The purpose of Measure J was to give citizens the ultimate say any time the city expanded beyond its current boundaries or converted agricultural land into urban use. The Measure has been used exactly twice and both times the proposals were resoundingly defeated. First in 2005, the Covell Village proposal lost by a 60-40 margin. And most recently in November of this year, the Wildhorse Ranch Proposal was defeated by an even larger 75-25 margin.
While I may have seen merit in the most recent proposal, the voters had the ultimate say and they resoundingly said that now is not the time for a new peripheral development and they probably said now is not the time for more houses at all. I do not see any tweaking of this process that would have changed the result. The people spoke and Measure J may not have produced my preferred outcome, but it reflected the will of those who caste their votes in November.
After reading two of Mr. Wolf’s pieces and the more than 120 comments on the Vanguard on the most recent article and more than 60 on my original response to Mr. Wolf’s proposals, I just do not see an advantage that an early vote on Measure J would produce. In fact, I do not see an advantage from anyone’s perspective.
If we take Mr. Wolf’s argument at face value, he believes that an early vote on Measure J would save us a lot of time and effort. I do not agree with his conclusion.
I had a very interesting seat to watch the unfolding of the Wildhorse Ranch proposal. It involved very delicate negotiations for well over a year and a half with the neighbors on the project specifics. In the end, I think all parties will agree the final project was far better for that process than the original. In the end, the neighbors still opposed the project, which was their right, and their view prevailed at the polls. However, from that process itself, it is clear that we need more outreach efforts of that sort not less, and there is no way they could have brought a project in concept to the voters. The devil was in the details and the details needed to be worked out.
Issues throughout the campaign were raised about the details of the project and about whether the promises made by the developers were enforceable and would be kept. These questions would not have disappeared in an early campaign, they would have been louder and the developers would have been less able to convince the voters that they intended to keep their promises.
I originally believed that it was Mr. Wolf’s goal to make it easier for developers of peripheral parcels to move their projects forward. That may or may not be his goal, but regardless I think now that attempting to do this would actually make it more and not less difficult to move a project forward. The public wants the gory details.
I simply do not see the functionality or advantage of bringing a project to vote that have restrictions such as setback easements, traffic ratings, maximum and minimum housing density levels, land set asides, parks, flood restrictions, water usage, net energy usage, etc., but not a final map with street layouts, housing design, and final number of units. In all honesty, I wonder how much Mr. Wolf understands about the development process. They did not have final housing designs in the Wildhorse Ranch development and the street layout and final number of units are small additions once the density and set asides are configured. Based on that description, it is not even clear that Mr. Wolf’s proposal is saving a lot of work other than the fine details. The public generally wants the final details anyway and from what he is proposing to include, it does not seem like we are skipping many steps. In short, the early vote is not that early anyway.
If the actual goal is to make Measure J a less costly process, I am uncertain that this will produce that result. In fact, it seems more likely to require two votes and thus make it more expensive. I agree that projects need to go to a fuller array of city commissions, something that the developers of Wildhorse Ranch pushed for, but city staff resisted.
Ultimately though, right now, I think it is going to be exceedingly difficult for any project that proposes housing on the periphery of Davis to gain approval. The council needs to take that into account when look at additional projects because the vote was loud and clear. One could look at the results of the Covell Village vote and suggest that the problem was the size and the traffic impacts. One cannot make the same conclusion with Wildhorse Ranch. The problem here is clearly the housing market and people’s unwillingness at this time to approve new housing. When will that change? Will that change at all in the near future? No tweaking of Measure J is going to change that fact.
The polling I have seen suggests public support of 75% for Measure J in its current form. That was taken prior to the Measure P vote. It seems the public is satisfied with the Measure J vote requirements and was more than willing to utilize their discretion in the latest election. I see no way in which the cost of pushing through a Measure J project will be reduced, I see no certainly by which a developer can get a sense as to whether the public will approve a project before it goes to a final vote.
The bottom line here is that an early vote is simply not feasible. The voters will want to see the final version of a project before they are willing to approve it. The possibility that the council might change the project following the early vote will lead to many opposing the project and may actually lead to a second vote.
Mr. Wolf suggests that a “new Measure J could be written to really strengthen the quality of citizen input that goes into the process.” That is something that needs to be done anyway. It needs to be done for all projects, not merely those that face a Measure J vote. One needs to look no further than what has happened at Chiles Ranch and now Willowbank to realize the citizens and desires of the neighbors need more voice in the process and the city council needs to heed those concerns.
A better effort at this point would be directed at making the provisions for public participation in all land use processes more explicit and detailed. That would likely be the greatest benefit that could be produced. We are simply not going to be able to expedite the Measure J process and I suspect that if we attempt to do so, the public will balk.
Transparency Needed
Why do we not have more transparency in terms of disclosing who receives money for working on projects that come before the city council? This question could easily be addressed if we had disclosure laws that required all paid staff working on city projects to file disclosure forms similar to requirements that lobbyists have to register with the FPPC in order to get paid to lobby. The reason for that law is the need for transparency and to know who is lobbying for a project as a citizen as opposed to who is lobbying for a project because they are being paid to do so.
With such laws, people would not need to question Mr. Wolf and his affiliations, because we would already know.
It is interesting to note that Kevin Wolf published his alternative Measure J proposal on another blog here in Davis. That blog is operated by an individual, Kemble Pope, who is a paid consultant to Davis Neighbors, the developers who used to be called the Covell Partners, and who are presently pushing for a senior housing development at the Covell Village site. We know this because this individual, Mr. Pope, is also the member of a commission in Davis and thus had to fill out a form 700 as required to disclose his activities. Mr. Pope disclosed his duties as a “PR Consultant.”
The Vanguard has sent an email to the Davis Neighbors requesting information on all other employees and consultants, but never received a response from the developers. Again it is unfortunate that Kevin Wolf would have to be asked these kinds of questions, but these questions are only natural in an environment with a lack of transparency.
Given the amount of money spent on these projects before they go to Measure J votes and thus require disclosure, it would behoove the council to create a greater measure for transparency so that we know who developers and others hire to advocate for projects on their behalf in our community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
When the City Council hears the arguments proposed by Mr. Wolf and others to create a new Measure J process, I hope as many Davis voters who voted no on Measure X, Measure P, and all true “slow growthers” in Davis will attend that hearing and tell the Council that Measure J as is DOES NOT need to be altered in any way shape or form.
On of his previous blogs on the subject, Mr. Wolf injected the “N” word (“NIMBY”) into this debate, believing that if a majority of voters in Davis do not believe Measure J is necessary, then there are more NIMBY’s in Davis than he believed. Everytime, there is opposition to new development in Davis, sure enough, the side favoring development throws out the NIMBY bomb. Speaking of bombs to throw, I have coined an equally perjorative new term for pro-developer types, such as Mr. Wolf:
SCUD’s: “sychophantic coddlers of unscrupulous developers”
So Mr. Wolf, if the same majority in Davis who overwhemingly voted NO on Measures X and P are NIMBY’s, then you are a SCUD.
See you at the CC hearings!
Speaking of the NIMBY throwers,
During the No on P campaign booth at Farmer’s Market, one Saturday Mark Braly approached Sue Greenwald at our booth and asked, “Why are you against this project Sue, just because a bunch of NIMBY’s are fighting it?” These comments from our Planning Commission Chair!
Well, low and behold, Mr. Braly is now blogging the following at the “other” Davis blog site in support of Kevin Wolf’s attempts to alter Measure J:
Mark Braly says:
November 20, 2009 at 11:39 am
I share Kevin’s concern about the future of cutting edge development in Davis under Measure J is bleak. His proposed changes should be considered carefully.
(From Mark Braly, another true SCUD!)
Speaking of which… On this board, the first two discussions of Wolf’s proposal generated 83 and 124 comments respectively… On the “other” blog, it generated just 4 and 12 comments total… Maye Wolf should’ve introduced his idea over here after all if he wanted to generate discussion… Just sayin’!
“….but not a final map with street layouts, housing design….”
Welcome back, David.. hope you had a rewarding Thanksgiving break.
As to the above, let’s remember that Whitcomb’s Covell Village proposal had him SELLING the developed lots to future builders. The housing design features that he touted in his slick spiral bound housing-design campaign booklet were very nice pictures but had NO real basis in fact. Katherine Hess, publicly revealed, when pressed to do so from the dais, that Whitcomb had demanded that the development agreement allow minimum setbacks (largest housing footprint) for the lots, raising serious doubts concerning any guarantee that mega-mansions would not be built.. This point would probably have been missed by most voters without the time that this first outing of our Measure J process allowed for in-depth investigation and questions concerning the details.
“…and others to create a new Measure J process…”
It is quite evident to me that Bill Emlen and the 3 “usual suspects” on the Council( I do not include Lamar Heystek here with those 3 known anti-populist Council members) had exactly this in mind with the WHR measure J process that they attempted to foist upon us. While not in control of this process, the WHR developer thought he saw an advantage here and was complicit.
David:
Welcome back. Hope your Thanksgiving went well.
Its worth noting that this new Unmeasure J (as I blogged earlier) can go on the ballot in one of two ways, I believe (Someone please correct me if I am wrong):
1. Voters can vote on the existing (status quo) Measure J or Mr. Wolfe’s UnMeasure J or no Measure J.
2. An up and down vote on each.
Under version 1 it may be possible for a minority vote to prevail and perhaps even both Measure J votes to go down even though the majority support some sort of J Measure.
At a minimum, this new measure confuses voters (as Sue pointed out in an earlier blog) which helps the developers who can outspend us considerably–if they run a better campaign than Measure P (hard to believe they could run a worse campaign), who knows what could happen.
This new measure also diverts attention from the real issue, which is finding a City Council that actually is resposnive to what people in Davis want instead of having a CC that cow-tows to moneyed interests such as developers and the firefighters union.
So let us hope that we are not diverted by SCUD missives here. Lets fight this and put CC on notice that we will remember who votes for this monstrosity. I have no idea what Mr Wolfe’s motives are and do not need to know, but its clear this proposal represents a cynical attempt to override/water down Measure J.
To put on ballot it needs to be passed by CC right? Hard to believe even the 3 would do that.
On another topic did I read Enterprise correctly that staff is recommending city pass Saylor’s ordinance exempting daycare noise despite the overwhelming problem the neighbors have suffered for yrs?
If it passes it means the neighbors can’t complain? Although their complaints have fallen on deaf ears at city for yrs (pun intended).
[quote]did I read Enterprise correctly that staff is recommending city pass Saylor’s ordinance exempting daycare noise despite the overwhelming problem the neighbors have suffered for yrs[/quote]No.
The recommendation appears to me to be neutral: [i]”Staff recommends that the City Council [u]consider[/u] the attached ordinance exempting schools and daycare centers from the limitations of the noise ordinance during normal business hours.”[/i]
In the proposed ordinance itself staff made a (weird) change which appears (falsely) on the surface to be a compromise postion: [i]”The draft ordinance includes a blanket exemption from the noise ordinance for schools and day care centers. However, staff recommends (and has included in the draft ordinance) limiting the exemption to exclude barking dogs, amplified noise or mechanical equipment.”[/i]
Insofar as there is an ongoing problem with the Green Meadows daycare operation or from other like businesses, the problem is not with noise from barking dogs, amplifiers or mechanical equipment. The problem (allegedly) is too many loud kids screaming at the top of their lungs.
“Limiting the exception to exclude”
huh???!!!
So what’s your prediction Rich?
“The problem (allegedly) is too many loud kids screaming at the top of their lungs.”
I seem to recall that the racket(as any parent whose child has raced around in just one these can attest to), made by hard plastic wheels racing over concrete, of multiple pedal-driven children toy vehicles was also a problem.
[quote]So what’s your prediction Rich? [/quote]I think if the neighbors come out in force and protest this change, it won’t be passed tomorrow night. Either it will be killed or it will be put off (which is very often what happens when the council in a lukewarm way wants to pass something, but the opposition was vociferous enough to make them think about it). However, if the neighbors are silent, then it will pass. [quote]I seem to recall that the racket … (was) made by hard plastic wheels racing over concrete[/quote]That may be right. If so, I stand corrected. However, the staff’s proposed change seems to beg the question: It will exclude from the exemption sources of noise which are not at issue and never have been at issue with regard to daycare centers. I have to wonder if staff is just being (needlessly) thorough or if this modification is an effort to seem like staff is reaching a middle ground. If it is the latter, it misses the mark.
Regarding Kevin Wolf’s measure J proposal: It is a truly terrible idea because the development agreement should be approved BEFORE measure J is put on the ballot. If a measure J vote is put on the ballot before the development agreement is completed, the city loses leverage on anything that is not in the baseline project features. If the project passes a Measure J vote before the development agreement is finalized, the land is entitled and the city has no leverage and little control.
We got a taste of these problems when Parlin Development balked at agreeing to actually commit to building the affordable housing himself when the development agreement came before the council. We had no ability to MAKE him agree to commit to building the affordable housing in the development agreement because we had already put the measure on the ballot.
At this stage, it is only the threat of handing the opposition a campaign weapon that can convince the developer commit to anything.
The situation would be even worse if vote were taken earlier in the process. There wouldn’t even be the threat of a campaign issue to convince the developer to cooperate.
Again, the development agreement should be completed before the project goes to the voters. This does not mean that the development agreement has to be included in the ballot measure; the council and the developer could still have the flexibility mutually agree to changes after the vote. But Kevin’s suggestions would give the developer entitlement to build essentially anything he/she wants that isn’t included in the baseline project features.
Every measure J campaign would devolve into a campaign about the lack certainty about what the city would achieve, both in terms of planning and in fiscal terms. Because it is such an intrinsically bad idea to put a project to the voters before the development agreement is completed, I think that to do so would actually make it more difficult for a developer to pass a project.
All the other comments notwithstanding, I am curious if there is support for Jim Frame’s suggestion of adding parks and open space areas that are within city limits to Measure J.
I wonder how the council consideration of the noise ordinance exemption would affect the new high school sports stadium’s PA equipment. Seems that exempting existing schools means DHS too, but the amplification exclusion might mean that DHS must comply with the noise ordinance. Any ideas here?
Apparently public schools are already exempt from the noise ordinance.