Should Davis Adopt an Urban Limit Line?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Shriner's Property Leads to Discussion on Open Space and Ag Preservation

Last week, the Davis City Council took up the issue of the possible acquisition of the Shriner's Property by the City of Davis from Steve Gidaro for future preservation of open space and also a potential future spot of the sports fields.

While in and of itself, the proposal has decent properties to it, there are a number of concerns that remain both in terms of intentions and process that are need of resolution.

There is some question about how these talks came about and what the nature of them were. During the meeting, Councilmember Stephen Souza, who brought this item forward as an item submitted by a councilmember suggested that he came to Steve Gidaro to discuss selling the land to the city of Davis.

However, that is not the impression one gets from reading the Davis Enterprise article from July 29, 2007.

"As much as I was upset with him, initially, in the meetings that I have had, there have been good faith promises, and good faith discussions about preserving this land... So yes, he is interested in doing something good."

Councilmember Souza suggested that it was his idea to preserve the land, but if that's the case, why was Souza saying, "Just Go away"? There seems to be something going on here that is not being told. Also, why is Mr. Souza so angry with Mr. Gidaro? If it were not for Gidaro and his tactics, Mr. Souza would not have been elected to the city council. So there seems to be a bit of a disconnect here.

Next, Councilmember Souza suggested at the council meeting that it would be inappropriate for him as a councilmember to negotiate on behalf of the city. Yet, he is quoted in the paper as saying:

"I'm a shrewd negotiator... The bottom line is, my hope and my desire and my actions have always been to get this land as cheap as we can get it so we can actually get it."

If he was not involved in negotiations, why would he state that he's "a shrewd negotiatior?"

During the meeting, Councilmember Lamar Heystek pressed Councilmember Souza on a recent vote regarding ag mitigation. Specifically, Mr. Souza was asked if his intentions were to create open space, why he created an exemption in the ag mitigation ordinance for properties less than 40 acres, which specifically exempted the nearby Wild Horse Ranch property from adjacent mitigation. While adjacent mitigation on 80 acres, would not have consumed the entire Shriner's property, it would have set aside a swath for agricultural purposes at the expense of the developer, rather than at the expense of the city.

The question turned to why would the city council not have a developer as part of the condition of his development agreement, purchase the land for agricultural mitigation rather than force the city to do it as open space? Despite, repeated attempts by Councilmember Heystek, Mr. Souza never addressed this issue head-on and instead dodged the questions.

This led to a prolonged confrontation between the progressive minority of the council and the majority faction over the proper process. Councilmember Heystek and Mayor Sue Greenwald both insisted that if this is an item brought forward by a councilmember, the councilmember has the responsibility of getting grilled by his or her colleagues as though they were staff. If this is a problem, then perhaps the council ought to look at different approaches to items brought forward by council. Originally both the Mayor and Councilmember Heystek had wanted staff to do staff work on this.

Unfortunately, the attempts by Mayor Greenwald to sandbag this proposal ultimately muddied the water when she introduced the possibility that the Signature Properties, the next tract along Covell to the direct east of the Shriner's could be available free of charge to the city. However, in exchange for that land, the city would need to allow development on the Mace Curve on the south side of Covell. This would require around a 97-unit residential development. While this development would cost the city less in terms of money, it would require more housing, something that the Shriner's property proposal specifically avoids.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek suggested that the priority for the city should be the continuation of the process of turning the 700-acre Howatt Ranch into a sports-complex. There is a disadvantage that the ranch is the furthest away from the core of town of any of the three properties, however, the city currently owns that land and has been working for two years on developing it for the purpose of sports complexes. It is larger than the 100-acre suggestion on the Shriner's property.

Given that the city already owns the property and would not have to either purchase the land or allow for additional housing developments, Councilmember Heystek offered that this was perhaps the preferred option for the city despite the remote location of the property itself.

In the end, I agree most with Councilmember Heystek's position, although he ended up supporting the motion for the city staff to explore both the Shriner's and Signature Properties as possible alternative locations. His suggestion was that he thought in the end, the council and staff would still find the Howatt Ranch the best option. I am not less sure of that, and would have voted against a motion that authorizes staff to look into the two properties, both of which have fatal flaws in my book.

I agree with Mayor Greenwald's commitment to the urban limit line concept, however, in the end felt that she should not have brought the Signature Property into the discussion and that she too should have voted against the proposal.

At the end of the day, Councilmembers Souza and Saylor suggested that they had distrust for the intentions of Steve Gidaro. I find that an ironic statement in many ways. Not the least of which, that they may not have been elected without Gidaro and his dirty tricks, but also because at the end of the day, I must say I do not trust the intentions of either of these councilmembers. I would prefer that the council not help Mr. Gidaro unload the land that he has apparently determined he could not develop. And, I would prefer that the council, led by Souza and Saylor not make deals to exempt property of 40 acres or less from adjacent mitigation.

This deal, initiated at Souza and Saylor's behest casts severe doubt on the intentions with the Shriner's property because had they required adjacent mitigation for the Wild Horse Ranch property, it would have preserved a segment of the property that they are now looking to purchase. Except now it must be purchased at the expense of the city not the developer.

Finally, this entire discussion suggests that we ought to look more closely at Measure O and determine why the council has not been more vigilant about using Measure O to purchase and protect Open Space on the city periphery and agricultural land. Why is it that the will of the voters of Davis has been thwarted with regards to Measure O? Those are questions for another day, but they have to drive any discussion on open space and ag land preservation.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Shriner's Article in Enterprise Raises Suspicions and Questions About Process Involving Land Acquisition Issue

On Sunday the Davis Enterprise ran a front page, above-the-fold story on Councilmember Stephen Souza's proposal for the city council to acquire a 228-acre property north of Covell Blvd known as the Shriners property. In my now year of covering local issues on the Vanguard, I am not certain that there has been any issue that has more outraged a segment of the population than this one.

I received a number of calls and emails regarding this particular article, all of them focusing less on the proposal itself and more on the process by which this proposal has come forward. I will stress this point--the objections raised were not about the specifics of the proposal. The objections and questions all focused on the issue of proper process. Is this proposal coming to the council in a proper manner or is there something unseemly about it?

The gist of the problem stems from the nature in which this issue has been brought forward--not from the planning staff and the normal planning process--but rather as an agenda item placed by a councilmember. As one former member of the council told me, the fact that such a complex proposal would be brought forward by a councilmember rather than fully analyzed by the staff and the planning commission is utterly irresponsible.

There were also expressed concerns that it was inappropriate for a councilmember, Stephen Souza, to enter into negotiations with a property owner and developer, without prior direction from the council to begin with.

As Mr. Souza puts it: "I'm a shrewd negotiator."

Again, the statement itself seems ludicrous but it raises a number of issues about the propriety of such an arrangement. It also raises questions about the article itself which is very positive and does not quote anyone other than Councilmember Souza, it does not attempt to balance the issue out. Councilmembers when this issue was raised at last week's city council meeting, raised vehement objections to the way in which this issue was brought forward, and yet the Davis Enterprise prints nary a word in opposition. The Enterprise does not interview anyone on the other side. It is simply a positive piece about the issue, quoting only Councilmember Souza and no one else.

That issue alone should raise the caution flags, but there are other problems with the story. The background in the story about Steve Gidaro and his role in the 2004 council elections is very misleading.

The story says:

"In 2004, Gidaro's flared along Davis political circuits when he paid for telephone push polls for council candidates Stan Forbes, Mike Harrington, and Don Saylor... Gidaro legally reported large amounts of funding for the three candidates at the last minute, touching off a flurry of distrust and disappointment, not only from the voters but from the three candidates, who expressed anger at the unwanted donations."

This statement is misleading for Mr. Gidaro's campaign was aimed not at supporting Stan Forbes and Mike Harrington, but rather at destroying them. The paid push polls were not "for" Stan Forbes and Mike Harrington, they were aimed at destroying Mr. Forbes and Mr. Harrington. Moreover while he also spent money on the poll using Don Saylor's name, he spent a merely few thousand dollars on Mr. Saylor while spending tens of thousands on the other two. In other words, article made it seem like the three expenditures were identical and they were anything but. The intent was to cripple the former two candidates and the intent of including Mr. Saylor in the expenditure was to confuse the voters about the intention of the expenditure.

The beneficiaries of the expenditure were Don Saylor who was elected and Stephen Souza, who had twice before run and lost, and may have suffered the same fate were it not for the fact that Gidaro's expenditure crippled the chances of sitting Councilmember Mike Harrington from winning re-election.

The article cites anger by Mr. Souza directed at Mr. Gidaro, but in all likelihood Mr. Souza would not have been elected without that last second push, as Souza finished third, just slightly ahead of the damaged Michael Harrington. Maybe Souza has a sense for justice, but it seems odd that he would feel that strongly about tactics that clearly were aimed at getting him elected.

It is difficult to evaluate whether the emotions expressed in the article are genuine by Mr. Souza, however, when he discusses "good faith promises" and "good faith discussions about preserving this land" it rings hollow and casts severe doubt about what is being proposed. As even this favorable article makes clear there have been efforts over and over again at developing this land. Why would Mr. Gidaro abandon the land at the same time the city had specifically exempted adjacent mitigation along the Horse Ranch property that abuts Mr. Gidaro's property?

There are also Measure J questions that come up. Will th acquisition of this land require a Measure J vote? Is the county involved in these talks since this is county land right now? Would an acquisition of this land as organic farms and sports fields mean that a Measure J vote would not be needed in the future for development?

Mr. Souza may say "there isn't a catch" and "there's no quid pro quo," but given Gidaro's history and the way this land deal is coming about, he will have to forgive those of us who are suspicious of both from thinking otherwise.

Finally, Mr. Souza says, "Maybe he really does have a conservation streak... His attorney said this isn't unique for him; he's done it in other locales."

And maybe Tsakopoulos was really going to develop along the I-80 corridor just to finance a stem cell research center.

I do not know the motives of either Mr. Gidaro or Mr. Souza, but this whole issue is suspicious from the way in which the proposal was brought forward to the council last week, the fact that this is not going through the normal planning process, the fact that Mr. Souza was negotiating without council authorization, the fact that this involves Steve Gidaro, one of the more infamous figures in recent Davis history, and the fact that the council election is approaching.

Maybe this is on the level, but my thinking is that it should have gone through the planning department not Councilmember Souza to get here.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting