential housing developments, and an antiquated property east of Mace Road along I-80 which would be designated for commercial development. Ostensibly these Joint Study sessions would be used to determined changes in land use designations for the County General Plan Update.

The City of Davis and the City Council remains at least in public adamantly against such developments. As Katherine Hess, Davis Community Development Director wrote in a hand-delivered letter to the board, "we continue to be concerned that the current recommendations being considered could set in motion potential significant land use inconsistent with the long-standing policies embraced by the City and County on urbanization within the City's Planning Area."

By late June, this tension was threatening to turn into all out war. The proposed 2800 development along I-80 served as a flashpoint that threatened to spin this out of control.

As reported yesterday in the local press, Sacramento developer Angelo Tskaopoulos is proposing developing a 2,800 acre parcel of prime agricultural land along the I-80 between Davis and the Yolo Causeway.

>Supervisor Mike McGowan, who represents West Sacramento, in both the Sacramento Bee and Davis Enterprise was non-committal but sympathetic.

Supervisor McGowan told the Bee:

"It's still very much at the conceptual level, and I need to get much more information about it before I can form any serious conclusions."

"The idea of this region being at the forefront of stem cell research is certainly an exciting one, but the rest of it has yet to be fleshed out."

Meanwhile he told the Davis Enterprise:

“I'm very intrigued with the idea of a research park... We need to look constructively at the Interstate 80 corridor between West Sacramento and Davis. Does it make sense for the county, Davis, UC Davis and West Sacramento to place something of legitimate scientific endeavor out there? If the answer is ‘maybe,' then we should look at it at least in the broad concept.”

It was Supervisor Mariko Yamada's words that stung the community and brought this process to a head.

Supervisor Yamada:

"We are in the 21st century, and we need to keep an open mind about how we are going to approach land use and the I-80 corridor from the Bay Area to Sacramento."

She added in Enterprise:

“It's part of the new direction the county is going in."<

In response to the Vanguard's pointed criticism of her policies, Supervisor Yamada penned a response in the Vanguard.

The commentary, “Who Is Left to Defend Yolo County Farmland?” questions my record concerning land use decisions. My record, both public and private, is clear and consistent on the issues of protecting agriculture and open space, and fostering a safe and sustainable environment.

She then listed out a long list of policies she had supported or opposed.

The crux of her statement was here:

On March 27, 2007, I joined in a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors in choosing a general plan preferred land use alternative that balances rural sustainability with strategic joint study areas to be considered for potential economic development. The County remains hopeful that joint discussions will occur.

The idea of a stem cell research facility in Yolo County is conceptual; there is no specific proposal to be considered at this time. At present, I am keeping an open mind about the research, educational, and life-saving potential such a facility might bring to the region.

Consistent with my deliberative style, I do not make a decision on an issue until I have all the facts before me and have taken input from all sides. I am not a “one-size-fits-all” representative, nor do I place the threat of political liability above the soundness of good public policy.

This triggered a lengthy debate on the Vanguard, however, it did little to address the question at hand: why even consider such a massive proposal and little to satisfy her growing number of critics, many of whom had been her strongest supporters just a few months before.

In response, Holly Bishop and Pam Nieberg, published their own guest commentary on the Vanguard.

"Mariko Yamada’s spin-meisters have really been hard at work. In her submittal to the Davis Vanguard, she is now claiming that her “open mind” on a 2800 acre project proposed by Angelo Tsakopoulos is really about a stem cell research center. She makes no mention of the actual development proposal brought forth by Tsakopoulos. She states only that “the idea of a stem cell research facility in Yolo County is conceptual”, and that she is “keeping an open mind about the research, educational and life-saving potential such a facility might bring to the region.” Nowhere in her article does she reveal the actual full proposal or her apparent support for it as published in the Bee and the Enterprise last week."

The bombshell came out on July 6, as the county released the staff that proposed all three areas as special study areas.

This was a trigger point for a public call for recall by former Mayor Bill Kopper and current Mayor Sue Greenwald. The Vanguard came out quickly against such as effort.

While the Vanguard shares a deep concern about these proposals, which seem to be tantamount to pressure from the county to develop on Davis' periphery in violation of the pass-through agreement, the Vanguard believes that a recall is the wrong response to this threat, for a number of reasons.

However, despite the concerns about a recall, the threat of the recall changed some of the dynamics on the ground and may have led to cooler heads prevailing at the county level.

This would be one of the finest moments for the Vanguard as the the Vanguard would report live from directly inside the Supervisor's chambers. Thousands were logged on to the running commentary. Best of all, the Supervisors knew it.

At one point in the process, Supervisor Rexroad proposed the elimination of the study areas and was voted down 3-2. There was an adjournment. Suddenly when the Supervisors reemerged, they put the proposal to rest.

The Vanguard would issue a long description of the process which led to the pass-through agreement being preserved and cooler heads prevailing.

There were times during this process that war between the city of Davis and Yolo County seemed inevitable. There were times during the Board of Supervisors meeting that recall as an option was very much alive and may have come to fruition however at a crucial point, the county seemed to at least temporarily blink. Things calmed down. However, the scene was tense and serious. For all of that, the County General Plan process and the proposed special studies areas was the top story in 2007.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Should Davis Adopt an Urban Limit Line?

During the course of the debate last year over the creation of open space potentially on the Shriner's property, the Mayor brought up the term urban limit line, a term that had been used just a few weeks prior by City Staffer Mitch Sears during the discussion on agricultural mitigation. The original idea would be that included in the two-to-one mitigation to development, would be a one-quarter mile strip of adjacent mitigation along the boundaries of any new development. Over time as the city developed outward, there would be a one-quarter mile strip of ag mitigation that encircled the city as a form of an urban limit line.

The advantage of this policy is that the city could create mitigations against future development as part of the development agreement. The developers and not the city would be purchasing this mitigation.

The disadvantage of course is that the city would need to continue to grow at least one development around the city in order to create this urban limit line. But given the pressures currently in place around the city do exactly that, from the county and elsewhere, it might be the most preferred option in terms of limiting future peripheral growth.

The problem right now is that we can see all around the city developers have purchased agricultural land and then are putting pressure on elected bodies in order to convert agricultural land into urban development. Developers have access, resources, and time that other citizens do not, in order to press their point.

Other cities have actually imposed an outright urban limit line, a point after which, development cannot occur. The idea there is that right now developers have purchased parcels of agricultural land, not in hopes of continuing the present usage, but rather in terms of hoping to convert the land from agricultural uses to urban development. This has led to a large-scale purchase of land to developers who act as speculators.

Woodland's urban limit line drew controversy from both environmentalists and the county. Environmentalists complained that then-Woodland Mayor Matt Rexroad moved the line further out, allowing for more growth and less agricultural development.

The county on the other hand was already concerned about "county needs." The plan from Woodland was criticized by supervisors such as Mike McGowan and Helen Thomson for annexing too much land and running in the face of current county policies. On the other hand, the most staunch defender of farmland protection on the board, Supervisor Duane Chamberlain complained that the urban limit line involved too much prime farmland.

Regardless of specific criticisms as to whether Woodland extended the urban limit line out too far, the basic effect was that Woodland did not have the county breathing down on its periphery this cycle. Davis did.

The proposals at Oeste, Covell, and along I-80 represent just some of the properties that have had recent development pressures on them. You can add to that the Gidaro and Signature Properties north of Covell and East of Wild Horse, and you can throw in Ramos' property to the Southeast, Tsakopoulos to the East, etc.

The Davis voters have given themselves Measure J by which they can decide upon future peripheral growth. However, every time Davis citizens have to fight a Covell Village-type proposal, it is going to take a little energy out of the movement. At some point, a future council could get a large development through on the periphery.

Davis voters also gave themselves the ability to purchase open space through Measure O but that appears to have not been properly funded or implemented and cannot purchase at any rate, large tracts of land.

The best move I would think would be to establish an urban limit line around the city of Davis, that would enable the residents of Davis to limit where future development can take place. Anything outside of this line would be preserved for agricultural land. Moreover this could potentially serve as a key buffer between future proposals from the county and the city of Davis. Given that buffer, Davis would be a much less enticing target in the future and we would not merely have to rely on the pass-through agreement to determine how we grow on the edge of our city.

The city of Davis did not completely dodge the bullet lobbed at them from the county in terms of proposed special study areas. The county temporarily backed off in hopes of initiating talks. That gives us precious time to regroup and bolster our defenses. Even if study areas are initiated we will have perhaps a few years before the county can actually produce development proposals. In the meantime, Davis has an opportunity to take the land in question out of the hands of the county, and put it back within the hands of the Davis voters.

My present thought would be to create an urban limit line, but specifically require all land within that line remain subject to a Measure J vote if we decide to develop it. That is but one idea to prevent what occurred earlier this summer from repeating itself.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Looking Closer at Public Statements on the Tsakopoulos Development

County Supervisor Mariko Yamada is finding herself in some hot water for her role in holding discussions with Developer Angelo Tsakopoulos on a project that would create a stem cell facility but also build on roughly 2800 acres of land between Davis and the Vic Fazio Yolo Wildlife Area. This would include a commercial development and also somewhere in the order of 7500 units of housing.

In addition to Supervisor Yamada's response in the Vanguard last week, she has now appeared in three separate publications--the Sacramento Bee, the Davis Enterprise, and most recently the Sacramento News and Review.

Here she is in her own quoted words.

Sacramento Bee, June 28, 2007:

"We are in the 21st century, and we need to keep an open mind about how we are going to approach land use and the I-80 corridor from the Bay Area to Sacramento."

"There are already so many research organizations along the I-80 corridor. That's why it's called the Innovation Corridor. Yolo County should not be the only county that's not in the conversation."

Davis Enterprise, June 28, 2007:

"I've been approached; it's in my district."

"We're looking at all aspects of this proposal... And the university is in discussions too. It's all part of the county's General Plan update process."

"It's part of the new direction the county is going in."

Sacramento News and Review, July 5, 2007:

Attending one of the Tsakopoulos-hosted private dinners were Yolo County supervisors Mike McGowan and Mariko Yamada, both of whom were quoted in the Bee article as positively inclined toward considering some type of research center in a stretch of the I-80 corridor. But Yamada told SN&R that there was no mention made of any housing development. “No, I heard nothing proposed about housing development at that dinner,” Yamada says.

Yamada told SN&R that she would not support any housing development there, as the land sits unprotected in the Yolo Basin flood plain.

Yamada, who is chairwoman of the county board, already has emerged as the target of criticism on a community Web site, with accusations that she has moved from being a “slow-growther” to a politician more accommodating to development. While passionately defending her commitment to preserving Yolo County’s farmland and open space as top priority, Yamada is running for the state Assembly seat being vacated next year by Lois Wolk. Campaign professionals suggest she will have to raise at least $500,000 to be competitive with primary opponent Christopher Cabaldon, the mayor of West Sacramento. But, Yamada firmly asserts, “I don’t practice checkbook politics.”

Note that Supervisor Yamada told the News and Review that she would not support a housing development in that location.

As our article on June 29, 2007 made clear, the objection to the project was the idea of building homes on the property (not to mention the location of the stem cell facility on agricultural land).

As I wrote:

"The issue here is not about a stem-cell research center. If Mr. Tsakopoulos wants to build a research center, I would greatly be supportive of it on the UC Davis campus. However, this is basically a means by which to build homes and other development projects on prime agricultural land and that, I cannot support."

Supervisor Yamada on July 3, 2007, was given space to respond to the Vanguard's criticism. She chose to emphasize her record on land use while being a county supervisor.

Supervisor Yamada however at that time never came out against the housing development, instead she spoke only of the research facility:

"The idea of a stem cell research facility in Yolo County is conceptual; there is no specific proposal to be considered at this time. At present, I am keeping an open mind about the research, educational, and life-saving potential such a facility might bring to the region."

It might seem then that Supervisor Yamada is either clarifying her position or backtracking on this. It is hard to say at this point which. However, 1500 of those units is being studied in the general plan as part of the joint study area.

For my part, I will continue to argue that all aspects of this project are inappropriate for consideration by the county. The city of Davis should have land-use authority on the periphery of Davis as the pass-through agreement states. Remember that the pass-through agreement provides $2 million per year to the county in exchange for land-use authority in the city's "sphere of influence." The county may be able to generate more than $2 million on individual development agreements, but that is one-time money. There is no way, that over the course of the 25 year pass-through agreement, the county will surpass the revenue that Davis' Redevelopment Agency passes-through to them.

This discussion along with the County General plan is pushing the city and county on a collision course. If this is not halted, future cooperation is going to be severely altered. Davis elected both Supervisors Mariko Yamada and Helen Thomson to represent the issues, values, and principles of this community. These type of proposals are in conflict with the general hard-fought land use principles that Davis voters elected their representatives on the Board of Supervisors to protect. We can only hope that as this process moves on, that they remember who elected them and who they represent.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Yolo County General Plan Proposes Three Massive Developments on Davis Periphery

Late Friday afternoon, the staff report for the Yolo County General Plan was released (click here to read the full report). This report contained three specific proposals for special study areas that recommended large developments on Davis' city "edge." These proposals are likely to alarm many residents in Davis as well as the city of Davis. They will be discussed by the County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, July 17, 2007.

(click on image to enlarge map)

While officially labeled as "special study areas," in reality both the description and the map appear remarkably like the other development proposals in the plan. Additionally, Davis is the only city where the county has proposed "special study areas."

The first of these study areas is the Northwest Quadrant at Oeste Ranch. This area is to the west of Sutter-Davis Hospital and north of Covell Blvd. The recommendation is for "revenue generating opportunities and special needs housing (e.g. seniors)." The property totals roughly 650 acres and would encompass roughly 2000 units. It would connect the Binning Tract with the rest of Davis.

The second of these study areas is what they are terming the I-80 "Innovation Corridor." This is a 1520 acre development that extends from the city limits, east of Mace Boulevard to the Yolo Bypass levee. They are looking at this for both research and biotech uses as well as commercial development.

The third special study area would be the "Covell Village" property that is north of Covell Blvd, east of F Street and west of Poleline. This would include roughly 383 acres of new commercial and mixed uses. The existing general plan designation is industrial and it is the largest available piece of industrially designated property within the county.

Each of these properties are subject to quite a bit of controversy. The Northwest Quadrant has been discussed in the Davis General Plan Housing Element Update as well. At a recent joint meeting between the Senior Citizens Commission and the Social Services Commission, the view was expressed by a number of commissioners that Davis really is not in need of any more senior housing and that this project would simply import seniors into the community where the county would have to provide a large amount in social services.

The county is arguing that this development would be a revenue generator, but it is not clear how they have figured upon that, and in fact, recall that the original staff report recommended against development on this property because it had questionable revenue potential.

This was the initial recommendation from county staff:

"On the residential side, staff is recommending against the addition of 2,100 residences within the unincorporated area near the northwest quadrant of Davis, as these units are not likely to have fiscal benefits for the county that would justify the growth given concerns regarding inconsistency with long-standing growth policies, provision of infrastructure and services, and effects on the city/county pass-through agreement."

So how did this become part of staff recommendations for study areas? And what role did Davis' supervisors play in this? Why is the county now looking to go away from long-standing growth policies and possibly violate the pass-through agreement which would endanger $2 million per year and possibly as much as $72 million over the course of the life of the Davis Redevelopment Agency.

The Covell Village property is also problematic in that Davis voters less than two years ago overwhelmingly rejected development there by a 60-40 margin. Now the county is proposing development there? By what authority?

Finally, the massive development along I-80 is just the tip of the iceberg. The county also plans to take up the Tskaopoulos proposal that includes not only a stem cell research facility but also roughly 7500 housing units. There was a good article on that proposal in this week's Sacramento News and Review.

The article makes reference to this blog:

Yamada, who is chairwoman of the county board, already has emerged as the target of criticism on a community Web site, with accusations that she has moved from being a “slow-growther” to a politician more accommodating to development. While passionately defending her commitment to preserving Yolo County’s farmland and open space as top priority, Yamada is running for the state Assembly seat being vacated next year by Lois Wolk. Campaign professionals suggest she will have to raise at least $500,000 to be competitive with primary opponent Christopher Cabaldon, the mayor of West Sacramento. But, Yamada firmly asserts, “I don’t practice checkbook politics.”

Discussion on this issue figures to be intense, with much concern in Davis about the massive scope of these three projects and concern as to what the county means by "special study area." As one Supervisor suggested, the proposals for special study areas in Davis do not look different from the development proposals in the rest of the county. Davis residents should be very concerned about these proposals as a means to impose growth on the periphery of Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Guest Commentary: Oppose Massive Development on Davis' Borders

Mariko Yamada’s spin-meisters have really been hard at work. In her submittal to the Davis Vanguard, she is now claiming that her “open mind” on a 2800 acre project proposed by Angelo Tsakopoulos is really about a stem cell research center. She makes no mention of the actual development proposal brought forth by Tsakopoulos. She states only that “the idea of a stem cell research facility in Yolo County is conceptual”, and that she is “keeping an open mind about the research, educational and life-saving potential such a facility might bring to the region.” Nowhere in her article does she reveal the actual full proposal or her apparent support for it as published in the Bee and the Enterprise last week.

In fact, Angelo Tsakopoulos did not come forward with a proposal for a stem cell research facility. What he is proposing is to develop 2,800 acres of prime Yolo County farmland along I-80 between Davis and the Vic Fazio wildlife area, just east of El Macero, into thousands of houses and commercial buildings. He has apparently been in negotiations with local leaders for some time on this, wining and dining them in back room private dinners at the Sutter Club. Has Yolo County surrendered to the high powered (and fancy dinner) politics of Sacramento?

Typically, he is offering a carrot in this deal, and that is a stem cell research facility on part of the property, and it looks like some of our supervisors are going for it. Thursday’s Sacramento Bee and Enterprise quoted three of our supervisors on the issue. Mariko Yamada, in whose district this parcel lies, appears open to this proposal! She is as quoted as saying, “We are in the 21st century, and we need to keep an open mind about how we are going to approach land use and the I-80 corridor from the Bay Area to Sacramento.” She goes on to refer to this as the “innovation corridor” and the importance of Yolo County being in the conversation when it comes to developing it.

Supervisor Mike McGowan also appears more than open to the proposal, but given his record on growth, this is no surprise. Apparently the only supervisors who want to protect this valuable agricultural land and wildlife habitat are Duane Chamberlain and Matt Rexroad. Matt is quoted in the Bee as saying, “The place where the Tsakopoulos family owns land is pretty good farmland….Would it be great to have a research center like this in Yolo County? Yes. Does it have to be located on that parcel? No.”

If Tsakopoulos and Yamada want to consider a research center, there are far better places for it than in the middle of farmland. The U.C. campus is one such location, for example. We would be 100% in support of such a proposal. But this is not about a stem cell research center. This is about thousands of homes and acres of commercial development on prime farmland, in a flood plain, next to a sensitive wildlife area. This is exactly the type of sprawl we do not support.

What happened to the process? So much for considerations of the SACOG Blueprint Process and preservation of habitat, open space and farmland. We have been told repeatedly that Yolo County’s new General Plan is a planning-based, not a specific-project-based plan. That does not appear to be the case here. This is poor planning at its worst. Why is Mariko supporting it? The answer will most likely come at the end of July when she reports her financing for the assembly race.

This is not the first time Davis’s own two supervisors have talked about changing direction and pushing for development in the county. Earlier this year they proposed to look into joint study areas on the periphery of Davis as possible locations for future development. This is in total violation of our pass- through agreement with the county. The agreement assures that cities retain the sole right to determine growth on their borders in exchange for passing through redevelopment funds to the county. In Davis’s case, this is more than $2 million.

Both El Dorado and Sacramento County turned down Tsakopoulos’ proposals for massive developments in their jurisdictions—carrots and all. Yolo County needs to see this for what it is: another attempt to pave over hundreds of acres of farmland and open space in exchange for a sea of houses and commercial buildings for a huge profit to the developer and a huge loss to the county and its residents.

Mariko says she is just keeping an “open mind”, studying the facts, and seeking input from all sides before making a decision. That is double-talk. There is no need to study this. Some proposals should be dead on arrival and this is one of them.

Contact Davis Supervisors Mariko Yamada and Helen Thomson and tell them we do not want this massive development on our borders. We want the county to honor our pass-through agreement, and leave planning decisions for development on our borders to our community.

Mariko Yamada. Phone: 757-5554 or 666-8624; email
Helen Thomson. Phone: 757-5557; email

Pam Nieberg and Holly Bishop

Pam Nieberg and Holly Bishop are Co-chairs of the Sierra Club Yolano Group.

Commentary: Who is left to defend Yolo County Farmland?

As reported yesterday in the local press, Sacramento developer Angelo Tskaopoulos is proposing developing a 2,800 acre parcel of prime agricultural land along the I-80 between Davis and the Yolo Causeway.

Unfortunately the people who were supposed to be protecting Davis and Yolo County from exactly this sort of development are making statements that should make every single resident very nervous.

Supervisor Mike McGowan, who represents West Sacramento, in both the Sacramento Bee and Davis Enterprise was non-committal but sympathetic.

Supervisor McGowan told the Bee:

"It's still very much at the conceptual level, and I need to get much more information about it before I can form any serious conclusions."

"The idea of this region being at the forefront of stem cell research is certainly an exciting one, but the rest of it has yet to be fleshed out."

Meanwhile he told the Davis Enterprise:

“I'm very intrigued with the idea of a research park... We need to look constructively at the Interstate 80 corridor between West Sacramento and Davis. Does it make sense for the county, Davis, UC Davis and West Sacramento to place something of legitimate scientific endeavor out there? If the answer is ‘maybe,' then we should look at it at least in the broad concept.”

However, given his record on growth this is not a surprising position by Supervisor McGowan.

The surprising position is that of Supervisor Mariko Yamada--who up until this calendar year was widely regarded as a slow-growther. However, it appears that has begun to change sharply this year just as she announced a bid for the Assembly.

Earlier this year she alarmed supporters and Davis Progressives with a proposal to look into joint study-areas on the periphery of Davis as possible locations for future development and zoning changes to allow for that future development. The city of Davis has adamantly been opposed to any changes in the pass-through agreement and believes that the city has land-use authority on the periphery. Moreover, she seemed at times amenable to revising the pass-through agreement between the city of Davis and Yolo County.

Now, she appears open to this proposal.

Supervisor Yamada:

"We are in the 21st century, and we need to keep an open mind about how we are going to approach land use and the I-80 corridor from the Bay Area to Sacramento."

I have long been a supporter of Mariko Yamada and have known her personally since 1998 when she was the office manager at the Democratic Headquarters in Davis where I worked as a field director for Mark Desio who was running for State Senate. It pains me very much to say this, but her position is unacceptable.

She added in Enterprise:

“It's part of the new direction the county is going in."

This unfortunately dovetails with her position on a 2,000-unit senior development on Oeste Ranch in the Northwest Quadrant and her view on the pass-through agreement itself.

Yamada at that time was claiming that the county needed to find new ways to generate revenue sources. I cannot disagree with that nor can I disagree with her goal for increasing and improving social services including those to seniors. Counties are at the lowest end of the totem pole when it comes to revenue sources. However, tearing up the pass-through agreement will not solve the problem. The city gives the county far more in the pass-through agreement in order to not develop, than they would get by developing.

The issue here is not about a stem-cell research center. If Mr. Tsakopoulos wants to build a research center, I would be greatly be supportive of it on the UC Davis campus. However, this is basically a means by which to build homes and other development projects on prime agricultural land and that, I cannot support.

In contrast to both McGowan and Yamada, Matt Rexroad expresses my viewpoint:

"The place where the Tsakopoulos family owns land is pretty good farmland... Would it be great to have a research center like this in Yolo County? Yes. Does it have to be located on that parcel? No."

Mr. Rexroad is a Republican. Guess what? So is Duane Chamberlain. I challenge anyone to find a stronger advocate of protecting farmland on this Board of Supervisors than Mr. Chamberlain. Matt Rexroad may be a right-wing Republican, but he's far closer in his viewpoint of this issue to me, than I am to the three Democrats on this board.

It seems that the only protectors of land at the county level are Republicans. While the track record of McGowan and Thomson on development is consistent with this type of proposal, the shocker here has been the move by Supervisor Yamada. Prior to January of this year, Yamada along with Chamberlain had been strong defenders against development. Why the quick and huge turn? Is it a matter of running for the Assembly? It is a matter of lack of funding for social services?

At the end of the day, it probably does not matter why. Nevertheless, Yamada has basically cut herself off from her previous base of support and has left herself without a political base as she seeks election against West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon.

Prior to writing this article, I gave Supervisor Yamada a heads-up that this was coming and offered her a chance to respond on the record. She did not take me up on that offer.

At this point, I cannot in good conscience defend the actions of someone who I strongly admired last year for being the only publicly elected official to publicly support and champion civilian police oversight, the Buzayans, and the Human Relations Commission. While she remains strong on civil rights and social services, her evolving positions on land-use are indefensible.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Board of Supervisors Approves of Medical Marijuana ID Cards by 3-2 Vote

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors earlier today heard an item to approve and authorize the implementation of the Medical Marijuana Identification Card Program in Yolo County as required by Senate Bill 420. The Health Department would be the entity responsible for issuing identification cards to eligible residents.

Despite federal law making the possession of marijuana illegal, California law authorized by Senate Bill 420 in 2003 requires counties to issue medical marijuana identification cards for medicinal purposes.

This authorization would be to simply accept an application and fee, take a photo of the user, a verification that the patient is a Yolo County resident and that the doctor is licensed in the state of California and indeed prescribed the drug to the patient. Medical marijuana would be allowed for patients with AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and other serious ailments. They may have up to eight ounces of marijuana in their possession and up to six plants per patient.

A number of individuals affiliated with various advocacy groups including health advocacy and patients advocacy made a strong case that marijuana had very strong positive effects.

Peter Simpson who is the executive director of a social service agency pointed out that marijuana has legitimate medication value for people with needs. People who are staving to death from AIDS and suffer nausea from pain medication are literally starving to death as they lack the calorie intake to survive. Marijuana use both reduces nausea and increases appetite.

Another concern raised was the instances of arrest for marijuana possession which has risen by a large margin in the last 15 to 20 years. This was presented as a means to keep sick people out of the legal system where they do not belong and allow them to get the help of that they need. Aaron Smith of the advocacy group Safe Access Now pointed out that this would help remove the burden from law enforcement to identify those who are legitimate users by providing them with a uniform means of identifying individuals who have legitimate purposes.

Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig and Sheriff Ed Prieto both argued against this proposal from a legal standpoint. Reisig argued, "If this passes, it puts law enforcement in between a rock and a hard place." He pointed out that the majority of counties have not gone this route. Moreover this is a "Violation of federal law, period." The U.S. Supreme Court he argued, made it clear that federal law through supremacy cause makes federal law binding in the states.

Supervisor Mike McGowan asked District Attorney Reisig if an officer stopping someone is enforcing federal or state law?

Reisig completely avoided that question and simply repeated that this put a law enforcement officer between a rock and a hard place.

However, Reisig avoided the question because he knows full well that the county and local police do not enforce federal laws, rather they enforce state laws and the state law of California is clear, not only does the law allow the use of marijuana with the permission of a doctor for the purposes of medicinal use but the state law Senate Bill 420 requires counties to provide identification cards. And the State Supreme Court upheld this law this past December.

Supervisor Mariko Yamada strongly supported this item. She pointed out that she supported Proposition 215 in 1996. She said it requires courage to lead the way rather than someone else tell us what to do. She argued that this brings structure to what is already a chaotic system and that the issue was compassion versus criminalization.

Supervisor Helen Thomson moved this item and McGowan seconded the motion.

Supervisor Thomson said that the District Attorney and Sheriff are between a rock and a hard place.

“For me medical necessities outweigh that concern. Many people are helped with this ability to use this drug. It is time we got over the strange way of dividing how we access drugs for pain and get over punishing people who are in pain instead of helping them.”

The motion passed 3-2 with Rexroad and Chamberlain dissenting.

It was a bit disappointing to see Rexroad vote against the item as he had come out in favor of the item on his blog just a few days earlier citing he had "real doubt about making it illegal while we allow alcohol and tacacco (sic) to be used freely. We have to draw a line somewhere but I am not sure that the current line can be justified."

Nevertheless with the three Democrats on the board voting in favor of it--Yamada, McGowan, and Thomson--Yolo County has achieved Yamada's somewhat tongue-in-cheek goal of "not letting Los Angeles get ahead of us on this issue."

On a more serious note, this is something that can help a lot of people who are dying and in a great deal of pain live out their last days in a greater measure of comfort and human dignity than the current system allots them. It seems amazing in this day and age that we have draconian notions of law enforcement and antiquated fears of abuse stand in the way of sick people and relief. It is a shame that our law enforcement community was not more supportive of this endeavor that would seem to make their job easier rather than more difficult.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: County Declares War on Davis

The message delivered on Tuesday by the County Supervisors should be enough to alarm Davis residents who have long fought hard and long to control the rate of growth.

The message from Supervisor Mike McGowan goes even further. McGowan was quoted as saying:

"I don't care where (Davis) puts their additional units, but from any standpoint they have to absorb their fair share. I'm not telling them where to grow."

He added:

"One of the reasons we are embarking on the General Plan update is that we can't maintain the old way of doing business; we aren't generating the revenues we need."

Not mentioned is the fact pointed out by Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald that housing is not a reliable source for revenue.

But there is more in this rhetoric. The notion of fair share. This notion is based on the presumption somehow that California can continue to grow. That it has the resources--namely the water--to be able to sustain high rates of growth. As it is, Davis is looking at expanding its water capacity and paying an addition 300 to 450 million dollars for a water project.

Supervisor Helen Thomson represents part of Davis.

The Davis Enterprise writes:

"But Thomson later suggested there was much to talk to Davis about in addition to new housing.

In exchange for the county's policy of directing commercial and residential projects to the cities instead of building them on agricultural land, the cities pay the county a fee in what's called a pass-through agreement.

In 2005-06, Davis paid nearly $2 million to the county in its pass-through agreement, Thomson said. But that agreement is nearly 15 years old and there are other issues to discuss. Thomson cited her own example of "poor planning" by the city of Davis — allowing homes to be built on seven 20-acre parcels at Binning Ranch north of Davis."

Of course what the article fails to mention is in fact, that the City of Davis and Yolo County just recently renewed the pass-through agreement.

My thoughts are this: I am very disturbed by the audacity of Supervisor McGowan who does not reside in Davis making such bold assertions.

However, I am even more disturbed by the lack of leadership from the two Davis Supervisors in this regard.

Growth around Davis is an issue for the Davis City Council. The City of Davis will determine and should determine how and when and in what places it will grow.

I sympathize with the County about their dilemma. They provide services to the cities and have revenue shortfalls. I am not unwilling to look into changes in the pass-through agreement. But Davis residents have fought long and hard be able to retain control of their growth both through Measure J and the hard fought pass-through agreements. If the county expects that they are going to get their way on this, I think they have another thing coming.

It was very reassuring to see both Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Saylor vehemently on the same side on this. The entire council seems united on this issue. And the citizens of Davis control forty percent of the county supervisors.

I have no problems with discussions but the rhetoric of fair-share is a slap in the face to Davis residents. The notion of fair-share is inherently selfish. It is about the procurement of scare resources with discussion about the future carrying-capacity of the state of the California and moreover fails to look into the future at what the climate changes may have in store. I think the idea of growth is blatantly irresponsible and unfair. We need to address these questions and not simply look at growth as a cure-all for fiscal and revenue problems.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting