Packed House in Plainfield Airs Its Concerns About Re-Entry Facility

A large crowd that likely approached 200 people packed into Lillard Hall at the Yolo County Airport to ask questions about the new proposed Re-Entry facility. Last week, the Yolo County Airport was named as one of three possible sites for the facility.

The meeting was well-attended especially considering it was put together in just two days. Three members of the County Board of Supervisors were in attendance--subcommittee members Helen Thomson (Davis) and Matt Rexroad (Woodland) were there in official capacities. Supervisor Duane Chamberlain represents this location, he was also in attendance and briefly spoke to the large crowd. However, he is conflicted out from formal capacities.

This is a point of controversy. While he does not own the adjacent land, he farms it on a contract basis. There is considerable question as to whether he can discuss any aspects of the Re-Entry policy given his interest in this particular location. This is a point that he is going back and forth on with County Counsel.

He did briefly speak and state in no uncertain terms, he found the site completely inappropriate for this use.

Also in attendance were three members of the Davis City Council--Mayor Ruth Asmundson, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor, and Councilmember Lamar Heystek. More on this in just a bit.

The presentation was not orderly as intended. People were very concerned about this project and proposed location and often spoke out of turn and gave speeches rather than asking questions. However, it was nothing compared with the situation in Esparto.

From my perspective, the organizers did considerable research on the zoning ordinance, the deed, and understanding the issues with the site itself. They made a very compelling case that this site is not appropriate. Some can be dismissed perhaps as NIMBYISM, but I think to do so is to miss a good deal of very compelling arguments.

This is certainly not an inclusive list, but I will talk about some of the ones I think are critical.

First and foremost, the road infrastructure. Flat out, I do not think the county roads are suitable for the increased volume of traffic that a prison with visitors would entail. There are already safety concerns about the roads, they are narrow, they have farm equipment, and there are frequent accidents with fatalities.

Along with that concern is the distance from major highways and arterials. The closest highway is 113 in Davis. So people would have to drive from 113 approximately 8 miles out to the airport through Covell. On the other hand, the location at Madison is directly off of I-505 making it a far better location from the standpoint of traffic.

Moreover, at present there is no public transportation. Prisoners who would be released would either have to have a family member pick them up at the facility or they would be driven by CDCR personnel to the Greyhound Station in Davis. In addition, non-driving family members would have difficulty getting to the facility--and that is a crucial aspect of the program to re-orient prisoners with their families.

There is concern about lack of emergency services. The Plainfield Fire Station is actually next door. It is composed of two volunteer firefighters. In an emergency situation, they would be severely taxed to respond. That means that the Davis Fire Department would be the logical next option for major emergencies as the county lacks a fire department. The public at this meeting suspect that this facility would make a fourth Davis fire station inevitable.

Along similar lines the ambulance service comes from Davis as well and contains two vehicles. Problems at the prison facility would tax the EMR system as well.

Flooding is a big problem in the rural locations. There is apparently a slough on the backside of the airport, near where the facility would be, that floods every winter. In addition, multiple times each winter, the roads out there become impassable due to flooding. They also mentioned this is on a 100 year flood plain which would have its own dangers.

Power is problematic. Currently there is not enough power from the Plainfield substation to supply all of the power needs. This would need to be upgraded. The residents suggested that five times a year or so they lose power for extended periods of time.

The organizers also suggested that the deed to the property and the zoning are incompatible with these uses. This is somewhat in question as Supervisor Matt Rexroad suggested that recently the county has in the new general plan re-zoned this land industrial. The organizers believe that it is zoned for aviation and therefore only aviation related uses are permitted. They also made an extensive case the prison use for a portion of this land would be incompatible with the airport functions of the site.

For his part, Supervisor Matt Rexroad agrees with the concern about roads. He told the Vanguard:

"I think the road issues is the biggest one in this area. The flooding issue, power issue, and a couple others that were mentioned tonight can be solved and improved for others with this project."

The public was also concerned that the water hook up and power upgrade would be growth inducing, making leapfrog development more likely. In addition, does bringing in 300 employees, many potentially from outside the area mean an increased housing demand.

Supervisor Rexroad disagrees however:

"It is not growth inducing."

He then suggested to the Vanguard that much of these issues would not have come up had the Board of Supervisors proposed an airport expansion project rather than a prison project.

The City of Davis is not happy apparently about the process or the proposal. Councilmember Lamar Heystek told me that the city received absolutely no notice from the county about this proposal. While the location is outside of the pass-through agreement (by a very small margin), it is inside the Davis planning area.

Supervisor Matt Rexroad however disagrees that Davis should have been notified, arguing that this is a location several miles outside of town and they should have no input or authority whatsoever about the project.

However, the project clearly impacts Davis in a number of ways including services and roads. Unfortunately this appears to be standard operating procedure from the county in terms of notification to the city. The city was similarly angry with the county for failure to communicate on the county's general plan proposal that included areas within Davis' planning area that were covered by the pass-through agreement.

The public was angry as well that they seemed to get no notification for this proposal. They found out last Thursday in the newspaper.

From my perspective this is not an acceptable way to do business by the county. I saw the same issues arise in this case that arose during the general plan. The reaction by the Supervisors was somewhat defensive last night. I strongly disagree with Supervisor Rexroad on this issue.

For all of my problems and complaints with the city of Davis on a variety of topics, one thing they do is have community meetings with neighbors of proposed development sites well in advance of the actual issue. Frankly having a press release and news articles a week and a half prior to a meeting is irresponsible.

The city of Davis once again finds itself at odds with the county on development issues.

While I remain supportive of the basic concept of the re-entry facility, the process of this is increasingly concerning me. The prison expansion project for the county has already been approved by the board of supervisors and will cost $42 million for a new pod on the current facility. By allowing a re-entry facility, the county can directly recoup $30 million of that. So a huge vested financial interest by the county is driving the re-entry facility project.

While I think it is a worth-while project, I am not certain I am pleased with how the county is choosing to do business. As the CDCR spokesperson pointed out last night, in order for a project to be approved, the local jurisdiction needs to consent to the project. In the case of cities, that jurisdiction is the city council. In the case of rural areas, the Board of Superivors is the authorizing body.

The problem with this arrangement is that in the case of a city, all five members of the council represent the city as a whole. Whereas in the county, there is only one representative that represents that particular area.

Nevertheless, the cues I am getting seem to be pointing away from this location as desirable place. There is a threat of a lawsuit. The lawsuit may or may not succeed, but it would certainly delay implementation of the facility. That is probably enough to make this location less than desirable to CDCR. Factor in the roads in this location compared to Madison, and I think Madison is much more likely to end up the eventual location than the Airport.

Much of this will be determined next week at the Board of Supervisor's meeting on Tuesday. It is clear that many of these people will pack into the chambers in order to make their voices heard.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Meeting Tonight in Rural West Davis on Re-Entry Facility

Yesterday I received an email message from a resident from rural west Davis asking me to inform Vanguard readers of a meeting tonight, September 4, out at the county airport approximately five miles from town.

Here is the email that was sent:

While we do not live in Davis proper, the residents of rural west Davis are a part of Davis 'life'.

We just discovered that the County wants to build a prison on top of us!

Our community is having a town hall meeting on the 4th at 7 pm at Lillard Hall [Yolo County Airport].

Since so many Davisites share our community with bicycling and outdoor activities, we believe that having 800 prisoners and 300 support staff roaming in our rural area would negatively affect them.

Could/would you all be so kind as to "get the word out" (mass email) about our meeting? Perhaps some Davis folks would want to weigh in.

We also have a website at: westplainfield.ning.com that we just started.

Keep up the good work with your community site and thanks in advance.

The individual also told me that while they support the program, they are concerned about traffic issues with 300 employees. 800 prisoners would completely impact the main agricultural use.

"The county for years has had a policy of growth in cities to keep the rural area open. This proposal is quite out of step with that. There would be greener locations for this facility that would not need its own sewage plant or transportation system. Out here would be isolation for inmates, isolated from the very society that they are to be re-entered into? It's ironic."

I will try to attend the meeting tonight. I will be curious to see if it follows the same format from Tuesday up in Esparto, where two of the proposals now are located. The county has decided that Dunnigan and Zamora are not the best locations. I am very curious as to why they believe that is the case, but think Esparto or Plainfield will work.

At the meeting in Esparto, Yolo County Supervisors Matt Rexroad and Helen Thomson were on a panel along with Sheriff Ed Prieto and three members of the CDCR. Also while not on the panel, Supervisor Duane Chamberlain was in attendance.

Yolo Cowboy, who runs a pretty good blog called the Roughstock Journal covered this yesterday. He did not mince words about his dislike for the proposal.

According to the Yolo Cowboy, there were about 200 residents who went the Esparto high school auditorium.

From his perspective:

"The residents of this community were upset and it showed as comments and questions were shouted from those inside the auditorium. For those on the panel, they must have been waiting for the people to break out the torches and pitchforks.

I would like to apologize for the lack of decorum at the meeting, but I will not.

To understand the frustration felt by the citizens of the Capay Valley, you must understand what we have experienced in our dealings with Yolo County. It seems whenever someone comes to the County and says they have a huge amount of money to give them, if they give a green light to a certain project in a rural area, the green light is given. When the citizens of the affected area object, the County tells them, ‘we need the money, shut up and take it’. The first expansion of the Cache Creek casino? We need the money, shut up and take it. The second huge expansion of the casino? We need the money, shut up and take it. Now the proposed re entry prison, you guessed it, shut up and take it.

The County Board of Supervisors has a job to do, provide services to the citizens of our county with a 326 million dollar budget. I also understand the fact that free money is a rare and welcome luxury. However, this ‘free’ money does have a cost attached to it. A cost that is not easily seen from the cities of Woodland, Davis, West Sacramento. As rural residents of the county, we are told to shut up and take it as our small-town quality of life deteriorates for the common good of the urban citizenry of the county."

I still think this is a pretty good proposal and a worthwhile endeavor. But the county has a clear problem at this point. The cities have veto power and the rural areas both do not want it and in most cases do not have the infrastructure or services to support it well.

Like many others, the Yolo Cowboy thinks we need the facility, but not at that location:

"Yes, Yolo County needs this type of facility; anything that could lead to a decrease in the recidivism rates of parolees is a benefit for us all. However, putting this facility out in a rural area, far away from urban centers with few employers, few volunteer organizations and where a tiny percentage of the prisoners families live, is setting up the program for failure before it starts."

Okay than where? The cities do not want it either and they have actual veto power by the statute. Someone needs to compromise here or someone is going to get angry when the Board of Supervisors finally says, we have the authority to do whatever we want and you do not have enough people to stop us. And then what?

Stay tuned. This issue is just getting started, the board meets next Tuesday to discuss it.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Woodland Daily Democrat Endorses Kennedy or Provenza for Yolo County Supervisor

The Woodland Daily Democrat came out with their endorsements for County Supervisor yesterday. Not surprisingly they endorsed incumbent Supervisor Duane Chamberlain for a second term. Duane Chamberlain is someone we rarely talk about, but there is no stronger defender of farmers and agricultural land on the board than Mr. Chamberlain. He is a man of integrity whether you agree with him on a current issue or you disagree with him. Chamberlain is running against the largely unknown Mel Smith. This does not figure to be much of a race.

The more surprising endorsement was in the 4th Supervisorial race where the seat is open and the race is wide open. There are three candidates vying for that seat--Jim Provenza, Cathy Kennedy, and John Ferrera.

Jim Provenza has locked down the endorsement of the Sacramento Bee. John Ferrera has the endorsement of the Davis Enterprise. And Cathy Kennedy who is largely unknown has secured some impressive endorsements including Duane Chamberlain. She also has the Davis Police Officer's Association, District Attorney Jeff Reisig, and the Yolo County Sheriff's Deputy Association.

In this race the Woodland Daily Democrat surprisingly chose both Jim Provenza and Cathy Kennedy.

"In this Davis district, the choices are difficult. Both Provenza and Kennedy are the more appealing candidates in our opinion. Provenza has experience on the Davis School Board, a difficult job in and of itself.

Kennedy, however, is a single mother who grew up in poverty, worked her way through school, and has become successful in the business world. In many ways it would be good to have such a representative from Davis.

We think either Provenza or Kennedy would be a good fit on the Board of Supervisors. Both are experienced in their own right."

I am not certain I like their rationale for endorsing Ms. Kennedy especially the part where they said, "In many ways it would be good to have such a representative from Davis" referring either to her business background or the fact that she is a former single mother. I will say however, that she is much more impressive than I expected her to be. And while at this point she still rates as a long shot, I hope that she decides to stay involved in government and the community because she does offer a very different perspective from others in this race.

The Daily Democrat endorsement is probably not going to have a huge impact on this race. The most interesting aspect of it was the fact that they endorsed either Provenza or Kennedy in the race. That leaves John Ferrera. I am not sure if I am more surprised that John Ferrera is the odd person out or that they endorsed Jim Provenza.

This is one where it might be interesting to hear. After all, the conservative Woodland paper not choosing the chief of staff to the chairman of the state Senate budget committee might not be all that shocking except for the fact that Provenza's job is not all that different in the eyes of the Democrat--a lobbyist for the Los Angeles district attorney. Then again, Provenza has experience on the Davis School Board and a strong record there which may overshadow his profession in their eyes.

This is one where it might be curious to know what the thinking was.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Madison Up in Arms With Rexroad's Vote

On Tuesday, the County continued with their general plan update, although most of Davis was quiet this time as Davis was not on the agenda. The same cannot be said for places like Dunnigan which faces the potential 7500 new homes.

One of the less controversial votes was a 4-1 vote by the Board of Supervisors to apply the new specific plan designation to approximately 398 acres which could include up to 1,335 homes and 160 acres of commercial/industrial development.

The one dissenting vote was Supervisor Matt Rexroad. One the surface of it, it is an odd vote. The people of Madison are in favor of the development. Furthermore, the Supervisor who actually has Madison in his district, Duane Chamberlain, was in favor of the development and Chamberlain is a strong opponent of new developments.

Nevertheless, Rexroad's "no-vote" has the people of Madison talking recall despite the fact that they won the vote 4-1 and despite the fact that Madison is not even in his district. I am not certain how that will work, but I am fairly certain that you have to be in someone's district to recall them and I am even more certain that the people who live in Rexroad's district are not about to try to recall him over what he voted on in Madison. Needless to say however, Rexroad is all shook up about this. On the phone last night, he could not stop laughing.

The funny thing is, is when you look at the proposal and the arguments employed by Mr. Rexroad, I have to agree with him that this probably not the place to develop.

First, the people of Madison have argued that this would provide homes for the casino workers, but as Rexroad points out that housing in Esparto would make a lot more sense since it is closer to the casino, there are existing schools, and it is not a flood zone.

Speaking of flooding, Rexroad argues that most of the problems with flooding will be resolved by road improvements to Highway 16, and once that is done, the rest of the flood solution can be resolved by the existing residents.

The issue of revenue for the county comes up as well, however the economic people in the county project that the county will not make money unless the homes are $400,000 plus and they are not building those kind of homes in Madison.

Based on these arguments, I have to agree with Matt Rexroad, this proposal makes little sense. I would however like to here from the good folks in Madison about why we need this new development.

As I suggested at the beginning on this piece, the folks in Davis have largely stopped following this process once Davis literally dropped off the map, although I really expect this issue to arise in the future. The heat got too hot for some in the county, but I suspect that the core reasons for their support for development remain. However, honestly, from top to bottom, I am appalled and outraged at some of the proposals that have come forward and that will be supported by the county.

The county somehow believes that they are going to grow themselves into new revenue. I really wish they would study other counties and municipalities who had the same belief and see how that turned out for them. I would venture to guess you will have a hard time finding a county in the black, regardless of growth policies. I suspect that will leave us with two alternatives, a good look at what we are spending money on currently and a good look at how the state can do a better job of funding counties for the services that they provide to citizens.

In the meantime, I would hope that the folks of Madison have something better to do than to try a vengeance recall effort on someone else's county supervisor, but who knows.

---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

Questioning Changes in Yamada's Votes On Two Development Projects

On February 6, 2007 the Yolo County Board of Supervisors met for the entire day to discuss the Yolo County Planning Commission's recommendations and supplemental staff recommendations for the general plan update.

Included in there was a recommendation to produce massive developments in Dunnigan and a substantial development in Knights Landing.

The Dunnigan specific plan calls for 1995 acres of development for 7500 homes and 230 acres of commercial and industrial. That number was raised from the original proposal of 2500 new residential units.

The Knights landing specific plan calls for 145 acres and up to 800 homes with an additional 38 acres for commercial and industrial development. The staff recommendation at the time was to reduce the number to 650 lots but it was eventually passed for 800 homes.

At the February 6, 2007 Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Yamada cast a no vote for both projects. The Knights Landing project passed by a 3-2 vote with Yamada and Chamberlain voting no.

However, at the July 17, 2007 Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Yamada voted yes for both projects, even though the facts involved were essentially identical. Moreover, the yes vote on the Knights Landing project passed by a 3-2 margin, making her vote the decisive vote. Supervisor Matt Rexroad had switched his initial "yes" vote to a "no" vote out of concerns that the development was in an area prone to flooding.

These votes are highlighted because the financial disclosure for Supervisor Mariko Yamada's State Assembly Race has come out.

In that disclosure we see that the developers for both projects gave her substantial contributions. Miksal, is associated with the developer involved with the Dunnigan Hills agricultural project donated Yamada $1000 on June 30, 2007, just two and a half weeks prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting.

Meanwhile Castle Development has donated another $1000 to Yamada on June 29, 2007. Castle Development is the developer working on the Knights Landing development.

Given the realities of campaign finance, it is often necessary to take development money in order to finance campaigns that are going to run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars if not higher. However, the rule of thumb has to be that you must be able to insulate yourself from charges that the money is influencing your votes.

Based on the facts alone we cannot make that determination, all we can do is ask the question—other than receiving a campaign contribution did anything else change between February’s vote and July’s vote and what caused Supervisor Yamada to switch from opposing both developments to supporting both developments?

The Vanguard will in the future be looking at the financial disclosure of West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon to see where his money is coming from. Likely we will see a slew of development interests there as well.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Hard Work Behind the Scenes by Heystek and Provenza Helped Save the Pass-Through Agreement

Most people have probably seen the blow-by-blow via the Vanguard commentary on the Board of Supervisors as it happened. It was a difficult, tense, but ultimately fun and fulfilling process to sit in the back of the room and blog. What was perhaps most amazing is that I was getting instant feedback from my comments not just on the blog itself, but from people in the room and by text message. Everyone in that room knew what was going on and being there in that room, along with 50 plus residents of Davis, most of whom were united in their conviction on this one issue, at least in my view had a profound impact over the final verdict.

What people however did not see was the hard work that happened from Sunday until the meeting convened on Tuesday morning. Much of that work, set the stage for what was ultimately a huge victory for those in Davis who have fought hard over the decades for the preservation of agricultural land and open space and at the same time for self-determination. This was first and foremost a debate over who should determine how we grow. (We will have a long conversation at a future date about stem cell research and social services--both of which I very strongly support and will work in the future to address).

On Sunday night, Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Davis School Board President Jim Provenza met with Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada for approximately two hours.

As Heystek told the Davis City Council on Tuesday night:

"I was able to convene a meeting late Sunday night with School Board President Jim Provenza and Board of Supervisors Chair Mariko Yamada. The meeting was held in a public place and there were piping-hot mugs of coffee at the table. We weren’t there only as three elected officials from three of the involved jurisdictions. We were there as three Davisites discussing the issue jointly and rationally. After talking the issue through for over two hours, President Provenza and I were emboldened by a window of opportunity we were able to crack open. We were emboldened by the prospect that Chair Yamada would support a delay in Tuesday’s vote in order to join the City in a rational discussion – and this is very important – within the framework of the current pass-through agreement."

Both Councilmember Heystek and School Board President Provenza believed that the only way to save the pass-through agreement was somehow to get the Board of Supervisors to pause and not make a final decision. Instead, they suggested that they engage the city in a discussion over a variety of things. However, both Mr. Heystek and Mr. Provenza made it clear that the pass-through agreement was not on the table.

As Councilmember Heystek put it, "The City of Davis has never opposed engaging in the right discussion, on the right terms, under the right conditions." What they did object to, was a joint study area, where there would be direct talks about changes to land-use designations.

From the beginning on Tuesday, it appeared that the worst case scenario would not be on the table. Supervisor McGowan asked early on directly what "special study area" meant, and the answer was that it would be studied for possible future use but it would not be placed into the general plan EIR or cleared for development, nor would there be CEQA clearance. This was a key point, for the triggering mechanism for recall was placement of these areas in the county's EIR, where it presumably could be entitled and become a development area with a single vote. That appeared early on to be off the table.

There was a clear conciliatory tone coming from the Davis City Council at this meeting. Mayor Sue Greenwald asked for a removal of the study areas from the EIR. But then asked to work cooperatively, as the city and county have in the past and suggested both a willingness to compromise and cooperate.

Like the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson was very conciliatory in her approach. She suggested that the city and county sit down and have joint rational discussion of city and county issues. Before putting this in a study, we sit down and have a rational discussion and civil discourse toward a mutually beneficial outcome.

During the course of board discussion there seemed to be almost two mindsets. First, there was the acknowledgment by the Board of Supervisors, that what they were doing was generating a lot of fear and angst amongst citizens and their leaders from the city of Davis. There was a simple reason for that--no one from Davis understood exactly what the County's intentions were and there was limited communication. When the two bodies communicated formally or informally there was much dissension and a tone of arrogance especially coming from our own Davis Supervisors Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada.

During yesterday's meeting Supervisor Yamada suggested at one point that there was a discrepancy between what was written and how people feel. That there was a lack of trust for the process. This was entirely correct.

And yet in the next breath both Supervisor Yamada and Thomson began lecturing the city of Davis--its residents and its elected officials in an arrogant and condescending tone. At one moment, they seemed to understand it, the next they were lashing out against it. They claimed that the recall for instance had no impact on their viewpoints, and yet they were the ones who raised it over and over again. No one from the public raised the issue of recall, but the Supervisors did, they were aware of it, and it clearly affected them, despite their pronunciations to the contrary.

Moreover Supervisor Helen Thomson remarked that no one had threatened the pass-through agreement. She pointed out that she signed the original pass-through agreement. However, any implementation of the plans that appeared to be on the table, would do exactly that--jeopardize the pass-through agreement between the city and county. I hope that was never the intent of Supervisor Thomson, but I think it was a legitimate fear that was shared not just by progressives to her left, but also her allies in Councilmember Don Saylor among others.

Supervisor Rexroad moved that the Northwest Quadrant and Covell Property be removed from the joint study area. Supervisor Chamberlain seconded the motion.

Supervisor Rexroad told me later, that based on statements from the meeting, he thought he had a third vote in Supervisor Yamada and was stunned when she not only voted against it but lectured him for even bringing it up for a vote. That motion failed by a 3-2 margin with Mike McGowan, Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada voting no.

As Rexroad later wrote on his blog:

"My views on the hearing today were shaped by two primary considerations.

The first was that I think one of the most important services the county provides is protection prime agriculture land and developing appropriately. In fact, I would argue that may be the single most important service the county provides. To me it is more important than lots of other things. I mean it. Instead of viewing this as something that completes with more social services I view it as complimenting them for every resident of Yolo County.

The piece that mostly shaped my view on the Davis proposals is that I am a former Mayor. In fact, I am probably better suited in background and interest to be on a City Council than a Board of Supervisors. The key here is that I believe that the Davis City Council, as crazy and wrong as they may be sometimes, have the right to be wrong."

Some on this blog have disparaged Supervisor Rexroad either as not caring about county services or as being duplicitous on this issue. From my vantage point, Supervisor Rexroad has been for the most part very consistent on the issue of agricultural preservation. I disagree on his votes on social services and social issues, but I can respect his commitment at the same time to agricultural preservation, a value I share with him.

Following that vote, there is another bitter round of lectures from the dais mainly from Supervisors Thomson and Yamada. County Staff however requests a recess for 15 minutes. It appears that the efforts of Councilmember Heystek and Board President Provenza were futile and that this was going forward. Let there be no mistake here, at that moment, recall as an option was alive and well and there was a very strong unity in the ranks on that point.

However as the Supervisors came back something drastically changed. Another motion was taken and it passed 4-1. In this motion the concept of "study areas" was removed and no areas were identified or called out for potential development. The motion set aside all of the "red lines" (on the general plan maps) around Davis and hold discussions with the city of Davis. Basically this removes the proposed study areas from the general plan and authorizes some form of discussion in the future. The supervisors, based upon this vote, reversed their previous vote and have now removed all study area designations from the general plan update discussion. It did not completely remove discussion in the future of what were once the three study areas from General Plan consideration as the Rexroad-Chamberlain motion would have. In fact, Chamberlain ended up voting against the motion because it did not go far enough--he opposed development at those spots or any area around Davis as well as even discussing the subject, period.

Again, what it does do is first remove the specific areas from consideration--as they put it, "take the red lines off the map of Davis" (a reference to the county maps which had red lines to designate where the study areas' boundaries lay). And it did much of what Councilmember Heystek and Board President Provenza had asked--to engage the two governing bodies in fruitful discussion.

The process could have been much smoother. The tone from our Davis county supervisors should have been better. We could have been spared the lectures. But at the end of the day, we had prevailed, somehow, some way. The efforts of Mr. Heystek and Mr. Provenza will likely not be reported in the local papers, but they were instrumental in helping to move this process to the point where in the end, the considerations for development on Davis' periphery were removed from the General Plan.

My final thought on this is as follows. There is no one more committed to social services and the hope of stem cell research than many of the same progressives who fought against this proposal. However, this is not the way to achieve those ends. I hope, that when the heat diminished, the city and county can come together and find an appropriate location for a stem cell research facility and can work together to help the county provide vital social services to the elderly, the poor, and the disenfranchised. I do not believe that these values should be in conflict with the value of protection for the environment, agricultural preservation, and open space. We need to much as our leaders suggested yesterday, work together on a joint and mutually beneficial solution to this problem. And thanks in part to the work of our leaders Lamar Heystek and Jim Provenza, we will have a chance to do just that.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

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