General Plan Updating Process Begins

On Tuesday night, the Davis City Council will start take steps towards developing a plan of attack for the next General Plan Update. According to the staff report:

A General Plan update would potentially address all of the Council goal categories of: Infrastructure; Fiscal stability; Downtown Davis; Housing; Sustainability; Safety and Health; Organizational Strength; Civic Engagement; and Long-Term Visioning.

In particular, a General Plan update would address the Long-Term Visioning goal: “Prepare for the lasting success and well-being of the Davis community by engaging in long-term visioning.”

The city is looking at a process that would initiate an update through 2035 but could include a long range vision for Davis perhaps up until 2050. The recent housing element process has focused on housing strategies in isolation from other long range community issues.

Other issues that city staff wants to address include:

• Sustainability and AB 32 requirements.
• Economic and business related sustainability.
• Community and resident health.
• A general study of senior needs including housing, transportation, recreation and
social services.
• Ultimate urban growth and ag preservation boundaries.
• Open space / greenways system.
• Growth and balance of housing, employment, retail and services.
• Vision for the downtown and its development intensity.
• Multi-property planning on the edges of the City where coordinated planning would better address issues that may cross parcel boundaries.
• Fiscal impacts of alternatives.
• Planning for the January 2012 – June 2019 Housing Element planning period and
RHNA.
• Explore possible new locations for city and DJUSD corporation yards and the PG&E service center.

One of the challenges the city faces right now is the cost to the project including EIR costs. According to the staff report, costs range from $1 million to $4 million with a typical cost from between $1.5 million to $2.5 million. With a time frame ranging from two years to upwards of five years.

"Staff recommends that the Council determine what kind of a General Plan update is wanted / needed while being sensitive to the difficult budget conditions the City faces, as well as other priorities. After a “first cut” at deciding what kind of General Plan update, staff can return with more information and options for funding the update.

Concerns with City fiscal and budget conditions have evolved since the original Steering Committee recommendation and the Council direction to initiate a “truly comprehensive General Plan update…to address a long range community vision to year 2040 or 2050…with a broad community engagement program”."

The report also accesses the strengths and weaknesses of the current general plan.

The strengths include the fact that it is comprehensive, addresses and contains "smart growth principles," and was citizen based.

However, it also criticizes the previous report as long and unfocused.

"The lengthy document of almost 400 pages and 1,000 goals, policies and standards is difficult to use and focus on overall themes, key issues and trade-offs. The connections between the plan’s general visions and principles and more specific implementing actions are not always clear. Policies related to sustainability are not well coordinated."

Moreover,

"Not clear in its guidance of how the community should evolve in the long term, particularly in terms of residential and non-residential growth."

In particular,

"The 1% growth cap resolution is a helpful tool through January 2010, but does not a provide a quantitative basis for 20 to 25 years because the resolution was based on a housing needs analysis through year 2015 only. The plan provides the framework for promoting infill but does not address appropriate sites and the land use map..."

Furthermore:

"Does not provide for reliable projections for financial and infrastructure planning."

There are three other criticisms. First:

"Individual development proposals and policy. Preferably, individual projects would not drive policy.

Second:

"Coordination with UC Davis plans. The City and UC Davis continue to be challenged to proactively address short and long term mutual interests and needs."

Third:

"New State requirements for general plans. New legislative requirements in general plans for the topics of climate impacts, water supply, environmental justice, and tribal contacts should be checked and incorporated as necessary."

The staff report then elicits a number of comments from council in terms of goals, what the updated plan should contain, what the process should look like.

On thing that might be interesting is for citizens to use the comment section of this article to express some of their goals and concerns about what they would like to see included in the next general plan. Issues such as sustainability, climate change, senior needs, urban growth boundaries, and sustainable economy ought to be considered. One of the main issues that needs to be address is what this community should look like in 2035. How do you want to see Davis change? What would you like to see remain the same?

Finally there is the issue with Measure J. The council had deferred discussion of Measure J until after the election. However, it still really has not addressed it. Are there three votes to keep the measure as it is currently written when it goes before the voters? When will that be addressed?

The staff report contains some other thoughts on Measure J. For instance, whether the General Plan update to go to a Measure J vote if it involves Measure J sites. Whether the entire General Plan package should go to a Measure J vote.

"One option for the Measure J renewal is to do a limited extension until the update is ready for a Measure J vote, and amend Measure J so that if an urban land use is approved by the voters then a second Measure J vote is not necessary."

That would seem to be a rather dangerous proposition for both sides. On the one hand, it might make it difficult to pass the general plan if there are controversial projects contained within it. On the other hand, it might make it easier to pass controversial projects. And once the Measure J vote is passed for the general plan, what safeguards the project to ensure that it does not get altered significantly from passage as part of the general plan. I certain do not believe I would support such a provision.

What other issues need to be addressed here? This is the beginning of the general plan process, the citizens need to take a very proactive role in insuring that their needs, values, and goals are addressed within the framework of the general plan updating process.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Commentary: Growth, Growth, Growth

There are actually a lot of issues in Davis that do not involve growth directly. But as the city council campaign winds down, in the end it is all about growth.

How is Davis going to grow, where, and how fast? To answer that let us look at the key questions from this council and before the next council.

Measure J Renewal and Measure X

The first answer toward that is the question of Measure J's renewal.

Two former Mayors and a Former Davis Councilmember, Ken Wagstaff, Julie Partansky, and Stan Forbes, each who sat on the council that would put Measure J on the ballot weighed in on that yesterday in the Davis Enterprise.

They write:

"No on X proved we need to keep Measure J: The obvious demonstration of Measure J's merits was the Covell Village/Measure X election in 2005. Having approved a subdivision of more than 1,800 homes, the council was required by the Measure J law to have the project ratified by the voters.

Most of the homes to be sold by the project would have been unaffordable to the average Davis worker. Traffic on Covell Boulevard would have been 'intolerable,' according to the environmental impact report. Despite the developer outspending the citizen opposition by more than 10 to 1, the voters rejected the project by a 60 percent no vote.

Had there been no Measure J, a massive project the public did not want would have gone forward. The only way the community could have stopped it would have been to create an organization to gather thousands of signatures and force a referendum vote.

Some say the public should not have the right to vote on growth issues. We disagree. Growth fundamentally affects our quality of life. It affects the taxes we pay. It is vital that citizens have the insurance that Measure J provides.

Moreover, it is evident that City Councils do not always act consistent with the public will. Even after their approval of Covell Village was soundly rejected by the voters, at least two members of the council, one of whom is seeking re-election, tried to justify what they did by saying the public just didn't understand the project. After countless public hearings, and after the Covell Village developers spent more than $500,000 trying to 'educate' the public about their plans, this attitude is condescending and insulting to the voters.

The next council will determine whether Measure J is left intact or gutted. We believe the reasons Measure J was necessary when enacted remain unchanged. Indeed, given the experience of Covell Village/Measure X, the necessity of Measure J is even more manifest."

The differences on Measure X/ Covell Village among these candidates is clear. Sue Greenwald, Rob Roy, and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald opposed Measure X in 2005 and will oppose a new iteration of it if it comes forward. Don Saylor and Stephen Souza led the charge for Measure X and would likely support a new version of it. Sydney Vergis claims she also supported Measure X and would support a new version of it.

1% Growth Guideline

There are really two issues here--one is how fast we grow and one is where we grow.

The council recently renewed the 1% growth guideline. During the Measure X debate, we were told repeatedly that if we did not meet the mandated growth demands, Steve Gidaro would come in and impose growth on us whether we liked it or not.

Now the message coming from Souza and Saylor is that the 1% is a cap and a target, not a mandate. They cite our relatively growth rate the last four years. Sydney Vergis has been advocating a broad range of new housing to meet our housing needs including development on the Nishi property.

Sue Greenwald, Rob Roy, and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald have suggested that 1% is too fast to grow. We should look to approve housing based on the projects not based on some artificial growth cap. Moreover, the RHNA mandate is for considerably lower than 1% to meet our internal housing needs.

What is clear is based on Housing Element Steering Committee's report, most of the growth in the next decade or more can be met with infill development. Both sides somewhat agree on that while disagreeing on what infill is. Both Wildhorse Ranch and Nishi would require Measure J votes, but some have suggested given their locations that they are really infill. Then again, they have called Covell infill as well. None of them meet the true definition of infill.

There are basically two key components of infill. First, it must take place within existing communities or established areas of the city. It could be a vacant lot or a piece of land with dilapidated buildings. Second, they must have existing city services and infrastructure. Neither Nishi, Covell, nor the Horse Ranch fit those definitions. They all currently have agricultural uses, none of them are within the city, and none of them have existing city services already within them.

Regardless, of the definition of infill, we have heard constant rhetoric about as Saylor puts it, "canaries in the coal mine," the danger signs of lack of growth. Souza laments the number of students who have to commute into Davis. Sydney Vergis talks about the need for a range of housing so that generations can live together in Davis.

All of them suggest that while they do not support sprawl (Covell is not sprawl to them apparently), they are concerned that people who live and work at UC Davis have to commute to Davis.

Frankly I think everyone is concerned about this issue, there are a range of solution to it being offered.

However, when they start talking about only 44 new housing permits, it begins me wondering about something. There is an argument that the cost of housing in Davis is so high because of our slow growth policies. They are argue that these policies are making Davis an elitist exclusive town. And that the answer to affordability is of course to build more houses.

A few weeks ago, we showed a data analysis that suggested that there no relationship between the number of residential permits and the cost of housing. The cost of housing in Davis trended almost exactly with the cost of housing in Sacramento.

One of the reasons Measure J passed is that in 1998 there 1013 new housing permits followed by 954 in 1999. That's roughly a 3% growth rate based on current figures.

What Souza and Saylor do not tell you is that they have overseen a period with among the slowest growth in Davis for the past several decades. In 2002, we had 307 new housing permits followed by 277 in 2003. In 2004, the year they took office we had 135, then 250 in 2005, 104 in 2006, and just 44 last year.

What happened? Some will say this is a manifestation of our slow growth policies. But what really happened is that they pushed for Measure X/ Covell Village in 2005. When that was rejected by the voters, they had no back up plan. They put all of their eggs in the Measure X basket.

When Souza and Saylor complain about the lack of growth in Davis, they are as much to blame as anyone. They backed a Measure J project that was too large and the public did not buy and then had nothing else to offer for two years. So despite a 4-1 pro-growth majority from 2004-2006 and a 3-2 pro-growth majority (which is really all you need to pass things in Davis anyway) from 2006-2008, the Souza-Saylor led council has resided over one of the slowest growth periods in Davis history.

It is therefore somewhat ironic when you hear people like Sue Greenwald or others pushing some of the infill development plans and people are skeptical that they will ever get built.

The best opportunities for growth that actually meets our internal needs rather than feeding more commuters as Covell Village would have, rest in projects around the core of Davis and also with the university. The university houses among the fewest students on campus of any university. They have the most available land to expand student housing and that would alleviate the 1% apartment vacancy rate in the city of Davis.

I have heard Souza and Saylor complain about that rate at almost every council campaign forum, yet no one ever asked them what they have done during their four years on the council to address that. Covell Village certainly was not going to address that.

My own preference for growth would be to look toward some of the infill sites and put in smaller units--duplexes, condos, and town houses. Put them near the core of town so that people do not have to drive to downtown. Work with the university to help provide housing for students and new faculty members. If you are concerned about families with children moving into Davis, the best thing we can do is provide housing for young university employees who are most likely to have families. I do not see a need to build outside the current boundaries of Davis for at least the next general plan period. Smaller, more affordable units, can accomodate much of our so-called internal housing demand and if we do it right, we can meet those needs within the current boundaries of our town.

Getting Back To Measure J

The three strongest candidates on preserving and maintaining Measure J are Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Rob Roy. Both Don Saylor and Sydney Vergis have suggested looking at possible changes to Measure J. Ms. Vergis in particular has suggested it is long, cumbersome, and complicated and wishes to make non-substantive changes to streamline it.

The problem with that approach, as we showed a few weeks back is that Measure J is long but it is very straight forward in terms of its language.

The framer's of Measure J were very thorough in their work to insure that there were no loopholes to the ordinance. However, the language itself is simple, direct, and to the point. Any attempt to streamline the ordinance would actually weaken it greatly.

For that reason, for those who view Measure J and a key component of our land use policy and a key feature of the democratic nature of this city, ought to support those candidates who would continue the measure in its current form and seek to make it permanent.

Preserving the Character of Davis

Everyone talks about the character of Davis. For me it is about the charm and atmosphere of this city. You walk through the core of town and there is a unique feel. Of all the things that have happened under the current city council, one of the moves that I disliked the most was the B-Street Visioning Project.

That old neighborhood directly east of campus between A Street and Russell is one of my favorite places in all of Davis. As you walk down third, you really feel that you are in a college town. You have the shops, the students, the old cottages, and you just have a feel for it. It is the part of town when I first visited in 1993 prior to becoming a graduate student, that I fell in love with and one of the reasons I applied to come to school here and eventually made it my home.

I understand the need for more density if we are not going to grow beyond our current borders. But you also have to do it while maintaining the character of Davis. At times in this city, we have done a great job with the concept of adaptive re-use. Taking an existing structure and adapting it to a new use. I have been less of fan when we tear down an old structure and build a new one. There are a lot of ways we could have revamped B-Street while maintaining the character of that neighborhood. This was not one of them.

Some have questioned the feasibility of the PG&E site. But there is so much that it has to offer while maintaining the rest of downtown as the walkable, bikeable, small town feel.

Regardless of what happens tomorrow, there are many issues with which this city has to wrestle with and the Vanguard will continue to be on the front lines of those issues.

---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

Commentary: Pro-Development Candidates Not Forthcoming on their Growth Positions

Sacramento Bee Coverage of the Davis City Council Race

The Sacramento Bee had a pretty interesting spread on Monday laying out various positions by the Davis City Council candidates on growth.

Given that the Sacramento Bee had limited space and that this will be their only article on the race, they did a good job of getting to the core of the issues and the differences between the candidates in a campaign where many of the candidates sound the same even though they have pretty divergent policy goals.

To start, the happenstance of alphabetical order served to dramatize this point. The first three candidates in the alphabet opposed Covell Village. The last three supported it. That happenstance creates an appearance of stark differences between the candidates.

Measure J and the one percent growth guideline have been covered here. You can see more clearly here that Stephen Souza diverges from his colleagues on his side of the matrix on Measure J, but you can also see that that is the only place that he really diverges from them on.

The point also needs to be made again that Measure J is indeed a lengthy document, but it is really straight-forward and not complex. A non-lawyer or even a non-planner can easily pick it up and understand it. On the other hand, one of the reasons that it is so lengthy is that the drafters of the Measure J went to great lengths to define their terms and define explicit exemptions to avoid loopholes. Any attempt to streamline it will re-open some of those loopholes and thereby weaken the measure.

Question 2 is one that really has not been asked or addressed in forums to do that. So I am going to go through those answers, since they are brief.

The question is would they support a renewed effort to develop the Covell site?

The first three candidates Cecilia (my wife), Sue Greenwald, and Rob Roy give various versions of "no."

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald:

"I do not support developing beyond the borders of the city. We have enough land available within the city's boundaries."

Sue Greenwald:

"I just think it's way too soon to consider that."

Rob Roy:

"We have to focus on infill development. Building out is the wrong direction. Davis will sprawl and lose its character."

The next two candidates Don Saylor and Stephen Souza do a nice job of dancing on the issue.

Don Saylor:

"I haven't seen a revised Covell Village plan. I'm not going to say never, and I'm not going to say I'm all for it."

Is the first part of that answer honest? John Whitcombe's group has been meeting through out the city. I know quite a few people that they have met with to outline their plan for Covell Village. They even met with Cecilia. Are you telling me that they have not met with one of their biggest allies on the council but they met with Cecilia? I kind of seriously doubt that. The honest answer here would be "yeah, I'd consider it." Instead he tries to dance on it.

Stephen Souza:

"If a proposal at Covell Village came forward, I would be interested in looking at it and discussing it."

That's at least a better answer than Saylor's.

Sydney Vergis:

"If the neighboring Hunt-Wesson property is developed, we might want to look at mater-planning that whole area and do it right."

Either Vergis is more pro-growth than Souza and Saylor or she's less shrewd politically, but I think she puts on the table the view that the pro-development side of the ledger sees--a way to develop Covell alongside the Lewis Properties.

For a table that has four very brief answers, in many ways this tells people all they need to know about growth. And then it depends on which side you come down on the issue.

LAFCO Draws Out Differences On Growth--Souza and Saylor Abstain

I take this time to draw on Tuesday's vote yet again, because it seemed to get lost in the complexity once again.

There are two elements to the City Council's Sphere of Influence vote.

First, the need to revisit it was fundamentally due to City Planning Director Katherine Hess' misinformation to council about the meaning of the sphere of influence.

LAFCO lays it out very clearly that the sphere of influence intends to define all the lands to be developed for urban uses. Katherine Hess tried to argue that the city simply would control the land in the SOI whether it was developed or not. That clearly was not true last year when the county tried to study development of land inside the SOI on the edge of Davis. Stephen Souza at the LAFCO meeting tried to argue that there are multiple types of urban uses for land, but he quickly recognized after discussions at LAFCO that this was not the conventional view and that having an overly large SOI might open the process down the line to inclusion in the General Plan and thereby do the opposite of what was intended.

The second intrigue in the meeting is Lamar Heystek's motion removed all of the large peripheral parcels from the Sphere of Influence. Mayor Sue Greenwald seconded this motion.

The argument here is that there is no compelling reason to add more land that could become targeted for growth when there is no protection afforded to the land by being placed in the SOI. It simply signals LAFCO that there is an intent to develop these lands for Urban uses.

Ruth Asmundson opposed the removal of the peripheral parcels, as we would expect.

What no one expected is that Councilmembers Don Saylor and Stephen Souza abstained from the vote. This demonstrates their fear of on the one-hand offending their developer friends, some of whom were in the audience asking to be included in the SOI. Obviously they felt that there was some benefit to being in the SOI.

On the other hand, they did not outright vote against the measure to belie their pro-development colors. They have tried to walk this fence for a long time. They supported Covell but argue that it's good smart growth planning. They support the 1% growth guideline, arguing that this represents a low growth rate and that we are not growing at one percent anyway.

Because of the two abstentions, for the first time ever, Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek's two votes carried the day by a 2-1 margin. In order to not expose their true intentions on growth prior to the election, Souza and Saylor were completely silent on one of the most important growth issues for the LAFCO SOI for Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Clean Sweep of Support for Developer Candidates by the Enterprise

It would be appalling if it were not so predictable. On Sunday, the Davis Enterprise endorsed the pro-development slate for the Davis City Council. Yesterday, in perhaps an even more shocking move, the Davis Enterprise has endorsed John Ferrera over Jim Provenza for the 4th Supervisorial District.

They admit that Ferrara "is a relative newcomer to Davis." In fact, he's a newcomer to Davis politics. Indeed, they have selected Ferrera over a much more experienced public servant who recently finished a four year stint on the Davis School Board. But there is nary a word on that in the editorial--in fact, Jim Provenza is not mentioned at all in the editorial.

The Enterprise writes:

"Budget challenges will be paramount as California - and, by extension, its 58 counties - learns to live within its means. Ferrera's experience as chief of staff to state Sen. Denise Ducheny, chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee, gives him keen insight into the challenges Yolo County faces as it tightens its belt to the tune of $12 million."

As school board member Jim Provenza has had to deal with school budgets for the last four years. I certainly do not see anything in their records that would give John Ferrera insight over Jim Provenza.

"He's pledged to help repair interagency relationships, believing Davis and the county can both be better neighbors, and he promises to lead all parties in working together toward well-understood, collective goals."

Because Jim Provenza has not? During Jim Provenza's tenure on the Davis City council the relationship between the city of Davis and the school district improved dramatically. Following the obvious problems with the city following the debacle of King High and the ill-fated Grande deal, Jim Provenza led the way to make changes to district policies.

He brought in a new Superintendent and a new Budget Director. He and his colleagues would work with the city on the planning of both the Grande Property and Nugget Fields to insure cooperation rather than the secretive nature in which King High was planned and demolished without city input. This led to an overlap of the structure onto city property, the surprise discovery of a storm drain, and the destruction of cherished community trees.

As school board member, Jim Provenza became alarmed at the conflict of interests surrounding the operations of CBO Tahir Ahad. In the first two years on the board, he was routinely out-voted 4-1 or 3-2 regarding such issues. However, in the final two years, he helped to draft the language of the conflict of interest code, so that such conflicts would never arise again.

Unfortunately, the Davis Enterprise does not do justice to Jim Provenza's record as a school board member.

But Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning does.

Back in March of 2007 Dunning writes:

"RUN, JIM , RUN … while it's still early and many names are being tossed about as possible candidates, if Jim Provenza decides to run for county supervisor, as expected, the rest of those considering a shot at working in Woodland would be best advised to take a pass … no point in forming an exploratory committee, dipping your big toe in the water or launching a trial balloon … all exercises in futility …

Forget the politics, forget the potential issues, forget what your mama taught you about seizing the day, if Provenza runs, he's a lock … no one else is even close … like Helen Thomson, one of the most revered political figures in this town's history, Provenza has never been a candidate for City Council, which means his reputation remains untarnished … put simply, his solid-citizen, agenda-less work on the Davis school board makes him hard — if not impossible — to beat …"

A few days ago, Dunning reiterate that confidence:

"Provenza is the runaway favorite in a campaign that has attracted little or no media attention to this point … I rest my case … since Jim leads the field in name ID, he probably hopes this remains a low-profile race right to the finish … no matter your politics, Jim 's a hard guy not to like …"

Apparently Mr. Dunning ought to talk to his bosses a bit more.

John Ferrera is a good person, on statewide issues and national and international issues, there is probably very little if anything on which we disagree. However, as this race has gone on, it has become clear to me that he is in the other camp on local land use issues which remain the key hallmark of the County Supervisor race.

Recently, both candidates were asked about land use issues. Jim Provenza was publicly against Covell Village. John Ferrera has recently acknowledged he was for Covell Village, although according to my sources he has also stated his opposition to it.

Second, Jim Provenza strongly supports Measure J. John Ferrera took more of the Don Saylor position, the public likes it, but he was less succinct about his view.

Third, when the county threatened to develop on Davis' periphery, Jim Provenza came to the meeting in July and argued strongly against such development. He referred to the proposed developments along I-80 as the congestion corridor. John Ferrera as far as I can tell was not at that meeting and certainly did not speak at that meeting.

While both candidates promise to handle city-county relations better than they were handled in 2007, only Jim Provenza has flat out supported the pass-through agreement.

When I interview John Ferrera last fall here was his response to a question of would he support the current pass-through agreement:

"The pass-through agreement is twenty years old. It’s only received minor updates and discussions and I think that the changing relationship between the state and the counties and the state and the cities, with the growth of the university, with other things that have happened in our world that have changed over 20 years, that we really need to take a hard look and make sure that it’s doing what it need to do for the county and for the city."

Once again, the Davis Enterprise does the public little service here. They give an endorsement to an individual without much discussion if any of the issues involved in the race. There has been almost no coverage of the race itself. Bob Dunning is absolutely correct that this is an extremely low-profile race. There have been no candidate forums, little newspaper coverage, and almost no way for the public to learn about who these people are.

In fact, the public knows even less about the third candidate for this race, Cathy Kennedy.

However, the Davis Enterprise has at least been consistent on the local races in each case supporting the pro-development candidate, often over more experienced slow-growth candidates.

---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

UC Davis College Democrats Host Forum for City Council Candidates

Last night, the Davis College Democrats hosted a candidate’s debate for the five City Council candidates that are registered Democrats (which means Rob Roy as a Green, was not at the debate). It was a lively debate at times that started out as a tightly formatted program where two candidates were each asked a question, but it morphed into a more loosely formatted program where others could jump in for a minute after the initial candidates were asked a question. It covered a variety of issues and topic but from a student perspective. In what follows will not cover every single question, but rather some of the more interesting answers.

The first question asked how they felt about promoting businesses that cater to UC Davis students and whether they had plans to do so. For Sue Greenwald, downtown was one of her main focuses—to make it vital. When she first arrived in Davis, the downtown was deserted on weekends and during the summers. She talks about focusing on more arts in the downtown area and Miskah’s café coming to the downtown. She wants it to remain bicycle friendly.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald wants to work with the business community to bring in more businesses that cater to students and that stay open after 9 pm. “We do need businesses that will stay open later, this is a university town.” She also talked about the downtown area remaining safe for bicyclist and bringing in more entertainment—bands, student nights once a month that will have music and entertainment.

The next question was directed to Stephen Souza and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, it asked about councilmembers having the ability to take positions on major issues such as the war in Iraq. Stephen Souza’s answer was simply yes. “We have a moral obligation to take positions on issues that directly affect this community in ways that sometimes don’t seem as direct.” He talks about the direct impact of the war in Iraq on money that has been taken from the community, the cost of human lives some of whom are community members, and finally talked about the “degradation and reduction of the ability of the national guard to respond to potential emergencies that occur.”

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald: “Yes, definitely. We have members of the community that are impacted by the war.” Further, “I chaired the city of Davis’ Human Relations Commission and I was proud that I as chair of the commission and the commissioners that served with me, we took a stand when the war first started, we forwarded a resolution to City Council, the council was not in favor of it as a whole, there were some on the council that opposed it.”

Don Saylor and Sydney Vergis were asked: “What do you think the main source of revenue for Davis should be?” Don Saylor talked about sources for revenue. Mr. Saylor wants to look at creating a “balanced portfolio of revenues from all the sources.” Right now, sales tax revenue accounts for 30% of our general fund, half of that is from gasoline and automobile sales. Most cities it is around 20%. In sales tax, Davis ranks near the bottom in per person revenue. Without increased sales tax, we need to look at direct taxes in parcel and park taxes.

Sydney Vergis said that these are tough times. She first laid out in general the problem of finding where revenue can come from particularly emphasized increasing sales tax revenue. “I think one way is for the students right now you have a great meal plan set up where if you do buy a meal plan on campus you can go to vendors off campus and use your card; I would love to see that program expanded to all of not only our downtown businesses but to our businesses in various neighborhoods.” She said that will be a great way to increase business and student involvement.

How will you bring high-tech jobs or green collar jobs to Davis? Stephen Souza, “That’s a great question. We have to, we have to do it because of the answer to one of your prior questions, we have to diversify our sales tax base and we need to diversify our revenue base in Davis.” Talks about the need to set aside land to recruit spin-offs from this university. The land needs to be zoned and it has to be at least 100 acres. Souza wants to see an electric auto production facility, a photovoltaic production facility in this town, and a 30 megawatt facility on the edge of this town.

Sydney Vergis, “This is one thing that we’ve looked at hard on the BEDC, and that is, how do you attract good companies to Davis? Davis has an anti-business reputation” Talks about the need for zoning for such business—we need to create a green tech zone and to streamline the zoning process. “We are looking at bringing businesses to the Mondavi and showing them what a great place it is.” She then went on to say that “I personally outgrew the job opportunities here in Davis quite rapidly.”

The next question for Stephen Souza and Sydney Vergis asked about jobs and affordable housing. Souza talked about starting a business of his own and that the affordability of homes is far out of reach. “We on this council have passed the most stringent and fairest affordable housing ordinance in the nation. The problem is that if you don’t have any development of any potential size, you can have small little projects… you don’t have any of any potential size. The affordable housing ordinance that we passed has parameters within it right now that there has to be 45 percent of every project that is between the price ranges of $177,000 for a family of two, to 464,000 for a family of four in a three-bedroom house. That’s the ranges that you have to have for a homes within the Affordable Housing ordinance that we passed. We don’t get very many of those. We had 44 permits issued last year… You take the calculations and you find that the affordable numbers that you get out of that is even less because when the projects are smaller, that percentage shrinks. We did that so that the burden could be borne over a larger number of units. You need a large enough project to get a larger number of affordable units”

Sydney Vergis, “the common thread between jobs and housing is a lack of range of both. As I spoke before the range of jobs here is minimal and as I mentioned before, I outgrew my job opportunities here quite quickly and I’m now forced to work out of town [note: she’s a land use planner].” Also talks about a reverse commute to Davis by those who cannot afford to live in the city of Davis.

Sue Greenwald jumped in to argue that our housing choices are problematic. “I was the only one to vote against building the last three subdivisions with McMansions, I said let’s build smaller houses and get voted down.” She thinks the only that is really hopeful is “the collapse of housing prices, they’ve been ridiculous, they are going to come down… life is going to get a lot easier when they come back to the historical inflation adjusted average, which they will.”

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald also jumped in. “When we speak of affordable housing, for the most part we are really talking about housing for middle income people.” She then went on to talk about the fact that Measure X really did not meet the affordability needs of most middle income Davis residents. $464,000 is not affordable for most working people. And the average price in Covell Village would have been higher than that. There are also environment trade-offs for such developments. She also talked about building smaller but more affordable homes for people who live in this community.

Don Saylor: “I think we need to look ahead to what the solutions are… We have a housing supply problem in Davis that we must address.”

One of the more provocative questions for Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald. “Tandem properties owns the leases to about half of this group’s homes. What is your relationship with Tandem’s owner Mr. Whitcombe and have you accepted any donations from Mr. Whitcombe.”

Sue Greenwald: “My relationship with Mr. Whitcombe, I’d classify as very poor. I haven’t gotten money from any of the special interests—meaning the city employee groups, anyone who I am in the position to grant favors to in a major sort of way—not the fire department, not the major developers, peripheral developers... It allows me to not have to feel bad if I have to say no.”

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald: “I am proud to say that I haven’t accepted any money from Mr. Whitcombe. I haven’t been offered any money… I will not accept developer money; you will notice that on the back of my brochure. ‘Cecilia’s campaign is not financed with developer contributions.’ I think that’s important. We are here as council candidates to serve you. If people are coming to us and talking about projects, I don’t want there to be a conflict of interest, I want the slate to be clean.”

Don Saylor responded: “I have received a $100 contribution from John Whitcombe and a $100 contribution from his wife. I have also received contributions from about 750 people from our community and beyond. These are people who for whatever reason or another have confidence in my ability to serve this community. We have a campaign finance limit, $100 is the maximum people can contribute. That’s a pretty small amount. My votes cannot be bought, they never have been.”

Stephen Souza: “Special interests come in many different fashions. My largest special interest group are retired people. If you look at my contribution list, you’ll see that the vast majority of those who have contributed to me are retired people, so I guess I’m going to favor retired people. No. I look at each and every issue on the basis of the issue not [who the group is]… I’ll take contributions from anyone who wants to contribute.” Mr. Souza also said that he was the largest contributor to his last campaign, so that would make him a special interest.

Sydney Vergis was the only one not to answer the question, according to her last disclosure, she had received money from Mr. Whitcombe as well.

Don Saylor responded again, and pointed out that Davis has among the most stringent funding requirements in the nation. He said in the last campaign, a candidate [presumably Lamar Heystek] spent $53,000, of which $37,000 came from his own money. He asked if that is what we want, for candidates to fund their own campaigns?

The candidates talked next about keeping Davis graduates in Davis after graduation. Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald talked about partnering with Sacramento and the Sacramento region. She referred to the UC Davis alumni center as a resource for students who are looking for jobs. She wants to see the city and the university to work together on this front. Sydney Vergis talked about the range of job issue and actively recruiting students to work here. But we need to produce more jobs here.

Don Saylor talks about the number of students, who have graduated, left, and then return ten years later and cites this as an extremely important factor. We need to retain that by producing housing and jobs. Stephen Souza talks about the fact that he went to school here and then stayed. “Right now thousands of students graduate every year, there is no way with 44 permits being issued last year, and even with a one percent growth rate if we were to do that, we would be able to house all of the students that graduate that choose to stay here, there’s no way that can happen.” We have to work to find more affordable housing and take the responsible for housing those who work for the university. “We can’t do all, but have to do some of it.” Sue Greenwald makes the pertinent point that we if were to take all of the people who want to live here or who graduated from here, we would be a city of millions. The Mayor talked about her experience of moving from Berkeley due to lack of jobs and housing.

There were three candidate specific questions. The mayor was asked how we could build more infill housing for students while at the same time accommodating those already living in Davis. “I still think that campus is the best place for student housing that there is because you won’t have to be competing with other people for houses, the houses can stay price regulated and there is price control. The university also has the most space for housing.” When the need for housing arises, we will find a place.

Don Saylor was asked about a promise he made to adopt a rental condition ordinance to monitor the quality of rental units. He was specifically asked whether this ordinance was adopted. “No, thank you for reminding me,” he answered. “We have not gotten off square one with that. We recently established a rental housing subcommittee which should be a place where that is grappled with.” He finished, “If you don’t get it done the first term, you always have the second term.”

Final candidate specific question was a pointed question addressed to Sydney Vergis. It said that the Yolo County Young Democrats was founded less than a year ago, and that she has been chair for less than that. It asked her about her previous Democratic Party experience. “My involvement with the Democratic Party is really recent. When I was an undergraduate here I was very involved in my sorority. I was the philanthropy chair and very much into how students could involve themselves with philanthropic activities.”

Four of the candidates responded to a question on Measure J: “Would you approve amend or repeal it?”

Sue Greenwald: “I would renew it. It’s been valuable, it’s a valuable tool. It’s democratic. If we do develop, what Measure J does is put pressure on the developers to offer more.”

Don Saylor: “Measure J is part of the environment. The idea of having people in Davis vote when we’re going to convert farmland to residential property, I think if it was on the ballot exactly as it was the last time, it would probably pass. We have only tested it once, we don’t know what that test means exactly.” We will probably have two future Measure J votes, one being the Wildhorse Ranch. “If the Nische Property, which is a great place for student housing right across the railroad from the Mondavi Center, if that comes forward as a project, then that would be a Measure J vote.” Mr. Saylor agrees that Measure J is tremendous leverage for the city, “but it’s only leverage if at some point a project actually passes.” The constitution he pointed out, has an amendment clause built into it. “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.” He finished, “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.”

Stephen Souza jumped in: “Yes. Renew it in the form that it’s at. Put it before the voters as it was before the voters in the past. The voters will make the decision if they want to see it renewed.”

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald: “I support Measure J in its current form. It is important to give the voters the right to have a say.” She mentioned that she came before council and asked council to take a stand one way or the other on Measure J, “and some people said they didn’t want to politicize it. It is a political issue because the voters want to know where people stand on Measure J. Get me on the council and I will vote to keep Measure J in it's current form.”

Don Saylor: “One thing I think you should do when you listen to people articulate, ‘keep it exactly as it is’ is actually take a look at the language, it’s very complicated language. ‘Keep it exactly as it is’ that’s easy to say and maybe we should.” However, “it’s a pretty complicated thing and I don’t like to make decisions until I get the analysis from our staff and hear the commissions talk about it and what actually took place.”

Don Saylor and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald were asked about student–police relations.

Don Saylor: “There’s been so much heat, so much smoke, and sometimes a little bit of light as we’ve looked at this issue over the years.” Mr. Saylor talked about the student-police relations committee and the need for communication, talking, and ride alongs. He also mentioned the levels of review that are in place. “One of the challenges is that relationships are often based on perceptions rather than realities... The more we understand the culture that different people work within, the better off we’re going to be to improving relations between groups.”

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald: “I for six years was chair of the city’s Human Relations Commission, I had students, professors and graduate students come to the commission to express their concerns. And we did address those issues.” She talked about the review process that is now in place. “I think we have a police chief who is doing a better job of working with the officers… We’ll see them in and around the community more, communicating with people.” She talked about the improvement coming from the new police chief and the review process.

They were then asked what a living wage would buy people in this community. Sue Greenwald argued that that level of pay was not a lot, but it was an improvement over the current wages. “I wouldn’t want to have to live on that, I’ll tell you that. I have to be honest about it.” She said she would support a living wage with Lamar Heystek right now.

Stephen Souza said that $13.08 is the least that the city pays any employee which comes out to $21,000. They are talking about contracted out work and most of those pay a living wage except for cleaning services. He supports paying those workers as they do city employees.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald: “If elected to the city council, I would unequivocally support a living wage… We cannot as a city, ask the university to pay the Sodexho workers a living wage while not giving those who, even if they are cleaning people for the cit, a living wage. Everybody has to at least earn a living wage.”

Sue Greenwald: said that there was a motion to enact a living wage immediately, and that failed, only “Lamar and I voted for it.” What passed was coming back with more budget analysis.

Sydney Vergis and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald were asked what issues were most important to them. Sydney Vergis talked about why she was running for city council. Her big focus is the environment. She wants go land use planning to reduce the city’s carbon footprint. She talked about looking at the innovative programs in places like Chicago and applying them to Davis in terms of building design and alternative energies.

Cecilia mentioned two key reasons. First, she talked about the future of our city and the need to protect Davis from sprawl development and preserve open space, agricultural land. “[Davis] is a beautiful town, it is a compact town, it is a town that has a character about it and I want to preserve that. We can still have affordable housing. We can still have urban design that is environmental, that is progressive, forward thinking and cutting edge, because we have a university, but we need to do that responsibly.” The other reason that she is running is that she is committed to building that bridge with the university, she wants to see a better collaboration and relationship with the university.”

Each candidate then issued a closing statement. This was the second public debate, however, after this the debate and forum schedule heats up. There is another candidates forum tonight, this time the Davis Democratic club is the sponsor, that will be a broader forum involving also the Assembly Candidates, the Supervisor Candidates, and the City Council Candidates—again only the Democrats among them. It will take place at 6:45 this evening in the Blanchard Room of the Davis Public Library.

Disclaimer: Doug Paul Davis is married to Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald who is a candidate for the Davis City Council.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Housing Report Presented to Council and Planning Commission

Last night at a Joint Meeting between the City of Davis and the Planning Commission, the Housing Element Update Steering Committee (HESC) presented their final report to the joint body.

While the work of the body was universally praised in terms of the time commitment and overall work, the substance of it presents some mixed feelings at best. Part of me believes that the work done by the steering committee could have been performed by city staff over the course of a few months. On the other hand, some of things that emerged from this process have been interesting and somewhat unique, and those would not have occurred with a city staff run process. Nevertheless, throughout the meeting there seemed to be a push to expedite the development of the identified properties--the bigger issue of growth rate has been left unresolved by city council since they have anointed the 1% growth rate as a target rather than a mandate. That leaves a considerable gap between the RHNA numbers and the upper ceiling on growth.

In addition to rank ordering the sites, the HESC developed zones or groupings. The first grouping accounts for just over 500 projected units, these are the primary sites--they have existing zoning and are simply ready to go for development. The next group are the top 20 sites--number 1 to number 20, these are called the Secondary Sites and between the primary and secondary sites, the city would get very close to filling its growth capacity on even a 1% growth rate. Some of these properties include the DJUSD Headquarters (1), Grande School Site (3), Downtown Zoning changes (7), PG&E site (8), Nishi (17), etc.

The next group of sites are the alternate sites and they are sites numbers 21 to 33. These are potential sites for this period, but more likely for a future point in time. Some of these include Lewis Cannery (21), Signature (23), Nishi with Olive Drive access (25), Nugget Fields (28), and Covell Village (32). The last four sites are those not needed prior to 2013. These are Parlin sites near the Binning Tracts, Lin Boschken, the property West of Stonegate, and finally at No.37 Oeste Ranch (I wonder if the county is reading this).

Now one of the more innovative changes that this process may allow the city to make, is a change in the way development is done. Kevin Wolf, Chair of the HESC, told the council that they wanted to use the site rankings in the development processing. Right now interested developers go to the city, it goes through a process, and the city makes a determination. He wants this to change, so that only the sites that are given priority by this reporting would be eligible to go forward and they would go forward somewhat in the order in which they were prioritized by the HESC. So project number 1 would get the first opportunity, if the owner was not interested in developing the property at this time, they could move to the next property on the list. The interest of the property owner would still drive the process, but it would be given some structure along the way.

The current system,

"wastes planning commission time and it may not be a high priority at all, but you are stuck with a project going forward. This says, what we're hoping staff and council will say, your project is not on our priority list. We want to hear from the priority list first, if we don't hear from the ones that are in front of you, we'll hear from you. But right now, don't bring it forward because that other one is in front of you that we want to develop first based on our HESC recommendations."

There is a positive aspect to this concept that Kevin Wolf outlined--it sets a prioritization for development. In that respect this would be a positive change. However, I also think it adds the pressure to develop these top 20 sites. Council defended their decision to keep the 1% as the growth guideline based on the fact that we have not been growing at the 1% rate over the past few years, basically since Measure X was defeated. However, putting this into play, if the council uses the 1% growth number, there is a much more realistic chance that we growth at that rate.

1% of course sounds like a very small amount of growth, but we are talking about adding a property larger than Covell Village between now and 2013. Covell Village itself wasn't even suppose to occur that quickly, it was to be phased in over a ten year period of time. Watching the meeting last night, it was clear to me that this process, would expedite the development pace in Davis.

My overall thoughts here before I discuss a bit more specific observations from the council and the community is that in terms of the ranking of sites, there is not much to quibble about. The HESC did a fine job in this respect. The real questions and debate is just beginning however and it is the political one. The question is one about how much additional housing we need, how fast we should grow, and where will we put this housing.

The issue of density has come up over and over again. I think we need to eliminate that word from our land use planning vocabulary. It is a scary word, especially to residents living in adjacent areas that have sunk their hard earned money into their existing property. Kevin Wolf is one of the biggest proponents of making developments more and more dense to accommodate more people and keep the city fairly compact.

At a HESC meeting Mr. Wolf wanted to direct council to ignore or at least downplay the concerns of neighbors about density. I think we need to re-work this dialogue. What we need to talk about is not higher density, but rather a smaller size for units. Smaller units with good strong design that maintains open space and distances can be made acceptable for neighbors if we include them in the process from day one rather than thrust it on them halfway through. You might never get complete approval, but even a compromised process will lead to community and neighborhood buy-in.

Now some of my concerns. The first is site No.7 which is the downtown area. That's a pretty high priority site and what it looks like to me is completely changing the nature and character of downtown. They have a CGI of what that downtown might look like and frankly it is a bit alarming. We are talking about several story buildings lining the downtown with retail on the ground level and potentially housing on the upper levels. This is clearly a long way from going through at this point, but if it does, it completely changes the landscape, feel, and look of our downtown. In many ways, the downtown did not look like Davis, it looked like it could be in many other cities.

I was also concerned about the talk regarding the Lewis Cannery site.

The recommendation of the HESC:

"The Lewis site should be planned, at a minimum, with thoughtful consideration to circulation and land use compatibility with the adjacent Covell Village site, even though the Covell Village site may or may not be approved for future urban use."

Kevin Wolf was one of the chief proponents of Covell Village in 2005. He said point blank at this meeting that he thinks there needs to be access to Pole Line from the Lewis site and he believes that by 2050, there is no way that Covell Village will not be developed. Of course, the voters voted 60-40 against such a development. The Lewis site is ranked 21 versus 32 for the Covell Village site, but I will say this now, there is no way I can support Lewis if it becomes a means by which to expedite and facilitate the development at the adjacent Covell Village site. The intent of Kevin Wolf was very clear here despite the notion that the "planning for the Lewis Cannery site should be able to stand alone and not be delayed by a Measure J vote."

A key point that was raised had to do with West Village and the fact that if it is annexed, it would count for the growth guideline. That is 1500 units, which would be a large portion of even a pure 1% growth rate. If it is not annexed, then it would not count for the 1% growth rate, but in essence, our area could grow by 4000 units by 2013 if West Village is developed, not annexed, and we grow out the full 1% over the next five years. Both Councilmember Lamar Heystek, speaking through a poor connection from a conference in Arkansas and Mayor Sue Greenwald raised this point.

Sue Greenwald raised an additional point:

"I have another concern, that's that this entire process seems to be numbers driven... One thing that concerns me about this whole process is that it seems to be numbers driven and that there's no vision component and that de facto decisions are being made about the visions for the future because we didn't start with the vision discussion."

George Phillips threw an interesting curveball into the mix. Mr. Phillips spoke on behalf of Steve Gidaro one of the owners of the Shriner's Property--the property that Councilmember Stephen Souza had tried to negotiate to get the city to purchase for the purposes of an athletics complex last summer. Mr. Phillips requested that the council place the Shriner's property back into consideration for development.

"The owners of the property... did not express interest at the time [the HESC selection process was occurring] and there is a reason for that there were discussions going on with the city relative to the potential acquisition of the Shriner's property for park purposes, to be considered as a potential site for the major sports park that the city is considering bringing a building out on the Howlett Property."

According to Mr. Phillips, there was agreement that this would be a straight acquisition, not connected to any kind development proposals or any kind of "quid pro quo." They were encouraged to make an offer to the city.

"We received a response back that the price and terms for that acquisition, the city did not have the funds at this point in time to make that acquisition, and that it probably isn't going to come together in spite of good faith efforts by all involved."

He wants to be added the list and the ranking process. He was told by council that he needs to speak to staff about this.

Eileen Samitz, who served on the committee, spoke as well.

"Another problem addressed was the need for a fourth fire station [was addressed as well] and a significant number of us on the committee felt strongly that we don't need a fourth fire station. Instead we need an emergency medical service. One of the astonishing facts is that only 10 percent of the calls for the fire department are for fires, over 50 percent are for medical. We don't need a fire engine to start someone's heart, we need an emergency medical service and basically a restructuring of our fire services is what we should be looking at."

Finally Councilmember Heystek expressed some of his concerns.

"I also wanted to express some of my concerns. Some of those concerns have already been expressed by some of the speakers during public comment on the dais."

He continued that if we were to look at Measure J projects, before we bless this document with those projects for inclusion, that

"we know exactly what our approach to Measure J is. That we are committed to bringing to the voters some renewal of Measure J. If not one that strengthens Measure J, one that at least renews it in its current form."

He also had a problem with the concept of a "green light project." This is a reference to the color scheme where the top projects are green (1-20), the next projects are yellow (21-33), and then red are (34-37).

"And when we say the projects are green light, I think that sends the message that we support the project before we know what the citizens rights with regards to that project are. We have to be very careful about Measure J projects."

He further was concerned how this list helps us determine the kinds of housing that will help fill our needs. We have the sites, but we do not necessarily know what these projects will look like.

My final comment is that I think we need to have a discussion of Measure J before we go forward with this project. While I commend the HESC for their work, there are a lot of issues that they did not deal with, Measure J being one. Another is that they looked at sites rather than housing, but I think we need a fuller picture like Councilmember Heystek said of what these houses will look like. To use Mayor Greenwald's point, we need to know the vision rather than simply the numbers. And finally, we need to know how much we will grow. If we pass 20 green light projects, does that mean that we grow at 1%? It seems to mean that even though the council's previous discussion seemed to downplay that as even a possibility.

Finally, people may not agree with me on any of these three points in terms of direction. I do not have a problem with that, I would just like to see the cards laid on the table before the election a month and a half from now and allow the voters to decide who they want to lead us. The issues of Measure J, housing needs, and growth rate should all be key discussions during the coming election.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Council Holding Off on Discussions of Measure J Until After Election

During the long range calendar, Councilmember Stephen Souza suggested agendizing a discussion on the legal opinion submitted by City Attorney Harriet Steiner in June which would place it for discussion after the election.

Several members of the public then came up to speak on Measure J during the public comment portion of the meeting.

Those who spoke believe that this issue needs full discussion prior to the election.

Gene Borack said:

“I think it is unfortunate that [Stephen Souza] recommended that the discussion begin after the June election.”

Mark Spencer would follow up Dr. Borack's point by stating:

"I would hope that the council would address this prior to the next city council election because I think it goes to a very important fundamental pillar in what has become Davis’ sense of inclusion of the voters in land use which is critical."

They also disagreed with Harriet Steiner's interpretation of the renewal clause on Measure J.

Stated Gene Borack:

“As I read it Counselor Steiner’s opinion is that the next council majority can amend Measure J and she offers no limitations. Most importantly she says that the next council majority is not required to offer the voters the original version of Measure J as an alternative choice on the same ballot. The fate of Measure J rests squarely in the hands of those who will be on the next council in less than eight weeks.”

Mark Spencer is often regarded as the architect of Measure J, he worked extensively in drafting the language of the ordinance.

“Having looked over the city attorney’s opinion on the renewal clause, I find it troubling. I was involved in the drafting of the language of measure J as a member of the planning commission and the open space commission, our intent was pretty clear about each of the provisions that we had hoped to be included in the final measure. And we relied on the city attorney at the time for the clarity of the legal language which would declare our intent and would make our provisions happen in legal language. That’s what makes the opinion of the city attorney so curious—in that it’s the same city attorney. And yet at the time, no one was appraised of the renewal clauses language that is detailed in this several page document that has been given to the city council in the council’s packet."

He went on to say:

"I think that Harriet’s interpretation of the renewal clause is unnecessarily torturous. There are other ways and I think more readily accessible ways to interpret the renewal clause that I think is consistent with the obvious intent that the council had at the time when it approved the final language that was submitted to voters."

Finally Mark Spencer argues:

"Harriet gives a very long and I think torturous interpretation as I read it which breeds cynicism on someone who was involved in and had conversations at the time with the same city attorney about the language we wanted to achieve the intent that we had."

Nancy Price also spoke strongly in favor of renewing Measure J as a means by which to enfranchise the Davis voters to be able to control the city's land use decisions. She also favored a more imminent discussion prior to the next election.

“I was not directly involved but I was behind the scenes very much involved in the discussion of Measure J. I think it’s very important as this measure really relates to the enactment of democracy and the inclusion of citizens in land use decisions, that the council take this up before the election. And I think it’s really important that those of you running for election address this issue prior to the election and make your positions very clear on this matter. I think the citizens need to have a very clear stand from those of you running.”

City Council candidate and wife of this blogger, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, spoke strongly in favor of retaining Measure J as currently written and making it permanent.

“The only way to ensure that this [voter control of land use policy] occurs is to put forward a measure that keeps Measure J as it is currently written so that it’s not weakened or watered down. Measure J must be made permanent in its current format so that we do not have to revisit this issue once again in the future.”

Following public comment, Mayor Sue Greenwald asked the council whether they wanted to put this on the agenda prior to the June election.

Councilmember Stephen Souza was adamantly against this suggestion. He was concerned that this would politicize the issue.

"I think it’s clear that for me, I don’t want to politicize it. I would rather leave the politics off the dais and leave it to the forums during the election campaign.”

That sounds good, but given that this measure eventually must go before the voters, I do not see how you can avoid politicizing the issue--it is by definition a political issue. The question is really whether or not Mr. Souza wants to go on record having a viewpoint that the voters can either choose to support or oppose.

The idea that somehow this is not going to be a politicized process at some point along the line is far-fetched at best. If it is to go before the voters in December of 2010, then it inevitably will become a potential issue for the June 2010 elections. When it goes on the ballot, it becomes a political issue then. So the question really is--when would this not be a political process? I do not see that that prospect can be avoided--so why not take it up and let the voters decide now prior to the 2008 election?

He went on to argue that this will be addressed in various candidate forums.

"For me that’s how I’m going to address [in candidates forums], I’m going to address it very clearly."

No one doubts that point, but there is a large difference between what you say during a candidate's debate and what you actually do when you have to make a decision that is before you. And frankly this should be a no-brainer in terms of the course of action that needs to be taken.

Finally, I found most troubling this statement:

"Any action that we take up here in regards to it can always be superseded by the action of the public through initiative."

According to Harriet's opinion, as I read it, the citizens can put a measure on the ballot--that in itself requires a tremendous amount of time and energy. It would also have to go up against the council's own initiative. That puts the citizens at a great disadvantage. He seems to be using this clause as a means by which to diffuse the gravity of the council's decision without regards to the amount of energy and resources it would take to mount such a citizen's drive. It would be far simpler to have a council majority that passes the measure that the citizens want and having the council support that measure.

I agree fully with the comments of Dr. Gene Borack:

"The fate of Measure J rests squarely in the hands of those who will be on the next council in less than eight weeks."

I do not see anyway that the council can avoid it. I understand in principle the point that Councilmember Souza is making with regards to the politicization of the process, the problem is that in this case, there is no avoiding that. Why not put yourself on record and have a full public debate on what is one of the most important issues facing the electorate?

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Measure J is in the Hands Largely of the Next Council

While the voters will have to approve what the council does, the council will have a large say over the shape and scope of the next Measure J vote, at least according to the opinion written by Harriet Steiner first reported by the Vanguard on Saturday morning.

Harriet Steiner believes that the city council has four options.

1. Not extend Measure J
2. Extend Measure J as is
3. Extend Measure J with an amendment or amendments
4. Place two or more measures on the ballot; one to extend Measure J as is and one or more additional measures to amend Measure J. The measure or measures that would go into effect would depend on how the measures were drafted, and how many votes each received, as explained below.

In addition to the council options, "the voters have the right to proceed with an initiative measure by collecting signatures and submitting an initiative petition to the City Council."

For clarification purposes, options 1 through 4 require a public vote--that means the council does not unilaterally get to repeal the Measure, but they could put before the voters a measure that would repeal Measure J.

Some have suggested that the public can simply organize and put the requisite number of signatures on the ballot in 2010. That is certainly true and likely what would occur should the council decide on 1 or 3. However, as I read the opinion, if there are competing measures, the one with the most votes win. The more confusion caused by competing measures, the less likely it is for Measure J to pass as currently written. One need only see the competing propositions by the auto industry on the ballot in 1990 to understand the possibilities.

The safest route for those who continue to support the citizen's right to choose would be to elect a new majority that has pledged to support Measure J in its current form and make it a permanent measure.

What is interesting to me is that people equate Measure J as an anti-growth measure. You can see the theme in some of the more colorful comments. Perhaps part of that is that the only Measure J vote went down to horrific defeat. But that was a proposal for nearly 2000 units. The next Measure J vote is likely to be considerably smaller in size and figures to fare far better at the polls.

The question is really twofold: does a development draw organized opposition and will that opposition resonate with the public as a whole. The last two growth measures was Measure X and Measure K (Target). Both drew strong organized opposition, but Measure K while not a Measure J mandated vote, passed.

Wildhorse was also not a Measure J vote, but it was able to obtain support from the community. Why? Because the developers and promoters worked with key neighbors and members of the community and were able to forge a coalition. Yes, there was organized opposition but they were able to overcome it.

The point is, that Measure J compels a vote, but that in itself does not doom a project. Ideally it would make the project better. It would force promoters and developers to work with a broad subsection of the public to make the project better. That is really what Measure J is about and exactly what the Covell Village partners did not do. The Covell Village partners would not have been able to sell the public on that specific project, but with better outreach and communication might have been able to develop a project that would have gained majority support.

Measure J is not about putting a wall around Davis or digging a moat. It is about giving the public a choice in how, when, and how much we develop. It is about forcing the developers to work with the public to create a project that the majority will support. But it puts the ultimate say with the public. It is for that reason that we need to work so hard to protect it.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

City Attorney Weighs In: MEASURE J IMPERILED?

According to a legal opinion by City Attorney Harriet Steiner, the next city council will have broad discretion in determining the shape of Measure J.

Measure J is the provision that requires a citizen's vote for any land-use change or annexation of land out of the city's current boundaries. Without Measure J in place, it is likely that the vote on Covell Village would never have occurred. The voters by a 60-40 margin rejected a large development outside of the city that was approved by the city council by a 4-1 vote.

Measure J sunsets on December 31, 2010. The City Council will be required prior to December 31, 2010 to place on the ballot one of four options.

The city attorney writes:

"Measure J was a City Council-initiated ballot measure that was approved by the voters in March 2000. Measure J will remain in effect until December 31, 2010, unless it is extended, amended, or repealed before that date."

Moreover:

"By its own terms, any changes to Measure J, including amendment, extension, or repeal, must be approved by the voters of the City of Davis at an election held in accordance with state law."

Harriet Steiner believes that the city council has four options.

1. Not extend Measure J
2. Extend Measure J as is
3. Extend Measure J with an amendment or amendments
4. "Place two or more measures on the ballot; one to extend Measure J as is and one or more additional measures to amend Measure J. The measure or measures that would go into effect would depend on how the measures were drafted, and how many votes each received, as explained below.

In addition to the council options, "the voters have the right to proceed with an initiative measure by collecting signatures and submitting an initiative petition to the City Council."

The two measure option would place competing measures on the ballot simultaneously.

"If two competing measures amended the same municipal code sections and both measures were approved by the voters, the one that received the most votes would prevail. If only one measure passed, then the measure that passed would go into effect. If neither passed, then Measure J would expire by its own terms on December 31, 2010.

What is clear from this legal opinion is that the next city council will go a long way towards determining the shape of the next Measure J. The options give the council the discretion to alter Measure J or to even put competing measures on the ballot in an attempt to either confuse the voters or make the process more difficult.

While the citizens retain the right to put their own measure on the ballot, such an endeavor is risky and expensive with strong forces lined up against a successful effort.

The simplest way for the voters of Davis to ensure that Measure J remains part of the vital citizen-controlled process is to elect a city council that will pledge to keep Measure J in place as is and to make it permanent so that we do not face this type of vote every ten years in the future.

Where do the candidates stand on this? Both Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald have come out in favor of making Measure J permanent and maintaining it as it is currently written. Cecilia has talked about it in her literature and on her website and Mayor Greenwald stated her position at the first candidates debate.

Rob Roy on his website vows to:

"Work to make Measure J permanent in 2010. It is important that Davis voters enjoy the direct democracy of choosing if, when, and how the city will expand. With the looming cost of our Wastewater treatment facility reaching its brink Davis cannot afford massive population increases (ie. projects like Covell Village).

Sidney Vergis during the candidates forum suggested that she would keep Measure J but make "non-substantive changes." She has however devoted very little time or space to talking about land use issues. And she is surrounded by those who supported Measure X and opposed Measure J in its original inception.

While Stephen Souza has frequently used Measure J as a reason why we can retain the 1% growth guideline among other things, he does not mention it on his website. Nor does Don Saylor.

Perhaps the most important issue that will face the next city council will be the renewal of Measure J. For those citizens who wish for the residents of Davis to retain their choice of how, when, and where we grow, it is important that we hold our council candidates to the fire on this issue and support those who will retain Measure J in its permanent form and make it permanent. After all, it is the citizens that should have a right to determine the future of their city.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting