Quietly... Council Looks to Change City's Campaign Finance Ordinance

You had to be very alert to notice it, but on the agenda for Tuesday night's council meeting, as the last part of the last item, buried at the end of the council agenda, reads the following:

Missed it the first time? I did. I wasn't the only one.

The item seeks to put three separate aspects of election law into a single section of the election code.

These ordinances will remove all political campaign sign regulations from Chapters 3 and 40 of the Municipal Code and include them in Chapter 12 (Elections). This will put all regulations related to elections in one chapter making it convenient for the public to look an election related question up. They will also increase the allowable campaign contribution per person to $250 from the current $100 and impose a $25 removal fee for signs placed on public property.

The guise of this move is stated as "convenience." But it also has the advantage of enabling the item to be slipped through in relative obscurity, buried at the end where few are looking for it.

The first part of the item is a public hearing on an ordinance which would allow renters to display political campaign signs. This is an item that we discussed in October that came before the UC Davis-City of Davis Student Liaison Commission.

It has full backing of ASUCD (Associated Students of UC Davis). The issue came to the commission's attention after the ASUCD Senate passed a resolution in September, authored by Sen. Michael Lay, calling for an ordinance ensuring the right of Davis renters to post political signs. Several renters had complained to City and ASUCD officials that landlords were not allowing them to put up signs in support of certain candidates for public office.

ASUCD Sen. Andrew Peake:

"The right to free speech is a right guaranteed to everyone, not just to those who own property. When it comes to political participation, it shouldn't matter whether you own your home or not. When certain members of the community aren't allowed to participate in the democratic process in this way, it's a form of disenfranchisement."

City staff circulated a legal memorandum stating that landlords who prohibited their tenants from posting political signs were most likely out of step with the law.

Staff has now however taken the rather unusual step of putting together two relatively distinct ordinances into the same item. Therefore, having read the first part of the item, one might not notice that there is a second very distinct ordinance carried within it.

Adding to the confusion, is the fact that the second portion of the item has received little discussion leading up to its placement on the agenda. To the point where one wonders where it came from and under whose direction it was placed there.

Even in the agenda packet, the ordinance is buried and extremely brief. Unlike the political sign ordinance, the ordinance to change campaign finance laws has no background or discussion. It was a very simple single paragraph description.

It simply reads:

Campaign Contribution Limits

The current campaign contribution limit of $100 was set by ordinance 1624 on November 20, 1991. With the increase in costs to run a simple campaign over the past sixteen years, it is being recommended that consideration be given to increasing the individual limit from the current $100 to $250.

The merits of the increase aside, the fact that this was done in such a quiet manner, is of grave concern. Councilmember Lamar Heystek expressed similar concerns to me. This was the first he had heard of any proposed changes and he was unclear as to how the issue came about.

As Liaison the UC Davis-City of Davis Student Liaison Commission, he was very familiar with the political sign ordinance. The issue of renters having the same rights to place political signs around their rental units is an issue at the very basic levels of free speech.

However, the issue of campaign finance laws is a separate matter and needed to be brought up separately.

One can make arguments on both sides of the issue of increasing the amount an individual can donate in a city council race. However, that is not the point here. The point here is about open government, transparency, and having a full public discussion of this item. The item did not make the Davis Enterprise. It did not have any sort of prior discussion in a commission, and apparently even members of the council had no idea it was even being considered.

That is very alarming to me, again regardless of whether you think this is a good idea or a bad idea. What does seem clear is that three of the members of council are running for reelection. It takes thirty days for an ordinance to take effect after it's second reading which would be the first council meeting in January, meaning that by early February, candidates facing reelection can suddenly experience a 250% increase in their available campaign funds. And let me go out on a limb and suggest that this idea did not come from the Mayor. That leaves two likely culprits who would personally benefit from changing this ordinance.

To make things even more interesting is the fact that the Mayor Pro Tem, Ruth Asmundson, will not be at the meeting on Tuesday as she is out of town. That will leave open the strong possibility that this will not pass and perhaps it will leave open the possibility that this would be delayed until January or even after the current election.

Regardless of one's feelings on the current law or the proposed changes, the public must be heard on this issue and weigh in. Attempting to close off public input, scrutiny or debate, is a very dangerous precedent in my view. Let us have this debate with full notice in January and if the public wants to see these changes, then at least there will have been a chance for people to weigh in. My guess however is that is exactly what the timing and secretive nature of this ordinance attempted to avoid.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

The Latest Installment in 'As Trader Joe's Turns'

When the owners of University Mall decided to sue Radiological Associates of Sacramento in an attempt to force them to vacate their spot at the University Mall in order to pave the way for Trader Joe's to arrive, we figured that was a politically bad move. Clearly it changed some of public opinion on Trader Joe's arrival to Davis itself.

As it turns out, it was also bad law. The Davis Enterprise reports this morning that Yolo County Superior Court Judge Tim Fall granted a motion to strike a complaint that he had previous amended because it too was faulty. The motion to strike throws out the lawsuit.

According to the attorney representing RAS, Steve Boutin, the landlords had preferred to file a lawsuit to negotiating some sort of agreement between the two sides.

"Their lawsuit was faulty and premature... What they had to do was say 'Here are the conditions under which we can relocate and how we can do it.' What they did was create a very mushy situation which we didn't even have an opportunity to respond to... Their attitude has been 'Hey, see you in court,' rather than talking.... Where it goes from here is up to Centro Watt [the property managers]. Our sense is that they're anxious to get Trader Joe's in there, but my clients intend to continue to provide radiological services."

All the more reason it was ridiculous for Trader Joe's to announce that they were coming to Davis in 2008. It's a shame and frankly I have lost most of my interest in them coming here because of all this. No they did not sue RAS, but they might as well have. They insisted that the only place that they would locate was University Mall.

The problems with that location go beyond the fact that the space they want to move into is occupied by another business.

I see three primary problems with that location. First traffic. The area from Sycamore to Anderson along Russell as well as on those two side streets are among the most congested in the city of Davis. So the city wants to put in a store that will greatly add to the traffic? That makes little sense.

Second, parking is already bad at university mall. Now you are going to add another store that will bring in a ton of traffic that needs to park. Moreover, any overlap between Trader Joe's and the Graduate events could make parking a huge nightmare.

Finally, and this is an ongoing problem, anyone who parks at University Mall during the winter season is a target for the Crow shooting gallery. I remember parking the car for five minutes last year to get a coffee for my wife, and coming out of the coffee shop the car was literally covered in droppings.

Add to that, the problem that we have basically two shopping centers literally dying for an anchor and the location that is already taken makes zero sense whatsoever.

The argument that Trader Joe's wants to be close to the center of town and by a highway makes little sense either. People in Davis will come to a Trader Joe's, period. We could put it out in the fields of the Northwest Quadrant, two miles outside of town and they would come in droves. In San Luis Obispo, Trader Joe's is located on the outskirts of town, not in the town's center. Doesn't stop people from going there. If Trader Joe's does not stop this insanity they will never come and people will get tired of it. They already are.

This is my favorite part of the article from the Enterprise:

"At City Council meetings and in letters to the editor, Davis residents have questioned why Trader Joe's doesn't open its store in one of Davis' vacant grocery store sites, one in Westlake Plaza on Lake Boulevard in West Davis and the other in the Davis Manor Shopping Center on East Eighth Street."

They will not say it, but every story we have written in the Vanguard, on the issue has raised the question over and over again. But it is funny that the townfolk seem to know so much more than the business owners themselves. Perhaps representatives from Trader Joe's ought to listen to their potential customers and ditch the corporate charts.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Councilmember Heystek Requests City Help for Covell Gardens Residents

On November 27, the Vanguard reported on Atria Covell Gardens's increased rents that would raise rent by 8 percent for the second year in a row.

The facility's executive director, Robert Godfrey cited increased costs as the primary reason for these increases.

"I'm certainly empathetic... But it's an unfortunate reality to business right now. Lots of people we do business with are now charging us fuel surcharges, for example."

The Vanguard wrote in its commentary:

While I am empathetic to your cost concerns and understand that you are trying to run a business and make a profit, you also have to understand that you are running a business geared towards seniors. And when you run a business geared towards seniors, you are acknowledging that the residents there are on basically a fixed income. That means that they get only a 2.3 percent increase in their income--not near enough to cover an 8 percent increase, let alone for two years in a row.

When you are a business that relies on seniors for your profits, you have to recognize that the downfall of that market is that you cannot do things the way you would do them in other sectors of the economy. You cannot increase rents by more than their cost of living adjustments. Otherwise, what you will do, is put elderly people on the streets.

Finally, the Vanguard implored the Davis City Council and the City of Davis to step in to protect the vulnerable--and the most vulnerable are people on fixed incomes, some of whom do not have a lot of savings, and many of whom are not in great health.

At Tuesday's Davis City Council Meeting, Councilmember Lamar Heystek stepped in and did just that.

"I want to talk about an issue that I think all the council has heard about, it's the issue of the impending rent increases imposed by Atria Covell Gardens on the residents of that assisted living facility on Alvarado Ave. We've read about it in the Davis Enterprise, we've read about it on the internet, I have received phone calls and I have visited the facility to meet with the residents. Their concerns are very grave."

For Councilmember Heystek this was an alarming development.

"Their rent increase averages 8 percent across the units and they have reached [as high as] 12 percent. They have experienced a rent increase of 8 percent on average last year."

"I believe we have an issue that affects our most vulnerable citizens--they are our senior citizens."

Following the articles last month, the Councilmember has had contact with this in the community on this issue.

"Members of that assisted living community have approached me and asked that I bring this issue to the city council. I do not come with a solution to the problem, I don't have all the facts. I have tried to contact Robert Godfrey who is the executive director of the Atria Group."

"I do come with an idea, I believe it is our necessity and our duty to at least consider the problem as presented by the Covell Gardens Residents' Association and to act accordingly."

Councilmember Heystek looked first toward a voluntary solution, a means by which to bring the members of the two parties together to have discussion and dialogue through the city's mediation service. While this approach is voluntary, it has the potential at least to allow the resident to air their grievances and also the management to explain their rationale for the increase and the methodology by which it was created.

"I ask that the city council... request staff to invite both the represents of both the management of Atria Covell Gardens and the Covell Gardens Residents' Association to engage in the City of Davis' Community Mediation Service. I believe that this process is fair. It's a process that is bilateral in nature. It would allow Atria to convey the financial considerations that justify the rent increase, to convey the methodology by which the rent increases of individual units have been calculated. It would allow the residents to provide their testimony to the rent increase in a formal venue mediated by a neutral party. It would allow both parties to negotiate the terms of the rent increase and negotiate terms by which future rent increases could occur."

This also leaves open the door to other forms of action. However, Mr. Heystek clearly felt impelled to at least attempt to do something to help the situation.

"I believe it is important that we act, people turn to us because they believe we have the power to act. The least we can is ask staff to invite both parties to a fair mediation session. And so I make that request of council and I make that request of staff."

The council as a whole agreed and thought this was a great idea to take advantage of the services offered in this city and perhaps draw some national attention to this sort of problem.

These rent increases are set to take effect at the first of the year and Councilmember Heystek suggested that if these voluntary efforts are not effective, they ought to consider other avenues to deal with this very serious problem.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

City Budget Plan A Tax and Spend Mirage

If you read the Davis Enterprise's Wednesday addition you would have seen a small and scant article depicting the discussion from Tuesday Night on the City's Budget. This article glossed over some very serious concerns with the city's fiscal situation to paint a fairly rosy picture. The picture fails to inform the public of the magnitude of the fiscal problems facing the city or the fact that the city council majority's plan to deal with these problems is in essence their own version of tax and spend while at the same time they ignore serious structural problems with the current budget.

City Finance Director Paul Navazio is recommending that the city consider three separate tax increases.

First he wants a public safety tax on the ballot sometime in 2009. Now City Councilmember Stephen Souza wants that on the ballot by November 2008 and made an impassioned plea as to why we need to fund police and fire immediately, however, that did not seem feasible to Mr. Navazio .

Second, Mr. Navazio wants a new sales tax on the ballot--asking for a renewal of the sales tax and an additional quarter-cent increase to pay for street and road maintenance. This would be placed before the voters in 2010.

Finally he wants to replace the parks tax with an increase in the municipal services tax in June of 2011.

So, the Davis voters will be looking at three new taxes over the next four years.

Mayor Sue Greenwald warned that seniors and others on fixed incomes are already stressed by the sales tax system, this increase could potentially put them at risk while really not adding much in additional revenue to the city.

However the most alarming statement came from Councilmember Don Saylor who proclaimed the end of the structural deficit.

"Today we really can look at the structural deficit as we refer to so often as something within our grasp. The numbers are so small that they will be taken care of by small increases in the economic development plans that are already underway."

Councilmember Lamar Heystek remains very concerned about the structural deficit and is reluctant to support new taxes without a demonstration up front that we have improved things with current funds before we ask for additional funds.

The bottom line is that we really have not even dealt with the issue of a structural deficit.

According to Mayor Sue Greenwald

"We have a structural deficit, we haven't really done anything to improve it, we've just changed our accounting principals, made them less conservative. But that also means it's going to be more sensitive to downturns in the real estate market and other potentially recessionary phenomena."

In fact the problem is far worse than that. She continued:

"We have not only not reduced it [structural deficit] but we've also made ourselves more vulnerable to our PERS contributions."

If a problem occurs our payments may go up greatly increasing our structural deficit

We have also not begun to account our unfunded liability which would take $4.2 million a year to pay off.

The 800 pound gorilla, according to the Mayor, is the combined water and sewer capital improvement costs; current projections place costs around $335 million. What this means is that the tax increases in the next four years being proposed by council will be in a way dwarfed by the "fee" increases we will have to pay over the next 20 years in order to simultaneously expend money on a new water supply system and a sewer capital improvement system.

As one councilmember explained to me, we have not even really dealt with the structural deficit that is really looming--that of unfunded mandates in terms of employee retirement pensions. These are not even included on the books. So to suggest that we have solved our structural deficit is very misleading. We have not even touched on the real problems.

All of these tax increases are basically what is necessary to maintain current level of service with perhaps a small increase in police and fire with the public safety tax. None of these will deal with the ballooning entitlements we are handing out to city employees upon retirement. These are lifetime benefits that we are handing out and they are right now not even on the books. That does not mean that the problem is gone. It is simply a matter that this council is trying to get reelected and push off this problem to future councils and future generations.

To me that is the heart of fiscal irresponsibility. And, when the city's budget director says:

"Our revenue and expenditures are getting pretty well balanced."

And when the city's only newspaper agrees with it and does not dispute that information:

"The city has slowly and diligently chipped away at that budget gap, bringing its spending plan more stability and reliability."

We are not being well-served and we are really not aware of the burdens that are headed our way down the road.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Planning Commission Nixes City Staff Supported Project

As I sat in to listen and observe the City Of Davis Planning Commission meeting, the thought repeatedly ran through my mind as to exactly what I was doing here. This was after all, a design review and approval for a minor modification to a private resident on J St in Old East Davis. What possible interest would people who are not neighbors have in the approval of an addition to a home?

As the evening went on, I think the same question must have occurred to each of the seven people who sit on the Planning Commission itself, but it would have taken the form of, how exactly did this project come forward to this point. However, bear with me here, because what you are about to see is shear incompetence on the part of city staff, yet again, in allowing a project to go forward without proper vetting by the City Attorney and despite serious concerns from neighbors.

The applicant in this case proposed constructing a 1,469 square-foot, two-story rear addition to an existing one-story residence in the Old East Davis Neighborhood. The proposed addition would be substantial and more than double the size of the residence. The addition would result in a floor area ratio of 43.4%.

One of the key factors here was a large 32” diameter Chinese hackberry that is located in the rear yard. The tree constrains development. To minimize potential impacts to the tree, the addition is pushed back 12 feet from the tree and results in a proposal to reduce the north side yard setback to 1’-8” for both stories. A new front porch would also replace the existing porch and new landscaping installed. A small second-story deck would be located on the south side elevation.

In other words, the applicant claimed that in order not to kill the tree, the addition had to be a certain distance away, this forced it to almost abut the south side of the property line. Only 20 inches would separate the northern edge of the home from a fence. Now think about 20 inches for a second and how narrow that is. City ordinance requires a five foot setback for the first floor and 10 feet for the second floor. The applicant in this case is asking for 20 inches on both floors and what is essentially for all intents and purposes a 20 foot high wall to be only 20 inches from the property line.

The staff report suggests as follows:

"Staff recognizes that the addition is sizeable and that the 1’-8” side setback is a substantial reduction in the setback requirements. Although it reduces the sense of openness on the north side, it preserves other useable areas in the yard and does not significantly impact the adjacent parking area. The Zoning Code gives the Planning Commission the discretion to reduce the side setback in the R-2 CD district in order to protect significant landscaping. The Planning Commission has discretionary approval over the project and may deny the project or request changes that it deems appropriate."

The staff report acknowledged that concerns were raised, and I focus on two of these concerns.

First:

"Concerns were raised that the reduced side setback would have visual impacts; that it would not be consistent with side yard setback generally found in the neighborhood; and that it could set a precedent for future projects. Additionally, concerns for maintenance, drainage, and fire issues in the side yard were mentioned. It was noted that other buildings in neighborhood had zero setbacks though they were generally accessory structures and/or single-story. The question was asked whether the addition could be placed further to the rear instead of the side."

This is a key point because the answer we are given is that the reason that it cannot be moved closer to the rear of the lot rather than the side is the tree and concerns that it will encroach on the tree.

"The R-2 CD zoning provides flexibility allowing the Planning Commission to reduce the side setback to protect historic landscaping."

The staff is claiming that the tree, a mature Chinese hackberry, represents historic landscaping and that building near the back could endanger the tree. The owner had an arborist testify to this effect, although it was unclear from that testimony how close they could actually get to the tree, the arborist appeared to suggest that it would be considerably closer than the current design.

The other complaint that was registered had to do with the size of the addition. For me, the tree issue was only part of the concern here, the other was, why they had to build such a large addition to begin with.

"There was concern that the addition was too large and that the mass and scale of the new structure would be out of proportion for the lot and the neighborhood and would have insufficient open space. Particularly, there was concern that it would overwhelm the nearby historic Tufts House.

The proposed addition is substantial and results in a FAR of 43.4% that exceeds the allowable FAR of 40% by approximately 200 square feet. The zoning allows an increase in the FAR with Design Review."

In the end, despite strong objections from neighbors, the staff recommended approval for this project:

"Staff believes the project is consistent with the DDTRN Design Guidelines and that the proposed design is compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding structures and would not adversely impact the integrity of the adjacent historic resource. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project based on the findings and conditions of approval."

Immediately to the north is a newly built complex of two town homes and two single family detached homes that are at this point unsold. The real estate company, Coldwell Banker and Doug Arnold, claim that this project would devalue adjacent property.

"As currently proposed, the set back for the addition at 425 J Street is only 18 inches for both the first and second story. This will create a 20-foot vertical wall that will radically change the appearance and character of the backyard area and will devalue the four properties affected.

In particular, 437 J Street will immediately lose both light and openness due to the blockage of the sky and sun. The massive and imposing new addition closing off the sky and sun will dramatically alter both the appearance and usage of the side yard and patio and will seriously devalue this property."

Bill Kopper, represented the owner of the adjacent property, Mr. Frank Skover before the Planning Commission. He presented key testimony arguing that the city had three criteria with which to grant an exception to the zoning ordinance that requires a five foot setback. The only one of these three criteria that was applicable without either a zoning change or a general Variance, was if the tree was part of an historic landscape. Mr. Kopper then went on to argue that this did not fall within the normal definition for historic landscape of which there are very few such designations in the city. Mr. Kopper successfully argued that a mature tree is not necessarily historic, nor could a tree in and of itself, be part of an historic landscape without some accompanying structure.

At this point, Mike Levy, one of the planning commissioners, asked City Planning Staffer Mike Webb point blank whether Mr. Kopper's interpretation was correct that this needed to be designated an historic landscape. Mr. Webb acknowledged that Mr. Kopper was correct. And when pressed, Mr. Webb acknowledged that unless it was deemed an historic landscape, they would have to rely on Variance procedures in order to grant such a setback.

Here is where this gets interesting. Mike Webb and Eric Lee, the planning staff, argued for approval of this project. They did so without getting a legal opinion from the City Attorney as to whether this could even be designated an historic landscape. This fact was brought up by Mr. Levy at this time and several other members of the commission wondered out loud how the planning staff would go forward with such a recommendation and more importantly how this process got this far.

Amazingly, for the next two hours, the meeting would continue with a variety of members of the public coming forward. One of the neighbors openly acknowledged that the reason for the addition was retribution for Mr. Skover building the "condos" that overlooked her property--from roughly 50 feet away.

In the end, staff worked very diligently in order to rescue this project giving the planning commissioners a number of different avenues short of outright denial. Even without the issue of the historic status of the tree which was by this point in severe doubt, the planning commission in general felt that this project was too large and the lack of setback very intrusive.

You see a very rare thing occur, by a unanimous 7-0, the Planning Commission voted down the proposal but instructed the city attorney to weigh in on this issue about the determination of the historic status, as much for future interest as for determining this project.

The question on many people's mind after the decision was finally reached late into the evening, is why the city's planning staff not only pushed for approval of this project but when it became clear that the Commission was opposed to it, continued to try to wear down the Commission into making a weaker ruling, a tactic that was actually partially successful and would have been more successful were it not for the resolve of several of the commissioners including Mr. Levy who caught on immediately that there was a legal problem and that Mr. Kopper's opinion had serous merit.

For the staff to knowingly recommend approval of this project, knowing the ordinance rules as Mr. Webb appeared to acknowledge, without seeking the opinion of the City Attorney is blatant incompetence. At the very least he wasted the time of the commissioners by failing to even check to see if this could be done in the first place and in fact if he had his druthers, the planning commission would have sent it back to the City Attorney and then possibly revisit this issue in the near future. Staff should never have come up with such a recommendation without checking on its legality and whether this tree fit the definition of an historic landscape.

In fact the suggestion at one point was that the owner could simply cut down the tree. The applicant claimed that city planner Eric Lee had told her that if she did, she could face a $40,000 fine--a preposterous claim that in fact, Mr. Lee though he hedged, never disputed.

For those wondering in the end, why this issue comes before us, it is because this is yet another example of the sheer incompetence of city staff. I have never seen a proposal that staff itself recommends be voted down unanimously but that is what happened here. You have staff failing to check to see if their recommendation was legal. You have staff pushing and carrying the water for a proposal despite strong and legitimate objections from neighbors. It was not even known whether the Planning Commission had the ability to weigh in on the judgment of the historic nature of the tree and the landscape.

In the end, the question from all involved is how this got to this point. It was a question openly asked by those on the Planning Commission. It was a question wondered through out the proceedings. While for most this is a small issue, this was extremely costly to the owner of the adjacent property who had representatives there to protect his investment in his project. And you have once again, city staff, failing to do their job in a thorough and proper manner, which ended up wasting the time of the Planning Commission and those who came before the commission. Something needs to be done about this issue in the future or the city will end up setting itself up for a very serious and expensive law suit.

---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

City Wants Your Participation in Parks and Rec Master Plan Survey

It is with great irony that I opened an email on Saturday from Chair of the Open Space and Habitat Commission, Kemble Pope.

He writes:

Hi David, First of all, thanks for all of the time and effort that you put forth in maintaining the Davis Vanguard as an independent source of information and as a gathering place for interested Davisites.

Yes, flattery will probably get me to pay attention and at least consider helping you out.

As you are aware, the Parks & Rec Master Plan update is underway. A survey is available online that gives residents a first opportunity to voice their opinion on the future of parks, recreation, and natural habitat in our community. I was hoping that you could encourage your readers to take 6-8 minutes out of their busy day to complete this survey... there are plenty of opportunities to broaden the assumptions of the survey questions/choices by typing your personal responses as well.

http://www.city.davis.ca.us/pcs/masterplan/

FYI, the OS&H Commission will be meeting in joint session with Parks & Rec Commission in February to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Yes, and as Mr. Pope should be aware, I have been a strong opponent of using city funds in conducting another Parks and Rec Master Plan Survey, particularly when we had a large amount of unfinished projects from the previous survey. I am far from convinced that we need to do a survey to find out what people's usage of parks resources is and how we can better serve their needs.

It's not that I do not think these are important questions--but given limited resources, I do not believe this is the best use of $75,000.

Nevertheless, I give Mr. Pope space here for the very reason that he indeed asked. I want to encourage the city to start thinking outside of the box. The city did a survey back in the spring and discovered an amazing thing, while most people still received their information about the city of Davis from the Davis Enterprise, the percentage had dropped steeply from the previous survey. The internet had strongly increased as a source for information and news about the city. For the city, trying to get information out to the public, that means that they have to use non-traditional means.

I took the survey, it is a difficult survey to take in some ways unless you use the parks a lot, I'm not sure how helpful the feedback will be. It was interesting that in the end, it asked if people should be able to smoke in the parks and then if people should be able to drink in the parks.

The big thing I have noticed in the parks especially when I take my young nieces and nephews there is that we need to be able to keep the equipment in good maintenance. Other than that, I really do not have much to say about the parks, we seem to have a good amount of parks in the city, a good mix of large parks and small neighborhood parks. In any case, the city doesn't ask the one question I wish they would, whether they should be spending $75,000 trying to figure out what the public's needs are in terms of parks and rec.

Along the same lines, I note that the owner of Westlake Plaza is requesting a change:

"to the General Plan and zoning for the center to allow a remodel of the vacant 22,000 square foot supermarket space into new retail and office suites ranging from approximately 160 square feet up to 3,000 square feet. The owner of the center has signed a lease with a small food store to occupy 3,000 square feet at the front of the former grocery store space."

So let me get this straight, the owner wants permission to take what is currently a very small grocery store space and reduce it down to 3,000 square feet for a small food store? And they already have signed a lease with a small food store? There is a Circle K less than three blocks away, what would be the difference between the "small food store" and the Circle K that is literally right down the street?

"The General Plan currently requires the center to have a grocery store/ supermarket. The new food store does not meet the 15,000 square foot requirement. With the requested amendments a grocery store would be allowed but not required at the shopping center."

There are a few things I do not understand. First, why the city is not more supportive of continuing neighborhood grocery stores. Second, the owner of Westlake has allowed the quality of the building to degrade substantially over the past 10 years. They are finally doing some basic upgrades to the facilities. The city has a continued policy that rewards owners that allow their property to degrade.

Unfortunately there was a neighborhood meeting for this last week. Now this goes before the planning commission in January and before the city council in February.

I just think West Davis can do better than to take what was once a small but functional 22,000 foot grocery store and turn it into a 3,000 foot food store.

Then again, I am still dreaming of having a Trader Joe's there as I think the proposed location in the University Mall would be a disaster in a lot of ways.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

City Opts to Refinance DACHA to Keep Co-Op Viable and Limited Equity

In June of 2006, members of the Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association (DACHA) came forward with a series of complaints about the operations of the Cooperative.

DACHA is a 20-unit scattered site, limited equity cooperative. It was meant to provide ongoing affordability and be an alternative to affordable for-sale units. It was a non-profit and consultant development and transitioned from initially having a board to a member-led and run board.

In the staff report, Jerilyn Cochran cited a large number of challenges and observations with DACHA from a very early time. These included a number of varying agreements, meaning that different members had different agreements. The financing structure was varied, done in an expeditious manner trying to get people aboard in an inexperienced co-op, but this ended up creating financial instabilities.

There was an unaffordable share price of $18,000 to begin with. This was unaffordable for many low and moderate families to come up with. In addition, the original board was not representative of the members.

The developer fees involved here, as Ms. Cochran described, are not unusual except that in an affordable housing project, this adds to costs and compounds the problem of unaffordability. The developers in this case are Neighborhood Partners--David Thompson and Luke Watkins.

Furthermore, there were inadequate reserves and poor record keeping from the beginning. They had problems with sustaining another housing organization--it currently costs $52,000 to sustain the co-op, that is a huge cost that others do not have. And finally, from the city's standpoint, there has been a tremendous amount of staff time required in monitoring and technical assistance with this model.

The 2006 audit found that this was not sustainable in the long-term. Around this time, the members got an invoice from Neighborhood Partners from which they had no money to pay and they questioned the validity of the invoice. The contract was terminated by the members. There have been conflicting accounts of who offered and who declined mediation.

Neighborhood Partners in December of 2006 filed a lawsuit against the members of DACHA.

The city was asked to review the financing, sustainability and affordability of the project. The city found major sustainability issues. They do not have the money to pay the loan obligations. They do not have the money to adapt to the balloon and adjustable rate financing once that comes due. The financing is not helping to contribute to the sustainability of the project.

They also found marketability issues. There are issues with the unit size, the share price, the uncertainty of the co-op and the carrying charges. The impact of the lawsuit is contributing to the problem.

There are also issues of good faith with the members. The members have lost faith in the co-op. There are a number of reasons for this. There have been inconsistent rules applied to the different members. There are unstable carrying charges--there was no understanding that there would be perpetual carrying charges or that the debt would be perpetual, they could never pay down the debt.

Further they were misled about the model itself. This was the source of complaint in mid-2006. Some of the members were qualified with inadequate income. They did not make enough money to move into DACHA. The members have had to spend a lot of time moving into this project especially compared with other types of ownership.

The city then last Tuesday proposed refinancing goals as a major step toward getting that project sustainable and restoring good faith.

The first goal would be that this not increase the current costs to members. Next, is affordability and the idea to assure the long-term affordability of this project to its members. Furtherm there would be assurances that no one would be evicted due to refinancing. They would establish adequate reserves, refinance substandard loans while releasing obligations to others.

They will evaluate the cooperative model after stabilization. The terms will be no more favorable than other projects. Three percent interest rate is standard for city projects. Provide a justifiable basis for refinancing and then finally establish clear preservation goals for the project.

This refinancing would be $4.1 million, 30 year fixed rate at 3 percent per year. This would provide annual income of $214,428 to the redevelopment agency for a total of $6,432,840 going to the agency of the terms of the 30-year agreement.

The results of this refinancing are as follows. It will establish affordability and reserves for its members. It will stabilize the debt and carrying charges. It will reduce the share prices. Part of the problem with marketability is the high share prices starting at $18,000 now it is up to $27,000 which is a tremendous amount for a new person buying into DACHA to pay. So part of this finance would help stabilize there prices for future and existing members.

This will help them evaluate the model in more favorable circumstances in the future. It will allow continuing limited equity which will enable the units to stay affordable. There would be regular repayments to the city and redevelopment agency. This will also enable a good deal more control by the city and redevelopment agency over DACHA.

Critics of the Neighborhood Partners charged that the membership was sold into this arrangement based on false, promised, misleading statements, and an unworkable structure.

From my standpoint, this refinancing is probably the best solution. In June of last year, the members of DACHA stated that they were led to believe that this was a means to own a home outright. That was clearly never the intention of DACHA, whether that was what the membership was led to believe in order to gain their initial buy-in is an open question.

For their part, David Thompson and Luke Watkins issued forth a lengthy statement to the Vanguard that is excerpted here.

"NP commends the city staff for proposing the comprehensive refinancing of the Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association. Their plan is good for the DACHA families."

"We are also glad to see the staff pointing out the problem of the diminishing size of the affordable home units which reduced the value being obtained. We brought this problem up almost three years ago and provided detailed information to the Social Services Commission and staff on the shrinking size of the affordable units. We do hope that the city will now set a formula for minimum standards that works both for the developer and affordable housing.

As part of the process we look forward to DACHA honoring its contractual obligations to NP for the work we have done. DACHA staying as a limited equity housing co-op was one of our major goals and this financing allows that to occur. As the original demand of the co-op members was to own the homes by dissolving the co-op we commit ourselves to ensuring that if anything does occur that these homes will be made available by lottery after a very public process. We will make sure that the law on limited equity housing cooperatives is maintained and that no co-op member will have any private gain from the dissolution of the co-op. DACHA must remain a community asset."

Critics such as Mayor Sue Greenwald and Councilmember Lamar Heystek, as well as key members of both the Senior Citizens and Social Services Commissions, clearly have very serious concerns about the handling of this project from the start. Frankly, the fact that Neighborhood Partners turned around and sued DACHA looks very bad for the partners, as they are in essence suing low-income residents who have put up their meager assets and bought into this project. There are further concerns that this arrangement is being extended to Rancho Yolo at the same time the city is in essence bailing out the Neighborhood Partners on DACHA.

Leaving the question of what was promised and offered to the members as a condition of buying into the co-op aside, I think the plan that has emerged from the city staff is is a good solution for all involved. The city will keep DACHA as a limited equity housing co-op which will enable it to retain the income restricted requirements giving us a permanently affordable housing option which is much needed in this community. However, it also relieves a good deal of burden from the membership themselves--giving them housing at an affordable price. It enables those who were not intending to live in a co-op a chance to get out and recoup most of their costs while allowing others to either stay or buy into the co-op at an affordable price in the future.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

How Much Does Davis Need to Grow Now?

When Measure X was on the ballot, the council majority made it a point to talk about state mandated growth. RHNA indeed sets the state guidelines for growth, however, traditionally any sanction has been a slap on the wrist. While those penalties now may be more serious, the actual RHNA required growth for Davis--defined as Davis' fairshare--is actually quite low.

In terms of state mandated growth for the next 10 years, we are talking on the order of a couple of small projects.

The real growth inducer is now the city's own and SELF-IMPOSED 1% growth requirement.

The City Council majority of Stephen Souza, Don Saylor, and Ruth Asmundson in September, upheld that goal.

Councilmember Souza argued that we are a community that grows by initiative now.

"So it doesn’t matter if you have a one percent, a half percent, ten percent, whatever the percent may be. The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town. That’s the policy we have, and unless we’re going to amend that policy, that’s the true policy that determines when, where and how we’ll grow."

There is an element of truth to that. Any peripheral development is required by law to obtain a Measure J vote. Any infill is not, and though there are not many locations for which infill would occur, any major project the council likely to ask for a vote anyway.

The tricky part though is that Mr. Souza is also incorrect. Growth is also determined by the planning process and the Housing Element update process. The locations and size will be largely determined by what spots on the map the Housing Element recommends for future growth. If the Housing Element recommends 1% worth of developments that will lead to more potential for growth than .5%.

The community rallied against Covell Village because of the magnitude of the project and likely foreseen disruption it would cause. Would there be future outcry against smaller and less burdensome projects? It seems unlikely.

The developers who propose these projects have a built-in advantage in that they have money and organization already in place in order to run Measure J elections. Grassroots movements are likely to be underfunded and disorganized. A large number of Measure J votes will leave them tired and depleted.

Thus having a rearguard defense is not enough. The key for proponents of slower growth is the gatekeeping power--the ability to determine which projects go forward and which do not.

During the Covell Village Arguments, the City Council Major argued that SACOG's Fair Share numbers required us to grow at a given rate. Now that these numbers have been reduced, suddenly they are not as important. Indeed in September they argued that these are merely goals and they know we will come in well under 1% growth rate.

This argument largely ignores the fact that we will grow by whatever amount of proposals are actually placed onto the Housing Element Update. It seems unlikely that projects that are selected will not ultimately go forward as Measure J votes in the development process and as I mentioned earlier, it seems even less likely that all but the most massive and disruptive would then be approved.

For too long the argument has been that we have to obtain a certain level of growth, the state mandates it. Now with the new RHNA numbers said to require much lower growth rates than we place upon ourselves and with a depressed housing market, the pressure to grow will be much reduced. The question is whether that means that the council will ease up on its goals for growth over the next ten years. That seems much less certain.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Saturday Notes from the Underbelly

Davis to Woodland Bike Path in the Works

The County Board of Supervisors this week announced that funding was secured for a Davis-Woodland Bikepathway.

According to the staff report:

"Bids were opened October 31, 2007 and a construction contract to add 4’ bike lanes on County Road 99 between 27 and 29 was awarded to Central Valley Engineering and Paving in November 2007. Construction is expected to begin in Spring 2008 as weather allows, and to be completed after 45 working days."

"Funding for major road improvement projects comes primarily from state and federal sources. This funding is generally awarded on a competitive, project specific basis. The discretionary revenue received by the Road Fund generally covers only the annual cost to maintain the County’s 794 road miles, with the remainder available to meet match funding requirements.

An application was submitted to SACOG for the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Program on December 3, 2007. $1.6 million was requested for the widening of the County Road 29 segment.

A pre-application letter was submitted to SACOG on November 16, 2007 for $600,000 of SACOG Community Design Funds to improve County Road 99 between County Road 25A for bicyclists."

Supervisors Mariko Yamada and Matt Rexroad have led the way on this.

According to Supervisor Rexroad on his blog,

"My mission in January will be to focus on the dedicated bike path between Woodland and Davis. This information will be part of the discussion."

From the map it appears there will be dedicated four foot bike paths on both sides of the roads. While this is clearly an improvement over the existing road conditions and in fact I have enjoyed using such bike paths on some of the county roads.

That said, I would really prefer a separate bike path such as they have along Russell Blvd as it heads out to Winters (I never quite why the path suddenly stops halfway there). That way bicyclists would be separate from motorists who are traveling in excess of 60 mph along these roads.

As I said, the current plan is certainly an improvement, but if we are spending over $2 million at least in outside source money already, why not go the rest of the way for maximum safety and convenience for bicyclists?

I Object

Look at the two pictures above. One is from the Davis Enterprise website. The other is a scanned copy of yesterday's newspaper. Anyone notice a difference between the two pictures? Apparently some of the Vanguard's readers do. And, despite the appearances on this blog, the one on the right is much larger than the one on the left.

Before I get the sanctimonious and self-importance complaints again, I want to stress that while I find this absolutely hilarious, my objection is that they didn't also crop the picture on the left a bit more.

Donate to the 22nd Annual Holiday Meal

from Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac

The Davis Food Co-op is hosting the 22nd annual Holiday Meal on Monday, Dec. 24, from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. at the Veterans' Memorial Center, and we need some help. Groups like Davis Community Meals and STEAC report a continuing demand for their services. Last year, the Holiday Meal served a full nutritious dinner, free of charge, to more than 800 people.

We appreciate the support we have received in the past from local businesses and individuals. Please help us continue this Davis tradition with your financial donation. Donors who contribute will have their names listed at the meal, and those who donate $50 or more will be acknowledged also in our pre- and post-event advertising. All donations of any amount are appreciated.

Please take a moment to write a check and send it to: Holiday Meal, Davis Food Co-op, 620 G St., Davis. If you wish, you may leave your contribution at the Co-op as well. For more information, just call the Co-op at 758-2667 and speak to Seth Larsen or e-mail him at slarsen@davisfood.coop.

Thanks for your help.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

On the Brink of Battle Over Valley Oak A New Hope For Reconciliation Emerges

I think everyone in the room was anticipating a big showdown, perhaps something ugly, certainly something heated.

In fact, I flash back to the original Valley Oak meeting, when the decision was made to close the school, because it sheds light on the contrast of styles. At that time it was Interim Superintendent Richard Whitmore's first meeting and he sat back and allowed his staff to make their presentations, to set the tone for the meeting, and then he made some comments.

Flash forward to last night, new Superintendent James Hammond was first to speak. All week long we had read in the papers the staff report, the lawyer's report, and we were prepared for the worst. But James Hammond took control of this meeting. Instead of having staff present their report, instead of allowing them to set the tone for the meeting, something very different happened.

James Hammond spoke in very general terms and then suggested that they had options, that they did not have to make a decision this evening. And that gave Board President Jim Provenza, in his last meeting, the opening that he needed. And he suggested that if it were possible that the district could meet with the petitioners and that they could hash out their differences.

So instead of conflict from the start, the tone was set that compromise and reconciliation was a possibility and the rest of the board to their credit followed this lead.

Outgoing member Keltie Jones said that if we were going to do this, the best opportunity to succeed would be to work out the differences together. And she acknowledge that many of the issues were small things, although some were large things.

Mike Egan, one of the drafters of the petition, was asked his feelings and he said from the start that they had wanted to sit down and talk through the differences.

According to law, they have 60 from the date they submitted the petition to make a decision on the petition. That would put the 60th day at January 4. However, by mutual consent they can extend that another 30 days. Mr. Egan was not unwilling to extend that deadline but suggested he would also like to see progress.

Should the school board reject the charter proposal there is ample recourse for the petitioners. First, it would go to the county board of education and then the state.

Gina Daleiden also made a good suggestion that each of the board members express their concerns to the district and the petitioners so that these issues can ultimately be addressed.

Tim Taylor was very agreeable to that suggestion and also agreeable to the idea of working out the differences because a rush decision would leave a lot of unhappy people and probably a number of unresolved questions.

For Tim Taylor as for Gina Daleiden the number of students who would attend and if few attended, the viability of the program given the size was the biggest concern.

Julie Cuetara, a parent, PTA president, and school mascot, addressed this point very well later on. First of all, this was not a reason that they could deny the charter. She also pointed out that the state law only required them to gather half the petitions for the projected students. The general belief was that students would come eventually, however, Ms. Cuetara also suggested that they gathered those petitions in a short period of time and she felt that she could collect 400 or 500 if needed.

Sheila Allen wanted to see some of the details such as special education and fiscal services fleshed out. She wanted to see MOU's (Memorandum of Understanding) not necessarily signed, but at least general points spelled out.

Jim Provenza spoke last. He was appreciative of the work of James Hammond and suggested that he will work in good faith. He thanked the Charter School Proponents for their good and hard work and then spoke in general terms about some of the key programs at Valley Oak. He wanted to preserve the uniqueness of the school, he talked about how special and effective the EL program is, and he urged creativity and cooperation on both sides and suggested that this flexibility can keep this unique school open. He said this is not about lawyers or administrators or even board members, but rather about kids in a school.

James Hammond really took the lead here and suggested good faith efforts to come to an agreement. Such efforts that did not seem possible this week given the tone of the reports coming from staff.

Fred Buderi, one of the leaders from the Davis OPEN group spoke during public comment about his concern about the tone of the staff report but also emphatically said he was very encouraged by comments from the board and superintendent, particularly about having good faith discussions.

Freddie Oakley, the Yolo County Clerk/ Recorder, also spoke during public comment, she gave an impassioned speech about duty, morality, and values. She emphatically told the board and the district to do the right thing (keep Valley Oak open and approve the petition) but also to do it with due diligence.

However, I come back to Superintendent James Hammond now. Because during the course of this week, really just since Sunday, the rhetoric was increasing and Fred Buderi was exactly right, the tone of the staff reports were very negative and divisive.

People on the blog even suggested that the Superintendent had not said anything. They suggested that this was very telling. It is actually fairly typical that his staff draft staff reports, not the Superintendent himself. However, once James Hammond came forward and took the lead on this issue, the tone and rhetoric changed.

There was no doubt during this meeting who was in control, who had set the tone, and who was not very happy about it. A number of people remarked to me about Associate Superintendent Ginni Davis, the author of the resolution. Her body language was atrocious. To the point where people who did not know who she was, were very angry at her and asked me who that was. She was literally writhing in her seat during the time in which James Hammond spoke and difused the situation. She was clearly not happy. Frankly her body language, probably off-camera from those at home, bordered on insubordination.

Staff was used to running the show under previous administrations, but there was no doubt who ran this show. The entire course of this debate changed in the first five minutes, when James Hammond instead allowing the staff report to be presented per the usual, instead, talked about options that the board had to either approve, reject, take no action, or allow staff and charter petitioners to work it out.

Now that the tone has been set and the gauntlet thrown down by the Dr. Hammond that these will occur in good faith, we can sit back and watch to see it unfold. However, one thing I take away from this is how important a strong and confident leader is to this entire process. It was a subtle manner in which Dr. Hammond seized control of this but it is a model that all Superintendents, Chiefs of Staff, City Managers, etc. should look at when their boards are on the brink of a divisive and heated discussion. For the first time, I see why the board decided that James Hammond was the guy for this job, and for the first time, I hope that maybe, just maybe, things are going to get better.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Charter School Drafters Respond to District Staff's Resolution

As we now know, the Davis Joint Unified School District attorneys have issued an additional 20 page legal opinion attacking the Valley Oak Charter Petition.

Bill Storm, science teacher and proponent of Valley Oak Charter School told the Davis Enterprise yesterday:

"The draft resolution severely distorts both our proposal and the requirements of the Charter Schools Act and makes serious errors of fact in denying the petition... We continue to be willing to work with the district in resolving any legitimate issues. Such work would require that all parties act swiftly and in good faith... f the Davis school board acts to deny the charter, we are confident that the charter will be authorized through the appeal process outlined in the Charter Schools Act... We have made presentations, provided drafts of the educational plan, governance design and budget presentations (to the district), and have repeatedly requested meaningful dialogue and feedback. Instead, last Friday (the district) posted a draft resolution to deny the petition for the Valley Oak Charter School."

Mr. Storm has sent the Vanguard a lengthy response to the resolution which is also posted on the Valley Oak Charter web page.

In response to the assertion by district that:

"The petitions submitted fail to affirm that the Charter was attached to the petition at the time of execution of the petition by the signatory as required by Education Code section 47605(a)(3)."

The Valley Oak drafters contend:

"47605(a)(3) provides that

'A petition shall include a prominent statement that a signature on the petition means that the parent or guardian is meaningfully interested in having his or her child, or ward, attend the charter school, or in the case of a teacher's signature, means that the teacher is meaningfully interested in teaching at the charter school. The proposed charter shall be attached to the petition.'

In fact, the signature pages were attached, and the signature page included a statement that it was attached to the petition."

Second in response to the charge that they failed to claim they would not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of sexual orientation:

"This “finding” is a misstatement of the law and is factually untrue. The sections of the Charter School Act that are cited specifically require that the charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations, shall not charge tuition, and shall not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability. VOCS Charter, page 60, DOES make those assurances and specifically references the relevant code sections. The Charter School Act does not anywhere mention the issue of discrimination against pupils on the basis of sexual orientation. By raising this issue, the drafters of the resolution apparently seek to imply that the school will discriminate against pupils on that basis. Such an implication is shameful."

Many of the other objections to the district resolution can be summarized as follows.

There are several things that the district claims that the charter does not do, that the charter petitioners claim they do.

For example the district claims:

"The proposed Charter does not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of measurable pupil outcomes. The Charter does not identify specific pupil outcome goals in the subject matter areas of Reading and Language Arts, Mathematics, History and Social Science, Science, or Health and Nutrition."

The charter petitioners respond:

"Presented finding is not factual. The VOCS document employs district assessment protocols. For the district to say the charter does not contain a “reasonably comprehensive description of measurable pupil outcomes” is an indictment of its own practice. “Specific pupil outcome goals” in the content areas specified are indeed detailed in the VOCS Charter, pages 40 to 41, thus this finding has no basis in fact."

There are a number of such claims and counter-claims through this exchange. Part of the problem at this point may be the definition of "reasonable" and whether that adds enough subjectivity to enable the district to legitimately reject the petition.

Another example of this claim is found in response three by the district:

"The proposed Charter does not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of the charter school’s methods to assess pupil progress. The Charter does not identify which assessment instruments will be used in all core areas, except English language acquisition. The Charter does not describe specific interventions for any core areas, except English language acquisition, or identify the criteria for placing students in an intervention program."

Once again the petitioners respond by arguing that they do indeed address this point:

"Presented finding is not factual. Each item the resolution says is deficient is indeed detailed in the charter. Refer to pages 40 and 41 in the charter. Specific interventions are detailed in the VOCS Charter, pages 29 through 32. Assessments (STAR, BEAR, salmon/blue cards, etc) are identified in both primary and intermediate grade level sections as well as in the MSO portion. Specific assessments in each content area will be dictated by the publisher's tests for each textbook adoption. Present adoptions are listed by publisher's name in the grade level sections."

There are also a number of objections that the charter petition is not required by law to contain some provisos.

One example was the sexual orientation claim by the district, here is another example.

"The proposed Charter does not contain a reasonably comprehensive description of dispute resolution procedures. The proposed dispute resolution process fails to expressly exempt revocation proceedings from the dispute resolution process. The District cannot be compelled through the charter granting process to submit to disputes to binding arbitration or relinquish its right to seek resolution of disputes through legal process. The proposal that the District pay the costs of arbitration is unsound by removing financial incentives for the charter school to resolve disputes without recourse to arbitration."

The petitioners respond:

"Presented finding is not factual. There is no requirement that the charter contain any notice that revocation proceedings be exempt from a dispute resolution process. The dispute resolution mechanism provides arbitration before a neutral third party arbitrator. By raising this issue it is grasping at straws."

In response to claim that the Charter does not provide a preference of District residents immediately after pupils currently attending the charter school and

"unlawfully grants priority preferences to: students residing within the Valley Oak attendance area, children of Valley Oak School employees, and siblings of students enrolled in the District or the charter school. The description of the public random drawing process in the event of over enrollment is ambiguous, incomplete, and fails to admit students entitled to an attendance preference ahead of other students."

According to the petitioners, once again this finding is not factual.

"Ed Code specifically permits enrollment preferences to neighborhood students in charter schools. Refer to Section 47605 (d)(2). Also, the paragraph is internally contradictory. It initially says preferences are unlawful, and then later says we fail to admit students from a preferred attendance area. If the district is not happy with how we state how preference will be designated and how the attendance lottery will be run, those issues are easily negotiated."

The school board itself will hear tonight what ought to be a bitterly contentious meeting. This is unfortunate.

Vanguard Commentary

It is the opinion of the Vanguard that the initial resolution response was inappropriate, unnecessary, incendiary, and inflammatory.

As we suggested on Monday, most of the findings are subjective and nitpicky. The entire response seems to be bent on breaking on the will of the petitioners rather than addressing gaping holes in the charter petition. Much more could have accomplished with a meeting to flesh out concerns and tighten up language if so needed.

At this point the Vanguard is extremely disappointed in the district staff. While for the time being, the new Superintendent, who has not been involved in this process, is likely unfamiliar with Charter Law, gets a pass from us, we will be VERY closely watching how he responds to this situation and whether he can act to be a voice of reason toward resolution on the one hand or on the other hand help the existing staff to pile on in their apparent attempt to torpedo the Valley School Charter Program.

Additionally, this now becomes a burden for the outgoing school board. The Vanguard will particularly look toward three board members who will be staying: Sheila Allen, Gina Daleiden, and Tim Taylor to provide the necessary guidance and leadership to avoid what appears at this point to be almost inevitably a lengthy and destructive legal show that will only harm the students in this school district.

Make no mistake, this district is on the brink and only strong leadership from the school board and new superintendent can avoid metaphorical bloodshed from occurring. It is our hope that cooler heads will prevail in this and that the board can be the voice of reason and compromise, because quite frankly there does not seem to be a huge gap in the opinions here. However, if lines are drawn in the sand, this could become contentious, bitter and ugly. Again, it is our hope that this be avoided.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Proposition 92 Divides Teaching Community and Sets Stage for Bloody Battle in February

A measure that would cut fees for Community College students and guarantee funding levels for community colleges would seem to be an issue everyone in the teaching community could get behind.

The cost of Community Colleges has risen sharply in recent decades and Proposition 92 would lower the fees from the current $20 per unit to $15 per unit. It would also set aside a percentage of the state's budget for community colleges.

However, the measure has divided the state's two largest teachers' unions. The California Federation of Teachers is the biggest financial backer of Proposition 92. Meanwhile, the largest teachers' association in the state, CTA, is a strong opponent.

Why? Because the measure would tinker with the basic funding formula for Proposition 98. Proposition 98 was passed by the voters in 1988 to lock in K-12 money at 40 percent of the states general fund. The CTA and other opponents fear that by locking in money for community college funding, money would be taken away from the K-12 schools. The CTA claims to support more money for community colleges, however they oppose the manner in which Proposition 92 would accomplish this.

Scott Lay, a Davis resident and president of the Community College League of California is a strong backer of the measure. In a November interview with the Sacramento Bee he said:

"Everybody loves community colleges right now. I've never heard so many people say community colleges need more money. We've tried for 20 years to play the game in Sacramento, and what it has meant is fewer Californians being able to go to college."

"There's a sincere debate about the future of higher education. We are trying to have a system that will be accessible and affordable and the other universities have a different agenda, talking about their fee increases and executive pay this week. ... We believe we are going the direction the people want."

Meanwhile the ruling bodies of California's two-tiered four year college system have also opposed the measure--the CSU Board of Trustee and the University of California Regents.

Each of them apparent are fearful that more money for community colleges translates into less money for them.

Spokesman Paul Browning from CSU told the Sacramento Bee:

"The CSU is worried that the passage of the proposition could mean leaner times by shrinking the pool of discretionary money available for higher education from Sacramento, which of course would impact CSU."

The sad part of this fight is that there seems a real need for more consistent and reliable support for community colleges. Community Colleges represent a crucial avenue by which students are prepared for four-year colleges in addition to provisions of workplace skills and other key skills that can be applied directly to vocations.

On the Yes on Proposition 92 website, they quote Marco Realmonte, President of the Cabrillo Student Senate:

“Lowering the fees will allow thousands of California students who have a difficult time paying for college in the face of unpredictable fee increases and high housing costs. In 2003, more than 300,000 students were forced to drop out when fees increased to $26. This initiative means stability for students like me. It’s important for every student to have the ability to go to college.”

Unfortunately, the budget realities in this state are such that anytime you feed Peter, you do so at the expense of Paul.

The reality though is that education is a necessity not a luxury.

Matt Mahood, President & CEO of the Sacramento Metro Chamber is quoted saying:

“In order to keep California’s competitive edge over the next 20 years, almost 40 percent of the workforce will need to be college educated. Unfortunately, today we are well below that percentage. Our community college system is this region's lynchpin to ensuring we produce the highly skilled workers required to meet the demands of the next technological era. Passing the Community College Initiative will offer more affordable and accessible academic and vocational education for both recent high school graduates and those returning to school. And the initiative does this without raising taxes.”

It is of course that last sentence that sparks the controversy here because in order to provide money to Community Colleges without raising taxes, it has to take money from somewhere else.

What would be nice is if the educational community could come together and figure out some sort of solution here. As it stands, we are looking at a bloody battle that no one will really win as it pits one part of our educational system against another.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

County Takes On Appeal of Cell Tower Issue in NW Quadrant

According to the staff report, in May of 2007, an application was submitted to construct and operate a cell tower north of Covell Blvd between County Road 99 and State Route 113. The tower would be roughly 120 feet high.

The County Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit for the construction and operation of the facility northwest of Davis.

According to the Staff Report:

"The Planning Commission approved the project with a 3-2 vote at the September 13, 2007 hearing, with additions to the Conditions of Approval to include an eight-foot sound wall. The Planning Commission’s approval was based on findings that the project is consistent with the requirements set forth in the Yolo County Wireless Communication Facility Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria (Yolo County Code Section 8-2.2417) and related local ordinance requirements. Three nearby landowners subsequently appealed the project on September 28, 2007. One of the landowners has since withdrawn his name from the appeal."

The appeal has three components based on CEQA issues: aesthetics, noise, and land use conflicts. The Planning Commission had originally ruled that the project would have less than significant impact on the environment. Nearby landowners are claiming that this ruling fails to identify potentially significant impacts from aesthetics and noise. The Office of County Counsel believes that these impacts were in fact adequately discussed and that Planning Commission had carried out their duties properly.

Nevertheless, staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit and reevaluation on January 15, 2008.

"Community opposition has increased since the Planning Commission granted the requested conditional use permit. Among other things, many residents and property owners have expressed aesthetic concerns about the proposed tower - a 110-foot tall structure in an otherwise flat, agricultural area that would be easily visible to nearby residents. In addition, staff is not persuaded that the applicant has meaningfully evaluated alternative sites and system designs that could be visually less intrusive. However, as with any appeal of a Planning Commission decision, the Board of Supervisors reviews the entire matter independently and can consider issues not specifically raised by the appellants."

A number of the property owners in the Northwest Quadrant protested that the cell tower location would interfere with the best use of their property. According to one resident, at least six neighboring property owners protest this location.

Residents also suggest that there are alternative locations for the tower that were under-explored. One such location would be the Sutter Davis Hospital that has apparently offered a location on their property, within the city of Davis limits. This location would accomplish the same coverage as the other location, apparently without the kinds of objections that are currently occurring in the Northwest Quadrant.

The bottom line in this issue appears to be that one property owner has offered up his or her property for the construction of the tower and the neighbors are objecting. The Board of Supervisors meets today to discuss this issue.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

District Staff Drafts Resolution Against Charter School At Valley Oak

A District Staff drafted resolution would deny the Valley Oak charter based on three of the criteria fleshed out into nineteen separate points--many of which seem nitpicky at best.

First they argue, "the petition does not contain the number of signatures required by law." This is perplexing at first given that they acquired over 200 signatures but were only required to get a 150.

What the district is claiming here is:

"The petitions submitted fail to affirm that the Charter was attached to the petition at the time of execution of the petition by the signatory as required by Education Code section 47605(a)(3)."

Likewise the second reason:

"The Charter does not contain an affirmation that the charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, employment practices, and all other operations, and not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of sexual orientation."

On page 53 of the charter they appear cover most of that:

"There shall be no admission criteria, testing, or other evaluation required of any applicant. Valley Oak Charter School shall not charge an application fee nor shall it charge tuition. Valley Oak Charter School shall be nonsectarian in its admission and enrollment policies and shall not discriminate against any student on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability."

Although they do not appear to cover sexual orientation of (elementary school) children in it. This would again appear to be something that could be amended rather easily and certainly should not be a cause for rejection.

The third section would appear to be most serious laying out 16 points suggesting that the "petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of all of the elements prescribed by law."

Even these sixteen points also appear at times to be subjective and nitpicky.

A link to the charter school section of California Education Code Appears here.

The resolution can be found here.

Jeff Hudson reporting for the Davis Enterprise spoke to Ginni Davis, associate superintendent for educational services:

"'the district staff has experience and are very willing to consider a charter process and petition based on sound educational practices that would offer students an innovative option not already provided by the district, which is the spirit of the reason for charters to be formed.'

She added, 'We are only allowed to respond to the charter petition as written and submitted at this time.'

'We understand the emotional impact of consolidating Valley Oak Elementary to Korematsu Elementary has been difficult for the Valley Oak families,' Davis added. 'The district is open to working with the charter group in the future if the school board determines that we should go in that direction.'

Davis also referenced the rapid timeline for discussion. Supporters of the proposed Valley Oak Charter turned in their petition (with the signatures of the parents of 201 children, and 19 teachers) on Nov. 5. Under state law, the Davis school district then had 30 days to hold a public hearing about the charter petition, and 60 days (until Jan. 4 in this case) to either approve or deny the charter petition.

The Davis school board held the required public hearing Nov. 15 (10 days after the petition was filed) and could vote on the charter petition as early as Thursday (31 days after the petition was filed).

'This fast timeline has not given us the opportunity to work more collaboratively to align interests and concerns,' Davis said.

Describing the legal opinion expected to be released Monday, Davis said 'our attorney is completing his analysis, with input from staff, to address more specifically each concern and legal issue' raised by the proposed resolution on the school board agenda."

Supporters of the Valley Oak Charter take exception to some of these comments.

Bill Storm, science teacher at Valley Oak and one of the drafters of the petition told the Vanguard yesterday:

"Considering that the organizers will not have the opportunity to meet until tomorrow evening to discuss events surrounding the charter, it would be inappropriate for me to respond substantively. Obviously, we’re disappointed that the staff should take such a position, but it is anything but a surprise given the tactics we’ve been seeing from district staff since before the November 15 hearing designed to suppress our progress. If there had ever been any concern regarding the delivery of services to students, the staff has had ample opportunity to weigh in on any issues whatsoever, particularly since last July, and there has been no such interest. The staff’s drafting of a resolution seems to give their recommendation the appearance of inevitability, and it is anything but that. The district’s goal has been, from the start, to close Valley Oak in order to open another school in a preferred neighborhood, and no one should be surprised that their agenda has not changed."

Don Winters, a Davis High School teacher and a Valley Oak proponent was equally outspoken:

"It is not surprising to even the casual observer of the process taken by DJUSD officials to close Valley Oak School that the district administration would take the position it did to recommend denial of the charter to the board of education. What we have in this community in a nutshell... are school leaders who proceed to build a new elementary school when one is not needed, promote a fiscal emergency where one does not exist, and select a school for closure based on the least amount of "push-back" from the impacted community. "

He continued:

"Now we have a district leadership who will spend tens of thousands of our tax dollars to hire legal experts to give the "fine tooth comb approach" to a charter school proposal which could provide a quality education for the young people in core area of town as well as the greater community. "

As others have suggested, each of the points in the resolution is qualified under the guise of not "reasonably comprehensive." Most of the points are actually covered to some degree or another, and therefore "reasonably comprehensive" has become a subjective argument posed by the school district. Ginni Davis has suggested that the school district would be supportive of the charter, however, Bill Storm's statement indicates that they had ample opportunity to have such involvement over the past six months and opted to not participate. This would suggest that this was not foisted on them at the last moment as Ms. Davis describes. Most of these points appear to be correctable in a simple and rapid manner if it is the District's true interest to negotiation rather than to kill this effort.

At this point, I think the most telling statement is that the staff drafted a resolution opposing the charter rather than a staff report that the board itself could take up, respond to, question, and then pick their own direction. To me this again suggests that the district staff is bent on killing this effort, demoralizing the petitioners, and hoping that this resolution goes away.

Furthermore, there would seem to be a strategic nature to this effort. By waiting until after this meeting, Board President Jim Provenza, the strongest proponent of Valley Oak on the board along with Sheila Allen would be off the board (along with Keltie Jones a strong opponent of Valley Oak) and they would be replaced by two board members who are more likely to be critics of the charter school proposal.

We shall see how this works out at the Thursday meeting, but at this point, I continue to remain deeply skeptical of district staff and their intentions on this.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Early Primary Leads to Uncertain Role for California in Presidential Elections

Interesting article in this morning's Sacramento Bee on the impact of the early February Primary in California.

The belief is that while the Presidential Candidates are not treating California like they are Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, California is reaping some rewards from the move.

The Sacramento Bee says:

"As candidates enter the thick of primary season, most are saving their serious campaign efforts for states holding January elections such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

That's largely because California's Feb. 5 primary date is no longer unique – or all that early. More than 20 other states followed suit by scheduling their elections for the same day, and six states leapfrogged California altogether by holding their contests in January.

Some political analysts believe the nearly two dozen "Super Tuesday" states may simply validate nominees chosen by early state voters as the field shrinks throughout January."

We are not seeing Candidates coming to the state fair or going to the local farmer's markets in search of votes. None of the candidates have aired campaign ads in the state's big media markets.

They quote a Republican consultant and California adviser to Mitt Romney:

"The governor was correct that it would make California more relevant, and it has, but the state is still in a second-tier category with the rest of the country... What moving us up has done is saved us from being completely irrelevant, which the state has been in the past."

And that's the bottom line--California is not a battleground at this point but it is also not irrelevant.

According to the article, California has been the fourth most visited state in the nation. There were appearances by all of the candidates at the Democratic State Convention earlier this year and by several of the Republican candidates at the Republican State Convention.

However, for the most part, California is viewed as a state in which to raise money rather than a state in which to court votes.

"When Schwarzenegger signed legislation to move the primary date, he bemoaned that candidates previously "collected millions of dollars in campaign contributions, and then they left as quickly as possible. I'm happy to say that those days are over."

Political strategists say the governor was partly correct. Candidates have made more public appearances, shaken more hands and answered more media questions. But almost every public event has been associated with a fundraiser, still a major reason candidates flock to California."

There was an ulterior motive by the state Democratic leaders in moving the state up in the primary season. State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata have pushed for a change in term limit laws and the February election gives them enough time to pass the law and run for re-election.

My own view of the primary system is rather mixed. On the one hand, I am not completely convinced that a system in which small states that are somewhat national outliers are decisive by-and-large in selecting the party nominees for President is a good one.

On the other hand, I am also not convinced, at least in most cases, that the party nominee would have been significantly different under a previous system.

The reason for this is that if you take primaries out of the equation and look at the who the party nominees are you find that they are usually the ones with the best campaign organization, the best ability to raise money, and generally the most accomplished or biggest name in the race. The Republican front runner has always won. The Democrats have elected some people who might have surprised you at the time, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, and Bill Clinton. But then you have to ask yourself, did the primary season cause this, or did these people end up as the best known, most money, etc. And I have a hard time arguing otherwise even in the case of Jimmy Carter. Neither Dukakis nor Clinton ran against strong fields, they were clearly the strongest in a weak field.

Nevertheless the prospect of having the nominees determined by early February, does not seem conducive to a healthy system, where the two main nominees will essentially battle it out for nine months until long after everyone but the most partisan of partisans care anymore.

We would be far better off with rotating regional primaries starting in March or April. Finish the primaries by the end of June, have the party conventions in late July or August, and leave a few months for the horse race to finish up.

At the end of the day as well, the attempts to change term limits in time for election seems like a transparent power grab move and as I have stated here in the past, does not solve the real problems posed by term limits, rather they shuffled the chairs on the deck so to speak. Meantime, changing the rules midstream may have a huge impact locally on our elections. The Assembly race has been going on for nearly a year already and the candidates have probably raised a combined 6 or 7 hundred thousand. Assemblywoman Lois Wolk is without a primary challenge if the State Senate seat is indeed open, so she is waiting back to see what happens with the term limit rules. Neither Mayor Christopher Cabaldon nor Supervisor Mariko Yamada have that luxury, so they have been going all-out for a seat that there is a chance will not be open two months from now. I do not see this as a wise decision by the California Democratic Leadership. In fact, just the opposite.

At the end of the day, I doubt most people are going to be satisfied with the Presidential nominee process or the fact that voting starts in just over a month.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting