In a strange turn of events the evening of March 6, 2008 the Davis City Council passed a recommendation for the Sphere of Influence (SOI) that was notable in that it excluded from its sphere two controversial properties on Davis’ periphery–Northwest Quadrant, Covell Village and the Nishi Property. The motion made by Lamar Heystek and seconded by Mayor Sue Greenwald passed by a strange vote of 2-1-2. Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Don Saylor, a month before the council election decided to abstain from that vote.
This was a reconsideration of a vote that had originally attempted to make the SOI extremely large. When LAFCO originally took up this item in April, they expressed concern that the size of the original SOI would invite properties not intended for development in the foreseeable future. LAFCO’s report warns that adding such areas would lead to land speculation on those sites for the purpose of development.
As a result, the council revisited the issue. At the May meeting Councilmember Heystek complained about the lack of clear direction from city staff on the issue of the SOI.
“I don’t see this as merely a ministerial action of the council, because personally I will speak very frankly, I don’t feel that I received enough information from city staff to be able to make a decision. I understand that LAFCO has made a recommendation that certain sites be excluded, but I have not received information for our staff as to why certain sites should be included.”
He continued:
“I don’t understand and I haven’t heard from city staff, why we have to include other areas such as the northwest quadrant, such as Covell Village, such as the Nishi site, when we know we already have Measure J, when we know we already have the pass-through agreement, and we know that those are really the strongest protections from unwarranted or undesirable development on our borders.”
As a result of that discussion, the motion to exclude the Northwest Quadrant, Covell, and Nishi was passed largely because neither Councilmember Souza nor Councilmember Saylor voted on the matter.
The LAFCO staff recommendation rejected the Davis City Council’s proposed boundaries.
This is from the LAFCO staff report:
As previously discussed, a sphere of influence under LAFCO law is a guidance document for the Commission to determine what areas are best suited for inclusion, or removal, from a city or special district. Historically, spheres of influence for cities in Yolo County have been drawn tightly; however, those lines must be drawn with the intent to meet the projected growth and service capabilities of the affected agency. The latest request by the City of Davis would not provide sufficient land within the sphere for the City to meet its own population growth projections in the coming years.
Staff believes that given existing policies, service capabilities and impacts on agricultural land, the LAFCO staff recommended sphere of influence includes the areas that are best considered for annexation over the next twenty years. The staff recommended areas that are already developed, are infill property, or have already been evaluated in previous studies. The City’s current land use policies call for controlled and well planned growth. The County’s general plan identifies itself as the protector of agricultural land. The land use policies in conjunction with the City-County Redevelopment Agreement and Davis’ Measure J provide strong adjuncts to controlled growth in the City of Davis. The staff recommended boundaries balance the need for some expansion of boundaries while addressing the need for deliberate, logical and orderly annexations.
The first map is the Davis City Council recommended Sphere of Influence:
a. Ten year sphere of influence:
i. City owned property: Davis Municipal Golf Course, City of Davis Park on County Road (CR) 102 (Old Landfill Site), and Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant.ii. Urbanized properties: El Macero, Willowbank, Royal Oaks (formerly Barthel’s Mobile Home Park), Rust home site parcel, and University of California, Davis campus.iii. Undeveloped properties: Covell Village (Hunt-Wesson) parcel, Mace Curve parcel and Nishi parcel.b. Twenty year sphere of influence:
i. Urbanized property: Cactus Corners (CR 98 and Russell Blvd).ii. Undeveloped property: Northwest Quadrant (north to Binning Tract subdivision, east to State Hwy 113, south to Covell Boulevard, and west to CR 99).
“I wanted to raise the issue of yesterday’s LAFCO vote on the sphere of influence. I was not able to attend the meeting, however, talking to folks who did I got the impression that the message was somehow conveyed that the LAFCO staff report was what the council majority wanted. [Note: Councilmember Souza had actually acknowledged this in response to Councilmember Heystek’s question]I am a bit confused by that if it is that case, because the most recent vote that I am aware of on May 6, 2008 ended with a very different recommendation from the Davis city council.That vote was a bit odd in that two members supported, one opposed, and two members abstained. However, it was a valid vote of the council. The motion passed and that was the recommendation ostensibly sent to LAFCO.
If that is the case, then I do not know how it could be accurate to suggest that the majority of the Davis city council wanted anything but the May 6th vote results.As such I am very confused and would like an explanation as to how the message was apparently conveyed otherwise. And I would like to also know if the will of the council, as expressed by vote on the night of May 6th, was represented by the current LAFCO representative from this council.”
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Its simple they didn’t want to do it before the election. Take a vote to affirm at the council what LAFCO did and it will come out 3-2 in favor of inclusion of Covell Village. The debate on development was done during the election. People knew who they vote for and they voted for more development. The nimby’s lost. Sell out now nimby cheaper housing is coming to town.
Its simple they didn’t want to do it before the election. Take a vote to affirm at the council what LAFCO did and it will come out 3-2 in favor of inclusion of Covell Village. The debate on development was done during the election. People knew who they vote for and they voted for more development. The nimby’s lost. Sell out now nimby cheaper housing is coming to town.
Its simple they didn’t want to do it before the election. Take a vote to affirm at the council what LAFCO did and it will come out 3-2 in favor of inclusion of Covell Village. The debate on development was done during the election. People knew who they vote for and they voted for more development. The nimby’s lost. Sell out now nimby cheaper housing is coming to town.
Its simple they didn’t want to do it before the election. Take a vote to affirm at the council what LAFCO did and it will come out 3-2 in favor of inclusion of Covell Village. The debate on development was done during the election. People knew who they vote for and they voted for more development. The nimby’s lost. Sell out now nimby cheaper housing is coming to town.
People knew who they voted for and they voted for more development.
People knew who they voted for and they voted for more development.
People knew who they voted for and they voted for more development.
People knew who they voted for and they voted for more development.
So…. we already see newly reelected Souza’s position on Davis future growth issues “evolving”. Watch him next “evolve” concerning his support for the orginal Measure J being on the 2010 ballot(without multiple versions to “game” the result). He is the swing vote on the Council and we will need another citizen referendum to protect our Measure J as Councilman Souza very quickly has thrown off the populist cloak that he wore for his reelection and returned to his “I’m the Decider” persona demonstrating his open contempt for the will of the Davis electorate; a recall petition coul well be in his future much like the one that was potentially facing Supervisor Yamada.
So…. we already see newly reelected Souza’s position on Davis future growth issues “evolving”. Watch him next “evolve” concerning his support for the orginal Measure J being on the 2010 ballot(without multiple versions to “game” the result). He is the swing vote on the Council and we will need another citizen referendum to protect our Measure J as Councilman Souza very quickly has thrown off the populist cloak that he wore for his reelection and returned to his “I’m the Decider” persona demonstrating his open contempt for the will of the Davis electorate; a recall petition coul well be in his future much like the one that was potentially facing Supervisor Yamada.
So…. we already see newly reelected Souza’s position on Davis future growth issues “evolving”. Watch him next “evolve” concerning his support for the orginal Measure J being on the 2010 ballot(without multiple versions to “game” the result). He is the swing vote on the Council and we will need another citizen referendum to protect our Measure J as Councilman Souza very quickly has thrown off the populist cloak that he wore for his reelection and returned to his “I’m the Decider” persona demonstrating his open contempt for the will of the Davis electorate; a recall petition coul well be in his future much like the one that was potentially facing Supervisor Yamada.
So…. we already see newly reelected Souza’s position on Davis future growth issues “evolving”. Watch him next “evolve” concerning his support for the orginal Measure J being on the 2010 ballot(without multiple versions to “game” the result). He is the swing vote on the Council and we will need another citizen referendum to protect our Measure J as Councilman Souza very quickly has thrown off the populist cloak that he wore for his reelection and returned to his “I’m the Decider” persona demonstrating his open contempt for the will of the Davis electorate; a recall petition coul well be in his future much like the one that was potentially facing Supervisor Yamada.
The election is over, and Saylor and Souza, who abstained for a reason, came back and through the back door did what they wanted to do through the front door but couldn’t politically. They figure since they were re-elected, that represents a mandate of their pro-development views. Same goes for Yamada, who also wanted peripheral development on the Northwest quadrant. LAFCO is going to “listen” to what they perceive as the “will of the people” based on who was elected, and the elected’s view on LAFCO. Keep it up Souza and Saylor – the more you defy voters, the less your chance is to succeed in being elected to higher office. Souza’s move is particularly unsavory, since he is in effect circumventing process by misrepresenting the original vote. However, note that Saylor and Souza abstaining makes it convenient for them to change their mind after the fact, play both sides, say just about anything they want after the fact.
I would suggest Saylor and Souza might think about the possibility that the reason they were re-elected was not necessarily bc anyone liked either of them – but bc the field of candidates was not stellar. Voters picked the evils of lessers, what they knew rather than what they didn’t know. But never underestimate the intelligence of the voter. Remember the Measure J vote? I dare Souza and Saylor to mess with Measure J, propose development on the Covell Village site anytime soon, or Yamada propose development on the northwest quadrant. With the expense of city services facing us squarely in the face, and taxes going up, no one is in the mood to have taxes go higher bc new development will require it since it brings with it the need for more city services.
The election is over, and Saylor and Souza, who abstained for a reason, came back and through the back door did what they wanted to do through the front door but couldn’t politically. They figure since they were re-elected, that represents a mandate of their pro-development views. Same goes for Yamada, who also wanted peripheral development on the Northwest quadrant. LAFCO is going to “listen” to what they perceive as the “will of the people” based on who was elected, and the elected’s view on LAFCO. Keep it up Souza and Saylor – the more you defy voters, the less your chance is to succeed in being elected to higher office. Souza’s move is particularly unsavory, since he is in effect circumventing process by misrepresenting the original vote. However, note that Saylor and Souza abstaining makes it convenient for them to change their mind after the fact, play both sides, say just about anything they want after the fact.
I would suggest Saylor and Souza might think about the possibility that the reason they were re-elected was not necessarily bc anyone liked either of them – but bc the field of candidates was not stellar. Voters picked the evils of lessers, what they knew rather than what they didn’t know. But never underestimate the intelligence of the voter. Remember the Measure J vote? I dare Souza and Saylor to mess with Measure J, propose development on the Covell Village site anytime soon, or Yamada propose development on the northwest quadrant. With the expense of city services facing us squarely in the face, and taxes going up, no one is in the mood to have taxes go higher bc new development will require it since it brings with it the need for more city services.