Housing Element's Plan Looks Bleak But There is Some Hope for Consensus Building

A fascinating story this morning the Sacramento Bee by Hudson Sangree.

In it, there is a discussion of the Housing Element Steering Committee's (HESC) housing plan. From the onset there were 15 members, 3 appointed by each of the councilmembers. The assumption was that with a 3-2 split on council between those aligned with local developers and those favoring less growth, that there would be a 9-6 pro-growth majority.

However, according to Vice Chair Mark Siegler, a Sue Greenwald appointee, that's not what happened.

According to the article:

"It came as a surprise when a committee of 15 residents, appointed by council members to help shape the future of Davis, worked together for a year and reached agreement on an innovative housing plan.

It proposes modest growth within the city's current borders. Infill projects deemed beneficial to the city would get priority."

Mark Siegler is quoted saying:

"It was sort of an amazing outcome... I was ready to go in there and just do battle to the death."

Instead now the fear is that the plan that was meticulously worked on over the course many months would be undermined by the city council with very different agendas and ideas than the committee members.

"Over the course of several months, we came to much more of a middle ground... I wouldn't be surprised if members of the City Council are not happy with the outcome based on who they appointed... I hope they don't just dismiss this thing out of hand."

HESC Chairman Kevin Wolf said:

"We have the political consensus to force the City Council in a new direction."

However, if the meeting last week is any indication, this consensus is about to break down into the usual fighting.

For example, Councilmember Stephen Souza and Don Saylor want to push for developing the Nishi property which was ranked No.17 by the steering committee. Mayor Ruth Asmundson complained that some of the properties like the PG&E site and the school district headquarters are not feasible since no one determined if the current occupants would be willing to move or develop their properties.

On the other side of fence, Councilmember Lamar Heystek worried that the list would lead to an artificial means by which to induce growth. Councilmember Sue Greenwald argued vehemently last week the city does not need to grow given the weak market.

However, in my discussion with Lamar Heystek on KDRT Radio last week, he agreed that the city council had considerable room for consensus building. There are clear philosophical differences between the two sides over the rate of growth and the willingness to develop on Measure J sites, however, there is also significant agreement on other areas.

The reason the HESC was able to come to consensus is that they avoided the more contentious "how much issue" and went toward the "where" issue. And in the immediate future, almost everyone agreed that we ought to grow in infill sites near the city's core and move out.

The council majority of Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson have a choice. They certainly have the votes and the recent election results to push forward with any agenda they see fit to seek. On the other hand, strategically speaking, they may be better off tackling development projects where they have basic agreement on location first.

As the HESC report makes clear, there are more than enough of these infill projects to meet either the low end RHNA numbers for the next five years or even the high end, 1% growth cap numbers without looking to a single peripheral project.

However, there are still a lot of pitfalls along the way.

Covell Village: The return of Covell Village is one thing to look at. The group formerly known as the Covell Partners has repackaged the project splitting the development into three segments. The first segment which would be on the lower third is looking towards senior housing. Senior housing is probably the next huge hot potato in general. There is a divide within the community about the need for senior housing and the type of senior housing. Some have suggested that senior housing internal needs are small and any big project would pull from a more regional and even statewide basis, others suggest that residents in Davis ought to be able to move their senior parents into closer proximity.

The form of senior housing is another question. Some have suggested that ideally smaller condos are better suited for seniors than senior-only segregated communities. The argument here is that many seniors want to downsize, but not live in senior-only communities. Some seniors do not even want to downsize.

Nishe: If one looks to location alone this Measure J project would be ideal. But there is a huge hurdle--that is lack of road access. The only access right now would be the narrow Olive Drive leading to the congested Richard Blvd interchange. The road access is so prohibitive that developers have suggested having only campus access for cars and otherwise only direct access to the rest of the city via bicycle or pedestrian traffic. Sounds good in theory, but recognizing the need for special traffic provisions illustrates the pitfall of the development. One alternative might be to give it to the university and have the university use it to expand it's on-campus housing base.

Lewis Property: This is the property that divides the progressive community. On the one hand, many believe that Lewis is an ideal place to develop as means to accommodate growth demands while at the same time not paving over farm land. The fact that it's already paved over and has some of the infrastructure needs plays into that desire. Still, others worry about provisions that Lewis is developed with a mind toward its more controversial eastern neighbor, Covell. While Lewis is considerably smaller than Covell, some of the same concerns that plagued Covell, apply to Lewis. Others such as Councilmember Sue Greenwald have been steadfastly pressing for high tech industry, arguing that we have few high tech zoned sites, that this is the ideal way to bring in new industry, and that the site is not conducive to residential development. The current owners however are pressing hard for a residential development. This is not a Measure J site, and it seems like that the residential side will eventually win this fight much to the chagrin of a number of others.

Wildhorse Horse Ranch: This is another peripheral site that would trigger a Measure J vote. The property came up for consideration early this spring and the meeting was largely an unmitigated disaster as neighbors complained about the project and even council would-be supporters seemed close to pulling the plug on the deal. However, the project has been re-worked. Many of the neighbors are if not supportive of the project, at the very least had their criticism muted. This is likely the next Measure J project Davis will vote on. Probably sometime in 2009. How will it go? It's only 40 acres. The project is said to be extremely environmentally innovative on the cutting edge. If the neighbors are brought along it could pass. If the neighbors remained as outspoken as they were at the last meeting before Council, it is a different story.

Those projects represent varying levels of political opposition. There are other projects within the city limits that would be slam dunks. I still believe one of the biggest mistakes of Covell Village was the timing. The council put all of their eggs into one basket on development and as a result, when Covell was voted down, there was nothing left in the queue. The result, few new housing permits the last three years of city council. The pro-growth majority, for a two-year stretch, a 4-1 pro-growth majority oversaw the period of the slowest growth in recent Davis history.

The question at this point is whether the council majority has learned a true lesson from Covell Village. The lesson is not that people do not want growth. However the lesson is also not that they did not explain the project or sell it well enough. The lesson is that the council tried to do too much, too quickly, with one project that was easy for people to understand the consequences of and easy for people to oppose. Moreover, it was polarizing. If the council can avoid polarizing future votes and issues, and instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do, they will be successful. If they cannot, their majority will likely be lost.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

LAFCO Votes to Enlarge Sphere of Influence

Vanguard is Concerned About the Process of the 5-0 LAFCO Vote

In a strange turn of events the evening of March 6, 2008 the Davis City Council passed a recommendation for the Sphere of Influence (SOI) that was notable in that it excluded from its sphere two controversial properties on Davis' periphery--Northwest Quadrant, Covell Village and the Nishi Property. The motion made by Lamar Heystek and seconded by Mayor Sue Greenwald passed by a strange vote of 2-1-2. Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Don Saylor, a month before the council election decided to abstain from that vote.

This was a reconsideration of a vote that had originally attempted to make the SOI extremely large. When LAFCO originally took up this item in April, they expressed concern that the size of the original SOI would invite properties not intended for development in the foreseeable future. LAFCO's report warns that adding such areas would lead to land speculation on those sites for the purpose of development.

As a result, the council revisited the issue. At the May meeting Councilmember Heystek complained about the lack of clear direction from city staff on the issue of the SOI.

"I don't see this as merely a ministerial action of the council, because personally I will speak very frankly, I don't feel that I received enough information from city staff to be able to make a decision. I understand that LAFCO has made a recommendation that certain sites be excluded, but I have not received information for our staff as to why certain sites should be included."

He continued:

"I don't understand and I haven't heard from city staff, why we have to include other areas such as the northwest quadrant, such as Covell Village, such as the Nishi site, when we know we already have Measure J, when we know we already have the pass-through agreement, and we know that those are really the strongest protections from unwarranted or undesirable development on our borders."

As Councilmember Heystek pointed out, it appears in the next five years we neither intend to expand city services into these areas nor develop in these areas--so why include them in the SOI?

As a result of that discussion, the motion to exclude the Northwest Quadrant, Covell, and Nishi was passed largely because neither Councilmember Souza nor Councilmember Saylor voted on the matter.

Flash forward to Monday at the LAFCO meeting.

The LAFCO staff recommendation rejected the Davis City Council's proposed boundaries.

This is from the LAFCO staff report:

As previously discussed, a sphere of influence under LAFCO law is a guidance document for the Commission to determine what areas are best suited for inclusion, or removal, from a city or special district. Historically, spheres of influence for cities in Yolo County have been drawn tightly; however, those lines must be drawn with the intent to meet the projected growth and service capabilities of the affected agency. The latest request by the City of Davis would not provide sufficient land within the sphere for the City to meet its own population growth projections in the coming years.

Staff believes that given existing policies, service capabilities and impacts on agricultural land, the LAFCO staff recommended sphere of influence includes the areas that are best considered for annexation over the next twenty years. The staff recommended areas that are already developed, are infill property, or have already been evaluated in previous studies. The City’s current land use policies call for controlled and well planned growth. The County’s general plan identifies itself as the protector of agricultural land. The land use policies in conjunction with the City-County Redevelopment Agreement and Davis’ Measure J provide strong adjuncts to controlled growth in the City of Davis. The staff recommended boundaries balance the need for some expansion of boundaries while addressing the need for deliberate, logical and orderly annexations.

The first map is the Davis City Council recommended Sphere of Influence:

The second map is the LAFCO staff recommendation:

The LAFCO recommendation is as follows:

a. Ten year sphere of influence:

i. City owned property: Davis Municipal Golf Course, City of Davis Park on County Road (CR) 102 (Old Landfill Site), and Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant.

ii. Urbanized properties: El Macero, Willowbank, Royal Oaks (formerly Barthel’s Mobile Home Park), Rust home site parcel, and University of California, Davis campus.

iii. Undeveloped properties: Covell Village (Hunt-Wesson) parcel, Mace Curve parcel and Nishi parcel.

b. Twenty year sphere of influence:

i. Urbanized property: Cactus Corners (CR 98 and Russell Blvd).

ii. Undeveloped property: Northwest Quadrant (north to Binning Tract subdivision, east to State Hwy 113, south to Covell Boulevard, and west to CR 99).

The LAFCO board that includes Davis City Councilmember Stephen Souza as the representative from the Davis City Council and County Supervisors Helen Thomson and Matt Rexroad, voted to pass staff recommendation 5-0.

Key Commentary Regarding the Role of Councilmember Stephen Souza's Role in This

As a member of LAFCO, Councilmember Stephen Souza has a duel role in this process. He sits on the board of LAFCO but he also needs to represent to LAFCO in this matter, the wishes of the Davis City Council. In the packet to LAFCO was presented the Davis City Council's recommended SOI.

Responding to a question from Councilmember Lamar Heystek last night, Councilmember Souza acknowledged there was not much discussion on the item at the Monday meeting. He did mention that Supervisor Rexroad had asked him about what the Davis City Council wanted. Councilmember Souza conveyed the impression at the LAFCO meeting that this is what the Davis City Council wanted and had mentioned his role on LAFCO as the reason for him abstaining from the vote.

I spoke up at the City Council, which is something I do not ordinarily do, to clarify this point.

Here are my comments:

"I wanted to raise the issue of yesterday’s LAFCO vote on the sphere of influence. I was not able to attend the meeting, however, talking to folks who did I got the impression that the message was somehow conveyed that the LAFCO staff report was what the council majority wanted. [Note: Councilmember Souza had actually acknowledged this in response to Councilmember Heystek's question]

I am a bit confused by that if it is that case, because the most recent vote that I am aware of on May 6, 2008 ended with a very different recommendation from the Davis city council.

That vote was a bit odd in that two members supported, one opposed, and two members abstained. However, it was a valid vote of the council. The motion passed and that was the recommendation ostensibly sent to LAFCO.

If that is the case, then I do not know how it could be accurate to suggest that the majority of the Davis city council wanted anything but the May 6th vote results.

As such I am very confused and would like an explanation as to how the message was apparently conveyed otherwise. And I would like to also know if the will of the council, as expressed by vote on the night of May 6th, was represented by the current LAFCO representative from this council."

Unfortunately I did not get an answer to those questions, although there was the beginning of a heated exchange, when another member of the public, Eileen Samitz, spoke during public comment in an attempt to get an answer on this issue. The Mayor [probably wisely] however cut off Councilmember Souza as he was about to respond to Ms. Samitz's comments and moved the meeting forward.

As I stated at the meeting, I believe that Councilmember Souza had every right to vote as he did, however, my concern was he somehow conveyed the impression that there was a different will of the council majority than the one reflected in the vote taken on May 6, 2008, which was the only vote on the topic and therefore should have been, despite its strange numerical nature, the reflection of the council's desires on this subject.

My concern is therefore strictly procedural here. I do not understand how the councilmember arrived at a different conclusion from Davis' own recommendation.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Why is Nishi So Heavily Mentioned by the Candidates

At each of the debates thus far this election cycle, someone has promoted the Nishi Property as a good place for future development.

It seems that Sydney Vergis has consistently promoted the property as a good place for infill development. The problem is that Nishi is not infill development. It is a Measure J project and specially in fact laid out in Measure J.

Don Saylor has suggested that it is one of two future Measure J projects possibly coming down the pike.

And at the last debate, Stephen Souza promoted it as a location that could serve the student population while at the same time helping to bolster the downtown due to its close proximity to both the campus and the downtown.

Not coincidentally the project's chief sponsor is John Whitcombe from Tandem Properties, a strong supporter of that trio.

There is indeed much appeal for the 44-acre property that is located adjacent to both the UCD campus and the core area of town. As currently promoted, it could provide anywhere from between 400 apartment units to over 1000. And were it not for one very serious drawback, it would indeed be the prime area by which to develop.

In fact, the property appears not once but twice in the General Plan Housing Element report. In one iteration, it appears as the 17th rated property (Green light) and in the other as the 22nd rated property (Yellow light).

But the very reason Nishi has two iterations is the very reason why it is probably not a good site to develop at this point in time.

The reason that Nishi is a questionable location is that it has but one route into the core of the city via motor vehicle and that is along Olive Drive. Now the problem with Olive Drive is that it feeds into the heavily congested Richards Blvd. That is the most congested area of town and to put a location with a minimum of 1150 beds on that route is begging for trouble.

That is why the higher rated project does not even have access to Olive Drive. It would have vehicle access only through the university. So now you are putting a likely student development next the university which has no direct access to the city via motor vehicle.

The promoters of this project suggest this as a great way to enhance pedestrian and bike traffic from this site into the core of downtown. I do not knock the ideal of such a set up. But the fact that we would have to go through all of this just for a development leads me to question the usefulness of this development.

The HESC report suggests a number of things are needed in order for this arrangement and site to be explored. First, it would require UC Davis involvement which included granting access via car to campus. You would then have to analyze traffic, mitigation, and car management strategies for traffic toward campus. Remember we are talking over a thousand cars potentially being funneled through campus. We would have the relinquish the existing access easement to Olive Drive.

Do not get me wrong, none of these are deal breakers. Even the worst aspects of Nishi aside from the poor vehicular access to the core--noise from the railroad and the freeway and the fact that it is prime agricultural land--are not deal breakers.

However, the question remains whether student housing, and that is what we are talking about with Nishi primarily, student housing, would not be better utilized at a different location on campus.

We all have dreams about encouraging people to use alternative forms of transportation. This is not encouragement. This would be literally forcing people to do just that. If want to develop close to downtown, the PG&E site and an area just on campus would make far more sense than Nishi. Neither of those sites are encumbered by lack of traffic access and yet, because of their proximity to the downtown they would do the same thing.

Intentionally designing areas that are cut off via motor vehicle from other areas is asking for problems.

The real question is would these areas be promoted if they were not Whitcombe sponsored projects? Many people have questioned a decision not to accept money for developers, but the nice thing about not accepting money from the developers is that there is no question in anyone's mind about the promotion of one property over another. Sue Greenwald can promote the PG&E site because not only is she not taking money from a developer, but there is no one actively promoting it.

People are concerned about student housing and housing overall. The question is really, where is it best to develop. I think we need to look within our current borders to achieve our housing needs. I also think that we need to work with the university as a means to meeting the needs of students. UC Davis has one of the lowest on campus housing percentages in the UC System. And yet at the same time, UC Davis has a lot more land available to meet those needs than the city.

Creating an area in the city, cut off from the city has inherent problems. That's why this centrally located site only rated 17. Having it connected to the city, presents more problems. At this point, developing Nishi has too many drawbacks. There are simply other areas, more conveniently located, that would do the same thing as Nishi. And yet, because it is associated with John Whitcombe, Nishi will always be on someone's radar.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Strange Vote Leads to Drastically Reduced Sphere of Influence

It seems likely that when Lamar Heystek made his motion to exclude a large number of properties from the city's sphere of influence, that he never expected to prevail.

In light of discussion at the LAFCO meeting at the end of March, the City Council agreed to have new discussions on a proposal by the city to dramatically expand the city's sphere of influence (SOI).

My question at the time of the LAFCO meeting was whether a larger or a smaller sphere of influence provided more protection of agricultural land and gave the city more control over its future growth. Originally, the city felt that having a larger sphere of influence would maximize the city's ability to grow. However, points made at the LAFCO meeting undermined that philosophy, particularly two points. One that a larger SOI might contribute to the need for an expanded provision of services. Second, that an expanded SOI might contribute to greater pressure to grow from those developers who owned the lands now included in the SOI. The thinking was that this would facilitate a move down the line that would include these properties in a future General Plan for development considerations.

Finally, there is the fact that the lands considered for development by the county last year were in the SOI, and the SOI did not appear to grant the city any additional growth protect. A point reiterated later in the evening by City Manager Bill Emlen.

"In other areas, a sphere of influence has not stopped counties from approving development right next to a city."

In a good discussion that ensued, City Planner Katherine Hess suggested that growth pressure would probably occur regardless of the size of the SOI. The main tools that the city of Davis has as protection are the pass-through agreement and Measure J.

Even after this discussion, it was not entirely clear what the city would gain either way by changing their SOI.

City Councilmember Don Saylor said:

"I don't hear us having an overwhelming case one way or another to change it frankly, and I think the value of our other land use tools is far in excess of whatever happens on this decision. I'm fairly neutral on which way we end up coming down on individual cites in the list or not in the list because I think the real issues are going to be ongoing in discussions between the city and the county on the pass-through agreement and with the voters on Measure J. And the next general plan with the city and the county. I don't see this as a make or break decision."

Now this is what we were told by City Staff and by Stephen Souza. However, during public comment--and we are talking about public comment at midnight--representatives from developers of Oeste Ranch, requested their property be including in the SOI.

Councilmember Don Saylor moved that that the city request LAFCO to add Mace-Covell Gateway to the SOI, the staff recommendation.

"We ought not to apply too much emphasis or importance to this. As I understand from the discussion tonight this is not something that we can achieve many objectives doing."

Then Lamar Heystek spoke:

"I don't see this as merely a ministerial action of the council, because personally I will speak very frankly, I don't feel that I received enough information from city staff to be able to make a decision. I understand that LAFCO has made a recommendation that certain sites be excluded, but I have not received information for our staff as to why certain sites should be included."

He continued:

"I don't understand and I haven't heard from city staff, why we have to include other areas such as the northwest quadrant, such as covell village, such as the Nishi site, when we know we already have Measure J, when we know we already have the pass-through agreement, and we know that those are really the strongest protections from unwarranted or undesirable development on our borders."

LAFCO's report warns that adding such areas would lead to land speculation on those sites for the purpose of development.

As Councilmember Heystek pointed out, it appears in the next five years we neither intend to expand city services into these areas nor develop in these areas--so why include them in the SOI?

He then made a substitute motion to exclude Covell, the Northwest Quadrant, and the Nishi site from the recommended sphere of influence. It was seconded by Mayor Sue Greenwald.

As Mayor Sue Greenwald pointed out, we have reduced our growth from a 1% growth guideline to a 1% growth cap.

"These should be areas that we are realistically considering for growth in the next five years."

When Councilmember Heystek made this motion, it is unlikely that he believed it would pass. However when both Councilmembers Souza and Saylor abstained, the motion passed 2-1 with Ruth Asmundson the dissenting vote.

The reason this motion was made and considered important by Councilmember Heystek is that inclusion of areas within the SOI could lead to their inclusion in the 2010 General Plan. These are sites that were ranked relatively low by the Housing Element Steering Committee and thus the inclusion in the SOI could lead to the owners of the properties (such as the Northwest Quadrant) to push for inclusion in the General Plan. As mentioned during the LAFCO meeting, this may not directly lead to development but could potentially be the first step along a path that leads down the road to development of these sites.

Why both Councilmembers Souza and Saylor decided to abstain is an open question. What the vote means, is also unclear, however, council is now recommending that the Covell Property, the Northwest Quadrant and Nishi Propety all be excluded from the SOI.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Enterprise to Endorse Saylor, Souza, and... Vergis

The Vanguard has learned that the Davis Enterprise will be making its endorsements in the Davis City Council race this Sunday and will endorse Incumbents Don Saylor, Stephen Souza, and challenger Sydney Vergis.

This is not a particularly surprising development--the Davis Enterprise has a history of supporting the pro-development candidates and issues.

In their recent history here are some of their key endorsements:

• In November of 2006 they endorsed Yes on Measure K--the approval of Target.
  
  
• In June of 2006 they endorsed Ruth Asmundson and Mike Levy over Lamar Heystek and Stan Forbes for the Davis City Council.
  
  
• In June of 2006 they endorsed District Attorney candidate Jeff Reisig over Pat Lenzi.
  
  
• In November of 2005 they endorsed Yes on Measure X.

The selections of Sydney Vergis and Mike Levy are particularly telling of course, because they are non-incumbents.

Had the Davis Enterprise chosen to endorse all of the current incumbents, they could have done so on experience grounds or at least on non-ideological grounds. They could have argued that during tough times, we need to stick with experience and not change horses in midstream. But they did not. They are simply supporting the pro-development candidates.

The selection of Sydney Vergis over Mayor Sue Greenwald is particularly insulting. The Mayor has been a resident of Davis for over 30 years. She has spent nearly a decade in office which is as long as Vergis has lived in the city of Davis itself.

Sydney Vergis at one of the forums, admitted that she has only recently become active in Davis politics. Her political activism prior to last November consisted largely of activities she participated in as member of a sorority.

During her opening statement at candidate forums she cites her experience as a senior land use planner as a background that has prepared her to be on the city council. However, that experience is less than a year old.

Whether you agree or disagree with her, Sue Greenwald is among the most knowledgeable people in this community on the issue of land use. Her knowledge of the debates and issues in this community goes back decades. There is simply no comparison.

The Davis Enterprise has actually done the progressive movement a great favor. They have made their decision very transparent and very easily for those who have been in the trenches to dismiss. The choice for progressives is very clear and very simple.

While Measure J is indeed an important issue for the coming city council, the key differentiating issue in the past three years is Covell Village.

Sue Greenwald during the initial debate on Measure J was dead on when she wrote:

"Although Measure J is a useful tool for slowing growth, it does not replace the need for City Council members who will vote against excessive peripheral housing developments. This is because spending limits are not allowed in Measure J referenda, and development interests can always outspend citizens groups.

So although Measure J is a useful tool, THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE for Council members that you can trust to vote against approving excessive development in the first place."

In October of 2005, Stephen Souza and Don Saylor wrote an Op-ed in the Davis Enterprise supporting the passage of Covell Village.

"Measure X will decide how Davis will meet its 1 percent housing goals for the next decade, and which plan best meets those goals...

Can't we just use Measure J to vote down proposals like Gidaro's?

Not necessarily. We are required by law to meet our regional housing requirements. That's one reason we passed a 1 percent growth policy. If we don't accept our fair share of growth, we can lose major transportation funding, and it invites developers like Gidaro to do an end run around the City Council — and the voters — to force development right on the edge of town...

By voting yes on Measure X we will support the kind of smart planning that makes Covell Village such a perfect fit for Davis...

This election is about how, when and where we grow. Measure X answers all these questions and ensures that Davis will remain Davis...

We cannot allow our destiny to be controlled by others. The future of our community is too important to leave to the whims of outsiders. We must control our own destiny in a responsible manner. This project is in the best tradition of what Davis is.

It is important to us that we keep Davis Davis. That's what Covell Village will do. We urge you to reject sprawl and vote yes on Measure X..."

By a vote of nearly 60-40, the voters of Davis rejected Covell Village precisely because they saw it as a sprawl development that grew too large without addressing key infrastructure needs.

One could argue of course that perhaps Don Saylor and Stephen Souza learned from their mistakes on Covell Village.

But, at the first candidate's debate Stephen Souza tipped his hand:

"Stephen Souza basically suggested that the community did not understand Measure X. He said this was the first exercise of Measure J and that a project as big as Covell Village takes longer to explain to the community, that it has to come with its impacts mitigated, and that the affordable housing component has to be explainable to the public. Finally we have to totally be engaged in a process that we are expected to vote on."

Stephen Souza's view of the lessons about the rejection of Covell Village by the voters is that they did not understand it. Not that it was too large. Not that they failed to mitigate for its impacts. No it is that the voters did not understand it. That does not sound like a person who will be changing his approach to land use.

The position of the candidates on this issue are very simple.

Sidney Vergis has stated on a number of occasions her support for Covell Village. At the recent Sierra Club forum, she twice supported good "infill" projects like the Nishi property. The Nishi property of course is explicitly written into Measure J as requiring a Measure J vote and rests outside of the city. In addition, while it would appear to be in a prime location, the limited access by way of Olive Drive and traffic problems associated with that location make its development problematic at best.

Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, and Rob Roy were all opponents of Covell Village. The 1% growth guideline that the Council Majority supports would produce a Covell Village-sized development every five years or so. Covell Village was at least going to phase it in over 10 to 15 years. If you support that rate of growth in Davis, then follow the Davis Enterprise recommendations. If you believe we need slower and more prudent growth then you have an alternative. If you do not think Covell Village is the way to go, then you have candidates that will oppose such developments.

As Sue Greenwald argued nearly a decade ago, we cannot simply rely on Measure J to stop developments we do not like. The developers have the money and resources needed to fight these battles and it is only a matter of time before they start to win these battles. Measure X was so colossal it was relatively easy to defeat. But if these projects start coming rapid fire, eventually the vast grassroots movement is going to wear down. Measure J cannot be a replacement for city council majorities that will oppose such sprawling new subdivisions.

We are not talking about no growth in Davis, we are not talking about ignoring concerns about housing for young families and affordability, we are merely trying to address these issues within the framework of smart and responsible growth within the current borders of Davis.

The Davis Enterprise opposes this vision of Davis and embraces the vision that brought us developments like Covell Village and will bring us future iterations of Covell Village, Nishi, and other peripheral subdivisions should the council majority that currently resides in City Hall be re-elected.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: An Analysis of Measure J

The issue of Measure J has become a key issue in the current city council election. Following the release of a letter by City Attorney Harriet Steiner, the council has been charged with the responsibility to determine whether Measure J should be renewed, amended, or repealed. By its own provision, any efforts to amend or repeal must go to the voters for approval.

While the city council has determined that they will wait until after the election to determine the future of Measure J, the council candidates have all come forward with positions on Measure J.

Sue Greenwald has simply said she wants to renew it.

Stephen Souza: "Renew it in the form that it's in."

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald: Renew and make it permanent.

Rob Roy: Renew it.

Don Saylor is more circumspect showing general support but: “I think you always have to keep in mind that maybe you didn’t get it right the first time. I don’t know if there should be a change to Measure J... I do know that Measure J is a part of our environment and should remain so because I think that’s what our residents want. The details of it, I don’t know yet.”

Sydney Vergis: “I’m supportive of Measure J.” She suggested that as currently written this document is not a transparent document, “it’s incredibly complex, it’s lengthy, we see central valley cities pass their own versions of measure J that are two pages.”

It is towards the latter views of Measure J that this piece is aimed. I grant Sydney Vergis that the measure is lengthy, I am not sure I am willing to grant that it is all that complex. In fact, I find it rather straight forward.

I will briefly run through the sections of this provision and perhaps those who seek to amend or shorten Measure J can better articulate what they would like to see changed.

The first portion sets forth the purpose of Measure J:

"The purpose of this Article is to establish a mechanism for direct citizen participation in land use decisions affecting City policies for compact urban form, agricultural land preservation and an adequate housing supply to meet internal City needs, by providing the people of the City of Davis the right to vote, without having to evoke referenda, on general plan land use map amendments that would convert any agricultural, open space, or urban reserve lands, as designated on the Land Use Map of the City of Davis General Plan, dated August 1, 1999, to an urban or urban reserve land use designation and on any development proposal on the Covell Center or Nishi properties.

The purpose of this Article is to ensure that the purposes and principles set forth in the City of Davis General Plan relating to voter approval, land use, affordable housing, open space, agricultural preservation and conservation are fully considered by establishing an expanded land use entitlement process for proposed conversion of properties to urban use that are designated or in agricultural or open space use. This action recognizes that continued conversion of agricultural lands to meet urban needs is neither inevitable nor necessary, and that any land use decision affecting such properties shall be subject to a public vote."

The City Council and the voters then come forward with a series of findings that include the need to protect existing agricultural and open space lands, talking about the continued urban encroachment upon those lands, the unique character of Davis and the quality of life, the General Plan policies for compact urban form, the city's work to promote the preservation of agricultural land through the general plan.

That section concludes:

"This Citizens' Right to Vote on Future Use of Open Space and Agricultural Lands Ordinance implements the General Plan and is consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan and furthers and implements the policies of the General Plan. The City finds that this Ordinance will provide for a balance between the preservation of agricultural lands and open space and the housing needs of the City."

The next section provides for voter approval and enumerates any instance of voter approval.

First, "Voter Approval of Changes to Land Use designations on the Land Use Map from Agricultural or Urban Reserve to Urban land use designations or from Agricultural to Urban Reserve land use designations."

It specifies that "any application for an amendment or modification" of land use designation to urban land use requires the following steps: establishment of the baseline project feature, approval by the city council following compliance with CEQA, and then the added step is the approval by the voters and the approval by the voters cannot take place as specified until after approval by the city council.

It also designates voter approval for "development proposals on remaining large vacant properties"--specifically naming both Covell and Nishi. And it sets forth the same guidelines on those two specific properties as it does on the general change in land use designation.

The next section lays forth exemptions. For instance land used for public schools, parks, sewage treatment, medical facilities, and a few other exemptions. It is also notes that any shift away from those land uses requires a Measure J vote. So you can produce a city park without a Measure J vote but if you want to convert that into housing, it requires a measure J vote.

It then contains a page of definitions of specific terms.

It provides a provision that other than the renewal or repeal of this measure, the cost for elections "shall be borne by the applicants of the amendment of the General Plan land use map designation." And they should be consolidated with others elections whenever feasible.

Then we have the duration which began on March 8, 2000 and:

"This Ordinance shall remain in effect until December 31, 2010, unless modified or repealed earlier by the voters of the City by majority vote. On a regularly scheduled election date prior to December 31, 2010, the City Council shall submit the provisions of this Ordinance to the voters of the City for renewal, amendment or repeal."

That is where we are right now. Finally there is the standard severability clause that if one section is found unconstitutional, the rest of the measure is still operational.

COMMENTARY:

This is certainly a lengthy document. But I do not see it as extremely complex. In fact, as I read through this as a non-lawyer, I was struck by the simple fact of how straight forward the measure is.

The drafters of the measure were thorough--they created a mechanism to do exactly what they intended--put forth a mechanism by which changes to the land use designations could take place and they did it in a comprehensive way in which all terms were defined, the length of the term was explicitly laid out.

In short, we have four candidate who have pledged to essentially renew the measure as it is written. We have two candidates who have discussed the possibility of changing the ordinance.

When Sydney Vergis talks about transparency, she needs to define exactly what that means. What portions of this measure does she believe could be streamlined? What portions can be removed without changing the substance of the measure? How can this document possibly be written in two pages as she suggests? I simply do not see it, without taking away the specificity by which this measure operates, and the care it takes to lay out and define terms, determine process, and lay out procedure. It alys out definition and intent in such clarity that the intent of the drafters of this measure is clear. That takes up over a page of space, but I see no way to remove that portion from the document. There is a page of exemptions to the law.

There is one possible area where the law might be streamlined, it lays forth the procedure for Nishi and Covell specifically rather than with the previous section. Even that only adds an additional page.

That gets us to Don Saylor's point. He specifies that "you always have to keep in mind that maybe you didn't get it right the first time." That's of course always possible. But then he never specifies what we might not have gotten right. He offers up no specifics to suggest where it might have been in error. He simply suggests that we talk to commissions about it. Again this is a pretty straight-forward initiative--it requires a vote for land use changes and other than that lays out a procedure that they would have to follow without the voter approval requirement. So what is it that possibly could be changed in the application of this document? Short of specifics, Saylor's point amounts to rhetoric in search of some moderate position that doesn't really exist.

If neither Mr. Saylor or Ms. Vergis can specify applications of this that should be considered for amendment, we should perhaps assume that they are attempting to have it both ways--assuage the vast majority of voters who would vote to renew Measure J while assuaging the vast majority of their core constituency that would like nothing better than to weaken or water down the measure at the very least if they could not muster the political will and support to repeal it altogether.

In short, we must hold the candidates accountable to specify exactly what changes they would make.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Growth Discussions To Continue Tonight

Tonight at 7 PM at the school district conference room the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee will meet in part to discuss the results from the workshop two weeks ago.

It is not altogether clear what the results of the workshop were and how much they will affect the final decisions made by the panel. It seems that there were only nine ranking changes on six different sites that were suggested by 15 or more people. Three of these dealt with Covell Village and two Nishi.

Only two of the suggestions were to raise the ranking. That included the Lewis Cannery project which was recommended from Medium to High. And the full Covell Village property which was also recommended from Medium to High.

(see all eight summary charts of the workshop).

A few quick thoughts on these changes and then some more general comments.

First, the recommended move of PG&E makes some sense. I know it is a convenient area to consider since it is infill and not all that useful at this point in time. However, from what I understand the city would have to pay the moving costs for PG&E to relocate their property and that would run around $60 million. I know the Mayor has been a strong advocate for this project and location, and perhaps there is some aspect of this I am missing, however right now I tend to agree with the comment: "Not realistic for development."

Two of the Nishi proposals were lowered one from high to low and one from medium to low. I agree with that. Access is a huge concern. Right now realistically it looks like you would only have access from Olive Drive by car. That is a highly congested area as it is and adding more vehicle traffic would just be problematic. The bicycle access plans are a good idea, but this is just not realistic until you fix the traffic.

Many suggested that Signature be reduced from medium to low. In general, sprawl is opposed by the public. This is really something that our city leaders need to take into consideration. I do not believe that the sports park development is a sufficient reason to develop inside the Mace Curve at this time.

Then the 800 pound gorilla--Covell Village. There were significant recommendations moving the development in both directions. The traffic congestion issue is the big one that led voters to reject it in the first place but a close second would be the sprawl factor, the agricultural land factor and the very fact that the voters just rejected this a little over two years ago.

On the plus side, you have people citing it as a unique infill location (it is not infill), a great location for senior community, and close to shopping and schools.

The bottom line, is that you can argue that it is close to downtown relatively speaking, but overall it is a bad place to grow the way that Davis is currently configured. You simply lack the infrastructure and access to put more people in that location. There is no freeway access. All traffic would have to dump onto Covell, and Woodland is developing down Road 102, which means that traffic is going to be going from Davis to Woodland.

At the end of the day, I'm not completely unhappy with the way the HESC process has played out. But there are a number of concerns that I will go into briefly.

First, if Covell is the 800 gorilla, the 1% growth rate is the brontosaurus. Everything that was done by this committee now depends upon how much we should grow. At the last council meeting, the council majority, specifically Councilmember Don Saylor and Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson, talked about the need for housing. I just couldn't disagree more at this point in time given the housing market, given the strains on city budget and infrastructure. People think of housing as a means to raise city revenue but you basically get a modest one-time development fee, and we do not get enough for that to begin with, but that is far trumped by the cost for service.

Bottom line here is there seems little or no need to surpass RHNA guidelines which adds just under 500 units in the next six years.

Second, I think we need to take a more holistic approach here. And I'll divide these comments two-fold.

The council has recently heard from the Simmons property folks and the Horse Ranch development. These two projects are moving along at this time along with the Lewis Property. That's three developments that are moving forward outside somewhat of the confines of the HESC. That does not make a lot of sense from the perspective of the work done by this committee and planning for the future.

Along the same lines we have multiple factors moving at the same time. We just spoke about the sphere of influence from LAFCO which will be discussed in February and March. The council is discussing the 1% growth rate next week. You have new RHNA numbers about growth allocation and fair share of growth. You still have the Yolo County general plan with the fact that those study areas are apparently not dead. Along with that you have the pass-through agreement. You have the HESC. None of this is being discussed in totem. How do all of these factors contribute to the overall growth picture?

In some ways I feel that this process is almost ad hoc. And that decisions are being made on each of these steps independently. There are different maps and different processes. And the result will be what exactly? Does the public or even our leaders on council know?

By the end of March we should have a good idea of the answers to some of those things--but on April first will our leaders be able to tell us what the future of Davis looks like?

Add one more point--is the council majority going to continue to support Measure J as we currently know it? A lot of these decisions are being made suggesting that Measure J will protect us from growth. It permeates each issue. But will they keep it in place in the current form?

These next few weeks of discussions should tell us a tale. We'll have to find out where we stand after that.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Housing Element Committee Agrees to Look At Covell Site for Future Development

Hold onto your hats folks, if last night was any indication of whats to come it is going to be a bumpy ride. The General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee last night heard two of the most controversial locations for future housing developments--the Covell Village Site and the Nishi Property.

As most people reading this undoubtedly know, Covell Village was the site of the first ever Measure J vote that would convert prime, class 1, agricultural land on the periphery of Davis at the intersection of Covell and Poleline into a housing development. The voters in November of 2005 overwhelmingly rejected the project by nearly a 60-40 margin. However, the Covell Partners, on this evening led by John Whitcombe, are bringing it back in a scaled down version.

The most alarming statement came from staff who suggested that according to City Attorney Harriet Steiner and City Manager Bill Emlen, if the Covell Property were combined with the adjacent Lewis Property (site of Hunt-Wesson), it would not need a Measure J vote. I have to greet that assertion with a good deal of skepticism.

According to John Whitcombe, instead of an 1800 unit project of single family homes designed to be affordable for families (if your family can afford 600,000 dollar homes), this will be an 800 unit site for senior housing complete with greenbelt access and oriented toward bikes, pedestrians, and electric vehicles. And, the seniors will have access to yet another golf course.

Mr. Whitcombe even stole a page from the Tsakapolous Stem Cell project, bringing in a geriatric medicine researcher to sell us on the need for a senior site that would provide housing and at-home medical facilities for seniors. Nevermind that the big need in housing is for new families. Nevermind that according to many on the Senior Citizens Commission we do not need Senior Housing, particularly on the periphery. Nevermind that these were many of the same reasons the proposal at Oeste Ranch was opposed by so many in this community.

The proponents of this offered several advantages to building on this property including that it is the peripheral property closest to the core of Davis, it would be contiguous with the city on three sides, it would free up other larger lots to go for families, and it would enable the completion of the greenbelt bikeway access across the northern part of town. Moreover, they argued it would create a permanent ag buffer along the northern line of the city to create an urban limit line.

One of the more interesting arguments came from Kevin Wolf, one of the chief proponents of the Measure X ballot measure in 2005 and chair of the committee. Mr. Wolf argued that by creating this development it would produce enough money to enable the city to fix the interection of Covell and Poleline that is going to be even more stressed with future traffic.

However, skeptics, and you can count me as one of them, argue that you are not going to fix that intersection by producing even more residences along the intersection. Furthermore you have at the Woodland end of Poleline the new massive Spring Lake Development, the new Costco, the Super-Target and other commercial developments that will greatly increase the traffic.

Furthermore, there is a question about how much revenue that this will produce because as county land, only a portion of the tax revenue goes to the city, even if annexed to the city.

Then, there are further problems of pollution that are exacerbated if they are planning to put seniors on that site. There is the wastewater treatment issue that sounds like a very big issue. Furthermore, other problems include a limited access to the site, previous agreements on housing mitigation along the Poleline corridor, and it's proximity to a flood plain.

Most vexing to me, is that the previous proposal was defeated handily by the voters of Davis. It has been less than two years and the developers cannot wait to go at it again. This is, class one, prime agricultural land, the infrastructure and access is extremely problematic. I understand the contiguity issue and the lure of having the core of Davis relatively close, but given these other issues, this is not a good place to build new housing, and I particularly have a problem with it being a senior housing project, which does nothing to solve the larger housing problems. So, they would develop this spot and still be looking for tracts for affordable and family housing. That makes no sense to me.

Overwhelmingly given the nature of the committee, this was approved, but the fight for this will go on for quite some time.

Meanwhile the Nishi property holds many strong allures to those looking to build high density housing near the city core. Kevin Wolf spoke very strongly about building this into a very high density property with over 1000 units, five to six story buildings, but no access to the Richards Blvd. This was a way to show as an example how new urbanism with environmentally friendly densification at the core would reduce the need for traffic. Or so he proposed.

But it's not clear that you can deny access to Richards Blvd, nor should you. The problem here is that they will be adding a large amount of traffic potentially to the Richards underpass as the only traffic outlet from this property to the core.

Proponents argued that it's proximity to the university and to bike paths leading directly onto campus make this an ideal spot for student housing.

However, there were a number of unrealistic assumptions brought into this discussion and it seemed clear as people such as Mark Spencer suggested there would need to be university buy-in to make access from this property by vehicle onto campus.

The assumption is that by providing housing here, less people would drive from the highway to campus via Richards. On the other hand, it is not clear what it would do to existing traffic flows to add a large number of people making a left at the Olive Blvd. intersection.

The problems of traffic and access are prohibitive. Several said problems with parking could be mitigated by charging for parking spots. It is my experience that this will not get students to give up their cars, rather it might impact the ability to rent the units at market rate since parking would become a built-in cost. Students indeed like easy access to campus and may utilize bikes. But, students also like the ability to leave town via the car and the idea that we could reduce traffic flow by adding housing seems to be very optimistic.

Another problem is that without an extremely high density housing, the project is not viable. So they are talking about a minimum of 462 units and now a high point of 770 or higher. The talk was of sacrificing views in favor of land preservation. Density is a laudable goal, particularly near the core, but this is an area that is characterized by bungalows and now they are talking about 5 or six story buildings?

Given the present design this seems like an attractive location--it's close to campus, close to the core, close to the highway, not building on prime agricultural land, but the problem of access and traffic could be fatal. Nevertheless, the committee overwhelmingly and enthusiastically endorsed the spot. I suspect the community will view this somewhat more circumspectly.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting