The Vanguard has a new home, please update your bookmarks to davisvanguard.org
Showing posts with label Tskaopoulos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tskaopoulos. Show all posts

Friday, December 21, 2007

Council Approves Small Increase to Developer Impact Fees That Keeps Davis on the Low End of the Spectrum

Last week ago, the issue of developer impact fees came up on the Vanguard in reference to a Tsakapolous project.

From the December 11, 2007 Sacramento Bee:
"A developer's willingness to purchase water services in advance of home construction will help the El Dorado Irrigation District weather the downturn in the housing market.

The district board Monday approved an agreement with AKT Carson Creek Investors LLC that calls for the firm to pay nearly $4.34 million in facility capacity charges for water, wastewater and recycled water service in 2008 as an advance deposit on the fees that will be levied when the residential units are built. The company owns the Carson Creek properties in the El Dorado Hills area.

District counsel Tom Cumpston said the pact is similar to contracts the district entered into in the past through assessment districts and other advance funding agreements."
This article in turn spawned a discussion as to whether Davis got its fair share of developer impact fees.

In that article I suggested:
"In short, the real question is are we asking developers to do enough in the city of Davis when we approve their plans?

I am not advocating more development here. Nor am I suggesting that developers need to take a loss on their project.

What I am suggesting is that we ask our developers to do more than we presently do. If they want to develop land adjacent to Davis, and we think these are good projects for the future, maybe, just maybe, we should ask for things in return, so that these developments do not negatively impact the city as much as they presently do."
This issue came up to council on Tuesday of this week. City Staffer Paul Navazio proposed a new method for assessing developer impact fees. The proposal would raise the fees from a range of 12.19% to 38.38%.

The biggest of these increases would be single family dwellings which would increase by over 33%.

Nevertheless, in relative terms, as the chart demonstrates, Davis is getting among the lowest amount of developer impact fees of the jurisdictions that were sampled in the chart that is posted next to the article--particularly for single family dwellings, which make up a large percentage of new developments.

Mayor Sue Greenwald spoke passionately on this issue, at one point somewhat parodied Councilmember Saylor's demeanor and delivery style.
"Year after year, our impact fees have been among the lowest of all cities we've looked at. Year after year, we always say in measured reasonable voices that we need more details, we're making progress, we need more studies, more data, more plans, and year after year after year our developer fees are the lowest.

Right now I'm going to repeat, our water fee is the lowest of nine cities we looked at. It's $2740, the water fee for Livermore which is a slow growth city is $22,775, ten times the size of our developer fee.

There's no excuse for this. Every year since I've been on the council, at least the last six years I've been saying, there's no excuse for this. And every year in measured voices, the council answers, well we have to study more, work on our methodology, get more details."
Mayor Greenwald said she would "have to vote for this, otherwise we will get even lower developer fees." However she did make a motion to get an independent, outside consultant to examine the fees, and see what we could legitimately and more reasonably charge developers, in an attempt to get a higher but more fair share for the city of Davis.

While the council passed the new impact fees as proposed, the Mayor lost in a 2-2 vote on the issue of an outside consultant examining whether the fee could be increased.

The bottom line for me is that there are very real costs that occur as the result of development, costs that actually make it not cost-effective for the city. A good illustrator of this point is the impact of West Village. Both the city and UC Davis would lose money on cost of services versus what they would recoup in one-time developer fees and property taxes.

This would seem a no-brainer issue for both sides. For those in favor of development, higher development impact fees might make the public and the council more willing to approve future housing projects. For those in favor of lower development, higher development impact fees means that the city can recoup more of its costs for water, public safety, and traffic impact. The cost of these services generally means that development is a losing prospect for the community.

Meanwhile Davis is going to grapple with increased water and sewer costs in the near future, allowing developers to pay more of their fair-share seems the only realistic way to go here. But again, the council majority does not seem to see it that way.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Carrots and Sticks in Development Can be Transposed

It was last summer that Yolo County received an offer from developer Angelo Tsakopoulos in exchange for him being allowed to develop a huge swath of land west of the causeway, he would use some of that money to produce a stem cell research facility. However, the idea of the stem cell research facility, the size, the location, and the proximity to a flood plain weighed heavily against such a proposal. As did the fact that the proposed site was on the periphery of Davis and the Davis City Council had not been involved in any of the discussions.

Eventually this site was eliminated more or less as a viable option for the County General Plan update.

Now we get a similar story from El Dorado. Here the housing development was not the problem, however there were other concerns.

From yesterday's Sacramento Bee:
"A developer's willingness to purchase water services in advance of home construction will help the El Dorado Irrigation District weather the downturn in the housing market.

The district board Monday approved an agreement with AKT Carson Creek Investors LLC that calls for the firm to pay nearly $4.34 million in facility capacity charges for water, wastewater and recycled water service in 2008 as an advance deposit on the fees that will be levied when the residential units are built. The company owns the Carson Creek properties in the El Dorado Hills area.

District counsel Tom Cumpston said the pact is similar to contracts the district entered into in the past through assessment districts and other advance funding agreements.

"The issue is an overarching one," Cumpston said of the impetus for the agreement. "The volatility of the regional housing market has a significant effect on the district's budgeting."

Without the advance payment, he said, the district would have difficulty providing the debt service coverage for its bond program in 2008. To meet the bond obligation requirements, the district's total revenues must exceed operating expenditures, including debt payments, by 125 percent."
The story illustrates two things. First, that Tsakopoulos is willing to do a tremendous amount in exchange for the ability to develop housing developments, even in the midst of a construction slow down that is dissuading and encumbering many. A stem cell research facility would be a nice thing to bring to Yolo County, but not at this cost. Certainly not at the cost of having to allow Tsakopoulos to sink his teeth into our local community. But by the same measure, he does get it in a way some of our local leadership do not.

For there is a second lesson for all involved here and that has to do with development agreements themselves. Imagine in the next development that Davis considers, if the developer has to pay some of the huge costs that the city would ordinarily have to eat. For example, the amount of cost in services for West Village is prohibitive. UC Davis will lose money on it regardless. The City of Davis if they annex it, loses somewhat less money. But imagine if one of the conditions upon which the developer is entitled to develop the property is that they have to find a way to mitigate some of the costs for the city?

In short, the real question is are we asking developers to do enough in the city of Davis when we approve their plans?

I am not advocating more development here. Nor am I suggesting that developers need to take a loss on their project.

What I am suggesting is that we ask our developers to do more than we presently do. If they want to develop land adjacent to Davis, and we think these are good projects for the future, maybe, just maybe, we should ask for things in return, so that these developments do not negatively impact the city as much as they presently do.

Just some food for thought.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Interview with Fourth District Supervisor Candidate John Ferrera

The Vanguard recently sat down with John Ferrera, Chief of Staff to State Senator Denise Ducheny, who has recently formally announced his bid for the Fourth Supervisorial District to replace current Supervisor Mariko Yamada who is running for the 8th Assembly District. A few weeks ago, we spoke with his opponent, School Board President Jim Provenza.

Why are you running for County Supervisor?

Anna and I grew up in families that were really active in our communities when we were growing up. We learned that participating in things is the best way to get what you need and the best way to help other people. I think we’ve been that way ourselves. We’ve both worked in public service. It’s just been a natural progression for me wanting to take a little more responsibility. I feel like I’m at a place in my career and our family is at a place in our lives where we can give back a little more directly and this seems like the best opportunity to do that.

Can you describe your experience both in government and in the community and explain why you believe those experiences prepare you to serve on the county board of supervisors?

I have like I said worked in public service for 20 years, on the hill for working for a couple of different members, mostly working on transportation and economy policy, infrastructure policy and land use and environmental policy. I think all of those things are really important for how we set up the county and our community for the next 20 years. Here in California I’ve worked for two governors and two members of the legislature. Right now I’m working for the Senate Budget chair and I think all of those experiences from a professional level have helped me to bring people together and bring divergent interests together to help solve problems. Collaboration is a huge theme in what I want to do and working between levels of government and between government and the private sector and advocacy groups is a really important tool we used to be successful in government to provide what everybody needs.

In the community, we’ve been very active in each and every campaign and election since I got here. I walked precincts with the kids and with Anna every single time, against the recall, against the special election, I was actually the spokesperson on the televised debate for the Democratic Club for the recall debate. And then we’re active in the school, Pioneer Elementary is where our kids have gone. Jake, my son, is now in Harper Middle School and we’re really active in the schools. Coached in little league.

And then on the county level, Supervisor Rosenberg appointed me to the library advisory board so that we could work on getting services in South Davis to supplement the main branch. Supervisor Yamada reappointed me and Measure P is a great opportunity for South Davis actually to finally get some resources to get services to South Davis, so I’m proud of that.

What accomplishment in your adult life do you feel most proud of?

When I started with the Davis administration, we had a booming year because of the dot.com economy and we had some extra money in the state budget to spend. I was the leading person at the Business, Transportation, and Housing committee for Governor Davis and put together a $15 billion transportation plan. The reason why I’m so proud of that is not just the huge amount of dollars that we spent on infrastructure that we badly need in this state, but we did a great deal of work on alternative transportation, on transit, I worked with now Supervisor, but then Assemblywoman Thomson to make sure that Sacramento RT and Yolobus got its fair share of funding for clean air buses. So we changed out a lot of the fleet to cleaner burning buses which is great for the environment and also helped her on her work on the bike lanes in and around Davis, 113 being one and the pedestrian overpass for Raley Field. So having a direct impact on people when you have your job is really gratifying and I’m really proud of that work.

People have consistently asked me about you, my response is that you seem like a very nice person, you have a nice wife, but I know very little about what you’d do if elected. So right now tell us a bit about what you believe, philosophically—i.e. what are your core values? What is the primary role of government and who do you believe is government’s primary responsibility to serve?

I think government’s primary responsibility is to facilitate what people need, what human beings need, whether that’s our small business or our farmers, to help them succeed so that they can have money in the county coffers or the city coffers, to provide for people who can’t provide for themselves. Whether it’s health and human services which is 50 percent of the budget or whether it’s law enforcement and public safety, if we don’t help as a government to facilitate what people do for a living to be prosperous in ways that are environmentally friendly and serve the public, then we won’t have the resources to provide for the people who most need it.

What are your primary goals on the board of supervisors if elected?

One of my primary goals… I would say I have two primary goals and I have a lot of goals. The overreaching goal I have is a long-term vision and a creative vision for the future. We in government tend to look at the problem we face today or the opportunity that we face today and don’t do a good enough job sometimes of looking out on how our decisions are made today are impacting the future. That is a broad theme of mine. Another goal I have is to work as collaboratively as I possibly can, and I’ve really developed an ability to do that over 20 years in public service, to bring people together and facilitate conversations and collaboration that will help us solve our problems, and reach the opportunities that we have.

Specifically a big goal of mine is to help Yolo County deal with being in the middle of two huge growth areas-the Bay Area grows east and Sacramento is booming, even with the slowed economy and when the economy picks back up again, we're going to face that pressure again. We need to work very very closely with SACOG who has the responsibility of distributing our housing share for instance. And make sure that Yolo County is only getting what its fair share is, so that we're not forced to overgrow. It's very very important that we not overgrow because we've been given a greater responsibility than is fair from SACOG.

And another is being able to grow the economy to help take advantage of our strengths here in Yolo, so that we can provide for those people who need our help. Elder Care is a huge issue for me. We are working with Anna's mother who has an illness that challenges her advancing age. There are services that are available that aren't even public services that we can do a better job of facilitating people being aware of and taking advantage of. Yolo Hospice is a terrific example of that. A non-profit organization, wonderful people, who do a good job of helping others and we need to make sure that our citizens are aware of that.

What do you see as the biggest challenges facing the county?

As I said we are in the middle of two huge growth areas. I think growth is a huge issue and I think resources and revenue are a huge issue. Solano County announced plans to grow from 430,000 to 860,000 people. That’s not for Yolo County. And if we don’t look into the future, and take a broad and creative and long term look, to protecting our open space and agricultural land, and working with the cities in the county, not just from a county perspective, but with all of our partners, the tribe, the university, then solutions will be chosen for us instead of our being proactive and creative and making sure that we protect what we love about Yolo.

How would you have approached the general plan discussion differently from how it was approached by the current board (if at all)?

I think the current board has done a pretty good job. I respect the people on the board, I’ve worked with them. As you know, Supervisor Thomson has endorsed me and I find that really gratifying because I know that she’ll still be there and that means she still wants to work with me as the General Plan process spills over to 2009, which is what the staff has said. And implementation will be a huge issue. I think that even the board has recognized that there needed to be some better communication with the county’s partners on growth around the periphery. Davis, the Dunnigan Hills Agricultural District issue, sometimes people react to bad proposals, but sometimes people react badly to a lack of information and I think that a lot of the issues that have been raised in an emotional way before the board during the general plan process have to do with the fact that as the board recognized they needed to do a better job of communicating with their partners.

Who ought to determine whether the City of Davis needs to grow and develop on its periphery?

That is a joint decision between the city and the board of supervisors. I am a firm believer in collaboration, I am a believer of inter-governmental relations. That’s why I’ll keep going back to our relationships with the tribe, with the university and with our partners in the cities. I love Davis. I wanted to raise my children here. There are people who are born and raised here, people who have moved here, move here for what Davis is and that’s a great town, an intellectual town, with great resources for people and for children and we need to make those decisions collaboratively and I wouldn’t ever be making those decision unilaterally.

Do you support the current pass-through agreement? If so, how would you seek to protect it?

I think that the current pass-through agreement is a great example of how partners can work together as a voluntary agreement and it was an important step at a point in our history, twenty years ago, it’s a great tool to memorialize what our agreements are, that we’re respecting each other’s roles and respecting how Davis and the county are going to interact with each other. That being said, 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.

In the article on you in the Daily Democrat, you regretted that the stem cell facility proposal was dismissed out of hand. You suggested that you did not support the housing, but the plan called for the use of revenue generated from housing to fund the stem cell research facility. Can you explain your thoughts on this and how such a facility could be supported without the housing revenue?

My perspective on that David is simply that as a supervisor, I want to do everything that I can to learn about the opportunities that we might have. One of our strengths, I talked about economy here and Yolo County, one of our strengths in Yolo County is our intellectual capacity, the university is a great participant in that. Doing things that push the envelope on stem cell and health research and alternative fuels will take advantage of huge strengths that we have in Yolo County. I think that we need to have as much conversation as we possibly can with somebody who comes with a proposal like the stem cell research center and find out whether or not it can work for the county. If the only way that it can work for the county is to build 7500 homes in a floodplain, then eventually we would have to say no. But not having the conversation about how otherwise it might be provided for, where revenue might come from, or if there’s another package that could be put together that mutually benefited the cities and the county and the proponents of the project, then why not have the conversation and try to find out the most we can about how we can take advantage of that opportunity and not just dismiss it as some people in our community did.

Do you believe that development is a way to address some of the county revenue problems?

Development as an economic development tool is just a short-term fix. The reason for seeking to provide affordable and workforce housing is not an economic bump. The reason to provide housing is twofold. One, we have a state legal responsibility to provide for the housing that’s distributed through the RHNA process. The other is that we have a human responsibility to provide for a very very basic need for our people. And if we don’t make Yolo a livable place and try our best to make it an affordable place for our workforce to live, it’s going to be all the harder to protect our environment because people that work for us or with us here are going to be traveling greater distances and for our economy because workers will seek to work closer to where they live and if they can’t live in Yolo County that’s going to make it awfully difficult for us to grow our economy.

As far as the budget and the economy is concerned, like I said, we have tremendous strengths here in Yolo County. Agricultural economy is enormous, it’s great, and the fourth district is the second largest agricultural district in the county. We have crops that we grow that are sometimes unique in their quality like the Clarksburg appellation of grapes. But we don’t have the infrastructure or the processing facilities or the storage facilities and so there are hundreds of tons of grapes sitting on the vine that may never be used in Clarksburg because we don’t have storage or processing facilities. The same is true of other crops. Tomato processing has gone out of the county, there are other crops that we could take advantage of and have the value here in Yolo County and that increases the revenue to the county and allows us to provide the services that we need to provide for the people who need us. Alternative energy is another huge area, again we have an agricultural economy and technology is catching up and providing us with ways to turn agricultural waste to energy in really an environmentally friendly way. If we can help with the research on that and with doing a better job with biomass and landfill gas to take advantage of those energy opportunities, then that is a great way to go for Yolo County to generate resources as well.

How much should Yolo County grow in the next 20 years (annual rate)?

We have 190,000 people, it’s impossible to put a percentage, I think, on how much we’re going to grow. I think that there is no end of proposals for growth, some of them are bad and some of them are good. We need to take a really progressive standpoint and do our research and ask the really important questions about whether we are providing enough affordable housing as part of development proposals, whether we are providing alternative means of transportation so that we’re just not throwing people onto the roads, whether we have jobs-housing balance so that we don’t create more transportation and more gridlock in the county. I can’t tell you what a percentage is and I really don’t think it would be responsible for me to try to guess over 20 years x-percent. But I do want you to know that I am not somebody who thinks that grow for growth’s sake is beneficial to the county or will help us protect what we have in Yolo that we love.

You are endorsed by Supervisor Helen Thomson, in what ways would you support her policies and in what ways would you be different from her?

Supervisor Thomson has an incredible record of public service here in Davis and in Yolo County and actually in the 8th Assembly District. I think that she is a fantastic leader. I think she is the kind of leader that I would like to be. Somebody who seeks to bring people together to resolve any differences we might have, work cooperatively, to finding solutions to the challenges that we have. I think that she, like me, is disappointed in the breakdown of the dialogue in our county and in our nation, I think that we’ve lost some of our ability to communicate productively and to respect each other’s point of view and learn from each other and gain the most information that we can while we’re making our decisions. I can’t think of a specific example of something that she has done or a decision that she has made that I would have opposed, but as a leader, I think that she is a great example of someone that I would like to emulate.

As County Supervisor, who do you believe you represent first, your constituents or the county as a whole?

That’s an interesting question because it seems to come from a perspective, and I’m not accusing you of this, but the question itself seems to come from the perspective that those interests are mutually exclusive or in conflict. I think people are tired of conflict and people are tired of the lack of respect of other people’s views. I am very active in the community as is Anna, we are everywhere around, we talk to the people who would be my constituents all the time and our community is what I would represent on the board and that’s very very important to me, but I think that the goals of Davis and the Davis community and El Macero, WiIllowbank, and the unincorporated areas and all of that ag land in the Yolo basin are consistent with what we need to do in the county as well.

How can you help the city and county work together rather than against each other on future policy decisions?

Again David, I’ve spent 20 years in public service, working in places that fortunately or unfortunately have put me in between various interests, sometimes interests in tremendous conflict, and I think I’ve developed a professional expertise for bringing those people together, facilitating communications, finding solutions, and moving forward. I would hope and I would expect that I will have a good relationship with my colleagues on the city council, and I do, I have two endorsements from the city council, one from Ruth and one from Stephen Souza and my first goal in any relationship is always to work collaboratively and that’s what I want to bring to the board. I want to be reaching out and treating my colleagues on the city level, in the tribe, in the university, in other cities, and on the board as colleagues and work collaboratively with them.

How can the county work better with the University?

The university is part of a constitutional entity. The county and the city have little authority over many of the decisions that are made at the university. This is why it’s absolutely critical that we work well with the University of California. God knows we’re not going to agree with the decisions, all of the decisions that they’ve made or are going to make, but you work much better when you’re collaborating with somebody and you have a productive relationship and open communication then you do when you are at odds. And it’s very very important that the city and the county work closely with the university so that we have that kind of relationship so that the university feels bought into consulting us on decisions they make that affect the county and the city, and that’s absolutely critical.

What do you think about moving the BOS meetings to evenings?

I am willing to consider something like that, especially if there are issues that have a lot of community interest. My concern would be there is in a county where we don’t have a lot of resources and where we want to make sure that we guard them jealously, what the impact would be on the county budget opening at night and having county employees on call that really should be serving our constituents during the daytime. So I would have to balance evening meetings against those concerns.

Do you plan to use blog and other technology during your campaign or as a Supervisor?

I’ll have a website up soon. I’m not a blogger. Actually, and I don’t want to seem like I’m pandering to you, David, but you’re doing a fine job at the Vanguard, I think, objective and thoughtful research and reporting on issues that people may not have the time to research on their own, God knows, it’s hard enough for the average people to keep up with the city council and the board meetings, let alone all of the commissions and committees that they have and all of the input that they get on that level. I would commit myself to learning as much as I can, to being fully briefed on what we’re facing on the board, and leave the blogging to folks like you.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Commentary: Do not be charging me with NIMBYism When I Oppose Your 600K Housing Development

Recently I was reading an article in Mother Jones of all places that caught my eye. The title, "NIMBY Notebook: Habitat for Hypocrisy."

It is the story of Habit for Humanity in Marin County. "Housing advocates say Marin County's Bill Duane exemplifies a vexing irony: People support affordable housing with their labor, money, and votes—just so long as it's nowhere near them." Now Marin County is one of the most reliably liberal counties in country, but what you might call a "limousine liberal" community. The article tells the story of a man who was a strong supporter of Habit for Humanity, even volunteered for it, until "the group announced plans to build two affordable duplexes just down the street from him."

The article goes on to suggest:
"opposition to affordable housing in the county was so fierce in the 1990s that a Marin chapter of Habitat disbanded"
Furthermore they are not simply picking on Marin, they cite the same problem in other wealthly liberal communities such as Martha's Vineyard and Boulder, Colorado.

The article caught my attention for the date on the publication was July 17, 2007, the same day that Davis successfully fought back county attempts at massive development on the Davis periphery. The same day, that many liberal activists descended on Yolo County in hopes of the creation of a Stem Cell research facility. And indeed, on that day, many of the same Stem Cell research advocates were claiming the same thing about our opposition to development, it was simply about NIMBYism. That the liberals in Davis, like their counterparts elsewhere are a bunch of white elitists trying to keep the minorities and the families out of Davis.

I scoffed at the notion at the time because those making that charge obviously do not know me or why I have become an activist in this community, it was to defend civil rights first. In fact, on most days I would be on their side, leading the fight for Stem Cell research. On most days, I would be leading the fight for affordable housing. Heck, I will tell you this, if Habitat For Humanity had a project in Davis, I would be the one helping to build the houses.

Unlike the Mother Jones article, the charges against Davis was unfair. We were not opposing true affordable housing, we were opposing more McMansions.

The problem with that argument on that day, is that the projects that are being proposed will not bring more diversity to Davis. They will not bring more affordable housing to Davis. They will bring more limousine liberals and suburban Republicans to Davis. Covell Village had a set aside ratio of "affordable houses" but the bulk of the project would be houses in the range of $600,000 per unit. That was not going to help new families move to Davis. It was not going to help the children of Davis families stay in Davis. And it was not going to help people of color come to Davis. The only thing it would do is reinforce existing housing patterns while at the same time causing more congestion on our streets and reduce open space and farm land in our surroundings.

At the end of the day, if I saw a truly modest housing proposal that actually provided affordability to families and people of color, I would likely support it. But I have not seen one yet. All I have seen is more of the same, and if given the choice between protecting agricultural land and open space and building more overpriced homes, I choose the former. And if we want a true stem cell research facility, not built near the causeway, but built in a place that is more appropriate, I am leading the fight. But we have not had one of those and I do not expect to get one of those in the near future.

In the meantime, do not be charging me with NIMBYism when I do not support your 2000 unit proposal chalk-full of $600,000 homes with a small percentage of limited equity affordable housing set aside as chump change. I am not falling for that trick. Give me a real proposal for affordable housing for families and then we can talk.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Monday, July 23, 2007

Commentary: Weintraub's Critique of Davis Fails to Understand the Fundamentals of Liberalism

I read Daniel Weintraub's critique of Davis in the Sacramento Bee: "Liberal town? Davis is white, wealthy and conservative" with somewhat mixed emotions.

After all I have been a strong critic of Davis' liberal persona at times. In fact, I was quoted in the Bee in January saying:
"Davis isn't as liberal as it thinks."
The irony however is that when I say that "Davis isn't as liberal as it thinks", I am in large part talking about the opposite things that Weintraub is talking about.

As many know, one of my main critiques of Davis has been the failure by some in this community to acknowledge what I have termed "the dark underbelly." The portion of Davis beneath the liberal veneer, that can allow incidents of racism and intolerance to brew without scrutiny. The denial on the part of some as to whether there have been problems in the past with practices by some police officers that call for police oversight. The problems that we have seen in the last year at the high school and junior high with racial incidence of intolerance and bigotry. The failure by school administrators to properly handle these incidents. These are parts of my critique on the persona of liberal Davis.

However, another aspect of this critique is in many ways the inconsistency between public rhetoric by officials and government policy. We see at the same time, members of the Davis City Council talking about environmentalism, talking about global warming, but at the same time supporting massive developments that will lead inevitably to traffic and pollution problems. Supporting the building of big-box retail stores that are globally unsustainable and add vastly to our carbon footprint both as a community and globally. There is a fundamental incompatibility with the expressed concern for global warming and the support for unsustainable policies at home.

Again this is my critique of Davis. Weintraub is complaining about Davis because Davis has failed to grow fast enough for his liking apparently--this in itself is somewhat of a myth. In the 1950s, Davis was a town of a few thousand people and it has grown to a town of nearly 70,000. Contrary to the slow-growth myth, Davis has been a city that has grown rapidly.

The editorial cites Supervisor Helen Thomson's daughter as not being able to buy a home in Davis--a topic that Supervisor Thomson brought up at the Board of Supervisor's meeting last week and that I criticized on this blog during that meeting. In fact, a friend drove me through a Davis neighborhood near the Covell site and I saw a large number of homes that Supervisor Thomson's daughter could afford--unfortunately, she was looking for them at the wrong time it seems. The housing market is considerably better now than it was a few years back.

Moreover, the solution to the problem of housing is not the kind of developments put forward by Supervisor Helen Thomson either at Covell Village which she supported or the county level which were shelved.

Mr. Weintraub writes:
"When Helen Thomson's daughter went looking for housing a few years ago in her native Davis, the cheapest thing she could find was a half-million-dollar fixer-upper.

The home reeked from the smell of too many cats, and the floors sloped. "If you dropped a marble at the front door," Thomson says, "it would roll through the house and into the back yard." Her daughter settled for a house in West Sacramento instead."
In fact, had Covell Village gone through, that is what largely would have been built--absent the cat odor.

The irony is that Davis is hardly alone in Northern California in terms of unaffordability of homes--and those communities largely run the gamut in terms of ethnicity and growth policies. The Bay Area particularly the east and south bay have had large growth and remain highly unaffordable. The basic problem is that demand exceeds supply and that will largely be the case regardless of growth policies--unless Davis is to grow so fast that it becomes more like Lodi and less like Davis. Is that really what we are aiming for?

I am still unclear as to how supporting sustainable growth, agricultural preservation, and environmental protection policies makes Davis conservative?

Have we changed our definitions here to make developers the vanguard of liberalism? To be liberal means to support rapid growth, paving over of agricultural land and nature preserves?

The irony of this is that the projects that have been supported would be building homes that are very large. These policies involve building homes that cost well over what Supervisor Thomson's daughter could afford. And in reality, they involve building homes that would house largely Republicans rather than Democrats.

And Mr. Weintraub believes that would be the hallmark of liberalism? By what grounds?

As Mr. Weintraub suggests:
"While the rest of California becomes more ethnically and economically diverse, Davis remains a mostly white enclave for wealthy, highly educated people... The city is 70 percent white and 17 percent Asian American, but fewer than 3 percent of its residents are African American and only about 10 percent are Latino."
In fact, as someone pointed out recently, Davis does remain ethnically less diverse than other areas of California, however, that does not mean it has not become more ethnically diverse than it had been. The figure of 70 percent white actually represents a strong downturn in the white population that in the 1980s stood over 90 percent.

Weintraub's solution like that of the Supervisor's last week is massive housing developments which would destroy the character of Davis.

I think there are a number of ways that we can have a larger and more diverse housing market without the massive developments, without building more $600,000 homes, without paving over prime agricultural land. I challenge our leaders to be creative and find news ways to do this. But I admonish people like Daniel Weintraub who suggest that if we do not follow the models by other communities to build, build, build, that makes us a bunch of rich conservatives.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Tsakopoulos Signals the End of His Proposed Development Along the I-80 Corridor

In a July 12, 2007 Sacramento Bee article Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada was quoted as saying:
"I would like everyone to take a deep breath. Calm down... There will be no decisions on specific projects that will be entertained in terms of action on Tuesday."
As developer Angelo Tsakopoulos firmly understood however, the stakes were very high. A "yes" vote, might not have begun construction on the project. But as Tsakopoulos suggested:
"If they decide not to study it, it's all over."
Toward that end, Tsakopoulos and his supporters brought in a large number of activists, researchers, and representatives to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday.

In the end, the County voted by a 4-1 vote not to include the proposed study areas, including the Tsakopoulos proposal along I-80, in the general plan update.

One of the people that Tsakopoulos hired to promote his proposal was Bob Waste, a professor of public policy at California State University Sacramento.

The first Tsakopous article appeared in the Sacramento Bee on June 28, 2007. The next day, the Vanguard ran the article: "Commentary: Who is left to defend Yolo County Farmland?"

Like many other entities before it such as UC Davis, Tsakopoulos had his people, including Bob Waste, monitoring the Vanguard. Now that this fight was over, Tsakopoulos and Bob Waste will undoubtedly move on to his next fight, trying to woo the next community to approve his housing development by holding out the carrot of promise.

As the Sacramento Bee wrote on June 28, the recent plan was:
"similar in approach to efforts Tsakopoulos has made in Sacramento and Placer counties, where he offered to fund an NBA arena and a university, respectively, with the proceeds from new development on agricultural land that is now off limits to building."
Yolo County joins now a growing list of communities that said, "no" to the carrot for fear of the stick that inevitably would follow--massive housing developments of faceless, tract homes. Davis did not need to become the next Natomas in exchange for the potential promise of a stem cell research facility--should the project have generated enough money to fund it.

This was not a realistic way to produce either more affordable housing or a stem cell research facility. I understand the frustration of those for whom this research holds out a beacon of hope. But there are other issues at stake. Building housing developments on agricultural land is in the long run not a sustainable practice. If California is truly going to reach 60 million people in the next 40 years, we not only need to provide housing for them, but we need to feed them. It is difficult to do that when you are paving over prime agricultural land. It is also unrealistic to continue to develop in flood plains.

At the end of the day, the people of Davis dodged a bullet, while Tsakopoulos will move on, hoping the next community is a bit more amenable to his plans. I feel bad for those like Ami Daly who sat next to me at the meeting and Bob Klein who I met after the meeting, people who have a genuine passion for stem cell research. For them, hope was in the air, but for Tsakopoulos, the stem cell research center was simply a carrot to dangle in hopes of getting his urban sprawl development along the I-80 corridor. If he was genuinely interested in stem cell research he could have funded it without the requisite massive housing development on prime agricultural land. I hope that the necessary funding can be obtained to produce a research facility in a more appropriate location. If Tsakopoulos were to fund such a center at UC Davis, or at a more appropriate location it would leave an amazing legacy and hope for many.

I also believe that there are other and better solutions to housing costs other than the perpetuation of the same policies that drove up housing costs to begin with. More on that in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, Bob Waste and Angelo Tsakopoulos' proposal for a massive housing development exit from the Vanguard's community, and in the end, Davis and Yolo County are better for it.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Commentary: Stem Cell Issue a "Trojan Horse" For Massive Development Along I-80

Perhaps the low point in the proceedings on Tuesday was when Miss Disabled California came to speak before the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, wearing her sash and spoke about how one day, she hoped that she would give up her crown because her condition would be cured.

Indeed, there was a full parade of individuals, many of whom either suffered from horrendous maladies or who had family members who had, that came up to speak about the need for stem cell research and specifically for the Tsakapoulos project that proposed developing 1500 acres of housing development and using the proceeds to fund a stem cell research facility in the area along the I-80 corridor.

The worst part about watching this, is that during breaks, I got to meet a number of people who had come here for the promise of the possibility of a world-class research facility promised by Mr. Tsakapoulos. 364 days out of the year, I would have been on the side of these people, fighting for funding for this new technology that promises to make for a better life for so many people.

Unfortunately, on this day, I was on the other side from them. For in my view, Supervisor Matt Rexroad was correct, "This was not a stem cell issue. It is a land use issue."

I would stop somewhat short however of requesting that their testimony be ruled out of order--"The testimony from these people should have been ruled out of order. It had no bearing on the issue at hand."

Had I been chair, I would have ruled that they could speak, but would probably direct them to tie back to the land use question, even if it was a mechanical statement at the end, "for that reason, please allow the joint study area to go forward" or something like that...

Supervisor Rexroad also complained about the use of official UC Davis letterhead for the purpose of political lobbying which implied that these positions represented the position of the university.
"The one remaining procedural issue I had from the meeting involves all the letters being passed around on UC Davis letterhead. Several went around the room yesterday. They were written on official looking letterhead by people with important titles that worked for UCD."
Supervisor Rexroad is sending a letter to Chancellor Vanderhoef asking for a clarification of the University's position on this issue.

In the meantime, last night, Elisabeth Sherwin of the Davis Enterprise reported that Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef had in fact released a statement.
“On behalf of the university, I support the research and the development of the kind of research park that would house such research,” he said through spokesman Mitchel Benson.

“As to where such a research park might be located, there would be obvious advantages to having it in proximity to the university, but communities in which the siting is proposed to occur would have to first deal with its pros and cons,” Vanderhoef said. “The decision, then, rests most appropriately with those communities and their elected officials.”
For me, this was a land-use issue, not a stem cell issue. Supervisor Helen Thomson suggested that she would "like to see Yolo County have a stem-cell research center somewhere." Supervisor Rexroad suggested that UC Davis would be a better location for such a research facility.

In the end, I would suggest that the Board of Supervisors work with the city of Davis and UC Davis to help bring a stem-cell research facility to this county, however, it needs to be in an appropriate location.

As I suggested 364 out of 365 days in the year, I support stem-cell research and would have been fighting right next to these people. But this was not the location to put it. Moreover, as I suggested to one of the advocates sitting next to me, why was there no discussion with the City of Davis about this? This went completely through the county. That was inappropriate.

Jim Provenza who is running for the Board of Supervisors to replace Supervisor Yamada was exactly right with several of his points. He called the Stem-Cell Research center a Trojan horse that is being used to sneak development in a location along Interstate 80 that is inappropriate for a number of reasons.

First, it would represent tremendous sprawl out to the east of Davis. It would abut the levy, which would place it into a flood zone and also a sensitive wild life area.

Moreover, it would bring in thousands of new residents onto a highway that is already congested to capacity. His description of it as the "congestion corridor" was very accurate.

We need to be clear on this point--the county in my opinion, ceded land use authority on the Davis periphery when it signed the pass-through agreement and took the city's money. But regardless of who controls land-use authority, this location is inappropriate for development.

When the point was raised that this location was inappropriate, one of the individuals there to lobby for stem cell research mentioned that without the capital investment, the research facility was not feasible. They also described in what ways the Proposition 71 was insufficient--one example was that state money could not be bundled with foreign investment.

These are all serious concerns. However, at the end of the day, I think it is inappropriate for people to come into this community and start demanding that we have huge developments in order for them to get their research facility. They do not live here and have to deal with many of the consequences. I would not go into someone else's community with such demands and then mock and dismiss the concerns of the community.

At the end of the day, I still firmly believe that there is not an inherent conflict between good land-use policy and good social policy. It is easy to dismiss such concerns---as many have--as being part and parcel to NIMBYism. NIMBYism implies that it is okay for other communities to take up these projects or other neighborhoods, but not ours. In fact, I do not believe that it is. What I believe, is no community should have sprawl forced upon it. That all communities need to look at their growth policies. That all communities need to value the environment, open space, and prime agricultural land. If we continue to pave ag land, how are we expecting to eat? I would question our reliance on constructing cheap tract homes that all look the same while constructing big-box retail that makes all cities look and taste the same. We need to retain our local flavor, our uniqueness, and our pride. These are not just values for Davis, they are values for all communities across the state and the country.

I am very saddened by what I saw on Tuesday, where I think people with legitimate issues, legitimate concerns, and who are committed to improving the lives of many individuals in a good and true manner, were used by developers in order change our land use policies. To me that was just not right and not fair. And so I say that the developers need to step up and find a way to fund this facility using good and smart land use policies that the citizens of Davis and Yolo County can tolerate.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Friday, July 13, 2007

Commentary: War Brewing with the County on Peripheral Growth Can End with a Simple "No" Vote on Tuesday

One week ago today, I got a call on my cell from one of the County Supervisors forewarning me that the county general plan staff report was coming out that afternoon, that it included in it recommendations to create special study areas that included Oeste, Covell, and I-80. These study areas looked and smelled much more like development proposals than concepts for changing land use designations. In any case, I was warned that Davis would go berserk over this and that there would be recalls. Whatever one thinks of Supervisor Matt Rexroad, his assessment last Friday, was exactly right and then some.

This week has been chaotic ever since that point in time. The reaction to this proposal has been justifiably angry, although I stop short of my friend Former Mayor Bill Kopper and current Mayor Sue Greenwald's call for recall, I remain very concerned about what these proposals will do to the city of Davis.

However, this is not set in stone yet. As Supervisor Rexroad pointed out in his blog,
"We have not even voted on it yet."
The County Board of Supervisors will meet on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 starting around 9 am. This figures to be another very long day. However, everyone with concerns about this proposal and this process are strongly encouraged to come and voice those concerns.

My fear is that Davis' County Supervisors are unsympathetic to the concerns about large peripheral developments on the borders of Davis. After all, they are bringing forth another version of Covell Village which was defeated by a 60-40 margin just a year and a half ago. And the Covell Village property is the SMALLEST of the proposals by the county. People are angry because they feel that their own elected supervisors do not respect their vote or their desires.

Supervisor Mike McGowan who represents West Sacramento (not Davis) was quoted in yesterday's outstanding Sacramento Bee article as saying:
"We need to improve our revenue side so we can continue to provide the same level of services."
This continues to be a poor argument.

County staff, as I pointed out last Saturday, dispelled this myth:
"On the residential side, staff is recommending against the addition of 2,100 residences within the unincorporated area near the northwest quadrant of Davis, as these units are not likely to have fiscal benefits for the county that would justify the growth given concerns regarding inconsistency with long-standing growth policies, provision of infrastructure and services, and effects on the city/county pass-through agreement."
The county is due roughly $72 million in the pass-through agreement over the course of the next 18 years. Developments may yield some in the way of one-time development fees, but the key phrase there is "one-time." It is not a consistent stream of money. As the county of Sacramento and the city of Fresno have both learned you cannot develop yourself into prosperity, even if you create development policies that rely on repeated one-time development fees as the main source of revenues.

Moreover if Supervisor McGowan is so concerned about county revenues, perhaps he ought to propose massive new developments on the periphery of West Sacramento, I understand they like sprawl there.

The Bee yesterday quotes Supervisor Mariko Yamada saying,
"I would like everyone to take a deep breath. Calm down... There will be no decisions on specific projects that will be entertained in terms of action on Tuesday."
But as Tsakopoulos understands, Yamada's statement is simply untrue.
"If they decide not to study it, it's all over."
That is exactly right. Right now, as far as I can tell there are two firm no votes against the study areas. That means a no vote by either Supervisor Yamada or Supervisor Thomson can kill the plan. One must ask why certain Republican Supervisors who do not live here are more protective of Davis' borders than Davis' own supervisors.

At Tuesday's Davis City Council meeting, the council unanimously supported taking a strong stance against these proposals. City staff drafted a letter by all five council members that will strongly oppose any plans by the county to study growth on Davis' borders.

Despite the claims of one of Davis' supervisors, the prognosis of this is clear--if the county votes against studying these three areas on Davis' periphery, the proposal dies. If however, the county votes to study these three areas on Davis' periphery, the fighting and war of words that we have seen this past week is just the beginning.

The Vanguard strongly urges Supervisors Yamada and Thomson to leave growth on Davis' city edges to Davis. Moreover, all Davis residents with concerns about this process should go to the meeting on July 17, 2007 to voice those concerns.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Examining City Council Goals and Objectives

The Davis City Council will have another public workshop this Friday. First they will conclude their workshop on "Improving Transactional Effectiveness" and then they will have a staff presentation on the status of council goals and objectives.

The council has eight goals and objective for 2007-08:
  • Maintain and improve the infrastructure
  • Achieve long-term financial stability
  • Enhance the vitality of downtown
  • Provide a mix of high-quality housing to meet community needs
  • Conserve natural resources and protect the environment
  • Ensure top quality fire, police and emergency services
  • Ensure organizational strength
  • Promote economic development
This article will look at some of the specific policy objectives under each heading to see where the council has succeeded at least in their own goals and also discuss things that should have been included but were not.

The big objectives under "Maintain and Improve the Infrastructure," deal with the water supply and the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. In both cases, the city has moved along about at the rate that they wanted to. Both of these projects are massive and will end up greatly increasing Davis residents' water rates. The key question right now is whether this is what the city should be doing.

Last year, the city council agreed to spend $50,000 to $75,000 upgrading the parks and facilities master plan. It took a reconsideration of an agenda item after the initial item was defeated, due to the absence of Councilmember Asmundson. Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek would have preferred to have spent that money on unfinished projects from the previous plan rather than updating the current plan with an expensive survey.

Missing from the list is any upgrade in the quality of the roads, the workability of some of the traffic intersections and traffic lights.

In terms of the next goal, "Achieving Long-term Financial Stability," the council had a workshop where they look at various revenue enhancements, mainly in terms of new taxes.

The big thing that they did not do was seek to look at areas where spending has greatly increased that will end up costing the city. One such area has to do with upper level employees pensions and health benefits. These current practices for people in upper management may end up either bankrupting the city in future years, or at the very least leading to a large cutback in other sorts of spending as the city needs to get on top of a wave of retirements.

The third goal, is to "Enhance the Vitality of Downtown." Here it does not seem that they have proceeded on a number of their goals. Moreover, the big one that they did proceed on was the 3rd and B Visioning Process. My concern with their direction on this and other projects is that they are looking for ways to revitalize the downtown that are threatening the character of the city and the downtown. Tearing down some of the more historic buildings in the 3rd and B district is going to do far more to destroy the character of the city than it is to help downtown. Moreover, they have enacted projects such as Target that threaten the vitality of downtown.

The fourth goal, is to "Provide a Mix of High Quality Housing to Meet Community Needs." This is an area where I do not think the city has done enough. They have appointed a Housing Element Steering committee. We shall see what that process yields. What this city needs in my view, is a commitment to developing housing that families and younger and new home owners can afford. Not just an allotment of "affordable" housing for low income people that are really limited equity homes. We're talking about moving away from the model that has produced $500,000 to $600,000 homes. That means producing smaller houses on smaller lots and greater density of that housing. However, this is nowhere to be found on the city's goals.

The fifth goal, is to "Conserve Natural Resources and Protect the Environment." They have a list of items, most of which I have not heard of and most of which I do not believe have been acted upon. They do talk about recycling and composting. But I think the city needs to go further here. They mention the Davis Greenway Concept that includes locally based sustainability farms at the city's edge, but there needs to be, in light of county proposals, an all-out commitment to ag land preservation. Second, there needs to be a push for more electric vehicles for in-town use rather than internal combustion engines. Third, there needs to be a stronger commitment to solar power in new housing and perhaps even incentives for existing homeowners to purchase solar panels. Fourth, as they do in the north, they should convert all city road signs to solar energy.

The sixth goal, is to "Ensure Top Quality Fire, Police and Emergency Services." Here they have achieved a good number of their goals. It took them much longer than anticipated but they got the cameras and computers fully operational and for the most part reliable. They hired a police chief. For my purposes the top needs of the city are that we need more police officers hired and on the streets. I would like the city to look into higher standards for training in exchange for higher salary. The city is looking into a fourth fire station, and while I understand some of the concerns of a fourth fire station, particularly with regards to money, the suggestion has been made that the taxpayers could vote on it. I think that's a reasonable proposal from my observations. I can also see the need for a city-owned ladder truck, especially as the city continues to build taller and taller buildings.

The seventh goal, is to "Ensure Organizational Strength." This deals primarily with city staff. As I have suggested previously, I just do not like the city manager driven model of city government. I think it leaves elected council members, especially those who are in the minority, without the resources they need to do a good job of representing their constituency. Reliance on city staff has proven problematic at times. So one of the things I would like to see are reforms and changes to the overall structure.

A goal that is listed on their list of goals is to have in place by 2008 a living wage ordinance for City contracts and contract workers. This was a suggestion made by Councilmember Lamar Heystek that I strongly support. Will the current council majority support this goal? We shall see.

Finally, and this all appears to be future oriented, "Promote Economic Development." So far, I think this has not been an area of success. The first item listed there, is continue to work to ensure sustainability of Westlake Shopping Center. It has been over a year since Food Fair left this shopping center, and amazingly the existing businesses have primarily survived. But I do not think the city has acted aggressively enough to maintain this shopping center.

Second, they mention Trader Joe's. Here I think the city has really squandered opportunities by allowing the situation at University Mall with RAS. I talked to councilmembers after the lawsuit was announced and they felt that people just wanted Trader Joe's and did not care how it got here. Since that time, I have spoken to many people on the street and on the blog and I do not sense that type of attitude. Most do not understand why it has to be where RAS is currently located and most sympathize with RAS. The city lost a lot of their leverage by providing a zoning change prior to an agreement between University Mall and RAS.

Third, is the pursuit of the business and high tech research park. This is the issue that was postponed from last meeting's agenda. It figures to be an interesting battle on the slow growth side as to whether it is better to develop that as a residential development or a high tech research park. The latter has gained more prominence since the Tsakaopoulos proposal has emerged, although that is mainly a proposal for housing developments in exchange for the Stem Cell Research facility, it is unlikely to be available without the housing development.

Finally, we can put the Davis Manor in the same position as Westlake Shopping Center. Both of these locations would make far more sense for Trader Joe's and other additions than the University Mall. The council is seeming to allow two key neighborhood shopping areas lie underutilized for a substantial period of time.

A number of the goals on this list are laudable if overly ambitious. However, my sense over the last two months is that much of these are taking place at the expense of the existing character of the city. I do not oppose housing development, vitalization of downtown, or economic development, but I would like to see plans that integrate these projects into the existing character, rather than what I think is a rapid destruction of existing character. Make no mistake, Davis is under siege in a lot of ways. The question for Davis residents, is "Do you want a city that continues to look and feel like Davis? Or, "Do you want a city that looks more like Fairfield, Vacaville, or even worse some of the more rapid growing Central Valley Communities like Elk Grove and Natomas?" These are the key questions we must ask ourselves as we try to go forward with many of these laudable and necessary goals.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Commentary: Looking Closer at Public Statements on the Tsakopoulos Development

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

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

Here she is in her own quoted words.

Sacramento Bee, June 28, 2007:
"We are in the 21st century, and we need to keep an open mind about how we are going to approach land use and the I-80 corridor from the Bay Area to Sacramento."

"There are already so many research organizations along the I-80 corridor. That's why it's called the Innovation Corridor. Yolo County should not be the only county that's not in the conversation."
Davis Enterprise, June 28, 2007:
"I've been approached; it's in my district."

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

"It's part of the new direction the county is going in."
Sacramento News and Review, July 5, 2007:
Attending one of the Tsakopoulos-hosted private dinners were Yolo County supervisors Mike McGowan and Mariko Yamada, both of whom were quoted in the Bee article as positively inclined toward considering some type of research center in a stretch of the I-80 corridor. But Yamada told SN&R that there was no mention made of any housing development. “No, I heard nothing proposed about housing development at that dinner,” Yamada says.

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

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

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

As I wrote:
"The issue here is not about a stem-cell research center. If Mr. Tsakopoulos wants to build a research center, I would greatly be supportive of it on the UC Davis campus. However, this is basically a means by which to build homes and other development projects on prime agricultural land and that, I cannot support."
Supervisor Yamada on July 3, 2007, was given space to respond to the Vanguard's criticism. She chose to emphasize her record on land use while being a county supervisor.

Supervisor Yamada however at that time never came out against the housing development, instead she spoke only of the research facility:
"The idea of a stem cell research facility in Yolo County is conceptual; there is no specific proposal to be considered at this time. At present, I am keeping an open mind about the research, educational, and life-saving potential such a facility might bring to the region."
It might seem then that Supervisor Yamada is either clarifying her position or backtracking on this. It is hard to say at this point which. However, 1500 of those units is being studied in the general plan as part of the joint study area.

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

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

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Yolo County General Plan Proposes Three Massive Developments on Davis Periphery

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

(click on image to enlarge map)



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

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

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

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

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

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

This was the initial recommendation from county staff:
"On the residential side, staff is recommending against the addition of 2,100 residences within the unincorporated area near the northwest quadrant of Davis, as these units are not likely to have fiscal benefits for the county that would justify the growth given concerns regarding inconsistency with long-standing growth policies, provision of infrastructure and services, and effects on the city/county pass-through agreement."
So how did this become part of staff recommendations for study areas? And what role did Davis' supervisors play in this? Why is the county now looking to go away from long-standing growth policies and possibly violate the pass-through agreement which would endanger $2 million per year and possibly as much as $72 million over the course of the life of the Davis Redevelopment Agency.

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

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

The article makes reference to this blog:
Yamada, who is chairwoman of the county board, already has emerged as the target of criticism on a community Web site, with accusations that she has moved from being a “slow-growther” to a politician more accommodating to development. While passionately defending her commitment to preserving Yolo County’s farmland and open space as top priority, Yamada is running for the state Assembly seat being vacated next year by Lois Wolk. Campaign professionals suggest she will have to raise at least $500,000 to be competitive with primary opponent Christopher Cabaldon, the mayor of West Sacramento. But, Yamada firmly asserts, “I don’t practice checkbook politics.”
Discussion on this issue figures to be intense, with much concern in Davis about the massive scope of these three projects and concern as to what the county means by "special study area." As one Supervisor suggested, the proposals for special study areas in Davis do not look different from the development proposals in the rest of the county. Davis residents should be very concerned about these proposals as a means to impose growth on the periphery of Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Friday, June 29, 2007

Commentary: Who is left to defend Yolo County Farmland?

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

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

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

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

"The idea of this region being at the forefront of stem cell research is certainly an exciting one, but the rest of it has yet to be fleshed out."
Meanwhile he told the Davis Enterprise:
“I'm very intrigued with the idea of a research park... We need to look constructively at the Interstate 80 corridor between West Sacramento and Davis. Does it make sense for the county, Davis, UC Davis and West Sacramento to place something of legitimate scientific endeavor out there? If the answer is ‘maybe,' then we should look at it at least in the broad concept.”
However, given his record on growth this is not a surprising position by Supervisor McGowan.

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

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

Now, she appears open to this proposal.

Supervisor Yamada:
"We are in the 21st century, and we need to keep an open mind about how we are going to approach land use and the I-80 corridor from the Bay Area to Sacramento."
I have long been a supporter of Mariko Yamada and have known her personally since 1998 when she was the office manager at the Democratic Headquarters in Davis where I worked as a field director for Mark Desio who was running for State Senate. It pains me very much to say this, but her position is unacceptable.

She added in Enterprise:
“It's part of the new direction the county is going in."
This unfortunately dovetails with her position on a 2,000-unit senior development on Oeste Ranch in the Northwest Quadrant and her view on the pass-through agreement itself.

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

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

In contrast to both McGowan and Yamada, Matt Rexroad expresses my viewpoint:
"The place where the Tsakopoulos family owns land is pretty good farmland... Would it be great to have a research center like this in Yolo County? Yes. Does it have to be located on that parcel? No."
Mr. Rexroad is a Republican. Guess what? So is Duane Chamberlain. I challenge anyone to find a stronger advocate of protecting farmland on this Board of Supervisors than Mr. Chamberlain. Matt Rexroad may be a right-wing Republican, but he's far closer in his viewpoint of this issue to me, than I am to the three Democrats on this board.

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

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

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

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

---Doug Paul Davis reporting