City of Davis Responds to Yolo County General Plan's Inclusion of City Edge

The Vanguard is fully aware that most of the population is following the election today, and the bulk of our coverage today will be on the election. However, this is issue is too important to let slide. Tomorrow evening the Davis City Council will be taking up a response to Yolo County on the General Plan.

Here's the key sections of the General Plan that impact Davis' planning area:

Policy LU-6.2 reads: Coordinate with the University of California at Davis regarding the Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), campus facilities, off-campus agricultural and open space property and joint venture development with the private sector to achieve the best possible outcomes consistent with the General Plan.

Policy LU-6.11 reads:

Coordinate with the City of Davis to explore mutual opportunities regarding the following projects:

a) Special needs housing, including housing for seniors in the area north of Covell Boulevard and west of State Route 113.
b) Land uses that complement UC Davis, the University Retirement Community, Sutter-Davis Hospital and other nearby social services in the area north of Covell Boulevard and west of State Route 113.
c) Alternatives for the Binning Estates project, including the clustering of residential units and increased densities.
d) Extension of water and sewer infrastructure to the Binning Farms community.
e) Life science, biotechnology and related research uses along the Interstate 80 corridor.
f) Commercial and mixed uses at Covell Boulevard/Pole Line Road and coordinated planning with the Hunt Wesson site.

The city of Davis' staff report responds to these two items.

First they restate the mantra that the city has operated under for the last two years of discussion with the county and the prior to that, the spirit of the pass-through agreement.

"The City assumes that any development on the edge of Davis will occur through the City’s planning process"

Second and more pointedly in response to Policy LU-6.11:

"The City supports the Board’s desire to explore opportunities for mutual benefit. However, the City strongly opposes the inclusion of this policy that identifies specific uses and locations for urban development on the edge of Davis. So far, we have not had any discussions that would indicate that these are appropriate uses or locations. Including this policy in the General Plan is premature and implies that this is a “done deal” without any meaningful participation from Davis or its residents. In addition, listing the specific uses to be considered requires these uses to be analyzed in the “cumulative impacts” section of the EIR for the General Plan."

Third, in response to residential development:

"The City supports the Board’s previous decision to not include housing units in the Northwest Quadrant on the base map for the General Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative. The City recognizes the desire to comprehensively review the area, rather than consider individual development proposals. Our General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee and Planning Commission have recommend this area be “tabled indefinitely,” as there is no need to consider residential development through 2013. Whether and where the community will grow after 2013 will be considered through the City’s General Plan Update anticipated to begin next year."

Fourth, on Research park development:

"The City supports creating additional opportunities for life science and biotechnology research, but the identified location south of I-80 is not the appropriate location. The necessary housing development is counter to City and County planning principles, and these uses should be nearer the City of Davis and closer to improved roads and the Mace/I-80 interchange. Alternative sites should be jointly explored, including the North Central “Covell” site. This site has convenient access to I-5 and employee housing in Davis and in Woodland’s Spring Lake neighborhood."

Yes, you read that right, the city of Davis now surreptitiously is inserting the Covell site as an alternative research park development site.

Fifth on commercial development along I-80:

"The City supports the County’s removal of 43 acres of commercial development at I-80 and Mace and I-80 and Chiles. Such development would violate the principles of the Pass-Through Agreement between the City, its Redevelopment Agency, and the County. Our existing agreement, and our two decades of practice in its implementation, show that the City and County can work cooperatively in evaluating specific development proposals."

The staff report recommends future discussion through the City-County 2x2 process. They also suggest as an alternative to the letter, they could hold discussions at the 2x2 which is scheduled for November 14, 2008.

I have two thoughts. While this is not as alarming as the previous proposals by the county, clearly the city is taking this seriously. However, it is equally alarming to see city staff place Covell into discussion. That seems inappropriate given the public vote that took place now just three years ago.

---David M. Greenwald

Yolo County Releases Draft of Updated General Plan

Draft General Plan Document Released

[FROM COUNTY PRESS RELEASE] (Woodland, CA) – Today, the Yolo County Draft General Plan was released to the public. On September 16, a joint meeting of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission will be held to receive a presentation on the Draft General Plan. The General Plan is the basic document used by local government in land use planning. It provides the comprehensive long-term plan for the physical development of the county, and is often referred to as “the constitution” of the county. All cities and counties are required, under state law, to have one.

The last update was in 1983, based on the county’s original General Plan from 1958. In May 2003, the Board of Supervisors gave direction to begin the current General Plan update process. This is only the third time in the county’s history that the General Plan has been comprehensively updated. While the fundamental land use goals of promoting agriculture and directing urban growth to the cities have not changed, circumstances facing the county have changed. Agriculture requires flexibility to allow it to branch out into processing and tourism related businesses. Similarly, several of the county’s small towns require new infrastructure, investment, and services that can accompany well-designed growth. There is also a greater need for economic development to provide growth and stability to the county revenues that pay for local services. This General Plan update allows the county to examine these issues and chart a course for the future that meets these challenges.



Yolo County is 653,549 acres in size, of which 32,325 acres (just under 5%) lies within the four incorporated cities. Currently, approximately 23,265 residents live in 7,263 homes within the remaining 95% of the county, along side 430 acres of job-producing commercial and industrial land. Under the existing 1983 General Plan, another 11,240 residents, 4,014 homes, and 1,440 acres of commercial and industrial land could be added. The Preferred Land Use Alternative, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 18, 2007, is the basis for creating the General Plan update. In addition to the 1983 General Plan, it would allow for another 26,600 residents, 9,500 homes, and 901 acres of economic development through the year 2030.

The four primary proposed land use changes that account for these increases include:

• Dunnigan community expansion (21,000 residents, 7,500 units, and 430 job-producing acres)
• Madison community expansion (3,655 residents, 1,305 units, and 116 job-producing acres)
• New commercial and industrial development in Elkhorn (320 job-producing acres)
• Conversion to industrial at Spreckels site (69 job-producing acres)

The growth in Dunnigan and Madison is reflective of a desire by the Board of Supervisors to ensure the future sustainability of these communities, including a minimum population to support basic community services as well as carefully structured land uses to ensure that the number and price of homes roughly match the number and wages of local jobs. The growth in Elkhorn and Spreckels is supportive of the Board of Supervisors’ economic development priorities and both highlight site-specific resource opportunities of the county. It should be noted that development in Knights Landing and Esparto is already planned under the 1983 General Plan.

New policy directions in the proposed Draft General Plan focus on the following primary themes:

• The continuing primacy of agriculture and related endeavors throughout the county, by allowing for more economic innovation and aggressively protecting the water and soil resources upon which farming depends.
• Modest managed growth within existing towns, accompanied by improvements to infrastructure and services to ensure community sustainability.
• Expanded protection of a network of connected open space and recreational areas, integrated with the Yolo Natural Heritage Program.
• Opportunities for revenue-producing and job-producing agricultural, industrial, and commercial growth in designated locations and along key transportation corridors.
• Manage the existing road network to make the most of existing capacity, while accommodating a diversity of users and alternative modes of transportation.
• Service levels that allow for the effective and efficient provision of services, consistent with rural values and expectations.
• A comprehensive approach to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and plan for the potential impacts of global climate change.
• New emphasis on community and neighborhood requirements that reflect “smart growth” and “healthy design” principles, which complement the unique character of existing developed areas.

All Yolo County residents are urged to follow this important process which will shape the future of Yolo County. Comments on the document will be accepted by the Planning and Public Works Department through November 20, 2008. To view the Draft General Plan, the schedule of upcoming public meetings, or to find additional general information on the General Plan update, visit: www.yolocountygeneralplan.org.

Hard copies of the Draft General Plan are available for viewing and check-out at all Yolo County library branches (visit: www.yolocountylibrary.org for branch locations) and the Yolo County Planning & Public Works (PPW) Department (292 West Beamer Street in Woodland). Hard copies of the Draft General Plan are available for purchase at PPW for $50.00 or on CD for $4.50.

Commentary

Last summer the city of Davis and Yolo County over the extent to which the city of Davis could control growth on its borders. The city at that point argued that the pass-through agreement gave the city primary land use authority in areas covered by the agreement and any attempt by the county to study the issue would be put the agreement in jeopardy and cause the city to withhold its roughly $2 million per year that it sends from its redevelopment agency to the county in exchange for the county ceding land use authority.

Under strong pressure from residents of Davis including a united from of the Davis City Council, the county almost at the last second reversed course and tabled further talk about creating special study areas on the border of Davis. What is interesting is that after that time, there was insistence by some that this issue was not over. That any tabling of discussion was merely temporary and that the county could reopen the issue at any point in time.

At least in the Davis form of the General Plan that is not the case. Residential growth for the most part appears to be limited to two primary locations--Dunnigan and Madison--ironically enough two areas that had re-entry facilities proposed. As I understand it, Dunnigan for instance has actually lobbied the board for more growth rather than less. I do not know if it is the same in Madison.

There is an interesting article in this morning's Sacramento Bee that Madison now seeks to fight against the re-entry facility. I mention this because while they are not talking about creating a new city in Madison as they are in Dunnigan, adding 3600 residents to the existing population will likely strongly change the current character of Madison. Arguments that there lacks sufficient instruction in Madison miss the point that the infrastructure is going to have to come anyway in order for it to add 3600 residents in the next general plan period.

That is really an aside in the issue of the re-entry facility, but it is interesting to note. As the release says, comments are due by November 20, 2008, so we will see between now and then if this plan stirs up much dissent in Madison and Dunnigan. In the meantime, it does appear that Davis has prevailed in its efforts to determine its own growth. I am certain some will have disparaging remarks to make about that. From my perspective all communities should determine how much they grow and how their character will change. People like to use the term NIMBY but then they forget that people sink their life savings into their homes and property, I guess it's easy to disparage someone else's efforts.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Issue of Poor Communications Arises Again in Debate Over Re-Entry Facility Location

Councilmember Heystek: "It troubles me that we were not involved at an earlier stage in a meaningful way"

Some have suggested that land use issues are simply means to express fear of prisons in a more acceptable manner. They have dismissed complaints about procedural problems in the county's proposal for a location of the re-entry facility. However, from my perspective, those dismissals fail to understand the magnitude of the impact of this facility on a place like the city of Davis. There has been little to no discussion to this point as to who is expected to provide the vital services for a location such as the county airport.

These are not merely academic exercises, the county for example lacks its own fire department. There are questions about roadways, water, sewer, power, and the like that could have impacts on adjacent jurisdictions such as the city of Davis. These potential impacts should necessitate cooperation and at the very least the common courtesy of advanced notice. Yet, it is clear that this did not occur.

County Supervisor Matt Rexroad has suggested that while "the County certainly could have done a better job in communicating with the people of Yolo County regarding this issue" however, he does not believe he is personally taking a hit for poor communications.

I would tend to agree with Mr. Rexroad here, he personally is not the problem with regards to communications.

"When this issue came up I personally spoke to three members of the Woodland City Council within a few hours on learning more. Later I spoke to a fourth. I personally called the Police Chief and City Manager. Long discussions were involved with all of these people.

I communicated with the city leaders in Woodland and continue to do that on a regular basis. Lately I have not talked much with Martie Dote but I need to do that more. I talked Flory more when he was on the Council. In fact, several times I talked to Art and Dave more when they were both on the City Council in one day than my predecessor talked to me in the entire four years he was in office.

I am hesitant to communicate with the people outside of Woodland on county policy issues. On this blog I lay out my positions on issues and lots of people read them.

You can rip me for a whole host of things..... but lack of communications in not one of them."

However, as Mr. Rexroad points out, it is not his responsibility to communicate to the residents of other districts within the county--and whether it is Duane Chamberlain who represents the rural areas where the proposed facility would be placed, or the city of Davis' representatives Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada, there has been a fundamental lack of communication between the county and the city, and this is not the first time this has arisen.

I do disagree with Supervisor Rexroad on one point, during a phone conversation he suggested that this location was not within an area that Davis should have any say over. I firmly disagree on that point, I think that the impacts on Davis are rather direct and there needed to be earlier discussions on the possibility of locating the facility on this site.

During a phone conversation with Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek, the councilmember expressed strong concern over the proposed project location.

"The proposed project is located in the Davis planning area, it would have a Davis address. And the occupants of the facility would be released into our community. So yes, I have very strong concerns."

At the same time, the councilmember told me that he and the city received "little" or no communication from the county on this issue.

"I had actually heard from neighbors of the area, outside the city limits, before I had heard anything from city staff or the county. That leads me to believe that our city staff was not kept abreast of the plan to propose this site and it leads me to believe that our inclusion in the process was not considered from the beginning."

He continued:

"We want to maintain a positive relationship with our counterparts in the county. We have already learned from the lessons of the northwest quadrant that the city of Davis has a very strong interest in protecting interests not only within our boundaries but also within areas of our county where we have a clear say on, per agreement and per conventional planning principals.

It troubles me that we were not involved at an earlier stage in a meaningful way."

Furthermore, he made the case that the interests of the city extend beyond the geographical boundaries that separate city jurisdictions from the county. These interlocking and overlapping interests have necessitated the creation of bodies such as the city-county two-by-two, but also regional bodies like SACOG and LAFCO to bring together jurisdictions in an effort to forge cooperative relations.

"Much is made about the fact that the city of Davis has a sphere of influence and there's land within our planning area, we as decisionmakers who represent the people of this city have a very solemn responsibility not only to represent the interests of the people who lie within our city limits but also a responsibility to represent the interests of those people even as they lay outside of the city limits. That means that extrinsically our residents have interests that do not lie solely within the city's boundaries. Those interests also exceed those boundaries. So it's our interest and responsibility as councilmembers and as city officials to look very closely at this proposal to ask for and to frankly demand attention and involvement in any process that the county may be undertaking."

Along with the lack of communication, are a variety of reasons why the county needed to involve the city in discussions from the start. It is unclear whether the facility will require access to the Davis system of sewer or water. Supervisor Matt Rexroad believes that wells can provide the cite with water, but what about sewer?

From the city's perspective, any need from the county would tax a system that is already in the process of requiring major capital improvements.

Councilmember Heystek said:

"Our infrastructure has already been so taxed that we barely can afford to serve our existing residents and our existing ratepayers. So adding new service to our water and sewer systems is very questionable. I'm not sure if this facility proposes to tap into the city's water and sewer systems. But, if that's the case, it would be unconscionable for any plan to move very much forward without any meaningful city involvement."

In addition to the issue of water and sewer, fire service is a concern. The airport has a volunteer fire department that houses two volunteer fire fighters. Such a facility could quickly move beyond the capabilities of that small department to provide emergency services. The county does not have its own fire department. So who would have responsibility to serve the new facility in the case of an emergency?

That answer is unclear to Councilmember Heystek:

"I would like to know whether we are indeed obligated to engage in a contract for services if it's not feasible or otherwise in the city's best interest to do so."

What is clear is that such a facility could tax the city already strapped for resources.

"We have talked about five minutes response time issues that the department has brought up and the city has studied. The issue of simultaneous calls has been studied by the department and the council as a whole. Adding more territory to serve clearly doesn't make sense at this time when we are considering how we serve our existing service areas."

The traffic issue was a big concern to local residents on Thursday night. Some have speculated that this is a huge potential problem, others have kind of discounted that problem. Councilmember Heystek pointed out that there has not been any kind of traffic study to date, so it would be difficult to assess potential problems.

"None of us can answer that question specifically since we don't have a traffic study before us. But an EIR for this project, I assume one will be carried out, an EIR with a traffic study would reveal an answer for that."

However, the potential problem of the taxing of existing infrastructure is a big concern to Mr. Heystek.

"You raise a very good point, to what extent will incorporated cities infrastructure be taxed in that respect. You already asked about water and sewer, you've asked about the fire department, and you've asked about the roads, clearly these accumulated infrastructure service impacts drastically effects the way we serve our residents. And so hopefully dialogue between the county and city will be meaningful, productive, full, and comprehensive. I hope that any discussion recognizes and honors the fact that the city has a legal right to participate in the discussion and the process as a whole."

For the Councilmember the problem comes back to communication and shared interests.

"We have two representatives on the city-county two-by-two--actually we have four Davis representatives. I hope that the four Davisites will not only insure that county interests are served but also city interests. And while those interests often overlap, they are not mutually inclusive, that is they don't always overlap perfectly. So it will be interesting to see how the dynamic at that level plays out. I assume that there will be other ways for the city council or board of supervisors to be involved. I will exercise my right to voice an opinion to cast as necessary."

The problem that I have is that this discussion is coming up again. Just last year, the city expressed concerns about lack of discussion prior to the general plan process by the county. The city was caught off-guard at that time about proposed developments on the periphery of Davis. Everyone had suggested that we would learn from those acrimonious discussions that exploded into full-blown controversy, but it seems like we have not.

On Tuesday, the county will formally take up the proposal and will recommend study at the three sites that have been proposed. This fulfills their obligation to recommend three sites for possible locations for the re-entry facility. It appears that the state would then study the sites and that sometime down the line, a decision would be made by the county as to where to place the facility.

The staff recommendation is as follows:

"RECOMMENDED ACTION:

A. Reaffirm the county’s support for the siting of a reentry facility in Yolo County;

B. Approve the list of potential sites for a state reentry facility in Yolo County;

a) County Road 90 and State Route 16 (east of Madison)

b) County Road 86a and State Route 16 (southeast of Esparto)

c) Yolo County Airport

C. Authorize the signing of the Reentry Program Facility Siting Agreement between the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the county for potential reentry facility sites and to comply with Assembly Bill (AB 900);

D. Authorize the signing of Options to Purchase real estate agreements for County Road 90 at State Route 16 (KATHYANNA RANCH, LLC) and County Road 86a at State Route 16 (JOHN DETERDING CO.) for potential sites for a reentry facility."

So no final determination appears in the works for Tuesday. However, we are still left with burning questions about the process. For example, when should the county notify cities about plans that will impact the city and possibly involve city infrastructure or at the very least are adjacent to the cities? Moreover, we know that Brown Act requirements for public notification are extremely low, even placement in the newspaper is somewhat problematic. The city of Davis has community meetings well in advance of new housing projects--why not a similar approach from the county?

People have suggested that these changes would not change people's minds on the subject of prison construction. They are probably correct. But process is an end in and of itself, it is not merely a means to achieve consensus or agreement, although those are worthwhile goals. Proper procedures in this case would not diminish outcry. However, what they might do is allow other jurisdictions to address some of the concerns of residents in advance. They also might have allowed the county to determine early on potential problems at the proposed sites that would have eliminated them well before they panicked the public. All of these things need to change. We live in an information age, and Davis' two supervisors have not sufficiently communicated with their constituents on this issue.

All of these things are correctable in the future if there is an effort to proactively involve citizens in the process.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

County Supervisor's Race Heats Up

So far it has been a quiet campaign season for the open Fourth Supervisorial District. But that figures to change for the seat vacated by Incumbent Mariko Yamada's run for State Assembly.

Last Friday, John Ferrera filed his papers to make his run official and yesterday Jim Provenza filed his.

John Ferrera, who did not send the Vanguard a press release, was quoted in the Davis Enterprise.

"I know it's a little corny, but we're taking a leap — leaping into leadership on leap year day... I like the symbolism... I'm excited to take responsibility for making tough decisions and working to leave things better than we found them.

...

I've committed myself to public service for 22 years, working on the issues we face here in Yolo County — creating a long-term vision for preserving and enhancing our environment, supporting agriculture and the economy and providing for those who need our help.

Now, I am committing myself to four years of service to the residents of the 4th District and Yolo County as a whole. It seems appropriate to do it on a day that happens once every four years."

Meanwhile Former Davis School Board Member Jim Provenza in a release sent to the Vanguard wrote among other things:

“Local experience will play an important role when evaluating candidates for your next county supervisor... I am proud to have served for the past four years as a Davis school board member and most recently as President of the Davis Joint Unified School District. My wife and I have been actively involved in the Davis community for over 15 years. Our children attended and graduated from the Davis schools. I am a lawyer with a degree from UC Davis School of Law.

...

As president of the board, Provenza was instrumental in winning back 4.5 million dollars owed by the state for Montgomery School. He fought for improvements in special education and was responsible for priorities that deliver excellence in education for all students while improving the performance and test scores of students who struggle to succeed.

...

As county supervisor, I will continue to be a strong advocate for the people of Davis. My priorities will be to preserve open space and farmland, promote accessible government and improve services for seniors, children, the disabled, and crime victims. I will also build a sound county budget by pursuing all available state and federal funds."

Campaign rhetoric is one thing. But the most telling aspect of any campaign is probably who signs one's nomination papers. It indicates depth of support, how many public figures have signed, and of course from the stand point of the voters--what side of the local political debate the office seeker stands on.

Based on both endorsers and signees, these two candidates appear on paper to be rather evenly matched. Personally, who signs the paper is a bit more important for this race than who endorsed, because the nomination paper signers have to live in the person's district.

John Ferrera's papers were signed by among others:

City Councilmember Stephen Souza, Former City Councilmember Ted Puntillo (I believe), School Board member Richard Harris, Former School Board Members Marty West and Keltie Jones, Former County Supervisor Betsy Marchard (who represented this district previously). The most important signature is from wife, Anna Ferrera. Others include former Superintendent Floyd Fenocchio, Kevin Wolf, Chuck Cunningham, Michael Levy, Kathy Tyzzer, Velma Lagerstrom, Bob Segar, Robin Kulakow, Bill Julian, Curt Augustine, Colleen Beamish, Jim Becket, Janet Berry, Rex Berry, Alan Brownstein, Wendy Chason, Bob Chason, Randy Chinn, Jonathan Clay, Colleen Connolly, Ann Costello, Starr Walton Hurley, Estell Jones, John Jones, Pat King, Elisa Levy, Sandy Pellegrini, Brian Sway, Janellyn and Terry Whittier, Katy Zane and Richard Zeiger.

Jim Provenza's papers were signed by among other other:

Current Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada, City Council Member Lamar Heystek, School Board members Sheila Allen and Gina Daleiden, Former School Board member B.J. Kline, Former State Superintendent of School Delaine Eastin, Eli Fairclough who represents Mike Thomspon. The most important signature is from wife, Donna Provenza. Others include Robin Souza, Rick Gonzales, Jr., Sheryl Patterson, Holly Bishop, Pam Nieberg, Rose Calabria, Debra Hartnett, Harry Ohlendorf, Rev. Tim Malone, Bob Hagedorn, Heidy Kellison, Renee Liston, Nancy Peterson, Peter Kellison, Davis Democratic Club President Arun Sen, Eleanor Lake, Phillip Reedy, Carl Vandagriff, Edward Peter Hartnett, Lois Bixson, Cory Gold, Edith Gold, Ann Marty, Gayle Henreid, Cameron Black, Jennifer Hagedorn, Jane Reedy, Barbara Ohlendorf, Tom Adams, and Junko Kanaya-Adams.

There will be a number of interesting subtexts in this battle to determine who wins the Fourth Supervisorial District. Things ought to get interesting from here on out. One thing appears clear--the lines in this race appear fairly well-defined. The Vanguard will be closely covering this race that will have important implications as the General Plan process at the County Level continues to move forward and the debate over Davis' borders and peripheral development heats up once again.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Will LAFCO Changes to Davis' Sphere of Influence Open the Door to Growth on the Periphery?

Lost in the shuffle was a report in the Davis Enterprise that Davis' sphere of influence would be reduced by LAFCO.

In the Davis Enterprise article this is presented as a means to "preserve more prime agricultural land."

Claire St. John of the Davis Enterprise writes:

"'The changes from the existing SOI, adopted in 1988, reflect the likely boundaries and best growth areas for the city,' the consultant, PMC, wrote in a report. 'The primary differences between the 1988 adopted SOI and the proposed SOI include the removal of several prime agricultural areas, moving the university property within the 10-year SOI and adjustment of areas to reflect where growth is likely.'

A reduction of about 400 acres is proposed, most of which is prime agricultural land. The proposal also includes some re- jiggering to reflect where Davis is likely to grow in the future."

However before this can be approved, there will be a public process and a discussion of at the February 26, 2008 Davis City Council Meeting. This discussion takes place two weeks after the discussion of Davis' one percent growth rate.

The article suggests both Davis Supervisors are concerned about the new boundaries.

"Thomson and Yamada, who also serve as Yolo County supervisors, said they would prefer to see the sphere of influence stretch more to the west of Davis where services such as a hospital, nearby grocery store and other amenities already exist. To include those lands could give Davis more control of its growth and avoid having development forced on it as happened with Mace Ranch.

'By failing to include that property, the city was caught off guard,' Yamada said.

'The question in 1986 was if Davis was taking its fair share of growth,' Thomson added. 'Some people didn't think so and they ganged up and Davis has been paying for it every since. You don't have to grow to the sphere. It's just that that's what you evaluate when you look at annexation.'"

The larger concern however, might be the fact that if areas are not included in the sphere of influence, they might not be covered under the pass-through agreement. That means that the county might have a greater ability to develop on Davis' periphery or close to Davis' periphery under a new arrangement.

Councilmember Stephen Souza, an alternate on LAFCO is quoted in the Enterprise article:

"When reached later, Souza, who is also a Davis City Council member, said Davis now has control over its borders under Measure J. That measure requires voter approval on any General Plan change from agriculture to urban use.

'We have placed a provision in our municipal code that allows us to have ultimate control over any development outside the city of Davis,' he said. 'I believe we should control our own destiny, we should not be controlled by others. When I say 'we' I mean we, the citizens of Davis.'

Any border development needs to be discussed with the county and vice versa, Souza added. That hasn't been the accepted practice in recent years, Thomson said.

'We shouldn't be talking at each other, we need to be talking with each other,' he said. 'We affect each other.' "

In addition to the Davis City Council meeting, LAFCO will take up public comment on the proposed sphere of influence on the evening of March 31, at the Davis City Hall.

One of the issues that must be clarified is whether shrinking the city's sphere of influence instead of protecting prime agricultural land will actually leave it more vulnerable. Davis has Measure J in place to protect its periphery and require a citizen vote. Davis also a pass-through agreement with the county that enables it to have a say in development on its periphery. If changes to the boundary alter that arrangement, we could be looking at a repeat of what happened last summer.

Additionally, the county has not taken the three studies areas proposed at that time off the table, but they might have an easier track elsewhere including along the I-80 corridor if this comes to pass.

Davis residents need to watch this with great interest in the coming weeks.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

2007 Year in Review--10 Biggest Vanguard Stories of 2007

As the first full year of the People's Vanguard of Davis comes to completion, we will countdown the top 10 stories from year. This is the second year we have done this.

Last year we counted down the 10 Biggest Stories in Davis.

This year we countdown the 10 biggest stories that we followed on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

We conclude with the top story of 2007: The County General Plan Process.

In late January, residents of Davis and indeed members of the Davis city council were blindsided with proposals that would throw the city-county pass-through agreement and land use policies on their heads. The county was proposing studying development on the Davis periphery, despite long-standing and lucrative agreements in place that gave the city of Davis landuse authority on the city edges.

Three places in particular were at stake. First a large area in NW Davis where senior housing was being examined--the Northwest Quadrant on the Bidding property. They were looking at perhaps a 2000 unit senior housing development. They were also looking at possible developments at Covell, where Davis voters had recently overwhelmingly voted against development. Finally, late in the process there was suggestion of a large housing development along the I-80 corridor abutting the Yolo Causeway.

The process began in early February, where the County Staff recommended against developing on the Northwest Quadrant.

The County is doing its update to the County General Plan. Only in the last week has there begun to be attention to this very important process. Talking to a few of the County Supervisors they have expressed alarm and dismay that the public is not more involved in this process. However, Tuesday February 6, 2007 the County Supervisors will meet and receive the General Plan recommendations from their steering committee (much as in a year and a half, the Davis City Council will likewise receive their recommendations).

There are two key issues of concern to Davis residents. First there is a proposal by the committee for a development of 2100 units, for senior housing, over 20 years to the Northwest Quadrant of Davis. This is the area west of Highway 113 and North of Sutter Hospital.

A summary of the report reads:

"The urban limit lines for each of the existing cities are respected as providing for a fair share of future growth, with the exception of the “northwest” quadrant at the edge of Davis where the Planning Commission felt additional growth would be appropriate if it could be shown to be to the county’s benefit."

There is a perception that this is going to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. This seems highly unlikely.

The staff report strongly recommends against this development:

"For the most part the staff is in agreement with and fully supports the recommendations of the Planning Commission. However, the staff has made a few supplemental land use recommendations that differ from the actions of the Planning Commission.

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."

However, despite staff recommendations that recommended against this project, the board of supervisors continued to push for study areas.

The February 6, 2007 meeting was packed and the city of Davis presented a united front against county proposals.

The Yolo County staff's recommendation was to oppose the Northwest Quadrant development proposal as they did not see it as a source of revenue for the county. Instead they recommended a joint special study area with city and county for this development.

The City of Davis came and delivered a united front.

First, Mayor Sue Greenwald spoke. She strongly favored a continuation of the pass-through agreement giving Davis and Davis' City Council control over edge development. She considered a joint study session a violation of this pass-through agreement and this trust. The joint study group was not appropriate.

Greenwald did not oppose senior housing or special needs housing, however, she believes that the best plan should be determined by the City Council. She appreciated that county had financial problems as county services outpaces development proceeds, but argued that housing is not a good source of revenue (something that the staff recommendation by the county agreed) and argued that even retail development has diminishing returns.

Davis City Staffer Katherine Hess delivered a letter from City Manager Bill Emlen. She simply stated that development on the Davis periphery should be made by the city through a city process and she asked that the Board of Supervisors would concur with that.

Councilmember Don Saylor was in full agreement with Mayor Greenwald. He said that he appreciated that the county has real issues that need to be addressed and that the destinies of the county and city are intertwined. Davis has a process for dealing with its development and will be undergoing its own general plan update. He saw that as the appropriate agency and forum to address development issues. Moreover, while Davis does have a history of peripheral development it does not have a process for the Northwest Quadrant. He believes there are issues with housing for seniors and this may not be the most appropriate location or the best use of site given the distance from the core downtown area. Moreover he suggested that commercial development at Mace and I-80 are not "obvious" for us and mentioned that there are several commercial projects already in the works and does not want a new development area outside of the Mace Curve that could be detrimental to this development.

In general, the two members of the Davis City Council and one city staffer were united on this issue that the city and not the county should be the agency involved in determining where, when, and how peripheral development occurs. There were concerns about process and also specifics in this development.

However, the meeting was marked with contentiousness and tensions rose between the city and county.

Statements made by Supervisor Mike McGowan should have raised a red flag:

"I don't care where (Davis) puts their additional units, but from any standpoint they have to absorb their fair share. I'm not telling them where to grow."

He added:

"One of the reasons we are embarking on the General Plan update is that we can't maintain the old way of doing business; we aren't generating the revenues we need."

More concerning to Davis residents should have been the statements made by their own representative, Supervisor Helen Thomson:

The Davis Enterprise writes:

"But Thomson later suggested there was much to talk to Davis about in addition to new housing.

In exchange for the county's policy of directing commercial and residential projects to the cities instead of building them on agricultural land, the cities pay the county a fee in what's called a pass-through agreement.

In 2005-06, Davis paid nearly $2 million to the county in its pass-through agreement, Thomson said. But that agreement is nearly 15 years old and there are other issues to discuss. Thomson cited her own example of "poor planning" by the city of Davis — allowing homes to be built on seven 20-acre parcels at Binning Ranch north of Davis."

By late March, discussions continued between city and county, without much common ground sought.

On Monday, the City of Davis-County of Yolo two-by-two committee met. This body is composed of two members from each body--Sue Greenwald and Don Saylor from the city council and the two Davis County Supervisors--Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada.

There were moments of relief such as when both Thomson and Yamada indicated their support for the current pass-through agreement indicating that there would not be any move to renegotiate it.

The pass-through agreement is an agreement by the county not to develop within the sphere of influence of the city of Davis, in exchange, the city agrees to give the county a share of the redevelopment money they would have been entitled to had they developed. In this case, Davis gives the county roughly $2.7 million (the figure was somewhat in contention with the county suggesting it might be $2.1 million).

This is a much larger number than the county likely would get if they tried to develop the land. Moreover, it is considerably larger than the pass-through agreements between the county and Woodland and West Sacramento. So when the county talks about not having enough revenue, it seems like Davis ought to be the last place that the county is looking towards.

The City of Davis made clear their position.

Councilmember Saylor was very clear that the City of Davis through the pass-through agreement, maintained the land-use authority on the periphery. He also strongly maintained his opposition to the specific projects mentioned. The county was adamant however that this has not been a project-based plan so far but rather that they are looking at concepts and philosophies. However, specific sites have been identified as possible study areas by the county.

...

The issue of the joint study sessions at this point seems to be the sticking point. The county is looking at the change of designations of very land areas. This seemed strongly opposed by both Greenwald and Saylor. Greenwald viewed this as the first step toward development process.

Greenwald in speaking of lands on the Davis city-edge: “I would expect the county to keep its agricultural designation... It would be a somewhat hostile act that would impede cooperation.”

Yamada took exception to the use of the term hostile, but Greenwald's point here was dead-on: the county should not be changing the land-use designation here. At this point, the joint study session is viewed by Davis council as a means by which to try to force a change and that is not supported, at least from what I have seen, by the council. In the end, I think this proposal will be dropped, but as of now it is THE point on contention.

The county continued to press for joint study areas despite the concerns of the city of Davis.

On Tuesday, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors voted to approve three areas in the Davis sphere of influence as "Joint Study Areas." These areas include the Oeste Ranch area in the Northwest Quadrant and an area in the Covell Village west of Poleline both of which would be designated for residential housing developments, and an antiquated property east of Mace Road along I-80 which would be designated for commercial development. Ostensibly these Joint Study sessions would be used to determined changes in land use designations for the County General Plan Update.

The City of Davis and the City Council remains at least in public adamantly against such developments. As Katherine Hess, Davis Community Development Director wrote in a hand-delivered letter to the board, "we continue to be concerned that the current recommendations being considered could set in motion potential significant land use inconsistent with the long-standing policies embraced by the City and County on urbanization within the City's Planning Area."

By late June, this tension was threatening to turn into all out war. The proposed 2800 development along I-80 served as a flashpoint that threatened to spin this out of control.

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.

>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.”

It was Supervisor Mariko Yamada's words that stung the community and brought this process to a head.

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."

She added in Enterprise:

“It's part of the new direction the county is going in."<

In response to the Vanguard's pointed criticism of her policies, Supervisor Yamada penned a response in the Vanguard.

The commentary, “Who Is Left to Defend Yolo County Farmland?” questions my record concerning land use decisions. My record, both public and private, is clear and consistent on the issues of protecting agriculture and open space, and fostering a safe and sustainable environment.

She then listed out a long list of policies she had supported or opposed.

The crux of her statement was here:

On March 27, 2007, I joined in a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors in choosing a general plan preferred land use alternative that balances rural sustainability with strategic joint study areas to be considered for potential economic development. The County remains hopeful that joint discussions will occur.

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.

Consistent with my deliberative style, I do not make a decision on an issue until I have all the facts before me and have taken input from all sides. I am not a “one-size-fits-all” representative, nor do I place the threat of political liability above the soundness of good public policy.

This triggered a lengthy debate on the Vanguard, however, it did little to address the question at hand: why even consider such a massive proposal and little to satisfy her growing number of critics, many of whom had been her strongest supporters just a few months before.

In response, Holly Bishop and Pam Nieberg, published their own guest commentary on the Vanguard.

"Mariko Yamada’s spin-meisters have really been hard at work. In her submittal to the Davis Vanguard, she is now claiming that her “open mind” on a 2800 acre project proposed by Angelo Tsakopoulos is really about a stem cell research center. She makes no mention of the actual development proposal brought forth by Tsakopoulos. She states only that “the idea of a stem cell research facility in Yolo County is conceptual”, and that she is “keeping an open mind about the research, educational and life-saving potential such a facility might bring to the region.” Nowhere in her article does she reveal the actual full proposal or her apparent support for it as published in the Bee and the Enterprise last week."

The bombshell came out on July 6, as the county released the staff that proposed all three areas as special study areas.

This was a trigger point for a public call for recall by former Mayor Bill Kopper and current Mayor Sue Greenwald. The Vanguard came out quickly against such as effort.

While the Vanguard shares a deep concern about these proposals, which seem to be tantamount to pressure from the county to develop on Davis' periphery in violation of the pass-through agreement, the Vanguard believes that a recall is the wrong response to this threat, for a number of reasons.

However, despite the concerns about a recall, the threat of the recall changed some of the dynamics on the ground and may have led to cooler heads prevailing at the county level.

This would be one of the finest moments for the Vanguard as the the Vanguard would report live from directly inside the Supervisor's chambers. Thousands were logged on to the running commentary. Best of all, the Supervisors knew it.

At one point in the process, Supervisor Rexroad proposed the elimination of the study areas and was voted down 3-2. There was an adjournment. Suddenly when the Supervisors reemerged, they put the proposal to rest.

The Vanguard would issue a long description of the process which led to the pass-through agreement being preserved and cooler heads prevailing.

There were times during this process that war between the city of Davis and Yolo County seemed inevitable. There were times during the Board of Supervisors meeting that recall as an option was very much alive and may have come to fruition however at a crucial point, the county seemed to at least temporarily blink. Things calmed down. However, the scene was tense and serious. For all of that, the County General Plan process and the proposed special studies areas was the top story in 2007.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

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

Should Davis Develop the Northwest Quadrant?

I caught part of the General Plan Housing Element's discussion of the Northwest Quadrant last night. It was actually a very good discussion that clarified in my mind at least a number of issues that still are lingering from the county's discussion in July. The biggest issue it actually clarified for me is the pragmatic and practical reasons why the city and not the county should determine growth on city edge's. At the very least we see why the county did things backwards.

If the county really felt the need to grow in the Northwest Quadrant and other areas on the Davis periphery it should have started with talks with the city of Davis. I understand full well that one of the things that Supervisor Mariko Yamada wanted to do was have a Yolo County Council of Governments along the same lines as SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments). However that proposal was rejected. Short of creating a formal mechanism, the existing structure exists at the two-by-two level to engage in those talks. It seems to me that the bigger problem here is less the lack of communication and more the fear that they would not like answer.

However, the need for these talks was underscored for me last night by some of the discussion of developing the Northwest Quadrant. Even some of the more development friendly members of the committee felt that given the time frame that the committee was charged with, looking ahead seven years, there is no way that the city should be developing there.

Several other issues also came up--lack of commercial development on the west side of town, distance from the city core, lack of adherence to smart growth principles, etc. The idea here is that this development is far from downtown, meaning people would have to drive a good distance just to get to the center of town. That forces people to drive more in order to shop and eat, which leads to traffic, congestions, pollution, more carbon emissions, more infrastructure problems.

In fact the feeling seemed to be as they considered four separate parcels in the area that the city needs to look at this area as a whole rather than piecemail and needs to plan commercial development alongside residential.

That seems like a very reasonable approach. All of which underscores why the county had no business talking about developing in this part of town because frankly the county was not considering any of these factors. And that is the problem in general, the county was thinking in terms of generating revenue (a dubious notion at best) and the county was not thinking about what growth in these areas would do to the city in terms of infrastructure, commerce, transportation, and even future development. Again, if this was something the county really desired they should have discussed it in advance in great detail, well before it came before them in terms of their General Plan update.

Two other issues to broach, one was the notion discussed by the public, which included some developers and non-developers about how the northwest quadrant should be developed. One of the ideas that came forward was that the citizens of Davis allow growth in these areas in order to gain permanent agricultural mitigation. In theory, that sounds like an intriguing possibility. However, we are essentially talking about development up to road 27 and as far west as Pedrick Road and County Road 98. In other words, a huge swath of development.

The logic here was that we parcel and piecemail this development in order to avoid huge developments at any one time. The idea being that pressure is building for development and if we do not act as a spigot, we will get flooded. This analogy makes little sense to me. First of all we are talking about allowing a tremendous amount of growth to reach that point. Second, who is to say that the pressure would not continue to build even when there is land in permanent mitigation to change that land use status. I think we have to be careful about leaning too heavily toward mitigation as the solution to development pressures. I also think the amount of growth we are talking about might be over 50 years, not the next 7.

The other point that gets raised here is senior housing. What we now are seeing are several separate proposals for senior housing. The city of Davis has a Senior Citizens commission and part of their purview ought to be direct community discussion about the need for senior housing. I think one of the good things that came from last night's discussion was the acknowledgment from the Housing Element Steering Committee members that their job was one of looking at land use not approving specific projects. I agree with that approach. Just as I agreed in July that talk about a stem cell facility was premature, the question then was whether land use designations should be changed and whether land should be included for future development in the general plan. That is precisely the question here as well.

Discussion about whether and to what extent senior housing needs to be developed should take place in the Senior Citizens Commission. I think it would behoove the council and the steering committee even to have that kind of community dialogue occurring while housing is considered--particularly in the controversial Covell Village area.

One of the issues that has to be resolved at the council level and probably will not be resolved until after the new council elections is whether we should be planning for RHNA mandated growth or whether we should be planning for 1 percent growth that was developed and implemented by the city council. That conversation started to occur two weeks ago but needs to continue. The Council Majority seemed to want to postpone it until they got a report from the Housing Element Steering Committee but it seemed last night that the steering committee really needs to have direction from council in deciding what property to include in their plan.

At the end of the day, I think there needs to be more broad-based discussion in the community about where, when, and what type of growth ought to take place.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Interview with 8th Assembly District Candidate Mariko Yamada

The Vanguard sat down last night with Yolo County Superisor Mariko Yamada who represents portions of Davis and a number of rural communities in the Fourth District of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. She is running for the Democratic Nomination for the 8th Assembly District against West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Clabaldon. The Vanguard interviewed Mayor Cabaldon last week.

• What do you consider the top issues facing the 8th Assembly District? Yolo County? Davis? And what are your priorities if elected to the state legislature?

Alright, well first thanks for having me on the Vanguard. I just want to give you some background on the overarching issues with the 8th Assembly District as well as the county and the City of Davis.

I think that foremost on everyone’s mind is healthcare, and also transportation and education and employment. Those are all interrelated, but those are, I think, the top four issues that that I see before us as the State grapples with some very difficult, very overarching issues. Yolo County, as one of the fifty-eight counties in California, is at the bottom of the property tax revenue retention and that has presented challenges to us as we are going forward into the twenty-first century with all of those overarching issues in play. As it relates to the City of Davis, I think the city and the county will hopefully engage in some very positive discussions as we go forward through this next General Plan process. And, we need to collaborate more and communicate more, so that we can work together on solving some of these overarching issues.

• Can you get into [discuss] some of your priorities?

My priorities are pretty specific and I can share with you some of those that I’ve already put forth into my information and literature as we’ve been moving forward. As you may know, I am a social worker by profession, so with healthcare, I am a proponent of single payer universal. So, if elected to the Legislature, I will be advocating very strongly on that issue. I also have priorities in the areas of adults, aging and disability. And, you may have seen an article in the Davis Enterprise, just this last weekend, about the Aging Summit that we just put on. It’s the first one that Yolo County has had in the area of aging, adult and disability, I think that it is a primary concern of mine, because we’re about thirty years behind in addressing some of those issues, so I’ll be focusing on that as well.

I think I also have some specific proposals about how education and the social work profession can combine and collaborate to solve some of our serious issues within the education system. I think teachers are spending so much time on addressing social problems that they’re not really free to teach. Teachers certainly are not immune to the social problems of their students. But, I think what they went into their profession for was to teach and educate and I think a lot of their time is spent on addressing some of the social problems that children bring with them to school and if we are able to merge and able to have social workers and teachers partner I think that would go a long way into alleviating some of the teaching load and workload issues that teachers face. So, I would be looking at ways of collaborating.

How can the state on the one hand deal with tight budgets while at the same time provide a high level of services to those in most need—the poor, the aging, the disabled, and the children? In short, how can we take care of those most vulnerable?

I think the State has been under funding core services for a number of years now. I think first we had sixteen years of Republican rule followed by two short of a Democratic control of the Legislature and the state house. So, I think that when you have to address sixteen years of priorities that may not be directed to the most vulnerable in our state and our society and then only have a short time to address reorienting those priorities it becomes cumulative. It’s just a cascade on mostly having to catch up. I think that we have to address in a very realistic fashion the under funding of very real core services. Now having said that, I think there are ways to address some of the spending that may not be most appropriate, or the priorities that the state has had is directing money in not the best fashion. I think we are wasting funds in some respects. For example, going back to the healthcare discussion for a moment, we spend more in emergency room services than we would if we were investing in and funding preventive care. So I think it’s not only a matter of under funding, or a matter of not having enough money. The taxpayers are tired of hearing that there is not enough money, but I think that that is part of the problem. There are under funding issues, but the other side of that, is that we have to use the funds that we have in a much smarter fashion.

• How would in your capacity as Assemblywoman, be able to assist the 8th District in bringing funding for these much needed service?

I think it is important, as the representative for this area, to clearly articulate the needs of local government. My background is in local government primarily. I’ve been in three counties and I think that we have to make sure that local priorities are articulated. I think that part of the problem has been the accusation is that when people go to Sacramento to work in the Legislature they forget where they came from - - where their roots are. I’m going to work very hard not to forget that all politics is local and all of our problems are local. If we can persuade enough of our colleagues in the Legislature, to return to the focus of how programs affect everyday people in the district, I think that is part of my commitment and my message at the state level.

One of the big problems facing virtually every local jurisdiction that I cover on a daily basis whether it be the schools, the city, the county, or special districts is a lack of flow of money from the state to local governments, a the same time a large burden has shifted toward those local jurisdictions to meet the service needs of their constituents, how can the state do a better job of helping local government meet the funding needs of local jurisdictions?

Well, that again goes back to my earlier answer, that is, I think that when you have more people in the Legislature that have a local government perspective that doesn’t become a “we – they” discussion, it becomes an “our” discussion. Remembering that counties are political subdivisions of the state, we’re very familiar with what the state is requiring. That’s what counties do. We are the administrative arm of the state, so it’s not as though counties are unfamiliar with what the state requirements are, but we all hear about unfunded mandates. It’s very important for state legislators that they may have the best ideas in the world about how to fix all the problems of the world, but unless they have a local government perspective, and remain close to people and see how their legislation could impact local individuals then I think they’re missing the boat. I think we need to focus our attention on how the state legislation actually affects everyday people and I think that maybe we’ve lost that communication and it’s become a “we / they” and hope is that we make it an “our” situation.

• The other day, I was driving from Davis to Sacramento. It took me 20 minutes on I-80 to get from the highway 113 on ramp to the very far east outskirts of Davis. This region is set to grow a large amount in the coming years. How do you plan to prevent the I-80 Capitol Corridor from becoming the Congestion Corridor?

Well, you know David; I was actually on I-80 tonight, going back and forth, to Solano County, while I’ve been out precinct walking. And, actually the drive this evening, was not too bad, but that is always a gamble. You never know what it’s going to be like on I-80. I think we have made mistakes in the past in terms of how we have cited communities, in terms of how we have grown, and we need to capitalize on the good work that the SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) Blueprint began. That did not include Solano County. That was a six county study on the other side of the Causeway including Yolo County. I think what we need to do in the 8th Assembly District, because we’re kind of a hybrid, you know, we have an affinity to Sacramento, the region, but we also have an affinity to the Bay Area, because Solano is pulled on the other side. I haven’t seen that we’ve been able to get the Bay Area and the Sacramento Region to be in even a larger regional dialogue that we already are. So, I think what we need to do too, is make sure that we are focusing on transitory development. We need to take a look at -- as lofty as a goal as it is -- we need to look at a commitment at some mass transit.

I’ll digress for a second here. All of the money, the spending that’s been done on the war in Iraq, if we had the money to invest in infrastructure and light rail, we probably could have built light rail from New York to San Francisco. I don’t have those exact figures, but I think our spending priorities are completely upside down. We have made mistakes. We need to stop making the same mistakes to good planning. We need to open up an even a larger dialogue between the Sacramento Region and the Bay Area, because we’re all in this together. And I think too, when we achieve a better jobs / housing balance we’ve got to make sure that people don’t have to drive so far to go to work. I see in the mornings, as I’m on my way to Woodland, going over the Richards overpass – but I avoid the underpass, because I’m going to Woodland – so I’m looping around and going to I-80 to catch 113. I see all of those cars backed up on I-80 off of Richards trying to get to the university. So, there are a lot of people working at the university that either don’t or can’t live in Davis and I think that we need to have a dialogue about that with both our city partners and our county folks and the university.

• What types of proposals would you support in order to help local business succeed in the face of the growing threat of big-box retail?

Well, you know, I was on the “no” side of the Target discussion. I was not a public figure in that, because it was what I considered to be a city vote than rather than a direct county issue. So, I want to make that clear that my opposition to the big box was no so much because I didn’t think that people shouldn’t have a choice, but because to amend the General Plan to chase sales tax revenue, is not the best reason to amend your General Plan. I think your threshold for amending your General Plan has to be a very high threshold. And, I didn’t think that chasing sales tax revenue was a very good reason to amend the General Plan, but now that we know that that ordinance has passed, that provides future opportunities for big box, I think that the Downtown Davis Business Association and the Chamber of Commerce have to work together to ensure that the shopping options for Davis residents remain attractive. We also need to look at the parking issues in downtown Davis. I know that there are a lot of concerns that I’ve heard from visitors as well as residents that parking downtown, is very difficult. So, perhaps we can make this a win / win and arrange for some kind of off site shuttle service into the downtown area. There are some downtowns that actually have some closed off streets and made them only pedestrian friendly or maybe electric vehicle friendly. Maybe we’ll use the new parking lot out at Target to arrange for shuttle service to downtown.

I’m trying to remember what the statistics were on the precinct by precinct vote, but as you know, one of my focuses, as I mentioned earlier, is on seniors and folks with disabilities. I’ve heard that, anecdotally, seniors were supportive of having Target or a Target-like store nearby, so that they didn’t have to drive so far. They didn’t have to go too far to do basic shopping. So now that it’s passed I hope that we can collaborate and make something positive out of it.

Concerns about flooding in California’s Central Valley exploded following the destruction of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. And yet, we continue to develop areas that are flood prone and in flood plains. Do you believe that this is a wise planning practice? What steps do you believe are needed to ensure protection from flood given growing population pressures?

My record on development in the flood plains [was] probably the most clear of anyone in local government. I was the only “no” vote on a major policy related project of the old sugar mill. I was the only “no” vote on the Board of Supervisors and that “no” vote was based on the fact that I actually drove the site three times that what I felt in my heart also matched what I felt in my head. And that was, to approve development behind an uncertified levy that close to where people would be put in harms way - - I just couldn’t in good conscious do that.

I think that development has occurred already in the flood zone. And because some of those mistakes that were made in the past I think it is easy for some policy makers to say, “Well, you know…there’s just one more development we can put in, because it’s already close to the housing, the infrastructure, that’s in existence.” But at some point, you have to say, “No.” At some point you have to say that there is a principle that is involved and that is that you should stop developing behind uncertified levees or in areas in which it’s very clear that the potential for flooding is so great.

I have another hat on the Board of Supervisors, and that is that I am Emergency Services Board Liaison. Remembering the tragedies and horrors of Katrina... We saw those tragedies and horrors played out both on television and in pictorials. I’m actually haunted still by some of those pictures…particularly, the disabled who were not able to get out. I think knowing what we know now, it’s basically unconscionable to approve development behind uncertified levees.

Now, when there are flood protections that a developer or a community can demonstrate. I think that one size does not always fit all. So I want to say in balance, when a developer or a community can come up with a standard of flood protection that can be proven and can be demonstrated then I think that that merits a look. But in principle, I think right now; until we achieve some real strong flood protection for our region we should really put either a moratorium on new development behind the flood plain or in the flood plain.

• How can the 8th Assembly District balance the need for housing and jobs on one hand to accommodate huge projected growth particularly in the western part of the district with need to preserve agricultural land and environmental protection? How should California as a whole plan to deal with growth pressures in the coming decades?

I think if any one individual or one policy maker had the answer to that question we would have answered the question already. I think what I would want to put forth, as the answer to this question, is that it’s the approach that has to be taken rather than, how am I personally going to do it? The approach has to be one of balancing competing needs by listening carefully by listening to all points of view and not making a decision based on political expedience, or who’s yelling the loudest. I think that balancing growth and affordable housing and the environment and farmland…you almost have to do it at the same time on a policy level. You have to do it on a people level. As I said earlier in the interview, about the “one size does not always fit all,” I think that when you get good people around the table to have a rational discussion about how to balance growth, the environment, affordable housing and agriculture --- ‘cause you know you need all four of those in order to make a healthy community.

California is such a complex state. From north to south, from coastal to inland, is very complex already, so I’m not sure I can say how California is going to address it. I can say how I would address it as a representative in the Legislature. I think we need to have that approach of collaborating and getting new partnerships developed, because what I see a lot, in my work at the County, as well as my interactions with the state, there’s such great polarization. Everyone seems to think that their point of view is the only point of view that is correct. And although I am a very liberal and partisan Democrat I also believe that reaching out across the isle to try to work out solutions with people who may not think exactly the way that we think, or that come from a different life experience, or may feel that they only have the right answer – we have to be able to be able to reach out across the isle to try to work out some of these intractable problems.

Social workers start where the client is. We start from the position of looking at the problem as a whole and then try to martial the resources around the problem to fix it. Again, it’s an approach rather than me saying, “I have the solution to all of these problems.” I think that the citizenry doesn’t want to hear promises from people who are running for office they want to find out whether that person has the approach that they feel is consistent with addressing some of these huge problems that we all face.

• The recent dispute between Yolo County and the City of Davis over who should determine growth on the city edges erupted into at times bitter contentiousness. What did you learn from this situation in order to avoid repeat episodes in the future? And as a member of the Assembly what approaches would you take at the state level toward local growth and control?

You know, I think that the issue of who controls growth on the city edge is based upon twenty years of history. The Pass Through Agreement was negotiated first I think in 1987 was a very good agreement, and was renegotiated just a few years ago, and it has served well. I think that the County’s position is that we would like to engage the city in a collaborative discussion.

As far as what we learned, from sometimes a contentious presentation by some of the citizens of Davis, is that we need to establish mechanisms, so that we can have those kinds of discussions before it comes to the Board. I proposed having a Yolo County Council of Governments several years ago. Unfortunately, we did not have Board concurrence to engage in that. But, what struck me about going across the river to attend SACOG meetings -- Sacramento Area Council of Government meetings, and that they’re very specific, they focus really on transportation funding – but the concept of having twenty-two jurisdictions sitting around the same board chambers and discussing issues of mutual concern I thought was a wise way to approach problems. But I always wondered how it was that all of the Yolo County representatives could go across the river to sit around that table before we sat around together in Yolo County. My hope is that we will some day have that mechanism that we can sit down as elected leaders as well as have open forums with the citizens to hear each other, not just hear one side. I look at the county, as the county as a whole, although I do have the privilege of representing ¾ of the City of Davis I also represent an area outside of Davis, which is the second largest farm acreage in Yolo County and a mixture of very diverse interests and rich habitat areas. So in balance, I think that the discussion that occurred at the Board was very unnecessarily contentious. We didn’t have communication mechanisms to engage each other before it got to that point.

You know, the Board did not vote to remove the areas entirely. That vote did fail on a 2 to 3 vote. But, we did remove the areas with hope that we would engage in future discussions with the city. My hope is that we can work that out.

• And as a member of the Assembly what approaches would you take at the state level toward local growth and control?

The state does not regulate local planning decisions, so in terms of regulating where growth will go, there are certain guidelines, but local planning decisions will remain at the local level.

Well, one of the reasons I asked this question, is that there was a bill before the Assembly that died – fortunately – that would have changed the way that Housing Element updates to the General Plan were designed. And, it would have made it so that instead of a ten-year planning period it would be every five years. And so a lot of local governments became concerned that that would have been growth inducing.

I think that Dave Jones (Assemblyman) did have AB70, which not supported by the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, although I did support his bill, because it included some provisions for regulating growth behind the flood plain and that we would have state and local partnership in how those decisions are made. I know most of local government opposed AB70, because they felt that it was the state trying to regulate. But I think that again, it’s that approach of partnering instead of this we / they. It’s always, we / they. I hope we can get to the problems, more of solving the problems in more of a collaborative fashion.

• At your first candidate’s debate, you supported the continuation of the two-thirds requirement for passing the state budget, has the recent budget impasse and the fact that a few members of the minority party held the budget highjacked, changed your view here?

At the first forum the question that was posed was; would you change the current way the budget was handled? Right? My view on that is that we have to preserve some aspect of the protection of the minority. What I would like to see is a two-year budget process with a sixty percent threshold. I think that when you have a two-thirds vote – at that forum the question was posed; would you preserve the current two-thirds majority? It only works to protect when the Democrats are in the majority. But I think that living with a year to year budget process can result in a tyranny of the minority, but a two-year process with a sixty percent threshold would be more fair.

• Everyone is for health care reform. What approach do you most advocate and more importantly, how can you get it passed in the current climate or will you be looking toward 2011 with a Democratic Governor?

As an advocate for single payer universal it may only be achievable if we go to the ballot. I have been participating for the past 18 months on the California State Association of Counties Healthcare Reform Task Force. We have been examining all three of the proposals based on its effects on the county. And, AB8, which was put together as a merged bill from both the Senate and the House is not something that the counties can support, because of its 7.5% employer contribution threshold. In effect, that would affect us, as we are the employer of record for in home support health services providers. These are folks that are actually saving the state money, by performing the work that is needed to keep seniors and disabled individuals in their homes and in their community. So, AB8 was not the answer for us. The Governor’s proposal also, we have some concerns about.

Although, I think shared responsibility, which is part of the Governor’s proposal, is something that I personally can be supportive of, and I know that my friends out in the union community are not supporting shared responsibility, individual mandates. I think that there is a difference between shared responsibility and individual mandate. For those that cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare, counties already are responsible for indigent health. So I think that there are enough elements floating out there. Again, I think if we have the approach of collaborating and making sure that we have a shared discussion about how to solve it that’s how we’re going to get there, but I personally am a proponent of single payer, universal. That is in the context that healthcare is a right not a privilege. You know, there are still a couple of pillars in this whole discussion that need to come to the table, and that is the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. I know that this is going out there in sort of “dangerous land,” but insurance companies do their business based on that you’re paying for something you hope will not happen. I think we ought to be investing money in what should happen, which is good, preventive healthcare, not waiting until an emergency occurs and when the costs are very high. If we invest more on the front end then we save money on the back end. Also, for a certain segment of our population that have pre-existing conditions - - we have to do away with that – we have to make sure that everyone is able to get healthcare when they need it. I think that there are enough good models throughout the world as well as other places in the country. San Francisco has started and Massachusetts has a system as well, so we need to take the best of what’s already happening to see if we can hammer out a solution. Who would have thought that, here we are in October, and here we are the Legislature is still working on just two small issues; water and health. It’s a symbol that people want to get these issues dealt with. I’m not sure how it’s going to go through the rest of this year. I would rather see something good and something substantial occur rather than something based on political expedience. I think that SB840 we just need to just convert to an initiative and see what the people have to say. The polling shows that the people want universal, single payer healthcare. And also with the Presidential Primary coming in February, February 5th, that is a huge issue for all of the candidates, at least on the Democratic side. We don’t hear too much about healthcare on the Republican side. I hope we get there.

• The original gang injunction was thrown out by the courts. What do you think of efforts to renew the gang injunction—has it been improved upon? How can we balance and where do you balance the concerns between public safety on the one hand and the rights of the accused to have a fair trial with court representation?

I was not supportive of the original gang injunction, because it was vague and unconstitutional. I think the courts proved that to be true. The efforts to reinstate another gang injunction I do believe is still not fair, because I think that if you are going to apply a curfew, or rights to assembly orders in a community it should apply to the whole community not just to one segment. I think that beyond that, my interest is in supporting law enforcement in balance with addressing why there is criminal activity in the first place. We have families that are stretched to the limit, because of their economic situation. We have families that are addressing decades-long issues of poverty, unemployment and sub-standard schools. We have to go to the root causes of what is motivating some people into criminal activity. I think that if you only look at the law enforcement side, and you don’t look at the root causes of what draws some people into criminal activity, then you’re not taking a balanced approach to solving the problem. But I do think that if you’re going to apply restrictions to the citizenry then they have to be applied to everyone and that’s the only way you can achieve some democracy in such an activity.

• What accomplishment on the Yolo County board of Supervisors are you most proud of?

Just one? [laugh] Well if I can give you more than one? Well I have a lot of accomplishments that I’m proud of. I think first of all our Board, and I as one member, have not been afraid to take on the big battles. So you may edit this out, because I’m only limited to one or two, but as I mentioned the other evening, when we were at The Bean Feed, our board has exhibited great courage in taking on issues like the Conway Ranch, SMUD annexation, certainly the General Plan is a very large issue. I think our Board has exhibited the courage to take on the big battles in the face of many pressures. Personal and professional accomplishments; I am very proud of working to get the In Home Supportive Services Public Authority established, working for our most vulnerable seniors and disabled residents. We were the first in the state to achieve that after the state mandate in 1999. I’m also very proud of the work we’ve done to strengthen the Aging and Adult Services Commission. It is now chaired by a member of the Board of Supervisors. It has achieved some parity with the Children and Families Commission. I’m also very proud of ensuring that our ambulance and emergency response services have been settled now for at least ten years. That is a negotiation that I led for the county in collaboration with our emergency services personnel. A lot of people don’t know what the link is between 9-1-1 and the ambulance arriving at your house. It’s actually a county related function, so we had improvements and sustainability in our emergency services. We have also done a lot of work with our Parks Master Plan, with the Grasslands Regional Park. We’re going to be hopefully concluding the acquisition and doubling the size of Grasslands Regional Park, which is in District 4. That will become probably the largest regional park near urban area in Yolo County. Many of our parks are out in the Capay Valley area further West, but Grasslands, is right across the way off of Mace Boulevard, so those are just some of the diverse issues and accomplishments I am most proud of.

• If you could accomplish one thing if elected to the Assembly, what would it be?

I think IHHS (In Home Supportive Services) reform would be at the top of my priority list, because this program already has 400,000 Californians enrolled. The eligibility has not been reviewed for decades, and we’re going to have a growing need to fill to keep people safe in their communities.

It is a program that is actually eating up our realignment dollars and is causing competition amongst social services, public health, and probation. I think that the program needs to be stand alone and I think the workers in that program – we need to take a look at how they can be engaged and blended into perhaps, our retirement system for the state. It is something that you perhaps have not thought of yet, because you’re young and still able bodied, but for silver tsunami end of the age spectrum, it is a glaring need. Actually, the dependency ratio for those of you that are still able to work, there’s going to be greater burdens upon you as the other end of the age cohort progresses it’s shift. So, it’s going to be a top priority of mine along with healthcare reform.

Thanks to my wife Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald for doing the transcription for this interview...

---Doug Paul Davis reporting